Political Crossfire Forums

[Secondary Oak]

Is it population size? The more people you have the more powerful you are in wars, the more variety you have to manufacture things yourself instead of importing them.

Is it population diversity / hegemony? Does it help if everyone have the same religion? Or does it help if there's a lot of pluralism due to cultural and ethnic variety?

Is it natural resources? Like having more arable land / more minable materials / Oil / Trees.

Is it social habits? Such as better education system, higher morals, more personal responsibility. Does a more disciplined, lawful society help? Maybe the opposite, a society that is mostly concerned about personal liberty?

Is it good leadership? How important are charismatic leaders? Democracy? Lack of corruption? Making the right decisions? Are these negligible in the long run?

Is it neighboring countries? Like having oceans surrounding the country, having trading neighbors vs. hostile ones, having treaties with other powerful countries.

Is it the country's age and history? Having hundreds of years to develop infrastructure, common law, common habits.


I guess the answer is a combinations of many factors, including all of the above and a lot more - but I'd like to hear your opinion on what issues are more important. Or in other words:
What must a country do to become more successful?

When success, in this case, is represented by standard of living, overall happiness, personal freedom, peaceful society, national wealth, technological growth, international influence, etc etc.

[thundertaker]

Flexibility of mindset and a stable government underpinned by the rule of law are the most important things. Although other factors such as population size and resources are important.

Max Weber said that Protestant Christianity was an important factor to because of the attitudes it conveyed upon people........

[Secondary Oak]

thundertaker wrote: Flexibility of mindset and a stable government underpinned by the rule of law are the most important things. Although other factors such as population size and resources are important.
Yea, forgot to add that under the "leadership" part. Political stability goes a long way, imho.

[cap'n queasy]

Satisfied citizenry. A large amount of unsatisfied people shows a government is unsuccesful.

[Eonve]

Secondary Oak wrote: Is it population size? The more people you have the more powerful you are in wars, the more variety you have to manufacture things yourself instead of importing them.

population size does matter, but its value is not absolute. look at China and India. no one can say that they are the most powerful nations. yet, they have something like a third of the population of earth. i would say that while it is important, after a certain number, the size of the population becomes irrelevant and may even be an obstacle.

Quote: Is it population diversity / hegemony? Does it help if everyone have the same religion? Or does it help if there's a lot of pluralism due to cultural and ethnic variety?

first, i believe you meant homogeneity, not hegemony. as for the substance, i would say having homogenous population is better than having a more diverse population. heterogeneity is likely to produce a lot of tension and conflict in the society along the national and cultural lines which obviously would be an impediment on the society's development.

Quote: Is it natural resources? Like having more arable land / more minable materials / Oil / Trees.

this is an interesting one. i would contend that the value of this one depends on the social constructs/habits of the society. cause on one hand we have countries like Britain and Japan who have reached a very high level of success and development with very little natural resource. in a sense, that was one of the factors that triggered their expansion and development.

on the other hand we have a set of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Central Asian states, Russia. with all the preponderance of natural resources they have always been lagging behind others. one of the reasons for that might be that they had so many resources so as to make the development not a priority. they could take by numbers and abundance, rather than by quality and efficiency.

but then there are countries like the US, or Germany. compared to other states they had a lot of natural resources, and yet they have reached the high level of depelopment. that shows us the the abundance of natural resources is not a decisive factor in and of itself, but that there has to be another factor that determines how natural resources are going to influence the nation's development. i think that the social structures/habits is the most relevant one. a lot depends on the attitude that people have. i would say that Anglo-American tradition of economic liberalism gives both UK and US a predisposition towards effective use of natural resources. on the other hand, the absense of the strong economic theory in the Arab nations as well as the former USSR republics gives them a predisposition to be negligent and not to use their resources in the most efficient way available. etc.

Quote: Is it social habits? Such as better education system, higher morals, more personal responsibility. Does a more disciplined, lawful society help? Maybe the opposite, a society that is mostly concerned about personal liberty?

i kinda talked a little bit about it in the last few paragraphs. i would say that social habits definnitely influence the degree of success the nation can reach. but there is no absolute set of values that predetermines nation's success. as discussed above, economic liberalism has helped a lot both the UK and the US. but there are so many more social habits that allow for success. i think that the rule of law that we have inherited from Romans is a very helpful one. individual liberty can work both ways. it may give individuals more motivation to succeed and thus help the collective success of his nations. but a society that places an emphasis on collective identity of the people can be at least as successful as the individualist society (Rome, Japan, South East Asian countries).

Quote: Is it good leadership? How important are charismatic leaders? Democracy? Lack of corruption? Making the right decisions? Are these negligible in the long run?

leaders are important, but political systems are much more important in the long run. i cannot say a lot more at the present moment, but i think that democracy is one of the worst types of government to have. i think that the western countries have succeeded not because of democracy, but inspite of democracy. it rather inefficient in the short term and negligent for the long term consequences. but also i should not that there is no best political system. the best political system for a given nation depends on the social habits/beliefs of the people.

