Africa (was ...10 trillion people in this solar system?)

Hi Matt,

I agree in most of what you said. I will just clarify specific
points.

> I agree with the obvious: if a population grows faster than the
>economy, the net per capita income drops. It should be mentioned
>that in a stable society, starting with low incomes, it is possible
>to have rapid economic growth. The key for each of the three
>examples above was: education, international trade, stable
>government, laws that protect private property and policies
>encourage investment.
>
> > This is the zero-sum view of economics. There's lots of
contrary evidence against that view.
> >
> >"Well. That's theory. I have seen the practical side of it at
work in Latin America."
>
> .... stable government, laws protecting private property and
>policies encouraging investment:
> Didn't Chile experience good economic growth when it had the
>above? I don't have any statistics in mind, but I believed it was
>one of the healthier economies of Latin America.
>
> Now there is a new type of leader in Chile...we'll see what
>happens next....
>

It still is. Chile is growing quite fast by international standards.
Slower than Asia but a lot more speedy than the developing world.

> .... stable government, laws protecting private property and
>policies encouraging investment:

Right!

> These have been the primary barriers to long term growth in Latin
>America. Populist politics have done a lot of economic harm. I am
>sure you can think of plenty of examples, but the results have
>tended to destroy savings of the middle class, scare foreign
>investors away, and, oddly, still protect the wealthy.

Certainly.

> As many people know, in 1900 Buenos Aires was known as the Paris
>of the Americas. It was considered a better place to live than New
>York at that time (maybe it still is). In the last hundred years,
>few would argue that the government of Arginitina was well managed.

Well, Argentina is still a great place, even all the problems it has.
Argentina is not as rich as the developing world but in many aspects
is already a developed nation. A lot richer than Chile.

>
> Healthy economic comes to countries with good environments for
>economic growth.
> Note what China has done by slowly opening up since about 1990.
>Their laws are not really fair, but most people are not concerned
>about stability of policy.
>
> Southeast Asia should not be unique. There is nothing inherent to
>Latin America that would prevent economic growth.

Many countries in Latin America ARE growing fast. Development is not
even though. Countries like Guatemala, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela
are in the team of the poorest ones, while others like Costa Rica,
Brazil, Chile and Argentina are developing. However, the world pay a
lot more attention to a Chavez or a Castro than to the success
stories.

> A bigger cause could be the automobile. With mobility, people can
>become detached. The sense of community is reduced. With more
>flexibility in the labor force, companies are more faster in hiring
>and firing. This generates uncertainty and insecurity in a
>population. People get married at a later age. Women become
>hesitent to have children if they don't have confidence in
>stability of their husband or their own jobs.

Could it be cities instead of automobiles? As far as I know, cities
have always had less growth than the people of the countryside. The
difference is today most people live in cities instead of the
countryside. That's the reality in the Western World, Latin America,
East Asia, and now it is becomming real in India. Africa is just
making the early transition to cities by now. Perhaps that's the
problem.

Regards,

Omar Vega