Africans can redeem control over their land and resources by accumulating and ministering capital, organize industry catering to under-served [low -income i.e the global majority] markets by way of commercial enterprise in the form of :
Social Enterprise --(Social Programs that are turn into businesses)
Small and Medium Enterprise -- (Businesses that use a franchise model)
The first case has a *finality* -- you give him medicine until he gets well. The second, on the other hand, does not -- you have to give him food *indefinitely*, if not addressing the underlying problem that is *poverty*
So there are two distinct types of aid. I think anyone would agree that the second type of aid clearly does no good in the larger picture, because it does not solve anything, unlike the first type of aid which does. The successful application of the first type of aid has been given by those against the motion as evidence in favour of their position. But what if the sickness in the first case has poverty as one of its causes?...
Giving medicine in this case does *not* have finality if not addressing the underlying problem that is poverty, so it's actually the second case in disguise...
The second type of aid only creates *dependence* if you wanted to exploit Africa's resources, is it not the best thing you could possibly wish for?
Africans can redeem control over their land and resources by accumulating and ministering capital, organize industry catering to under-served [low -income i.e the global majority] markets by way of commercial enterprise in the form of :
Social Enterprise --(Social Programs that are turn into businesses)
Small and Medium Enterprise -- (Businesses that use a franchise model)
Co-operative Corporation -- ( Integrates: credit unions, worker co-op and R&D)
In this way Africans can be self-reliant.
charbonelle 8 months ago
Prof. Ayittey speak the truth where other penalists speak somethin none sense and psydo ideas...
jemahika 1 year ago
Comment removed
creepiestdani 2 years ago
Comment removed
creepiestdani 2 years ago
Consider these two cases:
- aiding a sick man by giving him medicine
- aiding a beggar by giving him food
The first case has a *finality* -- you give him medicine until he gets well. The second, on the other hand, does not -- you have to give him food *indefinitely*, if not addressing the underlying problem that is *poverty*
creepiestdani 2 years ago
So there are two distinct types of aid. I think anyone would agree that the second type of aid clearly does no good in the larger picture, because it does not solve anything, unlike the first type of aid which does. The successful application of the first type of aid has been given by those against the motion as evidence in favour of their position. But what if the sickness in the first case has poverty as one of its causes?...
creepiestdani 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Giving medicine in this case does *not* have finality if not addressing the underlying problem that is poverty, so it's actually the second case in disguise...
The second type of aid only creates *dependence* if you wanted to exploit Africa's resources, is it not the best thing you could possibly wish for?
creepiestdani 2 years ago
Comment removed
creepiestdani 2 years ago
Seriously, John McArthur owns! ;)
TorBarstad 3 years ago