Quote: Is it neighboring countries? Like having oceans surrounding the country, having trading neighbors vs. hostile ones, having treaties with other powerful countries.

the value of this one varies over time. i would say that in times past geographical position could be a huge advantage (like Britain or the US). but now it is rather non-consequential. the only significant geographical factor is the access to the sea or an ocean. as for the neighboring ocuntries, i think that they are likely to influence both economy and political process, but it depends on the domestic government and economy. in the periods of stability and prosperity foreign can be rather minimal, but in the time of troubles it is likely to rise significantly.

Quote: Is it the country's age and history? Having hundreds of years to develop infrastructure, common law, common habits.

i would not say it matters. newcomers can be as good as old players, or even much better. it took UK and US centuries to develop and Asian countries did it in some 50 years. see what i mean?

[Secondary Oak]

Eonve wrote: population size does matter, but its value is not absolute. look at China and India. no one can say that they are the most powerful nations. yet, they have something like a third of the population of earth. i would say that while it is important, after a certain number, the size of the population becomes irrelevant and may even be an obstacle.
One can also say that there's a certain minimal threshold under which a country often gets more successful (Andorra, Vatican). I also think that a huge amount of population (like Russia, China or India) may not mean happiness and prosperity, but there's a certain amount of military strength it generates by default. It's true, though, that it may not affect the economy.


Quote: first, i believe you meant homogeneity, not hegemony.
Of course... my bad, English is not my native.

Good post, and in most of your points I agree. You especially convinced me that social habits and rule of law is a much greater factor than, say, natural resources or sheer size. I also agree that population homogeneity is beneficial.
I disagree on the importance of leadership, though.

About neighboring nations - hostile neighbors can induce changes internally as well - either positive (like the population forsaking inner struggles to unite against a common foe) or negative (like the government using it as a ruse to become more and more totalitarian) - and I do believe sometimes such changes can have a profound effect.
The same also applies to political leadership - the choice to participate in a foreign war, for example, can drastically influence a country's international standing. Legislating certain laws can sometimes also go a long way (like racist or anti-racist laws, laws regarding economics and unions, etc)

[Canada_Rocks]

Secondary oak you just answered your own question..It's all the above. oh..plus the golden rule, Political relation. Whats good of having a successful counrty when someone is going to come and take it away.
I'm not talking army, Canada is a thriving nation and it' army consists of me waving a stick. International relations and the ability to resolve disputes. Not bush. sorry I couldnt resist. A bit more passicve than agressive.
Be seen not heard.

[Secondary Oak]

Canada_rocks wrote: Secondary oak you just answered your own question..It's all the above.
Yes, it's everything, but some things are obviously more important than others, and some things I've surely forgotten.

Quote: oh..plus the golden rule, Political relation. Whats good of having a successful counrty when someone is going to come and take it away.
I'm not talking army, Canada is a thriving nation and it' army consists of me waving a stick. International relations and the ability to resolve disputes. Not bush. sorry I couldnt resist. A bit more passicve than agressive.
Be seen not heard.
I liked the "Not bush. sorry I couldnt resist." part :)

[Eonve]

Secondary Oak wrote:
One can also say that there's a certain minimal threshold under which a country often gets more successful (Andorra, Vatican).

that's true. but i did not mention it since i considered it to be self-evident.

Quote: I also think that a huge amount of population (like Russia, China or India) may not mean happiness and prosperity, but there's a certain amount of military strength it generates by default. It's true, though, that it may not affect the economy.

it is true that bigger population gives you some advantages, but then again, i think that social constrcuts play a much bigger role. you can fight a war like US, using modern technologies and weapons or you can fight like Russia using sheer manpower. sometimes it may not make a difference, but i would bet my money on US.


Quote: Quote: first, i believe you meant homogeneity, not hegemony.
Of course... my bad, English is not my native.

just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing.

Quote: Good post, and in most of your points I agree. You especially convinced me that social habits and rule of law is a much greater factor than, say, natural resources or sheer size. I also agree that population homogeneity is beneficial.

thank you. it is so nice to be in agreement with someone at least once. this is something that does not happen often around here.

Quote: I disagree on the importance of leadership, though.

could you please clarify what exactly you are disagreeing with cause i think i made couple of different points under that section.

Quote: About neighboring nations - hostile neighbors can induce changes internally as well - either positive (like the population forsaking inner struggles to unite against a common foe) or negative (like the government using it as a ruse to become more and more totalitarian) - and I do believe sometimes such changes can have a profound effect.

this is true, but i would say that it still depends on the country's domestic situation. if the government is stable and is generally doing a good job, neighboring countries have much less opportunity to influence political process. neighbors become highly consequential in times of turmoil though. like in Iraq now - the situation might not improve unless the US reaches and agreement with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. they have a tremendous impact on the current situation in the country and are likely to continue to have it until the Iraqi society is stable and self-sufficient.

