Is the world getting better, getting worse, staying the same, or indeterminate?

[C0ckney]

Are you economic literate? COckney is an idiot who knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about.

whereas you are a genius with an uncanny ability to talk as if you have no idea about what you are talking about.

[kentonio]

I'm saying nations don't become rich because no rich nation took advantage of them, and they rarely are poor because they are being taken advantage of. You'll have to step up your game.

So you're not going to actually back that up with any examples then? As I suspected..

The reason life is so goddamn easy in the west, is because our civilizations are largely built on the back of stealing resources and wealth from countries and regions that were unable to stop us. People in the third world have to try and work up from practically nothing, and just saying they should 'save more' is frikkin retarded. They work harder and longer than you do, yet you think you're better than them because you can afford to save?

You sound like one of those bootstrap preaching Republican jackasses who got into an Ivy League college because of their rich parents and now lecture the poor on the values of hard work.

[Kidlicious]

So you're not going to actually back that up with any examples then? As I suspected..

The reason life is so goddamn easy in the west, is because our civilizations are largely built on the back of stealing resources and wealth from countries and regions that were unable to stop us. People in the third world have to try and work up from practically nothing, and just saying they should 'save more' is frikkin retarded. They work harder, longer and almost certainly more efficiently than you do, yet you think you're better than them because you can afford to save?

You are putting too much importance on resources. If you're talking about colonialism like the US then yes, because the great power is purposefully keeping the undeveloped country undeveloped and not letting it trade with other nations. But ummmmm... that's historical, and has nothing to do with current times. In current times resources are freely traded on the global market. Do you have a specific case in mind, otherwise, like liberals tend to do, you're talking about historical conditions, not current conditions.

[giblets]

They will invest where they will get the most return. If that is in their home country then that will be better for their country, but if they invest overseas it's better than just squandering their money, not teaching their children to save.

Poor people in third world countries generally aren't squandering their money. They live in poverty and spend almost all of their money on basic essentials and their best hope for retirement is to have children who'll take care of them when they're old. Most would prefer if their children went to a decent school and got an education but that isn't necessarily an option for them. You seem to be taking something practiced by a subset of poor people in developed countries (squandering money on alcohol, drugs, expensive shoes, etc.) and assuming it applies all over the world.

[Kidlicious]

Poor people in third world countries generally aren't squandering their money. They live in poverty and spend almost all of their money on basic essentials and their best hope for retirement is to have children who'll take care of them when they're old. Most would prefer if their children went to a decent school and got an education but that isn't necessarily an option for them. You seem to be taking something practiced by a subset of poor people in developed countries (squandering money on alcohol, drugs, expensive shoes, etc.) and assuming it applies all over the world.

I'm applying it universally because it's the only way to build wealth. Whether it's import substitution, planned economy or free markets, the nation can only build wealth by saving. All nations were undeveloped at one time.

[kentonio]

You are putting too much importance on resources. If you're talking about colonialism like the US then yes, because the great power is purposefully keeping the undeveloped country undeveloped and not letting it trade with other nations. But ummmmm... that's historical, and has nothing to do with current times. In current times resources are freely traded on the global market. Do you have a specific case in mind, otherwise, like liberals tend to do, you're talking about historical conditions, not current conditions.

Historical conditions are what led to the current conditions for goodness sake, you can't just write them off as irrelevant. When a child in the west is born, they are usually raised in pretty comfortable living conditions, guaranteed an education, have to spend little or no time working to help support the family unit and when they're older have a huge range of potential career opporunities open to them which bring in (by global standards) extremely high incomes. Those are immense advantages that children born in the third world can only dream of.

Sure things have changed since the days of colonialism (although we still exploit the third world for its resources and manpower in slightly more subtle ways), and in the long term hopefully the huge imbalance will even out. At the moment though, we're still very much enjoying the legacy of colonialism and it's more than a little hypocritical to lecture the third world about not saving enough when they're scrapping to get by and we're rolling in wealth and advantage.

[giblets]

I'm applying it universally because it's the only way to build wealth. Whether it's import substitution, planned economy or free markets, the nation can only build wealth by saving. All nations were undeveloped at one time.

Import substitution and planned economies have a bad track record relative to export-oriented development in part because they subscribe to an overly simplified view of how to foster economic growth. If you say something like "it's the only way to build wealth" you're committing the fallacy of conflating aggregate product with marginal product. Without agriculture we'd all starve, but that doesn't mean all wealth comes from agriculture.

[Aeson]

Qatar is rich because they just decided to save their money?

[Kidlicious]

Import substitution and planned economies have a bad track record relative to export-oriented development in part because they subscribe to an overly simplified view of how to foster economic growth. If you say something like "it's the only way to build wealth" you're committing the fallacy of conflating aggregate product with marginal product. Without agriculture we'd all starve, but that doesn't mean all wealth comes from agriculture.

Exporting is investing where you export. Didn't you say that was bad?

[Kidlicious]

Import substitution and planned economies have a bad track record relative to export-oriented development in part because they subscribe to an overly simplified view of how to foster economic growth. If you say something like "it's the only way to build wealth" you're committing the fallacy of conflating aggregate product with marginal product. Without agriculture we'd all starve, but that doesn't mean all wealth comes from agriculture.

Exporting is investing where you export. Didn't you say that was bad?

[Aeson]

No one is saying investing is bad.

[giblets]

Exporting is investing where you export. Didn't you say that was bad?

No, I didn't say that investing is bad, I said investing is just one of a number of factors that cause growth. Since it has diminishing returns, you can't rely solely on investing to create sustainable growth. If you could rely solely on investing, the Soviet Union would not have stagnated.

[Kidlicious]

Qatar is rich because they just decided to save their money?

No. And that doesn't mean much for other nations.

[Aeson]

No. And that doesn't mean much for other nations.

How about Kuwait?

[Kidlicious]

Historical conditions are what led to the current conditions for goodness sake, you can't just write them off as irrelevant. When a child in the west is born, they are usually raised in pretty comfortable living conditions, guaranteed an education, have to spend little or no time working to help support the family unit and when they're older have a huge range of potential career opporunities open to them which bring in (by global standards) extremely high incomes. Those are immense advantages that children born in the third world can only dream of.

Sure things have changed since the days of colonialism (although we still exploit the third world for its resources and manpower in slightly more subtle ways), and in the long term hopefully the huge imbalance will even out. At the moment though, we're still very much enjoying the legacy of colonialism and it's more than a little hypocritical to lecture the third world about not saving enough when they're scrapping to get by and we're rolling in wealth and advantage.

What a bunch of rubbish. We aren't exploiting the third world. We're buying their goods and services, so long as they can provide them to us at a price that works for us. We have set up the World Bank and IMF to help developing nations. Do you know how many resources are devoted to trying to help developing nations. We give them charity, disaster relief etc... We have an open market where they can sell their goods, but they have to do so in a competitive market in most cases.

As far as developing countries still being stuck in a rut because of colonialism (200 years ago?) I give that theory as much credit as I do Patriarchy.