medical card uproar, a smoke screen over foreign aid?

walshb

Let the vastly wealthy and powerful areas of India fund the poorer areas. Have India ever given any locations in Ireland a cent? Seriously, wtf has India's poor got to do with Ireland? How much overseas financial aid does India give us? And for that matter, add in many other countries! Maybe people need to look up the definition of reciprocation!

creedp

djpbarry wrote: »

Great big straw man – nobody has said any such thing.
They should if they don’t provide any evidence that aid is being siphoned off.
No, people questioning why India has a space programme might have a valid point. People questioning why poverty-stricken people in India require assistance do not.

While all of this tit-for-tat discussion on this issue is quite entertaining its none the less the case that other people's points are very often just as valid as ones own. Don't have to agree with them .. that's everyones perogative. Taking your view to its extreme we should maybe consider tackling poverty/deprivation in countries all over the world. Again, maybe that's a valid argument also - one for another day.

walshb

Yes, let's adopt all these poor countries and solve all their problems. When will the penny drop? Trillions in financial aid and still it goes on and on and on.

alastair

walshb wrote: »

Let the vastly wealthy and powerful areas of India fund the poorer areas. Have India ever given any locations in Ireland a cent? Seriously, wtf has India's poor got to do with Ireland? How much overseas financial aid does India give us? And for that matter, add in many other countries! Maybe people need to look up the definition of reciprocation!

India's foreign aid budget this year was $1.4 billion.

Indians were pretty charitable to us during the famine. We haven't had a whole lot of demand for aid from abroad (Marshall plan, EU funding, and German loans aside) for some time.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Let the vastly wealthy and powerful areas of India fund the poorer areas.

And if they don’t?

walshb wrote: »

Yes, let's adopt all these poor countries and solve all their problems. When will the penny drop? Trillions in financial aid and still it goes on and on and on.

Trillions spent on cancer research, but people are still dying from cancer. We should probably pack in cancer research, eh?

alastair

walshb wrote: »

Yes, let's adopt all these poor countries and solve all their problems. When will the penny drop? Trillions in financial aid and still it goes on and on and on.

Except where it doesn't, of course. Do you consider the far greater amount of expenditure on the Health service wasted because people continue to get sick? Is there no benefit to that service as a consequence?

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

But people in India are still dying from easily preventable causes. So, we can choose to try and do something about that, or we can ignore it because India has a space program.

India should learn how to take care of its own citizens. While the Indian government believes a space programme is more important than its people, and the population of India tacitly supports this stance, such suffering will perpetuate.

Granting unilateral aid as an attempt to cure such suffering will, first of all, not cure it, even in the short run, and will furthermore seem to reward government policies that ignore the need for welfare.

walshb

alastair wrote: »

India's foreign aid budget this year was $1.4 billion.

Indians were pretty charitable to us during the famine. We haven't had a whole lot of demand for aid from abroad (Marshall plan, EU funding, and German loans aside) for some time.

How much have they given us?

It's obscene to think that we are giving money to this massively powerful and resourceful country. Surely they themselves must be laughing? There's a freaking billion of them. Why is it that 4.5 million of us are trying to sort their problems out? It should them sorting ours.

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

And if they don’t?
eh?

That then says a lot about them as people. Why is it that you think that we should be the solver of the worlds problems? Throwing other peoples money around in the process. If I want to give India money I should be allowed to make that choice myself.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

India should learn how to take care of its own citizens. While the Indian government believes a space programme is more important than its people, and the population of India tacitly supports this stance, such suffering will perpetuate.

Granting unilateral aid as an attempt to cure such suffering will, first of all, not cure it, even in the short run, and will furthermore seem to reward government policies that ignore the need for welfare.

Ireland shouldn't have received any EU structural funding on that basis, and anyone here contributing to a domestic charitable organisation is just as guilty in pursuing this 'false cure' - after all it's rewarding a government that spends money on a space programme (ESA)?

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

Trillions spent on cancer research, but people are still dying from cancer. We should probably pack in cancer research, eh?

I don't really know what you are trying to compare.

Large pharmaceuticals, for instance, spend a huge amount on research into various diseases (such as cancer) and then market drugs that they produce, making very large sums in the process. Herceptin would be a good example.

Insofar that public spending goes towards research of this nature it would be intended to benefit the public, produce marketable resources, or both.

Moreover, an end goal of curing cancer is one which is realistically viable - there is no particular biological or physical need for cancer to exist (attempts to cure does not help perpetuate the problem).

Unless of course some of this cancer research money gets spent on military jets or something of that kind.

alastair

walshb wrote: »

How much have they given us?

So tell me - how much do you believe the Indian people should currently be sending us in aid?

walshb wrote: »

It's obscene to think that we are giving money to this massively powerful and resourceful country. Surely they themselves must be laughing? There's a freaking billion of them. Why is it that 4.5 million of us are trying to sort their problems out? It should them sorting ours.

I think you'll find they're doing their damndest to sort out their own problems.

walshb

alastair wrote: »

So tell me - how much do you believe the Indian people should currently be sending us in aid?
s.

As much as we need!

alastair

walshb wrote: »

That then says a lot about them as people. Why is it that you think that we should be the solver of the worlds problems? Throwing other peoples money around in the process. If I want to give India money I should be allowed to make that choice myself.

You are. You also participate in a representative democracy - where a government is mandated to act on behalf of it's citizens (not just you personally). It would appear that most people approve of the Irish Aid programme.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

Ireland shouldn't have received any EU structural funding on that basis, and anyone here contributing to a domestic charitable organisation is just as guilty in pursuing this 'false cure' - after all it's rewarding a government that spends money on a space programme (ESA)?

Well Ireland is supposed to pay back such funding - it was intended to start doing so around 2008 but the recession hit instead.

The EU structural funding never wholly funded anything - it was deemed morally and ethically necessary to have the host government contribute something to any project funded in this nature.

The EU as a whole benefits from any of its member states financially improving - particularly since the single currency.

Despite all this there are genuine reasons to say that the EU structural funding performed poorly. Ireland did not spend it particularly wisely, or well, and neither its prosperity, nor downturn, were in any real way predicated on it. The issue of a lack of accountability arises for this kind of spending.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

India should learn how to take care of its own citizens.

I’m not disagreeing with that. The question is, what do we do in the mean time?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Granting unilateral aid as an attempt to cure such suffering will, first of all, not cure it, even in the short run...

Why is that?

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

It's obscene to think that we are giving money to this massively powerful and resourceful country...

...in which about 1.5 million kids under the age of 5 die every year. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s probably a good idea to try and do something about that.

walshb wrote: »

Why is it that you think that we should be the solver of the worlds problems?

Why do I think people should help people? Gee, I don’t know. Maybe because, from a purely selfish perspective, I’d like to think others would help me if I’m ever in need?

How about you?

walshb wrote: »

Throwing other peoples money around in the process. If I want to give India money I should be allowed to make that choice myself.

Why stop there? Why not have everyone decide themselves how much they want to spend on the healthcare of others, for example?

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well Ireland is supposed to pay back such funding - it was intended to start doing so around 2008 but the recession hit instead.

The EU structural funding never wholly funded anything - it was deemed morally and ethically necessary to have the host government contribute something to any project funded in this nature.

The EU as a whole benefits from any of its member states financially improving - particularly since the single currency.

Despite all this there are genuine reasons to say that the EU structural funding performed poorly. Ireland did not spend it particularly wisely, or well, and neither its prosperity, nor downturn, were in any real way predicated on it. The issue of a lack of accountability arises for this kind of spending.

We weren't supposed to pay for any structural funded projects. We were supposed to become a net EU contributor, based on our GDP, but that's quite a different thing. That funding wasn't a loan - it was aid.

All the recipient Irish Aid states contribute to the welfare of their people. So - you reckon we should have said no to EU structural funds. Grand

What about those poor saps who give to domestic charities?

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not disagreeing with that. The question is, what do we do in the mean time?

How about nothing?

India can, and should, become a leading light in terms of development in the coming years - but its abysmal record in terms of treating its own needy and poor has been a perennial issue. This is somewhat a condition of culture (and particularly the Hindu concept that the family that one is born into is largely determined by your behaviour in a previous life).

