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?
Stephen:The major breakthroughs were the result technological discovery rather than capital accumulation. The invention of the steam pump produced the greatest breakthrough.
A steam pump is capital.
By applying IQ theory of productivity, we can finally explain Russia's drop in production during the USSR: they got stupider.
Peace
@ JB
I never said that institutional factors were not necessary. In fact, the Chinese would have far surpassed Europeans if institutional factors had been equal.
I just think that as a population becomes more intelligent, because of a higher IQ of individuals translating into reproductive success, it is more likely that a member of that population will make a major breakthrough. It is no coincidence that the discovery of agriculture occurred independently in three locations at roughly the same latitude, and a latitude which was not the most favourable to agriculture on the surface of the earth. It is also no coincidence that the industrial revolution started in a northern country, nor that the Germans produced more technological innovations during the Second World War than the English.
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 just think that as a population becomes more intelligent, because of a higher IQ of individuals translating into reproductive success, it is more likely that a member of that population will make a major breakthrough. It is no coincidence that the discovery of agriculture occurred independently in three locations at roughly the same latitude, and a latitude which was not the most favourable to agriculture on the surface of the earth. It is also no coincidence that the industrial revolution started in a northern country, nor that the Germans produced more technological innovations during the Second World War than the English.
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with economics. Economics is supposed to tell us how to organize society to achieve optimal use of resources. High IQ individuals is only one of those resources.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
anybody can answer this which might have to do with the back and forth here currently.
Is IQ a measure of content-free intelligence, in other words, it's not determined by the kind of knowledge instead it is a measurement of the skill in using the kind of knowledge available?
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?
Stranger: Stephen:I just think that as a population becomes more intelligent, because of a higher IQ of individuals translating into reproductive success, it is more likely that a member of that population will make a major breakthrough. It is no coincidence that the discovery of agriculture occurred independently in three locations at roughly the same latitude, and a latitude which was not the most favourable to agriculture on the surface of the earth. It is also no coincidence that the industrial revolution started in a northern country, nor that the Germans produced more technological innovations during the Second World War than the English. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with economics. Economics is supposed to tell us how to organize society to achieve optimal use of resources. High IQ individuals is only one of those resources.
It has something to do with economic history.
Stephen, have you read Gregory Clark's Farewall to Alms?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
hayekianxyz: Stephen, have you read Gregory Clark's Farewall to Alms?
Nope. But I just looked through the table of contents and might have to order it.
@ GS
I think the reason why Africa remains poor is largely due to institutional factors. Much of Africa is democratic or socialist with national boundaries intersecting ethnic groups. This is the source of so many wars and rebellions. On top of it, despotic regimes are propped up by foreign aid. Currencies are devalued to increase exports. The risk having one's investments nationalized is high (and this risk does not automatically just raise the rate of return on investment, a higher return is needed to compensate for the additional risk). And there are the trade barriers from the developed nations. There is the banning of goods produced in sweatshops. I'm sure that if these institutional factors were removed, Africa would become a rich continent.
Stephen, if this relates to the earlier debate in this topic, I agree with you that these are the root causes. The point I was trying to make to the other posters is that these causes manifest themselves in a lack of technology, not capital. Like I said, if lack of capital were the cause of a 50 fold difference in income we'd expect to see huge interest rates in developing nations.
and of course by technology you mean capital.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Thinking about this more, I've changed my mind. I think you're right. If technology is not disseminated fast enough to increase productivity more rapidly than population, Africa will be stuck in a perpetual population trap.
Stephen:Pre-colonial Africa was highly decentralized. Why didn't it also undergo an industrial revolution?
Because it was a sparsely populated country with abundant natural resources.
The technology and ideas exist and are freely disseminated now, so why is Africa still poor? Because, of course, no matter how good your ideas, they're worthless without a developed capital infrastructure to instantiate them... Europe was far readier than Africa is today to accommodate technological changes in terms of its capital infrastructure and financial development.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...