Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,152,740 members, 7,817,042 topics. Date: Saturday, 04 May 2024 at 12:32 AM

Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington - Politics - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington (1839 Views)

Buhari Is Supporting Boko Haram, He Should Be Probed – Fani-kayode / 2015: Why I’m Not Supporting Jonathan- Amaechi…Blasts Uduaghan, Okonjo-iweala / Why Is Supporting GEJ Seen As An Offence? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 2:37am On Jul 23, 2010
[size=14pt]Why US is supporting Jonathan, by Carrington[/size]

Jul 23, 2010

By Clifford Ndujihe

Former United States of America envoy to Nigeria, Ambassador Walter Carrington yesterday said his country was backing President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration because he had shown that he was sincere and committed to conducting credible elections in 2011 as well as improving on the fortunes of Nigerians.
“I think there is great US support for Nigeria and also frustration because for many years there has been instability. I hope that Jonathan will be able to turn things around,” he said.
Carrington spoke to Vanguard in Lagos ahead of his 80th birthday celebration holding at City Hall, Lagos Island, tomorrow.
Asked if he believed the Jonathan government could conduct credible polls within five months, he said: “Certainly, I think he has made a good appointment in the person of the electoral chief. The problem, I think, is the problem of fraudulent past elections. I feel confident that President Jonathan is going to do his best and I think it is going to be a different election.


[size=13pt]I Am impressed[/size]
On whether he is backing the President to contest the polls, he said: “I don’t want to get involved in Nigerian politics. All I can say is that I have been very impressed with the way Jonathan had gone. It is up to Nigerians to decide what should happen.”
Carrington, who said he had no regrets at 80 because he had been fortunate in the things he had done and would repeat them if they recurred, described Nigeria as his most favourite nation after the US, especially since he met his wife here.


[size=14pt]Collaboration with US can end kidnapping[/size]

He decried the wave of kidnapping in the country and urged the government to collaborate with the US, which he disclosed had similar problems in the 1920s, to tame the monster.
The envoy, who recalled that the late Gen. Sani Abacha military regime almost abducted him in the 1990s, said the rate of kidnapping in Nigeria “is very disturbing. We, at a time in the 1920s, had a lot of kidnappings in the United States. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, made its name by foiling kidnapping because it became known to the kidnappers that they were not going to get money or when they got money, they would be tracked.
“The FBI developed a very sophisticated way of being able to track the money and apprehended the kidnappers when they came to collect the money. When the FBI did this over time, the kidnapping stopped. That is the kind of thing that should be done. I expect that the government here must be in touch with the FBI. I think they should meet with the FBI one-on-one.”

Since the Abacha era, Carrington said things had looked up in the country even though a lot still needed to be done starting from the 50th independence anniversary to take Nigeria to the height she should be.

[size=13pt]How Abacha regime tried to abduct me[/size]

Asked how the Abacha government tried to kidnapped him, he said: “It was difficult under Abacha. US had a policy of sanctions against the Abacha government. As the Abacha government became more dictatorial, it became necessary to speak out against it. And the more I did it, the more the Abacha government did not like it and tried to make things difficult.
There were two instances that they went after me and the US embassy thwarted them. There was one where they were planning to intercept my vehicle on a way to an occasion. We found out and thwarted it. There was a more elaborate plan to try to kidnap me or put me in a compromising position that we found and thwarted. They were clearly not happy.


http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/07/23/why-us-is-supporting-jonathan-by-carrington/
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by Becomrich0: 3:03am On Jul 23, 2010
[size=48pt]the USA is not backing Jonathan.  the USA government does not get involve in  supporting a candidate.  That is against the USA policy. You can go and ask the white house. The USA government is neutral in election.  ANd I do not think Walter Carrington would say that, because he knews the USA has a neutral policy toward election.  [/size]
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 3:07am On Jul 23, 2010
^^ OL boy no go get heart attack o. . .mad man. . . . . cool
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 9:01pm On Jul 23, 2010
Yea i like this ish. . Goodluck Jo is the right man,at the right time in our critical history. . . .
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by otawa: 9:32pm On Jul 23, 2010

Former United States of America envoy to Nigeria, Ambassador Walter Carrington yesterday said his country was backing President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration because he had shown that he was sincere and committed to conducting credible elections in 2011 as well as improving on the fortunes of Nigerians

alarm, alarm.

US never cares about anyone but their own interest.

Alas, gullible Nigerians will be jumping for joy!
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 10:09pm On Jul 23, 2010
becomrich i would advise you to seek immediate psychiatric attention as you seem to be in a very unstable condition - who told you america remains neutral with regard to the internal politics of other countries - let me ask you a question:

who assassinated Murtala Mohammed in 1976?

who overthrew Kwame Nkrumah in 1966?

who removed Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989 - and can you tell me why he is serving life imprisonment in a Miami jail?

who kidnapped former Haitian president - Jean Bertrand Aristide and DEPORTED him to Congo in 2004?

who abducted Hugo Chavez in 2003 and tried to have him murdered?

who murdered Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1964 and replaced him with dictator Mobutu?

who threatened to launch a nuclear strike on  Cuba in 1961?

You better go back and get some treatment from your shrink then do a crash course on US imperialism.

now back to the topic

the handwriting is now on the wall, the US have shown their hand - does anyone know of any non western country that the US supports that engages in a democratic system of government.

The US was responsible for eliminating Yaradua and replacing him with their docile puppet Jonathan under instructions from their agent Obasanjo - Obasanjo has been on the CIA payroll since the 70's this is why he keeps wandering in and out of the corridors of power whenever he feels like, Abacha like Yaradua was seen as a thorn in the side of the US when he stopped taking orders from washington and decided that he could make his own decisions without consulting them first, unfortunately enough for him he underestimated the ruthlessness of american imperialism and paid with his life.

Walter Carrington has long been involved in nigerian politics therefore it is ludicrous for him to blatantly lie about his involvement in the nigerian political system as the US and the British have been teleguiding the political and economic direction of nigeria since independence. 

The sooner nigerians wake up and understand what is really going on the better for us, we are yet to take control of our political and economic destiny, nigerian is  a client state of the US and Britain and will remain one until we have a revolution which will clear out this band of criminals who have decided to collude with foreigners to destroy our country and the lives of future generations to come.

Nzeogwu tried it but was stopped by cowardly gutless Ironsi and other hopeless and delusional fools, now look at where we are today, it is going to take a completely new and radicalised generation of courageous young nigerians to overthrow the tyranny that exists in present day nigeria, and it will be no easy task, the civil war of 67-70 will be childs play compared to what is to come.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by asha80(m): 10:12pm On Jul 23, 2010
cap28:

becomrich i would advise you to seek immediate psychiatric attention as you seem to be in a very unstable condition - who told you america remains neutral with regard to the internal politics of other countries - let me ask you a question:

who assassinated Murtala Mohammed in 1976?

who overthrew Kwame Nkrumah in 1966?

who removed Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989 - and can you tell me why he is serving life imprisonment in a Miami jail?

who kidnapped former Haitian president - Jean Bertrand Aristide and DEPORTED him to Congo in 2004?

who abducted Hugo Chavez in 2003 and tried to have him murdered?

who murdered Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1964 and replaced him with dictator Mobutu?

who threatened to launch a nuclear strike on Cuba in 1961?

You better go back and get some treatment from your shrink then do a crash course on US imperialism.

now back to the topic

the handwriting is now on the wall, the US have shown their hand - does anyone know of any non western country that the US supports that engages in a democratic system of government.

The US was responsible for eliminating Yaradua and replacing him with their docile puppet Jonathan under instructions from their agent Obasanjo - Obasanjo has been on the CIA payroll since the 70's this is why he keeps wandering in and out of the corridors of power whenever he feels like, Abacha like Yaradua was seen as a thorn in the side of the US when he stopped taking orders from washington and decided that he could make his own decisions without consulting them first, unfortunately enough for him he underestimated the ruthlessness of american imperialism and paid with his life.

Walter Carrington has long been involved in nigerian politics therefore it is ludicrous for him to blatantly lie about his involvement in the nigerian political system as the US and the British have been teleguiding the political and economic direction of nigeria since independence.

The sooner nigerians wake up and understand what is really going on the better for us, we are yet to take control of our political and economic destiny, nigerian is a client state of the US and Britain and will remain one until we have a revolution which will clear out this band of criminals who have decided to collude with foreigners to destroy our country and the lives of future generations to come.

Nzeogwu tried it but was stopped by cowardly gutless Ironsi and other hopeless and delusional fools, now look at where we are today, it is going to take a completely new and radicalised generation of courageous young nigerians to overthrow the tyranny that exists in present day nigeria, and it will be no easy task, the civil war of 67-70 will be childs play compared to what is to come.



shocked grin cheesy
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by Nobody: 10:22pm On Jul 23, 2010
cap28:

becomrich i would advise you to seek immediate psychiatric attention as you seem to be in a very unstable condition - who told you america remains neutral with regard to the internal politics of other countries - let me ask you a question:

who assassinated Murtala Mohammed in 1976?

who overthrew Kwame Nkrumah in 1966?

who removed Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989 - and can you tell me why he is serving life imprisonment in a Miami jail?

who kidnapped former Haitian president - Jean Bertrand Aristide and DEPORTED him to Congo in 2004?

who abducted Hugo Chavez in 2003 and tried to have him murdered?

who murdered Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1964 and replaced him with dictator Mobutu?

who threatened to launch a nuclear strike on  Cuba in 1961?

