Why is Africa Poor?

[Southern]

@MMMark

@Southern

Your list includes 8 of the most populous nation in the world…Not an honest portail of reality.

It’s not my list actually; it’s from the same site as the page you linked to:
Literacy
It’s found near the bottom of the page, under “World.” I didn’t really include it for any particular reason, and I apologize for failing to provide the link, originally.

@Southern

…the reality (that) literacy rates in sub-saharan africa are much lower than outside.

I don’t disagree, except in the case of Botswana, whose literacy rate, while not stellar, is certainly higher than some other African countries, and even some other outside countries.

And I expect that the extremely low rates would rise to low rates if all the other countries of sub-saharan africa adopted the policies pursued by Botswana. You are pretty insistant on using Botswana as some sort of golden arrow that can be used to demonstrate that it is institutions and policies that cause all of african poverty. (If this is not what you are saying, I appologize) But we need to keep in mind that Botswana’s situation is not typical of most other african nations. Possessing valuable natural resources bolster its numbers quite a bit. Much in the same way the oil producing nations of the middle east are very wealthy, yet they do not possess any of the proper governmental or capitalistic institutions.

@MMMark

@Southern

What exactly are you trying to pin me down on?

Nothing…I was just giving some examples of what I meant by “to what extent” (since I hadn’t made that clear the first time), and trying to show its relevance when interpreting statistics such as “poverty.”

For example, let’s say that the “poverty threshold” is $10,000. (So, any annual income BELOW this qualifies one as being “poor”). 24.7% of blacks earn less than this, while only 8.6% of whites do. Sounds pretty bad for the blacks, right? But let’s make up some numbers:

Let’s say that 24.7% of Blacks all earn EXACTLY $9,999.99.
Let’s say, further, that 8.6% of whites all earn EXACTLY ZERO, while 16.1% of whites all earn EXACTLY $10,000.00…this means that 24.7% of whites (the same percentage as blacks who are “poor”) earn, on average, ONE PENNY MORE, per year, than the “poor” blacks. So, while it’s true that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are “poor,” the extent to which that’s true is insignificant.

That’s an extreme example to emphasize the fact that statistical aggregates frequently do not tell the whole story.

Here’s something else to consider. Have a look at this chart of poverty thresholds. You will see that, the larger the family, the greater that family’s income can be, while still qualifying as “poor.” So, when we see that a higher proportion of blacks than whites are “poor,” we should consider (for example) the average family sizes of those groups. Blacks who earn more than some “non-poor” whites, but who have large enough families can still be, ipso facto, “poor”!

There is additional information in that link for those at the 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, etc. of the poverty level. In addition with in each chart is gives family size data also broken down by race. So if you can find in the data linked where a statistical anomaly is leading me astray, I would honestly ask you to point it out. However if you are only saying that it is possible, then… I agree? But if you dont see or know of any specific error in the data that would mislead, then it is a pointless exercise. After all anything is possible.