You can start by reducing the mortality rate, I wonder how we could start looking at that.

I literally told you in last post, Ill paste some easy URLs from googling 'china africa'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/riskmap/...0b1f4071a216e2
http://www.economist.com/news/middle...one-among-many
http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/

Lolwat ? Ill skip the efficiency issue's large governments have with redistributing large amounts of money (one of the arguments on the pro basic income side for example). I'm perfectly fine with governments raising tax reasonably and investing more in African countries (note, investing, not bribing). I'm perfectly fine with paying taxes as well. Development aid as we currently do it is terrible and ready for a revamp, we're just paralyzing and ****ing up countries.

This will not guarantee effectively distributed aid in Africa, in fact, it would be more wasted dollars unless you plan on colonizing the country you just invaded.

For the people interested in a view on this
http://vorige.nrc.nl//international/...st_not_working

The issue with global poverty is mostly that no one cares. It's basically an empirical question whether cash transfers to the poor would work. Early evidence seems to be good, but scaling is obviously a huge issue. A logical next step would be to fund cash transfers at a significantly higher level and see what happens. GiveDirectly (who I adore personally and support) has had lifetime funding of roughly $20 million, which is basically nothing. If you wanted to see if cash transfers could work more broadly, the logical thing to do would be to set up a trial and give out maybe $100 million to random poor people in a region and see what happened.

Any discussion of taxes on this subject is kind of weird too, especially exotic proposals like confiscatory rates on the very rich. The fundamental obstacle to global poverty relief is that the public doesn't want to do it not that it can't be financed. The amount of money we're talking about scarcely registers against the federal budget. In particular, linking global poverty relief with confiscatory taxes on the rich seems designed to build support for taxes on the rich and erode support for global poverty relief.

No you didn't. This should be really easy for you by pointing out where you did. In fact here's your entire last post please point out where you did this cos I can't see it.

Not seeing it.

And what are we learning from the Chinese given that Western Governments don't run businesses?

I'm less interested in governments investing than I am in them giving. But that aside you suggested there was this increase in inefficiency in raising money through taxes and I'm still not seeing it.

This is what they are doing. They are also not 'running' their own businesses there. They say, if you can get this or that infrastructural project to take off we will fund it. The African governments never see the money but instead are provided with actual goods and services (necessary for economic growth).
You should be more interested since (as for example stated in the article from my last post) giving money isn't a sustainable solution (it isn't even a solution but even if it was it isn't a sustainable one). Do you know how dependant some African governments are on development aid from western countries ? Its unhealthy and honestly insulting. We are undermining their position and possibilities to become an economic player in the world (which incidentally happened to a lot of struggling countries that didn't get any western development money). Ill paste it again here;
http://vorige.nrc.nl//international/...st_not_working

And you are right, the less money you get through added taxation the less efficiency you lose, I wasn't talking 3% amounts though, I was aiming for quite a bit bigger.

The Oxfam Report also stated :

Top 1% wealth

>>>

Bottom 99% Wealth

Not sure if it was already mentioned.

My bad in your last reply I thought you were telling me you'd post me some links before you then posted those links. I missed the comma.

What types of returns are the Chinese expecting from their investments? How do western governments make similar investments and how would they provide returns given there are significantly different economics between the west and China. If they aren't funding the governments who are they funding. Where in Africa are the Chinese funding, what impact is this having on the poorest in those countries, what reduction in African policy can be attributed to Chinese investment. None of your posts on this are specific. And that's not a criticism but if you are asking me for cites then specifics would be appreciated.

If all this Chinese investment is reducing poverty in Africa there should be some evidence of this? Do you have anything to suggest this?

I'll admit I have problems with my view but I have concerns regarding expanding capitalism as a solution to poverty, firstly it hasn't done so I don't see how it does and when it has led to a significant reduction in the number of the poor it does so at a cost that I believe constitutes a potentially bigger problem with regard to the environment. I haven't read those articles, I can't read the forbes one because I have an ********* and I refuse to disable it but I'll take a look at the others.

I just now read an article about how the facts are somewhat misleading/misrepresented (its still Oxfam novib so not completely unexpected).
Apparently there was no correction for the strong dollar (good for Americans aka rich, bad for Africans aka poor).
They didn't correct for mortgage and educational loans which means that apparently the lowest 10% have 25% of Europeans and North Americans simply due to these loans and mortgage debt (similar to how according to the statistics for 1% poorest Dutchies they have an average mortgage of over half a million euro's, poor guys!).
They also haven't been corrected for purchasing power or COL.
According to the graphs its also not African countries who (gained or) lost the most wealth but rather countries like Japan, Ukraine, Russia and France.

Doesn't mean the report in itself isn't true or accurate, just that its obviously being framed in a way which suits the communicator (who then goes for the complete emotional interpretation).

China as an (still) emerging market has a huge need for African products, raw materials and the option to sell their cheap Chinese **** to the Africans. They offer Africa a relatively equal position in this business endeavour. The whole environment thing (just as labor conditions etc) is mostly seen from a western perspective by us, we feel like we have to change these people making us (in the eyes of many Africans) condescending douchebags. We give them money but they better do as we tell them to and make their lives better! I'm not saying that the Chinese model is a fix it all solution but I'm pretty sure that if we tried, we as westerners could come up with an even better way of fixing some of these issue's. One of these was talked about in that last article I posted for example, we impose lol trading restrictions to a lot of African countries simply because we're afraid they will kill our market with cheap labor. Ill have a look if I can find some dry statistics on the betterment of people their positions in some of these countries.

