I would like to respectfully disagree with Gordon's use of ten trillion dollars. While all of his ideas are good ones, and ones that I can get behind, the problem is he treats his money like he were just a billionaire only more so. He divides his money between multiple projects, and by dividing, his money loses its potency. Even among modern billionaires, this is a problem. They create a foundation that gives to multiple organizations, without ever providing the concentration of capital necessary to make sea changes. Ten trillion dollars is more than just an opportunity to spend billions here and there. It's an opportunity to give on a scale like never before. Thus I humbly submit my usage plan of ten trillion dollars.
I would like to forge Malawi into a industrialized nation. First let me describe why Malawi, and then we will get into the plan. Malawi is a smallish country Africa which has suffered a decade long drought and famine (some say due to human-caused climate change). It is heavily reliant on foreign aid and the vast majority of its 15 million people are rural. However it does have several things that set it apart from its neighbors. First of all, it is a constitutional democracy that has experienced changes in the majority party with civil unrest. It also does not break down along tribal lines, and has a robust sense of nationalism, both of which set it apart from its neighbors. Political corruption is also reduced compared to its neighbors, although by no means non-existent. All these factors make Malawi the best place to focus our attentions. But why in Africa? There are stable, still poor places that could use that money just as well (Bangladesh comes to mind). Indeed Africa has been viewed by many non-profits as a black hole for aid, with little progress and more dependency per dollar spent. But that is just the issue. It's possible that ten trillion is the magic amount required to actually see a monumental change in a country in Africa, and that kind of spending just is not possible on current not-for-profit scales. And once a model is created, it gets cheaper and more feasible to imitate. It's important to remember here that the goal is not a post-industrial, Westernized country, but merely a more developed, stable, not-starving-to-death country.
The plan would run something like this, although I would of course hire policy experts with all the details. First of all, one billion dollars would immediately go to food aid (it would probably take significantly less than that, but I have ten thousand of them, so might as well pad it). An additional ten billion or so would go to water treatment plants. (For all public works like this I would expect at least partial government subsidies.) Probably up to a hundred billion would go to energy production and infrastructure. Another ten billion would go to agricultural education and agricultural infrastructure each. Two hundred billion would go to transportation infrastructure and housing construction (I anticipate fast urbanization). One hundred billion would go to revamping Malawi's extractive industries, and another hundred toward industrializing. Another three hundred billion would go to setting up an educational system, with an initial focus on vocational schools, engineering, and medical schools. Many African countries suffer a serious lack of highly educated professionals. Probably two hundred billion (maybe more) would be required for security purposes, especially securing the border with Uganda, where they already suffer refugee problems. I think a half-trillion should go to funding Malawian businesses, along the model of micro-finance, only taking away the micro bit. Probably another half-trillion would have to go to founding hospitals and revamping the medical system, with an initial focus on family planning and contraceptives (AIDS is a bit of a problem in Malawi).Put another hundred billion toward environmental issues. And let's not forget a hundred million to fund a internal anti-corruption bureau. If any of these numbers seem small to you (they shouldn't. I padded them pretty heavily) realize that Malawi's GDP is only 13 billion. For those of you keeping score that's 2.1311 trillion gone, not much of a chunk out of my 10. If we add a hundred million for overhead and another for advertising (why not?) we're still only spending about a fifth of our money and we've built an entirely new country.
There are of course several problems with the plan. First and foremost I foresee a huge influx of people into Malawi from neighboring nations. This is actually at least partly a solution, because cheap labor is definitely part of building a nation. Civil unrest could also sink the ship, especially since I don't really want to step on the turf of the Malawian government. However, I think a well-designed plan to distribute the benefits across the population would help (toss another billion toward making that plan). Also extend similar but more limited funding toward neighboring countries for mirror projects, and we could found a movement that could shape the face of the globe. Another problem would be the possible appearance of colonial ambitions, something that most of Africa is very touchy about. My efforts would focus on home-growing all the projects from within Malawi, and doing all of the above over several years. The first focus would be on grade school education, sexual education, agricultural reform, and cheap, labor-heavy expertise-light projects like road building that provide jobs and endow people with a sense of purpose. For those of you who are critics of planned economies, I would also try and focus on funding grass-roots ideas. The goal here is toward sustainability after the money runs out, although the rest of the money would go toward a national endowment upon which the nation could draw for decades (hopefully). Any way, that's what I'd do. Oh and retire comfortably with a billion or so.
