- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What do you think are the main reasons that poor countries are poor?
Your other reasons are better - look at Japan - almost no natural resources. Look at the africans - rolling in natural resources.Lack of natural resources - That could hurt.
You've convinced me. Seriously, your arguments are very sound. Even looking to this country...we are overtaxed (no matter what tax bracket you're in), underpaid (speaking primarily of the working class/laborers), and heavily burdened with government regulations (pick a business; any business; and see if the regulations don't intimidate you from taking a chance)...it's extremely difficult to create new wealth.Scarecrow Akhbar said:I said "Lack of economic freedom" because wealth cannot be created when people are not certain that what they make they'll be able to keep.
That's no longer the case FYI. In the past decade, India has made significant reforms to its fiscal policies to allow for more free trade and capitalism. Predictably, their economy has boomed almost in lockstep with these reforms.aquapub said:India has abundant resources and a population density equivalent to New Jersey. Their economy is stagnate. They are one of the most regulated (i.e. Socialist) countries in the world.
Government corruption.Look at Mexico.Their government is obviously currupt.Kandahar said:What do you think are the main reasons that poor countries are poor?
Agreed. At least when the colonial powers were occupying African nations, they were large and in charge. While they might have been just as kleptocratic as the present rulers, they could reasonably expect to be in charge long enough to make more money by helping the African economies, instead of stealing everything today. Many African countries today are so unstable that the rulers think they may as well steal everything now and let their successors worry about fixing the roads or schools.JOHNYJ said:The Truth is often unpopular. Other than Belgian or Portugese colonies in africa.Many African countries were better off as,colonies. No one harms an African better than another African. Nigeria,Rwanda,,Darfur,Belgian Congo,Liberia, the list goes on.Africans slaughtering other Africans. Only now hey have only each other to blame !
It seems to me that the countries that allow themselves to be "exploited" the most are the quickest to grow out of poverty, while those that resist the most are little better off several decades later.Che said:The reason counries are poor are a really a collaboration in between lack of infastructure, government corruption, exploitation by wealthier nations, and lack of education. When a nation has no infastructure, there is no healthcare, economy, welfare or etc.. people are left to fend for themselves in a collapsing nation. If there is corruption, money doesn't reach the people and their daily nessecities. If there is a lack of education, no good jobs will come in from abroad. But also all small nations are exploited by larger nations. It's just human nature to conquer the weak.
Economic Freedom, when people are free to act in thier own self-interest and keep the rewards of their efforts ALL freedoms are possible, without economic freedom there are NO freedoms.aquapub said:I think Kandahar, Scarecrow and I are all pretty much on the same page on this one. Whatever impunes competition/capitalism, whether it be economic oppression, monopolies, or political corruption, it is the lack of economic freedom that ultimately seals the fate of the countries in question.
I heard that argument before and its bullshit.It seems to me that the countries that allow themselves to be "exploited" the most are the quickest to grow out of poverty, while those that resist the most are little better off several decades later.
I was responding more to the kind of "exploitation" I assume the previous poster was referring to when he said that all countries exploit others. Namely, investing in the country and providing its citizens with jobs, which some people consider exploitation for some crazy reason.FinnMacCool said:I heard that argument before and its bullshit.
Ireland was always poor but it was poorer when the Brits took every single crop they made and sent it back to England while starving the Irish at the sametime.
It's not like the Irish benefited anyways. They "benefited" once they were replaced.
A slight issue with the exploitation claim. I have no doubt that free trade might be better for bigger countries. Raw goods have a much lower value than processed goods. However, the poorer country trades voluntarily. Nobody forces them to trade. Even if they only get 10% of the benefit, that is 10% more than what they would get if they weren't trading.Che said:The reason counries are poor are a really a collaboration in between lack of infastructure, government corruption, exploitation by wealthier nations, and lack of education. When a nation has no infastructure, there is no healthcare, economy, welfare or etc.. people are left to fend for themselves in a collapsing nation. If there is corruption, money doesn't reach the people and their daily nessecities. If there is a lack of education, no good jobs will come in from abroad. But also all small nations are exploited by larger nations. It's just human nature to conquer the weak.
And when people, not countries, are free to operate in their own self interest and profit from their efforts and reinvest those profits soon the processing facility are built on site.Kelzie said:A slight issue with the exploitation claim. I have no doubt that free trade might be better for bigger countries. Raw goods have a much lower value than processed goods. However, the poorer country trades voluntarily. Nobody forces them to trade. Even if they only get 10% of the benefit, that is 10% more than what they would get if they weren't trading.
Ummm...yeah. India's growth rate is an astounding 8.1%. So....yeah...aquapub said:Hong Kong has zero resources, yet they are a thriving metropolis. This is a result of their capitalist, free history.
India has abundant resources and a population density equivalent to New Jersey. Their economy is stagnate. They are one of the most regulated (i.e. Socialist) countries in the world.
It isn't resources.
Exactly. Those immigrants then prosper and get lucrative high paying jobs such as cab driver or a maid. If they're lucky, they'll live in luxurious neighborhoods and places like Spanish Harlem oor South Bronx. If they're really, really lucky, they'll get paid minimum wageptsdkid said:I believe these poor countries are poor because all of their smart people (those with a desire to better themselves) have left their banana republic to either sneak in illegally or come to America legally to start a new and prosperous life. The people left on their island of despair are usually the one's that expect the government to hand them cradle to grave benefits, i.e. the lazy liberal types.
Nobody's forcing them to move here. They obviously do it because they feel it's in their best interest.Che said:Exactly. Those immigrants then prosper and get lucrative high paying jobs such as cab driver or a maid. If they're lucky, they'll live in luxurious neighborhoods and places like Spanish Harlem oor South Bronx. If they're really, really lucky, they'll get paid minimum wage
I know I'm just saying that the immigrants don't do as great as Aquapub makes it seem they do.Kelzie said:Nobody's forcing them to move here. They obviously do it because they feel it's in their best interest.