Africa or bust

Something that no politicians seem to realise, save for China's communist party, is that Africa will be the political battleground of the 21st century after being pretty much irrelevant for a century.
This is because it has:
>the largest quantity of untapped resources
>the largest potential for economic growth
>the largest forecast for population growth

If nothing is done, Chinese companies will eventually figure out what they're doing wrong with their attempts to build an economy in Africa (it's their top-down approach to building industry), and end up controlling the majority of the world's resources as well as having half the population in the world strongly under Chinese influence.

China is a superpower now, but unless the rest of the world helps Africa develop independently as a continent, the world will witness an economic apocalypse as China becomes able to produce anything it wants at ever-lower costs while their resource control raises the price of everything everywhere else.
As the rest of the world gets poorer, they'll be forced to stop buying from China, which means China will producing a quantity of goods greater than the global demand. This means that to sell things, companies have to have a good reputation, so they stop focusing on bulk production and instead focus on quality. This puts the final nail in the coffin for the non-Chinese economy, as their last advantage (product quality) has been lost.

So if you don't want to witness an economic apocalypse the likes of which the world has never seen, you should be studying African culture and learning what you can do to help the continent develop by itself.

Other urls found in this thread:

mckinsey.com/global-themes/middle-east-and-africa/the-closest-look-yet-at-chinese-economic-engagement-in-africa
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

the US military is all over Africa dumb ass and the Chinks are owned by our Kike banks kys faggot

I suppose I should state a few useful tidbits about African socioeconomic conditions.
Firstly, it is the polar opposite to what it is in China, which is why Chinese ventures in Africa do so poorly.

China's rigid education system and terrorising of the population make the population knowledgable and obedient, however these things have stripped the people of personal ambition and thus they will achieve little without direct control.
Economics in China thus work best with a top-down approach: You don't have to worry about whether people can do what you want, you just have to make the executive decisions because they won't make them on their own.

Africa is exactly the opposite: Sparse educational institutions and frail governments mean that most of the population is poorly educated, and anarchy reigns supreme in some regions. However, the absence of a strict order means they have lots of ambition, and can achieve great things given the means.
Economics in Africa thus work best with a bottom-up approach: Teach the people to do what must be done and why that thing is important, and it will happen. If you give them expensive farming equipment they'll waste it, if you give them useful farming knowledge they'll use it.

Secondly, the biggest cause for the weak economy in Africa is if a population is not allowed to settle (constantly has to deal with starvation, plague, and terrorism) it will not be able to make permanent improvements.

Every country in Africa seems to have to deal with one of these things. Zimbabwe especially, government-sponsored terrorism has led to starvation.

Stabilising communities like this is a big topic, so I have this text here:
pastebin com/YgQUGNh9

>implying the US controls China
China has a far more solid economy than the US right now.
The rest of the world is just waiting for the US to finally collapse, I doubt it'll make it to the end of this century.

And here is a useful tidbit as to why all that is bullshit.

Niggers.

You have no idea what youre talking about. ITT people larp as economists.

This is why Americans should be banned from Sup Forums.
Instead of learning at every opportunity, they'll assume that their simplistic pre-formed opinion on a subject is enough to explain everything.

He's not wrong though. You can trace many of Africa's problems to the people who inhabit Africa.

>custom flag
Reveal yourself, yankee.

What Africa needs the most is to abandon the government path, go back to tribe culture that wants to build self sustainability.

But for the most part they are swallowing the western ideology of poison.
Does not work for them so this is the result.

Although it hasn't been tried before to my knowledge, tribe culture can work as the basis for a much larger nation.
Picture a continent with two types of political entities:
>tribes, small self-governing populations that are able to run local affairs however they like
>organisations that are donated to by tribes and composed of volunteers
This system can be extremely stable.

Organisations perform a huge range of services. Trade, defence, large-scale projects, etc.
As long as these organisations are beneficial, they will receive the support of tribes.
The organisations can perform as many or few services as they like, and they acquire goods from tribes at zero cost and give them to tribes or other organisations at zero cost.

An organisation that builds roads might say "hey, we want to build roads near your tribe, give us gravel" and the tribe obviously has an incentive to donate gravel. The organisation can also ask for donations not related to any projects and are simply to keep the organisation running.
Not all tribes will be good at supplying gravel, so an organisation might say "hey, you already have roads but we want to build roads all over the country, give us huge amounts of gravel". If the tribe says no since they don't receive anything personally, that road-building organisation can ask a food-trading organisation for leverage, saying "we'll stop giving you fried chicken if you don't give the road-builders gravel". The road-builders and the food-traders can both claim some credit for the roads being built, and the tribes either have a personal incentive to donate or can be blackmailed into donating with trade embargoes, which means everyone has an incentive to do the right thing.

