The world is your garage ...

sloboy

Love buying bikes but don't have enough space to keep them all ?

No problem !

The world's a big place and there are two great ways to enjoy all the pleasure of buying a bike without all the nasty hassle of cleaning it, fixing it, damn, even riding it.

If you've got a space for a big bike not to be in your garage

Go here

If you only have space for a little bike not to be in your garage, why not

Go here

boybiker

Yeah, er no sorry I am afraid that any spare cash is going to be spent on me rather than buying bikes to teach Africans about a disease which everyone in the entire world has known about for the past 30 years.It seems that there have been any number of schemes trying to do the same thing without any measurable results.

boybiker

Also I am one of those difficult people who thinks that increasing Africa's dependency on foreign aid does nobody any good

pdstsp

Quite right - let them all die or kill each other - it's much better for them :?

The idea is to show some humanity.

STEFANOS4784

BB, i assume you're just trying to get a rise out of people as i don't think it's possible to be that ignorant :P

alfablue

boybiker has pretty primitive views, I have encountered them before, however he serves an important role, we need people like him so that we know we are better people.

boybiker

Well I am all for helping people but it just don't see that it helps to make people more dependant on charity.
I know that its a very emotive subject but simply throwing money at Africa doesn't help as has been shown over the past few years.

STEFANOS4784

I really think he's trying to get a rise out of people, i've done this my-self but have since learned the scorn of the forumites :arrow:

STEFANOS4784

hhhngghhh hhhhhpssgh!

No good i've got to reply, how is providing people who aren't lucky enough to live in a developed country with tools to help them and the odd bike to provide them with some happiness :?

Can you give an example of an orginisatioon that simply 'throws money' at 3rd world countrys? Money raised is more likely to go to providing things to help these people to become more self sufficient and teach them about the things that they have not been made aware of, we are very lucky :roll:

CHRISNOIR

To be fair to BB the 'Aid To Africa' thing isn't so cut and dried - pretty good article about it here.

robthehungrymonkey

Not a direct comment on this scheme in particular... ( it sounds like a good one)

But in my work we deal with a lot of African customers, and they all say exactly the same thing. It doesn't matter where the money is supposed to go, and how they make sure it will go to those that need it. It inevitably doesn't. It makes the rich, richer.
They were all pretty unhappy about live8, and Bob Geldof in particular ( i can't remember why).

My 2p, on what money should be spent on by more prosperous countries is actually building the infrastructure in Africa themselves. To encourage foreign investment that will give a long term income and work to those that need it.

Africa is corrupt, and I can't see that ending any time soon.

cyclingtaz

what about those of us who can barely afford to heat our houses and put food on the table let alone give money away to charityeven though we live in a developed country

alfablue

cyclingtaz wrote:

what about those of us who can barely afford to heat our houses and put food on the table let alone give money away to charityeven though we live in a developed country

This is a wealthy country (5th wealthiest economy in the world?), that we have poverty in this country is shameful, however the answer is tax and a welfare state combined with a prospering economy. I never believe charity begins at home, it merely helps the rich and well off absolve their consciences whilst retaining their tax money. What poverty we have is relative, it would be seen as considerable wealth by a large proportion of those who live in the third world (who have, by the way, been exploited for years to make the first world as rich as it is).

boybiker

alfablue wrote:

boybiker has pretty primitive views, I have encountered them before, however he serves an important role, we need people like him so that we know we are better people.

Well at least I am not quite such an arrogant arsehole as your good self

alfablue

boybiker wrote:

alfablue wrote:

boybiker has pretty primitive views, I have encountered them before, however he serves an important role, we need people like him so that we know we are better people.

Well at least I am not quite such an arrogant arsehole as your good self

I am delighted to have absolutely nothing in common with you, though I do suspect the "spend all my money on myself/stuff the needy" type comment is a tad arrogant.

pdstsp

That sounds like a great scheme - the point is not what it costs it is all about the good it can do.
Boybiker's argument is to do with aid per se, not the type of aid. Personally I do give when I can as the levels of poverty and sickness are so extreme as to warrant our help. I agree that there should be better ways of delievering help, be it by way of infrastructure improvements etc but the problems in places like Sudan and the Congo are so endemic that it is difficult to see Western companies investing/gambling in the area when it is subject to civil war, changing regimes., organised crime and state corruption. However if I can give a bit and a child does not die as a result, or smeones life is changed for the better then I am willing to give.

