No it doesn’t. The Global South is poor because they keep electing stupid leaders to run their economies.

But I guess it’s more convenient for us to blame external parties instead of admit we keep voting for fools.

I don't think history supports this conclusion, and I don't think the effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism can be dismissed with 'voting for fools'.

I live here. I’m talking about what I see everyday…a culture that celebrates corruption and buffoonery over long-term thinking and good leadership.

But foreigners always want to tell me the problem is colonialism. Thanks for their patronage, but that doesn’t make it true.

The complexities of societal issues are not really parsable at the level of day to day observation. I could say the same about my culture being one that celebrates corruption and buffoonery, but I don't base my my assumptions about society on my daily experience, I base it on sociology and history.

“Sociology and history,” the usual copout for third worlders that never want to admit their own failings but pin the blame on others, while elected politicians pillage and ruin the countries with their incompetence.

The math just plain doesn't work out. Raw resources just plain aren't that lucrative and can be found pretty much everywhere. Of course "exploitation" basically operates off of the syllogism of thieves: you have it, I want it, therefore you stole it from me.

Assuming all resources can be found everywhere is simply false. Beyond that, those that are common have externalities in extraction and processing, as well as huge labor costs. These are complex issues, and claiming simple math can dismiss the history of colonialism that built the current context, is flawed.

I don't follow your point with the second sentence.