Thread: How to solve the African problem?

I ask this seriously because my serious answer is to have minority rule. Europeans leading everyone whether they like it or not. And as a nation becomes more developed and the blacks are forced to cooperate more with whites eventually those educated as whites and understand the world's markets etc...could certainly rule themselves.

But I don't think that aid programs will work and development on their own is almost impossible or extremely slow.

South African blacks are far more ahead of the rest of Africa and it was because Apartheid forced them to interact with Europeans on the terms of Europeans.

With the end of Apartheid black south Africans are having hard times again with resurgent tribalism and mass immigration bringing in blacks not well adjusted to developed countries.

Originally Posted by AfrikanerBroderbund

I ask this seriously because my serious answer is to have minority rule. Europeans leading everyone whether they like it or not. And as a nation becomes more developed and the blacks are forced to cooperate more with whites eventually those educated as whites and understand the world's markets etc...could certainly rule themselves.

But I don't think that aid programs will work and development on their own is almost impossible or extremely slow.

South African blacks are far more ahead of the rest of Africa and it was because Apartheid forced them to interact with Europeans on the terms of Europeans.

With the end of Apartheid black south Africans are having hard times again with resurgent tribalism and mass immigration bringing in blacks not well adjusted to developed countries.

nomadic people move to resources... that's the way of the continent, no?
is immigration a problem?
what solutions do you propose?

The problem with African is they dont want to help theire self.They hope others to help them.Well theres a fewAfrican with vision like Madela but most of African they only know to fight and ect.

Originally Posted by Nivia1904

The problem with African is they dont want to help theire self.They hope others to help them.Well theres a fewAfrican with vision like Madela but most of African they only know to fight and ect.

Who the fuck is Madela? Do you Nelson Mandela? Additionally, what do you mean most Africans only know how to fight?

Originally Posted by AfrikanerBroderbund

I ask this seriously because my serious answer is to have minority rule. Europeans leading everyone whether they like it or not. And as a nation becomes more developed and the blacks are forced to cooperate more with whites eventually those educated as whites and understand the world's markets etc...could certainly rule themselves.

But I don't think that aid programs will work and development on their own is almost impossible or extremely slow.

South African blacks are far more ahead of the rest of Africa and it was because Apartheid forced them to interact with Europeans on the terms of Europeans.

With the end of Apartheid black south Africans are having hard times again with resurgent tribalism and mass immigration bringing in blacks not well adjusted to developed countries.

Minority rule is an awesome idea. The less people have to say about how their country is run the better. As a matter of fact, I think one person should be in charge. A true dictatorship is the only path to freedom and prosperity as demonstrated all over the world countless times.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Who the fuck is Madela? Do you Nelson Mandela? Additionally, what do you mean most Africans only know how to fight?

Yeah I mean Nelson Mandela.Well,Sudan,Somalia and ect....DAAA!!!!Where have you been this past ten years????In a cave????

Originally Posted by Nivia1904

Yeah I mean Nelson Mandela.Well,Sudan,Somalia and ect....DAAA!!!!Where have you been this past ten years????In a cave????

That's right. I have been in a cave learning how to spell Mandela.

Somalia is a country made up of former Italian and British colonies forced together while being made of of different ethnic groups that have been fighting off and on since 1963 since they were forced together.

The fighting in Sudan is between the Arabs and Africans is also nothing new because of the location of Sudan.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

That's right. I have been in a cave learning how to spell Mandela.

Somalia is a country made up of former Italian and British colonies forced together while being made of of different ethnic groups that have been fighting off and on since 1963 since they were forced together.

The fighting in Sudan is between the Arabs and Africans is also nothing new because of the location of Sudan.

lol Somalia is made of different ethnic groups? WTF:jawdrop:

Originally Posted by Dash

lol Somalia is made of different ethnic groups? WTF:jawdrop:

LOL that is what I was about to say.

Not to forget that they have one religion, one culture and one language. Actually it’s the only country in the world where all of its citizens speak one language, and then learn another one if they like.

Afrikaner

You are a racist, the worse kind.

Europe and America create civil wars within different countries by supporting a group which is highly opposed by the people; a perfect example will be Somalia.


Have you ever read “The other kind of Terrorism”?

It’s a long read, but an interesting one to say the least.

The Other Kind Of Terrorism
Tarek El Diwany
Article ID: 1205 | 215 Reads



One kind of terrorism has been making the news recently. Its weapon is debt, and it is a most efficient killer.


"Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education"
UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93

The poor nations of the world are told that if they borrow and invest wisely, they will be able to repay their debts and more. But they've been hearing this for fifty years, and the debt just keeps on growing.

1980 1990 2000
Developing country debt ($bn) 525.4 1259.8 2140.6
Actual payments of interest plus principal ($bn) 73.4 140.6 337.8
IMF World Economic Outlook 2001


Western economists tell the developing world that growth will generate sufficient wealth for all their people. But ours is a very unequal world, so when the growth comes few people see its benefits.
"225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people"
UNDP Human Development Report 1998

The development institutions trumpet their aid to the world, to show that something is being done. But what is given with one hand, is taken back many times over with the other. According to the World Bank, in 1999 Angola received $261m in aid but paid $1144m in debt service, Cameroon received $190m in aid but paid $549m in debt service, Kenya received $195m in aid but paid $716m in debt service, and Vietnam received 257m in aid but paid 1410m in debt service (Global Development Finance, 2001).

