Discussion > What does "robust" mean?
Diogenes, I am aware of the shortcomings of aid - see my comment above, "Questioning how aid is delivered, ... is essential. Improving the effectiveness of our aid should be our preoccupation."
Chandra
One way to improve the delivery of aid would be to defund the vast swarm of NGO's that do not delivery much other than jobs for lobbyists and publicity flaks and see that money go to the groups that actually deliver aid.
hunter
Chandra
> "taking money from poor people in rich countries
> and giving it to rich people in poor countries"
Just a little thought might tell you that is untrue. How much money do poor people pay net into the tax system - that is after accounting for what they receive back in services such as education, health, police and welfare? I think you'll find it is close to zero.
Govt tax hits poor people in many ways, even though they may pay no income tax. (They still pay VAT)
There are unemployed people who are unemployed because people who would like to employ them have no money left over themselves after paying their income tax, VAT and other taxes. Two of my neighbours say that is their situation precisely.
You are comparing a four year Marshall Plan aimed at reviving a war torn but still rich, educated European society with fourty years aid aimed at countries that were and are completely different socially and economically.
No I was not. I made no such comparison. I asked for examples of foreigh aid successes and I said (I think) "apart from the Marshall Plan" (which had good reasons for its success, although I think that the wealth of Germany and France in 1945 were not amongst those reasons). I'd still be interested in some examples.
I have no idea how they'd compare, but I'd be interested in how the wealth and education of 1945 France compared with 2014 India.
Later....
Martin A
Martin, poor people do indeed pay VAT and other taxes in proportion to what they spend, which as they are poor is not very much. Everyone else also pay these taxes and as they are not poor that amounts to much more. Hence I do not believe that the poor are major net positive contributors to the tax system and hence to foreign aid.
> Two of my neighbours say that is their
> situation precisely.
Oh really? How do your neighbours "know" that there is a job with their name on it if only taxes were lower. Did a friendly employer perhaps say, "Of course I'd give you a job if my taxes were lower, but... hey what can I do? C'est la vie!"
> No I was not. I made no such comparison.
Was your Cato quote just some random text thrown in for entertainment then?
The record of Western aid to Africa is one of abysmal failure. More than $500 billion in foreign aid – the equivalent of four Marshall Aid Plans – ....
> [The Marshall Plan] had good reasons for its
> success, although I think that the wealth of
> Germany and France in 1945 were not amongst
> those reasons
Was wealth not amongst the reasons or was it taken for granted? Wealth is a broader concept than money alone. You may not think that having a sewer running under the ground beneath houses represents wealth, but few people would claim that providing sewers where none exist costs nothing. The same can be said for streets and pavements and electrical wiring and remaining buildings and bridges, irrigation, reservoirs, dams, railways and locomotives; and that doesn't start to take into account the wealth of human knowledge and experience, literacy, industrial background and history, etc, etc! Come on, think about it! Can anyone seriously expect that aid given or loaned to a continent coming out of war that had built a thriving industrial society and that still has the knowledge, the drive and the desire to rebuild should have the same results when given to parts of the world where few of these things are true?
> I'd still be interested in some examples.
As I said above, I have no idea what you would consider a success and how you would want to measure it. Would you hold aid to the same standards as trade? Would it be reasonable to do so when their aims are so different? Was the resource development I illustrated above a "success" by your measures? It would probably have made a profit for the multinational involved and played its part in providing the living standards you and I enjoy. Is that a good measure of success? I'm sure it would count as a success in an economic study of the sort the Cato Institue would produce.
Chandra
Chandra - If you want to understand what I say, take your initial interpretation and then invert it. Generally you'll then be closer to understanding what I meant. This seems to be repeating pattern.
Two of my neighbours say that is their situation precisely.
Oh really? How do your neighbours "know" that there is a job with their name on it if only taxes were lower. Did a friendly employer perhaps say, "Of course I'd give you a job if my taxes were lower, but... hey what can I do? C'est la vie!"
That's the opposite of what I meant.
I said "There are unemployed people who are unemployed because people who would like to employ them have no money left over themselves after paying their income tax, VAT and other taxes. Two of my neighbours say that is their situation precisely".
This means that two of my neighbours have told me they have projects they'd like to proceed with that would give employment to local unemployed people but the need to put money by to pay their tax bills rules it out.
Martin A
Yes Martin, and by complaining about my interpretation of what you wrote (which was ambiguous) you avoid addressing the substantive points. But its ok, you still can:
Do you really think the poor pay a substantial portion of any foreign aid?
Is there any reason to think that aid to post war Europe and aid to the 3rd World should show comparable results?
Was the resource development I illustrated above a "success" by your measures?
Do you think aid in the form of World Bank grants that pay for coal fired power stations is "harmful to everybody, especially the recipient countries"?
Chandra
...and you could also explain why foreign aid spending at one or two percent of total tax take is responsible for your neighbours' problems affording a cleaner (or whatever).
Chandra
A quote from climatechange.gov.au
I think they missed the word 'no' ..as I have not seen scientific proof of extreme weather changing and you can bet if they had proof they'd be shouting
"There is robust evidence that multiple components of the Earth’s climate system are changing, including rising global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, rising global average sea level, and changes in many extreme events"
How cheap are words without evidence ?
stewgreen
I'm only about half-way through this thread, but I can contain myself no longer. EM claims repeatedly that 'the science is settled' is a sceptic myth. I personally heard Mark Walport use this phrase (at the Parliamentary Science and Technology lunch last year - 5 November). It was about the first sentence he said. He was not being ironic, or using the phrase with a special meaning. This is his advice to Government. It is the official orthodoxy.
osseo
"What does 'robust' mean?"
I don't know if this will help, but my mate Matt shed a bit of light on the word "robust" yesterday.
He was warning us of the dangers of air-mattresses. Matt's only a small lad, and he said he once went camping with a young lady who he described as being "rather robust". They went into the tent for a bit of hanky-panky. He sat down on the air-mattress. Then she sat down...