My Beauty Best Teacher

Egoli reports on the conclusions of a recent Credit Suisse analysis :

"We think the end of an era in terms of China's mighty export industry has just began," say the Credit Suisse economists.
The team has been visiting Guangdong province (China) regularly, and has found that its initial assessment of the new labor law's impact - already pessimistic - was understated. The economists predict that one third of export-oriented manufacturers in the province will be closed within three years. Guangdong produces 30% of China's exports.
What does this mean for the global economy?
The Chinese export economy had already peaked. Replacing its impact has been the growth of the domestic economy, fueled by higher wages and growing domestic consumption, and supported by a government flush with foreign reserves keen to bring Chinese infrastructure up to, or beyond, the standards of that enjoyed by the West. While rising wages and improved labour rights are generally bad for capitalists, as Credit Suisse notes, they are good for workers and domestic consumption. Hence the economists foresee a greater shift towards the growth of China's domestic economy, which would lower the pace of overall growth but improve the "quality" of that growth.

Moeletsi Mbeki writes about the need to unfetter the private sector, it "... consists of the rural poor and of subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies. Neither of which is free to operate in the marketplace because each is dominated politically by non-producers who control the state. This is the weakness of the African private sector that explains its inability to become an engine of economic development. Africa’s private sector lacks political power and is therefore not free to operate to maximize its objectives. Above all, it is not free to decide what happens to its savings...The elite diverts these savings towards its own consumption, and also to strengthen the state’s repressive instruments. Much of what Africa’s elite consumes is imported. So state consumption does not create a significant market for African producers. Instead, it is a major drain on national savings that would otherwise have gone into productive investment. This explains Africa’s growing impoverishment. The more the political elite consolidates its power, the stronger its hold over the state, and therefore the more rural societies sink into poverty and African economies regress... ",Global Agenda.

The thought crossed my mind that Barack Obama's cabinet might be the worst collection of knaves ever assembled. Right now people are talking about how his choice for Treasury, a department that overseas the IRS, owes thousands in back taxes. Last week the conversation was about his choice for State, a department who is supposed to represent us overseas, is one of the louder proponents of the "United States sucks and is the root of all problems" theory. His choice for Energy is a guy who is going to focus on making less energy to combat so-called 'global warming.' Obama's nominee for Attorney General thinks the US is guilty of torture- thanks for that- and heck, there was even a rumor that he was considering Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm for Commerce Secretary (for those who don't get the irony of that, Michigan has had the worst commerce in the country for years, and it's getting worse). Talk about hiring the wolves to watch the hen house!

Then I did a little bit of research into Obama's nomination on his Labor Secretary, Representative Hilda L. Solis, a Democrat from the Union of Soviet California Republics. Apparently- surprise surprise- she's a communist!

An article this past weekend in the Communist Party USA's People's Weekly World Newspaper welcomed Solis and quoted known socialist leaders calling her a "great choice" and an "outstanding" selection with "a life-long commitment to working people."

This past June, Solis sent Elana Henry, a caseworker from Solis's East Los Angeles office, to represent her at a forum on worker's rights organized by Socialists International. Solis also reportedly sent a representative to a major event of the Communist Party USA.

The Communist Party's newspaper documents that on June 20, 1996, Solis sent Antonio Aguilar on her behalf to present an honoree at the Party's Southern California Friends of the People's Weekly World tribute.

So, the new labor secretary is going to pursue the communist agenda for our workers. If you still retain the capacity to be scared to your very bones for the future of our nation, that should do it (I'm numb with shock myself). Get ready for policies that encourage less production, government induced disasters, inhuman policies, and a generally suckier world to live in- that's change you can believe in, although I hope it doesn't happen.

Oh yeah, and Obama's personal pick for climate czar has socialist ties. I'm just going to quote the article from the Washington Times that I found, just to scare you-

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Okay, how many things are just wrong about this? Socialist. Cover-up. Policies. No confirmation. Look, if she was a proud socialist that would be a different matter- but like Obama, she tries to hide her background so she can achieve her agenda through stealth. And why in the world would you appoint someone who wants the US to lower production, reduce consumption, and give power to world organizations to your cabinet? Is anyone taking bets on if the Constitution burns his hand when he swears in on it at inauguration?

