4 ms·

Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough. Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get wher

Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough. Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. But in South Korea, the US protected them and funded them. Meanwhile in Ghana, the US stripped them of their wealth. How well off do you think South Korea would be if the US didn't intervene in the Korean War?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yucky 4y ago
> Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. By what measure did Ghana work as hard as South Korea did? Is that just an assumption?
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border.
- l3uwin 4y ago
  Think reaaaaaaaal hard about who you're calling lazy and what might be influincing your opinion there.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Think reaaaaaaaal hard about why you filled in your own blanks and called them lazy..
    - l3uwin 4y ago
      If you're going to defend calling an entire African country lazy, maybe this is for you https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.htm https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.h... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotype-in-Reconstruction-America_fig1_274307150 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotyp...
      - yucky 4y ago
        Could you quote where I called them lazy? Or perhaps you're responding to the wrong user? The alternative is that you're being intentionally dishonest, I would hope that's not the case though.
        l3uwin 4y ago
        seems im responding to the wrong user, my apologies. the person who made the claim was thorougly roasted and edited their comment but you can ctrl + f 'ghana' and see the downstream context. > Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border. > Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough.
fsloth 4y ago
US military intervention and economic uplifting are partly two different things. I would limit this discussion to "how can a once poor country become an industrialized economy". Since not all countries do this, the question is incredibly interesting. Perhaps I were too harsh but "US helped them" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that north korea is poor and south korea is not, is an interesting part of this puzzle as rare empirical sample of an area with roughly equivalent starting position well into modern history, and it should not be explained away by "because US duh". I found "Why Nations Fail" an extremely interesting book pondering the puzzle of apparent differences in economic outcomes between countries and warmly suggest it to anyone interested in the topic. It's not really about state failure but about the bigger picture of what makes some states successfull (using the metrics of the author of course).
- karpierz 4y ago
  "Why Nations Fail" comes from the Jared Diamond school of "My Model Fits My Data So It's Causal". It's a series of just-so stories, which discounts outliers (ex: Singapore, India, China). They take the scientific method (find examples to disprove your hypothesis) and invert it (find examples that match your hypothesis), which does nothing except provide people with the feeling of confidence that they've finally come across the Truth.
  - fsloth 4y ago
    Yes, but like Guns, germs and steel it contains data even though the model is flawed, so is an interesting read in any case :) I think the key point of the book is that unless there is a massive transfer of people from place to place the power of historical institutions can carry over generations and generations. Is quality of institutions the one truth to explain it all? No, but I find it pretty hard to argue against that it is a relevant factor in historical evolution of polities regarding their quality of administration and general expectations of life outcomes of their populations. My intent was not to sell the book as "the one truth", sorry.
    - karpierz 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yucky 4y ago

> Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. By what measure did Ghana work as hard as South Korea did? Is that just an assumption?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border.
l3uwin 4y ago
Think reaaaaaaaal hard about who you're calling lazy and what might be influincing your opinion there.
- yucky 4y ago
  Think reaaaaaaaal hard about why you filled in your own blanks and called them lazy..
  - l3uwin 4y ago
    If you're going to defend calling an entire African country lazy, maybe this is for you https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.htm https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.h... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotype-in-Reconstruction-America_fig1_274307150 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotyp...
    - yucky 4y ago
      Could you quote where I called them lazy? Or perhaps you're responding to the wrong user? The alternative is that you're being intentionally dishonest, I would hope that's not the case though.
      - l3uwin 4y ago
        seems im responding to the wrong user, my apologies. the person who made the claim was thorougly roasted and edited their comment but you can ctrl + f 'ghana' and see the downstream context. > Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border. > Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough.

fsloth 4y ago

US military intervention and economic uplifting are partly two different things. I would limit this discussion to "how can a once poor country become an industrialized economy". Since not all countries do this, the question is incredibly interesting. Perhaps I were too harsh but "US helped them" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that north korea is poor and south korea is not, is an interesting part of this puzzle as rare empirical sample of an area with roughly equivalent starting position well into modern history, and it should not be explained away by "because US duh". I found "Why Nations Fail" an extremely interesting book pondering the puzzle of apparent differences in economic outcomes between countries and warmly suggest it to anyone interested in the topic. It's not really about state failure but about the bigger picture of what makes some states successfull (using the metrics of the author of course).

karpierz 4y ago
"Why Nations Fail" comes from the Jared Diamond school of "My Model Fits My Data So It's Causal". It's a series of just-so stories, which discounts outliers (ex: Singapore, India, China). They take the scientific method (find examples to disprove your hypothesis) and invert it (find examples that match your hypothesis), which does nothing except provide people with the feeling of confidence that they've finally come across the Truth.
- fsloth 4y ago
  Yes, but like Guns, germs and steel it contains data even though the model is flawed, so is an interesting read in any case :) I think the key point of the book is that unless there is a massive transfer of people from place to place the power of historical institutions can carry over generations and generations. Is quality of institutions the one truth to explain it all? No, but I find it pretty hard to argue against that it is a relevant factor in historical evolution of polities regarding their quality of administration and general expectations of life outcomes of their populations. My intent was not to sell the book as "the one truth", sorry.
  - karpierz 4y ago