English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

15 answers

They need leadership that is truly interested in development. Too many countries are under the rule of corrupt regimes, in which the leaders prosper by keeping the rest of the country in debilitating poverty.

2007-06-04 08:54:54 · answer #1 · answered by naf 3 · 1 0

Obviously the oil companies have a vested interest in making sure this technology does not take off very quickly. The infrastructure to support these vehicles is not there – where do you go to fill up with hydrogen? If you open a hydrogen filling station, how many customers will you get? It’s a real chicken and egg situation. You also have to look seriously at the real impact of a hydrogen economy. Most hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water, which takes electricity generated by nuclear or fossil fuel burning power stations – the pollution problem just moves further back down the supply chain. The hydrogen has to be stored and moved around efficiently and safely. The great hope is that burning hydrogen only produces clean water vapour, but as any global warming expert will tell you, water vapour is also a powerful green house gas. We would just be swapping one problem for another. Companies like BMW producing hydrogen powered cars are doing no more for the environment other than paying lip service to the carbon debate. Much worse is Boeing producing hydrogen powered aircraft that manufacture their highly effective, green house producing water vapour, at altitude just where you don’t want it.

2016-04-01 01:57:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You question has a logical flaw. World Economics parallels the class structure here in the United States.
Upper-Middle-Low
Obviously no nation can have a larger middle or lower class than upper. The leading develop nations i.e. USA have the largest middle class. Which translates to highest productive output. Third world economies have the highest Lower class than middle and obviously upper.
In order to maintain the balance in the global economic structure develop countries to stay where there at. Primarily, for one fundamental reason.
Developed nations export more goods than they import to third world countries.
The only way I can think of that might raise the standing of develop nations without breaking the global economic structure is advancements in Technology!

2007-06-04 12:08:10 · answer #3 · answered by Future 5 · 0 0

Why don't you look at some examples?

China is an interesting case. You had communism and industrial development, and then when that stagnated, they created free market areas which boosted output even more.

Poorer Asian countries were able to develop by combinations of industrial policies but also low wages.

Development usually required investment and protection of industrial sectors. These industrial sectors grew and developed the infrastructure of the economy.

Education is only important after the industrial stage. By then there is enough wealth to pay for it.

2007-06-04 13:16:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A sea-change in attitudes.

When people come to respect others' property rights, people in general will feel more secure making investments. If I live in a society that will take my assets from me by the theory that someone else needs it, then I will not risk any of my existing assets to try to create more. Wealth will not be created at all, so there will be nothing left to redistribute.

But if people get to keep what they earn, even if it's a ton of money, then they will work hard to earn it. When theft (by governments or individuals) is looked down on by a society, then people will do what it takes to end that theft.

In the absence of the initiation of force, violence, or fraud, people are free to live their own lives as they see fit, including, but not limited to personal financial and economic development.

2007-06-04 09:26:11 · answer #5 · answered by Scott H 2 · 1 0

The answer to the woes of the third world countries is not actually donor aids from the first world countries. It is actually the opportunity to fair world trade. They must be given the opportunity to sell their product on the world market fairly.I mean free trade with west for they product and services

2007-06-04 20:33:24 · answer #6 · answered by microspatula 2 · 0 0

Friend, every decade for the past 60 years has given higher anf higher amounts of aid to, for example, Africa, yet Africans are poorer now than in 1960. It seems the more aid they get, the poorer they become. That's the question you need to answer. There isn't a single one-size-fits-all solution.

2007-06-08 01:13:13 · answer #7 · answered by halifaxed 5 · 0 0

Lose the corruption.
And forget about forgiving the thrird world debt ...they choose not to pay the debt back but having the leaders line their pocket with the payments . Also they take the money that is given to them as aid and keep it for themselves.
Corruption is the heart of it .

2007-06-04 09:22:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

In my opinion itis better to accept the way of the development of the Asian tigers countries of economic development that is self reliance product of good work ethics.

2007-06-04 21:32:43 · answer #9 · answered by Berhane Gebreyesus Habtu 4 · 0 0

We need to get rid of Third World Debt! Right now they dont work to develope their countries, but to settle this debt! this is just not on! if the debt were to be abolished they could work on creating a better life for themselves! also tarris barriers on third world exports are a huge issue which should be seen to!!

2007-06-04 08:57:15 · answer #10 · answered by Baby Jane 2 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers