I’m going to start here by acknowledging that I’m still learning. I’m seriously looking at economics for the first time with this class, and anything I say at this point, I reserve the right to take back as I learn more about economics.
I see unit 4 as developing the poorest among us to benefit the economy. The southern part of Africa is an excellent example of this, and I’m assuming that’s why it’s included in this unit. It seems there are two approaches to the poorest nations, people, and the economies that they benefit.
The first is to exploit them. I’m not saying that to get too political, or even to imply that it’s intentional in every case. But it seems as though when the developing world encounters those who have not yet developed an strong industrial economy, it’s a parasitic relationship where oftentimes the only economy to benefit, is the one that is using the resources of the poorer group. The poor or undeveloped have an pyramid effect where the benefit of the resources sold only go to the richest, and is often hoarded by those who don’t put the money back in to the economy, creating even more poverty after an initial boom.
The other approach I’m seeing is to do everything you can to lift the poor from poverty. The concept that if poverty is reduced, then there are more people to produce, sell, and consume in a particular area. The more people actively participating in economics, the stronger the economy becomes.
The one thing I’m not certain of, is which approach is more effective, and valuable to an economy. There are obvious moral implications to the different approaches, but looking at this from the stance of a highly developed nation, which grants the most benefit to our nation? I’m not advocating for a parasitic relationship, but I am curious as to why nations don’t all chose to reduce poverty when they have the option available to them.