open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked my solution to things like darfur
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Nadea Semah
Posted - 2011.07.26 02:07:00 - [1]
 

Or at-least the hunger/starvation aspect of it... govt wise, military wise, disregard.


It always puzzled me, that when i used to be religious, most mission trips comprised mostly of one time medical shots, or one time building, "single serving" to quote from fight club..

My veiw, is screw teaching them to read, or write, that's not what is needed...

take farmers, sanitation experts, builders. go to these places... Instead of teaching them to read, or giving one time shots.. teach them basic sanitation- which so many seem to lack- in terms of lacking the knowledge to act within the crammed space, or lacking knowledge completely.

but, teach them how to utilize the resources they currently have, to make more stable shelters, farms, the beauty of outhouses that are not close to water sources, and a little bit outside of the camp... I mean, In boy scouts, i forget the precise distance.. but- you always were told- if you need to crap, go x paces from camp, and x from water, dig a whole x inches deep- and go nuts!

the "hulu one laptop per child" thing got me thinking on this.... at this point- they dont need laptops? they need the skills to better survive in their local world.(and for the record, i dont actually know what the hulu thing aims to do, so im not really trying to attack or whatever hulu.

If the souls in darfur do not have nails readily available, perhaps teach them how to make stronger shelters given what they do ahve available..

Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2011.07.26 03:12:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Culmen on 26/07/2011 03:30:37
The point of teaching them to read is so that they go out and acquire that knowledge for themselves.
Even with that ability reading/writing is required.
Can you imagine teaching something complicated to people, if that person could not take notes, could not study a text book or understand what you just put on the board.
Lack of literacy slows down the teaching process to what you can say and what the brain can remember.
Access to the written word allows a person to pick up a book on farming or sanitation and get to work. Rather then relying on an outsider couching them from over the shoulder the entire damn time.
What's more literacy with applications is contagious.
Parent's can teach their kids to read, kids can teach their parents to read. both groups can teach their peers.
You just need the initial seed and some incentive, like an internet full of agricultural information.

But you bring up an excellent point
the process was supposed to be

1) Reading allows access to information
2) Information allows them to plan and implement local improvements for themselves.

You hear alot about 1, but never 2.

Also I agree. I think the most pointless thing in the world is charity tourism.
IE unskilled rich kids going out and building houses in africa.

This does nothing, but create houses with shoddy workmanship.

In order to help africa, we should be handing out small scale capital tools.
Shovels, mill stones, maybe even heavy farming equipment.

Then give them books and/or training to use them.

That being said, the one shot medical thing probably has merit.
It takes years to train up a single doctor.
It takes decades to build up a medical infrastructure.
The population can't wait that long.
But these one shots have to be a relatively "temporary" measure.

TL:DR
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish, he'll still need a boat.
Teach a man to read, he'll learn how to build a boat, he'll then learn how to fish, and hopefully he'll teach his family and friends to read and then the whole lot of them will eat for a life time.

Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.07.26 03:51:00 - [3]
 

We have done this before. I want to say in Somalia but I know I'm wrong. We did teach the people how to grow crops and we did teach them how to read, and the second we packed up and moved away to another area the rebel forces came in and killed the farmers and either burned the farms, or turned them into their own (bases of operations or as an actual farm with slaves). There were even several farms owned by white colonist that were eventually overran and many others just simply left out of fear of the attacks.

The idea is excellent, and personally much better than the concept of just shipping them food, but we also need something to keep the wolves at bay until the ones we're helping can get on their feet. Unfortunately the requirements to pull this off is very expensive and will be for several decades and there usually lies the brick wall. Nobody wants to put their bill in the hat.

There was even a guy on TED talks that made a complete starter farm kit including a tractor that would cost less than your average SUV, and yet we don't even see that being utilized. Another one gave us a water filtration system that can take even the nastiest, most contaminated water and make it drinkable and I think that is just starting to pop up in a couple of villages in Southern Africa. The price to make was under $100.

RiskyFrisky
Interrobang Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.26 07:09:00 - [4]
 

Darfur and most of Africa, easy fix: Nuke them, no one will miss them.


