why are some countries irrespective of their national wealth(oil, land, resources) poor while others are rich?

Question

I just visited mexico and I was appalled by the fact that it is indeed a 3rd world country. I grew up in one so i know one when i see it. How can a country be so proximal to the united states and still be a third world country? Some of the answers i got was that mexico adopted the spanish non-democratic govt ideals while the united states adopted the british govt for the people ideals. But it can't be that simple. After all spain is not a third world country and alot of other countries colonized by the british are 3rd world.
I have noticed that one thing that prospering country have over 3rd world countries is the idea of rights of the common citizen to protest and cause change in the govt policies. For ex, in texas, when it was still a mexican territory inhabited by some americans, mexicans and native americans, it was the americans (with the democratic mind set) that protested the influence and control of the mexican govt.
What do you think?

I don't agree with the exploitation answer because a country has to allow exploitation before exploitation can happen ie the united states has alot of resources why is it not being exploited? Because we wouldn't allow it. We defend ourselves.

Also the answer about the people on top embezzelling money etc is true for all nations but some systems make it easier than others

Answer 1

I think you are mixing the differing but related concepts of government and economics

I think the US has done better because they have an open economic system AND are a democracy (both)

Countries that have adopted both of these are more successful than those that have adopted only one or neither.

My opinion anyways

Answer 2

Nope, i don't agree.

Mainly it is the greed of those in power, who use the nations wealth to inrich themselves and their cronies, at the expense of the people.

Heres a story that can help explain.

When i was in college, i read a study that was done, about the differences between the economic class's.

Specificly the difference between the upper poor class and the lower middle class.

They both have the exact same income range.

So what makes them different?

What the study found out, was that it was the ability of the people to withhold their needs and desires for a greater gain in the future.

The upper poor, would want a tv, so they would immediantly go out and buy a cheap tv that might only last for a year, before it broke.

Where the lower middle class, would hold off and save for a while, and then go buy a good tv that would last for years.

The same for cars, the upper poor would want a car and go out and buy a KIA or some other cheap car.

While the lower middle class would again hold off and go buy a used camery, a car that would last for years and give good value.

It all boiled down to, the upper poor, could not or would not suppress their desire or needs for a short time, to gain a longer lasting resolution to their need or desires.

So they would end up spending twice as much, to gain the exact same resolution, thus in the end, they would end up having less.

Well countries do the same thing.

Answer 3

Hum. I have come to believe that at least part of it - perhaps a large part - is that countries rich in resources are plainly exploited and taken advantage of by certain other countries like us. (This is perhaps most obviously true in Africa where, for example, whites who own diamond companies refuse to pay their largely black workers living wages.) This is why Africa never seems to "get rich" on its diamonds and ivory and rubber: white Europeans and Americans are getting rich instead.

Countries that have been colonized have very particular circumstances that are hard to sort out. People say, "Jeez, Africans can't even rule themselves. They need white people to run their governments or else they f*ck everything up." In fact, the countries are f*cked up in the first place *because* of imperialism and white colonization, which NONE of the European countries ever had to deal with, and which is rather invisible in America because the colonizing Europeans got lucky and brought germs that killed off all those pesky Native Americans without them having to stage an official war.

America is surely taking advantage of Mexico in many ways; one of them is cheap labor (oh, yes, there are lots of Mexican sweatshops). America has a hand in the governments of basically every country in the world - we need to keep "U.S.-friendly" leaders in power. And it's truly a sad, disgusting thing to say, but Mexico's - and Africa's - "third-world" status still has a lot more to do with whites not liking their skin color and cultures than we'd care to believe.

Of course, there are multiple other factors, including ones that have to do with the government, as you say, that perpetuate crappy conditions and discourage change. You'd be interested in post-colonial theory. Here's some really good introductory information on PostcolonialWeb: http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/discourseov.html . And I also highly recommend the book _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond. It won a Pulitzer. I'm reading it now and it will truly change the way you think of today's "race to wealthy, technologically advanced civilization."

Also keep in mind that the U.S. is not the haven of the world. We have the highest gun murder rate. We are notorious for our fear and distrust. We are a military state; we torture people and invade other countries for apparently no reason and waste billions and billions of dollars on our military while women in the world cannot afford to take their kids to the doctor. Our movies feature human beings getting chopped up and bloodied. We call it "entertainment." The waste and pollution we create is unparalleled anywhere in the world. The materialism we champion is unrivaled.
_____________

A country certainly does not have to "allow" exploitation before exploitation can happen. First, "defending" one's country takes money and time. And what would a country do while "defending" its natural resources? It would be isolated. Trade is fine, but much of the trade going on is NOT fair trade, and manual laborers and workers are ignored. People in these other countries need food and medicine more than some of their resources like diamonds and ivory. Other countries of course do use U.S. resources, such as food. But you must understand that *we control the system*. Secondly, exploitation occurs insidiously and invisibly inside systems. Yes, China is "letting" us exploit their sweatshop workers - because they need the jobs and money within the type of system that we've set up and pressured them to adopt: one consisting of no-holds-barred "free trade" which values profit and devalues humanity, or values profit/money *at the expense of* humanity, among a whole host of other things.

Answer 4

A nation isn't really 'rich' or 'poor' - it's developed or developing or undeveloped. Developed nations have more infrastructure, more investment, and more (and more efficient or productive) economic activity. I guess it's not what you have, but what you do with it.

In general, market economies have been more successful at such development than command economies, and there are all sorts of things a government can do to screw up economic development.

But, there's also just a fair bit of random chance involved.

Answer 5

Mexico has a very high rate of unemployment. Who's going to boost the economy if all the people keep coming to the US, looking for jobs?

Answer 6

Mexico needs to get their minds out of the sexual gutter
and study some science

Answer 7

all the money goes into the swiss bank accounts of a few.