|
Did independent African countries ever have control of their resources?
I don't understand why African politicians and business people would ever voluntarily sell their priceless resources to foreign multinational corporations. Why sell an oil field or copper mine for 50 million when it can make you 25 million per year? I made up those numbers, but my point is that it's still a loss over time. I saw a documentary today on African poverty being continued by such corporations not paying their fair share of taxes in Africa. It basically said there was no way to force them to, and they could just refuse to, and go about their business. But if a company is making billions of dollars a year in Europe for African copper, what is 150 million in taxes paid in full compared to 50 million? And even the notion of having to pay taxes of 100 million higher, measly compared to their billions of profit, the multinational companies completely despise. Are people that soulless? But the real money is in Europe, and what can Africans do to stop being exploited? Who caused this, too? Short sighted African politicians, even from around widespread African independence? Or was it all rigged since colonization, and foreign powers never lost power once African countries went independent? I know the first DRC president got killed as a result of American and European interference, for trying to make Congo have control of its national resources, so does this imply once independence hit, African countries were already handicapped in that sense? And what about other countries that were once colonies? India? Mexico? Do they face similar problems, and if so, how did such countries overcome them and be in control of their resources so as to profit from them, and have enough money to invest in their own nations, instead of just waiting for foreigners to come with their own outside interests and high interest rate loans? Would America still be European countries' (UK, Spain, and France) bitch if their economy couldn't ride without the slave trade? If so, that's so sad. If you can answer any and all of these my hat's off to you. I am so curious. Will studying economics help answer some of these questions? And how can anything be done by them, do economists just identify issues, or do they have the power to help solve them? If you know any books relating to some of the issues I've brought up, especially with an African focus, I'd very much appreciate your recommendations. I'm already reading Guns, Germs, and Steel. Surely there is a way for all countries to prosper, and for there not just to be rich and exploited (I mean "poor") countries. It seems to me that resources wise, Africa is the richest continent. Qatar can pay for universal healthcare through their oil revenue, so why haven't African countries reached that level yet? To say Africa's problems are due to a lack of foreign aid is a joke, when it's said that for every $1 given to Africa for "aid", $10 is extracted. That is just disgusting. If individual African countries have difficulty standing up to bullies they should ban together with the rest of Africa, or otherwise, what is the point of the African Union? Do they actually give a shit about their people and their countries? people say American politicians can be selfish and self serving but even they have the ability to give their people jobs and make changes, even within the limits of the relatively inflexible constitution
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Doesn't Fit Any Of These Categories?
Hi. This is a massive question, much too big for a Q&A site really, and your post is by no means ignorant. We could discuss the issues raised for a very long time indeed. There seems to be a fundamental issue slightly missing here though. Nobody gives or grants a country the 'right' to control it's internal finances, commerce, balance-of-trade or resources. The country has to take it. The primary production sectors are mining and agriculture. Initially these have to be controlled. Every one of the worlds leading industrilaised nations first learned to farm and feed itself, then moved on to idustrialisation and development. A current factor comes instantly to mind. There is great demand for something called rare-earth metals which are essential for the super-energy-efficient mechanisms demanded in a world of dwindling resources. The vast majority of these are beneath the soil of China. We see China controlling the market value of these metals. And limiting the percentage which are even available to other countries at all, keeping the greater part for their own thriving manufacturing interest. Nobody is going to 'plunder' China and take these metals at a knock-down price. Because slowly and patiently China has developed such a strong economy that they will not allow it. And no financially unstable country is going to blackmail a country like the USA by withholding resources and demanding a better deal. The country that attempted it would suffer long before the USA. The human cost of indebtednes is eased by schemes like the IMF's Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. This is committed to the idea that no country should be asked to bear the burden of a debt it cannot repay, and shall not compromise the basic needs/health of it's people in an attempt to do so. And many debts are completely written-off. Humanitarian aid IS freely given to countries stricken by natural disaters,plague, famine and drought. Cash payments have a sad history of being abused in many African countries, often keener to buy tanks and guns than food for their people, unfortunately. One has to wonder if the world's most industrialied nations can practically do anything other than these schemes and measures? In purely economic terms of world trade and commerce, exploitation of natural resources etc it always has been and always will be a case of dog-eat-dog, and the strongest coutries getting the most favourable terms. The lender sets the repayment terms of a loan. Even in our personal finances banks lend at figures way above base-rate. The bona fide borrower who is capable of repaying the amount borrowed and fully intends to do so will always be punished by high rates to help recover the debts of those who abuse credit and default on repayments. I honestly cannot see any way to override and scrap these basic laws of economics and market forces, the inevtiable laws of supply-and demand. It is not in our nature to swap something for nothing. What incentive is there for a country to develop if it can prosper on the back of another? And is it fair to punsih developed countries to bear the burden of those who have not? No, I don't think it is 'fair' to effectively pay back ten dollars worth of unexploited raw material for a dollar hard cash. But if you need that dollar in hard cash and you need it now, surely that's always going to be the way it is and the terms you must accept? We see countries objecting to austerity measures and somehow wanting to 'vote against' having them enforced. Nobody chooses austerity measures. They're what you have to adopt when there's no other option! Are we not all fundamentally exploited? If a man exchanges 40 hours a week of his life for his wage the company he works for must perforce generate more wealth for that company than he is paid. Otherwise there would quickly be no job and no company either. A minority own the means to production of wealth, everyone else is at it's disposal. That's capitalism. (Karl Marx...Das Kapital). Has an untapped mineral resource any value at all to a nation who do not use it themselves and may even lack the means to obtain it? The oil-rich middle eastern states do indeed club together and determine and maintain the value of crude oil. Their power prospers them But if the USA (the biggest consumer of oil) could find some way to meet their needs in a finacially viable alternative way, without being dependent on unstable (even hostile)regimes and nations, they would surely do it in a flash? Some African countries have rich gold reseves. The miners work in unsafe, truly lethal conditions. And the environmental impact of many of the processes is catastrophic. Yet the mines are owned and operated primarliy by Africans, not western corporations. Interesting question. No easy answers. We've got the world we made I guess??
]
More Questions: |