AID has always been corrupt. Those that need food and medicine do not get it. The U.S. will never have an impact on this until we decide to get rid of the warlords, which requires a law enforcement, not a combat, approach.

We have the means to solve this, even without Gates. When the fuck will we do it?

Other than as a demagogue, interloper and groupie… why are you there?

Regards,

- Amanda

Mr. Hunkins, same question to you: perhaps military spending is a waste. But it gives a people a sense of security, and the gov’t is defined nowadays by theorists as the construct with a monopoly on violence. That might be laughable to some degree, but it might also be far more basic than “infrastructure.”

If you can’t take the fact people are organized into nations and states seriously, then you can’t see the problems that arise regarding the giving of aid.

We keep learning that the cost to effectively eliminate all major global problems is substantially less than military budgets. As business people we know the ROI of infrastructure improvements is vastly greater than military spending ROI.

How can we refocus Government spending accordingly – ie spend on health, poverty, water, and infrastructure improvements instead of military with it’s relatively low ROI. This is true even when you factor in that military action can effect positive changes but they come at such a huge cost.

Why isn’t Wolfowitz in jail instead of being featured on a panel? At least he should be shunned.

Gates’s philanthropy I’ve criticized before. In short:
1. It’s anti-democratic – he gets to decide where his money goes not some international (or national) body.
2. His programs are aimed at providing help to the poor and sick, not to reforming social structures so that these people won’t need aid in the future. It’s the Mother Teresa syndrome: help the poor but don’t fight poverty.

Easterly had a lot to say about these efforts (even before Gates) in his most recent book.