user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No
How did South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and such become wealthy? Good economics and governance.
Governments of poor countries are a huge factor in keeping poor countries poor.
However, yes, the West plays a role also- as it seems to continue to insist on keeping its harmful socialistic protectionism, which halts Global South markets from flourishing, or so it seems.
But for the most part, the governments of poor countries have a lot of responsibility, often implementing poor economic or political policies, not mention corruption and such. This is contrast with the governments of the likes of Taiwan and South Korea which have led their nations to join the developed world through a utilisation of good economic and political policies.
Socrates,
do you really think the world could sustain itself if the rest of the world industralized? Countries like the Sub-Saharan Africa are totally bypassed by globalization. Not to mention the fact that multinational corporations go into poor countries and implement SAPS that are harmful to the poor nations. These are only few countries that you mention..what about places like Latin America, that have been greatly harmed by SAPS implemented by the West?
by aya on Wed May 02, 07 10:04am
[+]
Besides which, it's the job of multinational corporations to go into poor countries and keep the people poor in order to have an endless supply of labour; not to mention the fact that 95% of the world's resources are controlled by us.
by aya on Wed May 02, 07 10:06am
[+]
I guess not looking at the effects of colonialism and other factors is comforting
by aya on Wed May 02, 07 10:09am
[+]
aya - "do you really think the world could sustain itself if the rest of the world industralized?"
- Yes.
"Countries like the Sub-Saharan Africa are totally bypassed by globalization."
- Well, South Africa is not bypassed. But a lot of sub-Saharan African countries are. Can you guess why they are and South Africa is not?
"Besides which, it's the job of multinational corporations to go into poor countries and keep the people poor in order to have an endless supply of labour; not to mention the fact that 95% of the world's resources are controlled by us."
- A country does not go from undeveloped to first world and developed overnight. A period of transition is needed. MNC's (multinational corps) actually benefited South Korea and Taiwan. They brought in employment. They brought in investment and an inflow of capital which of course helped stabilise these countries and allowed greater capability to further development of infrastructure. This actually led to a rise in the standard of living for those countries and the people could increasingly afford the necessities such as food, housing, clothing, etc, and a wealthier working class rose. As they had the necesseties they began demanding more things such as democracy, worker's rights, individual rights and such. As such South Korea and Taiwan became modern countries largely because of MNC's. However, it took a long time for this progress to take place- they first had to go through a phase of transition. A country does not go from poor to wealthy overnight, it takes time. And not just for non-Western countries. The West itself had to go through similar processes (and it took the West longer to do so, the Asian Tigers have remarkably done flown through the transition phase much faster). But anyway, MNC's helped South Korea and Taiwan become modern wealthy nations, such a thing could work for other nations too.
"what about places like Latin America, that have been greatly harmed by SAPS implemented by the West?"
- Each Latin American country must be considered individually, as each one's governmental economic policies, levels of corruption, internal stability, etc. As such, Chile can be seen as progressed quite far in such a short amount of time in which it has used economic liberalisation. Chile is even sometimes called the 'Latin American Tiger'.
"I guess not looking at the effects of colonialism and other factors is comforting"
- Colonialism is certainly a factor. However, is it MORE of a factor than present day corruption, oppression, weak political and economic policies on the part of the governments of poor countries (eg Burma, Zimbabwe)?
No, but history shows that the majority of the world's poverty is responsible for the Western World.
Or, in the words of the great Green Lady, "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
See Soc, less is more
Voted : Yes
Even Countries with great wealth and resources have an underclass that does not share in that wealth, when "underdeveloped" Countries with natural resources sell their goods in the market, the majority of the monies stays in the hands of the "ruling class" and any realist knows that in order for Great Countries to use Large amounts of the Earth's largess other Countries would not be able to do the same thing if they are developed, a high standard of living comes at a price...you can see the impact a great Industrialized China is having on the marketplace...multiply that effect...to sum it up, this world doesn't have the capacity for "every" Country to be Highly developed and to use up huge amounts of resources without some serious changes and recycling ...
People! People! Most third-world countries were poor and corrupt long before the United States became a super-power.
"Each Latin American country must be considered individually, as each one's governmental economic policies, levels of corruption, internal stability, etc. As such, Chile can be seen as progressed quite far in such a short amount of time in which it has used economic liberalisation. Chile is even sometimes called the 'Latin American Tiger'."
Wasn't Chile under Pinochet who was backed by the West, and implemented dozens of human rights violations?
And, you really think the rest of teh world could sustain itself if the entire world industrialised? In spite of what you wrote on another ballot? Ok, so all the countries of the world can continue to gobble up the world's resources and still sustain themselves? So we can all continue to use oil, water and all the other resources at the same quantity we still do, right? And we could all sustain ourselves, huh?
"Colonialism is certainly a factor. However, is it MORE of a factor than present day corruption, oppression, weak political and economic policies on the part of the governments of poor countries (eg Burma, Zimbabwe)?"
Everytime we implement a democracy, what happens? Corruption.
And as for MNC'S helping out, have you seen what Talisman Inc did in Sierra Leone? Besides, what about companies like Nike, Gap, etc? They exploit labour and keep women poor, it's not their job to help countries become rich.
by aya on Thu May 03, 07 11:40am
[+]
*see ballot #105466 *
aya- "Wasn't Chile under Pinochet who was backed by the West, and implemented dozens of human rights violations?"
- Yes. However, the period of economic growth in Chile I was thinking of is the period after the Pinochet regime. But as for Pinochet's economic policies (specifically economics, not any other as the focus of this ballot is on 'poverty'), arguably they did raise living standards.
That goes for South Korea and Taiwan too. These regimes were dictatorships too not too long ago, were backed by the West, and were with very serious human rights violations (eg, the Kwanju Massacre in South Korea). Nonetheless, although being politically authoritarian: economically, they raised living standards. One must separate politics and economics- there are capitalist dictatorships, socialist dictatorships, capitalist democracies, and socialist democracies. Despite unfortunately politically being dictatorships- Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan nonetheless had capitalistic economic policies that resulted in raised living standards.
"And, you really think the rest of teh world could sustain itself if the entire world industrialised? In spite of what you wrote on another ballot? Ok, so all the countries of the world can continue to gobble up the world's resources and still sustain themselves? So we can all continue to use oil, water and all the other resources at the same quantity we still do, right? And we could all sustain ourselves, huh?"
- Not every nation-state would be able to industrialise to the exact same level, but nonetheless, I believe that all could industrialise to certain extents. Realistically, some more so than other, and some less so than others. However, most could at least have cities based on industry, even if their overall national economy were to continue to be mostly based around agriculture. Indeed, I would say that one does not have to be completely industrial anyway to be successful. Realistically, some regions of the world will be more based on agriculture and such, and their economies can thrive from this. There are agriculturally based regions, provinces, states within the West which have strong economies and capital, and modern living standards.
"Everytime we implement a democracy, what happens? Corruption."
- There is corruption rampant all over the place in the developing world- both in places influenced by the West and in places not so. And there are some places influenced by the Western world which do not relatively have as much corruption. It seems doubtful therefore, that there is a tie between Western influence and corruption.
"And as for MNC'S helping out, have you seen what Talisman Inc did in Sierra Leone? Besides, what about companies like Nike, Gap, etc? They exploit labour and keep women poor, it's not their job to help countries become rich."
MNC's are out to make profits, and are ultimately selfish. However, nonetheless, they have raised living standards in places like South Korea, even if it was unintentional. It is true that they exploit poor working conditions, however, poor working conditions would exist in such countries regardless of whether MNC's go there to exploit it. And although unintentionally, MNC activity in the Asian Tigers led to a rise in living standards in basics, which arguably led to demands for other things by the masses- such as worker's rights. This was not the goal of the MNC's, but nonetheless, their activities had some positive effects. They helped South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore come to the status of being part of the modernised developed world with higher living standards (women included: they did not 'keep women poor' in these truly open-economy countries).
|
|
