medical card uproar, a smoke screen over foreign aid?

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah I know - it was €500 last year...

No it wasn't.

The downward trend has continued and, last year, the Government allocated €629 million to the aid programme. This year, the corresponding donation was €622 million but, for 2014, that number will drop again to €602 million.

http://www.thejournal.ie/worlds-poor-irish-aid-budget-1132265-Oct2013/

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

No it wasn't.



http://www.thejournal.ie/worlds-poor-irish-aid-budget-1132265-Oct2013/

Yes it was

The 2013 budget presented by Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan allocates €498 million for official development assistance. This is 2.5 percent less than the country’s total ODA in 2012, which was worth €511 million.
https://www.devex.com/en/news/a-smaller-irish-aid-budget-for-2013/79904?source=ArticleHomepage_Center_2

I can find a lot more articles which will prove my point - note that all the articles will be entitled "Ireland fails commitments" or "Irish aid cuts"

*irony*

Although tbh even €500 million would be around €400 million too much

oscarBravo

strandsman wrote: »

maybe you should look at it like this, A person running a charity is on 100k or 200k plus a year, managers on 50-100K, So If I or the taxpayer donates 1000 euro to a charity who gets the money first? Does the salary get paid first or the person/area in need? Think about it.

So your point is that people working for charities shouldn't get paid. That's... charitable of you.

It's an industry the same as any other...

Run for the profit of its shareholders?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your point is that people working for charities shouldn't get paid. That's... charitable of you. Run for the profit of its shareholders?

Maybe charities should lose the dispensations exclusive to charities, and then talking about the wages being in line with other companies would be more... equitable

djpbarry

strandsman wrote: »

Do the employees of these foreign aid organisation forego a weekly wage to ensure much needed funds arrive at a particular destination? I doubt it.

Do doctors and nurses forego wages to ensure much needed treatments are obtained by patients? I doubt it, so Ireland should probably slash its health budget.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

Although tbh even €500 million would be around €400 million too much

Based on?

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on?

There is an argument to say that it should be nothing. Nada. Zip.

I wouldn't go quite that far insofar that I think a compromise could be achieved immediately such that skeleton projects could be maintained until such a time as we are no longer in massive debt and can take stock of the situation. We if dropped absolutely all foreign aid it could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

eyescreamcone

Mid 1980s
Population of Ethiopia was 30 million
"They need aid , send money NOW, send all you can"

2013
Population of Ethiopia is 90 MILLION
Send all you can etc."

Wake up people - we are being taken for a ride.
Our aid policy/industry is failing.

I would vote to pull the plug on all foreign aid tomorrow.
Look after our own first and always.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is an argument to say that it should be nothing. Nada. Zip.

I wouldn't go quite that far insofar that I think a compromise could be achieved immediately such that skeleton projects could be maintained until such a time as we are no longer in massive debt and can take stock of the situation. We if dropped absolutely all foreign aid it could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So in other words, €100 million is an entirely arbitrary figure?

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Mid 1980s
Population of Ethiopia was 30 million
"They need aid , send money NOW, send all you can"

2013
Population of Ethiopia is 90 MILLION
Send all you can etc."

Wake up people - we are being taken for a ride.
Our aid policy/industry is failing.

Is it? Have you seen how fast Ethiopia’s economy has been growing over the last 10-15 years?

oscarBravo

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Look after our own first and always.

...because Irish people are inherently more worthy than Ethiopians. Is it 'cos we're white?

eyescreamcone

oscarBravo wrote: »

...because Irish people are inherently more worthy than Ethiopians. Is it 'cos we're white?

What bullsh1t are you spouting?

We should look after our own and they should look after their own.
Colour is irrelevant.

If sometime in the future we become flush then we can send a few shillings to the 3rd world.

In the meantime we shouldn't be giving them a sausage while we have people in need in this country.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes it was

The 2013 budget presented by Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan allocates €498 million for official development assistance. This is 2.5 percent less than the country’s total ODA in 2012, which was worth €511 million.
https://www.devex.com/en/news/a-smaller-irish-aid-budget-for-2013/79904?source=ArticleHomepage_Center_2

I can find a lot more articles which will prove my point - note that all the articles will be entitled "Ireland fails commitments" or "Irish aid cuts"

No it wasn't. The ODA budget isn't the entire state overseas aid fund. You're comparing last year's ODA total with this year's complete budget. The reality is a cut from a total €629 million last year, to €622 million this year, and next year: €602 million. Quite a different story to a €100 million increase.

