Poorest European Countries/Richest African countries

[ingemann]

South Africa may be richer than Moldova, but I would still rather live in Moldova than in South Africa as a random citizen.

[ingemann]

South Africa may be richer than Moldova, but I would still rather live in Moldova than in South Africa as a random citizen.

There’s no reason for this other than you know what.
Besides economic, there’s not even cultural reason, as SA is way more lively country too. Moldova and some other European countries (including some of the rich) just look depressing as hell.

Doesn't South Africa have one of the highest crime rates in the world?

That depends on where you live because of high inequality gap. If most people here moved to South Africa, I would guess they would go to the best and safest neighborhoods, which look very appealing and not really much different from most developed places in the world.

While the better options in Moldova, still look quite depressing and without potential of growth, like it was stuck in a past that won’t return. There’s this decadence feel mixed with the depressing vibes.

Moldova is not your standard impoverish post Soviet Republic, it's a impoverish post Soviet Republic with rich soil, water and mediterranean climate (at least in the southern half). Also the people I know who moved to Moldova lived like kings just without having to live in gated communities like in South Africa.

[ingemann]

I've always wondered about African countries like Gabon that nominally post decent GDP and HDI numbers but that don't often make subjective lists of relatively-rich parts of the continent. Are these actually okay places to live for the average person to the same extent that, say, Botswana is, or do their governments just pump a bunch of resource-exports money into favored sectors of society?

It depends - Botswana has much higher living standards than most of Africa, even if it still has a quite surprising levels of rural poverty that you might not expect from a country with a similar income to, say, Thailand. In contrast, Equatorial Guinea is a disaster, and has pretty bad living standards even by African standards - such is the breathtaking kleptocracy of the ruling regime.

Honestly, the best place in Africa to live is probably Mauritius. Seychelles would be there too, but it has a pretty nasty problem with heroin addiction.

The island countries in Africa in general seem better off than the mainland (Mauritius, Seychelles, Cabo Verde, etc). Is this real, and is there a reason behind it?

I wouldn't pretend to have any expertise on the matter, but they are all settler societies - and those tend to always be slightly better off - and all had fairly specific roles in their respective colonial empires. So Cape Verde had the slave trade (erm) transit point thing, Mauritius had the sugar cane economy and import of indentures labourers. So they were colonised earlier, and for a different purpose than the typical scramble for Africa experience. All that contrasts the the likes of Madagascar and Comoros, which are much poorer, and had a different experience of settlement and colonisation.

(or to put it bluntly, a large part of the reason they are wealthier is racism, pure and simple).

Plus then they generally have had more post-independence stability and in the case of Cape Verde, Mauritius and the Seychelles, been able to develop succesful tourist industries. Although whether this was all helped by the points in the first paragraph is an argument you could make.

In what way? Do racism magical cause money to materialize in people's hands?

Countries which are less unequal and more stable are better places top live and invest. When American companies outsource to East Asia instead of West Africa even through the labor cost are cheaper in West Africa, it's not because of racism but because it's a better investment thanks to other factors like stability, infrastructure and a strong monopoly of force.

[ingemann]

In what way? Do racism magical cause money to materialize in people's hands?

Countries which are less unequal and more stable are better places top live and invest. When American companies outsource to East Asia instead of West Africa even through the labor cost are cheaper in West Africa, it's not because of racism but because it's a better investment thanks to other factors like stability, infrastructure and a strong monopoly of force.

Well, think about the demographic and economic effct that a certain industry may have had on Western Africa. Said industry didn't just impact the people who were transported themselves, but on the whole economic ecosystem of the region, and that was a major long term impact.

Even ignoring that, think about the way those countries were colonised, the way borders were drawn, the way they were governed (brutally in some cases, nepotistically and corruptly in others, both in a lot), the interference that has gone on since the 1960s, the resources that were extracted and who actually benefited. You know, quite a lot of things. I'm surprised you seem to have never encountered these points before to be honest.

In contrast, large swather of Asia have been incredibly unstable since the end of the colonial era. But are still better off that comparitively more stable African countries.

A impressive mix of factors. The transatlantic slave trade de fato ended as a major factor around 1830 almost 50 years before the Berlin Conference. While the transaharan slave trade was in decline through the 19th century thanks to European states disrupting the west part of it and the eastern sea route. In fact the end of it was a major factor which enabled the European states to conquer Africa, simply because they disrupted the African states main source of income by removing the income from the slave trade.

As for borders based on ethnicity in Africa, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burundi all have a single dominant ethnic group. You could only change the border with hindsight in Africa, outside Nigeria coastal West Africa tend to have border which makes a lot of sense and relative little ethnic strife.

Also European ran Africa pretty much like they ran Asia and the colonies was equally poor in 1960.

Africa have a lot of problem Western or any other outside racism toward Africans isn't even in the top ten.

[ingemann]

Well, think about the demographic and economic effct that a certain industry may have had on Western Africa. Said industry didn't just impact the people who were transported themselves, but on the whole economic ecosystem of the region, and that was a major long term impact.

The same... industry... had an impact on other parts of the continent further east as well - a little less intense, but it went on for longer. In both cases it also contributed to long-term centrifugal tendencies (that outlast the... industry... itself, because this is the sort of thing that can't be put back in a box) as certain petty states became the predators of other petty states and peoples.

The biggest problem with the slave trade is that it caused a societal distrust, when everyone preyed on everyone else for the sake of money. The fact that it also created states, those funding depended on the industry and that industry was suddenly disrupted. Which left a region with low social trust, malthusian issues as much of the population was no longer exported for trading goods, states whose source of funding had dried up, religious conflicts and technological superior outsiders entering the scene.