by CARVER » Thu 04 May 2006, 18:32:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'T')o be honest, I think that is a load of crap. Most countries are simply a mess because of corruption with or without any outside help. Clans, tribes, family politics, call it what you want. You never saw someone screw a Native Indian like another Native Indian over tribal politics and dividing the spoils of office. They do not need any outside help, they are pretty good at it themselves. Ditto for most politicians. Even where there are no differences to exploit, we seem to invent them. Take Republicans and Democrats for want of a better example. Basically both parties are tax & spend and while the voters get worked up about the differences between them, the politicians themselves are busy helping themselves to the pork. And politics in Canada or Japan or anywhere else does not get any better, just worse in some places like Italy for example. So take most poor countries and you will just find a lot of corruption with or without foreign companies. Guess I will just link this article on the Salomon Islands as an example. Too tired to fight much about this issue. So take it for what it is worth.
Just a bunch of locals fighting for control over the spoils even if that means less for everyone. Even if a foreign company comes in and improves the situation for a while, it just leaves more for them to fight over later. You cannot win. If you do nothing, you're ignoring the plight of the poor. If you try to help them, you're exploiting them.
Nothing to do with protecting the rights of the wealthy or the elite. Which in my mind is some sort of empty strawman argument. On one hand we are supposed to respect other countries sovereignty even if they engage in genocide and ethnic cleansing. On the otherhand, if we do business with their elected leaders (rightly, wrongly, with or without corruption and vote rigging) we are somehow propping up puppet regimes?
(Maybe we should split this discussion to a separate thread, so it won't mess up this one?)
I'm not claiming that none of the locals are corrupt (bad), and that all would be fine when we would not intervene, when we would not support and promote corruption. But that there might still be corruption if we would not do that, doesn't justify doing it ourselves. "It's okay for us to do it, otherwise someone else would have done it anyway." It is not our goal to support and protect the (corrupt) elite, we are just trying to line our own pockets, if we need to line the pockets of those in power as well to achieve that, then so be it. If we think we could gain more by supporting the poor, we would do that instead. But how sustainable is this? Will it likely result in an uprising, terrorism, nationalization, and the destruction of wealth? If that is likely and we have grown to depend on their resources, is it smart to support/cause the corruption? Would it not be in our interest to help the poor and keep them happy, and to fight corruption? Or do we just blame them for making these 'mistakes' (from our point of view), taking back what they believe belongs to them. Getting rid off those who they can't trust, and thus getting rid off know-how and skilled people.
Let's say we have another Einstein, but one that has a habit of stealing and destroying property of (innocent) people. What do we do with him? He can bring us great steps in science, that will be of great benefit to a lot of us, if we let him go his way. Do we allow him that, or do we stop him and as result suffer the consequences of not having the progress in science he would have given us? When those (possible) victims rise up and stop him, do we blame them for this expensive experiment that they are trying? We would have been better of if they hadn't done that. Would we have been better off if we would have compensated them for their loss of property instead?
Let's say we have a group of kids and a bowl of candy. One of them grabs the entire bowl. The others also want the candy but he doesn't give it to them. A few of the kids would be powerfull enough to take some by force, so he shares some of the candy with them, but he does not want to share with all the kids. The other kids are getting angry. How long do you think it will take before the other kids try to take it by force? They fight over it and in the fight the bowl of candy drops on the floor and a lot of candy will be spoiled. Then they all go like: "look what
you did". None of them is happy with this outcome. They either work out how to share it or they keep fighting over it and destroy a lot of candy in the process. I think most parents must have told their kids that they should share. And who still remembers the: take a piece of pie, let one child cut the pie in two pieces and let the other pick first. Or let two people choose a number between say 0 - 10 (they are not allowed to negotiate or tell the other), which is the amount they will receive if the total of both is not more than 10, otherwise they both get nothing.
Game theory is interesting, but the game we play is very complex. In my opinion however both sides we mentioned are not using the 'best' strategy. There is no point in blaming one side, because both are to blame. Both sides keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe both need new strategies, need to find a balance? But we could also decide to keep this up forever, to stick with our strategies even though they don't give the results we expect them to give, and thus live with the consequences of our actions. Somehow we seem to have convinced ourselves that our current strategy is sound. And another problem is that even when one side changes its strategies, the other side immedeately jumps to the conclusion that they are using their same old 'wrong' strategies again, so we don't even listen to what they are saying this time, or take a good look what they are actually doing, and thus both sides keep undermining eachother. I think we know where this is going. Destruction is a lot easier and cheaper than defense, protection and construction. And it is within everyone's ability. And making enemies is a lot easier than making friends. It's easy to turn a friend into an enemy, once you've created an enemy it is very difficult to turn them into a friend. We are making enemies faster then we can kill them, and we have been making enemies for decades.