Sending Fresh Blooms Across Germany:...
History0 min ago
Live8 - is the message getting through?
14 Answers
There seems to be a lot of people who believe Live8 is about raising money. I think it's very important to emphasise that the purpose of Live 8
is *NOT* to raise money. There will be no appeals for cash. The Live8 concert is about raising awareness of the Make Poverty History campaign. It appears to me that a great many people think the concert is a fundraiser.
It seems that perhaps Geldof and co haven't been as good as they should have been about telling people what it is about. What do you lot think?
(As for the actual purpose of the campaign, it is to get people to sign up and alert the G8 nations that if they fail to address extreme global poverty then they are failing their populations - the more people that sign up, the more pressure there is on the politicians to pay more than lip service. The campaign proposes that this should be achieved via a variety of means, principally the cancellation of unrepayable debt, increased aid, and most importantly of all, a change in the trade rules so that the developing world can compete on a fair basis.
Check http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/whatwewant/index.shtml for all the detail on what the campaign seeks to do.)
is *NOT* to raise money. There will be no appeals for cash. The Live8 concert is about raising awareness of the Make Poverty History campaign. It appears to me that a great many people think the concert is a fundraiser.
It seems that perhaps Geldof and co haven't been as good as they should have been about telling people what it is about. What do you lot think?
(As for the actual purpose of the campaign, it is to get people to sign up and alert the G8 nations that if they fail to address extreme global poverty then they are failing their populations - the more people that sign up, the more pressure there is on the politicians to pay more than lip service. The campaign proposes that this should be achieved via a variety of means, principally the cancellation of unrepayable debt, increased aid, and most importantly of all, a change in the trade rules so that the developing world can compete on a fair basis.
Check http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/whatwewant/index.shtml for all the detail on what the campaign seeks to do.)
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by WaldoMcFroog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Right, because, after all, if you default on a debt you die of malnutrition don't you? Or because you've contracted a disease from filthy water? Or because you can't get water because its too expensive? Or because of simple ignorance of diseases because there's no money to educate you?
No, you don't. Because the situation for us in the west is simply not comparable to that in the developing world.
If *you* can't repay your debt you can declare yourself bankrupt, the debt is wiped and you can continue to exist as a 'credit only' consumer with a black mark against you.
Not life or death, and certainly not comparable.
Moreover, any debts you or I have are unlikely to be the result of compound interest upon compound interest which we have no possibility of repaying.
Again, the situation you're describing is simply not comparable.
Finally, the west was developed off the back of restrictive trade regulations which enabled our countries to develop strong ecconomies. Now that we are strong, our trade systems - actioned via the IMF and World Bank - deny developing world nations the opportunity to protect their own ecconomic growth. Instead, they force countries to 'liberalise' their ecconomies with the net effect of causing capital outflow from poor nations to rich.
There's a big difference between stopping millions of people dying and your payment of of your debts. If you sincerely believe that is not the case then I would like to contribute a couple of quid to solve your debt problems as they're clearly way out of control.
No, you don't. Because the situation for us in the west is simply not comparable to that in the developing world.
If *you* can't repay your debt you can declare yourself bankrupt, the debt is wiped and you can continue to exist as a 'credit only' consumer with a black mark against you.
Not life or death, and certainly not comparable.
Moreover, any debts you or I have are unlikely to be the result of compound interest upon compound interest which we have no possibility of repaying.
Again, the situation you're describing is simply not comparable.
Finally, the west was developed off the back of restrictive trade regulations which enabled our countries to develop strong ecconomies. Now that we are strong, our trade systems - actioned via the IMF and World Bank - deny developing world nations the opportunity to protect their own ecconomic growth. Instead, they force countries to 'liberalise' their ecconomies with the net effect of causing capital outflow from poor nations to rich.
There's a big difference between stopping millions of people dying and your payment of of your debts. If you sincerely believe that is not the case then I would like to contribute a couple of quid to solve your debt problems as they're clearly way out of control.
Pressure on governments all sounds very noble but the average voter will probably soon forget about starving Africans once the hype about this passes.
It's not been at the forefront of my mind for every minute of every day since the first Live Aid.
Out of curiosity, in terms of fundraising (and hopefully not sounding far too cynical)...
Is there a cut off amount of money that would put an end to the misery in Africa?
Live Aid raised millions and that wasn't enough as there have been famines since then. How much, exactly, would it take to make Africa completely self sufficient? Is it even possible to put a figure on it?
If it helps, we can assume that the debt is abolished as I've read that Zambia spends more on repaying debt than it does on education or health.
It's not been at the forefront of my mind for every minute of every day since the first Live Aid.
Out of curiosity, in terms of fundraising (and hopefully not sounding far too cynical)...
Is there a cut off amount of money that would put an end to the misery in Africa?
Live Aid raised millions and that wasn't enough as there have been famines since then. How much, exactly, would it take to make Africa completely self sufficient? Is it even possible to put a figure on it?
If it helps, we can assume that the debt is abolished as I've read that Zambia spends more on repaying debt than it does on education or health.
I saw Bob Geldof and Elton John on the news the other day in fromt of a bunch of journalists but all I heard was how Geldof was responsible for Live Aid - now you talk about Live8 - is that a direct reference to the G8 or they are making a band of 8?
It will be a change - in France at any rate - not to be asked to send money all the time, don't know about the GB.
Don't be so naive to think that they are not trying to raise money as well as raising awareness. With well over a million applications for tickets expected and costing �1.50 a text are you trying to tell me that is not fundraising?!
Another thing, I deal with African nations on a regular basis and they are undoubtedly the most corrupt nations in the world. People should take a look at the governments of these countries as well as those in the west before they get up on their soap boxes and preach to the rest of us what they think they know!
Don't be so naive to think that they are not trying to raise money as well as raising awareness. With well over a million applications for tickets expected and costing �1.50 a text are you trying to tell me that is not fundraising?!
That was a concession to the Prince's Trust who gave up their own concert to allow Live8. That money will mainly go to support the charities which would have benefitted from the original concert. The remainder will cover the costs of staging the concert.
Another thing, I deal with African nations on a regular basis and they are undoubtedly the most corrupt nations in the world. People should take a look at the governments of these countries as well as those in the west before they get up on their soap boxes and preach to the rest of us what they think they know!
Yes, I agree; many developing world nations are corrupt. However, how many of the people dying needlessly do you think are corrupt? Have you considered whether corruption is more rife in poverty striken countries? Or would you try and argue that the developed world is inately morally superior..?
No one's suggesting Live8 and Make Poverty History are going to solve the entire world's problems or that no one will ever die of malnutrition again etc etc. Moreover, there would undoubtedly be new challenges if their proposals were enacted. I don't see anyone being naive about these things.
Ultimately, if you have read the objectives of MPH and disagree with them, that's a matter for your own conscience. It seems like a singular opportunity to me and I will therefore support it if I choose.
It is pointless even trying to hold some form of debate with you because you are preaching. I do support Live8 but I'm also educated and open minded enough to make my own mind up about situations by viewing them from ALL sides not just the opinion thrown at me by the mass media.
When did I say I thought that people dying were corrupt? I didn't did I..... How dare you speak down to me like that when you don't know me or my beliefs. Where in my previous post did I say I didn't support what they are trying to do? Oh wait a minute I didn't did I.
What I was saying which you clearly missed is that you have to look at the bigger picture. Cancelling the debts of developing countries would be a good start but with the officials that run these countries lining their own pockets at every given opportunity and only trading with the companies that give them the biggest brown envelopes it is not going to solve the underlying problems. Many of these government figures would just see it as a great opportunity to "skim" more money of the top for themselves. The debt is just one issue that needs to be addressed.
Um... hang on a second, Gevs...
First point - my question had nothing to do with whether people supported the Live8 or MPH campaigns. I asked whether Geldof et al had successful managed to communicate the intentions of their campaign as it appeared to me that many people were under the impression Live8 was a fundraiser, which it is not. There are other questions on the board debating whether people are in favour. With that said, I have certainly attempted to present counter arguments where appropriate to comments made.
Secondly, you accuse me of trying to put words into your mouth, yet when you accuse me of getting up on a soap box and preaching and not having looked into other sides of the debate without having a clue of how much I might know or not know about the state of global poverty, that's apparently okay? Or when you imply that, unlike you, I have accepted the media line without considering the alternatives - that's okay, but the sins against you are the only ones which count?
Thirdly, I gave you some questions to ponder, not 'put words into your mouth'. Nowhere do I attribute those possible opinions to you. Nor do I say you don't support the campaign. I clearly said whatever you decided was a matter for your own conscience.
Fourthly, I acknowledged that should the objectives of MPH be met that there would be consequences and it was not a panacea and conceeded that indeed there was corruption - hardly 'clearly missing bigger picture', I would say.
My point was - which admittedly I didn't express terribly clearly - whether or not empoverishment is a breeding ground for corruption. I would content that in societies where the standard of living is very much higher, corruption is commensurately lower and therefore by attempting to address one there should hopefully be an effect on the other.
(cont.)
Fifthly, I have stated in previous answers to the question, not to mention the question itself, that dropping the debt is merely part of the objectives of the campaign, not the totality.
I'm sorry you seem to object to my response so much. I do think that when you read it again, you will see it doesn't contain even half the slurs you seem to think exist.
Um...no. I answered the point you made in your original about it not being a fundraiser when clearly it will raise money one way or another. I then made a point about addressing the bigger picture with regard to corruption etc (something which you don't see in the mass media so therefore having a dig at the media and not yourself)
You then went off on one, what you have written and the way you have phrased it is preaching which is what I object to.
I still disagree that it is a fundraiser. The only people who will contribute anything are those who wish to attend the concert itself. Those who choose to watch on television will not be asked to contribute. Since the television audience will form the vast majority of those who will watch, I don't think it is misleading to say it's not a fundraiser. The purpose of the event is to raise awareness.
You say that you intended to have a dig at the media and not me, but it's pretty hard to read "People should take a look at the governments of these countries as well as those in the west before they get up on their soap boxes and preach to the rest of us what they think they know!" without thinking it's me rather than the media you're taking a pop at.
Again, I'm sorry you feel that my response was 'going off on one'. I can assure you it was written in an entirely calm state of mind. As for preaching, I could conceed my tone to Ouisch was quite harsh, but then his comment was quite ignorant. I can take that on the chin, my comments to you, however, were entirely measured.
I'm a "her", not a "him." Secondly, I don't think my response was all that ignorant. Third world debt has to do with governmental spending. Not the situation of the individuals of any nation. There are people in America, England, Germany and elsewhere that are starving, that live in cardboard boxes on the street, that are dying because they can't afford proper medical treatment. It's just never provided the appropriate publicity for celebrities to forgive the debts of citizens at home first.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.