Why are poor countries still poor in this day and age?

[imported_Shivetya]

Government banditry, widespread waste, and oppressive regulations are all elements in that missing piece of the puzzle. During the last 10 years or so, economists working on development issues have converged on the mantra that "institutions matter." Of course, it is hard to describe what an "institution" really is. It is even harder to convert a bad institution into a good one.


Yeah its a long read but I think its worth it for people to get an understanding why some countries are so poor while others have come forward from the very same positions. It also provides warning signs for people in developed countries to look for because even in our "1st world" politicians do very much the same, they just are lucky that we can afford to live with their actions.

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.

Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

 

[Czar]

like one African economist/or something like that said on the bbc, "stop sending aid to africa"

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.
</end quote></div>
Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

The US is poor? Wow, I didn't know. Have you even visited any other countries?

Africa, for instance, is a failed continent long term because it just is. For the same reason somebody born to a trailer trash mom will probably stay trailer trash, the cycle continues in Africa. The place just sucks and there are so many problems I couldn't even begin to wonder where to start.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.
</end quote></div>
Sums up the U.S. perfectly.
</end quote></div>The US is poor? Wow, I didn't know. Have you even visited any other countries?

Africa, for instance, is a failed continent long term because it just is. For the same reason somebody born to a trailer trash mom will probably stay trailer trash, the cycle continues in Africa. The place just sucks and there are so many problems I couldn't even begin to wonder where to start.

The problem is stability. Nobody wants to invest, nobody wants to start a business, nobody wants to do much of anything at all in terms of long term thinking. And why would you? Tomorrow the government might change, or some racial group might decide to exterminate your racial group, or who the hell knows what. It's really sort of a catch-22...you need long term planning to create stability and wealth, but you need stability to get the long term planning in the first place.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.
</end quote></div>
Sums up the U.S. perfectly.
</end quote></div>The US is poor? Wow, I didn't know. Have you even visited any other countries?

Africa, for instance, is a failed continent long term because it just is. For the same reason somebody born to a trailer trash mom will probably stay trailer trash, the cycle continues in Africa. The place just sucks and there are so many problems I couldn't even begin to wonder where to start.

</end quote></div>

The problem is stability. Nobody wants to invest, nobody wants to start a business, nobody wants to do much of anything at all in terms of long term thinking. And why would you? Tomorrow the government might change, or some racial group might decide to exterminate your racial group, or who the hell knows what. It's really sort of a catch-22...you need long term planning to create stability and wealth, but you need stability to get the long term planning in the first place.

On Time (?) recently they had something about that. Africa's economy is growing, but still for the most part businesses are not sending much cash over there, the prime concern they have being corruption, which is rife throughout the entire continent. Remember, this is a place that still, in the 21st century, has rebel groups hacking off kids' limbs and even has a country (Somalia) with no effective government; a true anarchy. The place is so far behind the rest of the world it's mind boggling.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Government banditry, widespread waste, and oppressive regulations are all elements in that missing piece of the puzzle. During the last 10 years or so, economists working on development issues have converged on the mantra that "institutions matter." Of course, it is hard to describe what an "institution" really is. It is even harder to convert a bad institution into a good one.


Yeah its a long read but I think its worth it for people to get an understanding why some countries are so poor while others have come forward from the very same positions. It also provides warning signs for people in developed countries to look for because even in our "1st world" politicians do very much the same, they just are lucky that we can afford to live with their actions.

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.

Well, the tinhat dictators cronies are also known as the leaders of the free world.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.
</end quote></div>
Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

As previously said, you really need to do some travelling. Youre pretty much talking out of your a$$ and have no clue.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.

Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

It has been said before, but you are either a well crafted troll or a moron for the ages.

 

[Zedtom]

The massive problems related to corruption, instability, disease and substandard agricultural practices will continue to keep the United Nations and other agencies busy for decades. I wish more countries would use the Coca Cola model to encourage growth through economic development.