When charity pop concerts for Africa are held in London or New York, the tens of millions raised are typically enough to pay the continent's interest bill for a few hours. In 1999, the developing countries excluding the Eastern block were more than $2,030 billion in debt to the developed world (Global Development Finance, 2001). In 2000, the IMF put the figure for total developing country debt at $2,140 billion (World Economic Outlook, 2000). Some $700 million per day now flows in debt repayment from the developing world to the developed world (UNDP Human Development Report, 1997).

If we examine some basic indicators of wellbeing, we can begin to see the physical consequences of the debt. In 1995 the industrialised countries experienced child mortality (the number of deaths at less than 5 years of age per 1000 live births) at a rate of 16. In south Asia the figure was 109, and in sub-Saharan Africa it was 169 (UNDP Human Development Report 1998). This should not surprise us. In Tanzania, debt repayment was six times spending on healthcare, whilst in Uganda annual spending was £2 per person on healthcare and £11.50 per person on debt repayment (Jubilee 2000).

According to the United Kingdom's Department for International Development in 2000, 1.2 billion people live in "abject poverty", meaning that they have no basic medical care, nutrition or housing. In the sub-Sahara, 48% of people go without health services, 48% of people are without safe water and 42% are illiterate, whilst in south-Asia the corresponding figures are 22%, 18% and 49.5%. Measured in 1987 US Dollars, GDP per capita in sub Sahara was $520 and in South Asia $521, whilst in the Industrialised Countries it was $12,764 (1995 figures compiled in UNDP Human Development Report, 1998).

Things don't seem to be getting better either. Real wages in most African countries have fallen by more than 50% since 1980 (Jubilee 2000). According to The Centre for Economic Policy Research in 2001, more than three-quarters of the world's countries had a growth rate at least 5% lower in the 1980-2000 period than in the 1960-1980 period. China is one major exception, but not because it took advice from the World Bank and IMF. (Far from it in fact. China has been one of the few countries to completely reject IMF and World Bank advice, opting instead for protectionism, an inconvertible currency and a state controlled banking system.) In 1996 the UN said that the poorest third of the world's people are getting poorer. Even the World Bank has admitted that, between 1987 and 1998, the number of people in absolute poverty (meaning that they survive on less than $1 per day) increased from 1200 million to 1500 million.

Among the various actors in this sad tale, the World Bank and the IMF stand tall. Established under the Bretton Woods arrangements in 1944, the World Bank was to provide development assistance for non-commercial projects, and the IMF was to assist nations in short term balance of payments difficulties and act to ensure currency stability. Often mentioned in the same breath, but entirely separate, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established in 1995 as the successor to GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in order to implement free trade and global standardisation among the world's nations. When it comes to defining country types, there is some variation in the methodology of the supranational institutions. Generally speaking, each recognises developing, transitional and developed countries. The OECD's Development Assistance Committee separates developing and transitional countries according to GNP per capita. Here, "developing" includes "least developed" and "low income" countries which had a GNP per capita below $760 in 1998. In 2002, UNCTAD listed 49 "least developed" countries. The WTO meanwhile allows members to self-select themselves as "developed" or "developing" but, where trade privileges are available to developing countries, one country may challenge another's self-selection.

Some two thirds of Third World debt is owed to commercial lenders, and one-third to multilateral lenders (these are lenders, such as the World Bank, who have the right to exercise discretionary dispersal of contributions from members). It is important to keep in mind that when figures for total external debt are given, they normally comprise the public and the private foreign currency debt owed by a country. Debt owed in a country's own currency does not usually present a debt burden for that country because the domestic government can manufacture its own money to repay its debt (one exception is where a currency board or strict peg has been adopted). On the other hand, developing countries cannot manufacture US Dollars or other Western currencies and so debts owed by developing countries to the developed world can indeed become a desperate financial burden.

Apart from the definitional nuances, there are also some statistical traps to be aware of. It is necessary to distinguish between the 'nominal debt' of a country and the 'present value' of its debt. Since the interest payment on a $10 loan made at 10% is equal to the interest payment on a $100 loan at 1%, loans at subsidised rates of interest that are made to some countries can be stated on a present value basis in order to understate the amount of debt that is owed. For example, in 1999, the nominal versus present-valued debt for Benin was $1.62 billion versus $0.70 billion, and for Burundi $1.06 billion versus $0.54 billion. Another statistical trap is that debt service (quoted as interest plus principal as a percentage of export revenue, or as a percentage of government revenue) may be compiled on the basis of what is actually paid rather than what was contracted to be paid. Debt service figures may therefore appear as if they are not worsening, whereas these figures only remain steady because the country in question is at the limit of what it can pay.



READ ON.........

www.theproblemwithinterest.com (Slighlty Edited)