Topic: "Even if the white upper class increased the GDP"

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc started this discussion 2 weeks ago #136,051

Fun fact: Whites did not increase Africa’s GDP

Sub Saharan Africa GDP by year
2024 $1.979T
2023 $2.118T
2022 $2.293T
2021 $2.141T
2020 $1.902T
2019 $2.046T
2018 $1.799T
2017 $1.672T
2016 $1.532T
2015 $1.688T
2014 $1.903T
2013 $1.825T
2012 $1.717T
2011 $1.651T
2010 $1.470T
2009 $1.242T
2008 $1.301T
2007 $1.145T
2006 $988.87B
2005 $836.99B
2004 $702.84B
2003 $565.92B
2002 $449.50B
2001 $410.94B
2000 $428.79B
1999 $404.65B
1998 $566.82B
1997 $565.28B
1996 $537.53B
1995 $481.08B
End of apartheid
1994 $378.18B
1993 $369.86B
1992 $365.90B
1991 $406.70B
1990 $379.79B
1989 $324.39B
1988 $318.69B
1987 $302.63B
1986 $270.24B
1985 $288.31B
1984 $301.94B
1983 $337.93B
1982 $376.49B
1981 $404.96B
1980 $300.10B
1979 $238.92B
1978 $202.65B
1977 $180.96B
1976 $164.67B
1975 $152.22B
1974 $138.64B
1973 $109.28B
1972 $85.73B
1971 $76.08B
1970 $74.00B
1969 $66.26B
1968 $58.69B
1967 $54.84B
1966 $54.78B
1965 $50.54B
1964 $45.89B
1963 $46.13B
1962 $40.55B
1961 $37.52B
Nigerian independence from Britain
1960 $35.99B

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 37 seconds later[^] [v] #1,444,800

South Africa GDP - black line is when apartheid ended

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,801

Black line is when apartheid ended

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,802

Africa isn’t poor because it’s not developing or because blacks aren’t growing the economy, they have grown the economy by a lot, people simply fail to realize how bad colonialism was and just how much Europe stole from Africa. They’re behind because they had to start from zero. Even if that offends you, the data doesn’t lie.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,803

Also, despite what people say about Africa, that it’s failing to develop, which is not true, there are reasons to be optimistic that the economic growth will continue. The average African is 20 years old, the average European is 45 years old, and the average American is 40. American women have 1.6 children on average, European women have 1.3 children on average, and Africa women have 4 children on average. This means about half of Africans are not adults, meaning you can expect the workforce in Africa to double even without population growth, but they also have a high birth rate so their population will grow significantly over time. Even if the GDP per capita didn’t increase, it isn’t unreasonable to expect that Nigeria’s GDP could exceed 1 trillion USD in the second half of the 21st century, it’s not crazy to speculate that African nations will begin to move into the trillion GDP range from the billion GDP range in the next 30 to 50 years.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,805

I mean, it makes sense, they have 242 million people in 2026, by 2050 they’ll have 375 to 400 million people, in 2026 their average age is 20, by 2050 it will increase to 25, so that means about half their people are adults, in 2050, it will be a bit more than half, but let’s just say it’s half for the sake of simplicity. Now you can assume they have about 100 million workers, in 2050, you can assume they’ll have about 200 million workers. Right now their GDP can range from 370 to 600 billion USD depending on oil prices that particular year, it’s not crazy to imagine if we assume their GDP minus the instability from oil is closer to 370 billion USD, if you double that, that could get you to 740 billion USD, assuming the standard of living increases somewhat in the next 25 years which isn’t unreasonable, they could probably do a bit better than that. It isn’t crazy to think that 30 to 50 years from now, Nigeria could have a 1 trillion GDP on a bad year to be conservative.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,816

@1,444,800 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
So it was going up during apartheid, then it went down for a moment after they ended it, and then resumed going up.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,818

@previous (C)
People misunderstand something, democracy doesn’t make a country rich. Wealth makes a country democratic. Apartheid ended as soon as the GDP per capita of South Africa started increasing, because once people have the financial means to focus on something other than survival, they’ll start resisting their authoritarian government and create a democracy. The important thing to notice is that South Africa is twice as wealthy per capita now as it was when apartheid ended.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,819

@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
What country isn't? Technological advances are global.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,820

China is wealthier than India, but India is a democracy and China isn’t. When European economies diverged from other parts of the world, most of Europe wasn’t democratic yet. But the wealth from imperialism is why the working class in Europe was able to advocate for democratic ideals successfully.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,821

@1,444,819 (C)
Japan’s economy isn’t really growing.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,822

@1,444,820 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Right, we both know democracy doesn't mean your GDP goes up.

