Religion was one of the most devisive issues in europe for thousands of years. Christianity has fought against itself since the time of christ. Firsrt the hundreds of sects in early christianity, then eastern vrs western during medival times, then protestant vrs catholic around the time of the rennaisance. Christianity has never been a unifying force in europe.
P.S. Christianity only became the “international religion” that we know today after colonialism. Not before.
Sun. 10/03/21 12:27 EDT
.post #11
I question the assumption: that “Africa is poor.” Some parts of Africa enjoy much greater wealth than others. Try approaching this differently. Take a relatively rich part of Africa, such as Cape Town, and ask “What would you do to make Cape Town as poor as, say, Djibouti?” or “Given governmental carte blanche and one year, how would you destroy most of Cape Town’s wealth?”
Consider this passage, from Wikipedia:
And yet it was destroyed by communism.
Remember for decades the US and SU fought a cold war over control of third world states. People have such short memories.
There was nothing to destroy. And that is the point of this thread. Why, by the time of the Cold War, was Africa centuries behind the rest of the world? There is no doubt that a communist economic system is highly destructive. But even those european and asian nations that suffered under the most complete communist systems in the world did not collapse to the level of Africa. So even the factor of socialist/communist governmental and economic systems demonstrate a difference between African populations and European/Asian populations.
This would be a good approach. There are historical examples of exactly this. Rhodesia (aka Zimbabwe), imediately after independance was what botswana is today. Head and sholders above the rest of africa. But was to be short lived. Domestic and International pressure forced the minority european population to give up power. It did not take long for African rule to devestate the nation.
Again there is no doubt that a more capitalist economic system is an important factor. But notice the use of “relative” throughout the passage. Botswana even with all of these great policies is one of the poorest nations of the planet. And if it were only institutional factors, then Botswana should be on par with S. Korea, Tiawan or even the highly controlled “capitalist” region of China. But they are still a very, very long way away from them.
Its good to see your prejudices aren’t limited to race.
If Giles thinks that the returns in Burundi are so great, I suggest that he call his broker.
Actually that’s sort of the point I was attempting to make, I really don’t think the returns are as great as they should be if lack of capital was really the answer. I’ve really not made up my mind on the issue of developing, but I think there’s something serious lacking in the capital explanation. By the way, does anybody here have any empirical work that would suggest large scale lack of capital in developing countries?
Sun. 10/03/21 15:03 EDT
.post #13
By what, and whose, measure?
This might be true if we assume that “institutional factors” in Botswana are “on par with” those of S. Korea, Taiwan or even the highly controlled “capitalist” region of China, but can we make this assumption?
Okay, but “where they are now” is perhaps not as important as “if they are headed anywhere,” “where they are headed” and “at what rate.”
I alluded earlier to the fact that every government survives and thrives by parasitically extracting the wealth produced by the host or slave class. Just as producers must learn better ways of creating wealth, so must governments learn better ways of parasitically extracting that wealth. Perhaps some of Africa’s governments are finally learning that, by allowing the host class to grow more wealthy, there is more wealth to be extracted.
Africa has a far higher population growth rate than the rich regions. That can account for some of income distribution. Aside from that I can’t think of anything provably effective other than capital.
I think social and cultural norms might also be part of the explaination: large families, tolerance of corruption, crime, and fraud, ect.
Sounds like America.
funny. Look at the direction America’s fortunes are going.
What prejudices?
–noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.
—Idiom
7.
without prejudice, Law. without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand.
Well, there are all sorts of measure that you could use… per capita income, infant mortality, literacy rates, life expectancy, etc.
Are you contending that Botswana is not one of poorest nations on earth?
Perhaps. And time will tell. But when you look at african populations outside of africa they are relatively poor. This is in western nations where both european, african, and asian populations are subject to the same economic and political systems. Yet the asian populations have out performed the europeans and the africans have lagged far behind the europeans. So governments everywhere can impoverish it population. Yet when the variable of government is the same you still have major disparities in economic performance.
Sounds like every country. No one has a monopoly.
Sun. 10/03/21 20:56 EDT
.post #17
I’m not contending that. In fact, I have no idea. But when you state that it is, I wish you’d at least provide a link to a comparison chart or something. I mean, is it in the lowest five, ten, twenty? And according to most measures, or just one, or two, or what?
But again, I’m not sure “where they are now” is as important as “if they are headed somewhere,” “where they are headed,” and “at what rate.”
Before I can argue this with you, we’d have to establish:
Fair enough. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bc.html
I am glad that you challenged me. I was able to learn somethings that I was unaware of. Botswana in a number of areas ranks middle of the pack. But then again ranks at the back of the pack some others. Being highly dependant on the production of diamonds has allowed the country to improve its economic position in the world, but it looks like now they have been hit hard by the economic troubles in the west.
You suggested that the proper institutions could improve the outlook for african nations. You used botswana as an example. I made the assumption that you were suggesting that the major problems in africa were caused by lack of proper institutions. I am in total agreement that the proper institutions are important, however they do not explain all. So I used an example where different populations of people when exposed to the same institutions have different outcomes.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/pov/new01_100.htm
I dont know what you mean.
Mon. 10/03/22 11:05 EDT
.post #18
Some rankings from the page you linked to, using your examples of wealth metrics:
Botswana/total countries:
per capita income: 92/224
infant mortality: 141/224
life expectancy at birth: 61.85 years 178/224
literacy rate: 81.2% (2003 est.)
World literacy rate: 82% (2005 est.)
other literacy rates, examples of low and high extremes:
Afghanistan: 28%; Burkina Faso: 21.8%; Chad: 25%; Niger: 28.5%; Benin: 34.7%; Senegal: 39.3%; Sierra Leone: 35.1%; Somalia: 37.8%;
Georgia, Greenland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway: 100%
note: over two-thirds of the world’s 785 million illiterate adults are found in only eight countries (Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan); of all the illiterate adults in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are concentrated in three regions, the Arab states, South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where around one-third of the men and half of all women are illiterate (2005 est.)
Percentage (and numbers in thousands) below 100% of poverty, for the U.S.A., from the page you linked to:
For example, you provided statistics for the U.S.A., but the extent of your earlier statement (“…in western nations…”) was more sweeping. Is your statement true in western nations, or true just for the U.S.A.?
As another example of “extent,” are Blacks significantly poorer than Whites and Asians, or just marginally poorer?
As a third example of “extent,” are significantly more or just marginally more Blacks poorer than Whites and Asians?
Three more points:
Saying “blacks in the U.S.A. are relatively poor” differs significantly from saying “…African populations outside of Africa … are relatively poor,” which differs again from saying “(African nation X) is one of the poorest nations on earth.”
Suggesting (as you seem to be) that genetic factors and poor economic performance are irrevocably correlated paints a rather bleak picture, in terms of solutions for improvement. While we’re stuck with the genetic hand we’re dealt, economically harmful institutional factors can, at least, be exchanged for economically beneficial ones.
You imply that, given the same institutional factors, Black populations don’t perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations. Even if we assume this is true (and I’m not convinced it’s true), this does not explain why some (Black) African populations are very poor, while others do better. Botswana, for example, seems to be doing pretty well, seems to be improving, and improving fast. This contradicts the “genetic factors” theory, and supports the “institutional factors” theory.
As I have said, Botswana seems to be average in some facets and lacking in others. And I will conceed that I overstated the case in regards to Botswana. Its more or less in the top half of the lower half in some respects and lower middle of the lower half in others. Not the bottom in all aspects. For that I appologize. However, I have never said that the proper institutions would not eliminate descrepancies. I believe the adoption of capitalism will improve everyones lot. The question is will it eliminate all discrepancies.
This dosent mean much. Your list includes 8 of the most populous nation in the world. For example
China 1.3 billion people; literacy 91% 1,300,000,000 X 9%(illiterates) = 117,000,000
Nigeria 114 million people; literacy 68% 114,000,000 X 32% (illiterates) = 36,000,000
Not an honest portail of reality. Obviously if I omited the total populations and literacy rates, it would appear china is in worse shape than nigeria. That not the case. I feel this is an attempt to distract from the reality the literacy rates in sub-saharan africa are much lower than outside.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marginal
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/significant
What exactly are you trying to pin me down on? Significant is a word that I have chosen to use. I am not the only one who finds the differences “significant”. If you look at the rest of the data it shows that the differences are persistant and nagging. It seems significant.