posted
African Studies related materials that I've borrowed. I'm not collecting books anymore since I lost my resource center stuff a decade ago. Thought some of you looking for interesting reading may enjoy some of my selections. African authored material is best but we tale wha's available and filter it through our own African Eyes and Vision.
Please feel free to add to the list. Each one, teach one!
[One book per post please (keep it simple).]
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any comments on the author's style and how his worldview due to his ethnicity effects his opinion?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Any comments on the author's style and how his worldview due to his ethnicity effects his opinion?
Well some of the stuff I already knew. I just didn't know how far it went back, who the specific players were especially on the African side, and much of the detains in raw numbers.
I am actually listening to the Audio Book. Its becoming somewhat repetitive but its pretty interesting. Unfortunately the countries in questions are ones that I have not recently been to so its hard for me to recognize or evaluate how things are on the ground....as far as how it affects the population.
I have a bit of a background in finance so its also surprising hearing some of the multi national companies that I am familiar with. That's all I have to say for now. I does give me a bit of insight when someone pops the question "Why is Africa so....."
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Any comments on the author's style and how his worldview due to his ethnicity effects his opinion?
His tone is [pessimistic, but I don;t think it has anything much to do with his ethnicity. Just perusing the book preview, he quotes directly from numerous Africans sick and tired of the BS, the lies, the hypocrisy and the looting. It may be pessimistic, but it is realistic, and African voices say the same. Such realism is a necessary corrective to the various smokescreens put forward by corrupt elites. Yes, various racist enemies and detractors of Africa will use the detail as ammunition, but that is nothing new or special. Hell, look at all the ammunition they have now to use, and much of it provided on a silver platter by Africans themselves. Racists have a very low workload these days. While we must defend our people strongly, it is too late in the day to be giving "soul brother" passes to those who are responsible and who know better, and can do better.
One weak spot is his failure to provide some solutions, understandable perhaps, because the problem is so widespread, and intractable. This is why I sympathize with all those African boat people, saying WTF- I am headed west. Sneered at and condemned, and despised, they are "voting with their feet" just as fed up Euros voted with their feet to leave Europe for America. I don't blame the brothas. Hell, you got Chinese vendors selling individual cigarettes on the streets of various countries, controlling the pipeline of cheap goods and undercutting ordinary brothas trying to eke out even that meager living, courtesy of the elites. In Nammidia for example the government issues around 25,000 passports to the Chinese in exchange or payoffs. Now these people are undermining even the small time brotha on the street, already on the margins, now being squeezed even more. It used to be at the top end, but now the brothas are being squeezed on the bottom end up as well.
Still as a journalist with decades of experience on the continent the author could have pointed the way forward for a least a Level 1 suite of things that can be done. I can think of several right away, and they are nothing new.
1) Drive a harder bargain with the West. If you want such and such then you will have to match what the Chinese are doing, and give us more for our produce, which you can well afford.
2) Use Western aid to more benefit the small man rather than big projects that benefit the elites and urbanites more.
3) Drive a much harder bargain with the Chinese before their looting of resources runs out. The CHinese do offer certain advantages, namely speed and economy. But as this and several other books show, African "leaders" are giving away the store in too many cases. Hell get some money for yoself with the bribes and payoffs, but dammit make sure shiit gets done, to more advantage of Africans. On top of this the quality of Chinese work is often sloppy. Its like they can pass anything off on negroes per some reports.
4) Make the Chinese invest more locally, and use more local personnel. In the book below, China's Second Continent, the author describes how the Chinese are bringing in their own people for low level unskilled jobs, and are not providing any skill building locally to develop local capacity. On a road negroes will be shoveling dirt but not learning how to operate heavy equipment, for example. Everywhere? No, but too often. The so-called "leaders" ought to be insisting that these projects are creating a parallel package of African skills and capacity being built up. In addition, there is Chinese looting practice like widespread strip mining, without enough enviro protection.
5) Stop putting so much money into big "prestige" and "showcase" projects. Look at the famous Yamoussoukro Basicila in Ivory Coast- yes an impressive construction by all measures, but at a cost of $300 million. Do you know what 300 million could do for African farmers, infrastructure, etc.
And let's take that swanky new OAU headquarters built by the Chinese in Ethiopia. Nice.. for $200 million. Now all the elites have such a nice place to gather and talk about "African Renaissances." Ethiopia is one of the lowest income countries in world- though seeing some recent growth. Think of what 200 million could have done for small farmers, infrastructure like a thousand feeder roads to bring their produce to market, the factories that could have been set up, etc etc. http://africabusiness.com/tag/parliament/
In other words, why isn't there more concern for pushing the cash down to the street level, so the ordinary brotha can get a piece of the action? The Chinese built the nice $200 million talking-place using mostly Chinese labor and Chinese imported material. There was spillover effect of course but how much cash disappeared into the pockets of the elites, or already relatively well ensconced urbanites rather than the countryside whee most of the masses toil?
^^ A cool 200 million... PS- why does the gubment own all the land in Ethiopia and why are huge slices of Ethiopian land being sold off to India and Saudi Arabia?
^^Brothas can't even get enough food to eat sometimes yet the "leaders" are selling of the best Ethiopian land to India and others..
Much less attention has been given to the role of India. A global land monitoring initiative, Land Matrix, ranks India as one of the top 10 investors in land abroad. It is the biggest investor in land in Ethiopia, with Indian companies accounting for almost 70% the land acquired by foreigners after 2008.
Indian land deals in Ethiopia are the result of the strong convergence in the two countries' domestic political-economic policies. Both advocate the privatisation of public assets and increasing reliance on free trade and open markets.
India’s investment in land has been driven by the need to obviate the effects of spiralling food prices by outsourcing food supply. Ethiopia’s decisions are driven by its development policy based on commercialisation of agriculture and reliance on foreign investments.
Rough estimates suggest Indian firms have acquired roughly 600 000 hectares of land in Ethiopia. This is more than ten times the size of land acquired by firms in India under the country’s special economic zones policy. India is followed closely by Saudi Arabian firms, with 500 000 hectares of land, in Ethiopia.
posted
To develop Thailand, Africa or any country the best thing to do is what the Chinese, American, Scandinavian, South Korean did.
Be careful of capitalists organizations/bankers reports, statistics, books influenced by them, foreign destabilization and melding, etc. Do what they did (aka taking care of their needs in their own ways), not what they told us to do.
None of those regions grew up because of aid. There's no need to beg or ask anything to the governments of American/European(?) people or the Chinese(?) people (why only those 2, ask zarahan) or whoever governments. It's all business. Education, funding local businesses, developing local banking and investment sector, local research, diversification of trading partners, etc. Basically, what China, Scandinavian countries, South Korea, Thailand, Japan(earlier), etc did and continue to do.
When you start an enterprise big or small either in the US or Africa. The only thing you need beside the market is your brain(education, experience, imagination, etc) and the funding (personal savings, family and friends, banks, government program, internet, etc).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sense that protectionism might trump all of these in the nurturing and development of local industries.
quote:The only thing you need beside the market is your brain(education, experience, imagination, etc) and the funding (personal savings, family and friends, banks, government program, internet, etc).
From George Monbiot's The Age of Consent (2003):
"Many poor nations have recognized that their people, their environment and their economies would be better served by excluding the rich world's companies until they are able to defend themselves, but they are forced by the international institutions to let them enter.
The rich nations argue that liberalization of this kind is essential for development: if countries want to make money, they need to open their economies as much as possible. This claim is challenged by a remarkable but little-known truth: that almost every nation which has industrialized successfully and can now be counted as belonging to the developed world has done so not through free trade but through protectionism."
"Britain, for example, regards itself as the patron of free trade. The British believe that they established their industrial revolution and acquired the wealth on which their global empire was built by means of a strict application of the doctrine of laissez-faire, permitting businesses to compete freely in a scarcely-regulated market. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Britain's industrial revolution was founded, in its initial stages, upon the textile industry. In the eighteenth century this accounted for over half the nation's export revenues. The industry was nurtured and promoted by means of ruthless government intervention. Textile manufacturing began to develop in the fourteenth century, when Edward III brought Flemish weavers into the country, centralized the trade in raw wool and banned the import of woollen cloth. His successors extended this protectionism. Henry VII, for example, ruined Britain's (sic) major competitors - Flanders and Holland - by banning British (sic) merchants from exporting raw wool and unfinished cloth. Imports of competing products were not just discouraged through tariffs; in some cases they were prohibited. In 1699, for example, the British (sic) state destroyed the Irish woollen industry by forbidding the import of its manufactures, which were of higher quality than English cloth. In 1700, Britain (sic) did the same to the Indian producers of calico (cotton cloth), extinguishing the world's most efficient cotton manufacturing industry. Britain also banned steel mills in America, forcing its colony to export only pig iron.
While tariffs on imported raw materials were reduced in the 1720s and 1730s (providing British industry with cheaper inputs), manufactured goods from abroad continued to be heavily taxed. At the same time, the government granted British manufacturers of every processed product from refined sugar to gunpowder generous export subsidies. Only when Britain had established technological superiority in the production of almost every manufactured good did it suddenly discover the virtues of free trade. It was not until the 1850s and 1860s,when it was already the world's dominant economy, that the country opened most of its markets. Even then, the process of liberalization was strictly controlled by the state. Britain's enthusiasm for free trade did not last long. In the early twentieth century, as it began to slip behind the United States and Germany, its manufacturers started lobbying for protectionism, which they were granted during the global Depression in 1932" (pp196-198).
In the same chapter, Monbiot also writes on the role of protectionism in the economic development of the US, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun-Ra The Ultimate says: To develop Thailand, Africa or any country the best thing to do is what the Chinese, American, Scandinavian, South Korean did.
Be careful of capitalists organizations/bankers reports, statistics, books influenced by them, foreign destabilization and melding, etc. Do what they did (aka taking care of their needs in their own ways), not what they told us to do.
None of those regions grew up because of aid. There's no need to beg or ask anything to the governments of American/European(?) people or the Chinese(?) people (why only those 2, ask zarahan) or whoever governments. It's all business. Education, funding local businesses, developing local banking and investment sector, local research, diversification of trading partners, etc. Basically, what China, Scandinavian countries, South Korea, Thailand, Japan(earlier), etc did and continue to do.
Yes, I don;t totally disagree, but keep in mind that SOuth Korea got plenty of aid from the US, billions worth. Not saying that said aid is DIRECTLY responsible for the SK takeoff, but too often people seem to think the takeoff was out of the blue. China got very favorable access to US markets, even under Republican Admins. And indeed, the Reagan regime authorized the transfer of advanced US technology in key areas, and on top of that weaponry, as documented in the recent book: "The Hundred Year Marathon." This was part of the favorable access. And that access also included favorable treatment by capital markets in the West. The export-driven Chinese economy in takeoff stages would have been a bust without the above.
When you start an enterprise big or small either in the US or Africa. The only thing you need beside the market is your brain(education, experience, imagination, etc) and the funding (personal savings, family and friends, banks, government program, internet, etc).
Your list of what you need basically ties right back into capitalists organizations/bankers. You say: "all you need is funding" - yeah- of course you need funding, and who are you gonna have to get it from if not the global capitalist establishment?
Also to be kept in mind is the role of direct investment, which all of the above countries have greatly benefited from. The Scandanavians would not be where they are without investment from Europe. Favorable natural resources also plays a part- and Scandinavians such as Norway have their oil bonanza that has boosted their economy in a big way. Europe by the way was a massive recipient of aid- via the US Marshall Plan after WW2.
In short there are a number of factors in the mix. I think business development is better than aid like you.
But what solutions or suggestions to do you have to curb "The Looting Machine"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: I sense that protectionism might trump all of these in the nurturing and development of local industries.
quote:The only thing you need beside the market is your brain(education, experience, imagination, etc) and the funding (personal savings, family and friends, banks, government program, internet, etc).
From George Monbiot's The Age of Consent (2003):
"Many poor nations have recognized that their people, their environment and their economies would be better served by excluding the rich world's companies until they are able to defend themselves, but they are forced by the international institutions to let them enter.
The rich nations argue that liberalization of this kind is essential for development: if countries want to make money, they need to open their economies as much as possible. This claim is challenged by a remarkable but little-known truth: that almost every nation which has industrialized successfully and can now be counted as belonging to the developed world has done so not through free trade but through protectionism."
