Why is most of the world much poorer than us?

this username isnt taken

Did the kind of poverty rampant in the third world today exist before the world became more globalised (eg. say, 1000 years ago)? A complicated and seemingly insolvable problem no doubt, but what do people think are the reasons for the existence of absolute poverty (and poverty in general, relative to us) in the world today?

I've often heard that hunter-gatherer populations are/were quite stable, with population growth just enough to ensure people didn't starve to death. Has the interference of the western world with aid allowed population to increase to artificially high levels and then once the aid is withdrawn, people starve?

Also, while I don't consider myself an ardent leftist, it is clear that certain aspects of capitalism are unfair. Those who are fortunate to posses capital are able to exploit those without, and those without can realistically do little to better their situation, since we can't all be at the top of the capitalist pyramid. Are poorer nations being exploited massively by the ones who have long established themselves as being well off?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

The poorer countries in the world today are typically those that have not yet embraced capitalism, and do not have a stable political system in which private property rights are enforced.

this username isnt taken wrote: »

Are poorer nations being exploited massively by the ones who have long established themselves as being well off?

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game; just look at China before and after Deng Xiaoping's tenure. China now has an emerging middle class and a growing domestic market that it simply never had before. We are not wealthy at their expense; they are poor because of their political and economic system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SugarHigh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think even that number is optimistic. when you consider 1/5 of children were dying before the age of 1 in 1960's Liberia.

No. The so-called poorer nations are a lot less poor today than they were before we started "exploiting" them.

I agree that even though the west has exploited Africa they still benefit from it but probably not as much as we do. We take a large portion of their pie but we make the pie larger so that they are still better of. Kind of like how poor people in Britain were better off under the ruling classes than on their own.

Iwannahurl

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Source?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mushypleas

I think poverty usually stems from a lack of property. But even those in the undeveloped world who own property rely on the developed world to sell their produce because they lack a market in their own country. The prices they receive for this produce is determined by the E.U. and by other factors outside the undeveloped country's sphere of influence.

Be sure that countries in the undeveloped world who are rich in natural resources don't see the returns from those resources (just like us and the Corrib gas). Instead multinationals like Shell employ a cheap labour force and make huge profits.

There is a huge disparity between rich and poor in most countries. I don't believe that the trickle down economics of capitalism will bring the world's population away from poverty anytime soon. If left to their own devices with advice from economic and management experts maybe the undeveloped world would have a chance to compete in our markets. But for now they'll just be exploited like the Irish of the famine era, like the Indians of the new world, like the slaves from Africa..etc. etc.

cooperguy

Guns, Germs and Steel

Companero

is the natural state of mankind. Hunter Gatherer populations would have had few possessions beyond a few sticks/spears and the odd bit of clay.

It is only by developing complex civil societies that wealth of any major kind gets created at all. Some societies have been more sucessful than others at doing this, though most all that have done it, have done so with a combination of Capitalism and industrialism , with the latter being more important. It is possible to have an industrial society that isnt Capitalist, but the insanely complex interactions of the different parts of it, almost always makes for a less efficient allocation of resources than a Capitalist one.

Capitalism, in any case, is not really something that you can/like or dislike as the mood takes you: There effectively isnt any other way of organising a society that is better than capitalism (yet), so its hardly possible to define Capitalism at all. Having long discussions about the evils of 'Capitalism', always seems to ignore the fact that all societies that have ever existed that were'nt feudal or primitive tribal societies, have been Capitalist, where they havent been massively oppressive Communist states, and these ways of living, are for the most part, nasty , brutish and short.

You can no more say you don't like Capitalism than you can say you don't like the Periodic Table of the Elements. That said, of course, if you've genuinely got a better idea, I would love to hear it. I suspec,t however that such an idea would be so complicated and difficult to work out that it would take many thousands of volumes of exegisis, and the minds of 10s of thousands of the cleverest human beings that have ever lived to do it. It certainly isnt going to come from a stoned guy with an Arts degree.

southsiderosie

I think a lot of poverty today is not solely down to capitalism, but rather a lack of rule of law. If you look at the countries that pulled themselves out of poverty in the last 50 years, the standouts are Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. These countries started their growth project under state-directed industrial policies, and were arguably not 'free' markets, nor were they free societies. They were export oriented, but kept careful control over their currencies, and strictly regulated citizen and worker behavior. South Korea in particular was quite authoritarian. Economic growth was in part a strongly nationalist project, and there was a great deal of shared sacrifice in order to achieve multigenerational economic growth. There is little here that resembles the kind of free market/free society trope that is so popular in some quarters.

However, I think one area where the Asian Tigers really stands out is corruption. Granted, none of these societies is corruption-free; the business-government relationships are quite questionable. However, you do not see the systemic looting of the national coffers in these places that you see in a lot of poor African countries. Instead, you see an incredible amount of money being re-invested into infrastructure, education, and R&D.

To be fair, I suspect that these projects are much easier in small, relatively homogeneous countries than in large, ethnically fractured countries (which would describe many African states). And certainly countries with few natural resources also have fewer temptations available for public officials corruption - certainly Africa's wealth of natural resources has been a real impediment to clean government, effective state-building, and economic diversification.

