Skip to main content

About this $700 billion "bail out" ...

So, the US Senate approved a revised version of the financial "bail out" plan, involving some $700 billion. Simply put, that is a lot of money. I find it puzzling how the United States government can pledge that much to a private sector financial crisis. There are controversies surrounding why the crisis originally came about, but let's put these moral issues aside.

Let's instead try to assume that this is truly a life-threatening crisis (and in some ways, it might be), and that the Fed is doing what it can to protect its civilians. National security, is what they are calling it.

$700 billions dollars... Just to put things in context: The richest country in Africa by Gross National Product (using Purchasing Power Parity) is South Africa, and their GDP in 2006 was just under $600 billion. Compare this to Tanzania, which had just under $30 billion as their GDP in 2006 (click to view source).

Word. So the Fed is pledging a "rescue" with a cost that adds up to being higher than any African country's GDP. I don't think I have to get into how else $700 can be used, especially in terms of sustainable economic development ventures, or even immediate humanitarian aid.

And you know what struck me as amusingly infuriating this morning? The fact that the world will never see so much money (again, $700 billion... that's NINE zeros) flow into sustainable development ventures in one go. But when there is a military crisis, such as the "pirates" in Somalia (and ask me someday how I think this is really a stand-off between Russia and the US to project their physical power), there is always money pumped into supposedly preemptive measures... again, in the name of National Security.

That is all. I mean, seriously.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov...
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or...
Post a Comment
Read more