0
   

AID TO AFRICA - MAKE IT CAPITALISM

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:01 pm
And now a word from one of my favorite professors and economists:

Excerpt and thesis
Quote:
What Africa needs, foreign aid cannot deliver, and that's elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.


Let's expand the thesis to include all countries that could benefit from political and economic freedom, including Iraq.

PLEASE: For those (if any) inspired to discuss this, can we bury all sharp hatchets and keep this an insult-free zone as much as possible?

AID TO AFRICA
--Walter Williams

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is pressuring the rich nations of the world to give more foreign aid to Africa -- to the tune of $25 billion a year by 2010. The U.S. already gave $3.2 billion last year. In the wake of this pressure, we might ask ourselves whether it's foreign aid that Africa needs most for economic development.

A standard myth is there's a "vicious cycle of poverty" that makes economic development virtually impossible for the world's poor nations. This myth holds that poor countries are poor because income is so low that savings cannot be generated to provide the kind of capital accumulation necessary for economic growth. Thus, it is alleged, the only way out of perpetual poverty is foreign aid.

Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.

A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.

Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?

The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe. Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.

Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo. It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.

Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.

One unappreciated tragedy that attests to the wasted talents of its peoples is that Africans tend to do well all around the world except in Africa. This is seen by the large number of prosperous, professional and skilled African families throughout Europe and the United States. Back home, these same people would be hamstrung by their corrupt governments.

The worst thing that can be done is to give more foreign aid to African nations. Foreign aid goes from government to government. Foreign aid allows Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for its leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks.

What Africa needs, foreign aid cannot deliver, and that's elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/africa.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,514 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 06:28 pm
I can't beleive we agreed to throw more money at a broken system. The people of Africa are not going to see over half of that money because most of the govt in Africa are corrupt and don't care about the people. If the UN wants to be useful then they should take over Africa and provide real leadership instead of that worthless leadership they provide now.

UN please step up and do some work for once.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 09:51 pm
We're wasteful if we do. We're damned if we don't. In the court of public opinion, the United States is a bottomless pit of cash that we selfishly distribute with little dribbles of billions here and there. If we refused to fund Africa because we know it's pouring good money after bad, they would make us look horrible.

What is the solution here?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:11 pm
Africa is a continent. It has many countries within it. Perhaps we could start by stating which countries are broken and need fixing.

I don't think there is a singular solution although to be fair the author has pointed out some useful solutions.

Getting rid of dictatorships would be an excellent start. However I don't think unleashing 21st century capitalism all over Africa will solve too many problems, more likely cause problems.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:59 pm
Good points Goodfielder, though I can't see how capitalism would make things any worse.

Walter Williams's essay lists these countries at the bottom of the economic liberty scale:
North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo (I am reasonably certain that Williams does not consider North Korea to be part of Africa. The other four definitely are.)

Is it prudent to pour millions and billions into these countries knowing that the huge lion's share or even all of it will go to enrich corrupt dicators and their cronies and little or none of it will get to anybody who actually needs it? The alternative seems to be world opinion branding as selfish and uncaring any country who chooses not to do that.

I'm conflicted. I don't want my country to look like a selfish uncaring megolithic brute. And I don't wish to enrich brutal dictators.

Is there another practical option? Or am I wrong that the money isn't helping the poorest of the poor in Africa?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:25 am
Quote:
Is it prudent to pour millions and billions into these countries knowing that the huge lion's share or even all of it will go to enrich corrupt dicators and their cronies and little or none of it will get to anybody who actually needs it? The alternative seems to be world opinion branding as selfish and uncaring any country who chooses not to do that.


No, it's not prudent. And I can see the problem starkly. I heard this morning that Zimbabwe is importing maize from South Africa because of a "drought". Mugabe can't admit that the stealing of land from white farmers and the subsequent failure of those farms to remain productive is behind this so "drought" is the spin, no, not spin, it's an outright lie.

Should the West give aid to Zimbabwe when we know Mugabe (when I type that name I want to swear so badly) is going to hijack it and use it for his own ends. Truly I don't know and I appreciate that that is the dilemma being discussed.

I can also see that the author intends that capitalism would benefit certain countries in Africa that have economic potential and that "unleashing' the repressed potential would mean incredible wealth etc. etc. I'm reaching here because I'm ignorant about economics but intuitively it seems to me that Adam Smith had a good idea and that idea was right for its time. Capitalism I think came after mercantilism which grew out of various forms of feudalism and so on. I'll be corrected on this. To answer your question more specifically Foxfyre, can any of those four countries deal with it right now?

