View Full Version : Live8 kills americans
CuriousJ
07-06-2005, 01:03 PM
My take at least something is being done - the rest of the countries with money to help anyways are trying to come up with a plan which is a start . I really dont see that an impact will be made for at least a decade or longer this is on such a huge scale . The money is one thing but unfortunately the money will need to be managed by outside sources and not given to Africa to distribute as they want - that has been done before and did not work ! The people ,I hate to say it but need to want a change I realize they have armed militias running around ruling villages etc its choas for the most part but the people need to stand up and want a change . Seems to me that not too long ago we stood up for our beliefs and made a stand and came out the victors , this again is one of those pits that are not going to harvest a peaceful solution and it sickens me to think of how many American lives will potentially be lost over this one !
Deogol
07-06-2005, 01:13 PM
Wow. How unnecessarily rude and dismissive. This is because I'm a woman, isn't it?
Ah - finally we are past the race card and now playing hand two - the gender card.
You are not even reading or engaging with what I type. You are simply doling out prefab response to what you think "people like me" will say. It's fine to think that you know everything that "people like me" will say to such situations. But when you type it out and put it down you just come off as insulting and illiterate. And in what way were my questions about ESAP/World Bank/IMF propoganda? Or, for that matter, about white people?
I am doling out pre-fab responses? You have got to be on a mailing list for liberal talking points.
The CIA website has details about how the crisis of debt in the early 90s impacted the life of Zimbabweans, and their rising standard of living. Last time I checked, they were not a site dedicated to liberal propoganda.
I seem to remember a lot of your writing having to do something with how it was the fault of white africans. (As opposed to common liberal "new think," African is not a race, it is a geographical location on the planet - if you live there - you are African) If it wasn't the white african's at fault, then it was white europeans... or simply big bad USA.
Perhaps I am getting some of your posts mixed up with others. There are many on this site only want to read once - I am sure you know the feeling. ;)
Jenny
07-06-2005, 01:27 PM
Ah - finally we are past the race card and now playing hand two - the gender card.
I was joking. You idiot.
I am doling out pre-fab responses? You have got to be on a mailing list for liberal talking points.
Um no. As I said politics and current events are not my thing. I just pick things up here and there. And while it is obvious that my bias is different than yours, I at least do you the courtesy of actually reading what you write if I choose to respond to it, or about it rather than knee jerking. As I told Melonie - in this situation there is no dichotomy. But courtesy is not legally mandated, so if it makes you happy to insult strangers - knock yourself out.
I seem to remember a lot of your writing having to do something with how it was the fault of white africans.
Well, gosh, maybe you should have actually read them. My contention was that to de-colonize one must redistibute land. I also contended that decolonialization was desirable, even if the current situation wasn't. I further asked if anyone had any specific information on the role of the debt crisis on Zimbabwean independence. There was no blaming of white anyone. In fact there was rather little blame.
As opposed to common liberal "new think," African is not a race, it is a geographical location on the planet - if you live there - you are African
As I have already said - endowing the colonists in what is essentially an imposed feudal system with honourary native status is cheap and fallacious.
Perhaps I am getting some of your posts mixed up with others. There are many on this site only want to read once - I am sure you know the feeling. ;)
Why yes. And you may note that I don't respond to every stupid post on this site. Only the ones I want to. It would be quite silly of me to say that it is worth my time and energy to insult you, but not to actually understand what I am insulting. If a post is beneath your notice to read, you could always not respond to it.
Lurker
07-06-2005, 02:12 PM
Debt forgiveness is fine for countries which have reformed their governments and where there is accountability to domestic and international constituencies. When people talk about debt forgiveness for unreformed autocracies, I'm not sure what the point of it is. These countries are taking in far more in aid than they are paying out in interest on their debt (and don't imagine that they're paying down principal, except by borrowing new money elsewhere), and most of that money is disappearing down the same ratholes it has been going down for the last 40 years. Writing off this debt which may never get paid anyway is just giving up the leverage to go after the thieves in foreign jurisdictions--i.e. when the IBRD lends money to Uganda and it ends up in some thug's account in Switzerland, there's at least a snowball's chance in hell of digging it out as ill-gotten gains and freezing/appropriating it--if not now, at some point in the future. With debt forgiveness, suddenly first-world courts have no truck with the matter--if Mr. Odingabebe has $750MM in the bank, good for him! And only poor Uganda can go after him for absconding with the country's patrimony, which requires a change of government and some extremely tenacious, clever, and brave detective work to ever get back a dime.
Separately, do people who want debt forgiveness want the WB/IMF/AfDB to pony up new loans to the same (or similar) corrupt governments which stole the original loans? Do they really want to cut off the capital base of these generally sympathetic institutions at the knees and leave them coming hat-in-hand to the shareholders (i.e. the American government) every year for new capital?
Debt forgiveness isn't what Africa needs. It's good governance. If it suits the G-8 to let some countries go down the HIPC road and debt forgiveness can actually be a productive bargaining chip to get fiscal transparency, then I'll be the first to say it was a good idea. But until then, I'm from Missouri...and I say that as someone who lends money to African entities.
As for the post that started this thread...BGMnM, where do you GET this stuff? You want to find a government program that has provided money for terrorists who attacked the US? Delve into the books of the Reagan White House.
Melonie
07-07-2005, 02:46 PM
this tidbit from Der Speigel wound up being obscured by today's London bombings, and has a lot to say on the subject of the TRUE effects of 1 Trillion cumulative dollars in African aid.
TerpsichoreToo
07-07-2005, 11:17 PM
Live8 is trying to gain political leverage - the idea being that at least some of the people attending the concerts will go home in their G8 countries and lobby their government for debt forgiveness in Africa. Because they decided that simply lobbing large amounts of money at Africa wasn't working.
THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!! Kinda sad how many other people here chose not get that simple fact.
discretedancer
07-08-2005, 06:14 AM
so where is the "kills americans" connection?
Jenny
07-08-2005, 06:35 AM
this tidbit from Der Speigel wound up being obscured by today's London bombings, and has a lot to say on the subject of the TRUE effects of 1 Trillion cumulative dollars in African aid.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
Terrific Melonie. So the REAL problem in Africa is that Africans are just lazy.
I particularly love the way you endow these patently ridiculous, slanted opinion pieces with "real truth" - like the story that everyone is afraid to tell you. It's so big and out there and obvious, and you seem to think that it is either right or subtle.
Destiny
07-08-2005, 09:43 AM
so where is the "kills americans" connection?
... Did the money get handed to the warlords who basically run the continent??
Did the money buy the weapons that Americans faced when they landed in somalia??
Or did the muslim terrorist camps all over north Afraica get some of that money also???
Did we put a quarter in the live aide jukebox,and play the 9/11 song??.. Al Qaeda was based in Africa prior to moving to Afghanistan. I think the theory is that some of the money we ship over there may fall into the wrong hands. I don't know the answer, but given the historically high rate of corruption among many of these countries its worth being extra careful with any additional aid.
Jenny
07-08-2005, 09:54 AM
I don't really know how much you can fault humanitarian aid for this, considering the vast amounts of money the U.S. has thrown at many of its current enemies back when it was training them as terrorists. Just something to think about if you are planning to blame the Red Cross and Live8.
While we are discussing Africa:
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/
TerpsichoreToo
07-08-2005, 10:10 AM
so where is the "kills americans" connection?
I like to see how that connection was made as well. Seems to me that the opposition some people have here has more to do with who Live8 is trying to help more than anything else.
Casual Observer
07-08-2005, 11:55 AM
Brilliant interview here with an African economist about the idiocy of the West providing blanket aid to Africa. (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html)
Misplaced white guilt doing more harm than good...
Lurker
07-08-2005, 12:22 PM
Why is it "white guilt" to give AID to foreign countries? Was the Marshall Plan "white guilt"? Was tsunami aid "white guilt"?
I feel good about giving money to people who are starving and/or deprived of decent medicine so that they can have food and treatment. I don't usually bother to check their color. Or mine.
I agree that too much money coming into an economy can cause distortions/dislocations, and I'm generally against debt forgiveness. But this Kenyan guy has some pretty big holes in his argument. Here's one I'll address...The fact that clothes donations are costing tailors jobs and that's somehow bad for the Kenyan economy.
Suppose that everything you do for people was provided to anyone who wanted it for free. You'd be out of a job. But people would be better off on the whole--every last thing that you were providing to society (for a price) would be now provided for free in infinite supply. People would be BETTER OFF. And if you actually go on to take ANY other job (street sweeping, toilet cleaning, car repair...whatever) it creates further benefits.
Taken to the extreme, imagine if everything we ever wanted was given to us for free. There'd be no reason for anyone to work--we'd all be out of jobs! And our Kenyan friend would be talking about how awful it was that everyone was jobless.
Then he goes off on some tangent about how entrepreneurs are arbitraging the clothes donations and selling them back to people on Ebay...Who cares? Good for them!
There are real problems with aid and this guy hits some of them. However, there are also real problems with NOT giving aid--do we want to wait 35 years for Africa to get off the floor? How many millions or billions die in the meantime that we could have saved for pennies a day?
I think it's hypocritical for people who live in a society where we are eternally borrowing from future generations to splurge on present benefits to say that OTHER, less fortunate societies should figure out how to help themselves through generations of relative poverty rather than receiving our aid, even if that is the better course for the long run. Physician, heal thyself.
Deogol
07-08-2005, 03:36 PM
As I understand it, the real problem with giving aid to Africa is that most of the countries are run by corrupt loons who, if they can't steal the benefits, then will use them as a population control mechanism.
Example:
The war lords in Somalia use to steal the food that came in, and only the people who pledged allegiance and fought for the warlord would get any of that food. Then the UN sent in troops to protect the food, then the US got it's ass kicked and dragged around the country, and then the war lords pretty much went back to business as usual until someone bigger and badder came along.
Another example that comes up in Zimbabwe. The farms stolen from white farmers turned into booty for "Mugs" goons - they became the "plantation owners" - the only problem was they didn't know how to run a farm. The valuables in the country - stolen from whites or from opposition groups who are run out of the country (or lucky enough to get out of the country) and handed out to his cronies or sold on the international market.
Africa has oil, gold, diamonds, and plenty of "democracies" and few colonies these days. There is no reason why they should be so poor and in a bad place other than corruption.
Throwing money at corruption makes one feel good, but it does no good.
I think economic education is missing there too. It is easy for us to understand a capitalistic system or how financials work. There is no sophisticated financial knowledge available to the populace. The place is certainly due for some new ideas, but they have no place to get them from.
I believe the aid is doing exactly what it's supposed to.
Deogol
07-08-2005, 06:09 PM
I believe the aid is doing exactly what it's supposed to.
My God you can zing off the one liner's that say so much... I am in awe!
(If you don't get it - think about it.)
Casual Observer
07-09-2005, 08:21 AM
I feel good about giving money to people who are starving and/or deprived of decent medicine so that they can have food and treatment. I don't usually bother to check their color. Or mine.
The point you and the Live8 bunch are missing is that when you enable nations to continue economically and ecologically destructive and counterproductive behaviors by subsidizing their mistakes, you're not furthering their development nor their independence--you're creating incapable welfare societies that get hooked on Western aid and therefore continue to suffer their endemic, systemic problems. That's what the Kenyan economist is saying.
Here's one I'll address...The fact that clothes donations are costing tailors jobs and that's somehow bad for the Kenyan economy.
Suppose that everything you do for people was provided to anyone who wanted it for free. You'd be out of a job. But people would be better off on the whole--every last thing that you were providing to society (for a price) would be now provided for free in infinite supply. People would be BETTER OFF. And if you actually go on to take ANY other job (street sweeping, toilet cleaning, car repair...whatever) it creates further benefits.
This is so absurd. Remember that we're talking about developing economies here; they're starting at the bottom. Your utopian idea of the "wonders of free stuff" belies the fact you need an economic base from which to operate, and that such aid distorts local economies and prevents the establishment of domestic economies that are self-supporting and geared toward domestic wealth generation. People would most certainly not be better off because they would have reduced means of achieving economic independence and the associated living standards that accompany such development.
Destiny
07-09-2005, 09:11 AM
What can the industrialized countries do to help the desperately poor in Africa?
Time to Stop Dumping on the World's Poor (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/03/global/watkings.htm)
What can governments in rich countries do about poverty in poor countries, apart from increasing and improving aid and endorsing ambitious poverty reduction goals? Answer: get serious about reforming their own farm policies and start dismantling the agricultural trade restrictions and subsidies that contribute to mass poverty across the developing world...
Each year, rich countries spend in excess of US$300 billion in support of agriculture—some six times the amount they allocate to foreign development assistance. Most of the subsidies end up supporting production and generating large surpluses, which are then dumped on world markets at prices that bear no relation to production costs. Meanwhile, high tariffs and other trade barriers are used to keep imports out. Tariffs on agricultural goods in the EU and U.S. are four to five times those applied to manufactured goods, and peaks in excess of 100 percent—for groundnuts in the U.S. and dairy produce in Europe, for example—are common. While the poorest African countries may not be able to produce an exportable surplus of dairy products, they could do so for beef, sugar, and cotton. Beef and sugar, however, are the most protected products in the EU, even more than dairy products, and U.S. cotton policy hinders African growth...
If the members of the G8 truly wanted to help Africa, they could do so by eliminating market distorting farm subsidies and reducing restrictive tariffs on African produced food. Of course, such a move would be political suicide for any politician crazy enough to do so. Angry farmers would storm both Washington and European capitols in protest that their government hand-outs had been eliminated. So, if you want to know who's fault it is that Africans are starving, some of the blame has to rest with greedy farmers that demand their share of government welfare and call it price supports.
dlabtot
07-09-2005, 09:20 AM
The ignorance displayed on this thread is astounding. Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'debt relief'?
Who borrowed the monies, from whom, for what purpose, who is now responsible for paying it off?
Educate yourselves, people.
Jay Zeno
07-09-2005, 10:29 AM
It's a bit fascinating that the political philosophy that has the most Bible-oriented Christian members has so much of a problem with the notion of, "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless." It's more about building and keeping one's own dollars.
I philosophically agree that real poverty relief comes from self-reliance. However, I'm not to the point of, "Sorry, kid, I'll keep my money and watch you starve. It helps you build self-reliance."
Deogol
07-09-2005, 12:39 PM
The ignorance displayed on this thread is astounding. Has anyone ever heard the phrase 'debt relief'?
Who borrowed the monies, from whom, for what purpose, who is now responsible for paying it off?
Educate yourselves, people.
Debt and charity are two different things...
I agree, when the old regime is kicked out on it's ass in a coup... especially for corruption and troublemaking... then the lender is and SHOULD BE holding the empty bag for lending to a regime that didn't work.
Lenders to foreign nations should accept there is some risk, and that one is lending to the current regime in power, not any future regimes.
Casual Observer
07-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Lenders to foreign nations should accept there is some risk, and that one is lending to the current regime in power, not any future regimes.
If that money is from an IMF/World Bank fund, you're the lender. American and Japanese tax dollars make up the bulk of the IMF.
Still ready to eat that loss?
TerpsichoreToo
07-09-2005, 01:15 PM
If that money is from an IMF/World Bank fund, you're the lender. American and Japanese tax dollars make up the bulk of the IMF.
Still ready to eat that loss?
Sounds alot like:
"Sorry, kid, I'll keep my money and watch you starve. It helps you build self-reliance."
Lurker
07-11-2005, 06:42 AM
The point you and the Live8 bunch are missing is that when you enable nations to continue economically and ecologically destructive and counterproductive behaviors by subsidizing their mistakes, you're not furthering their development nor their independence--you're creating incapable welfare societies that get hooked on Western aid and therefore continue to suffer their endemic, systemic problems. That's what the Kenyan economist is saying.
I'm not missing that point. At all. Read some of my other posts. Do you know what Dutch Disease is? ALL interaction with outside economies skews your domestic economy's price and labor structure...But we don't seem to have a problem with that when we're buying oil, gems, gold, etc. from these countries, driving up food prices for the urban poor and enabling the overlords to purchase the weapons that keep the general population suppressed and miserable. I'm not saying it's not a problem to artificially support economies, I'm saying that clothes donations are relatively benign, ESPECIALLY in a country where, as the economist points out, nobody is desperate for clothes.
"Economically and ecologically destructive...behaviors"? Accepting clothes donations? "Subsidizing their mistakes"? Giving clothes donations? Huh? Who are you arguing with?
This is so absurd. Remember that we're talking about developing economies here; they're starting at the bottom. Your utopian idea of the "wonders of free stuff" belies the fact you need an economic base from which to operate, and that such aid distorts local economies and prevents the establishment of domestic economies that are self-supporting and geared toward domestic wealth generation. People would most certainly not be better off because they would have reduced means of achieving economic independence and the associated living standards that accompany such development.
It's not a utopian idea. It's a thought experiment so people can step through the actual wealth effects of the events the Kenyan economist is criticizing. Your lengthy criticism is misguided, and you seem to have missed the point. An easy parallel can be drawn between Kenyans accepting clothes and US citizens buying cheap Chinese-made goods in terms of its effect on the average consumer and certain sectors of the domestic labor market.
Lurker
07-11-2005, 06:44 AM
It's a bit fascinating that the political philosophy that has the most Bible-oriented Christian members has so much of a problem with the notion of, "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless." It's more about building and keeping one's own dollars.
I philosophically agree that real poverty relief comes from self-reliance. However, I'm not to the point of, "Sorry, kid, I'll keep my money and watch you starve. It helps you build self-reliance."
Bravo, JZ. This captures my feelings on the matter far more starkly and succinctly than I ever could.
Deogol
07-11-2005, 06:59 AM
If that money is from an IMF/World Bank fund, you're the lender. American and Japanese tax dollars make up the bulk of the IMF.
Still ready to eat that loss?
Yep - but then I think there is a lot of reform of international use of our money that should be performed. Course, that is a different thread all together...
TigersMilk
07-12-2005, 03:43 PM
Bah I didnt watch Live8 and liek Rhia said more exposure for muscians. Bleh. If I wanted to save someone from starvation Id join up with Sally Struthers! Jk
America just needs to know it cant solve everything with a concert, war, or meeting. America just needs to dig a big hole and hide in it Saddam style and stay out of the picture for a bit. But we already have a huge hole in the bugdet we can hide into for a bit to solve our own problems. Im certainly not saying that other people should starve while we americans live it up but we should leave our giant foot out of it and let the Red Cross and others help out like they want to.