A Reader Asks:
Has economic nation building ever worked?
JAMES RAYMOND FISHER, JR., Ph.D.
© January 22, 2017
DR. FISHER RESPONDS:
"Economic nation building" is not primarily about money, as I have said before, but represents a total invasion of the underbelly of a society where the rot and decay, the gang wars and the drugs, the poverty and the hopelessness have dug in and claimed domain as ruthlessly as despots do in laying to waste societies with war and mayhem, leaving millions homeless and helpless necessitating "nation building."
The key is re-energizing the population giving them food and sustenance, medicine and medical support so that they can rebuild by taking charge themselves.
We have seen it done countless times in our history in the promotion of democracy. Why not economic stability?
We have seen it done countless times in our history in the promotion of democracy. Why not economic stability?
My sense is that economic wheelers and dealers are too isolated or disinterested in this complex problem preferring to concentrate on simply "throwing money at the problem" with no real strategic plan or well thought out tactical approach to the problem; stated another way, without noticeable involvement while being committed from a distance.
Solid guidance and direction are required at the front end and not draconian rules and regulations that stifle the energy and commitment of the people in the rebuilding.
You point out Haiti. This small country has been exploited by the French colonizers, then by puppet governments set up by the French while transitioning to independence, only to be led by incompetent Haitians such as the legendary "Poppa Doc" Duvalier (1907 - 1971) and Jean-Bertrand Aristide (born 1953).
This could have happened to the United States, but it didn't. Why?
If you read our history, an aristocracy mirroring that of Great Britain materialized in the American colonies. Moreover, it was an asset that Americans spoke English, were conditioned to its culture; and mirrored its values and institutions from the beginning.
Great Britain took a different approach to colonization than what France had taken in Haiti, the Portuguese in Brazil and Spain took in Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Florida, and other South and Central American colonies.
These European countries established juntas of military elites while failing to create viable cultural and economic infrastructures of the indigenous people at hand. The British did in America, Canada and Australia!
First, the American colonies had a succession of governors and officials that presided over a social, political and economic hierarchy to establish America as a stable and profitable colony.
This could have happened to the United States, but it didn't. Why?
If you read our history, an aristocracy mirroring that of Great Britain materialized in the American colonies. Moreover, it was an asset that Americans spoke English, were conditioned to its culture; and mirrored its values and institutions from the beginning.
Great Britain took a different approach to colonization than what France had taken in Haiti, the Portuguese in Brazil and Spain took in Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Florida, and other South and Central American colonies.
These European countries established juntas of military elites while failing to create viable cultural and economic infrastructures of the indigenous people at hand. The British did in America, Canada and Australia!
First, the American colonies had a succession of governors and officials that presided over a social, political and economic hierarchy to establish America as a stable and profitable colony.
Furthermore, Great Britain developed a merchant’s class of ship owners, importers and exporters in support of the economy. At the same time, mimicking the aristocracy of England, it created a class of inherited wealth and landed gentry as well an educated body of physicians, attorneys, politicians and merchants.
At the next level, there were the lesser merchants and shopkeepers, master craftsmen and sea captains who were essentially independent businessmen who were vigorously involved in support of the economy.
The next level down included a diversity of apprentices (Ben Franklin was one such printing apprentice), bound laborers and hired servants for the growing number of estates of the plutocrats of the colonies.
At the next level, there were the lesser merchants and shopkeepers, master craftsmen and sea captains who were essentially independent businessmen who were vigorously involved in support of the economy.
The next level down included a diversity of apprentices (Ben Franklin was one such printing apprentice), bound laborers and hired servants for the growing number of estates of the plutocrats of the colonies.
These apprenticeships were tightly secure in families (Franklin had a nine year apprenticeship with his brother), providing a large pool of semiskilled labor that enabled them to rise in the class system (Franklin became an independent businessman with a score of printing shops working for him, and was independently wealthy before the age of forty).
Further down existed a huge staple and pyramid of black slaves in which all the colonies took advantage of this labor option without a pause of conscience, although in reality it was absurd given the professed commitment of society to see itself as egalitarian.
At the same time, young professionals from all the white classes were on the rise -- teachers, ministers, writers, but especially those who were entering the law. Ben Franklin, however, pursued science as an amateur and became acclaimed by the French for his kite experiment. He attached a key to the kite in a storm to prove that lightning was an electrical phenomenon.
Whereas Thomas Jefferson and George Washington came from the established upper aristocratic classes, John Adams was one of the young lawyers who had a precocious understanding of politics and the possibility of self-government. He showed a knack for such leadership from the beginning of his career.
This was the structure of the American colonies proving that the British by their own design created the monster that would realize its ultimate independence in the American Revolutionary War and one day exceed its hegemony.
This is the great legacy of Great Britain, an accomplishment that has not been matched, and that is so because Western societies have failed to learn from this great achievement.
-----Original Message-----
Further down existed a huge staple and pyramid of black slaves in which all the colonies took advantage of this labor option without a pause of conscience, although in reality it was absurd given the professed commitment of society to see itself as egalitarian.
At the same time, young professionals from all the white classes were on the rise -- teachers, ministers, writers, but especially those who were entering the law. Ben Franklin, however, pursued science as an amateur and became acclaimed by the French for his kite experiment. He attached a key to the kite in a storm to prove that lightning was an electrical phenomenon.
Whereas Thomas Jefferson and George Washington came from the established upper aristocratic classes, John Adams was one of the young lawyers who had a precocious understanding of politics and the possibility of self-government. He showed a knack for such leadership from the beginning of his career.
This was the structure of the American colonies proving that the British by their own design created the monster that would realize its ultimate independence in the American Revolutionary War and one day exceed its hegemony.
This is the great legacy of Great Britain, an accomplishment that has not been matched, and that is so because Western societies have failed to learn from this great achievement.
-----Original Message-----
No comments:
Post a Comment