what do you think?.. why is Africa so poor?.. can we end world poverty?.. what can we do to help Africa?.. what can we do to end world poverty and hunger?.. should America and other major donors continue to give foreign Aid especially to the third world countries?.. what do you think?.. any poverty related story to share?.. thanks
Africa as lands is rich with natural resources, but as people are very poor, and this has many reasons, that can't be all discussed here, some of these are lack of foreign excahnge, bad governments management specially in little support for agriculture, and more support for weapons and fights, without forgetting the outside role in fueling such fights, and diseases such as aids, that makes it hard to support agriculture, I believe donations are good but they can't end the poverty there, they are like working to reduces the symptoms but do not solve the root problems, I think, the way to solve it is by making mutual projects, rich countries, with African countries to make use of the natural resources and workers to produce food, and share profits, there is a related story I read but can't find the links now, it was a mutual project between a university in USA and the Government of an African country, where they established a shrimp, sea herbs, and fish farm, that uses pumps to bring sea water to aquariums, then the waste is used to feed fish aquariums, and the waste from this is also used to grow sea herbs, before it goes back to sea, you can search for it on google. the products were sold to European countries, and the profit can be used to develop other areas in Africa, to help ending poverty and create more jobs, and of course produce food for Africa and the world.
The best way to end poverty is to through free market system hence China and India. Assume that governments cooperate and not all of them do.
Lack of proper education and most importantly food. People seem to be always fighting each other in africa.
Education seems to be a good start. I doubt there is a solution... I just finished reading the Lunatic Express by Charles Miller. Its roughly about European expansion into East Africa in the late 19th century and settlement of Kenya in the early 20th century... interesting read for historical insight and people get eaten by lions.
Free market is the only solution to that mess. I recall reading about Oppenheimer trying to push for a capitalist system in South Africa, don't know much else. Isn't it funny how we look at poor parts of the world and say, "hmm, capitalism would do wonders here." Then in our own ignorance we demand socialism in our own country because we've been dumbed down to nothing by our government to think capitalism is evil.
Africa has a lot of resources today (uranium, oil, gold, diamonds) but those weren't necessarily valuable in the past or they weren't accessible because of a lack of mining technology. Seems like Africa missed out on the early technological booms because they lacked easy agriculture and a higher part of the population stayed hunting and migrating. The Middle East and Europe was able to settle down near good rivers and build a more modern society (less nomadic), which eventually involved expanding military & political power into less developed areas (like Africa). Then, for the last 200 years or so since Africa's resources have become valuable, you can put a lot of blame on France & England for taking whatever resources they could with little or no compensation.
There are several types of capitalism is there not? I was referring to free markets however. Are you referring to the Panic of 1907? Let's talk about that. What caused it and was it the result of a faulty economic system? I don't know much about it so I'll stand back and take notes.
You're confusing capitalism with mercantilism. And I disagree that capitalism didn't work. Without capitalism, you have no progress, no "prosperity". Free markets are a system unhindered by silly legislation like minimum wage laws or anti-discrimination laws. They allow business, consumers and employees to compete, and only through competition can we hope to achieve the best allocation of resources. Capitalism is the accumulation of capital. Capital = savings. Either a productive gain (accomplishing 5 days work in 4, allowing 1 extra day for more production, recreation etc.) or deferred consumption (cutting spending, eating 3 apples per day instead of 4, and every 3 days gaining an extra days food supply). Socialism is where the means of production are collectively owned. So one person's productive gain offsets someone else's productive loss. Theoretically, it means that the productive members of society (sic - capitalist pigs) help carry the unproductive (sic - poor and downtrodden). What this creates is a permanent poor class, and a permanent worker/slave class. You might recall John Lennon's excellent song, "Working Class Hero". The problem with socialism, is that it fails all manner of economic calculation. Calculating the value of goods, demand and supply of products/wages etc. You can't create prosperity when a portion of the population carries the rest of the population, and where the state allocates resources and sets prices, as the state has no way of determining what prices might occur naturally in the market if competition (for profit) was allowed. /end rant.
