What I mean by band-aid is that it helps a targeted few out. It doesn't solve the problem. I want to solve the problem and property rights, trade, and a banking system is a long-sighted view not a short-sighted view. Things could actually get worse while aid increases. In fact it is because those institutions aren't there. My insight is to look at why we are wealthy and what allows us to be so. I mean where does the aid money come from? It comes from people who have jobs and work for a living. We need people to produce and not having the economic freedom we take for granted is a major disadvantage. Many countries have laws that are just there to make bureaucrats and lawyers lots of fees. Wiping out this red tape saves the public a lot of money and gives them investment opportunities. Countries like Zimbabwe have rapid inflation and coercive taxes that make it hard to start and keep a business. Government spending should be aimed at education and infrastructure. Monetary prudence and balanced budgets should be aimed at. When countries develop better markets they can create their own tax revenue for their own safety net. Until then our aid money gets wasted with corrupt officials as often as help a few out on a temporary basis. We've thrown more money at North Korea than in Africa (because of their military threats) and it didn't solve the problem though yes some people are still alive because of it. Yet the food that gets to people there comes via a black-market instead of it directly going to the starving. Throwing more money is hardly a lasting solution. Hand outs only make sense when there is a job waiting for you at the other end. What I'm trying to point out is that social programs can't exist without wealth being developed somewhere first. Wealth development is the key.
Most European governments have come to this conclusion very slowly. They worry that they can't continually fund their programs without some tax alleviation somewhere. The balance they have usually is high personal taxes with low corporate taxes. I think the balance is even better with lower spending, and lower taxes across the board. This though will have to include a change in culture that prizes individualism and self-reliance. That would mean people would have to exercise more, take less drugs, work 40 hours a week and save a portion of their income for emergencies and in the long run: retirement. The safety net would only be for those areas of infrastructure, health care and education where people can't afford the basics. Yet at some point health and education would have to have some competition somewhere or else there would be bad quality services. Bono emphasizes the Marshall Plan without looking at the cultures and infrastructures in place to benefit from the Marshall Plan. Despite the bombing in WWII Europe had lots of things in place to get them back on track like democracy, trade, private property rights and a banking system.
I think it's easier for people to just throw money at the problem than to deal with it directly. I mean, it's hard to remove dictators and create constitutions and to develop markets. It's hard to exercise more and to pay and earn an education. Most things worth doing are hard. Even if where I live decides to go more socialist I'll still save money and do the right behaviours regardless.
