Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel
Discussion
MrMan001 said:
mrporsche said:
That said the amount of money poured into Africa is huge, and yet they don’t appear to be any further forward.
Since the 60’s Africa has had $866 billion according to oecd ,, other reports suggest $133billion a year.
Lots argue that we should stop giving aid and that the countries have become lazy and dependent upon it.
When the African peasant was poor he had no idea of Europe and was reasonably happy, once he starts to become richer and more educated he sees Europe as a land of riches and easy money.
The poor Africans never make the trip to Europe
Africa has had a tremendous amount of both human and natural resources taken from it by force, within only the last hundred years or so. The legacy of that still goes on to the present day.Since the 60’s Africa has had $866 billion according to oecd ,, other reports suggest $133billion a year.
Lots argue that we should stop giving aid and that the countries have become lazy and dependent upon it.
When the African peasant was poor he had no idea of Europe and was reasonably happy, once he starts to become richer and more educated he sees Europe as a land of riches and easy money.
The poor Africans never make the trip to Europe
Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
popegregory said:
There's still an awful lot of wrong with all of this. Essentially, yes, money goes in. But more comes back out again.
Guardian - "More wealth leaves Africa every year than enters it – by more than $40bn (£31bn) – according to research that challenges “misleading” perceptions of foreign aid."
To develop this point...
Al Jazeera - "Based on a set of new figures, it finds that sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor to the rest of the world to the tune of more than $41bn. Sure, there’s money going in: around $161bn a year in the form of loans, remittances (those working outside Africa and sending money back home), and aid. But there’s also $203bn leaving the continent. Some of this is direct, such as $68bn in mainly dodged taxes. Essentially multinational corporations “steal” much of this – legally – by pretending they are really generating their wealth in tax havens. These so-called “illicit financial flows” amount to around 6.1 percent of the continent’s entire gross domestic product (GDP) – or three times what Africa receives in aid. Then there’s the $30bn that these corporations “repatriate” – profits they make in Africa but send back to their home country, or elsewhere, to enjoy their wealth. The City of London is awash with profits extracted from the land and labour of Africa. There are also more indirect means by which we pull wealth out of Africa. Today’s report estimates that $29bn a year is being stolen from Africa in illegal logging, fishing and trade in wildlife. $36bn is owed to Africa as a result of the damage that climate change will cause to their societies and economies as they are unable to use fossil fuels to develop in the way that Europe did."
Also your other idea about there being some sort of cycle - no there isn't. This isn't football and in 40 years we're not going to remember the US and Europe leading the world in the same way as we now remember Wolves were once the biggest team in Europe.
Unfortunately though (and I do apologise as it was a very fair question given the nature of my replies) I can't answer your question about what level I want them raised to as we then have to go through a huge hypothetical scenario where we even out the world and iPhones now cost upwards of $30,000. I'm simply pointing out that our incredible level of taken-for-granted luxury in this country depends on trampling the developing world something obscene and am therefore only really arguing at those who refuse to see why these guys are doing it (and primarily that Unknown User fellow who seems to think it "laughable" that the issues in the developing world are our responsibility when, yes, they very clearly are).
There have been various successful empires over the centuries, even now it could be argued that the west is losing influence to china.Guardian - "More wealth leaves Africa every year than enters it – by more than $40bn (£31bn) – according to research that challenges “misleading” perceptions of foreign aid."
To develop this point...
Al Jazeera - "Based on a set of new figures, it finds that sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor to the rest of the world to the tune of more than $41bn. Sure, there’s money going in: around $161bn a year in the form of loans, remittances (those working outside Africa and sending money back home), and aid. But there’s also $203bn leaving the continent. Some of this is direct, such as $68bn in mainly dodged taxes. Essentially multinational corporations “steal” much of this – legally – by pretending they are really generating their wealth in tax havens. These so-called “illicit financial flows” amount to around 6.1 percent of the continent’s entire gross domestic product (GDP) – or three times what Africa receives in aid. Then there’s the $30bn that these corporations “repatriate” – profits they make in Africa but send back to their home country, or elsewhere, to enjoy their wealth. The City of London is awash with profits extracted from the land and labour of Africa. There are also more indirect means by which we pull wealth out of Africa. Today’s report estimates that $29bn a year is being stolen from Africa in illegal logging, fishing and trade in wildlife. $36bn is owed to Africa as a result of the damage that climate change will cause to their societies and economies as they are unable to use fossil fuels to develop in the way that Europe did."
