"It was at a party to raise money for Africans"

Disilusionment with the service has to come from the choir, I suppose. A thought-provoking article.

[Oh, and welcome back too.]

"Forty years ago, China was poorer than many African countries. Yes, they have money today, but where did that money come from? They built that, they worked very hard to create a situation where they are not dependent on aid."

Good point. I never thought of it that way.

Of course the Chicoms probably set China back 40 years, otherwise they'd have been where they are now in the 1980's. Like the Japanese were.

Thomas Sowell makes the same point in his book, "The Economics and Politics of Race". As he points out, the term "foreign aid" is a misnomer and the term "foreign transfer payments" is more accurate. In most cases the "aid" in no way helps the people of the countries for whom it's intended and simply serves to prop up corrupt, oppressive dictatorships which serve to further impoverish the people. The micro credit approach seems to be far more effective in getting aid to where it belongs, and part of its strength lies in the fact that it is repaid and therefore is available to be loaned out again.

OhOh.She just got dropped from all "A" party lists,same as Bill Cosby.Blacks don't like to hear about handUPs,instead of handOUTs.That gal has more common sense in her little finger than all the so-called African leaders and Commiewood celebrities put together.Good on her!

Agreed Phantom, ( read that part twice initially), very well put by Dambisa Moyo.
And this ran in the NYT?
Another surprise.

People to people, no NGO ,no UN, no government,just neighbour to neighbour, not a hand out. a hand up,ready, willing and for now still able.

this guy is the indian version of Dambisa Moyo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Helin

unfortunately i don't think torstar or the G&M willbe interviewing him soon...

Q: Which countries sought your help? A: Israel, Turkey and South Africa, primarily.

Q: Why didn’t you get a bond issue going in your native Zambia or other African countries?

I guess the NYT doesn't know South Africa is in Africa.
/sarc

If this view came from a Canadian white male ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE, (see Segal, Hugh) but when it comes from an African black female I'm sure it'll be good for a few lefty head explosions.

Africa, the land of perpetual handouts and welfare!

Millions upon millions of illiterate starving people, sitting on rich farmland and vineyards along with forests, minerals and natural resources beyond belief + billions of our tax dollars.
Obamba’s socialist dream from hell.

What was Al Sharptons comment the other night on tv? Something about Rudolf Murdoch owns to many news outlets and needs to be capped as far as further business ventures.

Yes, crop the capitalists and give to the poor like Mugabe did to the white farmers in Zimbabwe. Take the fertile land “the bread basket of Africa” from the entrepreneurs and give it to the freeloaders to run into the ground. Now their begging them to come back, unfortunately they don’t seem to understand no one is interested after having their families beaten, raped and murdered to achieve that end.

Barring that of course we can just hand over our hard earned money (forced) mind you, because the poor Africans have “been held down by the man”. More subsidized AIDs drugs, that if they don’t sell on the black market to get high with, we can help prolong their miserable lives another ten years to allow them to birth 3 or 7 extra new AIDs babies that we can continue to feed and supply more drugs.

And then there’s Bono, telling us “I don’t give of my money, but I do give of my time”! Bloody hell, what a megalomaniac! Must be nice to try and force our leaders to tax us extra for African aid while he lives in a castle, with a personal net worth nearly a billion dollars, but does not offer a penny up of his own money. As a matter of fact he’s a tax avoider, shifting his U2 music empire to Holland after Ireland stated that they would stop tax subsidizing artists a few years ago. Lost a few fans in Ireland to be sure.

To hell with Africa, the worlds money sucking, corrupt, greedy, tribal sewer!

I liked this telling question from the NYT:

"For all your belief in the potential of capitalism, the free market is now in free fall and everyone is questioning the supposed wonders of the unregulated market. "

The markets were unregulated? Fannie and Freddie held or securitized over half of the bad loans in the US, and they were told to do so by the Congress that oversaw them.

And of course the Community Reinvestment Act actually forced private banks to make loans to risky borrowers.

Unregulated market, or badly regulated market?

"I guess the NYT doesn't know South Africa is in Africa.
/sarc
Posted by: andycanuck at February 24, 2009 7:02 PM"

ha ha ha,
It was right there...and I missed it, ha ha....

the lady said it well, and publicly, but is by no means the first

The interviewer, as much as she wants, can’t extract the ‘correct’ answers.
When that does not work, she questions the economists, credentials.
When that does not work, she damns capitalism, did not work either.
The interviewer is likely putting the economist in same category as Condoleezza Rice.
What a useless scribe.

I fully agree with her except I heard tonight the IMF is just about broke, down to about 250 Billion. I think that is about what California will receive from the bailout.

"What do you think of him?"
"I’ll make a general comment about this whole dependence on “celebrities. I object to this situation as it is right now where they have inadvertently or manipulatively become the spokespeople for the African continent."

That's a polite way of saying "he's a pretentious, self-important, self-aggrandizing asshole"

It's like Dennis Prager says.

Compassion is a great operative person to person.

But on a government level, compassion as an operative is a recipe for disaster.

Foreign Aid: Taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries. After being colonies for 80-+ years, most African nations have been independent for forty plus years. At what point in economic development was Canada forty years after the end of colonial status (ie. circa 1907)? Good thing there wasn't any foreign aid in the 19th century.

"Forty years ago, China was poorer than many African countries. Yes, they have money today, but where did that money come from? They built that, they worked very hard to create a situation where they are not dependent on aid."

Yes, the wonders of authoritarian dictatorship. Granted Chinese authoritarianism is based on a strong Communist Party system that provides stability and, since the death of Mao, ensures that no political leader becomes to powerful for the party. Mao did the dirty work - he finished off the dissidents. Now the party can provide stability and orderly succession.

African dictators on the other hand, lack the stability that the Communist Party provides in China. They fight for their personal survival in a political vacuum. Dissidents abound, despite concerted efforts to get rid of them. Their deaths are marked by civil wars and the ruining of whatever infrastructure the incumbent had managed to put in place.

To sum it up, the Communist Party rules China, whereas individual dictators rule African countries. The former provides stability and continuity; the latter is prone to personal self-aggrandizement and desperate survival tactics.

Our dear lady here proposes that Africa should adopt the Chinese communist model. No one here takes issue with that - we are all happy to see her taking potshots at Bono, who frankly is a bit player with a lot of publicity.

"Do you know anybody who feels sorry for China? Nobody."

I beg to differ. For starters, I feel sorry for all those people who were evicted from their homes for the Olympics and the World Fair in Shanghai. It was for the good of the Chinese people. So what if they were sent packing without the govenrment providing any alternatives. Everybody should live in a giant gym with no privacy for a couple of years. Its for the good of the nation - your rights as an individual be damned. America got it all wrong, you see.

Is Aid bad for Africa? The money might be, but I think few, if anyone, would argue that the basic supplies -medicine, water pumps etc - are good. Would you rather they all died of Malaria or cholera? Would that change the political situation in Africa? Does it have an impact on entrepreneurship? POssibly. It keeps entrepreneurs alive, and focused on providing services and goods that the international market isn't already saturated with. How many types of water pumps can you make, really? Oh and guess who provides the "no-strings attached, we want influence over your politics" direct cash aid. China, of course. The conditional aid and accountable aid syndromes have struck the West only. Ask Mugabe's Zimbabwe. The Chinese aid keeps flowing in.

"Microfinance. Give people jobs."

"Give" people jobs? Sounds awfully like communism to me. Who is going to create these jobs? The government, no doubt.

I know we love bashing celebrities, but lets stop being petty and lets focus on the bigger picture, shall we?

Not to completely overwhelm the credibility of our celebrity-bashing friend here, but has anybody here actually googled "Chinese Aid to Africa". Try it.

VOA has an interesting article - some choice quotes:

"China is promising further financial relief to Africa, as it seeks to gain access to the continent’s natural resources to sustain its development. But China’s aid to Africa, which comes with no political strings attached, remains controversial."

"Some analysts describe China as a “rogue donor” because of its apparent willingness to “bail out” and bolster administrations such as those of Zimbabwe and Sudan by means of aid funds and investments. When threatened with financial and other sanctions by the West, such states have turned to China for help, and the country often seems eager to please – in so doing, seeming to counter efforts at democratic reforms in Africa"

But it couldn't be much. China can't afford that much now, can it?

"
Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao have made several promises to the continent - including that of doubling aid to Africa to a billion dollars per annum. According to the Chinese government, up until 2006 it had given $5.74 billion in aid to Africa - and this figure excludes debt relief, which the Chinese don’t consider aid.

