How Africa is STILL Getting ? Today
Options
Comments
-
right, but here's the thing: if the West is ? around in Libya, that has NOTHING to do with good governance in Venezuela or Zimbabwe. it's not a legit argument for Maduro to say "things are ? here because the US is to blame, look at Libya!"kingblaze84 wrote: »Well I don't know all the facts on Venezuela's poverty situation, I do know it's surprising a nation with oil like that would run out of basic supplies and goods. They almost ran out of paper or something like that a few months ago, not sure if they fixed that problem yet. I think even people there would admit they have a corruption problem or two but as long as some western nations with corporate help continue actions like the wars in Libya and others that have destabilized whole regions and created hundreds of thousands of refugees (millions if you include the war in Iraq), govts like Zimbabwe and Venezuela will say what they say. I think you can admit that. And I'm not even saying either nation has a good govt....
Maybe but maybe the west is ? around with those govts through spies, sabotage and economic manipulations via corrupt charities and businesses? I mean after all, western govts and businesses are known for this.....that's the reason people in these nations keep re-electing these people, even if the govts in those nations aren't the best, they get credit (in the peoples' eyes) for standing up against the west. -
Haiti has a large mine of gold in the north worth hundreds billions. The issue now how will the people profit from it. I saw a documentary where in the Dominican Republic where their own gold mines are being sucked out by Canadian and American companies. The ? up part is there is eco damage and the companies dont pay damages. So they take the resources,allow pollution,bribe the government,and leave. While the Dominican people suffer. And the Dominican people has not benefited from the gold mines.
Nationalization works only when the government has a clear goal and will to fix poverty in the nation. Venezuela failed with that but let us not fool ourselves and think if a right wing govt takes over that they will help the people. Because they wont. The best guess is partial nationalization and pass laws to make these companies pay high taxes and heavy fines if there is environmental damage. -
if the end result is to feed corruption and it doesn't actual result in profitable use of the land, what does that serve?kingblaze84 wrote: »Well time will tell, if the land is taken from the White farmers whose ancestors did take the land through blood and violence, and if the land is used properly, maybe wider justice can be served.
i refuse to blame Zimbabwe's problems on sanctions when their government is furiously and shameless corrupt... which is something that they could correct whether or not sanctions were in force. in fact, one suspects that less corruption would actually HELP in the face of sanctions.kingblaze84 wrote: »On that note, we really don't know if South Africa will end up like Zimbabwe if the SA president is serious, Zimbabwe went through very serious sanctions for a long time (and still is going through) so it's not just corruption that can be blamed for Zimbabwe's high poverty
but my point is simply that this is the game Mugabe played regarding land redistribution.
which is what i am calling ? stupid.kingblaze84 wrote: »Maybe but maybe the west is ? around with those govts through spies, sabotage and economic manipulations via corrupt charities and businesses? I mean after all, western govts and businesses are known for this.....that's the reason people in these nations keep re-electing these people, even if the govts in those nations aren't the best, they get credit (in the peoples' eyes) for standing up against the west.
it's not like Chavez or Maduro had a real claim of "here's how the West is ? with us": they wasted their funds, they labeled their opposition tools of Western governments for political cover, and they ran their country into the ground. plus, to go further, THEIR country basically got outed for ? around with their neighbor through spies and sabotage. -
if the end result is to feed corruption and it doesn't actual result in profitable use of the land, what does that serve?kingblaze84 wrote: »Well time will tell, if the land is taken from the White farmers whose ancestors did take the land through blood and violence, and if the land is used properly, maybe wider justice can be served.
i refuse to blame Zimbabwe's problems on sanctions when their government is furiously and shameless corrupt... which is something that they could correct whether or not sanctions were in force. in fact, one suspects that less corruption would actually HELP in the face of sanctions.kingblaze84 wrote: »On that note, we really don't know if South Africa will end up like Zimbabwe if the SA president is serious, Zimbabwe went through very serious sanctions for a long time (and still is going through) so it's not just corruption that can be blamed for Zimbabwe's high poverty
but my point is simply that this is the game Mugabe played regarding land redistribution.
which is what i am calling ? stupid.kingblaze84 wrote: »Maybe but maybe the west is ? around with those govts through spies, sabotage and economic manipulations via corrupt charities and businesses? I mean after all, western govts and businesses are known for this.....that's the reason people in these nations keep re-electing these people, even if the govts in those nations aren't the best, they get credit (in the peoples' eyes) for standing up against the west.
it's not like Chavez or Maduro had a real claim of "here's how the West is ? with us": they wasted their funds, they labeled their opposition tools of Western governments for political cover, and they ran their country into the ground. plus, to go further, THEIR country basically got outed for ? around with their neighbor through spies and sabotage.
Well SA would have to learn from Zimbabwe's and Gambia's mistakes when they took the land back from the White settlers and farmers. If SA is serious about it, only time will tell what happens but it won't solve all their problems of course.
There's a lot of truth in what you say about the leadership of Venezuela and Zimbabwe (horrible public spending, moral but horrible economic policies like too many high taxes, etc) but history has a long shadow, so it can make shady leaders look legit just by pointing to past policies from the west and its companies. Corruption is a problem not just govts face but humans in general and Zimbabwe is a good example of "when keeping it real goes wrong". They shouldn't have taxed businesses so high and they spent way too much money they didn't have, even though they were trying to make the lives of regular people better. In the process though they ended up hurting the wider nation.
From what I've heard though, Zimbabwe's modern govt is trying to learn from its mistakes (at least that's what Mugabe is saying) -
i mean, we can try and be optimistic about it, but given that it's following a run of scandals, i have no illusions that it's anything but a political gambit.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well SA would have to learn from Zimbabwe's and Gambia's mistakes when they took the land back from the White settlers and farmers. If SA is serious about it, only time will tell what happens but it won't solve all their problems of course.
ultimately, i think you're better served to get the white farmers to buy into a system where their knowledge gets passed on to black farmers and land redistribution (if any, but let's presume it happens) is done dispassionately. but then we live in the real world.
to be clear, i don't dispute that it works for reasons discussed in this thread, i just think it's a shame.kingblaze84 wrote: »There's a lot of truth in what you say about the leadership of Venezuela and Zimbabwe (horrible public spending, moral but horrible economic policies like too many high taxes, etc) but history has a long shadow, so it can make shady leaders look legit just by pointing to past policies from the west and its companies.
i don't think we have any reason to believe Mugabe when it comes to stuff like this. honestly, the best bet may just be to wait for him to die and then see where we go from there.kingblaze84 wrote: »From what I've heard though, Zimbabwe's modern govt is trying to learn from its mistakes (at least that's what Mugabe is saying) -
i mean, we can try and be optimistic about it, but given that it's following a run of scandals, i have no illusions that it's anything but a political gambit.kingblaze84 wrote: »Well SA would have to learn from Zimbabwe's and Gambia's mistakes when they took the land back from the White settlers and farmers. If SA is serious about it, only time will tell what happens but it won't solve all their problems of course.
ultimately, i think you're better served to get the white farmers to buy into a system where their knowledge gets passed on to black farmers and land redistribution (if any, but let's presume it happens) is done dispassionately. but then we live in the real world.
to be clear, i don't dispute that it works for reasons discussed in this thread, i just think it's a shame.kingblaze84 wrote: »There's a lot of truth in what you say about the leadership of Venezuela and Zimbabwe (horrible public spending, moral but horrible economic policies like too many high taxes, etc) but history has a long shadow, so it can make shady leaders look legit just by pointing to past policies from the west and its companies.
i don't think we have any reason to believe Mugabe when it comes to stuff like this. honestly, the best bet may just be to wait for him to die and then see where we go from there.kingblaze84 wrote: »From what I've heard though, Zimbabwe's modern govt is trying to learn from its mistakes (at least that's what Mugabe is saying)
Yeah South Africa has some work to do but time will tell.....Mugabe should have stepped aside a long time ago, we can agree on that