Also your other idea about there being some sort of cycle - no there isn't. This isn't football and in 40 years we're not going to remember the US and Europe leading the world in the same way as we now remember Wolves were once the biggest team in Europe.
Unfortunately though (and I do apologise as it was a very fair question given the nature of my replies) I can't answer your question about what level I want them raised to as we then have to go through a huge hypothetical scenario where we even out the world and iPhones now cost upwards of $30,000. I'm simply pointing out that our incredible level of taken-for-granted luxury in this country depends on trampling the developing world something obscene and am therefore only really arguing at those who refuse to see why these guys are doing it (and primarily that Unknown User fellow who seems to think it "laughable" that the issues in the developing world are our responsibility when, yes, they very clearly are).
Large parts of Africa have failed to move forward, they are given aid, they are given loans, which need to be paid back, so yes money will leave the continent.
Dodged taxes by large corporations also happens in the west, that would up to governments to address
Money and profit being repatriated to the companies home country, again happens everywhere it is not unique to Africa
Illegal logging and fishing - again that is something that the governments need to address.
None of these are unique to Africa
The question that cant be answered is to what level you would raise these countries and at what cost to themselves, ourselves and the countries that find themselves competing with these newly financed African economies.
I had thought you could take a failed african state, have it taken over the UN, IMF World bank etc, give them 20 years to develop the country and then slowly hand it back to trusted locals. But they would still managed to unwind the work done and send the money to Switzerland.
Africa has to really want to move forward by itself.
mrporsche said:
Isn't that just another excuse ?
Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
LOL @ mrporsche.......Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
Where to start! You do know Egypt is in Africa? And Ethiopia? And a plethora of civilisations that were perfectly developed.
mrporsche said:
Isn't that just another excuse ?
Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
You could argue that practices of post-colonial Africa's political elites are a continuation of colonial policies and practices.Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
Africa is quite notable in the the sheer longevity of the traumas experienced, running from 1526 well into the 1800s, with colonialism coming right afterwards. Expecting these things to be put right in 20 years is possibly a bit optimistic.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 12th February 15:48
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 12th February 15:51
MrMan001 said:
You could argue that practices of post-colonial Africa's political elites are a continuation of colonial policies and practices.
Africa is quite notably in the the sheer longevity of the traumas experienced, running from 1526 well into the 1800s, with colonialism coming right afterwards. Expecting these things to be put right in 20 years is possibly a bit optimistic.
Some and some.Africa is quite notably in the the sheer longevity of the traumas experienced, running from 1526 well into the 1800s, with colonialism coming right afterwards. Expecting these things to be put right in 20 years is possibly a bit optimistic.
Edited by MrMan001 on Friday 12th February 15:48
If independence started in the 1960's, how long do you think they need to put things right ?
The problem being they were so far behind in 1526, and maybe a little closer today probably due to our intervention. We have closed the gap, i would be very surprised if they could manage that themselves. By the time they have reached "our" level we will probably be living space and using flying cars !
Edited by mrporsche on Friday 12th February 15:56
mrporsche said:
Some and some.
If independence started in the 1960's, how long do you think they need to put things right ?
How long will it take East Germany to 'put things right' versus West Germany? Traumatic events at such scales can cast very long shadows.If independence started in the 1960's, how long do you think they need to put things right ?
Edited by mrporsche on Friday 12th February 15:56
MrMan001 said:
mrporsche said:
Some and some.
If independence started in the 1960's, how long do you think they need to put things right ?
How long will it take East Germany to 'put things right' versus West Germany? Traumatic events at such scales can cast very long shadows.If independence started in the 1960's, how long do you think they need to put things right ?
Edited by mrporsche on Friday 12th February 15:56
In answer to your question.....
It depends what those in east germany want. There will always be some of the old people that hark back to the "good old days", the youth wont see any differences, they are just German. The infrastructure is there, the will is there the government is there, Africa doesn't really have these.
A bit like the UK north South divide there will always be prosperous areas of any country.
West vs East germany isnt really the same as Europe vs Africa though.
mrporsche said:
Isn't that just another excuse ?
Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
The legacy of Empire is far more mixed in Africa than the likes of the Guardian will ever admit. Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
For example this study calculates that per capita GDP in Africa rose by 0.55% a year between 1820-1950 (for contrast that in the UK rose by 1.06% in the same period)
https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/april03.html
It is doubtful as well that the benefits to the UK of the empire in Africa ever exceeded the cost in terms of administration, military and infrastructure costs. It is noticeable that when the Empire was run as a commercial concern the focus was on India, various islands that be could be used to farm cash crops, and other areas with high value trade goods.
Everything that was needed from Africa at that time could be obtained via trade and this trade was genuinely valuable. The Empire in Africa came later and was more for the grounds of prestige and assuming "the white man's burden".
Then came independence and in truth for many countries it wasn't a great success as they were countries in name only, riven by tribal divisions and with inadequate administrators once the British had gone home. Aid has been poured in, some spent wisely, large amounts diverted by corrupt elites.
There is no simple solution and as you say part of the problem is traditional tribal societies, dependent on subsistence agriculture, suddenly forced into the modern world.
mrporsche said:
As seems very common here, when somebody cant answer a question they just ask a different one.
In answer to your question.....
It depends what those in east germany want. There will always be some of the old people that hark back to the "good old days", the youth wont see any differences, they are just German. The infrastructure is there, the will is there the government is there, Africa doesn't really have these.
A bit like the UK north South divide there will always be prosperous areas of any country.
West vs East germany isnt really the same as Europe vs Africa though.
Well to answer your initial question, take whatever amount of time you think it's going to take East Germany (you didn't really answer me either), and then add or subtract as much as you think is necessary to account for the differences you've noted yourself (in bold).In answer to your question.....
It depends what those in east germany want. There will always be some of the old people that hark back to the "good old days", the youth wont see any differences, they are just German. The infrastructure is there, the will is there the government is there, Africa doesn't really have these.
A bit like the UK north South divide there will always be prosperous areas of any country.
West vs East germany isnt really the same as Europe vs Africa though.
MrMan001 said:
mrporsche said:
As seems very common here, when somebody cant answer a question they just ask a different one.
In answer to your question.....
It depends what those in east germany want. There will always be some of the old people that hark back to the "good old days", the youth wont see any differences, they are just German. The infrastructure is there, the will is there the government is there, Africa doesn't really have these.
A bit like the UK north South divide there will always be prosperous areas of any country.
West vs East germany isnt really the same as Europe vs Africa though.
Well to answer your initial question, take whatever amount of time you think it's going to take East Germany (you didn't really answer me either), and then add or subtract as much as you think is necessary to account for the differences you've noted yourself (in bold).In answer to your question.....
It depends what those in east germany want. There will always be some of the old people that hark back to the "good old days", the youth wont see any differences, they are just German. The infrastructure is there, the will is there the government is there, Africa doesn't really have these.
A bit like the UK north South divide there will always be prosperous areas of any country.
West vs East germany isnt really the same as Europe vs Africa though.
You still haven't given a time period for Africa.
mrporsche said:
I had thought you could take a failed african state, have it taken over the UN, IMF World bank etc, give them 20 years to develop the country and then slowly hand it back to trusted locals.
You mention a 20 year timeline here. The only answer I can give you is that I would expect it to be much longer than that, as East Germany (and other Eastern bloc countries) still aren't there after 30+ years.MrMan001 said:
mrporsche said:
I had thought you could take a failed african state, have it taken over the UN, IMF World bank etc, give them 20 years to develop the country and then slowly hand it back to trusted locals.
You mention a 20 year timeline here. The only answer I can give you is that I would expect it to be much longer than that, as East Germany (and other Eastern bloc countries) still aren't there after 30+ years.JagLover said:
mrporsche said:
Isn't that just another excuse ?
Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
The legacy of Empire is far more mixed in Africa than the likes of the Guardian will ever admit. Africa was poor and undeveloped before it was "discovered by Europeans" when they left Africa had been dragged forward probably at a quicker pace than they would have done so themselves. There was cost, but also significant development, that legacy was still there in the 1960's but very few of them tried to build on it, they appeared to revert back to tribalism and corrpution.
For example this study calculates that per capita GDP in Africa rose by 0.55% a year between 1820-1950 (for contrast that in the UK rose by 1.06% in the same period)
https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/april03.html
It is doubtful as well that the benefits to the UK of the empire in Africa ever exceeded the cost in terms of administration, military and infrastructure costs. It is noticeable that when the Empire was run as a commercial concern the focus was on India, various islands that be could be used to farm cash crops, and other areas with high value trade goods.
Everything that was needed from Africa at that time could be obtained via trade and this trade was genuinely valuable. The Empire in Africa came later and was more for the grounds of prestige and assuming "the white man's burden".
Then came independence and in truth for many countries it wasn't a great success as they were countries in name only, riven by tribal divisions and with inadequate administrators once the British had gone home. Aid has been poured in, some spent wisely, large amounts diverted by corrupt elites.
There is no simple solution and as you say part of the problem is traditional tribal societies, dependent on subsistence agriculture, suddenly forced into the modern world.
Many many years ago as kids, we were collecting to send cash aid, to the poor of Africa.
In school we even made models in the woodwork classes, for a local fund raising exhibition, to show all the devices and implements that the cash could provide Africa with, to help itself, which included ways of tapping water sources, to provide (relatively) clean safe water supplies.
Now decades, and decades later, we are `still' being bombarded with adverts for cash, to provide exactly the same aid we were collecting cash for, all those years ago.
Africa has not been a colonized nation for decades, and yet it still seems to be struggling. Your references to the corruption of the politicians, and tribal divisions there, has some not insignificant truth to it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
This is an interesting aspect of what is / has been going on in Africa.
Many many years ago as kids, we were collecting to send cash aid, to the poor of Africa.
In school we even made models in the woodwork classes, for a local fund raising exhibition, to show all the devices and implements that the cash could provide Africa with, to help itself, which included ways of tapping water sources, to provide (relatively) clean safe water supplies.
Now decades, and decades later, we are `still' being bombarded with adverts for cash, to provide exactly the same aid we were collecting cash for, all those years ago.
Africa has not been a colonized nation for decades, and yet it still seems to be struggling. Your references to the corruption of the politicians, and tribal divisions there, has some not insignificant truth to it.
My dad used to work for a large OEM, part of his job was taking apprentices to Africa to do good works, all funded by the OEM. He said it was just depressing. Many many years ago as kids, we were collecting to send cash aid, to the poor of Africa.
In school we even made models in the woodwork classes, for a local fund raising exhibition, to show all the devices and implements that the cash could provide Africa with, to help itself, which included ways of tapping water sources, to provide (relatively) clean safe water supplies.
Now decades, and decades later, we are `still' being bombarded with adverts for cash, to provide exactly the same aid we were collecting cash for, all those years ago.
Africa has not been a colonized nation for decades, and yet it still seems to be struggling. Your references to the corruption of the politicians, and tribal divisions there, has some not insignificant truth to it.
One story he told me was that they set us a fish farm that should have kept several of the local villages in food and tradable goods. He went back the next year with a new group of apprentices and the fish ponds were just dried out holes. He asked one of the head villagers what happened and was told “well, you left”... what can you do with that?
Also in Africa, he used to be responsible for dealerships and used to visit them regularly. He told me that they couldn’t pay most of the staff in money as they would just disappear and get drunk, then come back several days later when the money had run out like nothing had happened. They were paid in food on the most part.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff