logoalt Hacker News

WarmWashtoday at 6:02 PM4 repliesview on HN

I understand the need for charity, and we should be doing it to support these countries.

But I don't see how to logically make the connection that when you pull that charity back, you are now responsible for any crisis.

That is exactly the argument that people who are against foreign aid make.

Like I will help you walk and feed your dog if you can't all the time, but if I stop doing that and your dog gets sick, that's not my fault and I'm not a bad person.


Replies

bonessstoday at 7:57 PM

The US is by leaps and bounds the world’s largest economy.

“Charity” is not foreign aide. Foreign aide keeps the refugees from the one chunk of wherever from overwhelming the government of their neighbour which has a knock-on effect on the price of Critical Defence Material or shipping and/or oil. That bones us, even if we hate everyone involved.

Then, afterwords, everyone has to do a ton of work re-corrupting and re-inserting their business interests into the upstart regimes. We want the Devils we know and have bribed handsomely, new bribes suck.

It has very little to do with ‘them’, per se, and everything to do with our wallets. Granted, normal business people like stability; disruption, famine, and war work very well for others. We prefer to choose when we topple regimes than having food shocks and epidemics thrust it upon us, better ROI and easier scheduling.

dnqthaotoday at 6:35 PM

It is not charity, these are to protect the US against these diseases. Do you think it will stay there and will not come to US shore?

ceejayoztoday at 6:04 PM

How you pull it back matters.

Why you were doing it in the first place matters, too.

SpicyLemonZesttoday at 6:09 PM

You're mixing up different "you"s. If the American legislature got together and passed a law saying the American people just don't want to do so much foreign aid anymore, that would be a hard call.

But that's not what happened. Elon Musk, a random rich guy who was not himself financing the charity, appointed himself dictator of all American spending programs. He promised his patron that he would make the government run more efficiently, but found himself unable to. Then he went around randomly breaking charitable programs in an attempt to prove that his failed government efficiency initiative was producing meaningful outcomes. That's why he is accountable (and will be held accountable) for the people his decisions have killed.

show 1 reply