> 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 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?
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factor...
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.
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.