Saturday, August 25, 2012
There's one concept seems a little contradictory to me. Many people are pissed off when an illegal immigrant works here and then sends money out of the country and back home; They are ready to start lynching when a millionaire invests overseas, with a factory or such.
But then they have absolutely no problem when billionaires like Gates and Buffett send billions of dollars overseas to provide direct services for Africans. In all three cases money is leaving the country. So is money that leaves for the reason of increasing the world population with direct food and services somehow more noble than providing jobs for people so that they can feed themselves and at the same time increase the world GDP?
Direct aid is money that is vaporized and never has a prospect of returning. It also does nothing to "teach them to fish." An investment in a factory produces goods that people can use, provides a productive activity for employees, the business owners earn a return on their money, and one day the factory may be sold and the profits brought home if a new investment opportunity in the country is appealing (and tax incentives are fair). Furthermore, direct aid just increases the world population which then increases environmental damage with a never ending feedback loop that requires more and more money. And finally, while it helps some individuals, it does nothing to help humanity, such as what disease or vaccine research would (The Gates Foundation does do some of this).
I don't care where anyone spends their own money. That is their business and they could wipe their asses with twenties for all I care. But I just think that when people start talking about other people's money business, they should really look a little closer at the concept.