Who is responsible for Third World poverty?

[nkgupta80]

Until you think about the USA, Canada, Australia et al as all being former colonies while numerous of the poorest of the poor nations have never been colonies. You can't hang colonialism on this one.

Those are colonies with colonists from the mother countries. If you remember correctly, we never subjugated the native peoples of these colonies, most of them died from disease, we killed them, or we drove them further westwards. The main populations of these colonies are from the cultures of the imperialist countries themselves. That is the difference.

Take India for example. It certainly had a huge population before too. However, it never had a hunger/poverty problem. Why? Its infrastructure was built accordingly to support the population. British come in. They don't wipe out the Indians and settle themselves, they subjugate the people, convert the infrastructure for their own needs and thus screwed the country over. This applies to africa as well.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Those are colonies with colonists from the mother countries. If you remember correctly, we never subjugated the native peoples of these colonies, most of them died from disease, we killed them, or we drove them further westwards. The main populations of these colonies are from the cultures of the imperialist countries themselves. That is the difference.

Take India for example. It certainly had a huge population before too. However, it never had a hunger/poverty problem. Why? Its infrastructure was built accordingly to support the population. British come in. They don't wipe out the Indians and settle themselves, they subjugate the people, convert the infrastructure for their own needs and thus screwed the country over. This applies to africa as well.

But then India threw off the yoke of British occupation, and for that part of their culture that has afforded some degree of human rights and provided opportunities for capitalism, the Indian people have prospered. There is still crushing poverty in India, though it is improving, but only among those people not afforded a degree of human rights.

Again, many of the poorest of the poor nations of Africa and elsewhere have never been colonies.

The one determining factor applicable to all is not necessarily the form of government, not colonialism, not available of natural resources, or any other external factors but rather the granting of human rights and opportunity for capitalism. Those countries who have done that have prospered whether or not they were ever colonies. Those countries who don't allow that do not prosper whether or not they were ever colonies.

 

[Old and wise]

The people that live in the third world are responsible for their poverty. If they got off the pot and did something about their situation, they would not be in the third world. Sure, economic help from other countries helps, but if the people themselves don't take the initiative to help themselves, then no amount of help from other countries will make a difference.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The people that live in the third world are responsible for their poverty. If they got off the pot and did something about their situation, they would not be in the third world. Sure, economic help from other countries helps, but if the people themselves don't take the initiative to help themselves, then no amount of help from other countries will make a difference.

More often than not, economic aid helps the poor not one whit. Economic aid is used to increase the holdings of corrupt governments or pay off their friends or enemies. It does not buy food, clothing, blankets, medicine, housing, education for the people. No nation should provide any aid whatsoever directly to these despotic nations unless the dictator de jour will allow humanitarian workers to go in and deliver the aid directly to the people. And such workers should be hired by the nation providing the aid.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

again the cause of international poverty and its continuation is ultimately bad governments with corporate backing. Bad governments can never last long if they're people are in civil unrest. Why? Because if people are in poverty, the government can't earn enough money, and the military can't be paid. Civil unrest can easily ensue followed by military coups, etc. Thus corporate money and investment is essential to keeping the military at bay. Corporations just want to get their profits. Not that thats a bad thing, but they don't care where their money goes as long as they get a share of resources/labor from the country they invest in. Thus bad governments tend to squander the money, people are left poor, corporations can ultimately take advantage of the situation and increase profits by decreasing wages, and the cycle goes on.

if you wanna look far back to what fked up the stable economies of these poor regions in the first place, colonialism is prob the biggest cause.

Bad governments yes, U.S. investment no, which corporations are you referring to, U.S. corps? Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that U.S. investment in foreign markets is a bad thing for either parties involved, tell that to the Japanese, Germans, and just about every prosperous nation on the face of the earth. Your anti capitalist rhetoric has gone the way of the dinosaurs pal, the free market is a proven theory and communism is a failed experiment, if anything more U.S. investment would help these countries, do you realize the ratio of U.S. money invested in 3rd world nations compared to money invested in 1st world nations, let's just say we don't invest very much into unstable countries? Furthermore; the reason for third world poverty is and has always been corrupt institutions, if these people weren't such f'n sheep, they would throw off the shackles of their oppressors and aim their anger where it belongs, instead of buying into their state owned media propaganda which deflects responsibility onto the U.S. in order to conceal their own corruption.

 

[TheBigC]

Geography is responsible for Third World poverty. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and you'll understand why.

In a nutshell, ancient people living in what we now call the Third World could not create portable "packages" (bundles of crops, livestock that eat those crops, and other self-sustaining synergies) that transported along north-to-south axes. The reason that the European and Mediterranean cultures eventually overtook the ancient civilizations is because they expanded primarily along climatorial "bands" East to West, where their successful "packages" could be transported and successfully replicated wherever they conquered.

With one person being able to make enough food for more than themselves, the merchant and artisan classes could emerge... they could spend time advancing thought, technology, and trade, so on and so on... it was a self-perpetuating machine. Eventually, the Third World was just left behind and fought over by the more successful societies.

It's nobody's fault, it is what it is.

 

[nkgupta80]

But then India threw off the yoke of British occupation, and for that part of their culture that has afforded some degree of human rights and provided opportunities for capitalism, the Indian people have prospered. There is still crushing poverty in India, though it is improving, but only among those people not afforded a degree of human rights.

exactly and that was only60 years ago. The indian people are prospering more now, but htere is still crushing poverty because of how badly the infrastructure had been damaged due to British occupation. If india hadn't been colonized, it would arguably have no problems in extreme poverty and maybe overpopulation. Secondly almost all of Africa was colonized by Europeans or damaged by the slave trade, and that has pretty much raped the continent. Combine that with resulting tribal warfare, corrupt governments, disease, and corporations, and you got a big mess overthere. Interestingly enough, the only colony doing decent in Africa is South Africa, and Europeans actually settled in that country.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Bad governments yes, U.S. investment no, which corporations are you referring to, U.S. corps? Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that U.S. investment in foreign markets is a bad thing for either parties involved, tell that to the Japanese, Germans, and just about every prosperous nation on the face of the earth. Your anti capitalist rhetoric has gone the way of the dinosaurs pal, the free market is a proven theory and communism is a failed experiment, if anything more U.S. investment would help these countries, do you realize the ratio of U.S. money invested in 3rd world nations compared to money invested in 1st world nations, let's just say we don't invest very much into unstable countries? Furthermore; the reason for third world poverty is and has always been corrupt institutions, if these people weren't such f'n sheep, they would throw off the shackles of their oppressors and aim their anger where it belongs, instead of buying into their state owned media propaganda which deflects responsibility onto the U.S. in order to conceal their own corruption.

Good answer.

The U.S. has very little invested in the Third World. The American trade names that you see throughout Latin America, for example, are, for the most part, franchises owned by nationals. Large corporations don't invest their money where governments are prone to nationalizations and contracts aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

exactly and that was only60 years ago. The indian people are prospering more now, but htere is still crushing poverty because of how badly the infrastructure had been damaged due to British occupation. If india hadn't been colonized, it would arguably have no problems in extreme poverty and maybe overpopulation. Secondly almost all of Africa was colonized by Europeans or damaged by the slave trade, and that has pretty much raped the continent. Combine that with resulting tribal warfare, corrupt governments, disease, and corporations, and you got a big mess overthere. Interestingly enough, the only colony doing decent in Africa is South Africa, and Europeans actually settled in that country.

What infrastructure was there in India before the British colonized and modernized it?

 

[nkgupta80]

What infrastructure was there in India before the British colonized and modernized it?

India's agriculture infrastructure was enough to support a growing population. Because of its exports, its resources, and its location, India was prob one of the most richest places in the world. Technologically it wasn't far behind Europe. The industrial revolution would, however, have had a hard time occuring in India because it wasn't nationalized. Thus Europe had an advantage in that sense. When Britain began to colonize india, they didn't necessarily colonize through technological superiority, the colonized through deceitful alliances and carefully planned bribes. They'd set one kingdom against each other and systematically took over the country.

Once colonized, yes they modernized it in that they build railroads, telegraph lines, and roads. But what use is this modernization when you take away the agricultural/manufacturing base used to support the people that actually use these modern things. They converted farms into opium and cotton farms, valuables were stolen, taxes were increased. Basically, Britain did as much as they could to reap the benefits of the large Indian labor force, while not caring enough about their welfare. By the time of Independence, India could no longer support its population which had grown a lot since colonization. This is the main reason of poverty in India.

Infrasctructure was converted in INdia in the interests of Britain. Thus India became almost a factory in a sense (much like all other colonies in africa).

 

[MiamiFlorida]

India's agriculture infrastructure was enough to support a growing population. Because of its exports, its resources, and its location, India was prob one of the most richest places in the world. Technologically it wasn't far behind Europe. The industrial revolution would, however, have had a hard time occuring in India because it wasn't nationalized. Thus Europe had an advantage in that sense. When Britain began to colonize india, they didn't necessarily colonize through technological superiority, the colonized through deceitful alliances and carefully planned bribes. They'd set one kingdom against each other and systematically took over the country.

Once colonized, yes they modernized it in that they build railroads, telegraph lines, and roads. But what use is this modernization when you take away the agricultural/manufacturing base used to support the people that actually use these modern things. They converted farms into opium and cotton farms, valuables were stolen, taxes were increased. Basically, Britain did as much as they could to reap the benefits of the large Indian labor force, while not caring enough about their welfare. By the time of Independence, India could no longer support its population which had grown a lot since colonization. This is the main reason of poverty in India.

Infrasctructure was converted in INdia in the interests of Britain. Thus India became almost a factory in a sense (much like all other colonies in africa).

Wasn't India fragmented into feudal fiefdoms and caste systems?

 

[nkgupta80]

caste system yes, feudal system no. Yes there were kingdoms, but they didn't run like a feudal system (too big to do so). Actually many historians argue that part of India's stability and prosperity came from the caste system. It allowed business men certain rights, royalty certain rights, and laborers certain rights, giving a well-defined order to the economy and society. The fractured kingdoms are what ultimately led to India's susceptability to colonization by Europeans.

 

[teacher]

Only if you take the position that we should use our economic and/or military might to force them into some form of democracy.

I don't....but we shouldn't continue to help them maintain their status quo either.

I do. With great power comes great responsability.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

caste system yes, feudal system no. Yes there were kingdoms, but they didn't run like a feudal system (too big to do so). Actually many historians argue that part of India's stability and prosperity came from the caste system. It allowed business men certain rights, royalty certain rights, and laborers certain rights, giving a well-defined order to the economy and society. The fractured kingdoms are what ultimately led to India's susceptability to colonization by Europeans.

I'm not sure the "untouchables" would agree with you.

 

[Elektra]

exactly and that was only60 years ago. The indian people are prospering more now, but htere is still crushing poverty because of how badly the infrastructure had been damaged due to British occupation. If india hadn't been colonized, it would arguably have no problems in extreme poverty and maybe overpopulation.

Absolutely right, let's just think of the well planned distruction of India's cotton industry.

 

[Elektra]

Don't know if anyone has said this yet but I'm going to say that the people responsible for third world poverty are (drum roll please) corrupt, tyrannical,third world governments.

I prefer to say that there are not the cause for poverty but the cause for the countries not getting out of it.

 

[Chris]

More often than not, economic aid helps the poor not one whit. Economic aid is used to increase the holdings of corrupt governments or pay off their friends or enemies. It does not buy food, clothing, blankets, medicine, housing, education for the people. No nation should provide any aid whatsoever directly to these despotic nations unless the dictator de jour will allow humanitarian workers to go in and deliver the aid directly to the people. And such workers should be hired by the nation providing the aid.

Well said. If all that Live Aid money had gone where it was supposed to why is Ethiopia still **** poor? It's not about how much money you give, it's how well it is used that makes a difference.

Some people feel that wealthy corporations exploit third world workers by paying them low wages. I agree that corporations do exploit many people in developing nations, but not through low wages. In fact these jobs improve and empower the lives of many people but giving them the chance to earn more money and learn more skills than local industries offer. No, people in third world countries are exploited by local dictators who are often unwittingly propped up by multi-nationals trying to expand into these markets.

 

[Chris]

Getting back to the main topic, what about Taiwan?

The reason I bring this up is because Taiwan is much more economically successful that most countries in the region and not far behind many 1st world countires. This despite sharing many traits common to impoverished nations including....

- being a former colony (Japanese cultural domination and exploitation for many years)
- ethnic tensions (between various Chinese groups and original Malayo-Polynesian inhabitants)
- non-democratic history (only genuinely democratic since the 1990's)
- precarious political status (threat of invasion from mainland China still concern)
- non-recognition by many world governments (including US)
- martial law up until the late 1980's
- limited natural resources

How can it's success be explained given all the blows against it? It suggests that as long as citizens are given that vital bit of economic freedom to persue private enterprise, things like national unity, independence, and even democracy are not essential elements to prosperity.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Getting back to the main topic, what about Taiwan?

The reason I bring this up is because Taiwan is much more economically successful that most countries in the region and not far behind many 1st world countires. This despite sharing many traits common to impoverished nations including....

- being a former colony (Japanese cultural domination and exploitation for many years)
- ethnic tensions (between various Chinese groups and original Malayo-Polynesian inhabitants)
- non-democratic history (only genuinely democratic since the 1990's)
- precarious political status (threat of invasion from mainland China still concern)
- non-recognition by many world governments (including US)
- martial law up until the late 1980's
- limited natural resources

How can it's success be explained given all the blows against it? It suggests that as long as citizens are given that vital bit of economic freedom to persue private enterprise, things like national unity, independence, and even democracy are not essential elements to prosperity.

Precisely. The one common denominator shared by all prosperous nations is that the individual citizen is allowed a degree of capitalistic activity for his/her own benefit. Once that happens, the GNP and individual wealth begin to rise significantly. The results of that, not necessarily the cause of that, is a more democratic form of government and improved civil rights.

Exporting democracy, however limited, is thus in the best interest of any nation that already enjoys a measure of free trade.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Getting back to the main topic, what about Taiwan?

The reason I bring this up is because Taiwan is much more economically successful that most countries in the region and not far behind many 1st world countires. This despite sharing many traits common to impoverished nations including....

- being a former colony (Japanese cultural domination and exploitation for many years)
- ethnic tensions (between various Chinese groups and original Malayo-Polynesian inhabitants)
- non-democratic history (only genuinely democratic since the 1990's)
- precarious political status (threat of invasion from mainland China still concern)
- non-recognition by many world governments (including US)
- martial law up until the late 1980's
- limited natural resources

How can it's success be explained given all the blows against it? It suggests that as long as citizens are given that vital bit of economic freedom to persue private enterprise, things like national unity, independence, and even democracy are not essential elements to prosperity.

and that's the rub, freedom is the key, however wealthy the gov't of China becomes the people will never be able to obtain the same standard of living found in democratic nations, just ask yourself one question, why do people living in countries with vast natural resources still live in poverty? Answer, because their leaders are tyrannical elitest scumbags seeking to exploit the average man for their own personal gains, with out freedom there can be no true prosperity. I've never heard wealth or death but I have heard liberty or death, screw money I'd rather have freedom!