Germanic vs Latino - Economic strength?

[^ lynx ^]

Hong-Kong and Singapore are doing great in economical terms because they are capting a lot of foreign capitals, their taxes are very low... they are almost little fiscal paradises. And that has nothing to do with their native cultural heritage.

Bringing out these examples to ignore the vast majority of british ex-colonies in Africa and Asia is plain pathetic.

Greetings.

Edit: Japan and South-Korea were never part of the British Empire. Let's focus on the subject, Lebrok.

 

[Carlitos]

Let's see, until the decline of the Spanish empire ports and South American cities were better than any English colony. If this discussion was at the time you keep the arguments would not work, focus on the present as if there had never been and never was to produce the future. One can not believe than referring only to the current space of the present.

There are different ways of doing things, the rapid carrying out the extermination, will that is the quickest way for the territory populated by settlers prosper before?, It may be so, do not know, but it certainly is the most horrible to do and I do not indicate racial superiority over the natives exterminators, is a method, albeit horrible, so if the other method is to strip of their native culture, assimilate them, cross them and the results prosperity arrive later due to the slowdown associated with this other method, as well as the expected coming when we will also get questions.

 

[LeBrok]

Weel, here you have on poverty in Singapore :

"As of 2009 Spain ranks 14 in HDI , Singapore ranks 23. "

Poverty in Singapore :

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/poverty-in-singapore

http://sg.theasianparent.com/articles/poverty_in_singapore

"A 77-year-old toilet cleaner was on his way home around midnight after work. He couldn't afford the fare for a bus ride and had to walk home. He was hit and killed by a car."

So you didn't find any anecdotal poverty stories from Spain?

please, try comparing apples to apples.

The point was to show that Singapore is on comparable development level to the Europe, even though they are native people to the region, with some colonialist past.
And I wouldn't brag about Spain at 14 place. With 20% unemployment and austerity measures for years, it will tumble.

 

[LeBrok]

Hong-Kong and Singapore are doing great in economical terms because they are capting a lot of foreign capitals, their taxes are very low... they are almost little fiscal paradises. And that has nothing to do with their native cultural heritage.

Bringing out these examples to ignore the vast majority of british ex-colonies in Africa and Asia is plain pathetic.

Greetings.

Edit: Japan and South-Korea were never part of the British Empire. Let's focus on the subject, Lebrok.

Why they became special places for capital?
Same way Ireland did, and caught up to the rest of the west.

There were British colonies with European majorities, with different Asian majorities and African majorities. Some are successful, some are not, lets analyze them. Not ignoring anything.

Japan and South Korea shows that there are Asian countries successful without much of west business and money, (some western knowledge was needed to kick start), there rest was their own doing. The point was that success of Hong Kong and Singapore is mostly not related to British Empire.

Canada, USA, Australia is a different story. Success is based mostly in western heritage, knowledge, and population in capitalistic environment.

And there is Africa. Well, British Empire couldn't help much there, sadly.

 

[^ lynx ^]

Why they became special places for capital?
Same way Ireland did, and caught up to the rest of the west.

Because they have very low taxes and due to it, a very strong foreign investments ... how many times do I have to repeat myself? And by the way, Ireland is right now in a big s*it with their public deficit due to their taxes policies and during the British rule and initial independence, Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe and experienced high emigration.

There were British colonies with European majorities, with different Asian majorities and African majorities. Some are successful, some are not, lets analyze them. Not ignoring anything.

That's what I am doing. The only british ex-colonies with no majority of european population that are succesfull are those little places like Hong-Kong and Singapore. And I have already explained the reasons for their success.

Japan and South Korea shows that there are Asian countries successful without much of west business and money, (some western knowledge was needed to kick start), there rest was their own doing.

Good for them. I never suggested that the "european way" were the ONLY to be successfull in business... and again, Japan and Korea weren't part of the british empire.

Canada, USA, Australia is a different story. Success is based mostly in western heritage, knowledge, and population in capitalistic environment.

And there is Africa.

Agree.

