Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted November 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 18, 2011 I would love to know which countries don't deserve aid, and which ones get it but don't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 "Cancel foreign aid to countries which do not deserve or need it."Â I can really see that being something Jesus would say. Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I would love to know which countries don't deserve aid, and which ones get it but don't need it. Â I'll be honest I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I've seen it mentioned a few times recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted November 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 18, 2011 We give aid to Argentina, I think we can happily cut theirs back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted November 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 18, 2011 I would love to know which countries don't deserve aid, and which ones get it but don't need it.  I'll be honest I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I've seen it mentioned a few times recently  Fair enough... I know that Imran fucking Khan would be my first port of call for any and all information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WU LYF 4 LYF Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 The idea we should cut back on international aid is based on the premise that the aid is merely a charitable gift to help the poor and unfortunate. Whilst a small amount of money given may fit that purpose, I'd say there are far deeper diplomatic and trade reasons behind most of the money we give. Just as the Libyan war wasn't, in spite of how it was presented, simply an intervention in the name of glorious liberty, the billions we ship abroad in the name of 'foreign aid' have other motives besides improving human rights and conditions. Â Considering it would be one of the easiest things to cut back, and this government is entirely focused on cutting government spending (or such is the public face), there have to be purposes beyond helping the poor at work here, especially since the way the money is distributed doesn't really show the poorest and neediest being helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Keith Olbermann on Mayor Bloomberg's crackdown on the Occupy protesters: Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted November 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 18, 2011 Glad that Olbermann had to go the Beck route, and head to the margins, in order to go fucking tonto on a regular basis. It's so entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 The idea we should cut back on international aid is based on the premise that the aid is merely a charitable gift to help the poor and unfortunate. Whilst a small amount of money given may fit that purpose, I'd say there are far deeper diplomatic and trade reasons behind most of the money we give. Just as the Libyan war wasn't, in spite of how it was presented, simply an intervention in the name of glorious liberty, the billions we ship abroad in the name of 'foreign aid' have other motives besides improving human rights and conditions. Considering it would be one of the easiest things to cut back, and this government is entirely focused on cutting government spending (or such is the public face), there have to be purposes beyond helping the poor at work here, especially since the way the money is distributed doesn't really show the poorest and neediest being helped.  I don't think it's quite as mysterious as you make out. The quicker we can get the poorer countries up and consuming the quicker we can sell em stuff, trade their bonds, take advantage of emerging credit markets. We're investing in em, obviously, which is done almost entirely for selfish reasons (or at the very least, there's a decent fiscal argument for doing the right thing, depening on which way round you want to look at it.) I don't think that's really new news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) Keith Olbermann on Mayor Bloomberg's crackdown on the Occupy protesters:  Thanks for posting.  Anonymous are due to announce the second stage of the plan soon. Numbers are up.   The idea we should cut back on international aid is based on the premise that the aid is merely a charitable gift to help the poor and unfortunate. Whilst a small amount of money given may fit that purpose, I'd say there are far deeper diplomatic and trade reasons behind most of the money we give. Just as the Libyan war wasn't, in spite of how it was presented, simply an intervention in the name of glorious liberty, the billions we ship abroad in the name of 'foreign aid' have other motives besides improving human rights and conditions. Considering it would be one of the easiest things to cut back, and this government is entirely focused on cutting government spending (or such is the public face), there have to be purposes beyond helping the poor at work here, especially since the way the money is distributed doesn't really show the poorest and neediest being helped.  I don't think it's quite as mysterious as you make out. The quicker we can get the poorer countries up and consuming the quicker we can sell em stuff, trade their bonds, take advantage of emerging credit markets. We're investing in em, obviously, which is done almost entirely for selfish reasons (or at the very least, there's a decent fiscal argument for doing the right thing, depening on which way round you want to look at it.) I don't think that's really new news.  Debt is nationalised. Profit is privatised.  We pay to build the markets but we wont get the profit. The big corporations will. On the cheap too.  