http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
Personally, I've thought that helping out Africa has been a bad decision for a long while now. Whenever I would try and bring it up, though, someone would call me inhumane for not wanting to help out "my fellow human beings." But alas, it's what I get for living in California.
Point of this post being: What do you think? After reading that interview with an actual "African Economics Expert," who was born in Africa and knows first-hand what the real situation is, what's your stance?
Should the West and Europe back off or continue helping?
Btw, my favorite quote is this:
"Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here."[COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#D35900][/COLOR][FONT=Arial][/FONT][/COLOR]
People are impatient. Change is gradual.
Things will eventually improve, but it has to come from the countries of Africa themselves. While the level of poverty is troubling, look back about 100 years ago. Many European countries had similar squalor and exploitive industries, but as the country evolved, changes were made. One problem, though - ****ing greedy dictators.
I think Africa could manage to get slightly more done by themselves. Forcing development isn't going to help the nation become more independent. I think some of the nations are destined to remain third world countries. The rest can probably work things out by themselves over time.
I think some pretty interesting points were made. Especially the ones about forced relations between countries. Without the aid of other continents, near countries would depend more on eachother and open up trade, spurring growth in multiple African nations.
Yeah, sorry. Not listening to libertarians on development issues... this is one of the stupider issues on which to try to apply "OMG WE NEED MORE MRAKETS."
[quote]In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.
Yeah, no. Very much agree on the need for regional-level development, but that's not what happens on the ground, regardless of how much economic theory some random dude learned in America. Regardless of whether people are bringing aid in, it's still massively more profitable for African farmers, especially the large ones and the agribusinesses, to sell into the global grain market rather than local consumers It's a market whose prices are set in first-world financial centres, and in price-taking African countries, the market prices many individual Africans out of being able to feed themselves. THat's what a famine is -- it's not an absence of food, it's a problem of distribution.
What libertarian economics ignores is the massive power-differentials and information-differentials which make a well-functioning market virtually impossible in countries where many people exist in absolute poverty. Sure, a formal market is great for the wealthier sections of these countries, but left to itself, a market ignores those people at the bottom, just like in 19th century Europe.
Blaming the UN food program for the destruction of African agriculture is just perverse.
Fun fact: On average, the third world has much lower levels of tariffs and protection than the first world. If we're serious about free markets, we start by dropping protection in the first world, ending subsidies to American and European farmers, and open our borders to more immigration and working visas while we're at it, since borders and immigration restrictions are trade barriers too.
Finally: There ARE prosperous, well-governed countries in Africa. It's a surprisingly heterogenous continent. As f*cked as things are, afro-pessimism can get a bit extreme at times.
Didn't 19th century Europe grow into what it is today by using this method over time?
I'd say that its current state should be considered heaven compared to Africa today.
Of course, I could be wrong. :(
Africa has always been the cesspool of the world. How many beneficial and innovative things have come out of Sub-Saharan Africa? You can pretty much count everything on your fingers. What is the point of trying to change something this hopeless, especially since it has been this way since the beginning of time.
You can help Africa all you want, but in the long haul, nothing is really going happen there.
Actually, Charity, in some forms, damage the economy more than anything. An example I watched from a documentary in Cultural Anthropology would be a town in North Africa that specialized in selling clothes, when we donated the clothes, their business completely ****ed over. I think people would be more careful about analyzing the long term effects when they play a hand in a foreign community.
You're more than likely right about the entire 'history' thing. Admittedly, I hated any and all history that did not directly affect me. However, the fact of the matter that struck me most about this interview and therefore caused me to post it here was that a native African said those things and made those points. Had it been some politician or 'economic analyst' from NYC I wouldn't have bothered.
Being able to know, first-hand, exactly what the situation is and come to such a conclusion to help solve problems such as this has to mean something a lot more than what someone in a foreign country could or would ever say.
He raises some good points, particularly about the weird side-effects of charity clothes. Trade is certainly a necessary thing, and a couple of aspects of the world trade system really f*cks Africa--1st world protection and subsidies, and dumping of cheap produce in the developing world.
However, he's still quite clearly an American-trained libertarian economist with those particular biases and blindspots. His opinions aren't gospel, any more than anyone else's are, and I strongly disagree that "all aid is bad." Sounds too much like cut-and-paste libertarian "all welfare is bad" arguments.
Also uses that hoary old "Africa is poor because it's corrupt" thing, which strikes me as very weak. Aside from the fact that a country like Ghana does very well in international corruption rankings... are we expected to believe every government 40 countries have had in the last 40 years has been irredeemably corrupt?
Helps Africa? Im sure they have all the aids they need :)
Not really. I was surprised somebody didn't make that joke earlier.
Yeah, I'm sick of helping Africa. The last few months of school we had charities doing assemblies with us almost every day, and it gets old ****ing fast. Yeah, I get it, they're dying over there, but me paying $20 for your ****ty bracelet isn't going to change anything. Leave me alone.
**** Africa. Ever watch those MSNBC specials with Chrsis Hansen?
Uh, no. Tanzania, Ghana, Botswana and Namibia are all worlds apart from the Congo, for instance.
That sure would be a pertinent reply if it somehow related to what you said.
Of course, comparatively speaking, some sub-Saharan African nations are going to be better managed than others sub-Saharan African nations, however, to say that any one of them are "prosperous" or "well governed" is completely false.
You didn't say "some African nations are better than others". You said some African nations are prosperous and well governed, which is laughably incorrect, assuming 'proper management' and prosperity as a stalwart concept.
Compare any given sub-Saharan African nation to any given European, Asian, Latin American or North American nation and even the 'best' amongst them are all so far below the curve it borders on comedy.
[quote]Finally: There ARE prosperous, well-governed countries in Africa. It's a surprisingly heterogenous continent. As f*cked as things are, afro-pessimism can get a bit extreme at times.
Try quoting me in context next time.
[quote=Landon;625359]That sure would be a pertinent reply if it somehow related to what you said.
Of course, comparatively speaking, some sub-Saharan African nations are going to be better managed than others sub-Saharan African nations, however, to say that any one of them are "prosperous" or "well governed" is completely false.
You didn't say "some African nations are better than others". You said some African nations are prosperous and well governed, which is laughably incorrect, assuming 'proper management' and prosperity as a stalwart concept.
Compare any given sub-Saharan African nation to any given European, Asian, Latin American or North American nation and even the 'best' amongst them are all so far below the curve it borders on comedy.
Well hi there South Africa! :D
It's up there with Italy and Australia in living standards and GDP.
It was a throwaway comment in a thread about development issues, against excessive afro-pessimism. But hey, if you wanna get on your whole "them durn darkies are inferior vermin" hobby horse and its "man Aparheid was AWESOME" companion then, hey, go nuts.
Hey Landon, do you have a graph showing how much the population has been increasing? Or of disease? Those both are big factors of crime considering population will have the same percentage with a larger # of people, and disease contributes to desperation. I'm no expert on this matter, but seeing those graphs gave me more questions than answers.
I bet seeing mixed-race couples on the street really burns Landon up.
Nah, you're a political racist, not a redneck. There's a big difference. You'd fit in at Stormfront better than a simple redneck.
So what *are* your views on desegregation and mixed marriage?
"Desegregation" is a grossly idealistic delusion, entirely contrary to what humans do naturally if you leave them alone. Your dreamer types love to force "desegregation" down everyones throats since their la-la land outlook on the world dictates we all live together, hold hands, sing songs and ignore reality as best we can. Sadly, human nature says otherwise (and has been saying so since the very beginning of time). No one is racist until it comes to buy a house. One thing all of your "equality" types have in common is a stark lack of practical, first hand experience with those whom they wish to purport as being "equal".
As far as "mixed marriages", I couldn't care less, although I'll never understand the allure Asian women seen to have with white guys. Must be the sideways vagina's.