3 ms·

I know it's a bit of a aside, but somewhat related: I wonder if the lightening of regulations has something to do with China starting to gain a foothold in the

I know it's a bit of a aside, but somewhat related: I wonder if the lightening of regulations has something to do with China starting to gain a foothold in the African markets. I wonder if the next first-world war will be fought in Africa.

mikece 6y ago
While it's true that China has poured billions upon billions of dollars into infrastructure projects in Africa, most of that has been done with the sole purpose of getting to and extracting natural resources to send back to China for manufacturing purposes. Just about every foreign investor in Africa does so in order to obtain value of some sort, either economic or political. A question which must be asked is whether the locals are truly better off after foreign investments by the US, EU, Russia, or China or if they end up more impoverished in the long run and with useless or dangerous infrastructure they cannot maintain. There might not be a good actor in all of this.
- grecy 6y ago
  I recently spent three years driving around Africa - I went through 35 separate countries and I saw a lot of what you're talking about. The jungle in Gabon being smashed down, deep sea shipping ports in Cameroon, massive bridges in Uganda over the Nile, power plants in Guinea, the new train line in Ethiopia, etc. etc. I feel so strongly about this I wrote multiple chapters about it in my forthcoming book. The history and situation goes like this: Back in the day the European powers enslaved the Africa nations to pillage their resources. Decimated the people and the resources. Gave nothing back. When the African countries got independence, the West enslaved them monetarily. They all owe so much money from that they'll never even meet the interest payments, let alone pay it down. That way we control them because we can make them do anything we want, else we'll call in the loans, or kick them off the global financial markets (cough.. Sudan) and cripple them economically. They're not our physical slaves, but they are our economic slaves. There's a reason Switzerland is the 3rd biggest coffee exporter in the world despite never growing a single bean and Ethiopia is #11. [1] . Ethiopia would love to change that, but the World Trade Organization won't let them. Don't get me started on the countries growing fields of cocoa and palm trees that stretch hundreds of miles for global corporations we know the name of. Now China are coming along and building bridges, roads, power plants, hospitals in exchange for very cheap mineral extraction rights. No doubt they're stripping the land, but they ARE actually improving the lives of ordinary Africans much more than the West ever did. That is a fact. It's a shame what's happening to the wilderness, but we'd be hypocrites if we didn't let them develop in the same way we have, given downtown San Francisco and Vancouver used to look like Redwoods National Park. [1] http://www.worldstopexports.com/coffee-exports-country/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/coffee-exports-country/
  - mikece 6y ago
    It also explains why the Soviet Union found willing ears to the message of revolution and Communism. When you've been screwed over by foreigners for so long and one comes along giving you guns and advisors in order to help you become free and independent... it sounds almost too good to be true! And when you find out that the new boss is essentially the old boss with a different accent you realize it really was too good to be true.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm3TbVNf-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm3TbVNf-o (some (punk?) bands piece about that in 1980, has lyrics)
airstrike 6y ago
I'd argue wars are generally won over resources, not markets. Which is not to say China isn't interested in Africa's rich resources including rare-earth metals, but that's different from the nuclear question
jariel 6y ago
Nobody will be fighting over Africa directly. There could be proxy wars, but those systems collapse very quickly in that context, so there wouldn't be anything to fight over for very long. It doesn't matter what is in the Congo, nobody is going to get at it for at least 50 years because it's just chaos. Whatever is worth something in Africa, it requires stability, which is fragile.

mikece 6y ago

While it's true that China has poured billions upon billions of dollars into infrastructure projects in Africa, most of that has been done with the sole purpose of getting to and extracting natural resources to send back to China for manufacturing purposes. Just about every foreign investor in Africa does so in order to obtain value of some sort, either economic or political. A question which must be asked is whether the locals are truly better off after foreign investments by the US, EU, Russia, or China or if they end up more impoverished in the long run and with useless or dangerous infrastructure they cannot maintain. There might not be a good actor in all of this.

grecy 6y ago
I recently spent three years driving around Africa - I went through 35 separate countries and I saw a lot of what you're talking about. The jungle in Gabon being smashed down, deep sea shipping ports in Cameroon, massive bridges in Uganda over the Nile, power plants in Guinea, the new train line in Ethiopia, etc. etc. I feel so strongly about this I wrote multiple chapters about it in my forthcoming book. The history and situation goes like this: Back in the day the European powers enslaved the Africa nations to pillage their resources. Decimated the people and the resources. Gave nothing back. When the African countries got independence, the West enslaved them monetarily. They all owe so much money from that they'll never even meet the interest payments, let alone pay it down. That way we control them because we can make them do anything we want, else we'll call in the loans, or kick them off the global financial markets (cough.. Sudan) and cripple them economically. They're not our physical slaves, but they are our economic slaves. There's a reason Switzerland is the 3rd biggest coffee exporter in the world despite never growing a single bean and Ethiopia is #11. [1] . Ethiopia would love to change that, but the World Trade Organization won't let them. Don't get me started on the countries growing fields of cocoa and palm trees that stretch hundreds of miles for global corporations we know the name of. Now China are coming along and building bridges, roads, power plants, hospitals in exchange for very cheap mineral extraction rights. No doubt they're stripping the land, but they ARE actually improving the lives of ordinary Africans much more than the West ever did. That is a fact. It's a shame what's happening to the wilderness, but we'd be hypocrites if we didn't let them develop in the same way we have, given downtown San Francisco and Vancouver used to look like Redwoods National Park. [1] http://www.worldstopexports.com/coffee-exports-country/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/coffee-exports-country/
- mikece 6y ago
  It also explains why the Soviet Union found willing ears to the message of revolution and Communism. When you've been screwed over by foreigners for so long and one comes along giving you guns and advisors in order to help you become free and independent... it sounds almost too good to be true! And when you find out that the new boss is essentially the old boss with a different accent you realize it really was too good to be true.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm3TbVNf-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm3TbVNf-o (some (punk?) bands piece about that in 1980, has lyrics)

airstrike 6y ago

I'd argue wars are generally won over resources, not markets. Which is not to say China isn't interested in Africa's rich resources including rare-earth metals, but that's different from the nuclear question

jariel 6y ago

Nobody will be fighting over Africa directly. There could be proxy wars, but those systems collapse very quickly in that context, so there wouldn't be anything to fight over for very long. It doesn't matter what is in the Congo, nobody is going to get at it for at least 50 years because it's just chaos. Whatever is worth something in Africa, it requires stability, which is fragile.