Tues. 10/03/23 16:20 EDT
.post #24
Well, I wouldn’t call Botswana an “exception.” I think the example of Botswana is consistent with the idea that the proliferation of wealth needs a certain minimum amount of liberty, within a given society. I think that many of Africa’s other countries don’t meet this minimum. I’m not really saying anything very profound here, obviously.
But has Saudi Arabia, in fact, “abandoned liberty”? Surely, their society respects property and contracts to at least the minimum degree?
But by the same token, surely they don’t all “happen” to be situated within the borders of Botswana, either. That was what I was trying to get across.
Two points here.
- “Ease of access” hasn’t suddenly changed in Botswana.
- Capitalists don’t care how “easy” a resource is to “access”; they care about whether they can make a profit.
I fully accept this. Liberty doesn’t eliminate “disparity,” but wealth tends to vary directly with the degree of liberty. Also, “disparity” is not the same thing as “poverty,” nor are the lowest earners necessarily “poor” (which becomes especially obvious when comparing poverty class U.S.A. to the general living standards of very poor African countries).
Here is what I said:
The bolded part is of what I said was really “what (I) countered” with. I don’t think U.S.A. “poverty” statistics are germane to the Original Poster’s question, which is “Why is Africa Poor?”
The questions of why we can see racial disparities on U.S.A. poverty statistics, whether these statistics constitute “all measures” of poverty or economic performance (and according to you, there are "…all sorts of measure that you could use… per capita income, infant mortality, literacy rates, life expectancy, etc.), how accurate these statistics actually are, etc., don’t impinge on the issue of Africa’s inability to keep developmental pace…in my opinion.
It just seems to amount to saying “Because they’re black…works just the same in the U.S.A. as in Africa.”
It doesn’t explain anything.