The root cause of Africa's problems?

[geni]

Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa under the British.

Its a good slogan. Since we write the history books we have a certian advantage.

How was britian in a position to aquire the area in the first place?

Under Mugabe, Zimbabwe is wracked with malnutrition and famine.

Few years out of date there. Wierd thing is production is actualy rising. The trick is to realise that most of the European famers in Zimbabwe weren't actualy very good farmers. This is to be expected a lot of them were just average post war people looking for something to do. They got away with it due to the shear volume of land they had.

Western culture gets around limitations of resources and environment.

Not true of course. Attempts to do that in parts of Africa resulted in massive death tolls that were only sustainable due to advantages back home. Only reason European got into south Africa as early as they did is that the area has a Mediterranean climate. Bantu food parcel doesn't work in that climate but the European one does

Easter Island is crawling with attempts to get around limits of resources and environment but didn't solve their fundamental problems.

Reality pretty much any group of humans will try and get around limitations of resources and environment but if you are dealt a duff hand there is a limit to what can be done. The sub-saharan Africa food parcel doesn't allow you to support large populations and the lack of large domesticatable animals makes it hard to move goods long distance. The large changes in latitude don't help matters.

Look at Israel. Sand and rocks with no oil but an economy more vibrant and energetic than anything the Arabs came up with.

And interesting levels of financial subsidy.

Culture matters. Ideas matter.

If that was the case Greece would rule the world. Geography matters. Britain just lucked out in having a robust climate combined with being next to Europe while being isolated enough that iron-bridge didn't have to worry about being randomly invaded.

 

[a_unique_person]

Bad culture.

Correct, they never started a World War.

 

[Virus]

Correct, they never started a World War.

No they started wars between each other. Since Africa was not a superpower their wars didn't affect anyone beyond their borders.

 

[DC]

lol virus again

 

[a_unique_person]

Being divided up has little to do with corruption, bad governance, cronyism and so on. India was invented by the British and it's doing ok. Not perfect but not terrible. Pakistan is doing a lot worse. Reason? Culture matters.

India 'invented' by the British.

 

[Humes fork]

Yes, it's almost as if some superpower or something has been pumping money into their system.

Given that the US pours a lot of money into Egypt as well, and pays the entire defense bill more or less for Saudi Arabia, why are these countries much less successful than Israel?

Further, Israel has to spend grotesquely much on defense due to that their nice neighbours want to wipe them off the map. Thgat the US pays for some of this can't explain the success of Israeli economic performance. Or do you think Norway would be third world without oil?

Culture matters. I know it's not in accordance with your political ideology to say so, but facts must take precedence over ideology. If you think the two graphs below are completely unrelated, then you are deluding yourself.

(Median income.)

Here, some statistics from Sweden. Are you bold enough to guess which Middle Eastern group that is the most successful in our society?

You do know that quite a few Islamic countries, that are governed in morally reprehensible ways, are also quite prosperous?

Because they have oil. Still, at least in the case of Saudi Arabia, they lack the personnel to extract it themselves, and need to rely on Westerners. They spend their oil money on Quran printing rather than on educating their population. Surely a recipe for success.

 

[Virus]

India 'invented' by the British.

There was no nation state of India before the British. What is now known as "India" was the Mughal Empire, the Maratha Confederacy and other semi-autonomous regions.

 

[Skepticemea]

"Do you have a flag?"

 

[McHrozni]

Europe was not divided up by the British either

On the other hand, North America and Australia were. Can you explain why both are doing a lot better than Africa?

McHrozni

 

[a_unique_person]

Australia hasn't been divided up. The North American Indians still aren't doing too well. It's pretty well just two States anyway, USA and Canada.

 

[McHrozni]

I
Few years out of date there. Wierd thing is production is actualy rising. The trick is to realise that most of the European famers in Zimbabwe weren't actualy very good farmers. This is to be expected a lot of them were just average post war people looking for something to do. They got away with it due to the shear volume of land they had.

Except of course that half of this years crop is a write-off already, and the country will need approximately 400,000 tons of food aid this year. They can't afford to buy it, despite the diamonds.

Production may be rising slightly, but that's mostly because it fell so low by 2008.

If that was the case Greece would rule the world.

Well, the Greeks were one of the few nations who spawned two mighty empires. More if you count successor states as separate.

Geography matters. Britain just lucked out in having a robust climate combined with being next to Europe while being isolated enough that iron-bridge didn't have to worry about being randomly invaded.

And on the other side of the Atlantic, North American Indians had even better conditions, but never advanced past stone age by themselves. In contrast to Britain however, Germany lucked out by being split up, fighting incessant wars between themselves and their neighbors to east, north, south and west, and still managed to overtake Britain economically by 1890.

