Poverty in Third World Countries is due to Prosperity in First World Countries

Group Discussion
Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
  • Assume you are one of the members of a real group discussion.
  • Take the initiative to participate and contribute your thoughts.
  • Contribute your positive thoughts towards providing the solution.
  • Post your thoughts here.
56 comments Page 1 of 6.

Prakruti said:   4 years ago
First world countries had colonies in third world countries in the past. During their rule, resources in third world countries were exploited, wealth was taken away and pushed the countries into poverty. The impact of it is still seen today but it would be unfair to blame them for something done in the past. They left the countries long ago and they were the ones who built industries and better transportation systems in the third world countries. This helped boost economies. The poverty faced by third world countries is due to illiteracy, lack of awareness, internal disputes and unskilled labor. These issues weren't addressed for a very long time and resulted in their present state.

Fred said:   6 years ago
The question is not 'how is poverty caused, ' but rather 'what causes prosperity?' Centuries ago, practically everyone was poor i.e. living on less than $2 a day (excluding, of course, kings and nobility). Then the Industrial Revolution in Britain occurred, man's output was drastically increased and the creation of wealth began in earnest. America's founding on 4th July 1776 created a nation based on Judeo-Christian values which included the free market, land rights and freedom. And from there it became the most influential power of today.

The developing of a country from the third world to the first includes a free market. To make a country rich, you have to increase its GDP, that is, its goods and services. Machines allow people to double, triple, quintuple their output, thus making them rich (e. G. One man in a combine can make enough food by himself to feed a city, compared with a thousand man working by hand). To stimulate an economy you have to create an environment in where goods and services may be produced - the free market. America's free market is what made it rich. Communist control makes a country poor because it destroys an individual's incentive to work. Whereas in America, the harder you work, the more money you get, in the Russia of yesteryear, all your work went to the 'common good' no matter how hard you worked you got the same. That's where an economy stagnates. The trick to prosperity is a free market, and land ownership - where the harder you work the more money you get and that this is recognized by the state.

There are some caveats however. When carbon caps/taxes are (self) imposed on a country (in an attempt to 'modernize' e. G. Kenya) that prevents economic growth by taxing what the country needs most - cheap free energy. Another instance in where the above statement holds true is when the first world meddles in third world affairs. This was seen in colonialism/imperialism in the past, in the middle east today (where the US gets involved in a complicated situation, engages in war and creates an extremely unstable socio-political economic environment) , and in South-East Asia and Korea during the Cold War. Warfare in a country is not conducive to prosperity. Finally, hand-outs from the first world directly to developing countries governments creates political insecurity and thus economic stagnation (i.e Africa). Unstructured handouts to poor countries are easily embezzled and lost in bureaucracy. They also destroy an incentive to work, and rather create an incentive to seize power.

That's a few thoughts on the issue.

Bob said:   6 years ago
I think that poverty of the third world countries is due to the prosperity in the First world countries. Many of the developed countries today are only that way because other countries have helped them out. However, there have been few people from other countries coming into Africa or other third world countries to help them out. It has now become our duty to try and help these people out, these countries are in need of our help.

Uttara said:   6 years ago
Poverty in 3rd world country is not due to prosperity in 1st world countries. 1st world countries could use its resources manpower and could adapt to world class technologies thus they could progress in this competitive age. Whereas 3rd world countries could not adapt to these factors. Its trade framework infrastructure even govt is not able to mould itself into newness. 3rd world countries like Africa in spite of being resourceful is down with poverty cause the people of the nation are lax towards developing their lives. The govt is dependant on foreign aid and gets debt ridden in due course. Education ease of doing business liberal govt policies all need a reform to drive a poverty ridden country out of the mould and walk towards prosperity. Thank you.

Kishor vishvanathan said:   7 years ago
No, it not like that, because, it only depends on brain drain, i.e. the well, educated, clever peoples are moved to other countries. So, wealth of the developing country decreases, wealth of the developed countries increases.

Megha said:   7 years ago
That's wrong. Blaming others for your miseries. The difference is just about what we are concerned for. Out their people are also for their fellow citizens, society, and nation, but in here all they want is a bank balance for a limitless credit card, and luxury cars.

PS: it's not offensive approach for my fellow citizens who are left behind by me and those business tycoons and their rest prosperous country mates. But rather a strong attack for those who have left them behind.

Shaoli kundu said:   7 years ago
The one with the bike issue. Giving money to the police. It's like the cross elasticity demand graph (no connection) to the topic. It is true that India or any other third world country for that matter is underdeveloped because of the first world, mainly our big brother USA. According to the third world theory, the colonialists have always tried to take our resources and never let us develop. They same happens even today but it's latent. Almost all of the international organisations are dominated by USA, so its obvious whatever decisions are made are backed by the interests of that one country. Even if we are the member we actually have no say. Given the World trade center, most of the trade terms benefit America. USA forbids us to give subsidies to farmers but they are the ones giving the maximum of subsidies to their own farmers. As a result, they are able to dump goods in our country and we import them at higher prices. This definitely does not benefit us. Moreover, it's our fault. As long as we have domestic problems the more these countries will feed on those problems. Reservation policy has become so strict all the deserved find it better to go and work for a different country. Globalisation age has brought in greater connectivity. So we can even stay at our place and work for a US company. This may seem a high development trend but we are actually working for a foreign country and contributing to their development. Even if we get jobs and get a bit of the taste of growth but this is the fact.

Sowmya said:   8 years ago
Hi friends.

In my opinion, I do not support the statement because main reasons for any poverty nation are quality education and hard working, so we have to improve our skills is very important, if all the persons have quality education automatically employment is generated, that time no one chooses to go to other countries for employment.

Darren said:   8 years ago
I do think that it is 1st world countries faults that 3rd world countries are in poverty because even though you might say that they aren't the only reason 3rd world countries are underdeveloped is not because they had a late start in development, its because no other countries are helping them develop on a big scale. Think about it, the USA would not be so developed if only the English did it by themselves, no, the USA is so developed because people from other countries came to the USA and started to live and work there, which increases development.

But do you see any Americans or Chinese or Japanese going over to Africa or India on a large scale and living there? No you don't, and that is why there is so little development, because people with experience and those who could help the country in a whole do not move to those countries, and if they do, its not enough.

The problem is not that the locals to the country are under educated, its true that they are, but that is not how to fix the problem, as I said we need to have a large scale of people with experience move there and start helping with food, engineering, water, money, clean air, and of course development.

Dan said:   9 years ago
I agree with this statement. I'm surprised so many are against it. While its true that the fact that the most educated of people from the third world countries living in developed countries is an issue that makes it difficult for these developing countries to get on their feet, we should not forget why these countries are in poverty in the first place.

Most inequality today is due to the colonialism of the European empires of old that conquered most of the known world and used other countries' resources for the benefit of their motherlands. So even though these developing countries have their independence today, they are at a major economic disadvantage. Its extremely difficult to win in a race when others have such a head start.

Regardless, I hope these developing countries catch up someday, but I only see that happening if developed countries start making some sacrifices.

Post your thoughts here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.