By the way, since when did our nation need more czar's- doesn't someone who takes his name after imperial Russia run directly at odds with our tradition of a free country? I wrote about this before, when Obama said he was ready to rule us from day one, and it scared me then and scares me now. The irony is that Obama appoints a bunch of czars to rule us plebs, but on the other hand, hires a bunch of communists and socialists to do so, who worked to overthrow the czars, and then became the very people who replaced him. In Animal Farm, what did the pigs turn into again? I wrote about it once before. But I digress- my point is, Obama is going to be bad for our country not so much because of what he does, since his track record shows he does nothing, but because of who he chooses to associate himself with.

Last year, as my wife, five kids, and I were all wandering around Washington DC, I though the following (from Deep Thoughts on DC Trip- LaHood, Palaces, Rainbows, Washington, and Lincoln):

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.

A new POLITICO poll proves that while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change. In Washington, Obama is far more popular than he is in the rest of the country, while Palin, the former Alaska governor, is considerably less popular in DC than in the rest of the country. To the vast majority of D.C. elites, the tea party movement is a fad, but for the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is a revolutionary phenomonum.

From the Politico story on the poll:

According to the poll, roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way. Seventy-four percent of those 'Washington elites' surveyed said the economic downturn has hurt them less than most Americans.

Sixty-five percent of the general population views Social Security as “very important,” compared with only 41 percent of Washington elites. The same goes for immigration — 53 percent of the general public says it’s very important, compared with 36 percent of Washington elites — and family values — 62 percent versus 23 percent, respectively.

Taxes are another issue where Washington does not appear to have its finger on the pulse of the country. Fifty-three percent of the general public ranked taxes as a “very important” issue, while 37 percent of elites said the same.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed favorably by 45 percent of Washington elites but by only 23 percent of the rest of the country. When asked which party they would vote for if November’s midterm election were held today, the general population is split among Democrats and Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent. Washington elites however, chose Democrats by 53 percent to 26 percent for Republicans.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Washington DC, the home of the imperial palaces of our rulers, is living large on taxpayers money and enjoying doing so. Therefore it isn't surprising that the lords and ladies that inhabit our nation's capital-of-consumption have different views than the rest of the reality-based Americans out of DC.

John Githongo on corruption and the poverty equation:

There's a sense in which corruption is the No. 1 manufacturer of poverty. In particular, it is the No. 1 engine of creating inequalities in developing societies -- which is worse than poverty in and of itself. It's one thing having high levels of poverty, but it's a completely different thing to have stark inequalities caused by corruption and the conspicuous consumption that comes with it. [The latter] leads to political contradictions that can destabilize a nation or at the very least undermine democratic progress.

More here

What does one make of the 'The Gentlemen of Bakongo 'from the Congo? A misplaced sense of consumption without production or as they contend, 'The Importance of Being Elegant'.Dylan Jones writes in the Guardian:

As with all dress, the Sapeur style is a form of self-aggrandisement, the cult of appearance. To them, to be well-dressed is to be successful, which is not just the essence of bling, it is a cri de coeur. But they do look extraordinary. They wouldn't look out of place strolling down Savile Row, resplendent in their multicoloured finery, carrying canes and cigars, putting one white buckskin loafer in front of the other and smiling as though they haven't a care in the world.

One wonders have they thought of making any of these items themselves?
via ToeJam

Just want to warn you- this post might not cheer you up too much. The always good Nolan Finley has this article in the Detroit News today, reproduced with some edits:

These must be glorious days to be a liberal. A stunning confluence of events has rushed the left to the political mountaintop and promises to keep it perched there for a good, long time.

Voters have placed in the White House the first truly liberal president in nearly 30 years, and he begins his tenure as no less than an Olympian god. His election is hailed as the dawn of a new age of enlightenment for America. He's expected to do everything from cooling the earth to curing our warts.

Barack Obama takes the field with no credible opposition. The botched Bush presidency destroyed the Republican Party and turned conservative into a pejorative. He can do what he wants.The nation is tenderized for his vision. The sudden collapse of home values and retirement plans and the greed of some CEOs have shaken Americans' faith in the free markets that form the foundation of America's prosperity. They're persuaded that only Big Government can spare them from living their grandparents' Depression horror stories.

The recession works in perfect tandem with the green movement's triumph over global warming skepticism. Green is now the fastest growing religion, and its followers are prepared to sacrifice their quality of life and individual freedoms for the collective good.

Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs explains in the Guardian that the convergence of the recession and global warming will destroy traditional capitalism. In the name of the environment, Sachs writes, "Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments.

That's the mission in a nutshell: Move from an economy based on free choice to one controlled by the government. And it is marching forward without critical review. The media is too heavily invested in Obama's success to even nip at his heels.

But the Obama children won't retreat to indifference, nor are they likely to abandon him when his policies collapse. That, for the left, is the greatest gift of all- Obama can't fail. When all his spending doesn't restore their jobs and saving accounts, Americans won't blame him- they'll blame Bush. It's Pavlovian.

The field is wide open for liberals to finally bring to America European-style socialism, with its low productivity, high unemployment, crushing taxes and subjugation to government. Successful or not, going back will be impossible. By moving more people from the tax rolls to the dependency rolls, the constituency for reform will disappear.

Liberals have won a great victory, indeed.

These are the very same thoughts that I have been thinking- that there will come a time when the vision is lost, when more students learn communist values than capitalist ones, when safe tyranny is desired more than liberty and freedom, and when the United States will lose that greatness, lose that special feeling, and become like most other nations of the world. And like Finley, I think that time has come- my tax dollars are now subsidizing groups like ACORN, who perpetrate voter fraud, and then judges okay it- the system might have been broken this time around. I know that conservatives and America survived Carter, but I think that this time around, this time liberals have achieved the permanent victory that will result in the total destruction of the United States of America.

Over and over liberals and progressives argue that the recovery of the US economy is being held back by the lack of investment by those in society with money- and they are right. There is a lot of money being sat on in our nation right now- record amounts which are just being held rather than invested, and this is a large reason why the US economy has not recovered.

Liberals and progressives believe that the reason why businesses and individuals are sitting on massive amounts of money range from racism to a desire for Obama to fail to greed to selfishness to a desire to just swim in their loot and not use it. When they talk about these rich people and profitable businesses sitting on their money they are angry, because they want to use the power and force of the government to make them invest the money. They don't understand what motivates these people and businesses, and it frustrates them, so they attribute their behaviors to irrational or evil motives.

But the truth of the matter is that the reason why individuals and businesses are sitting on cash rather than investing it is because of the policies, positions, rhetoric, beliefs, and desires of liberals and progressives. Progressives and liberals have created an environment of fear and uncertainty, and few are willing to invest in an environment such as that.

Under Obama and the modern-day Democratic Party, regulations and rules and barriers to profitability are being forced on businesses, costs of engaging in business is increasing with new mandates such as Obamacare, taxes are continually talked about increasing (even if they haven't really yet in reality) and every speech by every major politician in the Democratic Party promises to go after the very people who have money, profits are attacked and those who make profits are increasingly viewed as people to exploit and whose wealth the government should take, free trade is hurt by lack of free trade agreements and union kickbacks and increased tariffs and an overall hostile environment to free trade, and individuals are reluctant to engage in investing when the government is picking and choosing the leaders and has demonstrated contempt for well-established bankruptcy laws designed to protect investors (GM bailout).

It will not be until President Obama and the liberals and progressives who have achieved influence and positions of power in his administration are gone that the US economy will recover and businesses will begin to invest again. Even if the moderates and liberals who once were in control of the Democratic Party were in office, perhaps under a President Clinton, then our nation would be growing again and people would have jobs- but there is no moderate or Clinton on the ballot for the Democrats, only a progressive Obama at the top of the ticket who intends to double-down on his policies, especially when he will be a lame duck if he wins re-election and no longer have to worry about putting in place policies that get America back to work.

Do not forget either that Democrats in Congress supported President Obama's policies and put them into legislation and passed them, usually with no bipartisan support and a great many of which were strongly opposed by large numbers of Americans. They had an option to oppose the President, to moderate his policies, and to attempt to reach out for bipartisan consensus to create an environment more friendly to businesses and more encouraging to investors. But they didn't- in many cases, radicals like Pelosi and Reid led the charge to create more fear and uncertainty in doing business and investing in America, and for that they need to go.

Republicans should be the ones to benefit from the suicidal march of the Democratic Party in recent years, not because they necessarily are putting for brilliant ideas and are the best party in the world, but because under a Perry or Romney with a GOP House and Senate at least businesses will not be afraid any more, will feel like they can once again invest and make profits and provide jobs, and not be considered evil or wrong because of this success.

For more information, check out the post on Carpe Diem called We've Got a Sub-Par Recovery Because of Weak Investment Spending, Consumption Has Recovered.

As the children play in the White House, the adults in Iran are up to no good. Victor Davis Hanson keeps our attention on this important subject in his article Voting Present on Iran:

Iran just announced a radical expansion of its uranium-enrichment facilities. The news followed the recent disclosure of the country's previously secret nuclear facility near the city of Qom -- and came just two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency's censure of Iran for its failure to halt enrichment.

In other words, instead of complying with international requests to stand down, Iran has decided to step up efforts to enrich uranium, which, despite the government's denial, is all but certainly intended for a bomb.

Iran's theocratic leaders promote its pathological hatred of Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. He periodically threatens the Jewish state with abject destruction, calling Israel "a dead rat" and "a stinking corpse." At best, his nuclear missiles would be a permanent sword of Damocles over Israel's head. At worst, in apocalyptic fashion, he could claim for Persian Shiites the primacy of radical Islam by destroying, once and for all, the "Zionist entity."

Iran also gives billions in aid to murderous organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Their clout would grow exponentially if they could scare Western allies with the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Apparently Iran has watched this new kindly American approach -- and come to a few dark conclusions: namely that a handful of nuclear bombs will give Iran political leverage, and that, in this new climate, it is well worth the (decreasing) risk in getting them. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to assume that the new repentant American administration is more interested in reaching out to prior adversaries than pressuring them to respect the current global order.

President Obama's serial deadlines and hope and change rhetoric have had no effect on the Iranians. Obama can either accept that the theocracy will go nuclear and live with it, or he must take graduated steps to stop them.

Lost amid all the debate about Obama's domestic policies like socialized medicine, nationalizing companies, massive debt-fueled pork give-aways, and the capping and taxing of America's energy consumption is that Iran is getting closer and closer to obtaining a nuclear bomb. Iran getting the nuclear bomb would be very bad for the world. They will use it to blackmail our allies and expand their control over the Middle East, they might use it to murder millions of Jews, or they could sell it to terrorist groups who would unleash it on an American city. This is a big deal.

As big a deal as it is, what has Obama's response been? Offering to talk to Iranian officials? Backing the Iranian government as it killed and terrorized pro-democracy groups that tried to rise up in freedom and liberty? Issuing declarations that are ignored? Those aren't very strong steps and are not having a positive effect on the situation. Different steps need to be taken and different messages issued. Perhaps Obama can do these things, but I'm pretty sure that we are going to need a different Congress and different President or else Iran will mushroom cloud an American city.

Codrin Arsene reviews Ethnicity INC by Jean and John Comaroff:

What if, the authors ask, the future of ethnicity lies in its capacity to incorporate identity (incorporate as in creating a legal corporation based on ethnic grounds) and couple this normative shift with the progressive commodification of one’s ethnic group culture? The authors think that the new product could efficiently represent the interests of its members. They argue that the commodification of culture doubled by the branding of the newly marketed entities could trigger the formalization and the institutionalization of the consumption of culture in ways that would be beneficial to those creating and generating culture in the first place.

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Ethnicity INC: or why ethnicity is not the bogeyman we were told it is" (loomnie.com)

Over the last several months, I bravely snuck into Michigan Congressman Gary Peters office and filmed some video. The Democrat's office was littered with stacks of miniature Constitutions (Congressmen get a certain amount to give to constituents, but Peters just uses them as recycled toilet paper), with piles and piles of literature extolling the virtues of recycling and lowering consumption, and with giant statues of our Dear Leader. I shot two video's, possibly more, while I was in there, and captured Congressman Peters talking with his staff about how to avoid showing up at townhall meetings and about how to hide his votes on spending spending bills. Here are the videos:


Just kidding- these aren't of Gary Peters, although they might as well be, since he has run his campaign the same way he ran away from his constituents all summer- by running away from his stance and votes on major issues. They are from Heritage for America. Peters is a tax-raising, energy-destroying, job-killing, regulating Democrat, and yet is trying to run from that record this election. We'll throw the bum out.

