Facts on African development (1 Viewer)

[josh]

- In the poor countries in Africa income per person has fallen by 25 per cent in the past 20 years

- The World's three richest people control more wealth than all 600 million people in the World's poorest countries.

- Half the World's population, 2.8 million people live on less than £1.20 per day. One in five survives on less than 65p.
Were all these people lazy?

- 10 million children die of hunger and preventable diseases each year.

- Each day, 50,000 people die of hunger and preventable diseases.

- It would cost less than 1 per cent of world income to wipe out world poverty.

- For every dollar given to poor countries in aid, they lose two dollars to rich countries.

- Africa has lost 50p for every pound it receives in aid because of the falling prices it gets for it's commodities.

Source: The Independent

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

- In the poor countries in Africa income per person has fallen by 25 per cent in the past 20 years

- The World's three richest people control more wealth than all 600 million people in the World's poorest countries.

- Half the World's population, 2.8 million people live on less than £1.20 per day. One in five survives on less than 65p.
Were all these people lazy?

- 10 million children die of hunger and preventable diseases each year.

- Each day, 50,000 people die of hunger and preventable diseases.

- It would cost less than 1 per cent of world income to wipe out world poverty.

- For every dollar given to poor countries in aid, they lose two dollars to rich countries.

- Africa has lost 50p for every pound it receives in aid because of the falling prices it gets for it's commodities.

Source: The Independent

What happened to all the money raised by LIVE AID, USA for Africa, & all the other fund raising events of the 80s that was suppose to help stop or at least decrease the amount of hunger, poverty, & deaths from curable diseases? It padded the pockets of those officials who put their citizens in those situations...this happened with zero accountability on where the money went & what it was used for. And, now, to beat all...it looks like we're going to do it all over again.

 

[josh]

To be fair the new Live 8 will be to try and influence political policies instead of raising money like last time.

 

[stump]

Here's another interesting look at the statistics. Scroll to the bottom to see the countries Josh refers to.

GDP growth - Duration 1980-2000

Unfortunately, the "it would only cost" statement is simply wrong. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, is not poor because it has no wealth. It has a great deal of potential wealth. But the war that's been waged since the '90s has hurt the economy greatly. We could give money but it will not help.

Many of us learned this the painful way back in the '80s when Ethiopia had severe drought problems. We raised millions of dollars and shipped food to them. And then watched the food rot at docks. It's not simply a matter of they need $x or x calories. It's about distribution and what you do with it.

 

[matay_brit]

charity is for geeks, its not gunna work is it, come on. For a real effect you need trade! Get the American economy to revert to free trade and help African countries gain investment and hopefully cause upward multipliers in their own economy and living standards.

 

[Kelzie]

charity is for geeks, its not gunna work is it, come on. For a real effect you need trade! Get the American economy to revert to free trade and help African countries gain investment and hopefully cause upward multipliers in their own economy and living standards.

And what, pray tell, do you purpose the Africans trade? The industrialized nations alreay have a monopoly on their natural resources. So what reason do companies have to invest, when they're already getting everything they need from Africa.

And I'm sorry, do you mean the people that receive charity are geeks, or the people that give it?

 

[matay_brit]

kelzie bollocks! u dont have everything u need, africa is oil rich, it produces a giant proportion of commodity's which u dont realise on ur supermarket shelves. One of the reasons they cant make much profit out of them is industrial squeezing of costs by the monopolys. Africa has consumers who can be made money out of u fool, thats surely a reason for investment, capitalism the greed for profit yunno. when u say industrialised nations have a monopoly on their natural resources, no they dont rubbish- opec.

 

[matay_brit]

the people that give charity to Africa are geeks, as there is no hope of it accomplishing anything.

 

[Kelzie]

kelzie bollocks! u dont have everything u need, africa is oil rich, it produces a giant proportion of commodity's which u dont realise on ur supermarket shelves. One of the reasons they cant make much profit out of them is industrial squeezing of costs by the monopolys. Africa has consumers who can be made money out of u fool, thats surely a reason for investment, capitalism the greed for profit yunno. when u say industrialised nations have a monopoly on their natural resources, no they dont rubbish- opec.

Yes it is oil rich. As an example Nigeria produces 2 million barrels a day. However, the people in Nigeria don't get the money. Over the last 4 decades, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil have been extracted from Nigeria by mostly Shell, but also Mobil and Chevron. Which means Nigeria is one of the poorest countries in the world today (source). Again, the people do not get the profits from their natural resources. And so these "consumers" to which you refer have no money to buy whatever it is the investors would be selling. Come on. If these people had any money, don't you think there would be 500 McDonalds there already?

 

[matay_brit]

i agree with what ur saying. Thats why free trade is so important. Basically the MNC's have squished africa in that sense through africas forced free trade while America and Europe enjoy protectionist policys. Thats the route of the problem trade is the answer not charity. If the EU n America cut its subsidies and got rid of tarrifs then Africa would benefit over night. Not these friggin live aid crap things.

 

[Kelzie]

i agree with what ur saying. Thats why free trade is so important. Basically the MNC's have squished africa in that sense through africas forced free trade while America and Europe enjoy protectionist policys. Thats the route of the problem trade is the answer not charity. If the EU n America cut its subsidies and got rid of tarrifs then Africa would benefit over night. Not these friggin live aid crap things.

I agree that charity would not be the best thing for Africa (although it certainly wouldn't hurt it). The best thing for the African governments to do would be to kick out the MNCs and take control over the oil fields and other natural resources, using the money made to build infrastructure, promote education, and feed and medicate their people. But it will never happen. First off because the leaders are getting kickbacks, why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Second if they did rebel, they would be "mysteriously" assassinated or have CIA funded rebels knocking at their door (United Fruit Company anyone?).

 

[Connecticutter]

Sure our trade policies could do better to help Africa. But the reason they are so poor in the first place is because of their corrupt, totalitarian governments. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe refuses to work with "imperialist" MNCs, and has started a mass re-distribution program in his country. The result? Mass-starvation, disease, famine, and the rise of one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world today.

The propoganda spewed by some of these African regimes is amazing. One of latest things I've heard is that they are saying there is no such thing as AIDS, and as such they refuse medications from the "imperialist oppressors." If their people are dying, they can't overthrow the dictator.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I haven't seen any ideas that have a chance of working.

 

[Kelzie]

Sure our trade policies could do better to help Africa. But the reason they are so poor in the first place is because of their corrupt, totalitarian governments. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe refuses to work with "imperialist" MNCs, and has started a mass re-distribution program in his country. The result? Mass-starvation, disease, famine, and the rise of one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world today.

The propoganda spewed by some of these African regimes is amazing. One of latest things I've heard is that they are saying there is no such thing as AIDS, and as such they refuse medications from the "imperialist oppressors." If their people are dying, they can't overthrow the dictator.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I haven't seen any ideas that have a chance of working.

I've heard of that guy. Can't remember for the life of me what his name was. Seems to be a spreading theory, this guy says the same.

This is my favorite part:

"In simple outline form, a program of recovery may look something like this:

Take charge of your own recovery.

Break away from the AIDS death messages. - Adopt a holistic concept of health: mens sana in corpore sano (a sound mind in a sound body). - Identify and eliminate all health risks. - Detoxify both mind and body:

no "recreational" drugs.

no cigarettes.

no toxic medical drugs (like AZT).

Observe good nutrition:

Avoid sugar.

Exercise.

Reduce stress.

Get enough rest.

Have faith that good health will return."

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: Okay, enough laughs. The starvation in Zimbabwe was not a result of the land redistribution. Well okay it is, but only because Mugabe is just another corrupt shmuck. The land mostly has ended up in the hands of cabinet ministers, senior government officials, and wealthy businessmen. Since the intent (and the promise) was that the poorer people would get the land, land redistribution can not be blamed.

 

[matay_brit]

Sure our trade policies could do better to help Africa. But the reason they are so poor in the first place is because of their corrupt, totalitarian governments. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe refuses to work with "imperialist" MNCs, and has started a mass re-distribution program in his country. The result? Mass-starvation, disease, famine, and the rise of one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world today.

The propoganda spewed by some of these African regimes is amazing. One of latest things I've heard is that they are saying there is no such thing as AIDS, and as such they refuse medications from the "imperialist oppressors." If their people are dying, they can't overthrow the dictator.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I haven't seen any ideas that have a chance of working.

i think your wrong in the aspect of the corrupt, totalitarian governments being the main cause for the poverty, they arent the main reason but in fact in many instances come to power through the poverty of the nation leading to weak resistance and polarisation. Don't believe that the whole of Africa is a dictatorship. In fact some African countries could argue they are only as corrupt as the states.

 

[Connecticutter]

Okay, I have a few things to respond to.

Mugabe is just another corrupt shmuck. The land mostly has ended up in the hands of cabinet ministers, senior government officials, and wealthy businessmen.

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. Zimbabwe's situation looks pretty break. If they could get a less power-hungry/corrupt government, most of their problems would be solved.

i think your wrong in the aspect of the corrupt, totalitarian governments being the main cause for the poverty, they arent the main reason but in fact in many instances come to power through the poverty of the nation leading to weak resistance and polarisation. Don't believe that the whole of Africa is a dictatorship. In fact some African countries could argue they are only as corrupt as the states.

That's interesting. I don't know about all African countries, only some of the key ones. I know there is some democracy, but people's rights are not well respected. Can you tell me which African governments you think are nearly as effective as the USA?

