3 ms·

How would you differentiate Africa from East Asia in those regards?

ForTheKidz 2y ago
1) se asia is a much more densely populated region, making infrastructure cheaper per capita to produce (some things scale better, most do not) and 2) se asia has capital flowing through it at a far higher volume, mostly because of manufacturing. I can't speak to why there historically hasn't been as much manufacturing in Africa—I'm guessing it's just cheaper to colocate with others for lower costs across the board? Regardless, (neo)colonialism does dominate both regions—it's a hard state to avoid if you want to interact with a global economy at a deep financial disadvantage.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > se asia is a much more densely populated region, making infrastructure cheaper per capita to produce Most of South East Asia has developmental indicators comparable to most of Sub Saharan Africa. Sub Saharan Africa has plenty of basket cases (DRC, CAR, Mozambique), but it also has plenty of countries on the same general trajectory as South East Asian countries (Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, Senegal). "Africa" and "Asia" is broad and it's dumb ti compare the two. > se asia has capital flowing through it at a far higher volume, mostly because of manufacturing Not exactly. Much of South East Asia has strong capital market integrations with Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea which makes it easier for liquid capital to flow. African nations that have integrated their capital markets with foreign markets open to taking risks in LDCs (UAE, China, India) have seen a leapfrogging in economic capabilities. You see this with Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda. > se asia What do you mean by SEA? And what do you mean by East Asia?
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > Most of South East Asia has developmental indicators comparable to most of Sub Saharan Africa. Africa GDP Per Capita (2023) Kenya: 1,952.30 USD Nigeria: 1,596.64 USD Uganda: 1,002.31 USD Tanzania: 1,224.49 USD Senegal: 1,706.44 USD South East Asia GDP Per Capita (2023) Brunei: 32,962.91 USD Myanmar: 1,233.20 USD Cambodia: 2,429.75 USD Timor-Leste: 1,502.52 USD Indonesia: 4,8976.31 USD Laos: 2,066.95 USD Malaysia: 11,379.09 USD The Philippines: 3,804.87 USD Singapore: 84,734.26 USD Thailand: 7,182.03 USD Vietnam: 4,282.09 USD Africa HDI (2022) Kenya: 0.601 Nigeria: 0.548 Uganda: 0.550 Tanzania: 0.532 Senegal: 0.517 South East Asia HDI (2022) Brunei: 0.823 Myanmar: 0.608 Cambodia: 0.6 Timor-Leste: 0.566 Indonesia: 0.713 Laos: 0.620 Malaysia: 0.807 The Philippines: 0.710 Singapore: 0.949 Thailand: 0.803 Vietnam: 0.726 Africa Under-Five Mortality (2020, Estimates): Kenya: 29.8 Nigeria: 59.8 Uganda: 32.6 Tanzania: 36.4 Senegal: 45.7 South East Asia Under-Five Mortality Rates (2020, Estimates): Brunei: 8.8 Myanmar: 31.7 Cambodia: 43.7 Timor-Leste: 31.7 Indonesia: 20.4 Laos: 45.6 Malaysia: 11.4 The Philippines: 20.0 Singapore: 2.3 Thailand: 8.6 Vietnam: 15.7
mmooss 2y ago
Let's look at the successful economies of East Asia: Japan was a first world country, an economic success before WWII, and then had the US occupation after the war to rebuild it economically and politically as a hedge against future Japanese threats and against Russia and China. South Korea never suffered Western colonialism (?) but did suffer under Japan. After that and the Korean War, iirc it was one of the poorest places on Earth. Now they are among the wealthiest and most free, maybe the greatest such accomplishment ever. They also benefitted from direct US support, as a counter-balance to the neighboring communist states. Taiwan has direct US support to contain the communist regime in mainland China, first as a right-wing authoritarian dictatorship and then as a democracy. China suffered 50-150 years of Western colonialsm, depending on how you measure it (the UK still controlled Hong Kong until the late 1990s). They were very poor into the 1990s. Then, opening their economy to investment (a project begun in the late 1970s), and with major manufacturing economies as neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, S Korea, etc.), they became the center of global manufacturing and trade and reaped the financial benefits. By comparison, how will African countries attract investment? They are geopolitically located in a place that matters, and are not the global center of population nor many of the other Chinese advantages such as a massive single market that complied with Western requirements, proximity to wealthy neighbors such as Japan, Taiwan, etc.
- heavymetalpoizn 2y ago
  [dead]
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  I would assume that Africa will in fact be the global center of population in a few decades? Natural resources plus population is usually a winning formula for long-term growth.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Compare all of Africa with East Asia. The latter is a heavily coastal population along an oceanic trade route, also near the massive South Asian population. Also, Africa doesn't have the geopoitical importance, an accident of geography but a reality. Unless and until world power changes dramatically to Africa from the US, Europe, and East Asia, it doesn't seem like that will change. That doesn't mean they can't grow wealthier, etc. But compared to East Asian countries, they lack the means to compel investment
lurk2 2y ago
Most colonization in Asia occurred in the South and Southeastern regions.

