Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    No, because giving people free stuff means that they stop producing it locally.
    That's why they're better off. If someone gives me eg. a computer for free, I am better off than if I had to build it myself.

    And "paper money"? :confused: ALL money is paper money
    Well no, it isn't. Before about 1970 most money was gold backed in some form. That isn't really the point, though, the point is just that the 'money' is worthless if it cant be exchanged for something material, and if your claims of the West deliberately destroying African industry are true, we cannot receive anything in return and have apparently been conspiring to shoot ourselves in the foot.

    Money has effectively been given to them under the premise of purchasing (often uncompetitively priced) western goods which don't really help them. Thus western industries have been sustained at the expense of African ones, which really should've been far far ahead of where they are now.

    If Africans had been able to control their own affairs instead of being meddled with by various international institutions that are tailored to serve western interests like the IMF, they would be far ahead of where they are now.
    This is absurd protectionist logic. You can't get rich by giving things away to people, nor do you become poor by accepting gifts.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    That's why they're better off. If someone gives me eg. a computer for free, I am better off than if I had to build it myself.


    Well no, it isn't. Before about 1970 most money was gold backed in some form. That isn't really the point, though, the point is just that the 'money' is worthless if it cant be exchanged for something material, and if your claims of the West deliberately destroying African industry are true, we cannot receive anything in return and have apparently been conspiring to shoot ourselves in the foot.


    This is absurd protectionist logic. You can't get rich by giving things away to people, nor do you become poor by accepting gifts.
    That is a silly example, totally. If somebody gives you a computer for free, you have no incentive to build it yourself, would be a better way of putting it.

    :rolleyes: Financial markets are very short term oriented in the west. Short term profit is preferable to long term sustainability

    :lolwut: Perhaps you should more seriously analyse what i wrote instead of dismissing them with analogies that border on the irrelevant.

    Giving things away to people? Accepting gifts? I take it you've never studied any economics then! :p:

    If that's the case, there's no point me having this discussion. If you do feel that you're upto it though, i suggest you read the book "Globalization and its discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    China are doing their bit. I also wish this could happen, seeing as the West put Africa in the dire situation in the first place. Education is the key.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As some people said it here the main problem is the their government being very corrupt, look what happened to Zimbabwe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabw...0.93present.29.
    Once their government is sorted out I think then Western countries should help them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If anything we give far too much to the third world.

    The rise of China was not based on food handouts, cancellation of debts or any other trendy "help the poor" idea.

    It was based on good government, good education and cold hard trade.

    If you care about the third world then you would support western invasions to remove the political class of these countries. That is what is holding them back - nothing else. Pretending the issue is debt just demonstrates a failure to understand the problems these nations face.

    Africans had a much greater inheritance then the Chinese did from the colonial era yet they squandered it. Personally I look at African culture with contempt - they inherited advanced railways, mines and agricultural resources and now look at Africa. South Africa shows what the rest of Africa could of became. They even had nuclear weapons at one point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    That is a silly example, totally. If somebody gives you a computer for free, you have no incentive to build it yourself, would be a better way of putting it.
    No it wouldn't, because that misses the point entirely. It's obvious I dont have an incentive to pointlessly duplicate work that someone else has already done for me. It doesn't at all rebutt the fact that if someone else has done the work for me, I am better off because I don't need to do it myself. I can spend the time doing other things. It's simply absurd to argue that Africa as a whole is poor because the West is paying their food bill for them. China also imports food from the West - why is China flourishing, moving people away from agriculture to industry - while Africa is stagnating? To me, the answer is simple: there does not exist a legal structure in Africa that allows people to make long term capital investments. Either way, though, it makes no sense at all to say that Western charity is making Africa poorer.

    :rolleyes: Financial markets are very short term oriented in the west. Short term profit is preferable to long term sustainability
    Where is the short term profit in what I described above? There is only loss, at all stages. Where, indeed, are the financial markets? These are intergovernmental loans, and the subsidies and tarrifs are also imposed by governments. I dont think you know what you're talking about.

