Hacker News Reader

Comment by cadamsdotcom | Hacker News Reader

First to get this out of the way, I do not support the destruction of USAID and I definitely do not support the death of 300,000 people.

This study brings to light a hidden problem of countries and individuals dependent on foreign aid. There should’ve been plans in place to reduce foreign aid dependency over time. Yes provide aid as needed & appropriate, but work out what it’ll take for the country to not need it and try to get there.. Otherwise a sudden halt of aid can lead to, well, exactly this.

It seems from the outside there was just “money from the sky” from USAID. Without strings attached you’d expect systems to organize to grab free money and countries become dependent..

Is there something I don’t know?

View on HN

  > but work out what it’ll take for the country to not need it and try to get there..

One moment. You are just asking to increase the program that will take generations, while being dependent on factors you don't influence.

Many African countries are overrun by Russian wagnerites, who protect local war lords and take control of natural resources. Part of the program is to ensure ongoing chaos and prevent local development.

Some other African countries are burried by Chinese debt, their "development" agenda is set by China with focus on extracting natural resources.

So that is why health, democracy, rule of law and state building is not on the agenda. Thus children die.

The USA has/had an organized administration, laws, police, hospitals etc. But if Americans in comfort even then bow their head for a weird mix of criminals and sectarians, what magic agency would you expect from a population living from health crisis to health crisis in extreme poverty?

Although I think your general position is by and large correct, it would test the limits of credulity to think that previous US administrations did not use USAID to extract concessions from African countries for decades prior. The case can be made that it is the better of three evils perhaps, but how far one can argue past that is a more difficult proposition. And one also needs to explain why Russia, who prefers making deals with a single person on the other side (ie a dictator) in the rest of world, would rather deal with a bunch of warring warlords when it comes to Africa.

... I will add one more bit food for thought: if people started to realize that "multi-polar world" is dictator-lingo for "hegemons exploiting smaller countries", and what it means in practical matters, of which this topic is just a single instance, how many would still prefer it?

  > it would test the limits of credulity to think that previous US administrations 
  > did not use USAID to extract concessions from African countries for decades prior.

Sure. But it is about what strings are attached. If we normalize self serving transactionalism, we will self-corrupt.

The correct strings to attach would be those which pushes towards a democratic rule of law, which would eventually enable the affected society to self-sustain them. Now you can already hear the bots coming out of the woods: "who is the west to tell countries what is right/WOKE!/ western colonialism" etc.

We should never take advantage of a country in need. Our philosophy is win-win.

  > Russia, who prefers making deals with a single person on the other side (ie a dictator)

Sure, and they do that too! But not all governments are in official control of all their territory. The Kremlin network, just like the current USA government, ascribe to the notion of "might makes right". Helping a local warlord making a coup to extract more is business as usual.

The war in the west is not about Trump, nor about transgenders, but about the mind of normal citizens. How much of this criminal mindset has been normalized already?

USAID put a lot of money into treatment of infectious diseases like Tuberculosis and HIV. This is directly beneficial to us, the US. We are a globalized world, and as we have realized from Covid, it's simply not enough to prevent infectious diseases in your country.

We're already seeing more incidents of Tuberculosis in the US. As a reminder to everyone, Tuberculosis requires 6+ months of antibiotics to treat. It can cause brain lesions.

I assume that providing countries generally enjoy the influence they get in return.

Yeah; you’re missing that USAID work included developmental work as well as pure relief. There’s a process for closing missions in countries that no longer need assistance, even.

> This study brings to light a hidden problem of countries and individuals dependent on foreign aid. There should’ve been plans in place to reduce foreign aid dependency over time.

This would be a reasonable topic to discuss, if only these cuts to USAID didn't resulted in supplies decaying in warehouses. This means no cost was cut and no expense was averted: just waste. Those desperately depending on these supplies to survive simply didn't.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-aid-cuts-leave-food-million...

It's like preaching people in food lines about the need to pull themselves by the bootstraps, and depriving from their next meal.

Just because things exist does not mean transporting and securely delivering them half way across the planet would be expense free.

