Global Powers Economic and Military influence throughout History

[vesicles]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

If I remember a little of American history, slave labour was well gone, before the true part of the industrial revolution took place in America.

The key is NOT about industrial revolution, per se. It's about what nations have done to gather wealth and develop their economy. I thought this has been what we are arguing. And the slavery in America was a HUGE reason that the US is what it is today. I don't think any American should deny the contribution of slaves to the economic development of America. As matter of fact, it was the slavery that drove the American cotton industry and British textile industry. The low cost of American cotton increased the competitiveness of English textiles and drove the industrialization of many English cities.

When the industrial revolution took place in England, there were organisations, and individuals who campaigned against the injustices and work conditions, and these aims were eventually achieved.
In China similar organisations and people, attract unwelcome attention of the authorities and..............ahem?????

No matter how many organizations there had been in any of these countries, the terrible cost of human lives during the developing stage of major Western nations had been a FACT. You can read about it in any history book you can find in any library on this planet. I don't understand why you are defending it.

Also, the labor unions in the US was not effective until the 1920's. Many of the social welfare we now take granted was not in place until 1930's. That was almost 150 years after the continuous economic development of the country started. Slavery was officially legal in America from the start of the nation in 1776 to the end of the Civil War in 1865. That's almost 100 years. And even after that, slavery persisted for a long time in the South. As you can see, it takes time to correct mistakes. How many years has China been in economic development? A mere 20 years (let's not talk about the time before that since all workers had been well "protected" by the social safety net under the communistic model). Again, it takes time. You haven't given China enough time to make any corrections.

Once again I dont think just because the West did it, its alright for China to follow suit.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. I'm not saying it's OK for China to do this. what I'm saying is that this is a natural course of economic development. When you want to develop a weak economy, you have to first gather wealth into the hands of a few since you have only limited amount of wealth to begin with. So it would be very painful at first to move the limited wealth from the majority to the few. This is how capitalistic economy works. If one wants to adopt this kind of economic model, then he has to go through this stage. I'm merely using history of Western nations as examples of this painful process. It's painful and it's wrong, but I don't see any other way. If you have a better economic model that can bypass this stage, by all means, share it with us. You might be the next Nobel price winner in Economics.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

ROFL...

China didn't go into Africa until very recently. How did 50+ years of NOT receiving Chinese aid workout for improving governance in Africa?

Very Little : Ayittey was pointing out the way China was doing things was counterproductive, and the suggestion that China was actually in the process of practising neo colonialism in Africa could have some truth behind it.

Back to topic.IMO We could be living in interesting times, unless both parties are prepared to concede on some issues.

 

[bd popeye]

Global Powers Ecnomic and Military influence throughout History

Since you guys are way off topic and having a decent discussion I'll make a new thread which is more in line with the subject matter of this thread.

bd popeye super moderator

 

[bladerunner]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

@Vesicles

They are gone and won't come back. The key is to create new TYPES of jobs more suitable to the developed economies.

IMO Western Corporations have to balance profit with social responsibility and retain a bigger percentage of work at home.

Unless a society practises "Eugenics", there will always be a percetange of the population that are academically challenged. Why should they be denied the chance to work, instead of just serving up "Big Mac's with Fries to Go" and such like.
Or the people who are office workers support staff etc even entry level programming, all shipped off to countries with cheaper pay rates.

Due to the abundance of people going to college It wont be too long before a ordinary graduate will have to do post grad to find a job.

what I'm saying is that this is a natural course of economic development. When you want to develop a weak economy, you have to first gather wealth into the hands of a few since you have only limited amount of wealth to begin with.......

What you are saying here is strikingly similar to "Roger Douglas" (NZ's finance minster circa 1984-90?) and his "Trickle Down Theory" which together with other aspects of Friedmann's? economic theory he employed, became commonly known as Rogernomics and greatly watched with interest by the rest of the world. In that area it was an abject failure,with very little "trickle down" happening.as the top rankers kept it or diverted it elsewhere.