You better go back and get some treatment from your shrink then do a crash course on US imperialism.

now back to the topic

the handwriting is now on the wall, the US have shown their hand - does anyone know of any non western country that the US supports that engages in a democratic system of government.

The US was responsible for eliminating Yaradua and replacing him with their docile puppet Jonathan under instructions from their agent Obasanjo - Obasanjo has been on the CIA payroll since the 70's this is why he keeps wandering in and out of the corridors of power whenever he feels like, Abacha like Yaradua was seen as a thorn in the side of the US when he stopped taking orders from washington and decided that he could make his own decisions without consulting them first, unfortunately enough for him he underestimated the ruthlessness of american imperialism and paid with his life.

Walter Carrington has long been involved in nigerian politics therefore it is ludicrous for him to blatantly lie about his involvement in the nigerian political system as the US and the British have been teleguiding the political and economic direction of nigeria since independence. 

The sooner nigerians wake up and understand what is really going on the better for us, we are yet to take control of our political and economic destiny, nigerian is  a client state of the US and Britain and will remain one until we have a revolution which will clear out this band of criminals who have decided to collude with foreigners to destroy our country and the lives of future generations to come.

Nzeogwu tried it but was stopped by cowardly gutless Ironsi and other hopeless and delusional fools, now look at where we are today, it is going to take a completely new and radicalised generation of courageous young nigerians to overthrow the tyranny that exists in present day nigeria, and it will be no easy task, the civil war of 67-70 will be childs play compared to what is to come.


these are classified information if i'm not mistaken.i would know some have been de-classified for you to know.please provide a reliable SOURCE because they are incredible accusation against the US.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by philip0906(m): 10:27pm On Jul 23, 2010
~Bluetooth:

these are classified information if i'm not mistaken.i would know some have been de-classified for you to know.please provide a reliable SOURCE because they are incredible accusation against the US.
CAP28 better provide d source,cos d CIA is around grin grin. . .
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by PapaBrowne(m): 10:30pm On Jul 23, 2010
otawa:

alarm, alarm.

US never cares about anyone but their own interest.

Alas, gullible Nigerians will be jumping for joy!


If their interest coincides with our interest then it is all good. That is why the term "mutually beneficial" exists.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by Nobody: 10:34pm On Jul 23, 2010
philip0906:

CAP28 better provide d source,cos d CIA is around  grin grin. . .

CIA ko,KGB ni,I'm only interested where he accused obasano of being CIA agent and masterminding yaradua's death.the other day,i heard someone accusing Tinubu and Abiola of also being CIA agents.wtf
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by SkyBlue1: 10:40pm On Jul 23, 2010
paddy_lo:

Yea i like this ish. . Goodluck Jo is the right man,at the right time in our critical history. . . .

Why is he the right man?? ?
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by PapaBrowne(m): 10:44pm On Jul 23, 2010
cap28:


The sooner nigerians wake up and understand what is really going on the better for us, we are yet to take control of our political and economic destiny, nigerian is  a client state of the US and Britain and will remain one until we have a revolution which will clear out this band of criminals who have decided to collude with foreigners to destroy our country and the lives of future generations to come.

Most countries which have partnered with the US have turned out extremely successful. Examples abound. South Korea, Japan, Germany, UAE, Qatar and a host of other countries. So I don't see why it is bad to partner with the almighty U.S of A. The country I detest is the the U.K.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 11:10pm On Jul 23, 2010
Most countries which have partnered with the US have turned out extremely successful. Examples abound. South Korea, Japan, Germany, UAE, Qatar and a host of other countries. So I don't see why it is bad to partner with the almighty U.S of A.

Great analysis. . .not to mention most of western Europe,Mexico,Taiwan,Indonesia,and so on. . .

This cap28 guy must be smoking something strong . , Yar adua that was a dead man walking since 2005,is now supposed to have been offed by the U.S
If that was the case why did the Yar adua foolishly go to Saudi Arabia a known USA ally?

anyway i dont want to get deep into this yaradua matter,only to say the dude was inept,and Naija is better off today without him
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 11:14pm On Jul 23, 2010
~Bluetooth:

these are classified information if i'm not mistaken.i would know some have been de-classified for you to know.please provide a reliable SOURCE because they are incredible accusation against the US.

as  you correctly noted most of this is classified, however some of it over the years has been leaked but many of the sources have been discredited or even murdered thereby making it very difficult to substantiate, if i had access to the classified files on Obasanjo's relationship with the americans I doubt that i would be risking my life by disclosing their contents on the internet, are you aware that the files on the assassination of John F Kennedy, Martin LUther King, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X and John Lennon remain classifed until 2080 when we'll all be dead - but there are still various pieces of evidence that have surfaced indicating govt invovlements and coverups.

With regard to Noriega - some info on him has been declassified - his life sentence was reduced and he was released in April this year but was re indicted by a french court and is now serving 7 years in a french jail for
murder, drug traffickign and money laundering.

manuel noriega was a  drug baron and former president of panama, he was also a CIA agent - he was indicted on drug trafficking charges by the US when he refused to continue to allow america to dictate the economic and political direction of  his country- funnily enough his CV sounds quite similar to IBB's the only difference being that IBB never challenged the imperialist dictates of the american run world bank and IMF infact he collaborated with these two institutions assisting them in the economic rape of our country.  i suppose thats why he is still alive, rich and has even been given the green light by america to run for the presidency come 2011.

Noriega was well known to the CIA as a drug trafficker well before he was indicted by the US govt infact the US ASSISTED him in many of his drug traffickign operations and he assisted them by providing them with intelligence on the left wing govt of nicaragua which america was trying to overthrow at the time, so it was a case of you scratch my back and i scratch yours.  As a result he became extremely rich and powerful - does that sound familiar (IBB anyone? Obasanjo)

His biggest mistake though was biting the hand that assisted in feeding him, IBB differs from him in that respect,  IBB is a man with absolutely no conscience and reminds me of Mobutu Sese Seko of congo (another CIA stooge).

When stooges turn against their masters its just a matter of time before they are brought down - remember Saddam?

So the moral of the story is - allow foreigners to come in and appropriate the wealth of your country and youll be allowed to traffick drugs and even kill people (IBB) but if you dare stand up to the west and try to prevent them from reducing the people of your country to serfs and destitutes you will either end up six feet under or if you are lucky you'll spend a very long time in a maximum security prison for a very long time - nice eh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Involvement_with_CIA
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 11:18pm On Jul 23, 2010
Why is he the right man?? ?

[b]For one he is from the Niger Delta,if anybody deserves to be the president in Nigeria today,its someone from there

so let them have it,so Nigeria can move forward. . . .

Also his policies are private sector friendly,and should continue with the reforms that has helped to grow our economy @ 6% since 2001

His finance minister is a great pick and will help to put a check on the overzealous SANUSI

He has done right by the INEC pick. . and our next set of elections should be credible

He is level headed. . .and is de-mystifyng the presidency.  .enough of this gra gra presidents like OBJ,IBB,Atiku,Buhari and so on

He is young enough. . . .He appointed the first female Oil Minister in Nigeria,and the First ever Female OPEC oil minister
so at the next OPEC meeting in OCTOBER all the arab oil shieks and other randy fellows,will be eyeing our OIL minister. . lol

I like the crowd he moves around with,Femi otedola,Dangote et al. . distinguished private sector achievers

Theres more but u get the point[/b]
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by Nobody: 11:25pm On Jul 23, 2010
cap28:

as  you correctly noted most of this is classified, however some of it over the years has been leaked but many of the sources have been discredited or even murdered thereby making it very difficult to substantiate, if i had access to the classified files on Obasanjo's relationship with the americans I doubt that i would be risking my life by disclosing their contents on the internet, are you aware that the files on the assassination of John F Kennedy, Martin LUther King, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X and John Lennon remain classifed until 2080 when we'll all be dead - but there are still various pieces of evidence that have surfaced indicating govt invovlements and coverups.

With regard to Noriega - some info on him has been declassified - his life sentence was reduced and he was released in April this year but was re indicted by a french court and is now serving 7 years in a french jail for
murder, drug traffickign and money laundering.

manuel noriega was a  drug baron and former president of panama, he was also a CIA agent - he was indicted on drug trafficking charges by the US when he refused to continue to allow america to dictate the economic and political direction of  his country- funnily enough his CV sounds quite similar to IBB's the only difference being that IBB never challenged the imperialist dictates of the american run world bank and IMF infact he collaborated with these two institutions assisting them in the economic despoil of our country.  i suppose thats why he is still alive, rich and has even been given the green light by america to run for the presidency come 2011.

Noriega was well known to the CIA as a drug trafficker well before he was indicted by the US govt infact the US ASSISTED him in many of his drug traffickign operations and he assisted them by providing them with intelligence on the left wing govt of nicaragua which america was trying to overthrow at the time, so it was a case of you scratch my back and i scratch yours.  As a result he became extremely rich and powerful - does that sound familiar (IBB anyone? Obasanjo)

His biggest mistake though was biting the hand that assisted in feeding him, IBB differs from him in that respect,  IBB is a man with absolutely no conscience and reminds me of Mobutu Sese Seko of congo (another CIA stooge).

When stooges turn against their masters its just a matter of time before they are brought down - remember Saddam?

So the moral of the story is - allow foreigners to come in and appropriate the wealth of your country and youll be allowed to traffick drugs and even kill people (IBB) but if you dare stand up to the west and try to prevent them from reducing the people of your country to serfs and destitutes you will either end up six feet under or if you are lucky you'll spend a very long time in a maximum security prison for a very long time - nice eh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Involvement_with_CIA


most info are just allegations.the US have a tendency of establishing good rapport anywhere there interests lie,so no big qualms about that but making unsubstantiated information that has not been de-classified is unnecessary.would you also deduce that jonathan has been recruited as an agent ?
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 11:52pm On Jul 23, 2010
PapaBrowne:

Most countries which have partnered with the US have turned out extremely successful. Examples abound. South Korea, Japan, Germany, UAE, Qatar and a host of other countries. So I don't see why it is bad to partner with the almighty U.S of A. The country I detest is the the U.K.

hahahaha

you crack me up

funny how you didnt mention any african countries - could it be because america's economic policy with regard to africa is based on the draconian washington consensus which stipulates that african and latin american countries are to be used as sources of cheap natural resources and kept stagnant and backward, how come african countries are constantly blocked by the west from industrialising like their G8 counterparts?

Paddy lo loves singing the praises of america's economic policies but sadly he doesnt seem to understand what the involve.

Paddy let me explain something to you that you have failed to understand america practices  neo imperialism - it invests in countries like nigeria because nigeria has poor human rights records meaning low tolerance by the govt for riots, labour unions, protests and other grassroots groups which pose a potential threat to foreign multinational exploitative practices, also because of grinding poverty labour in nigeria is extremely cheap, which again is ideal for US/British owned multinationals as they are only interested in maximising profit at the expense of the workforce, you should ask yourself why these multinationals are forever shutting down their factories in the US and Europe and relocating them to places like nigeria, india, indonesia and thailand which have abysmall human rights records.

Its all about proft my friend - nothing more nothing less - you seem convinced that the US are interested in the economic development and grownth of nigeria, if that were the case why is it that they attack countries who refuse to adopt their neo liberal economic policies like Cuba, Venezuela, north korea, Iran  why have they imposed an economic blockade agaisnt cuba since 1959 despite Cuba's willingness to engage in trade with them (but not in accordance with their neo liberal economic policies) why?

Stop deceiving yourself and start educating yourself about the truth of america's economic policies towards africa and latin america, have you for one day even looked at the international trade agreements that nigeria is signed up to with europe and america - do they resemble anything close to a fair and equitable trade arrangement or are they exploitative and predatory?

You are delusional and there is nothing i can do to change that but stop misleading people with your fantasy stories about the supposed economic development which you claim is being initiated by america and europe in Nigeria.

If  you dont understand something just be honest enough to admit that you dont understand it rather than spouting off fantasy stories.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 12:10am On Jul 24, 2010
Paddy lo loves singing the praises of america's economic policies but sadly he doesnt seem to understand what the involve.

Paddy let me explain something to you that you have failed to understand america practices  neo imperialism - it invests in countries like nigeria because nigeria has poor human rights records meaning low tolerance by the govt for riots, labour unions, protests and other grassroots groups which pose a potential threat to foreign multinational exploitative practices, also because of grinding poverty labour in nigeria is extremely cheap, which again is ideal for US/British owned multinationals as they are only interested in maximising profit at the expense of the workforce, you should ask yourself why these multinationals are forever shutting down their factories in the US and Europe and relocating them to places like nigeria, india, indonesia and thailand which have abysmall human rights records.

Its all about proft my friend - nothing more nothing less - you seem convinced that the US are interested in the economic development and grownth of nigeria, if that were the case why is it that they attack countries who refuse to adopt their neo liberal economic policies like Cuba, Venezuela, north korea, Iran  why have they imposed an economic blockade agaisnt cuba since 1959 despite Cuba's willingness to engage in trade with them (but not in accordance with their neo liberal economic policies) why?

Stop deceiving yourself and start educating yourself about the truth of america's economic policies towards africa and latin america, have you for one day even looked at the international trade agreements that nigeria is signed up to with europe and america - do they resemble anything close to a fair and equitable trade arrangement or are they exploitative and predatory?

You are delusional and there is nothing i can do to change that but stop misleading people with your fantasy stories about the supposed economic development which you claim is being initiated by america and europe in Nigeria.

If  you dont understand something just be honest enough to admit that you dont understand it rather than spouting off fantasy stories.

[b]
@cap28
where were u indoctrinated,and where did u go to school. . cuba,North Korea.  .Venezuela  .  . ?.  .cause u sound like the crackpot chavez,the lunatic Kim jon ill(lil jon),or the demented castro. . .
Now in your ramblings above u fail to distinguish btw multinationals and the country in which they have their headquarters. .
In one breath U say multinationals remove jobs from america to third world countries,yet u still claim its americas plan to de-industrialize Africa. .
well which one is it cause it cant be both. . .

Your problem is u fail to understand what capitalism means. . .The shareholders of any company are the owners,not the Govt,not the country it is Headquartered in
and in todays world anybody can wake up and buy into apple computer,intel,boeing,Google,Ford and so on,on any continent in the world,from the very comfort of his home through a discount broker,from capetown,to sao paulo,to singapore

That means anyone can own these multinationals u rail against,who pay dividends and contribute to world growth and commerce

The key is for African countries to develop their own multinationals,and in Nigeria we are already doing so.  .from Dangote,UBA,First bank,Oando and so on who are spreading all over Africa and listing on the Johannesburg stock exchange

The problem with the likes of u is that u enjoy the trappings of capitalism,and free markets,free press.,by hiding in such places as the U.K,while u rail against those such luxuries u enjoy

u should pls move to IRAN,VENEZUELA,CUBA or NORTH KOREA and spare us the idiotic rants. . .
lets see how long u last over there,lets see if u can get online and speak your mind freely without being arrested
Lets see if u can really survive in such bankrupt economic systems where u have to get permission from the state to open a barbing salon,and when they give their consent they tell u what to charge and set your salary

lets see whats really good homie. . put up or shut up. . . .

Move to cuba or North Korea live there,and see how the shoe pinches then come back and lets talk
Free market CAPITALISM is the best path to Prosperity,and the corporation has a key role to play in it

In fact,theres a thought provoking paper that states that the Corporation is the link that has kept innovation alive in the world or the past 500yrs,i'll post it next. . . . cool[/b]
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 12:21am On Jul 24, 2010
~Bluetooth:

most info are just allegations.the US have a tendency of establishing good rapport anywhere there interests lie,so no big qualms about that but making unsubstantiated information that has not been de-classified is unnecessary.would you also deduce that jonathan has been recruited as an agent ?

well, i didnt expect you to take my word for it, there are so many books out there written by ex insiders who know the truth, you can research the US's imperialist activities around the world and you'll be suprised at what you'll find.

here is an excerpt of an article written by a british journalist about Obasanjo's relationship with high ranking US govt officials:


[b]Background to the recent Nigerian elections
General Obasanjo more than just a "friend" of the Americans
By Elizabeth Liagin
17 March 1999

Elizabeth Liagin is an independent journalist who has done extensive research into General Olusegan Obasanjo, who won the recent presidential election in Nigeria. She submitted the following commentary in response to the 5 March article "Nigerian election fraud leaves elite in control" by Chris Talbot

The 13 February 1976 assassination of Murtala Muhammad, which brought Olusegan Obasanjo to power the first time, was widely believed at the time to be the linked to the CIA. Perhaps the same might be said for the 27 February 1999 "coup" as well.

Obasanjo is more than just a "friend" of the Americans. He is an operative. And his involvement with America's foreign policy elite is a long, sometimes complicated, but delightfully interesting story.

There are several key persons and institutions that appear over and over in the Obasanjo files. One is Donald B. Easum, who was the United States Ambassador to Nigeria at the time of the 1976 assassination. Another is the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, where Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State at the time of the same assassination, serves as a "counsellor." Then we have Robert S. McNamara, a former World Bank president and the Secretary of Defense who carried much of the blame for the Vietnam War. More recently, McNamara embarked on an excursion to Haiti in the aftermath of the election that brought Jean Bertrand Aristide to office. Upon his return, McNamara pronounced Aristide "vehemently" anti-US, implying that the United States would be in for another round of whatever it was that Fidel Castro stirred up in people after his revolution more than two decades before. Within a year of McNamara's assessment, Aristide was ousted by thugs on the CIA's payroll.


Back to the seventies: At the time of the coup that installed Obasanjo, the US was still reeling from the OPEC oil embargo. That action would have been all the more devastating were it not for the fact that Nigeria, under Yakubu Gowon's leadership, had opted to breach the embargo and ship oil to the West. Because of the inflated price petroleum commanded at the time, Nigeria experienced unprecedented economic growth. When Murtala took over, the US immediately became concerned, not knowing if Nigeria could be relied upon as a supplier under a new regime. In an attempt to soften up the anti-Western ideology associated with Murtala, Secretary of State Kissinger proposed a state visit. Murtala told him to stay home--something interpreted in Washington as a "ten" on the scale by which political insults are ranked.

In the months after Murtala took over in July of 1975, cables between Washington and Lagos increased in number almost five-fold. That in itself is an indicator of heightened political interest that goes beyond the mere arrival of a new administration. Some of those cables have been released via the Freedom of Information Act, and although they may not be entirely conclusive, they certainly suggest a US role in the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power in 1976.

To avoid getting overly-complicated, there were two dominant themes conveyed in most of those formerly classified cables. One concerned oil and the extent to which the new Nigerian leadership would try to use oil "as an economic weapon" against the US, to quote the language used in several dispatches. The second concerned Nigeria's growing economic, political and military status within Africa.

The written communication between Lagos and Washington--much of which, I should add, is still classified--focused mainly on political intelligence, on the anti-Western opinions of various ministers and other leaders, on Nigeria's foreign policy (including its support for the then-banned African National Congress in Lusaka), and, of course, its support for any potential OPEC strike in the future. Also of concern to Washington power brokers was the fact that Nigeria continued to acquire weapons of increasing sophistication and could be expected to effectively enforce its national interests in any regional dispute.

Among the more interesting cables is one, written by Ambassador Easum just days before Murtala's murder, that suggested Nigeria's economy would have to be brought down ("degraded," in Clinton terminology) so that development expectations would compete with the growth of national power--the assumption being that the military expansion Washington so feared would falter.

A related concern was the strength of Nigeria in terms of manpower. In August of 1975, as a matter of fact, the Congressional Research Service prepared a study called "Oil Fields as Military Targets." Its purpose was to serve as a background briefing to Congress in the event a second, "air-tight" oil embargo was launched and the president decided to seek legislative approval for a war over oil. One nation evaluated, and ultimately dismissed, as a possible subject of such an attack was Nigeria. There were definite advantages to attacking Nigeria, of course. Not the least of these were the fact that (a) the country's oil reserves were largely on land, making them less costly to operate (or reconstruct in the event of sabotage) in the wake of an invasion; (b) Nigeria offered a clear benefit in terms of transit because shipments would be relatively direct, not passing through strategic "hot spots" like Hormuz; (c) the populace would be relatively unsuspecting, giving the US military the advantage that comes with surprise (which rather contradicts the notion of Congressional debate); and (d) Nigeria would be among the countries least likely to provoke retaliation by the USSR, not to mention Soviet interceptions of communications, etc. But on the negative side, two important aspects of the would-be invasion stood out. One was the terrain--similar in many respects to that which had "frustrated" US troops in Vietnam over the previous decade. The second was the density of population in the eastern and delta regions in which the purported invasion would have had to take place. The ensuing struggle, one in which tens of thousands of angry Nigerians were potential combatants, would have drawn world attention to American imperialism, the report frankly concluded, making any attempt to colonize Nigeria's oilfields a distinct liability.

There were other documents produced at around the same time to corroborate this intense interest in Nigeria, the country's population, and its oil wealth. The US Information Agency or USIA (which operates the Voice of America of other propaganda actions around the world) does yearly reports on the US interest in various countries. Theirs, too, cites the pervasive worries about Nigeria becoming the economic and demographic giant of Africa, capable of spreading an anti-American ideology all over the continent, and likewise stressing that agency goals should serve the larger objective of increasing US influence over Nigeria's politics and culture. Then there was the notorious NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200), sometimes called the "Kissinger population paper," in which it was stressed that oil and mineral-rich Nigeria could easily cope with a far larger population and would gain sufficient status to compete with the US influence over Africa. The memorandum recommended that 13 of the largest developing countries, Nigeria included, be targeted with aggressive campaigns of fertility control in order to contain their rise to power.

"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply," said the document, which was adopted as official policy "guidance" in the development assistance program in late 1975, "the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States."

The same study included detailed instructions on how US policymakers could use such "multinational" institutions as the World Bank and various UN agencies to pressure governments into adopting population-reduction policies, and even hinted that food and development aid might be made conditional on actual (measurable) reductions in national fertility rates.

The general tone of the dispatches sent between Lagos and Washington was clear. Washington wanted new leadership for Nigeria. And on 13 February 1976, the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power was carried out. Curiously, it was exactly five days later, on 18 February, that President Gerald Ford signed a long-awaited and much-publicized executive order barring the assassination of foreign heads of state by the CIA.

In 1979, Obasanjo became the first Nigerian military leader to voluntarily turn over his office to an elected leader, Shehu Shagari. And what came next is important. Almost right away, Obasanjo turned up in New York, where he was appointed to the board of directors of the African American Institute. The African American Institute, then located directly across the street from the United Nations, had been set up in 1954 with money that came from the CIA. Its principal task was to increase US influence over the foreign and domestic policies of the emerging African states, at that time still under formal European control.

In the next few years, Obasanjo began turning up in all kinds of interesting places--giving a high-proflie lecture at Kissinger's Center for Strategic and International Studies (which also distributes literature written by Obasanjo), for one thing, and hosting a meeting on religion and politics at the government-controlled US Institute of Peace. During the mid- and late 1980s, things were especially fascinating. Obasanjo was still on the AAI board, as he has continued to be, even during his years in detention under Sani Abacha right up to the present day. In 1988, from his vantage point at AAI and CSIS, Obasanjo launched an endeavor of his own, the Africa Leadership Forum. Assisting him from the beginning, and prominently involved over the next several years, was the notorious ex-defense secretary, World Bank boss, and probable Haiti coup-instigator, Robert McNamara.

Obasanjo's forum fits every description of a classic "front group." Its financing comes from nebulous sources, its activities are conducted for the most part under pseudonyms. It created centers for the study of military and "security" issues; organized "leadership" conferences; underwrote reports on policy matters by "local" scholars; recommended legislation (not just in Nigeria but before the AAU, as well); financed an office for conflict monitoring; recruited journalists for propaganda campaigns; and sought out young academics for political training--most of these actions presented as the initiative of host country institutions that were, in reality, Obasanjo creations. In the 10 years between the founding of the forum and Obasanjo's decision to make a run for president, the forum also worked with the development agencies of various nations, the US Information Service, and other big league collaborators in the Western world.[/b]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/nig-m17.shtml
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by Becomrich0: 12:29am On Jul 24, 2010
[size=38pt]What is wrong with you people. You want to put Obama into trouble. If you want to lie to nigerian, why not look for better lies. Not stupid lies that would get Obama into trouble. [/size]
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by SkyBlue1: 12:34am On Jul 24, 2010
paddy_lo:

[b]For one he is from the Niger Delta,if anybody deserves to be the president in Nigeria today,its someone from there

so let them have it,so Nigeria can move forward. . . .

Also his policies are private sector friendly,and should continue with the reforms that has helped to grow our economy @ 6% since 2001

His finance minister is a great pick and will help to put a check on the overzealous SANUSI

He has done right by the INEC pick. . and our next set of elections should be credible

He is level headed. . .and is de-mystifyng the presidency.  .enough of this gra gra presidents like OBJ,IBB,Atiku,Buhari and so on

He is young enough. . . .He appointed the first female Oil Minister in Nigeria,and the First ever Female OPEC oil minister
so at the next OPEC meeting in OCTOBER all the arab oil shieks and other randy fellows,will be eyeing our OIL minister. . lol

I like the crowd he moves around with,Femi otedola,Dangote et al. . distinguished private sector achievers

Theres more but u get the point[/b]


What are his 'policies' and perhaps more importantly, what has been done to actually implement these 'policies'? Weren't Yar Adua's seven point agenda policies also private sector friendly? Wasn't Yar Adua also trying to deregulate the oil and gas sector? What did he achieve?

Weren't people also praising the Professor Iwu pick when it happened? 'De-mystifying the presidency'? Oh please. I could pick that last point apart but I don't want to get too pedantic with this response. The point I am trying to make is in a country like Nigeria it is easy for anyone to have policies and what we should be looking for is achievers who can actually implement and push through on a policy. Like words, having policies in Nigeria can be cheap. Again I repeat, seven point agenda. What I found irritating is you making Jonathan out to be the only person (chosen even) capable of leading Nigeria in this "crucial time", when he is yet to put reasonable achievements against his name. Permit me to hold my views but I think what Nigeria needs is somewhat of a radical, and Jonathan has shown no such tendencies. You could claim he is simply being pragmatic and trying to get a second term before he really does something, but hey, this is Nigeria and thesame was said for OBJ. I don't even know what Jonathan's real policies and thoughts on a range of issues are because he has not even secured a ticket for the presidential elections talk less of even campaigning, so what specific policies are you talking about?
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 12:46am On Jul 24, 2010
FROM ZERO HEDGE. . . .Submitted by[b] Gonzalo Lira[/b]

[size=14pt]WHY CORPORATIONS MATTER[/size]

[flash=640,385]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhuAnySPZ0&hl=en_US&fs=1[/flash]


[size=13pt][b]The Antikythera clockwork was a mechanical device, made of bronze and iron gears, that was manufactured by the ancient Greeks in the second century B.C. It was lost in a shipwreck around 150 B.C., and recovered from the bottom of the Mediterranean in 1900. But it was only in the last couple of decades, with the help of sophisticated imaging equipment, that scientists have realized what the rusted hunk of metal actually is:

The Antikythera clockwork is a computer. And a very sophisticated and exact one at that.

It was used to predict eclipses and other astronomical events. Because of its complexity and design sophistication, it probably wasn’t a one-off: The Antikythera clockwork was likely the culmination of at least a few decades’ worth of development by the ancient Greeks—which means that whoever made the Antikythera clockwork had the knowledge to make other, exceedingly useful devices, including clocks and calculators, with a myriad of practical applications.

Nevertheless, the technology that made the Antikythera clockwork possible was lost—it was only in the XIII century that mechanical clockworks were developed in Europe once again. Something to compare to the Antikythera clockwork in complexity, sophistication, compactness and accuracy did not come to be until roughly the XVI or XVII century, depending on your metrics—1,700 years after the ship carrying the Antikythera clockwork went down.[/b][/size]

[size=14pt]Why was the technology lost?[/size]

Actually, that’s the wrong question: Vital bits of knowledge and technology have been getting lost all the time, ever since human beings figured out how to make their own food.

