Are the less developed countries themselves to blame for being less developed?

Question

Not every country has as gud an economy as US, UK, India, China, Brazil, etc. There are countries havin an absolutely pathetic economy. According to the countires, there are various reasons for that - some maybe good reasons, some bulsh*t.

But noin seems to be helping their cause. So who do u think is actually to blame for all this? The WTO and other international organizations for their inflexibility with respect to Third World Countries, or the US and its supposed "hostile" foreign policies or the less developed countries themselves?

Answer 1

Heil Bushler, I love your answer! Blaming a third world country is no different from blaming an individuals poverty on the individual. It sounds reasonable to some people, but is it myopic to the extreme. You have to take into consideration...in both cases...that the powers that be, control who is rich and who is poor, as well as which countries are developed and which are not. They base these decisions upon their own selfish greedy interests. They will develop a given country only if doing so will further their own agenda!!!!!

Answer 2

Most all inventions came from the west or Europe ,deal with it.China ,India what they have was taken from the west.I seen how England for all it's faults did bring these third world hell holes into a better life style.and I have no love for the English.The middle East has not given much in 1000 years.India the rickshaw ,China always over rated ..Soon we will be down in the third world gutter and then because we put down the ones who built America.,for ones who could only tear down what others have done.

Answer 3

Once these countries turn about 14-15 years old they will begin to develop and soon will be noticed by other countries.
Then, the courtship will begin and someday maybe they will form alliances and have smaller children countires.

Answer 4

it truly is quite harsh, there's a higher image. it will be quite concise to say that the (typically self-appointed) rulers of the international places of Africa skim the cream leaving their land in ruins and their human beings in poverty, with out procedures of searching after theirselves. mugabe has taken the farms from the farmers meaning the individuals starve as they don't recognize a thanks to handle the farms. there's a wide lack of preparation, drugs, foodstuff, too many palms. sure, it does experience like a bottomless pot, regardless of the indisputable fact that the ruling households are really to blame, charities do mind-blowing artwork regardless of the indisputable fact that the international governments really do not care adequate to handle the problem right down. you want to comprehend the violence of that complete continent - that's not the households whoi opt for this, that's the tyranny.

Answer 5

Are you to blame for where you live ?
Way before Auto's , Trains ,& Plane's we had a mode of transportation called our Feet ! If we needed something , we had to walk for it.The better,faster walkers had more.The smart walkers found an area that had everything they needed.Other walkers ,the slower ones, came later wanting to stay also.The first walkers there said NO ! There's only enough resources for us.Keep walking & find your own area The area the slower walkers found was'nt as plentyful, but they were tired of walking & decided to settle there.
WHO'S FAULT IS IT?

Answer 6

I can’t think of a single excuse that a poor country could use to justify its poverty that isn’t destroyed by an example of an economic success story somewhere in the world of a country that has overcome that very same problem. For example, a country without many natural resources and little arable land might feel disadvantaged until one examines the case of Japan, the world’s third largest economy

Japan has virtually no natural resources, save fishing, upon which to base its economy. Its population lives on a series of crowded islands with virtually no oil or mineral wealth. It is almost completely dependent upon foreign trade for its very survival and it does quite well at it. It runs a trade surplus with nearly every country (including China) that it trades with. Japan and South Korea have both raised themselves up out of the ashes of war into two of the most modern, thriving countries in world. Sure, they all had U.S. help to rebuild as did Europe after WWII. What these three examples have in common is the fact that they already had something of a free-market economy instituted before they were ravaged in WWII. Japan was handed a democratic constitution in 1945 by U.S. Gen. D. McArthur and has thrived on it ever since (both politically and economically).

Countries that are not thriving today economically are holding themselves back by their own political or economic choices, either by a form of government that is too controlling or not responsive to the people they represent (e.g. DPRK, some African nations) or an economic system that is not disciplined (some Central /South American countries). Unfortunately, the U.S. government can not topple every tin horn dictator that is oppressing their people (we’ve tried that already and it doesn’t work) and force them to institute economic reforms.

The idea that WTO (World Trade Organization) is some kind of weapon to withhold from countries that we want to punish is completely ridiculous. WTO is not some kind of equal opportunity program for impoverished countries in order to give them a helping hand. In fact, it is a highly evolved trading agreement between advanced trading nations and it can only work with economies that have developed to a significant degree and can compete fairly as an equal trading partner with all the other members. As an example, it took more than 15 years of negotiations with China to finally be accepted into the WTO. The point is, they had already developed their economy significantly before they were allowed into this exclusive club of trading nations.

For a country to succeed economically it must recognize free market principals (just as every developed country has). There is not now nor has there ever been a successful example of a Socialist or command economy since Marxism was theorized in the mid 1800’s. Fidel Castro’s stagnant, poverty ridden economy is nothing compared to what it could be would he just follow the path of the last two major Marxist economies to convert to free market economies (e.g. China and Russia). The arrogance of a dictator is to blame for the poverty of dozens of poor countries that stubbornly hold on to faith in a completely failed political and economic system. Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan economy is going to collapse the day their oil wealth runs out because they are doing absolutely nothing to build a platform for long term economic growth and stability. In fact, they are doing just the opposite by nationalizing their country's industries they are heading for economic disaster done the road.

It is individual citizens that create economic prosperity through their hard work and a desire to succeed. It doesn’t come about because a government ‘commands’ it to (you’d think Kim Jung Il would have figured that out by now). All it takes is for a government to get out of the way of its citizens to do what comes naturally to most people who are motivated by the desire to take care of their families.

The bottom line is that you can’t help any country that isn’t first willing to help itself by creating a market driven economy using fiscal restraint, providing education for its citizens and providing a stable political environment. Countries that are already doing these things are able to get loans from the World Bank or better yet, attract capital in the form of direct foreign investment (e.g. China has just surpassed the U.S. as the # 1 destination for foreign investment) . Throwing money at countries that haven’t done these things is a waste of resources that could help a country that doesn’t just need help but deserves it as well.