Topic: Why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor? - page 11. (Read 16582 times)
Basically it is due to corruptions of some other officials governing the country. But for me in order to build government people are need to make it as whole functionally, so there would be none other than to blame but for some people that got swallowed by greed and power.
One can certainly answer the question why one country is rich, and the other is a poor comma only if one analyzes who is in power and how the country's economy develops. For some reason in developing countries and poor countries, very strong And a large level of corruption along with people's poverty. While officials are very rich.
My country is 66, now it's explained why many politicians in my country are retarded.
The biggest problem of Africa is corruption and lack of democracy
The legal system and the police are corrupted by the state
The biggest problem of Africa is corruption and lack of democracy
The legal system and the police are corrupted by the state
You are from Mozambique, right? It is tough to be born in these countries. It is not just the corruption. Mozambique only got independence some 4 decades back. By then, the Portuguese colonists had looted most of the natural resources.
*National IQ per country - estimates by Lynn and Vanhanen 2006
I don't imagine one need look too much further for an explanation.
My country is 66, now it's explained why many politicians in my country are retarded.
The biggest problem of Africa is corruption and lack of democracy
The legal system and the police are corrupted by the state
Countries which are blessed with natural resources are usually rich, when compared to those countries which don't have any. Look at the rich countries such as the United States, Canada.etc. It is very evident.
It's like having a street where all of you are selling the same sort of items, would be really hard to make a sale. Unlike my example where you can get ahead by innovating, farmers usually just have the same technology as their neighboring farmers. Would be hard for them to make a profit. Might be better to leave the farming to a small number of farmers, replacing the lost workforce with modern machinery. This would allow a small number of farmers to cultivate a really large area.
I agree with you. In order to attain a profit, the farmers need a minimum area under cultivation. For example, in the western nations, individual farms usually measure in thousands of acres. But in the third world nations, the average farm size is very small, mostly measuring only 2 to 3 acres. It is very difficult for the farmers to earn a profit from this small area.
Unfortunately, land reform is hard to come by in many countries. For example, here in the Philippines, unlike our neighbors, we had a landed elite which when Americans introduced democracy (don't you love it every time they do that?) has become entrenched in the politics of the country, making it even harder to make any reform on land ownership.
And even if we get to that point where farmers own their land, as you said, it would be many farmers owning small tracks of land. I believe in some areas where farms were indeed given to farmers, they're not allowed to sell it, meaning it's unlikely for one to be able to get all the land. The intention was good (to prevent a new breed of "hacienderos" emerging and to ensure they always have a land they can call their own but the effect is not good IMHO.
I guess in a situation like that, the only thing that can be done is to lease equipment to the farmers to at least allow them more free time (less time on the field, more time to do other things to earn money). Or maybe organize them into cooperatives where they share equipment.
The "why" here can go back hundreds, maybe thousands of years. So the answer would depend on the time period in which you wanted to determine the why. The most significant factors are culture, technology, and imperialism.
Can't agree. Some of the nations were super-rich a few hundred years back, but they are dirt poor now. There are several examples, such as India, Peru (Inca empire), Mexico (Aztec empire).etc.
The "why" here can go back hundreds, maybe thousands of years. So the answer would depend on the time period in which you wanted to determine the why. The most significant factors are culture, technology, and imperialism.
In my opinion, I think its because rich country invests more and they know how to make more than in poor country that they need to survive and get their own needs that they wish to turn down others eventhough they are family. I think crab mentality is the word to describe it..
It's like having a street where all of you are selling the same sort of items, would be really hard to make a sale. Unlike my example where you can get ahead by innovating, farmers usually just have the same technology as their neighboring farmers. Would be hard for them to make a profit. Might be better to leave the farming to a small number of farmers, replacing the lost workforce with modern machinery. This would allow a small number of farmers to cultivate a really large area.
I agree with you. In order to attain a profit, the farmers need a minimum area under cultivation. For example, in the western nations, individual farms usually measure in thousands of acres. But in the third world nations, the average farm size is very small, mostly measuring only 2 to 3 acres. It is very difficult for the farmers to earn a profit from this small area.
I found an interesting exchange... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/08/16/why-nations-fail/
The rich countries include industrialization, advanced technology, advanced education system, improved agricultural system and skilled workers. There is no system in the poor countries, poor countries are largely dependent on agriculture. But poor countries have poor agricultural system. So poor country They are poor.
That is not the reason. In poor countries, usually 80% to 85% of the population is dependent upon agriculture. In the developed nations, this percentage is around 2% to 3%. If the farmer population is larger, that means less land per farm, and less profits per farm owner.
It's like having a street where all of you are selling the same sort of items, would be really hard to make a sale. Unlike my example where you can get ahead by innovating, farmers usually just have the same technology as their neighboring farmers. Would be hard for them to make a profit. Might be better to leave the farming to a small number of farmers, replacing the lost workforce with modern machinery. This would allow a small number of farmers to cultivate a really large area.
The rich countries include industrialization, advanced technology, advanced education system, improved agricultural system and skilled workers. There is no system in the poor countries, poor countries are largely dependent on agriculture. But poor countries have poor agricultural system. So poor country They are poor.
That is not the reason. In poor countries, usually 80% to 85% of the population is dependent upon agriculture. In the developed nations, this percentage is around 2% to 3%. If the farmer population is larger, that means less land per farm, and less profits per farm owner.
It's like having a street where all of you are selling the same sort of items, would be really hard to make a sale. Unlike my example where you can get ahead by innovating, farmers usually just have the same technology as their neighboring farmers. Would be hard for them to make a profit. Might be better to leave the farming to a small number of farmers, replacing the lost workforce with modern machinery. This would allow a small number of farmers to cultivate a really large area.
So are you saying, that only thing holding subsaharan Africa back from becoming superpower is CIA? Is that correct?
No. I am not saying that. I am just saying that if the western nations such as the United States and the corporations from these countries stay out of the third world, then the world will be a much better place for the humans to live.
"Better" is subjective, yet quite possible in material aswell as cultural terms. Sure.
To do that however, we do not have to battle local corruption as that is inherent part of human nature - and only indidual men and countries can deal with it. If we want to help third world, we ought to abolish globalization, otherwise this cycle of strong using the weak will never end.
Would you stay out of bussiness of your neighbour even if he was doing something selfdestructive? You should, because its precisely human rights agenda, which is used by western governments and corporations to meddle in internal affairs of foreign countries.
So are you saying, that only thing holding subsaharan Africa back from becoming superpower is CIA? Is that correct?
No. I am not saying that. I am just saying that if the western nations such as the United States and the corporations from these countries stay out of the third world, then the world will be a much better place for the humans to live.
Poor countrys will stay poor until people rise up and change the corrupted politicians.. and do so until they get some1 fair.. when they had it enough and start doing changes as a group every time some1 start to do something his way, they will grow... every country has potencial, just need right push 
Corrupt regimes in third world nations are preferred by the developed nations. I can give you numerous examples. Remember Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso? He was a revolutionary leader, who tried to eradicate corruption and bring progress. But he was murdered in a CIA-backed coup, as the American companies found it impossible to bribe him. Another example is that of Patrice Lumumba, who was also assassinated by the CIA.
So are you saying, that only thing holding subsaharan Africa back from becoming superpower is CIA? Is that correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
If you can walk out your front door any time of the year and grab fruit from a tree, why would you concern yourself about storing food? Long term planning is something most low iq, resource rich, low gdp per capita countries lack. Long term planning is the basis for any rich country. If you look at the IQ map posted, most high IQ countries fall within temperate zones where long term planning is required to survive winter. These countries also tend to have the highest GDP per capita aside from a few outliers. Reminds me of Cebu, Philippines where they purchased a bunch of extended length buses for use in mass transit. The buses got here and then they realized.... Oops! The buses are too long! They can't make the turns when driving through the city streets!
