|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 20, 2011 13:33:53 GMT -5
xotan, Africa has been left in shambles due to European colonization. Comparing a Westerner's chances of economic success and an African's chances is comparing apples to oranges. It's harder for African nations to become more stable due to political and economic instability. They're starting from completely different situations. Therefore, for an African to become successful, they have to work much harder than Westerners do. This is not some anti-West hatred, it's just pointing out the fact that the reason it's so hard for African nations to become stronger isn't because hurr durr cultural inferiority, but because (most) Western nations have a number of traits in their favor: a (relatively) balanced economy, a stable political system, and the business innovation of previous generations.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Dec 22, 2011 18:52:00 GMT -5
Hello Wytch,
I think we are actually talking past each other. Yes, of course I absolutely accept that colonisation is exploitation. I come from a once colonised country, so my parents and grandparents would have had experience of that. And having researched my family back 250 years, I know what the effects of colonisation are, even in a European context. It is as well to indicate, we were never a colonising power.
My core point is that I cannot see the point in pouring money into a continent that, for whatever reason, over many decades has not been able to better its situation, even with foreign aid, and (certainly from my country) generous private contributions as well. Money does not seem to be the solution.
At home I have seen prosperity become recession, and now experience drastic cuts in my once golden pension, so that I have to ask if my country should be handing out money to places where it has shown no capacity to improve people's lot, whilst our domestic situation is deteriorating with services and incomes being drastically cut. My response is that a country's prime responsibility is to its own people. Therefore, small though our contribution was in comparison with other countries', it was generous on a per capita basis, but should now be cut. Such funds as are being sent abroad should properly be used to repair our own economy and maintain as high a standard of services as possible for our own people. Well and good, when recovery at home is complete, then foreign aid could/should recommence. For the moment, though, cirumstances prohibit me from keeping up any private/personal contribution to aid agencies. I doubt I am alone. But historical reasons seem to keep us from an open and frank discussion of this situation. (In the mid 1840s one million people died of hunger, another million of the associated diseases, and two millions fled abroad. That causes guilt in us, although we were goverened by others. But this is a guilt I will not own.)
I apologise for the delay in responding to you. This is a busy time of year for me.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 22, 2011 21:05:55 GMT -5
Hello Wytch, I think we are actually talking past each other. Yes, of course I absolutely accept that colonisation is exploitation. I come from a once colonised country, so my parents and grandparents would have had experience of that. And having researched my family back 250 years, I know what the effects of colonisation are, even in a European context. It is as well to indicate, we were never a colonising power. My core point is that I cannot see the point in pouring money into a continent that, for whatever reason, over many decades has not been able to better its situation, even with foreign aid, and (certainly from my country) generous private contributions as well. Money does not seem to be the solution. At home I have seen prosperity become recession, and now experience drastic cuts in my once golden pension, so that I have to ask if my country should be handing out money to places where it has shown no capacity to improve people's lot, whilst our domestic situation is deteriorating with services and incomes being drastically cut. My response is that a country's prime responsibility is to its own people. Therefore, small though our contribution was in comparison with other countries', it was generous on a per capita basis, but should now be cut. Such funds as are being sent abroad should properly be used to repair our own economy and maintain as high a standard of services as possible for our own people. Well and good, when recovery at home is complete, then foreign aid could/should recommence. For the moment, though, cirumstances prohibit me from keeping up any private/personal contribution to aid agencies. I doubt I am alone. But historical reasons seem to keep us from an open and frank discussion of this situation. (In the mid 1840s one million people died of hunger, another million of the associated diseases, and two millions fled abroad. That causes guilt in us, although we were goverened by others. But this is a guilt I will not own.) I apologise for the delay in responding to you. This is a busy time of year for me. I also don't think governments should be sending foreign aid while their own economies are having difficulties. Private charities can also accomplish that. What I do contest is the idea that the reason Africa is so unstable is because Africans are incapable of maintaining democracy. I don't know if this was your actual intention or not, but IIRC an earlier comment about "tribal societies" always leading to disaster reminded me of this.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Dec 23, 2011 7:33:13 GMT -5
Hello again Wytch,
Sustaining democracy is perahps the major problem. I touched earlier on the aribrariness of the lines drawn in the map by the European powers. These had little or no regard to the tribal areas, far more ancient and important to the indigenous peoples. A tribe will naturally support a leave that stem from it, and see nothing much wrong with being 'more equal' than members of other tribal groupings in their country. This is hardly a sound basis for a democracy. It is also one of the key elements in the rampant corruption that exists. If a tribal leader enriches himself, none of his tribe are likely to object. No doubt some crumbs from the top man's table will fall to those further down the pecking line. So, this whole business will only be solved by Africans. In the meanwhile there are those from outside who will find ways to benefit from the tainted legacy of colonialism.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 23, 2011 18:29:14 GMT -5
