Should developed countries help poor, third world nations without expecting debt repayment?
Yes I think helping third world countries get on their feet without debt repayment is appropriate.
Offering help to third world countries that are in a poor state in the morally correct thing to do. I also believe it's appropriate because when they are more financially viable, they are more likely to buy and trade goods which benefits the supporters economy as well.
If they are expected to repay the debt of support then how are they supposed to develop into a thriving country. I believe that would thrust them back into the same position they were in to begin with.Posted by: R34IHananThere Has to be sustainable help from Developed countriesg
The only sustainable help that the developed countries could give is the support in nutritive food production for these countries. Most of the time these countries eat only starchy foods and that upsets the brain metabolism, of these people and that makes them lethargic, postponing things in life and alsunder development of the brain takes lace. There is a person in SriLanka,who has done a gigantic research on the subject and he has introduced to the leaders of SriLanka. But t has fallen on deaf years, as only then they can exploit the poor masses. If anyone is interested to know more of this subject, please let me know and I shall give more details of this person.
Posted by: ruwandiasSharing your fortune with less fortunate
Most rich countries are rich because they are fortunate with resources. America made its wealth through oil, Australia through its gold and coal, etc. Its like being born into a rich family vs being born into a poor family. The rich kids must help the poor kids to make the place a better place to live.
Posted by: barathOne Human Family
Yes, we have drawn borders between and within countries, and these borders have created special loyalties. But the more important commitment is to the human race whether in the USA or Nigeria or Cambodia or elsewhere. That's not a call for complete equality, but it does call for our help.
Posted by: AnonymousThird world countries have suffered at the hands of developed nations. Evidence can be found in terms of deterioration of environmental quality, fiscal crisis.
Third world countries have been looted and their efficient governors overthrown by the developed countries in the past. In certain Asian countries like India,the loss has been unrecoverable so far. Linking the present economy with the past will help us understand that there is a difference between earning and stealing wealth.To mitigate that, the developed countries should take a stance and help third world countries to overcome barriers and develop friendly relations.
Posted by: AnonymousIf it helps
Help needs to be to promote a sustainable and independent future. We should not alter religions, ecological or biological systems and economies to our own way of thinking. Give without expectations. Give to promote productive, healthy, and happy lives. We will be giving to help those that need and ourselves.
Posted by: AnonymousAID
to me developed countries should not help the poor properly and i cant say that?. wealth countries argue that they give humanitarian to poor. but
the main objective is economical and political issues ,and this not generousPosted by: AnonymousWhy should we let them suffer?
More developed countries should help third world countries without expecting repayment. We shouldn't be hypocritical to those lessons in life we learned as a child: "Lend a helping hand", "Give more", "Share"
If not donate, we should at least help to discover their undiscovered resources such as gold and diamonds.Posted by: AnonymousWe should stick up for them.
It is like sticking up for the underdog. If you don't, you're one of the under dogs. We as Canadians should stick up for the under dogs. I'm pretty sure we have enough money to save, or at least help, one third-world country. So I'm asking strongly can we please stick up for the under dogs and be a hero.
Posted by: AnonymousThat this question even needs to be asked is in itself repulsive.
It is not inconsequential that those nations that are the richest are also responsible for the vast vast majority of energy consumption and pollution. In short the 90% whose living standards are desperately poor are having the planet that they live on rendered uninhabitable by the overindulgence and negligence of the 10%. I think, speaking as a tremendously fortunate member of that minority, it is nothing short of pure evil for us to withhold from that majority whatever assistance is needed. Coming from a nation that has, over many centuries, subjected a large proportion of the poorest and politically helpless human beings (and in actual fact played a not insignificant role in ensuring they are and remain in that position of poverty) to cruelty and ruthless exploitation, i consider it to be that not one of those people owes or will owe me my country anything whatsoever until such time as the moral debts that we owe to them have been thoroughly replayed.
If i defrauded you and then loaned you back the money i had gained from my crimes, would you consider yourself compensated?Posted by: AnonymousYes, the developed countries should help the poor.
Yes, the developed countries should help the poor because it will give the environment a little break from pollution. However, they should not help too much, the country needs to be able to control itself, therefore, if they baby them, there economy shall die, they should only help the poor people, not the rich.
Posted by: AnonymousI fully believe that developed countries should help third world nations without expecting debt.
I don't believe that if a developed country did help a third world country and made that country incur more debt that it would help the situation at all. A better solution would be to help them with out expecting debt for a set time frame in order to help them in the long run.
Posted by: Ch4ddMcIt is not really 'helping' if a payback is required is it?
It is ridiculous that developing countries with starving children have to payback loans to developed countries! It is a global, political monopoly exploiting people. We are one world and we should start behaving like that. In addition, first world countries OWE third world countries not only because of colonialism but in the modern day, many super-chains like Tesco and Walmart obtain their goods from 3rd world countries and if that stopped,the 1st world economy would collapse!
Posted by: AnonymousYes, they should help to close the economic gap
If the governments of developed countries who wield great power and wealth do not help, who else can help them in a better way? Many people in the third world countries are trapped in the cycle of poverty and in the chaos of civil war. Worse still, their governments are corrupted and do not spend enough money in education to give people opportunities to break out of the poverty cycle. Imagine yourself in that kind of situation. Who can help you? And imagine you as a third world country citizen, seeing the luxuries enjoyed by people in the same world (though you are from a "third world?" Country and they are from a "first world?" Country, all of us are still from earth and hence the same world) - people who probably have not worked as hard as you or experienced as much hardship as you. How will you see them? They seem like aliens isn't it? Wouldn't it be nice for us aliens to help them so that we can all prosper together? Perhaps with education and a high standard of living their fertility rates will drop and their populations will decrease, freeing up resources to last us for a longer time.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because this would show good moral judgment on behalf of the developed countries.
Everyone suffers when there is poverty in the world. Poverty and desperation can lead to violence and corruption. Countries that can afford to support the poor in other nations benefit from this relationship, even though it is not through direct repayment. Violence and corruption can spread. In addition, it is a moral obligation to help those who suffer.
Posted by: lacharasTo help lengthen their lives
We can stop the death of young children so they can grow up and make a difference and provide food and money for their families. Also, so families can be healthy and try to help raise their family in a good nutritional lifestyle so they don't have to face unfortunate deaths.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat is the true measure of a good deed?
A good deed should be measured, not in the perceived debt owed, but in the peace and contentedness that arise in both parties when a good deed is done. A sense of pride should accompany the giver, as he or she gives of their time and money to someone who has little or no time or money for themselves. To be honest, the thought of giving a third world family food, water, clothing and money for education makes me feel joy on the inside. And if all else fails, just remember that some of these people could end up being your next door neighbor someday.
Posted by: Debataholicyes
now a days half of the world is rich we should be more of a people world, now we only care about ourselves
Posted by: AnonymousWe're generous, helpful people
Yes, because this would show good moral judgment on behalf of the developed countries. Everyone suffers when there is poverty in the world. Poverty and desperation can lead to violence and corruption. Countries that can afford to support the poor in other nations benefit from this relationship, even though it is not through direct repayment. Violence and corruption can spread. In addition, it is a moral obligation to help those who suffer.
Posted by: AnonymousYes and no.
I think that we would (rich countries) benefit by knowing that we did the right thing, and as one of the more developed countries we would fulfill our role of helping those that are less fortunate than us. But I also think that when something horrible like a natural disaster or war would happen to us I think we should be able to count on that country that we helped to help us.
Posted by: Anonymousthe third-world need help.
the third world countries may be poor. we should give some technologies.
Posted by: Anonymousthe exploiter and exploited
The state of the third world or developing countries is a result of their past relationship with the exploiting capitalist countries who capitalized on their weaponry to cheat humiliate and degrade their society by colonization and the struggle to dominate and plant their ways of life on them in the name of modernization
Posted by: AnonymousWe got them in the mess they' in so lets get them out!
Most of the problems were caused by us when we decided to invade their countries long ago! Now they are left to pick up the pieces after us! We would protest if it happened to us wouldn't we? Just because they aren't near us doesn't mean that we should blame them, saying that poverty is something that is their fault when we got them into it!
Posted by: AnonymousWe should create economic and social opportunities and incentives for the upcoming generations in third world countries.
This is very important for several reasons. First creating social and economic incentives in third world countries will stabilize the society. It will also put a damper on communism, autocratic abuse, and terrorism. We have spent over 1.3 trillion dollars on the war on terror sense 2001. Also, the country with the highest Muslim population (India) is also the country with one of the lowest terrorist rates. This is because there are social and economic opportunities in India unlike Iraq and other Middle Eastern and North African countries. Second our war in Iraq, and Vietnam, and multiple other countries ended in a very similar place as they started because we refused to reduce the incentive for communism, terrorism, and crime. However, if we were to simply create a reason for people to work hard, and get a job, let alone the fact that you're allowing them to get a better job which will continue to boost the economy, it will start a cycle in which economic and social growth and reform can and will take place. These factors will save our country money, while improving living conditions in third world countries, increasing their GDP as well as boost the global economy which will have a positive affect on American Industry.
Posted by: capnslowDeveloped countries should help poor, third world nations.
Sending aid helps other nations develop, meaning they can later become trading partners as their economy develops. This allows the sending of aid to be mutually beneficial in the long run, but a country that has good trade can be beneficial worldwide. Since all countries have the chance to benefit whether or not they contributed, countries should feel obligated to assist in the interests of fairness.
Posted by: AnonymousThey should help other countries
Do you ever think to yourself ugh I don't need these things and just get rid of them well you are lucky to even had that item people in third world countries have nothing and we have so much and the least we can do is help them. There are people who can't even afford their kids and have to send them to orphanages and people die every day there because the can't afford their basic needs and we have so much money; we need to help them!!
Posted by: AnonymousDeveloped countries should help poor countries because it is morally correct to do so.
Developed countries helping less fortunate countries is the right thing to do. What separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we have morals and act on them. If a country is able to help, they must, because that is its moral responsibility and, also, people instinctively respect moral actions. Thus, the country would gain respect from the masses, and this respect is important in order to remain powerful and to hold power.
Posted by: DeafeningRueben39Developing countries are in the state they are in because of developed countries.
If you consider that most developed countries are developed because they took resources from (currently) developing countries, or chose to colonise them, do things halfway, then leave. Its because of this that they got a headstart while developing countries are set back a few decades. An example would be how the Belgium people just went into Rwanda, screwed up the social system and divided the Hutus and Tutsis, which caused the Rwandan Genocide. Thus the obligation to help the developing countries. Even though they didn't do anything to hinder the development of the developing countries, it is still a moral obligation for the strong to help the weak; for those who have to help those who do not. Even in the animal kingdom, stronger members of the same species protect the weaker ones (given that they are not solitary animals), and are we not supposed to be of higher intelligence, morals or whatever of animals?
Posted by: AnonymousSince Everybody supports Equality and Equity we should.
If everybody is equal then yes we should. We should give the opportunity of life to other countries. It's not equity or equality if the person cannot even glimpse that opportunity without pestilence and death around them or if the opportunity is never given in the first place. If America or any industrialized nation fell down we would want help. Morally if we are equal then we should help enhance the lives of others. For memory is the best thing you can have besides life. If everybody helped each other then the world would have a better image of itself.
Posted by: AnonymousI think developed countries should help poor countries whenever they can without expecting something in return.
If countries that could help would it would make this world a better place. It is unfair that so many countries are struggling right now because they don't have the money they need and they can't be expected to repay the debt. Many countries have more than enough resources, more than they could ever use. Why can't they help others?
Posted by: B3rkIffyBecause they need help, developed countries have to help poor countries.
If developed countries never helped the poor countries, then the development will never come in the poor country.
Posted by: N3IiGoodWhy, of course.
If a nation cannot afford to pay itself for itself and its residents, then it cannot afford to pay back aid received. Rather than expecting repayment, the donor nation should consider the money well invested. The recipient of the aid should look for opportunities to help out another nation, so the cycle comes full circle- I helped you, you helped him, he helped her, she helped me, etc. Not a system of money paid and debts owed, but an acknowledgement of the fact that we've all stood by each other when we needed the others and the others needed us.
