The Marshall Plan might be an interesting precedent here; over 5% of US GDP spent on foreign aid. I kind of wish that Brits and Europeans were more vocally grateful about getting help to rebuild after the war, it might encourage the yanks to do something similar today. The speech announcing the plan was also a banger.
"Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piece-meal basis as various crises develop...governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States."
"we are remote from the scene of these troubles. It is virtually impossible at this distance merely by reading, or listening, or even seeing photographs or motion pictures, to grasp at all the real significance of the situation...What are the sufferings? What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"
It's not our responsibility. Sudanese children are the responsibility of Sudanese adults. Ugandan children are the responsibility of Ugandan adults.
How will humanity reach greater heights, if underperformers keep getting bailed out by the outperformer? It would be like an economy, in which the most successful businesses have to keep subsidizing the least successful businesses, instead of letting the free market (in this case human microevolution) take its course.
Identical rookie rhetorical error from you and Hanania. He talks about food stamps making 10s of millions of Americans fatter. You call farm subsidies paying farmers to torture animals. In articles whose thrust is that the left does not secretly despise US recipients of government expenditure and would not prefer 100% of it to be spent abroad. You both completely undermine your own point for the sake of a cheap joke.
It’s funny to see a self-professed liberal friend of the underprivileged praise the likes of Richard Hanania who wants working class and poor Americans to be literally eating out of dumpsters. Interesting political bedfellows out on substack. You’re also friendly with the psychopath writing under ‘Deep Left Analysis.’
A thought experiment on the military part; has US naval hegemony has done far more to help foreigners than any foreign aid program when you look at the counterfactual? I suppose it depends on what a person thinks causes wars and how existing powers deter or cause them.
USAID is a tool for neoliberal regime change nonsense and our taxes should be spent helping American citizens at home. The neocon grifters at NED should be indicted and prosecuted for they were funding abroad too.
All this whinging and hand wringing about ways to use tax money! And here I thought you Effective Altruist types would be seeing a big opportunity. With USAID drying on the vine, now you can actually use your connections and pools of money to fill the gap. You can start and run charities for Africa that actually are focused on efficiently saving lives, instead of also paying for Politico subscriptions and drag parties in Illinois. Apparently it's far more important to complain and argue for unpopular government programs instead of focusing on far more impactful ways of making a difference.
Defending USAID is more complicated than PEPFAR due to the fact that it was also carrying out ideological work, and even propping up dictatorships. But even the critics who point that out consider simply dismantling it to be wrong, due to all the health interventions it was doing.
Also, interesting shots at Cambridge, my own impression is that Cambridge is the top dog, since it has considerably more Nobel Prize winners, and I heard from someone who studied at Oxford that it sucks:
> But I had a bad time at Oxford and I wanted students to know what they were getting into, so I would sit across from them in the dining hall, plates full of chicken tenders and french fries, and explain that postgraduate education in the UK is largely a way of extracting money from foreign students. Professors over there are checked out, classes are bad, and the whole place is pervaded with this sense of isolation and alienation, like everyone is behind a plate of glass.
For the ideological work, I admit it's more of a rumor I'm seeing in twitter, with NGOs names being thrown around and not something the media is reporting (which doesn't mean it's false, the media does have ideological blinders, as seen in their failure to report the FAA hiring scandal).
Well, you're part of the ethnonationalist right— you would say that. But the average right wing person takes pains to correct anyone who says that they're opposed to legal immigration.
Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land, but if it makes you feel better to pretend that is not the case, you may do so.
The footnote makes me smile.
The Marshall Plan might be an interesting precedent here; over 5% of US GDP spent on foreign aid. I kind of wish that Brits and Europeans were more vocally grateful about getting help to rebuild after the war, it might encourage the yanks to do something similar today. The speech announcing the plan was also a banger.
"Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piece-meal basis as various crises develop...governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States."
"we are remote from the scene of these troubles. It is virtually impossible at this distance merely by reading, or listening, or even seeing photographs or motion pictures, to grasp at all the real significance of the situation...What are the sufferings? What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"
It's not our responsibility. Sudanese children are the responsibility of Sudanese adults. Ugandan children are the responsibility of Ugandan adults.
How will humanity reach greater heights, if underperformers keep getting bailed out by the outperformer? It would be like an economy, in which the most successful businesses have to keep subsidizing the least successful businesses, instead of letting the free market (in this case human microevolution) take its course.
