Giving Away Foreign Aid to Africa is a Good Idea

Observation 1: Success For one thing, the U. S. government is already plunging into debt. The role of a government is to govern its own country, not another country. Furthermore, the only reason that Africa has an AIDS epidemic is because of the United Nation's attempt to rid Africa of polio. From the Encyclopedia Idiotica: "Not just in Africa, but in other countries, it may have been customary to use the initial shipments as a base from which to increase the amount of vaccine being used. It is suggested that green monkeys or chimpanzee kidneys were used at the local level, both carriers of SIV-1, and that the vaccines therefore became contaminated with the virus the became HIV in humans. " So, it is a bad idea to try to help Africa with their diseases, because we just create more problems than we fix. Observation 2: They have oil Okay, the reasons that I gave for why not to send foreign aid for Africa were the detrimental effects for Africa. Abusing Africa's resources is not good for Africa, and thus falls into the category of Not a Good Idea. Also, the government does not get oil through foreign aid. American oil companies pay Africa (it's a purchase, not aid) for the rights to drill on their land. Trade and aid are two different things. . http://www.allbusiness.com... Anadarko is not involved in foreign aid. It is involved in foreign investments. And now, for even more reasons why aid hurts Africa: For any sources referencing paragraphs, here is the article that I source: . http://online.wsj.com... Here is a list of events following foreign aid: 1. People around the world send billions of dollars in financial aid to Africa. . http://psdblog.worldbank.org... (Paragraph 3) From here, the money takes three different routes: A. The Government 2. Any money that is sent to Africa in general goes through the government first, and the government taxes most or all of this money away from the people the money was intended to support. (Paragraph 10) 3. With taxes from the financial aid, African governments have no need to tax their citizens. (Paragraph 14) 4. "No taxation without representation. " . http://www.u-s-history.com... 5. No representation without taxation. (Inverse property) 6. Because Africa does not tax its citizens, it does not need to give its citizens representation. (Step 6 + Step 4) 7. All that a corrupt African government needs to stay in power is a continuous flow of financial aid. (Paragraph 14) 8. With this "free money", African governments do not bother to find more reliable and honest sources of income. (Paragraph 15) 9. African governments become lazy and corrupt. Lazy: encouraging inactivity or indolence . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Corrupt: to become morally debased . http://www.merriam-webster.com... When a government is not giving its people any representation and is unfairly taxing foreign aid, it can be called corrupt. B. The People 2. Some of the money from financial aid makes its way to the people. 3. Everyone in that part of Africa becomes a little bit richer. 4. When everyone has more money, monetary inflation occurs. . http://en.wikipedia.org...... 5. Monetary inflation occurs in Africa. 6. The "Dutch disease" occurs in Africa. (Paragraph 22) 7. Africa's goods become too expensive for export, and housing prices go up. ("Dutch disease") Or, of course, foreign companies can send Africa aid in the form of food: 1. The rest of the world sends money to Africa in the form of food. (Paragraph 21) 2. People who already have food don't need to buy more food. 3. Africans have food. (Step 2) 4. Africans don't buy any food from African farmers. 5. African farmers no longer sell any food. 6. African farmers no longer get any profit. (Businesses need to sell their products to maintain a profit. ) 7. African farmers go out of business. (A lack of profit leads to bankruptcy. ) 8. Africa no longer has its own farms. 9. Africa relies on the rest of the world for food. (They can't get any from Africa. ) 10. Africa becomes dependent on the rest of the world. And so, when we send money to Africa, their governments gain more power, their economy experiences inflation, and they take a step backwards as they no longer can afford to farm. Another example of this effect can be seen in the original article: "Even what may appear as a benign intervention on the surface can have damning consequences. Say there is a mosquito-net maker in small-town Africa. Say he employs 10 people who together manufacture 500 nets a week. Typically, these 10 employees support upward of 15 relatives each. A Western government-inspired program generously supplies the affected region with 100,000 free mosquito nets. This promptly puts the mosquito net manufacturer out of business, and now his 10 employees can no longer support their 150 dependents. In a couple of years, most of the donated nets will be torn and useless, but now there is no mosquito net maker to go to. They'll have to get more aid. And African governments once again get to abdicate their responsibilities. " I eagerly await my opponent's response.