Should richer nations help poorer ones in their tertiary or secondary sector?

[Alpha]

Debates are no fun if everybody agrees with everybody. That is why I changed the title.

I hope there will be an opposing team and someone holding the balance on the extreme side. A real debate.  

So, which sector do you think is best?
Rule: There is no 50-50 option (no sitting on the fence ).

We want to know which sector is best for investment and why.

[$tyli$h Executive]

It depends on what "help" constitutes to. I think they should not help poorer nations directly. This is because poorer nations are often poor because they have corrupt Presidents who will eat all the aid they get from foreign nations.

However, real help can come through foreign investment especially in mining/drilling and agricultural sector.

[Chingoo]

I agree with Stylish. Sadly, none of the richer countries would help poorer countries simply out of goodwill, so obviously the best option is investment in different sectors of the country like educational, archaeological, tourism, mining, agriculture, industry, etc. That actually makes sense for both countries to be involved in and reduces chances of corrupt governments exploiting the money.

Richer countries, however, when intervene in the political field of life in a poor country--as we can see--has detrimental effects for the most part. It may pave way for corrupt governments to remain established in their positions and, at the same time, make it harder for NGOs and private sectors to get investment from the foreign powers, who may actually hold the manpower and potential to make something big for the poor country.

[Master_Key]

As said above to invest in different sectors. Considering mining and importing of raw products by richer countries. They can help out the most by making the technological advancement in the country from where they import products. Products like timber, silicon, and other materials widely found in developing countries or MEDCs and LEDCs. They can process these in the home country and import the final product with a value added. This act can actually harms HEDCs, their exports will be down. GDP may decline and more amount of money spent on importing goods.

Economist state that US is the strongest economy, China by 2015-2020, India by further half a decade/decade or so. This can be proven wrong as their only aspect is GDP. US's 95% of GDP is in debt, 14.3 trillion US Dollars are in debt with US owing china a massive amount. China is a developing country and still it has helped US. This may not be the case with bangladesh and other LEDCs, their NGOs are working very hard and all are on their track. Particularly, richer countries should help only when LEDCs are in need of that.

[Alpha]

I changed the title and redirected the debate to a more precise stand.
Now, you may choose yours.

[astarmathsandphysics]

helping poorer nations should take the form frankly of showing them how to make themselves attractive to investors. anything else creates pain.

[$tyli$h Executive]

Debates are no fun if everybody agrees with everybody. That is why I changed the title.

I hope there will be an opposing team and someone holding the balance on the extreme side. A real debate.  

So, which sector do you think is best?
Rule: There is no 50-50 option (no sitting on the fence ).

We want to know which sector is best for investment and why.

I think the primary sector is the most feasible for investment in a poor country. This is because people are usually less educated, but are already trained on primary sector (eg. fishing, farming, growing food etc). Less time is required for training the workforce. If a poor country opens door for primary investment, it is likely to find many multinational firms willing to invest.

[Master_Key]

I think the primary sector is the most feasible for investment in a poor country. This is because people are usually less educated, but are already trained on primary sector (eg. fishing, farming, growing food etc). Less time is required for training the workforce. If a poor country opens door for primary investment, it is likely to find many multinational firms willing to invest.

This is not always feasible. Farming, fishing or whichever you chose will not always be managed as sustainable resource. When people overfish, overfarm or do something out of the capacity of nature it always harms economy in long term benefits. Take an example of forests, they are also primary sector's investing area as logging. Selective logging if not practiced can lead to total deforestation and close doors for all investors in that country. Natural resources are finite. Laws and enforcements need to be created.
Mining is also primary sector, it will clear all the vegetation, if practiced overcast, if shaft-underground tunnels. They all will be destructive, mining has positive impact only on economy if world prices are higher, some mines may be shut down due to low prices. These creates fluctuations in employment also. Mining also needs training employees, unlike the above post said.

If richer countries invest in secondary sector there will not be any pressure from environmental organisations. It needs training but guarantees long term employment untill the sector is open. They close when raw materials decline as happened to automotive industries due to tsunami in Japan. Raw materials are cheaper than processed products, if secondary sector is focused it will be all hope and boon to the government to rise above their poverty or status of LEDCs. Tertiary sector is also vulnerable and depends on others as do other sectors. Processed products exported fetch more profit than raw materials which are obtained by vast destruction of nature.

Not on the fence- no 50-50.

[astarmathsandphysics]

Got to start somewhere, but some countries have nothing but desert, war and hungry people

[Alpha]

Dubai was built on desert.
South Africa was an apartheid state.
And India has been screaming hunger for decades.

[astarmathsandphysics]

In the new today one of the stories was that wars increase in El Nino years, when the is drought and famine. In those countries it is like rats fighting each other for the last grain of rice. What a nightmare vision it will be if countries start fighting each other for that years harvest.

[Alpha]

helping poorer nations should take the form frankly of showing them how to make themselves attractive to investors. anything else creates pain.

But showing them how to attract investors can hamper the progress of the 'teaching' countries. So, why would they do it anyway?

[astarmathsandphysics]

Investors make money for everyone. All the poor countries have to do is make themselves attractive for investors LIKE I TRY TO MAKE MY WEBSITE ATTRACTIVE TO STUDENTS.
When I say this I refer to all the notes I write and not my blog, which is a bit like me kicking everyone under the table.

[Alpha]

Lol Astar. 

Investors make money, true. But resources are scarce. Investment should be designed wisely, at the proper time, in the proper sector, for the proper future. Not in any dig-anywhere hole.

[astarmathsandphysics]

Every government has to make their country attractive to investors, but investment need not cost a lot of money to the individual. An individual can invest in themselves by reading or learning something.
Everyone who learns has a lingo to trade and the more they learn the more they can charge for it.