(October 15, 2014 at 6:38 pm)ForumMember77 Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 4:53 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Again, I don't think you could qualify that statement with evidence. There's no knowing what people from a different state would do when put into the same context that many poor and destitute Liberians or Sierra leoneans [sic] and are facing right now.

You neglected the question I suggested you ask, yourself.

If other countries stopped aid to Africa, for whatever reason, what would happen ?

We both know, their population would reconcile itself with the societal construct of the peoples within.

I didn't answer because You edited the response.

Anyway, what African state are you talking about? Who do you mean when you say 'Africa'? Africa is not homogenous, there are massive divides between North and South and east and west.

I don't think the question you're asking makes any sense unless we actually look at the proportion of GDP that can be attributed to revenue streams created as a direct result of international financial aid. You'd need to be able to demonstrate that there is enough of a direct proportional link between aid and population demographics in a given area.

I have to keep reiterating this - the west as normatively defined takes more money out of 'Africa' then we put in. A lot more.

So, rather than keep answering id like your evidence and thoughts as requested on my previous points, please. Then we can start addressing the question of aid being responsible for population growth in any given African State.

(October 16, 2014 at 2:54 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So, rather than keep answering id like your evidence

LOL, I could go looking for some. But then on the internet one thing is a certain, if you go looking for something you will find it.

It seems somewhat dishonest for me to do such a thing.

I believe, to my own embarrassment, on a mere collection of frequent news reports and semi-related things I have read and/or seen regarding 'Africa'. There has always been some sickly 'African' child on television starving to death in my lifetime, trying to tug on empathy strings for aid.

Perhaps you could set me straight then, what is your reasoning for the contrary position. Facts and data help.
I always just assumed based on the nature of never ending 'African aid' commercials that it was a net deficit for everyone, including the people living there.

I would hope your data doesn't use the potential risks of doing nothing as a measurable quantity to offset the net return on outside............. suppose I'll start calling it investment instead of aid now, seeing as your going to show me we take more out than put in.

I realise I haven't specified where exactly in Africa, but then you have already supposed something in there by taking an opposing stance. So by all means.

I don't know what you mean.

I just responded to some of your points with counter points that seek to demolish the sense of a parsimonious relationship between 'aid' (define?) and population growth and variations of demographics therein.

Case in point. You mention 'Africa', and I responded saying that 'Africa' does not exist as an homogeneous entity. It's impossible to define a debate on the efficacy of aid and revenue streams generated as a result when you reduce the nature of the debate to such a simplistic base it renders the very point of the debate moot and the thoughts and views generated inert.

(October 28, 2014 at 1:17 am)ForumMember77 Wrote:

(October 16, 2014 at 2:54 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So, rather than keep answering id like your evidence

LOL, I could go looking for some. But then on the internet one thing is a certain, if you go looking for something you will find it.

It seems somewhat dishonest for me to do such a thing.

Dishonest to back up your views where relevant? I never knew that was even a possibility.

(October 28, 2014 at 1:17 am)ForumMember77 Wrote: I would hope your data doesn't use the potential risks of doing nothing as a measurable quantity to offset the net return on outside............. suppose I'll start calling it investment instead of aid now, seeing as your going to show me we take more out than put in.

Taking out resources and hard cash generated as a result does not necessarily equate to levels of aid input.

A business from China seeking to exploit natural mineral resources in Kenya, for example, won't do so in direct proportion to the aid input into that same economy. So I don't understand your point.

I also don't understand your point about the benchmark of 'not doing anything' vis 'doing something'. I hadn't even brought that up but that's a standard benchmark for any opportunity cost so could you elucidate what you mean?

(October 28, 2014 at 1:17 am)ForumMember77 Wrote: I realise I haven't specified where exactly in Africa, but then you have already supposed something in there by taking an opposing stance. So by all means.

No I haven't. SEE: First point.

You appear to be wanting to circumvent the usual methodology of debate whereby you make a claim, you back it up so I can discuss. You claimed:

(October 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm)ForumMember77 Wrote: The opposite is true, to the point were even the people living there can't tell the difference between their own economy and aid. If Africa ever stopped being in some need of aid entitlement, it would collapse economically.

Thus, present the facts as you see them, then we'll talk. I'm not one to be drawn in different directions unless I can get an answer to the point I was initially questioning. If my belief is right should some evidence be presented about the above we can then start moving into other areas such as the actual economies of these countries and their subsequent constraints (and indeed what causes these).

(October 28, 2014 at 6:05 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I have to keep reiterating this - the west as normatively defined takes more money out of 'Africa' then we put in. A lot more.

---

On what grounds do you say this, I could find evidence as to back up my claim. I gave you the reasons I thought that way, in its place. But if you could prove this, any evidence I could find would be pre-emptively refuted, it's almost the polar opposite of what I said.

Why do you think is ? What makes you think this ? I am curious.

I already presented the figures of annual UK spend on aid as equating to 0.7% of its total budget. I don't think it's possible to say what & of that then goes into 'Africa' (defined?) but needless to say it's far from 100%.

Admittedly it's not easy to find individual revenue generated as a result of specific instances of involvement of a company in African markets, but consider the use of oil, for example. You think oil generated from oil fields in even one country (say, I don't know, Congo) is less than 0.7% of the UK's aid budget?

In fact, let's look at the DRC.

http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance....c-of-congo

There you have some basic figures of aid input into DRC. GNI was 15% generated from aid.

Now consider, say, one oil company operating there - Perenco (anglo french). average of 40,000 BOPD (http://www.perenco.com/operations/africa/congo.html ) as of December 2013

Brent Crude lists December 2013 gross oil ($/BOPD) = $110.76 (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHan...=RBRTE&f=M)

110.76 * $4,430,400 A day = $132,912,000 a month gross (*30). I can't be bothered to factor in a variance so naturally that figure will fluctuate month by month.

Just one company operating out of one state that gets 15% GNI from aid probably makes nearly that in one year. Multiply that out for the total number of oil companies operating out of Congo (I don't know how many there are,probably quite a few).

(October 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm)ForumMember77 Wrote: The opposite is true, to the point were even the people living there can't tell the difference between their own economy and aid. If Africa ever stopped being in some need of aid entitlement, it would collapse economically.

Do me the courtesy of not evading.

Amend by previous figures to factor in an average price for crude - http://ycharts.com/indicators/average_cr...spot_price ($105.48). Difference is marginal.

Only your aid link works, can you provide the links to the oil barons of the Congo.

Links amended - They all work aside the crude oil - I've detailed an average brent crude spot listing on the exchange in my second post that's $105.48.

I don't need to do the math or the variance to see the figure coming out roughly the same.

Can you provide me some evidence yet?

(October 15, 2014 at 9:50 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The issue with Ebola is that it crosses continents.

The issue with Ebola is that it is allowed to cross continents.

Evidence to what ? I said I didn't have any, and I told you why I believed what I believed. If I was wrong, I was wrong, I'll admit that after I've read you 'reasons' for believing a contrary view, and find it convincing.

This is not a point scoring game, I want to know whether I was wrong. Sincerely I do, I will say this. Your 'reason' screams of a random google search to find evidence you might not have been privy to before hand, I asked why you believe. Not what evidence you could google search in X amount of time. If I were to take this apart, would you be swayed ?
Because if I cant, I will be.

It would be helpful if you would provide links that worked. Preferably to the oil companies profits and not to their BOPD. Considering you have made it such a main point. And you clearly had them at some point before, considering this is why you believed what you said in the first place.