News Moneyless Sharing: A Solution to the Problems of Capitalism?

[russ_watters]

What i don't like about capitalism is that people have to compete and work hard to make money but they can never reach the top of the social pyramid. Money doesn't come so easy for most people like it did for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Most people have to work hard for their incomes.

Do you know what fraction of our billionaires are self-made? Do you know that Bill Gate's ealy years at Microsoft were spent using a motel as an office and doing marathon programming sessions?

Sure, luck had something to do with it. It always does - ask the winner of any NASCAR race. But skill and hard work is important as well.

Also about half of all human effort today is wasted on the administration of the capitalist system. Everybody who uses money, counts money, receives money, worries about money, steals money, catches the thieves, gambles for money, handles credit cards, handles other value papers, everybody who works in the banks, half of all the people working in the supermarkets, are working with the administration of the money system. The money system is a centrally controlled system.

So we are already today getting by fairly well, on average globally, with only a small part of the possible workforce actually producing anything useful.

Wasted? Useless? Part of the beauty of the capitalist system is that money does work too!

Heck, the opposite is the basic problem for socialism/capitalism: it doesn't value humans. Humans do the work and provide the economic value, but the system does not reward them with value equal to their work but instead sees them as expendable burdens to be supported. It does not take much for a slightly sociopathic despot to sieze upon the idea and create horrible misery in the name of economic progress. Stalin murdered millions not because of racism (ie, Hitler), but because of the economic implications of their existence.

 

[Art]

How is that a reasonable criteria for defining a revolution? Heck, historically most revolutions end up replacing one dictator for another, changing virtually nothing. Typically, a change in governing parties is the definition - they don't have to be very different.

Revolution \rev`o*lu"tion\, n. [F. révolution, L. revolutio.]

A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. http://artcode.org/lexicon/definitions/revolution.php?size=384

Now show me what you base your definition on.

Look at the equation and what it means. A Gini coefficient of 1 is A/(A+B)=1/(1+0), which would mean that the one richest person in the country has all of the country's wealth and everyone else has precisely zero. The actual wealth distribution curve is hyperbolic. Besides not being "magical", a gini coeff of 1 is unattainable as a mathematical limit. It is an asymptote.

I meant what was your point not what were the maths; though I see you now agree it is not infinite.

Not many, but so what? It is not relevant, since you are comparing different political/economic systems with different reasons for stability/instability (not the least of which is the extreme poverty level in many of those countries due to non-functional economies). Heck, it says so right there next to the map! Of course the system is flawed: all systems are flawed. But it is still by far the best there is (the capitalist/democratic one in general, I mean). You posted a map implying the countries that are above .5 are good examples, but how many of them are mature capitalist countries? Are you saying the US isn't healthy or just that the US will become like those other countries? Either way, it simply doesn't follow logically

edit: For example, the Central African Republic is one of the higher ones (.6). It is clearly unstable, but is it because of the .6 Gini or because it has a per capita GDP of $1,100 and somewhere on the order of 60% poverty? I think you will find that the US is unique in its ability to maintain a high per capita GDP and a high Gini coeffiient at the same time (thus relatively low poverty) .

You asked for evidence that countries with a Gini index >0.5 were susceptible to anti-government unrest and I provided it. You can dismiss the correlation as mere coincidence if you like but I think you are deluding yourself. As for the US being a special case and thus immune - I already addressed that in the analogy I supplied earlier; which incidentally you appeared to agree with.

I think what you will find is that like other countries with high income inequality the government will become more and more repressive to quell dissent from an ever increasing % of the population who believe the American dream is their personal nightmare. Sooner rather than later you will see legislation such as the Patriot Act (an oxymoron if ever there was one) being used to suppress any organised protest as is already happening with 'free speech' zones being designated far away from the object of their protest and of course the TV cameras when the president comes to town.

Despite your protestations of the effects I see you do concede that capitalism in it's current form is flawed, which seems to me to be a somewhat paradoxical position to hold, never-the-less what changes do you think need to be made for it to survive as the socio-economic system of choice for the long term?

Interestingly it seems Forbes,which I don't think anyone could ever accuse of being left wing, agrees with my assessment as to the effect of income inequality without economic mobility.

One lesson of all this is that societies where the spoils are more unevenly divided, such as the U.S., had better be mobile--or else. If a large enough number of people believe they have a fair shot at success, then they will put up with the megarich. But if large numbers feel stuck at the bottom, sooner or later they will explode

Do you know what fraction of our billionaires are self-made? Do you know that Bill Gate's ealy years at Microsoft were spent using a motel as an office and doing marathon programming sessions?

There are only 371 billionaires in the US in total, many of which inherited the bulk of their wealth and so they are hardly a representative sample for the economic aspirations of the general populace.

 

[denverdoc]

Did you read the article? Have you ever talked to a Russian...? Malaise is a way of life.

As a matter of fact I have. I was incredulous to find re the women there:
1) better educated than US counterparts
2) less prone to obesity
3) far less materialistic
4)far more committed to family

No one complained of malaise. Hope for a better life, yes, but i doubt that would be different anywhere.

 

[siddharth]

to siddharth, well for my part i think its hard to get jobs for a densely packed billion human beings !. what can a government do in that case?
basicly where do u think the government can do more?

Here's some of the issues which I think the government should seriously look at

- Agriculture sector:

60% of the working population in India is employed in agriculture, while it's contribution to the GDP is 19.9%[1]. My last post highlighted the problem with the existing poverty line in India. If one uses a "better" poverty line, which includes other basic commodities, the rural poverty will be at 85%[2].

What the government could do:

(i) Phase out the land ceiling act! Small land holdings are going to affect productivity.
(ii) Provide opportunities for education and training so that farmers can move to the manufacturing and service sectors.
(iii) Invest in infrastructure. For example, invest in improving irrigation. Half the farmers still depend on the monsoons for irrigation[3]

- Education:
The literacy rate in India 59.5% [1]. I think that the government needs to completely rethink it's policies here. Currently, the state of government funded schools are absolutely terrible, especially in rural areas.

There's a interesting view how the government could improve education by deregulating some of it's criteria for low-budget private schools.

http://indianeconomy.org/2007/03/09/the-unknown-education-revolution-in-india/" ,

in a 2005 Delhi study[11], James Tooley found that children in low-budget unrecognized private schools did 246% better than government school children on a standardized English test, with around 80% higher average marks in mathematics and Hindi.

There are important lessons here for education policymakers in India. Education entrepreneurs need to be encouraged by removing rules that hinder the establishment and operation of schools in the primary, secondary and higher secondary areas of education. Competing schools will create choices for parents, improving access and quality for all. The government can then focus its limited education budget on the neediest sections of society.

This is a http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N60/knesmith.60c.html" , which offers the same idea.

As I have mentioned before in a previous post, I strongly feel that reservation in educational institutions on the basis of caste has got to go.

- Labor laws

Some of the Labor laws in India are rigid, inflexible and completely stupid. I honestly feel that the policy makers who made them had no clue about economics or the way markets work (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4103554.stm" ). As a result, the distorted market for labor is going to hurt employment, especially in the manufacturing sector.

IMO, the government needs to do much more in many other fields as well, such as improving transport links between rural areas and providing adequate health facilities. Most of the popular media coverage seems to be focusing only on the GDP growth (mainly due to the IT sector). I think it's time they look beyond the rosy picture at the actual inequality present, and ways to alleviate poverty.

[1] - CIA fact sheet on India
[2] - http://www.epw.org.in/articles/2006/06/10238.pdf
[3] - http://www.fao.org/ag/Agl/AGLW/aquastat/regions/asia/index5.stm

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

u know since u mentioned it, India can't be far away from being able to become like China, you have everything it takes, + higher education levels. we have the same trouble with our government, it just kills us to see all our resources thrown away in theft and corruption. well best of luck for both of our countries :).

 

[russ_watters]

Now show me what you base your definition on.

Oh, c'mon. That isn't the applicable definition and you know it.

I meant what was your point not what were the maths; though I see you now agree it is not infinite.

? Uh, no...

The point was two-fold:
-A gini coeff of 1 is unattainable.
-There is nothing "magical" about a gini coeff of 1.

