Reading through the article on whether or not the poor can be trusted listed a couple studies in which they absolutely could in other countries. I believe that sending help to them is about more than trusting poor people with money. I think sending money and aid is about helping them to stay alive. There is always a gamble involved in whether or not they will finish school or die early from a health problem because of events that can’t be accounted for. American poor is obviously different from most of the bottom billion poor, though there is still a struggle. I think that the difference is that in the other countries, they don’t expect help or aid, so they make the most of what they get, while here in America it is expected that someone will be taken care of if they are hungry or homeless. That makes it seem like there is almost no point in trying once you have hit a certain level of poor. In that sense I think that every country needs to independently study what works best for them because as I’ve said in a previous post, it all depends on who you are entrusting, and what you are entrusting them with.

I took a look at the GDP/capita in $/year vs. life expectancy chart for the different countries of the world and I remembered one of the past readings mentioned Rwanda as being fairly bad off (third world so to speak). When I watched the chart, a couple things stuck out to me. The first thing I found interesting was that at some point before 1940 (give or take a few years) Rwanda’s life expectancy was 10 years. That’s absolutely insane. That’s not even long enough to hit puberty, which sounds to me like there’s no way for the society to survive. The second was that as the years progressed and the life expectancy bounced back, it wasn’t always tied to GDP/capita. The majority of the time it was (like 49/50 times) but there were a few instances where life expectancy went up even though GDP/Capita went down.

I’ve not bought the bottom billion book listed, but it seems like an interesting read. I am enjoying the ted talk and google tech videos. I’ve always been a big fan of the Ted Talks. Thanks for putting those up.

As i read through this, it sounded like America and possibly other nations “stepped” on under developed nations in order to continue it’s growth. The article also stated that we and other developed nations became what we were because we were settled as opposed to being used for resources. It seems as though other nations that were also inhabited may have had similar opportunities to develop. The fact that we have gone to other countries and extracted their resources sounds like they had value in the natural resources of their lands, but possibly through bad decision making on part of the governments in their countries, have ended up on the worse end of the deal.

Before I put up a blog post that is probably filled with my own bias and speculation, I would like to point out that I am by no means an expert on all things worldly. I know at an entry level that the world works through supply and demand and that is what drives any given system. I look at what has happened during the historical part of the readings and try to piece together what the driving forces behind them were.

That being said, there was a very interesting point during this reading that got me thinking. “Change, particularly political and institutional change, happens as a result of responses to immediate crises. Rarely is it the result of design or plan.” Often times throughout history, advancement on an evolutionary basis has been the direct result of situations that wiped out a certain species and left only those who were in the right place at the right time or who were unaffected by what was going on around them. There has always been an element of chaos to the way the world develops. It seems that our economy is as vulnerable as we as humans are. For example, as we discover new ways of extracting oil, the prices go down and the ability to pay for everyday living expenses becomes less cumbersome here is the U.S.. At some point, does the ability for an economic system to thrive become the direct result of its ability to allow for a balance of productive efficiency and living standards, or will it always be up to random chance, or both?

Originally i thought that it was a little bit over the top for a group of 20 nations to decide how the entire world was going to be run (and the idea that so few had so much power was a bit scary as well) but it makes sense that those who have had the most success should lead. Maybe that’s too simplistic, but I don’t think that I would want someone from a country where education is scarce making big decisions without actually having been successful in their own endeavors.

After reading through the first reading assignment I couldn’t help but get stuck on the idea that war is extremely beneficial for the winners.

The Maddison reading pointed out that the U.S. is being caught up to or has slowed down in terms of growth. This is intriguing to me because throughout the reading the author seemed to mostly focus on the historical facts that merely suggest that the right combination of scientific break throughs and ways of thinking lead to our Capitalist and dominant society. It is true that it took break throughs to get to where we are, and contrary to the article that suggests our best days may be behind us, i believe that we can still pull ahead of the rest of the world yet again. What I gathered was that America was started and had tons of news resources, which in part contributed to our economic growth, but mostly it was our ability to stay ahead technologically. The countries that developed better technology are the countries that have done the best in the world. That being said we have plenty of resources and capital to continue on the path we were once on.

After reading through the first reading assignment I couldn’t help but get stuck on the idea that while war is terrible and every side loses something, there seemed to be long lasting effects of the countries that prevailed. Historically, first world countries, those aligned with the US, UK, France, and other non-communist victors (as described in the reading assignment) were in part defined as well by being part of the rich and free world. This seemed to carry forward through the ages and, if I’m not mistaken, the majority of them have prospered on while leaving the second world countries in the dust and those who decided not to participate at all in the third world countries category (where they were before and have stayed). It seems to suggest that while losing a war is bad for your economy, not participating at all is the worst thing you can do.

Hey everyone, sorry i got a late start here, but I have been very busy. My name is Mike and I’ve been re-attending college for a little over one semester now. I drive an hour and 20 minutes to campus for a couple of my other courses, so I’m really glad they had spots open for this course. I play video games in my free time, but mostly I work and go to school. If you have any questions about me feel free to ask away.