11 comments

[ 34.1 ms ] story [ 418 ms ] thread
Bill Gates could single-handedly fund USAID and still half $70B remaining. Can private philanthropy not step in here to cover the gap?
Corrected version should read: "14M people could die in 5 years due to USA-ID cuts, AND LACK OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' CARING, study finds".

USA-ID was not preventing deaths so much as it was funding the Western Elites' preferences over local priorities.

Good ol Elmo. Caused more unnecessary deaths than any richest man in history.
Most of the USAID spending that was cut should be funded by charity contributions. I'm just not a fan of foreign spending using taxpayer funding at all. There's plenty of room for charity in the world, and less bureaucracy in the middle.
The primary purpose of Foreign Aid isn't about charity.

McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Punishing the prince: a theory of interstate relations, political institutions, and leader change. Princeton University Press.

It's about influencing governments. It's a really nice way to "bribe" foreign officials for things that a government wants.

I see the strangest interview with an african farmer one time. He argued the manipulation of his country is so sophisticated that even the people excuting it dont understand it. He showed his rice and pointed out that it was gray, had rocks in it and wasnt uniform in shape. I would like to sell it but they are handing out free rice, perfect White uniform. There is no competing with this. Its a con but no one understands. If they sincrely wanted to give aid they should give me a bag of fertilizer. I would have more rice, i could sell it and next season i would be alle to buy it myself. Problem solved