When Africa awakes

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:02 am

When China awakes,
it will shake europe.
When Africa awakes,
it will kill europe.

Is this true ?

THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING PAPER WRITTEN BY PROF. YASH TANDON:

http://www.isgnweb.org/pub/01-003.htm

New Poster Joined: May 22, 2005 Posts: 14

Interesting but totally incorrect.

The writer asserts that globalization of Africa's economy will subjugate it's people to slavery forever. The writer further states that Africa's only real choice is self reliance. It is apparent this writer is making a political statement and not an economic one. This writer has no basis in economic reality to make these assertions primarily because they are totally false.

The Empire the writer refers to (Anglophone Nations ie. US,UK Australia, New Zealand,Canada etc.) got to be in that position entirely because of free trade. Self reliance was clearly not an option for any of these Nations. A closer look at their histories will bear these facts every bit as much today as when they were formed.

Globalization is not new by any means. Free enterprise and free trade are the backbones of any sucessful economy. The Roman Empire was built on trade from what was the entire known world. Technology, goods of every type and most importantly people of other customs, practices, races, religions and ethnic backgrounds were able to have free exchange of ideas which furthered the Empire. Just take a look at the infrastructure, roads, schools, water systems and sciences that are prevalent throughout the region. They would not exist without Globalization.

The US is the best example to use as it is clearly the richest, most powerful nation on earth.

It may come as a shock to many but the US has more foreign ownership and intergration than any other country. Foreign investment and trade were responsible for the US to survive and prosper. Still to this day, the US is by far the most divested and diverse country in the world.

Quality of life and cost of living have far more to do with the economic wellbeing of any given nation than does it's ability to be self reliant.

China, one of the worlds largest and most populated countries tried for centuries to be isolated and self reliant. They failed miserably and have changed to a capitolistic society which is now becoming a major economic power. Those changes happened within decades of adopting capitolism after centuries of poverty.

Wealth does not come from the ground as many, including the writer beleive, rather, it is created by people. The free exchange of ideas, culture, technology and trade are what frees people from the shackles of poverty.

Communisn and Socialism do not work. A look at any society will bear this out. Although the ideals of socialism or communism may appeal to the masses of poor who would prefer to blame the rich on their plight, but the exact opposite is true. If it were not, Cuba, The Soviet Union and Communist(not capitolistic)China would be the superpowers of the world today.

Militaries become powerful when they have funding, technology and civilian control. Those requirements do not exist in Socialist or Communist Nations. Some may have funding for a short period of time and some may have adequate technology for a short period of time but none have civilian control.

In order to compete with the financial might and technoligical advances of Capitolistic Democracies, there must be free trade and free exchange of ideas. By definition, Socialistic and Communistic countries do not have those abilities as they are primarily closed societies that only deal with other closed societies .

The other major flaw the writer assumes in his argument is that global economics are a zero sum gain. In other words, poorer countries can only garner wealth by taking it from richer countries and that rich countries got that way by subjugating the poorer ones. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that wealth grows exponentially when ALL are realizing a better standard of living.

The Professor is making a political statement and not an economic one as I have earlier stated.