You asked for evidence that countries with a Gini index >0.5 were susceptible to anti-government unrest and I provided it. You can dismiss the correlation as mere coincidence if you like but I think you are deluding yourself.

Well, fine. You've made your point with spurious logic and you're ok with it. Ok, then...

As for the US being a special case and thus immune - I already addressed that in the analogy I supplied earlier; which incidentally you appeared to agree with.

? You do realize other people can read this thread, right? You can't just put words in my mouth and expect people not to see through you.

I think what you will find is that like other countries with high income inequality the government will become more and more repressive to quell dissent from an ever increasing % of the population who believe the American dream is their personal nightmare. Sooner rather than later you will see legislation such as the Patriot Act (an oxymoron if ever there was one) being used to suppress any organised protest as is already happening with 'free speech' zones being designated far away from the object of their protest and of course the TV cameras when the president comes to town.

A bold prediction. And ultimately meaningless since we can't test it. But we can use logic and similar examples to show whether or not it makes sense. And clearly, the US simply does not fit with other countries with high gini coefficients. The gini coeff is about the only thing that is similar between the US and countries with stability issues.

Despite your protestations of the effects I see you do concede that capitalism in it's current form is flawed, which seems to me to be a somewhat paradoxical position to hold

Of course capitalism is flawed - but why is that paradoxical?

You're using that statement like Creationists use "it's only a theory..." Saying capitalism is flawed is not the same as saying capitalism is a bad system. You're trying to fire a gun that isn't loaded.

Capitalism is flawed and it is also the best system we have and are likely to have.

never-the-less what changes do you think need to be made for it to survive as the socio-economic system of choice for the long term?

It's survival is not at stake. It is perfectly stable as is. But clearly, the US could do a better job with government waste, helping the truly needy, and avoiding helping those who are scamming the government.

Interestingly it seems Forbes,which I don't think anyone could ever accuse of being left wing, agrees with my assessment as to the effect of income inequality without economic mobility.

Do you have a link to that? A quick google implies you are wrong: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmfor/is_199704/ai_n15360096
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/098_print.html

There are only 371 billionaires in the US in total, many of which inherited the bulk of their wealth and so they are hardly a representative sample for the economic aspirations of the general populace.

So...you're saying you don't know what fraction of our billionaires are self-made?

 

[Art]

Oh, c'mon. That isn't the applicable definition and you know it.?

It's the dictionary definition. If you can find a source to support your personal definition please provide it otherwise concede the point and move on.

The point was two-fold:
-A gini coeff of 1 is unattainable.
-There is nothing "magical" about a gini coeff of 1. ?

How is this relevant to the discussion? It is the movement towards 1 that matters.

Well, fine. You've made your point with spurious logic and you're ok with it. Ok, then...

Yes I've made my point using logic supported by authoritative sources isn't that how one is supposed to debate on this forum??

? You do realize other people can read this thread, right? You can't just put words in my mouth and expect people not to see through you.

lol Pot-kettle springs to mind. Maybe I'm confused because your argument is somewhat confused and contradictory.

A bold prediction. And ultimately meaningless since we can't test it. But we can use logic and similar examples to show whether or not it makes sense. And clearly, the US simply does not fit with other countries with high gini coefficients. The gini coeff is about the only thing that is similar between the US and countries with stability issues.

Yet strangely Forbes whilst very supportive of wealth inequality in principal, agrees with the thrust of my argument http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/free_forbes/2003/0317/098_2.html

Of course capitalism is flawed - but why is that paradoxical?

Because whilst conceding capitalism is broken you argue it doesn't need fixing.

You're using that statement like Creationists use "it's only a theory..." Saying capitalism is flawed is not the same as saying capitalism is a bad system. You're trying to fire a gun that isn't loaded.

As I was saying.

Capitalism is flawed and it is also the best system we have and are likely to have. It's survival is not at stake. It is perfectly stable as is. But clearly, the US could do a better job with government waste, helping the truly needy, and avoiding helping those who are scamming the government.

Come now Russ, even you must concede that the current trend of growing wealth inequality must reach a point where it becomes intolerable to society as a whole (by current trends the USA will be on a par with Mexico by 2043). In your statement above you begin by stating that the current system is stable (in fact you claim perfectly stable) as it is and yet then go on to suggest 'socialist ' fixes that are needed which seems to show a lack of conviction in your initial assertion.

Do you have a link to that? A quick google implies you are wrong: [/QUOTE] Link provided above and ...ters and I'll be able to answer the question.

 

[X-43D]

There is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Poor people simply don't have the money to pay for goods and services and become dependent on others. We need a share system, not an exchange system. A system with exchange and accumulation is a capitalist system, with all the disadvantages it brings with it. Dependency and a lack of individual freedom, economic inequality, a centralized control system with a gigantic bureaucracy, the money system and value papers, banks, people who make prices, people who demand money payments, receive and count the payments, people who steal money, people who chase, stop and arrest the thiefs, people building cashiers machines, pay interest, mortgages, robbery, murder for financial gain, gambling, etc. So much effort is wasted on the administration of the money system, so that only a small amount of people actually produce anything useful.

 

[Astronuc]

There is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Poor people simply don't have the money to pay for goods and services and become dependent on others. We need a share system, not an exchange system. A system with exchange and accumulation is a capitalist system, with all the disadvantages it brings with it. Dependency and a lack of individual freedom, economic inequality, a centralized control system with a gigantic bureaucracy, the money system and value papers, banks, people who make prices, people who demand money payments, receive and count the payments, people who steal money, people who chase, stop and arrest the thiefs, people building cashiers machines, pay interest, mortgages, robbery, murder for financial gain, gambling, etc. So much effort is wasted on the administration of the money system, so that only a small amount of people actually produce anything useful.

Modern industrialized/developed societies are built upon a commercial economy, which is far different from economies of 3000-5000 years ago, which were either hunter/gatherer or agrarian. In addition, the population is much more dense.

In parts of the ancient world, tribes fought over hunting grounds or agricultural areas. Slavery (human trade) was common 2000-3000 years ago, and in some societies women and children more no more than property, which is still unfortunately the case even today.

One has to ask - is there any socio-economic system that it is immune from the problems stated above. One could steal food, clothing, livestock, . . . as much as one could steal money. Most, if not all, human societies experience/suffer from thievery, violence, murder, gambling.

Can a human community exist in which resources are shared - as in a commons? This was theoretically the goal in socialism or communism, but just as in capitalism, there are always individuals or small groups who seek to take or control a disproportionate share of the resources.

 

[Astronuc]

Looking closer to home - in the US.

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html

HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers, some of whom tip the scales here at 300 to 400 pounds.

“I don’t think the rise is a fluke, and it’s a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast,” said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005. . . . . continued

This is disturbing!

 

[edward]

Looking closer to home - in the US.

In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/health/22infant.html

This is disturbing!

Food stamps can be used to purchase junk food, but not multivitamins.

 

[edward]

1. Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.

2. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

3. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

4. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.

5. 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

I have read a number of stats on this subject, but I think number 4. puts into perspective how truly uncivilised this supposedly modern world is.

 

[russ_watters]

We need a share system, not an exchange system.

I guess that's philosophy, but it doesn't have any real meaning unless you can turn it into a coherent description of a functional economic system. It is just useless idle pseudo-philosophizing.

Can you describe what this "share system" is and how it would function?

Bellyaching about the flaws in the current system is not useful. Coming up with real, viable, functional solutions is.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

I have read a number of stats on this subject, but I think number 4. puts into perspective how truly uncivilised this supposedly modern world is.

#4 doesn't make any sense. Could you explain it to me? What I mean is this "by the year 2000" thing. Starting when? And how?

In any case, those stats are a snapshot in time. They don't tell you how things are changing. Or why...

 

[ShawnD]

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

I have read a number of stats on this subject, but I think number 4. puts into perspective how truly uncivilised this supposedly modern world is.

There was one question in my grade 9 economics class that stuck with me. Why are Canada and America wealthy?

Because America has resources.
Wrong! Both India and Africa have lots of natural resources, but neither are wealthy.

Oh, it's because America has a lower population density so the share of resources per person is greater!
That is also wrong. Hong Kong and Japan have overwhelming population density, but they are both wealthy.

Well then it must be because America has a lot of infrastructure.
That is also wrong. When the Europeans invaded America (I say invaded because it was inhabited at the time), they started with literally no infrastructure of their own, and this was as little as ~300 years ago. The people who live in India now have lived in India for literally thousands of years, so they had a head start on developing infrastructure.

Ok well maybe it has something to do with civil unrest since India did have a great conflict against Britain and they did have the succession of Pakistan.
Wait a minute, that same exact thing happened to America. There was a war with Britain, then a war due to succession.Maybe India is just meant to be poor. Who knows.
edit: siddharth makes some very good points and they seem to agree with the idea that poverty is caused by less-than-perfect economic planning. We can't fix poverty by giving handouts (as suggested by any stats about feeding or educating the "world"). All we can do is change our government policies, and that can only be done from within the country; the UN generally frowns on the idea of external forces changing government policies (Iraq).

 

[edward]

#4 doesn't make any sense. Could you explain it to me? What I mean is this "by the year 2000" thing. Starting when? And how?

In any case, those stats are a snapshot in time. They don't tell you how things are changing. Or why...

I found that a bit confusing also, but it appears the article first came out in the late 90's so 2000 would sound reasonable. Since 2000 the big thing that has changed is what we have spent on weapons. Even the snapshot in time looked terrible for a highly technological modern world.

I did find that the previous quote came from here.

http://www.newint.org/issue287/keynote.html

For example, it would cost six billion dollars a year, on top of what is already spent, to put every child in school by the year 2000. That is an enormous sum. Yet it is less than one per cent of what the world spends every year on weapons.

Anyway you look at it global education over time would cost a small fraction of global weapons purchases over time.

 

[russ_watters]

That doesn't seem right to me (the $6 billion). It seems impossibly low.

 

[russ_watters]

The more I think about it, the more I think that beyond being a pointless/meaningless hippie statistic, it actually misses it's own point. It is an irony that I missed at first. Oprah Winfrey built a school in Afghanistan (and seriously, good for her), but in order for that to even be possible, we first had to spend probably $100 billion on weapons to make the country stable enough to build it! So the stat is trying to highlight a disparity between two things that are, in reality, directly related.

Everyone knows that if you could solve a problem like global education with what in reality is a paltry sum of money (the US already spends vastly more than $6 billion a year on education - near a hundred times that) we already would have done it. The money isn't what is standing in the way, but their number is rediculously low anyway.

 

[edward]

That doesn't seem right to me (the $6 billion). It seems impossibly low.

That is $6 billion per year in addition to what is already spent. In many countries they don't need schools with ceramic tiled bathrooms and grounds with football fields, swimming pools, and tennis courts.

 

[edward]

The more I think about it, the more I think that beyond being a pointless/meaningless hippie statistic, it actually misses it's own point. It is an irony that I missed at first. Oprah Winfrey built a school in Afghanistan (and seriously, good for her), but in order for that to even be possible, we first had to spend probably $100 billion on weapons to make the country stable enough to build it! So the stat is trying to highlight a disparity between two things that are, in reality, directly related.

Everyone knows that if you could solve a problem like global education with what in reality is a paltry sum of money (the US already spends vastly more than $6 billion a year on education - near a hundred times that) we already would have done it. The money isn't what is standing in the way, but their number is rediculously low anyway.

I see your point Russ, I just look at the overall situation and see that weapons are never going to be the answer to global problems either. We have had the last ten thousand years to become civilized and we haven't gained much. Sorry for the off topic ramble.

 

[ShawnD]

we first had to spend probably $100 billion on weapons to make the country stable enough to build it!

True enough. Stability is needed before anything can be done. Nobody will build a factory if there's a possibility of a rival warlord stealing it, and this is a very real problem in many African countries as well as Afghanistan. Schools will not be built either because education is more of a luxury than a need when your life is in danger on a daily basis due to lawlessness (Iraq has a major problem with this).

We have had the last ten thousand years to become civilized and we haven't gained much. Sorry for the off topic ramble.

