|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Janko |
Posted - 31 Jan 2013 : 23:44:27
Africans Sent $60 Billion to Africa in 2012, But Overcharged $4 Billion by Money Transfer Companies
...
This is more than twice the total amount of aid received by Africa, which amounted to $28 billion. “Bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa was USD 28.0 billion, representing a fall of -0.9% in real terms compared to 2010. By contrast, aid to the African continent increased by +0.9% to USD 31.4 billion, as donors provided more aid to North Africa after the revolutions in the region,” according to a report by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), in 2012.
... |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Janko |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 14:27:55
U.S. takes control of $480 mln stolen by Nigerian dictator Abacha
Aug 7 (Reuters) - The United States has taken control of more than $480 million looted by former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and his associates after a court ruling, the Justice Department said on Thursday....
The money stolen during Abacha's 1993-1998 de facto presidency of the oil-rich African nation and stashed in banks around the world will be returned to the Nigerian government, the department said in a statement.
"Rather than serve his county, General Abacha used his public office in Nigeria to loot millions of dollars, engaging in brazen acts of kleptocracy," Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said in the statement............. |
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 02 Aug 2014 : 15:07:20
Hmmmmmmmmmm.........governments losing money, how can that be right ? after all the government looks after all its citizens and uses the money wisely for their benefit.
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
"Hiding in Plain Sight"
African Countries Lose Billions through Misinvoiced Trade
Fraudulent Trade Transactions Channeled at Least US$60.8 Billion Illegally in or out of 5 African Countries from 2002-2011
Tax Loss from Trade Misinvoicing Potentially at 12.7% of Uganda’s Total Government Revenue, followed by Ghana (11.0%), Mozambique (10.4%), Kenya (8.3%), & Tanzania (7.4%)
May 12, 2014
Clark Gascoigne, +1 202 293 0740 x222
“It is deeply disconcerting that illicit financial flows are taking such a serious toll on the economies of Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda,” noted Mogens Jensen, Danish Minister for Trade and Development Cooperation. “Denmark has for several years supported Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda in fighting poverty and promoting economic growth and job creation. These efforts are clearly at risk of being undermined by fraudulent trade transactions which rob the people of these countries of funds that could otherwise have been used for investments in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other much needed public services. I hope that the study can help the governments in their efforts to curb illicit financial flows.”....
|
| Janko |
Posted - 01 Aug 2014 : 14:44:17
Remittance fees hurt Africans, says Comic Relief
BBC: 16 April 2014 |
| Janko |
Posted - 12 May 2014 : 14:25:24
"Hiding in Plain Sight"
African Countries Lose Billions through Misinvoiced Trade
Fraudulent Trade Transactions Channeled at Least US$60.8 Billion Illegally in or out of 5 African Countries from 2002-2011
Tax Loss from Trade Misinvoicing Potentially at 12.7% of Uganda’s Total Government Revenue, followed by Ghana (11.0%), Mozambique (10.4%), Kenya (8.3%), & Tanzania (7.4%)
May 12, 2014
Clark Gascoigne, +1 202 293 0740 x222
“It is deeply disconcerting that illicit financial flows are taking such a serious toll on the economies of Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda,” noted Mogens Jensen, Danish Minister for Trade and Development Cooperation. “Denmark has for several years supported Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda in fighting poverty and promoting economic growth and job creation. These efforts are clearly at risk of being undermined by fraudulent trade transactions which rob the people of these countries of funds that could otherwise have been used for investments in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and other much needed public services. I hope that the study can help the governments in their efforts to curb illicit financial flows.”....
|
| Janko |
Posted - 09 Nov 2013 : 11:41:09
Interesting perspective from
European Development Fund (EDF)
Created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, and first launched in 1959, the European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for providing Community development aid in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the overseas countries and territories (OCTs)....
How much money is available?
The 10th EDF has a budget of €22 682 million:
€21 966 million to the ACP countries (97% of the total),
€286 million to the OCTs (1% of the total),
€430 million to the Commission as support expenditure for programming and implementation of the EDF (2% of the total).
In particular, the amount for the ACP countries is divided as follows:
€17 766 million to the national and regional indicative programmes (81% of the total),
€2 700 million to intra-ACP and intra-regional cooperation (12% of the total),
€1 500 million to Investment Facilities (7% of the total). |
| Sister Omega |
Posted - 28 Feb 2013 : 23:06:52
The African Diaspora should be congratulated on exceeding the amount of remittances received back home than was sent in Aid by the West. Yes Janko I totally agree with you in regards to the Diaspora being ripped off by $4 billion.
It's a high price the Diaspora pays but it's they who will contribute as the most reliable donors to participate in the development of the continent. Let's face it who wants Aid when trade is far more important? Who wants to feel beholden to people with ulterior motives so they can turn around and tell us how we use pit latrines and drag forks from branches to hoe from? What a load of rubbish of course their are pit latrines in Africa but there are also flushed toilets.
Then of course there are places where all the people flush their toilets and they can't go to the local beaches and sunbathe. So instead hop onto a plane ans sunbathe on a Gambian Beach. Just in case they don't encounter what thay flushed down the toilet a couple of weeks ago . If you get my drift.
