G8 Will Fail Because......
Discussion
The G8 leaders will spectacularly fail to agree to cancel the debt or make poverty history because.....
1. Russia won't sanction weapon sale embargos as most of their arms industry is supported by massive sales of weapons to Africa.
2. America and France don't want free trade as their farming industries both rely heavily on subsidies.
I am sure there are lots of other self interest groups, but this is just what I know to be true.
The G8 leaders are always interested in "self" first before others and therefore they will not agree to anything that is going to harm their country, regardless of whether Africa would benefit.
1. Russia won't sanction weapon sale embargos as most of their arms industry is supported by massive sales of weapons to Africa.
2. America and France don't want free trade as their farming industries both rely heavily on subsidies.
I am sure there are lots of other self interest groups, but this is just what I know to be true.
The G8 leaders are always interested in "self" first before others and therefore they will not agree to anything that is going to harm their country, regardless of whether Africa would benefit.
It depends on how you define success or failure.
Will the G8 summit end African poverty tomorrow?-no
Will they accomplish anything useful in terms of reducing African poverty-perhaps
There might well be a commitment to increase aid, though whether the aid helps or not depends on how it is spent.
The key issue is whether the rich world is prepared to consider reducing import barriers on farm products.
The trouble is that when celebrities/rock stars start campaigning to 'make poverty history' that they have very short attention spans. Great progress could be made, in a generation say, with the right policies.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 4th July 10:16
Will the G8 summit end African poverty tomorrow?-no
Will they accomplish anything useful in terms of reducing African poverty-perhaps
There might well be a commitment to increase aid, though whether the aid helps or not depends on how it is spent.
The key issue is whether the rich world is prepared to consider reducing import barriers on farm products.
The trouble is that when celebrities/rock stars start campaigning to 'make poverty history' that they have very short attention spans. Great progress could be made, in a generation say, with the right policies.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 4th July 10:16
vetteheadracer said:
The G8 leaders are always interested in "self" first before others and therefore they will not agree to anything that is going to harm their country
Most of the G8 nations are signatories to Kyoto, which is going to be an economic disaster, so this would not necessarily appear to be the case.
Providing decent anti-malaria measures would save about 3,000 people a day.
1. Clean water so nowhere for mosquitos to breed.
2. Decent anti-malaria drugs, not the crap they use now.
3. Bed nets.
4. Decent Doctors, not quacks which is what most of the population have to put up with as there are no proper doctors.
1. Clean water so nowhere for mosquitos to breed.
2. Decent anti-malaria drugs, not the crap they use now.
3. Bed nets.
4. Decent Doctors, not quacks which is what most of the population have to put up with as there are no proper doctors.
deltafox said:
A major contribution to poverty and starvation in africa could be had by simply shipping large quantites of contraceptives out there.
(stands by for the inevitable slurs from certain quarters)
they already do the problem is sex education and getting them to use them. WR the catholic church doesnt exactly help things by opposing their usage
Any right minded person agrees that Africa is in a shocking state.
But, if Africa becomes a developing continent, what will be the knock on effect on this planet? We've seen what has happened with increased pollution and demand for oil as China develops, so what will happen when every middle class African wants a Merc or TVR on his drive, a 42" plasma screen tv in his house, a supermarket at the end of the road, and to travel to escape the rainy/hot season in his country.
The equation is mind boggling, goes further than supplying enough contraceptives or anti-malaria drugs, although both of those would be a start but it seems imho that solving it is way beyond the vested interests of the G8 leaders.
But, if Africa becomes a developing continent, what will be the knock on effect on this planet? We've seen what has happened with increased pollution and demand for oil as China develops, so what will happen when every middle class African wants a Merc or TVR on his drive, a 42" plasma screen tv in his house, a supermarket at the end of the road, and to travel to escape the rainy/hot season in his country.
The equation is mind boggling, goes further than supplying enough contraceptives or anti-malaria drugs, although both of those would be a start but it seems imho that solving it is way beyond the vested interests of the G8 leaders.