Regarding corruption, it's been my experience that when there is a corrupt leader the population itself is also corrupt. These corrupt countries also tend to be in areas with no long term planning and low average IQ rankings. What the corrupt leader fails to understand when they're selling out their country is that they can make more money via corruption with long term planning and building their country up than they can by raping it. Take zimbabwae as an example, printing money to the point that they've stolen all wealth of the nation. Mugabe has been in power for 30 years, devalued the currency so that it's worthless, and systematically raped the country. If instead, he had built up his country he would have been able to steal what their current annual gdp is and no one would even notice! Their current GDP is only 14 billion annually. If he had built up his country to the scale of south africa, he could steal 14 billion annually and still have 298 billion to build up the country! His shortsightedness not only robbed him but everyone in the country.
I think we are getting closer to the point. Everybody once lived in a stone age. Some got well past that to the point where they not only got rich but shared knowledge (and medicine) with rest of the world. Others seem to be pretermined to be dead weight, regardless how much time and money others spend on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
If you can walk out your front door any time of the year and grab fruit from a tree, why would you concern yourself about storing food? Long term planning is something most low iq, resource rich, low gdp per capita countries lack. Long term planning is the basis for any rich country. If you look at the IQ map posted, most high IQ countries fall within temperate zones where long term planning is required to survive winter. These countries also tend to have the highest GDP per capita aside from a few outliers. Reminds me of Cebu, Philippines where they purchased a bunch of extended length buses for use in mass transit. The buses got here and then they realized.... Oops! The buses are too long! They can't make the turns when driving through the city streets!
Regarding corruption, it's been my experience that when there is a corrupt leader the population itself is also corrupt. These corrupt countries also tend to be in areas with no long term planning and low average IQ rankings. What the corrupt leader fails to understand when they're selling out their country is that they can make more money via corruption with long term planning and building their country up than they can by raping it. Take zimbabwae as an example, printing money to the point that they've stolen all wealth of the nation. Mugabe has been in power for 30 years, devalued the currency so that it's worthless, and systematically raped the country. If instead, he had built up his country he would have been able to steal what their current annual gdp is and no one would even notice! Their current GDP is only 14 billion annually. If he had built up his country to the scale of south africa, he could steal 14 billion annually and still have 298 billion to build up the country! His shortsightedness not only robbed him but everyone in the country.
the rich countries are rich due to judicious use of there resources,unlike the poor countries most especially African countries,the high rate of corruption is high.everyone governing is trying to satisfy their pocket not thinking about the betterment of the masses,selfishness is what is paramount among them.the rich countries they invest more on innovation and technology,
The rich countries include industrialization, advanced technology, advanced education system, improved agricultural system and skilled workers. There is no system in the poor countries, poor countries are largely dependent on agriculture. But poor countries have poor agricultural system. So poor country They are poor.
That is not the reason. In poor countries, usually 80% to 85% of the population is dependent upon agriculture. In the developed nations, this percentage is around 2% to 3%. If the farmer population is larger, that means less land per farm, and less profits per farm owner.
Poor countrys will stay poor until people rise up and change the corrupted politicians.. and do so until they get some1 fair.. when they had it enough and start doing changes as a group every time some1 start to do something his way, they will grow... every country has potencial, just need right push
Corrupt regimes in third world nations are preferred by the developed nations. I can give you numerous examples. Remember Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso? He was a revolutionary leader, who tried to eradicate corruption and bring progress. But he was murdered in a CIA-backed coup, as the American companies found it impossible to bribe him. Another example is that of Patrice Lumumba, who was also assassinated by the CIA.
I would not really think of a poor country base on its assets(fiat) but rather than its human accpetance amd nature preservation. I would rather live in a place in which moeny is not an issue as long as there are foods(nature) around me and how can you consider your place as poor right?
Poor countrys will stay poor until people rise up and change the corrupted politicians.. and do so until they get some1 fair.. when they had it enough and start doing changes as a group every time some1 start to do something his way, they will grow... every country has potencial, just need right push
Jump to: