...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Enrique Cardova says Nkrumah, Nyerere, Kaunda failures all,
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] [b]1) Development comes with capital spending: Private international banks in Africa will not make capital available for such. The solution is for the state through its Central Bank to create capital. Banks in the West do it all the time. Have you ever heard of "creating money out of thin air". [/b] OK fair enough. We have plenty of "thin air money" in the West. But development does not merely rely on capital spending. Once again you seem to have this naive idea that resources can just magically spring up out of nowhere by gubment decree. There is also such a thing as productivity. There is savings, etc. And you don't need a Central Bank to "create capital." What do you mean by "create capital"? [b]2) In Africa, the business classes are very reduced in number--and most are into import business--so to harness enough capital for real developmet the STATE has to do it--often in partnership with enterprising business groups. This is what happened in South Korea and Taiwan.[/b] OK, fine, but this is not what Nkrumah did. He rather undermined not only the independent business class, (as opposed to favored cronies and party members), but even more critical, the broad mass of ordinary African peasant farmers that were the backbone of Ghana's economy. [b]3) In Russia and China ate the times of their revolutions the business classes were very reduced in numbers. Don't forget that Russia was essentially a feudal state and China was very rural and peasant at the time. The STATE again had to create and harness capital to move both nations into the industrial era.[/b] On what basis do you claim said business classes were very much reduced in number? Compared to what? was it a 10% drop? 20%? What? You never say. You just go on making these sweeping claims with little to back them up. And can you explain what you mean by "create capital"? How exactly is capital "created?" [b]4) Your points about development are just totally wrong. If what you say is correct, explain how Germany industrialised from the 1850s onward. Or China or Korea? These 2 were rural hardly industrialised countries after WWII. The same for Russia. Japan defeated Russia in the 1905 war. Japan invaded China and took over a huge chunk of land and resources in Manchuria. The Japanese invaded Korea and colonised it just before WWII. The reason is that all 3 countries: Russia, China and Korea were underdeveloped agricultural/peasant nations at the time. So explain how these countries became industrialised. [/b] You can't tell me how what I said about needing to PAY for imports and such are totally wrong. How? You keep hopping from claim to claim, ducking and weaving without delivering answers. During its early industralization Germany actually had to import substantial machinery and foreign expertise. It had to PAY for these by providing other goods and services in return. Agricultural productivity also had to be boosted as part of this process. Your naive notion of governments simply decreeing "capital" to do all these nice things is not how economics works. Even Stalin had to pay for imported machinery, tools and foreign technicians. As for Russia, Korea and China being largely rural- sure. No one disputes that. No one disputes that the totalitarian regimes in these countries pushed through industrialization. But all these regimes had to PAY for those imports to get started. In the communist countries it was achieved at tremenduous human cost. Even as millions of kulaks starved or were murdered for example, Stalin ruthlessly extracted their agricultural produce to pay for the imports he wanted, and to cover various costs of shifting resources to other sectors. China presents the same case- from reliance on the Soviets initially to the post-Mao liberalization and huge imports of Western and Japanese technology to accelerate moderinization, as it began to develop its own internal technology base. And same outcome as well in massive human costs. North Korea, no longer propped up for decades by Soviet aid, now finds itself in a pickle- but the sample totalitarian policies and the same huge body count there as well. And no one disputes that the state will always be a player in econ development. Of course. Simply by being the governing authority it will have a role and an impact via taxes, judicial systems, regulation, infrastructure building, security and so on- Econ 101. The state is always a player at some level. The key question is what is the right level? And how much suffering are you going to inflict on the population? Now once again explain: what you mean by "creating capital"? Be specific. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3