By poor I mean the general standard of living.
I have heard before that Africa is 'the most mineral rich continent in the world'. While I find proving this seems to be exceedingly difficult (if even possible), I would at least concede that, in terms of mineral wealth, the African continent is probably no worse off than any of the others ...
So what gives? Why do I see TV personalities selling the plight of these starving people? Are Africans really unable to develop any sort of infrastructure to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and medicine?
Prateek Sanjay:Private property and medium of exchange can not exist without urban concentrations that create division of labour, and African geography is not suited for it.
It seems to me that maybe private property, mediums of exchange, and division of labor exist and have always existed outside large urban concentrations. So maybe these things lead to urban development, not the other way around.
Prateek Sanjay: What do you think - that those near Stone Age people in the 1500s in the Canary Islands could have become a prospering liberal society, when they were cut off from the world and had scanty populations?
What do you think - that those near Stone Age people in the 1500s in the Canary Islands could have become a prospering liberal society, when they were cut off from the world and had scanty populations?
What do you mean by liberal? Economicly, socially, and politically free? Or economicly and technologicly advanced?
liege:So what gives?
That is how their neo-colonial masters like them. Easy to exploit corrupt dictators who are foreign aid junkies.
Africa has some of the biggest cities in the world.
It's when you leave the cities and go into the interior that things get scary.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Here is another thing we need to consider.
Not only is sub-Saharan Africa scantily populated, median age of African nations is often below 25. Meaning that Africans don't have much human capital which can be used to increase productivity. When Europeans have a median age of 40, most Europeans are old enough to have years of experience and thus more producing power.
Conza88: Imperialism. Lack of conception / respect / enforcement / protection of individual property rights. World Bank, IMF "loans" (with the goal of making the country their debt slave) Continued foriegn government "aid", which supports the parasitic class and does nothing for those it is meant to. All it does is sustain the status quo, something I would imagine is part of the goal of foriegn governments "aid" programs. See: US "aid" packages to Pakistan.
As well as a mixture of military and quasi-military interventions from 'first' and former 'second' world powers. Likewise, 'sanctions', tariffs, subsidies and various kinds of corporate crony-ism interfere with the development of sustainable local capital and commercial interests and keep the majority of people channeled into government dependence or absolute poverty. There are also historical and cultural differences; for many of the inhabitants tribal warfare and subsistance lifestyles are all they know. Much the same is true of many countries in southeast asia, such as Burma.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon
liege: By poor I mean the general standard of living. I have heard before that Africa is 'the most mineral rich continent in the world'. While I find proving this seems to be exceedingly difficult (if even possible), I would at least concede that, in terms of mineral wealth, the African continent is probably no worse off than any of the others ... So what gives? Why do I see TV personalities selling the plight of these starving people? Are Africans really unable to develop any sort of infrastructure to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and medicine?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul260.html
Nothing presented so far is unique to Africa. Colonialism and it aftermaths is a global phenomena that affects every continient. Politial and Military Intervention by western powers has been seen throughout the world. Parasitic governments afflict every nation, yet africa has lagged behing everyother region of the world for centuries. There has to be more to the story.
Prateek Sanjay: Here is another thing we need to consider. Not only is sub-Saharan Africa scantily populated, median age of African nations is often below 25. Meaning that Africans don't have much human capital which can be used to increase productivity. When Europeans have a median age of 40, most Europeans are old enough to have years of experience and thus more producing power.
You are confusing the consequence for the cause.
Poverty causes them to have poor nutrition, sanitary conditions, health care, and therefor have a lower life expectancy, not the other way around (although parent's dying early has a detrimental effect for sure).
In London, England in the year 1800, life expectancy was around 25 years old (and around 30 years old in france). That didn't prevent them from having the industrial revolution and rapidly raising their life expectancy.
Because of all the technology produced by the West, it should be even easier for Africans to raise themselves out of poverty than it was for Europeans, but what's missing is the institution of private property, and freedom from the state, which are essential to entrepreneurial investment.
Marek K Nowak: In London, England in the year 1800, life expectancy was around 25 years old (and around 30 years old in france). That didn't prevent them from having the industrial revolution and rapidly raising their life expectancy.
That was mostly caused by infant mortality. People didn't drop dead at 25 years old.
Southern: Nothing presented so far is unique to Africa. Colonialism and it aftermaths is a global phenomena that affects every continient. Politial and Military Intervention by western powers has been seen throughout the world. Parasitic governments afflict every nation, yet africa has lagged behing everyother region of the world for centuries. There has to be more to the story.
Dare I mention that Ghana, Botswanaland, Somalia,.etc are still fairly well progressing nations?
There are parts which are relatively well off and parts which are not. So some good initiatives by people have allowed those respective nations to prosper in their own way, although not as much as the rest of the world. The rest are aggravated even further by oppressive governments.
So if nations with good people like Ghana,.etc are still prospering in their own way, but are still behind the rest of the world, I can only come back to the original answer that geographical and demographic hindrances are still at play. But they only hold back these nations so much.
We are homo sapiens and it is in our nature to DO SOMETHING. When we decide to shoot ourselves in the foot, we disappear completely, but otherwise we are always inclined to do something at the very least. Even Africans can and will prosper, and I am sure that within even the next ten years, better portions of Africa will show large towns with monorails and earthquake proof glass fronted buildings all over them, and some of them are already more or less coming there.
Southern:There has to be more to the story.
In mises words: "The Anti-capitalistic mentality". There is not much more to it.
Capital accumulation per capita and valuable natural resources of land, although the latter is practically useless without the former. With today's capital intensive methods of production, the former is always the primary factor.
The rest of the story is just to devise a theory with respect to why there is more capital accumulation in some places relative to other places. The causes will always be political mischief (current and historic) and all those who ignorantly support it.
for example:
Marek K Nowak:The increase in the production in america over the last 200 years is almost entirely attributable to capital accumulation and deepening of the division of labor.
You're crazy if you think that the increase in production in America over the last 200 years is attributable to capital accumulation. No doubt, that plays a part in the increase in per capita income, but analogous to the case of the developing country we would see a huge decrease in the return on capital, we haven't seen such huge decreases in interest rates.
Going back to the return on capital in developing countries, the risk premium you mentioned would increase, not decrease, the potential return on capital. Even with this risk premium we're not seeing interest rates anywhere close to what you would expect if capital were the cause of the differences in incomes (and if we were, you can be sure that capital would flow to these developing countries because no government has ever been so predatory as to wipe out the potential profits to be made).
No, clearly there must be something else that accounts for the increase in living standards and per capita income. My vote goes towards technology, Solow agrees.
DD5:Would you care to explain why a machine that can bake 500 breads/hour in the US can mysteriously not achieve the same throughput in Africa?
But they have these machines in Africa, read the Easterly book I cited. I left my copy on the plane so I can't actually reproduce his examples here. But there are plenty of poor nations that have plenty of physical capital, natural resources and labour. Yet, somehow these nations aren't developing at the rate that the capital fundamentalists (his term, not mine) would expect.
To repeat the central message of The Elusive Quest for Growth "incentives matter".
To the OP, you mention natural resources. In fact, outside of the context of private property and the rule of law we might expect a negative correlation between natural resources and development, know as the natural resource curse.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Prateek Sanjay: Dare I mention that Ghana, Botswanaland, Somalia,.etc are still fairly well progressing nations? There are parts which are relatively well off and parts which are not. So some good initiatives by people have allowed those respective nations to prosper in their own way, although not as much as the rest of the world.
There are parts which are relatively well off and parts which are not. So some good initiatives by people have allowed those respective nations to prosper in their own way, although not as much as the rest of the world.
You are correct, there are most definitely parts of Africa that doing well when compared to other parts of Africa. But when put on the global scale they lag behind the rest of the world and in some cases falling futher behind. The geographical and demographic hindrances are definitely a factor, however they are a factor no matter where you go. I have always found these arguements lacking, especially considering Africa lagging behind is not a recent or modern phenomenon.
Prateek Sanjay:We are homo sapiens and it is in our nature to DO SOMETHING. When we decide to shoot ourselves in the foot, we disappear completely, but otherwise we are always inclined to do something at the very least. Even Africans can and will prosper, and I am sure that within even the next ten years, better portions of Africa will show large towns with monorails and earthquake proof glass fronted buildings all over them, and some of them are already more or less coming there.
I hope this is the case.
Southern:I have always found these arguements lacking, especially considering Africa lagging behind is not a recent or modern phenomenon.
In the grand scheme of things, it really is a recent phenomena. In fact, the growth of the western world in the last few hundred years has really been a one off in terms of human history.
hayekianxyz: Marek K Nowak:The increase in the production in america over the last 200 years is almost entirely attributable to capital accumulation and deepening of the division of labor. You're crazy if you think that the increase in production in America over the last 200 years is attributable to capital accumulation. No doubt, that plays a part in the increase in per capita income, but analogous to the case of the developing country we would see a huge decrease in the return on capital, we haven't seen such huge decreases in interest rates. Going back to the return on capital in developing countries, the risk premium you mentioned would increase, not decrease, the potential return on capital. Even with this risk premium we're not seeing interest rates anywhere close to what you would expect if capital were the cause of the differences in incomes (and if we were, you can be sure that capital would flow to these developing countries because no government has ever been so predatory as to wipe out the potential profits to be made).
If all you know is Solow, then no wonder you can't figure out what's wrong with Africa.
One can't understand what makes poor countries stay poor without a sound capital theory.