Don't Push Pakistan Too Far

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Neocon
Comparing Africa to Europe is RIDICULOUS.

True, both have many ethnic groups. That's where the comparison ends.

Europe has certainly had plenty of conflict, but Europe has also had plenty of technological and social development. Africa has not. It's as simple as that. Africa is going nowhere fast. The only country with a LITTLE hope is South Africa, and even there it's touch and go.

You cannot develop a country by completley opening your markets to free trade and allowing multinational corporation a free hand.

"Asia didnt do this, if you look at Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia their programs were more socialist than capitalist, thier doors where shut tight during the early years.
all those countries had a small upper class that controlled most of the land and wealth of the countries, just like venazuala has been historically.

The first step in development for all the asian tigers expect for the city states of singapore and hongkong was land reform."

They were certainly NOT more socialist than capitalist. All of the societies you mentioned most certainly allowed the markets to develop more free from government control and with low tax rates than you leave the impression. You are using A VERY LOOSE definition of socialism. By the way, all of those countries STILL have a small upper class that control most of the land and wealth. That is inevitable - even desirable. If wealth is evenly spread, large economic enterprises that employ large numbers of people can not gain traction.

"the only thing i find wrong with chavez is the political front.
i am afriad he is a demagouge simply becuase he has not set up institutions that will keep up the work of reform and bolivarian revolution.
he has concentrated all power this is a sign of things going wrong."

This is correct. Also, when a government tries to reapportion wealth via "natinalization" it runs the VERY GRAVE risk of scaring off any future would be investors. And governments DO NOT RUN BUISINESSES WELL. They are notoriously inefficient.

[gurey25]

Yes i was taking a looser definition of socialism, but you cannot deny the fact that South Korea had about as much government control over the economy and direction as East germany.

The koreans and other were simply not ideologically motivated and believed in doing whatever got results.

[neocon_2007]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Neocon
Comparing Africa to Europe is RIDICULOUS.

True, both have many ethnic groups. That's where the comparison ends.

Europe has certainly had plenty of conflict, but Europe has also had plenty of technological and social development. Africa has not. It's as simple as that. Africa is going nowhere fast. The only country with a LITTLE hope is South Africa, and even there it's touch and go.

You cannot develop a country by completley opening your markets to free trade and allowing multinational corporation a free hand.

"Asia didnt do this, if you look at Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia their programs were more socialist than capitalist, thier doors where shut tight during the early years.
all those countries had a small upper class that controlled most of the land and wealth of the countries, just like venazuala has been historically.

The first step in development for all the asian tigers expect for the city states of singapore and hongkong was land reform."

They were certainly NOT more socialist than capitalist. All of the societies you mentioned most certainly allowed the markets to develop more free from government control and with low tax rates than you leave the impression. You are using A VERY LOOSE definition of socialism. By the way, all of those countries STILL have a small upper class that control most of the land and wealth. That is inevitable - even desirable. If wealth is evenly spread, large economic enterprises that employ large numbers of people can not gain traction.

"the only thing i find wrong with chavez is the political front.
i am afriad he is a demagouge simply becuase he has not set up institutions that will keep up the work of reform and bolivarian revolution.
he has concentrated all power this is a sign of things going wrong."

This is correct. Also, when a government tries to reapportion wealth via "natinalization" it runs the VERY GRAVE risk of scaring off any future would be investors. And governments DO NOT RUN BUISINESSES WELL. They are notoriously inefficient.[/quote]

I made absolutely NO REFRENCE TO ETHNIC DIVERSITY OF BOTH CONTINENTS. As IGNORANT as you are you said , " (Africa) NEVER had a history of political or economical stability". Are you kidding me, with a IQ of 135 look up "NEVER" . Your beating around the bush becuase clearly and out right laughable your claim that Africa NEVER is false. That has absolutely no barring to contemprary issues that "Africa" faces when you need to LOOK UP your own history young lad, cause you really dont have much. Yada Yada we know America and the West aka Western Europe is running things today. But it was yesterday when the brits were being raped and subjegated to slavery by the Iberians

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"Yes i was taking a looser definition of socialism, but you cannot deny the fact that South Korea had about as much government control over the economy and direction as East germany.

The koreans and other were simply not ideologically motivated and believed in doing whatever got results."

I most certainly can deny it. East Germany allowed almost no private ownership of property. All major buisinesses were government owned and government run - to disastorous results, I might add. Their respective economies WERE NOTHING ALIKE.

Socialism - that is, the reapporitionment of wealth either through government ownership of property or via very high tax rates is an inhibitor to economic growth. If there is less capital availavle to invest in the economy, and the economy is dependent on government investment for it to function, then it will inherently function inefficiently.

The problem with people from the third world is they want to apportion external blame for their economic problems and they are looking for panaceas to fix their economic problems. Universally they have been, and will continue to be, disappointed. The only reason Chavez and Ahmedinijad get away with this at all is because they have oil revenues. If they did not, they would be SCREWED.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Neo
I should have said "Sub-Saharan Africa". That would have been more accurrate. Sub-Saharan Africa has ALWAYS been a basket case. There, you happy now?

[Padishah]

No Western Nation has come to its situation today purely because of Free Market economics.

From about the 1950's, to about the 1970's, the world was heavily socialistic, and if not, government had much to do in setting up, trainign, and funding many of the largest and most successful business.

18th Colonialism provided a HUGE boost to the European economy, bringing in cheap resources, captive markets, and lots and lots of bullion. And before that, the Mercantilism that went with the Europeans American colonies provided the basis for their further colonial exploits in the 18th Century.

Consider that Qantas is the ONLY non-budget airline company that is not supported by taxes of their home government, today.

So, don't blabber nonsense while the IMF and World Bank foist Free Market 'competition' (read economic pillaging) to impoverished, under-developed, under-educated and corruption rife countries in the name of helping them, while doing no such thing.

[neocon_2007]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Neo
I should have said "Sub-Saharan Africa". That would have been more accurrate. Sub-Saharan Africa has ALWAYS been a basket case. There, you happy now?[/quote]

Dumb as fool SSA what do you mean NEVER considering the sahara was once fertile. Anyways its limiting to go through history with you considering I havent fallen short of much and contemporary history if im not mistaken has swayed your thinking of who has "NEVER had polotical or economical stability".

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"No Western Nation has come to its situation today purely because of Free Market economics.

From about the 1950's, to about the 1970's, the world was heavily socialistic, and if not, government had much to do in setting up, trainign, and funding many of the largest and most successful business."

This is not accurrate. Like Gurey, you are using a VERY LOOSE definition of socialism. EVERY GOVERNMENT uses some form of taxation to provide government services. This is socialism. So, using this definition, the US is a socialist country.

"18th Colonialism provided a HUGE boost to the European economy, bringing in cheap resources, captive markets, and lots and lots of bullion. And before that, the Mercantilism that went with the Europeans American colonies provided the basis for their further colonial exploits in the 18th Century."

And your point?

"Consider that Qantas is the ONLY non-budget airline company that is not supported by taxes of their home government, today."

And the point to this is?

"So, don't blabber nonsense while the IMF and World Bank foist Free Market 'competition' (read economic pillaging) to impoverished, under-developed, under-educated and corruption rife countries in the name of helping them, while doing no such thing."

This conversation had nothing to do with the IMG or the World Bank. How you got there from where we were, I do not know.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Neo
OK, true, 10,000 years ago the Sahara was fertile. I am not sure how that parleys into our current conversation however.

[neocon_2007]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Neo
OK, true, 10,000 years ago the Sahara was fertile. I am not sure how that parleys into our current conversation however.[/quote]

There were several ancient civilizations in AFRICA, SSA
Songhai Empire, Timbuktu, Great Zimbabwe and Axumite to name a few. Your view is extremely narrow and flawed.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

And all of those ancient civilizations were backwards and primative. That is why they were defeated or fell apart.

[neocon_2007]

[quote="MAD MAC"]And all of those ancient civilizations were backwards and primative. That is why they were defeated or fell apart.[/quote]

LMAO- Civilizations never last forever Mr. 135 IQ, whose to say anyones backwards or primitive considering your kind has engaged in the most treacherous practices known to mankind.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Neo
Ahhhh you are making the old mistake that violent, aggressive or treacherous is incompatable with advanced. Some of the most advanced civilizations in the world have been violent and treacherous. Ancient Rome would be a good example.

Africa is dominated for a host of reasons, but if you are thinking that Africa had some sort of "hey day" of great affluence and power, you are focking high.

[Bagamundo]

Egypt is in african and ancient egyptians were cushite people, mr macaroni.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I did modify with "sub-Saharan" did I not?