Beijing is setting aside a $5 billion fund for Chinese investment in Africa; preferential loans and buyer’s credits will amount to an additional $5 billion; China has pledged large-scale debt cancellation amounting to tens of millions of dollars in Africa and is training African professionals, building infrastructure and establishing “economic cooperation zones” on the continent."

When Bono and the non-white celebrities in that room become responsible for billions of dollars of no-strings attached cash, I will take her more seriously. Till then, as far as I am concerned, she is talking plain and utter rubbish. Why are we taking her seriously, Kate? Anything to bash a celebrity or leftie? Even if it means boosting a Chi-com lover just because she is African? Very leftist traits, these.

Stigler, to rephrase my earlier comment it took the Chicoms from WWII until now to get where the Japanese arrived in the 1970's. And the Japs -lost- WWII and got nuked twice into the bargain.

Communism is the reason it took so long. The reason it didn't take them even longer is Walmart.

Phantom, I am hardly disagreeing with you. What I am pointing out is that Communism has provided the stability for the dictatorship that has ensued.

A comparison with Japan is ill founded - a better comparison might be wiht India - similar size, similar scale of poverty, similar lack of industrial infrastructure and expertise (at the end of WWII). Japan prior to WWII had a strong industrial base and an educated population. China and India had neither. India went the democratic way, and after some ill-concieved experiments with Socialism and nationalizations, has begun emerging fairly well. Adoption of free market traits is the key to economic development here, but in China these policies were adopted faster because of the Communist Party's stranglehold on the country, whereas Indian politicians, sensitive to democratic elections, had to slowly alter public perception of the free market after two decades of heavy economic (not political) socialism. India's progress continues to be hampered by issues that arise only in democracies, while China bulldozes forward.

I am all for the Indian model, to be honest. It's slow but its inclusive and people are "won over" not coerced. I believe that slow and steady wins the race, but as many an Indian and Chinese will point out, the key difference between the two nations progress is the political system. The authoritarians can do what they want and get away with it. The democrats would get kicked out of offices if they tried to evict 30,000 people from a constituency the way the Chinese did in Shanghai in 2006.

: Stigler

you display utter lack in understanding what the lady said

have talked to people who have been over in Africa (I was offered an opportunity to go over as an "aid" worker), money for nothing produces dependents that do nothing, except wait for the next hand out. In the process, and the articles points to this, the dictators skim off the top using the moneys to keep the oppresses oppressed.
After geldoff stumbled around on the first African aid shtick there were lots of article written by knowledgeable people saying essentially the same as this lady did, so maybe get of your ignorant high horse before you fall off.

After reading the interview, I registered at Kiva and loaned money to a woman in Nigeria who is working to better herself and her family.

After all, the whole problem with the economy is a lack of credit for ordinary people, right?

GYM,

You were offered the opportunity to be an Aid Worker, but you obviously never took it. The obviousness is evident in your lack of any understanding of the reality out there. I am going to humor you, and respond to your rather baseless post.

Have I spoken to people who have been in Africa? I suppose so - but I should warn you that we were all in Africa at the time, though in all fairness, I have spoken to them since.

"money for nothing produces dependents that do nothing"

Ne'er a truer word been said. That aside, let me explain the finer details. Firstly, drinking water and medicine and other such neccessities of this kind are crucial for economic growth. A dehydrated unhealthy population cannot drive an economy. Now that we have cleared that up, let me move to the second point. There are precious few charities that provide direct cash aid. Nobody hands out US dollars to poor people. Very few, if any ( I have never encountered any) actually hand out money. They provide aid "in kind" - water filters, water purifiers, medicine, blankets etc. Basic neccessities needed to keep the population healthy and fit so that they can work, and consequently help the economy. Western countries and aid groups, in particular, refuse to dole out cash - they raise cash, buy equipment and provide the equipment. I am sure you want the cholera ridden man to buy a water purifier with the money he has earned. Fair enough. But he cannot earn much money if he is cholera ridden. A dehydrated man would probably die of dehydration before he earned enough money to buy a water purifier. Western Aid provides equipment, NOT cash. Get that clear before you, ahem , march around on "your ignorant high horse".

"In the process, and the articles points to this, the dictators skim off the top using the moneys to keep the oppresses oppressed."

