The UAE is laundering dirty gold, cleaning it, and reselling it to China and India. Western buyers tend to stay away from UAE gold because Emirati refineries aren't accredited, but the Chinese and Indian don't care as much. This is good business for the UAE as they become the hub for gold laundering, and can make a hefty profit getting gold at a discount and reselling it at spot prices.
This is really at the expense of Switzerland, which is currently the world center for gold refining. They import raw materials, refine and purify it, and export the finished products to industry, jewelers, and investors. If you've ever bought a gold bullion bar (whether 1oz or 1kg), you'll usually notice it's in an assay and branded either "Valcambi" or "PAMP," both of which are large Swiss gold refiners.
>Should we be clear that Africans are fucking over Africans and that it is not some external oppressing force that is to blame. Also yes.
I understand your frustration. I have a (white) South African friend that feels the same, and when he says that to people, most of the time the first answer is "it's due to what the white men did". This of course enforces even more the idea that someone else is to blame...
Many unstable countries can directly tie their current tribal problems (a major source of war and strife in Africa) back to colonial policies. It's not an excuse, but it is definitely partially to blame.
Let's take the DRC since the article is about them. When King Leopold claimed the Congo Free State, he introduced a regime where atrocities were common-place. It was infamous even by colonial standards. When it became the Belgian Congo (1908), the worst crimes stopped, but racism/segregation and forced labor were still commonplace. After independence (1960), they elected president Lumumba. Looking for international help to stabilize the new country, Lumumba was turned away by the US, but got an agreement from the USSR to provide aid. Upon hearing this, the US set up an embargo to prevent Congo from receiving any of the arms and then supported a coup by Mobuto which led to Lumumba's murder. Mobuto, supported by the anti-USSR powers, made himself fabulously rich and ran the economy and government of the DRC (one of the most resource rich countries on earth) into the gutter. In 1997 Kabila's rebellion pushed out Mobuto and there has been war and rebellions for the better part of the past 22 years. Given its rich resources and poor government control, other nearby African nations have encouraged the conflict so that they are able to profit from the resources (most notably minerals into Uganda and Rwanda). The DRC never even had a chance to establish a good government
Everyone is responsible for their actions and history isn't an excuse, but it's pretty easy to see how a history of resource exploitation and human rights abuse encouraged by western powers has led directly to a country full of resource exploitation and human rights abuse. African colonies are not ancient history.
Colonalists and anti-colonalists share the same fundamental attribution bias of thinking everything Good or everything Bad is due to colonization.
First, the Arabs took more slaves out of Africa than the Europeans. If the Africa is in a rough spot today because of slavery, we're obligated to find more fault with the Arabs than the Europeans. Additionally, the Arabs took slaves themselves, Europeans simply purchased slaves from African slave catchers so factor that into your culpability calculation.
Secondly, status as a colony seems non-probative for whether a country is currently a shit hole. The USA was itself a colony, as were Ireland, Singapore, and Hong Kong yet those places flourished. Why is that?
I'm not sure whether you are aware that you changed the argument. Op was describing the effect of colonialisation on DRC. S/He wasn't discussing the impact of slavery.
There were also different kinds of colonies and different ways of looking at things. Sure the US turned out fine. Other countries in the region less so. But also it's the US if today that's doing fine and you seem to overlook the rather great effect colonialisation in North America had on the natives there. They were all but wiped out and certainly, overall, are not in a great spot today.
It's easy to find many different things today. The direct and still clearly visible effects of colonisation are without doubt one of the many factors that kept much of Africa in the suffering state that we still see today. There is no denying this fact and no matter how many other reasons you find, colonialism is still one of the most significant reasons for the African misery, as it set in motion many horrible things.
Valcambi was acquired by Indian company Rajesh exports sometime back.
"Rajesh Exports has, through its fully-owned subsidiary in Singapore, fully acquired European Gold Refineries, the 100 per cent holding company of Valcambi, in an all-cash deal of $400 million (around Rs.2,560 crore)."
Do Western buyers even buy gold like indians do? Most of Indian buys 22k jewelry. In India, no one knows about accridated. Indians love UAE gold. Lot of indians from USA fly through Emirates just to buy gold from UAE. Indians thinks that UAE gold is more pure than what they can get in USA or India.
