Stop throwing cash at poor nations
foxnews.com
foxnews.com
Ever wonder how China was able to emerge from decades of regressive economic and industrial policies in a short span of time? International investors were willing to pour capital into post-Mao China because there was a strong central government presiding over an orderly society in which cheap labor was plentiful. Of course there were other factors that helped as well, like a cultural obsession with education that has generated a wellspring of human capital.
Cheap labor is everywhere. Cheap labor and stability is rare.
Whaaaaaa?
No, no.
'Foreign Investment' was not the reason China did well in the 1980's forward.
In fact, China is still kind of a sketchy 'investment' as there is no transparency in accounting, you do not have effectively the 'rule of commercial law' because senior gov. officials are corrupt etc..
You have the opposite: companies invest heavily, and suddenly find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic dead end, while a government-backed competitor leapfrogs them.
China was able to redevelop in the 1980's because they chose to end the decades of Maoist Communist / Centrally Planned insanity.
The colonial interventions, and post revolution years are seen as a 'blip' in Chinese history wherein they were held back.
What see now in China is simply a 'return to the norm'. Not really a new development.
"Rule of law and enforced property rights are everything. Absolutely everything."
They are critical, I agree but they are not quite everything.
As for the article, I might tend to agree with their points - we can do much better than dump money into dysfunctional systems where the money only amplifies the dysfunction.
You make the claim that because China was strong in the past it magically should be expected to return to strength in the future, and that foreign capital or not, such a rejuvenation would be inevitable. That's magical thinking. As I said, yes a strong cultural heritage has greatly helped the Chinese, but the initial spark and driving force during much of the 80s and 90s was foreign capital investment.
The basic rules for managing an economy are well known - all you have to do is follow them.
If you do this - you'll get a minimum level of GDP/wealth etc. just like Poland, Mexico, Serbia or wherever.
The Chinese had very little capital, then over the course of the 80's built it up. How? Through direct investment. They were given the investment because investors recognized that Chinese commitment to property rights and stability.
You don't say...
Are you talking about the Midwest?
This seems to imply an awareness that current science doesn't support your opinion, and that you dismiss that science as being the result of political bias. If so, I have to question whether you're looking for unbiased science, or science which validates your biases.
I assume your hypothesis to be largely true, but it is not racial.
But certainly there would be an impact on intelligence due to nurture, the cultural of the region, and whether intelligence and education are encouraged. Like you have specified, the intelligence, adaptability and rationality of people from disadvantaged backgrounds has to be impacted by where they live and how they're raised. To suggest otherwise would be nothing short of bullshit.
I personally haven't served in the Middle East, I dropped out of the Royal Marines at 16 weeks when I got my Residency Visa for Australia. My friends that have served and are currently serving, the story's they've told me of Afghanistan and Iraq of the locals in some regions is nothing short of horrifying. I don't see how a lifetime of their culture and lifestyle where pedophilia is encouraged and seen as normal could ever be undone when they move to a western country, in addition to how they treat their women and basic Human Rights. Though admittedly, a lot of these same criticisms can be argued against Saudi Arabia and I can't see many controls being applied there. You only need to look at how their Ambassadors treat our locals when they visit.
But... and this is where my stance starts to unravel. We've enough shit in our own back yard. You only need to look towards Hollywood and it's protection of characters line Harvey Weinstein , and the BBC's protection of Jimmy Saville to know our own internal strife is just as bad.
Coming back to the Middle East. These stories have completely changed my perception which previously was almost entirely "provide asylum to everyone".
And to be clear, I'm as left leaning as they come and a proponent of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers to boot.
But the narrative that we should be fearful of some of the people seeking asylum in our countries from these regions is not unfounded. And there ought to be controls in place to protect us and indeed, the actual people we should be providing a safe haven to when they seek refugee status here.
The far left leaning would advocate that we provide everyone a safe region and our own countries safety and is second to our responsibilities as a world state.
= = = = Some articles on famine and it's impacts on genetics:
How an 1836 Famine Altered the Genes of Children Born Decades Later
Edit: words, structure.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-an-1836-famine-altered-the-genes...
How your grandparents’ life could have changed your genes
http://theconversation.com/how-your-grandparents-life-could-...