there is a counter argument that USAID was a saviors camp for white people to "solve" the problems that systemic inequity against africa and the rest of the developing world caused by those same white peoples governments and industrys
If you were right it would still be wrong to solve the bigger equation by first cancelling the good things that trickled from the US GDP in the general direction of people whose lives are on the line, many of them children. And this is exactly what they did, and it is shameful.
For most of the global south USAID was the arm of America they were most likely to interact with. It was food and schools and medicine and disaster relief. It was soft power and goodwill.
Not only has the longest charm campaign in history ended, but a door to China and others been opened.
Nobody gets that rich without throwing overboard any morals or ethics. You won't become a billionaire - let alone a trillionaire - if you are bothered by the wellbeing of other humans. Just being that rich is unethical, given that there are currently people starving to death on the planet.
To our society it's more important that few people have the opportunity to get insanely rich rather than that all people have food and shelter.
It's more that the ultra-riches' money opens doors, enabling them to influence the public's perception of reality. Never mind 'think tanks', lobbying, lining politicians pockets to have them ignore the public's interests. Clip free speech here & there, or hammer critics with legal threats or troll armies. Maaany tools in the box when money is no object.
After a while this trickles down & promotes an environment where people really don't care about others' suffering. America first! Oh my, gas prices jumped! Groceries went up! Who cares about HIV infected babies in Africa.
there is a counter argument that USAID was a saviors camp for white people to "solve" the problems that systemic inequity against africa and the rest of the developing world caused by those same white peoples governments and industrys
If you were right it would still be wrong to solve the bigger equation by first cancelling the good things that trickled from the US GDP in the general direction of people whose lives are on the line, many of them children. And this is exactly what they did, and it is shameful.
That’s a pretty uninformed argument.
For most of the global south USAID was the arm of America they were most likely to interact with. It was food and schools and medicine and disaster relief. It was soft power and goodwill.
Not only has the longest charm campaign in history ended, but a door to China and others been opened.
Of course he is.
Nobody gets that rich without throwing overboard any morals or ethics. You won't become a billionaire - let alone a trillionaire - if you are bothered by the wellbeing of other humans. Just being that rich is unethical, given that there are currently people starving to death on the planet.
To our society it's more important that few people have the opportunity to get insanely rich rather than that all people have food and shelter.
Priorities I guess.
> Priorities I guess
It's more that the ultra-riches' money opens doors, enabling them to influence the public's perception of reality. Never mind 'think tanks', lobbying, lining politicians pockets to have them ignore the public's interests. Clip free speech here & there, or hammer critics with legal threats or troll armies. Maaany tools in the box when money is no object.
After a while this trickles down & promotes an environment where people really don't care about others' suffering. America first! Oh my, gas prices jumped! Groceries went up! Who cares about HIV infected babies in Africa.