Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The East African Federation experiment

karlsnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#21

Post by brnt »

oblio wrote: post #14
teddyh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently heard a quote: “These countries aren't underdeveloped, they are overexploited.” EDIT: Found the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP8CzlFhc14#t=3m

You just need 1 or a few to reach "escape velocity", though. Europe was ok-ish until ~1700, then Britain reached the Industrial Revolution, then everybody in about a 2000km radius suddenly leveled up. Kind of funny how geography and culture work.

Ah, the Anglo-centric (what's centrism taken to its extreme BTW?) view. As always, utterly divorced from actual facts on the ground on the Continent.

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#22

Post by JackFr »

zozbot234 wrote: post #15
BjoernKW wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how this argument helps the countries - or rather the people - in question, that is unless you subscribe to the Marxist idea (which probably applies to the lecturer, given he's apparently well-known for his Marxist writings) that the economy essentially is a zero-sum game, in which invariably somebody has to lose for somebody else to win. In my opinion, that's just a defeatist view because it means poor…

Overexploitation is a very real dynamic in colonial and post-colonial countries. As shown by the resource curse (aka "Dutch Disease"), countries with the largest, most valuable natural resource endowments tend to be the ones where average folks are worst off.

Dutch disease is only one aspect of the resource curse and classical "Dutch disease" has little has little to do with overexploitation post colonial or otherwise -- I don't think many people were claiming that the Netherlands were being exploited in the 1960's. What it does mean though, is that a resource rich country may find is currency strong and any manufacturing or agriculture less competitive on world markets - again this has little to do with overexploitation.

Other aspects of the resource curse that are relevant to resource rich African nations are economies that fluctuate wildly with world commodity prices which lead to whipsaw effects and difficulties in planning and investment, a lower return to investments in human capital and natural resource development being more amenable to corrruption than other industries.

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#23

Post by teddyh »

pepperonipizza wrote: post #19
teddyh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather than dwell on the past, we should try and find ways to create a better future. Of course. But the solution differs depending on whether the problem today is underdevelopment or overexploitation. Most current thinking seems to tend to try to fix the former problem, not the latter. But whatever they are doing, it does not seem to be helping; these countries have been “developing” for 50 years. You’d think if t…

Easy trick they could do to develop quicker and lesser the level of curruption: give women more rights and power. Europe is certainly not hindering them

I have heard that Europe (and others) are promoting corruption by unholding regimes which are beneficial to businesses; the old “Banana republic” play. They might not invade to suppress communist revolutions quite as often these days, but it’s perfectly plausible that they undermine such anti-corruption efforts behind the scenes.

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#24

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

martopix wrote: post #9
absamma wrote: post #6

Citizen of an East African state here. Don't read too much into this experiment. At best it's a limited regional partnership framework (emphasis on limited), at worst it's a private club for a bunch of crooked politicians. Nothing to see here.

I believe a customs union and common market are not nothing. The article is a bit too optimistic in speaking already of a federation. The EU shows that a political union is difficult, but simultaneously shows that a union of currencies, customs, borders, and regulations can be wonderfully effective. In this spirit, the EAC is going in the right direction.

Yes; the EU started out with nothing but a grand vision and a Coal and Steel trade agreement.

Notwithstanding the usual political corruption, it is a step in the right direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#25

Post by cornerfold »

oblio wrote: post #14
teddyh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently heard a quote: “These countries aren't underdeveloped, they are overexploited.” EDIT: Found the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP8CzlFhc14#t=3m

You just need 1 or a few to reach "escape velocity", though. Europe was ok-ish until ~1700, then Britain reached the Industrial Revolution, then everybody in about a 2000km radius suddenly leveled up. Kind of funny how geography and culture work.

yes, Europe had multiple colonies all over the world to extract raw material. Very easy to do that when you have a strong army. A monopoly on violence lead to that "development".

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#26

Post by [deleted] »

absamma wrote: post #6

Citizen of an East African state here. Don't read too much into this experiment. At best it's a limited regional partnership framework (emphasis on limited), at worst it's a private club for a bunch of crooked politicians. Nothing to see here.

[deleted]

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#27

Post by bergenty »

oblio wrote: post #2

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but as the EU shows (and the US in its Confederation incarnation in the 18th century), creating a super-state is not easy. I wish them luck, we badly need a large and developed country in Africa.

I feel like it may not be easy but the EU and the US are massive success stories by any measure so it definitely worth the growing pains?

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#28

Post by rayiner »

cornerfold wrote: post #25
oblio wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need 1 or a few to reach "escape velocity", though. Europe was ok-ish until ~1700, then Britain reached the Industrial Revolution, then everybody in about a 2000km radius suddenly leveled up. Kind of funny how geography and culture work.

yes, Europe had multiple colonies all over the world to extract raw material. Very easy to do that when you have a strong army. A monopoly on violence lead to that "development".

> Very easy to do that when you have a strong army

If it was so easy everyone would do it. It’s not like India wasn’t ruled by a series of colonizers long before the British.

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#29

Post by JamesBarney »

zozbot234 wrote: post #15
BjoernKW wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how this argument helps the countries - or rather the people - in question, that is unless you subscribe to the Marxist idea (which probably applies to the lecturer, given he's apparently well-known for his Marxist writings) that the economy essentially is a zero-sum game, in which invariably somebody has to lose for somebody else to win. In my opinion, that's just a defeatist view because it means poor…

Overexploitation is a very real dynamic in colonial and post-colonial countries. As shown by the resource curse (aka "Dutch Disease"), countries with the largest, most valuable natural resource endowments tend to be the ones where average folks are worst off.

The resource curse also affects countries that weren't colonized such as Russia.

Norway was worried about this as well so that's why they created their sovereign wealth fund.

Re: The East African Federation experiment

#30

Post by JamesBarney »

teddyh wrote: post #5
suddenstutter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only be overexploited if you are underdevelopped and vice versa.

It’s important which word you choose, since both words bring with them its own implied solution to the problem. If we call it “underdeveloped”, the implied solution is to foster development. If, on the other hand, we call it “overexploited”, well…

Then the only solution is for larger more powerful countries to voluntarily give up their way of life. In which case those countries will be in a tough spot for a very long time.
Post reply on HN