When will the Blair, Brown, Geldof gang learn?

I dont think they had a famine every other week. When Englishmen have famines they give them names. African faminines are distinguished by the names of the days of the week.

For two main reasons

1. Because most of them die before they reach adulthood.
2. They need them to help on the farm etc.

Again, I agree with you. But this leaves us with two choices. Either they get on with it without our aid and probably go through a lot of suffering for absolutely years and years - maybe forever - or let us do it for them. I say it leaves 'us' with two choices. Actually it leaves 'them' with two choices. But are they even fit to make the choice? Do they really even know why they are voting for and the issues involved - assuming they even get to vote? All this sounds incredibly patronising, but let's not mince words for the sake of niceties.

Rob

They die of starvation and malnutrition related diseases. There is not enough to farm, because the country is in perpetual famine. The growth rate of the population ensures that population always exceeds food supply, and this has been sustained for at least 55 years as far as I gather.

X-No-Archive: yes In message , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

I thought this Malthusian ghost had been kicked into the long grass? A population cannot exceed its food supply but it can exceed food management and distribution skills. I recall a former commonwealth secretary commenting that food to relieve famine in Ethiopia could be bought in Addis Ababa. In other words the food was there. The problem was that distributing free food would bankrupt local farmers who would abandon their farms and head for the city. This suited wholesalers because it drove up the value of their stocks.

"Ian Bailey" wrote

Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

I get up at 06:00, leave the house at 06:30 and am rarely back before

Meh clogs do chafe a bit at t'end of day, mind..

"Roger Dewhurst" wrote

He has utterly failed everywhere else and is simply casting about for something vaguely creditable for which he hopes he'll be remembered.

At present, he's going to be remembered for lying to Parliament, lying to the electorate, handing sinecures to his lying cronies, selling honours, killing thousands in five wars of which Iraq is simply the most patently illegal, fiddling elections, arranging the exposure of David Kelly, increasing taxes 68 times, putting the middle class on benefits, and manufacturing a very nasty credit bubble.

And that's putting a bit of a shine on it.

It's a survival strategy. If famines periodically wipe out 80% of the population you need 10 children to perpetuate your line. If everyone has 10 children you'd better have 20.

"Hotblack Desiato" wrote

What in their history would teach them that? On balance the opposite seems true.

"Rob graham" wrote

Why would we give them aid if we were in charge? First they wouldn't need and second *they* should be paying *us* a percentage of GDP as a management fee. They'd still be better off - unless it were the EU in charge of their agriculture.

No, that's true but it would take time to get there and maybe during that run-in period we should give them something.

Yes, in due course.

unless it were the EU in charge of their

Quite so.

Rob

If you would give some hint as to where you are talking about you might make more sense.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

well, I think it's safe to assume that they're no more aware of the future implications of their current decisions, than we ever have been of ours. Having said that, I'd say that most of us in the west, would prefer to see our society find its own way and progress (often painfully) through trial and error, autonomous decision making, etc. And certainly when it comes to our own lives, not many of us want an overlord protector allowing us a few freedoms, yet holding us in a state of arrested social develpment... regardless of how much security that situation might offer us.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the people of Africa are of much the same mindset. Yes I agree there'd be a great deal of suffering at the hands of vicious psychopaths before things got even remotely better however, if you look at European history, not only can it be argued that a period of psychopathic rulership is an inescapable part of social development, but also that it's a paramount aspect of achieving that social development we recognise in the West.

Of course that's not a guarantee that such development WILL happen and approx timescales are of course, pure conjecture but, if they are not given the freedom to make disasterous mistakes and genuinely feel the consequences, what can be guaranteed, is that they can not possibly develop

"John Redman" wrote in message news:d89g07$nmi$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

we have been in charge and parts of Africa have always needed aid. Absentee landlords historically, have always led to bloody revolutions, so it's a fairly safe assumption that the same thing would happen in this instance.. over and over again until the country were 'reclaimed'.

"John Redman" wrote in message news:d89fsg$pv3$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Perhaps nothing in their 'history'. However, what I assume would teach them this lesson eventually, would be similar events which taught it to us.

African problems need African solutions. China and India are improving economically because they are working hard and improving themselves. Your attitude (Neo-Imperialism) is condesending thinking that African countries cannot help themselves and that the West is the saviour. You want to sustain the cycle of poverty. Is this to obtain the feel good factor?

I remember 30 years ago I was asked to give money for Ethiopean famine. It is really time these counties got a grip.

On a personal note I see my job being exported to India in the next five to ten years and I'm not complaining because you can't and shouldn't try to beat the market.

OK, so we let them find their own way, as we did in the West. Do we give them aid in the process? We didn't get any. Is aid actually a bad, rather than a good, thing? I think so.

Rob

I find it hard to follow this. If your building society decides it will not require any further mortgage payments from you has it not therefore cancelled the debt? Was the debt not real in the first place?

Rob Graham