I just read a most interesting op-ed piece written by a guy who volunteered in Africa 40 years ago. We have all seen and heard all the celebrities talk about debt relief and donations for the poor in Africa. I respect Bono very much both as a musician and humanitarian. I bought into what he said and says, concerning thier need for cash and drugs. I think debt relief is a good idea, mostly because Bono and Brad Pitt are such good salesman. This guy brings to light some things no body is saying. He brings up the point that as long as corrupt people keep rigging elections, there is no use just throwing money at the continent. How can we, the western world, help the Africans if there is corrupt leadership at the top? What is the fate of Africa? I feel awful about their situation, but what short of invading country after country and toppling the corrupt regimes can we do?
The author of this piece never develops his argument against debt relief, which I think could still be a good start in some countries over there. He also compares old Ireland with Malawi, how they were similar, and how with some education and a rational government, Ireland became what it is today. He doesn't expand on that transformation very much, and I think that could have helpful to shed light on what to do in modern-day Africa.
If we are going to focus on evil dictators, terrorism, injustice, etc. then we needn't look any further than Africa. So what are we going to do about it? How does Africa fit into our priorities? If simply throwing money at them dosen't work what will work? I like the suggestions in the article; education, and keeping the smart people there to work in there own countries would help by leaps and bounds. Also, the rest of the world would probably do well to look at what the church is doing in Africa.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Africa
Posted by davieboy at 12:50 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The only thing that will work in Africa is the same thing that has worked everywhere else there is poverty. Capitalism. If you don't liberate the people and allow them to break the bands of their own slavery to fascist, racist and socialist systems, they will always be poor. No amount of education, or foreign money will EVER make a difference. The pattern of the United States of America is the only true path to wealth and properity. THAT is what Bono and Brad Pitt should be arguing, not global socialism. These guys claim that it is our fault these people are poor and dying. It isn't. They all have to look in a mirror. Not necessarily the people themselves, but the governments that will not allow for a free people to develop as free people.
Now granted, I believe there is some "head start" money and resources that will have to be invested in these countries. Much like in Japan in the late 1940s and 1950s. But, if you want to watch what can happen when capitalism has free reign.. you need to look no further than Japan. They developed a moralistic free economy that competes (and in some ways exceeds) the United States.
Long live Liberty. That should be the battle cry in Africa. Not "Share the Wealth."
There is no doubt that there are problems in Africa. Disease, corruption on all levels of government, genocide, famine, the list goes on and on.
CitizenSaint stated that capitalism is the answer to such problems. I agree, but I think the real crux of this argument is the fact that a liberating form of capitalism is virtually impossible with the current, so-called leadership, in most African nations.
Celebrities, musicians and the whole Hollywood crowd have tried for years to alleviate the poverty in Africa. Remember ‘We are the World?’ No doubt a worthy endeavor to raise money for Ethiopia. How long ago did that happen? The same year Marty McFly traveled back in time, 1985. Are conditions any better there? I have no idea off the top of my head, but I would venture to guess that even if Ethiopia has made a complete turnaround, and as a nation, functions democratically with a thriving capitalist economy, there are a whole slew of other African nations that took its place as the ‘most poverty stricken.’ Where does that money go? It goes into the hands of the coup leader, corrupt president, or religious zealots.
I am not going to try and speculate as to the intents of people’s hearts because frankly, I have no idea, but I would submit that Bono, Brad Pitt, and other Hollywood types truly do want to help. They are just people, like you and I, who have seen the conditions firsthand, and like any compassionate person, want to do anything to help. I just don’t think they really know how.
Money is obviously not the answer, although it helps. Throwing money at problems doesn’t solve anything.
If I may digress briefly, I recently listened to a book by John Stossel of 20/20 fame and a Libertarian, in which he interviewed media tycoon, Ted Turner. In the interview Turner told Stossel that he had donated some huge sum of money to a particular charity. Stossel then replied with a compliment of how successful Turner had been in business, hiring millions of people over the years in his many companies and thus enriching their lives through employment. He then posed the question, 'wouldn’t that charity money do more good in the long run by, if, with your vast business experience and knowledge, you were to start a new company and hire people, than to just give a hand out.' It was at that point that Ted Turner ended the interview. Then as a commentary in the book, Stossel adds that maybe giving money to a charity does more for the person giving, than for the potential recipients. I think this is indicative of the pervasive view among progressives. If I give money than I feel good about helping. What about the results of that money? How is it used to help those in need? This is the very hang up in Africa. Sure it feels good for us to give money to help, but if that money never feeds the starving child, pays for vaccinations or books, than it is nothing but an expensive ‘warm fuzzy.’
