For years, we have been experiencing and observing as Africans , the perpetual downturn in almost all aspects of the day to day running of every African society. The permanent socio-economic hiccups that has been used to describe Africa and indigenous Africans for decades has in itself created a new mindset reality on the whole world at large. The world has been faced by global and regional challenges that world leaders and thinkers have proffer likely solutions which strangely enough, work out well for some but put Africans into deeper negative outcomes. it is no secret that the developmental backlog in Africa is so vast that it might take the better part of a century(if not more)to actually peg the downward trend .as the society appears broken, lives are lost everyday, money and resources get stolen very often and the continent has grinded to a halt, from the east to the west and south straight up to the north of Africa, the only thing that unifies us seems to be poverty and everything else that comes with it and to make matters worse, Africa decided to starve her universities; the only “powerhouse”, where all countries of the world gets their engineers, scientists etcetera who make tangible contributions to the development of their respective societies of long overdue funding which consequently means that we can hardly rely on majority of youths who passed through the university education on the continent. The role of parents and traditional rulers in our various communities has been undermined due to the dire economic situations and yearn for self governance. Apart from the diverse ethnic composition of Africa which could otherwise have been a rich resource in advancing African development, it is now a constant headache and tool frequently used to foment trouble among different ethnic groups in Africa. It now seem as if the affairs of the continent now rests on the aid agencies who themselves sometimes act as the official spokesperson for all suffering africans,in fact there are indications that the united nations governing body trusts the accounts of the various aid groups operating in africa more than they trust the account of the african governments whenever there is a crisis. The statement here does not seek to criticize the non governmental organisations, but the framework of how each of them function cannot be fully understood unless one knows who funds such groups and whose ideology they represent and extend. It seem that we have let go any thought and efforts of rebuilding and advancing our societies. Even most Africans inside and outside the continent are no longer proud of being Africans ,although there were hardly times when such are proud of their roots. africa is now the largest non-perimeter prison(mental)within and outside of africa, although it is becoming more of a real prison with the systemic tightening of visa rules for non European Union(EU) migrants and the bilateral visa agreement between the united states and EU member states. Africa now seem to be a perfect representation of all societal ills.
People are no longer comfortable to speak their native tongues both indigenous and diasporans for fear of being easily identified as a citizen of a failed state(s). A keen observer would note that with all these self inflicted labels,there leaves no room for the continent to promote itself among the more developed countries.
Africans are no longer proud of their own roots and people always pass the blame on either the elected or the installed. There have been numerous occasions where deliberately or even unsuspectingly the public or civil society have contributed to the decline of the african continent. Everyday we are faced with appeals from different non governmental organisations using images of battered african woman and child to raise funds for their various projects from the more better off westerners (both indegenous citizens and africans who has somehow managed to carve out a life for themselves in america and europe),it was sometimes discovered by an investigative forum that only about 20% of the total funds collected actually gets to africa as the rest are used to pay wages ,advertisements, consultancy et ce tera. I guess the images frequently shown are designed to make people feel pity and also help shape the mind of the contributors about what obtains in africa, so it wasn’t unsurprising when a young innocent schoolboy asked us quite recently ‘ do you people live on trees in africa?’ all we can understand from these is that africa is failing to sell itself properly, it is obvious that we rely on others to sell us to the rest of the world.* A magazine quote earlier this year states that about 80% of the domestic news in a particular african country was culled from the reporst about africa from the bbc.
The pioneers of modern democracy insists that it cannot be compete without the privatisation of its assets and institutions. these true lies are a temporal measure to make the people feel something is being done to change the country ,thus the benefits are short term but the consequences long term unless the government is allowed complete monitoring of the system, which is near impossible because it is those in power that buys the controlling stake in the institutions. Our needs in africa, first and foremost is to coin out our own form of governance participatory of all and sundry in the governance and administration of the governments from local to regional and to the country at large. some people might argue this is simply democracy, yes! But not the contemporary democracy that america and europe try to export to the rest of the world. European and American democracy used to be an elite one where those who gets in to power are the elites in the country so it is not totally participatory . governing any country in africa, one must take into consideration the various ethnicity ,languages and cultural needs of the african people which are absent in western europe and the united states, so why follow their system of govenment without reviewing whether it is fit for the purpose of governing a multi ethnic african society? Take lebanon for instance, which obviously practices her own fragile form of self governance taking into consideration religious, sectarian and ethnic setup where only a christian can be president, a sunni the prime minister and a shia the speaker of the house. If Africa can achieve this near impossible act of finding how to govern themselves, then the important step on deinfluencing our massively influenced way of life by promoting self sustainability and which would over time reverse the negative effects of foreign culture and way of life in our societies. for clarification purpose, we should note that not all the influences can be discarded but through concerted efforts we can retain the influences that has had a positive impact in the lives of most if not all citizens and the society al large. The promotion of our human and natural resources for self sustainability should be done with the assistance of tested the health and indeginous african historians who posses great knowledge about the established african way of life and community spirit. The victor writes the history, so they say but we have to take the bull by the horn and tell our own stories ourselves, fashion our own system of governance and politics ourselves through extensive national debate and dialogue and not forget to borrow from good forms of governance that have worked well in other places while taking into consideration our ethnic and language differences for these two traits unite africans more than religion whose introduction onto the continent was well preceeded by our ethnicity and languages.
Moreover, history is very important in other to make any headway in advancing the continent and her suffering millions. Most , if not all the models of governance and running of our day to day lives in africa are either borrowed elsewhere or at best put together by foreigners at the invitation of different african head of states. Surely there must be africans who are competent enough to fashion a way forward for us without traitors or external influence turning the agreed arrangements upside down. One thing though is sure, we can do it but it has to be activated quickly before it is too late as there will come a time when countries and its borders might no longer matter as citizens the world over switch allegiances from their country to religion, ethnic and even movements and ideas.
The currents scheme of things in the international community is seriously biased against african nations and most third world countries thereby endangering the lives of billions and there can be no real change without fighting for such, alternative economic models must be fashioned and implemented focusing on self sufficiency and sustanbilty. Food and security must be forefront and the ability to use localize our economic development must be enhanced. We should trade with each other more so as not to expose our exports to sanctions and imposition of artificial prices that only puts money into the coffers of few co operations and individuals. Corruption at home must be tackled and discipline maintained. It would also be a good idea to modify and reinstate the powers of kings to fit into constitutional roles as they are the custodians of culture and ancestral knowledge.
Funding also has to be available to float existing tertiary institutions and there must be equal level of commitment in establishing vocational centres for those who prefers another form of learning . As earlier mentioned each and everyone must have a role to play in the community and each locality or local governments must organize community interaction to foster and advance peace and development in the locality.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently that most African leaders spent a third of their time meeting foreign donors and NGOs ,this sort of time could be channeled towards attending to various urgent and pressing needs of the country.
The press also has a role to play in this urgent task of building our nation from the start as it had never been built neither by the occupying colonialist or Nigerians themselves. Over the years the press had either knowingly or otherwise printed materials and fed the population with such news which are at times sensationalist in nature with the intention of either causing chaos or for the intent of selling newspapers. Nigerians are still heavily reliant on getting news from the newspapers and electronic media excluding the internet. I will attempt to quote the word of a magazine article i read recently in which the writer states that , ’ the UK media has effectively become the fourth arm of the government due to the fact that each press outfit traditionally have support for either labor or the Tories (conservatives) but when it comes to the issue of foreign policy the press in Britain follow the governments position, that is why in the eighties it is not uncommon to see the British press praising President Robert Mugabe as a good example of an African leader, he was even knighted by the Queen of England! But when the British government position changed about him, the press changed their headlines about him too! .The former editor of the Sun newspaper was quoted as saying ' give or take during Prime Minister Tony Blair's years in office, I met him over 70 times sometimes for breakfast, lunch or over a cup of tea. If this was an African editor it would simply have been assumed and quite wrongly as well that he has been bought by the president Just three week ago, the story of the British members of parliament defrauding the taxpayers surfaced in the press and quite promptly, it got the attention that it deserves. Finally, corruption has another face but what was most shameful is that unlike their corrupt African contemporaries, the British Mps that were involved claim innocence or even oversight.
This is only meant to serve as a wake up call to African editors that as much as they vigorously print and expose corrupt practices, attempt should also be made to print and report the various sincere developments taking place in the continent.
With the attempt that i have made at highlighting the various things i believe we had neglected over the years and also the things that could be done to enhance and improve the quality of life and governance in Africa, i humbly suggest to your office that the following urgent actions are needed to take Africa back to Greater heights in the affairs of the world.
1. Dependence on oil must be reduced and agriculture both mechanised and subsistence should be put in the forefront.
2. Research in local technology and raw materials should be encouraged through funding in order to reduce dependence on foreign products and ensure national security
3. Press freedom should be absolute but with tough legislation to deter rumours and deliberate lies
4. The judiciary should be independent.
5. Education must be given priority. Technical(skills)school should be established and funded in each state of the continent employing the advice and skills capable hands.the results would be vast

