[EyeBrock]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

I'm sure the policy wonks and think tanks are more knowledgeable than us forum junkies.

I dont subscribe to your point of view. Eggheads are generally out of touch with reality.

That's BS.

Eggheads set policy and manipulate the foolish masses.

In every society, including "the west", there is small elite. These small elite control the wealth creation of the country. They also control the wealth itself.

This elite range from policy makers (political class) to simply wealthy private citizens.

Some are elite due to family ties, some due to innovation and hard work.

Then there's the middle class. The purpose of this class is to consume. The more they consume, the wealthier the top 5-10% become.

The middle class remains in the middle.

The middle class is the one that need to sweat for that mortgage, not the elites. The middle class masses are the ones lining up at 5am outside the Apple store for the new I-Gizmo.

The best part is the middle class thinks it controls its destiny. For the most part, it's the other way around. Its destiny is written in the policy setting rooms of Ottawa, Washington, London, Paris, and the corner office boardrooms of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other powerful institutions such as banks, insurance firms and other miscellaneous corporations.

They [the masses] are controlled by elites, and that's how it's always been, and that's how it will continue to be, regardless of political system, race of religion.

Ultimately it’s the middle class masses that are out of touch with reality.

And yes, I'm one of the ignorant masses for now, for the most part.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Interesting.

This Obama fellow is smarter than Conservatives give him credit for. He's trying to split Al Queda along racial lines, and if he manages to succeed, all the better for the west.

Who would you rather have Muslim Africans side with? Muslim Arabs or the West.

The war on terror will be won or lost in Africa. While the Middle East has oil, Africa has uranium, oil, diamonds, zinc, copper, cobalt, potash and basically every other resource one can think of. Who they side with is important. They’ve been growing on average 5%-10% in GDP for the past decade, and still going strong some are now in the 11-17% growth bracket. Again, who they choose as their allies will greatly shape the global political landscape of the future.

Some countries have already chosen. Ethiopia is a staunchly Christian nation that will fight Islamic regimes on that principle alone (they were the first Christian country in the world).

Others, such as Nigeria are still on the fence. For them, it depends of the leadership flavour of the month, and who pays the fattest bribes.

An Al Queda split along racial lines is good for the west. I wonder why so many people are too blind to see it.

Really, Africa has no political muscle and nobody really cares ‘politically’ what goes on there.

Black yanks romanticise Africa and dress up in clothes they think reflect their African heritage but can’t name more than two or three of the dozens of countries and ethnicities on the continent.

Obama is just another brown Yank that thinks Africa is a black version of Camelot with mystical knights of the round table etc. Reality is way different.

The last time most of Africa had an efficient system for mining and industrial growth there were Union Jacks, French Tri-Colours and other colonial flags fluttering over the continent.

Africa exchanged colonial masters for corrupt tribalism. Wake me up in a hundred years or so when things change.

Oh, and I’ve spent 2 years of my life in various parts of Africa, I have an idea about what I’m talking about.

I think you're way out of touch EB.

Africa of 2010 is not Africa of 1990. There's been a huge difference. Africa has not grown this fast since the 1950s. Sustained GDP growth of 8% is quite remarkable (median!). And it has been generally well sustained for the past 10 years.

But you're an afro-skeptic; I don't quite expect a different response.

After all you did say RSA would flop hosting the WC2010.

RSA did a great job hosting the tournament, the third highest attendance in the tournament’s history and highest revenue stream for FIFA.
It was England that flopped.

And I should revise what I mean by Africa. I don't mean little hopeless states like Guinea Bissau and Cameroon. I am referring to heavyweights, the EAC, RSA, Nigeria, and Ethiopia etc.

They that hold the resources, hold the chips.

Where did I say the world cup would flop?

And on the African 'heavyweights' its you that's out of touch.

According to the World Bank, oil rich Nigeria and it's 150 million people is 48th out of 114 nations, with half the GDP of that global power of 8 million and no oil, Ireland.

That burgeoning super-power in waiting of Ethiopia is 85th, just behind that industrial behemoth of Costa Rica.

Even mighty South Africa pales in comparison to the GDP of Denmark.

http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog

You ever been to Africa?

Yep, things certainly have changed there eh?

[ShepherdsDog]

Those damned white colonialists...they turned Rhodesia from a bread basket to a basket case.

[EyeBrock]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Those damned white colonialists...they turned Rhodesia from a bread basket to a basket case.

sock would argue differently methinks.

[ShepherdsDog]

socks gets lost in a dryer...do you trust his reasoning?

