PDA

View Full Version : Why western ideologies will not work in Africa



Cardina
November 1st, 2007, 03:16 PM
:cry:The mention of Africa brings into mind, poverty, social restleness, unruliness and all forms of deprivation ever known to men.....but why?

Recently an American Scientist headed for the U.K for a talk during the black history month, was turned away after being qouated to have said Africans are of less intelligence to the rest of the world. Being an African man myself, I felt he was not given the platform to explain himself in a free speach society. However, having read of his remarks and their basis, my only debate with all people of a similar thinking is...

The World has to realise that after colonisation, most African governments in place,e.g Zimbabwe's ZANU PF, did not come into power with set policies in place as would western governments. Out in the bush, strategising on war tactics, there was no time to plan social policies, housing, public health etc, the governemnts came into power promising 'vengeance' to our oppressors. When independence was finally gained, the existing governments then found themselves in charge of a completely new system of which was not traditional to the them. Now, the question is, How does a non-westerner carry on western ideologies and at what point do they draw the line between westernisation and civilisation?
This led me to the conclusion that, unless Africans can define civilisation and development the African way, there will be no 'development' as we know it. Africans are clever, they just have to realise they are lost in western world. Agree?

Squatch347
November 1st, 2007, 07:51 PM
I have posted a thread very similar to this in the past that concerned with aid to Africa. I think cutting aid and forcing markets to develop would be a good start.

starcreator
November 1st, 2007, 10:41 PM
Cutting aid right now certainly has nothing to do with the solution, but using that aid and our political influence to create capitalistic economies and infrastructure that will permit self-sustainment would be ideal. None of the options of the poll match my views, unless "luring back the Westerners" refers to implementing Western liberal democratic policy.

Dela Cruz
November 1st, 2007, 11:58 PM
Cutting aid right now certainly has nothing to do with the solution, but using that aid and our political influence to create capitalistic economies and infrastructure that will permit self-sustainment would be ideal.

I believe that in less developed areas such as Africa and many parts of Asia, "Capitalistic economies", as you suggested, are not the way to go. Keynesian policies and increased government intervention on macroeconomic levels (a mixed economy) would be more fruitful to developing and sustaining industries and the people. In developed countries such as America and much of Europe, the capitalist system works remarkably well, although I would argue that it's less stable than a mixed economy, and economic stability is what regions like Africa needs. That's my opinion on the matter, and on your comment on "capitalistic economies" ;)


None of the options of the poll match my views, unless "luring back the Westerners" refers to implementing Western liberal democratic policy.

I agree with this statement, and I would like to express my disappointment at there not being an option for increased government intervention, although there is one for "less power to governments".

As a sidenote, when you said "Western liberal democratic policy", were you referring to political or economic policy?

Cardina
November 2nd, 2007, 03:23 AM
'cutting aid and forcing markets to develop would be a good start'. Please people, you do realise that aid has nothing to do with development issues. Cutting aid would only make the situation worse. What we need is proper governance, if it is going to be done the western way, then the U.N should take overall charge of the continent and give ruling governments targets and goals to meet and lessen their powers, thereby promoting a conducive environment for investment. Unless such steps can be taken, Britain and the west should anticipate imigration to be a problem here to stay

Dela Cruz
November 2nd, 2007, 06:53 AM
the U.N should take overall charge of the continent and give ruling governments targets and goals to meet and lessen their powers, thereby promoting a conducive environment for investment.

For the UN to take charge of the continent would require international intervention on a scale that many people despise. Lessening the powers of governments is not the way to go if you want to increase investment, and you should be careful about wanting to increase investment at all in some sectors. Decreased government power would decrease the chance for stability, and would increase the power of the richer people, and no necssarily do anything for the poor. On the contrary, you should be supporting increased government intervention to promote a stable environment condusive to foreign investment. Rather than an environment that is open to exploitation by foreign and domestic investors.

manise
November 2nd, 2007, 07:43 AM
This led me to the conclusion that, unless Africans can define civilisation and development the African way, there will be no 'development' as we know it. Africans are clever, they just have to realise they are lost in western world. Agree?What's "the African way" exactly? Africa contains thousands of ethnic groups and many differing philosophies and traditions. What works in Morocco may fail miserably in Tanzania.

I would also like to know what "western ideologies will not work" in Africa. Free-Market Capitalism? Marxism? Keynesian economics? Catholicism? Protestantism? Secular liberalism? In fact, African nations use a combination of all these western ideas with their own local traditions. African nations also must deal with one western concept whether they like it or not: the nation-state, a legacy of Western colonialism.

There is no purely "African way."

Snoop
November 2nd, 2007, 07:52 AM
I see Africa looking to the East and not the West:

Future of Africa Is Bright: OAU Chief

The future of the African continent is "certainly bright," said secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Salim Ahmed Salim, who is in Beijing (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/data/province/beijing.html) attending the China-Africa Cooperation Forum, which began Tuesday.

Mr. Salim, who has held his current post for 11 years, recalled that, when he first came to OAU, the African continent was still suffering from colonialism and imperialism, and today, "Africa is totally free," he said.

He did not conceal his pride as he talked about Africa. "It's a rich continent endowed with rich resources", he said. "But this rich continent has the poorest population."

Now that the African people have gained independence and freedom, they are facing more arduous tasks, he said.

"The challenge now is how to make the best use of our rich resources for the betterment of our people", he said.

To reach this goal and meet challenges posed by unequal international trade, Salim said it is crucial to push ahead with political and economic integration of the African continent.

The intended African Union will be the right medium for such continental integration, Salim said, the objective of which is "to have greater cohesion and greater solidarity within the continent and for the continent to have a common voice to the outside world."

The African Union is expected to be able to channel the energy and resources of Africa for the betterment of all African countries and put the continent in a better position when dealing with the rest of the world, he said.

Up to now, 30 OAU members have signed the Draft Constitutive Act of the African Union, and the new organization can hopefully be founded in the coming few years, he said.

Mr. Salim, who served as Tanzania (http://www.peopledaily.com.cn/english/data/Tanzania.html)n ambassador to China in the 1960s, has special sentiments for China.

He completely agreed with Chinese President Jiang Zemin (http://www.peopledaily.com.cn/english/leaders/jzm/jzmhome.htm) on the need to establish "an equitable and just new international political and economic order", saying the new order shall be constructed with joint efforts from China, Africa and all countries of the world.

"The African people are striving to achieve this goal," he said.

As human society is entering a new millennium, he said "China and Africa need to build a new partnership and fully tap the immense potentials for cooperation, in a bid to make full use of opportunities brought by globalization. Such a partnership is undoubtedly to our mutual benefit," Salim said.

When asked to comment on the China-Africa Cooperation Forum, Salim said it is "unprecedented and meaningful."

He said the meeting is "a very constructive and timely initiative," for the two sides have group dialog on future cooperation.

"The participation of heads of states, foreign ministers and trade ministers from so many African countries is in itself indicative of a better tomorrow for Africa and China," he said.

The OAU chief said he expected the forum to promote China-Africa cooperation and mutual understanding not simply in terms of improving trade relations and technical cooperation, but also in such areas as how the two sides can work together in international settings and worldwide negotiations to meet the challenges of globalization.

He therefore proposed that the two sides establish a bilateral mechanism to "translate what is agreed here into concrete action" and further expand Sino-African cooperation.

Sino-African Cooperation Guidelines for Economic and Social Development, due to be endorsed at the forum, will constitute an effective part of such a mechanism, he said.

In response to the reporter's question on how to help the younger generation in China and Africa to have an objective view of history, and how to inherit and carry forward the traditional Sino-African friendship, Salim said both China and Africa have a long history and ancient civilizations. "The younger generation must not forget history", he said.

