Does helping the Third World become efficient hurt the First World?

[MadRat]

The question is simple, "Does helping the Third World become efficient hurt the First World?"

I don't just mean hurting the First World economically, I mean in every conceivable way. The developed countries of the world keep pouring efforts into the basic needs of the Third World. Does artificially fixing the problems of these countries create more problems on the grand scale or does it solve more? Think about things like food, water, shelter, and so on. The world's food supply has increased radically since the 1960's and there is a similar spike in world population. It would make sense that developed countries should be reaping the rewards of the growing food sources, but is it fair for the undeveloped countries that cannot maintain the development to share the same windfall? The same issues go on with energy, commodity trade, and so on.

Post your opinions on the subject.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The question is simple, "Does helping the Third World become efficient hurt the First World?"

I don't just mean hurting the First World economically, I mean in every conceivable way. The developed countries of the world keep pouring efforts into the basic needs of the Third World.

Does artificially fixing the problems of these countries create more problems on the grand scale or does it solve more?

Think about things like food, water, shelter, and so on. The world's food supply has increased radically since the 1960's and there is a similar spike in world population. It would make sense that developed countries should be reaping the rewards of the growing food sources, but is it fair for the undeveloped countries that cannot maintain the development to share the same windfall? The same issues go on with energy, commodity trade, and so on.

Post your opinions on the subject.

Well shit yea

It's always pissed me off with commericials and Politcal handouts to countries showing mothers holding starving babies.

What the hell are they doing popping out babies to begin with if they can't feed themselves?

The elite here in the U.S. (especially the religous) preach about Americans buying too much house that they can afford yet they have no qualms sending my tax money overseas to help people over there that have no business even being alive.

Ultimate hypocracy

 

[brxndxn]

NO. It hurts the third world. In every application of life, a handout is only temporary and it is only useful for a temporary period.

Whether we hand out food, technology, education or anything that requires non-market input, we are hurting them. They are people - the best thing we can do is leave them alone to handle theirselves. They might solve things differently or even badly in the short term - but in the long term, they will be better off.

Do we desperately try to keep feeding the millions and millions of starving babies in Africa - or do we let nature take its place so the future will not have millions and millions more starving babies..

The best thing we can do is offer them something they want in return for something we want. Else, we have no business with them.

 

[Siddhartha]

Yes, at least in the short term.

The Third, undeveloped, World has been exploited by the First World for its resources, human slavery and mineral. Also the developed countries have benefited from the economics of obtaining resources dirt cheap, and selling manufactered goods to undeveloped countries.

Helping to develop these countries and people will drive up the cost of these resources which drives up the costs for the developed countries.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Well the problem is that we aren't helping them become efficient. A lot of our aid is too focused on government transfers that go toward building infrastructure. It just so happens that construction is the sector where corruption is worst.

Aid can be helpful though. There has been evidence that aid that goes toward education and health actually does give a boost to GDP. Still, a major source of what is holding these countries back is corruption.

What the hell are they doing popping out babies to begin with if they can't feed themselves?

Well there are a few reasons they are popping out babies:

1. Old age insurance

These people certainly don't make enough to retire off of. That's assuming that they even have a decent way to save which many of them don't. So they pop out a few children that are obligated to take care of them in the future when they can no longer work.

2. High mortality rate

Birth rates generally lag the mortality rate. The birth rates for the poorest in the world had actually been decreasing sharply due to advancement in medical technology. The important phrase in that sentence is 'had been decreasing.' AIDS made mortality rates shoot up.

3. Lack of condoms

As cheap as condoms are, they aren't always accessible. Condom availability has been shown to put quite a dent in how many children a couple decides to have.

4. Lack of education

Many poor countries generally have really crappy school attendance rates. The reasons for that are affordability and the fact that the child can be working and helping the family earn income. Educating the female population has the best chance of keeping down birthrates but generally female rates of attendance are lower than that of boys because the returns to education for a female is lower than it is for males. Still that can all be helped by paying children to attend like is done in Mexico with their Progresa program.