[CommanderSock]

commanderkai commanderkai:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Al Qaeda won’t, but young Africans who are on the fence may think deeper about the issues of race and joining an organization that is (perceived) to have strong anti black elements.

Al Qaeda is like Apple Computers, they don’t necessarily have the best product, but they are a global brand, and image is everything. If Obama can equate Al Qaeda with anti black racism, potential recruits on the continent may begin to dry up.

Or not.

Yeah, I don't get your line of thinking at all. If African Muslims don't see AQ as suitable due to AQ's racism, they'll join some other local terrorist/rebel group pushing for an African Caliphate or for the joys of killing whitey or for replacing the government corruption for their own corruption.

Considering AQ has been more than happy to target anything and everything that goes against their radical beliefs, and if African Muslims even consider AQ, then there is a problem. AQ being racist or not won't stop said problem.

AQ has financial backing that goes beyond what a rag-tag rebel group can muster together.

Nevertheless, sub saharan Africans seem to have diverging views on AQ and the arabs.

[BartSimpson]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Nevertheless, sub saharan Africans seem to have diverging views on AQ and the arabs.

And the sub-Saharan Africans can always be counted upon to put tribalism ahead of mutual security concerns.

[EyeBrock]

The Whabbis can be relied on for lotsa cash.

[CommanderSock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Nevertheless, sub saharan Africans seem to have diverging views on AQ and the arabs.

And the sub-Saharan Africans can always be counted upon to put tribalism ahead of mutual security concerns.

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Those damned white colonialists...they turned Rhodesia from a bread basket to a basket case.

What Shep mentioned was a common misconception we see with the Africans.

It was never about whites versus blacks and it never will be.

It was always tribalism. Racism.

Africans see themselves as different races, the same way you and I would see us from Chinese or Australian Aboriginals. The thought process was never one of "Me against the white man", as for a European "us and the blacks". The process has always been "my tribe, versus the other tribes."

The tribe far more powerful and technologically advanced was the European. Nevertheless Europeans didn't colonize Africa with large armies, but rather they used the greed of tribal leaders. They got the tribes to conspire against each other.

Certain tribes were rewarded, or specifically, the leaders of these tribes were. The masses remained poor under colonialism.

During colonialism, they continued to conspire, until eventually they happen to conspire against the Europeans, as they had become dominant and too dangerous, and easy to rob.

Colonialism was tribes conspiring with other tribes to gain wealth, decolonisation was the practically the same thing.

All was done for wealth and power.

Mugabe didn't do what he did to make Zimbabwe's masses wealthier, or better off, or to even ruin the country. He took the farms of British settlers as a cheap political ploy to gain support from the masses as he and his cronies loot the treasury and enrich themselves.


If they could, they'd rob Tony Blair at gunpoint. But they can't. So they'll borrow from the IMF, securitizing domestic assets because it's the thing to do. The way to get money.

“The place be damned! “

Whites happen to hold the wealth therefore; they took the land from them. It wasn't about skin colour. If the whites were poor and destitute like the other tribes, they won't be in the news. Nobody would pay attention to them.

That attitude is what has kept Africa in the dark ages during the industrial era. But the continent found itself a niche in banking, insurance, and natural resources.

Nevertheless, people need to get over North American racial thinking, because in Africa it's not white vs black. It's always about the shifting of allegiances between diverse groups of cult personalities.

[EyeBrock]

So sock, no rebuttal on the GDP levels of Africa? Just more spin?

Facts can be uncomfortable when they don't support your bollocks argument eh?

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

It was never about whites versus blacks and it never will be.

Do you write your own stuff or grow it??

You could say the same crap about the natives in the Americas. Each tribe names itself the People in its own tongue, believing that they are the only true people and all others are inferior. Yet they sure as hell make everything a cowboy versus indian issue.

It sounds like you haven't travelled to Africa, by the sounds of things. It most certainly is a white(colonial) vs. black thing. Listen to many of their leaders...their complaints always lead back to the whiteman, even when they've been gone for generations.

[EyeBrock]

Brave Sir Robin......

[HyperionTheEvil]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

I really think Obama is a Clown.

Yes, I think is new 21Century version of Jimmy Carter, a well meaning guy but missing a couple of elements. We need a Theodore Roosevelt.

Or Ronald Regan.

Yes because the US needs another Iran-contra

[HyperionTheEvil]

Thanos Thanos:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

I really think Obama is a Clown.

Yes, I think is new 21Century version of Jimmy Carter, a well meaning guy but missing a couple of elements. We need a Theodore Roosevelt.

Unofficial Teaparty leader Glenn Beck hates Teddy Roosevelt. He thinks that Teddy was an evil progressive and has a lot of chalkboard doodling that apparently proves it. Something about the establishment of the national parks instead of handing over all the public land to timber and mining interests was literally the exact equivalent to the Gulag Archipelego, or some other such ranting.

Well that's largely because Beck is a fist class idiot and an actual racist himself.

[CommanderSock]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Where did I say the world cup would flop?

And on the African 'heavyweights' its you that's out of touch.

According to the World Bank, oil rich Nigeria and it's 150 million people is 48th out of 114 nations, with half the GDP of that global power of 8 million and no oil, Ireland.

That burgeoning super-power in waiting of Ethiopia is 85th, just behind that industrial behemoth of Costa Rica.

Even mighty South Africa pales in comparison to the GDP of Denmark.

http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog

You ever been to Africa?

Yep, things certainly have changed there eh?

They certainly have. The skyscrapers and running water in the cities I frequented tell me a different story.

Nevertheless, it’s difficult to try and explain economic theory. Here is a chart to write a thousand words.


http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... H&grp=0&a=

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo ... D&grp=0&a=


I included several countries of interest. On top is Canada, % change in GDP. Have a good hard look at the power of compound growth.

Do you see that in 1990, Canada’s GDP was greater than China’s by a large margin? Almost $200 billion in US $. China posted positive GDP growth of 3.832 9.200 14.199 14.004 13.097 10.929 9.997 9.299 7.798 in percentages from 1990 to 1998, respectively (numbers copied and pasted).

Subsequently, in that time period, China’s GDP moved from $200 billion USD below Canada’s, to $400 billion USD above!
Mind you, Canada posted positive GDP numbers in the same years, but much lower, ranging from the usual 0.50% to 4.50%.
The power of compound growth!

If we were having this conversation in 1990, you would have laughed at me, and said China and its population of 1 billion have a smaller economy that Canada. But alas, the power of compound growth! China’s economy is now 4 times the size of Canada’s.

Now, let’s look at another set of numbers, Ireland and Nigeria. In 1990, Ireland’s economy was 15 billion USD higher than Nigeria. Subsequently, both countries grew. As we know Ireland had an “economic miracle”. We saw the boom based on asset prices, housing etc. Long story short Ireland posted good economic numbers that eventually fizzled out with the recession. Nigeria on the other hand, posted erratic numbers that coinciding with political situations.

Nevertheless, from 2000 to 2010, Nigeria has posted GDP numbers (percentages) ranging from 21% to 5.3, at lowest. Here are the numbers from 2005 to 2010:

Nigeria: 5.318 8.164 21.177 10.335 10.585 5.393 6.211 6.972 5.984 5.630 6.983
Ireland: 9.447 5.743 6.477 4.385 4.595 6.175 5.356 6.024 -3.036 -7.096 -1.545

Raw GDP number in the same period

Nigeria: 46.386 44.138 59.117 67.656 87.845 112.248 145.430 165.921 207.116 173.428 213.995
Ireland: 96.865 104.726 123.018 158.048 185.374 201.926 221.947 260.080 267.581 227.781 216.107

In 2010, Nigeria's economy became bigger than Ireland's, and now will continue to quickly outpace it in growth.


The difference between a wealthy country like Canada, and formerly the 6th largest economy in the world in 1900 Argentina, was 1% - 2% GDP growth for one of them. The other grew at 4-6%.
As these African countries are growing at double digit rates, it wouldn’t be suprising in the next 50 years, for many of them to surpass other developing nations, and even developed ones.

But hey, you can take it as is and look at only the negative. Understandably so, as there’s plenty of it.

[CommanderSock]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

It was never about whites versus blacks and it never will be.

Do you write your own stuff or grow it??

You could say the same crap about the natives in the Americas. Each tribe names itself the People in its own tongue, believing that they are the only true people and all others are inferior. Yet they sure as hell make everything a cowboy versus indian issue.

It sounds like you haven't travelled to Africa, by the sounds of things. It most certainly is a white(colonial) vs. black thing. Listen to many of their leaders...their complaints always lead back to the whiteman, even when they've been gone for generations.

Their leaders are doing that for more aid money. Some ‘leaders’ happily proceed to pocket it.
Discretely or otherwise.
http://www.economist.com/research/artic ... d=16525240



At least Kenya’s leaders are open about it.

The white man, he’s just a political ploy. A scapegoat, someone to blame their own political shortcomings on.

And yes, it is exactly like the natives here. The only difference is population percentages and immunity to European diseases.