As for China, its growth has been incredible, but if there is anything that threatens it, it is the lack of rule of law. Chinese products are increasingly viewed with skepticism by foreign consumers, and corruption at the local level is so rife that social disorder is on the rise. Unless there is more transparency in local government, more careful regulation over manufacturing, and more protection of intellectual property rights, I wonder how much further up the production value chain China will be able to move...and how citizens will cope with leveling off of economic growth.

Chuck Stone

It's a question with very complex answers which isn't answered well by the 'non acceptance of capitalism' and 'captialism will cure all ills' fantasy.

A lot of countries considered capitalist and wealthy have to consider factors which are at odds with capitalist ideology which contributed to their growth.

Much of the growth experienced in countries such as the US, Britain, Germanym France, Japan, Korea, among others can be attributed to protectionism, tarrifs and subsidies and war related industrialization.

CDfm

If you measure Wealth in Currency it is an arbitrary measure

Take the cost of housing etc in Ireland and deduct your regular outgoings and ask yourself if you feel rich.

There is a lot of bull**** talked about wealth and world rankings etc

The property bubble burst and level of debt carried is huge in Ireland. Things like filling a car tank with petrol etc are major expenses.

I do not consider Ireland to be a wealthy country as in what is the countries networth and the international bond market does not think we are either.

Based on our pay to public servants and our social security versus the european averages.

So I would like to see more attention paid to the performance of the real economy.

southsiderosie

CDfm wrote: »

If you measure Wealth in Currency it is an arbitrary measure

Take the cost of housing etc in Ireland and deduct your regular outgoings and ask yourself if you feel rich.

There is a lot of bull**** talked about wealth and world rankings etc

The property bubble burst and level of debt carried is huge in Ireland. Things like filling a car tank with petrol etc are major expenses.

I do not consider Ireland to be a wealthy country as in what is the countries networth and the international bond market does not think we are either.

Based on our pay to public servants and our social security versus the european averages.

So I would like to see more attention paid to the performance of the real economy.

But the questions is not about wealth, it is about poverty. And even still, while the Irish may be relatively cash-poor at the moment, the fact that you have a house to worry about heating, a car to worry about filling up and a social security system that needs funding STILL puts most Irish people in a position that is much better off than a majority of the world's population.

In truly poor countries, maternal health rates are abysmal, a frightening percentage of children die before they reach the age of five, clean drinking water is not readily available, there are open sewage pits in cities, and the state is at best weak, and at worst predatory and avoided at all costs. To compare Ireland to a country like Nicaragua, Haiti, Cambodia or Sierra Leone is absurd.

CDfm

southsiderosie wrote: »

In truly poor countries, maternal health rates are abysmal, a frightening percentage of children die before they reach the age of five, clean drinking water is not readily available, there are open sewage pits in cities, and the state is at best weak, and at worst predatory and avoided at all costs. To compare Ireland to a country like Nicaragua, Haiti, Cambodia or Sierra Leone is absurd.

And Ireland was not like that back in the day ???.

Wealth & poverty measurement are opposite sides of the same coin (IMHO).


All societies do not progress at the same speed & they will not nescessarily organise their society and politics like we do. You are talking about public goods.So whatcha going to do about it - invade and start an empire -at some level they bear responsibility for themselves.

Personally -how people in other countries treat each other ,while it may sadden me, does not concern me. I do not feel inclined to be a missionary , charity worker or a soldier.

gosplan

cooperguy wrote: »

Guns, Germs and Steel

Just saw the thread title and came in here to post that.

Excellent book.



AFAIK hunter-gatherer populations were stable due to huge death and infant mortality rates. Socities that are mostly middle class are a pretty new development in terms of human history and it is the case that parts of the world have moved forwards whereas other parts haven't.

southsiderosie

CDfm wrote: »

And Ireland was not like that back in the day ???.

Wealth & poverty measurement are opposite sides of the same coin (IMHO).


All societies do not progress at the same speed & they will not nescessarily organise their society and politics like we do. You are talking about public goods.So whatcha going to do about it - invade and start an empire -at some level they bear responsibility for themselves.

Personally -how people in other countries treat each other ,while it may sadden me, does not concern me. I do not feel inclined to be a missionary , charity worker or a soldier.

To be honest, I am a little confused about what you are trying to say, or why you are posting in this thread.

The question is, why is the rest of the world so much poorer. Ireland is not poor; the standard of living is much higher than the vast majority of the world's population. It has always been relatively poor for Europe, but even in the 1950s, the Irish were still better off than their counterparts in Southeast Asia or Central America.

Ireland isn't poor today due to a combination of demographic changes, rich friends and neighbors, and very specific policy interventions. Arguably the same could be said for many Southeast Asian countries that have pulled themselves out of poverty.

Finally wealth and poverty are not necessarily the same, especially in resource-rich developing countries; this in part boils down to the rule of law issues I mentioned earlier.

Victor

this username isnt taken wrote: »

Why is most of the world much poorer than us?

Surely this is somewhat self-selecting as you are asking the question of people on the internet, people who almost by definition have a computer, electricity and a modern telecommunications system.

Of course, 1000 years ago, we were developing populations (in the context "developing countries" and "third world" are rarther meaningless) also. A few lived quite well, but others lived in what we would consider abject poverty.