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

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#81

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

andriesm wrote: post #55
wallace_f wrote: post #35

Economists can sometimes be the equivalent to the priests of the past--basically making justifications for the ruling class. I was once passionate about economics and public policy... If we are to be honest about it, at some point you just realize that the world is much less nice than I imagined, and it's that way because of people's greed. That's not to say there aren't a fair good number of decent people out there,…

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.

Unless you're powerful enough to make choices against the will of others.

There is an interesting series of wikileaks from European embassies showing American pressure on wide acceptance of GMO. It seems a lot of money and effort went into this. See for example this one:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06WARSAW107_a.html

> 8. (U) Spirnak's second lecture took place at the American Studies Center at Warsaw University. Approximately 20 students and faculty attended the lecture. Again, the students did not openly object to the idea of consuming GMO's but did reflect the typical European mistrust surrounding the issue. They asked about the purpose of altering the genetic structure of food, in what is essentially a "if it's not broken don't fix it" argument that is commonly made in Poland.

In other words, people are relatively happy with the crops and want to keep it that way. Then Americans come and are pushing the technology they're controlling down people's throats, reporting the results of their campaigns via diplomatic channels. People refuse, saying they're happy with what they have. Efforts continue - this time on EU level rather than lobbying individual countries.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#82

Post by kbart »

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?

Neither Finland nor Poland had any colonies nor they had "enslaved its industrious inhabitants". So your example itself counters your point that colonization and enslavement are necessary for prosperity of countries.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#83

Post by tim333 »

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?

The European countries would quite likely be similarly rich if - if you look at such countries that didn't have colonies like Switzerland or Ireland, they've done ok.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#84

Post by tpeo »

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).

Assume that all these countries have had different levels of exposure to slavery, meaning the total amount of GDP can be attributed to slavery, and that would be thus lost if they abolished slavery and refused to trade with companies or individuals which use slavery (e.g. place an embargo on American cotton unless it's certified).

I mean, it's a fair assumption: slavery was abolished in France in 1794, in the United Kingdom in 1833 and in the United States in 1865. Germany mainly traded with it's European neighbors, which didn't use slave labor in their territories.

Then how can all these different countries have similar levels of GDP per capita and similar growth paths, despite their different levels of exposure?

Furthermore, there currently poor countries which relied on slave labor for much longer. Brazil only abolished slavery in 1888. Morocco, in 1922. And if we include serfdom, Russia, in 1861.

Unless you mean metaphorical slavery.

I grant that it would take much more sophisticated analysis in order to properly exclude any confounding factors, but that's kinda the point, really. I don't think you really thought this through.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#85

Post by kbart »

throwaway8591 wrote: post #57
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).

> Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery), and this countries include USA, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, etc Don't stop there. Throw in Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungry, etc. > Some are really poor because they've been exploited by the countries mentioned above (Africa and former German, British, Belgian, French c…

Please, make your facts straight. It's not the first time in this thread you blame countries for their colonial past that have never had any colonies:

Switzerland, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia -- none of them had colonies.

"Hungry"

That's not even a country (though can't argue that it would be a fun name).

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#86

Post by tim333 »

imperfect_cat wrote: post #58
jamesmattis wrote: post #23

There must be a definition of rich and poor. It should not be devised by looking at the wealth. It should be devised by looking at the living standards, education system, environment, law and order, equality, zero racism. And where people can live an anxiety/depression free life. Where there is welfare, care, love grows everyday for each other.

Sadly, that defines one race countries. No racism possible when there are no races but one. Personally, I think this definition is bad because it progress free. Anxiety free is has no scale. If you are massively anxious I. Country A, and mildly anxious in B, both fail. Need to rethink this.

There still seems a fair bit of racism in mostly one race countries, say Japan for example. There seems less in widely mixed places, say London or Singapore.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#88

Post by charlesism »

andriesm wrote: post #55
wallace_f wrote: post #35

Economists can sometimes be the equivalent to the priests of the past--basically making justifications for the ruling class. I was once passionate about economics and public policy... If we are to be honest about it, at some point you just realize that the world is much less nice than I imagined, and it's that way because of people's greed. That's not to say there aren't a fair good number of decent people out there,…

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.

    > The beauty about free market economics is, [etc]
So Economics is a science after all!

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#89

Post by kbart »

mc32 wrote: post #19

Wasn't there a significant divergence in fortunes as economies transformed from resource based to value added economies? Around the turn of the XX century, many struggling economies today were on par with middling countries in Europe. Think Czech, Finland, Hungary, Polen, Japan. Brazil, Mexico, etc., were competitive with them back then, but now, the latter are seen as basket cases of mismanagement. And empire and co…

Strange that you name Finland in a "basket cases of mismanagement". It is in world top20 by GDP/capita and often cited as having the best school system in whole world[0].

0. http://www.businessinsider.com/wef-ranking-of-best-school-sy...

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#90

Post by pg314 »

andriesm wrote: post #55
wallace_f wrote: post #35

Economists can sometimes be the equivalent to the priests of the past--basically making justifications for the ruling class. I was once passionate about economics and public policy... If we are to be honest about it, at some point you just realize that the world is much less nice than I imagined, and it's that way because of people's greed. That's not to say there aren't a fair good number of decent people out there,…

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.

That's a simplistic view ignoring information asymmetries, externalities and natural monopolies.
Post reply on HN