Economic patterns since 1950 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2024, 07:02:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Economic patterns since 1950 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Economic patterns since 1950  (Read 939 times)
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« on: October 22, 2005, 03:16:32 PM »

Very interesting comments, thefactor and DanielX.

I think that a lot of the growth in the gap between poor and wealthy nations has to do with wealthy nations becoming a lot wealthier, and poor nations going nowhere or, in some cases, descending into political turmoil, which leads also to economic calamity.

DanielX makes a great point that the severance of the former colonies from their wealthy European "motherlands" removed one pillar in the economies of these countries.  That is a big factor in my opinion.

I also think that political stability is a huge factor.  Economies don't develop well in the face of political instability.  The deleterious effect of the Soviet Union also played a big role in the developing world, as many countries at least partially bought into an economic system that can only produce poverty and failure.

Some of it is human psychology.  In many parts of the developing world, the new rulers after independence were much better at tearing things down than they were at building anything constructive.  They maintained power by rejecting and excoriating the wealthy "imperialist" powers and embracing stupid economic theories popularized by the Soviets.  People in those countries supported this because it sounded good to them, but it also guaranteed their continued economic misery.  This is a widespread problem, even domestically -- those who are poor supporting policies more intended to hurt the "rich" than to help them, and in the end, they are hurt much more than the "rich."
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2005, 08:55:50 AM »

So, dazzle, how do you explain the fact that most of the fastest growing countries since 1950 pursued liberal redistributionist policies?

How do you explain the fact that the biggest economic disasters since 1950 pursued redistributionist policies?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2005, 09:36:56 AM »

How do you explain the fact that "redistributionist policies" can mean all kinds of things often very, very different to each other?

Yes, it depends on what type of "redistributionist" policies are being pursued.  Some are good, and some are highly destructive.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.