"developing countries are ...

[lunachick]

... finally able to stabilize themselves enough for their economies to grow steadily".



In context. the above statement was made in a recent IIDB politics thread as a small part of a much larger question.

However, my simple mind's eye wishes to focus on this part of the question, and then be so myopic as to turn that question into an absolute statement. I blame it on saying I was going to bed at least an hour ago, and so should you. That would be helpful. :)


Anyway, out of context: "developing countries are finally able to stabilize themselves enough for their economies to grow steadily".



Please discuss, as if it were an absolute statement - I would very much like to read your arguments and thoughts when I awake tomorrow. :cool:



Thanks, and
Cheers!
Petra :)

[premjan]

Can economies grow steadily forever? Is stability enough to achieve that?

[lunachick]

To answer your first question: briefly, no I don't think so.


To answer the second: I don't know / what do you mean?




(If I don't answer or contribute in any time soon, it's because I can stay awake no longer - I apologise in advance...)

[toth8]

Well economic growth is one of the primary means of developing countries (especially in Africa) getting wealthier.

But there are other factors involved. African countries are also politically unstable which leads to poor growth. Political stability should be coupled with economic stability.

[premjan]

Economic growth is about connecting consumers with resources or products. Political stability can help with that. If there aren't enough consumers though things won't grow a lot. If there aren't a lot of resources too, it can be hard, unless someone else has the resources, and you have something to trade in exchange.

[Trout]

It's a ridiculous statement.

"Stability" in and of itself is worthless and cannot achieve "development". Draconian rule is often very stable yet very often chops away at human enterprise and potential in the extreme for example.

There are also development theories that are founded on the notion that the developed essentially need/want to keep the developing down in order to prop up their own lifestyles and power bases. This usually requires a somewhat stable nation but works against any idea of overall development.

Developing nations have big problems both from within and without but there is a pervasive myth that they should "be like us" in order to become "better", whatever that might be. In the end, the stability argument is likely reflective of a larger inferiority feeling toward developing nations and is quite devoid of deeper analysis.

[Nice Squirrel]

Since this thread is about stability and economics of a class of countries (theory), It will be move to the PE&ST forum.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Can economies grow steadily forever? Is stability enough to achieve that?

Can technology increase steadily forever?

Eventually, there will come a time when everyone's material needs are met. Then, growth will be less of an issue. There will also come a time when everyone in the world has the equivalent of a PhD educationally. It will be a very different world. It will be a world in which machines do most of the manufacturing and people engage in the arts, sciences, engineering, and some other stuff... I also imagine world peace will come at some point in time... It will be very Star Trek like... except without the faster than light spaceships...

however, I doubt any of this will come to pass in our lifetimes...

[Pastor's Nightmare]

There are also development theories that are founded on the notion that the developed essentially need/want to keep the developing down in order to prop up their own lifestyles and power bases. This usually requires a somewhat stable nation but works against any idea of overall development.


This is colonial economic theory, which in today's world is regarded as total bullshit. First, it isn't true. Second, people believing in it caused a lot of problems. Fortunately, the world has seen the idiocy of such zero sum economic theories. It is possible for everyone in the world everywhere to be better off...

Imagine six people on a disserted Island... they could work together and make things better for everyone... or they could all make each other's lives hell...

Same with the world... only difference is that we have six billion people as opposed to six...

[Draconis]

I think these developing countries are going to hit a resource depletion problem quite soon. I mean, there's enough oil around to fuel the developed world for a while, but if everyone in the world developed, consider the environmental problems. If they can develop a market economy, fair enough, but increasingly they'll be forced to find ways of doing it dissimilar to the ways we in the West did, for instance. They can't really be building loads of coal burning power plants, but aren't going to like being told they can't.

[ashaktur]

Can technology increase steadily forever?

Yes. If it doesn't, the economy will collapse, billions will die and warlordism will re-emerge.


Eventually, there will come a time when everyone's material needs are met.

No. Material 'needs' or wants are unlimited. They can never ever be satiated.


however, I doubt any of this will come to pass in our lifetimes...

Lets hope not.

[ashaktur]

I think these developing countries are going to hit a resource depletion problem quite soon. I mean, there's enough oil around to fuel the developed world for a while, but if everyone in the world developed, consider the environmental problems. If they can develop a market economy, fair enough, but increasingly they'll be forced to find ways of doing it dissimilar to the ways we in the West did, for instance. They can't really be building loads of coal burning power plants, but aren't going to like being told they can't.

Two words ... resource substitution.

Solar for oil and coal. Solar should be cost competitive with coal in about 20 years. Factoring in obsolence in power plants, we should be entirely solar within 60 years. It is easier for third world countries because they can build these solar plants from scratch as demand for power increases rather than building coal plants from the get go and then having to deal with the pollution.

[Trout]

First, it isn't true.

Well gee can't argue with that.:rolleyes:

Fortunately, the world has seen the idiocy of such zero sum economic theories. It is possible for everyone in the world everywhere to be better off...

Possibility....that's your argument? It's possible for everyone to "just get along" too.

Imagine six people on a disserted Island... they could work together and make things better for everyone... or they could all make each other's lives hell...

And the more likely course is.....

Same with the world... only difference is that we have six billion people as opposed to six...

And of those billions, people remain self interested for the most part, unwilling to relinquish power once gained and quite open to manipulating the less able for personal, corporate and national gain.

It's an old story.

I'm not arguing for that theory in particular but seriously, what is possible is a far cry from what actually happens 99 times out of 100.

[premjan]

I think these developing countries are going to hit a resource depletion problem quite soon. I mean, there's enough oil around to fuel the developed world for a while, but if everyone in the world developed, consider the environmental problems. If they can develop a market economy, fair enough, but increasingly they'll be forced to find ways of doing it dissimilar to the ways we in the West did, for instance. They can't really be building loads of coal burning power plants, but aren't going to like being told they can't.The developed countries will hit the same problems, just a few years down the line. The developing countries potentially have the chance to leapfrog over the transition.