Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can do pretty much anything under a monarchy or authoritarian government, especially in a very small country. You can even be "good" for a stretch. So what? History is against these carefully-selected cherries.
You only have to be "good" long enough to gain the upper hand, and develop an infrastructure of good health, edudcation, welfare, and a viable economic base, and the people will then take care of themselves in your absence.
You only have to be "good" long enough to gain the upper hand, and develop an infrastructure of good health, edudcation, welfare, and a viable economic base, and the people will then take care of themselves in your absence.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. The flowers and rainbows are truly lovely.
"Gaining the upper hand" does not historically lead to benign leadership, no matter how much of the national treasury is lavished on the peons at first. You're welcome to point to any such success story that is now firmly in the hands of the people, not dependent on further good graces of the king or shah or caliph or President-For-Life and his greasy son.
Countries whose constitutional documents have a trapdoor don't count.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. The flowers and rainbows are truly lovely.
"Gaining the upper hand" does not historically lead to benign leadership, no matter how much of the national treasury is lavished on the peons at first. You're welcome to point to any such success story that is now firmly in the hands of the people, not dependent on further good graces of the king or shah or caliph or President-For-Life and his greasy son.
Countries whose constitutional documents have a trapdoor don't count.
Singapore and Paraguay are the first that come to mind. Certainty Grenada, too. Alsol, remember that US aid to prop up puppet tyrants contributed to the development of South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Also, the former Soviet republics are mostly doing very well.
Many still have very low GDP, but life is good thanks to the well-formed infrastructure that was inherited from the Soviets at the time of independence, such as high literacy, full public utilities, adequate housing, high standards of health care, transport infrastructure, etc. This is very visible today in couintries like Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, which have a modern, affluent appearance and lifestyle despite GDPs in the typical African range.
I don't know what you mean by "trapldoor", so I don't know if I answered your question. By "gaining the upper hand" I meant creating a framework in which development was no longer an uphill battle, and well-being could roll along by its own momentum.
But under enlightened administration of the sultan, it has emerged as the shining model of contemporary development. All it takes is the combinatin of good intentions and the authority to bring them to fruition. Sadly, the western free-enterprise model is characterized by neither. Instead, it is just an unregulated grab for wealth.
Singapore is a similar example. An authoritarian government said "this is how we are going to become successful", and they did. Another is Brunei, although it was aided by oil reserves.
The "western free enterprise model" is most certainly not an "unregulated grab for wealth". The main difference between it and your "benevolent" dictator is that the system must work within the chaotic guise of democracy, and a constantly shifting and uncertain bureaucracy. Otherwise they are largely the same.
The good intentions you speak of could also very well be self-serving. Those who control a strong economy have more power than those who control a weak one.
The required intention isn't hard to find. Authority is the usual missing ingredient... and wisdom.
Also, the former Soviet republics are mostly doing very well.
Many still have very low GDP, but life is good thanks to the well-formed infrastructure that was inherited from the Soviets at the time of independence, such as high literacy, full public utilities, adequate housing, high standards of health care, transport infrastructure, etc. This is very visible today in couintries like Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, which have a modern, affluent appearance and lifestyle despite GDPs in the typical African range.
"Life is good" come on dude Armenia has a 17% unemployment rate and 1/3 of their citizens are in poverty, many children are forced to work to help provide for the family. They have a high negative net migration rate, especially for people of working age, because the economy in Armenia sucks.
"Life is good" come on dude Armenia has a 17% unemployment rate and 1/3 of their citizens are in poverty, many children are forced to work to help provide for the family. They have a high negative net migration rate, especially for people of working age, because the economy in Armenia sucks.
Life is good?
I already said the economy sucks, hence the low GDP that I referenced. What country with a comparable GDP would Armenians rather take their chance in?
Prosperity COULD rise in Armenia, because modern infrastructure is in place. Why it does not is a mystery to me. I asked Armenians why there has been no return of their well-educated disapora, who could turn the country into another Israel, but nobody could give me answers.
I asked Armenians why there has been no return of their well-educated disapora, who could turn the country into another Israel, but nobody could give me answers.
Because the diaspora is doing fine where they are, and don't have a "thing" about the homeland like the Israelis. And they'd also lack superpower support.
While it is objectively true that economies are growing, I think that the headline of "Rising prosperity finally being felt around the world" is a wholly political reframing of the situation that is both unproductive and potentially stifling.
We don't have a responsibility to the prosperity of the world. We have a responsibility to ourselves. Your statement would have us sacrifice ourselves, or otherwise shape a political narrative in a manner that could ultimately hurt our ability to make the right decisions for ourselves, out of a misguided (and wholly superficial) concern for the "prosperity" of other nations. That's a mistake for both domestic and foreign politics.
Your statement would have us sacrifice ourselves, or otherwise shape a political narrative in a manner that could ultimately hurt our ability to make the right decisions for ourselves, out of a misguided (and wholly superficial) concern for the "prosperity" of other nations. That's a mistake for both domestic and foreign politics.
This has been going on for 40 years. The megarich set US policy at the expense of everyone else, and their real income and wealth have increased 10x in this time period. Oh, and incidentally a few poor people around the world have been raised out of poverty, so I guess we can at least feel good about that....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