The United States is a charitable nation. We give more than any other nation in the world, and rightly so, we are the most prosperous nation in the world. But in the Africa situation, the problem starts at the top. I am not proposing that we go into each nation militarily and remove oppressive regimes. We need to, at the very least, educate the world as to the atrocities that are happening to the people. Then, as CitizenSaint suggested, give "head start" money, and I would add that it be spent strategically. If we know that the dictators are not giving aid to the people, we can go around them to see that the people have their needs met. This can be done through viable charities, and faith based initiatives. It is ridiculous for the US to give aid, in the spirit of charity, and not hold people accountable for it.
Also, we as a nation, and as Latter-Day Saints, don't have to send money to aid. Education, programs, if they are run correctly, and most importantly, the gospel are ways in which those who are poor in spirit can understand their divine worth and make necessary changes in government. It is our job to help foster such an environment in which people rise up and demand changes in their corrupt leaders. That is when the U.S. can fight militarily by backing the people themselves and quickly removing an oppressive regime and replacing it with democracy.
We have been blessed with freedom, the least we can do is to help the people get on the feet with strategic aid in its many forms, and then support them in their own quest for freedom.
Man, I hate to keep sounding like the Negator on this place but your devotion to capitalism seems to me, nieve. You cannot forget, capitalism to a degree exists in much of Africa already. Captilism as a type of economy has advantages, we see them here in the good ol' U.S. of A. everyday. However, captilism is full of inequalities, inequities, downright glutoney and anarchism. These traits are inherent in the capitalistic economy.
Russia (and even South Africa) is a prime example of a capitilistic country with all the above tendencies. Much of the population is still impoverished, without jobs, nothing to eat and no hope. Sure Moscow is a boomtown but for whom and what. Capitalism, as our country found out not more than a 100 years ago, requires industry regulation, worker relief and oversight. These government institutions allow a moralistic safeguard on those that capitalism requires for its success.
The answer to Africa's impoverishment, disease, hunger and corruption is 1. Charity, 2. Political Reform. The country needs a great political reform and for the next 100 years or so will probablly have to live in a form of subsidized living. I don't necessarily think government is the answer but wealthy nations as well as charitable organziations will all have to be a part of it.
Capitalism will only restore economic vitality to the region for all persons if adequately supervised by a reformed government.
For a minute there 'Head' I thought you were employing a tactic of the left, criticism without solution on your attack of capitalism. But you did add a solution following your brief history lesson. Your disdain for capitalism has me a bit worried. You are correct in the fact that capitalism has its flaws, but these are found when theory meets practice with imperfect people. Of course capitalism itself is not the answer in any situation, because frankly it cannot exist in many situations that are currently found in Africa. It must be fostered in democracy and under rule of law, both of which are scarce in the worst conditions among African nations.
Like I said in my comments, there must be 'strategic charity' and government reform, for any real progress to be made in the most impoverished African countries.
'Head' you stated that you don't think government subsidies are 'necessarily the answer' in Africa, but in the same breath you say that for capitalism to thrive, government must be involved through regulation, and oversight. So which is it? C'mon, you know that once government gets involved in anything (apart from the military) inefficencies abound. I would submit that these institutions and bueracracies do nothing but choke capitalism at its core.
Africa needs reform from the top down, and 'strategic charity' (charity + accountability = Strategic Charity). In an free nation, people gravitate toward capitalism because of the potential for the most economic gain despite its flaws.
Since when was capitalism declared the economic system of God. I hold fast to the idea the capitalism is inherently un-equal. In practice, not only is in un-equal it is un-just and un-equitable. Show me a case where it is not so.
Government oversight does not necessarily mean subsidies. Oversight means that someone is actively monitoring the capitalistic economy equitably. The problem with capitalism is the manifestation of problem of humanity. Once we get something, we don't want to let it go. Throughtout the Book of Mormon the downfall of the people was that they gained wealth and congruently, forgot the poor. This is a direct parallel with our society. We gain wealth only to horde it, and in the case of the majority of rich Americans, we find ways not to distribute it. Generally speaking, the rich find ways not to help the poor. In our day, the poor are administered largely through taxes. In this country we do a better job than most. In the world, they do this poorly. Hence, we see the consistent of governments move largely away from capitalistic economies. (We see this is Africa, in the countries of S. America and Asia) As Americans we so often look down our noses at these movements as persons who are not as "advanced" as we are. Instead, we should see it as clues and indicators of the fallacies of a capitalistic economy.
