Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wastage of Foreign Aid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • johnep
    replied
    I completely agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • jzd4rma
    replied
    Originally posted by johnep View Post
    You are correct. The upper classes went out to rule and exploit, the lower classes like me went out to work and thus did not generally go to India, Africa etc.
    As for wandering off point, the original post was about wastage in foreign aid, not the empire.
    Unfortunately, corruption is endemic where different social norms prevail. In UK the eldest son rule was to keep estates intact. Hence novelists of the time (Jane Austen) obsession with inherited wealth. Other societies split land equally resulting in decimation of land holdings.
    I have not attacked you, and am sorry for that impression. Just that if someone feels strongly about a topic then surely it is legitimate to ask what they are doing themselves to right a perceived wrong. Voting being one way.
    I did say i would post no more on this thread, but you have spurred me to reply.
    johnep
    There's nothing wrong with having a healthy debate. On a personal note I do donate to international charity something I feel quite strong about. I have little sympathy for politicians of third world countries because they try to blur their own incompetence with past colonial history of their country. China to its credit seems to avoid wallowing in the past and has indeed managed to lift itself up from poverty.

    However in terms of charity should start at home, from my personal observation in the UK there is a lack of accountability in the general population. Most people fail to take ownership for their own problems and find it easier to blame it on someone else. That's how majority of the patients I have had the misfortune of dealing with act. Look at how the NHS is misused people fail to take care of themselves and develop illness associated with lifestyle and then drain the system of its limited resources. On the other hand if we had a healthy lifestyle in the UK the NHS could have been a sustainable organisation because they could focus on conditions which people can do little to prevent.

    In some ways I have been guilty of not taking responsibilities for my own failures in the past I blamed my career misfortune on Universities and large corporate companies. I guess as you get older you start realising that things always don't work out and its important to take ownership for your own mistakes in life and ask yourself what can you do to resolve it?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    You are correct. The upper classes went out to rule and exploit, the lower classes like me went out to work and thus did not generally go to India, Africa etc.
    As for wandering off point, the original post was about wastage in foreign aid, not the empire.
    Unfortunately, corruption is endemic where different social norms prevail. In UK the eldest son rule was to keep estates intact. Hence novelists of the time (Jane Austen) obsession with inherited wealth. Other societies split land equally resulting in decimation of land holdings.
    I have not attacked you, and am sorry for that impression. Just that if someone feels strongly about a topic then surely it is legitimate to ask what they are doing themselves to right a perceived wrong. Voting being one way.
    I did say i would post no more on this thread, but you have spurred me to reply.
    johnep

    Leave a comment:


  • jzd4rma
    replied
    Originally posted by johnep View Post
    Oh dear, touched a raw nerve. Perhaps there is a charity funded by Indian community resident in the UK to fund the poor in India such as the Dalit community. I note you lay some blame on the Indian government. Can you still vote in their elections?. I believe we allow Irish citizens resident in UK to vote in English elections.
    In the old days, people could not travel and stayed in their own country to perhaps have a revolution. Now they want to come to the UK instead. Many of the would be migrants crossing the channel are Iranian.
    The exploitation of India and other countries was the means for 2nd and 3rd sons of the aristocracy to find their fortunes,
    The ordinary person like my ancestors were exploited in the mills and factories to make profits for the owners.
    The UK establishment was terrified of an English revolution at the time of the Russian one. However, the urge to populate Canada and Australia meant that large numbers of those who would have supported a revolution emigrated instead. There are two black stains on the UK authorities. One the refusal to offer safety to the Russian tzar and the other to send back refugee Cossacks to their deaths under Stalin. George V and Churchill were instigators.
    Now perhaps as it is the New Year it is time for me to cease stoking the fire of this discussion. In the meantime we borrow money to give away.
    johnep

    Re-read my answer because I notice in your response you have stated "I note you lay some blame on the Indian government" but look at what I have written:

    "Another point I wish to stress is that India's current plight is not direct result of UK's exploitation because they left in 1947 so the government had all the time in the world to help develop the economy. After all both Japan and South Korea built a very powerful economy despite being completely decimated in that era. However in the UK we still have a moral obligation to do something to help the poor of India whether its through long term investments for profit or humanitarian relief aid. Personally for me if it meant contributing to this and defaulting on buying something nice and expensive I would prefer to contribute because surely everyone human life has some value?"

