What do you think is the problem of Thrid World countries?

[strategist.com]

Is it lacking national identity or exploitation of Third World countries or bit of both?

I'm from a poor country myself from Philippines. I do notice that we lack culture and therefore no national unity whereas in India and China their culture is rich and distinctive and progressing very well (though China basically don't give a damn for anything so long as progress is achieved).

Is culture what also lacking in other countries?

On the other hand, rich countries do not give fair deal to poor countries. Multinational companies do exploit poor countries for cheap labours. In some countries if workers join a trade union then they are sacked, I don't know if it happens in my country. However, several mining sites in Philippines are owned by multinationals and it should be run by us. It is also the same situation in Africa about mining diamonds.

[hellheaven1987]

Philippine is actually a good example shows how political corruption can send a country from First World back to Third World.

[ash874]

i think its just a very different culture
very different circumbstances and atmosphere
people dont unite as people towards a goal (any goal)
have a bad system of government
i mean look at japan
200 years ago they were still hacking at each other with swords
and today they are a leading country in standard of living
but they have ambition
these people work 12 hours a day every day
maybe you as a people are completely not united and therefore there is nothing to talk about when it comes to ambition of a whole nation

in your vicinity there is taiwan and japan and australia
all succesful and all democratic
in each one you can speak your mind about the government without fear of reprisals
violence and intimidation is not used as a tool against the people

if its the same in the philipines than you should be improving

ive been to armenia recently
in that country the government is just taking all the money for themselves
you can pick a different ruling party
but they are all in bed which each other
and no one new can enter - they create impossible conditions
thus an appearence of a democracy exists while in reality its a mafia country

[eran]

The biggest problem is to have a leader that care about himself and not about the country.

[Nikitn]

Philippine is actually a good example shows how political corruption can send a country from First World back to Third World.

The Philippines never were anything else than third-world.

[strategist.com]

The Philippines never were anything else than third-world.

When the Americans left, a great deal of wealth and some already established industies were also left. We were once the leading country in SE Asia in rice reasearch, we used to export automobiles around SE as well and more advanced than Japan during the 1950's or 60's. Philippines was also the 'Hollywood' of Asia during the American period.

But for some reason, people got amnesia and forgot the old days and keeps complaining how poor they are.

[Erwin Rommel]

Is it lacking national identity or exploitation of Third World countries or bit of both?

I'm from a poor country myself from Philippines. I do notice that we lack culture and therefore no national unity

Waaaay, too simplistic for a reason. We have culture, the problem is, average folks dont care about it. How about, Political establishment/Elite, nationwide apathy, brain drain, regionalistic, and casual. Yes blame I blame that, we're always smiling its getting annoying.

Several mining sites in Philippines are owned by multinationals and it should be run by us.

Oh, you mean, the ones where there Board must have majority Filipinos owning it/have stake in order to operate here as required by law.

The Philippines never were anything else than third-world.

Hi Nikitin, nice username. He might be referring to political spectrum, US Allies are First World, Warsaw pact and Soviet being Second World and the neutrals, the Third World. If its in economy then there was the time in 60s, we where second to Japan, course thats when we elected Marcos then it goes down, and down, and...oh look Aquino's elected.

[Landsknecht_88]

It is planned economies that lead to poverty. The Phillipines is no exception.

As for China, it may have a large economy as a whole, but for its size it is certainly underdeveloped.

On the other hand, rich countries do not give fair deal to poor countries. Multinational companies do exploit poor countries for cheap labours.

True, but that is because the poor countries have little else to offer on the market. The alternative is no jobs.

However, several mining sites in Philippines are owned by multinationals and it should be run by us. It is also the same situation in Africa about mining diamonds.

That's the very mentality that drags nations down the abyss. If private property is easily violated, fewer will want to start businesses.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Structural corruption, which in turns generate ignorance, which makes people continue to elect structurally corrupt parties and politicians.

[Farnan]

Marcos played a huge role in the problems with the Philippines when he stole your economy.

The Philippines also have a problem of personality politics. Parties serve as vessels for charasmatic leaders rather than as a collection of political philosphies.

[Nikitn]

The Philippines has been a crap-hole (no offence) since the Spaniards found it. The fact that it was an emerging economy in SE Asia at some point (like Vietnam is today) and because it was "richer" than a Japan which had been razed to the ground (the boom hadn't come yet) doesn't change the fact that the Philippines always have been a third world country.

Growth rate =! wealth.

[strategist.com]

It is planned economies that lead to poverty. The Phillipines is no exception.

True, but that is because the poor countries have little else to offer on the market. The alternative is no jobs.

That's the very mentality that drags nations down the abyss. If private property is easily violated, fewer will want to start businesses.

When I said it should be run by 'us' I mean the government or Filipino companies should run the mining. And we were never communist, everybody in Philippines hate them.

True, but that is because the poor countries have little else to offer on the market. The alternative is no jobs.

Because rich countries are partly responsible by burdening us by means of loans.

The Philippines has been a crap-hole (no offence) since the Spaniards found it.

I don't know if you've been there but it is a country with hundred of 'hidden beauties'. You just have to look carefully.

because it was "richer" than a Japan which had been razed to the ground (the boom hadn't come yet)

America and Japan both razed Philippines from the bombardment of both sides during WWII. But Japan did it mostly especially during the year 1940 before the invasion, bombarding Manila after MacArthur declared it 'open city' (means free to be taken over without resistance) and the Japanese razed it furthermore when they were retreating.

[Landsknecht_88]

When I said it should be run by 'us' I mean the government or Filipino companies should run the mining. And we were never communist, everybody in Philippines hate them.

I realized that, and that is what's bad. Especially considering the last thing the Filipino economy needs is more state control.

[Yosemite]

America and Japan both razed Philippines from the bombardment of both sides during WWII. But Japan did it mostly especially during the year 1940 before the invasion, bombarding Manila after MacArthur declared it 'open city' (means free to be taken over without resistance) and the Japanese razed it furthermore when they were retreating.

but it was like that when spaniard first went there!

[Denny Crane!]

I'm surprised at the Phillipines being used as an example, it has had what? 20 years of actual stable democracy meaning it hasn't had time to really settle and develop but it is in a prime position to explode, it has good trading links, industry (semiconductors particularly I believe) and will become a good strong asian economy.

But mostly poor countries are the fault of other people, mainly the west.

[Viking Prince]

I'm surprised at the Phillipines being used as an example, it has had what? 20 years of actual stable democracy meaning it hasn't had time to really settle and develop but it is in a prime position to explode, it has good trading links, industry (semiconductors particularly I believe) and will become a good strong asian economy.

But mostly poor countries are the fault of other people, mainly the west.

I guess the challange for the Phillipines is to then show that a stable democracy can indeed turn things around in the next decade. Or maybe there is more needed than simply not having a stable democracy. btw -- my bet in on the Phillipines growing quite well. Well enough to wipe out the very horrible pockets of misery? I do not know about that.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I'm surprised at the Phillipines being used as an example, it has had what? 20 years of actual stable democracy meaning it hasn't had time to really settle and develop but it is in a prime position to explode, it has good trading links, industry (semiconductors particularly I believe) and will become a good strong asian economy.

But mostly poor countries are the fault of other people, mainly the west.

I don't know about the Philippines, but I can tell you that's not at all true for a lot of other countries. I can tell you that in Kyrgyzstan, the place I'm from, only has any kind of sedentary civilisation (if you don't count the cities, which were never populated by Kyrgyzs anyway until the 20th century) due to 'western' influence.

What happens when they're given independence and put in charge? They it all up.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't know about the Philippines, but I can tell you that's not at all true for a lot of other countries. I can tell you that in Kyrgyzstan, the place I'm from, only has any kind of sedentary civilisation (if you don't count the cities, which were never populated by Kyrgyzs anyway until the 20th century) due to 'western' influence.

What happens when they're given independence and put in charge? They it all up.

They it up? How, Kyrgyzstan has been improving but of course it has only had independence for what? 20 years, and I'm not exactly hugely knowledgable about the place but from the little I do know it was massively and adversely affected by the break up of the Soviet Union and the loss of its major markets, a particularly big blow due to the insular nature of its trading in the Soviet Bloc. But it is transitioning to a market economy, it hasn't got major resources and is landlocked which is a disadvantage but considering it is only 20 years old I would not say it is doing badly at all.

It would be a lot more developed had it been developing for the last 100 years but it is still in grip of a major transitional period. While there might be many examples of countries just ing themselves up without other influences I really don't think this is one of them, it seems interlinked to the whole Soviet transition.

[ivan_the_terrible]

They it up? How, Kyrgyzstan has been improving but of course it has only had independence for what? 20 years, and I'm not exactly hugely knowledgable about the place but from the little I do know it was massively and adversely affected by the break up of the Soviet Union and the loss of its major markets, a particularly big blow due to the insular nature of its trading in the Soviet Bloc. But it is transitioning to a market economy, it hasn't got major resources and is landlocked which is a disadvantage but considering it is only 20 years old I would not say it is doing badly at all.

It would be a lot more developed had it been developing for the last 100 years but it is still in grip of a major transitional period. While there might be many examples of countries just ing themselves up without other influences I really don't think this is one of them, it seems interlinked to the whole Soviet transition.

You'll have to forgive me - I typed a detail reply but my browser crashed.

Suffice it to say that the issues you point out definitely play a role.

However, the real reason for the country's failure is Kyrgyz tribalism, which essentially makes the country a giant system for lining pockets. It's what westerners would call theft and corruption, but what is just part of Kyrgyz society and culture; the c.80-year-long process of modernisation has only managed to create a small intelligencia that is excluded from this system (along with all non-Kyrgyzs).

This is why, until their society evolves, their country will be worse than post-tribal societies like the Baltic countries, and even the rest of the non-Asian CIS.

Kazakhstan is a bit of an exception for a number of reasons, like the large non-Kazakh population (which isn't excluded from power), a different balance of power between tribes, and obviously resource wealth.

[Denny Crane!]

You'll have to forgive me - I typed a detail reply but my browser crashed.

Suffice it to say that the issues you point out definitely play a role.

However, the real reason for the country's failure is Kyrgyz tribalism, which essentially makes the country a giant system for lining pockets. It's what westerners would call theft and corruption, but what is just part of Kyrgyz society and culture; the c.80-year-long process of modernisation has only managed to create a small intelligencia that is excluded from this system (along with all non-Kyrgyzs).

This is why, until their society evolves, their country will be worse than post-tribal societies like the Baltic countries, and even the rest of the non-Asian CIS.

It seems like that will only happen with increased education, a Chicken and Egg scenario but something that will happen I guess over time.

Though I'm not sure how different you think that is to the West? I mean our PM is a member of that elitist Bullingdon club (rich kids club in famous colleges spawning major amounts of CEO's and politicians) or the other side of it is the Old Boys Trade Unions Clubs that control the other major party. Then you have colleges like Eton which also spawn out Generals, Politicians and just in general people who majorly influence society.

I think the only difference is we've had a lot longer at it and there is so much more money floating around because it is such a developed economy that the people at the middle and the bottom don't feel the screw of the elitists half as bad - though ask me about that after the bank bailouts really kick in.

Seriously the UK is an amazing study of nepotism.