Boybikers does have an argument but his attitude is disgusting - IMO.

Paul

boybiker

Sadly I don't know much about charities but I do know that all I see is an endless parade of appeals like this one go to dosomething like buy a waterpump for some village somewhere, what you never see is the charity saying 'give us 20 quid and we will try to get MegaBastardBunnySquasher cars
to build a new plant in Africa, giving African people jobs and supporting the economy, and the reason is that they know that the type of people who salve their concienses by
giving to charity don't like MegaBastardBunnySqausher cars.

What Africa needs is investment and not bikes.

boybiker

You are never going to solve any of Africa's problems by giving people bikes unless you can also give them jobs and homes enormous amounts of corruption mean that any money given by someone ,however well meaning is simply not the answer

pdstsp

But boybiker what these schemes do is to help individuals at a time when those individuals need help. I may salve my concsience by giving to charity (is it bad to have a conscience?) but I do not particularly dislike business as you seem to suggest. Indeed I own my own business which looks after lots of other businesses.
However I do not think it is the job of the charity sector to raise money to give to business to invest in new countries - they may encourage those businesses but they are not shreholders in them nor capital providers. Charities are there to offer help when other methods are failing.
You clealry have some very strong opinions but you also show a contempt which I find very distasteful.

boybiker

Its not wrong to have a conscience but there is this idea in western society that you can solve all of the problems in Africa by dealing with it on a micro economic scale where the real solution lies in radical macro economic change.
I am sorry if I offend people but it upsets me when I see charities offering the same solutions and allow people who obviously mean well to say oh Ive done my bit to help but they don't really give any though to what is needed .I don't know what the answer is but I do know that riding bikes round Africa teaching people about AIDS is is a hopeless solution.
I cn only say that I do have a tendency to say what I think and I don't often agree with the mainstream view, so you'll have to forgive me that.

teagar

Why does everyone seem to think that the West is the only group able to solve Africa? Is that the case? Is the West somehow superior to any other group? Is it superior to Africa?

After all, Africans are in no way less able to help themselves than any other group of people. I think it'd be worth considering the implication of the language used in these discussions.

It's unfortunate that Africa has been subject to colonialist rule that was not only prejudice, largely based on siniser social darwinism, but that it created power structures which were simply unsuitable to the social and geographical conditions of Africa. Just because it works in the West shouldn't mean it works elsewhere.

Now that these unsuitable power structures exist, it is difficult to sovle, but further western intervention is unlikely to solve anything, as the current situation in Africa demonstrates.


Now i apologise if these ideas are slighty half-baked. I'm only halfway through my postcolonial theory based africa history course, but language like "primitive" and "native" have far too many negative and discriminatory connotations to be used in this day and age.

sloboy

"unless you also give them jobs and homes"

Quite true. However the only way to do that in the short term would be to displace the corrupt regimes. Well, that's not a job for NGOs that'll have to be governments.

Oh yes, government mandated regime change. We're good at that, I remember. So that's a problem with Government led programmes.

How about commercial investment then ? Perhaps that'll work. Well, you can choose which you prefer out of the influence of the oil companies in the Nigeria or the mining companies in the South. The point being that their interest aligns with the commercial interests of their shareholders and so they are more likely to connive with a corrupt government that anything else.

I guess there just aren't enough philanthropic billionaires to go round.

I'm happy to be the first to accept that any bicycle donation initiative is somewhat frivolous, actually, most of the small amount I donate I will usually direct to simple fundamentals. Water supplies, measles vaccinations, mosquito net kind of things.

Such gestures have two possible values in my view:

- a political one, of the "voting with your wallet" kind of thing

- a practical and individual one. If any proportion of the aid impacts any one individual positively, that's a good thing.

There is not any one "the answer". The very suggestion that there might be is ludicrously simplistic in my view.

sloboy

teagar wrote:

Now i apologise if these ideas are slighty half-baked. I'm only halfway through my postcolonial theory based africa history course, but language like "primitive" and "native" have far too many negative and discriminatory connotations to be used in this day and age.

It'll be interesting to see how your thinking develops. The "I wouldn't start from here" approach is not an option, and any country, or perhaps nation, wanting to make its way in the world has to come to terms with the massive capital power of the West.

There are probably some interesting lessons to learn from India and perhaps China.

However, to return to the original point - I don't suppose for a moment that anyone - except maybe Bill and Melinda - thinks that their charitable donation is part of radical reengineering of the global economy. Compassion - different from pity - is also a valuable resource that can be harnessed and exploited for good.

STEFANOS4784

God alive, i had no idea this forum had so many politicians :shock: :P :x :evil:

bobpzero

just mentioning charities, dont forget tearfund and the hospice.
i think this is what boybiker is hinting at the problem of..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7738297.stm

STEFANOS4784

Right, it would seem that the only course of action would be mass sterilisation. (this would work, i don't agree with it but...............)

teagar

sloboy wrote:

teagar wrote:

Now i apologise if these ideas are slighty half-baked. I'm only halfway through my postcolonial theory based africa history course, but language like "primitive" and "native" have far too many negative and discriminatory connotations to be used in this day and age.

It'll be interesting to see how your thinking develops. The "I wouldn't start from here" approach is not an option, and any country, or perhaps nation, wanting to make its way in the world has to come to terms with the massive capital power of the West.

There are probably some interesting lessons to learn from India and perhaps China.

However, to return to the original point - I don't suppose for a moment that anyone - except maybe Bill and Melinda - thinks that their charitable donation is part of radical reengineering of the global economy. Compassion - different from pity - is also a valuable resource that can be harnessed and exploited for good.

I think it's pretty safe to say that many african states are more than aware of the economic power of the West. What, after all, were the Congo wars about? Unfortunately, the nature of competitive free markets lends itself only well to the large economies of the west, largely at the expense of the small economies. The terms of trade do not allow for any significant or subtantial gain for anyone but that who has the power within the terms of trade!

I don't think awareness is the problem, nor do I think a comparison with India or China is relevant. Just because India, China, and Africa is not the West, doesn't mean they are all the same, or that they are largely similar!

sloboy

I agree they're not the same, my point was just that it's not within the power of the people of Africa to change the rules of the economic game. The same applied to India and China but they have achieved an extraordinary shift in their position of influence in the world compared with 10 or 20 years ago.

As for the mis-spending on empty schools, it shows typical political preferences for capital rather than current spending. However, that article refutes boybiker's assertion that all investment will naturally and automatically go astray. It says it was less effective than it might have been, but it doesn't say it disappeared without trace.

robthehungrymonkey

sloboy wrote:

I agree they're not the same, my point was just that it's not within the power of the people of Africa to change the rules of the economic game. The same applied to India and China but they have achieved an extraordinary shift in their position of influence in the world compared with 10 or 20 years ago.

As for the mis-spending on empty schools, it shows typical political preferences for capital rather than current spending. However, that article refutes boybiker's assertion that all investment will naturally and automatically go astray. It says it was less effective than it might have been, but it doesn't say it disappeared without trace.

When I read that I assumed, that vast hospitals were being built because it made it easy to reward certain people with huge sums if there was a hospital at the end of it. The builders, the person awarding the contract, the various politicians that were involved in the decision making. I've no doubt they all personally profited massively from it.

China and communism IMO has shown the way to progress as a country. The only thing China is concerned about is progression. They ruling political party doesn't have to pander to votes, it does what is best for the country as a whole and doesn't have to do what it thinks will win votes. Poverty is decreasing by the day, and generally the chinese are happy and full of hope, throughout the country, even those not so well off.
I think the speed in which China has progressed post Mao is phenominal. It's not communism really, but just avoids all the problems with democracy. They are addressing all the traditional criticisms too.

Sorry, off on a tangent there...

I think Bill Gates is the only answer to the worlds problems!

boybiker

The other major problem I have with charities is people who get so tied up in eating 27 million baked beans with a toothpick for charadee, so some hospital can stay open that they forget to ask the very obvious question which is what happens to the tax that working people pay and is supposed to go to things like keeping hospitals open and why should people be expected to pay twice for something which shouldn't need a charitable donation at all.
But sadly you are not supposed to ask those sorts of questions I suppose. :?

alfablue

Ah, I agree boybiker - I have worked in hospitals and it angers me no-end that equipment such as hoists, legally required for health and safety, are funded through league of friends donations! Tax should pay for these things, and relying on charity is just saving the tax payer when they should be paying for it. This is why I don't agree with charities that focus on the UK, because they merely allow the tax payer to avoid their moral responsibilities. Third world charities I DO agree with however.