Societies fail when individuals discover they can vote themselves money from everyone else. If there is no objective rule of law firmly establishing individual rights ( property rights and freedom to engage in commerce, essentially), a society will inevitably cannibalize itself, IMO.
Why Poor Countries Are Poor
31–40 of 142 posts
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#32It sounds like government in Cameroon is effectively organized crime, but I imagine most criminal organizations would run the country more efficiently and more profitably. Would the government do a better job if it stopped mimicking the institutions of high-functioning countries and was frankly exploitative?
You'd think. But actual organized criminals like bootleggers are/were generally not terribly efficient either. Here's one way to look at it: very, very smart criminals should do much less damage to their victims than they seem to, just for reasons of self-interest. This is primarily because the first world has made it more individually profitable for very, very smart criminals to go legit, either in business or polit…
You have to assume Cameroon has as many clever, ambitious sociopaths as any other country. Why aren't they providing basic services? The article explains why long-term investment doesn't take place, but it doesn't explain why simple for-profit services don't crop up in competition with the official ones. For instance, if it costs too much to get a contract enforced legally, then there is a market for enforcing contracts illegally. This is obviously bad news for the government officials profiting from the legal enforcement of contracts -- unless they are the ones running the illegal service, and they structure it as an inferior, low-end alternative to their legal service. (Corrupt government officials have an advantage over the mafia: corrupt government officials don't have to worry about getting shut down by the authorities. They just have to share the loot with their superiors.)
The article also doesn't explain why government officials, even corrupt ones, fail to make cheap investments that pay off over a few years. For instance, a kleptocrat should want a reliable supply of clean water to ensure that the farmers are healthy enough to plant and harvest crops, so he can steal the profits. If an epidemic means the crops rot in the fields, that's money out of his pocket. Money is readily converted to power, via bribes, weapons, or propaganda. Losing money means losing power. Why wouldn't a kleptocrat spend money on sanitation, especially if that means getting good marks from foreign governments and NGOs and qualifying for more aid?
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think. But actual organized criminals like bootleggers are/were generally not terribly efficient either. Here's one way to look at it: very, very smart criminals should do much less damage to their victims than they seem to, just for reasons of self-interest. This is primarily because the first world has made it more individually profitable for very, very smart criminals to go legit, either in business or polit…
You have to assume Cameroon has as many clever, ambitious sociopaths as any other country. Why aren't they providing basic services? The article explains why long-term investment doesn't take place, but it doesn't explain why simple for-profit services don't crop up in competition with the official ones. For instance, if it costs too much to get a contract enforced legally, then there is a market for enforcing contra…
All of that looks like a good investment if you have sufficient stability (including cooperation from fellow kleptocrats) to have a serious chance at harvesting what you sowed.
It's probably simply too unstable to do so right now, and a lot of that comes from the top.
And that would be a lot of the difference between Cameroon and a poor-ish but more culturally Western country.
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#34One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.
Assuming colonial 'occupiers' had the best interests of the colony in mind is patently ridiculous. I don't see why cakesy's response to parent is 'dead' - it makes a good point.
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#35One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.
Did you ever wonder if taxation without representation was cheaper?
A rational exploiter might try to revenue maximize. Someone trying to do good/to be fair/to "encourage good behavior" is likely to do economically stupid things.
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#36One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.
Assuming colonial 'occupiers' had the best interests of the colony in mind is patently ridiculous. I don't see why cakesy's response to parent is 'dead' - it makes a good point.
> Assuming colonial 'occupiers' had the best interests of the colony in mind is patently ridiculous.
Irrelevant because that wasn't the assumption.
There's a reason why "he meant well" is an insult....
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#37One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.
I don't necessarily agree with that statement but there may well be a relationship with colonial rule ie countries like Cameroon being ruled by foreigners who then leave.
The first govt of independent Cameroon presumably inherited reasonable infrastructure, law and order, functioning courts etc. (maybe. I dont know much about Cameroon) That first government, having inherited all of this stuff they didn't organize and having zero previous experience with running a country, may well rest on its laurels and assume that this stuff just happens and requires little or no effort to maintain/enhance. If they're really (un)lucky they may well inherent a well functioning society that also produces abundant tax revenue which is surely more than is really required so no one will miss a bit...
It would only be years later that it would become apparent that effective courts, safe streets etc do in fact require organized effort applied in specific ways. And that all of that tax revenue was needed.
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#38Corruption is the degree to which a government prioritizes its needs over its people's needs.
An early example of an anti-corruption measure would be the Magna Carta, which established limits on what an English monarch could do to his subjects. Anglo / American history is essentially one long struggle against corruption. It eventually manifested itself in the form of a government that by definition serves it's people rather than a group of subjects who serve a monarch. Hundreds of years of war, revolution, writings, beheadings and torture eventually eroded the power of government to where it is today. There are very few shortcuts around that. In order to stop corruption people need to be willing to risk their lives, freedom or well being.
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#39This article is (almost) accurate.
I live in Romania ... and of course, we are doing a lot better than Cameroon, the country got accepted in EU, and the average salary is something like $25-$30 / day (and people with college degrees do better than that).
But the corruption has reached unimaginable levels ... and it's not just the government, it's everyone.
For example, we have a public health system, and while I paid something like $15000 last year in taxes (a big amount for us), my wife got pregnant, she's having problems ... and we've had to bribe a doctor to even speak to us, not to mention they demand big bribes for doing a clean caesarean section, and my wife needs it. The poor souls that don't have money for bribes simply get fucked.
And for anything you'd want to do, like buying/selling property or starting a company, getting permits ... the bureaucracy is so awful that the only sane way of doing it is (you guest it) by bribing.
> The roads, they have not been fixed for 19 years
Well ... in Romania roads get fixed every year ... badly, so every year new repairs are needed, with millions of euros going down the drain. And the companies doing the repairs ... get contracted by nepotism. I guess Cameroon got lots to learn from us about misusing funds :-)
Our elections are mostly for real ... but it really doesn't matter. It's the people ... although everyone is blaming the government, instead of looking in the mirror.
Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor
#40What does "eight times poorer" mean?