Hey bro, thank you for taking the time to give my article a read!
We share the same conclusion but seem to differ on the thought path surrounding it. From what I can see, as the Global North has continued to industrialize and develop over the last century, more of the Global South has been lifted out of poverty as a byproduct of that.
Life-saving medicine, cars and telecommunications among many other kinds of technologies invented by those of the Global North have also raised the living standards and quality of life of many across the Global South as well.
No matter how much help Western nations provide, if different developing nations fail to master the fundamentals of growth, then the assistance won't count for much.
"Many of these extracted resources are gotten at rock bottom peasant prices from the global South"
This is just how business works though, sellers can charge more by adding value to their products (raw materials in this case). Just like how you would be willing to pay more for Dangote's petrol compared to how much you would be willing to pay for the crude oil equivalent.
A large part of the reason why so many nations across the Global South are stuck at selling raw extracts for so little is because they lack the technical and managerial expertise and know-how to master and apply the processes required for them to add value to resources and make more money. Sand is a raw input for glass, would it make economic sense for anyone to pay sand suppliers the same price as the glass manufacturer? Who's added more value in that equation?
As for the issue of developing countries and debt, a country like Nigeria doesn't have to borrow as much as it does in order to develop. A choice was made. They could instead raise the USD funds by attracting more FDI from overseas into the country, or via its government and corporate bonds, or stock markets. But for many govts, it's easier to get expensive money today (by borrowing) and make the necessary economic reforms later, than it is to make economic reforms today and attract a lot more cheap money later.
Better yet, they can borrow today from private creditors and then get bailed out by multilateral lenders like the IMF and World Bank. This is essentially what happened with Africa throughout the 70's and 80's (period of debt racking) and the 90's and 2000's (period of debt forgiveness), and is happening again now.
It's all trade-offs, some Global South nations go one way and others go another way, hence why some succeed where others fail.
"however, there is a concerted effort to not transfer such skills as it will make the global North less competitive"
How so? The Global North is bending over backwards to take in millions of students from the Global South, in the case of countries like the US and Canada, they can even receive grants and scholarships for their attendance.
Also, the skills are not rocket science but they're not exactly easy either. Some countries within the Global South and Africa specifically acquire them, others don't.
Also, Western companies have transferred lots of technology and skills to many countries around the world, including China in particular. If it wasn't for Western and Japanese technological assistance, skill transfer and market access then China would not be what it is today.
What you see between the US and China today mostly related to issues surrounding national security. The West also has a lot of leeway for implementing protectionist measures against China because China is already quite protectionist against the West. Measures and controls in China exist in relation to how many properties non-Chinese can purchase, engagement in the financial sector, joint-venture requirements in exchange for market access etc.
And unless you have evidence proving otherwise, these corporations tend not to act in a concerted effort to hold down other country competitors (company nationality doesn't matter so much, plus these firms are usually competing against each other) down. It's more about whether the country is able to make it worth their while.
Hey bro, thank you for taking the time to give my article a read!
We share the same conclusion but seem to differ on the thought path surrounding it. From what I can see, as the Global North has continued to industrialize and develop over the last century, more of the Global South has been lifted out of poverty as a byproduct of that.
Life-saving medicine, cars and telecommunications among many other kinds of technologies invented by those of the Global North have also raised the living standards and quality of life of many across the Global South as well.
No matter how much help Western nations provide, if different developing nations fail to master the fundamentals of growth, then the assistance won't count for much.
"Many of these extracted resources are gotten at rock bottom peasant prices from the global South"
This is just how business works though, sellers can charge more by adding value to their products (raw materials in this case). Just like how you would be willing to pay more for Dangote's petrol compared to how much you would be willing to pay for the crude oil equivalent.
A large part of the reason why so many nations across the Global South are stuck at selling raw extracts for so little is because they lack the technical and managerial expertise and know-how to master and apply the processes required for them to add value to resources and make more money. Sand is a raw input for glass, would it make economic sense for anyone to pay sand suppliers the same price as the glass manufacturer? Who's added more value in that equation?
As for the issue of developing countries and debt, a country like Nigeria doesn't have to borrow as much as it does in order to develop. A choice was made. They could instead raise the USD funds by attracting more FDI from overseas into the country, or via its government and corporate bonds, or stock markets. But for many govts, it's easier to get expensive money today (by borrowing) and make the necessary economic reforms later, than it is to make economic reforms today and attract a lot more cheap money later.
Better yet, they can borrow today from private creditors and then get bailed out by multilateral lenders like the IMF and World Bank. This is essentially what happened with Africa throughout the 70's and 80's (period of debt racking) and the 90's and 2000's (period of debt forgiveness), and is happening again now.
It's all trade-offs, some Global South nations go one way and others go another way, hence why some succeed where others fail.
"however, there is a concerted effort to not transfer such skills as it will make the global North less competitive"
How so? The Global North is bending over backwards to take in millions of students from the Global South, in the case of countries like the US and Canada, they can even receive grants and scholarships for their attendance.
Also, the skills are not rocket science but they're not exactly easy either. Some countries within the Global South and Africa specifically acquire them, others don't.
Also, Western companies have transferred lots of technology and skills to many countries around the world, including China in particular. If it wasn't for Western and Japanese technological assistance, skill transfer and market access then China would not be what it is today.
What you see between the US and China today mostly related to issues surrounding national security. The West also has a lot of leeway for implementing protectionist measures against China because China is already quite protectionist against the West. Measures and controls in China exist in relation to how many properties non-Chinese can purchase, engagement in the financial sector, joint-venture requirements in exchange for market access etc.
And unless you have evidence proving otherwise, these corporations tend not to act in a concerted effort to hold down other country competitors (company nationality doesn't matter so much, plus these firms are usually competing against each other) down. It's more about whether the country is able to make it worth their while.