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?
MMMark: 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.
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."
Your whole use of botswana is that it is an exception. I agree it is. You say its an exception only because it has more liberty. And my counter that there are other factors that determine whether a nation is poor or wealthy other then liberty. Relatively accessable natural resources being one. Most any gulf state is an example of where easily accessable resources can overcome other factors that suppress wealth generation. This supports my statement that Botswana is an exception not only because of liberty but also because of natural resources.
MMMark: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.
No, I have not attributed anything to "blackness", I have stated that there is connection between IQ and poor economic performance. African populations test lower on IQ than other populations. Please address what I have contended not what you want me to contend.
Sure we do. Almost any oil producing gulf state. Very little economic or personal liberty and some of the wealthiest nations on the planet.
MMMark: 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.
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.
As you stated before the distribution of natural resources doesnt care about arbitrary lines drawn on a map. They also dont care about how much liberty the people who walk the surface of this planet have. No matter how free botswana or any other nation, people, or region; whats in the ground is in the ground. If there are no diamonds deposits in Japan there will never be diamonds mined in Japan. And some regions of the world have deposits of certain minerals that other places do not. Places such as South Africa have vast amounts of rare and valuable natural resources that simply do not exist in most other regions of the world. This does have an effect on its economy and by association the wealth of its people. Therefore, botswanas relatively easy to access, valuable, and abundant resources will make it wealthier than its neighbors. I dont know why you think it wouldnt.
MMMark: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.
I agree the best route is free enterprise.
I have not read the book, but I did look it up read a brief synopsis. I dont disagree what he is saying. Basically, that demand creates resources through any number of means. More effiecient use of resources, recycling, use of alternatives, etc. Just so you know I never advocated that resources are limited.
MMMark: 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.
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.
Sure one factor that determines whether you make the investment to harvest a resource or not. It is also related to whether or not we know if a resource is present. For example, diamonds being found in a stream bed. As opposed to multi billion dollar oil exploration off the coast of Brazil. Which resource do you think will be tapped first? The point is that if a resource is easily accessable then the return on investment will be higher. Meaning these will be the first to be exploited.
MMMark: 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: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.
Of course people are different. That is the point. IQ suggests that there is a difference between populations of people. The IQ scores of people of african decent are lower than those of European and asian decent. This difference in IQ includes people of african decent who live in the US and those who live in africa. So again my case is that IQ and economic performance is connected.
This is connected to the question why is africa poor, because poor is a realtive term. Africa (aka lower IQ scores) is poor relative to the US, Europe, Japan, China, Korea, etc. While people of african decent in the US(aka lower IQ scores) are poor relative to the European and Asian populations.
I have found a boat load of nations that are the institutional equivalents of Africa. Almost any gulf state. They would arguably have as low of personal and economic freedom as any african nation.
Botswana is not "thriving", neither is South Africa. The african populations in the US are not thriving. This is simply false.
MMMark: 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.
Southern:Was attempt to control for African populations and "liberty". A way of looking at African populations outside of African institutions,
Indeed they do. The greater the concentration of non-African in any particular region gernerally the wealthier and more econmicly productive.
MMMark:The first pertains to the wealth of a country, while the second pertains to the differences between individuals.
I am not talking about individuals. And no "what accounts for economic differences" can mean between nations or continients. They are the same question, because poor is a relative term. It assumes differences. Poor compared to what. The question was in an economic context.
Thurs. 10/03/25 09:43 EDT.post #27
Southern:You say its an exception only because it has more liberty.
Botswana was one of the most impoverished countries in Africa when it became independent in 1966. Today, it is home to a relatively stable political system and a rapidly developing market economy.
Southern:I have found a boat load of nations that are the institutional equivalents of Africa. Almost any gulf state. They would arguably have as low of personal and economic freedom as any african nation.
Southern:Botswana is not "thriving", neither is South Africa.
Southern:The greater the concentration of non-African in any particular region gernerally the wealthier and more econmicly productive.
Southern:I have not read the book, but I did look it up read a brief synopsis. I dont disagree what he is saying. Basically, that demand creates resources through any number of means.
In the contest between resource scarcity and human ingenuity, Simon bets the farm on the ability of intelligent people to overcome their problems. Thankfully, he is not a theorist. This book lays out convincing empirical evidence for Simon's prediction of a prosperous future. The key to progress is not state-run conservation programs, he says, but economic and political freedom. Only then can talented minds properly apply themselves to our earthly dilemmas.
MMMark: Southern:You say its an exception only because it has more liberty.That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it's an exception to your explanation of poverty - a glaring counter-example to your "general case."
Thats just it. It is not an exception. It has become more wealthy than its neighbors due to more liberty and natural wealth. But still relative to the world in general it is still poor. Why is this? That has been my point all along. It is wealthy in when compared to africa but still poor when compared to the world. Im sure you believe in time that gap will be erased. In the next 20 some odd years it very well maybe become a first world nation, then again maybe not. Time will tell.
MMMark:Your explanation, as I understand it:Negroes have lower IQs than whites, which results in lower economic performance than whites exhibit, except in the case of countries with "easily accessible" natural resources. Then, the country becomes rich, even if the country lacks a minimal degree of liberty.But this utterly fails to explain Botswana's economic performance.If "easily accessible" natural resources alone could make a country wealthy, then Botswana would have been wealthy ALL ALONG, not just after 1966.From Wikipedia's Botswana article:Botswana was one of the most impoverished countries in Africa when it became independent in 1966. Today, it is home to a relatively stable political system and a rapidly developing market economy.Botswana's average IQ didn't make a quantum jump in 1966, either; and its population is at least 93% Negro (see Ethnic groups).It's not IQ, and it's not "easily accessible" natural resources that "make it wealthier," it's people, risking capital and seeking profit. Without the assurance they'll be allowed to keep at least some of it, that capital won't be risked in the first place. That, and not the natural resources, is what differentiates productive economies from non-productive ones. That's just as true in Botswana as it is in the "Gulf states."
Almost. You are taking my position to an extreme that I have never expressed. My point is that there are number of variables that determine the wealth of a people, nation, or region. Freedom, Culture, Natural resources, geography, and the abilities of the people. That the lack of one characteristic can be made up for by strenghts in others. The IQ of its people is one characteristic and is related to the wealth of a people. When you look at all characteristics of botswana you see that it has strength in catagories that most of its neighbors dont. Which allows it to be wealthier than they are but still relatively poor when compared to western nations that have strengths in all categories.
You are right people are one of the factors. And a very important one at that. Thats the point. People is one of the weak points in Africa. Whether it is strictly environmental (malnutrition that stunts development) or genetic. I dont know. But the people factor is what is weak. In botswanas case governmental policies and natural resources are strong points that have allowed it to surpass others in africa. Once they fix the people problems (if possible, depending on what they are), Botswana will become as wealthy as any other region in the world.
I have never said that IQ is only reason botswana, or any other nation is rich or poor. Yet you keep asserting that I have. Why?
MMMark: Southern:I have found a boat load of nations that are the institutional equivalents of Africa. Almost any gulf state. They would arguably have as low of personal and economic freedom as any african nation. Southern:Botswana is not "thriving", neither is South Africa. Southern:The greater the concentration of non-African in any particular region gernerally the wealthier and more econmicly productive.You should provide some substantiation for these statements, especially the third one, and remember, one example doesn't prove the general case. One counter-example, on the other hand, can disprove it.
You are making the claim that they are "thriving". We obviously have different ideas of what thriving actually means. Relative to other African nations? Ill give you that. Relative to the world? Maybe thriving is too strong a word.
As far as my gereralization, take a look at north africa. Arab and berber peoples. Poor but not as poor. (You can check them out on the CIA factbook I linked earlier) South Africa. Cape town region and johannesburg region. Predominately african with large european minorities. Moderately wealthy. Due in part to the people who live there and due in part to the gold, platinum, diamond, coal, and iron mined there (johnnesburg region). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannesburg
One counter example might disprove a general case. Provided the example actually address the general case so far yours have not. My case being there are any number of factors that determine wealth. With IQ (a human resouce) being one of them. NOT THE ONLY ONE. You make the case it is one factor and one only. This is false as demonstrated by the Gulf region. Low liberty relative to the west, yet just as wealthy. Why is that?
MMMark: Southern:I have not read the book, but I did look it up read a brief synopsis. I dont disagree what he is saying. Basically, that demand creates resources through any number of means.That's not quite it. The "ultimate resource" is man, the ingenious, resourceful creature.In the contest between resource scarcity and human ingenuity, Simon bets the farm on the ability of intelligent people to overcome their problems. Thankfully, he is not a theorist. This book lays out convincing empirical evidence for Simon's prediction of a prosperous future. The key to progress is not state-run conservation programs, he says, but economic and political freedom. Only then can talented minds properly apply themselves to our earthly dilemmas.
I agree with this statement completely. But what if there are few if any talented minds? Then there will be little prosperity. But Im going to go out on a limb here and make an assumption. You believe that all people are the equals of all others. No people are more talented than any other. History demonstrates that this may not be the case. Certain peoples have proven themselves more talented than others throughout history. Whether they be more talented at war, literature, art, trading, etc. Which brings us back to our original question why is africa poor? In other words why have they demonstrated less talent. (economicly, politically, militarily) Which they have hence the original posters question. (which is a question asked for a very long time by many, many people)
Thurs. 10/03/25 15:20 EDT.post #37
Southern:But still relative to the world in general it is still poor.
Today Botswana is one of Africa's few enclaves of prosperity.
What accounts for Botswana's sterling achievement? The easy answer would be diamonds, discovered under the desert in 1967. And diamond mining is indeed the keystone of the economy. But odd as it may seem, natural resources like diamonds, gold, or oil are often more of a curse than a blessing. Examples are chronically unstable Venezuela (oil) and the war-torn former Zaire (gold and diamonds). The better answer is that this peaceful democracy has largely stuck to free-market principles, even when its vast diamond wealth could have led it astray. Botswana keeps taxes low. It respects property rights and hasn't nationalized any businesses. It avoids the corruption that easy money encourages, and doesn't waste much money on grandiose air forces or white-elephant industrial projects. Indeed, Botswana is rated Africa's freest economy by the Washington-based Cato Institute in its annual report, Economic Freedom of the World.Back in 1966, Botswana wasn't a model for anything. It boasted just three-and-a-half miles of paved roads and only three high schools in a country of 550,000 people. The per-capita income was $80 a year. Water was so scarce, and valuable, that the currency would later be named the pula, meaning rain.Today Botswana is one of Africa's few enclaves of prosperity. Per-capita income has jumped to $6,600. In a continent of weak currencies, the pula is strong, backed by one of the world's highest per-capita reserves ($6.2 billion). Budget surpluses are the norm, and Moody's Investors Service rates Botswana's government bonds higher than Japan's. Botswana's world-class game parks are so free of poachers that they must cull their elephant herds. As a result the government is a leader in the fight to expand legal ivory trading.
Southern:You believe that all people are the equals of all others.
MMMark:...people are different. This is true everywhere.
Southern:I have never said that IQ is only reason botswana, or any other nation is rich or poor. Yet you keep asserting that I have.
MMMark:Your explanation, as I understand it:Negroes have lower IQs than whites, which results in lower economic performance than whites exhibit, except in the case of countries with "EASILY ACCESSIBLE" NATURAL RESOURCES. Then, the country becomes rich, even if the country lacks a minimal degree of liberty.
MMMark: Southern:But still relative to the world in general it is still poor.Substantiate this claim. Here's an article, from 2002, to help you with that:Today Botswana is one of Africa's few enclaves of prosperity.Here's some more:What accounts for Botswana's sterling achievement? The easy answer would be diamonds, discovered under the desert in 1967. And diamond mining is indeed the keystone of the economy. But odd as it may seem, natural resources like diamonds, gold, or oil are often more of a curse than a blessing. Examples are chronically unstable Venezuela (oil) and the war-torn former Zaire (gold and diamonds). The better answer is that this peaceful democracy has largely stuck to free-market principles, even when its vast diamond wealth could have led it astray. Botswana keeps taxes low. It respects property rights and hasn't nationalized any businesses. It avoids the corruption that easy money encourages, and doesn't waste much money on grandiose air forces or white-elephant industrial projects. Indeed, Botswana is rated Africa's freest economy by the Washington-based Cato Institute in its annual report, Economic Freedom of the World.Back in 1966, Botswana wasn't a model for anything. It boasted just three-and-a-half miles of paved roads and only three high schools in a country of 550,000 people. The per-capita income was $80 a year. Water was so scarce, and valuable, that the currency would later be named the pula, meaning rain.Today Botswana is one of Africa's few enclaves of prosperity. Per-capita income has jumped to $6,600. In a continent of weak currencies, the pula is strong, backed by one of the world's highest per-capita reserves ($6.2 billion). Budget surpluses are the norm, and Moody's Investors Service rates Botswana's government bonds higher than Japan's. Botswana's world-class game parks are so free of poachers that they must cull their elephant herds. As a result the government is a leader in the fight to expand legal ivory trading.
Great article. I agree with everything in it. That diamonds discovered in the sixties (which accounts for "why they havenet always been rich" something that you asked in your last post) in conjunction with free market priciples has allowed it to escape the grinding poverty experienced in the rest of Africa. Notice that diamonds are part of the equation, as are free market priciples. Notice that there is more than one thing that has allowed them to prosper.
I have already substatiated my claim (links to the CIA factbook) that botswana, while wealthy when compared to africa is still poor when looking outside of africa (in particular the west, and east asia). Per Capita these regions are two to three times more wealthy.
MMMark: Southern:You believe that all people are the equals of all others. MMMark:...people are different. This is true everywhere.
So we agree! Excellent.
MMMark: Southern:I have never said that IQ is only reason botswana, or any other nation is rich or poor. Yet you keep asserting that I have. MMMark:Your explanation, as I understand it:Negroes have lower IQs than whites, which results in lower economic performance than whites exhibit, except in the case of countries with "EASILY ACCESSIBLE" NATURAL RESOURCES. Then, the country becomes rich, even if the country lacks a minimal degree of liberty.
Wrong. As i explained in my last post. Which for some reason you did not quote here??? You must not be reading all of my posts (or only interpreting them in a way you want them to be interpreted). What you quoted here is only part of my arguement.
Thurs. 10/03/25 18:30 EDT.post #38
Southern:Botswana is not "thriving"
Southern:Notice that there is more than one thing that has allowed them to prosper.
Southern:My case being there are any number of factors that determine wealth. With IQ (a human resouce) being one of them. NOT THE ONLY ONE. You make the case it is one factor and one only.
Liberty is the fountainhead from which wealth flows.
MMMark: Southern:My case being there are any number of factors that determine wealth. With IQ (a human resouce) being one of them. NOT THE ONLY ONE. You make the case it is one factor and one only.Please point out where I "make (that) case."
You make it in the passage that I quote next. That wealth is impossible with out some minimum level of freedom (never mind the problem of defining what that level is). You declare that it dosent matter about human resources, capital resources, technology, natural resources. None of that matters without some "minimum level" of freedom. History is full of examples that prove this to be false.
MMMark: You could have tons of diamonds, gold and oil buried in the ground or sitting in the river, and a country full of geniuses and talented, competent people, and any other "factor" you think might contribute to a country's wealth. Without a minimal level of liberty, without the assurance that all these people will be able to keep at least SOME of the profits from risked capital, there will be no capital risked, no resources liberated, no profits, no production, no wealth. Period. It's as simple as that. Liberty is the fountainhead from which wealth flows.
You could have tons of diamonds, gold and oil buried in the ground or sitting in the river, and a country full of geniuses and talented, competent people, and any other "factor" you think might contribute to a country's wealth. Without a minimal level of liberty, without the assurance that all these people will be able to keep at least SOME of the profits from risked capital, there will be no capital risked, no resources liberated, no profits, no production, no wealth. Period. It's as simple as that.
Sorry this is simply wrong. The Soviet Union for decades liberated massive amounts of resources. China today produces massive amounts of material. Things are produced and wealth is generated in even the most totalitarian environments. All other things being equal, they do not produce as much as a free society. But they do produce. All wealth does not flow from liberty. During the 1800s massive amounts of wealth were generated on the backs of slaves in the American South. There are endless examples where valuable things and wealth were produced without liberty. Liberty is one of many factors and it is not a prerequisite (as you seem to be claiming). It is complementary, as are all the other factors.
Southern: The Soviet Union for decades liberated massive amounts of resources.
Production declined. Thats what we call wealth destruction.
Southern:China today produces massive amounts of material.
China is capitalist.
When it was communist, its food production fell to the point that they banned reproduction!
Peace
JonBostwick: Southern: The Soviet Union for decades liberated massive amounts of resources. Production declined. Thats what we call wealth destruction.
From when to when? In order to counter my point that wealth can be and is produced in communist countries that lack all the economic freedoms that I am being told are 100% neccessary to produce anything, then production would have had to decline from 1922 untill 1991. Which it did not. During this period production expanded, although at a much slower pace, and the standard of living in the soviet union became better.
JonBostwick: China is capitalist.
I hardly think anyone would call China a capitalist country. In a handfull of regions private companies are allowed to partner with the government to produce things that the capitalist west demands.
JonBostwick:When it was communist, its food production fell to the point that they banned reproduction!
This is a result of resource misallocation due to central planning. During the same, time output of heavy industries continued to increase. The idea that nothing can be produced without liberty is absolutely false.
Other forms of economic organization besides capitalism produce things and wealth. They just dont do it as well.
Southern: I hardly think anyone would call China a capitalist country. In a handfull of regions private companies are allowed to partner with the government to produce things that the capitalist west demands.
Well then call me a communist.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
So large cities = Captialist?
Which Chinese city is that BTW?
Shanghai probably.
Southern: In order to counter my point that wealth can be and is produced in communist countries that lack all the economic freedoms that I am being told are 100% neccessary to produce anything, then production would have had to decline from 1922 untill 1991. Which it did not. During this period production expanded, although at a much slower pace, and the standard of living in the soviet union became better.
You believe Soviet GDP statistics?
JonBostwick: Southern: In order to counter my point that wealth can be and is produced in communist countries that lack all the economic freedoms that I am being told are 100% neccessary to produce anything, then production would have had to decline from 1922 untill 1991. Which it did not. During this period production expanded, although at a much slower pace, and the standard of living in the soviet union became better. You believe Soviet GDP statistics?
I never said i believed soviet GDP statistics. You assume too much. The facts are that the Soviets did undergo a program of industrialization and that the productive capacity of the soviets was greater in 1991 than it was 1922. Do you disagree?
The point of this whole side discussion is that wealth can be generated without people being free. Slave labor be it under direction of the soviets, southern planters, european aristocrats can produce wealth. It has since the dawn of time. These economic systems have a proven themselves poor generators of wealth but they did none the less.