If these governments aren't the main reason for poverty, than what is? I think that Africa should be able to get out of poverty with the help of the US. They have the natural resources, the manpower. The people are as capable as we are, we can't claim superiority. The only explanation must be their anti-freedom governments.

 

[matay_brit]

That's interesting. I don't know about all African countries, only some of the key ones. I know there is some democracy, but people's rights are not well respected. Can you tell me which African governments you think are nearly as effective as the USA?

Peoples rights arent respected for the most part. I don't know what you mean by effective as the USA. On the corrupt front though, i was basically having a dig at the USA, excuse me.

If these governments aren't the main reason for poverty, than what is? I think that Africa should be able to get out of poverty with the help of the US. They have the natural resources, the manpower. The people are as capable as we are, we can't claim superiority. The only explanation must be their anti-freedom governments.

Have you ever noticed how Africa has always been stricken with poverty pretty much, with only a few exceptions. If theres anything that history has taught us, there is always a cause for dicatatorships. It could be a weak economy, recession-people get fed up and want a change. In times of crises theres always a growth in extremism, polarisation to extreme solutions. In the case of African countries its almost always that they feel they are being used by the west and want to avenge this by completely isolating themselves from it. Dictatorships are not usually the causes of hardshups although they do exacerbate it when they get to power but rather they are the result os hardship which causes yet more. What do u think?

 

[Kelzie]

Have you ever noticed how Africa has always been stricken with poverty pretty much, with only a few exceptions. If theres anything that history has taught us, there is always a cause for dicatatorships. It could be a weak economy, recession-people get fed up and want a change. In times of crises theres always a growth in extremism, polarisation to extreme solutions. In the case of African countries its almost always that they feel they are being used by the west and want to avenge this by completely isolating themselves from it. Dictatorships are not usually the causes of hardshups although they do exacerbate it when they get to power but rather they are the result os hardship which causes yet more. What do u think?

You seem to be saying that the people are bringing dictators into power through popular support. That rarely (I say rarely, because even though I have never heard of it happening, it might have) happens. One of the things implied by a dictatorship is that they have control of the people, not the support of them. I do think that they cause a great deal of hardship, but I agree with you that if there wasn't hardships in the first place, they probably wouldn't gain power.

 

[matay_brit]

erm, i'm not saying through popular support as in giant popular support but i am saying they do have a large section of support which then has the power to crunch down and control everyone else, as there divided and weak.
eg Nazi Germany elections in March33, Nazi's get 44%, ok say half of that was thropugh sheer fear and intimidation, that still leaves 22% that believe in what there doing. What do you think Kelzie?

 

[Pacridge]

erm, i'm not saying through popular support as in giant popular support but i am saying they do have a large section of support which then has the power to crunch down and control everyone else, as there divided and weak.
eg Nazi Germany elections in March33, Nazi's get 44%, ok say half of that was thropugh sheer fear and intimidation, that still leaves 22% that believe in what there doing. What do you think Kelzie?

I think you're right. People can be convinced that a dictator isn't such a bad idea, as long as the dictator's on their side. Problem is many people don't realize dictators aren't on anyone's side but their own. By the time the masses figure this out it's too late.

 

[anomaly]

This thread has discussed little of the shortly upcoming G8 conference. So how many of you think Africa will actually be aided as is the goal? As many of you have probably suspected, I doubt it will do any lasting good. Ultimately, it is the African people who will solve their own problems. It is precisely Africa's dependence upon the West that hurts so many. It is my opinion that self-sufficiency in Africa is greatly needed, and would greatly help the African people.

 

[matay_brit]

i agree pretty much with everything pacridge and anomaly just said. Although i don't think theres any reason to be so negative about its impact, it is simply the first step to trying to help Africa. As anomaly says after this, the only way Africa can build on what it has got is to become more self-sufficient.

 

[Connecticutter]

I hear many of you talking about a self-sufficient Africa. What exactly do you mean by this? If they have goods that we wants, and we have goods that they want, why don't we trade? I assume you're not talking about clsoing off trade, though. Is this some sort of political self-sufficiency? Please explain.

 

[matay_brit]

a self-sufficient africa is exactly that, An Africa that, for a large part doesnt need charity to survive. This could be as you said through trade, letting Africa actually take control over its own resources and allow it to make a large profit on them.

 

[Kelzie]

a self-sufficient africa is exactly that, An Africa that, for a large part doesnt need charity to survive. This could be as you said through trade, letting Africa actually take control over its own resources and allow it to make a large profit on them.

Really is the only solution...it'll be a long time coming though.

 

[Arch Enemy]

African's not wanting U.N. help is not something to frown upon, in-fact I don't blame them.

Last time we tried to "help" them, we forced them out of their tribes and villages and into the cities to work for European benefits. We're to blame for their down-fall, we've always been to blame.