Wiping Africas Debt - Would solve poverty
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
If Africa had a lifestyle like us it would not last long, because we'd all be in trouble, there is not enough resources on earth to support that many people.
You hear things about how it's going to get harder providing enough resources, then we're giving resources to Africa, and them helping the Africans to live longer and then more will be born, it's a problem that has spiraled out of control and will only get worse and never better until the whole world is in poverty or some natural disaster happens that wipes out most of us.
They say you'd need the resources of 3 planet earths to give en equivalent lifestyle to everyone on earth, no where is those other 2 planet earths have I missed them?
I don't know if it's true, but I heard a fact that apparently if you put all of Chinas population in a line on a conveyor belt, the line would never, ever, ever end, because of the rate of production. In Africa, India, China and perhaps other countries we're breeding like rabbits and it needs to be stopped.
You hear things about how it's going to get harder providing enough resources, then we're giving resources to Africa, and them helping the Africans to live longer and then more will be born, it's a problem that has spiraled out of control and will only get worse and never better until the whole world is in poverty or some natural disaster happens that wipes out most of us.
They say you'd need the resources of 3 planet earths to give en equivalent lifestyle to everyone on earth, no where is those other 2 planet earths have I missed them?
I don't know if it's true, but I heard a fact that apparently if you put all of Chinas population in a line on a conveyor belt, the line would never, ever, ever end, because of the rate of production. In Africa, India, China and perhaps other countries we're breeding like rabbits and it needs to be stopped.
Last edited:
If you would wipe the corruption out of these countries they wouldn't need any more money, problem is people at the top are hoarding all the money coming in and becoming millionaire/billionaires while the rest are being left to starve and die, until you sort that problem out no amount of money will help Africa.
Bet he gives more percentage wise to charity than you do...
It really, really can't.
[TW]Fox;19885772 said:
Well obviously it could, but probably not with the current population.
But I guess the important question is, if there were no poverty, what would there be to prevent the population of the human race from increasing until it could no longer be supported?
I would disagree and say that it could easily support the current population. The sum of all human production could very easily provide the basics for everyone. Assuming we can conquer limited natural resources with technology then there's also no reason why we can't even provide a standard of living for everyone to Western standards.
Most of the middle east is already well developed though, all they need is less despots and more stable leaders. If you compare technology levels in the middle east to the west there isn;t that much of a gap. The problem is in their oppressive governments that keep people a little downtrodden in the attempt to maintain public order.
Africa however (with a few exceptions) is primarily made of fail from grass roots up. Much of this is a throwback from the old imperialistic days, but a lot of it is down to them not really making an effort to help themselves as they know that the rest of the world will just cut them a cheque to get them through full well knowing there is little to no chance of repayment.
I say survival of the fitest, let them go down alone if they can;t be arsed to support themselves.
Wipe Africa's debt ?
They'd just run up another £250Bn. Spending it all on arms of course.
So it wouldn't help the African people, or the West's banks. But the African dictators would love it along with western goverments who just LOVE an arms deal.
They'd just run up another £250Bn. Spending it all on arms of course.
So it wouldn't help the African people, or the West's banks. But the African dictators would love it along with western goverments who just LOVE an arms deal.
or legs ?
And I would disagree with you, followed by an cry of "Poppycock!"
Indeed, but for saying this we are Marxists apparently
I'm intrigued, what do you think is bad about the current Oil trade? Bearing in mind most nations get around 50% (or more) of the profits from the oil trade.*
Unfortunately that money is then frittered away in corruption and wars, not what it is needed.
Most of the post colonialist nations started out as part socialist economies, determined to help their people, problem is the corruption and greed got in the way as the people who campagned for independence became presidents/MPs etc. and realised they could make plenty of money. That was passed down to the lowest police officer and you then have what you have now.
A few nice figures from a book I was reading...
Gabon - 1965: $200m on a several hotels for african leaders
Sierra Leone - similar time - two thirds of the national budget on hosting the OAU (african union conference)
Togo - half their national budget on hotels and palaces to persuade the OAU to come to their nation...
1962- Gabon - Deputies paid more than British MPs - an annual salary more than 70 times the average peasent wage...
Then there is the facts and figures suggesting more was spent on goverments importing alcokol than on fertiliser for the whole country...
Some of the figures are stupendus...
Zambia - 1974: 77% of the housing budget was spent on just 3000 houses for the elite and their servants...
Is that all a problem caused by the west (bearing in mind a large number of those in power were voted in by the people of their nations after those people got the nations independence.
In fact it was a few expat advisors that were trying to stop all this.
Until this sort of corruption stops (and it has got better in many nations) the money from Oil, Mineral and agriculture and manufacture just isn't going to make a difference because most of it ends in the pockets of the elite..
You can argue til you're blue in the face that the west are the problem, in fact the problem IMO is by an large the "me" culture that has risen in Africa, which can be demonstrated to have been around before independence. Everyone is just helping themselves to their "share" apparently...
*This seems to be a recurring comment about Oil and Mineral exploration, but how much of it is true? There really isn't anything like that occuring in this industry on anything like a large scale. Companies pay Millions to get exploration licences, pay millions and have to provide infrastructure upgrades and local ammenites (including things like local clinics and mozzie nets) as part of those rights, then from any discovery most nations force the finding company to sell part of it's share to the NOC (national oil company, which is usually around something like 25-50%), then the international company is forced to hire a crtain percentage of nationals as well as share the remainder of it's profits with the government...
What rot. The problem is most nations aren't stable enough for long term investment on something that isn't going to make a huge amount of money, which things like solar don't do. I agree with the former stuff though. When the government is spending 5-6 times more on alcohol than the entire nation is on fertiliser then there are serious issues. They aren't isolated incidents either, it seems to be have been the norm in Africa. That is a major contributing factor as to why several nations have gone backwards since independence.
The thing is, there's a difference between the capacity of all human production to support all human population, and the best system to use to work towards that.
I think the current capitalist model could support fantastic improvements in the quality of life and prosperity of the world's poorest after a few political and social nudges in the right direction.