[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[classical_hero]

How many displaced Bangledeshis is a green Greenland worth?

Hundreds of thousands. [wiki]1876 Bangladesh cyclone[/wiki] Thousands have died in the past from cyclones and the like and thousands more will die in Bangladesh while it's infrastructure is so poor since it is poor. It can't afford the modern levies that can save a lot of those lives, but never mind their history of massive death either. [wiki]List_of_Bangladesh_tropical_cyclones[/wiki]

 

[El_Machinae]

Hundreds of thousands. [wiki]1876 Bangladesh cyclone[/wiki] Thousands have died in the past from cyclones and the like and thousands more will die in Bangladesh while it's infrastructure is so poor since it is poor. It can't afford the modern levies that can save a lot of those lives, but never mind their history of massive death either. [wiki]List_of_Bangladesh_tropical_cyclones[/wiki]

That's not what I asked. I didn't ask how many dead Bangladeshis a non poor Bangladesh was worth. I asked how many displaced Bangladeshis a green Greenland was worth.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Distribution of results of the Matura (high school exit exam) in Poland in 2013. The minimum score to pass is 30%.

 

[dutchfire]

Is it a single exam, or are you allowed to retry? People just below the pass are most likely to retry, I suppose.

 

[Cutlass]

Or someone's cheating the results. Giving some of the marginal failers a couple extra points.

 

[Tee Kay]

There is certainly a mixed bag. But how many of those post-colonial countries are today developed, or even mostly so? There have been advances in many of them. There have been very limited advances in many others. And in others still, little to nothing.

Define developed. Do you think it realistic that British East Africa could rise to the level of today's South Korea in the time since 1962. How.

Also what Azale said.

 

[Cutlass]

Define developed. Do you think it realistic that British East Africa could rise to the level of today's South Korea in the time since 1962. How.

Also what Azale said.

You're overlooking the extent to which India's continuing problems are Indian born and bread problems. Rampant political corruption. The continued existence of peasantry and caste. High barriers to entry to new firms which allows crappy firms to continue to have market share. Very high illiteracy rates. None of these things are caused by an imperial overlord, and in any case that empire has been gone for more than half a century.

I'm not saying the Empire did anything positive for India. But there comes a point in the existence of any independent nation where they have to fix their own problems.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

But if the exiting empire doesn't leave strong institutions that serve the people...

And that's ignoring the divisions and arrangements encouraged by said empire to ensure easier adminstration of the colony.

 

[Cutlass]

It's been 50 years. At what point do you do you pass on blame to the people who have been running the show for 50 years?

I'm not trying to say anything good about colonialism or empire. But after 50 years I really don't see how the blame doesn't fall on all the people who came after the empire.

 

[nc-1701]

It's been 50 years. At what point do you do you pass on blame to the people who have been running the show for 50 years?

I'm not trying to say anything good about colonialism or empire. But after 50 years I really don't see how the blame doesn't fall on all the people who came after the empire.

A strong case could be made that the artificial borders drawn in much of the Middle East and Africa is still severely destabilizing. Also they aren't something that local governments can just 'fix'. but overall I'de tend to agree with you. Not that you should read too much into it, but they did become colonies because there original governments were too weak to remain sovereign. If colonialism neither set them back nor advanced them would you not expect them to still be far behind Europe?

 

[Cutlass]

A strong case could be made that the artificial borders drawn in much of the Middle East and Africa is still severely destabilizing. Also they aren't something that local governments can just 'fix'. but overall I'de tend to agree with you. Not that you should read too much into it, but they did become colonies because there original governments were too weak to remain sovereign. If colonialism neither set them back nor advanced them would you not expect them to still be far behind Europe?

I'm firmly of the opinion that most people who are poor, it is because their governments have chosen for them to be poor. The argument is strong for that, as I see it.

Now this can be rational on the part of those leaders. Because what they are doing is enriching themselves, or maximizing their own power and control.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

At what point do you do you pass on blame to the people who have been running the show for 50 years?

Considering that much ink has been spilled in efforts to answer that question, it seems the answer isn't a simple "it's the empire's fault!" or "it's the locals' fault!". And it's not like former powers have kept their hands completely off their previous possessions.

 

[Cutlass]

Considering that much ink has been spilled in efforts to answer that question, it seems the answer isn't a simple "it's the empire's fault!" or "it's the locals' fault!". And it's not like former powers have kept their hands completely off their previous possessions.

This is true. There's a theory in political science called the Iron Law of Oligarchy. What it suggests is that bad governments tend to be superseded by bad governments, if not even worst governments. Now nothing forces this to happen. It's just something that happens extremely commonly. It's hard to break out of it.

But that's really not India's problem. India has problems that are 100s if not 1000s of years older than British colonialism.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

And those problems weren't in any way affected by British colonialism? Again, you're trying to disregard contributions from one side, for whatever reason.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not disregarding them at all.

But it's been 50 years.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm not disregarding them at all.

But it's been 50 years.

67, actually. Independence was in 1947.

 

[Cutlass]

Even better

 

[metatron]

You're overlooking the extent to which India's continuing problems are Indian born and bread problems. Rampant political corruption. The continued existence of peasantry and caste.

But that's really not India's problem. India has problems that are 100s if not 1000s of years older than British colonialism.

Doesn't citing the caste system at least partially contradict you point?
With it neither being new nor all that Indian and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Not putting in th link for you per se.
Just, you know, before someone asks.
And we have to do a ww2-casualty-esque debate...

 

[Cutlass]

Doesn't citing the caste system at least partially contradict you point?
With it neither being new nor all that Indian and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

I don't know the origin of it. But it does predate the Empire, and it is part of the problem today.

 

[Takhisis]

Another problem with India is that the Brits conquered a whole (sub) continent with several peoples who speak different languages, have different religions, traditions and physical aspects, and then decided to bundle all of them together in one great union. India might actually benefit from a break-up.