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?
Jon Irenicus: 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.
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.
I'm pretty sure that population gains would eat up all the productivity gains from additional capital investment and it would remain poor.
and the reason that you aren't sure about the claim as it would have applied to the UK from 1860 is that things didn't go that way?
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
I mean it was not like England had a growing population and influx of immigrants...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Has anyone mentioned culture yet? Boettke, Coyne and Leeson have a fascinating paper on "institutional stickiness," where they argue that whether or not formal institutions will stick depends primarily on culture and informal institutions.
So perhaps Africa lacks the culture required for institutions that promote growth: private property, rule of law, and free trade.
See "Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics."
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
First, IQ charts have an annoying way of being a bit off due to economic disparity and such. But lets get past that and presume you are right.
Even assuming any ethnicity has a lower intelligence, that is counting the bell curve (for every person with 130 IQ, there is someone with 70 or so IQ to even it out to about 110). No matter how dumb the AVERAGE is, there will always be people ABOVE average. Every ethnic group will have its Einsteins and Teslas. Really, so long as there are enough above average or otherwise competent people, the market can be adjusted to fit for the lower average intelligence.
No, the real problems of Africa are annoying circles. People are poor because of (largely) European colonization followed by shitty land splits (look at the Congo), leading to despotic dictators seizing control and talking "Socialism" to keep looting. It can be stopped though (Look at the results of free market reforms in Botswana)
I was thinking about my earlier argument today, and I've changed my mind again. A lack of technology cannot be the explanation for the continuation of African poverty. All the technology of the first world is available to the third world. It really comes down to a low level of capital per person. Population control, capital accumulation, and the elimination of institutional trade barriers (both inter- and intra-national) would allow Africa to become rich.
Why does the water swirl where it does in a river, and not couple of feet to the right? Why did the swirl move couple of feet upstream?
Evolution has wired us for cause-effect pattern extraction, for simplification of the complex world around us. I sense that we may be abusing this gift in this thread a bit.
Z.
Stephen: All the technology of the first world is available to the third world.
They certainly never had any trouble figuring how to operate AK-47s and pickup trucks.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Sage:So perhaps Africa lacks the culture required for institutions that promote growth: private property, rule of law, and free trade.
So what's the solution to "lack of culture"?
Stranger: Sage:So perhaps Africa lacks the culture required for institutions that promote growth: private property, rule of law, and free trade. So what's the solution to "lack of culture"?
A good example to follow. A natural elite.
I personally doubt that. First, you need to assume that Africans are less intelligent then other people (a pretty big premise that we really can't prove, but I am wiling to accept it to make this work). Then, you need to assume that despite natural selection and the fact that over time people from other places would arrive, people would stay (relatively) dumb.
Now, it still doesn't work because even if the AVERAGE IQ is lower, there will be at least some smart and clever people left over. You don't need a nation full of geniuses, rocket scientists, and software programmers to keep things stable, you just need a decent base with good potential left over. On that note, a nation full of natural resources would fail if it was run by incompetent half-wits (But the thing is, there are usually enough smart people to counteract the half-wits unless there is an underlying issue), and a well run nation (using Capitalist theory or what not) would fail if it was built on unhospitable rock.
There are plenty of reasons why Africa is poor. First, the Europeans generally didn't bother to educate most of the Africans, leaving them with a largely poor base with which to start a country. Second, the border divisions were based on old Colonial borders rather then ethnic borders. Some (very lucky) African countries ended up with one or two predominant ethnic groups around (Nigeria only has around 5-10 big ones, which is better then a lot of other places). A lot, however, ended up with hundreds of little tribes in their areas, some composed of millions of individuals, others being made up of some guy, his sister, and his cat. That led to the eventual cycle of "Corrupt government-revolution-Socialism-looting-repeat" that lots of African countries have today. Though it certainly can be broken (To some degree, free market reforms improved Botswana), it is pretty hard to do.
JonBostwick: IQ is then limited to being only a minor factor.
So it is a factor?
Stranger:So what's the solution to "lack of culture"?
Cultivating the right culture. And we do that by changing how people think, how they treat each other. In other words, social entrepreneurship.
Jon Irenicus: Europe was far readier than Africa is today to accommodate technological changes in terms of its capital infrastructure and financial development.
Europe was far readier than Africa is today to accommodate technological changes in terms of its capital infrastructure and financial development.
But why is this? This is the whole question. Whether it is technology or capital. Some peoples took the next step some did not. Is it language, resources, politics, or what? If people are equal then its one of those things but its very hard to point to one of those factors or even combination of factors that was not present in other parts of the world.
Sage:Cultivating the right culture. And we do that by changing how people think, how they treat each other. In other words, social entrepreneurship.
They eat social entrepreneurs in Africa.