But popular pressure within India can change this. There are plenty of soft revolutions to look to as examples (most of the Western world). But allowing the Indian state to relinquish this responsibility - yet reaping the value of its people - is barmy. The West takes responsibility with no authority - why? Because it wants to be good, or because it wants to maintain the paternal position in relation to 'less developed' nations?

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

Large pharmaceuticals, for instance, spend a huge amount on research into various diseases (such as cancer) and then market drugs that they produce, making very large sums in the process. Herceptin would be a good example.

It would be more accurate to say that pharma companies spend a huge amount on clinical trials of drugs that come out of (often publicly funded) basic research.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Moreover, an end goal of curing cancer is one which is realistically viable - there is no particular biological or physical need for cancer to exist (attempts to cure does not help perpetuate the problem).

You sure about that? You think cancer will ever be cured? Because I don’t. The amount of funding that cancer research receives is absolutely staggering relative to other conditions – in my opinion, a lot of that funding would be better spent elsewhere.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Unless of course some of this cancer research money gets spent on military jets or something of that kind.

Perhaps not military jets, but you can be absolutely certain that there are significant overheads.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

The West takes responsibility with no authority - why? Because it wants to be good, or because it wants to maintain the paternal position in relation to 'less developed' nations?

Or (possibly) because it has the wealth, and the means that isn't available to those developing countries, and there's a moral imperative to help.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

How about nothing?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But popular pressure within India can change this.

Suppose a popular movement within India requests financial aid from overseas in order to achieve it’s goals – absolutely out of the question that Ireland should come to their assistance?

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

We weren't supposed to pay for any structural funded projects. We were supposed to become a net EU contributor, based on our GDP, but that's quite a different thing. That funding wasn't a loan - it was aid.

Eh.. not that big a difference. We are obliged to become net contributors if and when our economy improves.

alastair wrote: »

All the recipient Irish Aid states contribute to the welfare of their people. So - you reckon we should have said no to EU structural funds. Grand

Well I don't entirely follow your logic, but sure if we were being offered money, no strings attached (which wasn't really the case), why not take it?

alastair wrote: »

What about those poor saps who give to domestic charities?

I don't entirely follow

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Eh.. not that big a difference. We are obliged to become net contributors if and when our economy improves.

It's a huge difference. It's the difference between aid and a loan. Those recipient states that Irish Aid goes to are equally expected to contribute foreign aid, once their economies can support them.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well I don't entirely follow your logic, but sure if we were being offered money, no strings attached (which wasn't really the case), why not take it?

Because you claim that it's a 'false cure' to our problems?

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't entirely follow

The logic of your position is that all charity is counter-productive, if the state engages in any expenditure that doesn't relate to those problems.

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose a popular movement within India requests financial aid from overseas in order to achieve it’s goals – absolutely out of the question that Ireland should come to their assistance?

Oh that's a somewhat different scenario.

Can be tricky. First off if the popular movement is antagonistic towards the established governmental structures (which is likely) you might piss off the Indian state through such interference. This mightn't matter if the popular movement is successful, of course.

The popular movement might also become radicalised and be worse than what was there before. Then the whole concept of outside aid becomes far more problematic. Syrian Civil War anyone?

On the other hand if everything looks hunky dorey there would be no real reason not to contribute. An India better for its people is a morally sound objective, and a more prosperous country should potentially be mutually beneficial.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

It's a huge difference. It's the difference between aid and a loan. Those recipient states that Irish Aid goes to are equally expected to contribute foreign aid, once their economies can support them.

Back to Ireland? No?

Also, didn't see any binding agreements stipulating that - perhaps because it has never been expected for it to happen. Of course, where we have vastly rich countries, like India or China, they aren't expected to contribute to foreign aid. Cuz.

alastair wrote: »

Because you claim that it's a 'false cure' to our problems?

Well it's unlikely to cure anything, but heck, free money. I mean the onus is on the giver to be more sensible, not the taker.

alastair wrote: »

The logic of your position is that all charity is counter-productive, if the state engages in any expenditure that doesn't relate to those problems.

It doesn't matter whether or not charity is counter-productive. If people wish to give to charities, that is their own business. Moreover, in relation to Ireland, the state is likely to engage in spending related to those areas anyway. It's not like we have any vastly wasteful spending (Office of the Taoiseach, Gaelteacht and Foreign aid aside).

Besides which, when this charity is domestic, it can be argued that it is in lieu of taxation. There can be grounds to question the legitimacy of such charity being conducted by private companies that are exempt from many costs that normal businesses are subject to - but that's a different discussion.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

Back to Ireland? No?

Why would you expect foreign aid to be sent to Ireland. Do you think our notional EU subvention (once our GDP allows for it) would go to the Germans?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Also, didn't see any binding agreements stipulating that - perhaps because it has never been expected for it to happen. Of course, where we have vastly rich countries, like India or China, they aren't expected to contribute to foreign aid. Cuz.

Both do contribute to foreign aid.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well it's unlikely to cure anything, but heck, free money. I mean the onus is on the giver to be more sensible, not the taker.

One rule for us, another for them?

RandomName2 wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether or not charity is counter-productive. If people wish to give to charities, that is their own business. Moreover, in relation to Ireland, the state is likely to engage in spending related to those areas anyway. It's not like we have any vastly wasteful spending (Office of the Taoiseach, Gaelteacht and Foreign aid aside).

Besides which, when this charity is domestic, it can be argued that it is in lieu of taxation. There can be grounds to question the legitimacy of such charity being conducted by private companies that are exempt from many costs that normal businesses are subject to - but that's a different discussion.

It's not though - the same underlying principles you claim apply just the same. If your argument is one of a 'false cure', it matters not whether the aid is private, personal, or state, nor whether it's applied domestically or overseas.

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

It would be more accurate to say that pharma companies spend a huge amount on clinical trials of drugs that come out of (often publicly funded) basic research.

But the profit incentive is still there.

djpbarry wrote: »

You sure about that? You think cancer will ever be cured? Because I don’t. The amount of funding that cancer research receives is absolutely staggering relative to other conditions – in my opinion, a lot of that funding would be better spent elsewhere.

That may well be the case. While some cancers have been largely reduced (cervical cancer for instance) - they are certainly niche. Cervical cancer could only really be targeted due to its being predominantly caused by a virus, which itself could be targeted.

But best part of a century combating cancers like oesophageal or pancreatic and we still have an over 98% mortality rate - it does make one question the use of such resources. If the limiting factor is not time, or money, but a particular level of tech that must be reached (i.e. nano-technology) then perhaps such funding such be stripped, or at least diverted to cracking this glass ceiling.

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

You are. You also participate in a representative democracy - where a government is mandated to act on behalf of it's citizens (not just you personally). It would appear that most people approve of the Irish Aid programme.

Do you mean that people must happily accept anything done by government, only because it democratically elected?
BTW, how many political parties had overseas aid in their manifestos during last elections (apart from SF populists, who promised to double aid)?

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

Why would you expect foreign aid to be sent to Ireland. Do you think our notional EU subvention (once our GDP allows for it) would go to the Germans?

I would expect Germany to indirectly benefit financially.

alastair wrote: »

Both do contribute to foreign aid.

Well that is just hilarious, if true.

alastair wrote: »

One rule for us, another for them?

No, I don't see anything wrong with any country accepting money that we give them - I just question the entire notion of giving it in the first place.

alastair wrote: »

It's not though - the same underlying principles you claim apply just the same. If your argument is one of a 'false cure', it matters not whether the aid is private, personal, or state, nor whether it's applied domestically or overseas.

Yes it does.

If someone says that if they spend money playing poker it will help in space exploration I won't hold them back. But when they attempt to dip their hands into my pocket to help fund such gambling then I do take exception.

While charity is likely to be a false cure insofar that it is unlikely to ever solve poverty - this is as true for domestic as it is for overseas charity. Yet, that is not its full import. Overseas aid is predominantly demanded in areas that have an absence of civic structure, within which such funding is mostly a Canute type endeavour. The same cannot be said of most aid which is spent internally - but if certain circumstances arise where it could be said, then such aid should not be spent, but the imposition of civic structures pursued instead.

alastair

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that people must happily accept anything done by government, only because it democratically elected?
BTW, how many political parties had overseas aid in their manifestos during last elections (apart from SF populists, who promised to double aid)?

You have to accept their mandate for sure.

You'll find only a small fraction of intended policy in any manifesto. They're not the only measure of popular state activities.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

I would expect Germany to indirectly benefit financially.

Just as we stand to benefit, long term, by supporting development abroad.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that is just hilarious, if true.

It is true. I fail to see what's so funny though.

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, I don't see anything wrong with any country accepting money that we give them - I just question the entire notion of giving it in the first place.

You think the principles you articulate should prevent us from giving, but not receiving? Seems kinda cynical.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes it does.

If someone says that if they spend money playing poker it will help in space exploration I won't hold them back. But when they attempt to dip their hands into my pocket to help fund such gambling then I do take exception.

While charity is likely to be a false cure insofar that it is unlikely to ever solve poverty - this is as true for domestic as it is for overseas charity. Yet, that is not its full import. Overseas aid is predominantly demanded in areas that have an absence of civic structure, within which such funding is mostly a Canute type endeavour. The same cannot be said of most aid which is spent internally - but if certain circumstances arise where it could be said, then such aid should not be spent, but the imposition of civic structures pursued instead.

The extent that the state has dipped into your pocket (not for a space programme mind, but for development projects for the poor of India) amounts to 73c per year. Again - none of your money went to a space programme, any more than your contributions to the SVP here went to the European Space Programme.

Aid into Africa has demonstrably not been a Canute exercise - the infrastructure (water, health, economic, transport, education) there has been radically changed, and improved by aid programmes - of the type Irish Aid contributes to.

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

You have to accept their mandate for sure.

So why people in democratic countries shouldn't go on streets if they disagree with democratically elected government?

alastair wrote: »

You'll find only a small fraction of intended policy in any manifesto.

Like Fine Gael who promised send unemployed abroad as overseas aid:D

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0215/finegaelmanifesto.pdf
12.4

alastair wrote: »

They're not the only measure of popular state activities.

Of course not, somebody has to take unpopular measures like protecting developers and bankers from hardship

alastair

Count Dooku wrote: »

So why people in democratic countries shouldn't go on streets if they disagree with democratically elected government?

Lobbying, protest, and disagreement are all part and parcel of the democratic process - but show me a street protest that claims the elected government of the day aren't there on a legitimate mandate.

Count Dooku wrote: »

Of course not, somebody has to take unpopular measures like protecting developers and bankers from hardship

What's that got to do with anything? Full marks for completely off-topic populist hot air, though.

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

Lobbying, protest, and disagreement are all part and parcel of the democratic process - but show me a street protest that claims the elected government of the day aren't there on a legitimate mandate.

Actually one of the purposes to protest is to remind that their mandate is not so legitimate as they think and fooling by pre-election promises might not work for full term

alastair wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? Full marks for completely off-topic populist hot air, though.

The difference is only that in case of overseas aid Irish poor pays to rich in poor countries and for developers everything happens in Ireland

Victor

creedp wrote: »

I suggested that people who complained about giving ODA to countries pursuing space programmes have a valid point.

But the money didn't go to India the country, it went to promoting civil society in India, i.e. making sure ordinary people can vote and get their rights. Diametrically opposite to what a ruling elite would want.

alastair

Count Dooku wrote: »

The difference is only that in case of overseas aid Irish poor pays to rich in poor countries and for developers everything happens in Ireland

Complete nonsense - on both fronts.

Fudge You

djpbarry wrote: »

the state made a commitment.

You’re suggesting the state to renege on its commitments?

We cannot afford foreign aid. Since November 2010, Ireland has got finanical assistance from the EU and IMF. Ireland also got loans from Britain, Sweden and Denmark.
By May 2013, Ireland had (so far) paid Britain €44m in interest, for the €3.2 billion loan.

Ireland cannot afford to give any aid to any country.

I dont know when these commitments were made... But in 2005, if I was told that Ireland would be bankrupt and need loans in 5 years, Id have laughed and said "sure we're bleedin' loaded".
We have to renege on these commitments.

