Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[Morpheous]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So there is no hope...so then what? Blacks should just sit and wait for some benevolent European to give them what is rightfully theirs?
You still miss the point. This is not about what someone else can give us. This is not about styles of government. This is about doing for ourselves. Look, the Middle Easternn countries have sponsored embargos and raised prices when it was in their interests. Why can't Zambia do the same with copper? If the Chineses need it that bad, make them pay for it! Build some schools, build roads--whatever! Use the tools that you have to get what you want. Everybody else does it to us. Why can't we do it to them?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm talking about! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img]
Black countries have the resources and the impoverished work force that capitalism needs to develop and prosper. None of the state-of-the art weaponry, computers, appliances, etc. can be built without raw materials from AFRICA and to a lesser extent Latin America and the Caribbean. So wah mek?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now we seem to be getting somewhere. What everyone on here mentioned are indeed very good and vital points and they cannot be ignored. However, we need to focus on the fact that while so called "black" lead countries are poorer FINANCIALLY they are among the richest in NATURAL RESOURCES and RAW MATERIALS.

Now if you have bread and few other shops owners like yourself have bread, then the way to sell it at a profitable and sustainable price is to;
DO WHAT THE WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE DOING TO POORER COUNTRIES.

1. Form an association between them and their fellow shop owners.
2. Agree a reasonable profit margin between themselves
3. Sell at that price universally regardless of where clients go to purchase.
4. Regulate the industry

The shop owner scenario is in essence price fixing and many countries are tempted to undercut their neighbours. If they have the goods the richer countries around the world needs the poorer countries WILL have to be united and form a body that regulate the prices and make sure they stick together and stick to their guns. Look at petrol/gas stations around your country - all of them sell the gas/petrol for around the same price give/take a cent/penny or two. You won't find one that is substantially cheaper than the others because all the oil barons sell their oil at roughly the same price per barrel - (despite the tax making up 80% or more of the price of the petrol/gas)! If they didn't do that they would be sitting on oil with no buyers as they would be undercut. Poorer countries with "undiscovered" or "unrefined" oil cannot compete/undercut while their oil sits beneath the ground "unmined".

Poorer countries need to put their interests and wishes before those of richer countries but they need to strike a balance between that and selling/trading at a reasonable price universally across all those that provide the same natural resources. Investment would be based upon mutual benefits rather than exploitation, if those with the raw materials don't unite. Otherwise in my opinion the poorer countries will remain poor and hungry and vulnerable to foreign countries exploiting their natural resources and raping their country; threatening to go to another poor country that has the same/similar resources if their exploitative terms of business are not met.

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

As usual, you went back to ZDNET for programming updates. Do you have an opinion based on yourself or do you always agree with ZDNET? Drone.

Last time I read, Brazil was the nation most upset about Bolivia. They spent an enormous sum to develope the natural gas field of Bolivia. Now Brazil is part of the neo colonial conspiracy?

Joncal, stop this relentless zdnet worship. Expand you sources and develope a wider view of the world.

Neocolonialism is not the issue. The issue is about leadership and common sense.

Tell me Joncal, what is the interest rate Chavez will charge JA for his oil? Tell me, I want to know.

Let us examine Jamaican leadership in regards to oil. Over 50 percent of Jamaica's income goes to debt payments. Jamaica's leadership decides to add to that burden. Chavez will collect.

So much for leadership. The oppressors have gotten very good at hiding themselves. Actually, not so. They rely on weak minds to let them have their way.

So, Joncal, what is the interest rate of Venezuelan oil?

[Serenity82]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So there is no hope...so then what? Blacks should just sit and wait for some benevolent European to give them what is rightfully theirs?
You still miss the point. This is not about what someone else can give us. This is not about styles of government. This is about doing for ourselves. Look, the Middle Easternn countries have sponsored embargos and raised prices when it was in their interests. Why can't Zambia do the same with copper? If the Chineses need it that bad, make them pay for it! Build some schools, build roads--whatever! Use the tools that you have to get what you want. Everybody else does it to us. Why can't we do it to them?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm talking about! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img]
Black countries have the resources and the impoverished work force that capitalism needs to develop and prosper. None of the state-of-the art weaponry, computers, appliances, etc. can be built without raw materials from AFRICA and to a lesser extent Latin America and the Caribbean. So wah mek?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now we seem to be getting somewhere. What everyone on here mentioned are indeed very good and vital points and they cannot be ignored. However, we need to focus on the fact that while so called "black" lead countries are poorer FINANCIALLY they are among the richest in NATURAL RESOURCES and RAW MATERIALS.

Now if you have bread and few other shops owners like yourself have bread, then the way to sell it at a profitable and sustainable price is to;
DO WHAT THE WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE DOING TO POORER COUNTRIES.

1. Form an association between them and their fellow shop owners.
2. Agree a reasonable profit margin between themselves
3. Sell at that price universally regardless of where clients go to purchase.
4. Regulate the industry

The shop owner scenario is in essence price fixing and many countries are tempted to undercut their neighbours. If they have the goods the richer countries around the world needs the poorer countries WILL have to be united and form a body that regulate the prices and make sure they stick together and stick to their guns. Look at petrol/gas stations around your country - all of them sell the gas/petrol for around the same price give/take a cent/penny or two. You won't find one that is substantially cheaper than the others because all the oil barons sell their oil at roughly the same price per barrel - (despite the tax making up 80% or more of the price of the petrol/gas)! If they didn't do that they would be sitting on oil with no buyers as they would be undercut. Poorer countries with "undiscovered" or "unrefined" oil cannot compete/undercut while their oil sits beneath the ground "unmined".

Poorer countries need to put their interests and wishes before those of richer countries but they need to strike a balance between that and selling/trading at a reasonable price universally across all those that provide the same natural resources. Investment would be based upon mutual benefits rather than exploitation, if those with the raw materials don't unite. Otherwise in my opinion the poorer countries will remain poor and hungry and vulnerable to foreign countries exploiting their natural resources and raping their country; threatening to go to another poor country that has the same/similar resources if their exploitative terms of business are not met.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's always going to be bullies and always countries that want to keep others poor or dependent.

The question is what are the leaders(black leaders in this case) not doing?

Something is not being done right.

I think the major thing is that the culture of black governments is not to uplift the people.

I think we need to look at what the succesful governments do vs. those that are failing. It's not merely about a country being poor, but rather it's policies.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Morpheous,
Having black-led countries unite and create cartels to sell their natural resources at high prices sounds good but they all operate as capitalist states which are inherently competitive. Each also has different resources which makes cartels very difficult to form.
Further, their debt load, which everyone but me seems to ignore, is a killer for any serious economic leaps.
You cannot do anything successfully without solving the debt problem and there is no solution in sight.
Neo-colonialism rules and the Third World cannot get out from under it's thumb short of violent revolution.

It would take universal socialism to provide the basics of life to all in the Third World.
The poor countries lack the resources to provide for all within each country but a united socialist Third World could provide the philosophy needed to do just this within the Third World community.
As long as they retain capitalist economies they'll hang separately for the foreseeable future and 12 million people per year will die of starvation ad infinitum.
That is the reality and the capitalist pipedreams you're advocating won't work, can't work, have never worked because they cannot be attempted within the existing neo-colonial structure. It would not be permitted.

IMO

[Morpheous]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

I hear yuh loud and clear sah

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Is it me or does my memory seem to recall that there was there not a time when in the 70's socilaism held sway across most of Africa.. Guess it never happened... Even Mobutu claimed he was a socialist so did Svimibi... But then I guess that they failed, were corrupt, incompentent and we want to do that all again because... we forget after 30 years ????/ Right that never happened...

[ackeepod]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

why is it that some ppl think Black leaders have a single mindset??
they made be Black skinned but some are incompetent, dunce, bright, caring,teef, etc..they dont get together because their competencies, values , interests, abilities ,goals are varied and will always be ..and not only that but once yu think yu know them ..they often change ..

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Because, history has confirmed it. That simply.

Look at Mugabe. Look at the rest and their cronies. Mismanaging is the NORM. I accept no debate about that.

After some thought, I think we have too many tribes. In Africa, when you are there, there is no larger concept of "our people."

After studying some history, I come to realize, Africa had no real massive colonizing power. The Europeans, no; their influence was historical trivial. The persistent talk about that is misdirection. There is a deeper problem.

The Chinese were as separated as us. The people of India were as separated as us. The people of the Middle East were as separated as us. The people of Europe were as separated as us.

What we see to today is the result of brutal colonialism. The Chin and their successors culturally colonized China. The Romans cultural colonized Western Europe. The Slavs, Nords and Germans colonized Eastern Europe. The Arab Semites culturally colonized the Middle East, etc.

Africa is still widely small tribal. And the people think that way.

The place is actually a wonder. I honestly believe, no one Africans can understand the Africa. Not 1, not 10, not 100, not 1000. There is just too much individual cultures.

I do not know the solution for Non-Muslim Africa. But, I want the butchery to stop; my only goal.

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

As for the rest of the Diaspora, as they call us these days, I believe we suffer from a lack of political consciousness. We need to drop the foolish nonsense about capitalism and socialism and focus on progress. We must demand accountability.

Where did the money go and what did we get for the debt; such simple questions? Yet, no answers.

Some will claim neocolonialism and conspiracy. Nonsense. There is no need.

It is like a casino. The house doesn’t need to cheat. There is no conspiracy.