"Indians thinks that UAE gold is more pure than what they can get in USA or India."
Gold is cheaper in UAE than in India. That's why there are smuggler rings that give people(migrant workers) free tickets in exchange for carrying gold(that is within legally permissible limit), as human mule[0]. In some instances, they dupe migrant workers into carrying them[1].
Since about 2-3 decades, apart from use in jewellery, gold has been at best an 'alternative asset class' here. Unless of course one needs to hide cash income from the tax man.
Actually not. It is a huge matter of "pride" in South Indian weddings when the bride wears a lot of gold, my interpretation is that this is just one way to carry on with the traditions of dowry. Fake jewelry for the purposes of marriage is not as common in South India as it is in other parts of the country.
Is the jewellery borrowed or rented for the wedding or is it purchased and kept? That looks like a quite substantial amount of gold, like tens of thousands of USD worth. If she/they own that, I would kind of classify her/them as rich.
It’s worth seeing this type of Indian gold jewelry up close. The craftsman are incredible skilled at taking relatively small amounts of gold and making them look bigger, through hollow portions, relief patterns on very thin plate, and similar.
Go check out an actual market for this type of gold some time, it’s eye opening.
With that said it’s still a lot of gold in that photo, to be fair.
Gold jewelry is a big deal is South India. I know of a maid making $4-500 a month in Singapore. When she went back to visit after 2 years took $8000 worth of gold to give as gift to her family members. In other words 85%-90% of her total earnings over 2 years.
Average South Asian wedding in California is $100-150k I read somewhere, so I wouldn't doubt it being real when weddings are generally paid for by the bride and groom's families.
But for mainly cultural reasons Indians still invest huge amounts in Gold, and the opportunity cost is significant.
Here is the ratio of gold price to Dow Jones index for last 100 years [0]. Let's say that every 5 years starting in 1915 you had a choice of investing in gold or US stocks for 50 years. Here's the relative outcome for each of your investments for each period:
From Date Dow/Gold To Date Dow/Gold Ratio
Feb 1915: 2.86 Jan 1965: 25.57 8.94
Feb 1920: 4.42 Feb 1970: 21.27 4.81
Jan 1925: 5.95 Jan 1975: 3.99 0.67
Feb 1930: 13.10 Feb 1980: 1.30 0.10
Jan 1935: 2.91 Feb 1985: 4.30 1.48
Jan 1940: 4.27 Jan 1990: 6.31 1.48
Feb 1945: 4.58 Feb 1995: 10.65 2.33
Jan 1950: 5.77 Feb 2000: 33.78 5.85
Feb 1955: 11.66 Jan 2005: 24.74 2.12
Feb 1960: 17.85 Feb 2010: 9.32 0.52
Jan 1965: 25.57 Jan 2015: 13.62 0.53
Apr 1969: 22.69 Mar 2019: 20.08 0.88
Now (8.94 * 4.81 * 0.67 * ... ) ^ (1/12) = 1.37
So using the past as a guide, for any given 50-year period you could reasonably expect that US stock prices will on average outperform gold by around 37%. But stocks also pay dividends. Let's say the after-tax dividend payment is 1.5% per year - that's a multiple of 2.1 in 50 years. So total return on stocks will outperform gold by a factor of 2.88 over those 50 years. (And that's without the risk of having gold stolen from under your mattress).
This is a problem of poor infrastructure and corruption. Many of these resource-rich countries are politically unstable and lack the infrastructure to attract legitimate foreign investment. The regulatory framework is also broken, making it nearly impossible for new entrants to legally participate in the industry.
A dysfunctional legal market leads black markets to flourish, as miners need some way to sell their goods, and traders want to profit exporting the gold to foreign countries. This leads to extralegal organizations, like criminal syndicates and mafias, forming to protect illegal producers and connect them to external markets.
And so, to fix this, African countries need to not only crack down on illegal exports but also make it easier for legal entities to enter the industry. The government needs to provide a safe business environment for legal producers. That will cause illegal producers to naturally decline, as efficient legal production will lower costs.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Structural reform of corrupt kleptocracies is incredibly difficult. But without top-down reform, restricting illegal exports will accomplish very little beyond worsening poverty.
This reads as a 'ahistorical' interpretation of events. Is is possible to engage in informed discussion without context?
How many centuries did it take for the transition from feudalism in Europe yet there is this kind of 'magical thinking' when it comes to Africa emerging from centuries of rapacious colonialism and are often independent states for just 50 years to somehow be the mirror image of western states rightaway. How does this work? Without explaining this no discussion on Africa can be serious and sincere.
And ignorance of the incentives for corruption and the history of plunder in these regions by supporting 'strongmen' and opposing forces of empowerment that continues unabated. And this can be easily confirmed by historical record. How come people like Lula and Chavez are demonized with very little to no dissent in the west and their governments destabilized openly when its them who empowered large number of their populations with social policies rather than just supporting a funnel of extraction by western capitalism. How do institutions and democracy emerge in this environment?
Perhaps its best not to have these discussion where simplistic 'explanations' perpetuate a culture of misinformation and prejudice and where the depth to understand the forces at work and historical events is completely absent.
>This is a problem of poor infrastructure and corruption. Many of these resource-rich countries are politically unstable and lack the infrastructure to attract legitimate foreign investment. The regulatory framework is also broken, making it nearly impossible for new entrants to legally participate in the industry.
I often see this sentiment about African nations but I almost never see thought beyond this into the root causes. If the speaker is being charitable to the subject, it's simply accepted as the way things are. If they aren't, it veers into a justification of Western superiority or African inferiority (two sides of the same coin).
This is the type of comment I was talking about, putting the blame on fate. The United States has lots of natural resources, as does China, and many other developed and industrialized nations. These nations got developed and industrialized by exploiting the resources of poorer nations, colonizing them, ruining the existing local governments and economies in order to optimize them for resource extraction, and then leaving abruptly in the middle of the 20th century.
The percentage of US and China’s GDP based on concentrated natural resources is rather low. Historically the US’s eastern coal resources where hard to export but boosted local industries. Kind of the opposite example.
Oh, honey, no, Appalachia absolutely suffers from the resource curse as well, to the point you often see scholars describe the region as an "internal colony." Big Coal came in, forced people off their land, extracted all the wealth, sure as hell didn't pay its fair share of taxes on it, bought the local governments all the way down to school boards and sherrifs to squash any opposition, and then left behind nothing in its wake except horrific environmental atrocities and poverty on par with inner city black neighborhoods, Native reservations, and the rural Deep South black belt. The negative stereotypes of Appalachians still perpetuated to this day were largely invented by industry to justify their exploitation and disenfranchisement. Negative stereotypes about blacks couldn't apply to a mainly white region so they just became "white trash" instead. The explosive growth of the American economy in the 20th century was fueled by the blood of over 100,000 coal miners who never saw a dime of that sweet sweet American dream money. And this shit is still going on to this day.
The poorest state in the US is Mississippi. That is the legacy of slavery. The second poorest state is West Virginia, which ironically shares a border with Maryland, the richest in the country. That's not an accident nor a testament to the allegedly poor character of Appalachians as a distinct cultural group separate from the rest of America. That was completely by design, because you can more easily manipulate a group of people if you force them to fight for scraps. That is the legacy of extractive industry in Appalachia. And so the cycle of rural poverty continues. Don't let them fool you with the "Trump Country" narrative or "Hillbilly Elegy".
West Virginia is worse off than most of the US. But, it’s not on it’s own the way a country would be.
So, it’s doing well compared to most of the world. The median household income is still $43,469 which is better than say Japan at least in nominal terms.
Basically, if the foundations for a nations weath is agriculture or industry it needs widespread infrastructure. However, for centralized resources like oil, very little infrastructure is required and improving the national standard of living is both expensive and dangerous for the ruling party.
PS: South America faces many of the same issues with corruption and political instability.
Even today infrastructure can be dirt roads and people extracting gold etc via hand tools.
You can find examples of the resource curse going back to the spice trade. It’s an issue of trade more than anything else. After all, a tiny kingdom only has so much use for copper or whatnot on it’s own.
What Africa needs are institutions and infrastructure that can buy and refine gold and thereby ensure that the benefits of our resources accrue to the countries (and their people) from where they originate. The pirate miners are not necessarily the source of the problem, neither are the traders in UAE and China. All are just filling a vacuum. Similarly the traditional institutions in Switzerland and other western countries that control precious metal markets are also somewhat part of the problem. To the extent that political elites in Africa benefit from the exploitation of resources, establishing local institutions and infrastructure is narrowly seen as not in their interests. African people and global institutions who truly care about a peaceful, prosperous and free world need to commit investment and political focus to see this happen.
> What Africa needs are institutions and infrastructure that can buy and refine gold and thereby ensure that the benefits of our resources accrue to the countries (and their people) from where they originate.
As an African - what Africa needs is for Africans to stop supporting despots.
That’s not a uniquely African problem, although one could argue it’s on the more extreme end of the spectrum.
Really thinking about it, it’s a need for people to work for the common good. “Rather than voting in the guy who will give me money, I’ll vote in the guy who will make sure everyone has clean water.”
I assume the reason that doesn’t happen is because they tried the 2nd option and it failed.
They do have - they are called western mining companies. I invest in many of them and they are doing great things for these very poor countries.
It is a pity more people don't invest in these companies as they tend to be priced at a significant discount to mining companies working in western countries. This is especially acute at the exploration/development stage which makes it hard for them to raise the money to develop new mines.
What exactly are some of the great things Western mining companies are doing for poor countries? The only thing that I'm aware of which might be construed as positive is that through exfiltrating resources from the country and channeling the profits of this venture into the pockets of Western shareholders, they lift the country of its resource curse, by lifting it of its resources. However, this is neither ethically nor, in the short and medium term, practically, actually a good thing. And besides that, there just isn't much: mining ventures do not require much infrastructure, which will therefore not see much improvement from those investments, and the wages paid to local workers are laughable compared to the revenue mining generates, to the point where getting that revenue into the pockets of local warlord kleptocrats might actually be better, because if nothing else, at least their lavish lifestyle drives demand and powers the local economy.
Or is there a different force at play that I'm not seeing?
I think you have a misinformed understanding about the current legal and ethical standards that public western mining companies operate under in Africa. They pay a huge amount of taxes and royalities and many have the host government as a major shareholder (10-15%). It is not western mining companies that are smuggling gold out to the UAE.
Serious mines need an amazing amount of infrustructure and capital - hundreds of millions dollars is typical and often much more. A typical mine employs thousand of locals in what are middle class or better paying jobs - the western run mines are all mechanised - you don't pay $5 day to some local and put them in charge of a $200,000 truck.
Yes the host governments often waste or steal the money, but even with this a huge amount of good is still done. It is the areas of Africa that are not being "exploited" by the West that are the poorest.
The local companies and companies from countries outside the West are still a problem. We should be supporting the good companies and driving out the bad. Unfortunately few investors are willing to do this.
What you describe is some sort of lesser evil - I still fail to see the massive positive force. Modus operandi for centuries has been to exploit the hell out of any country, be it Africa, Indonesia or South America and give nothing and take everything.
Only if government is not utterly corrupt and doesn't pocket nearly 100% of income from the mine can there be some lasting benefits for the country. Its just a continuation of theft and exploitation that made Europe so rich for last few hundreds of years, albeit with 21st century 'we care' face. Travel a bit in countries that were raped like this, ie Potosi in Bolivia to get full picture of where this sort of business came from.
So while few pocket some average income while the mine lasts, country is stripped blank of its most precious resources... and that is supposed to be something positive? I have somewhat higher moral standards than this to consider these kind of operations at least slightly moral and justifiable.
Every decision in the real world is a choice of the lesser evil. Investing in companies that are doing the right thing is the way to make a difference to world.
Instead of pulling down those companies that are making an actually real difference to the people in Africa, what is your solution?
The ones I am invested in are all Australian listed (some have a dual listing in Canada). The Australian and Canadian markets (also AIM in London) are where most of the companies are listed.
Take a look at the following gold companies that I really like. Gold is easier to deal with the poor logistics of Africa than the base metals which require shipping large volumes of ore.
My current favourites are Galina (ASX:G1A) which is a lead/silver developer and Aeris Resources (ASX:AIS) a copper producer, but which is currently drilling a very large IOCG deposit in South Australia.
If you are interested in learning about Australian mining companies then take a look at Hot Copper. Watch out as like most stock internet message boards there is a lot of ramping, but there is also a huge amount of useful information there too. Just make sure to check everything you read yourself.
I recall a story about someone trying to move a fair amount of money. They had a bunch of tools such as a well-equipped motorist would carry (wrench sets, screwdrivers and such) forged out of platinum. They smeared a bit of grease on them here and there to give them that used look, and then just drove across the border with them.
Once upon a time, platinum was worth more than gold, but in the last decade, they've reversed[1]. I suspect it would take more work conceal solid gold wrenches...
Exactly, like the fake armor plating of your car. After you cross the border you can safely recast the white gold into aircraft seats and fly them to India.
Aren’t kaju burfis normally covered in silver? I’m sure a gold one would stand out (plus, I’m sure the sweet probably costs more than the gold you’d be putting on it, and you can’t recover that).
Only if you overeat, or try to consume too large of a gold nugget that it creates an obstruction. Pure gold is very soft and won't chemically react with the body.
While not as shiny and minimalist - you could buy Krugerrands from the South African mint[1]. They are essentially gold coins and some of the designs are aesthetically pleasing - they have yearly redesigns as well as special commemoration editions in different weights/size (and cost).
My interpretation: Gold jewelry is used as a store of value by many traditional communities in the middle east and also in Pakistan and in India. Go visit Rawalpindi and go to the "old downtown" area and look at how many jewelry stores there are. Literally hundreds. People don't trust banks, don't trust investment products which exist as intangible things in a computer record somewhere. People trust big ridiculous jewelry you can wear during your wedding.
The jewelry dealers in Pakistan who buy gold from the UAE most likely don't care about its origin, whether it's ethically sourced gold, etc. They care about its purity and cost.
I've been to these places and seen the hand fabrication of the jewelry in person. It's a pretty big part of the economy in Pakistan.
In the US, buying jewelry and selling it back is a substantial guaranteed loss. Are the economics of the retail jewelry trade different there, or are the alternatives just so bad that it’s still compelling?
The biggest advantage of the West has been in the creation of Institutions that create and moderate financial instruments that are not deadweight like commodities. The Stock Market, index funds etc. are all considered “valid” places to put your financial resources in. These instruments invest in real companies and organizations instead of lying around in a bank.
Unless other countries figure out how to do finance better they won’t be able to create the same dynamism that Western capital markets have.
I don't agree, at least in the case of India, there have been other places to put your money for a long time. However all of those require funds that have known sources and on which taxes have been paid. There is a huge amount of funds in India in the "parallel economy" which can not be invested in these funds, the only options are to hold as cash or invest in real property (land/gold). Historically gold has been a good investment in India. See https://www.apnaplan.com/gold-price-in-india-40-years-histor...
Also worth noting that a financial instrument like an index fund is not something easy to understand for a very large, rural, not highly educated population. It's a fact that there are large Indian states where the literacy rate is between 60-70% vs 98%+ in countries where intangible investment products are popular.
Gold is something you can see and hold. In countries with 10%+ inflation rates, an investment that returns 4-8% is also different than, for example, a mutual fund in the US that returns 6-8% which is significantly over the US/Canadian inflation rate.
Trust is also not freely available in developing or poorer countries, so being able to see and hold something is more important. In the US, the incidence of theft* is so low that you can trust your electronic accounts won't be emptied, and if they are, you have a court/regulatory system that will make you whole. This is an important asset for developed countries to have as it greatly reduces transaction costs, whereas in developing countries, people have to deal with worrying about what happens if they get on the wrong side of someone who has influence.
*Ignoring the constant devaluation of money to prop up asset prices.
> or are the alternatives just so bad that it’s still compelling?
In India there better alternatives but lot people specially older folks stay away from stock markets since there have been big stock market scandals in the past so most just use savings bank account or few govt investment schemes and use gold as an alternative investment which you can sell easily if you have any financial problems later or you can just give it as gift to your daughter/daughter in la w during marriage.
This is the case for fine jewelry and e.g. diamonds, however, simple heavy gold jewelry (e.g. rings, chains) are generally sold at a minor (10%?) markup over the cost of the metal and would be generally included in the retailer's markup - i.e. buying a 100 gram bar of gold would cost about the same as buying 100 grams of assorted gold jewelry. Fine pieces of art certainly can cost much more, but the local jewelry stores aren't really selling that, they're selling pieces for which almost all of the value is in the material, requiring only limited amounts of inexpensive jeweler's labor. So there's some overhead, but in general it does retain the resale value quite well.
It’s more important than that: jewelry in Islam once given to a wife cannot br taken sway. i.e It become’s her property. Many women in the middle east carry their primary store of value on their body as gold for this reason. That is why gold is so popular, historically speaking.
the estimated muslim population of india is 172 million, not far off the entire population of pakistan (estimated 195 million). Using gold as a store of value is also popular with Hindu communities.
But that doesn't disprove the parent comment at all. Economic exploitation of regions always has local parties that assist in the process. It's not like those parties represent the interests or desires of most Africans in their actions.
How else would you have it though? We can’t force democracy on these nations. Apparently they can’t create functioning legal institutions. There just doesn’t seem to be a way to accurately represent the will of the people without also being actively involved in the geopolitics of the region.
I never claimed to have a solution to that problem.
I was just pointing out the flaw in the idea that just because some native Africans participated in the foreign colonial exploitation of Africa, it somehow lessens the degree of culpability for the exploitation itself.
Fine. As long as you also agree that the people on the non-African side of the transaction do not incur some kind of collective guilt for non-Africans or The West or whatever. Because that’s very much what the OP was getting at.
Maybe I am misusing the definitions of individual versus collective.
I’m not saying arbitrary United States citizens should be criminally punished for indirectly benefiting from the geopolitical arrangement they were born into. Besides the average resident has very little control over these matters, despite nominally living in a democracy.
On the other hand, from an ethical perspective we can’t turn a blind eye to injustice. For example I do feel personally uneasy about the fact that I’m writing this comment on a phone containing coltan and gold that drives the demand for these minerals and funds corruption and conflict in Africa.
You can't post this aggressively to HN, regardless of how right you are or how wrong another commenter is. I've banned this account. Please don't make accounts to break the site guidelines, or we will ban your main account as well.
I personally think you have a good point. But if you can't make it in a kind spirit, a spirit of teaching others—if not the other commenter, then certainly your fellow community members—please refrain from posting until you can. Yes, atrocities have happened. And the online raging-shaming-attacking style is something we're trying not to fall into here.
I’m an American. As far as I’m aware, America never had a colony in Africa. And, even if it did, it doesn’t now. And even if it did have one now, why should I, personally, be held responsible for actions that my government takes which I disagree with and vote against (to the extant that I can)?
Had being the correct word. History is history. It has to be evaluated and we should learn from it. Attributing all the bad things happening in Africa today to the West is not part of that. Freedom means responsibility.
The alternative to what happened in Libya was what happened in Syria basically, and it went much much worse. So all in all I wouldn't blame the Libyan situation on the intervention.
Gadaffi should have just gone by itself like they did in Egypt and Tunisia. His choice to remain, just like Syria, sentenced his country and the population.
> UAE imported $15.1 billion worth of gold from Africa in 2016, more than any other country and up from $1.3 billion in 2006. The total weight was 446 tonnes, in varying degrees of purity – up from 67 tonnes in 2006.
Sounds like UAE is increasingly hedging the dollar with gold.
The UAE is laundering dirty gold, cleaning it, and reselling it to China and India. Western buyers tend to stay away from UAE gold because Emirati refineries aren't accredited, but the Chinese and Indian don't care as much. This is good business for the UAE as they become the hub for gold laundering, and can make a hefty profit getting gold at a discount and reselling it at spot prices.
This is really at the expense of Switzerland, which is currently the world center for gold refining. They import raw materials, refine and purify it, and export the finished products to industry, jewelers, and investors. If you've ever bought a gold bullion bar (whether 1oz or 1kg), you'll usually notice it's in an assay and branded either "Valcambi" or "PAMP," both of which are large Swiss gold refiners.
reply