The Five Hundred Billion Dollar Lunch

[neonlyte]

The guy claims he's depressed that he cannot afford to pay his workers enough to feed their families, I think he should stop taking clients out for lunch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7474136.stm

What a fucking mess that country is: 'we' invade Iraq to win oil and turn a blind eye AGAIN to butchery in Africa.

 

[CharleyH]

We do have to ask, though, what is it about Africa that makes all attempts at self-rule turn into blood-red desert sands and five million percent inflation rates?

 

[neonlyte]

We do have to ask, though, what is it about Africa that makes all attempts at self-rule turn into blood-red desert sands and five million percent inflation rates?

Good question: shame I suspect... having interfered once, 'white people' are too ashamed to interfere again. Exploiting mineral wealth will change that, control (of substantial parts of Africa) is probably a couple of decades away... after HIV and famine has reduced the numbers to controllable levels.

Excuse my cynicism.

 

[CharleyH]

Good question: shame I suspect... having interfered once, 'white people' are too ashamed to interfere again. Exploiting mineral wealth will change that, control (of substantial parts of Africa) is probably a couple of decades away... after HIV and famine has reduced the numbers to controllable levels.

Excuse my cynicism.

Yes, I understand that, but I was looking at it from the other side: why is it that whenever an African nation tries to run itself without interference from 'white people', this is the result?

 

[Liar]

We do have to ask, though, what is it about Africa that makes all attempts at self-rule turn into blood-red desert sands and five million percent inflation rates?

Lack of economic infrastructure.

 

[CharleyH]

Lack of economic infrastructure.

Zimbabwe had a thriving economic infrastructure when Mugabe reached power, though, didn't it?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The guy claims he's depressed that he cannot afford to pay his workers enough to feed their families, I think he should stop taking clients out for lunch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7474136.stm

What a fucking mess that country is: 'we' invade Iraq to win oil and turn a blind eye AGAIN to butchery in Africa.

Gosh, Neon, "we" have done all that was asked in Zimbabwe. "We" were supportive of the "freedom fighter" Mugabe when he expelled the nasty racist imperialists back in the 1970s (all snarkiig asise there was nasty racism, too) and replaced it with a Marxist government. (I remember glowing accounts of Mugabe rallies on NPR back then.) "We" made the appropriate socialist-solidarity noises a few years ago when he evicted the white farmers who were the backbone of the nation's agricultural abundance and redistributed their land to masses from the urban slums (to distract attention from that crumbling economy and his own political problems) - people who hardly would have known what to do with a seed, much less a tractor.

Now, thanks to 30+ years of socialist mismanagement, the economy there has collapsed entirely, millions in a former food-exporting nation starve because it can't grow enough to feed its own people, and you want "us" to - to do what, exactly? Invade and expel another dictator? Get EU farmers and politicians to remove tariffs and subsidies that have gutted growth-generating export opportunities for those undeveloped nations who haven't slit their own economic throats with Marxist mismanagement to quite the same extent as Zimbabwe? (I'm with you on that one.) Sneer at what might be the last remaining entrepreneurial capitalist who's providing 500 jobs against all odds, with survival a forlorn hope? (Oh yes, I'm sure the concessions to the Marxists both moral and economic that this enterprise has had to make to stay alive are epic indeed - Let's spit on him!)

"You can evade reality, but you can't evade the consequences of evading reality."

I'm curious about the identity of this "we" you're referring to. Neocons? SAS? The brave blue-helmets of the U.N.? (Hide the maidens if the latter.)

 

[Liar]

Ok, let me explain that a little4 further. They try to run western style democracies in a tribal style culture. Western style democracy requires too much centralized institutions and a rigid financial framework to work well. The only national financial framework that these nations have is one that was forced upon them by colonial rule. And that one only worked under threat of force or later after they left under massive economic exchange with their old colonial masters, "borrowing" their stability and institutions.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

neon,

I respect you, but this is plain silly. The Iraq war had, and has, nothing to do with 'winning' oil. That is just an unintelligent way of analysing the problem.

Every country, and the UN organizations, had Saddam banged to rights for having 'weapons of mass destruction'. It was only afterwards we learnt that this 'evidence' was culled by a spin-doctor for the left-wing Blair government. Perhaps the 'cheese-bothering' Chirac - who was protecting Elf and Total exploration contracts - had it right. He said that Blair was a liar.

The shabby trick that the UK played in having Colin Powell stand up at the UN and spout unresearched crap produced by Blair's propaganda unit will never be forgiven.

With regard to Zimbabwe, with the colonial past, the UK cannot play an active part. I am the first to say that the US, together with South Africa, China, Russia and the UN should be taking the lead - but why is the BBC reporting that UK supermarkets are packing their shelves with Zimbabwe produce, not only depriving starving people of food but also lining the pockets of the pariah administration.

Obama and McCain haven't flagged Africa yet, but after the pop concerts and mealy-mouthed words supporting rich and stupid stars, where is Blair and Brown's commitment to a new Africa?

Sorry, a bit of a rant, but the oil jibe - meaningless and untrue - riles me as it hides the real casus belli.

 

[neonlyte]

Yes, I understand that, but I was looking at it from the other side: why is it that whenever an African nation tries to run itself without interference from 'white people', this is the result?

Tribalism in a word. Africa's country boundaries are not tribal boundaries. Most countries have several ethnic tribal societies whose rivalry transcends socio-economic and socio-political norms. It is not really that different from Europe several hundred years ago. The north American continent settled its differences with the minority tribes under the emerging gaze of the media and a nascent social-conscienceness, a hundred years earlier and no one would have given a fuck, many still don't, but no African leader can afford another Rwanda... though many are trying.

 

[Liar]

Zimbabwe had a thriving economic infrastructure when Mugabe reached power, though, didn't it?

Yer too quick for me. See my next post

 

[rgraham666]

We do have to ask, though, what is it about Africa that makes all attempts at self-rule turn into blood-red desert sands and five million percent inflation rates?

Tribalism. Exacerbated by our drawing national boundaries across traditional borders. And our attempt to make modern Western industrial states out of them. Plus using them as pawns in the Cold War.

But tribalism is at the root of it. The tribe comes first, always. And there's no space for other tribes in their world. It's an all or nothing proposition.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Zimbabwe had a thriving economic infrastructure when Mugabe reached power, though, didn't it?

Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of southern Africa - see my previous post.

Sorry, folks - you can't blame anyone outside of Zimbabwe for this one - except perhaps Marx, Lenin and generations of western intelectual, political and diplomatic elites who have played the enablers to "liberationist" dogma and the thugs like Mugabe who grow fat upon it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Thoughts About Zimbabwe

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_oh_to_be.html

 

[CharleyH]

Ok, let me explain that a little4 further. They try to run western style democracies in a tribal style culture. Western style democracy requires too much centralized institutions and a rigid financial framework to work well. The only national financial framework that these nations have is one that was forced upon them by colonial rule. And that one only worked under threat of force or later after they left under massive economic exchange with their old colonial masters, "borrowing" their stability and institutions.

How are they trying to run "western style" democracies if what happens, in almost every instance, is a muscled, army-backed almost (when not literal) takeover of power?

 

[neonlyte]

a hornet's nest

Elfin & Roxanne,

Yep... the oil argument is irrational. I concede.

My point ought to have been, a few beans on supermarket shelves does not make Zimbabwe important enough to warrant intervention, not by the West, not by Africa and not by the Chinese who may, or may not be investing heavily in the country.

It is the age old problem of taking a moral stand. Yes, the British finally supported Mugabe in taking control of the country but we didn't support him to do what is happening now. Getting rid of Mugabe is unlikely to solve Zimbabwe's problems, the country is divided on tribal and political lines.

A benevolent dictator would be useful in the short term - but they are in short supply, for the cost of one months 'consolidation' in Iraq, Zimbabwe might head in the economic direction it enjoyed in the early days of Mugabe's reign.

Sitting around posturing while watching people die, in my opinion, is no longer good enough if we ever want to be considered civilised.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of southern Africa - see my previous post.

Sorry, folks - you can't blame anyone outside of Zimbabwe for this one - except perhaps Marx, Lenin and generations of western intelectual, political and diplomatic elites who have played the enablers to "liberationist" dogma and the thugs like Mugabe who grow fat upon it.

Roxanne, I think you are wrong. The US and the UK have a lot of fingerprints on the current chaos in Zimbabwe.

South Africa ( a bit like Russia) sorted itself out internally and the early stages of democratic freedom are slowly taking root.

We (US and UK) forced SA's Vorster to cut energy supply to Zimbabwe, used sanctions to force a precipitate change of government and installed a marxist freedom fighter as a stalwart of democracy. Two years later he had massacred 20,000 Matabelan citizens and we still had him give freedom speeches in New York.

What is going on now in Harare is unforgivable, but blood lies on both the US and UK administrations.

 

[Liar]

How are they trying to run "western style" democracies if what happens, in almost every instance, is a muscled, army-backed almost (when not literal) takeover of power?

Um... poorly?

Trying is not the same as succeeding. Like I said, western style democracy requires the kind of society from which it emerged to work well.

And that kind of society is not compatible with their culture. This is not to say thay can't have functioning democracy. But they'll have to rethink how it is to be structured, from the ground up. It's a mistake to think that democracy is easy, or that there's only one way of doing it right. It takes effort, focus and careful tightrope walking.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am the first to say that the US, together with South Africa, China, Russia and the UN should be taking the lead . . .

