3 ms·

> so USAID made up almost 2% of all the US' federal discretionary spending! So, tiny; a fraction of what we spend on much less useful things like the Iran war

> so USAID made up almost 2% of all the US' federal discretionary spending! So, tiny; a fraction of what we spend on much less useful things like the Iran war or huge gifts to ICE. 30 years of that level of USAID funding would only get us to a single one of those trillions in debt. > The vacuum their exit has created is being rapidly filled by a wide mix of other interests. Yeah, we don't really want China vacuuming up all of Africa. It was already looking like a growing problem before the USAID cuts (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11304 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11304). > So in your calculus you need to account for deaths caused by USAID as well. I mean, your one example cited didn't work and resulted in zero deaths. If we get to count that sort of thing, we'd have to start accounting for the soft power benefits of USAID (and those the CIA gets from the trade), too. Goodwill, intel, not having a bunch of polio infections come into the country via air, etc. > Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life, give a man a fish a day and you now control that man because he's dependent upon you. How does "deplete their fishing grounds (and other resources) for hundreds of years" figure into the analogy?

somenameforme 3mo ago
Yes the Iran war is also a waste of money. Money being wasted in one place is hardly an argument to do it in another place. And the whole point of discretionary spending is that it's money that could have been spent on society instead of e.g. setting up fake social media sites to try to cause chaos in another country. And because of regularly bloated spending I think we often lose track of what it really means. $34 billion is $100 from every man, woman, and child in the US. That's a lot of money, wasted every single year. And yeah after all is said and done Iran will cost hundreds more. Add Ukraine and we're up to the thousands. Add Iraq and we're getting into the tens of thousands soon enough. Imagine if all of this money was spent domestically. The reason China is succeeding in Africa largely gets back to my critiques of USAID. China's pharma companies are establishing production factories within Africa for the local production of trade-level quantities of pharmaceuticals meaning they'll be able to provide not only for their own needs, but have enough production to turn drugs into exports. In the future Africa could even viably start to become a destination for medical tourism. The US could have done this and much more with the vast sums of money we blew on USAID, but we didn't. We preferred exploitable dependency creation paired alongside some corporate welfare for US big pharma. It's yet another example of the focus on short-term benefits while ignoring long-term costs. It's not like African nations don't realize what we're doing, while we then go and try to lecture them about the Chinese debt trap. What a shock that they're not listening.
- ceejayoz 3mo ago
  > And the whole point of discretionary spending is that it's money that could have been spent on society instead of e.g. setting up fake social media sites to try to cause chaos in another country. You think that's where most of USAID money is going? > $34 billion is $100 from every man, woman, and child in the US. Substantially less than unrest and unchecked disease in entire continents would cost us. > Imagine if all of this money was spent domestically. We'd probably blow it on some full-body MRIs. > China's pharma companies are establishing production factories within Africa for the local production of trade-level quantities of pharmaceuticals meaning they'll be able to provide not only for their own needs, but have enough production to turn drugs into exports. Yeah, they got that one from us. https://www.usp.org/news/usaid-launches-five-million-dollar-project-to-spur-regional-production-of-apis https://www.usp.org/news/usaid-launches-five-million-dollar-... It's how China got big in the first place, even; we shipped our manufacturing there! > It's not like African nations don't realize what we're doing, while we then go and try to lecture them about the Chinese debt trap. What a shock that they're not listening. Certainly. But that's just trading one hegemon for another.
  - somenameforme 3mo ago
    I think literally nobody knows where much, if not most, of USAID's money was going. It was a highly opaque organization that was regularly weaponized. Contrary to what most people think, Congress doesn't just automatically gain classified clearance. They are given information only a need-to-know basis and even then often only in briefing format. So you remember when USAID was being shut down and there was an all-hands-on-deck burning and shredding day getting rid of as much classified information as possible? [1] Great way to show they nothing to hide. Your link reads like LLM slop and the very few specific details it offers ($ amount) is contradicted by the page it linked to. It also isn't related to Africa which is what we were talking about, and in any case you're obviously not going to kickstart manufacturing for $5 million ($2.5 million in the linked announcement). It also postdates China's actions by decades. The first Chinese factory in Africa opened up in 1998. [2] China isn't a hegemon, does not seem to be pursuing hegemony, and I don't think that will change. They've had centuries of being the most powerful nation/empire in existence, but always remained within their own region, working more as a merchant than a conqueror. The US obsession with ruling the world is really kind of weird and nonsensical, because it's not only obviously an unobtainable goal in modern times, but it's not even in our own best interest. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw2yywy3x7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw2yywy3x7o [2] - https://english.news.cn/africa/20220426/0d1f16a7b9d84af9a91cc2dedff85b3d/c.html https://english.news.cn/africa/20220426/0d1f16a7b9d84af9a91c...

