Portrait of an American Hero

[RCSaunders]

I know plenty about it. My partner works in international aid.

That explains a lot. Is this, "aid," with his own money, or money confiscated from others?

Your copy&paste argument does not support your claim

So be it.

The disingenuousness on this site is sometimes breathtaking. If I had simply stated the facts about Nigeria, you would have demanded sources. If I supply sources at the beginning it's call, "cut and paste argument." If you've decided poverty and slavery are just wonderful things, then you have.

Here's another, "cut and paste," article on the horrors of so-called, "international aid"--not for you, but other readers who may be paying attention.

Sexual abuse 'endemic' in international aid sector, damning report finds, from which I quote:

Sexual abuse of vulnerable women and girls by international aid workers is "endemic" and has been happening for years ...

Abuses ranged from unwanted sexual comments to rape.

... organizations had often put "their reputation ahead of women, children and other victims of sexual exploitation and abuse."

The report recounted the sexual exploitation and abuse of girls between the ages of 13 and 18 by United Nations and aid agency staff in refugee camps in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone in 2001. One victim said that "an [aid] worker made me pregnant but now he left me and is loving to another young girl."

Victims suffered other problems including abortions and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. The devastating knock-on effects of abuse included a loss of education and skills training, reduced employment opportunities and social exclusion, the report said.

The entire so-called, "humanitarian aid," industry is huge corrupt fraud. See here and here.

[henry quirk]

sign of the times

[Sculptor]

I know plenty about it. My partner works in international aid.

That explains a lot. Is this, "aid," with his own money, or money confiscated from others?

Your copy&paste argument does not support your claim

So be it.

The disingenuousness on this site is sometimes breathtaking. If I had simply stated the facts about Nigeria, you would have demanded sources. If I supply sources at the beginning it's call, "cut and paste argument." If you've decided poverty and slavery are just wonderful things, then you have.

Here's another, "cut and paste," article on the horrors of so-called, "international aid"--not for you, but other readers who may be paying attention.

Sexual abuse 'endemic' in international aid sector, damning report finds, from which I quote:

Sexual abuse of vulnerable women and girls by international aid workers is "endemic" and has been happening for years ...

Abuses ranged from unwanted sexual comments to rape.

... organizations had often put "their reputation ahead of women, children and other victims of sexual exploitation and abuse."

The report recounted the sexual exploitation and abuse of girls between the ages of 13 and 18 by United Nations and aid agency staff in refugee camps in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone in 2001. One victim said that "an [aid] worker made me pregnant but now he left me and is loving to another young girl."

Victims suffered other problems including abortions and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. The devastating knock-on effects of abuse included a loss of education and skills training, reduced employment opportunities and social exclusion, the report said.

The entire so-called, "humanitarian aid," industry is huge corrupt fraud. See here and here.

Conspiracy theorist now?
Where's your tin hat?

[Gary Childress]

I know plenty about it. My partner works in international aid.

That explains a lot. Is this, "aid," with his own money, or money confiscated from others?

Your copy&paste argument does not support your claim

So be it.

The disingenuousness on this site is sometimes breathtaking. If I had simply stated the facts about Nigeria, you would have demanded sources. If I supply sources at the beginning it's call, "cut and paste argument." If you've decided poverty and slavery are just wonderful things, then you have.

Here's another, "cut and paste," article on the horrors of so-called, "international aid"--not for you, but other readers who may be paying attention.

Sexual abuse 'endemic' in international aid sector, damning report finds, from which I quote:

Sexual abuse of vulnerable women and girls by international aid workers is "endemic" and has been happening for years ...

Abuses ranged from unwanted sexual comments to rape.

... organizations had often put "their reputation ahead of women, children and other victims of sexual exploitation and abuse."

The report recounted the sexual exploitation and abuse of girls between the ages of 13 and 18 by United Nations and aid agency staff in refugee camps in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone in 2001. One victim said that "an [aid] worker made me pregnant but now he left me and is loving to another young girl."

Victims suffered other problems including abortions and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. The devastating knock-on effects of abuse included a loss of education and skills training, reduced employment opportunities and social exclusion, the report said.

The entire so-called, "humanitarian aid," industry is huge corrupt fraud. See here and here.

Conspiracy theorist now?
Where's your tin hat?

You say you like Marx. I wouldn't think Marx would approve of much of the foreign aid industry today. Marx thought charities were anti-revolutionary, just the capitalists handing out breadcrumbs to maintain some degree of people's faith in the status quo. Was Marx a "conspiracy theorist" too? Or what are your thoughts on Marx's critique of charity and how it might apply to foreign aid? I know people these days also talk about "empowerment", and charity isn't exactly "empowering" to the recipients of it.

[Sculptor]

That explains a lot. Is this, "aid," with his own money, or money confiscated from others?

So be it.

The disingenuousness on this site is sometimes breathtaking. If I had simply stated the facts about Nigeria, you would have demanded sources. If I supply sources at the beginning it's call, "cut and paste argument." If you've decided poverty and slavery are just wonderful things, then you have.

Here's another, "cut and paste," article on the horrors of so-called, "international aid"--not for you, but other readers who may be paying attention.

Sexual abuse 'endemic' in international aid sector, damning report finds, from which I quote:






The entire so-called, "humanitarian aid," industry is huge corrupt fraud. See here and here.

Conspiracy theorist now?
Where's your tin hat?

You say you like Marx. I wouldn't think Marx would approve of much of the foreign aid industry today. Marx thought charities were anti-revolutionary, just the capitalists handing out breadcrumbs to maintain some degree of people's faith in the status quo. Was Marx a "conspiracy theorist" too? Or what are your thoughts on Marx's critique of charity and how it might apply to foreign aid? I know people these days also talk about "empowerment", and charity isn't exactly "empowering" to the recipients of it.

You are getting desperate.

[Gary Childress]

Conspiracy theorist now?
Where's your tin hat?

You say you like Marx. I wouldn't think Marx would approve of much of the foreign aid industry today. Marx thought charities were anti-revolutionary, just the capitalists handing out breadcrumbs to maintain some degree of people's faith in the status quo. Was Marx a "conspiracy theorist" too? Or what are your thoughts on Marx's critique of charity and how it might apply to foreign aid? I know people these days also talk about "empowerment", and charity isn't exactly "empowering" to the recipients of it.

You are getting desperate.

I'll take that as disagreement with Marx. And I concur. Marx was an old fuddy-duddy and probably no fun to be around.

[Sculptor]

You say you like Marx. I wouldn't think Marx would approve of much of the foreign aid industry today. Marx thought charities were anti-revolutionary, just the capitalists handing out breadcrumbs to maintain some degree of people's faith in the status quo. Was Marx a "conspiracy theorist" too? Or what are your thoughts on Marx's critique of charity and how it might apply to foreign aid? I know people these days also talk about "empowerment", and charity isn't exactly "empowering" to the recipients of it.

You are getting desperate.

I'll take that as disagreement with Marx. And I concur. Marx was an old fuddy-duddy and probably no fun to be around.

On the contrary. Marx loved a good time.
You'd never understand him unless you can place yourself in his historical shoes. He was a Prussian Jew to become stateless and was active politically over 160 years ago at a time when children were working in coal mines. Much of his work was done from tolerant London, though he was plagued with spies from Europe watching his moves. It was quite a different world.

[Gary Childress]

You are getting desperate.

I'll take that as disagreement with Marx. And I concur. Marx was an old fuddy-duddy and probably no fun to be around.

On the contrary. Marx loved a good time.
You'd never understand him unless you can place yourself in his historical shoes. He was a Prussian Jew to become stateless and was active politically over 160 years ago at a time when children were working in coal mines. Much of his work was done from tolerant London, though he was plagued with spies from Europe watching his moves. It was quite a different world.

I guess it would depend on who he was with, as to whether they had a good time around him or not. He was certainly hell on the "capitalists". And he didn't seem too keen on the "lumpenproletariat" and "petite bourgeoisie" either. But I think his vision of a classless society was pie in the sky, unfortunately. There will always be differences in wealth and it will always translate into political power and influence. Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty. Therefore to fight for economic equality (perhaps Justice as well) seems like a Sisyphean task--like a punishment from a god.

[Immanuel Can]

Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty.

This is manifestly not true, Gary. Wealth can be, and often is, created, not transferred. A person can add to the stock of wealth available to himself or to others, simply by inventing or producing something new, something with more value that materials can otherwise have.

Consider something like Apple or Microsoft. There is some "wealth" latent in the raw products used to build such devices; but the majority of the wealth generated by them is generated by the peculiar arrangements of the raw products and their fusion with the knowledge that turns them from mere plastic and metals into a thing we call a "computer." And the computer is worth far more than the sum of its elements. So that's how a guy like Bill Gates got his money...not by stealing it from poor people, but from inventing a new way of assembling materials such that folks like you and me are happy to line up around the block to buy one of his devices. That's adding wealth to the general stock.

Another way of producing wealth is by labour. Grain has one level of value, and bread has another. If you're willing to build a brick oven and bake, you can make a product of lower value into one of higher value. That means that the additional value appears as a result of what you did, not of what you stole from others. Another is by knowledge: you don't pay your schoolteacher for baking bread, but for providing learning experience that will enable your child to succeed. He doesn't have to transfer anything in a zero-sum game to make that happen.

And think about this: in fact, if wealth were always merely transferred in a zero-sum game, where did any wealth come from in the first place? Somebody had to generate wealth in order for any of it to be mis-acquired by anyone else, if that's what happened.

So why do others have to be poor in order for me to become rich? They don't. It's not a zero-sum game at all. Wealth transfer from the poor would actually be a very inefficient way for me to get rich. And if I become rich, does that happen because I stole money and resources, or because I was personally resourceful, industrious, creative and skilled at providing what other people wanted to buy?

Marx had it all wrong. And Neo-Marxists today have it even more wrong than he had it.

[Immanuel Can]

The entire so-called, "humanitarian aid," industry is huge corrupt fraud.

Not true.

There are good and bad charities and aid organizations. And there is a whole range on that scale, between corrupt and very responsible. People just say the whole thing is corrupt when they want to not have to give anything to any of them. They use the corrupt ones to excuse their own unwillingness to do the research to know the difference.

But most aid organizations are forced by the government to declare their finances annually. So anybody who can read a report can get a very quick idea of which ones are spending too much money on admin or luxuries, and which are getting top dollar to the field. We should give only to the ones who are fiscally responsible.

[RCSaunders]

Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty.

What do you think wealth is? Is it something that just exists, "out there?" Is it all just a mad race to see who gets it first? If you think that, what do you think wealth is? Where did it come from?

No wealth exists in the world until someone produces it--mines it, pumps it, grows it, harvests it, packages it, manufactures it, ships it, sells it, etc. etc. etc. No matter what kind of wealth there is, food, clothing, buildings, boats, cars, trains, computers, medicine, entertainment, someone has to make and provide it. There is no fixed amount of wealth, and all wealth makes more wealth possible. So long as everyone produces, everyone gains from the wealth of others. If you produce a product or perform a service, you can only gain wealth from it, if others have wealth to purchase your product or service.

[Gary Childress]

Economics seems, by nature, like a zero-sum game to me. One person's wealth is, by definition, another person's poverty.

This is manifestly not true, Gary. Wealth can be, and often is, created, not transferred. A person can add to the stock of wealth available to himself or to others, simply by inventing or producing something new, something with more value that materials can otherwise have.

Consider something like Apple or Microsoft. There is some "wealth" latent in the raw products used to build such devices; but the majority of the wealth generated by them is generated by the peculiar arrangements of the raw products and their fusion with the knowledge that turns them from mere plastic and metals into a thing we call a "computer." And the computer is worth far more than the sum of its elements. So that's how a guy like Bill Gates got his money...not by stealing it from poor people, but from inventing a new way of assembling materials such that folks like you and me are happy to line up around the block to buy one of his devices. That's adding wealth to the general stock.

Another way of producing wealth is by labour. Grain has one level of value, and bread has another. If you're willing to build a brick oven and bake, you can make a product of lower value into one of higher value. That means that the additional value appears as a result of what you did, not of what you stole from others. Another is by knowledge: you don't pay your schoolteacher for baking bread, but for providing learning experience that will enable your child to succeed. He doesn't have to transfer anything in a zero-sum game to make that happen.

And think about this: in fact, if wealth were always merely transferred in a zero-sum game, where did any wealth come from in the first place? Somebody had to generate wealth in order for any of it to be mis-acquired by anyone else, if that's what happened.

So why do others have to be poor in order for me to become rich? They don't. It's not a zero-sum game at all. Wealth transfer from the poor would actually be a very inefficient way for me to get rich. And if I become rich, does that happen because I stole money and resources, or because I was personally resourceful, industrious, creative and skilled at providing what other people wanted to buy?

Marx had it all wrong. And Neo-Marxists today have it even more wrong than he had it.

I said nothing about "stealing" or how the wealth is attained. That is your assumption jumping into the mix.

I'm not talking about "wealth" in terms of being an alternative word for "goods and services". I'm talking about"wealth" in terms of what one person has compared to another who is "poor". The only other option I see is for everyone to be economically equal. I don't think there is ever going to be economic equality because people have different abilities, opportunities, and/or fortune. The only way to change that is either for the wealthier to willingly give to the poorer or else be forced to give to the poorer, OR if private property is abolished altogether or something.

[Impenitent]

abolish private property...

your body belongs to the group

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

abolish private property...

your body belongs to the group

-Imp

I guess the problem is solved, then. Impenitent thinks we should abolish private property.

[RCSaunders]

The entire so-called, "humanitarian aid," industry is huge corrupt fraud.

Not true.

There are good and bad charities and aid organizations.

Don't get your panties in a wad. I said nothing about the thousands of private charities and individuals who provide help to others. I'm not opposed to any voluntary charity helping others. I am opposed to the confiscation of any individual's wealth to fund aid to others and any agency that uses, "charity," as an excuse to do wrong.

The, "humanitarian aid" industry is not just any charity, it is comprised of a well define system of agencies including the United Nations, "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), "Inter-Agency Standing Committee, "United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)," "the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)," "the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)," "World Food Programme (WFP) as well as associated NGOs including, "Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)," "Oxfam International," "International Committee of the Red Cross," "International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)," "Action Against Hunger (AAH)," "International Medical Corps," and "Refugees International." These agencies are not only financially, politically, and criminally corrupt but are mostly marxist collectivist propaganda machines as well.

Even, "Doctors Without Borders," and "World Vision," have been involved in both political and other questionable activities. (Doctors Without Borders is especially disappointing because it is mostly doctors who provide their service voluntarily. The doctors I know personally who did that were very disappointed in their experience being thwarted politically from helping those that needed it and being forced to follow a socialist political agenda.)