President Elon Musk
He probably deserves his own thread at this point, discuss accordingly
Luciom is now a non-serious poster (maybe he always has been). Sad.
Poverty causes population explosions. Assistance has helped many developing countries out of that kind of poverty and their population growth has declined. In 1960 South Korea was one of, if not the, poorest countries in the world. It had a fertility rate higher than Nigeria's is now. Through decades of development which included lots of aid from the US (and tariffs to protect their infant industry), it's become wealthy and has the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world now.
You are right. But there are also plenty of examples where mainly because of govt corruption and aligning themselves with bad actors, you get a lot of resources put into a nation and it is mostly stolen and squandered. And at some point it might be prudent to cut your losses if it just isn’t working; especially in a world where we have decided we don’t just get to throw such bad govts out of power.
South Africa would be an example.
Poverty causes population explosions. Assistance has helped many developing countries out of that kind of poverty and their population growth has declined. In 1960 South Korea was one of, if not the, poorest countries in the world. It had a fertility rate higher than Nigeria's is now. Through decades of development which included lots of aid from the US (and tariffs to protect their infant industry), it's become wealthy and has the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world now.
You could also look at what happened to Japan. (and W. Germany I guess)
I don't have the data on US assistance to Korea. Focused assistance that achieves financial independence and a higher standard of living is key.
There were also compelling reasons for S. Korea to obtain a higher standard of living and self sufficiency. For most other 3rd world nations, that strategic importance is much less.
One could also look at China post WW2. China took on ZERO foreign debt for 30 years. I don't need to show how China has fared on the world stage.
Poverty causes population explosions. Assistance has helped many developing countries out of that kind of poverty and their population growth has declined. In 1960 South Korea was one of, if not the, poorest countries in the world. It had a fertility rate higher than Nigeria's is now. Through decades of development which included lots of aid from the US (and tariffs to protect their infant industry), it's become wealthy and has the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world now.
Poverty with western food and antibiotics does. Without, it doesn't.
Yes after explosion if they keep developing at some point they can reach the threshold where the population doesn't grow anymore. And? development isn't guaranteed for everyone, and do you really think the world would be better for americans if there are 260m people in Tanzania (current estimates for 2100) vs the 69 currently and the 10m there were in 1960?
What exactly gets better for americans if the population in Tanzania goes from 10m to 260m?
You are right. But there are also plenty of examples where mainly because of govt corruption and aligning themselves with bad actors, you get a lot of resources put into a nation and it is mostly stolen and squandered. And at some point it might be prudent to cut your losses if it just isn’t working; especially in a world where we have decided we don’t just get to throw such bad govts out of power.
South Africa would be an example.
I'm sure what you are describing happens in some places. I have no idea about SA. Trump's thing in SA is not about the effects of aid, but it's about protecting white people.
SA's fertility rate declined sharply until about 2000, when it flatlined. It's right at the global average, which is not great, but not terrible.
And, I don't mean not having babies is great. It's a problem in some countries. But, I'm sure it's very well correlated to standard of living and economic development. Perhaps it's the best measure because you don't have to, or get the opportunity to, fiddle around with all kinds of complexity in measures like GDP.
Not sure what you mean. The whole rightwing twitter is talking about the examples of help that it considers nefarious and the reasons why it's better if it gets removed.
You think it's some kind of weird libertarian desire of mine, i am very much with the "masses" (on the right) on this though
do you really think the world would be better for americans if there are 260m people in Tanzania (current estimates for 2100) vs the 69 currently and the 10m there were in 1960?
What exactly gets better for americans if the population in Tanzania goes from 10m to 260m?
Who cares, and more importantly why should Tanzanians care about the effects on the US? That's just 350M out of 8 billion people, albeit in the world's largest by GDP.
I'm sure what you are describing happens in some places. I have no idea about SA. Trump's thing in SA is not about the effects of aid, but it's about protecting white people.
SA's fertility rate declined sharply until about 2000, when it flatlined. It's right at the global average, which is not great, but not terrible.
And, I don't mean not having babies is great. It's a problem in some countries. But, I'm sure it's very well correlated to standard of living and economic development. Perhaps
After years trying to tackle that problem, i think fertility is linked to women education. And not even college education, just high school level. Basically is all women get decent education fertility does collapse. Everything else either matters much less, or has counterfactual of places where it didn't decrease fertility. Women education is the only thing that invariably reduces fertility.
But anyway that wasn't the topic on my side, the topic on my side was why save lives in poor countries, there is no inherent benefit in doing that, and rather large potential detrimental effects if you succeed.
? topic is why should the US move a finger to help that population achieve those amounts.
Ofc tanzanians should be free to do whatever in their country. I am saying american taxpayers shouldn't pay a single dollar to keep any tanzanian alive who would have died without american help.
Then if an american private citizen cares, he can donate ofc. But the government should ONLY exclusively care about it's own citizens. And unless you show me a direct link going from "more tanzanians exist" to "americans live better lives", then taxpayers shouldn't pay for that
Poverty with western food and antibiotics does. Without, it doesn't.
Yes after explosion if they keep developing at some point they can reach the threshold where the population doesn't grow anymore. And? development isn't guaranteed for everyone, and do you really think the world would be better for americans if there are 260m people in Tanzania (current estimates for 2100) vs the 69 currently and the 10m there were in 1960?
What exactly gets better for americans if the population in Tanzania goes
I'm making positive statements, not normative, but anyway
I think the best and most likely to succeed policy for the rich West with the goal of limiting population growth in the developing world is to help it develop as quickly as possible.
That doesn't mean I don't think that some kinds of aid are counterproductive.
But, stuff like antibiotics, education, and clean water and like pennies on the dollar. As far as what I think would work best after that? I do love freedom and that includes economic freedom, and what I would do more than just give stuff to poor people, is buy stuff from them. That sends money to developing places and creates independence instead of dependence.
And, I don't blame radical leftists for all of that. Like, American rice growers love donating (selling rice to the US government) rice around the world and that results in the destruction of self-sufficiency wherever it lands. Even if the heads of the agencies doing the work are DEI loving radical leftists, it's happening that way because of corporate agribusiness interests.
? topic is why should the US move a finger to help that population achieve those amounts.
Ofc tanzanians should be free to do whatever in their country. I am saying american taxpayers shouldn't pay a single dollar to keep any tanzanian alive who would have died without american help.
Then if an american private citizen cares, he can donate ofc. But the government should ONLY exclusively care about it's own citizens. And unless you show me a direct link going from "more tanzanians exist" to "americ
OK, I was grunching somewhat.
It's in the US's short term economic interest to keep large parts of the RoW at basic subsistence levels, I agree, but you should remember that extreme economic conditions and exploitation makes places ripe for extreme politics.
? topic is why should the US move a finger to help that population achieve those amounts.
Ofc tanzanians should be free to do whatever in their country. I am saying american taxpayers shouldn't pay a single dollar to keep any tanzanian alive who would have died without american help.
Then if an american private citizen cares, he can donate ofc. But the government should ONLY exclusively care about it's own citizens. And unless you show me a direct link going from "more tanzanians exist" to "americ
This is a silly and myopic view of the world.
OK, I was grunching somewhat.
It's in the US's short term economic interest to keep large parts of the RoW at basic subsistence levels, I agree, but you should remember that extreme economic conditions and exploitation makes places ripe for extreme politics.
Yes, it's in both the short and long term interests of the US to have these programs. It also increases the influence of the US around the world. Part of what Trump is doing is cashing that in. There are some short term benefits to the US for doing that but it's not awesome in the long term.
Poverty causes population explosions. Assistance has helped many developing countries out of that kind of poverty and their population growth has declined. In 1960 South Korea was one of, if not the, poorest countries in the world. It had a fertility rate higher than Nigeria's is now. Through decades of development which included lots of aid from the US (and tariffs to protect their infant industry), it's become wealthy and has the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world now.
Maybe that's actually why they want to cut off aid. Musk is one of the biggest proponents of population increase, worried that too few people are being born.
Not sure what you mean. The whole rightwing twitter is talking about the examples of help that it considers nefarious and the reasons why it's better if it gets removed.
This is what you get from essentially unlimited money printing and trillion $ annual budget deficits.
Back in the 50s/60s CIA would leverage businesses both for cover and to pay for assets' salaries and reduce operating costs. But with agencies like USAID the process is so much simpler now.
Yes, it's in both the short and long term interests of the US to have these programs. It also increases the influence of the US around the world. Part of what Trump is doing is cashing that in. There are some short term benefits to the US for doing that but it's not awesome in the long term.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said, “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
Sounds like you are both in general agreement re foreign aid $.
Rubio , as expected, just perfect.
Non american lives don't even enter the utility function. They have no inherent value from the point of view of the US government, and they shouldn't.
It can be +EV to save non american lives, but only if that furthers american interests.
It's honestly just astonishing to read. And he's not even American. Do sociopaths recognize that they are sociopaths? Like would they say "no I'm not!"?
There is nothing sick with keeping your private morals separated from a collective entity you are entrusted to manage in the explicit interest of a group of people.
It's like you having a corporation and doing charity with it even if many stockholders disagree vs you doing charity with your own private money.
There is nothing sick in asking a corporation to just stick to what it is supposed to do (money for the investors) no matter which charity endevours you find moral.
Rubio , as expected, just perfect.
Non american lives don't even enter the utility function. They have no inherent value from the point of view of the US government, and they shouldn't.
It can be +EV to save non american lives, but only if that furthers american interests.
I think one would need to agree there exists a correlation between well being of other nations (and ultimately its citizens) and US interests.
But simply "helping" 3rd world people without a measurable target that does not improve US position in the world (or at worst neutral) is simply misguided.
China did not get our aid for decades. And they were dirt poor. It's their choice.
I think one would need to agree there exists a correlation between well being of other nations (and ultimately its citizens) and US interests.
But simply "helping" 3rd world people without a measurable target that does not improve US position in the world (or at worst neutral) is simply misguided.
China did not get our aid for decades. And they were dirt poor. It's their choice.
There can exist a correlation between the well being of other nations and US interests. But as we all know domestically as well, what's "well being" isn't even necessarily obvious.
But they have to be country that do something for the USA (or it's allies). Like i mean, Jordan accepts to take in a ton of palestinians, ofc Jordan deserves american and western help.
If egypt takes in the residents of Gaza, same thing.
Those are just examples linked to recent events. If a key supplier of some resource China needs accepts not to sell to the chinese anymore (just an example), you can build schools for them (or whatever else is efficient for progress in that country)
No, but it's certainly a fair criticism. I don't go to that horrible website. Should've verified first. I will take it down until verified.
Like any gift it's the thought that counts.
