India to Britain: Your Money Is No Good Here

The flap between Britain and India shows that foreign aid is about elites, not the poor.


It is customary in India to refuse a gift several times before reluctantly accepting it. But India wasn't playing social games recently when it tried in vain to end decades of British giving. What this flap eloquently demonstrates is the futility of foreign aid: Countries that most need it can't use it effectively, and countries that can use it effectively don't need it.

Evidently President Obama hasn't learned this lesson yet, given that his 2013 budget proposes to up, rather than end, America's overseas noblesse oblige.

A memo leaked to the British press this month revealed that Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee last year asked Britain to stop sending aid. England's $440 million annual commitment, he maintained, was "a peanut" in India's total development expenditure and not worth perpetuating the image of India as a poverty-stricken country dependent on foreign alms.

But the British aid establishment—including the administration of Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative—begged India to reconsider. The U.K. Department of International Development pleaded that canceling the aid would cause the British government "grave political embarrassment," since it had expended significant "political capital" selling it to voters.

In other words, the point of the aid wasn't to save India's poor but to save British face. It wasn't about making India's impoverished feel better, but making the British establishment feel good.

But if England's aid is about national aggrandizement, so is India's refusal to accept it. Even though India has cut the ranks of its poor in half since it liberalized its economy, well over a third of its population lives on less than $1 a day. There are more people living in abject poverty in three Indian states than in all of sub-Saharan Africa.

So why would a government that truly cares about its poor not accept help on their behalf? Because it doesn't care. India's ruling classes largely represent the aspirations of the country's middle classes and nouveau riche. And they are so inured to the poverty around them that it is no longer even visible to them. Malnourished children with distended bellies begging at traffic lights might shock outsiders. But Indians, as V.S. Naipaul observed in An Area of Darkness, have a unique gift of not seeing the disagreeable right under their noses. Hence they can honestly believe that changing India's image as a poverty-stricken country requires not actually alleviating poverty but expanding their chests in a collective show of pride and spurning aid. But what India won't confront, it can't cure.

If this doesn't prove that India's lopsided national priorities make it an unfit candidate for aid, consider this: Buoyed by its post-liberalization economic growth, it has decided to emulate its Western benefactors and dole out money to other poor countries (not to mention vanity space projects). It is now a net donor rather than a recipient of foreign aid, accepting development assistance from only five countries that it regards as worthy donors and giving assistance to 23. Its aid to Africa has been growing 22 percent every year. It is the fifth-largest donor to Afghanistan, giving it several billion dollars since 2001 to build highways, hospitals and other infrastructure projects, something it's also been doing in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Ironically enough, it is even establishing an agency to ensure that its aid isn't misappropriated by corrupt governments.

That, of course, is a problem that India knows a little something about. From 1951 to 1992, India received $55 billion to provide schools, hospitals and other basic facilities for the poor, making it the world's largest recipient of foreign aid. But India's late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi himself acknowledged that bureaucrats entrusted with the aid pocketed much of it, with only about 15 percent reaching its intended beneficiaries. For example, an investigation by India's auditor general found that education chiefs used British aid meant for TVs in classrooms to buy themselves cars.

The bigger problem is not the foreign money that is abused, but that which is not. Aid inevitably props up the status quo, thwarting broader reforms. It is widely accepted, for example, that foreign aid gave India's misguided Fabian socialistic model of development much more staying power than it otherwise would have had. In a bid for economic self-sufficiency (and oblivious to the contradiction), India closed itself to trade with the outside world, opting to produce capital equipment needed for industry and agriculture itself rather than buying it more cheaply from abroad. The upshot? Prices for food, clothes and other basic goods soared, putting them out of the reach of everyone except the relatively well off. India's recent progress in eliminating poverty occurred because it scrapped such failed policies, not because it suddenly started using aid more effectively.

Western aid regards poverty as a problem of money rather than of institutions. However, countries without functioning institutions can't use aid effectively, and the ones with them don't need it.

Professional British do-gooders obviously are undeterred by this truism. But so is Obama. He is requesting $56 billion for foreign aid next year—2 percent more than last year. There is no reason to believe, however, that other countries will use American aid any better than India has used British aid.

Scrapping it should therefore be a no-brainer for Congress. Further burdening debt-ridden Americans without doing a thing to help the poor abroad isn't generosity, it's vanity.

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia is a columnist at The Daily, where this column originally appeared.

NEXT: Beer Run

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. It’s only worth helping the rich with big-government Land enTitlements that restrict free movement of people to hunt and gather a free lunch.

      Because if food is free, how the hell do you force people to work in the elite’s offices and factories?

      Deregulate Gambol Lockdown.

      1. Gamboling about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That’s all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.”

        ~Richard Manning
        Against the Grain, p. 24

        1. Boring, stupid rerun

          1. Repeats are pretty much all we offer here.

            Pollution is good.

            Rinse and repeat.

            1. You forgot immigrants, never illegal.

            2. Funny that you post that article in an article about British aid to India !!!

            3. The world is made of repeats.

              When you’re young, you don’t realize exactly how fucking boring the world really is.

              The world is like listening to Dire Straits’ Money for Nothing on the radio, 24 hours a day, forever.

              1. “The world is like listening to Dire Straits’ Money for Nothing on the radio, 24 hours a day, forever.”

                Sounds more like hell to me.

      2. Morning links before noon, somewhere.

        1. Morning Links are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

          ~Otto von Bismarck

          1. The chocolate iced custard Bismark is a delight to watch or eat.

    2. Bi-curious? -Datebi*cO’Mis designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

      1. By chilling my loins I increase the chances of impregnating my wife.

  1. Caption:

    In the heart. In the head. I won’t stay dead. Next time I’ll do the same to you. I’ll kill you. And it goes on, the good old game of war. Pawn against pawn, stopping the bad guys, while somewhere, something sits back and laughs and starts it all over again.

    1. Man, TOS was so quotable.

      1. Hello. I am not interested in buying your house, but I would like to use your rest room, flip through your magazines, rearrange your carefully shelved items and handle your food products in an unsanitary manner. Ha! Now you know how it feels!

  2. If Britain is so bound and determined to provide aid, why not bypass the Indian state and give that aid directly to Indians?

    Pick 40 million of the Indians living on less than a dollar a day and send them a check for $10.

    “Hi! The British government just sent you around 2 weeks’ pay! Enjoy.”

    That’s got to be better than begging the Indian state to accept the aid and then steal it.

    1. I am selling only the concept of karmic realignment.

    2. “If Britain is so bound and determined to provide aid…”

      What Britain is bound and determined to do, however unwittingly, is become a wholesale totalitarian shithole and collapse in upon itself, and it’s already largely achieved that goal. Foreign aid should be the last thing on their minds.

      1. By the many arms of Vishnu, I swear it is a lie.

        1. The Irish green shall again be seen as our Irish fathers bore it — a burning wind with the South behind and the Yankee rout before it.

          O’Neill’s red hand shall purge the land, rain a fire on men and cattle, ’til the Lincoln snakes in their own cold lakes plunge from the blaze of battle.

          1. Apu: The South shall COME AGAIN.

            “Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala-Annoyed-Grunt-cious (#8.13)” The Simpsons:(1997)

            1. With pale affright and panic flight shall dastard Yankees base and hollow. Hear a Celtic race, from their battle place charge to the shout of “Faugh-a-ballaugh!” By the souls above, by the land we love, her tears bleeding patience. The sledge is wrought that shall smash to naught the brazen liar of nations.

              1. Dear guys.

                Words cannot express how much I hate you guys. As we fight our way northward into the great unknown, only that one thing remains certain: that I hate you guys with every tired muscle in my Confederate body. We have taken Topeka, and now I must lolly the men over to Missouri. Because I will not stop until we have won it all, and you guys are my slaves. Because, I hate you guys. I hate you guys so very very much. Yours,
                General Cartman Lee

                1. +1
                  I wrote this on a 50 before we parted ways.

      2. “What Britain is bound and determined to do, however unwittingly, is become a wholesale totalitarian shithole and collapse in upon itself, and it’s already largely achieved that goal. Foreign aid should be the last thing on their minds.”

    3. I’m sure the Indian government would tax those checks so the people would receive about $2 of the check.

      1. Don’t be ridiculous. A dime, at most.

        1. Or perhaps they’ll tax them $10.10

    4. Fluffy, there was an article on Volokh the other day with a thought experiment that perhaps Israel could simply buy out in Coasian fashion the 5-10% of the West Bank that has become a sticking point for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, with payment offered and made directly to the Palestinian people.