The goverment says the reduction will amount to a €14.4 million saving for the Department of Foreign Affairs because of the reduction in the €482.6 million managed through Vote 27 – International Co-operation by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The remaining €120 million is managed through other departments and Ireland’s share of the EU development co-operation budget.

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If sometime in the future we become flush...

Relative to most of the world, Ireland is extremely flush.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

In the meantime we shouldn't be giving them a sausage while we have people in need in this country.

There will always be people in need in Ireland. Always. Regardless of the prevailing economic climate. So you're essentially saying that Ireland should never give foreign aid.

goose2005

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Mid 1980s
Population of Ethiopia was 30 million
"They need aid , send money NOW, send all you can"

2013
Population of Ethiopia is 90 MILLION
Send all you can etc."

Wake up people - we are being taken for a ride.
Our aid policy/industry is failing.

The cause of the 1980s famine wasn't overpopulation, it was the disastrous Stalinist policies of the Derg. A stable and well-run Ethiopia could easily have fed 30 million in the 1980s. However, it is probably true that Ethiopia's population now has grown beyond what it's land can feed (probably 50 million with modern technology), but then again our resource consumption and land use isn't sustainable either in the long term.

I would vote to pull the plug on all foreign aid tomorrow. Look after our own first and always

Are they not also our own?

eyescreamcone

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to most of the world, Ireland is extremely flush.

Why not give them more so?

Why aren't you crying out for Ireland to double the foreign aid?
No, treble it?

Let's halve the dole here and send it all to Africa.

oscarBravo

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What bullsh1t are you spouting?

I'm wondering why you believe Irish people are inherently more deserving than Ethiopian people.

We should look after our own and they should look after their own.

Why should I look after anyone but myself? I should look after myself, and other Irish people can look after themselves.

eyescreamcone

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm wondering why you believe Irish people are inherently more deserving than Ethiopian people.

Why should I look after anyone but myself? I should look after myself, and other Irish people can look after themselves.

I get it now.
We are all brothers on this planet and we should share everything equally.
Let's all have a big hug.
Give me a break.

My taxes have gone up and my wages have gone south.
I would prefer to have my taxes benefit me and mine...our schools hospitals and services need modernising and upgrading.

I do not see any benefit for Irish people in sending such a large sum to the 3rd world.

alastair

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I get it now.
We are all brothers on this planet and we should share everything equally.
Let's all have a big hug.
Give me a break.

My taxes have gone up and my wages have gone south.
I would prefer to have my taxes benefit me and mine...our schools hospitals and services need modernising and upgrading.

I do not see any benefit for Irish people in sending such a large sum to the 3rd world.

If you've difficulty with recognising the distinction between those at risk of death, and those at risk of reduced quality of first world health service provision, then I'd suggest your perspective is slightly askew. It's worth pointing out also that German taxpayers have been subsiding your state-run services for a few years now - perhaps you'd have a problem if they refused to let their hard-earned taxes go abroad as well?

eyescreamcone

alastair wrote: »

If you've difficulty with recognising the distinction between those at risk of death, and those at risk of reduced quality of first world health service provision, then I'd suggest your perspective is slightly askew. It's worth pointing out also that German taxpayers have been subsiding your state-run services for a few years now - perhaps you'd have a problem if they refused to let their hard-earned taxes go abroad as well?

Why don't we just give them everything so? - Because there will always be another mouth to feed (stats show they have no problem procreating).

When my children grow up will the population of Ethiopia be 200 million???


The Germans?
Aren't we paying back that money over time?
I'm not sure if the Africans ever gave us a cent back.

alastair

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why don't we just give them everything so?- Because there will always be another mouth to feed

Because we can't afford to. We can however afford to give something less than everything. Do you refuse to eat lunch because you know you'll only be hungry again tomorrow? - because that's effectively the logic of your argument here.

We'll hopefully pay back the German taxpayers - but that's 19 years of a chunk of their taxes benefitting us rather than them.

oscarBravo

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I get it now.
We are all brothers on this planet and we should share everything equally.
Let's all have a big hug.
Give me a break.

You seem upset when I point out that you're claiming that Ethiopians are inherently less deserving than Irish people, but you keep claiming it.

My taxes have gone up and my wages have gone south.
I would prefer to have my taxes benefit me and mine...our schools hospitals and services need modernising and upgrading.

I have no use for schools, and I have private health insurance. Why should I pay for your healthcare and your kids' education?

