No I just hate people who keep pushing ignorance.
About time people spoke out, enough of the blame whitey or waiting for the white man to save us from ourselves.
What kind of bullshyt mindset is this
Why are predominately black countries mostly poor? in your opinion
- Thread starter Micky Mikey
- Start date
About time people spoke out, enough of the blame whitey or waiting for the white man to save us from ourselves.
What kind of bullshyt mindset is this
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
1. its relevant as to why black people are poor
2. the truth is that you are describing african slave traders as moral and intelligent
GreatestLaker
#FirePelinka
Why Jamaica is poor
Published: Wednesday | March 5, 2014 [URL='http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140305/cleisure/cleisure2.html#disqus_thread']56 Comments
Keiran King, Online Columnist
By Keiran King
It's an embarrassing but inescapable truth about Jamaica - most of the time, we're a complete mess. From arresting criminals to developing industries, diversifying exports to simplifying taxes, creating wealth to erasing intolerance, Jamaica lags behind much of the world.
Our GDP per capita is less than half the global average. According to the Statistical Institute of Jamaica, almost one in three men and one in two women in their early twenties can't find work. Forty per cent of all the jobs in the country are in farming, fishing and car repair. Construction and tourism provide a quarter of the rest. And those hard-baked jobs pay about J$11,500 a week, not enough to afford the computer to read this article.
What's a beautiful banana republic to do? Two hundred years ago, Jamaica was the richest colony in the British Empire by a distance, and its citizens, like Simon Taylor and Thomas Thistlewood, the most wealthy. Falmouth famously had running water before New York. How did we go from such prosperity in 1814 to such poverty today? Why is Jamaica so poor?
It's the billion-dollar question, one the best and brightest social scientists have been chewing on for decades. Here's the most influential living economist, Robert Lucas: "Is there some action a government of India could take that would lead the Indian economy to grow like Indonesia? If so, what, exactly? Once one starts to think about [it], it is hard to think about anything else."
It's easy to know what makes a market healthy - just write down what the First World does. Modern economists agree that balancing state budgets, suppressing inflation, allowing free trade, and investing in infrastructure is the way to go. But what's good for the country is not necessarily good for the government. In a democracy, where politicians only last a few years at the top, it makes more sense to spend as much as you can, protect the interests of powerful friends, and skimp on infrastructure apart from big, prestigious projects.
Still, with selfish people in power everywhere, why do rich countries stay rich and poor countries stay poor? In 2001, a Turkish economist, Daron Acemoglu, solved an amazing, disturbing piece of the puzzle. He discovered that he could predict the current GDP of 70 countries, including Jamaica, by looking at the mortality rate of white men in the 1800s. Wait, what? How in the name of Paul Bogle are those two things even related?
It turns out that wherever European colonisers survived in large numbers, like Australia and North America, they imported the rule of law from home. But where they mostly succumbed to disease, like much of Africa and the West Indies, they didn't bother to set up strong institutions. Instead, they set a precedent of grab-and-go, short-term, extractive policymaking that persists, like the viruses they feared, to this very day. Out of many, one example - inefficient bureaucracies that encourage and even tolerate widespread corruption.
Tim Harford, yet another economist, explains: "Development is thwarted because the rules and laws of the society do not encourage projects or businesses which would be to the common good. The small amount of education and technology and infrastructure [in a country like Jamaica] could be much better used if the society was organised to reward good, productive ideas. But it is not." By contrast, America's patent system, effective courts and venture capital paved the way, as much as the literal investment in highways, for a good idea like FedEx to flourish. In turn, FedEx created the delivery network for Amazon, whose supercomputers now enable Netflix, and the virtuous cycle continues.
This is all very depressing, because it suggests the problem of poverty operates on a scale larger than anyone's lifetime, that as a colonised people, we were predestined to struggle far past Independence, and that we are our own worst enemy in implementing solutions. But depression is not despair. We have to find a way to align the short-term interests of our elected officials with the long-term interests of the economy. How to do that remains unanswered, but with the world's best and brightest on the job, it'll probably only take another 200 years.
Keiran King is a playwright and producer. His column appears every Wednesday. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and[/URL]
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140305/cleisure/cleisure2.html
Published: Wednesday | March 5, 2014 [URL='http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140305/cleisure/cleisure2.html#disqus_thread']56 Comments
Keiran King, Online Columnist
By Keiran King
It's an embarrassing but inescapable truth about Jamaica - most of the time, we're a complete mess. From arresting criminals to developing industries, diversifying exports to simplifying taxes, creating wealth to erasing intolerance, Jamaica lags behind much of the world.
Our GDP per capita is less than half the global average. According to the Statistical Institute of Jamaica, almost one in three men and one in two women in their early twenties can't find work. Forty per cent of all the jobs in the country are in farming, fishing and car repair. Construction and tourism provide a quarter of the rest. And those hard-baked jobs pay about J$11,500 a week, not enough to afford the computer to read this article.
What's a beautiful banana republic to do? Two hundred years ago, Jamaica was the richest colony in the British Empire by a distance, and its citizens, like Simon Taylor and Thomas Thistlewood, the most wealthy. Falmouth famously had running water before New York. How did we go from such prosperity in 1814 to such poverty today? Why is Jamaica so poor?
It's the billion-dollar question, one the best and brightest social scientists have been chewing on for decades. Here's the most influential living economist, Robert Lucas: "Is there some action a government of India could take that would lead the Indian economy to grow like Indonesia? If so, what, exactly? Once one starts to think about [it], it is hard to think about anything else."
It's easy to know what makes a market healthy - just write down what the First World does. Modern economists agree that balancing state budgets, suppressing inflation, allowing free trade, and investing in infrastructure is the way to go. But what's good for the country is not necessarily good for the government. In a democracy, where politicians only last a few years at the top, it makes more sense to spend as much as you can, protect the interests of powerful friends, and skimp on infrastructure apart from big, prestigious projects.
Still, with selfish people in power everywhere, why do rich countries stay rich and poor countries stay poor? In 2001, a Turkish economist, Daron Acemoglu, solved an amazing, disturbing piece of the puzzle. He discovered that he could predict the current GDP of 70 countries, including Jamaica, by looking at the mortality rate of white men in the 1800s. Wait, what? How in the name of Paul Bogle are those two things even related?
It turns out that wherever European colonisers survived in large numbers, like Australia and North America, they imported the rule of law from home. But where they mostly succumbed to disease, like much of Africa and the West Indies, they didn't bother to set up strong institutions. Instead, they set a precedent of grab-and-go, short-term, extractive policymaking that persists, like the viruses they feared, to this very day. Out of many, one example - inefficient bureaucracies that encourage and even tolerate widespread corruption.
Tim Harford, yet another economist, explains: "Development is thwarted because the rules and laws of the society do not encourage projects or businesses which would be to the common good. The small amount of education and technology and infrastructure [in a country like Jamaica] could be much better used if the society was organised to reward good, productive ideas. But it is not." By contrast, America's patent system, effective courts and venture capital paved the way, as much as the literal investment in highways, for a good idea like FedEx to flourish. In turn, FedEx created the delivery network for Amazon, whose supercomputers now enable Netflix, and the virtuous cycle continues.
This is all very depressing, because it suggests the problem of poverty operates on a scale larger than anyone's lifetime, that as a colonised people, we were predestined to struggle far past Independence, and that we are our own worst enemy in implementing solutions. But depression is not despair. We have to find a way to align the short-term interests of our elected officials with the long-term interests of the economy. How to do that remains unanswered, but with the world's best and brightest on the job, it'll probably only take another 200 years.
Keiran King is a playwright and producer. His column appears every Wednesday. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and[/URL]
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140305/cleisure/cleisure2.html
1. But not as to why Europeans were welcomed in
2. A very select few West African tribes sold slaves and their idea of slavery was much different. Some even fought back when they found out what really happened.
Basically.
And Asia and Arabia already had a sense of nationhood and institutions that helped post-colonialism/ fragmentation.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
1. i didnt say it had to with welcoming europeans, i said it had to do with why black people are poor
2. and yet you are describing these select few as moral and intelligent
ejthompson23
Vagabon
No you dnt really...You just spewing substance free nonsense...btwn me and you i got you and that's all that matters to me...
1. Which veers from why I brought it up
2. No, I'm saying welcoming foreigners to trade and visit their land was moral and intelligent
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
so when its all said i done you think the european should have set up european laws in africa?
so after all this rigamorale you end up demanding that europeans bring european culture to africa and the west indies?
No, I would prefer that Africans get to choose the borders and formation of states.
@GreatestLaker post is explaining the difference in what did happen.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
1. you didnt bring it up, i brought up the fact that europeans came for slaves, you used the euphemism trade and btw you were also using the euphemism trade to describe trade between africa and mecca, a lot of the "trade" between arabs and europeans and africans was actually slave trading, for you to not understand this shows your ignorance
2. i know what you are saying, im just informing you that the foreigners being welcomed came there for slaves, it was not moral and it was not intelligent to welcome them
1. they came for resources and then slaves......the East African slave trade is irrelevant to West Africa
2. they came for resources and then slaves...welcoming foreigners to trade and visit their land was moral and intelligent
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
exactly but you want europeans to do that
so in the end of all this anti colonial gibberish you are really promoting a view that puts the european in the middle, the european should bring his laws and divide africa, they should just divide it in different way then they did
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
1. no they didnt, the first thing the europeans did was set up slave trading posts, you are ignorant
1a. yo you just spent pages writing some shyt abot axum-nubia-mali-swahili trading, now all of sudden the east african slave trade is irrelevant to west africa?
and im not even saying its relevant, im just pointing out for historical reasons, that a lot of the trade between arabs and europeans and africans was actually slave trading, which last time i checked was a bad thing, even though you seem to think its moral and intelligent
2. it wasnt moral and intelligent, it was immoral and stupid
Last edited:
