Welcome to The CRC Team Channel.
President Donald Trump discusses the closure of USAID, which was reported to have a high level of corruption, fraud, and waste. An agency intended to do good in the world that become a political slush fund for the political left in America.
The question people did have was what would replace the good that USAID did do. There was a replacement agency created to focus on the same mission with greater transparency and oversight. But I think the new approach that President Trump is taking may be a game changer for the nations impacted.
I was in one of those nations in Africa recently that relies on American and other foreign aid to support its population. Speaking to some people, they are quick to ask for things they need or for your generosity, but it is clear that there is a lack of a sustainable path forward for uplifting these communities.
The gap between the have and have nots is usually seen by who has ties or access to America or the United Kingdom of Great Britain. But there was not really a great market dynamic for a nation blessed with natural resources, as the national and local government struggled to create trusted economic channels.
During my time there, I thought about why there was no real economic market for what was a clear abundance of affordable labor for economic production. Or a real exchange of resources for economic viability that was clearly beneficial with similar nations not that far that have leveraged the same resources for a booming society where the people live more comfortably.
The change in approach from looking at nations for America to gives taxpayers dollars to help support their society to a system of trade is an approach that will be uplifting. The trade in place of aid will spur economic activity that will create opportunity and afford these nations a place in the global economy.
During my time in Africa, I met quite a bit of people who went to college, did their mandatory service to their nation, and were not able to find work because the economy simply could not create opportunity. I bought clothing from a person with a pharmacy degree, who made more as a seamstress than what was possible in healthcare.
So, if you believe that markets elevate societies, which I firmly believe the data supports that, then this is a viable path forward. A potential game changer in a similar manner like when China opened up to the market economies.
The incentive aspect of a market economy is what is a game changer. The traditional redistribution of taking funds from one nation and giving it to the powerful leaders in another nation does not adequately provide an uplifting effect for that impoverished society.
Rather if a nation understands what it does best and can do that in excess, or what it has available to trade for what is needed, then it can produce for the exchange for the staples of what is currently impossible for that nation. And the better you produce, the greater the return, the better society benefits.
For instance, we exchange our labor for compensation to pay for things we want and need. Over time, we learn to work better and improve our access to greater compensation. Therefore we get more for our time and we now can buy better things that we need and want. We can buy more wants along with our needs!
In an aid based economy, the poor never really benefit. Resources will be distributed to those who are closest to the people in power. The people in power will use the supplies to strengthen their control of society in such a model. Because people rely on that aid and therefore the person controlling who gets it better be respected and cared for.
That is the socialist economic model that we need to rid the world of. We need market based models that are driven by the people who need the supplies and create them as well. I think we do not discuss the difference between market based economies and socialist models enough.