The issue is knowing who to help. Offering aid can be just as bad as fighting a war.

You would never give the money directly to the government, (unless you trust them more than yourself) but there are many other means of offering help. Food, and supplies are much better methods. It's like you shouldn't give a hobo money, but a sandwich. That way you know whether or not he actually needs food, or is just a poser.

They're not helping; they're removing a barrier. If that makes sense.
Governments shouldn't influence trade; that is the job of the merchants. By preventing trade with some countries or having trade tariffs they are artificially influencing the economies of both countries; the consumer is almost always going to be worse off. Allowing free trade for some countries is just another level of unfairness.

I recommend Dead Aid to anyone remotely interested in this topic. It really clears up the myths surrounding aid (primarily that it helps; it actually causes more harm than good).

I'm not interested in re-reading the book just to argue with you folks, so instead, I'm just going to recommend it. Get it from a library if you don't feel like buying it.

It's a short read, only around 150 pages.

The consumer might be worse off, but the producers might not be. Completely condemning government influence in trade is silly.

EDIT:

They are helping because as of the moment, the minimal trade between the West and Africa hampers African economies to a high degree.

Compare this with the China-Africa trade, which is booming: the government of China itself is pushing for trade with Africa, and is producing mutually beneficial results.

Ahh, but what you are doing is reading a biased source of information.
The title itself is biased. Obviously the information it gives is going to be in support of the authors point of view.

I don't see how the producers would be better off; in addition capitalism works best when there is no governmental influence on trade at all, other than upholding laws against theft, murder, etc.

Look, I don't even know what to say to you.

So instead, I'm just going to ask CAFG or Sacrieur what to do.

EDIT:

Nevermind that, I already know what they would say.

STUPIDEST POST ON THE FORUMS ALERT

EDIT2:

I was going to edit this post out, but on second thought, I need to edit something in.



EDIT3:

Just read the fucking book or shut the fuck up.

EDIT4:

LOOK, IT'S SIMPLE. IT'S AN ARGUMENT AGAINST AID - OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS AID IS BAD.

IN FACT, THE BOOK EVEN ADDRESSES THE ARGUMENTS MADE FOR PRO-AID PEOPLE WITH ITS OWN ARGUMENTS.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

THE BOOK TAKES FACTS AND STATISTICS AND INTERPRETS THEM. ITS CONCLUSIONS ARE ITS ARGUMENTS.

I really don't even know what to say.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 13 2011, 4:23 am by Sand Wraith.

The government would be protecting the producers' cost of labour from the extremely cheap costs of labour elsewhere.

Bolded text makes no sense. You're saying that an economic theory works best when it is perfectly implemented...

I may as well say socialism or communism works best when it is perfectly implemented.

I'd submit a paper on why false dichotomies are bad.

Hey wraith, you should read this book I read titled "Foreign aid is the best thing ever since sliced bread!" It's totally got all the facts and will prove that you don't know what you're talking about when you say that foreign aid is all bad!

I'm pretty sure any book that is opinionated will have some sort of slant, but that isn't necessarily true. You should probably read the book before you actually try and say anything about the quality of the content itself. Just because a book states an opinion doesn't mean it has to be overly biased and not objective in its findings.

What's the old saying... Don't judge a book by its cover?

I haven't read it ;o

Basically, you think Dead Aid is based on selective evidence specifically found to support its arguments. Okay.

In that case, just read the damn book. Unlike the book you named, its not fictitious.

EDIT:

In any case, good job condemning every single interesting title to "being biased."

My point wasn't to bash your book, it's just that this thread is about discussing the topic, not saying "I agree with "such and such author", and I don't care what anyone else says." which is what you seemed to be doing. I could have easily found an actual book that supported foreign aid and reccomended it to you without even reading it myself.

Read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-watkins/why-idead-aidi-is-dead-wr_b_191193.html

Another good read. Recalculating...

EDIT:

http://www.travellerwithin.com/2009/05/dead-aid-deadly-arguments.html

These are pretty good arguments against Dead Aid.

EDIT2:

CAFG SAVES THE DAY YET AGAIN.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 13 2011, 5:16 am by Sand Wraith.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html

Here is another article on why aid was not working out for Africa

"Money from rich countries has trapped many African nations in a cycle of corruption, slower economic growth and poverty. Cutting off the flow would be far more beneficial, says Dambisa Moyo."

Okay, does he have any proof to back up this statement?

I read the article, and the "evidence" he mentions does not contain any scientific or statistical data.