Why?

.
.
Reading at one of my usual blogs, I see the notion that creating a educated populace might not lead to prosperity. And more, that the reverse is probably the case. Now, I could get all statistical but I am not about to do so. The simple reality is that education comes from a need for improvements on existing systems in order for education to be an economic factor (well, a positive one). Assuming all education is equal, of course, for the sake of argument. Without a need, demand, or serious call of some sorts by individuals to perform better in their professions, by industry to evaluate and improve efficiency, or the military by raising attrition while limiting personnel and civilian casualties, any costs related to education are not warranted and will become a drag on the economy, often in many ways.

It is not just in African nations, Europe and America have an overload of a underwhelmingly educated class of people who end up needing to work for the government because there simply is no other place. Jobs are created and the government begins doing "work" for which it was not designed and which it does poorly. Even that is coming to an end, as the destruction caused by such backward thinking has lead to a devolution in education and a burgeoning government the people are revolting about. The quantitative easing in education has made what was once a guarantee of work for the best and brightest a meaningless piece of paper, not even parchment these days(?), where the wheat and the chaff are combined.

I see in this, and many other attempts by the left to emulate Western success in foreign places by doing everything except what would actually create success in those nations. Looking at the symptoms, often, of success, and equating that to the causes, is typical of the backward thinking of progressivism. While I am highly skeptical of progressives, believing many if not most actually intend to harm the economy and devalue human life, I am sure there are some well-meaning among them. They too, just as Christians, have more wolves than sheep in their flocks.

What would allow progress in impoverished nations would be an end to imposed international regulations, support of governments which support financial gain instead of ignoring the rule of law, and allowing exceptions to many of the Western imposed limitations which bind even the few nations which have some semblance of a legal, real rights based, government. In other words, just like here, if we want people to strive for more the regulatory jackboot has to be removed from the necks of those being forced to live in malaria, cholera, and other disease ridden places to first use things like ddt and chlorine in their water supplies, begin burning those horrible CO2 producing fuels in order to even get a leg up to then even have a chance at putting together cohesive civilizations. Greens talk about destroying mother earth as a risk to human habitation, yet many of the third world people already live in a destroyed habitation, and are kept there, by the greens.

You cannot give man equality. You cannot give him wealth or wisdom or health. But standing on his head while he is barely keeping it above water already, then indoctrinating him while you do it will only make him hate you. Go figure. Oh, and I actually do support trying to figure out how to make other nations actually, generally, wealthier. Wealth, as it turns out and oddly to some, is one of the surest sign posts that a nation will actually respect the spit of dirt it lives upon. When a man struggles to feed his face, he has little time to worry about how doing so might impact the little birdies or even himself in the long run. We may soon know that a bit more intimately.