Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Chew Toy McCoy, Jan 16, 2017.
Question is in the title.
because of their corrupt governments & unarmed populace can't do a thing about it.
Everyone has to start somewhere. Others may choose to stay the same based in religious, cultural, or location based needs.
I'm not exactly sure I'm understanding this question though. Are you asking by what means they still exist or why they haven't been eradicated?
I’m asking why there is still a huge percentage of the global population living in the dirt, literally and figuratively.
For several reasons. A country grows based on its resources, its management, its neighbours, etc.
Resources. If another country depletes your resources without you getting any profit, you miss the boat of development. It's what happened (and still happens) in many colonies in Africa. Soldiers would come, force locals to work, and leave a few decades later when there would be nothing of value left. It still happens with coltan, oil, diamonds, timber... When all is said and done, the resources are gone forever and the profits are safe in some tax haven.
Management/Leadership. Having good leaders who know how to administer resources and people is equally important. If you get a few bad ones in a row, you miss the boat. I'd include religion in here too as religions are tied to leadership and prevent development.
Geographical luck. A small country in a strategic location at the right time will get many opportunities to trade.
Climate plays a huge part. If you have to spend a lot time and money just to face the elements (cold winters, hot summers, droughts and floods) you'll be at a disadvantage compared to a country that enjoys long summers, mild winters, rich harvests.
Population. If you have a large population at a moment in history when a big workforce is an asset, great. Conversely, if you happen to have too big or too small a population at a moment when it doesn't help (droughts for instance), it'll be harder.
Neighbours. It doesn't help if your more powerful, aggressive neighbour keeps interfering with your normal development. Ask all the Soviet Union's peripheral countries, or the US intervening in Congo or Chile.
If you are not lucky and any (or several) of the previous factors prevent you from growing at a moment when change is happening very fast, you fall behind the others, and there's nothing you can do.
Also technology, education, distances, orography, ease of transportation (naturally navigable rivers are a godsend).
You should read Guns Germs and Steel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
That might fit your 2nd amendment narrative, but there are plenty of countries where the military could easily smash the local population and they aren’t third world countries. And if the US mainstream news media is any indication (which it probably isn’t), if there’s one thing there is no shortage of in third world countries its guns.
A lot of them are former colonies that have only been independent for 50 or so years. I was recently reading a book on the Belgian Congo, and if I remember correctly upon independence there were less than 10 Africans with college degrees in the country. It takes a long time to bring a country up from that. Also corruption and violent regime changes don't help either.
Because it's profitable for someone powerful somewhere.
I think the short answer is ROI (Return On Investment).
Some factors affecting ROI: safety (risk), return horizon (time until returns appear), rate of return (percentage).
Low risk is preferred. Rapid return is preferred (for liquidity). High rates are preferred.
Every one of these is antithetical to the investment of significant long-term capital, resources, and training in most third-world countries. That is, those countries tend to be high risk (politically, economically, and socially), with slow returns (multiple decades not unexpected), and with low annualized rates of return. If they have natural resources, it's way cheaper to cut corrupt deals or foment political change than it is to invest to improve the country as a whole.
Because the Russians hacked them
not legally owned by it's citizens.
anyways in order for some countries to be 1st world powers there need to be some 2nd/third world losers
Because it's useful.
Just want to throw this out there... if a first world country has a national debt, why aren't we calling ourselves 2nd world countries with a spending problem?
You have me curious. What do you mean?
I also wonder what percentage of the third world population is just content with how things are, minus capitalism rolling in to rape and pillage on the regular. There are plenty of things first world people plan to do in retirement that third world poor people already do on the daily because that’s just what they do. Ya know maybe you don’t need to tighten the belt and save real hard for the next 40 years so you can hopefully retire to a tropical fishing village.
You have to acknowledge your problem before we can help you.
of course we know no one will abuse those rights I mean it never hap[pens here so in the 3rd world countries it will be even less of a problem. of course only the rich will be able to afford them and that will make things balanced too.
You still need a dental plan.
From what I’ve seen teeth maintenance isn’t exactly a priority or even a concern in third world fishing villages. Not a big whitening strip market.
Lisa needs braces.
The development of underdevelopment. It was in western countries best (and western backed financial institutions like the IMF and the world bank) interest to pursue policies that would purposefully undermine the development of countries in the global south.
If you want to understand more, there's a great book by a Cambridge economist called Kicking Away the Ladder.
Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective https://www.amazon.com/dp/1843310279/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_HysFyb44HSSYV
Then there is Andre Gunder Frank's seminal work actually titled The Development of Underdevelopment from 1972. You can read the 1st chapter of the book here: https://www.ou.edu/uschina/gries/articles/IntPol/GunderFrank.1972.pdf
It seems with globalization that the latest chapter in those books should be those in power convincing the 1st world that they are mostly a bunch of blood thirsty savages. “And this is why they can’t have nice things”.
We all had to start somewhere.
Same reason we have poor people in America. The rich and powerful make money off of the misfortunate. There is a reason the lower class have a hard time digging out of poverty.