Suggested book to read related to this post: Heritage Pocket Guide to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

Abhay Abhay (Advisor to the EFCC of Nigeria) on building local financial crime fighting resources:

“To investigate a case of inexplicable wealth, an investigator needs to know laws, rules and practices, not only when it comes to corruption and crime, but also in a number of other areas – the purchase and sale of property and vehicles, establishing and dissolving companies, dealing on the stock exchange, the code of conduct for public officials, income tax and so on.”...investigators must also learn cultural and social practices that affect consumption, spending, investment and the presentation of gifts.

More here

Domestic policy results are a mix of both Congress and the President, and so Obama supporters can attempt to say that the reason why domestic policies have failed so badly over the past years is because of the Congress (House under Democratic control 2007-2011, Senate under Democratic control 2007 to today). But the results of foreign policy decisions are almost always the result of actions made purely the President, so these results can not be blamed on former President Bush (2001-2009) or the Republicans in Congress (House 2011+). President Barack Obama is responsible for foreign policy actions of the last several years.

And the latest news from Egypt is that Obama messed up badly and in so doing has led to the people of Egypt being less free, less prosperous, and private property rights being less protected. Via the New York Times:

Egyptian authorities confirmed Saturday that a political coalition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the 84-year-old group that virtually invented political Islam, had won about 47 percent of the seats in the first Parliament elected since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. An alliance of ultraconservative Islamists won the next largest share of seats, about 25 percent....

...Parliament the authority to choose the 100 members of a constitutional assembly, so it may shape Egypt for decades to come, although the military council has sometimes tried to influence that process...

...The Brotherhood has said it intends to respect personal liberties and will focus on economic and social issues, gradually nudging the culture toward its conservative values. By contrast, the ultraconservatives, known as Salafis, put a higher priority on legislation on Islamic moral issues, like the consumption of alcohol, women’s dress and the contents of popular culture.

Among the remaining roughly 30 percent of parliamentary seats, the next largest share was won by the Wafd Party, a liberal party recognized under Mr. Mubarak and with roots dating to Egypt’s colonial period.

It was trailed by a coalition known as the Egyptian Bloc. It included the Free Egyptians, a business-friendly liberal party founded by a Coptic Christian businessman, Naguib Sawiris, and favored by many members of the country’s Coptic Christian minority, about 10 percent of the public. The Egyptian Bloc also included the liberal Social Democratic Party, which leans further to the left on economic issues.

A coalition of parties founded by the young leaders of the revolt that unseated Mr. Mubarak won only a few percent of the seats, as did a handful of offshoots of the former governing party....

There is no way to spin this. Mubarak gave a speech where he said that he would transition power over to groups that were business-friendly, were supportive to liberty and freedom, and would not be radically-intolerant Muslim, and President Obama went on TV and gave a major speech demanding that "Mubarak must go now."

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must peaceful, and it must begin now," Obama declared in his address, and he got his wish- Egypt has now gone from being a moderately bad regime to putting in place a coalition of radicals that support terror and the destruction of Israel- and it happened in under a year. He got his meaningful change for the worse pretty quickly- and it was all on him, the blame was exclusively on Obama, and the results of his actions were bad for millions of Egyptians and America.

Obama said that he turned on Mubarak in order to support the young leaders of revolutionaries in Egypt- the group that won the least from this revolution. The group that got the most out of the Egyptian revolution was the groups that we supported the LEAST- the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists.

Obama messed this policy decision up. Hold him responsible.

My stances on this issue are also on the record- see my posts Obama is Picking Worst of Bad Options in Egypt: Is Obama Getting Advice from Jimmy Carter? and Obama's Egypt Policy Was a Failure?.

Via the New York Post:

The VAT is a type of national sales tax, levied on the value-added at each stage of production. Consider a piece of furniture: The VAT would be imposed when the raw timber is sold, when the sawmill produces lumber, when the manufacturer builds a chair, a tax at the wholesaler level and then when a retailer sells the chair to a consumer.

To avoid double taxation, each seller along the way gets a credit for taxes paid at earlier stages of the production process. So the final tax to the consumer, at least in theory, is the same as a retail sales tax of the same amount.

The VAT has its virtues: As a single-rate, consumption-based system, much like the flat tax or national sales tax, it would introduce far fewer economic distortions than today's income tax -- and a heckuva lot less paperwork.

That would be a persuasive argument -- if proponents wanted a VAT to replace the Internal Revenue code. But that's not what's intended by Volcker -- or Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who've also been chatting up the VAT. The politicians want a VAT, and they want to keep the income tax. (To be more accurate, they want a VAT and to raise other taxes as well.)

They want the cash, of course, so they can continue buying votes by spending other people's money.

The VAT is "on the table," according to Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (source here). One of Democrat President Barack Obama's top economic advisers suggested that it's time for America to adopt a VAT. And President Obama's new debt commission, which will meet for the first time just before the elections and after Obama has added trillions in debt, was rumored to be looking strongly at suggesting that the US adopt the VAT. And although the Senate just voted Thursday to say they don't want to create a new value-added tax, 12 of the 13 senators who voted to support the possibility of a VAT were Democrats. Democrats are working today on how they can make my children pay a VAT.

The state of Michigan once used a form of VAT known as the "Single Business Tax" (SBT) as its form of general business taxation. It was the only state to have used a VAT, and it sucked. Voters voted to replace the SBT with the new MBT, which was expected to be more fair and less of a jobs and economy killer than the SBT ended up being.

One other note on the VAT. While most Democrats and liberals want a 'small' VAT, most tax rates start small and then end up going up and up and up (except when you vote Republican, then they go down). When the income tax was first put in, the highest marginal income tax rate in 1913 was only 7%, but only 5 years later the highest rate to 77%, and by the 1940's, the top rates in the US were above 90%. Expect the VAT to follow a similar trajectory- if passed by Democrats it will start small, but eventually will be a massive jobs and economic killer.

Khalil Tian Shahyd reviews African Renaissance by Fantu Cheru he "...calls on us to rethink the concept of “decolonization of the African mindset”. Africa’s dependence on foreign aid, he says, has done the opposite of its claimed mission, but in fact has been used to keep Africa’s people disempowered through the support of dictatorships and undemocratic regimes. Further, the habits of import consumption and the rejection of products produced in Africa is the highest example of how deep the colonial ingraining has been.Further along, he challenges African universities, scholars and heads of state to commit to strengthen their people’s capacity in “all the relevant specializations” and improve the ability for sub-Saharan trade negotiators to engage in meaningful dialogue during WTO meetings, and other international negotiations..."

Andy Khumbanyiwa at African Path writes:

African economies in general export raw materials to the international markets. These include coffee, tea, cocoa, cotton, unprocessed minerals and crude oil among many others. The importing countries, mainly in Europe, America, India and China invest in a wide variety of processing facilities. Such processing facilities create millions of jobs. In turn finished products from such industries are exported back to Africa at exorbitant prices. The heavy consumption of imported goods and services coupled with our reluctance to innovate, add-value and export processed products robs us of jobs and wealth. It is evident that if we continue on this developmental route we will remain poor. If we do not change we will spiral deeper into the abyss of extreme poverty.

Uganda proves that food self-sufficiency can be realized with the right sets of policies.G. Pascal Zachary reports in Foreign Policy:

The country’s rice output has risen 2½ times since 2004, according to the Ministry of Trade. Rice production is expected to reach an astonishing 180,000 metric tons this year, up from 135,000 in 2006 and 102,000 in 2005. Consumption of imported rice, meanwhile, fell by half from 2004 to 2005 alone, and by half again from 2005 to 2007. Uganda’s importers, seeing the shift, have invested in new mills in the country, expanding employment and creating competition for farmer output, thereby improving prices. New mills, meanwhile, lowered the cost of bringing domestic rice to market. While people in developing countries across the globe are clamoring about the sharp rise in food prices, Ugandans are still paying about the same for rice as they always have. And Uganda is poised to start exporting rice within East Africa—and beyond.
The secret of Uganda’s homegrown success? Ignoring decades of bad Western advice.