NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4337083.stm


Just lovely. They want us to send even more money, which will lead to more despotism, corruption, nepotism, etc. Most foreign aid ends up in the pockets of Third World thugs. Yes, the plight of Africa is a sad one, yes, people should make the utmost effort to help these poor people, but foreign aid ain't the way to do it. Supporting non-profit, humanitarian organizations is the way to go.

Are they asking for increased aid or increased charity? Big difference there.

Are they asking for increased aid or increased charity? Big difference there.

Increased aid is what they're asking for, which is extremely freaking stupid.

I picked 'other;' I believe all foreign aid, to both friends and foes, should be eliminated permanently and immediately.

damn you, rb, you know i hate it when i agree with you!

how STUPID is it to send more money to the governments who have already made africa into a nightmare?

they are inefficient at best, murderously corrupt at worst. we probably should stop sending them any money and only give to closely watched charities.

Increased aid is what they're asking for, which is extremely freaking stupid.
Well, it could go:

Aid - Investment - Growth=Increased income - Savings - Investment etc.
e.g. South Korea

But more often it goes:

Aid - free market - markets flooded with subsidised MDC imports - reduced output of native firms + imports - recession - unable to pay back debt - need aid to pay of debt etc.
e.g. Haiti, Argentina, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc etc.

damn you, rb, you know i hate it when i agree with you!

how STUPID is it to send more money to the governments who have already made africa into a nightmare?

they are inefficient at best, murderously corrupt at worst. we probably should stop sending them any money and only give to closely watched charities.
So we ravaged their resources, encouraged despotism through colonialisation, fought them, and now we don't want to help them?

I think the only real hope is in MNCs, and I'm really scraping the barrel here.

Virtually every country in Africa is a totalitarian dictatorship (yes, there are a few happy exceptions, like Ghana and Botswana, but they are the exception, not the rule).

the best way to help Poor countries...is to eliminate unfair (1stworld-3rdWorld) trade practices...

And a world-wide campaign against Corruption (with jail-times)

And a world-wide campaign against Corruption (with jail-times)

That would mean incarcerating 98% of the leaders in the world, with the only ones evading imprisonment being the leaders of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (where corruption doesn't exist), and possibly Singapore and Canada.

You know, these organisations aren't really 0/0, but of course, if US is giving it's aid directly to the regimes I'd vote eliminate the aid (Between, I think you have no clue of where this money goes, furthermore all other countries are sending the money to organisations or point it out to infrastructure, but of course, why do as everybody else?)...

the best way to help Poor countries...is to eliminate unfair trade practices...

And a world-wide campaign against Corruption (with jail-times)
Never happen.

I'd also like to point out that the EU are awful at this, but when it comes to unfair trade practices the US are complete bastards.

Would you like some Vietnamese Basa sir? Or maybe some American Catfish?

That would mean incarcerating 98%...good.
Lets do it.

That would mean incarcerating 98% of the leaders in the world, with the only ones evading imprisonment being the leaders of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (where corruption doesn't exist), and possibly Singapore and Canada.
Oh, a nice bias! Thank you! Well, I can't really see that happening, because I doubt that you shall punish people for the crimes they commited BEFORE the law?

You know, these organisations aren't really 0/0, but of course, if US is giving it's aid directly to the regimes I'd vote eliminate the aid (Between, I think you have no clue of where this money goes, furthermore all other countries are sending the money to organisations or point it out to infrastructure, but of course, why do as everybody else?)...
The WTO, IBRD and IMF are now forcing economies to use the aid in certain areas. Mainly after the high profile corruption of aid in the Far East, where one Nation used their aid to pay for a Wedding. One wedding.

I picked 'other;' I believe all foreign aid, to both friends and foes, should be eliminated permanently and immediately.
I actually agree with that. Allthough I didn´t think of putting it under other.

I always thought it funny they want the money but tell the DevWorld to not interfer in Africa.Colonials arent to blame.

Give a man a fish hell feed his family
Give a man a net hell starve.

I always thought it funny they want the money but tell the DevWorld to not interfer in Africa.Colonials arent to blame.

Give a man a fish hell feed his family
Give a man a net hell starve.
Or garotte you for such a crappy gift in a landlocked country :D

The WTO, IBRD and IMF are now forcing economies to use the aid in certain areas. Mainly after the high profile corruption of aid in the Far East, where one Nation used their aid to pay for a Wedding. One wedding.
Ok, my country doesn't sponsor blindly and has always held a door open for non-governmental causes (ANC and Luther King for example) so my vote goes for "raise more than 100%"...

Immediate end to all foreign aid to Africa.

So provided that we are discussing serious aid (like giving someone a net instead of a fish) to supervised organisations and instutions, how many people would change their minds?

My tax dollars... They stay in my country! Why should we pay for people who can't help themselves?

My tax dollars... They stay in my country! Why should we pay for people who can't help themselves?
Becuase your living situation is exploiting them? I'd respect that moral stand if you can look someone in the eye and say that, which I doubt...

So provided that we are discussing serious aid (like giving someone a net instead of a fish) to supervised organisations and instutions, how many people would change their minds?
As much as I'd like to think that the UK sends 10 million nets to developing countries around the world, I think it's more about hard cash. Unless you're speaking metaphorically, in which case - what is a fish and what is a net?

Moreover, nowhere does the constitution authorize the government to provide aid to other countries, let alone our own citizens.

Becuase your living situation is exploiting them?

No, their leaders are exploiting them. Probably 90% of the countries in Africa are dictatorships. 100% (or at least, close to 100%) are rampantly corrupt.

