3 ms·

I can't stop thinking about this because on surface it sounds reasonable, but there's something off about the logic. So don't offer aid because it will stop ca

I can't stop thinking about this because on surface it sounds reasonable, but there's something off about the logic. So don't offer aid because it will stop capital investment. But there is no capital to invest because people spend their days trying to stay alive rather than obtaining capital. So the logic is flawed. You want to promote investment in a place with nothing to invest by not investing in that place. But furthermore, you want to do it in the name of fairness. You want to give Africa the same market opportunity that exists in America. That logic is also flawed, because there is no opportunity in Africa. So you're just letting companies with preexisting status hoarde all the opportunity.

jrochkind1 5y ago
You can offer aid/investment in a different way that builds up local capacity instead of dependence. Which isn't always easy or straightforward, but the first step is the intention. It will often be less beneficial for the fortunes of the "developed world" based institutions behind the philanthropy though, which is why the unconsidered default is often in the other direction (even without actual malicious intent which sometimes exists too), and it takes extra intention and commitment and willingness to sacrifice some self-interest.
easytiger 5y ago
> So the logic is flawed. You want to promote investment in a place with nothing to invest by not investing in that place. Why do you think they don't have anything to invest?
- zelon88 5y ago
  Because the concept of capital was already created elsewhere in the world and now they have to obtain something that they never had to begin with. How do you compete with something you didn't know existed until it showed up on your beaches and started stealing people?
  - easytiger 4y ago
    I'm not sure it is possible to have a more flawed understanding of capitalism or Africa than this. Have you ever even been to an African country?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
orangepurple 5y ago
How did European countries originally create the capital to invest?
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Very, very slowly. The Little Divergence, where Western Europe started to grow faster than any region had ever done before in a sustained way, started in the 1300s. It was the 1800s before the Great Divergence[1] happened and it became obvious that the West was doing something new in human history, sustained economic growth large enough to outpace population growth, that could be sustained. Europe generated the capital to invest very, very slowly. The joy of foreign direct investment is in but having to spend centuries saving up. [1] ACCOUNTING FOR THE GREAT DIVERGENCE Stephen Broadberry http://www.ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf http://www.ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf
- zelon88 5y ago
  Seriously? It's easy when you're the first one in a non-globalized world where you literally create the capital by yourself, for yourself, and then spend it on yourself. But trying to start an economy in Africa while competing with the pre-existing economy of the rest of the world... How is that the same thing?
- interpenetrate 5y ago
  Primitive Accumulation: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm (see ch. 26-33)
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
There is a huge difference between investing in the productive capacity of a country, and dumping cheap/free goods. If you look at countries that have successfully transitioned from 2nd/3rd world countries to 1st world economies, despite what "free market" boosters would have you think, nearly all of the started out with a huge amount of protectionism, so that domestic producers could improve their capacity without getting decimated by (initially) more advanced foreign competitors. South Korea is a great example of this, and of course China - while China is famous for its exports, China makes it notoriously difficult for foreign firms to compete in the country, often putting out the tantalizing notion of a huge market, but then stealing trade secrets and putting their thumb heavily on the scale in favor of domestic companies.
- lcpriest 5y ago
  I think you would really enjoy Doing Good Better by William MacAskill.

jrochkind1 5y ago

You can offer aid/investment in a different way that builds up local capacity instead of dependence. Which isn't always easy or straightforward, but the first step is the intention. It will often be less beneficial for the fortunes of the "developed world" based institutions behind the philanthropy though, which is why the unconsidered default is often in the other direction (even without actual malicious intent which sometimes exists too), and it takes extra intention and commitment and willingness to sacrifice some self-interest.

easytiger 5y ago

> So the logic is flawed. You want to promote investment in a place with nothing to invest by not investing in that place. Why do you think they don't have anything to invest?

zelon88 5y ago
Because the concept of capital was already created elsewhere in the world and now they have to obtain something that they never had to begin with. How do you compete with something you didn't know existed until it showed up on your beaches and started stealing people?
- easytiger 4y ago
  I'm not sure it is possible to have a more flawed understanding of capitalism or Africa than this. Have you ever even been to an African country?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

orangepurple 5y ago

How did European countries originally create the capital to invest?

barry-cotter 5y ago
Very, very slowly. The Little Divergence, where Western Europe started to grow faster than any region had ever done before in a sustained way, started in the 1300s. It was the 1800s before the Great Divergence[1] happened and it became obvious that the West was doing something new in human history, sustained economic growth large enough to outpace population growth, that could be sustained. Europe generated the capital to invest very, very slowly. The joy of foreign direct investment is in but having to spend centuries saving up. [1] ACCOUNTING FOR THE GREAT DIVERGENCE Stephen Broadberry http://www.ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf http://www.ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf
zelon88 5y ago
Seriously? It's easy when you're the first one in a non-globalized world where you literally create the capital by yourself, for yourself, and then spend it on yourself. But trying to start an economy in Africa while competing with the pre-existing economy of the rest of the world... How is that the same thing?
interpenetrate 5y ago
Primitive Accumulation: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm (see ch. 26-33)

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

There is a huge difference between investing in the productive capacity of a country, and dumping cheap/free goods. If you look at countries that have successfully transitioned from 2nd/3rd world countries to 1st world economies, despite what "free market" boosters would have you think, nearly all of the started out with a huge amount of protectionism, so that domestic producers could improve their capacity without getting decimated by (initially) more advanced foreign competitors. South Korea is a great example of this, and of course China - while China is famous for its exports, China makes it notoriously difficult for foreign firms to compete in the country, often putting out the tantalizing notion of a huge market, but then stealing trade secrets and putting their thumb heavily on the scale in favor of domestic companies.

lcpriest 5y ago
I think you would really enjoy Doing Good Better by William MacAskill.