Coke has opened up new markets worldwide by going to a poor country and first building a water treatment plant. Then they construct the infrastructure to support a light manufacturing facility that can bottle and can their products. They train local residents to staff these plants and stick around to make sure everything is working properly.

You can call it American imperialism or capitalist nation building, but they've been doing it for almost a century.

 

[Craig234]

A reason why is that with 1% of the population owning 80% of the wealth, the resources to end poverty are being used for the wealthy. There's nothing making them put them to use for the poor.

Another is that to an extent, the prosperity of the few is based on the poverty of the many - cheap labor.

Another is that much of the world simply hasn't developed yet. Look at China, with most still in rural poverty, and a few in relative wealth in the cities, and a massive influx from the rural to the cities as a result, creating plenty of social problems.

Another is the lack of political will by the wealthy middle classes to push the anti-poverty programs globally. I'd vote for them; many would not.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Craig234
A reason why is that with 1% of the population owning 80% of the wealth, the resources to end poverty are being used for the wealthy. There's nothing making them put them to use for the poor.

Another is that to an extent, the prosperity of the few is based on the poverty of the many - cheap labor.

Another is that much of the world simply hasn't developed yet. Look at China, with most still in rural poverty, and a few in relative wealth in the cities, and a massive influx from the rural to the cities as a result, creating plenty of social problems.

Another is the lack of political will by the wealthy middle classes to push the anti-poverty programs globally. I'd vote for them; many would not.

If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Czar
like one African economist/or something like that said on the bbc, "stop sending aid to africa"

We shouldn't stop sending aid to Africa. The problem is where and how we give our aid. We waste money on things like HIV/AIDS treatment which costs $1500 a year per person when the money could be much better spent on HIV/AIDS prevention with things like education about it and increasing the amount of condom usage. We give aid for things like new roads but we send our consultants which cost an arm and a leg and then we use our companies which deprives them of jobs that could be theirs. We also stop providing funding for the road after it's built. This leads to a lot of roads but many of them in disrepair because there isn't any government funding for them. The problem is that nobody is accountable when there isn't any results from the aid we give. Aid agencies have no reason to means test their programs since they aren't accountable at all if they fail to do what they say they will do.

We also need to stop funding sh!tty governments. The World Bank (Wolfowitz anyway) has said they will stop giving money to bad governments but then turns around and gives money to countries like Pakistan and Iraq which have horrible governments.

Aid can be very useful but the way we are doing it now is damn near worthless.

 

[StageLeft]

We give aid for things like new roads but we send our consultants which cost an arm and a leg and then we use our companies which deprives them of jobs that could be theirs.

I always wondered at that. Any time I hear of a person who's visiting Africa or South America to "help build a hut", I'm thinking the money would be far better served simply sending it over there and giving a local the job instead of wasting time with a plane ticket, but then it's not as fun is it, so people would rather delude themselves into thinking that the best use of their time/money is to actual visit the crap hole country that, come the end of the trip, they're happy as a lark to leave.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Czar
like one African economist/or something like that said on the bbc, "stop sending aid to africa"</end quote></div>

We shouldn't stop sending aid to Africa. The problem is where and how we give our aid. We waste money on things like HIV/AIDS treatment which costs $1500 a year per person when the money could be much better spent on HIV/AIDS prevention with things like education about it and increasing the amount of condom usage. We give aid for things like new roads but we send our consultants which cost an arm and a leg and then we use our companies which deprives them of jobs that could be theirs. We also stop providing funding for the road after it's built. This leads to a lot of roads but many of them in disrepair because there isn't any government funding for them. The problem is that nobody is accountable when there isn't any results from the aid we give. Aid agencies have no reason to means test their programs since they aren't accountable at all if they fail to do what they say they will do.

We also need to stop funding sh!tty governments. The World Bank (Wolfowitz anyway) has said they will stop giving money to bad governments but then turns around and gives money to countries like Pakistan and Iraq which have horrible governments.