Africa needs the most help of any continent. Aid packages should not consist of new and better ways to destroy any opposition in a given region, but rather a encouragement of sustainable lands, and the reduction of violence by allowing Africans to make their own decisions. It is impossible to calculate how much cost imperialism has cost Africa, bu the prime offenders are the French (occupation of Algeria), the Danish (South Africa, Nambia, Nigeria) and of course the United States. The US is unique because they are the primary reason Africa is in shambles today. The US has the most powerful companies on earth and their reach extends to the entire planet. These companies have interestes, namely stockholders wishes. Shell Oil ran in to some problems when the women of their Nigerian facilities protested sub-living wages (for Africa), lack of health care and general abuse by the managers of the facility. By not working and costing the company millions of dollars in lost productivity the women forced the company to listen to them.
If the richest country on earth was to just stop agricultural subsidities on imperative items Africa would be a better place. Africa could be a great place if companies decided to give the indegenious population a portion of the profit the comes from their land. Even Bill Gates , after a safari and seeing first hand the devistation, agreed to a 10 million dollar aid package to help starving and sick people.
On a philosophical level, aid to Africa must be equal to the amount extracted from it, unfortunatly this would bankrupt the United States and Europe. Maybe not a bad idea...

No, their leaders are exploiting them. Probably 90% of the countries in Africa are dictatorships. 100% (or at least, close to 100%) are rampantly corrupt.
Yeah, but Western Nations do exploit nations by buying exports at less than their worth by wielding the old 'we might help you if you sell it cheap' card like a Master Greatmace.

As much as I'd like to think that the UK sends 10 million nets to developing countries around the world, I think it's more about hard cash. Unless you're speaking metaphorically, in which case - what is a fish and what is a net?
What I call serious aid is the one that at least my country provides. To just name one project, giving water and electricty to African villages (trying to stop a nonbearable urbanisation). The difference from this project and non-serious aid is that the local residents get education ABOUT the pipes and powerstations, which eliminates that typical problem we saw 30 years ago when the things finally broke down and noone in the area could fix them...

Aid to Africa should definately double. You have to consider that most of the 'rich' countries in the world fall into two groups: Countries that have screwed Africa in the past (Britain, France, Germany, Belgium) by colonizing them, and countries that are screwing Africa right now (Mainly the US, but many more are guilty) by forcing them to implement free trade measures which destroys their economy.

I'm not suggesting that the aid be given straight into the hands of the dictators. What I am suggesting, though, is that we should fund government, and non government organizations that will directly and indirectly help the people of Africa. Not multinational corporations, not power hungry nutjobs, but the working class, the peasantry, the proletariat...(I'm going to stop now)

That would mean incarcerating 98% of the leaders in the world, with the only ones evading imprisonment being the leaders of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (where corruption doesn't exist), and possibly Singapore and Canada.
rofl. Our leaders are pretty much as f-cking corrupt and incompetant as you can get. Read about the Sponsorship Scandal for more.

rofl. Our leaders are pretty much as f-cking corrupt and incompetant as you can get. Read about the Sponsorship Scandal for more.

Maybe, but Canada is among the least corrupt nations in the world.

They should take things one step at a time. Even with aid they wouldnt be able to do muc. Most problems come from the cost of food for them. I say they should first become agrarian societies and eventually work their way up to industrial, besides it raises nationalism.

Yeah, but Western Nations do exploit nations by buying exports at less than their worth by wielding the old 'we might help you if you sell it cheap' card like a Master Greatmace.
You take the words out of my mouth. But people (europeans) are too egocentrical here, we blame US but doesn't wnat to acknowledge the fact that all the european farmers are getting subsides from the EU, did you know that it is common in many third-world countries to IMPORT food from the west?

You take the words out of my mouth. But people (europeans) are too egocentrical here, we blame US but doesn't wnat to acknowledge the fact that all the european farmers are getting subsides from the EU, did you know that it is common in many third-world countries to IMPORT food from the west?

Yeah, because their leaders are so damn incompetent. Compare, for example, Rhodesia under Ian Smith to Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.

They should take things one step at a time. Even with aid they wouldnt be able to do muc. Most problems come from the cost of food for them. I say they should first become agrarian societies and eventually work their way up to industrial, besides it raises nationalism.
?
1.Most countries ARE industrialised.
2. What good has nationalism ever done, and I hope you don't count Rwanda as one of them...

You take the words out of my mouth. But people (europeans) are too egocentrical here, we blame US but doesn't wnat to acknowledge the fact that all the european farmers are getting subsides from the EU, did you know that it is common in many third-world countries to IMPORT food from the west?
Haiti has comparative advantage in rice. The WTO encouraged Haiti to remove tarrifs and quotas on rice markets. The US flooded the Haitian rice market with heavily subsidised American long grain rice. Haitian rice production collapsed.

Give a man a fish hell feed his family
Give a man a net hell starve.
I voted other.

Give a man a fish...and he will need more tomorrow...
Give a man a net...and he will feed himself and his Family.

Aid... is the fish leftovers from my supper...

eliminating unfair Trade practices is the net...

Are they asking for increased aid or increased charity? Big difference there.

I believe that government aid is wrong, mostly because it is used to manipulate the economy and government of the country receiving the aid. No matter who gives the aid, there's some string attached.

Charities are generally better - and they keep better track of where the money goes. I can't tell you how badly the European governments screwed up when they gave money to the Palestinian Authority. Nearly all of it went to Arafat personally - and virtually none to the people it was intended to help.

I think we could do the Third World a big favor in general. Forgive all international debt - and then never loan them money again, until they reach better standards of living on their own.

It is specious to believe that through aid or charity that we will somehow transform them into nations similar to our own. They have to want that. It is obvious that they can't do that.

If a nation like Japan can go from 16th century feudalism to a modern industrial nation capable of defeating the Russians in a naval battle in 40 years, without international aid, then any African nation can do the same - if that's what they want, and we stop crippling them with massive loans and indolence-inducing aid.

Yeah, because their leaders are so damn incompetent. Compare, for example, Rhodesia under Ian Smith to Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.
You do not think that democracy would be a better solution than a leader? And what do you expect from an isolated, racist dictatorship?

