Economics Questions

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Rodolphe Topffer — Wed, 30 May 2012 21:29:15 GMT

"Race", John R. Baker (1974).

"Schweinfurth remarks of the countryside at the border of Dinka (Ni), Dyoor (Ni), and Bongo (Pan 3) territory, 'The extreme productiveness of the luxuriant tropics is well exemplified in these fields, which for thirteen years have undergone continual tillage without once lying fallow and with no other manuring but what is afforded by the uprooted weeds.' The land of the Mittu (Pan 3) '... is very productive. ... On account of its fertility the land requires little labour in its culture.' 'The Monbuttoo [Pan 3] land greets us as an Eden upon earth.' In some districts of the Azande '... the exuberance is unsurpassed. ... the cultivation of the soil is supremely easy. The entire land is pre-eminently rich in many spontaneous products, animal and vegetable alike, that conduce to the direct maintenance of human life.' Baker says of the country in what is now the borderland between Sudan and Uganda, '... we were in a beautiful open country, naturally drained by its undulating character, and abounding in most beautiful low pasturage'. He describes Shooa (Ladwong) in Acholi (Ni) territory, as '... "flowing with milk and honey"; fowls, butter, goats, were in abundance and ridiculously cheap'."

(p. 397-398)

“Sommerfelt, for instance, says that the differences between ‘peoples and tribes’ are due to ‘natural surroundings and history, not to innate characteristics of these peoples’. [991] This, however, is not by any means always the experience of those who have actually travelled among primitive peoples in their natural environments. Livingstone, for instance, was struck by the mental differences between members of different races living in the Kalahari Desert. The Bakalahari, a Kafrid tribe, had been forced into this environment in the remote past.

'Living ever since on the same plains with the Bushmen, subjected to the same influences of climate, enduring the same thirst, and subsisting on the same food for centuries, they seem to supply a standing proof that locality is not always sufficient of itself to account for differences in races.' [676]” (p. 527)

“It would be wrong to suppose that civilization developed wherever the environment was genial, and failed to do so where it was not. … It has been pointed out by an authority on the Maya that their culture reached its climax in that particular part of their extensive territory in which the environment was least favourable, and in reporting this fact he mentions the belief that ‘civilizations, like individuals, respond to challenge’. [1043] … The Sumerians found no Garden of Eden awaiting them in Mesopotamia and the adjoining territory at the head of the Persian Gulf, but literally made their environment out of unpromising material by constructing an elaborate system of canals for the drainage and watering of their lands. A very large number of Aztecs and members of several other Middle American tribes lived and made their gardens on artificial islands that they themselves constructed with their hands.” (p. 528)

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

John James — Wed, 30 May 2012 16:29:58 GMT

You did not just read a 17 page thread from two years ago.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Elfdemon — Wed, 30 May 2012 13:32:15 GMT

Love all those supposely "libertarian" people defending the failure of Africa on various grounds such as wars, corruption, government control, and even foreign aid, blah blah blahaaaaaaa. .... completely ignoring the ethnic factor.

Southern have very good points. Totally logical, and hardly can be refuted. Such factors, may it be wars, goverment, corruption whatever, are widespread throughout other parts of the world, yet Africa fails so miserably.

Remember, South Africa and Rhodesia was under the stricest economic sanction ever, more than that of North Korea today (NK still gets aid from China), yet, they were in better shape than today's SA and Zimbabwe.

Recognizing reality and totally discarding any PC garbage, in my opinion, is one of the most basic requirement of being a real libertarian. If you can't even face the truth, resorting to using the same lies used over and over by these average, PC people, then you are no better and you are an anti-libertarian in a deceptive libertarian coating.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Southern — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:54:58 GMT

nnamdi619:

http://afrosistahdiaspora.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/african-immigrants-among-the-most-educated/ http://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php I've seen a lot of studies as of late showing that Africans are the most educated immigrants in the U.S, surpassing their cousins from the far East.

Wow, dug this thread up.

Im not sure that those studies would neccessarialy mean anything. If we look at only small samples of a race we could show evidence of anything we want. To mean anything you would have to show that these immigrants would be typical of the african population from which the came or the african populations in the americas. But they are not typical. They are exceptional.... as in different from the populations as a whole.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

nnamdi619 — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 01:14:47 GMT

MMMark:
Southern:
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.

http://afrosistahdiaspora.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/african-immigrants-among-the-most-educated/ http://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php I've seen a lot of studies as of late showing that Africans are the most educated immigrants in the U.S, surpassing their cousins from the far East.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Southern — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:43:53 GMT

JonBostwick:

Southern:

In 1860 the southern united states produced more cotton than any other region of the world. Today both india and egypt produce more. So obviously the US economy is smaller than it was.... Obivously Not.

Come on. Honest debate here.

But the US economy is in decline.

Yea and.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Southern — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:41:58 GMT

JonBostwick:

Southern:

wilderness:

Southern:
Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.

I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand.

Its not a matter of separating the two. They are indeed. One is part of the other. I just advocated a broad view of the problem, others a narrower view.

Yours is not a broader argument, you are just denying the casual link. Those factors are not equal "causes." There is one cause and many symptoms.

I have not denied any link. There is a link between liberty and wealth. However, I can put you on a rock in the middle of the atlantic. There you will have all the freedom in the world. You will not be coerced or threatened you will own the entire island and all of the fruits of your labor. However if there is nothing eatible, no fresh water, nothing that can be used for shelter (aka resources) you will die; if there are things to eat, there is fresh water, and material for shelter but you lack the know how and/or tools to access these things (aka human capital, capital goods) you will die. Dead people dont produce anything, much less become wealthy.

I have never denied that freedom is an important part of a wealthy, successfull society. However, you have claimed that all wealth springs from liberty. And that all the other things that I have listed (resources, technology, knowhow) are all dependant on liberty. THey are not. They all exist whether people are slaves or free.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

wilderness — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:02:03 GMT

JonBostwick:
Yours is not a broader argument, you are just denying the casual link. Those factors are not equal "causes." There is one cause and many symptoms.

If you mean that generation or degeneration of liberty is a cause, then I agree, noting that liberty is a principle by definition. Due to social interactions by individuals who enact the principle of liberty, then capital accumulation or depletion and all else in the historical data are unintended consequences of said individuals socially interacting.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Bostwick — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:56:32 GMT

Southern:

wilderness:

Southern:
Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.

I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand.

Its not a matter of separating the two. They are indeed. One is part of the other. I just advocated a broad view of the problem, others a narrower view.

Yours is not a broader argument, you are just denying the casual link. Those factors are not equal "causes." There is one cause and many symptoms.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Bostwick — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:52:29 GMT

Southern:

In 1860 the southern united states produced more cotton than any other region of the world. Today both india and egypt produce more. So obviously the US economy is smaller than it was.... Obivously Not.

Come on. Honest debate here.

But the US economy is in decline.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Southern — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:37:00 GMT

wilderness:

Southern:
Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.

I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand.

Its not a matter of separating the two. They are indeed. One is part of the other. I just advocated a broad view of the problem, others a narrower view.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Southern — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:31:28 GMT

JonBostwick:

Southern:
Slave labor be it under direction of the soviets, southern planters, european aristocrats can produce wealth

Slave labor under a plantation owner or under a soviet commissar are different.

The plantation owner is able to calculate, he can tell when the worth of his plantation has increased or decreased, the commissar is not.

Maybe but even the commissar can motivate people to create things of value.

JonBostwick:

Southern:
that the productive capacity of the soviets was greater in 1991 than it was 1922.

Russia was the single largest grain exporter prior to becoming the USSR, it was a grain importer when it collapsed.

Can you make the case for ALL production? The soviets made a huge effort to expand the production of heavy industry. Did the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union fall?

No.

In 1860 the southern united states produced more cotton than any other region of the world. Today both india and egypt produce more. So obviously the US economy is smaller than it was.... Obivously Not.

Come on. Honest debate here.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

wilderness — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 01:39:41 GMT

Southern:
Ok, so in a nutshell. The market always exists. The "systems" (or differing levels and types of coersion or motivation) that I am talking about would be nothing more than interference or alterations to the market? If that is what you are saying. I agree.

Exactly! That's what I am saying.

Southern:
Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.

I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Bostwick — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:35:35 GMT

Southern:
Slave labor be it under direction of the soviets, southern planters, european aristocrats can produce wealth

Slave labor under a plantation owner or under a soviet commissar are different.

The plantation owner is able to calculate, he can tell when the worth of his plantation has increased or decreased, the commissar is not.

Southern:
that the productive capacity of the soviets was greater in 1991 than it was 1922.

Russia was the single largest grain exporter prior to becoming the USSR, it was a grain importer when it collapsed.

Re: Why is Africa Poor?

Southern — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:26:44 GMT

wilderness:

Southern:
I appologize. I was a bit confused, I assumed you were in dissagreement. I agree with everything that you have said here.

There was an initial disagreement when you said this:

Southern:
These economic systems have a proven themselves poor generators of wealth but they did none the less.

If you agree with what I had said, then socialism has not proven itself as a generator of wealth. You said poor generator, but generator none the less. It's not the socialist system that is doing anything. It is the individuals that are working that are actually generating wealth, though, under the whip. The only thing the socialist is adding to the market is - the whip. Not production. Not wealth.

Ok, so in a nutshell. The market always exists. The "systems" (or differing levels and types of coersion or motivation) that I am talking about would be nothing more than interference or alterations to the market? If that is what you are saying. I agree.

Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.