@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Neither of us should be using Japan or Argentina as an example of normal economics in any thread.

(Edited 10 seconds later.)

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,823

Technology does matter, but technology doesn’t make money, people make money using technology. Japan’s problem is they’re still making technology, but they’re not making people, so the technology doesn’t make the GDP get bigger.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,824

@1,444,822 (C)
Well, Japan’s present is the west’s future if you look at it through the lens of demographics.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,825

@1,444,823 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It's both, and you don't need to be making technology to have GDP go up. The technology they import improves, the increased production of anything from other countries by technology will make certain goods more abundant.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,826

@previous (C)
True. My point was mostly that, you noticed the GDP went up during apartheid, it did, but only at the very end of apartheid, that’s why apartheid ended. For most of apartheid, South Africa was extremely poor and there was very little economic growth as you can see in the first half of the graph. So it’s dishonest to say that the GDP growth after apartheid ended is the same as the GDP growth before apartheid ended. You can see in the chart that for several decades under apartheid, the average person would have seen almost no improvement in their living standard, and then right when apartheid ended, GDP per capita doubled.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,827

You also have to keep in mind that South Africa was colonized in the 1650s. So the entire first half of the graph was under European control. So the lack of development between 1700 and 1900 is evidence of the failure of colonialism to develop Africa, because the intent wasn’t to develop Africa, it was to exploit Africa to develop Europe.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,829

@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It's not like some half-starved early settlers trying to get a foothold in the land could have much influence.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,831

Really what the first graph shows is under 200 years of European rule, there was basically no growth, then there was 30 years of economic growth, which led to the end of apartheid, followed by 30 more years of economic growth. But more happened in the last 60 years than in the 200 years before that.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,833

@1,444,829 (C)
The United States was founded in 1776 and became the world’s largest economy by 1900 and has reminded the largest economy ever since. The United States was also colonized by starving white Europeans but became much more successful in less time.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,834

@1,444,831 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
It took 3 generations to get control, they brought a social and technlogical revolution, got overthrown, and those advancements didn't just disappear.

Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,836

@1,444,833 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yes, exactly. Because in the US the whites stayed in power.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,837

It also isn’t really an excuse that the white settlers had a smaller population, because Africa was already inhabited by black people. Europeans stopped Africa from developing and they stopped Africans from being economically productive by taking away their agency as individuals and forcing them to extract resources for the benefit of Europeans.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,838

@1,444,836 (C)
Explain what you mean by that.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,840

Whites controlled South Africa until 1994, since 1994, South Africa has been led by black presidents, but their GDP has grown more in the past 30 years than it did in 200 years of white rule.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,841

@1,444,838 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
South Africa made a decision to reduce the influence of whites and slowed their potential growth.

The US became white dominated and kept seeing advancements that maintained economic and military hegemony.

The group steering the ship determine where it's headed.

Anonymous C double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,842

@1,444,840 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Again, pick a normal country (never japan or argentina) and look at that country's growth.

All countries are going up.

White countries are on a steeper trajectory.

(Edited 9 seconds later.)

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,843

@1,444,841 (C)

> South Africa made a decision to reduce the influence of whites and slowed their potential growth.

What year did South Africa make the decision to reduce the influence of whites?

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,844

@1,444,842 (C)

> White countries are on a steeper trajectory.

That’s… incredibly misinformed.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,845

@1,444,843 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
They'd always resisted white control.

The end of apartheid shows a decline, but the inevitable growth after is passive and happens everywhere.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,846

Take a look at this.

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,847

@1,444,844 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The US is the fastest advancing in recent history, and also the whitest.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,848

@previous (C)
No it’s not, the fastest advancing country in recent history is China. America never grew fast, the United States had steady economic growth over a 200 year period.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,850

The United States has been the largest economy since 1900, in the 1960s, tens of millions of Chinese people were dying from famine and it was poorer than most African countries. Now China is the second largest economy. That claim that America grew the fastest is just wrong.

(Edited 17 seconds later.)

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,851

@1,444,848 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Just like India the periods of rapid growth are just the result of catching up after a period of stagnation.

You can leapfrog technologies if you were too poor to afford the last innovation, but that just means you fucked up in the past.

Look at who leads in technological innovation and it's the US. They can't just copy another design and skip the R&D.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,852

@previous (C)
None of that changes the fact that your claim that America had faster growth is incorrect. That’s not true.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,853

Your claim that white (I assume you mean western) countries are experiencing faster economic growth isn’t true either. Both claims are false.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,854

I also asked you to explain how America being white has anything to do with economic growth but you haven’t explained that.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,855

Really, the economic success of the United States is easy to explain. There are primarily two causes: geography and World War Two.

The United States has a privileged location in the word: it has access to the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean’s so we can trade with Europe and Asia which are the two most important locations for maritime trade in the world. That’s why we were the largest economy even before World War Two.

Now what happened in addition to that, is in World War Two, because we are geographically isolated from the old world, we were left virtually unscathed while all our industrial competition in the world got bombed out. The dominance of the United States wouldn’t have lasted this long if it wasn’t for World War Two. We had virtually no competition after World War Two, so our GDP as a percentage of global GDP peaked in 1960 when we made up 40% of the global economy. Since then it has been in decline and is now down to about 25% not because we stopped growing but because on average, the rest of the world grows faster than we do, but we had such a massive head start after the WWII reset that we still maintain our position as the most powerful and wealthiest country, but we are losing ground and have been since 1960.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,856

And since you brought up the white thing, I take it you have racist views, so I think it’s important to mention that the Native Americans didn’t develop North America to this extent because the primary geographic advantage we have is trade with Europe and Asia, but they didn’t know Europe and Asia existed. Europeans discovered the Americas by mistake, not on purpose. So there’s no intelligence question there. More people lived in the old world than the new world, so the Native Americans were less technologically advanced simply because the spread of ideas from the old world didn’t reach them. Actually, people don’t really think about this, but Sub Saharan Africans were actually more technologically advanced than the Native Americans if you look into the use of iron tools in Sub Saharan Africa vs the Americas for instance.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,857

It’s also good we won World War Two, because Nazi Germany was in Europe, Japan was in Asia, without Asia and Europe, were not a power. We need to maintain that.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,858

@1,444,852 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,444,853 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,444,854 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,444,855 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@1,444,856 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,859

@previous (C)
Well what’s your theory? Africa is poor because they’re racist against white people but America is rich because they’re racist against black people? Your theory doesn’t even make sense because you can’t generalize it.

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,868

@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Put whites in charge, society gets better. Puts blacks in charge and you're riding coattails.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,877

@previous (C)
Can you please stop accusing me of insulting you when I call you stupid? If you say things like this, I really think I should be able to call you stupid without you complaining about it.

Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,879

I’m not even mad that you’re racist. I get it, you are who you are, it’s whatever. Just… I can’t call you smart dude. You’re just not.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,950

@1,444,868 (C)
Whites are human, blacks are equipment.

You cant expect a donkey to create anything great on its own, so the fact that anybody thinks niggers can do any better is just really a succinct summary of the world right now.

Lemon Tard joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,952

@previous (F)

Black is eternal.

Lemon Tard double-posted this 2 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,953

https://youtu.be/tG35R8F2j8k

Lemon Tard triple-posted this 2 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,955

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Anonymous C replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,963

@1,444,950 (F)

There are White-Black hybrid races (like Jeffersonians) that have black bone structure and skin but some efficient nuero patterns.

You still get a weak signal because of melanin blocking electrical activity, but neurons themselves are firing quantifiably higher charges at a faster rate.

One of these mixed breeds can usually handle long term office work and setting up IKEA furniture.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,987

@previous (C)
I can smell the autism emanating from this comment.

Minichan