Why is Africa Poor?

Stranger:

Stephen:

I think social and cultural norms might also be part of the explaination: large families, tolerance of corruption, crime, and fraud, ect.

Sounds like America.

 

Sounds like every country.  No one has a monopoly.

Sun. 10/03/21 20:56 EDT
.post #17

Southern:

Are you contending that Botswana is not one of poorest nations on earth?

I'm not contending that.  In fact, I have no idea.  But when you state that it is, I wish you'd at least provide a link to a comparison chart or something.  I mean, is it in the lowest five, ten, twenty?  And according to most measures, or just one, or two, or what?

But again, I'm not sure "where they are now" is as important as "if they are headed somewhere," "where they are headed," and "at what rate."

Southern:

But when you look at african populations outside of africa they are relatively poor.  This is in western nations where both european, african, and asian populations are subject to the same economic and political systems. Yet the asian populations have out performed the europeans and the africans have lagged far behind the europeans.

Before I can argue this with you, we'd have to establish:
1.  What, exactly, you are saying here;
2.  Whether what you are saying is objectively demonstrable;
3.  To what extent what you are saying is true.

MMMark:

Sun. 10/03/21 20:56 EDT
.post #17

Southern:

Are you contending that Botswana is not one of poorest nations on earth?

I'm not contending that.  In fact, I have no idea.  But when you state that it is, I wish you'd at least provide a link to a comparison chart or something.  I mean, is it in the lowest five, ten, twenty?  And according to most measures, or just one, or two, or what?

 

Fair enough. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bc.html

I am glad that you challenged me.  I was able to learn somethings that I was unaware of.  Botswana in a number of areas ranks middle of the pack.  But then again ranks at the back of the pack some others.  Being highly dependant on the production of diamonds has allowed the country to improve its economic position in the world, but it looks like now they have been hit hard by the economic troubles in the west.

MMMark:

Southern:

But when you look at african populations outside of africa they are relatively poor.  This is in western nations where both european, african, and asian populations are subject to the same economic and political systems. Yet the asian populations have out performed the europeans and the africans have lagged far behind the europeans.

Before I can argue this with you, we'd have to establish:
1.  What, exactly, you are saying here;
2.  Whether what you are saying is objectively demonstrable;
3.  To what extent what you are saying is true.

 

1.  You suggested that the proper institutions could improve the outlook for african nations.  You used botswana as an example.  I made the assumption that you were suggesting that the major problems in africa were caused by lack of proper institutions. I am in total agreement that the proper institutions are important, however they do not explain all.  So I used an example where different populations of people when exposed to the same institutions have different outcomes.

2.  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/pov/new01_100.htm

3.  I dont know what you mean.

Mon. 10/03/22 11:05 EDT
.post #18

Some rankings from the page you linked to, using your examples of wealth metrics:

Botswana/total countries:
- per capita income: 92/224
- infant mortality: 141/224
- life expectancy at birth: 61.85 years 178/224

- literacy rate: 81.2% (2003 est.)

World literacy rate: 82% (2005 est.)

other literacy rates, examples of low and high extremes:

Afghanistan: 28%; Burkina Faso: 21.8%; Chad: 25%; Niger: 28.5%; Benin: 34.7%; Senegal: 39.3%; Sierra Leone: 35.1%; Somalia: 37.8%;

Georgia, Greenland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway: 100%

note: over two-thirds of the world's 785 million illiterate adults are found in only eight countries (Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan); of all the illiterate adults in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are concentrated in three regions, the Arab states, South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where around one-third of the men and half of all women are illiterate (2005 est.)

Southern:

But when you look at african populations outside of Africa they are relatively poor.  This is in western nations where both European, African, and Asian populations are subject to the same economic and political systems.

Southern:

So I used an example where different populations of people when exposed to the same institutions have different outcomes.

Percentage (and numbers in thousands) below 100% of poverty, for the U.S.A., from the page you linked to:

- all races: 13.2% (39,829)
- White alone, not Hispanic: 8.6% (17,024)
- Asian alone: 11.8% (1,576)
- Hispanic (of any race) 23.2% (10,987)
- Black alone: 24.7% (9,379)

MMMark:

3.  To what extent what you are saying is true.

Southern:

3.  I dont know what you mean.

For example, you provided statistics for the U.S.A., but the extent of your earlier statement ("...in western nations...") was more sweeping.  Is your statement true in western nations, or true just for the U.S.A.?

As another example of "extent," are Blacks significantly poorer than Whites and Asians, or just marginally poorer?

As a third example of "extent," are significantly more or just marginally more Blacks poorer than Whites and Asians?

Three more points:

1. Saying "blacks in the U.S.A. are relatively poor" differs significantly from saying "...African populations outside of Africa ... are relatively poor," which differs again from saying "(African nation X) is one of the poorest nations on earth."

2. Suggesting (as you seem to be) that genetic factors and poor economic performance are irrevocably correlated paints a rather bleak picture, in terms of solutions for improvement.  While we're stuck with the genetic hand we're dealt, economically harmful institutional factors can, at least, be exchanged for economically beneficial ones.

3. You imply that, given the same institutional factors, Black populations don't perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations.   Even if we assume this is true (and I'm not convinced it's true), this does not explain why some (Black) African populations are very poor, while others do better.  Botswana, for example, seems to be doing pretty well, seems to be improving, and improving fast.  This contradicts the "genetic factors" theory, and supports the "institutional factors" theory.

MMMark:

Mon. 10/03/22 11:05 EDT
.post #18

Some rankings from the page you linked to, using your examples of wealth metrics:

Botswana/total countries:
- per capita income: 92/224
- infant mortality: 141/224
- life expectancy at birth: 61.85 years 178/224

- literacy rate: 81.2% (2003 est.)

World literacy rate: 82% (2005 est.)

other literacy rates, examples of low and high extremes:

Afghanistan: 28%; Burkina Faso: 21.8%; Chad: 25%; Niger: 28.5%; Benin: 34.7%; Senegal: 39.3%; Sierra Leone: 35.1%; Somalia: 37.8%;

Georgia, Greenland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway: 100%

As I have said, Botswana seems to be average in some facets and lacking in others.  And I will conceed that I overstated the case in regards to Botswana.  Its more or less in the top half of the lower half in some respects and lower middle of the lower half in others.  Not the bottom in all aspects.  For that I appologize.  However, I have never said that the proper institutions would not eliminate descrepancies.  I believe the adoption of capitalism will improve everyones lot.  The question is will it eliminate all discrepancies.

MMMark:

note: over two-thirds of the world's 785 million illiterate adults are found in only eight countries (Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan); of all the illiterate adults in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are concentrated in three regions, the Arab states, South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where around one-third of the men and half of all women are illiterate (2005 est.)

 

This dosent mean much.  Your list includes 8 of the most populous nation in the world.  For example

China 1.3 billion people; literacy 91%                                 1,300,000,000 X 9%(illiterates) = 117,000,000 

Nigeria 114 million people; literacy 68%                             114,000,000 X 32% (illiterates) = 36,000,000

Not an honest portail of reality.  Obviously if I omited the total populations and literacy rates, it would appear china is in worse shape than nigeria.  That not the case.  I feel this is an attempt to distract from the reality the literacy rates in sub-saharan africa are much lower than outside.

MMMark:

Southern:

But when you look at african populations outside of Africa they are relatively poor.  This is in western nations where both European, African, and Asian populations are subject to the same economic and political systems.

Southern:

So I used an example where different populations of people when exposed to the same institutions have different outcomes.

