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

61–70 of 142 posts

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#61

Post by nostrademons »

fbailey wrote: post #50
nostrademons wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first that comes to mind is the Ottoman empire. World power in the 1600-1700s, but it failed to develop the institutions mentioned in this article and fell to Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Britain over the latter half of the 1800s.

Lithuania. Largest country in Europe in the 14th century. Lost large sections of its territory to Sweden and Russia in the late 1600s and 1700s.

All of the Native American nations that were swept aside by the United States. Much of that was because of disease, but a lot was also because the U.S. was better organized and could pick off individual tribes one-by-one.

Mongolia. Genghis Khan's empire, once one of the largest on earth. Great fighters, poor administrators. Eventually overshadowed by China.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#62

Post by Tichy »

Arun2009 wrote: post #60

I think the first step in overcoming poverty is for all of us to propagate a value system where citizens are held responsible for their countries. For example, if India is poor and backward, then I am responsible for contributing to its poverty and backwardness, and so are all other Indians.

I strongly disagree, I think it is more important to look at the system that brings about the results (poverty). Not everybody is in a position to change the system - for example not everybody has the skills to become elected as president to be able to change the laws.

Maybe everybody could do something to change things, but it certainly isn't obvious WHAT to do. Therefore I can't blame people, if they don't know any better.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#63

Post by Arun2009 »

Tichy wrote: post #62
Arun2009 wrote: post #60

I think the first step in overcoming poverty is for all of us to propagate a value system where citizens are held responsible for their countries. For example, if India is poor and backward, then I am responsible for contributing to its poverty and backwardness, and so are all other Indians.

I strongly disagree, I think it is more important to look at the system that brings about the results (poverty). Not everybody is in a position to change the system - for example not everybody has the skills to become elected as president to be able to change the laws. Maybe everybody could do something to change things, but it certainly isn't obvious WHAT to do. Therefore I can't blame people, if they don't know any…

> Therefore I can't blame people, if they don't know any better.

This sounds to me as patronizing. I refuse to think that Cameroonians "don't know any better".

I was not really speaking for Cameroon anyway. My main target was India, where you'll see the most demeaning, wretched kind of poverties. I am responsible for it, and if I choose not to do anything about it, then it's my deliberate choice. That's all I am saying.

> for example not everybody has the skills to become elected as president to be able to change the laws

We are not all born with the tools required for the things we need done. We acquire them over time.

Waiting for a messiah to materialize is what I'd call the Kalki-complex. Kalkis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki) are myths. If there's to be change, it must come from us. And that sense of responsibility is what would inspire each of us to strive to be mini-Kalkis, and with any luck, some of us might even become major-Kalkis.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#64

Post by rubinelli »

zzleeper wrote: post #21
eraad wrote: post #12

I'm impressed this article basically explains why do I live in a poor country. I live in Ecuador (South America). Our land is packed with high-quality oil, virtually unlimited food and impressive biodiversity (google "yasuni"). Although our country looks perfect, 15% of us live in extreme poverty (this means living out of less than 2 bucks a day). The other 60% is mid-low class with less than $1000 of annual income.…

But then, how do poor countries end up getting day after day such lousy governments? Is the people/society a factor in that? (after all, they DO vote, at least in Ecuador)

Most of Latin American countries are democracy, but until relatively recently, they were run by right-wing dictatorships. Generally speaking, their institutions are still recovering, the legislative branch is discredited, and the executive still concentrates an awful lot of power, making it very easy to slip back into caudillismo.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#65

Post by mtts »

dkarl wrote: post #5

It 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?

"organized crime" pretty accurately describes other forms of government as well. Feudalism in medieval Europe, for example, was basically an extortion and protection racket.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#66

Post by yardie »

DenisM wrote: post #45
nostrademons wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some haven't and are engaged in it outright or through proxy. China claims all of the South China Sea (and islands) to be theirs. Ethiopia, I personally believe, is just still playing with the idea of taking parts of Somalia. This would be done already if their government wasn't already corrupt. And Morocco still claims Western Sahara, a quasi independent nation with no formal government.

And don't even get me start on Israel and the west bank.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#67

Post by cousin_it »

fbailey wrote: post #49
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 igno…

Most African countries actually were better off under colonialism.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#68

Post by Tichy »

Arun2009 wrote: post #63
Tichy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree, I think it is more important to look at the system that brings about the results (poverty). Not everybody is in a position to change the system - for example not everybody has the skills to become elected as president to be able to change the laws. Maybe everybody could do something to change things, but it certainly isn't obvious WHAT to do. Therefore I can't blame people, if they don't know any…

> Therefore I can't blame people, if they don't know any better. This sounds to me as patronizing. I refuse to think that Cameroonians "don't know any better". I was not really speaking for Cameroon anyway. My main target was India, where you'll see the most demeaning, wretched kind of poverties. I am responsible for it, and if I choose not to do anything about it, then it's my deliberate choice. That's all I am sayi…

"I am responsible for it, and if I choose not to do anything about it, then it's my deliberate choice."

What could you do about it? Granted, you could somehow dedicate your life to trying to end it. But even then, you'd need a starting point. Suppose you are extremely poor, how to you start? If you have to spend 20 hours/day to find food, you don't have time to practice becoming a good speaker to rouse the masses.

I don't mean it as patronizing, quite the opposite. I think it is patronizing to say it is the people's own fault for not doing anything about it.

If you were a Cameronian, what would you do? If you chose to work against poverty in India, what would you do?

I wouldn't know what to do as a Cameronian. As the article says, if you try to start a business to improve economics and infrastructure, thieves will take it apart. If you go into politics to try to change the situation, I suppose you will be murdered or something like that. If you start a revolution, there will be lots of bloodshed. I don't see an easy solution.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#69

Post by vlisivka »

There is no difference in behaviour of two systems, when each element of the system behaves like corresponding element of the another system.

It will be much easier to understand what happen in Cameroon, if you imagine similar system you can understand.

Imagine, you have group of web-servers. You hire administrator to administrate your dedicated servers in dedicated data centre. He changed all locks, root passwords, identity information, and then installed his own servers in addition to your own. The only right you have now is to pay bills. His servers produces too much load on your system, his incompetent administration causes outages, so your own income is suffers down. There is no "provider" to complain to.

What you can do in that situation?

a) Pay more to administrator, so he will take some courses and will provide more competent service in future;

b) register new web-domain, create new, separate, data centre, hire new administrator;

c) hire a gang to kill old administrator, blow up doors, reformat hard drives, hire new administrator.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#70

Post by Arun2009 »

Tichy wrote: post #68
Arun2009 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore I can't blame people, if they don't know any better. This sounds to me as patronizing. I refuse to think that Cameroonians "don't know any better". I was not really speaking for Cameroon anyway. My main target was India, where you'll see the most demeaning, wretched kind of poverties. I am responsible for it, and if I choose not to do anything about it, then it's my deliberate choice. That's all I am sayi…

"I am responsible for it, and if I choose not to do anything about it, then it's my deliberate choice." What could you do about it? Granted, you could somehow dedicate your life to trying to end it. But even then, you'd need a starting point. Suppose you are extremely poor, how to you start? If you have to spend 20 hours/day to find food, you don't have time to practice becoming a good speaker to rouse the masses. I…

> If you chose to work against poverty in India, what would you do?

:-)

See, my version of your question is: What would Gandhi (or Nehru, Bose, Azad, Bhagat, Savarkar, et. al.) do?

I don't have an answer to that right now, I am afraid.

Post reply on HN