07-13-2005, 04:24 PM
While scanning your site for news on the pups teams I saw this post on Africa aid and had a few comments.
1 minus 6 equals four, explains the capitalistist development aid program results (IMF, World Bank). For every dollar given by the West to poor nations in aid they have repaid 6 dollars and owe four more. This is the nature of Western aid programs (economic ones not emergency aid). They enrich us at the expense of those they supposedly help.
Secondly, most American aid is given with stipulations that it be used to buy American products or funnelled through US companies so it functions as more of a kickback or subsidy to elements of our own economy.
Thirdly, in most countries that have liberalized (the prominent economic term for capitalist expansion and market based policies) their economies the actual standard of living and real per capita income have declined. A few places that have strategic advantages combined with authoritarian elements are somewhat successful (i.e. Singapore, Vietnam) but in most places outside the wealthy capitalist world (US, Britain, Japan, etc...) capitalism is failing and has led to increased displacement, disease, prostitution, pollution, crime, and corruption. The theory that capitalism will naturally lead to wealth and freedom has never been fully realized anywhere and only partially successful in countries like the US, France and Britain who have supplemented internal wealth development and labor productivity with the expropriation of other's resources and wealth through aggressive foreign policy usually involving their military.
Most likely in the next generation we will see a new economic model that mixes smaller scale free market capitalism, with more sustainable versions of agriculture and development, nationalistic minded use of resources and less debt driven development models. This is already happening in South America, being fought over in Europe, and debated in parts of Africa and Asia.
As for the idea that aid to Africa as it usually functions mostly just helps corrupt regimes and their allies and friends, I'm pretty much in agreement. Africa would be better off if monies were directed to those with a track record of actually bettering their communities, not to those trying to consolidate power or make money be they African, American or European.
Now please post something insightful about your football and bball teams so I can read that next time.
1 minus 6 equals four, explains the capitalistist development aid program results (IMF, World Bank). For every dollar given by the West to poor nations in aid they have repaid 6 dollars and owe four more. This is the nature of Western aid programs (economic ones not emergency aid). They enrich us at the expense of those they supposedly help.
Secondly, most American aid is given with stipulations that it be used to buy American products or funnelled through US companies so it functions as more of a kickback or subsidy to elements of our own economy.
Thirdly, in most countries that have liberalized (the prominent economic term for capitalist expansion and market based policies) their economies the actual standard of living and real per capita income have declined. A few places that have strategic advantages combined with authoritarian elements are somewhat successful (i.e. Singapore, Vietnam) but in most places outside the wealthy capitalist world (US, Britain, Japan, etc...) capitalism is failing and has led to increased displacement, disease, prostitution, pollution, crime, and corruption. The theory that capitalism will naturally lead to wealth and freedom has never been fully realized anywhere and only partially successful in countries like the US, France and Britain who have supplemented internal wealth development and labor productivity with the expropriation of other's resources and wealth through aggressive foreign policy usually involving their military.
Most likely in the next generation we will see a new economic model that mixes smaller scale free market capitalism, with more sustainable versions of agriculture and development, nationalistic minded use of resources and less debt driven development models. This is already happening in South America, being fought over in Europe, and debated in parts of Africa and Asia.
As for the idea that aid to Africa as it usually functions mostly just helps corrupt regimes and their allies and friends, I'm pretty much in agreement. Africa would be better off if monies were directed to those with a track record of actually bettering their communities, not to those trying to consolidate power or make money be they African, American or European.
Now please post something insightful about your football and bball teams so I can read that next time.
