What all the developed countries have in common - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15104891
Puffer Fish wrote:Has anyone noticed noticed that all of the wealthy successful countries in the world fall into one of the following four categories:

White and English-speaking

Western European (especially Northwest European)

Northeast Asian - Japan, Korea, China to some extent (this also includes Taiwan and Singapore, because they are majority ethnic Chinese)

not to mention a few small muslim countries that are filthy rich due to oil money, relative to small population sizes


This entire list only accounts for 25% of the population of the Earth (not counting China).


Is all this just a coincidence, the result of historical factors and legacies? Could there be a reason for the correlation?

Could this potentially help explain why the US has long stood as somewhat of a paradox among the developed list of countries?


Many factors. But the general most important factors are fertile lands and ample safety. Lands can be protected by the military but that is usually ineffective and drains wealth. So it is best to live on a island or a half-island of sorts like the US. Europe nowadays also. Basically fertile lands along with peace and safety usually do the trick. Doesn't guarantee it but does the trick. Also globalization to some degree.
#15104902
@wat0n

If you are claiming that they did not benefit from colonialism, please explain how.

Irish settlers came to North America and the Caribbean and supported European expansion at all times, even siding with other Europeans against slaves and indigenous people. This may seem paradoxical since the Irish themselves were colonised by theEnglish, but it is not impossible to be both colonised and coloniser. The Irish who fled the famine went and lived on someone else’s land.

I am not that familiar with Singapore since my focus is on the colonialism of the Americas, but it probably has a similarly nuanced history.
#15104907
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

If you are claiming that they did not benefit from colonialism, please explain how.

Irish settlers came to North America and the Caribbean and supported European expansion at all times, even siding with other Europeans against slaves and indigenous people. This may seem paradoxical since the Irish themselves were colonised by theEnglish, but it is not impossible to be both colonised and coloniser. The Irish who fled the famine went and lived on someone else’s land.

I am not that familiar with Singapore since my focus is on the colonialism of the Americas, but it probably has a similarly nuanced history.


What does any of these have to do with the economic growth of Ireland in the 1990s or Singapore from the 1960s onwards? I think colonialism could fall into the "resource endowments" part, but it is by no means the only explanation.

In fact, how about former colonial powers who are currently developing economies? Say, for example, Turkey?
#15104919
Unthinking Majority wrote:North and South America did not have any native domesticated animals, so no livestock and no horses for travel. Travel was by small boat or foot only, so exploration of the inland was difficult and only possible by waterways.

Because the eurasian continent goes east-west and has similar climate all the way across, and had horses for travel, this made technology transfer and trade far easier across the continent. It's far easier to traverse Eurasia east to west than crossing the Sahara in Africa north-south.

The Sahara was as massive as an ocean. That s why subSaharan Africa is different from the North. Your point makes a lot of sense. And not having domesticated animals was an issue. This is probably why Africa did not progress as fast. Very few animals can be domesticated. Even a Zebra cannot be domesticated because it is way too anxious.
#15104922
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Please see my previous post.


I saw it, that's why I'm asking you. In what way did Ireland benefit from colonialism in the 1990s (when it finally managed to leave the middle-income trap) but not before (when it was the poorest Western European country)?
#15104929
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

How does that question relate to the discussion?


You claimed that all developed countries have in common that they benefited from colonialism. Yet I don't see how that would hold for Singapore or Ireland, both of which became developed only after colonialism ended.
#15104931
Julian658 wrote:The Sahara was as massive as an ocean. That s why subSaharan Africa is different from the North. Your point makes a lot of sense. And not having domesticated animals was an issue. This is probably why Africa did not progress as fast. Very few animals can be domesticated. Even a Zebra cannot be domesticated because it is way too anxious.


Well Diamond also says that even if technology & knowledge transfer was easier in Africa going north to south, they are different climates and therefore the agriculture and animals were not the same. The plants and animals that could live in the desert vs the savannah vs the tropical jungles were very different so knowledge of agriculture & husbandry could not be applied throughout Africa. In Eurasia the climate is more similar throughout, so more of what the ie: Chinese grew or raised could apply to Europe and vice versa.
#15104934
wat0n wrote:You claimed that all developed countries have in common that they benefited from colonialism. Yet I don't see how that would hold for Singapore or Ireland, both of which became developed only after colonialism ended.


I think you make some odd assumptions here.

First of which is the idea that Ireland was not developed prior to the end of colonialism. This seems doubtful. While there was a significant difference between Ireland and other Western countries (because it was also colonised), this does not mean it was not developed.

Secondly, you seem to assume because there is an apparently significant time lag between two moments (whenever colonialism supposedly ended and when Ireland became developed) that there is no economic link between the two.

Neither of those assumptions make sense.
#15104935
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you make some odd assumptions here.

First of which is the idea that Ireland was not developed prior to the end of colonialism. This seems doubtful. While there was a significant difference between Ireland and other Western countries (because it was also colonised), this does not mean it was not developed.


Ireland was not as rich as to be considered to be developed back in the day. Hence the constant emigration to the US.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Secondly, you seem to assume because there is an apparently significant time lag between two moments (whenever colonialism supposedly ended and when Ireland became developed) that there is no economic link between the two.

Neither of those assumptions make sense.


Indeed, persistence matters but there are limits to that. Consider, for example, Turkey: Its empire extended to most of the Middle East, yet nowadays it would not be considered to be a developed country. And back in the day, if anything, it was the sick man of Europe.

Also, neither question deals with Singapore.
#15104938
wat0n wrote:Ireland was not as rich as to be considered to be developed back in the day. Hence the constant emigration to the US.


When these people immigrated to the USA, did they help the indigenous people or did they partake of all the benefits that settlers benefit from, like land?

Indeed, persistence matters but there are limits to that. Consider, for example, Turkey: Its empire extended to most of the Middle East, yet nowadays it would not be considered to be a developed country. And back in the day, if anything, it was the sick man of Europe.

Also, neither question deals with Singapore.


Getting back to my point, can you provide support for these two assumptions?
#15104942
Pants-of-dog wrote:When these people immigrated to the USA, did they help the indigenous people or did they partake of all the benefits that settlers benefit from, like land?


What does it have to do with the evolution of Ireland's economy? It seems the immigrants benefited, not the Irish in general. Also, I don't think that immigrating into a former colony like the US is a form of colonialism, in the same way that exiling yourself in Canada circa 1973 or working in the US in 2020 are not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Getting back to my point, can you provide support for these two assumptions?


The case of Turkey is a counterexample.

And again, how about Singapore? It's another counterexample.
#15105034
ckaihatsu wrote:So that's it -- ?

At a time in history when slavery was the *norm* for labor for agriculture, Muslims had slaves.

Your statement sounds like it emanates from a sense of *rivalry*, more than anything else, and you're obviously partial to *Western* Civilization, and *its* post-Roman slave practices of the time.

So it's one society's slavery, versus *another* society's slavery.


Slavery was the order of the day in "the old days". American SJWs somehow think that slavery was only an American thing. The left wing leaders, particularly black left wing leaders push the narrative of the "victimhood" 24/7 which is highly damaging to minorities. I cannot imagine what it would be like to grow up and be told I am a victim every single day. That destroys the human spirit. It creates depression, anger, lack of hope, nihilism, lack of motivation, violence, etc. At some point the only hope is to embrace the the role of the noble victim.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
The Two Forms of Socialism

Of course they weren't the same, any more than […]

First Nations Brilliance

The prophetic words of the Great Chief Seattle of[…]

Thank Goodness for Sane People

What do you do when your psychological warfare doe[…]

Election 2020

You are clearly not a conservative. Conservative[…]