You're right about the same political games being played as in the past... thousands of years, but people of today are much less eager to go to war, and life is more valuable than it has ever been. Wars over the past hundred years have started to have a much darker look to them even when the stats get better and better.
For example, WW1 and WW2 had millions of soldiers die, but they were somewhat supported by the countries involved. Canadians would volunteer in the thousands to go fight in WW1 because there was this sort of romantic view of war and soldiers in general. It wasn't until the numbers started coming in that people stopped and said "wait a minute, war sucks", and as a result Canada became more separate from Britain in that we no longer had to join wars they were part of; this is an example of a shift from pro-war to anti-war. This anti-war sentiment stayed fairly strong up until WW2, and people like Chamberlain tried to prevent war with the Germans at all cost. Looking back it was rather foolish to let Germany get that out of control, but it does show how devoted to peace Europe was at the time.
From a more American perspective, wars have become less popular over the last 50 years. Korea was 3 years long and something like 30,000 Americans died, but that war was not publicized as being overly bad in any way. Vietnam lasted something like 16 years (1959-1975?) and 50,000 Americans died. Even though the yearly death rate of Vietnam was peanuts compared to Korea, there was a lot of protest against that war, though it was exactly the same principle as Korea (preventing communism in Asia). Then after that you see things like the first and second Gulf wars. You may not remember, but a lot of Americans were against the first gulf war because they thought it would be like Vietnam. Then the second gulf war came and the same sentiments popped up: why are we fighting? What is this really about? When will this end?

The transition looks positive. In 1900 it was "sir, yes sir". In 2000 it was "why are we fighting?"

 

[Art]

True enough. Stability is needed before anything can be done. Nobody will build a factory if there's a possibility of a rival warlord stealing it, and this is a very real problem in many African countries as well as Afghanistan. Schools will not be built either because education is more of a luxury than a need when your life is in danger on a daily basis due to lawlessness (Iraq has a major problem with this).

Citing Iraq whilst promoting the idea of stability through force of arms is an oxymoron.

 

[ShawnD]

Citing Iraq whilst promoting the idea of stability through force of arms is an oxymoron.

Not really. Iraq is unstable because there was a sudden shift towards lowering the amount of armed forces. Insurgency in Iraq wasn't even a problem until the retard in charge decided it was a good idea to disband the Iraqi army. Yeah that's a great idea. Now there are literally thousands of armed and trained ex-soldiers who are unemployed and hold a grudge, fantastic!

This article explains a bit of it
http://english.people.com.cn/200311/27/eng20031127_129183.shtml
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002420.html

 

[Art]

Not really. Iraq is unstable because there was a sudden shift towards lowering the amount of armed forces. Insurgency in Iraq wasn't even a problem until the retard in charge decided it was a good idea to disband the Iraqi army. Yeah that's a great idea. Now there are literally thousands of armed and trained ex-soldiers who are unemployed and hold a grudge, fantastic!

This article explains a bit of it
http://english.people.com.cn/200311/27/eng20031127_129183.shtml
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002420.html

Iraq is unstable because first it was hit with sanctions and then it was invaded.

 

[Art]

There was one question in my grade 9 economics class that stuck with me. Why are Canada and America wealthy?
[snip]
Maybe India is just meant to be poor. Who knows

.

Here's a clue. Have a look at when America gained it's independence and then look at when the other countries you are drawing comparisons with gained theirs.

America took around 150 years post-independence to become a major power, India after only 60 years of self rule is already well on it's way whilst carrying the additional burden of having to contend with feeding 4x the population of the US on a land area 1/3 the size.

It takes time for a country to develop it's own structures and to industrialise, even longer for those countries whose debt has forced them to allow the World Bank and the IMF to adopt the mantle of colonial Governer.

It also doesn't help when advanced countries initiate arms races in developing regions such as selling fighter aircraft to Pakistan and then offering to sell fighter aircraft to their arch rivals India. This is the wealthy west looking to siphon off developing countries wealth as fast as it can be accumulated.

 

[ShawnD]

Here's a clue. Have a look at when America gained it's independence and then look at when the other countries you are drawing comparisons with gained theirs.

America took around 150 years post-independence to become a major power, India after only 60 years of self rule is already well on it's way whilst carrying the additional burden of having to contend with feeding 4x the population of the US on a land area 1/3 the size.

And that is different from Japan and South Korea how? Almost every city in Japan was completely destroyed in WW2 and rebuilt from scratch; their form of government was changed from the Japanese way to the American way practically overnight. Japan and South Korea were both torn apart by major wars, rebuilt with a US-style government, and are now top notch countries. Germany was also completely destroyed in WW2 but it was rebuilt and is once again a somewhat wealthy nation.

It also doesn't help when advanced countries initiate arms races in developing regions such as selling fighter aircraft to Pakistan and then offering to sell fighter aircraft to their arch rivals India. This is the wealthy west looking to siphon off developing countries wealth as fast as it can be accumulated.

This is entirely true. The same thing was done to Iran and Iraq during their ~10 year war and it left both sides economically crippled.

 

[Art]

And that is different from Japan and South Korea how? Almost every city in Japan was completely destroyed in WW2 and rebuilt from scratch; their form of government was changed from the Japanese way to the American way practically overnight. Japan and South Korea were both torn apart by major wars, rebuilt with a US-style government, and are now top notch countries. Germany was also completely destroyed in WW2 but it was rebuilt and is once again a somewhat wealthy nation.

Japan Korea and Germany were not former colonies. Their populations had very advanced industrial knowledge which losing wars doesn't affect and so there is no learning curve. Former colonies never acquired industrial knowledge whilst under foreign rule and so have to start from scratch at the beginning of a huge learning curve made more difficult by countries that will sell them finished goods but will not license the technology itself.

 

[ShawnD]

Japan Korea and Germany were not former colonies. Their populations had very advanced industrial knowledge which losing wars doesn't affect and so there is no learning curve. Former colonies never acquired industrial knowledge whilst under foreign rule and so have to start from scratch at the beginning of a huge learning curve made more difficult by countries that will sell them finished goods but will not license the technology itself.

There is truth to what you are saying, but India currently does have a lot of industry. It's not like India is shipping out primary resources then buying finished products made from their own resources. India's chemical and drug industries in particular are booming. That means India has a lot of resources, a fair amount of industry, and an overwhelming amount of brain power that isn't being put to good use. Even with all of these things, India is not a rich country. Why? I'm thinking small business is a factor. It seems like many of these factories in India were not started in India. Some guy in Europe decides he wants cheap labour, so he builds a huge factory in India. What about small business in India? They play a big part of American and Canadian economies, so they're probably a critical factor in a country's prosperity.
Alright so let's start a business, but wait, there's paperwork to fill out. I remember watching an ABC news special about business in India and Hong Kong. To start a business in Hong Kong the reporter needed to get a few sheets of paper signed, and within the same day he had a fully legal business running in Hong Kong; he was selling stuff with the ABC logo (this was when it was under British control, not Chinese). In India he needed to fill out a bunch of paperwork and it was expected to take literally weeks to process all of it. It's awfully hard to get an economy going when the government is actively trying to stop all business and trade from happening.

Starting a Business
America: 5 days
Canada: 3 days
Australia: 2 days
Hong Kong (chinese): 11 days
Japan: 23 days
South Korea (listed as "Korea"): 22 days
India: 35 days

Levels of taxation are another part of prosperity, but I'll need to find some stats on how the countries compare.

 

[russ_watters]

America took around 150 years post-independence to become a major power, India after only 60 years of self rule is already well on it's way whilst carrying the additional burden of having to contend with feeding 4x the population of the US on a land area 1/3 the size.

It depends on who you ask/how you measure it, but the absolute latest you could say the US emerged as a superpower was in 1907 when Roosevelt sent his Great White Fleet on a world cruise as a demonstration of our Naval power.

By other measures, the US was a superpower almost immediately, turning back an invasion by Britain in 1812.

The regardless of where you set the date of emergence, though, the US was well set-up to become a superpower by it's mixture of open land and government. India has a long way to go, but among the late losses for the British Empire, India was one of the best set up for a prosperous transition. Other countries (many in Africa, for example), were just flat-out abandoned.

 

[Art]

Like I said it takes time to develop the structures but as you have stated yourself India is already growing their own solid industrial base, their economic growth is one of the highest in the world and that's after only 60 years of independence, think where they are likely to be in another 90 years.