Jamaica just signed an oil deal with Venezuela. I ask you, what was the interest rate? Tel

For a nation whose budget is over 50% interest payment, can Jamaica afford more interest payments? If not, why sign the deal? The answer is: it is too hard to deal with today’s problems, so push the impact into the future.

You get it? No socialism, no capitalism. We chose this way because our leaders were afraid of the consequences. And we let it happen. Manley, Seaga, PJ did it.

Now, we ask the question.

[wolmersboy]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Morpheous,
Having black-led countries unite and create cartels to sell their natural resources at high prices sounds good but they all operate as capitalist states which are inherently competitive. Each also has different resources which makes cartels very difficult to form.
Further, their debt load, which everyone but me seems to ignore, is a killer for any serious economic leaps.
You cannot do anything successfully without solving the debt problem and there is no solution in sight.
Neo-colonialism rules and the Third World cannot get out from under it's thumb short of violent revolution.

It would take universal socialism to provide the basics of life to all in the Third World.
The poor countries lack the resources to provide for all within each country but a united socialist Third World could provide the philosophy needed to do just this within the Third World community.
As long as they retain capitalist economies they'll hang separately for the foreseeable future and 12 million people per year will die of starvation ad infinitum.
That is the reality and the capitalist pipedreams you're advocating won't work, can't work, have never worked because they cannot be attempted within the existing neo-colonial structure. It would not be permitted.

IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I can sum up your arguments in two statements.

1. The developed countries deliberately exploit the Third World.

2. The developed countries will never allow the Third World to turn to socialism.

Okay. Let's accept your propositions as fact. The question still stands:

WHAT DO THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES DO NEXT?

Do we just sit around and wait for a Messiah--homegrown or otherwise? Or do we scrape, push, pull, negotiate, bargain, wheel and deal like everyone one else out there?

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

The developed countries are willing to use their military might,media control and economic strength to maintain this control.
Although socialism is not the solution,but that is another post.

[wolmersboy]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
The developed countries are willing to use their military might,media control and economic strength to maintain this control.
Although socialism is not the solution,but that is another post.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Dr. Dud advocates doing nothing because it is too dangerous and/or not likely to succeed.
No problem. Anyone else?

[Blackstar*]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Until we understand what motivates black people to lead so poorly and take advantage of their black brethren, who just sit down so and accept it, we're not going to get very far.

When's the last time anyone heard of a popular revolt in a black-led country against its leaders, such as in 18th century France, or more recently Peru or Ukraine. We'll rebel against white leaders (c.f. Maumau in Kenya or various uprisings in Jamaica), but we're quite OK with letting our black leaders treat us worse than dogs.

Could it be that black people trust black leaders too much despite evidence that said leaders do not have our best interests at heart?

ETA: Read an interesting column in the Gleaner today. Here's an excerpt that I find relevant to the discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
There is a strong case for secondments into and out of the foreign services so that ambassadors and more junior officers understand the dynamics and requirements of the key industries of the future such as tourism and the financial services sector, the complexity of trade negotiations and the impact of changes to regulations.

And finally there is a need for serious study in Caribbean foreign ministries and academic institutions of how asymmetric responses to the external policy challenges that face the region might be developed; that is to say, an investigation of how nations as far apart in every sense as Brazil, Vietnam and Israel have managed to achieve results that materially facilitate their interests despite their relative lack of power. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The developed countries are willing to use their military might,media control and economic strength to maintain this control.
Although socialism is not the solution,but that is another post.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Dr. Dud advocates doing nothing because it is too dangerous and/or not likely to succeed.
No problem. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

I advocate no such action,or inaction.
I merely added another very important huedel to achieving real economic growth be black politically led countries.
Do you realize that Jamaica is restricted from increasing their military strength,by treatie demands of their former colonizers and other developed countries?
Did you know that even an attempt by countries like Jamaica to update the weapons of the military is seen as agression by these well armed developed countries?
The same goes all wlack led countries. countries like Australia,New zealand and other former colonies are not onlt free to hold the most advance arnament,but are encouraged. south Africa is a case,where while it was white controlled politically,theywere allowed to have neuclear weapons. On the country achieving majority rule all those weapons were taken away from the country.
What enemy has change their level of agression towaRDS THE COUNTRY?
Just as black citizens in all countries are restricted from holding licensed fire arms,black politically led countries are also restricted from adequate defence of their country.
Anyway this is for another post.

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Indeed darling. We have learned the wrong lesson. I admre your poliyical conscieness. You know the difference between the exchange of masters and freedom. We see so many that say, the oppression is more acceptable if the oppressor has a black face. Where is the source of such a foolish idea? A crime is better or more acceptible if the criminal has the same skin.

It is most excellent that some of us have grown beyond the fool-fool idea. True political conscieness is painful and confusing.

But, it is better to be ignorant and know you have no good answer than be smart and have the wrong answer.

We see this now.