7 Responses

1. starlight starbright

   February 9th, 2010 at 3:51 am

   1

   Yes it was. Not so much North Africa but sub saharan Africa was better. Look at Zimbabwe, what a mess and during the colonial era it was called the breadbasket of Africa.
   People are getting tired of the constant appeals, it’s the same year after year–how is it any different now compared to the appeals in the 80s?
   Industrialised countries should be encouraged to put call centres and start up industry there.
   That will create employment and help the problem of illegal immigration.

2. Edwin

   February 9th, 2010 at 9:21 am

   2

   Unfortunately, most countries, once freed from colonial rule, chose socialism as their model.
   Many instituted policies of land reform which took farmland away from its rightful owners and created state-owned farms with hired workers. Since there was no longer any sense of ownership, productive land that once fed the country and often exported food quickly became marginally productive.
   As these land “reforms” became commonplace, displaced farmers and their families flocked to the cities where the government promised to provide for them. Since most other productive businesses had been nationalized, unemployment increased as productivity decreased. With fewer goods to export, government revenue declined and the government was unable to provide for the growing dependency class.
   Countries that were once prosperous and enjoyed a growing economy began a downward spiral as more and more reforms were implemented. As hunger and squalid living conditions increased, world attention became focused on helping. Unfortunately, this “help” was in the form of loans from the IMF and World Bank even though they knew it would be impossible for the loans to be repaid.
   Since there was little (or no) oversight as to how these loans were actually used, the ruling class quickly saw an opportunity to become incredibly wealthy – while their citizens continued to suffer from hunger and malnutrition. As conditions continued to worsen, more loans were made. Creditor nations were coerced into “forgiving” previous loans while at the same time being told to make more loans.
   Shipments of food were often left to rot on the docks as nobody was responsible for it. The ruling class even went so far as to remove any references to the country of origin and had their own names stenciled on, taking credit for the gifts of other countries.
   Of course developed countries should be investing in manufacturing facilities but why should they? There simply is no guarantee that some dictator won’t decide to nationalize the facility and kick out the foreigners.
   Another problem is all the detached liberals who raise the claim that workers in these developing countries are being “exploited” by greedy capitalists. Of course, these people are all but clueless as to the real living conditions in these countries and happily make claims that its unconscionable to pay a worker the equivalent of $3 a day when a worker in England or France or the U.S. makes 10 times that an hour. This would be laughable if it weren’t so ridiculous. In many of these countries, people exist on $20 to $30 a month or less. Obviously, anyone making $3 a day 6 days a week is going to enjoy a higher standard of living on $72 a month than $20 a month.
   The only way to create prosperity in any country is to have a price-directed, free market economy. Capitalism is a harsh system that produces winners and losers. it also produces the highest standard of living.
   Once computers became common in offices typewriters became obsolete.
   Henry Ford’s Model T killed the market for horse drawn buggies and wagons.
   Steam power replaced sailing ships.
   Trains replaced the covered wagon.
   The transistor replaced the vaccuum tube.
   Tractors replaced horse drawn plows.
   The only real answer is the increase of capitalism throughout the world.

3. meg

   February 9th, 2010 at 12:46 pm

   3

   Their growth stagnated and they did not have a chance to reach political accommodation during the years of colonial rule. They were left with 57 countries whose borders were drawn by colonial powers with out regard to cultural divisions. Many of the institutions left behind were designed to exploit the people rather than to promote growth and in some countries the people who took over continued the exploitation provoking civil war.
   There has never been enough aid designed to help to make a real difference so we do not know whether or not it could help. Most aid has been military or bribes to keep the leaders on our side. If corporations set up business that employ people rater than just exploit natural resources it could result in really making a difference like it did in China,

4. TriCycli

   February 9th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

   4

   They are under colonial control still, but it is by the Chinese now so no one mentions it.

5. Chosen

   February 9th, 2010 at 5:15 pm

   5

   Well,I’m sure more businesses would not mind opening up there,if it weren’t for the place being run by warlords.

6. daniel m

   February 9th, 2010 at 8:24 pm

   6

   If you value freedom then you are anti-colonial. The best thing we can do for Africa is leave it alone to solve its own problems.

7. Hater Police

   February 9th, 2010 at 11:01 pm

   7

   No. They weren’t. Part of their problem is centuries of external interference.