      1. I don’t know if such an effort would succeed, but it’s got to work better than just appointing an anti-Arab bigot who admits he wants to cleanse the land of Muslims chief judge of all land disputes between Arabs and Jews.

        1. True dat.

          Our unwillingness to use our leverage with Israel in even the most minute fashion is, imo, one of the more amazing facts in history. Has ever a small, client state enjoyed such patronage?

      2. There’s no way in hell that’ll work. Ever. They won’t tolerate Jews on their ancestral, holy lands.

        1. “They won’t tolerate Jews on their ancestral, holy lands.”

          The funny thing about your comment is that, when taken with fluffy’s comment, it could be reversed just fine, no?

          Let’s not pretend only one side in this conflict is obsessed with having their “ancestral, holy lands” to themselves…

          1. When did I say that? The voluminous immorality and downright stupidity of the tenets of Judaism are also an impediment and a threat, and I never claimed otherwise.

            1. Noted and conceded. How much more mundane that conflict would be if the Holy Scripts of both side were in no way involved.

              I guess my problem is how much we get it here in the US. A significant amount of people here in the US seem to think our Israeli policy should be based on verses from the Old Testament…

              1. These kind of problems happen when religions split apart. Christianity & Islam are both loosely based on Judaism. So all three religions view a largely worthless chunk of desert as a holy place that they must slaughter the other herectical splitters over.

                1. If the Jews would have established a state in Oklahoma all this could have been avoided…We’d probably ought to have paid them for taking it actually.

                  1. If Jews abandoned Judaism, the purely theological monolith of scripture that makes them self-identify in religious terms as a chosen people would vanish, and they wouldn’t have any reason to establish their own state, and their grandest barrier to assimilation would be removed.

                    They’d just all move to the US, or something.

                    1. I’m not sure about that, Judaism is about culture to. Lot’s of people steeped in “Jewish culture” are secular.

                    2. It’s a culture, in that sense, that has its roots firmly in the theology of Judaism, but any preternatural offshots of the sort you’re describing, such as secular observance of (and immersion in) Jewish traditions, don’t result in ethnoreligious closed loops in the same way religious, actual Judaism does.

                      An atheist that practices Jewish traditions, for example, has absolutely no cause to wish for a theologically predicated, unique nation-state for himself and his funny-Jew-hat wearing cohort. A rabbi does.

                    3. You underestimate the pull of ones ‘homeland’ would have on that person. If your ethnic people remembered a place as your homeland then what is stopping them from saying “this place was once ours and it will be so again?”. Take religion out of this, it only served as a cause to rally around. The fact is if Jews were simply an ethnic group, like say that tartars, that had been been vacated from their ancestral homelands, and just recently almost exterminated then they would probably see a desire in having their own country. As nice a place as the US is they still would be dependent on the tolerance and kindness of those not like themselves. I mean lets face it, the concept of a palistenian people isn’t even 150 years old and look what is happening. Religious motivation got squat to do with this, its simple human nature.

                    4. You might want to learn the real world before such assertions. The actual history of modern Zionism was its being primarily founded and nurtured by “atheist[s] that practice[d] Jewish traditions”. . . who felt “cause to wish for a [nationalistically] predicated, unique nation-state for himself and his funny-Jew-hat wearing cohort. . . .”

                      The real world is often not derived from ideological formulae.

                    5. “They’d just all move to the US”

                      Maybe now, but I can understand why they might not have wanted to in the 1940’s, there was still some heavy anti-Semitism here.

  3. Rerun? Worth repeating, then.

    And comment: I suppose I object to referring to “do-gooders” and to misguided and ego-driven motives for donor governments passing bucks to corrupt pols in squalid lands. How about a model where protection-racket thugs and cynical power-players in rich countries use “aid” squeezed from local victims of a shakedown to buy good cooperation in foreign parts? Corruption in squalid holes is a feature.

    1. Yes, yes, I know the procedure for armed robbery. I do work in a convenience store, you know.

  4. India has a space project, nuclear weapons and big Indian corporations have bought out British icons such as Jaguar, it really does not need aid from Britain.

    The money is nothing more than a vain attempt from Britain to still look like a world player. The reality is that is punching way about its weight and needs to stop wasting money as if it can still buy influence, the toffs running the government have not got the message yet though.

    1. Unless I redeem myself, I will be reincarnated as a sea cucumber. Or worse, a land cucumber!

    2. F*ck yeah! Not like us!!

  5. They should use the extra British pounds to hand out bonuses.

    1. Pardon me, but I would like to see this money spent on more police officers. I have been shot eight times this year, and as a result, I almost missed work.

    2. They should first redesign that God-awfully ugly 20-pound bill they introduced in the recent past. Have you fucking SEEN that thing?

      1. Where’s a gun-toting lowlife when you need one?

        1. The knaves that rest on Columbia’s breast and the voice of true men stifle; we’ll exorcise from the rescued prize-
          Our talisman, the rifle. For a tyrant’s life a bowie knife Of Union knot dissolvers. The best we ken are stalwart men,
          Columbiads and revolvers!

  6. Further burdening debt-ridden Americans without doing a thing to help the poor abroad isn’t generosity, it’s vanity.

    A lot of this stuff is leftover from the Cold War, too. Obviously, this sort of thing tends to be self-perpetuating, and there are a lot of things left over from the Cold War that made more sense back then than they do now.

    Before the United States became Egypt’s largest foreign donor, that title was held by the USSR. Someone should mention to Obama, in case he hasn’t heard, that the Cold War is over already.

    1. Nearly 5,000 new emergency bomb shelters will be built in Moscow by 2012 to save people in case of potential attacks.

      Moscow arms against nuclear attack
      12 July, 2010

      1. Correction: The GOVERNMENT is preparing Moscow for attack. Nobody in their right mind gives a single fuck about the Russian government.

        1. It is 5 Minutes to Midnight.

          Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

          1. Huy bogov idiotizma vitashi iz zhoppi, uyobishe.

              The Samson Option Still Threatens the World
              by Carol Moore, December 2009 version

      2. As one who lived through some of the time and money suck that was the Cold War it would be nice if we would try hard not to antagonize Russia (NATO expansion, missle defense), mind our own business and let it just become Turkey II.

        1. This is the underlying logic of Joseph Tainter’s argument concerning collapse in peer polities in The Collapse of Complex Societies. If one peer polity does choose to collapse, that region becomes a resource that can be exploited by its neighbors. Whoever conquers it first will have an advantage over the others in the continuing race of escalation.

          The same logic was successfully applied to the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The growth of civilization can be seen in similar terms. Even when the problems of unrestrained growth are recognized by a society ? even when all can plainly see that a smaller-scale, less complex society would be preferable ? there is no option to make use of that knowledge.

          Thesis #12 Civilization must always grow
          Jason Godesky

            How U.S. and Israeli Aggression are leading us to World Nuclear War
            by Carol Moore, updated November 2007

          2. Gambol lockdown is in full effect, mother-fuckers.

            1. You won’t do it much longer.

          3. If one peer polity does choose to collapse

            I hate to respond to this Godesky bullshit, but you do realize that this is a moronic anthropomorphism, right?

            A “peer polity” is not an entity. So it cannot “choose” to “collapse”.

            Stripped of anthropomorphism, what you mean to say here is, “Some of us would like to be hunter-gatherers, but you other guys refuse to do that! Wah!”

            Blow us. You don’t get to choose for me. Sorry.

            1. Wasn’t the guy from Into the Wild essentially a hunter-gatherer? I don’t think much is stopping people from doing that…

              But I often think WI is a neat parody: minarchist here toss around the “slaver” and “Statist fuck” at anyone who advocates even an iota more government than they do, so WI ups that ante by positing an anarchist who finds government enforced property and contract rights to be “statism.” In that light it’s funny, though the sheer volume makes it tiresome.

              1. Living alone in the woods =/= band or tribe of foragers.

              2. “Minarchists here toss around the “slaver” and “Statist fuck” at anyone who advocates even an iota more government than they do…”

                1) Do you advocate district attorneys charging five-year-old children with felony sexual assault/harassment for playing Doctor?

                2) Do you advocate the summary mutilation and execution of, a) innocent men and, b) suspects by law enforcement personnel?

                3) Do you advocate the systematic confiscation, destruction, and/or theft of private property by agents of the state under the color of law and the penalty of forfeit, de facto indefinite detention, and/or prosecution?

                Those are the sorts of things I and, as far as I remember, the other die-hards here attach “slaver” and “statist fuck” to people. Please, tell me that’s not what you’re complaining about covertly.

                1. *for

                2. It’s been used for much less than that iirc. If it were relegated to that it would make more sense.

              3. minarchist here toss around the “slaver” and “Statist fuck” at anyone who advocates even an iota more government than they do

                How can government preserve the right to private property, and also take away private property?

                The answer is that it can’t.

                Same idea with force.

                How can government react to and punish the initiation of force, and also initiate force?

                The answer is that it can’t.

                It is not a matter of “want”, but a matter of principle.

                1. See, Res, if one waits long enough around here the strawman becomes reality…

            2. shit, I forgot, Fluffy-brain.

              There is no government.
              There is no family.
              There is no band of brothers.
              There is no ship’s crew.
              There is no team.

              Only individuals acting in rationally selfish behavior.


              1. We certainly need nouns to be able to refer to collective groups in speech.

                But a profound conceptual problem arises when you combine those nouns with verbs that only can apply to actual entities.

                The sentence “Society masturbated and ejaculated into a cup,” is a non sequitur because whatever we mean by “society”, it most definitely is not the type of entity that can masturbate and jizz into a cup.

                When someone advances an argument that relies on combining collective nouns with verbs that only properly apply to individual entities, it is extraordinarily useful to break up that collective noun into its constituent elements, so we can see what the argument is really saying.

                As I did in this instance.

                1. Society has decided and spoken, libertard. DON’T DENY IT IN THE NAME OF RACISM.

                2. I think you might be on to something fluffy, but I would argue that sometimes whether a noun “only properly applies to individual entities” to someone might be more a reflection of their axioms than conceptual clarity.

                  1. I think you might be on to something snip

                    It’s useful grammatical shorthand to say, “That herd of cows ran down the street,” but it’s really incredibly imprecise. Some of the cows ran. Some of them almost certainly ambled. And some gamboled. We say “That herd of cows ran down the street,” because it’s close enough; because we know what we mean by it; and because it would be a pain in the ass (most of the time) to make the effort to be precise.

                    The problem arises when we get so used to doing this that we start to think it reflects reality. It doesn’t. It distorts reality (in a way that goes well beyond the old philosophical trope of all language distorting reality).

                    The critical way it distorts reality in the “social science” (snicker) realm is that it makes us think that we can talk about “society” an if it had an actual referent.

                    1. I blame the North’s abandonment of the second person plural. Before we make any progress on what you’re talking about, we’ll need to resurrect the second person plural.

                      It is amazing that people don’t distinguish between second person singular and plural in everyday speech. I don’t think there are many other languages that do that–it’s so stupid.

                      What is it? Hatred of the South? That makes it so people can’t bring themselves to say, “I brought enough pizza to share with you all“?

                      I’ll grant it was better when the second person plural was just one word rather than two, but brevity is no reason to make the singular and the plural the same word.

                      It become so bad, people think its improper English to distinguish between the second person singular and plural. People look down on you for making the distinction!

                      Drives me nuts.

                3. Meanwhile, anybody with a couple eyes to observe realizes there is collective social behavior and collective decisions.

                  Such as with ship’s crews, families, hunting parties, bands, etc.

                  1. Actually, the sentence “The family decided to go on a trip to Disney World,” is extraordinarily deceptive in exactly the way I’m describing.

                    One of two things occurred:

                    1. Every member of the family wanted to go to Disney World. In this case, talking about “the family” deciding is just a shorter way of saying “Individual A, Individual B, Individual C, and Individual D wanted to go to Disney World.” It doesn’t add any information.

                    2. Some members of the family wanted to go and some didn’t, and the former group imposed their will on the latter group. In this case, it’s actually deceptive to talk about the “family” wanting to go to Disney World. You’re obscuring and concealing the actual facts and the real dynamic at play.

                    1. Well done, fluffy.

                  2. And in the social sciences, using sentences like “Society chose to do X” is very nearly always the second case.

                    You may be able to find extremely small groups (maybe in desert island thought experiments) where there is complete unanimity of judgments that would give you the first case, but it would be vanishingly rare.

                    1. Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: Are groups more “rational” players?
                      G Bornstein? – Experimental Economics, 1998 – Springer

                      Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior
                      by: Marvin E. Shaw
                      In Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior (1971)

                      The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior
                      SG Barsade – Administrative Science Quarterly, 2002 – JSTOR

                      Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group.
                      JC Turner – Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology ?, 1981 – psycnet.apa.org

                      Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior.
                      BM Bass – 1960 – psycnet.apa.org

                      Oppressed group behavior: implications for nursing.
                      SJ Roberts – ANS. Advances in nursing science, 1983 – ukpmc.ac.uk

                      Non-adaptive group behavior.
                      A Mintz – The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 1951 – psycnet.apa.org

                    2. Of course, consensus isn’t rare when you introduce the idea of trade.

                      Maybe one member of the family doesn’t want to go to Disney World. So the family compromises and says that if the dissenting member agrees to go to Disney World, they’ll let him/her pick the hotel. He/she agrees and now you have a collective will.

                  3. collective behavior =/= collective will

          4. Union Paladin versus White Indian. Who will triumph ?

            1. Reality certainly won’t be among the survivors.

  7. Georgetown students shed light on China’s tunnel system for nuclear weapons

    China ‘hiding up to 3,000 nuclear warheads in secret tunnels’
    An unconventional project by US university students has concluded that China’s nuclear arsenal could be many times larger than current estimates, drawing the attention of Pentagon analysts.

    1. “But you ask people what they did in college, most just say I took this class, I was in this club. I can say I spent it reading Chinese nuclear strategy and Second Artillery manuals. For a nerd like me, that really means something.”

      Self-described nerd. It must be true. But look at how important he is now, world!

      1. I looking.

  8. England’s $440 million annual commitment, he maintained, was “a peanut” in India’s total development expenditure and not worth perpetuating the image of India as a poverty-stricken country dependent on foreign alms.

    Im sure California will gladly take it.

    1. Something tells me that California, despite its ever growing problems, sends huge amounts of money to other places as well (tax payer money of course).

      1. Those other places include the rat hole.

    2. If California doesn’t, I will.

      I’ll even eat curried kidney pie and pay income taxes.

    3. California is a perfect model of our current national debate. Both sides can note it’s fiscal crisis, one side can point to its famed unrestrained spending, the other side to its historical anti-tax laws. It’s like: California, bring your confirmation bias and ponder!

      1. I will ignore that fact that California has been run by the most left leaning politicians compared to practically anywhere else in the world. I will also ignore the fact that the tax rates are also one of the highest in the land.

        1. It’s nice to know my pussy spoofer gets up early sometimes!

          1. It would be nice I could prove the spoofer wrong, but then I can’t really. So I will call him pussy instead.

            1. You have to love a pussy who spoofs someone and then complains he wasn’t directly refuted!

              1. You are a pussy !

                1. Look, sarcy/notsure, if you’re going to go full pussy and spoof someone don’t whine like a pussy when you don’t get directly addressed…

                  1. I prefer to whine about spoofers myself, whining about spoofers is perfectly legitimate, spoofing is not, it says so in the rules.

          2. I of course also know for a fact that only people in America post comments here. Timezones, what are those ?

  9. Foreign Aid: Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

    1. I thought only the rich paid taxes?

      1. Since when did you think, you emotive fuck?

        1. Uh oh, going to call for me to be euthanized now? No emotivism there!

          1. No one would miss you.



  10. Ok, leaving aside that WI is gamboling all over teh interwebs instead of plains and forest looking for his meal, here’s what I think:

    Mr. zomg-China-Cold War == White Indian

    1. You are probably right, which is a bit odd. He is doing the standard nationalist fearing about the rise of China, then he is also selling the idea of the return to hunting and the elimination for cities. A strange combination.

      1. Nothing “nationalist” about it.

  11. lol, that dude totally cracks me up sometimes man. Wow.


  12. They’d just all move to the US, or something.

    That’s what a bunch of them do anyway.

    Many Israelis (Soviet Jews seem to be prominent in this regard) seem to have moved there from there native lands because it is easier to get a Green Card when applying in Israel ans an Israeli citizen/resident than it was at home.

    There have even been questions raised about how legitimate the Jewishness of many of these people actually is.

    1. Rand herself?says to a Bolshevik: “I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one’s right, one shouldn’t wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them.”

      How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon?
      The perverse allure of a damaged woman
      ?By Johann Hari | Nov. 2, 2009?

      (Of course, her writings have now been sanitized for your protection.)

      1. JOOWESS

  13. Shikha Dalmia take your anti-Indian bigotry someplace else. No rational government, especially a democracy, would ever want a hundred million dollar project accountable to a foreign state handing out goodies in their country.

  14. Of course, consensus isn’t rare when you introduce the idea of trade

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.