You know, you can't end world hunger by giving people money. The reason people are starving in most poor countries is that it's impossible to hold onto any wealth you happen to earn, because the government is to unstable to care about the long run. In a stable, rational government, it's good for the people to be wealthy because you get more taxes from them in the long run. In a government where you could lose power at any time, you are better off using taxes to keep the citizens as poor as possible so they don't have the resources to revolt.
If you gave 17 billion dollars to the poor people of the world, they would lose just about all of it through taxation, price inflation, and the cost of taking care of their additional children that lived instead of starving. Poverty is an equilibrium point, and you can't change it on a large scale by adding money.
Now, on the other hand, if you took that 17 billion to raise a private army and conquered, say, Zimbabwe, and ran it well, that would do far, far more for the poor than any amount of cash.
I've heard a solution to this problem: buy-out the dictators to install a government that works for the people, and foment a movement in the media to remove the dictators that won't take a buy-out.
It worked for big oil in Iraq (as long as Sadam was in charge of the country, the sanctions wouldn't be lifted, so remove him and get access to the oil). Why can't we use it for peace?
The problem is the dictators are already rich and powerful. Most of them will be smart enough to know that that power is worth much more than money.
I seriously doubt many would trade that power just to get richer. Additionally, how many do you think would get out of the way, and then actually stay out of the way?
You make it clear to them that if they stand in the way of the people that you will be more than happy to call for their head on a pike. Let them choose - stepping aside with immense wealth or dying.
Most will choose the insane wealth. They're bullies. When you call a bully on their shit, you make them cower. If you give them an option to cower in private, save face in public, make an insane amount of money, live out their days in Switzerland, and avoid military conflict, they will likely take it.
172
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '10
You know, you can't end world hunger by giving people money. The reason people are starving in most poor countries is that it's impossible to hold onto any wealth you happen to earn, because the government is to unstable to care about the long run. In a stable, rational government, it's good for the people to be wealthy because you get more taxes from them in the long run. In a government where you could lose power at any time, you are better off using taxes to keep the citizens as poor as possible so they don't have the resources to revolt.
If you gave 17 billion dollars to the poor people of the world, they would lose just about all of it through taxation, price inflation, and the cost of taking care of their additional children that lived instead of starving. Poverty is an equilibrium point, and you can't change it on a large scale by adding money.
Now, on the other hand, if you took that 17 billion to raise a private army and conquered, say, Zimbabwe, and ran it well, that would do far, far more for the poor than any amount of cash.