What is the reasoning of the people from rich countries for not saving the people from poor countries?

Answer 1

There are three reasons we and other industrialized nations' leaders refuse to "help" the third world's citizens.

One is the negative case. People from third-world countries can't take individual responsibility, prefer or fail to avoid thieves and corrupt men becoming their dictatorial leaders; and they reproduce without regard for the rights of future children to full development.

Two is the positive case. Our own nation under Medieval pseudo-religious Republican puritan statists and Democratic pietist socialists is such a mess that frankly we can't afford to do anything for anyone--we need to conserve our resources for ourselves and not give it away to people with no chance for success in any case who aren't even our friends in most cases, who resent us for what we used to be.

Three is the neutral case. If we refuse to help third world countries--until their leaders and citizens clean up their act--they should be motivated to follow our example and want to earn more investments from us because of their having succeeded; if we simply give them more free aid, they will have no incentive to change, which they desperately need to do.

Answer 2

God saves only those who at least try to save themselves !
...No country is truly poor, as long as its citizens have the will to work hard and succeed : And such countries never go around with begging bowls - because they do not need to live off anyone else's handouts.
And, incidentally, the 'people from rich countries' are mostly morally and mentally poor - and would do well to learn humility and humanity from the citizens of some of the so-called 'poor nations' !

Answer 3

There are dozens of reasons why, and most of them are political.

1. You can't just barge into someones country, give them money and funding and then send them on their way.
2. There is no world government (there should be). Every country is different, which causes problems. Some countries are naturally going to have more, and conflicting rules between countries causes problems.
3. Money will not fix a lot of the problems that are going on in some of these countries.
4. Money is absolutely no use to these people if they have no beneficial way of using it to get themselves out of trouble.


I could go on for quite some time.

Answer 4

You could take all the wealth of the top 6% of people in the world, and it wouldn't be enough. Often only 10% of donations reaches any impoverished people as their government is literally holding them hostage to shake down the humnaitarian aid system. And then you have situations like the Pakistan earthquake where Al Quaida takes the supplies the USA donated and hands them out to people claiming they provided it, this is similar to North Korea. South Korea, Japan, Australia and the USA send them food during a famine, and it all got fed to NoKo's soldiers. Or the UN run "food for oil" program in Iraq run by Koffi Annan's son, that allowed oil money to be used in violation of UN Treaty to aquire high tech military goods like night vision and MiG fighters from France and Russia. You have to have a decent system to ensure the goods get to the people in need, and so far from the back of a US Army truck direct to starving villagers is the most efficient. The big issue is breeding like rats, when they lose 5 ot of 6 babies you can understand this, but if you save all 6 babies and they start making babies as soon as they are able, you have a six fold problem in fifteen years exponentially increasing. Sterilization in exchange for food after one or two kids has to be considered because the world may be reaching or past it's food capacity to sustain the population. The lack of resources, like land, energy or food, is what causes wars, an age old human reaction to scarcity of vital needs. The "haves" want to keep it, the "have-nots" are ready to kill them for it. Who is less civilized?

Answer 5

saving? what do you mean by that? giving away all the money. That would be communist! haha IM just kidding, but if you think about the value of money its because of its scarcity. So in reality if wealth was spread aounrd evenly the idea of money would disappear, and ultimately we have built a society, globally that values things, and eventually some kind of thing would spereate the haves and the have nots, so even if rich nations would equally distribute money we woudl eventually find ourselves in this poisiotn again. Also there is the stigma that poor people are wasteful and social parasites, but I think there are plenty of rich people just like that, except they are lucky enough to have ht moeny to support their lifestyle....hahaha

Answer 6

It is not their responsibiity to do so. Actually, the rich countries have, over the years, given trillions of dollars to poor countries, but the latter, because of bad government and bad laws, have not been able to build themselves up.

Answer 7

We don't need a reason, because the burden of proof that 'we rich countires' are responsible for the poverty of the poor falls on them.

There are no international laws, there are no international courts, there are no international means of punishment.

The charity that exists is a pittance.

Answer 8

Why should the people in rich country waste their money?

Answer 9

they delude themselves with talk of a twisted non-responsiblity, self determination, worthiness, demonization and terrrorists all the while avoiding the issue that poor are kept poor to keep the rich rich

Answer 10

We have poured billions of dollars into Africa starting with Biafra, but the corrupt regimes always manage to slough most of it into their Government coffers! So the west get a bit piss##d with the whole thing! You cannot blame them really, can you?