> Large parts of Africa and almost all of Latin America are more highly educated now than 1970s Europe and poorer than it.

Brazil's economic growth has been between 5% and 10% since the 1970s. That's pretty respectable. So how can you claim which is the causation?

> I said that education was a consequence of economic growth, not vice versa.

> The most obvious example of economic growth not being associated with education is post Deng Xiaoping China. The huge majority had primary school education at best and the economy just kept growing and growing.

From your own source, China also has a greater proportion of the populace in third level education than France did in 1970. In fact, the chart for China looks very similar to Brazil. And with both countries "the economy just kept growing and growing."

> If you do a regression of changes in education over time versus changes in economic growth there is no trend.

Source? Where can we find that analysis?

> That Brazil is not competing with 1970s France is irrelevant to my claim. Education is a consequence rather than a cause of growth.

You don't have to look at relative education levels to understand if a competitive advantage in education leads to growth? It would be naive to claim any change in education will result in economic growth. So hopefully what we are talking about here is changes in education that lead to one country being ahead in education in some qualitative measures. At which point you would be able to understand whether or not being ahead of another country in education results in growth.