Socio-Economic Development Theory
Yesterday I introduced my theory that the only way to bring about peace in the middle east is to invest in local economies and not to try and influence politics through strong-arm techniques. As per a request from one of my more loyal readers, I will expand on my theory today.
First lets go through some history...Europe was a constant battleground for centuries. The Romans conquered, then the Huns, Goths, Moors, etc. took their turn. Once kingdoms started to emerge they started fighting each other over resources, land, religion and out of pure hatred. As economics became more and more significant in politics, nations started to join forces and ally to protect economic interests. The colonial era was the last stage of this transformation from nations of people to nations of economies. The 19th century saw industrialization and a stronger focus on infrastructure and economics and Europe was relatively peaceful as a result. But as nations joined forces and created rival alliances, the relations broke down once again and Europe went to war. The interwar period was a time of isolation for most countries as they recovered from the devastation of the Great War and Influenza Pandemic as well as the Great Depression. Then came WWII, a war caused by the lack of closure after WWI and the rise of fascism and nationalism. WWII brought about the United Nations, but more importantly, the Marshall Plan. The Cold War brought tension to Europe and the World, but Western Europe recovered from war dramatically, creating some of the most vibrant economies in history. The European Ecomonic Community was formed and it further integrated the economies of Western Europe. The cold war ended and Eastern Europe began making the changes needed to join the European Union (the EEC evolved into the EU) and we've seen an unprecidented period of peace in Europe.
When two nations are economically reliant on each other, they cannot afford to dissolve relations. If Germany relies on Russian Oil, they surely wont go to war with Russia because they'd lose that supply and be at a huge disadvantage. As economies become more sophisticated the resources needed to survive increase. 1000 years ago all one needed to survive was a small shelter, some water and a little food. Now we need clothing, gas, energy, electricity, transportation, computers, pharmaceuticals and many other things that we use in modern metropolitan life. No one region can supply every material needed, so we need trade. The other thing that open global trade markets can do is keep an eye on the activities of various countries. If a nation is buying up Uranium and Plutonium, it's clear that they are engaging in some kind of nuclear research. Simply put, the international economic community can control nations from building up and being an aggressor by monitoring the commodities trade.
Investing in a nation is one thing, but investing in private corporations owned by ordinary people from that nation is totally different. Compare us giving money to Citgo (the state-run Gas company of Venezuela...for you Bostonians, I bet 50% of you didn't know Citgo was run indirectly by Hugo Chavez) to giving money to a young entrepeneur in Iran. Giving money to a large state-run entity just asks for corruption, that money will not go anywhere but the top. But giving money to that young entrepeneur in Tehran who wants to start a computer company creates a new ally who may well gain the kind of power private businessmen have in the US. Not only that, but helping the economy can only aid in secularization as religion and poverty tend to be intertwined.
I do believe that there is no progress with religion. Religion is a barrier to progress: The world is flat, god created animals as they are today, the Earth is the center of the universe, weather phenomena are "acts of god" and not a result of natural atmospheric processes. Religious nations stand in the way of peace too, as they have fanatical beliefs and see any opposition to those beliefs as heresy. A "spiritual" leader can urge his people to do most anything in the name of a "god". The wealthier they get, the less god will influence their lives (in general, there are ALWAYS exceptions). With the wealth that would come from investment, there would be improved schools. The more quality education available to the people, the less of a role god will play in society. I envision a world where spirituality is a private matter, religion is extinct and the peoples of the world are able to coexist without religious conflict. We're already seeing this happen in Europe: 17th century (among many...) saw wars between factions of Catholics, protestants and persecution of Jews (well, that's every century...). Now we are seeing less and less conflict between religious groups, even the IRA has become tamer.
Imagine if a new tourist industry was developed in Iran's most hard-line cities, would they remain hostile for long? Sure, tourists are annoying (live in New Orleans, San Diego, San Francisco for 21 of your years and you'll agree...) but they also drop tons of money into society. Look at Las Vegas. It used to be a desert haven for crime and a place to disappear. The casinos were all run by murderous criminals, but too much money started to flow into Vegas and it became more and more business-like. Now it's a metroplis with falling crime rates and the Mafia has basically none of its former influence over the casinos. Steve Wynn replaced Bugsy Seigel and the Italian/Jewish mafia presence. So why can't we do the same thing in Tehran? I suggest that we build a massive MGM-Grand sized mega-resort in Tehran and watch it help to transform things. Maybe, just maybe, that will help to avert the coming holy war.
First lets go through some history...Europe was a constant battleground for centuries. The Romans conquered, then the Huns, Goths, Moors, etc. took their turn. Once kingdoms started to emerge they started fighting each other over resources, land, religion and out of pure hatred. As economics became more and more significant in politics, nations started to join forces and ally to protect economic interests. The colonial era was the last stage of this transformation from nations of people to nations of economies. The 19th century saw industrialization and a stronger focus on infrastructure and economics and Europe was relatively peaceful as a result. But as nations joined forces and created rival alliances, the relations broke down once again and Europe went to war. The interwar period was a time of isolation for most countries as they recovered from the devastation of the Great War and Influenza Pandemic as well as the Great Depression. Then came WWII, a war caused by the lack of closure after WWI and the rise of fascism and nationalism. WWII brought about the United Nations, but more importantly, the Marshall Plan. The Cold War brought tension to Europe and the World, but Western Europe recovered from war dramatically, creating some of the most vibrant economies in history. The European Ecomonic Community was formed and it further integrated the economies of Western Europe. The cold war ended and Eastern Europe began making the changes needed to join the European Union (the EEC evolved into the EU) and we've seen an unprecidented period of peace in Europe.
When two nations are economically reliant on each other, they cannot afford to dissolve relations. If Germany relies on Russian Oil, they surely wont go to war with Russia because they'd lose that supply and be at a huge disadvantage. As economies become more sophisticated the resources needed to survive increase. 1000 years ago all one needed to survive was a small shelter, some water and a little food. Now we need clothing, gas, energy, electricity, transportation, computers, pharmaceuticals and many other things that we use in modern metropolitan life. No one region can supply every material needed, so we need trade. The other thing that open global trade markets can do is keep an eye on the activities of various countries. If a nation is buying up Uranium and Plutonium, it's clear that they are engaging in some kind of nuclear research. Simply put, the international economic community can control nations from building up and being an aggressor by monitoring the commodities trade.
Investing in a nation is one thing, but investing in private corporations owned by ordinary people from that nation is totally different. Compare us giving money to Citgo (the state-run Gas company of Venezuela...for you Bostonians, I bet 50% of you didn't know Citgo was run indirectly by Hugo Chavez) to giving money to a young entrepeneur in Iran. Giving money to a large state-run entity just asks for corruption, that money will not go anywhere but the top. But giving money to that young entrepeneur in Tehran who wants to start a computer company creates a new ally who may well gain the kind of power private businessmen have in the US. Not only that, but helping the economy can only aid in secularization as religion and poverty tend to be intertwined.
I do believe that there is no progress with religion. Religion is a barrier to progress: The world is flat, god created animals as they are today, the Earth is the center of the universe, weather phenomena are "acts of god" and not a result of natural atmospheric processes. Religious nations stand in the way of peace too, as they have fanatical beliefs and see any opposition to those beliefs as heresy. A "spiritual" leader can urge his people to do most anything in the name of a "god". The wealthier they get, the less god will influence their lives (in general, there are ALWAYS exceptions). With the wealth that would come from investment, there would be improved schools. The more quality education available to the people, the less of a role god will play in society. I envision a world where spirituality is a private matter, religion is extinct and the peoples of the world are able to coexist without religious conflict. We're already seeing this happen in Europe: 17th century (among many...) saw wars between factions of Catholics, protestants and persecution of Jews (well, that's every century...). Now we are seeing less and less conflict between religious groups, even the IRA has become tamer.
Imagine if a new tourist industry was developed in Iran's most hard-line cities, would they remain hostile for long? Sure, tourists are annoying (live in New Orleans, San Diego, San Francisco for 21 of your years and you'll agree...) but they also drop tons of money into society. Look at Las Vegas. It used to be a desert haven for crime and a place to disappear. The casinos were all run by murderous criminals, but too much money started to flow into Vegas and it became more and more business-like. Now it's a metroplis with falling crime rates and the Mafia has basically none of its former influence over the casinos. Steve Wynn replaced Bugsy Seigel and the Italian/Jewish mafia presence. So why can't we do the same thing in Tehran? I suggest that we build a massive MGM-Grand sized mega-resort in Tehran and watch it help to transform things. Maybe, just maybe, that will help to avert the coming holy war.
posted by Dan Pasternack at 4:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home