[skunkworks]

How are poor people supposed to find innovative solutions to their problems and elect governments that create sustainable wealth while they're steeped in desperate poverty? I believe that education is the tip of the spear, but are there any examples where a poor majority has pulled itself up by its bootstraps?

[thaumasiotes]

Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

[sdiq]

Ironically, at independence Kenya was at par with these countries. Though I cannot confirm the veracity of this, I have also on many occasions heard that some of these countries did borrow planning materials from Kenya - for their civil service.

[crdoconnor]

Economies with strategically located container shipping ports developed via protectionist trade policies.

These economies were 'allowed' to develop into rich industrial economies was because America provided privileged access to the US domestic markets in spite of their protectionist policies.

They allowed that because they saw the value of having these countries developed into 'westernized' bulwarks against the USSR's sphere of influence.

They could all easily have remained poor under different circumstances.

[ptaipale]

And if you look at what has significance here: it's about free trade and predictable government. Not really freedom or democracy.

People's Republic of China has followed. India, not quite.

[crdoconnor]

There's nothing free about Chinese trade.

[ptaipale]

It's a lot more free than it was until late 1970's and China has got tremendously richer as a consequence.

Nor is South Korea a model of freedom; it was authoritarian, it was and still is protectionist. But it did integrate to world economy. Compare it to North Korea, which started off as equally poor, and which has real, concrete, deadly famines in recent memory.

Same applies to R.O.C. Taiwan; autocratic, even corrupt, but reached out to world market (and as a consequence forced the mainland China to follow).

Singapore and Hong Kong: very free trade all the time, and way ahead of others in the region.

[crdoconnor]

All of those countries enacted protectionist trade policies. Singapore/HK tended not to target specific industries but they suppressed the value of their currencies by loading up on US treasuries (their small size made this easy).

In all of those cases those countries were given tacit approval by the US to enact protectionist trading policies and yet maintain their access to US markets.

[ptaipale]

Protectionism and freedom are not absolute. Yes, those countries as well as the United States also engages in lots of protectionist policies.

However, the mentioned countries integrated more to world trade then most other countries in their region, and as a result they are now among the most developed.

Compare South Korea and North Korea, compare Taiwan R.O.C. to P.R.China prior to impacts of Deng's policy change, compare China and India.

[rayiner]

Most of the western world?

[rfrey]

Seems like the arena has changed, though. Several hundred years ago nations/societies could operate independently. Now they're in the global web of trade. Regions that were historically very prosperous (what's now northern Syria, for example) are floundering now.

There are clearly ways to exploit globalization to become prosperous - e.g. the asian tigers. But it's not clear to me that historical examples are as useful. There's no way to know but I suspect the American colonies would not have prospered in the current economic regime.

[nathanappere]

(So all Kenya needs to do is create a colonial empire and exploit other countries ?)

[patrickaljord]

The western world was already the most advanced and richest part of the world before they started colonizing, which indeed made them even richer. Note that the people they conquered whether it were the Incas or else were also empire with colonial ambitions, except they were way less advanced.

[tormeh]

You've got the causality wrong. Europeans exploited other peoples because European societies were more advanced. They did not become advanced because they exploited.

[MichaelBurge]

The United States seemed prosperous enough even in its early days. Even though it had to pay taxes and such to Britain.

I guess the best argument along those lines you could make is that the US depended on imported slaves.

[colinhb]

Also: took land and resources from native Americans and developed and exported them.

[wcummings]

Loads of examples, as a result of international trade