The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

After WW2 the economies of the West European countries were pretty much destroyed. Most of our colonies became independent and the inhabitants of (former) colonies gained a certain level of economic freedom. Major advantages gained in the colonial age were lost. You could say most countries landed in a new economic crisis, which allowed the United States gain to lead over all other countries. In Europe and Japan people swore off violence, rebuild entire cities and aimed to intensify future international economic trade and cooperation. Eventually, we rebuild our nations and led our countries in economic prosperity.

During the powershifts after WW2 Middle Eastern, Asian, African and South American countries had a great oppertunity to gain a certain economic advantage over other countries. Unfortunately only a very few countries seized this moment.

Human resources have limited capacity. So you would say the countries with the most natural resources would have the most financial means to rebuild their countries. The opposite it true however. Countries with few natural resources such as Japan and Germany gained a great economic lead over the other countries. Some countries (such as East Germany, Russia and China) were held down by communist regimes. Other countries (Arabian and African) were held down by the lack of ambition, lack of respect for ownership and lack of humanity within the population itself.

It always strikes me when people tell me the West, slavery or capitalism is to blame for the poverty in certain parts of the world. It's more likely that the exact opposite is true. Especially Arabian countries had all the opportunities in the world to develop themselves to world-leading economies after WW2. And the refusal of some countries to develop themselves has been a huge burden on our economies. If after WW2 more countries would have chosen for a humanistic and (semi-)capitalistic approach we would all have been a lot richer.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Jesus ****ing christ.





I mean jesus ****ing christ.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

In a number of European states, one can detect a crisis of confidence and a loss of creative momentum (ponder that and you just might work out why...)

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P95jTc07mY

:salute:

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

What are you talking about? And why are you spamming those youtube links?

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

there are four main principles of geostrategy

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

I don't care about the "why". I'd burn out very quickly if I did.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Definitive Socionics; "What happens when an ENFp's {strong} extroverted intuition takes control of his mind completely? Can he discern actual reality from his mind-created realities?"

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

No one thinks you are a racist.

No really.

Well...

...

...

OK

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Those silly classifications of yours don't mean anything, let alone disprove anything I said. I'm sure you are well aware of that.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Jesus staring christ. I think you just nailed it.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

So what exactly are you trying to say?

Africans and Asians are dumber than Europeans?

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

a) prevent collusion
b) maintain security dependence among the vassals
c) keep tributaries pliant and protected
d) keep the barbarians from coming together

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Why is it, do you suppose, that some cultures succeed and others fail?

Is it nature or nurture?

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

sup horn

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Those are your words, not mine. If you have some strong views about the possible underlying causes, for example that it might be related to their intelligence as you suggest, then feel free to explore those ideas though.

I'm just here to equip you with the knowledge that the Barbaric tribes themselves are solely responsible for the current problems they are facing. With this knowledge you will be armed to battle several common misconceptions, such as the one that Africans are poor(er) because they did not have the opportunity to develop themselves. Or that our wealth would be somehow stolen from the African continent. And I was secretly hoping for people with different views to appear. But apparently everyone silently agrees.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Certain traits are just more suitable for creating wealth then others. When look at the general traits of certain cultures you can narrow it down to the following few: Europeans tend to take initiative, if it is for business, cooperation, aggression or leisure activities. Asians are more focused (which leads to discipline). And Africans tend to prefer short-term profit (impulsive behaviour), which makes them poor business partners and do not allow each other to build something up.

I'd say it's pretty similar as with dogs. Certain traits get passed on, such as the tendency to go for short-term profit, and can have quite a bit of influences on the character. These traits are reflected in their respective cultures. But I do not think these natural traits are necessarily dominant, knowing we are all intelligent beings. Eventually the manner in which someone was brought up will be decisive. If they were to be taught to think differently, then they would. So I'd say its nurture.

Every monkey can learn a trick.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

No, I think it goes more like "everyone is silently baffled by the amount of ambiguous bullshit and they're still waiting for the famous punchline to appear." This has to be the biggest load of dimwit horse crap I've read in a while. Thanks for the sociology lesson on "different cultures are different" spiced with some anecdotal inductions to economy.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Aye. A mixture of superiority from one, and hunger from the other.

Lets be thankful there's plenty of romance in between.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

the universe is an open field :)

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Alessio, ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

What are you implying All Systems Go?

I would love to hear about how this Marshall Plan, consisting of aid worth a total of 12 billion dollars for 17 countries, stimulated our economies, while the 4 to 7 billion euros a year, totalling over a hundred billion euro since the second world war, the Netherlands alone spends on foreign aid does nothing. And please, I would especially love to hear your opinion about the Turkish situation, as they were part of the Marshall plan and are still receiving financial aid even today.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

Apart from the fact that the third world was starting from a far lower point (i.e. there was no independent government), there are a number of factors.

Where aid has gone (in no particular order):

Arms
Corruption
programs to help the poor
paying off interest on international loans

I think they are the big four.

There is also the other side i.e. the lack of free trade. Trade barriers (direct economic subsidies, such as CAP) for goods which the third world can provide cheaper.

By aid for Turkey, do you mean things like this?

aid for Gulf war efforts from coalition allies (1991) $4.1 billion
aid pledged for Turkish Defense Fund $2.5 billion
aid for Iraqi war (2003) approx. $8.5 billion.

The largest recipients of U.S. military aid are Israel, Egypt, Greece, and Turkey.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

It's because there is a difference between trade and aid.

In brief, the argument goes like this. The less developed countries would possibly have a comparative advantage in agricultural products and grocery products (mostly because, we can all imagine how effective it is to farm grain and pigs in say a country like Finland in compared to a country like Ukraine). This comparative advantage never goes realized due to trade barriers, tariffs, and subsidies (if you add up subsidies and such to the price of home grown grain in Finland, the price goes up 400%. this means, you'd need an unrealistic advantage to import it realistically. even the transit pollutes argument is a load of crap considering the amounts of piss they pour into the ground just to have anything grow here).

The (food) aid essentially does **** all. You can send all the clothes and all the peanuts and raisins there you ever want, but it's not going to help their infrastructure. The difference between Marshall Plan and LDC aid is that the Marshall plan was aimed to stimulate the economies: LDC aids are aimed to feed people, but not really to achieve anything else on the long run. To add to this, you're being a blunt moron by comparing two non-inflation cleaned numbers together to have some strength on your argument. Please, if you're about to compare figures in terms of economics, at least be arsed to compare them on real terms, not nominal terms. Using nominal terms to make up ground on your arguments may fool idiots, but makes you look really, really dumb in the eyes of anyone half-educated.

Next, there's the economic assassin tactic. The perfect example of this is Iraq (the same shit hits all over the fan in different degrees). First, you destroy the country. Then, you lend the country money to rebuild: on terms you decide, eg. your producers get to work out the rebuilding. The country is irreversibly endebted. Alternatively, you can just have a multinational corp dig out the shit off the ground there and sell it back to them prospected and worked. While western countries' governments and public sectors still hold some leverage over multinationals, this is not the case for less developed countries. Bolivia's a good case too. As terms of aid for the medical plans, the Americans courteously offered to "buy" their public water system for equities, which was essentially sold to American Corps. Well, hardly to anyone's surprise, the prices of water skyrocketed in the next few years, and any aid ever received elsewhere paled in comparison to this.

Sure, you can keep implying that you think Africans and Asians are dumb and shit people, which is, what you're essentially saying: you're just ignoring a good load of details. I'd personally rather not be dragged into innuendo on which race is superior, seeing as the economic standpoint is to begin with not necessarily an optimal one. You can discuss why Africans didn't invent nuclear power first with Max Weber's Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. But this "you said that not me" -shitass idiocy is just really really dull.

Re: The lack of prosperity after WW2
 

If you search for prosperity by the definition of western civilisation, then it is trivial you are going to find that the west is most prosperous, as they have most actively strived to achieve it.