But maybe you are right, there should have been a way for people who want to pay for the delivery and security of that aid out of their own pockets. It could have been a voluntary sign up of whatever the cost would have been, added as a proportional tax at the end of the year, anywhere from 1%-100% of net worth.

> Is there something I don’t know?

Yes. Software power. We are talking about the TANSTAAFL land. All those countries are full of corporations sending profits without paying fair royalties or taxes, which are paid back in the US.

/s/software/soft

> Otherwise a sudden halt of aid can lead to, well, exactly this.

A sudden halt in funding for any project, domestic or otherwise, is catastrophic to that project.

While I don’t disagree with your point, it’s also not really the crux of the problem.

Also it’s a lot easier said than done asking recipients of aid to become self sufficient. In a lot of cases the problems are either poverty, which means aid would still be needed to fund any “self sufficient” services, or that the foreign governments really are more corrupt than Trump. The end result often means people flee from their country and then Trump supporters start moaning about immigration. Ultimately you have to pay the price either way.

My personal opinion is that we should be paying too. In many cases you can trace these issues back to exploitation lead by the 1st world. So you could reasonably argue that we owe them this aid. But even if you don’t want to do it for reasons of morality, supporting developing countries still helps with the immigration “problem” in the long run.

> Is there something I don’t know?

How do you know that the people and countries dependent on this aid were also not working on making themselves less dependent? Are you aware that poverty is decreasing world wide and many countries have successfully developed over the last several decades? How do you know that USAID did not accelerate this processes by helping take care of vulnerable people, so the less vulnerable would have more resources to develop faster?

> There should’ve been plans in place to reduce foreign aid dependency over time

Even with the best such plan, pulling the plug without warning would be catastrophic.

Respectfully, yes there is!

Foreign aid is not a thing governments dole out due to the kindness of their hearts.

More often than not its purpose is to curry military, economic or political favor with the recipient country.

More often than not a lot of it is skimmed off the top once it arrives.

The US loves to buy allies - reciprocity may come in the form of the country in question agreeing to a military base, or a trade deal. It can be as specific as "You will allow these specific US megacorps to do business in your country unhindered." This stuff isn't really secret at all, hang out at AmCham meetings overseas and you will hear all about it.

The folks back home, though, are generally unaware.

I don't support the death of 300k people either (which currently is not a real thing, it is in a model created by an academic). But the American public has every right to form opinions about whether this money is well spent and express them at the ballot box.

As an expat who has seen how a bit of the sausage is made overseas with this money, just shutting down USAID overnight was pretty reckless but I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of it was spent in ways that the average US taxpayer would be enraged by. This is a country with $36T of debt we're talking about, my main concern is I don't think Trump and Musk will go far enough.

As conspiratorial as this sounds, alot of successfull non-profit organisations have a vested interest in becoming a critical part of their infrastructure so that funding cuts would be a humanitarian disaster in of itself which neccecitates the continuation of the organisation.

Foreign aid has always been a double edged sword when it comes to self-reliance and lasting change

The Shirky principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky#Shirky_principle

It does not sound conspiratorial at all. I know this to be a fact from first person knowledge and experience that it is exactly what goes on in NGO board rooms. It’s not really all that different than the MIC though.

Abstracting a bit more, it’s also not really any different than aristocratic, monarchical, and even feudal patronage systems where your fortune and standing was directly linked to how close you could get to the monarch/center of power. In fact, I see the west devolving towards such patronage systems as power and wealth keeps concentrating. All across the board you see every more sycophancy as people grovel for benefits.

I think there is a term that describes an organization or team tendency to try to preserve their role. So they don't have incentive to solve all the problems they are created to solve. But I can't remember this term or if there is a scientific term for that.

work out what it’ll take for the country to not need it and try to get there

I moved to Africa to get a better understanding of this and related questions. What is the actual situation of developing countries? What does it take to make things better? What can I do as an individual with no resources other than the income I get from work?

I am still at the beginning. I have only been here for two years. What I have learned so far is very limited but my observations so far suggest that:

The exploitation of natural resources (oil, gold, minerals, etc) need to be done in a way that the money flows back into the countries. The countries then can/should invest that money into the improvement of local infrastructure (health care, better roads, trains, water, electricity where it is still missing...)

Education needs to be done in a way that doesn't disrupt local culture. Currently schools are based on colonial models, and I don't feel they are a good fit. Children are forced to live away from home in boarding schools and get a western style education that ignores or changes their culture. Poor families can't send their children to school because they live off their farm and can't even get the money to pay for the school uniform or the materials.

On the other hand, just giving them those things creates exactly that dependency that we don't want. What is needed is an education system that remote villages and nomadic tribes can implement on their own without being forced to send their children away and change their lifestyle just to be able to afford the costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUNDAEC is a potential example of how that could look like.

What can I do as an individual? I am still figuring that out. My approach is to try to hire local junior developers to work on my projects. I am not paying them a western salary. That may sound unfair and exploitative, but with the average income being so low, western salaries would only create a few rich people and depend on trickle-down-economics to make that money work. I feel that instead giving multiple people a decent local salary would accomplish more. On top of that, a single local salary can be funded easily from anyone working in IT in developed countries. You don't need to run a business to be able to do that. Besides that I am also trying to sponsor a few children to help them pay for school. This is not a big project. The families are friends I made along the way, and it's more of a boost for a few kids down on their luck. Kids who lost one parent or both and are living with relatives who are struggling to feed their own kids.

There is a lot that I am still missing. And I don't even know if the things I am doing so far are right or effective. Only time will tell.

Btw, I am looking for work. If you want to support my efforts, please reach out.

Not only that, but the whole system was such that the very type and nature of the support led to ever more dependency and creation of yet more need that the system could then further argue needed more support, i.e., a self-licking ice cream cone.

Worse yet, at the cost and expense of people who are damaged by being forced to support this system against their will.

I propose that everyone that supports things like USAID be able to willingly and freely sign up to have their taxes increased by whatever proportional amount is necessary to fund it every year. We need to move to a voluntarist system for anything but the tightest core functions of government.

It is a win-win, USAID continues and people get to feel good about themselves, while others are not damaged by being forced to support it against their will.

The average federal tax rate is 14%, and the USAID budget was about 0.8% of the federal budget, so you’ve been paying about a 0.1% tax to fund USAID.

This is pointless math instead of bad math. 0.1% isn't the issue, the issue is that it isn't actually paid by taxes, it is instead paid by money printing. It's not 0.1% of peoples taxable income going to USAID, it's billions in additional debt that is "funding" USAID.

The actual true cost to the people for the additional debt is hard to measure and likely hits a different generation that the people who created most of USAID. Instead of saying people payed 0.1% to fund USAID you should say they made at least that much additional debt every year. You could not spend 0.1% more than you earn over the course of like 60 years but USAID did that for everyone.

This assumes that people involuntarily paid for the last 60 years or so but they didn't. USAID was paid for by money printing and more debt making not by taxes. If you want volunteer to chip in they would first need to pay of the debt causes by USAID over the last 60+ years.

Also lets be real here, no one in their right mind would donate to USAID. There are near unlimited way to donate money for good causes and very specific ones, where you can see results. If your goal is to have your money be efficiently used to help people you would never give it to the government. Any other organization that isn't straight up a scam, will be more efficient than the gov.

Yeah. The aid given to these nations tends to be a pittance compared to the damage that's been done to them by imperialism. Both old school colonial imperialism in the past and modern economic imperialism that tends to prop up autocratic leaders who take out high interest loans to enrich themselves and hold the working class down to enrich foreign corporations.

Rather than dismantling USAID it should have been reformed. The U.S. should have a single point of foreign aid, but that aid should be highly structured, audited, and at least a few legal constraints that cannot be adjusted or reinterpreted by future generations.

I agree, at this point it does seem like there was enormous fraud at USAID and some very bad behavior. I can only deduce that the reason why it stayed hidden for so long was that, politically, if not economically, everyone with something to lose was benefiting.

I don’t think enormous fraud has been uncovered. The argument, I don’t buy personally, is that the only way to reform such a beast is to kill it and start over with a totally new entity. Other than thousands of deaths now and downstream geopolitical instability threatening more in the future, we’ll have to wait and see if this will help with the budget deficit as promised by the paragon of credibility Elon Musk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com