• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why some countries are rich and some are poor.

A

AaRON4

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am writing an essay about why some countries are rich and some are poor, i thought this was easy. After reading through my textbook, actually i can not get too many things in politics, the question is too wide,it is inculding economics and sociology i think. But i am an Internation Relation student, what should i write in my essay? what kind of theories or perspectives i need to use?
 
Well, your topic is very broad and one could propose all sorts of rationale. Geography, topography, weather, natural resources, population demographics, industry, agriculture, maritime ability, type of government, currency value, education, infrastructure, etc. all play a component part.
 

****. I can not remember the name of the author. But I know of one very good source. It is called "guns germs and steel".
It is by an academic of some description who conducted some kind of investigation in papua new guinea highlands (one of the last areas on earth to recieve human contact).

He was asked by a a porter (a carrier of luggage/supplies) in pigeon english (a local dialect of simplified english) "Why u have so much cargo, and we have so little". He said it felt like it should be simple, but he could not answer. So he set about answering it.

There is a discovery chanel documentary, and book of this title. Iirc.
 

It's by Jared Diamond and despite its popular success his theory has enormous flaws. Africans had guns, germs and steel too but Diamond conveniently ignores it.
 

See Raul Prebisch
 
Frank Talk said:
It's by Jared Diamond and despite its popular success his theory has enormous flaws. Africans had guns, germs and steel too but Diamond conveniently ignores it.
Click to expand...

hmmm. I was not suggesting it as gospel. I do not even remember it particularly well. But if I recall, in the film at least (if ive got the right one) there is a substantial section on the impact of crops. Namely wheat, which is a lot less labor intensive than farming most tuber crops, for example.

Please, frank, am i reffering to the right source?
 

Yea, you have the right book, the information is briefly discussed here. Sorry if my last post came off a bit harsh but I have major problems with Diamonds idea of deterministic history.
 

Although that is a complex question, it's obvious that the combination of liberal democracy and (approximate) capitalism is a dynamite combination, just looking at the record. Again, looking at the record, socialism is an almost certain recipe for poverty.
 

That was basically an anti-west, anti-capitalist screed called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" - it's full of holes - look elsewhere.
 
Rick said:
Again, looking at the record, socialism is an almost certain recipe for poverty.
Click to expand...

This is false.
What is however clear is that violent revolution towards heavy state planning in a totalitarian state is a recipe for a failure.

What is also clear is that very few states have developed through true free market capitalism, and where this has been done, it has traditionaly been done at the cost of slaves and or natives. Most developed nations shielded core economic sectors from the international competition before adopting more liberal policies. Europe. The tiger economies of Asia. Most white settlar colonies. I think the main diferance between those who suceed in this and those who fail is that one must use this as an instrument of development (shielding an emerging industry that will later be competative, state support in start up etc), rather than as a crutch for ineficient industry (bail outs and subsidies for yesterdays profit makers). And in such a plan, there is always the possibility that one can fail. And that the state can lose its investment. But msot states that have developed there economies quickly, it has been those who have done this successfully, rather than those who have trusted the free market alone to bring them prosperity.

But the major diferance has to be the industrial revolution, urbanisation, the 'green' revolution (less people working more land more efficiently), and later imperialism (robbery and extortion) and the emergance of international capitalism (compound interest)
 
Last edited:
Also, one must ask themselves how much geography dictates things.
Had europeans been born somewhere isolated, they would not have been able to build upon the cumulative knowlege of surounding civilisations.
 

Its interesting to note that both the richest regions of the world, and the coming one are all in the same climate zone.. Europe, America and China..

Where are all the poor ones? Around the tropical zones.. But yes, very wide topic with many different answers like Tashah pointed out.


I think imperial conquest, colonization, exploitation and stealing of resources have also matter greatly..
 
Last edited:

First, define "rich", and go from there...
For me, as an individual, not a country, I am rich because I have more than I need. I have some excess "cargo" or baggage, and that is a good way to look at it. The more we have, the more we think we need, and it isn't true.
If countries were to to take that stance, we probably wouldn't have wars...

begs the question, what countries are close to that scenario already?
 
Last edited:

I believe most countries in the west are now wealthy enough to start organizing and planning their futures, but we dont..
 

JARED DIAMOND
this guy rocks
 
Real Talk said:
Also, one must ask themselves how much geography dictates things.
Had europeans been born somewhere isolated, they would not have been able to build upon the cumulative knowlege of surounding civilisations.
Click to expand...

that's exactly the point of Jared Diamond!

Near-East
=> good climate
=> useful animals (goat, pigs, cows, horses...) & great plants (corn)
=> food for everyone without having to work too much
=> only some people are farmer, the others can specialize
=> priests, metal workers, scientists
...

the other parts of the world did not have horses and cows or great vegetables like ours, that's why all of the people were hunters/farmers, that's why they could not have scientists
 
DeeJayH said:
appears you are in the minority, atleast in this thread
Click to expand...

because a poster says he disagrees with him?

I've read his book (and another one, "collapse") and found them very convincing.
 
No simple answer to this one. But I think we can talk about characterisitics of countries that are wealthier:

o Educated population
o Low corruption
o Competition/market driven economy
o Sufficient incentive for production
o Reduction of barriers to enter the middle or upper classes
o Fiscal responsibility in Govt

A pronounced absense of any of these factors can preclude attainment of wealth.
 

don't forget stability, reasonable crime rate, absence of a neighboring country that attacks/invades/bombs your industries every 10 years, good climate...
 
bub said:
don't forget stability, reasonable crime rate, absence of a neighboring country that attacks/invades/bombs your industries every 10 years, good climate...
Click to expand...

Most of those are subsumed in the criteria I mentioned. I agree that an agressive neighbor can ruin prosperity, though nations in Europe were able to develop into wealthy nations despite this contingency. If the attacking neighbor allows the other factors that allow weath to generate it is not necessarily an impediment.
 
bub said:
because a poster says he disagrees with him?

I've read his book (and another one, "collapse") and found them very convincing.
Click to expand...


I also find much of his work very interesting and worthwhile.
Especially the part about some crops (wheat in particular) being much more efficient than other forms of farming. How you could consider this weak is beyond me. He showed the ammount of labor involved in growing taro and rice, for example, to be much more labor intensive than wheat (which originated somewhere in persia, and spread through 'the old world').

ALso, you can not neglect the fact that most of the worlds most developed civilisations occured on substantial landmasses in close proximity to other populations. Europe, China, North Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and in totaly diferant ways, South America developed a lot quicker than more Isolated counterparts. Inovations in neighbouring civilisations have done as much for development as internal inovation.
 

Conflict can also create wealth, especially in reasonably developed countries where focus on things are quite high in times of conflict to be able to compete and remain/become superior to the other side of the conflict.
 

I dont want to sound racist now, because I am not racist, but there is also a tendency for "white civilizations" to aquire more wealth than for example "black civilizations"...
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
I dont want to sound racist now, because I am not racist, but there is also a tendency for "white civilizations" to aquire more wealth than for example "black civilizations"...
Click to expand...

False. This is a historical aberation. Lasting only 1700 or so years at the outer limit. Based on your kind of reasoning, on average, Chinese people have been by far the most developed. There have been MANY points in time where non white civilisations productive capacities outstriped thsoe of whites. Every single civilisation in the mediteranean puts the economic achievements of whites throughout history to shame. The middle east, same deal. Asia. Latin America. At one point mongolia ruled the known world. Europes only had like 600 years at the top spot, and it is the product of civilisational development amongst its neighbours as much as itself. The U.S. is a product of Europe. The idea that the wealth we enjoy is a product of exclusively 'white' civilisation is foolish. Remember who taught you to write, read, count, use gun powder, invented your religion, pioneered agriculture. While we were regressing into the dark ages, in Sotuth America theyw ere building giant pyramids with one step for each day of the year, wth a shadow that read like a giant clock, and irrigating hills.

Now. It could well be argued that africa has been predisposed towards low levels of economic development. But I would suggest that if this is the case, the reasoning is environmental, rather than racial. Proximity of land to the equator MAY be a negative force upon economic development. Due to tropical disease and/or draught. And that there is also a corelation between proximity to the equator and color of skin tone (due to being evolved to be better resistant to the suns rays of these locales). But this is a situation where 2 independant factors (skin tone and development) are corelated, but with no causal relationship between the 2. The only relationship that they both have in this scenario, is that they are both functions of the same GEOGRAPHICAL (not racial) hardship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…