I was very disappointed to watch Bill Gates' response to a question on Dambisa Moyo's "Dead Aid". Watch
Seriously it is one thing working on codes and programming and living in a country full of poverty and "Aid". Dambisa Moyo is Zambian, a poor country which is a massive recipient of aid. Bill Gates and visisted it on several occasions and probably was taken to meet some of the poor people he "helps" out. But the issue is the experience on the matter and not being a by-stander and being led to meet poor people so you can dish some aid to them. The two have had completely different perspectives of the same thing.
But that is not the issue as I saw it. They are people who have simply empathized on the poor and got a great understanding of the issue in totality So we would expect that Gates can have a good understanding of the issues that are being addressed here. Maybe even better that Dambisa.
But surely saying Dambisa's book promotes evil is a hit below the belt no matter how much you think you know the issues. I don't think it even comes close to being an insult, it is disgraceful of the man. Look at the facts on the table. I will use some well known sources for easy of reference:
"despite one trillion dollars in western aid over the past sixty years, the economic lot of the average African has only gotten worse. Most Africans now live on one dollar per day, and sub-Saharan Africa remains the poorest region in the world. Despite a deluge of aid between the years of 1970 and 1998, poverty on the continent skyrocketed from 11 percent of the population to 66 percent, which means over six hundred million Africans are now impoverished." (Guernica)
Meaning, the more aid keeps coming to Africa, the poorer the people are becoming. Logically, a rethink of the whole system is in order. But does that re-thinking worth being called "promoting evil"? Surely have respect for intellectual alternative that is being offered. With due respect if this was an area that she has no connection with, you wouldn't disregard one that much, but an economist from Africa talking about an alternative to the system and that is promoting "evil"?
I think the whole thing was probably mis-understood by Gates. Someone credited as being an analyst of great intellectual standing would not go out and literally be so "un-intellectual". I don't think he has even looked at his competitors over the years as that!
The more I read about the issues, the more I realize the people involved in the debate and unfortunately, can easily be grouped into only two - promoters of aid and promoters of alternative thinking. The promoters are mostly from donor groups or individuals and the alternative thinkers are from poverty and aid recipient countries!
I have never seen anything worth talking about aid. It is mostly used by so called "donors" to get what they want. I even coined a word for one - Gay-Aid. Where the "gay rights" are used in order to get "aid". Malawi is an example of that outcome. Without serious brain gears turning, you reralize the problem of "aid". It does not work to improve people's livelihoods but makes a good thing to use for the west to get their way. African leaders have long been known to use aid to win elections or control certain views all of which do not promote growth and economic prosperity.
On the other hand, if people are being taught to improve and infrastructure built from the financial sector, they would be great responsibility in making sure the goodness of the spirit to build is achieved. This is unlike a situation where one stands with a plate for a donation from Gates foundation to eat. Why would any government think of improving and providing for the people? After all, gates will do it while they steal the wealth through corruption and bribers from west countries' companies. Responsibility and the desire to work and produce results is killed by aid. I seriously look for evidence of a continent that developed from aid! I would be give you a large one which has not move forward over decades because of aid. The facts are on the table not debating the person.
Guernica and other worthy of read sources have facts that Mr. Gates should have disputed and provided his own facts and not debate the person presenting her facts! It is always that simple!
Sorry, I may get derailed when people disrespect the whole issue of intellectual debate that I may divert myself but when facts are presented, an ad hominem in this time and age is really a hit below the belt!
