Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

[Sarcelle]

I hope it’s not the Caliphate.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Competition breeds efficiency

 

[Socrates92]

Oh, they’ll be no shortage of underlings hoping to compete. The competition shall be efficiently squashed though.

 

[Socrates92]

I shouldn’t give away too many of my plans of conquest though.

 

[tafan2]

The empires did not solve the problem in those countries. One could argue extreme widespread poverty took off under the empires.

 

[tafan2]

Certainly true of Cuba and Venezuela. But there are other countries which could be helped.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Compare Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. They were much better off as a colony than an independent nation

 

[MonteRCMS]

Certainly true of Cuba and Venezuela. But there are other countries which could be helped.

On the other hand, Chile raised itself up.

Discuss Haiti vs Dominican Republic.

Or North Korea vs. South Korea.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Chile raised itself up.

Thanks to a US backed coup and the removal of leftists via rotorcraft.

Pinochet is a hero of mine.

Mi general

 

[MonteRCMS]

Thanks to a US backed coup and the removal of leftists via rotorcraft.

So … are you saying that things go better without Socialism???

 

[Augustinian]

Bring back the Empires!!

A heck of a statement for you, as the historical Sobieski was noted for his victory against an Empire.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Ottoman, while aiding the Holy Roman Empire

 

[Socrates92]

Aha, so the Ottoman Empire was your competition. Did you approve of their existence?

 

[Vonsalza]

Safety nets that aren’t institutional have such holes as to render them unreliable.

That’s not a word I want to use to describe safety nets.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

They existed regardless of my approval shame they weren’t beaten sooner

 

[tafan2]

Ok, the US doesn’t aid North Korea (nor should we), but South Korea is a great model of how foriegners aid can assist a country:

From Aid to Trade: How South Korea is a Model for U.S. Foreign Assistance – USGLC

 

[tafan2]

Back to that Marshal Plan question:. Do you think that was good or bad?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I think that particular plan at that particular time was in the US interests. Without a rebuilt Europe we’d have had no market to export our goods to, and the loans we gave them had a high likelihood of being paid back, and that we had a vested interest in trying to prevent the same conditions after WWI that allowed men like Mussolini and Hitler to rise to power.

Ideologically I’m still not a fan of it, but I can set it aside when it’s pragmatic.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Then why not additional “Marshall Plans” or USAID missions to help develop even more export markets for our industries (and save lives).

A win-win for everyone?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Because what generally happens in these extremely impoverished nations is that the money given on loan gets embezzled through their high corruption. Fake charities are set up, government officials demand bribes, etc.

It’s throwing money away and doesn’t help anyone. I’d support such an endeavor if we could annex those countries as territories and govern them ourselves until such time as we see fit that they are capable of self governance.