Why is Africa Poor?

[Southern]

@MMMark

@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.”

Thats just it. It is not an exception. It has become more wealthy than its neighbors due to more liberty and natural wealth. But still relative to the world in general it is still poor. Why is this? That has been my point all along. It is wealthy in when compared to africa but still poor when compared to the world. Im sure you believe in time that gap will be erased. In the next 20 some odd years it very well maybe become a first world nation, then again maybe not. Time will tell.

@MMMark

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.”

Almost. You are taking my position to an extreme that I have never expressed. My point is that there are number of variables that determine the wealth of a people, nation, or region. Freedom, Culture, Natural resources, geography, and the abilities of the people. That the lack of one characteristic can be made up for by strenghts in others. The IQ of its people is one characteristic and is related to the wealth of a people. When you look at all characteristics of botswana you see that it has strength in catagories that most of its neighbors dont. Which allows it to be wealthier than they are but still relatively poor when compared to western nations that have strengths in all categories.

You are right people are one of the factors. And a very important one at that. Thats the point. People is one of the weak points in Africa. Whether it is strictly environmental (malnutrition that stunts development) or genetic. I dont know. But the people factor is what is weak. In botswanas case governmental policies and natural resources are strong points that have allowed it to surpass others in africa. Once they fix the people problems (if possible, depending on what they are), Botswana will become as wealthy as any other region in the world.

I have never said that IQ is only reason botswana, or any other nation is rich or poor. Yet you keep asserting that I have. Why?

@MMMark

@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.

You are making the claim that they are “thriving”. We obviously have different ideas of what thriving actually means. Relative to other African nations? Ill give you that. Relative to the world? Maybe thriving is too strong a word.

As far as my gereralization, take a look at north africa. Arab and berber peoples. Poor but not as poor. (You can check them out on the CIA factbook I linked earlier) South Africa. Cape town region and johannesburg region. Predominately african with large european minorities. Moderately wealthy. Due in part to the people who live there and due in part to the gold, platinum, diamond, coal, and iron mined there (johnnesburg region). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannesburg

One counter example might disprove a general case. Provided the example actually address the general case so far yours have not. My case being there are any number of factors that determine wealth. With IQ (a human resouce) being one of them. NOT THE ONLY ONE. You make the case it is one factor and one only. This is false as demonstrated by the Gulf region. Low liberty relative to the west, yet just as wealthy. Why is that?

@MMMark

@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.

I agree with this statement completely. But what if there are few if any talented minds? Then there will be little prosperity. But Im going to go out on a limb here and make an assumption. You believe that all people are the equals of all others. No people are more talented than any other. History demonstrates that this may not be the case. Certain peoples have proven themselves more talented than others throughout history. Whether they be more talented at war, literature, art, trading, etc. Which brings us back to our original question why is africa poor? In other words why have they demonstrated less talent. (economicly, politically, militarily) Which they have hence the original posters question. (which is a question asked for a very long time by many, many people)