Heres the wierd part. The water purifiers needed in Africa are usually manufactured elsewhere (generally because of industrial and technological constraints). Most aid arrivees in Africa in the form of equipment. Sure the dictator probably skims off something of the top by selling "free" malaria medicine from government shops, but what is the solution to that? Do you stop providing aid completely, depriving the dictator of his funds,but also handing a death sentence to thousands of Africans, or do you just pump it in more, ensuring supply overwhelms demand, and undermine said dictator.

I bet you are patting yourself on the back thinking you made a very smart observation, but with all due respect, western, even eastern aid donors and governments are aware of how dictators benefit from aid. Hence the emphasis on conditional aid and aid in kind, instead of plain cash infusions. Washington realised that a long time ago. Its hardly new stuff.

Geldoff and all are responsible for a miniscule amount of Aid, most of which is provided through Western aid institutions that are audited by Western Governments. Geldoff is a minute player surrounded by a lot of publicity. I assume you buy the hype.

"there were lots of article written by knowledgeable people saying essentially the same as this lady did"

That happened long before Geldoff and Bono. The money they raise goes through clean reputable institutions that, barring occassional incidents, do not hand cash over to anybody. Its all equipment and hard resources, some of which admittedly have resale value, but only where demand completely outstrips supply.

What this lady, and you (apparently), are missing is that the aid that is causing this problem - no strings attached cash infusions - come primarily from the country she idolizes - China. Find me a western government that hands over cash without a strong auditing and accounting framework aimed at ensuring that every dollar is accounted for. GWB's Africa AIDs plan is a point in case. A strong framework that can track how the money is spent. That is what western aid is about. He didn't show up there with briefcases of cash to dole out. Thats what your heroes in China do.

As for the lady, how seriously can you take someone who rails against corrupt dictatorship on the one hand, and then states that she wants emulate the one state that is doing more than any other to keep these corrupt dictators afloat?

"Yes, the wonders of authoritarian dictatorship. Granted Chinese authoritarianism is based on a strong Communist Party system that provides stability and, since the death of Mao, ensures that no political leader becomes to powerful for the party. Mao did the dirty work - he finished off the dissidents. Now the party can provide stability and orderly succession."

This is bullshit. Add up the total GDP of all overseas Chinese and they would have the world's third biggest economic powerhouse. It's culture that produces this kind of success, a culture of education, family and hard work.

Mao delayed China's rise, not helped it.

And just think. The socialists are already using non existent global warming as a justification for pouring more resources into the bottomless pit.

The problems in Africa are not economic and never were. They are cultural.

There's no difference between wasting resources to perpetuate tribalism in Africa or in Canada.

Or the USA for that matter.........

After reading that article, I too registered with Kiva and loaned money to a woman in Ogbomosho,Oyo state, Nigeria to further her small business and donated 10% of the loan back to Kiva.

I'd suggest that everyone go to Kiva.org and lend a hand up - not a hand out.

Chip,

"Mao delayed China's rise, not helped it."

History is not your forte, clearly. Mao contributed two things to the Communist party - firstly he built it almost single handedly and wiped out all the main opposition, securing the party's future in a country in which all dissidents were wiped out.

Secondly, it was his powerplays during the cultural revolution that changed the nature of the Communist party in China. Thanks to his idiosyncracies, the more powerful members took things in their own hands and collaborated to end the Mao dynasty - by basically driving his wife to suicide. In doing so, they created a powerful system within the communist party that has kept leaders in check, in good times and bad. Deng Xiaoping, the father of the free market reforms, was kept in check during the Tiananmen protests, which were in keeping with his reformist attitude.

Mao made the Communist party of China what is by virtue of his 'good' contributions and his 'bad' ones. When the reforms took place, they could do so without any opposition from a country that had been brainwashed into believeing that free market reforms are wrong. The CPC did it with the snap of its fingers, and it couldn't have done so if the Party hadn't become what it did during the Mao years.

Contrast that to India, where the reforms came after a massive economic crisis that forced the politicians and the public to rethink their views. And the debate on free markets continues as ferociously as ever, to the detriment of the economy in some aspects. China never had this, and it didnt have to. The CPC could override individual leaders and provide stability - which allowed a political leadership fed on Maoist philosophy to adopt a free market system with minimum debate and dissent. Without Mao, the communsit Party would probably never have been in the position to push its agenda. And as India shows us, a democratic government is no guarantee of economic growth. India is eleven years behind China, in terms of economic reforms.

