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

Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

research.stlouisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#71

Post by mantas »

tanto wrote: post #21
alborzmassah wrote: post #18

Why don't countries just merge or join each other? Doesn't all the division simply create more fear and us VS them.

To put it a bit colorful: Because in the Game of Nations many people want to be King. To have many Kings you need many Kingdoms. Also Unity makes you strong and usually your enemies will do whatever they can to divide and conquer.

More like people don't like when people from far away try to enforce seemingly stupid laws. Having a vote that actually matters is awesome.

The other question is how those tiny kingdoms organise into bigger structures to have economy-of-scale, while still retaining their sovereignty on internal matters.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#72

Post by sgift »

wallace_f wrote: post #70
sgift wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the believe. The proof in the real world is quite lacking.

There is a lot of proof markets do work very well when you get close to perfect (and I'd add, fair) competition. Outside of that, things begin to break down quickly.

Hence the part about "real world" - yes, mathematically you can proof all this and it all looks nice and tidy, but all experience tells us that it doesn't work that way outside the lab.

"The system is perfect, the people are the problem."

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#73

Post by wallace_f »

mvc wrote: post #66
andriesm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The beauty about free market economics is, it doesn't depend on people's niceness to maximize productivity, capital utilization and consequently the aggregate standard of living of a country. Supply and demand, and pursueing self interest will achieve all of this in the aggregate despite any localized exceptions.

All those good things like maximizing productivity, capital utilization etc are theory based on markets with perfect competition. How many "free markets" satisfy all the assumptions made about perfect competition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Yea, exactly. But with effective regulation, we can get closer to perfect competition, or at least remedy the market failures that are inevitable.

To go on a bit of a rant--ufortunately it appears the trend is going the other way with Big Gov allied with Big Business, out of control banking empires and MIC, made possible by never-ending low interest rates and easy money policies from the Fed that mask it all.

Don't belive me? Real cost of living has increased to where 2 incomes are required for many to just keep their heads above water to afford what their parents had, despite more education and working longer hours. We have never ending wars, 26,000 bombs dropped last year, and the longest war in history and it was never even approved by congress. Our most popular media outlets tell us we need this so we have jobs[1].

1-https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried-...

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#74

Post by mcv »

throwaway8591 wrote: post #50
LeonigMig wrote: post #2

No mention of colonialism or imperialism here. Not the whole answer, but part.

Indeed. How rich would Finland, Sweden, Austria, and Poland really be today had they never colonized Africa or subjugated and enslaved its industrious inhabitants, and how rich would Ethiopia be if it had been spared from the ravages of European rapacity?

It's hard to say. Some countries were rich before they were colonised and had all their riches stolen, others were poor to begin with. Ethiopia is actually often mentioned as the only country in Africa that wasn't colonised (though that's not entirely true), and has been rich and powerful in the past, but it poor now. One of the poorest countries in Africa, Mali, was once the home of one of the richest empires ever.

China has been the richest and most powerful countries in the world for 2000 years before European nations crippled it in the Opium Wars.

Finland was never a colonial power, by the way. Sweden was, but Finland was still largely tribal a bit over a century ago, and was kind of a colony of Sweden and Russia alternately. The rise of Finland to one of the most civilised countries in the world over the period of a century is really interesting.

I fear racism is also a big factor. White people in Finland are more likely to get a break from other white people than black people in Ethiopia are.

But culture is also a big factor. In Europe, the most powerful economies are in the traditionally protestant north, whereas the Catholic south tends to have somewhat weaker economies. But why? And why were Muslim countries rich, powerful and advanced in the Middle Ages, and now not anymore?

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#75

Post by wallace_f »

sgift wrote: post #72
wallace_f wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of proof markets do work very well when you get close to perfect (and I'd add, fair) competition. Outside of that, things begin to break down quickly.

Hence the part about "real world" - yes, mathematically you can proof all this and it all looks nice and tidy, but all experience tells us that it doesn't work that way outside the lab. "The system is perfect, the people are the problem."

But there are a lot of markets where it does get close enough that the assumptions are useful in modelling the world. Agricultural products, food and beverage industry, market for unskilled labourers, etc.

And in cases where there isn't perfect competition, many times good regulation can remedy the problems very effectively.

I am very critical of many of the kinds of groupthink that exists in economics, but the idea that markets can work well is really not such a bad idea, especially when you compare it to the alternatives.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#76

Post by JPLeRouzic »

Supernaut wrote: post #68
bolololo1 wrote: post #47

Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery), and this countries include USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Some are really poor because they've been exploited by the countries mentioned above (Africa and former German, British, Belgian, French colonies). Some are poorer because they've been destroyed by war multiple times (Poland).

This is an absurd generalisation. The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA, and even that period is over a hundred and fifty years ago. Furthermore, the civil war that was waged to end slavery ultimately brought economic ruin to the southern States that had relied on slave labour. In the post-WWII era, the countries that have prospered have done so because they have enjoyed st…

>> The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA

I do not know for other countries but in France what is told in schools and in media is that France had abolished slavery in 1794.

However it had slavery inscribed in its legal system for West Africa up until the beginning of the 20th century.

Even in metropolitan France, slavery was reinstated by Napoleon in 1802 and was not abolished for good until 1848 (in metropolitan France!).

In west Africa it was only in the beginning of the XX century that an end of slavery was declared by the colonial French administration ( 1905 in Mauritania).

In African states like Mali that are still controlled by France, at least by its military forces and its financial system (CFA/West African Franc), slavery was only legally forbidden in 2003.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#77

Post by sgift »

wallace_f wrote: post #75
sgift wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the part about "real world" - yes, mathematically you can proof all this and it all looks nice and tidy, but all experience tells us that it doesn't work that way outside the lab. "The system is perfect, the people are the problem."

But there are a lot of markets where it does get close enough that the assumptions are useful in modelling the world. Agricultural products, food and beverage industry, market for unskilled labourers, etc. And in cases where there isn't perfect competition, many times good regulation can remedy the problems very effectively. I am very critical of many of the kinds of groupthink that exists in economics, but the idea…

> And in cases where there isn't perfect competition, many times good regulation can remedy the problems very effectively.

Then we agree, but that is the big point I see in this discussions "regulations are always bad, regulations destroy markets" and so on. Regulated markets are a useful tool. And like all tools they can be misused or overused.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#78

Post by rohit2412 »

hasenj wrote: post #36
LeonigMig wrote: post #2

No mention of colonialism or imperialism here. Not the whole answer, but part.

Japan and Germany were completely devastated after WWII, on a scale we have never witnessed in our lifetimes, yet they rose out of the Ashes. So no, it's not colonialism. It has to be something less visible. Something that a country like Afghanistan for example severely lacks. You might point to dictatorships, but I would point to South and North Koreas. South Korea was ruled by a brutal dictatorship for decades , in…

I believe Japan and Germanys still had an educated and skilled population. And working systems against corruption and rule of law in society.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#79

Post by [deleted] »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #6
tpeo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The impact of colonialism is studied under the institutionalist approach to growth theory, with the two most proeminent recent authors being Acemoglu and Robinson. The submission doesn't elaborate on it, but the literature is out there.

I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. Can you explain in such a way that a non-domain expert can better interpret it?

[deleted]

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#80

Post by MisterPC »

sumedh wrote: post #7

As someone who migrated from a developing country(India) to a developed country(Australia) and observing the difference in quality of life of average citizens among the two countries, I always wonder why politicians/dictators from developing countries who can also observe these differences ever wonder that the average people in a developed country are living a good life so why not just copy what the developed country…

It also makes you wonder on the ideal size of a country and whether separate smaller nations or at least regions would be a better structure. Although large countries are the most powerful in the world, it doesn't seem to benefit the citizens very much.

It's also interesting that the 2 countries you mention are former British colonies but in the later the colonists essentially took over the ruling of the country and became the government. Essentially they did copy what what the developed country (Britain) was doing.

Post reply on HN