Controversy with Bono's opinions on aid to Africa? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2008, 10:54 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Controversy with Bono's opinions on aid to Africa?

FYI these posts have been moved from this thread:
http://forum.interference.com/f196/p...-188125-8.html

-Sicy
--------------------------------



Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
I take it you just found out about the band?
I don't agree with his politics all the time but I expect him to be political because they always were. The music is great on it's own. If the music wasn't good nobody would care what he says. Look at Bullet the Blue Sky, Silver & Gold, Crumbs from your table, Love and peace or else. Activist musicians already happened in the 60's. Most popular bands take up some political cause, often because they are pressured by special interest groups when they attain success. Special interest groups will often act like journalists and ask political questions about global warming, fair trade, or Africa to the band kind of forcing their hand through embarrasment. I seen questions asked of Coldplay in that manner.

Radiohead wanted to quit touring because of their carbon footprint and some activist artist said they shouldn't because their so important. “And someone like (him), I’m like please go on tour! Because so many people will follow what you say, because they really respect you. And they know that you really know what you’re talking about.” I guess some people's carbon footprints are more equal than others.

KT Tunstall questions Thom Yorke’s eco attitude | Radiohead At Ease [In Rainbows]

Maybe only Van Halen avoids politics like the plague but U2 sound much better them.

I mean I bought a Led Zeppelin DVD and it was talking about electing John Kerry on it. What about The Bealtes, The Rolling Stones, REM, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl Crow, and Coldplay? Don't they do the same thing?

In the end special interest groups are competing against each other for TV space, concert space, newspaper space for their pet projects; but money for fighting global warming interferes with money for AIDS, and money for disaster relief. With low savings rates in the western world people can't donate much to all without drastically changing their lifestyle. All the jobs for McDonalds, travel agents, cars and such would have to disappear if people chose to spend substantially on donations.

Look at the lyrics for Acrobat. He was already telling people then not to look to him to save the world, and that he was really a hypocrite or "acrobat". At least he was honest about it. I dare any successful band to openly express Conservative points of view as part of your concert every concert. I think that would be very rare and would be met with large resistance in the media and audience. I don't know of any conservative musicians that make great music. I think economics can't be put into a song.

You got to understand that Bono isn't a socialist with his money and we should all emulate his capitalist attitudes because that's actually WHAT HE DOES and ignore what he says in concert.

Bono said in this article:

Bono elevated to capital heights but claims he's not money-driven | U2 news article from @U2

"So many great painters, great musicians, great geniuses, ended up with nothing. With broken hearts in rooms with broken windows, I want to see artists sitting at the table that decides the outcome of their lives." He saves money and invests so his capital can pay his own way. The average person has to save 40% of what they make to get to the point of self sufficiency by 65 which is a big struggle if you took too long to pay off your mortgage.

U2 are making a new album because they want to, not because they have to. If I was Bono I would have trouble putting down the microphone simply because it's so awesome to have 50,000 people singing your songs back to you. That would be hard to give up.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 11:00 AM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You got to understand that Bono isn't a socialist with his money and we should all emulate his capitalist attitudes because that's actually WHAT HE DOES and ignore what he says in concert.
What does this even mean?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 11:59 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
What does this even mean?
What it means is that people should save their money so they don't become slaves to their jobs and they should control their own destiny like Bono controls his own destiny and how he believes the starving artist is not the way.

With people like Bono and his wealth a few millions in charity is only a small percentage of what he has. For the average ticket buyer it's a sacrifice to be generous with donations when the market is difficult and people have trouble with their mortgages.

Unless you can start a successful business or win the lottery, financial independence is hard work and full of self denial. Saving 40% of what you make is hard. There are people trying to retire and still have mortgages to pay because they didn't save in the past. It's hard with pensions the average people get outside government employment to actually pay their basic necessities. Lots of older people end up working when they don't want to, to make ends meet.