O feel like in a Captain America Movie where suddenly we find that Tony Stark is Red Skull. The DOGE looks like HYDRA…
Identical rookie rhetorical error from you and Hanania. He talks about food stamps making 10s of millions of Americans fatter. You call farm subsidies paying farmers to torture animals. In articles whose thrust is that the left does not secretly despise US recipients of government expenditure and would not prefer 100% of it to be spent abroad. You both completely undermine your own point for the sake of a cheap joke.
It’s funny to see a self-professed liberal friend of the underprivileged praise the likes of Richard Hanania who wants working class and poor Americans to be literally eating out of dumpsters. Interesting political bedfellows out on substack. You’re also friendly with the psychopath writing under ‘Deep Left Analysis.’
A thought experiment on the military part; has US naval hegemony has done far more to help foreigners than any foreign aid program when you look at the counterfactual? I suppose it depends on what a person thinks causes wars and how existing powers deter or cause them.
USAID is a tool for neoliberal regime change nonsense and our taxes should be spent helping American citizens at home. The neocon grifters at NED should be indicted and prosecuted for they were funding abroad too.
All this whinging and hand wringing about ways to use tax money! And here I thought you Effective Altruist types would be seeing a big opportunity. With USAID drying on the vine, now you can actually use your connections and pools of money to fill the gap. You can start and run charities for Africa that actually are focused on efficiently saving lives, instead of also paying for Politico subscriptions and drag parties in Illinois. Apparently it's far more important to complain and argue for unpopular government programs instead of focusing on far more impactful ways of making a difference.
You-are-delusional. You are criticizing the guys that:
Saved about 200,000 lives, mostly from malaria.
Treated 25 million cases of chronic parasite infection.
Given 5 million people access to clean drinking water.
Supported additional research into vaccines for syphilis, malaria, helminths, and hepatitis C and E.
Supported teams giving development economics advice in Ethiopia, India, Rwanda, and worldwide.
They did all that stuff because they believed that targeted, focused charity was more efficient than broad programs.
Defending USAID is more complicated than PEPFAR due to the fact that it was also carrying out ideological work, and even propping up dictatorships. But even the critics who point that out consider simply dismantling it to be wrong, due to all the health interventions it was doing.
Also, interesting shots at Cambridge, my own impression is that Cambridge is the top dog, since it has considerably more Nobel Prize winners, and I heard from someone who studied at Oxford that it sucks:
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/you-cant-reach-the-brain-through
> But I had a bad time at Oxford and I wanted students to know what they were getting into, so I would sit across from them in the dining hall, plates full of chicken tenders and french fries, and explain that postgraduate education in the UK is largely a way of extracting money from foreign students. Professors over there are checked out, classes are bad, and the whole place is pervaded with this sense of isolation and alienation, like everyone is behind a plate of glass.
Can you give any examples of this? Anyway, PEPFAR was run by USAID.
The claim that they propped up dictatorships comes from William Easterly, who is regardless a critic of DOGE's move regarding USAID:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Easterly
I learnt of him from a tweet by Kelsey Piper, who is someone I trust:
https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1888334749082828891?t=oglpf8jdBD-w-qQCioEtnQ&s=19
For the ideological work, I admit it's more of a rumor I'm seeing in twitter, with NGOs names being thrown around and not something the media is reporting (which doesn't mean it's false, the media does have ideological blinders, as seen in their failure to report the FAA hiring scandal).
You're missing the (unstated) point.
USAid saves countless lives in the world's hell holes.
Those people then grow up and realise they live in a hell hole.
America is nice.
Those people all want to go to America.
Those that get to America become illegal immigrants.
Why spend money creating more immigrants?
(For the avoidance of doubt this isn't my view)
Most migrants immigrate legally, and the right currently pretends they support legal migration.
The neocons do. Ending birthright citizenship was a big opening blow against legal migration.
Well, you're part of the ethnonationalist right— you would say that. But the average right wing person takes pains to correct anyone who says that they're opposed to legal immigration.
Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land, but if it makes you feel better to pretend that is not the case, you may do so.
The executive order signals the intent to change the law. How the courts process it remains to be seen.
As of present writing, three different judges have blocked it.
Changing the law will require a Constitutional amendment.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/third-federal-judge-blocks-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order/