?
1.Most countries ARE industrialised.
2. What good has nationalism ever done, and I hope you don't count Rwanda as one of them...
I think Jibea means 'head towards industrialised sectors as the major area of production'. Of course most nations have industry. It's just that many African nations have upwards of 40% GDP in Primary sector production.

I think Jibea means 'head towards industrialised sectors as the major area of production'. Of course most nations have industry. It's just that many African nations have upwards of 40% GDP in Primary sector production.
He ought to send all his messages to yuo first for correction...:P

As much as I want to see Africa improve, I don't like the idea of having governments (as compared to humanitarian groups) having to prop the continent up with money (which is mostly wasted by the corrupt). Sorry, but the only way for society to improve over there is if they take the initative to solve their own problems.

As much as I want to see Africa improve, I don't like the idea of having governments (as compared to humanitarian groups) having to prop the continent up with money (which is mostly wasted by the corrupt). Sorry, but the only way for society to improve over there is if they take the initative to solve their own problems.
What difference does it make, really? You think that the IMF, WTO and World Bank are really independant of the US govt? Not - a - hope. Even new organisations would be dependant on the Superpower.

As much as I want to see Africa improve, I don't like the idea of having governments (as compared to humanitarian groups) having to prop the continent up with money (which is mostly wasted by the corrupt). Sorry, but the only way for society to improve over there is if they take the initative to solve their own problems.
But how are they going to to that without debt-cancelling and sloping of the ass licking and back scratching in the west? The value of the Johannesburg stock market stands for 60% of Africa's total, how will there ever be a difference without possibilities for african countries to export?

You do not think that democracy would be a better solution than a leader? And what do you expect from an isolated, racist dictatorship?

?

You want to know what I think is funny about unequal income distribution data? General Motors has a bigger output than The Netherlands (I think - either that or one of the other Scandanavian countries)

You want to know what I think is funny about unequal income distribution data? General Motors has a bigger output than The Netherlands (I think - either that or one of the other Scandanavian countries)
That doesn't really surprise me. The richest three people in the US are worth more than the poorest 48 countries in the world

?
Personally I consider neither Smith nor Mugabe to have done good, but that's just my thoughts...

Aid to Africa should definately double. You have to consider that most of the 'rich' countries in the world fall into two groups: Countries that have screwed Africa in the past (Britain, France, Germany, Belgium) by colonizing them, and countries that are screwing Africa right now (Mainly the US)
Hello. Liberia? And if you are trying to blame all countries that ever had a piece of land in Africa I'm missing Oman and Turkey on your list.

That doesn't really surprise me. The richest three people in the US are worth more than the poorest 48 countries in the world

And private donors giving to private philanthropies give more money to worldwide aid on a regular basis than most nations have given in an emergency to tsunami relief.

Doesn't surprise me.

Ah, the Radical School of thought comes to the fore....


*currently doing Development in Economics A-level, so knows names of many theories and schools*

You take the words out of my mouth. But people (europeans) are too egocentrical here, we blame US but doesn't wnat to acknowledge the fact that all the european farmers are getting subsides from the EU, did you know that it is common in many third-world countries to IMPORT food from the west?
LOL. Did you know it's also pretty common to buy agri cultural products from the 3rd world?

LOL. Did you know it's also pretty common to buy agri cultural products from the 3rd world?
Not really. US rice, US wheat, EU products of CAP, need I go on....

Not really. US rice, US wheat, EU products of CAP, need I go on....

Chocolate, coffee, bananas... need I go on?

Not really. US rice, US wheat, EU products of CAP, need I go on....
Banana's, coffee, Cocoa.

Chocolate, coffee, bananas... need I go on?
:D

LOL. Did you know it's also pretty common to buy agri cultural products from the 3rd world?
Did you know that it is at least as common for people in third world coutnries to starve since agriculture is large part of the export but is impossible to sell?

Did you know that it is at least as common for people in third world coutnries to starve since agriculture is large part of the export but is impossible to sell?
Did you know that most starvations in Africa are caused by local conflicts or natural disasters, or locust rather then by goods they can't sell?

Banana's, coffee, Cocoa.
Bananas bought from Africa are bought at low cost (much lower than worth), coffee is collapsing because the major producers cannot develop into manufacture because of restricting taxation on manufactured goods, and a good chocolate example would be Nestle. It's getting so bad that Nigeria ( think) now produces more cut flowers than basic foodstuffs.

Bananas bought from Africa are bought at low cost (much lower than worth), coffee is collapsing because the major producers cannot develop into manufacture because of restricting taxation on manufactured goods, and a good chocolate example would be Nestle. It's getting so bad that Nigeria ( think) now produces more cut flowers than basic foodstuffs.
Well, thats not the fault of colonisation but of bad government.

Did you know that most starvations in Africa are caused by local conflicts or natural disasters, or locust rather then by goods they can't sell?
Statistics? Furthermore I doubt that you can grow bananas, cocoa and coffe (now it is my turn to say LOL)profitable in all parts of Africa...

Did you know that most starvations in Africa are caused by local conflicts or natural disasters, or locust rather then by goods they can't sell?
Or by idiot dictators who drive people who know how to farm off their land and give the land to people who never farmed a day in their life?

Want to know why Zimbabwe's agricultural production dropped so badly that it is now a net importer of food - when it used to be the main exporter within Africa?

Because of an idiot named Mugabe.

Go ahead - blame his decision on the West. I'd like to see if you can make the shoe fit.

Or by idiot dictators who drive people who know how to farm off their land and give the land to people who never farmed a day in their life?

Want to know why Zimbabwe's agricultural production dropped so badly that it is now a net importer of food - when it used to be the main exporter within Africa?

Because of an idiot named Mugabe.

Go ahead - blame his decision on the West. I'd like to see if you can make the shoe fit.
If you saw my earlier posts you would have seen my opinions about that man. I am just saying that behind your computerscreen lies several corpses, if you do not believe that I hope that you will one day realize it...

Well, thats not the fault of colonisation but of bad government.
Then shouldn't those bad governments which supports ineffective native agriculture industry and set immoral customs start to make good?

Well, thats not the fault of colonisation but of bad government.
The taxation I was talking about occurs in the developed countries buying the coffee. It just another example of western hypocrisy.

Go ahead - blame his decision on the West. I'd like to see if you can make the shoe fit.
You can't. But that doesn't mean the West isn't to blame for other problems. People always forget that no two developing countries are the same. All I'm suggesting is that there is no way you can deny the involvement of Western organisations in many countries has led to suppression of development. It's not always true, but there are many good examples

Statistics? Furthermore I doubt that you can grow bananas, cocoa and coffe (now it is my turn to say LOL)profitable in all parts of Africa...
Well, I don't have statistics. Do you?
But I have an article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/325543.stm

Then shouldn't those bad governments which supports ineffective native agriculture industry and set immoral customs start to make good?
Yes. But how is that our problem? Should we re-colonise them?

The taxation I was talking about occurs in the developed countries buying the coffee. It just another example of western hypocrisy.
How is it hypocrisy? Having customs on imports is realy pretty normal.

Yes. But how is that our problem? Should we re-colonise them?
I was talking about the western governments, handle with the african govenrments we can do thorugh our little friend call South Africa, as stated, the value of the Johannesburg stock index is 60% of Africa's total...

How is it hypocrisy? Having customs on imports is realy pretty normal.
And haven't you (after hopefully reading our posts) realized that THAT is the problem?

I was talking about the western governments, handle with the african govenrments we can do thorugh our little friend call South Africa, as stated, the value of the Johannesburg stock index is 60% of Africa's total...
It's the African governments allowing themselves to be handled then. Again, not our problem if they want to sell their people for some mirrors and shiny beads.

How is it hypocrisy? Having customs on imports is realy pretty normal.
We encourage developing economies to free up their markets, remove tarrifs on our goods, whilst simultaneously flooding their markets with our subsidised products. How is that not hypocracy?

And haven't you (after hopefully reading our posts) realized that THAT is the problem?
Nope. All countries have tarrifs of some sort on imports.

It's the African governments allowing themselves to be handled then. Again, not our problem if they want to sell their people for some mirrors and shiny beads.
Have you seen Soouth Africa's tribute to the international oscar called Yesterday? I think you ought to...
And tell which government that let that happen?

Well, maybe the coffee nations should get together and form a cartel.

Then perhaps we'd pay the real price for coffee.

Makes you wonder why they don't do it.

Ah, for the same reason that the people in the Ivory Coast respect the French and give them cheap chocolate.

Because the French Foreign Legion might show up and machinegun the crowd.

Nope. All countries have tarrifs of some sort on imports.
Ever heard about the EU?

We encourage developing economies to free up their markets, remove tarrifs on our goods, whilst simultaneously flooding their markets with our subsidised products. How is that not hypocracy?
I don't see how it is. How do you think our goods are made? With raw materials which in many cases come from Africa. Who are either bought or bartered.

Ever heard about the EU?
Thats only the common market.

I don't see how it is. How do you think our goods are made? With raw materials which in many cases come from Africa. Who are either bought or bartered.
Save rubber I'd say that they come from Russia and Canada...

Thats only the common market.
You do not think then that the EU as a free trading zone on top of that supporting local farmers wipes out african economies?

I don't see how it is. How do you think our goods are made? With raw materials which in many cases come from Africa. Who are either bought or bartered.
Ever heard of 'value added'? Besides, the point I was making was that by subsidising our goods, we effectively create a tarriff on goods exported from developing economies to us, whilst also giving our goods an unnatural advantage which destroys competition of native firms in foreign economies. We aren't helping by buying primary produce off these countries, we're actually preventing structural change and hence, according to several growth and development theories including the Lewis Model, preventing development.

You do not think then that the EU as a free trading zone on top of that supporting local farmers wipes out african economies?
Maybe, maybe not. But the EU has no responsibility to African economies in that matter. Just to it's farmers.

Maybe, maybe not. But the EU has no responsibility to African economies in that matter. Just to it's farmers.
Are you feeling the communist vibe there?

Maybe, maybe not. But the EU has no responsibility to African economies in that matter. Just to it's farmers.
Which to a large extenct makes up the economy. Sure it isn't our problem, but iI can't say that I feel really comfortable with, as I said: Having several corpses lieng behind my computer screen...

Are you feeling the communist vibe there?
:confused: What? Because of the farmers?

I think it should be shifted to charitable contributions and kept and about the same lvl as current charitable + federal aid

:confused: What? Because of the farmers?
No the protectionism. It's not what you'd call a free market decision.

You can't save Africa until you shove all the missionaries and warlords in to the churches and burn the lot. They're both destroying the place.

I voted other.

Give a man a fish...and he will need more tomorrow...
Give a man a net...and he will feed himself and his Family.

Aid... is the fish leftovers from my supper...

eliminating unfair Trade practices is the net...
Can I have permission to turn that into a poster and or handout to pass out at my high school?

You can't save Africa until you shove all the missionaries and warlords in to the churches and burn the lot. They're both destroying the place.
Not really what you'd call acceptable, is it.

Only anarchist revolution can really do much good and even that will leave many problems unsolved.

Only anarchist revolution can really do much good and even that will leave many problems unsolved.

*cough*Somalia*cough*

Only anarchist revolution can really do much good and even that will leave many problems unsolved.
Dude, that was a pretty silly comment. Africa is in a constant state of flux with war and revolution, but it's still poor as hell. All that African revolution seems to achieve is the further spread of HIV.

*cough*Somalia*cough*

Now now, we seem to be losing our edge. I think we both know Somalia is not anarchist, at least in the sense I'm talking about.

