I'm not sure if you're being falsely naive or not, but i'll assume the best and try to sum it up in a couple lines. But don't quote me on it, it's obviously gon

I'm not sure if you're being falsely naive or not, but i'll assume the best and try to sum it up in a couple lines. But don't quote me on it, it's obviously gonna be butchered, this is a field of study and i'm very much not an expert at all. So first, we're not talking about poverty here, we're talking about relationships. "the problem" i'm talking about is the fact that most resources in say, african territories, are being exploited (in the technical sense) by foreign companies (oil, minerals, wood), which obviously pay some "local market price", but are inherently tied and beneficial to third-parties. This schema can be historically linked back to the classic european colonies. The states and institutions likewise. This link is done by studying the history of these institutions, the political forces and philosophical schools behind them (in this case liberal philosophy: supremacy of rationality, private property, kant, smith, the lumières). In this sense "the (global) economy" is not a somehow "natural" concept, it's only hegemonic. It has roots, was developed over some time period and acknowledging that you can then start to look into the lesser visible phenomenon (since it's hegemonic): who was doing something else, who adopted it late, what were the oppositions or where it has been externally forced upon (somewhat as a weapon, but i don't want a negative meaning, i'd rather call it "a tool of power"). In this sense, yes, tons of the big historical problems in the global south can be linked to a historically dominating relationship with the liberal school of thought (which has its epicenter/brain in the western world and which is thus inherently tied with their interests). You can also try to map it out not only geographically but also sociologically, but i'm gonna stop here because i'm mostly writing for myself rn i guess. I mean we're not gonna have the debate on globalization here. At least acknowledge the pov. It is a coherent political view that you ought to know well the architecture of, if you're serious about thinking politics: it's the basis of all debate to have some level of understanding of the opposing positions and what kind of structures have been defending it (and what kind have not).