Teachers and Students > Debates

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

<< < (2/4) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: ~Alpha on August 04, 2011, 09:02:48 am ---Debates are no fun if everybody agrees with everybody. That is why I changed the title. :P

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 :P).

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

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: $tyli$h Executive on August 09, 2011, 06:54:33 am ---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.

--- End quote ---
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. :P

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page