Percentage (and numbers in thousands) below 100% of poverty, for the U.S.A., from the page you linked to:

- all races: 13.2% (39,829)
- White alone, not Hispanic: 8.6% (17,024)
- Asian alone: 11.8% (1,576)
- Hispanic (of any race) 23.2% (10,987)
- Black alone: 24.7% (9,379)


As another example of "extent," are Blacks significantly poorer than Whites and Asians, or just marginally poorer?

As a third example of "extent," are significantly more or just marginally more Blacks poorer than Whites and Asians?

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marginal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/significant

What exactly are you trying to pin me down on?  Significant is a word that I have chosen to use.  I am not the only one who finds the differences "significant".  If you look at the rest of the data it shows that the differences are persistant and nagging.  It seems significant.

 

Mon. 10/03/22 15:24 EDT
.post #19

Southern:

Your list includes 8 of the most populous nation in the world...Not an honest portail of reality.

It's not my list actually; it's from the same site as the page you linked to:
Literacy
It's found near the bottom of the page, under "World."  I didn't really include it for any particular reason, and I apologize for failing to provide the link, originally.

Southern:

...the reality (that) literacy rates in sub-saharan africa are much lower than outside.

I don't disagree, except in the case of Botswana, whose literacy rate, while not stellar, is certainly higher than some other African countries, and even some other outside countries.

Southern:

What exactly are you trying to pin me down on?

Nothing...I was just giving some examples of what I meant by "to what extent" (since I hadn't made that clear the first time), and trying to show its relevance when interpreting statistics such as "poverty."

For example, let's say that the "poverty threshold" is $10,000. (So, any annual income BELOW this qualifies one as being "poor").  24.7% of blacks earn less than this, while only 8.6% of whites do.  Sounds pretty bad for the blacks, right?  But let's make up some numbers:

Let's say that 24.7% of Blacks all earn EXACTLY $9,999.99.
Let's say, further, that 8.6% of whites all earn EXACTLY ZERO, while 16.1% of whites all earn EXACTLY $10,000.00...this means that 24.7% of whites (the same percentage as blacks who are "poor") earn, on average, ONE PENNY MORE, per year, than the "poor" blacks.  So, while it's true that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are "poor," the extent to which that's true is insignificant.

That's an extreme example to emphasize the fact that statistical aggregates frequently do not tell the whole story.

Here's something else to consider.  Have a look at this chart of poverty thresholds.  You will see that, the larger the family, the greater that family's income can be, while still qualifying as "poor."  So, when we see that a higher proportion of blacks than whites are "poor," we should consider (for example) the average family sizes of those groups.  Blacks who earn more than some "non-poor" whites, but who have large enough families can still be, ipso facto, "poor"!

Stranger:

Stephen:

I think social and cultural norms might also be part of the explaination: large families, tolerance of corruption, crime, and fraud, ect.

Sounds like America.

Does this sound like America?

MMMark:

Southern:

Your list includes 8 of the most populous nation in the world...Not an honest portail of reality.

It's not my list actually; it's from the same site as the page you linked to:
Literacy
It's found near the bottom of the page, under "World."  I didn't really include it for any particular reason, and I apologize for failing to provide the link, originally.

Southern:

...the reality (that) literacy rates in sub-saharan africa are much lower than outside.

I don't disagree, except in the case of Botswana, whose literacy rate, while not stellar, is certainly higher than some other African countries, and even some other outside countries.

 

And I expect that the extremely low rates would rise to low rates if all the other countries of sub-saharan africa adopted the policies pursued by Botswana.  You are pretty insistant on using Botswana as some sort of golden arrow that can be used to demonstrate that it is institutions and policies that cause all of african poverty. (If this is not what you are saying, I appologize)  But we need to keep in mind that Botswana's situation is not typical of most other african nations.  Possessing valuable natural resources bolster its numbers quite a bit.  Much in the same way the oil producing nations of the middle east are very wealthy, yet they do not possess any of the proper governmental or capitalistic institutions.

MMMark:

Southern:

What exactly are you trying to pin me down on?

Nothing...I was just giving some examples of what I meant by "to what extent" (since I hadn't made that clear the first time), and trying to show its relevance when interpreting statistics such as "poverty."

For example, let's say that the "poverty threshold" is $10,000. (So, any annual income BELOW this qualifies one as being "poor").  24.7% of blacks earn less than this, while only 8.6% of whites do.  Sounds pretty bad for the blacks, right?  But let's make up some numbers:

Let's say that 24.7% of Blacks all earn EXACTLY $9,999.99.
Let's say, further, that 8.6% of whites all earn EXACTLY ZERO, while 16.1% of whites all earn EXACTLY $10,000.00...this means that 24.7% of whites (the same percentage as blacks who are "poor") earn, on average, ONE PENNY MORE, per year, than the "poor" blacks.  So, while it's true that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are "poor," the extent to which that's true is insignificant.

That's an extreme example to emphasize the fact that statistical aggregates frequently do not tell the whole story.

Here's something else to consider.  Have a look at this chart of poverty thresholds.  You will see that, the larger the family, the greater that family's income can be, while still qualifying as "poor."  So, when we see that a higher proportion of blacks than whites are "poor," we should consider (for example) the average family sizes of those groups.  Blacks who earn more than some "non-poor" whites, but who have large enough families can still be, ipso facto, "poor"!

 

There is additional information in that link for those at the 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, etc. of the poverty level.  In addition with in each chart is gives family size data also broken down by race.  So if you can find in the data linked where a statistical anomaly is leading me astray, I would honestly ask you to point it out.  However if you are only saying that it is possible, then..... I agree?  But if you dont see or know of any specific error in the data that would mislead, then it is a pointless exercise.  After all anything is possible.

Tues. 10/03/23 11:05 EDT
.post #22

Southern:

You are pretty insistant on using Botswana as some sort of golden arrow that can be used to demonstrate that it is institutions and policies that cause all of african poverty. (If this is not what you are saying, I appologize)

I'm only using Botswana because I'm not aware of any other examples...but one should suffice, and Botswana is a good one.

Southern:

But we need to keep in mind that Botswana's situation is not typical of most other african nations.
Possessing valuable natural resources bolster its numbers quite a bit.

I disagree with you here on three points.

1. The assumption that Botswana is atypically resource rich is both unfounded and unlikely.  The resources buried beneath the ground of Africa don't know or care about the man-made "borders," arbitrarily drawn on the surface above!  More likely is that the entire continent is a vast treasure-trove, as yet mostly undiscovered.  This situation will change as Africa becomes increasingly infected with the ideas of liberty.

2. If Botswana is now rich in natural resources, it always has been, obviously.  Why, then, the sudden surge in wealth?  What changed?  Not the geologic makeup.  The change was economic and political.  More fundamentally, the change was ideological.  What has changed is Botswana's position on the Nolan Chart.

3. It is not "possession" of natural resources that creates wealth, but the EXPLOITATION and LIBERATION of those resources, and in a way that generates a profit.  Businessmen, no matter how high their "IQ," will not risk their capital if the political environment is excessively predatory.  Adding liberty to the economic soil, on the other hand, improves the health of the money trees.

Southern:

So if you can find in the data linked where a statistical anomaly is leading me astray, I would honestly ask you to point it out.

It's not "statistical anomalies" that I have a problem with; it's the idea of using U.S.A. "poverty" statistics, by race, to address the question "Why is Africa poor?"  The "poor" in America, irrespective of IQ or race, enjoy a higher standard of living than many Africans, because America enjoys a higher degree of liberty than many African countries.  The example of Botswana only corroborates this.

MMMark:

Southern:

You are pretty insistant on using Botswana as some sort of golden arrow that can be used to demonstrate that it is institutions and policies that cause all of african poverty. (If this is not what you are saying, I appologize)

I'm only using Botswana because I'm not aware of any other examples...but one should suffice, and Botswana is a good one.

One exception dosent suffice.  If it would, I could say that Saudi Arabia is a sufficient example of where abondoning liberty and adopting islamic law and institutions create prosperity.  Of course, you and I both wouldnt believe that to be true.

MMMark:

Southern:

But we need to keep in mind that Botswana's situation is not typical of most other african nations.
Possessing valuable natural resources bolster its numbers quite a bit.

I disagree with you here on three points.

1. The assumption that Botswana is atypically resource rich is both unfounded and unlikely.  The resources buried beneath the ground of Africa don't know or care about the man-made "borders," arbitrarily drawn on the surface above!  More likely is that the entire continent is a vast treasure-trove, as yet mostly undiscovered.  This situation will change as Africa becomes increasingly infected with the ideas of liberty.

2. If Botswana is now rich in natural resources, it always has been, obviously.  Why, then, the sudden surge in wealth?  What changed?  Not the geologic makeup.  The change was economic and political.  More fundamentally, the change was ideological.  What has changed is Botswana's position on the Nolan Chart.

3. It is not "possession" of natural resources that creates wealth, but the EXPLOITATION and LIBERATION of those resources, and in a way that generates a profit.  Businessmen, no matter how high their "IQ," will not risk their capital if the political environment is excessively predatory.  Adding liberty to the economic soil, on the other hand, improves the health of the money trees.

1. The idea that you put forth about all nations in Africa possessing vast natural resources (only that they are untapped) is blatantly false.  Some do some dont.  If we are to use your theory, then Japan is also resource rich, as is Albania, or even Uruguay.  Natural resources are not evenly distributed throughout the world or Africa.

2.  Some resources are easy to access some are not.  For example thousands of years ago early man relied on surface accumlations of copper and iron ore.  These were easy to access and do not require much investment of time or capital.  Today to access ore requires staggering amounts of time and money.  So while Botswana's neighbors may or may not have the same abundance of natural resources, those resources may be much more difficult to access.  I do know that precious metal and stone mining in these areas began because of surface deposits which dont exist (or to much lesser extent) in neighboring regions.

And to reiterate one more time.  I do beleive that adopting more liberal political and economic policies is very important and is one reason why Botswana is at the head of the African class.

3. We are in perfect agreement.

MMMark:

Southern:

So if you can find in the data linked where a statistical anomaly is leading me astray, I would honestly ask you to point it out.

It's not "statistical anomalies" that I have a problem with; it's the idea of using U.S.A. "poverty" statistics, by race, to address the question "Why is Africa poor?"  The "poor" in America, irrespective of IQ or race, enjoy a higher standard of living than many Africans, because America enjoys a higher degree of liberty than many African countries.  The example of Botswana only corroborates this.

 

Agreed, liberty enriches us all.  Your contention is that liberty is the only reason africa is poor.  Mine is that it explains a great deal but not all.  I used the example of the US because it shows that even with equal institutions of liberty there is a disparity. 

You initially countered by saying that you doubt there was a disparity between races in the US.  Which by all measures there is.  Now you are saying that poverty in america is unrelated to poverty in africa.  But that is not the context in which I was using the statistics.  I used them to demostrate that free institutions while very important dont explain away all.

Tues. 10/03/23 16:20 EDT
.post #24

Southern:

One exception dosent suffice.

Well, I wouldn't call Botswana an "exception."  I think the example of Botswana is consistent with the idea that the proliferation of wealth needs a certain minimum amount of liberty, within a given society.  I think that many of Africa's other countries don't meet this minimum.  I'm not really saying anything very profound here, obviously.

Southern:

I could say that Saudi Arabia is a sufficient example of where abondoning liberty and adopting islamic law and institutions create prosperity.  Of course, you and I both wouldnt believe that to be true.

But has Saudi Arabia, in fact, "abandoned liberty"?  Surely, their society respects property and contracts to at least the minimum degree?

Southern:

Natural resources are not evenly distributed throughout the world or Africa.

But by the same token, surely they don't all "happen" to be situated within the borders of Botswana, either.  That was what I was trying to get across.

Southern:

Some resources are easy to access some are not.

Two points here.

1. "Ease of access" hasn't suddenly changed in Botswana.
2. Capitalists don't care how "easy" a resource is to "access"; they care about whether they can make a profit.

Southern:

I used the example of the US because it shows that even with equal institutions of liberty there is a disparity.

I fully accept this.  Liberty doesn't eliminate "disparity," but wealth tends to vary directly with the degree of liberty.  Also, "disparity" is not the same thing as "poverty," nor are the lowest earners necessarily "poor" (which becomes especially obvious when comparing poverty class U.S.A. to the general living standards of very poor African countries).

Southern:

You initially countered by saying that you doubt there was a disparity between races in the US.  Which by all measures there is.

Here is what I said:

MMMark:

You imply that, given the same institutional factors, Black populations don't perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations.  Even if we assume this is true (and I'm not convinced it's true), this does not explain why some (Black) African populations are very poor, while others do better.

The bolded part is of what I said was really "what (I) countered" with.  I don't think U.S.A. "poverty" statistics are germane to the Original Poster's question, which is "Why is Africa Poor?"

The questions of why we can see racial disparities on U.S.A. poverty statistics, whether these statistics constitute "all measures" of poverty or economic performance (and according to you, there are "...all sorts of measure that you could use.... per capita income, infant mortality, literacy rates, life expectancy, etc.), how accurate these statistics actually are, etc., don't impinge on the issue of Africa's inability to keep developmental pace...in my opinion.

It just seems to amount to saying "Because they're black...works just the same in the U.S.A. as in Africa."
It doesn't explain anything.

Colonialism disguised as "development loans" which are designed to fail and lock nations into onerous repayment for loans which create no economic benefits by design.

"Zambia spends four dollars on debt service for every one dollar on health while infant mortality rate rises. In Uganda, the government spends US$3 per person annually on health and education and US$ 17 per person annually on debt repayment, while in every 5 Ugandan children die of preventable diseases before reaching the age of 5 years!"

Almost all cocoa is grown in Africa, for example, but there's not a single chocolate factory on the continent.  And of course all the real money is in finished goods, not raw materials. 

MMMark:

Southern:

One exception dosent suffice.

Well, I wouldn't call Botswana an "exception."  I think the example of Botswana is consistent with the idea that the proliferation of wealth needs a certain minimum amount of liberty, within a given society.  I think that many of Africa's other countries don't meet this minimum.  I'm not really saying anything very profound here, obviously.

 

I was refering to this statement: "I don't disagree, except in the case of Botswana, whose literacy rate, while not stellar, is certainly higher than some other African countries, and even some other outside countries."  Other than that I agree completely with you here.

MMMark:

Southern:

I could say that Saudi Arabia is a sufficient example of where abondoning liberty and adopting islamic law and institutions create prosperity.  Of course, you and I both wouldnt believe that to be true.

But has Saudi Arabia, in fact, "abandoned liberty"?  Surely, their society respects property and contracts to at least the minimum degree?

 For contracts: Sure they do as long as they are agreed to by men that are muslim, saudi or other accepted ethnicity, of the correct social standing..... etc.

For Private Property:  As long as its not oil or gold or any other natural resource, because those are owned (or at least controled) the people... aka the state... aka the King.  "Its good to be the king"

MMMark:

Southern:

Natural resources are not evenly distributed throughout the world or Africa.

But by the same token, surely they don't all "happen" to be situated within the borders of Botswana, either.  That was what I was trying to get across.

Of course not.  But you did say: " The assumption that Botswana is atypically resource rich is both unfounded and unlikely.  The resources buried beneath the ground of Africa don't know or care about the man-made "borders," arbitrarily drawn on the surface above!  More likely is that the entire continent is a vast treasure-trove, as yet mostly undiscovered.  This situation will change as Africa becomes increasingly infected with the ideas of liberty." which implies that botswana's particular natural wealth is not unusual.  Which it is.  The same way Saudi Arabia's oil wealth is atypical, or chile's copper deposit are atypical.  Which has made its people wealthier than they would have other wise been.

MMMark:

1. "Ease of access" hasn't suddenly changed in Botswana.
2. Capitalists don't care how "easy" a resource is to "access"; they care about whether they can make a profit.

1. agreed

2.  Sure they do.  Because ease of access to a resource is directly related to the cost of extraction, which is directly related to profit.

MMMark:

Southern:

I used the example of the US because it shows that even with equal institutions of liberty there is a disparity.

I fully accept this.  Liberty doesn't eliminate "disparity," but wealth tends to vary directly with the degree of liberty.  Also, "disparity" is not the same thing as "poverty," nor are the lowest earners necessarily "poor" (which becomes especially obvious when comparing poverty class U.S.A. to the general living standards of very poor African countries).

 Agreed. 

MMMark:

Southern:

You initially countered by saying that you doubt there was a disparity between races in the US.  Which by all measures there is.

Here is what I said:

MMMark:

You imply that, given the same institutional factors, Black populations don't perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations.  Even if we assume this is true (and I'm not convinced it's true), this does not explain why some (Black) African populations are very poor, while others do better.

The bolded part is of what I said was really "what (I) countered" with.  I don't think U.S.A. "poverty" statistics are germane to the Original Poster's question, which is "Why is Africa Poor?"

If we assume what is true? given the same institutional factors, Black populations don't perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations.

What did you doubt? Even if we assume this is true (and I'm not convinced it's true),

I appologize if I missunderstood your point.  Anyway the US poverty statistics, again, were not meant to illistrate why africa is poor.  Only that institutional factors do not explain away why Africa is poor.

MMMark:

The questions of why we can see racial disparities on U.S.A. poverty statistics, whether these statistics constitute "all measures" of poverty or economic performance (and according to you, there are "...all sorts of measure that you could use.... per capita income, infant mortality, literacy rates, life expectancy, etc.), how accurate these statistics actually are, etc., don't impinge on the issue of Africa's inability to keep developmental pace...in my opinion.

Again, they were used to demonstrate how "liberty" does not account for all differences in economic performance.  Nothing more.

MMMark:

It just seems to amount to saying "Because they're black...works just the same in the U.S.A. as in Africa."
It doesn't explain anything.

Was attempt to control for African populations and "liberty".  A way of looking at African populations outside of African institutions, which is what you claim is holding back development.  We could also look at Haiti or the dominican republic, or the African population in Brazil.  But if you make your search too narrow you may never find ALL of the answers.

 

I think we agree on 90%.  Its just that damned pesky 10%.

Wed. 10/03/24 12:53 EDT
.post #25

Benjamin:

Almost all cocoa is grown in Africa, for example, but there's not a single chocolate factory on the continent.

According to this article, Nestle has one, and Cadbury maintains several chocolate factories in Africa:

Cadbury also has manufacturing plants in Swaziland (producing Chappies bubblegum and Eclairs), in Botswana (producing Stimorol and Clorets gum products) and Namibia (producing seasonal products such as Easter eggs and Valentines and Christmas offerings).

The Port Elizabeth plant supplies some of the chocolate for the Namibia plant and the caramilk for the Eclairs manufactured in Swaziland.

Due to the aggressive growth in the market and demand for Cadbury products, says Meiring, the chocolate manufacturer will continue to invest significantly in its Nelson Mandela Bay manufacturing plant.

Nestlé, the world's largest food and beverage firm, was registered as a company in South Africa in 1916 – with its first factory being established in East London 44 years after its first products arrived in the country in 1872.

"Visiting the East London plant is always exciting for me," says Theo Mxakwe, director of corporate communication and public affairs at Nestlé. "This factory is unique as it is the only chocolate manufacturer Nestlé has in South Africa, but punches way beyond its weight as a supplier of chocolate to the southern, eastern and equatorial African regions."

Benjamin:

And of course all the real money is in finished goods, not raw materials.

I'm not sure where this came from, what it means, and how it is relevant to the question "Why is Africa Poor?"

Southern:

I was refering to this statement: "I don't disagree, except in the case of Botswana, whose literacy rate, while not stellar, is certainly higher than some other African countries, and even some other outside countries."

...a statement I made when you pointed out the low literacy rates of sub-saharan African countries.

If we attribute poor economic performance to "blackness," then yes, Botswana IS "the exception."  The existence of such a glaring exception to the "rule" suggests that the attribution may be wrong.

If we attribute poor economic performance to a sub-minimal level of liberty, then we don't find exceptions to the "rule" and, in the case of Botswana, find CORROBORATION.  This tends to support the validity of the attribution.

MMMark:

More likely is that the entire continent is a vast treasure-trove, as yet mostly undiscovered.  This situation will change as Africa becomes increasingly infected with the ideas of liberty.

Southern:

...which implies that botswana's particular natural wealth is not unusual.  Which it is.

I don't know what Botswana's particular "natural wealth" is; you've said it's diamonds.  Of course, South Africa is also rich in diamonds, so right off the bat, Botswana's diamond resource is not "unusual."  It's reasonable to assume that undiscovered diamonds exist in other parts of Africa (not necessarily ALL other parts) but not reasonable to assume existence JUST in Botswana and South Africa.

It's also reasonable to assume that DIFFERENT, undiscovered "natural wealth" resides in other parts of Africa.
Instituting liberty is the way to find out.

I want to take time out here to recommend, if you haven't already read it, a book by Julian Simon, entitled The Ultimate Resource.

MMMark:

Capitalists don't care how "easy" a resource is to "access"; they care about whether they can make a profit.

Southern:

Sure they do.

Okay, okay, but you get my point, which is that "ease of access" is only one of the factors.  What decides, ultimately, whether the capitalist invests is the answer to the question "Can I make a profit?"  As a "crude" example, oil is not "easy" to "access" in Alberta's tar sands, but when the price per barrel exceeds a certain amount, extraction becomes profitable and proceeds.  What also happens, typically, is that better methods are then developed, which reduces costs.  Again, please read The Ultimate Resource.

But without some assurance that he gets to keep his profits, the capitalist will not make the initial investment.  He'll simply take his capital elsewhere, where the "institutional factors" are more liberty-oriented.  The "blackness" of the population has nothing to do with it.

Southern:

Anyway the US poverty statistics, again, were not meant to illistrate why africa is poor.  Only that institutional factors do not explain away why Africa is poor.

I don't see that they illustrate this.  Even within the U.S. black "poor" population, differences in economic performance exist.  All this means is that people are different.  This is true everywhere.  In order to illustrate "...that institutional factors do not explain away why Africa is poor," you'd have to find the institutional equivalent of a poor African country that is, nevertheless, wealthy. What we do find is that countries that trample liberty (such as many African countries) are poor, while countries that allow at least some liberty (such as the U.S.A., South Africa and Botswana) thrive.

Southern:

...they were used to demonstrate how "liberty" does not account for all differences in economic performance.  Nothing more.

...but we're examining "Why Africa is Poor," not "what accounts for differences in economic performance."  It seems to me that these are totally different questions.  The first pertains to the wealth of a country, while the second pertains to the differences between individuals.

Southern:

Was attempt to control for African populations and "liberty".  A way of looking at African populations outside of African institutions,

"African," or "black"?  "African populations" (i.e. the populations of African countries) include non-black individuals.