    Does that look like I am giving partial blame? I made it very clear that India's current economic plight is due to its own corruption. Also Johnep in the spirit of being civil what has the fact of me being able to vote in an Indian election has anything to do with this debate? Is there a reason why you are making this personal? In a democracy everyone is entitled to an opinion whether its right or wrong is another thing. To me it seems that you are unable to articulate your opinion based on facts and as a result have engaged into the game of personal attack.

    Another thing I wish to comment on is your obsession on how the working class in UK did not have any opportunities during the British Empire and it was exclusive to the ruling class. I would advise you to re-read history books and what you will find is that during late 1800s people had plenty of opportunities to emigrate and make a fortune in the Americas/Australia/New Zealand. The only thing is only the most industrious and risk taking person was prepared to do this. Perhaps this is what happened in the pharmacy sector, most pharmacists were happy to take a salary back then but pharmacists of Indian ethnicity were prepared to risk their capital and accept short term uncertainty for long term wealth simply because they figured they had very little to lose and everything to gain.

    In a legitimate situation like this we should applaud such achievement but when people use less than ethical means to achieve these we should say it as it is. In the 20th/21st Century Russia is experiencing this with its oligarch system as effectively only a few people have wrestled assets which really belong to the people kind of like what UK did with its British Empire during its peak.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    Oh dear, touched a raw nerve. Perhaps there is a charity funded by Indian community resident in the UK to fund the poor in India such as the Dalit community. I note you lay some blame on the Indian government. Can you still vote in their elections?. I believe we allow Irish citizens resident in UK to vote in English elections.
    In the old days, people could not travel and stayed in their own country to perhaps have a revolution. Now they want to come to the UK instead. Many of the would be migrants crossing the channel are Iranian.
    The exploitation of India and other countries was the means for 2nd and 3rd sons of the aristocracy to find their fortunes,
    The ordinary person like my ancestors were exploited in the mills and factories to make profits for the owners.
    The UK establishment was terrified of an English revolution at the time of the Russian one. However, the urge to populate Canada and Australia meant that large numbers of those who would have supported a revolution emigrated instead. There are two black stains on the UK authorities. One the refusal to offer safety to the Russian tzar and the other to send back refugee Cossacks to their deaths under Stalin. George V and Churchill were instigators.
    Now perhaps as it is the New Year it is time for me to cease stoking the fire of this discussion. In the meantime we borrow money to give away.
    johnep

    Leave a comment:


  • jzd4rma
    replied
    Originally posted by johnep View Post
    As regards exploitation of India, it could be said they are doing this to us with so many companies under Indian control. The press regards all pharmacists as greedy people exploiting the NHS and customers, so is every pharmacy owned by a pharmacist of Indian extraction busy doing this?
    Those upper class types going to India were really economic migrants. So same is true for all those people desperate to get into the UK. They are seeking their fortune modern style.
    johnep
    I can't help but feel either you are naive or purposely simplifying facts to validate your statements.

    We live in a free market economy by virtue of such system we can exploit the economy of a country if we have a trade deal and vice versa. For all the evils of 21st century I would say it has better ethics and transparent governance then when UK made the game for India. Put it simply I don't think it would be possible to go into a country and take it over and rule as you please the international law wouldn't stand for it in the 21st Century.

    The proof of this goes back to WW2 after Japan's surrender USA stayed back to ensure they embrace democracy and not go back to their old ways. They never annexed it and made it the 51st state of USA. UK on the other hand turned India into its fiefdom and in turn looted it for all its worth. How you make it comparable to the Asian skilled immigrants migrating to UK and exploiting economic opportunities is the same is a slight mystery for me?