Sorry i didnt follow all through the posts. But Socialism is the opposite of capitalism while communism is the final stage of socialism. The major creticism of The Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Angel is the failure of details of the mechanism of power transition, and the encouragement of laziness. The theory of social cycle stratified a society into four psychological units- warriors, Intellectuals, Aquisitors and Labourers. Capitalism is in the Acquisition stage. As a trained econnomist, I actually dont see anything wrong with capitalism except that capitalism couldnt contain luxury. that is why moderation comes in in form of mixed economy. Though in practice communism is a failed ideology.

Sagamite:

You allusion was "it was an achievement the US has not been capable of".

I take it, I have educated you that was wrong, the US can achieve the feat?

No you havent.

let me ask you a question - which is worse being able to acheive something and CHOOSING NOT TO DO SO IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY  or simply being incapable of doing so- the argument is NOT about america's ability to  implement free or affordable healthcare because that is a no brainer - it is a rich country and therefore that is not the issue, the issue is does it have the desire to do so and the answer is a resounding NO.

You don't know Western countries that provide free healthcare? 

UK, France, Canada, Germany etc? People are taxed to pay for a publicly-funded healthcare system.

I can only speak for the UK and i can tell you that health care here is not free it is funded through national insurance contributions so i think youre getting really confused here.

No! The issue was your claim (understanding) that US was not capable of achieving the feat whilst Cuba can.

still going round in circles chasing your tail?

No, that is not the point. The point is that, it is lame to use such as the excuse of why communism is better than capitalism since there are capitalist nations that already provide free or affordable healthcare THAT IS BETTER than Cuba's.

Im sure there are however i think it is s.tupid to make a comparison between rich capitalist countries whose economies are based on exploitation and appropriation of wealth of weaker countries with a country like Cuba which is not an imperialist nation and whose very existence has been under threat from the US since its revolution in 1959.

You really don't need wasting time having arguments on this. Just go and research the number of nations that have tried it, failed and dropped it.

didnt think you'd have an answer to this - thanks for proving me right!

Whilst you are at it, try and figure out how many of the citizens of the communist countries try and escape to a capitalist country and the governments have to be brutal to keep them in the system.

But i could use the same argument to demonstrate the failure of capitalism - you are a nigerian, nigeria models its economy on a harsh undiluted system of capitalism under instructions handed out to it by washington and london, and yet you fled the poverty and misery of life under capitalism to live in the UK which incorporates aspects of socialism into its capitalist system. why didnt you remain in capitalist nigeria to reap the benefits of the free market system 

It is INDICATIVE, NOT QUALITATIVE!!!

really explain in detail what you mean by that ? 

Because 99.999% of Cubans can read and write does not mean it is a more economically developed than China if China has only 91% literacy rate!

please explain further

Out of the Cubas figure, it may only be that 20% are educated to a high level and even albeit not of a highly regarded quality, whilst 64% of China has education of the highest quality.

Literacy rate is only indicative of those than can read and write! It does not mean jack nothing, it is a lame tool to be used solely for comparing development between nations.

Do you get it?

No, please explain

Did you read the Reaction section of the link?

1) The law was passed in 1996, not 1959 as you implied.

2) It was condemned by virtually all Western nations and the UN stating it violates international laws and many enacted laws that ban their citizens or companies from complying with the law.

So only US has placed an economic embargo on Cuba since 1959 as I said, not "many western nations" as you claimed?

Yes i read the reaction section of the link and thats all it is a reaction from various western countries, this legislation is still in place, it has not been overturned, therefore it is still enforceable by the US  and binding on Cuba.

by the way this is not the only US legislation that has been passed in respect of the US trade embargo against Cuba
this particular piece of legislation merely updates previous legislation see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba[quote][/quote]

cap28:

No you havent.

let me ask you a question - which is worse being able to acheive something and CHOOSING NOT TO DO SO IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY  or simply being incapable of doing so-

Where did you get your assertion that US chose not to implement free healthcare "in order to save money"?

And you are the one that had the audacity to say earlier TO ME "Try and understand issues before you open your mouth!!!"? Why did you open your mouth if you do not understand an issue?

cap28:

the argument is NOT about america's ability to  implement free or affordable healthcare because that is a no brainer - it is a rich country and therefore that is not the issue, the issue is does it have the desire to do so and the answer is a resounding NO.

Yes, US can afford it. That was my point. I have educated you like I would inevitably.

cap28:

I can only speak for the UK and i can tell you that health care here is not free it is funded through national insurance contributions so i think youre getting really confused here.

Amsorry!!!

How do you think Cuba funds its Healthcare? Funds that is like manna from heaven?

They use PUBLIC FUNDS or FOREIGN AID!

Or you think the free healthcare is from Jesus?

cap28:

still going round in circles chasing your tail?

No, I am not going around in circles, I am pointing out your goof you are trying to twist instead of expressing your gratitude for a free online education.

Your initial assertion was that Cuba has achieved free healthcare that US could not. Don't try and change it and claim you were aware US could achieve it but was not interested.

You only realised the lack of interest when I educated you.

cap28:

Im sure there are however i think it is s.tupid to make a comparison between rich capitalist countries whose economies are based on exploitation and appropriation of wealth of weaker countries with a country like Cuba which is not an imperialist nation and whose very existence has been under threat from the US since its revolution in 1959.

This is just rants. Communism is an inferior model.

cap28:

didnt think you'd have an answer to this - thanks for proving me right!

Do your research instead of wasting my time.

Even reading some of the posts on this thread is enough to explain, you want to waste my time to tell you butter is yellow?

Most communist countries have converted to capitalism including the giant of communism, Russia.

Fidel Castro said it has failed and yet you want to waste my time to prove it to you?