I don't see a problem at all. Global poverty is shrinking all over world. Less people living in poverty as a % today than ever before.



Things are looking good for the developing world.

Okay a couple of points.

Firstly I'm not going to be a massive fan of any article that starts with who is Bono to fix the economics of Africa. My support in exploring the expansion of cash transfers does not come with strings. It will come with monitoring how that money is spent but without restrictions on how to spend it.

Secondly and kinda importantly Africa isn't a country, I know you know this but this means that not every country in Africa is going to have the resources in supply to warrant Chinese investment, it seems to me, and this is purely speculative, that the poorest countries within Africa will often have the least by way of natural resources and will often be less appealing to investors.

Thirdly my issue with the environment is a problem for me because I do worry about the environmental impact of industry expanding but I accept that saying you can't have what we have is not a solution and is in fact condescending douchebaggery. I don't know how to resolve this conflict personally and it may be that my preference for cash transfers is my way of resolving this. I'm not sure though.

Finally I think there's a disconnect between the view that investment is always provided in a means that prevents dictators lining their pockets and the same is not true for aid. I don't know why this would be true and while I accept a ton of money has been given without appropriate outcomes it doesn't seem to me that this has to be the case. That there are more effective ways of monitoring the efficacy of aid this is a problem that can be solved.

Lets do a little math. From the article 62 people own $1.76 trillion. Half the world population is 3.5 billion people. According to the world bank 2.1 billion people live on $1.90/day or less (2012 data, latest available). Lets give all that money to the 2.1 billion people.

If we divide 1.76 trillion by 2.1 billion people you get $838 per person. Divide that by $1.90 and you can support all these people for 441 days or less than 15 months.

Of course $838 is a tremendous sum to the truly poor in the world, and there would be some resulting local economic growth in these countries, but if we did this in 15 months we would essentially be right back where we are today. (All of this of course ignores the fact that as a practical matter we couldn't actually get the $838 into the hands of the poor people because it would be embezzled by the dictators that rule their counties.)

1. The money doesn't evaporate when they spend it.
2. You assume it is simply spend on living expenses instead of investing it in a better future (education, starting a business, preventing diseases, etc.).

Hank the redistributed money stays in their economy when they spend thereby increasing their wealth countrywide.

But there's so much wrong with this idea.

Those 1.7 trillion is wealth would have to be sold. Depressing asset prices in the process and transfering that money out of first world countries. That makes us poorer, everyone. Middle class owns shares in these public corps too and would see their values drop. Pension funds that have hundreds of billions would see their holdings drop.

The far left that argue for this redistribution haven't even realized this massive wealth transfer would make their own countries poorer.

This idea is totally ******ed in so many ways.

The wealthy do donate a good portion back to charities:

Americans are world's most charitable, top 1% provide 1/3rd of all donations

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/am...rticle/2580876

You do realize all their money isn't sitting around in cash do you?

If you don't know in what means that wealth is held this topic is already beyond your understanding.

Wouldn't surprise me if people who think they are kind-hearted because they want to be generous with other's people's wealth actually believed there is 1.7 trillion in cash waiting to be spent.
Also to put things into perspective, OECD countries spend about $200 billion a year on foreign aid - 140 from governments and 60 from private donors.

Here's an alternative option, target immigration from African countries. There is significant evidence that African migrants benefit their country of origin by increasing the export market, sending money back and helping overcome some of the obstacles to trading with the country of origin

From the World Bank

What say you?

Firstly I'm talking of taxing income not wealth but I have no problem with making rich nations poorer in order to make poor nations richer. This is what a transfer in wealth entails.

What side of the fence are you on with regards to outsourcing?

I'm okay with jobs being situated wherever.

Even if it depresses wages and helps keep those wages stagnant in developed countries?

I thought income inequality and stagnant wages was important. Suddenly in this topic it gets ignored yet thata exactly what will happen when you transfer 1.7 trillion in wealth, capital and cash without getting anything in return.

I've never suggested transferring 1.7 trillion in anything, nor do I think that wealth is liquid and could or should be sequestered.

What's your alternative to outsourcing, forcing corporations to employ local staff by means of restricting trade? Increasing corporations costs to prevent them from establishing in workforces in foreign markets? I don't know that excluding workers in poor countries from earning wages to protect the interests of workers in more developed countries is morally defensible. I understand why national politics treats the issue very differently and I accept that reconciling this with concerns about income inequality and stagnation may be difficult but that's not really my concern either.

"I have no problem with making rich nations poorer in order to make poor nations richer"

This is the entire premise of the thread, why are we allowing 62 individuals own more than 3.5 billion people.

My point wasn't to argue outsourcing. My point is to say outsourcing may have had some benefit to developed nations, but it has contributed in stagnant wages.

Transferring wealth from one country to another on that massive of a scale will have that exact effect as well.