Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[Archie68]

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

how do you post those pictures?

That said, I have friend that just got back from Haiti. I think everyone can agree, Haiti is in the worst shape of all.

he met with UN and USAID. It was odd according to him. They had millions to spend but nothing to spend it on.

The existing institutions were instruments of theft.

The original question applies here too. How can a black nation create the necessary institutions that encourage accountability?

This is one where I can state the problem while acknowledging we have no cultural solution.

We need a different way. Which way?

[johnnycakes]

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

Q3210,
Thank you or those two posts. They were so eloquently and almost poetically written and a joy to read.
I do, however, take issue with your pointing out the symptoms of the disease rather than pointing the finger at the disease itself that ravages the people of the Third World morally, physically and mentally.

Placing a poor -a very very poor population into a competetive (capitalist) economy having people exist in the U.S-preferred "freedom" that might better be called a capitalist oligarchy wherein the rich and powerful rule and the bottom 80% or so get to fight over the insufficient scraps left to them..

It's a stultifying attack on the morals, mental health and physical health of so much of humanity that I just don't understand why we, as a race, a so-called advanced species has failed to change to a more benign economically egalitarian state
It's obviously much easier to fix the problems of socialism than it is to fix the problems of capitalism since capitalism is fatally flawed by the tremendous poverty it creates and which it is both unable and unwilling to fix.
From what I've discerned of life in Cuba since the Revolution, crime has dropped dramatically and the dark midnight streets of Havana are safe to walk down alone. People have the basics of life guaranteed and this is a tremendous load off the minds of mothers and I guess, everybody.
It makes for a more civil society, a saner society, a healthy society.


To get back to the thread's topic, I feel that the problems of the black-led and, more importantly, poor Third World countries is that they are poor, they have few exploitable resources and most importantly are saddled with a free market/ capitalist economy that is modelled after that in the rich First World U.S.A and which DOES NOT WORK in the poor Third World.
It doesn't work anywhere, ANYWHERE in the Third World where poverty (defined as life on 1-2 US dollars per day) runs from 25% - 80%.

I don't care if the rulers of these countries where white Europeans, they could not make those economies work.

And of course I've almost forgotten the huge crushing foreign debts of these countries......

They all need to learn to share that which the Earth provides.
And you can't do that under capitalism and endless poverty.

[jah_yout]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your response, little pepper. You have a point about individuals and by extension their leaders going for instant gratification.

I guess what is troubling me is that our (read "black") leaders around the world do not look out for the interests of the people who they are supposed to be serving. In addition, we seem to engage in self-destructive behavior without anyone forcing us to do so. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head:<ul type="square">[*]GOJ signed an agreement whereby it has to make up any shortfall in revenue for Bouygues if the GOJ establishes any form of transportation that would compete with the Portmore toll road.
Isn't the government supposed to put the interests of the people whom it serves over those of foreign-owned businesses?
[*]Equatorial Guinea has some of the highest quality crude oil in the world, yet sells it off to petrol companies more cheaply than the lowest quality oil found elsewhere. The revenue earned is sent illico presto to Riggs Bank in DC, meanwhile the govt. there spends less than 1% of said revenue on healthcare for its citizens.
What is the benefit in that for the people of Equatorial Guinea?
[*]Daily, weapons-laden planes arrive in the Dem. Rep. of Congo and leave just as laden with minerals and other raw materials used to elaborate common goods for Western consumption, i.e. cell phones and other electronics.
How is this helping the Congolese people and their country to develop?
[*]Just about every black-run country is buckling under with high crime rates and/or civil war.
So wah mek we a kill awf wan anaddah?[/list]We know WHAT is happening. So I am wondering WHY countries where blacks are in the majority and are political leaders are underperforming socially and economically.

There are as many forms of government - from dictatorships to democracies - and differences in geopolitical context, ethnic makeup, etc. as there are countries. The only common denominator I can see is the skin color of the majority and the leaders. Help me out with this, people.

I have a little idea and it has something to do with self-hate but I would like to hear your opinions please.


<font color="red">Warning:</font> Contrary to what some may think, black people are not intellectually inferior, lazy, dirty, lacking in morals or any of the other "reasons" that racists give (sometimes on this very board). Any and all remarks to that effect will be duly reported to the administrators as bigoted and racist.

[/ QUOTE ]


star;
the black experience is unlike any other...it sounds harsh but blacks were mentally stunted by the still untold effects of the slave trade &amp; subsequent dehumanization global white supremacy conspiracy...
even asians did not experience this...&amp; some of them have been paid reparations (i.e. japan) which to this day the white gov'ts have refused to do after raping africa &amp; africans for so long...
it will take some time, but most of the black gov'ts right now are merely holdovers from a transitional stage of taking over from former colonial masters...it will take time and better leaders...
it will happen, maybe not in our lifetime but it will caw garvey seh suh [img]/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
and earth is a cycle...the black empires once towered above others but sloth arrogance &amp; carelessness always catches up &amp; it will catch up to the new babylons of today...

[jah_yout]

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

To get back to the thread's topic, I feel that the problems of the black-led and, more importantly, poor Third World countries is that they are poor, they have few exploitable resources and most importantly are saddled with a free market/ capitalist economy that is modelled after that in the rich First World U.S.A and which DOES NOT WORK in the poor Third World.
It doesn't work anywhere, ANYWHERE in the Third World where poverty (defined as life on 1-2 US dollars per day) runs from 25% - 80%.

I don't care if the rulers of these countries where white Europeans, they could not make those economies work.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


this doesn't explain why resource-rich africa is dirt poor or why almost resource-less japan is rich...

it is man who has created rich &amp; poor countries...it is the old tale of the wealthy fighting to protect what they have from those who want a piece of it...the root cause of war;

cuba is a great example of the potential when leaders decide to take a stand...naturally they will suffer for it and it is clear to see what i said above about the war when a small nation like cuba takes a stand a powerful country like the u.s. blockades them &amp; tries to murder their leader every year...
unfortunately castro was only one of a few willing to really lead his people..most are too scared or have sold out to the rich nations who have a vested interest in keeping the 'third world' subjugated and poor

[ohliz]

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

[ QUOTE ]
how do you post those pictures?

[/ QUOTE ]

Find one on the internet (or put one up myself), then use the IMAGE link on the reply form to paste the address of it in the post.

[ QUOTE ]
resource-rich africa is dirt poor or why almost resource-less japan is rich

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/70402-thinking.gif[/img]

Japan was almost always an imperialist society, what it didn't have itself it got from its colonies which it took by force, generally naval force. Did many black African countries do this or were they generaly on the other end of the deal?

[Blackstar*]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Blackstar,
Chavez did not take over the oil business but did increase Venezuela's cut of the profits.
I heard that the U.S oil companies involved were telling all Chavez's cr itics here in the U.S. to shut up because they were doing quite well under the Chavez deal and didn't want any problems such as a coup d'etat.

[/ QUOTE ]

OT: Venezuela to take state majority in heavy oil projects by year's end

[wolmersboy]

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

Many point the finger at "imperialist" countries such as the US and UK. Whether you see it that way or not, it is a fact that neither would have it's current place in the world if it wasn't for the blood, sweat, tears and INTELLECT of many people of African descent. We can do it--blacks running large cities, running trade unions, commanding the most powerful armies in the world--been there done that. Why can't we do it for ourselves in our own countries? We are certainly smart enough and we have the examples of several other countries/ethnic groups to learn from. There are some that are taking care of business: Barbados is a good example and I believe someone mentioned Botswana also. I would put forth that South Africa, considering where it is coming from, has done well in the 10+ years since blacks finally gained power there. Why not more countries like these?

[Blackstar*]

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

[ QUOTE ]
When when we go abroad, we're trade union leaders (Toussaint and NYC transport workers union), scientists (that Malian guy who works for the NASA), statesmen (Colin Powell) etc., etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cheikh Modibo Diarra is the Malian who was in charge of the division that designed and built robots for NASA. He is now president of Microsoft Africa. Source (en français)

[Blackstar*]

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

We are hurting Jamaica

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Dear Editor,

I do understand Mr Howard Rennis' frustration with Black leadership however, I would never endorse the slavery moot.

I have, however, been convinced for a long time that most Black-led countries are very poorly managed, which results in such a high level of poverty in these countries.

I am of the opinion that the more educated of us have sought to use our education as a stick to 'beat up' the poor and uneducated in our country rather than for nation building. We blame "them" (the poor) for crime and violence and send in our security forces to deal with "them" when they fall out of line.

If we look at Africa, Haiti, Jamaica and a number of other countries, we see the evidence of poorly managed states; some of which have numerous resources but are poor. This may seem to be a paradox.

No country on earth possesses more natural resources than Africa, yet that continent's people continue to suffer from starvation year after year, while its armies are getting bigger.

New leaders in Africa seem bent on taking their fair share of the jackpot and running into exile, while war and famine continue to ravage the Continent.

Black leadership needs a new way of thinking. Our socialisation for the most part has taught us to be very selfish and this translates into our way of leadership when we have been sufficiently educated to take on this role.

The huge problem is that we do not seem to have the capacity to see that it's this behaviour which is slowly destroying the country.

Too many of us who have gone through the doors of a university, however, see ourselves as better than the person next door, and the more prestigious the university the worse the treatment meted out to our uneducated.

Let's get off the path of destruction and begin to focus on rooting out corruption:<ul type="square">[*]Taking on a contract and not delivering value is corruption.
[*]Not paying our fair share of taxes, by getting tax experts to hide our true income is corruption.
[*]Aiding and abetting the evasion of tax is corruption.[/list]How many of the above persons would be considered to be uneducated or poorly educated? My guess would be none.

So who is really hurting Jamaica?

[mangoskin]

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

India, China &amp; Thailand are still poor..
Barbados, Trinidad, The Bahamas to name 3 'black' countries are doing relatively well

Russia and other former eastern bloc countries would be considered 'third world' if they weren't "white" countries

[johnnycakes]

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

Wolmersboy,
There is no denyiing the very large role that colomialism of the past and the neocolonial "rob-'em-with-a-fountain pen" version of looting the poorest and most helpless of the world .
Sure, the kleptocrats we so often put on the throne borrowed mind-boggling amounts of money, put a huge proportion of it in their Swiss Bank accounts, left for the good life in Ibeza or got beheaded in the coup and guess who gets stuck fr the tab?
This is the history of the last half of the 20th Century and today the debt loads of those poor countries far outstrips their ability to pay.
They're paying the interest....maybe
And they'll never n-e-v-e-r be ablee to pay it.
NEVER.
And if they could and did, what then? No resources, no infrastructure, no trained professional class of adequate size. Poverty, sickness, illiteracy, crime, violence, alcohol abuse, stress-induced mental
illness, drug addiction. That's what you have in abundance.

Now do you know why you cannot slap a band-aid on this?


Sure, isolated places like Barbados might, for a time, provide a reasonable life for it's inhabitants but that does nothing and cannot be an example for places in dire poverty where Barbados' methods would not apply.

Those places contain about half the Earth's population.

I'll make this mercifully short: Capitalism and especially capitalist oligarchies have worked to the great detriment of those billions of people.
Capitalism does not work in resource poor countries unless they can steal it from somewhere else.
It does not work.
It never has.
It cannot
It is fatally flawed.

Question: How would you solve the debt crisis?, the fact that some countries, like Jamaica spend over half of their income on debt payments and Jamaica is far down the list of most-indebted nations.
And after the debt crisis is solved , what then?

[wolmersboy]

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

The point of this debate (Blackstar, please correct me if I am wrong) is that there seems to be a disconnect between the potential of most black-led countries and their actual performance. No one can doubt the ability of black people to create, produce and lead. The question is why can't this happen in our own countries?
The debt question is a partial answer. However,we must realize that every country owes debt. It is the nature of the new, globalized economy. Whether your natural resources are partially owned by multi-national companies or you sell your debt by issuing treasury notes, every country owes another sizable chunks of change. The question is more about becoming a good risk for that money than so much a question of paying the debt outright. Many countries in the developed world are in the red when it comes to trade and have large amounts of their debt (treasury notes) in foreign hands--yet they are not considered a risky investment. In fact, more money pours into these countries, in a bid to get a piece of the action, as it were.
Why can't the same thing happen in our countries? Why can't we clean up our act with respect to solid infrastructure, good schools, reduced corruption and security for our citizens? In doing this, we would become good risks for foreign and local investment and the inflows of capital would increase dramatically, providing for more goods and services for the people of the nation.

[Archie68]

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

Yes, you get the biggest point. Our standards. We heard so many excuses. The colonialism one is my favorite. AKA. The all powerful WHITE MAN. No need to overcome. No need to plan better. No need to educate yourself. ALL is lost. GIVE UP, STAY IN BED AND CRY.

The racists, the pessimist and defeatist speak with the same voice.

Has anyone noticed?

When I first came to the USA, my parents told me white children would spike my drinks at the cafeteria. So, I brought my own drinks to school.

I later learned, my fear was misplaced. There was no need to do that, I was inferior. Even if I got better grades, I was....well you know.

Yet, I was taugh, repeatedly, it is not about them, it is about us. I was taught to have standards for myself. If others do not observe those standards, that is not relevant. It does not matter that they are slovenly, we must not be. Because we were taugh not to be. Or were we?

What has history taugh us?

I am askings a simple question. What has history taugh us about what we are and what we should become.

Racists, black and whites, want us to focus on colonialism and the past. Well, we nor them can do anything about that. FACT.

The questions is: where to we want to go? By which means do we PLAN to get there?

I tire of the PAST TENSE. We can not do anything about that.

What do we want to be?

Other nations are marching towards the future. They took what colonialism taugh and discarded the rest. What about US?

[Wahalla]

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

[ QUOTE ]
“What has history taugh us?

I am askings a simple question. What has history taugh us about what we are and what we should become.

Racists, black and whites, want us to focus on colonialism and the past. Well, we nor them can do anything about that. FACT.”


[/ QUOTE ]

Archie I am going on a rant now forgive me….

I would also add the to your list the “Black Nationalists”. I would also add there seems to be a focus on the past but on the past where blame can be simply a proportioned to an outside agency. We are repeatedly told we need to know the past. But what is offered is to ignore the immediate post colonial period. We are told told of our “Anti – Colonial” hero’s and ignore the fact there were others who had other visions. Usually these were people who advocated a non – leftist future. These are dusted as sell outs. It is time to examine the alternatives to the hero’s and see if their visions had merit… Because at the moment the inheritance of our heroes is corruption, incompetence, schisms, ethnic strife..

But what is unforgiving is the fact that in the past 40 years most of Africa has been rules by Africans. (OK South Africa, Zimbabwaye is the exceptions). Yet this period is being ignored as a of history. That our hero’s made a hash of running their countries is ignored. From Sellasie, Kenyatta, Nhuhrumah, Sekou Toure, Kaunda, Ben Bella, Nasser, Banda, Machel, Neto, Obote, Lumumba are all portrayed as hero’s.. Yet they are not held accountable for the way the political and economic havocs they reaped on their respective sphere of influences when they ruled. .. That they each changed the constitutions that they inherited or developed that advocated the rights of humans, the rule of law for expedience and political reasons to hide their own failures / incompetencies .. This is the history that needs to be addressed.


The fact of the matter Great Zimbabwe is real but so is the campaign against the N’debele by Mugabe in 1980. Ad the fact he took an economy that he had built and ripped it apart since 95 has got to be explained..

Nhrumah won idependence but he emptied the Ghanian thrusry in 5 years.. And reduced the GDP of his country to penuary by his stupidity at running a country…

On my honey moon I stood on the Aswan High Dam, I was excited. That was the fulfilment of an ambition. I was looking at Lake Nasser. I have never been excited like that except sexually. I even recall having a stiffy from being there . I could not get excited about Tutenkhrmun, Rameses, , Luxor was just stones, Hatschisuh palace was a rubble to me, valley of the kings was just a cementarty, valley of the queen was a grave yard, This was the was on the Nasser’s Dam. (She who all me fear still says it was one of the few time I stopped ever being critical).. Other people got taught ‘nansy stories I got taught of this dam of the French, British, Isrealis invasion of Nasser vision… It may have been for 50 cents for a whole summer but I learnt the myths of modern African history and some critisim of it. S

A technical, economic success as a result of the drive of a man Gamal Nasser who used the nationalisation of the Canal company to pay for it was probably the only successful nationalisation in post colonial Africa, but his outlawing of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood is at the root of the middle east/ Africa crisis. And the fact that despite his personal honesty he surrounded himself with snncrophants and could not tolerate any one voiceing opposition hense his legasy has been two dictators, corruption. His other natioalisations fell flat and they were viewed as anti-islamic by the Brother hood who once supported him

Examine the policies of every post cololonial nation and we are face with the unpalletable truth that the economics and poltical descions taken were for at best top maintain popularist support at the expense of economic development.

Kauda may cry and claim he is a good Christian but by god he sure as hell was not a good administrator…. Nyrehrie may have been popular with the leftist for a African socialist but he was incompetent and was for years kept a float by loans from friendly banks… Nhrumah well ……lets say I wont go underminding him his sterling record of economic management speaks for it self…. And all of Manely claim that it was the oil price that did us all in is a fallacy. If we had not had the poltical power hungry elite who sought to retain power at the price of development.. … Had we been given men of simple common sense we would have suffered but by god we do not have to carry the pain that we now feel.. it was not the price of oil nor the falling price of commodities. That did play a part…But add on top of that the corruption and incoptence…. We would have bounced back rather it was those policies of the 60’s and early seventies that played and encouraged the urbanisation.. It was the retention of armies, it was the misdirection of loans earmarked for development to private bank accounts of our heros and their syncophants.. (And given that it takes 45 cents to administer ever loan of a dollar)

And the remainder was the building state adminsiteeed monopolies not run to make profit but without oversight without censure by a poltical place man to market our agricultural products. (by laws in Ghana) It was god dam Umjuma the collectivisation of farming in Tanzania, Algeria… And any one who dared to questions these truths were destroyed and portrayed as sellouts.. So the few accountants, doctors, lawyers, professors fled, joined the world bank, whole generations of the brightest and the best were wiped out Who used the tired rhetoric of Anti colonialism, Anti-imperialist.

You have been to Sudan Archie????.. Does those high flaunting truism have any relevance to the those who are not middle class ????? How far outside Khartoum does the 21st centuary extend ?????? (well maybe the 21st centaury is rural Sudan not high speed internet connections or rule of law!) and how many of these angst filled pseudo intellectual pen dragons are there as many as on this board or were they kicked out and shot ??????

Who was the first post colonial ruler of Sudan? Who over threw him ? Why did the islamist gain assendcy if it was not for the simple incompetence of the secular who all spouted the same platitudes so common to Z net ????


I know I am viewed as sell out, a running dog, a coconut, miseducated (I never attended grade 3, so uneducated), unconscious and I keep it unreal or sureal . But I know my history and I have lived on the less than $1 dollar a day a… But as Tony Rebel put it “ Mi two eyes behold and mi two foot guh deh “

So feel free to correct my spelling. But by god don’t [censored] on my back and tell me its raining.

(Independence …. It was never about development”)

[Blackstar*]

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

Education as a growth strategy
Dennis Chung
Friday, September 01, 2006

On Wednesday August 30, the New York Daily News (www.nydailynews.com) in an article called "America's wealth of poverty" reported that despite a strong economy, poor working-class and middle-class Americans were in fact worse off in 2005 than when President Bush took office in 2000.

During this period the national poverty rate increased from 11.7% to 12.6%; wages of full-time year-round workers went down 1.8% for men and 1.3% for women; and the top 1% of earners pulled in a larger share of income.

On the same day the Business Observer noted that over the past few years the purchasing power of Jamaicans had declined significantly, and one commentator put the decline at approximately 20 per cent. This is despite record levels of foreign direct investments (FDI) we are told of.

These two articles show that an economy can in fact grow (more money can be in circulation), but the wealth is concentrated in a few hands. This is what I have been writing about; that is that the quality of growth is just as important as growth itself. It certainly is understandable that growth may take place in concentrated areas initially, but one should always have a strategy for ensuring that growth is felt by all. It is all good and well to speak about the macro indicators but at some point in time we have to look at the micro also.

Might I remind our politicians that votes are won at the micro level? After all, people do not elect governments so that they can see better macroeconomic numbers only, but rather to see an improvement in their daily lives. Does it provide any comfort to say that, even though my purchasing power has declined by 20% over the last three years, the macroeconomic indicators show that the country is better off? At least if there is an indication, and deliberate strategy that things will improve when one makes the sacrifice, then it is not too bad.

Ill-equipped labour force
This of course is at the root of the question as to why we have not seen more growth when FDI has been so high. The fact is that our labour force is not prepared to take advantage of the benefits of investment in the economy.

When we compare ourselves to countries such as Ireland and Singapore, and in the region to Barbados and Trinidad, which has recently been described as the Caribbean Tiger by the Economist magazine, we ignore the fundamental differences. Why do these countries have GDP per capita of US$41,000, US$28,100, US$17,000, and US$16,700 respectively while Jamaica's is only at US$4,400? <font color="blue">This I think is more by design than accident and is at the heart of our inability to grow.</font>

The fact is that those same countries (in the order above) have literacy rates of 99%, 92.5%, 99.7% and 98.6% while Jamaica's is at 84.1%. So just based on literacy numbers (ability to read and write at a functional level) we see that the population of these countries would appear to be better equipped for productivity.

The Planning Institute of Jamaica has statistics on the number of persons enrolled in the various levels of educational institutions. It shows that in 2000 there were 325,300 enrolments in primary institutions, 226,400 in secondary, 12,500 in tertiary and 18,600 at university. In 2005 those numbers were 326,400, 237,200, 21,900 and 24,600 respectively. The numbers do show an improvement in the percentage of persons enrolled at the higher levels over the numbers enrolled at the primary level, which is a good indication of how many persons go on to complete higher education levels. Even with this marginal improvement the fact is that there is too wide a disparity between the various levels of education and it means that there are significant drop-outs between the levels.

In a knowledge-based world we must take another look at defining literacy and raise the bar, as it is knowledge that creates competitive advantage and wealth today, unlike the pre-1970s time of industrialisation. If we are to improve the living standard for most Jamaicans, it is not enough to give them a car or two cell phones, but we must educate them to be productive. Instead what we have done is created a sector of "window wipers" and beggars, even while we talk about the improved macroeconomic numbers and the rating agencies praise us as a good credit risk.

Matching skills with growth areas
From a strategic view point we should be looking at the sectors of the economy that we expect will provide the greatest growth opportunities for the country. In my opinion these are tourism, agriculture (non-traditional crops), and entertainment. The next step would be to deliberately create educational opportunities for these sectors, which means matching the skills with the sectors that will provide us with growth. It is not enough to create employment in government when we are approaching an election.

The table above shows that between 1996 and 2005 the number of workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing declined by 9.04%, manufacturing by 26.39% and mining by 19.84%. The number of workers in wholesale and retail trades, hotels and restaurants increased by 29.46% over this period but may have a lot to do with wholesale and retail more than tourism. On the other hand the number of workers in construction increased by 30.52%, transport, storage and communication by 60.91% (no doubt the phone companies) and community, social and personal services by 22.66%.

This shows that the vast increases are in sectors that will not provide us with the greatest foreign exchange- earning potential. If we continue to focus our human resources on sectors that do not provide us with earnings, then we will not be able to achieve the amount and quality of growth we need. This no doubt has a direct link to the economic policies we pursue.

It is imperative that we understand the important role that a well educated population plays in the "sustained" growth of an economy, not the sporadic and anaemic growth rates we have seen over the years. If we are to achieve growth such as Ireland, Barbados and Trinidad, then we must understand that it is much more than economic policy: at the heart of growth are the social policies particularly as they have to do with education and crime. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day (debt and charity) but if you teach him to fish you feed him for a lifetime (education).