Why is Africa Poor?

[MMMark]

Thurs. 10/03/25 09:43 EDT
.post #27

@Southern

You say its an exception only because it has more liberty.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it’s an exception to your explanation of poverty - a glaring counter-example to your “general case.”

Your explanation, as I understand it:

Negroes have lower IQs than whites, which results in lower economic performance than whites exhibit, except in the case of countries with “easily accessible” natural resources. Then, the country becomes rich, even if the country lacks a minimal degree of liberty.

But this utterly fails to explain Botswana’s economic performance.

If “easily accessible” natural resources alone could make a country wealthy, then Botswana would have been wealthy ALL ALONG, not just after 1966.

From Wikipedia’s Botswana article:

Botswana was one of the most impoverished countries in Africa when it became independent in 1966. Today, it is home to a relatively stable political system and a rapidly developing market economy.

Botswana’s average IQ didn’t make a quantum jump in 1966, either; and its population is at least 93% Negro (see Ethnic groups).

It’s not IQ, and it’s not “easily accessible” natural resources that “make it wealthier,” it’s people, risking capital and seeking profit. Without the assurance they’ll be allowed to keep at least some of it, that capital won’t be risked in the first place. That, and not the natural resources, is what differentiates productive economies from non-productive ones. That’s just as true in Botswana as it is in the “Gulf states.”

@Southern

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.

@Southern

Botswana is not “thriving”, neither is South Africa.

@Southern

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

You should provide some substantiation for these statements, especially the third one, and remember, one example doesn’t prove the general case. One counter-example, on the other hand, can disprove it.

@Southern

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.

That’s not quite it. The “ultimate resource” is man, the ingenious, resourceful creature.

In the contest between resource scarcity and human ingenuity, Simon bets the farm on the ability of intelligent people to overcome their problems. Thankfully, he is not a theorist. This book lays out convincing empirical evidence for Simon’s prediction of a prosperous future. The key to progress is not state-run conservation programs, he says, but economic and political freedom. Only then can talented minds properly apply themselves to our earthly dilemmas.