    After all none of these pharmacist held anyone at gun point to gain economic advantage and for the record it seems many actually studied in UK therefore these opportunities were open to everyone in UK and not just the Asians. I agree that the Community Pharmacy system was a bit of a joke but again is it the fault of the pharmacists or the government who implemented this over generous reimbursement scheme in that era? Look at the pharmacy landscape now most pharmacies are barely breaking even and are working on razor thin profit margin because government are squeezing them dry.

    Another point I wish to stress is that India's current plight is not direct result of UK's exploitation because they left in 1947 so the government had all the time in the world to help develop the economy. After all both Japan and South Korea built a very powerful economy despite being completely decimated in that era. However in the UK we still have a moral obligation to do something to help the poor of India whether its through long term investments for profit or humanitarian relief aid. Personally for me if it meant contributing to this and defaulting on buying something nice and expensive I would prefer to contribute because surely everyone human life has some value?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    Well I and my Asian friends prefer Anchor butter from New Zealand. As regards exploitation of India, it could be said they are doing this to us with so many companies under Indian control. The press regards all pharmacists as greedy people exploiting the NHS and customers, so is every pharmacy owned by a pharmacist of Indian extraction busy doing this?
    Those upper class types going to India were really economic migrants. So same is true for all those people desperate to get into the UK. They are seeking their fortune modern style.
    johnep

    Leave a comment:


  • LeftArm
    replied
    Anchor Spreadable was temporarily banned "for a short time". This was because it is not made from cream and milk but is churned together butter and oil.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    Anchor Spreadable, as well as other New Zealand butter products, were banned from import into the EU for a short time. This came after a complaint made to the European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, by the German dairy trader, Egenberger.
    johnep

    Leave a comment:


  • LeftArm
    replied
    Originally posted by johnep View Post
    UK markets were cut off from the Commonwealth by the EU. I long to taste Anchor butter from New Zealand,
    johnep

    "In the United Kingdom, Anchor block butter was imported from New Zealand until August 2012 when Arla Foods UK, the British licensee, transferred production to a local factory at Westbury, Wiltshire, using British cream." This was presumably a business decision and nothing to do with the EU restricting imports.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    I agree. The original idea was to obtain raw materials from the empire and convert into goods via the industrial revolution. The Lancashire woven cotton industry destroyed the jobs of 50,000 hand spinners and weavers in India before India obtained looms and reversed the process. The spur to industrialisation of cotton owed a lot to the woollen industry based on UK being ideal for sheep. As the empire evolved into the Commonwealth, then more benefits flowed outwards.
    UK markets were cut off from the Commonwealth by the EU. I long to taste Anchor butter from New Zealand,
    To me the target should be Trade (Fair Trade) not aid of which too much finds its way into pockets of various people rather than the original poor people. Probably the best way would be to educate girls. Educate a boy and you educate a man. educate a girl and you educate a family. Sef reliance is also important. Read the story of the impoverished boy who bought a windmill to generate electricity from a cycle dynamo. I found it telling that locals then flocked to charge their mobile phones. He just wanted light to enable study at night.
    johnep

    Leave a comment:


  • jzd4rma
    replied
    Originally posted by johnep View Post
    Good! A vigorous discussion to start the New Year. The Empire served as a good place for the privately educated sons of the wealthy to find their fortunes via India and Hong Kong. (The young of the latter appear to yearn for the old days of British rule)
    The "lower" classes were cannon fodder as exemplified in WW1 by sending foot soldiers against machine guns.
    One poster has hinted that the UK owes reparations for the 400 years plunder of India. The Romans occupied England for 400 years. Should we expect Italy to make reparations to us?. The Normans occupied England in 1066 and their descendants are still ruling via the "establishment". I confess to being descended from one of William's foot soldiers and living in a town dominated by a cathedral put by William to impress the locals.
    Ford said history is bunk, and we need to start anew as the world is now.
    I can do nothing towards solving the ills of the world but perhaps you know what to do.
    I have no Indian relations but I do have a Chinese cousin by marriage and my son is married to a girl of West Indian parents.
    johnep
    Just to debunk this. The Empire helped drive the industrialisation of UK especially the railway network, heavy industry and roads. There was a huge proliferation of railway due to investment from "the privately educated sons of the wealthy". Indirectly this helped the local population reap benefits in the future. Many regions of the UK had little financial incentives for these infrastructure they were built because people got deliriously rich from the empire. The proof of this situation is how the government in the 20th Century failed to build decent infrastructure in the more remote parts of UK or delays plans because it has little financial incentive.

    The other benefits the UK derived from the Empire:
    1. Financial Institution: thanks to the far flung trading posts it created a market for merchant houses which have evolved into the banking sector. One of the most important sector of UK is the finance sector. The question I ask is would this have existed in its current form if the UK never had an Empire?
    2. Education institutions: as the wealthy got wealthier from the Empire via trade many left generous bequest to educational institutions such as Bristol Uni, UCL, Oxford, Cambridge and etc. The UK has some of the best universities but look into their origin to see how many got their funds.

    I agree that a lot of people lived under abject poverty during the period of Empire in the UK but it still doesn't remove the moral obligation UK has to help where it can. I personally think we should invest in infrastructure in third world countries with the aim of getting a return over the long term. This acts as a growth pole for poor regions but ensures financial resources are not squandered.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    Good! A vigorous discussion to start the New Year. The Empire served as a good place for the privately educated sons of the wealthy to find their fortunes via India and Hong Kong. (The young of the latter appear to yearn for the old days of British rule)
    The "lower" classes were cannon fodder as exemplified in WW1 by sending foot soldiers against machine guns.
    One poster has hinted that the UK owes reparations for the 400 years plunder of India. The Romans occupied England for 400 years. Should we expect Italy to make reparations to us?. The Normans occupied England in 1066 and their descendants are still ruling via the "establishment". I confess to being descended from one of William's foot soldiers and living in a town dominated by a cathedral put by William to impress the locals.
    Ford said history is bunk, and we need to start anew as the world is now.
    I can do nothing towards solving the ills of the world but perhaps you know what to do.
    I have no Indian relations but I do have a Chinese cousin by marriage and my son is married to a girl of West Indian parents.
    johnep

    Leave a comment:


  • Nimrec
    replied
    Originally posted by karsa View Post
    I can't believe so-called "educated" people still fall for tabloid fodder. Even a cursory search will tell you that the UK no longer gives aid to India. Any money that is given is to private enterprises which actually generates returns to the UK. India's space agency actually generates money and is, for the most part, self-funding through private satellite launches. Not to mention whatever UK gives pales in comparison to the riches that were stolen and diverted from India over Two centuries.
    I love this and completely agree. It highlights the hypocrisy and selective memory of Empire that is unfortunately still incredibly prevalent today. Of course everyone thinks Britain is the historical shining light of the world and they should take a break from saving the world and look after their own when history in schools is essentially just Henry the 8th, WW1, WW2.

    Johnep all of your examples could easily be matched by ineptitude in examples in both the public sector and private sector in the UK today. People are unfortunately naturally fallible

    Considering India and China are apparently going to be our new best friends and open up the mystical Nirvana of trade that we've supposedly been missing out on in the EU is now really the time to start alienating ourselves from them?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnep
    replied
    I thought this topic would wake you up after the holidays. Should we try to compensate for the failings of other governments. If UK rule is good, then should the UK continue to subsidise others?.
    When in export, I had many discussions on the topic of England milking other countries. I usually pointed out that it was the sons of the "gentry" who who went overseas to find their fortunes, while their fathers exploited the ordinary people in England. Instead of calling mill workers "slaves", they were called "apprentices" and to all purposes treated nearly as badly as the 2nd and 3rd sons treated workers overseas.
    These days it is the large corporations who would love to return to the good old days as exposed by Dickens. They are the modern Scrooges.
    Having just watched and enjoyed 'My Fair Lady' who are the undeserving poor these days?.
    You give the impression it is the 'white boys' and perhaps it is. What do you suggest the government should do?
    johnep

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X