Hey everyone, I am writing a 30 page paper for one of my classes. The topic is foreign aid. In my opinion, I am against foreign aid. The stipulation for writing the paper is that I must be completly for or completly against. There can't be a gray area. I have a basic Outline done but id like some opinions from others. Please be serious when your talking on the subject.

Here is my basic outline to show my areas I want to cover.

Outline
I.Introduction What is Foreign Aid
----Thesis Statement
II.Body
----A. 2011 Contributions
--------1. Where did the money go?
-------- 2. What was it used for?
----B. Five Types of Foreign Aid
--------1. Military Aid
-------- 2. Technical Assistance
-------- 3. Grants and Commodity Import Programs
-------- 4. Developmental Loans
-------- 5. Disaster Relief
----C. State the controversial arguments
-------- 1. People who are for Foreign Aid
------------ a. What do they argue?
------------ b. Pros
------------ c. Cons
-------- 2. People who are against Foreign Aid
------------ a. What do they argue?
------------ b. Pros
------------ c. Cons
III. Summary
----A. Restate important facts
----B. Portray my opinion against foreign aid
-------- 1. Reasons for against foreign aid
-------- 2. Examples to back up reasons
IV. Works Cited/References

I believe that foriegn aid is essential for the U.S. because its how we keep our allies so we can have an influence accross the world.

Quote from Ice Baby

I believe that foriegn aid is essential for the U.S. because its how we keep our allies so we can have an influence accross the world.

He's not asking us to discuss the topic, he's just asking us to suggest improvements to his outline.

No no i meant start up an actual discussion on foreign aid altogether. Like what your thoughts are, are you for or against it. why, why not. things like that. I was just showing my outline so people would have ideas where to start at.

Papers in which you aren't allowed grey areas are stupid. The world is not black and white, making a paper that is black and white when the issue is really grey is stupid.

I've never really written a long-form essay such as you're outlining, but I do think it's a bit odd that it isn't until the summary that you actually state your position on it. I thought the summary was to summarise the things you've already said, not introduce new content?

Im supposed to show boths arguments throughout the paper. In the end is where i need to show my opinion and support my reasons as well.

You should probably state your position in the thesis statement, provide examples throughout the paper (body paragraphs), and then go back and support your position using the examples you previously talked about in your summary.

I will put my opinion in my thesis as well. I agree to that. Though, im not looking for improvements on my outline, Im actually looking for a discussion on the topic of foreign aid. I want to hear peoples thoughts on it. Using real world examples if you know of them.

Read the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo - if you are allowed to use textual sources for your paper, that is.

It's basically everything that you need to know for a good argument against aid (and there are several arguments against aid in it).

The book itself is focused on Africa, but its ideas can easily be applied elsewhere.

Some ones that can be boiled down are that aid hampers growth (kills local economies), aid fuels corruption (aid is easily siphoned from public goods and services to private accounts), a cycle of aid dependence easily occurs, and aid can spark civil unrest (especially bilateral aid) (this is because aid is the incentive for controlling the government).

It's one of the best non-fiction books I have ever read (although that probably doesn't say much, since I don't frequently read non-fiction to begin with).

Quote from Sand Wraith

Read the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo - if you are allowed to use textual sources for your paper, that is.

It's basically everything that you need to know for a good argument against aid (and there are several arguments against aid in it).

The book itself is focused on Africa, but its ideas can easily be applied elsewhere.

Some ones that can be boiled down are that aid hampers growth (kills local economies), aid fuels corruption (aid is easily siphoned from public goods and services to private accounts), a cycle of aid dependence easily occurs, and aid can spark civil unrest (especially bilateral aid) (this is because aid is the incentive for controlling the government).

It's one of the best non-fiction books I have ever read (although that probably doesn't say much, since I don't frequently read non-fiction to begin with).

Thx ill def look into this book

I'm all for the whole "Teach a man how to fish" philosophy
I just don't like our government tossing money at starving children in Africa like it's going to do them any good.

I'm also against giving the money directly to the foreign governments themselves.
Aid money should be given strictly to not for profit organizations.

Quote from K_A

I'm all for the whole "Teach a man how to fish" philosophy
I just don't like our government tossing money at starving children in Africa like it's going to do them any good.

I'm also against giving the money directly to the foreign governments themselves.
Aid money should be given strictly to not for profit organizations.

You are essentially saying that not-for-profit organizations know the countries that require the aid best and it should be up to them to decide how to spend aid money (which they do; for example, they might decide that the supply of mosquito nets is most needed).

Inadvertently, however, if a not-for-profit organization supplied a bunch of mosquito nets to village, any local mosquito net makers would be put out of business by the competing (free) nets, and he and his employees would no longer have a job and will also rely on aid. And in the long run, the village will no longer have mosquito net makers in the future to supply itself with mosquito nets for when the aid-provided nets break from natural wear and usage.

Quote from Sand Wraith

Quote from K_A

I'm all for the whole "Teach a man how to fish" philosophy
I just don't like our government tossing money at starving children in Africa like it's going to do them any good.

I'm also against giving the money directly to the foreign governments themselves.
Aid money should be given strictly to not for profit organizations.

You are essentially saying that not-for-profit organizations know the countries that require the aid best and it should be up to them to decide how to spend aid money (which they do; for example, they might decide that the supply of mosquito nets is most needed).

Inadvertently, however, if a not-for-profit organization supplied a bunch of mosquito nets to village, any local mosquito net makers would be put out of business by the competing (free) nets, and he and his employees would no longer have a job and will also rely on aid. And in the long run, the village will no longer have mosquito net makers in the future to supply itself with mosquito nets for when the aid-provided nets break from natural wear and usage.

This doesn't really work when you apply it to a village in Africa full of starving people.
When everyone is working in food production just to stay alive, there isn't much room for artisans like mosquito net makers in the first place.
But yes, that is the point, we should be building wells and schools, not sending them money and crossing our fingers.

Quote

we should be building wells and schools, not sending them money and crossing our fingers.

That puts all the well diggers and private school runners out of business.

The best foreign aid policy for a government is to not give any foreign aid (other than honouring any alliances, such as by coming to the defence of an allied country).

For individuals? The best way to help other countries is to set up businesses there where you can employ the locals, which both gives them a source of income, teaches them a skill, and probably gives you cheaper labour. Those who are so inclined could set up schools (this is generally done by missionairies (SP? heh)), but that isn't the government's job.

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Quote

we should be building wells and schools, not sending them money and crossing our fingers.

That puts all the well diggers and private school runners out of business.

http://static.binscorner.com/j/jambur-indias-african-community/128230000476.jpg
Do these people look like they have a thriving well digging and school building industry to you?
or better yet these people
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EJkUNxqdH-I/TCzc8dqD46I/AAAAAAAAAt4/dyK7RPdbpCo/s1600/sl4.jpg

Quote from K_A

Quote from Jack[RCDF

Quote

we should be building wells and schools, not sending them money and crossing our fingers.

That puts all the well diggers and private school runners out of business.

http://static.binscorner.com/j/jambur-indias-african-community/128230000476.jpg
Do these people look like they have a thriving well digging and school building industry to you?

That's just four people but I see your point. If individuals wanted to go to other countries and build them wells that's up to them; it is not a foreign government's job to do so.

Why should we aid countries? It's not really helping us in any way, were simply wasting money on some smaller insignificant country right?
I would like to disagree.

Consider, in your paper, the topic of paper.

Most of it is produced by America, Finland and Sweden. However, more attention is given to the fact that the paper industry is one cause of deforestation in tropical regions, particularly those of developing countries. The reason for this attention is that the poor countries harvesting the trees do so with methods that are overwhelming natural regeneration of the forests. Much of this is due to economic factors, with government officials more susceptible to corruption than in more developed countries. (Whether this is true is up for debate, but corrupt officials in developing countries are more noticeable.)
By funding countries to become more developed, we have the potential of reducing the effectiveness of a corrupt politician, improving that nations distribution of wealth, and someday stopping the acts of efficient but harmful destruction of the environment.

One similar case is that of exotic fishing in southeast Asia. For several decades, the people of Indonesia had been using potassium cyanide capsules to stun fish to make them easier to catch and ship for aquariums and restaurants. This practice was destructive in that cyanide is a potent toxin, and killed 80% of all fish retrieved, as well as wiping out large sections of coral reef regions where the fish were located.
Recently this issue has been getting a little better, as funding from western countries has helped buy safer fishing supplies. (I kind of have an issue with western fishing practices, but it seems to be less harmful than cyanide.)

My point is that by helping others you improve the world and everything in it.

Here's a rainbow.

Individuals helping others is fine; the GOVERNMENT helping others is not.

Quote from Rantent

Why should we aid countries? It's not really helping us in any way, were simply wasting money on some smaller insignificant country right?
I would like to disagree.

Consider, in your paper, the topic of paper.

Most of it is produced by America, Finland and Sweden. However, more attention is given to the fact that the paper industry is one cause of deforestation in tropical regions, particularly those of developing countries. The reason for this attention is that the poor countries harvesting the trees do so with methods that are overwhelming natural regeneration of the forests. Much of this is due to economic factors, with government officials more susceptible to corruption than in more developed countries. (Whether this is true is up for debate, but corrupt officials in developing countries are more noticeable.)
By funding countries to become more developed, we have the potential of reducing the effectiveness of a corrupt politician, improving that nations distribution of wealth, and someday stopping the acts of efficient but harmful destruction of the environment..

By giving the corrupt governments money, you are not helping the people who need that money at all.

In fact, aid fuels corruption as I have already pointed out.

The best "aid" foreign countries can provide is access to markets, foreign direct investments, and free trade.

Quote from Jack[RCDF

If individuals wanted to go to other countries and build them wells that's up to them; it is not a foreign government's job to do so.

Exactly.
When the government pays money into foreign aid such as this, it is basically using money from taxes, which are not optional, to do something that doesn't directly benefit it's own people.
What if instead of taxing those people, we let them give the money that they now hve to charities to help the poor.