3 ms·

The post war countries you mention had access to massive investment from the US, e.g. the Marshall plan. It's no surprise they're doing well. In contrast, the p

The post war countries you mention had access to massive investment from the US, e.g. the Marshall plan. It's no surprise they're doing well. In contrast, the post-colonial developing countries today were hit with extremely predatory debt by the IMF - as a form of "international aid" - so it's no surprise they are not as wealthy. Some of these places were also very developed prior to colonialism and could have "snapped back" given the chance. Unless the exploitative nature of the relationships between wealthier and poorer countries changes, they will have a hard time reaching our economic standards.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
You've contradicted yourself in your own statement. You can't have 'not enough investment' and then 'debt trap' (i.e. taking on too much debt) at the same time. Which is it? They can't access debt? Or they're taking on too much, so much they can't service it? Countries usually wantonly and willingly approach the IMF/WB for loans - not the other way around. The reason is because they can get better terms than anyone else will provide. The IMF/WB are sources of capital wherein none else would even exist. The IMF/WB are not really profit centers for anyone. If it were highly lucrative, then lenders would be lining up to put money into these amazingly profitable funds! But of course this is not the case. The reason these countries end up with problems, is the same reason they are not able to 'catch up' to rich countries: they are dysfunctional, corrupt, lacking many of the institutions and systems necessary to make use of the money. Corrupt leaders often take a hefty chunk off the top of the loan, hand out sub contracts to their idiot friends etc., and things fail or fall apart. And then the lender is blamed? There's a lot of money floating out there and made available for rational infrastructure investment - on very good terms - it's just that the money often can't be turned around into some kind of productive gain. This should give a hint as to why the countries are poor in the first place.
- kiliantics 8y ago
  IMF debt trap for developing countries during the is well documented. Till the 90s, there were very high interest rates. So yes, they could access debt, but it was impossible to repay. The nature of the lending has become less exploitative in recent years but not necessarily long enough for these places to recover. Sure, there are cases where corrupt leaders have embezzled the funds. However, it was also a practice that governments be given funds only on condition of structuring their economies in ways that benefit western investors over the local population. So their "dysfunctionality" was not always a choice - not democratically anyway. There are also cases where corrupt leadership was put into power in developing countries by Western forces, after compromising democratically elected regimes, e.g. by the CIA in Panama, Chile, or Iran. If former colonies had been offered the kinds of reparations and assistance that say the people founding the state of Israel got, then it seems reasonable to think that these places could be doing very well like Israel is doing now. But places like say Haiti were completely ruined with debt from damages they were forced to repay after their independence struggle, to make an example of them and discourage other liberation efforts. And they have never been given the chance to negotiate on equal terms since. I think there is plenty of evidence for a story where there was an abuse of Western geopolitical influence in these places. There is lots of productive gain to be made in these places. It just happens to largely go to the West, rather than to the people living there. In Africa, on average, more money leaves the continent in the form of repatriation of profits by multinationals than was invested/lent that year [1]. So the modern version of colonialism is still an effective form of wealth extraction. This is not to mention the nasty tactics that such companies have been found to use in order to maintain this kind of profiteering, such as by funding rebel militias in civil wars to keep control of valuable resource extraction sites [2]. It's terrible how we are led to blame the people in these countries and resign them to what could be pretty horrible fates, when there are far more powerful and sinister actors that are on "our side" who are usually holding more of the blame. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/world-is-plundering-africa-wealth-billions-of-dollars-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/w... [2] https://projects.icij.org/fatalextraction/ https://projects.icij.org/fatalextraction/
  - grecy 8y ago
    FWIW, after almost three years on the ground in Africa through 32 countries, I agree with you 100%. The debt trap the IMF is holding these countries in is shocking and horrid. Part of me wishes "Africa" would band together, give the IMF the middle finger and do their own thing / team up even more with the Chinese. At least then they'd have a fair start, rather than the IMF putting a foot on their heads.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

You've contradicted yourself in your own statement. You can't have 'not enough investment' and then 'debt trap' (i.e. taking on too much debt) at the same time. Which is it? They can't access debt? Or they're taking on too much, so much they can't service it? Countries usually wantonly and willingly approach the IMF/WB for loans - not the other way around. The reason is because they can get better terms than anyone else will provide. The IMF/WB are sources of capital wherein none else would even exist. The IMF/WB are not really profit centers for anyone. If it were highly lucrative, then lenders would be lining up to put money into these amazingly profitable funds! But of course this is not the case. The reason these countries end up with problems, is the same reason they are not able to 'catch up' to rich countries: they are dysfunctional, corrupt, lacking many of the institutions and systems necessary to make use of the money. Corrupt leaders often take a hefty chunk off the top of the loan, hand out sub contracts to their idiot friends etc., and things fail or fall apart. And then the lender is blamed? There's a lot of money floating out there and made available for rational infrastructure investment - on very good terms - it's just that the money often can't be turned around into some kind of productive gain. This should give a hint as to why the countries are poor in the first place.

kiliantics 8y ago
IMF debt trap for developing countries during the is well documented. Till the 90s, there were very high interest rates. So yes, they could access debt, but it was impossible to repay. The nature of the lending has become less exploitative in recent years but not necessarily long enough for these places to recover. Sure, there are cases where corrupt leaders have embezzled the funds. However, it was also a practice that governments be given funds only on condition of structuring their economies in ways that benefit western investors over the local population. So their "dysfunctionality" was not always a choice - not democratically anyway. There are also cases where corrupt leadership was put into power in developing countries by Western forces, after compromising democratically elected regimes, e.g. by the CIA in Panama, Chile, or Iran. If former colonies had been offered the kinds of reparations and assistance that say the people founding the state of Israel got, then it seems reasonable to think that these places could be doing very well like Israel is doing now. But places like say Haiti were completely ruined with debt from damages they were forced to repay after their independence struggle, to make an example of them and discourage other liberation efforts. And they have never been given the chance to negotiate on equal terms since. I think there is plenty of evidence for a story where there was an abuse of Western geopolitical influence in these places. There is lots of productive gain to be made in these places. It just happens to largely go to the West, rather than to the people living there. In Africa, on average, more money leaves the continent in the form of repatriation of profits by multinationals than was invested/lent that year [1]. So the modern version of colonialism is still an effective form of wealth extraction. This is not to mention the nasty tactics that such companies have been found to use in order to maintain this kind of profiteering, such as by funding rebel militias in civil wars to keep control of valuable resource extraction sites [2]. It's terrible how we are led to blame the people in these countries and resign them to what could be pretty horrible fates, when there are far more powerful and sinister actors that are on "our side" who are usually holding more of the blame. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/world-is-plundering-africa-wealth-billions-of-dollars-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/w... [2] https://projects.icij.org/fatalextraction/ https://projects.icij.org/fatalextraction/
- grecy 8y ago
  FWIW, after almost three years on the ground in Africa through 32 countries, I agree with you 100%. The debt trap the IMF is holding these countries in is shocking and horrid. Part of me wishes "Africa" would band together, give the IMF the middle finger and do their own thing / team up even more with the Chinese. At least then they'd have a fair start, rather than the IMF putting a foot on their heads.