Foreign Aid Does More Harm Than Good

I thank my opposition for his arguments. As I see he has not countered my points, I will assume he either agrees with me or can not find a way of disproving my ideas. I'd like to refut his points then move on to the last point I will make in this debate. Reply to Political RealitiesIn his first statement, con worries about letting the third world suffer without aid. I think in my next point I will have covered how we can continue helping developing nations in a mutually beneficial way, but I'd also like to point out that the third world needs to be giving a chance to fight for itself. Remember, we aren't discussing life or death situations, development aid is used to pull nations into the global market, reduce poverty, and grow and stabilize their economies. On all of these regards, aid has already failed, as I have explained in my first point. Secondly, it seems you agree with me that the corruption aid causes is harmful. Moreover, you also have proven that aid is used as a political strategy, instead of actually trying to lift the poor out of poverty. After proving all of this your argument is then that we should increase aid. Why? It's not benefical to the first world. It's not practicle to just throw more money at the problem. We have already given trillions, even if we double that within the next decade, why should we expect to see different results? I don't think the West is willing to make that gamble. It's far to much money, especially when developped nations already have debt crisises of their owns. You also have not proven why it is beneficial. You've merely asserted it is. Lastly, your example is flawed. In the cases you are discussing, the aid given is classed under emergency aid. U.S. assistance to Germany and Japan during the seven years following World War II. Beginning in 1949, the Marshall Plan provided $1.4 billion with the specific objective of promoting economic recovery. U.S. assistance to Germany and Japan largely consisted of food-related aid because of severe war-induced shortages and the need to provide minimum subsistence levels of nutrition. The goal was not to grow their economies, because they had funtioning economies prior to the war. This is why emergency aid worked well as recovering economies that already had a major influence in the world. You aren't about to convince people Germany needed to grow their economy before the World War II. As I have already stated, this debate isn't iun regards to emergency aid, which was used in both of these cases. A Solution That WorksMoving on to my final point. In this contention I'd simply like to explain a few methods that work more efficiently at growing developing economies than aid. They will actually give the third world a chance to play a role in the global markets. Moreover, these methods have been knowing to increase the nation's GDP in a substainable way. They work by growing their economy from the bottom, up. Instead of pooling at the top, as foreign aid does. Leading to long-term growth and meaningful reduction of poverty. Plus, they are mutually beneficial to the givers and the receivers. So let's name a few: Foreign direct investment (FDI)This is a direct investment into production or business in a country by a company in another country, either by buying a company in the target country or by expanding operations of an existing business in that country. Foreign direct investment has many forms. Broadly, foreign direct investment includes "mergers and acquisitions, building new facilities, reinvesting profits earned from overseas operations and intracompany loans." A 2011 analysis of the effects of foreign direct investment on local firms in developing and transition countries suggests that foreign investment robustly increases local productivity growth. The Commitment to Development Index ranks the "development-friendliness" of rich country investment policies. Business is booming in Africa thanks mostly to Chinese Direct Investment. Trade between the two surpassed $120 billion in 2010, and in the past two years China has given more loans to poor, mainly African countries than the World Bank. The Heritage Foundation, an American think-tank, estimates that between 2005 and 2010 about 14% of China's investment abroad found its way to sub-Saharan Africa. This has brought increased employment and prosperity to the region. Remittances Remittances are the transfer of money between immigrants working in developed countries back to their families in their homelands. Remittances from immigrants back to their home countries are vital, not only to the individual families, but to entire countries as well. Between 2006 and 2007, Latino-immigrants working in North America sent 36.3 billion $ back to Latin America. World Bank estimates in 2009, in nine countries remittances were equal to more than one fifth of the GDP. DiasporasDiasporas also work really well at industralizing the third world because it allows for networking connections between buisness men in the West to reach out to buisness men from struggling nations. This allows for the transfer of knowledge, technology and skills.Microfinance This is a form of financial services for micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses lacking access to banking and related services due to the high transaction costs associated with serving these client categories. The two main mechanisms for the delivery of financial services to such clients are: 1. relationship-based banking for individual entrepreneurs and small businesses; and 2. group-based models, where several entrepreneurs come together to apply for loans and other services as a group. As Marguerite Robinson describes in The Microfinance Revolution, the 1980s demonstrated that "microfinance could provide large-scale outreach profitably," and in the 1990s, "microfinance began to develop as an industry" (2001, p. 54). In the 2000s, the microfinance industry's objective is to satisfy the unmet demand on a much larger scale, and to play a role in reducing poverty. Much progress has been made in developing a viable, commercial microfinance sector in the last few decades.Thanks once again, and I ask the readers to vote Pro. I look forward to your reply, Con.