 

[solarz]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

Very Little : Ayittey was pointing out the way China was doing things was counterproductive, and the suggestion that China was actually in the process of practising neo colonialism in Africa could have some truth behind it.

Back to topic.IMO We could be living in interesting times, unless both parties are prepared to concede on some issues.

Counter-productive from a Western point of view, perhaps. It's hilarious the way the West is trying to portray itself as such an authority on African affairs when one considers their abysmal track record.

 

[bladerunner]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

Counter-productive from a Western point of view, perhaps. It's hilarious the way the West is trying to portray itself as such an authority on African affairs when one considers their abysmal track record.

If Ayittey's views are believed, it would be Hard to determine whether China's presence and approch, is beneficial to Africa in the long run.

 

[solarz]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

If Ayittey's views are believed, it would be Hard to determine whether China's presence and approch, is beneficial to Africa in the long run.

Take a look at this article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Perhaps the best insight comes from author Brautigam's question: compared to what?

You say that it's difficult to determine whether China's presence in Africa is beneficial in the long run. Ask yourself this then: compared to what? How beneficial was Western presence to Africa? What better, realistically achievable, alternatives are there?

 

[bladerunner]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

Take a look at this article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Perhaps the best insight comes from author Brautigam's question: compared to what?

You say that it's difficult to determine whether China's presence in Africa is beneficial in the long run. Ask yourself this then: compared to what? How beneficial was Western presence to Africa? What better, realistically achievable, alternatives are there?

I think many African states are controlled by warlords who can't see beyond a truck loads of guns and cash. If a new crop of leaders with vision/nation builders were to emerge, I think China can build longstanding goodwill by teaching the Africans how to do things by themselves. Initially tech transfer during the course of building up the infrastructure, then moving on in technology for job creation, in much the same way China asked of the West.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

I think many African states are controlled by warlords who can't see beyond a truck loads of guns and cash. If a new crop of leaders with vision/nation builders were to emerge, ........

Western commentators like to blame African 'warlords' for many of Africa's problems likely to deflect attention away from the roles of the West or maybe simply just out of ignorance.

One doesn't need to look back to the slave trades or occupations to see the West's role in devastating Africa. Even today, the most basic rights of Africans, the ability to feed themselves, is being destroyed by Western policies. It's no surprise nations fall into chaos and wars when the people starve.
So next time when you see pictures of African warlords with their AK-47s and bazookas, try to think a little deeper for the root cause.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"..........But it is the second offering - the gift that Obama brought to Ghana - which I take great exception to, because it casts a shadow over, in fact paralyses, talk of self-determination.

People cannot achieve self-determination, if their most basic human right – food - is controlled and determined by others.

Obama's gift was the $20 billion agreed last week for financing food security at the G8 L'Aquila meeting.

No more handouts?

This marks a pronounced shift in policy toward food and Africa. Africans, we are told, will now be helped to farm their way out of hunger, rather than rely on handouts from overseas.

And Obama's message underscored this: "I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by - it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change."

This is where I think Obama got his wires crossed or confused. Not because I think his message is wrong; I think the message is to be lauded.

The problem is how he aims to achieve Africa's "transformational" change which, if anything, is contradictory to his spoken intentions.

Obama said Africa needs good governance rather than more aid in his Ghana speech [AFP]
I agree with Obama that governance, democracy and good policies are crucial for Africa's renaissance. But unless America, and in particular northern countries, change their policies toward African agriculture, then the continent will always just get by, if that!

"Food security" will never lead to African food sovereignty and independence until Europe and America do something about their own agricultural subsidies, which they pour on their own farmers.

These subsidies out-compete and ravage Africa's agriculture.

For example, Martin Khor, executive director of the southern world-oriented think tank the South Centre, found that currently 57 per cent of US rice farms would not have covered their costs if they did not receive subsidies.

Khor also says that, between 2002-2003, rice exports were 34 per cent below the cost of producing and milling the rice. Is it any wonder that even Ghana's farmers couldn't compete with imported American rice which has been artificially cheapened because of subsidies?