Posted by: AnonymousIf people in third world nations are really poor, then they cannot afford to repay debt.
I believe that developed countries should help poor, third world nations without expecting debt repayment. First of all, there are poor countries, such as Haiti, that have suffered from natural disasters like earthquakes. This bad luck is not Haiti's fault; therefore, the citizens should not be indebted to those from developed countries who help ease their suffering. Also, the golden rule "Do unto others as you want them to do unto you" is very important. If a poor country is suffering and a developed country does nothing to help, then the developed country may bring bad karma upon itself. The developed country could become poor and may not have a lot of allies to bail them out, especially since the developed country did not show mercy on poor, underdeveloped countries.
Posted by: echaginaI believe that developed countries should help poor 3rd world countries.
Helping these countries would, if we went about it in the right way, would help make a drain of resources into a participant of the wider world community. We just need to give the country a head start into the wider world with simple things, possibly build a school to educate the children, or a hotel to be run by native workers. I do not believe that we should poor so much resources into a country, as the saying goes feed a man a fish and he won't be hungry but teach a man to fish he will never go hungry again. If we only give them a chance to "get up on their feet" then they will not begin to depend on us for aid. If such a country such we will not need to expect debt repayment as in not being in a 3rd world state, they will contribute more so in wider world affairs and politics and that is all that we will require from such a country.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe that developed countries should help poor, third world nations because it is good for the economic development of the whole world.
Ninety-five percent of the world's wealth is currently owned by ten percent of the world's population. However, the world's economies are based on a consumer model of economic growth. Developed nations will not be able to sustain their standard of living if developing nations enter into the global economy with a culture of consumption. Therefore, developed nations must learn how to develop cultures of sustainability and export this culture to smaller third world nations. This will ensure the long-term sustainability of the world economy.
Posted by: tacticalogreI agree entirely that developed countries including our own can and should do more to help third world countries.
We are privileged to live in the country that we do, to have support when we need it most so I find it only our responsibility to help others. We describe ourselves to the rest of the world as a people who value freedom to a good life yet it seems to me that by saying this and acting in sometimes selfish ways that we are boasting when we could be boosting. Boosting third world countries and poverty stricken places find their feet and find good in the lives they live. We should not help for what we can gain from it and if not for the feeling of knowing someone is better off because of us then we should help to uphold the values we claim so often to have.
Posted by: L.EvansThey have to support all the way!
First point from my view, is how these poor countries are going to repay their debts and they don't have enough resources! And the second question, is that. Why we're sticking to the financial support only, they can support them by exchanging the experiences, or even by applying the same model of the consultancy agencies, which is having a % from the net profit for an agreed period of time, but this is conditioned with giving them the full support and knowledge
Posted by: AnonymousDeveloping countries have already paid the original figure back.
Now they're just having to repay the debt pack from interest rates. Why do the rich need more money? As long as they've paid back everything they've borrowed call it quits. The money shouldn't be given to dictators or to fund militaries and war but to charitable organisations that have the masses at heart. The people want it it's just the minority ruining it for the majority, again.
Posted by: AnonymousWe are responsible (the western World or Europeans)
The nature of modern Africa is very much our fault. At the end of World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles, all Western nations agreed to leave all colonies and keep to themselves, but what this did not account for was power vacuums and the racial inequalities that the European colonists installed. After an abrupt and non-transitional abandonment of Africa, various factional and ethical disputes came around, then bigger international African conflicts, and to fund the wars, they sought Western aid and weapons, usually because the Western nations had interests, such as Diamonds, Oil, or Gold. However, instead of contributing to the proper establishment of government, and economy, we provided money for wars and weapons, by which Africans slaughtered Africans, and WE did not care. Where America provided weapons for one side, the Russians or Chinese provided weapons for the other, and silently we have tormented Europe and permitted horrendous acts without even a scintilla of remorse. It is shameful. The Western World is indebted to Africa, as they have died for wars we finance and encourage. It is only in the last 20 years where we have begun to say, "no more." We need to repay the African nations for abandoning them, and for motivating them into killing each other.
