jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (7 posts)

If the G7 countries invested billions of dollars in Africa wouldn't poverty and

  1. one2get2no profile image83
    one2get2noposted 3 years ago

    If the G7 countries invested billions of dollars in Africa wouldn't poverty and hunger disappear?

    Wouldn't building roads, schools, houses, industries and teaching Africans to farm get rid of the poverty and hunger that exists in Africa today. Wouldn''t it open up new massive markets for the West or am I being totaly naive?

  2. Phil Plasma profile image77
    Phil Plasmaposted 3 years ago

    Some would argue that if industry developed further in Africa it would simply take more jobs away from G7 countries.  Others would say that before billions get spent in Africa, billions should be spent at home to solve national and local problems, rather than international ones.

    Next, there are certain areas of Africa where building infrastructure is a non-starter because of environment, strife, politics, corruption and war.

    Finally, let's say you do get the G7 to commit and you find 100 different projects of which only a dozen can be funded - how do you pick the dozen without making the 88 others feeling left out?

    Personally I think any help we can give to Africa is a great idea, but it would need to be tempered with the fulfilling of needs at home.

  3. CHRIS57 profile image61
    CHRIS57posted 3 years ago

    Not any political power on this planet will ever do anything altruistically. There is no such thing as a good big brother helping his poor kin.
    You rightly point at the new market issue. Well - that is the only driver for investment - in Africa and anywhere else.
    So much for the investor side. That is easy and fairly transparent. The real issue is on the local African side. There are no democratic systems. There is no homogenous society.  All business is done with the ruling class. And the ruling class has no immediate interest to improve living conditions for their respective people. Up to now the west, the G7 finds it very convenient to deal only with the few on top and so to speak maintain colonial policies (especially in formerly French colonies).
    All business with Africa has colonial roots (exploit the country, do value add in the industrial (colonial) powers and ship back mass produced crap. Happens with China (agriculture, food), with the G7 with natural resources.

  4. alancaster149 profile image84
    alancaster149posted 3 years ago

    More aid for Africa - or other Third World continents - would only bolster the politicians' Swiss bank accounts, palace building and defence budgets of many countries such as Zimbabwe... Those in opposition tend to be in other tribes, nepotism rules. In some of the newer, fledgling countries the ones who own the guns are the ones who call the shots, as in Somalia. In Britain we're besieged by Africans and others who try to get across the Channel from Calais by whatever means, at whatever the cost, because word is out that our welfare and legal system is a 'soft target', and that's despite the increase in aid the UK pays out to the Third World.
    You might even have a heavy aid budget in the US and Canada that reflects in military and political power increasing around the world. We're just spoon-feeding dictators. It'll go on indefinitely until somebody finds a real solution - stopping aid might look cruel, and the same people will starve, and heads will roll as they always do every now and then, but it might provide the wake-up call.

  5. lone77star profile image84
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Brilliant idea, but the psychopaths in charge don't want a prosperous Africa.

    They know that removal from poverty will reduce birthrates. It will greatly slow the population boom, which is not a problem anyway. Yet, the powers that be push every lie to gain more advantage. Conspiracy? Conspiracies happen every day. When some of my students conspire to cheat on college exams, and when kids conspire to steal cookies from the kitchen while mommy's away, those are conspiracies. Psychopaths will do far worse.

    From 9/11 to today, the US has increased its national debt by over $12 Trillion. Most of that on wars and bureaucracy. If all of it had been spent on helping instead of manipulating the world, we might have eliminated all poverty. People might start loving America again.

    But that's not the goal of the psychopaths. They want to reduce the population by 90%. They want total control through a one-world government. The psychopathic elite want the rest of the world to be their serfdom.

    We have evidence that the Rockefellers were behind 9/11 and likely there were many others. They're not above lying and murder to achieve their aims.

    The Rockefellers are also behind the Global Warming hoax. They want Global Cooling pushed, because it will help with mass starvation. Less rain means less food.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8 … mp;index=2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat9xSo … cpD8H8LPvc

    The Africans are losing their dream of development, because the psychopathic globalists don't care.

  6. mio cid profile image44
    mio cidposted 3 years ago

    No because  ninety percent of the money would end up in those countries corrupt ruling classes bank accounts offshore.

  7. Butch Hannan profile image59
    Butch Hannanposted 2 years ago

    The answer is no!!!, The elitist rich would get get even richer.