"It's culture that produces this kind of success, a culture of education, family and hard work."

No one is denying that cultural values are important. All the same, they are not the be all and end all of "success". Again I revert to India and China. Both their diasporas put enormous emphasis on family, education, hard work - as is evident in Engineering and medical faculties across North America, but at the same time, the political atmosphere in the two countries they originate from, has affected the economic growth of those two countries. Democratic India has taken longer than COmmunist China to open up to the free market. That certainly doesn't mean that the Indian diaspora, or Indians in general, are lacking in "cultural attributes". The cultural attributes argument is a lame one - anybody can succeed if they work hard, provided the political and economic atmosphere allow it.

GYM
Unlike yourself I did put in a bit of time with World Vision.....a real eye opener.
I was casting about looking for something meaningful after an eventful military career abroad....
The NGO's in West Africa are pragmatic and assigned me to a position which exploited my expertise. I was provided with a uniform and kit including a good quality MP5 H&K. I guarded the drilling rigs and wells against pilferage and vandalism. Prior to this the drill operators were sometimes killed resisting the thieves who were indifferent to the prospect of clean water. After water was found the well head had to be guarded until the cement hardened which prevented the pump being stolen. The pump was carefully designed to resist yielding and marketable fragments. That's right the thieves would destroy the pump for scrap. The locals didn't care...they had little value for the "white-man's gift". The well head had to be guarded to prevent them from defecating down the open well.
This is destiny of "aid" which actually succeeds to reach the "common folk".
Now some bleeding heart will squeal from his sofa that the thievery is the result of desperation...when the reality is these "desperate" folk refuse to work for pay but will conspire to loot the NGO's drilling rigs.
BTW---the african name for elephant is generally "the big meat."

Sasquatch,

A few bad apples spoil the lot, eh? The equation is painfully simple:

Does the presence of thieves mean that we deprive the entire population of a region of drinking water/medicine/whatever?

What do you propose - that we leave them to die of thirst because theres thieves amongst them?

It is frustrating when these things happen, but ultimately aid is provided through an estimation of cost and benefit, and the vast majority of the planet will agree that it is better to save one human life than to prevent ten acts of theft or vandalism. To put it mildly, the alternative simply isn't acceptable.

" and the vast majority of the planet will agree that it is better to save one human life than to prevent ten acts of theft or vandalism"

That has got to be the most stupid,assinine comment of the year.Just how many lives would be lost IF those ten acts of theft of water supplying material were not prevented? A hell of a lot more than one! When do you graduate kindergarten,stigler?

Justthinkin

You are correct - that would be the most assinine stupid comment of the year - provided of course, I had said that.

I am not saying that the acts of theft should not be prevented.

I AM SAYING that those ten acts of theft cannot be used as justification for the loss of one human life. In other words, to stop providing equipment for water on the basis of those ten thefts would be a travesty because it could potentially kill someone. Items lost to theft can be replaced. Human life cannot.

I am a big fan of solidarity Justthinkin. I intend to graduate from kindergarten whenever you are ready to graduate from kindergarten. I ll wait however long it takes you to reach that stage, so no pressure.

" and the vast majority of the planet will agree that it is better to save one human life than to prevent ten acts of theft or vandalism"

I wouldn't lay odds as to whether or not even the 'vast majority' of Canadians would agree with that statement.

Stigler, your posts are interesting.

None of this is my area, but I would say that WRT China, it seems as if you are making the "breaking eggs to make an omelette" argument. For me, it would depend if I were an egg, or someone who gets to eat the omelette.

I have talked to a lot of Chinese people here in Canada, and there were a lot of broken eggs.

And, I don't think that sasquatch was implying that people should be left to die, that is an unfair comment. In fact, he was ensuring that on balance many more would live.

Stigler, I studied Chinese history in university and have lived in Asia on and off for the last 20 years, so please, give the weak attempt at patronizing a rest. Mao stabilized nothing. His 5 year plans drove the economy into the ground killing some 30 million people. His cultural revolution almost took the country back to the stone age.

That Deng Xiao Ping was held at bay by the party Mao built was a bad thing for the country's development, you twit. Your so called Mao-inspired stability set the country back by decades.

And the most laughable claim of all is that you think it took Mao to bring unified dictatorial rule to China when the country was first unified under a single ruler 2000 years ago. China has experienced autocratic rule for most of its history. The people have been culturally hard-wired for autocratic rule for millenia.

Mao was a degenerate madman whose revolutionary ideas were on par with his idea that raping virgins improved his health. It was only when he died that China began to regain the power it had held almost interrupted for centuries before the 1900s.

Chip mentioned this above, but for me, the most telling part of the piece was the last "question" (although it's not a question, it's basically the interviewer stating her opinion as fact and trying to get the "correct" answer from her subject).

"For all your belief in the potential of capitalism, the free market is now in free fall and everyone is questioning the supposed wonders of the unregulated market."

Is this a joke? Is Deborah Solomon really that ignorant? Does she truly believe that the economic system in America or anywhere else is a free market or unregulated, or anything close to those?

As nice as it was to read about someone questioning the effectiveness of foreign aid, I lost a ton of respect for this young woman when she didn't call out Solomon for her ridiculous assertion at the end there.

Chip,

Either you are deliberately missing the point of my posts, or you have been caught out and are making a meeek attempt to save face.

I am no fan of Mao, but Mao did, for better or worse, shape the Communist party - he is responsible - directly and indirectly, for what it has become. Do I like him? No. Do I hate him? You don't know hatred till you have seen his shrivelled body lying in a mausoleum. Regardless, as I pointed out earlier, he is responsible for two things - building the communist party directly, and then indirectly strenghtening the structures within it by alarming the party with his little cultural revolution.

Did that stop China from growing fast? Speculation can go either which way. You insist on speculating that it would have been faster. I am only looking at the hard facts. And the hard facts show us that within half a decade the political leadership's mindset changed from pure communism to free market idea. Keep in mind that they had been brainwashed with communism, and this stance becomes all the more bizzare. The speed with which it changed can only be attributed to a strong political structure. A country taught that only communism was good - a country in which dissidents were killed - suddenly embraced capitalism with hardly a whimper. That can only be done when you control something completely.

China's record since the reforms, of course, speaks for itself. The CPC, of which I am no fan, has stabilized the country and, crucially, provided prolonged policy continuity (a comfort not always available to democratic leaders, or tin pot dictators for that matter).

As for Deng, I agree with you. It is a bad thing that Deng was held at bay. But that example was merely meant to emphasise the control mechanismms the CPC developed after Mao. It kept Deng in check, sadly, but it also kept a lot hardwing communists in check. No leader became bigger than the party- and that has helped provide stability.

Did the communists hold China back? Again your argument is pure speculation. We don't know what would have happened to China minus the commies. That said, there just happens to be a very similar country nearby that provides an example of how things might have transpired if it was a democracy. I speak, of course, about India. You take two Asian giants that were at about the same starting point in 1945 and you compare their trajectories - and you will realise why people in India, born and bred in a democracy, feel that their country needs a China-like dictatorship for a little while to sort things out.

China did not have an industrial base, educated population, or infrastructure. It was no mini-Japan in 1945. Its recent economic growth is predicated on the presence of a stability provided by a Communist party that is almost inhuman. I hate them as much as anyone else, which is why I am questioning this lady, and her admiration for China. Comprendez?

"The people have been culturally hard-wired for autocratic rule for millenia."

For your sake, I suggest you stop making such inane statements. If you want to limit it to the Chinese, you have to prove it is so. Autocratic rulers have ruled pretty much every part of the world for millenia. Absolute monarchs have existed everywhere. And yet the people have moved on. Just turn to neighbor and, frankly, the only country that can be compared to China because of the similarity of their characteristics when they emerged as independent nations - India. India had only autocratic rule till the early 20th century when the British started putting in pieces of representative government.

Now India is a thriving democracy - not a perfect one - but a solid one. Granted India was ruled by different autocratic leaders in differenet regions, but at the base level the "people" were culturally hardwired to accept autocracy. And yet, after authoritarian colonial rule, India emerged as a democracy. All that hardwiring gone to waste. The same applies to all countries in the world. The Chinese are not the only ones who have lived under autocratic rule. To suggest that they are hardwired to accept it is ridiculous.