This is outrageous. Edited November 19, 2011 by aaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted November 19, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 19, 2011 How outraged are you on a scale of 1-10, Aaron? Just for point of referral, 1 would be red-faced and pacing around your bedroom with your fists clenched and 10 would be kicking bankers in the bollocks as they get on the Jubilee Line at Canary Wharf while screaming "I AM 10/10 OUTRAGED!" in their faces. You might be naked as well. Too angry for clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Fair enough aaron. Could you please give me a succinct definition of what a corporation is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted November 19, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 19, 2011 He's probably too outraged to answer, Keith. Remember that people have only just stopped wearing poppies as well, so he's having a tough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 How outraged are you on a scale of 1-10, Aaron? Just for point of referral, 1 would be red-faced and pacing around your bedroom with your fists clenched and 10 would be kicking bankers in the bollocks as they get on the Jubilee Line at Canary Wharf while screaming "I AM 10/10 OUTRAGED!" in their faces. You might be naked as well. Too angry for clothes. Â It feels like in this instance he's on about 2/10, which is shouting down to his mother that he WON'T come down for his tea and he's too busy SHOVING it to THE MAN online, and that he HATES her. Â She's done dippy eggs though, aaron, and cut the crusts off your toast soldiers. It won't be nice when it's cold later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted November 19, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 19, 2011 Getting back to Europe, I've found this whole thing has certainly made me think again. I was always instinctively pro-European in a sort of vague way, but this crisis has really exposed some of the follies of the European project, and it looks a lot like the Euro-sceptics were right on the Euro. The more I learn about the ins and outs of the European legislature, the more I realise how thoroughly undemocratic the whole thing is. Perhaps we're best to distance ourselves from Europe but take advantage of our close trade ties with them. That's exactly how I've come to see things. I was also instinctively friendly towards the idea of building some degree of "sameness" with our fellow Europeans. I just don't have the mentality of many that I am what I was born and I don't like others; you know, that sort of mentality that sees the fans of one football team detest those of another or adherents to one faith want to kill non-believers. I speak a bunch of European languages to different degrees and have friends all over Europe. I don't want to be monolingual and, heaven forfend, stuck only with fellow Englishmen. Â I find it interesting to look back with older, wiser eyes. I know that we're often guilty of revisionist history, but I can defend against that because I wrote down my views in the form of a dissertation on the UK acceding to the eurozone. I remember my conclusion verbatim: "I'm not swayed either way by the economic arguments" but that the UK should go into it for political symbolism. I was really wrong! Â Those who have it right are the Norwegians and Swiss, who benefit from the same trade conditions as EU members but without having to surrender sovereignty and transfer money to poorer neighbours. It's now my view that we should do the same, joining them as part of the European Free Trade Area. Â Â Ronnie, do you think ultimately Germany has benefitted from the Euro itself? If anything it feels like it's roped itself to all the bottom feeders and is held back. The short answer is that I don't actually know, because the counterfactual (Germany from 2002 to 2011 still with the Mark) doesn't exist. Looking at its economic performance it still seems to be a powerhouse; they continued to enjoy low inflation (the Germans for important historical reasons are hugely averse to inflation and so have always taken measures to minimise it, even if it means spiking unemployment), they're richer than the rest of us (ignore insignificant outliers such as Luxembourg), their unemployment level (though high because of the absorption of the former East Germany) dropped five percentage points between 2005 and 2007 and they run a massive surplus between exports and imports of about $180bn. But how much of that is attributable to the euro and what would the case be otherwise? Â There's another way of looking at things besides the straight economics, and in that respect the Germans would be well pleased with the euro. It doesn't need spelling out but the Germans are hellbent on avoiding their past and making impossible any chance of a repeat. It started in, erm, 1951 (?) when France and Germany entered into a "community" to share the Alsace's coal and steel resources, the principle being that one of them wouldn't be capable of running a war without sole ownership. Successive integration has further reinforced the fraternity between the European states to the point that war between the member states is inconceivable. Surrendering their national currency and fiscal sovereignty really underlines a one-ness. Â This being the case, I'm sure the Germans are thrilled. Look at the willingness that they've shown to bail out their neighbours. They'll pay money to save the euro. Can you imagine the headlines if we were in their position? Â Everyone says if, say, Italy left the euro it'd be this giant calamity, but Britain pulled out of the ERM, which was effectively a proto-Euro, after Black Wednesday and the world didn't end. In fact, our economy prospered and the eurozone was fine as well. Â That's quite correct. The ERM behaved as a currency union, since the exchange rates between members were fixed, meaning that monetary policy was surrendered from doing what was needed in the country to instead preserving the value of the currencies. And once it was gone the government of the time could get back to the real job of putting measures into place to get the country out of recession, instead of having to raise the interest rate twice in the same day. (I think it went to 15%!) Â I don't see the economic problem if any of the countries were to fall out. What are the benefits of the euro again? Price transparency? Who cares about that really? OK, it was easier to see the price you were paying if it was quoted in euros rather than millions of lire, but does anybody in practice really think "I could get that lasagne/haircut/bread cheaper in Slovakia, so I'm buying it from there"? I won't even drive for another few minutes to save a couple of quid on a tank of petrol! And what else? Just the gesture that "We're surrendering our currency for idealism's sake." Forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts