To Africa or not to Africa

I agree with the free market solutions that this article suggests as the real solution to the serious problems that plague Africa.

To make a way for the people of Africa to trade in a manner that will grow their economy is imperative to their success. And I strongly agree that the people of Africa MUST be able to own their own land instead of this continual abuse by the corrupt leaders (which is what put the poorest nations into this mess in the first place) that claim to own the land via 'communal property powers'.

But I disagree with the flippant way that this article suggests that forgiving the debt and adjusting the aid we already give to Africa to a better type of aid is 'not the answer'.

If the first time someone starts to care about Africa is when they go to a free concert and see other people there who might care about the same issues too, then why pooh-pooh the idea.

Bob Geldof and others saw the hardships that the people of Africa endure, so they DID something about it.

This article would be better served if, instead of telling all these people who are exposing the world to these atrocities that they are wasting their time and talents, it enlightened them (sans pessimism) of the most effective ways to solve the problem.

If Bob Geldof shut the door on this author and said we are not interested in the ideas you have for changing things, then I would side with the author about the points made in the article.

But to say to a singer, "shut up and go about your business", is to waste an opportunity to connect with someone who has shown via actions (albeit misguided in your opinion) that will DO something.

Yes, many of the people that enjoyed the concert forgot the next morning what the whole thing was about and were just happy to score the night before, but that does not remove the quarter of a billion dollars in aid that this 'misguided' group has actually brought to Africa from its first endeavors.

And it does not negate the many who now have a better perspective of what is going on in the world, which might very well had not happened if we were left to the economists of the world to make us sing along with much needed change.

The closing section of this article stated that, "The West can help by tearing up its trade barriers and scrapping its deadly export subsidies; but not by handing out cash".

If a corrupt leader or a poorly trained leader was given millions/billions of dollars and allowed to waste/lose/steal this money, how can we justify keeping this debt on the tab of the poor nations attempting to improve things in thier land?

How can they own the debt if they can not own the land on which the promises were made?

Perhaps the author could also cover what, if any, of these international bankers used American taxpayer dollars to loan the money in the first place.

If there was any, then would we qualify this as taxation with, or without representation?



Popular Posts