Culture matters. Geography helps.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

Its a good slogan. Since we write the history books we have a certian advantage.

How was britian in a position to aquire the area in the first place?



Few years out of date there. Wierd thing is production is actualy rising. The trick is to realise that most of the European famers in Zimbabwe weren't actualy very good farmers. This is to be expected a lot of them were just average post war people looking for something to do. They got away with it due to the shear volume of land they had.



Not true of course. Attempts to do that in parts of Africa resulted in massive death tolls that were only sustainable due to advantages back home. Only reason European got into south Africa as early as they did is that the area has a Mediterranean climate. Bantu food parcel doesn't work in that climate but the European one does

Easter Island is crawling with attempts to get around limits of resources and environment but didn't solve their fundamental problems.

Reality pretty much any group of humans will try and get around limitations of resources and environment but if you are dealt a duff hand there is a limit to what can be done. The sub-saharan Africa food parcel doesn't allow you to support large populations and the lack of large domesticatable animals makes it hard to move goods long distance. The large changes in latitude don't help matters.



And interesting levels of financial subsidy.




If that was the case Greece would rule the world. Geography matters. Britain just lucked out in having a robust climate combined with being next to Europe while being isolated enough that iron-bridge didn't have to worry about being randomly invaded.

Geni, one moment you say Israel escaped the geography trap with subsidies. (Which is false, Israel's successful economy is not due to subsides but I'll humour you for the moment.) Then you claim Africa is stuck with the hand it's given.

Why does Israel escape the geography trap but not other countries that get billions in aid?

Bit of an inconsistency there isn't it?

You're view of the world is pretty pessimistic. Africa can never be rich because it got dealt a dud hand. You can't change geography so you can't change your situation. Whereas I say it's culture. If you get the institutions right your country can prosper no matter how many sheep you have or what hand geography deals you. I offer optimism for the world. The left, who believe people are the passive subjects of their material environment, cannot do that. Of course, maybe Geni's right and the truth is pessimistic but it's a good thing that I'm right and he's not.

 

[a_unique_person]

And on the other side of the Atlantic, North American Indians had even better conditions, but never advanced past stone age by themselves. In contrast to Britain however, Germany lucked out by being split up, fighting incessant wars between themselves and their neighbors to east, north, south and west, and still managed to overtake Britain economically by 1890.

Culture matters. Geography helps.

McHrozni

Stone Age

 

[Virus]

You do know that quite a few Islamic countries, that are governed in morally reprehensible ways, are also quite prosperous?

Due to oil. Take away that and they'll have nothing to pay the ex-pats to build their shopping malls and skyscrapers. The ones without oil are poor, like Egypt.

For all its oil wealth, the entire Arab region's GDP is less than Spain's.

 

[McHrozni]

Stone Age

Yes, mr. unique, stone age. Pre-Columbian metalwork of North American Indians was extremely limited and didn't advance past shaping naturally occurring copper, even though the Appalachians are quite rich in ores, much more so than Greece.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

For all its oil wealth, the entire Arab region's GDP is less than Spain's.

Speaking of Spain, a couple of years ago I red that Spain made more works of literary or scientific significance available in Spanish every year through authorship and translation than the total number of works of literary or scientific significance available in Arabic. This doesn't take into account the works from the rest of Spanish-speaking world, it's just Spain. I don't know if the number is still accurate, but the Arabic world didn't significantly change in that regard (yet).

It's quite evident where the difference is knowledge is coming from, and it's certainly anything but random.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You're view of the world is pretty pessimistic. Africa can never be rich because it got dealt a dud hand. You can't change geography so you can't change your situation. Whereas I say it's culture. If you get the institutions right your country can prosper no matter how many sheep you have or what hand geography deals you.

Precisely. Look at Iceland - even with all of it's recent woes, it's still way richer per capita than any African nation, including those with vastly better natural resources. Look at Norway now, it was poorer than Albania in 1970.

McHrozni

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, mr. unique, stone age. Pre-Columbian metalwork of North American Indians was extremely limited and didn't advance past shaping naturally occurring copper, even though the Appalachians are quite rich in ores, much more so than Greece.

McHrozni

There is more to being a human being than evaluating them by specific technologies. They had many and varied cultures, languages, arts, agriculture, mythology, skills.

 

[Virus]

I wonder if the success of South Korea compared to the North is due to the amount of grazing land and resources? I wonder if West Germany got all the sheep and domestic animals instead of East Germany?

 

[Darat]