Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 1 hour later[^][v]#1,429,503
Well the thing is in Africa for example their economic growth is steadily increasing since 1980’s. However Africa is ethnically, culturally and economically diverse and they’re projected to surpass Europe and the americas by 2039. However the Chinese are also posit to extreme growth much sooner.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 day ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,429,504
But it’s interesting because if you take a look at the statistics from say the last 10 years or so, India of all the asian countries is looking to rival china in the global market. Their GDP is about $15,563 per capita.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 day ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,505
Now let’s look at Britain right? They colonized Ireland for 900 years and India for almost 200 years more or less. However Britain has a smaller GDP than India and half the GDP per capita of Ireland?
It’s quite fascinating in that most of them say "oh you’re just delusional making excuses but you can’t explain why we’re so superior to everybody else.”
But they could never explain it why so either. England can’t make an iPhone. England hasn’t successfully launched a rocket into orbit since 1971.
I will say though they gave us Henry cavil and Jason Statham so theres that.
> Well the thing is in Africa for example their economic growth is steadily increasing since 1980’s. However Africa is ethnically, culturally and economically diverse and they’re projected to surpass Europe and the americas by 2039. However the Chinese are also posit to extreme growth much sooner.
China has been having economic problems because they have a declining birth rate like Japan. India doesn’t have that problem which is why India will probably surpass China eventually in terms of GDP. It’s just a numbers thing.
The blackest guy ever double-posted this 1 day ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,541
Well actually India technically does have the same problem in that their birth rates are below replacement and declining, but they have a younger population than China, and it will take them much longer to get to the same stage that China is at. Birth rates are declining all over the world, birth rates are declining in Africa too, it’s just their birth rates are so high to begin with, the rest of the world will experience economic, political, and social issues from declining populations while Africa will eventually, just like a hundred years after everybody else does.
The blackest guy ever triple-posted this 1 day ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,542
Basically, developed countries are wealthier than undeveloped countries, but developed countries won’t achieve much more than they already have while undeveloped countries have the potential to experience massive improvements in their standard of living (like what happened in China). They don’t have to invent anything they just have to copy what already worked before in other places, so progress can happen much faster.
The blackest guy ever quadruple-posted this 1 day ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,543
If you compare the conditions in China under Mao’s cultural revolution to Africa today, African countries are generally in a better position. There aren’t tens of millions of Africans dying in famines. The main issue is dependency ratios.
The blackest guy ever quintuple-posted this 1 day ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,544
If China’s birth rate remained as high as Africa’s birth rate, China would probably still be poorer than Africa. Long term though, Africa won’t experience a sharp demographic decline, so the one child policy was definitely a mistake.
> Well the thing is in Africa for example their economic growth is steadily increasing since 1980’s. However Africa is ethnically, culturally and economically diverse and they’re projected to surpass Europe and the americas by 2039. However the Chinese are also posit to extreme growth much sooner.
> But it’s interesting because if you take a look at the statistics from say the last 10 years or so, India of all the asian countries is looking to rival china in the global market. Their GDP is about $15,563 per capita.
> Now let’s look at Britain right? They colonized Ireland for 900 years and India for almost 200 years more or less. However Britain has a smaller GDP than India and half the GDP per capita of Ireland? > > It’s quite fascinating in that most of them say "oh you’re just delusional making excuses but you can’t explain why we’re so superior to everybody else.” > But they could never explain it why so either. England can’t make an iPhone. England hasn’t successfully launched a rocket into orbit since 1971. > > I will say though they gave us Henry cavil and Jason Statham so theres that.
> > Well the thing is in Africa for example their economic growth is steadily increasing since 1980’s. However Africa is ethnically, culturally and economically diverse and they’re projected to surpass Europe and the americas by 2039. However the Chinese are also posit to extreme growth much sooner. > > China has been having economic problems because they have a declining birth rate like Japan. India doesn’t have that problem which is why India will probably surpass China eventually in terms of GDP. It’s just a numbers thing.
> Well actually India technically does have the same problem in that their birth rates are below replacement and declining, but they have a younger population than China, and it will take them much longer to get to the same stage that China is at. Birth rates are declining all over the world, birth rates are declining in Africa too, it’s just their birth rates are so high to begin with, the rest of the world will experience economic, political, and social issues from declining populations while Africa will eventually, just like a hundred years after everybody else does.
> Basically, developed countries are wealthier than undeveloped countries, but developed countries won’t achieve much more than they already have while undeveloped countries have the potential to experience massive improvements in their standard of living (like what happened in China). They don’t have to invent anything they just have to copy what already worked before in other places, so progress can happen much faster.
> If you compare the conditions in China under Mao’s cultural revolution to Africa today, African countries are generally in a better position. There aren’t tens of millions of Africans dying in famines. The main issue is dependency ratios.
> If China’s birth rate remained as high as Africa’s birth rate, China would probably still be poorer than Africa. Long term though, Africa won’t experience a sharp demographic decline, so the one child policy was definitely a mistake.