Salim stressed China and Africa must educate their youth on the need to preserve what is good in history, because "they are the ones who can ensure the continuation of great civilizations."

Future of Africa Is Bright: OAU Chief (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200010/11/eng20001011_52366.html)

chadn737
November 2nd, 2007, 02:05 PM
My personal opinion would be to basically restructure the borders of Africa completely. Even to this day, all the national boundaries in Africa merely reflect a colonial heritage, just as does the Middle East to a large extent.

As it now stands, most African governments have little control over their country and their is no unity because each nation is still built around the old colony rather than anything truly African. For instance, Sudan. That is one country that should be divided. You have a predominantly Muslim north implementing genocide on a Christian South. I dont think there is any hope of ending this without splitting the two groups.

Squatch347
November 3rd, 2007, 09:03 AM
Ok, for the numerous posts that mocked my comment. I am saying that all aid currently does is to suppress natural market forces and make Africa more reliant on Aid. I heard an African economist speak at Cal Poly once, the summation of his speech was a plea to stop sending aid. Everytime rudimentary markets and political systems (to protect the markets) develop, aid pours in, the markets break down and civil war erupts over the corruption. Aid does nothing but to fatten the fat and endenture the poor in Africa.
A real solution would be to encourage free trade, and the development of markets. Once wealth develops, political systems will develop to protect said wealth. Shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, its how it happened in Europe and Asia.

starcreator
November 4th, 2007, 02:03 PM
I believe that in less developed areas such as Africa and many parts of Asia, "Capitalistic economies", as you suggested, are not the way to go. Keynesian policies and increased government intervention on macroeconomic levels (a mixed economy) would be more fruitful to developing and sustaining industries and the people. In developed countries such as America and much of Europe, the capitalist system works remarkably well, although I would argue that it's less stable than a mixed economy, and economic stability is what regions like Africa needs. That's my opinion on the matter, and on your comment on "capitalistic economies" ;)

There is a cost to that stability. Mixed economies are more expensive and less efficient than private industry, and government (especially corrupt government, like that of most impoverished African nations) cannot achieve the rates of growth necessary to bring a country to industrialization. Keynesian policies cannot function without an industrial economy - built on capitalism - backing them. There are very few situations in which an industry would be best managed by government. On what grounds do you feel that stability is more important than economic growth?

A country rising to stability and economic prosperity from a mixed economy is unprecedented for a reason. We went first from unrestrained capitalism to a mixed, regulated economy, not vice versa.


I agree with this statement, and I would like to express my disappointment at there not being an option for increased government intervention, although there is one for "less power to governments".

As a sidenote, when you said "Western liberal democratic policy", were you referring to political or economic policy?

Regarding your first comment, I don't see how turning more control to corrupt African government is a solution in any sense. Further, I don't see how one can revive an economy through government intervention - government involvement slows and hinders economic growth. That's why we only implement government programs when we have the economy to sustain them.

I was referring to our political values first. Our economic values can only come into play after they have an economy to support equality of opportunity programs.

chadn737
November 4th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Squatch, I have mixed stances on the issue of aid. Speaking of monetary aid, I would probably agree with you. African governments are incredibly corrupt, even the better ones like South Africa. Monetary aid is not going to get much done. Rather we must provide direct aid which can stave off the worst scenarios like starvation by providing food, clothing, etc directly to the people.

For the long term what we must do is three things; education, research and small loans.

In a drought ridden country, where water is becoming scarce, but natural resources are abundant, there is a lot of potential. What is lacking is knowledge and investment.

Build schools, educate the people and in doing so empower them. Provide basic research to overcome the resources that are lacking and to better utilize those that are abundant. And finally, provide loans, particularly to the women for the creation of businesses. However, we are talking small scale loans here, a hundred dollars for a woman to set up a weaving business, that sort of thing. In places throughout southeast asia and south america this has been met with great success.

Rather than try to immediately industrialize the country, we should focus on building a strong rural and agrarian economy. Try to force industrialization and the change is simply too rapid, it is in large part a major cause of all the problems in Africa.

Dela Cruz
November 4th, 2007, 07:21 PM
Mixed economies are more expensive and less efficient than private industry, and government (especially corrupt government, like that of most impoverished African nations) cannot achieve the rates of growth necessary to bring a country to industrialization.

More expensive? Less efficient? I don't see how that is, mixed economies tend to give control to an able government, as opposed to a weak and poor populace. Furthermore, it serves to protect this weak and poor populace from exploitation by certain capitalists, and it helps to safeguard infant industries.


Keynesian policies cannot function without an industrial economy - built on capitalism - backing them.

Few policies at all can function wihout an industrial economy. Whether they are built on capitalism or not.


There are very few situations in which an industry would be best managed by government.

There are several Third World situations, as well mixed economies in extremely prosperous countries in Europe.


On what grounds do you feel that stability is more important than economic growth?

Both are important, but I feel that stability must come before economic growth, and that it is more important in developing countries because:

A) It encourages investment.
B) It protects the people from overly exploitave capitalist ventures. (assuming the governments aren't too corrupt)
C) It sets the stage for increased infrastructure. (Private companies don't build public services such as roads, hospitals)
D) Government support stabilizes desperate economic situations.
E) Government support is effective in combating inflation.
F) Decreased unemployment.
G) Possible increased health and welfare programs.

Those are a few.


Further, I don't see how one can revive an economy through government intervention - government involvement slows and hinders economic growth.

Hitler's Germany and FDR's policies. As much as free-market economists may say, we don't know what would have happened if FDR didn't intervene.


That's why we only implement government programs when we have the economy to sustain them.

What about the horrible economy of Hitler's Germany? The economy was in shambles, but government programs still worked.


I was referring to our political values first.

If that's the case, why did you say "Western Liberal Democratic policy"? Why must it be Democratic? And why must it be Liberal instead of Conservative?

Squatch347
November 5th, 2007, 04:15 PM
I agree Chad. Development through teaching, investment, and technology certainly. I also think that large organizations are pretty much useless in creating growth and development, and that only small groups can create anything meaningful.

starcreator
November 5th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Dela Cruz: You claim that government interventionism facilitates the rise from an agrarian economy to a first world, industrial one. And yet, virtually all first world economies rose in a generally laissez-faire context, with no labour laws, social programs or Keynesian interventionism. Please provide me with one example of a country that took your path to economic prosperity, and demonstrate that its path was more efficient and less grueling that that of the US, Britain, Germany, Canada, etc.


More expensive? Less efficient? I don't see how that is, mixed economies tend to give control to an able government, as opposed to a weak and poor populace. Furthermore, it serves to protect this weak and poor populace from exploitation by certain capitalists, and it helps to safeguard infant industries.

The problem is that on average, government is never more able than private individuals. The absence of any self-interest leads to the mismanagement of capital compared to businesses where self-interest is paramount. This is why government bureaucracy balloons in inefficiency while private business becomes more streamlined and profitable (and passes those savings on to consumers).

Regarding exploitation by certain capitalists, I don't see how any capitalist contribution to the African economy would be a bad thing. Some contributions are just more morally permissible than others.


Few policies at all can function wihout an industrial economy. Whether they are built on capitalism or not.

There is no lasting industrial economy that wasn't built on capitalism. Further, every prosperous economy today practices capitalism.


There are several Third World situations, as well mixed economies in extremely prosperous countries in Europe.

All built on the foundation of capitalism. It was self-interest and profit motive that erected the economies that could then become mixed. None of them rose from barbarianism with public healthcare and education burdening them or government controlling the vast majority of businesses.


Both are important, but I feel that stability must come before economic growth, and that it is more important in developing countries because:

A) It encourages investment.
B) It protects the people from overly exploitave capitalist ventures. (assuming the governments aren't too corrupt)
C) It sets the stage for increased infrastructure. (Private companies don't build public services such as roads, hospitals)
D) Government support stabilizes desperate economic situations.
E) Government support is effective in combating inflation.
F) Decreased unemployment.
G) Possible increased health and welfare programs.

Those are a few.

We need stability in the sense of a government that protects property rights and human rights. We don't need a government that runs businesses instead of private individuals. You are calling for an interventionist role, while I am calling for a role for government as a protector of property rights until there is enough capital for it to assume an expanded role.

To respond to your reasoning:

A.) This would be encouraged if property rights were protected. Government run businesses don't encourage investment.
B.) Why should the people be protected from receiving work and capital from abroad? Isn't even the most "exploitative" endeavour better than destitute starvation?
C.) First, private companies do build roads (if they need to access a resource, for instance) and hospitals (if there is profit to be made). Nonetheless, I will grant you that infrastructure is a role of government - but public healthcare cannot be implemented before industrialization, as there isn't the capital to fund it.
D. and E.) Indeed. But this is still in the spirit of non-interventionism in general,
F.) How? By creating artificial jobs like the Soviets did?
G.) Only after capitalism builds the assets to fund them.


Hitler's Germany and FDR's policies. As much as free-market economists may say, we don't know what would have happened if FDR didn't intervene.

Those policies came after industrialization, not before it. Capital was actually present - as built by capitalism and industrialization - to expend on the creation of aggregate demand. Please tell me which African nation has the borrowing power to reenact FDR's policies.


What about the horrible economy of Hitler's Germany? The economy was in shambles, but government programs still worked.

1. Do you have any evidence that the economy was in shambles?
2. Do you have any evidence that the government programs aided the country in its recovery?


If that's the case, why did you say "Western Liberal Democratic policy"? Why must it be Democratic? And why must it be Liberal instead of Conservative?

Because liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy) has nothing to do with partisan labels - it's a system of representative government. The reasons why it should be democratic are because of the right of the people to self-government.
<center>

_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________

</center>

Squatch, I have mixed stances on the issue of aid. Speaking of monetary aid, I would probably agree with you. African governments are incredibly corrupt, even the better ones like South Africa. Monetary aid is not going to get much done. Rather we must provide direct aid which can stave off the worst scenarios like starvation by providing food, clothing, etc directly to the people.

Which is what we do a lot of the time. I don't know of any charity that advocates turning money over to corrupt dictators.


For the long term what we must do is three things; education, research and small loans.

In a drought ridden country, where water is becoming scarce, but natural resources are abundant, there is a lot of potential. What is lacking is knowledge and investment.

Build schools, educate the people and in doing so empower them. Provide basic research to overcome the resources that are lacking and to better utilize those that are abundant. And finally, provide loans, particularly to the women for the creation of businesses. However, we are talking small scale loans here, a hundred dollars for a woman to set up a weaving business, that sort of thing. In places throughout southeast asia and south america this has been met with great success.

Rather than try to immediately industrialize the country, we should focus on building a strong rural and agrarian economy. Try to force industrialization and the change is simply too rapid, it is in large part a major cause of all the problems in Africa.

You act as if you're speaking about two different solutions, while you're merely referring to the beginning of Africa's industrialization. Forcing industrialization and change on Africa begins with education and small business incentives. We can then work up to greater things.


I also think that large organizations are pretty much useless in creating growth and development, and that only small groups can create anything meaningful.

Why do you think this? Just because UNICEF is big, it doesn't accomplish as much as a three person charitable operation?

Dela Cruz
November 5th, 2007, 09:33 PM
Dela Cruz: You claim that government interventionism facilitates the rise from an agrarian economy to a first world, industrial one.

I don't remember ever talking about first-world countries, or industrialism; only about development in African countries. It would be absurd for either of us to claim that we know how African countries can become first-world in the near future.


The absence of any self-interest leads to the mismanagement of capital compared to businesses where self-interest is paramount.

And how do you reconcile this statement of yours to the rise of Germany's economy during Nazi rule? I don't know of any evidence of Hitler using his powers for personal gain.


There is no lasting industrial economy that wasn't built on capitalism. Further, every prosperous economy today practices capitalism.

I never argued for the abolishment of Capitalism at all. Mixed economies generally greatly include capitalist practices, just with larger government control in certain sectors.


All built on the foundation of capitalism.

Britain and Sweden are more run on socialist mixed-economic policies than capitalism.


A.) This would be encouraged if property rights were protected. Government run businesses don't encourage investment.

But a stable economy and country does..


D. and E.) Indeed. But this is still in the spirit of non-interventionism in general,

The government combating inflation is non-interventionism?


F.) How? By creating artificial jobs like the Soviets did?

No, by creating jobs like pre-war socialist Germany did. An example of this would be the drop of unemployment rate in Pre-war Germany from 30 percent to full employment.


G.) Only after capitalism builds the assets to fund them.

I'm not calling for the abolishment of all capitalist ventures, merely a larger role of the government.


Those policies came after industrialization, not before it. Capital was actually present

Actually, the government played a powerful role in Germany's early industrailization.


1. Do you have any evidence that the economy was in shambles?

Yes. For starters, the unemployment rate was 30 percent, and inflation increased dramatically. In January, 1921, there were 64 marks to the dollar. By November, 1923 this had changed to 4,200,000,000,000 marks to the dollar.


2. Do you have any evidence that the government programs aided the country in its recovery?


During the Hitler era (1933-45), the economy developed a hothouse prosperity, supported with high government subsidies to those sectors that Hitler favored because they gave Germany military power and economic autarchy, that is, economic independence from the global economy.


Like most other economies, Germany's economy had hit bottom in 1932. Under Hitler, the strategy for recovery was largely the work of his economics minister, Hjalmar Schaact, a conservative willing to ignore free market liberalism. Schaact forbade the sending of money out of Germany. He reduced foreign trade largely to barter agreements (trade without money) and he put strict limits on imports - all to keep wealth within the country. Under Schaact, private industry was compelled to reinvest its profits in manufacturing approved by the state. And crucial to Germany's recovery was government spending, much of it on public works, the most visible of which was a new highway system - the autobahn - which the army wanted for more efficient movements within Germany. There was also an electrification program, and government investment in industry. One third of Germany's income had as its source government payments and investments - almost three times the percentage being spent by the U.S. government. And, as in Sweden, the government debt that Schaact was creating was quickly offset by the recovery in revenues that came with the rise in the economy.
Hitler takes Power (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm)

Cardina
November 6th, 2007, 11:53 AM
Guys can I just point out to you something a little more obvious. African economies unlike Western ones, are largely agriculturally based, how capitalism and any other western ideologies will influence a better economy is simply absurd. Any real aid given to Africa should be in terms of fair trade and educating the locals to start their own projects. Any western influence starting a company in Africa will profit far too much from the ignorance of the locals. Take for example,the Anglo-America mines in Ghana, did very little in protecting the locals and from the vast amounts of money they make from these mines, only bought them mosquito nests to help prevent malaria, instead of benefiting the locals by building better housing and schools and hospitals. The ignorant africans were seen singing and dancing in celebration of the mosquito nests being handed out to them with no clue of just how much they were paying for it with their health as most of them showed clear signs of mecury poisoning and other infections. Want to help Africans? best way forward is educating them here and encouraging their return to their natives to help improve the situation.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
:tickedoff:

BlueDreams
November 7th, 2007, 08:17 PM
Ummm...I know someone already mentioned this, but africa just isn't that unified. There isn't one african way.
I think overall this is the problem I see in all of your posts so far...it's overgeneralized. There are multiple problems and it's not necessarily the adoption of a western ideology....many countries all over the world have adopted western concepts and maintained systems similar to their national/ethnic traditions without too much trouble. The bigger problem is what is found in many LDC's be they in Africa or no. There are problems with multi-nation states that are, in general, hard states to keep the peace in to begin with. One country may have people from a variety of distinct languages, cultures, and religions within its borders. The U.S. and most developed countries did not have this hurdle to jump across. Their people were relatively homogenous, which meant that they could rely on the similar backgrounds and, likely, goals of the people to make a democratic government that could run with few questioning said regimes. Beyond this, there are problems with power struggles, military campaigns, and corruption. Without a stable government or a unified people it is hard for any state to move ahead and gain in social status. Ridding of western influence is not feasible or imo a great suggestion. For better or worse, western ideologies are the major influential powers today and they effect the international field in such away that it is impossible to think of any significant state (in size or population) that could completely isolate itself from the influence of said ideology.


With luv,
BD

Advanced apologies...I don't know when will be the next time I'll be able to check anything online....it's going to be a hectic two weeks for me.

Squatch347
November 10th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Why do you think this? Just because UNICEF is big, it doesn't accomplish as much as a three person charitable operation? Because large scale organizations have to have small staffs, as to not be too wasteful. And it takes people to mentor and develop economies and businesses. I would probably have been better served phrasing it that small groups do much more good for their size than large groups, who lose a lot of accountability of their funds.

CliveStaples
November 11th, 2007, 11:14 AM
Not sure what "the African way" is supposed to mean; if it means that improvements will occur at the margins, that we should expect small, incremental improvements over time rather than overnight success, then I agree. If, however, it means lowering the bar for Africans because, well, they're African, then I disagree.

starcreator
November 11th, 2007, 09:35 PM
I don't remember ever talking about first-world countries, or industrialism; only about development in African countries. It would be absurd for either of us to claim that we know how African countries can become first-world in the near future.

What we're doing is trying to lay out an effective path for economic growth. My contention is that capitalism is the only path that a nation of agrarian poverty has ever taken to a nation of sustainable prosperity, especially in its first stages. Your contention is that mixed, quasi-socialist policy would be more effective. I'm asking you to support this with historical examples, and you have not met this burden of proof.


And how do you reconcile this statement of yours to the rise of Germany's economy during Nazi rule? I don't know of any evidence of Hitler using his powers for personal gain.

How much of the economy did Hitler control, though? Under the Nazis, there was plenty of private industry. My central point is that government is less efficient than business.


I never argued for the abolishment of Capitalism at all. Mixed economies generally greatly include capitalist practices, just with larger government control in certain sectors.

Indeed. But mixed economies call for more expensive industries, which sacrifice growth and rarely offer anything to the people that the free market cannot.


Britain and Sweden are more run on socialist mixed-economic policies than capitalism.

Yes, unfortunately, they are. But Britain in particular rose to prosperity via the industrial revolution, which was a period of unregulated capitalism. Is there any example of a nation making a leap to industrialization via a mixed economy?


But a stable economy and country does..

Protection of property rights does generate stability. But the stability of government run business comes at the expense of growth.


The government combating inflation is non-interventionism?

It's indirect interventionism. Controls and policy are used rather than actual government ownership.


No, by creating jobs like pre-war socialist Germany did. An example of this would be the drop of unemployment rate in Pre-war Germany from 30 percent to full employment.

If these jobs are actual jobs that result from economic growth, then why can government do this better than the market?


Yes. For starters, the unemployment rate was 30 percent, and inflation increased dramatically. In January, 1921, there were 64 marks to the dollar. By November, 1923 this had changed to 4,200,000,000,000 marks to the dollar.

Production in real terms doesn't correlate with inflation or unemployment. While the economy was not serving the population ideally in terms of inflation (largely due to the government's printing money, an interventionist measure, not free market policies) or unemployment (which remains relatively high in many strong economies today, like Sweden and France), it may still have been workable. In any case, to move on to your argument regarding how it improved:



During the Hitler era (1933-45), the economy developed a hothouse prosperity, supported with high government subsidies to those sectors that Hitler favored because they gave Germany military power and economic autarchy, that is, economic independence from the global economy.
Like most other economies, Germany's economy had hit bottom in 1932. Under Hitler, the strategy for recovery was largely the work of his economics minister, Hjalmar Schaact, a conservative willing to ignore free market liberalism. Schaact forbade the sending of money out of Germany. He reduced foreign trade largely to barter agreements (trade without money) and he put strict limits on imports - all to keep wealth within the country. Under Schaact, private industry was compelled to reinvest its profits in manufacturing approved by the state. And crucial to Germany's recovery was government spending, much of it on public works, the most visible of which was a new highway system - the autobahn - which the army wanted for more efficient movements within Germany. There was also an electrification program, and government investment in industry. One third of Germany's income had as its source government payments and investments - almost three times the percentage being spent by the U.S. government. And, as in Sweden, the government debt that Schaact was creating was quickly offset by the recovery in revenues that came with the rise in the economy.
Hitler takes Power (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm)

Is there any evidence for the claims made here? How do we know that the economy would not have grown more quickly if Hjalmar Schaact had simply removed all barriers to trade, rather than furthering restriction? How do we know it would not have grown more quickly if Schaact had taken the measures of protectionism he did without initiating government spending and projects, leaving most of the nation's capital in the hands of entrepreneurs and private industry? Further, the US government - which, according to your article, spent much less than Germany's and was far less interventionist - oversaw far greater growth during this period as well.

Finally, even if your example stood, it doesn't tell us anything about the policies conducive to the rise of an agrarian economy. The only examples we have of these economies rising lie in the industrialization of nations like Britain, France and the US - and it was done via pure capitalism, not a mixed economy.

chadn737
November 12th, 2007, 10:56 AM
Guys can I just point out to you something a little more obvious. African economies unlike Western ones, are largely agriculturally based, how capitalism and any other western ideologies will influence a better economy is simply absurd. Any real aid given to Africa should be in terms of fair trade and educating the locals to start their own projects. Any western influence starting a company in Africa will profit far too much from the ignorance of the locals. Take for example,the Anglo-America mines in Ghana, did very little in protecting the locals and from the vast amounts of money they make from these mines, only bought them mosquito nests to help prevent malaria, instead of benefiting the locals by building better housing and schools and hospitals. The ignorant africans were seen singing and dancing in celebration of the mosquito nests being handed out to them with no clue of just how much they were paying for it with their health as most of them showed clear signs of mecury poisoning and other infections. Want to help Africans? best way forward is educating them here and encouraging their return to their natives to help improve the situation.

I believe that I have already suggested this much in a previous post.

The focus in Africa should not be in achieving any sort of industrialization, at least not in the next few decades. First and foremost it should be in achieving basic sustainability primarily through agriculture and small local business owned and operated by Africans.

The original industrial revolutions were marked by widespread poverty and horrible work conditions, but at least they took place under stable governments for the most part. Attempting the same in unstable countries ruled by corrupt officials leads only to civil war as has been observed time and again.

Look at the effects of one of Africa's premier industries, mining. In particular the effects of diamond mining. It has torn apart entire countries. Sustainability at the local level through agriculture and small business is the best route to go.

If we are to redefine progress in African terms then this is it.

Dela Cruz
November 16th, 2007, 02:08 AM
What we're doing is trying to lay out an effective path for economic growth. My contention is that capitalism is the only path that a nation of agrarian poverty has ever taken to a nation of sustainable prosperity, especially in its first stages. Your contention is that mixed, quasi-socialist policy would be more effective. I'm asking you to support this with historical examples, and you have not met this burden of proof.

Very well, From what period of U.S. economic history would you say that the country was non-industrialized and agrarian? In addition, would you classify these attributes as being more fitting to my proposed mixed-economy system or your capitalist/free market system?

1. Protecting industry through selective high tariffs and through subsidies.
2. Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements.
3. A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises.