Autor: wvs

1.

The first set is cul­tu­ral. Wealt­hy nati­ons have a cul­tu­re that values hard work. Know­ledge. Pro­duc­ti­vi­ty. Inno­va­ti­on. Risk-taking. Saving. Self-reliance.

I’m not try­ing to say that peo­p­le in poor count­ries don’t work hard. Far from it.

The point is that if working hard and saving money are strong CULTURAL values (which tends to be the case in Asia), a coun­try is going to do better. 

1a.

Wealt­hy nati­ons have a cul­tu­re to bla­me unem­ployment on the indi­vi­du­al, not on mista­kes made by cor­po­ra­te lea­ders. Know­ledge that's free (Secon­da­ry Edu­ca­ti­on) is under­fun­ded; Hig­her edu­ca­ti­on is so expen­si­ve that the majo­ri­ty of gra­dua­tes car­ry this debt for decades.
Inno­va­ti­on, if suc­cessful, will be bought up to curb com­pe­ti­ti­on, flan­ked by laws and regulations.
Count­ries do bet­ter by exploi­ting cheap labor in tho­se count­ries they pre­vious­ly desta­bi­li­zed in order to install pup­pet regimes. 

2.

Second, wealt­hy nati­ons have much bet­ter insti­tu­ti­ons. The rule of law is strong. Pri­va­te pro­per­ty rights are strong. Cor­rup­ti­on is limi­t­ed. Regu­la­ti­on is sen­si­ble. Taxa­ti­on is rea­sonable and efficient.

It’s simp­le; no one wants to do busi­ness in a cor­rupt dictatorship.

Bad insti­tu­ti­ons dri­ve away for­eign inve­stors. And as capi­tal is one of the cri­ti­cal com­pon­ents of eco­no­mic growth, cho­king off exter­nal invest­ment suf­fo­ca­tes an economy. 

2a.

Second, wealt­hy nati­ons have more 'fine tun­ed' insti­tu­ti­ons with a lay­out favoring tho­se who can afford it. Thus the rule of law is depen­dent on the amount of money inve­sted. Pri­vate pro­perty rights are good only if the­re isn't an eco­no­mic advan­ta­ge for the rich if they grab it. 

Cor­rup­tion is cal­led "net­wor­king". Regu­la­tion is in favor of tho­se who belong to the estab­lish­ment. Taxa­tion is for tho­se who deri­ve inco­me from work - tho­se ear­ning through 'invest­ment' don't pay.

Invest­ment into the U.S.A. drop­ped sin­ce Trump took office - but he's just out­spo­ken, whe­re­as the for­mer admi­ni­stra­ti­ons dealt their bia­sed actions for the rich in secrecy.

3.

Last (and most important­ly), wealt­hy nati­ons have an “inclu­si­ve” economy.

This means that peo­p­le aren’t medieval serfs toi­ling away for the estab­lish­ment. If someone deve­lo­ps skills, works hard, and takes risks, they’ve got a good chan­ce of moving up the socioe­co­no­mic food chain.

Eco­no­mists call this “inco­me mobi­li­ty”. In the United Sta­tes it’s known as the “Ame­ri­can Dream”. 

3a.

Peo­p­le are no lon­ger slaves belon­ging to a per­son - nowa­days they belong to cor­po­ra­ti­ons. The data show that only in rare cases peo­p­le reach ano­ther level on the social lad­der. The few who make it are adver­ti­sed, tho­se who don't are not reco­gnized. They are the majority.

Soli­da­ri­ty with the weak is dead, com­pas­si­on is prac­ti­ced by word, the con­sci­ence is num­bed by a cha­ri­ty check on Christmas.

Any 'sur­plus' on inco­me has to be saved for reti­re­ment, as the systems in place (Social Secu­ri­ty) have been plun­de­red to pay for exce­s­si­ve mili­ta­ry spending. 

Bab­b­le

Yet all three of the­se fac­tors are start­ing to dis­ap­pear in the US… and in the West in general.

America’s self-reli­ant, risk-taking, hard working, pio­nee­ring cul­tu­re hel­ped pro­pel it to beco­me the wealt­hiest nati­on on the planet.

But the­se traits are rapid­ly vanis­hing, dis­pla­ced by a cul­tu­re that values instant gra­ti­fi­ca­ti­on, con­su­mer debt, and govern­ment handouts.

The insti­tu­ti­ons are fal­te­ring as well. Rule of Law is less pre­dic­ta­ble, with the govern­ment chan­ging the rules in its sole dis­creti­on when­ever it likes. 

Facts 

The explo­ita­ti­on all around the world lea­ves almost no more resour­ces to rob. The decli­ne is also due to the fact that for­mer pro­du­cers of raw mate­ri­al lear­ned that it pays to install and boost pro­duc­tion of goods & sale of tho­se wit­hout the middle-man.

The US-System its­elf fostert con­su­mer debt becau­se the banks had no limit to bar them from rip­ping off the avera­ge Joe. To bla­me the so cal­led "gou­vern­ment hand­outs" is absurd, when mil­ta­ry spen­ding is thou­sand­fold that of help for the poor and needy.

The rule of law has chan­ged only in one direc­tion: To the advan­ta­ge of tho­se who can afford an expen­si­ve law firm that doesn't ask what's right or wrong but only how much money can be squeezed out of any sin­gle client.