Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Poor Countries Are Poor

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#41

Post by richcollins »

bad_user wrote: post #39

This 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…

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.

How is that not the government? If there weren't a public health system, there would be more doctors and they wouldn't be able to bribe you. You could just go to someone else.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#42

Post by asmosoinio »

sprachspiel wrote: post #40

What does "eight times poorer" mean?

I guess it means that average income (or whatever they are measuring) of X = 1/8 x Y. But is it a valid way to say this in English? In Finnish they use this sometimes in the newspapers and so, and I am thinking I need to get over it. But I still hate it.

It's kinda like "X is 8 times less expensive than Y", which I assume means X = 1/8 x X, but to me would make more sense as X = Y - 8Y = -7Y...

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#43

Post by nostrademons »

DenisM wrote: post #29

In older times a dysfunctional country would be quickly conquered and fixed by the nearest competent neighbor. I don't even know what a solution could look like today?

That still holds. The problem is that it's been taken to its logical conclusion: all dysfunctional countries have been conquered by their competent neighbors, which means that there are large landmasses that contain exclusively competent nations (North America, Europe, Australia/Oceania, and soon Asia) and large landmasses that contain exclusively dysfunctional ones (Africa, Arabia, and South America).

There are natural barriers that prevent competent but distant nations from conquering dysfunctional ones. Colonialism was an attempt to ignore those, until people realized that it cost far more than it was worth to the colonizers.

I should probably mention that much of the reasoning behind the Bush invasion of Iraq was along these lines. It was hoped that Iraq would become a "beacon of democracy" in the Mideast. Then, all of its neighbors would either adopt Western institutions to maintain their relative positions, or they would be conquered by a U.S-supported Iraq.

Somebody forgot to factor in the effect of an 8000-mile supply line, or the reluctance of a people to give up deeply-entrenched customs.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#44

Post by sprachspiel »

asmosoinio wrote: post #42
sprachspiel wrote: post #40

What does "eight times poorer" mean?

I guess it means that average income (or whatever they are measuring) of X = 1/8 x Y. But is it a valid way to say this in English? In Finnish they use this sometimes in the newspapers and so, and I am thinking I need to get over it. But I still hate it. It's kinda like "X is 8 times less expensive than Y", which I assume means X = 1/8 x X, but to me would make more sense as X = Y - 8Y = -7Y...

Interesting. In Russian and Polish this kind of phrase is quite common. In German it's not common, and I would consider it bad style. How about English?

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#45

Post by DenisM »

nostrademons wrote: post #43
DenisM wrote: post #29

In older times a dysfunctional country would be quickly conquered and fixed by the nearest competent neighbor. I don't even know what a solution could look like today?

That still holds. The problem is that it's been taken to its logical conclusion: all dysfunctional countries have been conquered by their competent neighbors, which means that there are large landmasses that contain exclusively competent nations (North America, Europe, Australia/Oceania, and soon Asia) and large landmasses that contain exclusively dysfunctional ones (Africa, Arabia, and South America). There are natu…

I don't think it holds anymore - people of successful countries have really soured on the whole conquest idea after WW2. Which is why I think these handicapped countries still exist and will continue to exist.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#46

Post by bad_user »

richcollins wrote: post #41
bad_user wrote: post #39

This 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…

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. How is that not the governmen…

> How is that not the government? If there weren't a public health system, there would be more doctors and they wouldn't be able to bribe you. You could just go to someone else.

It doesn't work like that, the system is more relaxed than in other countries ... you can go to any doctor you want.

Surely, competition seems like the answer, but there's something larger at play here ... I once heard of a woman in labor that lost her child because her doctor was out of town, and the others doctors from the hospital refused to intervene ... you see, they are very territorial. Of course, such tragedies don't happen so often, but they do happen.

And we've also got private health insurances and clinics (it's not like the government prohibits it) ... the problem is that those are only useful for your periodic consults ... but in case of an emergency, you want a good doctor not an incompetent one, and those tend to work in public hospitals.

No really, we have a mostly working democracy and capitalism ... not helping much ;)

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#47

Post by fbailey »

bad_user wrote: post #39

This 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…

Yes, sorry but as another EU citizen, I have to say I'm not sure we should have accepted Romania into the EU before this problem is fixed.

Do you think it's helping against corruption or is any incentive now gone? Do you think it's getting better with rising income? (this was not meant against romanians it's just that EU institutions are pretty far away from EU projects and are usually terrible at detecting corruption)

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#48

Post by fbailey »

sprachspiel wrote: post #44
asmosoinio wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it means that average income (or whatever they are measuring) of X = 1/8 x Y. But is it a valid way to say this in English? In Finnish they use this sometimes in the newspapers and so, and I am thinking I need to get over it. But I still hate it. It's kinda like "X is 8 times less expensive than Y", which I assume means X = 1/8 x X, but to me would make more sense as X = Y - 8Y = -7Y...

Interesting. In Russian and Polish this kind of phrase is quite common. In German it's not common, and I would consider it bad style. How about English?

achtmal ärmer ... yes doesn't work in german, weird

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#49

Post by fbailey »

aero142 wrote: post #26

One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.

I can't stand that argument. It ignores history and millions that died under colonial rule, or episodes like in China when the economy was ruined because the western powers wanted to pay for goods with drugs. Or india where british rule deindustrialized india and forced it to buy salt from a monopoly. Or southeast asia where rich kingdoms where plundered and basically forced to become agrarian exporters. It also ignores the real growth that happended in the last 10 years in parts of africa.

The argument is basically racist, they don't know what's good for them, let's show them. It ignores that the western world has a 300 years development advantage concerning democratic institutions and the economy.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#50

Post by fbailey »

nostrademons wrote: post #43
DenisM wrote: post #29

In older times a dysfunctional country would be quickly conquered and fixed by the nearest competent neighbor. I don't even know what a solution could look like today?

That still holds. The problem is that it's been taken to its logical conclusion: all dysfunctional countries have been conquered by their competent neighbors, which means that there are large landmasses that contain exclusively competent nations (North America, Europe, Australia/Oceania, and soon Asia) and large landmasses that contain exclusively dysfunctional ones (Africa, Arabia, and South America). There are natu…

maybe one of you could show at least one example of a "competent" nation conquering disfunctional ones before building your complete world view on it.
Post reply on HN