6 ms·

So how long does it take to change the mindset and behavior of a complete country? ~80 years?

by Berunto 8y ago

jedmeyers 8y ago
And losing a world war? Something really shocking has to happen for the whole country to rethink ways of doing things.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Applied to other countries, what did the second one teach that the first didn’t?
  - gricardo99 8y ago
    repetitio est mater studiorum “Repetition is the mother of all learning”
    - Klover 8y ago
      This is not useful in the slightest. What was different after the war was a late 20th century boost in economy for Japan. Does Uganda learn as much every day because of a quote?
  - raziel2701 8y ago
    It taught them that they're pacifists.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- masklinn 8y ago
  WWII Japan is the result of its about face, not its cause.
  - Tharkun 8y ago
    To anyone who finds this interesting and wants to explore this further: i can recommend the book 'Modern Japan: A Very Short Introduction'.
jacobwilliamroy 8y ago
Just a caveat, I am not an economist, and am quickly approaching the edge of my knowledge. I think that time is not really a factor here. Institutions like the IMF and WTO passively suppress the economic development of poor countries by withholding incentives unless they behave like rich countries. I don't think this is done out of malice though, because I've met people who genuinely believe that forcing businesses in Mozambique to compete directly with the U.S. economies of scale "creates a level playing field" and doesn't inhibit their growth in certain key industries at all.
- laughingman2 8y ago
  I think its done out of malice however they dress it up. Ignoring history of how stolen wealth from colonialism and protectionist policies of the west during the colonial era etc when its convenient to do so is nothing but malice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... President Ulysses S. Grant stated: For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, Gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade. Now America and its lackeys in IMF and WTO want to do the same to the poorer countries.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    If it is done with malice, it's the dumbest, waste of malice evil project ever because nobody really benefits. It is not done with malice. The IMF/WB believe that nations that have basic infrastructure, basic forms of democracy, low corruption and relatively open markets ... will be successfull. This is neither malicious nor entirely naive. It's pragmatically naive when you consider the leader of some nation may take a 10% cut off the loan, hire his buddies to 'build the dam that never gets built' and then of course you have a nation in debt ... but those debts are not advantageous to the West at all, so the conspiracy theories are wrong. Now - where there is actual malice is when a large, Western industrial conglomerate might win a big contract and so they influence, bribe, fake data - and then get the contract to 'totally overbuild' some kind of capacity leaving a nation with way more than they need. That's malice, but it's definitely not the IMF/WB or lending nations that win there.
psergeant 8y ago
“in establishing the rule of law, the first five centuries are always the hardest.”
YinglingLight 8y ago
One generation. Hint: it involves women and birthrates.

So how long does it take to change the mindset and behavior of a complete country? ~80 years?

jedmeyers 8y ago

And losing a world war? Something really shocking has to happen for the whole country to rethink ways of doing things.

lostlogin 8y ago
Applied to other countries, what did the second one teach that the first didn’t?
- gricardo99 8y ago
  repetitio est mater studiorum “Repetition is the mother of all learning”
  - Klover 8y ago
    This is not useful in the slightest. What was different after the war was a late 20th century boost in economy for Japan. Does Uganda learn as much every day because of a quote?
- raziel2701 8y ago
  It taught them that they're pacifists.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
masklinn 8y ago
WWII Japan is the result of its about face, not its cause.
- Tharkun 8y ago
  To anyone who finds this interesting and wants to explore this further: i can recommend the book 'Modern Japan: A Very Short Introduction'.

jacobwilliamroy 8y ago

Just a caveat, I am not an economist, and am quickly approaching the edge of my knowledge. I think that time is not really a factor here. Institutions like the IMF and WTO passively suppress the economic development of poor countries by withholding incentives unless they behave like rich countries. I don't think this is done out of malice though, because I've met people who genuinely believe that forcing businesses in Mozambique to compete directly with the U.S. economies of scale "creates a level playing field" and doesn't inhibit their growth in certain key industries at all.

laughingman2 8y ago
I think its done out of malice however they dress it up. Ignoring history of how stolen wealth from colonialism and protectionist policies of the west during the colonial era etc when its convenient to do so is nothing but malice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... President Ulysses S. Grant stated: For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, Gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade. Now America and its lackeys in IMF and WTO want to do the same to the poorer countries.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  If it is done with malice, it's the dumbest, waste of malice evil project ever because nobody really benefits. It is not done with malice. The IMF/WB believe that nations that have basic infrastructure, basic forms of democracy, low corruption and relatively open markets ... will be successfull. This is neither malicious nor entirely naive. It's pragmatically naive when you consider the leader of some nation may take a 10% cut off the loan, hire his buddies to 'build the dam that never gets built' and then of course you have a nation in debt ... but those debts are not advantageous to the West at all, so the conspiracy theories are wrong. Now - where there is actual malice is when a large, Western industrial conglomerate might win a big contract and so they influence, bribe, fake data - and then get the contract to 'totally overbuild' some kind of capacity leaving a nation with way more than they need. That's malice, but it's definitely not the IMF/WB or lending nations that win there.

psergeant 8y ago

“in establishing the rule of law, the first five centuries are always the hardest.”

YinglingLight 8y ago

One generation. Hint: it involves women and birthrates.