Why the US? And for God's sake what possible constructive contribution could you possibly expect from "China, Russia and the UN?" I can hardly imagine a more morally bankrupt lot of international ne'er do wells than that lot - with SA distingished only by its lack of capacity to match the others in cynical manipulativeness.

My post about Marxist mismanagement and RG's post about tribalism tell you all you need to know about this problem.

Some of the posts here show how easily many people slip into the flip side of neocon hubris on issues like this - substituting the belief that all that's wrong in the world is the fault of the US (or the West) for the notion that nothing good can happen in the world unless the US gets in there and makes it so.

Zimbabwe is a self-made disaster built on cultural, political and economic dysfunctions that are purely domestic. They made the disaster and only they can unmake it - and the tragic fact that they are probabably absolutely incapable of doing so does not change the truth of that.

 

[rgraham666]

I'll say it again. Iraq had nothing to do with oil.

It was a scene out of The Wild West. A tough gunman strapped on his guns, walked into town and shot somebody. After which he announced "There ain't no more law in this here town exceptn' what I say there is.

Richard Perle made that quite clear in the Guardian five years ago.

ETA: Sorry my link was to an edited version. Here's the full version.

 

[Liar]

Zimbabwe is a self-made disaster built on cultural, political and economic dysfunctions that are purely domestic. They made the disaster and only they can unmake it - and the tragic fact that they are probabably absolutely incapable of doing so does not change the truth of that.

I read in today's paper that the brits and the EU are considering promoting military action to prevent another genocide taking place.

I'm afraid that that's the only way the west can intervene - throuigh military iron fist. And I'm not sure the result would be any less a disaster.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Why the US? And for God's sake what possible constructive contribution could you possibly expect from "China, Russia and the UN?" I can hardly imagine a more morally bankrupt lot of international ne'er do wells than that lot - with SA distingished only by its lack of capacity to match the others in cynical manipulativeness.

My post about Marxist mismanagement and RG's post about tribalism tell you all you need to know about this problem.

Some of the posts here show how easily many people slip into the flip side of neocon hubris on issues like this - substituting the belief that all that's wrong in the world is the fault of the US (or the West) for the notion that nothing good can happen in the world unless the US gets in there and makes it so.

Zimbabwe is a self-made disaster built on cultural, political and economic dysfunctions that are purely domestic. They made the disaster and only they can unmake it - and the tragic fact that they are probabably absolutely incapable of doing so does not change the truth of that.

The US post-war spent a lot of effort rubbishing European 'colonies' becaus we saw them, unreasonably, as blocks on US expansion.

The empires of the UK, France - even Holland and Belgium - needed liberating but we in the US have shown scant interest in helping this continent beyond introducing them to Big Macs and KFC. Where were we in Rwanda; can you excuse the non-participation in Darfur, Burma: the list is endless. Oil is a diversion. We just don't care enough about things not in our backyard. That is closer to the truth

 

[CharleyH]

Um... poorly?

Trying is not the same as succeeding. Like I said, western style democracy requires the kind of society from which it emerged to work well.

And that kind of society is not compatible with their culture. This is not to say thay can't have functioning democracy. But they'll have to rethink how it is to be structured, from the ground up. It's a mistake to think that democracy is easy, or that there's only one way of doing it right. It takes effort, focus and careful tightrope walking.

Maybe, but some kind of society has to be. If tribalism is all they know, why hasn't any African nation tried a further breakdown of frontiers, a tribal self-determination of sorts, splitting the territory into the smallest still-functioning sectors possible.

On the other hand, who says democracy is the way to go? People aren't doing that poorly in Brunei...

 

[rgraham666]

One more thing to add.

The fact that people caught in long armed conflicts tend to become brutalized. There comes a time when you've know nothing but violence, fear and hate. It then becomes nearly impossible to think and act outside the parameters these things dictate.

 

[neonlyte]

Why the US? And for God's sake what possible constructive contribution could you possibly expect from "China, Russia and the UN?" I can hardly imagine a more morally bankrupt lot of international ne'er do wells than that lot - with SA distingished only by its lack of capacity to match the others in cynical manipulativeness.

Leaving aside the neocon and Marxist dogma... Why the USA?

Actually... who else would you trust?

Not the UN - they are having trouble collectively pissing in a swimming pool.
Not the UK - we lack the moral backbone to act with a collective conscience.
Not the EU - they can't even agree the wording of their 'alliance' and have no right to lecture to others until they stop behaving like children at a tea party.
Not China - their money speaks louder than their military
Not Africa - (they don't have maps to Zimbabwe)

The USA needs to stop being a world class pussy and exercise political muscle on something relevant to the society it proclaims to lead.