You are supposed to use the money to build roads, schools, pay the staff, etc... But you put half of money in your own pocket and share with your relatives.
You let foreigners take all resources because you get some money from investors. You don't care about helping people
You collect the tax but put inside your own pocket, not national treasury.
By "You" i mean Lao public officials from top down
You are supposed to use the money to build roads, schools, pay the staff, etc... But you put half of money in your own pocket and share with your relatives.
You let foreigners take all resources because you get some money from investors. You don't care about helping people
You collect the tax but put inside your own pocket, not national treasury.
By "You" i mean Lao public officials from top down
If Chair man Mao still rules the China, China is still deffinitely a close door country to the outside world, Thank you Mr Deng for your economic reforms...
You have no ideas what you are talking about. The main reason why Laos is poor is because we have corrupt government. Economic theory is all bullshiit.
You have no ideas what you are talking about. The main reason why Laos is poor is because we have corrupt government. Economic theory is all bullshiit.
You have no ideas what you are talking about. The main reason why Laos is poor is because we have corrupt government. Economic theory is all bullshiit.
Of course, it will not make Laos become developed over night... why you use such a stupid argument?
How can you expect a country to develop if the government ignore the importance of education and infrastructure?
What part of your brain come up with the ideas that by building more schools and improving the road conditions will not help develop Laos?
Your argument doesn't make sense. You are not living in Laos, you don't know how bad the government is corrupted. So stop show off your stupidity if you don't know
what's the consequence of corruption.
Corruption is not just about public officials taking public money.. but it involves everything.... e.g tax evasion, ....
Of course, it will not make Laos become developed over night... why you use such a stupid argument?
How can you expect a country to develop if the government ignore the importance of education and infrastructure?
What part of your brain come up with the ideas that by building more schools and improving the road conditions will not help develop Laos?
Your argument doesn't make sense. You are not living in Laos, you don't know how bad the government is corrupted. So stop show off your stupidity if you don't know
what's the consequence of corruption.
Corruption is not just about public officials taking public money.. but it involves everything.... e.g tax evasion, ....
Your rebuttal above is a fallacy(strawman fallcy to be more specific --> if you don't know what it is, google it.)
I have never said that the development of the education and infrastructure is not important. My point here is that you should not look at the cause of the problem only in one aspect.
I know exactly how bad the corruptions both public and private are going on in Laos since I am also the one who are doing business in Laos and need to deal with many officers.
The problems are too big and too complex to generalize it as a result of the corruptions.
Even if there is no corruption exist at all in the country, I still do not believe that Laos would be developed that much due to the low population and too much government intervention in the market.
To be more precise in my point, Laos do need to move towards more capitalism and free market rather than set their mind upon the old socialist system led by the corrupted government.
It is fortunate for Lao people that the current trend is going to that way.
Your rebuttal above is a fallacy(strawman fallcy to be more specific --> if you don't know what it is, google it.)
I have never said that the development of the education and infrastructure is not important. My point here is that you should not look at the cause of the problem only in one aspect.
I know exactly how bad the corruptions both public and private are going on in Laos since I am also the one who are doing business in Laos and need to deal with many officers.
The problems are too big and too complex to generalize it as a result of the corruptions.
Even if there is no corruption exist at all in the country, I still do not believe that Laos would be developed that much due to the low population and too much government intervention in the market.
Don't try to be smart @ss to show off your stupidity by telling other people to google the word you said --> i don't give a shiit about it so no thanks.
Look at your comment ( I suppose you are the same idiot who show off his stupidity )
Do know even know basic economics at all? Have you heard of the Keynes multiplier effects ( Fiscal multiplier effects )? I am not going to ask you to google it but if you do you will understand why I said you don't know what you are talking about.
To give you some ideas, when government spends money ---> it helps create jobs and increase demands for goods and services from private sectors--> which in turn stimulates the economy.
Now imagine that every year the government fails to spend money that is supposed to ( say only spend 50% and public officials take 50%) this will have serious impact on growth.
Those are just small proportion of actual public money that are discovered, which in the past we never knew how much.
Another reason why we are poor is because our education system is bad, way way worse than Thailand or even Cambodia... and you know that education is good for economic development? a person who has high education is more likely to have higher income, low education --> low income or poor. Average years of schooling of Lao people is 5 years.
and why is this the case? it is because government is corrupt. They don't use money that is supposed to improve education system in Laos
The problem is not too big and too complex as you said. It is simple to understand. I guess you never read any academic paper about corruption and development.
Why don't you take some time off this topic to boost your brain a little
Your rebuttal above is a fallacy(strawman fallcy to be more specific --> if you don't know what it is, google it.)
I have never said that the development of the education and infrastructure is not important. My point here is that you should not look at the cause of the problem only in one aspect.
I know exactly how bad the corruptions both public and private are going on in Laos since I am also the one who are doing business in Laos and need to deal with many officers.
The problems are too big and too complex to generalize it as a result of the corruptions.
Even if there is no corruption exist at all in the country, I still do not believe that Laos would be developed that much due to the low population and too much government intervention in the market.
Don't try to be smart @ss to show off your stupidity by telling other people to google the word you said --> i don't give a shiit about it so no thanks.
Look at your comment ( I suppose you are the same idiot who show off his stupidity )
Do know even know basic economics at all? Have you heard of the Keynes multiplier effects ( Fiscal multiplier effects )? I am not going to ask you to google it but if you do you will understand why I said you don't know what you are talking about.
To give you some ideas, when government spends money ---> it helps create jobs and increase demands for goods and services from private sectors--> which in turn stimulates the economy.
Now imagine that every year the government fails to spend money that is supposed to ( say only spend 50% and public officials take 50%) this will have serious impact on growth.
Those are just small proportion of actual public money that are discovered, which in the past we never knew how much.
Another reason why we are poor is because our education system is bad, way way worse than Thailand or even Cambodia... and you know that education is good for economic development? a person who has high education is more likely to have higher income, low education --> low income or poor. Average years of schooling of Lao people is 5 years.
and why is this the case? it is because government is corrupt. They don't use money that is supposed to improve education system in Laos
The problem is not too big and too complex as you said. It is simple to understand. I guess you never read any academic paper about corruption and development.
Why don't you take some time off this topic to boost your brain a little
I think you misunderstand my point and you misunderstand the concept of economic development.
I do not argue that there will be not be a multiple effect in the government spending.
The multiplier for the G in the equation will obviously increase the total GDP of the country and hence the overall country is better off.
However, what I meant was that, even if you use that money to spend more on road and infrastructure but do not care about increasing the technology of production, then it would be pointless for economic development since you cannot simply rely on the government budget deficit to remain "G" that large in the equation to increase your GDP.
I am not sure how normally you discuss the academic issue in your econ class. But I would let you know that in the top university of the world, they would not do like you did. They will not actually condemn others or implicitly use the hate speech in their arguments. The simple reasoning, and pure use of logical argument would only be accepted in that kind of school.
One example needed to be stressed in this discussion is that the current government budget crisis was partly derived from the "too much G ".
Government have been spending too much on the infrastructural projects that provide "too long payback period" so they are facing the financial problem even though the GDP last year was spike to 8%.
You see, this is a very easy example to illustrate to you that if you rely too much on G, what is going to happen with your country.
However, what I meant was that, even if you use that money to spend more on road and infrastructure but do not care about increasing the technology of production, then it would be pointless for economic development since you cannot simply rely on the government budget deficit to remain "G" that large in the equation to increase your GDP.
Your argument at the very begging is that corruption is not really the cause of underdevelopment, which I strongly oppose this view.
How can we improve the technology of production when we have corrupt government?
With corrupt system, there are only certain group of incapable people running the country, as a result, these people will never be able to set the suitable policy or come up with good ideas of how to improve the education, labor productivity, technology. With severe corruption, how can we improve human capital and technology? Our PM didn't even complete primary school, our president got honorable doctoral degree from Vietnam.
Look at S. Korea, Japan, and SIngapore where corruption is close to nonexisitence ..see the difference?
One example needed to be stressed in this discussion is that the current government budget crisis was partly derived from the "too much G ".
Government have been spending too much on the infrastructural projects that provide "too long payback period" so they are facing the financial problem even though the GDP last year was spike to 8%.
You see, this is a very easy example to illustrate to you that if you rely too much on G, what is going to happen with your country.
So you are saying that the government officials should put the money that is supposed to rebuild the road in their own pocket?
I am not saying that we should just rely on G spending. To make it simple for you.
Let me give you example
You are the person in charge of building road A with budget of 100 million $. But you only spend 50 million and keep 50 million in your own pocket.
and the consequence is that the road is never completed, or slow progress, damage fast... do you see now?
However, what I meant was that, even if you use that money to spend more on road and infrastructure but do not care about increasing the technology of production, then it would be pointless for economic development since you cannot simply rely on the government budget deficit to remain "G" that large in the equation to increase your GDP.
Your argument at the very begging is that corruption is not really the cause of underdevelopment, which I strongly oppose this view.
How can we improve the technology of production when we have corrupt government?
With corrupt system, there are only certain group of incapable people running the country, as a result, these people will never be able to set the suitable policy or come up with good ideas of how to improve the education, labor productivity, technology. With severe corruption, how can we improve human capital and technology? Our PM didn't even complete primary school, our president got honorable doctoral degree from Vietnam.
Look at S. Korea, Japan, and SIngapore where corruption is close to nonexisitence ..see the difference?
It's so great that you gave me the examples of South Korea. You know what, President Chung Hee (the father of the current president) was considered a dictatorship and most corrupted in Korean history.
However, during his presidency, S. Korea had developed several industrial policies(the so-called Chaebol) that later led the country to be this successful.
Another case was to look at Malaysia during Mahathir Mohammad period, he was also accused of being corrupted but he also promoted several industries especially the heavy industry. And now they are becoming developed country in the next few years.
That's why, I believe that, the corruption issue is not the most important factors for the country to be developed. Or in other word, the zero-corruption is not the sufficient condition to make the the country prosper.
For the G issue, I understand what you are trying to say, but this is not what we are talking about.
We are debating only on the issue that whether or not corruption is the main factor disrupting the development of Laos. You say yes, and I say no. So your job is to come up with the reason why you think it's yes. other issues need not to be discussed since it's irrelevant to the topic.
You guy can talk about Lao you want it. “Why Laos isn’t developed?” I think Lao have one party government when they appoint somebody in charge of very departments they put their own people when those people corrupted Lao government give them the new position, and they are going to intent to do more corruption, then they can’t punish them because they own people.It has no independent watchdog to watch them, not unlikely China and Vietnam have the same systems of government, but China and Vietnam have reinforcement to punish corruption.As you can see that very of leaders of Lao government gets rich more than country and people by selling the country’s natural resources. But people and country are still being poor.If Lao have a right honesty leadership and Lao should develop by now because Lao has rich natural resource and low population.I don’t think Lao not yet, has a right leadership who will lead the country first and the people.Right now, the leaders of our country are fighting each other to get rich for themselves. You can talk about micro economy and macro economy you want, but it is not going to help Lao develop because it is leaderships.Until Lao government have remove all the crooker and re-arrangement new leaders that I will help so.