1) se asia is a much more densely populated region, making infrastructure cheaper per capita to produce (some things scale better, most do not) and 2) se asia has capital flowing through it at a far higher volume, mostly because of manufacturing. I can't speak to why there historically hasn't been as much manufacturing in Africa—I'm guessing it's just cheaper to colocate with others for lower costs across the board? Regardless, (neo)colonialism does dominate both regions—it's a hard state to avoid if you want to interact with a global economy at a deep financial disadvantage.

alephnerd 2y ago
> se asia is a much more densely populated region, making infrastructure cheaper per capita to produce Most of South East Asia has developmental indicators comparable to most of Sub Saharan Africa. Sub Saharan Africa has plenty of basket cases (DRC, CAR, Mozambique), but it also has plenty of countries on the same general trajectory as South East Asian countries (Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, Senegal). "Africa" and "Asia" is broad and it's dumb ti compare the two. > se asia has capital flowing through it at a far higher volume, mostly because of manufacturing Not exactly. Much of South East Asia has strong capital market integrations with Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea which makes it easier for liquid capital to flow. African nations that have integrated their capital markets with foreign markets open to taking risks in LDCs (UAE, China, India) have seen a leapfrogging in economic capabilities. You see this with Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda. > se asia What do you mean by SEA? And what do you mean by East Asia?
- lurk2 2y ago
  > Most of South East Asia has developmental indicators comparable to most of Sub Saharan Africa. Africa GDP Per Capita (2023) Kenya: 1,952.30 USD Nigeria: 1,596.64 USD Uganda: 1,002.31 USD Tanzania: 1,224.49 USD Senegal: 1,706.44 USD South East Asia GDP Per Capita (2023) Brunei: 32,962.91 USD Myanmar: 1,233.20 USD Cambodia: 2,429.75 USD Timor-Leste: 1,502.52 USD Indonesia: 4,8976.31 USD Laos: 2,066.95 USD Malaysia: 11,379.09 USD The Philippines: 3,804.87 USD Singapore: 84,734.26 USD Thailand: 7,182.03 USD Vietnam: 4,282.09 USD Africa HDI (2022) Kenya: 0.601 Nigeria: 0.548 Uganda: 0.550 Tanzania: 0.532 Senegal: 0.517 South East Asia HDI (2022) Brunei: 0.823 Myanmar: 0.608 Cambodia: 0.6 Timor-Leste: 0.566 Indonesia: 0.713 Laos: 0.620 Malaysia: 0.807 The Philippines: 0.710 Singapore: 0.949 Thailand: 0.803 Vietnam: 0.726 Africa Under-Five Mortality (2020, Estimates): Kenya: 29.8 Nigeria: 59.8 Uganda: 32.6 Tanzania: 36.4 Senegal: 45.7 South East Asia Under-Five Mortality Rates (2020, Estimates): Brunei: 8.8 Myanmar: 31.7 Cambodia: 43.7 Timor-Leste: 31.7 Indonesia: 20.4 Laos: 45.6 Malaysia: 11.4 The Philippines: 20.0 Singapore: 2.3 Thailand: 8.6 Vietnam: 15.7

mmooss 2y ago

Let's look at the successful economies of East Asia: Japan was a first world country, an economic success before WWII, and then had the US occupation after the war to rebuild it economically and politically as a hedge against future Japanese threats and against Russia and China. South Korea never suffered Western colonialism (?) but did suffer under Japan. After that and the Korean War, iirc it was one of the poorest places on Earth. Now they are among the wealthiest and most free, maybe the greatest such accomplishment ever. They also benefitted from direct US support, as a counter-balance to the neighboring communist states. Taiwan has direct US support to contain the communist regime in mainland China, first as a right-wing authoritarian dictatorship and then as a democracy. China suffered 50-150 years of Western colonialsm, depending on how you measure it (the UK still controlled Hong Kong until the late 1990s). They were very poor into the 1990s. Then, opening their economy to investment (a project begun in the late 1970s), and with major manufacturing economies as neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, S Korea, etc.), they became the center of global manufacturing and trade and reaped the financial benefits. By comparison, how will African countries attract investment? They are geopolitically located in a place that matters, and are not the global center of population nor many of the other Chinese advantages such as a massive single market that complied with Western requirements, proximity to wealthy neighbors such as Japan, Taiwan, etc.

heavymetalpoizn 2y ago
[dead]
matthewdgreen 2y ago
I would assume that Africa will in fact be the global center of population in a few decades? Natural resources plus population is usually a winning formula for long-term growth.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Compare all of Africa with East Asia. The latter is a heavily coastal population along an oceanic trade route, also near the massive South Asian population. Also, Africa doesn't have the geopoitical importance, an accident of geography but a reality. Unless and until world power changes dramatically to Africa from the US, Europe, and East Asia, it doesn't seem like that will change. That doesn't mean they can't grow wealthier, etc. But compared to East Asian countries, they lack the means to compel investment

lurk2 2y ago

Most colonization in Asia occurred in the South and Southeastern regions.