Don’t Shout at the Telly: Ferraris for All

Very interesting debate. I personally am all for Daniel's idea of economic development. To me, this does not equate to becoming a society of excess, but rather to seeing that all citizens have their basic needs covered, such as decent medical care. Accomplishing this would save so many lives by preventing illnesses which are so easily avoided in developped countries, therefore it is horribly patronising to say that such countries should not try and develop. Progress in this respect is vital.

However I feel that more of an emphasis should be placed on eliminating corruption. I disagree with Daniel's stance on this. In my opinion it is the West who are ultimately responsible for the lack of growth in developping countries. Admittedly, there are many corrupt politicians in the developping world who prevent economic growth from benefittng ordinary citizens. However, whether we care to admit it or not, the majority of Western regimes are corrupt too.

If it were not for continued Western underhand dealings with corrupt regimes, it is quite possible that such leaders in developping countries would have been overthrown by their populations anyway. Just have a read about French relations with Africa (Francafrique) to get a feel for this. The West needs to stop exploiting the resources of developping countries. This is what we should initially be combatting, and if we can put an end to these corrupt dealings, surely economic prosperity in the developping world will eventually follow.

This discussion has made me question why it is such an issue for developing countries to become more westernised. Aren’t they called “developing” countries for a reason? I particularly liked the parts where they were debating making sacrifices which can somehow help the developing world and also when he mentions Britain in the 1800s, how the UK also had to strive to achieve growth. Very interesting topic, I think I should read the book!

Growth scepticism in contemporary societies and economies evokes interesting sentiments. It is a response as to how consumerist northern economies (partially the United States), in their conquest to dominate markets and have everyone wearing Nikes on their feet; drinking Coke-Cola etc. Is forever trying to create consumer markets out of developing nations, without any means of encouraging prosperity amongst those nations. Whilst I do not agree with all aspects of Ami’s arguments, I do however agree with Ami; when he argues that many developed nations have given up on the ideologies of economical development for southern economics and are now trying to tackle development through debates such as trafficking and prostitutions, because of their naive views of developing nations. Quite often economies of the north interfere with the prospects and growth of southern economies. A typically example includes (e.g.) need to slow down their economy, human rights issues etc. Those arguments are used to sustain the levels of prosperity within developing nations.

Great discussion about growth sceptism. Daniel Ben Ami explains in a good and very comprehensible way the benefits of economic growth. Moreover, he states that a lot of people say that their are for economic growth but their in fact not real supporters as there are to many buts in their arguments for economic growth. And the best example he gives and that proably each person can unterstand is that : our having less will not make the poor richer. And that is one of the most important ones.