You can as well waste my time to prove to you that Yaradua is indeed dead!

cap28:

But i could use the same argument to demonstrate the failure of capitalism - you are a nigerian, nigeria models its economy on a harsh undiluted system of capitalism under instructions handed out to it by washington and london, and yet you fled the poverty and misery of life under capitalism to live in the UK which incorporates aspects of socialism into its capitalist system.  why didnt you remain in capitalist nigeria to reap the benefits of the free market system 

Stop laughing!!!

Who told you I agree with capitalism?

Go back and read my entries on this thread and wipe that silly grin off your face.

That said, Capitalism despite its flaws is superior to Communism.

cap28:

really explain in detail what you mean by that ? 

please explain further

No, please explain

If you don't get it after that explanation, I can not help you.

At least, not for free.

cap28:

Yes i read the reaction section of the link and thats all it is a reaction from various western countries, this legislation is still in place, it has not been overturned, therefore it is still enforceable by the US  and binding on Cuba.

by the way this is not the only US legislation that has been passed in respect of the US trade embargo against Cuba
this particular piece of legislation merely updates previous legislation see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

Boy, there is no other Western country with economic embargo on Cuba apart from US! Is that right or wrong?

Your claim was that:

cap28:

Sagamite socialism "failed" in Cuba because it has been economically blockaded by the US and a host of other countries since 1959!!!

That is wrong, is it not?

**scratches head** Wondering exactly why Sagamite and Cap28 are arguing.

They both seem to dislike Capitalism as it is being practiced by the USA and a few other cut throat imperialists.

I guess their argument and the education we get from it is further INDICATIVE of and not necessarily a QUALITATIVE proof of the benefits of a free online forum 

Now I'm learning!


[EDITED] Ok, they disagree on specific details of Cuban Socialism, The Economic Blockade and US health care policy . . .

@cap28,
Two corrections.
1. Nigeria is practising state capitalism. It's just in the last 5 years that the talk of free markets have started. Else we would not be talking PIB and Infrastructure Concession regulation. There are no free markets in Nigeria, not yet anyway.

2. The free healthcare in Cuba was supported for a long time by Soviet subsidies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in '91, this program suffered, just like the rest of Cuba's economy. Essentially, someone's got to pay for these things, it's not a measure of what type of political or economic ideology is being practised.

cap28:

Im sorry bro but you dont know what you're talking about the US DOES WANT THE WORLD TO ADOPT the capitalist economic model because that is the economic model that has enabled the US to become the richest nation on the planet, it has also helped the US in its expansionist adventures abroad.

The US is the richest nation on the planet because it is the most innovative, constantly developing new ideas and products including products that fall in the disruptive innovations category. You need to site examples with facts and not hear-say when discussing US foreign policy and how it has enriched the US.

cap28:

The idea that capitalism can only operate successfully where according to you there is the right balance of welfare systems and progressive tax is laughable because in a capitalist economy the aim is to maximise profit not to assist the poor or weak.  Capitalism is all about downsizing in order to generate profit not the other way around!!!

Can you think of one nation where the government just allows corporations to maximise profit by not putting in place regulations, acts, and taxes? Let us agree that the US is the most capitalist country in the world; are there no regulations in the US? In light of the current financial turmoil, did the US not promulgate a few laws such as Dodd-Frank Act? Granted that the US does not have as much welfare as European countries but it still has welfare programs such as food stamps, inncome insurance, etc. Where do you think the funds for such programs is coming from? France has more fortune 500 companies than Germany but iit has more socialist policies.

cap28:

Your example of Brazil is a joke!! Brazil is one of the most inequitable countries in the world BECAUSE it pracitices an undiluted capitalist system (just like nigeria) capitalism THRIVES in such economies, that is why major corporations and multinationals flock there to do business - becuase of its dirt cheap labour. As a matter of fact the Brazilian elite who are white upper middle class STILL control the Brazilian economy irrespective of the protestations of Lula and other pseudo socialists.  there is no welfare system, no safety net for the poor hence the high crime rate.  Prostitution is also a national export, many of the young women resort to prostitution as the only way out of a life of abject poverty and misery.  

You need to keep up to date with current affairs. Brazil had one of the worst income distribution in the world but under Lula, there has been progress. Lula instituted several programs such as the one which pays mothers to send their kids to school. More brazilian kids go to school these days because of that. Lula was able to do that by nationalising several enterprises and using the profits for welfare programs. Please read below part of an article from the economist

'Instead, Brazilians are revelling in a golden moment. A country that used to fall over whenever the world economy wobbled was one of the last to go into recession in 2008 and one of the first out in 2009. Median earnings are rising and, despite a minimum wage at its highest in real terms since 1979, so is employment.

Since 2003 some 20m Brazilians have emerged from poverty and joined the market economy. These new consumers buy everything from cars to cookers and fridges to flights. To this burgeoning domestic market, add China’s appetite for Brazilian iron ore, meat, soya and more, and in economic terms this is probably “the best moment in the entire history of Brazil,” says Marcelo Neri of the Fundação Getulio Vargas, a university.'

http://www.economist.com/node/17147828?story_id=17147828

cap28:

YOur statement about america wanting countries to adopt democracy rather than capitalism is quite frankly the funniest thing i have ever heard in my life.

America is an imperialist power, it wages war on countries who refuse to bow to its economic model aka the washington consensus, IT DOESNT CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY, its own system of govt is not democratic, ALL AMERICA CARES ABOUT IS GLOBAL DOMINATION OF WORLD MARKETS IN ORDER TO MAKE PROFIT.

America's last defence budget for 2010/11 was $1 trillion USD.  Why do you think they spend so much money on "defence" ?

America uses its enormous military advantage to intervene in countries all over the world that are not following its capitalist economic model and it forces stubborn nations into compliance - read up on what the US did to former Panamanian president Torrijos, Nasser of Egypt, Salazar of Portugal, Manley of Jamaica and Allende of Chile.

All of the above leaders were trying to implement economic policies which promoted wealth redistribution, land reform which would benefit ordinary working people as opposed to members of the elite.

Any govt which strives for wealth redistribution or attempts to use economic surpluses to benefit the masses soon finds themselves on the receiving end of america's aggression.

A free market system or capitalist economy guarantees limitless exploitation of weaker nations.

Explicitly, US political commentators talk about the US exporting democracy. The US encourages most nations to adopt democracy; in the past, it might have encouraged dictators but the tide has changed. The US has been instrumental in democracy being installed in many African, Latin America and Asian countries. Since the US does not like democracy in other countries, why isn't it best friends with Cuba, North Korea? Since the US does not want other nations to be free, why has it not invaded Brazil, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, Angola, Singapore, Ghana, or any other country with an emerging market?

cap28:

Look at nigeria, we are practicing an undiluted capitalist system in which workers have no rights, the poor are treated like sh.it, there are no environmental regulations to ensure accountablity, this is why shell and other multinationals flock to nigeria and this is why nigeria has never been on the receviing end of american aggression.  we are doing everythign they tell us to do.

People keep talking about China as if life there is heaven, have you taken the time to speak to any chinese people and find out how they live, many of them work back to back shifts in order to keep their heads above water, yes the corporations are amassing a fortune, but what is life like for the ordinary man on the street, as for India, i don t know if you know this but 45% of their children suffer from malnutrition.

Don't kid yourself, there is no capitalism in Nigeria. It seems that you think that most developing nations should get to a stage where everyone is equal and happy. That is simply naive. The better way to look at it is the number of people that are no longer friends with poverty. The situation in China and India is improving steadily. The middle class in both countries is increasing every day. That may not be enough in your view but it is progress.

