Why is Africa Poor?

[Southern]

@MMMark

@Southern

I was refering to this statement: “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.”

…a statement I made when you pointed out the low literacy rates of sub-saharan African countries.

Your whole use of botswana is that it is an exception. I agree it is. You say its an exception only because it has more liberty. And my counter that there are other factors that determine whether a nation is poor or wealthy other then liberty. Relatively accessable natural resources being one. Most any gulf state is an example of where easily accessable resources can overcome other factors that suppress wealth generation. This supports my statement that Botswana is an exception not only because of liberty but also because of natural resources.

@MMMark

If we attribute poor economic performance to “blackness,” then yes, Botswana IS “the exception.” The existence of such a glaring exception to the “rule” suggests that the attribution may be wrong.

If we attribute poor economic performance to a sub-minimal level of liberty, then we don’t find exceptions to the “rule” and, in the case of Botswana, find CORROBORATION. This tends to support the validity of the attribution.

No, I have not attributed anything to “blackness”, I have stated that there is connection between IQ and poor economic performance. African populations test lower on IQ than other populations. Please address what I have contended not what you want me to contend.

Sure we do. Almost any oil producing gulf state. Very little economic or personal liberty and some of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

@MMMark

@MMMark

More likely is that the entire continent is a vast treasure-trove, as yet mostly undiscovered. This situation will change as Africa becomes increasingly infected with the ideas of liberty.

@Southern

…which implies that botswana’s particular natural wealth is not unusual. Which it is.

I don’t know what Botswana’s particular “natural wealth” is; you’ve said it’s diamonds. Of course, South Africa is also rich in diamonds, so right off the bat, Botswana’s diamond resource is not “unusual.” It’s reasonable to assume that undiscovered diamonds exist in other parts of Africa (not necessarily ALL other parts) but not reasonable to assume existence JUST in Botswana and South Africa.

As you stated before the distribution of natural resources doesnt care about arbitrary lines drawn on a map. They also dont care about how much liberty the people who walk the surface of this planet have. No matter how free botswana or any other nation, people, or region; whats in the ground is in the ground. If there are no diamonds deposits in Japan there will never be diamonds mined in Japan. And some regions of the world have deposits of certain minerals that other places do not. Places such as South Africa have vast amounts of rare and valuable natural resources that simply do not exist in most other regions of the world. This does have an effect on its economy and by association the wealth of its people. Therefore, botswanas relatively easy to access, valuable, and abundant resources will make it wealthier than its neighbors. I dont know why you think it wouldnt.

@MMMark

It’s also reasonable to assume that DIFFERENT, undiscovered “natural wealth” resides in other parts of Africa.
Instituting liberty is the way to find out.

I want to take time out here to recommend, if you haven’t already read it, a book by Julian Simon, entitled The Ultimate Resource.

I agree the best route is free enterprise.

I have not read the book, but I did look it up read a brief synopsis. I dont disagree what he is saying. Basically, that demand creates resources through any number of means. More effiecient use of resources, recycling, use of alternatives, etc. Just so you know I never advocated that resources are limited.

@MMMark

@MMMark

Capitalists don’t care how “easy” a resource is to “access”; they care about whether they can make a profit.

@Southern

Sure they do.

Okay, okay, but you get my point, which is that “ease of access” is only one of the factors. What decides, ultimately, whether the capitalist invests is the answer to the question “Can I make a profit?” As a “crude” example, oil is not “easy” to “access” in Alberta’s tar sands, but when the price per barrel exceeds a certain amount, extraction becomes profitable and proceeds. What also happens, typically, is that better methods are then developed, which reduces costs. Again, please read The Ultimate Resource.

Sure one factor that determines whether you make the investment to harvest a resource or not. It is also related to whether or not we know if a resource is present. For example, diamonds being found in a stream bed. As opposed to multi billion dollar oil exploration off the coast of Brazil. Which resource do you think will be tapped first? The point is that if a resource is easily accessable then the return on investment will be higher. Meaning these will be the first to be exploited.

@MMMark

@Southern

Anyway the US poverty statistics, again, were not meant to illistrate why africa is poor. Only that institutional factors do not explain away why Africa is poor.

I don’t see that they illustrate this. Even within the U.S. black “poor” population, differences in economic performance exist. All this means is that people are different. This is true everywhere. In order to illustrate “…that institutional factors do not explain away why Africa is poor,” you’d have to find the institutional equivalent of a poor African country that is, nevertheless, wealthy. What we do find is that countries that trample liberty (such as many African countries) are poor, while countries that allow at least some liberty (such as the U.S.A., South Africa and Botswana) thrive.

Of course people are different. That is the point. IQ suggests that there is a difference between populations of people. The IQ scores of people of african decent are lower than those of European and asian decent. This difference in IQ includes people of african decent who live in the US and those who live in africa. So again my case is that IQ and economic performance is connected.

This is connected to the question why is africa poor, because poor is a realtive term. Africa (aka lower IQ scores) is poor relative to the US, Europe, Japan, China, Korea, etc. While people of african decent in the US(aka lower IQ scores) are poor relative to the European and Asian populations.

I have found a boat load of nations that are the institutional equivalents of Africa. Almost any gulf state. They would arguably have as low of personal and economic freedom as any african nation.

Botswana is not “thriving”, neither is South Africa. The african populations in the US are not thriving. This is simply false.

@MMMark

@Southern

Was attempt to control for African populations and “liberty”. A way of looking at African populations outside of African institutions,

“African,” or “black”? “African populations” (i.e. the populations of African countries) include non-black individuals.

Indeed they do. The greater the concentration of non-African in any particular region gernerally the wealthier and more econmicly productive.

@MMMark

The first pertains to the wealth of a country, while the second pertains to the differences between individuals.

I am not talking about individuals. And no “what accounts for economic differences” can mean between nations or continients. They are the same question, because poor is a relative term. It assumes differences. Poor compared to what. The question was in an economic context.