And yes, Mao was a degenerate madman, but he did leave behind a party that is notable for being different from its compatriots elsewhere. No leader has ever emerged as being bigger than the party since Mao. That has brought stability. The Soviets failed in this regard - despite Stalin, they ended up with senile morons like Brezhnev for over a decade. In post-Mao China, that could never happen. The Party would make sure. Does that make the Party a good thing? For stability and continuity, yes. For everything else, no.

And please, lets keep the "twit" and other such namecalling out of this. You just come across as petty.

I registered for Kiva. It would appear you assume all of the risks of lending while having no chance of earning interest, so it's still a donation of sorts (but to clever middleman entrepreneurs, rather than developing nation entrepreneurs.)

I'm looking forward to the day www.communitylend.com gets up and running.

I registered for Kiva. It would appear you assume all of the risks of lending while having no chance of earning interest, so it's still a donation of sorts (but to clever middleman entrepreneurs, rather than developing nation entrepreneurs.)

I'm looking forward to any of the Canadian to Canadian microlending sites being able to open. (Too many regulatory requirements on what amounts to people lending their own money to whomever they wish IMHO.)

Stiglar

I think you are only partly informed about foreign aid to Africa. It has two types. One works like you have described. Things are provided by donors. Money is also provided by donors for local distribution agencies to pass on to the needful.

A second type of aid comes from countries giving/loaning and forgiving money to African countries.

Here's a quote from a Tanzanian newspaper:
"Development partners have finally confirmed their commitment to disburse approximately 860bn/- in general budget support (GBS) to Tanzania for the 2008/09 financial year.

This is according to announcements in Dar es Salaam yesterday by Finance and Economic Affairs minister Mustafa Mkulo and Danish Ambassador to Tanzania Bjarne Sorensen, who chairs the GBS troika.

The development ends weeks of fears that donors might refuse to release the funds following grand corruption scandals.

Minister Mkulo noted that the government was in need of 810bn/- in GBS funding for financial year 2008/09 to cater for key service sectors like education, electricity, infrastructure and water."

Try as I might, I didn't see one mention of a water pump, or any other equipment in the article. This is direct foreign aid in the form of general budget support. It does come with strings about good governance and the like. Clearly this type of aid leads to grand and petty corruption and a culture of dependency.

As to the first type of aid. It leads to lavish lifestyles for the managers of the donor funded projects who manage a continuous stream of volunteers who come to the dark continent to help the poor downtrodden folks get better water so they can look after themselves. But the purification and distribution systems often die for lack of maintenance or knocked down for scrap. The only people benefitting from this are the managers and donors.

I did not understand the lady to be saying that China was good. She said that a country without any aid made more progress than a whole continent overflowing with aid contributions.

From where I sit I think she is making some very good points.

rroe,

When I was talking about aid "in kind", I was referring to the kind of aid provided by private initiative.Yes western governments do provide direct aid (conditional aid - as I pointed out earlier) and they do forgive debt, but as democratic countries they are wary of simply handing over money that cannot be accounted for - hence the growing trend towards leaving such loans to the IMF and WB. The money provided by the Danes, for instance, comes with all manner of clauses, and can be stopped if any of those clauses are not met/violated.

Governments exercise aid as a foreign affairs tool - China being the best example. Private agencies -- Oxfam and the like - which get money from private citizens, provide aid "in kind".

That said accountability is a big issue. GWB's AIDS plan for instance is built on accountability. It is aimed at avoiding corruption and a culture of dependency. Western aid is conditional and can be turned off. Chinese aid is the real culprit - look at what it has done for Mugabe and Zimbabwe. The problem with some western aid programs is that they are foreign policy tools aimed at maintaining and countering Chinese influence, and thus officials occassionally turn a blind eye.

Even if this western aid were to stop, the Chinese aid would not. The situation would remain the same and this lady pointedly ignores that.

"She said that a country without any aid made more progress than a whole continent overflowing with aid contributions."

China recieved plenty of cash and technology from the erstwhile Soviet Union, including a nuclear program and knowhow that has allowed it to make billions off countries like Pakistan and North Korea. China was an aid reciever for quite a while. Ditto with India. Both countries are now aid donors - shockingly enough- but both were once aid recievers.

If you don't believe me, take a look at China'ss military. All spin-offs of Russian technology. And China sells those planes and ships to other countries.

Her points are "very good", but they are hardly novel. She doesn't talk about democratic reforms - she talks simply about a free market system. That will, no doubt, be put in place by her, the benevolent elite dictator - as was the case in China.