Generous George disgorges less than $1 per African

[Shadow]

I don't know much about this issue. I've been really busy and haven't had time to do research on it. But is it not true that the British pound and Euro is worth significantly more than the dollar these days?

How much did the European Union donate to Africa?

 

[hitssquad]

the British pound and Euro [...] worth significantly more than the dollar these days?

xe.com/ucc

--
1.00 EUR = 1.21286 USD
1.00 GBP = 1.81256 USD
--


The World Factbook's figures are in USD, however, so it doesn't make any difference what the exchange rate is.

 

[Art]

I don't know much about this issue. I've been really busy and haven't had time to do research on it. But is it not true that the British pound and Euro is worth significantly more than the dollar these days?

How much did the European Union donate to Africa?

The european union act as independant states and accordingly different members have different policies regarding aid, here is a copy of a link I posted earlier in this thread detailing the amounts; both absolute and % of GNP for the 22 richest counties. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRe...to07%ofGNPToAid

The state I would be most familiar with on this list is Britain and I can tell you in 2001 they unilaterally forgave all bilateral debt owed to them by the poorest countries. As of yesterday following a meeting of the G8 finance ministers, the 7 other members of the G8 followed suit. I believe this will result in an immediate reduction of $40 billion from the gross external debt of subsaharan countries of $231 billion.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20050612&ID=4882581
For those who wonder why this debt should be forgiven here's an interesting quote below;

The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. One trillion dollars compounded at 10 percent per year become $117 trillion in fifty years and $13.78 quadrillion in one hundred years, about $3.5 million for every man, woman and child in the Third World. Their debt is 50 percent greater than this and has been compounding at twice that rate -- over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years

highlighting added by me.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm not saying that their debt should not be forgiven, but the fact that compound interest will eventually cause that debt to exceed the available wealth in the world is not, in and of itself, an argument to relieve all debt. You can relieve some of it, or change the way interest is charged, and still keep the uncontrollable spiral from happening. More cynically, you could seize every asset they have and declare the debt repaid. Further arguments are needed that all of the debt should be relieved. It seems to me that the best is the aid that is being given. It seems absurd prima facie to be giving a country money so that it can pay back the money you loaned it in the past.

 

[Art]

I'm not saying that their debt should not be forgiven, but the fact that compound interest will eventually cause that debt to exceed the available wealth in the world is not, in and of itself, an argument to relieve all debt. You can relieve some of it, or change the way interest is charged, and still keep the uncontrollable spiral from happening. More cynically, you could seize every asset they have and declare the debt repaid. Further arguments are needed that all of the debt should be relieved. It seems to me that the best is the aid that is being given. It seems absurd prima facie to be giving a country money so that it can pay back the money you loaned it in the past.

Yes you are right it is absurd for every $1 currently received in aid the 3rd world are paying the developed world (or more correctly the financial institutions) $13 in debt repayments. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/Scale.asp It has been suggested that one reason why aid was increased a few years ago was to ensure none of these countries did default on their loan repayments because there was a fear that if one refused to pay they might all follow suit.

And yes you are right you can as pointed out in the extract I posted limit debt and interest to just such a level as to ensure you only take every penny of surplus these countries produce. That way you can keep them tottering on the brink without ever actually falling into the abyss.
There are 2 convincing arguments I have heard as to why the debts should now be written off.
a) They have already repaid the money they originally borrowed many times over. As I posted on another thread, compound interest is a powerful tool. In that thread I was pointing out how $5000 invested at 14% compound int. will become $1,000,000 in a little over 40 years. (a compound int rate of 14% is the average yearly return from the major stock indexes over the last 100 years). This of course works in reverse and so relatively small sums can become massive debts very quickly.
b) The statement by George Brown (British finance minister) after the G8 meeting that this $40 billion writeoff will save 5 million lives within the next 5-10 years.

Burnsys who is from Argentina has submitted many posts on how the banking industry adversely affects his country where something like 78% of all government revenue is spent on debt servicing. I believe many of his opinions are entirely justified. Basic banking policy is designed to shift money from the less well off to the wealthy. A couple of simple examples; if you save with a bank the more money you deposit the higher rate of interest you are paid and if you borrow from a bank, the poorer you are the higher rate of interest you are charged. And yes I know this can be justified on the basis of competition and risk management but it doesn't change the fact that wealthy individuals (and countries) get a much better deal than poorer ones.

So well done to Blair and Bush for their actions in getting multilateral agreement on this important issue. Hopefully the momentum will carry through to the G8 summit proper in July when they are due to discuss future aid and fairer trade terms for the 3rd world.

 

[Art]

I came across this article which brings into question the officially reported level of aid provided by the richer countries.

In total, says the study, at least 61% of all donor assistance from G7 nations is phantom aid, with real aid in 2003 accounting for just US$27 billion, or only 0.1% of combined donor income. Nearly 90% of all contributions coming from the United States and France are considered phantom aid.

Link to full article
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/actaidusa/111722294385.htm

In other words, despite political grandstanding on the issue,
G7 donors are only one tenth of the way towards meeting the
0.7% target. And this paltry contribution pales in comparison
with the value of reverse flows from South to North, in the form
of ecological debts, unfair trade rules and South-North financial
flows, which stood at US$710 billion in 2003.

http://www.actionaidusa.org/Action%20Aid%20Real%20Aid.pdf

 

[vanesch]

So well done to Blair and Bush for their actions in getting multilateral agreement on this important issue.

Ha, and if Blair would negociate that his EU rebate will go entirely to 3rd world aid ?

 

[Art]

Ha, and if Blair would negociate that his EU rebate will go entirely to 3rd world aid ?

I doubt it, I suspect it's more likely he'll make his contribution to 3rd world aid from the money he saves from slashing the French farmers' subsidies of £10.4 billion.

 

[vanesch]

I doubt it, I suspect it's more likely he'll make his contribution to 3rd world aid from the money he saves from slashing the French farmers' subsidies of £10.4 billion.

I expected that one

Serious question, though: what makes french farmers so special ? Are there simply more of them, or what ?

 

[Art]

I expected that one

Serious question, though: what makes french farmers so special ? Are there simply more of them, or what ?

It's all quite complicated but the essence of it is the French do better than the Brits for 3 main reasons;
a) The French have reduced the number of farmers they have from 1.6 m in 1970 to just 600,000 today leading to greater economies of scale and so higher productivity. This means they can sell in their domestic market and make a nice profit whilst dumping their surplus abroad (including England) at EU minimum prices. The supermarkets in Britain use their huge clout to force the British farmers, who have not rationalised the industry anywhere near as much as the French, to match the prices offered by the French and so the British farmer's income is crap. Whilst France is the number 2 food exporter in the world. Obviously the strong £ vs the euro is another problem for the British.
b) As EU subsidies have until recently been geared to production the French have benefitted through their greater productivity. One of the main reasons why the French farmers are so upset now (2/3 voted against the constitution) is because the link between subsidies and production is being phased out in favour of subsidies for rural environment management. No prizes for guessing who is spearheading that change.
c) Finally the French (and just about every other EU member) does better than the Brits on discretionary farming subsidies per capita because these subsidies are dependant on co-funding (the EU matches contributions from the member states) such as for example the scheme to encourage young farmers; between 1990 - 97 the French helped 12,952 young farmers at a shared cost of 146m ecu the British helped just 27 at a cost of 152,000 ecu.
There are of course many other factors but I think the above covers the major issues.

 

[vanesch]

It's all quite complicated but the essence of it is the French do better than the Brits for 3 main reasons;
[...]

Complicated indeed !
But, if I understand well, all Blair has to do to get more money out of the EU, is to use his rebate to co-fund British farmers, and send the received EU subventions to the 3rd world, inviting the French to do the same

 

[Art]

Complicated indeed !
But, if I understand well, all Blair has to do to get more money out of the EU, is to use his rebate to co-fund British farmers, and send the received EU subventions to the 3rd world, inviting the French to do the same

Or abolish all EU food subsidies and allow Africa to compete internationally on a level playing field so they won't need handouts anymore. I read recently where Italy was actually exporting subsidized tomatoes to Africa undercutting the local producers. It really is a joke!

 

[vanesch]

Or abolish all EU food subsidies and allow Africa to compete internationally on a level playing field so they won't need handouts anymore.

What a terrible suggestion ! Do you realize how much jobs will be gone when all those aid agencies will have to close their doors ?
And how are we going to show our charitable intentions then ?

 

[marlon]

I don't get it. Africa is the poorest continent on Earth, with a veritable panoply of plagues. The U.S., being the richest, is also the most shameful for its parsimony towards these suffering.

What does this tell us of George W. Bush's charitable beliefs? The Iraq debacle consumes every few days the dollar amount slated yearly for the African people, and the obsession over the tsunami disaster relief ignored that Africa's biweekly needs outpace the tsunami's overall.

http://africare.org/​

Hey, here is a crazy thaught : how about for each 10 dollars the Africans receive, they must make two on their own...i assure you, you will have to abandon your african-aide - program in just a few weeks. Don't just blame the rich countries because they became rich by doing something. Blame some of the laziness, old-fashioned thinking and ancient society-models that are widely spread out over this entire continent. And Blame shallow ego-trippers like Bob Geldoff for setting up useless events that contribute to nothing but their own personal status. I say this Geldoff is a far bigger criminal then Bush...This 'artist' created his entire fame based upon the poverty of others...he oughtta be...errr well, what the helll

marlon

 

[Art]

Hey, here is a crazy thaught : how about for each 10 dollars the Africans receive, they must make two on their own...i assure you, you will have to abandon your african-aide - program in just a few weeks. Don't just blame the rich countries because they became rich by doing something. Blame some of the laziness, old-fashioned thinking and ancient society-models that are widely spread out over this entire continent. And Blame shallow ego-trippers like Bob Geldoff for setting up useless events that contribute to nothing but their own personal status. I say this Geldoff is a far bigger criminal then Bush...This 'artist' created his entire fame based upon the poverty of others...he oughtta be...errr well, what the helll

marlon

Brilliantly insightful, obviously a lot of deep thought and research led you to this profound conclusion; my only criticism is that it's a little verbose as your first 5 words would have sufficed to make your point :zzz:

 

[Art]

What a terrible suggestion ! Do you realize how much jobs will be gone when all those aid agencies will have to close their doors ?
And how are we going to show our charitable intentions then ?

That's easy we can employ the aid workers in munition factories, build up a huge store of bombs and then 'donate' them to some 3rd world country delivered express-air. Damn! that's another idea somebody else has already had

 

[vanesch]

Damn! that's another idea somebody else has already had

You're getting old, Art

 

[moose]

This was probably covered, but there is only so much the government can do for aid. The rest has to come from private charities or massive legislation has to be passed...This same exact thing happened with the tsunami aid stuff. People got angry because the government didnt give that much money, yet they gave all that they could. It turned out that the US gave TONS of supplies and money, but most of it was by private means because there is only so much the government can give.

 

[marlon]

Brilliantly insightful, obviously a lot of deep thought and research led you to this profound conclusion; my only criticism is that it's a little verbose as your first 4 words would have sufficed to make your point :zzz:

Tell me, what have you been doing recently to solve the socalled Africa-problems, aside from whining about it and blaming others ?

Like dexter and others said, the problems in Africa are due to internal corruption and medieval views on society

marlon

 

[vanesch]

Like dexter and others said, the problems in Africa are due to internal corruption and medieval views on society

And on top of that, they are black and stupid over there !
I even wonder if they smell good.

(guys, I'm kidding...)

 

[Art]

Tell me, what have you been doing recently to solve the socalled Africa-problems, aside from whining about it and blaming others ?

Like dexter and others said, the problems in Africa are due to internal corruption and medieval views on society

marlon

I am trying to raise awareness of the problem by posting and exchanging with other serious contributors relevant information thus engendering intelligent, rational discussion. I suggest you take the time to read the earlier posts on this thread and then maybe you might have something constructive to add other than banal comments.

 

[marlon]

I am trying to raise awareness of the problem by posting and exchanging with other serious contributors relevant information thus engendering intelligent, rational discussion. I suggest you take the time to read the earlier posts on this thread and then maybe you might have something constructive to add other than banal comments.

excuse me but don't get agitated because you do not want to see the truth on this banal subject, thankyouverymuch. I did take the effort of reading the previous posts, though i don't need to explain myself to you. I was certainly not impressed with the 'content' and that is why i ask you : what are your possible ways out. raising awareness is not enough and raising awareness by blaming others certainly is not very credible, wouldn't you say my dear friend ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

And on top of that, they are black and stupid over there !
I even wonder if they smell good.

vanesch, don't be so down to earth

(guys, I'm kidding...)

isn't it sad you have to add this line ?

marlon

 

[vanesch]

isn't it sad you have to add this line ?

It is. But I have to, last time I posted a truly cynical joke of bad taste (*), it was removed by a moderator because it wasn't clear to all that it was a joke, apparently...

(*) it had to do with importing poor kids from the third world and pedophiles and... ah, well, I won't repeat it here. It was of bad taste

 

[marlon]

It is. But I have to, last time I posted a truly cynical joke of bad taste (*), it was removed by a moderator because it wasn't clear to all that it was a joke, apparently...

(*) it had to do with importing poor kids from the third world and pedophiles and... ah, well, I won't repeat it here. It was of bad taste

ok then

marlon

 

[Art]

It is. But I have to, last time I posted a truly cynical joke of bad taste (*), it was removed by a moderator because it wasn't clear to all that it was a joke, apparently...

(*) it had to do with importing poor kids from the third world and pedophiles and... ah, well, I won't repeat it here. It was of bad taste

I suspect Marlon is intimating that your statement stood well as a fact rather than a joke. Perhaps he/she would clarify that for us.

 

[vanesch]

I suspect Marlon is intimating that your statement stood well as a fact rather than a joke. Perhaps he/she would clarify that for us.

Are you suggesting he has been reading "Tintin in Congo" a few times too much ?

 

[marlon]

I suspect Marlon is intimating that your statement stood well as a fact rather than a joke. Perhaps he/she would clarify that for us.

ok, bit perhaps you first want to answer my question that i asked you already TWICE?


marlon

 

[vanesch]

ok, bit perhaps you first want to answer my question that i asked you already TWICE?

I think Art did that already: erase debts and fully open the free food market without protectionism.

I'm against the second point, for several reasons:
- opening the food market (no agriculture subventions anymore in the EU and US) would completely ruin western agriculture, and food is too strategic an item to depend on others for.
- we need a poor continent somewhere to make us feel better ourselves
- there's a whole economy depending on "helping Africa" which would collapse if they finally rose out of their misery
- the fundamental human need to show off with charity would be faced with a problem of no demand for it anymore.
- the pharmaceutic industry needs testing
- what are we going to do with our nuclear and toxic waste ?
- how are we going to find causes of our own problems then ?

So long live poor, exploited Africa and humanitary aid on long term.

(damn, I let myself go again...)

 

[Art]

As I've already outlined in my various posts, there are 3 areas that need to be addressed to help the poorest African nations;
1) Debt relief.
2) Targeted aid.
3) Abolishment of current trade restrictive practices.

 

[marlon]

As I've already outlined in my various posts, there are 3 areas that need to be addressed to help the poorest African nations;
1) Debt relief.
2) Targeted aid.
3) Abolishment of current trade restrictive practices.

again, we all know this for several decades now...even Bob Geldof knows this...that should say enough...it will not do...

here is my list

1) abolish standard african tribes
2) impose western democratic models and economic systems
3) abolish ancient religions that mix with politics
4) install capitalism
5) this is the most important one : install good universities because education is the clue to all solutions. and i don't mean education on religion...science is what we need !
5) abolish the common african vision on human relationsships between men and women
6) ok, debt relief, though that won't make the primordial difference
7) it goes on and on and on but you sure as hell should not give money


marlon

 

[vanesch]

1) abolish standard african tribes

How do you do this ? With gas ?

 

[PerennialII]

7) it goes on and on and on but you sure as hell should not give money
marlon

In a sense I find this overall principle reasonable, it's not like sending sacks of $s is the key, but the purpose is to aid the African nations in building their societies and getting "things" (like schooling) working (naturally eradicating of starvation etc. are the things first on the list). A whole lot of it is however carried out by $s, so it's more like assuring the aid is used where it's supposed to and does the most good.

If we've learned anything from colonialism, cold war etc. IMHO, it is that we need to guide and aid e.g. the developing nations, not march in like the great white "bwana" and disband their religious beliefs and so forth (the "missionary" approach for showing the "light" to heathen which I for one take to be disgusting and turning on the mission itself) but provide them with the means to choose and do it for themselves. Aid, setting the playing field straight and education play large roles in this (educated people tend to make the "right" choices ... well, occationally).

 

[marlon]

How do you do this ? With gas ?

you really are in your bad jokes-period, aren't you ?

ps : i am glad you are not a political leader, Vanesch...you are way too aggressive

marlon

 

[vanesch]

you really are in your bad jokes-period, aren't you ?

Who ? ME ??

ps : i am glad you are not a political leader, Vanesch

The feelings are mutual