Why are poor countries poor?

The base level is the one where the great majority of employed persons are workers, occupied in production activities. In other words, while Western countries can be defined "post industrialized" countries, India, China, Vietnam, Burma ... are still in the phase of industrialization. [Even if India is showing a good attitude towards services production, think to information technology and movie industry ...].

 

Good question, but there is a plethora of answers not just one. Some are poor because of mismanagement, others are poor because they lack resources and technology, others are poor because they suffer competition of nearby countries... last there are countries wich are purposedly held down by foreign powers through political machinations and war ( middle eastern oil is vital to western power after all ).

 

Firstly, I'll just point out that if you're going to pick a dictator, it's better to pick a right wing one. Just look at chile. Secondly, let's remember the point isn't to point out that there are poor countries ruled by conservatives, but that most poor countries are. So, let's have a look at some of the poorest countries shall we?

North Korea. communist, need not say more.
Mozambique, ruled by FRELIMO, a social democratic party, member of the socialist international
Zimbabwe, lead by Mugabe and ZANU-PF, a socialist party
Tanzania, ruled by CCM, social democratic aprty, member of socialist international
Rwanda, led by RPF, social democratic
Ethiopia, OPDP, marxist and socialist
Sierra Leone, APC, democratic socialism
Guinea, RGP, member of socialist international
Guinea-bissau, APIGCV, socialism and marxism, member of socialist international

I looked up the countries which had a GDP per capita below 2k USD, which is the poorest septile.

 

I guess Geography's not your strong point, lol - so, which of those countries was in South America or South East Asia again??

 

Poor countries in Latin America and South America are poor because of a Geo-political takeover by the CIA in the United States. Educate yourself and learn; http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/

 

One of the reasons is an oversupply of workers relative the size of the economy. This keeps wages low and prevents a middle class from forming, thus perpetuating a negative reinforcing cycle that prevents the economy from ever growing enough to provide a prosperous living for everyone.

 

I would say it's also genetic - some races are better at organizing than others, for example

 

They don't got no money.

 

Actually it is a benefit for industries, as they get work for lower wages and those who don't get work they just migrate to another nearby country.

 

Finally, someone nailis it. I would have but it is a waste of effort trying to edumacate the chumps on this board.

 

It's a complicated phenomena. In some developing countries (China for example), low standards of living can be partially counteracted by the export market, which is possible because of the low wages. This does not benefit most of the workers very much, but some people in the top really benefit, and the trickle down effect can lead to the formation of a middle class (not a huge one, compared to the number of workers, but something is better than nothing). If we look at Japan in the 1960's, they were able to use their lower wage export market as a jumping off point to eventually get their economy up to first world standards. But it wasn't cheap labor that finally got them there. And now, arguably the high land prices are hindering Japan's economy.

 

also, a lot of nations are poor because the people have way too many children they can't afford - check out slum dwellers, often have 5 or 6 kids but can't even feed 1 properly - that's just irresponsible

 

Well, how convenient to ignore these african countries which are the poorest bunch.

Of course you would say that. Correlation is not causation. There's no reason to assume it has much to do with race.

 

African nations are poor because the people are aggressive and tribal - nothing to do with pseudo-Marxism

 

The best thing about you is that you're a commie and a racist. Can't beat that combination!

 

It's not racist to speak the truth - in fact I would say it's a form of scientific socialism 'in action'

trouble with most supposed lefties is that they've never actually spent any real time living with the peasants of the 4th world - then they'll soon see why most of these countries are poor!

try living as a white man in darkest Africa or Asia - then you'll see what racism means, lol, except of course, this way it's the other way around

- - - Updated - - -

I do have some 'NazBol' tendencies for sure!

 

So I guess you're an old school socialist then. Which is to say, mainstream socialism which was actually kinda racist and continued to be so until everything race-related was discredited by nazism. Is it comforting to know that socialists and progressives up until the 40's shared your view on race?

 

you apparently are disconnected from reality

Venezuela was once a richer nation and a jewel of South America. There was the drug trade as well as a block of idle society who did not want to move forward and grow. They helped push the socialist movement where redistribution was the siren-song. Fast forward to the govt taking over private industry, and then putting their incompetent and corrupt hacks in charge, and they are where they are.

The people did this to themselves and they are now a poor nation. They did not want to work for things and wanted to punish success and productivity.

You should educate yourself on how socialism kills a society, and ultimately a country

http://tbo.com/news/politics/venezu...y-x2014-and-no-signs-of-improvement-20141213/

BTW, dictators are not conservatives because conservatives believe in celebrating success and liberty

 

Considering that the most successful Socialist state in history (Soviet Union) shared my views, then YES - I am glad to be on board with them here.

- - - Updated - - -

There are many nations in Latin America, why focus on only 1? sounds like propaganda to me.

 

Good map, very informative.

What you say isn't terribly clear from it though. Central Africa has a big swathe of economic repression and a concomitant belt of poverty, that's true, but the countries are poor in the rest of Africa too, and by your logic Zimbabwe should be as prosperous as the US, which it matches in economic freedom, so should Chile and Ecuador.

However, if you go over and add in those countries that are also socially repressive then it seems you get a closer match, still not perfect, but there seem to be other factors at play here too.

One of the things I have noticed that poor countries often seem to have in spades is morals. Not the morals of making sure your people have enough to eat, mind, but keeping watch that they don't become hedonistic, (not that they could afford to anyway). Dictators of poverty must be very religious for they all seem to have the same morals as American conservatives. You can cheat as many people as you like if you're an American fundamentalist, you can pay your employees nothing and mulct your customers to the max, but boy you better not read a risqué magazine.

 

Exactly. One also can include geography and climate.

 

No, more like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, ALL of Central American and, if you're going to allow history as a factor, then yes, Venezuela too.

One reason that Japan might not produce a lot of food is that they have half the population of the US and as much land that is suitable even to just live on as a tract the size of Nebraska. America, whatever else you might say about it, is BIG, 4th largest in the world, AND the majority of that land is in a temperate area. Japan has mountains on its mountains. They're one of the few places, (in fact, the only one I know of) where cars that store vertically have a big market

And why DON'T we buy our cars from Burma or Taiwan? You didn't say, just as you didn't go into why Japan is, by your lights, better than anybody else at making them. (The fact that they geared their whole economy to that and caught market share by dumping low priced autos all over the world had nothing to do with it?)

The Wealth of Nations is a good book, very interesting and productive to read, but it was written in the late 18th century and the world has changed a lot since then, though it is still very valid in most areas.

 

Rich countries got that way by using socialism to bailout capitalism like usual.

 

Yeah, and he also spent most of a chapter in that book explaining why taxes should be placed on ground rent (aka, land value taxation). But never mind that inconvenient truth. If Adam Smith – as well as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine – were alive today and posting on this forum, they would all be labeled as communists or socialists, same as I am. All because they knew the truth, that the value created by government spending is pocketed by privileged landowners.

The reason for poor countries is pretty much summed up in the first few paragraphs of this chapter in Protection or Free Trade.

 

Many of the citizens in poor countries lack intelligence and ambition. Ignorant people are more easily exploited which leads to corruption in their leadership.