Estephania
Independent Political Analysts
Posted - 2011.07.26 07:37:00 - [5]
 

I'm very skeptical on Africa. They seem to be unable to govern themselves in any form that would even resemble a modern government. They are virtually tribes that are still living by their tribal laws and they lived like that for centuries. Since the Europeans moved out (those damn colonialists) the situation quickly reverted to the one that was there for hundreds of years. You can't teach democracy, modern educational system, civil service to ppl who are still living in tribes.
And another problem, quite ironically, is the western medicine. While their infrastructure changed little since the stone age, it cannot support large amounts of ppl, but westerners brought medicine and life expectancy hiked up, while infancy deaths dropped down. Now, where 1 million lived, live 10 while the agriculture can support probably 2. That's why we have famines which affect tens of millions of ppl every year.

I risk to be flamed for that, but foreign rule is probably the best thing that could happen to many regions in Africa. But actually, no one really needs them for anything, so they are stuck with themselves with their tribal warfare, widespread corruption and sectarian violence.

Khors
El Barco Pirata
Posted - 2011.07.26 08:19:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Estephania
I'm very skeptical on Africa. They seem to be unable to govern themselves in any form that would even resemble a modern government. They are virtually tribes that are still living by their tribal laws and they lived like that for centuries. Since the Europeans moved out (those damn colonialists) the situation quickly reverted to the one that was there for hundreds of years. You can't teach democracy, modern educational system, civil service to ppl who are still living in tribes.



lol

Zedic
Amarr
Universalis Imperium
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.07.26 10:37:00 - [7]
 

instead of nuking everyone (useless racist troll is useless) why not hunt down and obliterate the "wolves"? Then go back to teaching people how to take care of themselves.

But then again, going in and doing that runs the risk of playing Team _____ World Police. As someone else mentioned, you can't teach democracy. You can't give it to people, it has to be fought for, you have to bleed and die for it. The only problem with this is that these warlord ****ers completely out gun the good people. Arm one side, and you end up with another Afghanistan. Do nothing and you get Darfur. It's a sad conundrum. Neutral

Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2011.07.26 10:42:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Caldari Citizen20090217 on 26/07/2011 10:42:34
Originally by: Estephania
I'm very skeptical on Africa. They seem to be unable to govern themselves in any form that would even resemble a modern government. They are virtually tribes that are still living by their tribal laws and they lived like that for centuries. Since the Europeans moved out (those damn colonialists) the situation quickly reverted to the one that was there for hundreds of years. You can't teach democracy, modern educational system, civil service to ppl who are still living in tribes.
And another problem, quite ironically, is the western medicine. While their infrastructure changed little since the stone age, it cannot support large amounts of ppl, but westerners brought medicine and life expectancy hiked up, while infancy deaths dropped down. Now, where 1 million lived, live 10 while the agriculture can support probably 2. That's why we have famines which affect tens of millions of ppl every year.

I risk to be flamed for that, but foreign rule is probably the best thing that could happen to many regions in Africa. But actually, no one really needs them for anything, so they are stuck with themselves with their tribal warfare, widespread corruption and sectarian violence.


The continent is this way by design. It makes it easier/cheaper for Westerners and the Chinese to get the resources that rightfully belong to us, but due to some oversight
God placed in Africa.

Ultim8Evil
Ministry Of Eternal Disorder
Posted - 2011.07.26 11:12:00 - [9]
 

The whole of Africa should be put back under colonial rule.

They may have been opressed slaves, but at least they weren't shooting eachother and had food on their plates.

This is what happens when you hand independence and autonomy over to a continent that wasn't ready to come down from the trees yet.

They wanted self-rule, they wanted independence, they wanted to earn money for themselves, they spent it on AK-47s and feathery hats rather than food.

**** them, tbqfh.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.07.26 11:15:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 26/07/2011 11:18:47

Originally by: Culmen
TL:DR
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish, he'll still need a boat.
Teach a man to read, he'll learn how to build a boat, he'll then learn how to fish, and hopefully he'll teach his family and friends to read and then the whole lot of them will eat for a life time.

Give a group of men a sustainable and prosperous economy, and MAYBE, just maybe they'll make sure to learn how to read/write/operate machinery and so on and so forth to keep it going.
But that's not guaranteed.
Screw up a sustainable prosperous economy pretty badly, and almost no amount of intellectual skills will make it recover afterwards.

Man will almost always do whatever is more convenient, with "morals" a mere afterthought.
If it's far more convenient to war like mad and enslave other people to get a decent quality lifestyle, man will do that.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.07.26 11:27:00 - [11]
 

Malthus already saw poor people are pretty much fundamentally doomed back in 1800s.

No pension -> make lots of kids to ensure pension -> outstrip food growing possibilities -> starvation and government collapse -> back to start

There is no easy fix and sending food help is pointless. If they need food help it is already to late. You're basically prolonging the pain and misery.
I wish it were otherwise.



Narisa Bithon
Caldari
The Motley Crew Reborn
Posted - 2011.07.26 20:22:00 - [12]
 

just sterilize em all :P

we do it to keep cats and dog populations under control why not do it to humans. max 2 kids then the snip.

Nimrod Nemesis
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2011.07.26 21:12:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Zedic
instead of nuking everyone (useless racist troll is useless) why not hunt down and obliterate the "wolves"? Then go back to teaching people how to take care of themselves.

But then again, going in and doing that runs the risk of playing Team _____ World Police. As someone else mentioned, you can't teach democracy. You can't give it to people, it has to be fought for, you have to bleed and die for it. The only problem with this is that these warlord ****ers completely out gun the good people. Arm one side, and you end up with another Afghanistan. Do nothing and you get Darfur. It's a sad conundrum. Neutral


Couple things here.

1. Democracy, not a good word, just say "representative government," because tbqh Democracy hasn't existed since ancient Athens.

2. Every representative government has been formed by outside parties, at least in some form or fashion.
a) England: King John would have never signed the Magna Carta without rebellious subjects backed by French troops.
b) The US would have never been able to create their own representative government without the backing of french, prussian, etc. forces.
c) Almost every 20th centruy convert to representative government has been a former colony or proxy state of a pre-existing nation state using a similar system.

It was arab and european influence that truly destabalized the African continent. If either party is interested in seeing a change for the better, they had best be ready to intervene again.

Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2011.07.26 21:53:00 - [14]
 

The classic give a man a fish you feed hi for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for life. Unfortunately the following is prety sad but true

Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217

The continent is this way by design. It makes it easier/cheaper for Westerners and the Chinese to get the resources that rightfully belong to us, but due to some oversight
God placed in Africa.


It made me laugh as well.

Touche


Slade

Mar Lee
An Army of None
Posted - 2011.07.26 23:48:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Estephania
I'm very skeptical on Africa. They seem to be unable to govern themselves in any form that would even resemble a modern government. They are virtually tribes that are still living by their tribal laws and they lived like that for centuries. Since the Europeans moved out (those damn colonialists) the situation quickly reverted to the one that was there for hundreds of years. You can't teach democracy, modern educational system, civil service to ppl who are still living in tribes.


Speaking as someone who has studied post-colonial Africa: you're full of ****. Pre-colonial Africa had a wide variety of governments, from acephalous tribes to feudal kingdoms, which were no better or worse than governments in Europe or Asia. When Europeans came in and took over, though, they imposed colonial governments that were externally, rather than internally, focused; that is to say, the purpose of the colonial government in Kenya, or Nigeria, or the Congo, was to take wealth and resources away from the people and give it to those in control of the government.

Make sense so far? Good. Because this is how post-colonial governments in Africa, by and large, still work. In the United States, if somebody used his government position to make everyone in his family very wealthy and ensure that his home town had the best roads and hospitals and so forth, and if that person also made sure that towns that didn't vote for him didn't get their roads and sewers and so forth repaired, that person would not be in office long. Almost everyone in the United States shares a common vision of government as something (theoretically) fair and just and even-handed and representing all the people.

That vision doesn't exist in most places in Africa. Instead, it is understood, on a very fundamental level, that the purpose of government is to take resources from some people to make other people rich. Almost everyone who takes power enriches his own family and home town and tribe at the expense of everyone else. Their political opponents may make noises about fairness and equality, but, by and large, if they come to power they'll do exactly the same thing. The job of the African politician is, essentially, to eat: to loot and plunder and grow fat off other people's wealth, and never, ever, give up power if he can avoid it, because he knows that his enemies will impoverish his family and tribe and home town, in the same way that he has done to them. And anyone who genuinely believes in modern Western ideals, who limits his use of government power and surrenders office voluntarily when his term ends? Well, he's a fool, because his successor is going to stomp him flat anyway.

This is not a problem with 'government'. This is a problem with African cultures, which - because of colonialism, because they use the loot-and-plunder colonial government as the model for what government should be - does not operate on the same foundational principles that the Western world relies on to keep government in bounds and civil society civil.

tl;dr? Yes, African government is broken. But it's broken because of European influence. African countries did not revert to their prior systems of government. They kept the colonial system, and that is exactly the problem.

(I know this is probably way too long a response to a driveby racist troll. But whatever.)

Krystal Vernet
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.27 00:01:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Mar Lee
Make sense so far? Good. Because this is how post-colonial governments in Africa, by and large, still work. In the United States, if somebody used his government position to make everyone in his family very wealthy and ensure that his home town had the best roads and hospitals and so forth, and if that person also made sure that towns that didn't vote for him didn't get their roads and sewers and so forth repaired, that person would not be in office long.

But that is basically what every representative does here. In fact, that's the sort of behavior they're voted in to do - favor the people back home, not the country as a whole. Otherwise, they wouldn't get the votes they need to win.

Originally by: Mar Lee
Almost everyone in the United States shares a common vision of government as something (theoretically) fair and just and even-handed and representing all the people.

We're still very far from this vision becoming reality. :/

Nadea Semah
Posted - 2011.07.27 00:59:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Nadea Semah on 27/07/2011 01:03:48
Edited by: Nadea Semah on 27/07/2011 01:01:31
keeping the wolves at bay... (going into some ideas below- I do realize that theres a big difference between warfare in the middle ages, and warfare in the modern times)

Given my rather strong libertarian, veiws- this may be even hypocritical.. but, I had an idea to help the homeless in america too, and sort of adapt it for africa.. Speaking generically, I do not know why there are homeless folk in america, it could be their own fault (alcohol and drug addictions), could be they are mentally lacking, and have no one to care for them, or it could simply be through no fault of their own. WHile reasons may affect the idea, leave them aside for a moment.

By a plot of land. Build a gated- essentially assisted living community. very strict rules about outside, somehow gotta keep drugs from going in or out, alcohol in or out, and such, but not make it a prison either.. anyway, plot of land, gated- assited living community, or apartment complex type thing.

Cost to live there is free of charge. However, while there- you will be furnished with basic food, clothing, and shelter. you will be furnished with a technical education- taught by the same folk who would teach in tech schools, etc.. you are required to do chores- be it cooking for the community, cleaning, lawn, etc. you are required to go to class. and you are either required to pass scheduled, monthly drug screens, or at random. in short, its sort of like the military basic training/ tech school concept, but without requiring height weight stuff, sit-ups, etc..

like for instance, those who go the the HVAC tech classes, can fix A/C problems in the complex. Those who go to electrical- electrical problems in the complex, etc... During my technical education, I spent time practing on "never to be used again stuff" as well as school vehicles and equipment..

sort of carry this concept over to Africa.. im not sure about logistics, but, perhaps one could have a private (armed) security detail to defend the gated community, enforce admittance policies (which as in the US, would be "no guns, knives, etc" I guess it would be international, to avoid a tribe taking over security and more tribal warfare, etc... the force would only have juridstiction inside the gates. could only act in defense of the gates. weapons would be locked up unless needed, etc...

Idk, there has to be some sort of solution that would keep the wolves at bay, that wouldn't necessarily involved a millitary campain, "omg they have wmds" etc.

I mean come on, I think feudal society is better than whats happening in Africa... I mean, there has to be a way to atleast make them medieval reinactors lol.

Nimrod Nemesis
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2011.07.27 01:14:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Nadea Semah
Idk, there has to be some sort of solution that would keep the wolves at bay, that wouldn't necessarily involved a millitary campain, "omg they have wmds" etc.


You have to realize the "wolves," represent people too. Segregating a population based on who's currently destitute isn't helpful. Similarly, killing everyone in power is a mistake because most of them are simply related to the man in charge, or happened to live in his region, and thus felt compelled to help him.

There are a lot of diplomats, foreign policy makers, and think-tanks at work on the issue, but a satisfactory solution still escapes us. I suppose only time will tell if the positive economic influence from China will continue to hinder or actually help Africa find it's feet.

Culmen
Caldari
Culmenation
Posted - 2011.07.27 01:22:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Nadea Semah

By a plot of land. Build a gated- essentially assisted living community. very strict rules about outside, somehow gotta keep drugs from going in or out, alcohol in or out, and such, but not make it a prison either.. anyway, plot of land, gated- assited living community, or apartment complex type thing.



This concept didn't exactly work pleasantly when the British tried it in 1899, the more famous one risk a Godwin's violation.
Recall that in both cases the camps were justified by stating it would simplify humanitarian logistics and increase regional security.
Simply put the strict controls are useless if everyones coming and going as they please.
So you either have to ditch the strictness or ditch the freedom.

Estephania
Independent Political Analysts
Posted - 2011.07.27 05:41:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Mar Lee
too long to quote


So, you are suggesting that Africa and Europe were both on the path to enlightenment when bad Europeans came on and bombed poor Africans into the stone age? Get real! You are talking about feudal kingdoms which occupied only a small part of the continent while the majority still lived in tribes (they are still living in tribes btw). The concept of nation-state never happened in Africa, the industrialization didn't happen there as well. Their lives are still defined by the laws of the tribe or of the clan (and everywhere in the world where clan or tribe laws rule there's poverty, war and failed states). What you are see as "externally oriented" governments is just a development of those feudal kingdoms but in the modern age. Those "presidents" (kings and chieftains really) are behaving exactly like their ancestors before Europeans came - steal, plunder and oppress other tribes. Only now they store their loot not in their coffers in the palace, but in Swiss bank account. They've found that it's much more profitable for them to siphon the loot out of the country than to store it somewhere inside the country. As for plundering, looting and killing other tribes - nothing changed.

And you'd rather drop that racist thing, ad-hominem attacks just cheapen your response.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.07.27 06:23:00 - [21]
 

My solution: stop pooring money into the poorest african countries which dont accomplish anything, 90% goes to the corrupt government and the remaining 10% is removed in the next war.

Instead send money (and just general help) to the richest african countries (there are a few african countries that are not completely hopeless), they can have a stablizing influence on surrounding countries and boost their economy.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.27 09:40:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Ultim8Evil
The whole of Africa should be put back under colonial rule.




Funny you should say that because the people of Sierra Leone want the British back.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.27 13:22:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 27/07/2011 13:22:42
Give them food and they might survive for a few days. Give them AK47 and they will learn how to ransom your oil tankers.Rolling Eyes

Takseen
Posted - 2011.07.27 22:32:00 - [24]
 

Wasn't the issue in Darfur more about the widely roaming militias in pickups stealing food and killing civilians?
If you're referring to the famine in Somalia, a big problem is the lack of a stable government. Which you kinda need to put in place to organise major infrastructure projects.

Also most development aid DOES provide this kind of long term training and assistance, hence the name. The famine relief projects are generally just a temporary measure to compensate for a food shortage, whether the reason is a local conflict or an unusual weather pattern.

Also to some other posters in this thread, please do a bit more research on the African continent. While its not a super fantastic place to live in right now, its not all as bad as Somalia. Few countries have constant armed conflict. Some of the better run places have GDP per capita roughly equal to that of parts of Eastern Europe. With a bit more work on everyone's part the whole continent should be able to achieve that, at the very least.
Writing it off as a constantly war-torn and impoverished continent is just lazy.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.07.27 23:33:00 - [25]
 

Europe or Asia can do something if they want, but the United States should do nothing in Africa. If wars or famine force migrant hordes to pour out of Africa, they rarely end up in America. It's not our problem.

We have much bigger problems closer to home. Mexico's in a state of all-out war with the drug cartels, the government is totally corrupt and dysfunctional and we have third world masses flooding into our country trying to flee the chaos.

We're 14 trillion in debt and have over 100 trillion in obligations. The limit of our generousity has been reached. We can't afford to be world police anymore (thankfully!).

Nimrod Nemesis
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2011.07.28 00:04:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
We can't afford to be world police anymore (thankfully!).


Oh wow, we agree on something! Very Happy

Takseen
Posted - 2011.07.28 22:58:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
Europe or Asia can do something if they want, but the United States should do nothing in Africa. If wars or famine force migrant hordes to pour out of Africa, they rarely end up in America. It's not our problem.
We have much bigger problems closer to home. Mexico's in a state of all-out war with the drug cartels, the government is totally corrupt and dysfunctional and we have third world masses flooding into our country trying to flee the chaos.
We're 14 trillion in debt and have over 100 trillion in obligations. The limit of our generousity has been reached. We can't afford to be world police anymore (thankfully!).

That's reasonable. Plus Africa was colonised by Europe initially so we can focus on that, and you can look towards South and Central America.
Also really Mexico isn't a 3rd world country anymore, they're a newly industrialised nation on the same level as China, Turkey, Brazil or India. And the government seems to actually be doing reasonably well against a well organised criminal movement with access to cheap US guns and massive wads of cash from drug sales in a developed nation. Personally I think you should just bite the bullet and legalise pot to cut into the drug cartels revenues a bit. But even then they'd still have the revenues from *******, which no country has ever really legalised. And seriously look into treating people for drug addictions rather than just banging them in jail. If you can cut the number of addicts and reduce the demand, you can cut the funding to the cartels.


Maybe lift the embargo on Cuba, although they're moving towards economic liberalisation on their own anyway.

Nimrod Nemesis
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2011.07.28 23:11:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis on 28/07/2011 23:11:54
Originally by: Takseen
Also really Mexico isn't a 3rd world country anymore, they're a newly industrialised nation on the same level as China, Turkey, Brazil or India.


That's a fair point and I think the end of the idioticly overblown "war on drugs," would go a long way to letting the country trim some of the cartel fat aswell as reduce some of the wasteful spending the US has made toward jailing every pot dealer in the country. Unfortunately, in relation to hard drugs, Mexico isn't the root of the problem. They simply act as a geographical middle-man for the major producers further south.

Selinate
Amarr
Posted - 2011.07.28 23:28:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Selinate on 28/07/2011 23:31:23
Originally by: Takseen

Also really Mexico isn't a 3rd world country anymore, they're a newly industrialised nation on the same level as China, Turkey, Brazil or India.


I haven't been to Turkey, Brazil, or India, but I can assure you, many parts of Mexico and China can STILL be considered a third world country, Mexico especially....

Takseen
Posted - 2011.07.29 10:16:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Selinate
Edited by: Selinate on 28/07/2011 23:31:23
Originally by: Takseen

Also really Mexico isn't a 3rd world country anymore, they're a newly industrialised nation on the same level as China, Turkey, Brazil or India.


I haven't been to Turkey, Brazil, or India, but I can assure you, many parts of Mexico and China can STILL be considered a third world country, Mexico especially....


Agreed. Rio and Calcutta still have plenty of slums, the Chinese peasants are much poorer than their fellow urban citizens. But unlike say, much of Africa, there's significant upward mobility as the industrial and commercial sectors continue to grow. Provided the cartels don't take over and the government doesn't stray too far to the left or right, they'll continue to make improvements to the conditions of the poorest in Mexico. Having a strong economy not only means there's more opportunities for entreprenurial poor folks to move up to the middle class, but it means the government can enact social programs to help the rest of them. Or not, if that's the way your politics lean.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only