Hacker News Reader

India have an incredibly consistent society from corner to corner and well organized governments.

That is literally the first time I have ever heard anyone, Indian or not, describe India that way.

I've been to India several times, and as a foreigner looking from the outside, I can say that it has much more consistent society than it may look to the Indians. The government, however corrupt, is still way better than what most African countries have.

And India is far less fragmented than Africa.

They have like a dozen languages in like 5 different scripts. Their advantage is that English is ending up as the common tongue of India, so there's lots of English there.

More like 22 official languages in 10 scripts.

Perhaps 'organised' rather than 'well-organised'? But the point is that 'India' has a national government (and a cricket team, and an army, etc), and 'Africa' has nothing of the sort.

Neither has North America

I tend to share your pessimism having been exposed to the "we can fix Africa" ideology for a while. That said, the Chinese have a much better track record of going into a place and not "fixing" it so much as adding a merchant class with a working payments exchange system which converts into much more fluid money markets. My grandfather called it mercenary mercantilism but it that was just his name for markets without judgement. You want to sell water wells? great, you want to sell slaves? no problem, etc. By not tying externalized notions of proper governance to the furtherance of economic development, things moved more quickly forward.

Actually the Chinese build near-extra territorial enclaves. In the Western model you pay bribes to many people (though intermediaries), while in the Chinese one you pay a few people at the top.

It's more along the lines that when the US comes to 'help' a country by providing foreign aid it usually has strings attached like "oh by the way, you can't sell women anymore if you want this aid" (that is the 'judgemental' part, where the aid is contingent on a change in a behavior that has been around for generations but it anathema to the sensibilities of the US). People who come in and say, "We're providing this aide to develop this part of your natural resources, infrastructure, what have you, because we're going to be buying goods from you. Not any of the women because we don't buy women but other stuff you make." Would be an example of a 'non-judgmental' aide package.

The latter tends to spur economic activity with much less friction than the strings attached version.

> Africa on the other hand is a few dozen sovereign countries, without a common culture or language between them.They are constantly at war with each other and within each other.

I am on the ground in West Africa right now. I have been to 15 countries from Morocco to Gabon in 12 months, and will visit another ~22 in the next 12-18 months.

Your statement makes it clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Maybe what you said was correct in 1980, but things are changing faster than you can imagine.

There are 54 countries (not a few dozen), over 1.2 billion people in "Africa".

Your statement about war is so far from the truth it's laughable and absurd.

If you get your information from CNN and Fox, you need to stop. It is not giving you an accurate picture of how the world functions

Thanks for the insight, but

> There are 54 countries (not a few dozen)

I’d say 54 is a “few dozen” as much as any number can be described as such.

Sorry if bikeshedding.

I don't think size is the big problem. Nigeria is the seventh most populous country in the world; larger than Russia or Japan.

You don't hear these things through the media. Population numbers are consistently surprising to me at least.

In 20 years, (2047) Nigeria's population alone will be pretty close to the US. 376M (Nigeria) vs 384M (USA) https://www.populationpyramid.net/nigeria/2047/

2047 is 30 years away, not 20. Thirty years is a long time for a massively corrupt African country to go without a protracted and bloody civil war.

> Africa is not a country, it is a continent. Comparing it to India or China (whose economies haven't really paid off for foreign investors as much as you'd think) is a major flaw. China and India have an incredibly consistent society from corner to corner and well organized governments

I know. I’m ethnically Indian. I’ve been to India multiple times. If I were to invest in an Indian startup it would probably be in Bangalore or Chandigarh.

Just as it is highly unlikely that I invest in a startup in Wyoming, it is unlikely that I invest in startups in large parts of Africa.

Calling it “Africa” is just short hand for segments, categories, and locales in that space.

And boy is India far from consistent and organized. I speak Punjabi and don’t speak Hindi. There are 50 other states and 50 other languages that are spoken.

> Africa on the other hand is a few dozen sovereign countries, without a common culture or language between them.

Not too far off as a description of the EU either.

There's definitely a lot to fix regarding the political climate, and I agree with your sentiment that it'll take a lon time. But I do believe growth would be exponential given the common markets (EU with a diverse, culture, India, China) to learn from.

as much as Africa is not a country, it's absolutely crucial to be able to scale across borders to be able to achieve VC returns here. In Africa, if you stay in one country with an idea that's not a basic need you have very little chance of doing over $500k in revenue.

Yup! In the exact same way that not many EU countries would realistically operate within 1 single country if they are VC funded. Just like EU VC funded companies, The african based companies inherently have to think on a global scale on the onset. Unlike in the US/China where it's okay to be US/China only

Why? $500,000 isn't too bad, if you only had to invest your share - which might only be $5,000. The numbers are smaller, but the percentages may be greater. The number of chances to invest may also be greater, as they will have fewer services already in place.

I don't see that they'd need to worry about international markets. At least not initially.

I can tell you have never been.

Checkout Nigeria, Namibia, South Africa.

These are powerhouses.

Nigeria, South Africa check out. Namibia?

Actually in West Africa and much of Arabian Africa we can communicate with one another in French.

Well, people were also talking about China like that for many years and even Napoleon already called them the "sleeping giant" (although probably in a militaristic context) and then suddenly, at the beginning of the 90s things started to take off.