Aid can be very useful but the way we are doing it now is damn near worthless.

I sort of see where you're going with this, but you're still wrong. Aid does need to be decreased dramatically because it does little good and actually often hampers the economic development of the nations that receive a large amount of it.

These countries aren't going to "get better" by money being thrown at them...their economies need to develop from within...but that is far easier said than done. As others have pointed out, without stability (political, social, etc) it is very hard for the local/regional economies to develop. This issue is quite complex but the fact is the massive amount of aid going to Africa now isn't helping.

 

[ProfJohn]

Awesome sig Excelsior...
Tony Parker gets to have sex with Eva Longoria and you expect him to get excited by something as relatively trivial as winning an NBA Championship?

 

[ProfJohn]

During the Wolfowitz World Bank scandal many commentators brought up the question as to whether we still needed the World Bank. They made the point that the world banks hands out its money with so many strings attached that is can sometimes be as harmful as it is helpful.
I am sure the same applies to much of the aid we give to Africa.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Czar
like one African economist/or something like that said on the bbc, "stop sending aid to africa"</end quote></div>

We shouldn't stop sending aid to Africa. The problem is where and how we give our aid. We waste money on things like HIV/AIDS treatment which costs $1500 a year per person when the money could be much better spent on HIV/AIDS prevention with things like education about it and increasing the amount of condom usage. We give aid for things like new roads but we send our consultants which cost an arm and a leg and then we use our companies which deprives them of jobs that could be theirs. We also stop providing funding for the road after it's built. This leads to a lot of roads but many of them in disrepair because there isn't any government funding for them. The problem is that nobody is accountable when there isn't any results from the aid we give. Aid agencies have no reason to means test their programs since they aren't accountable at all if they fail to do what they say they will do.

We also need to stop funding sh!tty governments. The World Bank (Wolfowitz anyway) has said they will stop giving money to bad governments but then turns around and gives money to countries like Pakistan and Iraq which have horrible governments.

Aid can be very useful but the way we are doing it now is damn near worthless.</end quote></div>

I sort of see where you're going with this, but you're still wrong. Aid does need to be decreased dramatically because it does little good and actually often hampers the economic development of the nations that receive a large amount of it.

These countries aren't going to "get better" by money being thrown at them...their economies need to develop from within...but that is far easier said than done. As others have pointed out, without stability (political, social, etc) it is very hard for the local/regional economies to develop. This issue is quite complex but the fact is the massive amount of aid going to Africa now isn't helping.

I'll 100% agree with you that for the most part the aid we are giving Africa is not helping. And yes for the most part our giving aid to governments just goes into the pockets of corrupt officials and little goes to the people it's intended to help (for instance in Chad, less than 1% of money given for health clinics actually made it there). BUT that doesn't mean aid is completely negative and ineffectual. We've made quite a bit of progress with aid when it comes to health. We've almost completely wiped out polio and small pox. Aid has also been successful in infrastructure during the Marshall Plan.

The problem is that our aid money is being spent horribly. Agencies aren't held accountable for not living up to their promises. Look at the UN Millenium Goals, almost everything in that was supposed to be resolved over 10 years ago (eliminating world poverty). The aid money we give is essentially subsidizing our own industry. Plus we're giving money to corrupt governments. We should only be working with governments when there is an absolute need to (roads, rail, education, etc.). We give millions to governments hoping they will actually spend the money on the things we want. We then champion how much money we gave in aid even though little of it actually went to help the cause we gave it for.

We're looking at the easily observable indicators (money spent) as opposed to the ones that really matter (outcome). The problem is that the outcome takes time whereas the input is quickly citable.

Eliminating poverty and hunger are great goals but they are too vague and pie in sky. The international agencies should be setting direct goals with very observable outcomes that they can be held accountable for.

I've got more to say on this but I gotta go party it up.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.

 

[Thump553]

I'm firmly convinced that corruption and lack of stability (or a perception of lack of stability) are the #1 and #2 causes of national poverty. Lack of resources, education and government form (dictatorship, communism, elected republic, etc) are also significant, but pall in comparison.

