House of Eratosthenes

Maybe not. Now is the time when this whole event starts to educate us about charity, how it works, and how it goes wrong. We Americans are very fortunate. Our standard of living is so high, that this is literally part of our everyday lives — we just seldom pay attention to it. That we are wealthy enough to have so much opportunity to destroy people by donating to them, and the fact that we have so much choice in ignoring this, are testaments to how good we really have it. Much is made of the responsibility that America has to the rest of the world. Perhaps among those responsibilities we have, is to educate ourselves on what really happens when we donate.

And I’m a big fan of paying attention to how you go about thinking about things. Toward that end, I’ve cited two articles: “Talk Show Hosts Are Losers [Especially Neal Boortz]” by one Stephen Lonewolf Makama, who appears to have discovered Mr. Boortz for the first time; and “Snapping fingers at African aid” by Washington Times columnist Suzanne Fields.

There are two things I’d like to point out about Mr. Makama’s column: One, he suffers from a certain scope creep. His column is supposed to be about talk show hosts being losers, which if that were so, it would not make for suitable material here because if I included it then, I’d be the one suffering scope creep. But if you read his column, his primary point is really that we should be supporting the Live 8 donations to Africa, come what may, and by uttering a peep of protest Neal Boortz has cemented his reputation as a penny-pinching tightass — therefore anybody else who does the same is just as bad.

The other thing I’d like to point out is that Makama appears to be kind of a numbers-driven guy; the “0.7% of GDP” targeted by the Live 8 folks is mentioned twice, while the cause-and-effect issue is never mentioned at all. This is probably important, because knowing what I do about what Neal Boortz writes, it’s nearly certain that Boortz made an issue out of cause & effect — not about “0.7%” — in whatever found its way to Makama.

Ms. Fields, on the other hand, has an interesting case to make about what happens to the money when it goes where it’s going. It would have been pretty neat to read what Mr. Makama’s response to this would be. Unfortunately, neither Makama, nor people of like mind, to the best of my knowledge have ever addressed this.

The entire argument boils down to this: The aid does more harm than good. Yes, but you can afford it.

The aid does more harm than good.

[Kenyan economist James] Shikwati describes what he sees as the disastrous result of aid to Africa. Not only do African leaders exploit it for their own purposes, stuffing their pocketbooks and adding to their power, but aid weakens local markets, destroys incentives and fosters corruption and complacency.

Yes, but you can afford it.

Americans working hard my foot! How about worked – hard-on-them funky-cotton -plantations? Mr. Boortz… ancestors of these same blacks you�re denigrating built up this country you�re so cosy in about – 0.7% GNP and all.

The aid does more harm than good.

[Shikwati] scoffs at the motives of the United Nations World Food Program, “which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of . . . being dedicated to the fight against hunger while . . . being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated.”

Yes, but you can afford it.

Look Mr. Boortz if you don’t want to give, its fine and good besides maybe your great- greats were stingy Dutch (or wherever) anyway, so we can understand your penny pinching , but good hard working Americas have a big heart at giving, so let em.

The aid does more harm than good.

Local merchants lose their livelihoods because no one in the low-wage world of Africa can compete with the donated products that find their way to the black market. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria’s textile industry; six years later, the figure had fallen to 57,000.

Yes, but you can afford it.

Mr. Boo…ortz goes on and on and on and on about why Americans shouldn�t give up 0.7% GNP U.S. to aid Africa – jeepers is the guy far right, far left or just plain far stingy?

I would hasten to add that with the issues about which we argue, most of the arguments are like this. The conservative says “the effects of what we’re doing here, aren’t quite as rosy as you might think” and the liberal counterargument, far from actually addressing this, instead goes into a replay of “How The Grinch Stole Christmas” pontificating about what must motivate anyone who isn’t quite so quick to pass the hat.

This is probably the one way we Americans have the greatest effect on the rest of the world (which we’re constantly reminded, mostly by those who want us to kick in the bucks, absolutely hates us). If a plausible argument can be made that we are perhaps doing more harm than good, doesn’t it make sense to have some more solid arguments on whether or not that is indeed the case?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The Funny Thing About CharityTuesday, July 19th, 2005

The Funny Thing About Charity
Tuesday, July 19th, 2005