For Zimbambwe I think the answer is yes. Get rid of Mugabe and his ilk there, allow free and fair elections and the run-down infrastructure should pick up again and start ticking along as it did before M - (damnit I still want to swear) ruined it. As for Angola, Burundi and the Congo, perhaps some form of UN protectorate might help them. They are - from memory - former colonies that have been ruined by war, dictators, foreign exploitation and so on. I hate to sound paternalistic but perhaps a guided form of democracy and control of their economies while they are being re-built might be the way to go. They're not sophisticated enough yet to even begin to think about socialism so a period of restrained capitalism might be necessary before they attain socialism.

I shall now await the allegations of paternalism, neo-colonialism, imperialism and so on to be tossed at me fromt the Left, as well as being denounced as a hopeless lunatic leftie from the Right. Very Happy

All good fun though :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 12:33 am
When you read this article in the version, published by other papers, it ends:

Quote:
What Africa needs, foreign aid cannot deliver, and that's:

• Elimination of dictators and socialist regimes.

• Establishment of political and economic freedom.

• Rule of law.

• And respect for individual rights.

Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.

source: Sun Herald et.al.

I think, we here in Germany might change our socialist government by democratic elections this autumn; the UK still had got it by the very same procedure.
Generally, I prefer elections to "elimination" - in Africa as well as elsewhere.

And I'm not quite sure, how "economic freedom" in under-developed countries might for FOR the economy of THIS country.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 01:10 am
Wasting the dictators isn't any good, that will just lead to civil wars followed by new dictators. These countries will only progress if and when they attain some form of reliable justice system. The fiscal burden of the oppression isn't that bad, so if the african countries were repressed in a systematic and orderly fasion, like China is, they would be much better off.

A functioning legal system is also a prerequisite for any form of accountability of the leaders to the people, and is neccesary in order to attract investors. Actually, a functioning justice system is the prerequicite of both elimination of dictators, establishment of political and economic freedom, and respect for individual rights.

Privatizing courts dealing with breaches of contract, allowing the court used to settle any dispute to be specified in the contract, would be a good start, though more reforms would certainly be neccesary.

Do you think foreign aid in the form of donating court services might work? Like if all criminal cases in Rwanda were tried before a british court at the expense of western governments, and all contractual cases in the court specified by the contract? I haven't had the time to think this through, but it seems to me that it might work. Police enforcement might still be a problem though.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2005 02:13 am
Quote:
Do you think foreign aid in the form of donating court services might work? Like if all criminal cases in Rwanda were tried before a british court at the expense of western governments, and all contractual cases in the court specified by the contract? I haven't had the time to think this through, but it seems to me that it might work. Police enforcement might still be a problem though.


Good ideas. You're right about the policing aspect too. Australia has sent police assistance to quite a few countries in the region but I don't think any of those efforts were successful in the long term.

The idea of sending aid in kind to assist development I think is preferable to dumping just money on them.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 04:22 pm
Hi guys. I haven't abandoned this thread. I've been slogging through archives trying to find a reseach piece that poignantly addresses this issue, but I've been without success so far --also got sidetracked and forgot to come back. I will return. Smile
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:19 pm
We should demand a stipend from the UN Foxfyre Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:58 pm
LOL Goodfielder. If our collective wisdom comes up with any seemingly workable solutions, I just might forward them on to somebody who might do something about it. (Not that I have a lot of confidence in the UN to do the right thing about much of anything these days.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:03 pm
Okay the following wasn't the article I was looking for, but it has a lot of the same kinds of stuff in it and is 100% pertinent to the issue:

(For those unfamiliar with Walter Williams PhD, he is head of the economics department at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist for like forever. He is occasionally critical of government policies past and present and I believe he considers himself Libertarian politically.)

Self-inflicted poverty
by Walter Williams
June 2004

Did you learn that the United States is rich because we have bountiful natural resources? That has to be nonsense. Africa and South America are probably the richest continents in natural resources but are home to the world's most miserably poor people. On the other hand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and England are poor in natural resources, but their people are among the world's richest.


Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people.


There's no complete explanation for why some countries are affluent while others are poor, but there are some leads. Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they're closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.


What is more important is that if we ranked countries according to how Freedom House or Amnesty International rates their human-rights guarantees, we'd see that citizens of countries with market economies are not only richer, but they tend to enjoy a greater measure of human-rights protections. While there is no complete explanation for the correlation between free markets, higher wealth and human-rights protections, you can bet the rent money that the correlation is not simply coincidental.


With but few exceptions, African countries are not free, and most are basket cases. My colleague, John Blundell, director of the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, highlights some of this in his article "Africa's Plight Will Not End With Aid" in The Scotsman (6/14/04).


Once a food-exporting country, Zimbabwe stands on the brink of starvation. Just recently, President Robert Mugabe declared that he's going to nationalize all the farmland. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the consequence will be to exacerbate Zimbabwe's food problems. Sierra Leone, rich in minerals, especially diamonds, with highly fertile land and home to the best port site in West Africa, has declined into a condition of utter despair. It's a similar story in nearly all of south-of-Sahara Africa. Its people are generally worse off now than they were during colonialism both in terms of standard of living and human-rights protections.