So on to the question of whether helping the third world get more efficient hurts us...Of course not! They'll be richer and can afford more of our products. When Europe went and got richer after WWII did that hurt us? When Japan became a first world nation, did that hurt us? Some sectors it did hurt but overall our economy is just as good, if not better.

 

[BarneyFife]

Well its really screwed us now because corportations are moving their production to these countries.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Depends on what you mean by helping. We can help the Third World more by allowing the spread of First World technologies and businesses to reach Third World countries instead of just handing them money. Free trade helps both parties.

 

[IronWing]

No, since most "foreign aid" is paid to first world companies to accomplish the work, most of the money ends up being spent in the first world.

 

[Cattlegod]

it actually helps the first world. It offshores 'crappy' jobs and makes room for more higher paying jobs in the first world.

Additionally it increases overall competition in the economy and increases innovation and product quality due to the increased competition.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart.

 

[beyoku]

Wow, I am always amazed that us Americans cant understand why poor starving people still have babies. They have babies because THAT IS WHAT HUMANS DO!!! There will be no set of circumstances that will stop a human that is physically capable from having babies.

The third world needs fair trade not aid. Even the leaders of developing nations know this, they are not all corrupt and stupid.
Also Some developing nations feel the effects of global climate change much more than we do. While in the west it is expressed by higher electricity bills and sweltering summers other places are experiencing multiple record droughts and floods.

Lets not forget that their 3rd world development will only ADD to the problems regarding climate change and deforestation. Think how many MILLIONS of square acres will be lost if a intercontinental trade railway is run though a dense albeit impenetrable jungle such as that of the Congo. We cry about deforestation and loss of animals but forget that at the speed that some developing countries NEED to grow and handle international trade / investments - Nature will be on the short end of the stick. Starving folk could care less that some bushmeat may be on the verge of extinction.

Cheap goods also come into play. Think of all that stuff that is manufactured in China made from raw material that originates in Africa. With a large country such as Congo getting a fair price on its raw material such as iron/copper/coltan etc - cheap goods may not be as cheap. I recently saw the price of my favorite coffee go up by almost half when the producing country won a trademark battle against Starbucks.

It just seems as if for now, the West is better off with developing nations as they are....... "Developing." Look at what happens with America now that it "competes" with China and also India. What if a generally speaking developing continent such as Africa also needed the fossil fuel footprint or energy needs that China does? Or that India does, i dont even want to think about it. Whats good for developing nations may not be that good for the West. I think the west knows that and plans accordingly.....Thats why its Aid over Trade, as usual.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The question is simple, "Does helping the Third World become efficient hurt the First World?"

I believe forcing them to "become efficient" before they develop hurts them.

 

[magomago]

Some referenced to the fact that we exploited ('we' in the sense of first world countries) their natural resources and even enslaved them. We didn't become "first world" on our own - it was done by taking advantage of them. As for helping them..I'm really skeptical of the intentions of countries to "help third world countries". My concept of help would be to teach people to do something and assist them in doing so while providing barely enough assistance that they have a real need to quickly learn and develop. To me it is like education - our teachers try to show us how to do something or how to think, and will assist us in training that (homework), but we need to make sure we get good enough at it to execute the same actions on our own (tests).
However, I really question our efforts - someone pointed out that we should have more business trading with them. That is a nice idea, but what happens in execution? Local businesses get stifled as multinational push in - of course they may be more efficient, but it stifles local development. Furthermore, I'd rather see businesses spread on their own rather than do so under the wing of governments. Even orgs like the IMF seem to do a lot more to shit over situations than they help.

Having the "third world" develop will push up the costs of goods and the demands of resources, but that is the price to pay for having a more developed world. To use that as a REASON to keep them in "third world status" is inhuman imo. Do not simply HAND them things: that will only hurt them because they rely on you now as opposed to oneself. Education, provided basic security, food and shelter exists is a great way to get out because education makes people think. And I can't find a successful society or civlization or culture that didn't think or apply knowledge

 

[desy]

If their population is beyond what the carrying capacity of the land for self sustainability is then it hurts them.
Increases in effciency have typically INCREASED consumption because driving down costs doesn't mean people use less, it ususally means they use more and end up paying the same price for it.
Therefore in a world that has 6.5 billion people and is overfishing the oceans and can't grow enough, breed enough livestock and adds 75 million people every year, increasing CO2 emissions 'I still don't know what to make of CO2 but lets put it in there for arguement' is colliding with a scarcety of resources war, global in scale.

