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

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#91

Post by ytinas »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #82
ytinas wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does your (and the GP's) definition of "competent" mean, "imperialistic"? Were the native Americans less competent because they weren't always trying to expand and conquer? Looking at today's rat race, I don't think it's conclusive that we did a better job than they would have. Sure, it seems likely that we ended up with better medicine than they would have had by now, but the rest of it? "I should probably ment…

Which native Americans? The Yaqui? Or the Iroquois, pre-league or post-league? Or the Chiricahua Apaches? Or the Pequot? Each of those had their own unique culture, their own identity, their own language, their own technology. Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not. Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes, while others had found territory to settle in a…

Any of them. They were all steam rolled by us.

>Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not.

What bearing does this have on anything? Most of the bad things we hear about were learned from someone else (e.g. scalping from the French).

>Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes,

There was in-fighting between certain groups, but obviously none had the same appetite we did.

>If you have any love at all for history, stop referring to all those pre-colonial nations under a single name and title.

You seem to have an axe to grind. In normal usage, one provides as much detail as is relevant. If I were talking about people of earth in relation to some other alien race I would most likely say "humans" unless there was a real reason to be more specific.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#92

Post by radu_floricica »

fbailey wrote: post #47
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 corruptio…

The stick of non-inclusion did as much good as it could at the time. Already the politicians were at a point where any more pressure would have made them balk.

Last couple of years I haven't followed the political life, so I don't really know where they're headed. I don't think it's gotten any much better, or that it will soon. But things should be viewed in context. We're a functioning and fast developing economy. We _are_ a functioning democracy - we have little to choose from, but we do choose our politicians. A past of communism left us well educated and disciplined - you won't find terrorists of civil wars here any time soon. The only bit of public violence we had in the past 20 years (the mineriads) were actually very organized political movements, and their time has passed. Overall we're a good addition to EU. Not to mention that the only other choice we'd have had was Russia, which would have been worse for both of us.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#93

Post by thaumaturgy »

I've been thinking about this for a few years. Like the author said, once you start thinking about it, it's hard to think about anything else.

Not all poor countries are poor in the same way. Although there are clear correlations between crime and poverty -- and corruption -- there are also countries like Thailand, which are poor but with relatively little crime or corruption.

So, let's say culture is one factor. If you reduce the education of the people down to what can be passed by word of mouth from one generation to the next, then if that culture's "story" is largely one of war or self-interest, then it's more likely to be reinforced by the next generation. On the other hand, if a culture's history includes a somewhat recent spell of relative peace -- even under a dictatorship -- then it's more likely that the next generation will work towards establishing stability.

Resources is certainly another factor. It is simply impossible for a country to make roads, high technology, and infrastructure materialize from nothing. It must have natural resources available, either to directly build infrastructure or to trade with other countries for raw materials.

Education is another factor -- or, maybe more specifically, the value of education. This is one of the things that concerns me about anti-intellectualism in the U.S.; when education becomes devalued, citizens lose the perspective of history, the opportunity to learn from other countries' mistakes, and the notions of what might be possible in the future.

Poverty and corruption are self-reinforcing, too. You can see this even in the poorer communities in "wealthy" countries: homes that are in disrepair, common spaces that are mismanaged and poorly kept. I'm sometimes tempted to wonder why people in those communities don't spend a few dollars on paint, or a few hours here and there working on a few repairs, and bring their community out of poverty. Then, I remember how I felt when I was poor: exhausted. There is a tremendous spiritual toll taken by abject poverty; it defeats you the moment you wake up. Your day will likely be a struggle, and if it isn't, then it becomes a rare and valuable rest day. It's a difficult catch-22 to understand if you haven't been in such a situation, but if you're constantly struggling to survive, the last thing you want to do is spend effort to improve your situation.

Cameroon at this point isn't likely to change soon, because its poverty and corruption has become cultural. Changing its situation will probably require first a massive sea-change in the government; the death of the current ruler and replacement by someone less politically savvy, or less self-interested. Or, direct intervention by other governments.

Then, it will take time. Someone will have to find the energy to build infrastructure while the rest of the citizens learn what it can be like not to struggle every day.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#94

Post by gcb »

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)

you vote and got bush :)

now seriously, at least here in Brazil, the trick is that vote is mandatory. So everyone must vote. and everyone ends up voting uninformed. so, the most money you put on the campaign the most votes you get.

And everyone is too busy getting to theirs lives to note that it's already institutionalized. My wife just returned from her driving license exam. the only people approved was the ones that gave the country-standard US$150 bribe to the examiner. She failed the 1st attempt, obviously. When you don't pay you pass on the 2nd or 3rd. which ends up being a little more then the bribe wasted on gov fees and a lot more hassle.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#95

Post by thaumaturgy »

ytinas wrote: post #91
thaumaturgy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which native Americans? The Yaqui? Or the Iroquois, pre-league or post-league? Or the Chiricahua Apaches? Or the Pequot? Each of those had their own unique culture, their own identity, their own language, their own technology. Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not. Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes, while others had found territory to settle in a…

Any of them. They were all steam rolled by us. >Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not. What bearing does this have on anything? Most of the bad things we hear about were learned from someone else (e.g. scalping from the French). >Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes, There was in-fighting between certain groups, but obviously none had the same appet…

So, if some alien race conquered our planet, destroyed nearly all of human culture -- and thus human history -- if not our species altogether, and then other members of that alien race said things like:

It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful, so quaint. We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment...

...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"?

Mine would be, "You're completely ignorant of human history, and that should change."

Scalping is a popular subject to bring up, because it's so simple, so easy to understand. It's not like all of the other varied forms of torture, which have to be described and require a certain amount of attention to discuss; instead, you just say, "...scalping...", and everybody goes, "Ohhhh yeah, that horrible thing that whites taught the innocent natives."

...but then, what were the French doing in South Dakota in 1350? [1]

Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful".

[1]: http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/crowcreek/vignet...

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#96

Post by Tichy »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #93

I've been thinking about this for a few years. Like the author said, once you start thinking about it, it's hard to think about anything else. Not all poor countries are poor in the same way. Although there are clear correlations between crime and poverty -- and corruption -- there are also countries like Thailand, which are poor but with relatively little crime or corruption. So, let's say culture is one factor. If…

I don't know much about Thailand, but I think last year they had civil war, or were on the brink of it. I remember one Thai waitress telling me that she worries about her family back home. So not everything is peachy there, either.

As for public spaces, having lived in a student hall puts things into perspective. It is VERY demotivating to repeatedly clean up other people's dirt, if they don't care.

I once visited a home for asylum seekers and was a bit shocked about the dirt (for example in the kitchen). But there were lots of different nationalities there, who might not even understand each other. When I moved in the student hall and saw that even people with equal backgrounds have problems to cooperate, I understood why the conditions for asylum seekers were so poor...

Likewise for run down neighbourhoods: what is the point in replacing your windows, if other people will just smash them again within days? Besides I suspect the worse it gets the more people think about moving away rather than improving things. Once you have decided you want to move away eventually, you are even less likely to invest into improving things.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#97

Post by coolnewtoy »

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…

It would be safer to be an Afghan woman under the communists than the Taliban or current US occupation.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#98

Post by ytinas »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #95
ytinas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any of them. They were all steam rolled by us. >Some were cruel to their captives and in times of war; others were not. What bearing does this have on anything? Most of the bad things we hear about were learned from someone else (e.g. scalping from the French). >Some wanted to expand their territory and conquer lands and other tribes, There was in-fighting between certain groups, but obviously none had the same appet…

So, if some alien race conquered our planet, destroyed nearly all of human culture -- and thus human history -- if not our species altogether, and then other members of that alien race said things like: It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful , so quaint . We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment... ...Your reaction would be, "Wel…

>It's such a shame. Humans were so peaceful, so quaint. We could have learned so much from them, because all humans lived in great harmony with each-other and with their environment...

>...Your reaction would be, "Well, that's about as much detail as is relevant, sure"?

No. In that case, they are making a blanket statement that all humans were peaceful, etc. In this case I was suggestion that the native Americans who were here before us were not necessarily inferior or incompetent. I think that statement stands for most any specific native American group, if not all.

>Yes, I certainly do have an axe to grind, and it is this: history is rich, and amazing, and valuable, and I wish it to be taught and revered, and not swept under the Rug Of Oversimplification with statements like, "the Roman Empire was grand", and "native Americans were beautiful".

Fair enough, but comments get long enough on their own without having to completely qualify every part of every point ever made.

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#99

Post by ytinas »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #79
tulsidas wrote: post #73

Another reason is that rich countries usually benefit from poor countries staying poor, so the try to keep them that way

That's obvious nonsense. Look what Japan, China and India have done for the world. First cheap fast-growing investments producing low cost goods (aka sweatshops), then a rich economy that can do its own investing. Even countries that get a smaller slice of the pie now still have cause to be glad that the whole pie is larger.

I don't follow. You don't think the US has interest in China labor being so cheap? What do you think would happen if standard of living for the average Chinese reached that of the average American and they had to be paid the same amount it would cost us to produce materials?

Re: Why Poor Countries Are Poor

#100

Post by w00pla »

radu_floricica wrote: post #90
w00pla wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Romania is actually one of the fastest growing countries in Europe and is upper middle income. In my country (South Africa), 2/3rds of the population voted for a president who is known to be corrupt . He is on the verge of giving his friend (who organized him a bribe) a presidential pardon. What is shocking for me is not that the president is corrupt - but that he has the support of 66% of the population. The majorit…

In our case all candidates are reasonably corrupt. Most current politicians started their careers in the chaos following the '89 revolution, when a lot of the public wealth was sold for ridiculous prices. The current president is pretty well known for involvment in selling the state commerce fleet. What we do know for sure is that he's a pretty good manager, and the other guy is a lot more corrupt. So we voted for hi…

There are some striking similarities.

> In our case all candidates are reasonably corrupt.

Our previous batch of rulers at least had the decency to try and hide their corruption. This president is pretty open about it.

> What we do know for sure is that he's a pretty good manager,

Our president not. He has grade 3 and is just seen as a populist.

> The biggest problem I think is a bit different. I'm very very scared by the politicization of public institutions. Top management is always chosen based on party, and automatically so is middle management. This breeds a brand of bureaucracy interesting more in politics than in getting things done, and the more it lasts the lower the mindset seeps.

This is extremely similar. In my country it is called “cadre deployment” and is an official position. The ruling party employ their members (cadres) at all public institutions to follow the ruling party’s will. This includes but is not limited to all branches of national, provincial and local government, including places such as hospitals and government owned companies (such as electricity utilities).

So, these people are employed on the basis of where they are in the ruling party – and not based on competence. They then also ensure that the whole institution is politicised.

---

There are two other things, which I do not know if it happens in Romania. The first is an extremely well politically connected oligarchy which are members of the ruling party. They get government contracts (and are favoured by government policy) while they give money to the ruling party and members. Does this happen there?

Another thing we have is the ruling party’s “investment arm” (Chancellor house) which holds stake in many tenders given by government. (The government therefore give tenders indirectly to the ruling party).

Post reply on HN