There is an argument that the best thing we could do for Africa is to leave them alone.
This would be damn hard to do. And would require massive negotiations around the world to ensure everybody did so.
For example: Leaving them alone would have involve refusing to trade. No selling any African state weapons. No buying their goods at exploitative prices. No poaching of their medical staff. No pontifical pontificating about condoms etc.
I haven't yet made up my mind. But it seems to me that even doing nothing would be better than the evil stuff we do now.
Do we *really* want to eat asparagus all year round? Buying in food from Africa means "food miles" - bad for the environment, it denies locals the chance to buy and eat the products, it encourages African countries to trade with US instead of with each other...
And yet standing by in the face of the initial humanitarian disaster seems wrong too.
First do no harm.
This would be damn hard to do. And would require massive negotiations around the world to ensure everybody did so.
For example: Leaving them alone would have involve refusing to trade. No selling any African state weapons. No buying their goods at exploitative prices. No poaching of their medical staff. No pontifical pontificating about condoms etc.
I haven't yet made up my mind. But it seems to me that even doing nothing would be better than the evil stuff we do now.
Do we *really* want to eat asparagus all year round? Buying in food from Africa means "food miles" - bad for the environment, it denies locals the chance to buy and eat the products, it encourages African countries to trade with US instead of with each other...
And yet standing by in the face of the initial humanitarian disaster seems wrong too.
First do no harm.
mutt k said:
But, if Africa becomes a developing continent, what will be the knock on effect on this planet? We've seen what has happened with increased pollution and demand for oil as China develops, so what will happen when every middle class African wants a Merc or TVR on his drive, a 42" plasma screen tv in his house, a supermarket at the end of the road, and to travel to escape the rainy/hot season in his country.
I arrogance of this statement makes me sooo angry. Everyone can debate the rights and wrongs of G8 and what may or may not happen. But why the hell should'nt people in Africa aspire to this stuff? Its only what some sad people in Europe aspire to. People are no different across the world, just beacause we 'developed', if that is what you can call it first, then there is no reason why we should stop other people.
What will the consequence be of the above? It will be that the whole world needs to look at the way it lives and how it consumes...
twit said:
But, if Africa becomes a developing continent, what will be the knock on effect on this planet? We've seen what has happened with increased pollution and demand for oil as China develops, so what will happen when every middle class African wants a Merc or TVR on his drive, a 42" plasma screen tv in his house, a supermarket at the end of the road, and to travel to escape the rainy/hot season in his country.
I arrogance of this statement makes me sooo angry. Everyone can debate the rights and wrongs of G8 and what may or may not happen. But why the hell should'nt people in Africa aspire to this stuff? Its only what some sad people in Europe aspire to. People are no different across the world, just beacause we 'developed', if that is what you can call it first, then there is no reason why we should stop other people.
What will the consequence be of the above? It will be that the whole world needs to look at the way it lives and how it consumes...
Sorry, before you get your undergarments all twisted up, where did I say that Africans shouldn't aspire to the same sorts of things you and I do?
Last night I went to pick up one of my kids from a school trip and they were late returning back. As such, I ended up chatting to another parent for half an hour in my car. This bloke, and his family, have spent the last 15 years in Uganda teaching modern farming techniques. I ended up chatting with him about the “Make Poverty History” stuff and he rolled his eyes in that knowing way. He then said a few things which were highly “politically incorrect”, but nonetheless noteworthy. As follows:
1) The real problem with Uganda is that 25% of the adult population (half the men) are totally lazy and refuse to work.
2) They have a tendency to blame colonialism for all of their ills, thereby they won’t take any personal responsibility.
3) The country would be in a far worse state were it not for colonialism. When colonialism ended so did the building of schools and hospitals. Equally, corruption then became far more common place.
4) The major reason for AIDS is not lack of education, they all know about the risk. It is the fact that they leave immoral lives.
He went on to say that charity would have some positive effect, especially for the kids. However, the idea that poverty will be history while the above factors are in place is a total fallacy.
Now the above could sound like something from an extremist rally, but this bloke is a genuinely nice chap, whose sole motive was to help make a difference. He came back pretty disillusioned because, I quote “many Africans don’t want to be helped and simply want to continue to lead an immoral existence”. He also went on to say that he’s met many aid workers as well as politicians who tend to agree with him, but would be shot down in flames if they were to express such an opinion.
Food for thought, if nothing else!
1) The real problem with Uganda is that 25% of the adult population (half the men) are totally lazy and refuse to work.
2) They have a tendency to blame colonialism for all of their ills, thereby they won’t take any personal responsibility.
3) The country would be in a far worse state were it not for colonialism. When colonialism ended so did the building of schools and hospitals. Equally, corruption then became far more common place.
4) The major reason for AIDS is not lack of education, they all know about the risk. It is the fact that they leave immoral lives.
He went on to say that charity would have some positive effect, especially for the kids. However, the idea that poverty will be history while the above factors are in place is a total fallacy.
Now the above could sound like something from an extremist rally, but this bloke is a genuinely nice chap, whose sole motive was to help make a difference. He came back pretty disillusioned because, I quote “many Africans don’t want to be helped and simply want to continue to lead an immoral existence”. He also went on to say that he’s met many aid workers as well as politicians who tend to agree with him, but would be shot down in flames if they were to express such an opinion.
Food for thought, if nothing else!
srebbe64 said:
1) The real problem with Uganda is that 25% of the adult population (half the men) are totally lazy and refuse to work.
Interesting Strebbe
Funnily enough one of the more troubling concerns some commentators have about aid is that it creates a 'dependency' culture. In exactly the same way that the welfare state here has created a 'non-working' class.
JagLover said:
1) The real problem with Uganda is that 25% of the adult population (half the men) are totally lazy and refuse to work.
Interesting Strebbe
Funnily enough one of the more troubling concerns some commentators have about aid is that it creates a 'dependency' culture. In exactly the same way that the welfare state here has created a 'non-working' class.
True, but thinking about it, farbeit for me to critisize others for being too lazy!
srebbe64 said:
Last night I went to pick up one of my kids from a school trip and they were late returning back. As such, I ended up chatting to another parent for half an hour in my car. This bloke, and his family, have spent the last 15 years in Uganda teaching modern farming techniques. I ended up chatting with him about the “Make Poverty History” stuff and he rolled his eyes in that knowing way. He then said a few things which were highly “politically incorrect”, but nonetheless noteworthy. As follows:
1) The real problem with Uganda is that 25% of the adult population (half the men) are totally lazy and refuse to work.
2) They have a tendency to blame colonialism for all of their ills, thereby they won’t take any personal responsibility.
3) The country would be in a far worse state were it not for colonialism. When colonialism ended so did the building of schools and hospitals. Equally, corruption then became far more common place.
4) The major reason for AIDS is not lack of education, they all know about the risk. It is the fact that they leave immoral lives.
He went on to say that charity would have some positive effect, especially for the kids. However, the idea that poverty will be history while the above factors are in place is a total fallacy.
Now the above could sound like something from an extremist rally, but this bloke is a genuinely nice chap, whose sole motive was to help make a difference. He came back pretty disillusioned because, I quote “many Africans don’t want to be helped and simply want to continue to lead an immoral existence”. He also went on to say that he’s met many aid workers as well as politicians who tend to agree with him, but would be shot down in flames if they were to express such an opinion.
Food for thought, if nothing else!
I dont think any of those 4 points are that far from the truth.
And I think some people tend to assume that anyone backing the Make Poverty History movement thinks the opposite and thats its all the "west's fault"
But most people I know dont.
Optimists will hope that awareness created from MPH will open these issues up. And it certainly has brought it to the front of people's thoughts. How long for??We will see.
srebbe64 said:Interesting - thanks for that.
Last night I went to pick up one of my kids from a school trip and they were late returning back. As such, I ended up chatting to another parent for half an hour in my car...
This first-person opinion has done far more to my own thought patterns than all of the bullshit armchair politician comments on here (including my own, I hasten to add).
Anyone else with personal experience with African poverty care to pipe up? We may start to form a much more accurate picture and context of this campaign if we actually know what it's like on the ground instead of assuming knowledge about the circumstances.
What IS noteworthy however is that Bob Geldof and some other major proponents of this campaign actually went there to do some field work and to speak to the aid workers there, so maybe the cynics here should give them the benefit of the doubt as they've been there but have still seen fit to run the campaign.
I give Geldof credit for genuinely caring about the issue (unlike some of the celebrities involved), but I don't necessarily give him credit for knowing the solution.
This is where the cult of celebrity has brought us, the belief that celebrities know how to solve the world’s problems simply because they are famous.
Geldof is a man like any other, he has studied the issue and has visited Africa so he knows more about it than the man on the street, but it doesn't make him an expert.
I pay far more attention to the informed opinions of Scientists and Economists. A recent gathering (which received far less publicity than Live8) developed the 'Copenhagen consensus'. Which shows the most cost effective ways the West can help Africa, and do the most good. Interesting enough the prevention of climate change was the lowest priority due to the massive cost involved.
This is where the cult of celebrity has brought us, the belief that celebrities know how to solve the world’s problems simply because they are famous.
Geldof is a man like any other, he has studied the issue and has visited Africa so he knows more about it than the man on the street, but it doesn't make him an expert.
I pay far more attention to the informed opinions of Scientists and Economists. A recent gathering (which received far less publicity than Live8) developed the 'Copenhagen consensus'. Which shows the most cost effective ways the West can help Africa, and do the most good. Interesting enough the prevention of climate change was the lowest priority due to the massive cost involved.
vetteheadracer said:
2. America and France don't want free trade as their farming industries both rely heavily on subsidies.
Don't want to go too far off topic here, and I agree with what your saying, but the above arguement makes no sense to me at least, which is a major pivotal point in the G8 idea.
We subsidise our farmers alot, which is fine, we get a very high quality product.
Beef is no older than 24 months, no foot and mouth, healthy stock brought up in good standards. Everything is produced to a high quality.
If Africa is rearing cattle to sell beef etc to the UK, then like is already happening, the imports don't need to meet the quality standards of the domestic product.
Even now, I bet an "African" can sell meat cheaper in the UK after logistical costs, than a UK farmer can, simply because the UK farmer has health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, quality laws, cattle passports, admin, insurance etc etc etc.
Africa will never be able to compete directly, the only way they will compete is if their products are not to the same as domestic produce.
If subsidies were cut for example, UK farmers would still have to produce to certain standards enforced by DEFRA and the government. This makes costs high.
Imports can be of any quality and produced/reared in any manner, and because of that costs are very small.
However, what is the point of having one rule for one, and another rule for others?
How can free trade exist when there is such a disparity even now, of how farm produce as the prime example, is produced to different standards.
Hmmmmm?
Anyone else think it would be totally stupid to allow in food produced to low standards and be "competing" in a free market with food that is also on the free market (ie, no subsidy), but has forced higher quality. Seems there would only be one winner in such a situation.
Totally agree with Screbbe64's comment too.
My plasterer who has a friend who has lived and farmed in Africa for many years said much the same. I think it was where the white farmers were all told to bugger off basically.
I think the jist of it was that if the blacks sent the white's home then they were happy to go, but they felt sad that all that they had built would quickly go down the drain.
I think we should just leave them to it. Just sell nothing to them, and take nothing from them. Just let nature take it's course and an equilibrium be found.
Interfering will just make more of a mess than it already is. Good intentions don't always have a good outcome!
Dave
>> Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 6th July 12:16
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff