True Colours wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:01pm:



So, what happened? What led to the closing of the Islamic mind?

Quote:


Quite the opposite, as it prompts you to consider what really matters in making a country "successful". These distant concepts greatly affect every "average citizen" in the world.

Quote:


Good start. Now tell us why. Then, tell us how this will look in 100 years time.

Quote:


The closure of the gates of ijtihad - a few centuries after Muhammed. However I think that is more of a symptom than a cause. They did achieve some wealth, but it was relative and not part of sustained growth. They achieved some economic advances by facilitating long distance trade, but they also put many brakes on it. In Arabia achieving a centralised state was itself a big step and yielded signifant economic gains compared to what existed previously. Unfortunately this was the first step of many that occured elsewhere, mainly in western Europe, and the actions of Muhammed resulted in the Arabs taking that first step and then not moving forward for 1400 years. Instead, they not only stagnated their own societies, but they exported this stagnating political and economic system to about half of what counted as the rich world at the time.

During the "golden age" many of the great scientists were more practical engineering types, and were at the mercy of the decrees of religious leaders. Many suffered greatly as a result.

Ultimately the problem was political, with all power vested in the Caliph and the religious leaders who propped him up. Regular people had no say in how things were run. Indeed, their only 'legitimate' criticism of the state could be that it failed to uphold Shariah law properly. Islamic banking, taxes, and other Islamic economic institutions are a significant barrier to economic growth.

The Ottoman empire is one of the classic 'modern history' examples of the elite deliberately deciding to block industrialisation in order to maintain their grip on power. They banned the printing press for example, and they were still copying books by hand a century or more after books were common in Europe. The government introduced one once, and set up a religious committee to approve any book and make sure they were done right. Eventually it fell into disuse. The political and social institutions of this empire were typical of extractive regimes of the time. These institutions survived through all the changes of recent history and are still a barrier to growth. In Egypt for example, the British took advantage of them and reinforced them. Despite being a democracy, Egyptian society is still built on extractive political and economic institutions. Don't expect them to change overnight. There is no reason to expect their revolutions will be any more successful than the basket case South American "democracies". But it is still a good start.

Quote:


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:


I repeat ~ If the average citizen doesn't benefit from the national wealth, then it's purely academic that a country is 'successful' in terms of wealth generated.

Quote:


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:


Why, is because the average citizen is walking barefoot and in rags on their homeland ground that covers godzillian-dollars of oil wealth.

I rest my case.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:


That's what I inferred.

Quote:


freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:


They are poor because their rich invest in other countries instead of their own.

Hence ~ no industry to employ the citizens.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:00pm:


We're not poor. We're one of the richest countries in the world.

Not even the US has 4 weeks holiday a year for its workers (5 weeks for shift workers) ... free doctors and hospital treatment ... an unemployment benefit that has no cut-off period of 6 months ... DSP for dodgy BS like 'depression' and 'Mediterranean back-ache' ... rental assistence ... concession tickets ... family benefits ... child benefits ... Single Parent benefits ... etc etc.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:09pm:


Wrong.

They: as in the monolith of the nation state.

And They: as in the citizens of dictatorships, and the citizens of 'democracies' (sic) such as India and Indonesia where voting is a farce and a fraud that all parties ignore as nothing more than a pro forma nicety to give the semblance of civilisation.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:


What I said right at the beginning: The wealth of a nation is reflected in the standard of living of the average person.

It matters nothing if the ruling elite of China, India, Saudi Arabia or the US have access to all the wealth while the great bulk of the population is on Struggle Street.

Statistical Almanacs that are published each year are irrelevant if they don't state the standard of living of the average person.