John Blundell says that the institutions Westerners take for granted are entirely absent in most of Africa. Africans are not incompetent; they're just like us. Without the rule of law, private property rights, an independent judiciary, limited government and an infrastructure for basic transportation, water, electricity and communication, we'd also be a diseased, broken and starving people.


What can the West do to help? The worst thing is more foreign aid. For the most part, foreign aid is government to government, and as such, it provides the financial resources that allow Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for the leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks. Even so-called humanitarian aid in the form of food is often diverted. Blundell reports that Mugabe's thugs rip labels off of wheat and corn shipments from the United States and Europe and re-label them as benevolence from the dictator.


Most of what Africa needs the West cannot give, and that's the rule of law, private property rights, an independent judiciary and limited government. The one important way we can help is to lower our trade barriers.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams063004.asp
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 11:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
(For those unfamiliar with Walter Williams PhD, he is head of the economics department at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist for like forever. He is occasionally critical of government policies past and present and I believe he considers himself Libertarian politically.)


Give credit where credit is due: from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman :wink:

Polically he's what many European liberals are: a conservative-liberatarian - that's how others judge him.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 02:37 am
Here I go - cherry-picking and nit-picking (don't knock it you get two for one here).

Quote:
There's no complete explanation for why some countries are affluent while others are poor, but there are some leads. Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they're closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.


Why is it so? And what is meant by "higher standard of living"? My country is wealthier than it has ever been but now there is more wealth in the hands of less people than there has ever been; the gap between the richest and the poorest is greater than it has ever been; is that a "higher standard of living"? Or is it a "higher standard of unfairness"?

I'm with the Bhutan government, they use an index of general happiness rather than focusing simply on economic indices.

Now on the correlation between free market (or mixed economy) countries and "socialist" economies - let's not confuse "socialism" with "dictatorship".

Aside from those couple of quibbles he makes some good points.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:04 am
Goodfielder writes
Quote:
Why is it so? And what is meant by "higher standard of living"? My country is wealthier than it has ever been but now there is more wealth in the hands of less people than there has ever been; the gap between the richest and the poorest is greater than it has ever been; is that a "higher standard of living"? Or is it a "higher standard of unfairness"?


I am quite certain that many in Africa would consider Australia or America's 'poor' to be significantly rich. Its all relative. In any capitalistic society, there will be degrees of wealth, and there will always be those who consider differences in degrees of wealth as 'unfair', but that is for a different discussion I think. Here we look for a way to help Africa raise its standard of living from abject poverty to one in which the people are able to feed, clothe, and put a roof over their own heads.

And I think once they can do that, the happiness index will probably rise too.

(P.S. Socialism is not necesarrily dictatorship but it does restrict the people in what they can own, what they can earn, etc. etc. The truly free market, capitalistic countries generally have lower unemployment and a higher standard of living than those employing more socialistic ecnomies. I think once the people start handing over their freedoms to the government, it is all too easy for a dictator to take it from there. Lets encourage capitalisim in Africa first, to encourage productivity, and then they can decide what form of government suits them best.)
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:42 am
Here we go...NAtion Bulding again.

Didn't the US learn from the mistakes of the past?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 09:55 am
The thesis isn't nation building though, woiyo, and I don't think Williams is advocating that at all. He is providing his informed opinion about what is needed to eliminate all or most of the poverty in Africa and foreign aid isn't it.

Do you have any thoughts on that?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 10:43 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The thesis isn't nation building though, woiyo, and I don't think Williams is advocating that at all. He is providing his informed opinion about what is needed to eliminate all or most of the poverty in Africa and foreign aid isn't it.

Do you have any thoughts on that?


Dictitorial regimes, corrpution at the highest levels of Gov't, genocide. All too familiar as we have seen throughout the world and EVERY TIME the West gets involved, trouble is sure to follow (See Iraq, Iran, etc). Let them settle their own problems by themselves. Only when the citizens rise up to fight for their own freedom, can the problem be solved. So you are correct in this regard.

The West can not force the change, it has to happen internally and the West should butt out.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 10:54 am
So what is your opinion re the current emphasis to send massive amounts of foreign aid to Africa? As the situation exists now, Williams believes foreign aid is doing much more harm than good. I tend to agree.

What if Williams is right and the place to start is not sending more billions to empower dictators to better oppress their people? But the place to start is lowering trade barriers so that African countries have to produce and sell to get all that cash? Would that not provide an incentive for dictators to encourage productivity among the people? And the ONLY way that can be accomplished is by giving them a stake in the effort. And that stake becomes the seeds of capitalism. And from capitalism comes a strong, compelling desire for more freedoms.

Just a theory of course. But I think history confirms the validity of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » AID TO AFRICA - MAKE IT CAPITALISM
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 01:13:50