I do not see any benefit for Irish people in sending such a large sum to the 3rd world.

The money is for the benefit of the recipients, not the donors. That's sort of the point.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem upset when I point out that you're claiming that Ethiopians are inherently less deserving than Irish people, but you keep claiming it. I have no use for schools, and I have private health insurance. Why should I pay for your healthcare and your kids' education? The money is for the benefit of the recipients, not the donors. That's sort of the point.

Leaving aside the fact that aid funding gets lost in the handling as a necessity of its transfer, tends to end up in the hands of the local governments (for better or worse), also is not exclusive to countries that are poor (but may have poor inhabitants), and may have no lasting benefit in terms of the country's infrastructure where it is received....

taxes are collected by the state for the state. It's the reason for taxation. Okay, sure, some functions of the state may not be within the state (armed forces, dignitaries, etc). However, that is an entirely different concept from money simply being funnelled to foreign countries.

As a caveat, we also have a specific non-direct taxation that is partially levied by the EU (namely VAT) in order to finance the EU.

So even if this foreign aid was specifically (and solely) paying the wages of Irish Aid workers working in foreign countries, that would be a very different kettle of fish from the current situation.

There is also an interesting moral question about whether bald charity is ultimately beneficial. No-strings-attached money has typically had poor results in terms of its psychological impact on those receiving such "charity".

Victor

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes it was

The 2013 budget presented by Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan allocates €498 million for official development assistance. This is 2.5 percent less than the country’s total ODA in 2012, which was worth €511 million.
https://www.devex.com/en/news/a-smaller-irish-aid-budget-for-2013/79904?source=ArticleHomepage_Center_2

I can find a lot more articles which will prove my point - note that all the articles will be entitled "Ireland fails commitments" or "Irish aid cuts"

*irony*

Although tbh even €500 million would be around €400 million too much

I imagine the difference is the €100 million or so that goes via the EU.

ninty9er

I read the title and thought you meant smokescreen on what a disgrace it is that ODA is now seriously backwards on where it was as a PERCENTAGE of our national income a few years back.

Take your poor mouth elsewhere please, this is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, IMF or no IMF.

alastair

Victor wrote: »

I imagine the difference is the €100 million or so that goes via the EU.

What does it matter if it does? It's part of our aid package to the developing world. The point is we've cut back our overall commitment, not increased it as you claimed.

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why not give them more so?

Why aren't you crying out for Ireland to double the foreign aid?
No, treble it?

Ok. Sounds good.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I get it now.
We are all brothers on this planet and we should share everything equally.
Let's all have a big hug.
Give me a break.

Would it make you feel better if Ireland issued everyone in Ethiopia with an Irish passport?

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The Germans?
Aren't we paying back that money over time?

At a rather charitable rate of interest.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that aid funding gets lost in the handling as a necessity of its transfer, tends to end up in the hands of the local governments (for better or worse), also is not exclusive to countries that are poor (but may have poor inhabitants), and may have no lasting benefit in terms of the country's infrastructure where it is received....

Only about a quarter of overseas aid is distributed to governments - the majority goes to NGO's and local projects already in existence. If you've a concern that money is lost in transfer, I'd love to see the evidence, and surely this would be no different for any other mechanism for distributing aid.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Taxes are collected by the state for the state. It's the reason for taxation. Okay, sure, some functions of the state may not be within the state (armed forces, dignitaries, etc). However, that is an entirely different concept from money simply being funnelled to foreign countries.

Taxes are collected for the provision of services. One agreed set of services provided, is aid to the developing world. No political party has campaigned on the basis of stopping state aid to developing countries in crisis, because citizens overwhelmingly see it as a beneficial service.

RandomName2 wrote: »

As a caveat, we also have a specific non-direct taxation that is partially levied by the EU (namely VAT) in order to finance the EU.

The EU doesn't levy any taxes within constituent states. EU states have agreed VAT rates in certain areas as part of a common market agreement. Different thing altogether.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So even if this foreign aid was specifically (and solely) paying the wages of Irish Aid workers working in foreign countries, that would be a very different kettle of fish from the current situation.

The aid isn't to support Irish workers. It's never been devised or presented as such.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is also an interesting moral question about whether bald charity is ultimately beneficial. No-strings-attached money has typically had poor results in terms of its psychological impact on those receiving such "charity".

That's a different argument, and one that clearly doesn't convince the vaste majority of Irish people, who continue to engage with charitable organisations and mechanisms on an individual level.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

Only about a quarter of overseas aid is distributed to governments - the majority goes to NGO's and local projects already in existence.

