Hello. I have finally decided to do some proper research into an argument that’s been bugging me for many years: why South America and Africa, arguably the two continents with the most natural resources, are so miserable and poor? Why are they still trailing behind when even former Communist Asian countries are improving? All books are well accepted, except the ones written by hardcore Marxists (mainly because their writing style is so boring I wouldn’t be able to stay awake long enough to read ten pages).
You seem to be conceding, at least partially, a typically marxist point ? Natural resources have almost nothing to do with wealth. Natural resources are meaningless without industry. And you can’t have industry where property rights are absent.
Giles, those books are very helpful on the economical side (particulary De Soto, who I admire much) but I’d also like to learn more about the cultural side of things. For example why sometimes South America misfortunes are attributed to Catholicism while other Catholic areas like Bavaria and Lombardy are amongst the richest in the world. Also I would like to learn more about the connection between African elites trained in European universities and their catastrophic political and economical decisions.
On the issue of the Marxist view: I cannot say I completely disregard it. Having good arable land and plenty of good quality ore is surely a better starting point than a barren mountain land.
Low average IQ in the case of the former, and high average IQ in the case of the latter.
People like to talk about rights in property, but this concept itself much less the social structure to recognize and enforce it requires a level of mentation and sufficient impulse control that low IQ populations are just not going to have. And even if you decentralize power enough so that everybody’s in a Mexican standoff where nobody steals or murders because of the threat of retaliation, they’re still not going to be able to do much beyond basic direct exchange. You need a critical mass of people with IQ’s north of 100 to get a high degree of division of labor and its attendant benefits.
The former Asians countries may be improving GDP wise? eh? But they are a result of botched “privatizations”. The land wasn’t homesteaded, it was sold / auctioned to the glboal corporations.
I forget where I remember reading this, it was either a point made by Rothbard in Betrayal of the American Right, or Hoppe in an introduction to something. Anyone got a clue?
I listened to a talk by Lawrence White in the past few days and he mentioned in passing that countries with informal economies, which I’m guessing would include the poor countries in Africa and South America, have to inflate their currency at a greater rate because they are unable to tax. That may be something you want to look into.
I think the main causes are corruption, institutional instability, political opportunism, cultural and social problems and a generalized free-market economy ignorance.