^^^


problem is, cap28 is cut from the Western Imperialism/Africanism/Racism cloth. He debates pretty good, but sees all issues from that standpoint, always.

Communism is noble, many of its proponents, like Che Guevera, were honest men, but the most brutal and oppressive regimes have been communist ones, unfortunately.

AjanleKoko:

^^^


problem is, cap28 is cut from the Western Imperialism/Africanism/Racism cloth. He debates pretty good, but sees all issues from that standpoint, always.

Communism is noble, many of its proponents, like Che Guevera, were honest men, but the most brutal and oppressive regimes have been communist ones, unfortunately.

I know; I have had a couple of debates with him before. He starts and ends every argument on the same point. No one is an embodiment of knowledge; sometimes, you need to listen to the other guy and try assimilate his points before reaching a conclusion. In the end, you may process his data but still hold your ground. Anyone who believes that he has to win every argument is simply deaf. We should learn everyday.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

I understand some of the points CAP28 is making but if you allow yourself to believe them too much, instead of concentrating your efforts on improving your lot in life, you start to doubt yourself and some of the people you interact with because you are suspicious of their motives. That is too much negative energy. I'll rather stay positive and encourage others to do the same. No one is out to get me and I am restricted only by the limits I set myself.

BTW, depending on who you ask, Che (one of my heroes) was either a saint or a murderer. This is from interactions with people in Latin America and those I went to school with.

malabite:

Katsumoto
I disagree with you. It's not just white and black as you think. There are grey areas, and different shades of grey indeed. No two economically successful countries have the same ideology. I bet you Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland do not have the same ideologies. What Cuba does is not what you find in North Korea. Even Canada and USA dont share the same ideology. You can't even say USA is capitalist with all it's welfare system, not to talk of Britain that is almost overdoing its welfare. There is no welfare in a capitalist system. I read one article where an economist tried to classify all the developed countries as welfare capitalism. But it still makes the whole thing messy, because USA and Sweden does not have the same level of welfare

Think of political philosophy has being the stretch between two points. On one end, you have the far right and on the other end, you have the far left. Each nation will belong somewhere on that line depending on its welfare system, tax system and market philosophy. You are right that it is almost impossible for two nations to have the same philosophy but some are very close. If you can't say that the US is a capitalist nation, then what nation can you call a capitalist nation.

Most western nations have citizens that have beliefs that are between far right and far left. The government of the day at any particular point in time, is the one that has the most supporters of its policies. Some voters will always be on the left and some voters will always be on the right. Those voters do not matter in elections. The voters that matter are the independents and they are key to winning any election. Under Obama, America has leaned more to the left; under Bush, America leaned more to the right.

Some people also miss one aspect of the argument which is critical. America was very buoyant under Clinton; Clinton left one of the largest surpluses in US history but America was also able to promote a lot of welfare programs under Clinton because of increased revenue from taxes both corporate and personal which were consequences of Capitalism. So the more money capitalists made, the more that was available for people on welfare.

AjanleKoko:

^^^


problem is, cap28 is cut from the Western Imperialism/Africanism/Racism cloth. He debates pretty good, but sees all issues from that standpoint, always.

Honestly, I almost fell off my seat when I read his first entry and I did not see him claim capitalism is just a system used by the white imperialist to continue colonising black people or it is proof white people hate black people or that it is being practised to plan how to recolonised the black man blah blah blah.   Honestly, I was shocked he did not make any of such arguments knowing him.

AjanleKoko:

Communism is noble, many of its proponents, like Che Guevera, were honest men, but the most brutal and oppressive regimes have been communist ones, unfortunately.

Very noble but rubbish.

Any system that wants to make ME equal with majority is a joke.  

We are not all equal. The human society need social classes and it is healthy to have one.

Kilode?!:

**scratches head** Wondering exactly why Sagamite and Cap28 are arguing.

They both seem to dislike Capitalism as it is being practiced by the USA and a few other cut throat imperialists.

I guess their argument and the education we get from it is further INDICATIVE of and not necessarily a QUALITATIVE proof of the benefits of a free online forum 

Now I'm learning!


[EDITED] Ok, they disagree on specific details of Cuban Socialism, The Economic Blockade and US health care policy . . .

Nice use of indicative and qualitative.  

My grouse with him is his illogical argument that US cannot achieve free healthcare whilst Cuba can.

Secondly, he appears to believe communism is better than capitalism despite blatant evidence around the world that the reverse is the truth.

Thirdly, not checking his facts before making assertions in a debate. Especially with ME, Sagamite. Everyone knows how that will turn out.

The others are numerous but minor.

talk from now till tommorow CAPITALISM wil always reign supreme why?
Its the only ideology that satisfies the greed in us the greed to hav it all and hav d world at our feet[color=#770077][/color]

Sagamite:

Where did you get your assertion that US chose not to implement free healthcare "in order to save money"?

no american administration is seriously committed to reforming  health care in america because that would mean stepping on the toes of powerfull healthcare lobby groups, it would  also mean comitting a lot of money into an area which has been long neglected by the govt and as i said earlier if there's one thing plutocrats hate doing its spending money without getting a huge return on their investment,  the US govt simply see it as a waste of money, hence their unseriousness about reforming it.

Yes, US can afford it. That was my point. I have educated you like I would inevitably.

you wish!!!

Amsorry!!!

How do you think Cuba funds its Healthcare? Funds that is like manna from heaven?

They use PUBLIC FUNDS or FOREIGN AID!

Is that a question or a statement?

Or you think the free healthcare is from Jesus?

Actually no i dont think the funding comes from Jesus more like the Cuban govt and the former Soviet Union, the cuban govt were in receipt of subsidies from the soviet union prior to its collapse in 1991 see below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

No, I am not going around in circles, I am pointing out your goof you are trying to twist instead of expressing your gratitude for a free online education.

man you are giving me some serious jokes here - sagamite educating ME!!!

Your initial assertion was that Cuba has achieved free healthcare that US could not. Don't try and change it and claim you were aware US could achieve it but was not interested.

You sound very confused - okay let me say it once again and try and get it this time - I said that Cuba has been able to provide its populace with free education up to university level and free health care - feats that the US is yet to acheive - at no point did i say that the US was INCAPABLE OF acheiving those feats, i merely stated that they WERE YET TO ACHEIVE THOSE FEATS - comprende!!!!!

Now if you understand english - and im beginning to have my doubts, but lets assume you do, it would be clear to you that a country as powerful and as rich as the US would obviously be capable of providing free healthcare and education to its citizens, therefore the logical path that your thoughts should have taken would be to then question why it doesnt do that instead of spending time arguing  that america can afford to provide those services.  As i said earlier its a no brainer, if america can allocate $1 trillion USD for its military budget it certainly can set aside an equally stupendous amount of revenue to fund healthcare and education provision.

You only realised the lack of interest when I educated you.

Sagamite do you suffer from low self esteem? why do your debates always have to descend into bitter arguments?

This is just rants. Communism is an inferior model.

Again no facts, no arguments to back up why he thinks this way, just banal one liners.  Did you notice that when i argued against capitalism i gave reasons as to why i didnt support it, why dont you do the same with communism?

Do your research instead of wasting my time.

says the man who spends all his time on nairaland

Even reading some of the posts on this thread is enough to explain, you want to waste my time to tell you butter is yellow?

immaturity at its peak

Most communist countries have converted to capitalism including the giant of communism, Russia.

Your use of the word "converted" is interesting, explain how russia "converted" to capitalism, how did they come to this realisation that capitalism was a much more economically viable model - looking forward to being "educated" by you 

Fidel Castro said it has failed and yet you want to waste my time to prove it to you?

Fidel Castro never said socialism had failed, Fidel Castro's enemies may have said that but not Fidel himself.
Enemies like the US who are waiting for him to die so that they can move in and take Cuba back to the days when their stooge Batista was running Cuba and when the US mafia controlled the gambling and prostitution rackets which were rife in Cuba in those days:

http://cubasocialista.com/batistaeng.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/cuba-a03.shtml

Boy, there is no other Western country with economic embargo on Cuba apart from US! Is that right or wrong?

Your claim was that:

That is wrong, is it not?

you probably read the link i posted setting out the nature of the US blockade against Cuba but didnt understand it!!! Sagamite the blockade penalises other countries who try to trade with Cuba, countries who were not in agreement with it  are punished, go and do the research i am not giving you any more free tuition. 

The thing that really concerns me is that you dont seem bothered by the fact that a country that had the courage to challenge the tyranny of the US is now the victim of one of the the most draconian trade embargoes in modern history, instead you are more preoccupied with the number of countries that are party to this embargoe.  A sane mind would have questioned the morality of such an action but perhaps im expecting too much from you.

http://www.cubasocialista.com/injustice.htm

cap28:

no american administration is seriously committed to reforming  health care in america because that would mean stepping on the toes of powerfull healthcare lobby groups,

Oh! You are adding a point? 

cap28:

it would  also mean comitting a lot of money into an area which has been long neglected by the govt and as i said earlier if there's one thing plutocrats hate doing its spending money without getting a huge return on their investment,  the US govt simply see it as a waste of money, hence their unseriousness about reforming it.

Please show me your source of this bolded point.

You know I would never allow "you to make it up as you go".

cap28:

Is that a question or a statement?

It is a question. How do you think Cuba funds it healthcare programme? Does the funds fall like Manna from heaven?

cap28:

Actually no i dont think the funding comes from Jesus more like the Cuban govt and the former Soviet Union, the cuban govt were in receipt of subsidies from the soviet union prior to its collapse in 1991 see below

So what makes it better than the tax-funded healthcare of UK?

cap28:

You sound very confused - okay let me say it once again and try and get it this time - I said that Cuba has been able to provide its populace with free education up to university level and free health care - feats that the US is yet to acheive - at no point did i say that the US was INCAPABLE OF acheiving those feats, i merely stated that they WERE YET TO ACHEIVE THOSE FEATS - comprende!!!!!

LWKMD 

You wan fool your teacher? 

So how come when I said the US has not achieved it because they are not interested, you challenged it:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-542502.128.html#msg7074780

What were you trying to say? Was it not incapability? 

Are you still going to continue lying you knew, before I educated you, that the US did not have one because of lack of interest? 

cap28:

Now if you understand english - and im beginning to have my doubts, but lets assume you do, it would be clear to you that a country as powerful and as rich as the US would obviously be capable of providing free healthcare and education to its citizens, therefore the logical path that your thoughts should have taken would be to then question why it doesnt do that instead of spending time arguing  that america can afford to provide those services.  As i said earlier its a no brainer, if america can allocate $1 trillion USD for its military budget it certainly can set aside an equally stupendous amount of revenue to fund healthcare and education provision.

Now you are regurgitating the lecture I gave.

Good to see that you have been educated that US can afford free healthcare but has not implemented one because they are not interested, so comparing it to Cuba's implementation and portraying it as Cuba's superior capability is LAME.

I always knew I was a good teacher. A bit harsh but good. 

cap28:

Sagamite do you suffer from low self esteem? why do your debates always have to descend into bitter arguments?

No, I am just imperiously arrogant. I like discriminating, but my discrimination is not based on race, tribe, nationality, sex etc as some retards on NL.

I am an intelligencist. I discriminate based on intelligence. I hate people not from my group (i.e. class of intelligensia).

This is from my heart: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-496295.64.html#msg6568340

I have utter and complete disdain for morons.

cap28:

Again no facts, no arguments to back up why he thinks this way, just banal one liners.  Did you notice that when i argued against capitalism i gave reasons as to why i didnt support it, why dont you do the same with communism?

You sound pathetic not realising in this day and age that communism has FAILED. Countries have abandoned it. Citizens do not want it and authorities have only been able to implement it by brutal force.

If your intellect is not at the level to realise that, I will not waste my time. Others have just jumped on the thread to criticise your thinking and you still don't get it.

cap28:

says the man who spends all his time on nairaland

Yeah, I am addicted to intellectual discrimination. I come to NL to get my fix. 

cap28:

Your use of the word "converted" is interesting, explain how russia "converted" to capitalism, how did they come to this realisation that capitalism was a much more economically viable model - looking forward to being "educated" by you 

Lawd have mercy. 

Are they still a communist state? 

One would have thought they have privatised most of the state-owned businesses and now practice market-based economy? Or, cap28, is that just the lies the evil capitalists are telling us through their manipulative media (CNN, Fox, BBC and Sky) to weaken Russia before they go and bomb it? 

cap28:

Fidel Castro never said socialism had failed, Fidel Castro's enemies may have said that but not Fidel himself.
Enemies like the US who are waiting for him to die so that they can move in and take Cuba back to the days when their stooge Batista was running Cuba and when the US mafia controlled the gambling and prostitution rackets which were rife in Cuba in those days:

http://cubasocialista.com/batistaeng.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/cuba-a03.shtml

Welcome back!!!

That is more like it. You are now back to your normal self.

It would not really be cap28 we are debating with if we do not have asinine conjectural conspiracy theory full of accusations against the white imperialists. 

cap28:

you probably read the link i posted setting out the nature of the US blockade against Cuba but didnt understand it!!! Sagamite the blockade penalises other countries who try to trade with Cuba, countries who were not in agreement with it  are punished, go and do the research i am not giving you any more free tuition. 

I repeat, THERE IS NO OTHER, let me emphasis it, OTHER western country that has an economic blockade on Cuba apart from US!

Stop fooling yourself and chasing your tail. You goofed and I promptly educated you.

cap28:

The thing that really concerns me is that you dont seem bothered by the fact that a country that had the courage to challenge the tyranny of the US is now the victim of one of the the most draconian trade embargoes in modern history, instead you are more preoccupied with the number of countries that are party to this embargoe.  A sane mind would have questioned the morality of such an action but perhaps im expecting too much from you.

http://www.cubasocialista.com/injustice.htm

Stop using strawman's argument on me. I am superiorly more intelligent than you than to fall for that redirection of argument. 

The point is that you said several nations have put an economic embargo on Cuba with US since 1959. And I educated you that it was . . . . .

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU[/flash]

Admit it, you goofed! 

Russia would not have survived the Germans during the second world war if they were not practicing communism. every Russians from age 11 years upward were sent to the war front while children between age 5 years and 11 were engaged in weapon and supplies development for their soldiers in the war front.
capitalism itself has its own demerits, armed robbery, drug trafficking, prostitution, 419 (yahoo yahoo) just to mention a few.

lekside44:

Russia would not have survived the Germans during the second world war if they were not practicing communism. every Russians from age 11 years upward were sent to the war front while children between age 5 years and 11 were engaged in weapon and supplies development for their soldiers in the war front.
capitalism itself has its own demerits, armed robbery, drug trafficking, prostitution, 419 (yahoo yahoo) just to mention a few.

exactly!! It took russia just 10 years to become an industrialised nation and acheive what britain had acheived in a century!! had russia not adopted communism  it would have have been dead meat in the hands of the nazis, Look at how they fought off the nazis in stalingrad!! that alone should demonstrate the merits of communism, i admit that Stalin was a brutal dictator but he was no more brutal than Hitler who championed capitalism.  Communism engendered a communal spirit in the russian people which they desperately
needed at such a crucial hour .

I have asked sagamite to explain to me why he beleives communism is a failed ideology but in his characteristic way of avoiding difficult questions his only response was to state that communism is utter shyte"  hmm very illuminating

cap28:

exactly!! It took russia just 10 years to become an industrialised nation and acheive what britain had acheived in a century!! had russia not adopted communism  it would have have been dead meat in the hands of the nazis, Look at how they fought off the nazis in stalingrad!! that alone should demonstrate the merits of communism, i admit that Stalin was a brutal dictator but he was no more brutal than Hitler who championed capitalism.  Communism engendered a communal spirit in the russian people which they desperately
needed at such a crucial hour .

Sending 11 year olds to war is your "merits" of communism?

Taking away people's choice permanently is your idea of "merits" of communism?

cap28:

I have asked sagamite to explain to me why he beleives communism is a failed ideology but in his characteristic way of avoiding difficult questions his only response was to state that communism is utter shyte"  hmm very illuminating

Do you know the meaning of Sophism?

Honestly, I will never waste my time telling anyone butter is yellow. Especially not someone who sees sending 11 year olds to war as the merits of communism.

But let me just give you a hint: Any system that tries to place [b]ME [/b]as equal to people like you or hold me back for people like you is a retarded system.

lekside44:

Russia would not have survived the Germans during the second world war if they were not practicing communism. every Russians from age 11 years upward were sent to the war front while children between age 5 years and 11 were engaged in weapon and supplies development for their soldiers in the war front.
capitalism itself has its own demerits, armed robbery, drug trafficking, prostitution, 419 (yahoo yahoo) just to mention a few.

I am sorry but that is nonsense. The Germans faced Russia on the Eastern Front and Allies (US, Britain) on the Western front. Your argument is flawed in that it ignores Germany's loss to the allies. I don't want to use war to discuss the pros and cons of capital market philosophy but Russia lost 27 million citizens, significantly more than any other nation. The allies lost 60 million people while the Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan lost on 12 million. Besides, the Russians gained the upperhand because
1. Germany made the mistake of fighting three super powers on two fronts
2. Germany ran out of oil
3. The snow in Russia was atrociuos

Russia was ill-prepared for war. It was normal for two soldiers to share one rifle plus it took Russia almost one year to prepare for war. As far as the second world war is concerned, Communism failed.

Katsumoto:

The US is the richest nation on the planet because it is the most innovative, constantly developing new ideas and products including products that fall in the disruptive innovations category. You need to site examples with facts and not hear-say when discussing US foreign policy and how it has enriched the US.

No the US is the richest nation on the planet because it:

massacred the indigenous native american landowners and appropriated the land for themselves

used african slave labour for the mass production of cash crops which were in high demand
eg cotton, tobacco, sugar

annexed neighbouring countries like Hawaii and puerto rico, panama in order to expand its acquisition of territory

Fought and defeated the spanish and appropriated even more land further south eg texas, mexico etc

and thereby asssist in its agenda of capital accumulation

continues to practice the appropriation of land, labour and resources belonging to other countries in order to amass  more capital and wealth for itself:

Can you think of one nation where the government just allows corporations to maximise profit by not putting in place regulations, acts, and taxes? Let us agree that the US is the most capitalist country in the world; are there no regulations in the US? In light of the current financial turmoil, did the US not promulgate a few laws such as Dodd-Frank Act? Granted that the US does not have as much welfare as European countries but it still has welfare programs such as food stamps, inncome insurance, etc. Where do you think the funds for such programs is coming from? France has more fortune 500 companies than Germany but iit has more socialist policies.

there are regulations but they are largely ineffective because the regulators are the same people who flout the law, take for instance this Dodd Frank act you just mentioned - Both Dodd and Frank are congressmen who in the past have  received millions of dollars in campaign donations for their political parties from banking lobbyists - now do youwant to tell me that after receiving such huge sums of money from powerful banking lobbyists they will turn around and penalise these same people for flouting banking regulations?  come on man get real - it aint gonna happen.

this current banking meltdown occurred under the watch of these same regulatory bodies who collaborated with these bankers and turned a blind eye while the bankers flouted these regs.  They are taking the public for a ride!!

Yes the US does operate several welfare programmes however the govt is intent on slashing funding for most of these programmes whilst simultaneously giving welfare in the form of corporate tax breaks to big corporations.  It seems to me as if the people who need the welfare are being denied access to it while those who dont are constantly being given govt assistance in the form of huge tax breaks!!!!

by the way the reason these welfare programmes even exist is because the american people fought the govt to provide them  

You need to keep up to date with current affairs. Brazil had one of the worst income distribution in the world but under Lula, there has been progress. Lula instituted several programs such as the one which pays mothers to send their kids to school. More brazilian kids go to school these days because of that. Lula was able to do that by nationalising several enterprises and using the profits for welfare programs. Please read below part of an article from the economist

'Instead, Brazilians are revelling in a golden moment. A country that used to fall over whenever the world economy wobbled was one of the last to go into recession in 2008 and one of the first out in 2009. Median earnings are rising and, despite a minimum wage at its highest in real terms since 1979, so is employment.

Since 2003 some 20m Brazilians have emerged from poverty and joined the market economy. These new consumers buy everything from cars to cookers and fridges to flights. To this burgeoning domestic market, add China’s appetite for Brazilian iron ore, meat, soya and more, and in economic terms this is probably “the best moment in the entire history of Brazil,” says Marcelo Neri of the Fundação Getulio Vargas, a university.'

http://www.economist.com/node/17147828?story_id=17147828

I agree with some of what you've posted, perhaps i got it wrong with regard to the gradual changes that are happening,however here is how Lula's performance has been analysed in a recent publication:


During its two terms in office, the Lula government combined modest social assistance measures that refrained from challenging the national class divide, with neo-liberal free market policies. It ceded control of the central bank and fundamental economic decision-making to right-wing pro-business official

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/braz-n02.shtml

Explicitly, US political commentators talk about the US exporting democracy. The US encourages most nations to adopt democracy; in the past, it might have encouraged dictators but the tide has changed. The US has been instrumental in democracy being installed in many African, Latin America and Asian countries. Since the US does not like democracy in other countries, why isn't it best friends with Cuba, North Korea? Since the US does not want other nations to be free, why has it not invaded Brazil, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, Angola, Singapore, Ghana, or any other country with an emerging market?

forget about the US commentators - they say what they are paid to say, perhaps the US invasion of Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, to name a few were all for the purpose of installing democracy - i havent got time right now but ill post some links giving you further info on the role america has been playing in those countries.

