Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
BustinScales510
Well-Known Member
Cool video. The book "guns germs and steel" examines the same topic. The author talks extensively about the latitude factor. The east/west continental axis of europe and asia made it possible for the same crops and animals to be used for thousands of miles across the land mass.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
That's like looking at someone who just died of lung cancer, observing stained teeth and fingers, and saying stains on the teeth and fingers caused the cancer.
Haiti was the most wealthy place in the new world. It was the jewel in the crown of french colonies.
They had a slave revolt and the French were kicked out.
It almost immediately became the poorest place in the new world.
What caused that?
Well, according to the video, lack of a navigable river is the cause.
Navigable river in my backyard, nothing navigates it though. Must mean I am wealthy? Ding!!!
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Yeah, if only Haiti had a river big enough for shipping.
I guess the French drained it as the retreated from the island.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Probably the lack of slave labor working the plantations providing exports to Europe
Is this your way of saying "when white (French) people were there everything was good, and as soon as the white people left, everything went to shit"?
Yeah, very transparent..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That was one of three causes identified in the video, natural resources and corruption being the other two
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Not in those words, no.
But the white population of Haiti was the lowest anywhere I believe in the new world.
It was so low that they had a cast of slaves who were middle and lower management. The plantation owners just raked in the money.
Having slaves in these leadership positions was exactly how they were successful in their rebellion.
So they had the workforce, the management structure and the blueprints for how to make their economy work.
Are you arguing they chose not to?
Please don't come off with any BS about the embargo placed on them. They could have still sold their sugar and other crops at a very profitable level.
Their was a very large number of private merchants who would have been willing to buy their sugar and swear it came from someplace else.
They had everything they needed to prosper, and did not.
The video actually makes the argument that countries with a lot of natural resources are poor, " paradoxically these countries tend to have them in spades" ring a bell? Go to 6:10 to refresh memory.
I will agree with Government corruption though. The rest? not so much.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
consider the source.
Toby believes something, which therefore causes it to be a "Theory" (cuz that sounds scientific) and "Theories" are"Facts", cuz they are made up of "Facts", and "Facts" are "Facts" because they are "Facts".
so there.
neener neener neener
It would actually have a much better correlation if we just blamed the equator for all the poor countries problems.
BustinScales510
Well-Known Member
I googled "Haiti after the French" and this came up.
http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/earlyhaiti/postrev.htm
"The immediate post-revolutionary period of Haitian history was a terribly difficult one. The country was in shambles. Most of the plantations were destroyed, many skilled overseers were gone (either dead, in hiding, or having fled for their lives because of the treatment of slaves), skilled managers were often also gone, the former slaves did not want to work someone else's plantation, there was a grave fear that France would re-invade, and the rest of the international community was either openly hostile or totally uninterested in Haiti."
BustinScales510
Well-Known Member
I think the video (and other sources) kinda did, not all but some of the problems, anyway. Starch and grain crops that store well and feed lots of people dont do well along the equator, plus diseases and parasites that thrive in the tropics dont exist as readily in the temeperate regions of the world
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to say anything there is untrue.
But do you think the French destroyed their own plantations? Or do you think, just like in Ferguson, Watts, and LA, that one of the mechanisms of black protest is to destroy their community?
The white/french population was as that says, killed or ran off.
The newly freed slaves did fear colonial powers coming back. But does that mean you sit there and let all the means of wealth generation remain broken?
There were plenty of competent ex slaves among them. Shit they defeated a French and British invasions.
But it all boils down to they either didn't want to, or couldn't make anything out of a place that was once the most productive place in the area.
Edit... and by couldnt, I don't mean no one was smart enough to grow sugar and sell it.
But the liberal mantra has always been "If you don't like it there, move".
Agriculture is the main driver of Haiti's economy, yet Haiti has 5. 0 million starving people and ranks as the 4th most hungry country.
There are lots of reasons why. Lack of capital investment, a shit ton of tiny little 3 acre farms that don't use modern practices or scale of economy, and high taxes on commodities are some other ones.
There are lots of reasons why. Lack of capital investment, a shit ton of tiny little 3 acre farms that don't use modern practices or scale of economy, and high taxes on commodities are some other ones.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
huh?
rice grows very well in the tropics, and rice is one of the best grains out there.
the problems are societal and cultural, not geographical.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
bignbushy used to push that exact same talking point almost verbatim.
but smokeydan is totally not bignbushy, the gay racist.