Dude, that was a pretty silly comment. Africa is in a constant state of flux with war and revolution, but it's still poor as hell. All that African revolution seems to achieve is the further spread of HIV.

Not really. When you consider that the Catholic Church and capitalists (and more than a few authoritarian socialists) have done so much damage, their opposite anarchism, can't do much worse and will likely do much better.

Yeah, but anarchy really is not the answer. You try creating a happy stable country with no governance or laws. It can never be done, regardless of what people want to think.

Yeah, but anarchy really is not the answer. You try creating a happy stable country with no governance or laws. It can never be done, regardless of what people want to think.

*Applause*

Anarchists can never accept the fact that humans are inherently assholes.

*Applause*

Anarchists can never accept the fact that humans are inherently assholes.
Also true of communism in macrocommunities. Unfortunate, because the ideals of communism seem beautiful before you add the human factor.

*Applause*

Anarchists can never accept the fact that humans are inherently assholes.

In that case, why have government? Wouldn't politicians be inherently prone to abusing power? The "human nature argument" is a double-edged sword.

In that case, why have government? Wouldn't politicians be inherently prone to abusing power? The "human nature argument" is a double-edged sword.
Yes, but with regulation comes control. It is much more difficult to corrupt many people collectively than it is to corrupt one person. I'm not advocating authoritarianism, but rather the shying away from extremes. Can you tell I secretly centrist liberal?

Yes, but with regulation comes control. It is much more difficult to corrupt many people collectively than it is to corrupt one person. I'm not advocating authoritarianism, but rather the shying away from extremes. Can you tell I secretly centrist liberal?

It certainly is much harder to corrupt a collective group than one person, which is why giving one person a great deal of power (as in government) is a bad idea whereas anarchism will tend to limit corruption since there is no one group capable of enforcing its will on the rest of the people.

It certainly is much harder to corrupt a collective group than one person, which is why giving one person a great deal of power (as in government) is a bad idea whereas anarchism will tend to limit corruption since there is no one group capable of enforcing its will on the rest of the people.
Democratic government ideally shouldn't be concentrated on one man. This is why the senate, congress, the house of commons etc. exist - to provide a balanced reperesentation of governance. Anarchy may mean that no one person is in power, but it also means that no one person answers to others. This allows them to do whatever the hell they want. Can you really suggest that this is a socially acceptable route for modern countries?

Rather then sending more money over there to the governments, what we should do is cancel third world debt, and not lend them any more. This would go a very long way to helping the countries which are striving for democracy, and it would improve the conditions of many people.

Rather then sending more money over there to the governments, what we should do is cancel third world debt, and not lend them any more. This would go a very long way to helping the countries which are striving for democracy, and it would improve the conditions of many people.
Fair point, but what would happen afterwards? I agree with you, but we gave them aid in the first place for a reason. Not only should 3rd world debt be cancelled, but unfair trade practices should be banned. Maybe then they could thrive

Letila, you do know that anarchism doesn't work, don't you?

------------

IMO, these countries need a new efficient government change. Especially one that stresses on education and agriculture.

Though the world, even America is short on their own medical and nursing staff to support their own country. How much can they lend to Africa. :(

Fair point, but what would happen afterwards? I agree with you, but we gave them aid in the first place for a reason. Not only should 3rd world debt be cancelled, but unfair trade practices should be banned. Maybe then they could thrive

It goes beyond tariffs as unfair trade practices.

Realistically, they aren't even getting a real price for the goods they sell.

I'm also of the belief that not only should we cancel their debt, but we should forbid the loaning of money to non G-8 nations.

Let me get this straight...they want more money in order to "root out corruption"? Ahahahaha!

I wonder if that country has any hope for agriculture.. or any other means of creating an economy by itself.

Everything that can help build themselves seems to be going to Asia. Either than the Gold and diamond industry... But they need some form of renewable productive resource they can tap into and find a niche in the market.

I have not read all eight pages, so if this has already been said, sorry.

Forget aid. This does no favours to the third world, it just creates a culture of dependency. However something does need to be done to level the playing field between the third world and the situation that the now first world was in when it started out.

Write off the International Debt.

If this debt is to private banks, then aid could be given in the repayment of this debt to those banks in the form of tax relief or actuall payment, by the first world. If the debt is to foreign governments, ust write it off.

This would do far more to help than any Aid package, or even supporting the non profit charity organisations.

Fair point, but what would happen afterwards? I agree with you, but we gave them aid in the first place for a reason. Not only should 3rd world debt be cancelled, but unfair trade practices should be banned. Maybe then they could thrive

Aye, true, but my idea is that the whole world be under the same set of laws regarding trade... which I suppose is why I didn't think to include it there =P

Fair point, but what would happen afterwards? I agree with you, but we gave them aid in the first place for a reason. Not only should 3rd world debt be cancelled, but unfair trade practices should be banned. Maybe then they could thrive

Cancel the debt, that seems right. But the unfair trading practices point is something that I am not so sure about. Any country should have the right to protect its own citizens, and this means economically as well as physically. So if a country wants to impose trade barriers it should have the right to do so.

If you look at history, the emerging economies of the now first world did not have extensive markets open to them. They had to create them. They had to manufacture the demand internally and externally for themselves.
I believe that the third world (and I live in it) should do the same thing. It does not do much for a country to produce and export only. To improve living standards there has to be a motivation for generating an internal market. This is what motivates companies to pay more than the bare minimum in the long run. Look at the situation in Indonesia or the phillipines. They have the infrastucture to br successful, but as there is no internal market, they have become sweat shop economies.
Fair trade is something to be disputed between countries of equivalent economic development. EU and USA, Brazil and India, Sudan and The Ivory Coast, etc. Not something to be disputed between the USA and The Ivory Coast.

Let me get this straight...they want more money in order to "root out corruption"? Ahahahaha!

You know, like when the EU gave Arafat a few billion dollars so that he could root out corruption in the Palestinian Authority by buying a few villas in Italy...

You know, like when the EU gave Arafat a few billion dollars so that he could root out corruption in the Palestinian Authority by buying a few villas in Italy...

Lol

CORRUPTION SOLVED!! WELL DONE!! Palestinians are now better off, that their x-leader has a few villa's in Italy. :D

I was shocked to find out that the EU gave the aid to Arafat without any accounting controls at all. Just a check.

It's as though they didn't care if he spent the money wisely or not.

Increased aid is what they're asking for, which is extremely freaking stupid.
I agree. We should just give them money through humanitarian and charitable organizations. Give it to the people, not the warlords.

Haiti has comparative advantage in rice. The WTO encouraged Haiti to remove tarrifs and quotas on rice markets. The US flooded the Haitian rice market with heavily subsidised American long grain rice. Haitian rice production collapsed.

I was under the impression Haite had no economy. It just doesn't make sense that American rice would be sold there, I'd like to see evidence.

Letila, you do know that anarchism doesn't work, don't you?
Yes it does, look at history for proof.

I was under the impression Haite had no economy. It just doesn't make sense that American rice would be sold there, I'd like to see evidence.
There was a Panorama special about the Haitian rice industry. We have watched it about twice in Economics. It also included the case of US congress banning Vietnamese catfish from being called 'catfish', and tomato production in an African country (I forget which) being crushed by EU subsidised toms. That evidence enough?

Besides, how can a country have no economy. Where there is trade there is an economy.

Yes it does, look at history for proof.

Examples?

Examples?
I think the French Revolution is an example, but I'm not up with the history thang, so I'll be quiet.

Examples?

Spanish Revolution
Makhnovist Revolution
Freetown Christiania
Zapatista Autonomous Region
Hungarian Revolution

Spanish Revolution
Makhnovist Revolution
Freetown Christiania
Zapatista Autonomous Region
Hungarian Revolution

They can't have gone too well - I have heard of a grand total of two of those

Spanish Revolution
Makhnovist Revolution
Freetown Christiania
Zapatista Autonomous Region
Hungarian Revolution


The Spanish Revolution resulted in mass chaos, and hundreds of thousands were killed. Hardly a success. The Hungarian Revolution was anticommunist, not anarchist.

The Spanish Revolution resulted in mass chaos, and hundreds of thousands were killed. Hardly a success. The Hungarian Revolution was anticommunist, not anarchist.
That's because the Anarchists were attacked from the inside. For two years, it was a success.

The Hungarian revolution had strong Anarchist tendencies. Workers and trade unions took over Budapest, and owned their own means of production, and land was collectivised.

There was a Panorama special about the Haitian rice industry. We have watched it about twice in Economics. It also included the case of US congress banning Vietnamese catfish from being called 'catfish', and tomato production in an African country (I forget which) being crushed by EU subsidised toms. That evidence enough?

Besides, how can a country have no economy. Where there is trade there is an economy.

The US should only be importing goods from countries that buy things from us. We have too much food in this country, and the Communist Catfish imports from Vietnam are not helping.

As for Tomato production in Africa, well, it probobly was crushed because the government collapsed.

The Hungarian revolution had strong Anarchist tendencies. Workers and trade unions took over Budapest, and owned their own means of production, and land was collectivised.


No, it was anti-communist. Workers and trade unions privitized the means of production and land, and they then owned it. It was already collectivised there.

Lokk, anarchists, since no one wants you here in the US, why don't you take over your own land, in Africa or some place that is inconsequential, and when you go there, you can prove to the rest of the world how it works.

No, it was anti-communist. Workers and trade unions privitized the means of production and land, and they then owned it. It was already collectivised there.
It wasn't collectivised, it was owned by the state. Very different.

They collectivised it.

Lokk, anarchists, since no one wants you here in the US, why don't you take over your own land, in Africa or some place that is inconsequential, and when you go there, you can prove to the rest of the world how it works.
I'd love to. Now all you need to do is find a dictator who is willing to donate some land to our cause.

We can take Noam Chomsky with us and build an Emma Goldman memorial in our capital city.

Lokk, anarchists, since no one wants you here in the US, why don't you take over your own land, in Africa or some place that is inconsequential, and when you go there, you can prove to the rest of the world how it works.

Good idea. Let them go screw up their own country.

The US should only be importing goods from countries that buy things from us. We have too much food in this country, and the Communist Catfish imports from Vietnam are not helping.

As for Tomato production in Africa, well, it probobly was crushed because the government collapsed.
OMG that is the answer to every bloody question so far! All these governments MUST be collapsing! Why didn't I think of that?

Oh, yeah. Possibly because it isn't true. the country which I forgot the name of definiely had a stable, democratic govt. who believed in free market solutions to economic problems. They just got wiped out by EU subsidy practices.

And Vietnam does import from the US. I believe that Nike has set up almost 50 massive sweatshops in Vietnam. Anyway, your views are conflicting. You seem to be a capitalist yet you can conceive that embargoes, tarrifs, quotas and non-tarrif barriers are legal and justified. :headbang:

Instead of giving aid, The U.S and European governments should eliminate subsidies to their farmers and industries, as these force down prices on world commodities, forcing many African farmers and workers further into poverty; as they cannot compete with the prices offered by Western producers, due to the fact that their own governments cannot afford to subsidise them. If the African nations could compete properly on the World export markets, they could revitalise their economies and eliminate the need for aid in the first place.

Instead of giving aid, The U.S and European governments should eliminate subsidies to their farmers and industries, as these force down prices on world commodities, forcing many African farmers and workers further into poverty; as they cannot compete with the prices offered by Western producers, due to the fact that their own governments cannot afford to subsidise them. If the African nations could compete properly on the World export markets, they could revitalise their economies and eliminate the need for aid in the first place.
Indeed. Come to the area labelled 'coherent thought'.. :D

OMG that is the answer to every bloody question so far! All these governments MUST be collapsing! Why didn't I think of that?

Oh, yeah. Possibly because it isn't true. the country which I forgot the name of definiely had a stable, democratic govt. who believed in free market solutions to economic problems. They just got wiped out by EU subsidy practices.

And Vietnam does import from the US. I believe that Nike has set up almost 50 massive sweatshops in Vietnam. Anyway, your views are conflicting. You seem to be a capitalist yet you can conceive that embargoes, tarrifs, quotas and non-tarrif barriers are legal and justified. :headbang:

There is no such thing as democracy in Africa, just tyranny by majority and despotic governments. There has not been a stable government in black Africa except for South Africa, which was controlled by whites. Now things are going bad there.

The wiping out of economies is nothing new, communist China is doing it to the US right now.

I'm an interventionalist-capitalist.

Angola - Democracy
Burkina Faso - Democracy
Burundi - Democracy
Chad - Democracy
Congo(Brazzaville) - Democracy
DRoCongo - Democracy
Cote D'Ivoire - Democracy
Djibouti - Democracy
Equitorial Guinea - Democracy
Eritrea - Democracy
Ethiopia - Democracy
Ghana - Democracy
Guinea
Kenya
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mozambique
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Togo
Uganda
Zambia

All of these are (strictly speaking) democracies, which is based on having 3 parties min. Some will be corrupt, yes. But this just shows that despotism is no longer rife in Africa. These nations are finally progressing, and the political affiliation is not the major basis for poor economies.

Are they asking for increased aid or increased charity? Big difference there.

Could you please explain the difference? I don't understand.

Could you please explain the difference? I don't understand.
Aid is pecuniary loans with an interest rate and deadlines for set repayments. Charity is any form of gratis gift. Aid sucks, Charity is better, although charity is far more limited. OK?

I think the money should be redistributed. If our big campaign is giving sandwiches to the world, they all will eternally depend on our sandwiches. However, if we built up their infrastructure, they could work on their own and potentially give aid to their neighbors. This would require economic redistribution, but it would be net benefitial.

I think the money should be redistributed. If our big campaign is giving sandwiches to the world, they all will eternally depend on our sandwiches. However, if we built up their infrastructure, they could work on their own and potentially give aid to their neighbors. This would require economic redistribution, but it would be net benefitial.
Like that Oxfam ad - give a man a fish, he'll feed his family for a day.
Give a man a net, he'll feed his family for a lifetime

Not sure about the ad, but the correct quote ends with 'teach a man to fish' not 'give him a net'.

Not sure about the ad, but the correct quote ends with 'teach a man to fish' not 'give him a net'.
He can do bugger all without the tools though... :p

I think the money should be redistributed. If our big campaign is giving sandwiches to the world, they all will eternally depend on our sandwiches. However, if we built up their infrastructure, they could work on their own and potentially give aid to their neighbors. This would require economic redistribution, but it would be net benefitial.

You mean communism? How about they work from the ground up like the rest of the world, we've been giving them aid for long enough, and nothing has happened.

That's because the Anarchists were attacked from the inside. For two years, it was a success..

Isn't that among the flaws of anarchism. That everybody has their own opinion. Eventually they'll come an uprising from inside to change the way it is run.

If it last 2 years, that isn't a very long time. And you can't consider it a success.

What do you guys think, if that Africa tries to invite multinationals to take over their agricultural industry?

In turn, ensure that every worker is well fed, their children educated, and well homed.

People usually talk about the evils of multinational corporations. But if it saves lives by the thousands. I'm willing to gamble it in and have a control over the chaotic nations.

Africa is full of unused land, and neither the government, the farmers are able to make full use of it.

I know farmers in Indonesia. Once given free seeds by the gov to plant their crops. They immediately sell them rather than plant them. Why? Because their stupid And poor.

Hence giant corporations do the farming and pay the workers and stuff. The farmers themselves cannot be trusted to take care of their farms, their just too inefficient.

Down the line in 2-3 decades/generations. Hopefully The kids of the farmers after getting a good education, would be the ones with a future and become rulers and politicians to take back their country and run it well.

Too idealistic?

Just a couple of points.

I'm for increased aid, but I agree with some of the points about corruption and the like; aid should have conditions and direct oversight. Infrastructure should be the emphasis of aid; a long term solution.

You can't punish a whole society because they are oppressed or have a lack of national resources.

Multilateral free trade is the net to help African countries catch fish. At the moment the third world is being locked out of bilateralism, but even being brought into bilateralism won't be enough.

Anyone who thinks tariffs and subsidies 'protect' a nation's economy obviously have little understanding of economics. These policies are just used to re-distribute income politically sensitive groups, like steel workers in marginal seats. "Protection" hurts the nation that implements it as well as the nation on the recieving end.

Considering most countries aid to Africa doubling isn't a lot. Many countries it amounts to a tank or two.

If the EU and the US would abolish farm subsidies; then there should be more than enough money to aid Africa.

Angola - Dictatorship
Burkina Faso - Somewhere in the middle
Burundi - Somewhere in the middle
Chad - Dictatorship
Congo(Brazzaville) - Somewhere in the middle
DRoCongo - Dictatorship
Cote D'Ivoire - Dictatorship
Djibouti - Very close to a dictatorship
Equitorial Guinea - Dictatorship
Eritrea - Dictatorship
Ethiopia - Somewhere in the middle
Ghana - Democracy
Guinea - Dictatorship
Kenya - Mostly democratic
Liberia - Dictatorship
Madagascar - Mostly democratic
Malawi - Somewhere in the middle
Mali - Democracy
Mauritania - Dictatorship
Mauritius - Democracy
Mozambique - Somewhere in the middle
Nigeria - Somewhere in the middle
Rwanda - Dictatorship
Senegal - Democracy
Seychelles - Mostly democratic
Sierra Leone - Dictatorship
Somalia - Anarchy
South Africa - Becoming a dictatorship
Sudan - VERY MUCH a dictatorship
Togo - ? (We'll have to wait and see...)
Uganda - Dictatorship
Zambia - Somewhere in the middle

Sure, double it...

But make it only material goods (IE. industrial machinery) and trade concessions rather than cash assets. That way, opportunities for corruption are far reduced...unless the president of Uganda thinks that nice shiny piece of factory equipment would look good in his living room. And to receive the aid, the country in question must provide plans on how it is going to be utilised.

(This is only regarding development aid, humanitarian aid is a different story)

What do you guys think, if that Africa tries to invite multinationals to take over their agricultural industry?

In turn, ensure that every worker is well fed, their children educated, and well homed.

People usually talk about the evils of multinational corporations. But if it saves lives by the thousands. I'm willing to gamble it in and have a control over the chaotic nations.

Africa is full of unused land, and neither the government, the farmers are able to make full use of it.

I know farmers in Indonesia. Once given free seeds by the gov to plant their crops. They immediately sell them rather than plant them. Why? Because their stupid And poor.

Hence giant corporations do the farming and pay the workers and stuff. The farmers themselves cannot be trusted to take care of their farms, their just too inefficient.

Down the line in 2-3 decades/generations. Hopefully The kids of the farmers after getting a good education, would be the ones with a future and become rulers and politicians to take back their country and run it well.

Too idealistic?

Good book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195170253/qid=1110814622/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-7577335-9345537?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The man's an egoist, but his arguments are very sound. In many cases multinationals are helping to improve things by paying more and giving better conditions than other employers in the region, so pushing standards up. There are as many benefits to globalisation as disadvantages. Like in all areas, a balance needs to be struck.

On the original argument of the thread, though, yes I agree to an extent. Much aid from countries gets lost through corruption. NGOs are much more effective at working directly with communities, especially when they set up a partner organisation within another country, or form a partnership with an existing in-country organisation, rather than just moving in. The aim should always be to get in, help the communities put in place their own systems of support, and then get the hell out again before any dependence forms.


EDIT: However, NGOs are more effective on a small scale, and a larger scale international effort is needed to encourage developing countries' governments to take more responsibility.

Sure, double it...

But make it only material goods (IE. industrial machinery) and trade concessions rather than cash assets. That way, opportunities for corruption are far reduced...unless the president of Uganda thinks that nice shiny piece of factory equipment would look good in his living room.
He probably owns half a dozen factories and a dozen farms though, so he can still nick it. The President of Tanzania for example owns a mansion, a hotel and a whole bloody mountain in just one small area of the Usumbara Mountains.

Tanzania, incidentally, is for all intents and purposes a one-party state, except on Zanzibar, where it is a two-party state. Just so you know.

He probably owns half a dozen factories and a dozen farms though, so he can still nick it. The President of Tanzania for example owns a mansion, a hotel and a whole bloody mountain in just one small area of the Usumbara Mountains.

Tanzania, incidentally, is for all intents and purposes a one-party state, except on Zanzibar, where it is a two-party state. Just so you know.

Yeah, but it makes it more difficult. If the aid process is changed so that development plans must be submitted and supervised by the nation providing aid, the vast majority of the corruption will be removed.

Face it, NGO's typically focus on humanitarian, not development aid...so removing all aid to their control won't result in any economic benefit (and reduce future reliance on aid)

Multinational corporations are also understandably unwilling to invest in projects that they are unsure will bring them significant profits (would you invest your money building a factory in a third-world nation?)...so any development process on their part is going to be sluggish and tentative at best.

This way is probably the best and most reliable path in moving these countries from a agricultural to industrial economy.

If the African countries would throw off the shackles of socialism, renounce racism, and work for harmonious relations between people of all races, that would be a huge step toward solving their problems.

Face it, NGO's typically focus on humanitarian, not development aid...so removing all aid to their control won't result in any economic benefit (and reduce future reliance on aid)
Only the crap ones. Through education-based programmes they can pass on an awful lot of skills so that the locals can carry out necessary work themselves. What they cannot do, though, is the large scale infrastructure: the roads, the hospitals, the water, the schools; the government has to handle those ones.

Multinational corporations are also understandably unwilling to invest in projects that they are unsure will bring them significant profits (would you invest your money building a factory in a third-world nation?)...so any development process on their part is going to be sluggish and tentative at best.
Well, that's business, not development. It was just relevant to a point someone else made. In actual fact, there are many international companies with factories in developing countries.

Globalisation can help push forward development, but it would be driven by the desire to make profits, not through any charitable cause. It's not their responsibility. They do, however have a social responsibility to their employees. And those who take advantage of their employees generally get noticed and it is bad for their reputation, so they tend to treat them better than the normal standards in that region. Those benefits aren't guaranteed, but can't be ignored just because it doesn't suit someone's argument against it.

Bump!

Isn't that among the flaws of anarchism. That everybody has their own opinion. Eventually they'll come an uprising from inside to change the way it is run.

If it last 2 years, that isn't a very long time. And you can't consider it a success.
By "the inside" I mean the inside of the Popular Front. The communists attacked them. The members of the CNT and FAI showed solidarity the whole way through.

And 2 years during war is a success. Imagine how long it would have lasted in the peacetime, when the Communist Party didn't have the influence.

That's the beauty of an Anarchist society, you don't have to live in one if you don't want to.

PS. Roach Busters: Somalia is not Anarchy. :headbang:
Anarchy is not chaos.

PS. Roach Busters: Somalia is not Anarchy. :headbang:
Anarchy is not chaos.

Anarchy is basically no government, which is what Somalia is.

Thats total freedom. :p Do as you may.. Band up and kill people.. sounds like fun :D

I understand anarchism is btw (Wikipedia rocks). But as pure and wonderful as it sounds... humans aren't.