Don't kid yourself, there is no capitalism in Nigeria. It seems that you think that most developing nations should get to a stage where everyone is equal and happy. That is simply naive. The better way to look at it is the number of people that are no longer friends with poverty. The situation in China and India is improving steadily. The middle class in both countries is increasing every day. That may not be enough in your view but it is progress.

so if its not capitalism that we are operating in nigeria what is it?

no i dont expect  utopia but i do expect to live in a world/country  where i can afford housing, clothing and food - the basics, in nigeria most of the above are beyond the reach of the average nigerian.

cap28:

exactly!! It took russia just 10 years to become an industrialised nation and acheive what britain had acheived in a century!! had russia not adopted communism  it would have have been dead meat in the hands of the nazis, Look at how they fought off the nazis in stalingrad!! that alone should demonstrate the merits of communism, i admit that Stalin was a brutal dictator but he was no more brutal than Hitler who championed capitalism.  Communism engendered a communal spirit in the russian people which they desperately
needed at such a crucial hour .

I have asked sagamite to explain to me why he beleives communism is a failed ideology but in his characteristic way of avoiding difficult questions his only response was to state that communism is utter shyte"  hmm very illuminating

Russia turning the tide at Stalingrad had nothing to do with communism but pure survival. It turned the tide after it had made the most losses in the war.

Communism is a failed ideology because it has been abandoned by the nation that practiced it's true philosophy. Russia provided almost everything for its citizens but we can all see that the model was unsustainable over the long term. North Korea - its citizens are suffering. China - has employed capitalism but it never really provided a lot of amenities to its citizens due to its share size. Chinese citizens still have to pay for most amenities. Cuba - has done well with its little resources but it has always been supported by Russia and now it has turned to Venezuela for help.

Katsumoto:

Communism is failed because it has been abandoned by the nation that practiced it's true philosophy. Russia provided almost everything for its citizens but we can all see that the model was unsustainable over the long term. North Korea - its citizens are suffering. China - has employed capitalism but it never really provided a lot of amenities to its citizens due to its share size. Chinese citizens still have to pay for most amenities. Cuba - has done well with its little resources but it has always been supported by Russia and now it has turned to Venezuela for help.

You honestly don't need to waste your time.

If he cannot get this after I have drummed it into his head several times, I pity him.

Virtually all nations that were proponents of communism are changing their ways, the rulers all can only hold on to the vestige of the ideology through utter repression/brutality and someone wants me to waste my time telling him butter is yellow.

I don't debate at that level. It is an insult to the supreme and superior intellect God gave me.

Oh shoot, This is one of the reasons why arguing on NL can be quite challenging, but hey even the "know it all" have their opinion.

Katsumoto:

Russia turning the tide at Stalingrad had nothing to do with communism but pure survival. It turned the tide after it had made the most losses in the war.

Communism is a failed ideology because it has been abandoned by the nation that practiced it's true philosophy. Russia provided almost everything for its citizens but we can all see that the model was unsustainable over the long term. North Korea - its citizens are suffering. China - has employed capitalism but it never really provided a lot of amenities to its citizens due to its share size. Chinese citizens still have to pay for most amenities. Cuba - has done well with its little resources but it has always been supported by Russia and now it has turned to Venezuela for help.

pure survival alone would not have been sufficient to defeat an army as formidable as the German Wermacht, you would need the weaponry, manpower and superior military tactics in order to do so, the russians intially started out with the first two but were outmanoevred by the nazis in the early stages of the war but with time they improved their military strategy and succeeded in defeating one of the most powerful armies in the world at that time.  They could not have done this without the iron fist of communisim, as i said earlier Stalin was brutal but he had to be that way or his people would have been annihilated. Cowards and traitors were executed summarily , you either went to the war front to fight  the nazis or you stayed home and were executed. 

Some of  your comments about russia's reason for winning the war are untrue, russian snipers in stalingrad deserve the biggest credit for russia's victory. 

also the russians improved their military tactics and succeeded in encircling the german 6th army in Stalingrad until they were cut off from the rest of their troops, subsequent attempts by the germans to break through this encirclement failed and that heralded the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany, so please give credit where it is due.

the reason that russia lost 27 million lives is because the nazis starved and murdered russians who were trapped in russian territory that was under nazi occupation.

^^^^
And, that's why you like communism.

Na wa oo.

I smell a lot of hypocrisy here, The same people who condemn capitalism and extol socialism/communism's vitues would never want to live in a communist state. How many people do we hear of fleeing the "exploitation" of capitalist countries and escaping to socialist paradise? Yet we constantly hear of people braving shark-infested waters to escape from socialist utopia (cuba, North Korea, Laos etc) and to be "exploited" in capitalist countries (UK, US).

Any one that truly wants to understand capitalism should read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He sums up the book in the following comment, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher or the baker that we expect our dinner but from his pursuit of his own self interest" Society's interest is best served when everyone pursues his/her own self interest. This is what makes capitalism succeed and others fail. They fail because they do not consider that man is naturally selfish.

Any ideology that forces all men to live equally is bondage. Any system that does not reward private initiative and enterprise is oppressive. Has anyone bothered to understand why things work best in Nigeria or elsewhere when they are privately run and every thing that is run by the state is poorly run? I challenge anyone to contradict me.

If you dislike capitalism and private enterprise, put your money where your mouth is, refuse to patronize goods and services made available through private initiative and enterprise and look to the state to supply all your needs. Do it for a year and come back to tell us what you learnt!

I don't think that "things work best" when they are privately run. You have to look at the system holistically rather than individually.
ex. you may say that a private school is of better quality than a public school. but if you look at the big picture,can you imagine a country where only private schools exist? meaning only 1% of the population is educated. is that "the best" situation for such a country?

how do we find a balance between "looking out for ones own best interest" and making sure others are not being unfairly kicked to the curb?
why do you think there are rules in most societies against monopolies? does a monopoly mean that the smaller business owner isn't working hard enough?

I'm not saying a state should provide all the needs because obviously that won't work. but you can't look to the other extreme either. absolute capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism. The only reason why capitalism looks better than socialism is because it is extreme socialism that is always being compared to capitalism. if you wanted a more fairer comparison, you would look at a socialist state and a purely capitalist state (a state without a regulating government where all power is in the "invisible hands" of the market) in such a state of pure capitalism, we would almost be paying for the water and the air that we breathe and the roads we drive our cars on. big corporations will be allowed to pollute the air and waters unlimitedly without regulation. education, health care (this is a big problem in the US and thank God obama has just signed the public health care bill), public roads will be limited to an elite class that will get smaller and smaller etc. it will be just as bad as communism or worse  !!!!!
in fact, agric corporations now have rights to some plants and animals (through the idea of "intellectual property" for GMOs) meaning that they own some forms of life!!! think about the future if and when medical corporations can claim human life as intellectual property? such can exist in a purely capitalistic society because MONEY and GREED is the most important factor not values.
i can't even start to talk about the medical system in the US where basically poor people are shut out of it. what's the point of having a good quality medical system if 60% of the population doesn't have access to it!!!
yea there is more creativity and innovation with capitalism but to what extent does it start to become detrimental to society? what is the limit?


to me, there should be a balance. but unfortunately, it seems that the current standard is one that is leaning more and more to the extreme end of capitalism. until this recent financial crisis of course that have caused the government to step in very hard. and made people start to re-think the idea of capitalism as the most perfect system.

Hmmm too mush grammar.

Oyinda, Long timeo

@Katsumoto

Think of political philosophy has being the stretch between two points. On one end, you have the far right and on the other end, you have the far left. Each nation will belong somewhere on that line depending on its welfare system, tax system and market philosophy.  If you can't say that the US is a capitalist nation, then what nation can you call a capitalist nation.

America was very buoyant under Clinton; Clinton left one of the largest surpluses in US history but America was also able to promote a lot of welfare programs under Clinton because of increased revenue from taxes both corporate and personal which were consequences of Capitalism. So the more money capitalists made, the more that was available for people on welfare.

In my opinion, giving the huge resources held by most African countries and the unpreparedness of the populace, State Capitalism would suit most African countries. The model should be quite similar to what obtains in China and Angola. However that should be a short to medium term philosophy. Natural resources get depleted and as such while an African country can start with socialist ideals it should inculcate Capitalist ideology for the long term. When resources get depleted and it does not have a free market system that promotes efficiency, innovation,and leanness, it will suffer. It can pursue one of two solutions

1. Develop a sovereign fund that will invest cash reserves in viable ventures similar to what Qatar, Libya, Saudi and other oil middle-eastern countries have done
2. Encourage innovation and efficiency similar to what obtains in China but which is being implemented wrongly. In China, employees of State parastatals are encouraged to submit patents and they get paid just for doing that. The problem with this model in China is that citizens are submitting patents that are very inferior because compensation is not on viability of patents. What should happen is that inventors should be paid a percentage of future earnings or something similar. Bottomline, there should be an incentive or motivation for people to submit good ideas and not just any idea. This compensation will spur competition and innovation.
In essence, an African country should start with the Chinese model and then transform into the model adopted by most Scandinavian countries. With the rewards of state Capitalism, the governments can proceed with welfarist programs and development of infrastructure which is lacking in most African countries. When African countries attain development levels that are similar to most European nations, then they should gradually wean their citizens of welfare. That may be difficult if they have been used to government providing everything; case in point - France.

1. In the first quote you tend to agree with my argument that each nation must  stay at the point that suits it.

2. However I have a problem with your earlier post which form the second quote above. It sounds too theoretical for me, yes such paragraphs could earn one good scores in an economics exams but it remains the problem we have with our Nigerian students and their lecturers. They teach nursery pupils about snow, even in the universities, they have summer semesters and summer exams.

3. Quite academic to cite examples of Qatar, Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, and Scandinavian countries. As we have agreed, those countries have found their position on the 'stretch between two points'. Nigeria has her own peculiarities that should lead it to her own point. Economic issues are never treated in isolation, there are other socio-political issues that should be taken into consideration. For, instance do you think any of those countries you mentioned have anything like federal character in their constitution (things in Nigeria should be done on state of origin not qualification, merit or suitability). There are so many other factors that should be consider about the inhabitants of Nigeria when talking about economic ideologies.

4. I mentioned taxation earlier in my post. Taxation works perfectly well in Britain. Take a look at the Nigeria tax laws (acts, decree, etc). They are ideal and modeled after the British one (on paper). But has it worked? There are so many other things that are ideal on paper, but when one considers the environment in which they are meant to operate, you ask our graduates (local and foreign), policy makers and professors if it's just a fairy tale

5. Nigeria was practicing the Parliamentary system of government which has worked for Britain, it didnt work for Nigeria and she changed to the Presidential system of government which is working for America. Has it worked for Nigeria? Put rigging aside, can an ordinary Nigeria vote for someone who is not from their ethnic group, if the person is the most qualified for that post?

6. Coming to the issue of USA, I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether Clintons policies resulted in the surplus or whether the surplus was merely as a result of period in the business cycle (economic cycle). Would one blame Obama for not leaving any surplus? In any case, if USA (Clinton) taxed alot in order to increase welfare, similar to what the Scandinavian guys are doing, then it is not capitalist (at least theoretically). Because in capitalism individuals should take care of themselves according to their ability, the state has no hand in their welfare

7. My submission: Nigeria should do what works/will work for her, not what is working for Europe, or what is in the text book

dayokanu u still dey alive hehn.

You forgot all about me.

We were supposed to get engaged this yr but you boned my side.

E no good o

i'm planning to have at least 4 divorces before I die. u sure u want to be part of my plan?
u better wipe your tears jare

hi guys,
I must say i've thoroughly enjoyed this thread so much that i quickly registered with the forum.I think a lot of the comments are well informed and intelligent.However i do have my reservation when some people take it to a personal level.It does leave a sour taste and quite frankly classless if not immature.

In my opinion,Capitalism that is regulated with a strong government presence is ideal.My arguement for this is that while the ideals of capitalism encourages innovation,competition and hard work,it also fuels greed even in the best of men.Interestingly no country practices capitalism in it purest form,for it becomes counter productive.I believe the premise for this post would be the american form of capitalism which seems to have the government get weaker and private enterprise get stronger over time.I read a comment where someone brought up the point of microsoft being stifled at a point or standard oil being broken into parts.I think that is the very role goverment needs to play,yes allow for innovation and growth,but when a company is perceieved to be too "big" or too controlling of an industry too allow competition,then government has to limit it.No system is perfecft in itself it needs tweaking and adjusting along the way.Capitalism definitely gives that poor village boy with a zeal and creative mind the oppurtunity to be "somebody".What about the boy with not so much ability, well there is welfare

truth be told,this is earth and until we get get to heaven, we can not live equally with our different abilities.
BTW,THE U.S CATERS FOR POOR PEOPLE WITH HOMELESS SHELTERS AND FOOD STAMPS,IT JUST SEEMS TO BE SHRINKING IN ITS ABILITY TO REGULATE CAPITALISM.gREED THE 'DEVIL IN CAPITALISM

justwonder:

hi guys,
I must say i've thoroughly enjoyed this thread so much that i quickly registered with the forum.I think a lot of the comments are well informed and intelligent.However i do have my reservation when some people take it to a personal level.It does leave a sour taste and quite frankly classless if not immature.

In my opinion,Capitalism that is regulated with a strong government presence is ideal.My arguement for this is that while the ideals of capitalism encourages innovation,competition and hard work,it also fuels greed even in the best of men.Interestingly no country practices capitalism in it purest form,for it becomes counter productive.[b]I believe the premise for this post would be the american form of capitalism which seems to have the government get weaker and private enterprise get stronger over time.[/b]I read a comment where someone brought up the point of microsoft being stifled at a point or standard oil being broken into parts.I think that is the very role goverment needs to play,yes allow for innovation and growth,but when a company is perceieved to be too "big" or too controlling of an industry too allow competition,then government has to limit it.No system is perfecft in itself it needs tweaking and adjusting along the way.Capitalism definitely gives that poor village boy with a zeal and creative mind the oppurtunity to be "somebody".What about the boy with not so much ability, well there is welfare

truth be told,this is earth and until we get get to heaven, we can not live equally with our different abilities.
BTW,THE U.S CATERS FOR POOR PEOPLE WITH HOMELESS SHELTERS AND FOOD STAMPS,IT JUST SEEMS TO BE SHRINKING IN ITS ABILITY TO REGULATE CAPITALISM.gREED THE 'DEVIL IN CAPITALISM

ha perfect.
a state that practices capitalism but also has a strong government is ideal in my opinion.
a balance between what you would call capitalism and socialism.
and i like your concrete example of the village boy. the smart one can have the opportunity to develop his talent while the not so fortunate one can go on welfare.
and yeah. the premise of this topic is about the weakening position of the govt and the inability to regulate capitalism nowadays. and just people's general adverse reaction to the suggestion of a stronger government. you get labeled as socialist for suggesting a need for a stronger govt. don't people realize that the kind of capitalism that we have nowadays is getting too extreme. to me at least.

welcome to NL by the way.