We don’t need their charity/US plans to scrap R67bn in Africa debt

Status
Not open for further replies.

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Nick333 said:
A starving man accepting charity from the devil is a man who will be around tomorrow. A starving man who refuses said demonic charity is a proud fool, and a soon to be dead one at that.
AND THEN THAT MAN BECOMES LIKE THE DEMON. Do you need charity Nick? I never got any, and don’t expect any, what I have I got on my own (apart from the lotto in 2004) the patents all 1952, mine, my 3 companies (now in the USA)I started with out charity, the money I needed I paid back, ALL OF IT. The problem with Africa is that they think they can screw up any which way they want, and somebody will bail them out if they get bogged down.
 
Last edited:

werner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,393
ajak, it is partly "the west's" fault.
if you lend someone money, and they dont pay back, and you forgive them/cancel their debt then no lesson is learnt.
did you ever lend your kid money? if he didnt have to pay it back, and you lent him money again then YOU are the fool here,as your kid will just fsck up again.

1: money does not grow on trees...spreadsheets with numbers ACTUALLY mean something
2: if you lend someone money, get it back. you are doing that person a favour in the long run

from a moral standpoint, if my government has a bunch of debt written off because of "agh, sies, shame, lets help them out" then what sort of a role model do they make for me when the ask for taxes and speeding fines etc? i.e. if you dont pay your bills, why should i?

pride folks, go get some pride.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
werner said:
i dont care about the people's names, but in a majority rule situation, the previous thread was pro "tell the west to go stuff their charity" and this thread seems to be the opposite.

i.e. "this forum" as a majority seems to have accepted this 67bil as a good thing, whereas previously it rejected the attempts of live8.

and it isnt a personal attack, no need to be snotty, just merely idle curiosity at how things play out.
go read the thread.
Apologies for percieved snottyness. This is a forum though differing oppinions are the order of the day thank god else it would be very boring. The 4 or so pro foriegn aid posters hardly constitute a mojority though.
 

dominic

Legal Expert: Telecoms
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
7,291
werner said:
@dominic.
yes, makes some sense, but what you are referring to is going back 300-400 years. it was a way of life back then. we cant possibly hope to understand it nowdays, as it all seems "wrong" but killing and pillagin, by any colour of skin nation, was the accepted norm to a degree. retributions for the past get my vote, but 300 years ago isnt "the past", it is fscking ancient history.

anyway, i blame the romans:) and genghis khan.
yip....damn those mongol hordes

i hear you and would i agree if i didnt hold the view that what was done was done largely intentionally and according to a sucessful recipe which was rolled out in many places.....also if i didn't hold the view that it is still happening, albeit in different forms, through the great intellectual property grab we are currently experiencing

history is a relative concept - we all work with relatively short periods but that is not to say that everyone does and for some 300 years is not long at all for long-laid plans to come to fruition

anyway - it p1sses me off that the west presents itself as doing africa a favour....nonsense
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
ajak said:
AND THEN THAT MAN BECOMES LIKE THE DEMON. Do you need charity Nick? I never got any, and don’t expect any, what I have I got on my own (apart from the lotto in 2004) the patents all 1952, mine, my 3 companies (now in the USA)I started with out charity, the money I needed I paid back, ALL OF IT. The problem with Africa is that they think they can screw up any which way they want, and somebody will bail them out if they get bogged down.
No ajak I dont need charity thanks for the offer though, I'll PM you if I ever do :p

The difference is that Africa does. We are just way to underveloped to compete without a hefty helping hand (at least to start with). And theres no way you can ignore how this continents been used and abused by the west.
 

scool

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
11
Ajak -- it's obvious you've never heard of the term "odious debt." Before arguing, arm yourself with the facts.

"The United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized control of Cuba from Spain in 1898. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated (refused to pay) that debt, arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought not be repaid. This precedent was up-held in Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) when money was put to use for illegitimate purposes with full knowledge of the lending institution and the resulting debt was annulled.

South Africa, Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Argentina and many others are paying debts accrued by dictators that stole the money or used it to oppress their own people. While the odious debt of Iraq must be cancelled, Africans and others of the world’s poorest citizens have been forced to stand in line for decades waiting for limited debt relief of debts that were also accrued under oppressive regimes. The apartheid government in South Africa, for example, was lent billions of dollars that were used to the detriment of the very people that now consequently have to foot the bill."

more here: http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee.cgi?path=/take_action&page=odiousfacts05.html
 

Debbie

Banned
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
7,255
scool said:
Ajak -- it's obvious you've never heard of the term "odious debt." Before arguing, arm yourself with the facts.

"The United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized control of Cuba from Spain in 1898. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated (refused to pay) that debt, arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought not be repaid. This precedent was up-held in Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) when money was put to use for illegitimate purposes with full knowledge of the lending institution and the resulting debt was annulled.

South Africa, Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Argentina and many others are paying debts accrued by dictators that stole the money or used it to oppress their own people. While the odious debt of Iraq must be cancelled, Africans and others of the world’s poorest citizens have been forced to stand in line for decades waiting for limited debt relief of debts that were also accrued under oppressive regimes. The apartheid government in South Africa, for example, was lent billions of dollars that were used to the detriment of the very people that now consequently have to foot the bill."

more here: http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee.cgi?path=/take_action&page=odiousfacts05.html
Great post scool, and very interesting.

And by the way, Telkom customers have directly and indirectly footed some the bill the apartheid government incurred in the late 1970s and 80s.
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,609
dominic...also if i didn't hold the view that it is still happening said:
the great intellectual property grab we are currently experiencing[/B]
Could you elaborate on that?
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
ajak :

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=552368&postcount=19

Xarog said:
Time again to nip the propaganda in the bud.


Africa's debt is not Africa's fault. The blame lies SQUARELY on the shoulders of the so-called west. Even *IF* there was no corruption of any kind on the continent, Africa would still be facing debts it could not honour.

Wealthy western nations have a habit of giving out "loans" at "favourable" interest rates for the purpose of specific "money generating" projects; usually the money is slated for upgrading the industry, or the transport sector, or similar.

But the problem is, the west has absolutely no interest whatsoever in helping Africa to reach a debt-free status. Having a debt ridden continent is a great source of cheap land, cheap labour, and most imoprtantly, cheap raw materials. If Africa had a healthy economy, they'd be using up most of their own natural resources, and thus wealthy first-world nations would have to look elsewhere for their natural resources. Those natural resources would cost more, and thus the west would not be able to afford the relatively luxurious lifestyle that they can today.

These loans almost always require that the country receiving the loan lower import tariffs and the like. Import tariffs are a very important means of protecting local business. If someone from overseas wants to compete with the local market with a product, then import tariffs are the key means of ensuring that the local industry is protected. With Free-Trade agreements though, this protection is gone, leaving wealthier nations to SUBSIDISE the products they are exporting. These products are then far cheaper than the local equivalent - the end result being that the local industry collapses because it's not viable. Capitalists consider this a "good thing", but in truth, the west then exports and subsidises so many products that most of the local industries are wrecked, unemployment soars, and suddenly no one can afford anything. The local economy crumbles, and suddenly the nation is facing rocketing levels of debt which they cannot pay - ripe for plundering by the nation that initiated the economic warfare.

It's no secret why the third world hates the subsidies that the first world gives to its agricultural industry.

Sadly, South Africa is in the process of exploiting the rest of Africa along similar lines.
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Interesting, Yeah right, to me a lot of BS, get over it, forever and ever apartheid and or the white man will be blamed for the stupidity for the African inability to look after it self.I dont listen to reason,i have made up my mind,so you dont need to reply with some witty remark.Cheers:D
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
Where did I say apartheid was to blame? Please point it out, as that is most certainly NOT what I was intending to say, and such a blatant mistake must be corrected immediately.
 

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
Nick333 said:
Why dont we need their charity?

SA may well do without it, but most of the rest of Africa desperately needs it. 10 billion dollars that doesnt have to go to the States is 10 billion dollars that can be spent on much needed upliftment and infrastructure.

The world needs to become a place were the rich help the poor because its the right thing to do.
Where will that $Money end up, More mercedes and trips overseas so all the countries and the do gooders can be thanked for the generosity to support the African debt relief efforts. We will then see even less of Mbeki Ivy and Kie!

If the poor and those living in squatter camps will receive the benefits it would be great, but we will still only build 200 000 brick shacks per year! (called houses). Still TElkom would be allowed to earn 14 Billion per year from such a poor nation. Cell companies on top of that shows the ridicule of this country's situation!
 
Last edited:

Debbie

Banned
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
7,255
Pupa I don't think dominic was stating that as HIS opinion, he was merely just explaining another common argument that people advance.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
pupa said:
Where will that $Money end up, More mercedes and trips overseas so all the countries and the do gooders can be thanked for the generosity to support the African debt relief efforts. We will then see even less of Mbeki Ivy and Kie!

If the poor and those living in squatter camps will receive the benefits it would be great, but we will still only build 200 000 brick shacks per year! (called houses). Still TElkom would be allowed to earn 14 Billion per year from such a poor nation. Cell companies on top of that shows the ridicule of this country's situation!
Your confusing the issues here a bit. SA is not a poor country it just has a lot of poor people living in it, there is no shortage of funds for the politicians to abuse, so debt relief isnt going to make much difference here in that regard. Other african countries may or may not be more deserving.

Anyway I get your general point, but youre basically saying punish the poor rather than benefit the elite. Im not sure how it can be ensured that the benefits of debt relief will benefit the poor but as far as aid gos im sure that there are NGOs and such that can do that work.

IMO with holding aid and debt relief is even more irresponsible than sanctions were during apartheid and absolutely useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top