The NYT wrote:
> GETTING AT THE ROOTS OF ARAB POVERTY
>
> Alan Schwartz and Ew Haven
>
> Since the terrorist attacks, Americans have learned that in many Arab and
> Muslim nations there are large numbers of angry young men with time on
> their hands, unable to find jobs � or jobs that make use of their education
> � because of their countries' poverty. We've also learned that many Muslims
> blame us for their poverty. But in fact they are not poor because we are
> rich; they are poor because of the policies their countries pursue.
I thought they are angry and poor because of the landgrabs and military
occupations by the colonialists, and the despotic regimes installed by them.
> Perhaps the most important cause for some countries' continuing to fall
> behind is the monopolies that many of them tolerate or even create. The bin
> Laden family, for example, is rich because it was given a monopoly over
> much construction activity in Saudi Arabia.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
......given by the ruling clan that is kept in power by the U$ since 1947.
And the Gates family, for example, is rich because it was given a monopoly
over much software activity in the world (by CIA and NSA, its top customers).
And the Bush family, for example, is rich because ...... (you get the idea)
> Not only does the absence of competition in a business lead to
> inefficiency, but monopolies also sustain an elite class that may block new
> technology and new industries � or permit them and tax them heavily � as it
> guards its own power and wealth.
Like e.g. an oilmen administration that is blocking new technology and new
industries of solar and other renewable energies ?
> In some Arab countries, state-protected
> monopolies distribute part of their profits to people in the government,
> creating a powerful coalition against change.
Yup, also in that certain non-Arab country.
> Some Muslim and Arab countries also fail to provide the basic certainties
> that investors receive from the rule of law. Without an independent,
> noncorrupt judiciary and transparent laws, the ability of an investor to
> reap the rewards of a good idea turns on the discretion of the ruler and
> his favorites of the moment. Where whims rule, investors vanish.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And where investors rule, the Supreme Court appoints the Prez.
> But it is deeply disturbing that countries like Egypt,
> Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have either turned their national schools over to
> Muslim clerics or underfunded education so that the clerics' schools fill
> the gap.
And it is deeply disturbing that countries like United
States and United Kingdom have either turned their national schools over to
Market clerics or underfunded education so that the clerics' schools fill
the gap. Hello Toony!
> Because they seldom teach math and science or other modern skills,
> the ascent of these schools may retard economic growth for decades.
But fortunately they can still continue to import some skilled foreigners.
> We can explain, loudly
> and often, the link between local economic performance and local political
> institutions.
Example in point: The U$ 2000 Election.
> We should support local democratic movements not only because
> of the intrinsic merits of democracy, but because it is more difficult to
> pursue bad economic policies when one's citizens can openly criticize them.
Hence Dubya's crackdown on civil liberties...
> (Alan Schwartz is a professor of law and management at Yale.)
I concur very much with Bill Ward's scholarly remarks on lawyer surplus
and Schwartz's historical ignorance. Indeed, *most* armed conflicts in
recent history (including present) have their roots in the UK's arbitrary
colonialist drawing of countries' borders on the map, irrespective of
ethnic and historical lines on the ground. Considering this, it is
unacceptably cynical and hypocritical that the neo-colonialists at NYT
(and other favorite newspapers of Keith) now blame the *victims* of
colonialism for the ongoing conflicts that resulted from it in the first
place.
---
Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
> Perhaps it goes to the ultimate value in the West being the private
> property or the land itself as property. But I don't know about this
Let's not lump all "the West" together. Initially, e.g. German tribes
did not see land as private property -- this concept was introduced
(by force) by the Romans.
Chris