 

[Wilhelm]

Hong-Kong and Singapore are special countries. First of all, they are City-States, not big countries with 40+ millions of people. Second, they are close to being fiscal paradises, due to being city-states their economies are based mostly on foreign investments hence the low-tax rates...

 

[Aristander]

Wilhelm, you are entirely correct in your discription of Hong-Kong and Singapore they are City-States, designed for economic expansion and investment by foreign investors.

 

[LeBrok]

Wait a moment guys, Singapore is 5 million people, Hong Kong is 7 million. These are sizes of many European countries. They are not only financial centres, but also production centres. Many companies started there, now production moved to China and India because Hong Kong and Singapore are now developed countries, and labour is expensive.
The point is fare east countries can make an use of western economy style, regardless if their past is connected to colonial powers.

The way I see it is that somehow Africa cannot figure it out, and Latin America is in the middle of the way (well there are disproportions in Latin America from Uruguay to Peru, we could discus it too). Besides many of these countries are independent now for hundred, others for 60 years. I just need a better explanation why some countries/people are efficient using western education, science and economy, and some can't even make a dent.
If some countries would say, "we are fine what we have or haven't, we don't care for western ways and goods." I could understand that and leave them alone. However all of them say that they want to be at western/developed level and they want same goods we have, and they do steps toward this direction for years. Now, I'm just curious why some of these countries figured it out and caught to the west in 30-50 years, and some are as poor as before.
If we saw a melange of countries on every continent at different stage of development, we could blame it on wrong politics, colonialism, bad luck. I can see that some ethnic groups or even races doing fine with science and economy and growing fast. Some especially in Sub Saharan Africa, are stuck in poverty. And it doesn't matter what colony it was. There is not even one example to prove otherwise. I still wish them well.

 

[Carlitos]

The current success has been the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic or what you call, as did the outcome of things went better than the model followed by Spain and its colonies and with itself, however, and despite all the South American countries Spain have made a great effort and have managed to recover somewhat. In many things today is rethinking humanity, it seems that the world order established so far played a close and a new cycle stranger came to the door, to date, and now you can not use the old systems of slavery, submission because the first is man, mankind. So if I show that today the former British colonies are more developed economically than they were Spanish colonies is no racial issue, if not wise decisions served then and now as the world order created no longer work, so if someone believes in racial superiority should think that if it were true that race or ethnicity would have been higher before, now and then about the past is clear that at times were few, sometimes others who dominated the world or part of their world, now we know what is available and in the future will be, which if true, at least I think, is that no one has repeated so far.

 

[^ lynx ^]

I'm going to quote myself AGAIN:

Because they have very low taxes and due to it, a very strong foreign investments ... how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Greetings.

 

[^ lynx ^]

Just a small example:

EU regulation drives hedge funds to Asia

On May 11, 2010, in Banking & Finance, Economy, General News, Tax Law, by salim.ali

The EU’s proposal to impose stricter hedge fund regulations is leading to an exodus of hedge fund managers to Asian financial centers such as Hong Kong and Singapore.

Traditionally, the European Union has been the heart of the burgeoning hedge fund industry. However, the aftermath of the global financial crisis has brought the hedge fund industry under the spotlight of lawmakers, especially the EU. As a result Europe is proposing to tighten the regulatory regime of its hedge fund industry by a) limiting hedge funds’ borrowing, b) imposing a registration requirement for funds with more than US$134million under management, and c) imposing limits on pay, among other regulations. While France and Germany are in favor of the proposed legislation, Britain (currently home to 80% of Europe’s hedge funds) claims that the proposal could be a major blow to its financial services industry.

Uncertainty over the EU draft legislation is justifiable considering that some of the industry’s major players such as Fortress, Algebris Investments, GLG, and Soros Fund Management are already contemplating a move to Hong Kong or Singapore. According to Christopher Fawcett – a senior partner of Fauchier Partners, a fund-of-hedge-funds firm,

“Hong Kong and Singapore have attractive tax rates and have avoided excessive regulation. To the extent that their investment strategy allows it, the attractions of Hong Kong and Singapore have grown.”

Singapore and Hong Kong’s low tax rates and light regulatory regime is drawing the attention of hedge funds world-wide. For instance, Hong Kong’s tax rates are the lowest in Asia and one of the lowest in the world. The corporate income tax rate is a flat 16.5% on assessable profits. Moreover, Hong Kong’s territorial system of taxation does not tax foreign sourced income or profits. Hedge fund investors stand to benefit as there is no dividend tax, no capital gains tax, no withholding tax on dividends or interest in Hong Kong. After Hong Kong, Singapore’s hedge fund industry is the second largest in Asia, predominantly due to its light regulatory regime including licensing exemptions and tax incentives for certain fund managers. For instance, hedge fund managers with less than US$183million and with less than 30 qualified investors are exempt from holding a Capital Markets Services License, which is otherwise required in order to conduct fund management and financial related activities in Singapore. Singapore’s tax system and industry-specific tax incentives are additional attractions for hedge fund managers.

A low tax and light regulatory environment coupled with the ease of Hong Kong company setup and Singapore company formation, makes Asia an attractive destination for the relocation of hedge funds.

Here is a Bloomberg news report on the EU’s hedge fund clampdown.

http://blog.guidemehongkong.com/banking-finance/b680-eu-regulation-drives-hedge-funds-to-asia

Now, let's keep ignoring the others british ex-colonies in Asia, Middle East and Africa.

Greetings.

 

[bud]

Now, let's keep ignoring the others british ex-colonies in Asia, Middle East and Africa.

Think we already established the difference in those colonies to the ones that are successful. eg Migrational colonies compared to occupying. Different in their purpose.

 

[LeBrok]

I'm going to quote myself AGAIN:



Greetings.

Many countries did it at the beginning to kick start their economies. On top of it you need a peaceful country, educated population and smart government. Otherwise business won't come.
To build something like Singapore and Honk Kong you need trillions of dollars and not billion of foreign investments. It means that local people knew how to build on it and reinvest, and produce. The only difference is that these two countries didn't overspend and didn't get into huge debt, like Ireland and many European countries, USA too.
That's why there is no recession there now and they're growing strong. If you think they did an easy trick to get prosperous with low taxes for businesses, then what's stopping many other countries doing that? Does this take a genius?
I have to repeat myself too. Our prosperity is based on businesses. Without business and production of goods we wouldn't even had an iron axe, not mentioning other things. Where would you live? Only in caves, because it takes an axe to build a simple wooden house. That's how important business is.
Overtaxing businesses is like shooting yourself in a leg. There is only one prosperous way. Lower taxes for business, draw capital and production. It will make everybody employed and making good living. Then government will collect enough income tax/personal tax from employed to run successful country. This is to conclude that people will elect smart government.
So Lynx, it really shows how smart the locals in Hong Kong and Singapore are. They figured out how to draw business and money in and build on it.
I was going to ask you how big is the business tax in Spain, but I won't.

 

[LeBrok]

Think we already established the difference in those colonies to the ones that are successful. eg Migrational colonies compared to occupying. Different in their purpose.

Hi Bud
There are also difference between continents how successful former colonies will be, even though the Europeans are not majority in them, or barely any.

I can see that East Asians can easily build successful countries and economies based on Western examples. They don't even need to be former colonies.

In Americas one can see the difference between countries with majority Europeans, to majority natives. One extreme is Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, the other Nicaragua and Paraguay.
The poorest is Haiti, interesting case as vast majority are Africans.

And we have Africa. One can't even blame colonialism anymore, 50-60 years after independence in most of countries there is very little progress.

Anyone have explanation for this?

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

Having spent almost one and a half years in Tanzania i'm just planing to open a new thread on this issue soon. There are quite some things I can tell, as soon as I have the time.

 

[Carlitos]

And we have Africa. One can't even blame colonialism anymore, 50-60 years after independence in most of countries there is very little progress.

Anyone have explanation for this?

They may have to see how the religion they profess affect their livelihoods.