No.69656
What financial investments could I look into that would eventually lead to a decline in Africa's birth rate? Birth control pills, DIY vasectomy/abortion kits, etc.
I'd pay solid dollar just to have less niggers in the world tbh.
No.69657
>What financial investments could I look into that would eventually lead to a decline in Africa's birth rate?
Convince people to stop giving them aid
No.69658
>>69657
Can the spreading of sickle cell be encouraged somehow?
No.69660
>>69658
yeah, but that would imply that the West can secure their borders so they can't flee.
No.69662
>>69660
afaik only africans can get SCA
No.69663
ICAfrica, Oxfam, UNDP, UNICEF, UNAIDS, SaveTheChildren, RedR, Doctors Without Borders, etc..
Basically, any organization that says it's helping Africans, they are in the long-term ensuring that they will stay in poverty and decline.
No.69664
>>69663
>Doctors Without Borders
They are literally smuggling shitskins into Europe tbh
No.69666
>>69656
>What financial investments could I look into that would eventually lead to a decline in Africa's birth rate?
There's not a good lot of investments to be made in anything that has regards to Africa. It's pretty hard to get low functioning people to stop reproducing, the best bet one could have is to theoretically teach them sexual education, but Africans don't tend to care very much about education to begin with.
You could stop aid to Africa, which could certainly have some results but in the long term it would mean that Africa would theoretically readjust it's markets due to lack of mal-investment and actually have functional economies, lest they revert back to socialist governments (which in your goal would be the more preferable outcome).
No.69668
>white text on bright yellow
>black text on dark brown
You should invest in a gun and shoot yourself.
No.69670
>>69656
You could just buy the continent.
No.69672
>>69657
>>69666
> Stop aid
Someone will use this thread to point out the contradiction that you think welfare does not work economically, except oddly enough for Africa.
Keep your economic theory consistent people: INCREASING aid will ensure that they stay poor.
No.69673
>>69672
aid keeping them poor dosnt stop them from being born, no aid will iether make them become human beings that can fend for themselves, or dead, depending on whether or not they can hack it.
No.69674
>>69656
Make them all hardcore Marxists
Also, go back to your board, /pol/.
No.69679
>>69656
You can start by investing in an invasion of the weakest most repressive African state to kick out the politicians and the bankers, and establish a free society the natives can participate in. Their self-interest will do the rest, and once they experience the newfound prosperity, they'll have enough money for birth control and stop breeding like rabbits. You'd essentially be killing two birds with one stone.
No.69682
>>69656
fight socialism and mindset which supports (((humanitarian))) aid
No.69700
>>69672
>Keep your economic theory consistent people: INCREASING aid will ensure that they stay poor.
I'm not disagreeing with you there nor am I making a contradiction, in fact that's what I said;
>You could stop aid to Africa, which could certainly have some results
> but in the long term it would mean that Africa would theoretically readjust it's markets due to lack of mal-investment and actually have functional economies, lest they revert back to socialist governments
I suppose I should have stressed what it was that I meant, but so be it. A post on the internet is a post on the internet.
No.69701
>>69674
Tbh…this could work. 1 child policy and emigration restriction.
No.69704
>>69679
Kick out the political leaders and let the Nigerian princes stay. Great strategy.
Free market works guys
No.69707
>>69656
Bring your family there and let them fuck and impregnate your wife and daughters, you will dilute the African genepool and in a few generations, there will no longer be any true Africans left.
No.69713
>>69704
That comment by Whittaker Chambers is nothing more than defamation. Why would you associate with something like that?
No.69719
>>69704
Orwell wasn't a left libertarian and Rand wasn't a Right Libertarian. It also cherry picks random quotes as if that is relevant. Completely worthless.
No.69720
>>69719
It's supposed to be Facebook propaganda. It's not meant for people that know both authors.
No.69722
>>69720
That it's aimed at a dumb audience doesn't excuse it for being dumb.
No.69723
>>69713
It's a metaphor you complete retard. Having opinions you don't like is not defamation you butthurt clown.
>>69719
They were according to any reasonable and ordinary definition. Nitpicking suggests no arguments and a high level of butthurt
No.69726
>>69723
>It's a metaphor you complete retard.
Your mother looks like she wants to genocide the Armenians. By your standard, that's not defamation, it's just a harmless metaphor.
>They were according to any reasonable and ordinary definition.
That's such a rubber-statement, even a lawyer would laugh at you.
No.69727
>>69726
>starwars meme
>on 8chan
kys
No.69729
>>69727
Butthurt detected (according to any reasonable and ordinary definition)
No.69739
>czech thread
>it's all bullshit LARPing autists circlejerking
I didn't know what I was expecting.
check out microfinance/microlending OP, simply dumping used clothing and sandals won't do anything for them when there's even less shit to do in Nigeria than Delaware.
>Kiva (might want to avoid; allegedly the organization loans money to lenders, who then mark the loans at 100% interest)
>Zidisha (don't know too much about them)
No.69749
>>69726
>Your mother looks like she wants to genocide the Armenians. By your standard, that's not defamation, it's just a harmless metaphor.
That seems less likely to be a metaphor since you are making it more specific. He wasn't specific since it was a metaphor and he just wanted to describe a general feeling.
>That's such a rubber-statement, even a lawyer would laugh at you.
You're clearly not an expert on law since you think it's legitimate to sue someone for using a metaphor to describe a general feeling of intolerance.
As for reasonable and ordinary definitions, lawyers talk about that all the time. You are not very well informed about anything.
No.69752
>>69749
>That seems less likely to be a metaphor since you are making it more specific. He wasn't specific since it was a metaphor and he just wanted to describe a general feeling.
So did I. When I look at your mom, I have a general feeling that she wants to murder and rape little armenian kids.
>You're clearly not an expert on law since you think it's legitimate to sue someone for using a metaphor to describe a general feeling of intolerance.
Kek, I studied it, you muppet. Not that it matters, because I wasn't talking about positive law at all. Here in Germany at least, it would only count as an insult, depending on whether the judge was a Young Socialist and if he's having a bad day. But that doesn't matter.
>As for reasonable and ordinary definitions, lawyers talk about that all the time. You are not very well informed about anything.
Oh, I know these definitions. We call our equivalent "Anstandsgefühl aller billig und gerecht Denkenden". It's an open secret that this formula is so vague that it's inapplicable, and that the judges can do with it whatever they want. In practice, it's all about casuistic.
You sound like someone who drank his first sip from the cup of wisdom and now wants to test his newfound powers. You're probably not dumb at all, but unless you learn some modesty, there is no future fot you as an intellectual.
No.69769
>>69752
>So did I. When I look at your mom, I have a general feeling that she wants to murder and rape little armenian kids.
Well, supposing you do? I can't call that defamation. I don't know if it's true.
>It's an open secret that this formula is so vague that it's inapplicable, and that the judges can do with it whatever they want. In practice, it's all about casuistic.
I don't think it's as rare as you say to have words take their ordinary meaning in legal contexts. Anyway we're not even talking about a legal context. We're talking about, in a normal context could you call Ayn Rand a right libertarian according to the normal usage of the words?
Of course, because she doesn't believe in initiating force.
No.69776
>>69656
No joke? Industrialize. Build up their economy. Infrastructure, manufacturing, a thriving tech sector, luxuries, agriculture, the works. Build up trade, foreign and domestic.
"But wouldn't that make them reproduce more?" I hear you cry. It turns out that at a social scale, there is no better contraceptive than industrialization. As better standards of living become increasingly possible, people breed less.
No.69779
>>69776
So bascially turn all of Africa into Nigeria.
No.69785
>>69776
nobody disputes that would eventually bring down birth rates, but in the meantime the african population would surge
No.69786
also i heard trade in africa has actually been linked to decreased growth. when you have a developing economy like that cheap imports can stop your industries ever developing in the first place
No.69788
>>69786
What's the alternative? Building up the industries and waiting ten years until products are as cheap as they would be if they were just imported? This is already harmful in itself, and it also ensure that there are fewer resources available to be invested. Also, if the tariff does not differentiate between imported capital or consumption goods, then the capital has to be created from scratch, whereas otherwise, they could import it for cheap.
Again, it helps to think of an extreme scenario: You have a bunch of neanderthals. You can either open up trade with them, maybe hire them as movers or buy some sabertooth pelts, or you can fence them in to give them an incentive to accumulate capital. Obviously, the latter would be a bad idea.
No.69804
>>69656
>What financial investments could I look into that would eventually lead to a decline in Africa's birth rate?
Discouraging companies from sending gibs, lobbying to prevent gibs.
End gibs and Africa would almost instantly become more prosperous within a decade tops as the warlords lose power and a lawyer's signiature stops costing $500 just to start a business. As they become more prosperous, their birth rates will rapidly decline. If you really have the money/want to speed up the process, give microloans and such to African businesses to help them skip over or shorten their industrialization phases. It's literally that easy, OP. Africa is a socialist shit hole.
No.69805
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
I really encourage people to watch Magatte Wade videos if they want to learn more about Africa. I've drank with her at an event before and she's great at explaining this shit in simple terms to people.
No.69806
>>69739
Kiva fucks over their borrowers with shit like 35% interest over the course of the loan, but is more trustworthy overall if not more hipster-oriented. Zidisha puts you face-to-face with your borrower and lets you establish more charitable loan rates (usually about 5%), and typically has a greater return-on-profits per loan (though a lower loan repayment rate depending on country), but requires larger investments if you want to get involved with it.
I recommend Kiva for first-time loaners since it's more user-friendly and you're still doing noticeable and traceable good for people in third world countries, and you're pretty much guaranteed to get your money back. Put aside like $25/month for Kiva and you'll make your money back plus maybe $20-$50/year. I recommend Zidisha for people who want actual transparency and to profit from their loans, but I'd also warn that if you aren't involved in the loaning or financial industries, you're gonna have a hard time getting used to the setup early on, and be papered to drop $50-$200 initially with a much larger return on investment down the line. Kiva is your bloodsucking Jew who's unintentionally doing good while Zidisha is your libertarian paradise microloan land that no one actually understands if they're not directly in the business of making microloans. In other words, the difference between owning bitcoin and managing your bitcoin wallet.
No.69807
>>69805
>first 3 minutes only hand waving and sassy black girl jokes
>muh poor african refugees drowning in the sea trying to get to europe
>all because they were poor
>it's your fault white man
Stopped watching right there
No.69809
Reading "Wealth, Poverty, and Politics". Sowell provides geographical limitations of central Africa, including high elevations and lack of navigable waterways, making land transportation expensive and naval transportation limited to the wet season and between cataracts.
No.69818
>>69804
The gibbing is what keeps Africa poor.
No.69825
>>69805
>when cheap imports are good when they take jobs from white people but not when it's white people who are exporting the stuff
No.69826
>>69818
you're right, we need to reduce their access to food and medicine to help them prosper
No.69882
>>69826
The UN dumped so much food aid on them for so long that they forgot farming methods which had been handed down by word of mouth for centuries.
No.69884
>>69882
Oh and another great example of socialism, dictators like Robert Mugabe withhold food aid from people who do not obey them. I forget which socialist dictator in Africa started the "hunger as a tool" trend, there has just been so many of them!
No.69919
>>69882
this clearly means we should cut all food aid and let people starve
No.69924
>>69919
Or we could allow the market to build the infrastructure that will feed them instead of interfering in it by supplying warlords with weapons and imposing tariffs/quotas on these countries' exports.
No.69926
>>69924
but guess what, those things didn't happen. you just cut off food aid and killed millions of people.
No.69930
No.69932
>>69818
It's the niggers and muslims that keep africa poor, anon. it's been a fertile, luscious and greatly productive side of the world as long as it's been under egyptian/greco-roman/european rule. Literally even the biodiversity of the fauna is going extinct in Africa due to the negro epidemic funded by western gibs.
>>69656
>birth control
Anon, in Africa the media/advertisement teach niggers that condoms will kill them.
Guess, (((who))) funds such endeavor?
Wanna compare with US advertisement?
No.69937
>>69919
Yes, actually. Your socialist food aid is a bandaid solution to the problem and creates even more Problems. What do you do with a band aid? You tear it off quickly. Cutting all food aid would cause things to first get way worse in Africa but it would quickly stabilize itself within a few generations. What do you want leftycuck? Sub-sahara to be sub-sahara indefinitely or for sub sahara to actually start to get better after a period of getting even worse? Your ideology did a lot of damage so capitalism will no doubt take a while to fix it, but it can be done once it finally fucking ends.
No.69940
>>69937
So you're opposed to bandaids?
I want unconditional famine relief alongside strategies to promote growth. Thinking that letting people starve is worth it to promote growth makes you worse than /leftypol/ tbh. And tbh there is not even any consensus that aid reduces growth. What are you a protectionist?
No.69943
>>69932
I doubt it was doing much better under colonialism. If you can provide evidence that say, the growth in GDP per capita was faster in Africa under colonial governments then I'll be interested
No.69944
>>69943
Pic is to show that demographics aren't destiny
No.69946
>>69945
>Let's divorce ourselves from the virtue signaling for a moment. Enough patronization and paternalism, let them be.
This is a baseless accusation. I would also starve living in Africa in a time of drought or civil war which reduced crop turnover. There is no condescension or paternalism whatsoever.
Aren't you essentially saying they're too dumb to be able to spend money effectively?
No.69947
I've got a lot of essays due. But the first study says aid has been ineffective because it hasn't stimulated growth.
But it's possible this is like saying welfare is ineffective because it doesn't cause people to get jobs as nuclear scientists. Doesn't aid mostly go to countries in times of economic crisis?
No.69950
With the democracy one, it seems to be saying there's a correlation between receiving aid and having your democracy fail. But it might be that less developed countries get less aid, and are also more likely to have revolutions, and there are lots of reasons apart from foreign aid.
The rent seeking problem could be real but if aid is administered by the UN for example then hopefully it won't be corrupt
No.69951
>>69946
>>69947
>>69950
I should mention, that list of sources is a very, very small sample. I can find a load more for you, if you want.
No.69953
>>69951
You could probably find evidence to the contrary as well.
No.69956
>>69953
Are you at least willing to take back the statement that there is NO body of research that aid reduces growth? Or at the very least be the type who says, "That wasn't what I meant when I said…"?
No.69957
>>69953
>evidence to the contrary
OK
List all the first world countries who got there because of aid and welfare
instead of trade, innovation, and business
No.69961
>>69932
>it's been a fertile, luscious and greatly productive
In the temperate zone, yes.
No.69982
>>69956
But as we both know, I never said that. I said there was:
>No consensus that aid reduces growth
The consensus I was aware of what was growth has no correlation with aid, and the studies you put forward seem to show this as well; they just view that as implying that aid must be a failure, whereas I do not.
>>69957
>List all the first world countries who got there because of aid and welfare
instead of trade, innovation, and business
See >>69940
There have certainly been occasions in first world countries pasts where aid *would have been useful*.
No.69983
Famines, plagues, wars and so on
No.70009
>>69940
Famine relief is different from aid. One addresses a temporary, emergency situation, while another follows a routine welfare package that breeds dependency.
No.70020
>>70009
This. Even Ayn Rand made a distinction between helping others during a crisis and helping them all the time. She supported the former, but not the latter.
No.70021
>>70020
>even X thinks Y
She "supported" it only as much as it is marginally more beneficial to keep them alive. If you deem they're worth it, of course. Don't attempt to set up a precedent for welfare under any form. There are no exceptions.
No.70022
>>69946
>Aren't you essentially saying they're too dumb to be able to spend money effectively?
Absolutely. And it's not the only reason they're doing poorly. It's a factor. Not sole reason.
No.70025
>>70021
>Don't attempt to set up a precedent for welfare under any form.
I didn't deem it necessary to mention that explicitly. There is no basis for welfare even if you accept a moral duty to help others in times of crisis, especially when that duty isn't enforcable. People that think otherwise will always find some sophistry with which to defend their soft socialist.
No.70141
>>70021
in poland when we were under occupation poles created voluntary social security and then some of participants got welfare
nothing bad in it
No.70142
>>70141
That would be either insurance, or charity. Not welfare, or at least I wouldn't call it welfare. That label belongs to the shit the state is doing.
No.70148
>>70141
That sounds like a very flimsy insurance. It's not welfare.
No.70176
No.70206
>>69806
Thanks for recommending Zidisha. Never knew about Kiva fucking over people with their interest rates.
No.70272
>>69656
They need a financial service sector in order to distribute invested capital efficiently. However, that will not be happening anytime soon with all the corruption going around. Isn't Ghana somewhat halfway decent?
No.71216
Belgian Congo shall commence again
No.71226
Start a sewing factory and make them work 11 hours per day and drug the free foods to keep the horiness level low.
No.71320
Financial investments leading to fewer niggers… I know it's counter-intuitive, but could you get the people of Africa to pay for more and better early child care? Childhood mortality seems to lead to increasing rather than decreasing populations.
No.71322
Probably investments that help industralization
then de-industralization.
I can only think of the west's progression from the 1880s to the 1980s as the map
No.71326
How about luxury bathtubs? Hygienic, hedonic, and subtle.
No.71403
>>71322
Would that mean cheap labor would get put on someone else as Africa goes through that or would robots do it or would the human race be so advanced by that point we wouldn't have to worry about it.
No.71444
GMOs. Not the cool GMOs, the gay ones that turn the frogs gay. Use that to solve the Africa food crises/population crisis simultaneously.
No.71445
>>71444
Even if that were real, I think African leadership is still at a level where they'd be so unreasonably suspicious and/or superstitious that they would accidentally block the gay-modified organisms.
No.71447
>>71403
Well, sort of. What I mean is investing in all the new plants and factories they're making, and also funding higher level education and condom campaigns
No.71459
>>71447
Ok I could see that working.
No.71929
>>71444
how will it solve population crisis?