Bush objects to UK Dept plan for africa

Catsmokinpot

Bush objects to UK Dept plan for africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4606197.stm

ok just wondering does bush have any other valid objection to this? what are peoples opinions on this? or do people think the fact that he just doesn't want to dig in to his mountains of gold a valid enough reason?

bonkey

The article reads a bit funny. They talk about debt cancellation, and increased aid, and that the the debt plans should be financed in part by selling gold reserves held by the International Monetary Fund.

I'm at a loss as to why you'd need to sell a lot of gold to cancel debt.

Perhaps it is the increased aid that Bush has an issue with, and this is what the financing is for. Or its not really debt cancellation, but rather a buy-out.

Also, they're not his mountains of gold, no matter how much he might like them to be. They're the IMFs, and I would assume provide it with the fiscal surity it needs to do its job, independant of the ever-changing fiscal surity of the nations who originally set it up and contributed.

Whether or not thats a justification...to withhold aid in order to keep the money to allow the IMF to continue selling its particular brand of aid...I honestly can't answer. I tend to have a low opinion of the IMF, but will admit thats mostly due to Stiglitz' hazing of them in Globalisation and its Discontents.

jc

Catsmokinpot

bonkey wrote:

The article reads a bit funny. They talk about debt cancellation, and increased aid, and that the the debt plans should be financed in part by selling gold reserves held by the International Monetary Fund.

I'm at a loss as to why you'd need to sell a lot of gold to cancel debt.

Perhaps it is the increased aid that Bush has an issue with, and this is what the financing is for. Or its not really debt cancellation, but rather a buy-out.

Also, they're not his mountains of gold, no matter how much he might like them to be. They're the IMFs, and I would assume provide it with the fiscal surity it needs to do its job, independant of the ever-changing fiscal surity of the nations who originally set it up and contributed.

Whether or not thats a justification...to withhold aid in order to keep the money to allow the IMF to continue selling its particular brand of aid...I honestly can't answer. I tend to have a low opinion of the IMF, but will admit thats mostly due to Stiglitz' hazing of them in Globalisation and its Discontents.

jc

you have a point there but aren't the uk talking about using the surplus money because of the increase in the price of gold? and i mean if its a surplus regardless of who it belongs to, why object to using it to help someone who we've supposedly been "trying" to help for years

this whole third world debt thing is puzzling it seems like we're just hindering instead of helping

bonkey

Regarding the surplus of money....

Remember when Eircom stocks were being sold, people were sure they were on to a sure winner despite the warning that stock prices can fall as well as rise?

The surplus exists today, as the difference between the value the gold was bought at and its current value. Say they sell it off, and reduce themselves back to teh amount of money they need / started with. Then gold prices drop....

jc

Catsmokinpot

yeah but people with even a rudamentary knowledge of stocks wouldnt have been fooled by eircoms "this is a shoe in" attitude

if the price is high now and they sell of their gold reserves and the price drops. cant they just buy it back at a cheaper price therefore bringing themselves back to sq1. or are they just planning to sell off their surplus instead of all of it? or am i getting it completely wrong?

bonkey

They'd only sell off the surplus.

The reason you keep (some of) your reserves in gold is because its one of the most stable values. Thats the whole point of reserves....stability. If they were to sell all of it...what would they buy? All they can do is exchange it for a more volatile commodity, which is kinda defeating the point of stable reserves.

Catsmokinpot

bonkey wrote:

They'd only sell off the surplus.

The reason you keep (some of) your reserves in gold is because its one of the most stable values. Thats the whole point of reserves....stability. If they were to sell all of it...what would they buy? All they can do is exchange it for a more volatile commodity, which is kinda defeating the point of stable reserves.

i get what ya mean now.... twould be like shooting yourself in the foot really really slowly..... even so, cant help but think we just arent doing enough to help with poverty in the thirdworld

[edit]
and i cant help but think they need it just a bit more than the imf. even if they did lose a bit of money it still could function its not as if they would all starve to death...

bonkey

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that I believe the money shouldn't be spent....I'm actually far too uninformed so far about all thats proposed to form such an opinion. I'm just explaining the logic behind Bush's stated reason for opposing this.

bonkey

I did just hear a comment on the TV that Bush opposes this also because he has his own "solution" to push....which would set up a sort of an international "mortgage house" which would work in a manner to enable nations to borrow from international banks against the strength of promises of aid.

Thats brilliant George. Lets give these nations bigger debts as a means of helping them. And hey...while the notion that it may make nations stump up on their promises is actually a worthy one...any belief that it would actually work in the real world is a bad joke.

jc

Quantum

Debt cancellation is a nonsensical and doomed suggestion for Africa and will condemn the people of Africa to another century of poverty and hunger.

There is no point pouring this kind of money into African States that are thoroughly corrupt and in which the money will only end up in the bloated coffers of their rulers.

There is no point in cancelling debts when all they will do is borrow more money and spend it on the elite dictatorships and on more and more arms.

There is no point in cancellation of debts when what Africa needs is trade, more trade and yet more trade. We need to abandon this whole misguided concept of non ending aid and charity and subsidy. The African people need to trade their way to success and to start spreading democracy and an ability to feed and manage their own affairs.

Geldof is a great guy imho - but in this he is wrong - utterly wrong.

DadaKopf

Geldof is a great guy imho - but in this he is wrong - utterly wrong.

Wrong when he calls on African governments to improve governance? Wrong when he calls on donor countries to make sure their money isn't siphoned off by corrupt governments and businessmen? Wrong when urges the IMF, donors and African governments to channel aid into health and education?

There is no point pouring this kind of money into African States that are thoroughly corrupt and in which the money will only end up in the bloated coffers of their rulers.

You mean like in Tanzania, where aid is carefully monitored by a Tanzania-Aid Donor monitoring body, and where the money saved from HIPC debt relief has been ploughed into free primary education? Or Uganda, which has used aid money to reverse the tide of the AIDS pandemic there. Or in Mozambique where the government has made serious inroads to reducing child mortality. Or perhaps you mean we should prevent corruption like this.

Corruption is not the only issue in Africa. More than that, corruption is both a symptom and a cause of poverty. The real kicker is corruption didn't seem to impede the development of the Asian Tigers even though, for example, South Korea was reknowned for being corrupt. But one of the main drivers behind their economic growth was their governments' abilities to reject the IMF and World Bank conditionalities they considered damaging to their developmental goals. Going back a little further, it turns out that the rich countries originally developed because they could selectively protect industries and, as it happened, they were also highly corrupt. Africa, by contrast, had its markets prised open by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980s and they were forced to liberalise and privatise and, as a result, governments became less able to provide the things necessary to promote growth.

Africa is poor in large part because of a lack of investment - of any kind (and it looks as if the argument that aid crowds out investment is incorrect, and doesn't apply in Africa). Africa is poor because of: low population density, low productivity, and infrastructure insuficient to reduce costs of market access, war in some places, AIDS, malaria and other diseases, lack of free health care, lack of universal primary, secondary and tertiary education, trade barriers, hidden trade barriers (like EU hygeine laws), lack of government capacity, a culture traumatised by colonialism and everything since then, a culture of poverty, asymmetrical power relations in world political economy, the list goes on.

Corruption should be tackled, but it should not be an excuse not to increase out aid committments and work in genuine co-operation and partnership with the developing world.

dermo88

I can't blame him for objecting. Africa is a bottomless pit economically as long as it has the current bunch of undisciplined sociopaths in charge.

Name a well run African country. I doubt it exists. Even South Africa under apartheid was well run. Its the wealthiest country in Africa. Why, you may ask. Well, it was'nt down to the hard work of the natives, it was because a bunch of colonists knew how to run the show, give them the rule of law. Now they have it back, and are not doing a bad job of it.

So, before we start the bleeding heart syndrome, look at who is in charge in Africa. Remember that the west, when the red peril was going around made it a chessboard, but a very human chessboard.

Frankly after seeing the likes of Sani Abacha, Mobutu, and others, you realise that the only solution to this place is to recolonise, and give them proper western cultural laws and values. Get the cattle prods to all the robbers and rapists, and the rule of law takes precedent.

Victor

Cancelling Debt - bad precedent, everyone will want their debts cancelled. GWB has a war to run, he can't afford cancelling debt and handing money over to commercial banks.

Remove agricultural and industrial supports and tarriffs - hurts marginal US states.

Selling gold - screws with the value of the dollar.

---

But watch Bush supporters short selling gold and buying underpriced commercial third world debt.

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

Debt cancellation is a nonsensical and doomed suggestion for Africa and will condemn the people of Africa to another century of poverty and hunger.

Yes I can see how the removal of crippling debts would have that effect.

There is no point pouring this kind of money into African States that are thoroughly corrupt and in which the money will only end up in the bloated coffers of their rulers.


There is no point in cancelling debts when all they will do is borrow more money and spend it on the elite dictatorships and on more and more arms.

Wow generalise much. The implication being some or many african countries are corrupt dictatorships so we shouldn't bother with debt relief?

What about Uganda, or other african countries who were ruled by corrupt dictatorships in the 70s and 80s, happily supported by the west with generous loans as part of the fight aganist communism. Idi Amin, Mugabe, all desposts who plundering their countries and ran off massive debts under the eye of the west, and now the democratic elected governments are now saddled with debts from former dictators.

There is no point in cancellation of debts when what Africa needs is trade, more trade and yet more trade. We need to abandon this whole misguided concept of non ending aid and charity and subsidy.

For every dollar in aid we give we take ten in trade subsides and dumping and tariffs. A huge portion of African debt cannot be repaid, will not be repayed and they are merely servicing the interest on appalling debts.

The African people need to trade their way to success and to start spreading democracy and an ability to feed and manage their own affairs.

Really? And how's that going to happen when the greatest expenditure of the average african state is debt servicing? Not health, not education, not infrastructure, but debt servicing? How are they going to compete and TRADE TRADE TRADE if they can't build an infrastructure, and the US and EU are dumping goods on African, and protecting their own industries with tariffs while demanding as part of debt relief that African states must remove their own? If they can't create and build industries what are they going to trade?

Geldof is a great guy imho - but in this he is wrong - utterly wrong.

Geldof is an obnoxious twat, four years ago he was swilling champange with Bush and Putin while protestors were being batoned in Genoa, now he's running the fecking show

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

Yes I can see how the removal of crippling debts would have that effect.

Good - 'cos that's exactly what it will do. The next day they will simply start a new line in credit and spend the money on more arms, more corruption and more concentration of power. Then some other twat will try to get their debt cancellled yet again.

Wow generalise much. The implication being some or many african countries are corrupt dictatorships so we shouldn't bother with debt relief?

Correct again. Africa is a huge continent and generalisaing is unavoidable. Pouring aid money into corrupt economies is stupidity personified and has never produced any positive lasting results. How many countries are there in Africa and how many are corrupt to the core and completely and totally undemocratic, elections or not.

What about Uganda, or other african countries who were ruled by corrupt dictatorships in the 70s and 80s, happily supported by the west with generous loans as part of the fight aganist communism. Idi Amin, Mugabe, all desposts who plundering their countries and ran off massive debts under the eye of the west, and now the democratic elected governments are now saddled with debts from former dictators.

That's the way it goes. Same in the West. You borrow money - you pay it back.

For every dollar in aid we give we take ten in trade subsides and dumping and tariffs.

I don't believe that this is true. If you have evidence I would be happy to tackle them.

A huge portion of African debt cannot be repaid, will not be repayed and they are merely servicing the interest on appalling debts.

they are only servicing because they are not earning income. They are not earning income because they are not building economies. They are not building economies because the corruption stops anyone, local or foreign, investing in their economies. The answer is not more aid, more subsidies, and more borrowings after their debt is cancelled.

Really? And how's that going to happen when the greatest expenditure of the average african state is debt servicing? Not health, not education, not infrastructure, but debt servicing?

Yes, and for the reasons I set out above. This must be changed. They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us. We must stop treating them like helpless children and start demanding that they get their act together and start taking responsibility for their own countries, their own world.

How are they going to compete and TRADE TRADE TRADE if they can't build an infrastructure, and the US and EU are dumping goods on African, and protecting their own industries with tariffs while demanding as part of debt relief that African states must remove their own? If they can't create and build industries what are they going to trade?

That's up to them. The world trade organisation creates a flat playing field, the US and EU don't dump goods to any significant extent and Africa is as free as the US and EU to establish the same protections. It's up to them - not us.

Geldof is an obnoxious twat, four years ago he was swilling champange with Bush and Putin while protestors were being batoned in Genoa, now he's running the fecking show

Geldof is a hero that has done more for Africa than most people and ireland is rightly proud of him. Ignorant violent thugs posing as concerned protestors get what they deserve. People can disagree with him but most people who attack him are all talk and no action. He has done it and given his own time and energy to try to do what he thinks is right.

Quantum

DadaKopf wrote:

Wrong when [Geldof]he calls on African governments to improve governance? Wrong when he calls on donor countries to make sure their money isn't siphoned off by corrupt governments and businessmen? Wrong when urges the IMF, donors and African governments to channel aid into health and education?

Wrong when he demands more and more aid. Wrong when he demands the cancellation of debt. Wrong when he blames the west for Africa's problems instead of demanding that Africa get their own house in order. We've had decade after decade and billions of aid poured down the bottomless pit of Africa. We must stop it now.

You mean like in Tanzania, where aid is carefully monitored by a Tanzania-Aid Donor monitoring body, and where the money saved from HIPC debt relief has been ploughed into free primary education? Or Uganda, which has used aid money to reverse the tide of the AIDS pandemic there. Or in Mozambique where the government has made serious inroads to reducing child mortality.

Uganda is a basket case and just because one or two countries in Africa are making progress doesn't mean we should continue to pour billions in aid to them. We need to move away from aid and change to a trade based program based on globalisation and free market access.

Corruption is not the only issue in Africa. More than that, corruption is both a symptom and a cause of poverty. The real kicker is corruption didn't seem to impede the development of the Asian Tigers even though, for example, South Korea was reknowned for being corrupt.

I don't recall billions in aid being poured into South Korea. It wasn't needed.

But one of the main drivers behind their economic growth was their governments' abilities to reject the IMF and World Bank conditionalities they considered damaging to their developmental goals.

Unfortunately if they had heeded the IMF earlier they would have made progress earlier.

Going back a little further, it turns out that the rich countries originally developed because they could selectively protect industries and, as it happened, they were also highly corrupt.

I don't accept this analysis. The rich countries had no one to pour billions in aid into them and they developed their own economies. Afric needs to do the same.

Africa, by contrast, had its markets prised open by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980s and they were forced to liberalise and privatise and, as a result, governments became less able to provide the things necessary to promote growth.

Wrong. Their markets were never opened up. The IMF wasn't heeded properly or they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. They need to create liberal economies and privatise their industries, develop democracy and stamp out corruption. This is the way to save Africa, through trade not aid.

Africa is poor in large part because of a lack of investment - of any kind (and it looks as if the argument that aid crowds out investment is incorrect, and doesn't apply in Africa).

Aid destroys investment. Aid perpetuates the corruption that prevents investment and prevents economic development.

Africa is poor because of: low population density,

Canada has a low population density.

low productivity,

Africa on the whole has almost no economy. Productivity is irrelevant at their stage of development.

and infrastructure insuficient to reduce costs of market access, war in some places, AIDS, malaria and other diseases, lack of free health care, lack of universal primary, secondary and tertiary education, trade barriers, hidden trade barriers (like EU hygeine laws), lack of government capacity, a culture traumatised by colonialism and everything since then, a culture of poverty, asymmetrical power relations in world political economy, the list goes on.

Correct - and aid and subsidy and debt cancellation will only perpetuate and prolong this situutaion.

Corruption should be tackled, but it should not be an excuse not to increase out aid committments and work in genuine co-operation and partnership with the developing world.

I believe it should. Aid should be slashed immediately. Democracy and and end to corruption should be demanded. Economic freedom and trade freedom should be demanded. Trade globalisation and trade agreements with the major markets around the world as well as with each other should be promoted. This is the path to success, not aid, subsidy, debt cancellation.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

I don't recall billions in aid being poured into South Korea. It wasn't needed.

And yet, moments later, you comment about the corrupt-bunow-rich Asian nations...

I don't accept this analysis. The rich countries had no one to pour billions in aid into them and they developed their own economies.

So which is it. South Korea had billions poured into it, or it didn't?

Unfortunately if they had heeded the IMF earlier they would have made progress earlier.

Would you care to offer any evidence to support this theory? Without exception, all of the strongest-performing economies in emerging nations are those who have selectively ignored the IMF policies where they have disagreed with them.

Those who have heeded the IMF, on the other hand, have not faired half as well including - if I recall correctly - every single former poster-boy success (Venezuela being one, if memory serves) having undergone massive economical failure.

I mean..don't get me wrong. The IMF isn't all bad, but seeing as you're dismissing or refusing to accept other people's analysis, shouldn't you be offering some sort of evidence to add credence to your own?

Incidentally, the critique of the IMF is mostly from Stiglitz' Globalisation and its Discontents. So if you'd care to question the source: its a Nobel Economics Prize winner.

They need to create liberal economies and privatise their industries, develop democracy and stamp out corruption.

And while they're doing all of this, the common man should just continue to die in their millions?

This is the way to save Africa, through trade not aid.

That way, we can profit over the long term from the exercise, rather than paying to try and ease people's suffering over the short term. Makes perfect sense.

Aid destroys investment.

Care to back that up with some examples? Not just supposition based on a correlation between the existence of aid and the lack of investment, but a case where there was investment which was destroyed by the supply of aid?

Africa on the whole has almost no economy. Productivity is irrelevant at their stage of development.

So what, exactly, will all this investment be in? Empty, unproductive buildings? Fields of dust?

Correct - and aid and subsidy and debt cancellation will only perpetuate and prolong this situutaion.

Only if mismanaged. We've seen the disaster that mismanaged financial "aid" has given these countries, and yet its exactly what you're proposing is the solution. You say we shouldn't remove their debt, as they'll only borrow more (as though the possibility of removing the debt based on preconditions and agreements isn't possible), and yet we should invest there and build their economy. Whats to stop the corruption screwing that as well? Whats to stop the corruption from taking all the profits from the investment and squandering that as well?

Why is pouring cash in through investment proof against corruption?

Economic freedom and trade freedom should be demanded.

I think we should actually have something like that in place ourselves before having the hypocracy to insist that others do it to our advantage.

Neither Europe nor the US have any compunction implementing and maintaining protectionist measures because, oh, it would be terrible if our Industry X failed because its not ready to compete. But you...poor country...our subsidised farmers should be able to undersell your local boys. Thats only fair and proper free trade.

Trade globalisation and trade agreements with the major markets around the world as well as with each other should be promoted. This is the path to success, not aid, subsidy, debt cancellation.

When we give them equal and free access to our unprotected markets in exchange, it most certainly will be a major factor, yes.

jc

sovtek

dermo88 wrote:

Name a well run African country. I doubt it exists. Even South Africa under apartheid was well run. Its the wealthiest country in Africa. Why, you may ask. Well, it was'nt down to the hard work of the natives, it was because a bunch of colonists knew how to run the show, give them the rule of law. Now they have it back, and are not doing a bad job of it.

Ummmm you do happen to remember something known as APARTHEID???????
It was actually the hard, very hard...just short of slavery hard work of natives that biult South Africa. All the while the white government was only concerned with a very small minority of the population. Everyone else lived...and continue to live in dire poverty.
And one of the reasons there wasn't a bloody civil war was because the ANC agreed to not nationalize any industry or go the socialist/communist path.
Meanwhile poverty has increased since the new government...arguably because they took the neo-liberal, "open up your markets, cut social spending, privatise everything, IMF (*cough* corrupt *cough*)forced water contracts" path that's caused this.
Oh and SA under apartheid basically blockaded and went to war with all her bordering nations...with the support and aid of the corrupt free and democratic US and UK.

mycroft

For someone who wants statistics to argue aganist you tend to enjoy generalisations in your argument

Quantum wrote:

Good - 'cos that's exactly what it will do. The next day they will simply start a new line in credit and spend the money on more arms, more corruption and more concentration of power. Then some other twat will try to get their debt cancellled yet again.

And the counter argument is the debt, and debt repayment is keeping Africa in a spiral of corruption quick fixes, aid gets dumped with no longer term plan, warlords scramble to get their cut, and African nations are threading water, a clean slate could give them a chance to break the cycle.

Correct again. Africa is a huge continent and generalisaing is unavoidable. Pouring aid money into corrupt economies is stupidity personified and has never produced any positive lasting results. How many countries are there in Africa and how many are corrupt to the core and completely and totally undemocratic, elections or not.

Is that a retorical question? Define corrupt to the core. I'd argue that on the scale of corrupt countries both Ireland and Italy score quite high, yet we did quite well with the EU largeness. And again we're not giving aid we're cancelling debt that can't be paid.

That's the way it goes. Same in the West. You borrow money - you pay it back.

:rolleyes: You own an apartment, you rent it out to your shiftless cousin, who runs up debt and runs the place to ruin. He moves out, I move you hand me the bills and debts? The dictators were their thanks to US and Soviet largeness is it fair that the people continue to suffer to pay off the debts from the corrupt propt up regiemes?

I don't believe that this is true. If you have evidence I would be happy to tackle them.

”Abolishing OECD (the organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) agricultural subsidies would provide developing countries with three times their current overseas development assistance (aid) receipts. The elimination of all tariff and non-tariff barriers could result in static gains for developing countries of around 182 billion U.S. dollars services; 162 billion U.S. dollars in manufactured goods and 32 billion U.S. dollars in agriculture,” says the report which also criticises the United States' farm bill passed in 2002.

”...the U.S. decision to introduce a six-year 51.7-billion-U.S.-dollar farm bill boosting crop and dairy subsidies will reduce agricultural prices, making it difficult for small African countries to compete,” it says.

And

NGOs have been increasingly angered by the cynical exercise of power by Northern governments promoting `good governance' and `aid effectiveness', while defending narrow political and economic self-interests. Industrialised countries devoted US$353 billion (seven times total ODA(overseas development aid) spending) to protecting agriculture in 1998, according to UNDP. 5 At the same time, the policy choices available to governments in poorer countries are narrowed by conditionalities imposed by international financial institutions and bilateral donors. As reports from NGOs in Asia illustrate, southern governments are forced to privatise and liberalise, 6 while OECD restrictive practices, tariff and non-tariff barriers cost developing countries US$160 billion a year.7 This translates into real human suffering which the World Bank recently quantified as `welfare losses of US$19.8 billion'8.

http://www.devinit.org/realityofaid/kpolchap.htm

they are only servicing because they are not earning income. They are not earning income because they are not building economies. They are not building economies because the corruption stops anyone, local or foreign, investing in their economies. The answer is not more aid, more subsidies, and more borrowings after their debt is cancelled.

So to your mind the answer is waving your magic wand and making factories happen. How if the majority of their economy is tied up in debt repayment do you expect them to build the infrastructure to earn income?

Yes, and for the reasons I set out above. This must be changed. They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us. We must stop treating them like helpless children and start demanding that they get their act together and start taking responsibility for their own countries, their own world.

Great so we'll just ignore how our irresponsible attitude and treating africa like a chess board during the cold war led to this, how lending to corrupt dictators helped start all this. Continue our unfair and unjustice trade practices help keep the situation like this, and we want them to do this while undergoing the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of civilisation at the same time.

The milk of human kindness douth overflow.

That's up to them. The world trade organisation creates a flat playing field, the US and EU don't dump goods to any significant extent and Africa is as free as the US and EU to establish the same protections. It's up to them - not us.

No the world trade organisation creates a very unleveled and uneven playing field and again like bonkey I'm quoting Stiglitz former head of the World bank and Nobel prize winner. To only look at how unfair african nations are being treated we need only look at how the IMF sided with major pharmaceutial companies over african countries providing cheap generic AIDs medicine. Thats not even a trade issue thats a humantarian issue.

Often IMF"aid" packages are tied into the removal of protected barriers and tariffs necessary to protect growing and developing industries

Geldof is a hero that has done more for Africa than most people and ireland is rightly proud of him. Ignorant violent thugs posing as concerned protestors get what they deserve. People can disagree with him but most people who attack him are all talk and no action. He has done it and given his own time and energy to try to do what he thinks is right.

Sniff gosh yes.

Geldolf has swanned around african with pricks like Greenspan, and cozied up to Bush, promised debt relief from every G8 summit since Genoa has failed to materialise and Bush hasn't changed his tune.

And close to 200,000 people took to the streets in genoa, not everyone was a ignorant violent thug, but hey thats another generalisation for you.

dermo88

The hard work might have been done by the natives, but they would never have done it themselves. They needed someone in charge to lay down the roads, railways, build the hospitals and homes. Build the power stations, and reap the wealth of the land. Better a bunch of "white fascists" who left the place in a reasonable condition for ALL people, than the likes of Sani Abacha or Mobutu who were worse by miles, because had it been them and their ancestors doing the job, the money would have been siphoned off to swiss bank accounts, and nothing would have been built. So get real.

Its with democracy and the rule of law that Africa starts getting its act together. That means investor confidence, stable local currencies, wealth creation. Its not done by giving out charitable handouts. Its done by making sure that Fatso behind the immigration desk is paid well enough when he stamps your goddamn passport when you arrive as a tourist, instead of demanding his 500 Naira bribe for the priviledge of entering.

Its done by making sure that if anyone takes a bribe, they go on a rope. They don't take them in the UK. Try bribing a police officer in Birmingham, and try doing it in Blantyre. You'll soon see the difference. Thats the difference. Civilised culture.

And even the black officers in South Africa were well paid. Thats why there were no bribes. Of course, its not politically correct to say that now. Of course, we are all wiser after seeing "nice" Mr Mugabe, how sweet and unifying he was in 1980 go and make a complete balls up of a wealthy land. So much for land redistribution. Very clever. Very fair. Bollocks.

So spare me the whole evil white guy argument. Europeans know how the place can be run, we developed it over 100 years. All that happened since was daft socialist ideas, greed, laziness, and corruption screwed it up from the top down, and poisoned the whole society. Lets take it back. Make these corrupt states protectorates with European Union supervision. Their people will have rights. There will be proper elections. And let Bush say what he likes. Let the EU do the job and prove that we DO NOT NEED AMERICA, and that Europe can benefit the world.

Take a look at the only totally independent non colonised African country, and you'll see what I mean. I refer of course to Ethiopia.

Run by a monarchy, with CIA backing, followed by a Marxist dictator.

America and the IMF have had great fun in Africa, making sure that it stays bottom of the pile and creates Dollar hegemony. Backed by African Gold, Diamonds, and a lake of mineral wealth. Wave a Euro at an African, and wave a dollar bill.....which gets attention. ........Thanks.....I don't even have to answer that one

But you don't see the likes of the House of Saud lifting a finger to help.

And before you ask I used to be a socialist once when I was on crap money. Then I copped on and realised why. Its down to hard work and initiative, and the world does'nt owe Africa a living. It owes itself to get up off its arse and work for itself.

mycroft

dermo88 wrote:

The hard work might have been done by the natives, but they would never have done it themselves. They needed someone in charge to lay down the roads, railways, build the hospitals and homes. Build the power stations, and reap the wealth of the land. Better a bunch of "white fascists" who left the place in a reasonable condition for ALL people, than the likes of Sani Abacha or Mobutu who were worse by miles, because had it been them and their ancestors doing the job, the money would have been siphoned off to swiss bank accounts, and nothing would have been built. So get real.

Wow. And I was wondering where the Boers were hiding out.

The level of oppression and brutalitly under aptharied south africa is well documented as is the disparity between the wealth and life expectancy of black south africans and their white ruling class. Mobutu and Sani Abacha ruled because the US let them, and funded them.

As for the lazy africans need us white's to show them what to do. Well thats racism of the highest order and not worth dignifying.

Its with democracy and the rule of law that Africa starts getting its act together. That means investor confidence, stable local currencies, wealth creation. Its not done by giving out charitable handouts. Its done by making sure that Fatso behind the immigration desk is paid well enough when he stamps your goddamn passport when you arrive as a tourist, instead of demanding his 500 Naira bribe for the priviledge of entering.

And how prey tell do, oh right we re colonise them :rolleyes:

Its done by making sure that if anyone takes a bribe, they go on a rope. They don't take them in the UK. Try bribing a police officer in Birmingham, and try doing it in Blantyre. You'll soon see the difference. Thats the difference. Civilised culture.

And the irony of this comment coming the week of the most damning report into Garda corruption is fairly rich.

And even the black officers in South Africa were well paid. Thats why there were no bribes. Of course, its not politically correct to say that now. Of course, we are all wiser after seeing "nice" Mr Mugabe, how sweet and unifying he was in 1980 go and make a complete balls up of a wealthy land. So much for land redistribution. Very clever. Very fair. Bollocks.

Do we really want to get into a discussion about the quality and decency of the Apatherid police force? The killings? the torture? the beatings? Really?

And no one is defending Mugabe, so don't try to point out that we are. We're actually suggesting the Mugabe is the product of mis management unfair trade and aid practices, etc...

So spare me the whole evil white guy argument. Europeans know how the place can be run, we developed it over 100 years. All that happened since was daft socialist ideas, greed, laziness, and corruption screwed it up from the top down, and poisoned the whole society. Lets take it back. Make these corrupt states protectorates with European Union supervision. Their people will have rights. There will be proper elections. And let Bush say what he likes. Let the EU do the job and prove that we DO NOT NEED AMERICA, and that Europe can benefit the world.

Aside from the mind boggling impossibility of this task and this salution the disturbing echo of the last century, the jingoism, and the logistical and financial costs, theres this simple fact it may have escaped your notice this was not a great week for EU enlargement and cohension. You're suggesting the week two founder nations rejected the constitution, over a great deal of issues including the enclusion of turkey, that we now reinvade africa?

It's insane. The most humanitarian and effective tool we can offer africa is debt relief and AIDs relief.

Take a look at the only totally independent non colonised African country, and you'll see what I mean. I refer of course to Ethiopia.

Run by a monarchy, with CIA backing, followed by a Marxist dictator.

A) Not the only totally undependent non colonised African country. For starts it was an Italian Colony.

it is typical of a African state, decades and billions were spent on both sides of the cold war supporting marxists and dictators. It's a country that is run into the ground, and you're looking at them and saying, "shiftless africans can't do anything right" when they've been hamstrung for decades.

America and the IMF have had great fun in Africa, making sure that it stays bottom of the pile and creates Dollar hegemony. Backed by African Gold, Diamonds, and a lake of mineral wealth. Wave a Euro at an African, and wave a dollar bill.....which gets attention. ........Thanks.....I don't even have to answer that one

No, but you could explain what the hell you're on about?

But you don't see the likes of the House of Saud lifting a finger to help.

Again whut?

And before you ask I used to be a socialist once when I was on crap money. Then I copped on and realised why. Its down to hard work and initiative, and the world does'nt owe Africa a living. It owes itself to get up off its arse and work for itself.

And I'm sure you were one hell of an incoherant socialists before you became a racist free marketter.

Victor

dermo88 wrote:

Lets take it back. Make these corrupt states protectorates with European Union supervision. Their people will have rights. There will be proper elections. And let Bush say what he likes. Let the EU do the job and prove that we DO NOT NEED AMERICA, and that Europe can benefit the world.

Ah, "régime change" with an "é". :rolleyes:

dermo88

If you want debt relief, its got to have strings attached. I never want to see the likes of this money go into funding Guns, Tanks, and Uniforms as it did during the cold war.

Personally, I would propose continuing with the debt repayments as they stand in their current form.

However, there would be a rebate in the form of AID, accounting for between 50% and 80% of the repayment amount.

A lot of the African borders were drawn up around false boundaries dreamt up by the colonists 100 years ago. They bear no relevance to local linguistic, tribal and geographical boundaries. You can tell this because many of the borders follow straight lines, as opposed to the likes of borders here in Europe where you don't see a single straight line on a map.

While I have been quite extreme about the worst countries in Africa, I must be fair and balanced, and point out three countries which have proven excellent in progressing and improving their status since independence. I refer to The Gambia, Ghana and Botswana.

I dislike Apartheid, it was an evil system. BUT please realise that its alternative was far far more evil and insidious than you can ever possibly imagine. It was the fall of South Africa, despite its faults, and its transformation into a Marxist state. By the skin of their teeth and thanks to Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk it became a reasonably good place.

Income inequalities exist everywhere, but they are horribly pronounced in Africa on account of the economic system in place. However, it must be borne in mind that much economic activity in Africa cannot be quantified in Dollar terms. It can be quantified in the major urban centres, but once you get to the countryside, where game hunting, subsistence farming, fishing are the way of life, and the need for hard cash is less extreme. This is somewhat similar to the scenario in Ireland maybe 70 or 100 years ago, where a barter economy existed to a greater degree than a cash economy.

Before we start talking about fair trade, we must also bear in mind a few small problems. Without the so called dumping, the price of locally produced food would rise by a factor of 400-500% in many cases. This is because the African farming system is not as productive. Its more prone to damage from the elements. By calling for pure fair trade, you are asking for local famines.

However, we should be opening up OUR markets more to them. We all benefit them. Its coming to the stage where chinese and far eastern workers won't be content to be strapped to their workbench for $1.00 a day, and a new workforce will be needed. Oh and before you start calling me a right wing free marketeer, thats what the free market means. Better a job than none at all, and when I mention $1.00 a day, its a pitiful amount here, but bear in mind, that in many of these countries the costs of living and the economic requirements and expectations of the average worker are far less than in the EU. Before condemning the free market, do please realise that the likes of the Guaranteed Irish campaign were doomed to fail when the Irish goods in the 1980's on a shelf in Dunnes cost between 20 and 30% more than its imported counterpart, and that we had to devalue the punt three times to overcome that. Not to mention suffer sky high unemployment in the process. Thankfully, Ireland had a developed social welfare system. Very few of these countries have this luxury and it could take a generation and a hell of a lot of hard work to create. Its going to take people with wealth generating knowledge, paying taxes and social insurance. Its not going to happen, as I have observed firsthand with the likes of Cable and Wireless charging £1.50 a minute for a crackly phone call to the UK, because their local CEO is married to the first cousin twice removed of the prime minister.

In time, Africa will develop. The likes of tin pot dictators will hopefully be gone. There is not the daft rivalry between America and the Soviet Union that existed before, which was the cause of much of Africas troubles today.

But I still stand back, with a horrible feeling inside, that much of it is caused culturally. This was not a great week for European unity, and when I use the word recolonialisation it will be nowhere near the old format

It should be local democracy under external supervision and assistance.

Ultimately, in cases such as Nigeria, which is a Federation, it would mean the Yugoslavisation of the country. The breakup of the nation along proper cultural boundaries for the good of all concerned.

Finally, with regards to the supply of AIDS drugs, its taken a ****load of money to develop AZT, 3TC, and others, and there is continued investment in trying to find a cure. There is no easy solution, except money. There is a finite amount of that. The argument.....who pays.

The simpler drugs can be easily produced, since AZT was a drug developed originally to deal with cancer, 3TC came out around 1992. The copyright has expired on the others, and its pure utter greed by western drugs companies to continue milking that. Do remember it is only 10 years since we have the ability to comprehensively treat the AIDS/HIV virus in the west, and it can take up to 20 pills a day to do that.

Its also sickening to see the likes of the NHS in the UK sourcing generically produced drugs from Africa, when the needs of a local population have'nt even been solved.

But this is the world. When was anything ever fair. If you want fairness, go back 20 years and start singing to Comrade Lenin.

Victor

dermo88 wrote:

Its also sickening to see the likes of the NHS in the UK sourcing generically produced drugs from Africa, when the needs of a local population have'nt even been solved.

Ah, this shows your understanding of market economics. Pharmaceuticals are about the most tradeable good internationally.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

And yet, moments later, you comment about the corrupt-bunow-rich Asian nations...

So which is it. South Korea had billions poured into it, or it didn't?

I don't follow your points. SK didn't have billions poured into it and neither did the major economies... where is the problem ??

Would you care to offer any evidence to support this theory? Without exception, all of the strongest-performing economies in emerging nations are those who have selectively ignored the IMF policies where they have disagreed with them.

No one has offered any evidence that following the IMF policy has damaged economies. if they do I will respond. The IMF has not been completely prescriptive in their programs. They simply provide a structure.

Those who have heeded the IMF, on the other hand, have not faired half as well including - if I recall correctly - every single former poster-boy success (Venezuela being one, if memory serves) having undergone massive economical failure.

if I recall correctly all of these countries that failed have been ones that completely failed to carry though the IMF recommendations. They make a start - then stop because it's unpopular, and things fall apart.

I mean..don't get me wrong. The IMF isn't all bad, but seeing as you're dismissing or refusing to accept other people's analysis, shouldn't you be offering some sort of evidence to add credence to your own?

I haven't seena anyone's 'analysis'... where is this analysic ? I see only assertions and opinions.

Incidentally, the critique of the IMF is mostly from Stiglitz' Globalisation and its Discontents. So if you'd care to question the source: its a Nobel Economics Prize winner.

You can find a nobel prize winning eocnomist and an army of economists to support any side you chose. It's hardly a clincher.

And while they're doing all of this, the common man should just continue to die in their millions?

Are you telling me that the billions that have been poured into Africa over the last fifty years have stopped them dying in their millions ? You imply that there is a choice and I don't believe that there is.

That way, we can profit over the long term from the exercise, rather than paying to try and ease people's suffering over the short term. Makes perfect sense.

YEs it does. You imply again that your solution will work. The truth is we have had fifty years of your way and it has been a dismal failure.

Care to back that up with some examples? Not just supposition based on a correlation between the existence of aid and the lack of investment, but a case where there was investment which was destroyed by the supply of aid?

All of Africa is a living example. Huge amounts of aid given to corrupt regimes simply goes to bolster and support that regime while the supporters of the regime get control over the economy and maintain corrupt law while investors from inside and outside refuse to invest because there is no proper economic structure and because they cannot compete on a level playing field and because they have to deal with constant corruption and uncertainly. It's not rocket science.

So what, exactly, will all this investment be in? Empty, unproductive buildings? Fields of dust?

You just set out the product of fifty years to aid. Trade is the solution.

Only if mismanaged. We've seen the disaster that mismanaged financial "aid" has given these countries, and yet its exactly what you're proposing is the solution.

You must be reading someone else's posts. I want to STOP this enormous level of Aid.

You say we shouldn't remove their debt, as they'll only borrow more (as though the possibility of removing the debt based on preconditions and agreements isn't possible)

Without stepping in to actually manage the country - it is simply not possible to set preconditions imho.

and yet we should invest there and build their economy. Whats to stop the corruption screwing that as well? Whats to stop the corruption from taking all the profits from the investment and squandering that as well?

I made it clear that there will be no investment until the corruption is dealt with. This is a fact of life that they have to face up to. They have never had to face up to the facts of life because they have always been able to rely on the billions pouring in from Aid. This must be stopped.

Why is pouring cash in through investment proof against corruption?

It isn't. Please show where I said or implied this ?

I think we should actually have something like that [Economic freedom and trade freedom] in place ourselves before having the hypocracy to insist that others do it to our advantage.

We have. And it works brilliantly. They need to get it.

Neither Europe nor the US have any compunction implementing and maintaining protectionist measures because, oh, it would be terrible if our Industry X failed because its not ready to compete. But you...poor country...our subsidised farmers should be able to undersell your local boys. Thats only fair and proper free trade.

That is simply not true. The countries of Africa, when they are members of the Word Trade Organisation have the same rights that the US and EU have. No one has demanded different standards for them.

When we give them equal and free access to our unprotected markets in exchange, it most certainly will be a major factor, yes.

They don't need total access. They already have a Continent to trade with - which they don't even do ! They need a common economic zone across Africa and parts of Asia - they don't actually NEED open and unlimited access to the EU and US markets. Though I do support wider access to our regions.

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

For someone who wants statistics to argue aganist you tend to enjoy generalisations in your argument

Having just gone to the trouble of reading back through my posts I don't see anywhere where I asked for statistics. The use of statistics to back up arguments on this nature is over rated, futile and worthless. Experts and economists have argued for decades on the major isues of our time, including Afric, and rarely agree. Meanwhile Africa has remained in the hell it occupies.

And the counter argument is the debt, and debt repayment is keeping Africa in a spiral of corruption quick fixes, aid gets dumped with no longer term plan, warlords scramble to get their cut, and African nations are threading water, a clean slate could give them a chance to break the cycle.

That is the other argument. The trouble is we have done it your way for decades and decades and look where it got Africa. Millions still dying of starvation and Aids. It's time for a change to real world solutions.

Is that a retorical question? Define corrupt to the core. I'd argue that on the scale of corrupt countries both Ireland and Italy score quite high, yet we did quite well with the EU largeness.

That point isn't worth responding to it is so silly.

:rolleyes: You own an apartment, you rent it out to your shiftless cousin, who runs up debt and runs the place to ruin. He moves out, I move you hand me the bills and debts? The dictators were their thanks to US and Soviet largeness is it fair that the people continue to suffer to pay off the debts from the corrupt propt up regiemes?

They borrow - they pay it back. Any other solution will lead to increased chaos and another century of death in my view.

http://www.devinit.org/realityofaid/kpolchap.htm

That's a view I don't buy into. We've had fifty years of this kind of dead end thinking and it has gotten Afric no where. I don't buy into the theory that all tarrifs have to be done away with in order for Afric to succeed. i DO support the dropping of tarrifs ! but it is not necessary for Africa. Africa needs to have a common economic zone. It is big enough to succeed without 100% access to EU and US. And it doesn't have to drop all subsidies of it's own. There is no reason why they cannot do what the US and EU do in some sectors of their economies. They will be subject to the same rules of the WTO as everyone else.
And 'Northern' governments do what the people of their countries WANT them to do. It's silly to imply that governments are the baddies.

So to your mind the answer is waving your magic wand and making factories happen. How if the majority of their economy is tied up in debt repayment do you expect them to build the infrastructure to earn income ?

No one implied a magic wand except those who support debt cancellation. Infrastructure will have to wait and be built incrementally. Democracy and the destruction of corruption will bring investment, employment, injection of funds and taxes.

Great so we'll just ignore how our irresponsible attitude and treating africa like a chess board during the cold war led to this, how lending to corrupt dictators helped start all this.

I don't accept this statement. Africa was a basket case long before this, and look how pouring millions into corrupt dictators failed back then ! And you want to do it again ? How nutty is that ...

Continue our unfair and unjustice trade practices help keep the situation like this, and we want them to do this while undergoing the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of civilisation at the same time.

We don't have any unjust trade practices. The biggest injustice we have done to Africa is to prevent it from taking part in the modern world of investment, employment and wealth by pouring in billions of dollars in aid, destroying local agriculture, local industry and treating it in a patronising fashion that has denied them the responsibility of developing their own continent with their own hands.

The milk of human kindness douth overflow.

and look at the disaster that billions in Aid over fifty years has brought Africa. With that kind of kindness who the hell needs enemies.

No the world trade organisation creates a very unleveled and uneven playing field and again like bonkey I'm quoting Stiglitz former head of the World bank and Nobel prize winner. To only look at how unfair african nations are being treated we need only look at how the IMF sided with major pharmaceutial companies over african countries providing cheap generic AIDs medicine. Thats not even a trade issue thats a humantarian issue.

The IMF made the correct decision. The generic drugs issue is an enormous issue for mankind, not just Africa and a much more complex situation that could not be dealt with by the IMF. it is being dealt with now and a lot of progress has been made. But implying that it was a simplistic problem is disingenuous. Your implication that this Stiglitz is some kind of oracle on the situation is not convincing.

Often IMF"aid" packages are tied into the removal of protected barriers and tariffs necessary to protect growing and developing industries

The IMF has to be looked at in the context of what it's purpose was. This was to get countries out of financial holes. It's purpose wasn't to completely fix countries or to feed it's people. It is the failure of the developed countries to abandon the cycle of destruction that Aid brought to Africa that caused countries to have to deal with the IMF in a vicious and destructive cycle.

A trade based solution built around democracy and the destruction of corruption will allow Africa to take part in world trade and raise itself out of the hell it occupies despite fifty years of aid.

Geldolf has swanned around african with pricks like Greenspan, and cozied up to Bush, promised debt relief from every G8 summit since Genoa has failed to materialise and Bush hasn't changed his tune.

He unfortunately succeeded in cranking up the aid, much to the detriment of Africa. But I respect and admire him to doing what he believed in and achieving it. Others just talk.

And close to 200,000 people took to the streets in genoa, not everyone was a ignorant violent thug, but hey thats another generalisation for you.

exactly.

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

It's insane. The most humanitarian and effective tool we can offer africa is debt relief and AIDs relief.

And condemn it to another century of death and destruction.

A) Not the only totally undependent non colonised African country. For starts it was an Italian Colony.

so was Ireland.

it is typical of a African state, decades and billions were spent on both sides of the cold war supporting marxists and dictators. It's a country that is run into the ground, and you're looking at them and saying, "shiftless africans can't do anything right" when they've been hamstrung for decades.

And you want to pour billions in more aid and debt relief that will support these dictators even more and increase the certainty that Africa will remain where it is.

Victor

Wow

and

I

thought

I

was

a

pedantic

nitpicker

.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

I'm quoting Stiglitz former head of the World bank and Nobel prize winner.

Pedantic correction:
Stiglitz was Chief Economist, not Head of the World Bank.

jc

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

I don't follow your points. SK didn't have billions poured into it and neither did the major economies... where is the problem ??

The problem is the juxtaposition of you saying that the countries didn't develop without billions, and that SK developed without billions.

You're contradicting yourself. Thats the problem.

No one has offered any evidence that following the IMF policy has damaged economies. if they do I will respond.

I coulda sworn thats what I just did. Does referencing something as archaic as printed matter instead of finding a URL make it invalid or something?

if I recall correctly all of these countries that failed have been ones that completely failed to carry though the IMF recommendations.

You recall incorrectly.

To illustrate: Name one nation that has upheld IMF recommendations and which currently has a recovering economy comparable or superior to the best of the nations who have discarded IMF recommendations.

If you can't name one, or get one on the first guess, its safe to assume that you don't recall correctly.

You can find a nobel prize winning eocnomist and an army of economists to support any side you chose. It's hardly a clincher.

Well, so far, we have a named nobel-prize winning economist on one side, and your insistence that there's one to be fou dto back you your assertions.

Sounds like one side knows what evidence backs up its argument, and the other assumes it must exist to me. I've yet to see any solid evidence posted to back up your assertion, but I've seen you frequently ask other people to provide evidence and/or seen you refuse to accept arguments in the absence of it.

If you're unwilling or incapable of making your arguments to the standard that you demand others make theirs before you'll recognise them, its a bit pointless continuing.

You imply again that your solution will work.

And this is any less valid than your implication that it won't. If anything, I've provided far more hard evidence than you, so my implications are at least resting on a somewhat less imaginary foundation.

The truth is we have had fifty years of your way and it has been a dismal failure.

My way? How, exactly, did all this unsustainable foreign debt arise if we were doing it my way and giving them aid? "Here's a fistful of cash, and a repayment schedule, and screw-you interest rates" is not my way. It is not aid, it is not responsible, and it sure as sh1t isn't my way.

It's not rocket science.

Thats why I didn't reference a rocket scientist, but rather an economics expert of about as high a calibre as they come. I'm still waiting for you to reciprocate, rather than just tell me how easy it would be to do so.

I made it clear that there will be no investment until the corruption is dealt with.

Right. And you cast the writing off of debt as being an open-door to just these corrupt people borrowing more money and getting up to their tits in debt again. Do you actually know anything about the debt-relief problem, and how it is also effectively dependant on the elimination of corruption, as well as putting preconditions in place to make sure that the aid is as resistant to abuse as possible.

Maybe you'd like to critique the actual proposals rather than just decrying the entire idea as a bad idea in broad an inaccurate brushstrokes. And before you ask for proof that its this way, and/or URLs to where its laid out, let me say this...in order to critique what is proposed, you must already have access to this information. Asking anyone to provide it will only be an indication that you're damning something you are making up your own assumptions about the structure of.

So please...enlighten us and show us what is proposed and why its wrong.

The countries of Africa, when they are members of the Word Trade Organisation have the same rights that the US and EU have.

1) When. Well said.
2) You need to re-examine the structure of the WTO. Again, let me suggest Stiglitz as an excellent starting point for a critique of where the major flaws are.

They don't need total access. They already have a Continent to trade with - which they don't even do ! They need a common economic zone across Africa and parts of Asia - they don't actually NEED open and unlimited access to the EU and US markets. Though I do support wider access to our regions.

Right. So this talk of open and free markets of yours was just pie in the sky. What you meant is "somewhat open" and "somewhat free".

As a matter of interest...given that they needed to open their markets for foreign investment etc., and that you've now clarified its only with respect to the rest of Africa that this needs to be done...

Which bankrupt, corrupt, penniless African nations are going to be the ones investing, and which are going to be the ones recveiving the gazillions in made-up, non-existant money in this scheme?

jc

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

The problem is the juxtaposition of you saying that the countries didn't develop without billions, and that SK developed without billions.
You're contradicting yourself. Thats the problem.

Ok.. I don't want to be pedantic over this but just to show I didn't actually say that: these are my two sentences on the subject:
"I don't recall billions in aid being poured into South Korea. It wasn't needed." and "The rich countries had no one to pour billions in aid into them and they developed their own economies. Afric needs to do the same."

So no juxtapositioning and no contradictions. Let's leave it at that shall we

On the subject of evidence I stated what I think of it above "The use of statistics to back up arguments on this nature is over rated, futile and worthless. Experts and economists have argued for decades on the major issues of our time, including Africa, and rarely agree. Meanwhile Africa has remained in the hell it occupies."
If 'experts' and economists and nobel prize winners were the be all and end all of absolute accuracy and correctness then the world would not have recessions and economies would not crash or go belly up.
The truth is that economists can differ, nobel prize winners can differ and lining up more on your side than me doesn't do it.
The issue of Africa is not one that can be sorted in a school yard competition of how many you can line up against how many I can line up, and implying that it can is disingenuous.
I have seen the policies that have been tried for decades and they have singularly NOT worked. I don't need an economist to demostrate that fact.

My way? How, exactly, did all this unsustainable foreign debt arise if we were doing it my way and giving them aid? "Here's a fistful of cash, and a repayment schedule, and screw-you interest rates" is not my way. It is not aid, it is not responsible, and it sure as sh1t isn't my way.

Calm down I only referred to it as your way as a short hand for the policy you appear to support - if I am wrong I withdraw it. The cancellation of debt simply won't work and is the equivalent in my view of handing them billions in extra aid. Conditions cannot be enforced as there is no one to enforce them. So it is essentially the same policy as has been attempted for decades.

And you cast the writing off of debt as being an open-door to just these corrupt people borrowing more money and getting up to their tits in debt again.

Yes.

Do you actually know anything about the debt-relief problem, and how it is also effectively dependant on the elimination of corruption, as well as putting preconditions in place to make sure that the aid is as resistant to abuse as possible.

I know that there are conditions but I am saying that I don't believe those conditions can work. They cannot be enforced. These regimes will be able to refinance one way or another and the end result will be a huge delivery of cash aid to these corrupt countries with no change resulting.

Maybe you'd like to critique the actual proposals rather than just decrying the entire idea as a bad idea in broad an inaccurate brushstrokes.
So please...enlighten us and show us what is proposed and why its wrong.

I am decrying the whole idea as a bad idea irrespective of the conditions. I don't care what the conditions are. I believe that they cannot be enforced, they cannot be implemented and they will inevitably lead to re indebtedness after a whole pile of money is pumped into these corrupt and undemocratic countries. They must tackle their corruption and develop democratic structures that can empower the people and build success. The African people must do this - not us. We must stop treating them like helpless children and start demanding that they get their act together and start taking responsibility for their own countries, their own world.

You need to re-examine the structure of the WTO. Again, let me suggest Stiglitz as an excellent starting point for a critique of where the major flaws are.

No I don't. No organisation is flawless. The WTO is not perfect by any means. But I believe that there is plenty of room in there for africa to thrive using exactly the same rules that the EU and US use. There is no reason or proposal for Africa to be held to different rules. If you know of any such suggestion then please let me know.

Right. So this talk of open and free markets of yours was just pie in the sky. What you meant is "somewhat open" and "somewhat free".

No, and now you're just being silly. I never said that. I said I don't perosnally believe they even need 100% access to the EU and US market. I also said that I believe in more access. I also said that I believe that there is enough opportunity to trade within the African continental area mixed with reasonable access to EU and US and other markets to produce the necessary growth and success.

As a matter of interest...given that they needed to open their markets for foreign investment etc., and that you've now clarified its only with respect to the rest of Africa that this needs to be done...

Firstly you yet again mis stated what I said... I never said ONLY Africa. I said I don't believe that Africa 'needs' 100% access to the EU and US markets in order to succeed. I also said that I believe that there is enough opportunity to trade within the African continental area mixed with reassonable access to EU and US and other markets to produce the necessary growth and success. If you don't agree with me fine - but please try to be fair to what it is I actually say ?

Which bankrupt, corrupt, penniless African nations are going to be the ones investing, and which are going to be the ones receiving the gazillions in made-up, non-existant money in this scheme?

Your level of argument is starting to sink below the waterline now.... I don't see much investment coming from the people of Africa except from the billionaire rulers. But when democracy is established and corruption is stamped out then there is no limit to the level of investment that can be attracted into Africa. Wages will be low, costs will be low. Education will not be good but over time it will improve.
At least it beats the proven failure of pumping billions more into corrupt dictatorial regimes over a period of many decades that has left Africa in the hell hole that it occupied. Some 'scheme' that is.