That's all covered in my federal reserve history & conspiracy page JP Morgan and some of the other dominant bankers who were taking advantage of the 10% federal subsidy on nationally chartered banks were upset that this Knickerbocker Trust was trying to re-locate their bank and compete with them more directly. So the interlocking directorates were called into action and a bunch of corporations started a run on Knickerbocker's deposits. At the end of the day, Theodore Roosevelt gives JPMorgan $25 million to decide which banks would be bailed out. The biggest recipients of the early corporate welfare go on to become dominant shareholders in the Federal Reserve and we repeat this bank-crisis pattern every 10 years or so until sufficient public funds have been paid to the banks.
Sure socialism doesn't work but capatilism has issues too. At the turn of the last century the capitalists reversed the tables with monopolies and other unfair practices. Capitalism doesn't always result in free markets.
Then it wasn't free market capitalism. It might have been corporate capitalism, fascist capitalism, mercantilistic capitalism etc. Free market capitalism is different. The market works unhindered, and hence, the opportunity for monopoly is drastically reduced. In a free market, there are no barriers to competition, so a monopoly is a very difficult thing to maintain. You'll find most monopolies (post office, railroads, military, public services) exist by government mandate, not by an evolution of the free market. In a free market, you would have 2 or 3 garbage collection companies soliciting for the business of taking your trash away. You would have multiple companies vying for the business of providing you sewage treatment and fresh water. Your mail could come by courier, or private post. Show me a (sic) private monopoly, and I will show you a well run business, and/or a beneficiary of government subsidy and regulation (regulation hinders competition). Free markets require capitalism, but yeah I will agree with you, that not all forms of capitalism result in free markets. Capitalism is the accumulation of capital, free markets are how it is accumulated and reinvested.
wow, big terms, hmm, I do not know what all these terms mean, but if you think that they can be a solution, then maybe you should suggest it on African countries, using trial and error, each country can try one of these terms, one capitalism, another socialism, another fascist capitalism, another mercantilistic capitalism, and maybe communism, maybe it failed somewhere else, but who knows it might work there, maybe they can even create their own ism's and implement them, its for them to decide, at this point, while there are a serious shortage in food worldwide, that is not going to end soon as international organizations declared, and which will make food prices going up till at least 2015, Africa is threatened with big humanitarian disasters, which even appeared even in Northern African countries like Egypt, and the bread crisis there, it would be good if there was quick solution, like planting big lands there which are so available with wheat, corn, rice, sugar, and other strategic products, it will be a start, then they can climb in priorities one after one.
The biggest problem with Africa is that when all the countries were becoming independent from their colonial masters the Cold War was in its full swing and so fledgling democracies that needed time and space to stabilise were not given this freedom... with the result of a great many military coups (aided by both the West and East) in their early years of independence... and destabilization before they had a chance to properly establish their political, economic and civil institutions. As previous posters have noted, there are a lot of mineral resources in Africa, but at the same time most of it is agriculturally baron... which is a real problem for a nation wishing to develop...
I can only speak of deregulation here in Britain. In the 1980s a whole raft of industries were privatised. One of those privatised was the energy industry - I was only listening to a report today (I'm trying to find a link the on net) in which the current state of consumer choice for energy (gas and electric) was labelled a sham because there are only six companies providing this necessity... As for the post office... In Britain we used to have a great postal system. It was, and still is for the time being, called the Royal Mail. It was wholly owned by the state and had a complete monopoly. It was efficient, treated it's workers (fairly) well and cost-effective. Under EU rules the Royal Mail has been whittled away to private companies over the last few years - this trend will continue in the future.. The result is unhappy consumers and workers... with confidence in our national postal system at its lowest ever... We have a flat rate national fee (it is the same cost for across the country) - we also have six days delivery... from Monday to Saturday... No private company can deliver any of these... under privitisation there will only be five days delivery or even four... and there will be price differentials for rural areas... There is an absolute need for a well-run state monopoly to run the British postal service... As for the garbage collection... Now the local authority (municipality) tenders out their contract to the lowest bidder... Refuse collectors really get a bad deal. It's one of my bugbears that they are paid so shit money when the job they do is so vital to society... as important to doctors themselves....