$60 Billlion is a good start and as Africa keeps on developing that revenue will start multiplying. Just imagine how much money those Africans made abroad before tax. Now as more opportunities start opening up in Africa as it's doing all over the continent. Africa will have to start cutting back on the aid it gives to others by cutting its budgets on how much freebeez it likes to give away.Such as importing flour to make our daily bread, onions we can grow at home, fish stocks we can replenish ourselves and a host of other staple foods,minerals,oil and natural gas that the world depends on Africa to give away for peanuts including those peanuts.
Toubab, it's not about opinion or culture it's pure economics!
|
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 21 Feb 2013 : 12:21:45
Ok Janko,you are obviously not going to let this discussion topic rest,and no amount of "my opinion" or "Culture" from me will change anything at all,so let me change all the words in inverted commas above into these two words MONEY and GREED,will you agree with those words then ? |
| Janko |
Posted - 21 Feb 2013 : 00:54:17
I find it very interesting when you use culture or “my opinion” as an argument to legitimise your stance and or to puncture discussions on Bantaba. In as much as culture is an important element in how we understand and perceive the world around us, it cannot change position with consequence i.e. the result of a culturally motivated action. For example, if you, toubab, with your cultural background decides to help someone from another culture. But the consequence of your good intention turns out to be negative; you cannot say the negative consequence of your good intention is due to difference in culture. Would you? Let me illustrate a bigger picture, to put the above in a global perspective. Hope that helps make my point.
For example, 15 years ago, the initiative ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA), would give the world's 49 poorest countries free access to the European market for all products except arms. It was meant to be a gesture from the EU to the world's poor. But when the special interests lobbying had finished its work, Everything But Arms, was replaced with ‘Everything But Anything They can sell’, that is, everything except what they can sell. The contradiction became no direct access to the EU market for agricultural products from the world's poorest farmers which would have given them maximum opportunity to achieve success in the European market. That is not a question of culture or ‘my opinion’ but the consequences of policy. So, culturally motivated opinions do have consequences that cannot be explained by culture nor swept under the carpet as ‘my opinion’.
A week ago, after nightly mingling and a lot of coffee and other hard stuff the EU´s long-term budget was clubbed through. The largest portion in the budget was a 39 percent spending on agricultural subsidies. That brings us to an element of debate.
Food and morality - about the consequences of agricultural subsides.
One could clearly see a devised plan to actually sabotage African agriculture. Hence, the plan insinuates banning of Africans to sell more than certain amount of each commodity to EU, so called quotas. Then it introduces a duty on imports of African agricultural products to make them much more expensive than they would be otherwise. It makes it harder for Africans to compete with EU farmers.
As a second step, EU gives large subsidies to EU farmers. By forcing the taxpayers to send money to EU farmers makes it easier for them to cope with competition from poor Africans with lower costs of production. Since price controls and subsidies put supply, demand and price out of play a surplus is created. And the next stage is to dump this surplus on African markets, giving it extra tax subsidies and eliminating agricultural products produced in Africa, an excellent incapacitation plan. EU's Common Agricultural Policy kills agricultural projects in Africa. And, EU member states have no desire to let the market control, or exposing their farmers to competition from abroad. Therefore, the misery continues, although the budget allocation to agriculture has decreased and the most destructive elements reformed. Special interests put sand in the machinery for real reform.
EU opposes free trade in agricultural products, which makes it impossible to negotiate a new round of liberalization in the World Trade Organisation. EU barriers stand in the way of a better world. EU´s subsidies to agriculture are more than twice as high as Africa's total agricultural exports. So the equation laid by EU for getting out of poverty does not compute with the reality in everyday living. Hence, on the one hand agricultural products from Africa are to be stopped by EU walls away from home, and on the other are forced to compete with EU subsidized products at home. Where is the consistency, when policy in one area contradicts policy in other areas or when policy is not in any way designed according to the needs of poor people?
80 percent of large enterprises in the agricultural and food industries benefits from subsidies. One of Britain's biggest winners on agricultural policy is Elizabeth Windsor, better known as the queen. In the list of benefactors is also farms for breeding of horses, a breeding station focused on the breeding of purebred racing horses. EU´s long-term budget focus is still putting the British royal family´s economic interests ahead of the world’s poor and the alleviation of poverty. So, culture, ‘my opinion’ and consequence cannot change place in the same context. The consequence of a cultural action cannot be legitimized by difference in culture.
Finally, Africans were overcharged $4 Billion by Money Transfer Companies for sending $60 Billion to Africa in 2012. That is not ‘my opinion’ or due to cultural difference but the consequence of policy.
|
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 14 Feb 2013 : 11:28:41
I understand your thoughts, and understand that we have perhaps divergent political views,maybe a culture thing,I don't know,one thing I do know is that we can play tennis for a very long time discussing differing views on this extensive topic (pity it is only you and I posting though  ) that will inevitably lead to total boredom by the readers of Bantaba. Thanks. |
| Janko |
Posted - 14 Feb 2013 : 00:30:00
Well, toubab, what I mean by not killing the hen that lays golden eggs, is, the West would always nurture its markets, hence they are more profitable alive.
"OK, what I would ask you to understand is that "aid" is not being used ALWAYS to help the people for who it is intended but utilised for enhancement of personal wealth of those who have no need of "help". …" That clearly shows that Africa can do much better without AID that only fills the pockets of a few who in turn spend it on western produced luxury goods.
|
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 13 Feb 2013 : 12:58:34
"You just have to come off the idea that charity, Aid or whatever you call it is meant to solve Africa’s problems."
Not at all I pointed out that without "aid" in whatever form from outside African countries Africa would experience catastrophic problems.
"You have to also understand that the West is not helping Africa for love or philanthropy but because it would be foolishness to kill the hen that lays golden eggs."
OK,what I would ask you to understand is that "aid" is not being used ALWAYS to help the people for who it is intended but utilised for enhancement of personal wealth of those who have no need of "help".I get your point of killing the hen,true.
"Fair Trade" is a form of exchange of goods where the parties involved reach an agreement of trade on equal terms. In reality, Africa has been and is still an important economic partner for the West as a source of strategic raw materials, a market for its manufactured goods,"
True,but human greed on both sides plays a part,so in reality it's not Fair Trade.
|
| Janko |
Posted - 13 Feb 2013 : 00:32:33
"Fair Trade" is a form of exchange of goods where the parties involved reach an agreement of trade on equal terms. In reality, Africa has been and is still an important economic partner for the West as a source of strategic raw materials, a market for its manufactured goods, an outlet for its capital investment, and a prop to its currencies. In short, without Africa the West will no longer have a history in the twenty –fist century.
You just have to come off the idea that charity, Aid or whatever you call it is meant to solve Africa’s problems. You have to also understand that the West is not helping Africa for love or philanthropy but because it would be foolishness to kill the hen that lays golden eggs.
|
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 12 Feb 2013 : 00:07:39
Janko,I see your point,the fact still remains that Africa cannot do without "inputs" from the countries outside of Africa,if it be charity, government aid,or money sent home to families from Africans living and working abroad.Fair trade is great BUT you have to remember that in order to sell "products" from Africa,if its food items,for instance that has to be transported to those who will buy it,maybe it will have to be refrigerated or packaged in a way that the consumers in a foreign land understand,and guess what, that all costs money who will pay that money,the farmer where the produce was sourced from,no the buyer will have to fund that and in the end make a profit for his trouble when he sells it,if it goes to a wholesaler the wholesaler will take his cut,not simple at all to state that "Fair trade is the key to solving Africa’s problem not AID."
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Africa is better off without AID, grants or loans. AID is not intended to solve Africa’s problem but to extend it. Assuming Africa cannot do without AID from the West is very disconcerting. Hence, it is based on the assumption that AID from the West is spent on day-to-day feeding of Africans, which falls on its own absurdity. And that the Aid comes in physical cash that Africa can spend. But AID comes in kind; products, services, experts that the giver presumes Africa need.
You seem to miss the point; it is about how much money the African diaspora sent to Africa in 2012. Which is estimated as being far more than all AID to Africa?
Fair trade is the key to solving Africa’s problem not AID.
|
| Janko |
Posted - 11 Feb 2013 : 23:45:29
Africa is better off without AID, grants or loans. AID is not intended to solve Africa’s problem but to extend it. Assuming Africa cannot do without AID from the West is very disconcerting. Hence, it is based on the assumption that AID from the West is spent on day-to-day feeding of Africans, which falls on its own absurdity. And that the Aid comes in physical cash that Africa can spend. But AID comes in kind; products, services, experts that the giver presumes Africa need.
You seem to miss the point; it is about how much money the African diaspora sent to Africa in 2012. Which is estimated as being far more than all AID to Africa?
Fair trade is the key to solving Africa’s problem not AID.
|
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 09 Feb 2013 : 23:36:18
Janko you write:
"but to mention the destructive structural adjustment programs enforced by the international financial institutions is a "blame someone else culture". But it is those same structural adjustment programmes that recommended taking away subsides for farming in most African countries yet today farming subsides is a very important structural instrument in stabilizing price in most developed countries, including the EU."
I agree it is BIG BUSINESS that runs the world and its financial institutions and yes they are run by europhonic and usophonic (there a new buzz word I have just coined !) people,many a politician have close contact with multinationals,and are likely to be persuaded that their points of view are the best ones and those views should be followed.
It's all about money,and greed as I observed above, such money is now sometimes used by those in charge of running many African countries for their own enrichment a point not responded to by you I note,the citizens suffering poverty are forgotten and pushed out of mind.
JANKO,if aid,loans,grants and other preferential financial instruments given by developed nations was withdrawn to the countries of Africa,could those countries population thrive or would they wither into a great famine that humanity has never witnessed before ?
The "blame someone else culture" is rampant in Africa.
JANKO that's me done now,someone else can have a go at this topic you appear to be a traditionalist ,absolutely fine but don't make taxpayers of the world support Africa for ever,if Africans want to join the 21st century world of the developed nations then their attitudes must change.
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
