...
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] ^^left to lioness she will tell you Leopold's Congo regime was paradise for Africans. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by lamin: [b]Zarahan, So what is wrong with Nkrumah's model? His government could have gotten basic industrial infrastructure from both China and USSR while bartering tropical agricultural produce. [/b] Plenty wrong with it as already detailed above- and see below. You also say his government "could" have gotten basic industrial infrastruc from China or USSR via some sort of barter arrangement. Sure. Anything "could" have happened. Are you saying this is what Nkrumah actually did? Or what he "should" have done? [b]As I said, in the cases of China the embryonic business classes all fled to Taiwan and Hong Kong. So Mao had to start from scratch in terms of establishing and industrial infrastructure. The same with Russia, its embryonic business classes and the remnants of the feudals either fled or were executed. The rest were all sent to the big Siberian Gulag. [/b] OK, but you earlier said such bidniss classes did not exist. But anyhow, Mao did not start from scratch to reestablish infrastructure. Large segments of said infrastructure was left in place after Chiang fled, and the infrastu left behind by the Japanese in Manchuria after WW2 was also in place. Same with Russia, which although still mostly a rural country was already building machines, smelting steel, building railways and making modern firearms BEFORE the Communist revolution. [b]Nkrumah had instituted the Ghana Institute of Science and Technology which began to produce some very competent graduates. Ghana was on its way when the coup was mounted---Nkrumah was on visit to North Korea[which now has the bomb--proof of a certain level of technological competence. It also builds its ships and armaments--with no outside help].[/b] Fair enough. I agree Nkrumah should be credited for expanding education. But what is the use of all those competent graduates if they have no productive jobs in a declining, chaotic economy? This is precisely the problem afflicting several African countries today- churning out graduates with few prospects of productive employment. Or churning out a large number of health clinics with few supplies, little equipment and little money to pay skilled staff adequately? It is all well and good to tout education and such, but are all those good things being maintained long term? What is the bottom line return on investment? [b]This was the basis for Nkruhmah' socialism--whoce goal was industrialisation. His Pan-Africanism[ see his Africa Must Unite] had to do with the fact that the small monocultural agricultural nations of Africa just could not industrialise on their own. They had to pool their resources and form regional and continental units--in terms of currencies, trading blocs, etc. Now all this is totally alien to the nonsense Ayitteh writes. [/b] Again, Nkrumah should be credited with his fierce condemnation of colonialism and imperialism, and his forceful declaration of African independence. I would also credit him with financing and providing a platform for numerous liberation organization in Southern Africa and elsewhere. But was his industrialization approach the right one for Ghana? There are a lot of disastrous things he did by choice, of his own volition, to fulfill his grand vision. And it is a very open question whether African leaders at the time wanted regional integration. Such integration even Europe has taken multiple decades to even approach. And Africa, just out of colonialism was supposed to magically pull it off? Furthermore in the individual territories various African tribes and leaders were quite fierce in guarding their own fiefdoms and were unwilling to submit to any regional overlord. Oh, there was plenty of LIP SERVICE to Pan Africanism, but what counts is not the rhetoric at OAU meetings, but the actual bottom line behavior on the ground. Nkrumah's Panafrican integration notions were unrealistic at the time he put them forward. They were never a priority for the vast majority of African countries and leaders. It all made good rhetoric, but the bottom line is not the political rhetoric but actual behavior on the ground. [b]Re German development: After the unification of Germany under Bismarck, Germany eventually established the mercantilist principle of "autarky" which meant high tariffs to protect Germany's fledgling industries. The German state was central in all of this. Eventually, Germany surpassed Britain and France in terms of industrial capacity and output.[/b] True, but Germany first had to boost productivity to pay for its industrial investments. Agricultural productivity had to be boosted FIRST, so cash could be generated to cover mounting bills. One thing the Germans did NOT do is to impoverish their farmers. Compare with Nkrumah where farmers not only got poorer, but their output eventually dropped as they were forced to shift to subsistence activity. And while the German state vigorously promoted econ development, such development was primarily a matter of a private sector marked by rising levels of productivity. [b]Re creation of capital: You[Central bank] just increase the money supply by bond sales--printing money. The received cash is then parceled out to the banks who then use their increased deposits to loan out. The government is also in the mix to borrow from the CB and can use that money to build industrial infrastructure. What happens in corrupt nations is that the money that flows to the government is stolen, banked abroad and consumed when necessary. Present case: Tunisia.[/b] Sure the gubment can always print more money, but printing more money does not necessarily mean you will be able to cover bills due, because the currency may become more and more worthless. Under Nkrumahism this is precisely what happened- rampant inflation, gubment unable to pay its bills or make its payroll, declining exports- chaos. See below. So Nkrumah did indeed "create capital" as you say, by printing more' money. The result was dismal. There you have it. [IMG]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1407/ghanafailure.jpg[/IMG] As said before I credit Nkrumah with certain things, but based on what you have seen above, do you still hold Nkrumahism is a valid solution or strategy for Africa's economic development today? I am not gonna jump down on your answer - just want to know how you would modify Nkrumah's principles to fit the current day. And how would you deal with African countries and leaders who once again, want no part of any regional bloc or regional integration? [/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