Page 1 of 1
Follow The Money - Some Killer Facts From Oxfam
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 06:53
by Aurora
Climate Progress - 31/01/10
Some “killer facts” from Oxfam:
• Over 60 percent of the world’s poorest people live in countries rich in natural resources – but they rarely share the wealth.
• 12 of the world’s 25 most mineral-dependent countries and six of the world’s most oil-dependent countries are classified by the World Bank as “highly indebted poor countries.”
• In Africa, about 3/4 of the continent’s trade relates to the natural resource sector. In 2003, US investment in African oil exceeded 10 billion per year, some 2/3 to 3/4 of all its total investment in the continent.
• African oil exporters are likely to receive $400 billion in government revenues over the next decade, an amount that would dwarf feasible increases in official aid.
• By 2015, oil revenues in oil-producing countries could exceed annual aid needs by $35 billion.
• In Angola, more than $4 billion in state oil revenues disappeared from government coffers between 1997 and 2002, an amount roughly equal to the entire sum the government spent on social programs in the same period.
Original Article
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 11:16
by jonny2mad
Well unless you intend having a empire what can we do about corruption inside these country's ?
Would you invest in anything but minerals etc in Africa if the governments are like Angola.
And its sad the people in these country's don't share in the wealth but isn't that to do with the people in these country's
Is it sensible to give aid to country's like Angola if their so corrupt
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 11:40
by biffvernon
Oh do get your apostrophes right.
countries
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 12:37
by emordnilap
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 13:09
by AndySir
Depressing reading, but its something so simple even economists have managed to be right about it. When the majority of your wealth comes from a single source, a single hole in the ground you're likely to spend more time fighting over who has control over the hole than in developing the resources and secondary industries.
Of course, developing secondary industries is not encouraged due to the likely effect of more of the world approaching a decent living standard on AGW and peak oil. So, poverty, war and death forever.
Does anyone know a way out?
Posted: 04 Feb 2010, 14:43
by Mark
Difficult to change the way the economy of the world is structured, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be done......
Mines and Communities (MAC) have been putting pressure on the mining industry for many years:
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/
The London Declaration sets out their vision for the way forward:
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/LondonDeclaration
With most of these things, you have to start by looking at the World Bank / IMF.
jonny2mad - the same old 'Western Empire', just in sheeps clothing
.....
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 20:10
by gug
jonny2mad wrote:Well unless you intend having a empire what can we do about corruption inside these country's ?
Would you invest in anything but minerals etc in Africa if the governments are like Angola.
And its sad the people in these country's don't share in the wealth but isn't that to do with the people in these country's
Is it sensible to give aid to country's like Angola if their so corrupt
Theres likely a reason why these countries are so screwed.
They are continually interfered with by outsiders wanting control of their resources.
Sure, individuals are corrupt, but geopolitics will take care of the rest.
America attacked Guatamala over bananas for christs sake.
Smaller countries with natural resources dont really stand a chance of deciding their own destiny against the wishes of their "customers".
(ie, Iran, Venezuala etc etc)
Completely agree with World Bank/IMF comment.
Much simpler than sending troops. Just trick the country out of controlling their own resources.
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 20:15
by Aurora
gug wrote:jonny2mad wrote:Well unless you intend having a empire what can we do about corruption inside these country's ?
Would you invest in anything but minerals etc in Africa if the governments are like Angola.
And its sad the people in these country's don't share in the wealth but isn't that to do with the people in these country's
Is it sensible to give aid to country's like Angola if their so corrupt
Theres likely a reason why these countries are so screwed.
They are continually interfered with outsiders wanting control of their resources.
Sure, individuals are corrupt, but geopolitics will take care of the rest.
America attacked Guatamala over bananas for christs sake.
Smaller countries with natural resources dont really stand a chance of deciding their own destiny against the wishes of their "customers".
(ie, Iran, Venezuala etc etc)
Completely agree with World Bank/IMF comment.
Much simpler than sending troops. Just trick the country out of controlling their own resources.
+1
Posted: 05 Feb 2010, 21:12
by biffvernon
There was a thought provoking piece on Radio 4 this morning about First Nation peoples of British Columbia who had been treated absolutely horrifically by the colonists who created Canada. These people are now marginalised, with high unemployment and all the associated problems of an underclass that might be recognised in whole countries in Africa.
Posted: 18 Feb 2015, 14:51
by emordnilap
gug wrote:Theres likely a reason why these countries are so screwed.
They are continually interfered with by outsiders wanting control of their resources.
Sure, individuals are corrupt, but geopolitics will take care of the rest.
America attacked Guatamala over bananas for christs sake.
Smaller countries with natural resources dont really stand a chance of deciding their own destiny against the wishes of their "customers".
(ie, Iran, Venezuala etc etc)
Completely agree with World Bank/IMF comment.
Much simpler than sending troops. Just trick the country out of controlling their own resources.
Here's why I love
John Pilger. A short but incisive interview of him by Michael Albert.
I'm sad that JP's ageing but he talks and writes as fluently and accurately now as ever, if not more so. Long life to him.
It doesn't matter who has been in the White House: Barack Obama or Teddy Roosevelt; the U.S. will not tolerate countries with governments and cultures that put the needs of their own people first and refuse to promote or succumb to U.S. demands and pressures.
