I gave my theory in class, and my Econ professor agreed that it would work. Here it is:
The Ethiopian people have less than nothing. I can solve all of their problems by exploiting them, at least by our standards anyway. I will build a factory and some basic infrastructure in a more heavily populated area. I will offer food, shelter, clean water, and some basic medical care. In exchange they will work in my factory for 12 hours a day. This would probably amount to about $2 an hour, which is much more than they can hope to produce independently. I will turn Ethiopia into the new Japan. In the 90's Japan was an Economic leader even though it has few resources. Raw materials are imported, turned into consumable goods, and exported. The main capital in Japan was labor. My empire would provide much cheaper but much more unskilled labor than Japan, but it could be the hub for unskilled labor in the east. Sounds like exploitation, but if both sides benefit, is it really?
The Ethiopian people have less than nothing. I can solve all of their problems by exploiting them, at least by our standards anyway. I will build a factory and some basic infrastructure in a more heavily populated area. I will offer food, shelter, clean water, and some basic medical care. In exchange they will work in my factory for 12 hours a day. This would probably amount to about $2 an hour, which is much more than they can hope to produce independently. I will turn Ethiopia into the new Japan. In the 90's Japan was an Economic leader even though it has few resources. Raw materials are imported, turned into consumable goods, and exported. The main capital in Japan was labor. My empire would provide much cheaper but much more unskilled labor than Japan, but it could be the hub for unskilled labor in the east. Sounds like exploitation, but if both sides benefit, is it really?
