Interesting Grant. Trump's political excesses, his appearance and his personal foibles are emblazoned across the media. Every day. I'd be much more interested in your take on why so many Western nations, ie, Argentina, Germany, Canada, France, Australia, Italy and Austria etc have either elected a reforming 'populist' or seem about to. Why is this movement sweeping the world? I think I understand it, but I'd be very interested in your opinion of it.
Hi Mike. Thanks for the comment. I've been thinking about that very question, and, now that you mention it, I may well respond next Monday! The media tend to look at this development aghast, but no one bothers to ask why!
The world’s richest man is not cutting off aid to the world’s poorest people, he’s closing a poorly run organisation and transferring some of its functions to other teams. Food aid will go to the World Food Programme, for example. I have an insider report on NZ’s aid to the Pacific which would make your hair curl. Musk is a necessary, temporary step to a better America and thus a better world. Saying that American under Trump is no better than Russia under Putin is outrageous. For all his faults Trump is not only less of a danger but he is also constrained by a Constitution, a Supreme Court and Congress.
Funny – I’m reading in world news media of lifesaving medical programs being closed and people dying because of the stoppage in funding of US aid all over the world. Does sound to be a cut, even if we’re told it will be temporary. But I suspect Trump and Musk want to have a nice long pause in the funding, and reduced funding when it resumes, so they can show big savings and apply these to their planned tax cuts. I don’t think I’d select their approach as a model of how to improve government efficiency. It’s way too callous.
There’s also the point that Musk has claimed US Aid is a “criminal organisation”, without, I believe, offering any instances of crimes that it has committed. Presumably, like other federal government organisations, it’s subject to audit. Such a label seems a terrible insult to aid and development specialists who have spent their careers trying to help alleviate sickness and poverty around the world, and by doing that maintain stability to mitigate risks to the US. I’m bemused that anyone in Australasia can look on with approval at this sort of behaviour.
There are plenty of examples of USAID spending money which is inappropriate and unlawful. There are also plenty of rich countries which can pick up the slack. America has been a soft touch for years. It is now among the most indebted countries and time has come for charity to begin at home. Instead of criticising Musk’s theatrics I suggest you ask why other rich countries don’t contribute. Why, for example, should America be Ukraine’s main funder?
This is all beside the point, Max. No-one is saying USAid’s priorities shouldn’t be reviewed or US aid be contracted in scope. It’s the immediate cut to in-progress life-saving programs with no notice that is callous.
I see in this morning’s news that a US judge agrees with the critics of the funding suspension and has ordered Trump and Musk to resume the funding while they review it. No doubt they’ll accuse that judge of being a criminal too.
It would be impossible to rejig USAID without this blanket stop. The court case is really based on employment matters rather than the beneficiaries. The US provides 42% of the aid tracked by the UN. A simple solution to your problem is for other countries to step up. Trump is dismantling USAID, not aid as such, although I suspect his plan is to reduce that 42% considerably. Would it have been possible to retain all the staff and review the programmes individually? No. It’s the staff who are the perceived problem. Unfortunately some people will indeed suffer but surely it’d be a simple matter for other countries to fund these programmes.
Interesting Grant. Trump's political excesses, his appearance and his personal foibles are emblazoned across the media. Every day. I'd be much more interested in your take on why so many Western nations, ie, Argentina, Germany, Canada, France, Australia, Italy and Austria etc have either elected a reforming 'populist' or seem about to. Why is this movement sweeping the world? I think I understand it, but I'd be very interested in your opinion of it.
Hi Mike. Thanks for the comment. I've been thinking about that very question, and, now that you mention it, I may well respond next Monday! The media tend to look at this development aghast, but no one bothers to ask why!
The world’s richest man is not cutting off aid to the world’s poorest people, he’s closing a poorly run organisation and transferring some of its functions to other teams. Food aid will go to the World Food Programme, for example. I have an insider report on NZ’s aid to the Pacific which would make your hair curl. Musk is a necessary, temporary step to a better America and thus a better world. Saying that American under Trump is no better than Russia under Putin is outrageous. For all his faults Trump is not only less of a danger but he is also constrained by a Constitution, a Supreme Court and Congress.
Fair comment thanks Max. We’ll see how well the constitution holds up. Cheers
Funny – I’m reading in world news media of lifesaving medical programs being closed and people dying because of the stoppage in funding of US aid all over the world. Does sound to be a cut, even if we’re told it will be temporary. But I suspect Trump and Musk want to have a nice long pause in the funding, and reduced funding when it resumes, so they can show big savings and apply these to their planned tax cuts. I don’t think I’d select their approach as a model of how to improve government efficiency. It’s way too callous.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/trumps-wrecking-ball-comes-for-foreign
This post supports your point, I think, Kai.
There’s also the point that Musk has claimed US Aid is a “criminal organisation”, without, I believe, offering any instances of crimes that it has committed. Presumably, like other federal government organisations, it’s subject to audit. Such a label seems a terrible insult to aid and development specialists who have spent their careers trying to help alleviate sickness and poverty around the world, and by doing that maintain stability to mitigate risks to the US. I’m bemused that anyone in Australasia can look on with approval at this sort of behaviour.
There are plenty of examples of USAID spending money which is inappropriate and unlawful. There are also plenty of rich countries which can pick up the slack. America has been a soft touch for years. It is now among the most indebted countries and time has come for charity to begin at home. Instead of criticising Musk’s theatrics I suggest you ask why other rich countries don’t contribute. Why, for example, should America be Ukraine’s main funder?
This is all beside the point, Max. No-one is saying USAid’s priorities shouldn’t be reviewed or US aid be contracted in scope. It’s the immediate cut to in-progress life-saving programs with no notice that is callous.
I see in this morning’s news that a US judge agrees with the critics of the funding suspension and has ordered Trump and Musk to resume the funding while they review it. No doubt they’ll accuse that judge of being a criminal too.
It would be impossible to rejig USAID without this blanket stop. The court case is really based on employment matters rather than the beneficiaries. The US provides 42% of the aid tracked by the UN. A simple solution to your problem is for other countries to step up. Trump is dismantling USAID, not aid as such, although I suspect his plan is to reduce that 42% considerably. Would it have been possible to retain all the staff and review the programmes individually? No. It’s the staff who are the perceived problem. Unfortunately some people will indeed suffer but surely it’d be a simple matter for other countries to fund these programmes.
The comments are worth reading. The student author is clearly not a Trump voter - or a taxpayer.
The world story so far:
1877-1896: Gilded Age
1897-1913: Progressive Era, Belle Epoque
1914-18: WW1
1919-28: Roaring Twenties
1929-39: Great Depression
1939-45: WW2
1946-1973: early-mid Cold War, Bretton Woods
1974-1979: Oil Crises, Watergate, Winter of Discontent
1980-1991: late Cold War, TINA
1992-2001: End of History
2002-2016: War on Terror, Great Recession
2017-present: Post-Truth Era, Neo-nationalist populism, The World Troubles (like the Northern Irish Troubles, but global)?
Not bad at all! Perhaps 2025– will be another stage. And what about Covid?