Hacker News Reader

Comment by demarq | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

A question asked in such bad faith that it deserves explicit acknowledgment.

And here is the answer: many of these countries lack the resources to start and sustain programs such as the ones mentioned in the article. The resources needed include money, supply chains and expertise.

The U.S. provides a conduit for all 3 of those needed resources: stable funding, stable supply chains for food, medicine and manufactured goods and expertise though local training and partnership with U.S. and global experts for setting up, running and reporting on the programs.

The US also provided a way to deliver programs that was more resistant to corruption than many local efforts. Note that I did not say “free from corruption” because that is probably impossible, but much better than the alternative.

Why do they lack the resources?

> Why do they lack the resources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

I dunno, you seem to lack resources to see others' suffering as a worthy target of assistance.

Maybe its something similar?

Plot twist, I’m from one of the countries in question that “need” aid.

So I ask again

> Plot twist, I’m from one of the countries in question that “need” aid.

Nice appeal to origin (genetic fallacy), but that doesn't compensate for the complete lack of concern for others represented in your comments?

What would make you want to contribute to others foreign to your country (if you aren't from the US)? Why do you have a concern for how we spend money? Or are you a permanent resident or a citizen now? What scenario makes it a worthwhile endeavor to you?

I'm curious if your questions are driving at a reason which you choose not to share?

I want to challenge the assumption that resources aren't there.

What keeps happening in these countries is, somebody makes a lot of huge promises to the disaffected, they vote for him, but then it turns out (surprise, surprise) that all he wanted to do all along was carve up the government's property and resources to distribute them to his most significant supporters. After this happens a few times nothing is left.

Evidence? The report says 150k lives are saved per year on HIV work alone due to this program?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_f...

Which is where most of the spending went....

They cite Nigeria and South Africa as being the major success stories?

Any comment on those governments?

If you go to the Wikipedia pages for those two countries and ctrl-F for corruption you'll see the story in a better way than I could cut and paste here.

I did that, and there is nothing directly related to this program. If you have something better, please let me know.

Is this report misreporting data? Are you saying these conclusions are forcefully faked? Do you have evidence? Or is it just 4chan level "LOL, Africa corrupt"?.

If you are saying it can be done cheaper or with better heuristics for safe guards, that is one thing, but just advocating for destroying it, and understanding what that entails, is another.

Oh, that's just a misunderstanding. I was explaining why the government of Nigeria doesn't have "Nigeria Aid."

Okay? Can you reiterate your point within that context? Nigeria surely has social programs? https://statehouse.gov.ng/policy/economy/national-social-inv...

I don't know enough about it, but it seems like you are running away from your original point?

Also, A I D, it used to be in commercials on TV and radio. U S A I D. No one called it U S Aid.

Exactly!

“These countries aren’t poor. These countries are rich! Only the people are poor! They’re not underdeveloped, they’re overexploited!” - Michael Parenti

I'll take a wild guess and say corruption and mismanagement. It can be vigorously argued over as to how much is due to European colonizers vs homegrown tendencies. Nonetheless, it's not a cycle that the elites see any reason to break.

Regardless of cause, there is still a need to treat people there. Forget saving their lives. These are rich reservoirs of diseases that people in other countries can contract, there is a good selfish case for showing up. And if we need some goodwill, it's relatively inexpensive.

They do, with help from USAID.

Ok, but why can't they do it without that? Why are billions being spent on providing supplies to countries instead of developing their domestic industries? In fact doesn't providing them with supplies make it impossible for their domestic industries to fill their needs?

In public pools and many public beaches, there are lifeguards assigned to monitor same. These are people in excellent physical condition and trained in rescue operations. Furthermore, they are paid for their services by government entities.

> Ok, but why can't they do it without that? Why are billions being spent on providing supplies to countries instead of developing their domestic industries?

Why can't people swimming in pools or oceans not put themselves in distress? Why are monies spent on providing lifeguards to swimming areas instead of developing their ability to not drown?

> In fact doesn't providing them with supplies make it impossible for their domestic industries to fill their needs?

In fact, doesn't providing them with lifeguards make it impossible for their developing the ability to not drown?

Helping others does not limit what they can become.

> > In fact doesn't providing them with supplies make it impossible for their domestic industries to fill their needs?

> In fact, doesn't providing them with lifeguards make it impossible for their developing the ability to not drown?

> Helping others does not limit what they can become.

Wouldn't providing external lifeguards impact the ability for a domestic lifeguard market to exist?

> Wouldn't providing external lifeguards impact the ability for a domestic lifeguard market to exist?

Possibly in theory, assuming there was domestic capacity to provide lifeguards.

In practice, however, lifeguards are not a product. They are people who help others and, as such, earn the admiration of those whom they help.

Some might say this is the definition of "soft power."

Lifeguards are for emergencies to help people that can swim. People that don't know how to swim shouldn't be relying on lifeguards. In fact the appropriate response here wouldn't be to provide lifeguards but to open a swimming school or lifeguard training facility.

Do they have domestic pharma companies?

Yeah, but we bomb those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factor...

They did both, but if people don’t have food or medical care you can’t expect them to participate in the economy as much.

Here’s an example of what USAID did to help develop economies:

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/03/08/usaid-my-next-to-last-p...

That kind of stuff is really cheap compared to military intervention - consider how much money we spent dealing with piracy after Somalia lost control of its territory – so even if you’re a sociopath who only cares about making stock prices go up, increasing the size of Africa’s economy means a whole lot of new customers and suppliers.

I mean I wish that could do what you suggest as if they could it is the end of poverty. But how?

>But how?

By making it more profitable to cure instead of treat. The only real way to do that though is to severely disincentive rent-seeking activities. IMO that should be the primary function of the government. Instead we have a government that generally entrenches rent-seeking.

They don’t

Yeah? This report says otherwise.

Because we have the resources to support suppressing diseases that can outbreak and spread back home. I'm sure you can find a selfish reason to frame any one of these global aid programs, most of them are a fraction of the cost versus the alternative, diseases & unnecessary mortality have far reaching effects.

This is an impossibly broad question. It's like asking why food banks exist, why can't the parents of those families feed their kids? Why does poverty exist?

Not the same

Explain the error in the metaphor? From my reading it seems valid.

In the analogy the parents are simply victims of circumstance not criminals.

What we are dealing with here is criminal enterprise.

Have a look at some of the links I’ve added https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43395036

Thanks for doing the work to try to answer your own question, it looks like your links support what most people are telling you. One of the many problems in countries that USAID helped is that their governments tend to be full of corrupt officials, that's why USAID often sent actual personnel or directed money to NGOs independent of the local governments. Obviously there is still risk, that's why they spent a lot of time closely monitoring how their money and aid was used. Unfortunately that can't happen anymore now that everyone has been fired, so we can expect a lot of the money they had already disbursed to be wasted.

> it looks like your links support what most people are telling you.

What are you asking here? They expanded on their assertion throughout the following paragraph.

Why not both? Why not save more people while making world a better place and improving country's image and influence at a relatively minimal cost?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com