As proof, I point to China and Mexico. China has a huge undeducated population, repressive communistic authoritarian government yet is one of the economic miracles of the modern era. Mexico has been poor for years despite being neighbors with one of the richest countries in the world, and despite having ample natural resources (espcially in the gas and oil fields). Mexico however has well-institutionalized corruption from the top to bottom of its society. China executes it's corrupt-when they get caught.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.</end quote></div>

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.

Africa sucked crap before imperialism, it actually in many areas sucked less crap while the White Devil was still in many of its countries (often, once the minority whites in charge of a country left, the country got worse), and now it continues to suck crap and would suck crap if we disappeared. You speak as if the wealth was on a table and the imperialists grabbed this finite wealth before the africans did. Most of the exploitation is by Africans against Africans. They have themselves to blame for their continent being a mess. There are thousands of kids walking around Africa right now minus an arm or two. Others who had to shoot their parents, some who've had to rape family members. They didn't learn those tricks from imperialists.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.</end quote></div>

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.</end quote></div>Africa sucked crap before imperialism, it actually in many areas sucked less crap while the White Devil was still in many of its countries (often, once the minority whites in charge of a country left, the country got worse), and now it continues to suck crap and would suck crap if we disappeared. You speak as if the wealth was on a table and the imperialists grabbed this finite wealth before the africans did. Most of the exploitation is by Africans against Africans. They have themselves to blame for their continent being a mess. There are thousands of kids walking around Africa right now minus an arm or two. Others who had to shoot their parents, some who've had to rape family members. They didn't learn those tricks from imperialists.

Wow, describe Africa before Imperialism and colonialism...

 

[beyoku]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Czar
like one African economist/or something like that said on the bbc, "stop sending aid to africa"</end quote></div>

Many many Africans themselves say this over and over.
They repeat the Mantra "We need TRADE not AID!"
Trade not aid google search
Aid VS Trade via google fight.

Anyway, i have been to some of those "dirt poor" countries and people talked about me as if i was some conspiracy loon when i brought up issues of trade and some countries not being able to get fair market prices / copyrights / patents for THEIR products on the world market.
The world sends a message to developing nations and Africa - You can buy from us but you cant sell to us. Also Africa has its OWN intra-country economic trade issues to deal with. Corruption is not and issue in EVERY AFRICAN COUNTRY. You cannot just blanket an entire continent with "Its the corruption stupid."
One African official i think from Ghana recently mocked the West and how they handled his country, only keeping them processing raw materials and refusing to open up markets to more goods. "You MUST only sell he Cocoa bean! We will process it for you!" - the Official said. And sometimes that is what they have to deal with. African stock markets have been booming in the past few years. Old info in Ghana (Who just found oil)
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In 1993, the GSE was the 6th best index performing emerging stock market, with a capital appreciation of 116%. In 1994 it was the best index performing stock market among all the emerging markets, gaining 124.3% in its index level. 1995's index growth was a disappointing 6.3%, partly because of high inflation and interest rates. Growth of the Index for 1997 was 42%</end quote></div>
I have seen newer figures from different countries and they are all not that far from this. Kenya's stock market is great as well. Ethiopia is working on a Commodities exchange that mimics Chicago's, look at Tunisia......anyway enough of my rambling. Its really kind of hard to speak about this stuff if you dont read books about African issues or know about the history and politics of such countries.

 

[Conservationist]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.
</end quote></div>
Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

That's the way the US is going, for sure. As Spengler noted, third-world nations are most commonly the remnants of collapsed empires.

 

[trenchfoot]

it seems third world nations are what the neocons are using as a model for what they envision for the USA.

if it isn't that way already, i'm sure the neocons of the USA are quite envious at how a third world dictator has complete command of every aspect of wealth distribution in his domain from a single two drawer sheetmetal desk. that must be a neocon's wet dream come true.