"Britain, for example, regards itself as the patron of free trade. The British believe that they established their industrial revolution and acquired the wealth on which their global empire was built by means of a strict application of the doctrine of laissez-faire, permitting businesses to compete freely in a scarcely-regulated market. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Britain's industrial revolution was founded, in its initial stages, upon the textile industry. In the eighteenth century this accounted for over half the nation's export revenues. The industry was nurtured and promoted by means of ruthless government intervention. Textile manufacturing began to develop in the fourteenth century, when Edward III brought Flemish weavers into the country, centralized the trade in raw wool and banned the import of woollen cloth. His successors extended this protectionism. Henry VII, for example, ruined Britain's (sic) major competitors - Flanders and Holland - by banning British (sic) merchants from exporting raw wool and unfinished cloth. Imports of competing products were not just discouraged through tariffs; in some cases they were prohibited. In 1699, for example, the British (sic) state destroyed the Irish woollen industry by forbidding the import of its manufactures, which were of higher quality than English cloth. In 1700, Britain (sic) did the same to the Indian producers of calico (cotton cloth), extinguishing the world's most efficient cotton manufacturing industry. Britain also banned steel mills in America, forcing its colony to export only pig iron.
While tariffs on imported raw materials were reduced in the 1720s and 1730s (providing British industry with cheaper inputs), manufactured goods from abroad continued to be heavily taxed. At the same time, the government granted British manufacturers of every processed product from refined sugar to gunpowder generous export subsidies. Only when Britain had established technological superiority in the production of almost every manufactured good did it suddenly discover the virtues of free trade. It was not until the 1850s and 1860s,when it was already the world's dominant economy, that the country opened most of its markets. Even then, the process of liberalization was strictly controlled by the state. Britain's enthusiasm for free trade did not last long. In the early twentieth century, as it began to slip behind the United States and Germany, its manufacturers started lobbying for protectionism, which they were granted during the global Depression in 1932" (pp196-198).
In the same chapter, Monbiot also writes on the role of protectionism in the economic development of the US, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.
Yes, the notion of "pure" free markets and so on doesn't hold up. Britain and all the rest used and benefited from tariffs. Today the Europeans use tariffs to keep out or reduce goods from elsewhere, including African produce. Are they protecting their own markets? Sure. Which raises questions about the smug lectures often delivered to Africa. Protectionism plays a part- provided it is SMART protectionism.
It is nice to have an indigenous steel industry for example, but what is the hard-nosed cost/benefit bottom line? If you are gonna be building steel mills in the bush have you accounted for the huge expense of the IMPORTED machinery, fuel and technicians needed? And what's the point of cranking out "indigenous" steel after all that spending if the product is gonna be unusable? Too often people start from what is "nice" and symbolic, rather than a hard=nosed analysis of costs, benefits and tradeoffs.
But what solutions or suggestions to do you have to curb "The Looting Machine"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
True enough KING, which is why I develop above that China is a useful player, BUT African leaders are not driving the bargain they should be driving. Several of these books document that we are being taken to the cleaners by cunning and experienced Chinese. And in too many cases the elites don;t give a damn- long as they get paid. In one country reported (Zambia), the Chinese aren't even paying the minimum wage they said they would be paying, and the elites are looking the other way - cuz they have been already paid off. People need to be skeptical of this narrative of "China is our friend" or 'African renaissance" - and be aware of the hard realities.
^ ^Another useful book for the library. When I read this one I was surprised by how much is being given away. And it is not merely "European writers" saying this. There are many, many local African voices quoted..
But what solutions or suggestions to do you have to curb "The Looting Machine"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: SOuth Korea got plenty of aid from the US,
Overplayed by capitalists/neo-liberal litterature and media. Nobody provide aid to other people for their beautiful eyes (only self-interests). South Korea had rules preventing foreign ownership of business higher than 30% (and x%) in many sectors of the economy (they called it negative and positive list*). As did and still do other countries in Asia. South Korea was built through South Korean initiatives: enterprises, South Koran conglomerates, education, research, agriculture, trading, etc. Most foreign investments, always a small part of the total investments in any country, were not aid but investments in South Korean enterprises and projects (aka bankable businesses/projects). Read books written by Park Chung Hee, otherwise talking to you is like talking to a western media spokesman because your knowledge is restricted or tainted by what you read from them and their reports (which is understandable since it's difficult to do otherwise).
posted
In terms of stopping the looting of Africa...in my opinion, given the kleptocracies, the presence of militaries ready to intervene in civilian politics, and the disconnect between political elites/the state and civil society, I don't see any easy answers. It's been said before elsewhere, but radical change - which I think it perhaps needs to be - might require a second wave of decolonization. For Africa to reconfigure its relationship with the rest of the world, I think there needs to be fundamental 'internal' restructuring/ accountability, so that governments really do act in the interests of their people. When the so-called Arab Spring started I did wonder whether it might spread south - looking at what happened across the MENA I'm sort of relieved it didn't.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: When the so-called Arab Spring started I did wonder whether it might spread south -
It doesn't make sense, most African countries are democracies. Tunisia, Libya and Egypt were not democracies hence the Arab Spring (movements hijacked in Egypt and Libya by outside influence:Nato, American-Egyptian army, Qatar, Alqaeda, Islamic State, etc, but that's another subject).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
One funny moments in the last few years was the financial bail out and other stimulus packages done in the US, Britain and I think China later on.
Basically it was the government using the people's taxes to give money to American/British banks that needed saving from going bankrupt.
Some kind of robin hood in reverse.
Maybe it was right the move but it's just to say that sometimes you must play outside the rules.
There's no bail out or stimulus rules or procedure. It was a desperate ad-hoc action to save banks instead of letting them go bankrupt. So the rules can be ignored, changed, etc, when the needs arise. What is important is the needs, the problem(s) you want to solve, not the system which is only a tool. The banking system was broken, they repaired with a welfare check for banks.
I've read a lot about it but I don't have time to find proper links and source of info. Here's wiki 12. Use google for more.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't make sense, most African countries are democracies.
That's allright then, so why the concern with the continent being looted?
I guess people must vote for a party which will prevent the looting (with good legislations and policies). Be careful of western puppets or party with no good local development policies. As in America, and the rest of the developed world, Africa needs strong patriotic governments with solid policies and programs.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: SOuth Korea got plenty of aid from the US,
Overplayed by capitalists/neo-liberal litterature and media. Nobody provide aid to other people for their beautiful eyes (only self-interests). South Korea had rules preventing foreign ownership of business higher than 30% (and x%) in many sectors of the economy (they called it negative and positive list*). As did and still do other countries in Asia. South Korea was built through South Korean initiatives: enterprises, South Koran conglomerates, education, research, agriculture, trading, etc. Most foreign investments, always a small part of the total investments in any country, were not aid but investments in South Korean enterprises and projects (aka bankable businesses/projects). Read books written by Park Chung Hee, otherwise taking to you is like talking to a western media spokesman because your knowledge is restricted or tainted by what you read from them and their reports (which is understandable since it's difficult to do otherwise).
Once again you simply are "debating" what is not at issue, and then repeating the painfully obvious. Of course "nobody provides aid to other people for their beautiful eyes (only self-interests)." Whoa! What a revelation there dear Captain Obvious! Who doesn't know this? And this was never at issue above.
And then as usual, you posture as someone who knows so much about the topic- even while proffering weak or shaky information. In fact, South Korea got plenty of foreign aid, and that aid was helpful in its industrialization and development as credible studies show. See for example below- QUOTE:
Post-war Korean economic development is, in part, due to well-managed development aid. For most of the post-war period, Korea was an aid recipient. The Korean government successfully utilised this financial assistance to overcome various domestic challenges through state-led projects designed to spur economic development (Kim J., 2011; Evans, 1995). According to Korean government estimates, the country received USD 12.7 billion between 1945 and the late 1990s, ‘which helped spur economic development and decrease poverty’ (OECD, 2008: 9). As illustrated by Figure 1, this aid was primarily provided by the United States, Japan and the European DAC members.Japanese loans issued in 1981 constituted the last significant aid assistance Korea received." South Korea’s Transition from Recipient to DAC Donor: Assessing Korea’s Development Cooperation Policy 2013. https://poldev.revues.org/1535
Yet you again insinuate the claim that aid was such a minor part of the picture. It was not. You say read Park CHung Hee, but here is what Park himself says in 1963, re aid- noting that US aid made up 52% of the Skorean budget QUOTE:
"This repesents 52% of the total budget.. thus more thanhalf the national budget depended on the United States.. It showed, dramatically, that our government would have to instantly close down if US aid were withheld or withdrawn."
--(Park Chung Hee, 1973- quoted in Korea's Development Under Park Chung Hee By Hyung-A Kim. 2004.)
That's a direct quote from Park- contradicting your claim. Once again you make all these sweeping pronouncements as if you know, but when even elementary examination is made of what you say, you again fail. Learn to get a better grasp of the facts before you come up with these sweeping statements.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is NOT a direct quote. I have the book and there's more ... than complete sentences.
Read books written by Park Chung Hee himself instead.
As for budget financed 50% by foreign loans and aid. We already have that in Africa for the last 60 years (some higher than 50%)...
Park Chung Hee there was talking about the problems lent to him by the previous South Korean governments. His goal was always to reverse the situation.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of posting stupid pictures why don't you read the next paragraph in the book (p89):
quote:Park tackled this issue on two fronts: he urged the Korean people to “wake up” from old habits of dependence and to work for economic development, and he demanded that the US Government change its aid policy to allow Korea to “obtain more of the kind of aid we want and to utilize it independently” (Park Chung Hee 1963a: 45). He declared, “We reject any begging-style aid” (Nam Chaehui 1963: 57). In campaigning for Korea’s autonomy, free from US intervention linked to foreign aid, Park set about systematically eliminating US influence on Korean Government affairs. -quote same book
Now, please, shut it for you own sakes. I say that as a friend. Read Park Chung Hee's book. You're wasting my time otherwise because you're just repeating what you gather from western media and literature (or those influenced by them) which I'm already familiar with.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tropicals said: In terms of stopping the looting of Africa...in my opinion, given the kleptocracies, the presence of militaries ready to intervene in civilian politics, and the disconnect between political elites/the state and civil society, I don't see any easy answers. It's been said before elsewhere, but radical change - which I think it perhaps needs to be - might require a second wave of decolonization. For Africa to reconfigure its relationship with the rest of the world, I think there needs to be fundamental 'internal' restructuring/ accountability, so that governments really do act in the interests of their people. When the so-called Arab Spring started I did wonder whether it might spread south - looking at what happened across the MENA I'm sort of relieved it didn't.
All true. there is no easy answer. There are things that should be done, that would make a positive impact right away, but whether they WILL be done, both inside and outside Africa, is another matter, given the obstacles mentioned above. I can see why some Africans might say fick all ya'll, and try his chances as a boat refugee in the Mediterranean. I think the internal restructuring is needed, and badly.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun-Ra says: This is NOT a direct quote. I have the book and there's more ... than complete sentences. Read books written by Park Chung Hee himself instead. As for budget financed 50% by foreign loans and aid. We already have that in Africa for the last 60 years (some higher than 50%)... Park Chung Hee there was talking about the problems lent to him by the previous South Korean governments. His goal was always to reverse the situation.
You are wrong again, and again trying to appear as Mr Infallible rather than simply acknowledging the point and adjusting your inaccurate claim. When Park talks re: to "wake up" or to demand that the US government to "change its aid policy to allow Korea to “ obtain more of the kind of aid we want and to utilize it independently” and “We reject any begging-style aid”
- all that simply reinforces my point. You are making my point for me.
Think dude! Think! Your own quote shows that (a) the US aid was in place, (b) the aid was very important to South Korea, and (c) Park wanted to change THE KINDS OF AID received, and wanted to be able to use the aid INDEPENDENTLY without US strings. The aid was in place. None of this helps your earlier claim that aid was so minimal or marginal to South Korea. You invoked Park to supposedly cover your shaky point, but in fact Park undermines what you say. Rather than admit you are wrong or acknowledge the data and modify your point, you keep trying to cover up. You aren't fooling anyone..
In campaigning for Korea’s autonomy, free from US intervention linked to foreign aid, Park set about systematically eliminating US influence on Korean Government affairs.
Dude, this undermines your case. Park campaigning to a state "free of aid" shows that the aid ALREADY EXISTED and was INFLUENTIAL. Why else would he be "campaigning" in the first place? Use some logic dude.
