United Kingdom still giving aid [£1bn+] to economic powerhouse India

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ires-have.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...d-in-need.html

Why are we giving £1bn aid to India? A nation with three times as many billionaires as we have (and its own space programme)

Britain is to give more than £1billion in aid to India over the next four years, even though it has almost three times as many billionaires as we do. Ministers defended handing around £280million a year in taxpayers’ cash to one of the world’s biggest economies. They insist it will re-energise the relationship with the former colony and claim it still needs international aid. However, critics pointed out that India is a nuclear power, has its own space programme and is rich enough to donate money to poor African nations each year.

Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, says Britain will channel its aid to the three poorest states in India. Speaking on Radio 4, he said it was ‘the right place for us to be’. He added: ‘They do have a space programme, but on the other hand there are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa and the average income of an Indian citizen is only one third of that of a Chinese person.’ The Coalition has already axed aid to economic powerhouse economies such as Russia and China. But Department for International Development sources claim India is ‘different’.

A spokesman said: ‘Our development programme is in transition, but now is not the time to end it completely. ‘We will not be in India forever. But as part of the revitalised British relationship with India, following the Prime Minister’s successful visit last year, our development partnership has an important role to play.’

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - it continues, our elite seems to have some obsession with the rest of the world forgetting that they were elected to serve the interests of the British taxpayer, not the interests of the European Union, India or Egypt/Zimbabwe. The idea that this helps trade is ridiculous, its like ASDA giving you £50 to spend before you enter the store and you end up spending £15 - ASDA haven't made any money, infact they've lost. And as one of the comments said on the Mail comments; half of these countries wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire.

Look at where western aid (of which none of us can afford) actually ends up, it feeds the habits of rich dictators across Africa and the world (would you believe we fund Robert Mugabe!?) and actually keeps the people of those countries down because it allows the leaders to continue spending all the countries wealth on armed forces of which helps them retain power. If you want to donate to causes in India/around the world, it should be done on a personal basis so that those who do not agree with the cause etc do not have to chip in because afterall this money is the money of the taxpayer.

Lets be friends with the world and trade with them, but enough of being the free-for-all - we cannot afford it. So the logic of this is this; we are borrowing money (and having to pay interest on it).. in order to give that money away; lunacy. Although this video concerns the United States, its in the same boat as us with its £14tn+ debt;

Thoughts?

[AhDan]

Dan, I cant believe you actually believe its aid. It actually means "bribe". Obama went to India and got thousands of jobs for America. He bribed India and called it aid.

Same with Cameron. Why do you think he took all the big bosses there? To get business. Do you really think he will give away billions to India etc when this country is failing? Hell no. You example of ASDA giving you £50 to get you to shop there is true, but you saying people only spend £15 back is wrong. India spend more than they get, hence benefiting the British economy. The only reason the "aid" is given is because it is a bribe. Half the money will go into the politicians swiss banks, and the rest into the Indian economy or whatever.

You do realise that when Cameron, Obama etc sign big (as in multi billion worth) of defence contracts, they get millions in bribes? Well this is the same. Pay India etc a £1bn in aid/bribe, and get more back.

So basically, its ASDA giving you £50 to spend, and you going back and spending £200.

[Technologic]

Population of the UK: 62,000,000
Population of India: 1,155,000,000

GDP of uk: $2.17 trillion
GDP of India: $1.4 trillion

GNP per capita of UK: $37,360
GNP per capita of India: $3,260


Do the maths.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan, I cant believe you actually believe its aid. It actually means "bribe". Obama went to India and got thousands of jobs for America. He bribed India and called it aid.

Same with Cameron. Why do you think he took all the big bosses there? To get business. Do you really think he will give away billions to India etc when this country is failing? Hell no. You example of ASDA giving you £50 to get you to shop there is true, but you saying people only spend £15 back is wrong. India spend more than they get, hence benefiting the British economy. The only reason the "aid" is given is because it is a bribe. Half the money will go into the politicians swiss banks, and the rest into the Indian economy or whatever.

You do realise that when Cameron, Obama etc sign big (as in multi billion worth) of defence contracts, they get millions in bribes? Well this is the same. Pay India etc a £1bn in aid/bribe, and get more back.

So basically, its ASDA giving you £50 to spend, and you going back and spending £200.

You do not need to 'bribe' people in order to gain business, if you are after investment and real business you attract people not through handing them cash but by cutting down regulations and lowering tax so that the UK is attractive to business - you do not give money you do not have (thus removing that money from the real UK economy and hurting it more so) away.

And as for giving money away while their countries are failing - yes that is exactly that these people are doing. The United States is near broke as is the United Kingdom with public sector spending still soaring in both countries; we now pay more on debt interest than we do on the entire education/military budget - go figure. These people have no business experience, they don't understand how wealth is created.

The real economy is small business which is struggling under a mass of red tape and soaring taxes - without them we are nothing.

Population of the UK: 62,000,000
Population of India: 1,155,000,000

GDP of uk: $2.17 trillion
GDP of India: $1.4 trillion

GNP per capita of UK: $37,360
GNP per capita of India: $3,260


Do the maths.

The United Kingdom is 'richer' but that will not last for long, how can you give money away which you do not have? The answer; you cannot, it does not make any economical sense in the slightest. By all means if you wish to give aid then do so, but don't expect a broke country to foot the bills for a mighty economic powerhouse which is spending vast amounts of money on things we ourselves cannot afford (space adventures, nuclear power).

[Ajthedragon]

This is so stupid and unfair on us, our aid should go to people who need it... US!

[GommeInc]

India is a bit different to the UK There are far more poor people and they are more wide spead. India and us could probably afford to stop giving them aid, but as long as the Indian Government are willing to support their population with their growing economy.

It also depends in what form that aid comes in. Monetary aid that is converted into equipment, "voluntary aid" is probably worth it, but giving them money may not necessary solve the poverty issue. £1bn+ doesn't mean much, as it could come in different shapes and sizes.

[Jam]

Spent the money on helpers and food, don't give them actual cash if the gov. want to help the poor.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In terms of the ethics/morals surrounding foreign aid, yes it is nice to give to the poorest but that should be via choice rather than forced theft from the state in the name of taxation. We do not have the money at the moment and it is wrong regardless to force people to donate to charity via the state, its rather patronising in that they are basically saying that they [the government] know how to spend your money better than you do yourself.

"Foreign aid is simply the act of taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and then giving it to the rich people of a poor country."
- Ron Paul

[Conservative,]

Population of the UK: 62,000,000
Population of India: 1,155,000,000

GDP of uk: $2.17 trillion
GDP of India: $1.4 trillion

GNP per capita of UK: $37,360
GNP per capita of India: $3,260

&
$2.17 trillion/65million = $33,384
$1.4 trillion/1.1billion = $1,217

go figure.

I honestly think helping the industry in India will do us good in the long run. It will help us with trading relationships etc. and gain us economic gain from trading with them in the future.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you want to help with industry then you lower taxes here and get investors and entrepreneurs to go and invest in India, the government/state cannot invest - they disguise freebies such as this as 'investment' - remember Labour when they 'invested' in Public services (which amounted to a £7.9tn debt). Every penny the government takes out of the real economy (and away from private business) to give away aid such as this, we only set ourselves back.

I am very pro-business and think we should be investing heavily in the east, but I am not fooled by government spin telling me that somehow by taxing business and investors here and the state then handing away billions to India is somehow 'investment'.