    :lolwut: Perhaps you should more seriously analyse what i wrote instead of dismissing them with analogies that border on the irrelevant.

    Giving things away to people? Accepting gifts? I take it you've never studied any economics then! :p:

    If that's the case, there's no point me having this discussion. If you do feel that you're upto it though, i suggest you read the book "Globalization and its discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz
    Stiglitz is left wing political agitator who moonlights as an economist. Read these:

    http://jim.com/econ/chap11p1.html
    http://jim.com/econ/chap12p1.html
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    No it wouldn't, because that misses the point entirely. It's obvious I dont have an incentive to pointlessly duplicate work that someone else has already done for me. It doesn't at all rebutt the fact that if someone else has done the work for me, I am better off because I don't need to do it myself. I can spend the time doing other things. It's simply absurd to argue that Africa as a whole is poor because the West is paying their food bill for them. China also imports food from the West - why is China flourishing, moving people away from agriculture to industry - while Africa is stagnating? To me, the answer is simple: there does not exist a legal structure in Africa that allows people to make long term capital investments. Either way, though, it makes no sense at all to say that Western charity is making Africa poorer.


    Where is the short term profit in what I described above? There is only loss, at all stages. Where, indeed, are the financial markets? These are intergovernmental loans, and the subsidies and tarrifs are also imposed by governments. I dont think you know what you're talking about.


    Stiglitz is left wing political agitator who moonlights as an economist. Read these:

    http://jim.com/econ/chap11p1.html
    http://jim.com/econ/chap12p1.html
    :lolwut: Okay, you're really getting lost here.

    Because Africa doesn't produce its own goods (except agricultural produce, which is so conveniently tarriffed by the west), it has to buy them from the west. Which it has to pay for.

    I'm sorry, your argument just fails on so many levels i cannot be bothered to go through each point and rebutt them. You'll just have to suggest i don't know what i'm talking about, being the stinking uninformed Liberal that i am

    And you're quoting a neo liberal anti keynesian, the sort of market fundamentalist that has pretty much caused the current recession through his ideological, evidence lacking, tripe, along with his other colluding Friedmanist buddies? Good stuff :top:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hell no. India still owes me a tenner, and I lent Brazil £2.30 to get on the bus the other day.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    why doesn't it make its own stuff?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by cowsgoquack)
    why doesn't it make its own stuff?
    MOOACK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    :lolwut: Okay, you're really getting lost here.

    Because Africa doesn't produce its own goods (except agricultural produce, which is so conveniently tarriffed by the west), it has to buy them from the west. Which it has to pay for.
    You were arguing that Africa doesn't produce food because the West was giving it to Africa for free. Now you're saying that it's bad that Africa doesn't produce food because this means it has to buy from the West. Do you see the contradiction here? To the extent that the first statement is true, the second statement is false, and vice-versa.

    I'm sorry, your argument just fails on so many levels i cannot be bothered to go through each point and rebutt them. You'll just have to suggest i don't know what i'm talking about, being the stinking uninformed Liberal that i am
    You're not a liberal. I'm a liberal. You're a socialist.

    And you're quoting a neo liberal anti keynesian, the sort of market fundamentalist that has pretty much caused the current recession through his ideological, evidence lacking, tripe, along with his other colluding Friedmanist buddies? Good stuff :top:
    If all you can do is throw out inaccurate propaganda buzzwords then I think you've rather destroyed your own credibility without my having to expend any further effort. If this is what reading Stiglitz and Klein does to people then I don't think us evil neoliberal hayekian fundamentalist friedmanite scum have much to worry about winning the intellectual battles of the 21st century.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:


    I can point out the dates where political change occurred in China (1978).

    Would the socialists here please oblige us by pointing out which date foreign debt was cancelled.

    Thanks.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    You were arguing that Africa doesn't produce food because the West was giving it to Africa for free. Now you're saying that it's bad that Africa doesn't produce food because this means it has to buy from the West. Do you see the contradiction here? To the extent that the first statement is true, the second statement is false, and vice-versa.


    You're not a liberal. I'm a liberal. You're a socialist.


    If all you can do is throw out inaccurate propaganda buzzwords then I think you've rather destroyed your own credibility without my having to expend any further effort. If this is what reading Stiglitz and Klein does to people then I don't think us evil neoliberal hayekian fundamentalist friedmanite scum have much to worry about winning the intellectual battles of the 21st century.
    No, i said that Africa doesn't produce food when the West dumps it on them, and it has to buy industrially produced from the west because their own industries can't compete Reading is a useful talent.

    :rofl: Have fun with that.

    I think you destroyed your own credibility when you suggested a Nobel Prize winner for economics was a political commentator that dabbled in Economics.

    :rofl: I love arguing with right wingers. Always gives me a good laugh :rofl2:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    a) Hardworking Taxpayer receives money lent
    b) African wags hit paris, cronies take in the alps "while they're there"

    Which one is fair?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)


    I can point out the dates where political change occurred in China (1978).

    Would the socialists here please oblige us by pointing out which date foreign debt was cancelled.

    Thanks.
    China shot up because it refused to accept the idiot policies the IMF was pushing. Everywhere the IMF policies were accepted, from Argentina to Africa to SouthEast asia, they caused and exacerbated disaster.

    China has had protectionist tarrifs from day one. They are just starting to ease some of them. Their capital markets are still protected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent09)
    Why should we ?? We built ourselves up from the ground. The ammount of money which is sent to 3rd world contries each year is an immense ammount. Think how much is raised due to charitable donations?? and what do you see for it ??? nothing... they might enjoy living the way they do, they dont know any different and life's tough - nothings free.
    This is a ridiculously hypocritical position as 20% of the UK's GDP is spent on benefits payments, and another 20% is spent on government services. So its OK that people in the UK are supported by government spending, but not OK for the same to apply to extemely poor people?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lefty Leo. :love:

    Monbiot's always pretty good on this issue too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/g8.politics
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    No, i said that Africa doesn't produce food when the West dumps it on them, and it has to buy industrially produced from the west because their own industries can't compete Reading is a useful talent.
    In which case, your response is simply irrelevent. Giving Africa free food doesn't make industries less competitive. On the other hand, massive political corruption and lack of enforceable property and contract law does.

    I think you destroyed your own credibility when you suggested a Nobel Prize winner for economics was a political commentator that dabbled in Economics.
    Stiglitz has been working professionally in politics for the last 16 years, and most of the books he has written since then have been left wing polemics. I think the comment is justified on that basis alone. As for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, it was also awarded to Friedman, whom you said "pretty much caused the current recession through his ideological, evidence lacking, tripe". So much for that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boo.)
    let go of the third world debt? Wouldn't it help the poor countries to prosper (potentially)?
    I'm guessing you have never studied economics... It just would not work like that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    China shot up because it refused to accept the idiot policies the IMF was pushing. Everywhere the IMF policies were accepted, from Argentina to Africa to SouthEast asia, they caused and exacerbated disaster.

    China has had protectionist tarrifs from day one. They are just starting to ease some of them. Their capital markets are still protected.
    So it had nothing to do with aid, debt cancellation or western assistance?
    Thanks for that information. :rolleyes:
    Perhaps you would like to change your tune elsewhere in this thread to recognise these indisputable facts.

    There is little point in cancelling third world debt as they would rush to the bank to maximise their credit straight away. I'm not happy with cancelling foreign debt for them to run off and get new debt whilst there's still homeless people in the UK.

    The problem is the African political class. But these problems originate in African culture itself. If a British council leader said to an American investor "That's a nice idea about building a school. But I need a new porch, you going to make me one?" there would be an uproar. In Africa a Chief could say that in front of everyone and not an eyelid would batter. It's high time we stopped pretending all cultures are equal. A quick glance at the living standards of Africans demonstrates a comprehensive cultural inferiority. Societies where men have 4 wives who go to courts and accuse each other of witchcraft are not to be celebrated.

    A tougher attitude towards Africa itself and a demand that it sorts out its own problems would do more for the living standards of tomorrows Africans then cancelling some paper money.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.