[eru]

Alas, if only it was even a zero-sum game were eg Africa only loses what the USA steals from them.

The reality is far bleaker---but also more hopeful: rich countries don't benefit from (causing) bad conditions in poor countries, at least nearly not as much as the bad conditions cost the poor countries.

[madiathomas]

Instability is profitable to rich countries. That's a well-known fact. Those bad conditions were artificially craeted by colonisers. Colonisers who still refuse to exit Africa because the only way they know how to make money is through exploiting African countries.

'The best time to buy is when there is blood on the streets' - Baron Rothschild.

[eru]

I don't know, lots more companies are investigating in stable China than they ever did when Mao's reigned with open terror. And also more than in less stable countries.

India also got more investments since the liberalisation in the 90s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Ind...).

(I know less about Africa---but I suspect relatively stable and rich South Africa gets the lion's share of investments?)

Which instabilities are profitable to rich countries?

[madiathomas]

China isn't a profitable country to the US. China fate is in their hands. That's why they are even able to kick out big US companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Uber.

South Africa is very a profitable country to the West, not the other way round. It was even more profitable during the dark days of apartheid. That's why USA was sponsoring apartheid government with intelligence and arms. Google about Mandela arrest and CIA's involvement. They even listed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Even when he was President, he was still listed as a terrorist. US only removed him from the terrorist list few years ago.

I live in South Africa.