Our government only gives €155 million to other governments? For shame.

alastair wrote: »

If you've a concern that money is lost in transfer, I'd love to see the evidence, and surely this would be no different for any other mechanism for distributing aid.

No particular concern - there's no way to really avoid it.

alastair wrote: »

Taxes are collected for the provision of services. One agreed set of services provided, is aid to the developing world. No political party has campaigned on the basis of stopping state aid to developing countries in crisis, because citizens overwhelmingly see it as a beneficial service.

Taxes are collected for services? That's a slightly over-specified abstraction of why taxation exists - but even if one goes along with this interpretation - it would be eccentric in the extreme to consider overseas charity to be a service.

Don't know where you are getting your figures for such support from - but the converse is true as well: no Irish political party has campaigned for the provision or supplementation of foreign aid. The only people who make noises on the issue, at all, are powerful NGOs which have a stake in foreign aid, who consistently complain that not enough money is being allocated towards it.

alastair wrote: »

The aid isn't to support Irish workers. It's never been devised or presented as such.

Absolutely

alastair wrote: »

That's a different argument, and one that clearly doesn't convince the vaste majority of Irish people, who continue to engage with charitable organisations and mechanisms on an individual level.

Truthfully it is a different argument, but probably one that should be aired - not that such aid is discussed in general, at all. Equally, voluntary donations to charities is entirely different from our government giving our taxes away.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Our government only gives €155 million to other governments? For shame.

Quite a different story to the one you were telling all the same.

RandomName2 wrote: »

No particular concern - there's no way to really avoid it.

Hardly worth raising as an issue then, is it?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Taxes are collected for services? That's a slightly over-specified abstraction of why taxation exists - but even if one goes along with this interpretation - it would be eccentric in the extreme to consider overseas charity to be a service.

Why?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Don't know where you are getting your figures for such support from - but the converse is true as well: no Irish political party has campaigned for the provision or supplementation of foreign aid. The only people who make noises on the issue, at all, are powerful NGOs which have a stake in foreign aid, who consistently complain that not enough money is being allocated towards it.

No party has campaigned on provision of clean water either. It's pretty much a given that the voters expect it. As to the obvious popular support for continuing overseas aid:

Public Responses on Ireland Investing in Overseas Aid
Ipsos MRBI: Public support for overseas aid remains high
July 2013
The Government should deliver on its aid promises to the world’s poorest people, according to a recent opinion poll, commissioned by Dóchas from Ipsos MRBI.
The survey, undertaken during the month of June, found that a total of 73 percent out of 1,000 respondents agreed that it was important for Ireland’s international reputation that the Government delivers on its promise of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid. Nearly three in four people in Ireland agree that the Government must keep this promise.
The same poll was conducted by Ipsos MRBI in 2010, 2011, 2012. While support for overseas aid remains high, this year’s poll shows a slight decline in support for development cooperation.
The survey found that:
1. The vast majority of Irish people remain committed to overseas aid in spite of our current circumstances. Despite a slight decline, there is still strong agreement that Ireland has an obligation to invest in overseas aid.
 77% of respondents agree that even in a downturn we had an obligation to invest in overseas aid.
 73%, agree that it is important for Ireland’s reputation to keep the promise that 0.7 % of national income should be given for Overseas Aid.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Truthfully it is a different argument, but probably one that should be aired - not that such aid is discussed in general, at all. Equally, voluntary donations to charities is entirely different from our government giving our taxes away.

They're no different if your argument is that all charity is morally wrong. A view that's not shared by many of your fellow citizens.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

They're no different if your argument is that all charity is morally wrong. A view that's not shared by many of your fellow citizens.

My argument's not that all charity is morally wrong - it's that it is debatable whether the type of charity promulgated through foreign aid ultimately does more harm than good.

On a different point I think it is wrong for the government to decide which charities and governments it should donate to in our name. As yet another issue I think it is wrong that this should be still seen as a priority during a period of state debt.

The only argument that foreign aid is a service, in that it benefits Irish citizens, is that it improves our image. Improving our image in relation to foreign governments in the first world is something, I suppose, but the single most negative PR disaster for Ireland in recent times was a lack of fiscal rectitude...

