I have never made that statement. I have supported the idea that IQ and economic performance is related. And even then I never said irrevocable correlated. I have also supported the idea that environmental factors affect IQ. Is there a genetic link between all of these things? If you believe in evolution you couldnt dismiss it off hand. Now how large is the effect of each possible factors… I have no idea. But traditional explanations are lacking.
I have not implied anything. I have stated that.
Im not sure how you could claim that the performance of African nations has not been poor. There is no contradiction. IQ and institutional factors can exist side by side and contribute to good or poor economic performance. (and once again IQ might or might not be geneticly determined
It’s not my list actually; it’s from the same site as the page you linked to: Literacy
It’s found near the bottom of the page, under “World.” I didn’t really include it for any particular reason, and I apologize for failing to provide the link, originally.
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.
Nothing…I was just giving some examples of what I meant by “to what extent” (since I hadn’t made that clear the first time), and trying to show its relevance when interpreting statistics such as “poverty.”
For example, let’s say that the “poverty threshold” is $10,000. (So, any annual income BELOW this qualifies one as being “poor”). 24.7% of blacks earn less than this, while only 8.6% of whites do. Sounds pretty bad for the blacks, right? But let’s make up some numbers:
Let’s say that 24.7% of Blacks all earn EXACTLY $9,999.99.
Let’s say, further, that 8.6% of whites all earn EXACTLY ZERO, while 16.1% of whites all earn EXACTLY $10,000.00…this means that 24.7% of whites (the same percentage as blacks who are “poor”) earn, on average, ONE PENNY MORE, per year, than the “poor” blacks. So, while it’s true that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are “poor,” the extent to which that’s true is insignificant.
That’s an extreme example to emphasize the fact that statistical aggregates frequently do not tell the whole story.
Here’s something else to consider. Have a look at this chart of poverty thresholds. You will see that, the larger the family, the greater that family’s income can be, while still qualifying as “poor.” So, when we see that a higher proportion of blacks than whites are “poor,” we should consider (for example) the average family sizes of those groups. Blacks who earn more than some “non-poor” whites, but who have large enough families can still be, ipso facto, “poor”!
And I expect that the extremely low rates would rise to low rates if all the other countries of sub-saharan africa adopted the policies pursued by Botswana. You are pretty insistant on using Botswana as some sort of golden arrow that can be used to demonstrate that it is institutions and policies that cause all of african poverty. (If this is not what you are saying, I appologize) But we need to keep in mind that Botswana’s situation is not typical of most other african nations. Possessing valuable natural resources bolster its numbers quite a bit. Much in the same way the oil producing nations of the middle east are very wealthy, yet they do not possess any of the proper governmental or capitalistic institutions.
There is additional information in that link for those at the 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, etc. of the poverty level. In addition with in each chart is gives family size data also broken down by race. So if you can find in the data linked where a statistical anomaly is leading me astray, I would honestly ask you to point it out. However if you are only saying that it is possible, then… I agree? But if you dont see or know of any specific error in the data that would mislead, then it is a pointless exercise. After all anything is possible.
I’m only using Botswana because I’m not aware of any other examples…but one should suffice, and Botswana is a good one.
I disagree with you here on three points.
The assumption that Botswana is atypically resource rich is both unfounded and unlikely. The resources buried beneath the ground of Africa don’t know or care about the man-made “borders,” arbitrarily drawn on the surface above! 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.
If Botswana is now rich in natural resources, it always has been, obviously. Why, then, the sudden surge in wealth? What changed? Not the geologic makeup. The change was economic and political. More fundamentally, the change was ideological. What has changed is Botswana’s position on the Nolan Chart.
It is not “possession” of natural resources that creates wealth, but the EXPLOITATION and LIBERATION of those resources, and in a way that generates a profit. Businessmen, no matter how high their “IQ,” will not risk their capital if the political environment is excessively predatory. Adding liberty to the economic soil, on the other hand, improves the health of the money trees.
It’s not “statistical anomalies” that I have a problem with; it’s the idea of using U.S.A. “poverty” statistics, by race, to address the question “Why is Africa poor?” The “poor” in America, irrespective of IQ or race, enjoy a higher standard of living than many Africans, because America enjoys a higher degree of liberty than many African countries. The example of Botswana only corroborates this.
One exception dosent suffice. If it would, I could say that Saudi Arabia is a sufficient example of where abondoning liberty and adopting islamic law and institutions create prosperity. Of course, you and I both wouldnt believe that to be true.
The idea that you put forth about all nations in Africa possessing vast natural resources (only that they are untapped) is blatantly false. Some do some dont. If we are to use your theory, then Japan is also resource rich, as is Albania, or even Uruguay. Natural resources are not evenly distributed throughout the world or Africa.
Some resources are easy to access some are not. For example thousands of years ago early man relied on surface accumlations of copper and iron ore. These were easy to access and do not require much investment of time or capital. Today to access ore requires staggering amounts of time and money. So while Botswana’s neighbors may or may not have the same abundance of natural resources, those resources may be much more difficult to access. I do know that precious metal and stone mining in these areas began because of surface deposits which dont exist (or to much lesser extent) in neighboring regions.
And to reiterate one more time. I do beleive that adopting more liberal political and economic policies is very important and is one reason why Botswana is at the head of the African class.
We are in perfect agreement.
Agreed, liberty enriches us all. Your contention is that liberty is the only reason africa is poor. Mine is that it explains a great deal but not all. I used the example of the US because it shows that even with equal institutions of liberty there is a disparity.
You initially countered by saying that you doubt there was a disparity between races in the US. Which by all measures there is. Now you are saying that poverty in america is unrelated to poverty in africa. But that is not the context in which I was using the statistics. I used them to demostrate that free institutions while very important dont explain away all.
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?”
Colonialism disguised as “development loans” which are designed to fail and lock nations into onerous repayment for loans which create no economic benefits by design.
“Zambia spends four dollars on debt service for every one dollar on health while infant mortality rate rises. In Uganda, the government spends US$3 per person annually on health and education and US$ 17 per person annually on debt repayment, while in every 5 Ugandan children die of preventable diseases before reaching the age of 5 years!”
Also, African governments tend to tax labor and income (as the IMF would like) instead of their land and mineral wealth, which means that foreign corporations often get to extract their resources and very low costs without returning much value to the local economies, yet their labor markets are unattractive for investment because not only is there no infrastructure, there are also labor taxes.
Almost all cocoa is grown in Africa, for example, but there’s not a single chocolate factory on the continent. And of course all the real money is in finished goods, not raw materials.
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.” Other than that I agree completely with you here.
For contracts: Sure they do as long as they are agreed to by men that are muslim, saudi or other accepted ethnicity, of the correct social standing… etc.
For Private Property: As long as its not oil or gold or any other natural resource, because those are owned (or at least controled) the people… aka the state… aka the King. “Its good to be the king”
Of course not. But you did say: " The assumption that Botswana is atypically resource rich is both unfounded and unlikely. The resources buried beneath the ground of Africa don’t know or care about the man-made “borders,” arbitrarily drawn on the surface above! 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." which implies that botswana’s particular natural wealth is not unusual. Which it is. The same way Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth is atypical, or chile’s copper deposit are atypical. Which has made its people wealthier than they would have other wise been.
agreed
Sure they do. Because ease of access to a resource is directly related to the cost of extraction, which is directly related to profit.
Agreed.
If we assume what is true? given the same institutional factors, Black populations don’t perform as well, economically, as Asian and white populations.
What did you doubt? Even if we assume this is true (and I’m not convinced it’s true),
I appologize if I missunderstood your point. 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.
Again, they were used to demonstrate how “liberty” does not account for all differences in economic performance. Nothing more.
Was attempt to control for African populations and “liberty”. A way of looking at African populations outside of African institutions, which is what you claim is holding back development. We could also look at Haiti or the dominican republic, or the African population in Brazil. But if you make your search too narrow you may never find ALL of the answers.
I think we agree on 90%. Its just that damned pesky 10%.
According to this article, Nestle has one, and Cadbury maintains several chocolate factories in Africa:
I’m not sure where this came from, what it means, and how it is relevant to the question “Why is Africa Poor?”
…a statement I made when you pointed out the low literacy rates of sub-saharan African countries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But without some assurance that he gets to keep his profits, the capitalist will not make the initial investment. He’ll simply take his capital elsewhere, where the “institutional factors” are more liberty-oriented. The “blackness” of the population has nothing to do with it.
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.
…but we’re examining “Why Africa is Poor,” not “what accounts for differences in economic performance.” It seems to me that these are totally different questions. The first pertains to the wealth of a country, while the second pertains to the differences between individuals.
“African,” or “black”? “African populations” (i.e. the populations of African countries) include non-black individuals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed they do. The greater the concentration of non-African in any particular region gernerally the wealthier and more econmicly productive.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
That’s not quite it. The “ultimate resource” is man, the ingenious, resourceful creature.
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.
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?
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_Townhttp://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?
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)
Great article. I agree with everything in it. That diamonds discovered in the sixties (which accounts for “why they havenet always been rich” something that you asked in your last post) in conjunction with free market priciples has allowed it to escape the grinding poverty experienced in the rest of Africa. Notice that diamonds are part of the equation, as are free market priciples. Notice that there is more than one thing that has allowed them to prosper.
I have already substatiated my claim (links to the CIA factbook) that botswana, while wealthy when compared to africa is still poor when looking outside of africa (in particular the west, and east asia). Per Capita these regions are two to three times more wealthy.
So we agree! Excellent.
Wrong. As i explained in my last post. Which for some reason you did not quote here??? You must not be reading all of my posts (or only interpreting them in a way you want them to be interpreted). What you quoted here is only part of my arguement.
Okay, they’re not “thriving,” they’re “prospering.” You win.
Please point out where I “make (that) case.”
You could have tons of diamonds, gold and oil buried in the ground or sitting in the river, and a country full of geniuses and talented, competent people, and any other “factor” you think might contribute to a country’s wealth. Without a minimal level of liberty, without the assurance that all these people will be able to keep at least SOME of the profits from risked capital, there will be no capital risked, no resources liberated, no profits, no production, no wealth. Period. It’s as simple as that.
Liberty is the fountainhead from which wealth flows.
You make it in the passage that I quote next. That wealth is impossible with out some minimum level of freedom (never mind the problem of defining what that level is). You declare that it dosent matter about human resources, capital resources, technology, natural resources. None of that matters without some “minimum level” of freedom. History is full of examples that prove this to be false.
Sorry this is simply wrong. The Soviet Union for decades liberated massive amounts of resources. China today produces massive amounts of material. Things are produced and wealth is generated in even the most totalitarian environments. All other things being equal, they do not produce as much as a free society. But they do produce. All wealth does not flow from liberty. During the 1800s massive amounts of wealth were generated on the backs of slaves in the American South. There are endless examples where valuable things and wealth were produced without liberty. Liberty is one of many factors and it is not a prerequisite (as you seem to be claiming). It is complementary, as are all the other factors.
From when to when? In order to counter my point that wealth can be and is produced in communist countries that lack all the economic freedoms that I am being told are 100% neccessary to produce anything, then production would have had to decline from 1922 untill 1991. Which it did not. During this period production expanded, although at a much slower pace, and the standard of living in the soviet union became better.
I hardly think anyone would call China a capitalist country. In a handfull of regions private companies are allowed to partner with the government to produce things that the capitalist west demands.
This is a result of resource misallocation due to central planning. During the same, time output of heavy industries continued to increase. The idea that nothing can be produced without liberty is absolutely false.
Other forms of economic organization besides capitalism produce things and wealth. They just dont do it as well.