I dislike the thought of a human in poverty, and suffering, but Ireland is paying back loans with interest and cannot afford to give foreign aid.
I think it has to stop.

alastair

Fudge You wrote: »

We cannot afford foreign aid. Since November 2010, Ireland has got finanical assistance from the EU and IMF. Ireland also got loans from Britain, Sweden and Denmark.
By May 2013, Ireland had (so far) paid Britain €44m in interest, for the €3.2 billion loan.

Ireland cannot afford to give any aid to any country.

Ireland was borrowing money long before this downturn. Nothing new there. The UK was paying back it's IMF bailout until recently too - it manages to continue it's foreign aid commitments. We can afford to give aid to other countries - as demonstrated by the status quo.

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

Ireland was borrowing money long before this downturn. Nothing new there. The UK was paying back it's IMF bailout until recently too - it manages to continue it's foreign aid commitments. We can afford to give aid to other countries - as demonstrated by the status quo.

You will have to explain it to unemployed and other vulnerable people, when their benefits will be cut

alastair

Count Dooku wrote: »

You will have to explain it to unemployed and other vulnerable people, when their benefits will be cut

People rather less vulnerable than those receiving the aid.

walshb

Reading some of the posts here some people won't be happy till we're on our knees here, flat broke. Then they may think about foreign aid. Any argument is met with the usual: "We're still better off than them. We need to keep giving."

alastair

walshb wrote: »

Reading some of the posts here some people won't be happy till we're on our knees here, flat broke. Then they may think about foreign aid. Any argument is met with the usual: "We're still better off than them. We need to keep giving."

Thing is - you're not on your knees, flat broke, so why pretend otherwise? In the scenario we are in, foreign aid remains a completely viable and responsible commitment.

Victor

So, would you like all these poor Indian people coming over to Ireland to work? thats teh alternative to development aid.

RandomName2 wrote: »

India should learn how to take care of its own citizens.

It should. But the caste system means it doesn't. and the size of the problem means it can't do it alone. Hence multi-lateral efforts to help the poor people.

walshb wrote: »

How much have they given us?

It's obscene to think that we are giving money to this massively powerful and resourceful country. Surely they themselves must be laughing? There's a freaking billion of them. Why is it that 4.5 million of us are trying to sort their problems out? It should them sorting ours.

That about a billion poor people and you want them to sort out the rich. thats a bit like some property developers demanding to be bailed out by the residents of Moyross and West Finglas.

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

Thing is - you're not on your knees, flat broke

Yet
So you want to see Ireland broke in order to preserve charity staff from hard work on fundraising

micosoft

Relatively thoughtful article on the BBC re Space Programme and Street Children.
Amazing what they have achieved with 50m

In any case, a key part of the Indian Space Programme is to do with space based satellite imagery for agriculture and weather. When you have One Billion people to feed, many small farmers constantly on the brink, small investments in the above are vitally important to prepare and plan.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

It is true. I fail to see what's so funny though.

You see no obscene insult to logic and morality that India and China should give money away to foreign nations for the sake of publicity while they have people starving in their own countries? I mean, the space programme and armed forces are bad enough - but at least they aren't solely for the sake of appearances. No country should both receive and give aid at the same time - it is the antithesis of any sane or ethical approach to... anything even vaguely connected with the subjects of international or national affairs.

alastair wrote: »

The extent that the state has dipped into your pocket (not for a space programme mind, but for development projects for the poor of India) amounts to 73c per year.

The Irish state sends €3 million to India, annually? Christ.

micosoft

RandomName2 wrote: »

You see no obscene insult to logic and morality that India and China should give money away to foreign nations for the sake of publicity while they have people starving in their own countries? I mean, the space programme and armed forces are bad enough - but at least they aren't solely for the sake of appearances. No country should both receive and give aid at the same time - it is the antithesis of any sane or ethical approach to... anything even vaguely connected with the subjects of international or national affairs.



The Irish state sends €3 million to India, annually? Christ.

What starving people in China? As far as I know we don't disperse any aid to China. They have disasters but have proven perfectly adept to resolving them with minimal outside help. Anyone, most of our development budget goes against "development" not disaster aid.

What your argument seems to boil down to is that unless we in Ireland are living in paradise (i.e. no poverty) AND the states we give aid to have perfect governments that only spend money on their poor and not a penny on the military or anything else you judge to be a non-essential, we don't give any aid to them. Have I got that right?

RandomName2

micosoft wrote: »

What starving people in China? As far as I know we don't disperse any aid to China. They have disasters but have proven perfectly adept to resolving them with minimal outside help. Anyone, most of our development budget goes against "development" not disaster aid.

What your argument seems to boil down to is that unless we in Ireland are living in paradise (i.e. no poverty) AND the states we give aid to have perfect governments that only spend money on their poor and not a penny on the military or anything else you judge to be a non-essential, we don't give any aid to them. Have I got that right?

There are demonstrably people living in extreme poverty in both India and China, and it has been shown that we send aid to India, at least.

The reason for our sending aid to these countries is due to this exact poverty - we also send aid to countries such as the Ukraine which doesn't have a large impoverished population - but the rationale for a vastly rich country like India, at least, is due to its poor inhabitants.

This money we send has been collected through public taxation that has been vested in the government to spend for the best interests of Irish people. The government of Ireland has thus deemed the needs of foreigners to outweigh those of its citizens in some instances - largely on the grounds that a single euro spent abroad will pay far greater dividends in terms of quality of life than a euro spent domestically. While this, in itself, raises significant moralistic dilemmas in terms of national governance, and resource allocation in a time of austerity, I'll just address the point that you make.

Not only is a country like India willing to sponge off Western countries while it neglects its own civic duties, it cares so little in its responsibility that it is apparently willing to mimic the West and send some of its income abroad in lieu of domestic expenditure. Not only has the West tacitly accepted responsibility for something which should be taken care of by the Indian government, the Indian government gets the kudos for its feckless spending. Not only that, but the burden of India's poor is far too great for outside interference to properly address. You say "look what €50 million managed to do". Why not €500 billion? Sorry, Mars probe and all.

It's hard to even address the logic of it - it's just so baffling. Sure, India is a strategic ally, but this has got past the point of being ridiculous.

Okay, look, I'll pretend we don't send money to India. It is a niche case, after all, and only a very small fraction of our foreign aid budget. I'm assuming we don't send foreign aid to the USA or Russia...

micosoft

I'll accept you find the logic is difficult but that's when you fill your post with inaccuracies and personal assumptions that are incorrect or personal opinion and have already been addressed in previous posts.

"Vested in the government to spend for the best interests of Irish people"
This is your interpretation which is not shared by the majority of the population or any of our political parties. It has already been shown that the public overwhelmingly support our spend on international development and all of our major parties support international development in the manifestos. Why do you persist stating that your personal opinion is fact? It would be fair of you to say "I believe the government spend should be for the best interests of the Irish People". Then again, even with that its arguable to say the best interests of the Irish People are served helping the poor. What you are actually trying to say I believe is "I believe Irish Tax Payers Money will only go to Irish People". Which is actually impossible given our membership of the EU.

India has a population of one billion. When you spread money across that number of people they are NOT a rich country. Their per capita income is $1219 or 142nd in the world. If you can't divide India's "massive" GDP over it's population you really are going to struggle with this topic.

I've already addressed why India would be interested in Space but let's look at it another way given your issue with proportionality. We give €7m per year to the European Space Agency. If you multiple our population and this spend proportionality to that of India we proportionality spend 1,750 MILLION on our space programme. So yes - investing in Science and research (a route out of poverty for India) makes sense. Especially when they are frugal about it. Read the article I already posted from today's BBC.

Just as an aside - feckless government? Look at the mess we got ourselves into. The only reason the lights are on and the ATM's in the bank machines still work is because of the intervention and support of the International Community through the IMF and the EU.

You see, in this life it cuts both ways. Turn our backs on the poor why should we get help when our time comes.

And something always useful for people like you talking about the feckless "poor" countries and their bad governments. If only they were wise and well governed like us! Have a good look at the old punch cartoons. A bit of humility is always a nice attribute.