Between buying music, and movies I don't have the money to go on many vacations around the world like many people do because retirement is a long road and it's a priority over vacations or even donations. I want to control my own destiny. I want to be able to say "Naahhh. I'm not working anymore I want to spend time with my family", instead of having to work at age 68 because I'm desperate.

I'm certain this is the reason a lot of bands try and target younger audiences to keep their success alive. Once families start with financial responsibilities of mortgage and raising kids a rock 'n roll lifestyle and lots of fun becomes something in the background. How many families can really afford to travel to multiple U2 dates and still meet the basic responsibilities of an adult?

I don't know if many people on this site have jobs or are in school, but once people get a taste for workplace politics many people either try to escape into a fantasy world with entertainment, drugs, or they escape bullies by saving their pennies and retiring as early as possible. Or people start a rock band and make music that sells millions, or start a business, or in the rare occasion win the lottery.

I love U2's music and will buy their new album and remastered albums but my entertainment spending is allowed only because I don't indulge in other things like expensive vacations. I'm pretty sure U2 would agree that purchasing U2 tickets shouldn't come infront of healthcare for the kids, mortgage payments or food on table. Politics aside, people will buy the new album because it SOUNDS AWESOME.

Once a boss knows you have kids and a mortgage they often feel they can bully you and grind you because you're desperate for pay, especially during a recession.

Dream out loud and make YOUR OWN destiny. "Don't let the bastards grind you down."
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 01:09 PM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
What it means is that people should save their money so they don't become slaves to their jobs and they should control their own destiny like Bono controls his own destiny and how he believes the starving artist is not the way.

With people like Bono and his wealth a few millions in charity is only a small percentage of what he has. For the average ticket buyer it's a sacrifice to be generous with donations when the market is difficult and people have trouble with their mortgages.

Unless you can start a successful business or win the lottery, financial independence is hard work and full of self denial. Saving 40% of what you make is hard. There are people trying to retire and still have mortgages to pay because they didn't save in the past. It's hard with pensions the average people get outside government employment to actually pay their basic necessities. Lots of older people end up working when they don't want to, to make ends meet.

Between buying music, and movies I don't have the money to go on many vacations around the world like many people do because retirement is a long road and it's a priority over vacations or even donations. I want to control my own destiny. I want to be able to say "Naahhh. I'm not working anymore I want to spend time with my family", instead of having to work at age 68 because I'm desperate.

I'm certain this is the reason a lot of bands try and target younger audiences to keep their success alive. Once families start with financial responsibilities of mortgage and raising kids a rock 'n roll lifestyle and lots of fun becomes something in the background. How many families can really afford to travel to multiple U2 dates and still meet the basic responsibilities of an adult?

I don't know if many people on this site have jobs or are in school, but once people get a taste for workplace politics many people either try to escape into a fantasy world with entertainment, drugs, or they escape bullies by saving their pennies and retiring as early as possible. Or people start a rock band and make music that sells millions, or start a business, or in the rare occasion win the lottery.

I love U2's music and will buy their new album and remastered albums but my entertainment spending is allowed only because I don't indulge in other things like expensive vacations. I'm pretty sure U2 would agree that purchasing U2 tickets shouldn't come infront of healthcare for the kids, mortgage payments or food on table. Politics aside, people will buy the new album because it SOUNDS AWESOME.

Once a boss knows you have kids and a mortgage they often feel they can bully you and grind you because you're desperate for pay, especially during a recession.

Dream out loud and make YOUR OWN destiny. "Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Little long winded and somewhat eyebrow raising, but never once did you show me where Bono asked you for your money.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 02:07 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Little long winded, but never once did you show me where Bono asked you for your money.
Watch a concert. Bono will say "I don't want your money, I want your voice." Of course your voice goes to politicians who tax you and there goes your money.

Then Bono will use liberal guilt by saying if we don't do a Marshall plan for Africa it will be like the holocaust if we don't do anything. So I guess we are all NAZIS

At some point the average individual has to look at their pocket books and decide if 1% of the GDP should go to a money pit where dictators and NGO employees collect most of the money for themselves. 1% of the GDP is a lot of money if you look at all the social programs countries try to fund competing with it. Everyone wants Education, Health Care, Military, and to Stop! (The Poverty) in their own countries. Some of the aid also puts people out of jobs in Africa. Why be a farmer and compete against free food?

I'm more in agreement with the African journalist that Bono shouted down recently Andrew Mwenda. Muhammad Yunus who beat Bono for Nobel Peace prize won because he was able to get microloans to people in 3rd world countries to start businesses. Political systems and economic systems are the reason why some countries do better than others. Guilt doesn't do it for me.

Bono thinks Ireland did well by hand outs but ignores the lower taxes Ireland had in recent years and European Union membership that increased foreign trade. Education spending is only good if there are jobs waiting for the students. Ireland and Africa are quite different.

Democracy, freer trade, property rights. These are things that if African countries could muster would do more to help them than aid.

Also you have to ask yourself if a social worker cured all the social problems of the world would they still have a job? There are people who are financially vested in charity programs that don't want them to stop even if they were not needed.

I'm sorry if I'm long winded but unfortunately when people talk politics and economics they have to explain themselves in more detail so people understand where they are coming from.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 02:23 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Wow, now long winded and uninformed...

"would the social worker still have a job?" One of the weakest arguments I've ever seen. Well this isn't the place. So I'll let it go.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 08:45 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,814
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Quote:
Watch a concert. Bono will say "I don't want your money, I want your voice." Of course your voice goes to politicians who tax you and there goes your money.
worst arguement ever. that arguement would hinge on politicians taxing us more for giving our voices. Thats stupid.

You also tread thin ice by telling people to hoard their money. Bono can hoard money, and save people because he has a lot of it. For 99% of the world, its a choice between the two, or a very low level compromise. Are you telling me that, if given the choice, everyone should become dyed in the wool capitalists, save all their money, and leave others to fight for themselves? Those who are born into poverty and don't have equal access to proper education, stable food water and shelter, those born into racial groups that are subjectified and discriminated against, women! The glass ceiling is still a reality. I believe that anyone who is lucky enough to be born into a stable economic and social environment has a responsibility to help those who aren't.
__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 10:28 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_smee View Post
worst arguement ever. that arguement would hinge on politicians taxing us more for giving our voices. Thats stupid.

You also tread thin ice by telling people to hoard their money. Bono can hoard money, and save people because he has a lot of it. For 99% of the world, its a choice between the two, or a very low level compromise. Are you telling me that, if given the choice, everyone should become dyed in the wool capitalists, save all their money, and leave others to fight for themselves? Those who are born into poverty and don't have equal access to proper education, stable food water and shelter, those born into racial groups that are subjectified and discriminated against, women! The glass ceiling is still a reality. I believe that anyone who is lucky enough to be born into a stable economic and social environment has a responsibility to help those who aren't.
If you guys want I can continue the argument in another part of the forum. Just lead the way. I find it interesting you guys think my ideas aren't just wrong but weak. I assure you their not. They are arguments that economists would use. You may not agree with them but they aren't strange or unknown points of view. My argument of the social worker is also not unknown either. It's a typical argument economists have for government workers, or anybody that has self interest and philanthropy connected.

I'll just post my last post in the political forum.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 10:31 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Bono's conflicting points of view

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Little long winded, but never once did you show me where Bono asked you for your money.

Watch a concert. Bono will say "I don't want your money, I want your voice." Of course your voice goes to politicians who tax you and there goes your money.

Then Bono will use liberal guilt by saying if we don't do a Marshall plan for Africa it will be like the holocaust if we don't do anything. So I guess we are all NAZIS

At some point the average individual has to look at their pocket books and decide if 1% of the GDP should go to a money pit where dictators and NGO employees collect most of the money for themselves. 1% of the GDP is a lot of money if you look at all the social programs countries try to fund competing with it. Everyone wants Education, Health Care, Military, and to Stop! (The Poverty) in their own countries. Some of the aid also puts people out of jobs in Africa. Why be a farmer and compete against free food?

I'm more in agreement with the African journalist that Bono shouted down recently Andrew Mwenda. Muhammad Yunus who beat Bono for Nobel Peace prize won because he was able to get microloans to people in 3rd world countries to start businesses. Political systems and economic systems are the reason why some countries do better than others. Guilt doesn't do it for me.

Bono thinks Ireland did well by hand outs but ignores the lower taxes Ireland had in recent years and European Union membership that increased foreign trade. Education spending is only good if there are jobs waiting for the students. Ireland and Africa are quite different.

Democracy, freer trade, property rights. These are things that if African countries could muster would do more to help them than aid.

Also you have to ask yourself if a social worker cured all the social problems of the world would they still have a job? There are people who are financially vested in charity programs that don't want them to stop even if they were not needed.

I'm sorry if I'm long winded but unfortunately when people talk politics and economics they have to explain themselves in more detail so people understand where they are coming from.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 10:56 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
dan_smee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 12,814
Local Time: 01:48 PM
The social worker example is a bean counters perspective. Social workers don't just provide aid, and if you want a shocking paradox: once all the worlds problems are solved, and the social worker is out of work, then we will need social workers to help the fallen social workers.

You didn't adress my point that you don't get taxed more for expressing your voice. You will be taxed whether or not you air opinions, so having a voice costs you no more, thereofre Bono is justified in saying that he doesn't want money, he wants voice.

Yes there are some corrupt governments that siphon off aid, and in some cases, little of it reaches the people who need it. But by not giving aid, we are punishing the world's poorest. It is better to lose some of the funds to corrupt governments, that get no funds to anyone.

No economist would argue for aid. It's against everything they believe in. Just ebcause economists support your arguements doesn't make them right. I have a huge moral objection to people who are more prepared to improve their own exceptional situations, than to try heloing those who need it the most.
__________________
dan_smee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 11:21 PM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If you guys want I can continue the argument in another part of the forum. Just lead the way. I find it interesting you guys think my ideas aren't just wrong but weak. I assure you their not. They are arguments that economists would use. You may not agree with them but they aren't strange or unknown points of view. My argument of the social worker is also not unknown either. It's a typical argument economists have for government workers, or anybody that has self interest and philanthropy connected.

I'll just post my last post in the political forum.
Show me one economist(worth their salt) that would ever use those arguments and I will shut up.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 11:30 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_smee View Post
The social worker example is a bean counters perspective. Social workers don't just provide aid, and if you want a shocking paradox: once all the worlds problems are solved, and the social worker is out of work, then we will need social workers to help the fallen social workers.

You didn't adress my point that you don't get taxed more for expressing your voice. You will be taxed whether or not you air opinions, so having a voice costs you no more, thereofre Bono is justified in saying that he doesn't want money, he wants voice.

Yes there are some corrupt governments that siphon off aid, and in some cases, little of it reaches the people who need it. But by not giving aid, we are punishing the world's poorest. It is better to lose some of the funds to corrupt governments, that get no funds to anyone.

No economist would argue for aid. It's against everything they believe in. Just ebcause economists support your arguements doesn't make them right. I have a huge moral objection to people who are more prepared to improve their own exceptional situations, than to try heloing those who need it the most.
I think my point on the taxing part is that Bono wants us to give our voice to the politicians to increase aid to Africa. The main way of getting this money is taxation. Bono wants 1-2% of the GDP (our output) to be sent to Africa. This amount competes against other government priorities and ultimately our net pay which we need to save for retirement. If you have a good salary maybe you don't care but for some people 1-2% could mean foreclosure on their mortgage, or scrimping on other necessities.

I'm sure there are sincere social workers out there but I have to be honest that there are many people who like to do jobs where it's not really apparent that they add value to society. If there is really no expectation of success from our current methods it evenutally leads to cynicism and those cynical people will enter the workforce with a nice career in mind where they don't actually have to have results. Global warming bureaucrats are the new guys trying to invent jobs. If it's not really certain that they will save the world with their policies and we just pay billions for nothing they obviously won't mind. I would go even farther and say that it's the very thing they want. (Of course that is another HUGE discussion I'll avoid for the moment)

Now not all economists would agree with me, and many economists would argue for politicians who agree with Bono because it's the only way they can get a job; but that would be another point that would add to my argument.

The argument for social programs is that certain citizens of our own country cannot handle their financial stress because of no fault of their own like when a health catastrophe occurs. This I and most economists would agree they need help, but they are a small percentage of our economy. Adding the 3rd world which has a larger population couldn't feasibly happen. The problem is that people want the government to cover ALL people and provide entitlements that are not affordable because it's in their interest to expand government, not to actually solve problems. I've taken Sociology in university and my very left wing professor actually agreed with that assessment, though he says he sees no problem with that. He just loves government that much, being a government employee and all. He just believes people are so fallible that they don't really need freedom. He also believed that working or not working should be a choice. Though if everyone decided not to work I don't know where the food would come from.

If people want to do philanthropy on their own that's okay because it's their own choice but when the government starts a program like a Marshall plan for Africa there is no end to it and it will likely increase to a higher level. When you start a social program it's hard to eliminate afterwards because the employees and their families become a special interest and vote for political parties that protect that interest.

I hope you see the perverse incentives I'm talking about.

I can talk about real solutions in my next post.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2008, 11:41 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Show me one economist(worth their salt) that would ever use those arguments and I will shut up.
Well you would have to look for economists like Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and Frederich Hayek. Frederic Bastiat is a good place to start for basic economics. These guys influence economists in Africa. Of course there aren't very many economists in Africa and they have little political say. Dictators don't like the idea of giving up their power and opening markets up and allowing private property to their citizens.

I hope though you wouldn't just listen to economists just because they are economists. Everyone should learn some of the basics themselves and look at newer books that cover current research. It's okay for you to use your own mind to argue against them or me or anyone. Don't shut up.

The current World Vision child sponsorship and NGO method is not working and has been in operation since the 1970's without success. Africa in fact statistacally is worse than the 1970's so aid hasn't really made the impact we want ane HIV has complicated things.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 12:22 AM   #14
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,654
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well you would have to look for economists like Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and Frederich Hayek. Frederic Bastiat is a good place to start for basic economics. These guys influence economists in Africa. Of course there aren't very many economists in Africa and they have little political say. Dictators don't like the idea of giving up their power and opening markets up and allowing private property to their citizens.

I hope though you wouldn't just listen to economists just because they are economists. Everyone should learn some of the basics themselves and look at newer books that cover current research. It's okay for you to use your own mind to argue against them or me or anyone. Don't shut up.

The current World Vision child sponsorship and NGO method is not working and has been in operation since the 1970's without success. Africa in fact statistacally is worse than the 1970's so aid hasn't really made the impact we want ane HIV has complicated things.
And those econmist argue that we need poor sick people in order to keep social worker's jobs?

Aid hasn't helped because of many reasons. One we had no clue the size of the problem, two yes there is corruption, and many other reasons.

But we've come a long way since then, and many of the plans set forth don't go through local governments, many are set up to bypass corruption.

To go back to your earlier post, hoarding money is not the answer, your money isn't going to do you any good if you keep allowing places of the world grow in extreme poverty, you'll be creating breeding grounds for future terrorists and genocides. What good is money when you aren't secure? Taxes are taxes, they exist, it depends on who you vote for where they go, Bono isn't taking anything directly from you so the whole premise of this thread is pretty moot. You have no clue how much he gives and he never asked any of us to be socialists...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 09:27 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
And those econmist argue that we need poor sick people in order to keep social worker's jobs?

Aid hasn't helped because of many reasons. One we had no clue the size of the problem, two yes there is corruption, and many other reasons.

But we've come a long way since then, and many of the plans set forth don't go through local governments, many are set up to bypass corruption.

To go back to your earlier post, hoarding money is not the answer, your money isn't going to do you any good if you keep allowing places of the world grow in extreme poverty, you'll be creating breeding grounds for future terrorists and genocides. What good is money when you aren't secure? Taxes are taxes, they exist, it depends on who you vote for where they go, Bono isn't taking anything directly from you so the whole premise of this thread is pretty moot. You have no clue how much he gives and he never asked any of us to be socialists...

The economists aren't arguing that we need poverty to have social workers. They are saying social workers don't really want the poverty to be alleviated at the level it is in the west because their jobs would be at stake. It's not easy to move from one job to another because people are creatures of habit. That's why when a government program is created and yields little results it's really difficult to remove it afterwards. The economists want the healthy and reasonably intelligent people to take care of themselves, and they want people in poor countries to have the same rights (property rights, democracy, trade) so they can achieve what we have.

The bypassing corruption in Africa has not actually happened. Also NGO's non-governmental organizations that manage the money actually pay themselves and much of the money goes to "administration". It's basically targeted help that doesn't address the real problem of why they are poor in the first place. If Bono doesn’t want to give aid to places like Zimbabwe then we have to deny aid to most of Africa because the continent has lots of corrupt dictators or fake democracies.

My answer to your terrorism warning is that giving aid because people point a gun at our heads is really a weak position that will create more violent demands. We shouldn’t reward violent actions with money or else they will do more. We have a military for a reason. The only solution I have seen to war is that it’s rare for democracies and trading partners to fight each other but when trade barriers increase and dictatorships increase so does war. War is based on a conflict of interests. Trade reduces the conflict of interests and creates interdependence. Doing violent actions to your trading partner always creates an economic question. “If I attack my trading partner what will happen to our economy?” “If I increase trade barriers on my trading partner what barriers will they erect?”

Now savings is another point. If people don't save we won't have much of a middle class to speak of. The western world's savings rate is at a record low. This is why there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor. What freedom from work will you have when you're 65 and have only the basic pension that most governments give? The good pensions are for government workers but that can't be spread to the entire population because it's a privilege that taxpayers have to pay for it to even exist. The rest of the population has to save for retirement. You practically need 800,000 – 900,000 saved in investments after you pay your house to have this independence that government employees have. Saving money is for freedom. It means you avoid shopping until you drop. That was the middle class lifestyle before. Today it’s travel around the world and pay rent your entire life. Then when you get old you become a senior complaining that there should be more entitlements and benefits from the government than there are.

Nowadays it’s like people want to drive off a cliff with their debt and somehow expect no consequences in the future. This is what is at stake for economists. People with financial freedom usually have increased opportunities for happiness, (because they are financially independent), and can choose to retire sooner instead of being desperate and having to work in old age.

Savings also helps the economy. When we put money in the bank the bank lends the money to companies so they can fund their operations and grow them. When the operations grow and they make more products (output) then the prices can lower so we can still increase our standard of living and save at the same time. If you save 10% of what you make by the next year you will be able to buy more with the 90% you spend while still continuing to save 10%. When you die the money you save can be given in inheritance to your kids which is another tool that helps keep a larger middle class. Seeing how hard it is to start a business or just save for retirement, an inheritance can help savers achieve that goal. Having a large middle class helps to create stakeholders who actually care about what’s going on in the government and are ready to replace leaders who are despotic and corrupt. If you don’t have any savings you’ll be begging the government to tax others for your living, therefore giving the government too much power over you.

Now is Bono asking us to be socialists? Of course he does. Edge is at least honest in saying that the band are social democrats. They believe in some of the basic rights for citizens but they want the government to redistribute lots of money from “the rich” to the rest of the population.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
africa, bono

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com