So over 46 years they have received $ billions of free money, shouldn't they be in a position to stand on their own 2 feet by now?
Or is free money expected indefinitely?
I wholeheartedly agree and I remember reading an almost identical socialist topic elsewhere in this forum not long ago. I don't see why there would be an obligation of richer countries to send money to poorer ones. And I don't think that it is even useful to do so.
Many developing countries have structural problems that can't be solved with money or external aid. Funds send to these countries vanish in deeply rooted networks of corruption or evaporate in projects that are abandoned by the local population once external help to operate them is withdrawn.
Donations for developing countries should only be made if the money flows into projects that have been started out of self-initiative of the local population. In addition, money shouldn't be given for free - it should be investment capital. Free donations don't encourage initiative to master obstacles and become self-sufficient, instead free donations encourage dependency on external help.
ya.ya.yo!