Attempted Mugging in Copenhagen
The spectacle of the quote unquote "developing nations" trying to mug the "developed nations" for a cash shakedown at Copenhagen has given me to think about the whole concept of developing vs developed nations. The wording itself makes the unwarranted assumption that all countries are on a rather standard track of progression, that no matter what forms their governments take, or their attitudes towards their people, or ownership of property, or promotion of development, that countries will progress from less technology, infrastructure, freedom and wealth, to more.
This is demonstrably not so.
Most nations in the world have been tied into the world communications systems for more than a hundred years. Many nations have access to natural resources - such as Congo, but remain a "have-not" nation.
If they wanted to, they, too, could have the technology infrastructure representative of a "developed nation" but for some reason, they fail to take the steps necessary to develop them. Japan, notably lacking in practically any natural resources, still manages to hang in as a "developed nation". What differentiates the two classes?
in "The Mystery of Capital", Hernando de Soto explains it as the natural result of policies relating to the ownership, protection and development of real private property by the citizens of the country.
If the nation state does not allow easy, protected ownership and development of private property by its citizens, the nation stays mired in developmental limbo, or in some cases, regresses. Somalia and North Korea for example. Zimbabwe has regressed from being the breadbasket of Africa, to being a prime basket-case.
The argument that developed nations should pay developing countries to mitigate global warming is based on a false premise. The "developing" nations are NOT "behind" the developed nations. They are just as "developed" as the "modern" nations. They have just chosen to develop in the way they are. The "developing" nations have had just as much opportunity, and just as much resources, and just as much information about how to develop, as have the "developed" nations, and have chosen not to. Giving them money as a reward for developing in the way they have chosen, is simply encouraging them to continue developing as they have - or have not, as the case may be.
And this doesn't even consider that cold cash transfers from "developed" nations to "developing" nations for any reason tend to be stolen and diverted by corrupt officials along the way, practically 100 percent of the time. This is a naked mugging in progress.
This is demonstrably not so.
Most nations in the world have been tied into the world communications systems for more than a hundred years. Many nations have access to natural resources - such as Congo, but remain a "have-not" nation.
If they wanted to, they, too, could have the technology infrastructure representative of a "developed nation" but for some reason, they fail to take the steps necessary to develop them. Japan, notably lacking in practically any natural resources, still manages to hang in as a "developed nation". What differentiates the two classes?
in "The Mystery of Capital", Hernando de Soto explains it as the natural result of policies relating to the ownership, protection and development of real private property by the citizens of the country.
If the nation state does not allow easy, protected ownership and development of private property by its citizens, the nation stays mired in developmental limbo, or in some cases, regresses. Somalia and North Korea for example. Zimbabwe has regressed from being the breadbasket of Africa, to being a prime basket-case.
The argument that developed nations should pay developing countries to mitigate global warming is based on a false premise. The "developing" nations are NOT "behind" the developed nations. They are just as "developed" as the "modern" nations. They have just chosen to develop in the way they are. The "developing" nations have had just as much opportunity, and just as much resources, and just as much information about how to develop, as have the "developed" nations, and have chosen not to. Giving them money as a reward for developing in the way they have chosen, is simply encouraging them to continue developing as they have - or have not, as the case may be.
And this doesn't even consider that cold cash transfers from "developed" nations to "developing" nations for any reason tend to be stolen and diverted by corrupt officials along the way, practically 100 percent of the time. This is a naked mugging in progress.