In terms of "gratitude" - ugh - from recipients; I would like to point out that the main providers of aid to Ireland in recent times have been Germany and the UK - neither of which are seen in a very favourable light. America, on the other hand, other than a tiny donation from the Marshall Plan, has really never provided any aid to Ireland - yet tends to be seen particularly favourably by Irish people.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

My argument's not that all charity is morally wrong - it's that it is debatable whether the type of charity promulgated through foreign aid ultimately does more harm than good.

What you said was:

There is also an interesting moral question about whether bald charity is ultimately beneficial. No-strings-attached money has typically had poor results in terms of its psychological impact on those receiving such "charity".

Now, I'm not sure what 'bald' charity is, but, if it's 'no-strings-attached', as in no return from the eventual recipient is expected, then that sounds like bog-standard charity - applicable across all sectors. What's the distinction you see with regard to foreign aid?


Foreign aid is a service. It's not intended to improve our optics or garner gratitude - it's supposed to help people in peril and offer humanitarian assistance. That's the point.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

The only argument that foreign aid is a service, in that it benefits Irish citizens, is that it improves our image.

The only argument? You don’t think that improving the state of affairs in the developing world could benefit the developed world in the long term?

eyescreamcone

I don't think that our state should send money to the 3rd world, especially given our own current circumstances.

But private citizens who would like to contribute their money - feel free to flush your money down a bottomless pit.

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

...especially given our own current circumstances.

Which are pretty damn good?

eyescreamcone

djpbarry wrote: »

Which are pretty damn good?

...in your opinion?

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

...in your opinion?

No, by any objective measure.

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

The only argument? You don’t think that improving the state of affairs in the developing world could benefit the developed world in the long term?

Provided it does ultimately improve the developing world; we have a half century of aid giving to date, with mixed results. Either way, that's outside the specification of a "service". Here: a service could be the EU funding structured development in the Ukraine in exchange for a trade deal. That would work - not that the Ukraine is the developing world (but that doesn't stop Irish aid from currently going there!) - but some wishy washy idea that the developed world (as a whole) will benefit from the developing world (as a whole) receiving aid is not something that one would bank on.

Bank on... indeed, the debt the developing world owes the developed world was predominantly written off in the last decade. An understandable enough move, as those 100+ countries were unlikely to ever pay back such debt - but it somewhat underlines the point that such economic endowment did not pay off, as it were.

Sure the developing world... developing... would aid the developed world. Rising tide and all that. But I mean, what has Ireland had to show for the last 7 billion euro "invested" abroad? Hmm?

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

But I mean, what has Ireland had to show for the last 7 billion euro "invested" abroad? Hmm?

There's a lot less people dead, and a lot more provided with a means of accessing clean water, education, affordable credit, anti-retroviral drugs, etc than would otherwise be the case. But I guess because that's outside the state it doesn't count?

eyescreamcone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Provided it does ultimately improve the developing world; we have a half century of aid giving to date, with mixed results. Either way, that's outside the specification of a "service". Here: a service could be the EU funding structured development in the Ukraine in exchange for a trade deal. That would work - not that the Ukraine is the developing world (but that doesn't stop Irish aid from currently going there!) - but some wishy washy idea that the developed world (as a whole) will benefit from the developing world (as a whole) receiving aid is not something that one would bank on.

Bank on... indeed, the debt the developing world owes the developed world was predominantly written off in the last decade. An understandable enough move, as those 100+ countries were unlikely to ever pay back such debt - but it somewhat underlines the point that such economic endowment did not pay off, as it were.

Sure the developing world... developing... would aid the developed world. Rising tide and all that. But I mean, what has Ireland had to show for the last 7 billion euro "invested" abroad? Hmm?

"Look how good we are"-itis is rampant here methinks.

When really it's an exercise in "Look how stupid we are"

alastair

Well articulated synopsis for the merits of Irish Aid:

First and foremost, we give aid because it is right that we help those in greatest need. We are bound together by more than globalisation. We are bound together by a shared humanity. The fate of others is a matter of concern to us. From this shared humanity comes a responsibility to those in great need beyond the borders of our own state. For some, political and strategic motives may influence decisions on the allocation of development assistance. That is not the case for Ireland. For Ireland, the provision of assistance and our cooperation with developing countries is a reflection of our responsibility to others and of our vision of a fair global society.

oscarBravo

alastair wrote: »

Well articulated synopsis for the merits of Irish Aid:

First and foremost, we give aid because it is right that we help those in greatest need. We are bound together by more than globalisation. We are bound together by a shared humanity. The fate of others is a matter of concern to us. From this shared humanity comes a responsibility to those in great need beyond the borders of our own state. For some, political and strategic motives may influence decisions on the allocation of development assistance. That is not the case for Ireland. For Ireland, the provision of assistance and our cooperation with developing countries is a reflection of our responsibility to others and of our vision of a fair global society.

Apparently, to some, such sentiments are - and I quote - "stupid".

eyescreamcone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apparently, to some, such sentiments are - and I quote - "stupid".

In an ideal world we'd share everything and have a big hug. Is that it?

However, in the developing countries the population will have doubled while we blinked and the do-gooders will ask us "to share just a little more for the likkle babies".

Stupid is the correct word to use.

VeryOwl

eyescreamcone wrote: »

However, in the developing countries the population will have doubled while we blinked and the do-gooders will ask us "to share just a little more for the likkle babies".

You don't have a considered opinion on this in my view.

You haven't really addressed why it's more important that Irish people have schools repaired than children in the third world have access to clean water. One of my parents comes from Uganda, and I think she'd be insulted if she read the ill-informed rubbish you spout on here.

A lot of Irish people don't really have an appreciation for what true poverty and hardship is (and I'd probably include myself in that).

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

In an ideal world we'd share everything and have a big hug. Is that it?

I don't think it takes an "ideal" world for people to give a toss about preventable deaths.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

However, in the developing countries the population will have doubled while we blinked and the do-gooders will ask us "to share just a little more for the likkle babies".

The fertility rate in Sub-Saharan Africa has been dropping steadily since the early 80s. It currently stands at about 4.9, down from about 6.7 in 1980. If that trend continues (and it is a steady linear decrease of just under 0.09 per year), it should drop to about 2.4, the current global average, within 30 years.

It's probably also worth pointing out it's not that long since Ireland had a fertility rate up around 4 or 5.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

There's a lot less people dead, and a lot more provided with a means of accessing clean water, education, affordable credit, anti-retroviral drugs, etc than would otherwise be the case. But I guess because that's outside the state it doesn't count?

Not as a service, no.

Of the above effects that you ascribe to aid, the most significant by far would be education, at least in terms of a sustainable means to improve human life in the part of the world you are describing.

Although the concept of a "global society", from your quote, is an oxymoron.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

...the concept of a "global society", from your quote, is an oxymoron.

Why?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Because then you are just talking about humanity. In the same way that describing a "global country" loses its meaning when it has nothing to distinguish itself against.

flutered

ninty9er wrote: »

I read the title and thought you meant smokescreen on what a disgrace it is that ODA is now seriously backwards on where it was as a PERCENTAGE of our national income a few years back.

Take your poor mouth elsewhere please, this is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, IMF or no IMF.

it is wealthy for some, not for most, many people are dreading the winter, christmas, this weekend even, we supply aid to countrys which are involved in the space race, what about fighter jets, nuclear power even, never mind armys and naval services to make an irish milatry officer green with envy, this feeding the poor crack is gone beyond a joke, money we sent to nigeria was used to buy bikes for a police force, when i started school back in the 50s we were collecting used stamps, also foil from cigeratte packs, african/asian aaid is a many headed monster, fifedoms to some, what is the perceentage of aid which actually leaves this country, after ceo s etc are paid, what is the percentage which is routed to grease palms etc, then finaly the percentage which actually reach the intended target, i seem to remember you saying that you canvassed for a peter power, he lost his tds seat, then hey presto he then got a gig with unicef, now a question, how did he get the gig, what are his qualifications for the post, who pays his wages, is the job pensionable, he has both a tds and a ministers pension, does he trouser them or do as he askes us on tv give to the children, oh my poor mouth, i have on several layers of clothing, ending with a monkey cap, one light, no tv on no fire or heating on, because i will not be able to afford any until next fridaay, so hopefully the weather will remain mild, wealthy me arse, take your wealth and spread a little of it amounst the real poor in your city, preach to the real poor your own country and county men, but then there are no fancy jobs going with that gig, no tv appeal spaces, yeah ted.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Because then you are just talking about humanity. In the same way that describing a "global country" loses its meaning when it has nothing to distinguish itself against.

Hm, fair enough I suppose - but the implication is that this is a bad thing, and that humanity is better served by people building walls around various-sized fiefdoms with a view to denying those outside access to what is "theirs", and the belief inherent in such behaviour that the members of the fiefdom are intrinsically more deserving than those outside of it.

I'm not convinced that a humanity that's divided into competing "societies" or "countries" is a better thing than a humanity that views all its members as having equal worth.