5 ms·
Yes, in the parts of the world that are still not industrialized, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. It's also easy to forget that during 19th century, 90%+ of the po
by bad_user 2y ago
Yes, in the parts of the world that are still not industrialized, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.
It's also easy to forget that during 19th century, 90%+ of the population suffered from hunger and malnutrition. Right now that's around 10%, but it's less than 2.5% in the highly industrialized countries.
IMO, the parts of the world still suffering from hunger could use more "corporate greed" and industrial exploitation.
- mplewis 2y agoThey are dying of hunger because of corporate greed. Africa has many of the world’s most resource-rich areas, but they don’t realize the profits: Western corporations that extract the resources using local slave labor do.
- Alupis 2y agoSo what's been stopping African companies/government from exploiting their own natural resources for all of these years? "Corporate greed" is a fun slogan, but means nothing in reality. In the few areas where the government is exploiting its own natural resources (instead of outsiders), the working and living conditions are not inherently better. If it worked that way, all of the middle east and large areas of Africa wouldn't be so destitute.
- Spooky23 2y agoColonial and post-colonial intervention. Control of the resources or territory wasn’t magically delivered to the people with equity. The colonial infrastructure of control was turned over to local friendly interests and their successors. (Through revolutions, coups, etc)
- Alupis 2y agoSo what's stopping these countries today?
- spopejoy 2y agoYou're trying to move goalposts (unsuccessfully) if you pretend that "today" is meaningful in geopolitics. If a country was a colony => invaded after independence + has a currency tied to and manipulated by the former power's currency + has internal powerbases built off the colonial satrap structure and corporate equivalents in oil etc ... it's the height of naivete to think it will "shake it off" a mere 20-30 years later, because some version of democracy was installed. These are as a category unstable political situations and it is vanishingly few who manage to develop their way out of it. More common is descent into further chaos, with major powers standing by to ensure that it does not disrupt resource extraction.
- berniedurfee 2y ago| post-colonial intervention
- Alupis 2y agoI'll ask again. What is stopping these countries today? Handwavy, vague "post-colonial" whatever isn't a reason, it's an excuse.
- antifa 2y agoThe CIA prefers puppet states over independent states.
- Spooky23 2y agoThe people who control the resources control the armed forces or paramilitary forces. Plus, if there’s a popular revolt, they are usually motivated by religious, ethnic or ideological factors. Status quo is the interest of the big powers. That tends to bring direct or advisory intervention by western military forces. I’d suggest spending a few minutes googling, you’ll learn alot.
- berniedurfee 2y agoAnd as has been demonstrated, popular revolts tend to leave a power vacuum that gets filled by just another abusive regime.