111–120 of 142 posts
There are two things which builds a person - genes and environment. In some places of the globe both of them are spoiled. Russia is the good example.
If Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Kandinsky, Mayakovsky, Markov, Kolmogorov, Gelfand, Arnold, Gromov, Perelman have / had spoiled genes, then I wish such "spoiled genes" were more common in the West.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
Well, on a more positive note about Romania ... my father was the general director of such an institution, and when he was removed from his position based on political reasons, he sued the ministry.
Such actions can be taken because as I said, almost everyone is more or less corrupt and can be caught with a hand in the cookie jar :) ... but in the case of my father (which is either clean or smart :)), he got justice and had to be reinstated.
He's now a senator working in 2 commissions ... and I'm really proud of him for having big balls :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The search for cheap labor moves on to another poor country, and the newly rich country is an economic benefit to all as a trading partner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The romanticized Indians where the victims bent, is a little old. The fact of the matter is the Indians (all distinctive cultures) where the looser in a bitter battle between two cultures. Both where right and both where wrong. Both committed atrocities that are appealing by today's standards. The white apologist thing is just neo-trendy but true history does not support your conclusion. The fact of the matter is, fo…
> "Appealing" by today's standards. Amusing slip, but the sad thing is some people would agree with this statement.
It is worth looking at Deng Xiaoping's early rural reforms in China, to see an example that lifted the most people out of poverty in the shortest amount of time.
I can summarize it with the biblical saying: don't give a man fish, teach a man how to fish.
China's record illustrates a few things: a) a society where there is some order and stability, so people can focus on development. Way too many poor countries, including the poorest parts of India, have little or no stability on the ground. You have to be able to make a plan, and have a reasonable assurance that the overall environment around you is stable enough to execute the plan. This Deng provided.
b) Remove barriers to rural entrepreneurship, particularly light industry - shoes, textiles, everyday low tech household goods and the like. It should be possible for these ventures to be funded - they need fairly small amounts of capital, but the system has to be in place to provide access to that capital, and conversely, provide reasonable security to that capital. This is why order and stability matters - both sides on the capital equation have to be able to make a plan with some assurance.
c) Build roads in the countryside, so the rural entrepreneurs have market access, so they can get a higher price by selling to nearby urban areas (i.e they can get better terms of trade in exchange for other urban-made goods - this lifts both sides).
That is it. Note that I did not say anything about literacy, healthcare and so on. All of those things are important, but getting the first steps I listed above right would unleash a wave of human energy that would lift incomes on a massive scale. Even the poorest, most illiterate villages in India have a labor force that can produce these light goods for their own consumption, and have enough talent to organize that production - that is the crucial part to remember. They can lift consumption only if they lift production.
Step back and think about this: what is poverty? At its rawest level, it is a) not enough food b) not enough simple material goods. Unleashing rural entrepreneurship allows a) more food to be grown b) allows that same population to produce the simple material goods that vastly improve the human condition. I am not talking here about iPhones here, I am talking about the shirt on your back, shoes, toothbrush and the like. Once people take that first step on the ladder, they move up pretty fast.
Fortunately, where our company is (in India) and our current position (doing well) allows us to experiment. But there is that crucial first step, stability and order, we cannot provide, which means we can only go where there is stability and order, which obtains relatively more in Southern India than in the North, though (or should I say "as a result") Northern states are poorer.
Deng's China is the existence proof that it can be done.
In older times a dysfunctional country would be quickly conquered and fixed by the nearest competent neighbor. I don't even know what a solution could look like today?
The British got out of the imperialism business soon after they introduced universal sufferage; the average blokes would rather see their tax money spent on things like jobs for themselves than on maintaining supply lines to India.
One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.
"One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule" Umm no. That depends on defining "better off" as "ruled by invaders from another country but with some economic or social benefits(probably)". Just try offering colonial rule to former colonies, who have experience of being "better off". People might joke about that, but an independent country's citizens would fight to the death a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Some poor countries are able to bootstrap themselves out of it though. The article cites China, Taiwan, South Korea, Botswana, Chile, India, Mauritius, and Singapore as countries which historically were chronically poor and now are some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Corruption is the degree to which a government prioritizes its needs over its people's needs. An early example of an anti-corruption measure would be the Magna Carta, which established limits on what an English monarch could do to his subjects. Anglo / American history is essentially one long struggle against corruption. It eventually manifested itself in the form of a government that by definition serves it's people…
There is quite an interesting argument claiming that the German Kaiserreich (1871-1914) served its people better than the modern federal republic of Germany.
How does the government keep from eating itself in corruption? We assume this government has reached a steady state by taking only half but not all. However, as the article cites the more corruption you do the more your supporters will do, and the only way to stay in power is to let your supporters be corrupt. Since you're not really building any value, or letting value take root it seems like a prolonged history of this will eventually eat itself without fresh infusions of capital from outside parties. The article hints at this, but it's hard to control it because your supporters are doing it too and might not realize you can't take too much. Plus when outside markets go down I doubt corruption wants to take less in those times. It seems like it will lead to eventual erosion because rebuilding value when markets come back are less likely to happen.