Why are predominately black countries mostly poor? in your opinion

[Poitier]

It must suck to be unable to not only read but come up with your own ideas or any that isn't found on reddit

 

[theworldismine13]

The poster who mentioned the different economic histories of African countries got it right. I see people lumping in all African countries as if they had common experiences outside of being colonies. Even if we compare Africa to other colonized continents you will find that the type of colonization was different.Many places in Africa were uninhabitable for Europeans and some of the colonial authorities struggled to increase the white population. The South American style of colonialism is maybe replicated in Cape Verde and nowhere else on the continent. The South Asian model , particularly the one used in India, was a favored model by the British with governors and chiefs helping in the administration of colonies. All of these differences are important because they affect or lead to the creation of the types of institutions that were inherited at Independence. The argument about institutions has been popularized by Acemoglu who contrasted the differences between North America and Latin America primarily on the basis of such differences. If we look at East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia which are really the post colonial societies that have managed to catch up to the West in terms of GDP per capita you will find that a lot of their policies were considered unorthodox, the World Bank had a voluminous report about their development strategy that proved to be controversial because they had policies that eschewed free markets such as protectionism, currency manipulation,IP theft, financial repression, "selecting winners and losers', and preferential access to foreign currency , loans to select companies.

African countries did not have a legacy of these large industrial type of corporations like Japan. Colonialism initially took place through charter companies like the BSAC and those were the people initially tasked with running the countries until the Governments took over. At independence the capitalist foundation was largely based on this exploitation, in Southern Africa as well as in places like Ivory Coast you had agricultural marketing boards set up for the express purpose of shielding white farmers from African competition by paying a premium on their produce and these later became a source of rent extraction by independent African governments. We also had stock markets in places like Rhodesia and SA for the express purpose of financing mineral extraction and in the event of failure to find minerals the charter companies turned to land theft. Land reform took place in East Asian countries because it was seen as a solution to rural poverty.In settler colonies those land ownership patterns reinforced that poverty and forced Africans who depended on agriculture into an exploitative wage economy. The pattern is obvious in countries with land problems such as Kenya,SA and Zimbabwe because of that history. Other countries like the Ivory coast had a land owning class at independence but the french gave the countries an option of either continuing to be economically linked to France or go on their own for independence and i think only one country chose full independence. What this meant for those countries was the dominance of French capital in their key sectors along with other merchants or traders from places like Lebanon.

In the case of leadership i think no one can deny that there have been some pretty bad leaders on the continent and they were either short sighted in preference for short term political gains or that they inherited countries that did not have much going for them. I look at a country like Botswana that is often cited as a success story and its inequality and income per capita is nowhere near what the East Asian countries achieved.Namibia with its diamonds and uranium is also well run but still has those problems and that is largely due to that inherited inequality. Countries are bound to have weak or incompetent administrations at some point in their history but i am not convinced that this fact alone can explain why we dont have a Japan and South Korea. Countries like Nigeria would have benefited without those military rulers but that does not mean they would have turned out to be Norway. They are far bigger and a more complex country to run compared to a small country like Norway, i would liken them on size alone to countries like Indonesia or Brazil and we have all seen how complicated those countries are to run.

the history of black people did not start with colonialism anymore then it started with slavery, i think you are trying to answer the question of how colonialism impacted development, which is a fine question and a good discussion

but the question was asked why are black people poor? and IMO to answer that question you cant look at just colonialism, you have to look at why african countries were colonized in the first place, specifically why did the african fall to the european, that is a more fundemantal question then the question of post colonial development

when we understand why we fell to the european then we will understand why we are poor and we will understand how to correct our mistakes

 

[Poitier]

Have you ever taken a Latin American history class?

If Haiti did not have a pool of educated leaders, where was the source of the "brain drain" during the Duvalier regime?

What improves literacy rates based on your theory?

How can impoverished nations without fundamental democratic institutions improve their literacy rates without a leader that is given time to strong-arm and implement policies that can improve said literacy rate?

Let's ignore the obvious factors that destabilize a nation's progress

(like assassinating a leader that can implement the necessary policies to build a prosperous nation)
and go by your theory that solely a certain percentage of literacy equals for any nation (based on your theory that nikkas just start reading out of nowhere)

Let's look at South Korea cuz it proves your point right?

"Statistics demonstrate the success of South Korea's national education programs. In 1945 the adult literacy rate was estimated at 22 percent; by 1970 adult literacy was 87.6 percent, and by the late 1980s various sources estimated it at around 93 percent."













"soon after President Park Chung Hee assumed power in 1961, he put economic development at the centre of his strategy for Korea, and he ensured it by his own will power and resilience to implement his vision."


"Park Chung-Hee was a fanatical egalitarian (Overholt, 2011). He implemented the education-based egalitarianism. He preferred to close the best schools rather than to allow the emergence of a permanent narrow path to elite status. In the long-run,
the consequences of Park’s egalitarianism have been good for economic growth
and democracy. His education-based egalitarianism created a broad educated workforce, which created a broad market that creating a domestic market in maximum possible size. It also created a society where democracy could prosper, because an educated citizenry could understand the issues and an egalitarian middle class society would vote based on widely shared interests"


"Park (whose rule lasted until he was assassinated in 1979) was undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, whose regime did not hesitate to resort to torture and execution. But Park understood that in order to achieve his economic goals, he had to invest in education. By the time of his death, South Korea was economically still poor but had substantially enriched its human capital by having achieved a near 100% literacy rate of both genders. Egypt’s overall literacy rate today stands at a paltry 70%, with males at 80% and females at 60%."




Real shyt. They dont want it in the south. Just waiting for them to start some buffoonery. Same goes for ISIS, all this talk about marching to Baghdad and them Shias are still waiting for them to come thru.

Lets revisit all this ether

 

[theworldismine13]

Lets revisit all this ether

i agree, lets revisit this, im still waiting to hear how south korea contradicts my points about literacy and capitalism, im very confused because ive been saying all along that south korea bolsters my argument

and im still waiting to hear the defense of haitain leaders post toussaint

 

[Poitier]

i agree, lets revisit this, im still waiting to hear how south korea contradicts my points about literacy and capitalism, im very confused because ive been saying all along that south korea bolsters my argument

If you ignore the part about strong institutions, a national identity/mythos and a powerful leader all coming before literacy and your very warped definition of capitalism then sure

 

[TTT]

the history of black people did not start with colonialism anymore then it started with slavery, i think you are trying to answer the question of how colonialism impacted development, which is a fine question and a good discussion

but the question was asked why are black people poor? and IMO to answer that question you cant look at just colonialism, you have to look at why african countries were colonized in the first place, specifically why did the african fall to the european, that is a more fundemantal question then the question of post colonial development

when we understand why we fell to the european then we will understand why we are poor and we will understand how to correct our mistakes

I just dont see the relevance of that question tbh, we are organized around these nation states and current wealth or lack thereof can be directly traced to how countries are organized in contemporary times. The fact that Argentina was one of the richest countries around 1900 means little or has minimal bearing on how the countries look like today. I dont find the question of why 19th century Africans who were at a great disadvantage to Europeans in a number of areas to be relevant at a time when such gaps need not exist. The ability of countries to leapfrog certain stages of development in the modern era renders that question not relevant to our times, countries like Malaysia and South Korea developed at a fast pace and while they may be aggrieved about the Japanese it does not impede their development. The high growth era of east Asian countries was a little more than 2 decades at best, technology improvements mean that people transfer money using mobile devices in rural Kenya without even seeing the inside of a bank. The entire mobile phone industry in Africa was like that as well, some people who had never used a landline just leapfrogged the process to mobile phones. The historical account of colonialism is of importance from a history perspective but what it teaches us in a completely new world political order i am not so sure about especially with regards to economic development. I would rather look at the outcome of that colonization instead of the reasons it took place as more instructive for us today.

 

[theworldismine13]

If you ignore the part about strong institutions, a national identity/mythos and a powerful leader all coming before literacy and your very warped definition of capitalism then sure

when i pointed out that africans had weak instutions when they came in contact with the european, i was told about the ancient malian empire and egypt and about how african slave traders were moral and intelligent

when i mentioned that africa has never had transregiaonal empires, no common languages and no common religion you told me about the mali-nubia axum trade route

when i mentioned haiti had weak leaders post toussaint ...well i never got a repsonse to that

park of south korea focused on literacy and capitalism, the same things that i said that black people need to focus on, south korea bolsters my argument

 

[Dion Isus]

Yes

Maybe in the Bizarro world you live in I guess

Not far off... the difference is in the quality of the financial institutions from what I see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_Nigeria

I guess. Anyways, the number of banks isn't as important as the the percentage of the adult population that uses them, which I haven't studied much.

If you ignore all the data I posted then sure

I'm still waiting on why you choose to focus soley on remittances and didn't say much on money exchanges within the country. Also, where's the penetration outside of Kenya and Uganda? What about West Africa? What about South Africa?

 

[Dion Isus]

Believing in a social component with capitalism isn't Marxist

Then why did you bring them up?

 

[IAmGettingAMailOrderBride]

Can someone explain to me what Marxism is in simple terms?
I know what social and communism is though

 

[Poitier]

when i pointed out that africans had weak instutions when they came in contact with the european, i was told about the ancient malian empire and egypt and baout how african slave traders were moral and intelligent

show me the post where you talked about institutions? my 1st 5 or 6 post all explicitly mentioned in

when i mentioned that africa has never had transregiaonal empires, no common languages and no common religion you told me about the mali-nubia axum trade route

Africa is big...what you said was "Africans didn't have contact with each other"

when i mentioned haiti had weak leaders post toussaint ...well i never got a repsonse to that

you didn't say that to me or I would have mentioned a lack of national identity and Western policy, as well as weak leaders

 

[Poitier]

I'm still waiting on why you choose to focus soley on remittances and didn't say much on money exchanges within the country. Also, where's the penetration outside of Kenya and Uganda? What about West Africa? What about South Africa?

I already talked about remittances as GDP AND intra African trade

and dude, East Africa is ahead of the whole world...South and West Africa isn't Kenya and Tanzania but still ahead of the curve

Then why did you bring them up?

Nothing Marxist was ever posted by me

I guess. Anyways, the number of banks isn't as important as the the percentage of the adult population that uses them, which I haven't studied much.

Its bad which is why I support the Nigerian national ID

 

[Mindfield333]

Bullshyt.
Not every country in the world is homogeneous.

Lots of countries are successful or in to middle income territory.
Canada is made up of French and English speakers and they are doing just fine, They are a direct result of imperialism and colonization. (this time it was white on white)
Also Australia was created by grouping the lowest/evil among humans(whites in this case) in one place...they are making it.


African leaders come from extreme poverty so when they get their chance at leadership, they see it as an opportunity to loot.

LOL you do know there were Natives(not white) in Canada and Aboriginal people in Australia who were discriminated against?

 

[theworldismine13]

show me the post where you talked about institutions? my 1st 5 or 6 post all explicitly mentioned in

ive been saying this whole thread that africans had no financial networks and no real organization, and that is why they fell to the european

Africa is big...what you said was "Africans didn't have contact with each other"

what i said was that africa was sparesly populated and the empires were regional, i wouldnt say there was no contact, but relative to europe or asia where things were crowded, africans had little contact with each other

you didn't say that to me or I would have mentioned a lack of national identity and Western policy, as well as weak leaders

what you said is that africans had powerful kingdoms and the leaders of these kingdoms were moral and intelligent

i disagreed, i said these kingdoms were weak and their leaders were immoral and stupid

 

[Poitier]

ive been saying this whole thread that africans had no financial networks and no real organization, and that is why they fell to the european

Institutions go beyond financial networks

what i said was that africa was sparesly populated and the empires were regional, i wouldnt say there was no contact, but relative to europe or asia where things were crowded, africans had little contact with each othe

your original post was not this nuanced and did not have any qualifiers

what you said is that africans had powerful kingdoms and the leaders of these kingdoms were moral and intelligent

i disagreed, i said these kingdoms were weak and their leaders were immoral and stupid

we are talking about Haiti, not Africa