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

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#91

Post by distances »

mcv wrote: post #74
throwaway8591 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Ethiopia is actually often mentioned as the only country in Africa that wasn't colonised

> Finland was never a colonial power, by the way.

That was the whole sarcastically made point of the grandparent comment. Rich non-colonizing states vs. poor non-colonized states.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#92

Post by distances »

kbart wrote: post #89
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...

> Strange that you name Finland in a "basket cases of mismanagement"

You misread the comment, that's not what they claimed.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#93

Post by eesmith »

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…

You write: "The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA".

Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_... :

> By the 18th century, the slave trade became a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, engaged in the so-called "Triangular trade".

Further details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade :

> Bristol and Liverpool merchants became increasingly involved in the trade.[92] By the late 17th century, one out of every four ships that left Liverpool harbour was a slave trading ship.[93] Much of the wealth on which the city of Manchester, and surrounding towns, was built in the late 18th century, and for much of the 19th century, was based on the processing of slave-picked cotton and manufacture of cloth.[94] Other British cities also profited from the slave trade. Birmingham, the largest gun-producing town in Britain at the time, supplied guns to be traded for slaves.[95] 75% of all sugar produced in the plantations was sent to London, and much of it was consumed in the highly lucrative coffee houses there. ...

> By far the most financially profitable West Indian colonies in 1800 belonged to the United Kingdom. ...

> It has been estimated that the profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations created up to one-in-twenty of every pound circulating in the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 18th century

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#94

Post by mcv »

distances wrote: post #91
mcv wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Ethiopia is actually often mentioned as the only country in Africa that wasn't colonised > Finland was never a colonial power, by the way. That was the whole sarcastically made point of the grandparent comment. Rich non-colonizing states vs. poor non-colonized states.

You're probably right, but the grandparent wasn't entirely correct. Sweden has had colonies in both Africa and the Caribbean, and Ethiopia has been colonised, although both for only a fairly short period.

Colonisation obviously does play a role. It's ridiculous to claim that pillaging or oppressing another country doesn't hurt it, nor enrich the country that takes the profits. But it's not remotely the only factor at play. And the further in the past some events are, the more they get overshadowed by more recent history. I don't think Italy has much remaining benefit from the slaves the Roman Empire took from the Kelts they conquered.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#95

Post by tormeh »

rohit2412 wrote: post #78
hasenj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought that was pretty amusing at first, but at least in Germany there was a system that could be resurrected after Hitler. In Japan, I don't know.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#96

Post by tormeh »

kbart wrote: post #85
throwaway8591 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Poe's law in action.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#97

Post by Supernaut »

eesmith wrote: post #93
Supernaut wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You write: "The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_... : > By the 18th century, the slave trade became a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, engaged in the so-called "Triangular trade". Further details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade : > Bristo…

Thank you for your excellent reply. I stand corrected that regard.

However, the fact that the period to which your refer is some 250 years in the past supports my wider point that it is specious to claim that the the wealth of current-day first world nations derives from the historic use of slave labour.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#98

Post by danielam »

mamon wrote: post #54
emrahayanoglu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because controlling people, who are struggling in their life, are much easier by dictators. Even with religious activities, dictators can make citizens pray for him. if politicians allow you to have lots of chances, then you'll start criticizing and want more. More improvement on life conditions gives you less control on citizens. I'm Turkish living in Switzerland, I can say that it is the same shit in every developi…

Which means that usual ways of dealing with dicators, i.e. econimic sanctions are counterproductive. They make average people poorer, and then less likely to revolt against their dictator. Taking communist Poland as an example, people start revolution not when things are worst for them economically, but, paradoxically, when things start getting better, but not fast enough. Polish people revolted against communists in…

Something similar happened w.r.t. the French revolution.

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#99

Post by danielam »

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's not a simple matter of policy. Culture and civilization are also important.

Take the contemporary Western assumptions that democracy is the best political system, the most natural system and one that ought to be implemented everywhere. Putting aside the question of whether these assumptions are true, consider that merely transplanting a democratic style of governance to a country of a different cultural and civilizational profile will not guarantee that that style of governance will function or last. Ultimately, democracy is a system that developed within the context of a particular variety of Western (particularly what Koneczny calls Latin) civilization. Whether democracy can survive for any meaningful length of time in any other civilization is not a given. It isn't even a given that it will survive in the West in its present form (its tenure has been rather short historically).

Re: Why Are Some Countries Rich and Others Poor?

#100

Post by hikarudo »

te_chris wrote: post #61
anovikov wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil became a basket case of mismanagement only since a few years ago, that isn't something they are doomed to forever. They are already well on the way to fix that.

By deposing a democratically elected president? Not Brazilian, but I'm not sure how this is 'fixing it'. The key strength of the West, IMO, is, as others have said, the things you don't see. Trustworthy institutions that mean you're not always second-guessing whether or not something is as it seems. That's why it's so important for us Westerners to be vigilant to attacks on the integrity of our institutions and syste…

Democratically elected, and democratically deposed. The March 2016 demonstrations were the largest in the history of Brazil, and for good reasons.
Post reply on HN