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?
JonBostwick: Stephen: JonBostwick: Stephen:I never said that institutional factors were not necessary. In fact, the Chinese would have far surpassed Europeans if institutional factors had been equal. But that is my point, those factors weren't equal despite IQ. IQ is then limited to being only a minor factor. Pre-colonial Africa was highly decentralized. Why didn't it also undergo an industrial revolution? Medieval Europe was politically decentralized but culturally unified, by an international religion.
Stephen: JonBostwick: Stephen:I never said that institutional factors were not necessary. In fact, the Chinese would have far surpassed Europeans if institutional factors had been equal. But that is my point, those factors weren't equal despite IQ. IQ is then limited to being only a minor factor. Pre-colonial Africa was highly decentralized. Why didn't it also undergo an industrial revolution?
JonBostwick: Stephen:I never said that institutional factors were not necessary. In fact, the Chinese would have far surpassed Europeans if institutional factors had been equal. But that is my point, those factors weren't equal despite IQ. IQ is then limited to being only a minor factor.
Stephen:I never said that institutional factors were not necessary. In fact, the Chinese would have far surpassed Europeans if institutional factors had been equal.
But that is my point, those factors weren't equal despite IQ. IQ is then limited to being only a minor factor.
Pre-colonial Africa was highly decentralized. Why didn't it also undergo an industrial revolution?
Medieval Europe was politically decentralized but culturally unified, by an international religion.
Religion was one of the most devisive issues in europe for thousands of years. Christianity has fought against itself since the time of christ. Firsrt the hundreds of sects in early christianity, then eastern vrs western during medival times, then protestant vrs catholic around the time of the rennaisance. Christianity has never been a unifying force in europe.
P.S. Christianity only became the "international religion" that we know today after colonialism. Not before.
Sun. 10/03/21 12:27 EDT.post #11
liege:Why is Africa Poor?
Wikipedia:Geographically the country is flat and up to 70% of Botswana is covered by the Kalahari Desert...(and yet) Botswana is a regional leader in economic freedom. Competitiveness and flexibility are promoted by a sensible business regulatory environment, openness to foreign investment and trade, and relatively flexible employment regulations. The financial sector remains relatively well developed, with an independent central bank and little government intervention. The independent judiciary provides strong protection of property rights. 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. Being closely tied with the economy of South Africa, the country's economy is one of the most successful in Africa and is dominated by the fast-growing service sector, world-renowned diamond industry, tourism, and manufacturing. Botswana's economic growth rate has outpaced the economic growth of even the Asian Tigers, and the World Bank cites Botswana as one of the world's great development success stories.
Southern: So did africans destroy thier nations with communism? Was there something to destroy? If anything the only thing destroyed was what little was build during colonialism. The mercantilsit system which is capitalisms wayward cousin.
So did africans destroy thier nations with communism? Was there something to destroy? If anything the only thing destroyed was what little was build during colonialism. The mercantilsit system which is capitalisms wayward cousin.
And yet it was destroyed by communism.
Remember for decades the US and SU fought a cold war over control of third world states. People have such short memories.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:And yet it was destroyed by communism.
There was nothing to destroy. And that is the point of this thread. Why, by the time of the Cold War, was Africa centuries behind the rest of the world? There is no doubt that a communist economic system is highly destructive. But even those european and asian nations that suffered under the most complete communist systems in the world did not collapse to the level of Africa. So even the factor of socialist/communist governmental and economic systems demonstrate a difference between African populations and European/Asian populations.
MMMark: liege:Why is Africa Poor?I question the assumption: that "Africa is poor." Some parts of Africa enjoy much greater wealth than others. Try approaching this differently. Take a relatively rich part of Africa, such as Cape Town, and ask "What would you do to make Cape Town as poor as, say, Djibouti?" or "Given governmental carte blanche and one year, how would you destroy most of Cape Town's wealth?"
This would be a good approach. There are historical examples of exactly this. Rhodesia (aka Zimbabwe), imediately after independance was what botswana is today. Head and sholders above the rest of africa. But was to be short lived. Domestic and International pressure forced the minority european population to give up power. It did not take long for African rule to devestate the nation.
MMMark:Consider this passage, from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Geographically the country is flat and up to 70% of Botswana is covered by the Kalahari Desert...(and yet) Botswana is a regional leader in economic freedom. Competitiveness and flexibility are promoted by a sensible business regulatory environment, openness to foreign investment and trade, and relatively flexible employment regulations. The financial sector remains relatively well developed, with an independent central bank and little government intervention. The independent judiciary provides strong protection of property rights. 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. Being closely tied with the economy of South Africa, the country's economy is one of the most successful in Africa and is dominated by the fast-growing service sector, world-renowned diamond industry, tourism, and manufacturing. Botswana's economic growth rate has outpaced the economic growth of even the Asian Tigers, and the World Bank cites Botswana as one of the world's great development success stories.
Again there is no doubt that a more capitalist economic system is an important factor. But notice the use of "relative" throughout the passage. Botswana even with all of these great policies is one of the poorest nations of the planet. And if it were only institutional factors, then Botswana should be on par with S. Korea, Tiawan or even the highly controlled "capitalist" region of China. But they are still a very, very long way away from them.
Southern: Religion was one of the most devisive issues in europe for thousands of years. Christianity has fought against itself since the time of christ. Firsrt the hundreds of sects in early christianity, then eastern vrs western during medival times, then protestant vrs catholic around the time of the rennaisance. Christianity has never been a unifying force in europe. P.S. Christianity only became the "international religion" that we know today after colonialism. Not before.
Its good to see your prejudices aren't limited to race.
Peace
If Giles thinks that the returns in Burundi are so great, I suggest that he call his broker.
Caley McKibbin: If Giles thinks that the returns in Burundi are so great, I suggest that he call his broker.
Actually that's sort of the point I was attempting to make, I really don't think the returns are as great as they should be if lack of capital was really the answer. I've really not made up my mind on the issue of developing, but I think there's something serious lacking in the capital explanation. By the way, does anybody here have any empirical work that would suggest large scale lack of capital in developing countries?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sun. 10/03/21 15:03 EDT.post #13
Southern:Botswana even with all of these great policies is one of the poorest nations of the planet.
Southern:And if it were only institutional factors, then Botswana should be on par with S. Korea, Tiawan or even the highly controlled "capitalist" region of China.
Southern:But they are still a very, very long way away from them.
hayekianxyz: Caley McKibbin: If Giles thinks that the returns in Burundi are so great, I suggest that he call his broker. Actually that's sort of the point I was attempting to make, I really don't think the returns are as great as they should be if lack of capital was really the answer. I've really not made up my mind on the issue of developing, but I think there's something serious lacking in the capital explanation. By the way, does anybody here have any empirical work that would suggest large scale lack of capital in developing countries?
Africa has a far higher population growth rate than the rich regions. That can account for some of income distribution. Aside from that I can't think of anything provably effective other than capital.
Caley McKibbin: hayekianxyz: Caley McKibbin: If Giles thinks that the returns in Burundi are so great, I suggest that he call his broker. Actually that's sort of the point I was attempting to make, I really don't think the returns are as great as they should be if lack of capital was really the answer. I've really not made up my mind on the issue of developing, but I think there's something serious lacking in the capital explanation. By the way, does anybody here have any empirical work that would suggest large scale lack of capital in developing countries? Africa has a far higher population growth rate than the rich regions. That can account for some of income distribution. Aside from that I can't think of anything provably effective other than capital.
I think social and cultural norms might also be part of the explaination: large families, tolerance of corruption, crime, and fraud, ect.
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.
funny. Look at the direction America's fortunes are going.
JonBostwick: Southern: Religion was one of the most devisive issues in europe for thousands of years. Christianity has fought against itself since the time of christ. Firsrt the hundreds of sects in early christianity, then eastern vrs western during medival times, then protestant vrs catholic around the time of the rennaisance. Christianity has never been a unifying force in europe. P.S. Christianity only became the "international religion" that we know today after colonialism. Not before. Its good to see your prejudices aren't limited to race.
What prejudices?
MMMark: Southern:Botswana even with all of these great policies is one of the poorest nations of the planet.By what, and whose, measure?
Well, there are all sorts of measure that you could use.... per capita income, infant mortality, literacy rates, life expectancy, etc.
Are you contending that Botswana is not one of poorest nations on earth?
MMMark: Southern:But they are still a very, very long way away from them.Okay, but "where they are now" is perhaps not as important as "if they are headed anywhere," "where they are headed" and "at what rate."I alluded earlier to the fact that every government survives and thrives by parasitically extracting the wealth produced by the host or slave class. Just as producers must learn better ways of creating wealth, so must governments learn better ways of parasitically extracting that wealth. Perhaps some of Africa's governments are finally learning that, by allowing the host class to grow more wealthy, there is more wealth to be extracted.
Perhaps. And time will tell. 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. So governments everywhere can impoverish it population. Yet when the variable of government is the same you still have major disparities in economic performance.