And Park wanted more power over Koreas affairs, he wanted to reduce US influence based on how the US interfered in S Korean affairs using aid as a leverage. Fine, But again, this dos not cancel out the central point that (a) the aid ALREADY EXISTED and (b) was INFLUENTIAL, and (c) Park wanted to use said aid more INDEPENDENTLY of US interference. Why else would Park be "campaigning" to reduce the US using aid to interfere?
By the way you say "repeatedly read from Park's books. How come you don't actually post something from those books to support your point? What's taking you so long?
Now, please, shut it for you own sakes. I say that as a friend. Read Park Chung Hee's book. You're wasting my time otherwise because you're just repeating what you gather from western media and literature (or those influenced by them) which I'm already familiar with.
No, you quit your line of bullshiit, and your continued habit of covering and hiding and denying, as if you are Mr Infallible, when people point out things that you get wrong. Acknowledge that the data people point out makes a claim untenable, and simply adjust your claim- Done. You don't have to try to maintain that you are Mr Infallible, and waste the time of people here, when all you need to do is acknowledge what has been pointed out an correct what you say. Again and again people here on ES have called you out on things you keep claiming and again and again rather than simply tweak and modify what you say, you go into this elaborate "I can't possibly be wrong" mode, trying to argue or justify an untenable point. I can't imagine a bigger waste of time. Dude you are gonna be wrong sometimes... its the nature of the business..
When something you say is off, qualify your statement and/or adjust to the new data. That's all dude.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
As I said: Park Chung Hee there was talking about the problems lent to him by the previous South Korean governments. The situation of South Korea before Park Chung Hee took power was as worse as many current African countries. His goal was always to reverse the situation.
This is a quote from your book:
quote:Park tackled this issue on two fronts: he urged the Korean people to “wake up” from old habits of dependence and to work for economic development, and he demanded that the US Government change its aid policy to allow Korea to “obtain more of the kind of aid we want and to utilize it independently” (Park Chung Hee 1963a: 45). He declared, “We reject any begging-style aid” (Nam Chaehui 1963: 57). In campaigning for Korea’s autonomy, free from US intervention linked to foreign aid, Park set about systematically eliminating US influence on Korean Government affairs. -quote same book
^^If African countries do something similar to that. Half the victory would have been won. The main ideology of Park Chung Hee was one of "Self-Reliance". Google it, read his books, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, dude and you wonder why you receive such a negative reaction on ES... You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder. When something you say is off, simply qualify your statement and/or adjust to the new data. That's all.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: lol, dude and you wonder why you receive such a negative reaction on ES... You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder. When something you say is off, simply qualify your statement and/or adjust to the new data. That's all.
Blablabla. No quote from Park Chung Hee. Just stupid western government influenced garbage and stupid pictures.
You lied about Park Chung Hee's quote, you lie about me.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am no economist, but I've longed intuited that you can't have the sheer level of material affluence we enjoy without hogging a larger proportion of resources for ourselves, away from the people who become the have-nots of the world. Our planet has only so many resources to share after all. It may make us uncomfortable, but we in the industrialized nations may have to cut back on our obscene rate of consumption in order for the so-called developing nations to prosper. But I don't think most of us will appreciate losing the luxury we've inherited from our heritage of imperialism, however serious that loss might be. It's not going to be an easy solution.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Increase in consumption (and consumers) is the main thing driving global economic growth.
For example, China is a new market of billions of people (even if there's still some protectionist measures, as in the EU and America).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
People on ES have disagreed with me on this before, but I maintain that there aren't sufficient fossil fuels in the world for everyone to have the living standard associated with industrialised societies. I'm doubtful China will ever be uniformly developed. The term 'developing' is misleading, as it suggests a path which was never really there for most countries.
quote: I am no economist, but I've longed intuited that you can't have the sheer level of material affluence we enjoy without hogging a larger proportion of resources for ourselves, away from the people who become the have-nots of the world. Our planet has only so many resources to share after all. It may make us uncomfortable, but we in the industrialized nations may have to cut back on our obscene rate of consumption in order for the so-called developing nations to prosper. But I don't think most of us will appreciate losing the luxury we've inherited from our heritage of imperialism, however serious that loss might be. It's not going to be an easy solution.
posted
Fossil fuels will be depleted at one point or another no matter what. Alternative to fossil fuels exist already in the form of biodiesel, ethanol, electric cars, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, I don't think any combination of alternative fuels will be able to support the industrialised economies that exist today. I wonder whether we've been living in a time that, in terms of human experience, will be regarded as a historical aberration.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're like 20 years too late. LOL Alternative fuels are already functional. For example, you can already use a fully electric car
But then the concession-
quote:even if the performance is not the same .
Now extrapolate from that. I'm doubtful that alternatives will support industrialised business as usual.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. It would be great though if you could clarify how alternatives will permit industrialized societies to continue as today.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^No problem. I think it's too difficult for you to understand. You must have minimal amount of intelligence. For the moment, just slowly re-read what I already told you. Go easy on yourself.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'Cheese is cheese' Really? Given your inanities on this site, it's now wonder you come up with such drivel.
I told the guy to extrapolate. Something you also failed to do.
You might well be able to fly a test solar powered glider around the world, but in terms of speed and cargo capacity, does that mean it performs on a par with a 747? Will there ever be a solar powered 747?
Theoretically, you might be able to provide half of Europe's electricity needs from wind turbines...but what are the practicalities? What sort of numbers are we talking of? What sort of production capacity would be needed for producing these numbers?
Theoretically, you could provide the earth's electrical needs through solar power by covering just 1% of the earth's surface. Is that total surface (ocean and land mass) or just land mass? Even if it's just land mass, how big is the equivalent of 1% of the worlds land mass as surface area? France and the Iberian peninsula? What are the practicalities around doing this? What production capacity would be required?
Think
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redacted: ^ 'Cheese is cheese' Really? Given your inanities on this site, it's now wonder you come up with such drivel.
I told the guy to extrapolate. Something you also failed to do.
You might well be able to fly a test solar powered glider around the world, but in terms of speed and cargo capacity, does that mean it performs on a par with a 747? Will there ever be a solar powered 747?
Theoretically, you might be able to provide half of Europe's electricity needs from wind turbines...but what are the practicalities? What sort of numbers are we talking of? What sort of production capacity would be needed for producing these numbers?
Theoretically, you could provide the earth's electrical needs through solar power by covering just 1% of the earth's surface. Is that total surface (ocean and land mass) or just land mass? Even if it's just land mass, how big is the equivalent of 1% of the worlds land mass as surface area? France and the Iberian peninsula? What are the practicalities around doing this? What production capacity would be required?
Think
Listen redacted,
Fuel is Fuel.
I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
So a Man or Woman drives a Car to Work (sadly, Try Public Transit) One Gets there inside 30 minutes the Other Arrives inside of 45 minutes,
should the Dude that took 45mins trade his car for the car that performed at 15mins less.
Chill redacted
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
So a Man or Woman drives a Car to Work (sadly, Try Public Transit) One Gets there inside 30 minutes the Other Arrives inside of 45 minutes,
should the Dude that took 45mins trade his car for the car that performed [Roll Eyes] at 15mins less.
Chill redacted
Groan
You're telling me to chill when it was your buddy who started with the personal digs, which you seemed to endorse...go back and take a read.
quote:I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
Link?
And what would water-powered cars have to do with the questions I raised over the practicalities of wind and solar energy as replacements for fossil fuels?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
So a Man or Woman drives a Car to Work (sadly, Try Public Transit) One Gets there inside 30 minutes the Other Arrives inside of 45 minutes,
should the Dude that took 45mins trade his car for the car that performed [Roll Eyes] at 15mins less.
Chill redacted
Groan
You're telling me to chill when it was your buddy who started with the personal digs, which you seemed to endorse...go back and take a read.
quote:I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
Link?
And what would water-powered cars have to do with the questions I raised over the practicalities of wind and solar energy as replacements for fossil fuels?
redacted.
I don't endorse namecalling...I also don't endorse People who think that they have some info from the establishment that trumps People Speaking Reality.
emails from some mainstream person does not trump Truth.
Amun Ra said Alternitives to Fossil fuels, not just solar energy.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
^
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic