Discussion on:

Romney: Free enterprise trumps foreign aid

Mitt the Twitt said Free enterprise can not only make us better off financially, it can make us better people.

Translation: Rich people ARE better people (especially if they exploit the poor).


Mitt the Twitt said You endeavor not only to comfort and assuage the pains of the afflicted, but also to change lives, through freedom, through free enterprise, through entrepreneurship, and through the incomparable dignity that is associated with work.

Translation: Lets exploit the poor people of other nations as well as our own. We have a golden opportunity to put all sorts of poor people to work for next to nothing, and in the end, they will thank us for giving them the opportunity to be a slave for the handout and not have to beg for it. The bonus is that we will profit more and become even better people.


Mitt the Twitt said Aid cant sustain an economy, but an assistance program that helps unleash free enterprise can create enduring prosperity.

Translation: Only greed and exploitation can endure.

What Mitt Romney said is that allowing people to help themselves, instead of just giving money to whoever has the power to take it will help more people.

That is the philosophy behind the Gamin Bank, and the entire microlending movement. It works.

This is a more complex problem than Romney states. The basic problem is that not all societies have the same degree of development as most western societies. In most cases, the ability of a culture to adapt to free enterprise is limited by its natural resources.

The question to provide foreign aid or to let private enterprise is still a case by case decision. The poorest countries tend to lack the ability to set pricing on their resources and have to depend on fair deals by the richer countries. Even a stable country can be knocked down by a natural disaster like earthquakes, drought and floods; events that can destroy the resources needed to recover from the aftermath of those events.

I see the free enterprise concept as an ideal that is rarely attained because of individuals wanting to maintain more control in such a way that it becomes impossible to enter the market to compete against them. There is also the bargain hunting that seeks to take advantage of weaker trading partners over keeping the trade fair for both parties.

I object to the social darwinism implied in letting the poor compete against the rich in a free enterprise. In other words, if the poor follow the richs' rules then they will lose.

...but it remains to be seen how this would look on a case by case basis. Industry investment in some developing nations has been criticized as economic imperialism & for supporting local autocracies even when jobs are well paid & working conditions are good. It's politically impractical to help create jobs elsewhere that compete with American labor.

The type of development free enterprise has always brought to the Third World is that which enriches the ruling elites, exploits the impoverished masses for cheap labor, and plunders the resources of their countries. They've already had plenty of that kind of "help".

This is unbelieveable the way you downgrade the free enterprise idea. I have seen no other alternatives from you arm chair intellects. We know that foreign aid does only fill the pockets of the ruling party and does little for the poor and hungry. Get a life and begin to understand that change is good if only to say we are going in a wrong direction and must modify our process.

Maslow said that if the only tool you have is a hammer then you tend to see your problems as nails. What Mitt Romney is suggesting is the same remedy for the poor in the USA as he is suggesting for the poor countries. Mitt Romney only has one tool, it worked for him but why does he believe it works across the spectrum of culture?