Posted: Mar 09, 2019 7:14 am
kiore wrote:These terms rather outdated, now we tend to split between developed and developing countries, with failed states being the outliers. This kind of categorization very problematic with terms like 'tiger' economies being bandied around at some point, or ones like 'industrialized' being used even when the identified countries not actually industrialized just in the OECD group. If we want to be clear we maybe should speak of just GDP per capita categorizations, or other measures of success that have been used 'gross national happiness' has been been used although probably meaningless. Social mobility could be good but would perhaps make some of the wealthiest countries look bad. Surveys on corruption and functionality of states would give quite different measures again.
It's too bad economies are not treated the way corporations are (and maybe vice versa). Then failed states could be put in receivership. As it is, much of the population of failed states turns into population of states that haven't failed yet, so that the failed states just end up occupying space that could be used more productively, for example, as nuclear waste dumps. That would encourage the rest of the population to leave. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition), they could be made into tourist destinations, once the failures have been corrected.
Ask an international socialist, though, and social mobility always looks bad. A rising tithe miffs all boasts.
One really has to marvel at the way people with neither education nor praxis have 2c to put in, passed off as expertise instead of as opinion. Those donations could save a failed state or two.