The real question is, Why has technology been preserved and accumulated so effectively over the last four centuries of our current civilization? Why now, and not before?

Think about it: Human beings developed agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago, which created the possibility of settlements and therefore a civilization. Yet every civilization has risen, plateaued, and then fallen, and ultimately their technology and culture have been for the most part lost. Even exceedingly practical bits of knowledge have disappeared, not to mention great art and literature.


The Antikythera clockwork is just one of countless examples, large and small, of lost technology and culture. The development—and just as importantly the maintenance—of technology and culture have been literally Sisyphean tasks. Ziggurats were built in Mesopotamia some 7,000 years ago—then all that knowledge that went into their construction was lost. A thousand years later, ancient Egyptian engineers had to start from scratch when they decided to build their pyramids—then their insights and expertise were lost too, by the time the French got around to building that canker sore in front of the Louvre.

The fact that technology and culture have been constantly lost hasn’t meant that there haven’t been efforts to preserve them. On the contrary, there have been constant efforts. Libraries have been built to preserve art and literature—but then they burned. Guilds have been created to protect crafts and sciences—but then they fell apart.

In fact, when you look at it from this perspective of knowledge preservation, since A.D. 387, the Catholic Church is the only institution which has systematically preserved knowledge across borders and time—but that preservation was of necessity piecemeal; static; and excluded any bit of technology, culture or knowledge that contradicted the Church’s teachings. That’s why, for instance, so many of the racier plays of Sophocles were lost.

That’s also why pure science didn’t progress very much, between A.D. 387 and A.D. 1602. Apart from technology related to warfare, trade and other practical affairs, the Church was a stopper on pure scientific development. Just ask Galileo.

Nevertheless, our current civilization owes a tremendous debt to the Catholic Church. Were it not for the Church, after the fall of Rome, Europe would have descended even further into barbarism than it did. Without the Church, nothing of the Greek and Roman civilisations would have been preserved. But the Church’s cosmopolitanism, coupled with its monasticism, created an archipelago of knowledge across a uniformly ignorant Europe between A.D. 387 (the Gauls’ sacking of Rome) and A.D. 1317 (the likely publication date of Dante’s Inferno), when the Renaissance began.

However, it’s with the Enlightenment starting in 1602 that, suddenly, we have had a geometric progression of technological development: Technology building on technology slowly at first, but then accelerating in a smooth, uninterrupted curve. Indeed, the very idea of “progress”, so reflexively familiar to us today, so never-ending in our imagination, didn’t even exist until the Enlightenment.

This notion of open-ended, never-ending progress has only been possible because there has not been significant loss of technology since the start of the Enlightenment.

People might object and say that technology was lost before the Enlightenment because there was war, disease and famine—but there’s been plenty of war, disease and famine since the start of the Enlightenment. Yet we’ve somehow managed to hang on to our progress.

[size=13pt]The question is, Why? Why has there not been a substantial loss of technology and culture over the last 400 years? It’s happened in every other period of history, in every other culture in history—except in Europe, starting about 400 years ago, and spreading out of Europe to eventually encompass the world.[/size]
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 12:48am On Jul 24, 2010
[size=14pt]Why?[/size]

I’ve been bitching about corporations as of late—I’ve been bemoaning the current era of corporate anarchy and “street-gang corporatism” that seems to have enveloped our society. I’ve been openly wondering whether the United States is descending into a fascist police-state ruled by corporate interests.

[size=14pt]But that doesn’t mean I think corporations are the root of all evil. Quite the contrary:

I posit that the invention of the corporation made the progress of our civilization—and the explosion of humanity’s numbers—possible. I would argue that without corporations, the Enlightenment would not have happened, and the civilization we currently enjoy would not have come into existence. I would further argue that, without the concept and practice of the corporation, today we would be living the bad bits of the Middle Ages
[/size].

(And you thought I was a tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing foo-foo Alterna-geek loser who ends every statement with an interrogative: “It’s 50 degrees Celsius in the shade? So I think it’s hot? But I’m not really sure? It’s just my opinion?”)

Though I think the idea of the corporation was a necessary condition for the development of our civilization, it wasn’t a sufficient condition. In other epochs and cultures, versions of what we could consider corporations have existed—but those civilizations weren’t able to parlay their versions of corporation into what Europeans and the West did: Corporations as a knowledge and technology preserver and aggregator.

Before continuing, let me define what I mean by “corporation”:

I am not referring to mere “companies”—that is, partnerships or syndicates of merchants or adventurers who band together to pursue a common enterprise, an enterprise which they lack the means to pursue individually. Partnerships have existed since forever, syndicates since the Roman times (if not earlier). Chartered companies began roughly in the mid-XVI C. in England and Holland, though of course there were random examples in isolated spots in the centuries before that.


But corporations began in 1602, with the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, or VOC; literally “United East India Company”). The VOC was established in 1602, as a competitor to the British East India Company, which had been chartered in 1600. Both companies were spice trading syndicates which had received government monopolies to trade in the Far East.

The Dutch East India Company, however, is the first true corporation because of two key difference from its British counterpart: One, the VOC was the first limited-liability corporation; that is, its financial exposure was limited to the capital contributed to the company, and no more. And two, the VOC was the first company where the participanten (non-managing partners) could sell their participation in the company by way of their anonymous stock. The Amsterdam stock exchange—the first and oldest in the world—was founded specifically so as to trade in those VOC stock.


VOC’s organisational model became the template for all future corporations—and to my way of thinking, this development was the starting date of the Enlightenment, and a turning point in world history.

(Parenthetically, when I speak of “corporations”, I am not referring to giant multi-nationals exclusively, or even implicitly. I’m simply referring to any company whose owners have a limited liability, and whose stock can be traded. In my own mind, I’m imagining a small glass factory which employs about a hundred people, whose penny-stock is publicly traded. Furthermore, when I speak of “company”, I’m referring to any organization of more than one individual, coming together in pursuit of a business or other venture; by this definition, a corporation, a syndicate and a partnership are each a different type of company.)

[size=14pt]Cynics view corporations as money-making machines. But that’s just silly. Corporations—of whatever size—should be viewed as two things: One, productivity engines, designed to produce a specific good or service, while disregarding anything and everything else, so as to satisfy a demand in the society. And two, as repositories of assets, both tangible and intangible.[/size]


[size=14pt]It’s the second issue which interests me right now: Corporations as repositories of assets.[/size]

[size=13pt]Before the VOC, commercial enterprises depended on particular people—the cobbler’s business depended on the cobbler himself, and his actual work, and the work of the apprentice cobblers he might have working for him. A partnership depended on specific people working together for a common goal. If one of those people left or died, the partnership was dissolved, or at least had to be severely restructured.

It was quite normal, before the VOC and corporations, for a business to rise, plateau, then decline, and then ultimately vanish—along with all of the business’s accumulated expertise. That is, presumably, what happened to the makers of the Antikythera clockwork.
[/size] Ambitious men have been forever trying to get their sons to follow the family business they spent so much time, effort and tears nurturing and growing—only to have their hopes dashed when their sons turned out to be uninterested, or even worse, incompetent.

But starting with the Dutch East India Company’s stock, people could take an active interest in a company for a limited time, before passing on the ownership of the corporation to someone else by way of the sale of stock.

Who would take over the corporate entity? Obvious: Someone who was interested in building it up.


People are not single-minded. People like to talk, hang out, bleep, laugh, play, read a book, etc. But corporations are productivity engines. They are supposed to do one thing: Carry out the business of the corporation.

When people are interested in the business of a corporation, they participate in it via stock ownership. The corporation’s interests and the stock owner’s interests align, and both benefit. When the stock owner’s interest flags for whatever reason, they can sell off their ownership in the corporation to someone else.

Thus the corporation and the owners are meeting each other at the moment when they are of most use to one another. And when the owner leaves the business (ie., sells his stock shares), it’s not just that the owner is “cashing out” when he’s no longer interested in the business: It’s that the corporation is continuing on with a new and interested owner, who will use his best efforts to maximise the business of the corporation.

The benefit of the stock sale is not only to the stockholder, but also to the corporation. Because the corporation is leaving behind an uninterested owner, and continuing on with a new stockholder—a new owner—catching this individual at the peak of his interest in the business of the corporation.
CONTD BELOW. . .
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by paddylo1(m): 12:53am On Jul 24, 2010
[size=14pt]Unlike a pre-modern partnership or any other sort of company lacking in a simple ownership transfer mechanism, a corporation is never dissolved or wound down when an owner decides to exit the property: Rather, the corporation is merely passed from owner to owner by way of its stock sale[/size].

Some owners might decide to break off productive units of a corporation and sell them off—maybe the corporation is a conglomerate, and the new owners decide to break it apart until there’s nothing left. The conglomerate itself might disappear completely—but those productive units that made it up live on with new owners. Gulf + Western would be an example.

A corporation might even go bankrupt—in fact many small corporations do. But if the corporation is of a size where its productive units are individually viable—say one of its factories that produces doo-dads is still a money-making venture—then the corporation’s owners’ stock will be wiped out in a bankruptcy, but the corporation’s productive units will be sold off to pay its creditors. Those productive units will continue to exist through time, with new owners who will improve them.

So then what are these “productive units” that I’m speaking of? The productive units are what carry out the business of the corporation—but that’s no help at all. Let me rephrase the question: What does a productive unit have that makes it worth keeping, as opposed to dismantling it into its component parts—tools, trucks, desks, chairs, etc.—in a bankruptcy? To rephrase again: What is the thing that holds all the assets of a company together, and makes it worth more whole than dissolved?

[size=14pt]Or to rephrase yet again: What is the soul of a company?[/size]

An apocryphal story: Sir Walter Raleigh bet Queen Elizabeth that he could measure the weight of smoke from a cigar—a seemingly impossible feat. He took a fresh cigar, carefully weighed it, then smoked it, making sure to tap all his ash on the scale. When the cigar was consumed, he weighed the ash and the remains of the cigar—the difference between that weight and the weight of the fresh cigar was, he claimed, the weight of smoke. He was right, too. Just because you can’t catch it, doesn’t mean it’s weightless, or immaterial, or nonexistent.

I said before that a company is a repository of assets, both tangible and intangible. The concept of tangible assets is pretty obvious and straightforward. The company accumulates and owns buildings, trucks, chairs, desks, tools, paperclips, whathaveyou. Those things are the tangible assets of any company.

The intangible assets, however, are trickier. On the one hand, there are monetizable intangible assets, such as patents and copyrights, or specific permits or warrants, and of course professional services. There are also stocks and bonds and other financial assets. These are all intangible assets which can be bought or sold or hired; hence they are monetizable.

But then there is another intangible asset which cannot be quantified or monetized, yet which undoubtably exists, and has real value—like Raleigh’s smoke. This non-monetizable, intangible asset is accumulated through the ordinary activities of the company, and is essential to the company’s existence through time. It is the way in which the component elements of a company are arranged between one another—the way in which tangible and intangible assets are arranged and interact. This seemingly weightless smoke—which is essential—I will call the structural asset of the company.

The structural asset of the company refers to the way that the company is internally organized, in order to pursue its business and satisfy the demand by society for its products. It is the thing that makes a company worth more than the sum of all its tangible and intangible assets.

To make this concept clear: A human body is made up of 43 kg of oxygen, 16 kg of carbon, 7 kg of hydrogen, 2.8 kg of nitrogen, 1 kg of calcium, 780 g of phosphorus, and about a kilo of various other elements. If I gather these elements together, and then dump them all in a tub, do I wind up with a 70 kg person? I should, shouldn’t I? After all, those elements I just mentioned are what make up a human being’s body, in those amounts that I just listed. If I gather them in a tub, and mix them up, a fully formed person ought to pop out, shake my hand, and join me for lunch at the restaurant down the street—right?

Of course not—what’s lacking here is the structure of the body: The way those elements are arranged internally. I can have all the elements that make up a human body—but not have a human body.


Similarly with a company: The machine tools, the trucks, the patents, the services of various workers, the copyrights, the paperclips—those are the component elements that make up a company. But they are not the company. What they need is the structural asset of the company, to arrange those component elements into a viable business.

It cannot be monetized or measured, and it cannot be transferred—it is inherent to the company. The structural asset of a company is constantly being accumulated and expanded through the business activity of the company. It is the thing whose decay leads to the entropy of the company. It is the thing which makes the company worth more than its constituent assets.

The structural asset of a company makes it possible to replace one tangible or intangible asset for another, without losing the company’s identity. That is, it allows a company to swap an old machine on the factory floor for a new one, a new worker for a worker who has left, and still remain what it was. Just as, say, a lung transplant for John does not mean that John ceases to be John and is now Frank, the structural asset allows a company to change machinery and people and locations and even businesses, while maintaining its identity through time.

[size=14pt]The structural asset of a company is the mechanism that allows it to accumulate knowledge[/size].

[size=14pt]But up until 1602, companies whose owners died or lost interest were dissolved or wound down—thus was the structural asset of a company lost. Which meant that the accumulated knowledge was lost too. That’s why the technology behind the Antikythera clockwork was lost for 1700 years—since there was no mechanism to pass on the accumulated knowledge inherent in the structural asset of their company, once the owners lost interest in the business or died, all the accumulated technologies they had developed were lost.[/size]

However, I argue that with the founding of the Dutch East India Company in 1602, such loss of technology stopped happening. Owners who lost interest in the business for whatever reason could sell their stock in the corporation—and thus the corporation lived on, continuing to preserve and accumulate knowledge through time with other, more interested owners. Thus was technological development out of Europe a geometric progression.

This also explains why other cultures and empires, more civilized and advanced than Europe in 1602, were left in the dust a mere two hundred years later, and have been struggling to catch up to the West ever since. Think Japan, China, and the Ottoman Empire in 1602: Far superior to Europe, one and all. Now think Japan, China, the Ottoman Empire in 1850: Far behind Europe technologically, struggling to compete, and only able to once they had imported the concept of the corporation.


[size=14pt]Had the Greek manufacturer of the Antikythera clockwork been a corporation instead of (likely) a tradesman with a few apprentices, the technology of the Antikythera clockwork would not have been lost. In fact, that technology would have been built upon as subsequent owners of the Antikythera Clockworks Corporation would have added and expanded its business, before selling on their stock in the corporation to some other owners, who would themselves have improved the corporation[/size].

That did not happen—because corporations did not exist. There was no efficient ownership transfer mechanism which would maximise the benefit for both the seller of the company, and for the company itself. But once corporations came into existence in 1602 in Europe, we have had the smooth uninterrupted material progress I spoke of earlier, and which we enjoy today.

[size=14pt]This is why corporations matter. This is why they are an essential part of our current civilization[/size]—above any religion, second only to the individual and the state.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-why-corporations-matter-part-1

THERE U HAVE IT MR CAP28. . I DARE U TO REFUTE ANY PART OF THIS BRILLIANT PAPER
The Corporations/Capitalism u rail against,is one key factor that guarantees our way of life and that of our Civilization

And pls Becomerich dont even try reading this expose cause it is obviously so above your vapid,Brainless skull
cheers
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by Mariory(m): 1:18am On Jul 24, 2010
cap28:

Nzeogwu tried it but was stopped by cowardly gutless Ironsi and other hopeless and delusional fools, now look at where we are today, it is going to take a completely new and radicalised generation of courageous young nigerians to overthrow the tyranny that exists in present day nigeria, and it will be no easy task, the civil war of 67-70 will be childs play compared to what is to come.

Spoken from the headquaters of the "new radicalised revolutionary movement", the United Kingdom. Are you going to direct the youth army over the internet?
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 1:45am On Jul 24, 2010
paddy_lo:


@cap28
where were u indoctrinated,and where did u go to school. . cuba,North Korea.  .Venezuela  .  . ?.  .cause u sound like the crackpot chavez,the lunatic Kim jon ill(lil jon),or the demented castro. . .


Paddy paddy calm down, i can see you are getting excited because i have exposed you for the fraud  that you are.

You are very good at regurgitating fairy tales, but not very good at analysing the substance of that information. okay now tell me why you refer to the likes of chavez as a crackpot, Kim Jong Il as a lunatic and Castro as demented - is it because the US told you to think that way? do you know anything about the struggles of the people of those countries, do you understand anything about the tyranny that existed in those countries until people for instance like Chavez and Castro came along?

Are you aware that Cuba was being run by the mafia in conjunction with corrupt american multinationals like united fruit company? in fact Cuba before the 1959 revolution was very similar to how nigeria is today, are you aware that in Cuba education for its people is free up to university level? are you also aware that health care in Cuba is also free for its citizens, are you aware that america that you worship cannot even boast of providing affordable health care to its citizens and its supposed to be a world superpower?

YOu describe chavez as a crackpot, why? If he is a crackpot as you say why is it that since he took over power he has implemented so many programmes aimed at reducing illiteracy and the introduction of free health care, actions which have led to some of the poorest people in that country now having the hope of becoming educated and aspiring to a higher standard of living, something that was unheard of in that country only until he took over in 2002.

When are you going to learn to think for yourself and stop peddling stories fed to you by the western media?[color=Black]


Now in your ramblings above u fail to distinguish btw multinationals and the country in which they have their headquarters. .
In one breath U say multinationals remove jobs from america to third world countries,yet u still claim its americas plan to de-industrialize Africa. .
well which one is it cause it cant be both. . .


[color=Black]Okay let me be clear because you obviously dont understand what you are talking about here,  US multinationals outsource jobs to countries where labour is cheaper - that is not the same thing as industrialising that country ,  when you get rid of jobs in your US factory because its cheaper to produce those goods in lagos it does not in any way mean that you are transferring the technology to the third world country, you are merely setting up shop somewhere else, utilising the cheap labour there and then funnelling your profiits back into the industrialised nations economy.



Your problem is u fail to understand what capitalism means. . .The shareholders of any company are the owners,not the Govt,not the country it is Headquartered in
and in todays world anybody can wake up and buy into apple computer,intel,boeing,Google,Ford and so on,on any continent in the world,from the very comfort of his home through a discount broker,from capetown,to sao paulo,to singapore

You really dont understand how capitalism operates do you, for your information, many major corporations are subsidised and funded by govt, they also enjoy huge tax breaks and are bailed out (as was the case with many of the banks in the US and the UK) when they fail, so your naive understanding of how these corporations come about is at best misguided and at worst downright ignorant.

Also the majority of people who own controlling shares of the major corporations are the super rich not the average joe on the street and these sort of people make up less than 1% of the populations of some of the richest western countries in the world
  

That means anyone can own these multinationals u rail against,who pay dividends and contribute to world growth and commerce

misguided and wrong

The key is for African countries to develop their own multinationals,and in Nigeria we are already doing so.  .from Dangote,UBA,First bank,Oando and so on who are spreading all over Africa and listing on the Johannesburg stock exchange

You are dreaming, no african country is permitted by any of the G8 countries to compete on the international market with their own multinationals, your argument is so ludicrous, can you mention any african multinationals?  Which market share will these african multinationals be allowed to control given that the western and asian ones have already carved out their own share?

The problem with the likes of u is that u enjoy the trappings of capitalism,and free markets,free press.,by hiding in such places as the U.K,while u rail against those such luxuries u enjoy

You keep referring to "free markets and free press - youre a joke, most of these corporations operate as monopolies they dominate whole swathes of international markets and dictate to african economies how much african nations must pay for their products and how much they will pay for african products - what's free about that?

as for the free press, well if you think its normal for one man to own and run over 5 different news media (rupert murdoch) then that gives me an idea as to your level of reasoning.

u should pls move to IRAN,VENEZUELA,CUBA or NORTH KOREA and spare us the idiotic rants. . .
lets see how long u last over there,lets see if u can get online and speak your mind freely without being arrested
Lets see if u can really survive in such bankrupt economic systems where u have to get permission from the state to open a barbing salon,and when they give their consent they tell u what to charge and set your salary

You are so dumb - Did you not hear about the mccarthy witchhunts in america in the 1950's, did you not hear about about COINTELPROin the 60's? havent you heard of the  Patriot Act which permits the US govt to tap your phone, check your email, arrest you and hold you without charge if you are suspected of engaging in "terrorist activity", havent you heard that Bush suspended parts of the US constitutions follownig the implementation of the above mentioned Patriot Act?

have you heard of wiretapping and other covert surveillance methods used by the FBI and other govt organisations to spy on their own citizens - like i said - you're in a dream world.

by the way those countries you mentioned above are in economic dire straits as a direct result of draconian economic embargoes imposed on them by western europe and america, try and get your facts right.

lets see whats really good homie. . put up or shut up. . . .

Move to cuba or North Korea live there,and see how the shoe pinches then come back and lets talk
Free market CAPITALISM is the best path to Prosperity,and the corporation has a key role to play in it

You dont understand what free market capitalism is - you merely parrot that phrase because you think it makes you sound intelligent, unfortunately the more you extol its non existent virtues the more ignorant you sound, this so called free market capitalism is the reason thousands of nigerians have to leave nigeria in order to make a living elsewhere in the world, it has crippled and continues to cripple our economy because it seeks to make profit for its corporations only, it isnt  interested in the economic development or growth of the country whose wealth it appropriates.

free market capitalism is purely about appropriation of resources and labour for profit, free market capitalism operates better in the third world because we do not have labour laws to protect workers, impose minimum wages, impose health and safety working practices etc all these things eat into profit margins and this why multinationals love investing in africa where none of these practices are observed. 

You obviously have not understood the impact of capitalism on people in the third world and you merely regurgitate what you have heard on tv not understanding that it is killing your people - i pity you!![/color]


In fact,theres a thought provoking paper that states that the Corporation is the link that has kept innovation alive in the world or the past 500yrs,i'll post it next. . . .

keep parrotting the above junk - perhaps it helps you sleep better at night when you make such vacuous statements.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 2:07pm On Jul 24, 2010
paddy_lo:

[size=14pt]Unlike a pre-modern partnership or any other sort of company lacking in a simple ownership transfer mechanism, a corporation is never dissolved or wound down when an owner decides to exit the property: Rather, the corporation is merely passed from owner to owner by way of its stock sale[/size].

Some owners might decide to break off productive units of a corporation and sell them off—maybe the corporation is a conglomerate, and the new owners decide to break it apart until there’s nothing left. The conglomerate itself might disappear completely—but those productive units that made it up live on with new owners. Gulf + Western would be an example.

A corporation might even go bankrupt—in fact many small corporations do. But if the corporation is of a size where its productive units are individually viable—say one of its factories that produces doo-dads is still a money-making venture—then the corporation’s owners’ stock will be wiped out in a bankruptcy, but the corporation’s productive units will be sold off to pay its creditors. Those productive units will continue to exist through time, with new owners who will improve them.

So then what are these “productive units” that I’m speaking of? The productive units are what carry out the business of the corporation—but that’s no help at all. Let me rephrase the question: What does a productive unit have that makes it worth keeping, as opposed to dismantling it into its component parts—tools, trucks, desks, chairs, etc.—in a bankruptcy? To rephrase again: What is the thing that holds all the assets of a company together, and makes it worth more whole than dissolved?

[size=14pt]Or to rephrase yet again: What is the soul of a company?[/size]

An apocryphal story: Sir Walter Raleigh bet Queen Elizabeth that he could measure the weight of smoke from a cigar—a seemingly impossible feat. He took a fresh cigar, carefully weighed it, then smoked it, making sure to tap all his ash on the scale. When the cigar was consumed, he weighed the ash and the remains of the cigar—the difference between that weight and the weight of the fresh cigar was, he claimed, the weight of smoke. He was right, too. Just because you can’t catch it, doesn’t mean it’s weightless, or immaterial, or nonexistent.

I said before that a company is a repository of assets, both tangible and intangible. The concept of tangible assets is pretty obvious and straightforward. The company accumulates and owns buildings, trucks, chairs, desks, tools, paperclips, whathaveyou. Those things are the tangible assets of any company.

The intangible assets, however, are trickier. On the one hand, there are monetizable intangible assets, such as patents and copyrights, or specific permits or warrants, and of course professional services. There are also stocks and bonds and other financial assets. These are all intangible assets which can be bought or sold or hired; hence they are monetizable.

But then there is another intangible asset which cannot be quantified or monetized, yet which undoubtably exists, and has real value—like Raleigh’s smoke. This non-monetizable, intangible asset is accumulated through the ordinary activities of the company, and is essential to the company’s existence through time. It is the way in which the component elements of a company are arranged between one another—the way in which tangible and intangible assets are arranged and interact. This seemingly weightless smoke—which is essential—I will call the structural asset of the company.

The structural asset of the company refers to the way that the company is internally organized, in order to pursue its business and satisfy the demand by society for its products. It is the thing that makes a company worth more than the sum of all its tangible and intangible assets.

To make this concept clear: A human body is made up of 43 kg of oxygen, 16 kg of carbon, 7 kg of hydrogen, 2.8 kg of nitrogen, 1 kg of calcium, 780 g of phosphorus, and about a kilo of various other elements. If I gather these elements together, and then dump them all in a tub, do I wind up with a 70 kg person? I should, shouldn’t I? After all, those elements I just mentioned are what make up a human being’s body, in those amounts that I just listed. If I gather them in a tub, and mix them up, a fully formed person ought to pop out, shake my hand, and join me for lunch at the restaurant down the street—right?

Of course not—what’s lacking here is the structure of the body: The way those elements are arranged internally. I can have all the elements that make up a human body—but not have a human body.


Similarly with a company: The machine tools, the trucks, the patents, the services of various workers, the copyrights, the paperclips—those are the component elements that make up a company. But they are not the company. What they need is the structural asset of the company, to arrange those component elements into a viable business.

It cannot be monetized or measured, and it cannot be transferred—it is inherent to the company. The structural asset of a company is constantly being accumulated and expanded through the business activity of the company. It is the thing whose decay leads to the entropy of the company. It is the thing which makes the company worth more than its constituent assets.

The structural asset of a company makes it possible to replace one tangible or intangible asset for another, without losing the company’s identity. That is, it allows a company to swap an old machine on the factory floor for a new one, a new worker for a worker who has left, and still remain what it was. Just as, say, a lung transplant for John does not mean that John ceases to be John and is now Frank, the structural asset allows a company to change machinery and people and locations and even businesses, while maintaining its identity through time.

[size=14pt]The structural asset of a company is the mechanism that allows it to accumulate knowledge[/size].

[size=14pt]But up until 1602, companies whose owners died or lost interest were dissolved or wound down—thus was the structural asset of a company lost. Which meant that the accumulated knowledge was lost too. That’s why the technology behind the Antikythera clockwork was lost for 1700 years—since there was no mechanism to pass on the accumulated knowledge inherent in the structural asset of their company, once the owners lost interest in the business or died, all the accumulated technologies they had developed were lost.[/size]

However, I argue that with the founding of the Dutch East India Company in 1602, such loss of technology stopped happening. Owners who lost interest in the business for whatever reason could sell their stock in the corporation—and thus the corporation lived on, continuing to preserve and accumulate knowledge through time with other, more interested owners. Thus was technological development out of Europe a geometric progression.

This also explains why other cultures and empires, more civilized and advanced than Europe in 1602, were left in the dust a mere two hundred years later, and have been struggling to catch up to the West ever since. Think Japan, China, and the Ottoman Empire in 1602: Far superior to Europe, one and all. Now think Japan, China, the Ottoman Empire in 1850: Far behind Europe technologically, struggling to compete, and only able to once they had imported the concept of the corporation.


[size=14pt]Had the Greek manufacturer of the Antikythera clockwork been a corporation instead of (likely) a tradesman with a few apprentices, the technology of the Antikythera clockwork would not have been lost. In fact, that technology would have been built upon as subsequent owners of the Antikythera Clockworks Corporation would have added and expanded its business, before selling on their stock in the corporation to some other owners, who would themselves have improved the corporation[/size].

That did not happen—because corporations did not exist. There was no efficient ownership transfer mechanism which would maximise the benefit for both the seller of the company, and for the company itself. But once corporations came into existence in 1602 in Europe, we have had the smooth uninterrupted material progress I spoke of earlier, and which we enjoy today.

[size=14pt]This is why corporations matter. This is why they are an essential part of our current civilization[/size]—above any religion, second only to the individual and the state.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-why-corporations-matter-part-1

THERE U HAVE IT MR CAP28. . I DARE U TO REFUTE ANY PART OF THIS BRILLIANT PAPER
The Corporations/Capitalism u rail against,is one key factor that guarantees our way of life and that of our Civilization

And pls Becomerich dont even try reading this expose cause it is obviously so above your vapid,Brainless skull
cheers


Nice work Paddy im so impressed at your ability to cut and paste one sided opinions and refer to them as "brilliant papers" on corporations and capitalism - just in case you missed it this was one person's opinion on capitalism and should not be taken as irrefutable proof that  capitalism is a progressive economic model.

The writer's central theme focuses on how capitalism encourages innovation, leads to improved technology and the accumulation of skills and knowledge - all good concepts by the way but like any other good concept must be examined critically before a verdict can be given as to its veracity.

Lets take a brief look at one of the earliest capitalist models invented by the europeans: the transatlantic slave trade - here we have a system which was "innovative" led to improved techniques about marine navigation and ultimately generated huge financial profits for the merchant classes and their business backers (shareholders) but there is no denying the fact that there was another side to this story and that other side was far from positive, where do we start - is it the systematic dehumanisation of africans into commodities for purchase and sale?  is it the labour depletion of manpower from africa or is it the beginnin of the stagnation and economic decline of africa? so paddy can you see that when you are evaluating an economic model you have to look at it holistically not based on the perspective of the shareholder who is reaping billions in profit, not based on financial backers who have a vested interest in its success but based on the long term effect of the system. 

YOu see you come on here praising an article written by a guy who is probably white and middle class and who has been the beneficiary of a system which was built on exploiting black african slave labour.  This is why i say you are not good at analysis - have you stopped to ask yourself who the beneficiaries of the present day capitalist system are - i can assure you that it is not people like you and I. 

You talk about how it generates wealth - for whom? tell me who benefits from this wealth and how?

This guy being a brainwashed white boy who can only see the world through a white lens talks about how Europe overtook other "more civilized and advanced cultures like Japan, China and the Ottoman Empire,  but of course makes no mention of  ancient egypt a black civilization whose technological advancement and civilization predates the ones he mentioned above, this is the  person whose word you accept and praise.   

Listen to his rubbish:

This also explains why other cultures and empires, more civilized and advanced than Europe in 1602, were left in the dust a mere two hundred years later, and have been struggling to catch up to the West ever since. Think Japan, China, and the Ottoman Empire in 1602: Far superior to Europe, one and all. Now think Japan, China, the Ottoman Empire in 1850: Far behind Europe technologically, struggling to compete, and only able to once they had imported the concept of the corporation.

Doesnt this i.d.i.o.t understand that the appropriation of natural resources from africa and asia and the use of the gun gave europe the upper hand not his brainwashed and delusionary beleif that it was down to their innovative skills, intelligence and creativity.

He then praises the ingenuity of the Dutch East India company but conveniently leaves out the fact that this company eventually fell into bankruptcy as a result of mismanagement and corruption by its directors and had to be "bailed out by its govt" - (sound familiar!)

As i said earlier paddy, cutting and pasting one sided views written by white middle class frat boys who have no real understanding of what goes on in the real world doesnt make you look more believable it merely demonstrates that you dont understand what you are following.  Fela said mr follow follow - when you follow make you open eye, open ear, open sense - try doing that okay.
Re: Why Usa Is Supporting Jonathan, By Carrington by cap28: 2:36pm On Jul 24, 2010
mr paddylo perhaps this might help you to put things into perspective, your enslaved mind prevents you from understanding how capitalism actually came about and its impact on africa, perhaps this might help:



[b]The rise of capitalism and the development of Europe
Enlarge image
by Washington Alcott
Could Britain have grown from being a mainly agricultural society to a mainly industrial society without the transatlantic slave trade?

The forced flow of people and material from Africa resulted in great wealth in Europe. The profits gained from the transatlantic slave trade and then later from the exploitation of Africa by taking direct control over the land (colonialism) were used to develop the West.

'The colonial system was the spinal cord of the commercial capitalism of the mercantile epoch.' Eric Williams

Capitalist economies
So what is capitalism? A basic explanation would say that it is an economic system where those things that make money, like land, factories, communications, and transportation systems, are owned by private businesses and corporations which trade in a ‘free market’ of competition. This system uses the investment of money, or ‘capital’, to produce profits. It leads to a small upper class of people having the most wealth and the growth of large corporations. This leads to economic inequality between rich and poor, which governments try to reduce by various social schemes, regulations and activities. It is different to the system in the Middle Ages, usually called feudalism, where control of land and the workers who were bonded to that land was the key to making wealth.

In other words, capitalism is the system that allows rich people to invest their money in projects and make (or lose!) even more money. It allows anybody who is rich enough to do this. The historian Eric Williams argued that a huge amount of money was made by Europeans from their network of colonies, and their plantations of sugar, cotton and tobacco. This wealth – sometimes called ‘capital’ – had to be invested somewhere. It was used to pay for the industrialisation of Europe. So the transatlantic slave trade and plantation wealth were the major causes of the growth of capitalism in Europe.

Royal Africa Company monopoly
At the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade era, the British government did not allow rich individuals to try to make profits from the trade. The only company that transported enslaved people was the British government’s own, it was called The Royal Africa Company. Established in 1672, this Royal Company transported an average of 5,000 enslaved Africans a year between 1680 and 1686.

Then in 1698 the law changed. It became legal for other British merchants to trade enslaved Africans as a 'fundamental and natural right'. The number of enslaved Africans transported increased dramatically from 1698.

One port, Bristol, shipped 160,950 Africans from 1698 to 1707. In 1760, 146 slave ships with a capacity for 36,000 enslaved people sailed from British ports, while in 1771 that number had increased to 190 ships with a capacity for 47,000 enslaved Africans.

Exploitation for profit
The ‘upper’ or ‘capitalist’ class in Europe used their control of international trade to ensure that Africa specialised in exporting captives, and right through the 1600s and 1700s , and for most of the 1800s, Europeans continued to make super profits from the exploitation of African natural resources and African labour. These profits continued to be re-invested in Western Europe into areas such as shipping, insurance, the formation of companies, capitalist agriculture, technology and the manufacture of machinery, including James Watt’s invention and production of the steam engine.

Technological developments were funded with transatlantic slave trade money. James Watt expressed eternal gratitude to the West Indian slave owners who directly financed his famous steam engine. Their money allowed him to take his designs from the drawing-board to the factory.

The financial effects of the transatlantic slave trade were wide-ranging. For instance, the French St Malo fishing industry was revived by the opening up of markets in the French plantations flourishing using enslaved Africans; while the Portuguese in Europe depended heavily on dyes like indigo brought from Africa.

Trading in enslaved Africans also speeded up Europe’s technological development. For example, the evolution of European shipbuilding from the 1500s to the 1800s was a logical consequence of their monopoly of sea commerce in that period.

Port cities and industrial towns
The transatlantic slave trade directly led to the rise of many sea-port towns, notably Bristol and Liverpool in Britain, Nantes and Bordeaux in France, and Seville in Spain. Towns that were manufacturing centres often grew in places connected to these ports. And it was in these manufacturing centres that the ‘Industrial Revolution’ took place. In England, Manchester was the first centre of the Industrial Revolution. The growth of Manchester happened on the back of the growth of Liverpool. And why did Liverpool grow? It was where so many slave trading ships set off from, at one time the largest slaving ship port in the world.

Banking and insurance
Eric Williams cited several examples of great personal wealth, derived from trading and exploiting enslaved Africans. For instance, David and Alexander Barclay made vast amounts of money from the transatlantic slave trade in 1756. They later used this money to set up Barclays Bank. The famous Lloyds of London is another banking organisation with its roots in transatlantic slave trading. Slave trading profits allowed it to grow from being a small London coffee house to become one of the world’s largest banking and insurance houses.

European expansion
It was not just in Britain that such profits and connections existed. During the 1700s the West Indies accounted for 20% of France’s external trade – much more than that for the whole of Africa in the present century.

The Portuguese made enormous profits from the transatlantic slave trade. Perhaps unfortunately for Portugal, much of this money passed rapidly out of Portuguese hands into the hands of the more developed Western European nations. These more developed nations supplied Portugal with loans, ships and trade goods. Germany was one of these countries, along with Britain, Holland and France.

The transatlantic slave trade had a huge ‘ripple effect’ in terms of trade within Europe and beyond. Brazilian dyewoods, for example, were re-exported from Portugal into the Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Baltic, and passed into the continental cloth industry of the 1600s .

According to Eric Williams, by the middle of the 18th century there was hardly any British town of any size that was not in some way connected to the transatlantic slave trade or colonial rule. Thus, the accumulation of wealth (or ‘capital’) in Britain that helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution was made on the back of the transatlantic slave trade.[/b]


http://www.revealinghistories.org.uk/how-did-money-from-slavery-help-develop-greater-manchester/articles/the-rise-of-capitalism-and-the-development-of-europe.html

(1) (2) (Reply)

Ag Governor Of Delta State Is Confused / Atiku Camp Rejects Homosexual Support As Gays Want Former Vp For President / Un Holds Memorial Service For Victims Of Abuja Bombing

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 291
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.