Because you predicted what you thought would be my answer, you will miss my actual answer, which was thoughtful and objective.

It was about how corporations would be foolish to take what they consider untenable risks with their stockholders money, and suggest that selling goods for cash to African countries is a more profitable way to deal with them.

But you're going to miss that now because I have no intention of posting it.

During the recent G8 summit, much of the African focus was on aid; however, there was also a focus on development. This had been started in 2004, during a previous G8 summit. That was when Tony Blair introduced his Commission for Africa (CfA,) in order to define the international communities' role in developing African infrastructure through public-private projects. This means that the G8 would give Africa investment monies (private) and would also take African monies (public) to create that infrastructure.

Multi-national corporations did 'jump on the bandwagon,'--and started holding their own conferences and summits. Tony Blair's apparent idealistic goal was to create a trade unity within the continent similar to the EU, which would benefit both Africa and the world. The goal of the corporations, however, was much different.

The 'bandwagon' corporations were the same multi-national corporations that have already been raping Africa of its mineral wealth for decades and leaving its people in poverty. They are the most rapacious of the corporations--and, quite frankly, Africa doesn't want them. I say, "Good on you, Africa!"

Sweetpea,--excuse me--may I call you 'Sweetpea?'--if you believe that investing in an American corporation keeps your money safe and here, in the US, I suggest you may have been taken in by the claims made by that corporation. If you really look at it, what you've done is paid for the right of the Corporation to do as it will with your money.

All over the World there are corporation behind any significant politician. Corporations spend money on his PR. In his turn such politician provide political line , which they want (at state expense).
if political line isn't succesful, corporations don't invest their money.

Elena on this certain point I do agree with you,that Corporations do invest in Countries and certain officials within governments all around the world ( It happens here in the U.S. they're called lobbyists),

even in Africa, probably more so in Africa because it's the Corporations that bribe their way itno these countries with the help of the corrupt dictators they support.

If a really large, obscenely wealthy and vastly powerful corporation wanted to invest in a given African country, they would have a wonderful opportunity to do good, by paying the country's corrupt leader enough to guarantee he won't make things worse for his people and will in fact try to improve their lot.

Companies could do this, by simple bribery, with a threat to withdraw their money if these goals weren't accomplished.

Corporations won't do that of course, because it would cost them an extra nickel, but it's possible. Since corporations own most governments as it is, their benevolent dictatorship might actually do some good for the people of Africa. (and I can hear them laughing in the boardrooms as I type.)

THat is actually an interesting approach, DAx.

We could save enormous sums on foreign aid, both military and economic. Instead of providing such aid directly, we could instead bribe leaders in the 3rd World to set the conditions for the improvement of their own ountries. We could offer our own corporations various tax breaks, either directly in the US or indirectly in the 3rd World countries invovled, to not only provide for economic development but also provide "charitable" social programs.

I would have to see a more detailed cost-benefit analysis before I fully endorsed it but at first glance it looks promising...I just wonder how long it would be before the dictators demanded more and then more and then even more...

Well Law, it was merely a first thought and I haven't worked out the actual economics of it, but if dictators start getting dictatorial, the money-company has the cards. It can always pull up stakes and leave, or deal with their adversary in any number of ways which would probably not be legal here in the U.S.

Of course, given the military power held by most African dictators, they might just nationalize the company. But all the American expertise would be gone, so it would just drop into its own sinkhole.