My core point is that I cannot see the point in pouring money into a continent that, for whatever reason, over many decades has not been able to better its situation, even with foreign aid, and (certainly from my country) generous private contributions as well. Money does not seem to be the solution. I think some sort of reparations could be part of a development plan for the Third world. Obviously, the third world is being prevented from developing, and are being forced to pay tribute to the first, so it's unreasonable to expect them to develop at the present time. A good development program would start with the recognition of odious debt as fake. Then an opening of available policy options, which must include protectionism. The west might, potentially, suggest effective technical improvements- but policy must be entirely under the control of the locals. That's hardly Africa's fault- it is, in fact, the fault of Ireland's government, perhaps the most incompetant bunch of mismanaging clowns the world has ever seen. Obviously austerity is the last thing anybody should be doing. Here's a question: why does nobody suggest slashing the defence budget as an austerity measure? Sustaining democracy is perahps the major problem. Nonsense. There's absolutely no need for democracy in order to develop. A corrupt dictatorship with the correct policy will develop much more effectively than a flawless democracy with the wrong policy (Mali, for example). This is not a major problem is most of Africa. Even Rwanda has largely resolved their ethnic problems, mostly by killing a bunch of Hutus. The big wars are mostly about resources. And corruption doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Dec 24, 2011 10:43:21 GMT -5
@ Yla Given the placing of the comment, and in the absence of any indication otherwise it appeared directed at me. The poster can clarify if he/she chooses. Yeah that was about the person who started the thread and then ran off.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Dec 24, 2011 14:39:34 GMT -5
@ Itfred
"I think some sort of reparations could be part of a development plan for the Third world. "
This is fine if you are a first world country that has colonised and milked a third world country.
"That's hardly Africa's fault- it is, in fact, the fault of Ireland's government, perhaps the most incompetant bunch of mismanaging clowns the world has ever seen. Obviously austerity is the last thing anybody should be doing.
Here's a question: why does nobody suggest slashing the defence budget as an austerity measure? "
Never siad that Africa was responsible for my pension being hatcheted. But no argument about the clowns. (And why leave our Greece, Portugal and Italy? They are politicians, so that speaks for itself. Item no. 1 on any politicians agenda is re-election. Item 2 is appointment to boards that pay. Item 3 is directorships that pay very well.
As to austerity, it is being applied, and with national approval, allowing for some understandable grumbling. Tthere are no riots as in Greece. Ireland should be back in the black within about 2 years.
And what defence budget? It's tiny.
"This is not a major problem is [in] most of Africa. Even Rwanda has largely resolved their ethnic problems, mostly by killing a bunch of Hutus. The big wars are mostly about resources. And corruption doesn't matter. "
You have made my aregument against Western invilvement very cogently.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 24, 2011 18:47:19 GMT -5
Never siad that Africa was responsible for my pension being hatcheted. But no argument about the clowns. (And why leave our Greece, Portugal and Italy? Ireland's worse. At least Greece had some budget problems before the recession: Ireland had virtually none. Ireland was a rapidly-growing 'Tiger' economy with no government debt before the crisis*. The ridiculously bad recession is the result of the austerity programs which are the result of the false perception that a voluntary adoption of private banking debt has caused budget debts to rise to such heights that they are dangerous. * The wall Street Journal were singing the praises of Irish economic policy before the crisis. This proves that any citizen of a country called successful by the wsj should flee. There should be riots. Irish austerity is absolutely outrageous, there's no chance of a recovery until well after it is reversed. The entire point is that 'internal devaluation'- that is, reducing every wage, price and cost of every good or service in the economy- will allow Ireland to outcompete her neighbours and export her way to recovery. Internal devaluation will not happen. The options are external devaluation- leaving the Euro and lowering the value of a new, independent currency (that's what Iceland has successfully done), or a German trade deficit. Of course, internal devaluation implies mass unemployment. The Irish- along with the British, the Greeks and so on- are also cutting spending and raising taxes in order to move closer to government budget surplus. The Irish budget deficit is entirely voluntary: the government chose to back the debts of Irish banks. So in order to pay wealthy foreign investors, the Irish government is slashing poor Irish people's pensions. Even on its own terms, austerity is the wrong policy. In the medium to long run, austerity increases government budget deficits. A much more effective policy would be to stimulate domestic demand in order to reestablish a good economic climate in the short-run and then pay off in the long-run. Or to simply screw the investors- no return without risk, after all- and tell them to go hang (Iceland).
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Dec 25, 2011 19:10:20 GMT -5
@ Itfred,
We will have to agree to leave the matter here. Chrismas day with flu. Knocked for six. Sorry, but having spent most of the day in bed, I am really not in a position to continue the argument. But thanks for your discussion anyway.
Back to bed with a couple of hot water bottles and some paracetemol.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 25, 2011 21:42:16 GMT -5
Sheeet, man. I've been there. Hope you get better soon . Have a nice new year, at least!
|
|