This is going to happen until a balance is met. IE Food riots world wide and starving people in Haiti. A starving person will fight to survive.

 

[beyoku]

I didnt mean 'more trade' i said "Fair Trade." From coltan to coffee, iron, copper, cocoa, cotton, timber etc. They just dont get a fair deal. They cannot get a fair deal with some of the subsidies that we have. How can Jamaica have lettuce locally grown that costs more than lettuce grown somewhere in the U.S. Midwest?

 

[miketheidiot]

it has varying effects based on the target, types of aid, their relative economic situation, etc.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: beyoku
I didnt mean 'more trade' i said "Fair Trade." From coltan to coffee, iron, copper, cocoa, cotton, timber etc. They just dont get a fair deal. They cannot get a fair deal with some of the subsidies that we have. How can Jamaica have lettuce locally grown that costs more than lettuce grown somewhere in the U.S. Midwest?

how can my damn north dokate raised bananas compete with those damn Nicaraguan ones :|

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: beyoku
I didnt mean 'more trade' i said "Fair Trade." From coltan to coffee, iron, copper, cocoa, cotton, timber etc. They just dont get a fair deal. They cannot get a fair deal with some of the subsidies that we have. How can Jamaica have lettuce locally grown that costs more than lettuce grown somewhere in the U.S. Midwest?

btw in this example our subsidized lettuce would make us worse off and jamaica better off.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Why do we still use the term 'Third World?' Originally it just meant every nation that wasn't aligned with NATO (1st world) or the Warsaw Pact (2nd world), Now it just refers to broke ass countries in general? Even though it seems to reek of PC, I think the term "developing countries" makes more sense.

 

[BladeVenom]

We should be shipping them IUDs.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: beyoku
I didnt mean 'more trade' i said "Fair Trade." From coltan to coffee, iron, copper, cocoa, cotton, timber etc. They just dont get a fair deal. They cannot get a fair deal with some of the subsidies that we have. How can Jamaica have lettuce locally grown that costs more than lettuce grown somewhere in the U.S. Midwest?

btw in this example our subsidized lettuce would make us worse off and jamaica better off.

How??, Jamaicans cannot sell basic foodstuffs such as lettuce, milk, onions, etc. Who looses jobs because of that? Countries that grow such staples should not import these foods.....only as a luxury.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
We should be shipping them IUDs.

Indeed, by the cargo-plane full.

 

[MadRat]

I'm not so sure IED's by the plane full would help. *wink*

(j/k - I know the difference.)

So far I've seen most explanations for a "No" tend to cover the exploitation of these poor countries. Could there be other draw backs to the aid for developing countries that people perceive as a problem? What are the explanations for the "Yes" votes? Obviously some feel there are more positives to the aid. I'd like to hear both sides.

 

[cumhail]

In many (if not most) cases, the amount of aid the so-called "first world" offers to the so-called "third world" is nothing in comparison to the harm that they have caused them. Colonization, slavery, raping of resources, puppet governments, covert actions, supports of brutal regimes, etc. And this isn't ancient history, either. It's been happening for the past centuries and continues to happen to this day.

So "hypocrisy," David? Hypocrisy is acting as if we had no hand in the problems they have.

And "let Nature runs its course," brxndxn? Read up on the intertwining histories of "the West" and various regions of Africa, paying due attention to the 19th and 20th centuries, and then refer back to the issue of hypocrisy.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Abolishing slavery also hurt the wallets of the slave owners. Paying people enough to go on vacation instead of just enough to survive means the employer can make less money.

Basically giving someone a humane life doesn't allow you to reap as much profit as when you abuse them whenever you can.