somenameforme 3mo ago

Yes the Iran war is also a waste of money. Money being wasted in one place is hardly an argument to do it in another place. And the whole point of discretionary spending is that it's money that could have been spent on society instead of e.g. setting up fake social media sites to try to cause chaos in another country. And because of regularly bloated spending I think we often lose track of what it really means. $34 billion is $100 from every man, woman, and child in the US. That's a lot of money, wasted every single year. And yeah after all is said and done Iran will cost hundreds more. Add Ukraine and we're up to the thousands. Add Iraq and we're getting into the tens of thousands soon enough. Imagine if all of this money was spent domestically. The reason China is succeeding in Africa largely gets back to my critiques of USAID. China's pharma companies are establishing production factories within Africa for the local production of trade-level quantities of pharmaceuticals meaning they'll be able to provide not only for their own needs, but have enough production to turn drugs into exports. In the future Africa could even viably start to become a destination for medical tourism. The US could have done this and much more with the vast sums of money we blew on USAID, but we didn't. We preferred exploitable dependency creation paired alongside some corporate welfare for US big pharma. It's yet another example of the focus on short-term benefits while ignoring long-term costs. It's not like African nations don't realize what we're doing, while we then go and try to lecture them about the Chinese debt trap. What a shock that they're not listening.

ceejayoz 3mo ago
> And the whole point of discretionary spending is that it's money that could have been spent on society instead of e.g. setting up fake social media sites to try to cause chaos in another country. You think that's where most of USAID money is going? > $34 billion is $100 from every man, woman, and child in the US. Substantially less than unrest and unchecked disease in entire continents would cost us. > Imagine if all of this money was spent domestically. We'd probably blow it on some full-body MRIs. > China's pharma companies are establishing production factories within Africa for the local production of trade-level quantities of pharmaceuticals meaning they'll be able to provide not only for their own needs, but have enough production to turn drugs into exports. Yeah, they got that one from us. https://www.usp.org/news/usaid-launches-five-million-dollar-project-to-spur-regional-production-of-apis https://www.usp.org/news/usaid-launches-five-million-dollar-... It's how China got big in the first place, even; we shipped our manufacturing there! > It's not like African nations don't realize what we're doing, while we then go and try to lecture them about the Chinese debt trap. What a shock that they're not listening. Certainly. But that's just trading one hegemon for another.
- somenameforme 3mo ago
  I think literally nobody knows where much, if not most, of USAID's money was going. It was a highly opaque organization that was regularly weaponized. Contrary to what most people think, Congress doesn't just automatically gain classified clearance. They are given information only a need-to-know basis and even then often only in briefing format. So you remember when USAID was being shut down and there was an all-hands-on-deck burning and shredding day getting rid of as much classified information as possible? [1] Great way to show they nothing to hide. Your link reads like LLM slop and the very few specific details it offers ($ amount) is contradicted by the page it linked to. It also isn't related to Africa which is what we were talking about, and in any case you're obviously not going to kickstart manufacturing for $5 million ($2.5 million in the linked announcement). It also postdates China's actions by decades. The first Chinese factory in Africa opened up in 1998. [2] China isn't a hegemon, does not seem to be pursuing hegemony, and I don't think that will change. They've had centuries of being the most powerful nation/empire in existence, but always remained within their own region, working more as a merchant than a conqueror. The US obsession with ruling the world is really kind of weird and nonsensical, because it's not only obviously an unobtainable goal in modern times, but it's not even in our own best interest. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw2yywy3x7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw2yywy3x7o [2] - https://english.news.cn/africa/20220426/0d1f16a7b9d84af9a91cc2dedff85b3d/c.html https://english.news.cn/africa/20220426/0d1f16a7b9d84af9a91c...