Posted by: AnonymousAid impoverishes countries in Africa, as a result like Dambisi Moyo notes, aid in Africa (not humanitarian) should be scrapped.
There is no denying that aid has had some positive effects on recipients especially in the case of the fighting diseases such as malaria and HIV. But, these achievements have caused undesirable side effects, as it comes at a cost for local people.
For example: The successful reduction of malaria, robbed people of their jobs and resulted in more poverty in certain areas.
Despite the hard work of local mosquito net manufacturers producing about 500 nets per week, they could not make enough nets to reduce malaria in equatorial parts of Africa.
A ray of hope came in the form of the Hollywood movie star that rallied the masses and goaded western governments to collect and send about 100,000 mosquito nets to the afflicted region at a cost of a million dollars. The nets arrived, they were distributed and indeed a good deed was done, as this was a positive step towards combating malaria in Africa (Brunel 1997, 44-45).
However, with the market flooded with foreign nets, the local mosquito net makers were promptly put out of business, each worker had dependents. Therefore, such failure resulted in at-least 15 workers losing their jobs. Their dependents were now forced to depend on aid hand-outs. Note the long lasting negative effect of this conflict is that the life span of the mosquito net is 5 years.
The above illustration is a typical example of aid paradox because, when viewed in close-up, the aid appears to have worked but, when viewed in its entirety, the reality remains that the overall situation has not improved and is worse in the long run (Brunel 1997, 45).
With all we have written so far about Aid and it implication, can you really see why aid does not work, why aid further marginalizes people in some African countries, why aid is just another excuse to make us perpetually indebted to the donors?Posted by: AnonymousYes
Only sustainable help that the developed countries could give is the support in nutritive food production for these countries. Most of the time these countries eat only starchy foods and that upsets the brain metabolism, of these people and that makes them lethargic, postponing things in life and alsunder development of the brain takes lace. There is a person in SriLanka,who has done a gigantic research on the subject and he has introduced to the leaders of SriLanka. But t has fallen on deaf years, as only then they can exploit the poor masses. If anyone is interested to know more of this subject, please let me know and I shall give more details of this person.
Posted by: AnonymousWe should help less advantaged countries without expecting debt repayment because this is the only way to create a stable, non-hostile global environment.
We are now a global economy. If we want that economy to thrive we must decide whether we want to be a world of have's and have-not's, or whether we want all of mankind to have a fair share in our resources.
The nations that are currently called "developed" got a head start on the rest of the world. That may have been through their own efforts and abilities--or it may have been the luck of the draw. We just happened to have the natural resources--we just happened to have wealth in the form of a wide variety of immigrants streaming in with their wide variety of skills and cultures. Or it was a fluke--we were the country in the right place at the right time.
Regardless of how we got here, we have abundance and many nations live in poverty. This is basically wrong! If we wish to continue as global leaders, we must take the moral high ground and help disadvantaged people with no expectation of repayment...other than what karma may send us.
To quote John Donne, "No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind..."Posted by: CI3IikeWHY NOT?
We all live in one world together. It's like living in a big home and having some family members starving and others having a golden bed. It's not right. If they can't help themselves fine, can't we be the bigger person and pitch in? It'll help later with there progress can later benefit us anyways so it's a win win. I'm not saying that we should change other countries to make it similar to America, but that we help so no one is starving.
Posted by: Anonymouslove your neighbor as yourself.
True giving is to give without expectation. Although the US has our own problems, we can't seclude ourselves from the rest of the world. I also don't expect us to be able to fix everything just because we have money. I don't think that we can solve everybody's problems by throwing a bunch of money aimlessly either. It takes people who can educate others to foster self-sustaining communities in those that aren't able to help themselves to really make a change.
Posted by: AnonymousAnonymous
Helping the poor can balance everything, and for everyone to receive the same share at the most basic of things like clean water or medication, that most 3rd world countries don’t even have, would make the world more justice. This method would make us all equal in the significant ways. So if this is right why should the 3rd worlds nation prepare for repayment, when it's a life and death situation for thousands of people?
Posted by: AnonymousYes they should!
I believe that the causes of poverty and backwardness in the third world are mainly the selfish and disastrous exploitation of the first world countries both during the colonial and post colonial -democratic and globalization eras. In addition the poor and under developed countries are suffering from ill effects of modernization and industrialization the developed countries in the form of the ozone depletion, global warming, environmental pollution and other calamities. In short the truly indebted countries are the developed countries which should pay back a lot to compensate the disasters they created on the poor both directly and indirectly. Thanks, Semahegn D.
Posted by: semahegn
NO THEY SHOULD NOT
We don't owe them anything. They are a burden on society and humanity in general. They have produced NOTHING throughout history and when they come to other countries, they try to enforce their 3rd world primitive and inferior ways and culture that they tried so desperately to escape onto developed countries. They live off the dole and commit crimes and produce nothing good towards society.
Posted by: AnonymousOur charity aid is damaging the third world
The giving of charity only this?uades the governments on the recieving end from generating money for themselves, seriously think about it, we have been providing aid to 3rd world countries for over 60 years and have seen very few results. The fact of the matter is that the charity money goes into the pockets of the wealthy people, the people in charge of the country, and it is in their interest for the poverty of the country to continue. Another major problem with charity is that if we give resources such as food or wheat to the citizens free of charge, then we prevent their farmers from having any opportunity to sell their wares for a reasonable price, therefore ultimately having a negative effect on the countries overall economic status, as not only the poor would have access to free supplies, but so would the rich and upper-middle class. Unless we know for sure, that our 'aid' is actually helping these countries, then our 'charity' is really, not charity at all.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't help third world nations.
Why should we give money to third world countries when Great Britain is in the worst debt ever.Will these countries help Great Britain out when we become a third world country. Why is Mr. Cameron giving tax payers money to third world countries such as China & India who are in a far better situation then Great Britain at this present time.
Posted by: AnonymousBritain is in Recession.
Britain, as a developed country, is in a huge recession. Which therefore means they have a large amount of debt to pay off. If we, as Britain, have our own problems and have a large debt, why would you give aid to others when there will be no repayment for the money?
Posted by: AnonymousIt goes to corrupt governments.
I don't think we should be throwing our hard earned money away. Take Africa for example: they have tons of gold and diamonds and they're not a thriving continent because the government is corrupt and doesn't spread the wealth where it is needed. When we throw money away to places like that the money doesn't go to aid it goes to the corrupt leaders. Canada is having enough financial problems. We can hardly take care of ourselves, yet they are shipping millions if not billions of dollars by the boat load to third world countries. It's called natural selection. If they can't make it on their own then they will simply die out. By us giving them money to survive, it messes with the natural selection. That's why the world is so over populated.
Posted by: AnonymousWE have to help ourselves because WE are trillions of Dollars in Debt!
We help those who cant help themselves, I know. But we are in so far over our heads in Debt, war, and nosing around with other countries who probably don't want our intervention. Here's some advice: LEAVE THEM ALONE! We are still at war and we still have troops deployed in the Middle East. Plus we're in debt up to our eyes. We can't take care of other countries when ours is going down the toilet. We still have a large rate of unemployment, we're running out of natural resources, and we do rely too heavily on exports from China and the like. Wake up people, Nothing is "Made in America" anymore. As soon as we get all our problems on track, then we can drag ourselves into other peoples problems, or not.
Posted by: AnonymousWe have our own problems.
Giving help to another country is a tax on our own with no benefits whatsoever to claim. If we give people food they will eat it, starve, and complain or die until we continue to support them. Their own leadership should advise having too many children if their own land can't support the populace, and economy doesn't allow them to import food. Simply put; supporting other countries is stupid.
Posted by: AnonymousThreat of unstable development
With the exception of regions that are displaced through the search for: raw materials, oils, and precious metals; the nations that receive aid for feeding starving children trains them to only wait for aid and creates a loss in traditional knowledge for methods of obtaining food and shelter. This loss is of cultural significance and continues to augment the amount of people needing support.
The years of aid will lead to an exponential growth in population which will need an exponential growth in support, without said support you will end with a larger number of starving people.Posted by: AnonymousThird world countries will not use the money to help the poor.
First World countries send money to these nations without requiring them to use it in helpful ways. So leaders simply use it to build lavish palaces for themselves while their people continue to suffer. If developed nations are going to send funds to these countries, then they should find a way to guarantee that they are spent the way they should be.
Posted by: AnonymousThey shouldn't help in the first place, if they are expecting something in return.
If countries want to help less fortunate countries, then they should do that out of the kindness of their heart, and not expect anything in return. Some third world nations simply have no way of paying back. They should not be helped, if the helping nation is expecting something in return. If they want to give back, then that's one thing. But, they should not be expected to give anything in return.
Posted by: AverageHoward86alex
no, we should help third countries, the more money we send, the more money goes to the dictators, and other corruption that plagues there country. The world population is increasing and to stable that, we need to stop our aid. Sure i believe in karma, but truly those countries cannot be brought back up, unless a powerful nation controls it. We need to use our money on our own economy and pay off our debt, along with stabilizing our economy instead. In conclusion, the more we help 3rd world countries and dont realize that our own economy is failing, then pretty soon we our selves will be in a slump.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment support increases Poverty
Governments will *always* fail to really help alleviate poverty, because they either give money to corrupt governments or they disrupt the normal economic incentives.
Charitable and religious organizations are present in the countries and can better encourage positive and sustainable growth.
The idea that we owe them something because our society has been more successful is ridiculous. The only thing we owe them is a blueprint for them to raise themselves out of poverty and despair.Posted by: KTrimbachDeveloped countries are responsible for the third world nations poverty at some stage of time.
Yes, I agree that developed countries should help poor, third world nations without expecting debt repayment. I feel that the developed nations were responsible for the third world nations poverty at some stage of time. They exploited these nations out of their resources and left them with nothing. And this is the pay back time that the developed should help financially at least without any expectation of debt repayment.
Posted by: I0rFashionNo reason to
We have enough people that are starving in our country, so why help out another one? Its like if you had a child and could barely afford to feed that one then you go ahead and adopt another child it just doesn't make sense to waste our money on some country that doesn't matter to us.
Posted by: AnonymousDeveloped countries should not give away money to third world countries, as this will not develop responsible government or economic management in such countries.
Developed countries should not simply hand money over to third world countries, as this gives no incentive to develop responsible government or fiscal policies. If a third world country knows it must make payments back, then there is more incentive to use the money in responsible revenue-generating development projects, as opposed to military spending or prestige projects (e.g. palaces, statues) for the current government.
Posted by: EminentBennett93No
No. There is a common misunderstanding that the troubles of the third world which includes starvation, bad government and is somehow connected to First World, which is absolute and total nonsense. the first world has given countless billions in dollars over decades of aid to the Third world, Medicines, aid food help with infrastructure, education. You can help them people some of the time .but they have got to learn to help themselves. I think maybe that is the reason the third world is like it is .we keep giving and giving. Its not our duty as a first world country to take care of everybody else who can't make it work themselves And they automatically think everything is for free.
Posted by: AnonymousThird world nations should repay aid because debt repayment is an important indicator of financial responsibility.
There is little incentive for developed nations to help third world countries financially if they are not going to be repaid. If necessary, aid to third word nations could be repaid in annual payments over several years. Without consideration on both sides, there is no contract to improve.
Posted by: laceylynn42The people in developed coutries should help, but not the governments.
All charity should come from private sources, and it should not be subsidized by the respective governments through tax deductions or credits. If someone, or some group wants to make large charitable contributions.. let them, but don't expect the governements to take the funds of the taxpayers and squander it on half baked ideas to make themselves feel good about themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousI think that it should be less a matter of "state morality" and more a matter of personal morality; those who are able to send significant contributions should send what they can, but there are many people in our country who need the assistance, too.
While I am saddened by suffering around the globe, I think that our country often ignores its own poor. The gap in income between the "haves" and "have nots" in the U.S. is ever-expanding. I think that those who can spare money to help others should, but I think our government should take responsibility for helping its citizens first.
Posted by: Shim2free