Ghana was single-handedly picked out by Obama as being a shining light of "good governance" in Africa. It's a shame he never mentioned what American farm subsidies did to Ghana's farmers.

Open markets

Moreover, it is highly unlikely food subsidies will be resolved in the near future as it is these very subsidies that have led to the repeated collapse of the Doha trade round during the last eight years.

But, even if we were to suppose the subsidies issue could be dealt with, will America and Europe open their doors to African agricultural produce? The answer is a resounding 'No'.

COUNTING THE COST

As William Rhodes, senior vice-chairman of Citigroup, writes in the Financial Times: "This new initiative [food security] will fail unless the leading industrial countries open their own markets to a considerably greater degree to food imports from the developing world. Right now there is scant indication that the G8 powers are willing to do this."

Let's also, while we are it, ask ourselves another question. Just how did Africa become so seriously dependent on food handouts?

Yes, of course poor governance, poor leadership and wars contributed to this. But Obama forgot to mention in his Ghana speech a more important reason behind Africa's dependence on food handouts: International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank adjustment policies.

These policies uprooted the agricultural infrastructure that Africa had in place.

IMF policies dismantled marketing boards, abolished guaranteed prices for farmers, removed subsidies on fertilisers and machines and reduced food product tariffs to such a low level that American and European farmers were able to flood the market with their subsidised produce.

That was the real killer blow to African agriculture. And I did not hear Obama apologise for that mistaken and outright destructive "governance".

And I fear that, until northern countries put their own house in order in terms of changing the policies applied to their farmers - Africa's food dependence will continue, and it will always be blamed on Africa's lack of good governance.

Samah El-Shahat also presents Al Jazeera's People & Power programme.

The views expressed in the above column are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy..........."

 

[vesicles]

Re: US media claimed: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao critized the US

IMO Western Corporations have to balance profit with social responsibility and retain a bigger percentage of work at home.

I see this as wishful thinking more in line with thoughts like communism. In communism, people WISH that human would become more responsible and don't need competition to be productive. The communist believers thought that sharing, which is a good virtue being taught since kindergarten everywhere on this planet, can actually help man become successful. We now know how much this is against human nature. Same goes with your wish for any corporation to be socially responsible. The urge to survive beats any well wishes. Surviving in the business world is like swimming against the current. If you don't make an effort, you fall behind and will be gone in no time. All it takes is one company breaking the rules of being socially responsible and become filthy rich and in the mean time beating the competition. Then all his competitors would have no choice but to follow suit. And you can't blame them. One has to make enough to put food on the table. So hoping all companies to be socially responsible is like wishing man to thrive in a communistic society. I got 3 words for you: against human nature.

Unless a society practises "Eugenics", there will always be a percetange of the population that are academically challenged. Why should they be denied the chance to work, instead of just serving up "Big Mac's with Fries to Go" and such like.
Or the people who are office workers support staff etc even entry level programming, all shipped off to countries with cheaper pay rates.

Due to the abundance of people going to college It wont be too long before a ordinary graduate will have to do post grad to find a job.

I believe there will always be jobs that don't need an advanced degree in a developed economy. High-tech/science is the first thing on my mind since I'm in this field. If history teaches us anything, we seem to always find ways out of trouble. We just have to find those jobs. That's why I said we need to focus on this since few people know what this kind of jobs is, including me. FINDING JOBS UNIQUE TO A DEVELOPED ECONOMY. If we all know what they are, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?

What you are saying here is strikingly similar to "Roger Douglas" (NZ's finance minster circa 1984-90?) and his "Trickle Down Theory" which together with other aspects of Friedmann's? economic theory he employed, became commonly known as Rogernomics and greatly watched with interest by the rest of the world. In that area it was an abject failure,with very little "trickle down" happening.as the top rankers kept it or diverted it elsewhere.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this way. It sounds like this is an established theory. By what measure is it considered a failure? History shows virtually all developed economy went through the same thing and no current economy has found an alternative method that allows them to achieve the same kind of success. So how did people figure out this theory is a failure???