Do governments inefficiently run the markets, yes. However, so do we. I think our government is moving slowly in the right direction of a capitalistic government, tempered with government oversight. There can be some greater efficiencies found such as Mitt Romney's health care initiative. A Flat Tax would more equitablly distribute wealth back to our government because the rich could not hide their wealth in tax shelters and deductions. They would pay according to the law.
Africa, without extreme political change, will not get out of poverty. No amount of charity or handouts will heal their ills without political change and a move to a more equitable society.
‘Head’ we are agreed on at least one point, the fact that no amount of charity will cure the ills in Africa without massive political reform. This post has morphed from a discussion of foreign policy to a discussion about the ‘evils of capitalism.’ And on that note there are a few points I will address/refute.
First, ‘Head,’ no one has declared capitalism the economic system of God, although, among an imperfect people, it is the system that employs the divine principle of freedom and liberty. It employs principles of hard work, ingenuity, and innovation to promote self-interest, which is not analogous to selfishness, according to Adam Smith. He states in Theory of Moral Sentiments, “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it." You are correct in the fact that throughout history, as capitalism is practiced inequality is evident, but you cannot discount for a second the prosperity and economic growth that abound. Inequality occurs when man refuses to give charity. Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that "Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only." He goes on to state that this inequality can be alleviated through charity, namely the church, or in modern terms, a form of faith-based initiatives. Capitalism can ONLY exist in a free society, one in which the government stays the hell out, and the majority of people practice the Judeo-Christian principle of charity.
In the Book of Mormon the only time people succeeded as a society economically was when they were all of one heart, and one mind, Zion. It was then and only then that they “had all things common among them.” In our day we do not have the luxury of ‘one heart and one mind’ and consequently the egalitarian ideal cannot exist. But we can come pretty close employing capitalistic theory, through which man is able to seek his self-interest (hard work), and through his faith in the Almighty and knowledge of the scriptures, give generously to those who are less fortunate. I lift thee and thee lift me and we will ascend together.
Capitalist theory, as practiced by a truly charitable people, ideally the Saints, is the closest precursor to the economic system that we ultimately wish to achieve, in which the people “had all things common among them.”
Penguino, I think this was a well defined and substantiated comment.
I think your thought process on the social and spiritual conditions of the peoples of the Book of Mormon lacks context. It seems you are right that perhaps this is beyond the scope of this post.
In response to your expose. I have this to say.
1. I agree that capitalism, if ran by charitable, honest and godly people, would indeed work for the benefit of others. However, I argue that any economic system under the same auspices would succeed the same.
2. I am pragmatic. This leads me to believe that while capitalism promotes freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it also promotes inequality, injustice and discrimination. In a society such as ours capitialism can only be tempered by government controls and intervention. Therefore, I guess I am not a proponent of "laissez-faire" economies. I think history, post-Industrial Age (when "capitalism" came to the fore-front), can adequately provide all necessary proof. In recent history the global capitalistic economies have consistently proven that they are unwilling and unable to govern themselves. Cross the U.S. / Mexican border and you will see the effects of the capitalistic system. Are they working, Yes. Are they able to provide food for their children, Yes. Are they humanely treated, No. Are they properly compensated for their labor, No. But, that is the capitalistic ideal, right? The markets dictate what and how far the corporation can exploit the human spirit. I saw the effects of this in the Domincan Republic in the Free Commerce Zone. Corporations provide capital, funding and jobs but, it is a double-edged sword. Yes they were working but at what price? Just look at the countless injustices happening in the South American and Asian economies. Atleast in the U.S. we have a strong central government who recognize and are able to combat the "side effects" of the free market.
We could review all the text book definitions of how the "invisible hand" should work and how "in theory" the world should benefit from capitalism but in practical application its inherent flaws are amplified. They are amplified not in dollars and cents, but at the expense of the human spirit.
‘Head’ without delving into another free market diatribe, we may have to agree to disagree on this one. It seems that crux of said argument is not so much the role of markets, but the role of government within them. I contend that there should be as little government intervention as possible, whereas you would like a more. I would rather rely on private institutions, individuals, churches, charities, etc, etc, to supplement for the aforementioned ‘ills of capitalism’ than to strengthen any bureaucracy funded by tax dollars.
By banging the drum of unfettered capitalism I may be merely ‘kicking against the pricks’ of our current establishment. It may just be the little Libertarian economist in me. The pendulum has swung from a safety net, which, if I am not mistaken is your contention, to obstructionism on behalf of government, which is one of my greatest fears.
It is my prayer that we may swing that pendulum back and, by so doing; regain our economic liberties from those on the Hill.
Post a Comment