Quote: The same also applies to political leadership - the choice to participate in a foreign war, for example, can drastically influence a country's international standing. Legislating certain laws can sometimes also go a long way (like racist or anti-racist laws, laws regarding economics and unions, etc)

this is a good point. but i would contend that while it is leaders choice, political system still influences the way he is going to act. different types of political/social system produce different types of societal pressures and give an incentive to act in a different way. for instance, in a monarchichal system of governance there is very little that can discourage a ruler from going into war - he is the sovereign of the country and may do as he pleases. while in democracy, if a president decides to go into war he has to obtain approval from Congress, insure the popular support, low casualties, long term strategy spelling out how long the war is going to go, what the goal is, how it is going to end and what the country and the people are going to get from it. in other words president has a lot of work to do to sell the war at home before he can start in abroad.

[zelda]

when i think of a successful nation, i immediately think of switzerland.there people are happy with their lives and with what they have.

[Eonve]

zelda wrote: when i think of a successful nation, i immediately think of switzerland.there people are happy with their lives and with what they have.

thank you, zelda, for contributing your great insight to our conversation. for this i will forever be indebted to you.

[zelda]

oh, for crying out loud, Eonve, lighten up a bit!!!
why does everything has to be so serious and deep? i just said i thought switzerland was a successful nation and since this is not your thread, i'm allowed to post here. or should i stop posting in every thread you post also?

[ET Brit]

zelda wrote: oh, for crying out loud, Eonve, lighten up a bit!!!
why does everything has to be so serious and deep? i just said i thought switzerland was a successful nation and since this is not your thread, i'm allowed to post here. or should i stop posting in every thread you post also?

What is your definition of successful in this instance, Zelda? Have you visited Switzerland?

[thundertaker]

I suppose that ultimately, the standard of living for a nation's citizens is what counts for a nation to be successfull. A powerful nation largely benefits the political elites of those countries, not the common people.
In which case, I'd say the Scandanavian countries are the most succesful ones.......

[Eonve]

zelda wrote: oh, for crying out loud, Eonve, lighten up a bit!!!
why does everything has to be so serious and deep? i just said i thought switzerland was a successful nation and since this is not your thread, i'm allowed to post here. or should i stop posting in every thread you post also?

what? i just said something good about you and your post and you start attacking me! may it is you who should lighten up a bit, huh? and you can post wherever you want, like i care if you post or not...

thundertaker wrote: I suppose that ultimately, the standard of living for a nation's citizens is what counts for a nation to be successfull. A powerful nation largely benefits the political elites of those countries, not the common people.
In which case, I'd say the Scandanavian countries are the most succesful ones.......

well, lets make a list of successful nations (in no particular order) :

1. Luxemburg
2. Sweden
3. Norway
4. Finland
5. Monaco
6. Lichtenstein
7. Vatican
8. Switzerland

this is an impressive list, isn't it? the great and the mighty ones of our world, aren't they? standard of living is a bad indicator if you want to measure nation's success. there is so much more to success than welfare programs, making cheese and hiding dictators' money.

[thundertaker]

Eonve wrote:

thundertaker wrote: I suppose that ultimately, the standard of living for a nation's citizens is what counts for a nation to be successfull. A powerful nation largely benefits the political elites of those countries, not the common people.
In which case, I'd say the Scandanavian countries are the most succesful ones.......

well, lets make a list of successful nations (in no particular order) :

1. Luxemburg
2. Sweden
3. Norway
4. Finland
5. Monaco
6. Lichtenstein
7. Vatican
8. Switzerland

this is an impressive list, isn't it? the great and the mighty ones of our world, aren't they? standard of living is a bad indicator if you want to measure nation's success. there is so much more to success than welfare programs, making cheese and hiding dictators' money.

Well, the citizens of those countries are proseperous and contented are they not? As I said, being a powerful nation with economic and/or military clout benefits only the political elites of those countries. I'm sure being the leader of the People's Republic of China rules. Not so much so if you are one of it's ordinary citizens......

[Secondary Oak]

thundertaker wrote: I suppose that ultimately, the standard of living for a nation's citizens is what counts for a nation to be successful.
It's one of the biggest, yes. But I think the security and technological achievements are also very high on the list.

[thundertaker]

Those European countries mentioned are pretty secure, They're not living in fear of Islamic extremism, invasion (except maybe Finland hypothetically) or other kinds of terrorism within their borders. As for technical achievement, well, generally it's the individual engineers and inventors and/or the companies that come up with them that profit from new innovations, which are then released for worldwide consumption.....

[Secondary Oak]

thundertaker wrote: Those European countries mentioned are pretty secure, They're not living in fear of Islamic extremism, invasion (except maybe Finland hypothetically) or other kinds of terrorism within their borders.
I'm was not only referring to military security, but to security in general: political stability, for example.

Quote: As for technical achievement, well, generally it's the individual engineers and inventors and/or the companies that come up with them that profit from new innovations, which are then released for worldwide consumption.....
I don't know about other countries, but I assume they have a system similar to Israel's, in which the country helps fund non-profit scientific institutes.

[thundertaker]

Secondary Oak wrote:
I'm was not only referring to military security, but to security in general: political stability, for example.

Well, countries with a high standard of living and a contented population are hardly likely to fall into civil unrest and revolution are they?

Quote:
I don't know about other countries, but I assume they have a system similar to Israel's, in which the country helps fund non-profit scientific institutes.

Don't know about that, does the Israeli government take a slice of the royalties or something?