Who doesn't want to be rich, especially when it comes to our own country? Living in a rich country sure is a huge benefit, the standard of life would be higher, the social welfare would be great, and the opportunities would be endless. In theory, all the leading men in our society are trying to make our country somewhat richer, I'd say why don't you learn from the master? The article, "Why is America so rich?", a most commented article in The Economist today, brings us a master to learn from, the United States of America.
According to the GDP, America is still the richest country in the world, regardless of the economic crisis. The article points out that along with Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, the US is in the top five countries on the human development index’s ranking and tries to analyze why it is so. Mentioning an explanation by Karl Smith, an Assistant Professor of Public Economics and Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the reason is a combination of common law using, massive immigration, and Scientific exodus during the first great world war which make America a place with the rule of law and loads of experts in every field, especially science. The article continues on to discuss other important factors that make America the richest country, such as, using English as the first language, spending more time working than those in Europe, having no culture barrier in economic aspect, and being the center of talents in places like Silicon Valley.
I’m quite confused about how the article notes that all the top countries on the list, except for Norway who has oil, are all successful because of the common law system. Personally, I don’t think the system of law could play such a huge part on the wealthy of a country, other factors would be more important. Actually, I can only see one thing in common for these countries; they all used to be a part of the British Empire! That’s why they’re all using English and common law system. Surprisingly, the UK itself is at number 26 on the list.
Being a gigantic country like America holds a huge benefit in itself already. There are more people, more resources, more opportunities to find geniuses and talents. The States is also relatively open-minded for immigrants, especially the ones with qualification, not to mention the free market, good infrastructure, etc. The attempt of the EU is to get together, break through the borders of nationality, culture, tax, and so on, can be considered as an attempt to be a bit more like the United States. In this aspect, I think we, ASEAN, might as well do the same. But it sure takes time.
What do you think we should learn from the States’ success? Do you think Thailand can/should be richer? How?
__________
References
My turn to blog is today (which has just came like an hour ago). I'll be super busy after tonight so I decided to post it now.
ReplyDeleteI have to clarify here because I want this to be counted as my weekly blog post and not a "just-for-fun" post.
Roong,I totally agree that the obstruct of ASEAN countries is language. And the big problem's developing countries is education. I always compare Thailand and Sigapore which has no any nataural resource like us, but almost people can speak English fluently because they used to be the British Empire.Then,they firmly push themself forward in every way.In my pointof view, if we have a good education system,we can be richer.
ReplyDeleteRoong, I agree with you 500%. At your point, the States is open-minded for immigrants. I give some examples from art history. The first period of American art history began after the EU for a long time and started with the period that we called abstract art. All important artists mostly immigrated from another countries.
ReplyDeleteThis article reminded me to Net’s topic before. Net’s article tells us about American is genious and claver by looking at how many people who won noble prize. Actually, I do not trust because the states always set a stardard and measure everything. They annouce only the good result. As your point, the EU have different point of view and can not compare with American stardard only looking at some parts such as the sytem of law.
In next few years Asean will become powerful. Because the last summer olympic set up in China and the UK, the host of next olympic, said that they designed in different way and not similar as China. Nothing can excuse that kind of answer. Furthermore, Formula1,the world annual car race, mostly set up in Asia countries such as Singapore, South Korea, and AbuDabi.
At least R.A. has the good sense to start with facts, then look for an explanation, perhaps supported by further facts. Although most of his suggested casual factors are plausible, I think a longer view might help, specifically, the rise to world dominance of western culture over teh past 3,000 years or so, which along the way entailed overcoming, in some cases obliterating, many other cultures: Persian, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Aztec, and so on.
ReplyDeleteWhether we think that was a good thing or not, the facts are that that is what happened, so perhaps it's worth asking what it is about western culture and the countries it has inhabited that has contributed to its stunning success over other cultures. People in Thailand now wear jeans and suits, not Persian tunics or Chinese robes.
The difference between the US at $45,000 per capita GDP and European nations at an average $40,000 isn't nearly as great as the disparity between traditionally bound African and Asian cultures and countries that have eagerly adopted western ways of thinking along with western science and technology.
Perhaps literature, which can reflect the core values of a people, might offer some insights?
Anyone for Homer?
I agree with Peter that a longer view can help to understand why United States is the wealthiest nation in the world. US has created (and most of the countries has accepted) a way of worldwide imperium based in the exportation of their product and life style, such as clothes, movies, food, music... In the other hand, lets take a look to big countries which are growing financially in recent years: China and India. Both countries, instead of following the american influence, have kept and developed their own culture, cinema, food, products... But still China just has a $3,000 per capita GDP.
ReplyDeleteIn the 18th century Adam Smith, a scottish economist, through the theory in which based the wealth of a country in two factors. The first is a nation with a free market economy. The second and a bit more complex is the geographic situation of the nation. Countries situated in template areas are more able to develop financially than countries in tropical climate zones. And the access to the sea, I mean, cities situated in the coast or with an easy access to the sea by a river, are richer than cities with difficulties in transportation, what happens in interior areas or countries.
Smith theory responds perfectly to the actual situation in the world. US and EU are both in template zones, and have followed an ideology of free market economy for many decades.
David,
ReplyDeleteAccording to Adam Smith's theory, China is the big country, is not in tropical climate zone and around 25% of boundary line with to the sea. China developes the interior areas by building up sustainable community. Airport, industrial factory and school set up in interior area to shorten distance of transportation, spread economic growth throughout China.
Nk, note that China has responded for the las decades to a closed socialist economy, like the old Soviet Union and Cuba. The first factor that Smith points is a free market economy. China's economy has been growing since it did economic reforms, working on free-market principles.
ReplyDeleteI agree that China is developing interior areas, but the wealthiest areas are all near the coast and the poorest are the most interior situated prefectures. Take as example Tibet, or the northwest prefecture Xihaigu, which is the poorest area of the country.
I think that Smith's theory works perfectly according to the history and geographic situation in China.
David (November 16, 2010 11:47 AM ),
ReplyDeleteActually, I agree with you and China really understand Adam Smith's theory that why China try to fix the problem.
For extra inforation, China's reform economic system from Command to Market system. Now China is Mixed system which has some characteristics of command and market system. Because some bussinesses are under controlled by government such as infrastructure.
I think another factor that helped the US and Europe in the past is that they were not very united. Europe was a lot of small, independent nations, each trying out new things so that a lot of different ideas and approaches could be tested; similarly, the US is a collection of largely independent states that can make up their own laws, which made the US a great place for trying out new things. Many ideas might fail, but a lot can be tried, another benefit of Adam Smith's beloved free markets, so good ideas are more likely to both be discovered and given a chance to create value for a nation and its people. Perhaps highly centralised states suffer a major disadvantage because that centralised control stifles evolution and progress.
ReplyDeleteThe ancient Greek states that defeated the mighty Persian empire were very small and forever arguing amongst themselves, as Homer's Iliad shows us.
The factors stated so far are an education, scientific advancement, system of law, economic system, culture, geographic factor, and basic infrastructures. They all seem to be the key factors for country development and most of them appear to be the weakness of Thailand particularly the first three factors mentioned. However, every country has its own strength and weakness. Take Singapore as an example, although the country is very small, it has developed based on the advantage of its location. I think the first three factors could be the key factors that Thai has to focused on.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important to learn about the success of United States. To understand how a country can be economically successful, and if its model can be copy to others countries to have a good economy. Although the factors look few and very simple, massif immigration, good Scientific immigration, first language English, more time work than other European countries, center of talents. Is it all? Or, they are others factors like history? Or, it is possible to apply the same policies and the results are going to be the same. For example, massif immigration in a country of immigrants like USA can be easy to accept for citizen, but in countries that have a long history with tradition maybe can create xenophobia.
ReplyDelete