Giving everyone an incentive to do the right thing is the best way to make a stable country.
Currently, governments have no incentive to do the right thing.

>what is the scramble for africa
It already happened.

What I'm describing is a second scramble for Africa, except it only has one player.

And what amazes me is that africans actually like their chinese bosses, pretty good relationship between them not gonna lie

Where'd you find that out?
Information on social and economic stuff in Africa is very hard to come by, all I know is based on conversations with people who have lived and worked there.

If the US collapses, China gets stuck with a trillion dollars of worthless jew paper. Except they won't even have the paper.

I was posting topics about this for months back in 2016.
Back when I made the posts, I still had hope the western world would get it's shit together. In order to avoid WWIII western countries would use PMCs & rebel groups to fight proxy-wars with China. Sort of like the relationship of the US arming ISIS.
Now though, I believe only China will be the ones taking over Africa. I don't think it will go as you see it. I think the chinese will pretty much force the niggers into work for little pay.

More war is the last thing Africa needs.
The very reason Africa is ripe for exploitation by China is that all the turmoil (starvation, war, disease) has left it unable to develop a strong economy.
A weak economy means cheap labour.

>>tribes, small self-governing populations that are able to run local affairs however they like
>>organisations that are donated to by tribes and composed of volunteers

This is much like their current affairs, only government.

The government is exactly the problem.
In the system I described, tribes do the governing, and organisations do operations that are on too large a scale or too specialised for tribes to do themselves.
Currently, tribes do the governing, and the government does the governing, and only sometimes does anyone take responsibility for the grander operations that need to be done.

I just found some comments on youtube vids on the topic whether china is a colonizer. Some african workers I've saw are just happy or neutral about it

I'm saying, just tribes.
Don't like tribe you are in, start your own.

The problem with just tribes is that the tribes cannot efficiently collaborate.
They'd only be willing to give something they have a surplus of in exchange for something they need, forming capitalism and thus bringing about all the faults of it.
Donating their surplus to a trusted organisation in exchange for that organisation giving them free goods and services gives all the rewards of capitalism with none of the drawbacks.

Additionally, major projects are difficult or impossible with nothing but small tribes.
If you want to do something that requires the work of ten tribes, then ten tribes have to come to an agreement, which can be difficult and time-consuming.

Funny thing is that SJWism is what is fucking us over in Africa: the West is refusing to do business because of gay rights issues or muh democracy. Chinese don't give a fuck, and they're repeating the rewards.

Chinese companies have no problem with working with corrupt and violent African leaders. America with our high business ethics standards is boxing ourselves out of the region.

Read this OP
Before you write another tl;dr shitpost
mckinsey.com/global-themes/middle-east-and-africa/the-closest-look-yet-at-chinese-economic-engagement-in-africa
Even western consultants agree Chinese engagement is a neutral/net positive for Africa

Show the lie though. Or just post burger memes, whatever you think is better.

>high IQ people who've been into managerialism for millenia coordinating what would otherwise be uncoordinated present-oriented flailing on the part of niggers is a positive for the niggers
Imagine

>McGlownigger.com

You
You're exemplify exactly why America's going down the toilet

I never said Africa would be negatively affected.
I said the entire world except for China would be negatively affected.
I assumed it was obvious that an economically weak country being paid to mine its own currently unexploited resources would be a positive.

Whenever an African country is doing poorly, it's because there's a source of instability.
When there is no instability, and the population being managed is of a reasonable size, the country can actually do well despite being full of black people.
Botswana is a good example.

You wouldn't even make it to the first interview at McGlownigger; the only thing going down the toilet is your pathetic syntax.

I don't see the issue with China becoming a super power.
Their internal politics aren't as petty and in the U.S.A., they're interested in maintaining peace, like they're trying to do with the Koreas, and how their President is reaching out to Japan.
Their not afraid of change, because they just altered their constitution, and they are patient and plain ahead, because they are known for their five year economic plain, and have been noted to be great a gradually building influence by anyone who a]observes them.
Hell, for all the a**holes chanting "Socialism never works" China has the second largest GDP, and closing it's gap with the U.S., all as the most socialist country in the world.
They are not perfect, but they have some idea for how to run a country.

>Whenever an African country is doing poorly, it's because there's a source of instability.
Yes, and one of those sources is Africans. Not the only one, but without either an elite talented tenth class to manage the average 85, or colonization and management by another race, you're not going to get good results out of Africa. I am glad that China is taking an active interest in Africa, but let's not pretend this is going to be anything but colonialism 2.0.

China is basically fascist in 2018.

>the most socialist country in the world
excellent baitflagging

Then Africans can just legally steal the money and land back like they do to white people right now. Too easy.

Also, I'm totally on board with that.
I just don't think someone unironically flying your meme flag would be.

You're basically saying Battlefield 2142 will leave the realms of fiction.

>High IQ chinks taking over the world
>Kikes taking over the world
I'd rather accept our new chink overlords, thanks

The problem isn't that China will become a superpower, it already is one.
The problem is that China will become a hyperpower, as the advantage China will get from controlling such a large quantity of resources and cheap labour will boost its own economy dramatically, in turn weakening the economy of the entire world since it's always cheaper to buy from china.

By having a far stronger economy while giving the entire world a far weaker economy, China will become dramatically more powerful than the countries it is currently on par with, and those countries are already superpowers so China will be a superpower amongst superpowers; hence the term "hyperpower".

Balance of power in the world is extremely important, whenever a country becomes powerful without rival it begins to bully other countries. The last thing the world needs is for a hyperpower to arise, it'd be power imbalance unseen since the peak of the Persian empire.

>Chinese """""communism""""" and Russian strongmanism taking over the world
>the death of liberalism, the pacification of the Middle East and wealthy slants using gene therapy to make themselves Nordic anyway
I'd like white people to win the three-way tussle with semites and chinks but if it's between the other two, I'll go with chinks.

You got a couple of misconceptions going on.
First, China is a superpower, but it will never be a hyperpower. American was a hyperpower because after the cold war there was no equal. China will emerge as a strong in the multipolar world order, but it will not be first among equals like america was. Where we're headed is more akin to Europe before WW1 with all sorts of powers hedging among one another. Two economics is not a zero sum gain. If one countries economy grows, it doesn't mean another countries economy is not able to grow as well. If this occured we would see economies shrinking while other grew, but this doesn't happen, instead we see countries grow in tandem, just at different rates.

There can be little doubt that China will be the most powerful country in the world for a very long time. Nothing can be done about that, China's rivals don't think long-term.
And it's not a bad thing either; while China is a horrible place to live, they're not like the US and Russia in that they make everywhere else a horrible place to live.

However, the mere existence of a very powerful country will have dramatic effects: The US, for example, has caused the world to go almost fully capitalistic because they make politicians obsessed with money.
The effect of existence of China is that countries struggle to sell products because China is always selling more cheaply, and countries will continually lose money to China because their population is funnelling money to China. If China becomes too efficient at exploiting Africa, that current effect could become several times stronger.

It's not a matter of avoiding China taking over the world, it's a matter of the world economy surviving the mere existence of an even-more-powerful version of China.
Because the mere existence of such a China would destroy the world economy, even if China had no malicious intent.

The US and China are currently first-equal, and the US is struggling to keep up.
A large shift in the global economy that massively favours China would put China ahead by miles, because even at the current rate China will be first soon.

Also, it may look like all the economies are growing in tandem, but you have to consider that everyone is only keeping up by borrowing from the countries that are actually doing really well.

we can still crush them with our military

china will not be a military superpower. it shares borders with 11 countries which spread it's army thin. the US biggest advantage is it's isolation.
and currently china rely on being cheap laborers. you can't be a superpower when people shit in the street.
anyway I think china will see an uprising and pretty much finished growing.

you know most africans cultures weren't tribal.
you probably think africa is a country you brainlet

How long will we keep our military that strong? Retard liberals are always trying to cut down the budget haphazardly without realizing how much our military power actually influences the world and thus our standing. We have bases out the fucking ass and an insurmountable command of land and air. Ironically this will probably be how the military starts losing its strength. Nobody would ever risk direct war with US, so we'll never actually have a war that would obviously prove how much we need a strong military, so the military gets downsized.

I mean we're already putting women in infantry and letting fucking trans people in. Already the military is weaker than it was solely based on the quality of soldier.

>what you can do to help the continent develop by itself.
Kill all niggers

>>the largest potential for economic growth
lol sure. If you get rid of the niggers