Why wealthy nations shouldn't donate to third world countries by Nicholas G.

      The world we know today is filled with imbalances, and many people do not live in the luxury that North Americans and Europeans do, but would charity really solve this problem?  Wealthy nations should not expend resources on poorer countries unless the UN decides on it because wealthy nations s still have overflowing internal problems such as debt, and are filled with poverty and unemployment, furthermore, these poor nations often have corrupt governments, so instead of the money or donations reaching the population, they are kept by the government, and lastly, the poor nation would become dependent, and when the wealthy nation will eventually cut off the donations, the country would plummet into poverty once more.  There is no such thing as Utopia, in fact, "utopia" literally means "nothing" in Ancient Greek, its origin.

       First of all, one of the reasons that wealthier nations such as the US or the UK shouldn't donate billions of dollars to poor countries is that these wealthier nations also have their own problems.  First world countries, although rich, still have high poverty and unemployment rates as well a mountain of debt.  The US alone was approximately 17.226 trillion dollars in debt in December 2013.  Which, by the way, a marginal amount over the GDP in 2013.  About 110% of the GDP to be exact. The point is that wealthy countries can't afford to be spending copious amounts of money on a cause that might not even get to the target.

        How you ask?  Poorer countries are usually poor for a reason.  One of them might be that the country might have a corrupt government.  For example, Hosni Mubarak,former President of Egypt was very corrupt and lead to his arrest.  His family was estimated to be worth $70 billion across bank accounts all over the world.  Considering Egypt's situation, $70 billion USD is a little over the top.  Egypt is not very rich, so how did Mubarak become so rich?  He took the US's donation money for himself.  Granted he still gave some to the people, but not enough.  Donating these large sums of money will only fund the dictator's greed.  And although Mubarak is no longer in power, there are still Asian, Arabian, and African countries in the same situation that Egypt was in in the 2000's.

     Lastly, if richer nations such as Canada or the US help poor countries, the countries will become dependent, and as soon as the donator has to pull out to fund a war or because of an economic crash, the countries will plunge back into poverty, unless said country has profitable resources that could not be used to their full extent due to lack of funding.  

      In the end, donating ridiculous sums of money's cons heavily outweigh the pros.  Donating money to countries in need is am idealist notion, but. The world we live in is a realist one, where people are greedy, and to think that hold-all-the-power dictators will gladly give away huge sums of money to their people is ludicrous, and if anything, naive.  Wealthy nations should not donate to poor countries because of the already prominent internal affairs such as debt and poverty, the poor countries' likely corruption, and the possibility of the poor country becoming dependent on the benefactor's donations.