Bitcoin Forum

So I was just surfing the web during my downtime and the internet being a rabbit hole that it is, I realized I got to this page....  http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010817233944data_trunc_sys.shtml

Having read Guns, Germs and Steel before (as well as watching the documentary on Youtube), I was really surprised that the difference can be attributed to simple things like frost.

This got me thinking, if you believe the poor countries are already locked in to their fate by the cards dealt them, does this mean they are blameless for their current situation? Did colonialism really messed them up or it simply exacerbated an existing problem? And how can poor countries overcome the challenges to becoming 1st-World?

Some of these poor afican countries like Sudan for instance have massive wealth in mineral assets like gold, diamonds, oil, timber ect but the western countries always stiff them on the deals and thats only if the leaders of these countries haven't stolen everything for themselfs and fled the country to live in luxury exile somewhere else.

Thats popular in secular liberal circles in the west. To teach youngsters what collective guilt is and to instill fear upon them. People are more obedient that way.

Even though some western european countries managed (due to many factors) to extert control over many continents for several generations - there were already vast differences between cultures around the world. Some places like Africa and Australia being firmly stuck in animism and stone age. Other, like Europe and middle East lagged behind east Asia for most of their history (and arguably again today).

I have to agree with you - if you are only concerned about material possesions, than indeed environment is paramount. Since the world is so incredibly globalized today, IQ of population is not as important as the prevailing culture (which includes work ethics).

Koreans easily outperform any african nation, regardless of the fact, that after civil war they had lower living standarts and relatively poor soil.

https://i.imgur.com/xQzYE3C.png

*National IQ per country - estimates by Lynn and Vanhanen 2006

 I don't imagine one need look too much further for an explanation.

XhomerX10,

quite the opposite is true, friend. That map, while quite plausible doesnt explain three things.

Why some people within the same IQ range outperform their peers (question of culture, which in the anglosaxon countries was shaped by protenstatism and later englightement).

Does IQ and environment influence culture and if so then how?

Why and how did such massive disparity in IQ formed in the first place, if we are supposed to be all members of same species, originating from EA and can interbreed.

 So you are saying that a correlation exists but increased wealth improves IQ scores and not the other way around?  Interesting.  Honestly, I haven't studied this but it's something I should research.

 

There are a lot of exceptions to this rule. The average IQ in the GCC nations such as Kuwait and Qatar is almost the same as the sub-Saharan African nations. Yet, the former group are some of the richest nations in the earth. Also look at Moldova, one of the poorest countries in earth. The IQ level there is almost the same as that of the US.

The big reason here is actually because their own governments are very corrupt and their political climate is not stable so no new investments can be coming in. Plus these people need more education but since the government is in disarray no one can be helping them. No country will exploit another country if the latter will not allow it. Peace and order must be first be restored on these places before any meaningful change can be achieved.

Easy to answer: Because the rich countrie's people are brave, have intelect and values to choose their leaders and will fight for their rights if necessary.

Poor countries have weak people, acting like mercenaries for any money, unable to think bigger, to think for the common convenience (thinking only in themselves). This results in corrupt leaders, dirty cities, misery and chaos.

In my view, ' rich' or 'poor' status of any country can be defined in terms of economic progress and their economic laws of development and growth. Simply, the whole discussion can be summarized with following points:
1. Countries with higher rate of savings seem rich. And they have very nice investment policies.

2. The rate of population growth measures the rate of savings. When the population is growing high, then think about capital labour ratio.

3. Geography is always a beneficial factor of economy.

I do believed that that the country who is rich are those who are not greed or corrupt in the government. Because once there is a corrupt officials inside the government expect that there is a disadvantage to be happen in the end, and the result the country will suffer, but once the officials are not greed or corrupt expect, that nation will be progress for sure in the near future.

Another important factor is demographics. In rich countries like Japan and Germany, the couples normally have only one or two children. But in the developed world (especially South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa), they produce children in the dozens.

In regards to the map above it has some missing pieces such as immigration from countries to other countries. also worth to note that knowledge and wisdom is universal and not exclusive. it's not the people to blame but rather the governments.
This world is a game of thrones have great army then start occupying the best lands with the best resources and from there just expand your empire.
England or the great Britain has been manipulating the world for centuries, they are the same empire born from incest to keep the power in the same blood line.
Because powerful countries become powerful by bullying the weak, if you're weak you get bullied. tyrants/ usurpers/ BU/ Wu/ Hitler :D :D

Yeah but that's why your IQ is probably around 60 even though the average one is higher xD

Only an idiot could believe it's a reason and not a consequence.

The system is easy, whoever exploiting the other is rich; whoever is exploited by others is simply poor.

I think a country that belongs to a poor country is caused by a high rate of corruption in that country. I'm sure corruption exists in every country, but not in large numbers. My country is a poor country and that is because of the huge amount of corruption. State finances are so unstable.

Yes, corruption significantly worsens the financial situation of the country. We also have a big problem with this. And many more countries do not know how to properly use their resources to live with dignity.

Third world countries have a hard time to become first world countries. The reason is simple it it because the first world countries are interfering with how the politics and economy in the third world country. The first world country sets up policies in the third world countries that will benefit them enabling them to harvest huge amount of resources while leaving the third world country but waste.

People are too much emphasis on IQ. I don't believe in the effectiveness of a universal approach to the human mind. I have a friend who is a very good scientist, but he is certainly not adapted to normal life. He is God in science and child on the street.

Yes, there must be a balance in all spheres for a sense of a fulfilling life. I also have such an acquaintance and he is not able to take serious relationships in the street despite his age.

The current economic situation, third world countries cannot compete with developed countries. In sports there is the concept of odds. Now the world economy is now a handicap in the countries number 1 and they will never allow development and creating competition for themselves in third world countries.

Faith in God will not help make a fortune, there are many believing beggars. We need to take our destiny into our own hands and take care of the proper functioning of the country.

I think is all about the mind and greed of most of the poor countries' leaders. Corruptions is the the greatest problem of human race. African has The most blessed solid mineral deposits by nature but the are the most poorest countries. Their cannot blame it on the western countries! They are poor because of their mind and the way their think.

Like he say the mind and greed of most of the poor countries leaders has the blame, they lack of brain and egoism plus the corruction that drown this countries will never let them overpass their situation, and it doesnt need an amazing oil reserved or mineral mines, look the example of dubai with little amount of oil they built the most expensive city in the world and in the middle of the dessert.

I have an old 1966 Webster's College Dictionary stuck away somewhere... one of those fat ones that is, like, 3 or 4 inches thick. If you look up the International Monetary Fund in that dictionary, you will find something like 150 countries that are members of the IMF. The strongest member countries are the wealthiest.

You will also find about 20 nations of the world that refused IMF membership. They are the poorest countries of the world, with plague, disease, famine, pestilence, and war destroying them. Note that things have changed since 19966, so you won't find the same member and non-member nations in the IMF.

What does that all mean?

8)

It's not easy to answer such question.
We have to research history first.
The invention of wheels and iron were the first major drivers of the development of society, and after that gunpowder, printing, and industrialization of society.
Because of it, Europeans had a much more developed society than any country in Africa, Asia and both Americas.
Europeans dominated the world for centuries, economically exploited the colonies and imported cheap raw materials and labor work but technology they didn't share with colonies.
Africa, for example, got political independence very late, in the 20th century.
Economically, they still depend on former masters from Europe and here is main reason for all differences in development.

 https://i.imgur.com/sFHUExh.jpg

Best answer I could come up with.  Sorry it took so long, I had to get my dog to read your post to me.

Yes, I don't understand why people have dozens of children if they don't have conditions to give a decent life to them, it's a bit of ignorance and fear to don't have who take care of them when they reach to the oldest age. If poor people had only one or two children they could have a more confortable life and give more attention to their children, educating them, teaching them, playing with them...

Well thats the main problem in a poor country, the over population is the common factor in this kind of country, this social problems happens because the goberments dont used the resources to improved education in the poorest sectors of the country, they dont even know how a baby come to the world.

It's always been like that ever since. The rich always has a way to remain that way by taking advantage of the poor. Sometimes, poor countries remain poor because they have no resources or ways to reach out to the market. Or sometimes, the people in control in these poor countries wanted it to remain poor so that they can remain in power.

It seems to me that it's long to talk about why a poor country is poor, it is not needed, because everything depends first of all on the government and on the level of corruption in the country.

IQ tests you only on how well u perform IQ tests which measures only a specific form of intelligence. In reality intelligence can manifest itself in many forms, such as how well u adapt to social situations. In that sense you could say your scientist friend is smart in his field but doesn't possess the type of intelligence to adapt to social life.

And maybe it doesn't need to. Why would he Adapt to society if he lives in his own world and not face problems which are known to us all. We do not repair our car ourselves. And it is normal.

Most of the poor countries tend to be ultra-religious. And in these nations, family planning is very unpopular, due to the opposition from the clerics. Take the example of Muslim nations such as Somalia, Sudan.etc and Christian nations such as the Philippines. Family planning measures are not encouraged there, if not banned outright.

Hah, many times it's because larger(often but not always richer) countries had colonized them and stolen their resources, people etc.

You can take a look at central and eastern European countries too. They'd have probably been on par with western Europe had it not been first for the Ottomans and more importantly later the Communists. Many of these countries were among the richer in Europe right before WWII, but then they remained behind the iron curtain and well you know the rest...

Planning measures of fertility is the interests of the state. From the point of view of the officials the more people the more taxes on business is also interested in this. The more people the cheaper labor. For religion, the more people the more potential donors.

because they were putting their mineral assets to such good use before westerners arrived there

Let's argue for a bit. Do you believe a country is rich, because its citizens are brave and smart?
Compare some of the richest Arab countries like UAE and Kuwait to Some poorer ones like Algeria. All of them are in the Arab league, all of them have vast natural resources mainly oil and natural gas, all are inhabited by people of similar culture and religion. Does the difference in wealth really come from the weakness of the people?
Is that why in one of them people drive ferraris and in the other they rarely drive cars at all?

Since you already mentioned Guns, Germs and Steel, I also suggest reading Why the West Rules - For Now, by Ian Morris and Why Nations Fail, by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. While you're at it, you might also want to pick out The Dictator's Handbook by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith.

It's really a combination of factors, though I really believe the environment played a huge part since after all, it influence whatever culture is born in that place.



I believe I heard some people point out that without the negative effects of the Black Death, Europe today would be like sub-Saharan Africa. It did certainly have certain undeniable effects. It depopulated large tracts of land, forcing feudal lords to raise wages or make concessions, eventually spelling the end for the feudal system, etc.



Globalist conspiracy! How dare they!

Maybe it also depends on the country's leadership. The richer the country the less its citizens are interested in politics. Accordingly the poorer the country the more people tend to come to politics to enrich themselves. Though of course I could be wrong.

Reminded me of the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia. They left Eurasia too early, way before metallurgy was invented. If they managed to get it before heading out, they might have brought tools to make life easier in Australia, and found a use for all the iron ore there.

Many point out East Asian excellence to Confucian ethics. Also, let's not forget China was the first civ to implement the civil service exam. The culture of meritocracy was all ready present there.

There is a proverb: why the poor, because the bad, and why the bad, because the poor, this is the case for the countries of Asia.

I just really found it interesting. I mean, most of Western Europe today was backwater during Roman times and lagged considerably with the Eastern half of the empire for a long time. Even Egypt at the time was richer (which attracted Romans in the first place).

The author of the articles makes a case that the heat in many places is a disadvantage but then I was wondering how some of those places,  like India for example, were the places that first developed a complex civilization. Is that only temporary because they people there had a head-start because the place was settled earlier and they were meant to be overpowered by people from the more temperate climes?

Since you mentioned Korea, I don't think it is within the tropics and the article is claiming that being in the tropics automatically places the people at a disadvantage.


Ah, good ol' vicious cycle...


I didn't know Algeria is an oil producing country. I rarely even hear it in the news. I wonder what could have caused the difference. Isn't Algeria not fully Arabicized? I believe there is a native ethnic group there, Berber if memory serves right...

It's just that once a country becomes poor, it becomes insanely difficult to get out. The lack of infrastructure, education and organized government make it extremely difficult for these countries to produce an effective economy, and often lead to violence and war. In economics, we refer to this as the 'poverty trap,' and how poverty is a negative feedback loop that simply leads to more poverty. As to why these countries were poor in the first place, well this may be a result of many things. A common one is prior abuse from Western countries in terms of colonization, slavery, etc.

I don't have enough informations about the arabian countries to say why one or another are better than the rest.

But I can assure you the wealth these countries show are just illusion and most people don't have access to ferraris or any other luxuous items.

I don't know how people live there, if they have a decent life, if they are happy... Anyway, I'm sure the difference in wealth comes from weakness of people.

Depends on their government. Some are rich because of capitalist policies or have good natural resources. Some are poor because of poor management of the economy by their governments.

If the government is not interested in the welfare of its own citizens, then nothing can be done. Look at the African nations such as Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. These countries are very poor, despite the huge petroleum deposits. 

It goes both ways. About  70% of IQ is genetic, the rest is dependant on environment and nutrition - Flynn effect.

In case of perfect conditions, Africa still would not outperform Japanese or Swiss, but they would close the gap significantly. Get where middle easterners are on the map. It is obvious, that populations with higher national IQ can and do perform better under similar conditions, that is true.


No, you are referring to individuals. Countries are completely different case.

Congo is sitting on perhaps largest reserves of diamonds and natural gas in the world but is unable to extract them. In fact, the country did not even exist before colonizators came around.

On the other hand South Korea had lower living standarts than majority of subsaharan Africa after civil war and virtually no resources. Look at it today.

So rather it is question of culture vs IQ of native population, not some invinsible "loop". Furthermore, did it occur to you, that those things may be related? Some countries were never colonized in the past millenia. Others multiple times by different cultures.

I think it is because of different corruption levels in different countries and that is the main reason for me why one country is rich and another country is poor. If you see the rich countries they have the lowest level of corruption, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway from Europe. If you see south eastern Europe like Romania, and the Balkans you will see that the level of corruption there is extremely to the big side. Normally if the level of corruption in Romania and Balkans would be the lowest, this area have better natural resources than the Scandinavian countries and would be richer than them.

You can't say that corruption is the lone reason. For example, in South Asian countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka, the corruption level is quite low. But the people are some of the poorest in the world.

Long time ago, Max Weber (yeah, the vocabulary guy) wrot0e on work ethics and influence of protestantism in the West. Since, faith (or ethos) shapes our culture, it makes sense, that some societies place much greater emphasis on career and accumulation of wealth. This could be just as important is inherent IQ.

It was written all the way back in 1904.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

The level of wealth and poverty depends on many factors: geopoltical location (neighbours, natural resources, trade, etc), government, legislation, mentality. And I think IQ level, corruption, healthcare and quality of education are just consequences.

No. Look at China, Indonesia, Phillipines. Look at resurgent Iran and Turkey and Brazil. Accumulation of wealth takes time and dedication, but its not impossible. Likewise, rich wont stay rich, if they take it for granted.


What kind of people in UAE and Kuwait drive ferraris?  ;) Really, look it up. Those city states are ruled by small enclave of locals, who inherited all the resources. They are surrounded by slave labourers from places like Pakistan and Somalia. Algeria by comparison is country without slave labour but also many resources, that Gulf Arabs take for granted. Therefore structure of their economy is different.

You can see similar differences between anglospheric countries, who also share culture but adapted to different conditions.


And if you look at countries, that are rich these days, mister - they all became rich, when they were religious. Protestantism in the case of West and confucianism/buddhism in the case of far East. Altough different, both instilled culture of work ethics into their respective people.

You westerners are not rich, because you choose not to believe. You were already born rich into place where generation after generation of hard working folk accumulated wealth over past centuries.

It's a very simple equation.
If there's no poor then who will be dependent on you, how you keep dominating.? It's a master plan for developed countries for the shake of their business purposes, they always keep pressure on poor or least developed countries and always trying to be pretend as a well wisher. Actually, they are doing business through giving grant, loan and so on. That's the reality.

Yes, I'll allow myself to quote: Algeria is the tenth-largest country in the world, and the largest in Africa (...) the 16th largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest in Africa, while it has the 9th largest reserves of natural gas
So, basically we have a huge and rich country, that has oil and gas, both of which are wanted by basically everyone and it's still poor. It's a third world out there with almost no big stores or galleries and 20% people living below the poverty level. You're of course right about the Berbers.

Look foreign where it is believed that it is not very crowded and at the same time these people are poor and nothing their country produces. So Where they get rich in your area is today, even at the slightest opportunity to work do not want. Today, Africa is a very good example. There are people who breed and nothing more.

Yes you're right they rarely choose ferraris, Bugattis   and gold and silver plated cars  (http://www.uaeboost.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8572) are more popular among the Arabs.

Are you aware of the license plate trading system in UAE? This came to me as a real shocker when I first heard of it.
Basically the plates are your property and you can resell them. They are a synonym of wealth and the government asks huge fees for personalized plates.
The less digit a plate has, the more expensive it is. For instance this double digit plate costs 3,6m AED, almost 1 million USD!
 Also, check out how many of them were already sold, it's a booming market.

Probably there can not be such to avoid the poor and rich countries. The world is so constituted that the rich countries are like vampires drink blood from poor countries that is why they are poor. To escape from this circle very difficult. If China will succeed he will be a worthy example to follow.

I live in the Philippines and yes it is a VERY slow crawl up. In the news you either see its drug war or the growing economy. Very little of that wealth actually trickles down and it'd take a few more decades for policy changes to show their effects. For example, the additional 2 years in high school that would be devoted to a technical specialization would not make its effects know until all those kids graduated.



I'm not very religious but we a have proverb here in my country, "to God, mercy; to man, action". Sitting on the largest lump of gold, diamond, or oil will not do anything if you don't work and manage it properly. Now the question is, how did some countries got to develop and benefit greatly from their resources (for example, KSA and its oil) while others didn't (example, Venezuela)?

This is sad, many of us here in our country would wish to have that much oil so we don't need to import all of it. Why haven't they took advantage of their resource? Is it politically unstable there? Income from all those oil could have fueled an economic boom, they can export oil and use the natural gas for themselves. This is... baffling.

Hi, I just want to let you know, that I absolutely, utterly love "moro armor" that blacksmiths in your country used to produce. Perfect convergence of aesthetics and practicality.

Now, on to the economics.

I belive, that your countrys turbulent history has alot to do with it. From what I could read up on it, unlike say Koreans or Japanese, various people of the islands were only united farly late during colonial period with major help from jezuits and european guns.

Now, what makes a country? Common language, culture (usually, but not always shaped by religion), shared history and values. Otherwise, you end up with privately run corporation with its people as slaves.

To amend differences between various, formerly independent tribes and make progressive changes, you need A LOT of time. Something only crazy people and religous freaks are capable of. Is Duterte man like that? Long term, I see no reason why your country wouldnt catch up with southern Europe or say Taiwan. IF it can resolve its internal friction.

Venezuela is specific in the fact, that it tried to take a shortcut. Forsake development of its civil society in favor of "leap forwards" as Chinese communists used to say. This never works out as state controlled development of every single aspect of citizens life undermines private enterprise and stumps their development. Once the regime falls, its people will have to start all over again. Like Russians or Ukrainians in 1990.

You can read a lot about their history online. In short, the country was occupied by France until half of the last century, when they rebelled and decided they want their own government. Angry mobs started to murder non-Arab citizens and most of them eventually fled back to France. The new government wanted the country to be purely Islamic again and chose socialism as the political system. Now if you look at how current and former socialist countries are doing economically, it should be easy to explain why Algeria is in its current state. Also, the prices of oil were really low in the 70s and 80s, so the country had no money and no infrastructure, and they didn't allow foreigners to invest and build it.

Yikes. Looks like they really needed all that money to jump start their industries but they chose to reject it. I mean, that's a bit stupid - how can you implement socialism if you don't have the money to run it first? It seem it really only look good on paper and would be hard to establish unless you are already rich enough to start doling out subsidies

I haven't even heard of "moro armor". Is it something only the Muslims down south make?

I agree with the unification problem. The mountainous terrain and archipelagic set up basically ensured we'd be disunited. It seem non of the invaders managed to really develop a national culture. The Spanish took advantage of the ethnic divide. The Americans didn't but they also did not do enough to integrate everyone. The past round of election even made clear with now president Duterte making racist remarks  at Tagalogs during campaign. (He has since stopped mentioning it coz he basically live in Tagalog-land now.)

This is what critics of a federal setup fear - it could eventually lead to each state declaring independence (especially if they were cut along ethnic lines). That's something China and Malaysia would be glad to see.

There are a lot of examples for countries which became rich thanks to their natural resources. But definitely Saudi Arabia is not one of them. There is a lot of wealth in that country, but the distribution of wealth is very uneven. There are a lot of poor people in Saudi Arabia.

Precisely. Gulf States usually have relatively small aristocratic class on top, who have jobs in public sector created for them. Real work is done by foreign specialists and slave labourers from Asia and Africa. When you realize that all those vast natural resources are all used up by couple of hundred of thousands individuals it makes sense.

http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/december092013/saudi-maid-wounds.jpg

Sigh, the classic chicken-or-egg I guess? Problem is, in most cases, there's little people there can do and those in power would not have enough clout or will encounter great resistance, if they do anything drastic to try to change the status quo. That is, if they're even planning on changing it. You'd be surprised at how much lip-service these people give to change while doing nothing and only enacting reforms that would benefit them and their cronies.

I don't understand why these Asians and Africans prefer to work in Saudi Arabia. Almost all the women are sexually abused and tortured, and even the men are forced to give homosexual favors to their employers. Check these:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/21/world/meast/saudi-filipino-maid/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-filipino-philippines-maid-raped-by-employer-dies-in-hospital-a7207041.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/woman-allegedly-tortured-to-death-by-her-employer-in-saudi-arabia-a7020551.html
http://time.com/4067663/saudi-woman-india-hand-chopped-employer-sushma-swaraj/
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-businesswoman-faces-charges-of-torturing-maid-to-death-1.1571909

Many factors about this question, this country can become rich because of its small population, so the government can divide it in all regions equally, but rich countries can be poor if the population and its territory is large, perhaps. It is rather difficult to manage state money and should be given to all the large areas. And a country with a lot of natural resources may not necessarily be a rich country if its government can not manage its natural wealth well. I think that's some reason and the answer, .. Saudi Arabia became a developed country due to oil, and they could manage their natural wealth well, ..

Its all about perspective, friend. When you are growing up in slums, what would you rather do? Prostitute yourself to make it as another throw away refugee into european camp. Or try arab recruitment agency? Of course they dont tell you about the conditions. If nothing else, Arabs are good at persuasion.

They show the poor kid this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YIA2-MZmHx4/VM4sC42vtLI/AAAAAAAAErs/cZvAE2viQqU/s1600/Can%2Ban%2BAirhostess%2Bbring%2Bher%2Bhusband%2Bin%2BSaudi%2BArabia.jpg

Not this:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5XzThnFyjG0/hqdefault.jpg

Poverty. Our country is one of the main exporters of workers there. Many of these people are given good offers here and then get the shock of their lives when they get there. Some would get a much smaller salary or find themselves in a different job. Some of those who managed to escape even say they were not given salary and barely eat and sleep. And of course some got abused.

A cousin got it easy... His salary was a few thousand peso lower than in the contract and he was assigned to a kitchen instead but the food and lodging was free and he was not mistreated. He did sorta "convert," even going to Mecca so that could partly explain the treatment. He also made use of the myth there that we are cannibals, lol  ;D

Until the world is ruled by a few super powers we are doomed to be poor. The economy works so all poor countries serve the wealthy. The desire to escape from this poverty leads to the fact that many Africans become slaves in General.

When the world is ruled by a few super powers we are doomed to be poor. Why? Because they sill suck the wealth out of us all.

8)

Not only suck the wealth. Due to the fact that they objectively are better they poach the best scientists, engineers, even athletes. The whole world grows teaches talented people, and they entice to themselves and those working for them great

Oh.. trust me. Your cousin was lucky. I know someone who landed for the first time in Saudi Arabia almost 20 years back. His sponsor was not there at the airport, and after a few hours, he was picked up by an unfamiliar Arab man. He took him to a goat farm in the middle of the desert, where he lived as a slave for 3-4 years. He was not allowed to contact the outside world, and he was not given any salary. Luckily, he managed to escape and return to his native place, unlike the dozens who vanished without a trace.

sad to hear stories like this at this time. goes to show that some people are not that fortunate when it comes to seeing their dreams for their families fulfilled in another country. I mean at this age, we would think that taking people as slaves would already be a crime

Modern day slavery is very prevalent and it remains hidden from the eyes of the media. You would be surprised to learn that even in some of the European Union nations (such as Italy), immigrants are being held against their will and exploited. And the saddest part is that the vast majority of these slaves (both male and female) are below the legal age of adulthood.

To be perfectly frank, the more and more we learn about this "migrant crisis", the more it seems like modern slave trade. With both migrants and tax payers being its unwilling and perhaps naive sponsors. Corporate aligned NGOs promise these third world dwellers life of aristocracy and warm welcome (thats not real even for middle class Europeans) and when they sell all their belongings to smugglers, those same NGOs take money from tax payers to "take care of" the problem theyve created in the first place.

I was horrified the moment Ive learned, that these "activists" are sometimes directly financed by George Soros and even willing to clash with border guards. One recent incident involving these human rights people involved battling Lybians (!) patrol over custody of migrants.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/12/pro-migrant-ngo-clashes-libyan-coast-guard-migrants/ (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/12/pro-migrant-ngo-clashes-libyan-coast-guard-migrants/)

The more times change, the more they stay the same.

So why the richest countries are the most atheist countries? :/

Sorry to to point at your propaganda but this is simply wrong.
The IQ is mainly due to environment. Give me any kid, even the most gifted and genetically enhanced one and I can make him becoming as dumb as I want.

IQ is in fact ONLY due to environment but is LIMITED by genetics. There a genetic limit to what your brain can do, but environment only allows it to developp and reach this limit.

But of course it helps the good white supremcists to believe that they're "genetically superior" and that's why their countries have a higher IQ. They're by the way completely forgeting about how the IQ of the "genetically inferior races" are quickly rising and reach the same level as them when they're in developped countries and have acces to education. But that's not like selective data is a new thing among idiots.

Because the richest countries (lets not count Saudi Arabia for the sake of discussion) were protestant christian, when they became the richest.  ;) Sorry, you kind of gave that one away.

Max Weber provides very informative overview, how some values supported by calvinism formed early capitalist enterprise. Also, please, notice, that this development was unique to the western Europe with initially zero competition from rest of the world. Different belief systems elsewhere didnt see common ground between materialism/career and being good believer. Therefore, those societies had to adapt to new paradigma, sometimes through shock therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism)

Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation, though he acknowledged some respect for secular everyday labor as early as the Middle Ages.[5]:28 The Roman Catholic Church assured salvation to individuals who accepted the church's sacraments and submitted to the clerical authority. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances. From a psychological viewpoint, the average person had difficulty adjusting to this new worldview, and only the most devout believers or "religious geniuses" within Protestantism, such as Martin Luther, were able to make this adjustment, according to Weber.

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.


Triggered are we? You can make smart kid ignorant, but not dumb, unless you cause him an actual brain damage. People like Charles Manson or Abraham Lincoln were extremely intelligent even though they effectively grew up on a street. Sure, they would certainly perform even better with proper environment, but the point is both were able to outperform their peers. Because genes. Likewise, even most disadvantaged minority these days thanks to welfare system has just as good opportunies as those two above ever got - but they dont perform well at all. So we can disregard, that it is only cultural thing. Genetics also plays a role. You wouldnt be next Albert Einstein even with the best schools (he was mediocre student by the way) and neither would I.

And before you lay some stupid claims about white supremacy, notice, that its East Asians, ashkenazi Jews and Indian brahmin caste, who are on top of the pyramid. Not your imagined nazis. How would you explain the fact, that Brahmins outperformed British even during colonial era?

https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/09/29/caste-iq-in-india/

Atheists don't have to worry about various religious taboos. On top of that, they don't have to contribute to the churches and the mosques. Atheists prioritize their wealth and comfort, over that of the others. The more intelligent someone is, that less likely is he to believe in the religious propaganda. On the other hand, the poor are mostly hardcore religious followers. They have to contribute to the churches and other religious organizations, which make them even poorer.

The current economic situation, third world countries cannot compete with developed countries. In sports there is the concept of odds. Now the world economy is now a handicap in the countries number 1 and they will never allow development and creating competition for themselves in third world countries.

We send workers to Saudi Arabia so I've heard of horror stories from some that manage to get back alive. What I'm just saying is that Saudi Arabia is not as struggling as Venezuela is now because they probably managed their oil and finances better. (Though I heard they'll have to cut back on subsidies if they want to stay in the black.)

I believe this sort of maltreatment wouldn't happen that much in a rich Venezuela, after all they're not taught that non-Christians are a lower sort of human.

It could be some other factors as well. Desperately poor people cling to anything that will give them comfort. The richer people on the other hand have the luxury of not worrying where they'll get their next meal and have more time to think deeply. It could be that the richer the country become, the more secular it gets, rather the other way around.

And another big problem is that the corruption case is difficult to resolve, to be eradicated. In fact, I think it seems too difficult. Because of too many corruption cases, corruption becomes impressed as a thing to do, everyone already knows that government people are corrupt.

Yeah and the fact that most poor country's economies rely on rich countries makes it easier for these rich countries to stay rich while making the poor countries stay poor. The economy of these poor countries can easily be manipulated through loans and interests. Also, most of these poor countries don't have any natural resources that can actually help lift up their status.

It is well known that 99% of the female expat workers (especially the housemaids) in Saudi Arabia end up as sex slaves at the hands of the Arabs. But still, every year tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of women are recruited as housemaids, from countries such as the Philippines, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. It is very difficult to know why these women chose to go to that godforsaken country. Perhaps it is a last resort to save their children from dying of starvation.

This reminded me of another horror story. A different cousin have a cousin (who is not my relative, yes) who was working in Saudi Arabia who was scheduled to come back home for vacation. Since his family have to recognize him at the airport when he gets home, he shaved of his beard.
In an airport in KSA (can't remember which, I just heard some relatives talking about the incident), he was "apprehended". A guard there escorted him into a detention room. No talks. Nothing was said why he was sent there. He managed to contact his employer, who then rushed to the airport to get him. He was let off as quickly as he was taken. What they were talking here was maybe they "fancied" him.

It could have been worse. I mean, another countryman there was just on the sidewalk waiting for a taxi when a car pulled over and several men dragged him in. He was found in the desert days later, in critical condition, badly bruised and was obviously raped.

There seem to be some cultural thing going on here. Thousands also flock to Europe and America to try their luck but the number of those abused is not as many as these, and the abuses not as worse. We rarely have workers in Europe coming back home in crates.

I am not surprised. The vast majority of the Arabs are bisexual. As per the law, sodomy is illegal in Saudi Arabia. But tens of thousands of male sex slaves are imported every year (especially from sub Saharan Africa). Normally, they spare the male migrant workers. But if some powerful Arab finds a handsome migrant "attractive", then his safety can't be guaranteed. And there is no point in complaining to the police. You will be charged with sodomy, and sentenced to beheading.

It's just simple. The rich countries always learn to be better,  but the poor ones never want to learn from the best countries.

Rich coutry are rich and poor country poor because that is suppossedly called specially when a country is not striving to change their status and not realizing that they need to improve so that they will not stay as they are. we cannot call rich country poor or poor country rich i do jope and pray that poor countries must strive to be rich and improve so that they will not stay as they are.

Simple. Because some rich countries do not let poor countries to develop. Because they gain profit from poor countries. They interfere them by political  force, financial force and army forces.

Never heard of this before. I agree with the threat of a sodomy charge though. Heck, we've seen it used on a politician in Malaysia.

And this the main problem with working in the Middle East that I preferred eking out a living in my country, how ever low the pay is. It's not exactly the best place for human right, even with its own citizens. Migrant worker protection is at a bare minimum, if even present and  embassies of countries with workers there are pretty much powerless. Many things happen to workers there without the news even reaching  the embassy. There are actually people who were only found out to be in prison once penalties like lashing or execution was announced.

I'm not saying that every employer there is evil. My cousin was treated fairly even as a newcomer, and there are news stories here of grown-ups lovingly looking for their old nannies but for every person that got lucky, there's just as much that got it bad and some never lived to tell their story.

Yes... Even among the Arabs, there are a lot of good people. I know once instance, when an immigrant suddenly passed away due to cardiac arrest. His employer (an Arab from Oman) sent his family a huge financial help on top of the arrears. But it is the attitude of the government which matters. In Saudi Arabia, if you are an immigrant, then you can't complain about your employer. If you do so, then most probably you will end up behind the bars.

Yes, government policies are also at fault here. They pretty much allow abuses to happen. There seem to be changes though, not just there but in other places heavily-reliant on foreign labor. I saw in the news a few months ago a couple that has been sent to jail for abusing their helper. It's not much but an improvement. We all know that a Muslim there will not be given capital punishment for killing a kuffar but that people are now going to jail just for abuse would have a positive effect. They seem to be very "honor" oriented there and going to jail would be scandalous for the reputation.

But also the faith is still higher than its own laws. Rather everything in there law has something to do with there holy book. The country also is also considered a rich country even though they have a lot of issues regarding imigrants. Sure there are news about there economic but still they have many infrastructures and also there oil wealth. They probably has some of the weirdest laws and still a country that was not affected by time fashion but still it is a rich country.

I think it is because of different corruption levels in different countries and that is the main reason for me why one country is rich and another country is poor. If you see the rich countries they have the lowest level of corruption, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway from Europe.  ::)

Citizens of wealthy countries have more opportunities to educate themselves than of the the poor ones and thus separate the religion from science. Also, we must not forget that in many poor countries people believe that their poverty is a result of God and not of their corrupt and impotent governments.

It is an invalid argument to say that poverty in poor countries are being linked to god by people. Poor people have no capital to begin with and the rich people grab that opportunity to hire the poor people who are desperate for income so they can earn more. It is how the economy and business in todays world is moving. The rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer and only a small percentage of the poor was able to become rich.

The first part is not true, although I would accept with the second part that poor countries tend to be ultra-religious. Regarding the role of education, it is true that in the vast majority of the poor nations the citizens don't get enough opportunities to receive quality education. But there are exceptions, such as Cuba (where the quality of education is much higher than that in developed nations such as Qatar and Turkey).

Guys, I wanna get back a bit to the article I linked. Since we have technology now, what do you think the poorer countries can do to overcome their geographic challenges?

For example, the constant enervating heat for most of the year, can that be alleviated through better urban planning or should the gov't just distribute ACs?

With nutrients degrading in the heat and evaporating or leaching down to the water table unlike in the temperate zones, are there ways to reduce that or should we just dump more fertilizer on it?

I was about to ask about tropical diseases but then I realized the vectors are close to impossible to eliminate without a killing frost. We got it really bad on this one.

The rich country like america is still rich because they know how to manage their country..and wealthy countries has lot of oppurtunities so the people are very successful..the poor country is still poor maybe because of leadership or maybe due to corruption..

It seems to me that every country has its own resources to be rich and prosperous, That's all these resources belong not to people, but to oligarchs and officials. Who can Each country has a special disease and this is corruption.

It is difficult to blame privatization for all this. Look at Venezuela. They recently nationalized the oil and gas assets, along with a lot of other industries. Now Venezuela is one of the poorest nations in the world.

Jesus could you stop telling blatant lies like that?
Here is what nationalization brought to venezuela:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/venezuela/overview

Poverty rate went from 50% to 30%
Gini index went from 0.48 to 0.4

You're either just a spammer not checking facts or a lier.
But let's be clear: Venezuela is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what nationalization can do for a country.

Don't misunderstand me. When Chavez was the president, he introduced a lot of social programs, and that is how the poverty rate got reduced to 30%. But look at the state of affairs now. More than 90% of the population don't have enough food to eat.

The top producer of crude oil and natural has in the world (Russia) is a moderately religious nation. The same goes for many other nations, such as Angola, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea, Mexico, and Kazakhstan.

I warn you of argumentum ad reductum. Yes, Russia and Kazachstan are moderately religious countries - recovering after decades of brutal communist dictatorship, that left immense spiritual vacuum in its place. African countries on the other hand were properly formed only in the past century. Nation building takes many generations.

On the opposite end you have countries such as Norway or Canada, which were build from ground up by men with deeply instilled protestant work ethics, neither of those countries was subject to destructive political turbulence. Today, neither Canada or Norway is very religious, but you dont see them progressing economically or demographically either. They are at their apex.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2014/02/figure03.jpg

Christian african nations ^^"

Example for the countries of the eastern block since 90's:

Most of the countries had GNP per capita at the level o 7%. Even increase of the economy of 10-11% gave a burst in 25 years to the level 40-50% of the Western European Countries.

So, if you're poor, you mostly consume (learning is an investment) or if you make investments, it is long term. Examples like Saudi Arabia - they had resources (oil), China (gold, rare minerals, labor).

So that is why it so hard to change the difference.

I think every country knows how to manage their country, but there are countries that can manage well and some manage their country well. For example, in my country, the government is still messy, not vilifying, but I think it is. For the problem of corruption, I'm sure this case is happening in any country, it's just that the country that is poor the number of corruption is too high.

There are several problems:
- corruption
- low GNP
- low innovation index
- low competitiveness
- lack of resources
- labor without qualification
- high debt / inflation
- geopolitical situation

but those are the stamp phrases..



 

Education is the best way to save yourself from poverty. If you have the necessary educational qualification, then you will get a chance to prove your mettle. The rest depends upon you.

Good list. But you gave example above (eastern bloc), that it can be largely reversed. East Asia is another good example, its GNI used to be lower than Africas back in 1940´.

So the question is: Where lies the tipping point?

Is it work culture? Inherent IQ of natives? Religion/Ethos that forms aforementioned values and also work culture? Resources?

Or combination of all of the above?

From our point of view - couple of centuries ago, everybody but top 1% were dirt poor everywhere. Some nations were able to elevate themselves far above and beyond that within several generations, also bringing technology and modern politics to other civlizations via cultural exchange. Others catched up later or stayed poor.

Max Weber, german sociologist (and author of well known vocabulary) tried to pin point "why" the West and not anybody else, but he might also not see entire picture, hard to tell.

Venezuela lived by the sale of oil. Under Hugo Chavez the price of oil was at the maximum. This allowed the country to survive. When oil fell in price to two times the expenditures began to exceed revenues and there was what we see now. I think that this final expects all countries which live only by the sale of oil.

There are no rich and there are no poor - there's just human being's playing mind games with each other.

When the oil prices were high, rather than investing a part of the revenues in some rainy day fund, the government chose to splurge them in various social security programs. A lot of the money was lost due to corruption.

Hmmm the differences aren't so huge (percentage):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182646/Spending-America-How-poor-middle-class-rich-divided-incomes.html

So the theory of investments is not as clear as it should be.

Maybe it is related to risk also? I mean, in post-communist countries people didn't risk too much for their business because.. the couldn't have a business, just a 'good, stable job' that the State provided.
In the aggressive economy, one has to invest in different projects with dozens of failures, success sometimes comes, sometimes not. It is related to 'change management'.

In Poland we also have a say 'You cannot teach a fat cat to hunt a mouse'. Maybe if people reach a level of stability, they just don't want to reach for more. The dream about it, but don't do nothing. This is why everybody wants to be in the 'middle class' which differs in many countries - sometimes it means having a small flat and one child studying, in other may be a large house and playing golf..

Because the countries who are rich are those people who are open minded into business. And they wise people in terms of decision making.
While country who are poor nations are those people who are not totally open when it comes into business.

I see also that more advanced countries are more used to 'projects' which I understand by cooperation of teams.

In Poland, many people are talking about cooperation etc., but when it comes to project realization, many are individuals. Sometimes it is even 'project killers'. But it is changing - new generation (born after '95) thinks different, like in the West.

I think that evolution of such business attitude is natural. The more people travel and exchange information, the more rises the probability of success. Look at the China case. They started with huge asset of cheap labor. Now, since 3 years, they are looking form more and more projects to be nested in homeland in special economical and development zones. It is natural. In 2 or 3 next years they'll be in 'startup' phase, looking for SMEs.

I'll try to keep to the OP, since it seem to be leaning on geopolitics rather than actual governance.

Has anyone here played CiV? In that game each Civ usually have a start bias which determine what environment they will spawn in. (Usually in keeping with the historical Civ, Arabia starts on deserts, Russia near tundra, etc).

That's pretty much how I see real life Civs. You are spawned somewhere and unlike in a game, you don't have the option to restart. You basically just use whatever resources you have and adapt to your environment. You of course have a way to change what is currently being practiced but your start would have a big impact on your future. For example, if the only available renewable energy technology is solar and you live in a place that is either too cloudy or snowy for the rest of the year, you wouldn't be able to use that.

Environmental determination (or racism according to SJWs)? That certainly plays a role, sure. But it doesnt explain everything by and of itself. You mentioned Civilization series (great by the way), so you should be fully aware, that starting location is but one of many variables in the game. Player (aka work ethics) can be another, reflecting that even in the same environment some people perform better than others.

"A people’s religion, their faith, creates their culture, and their culture creates their civilization." - Buchanan

Thats quite difficult to simulate properly in a videogame, the relationship between faith and actual value system of the people. So thats where player comes as literal deus ex machina.

Well i guess that can happen, i mean one poor country to become rich and prosperous. Even if it was influenced from another country, they still can become better. It would be hard and it would take a lot of time yes, but if people of that country are prepared to sacrifice little bit for the sake of better tomorrow, it is possible.

Economic prosperity springs from inclusive political and economic institutions. Extractive institutions typically lead to stagnation and poverty. Thus, whether a country becomes rich or poor is largely a function of its institutions.

But still institutions represent the attitude of people. If society is not innovative, competitive and bureaucratic, so are the institutions.

I wonder if the environment still determines if a people would eventually transition to a less extractive form of governance as well as the initial degree of extractiveness. From what I understand, many civilizations started out as monarchies, which can be quite extractive and most often than not, not very inclusive.


I guess many third world countries console themselves that Singapore started with plenty of slums too...

Based on my research that I learned from internet and also source the poorest country had terrorist and also weak country rich country those who don't have need slaves they independent they can work and earn money enough for there monthly needs. I wonder how president of rich country manage to run the country well.

The bulk of the countries that produce oil do. In Russia a similar situation. There are no riots just for the reason that the population still have savings which they have managed to accumulate in the mid 90s-2000s. As soon as these savings will end will also be the people's discontent.

Russia do have a rainy day fund, which amounts to close to $400 billion. Almost all of the oil producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Norway.etc have such funds. On the other hand, Venezuela never bothered to set up such a fund.

BTC HITS 2400+ WOW WHAT NEXT

Hi, I'm not trying to underestimate human determination and ingenuity but trying to understand how things got the way they are. And yeah, SJWs automatically equate environmental determination to racism, which is unfair and stops any constructive conversation.  >:(

People in the New World and Subsaharan Africa lagged because of the conditions they started with rather than a defect of the people living there (the usual explanation of colonialists). For example, things could have been different in the New World if they have the draft and livestock animals present in the Old World.

Reason I'm interested is coz I live in a country with those conditions mention in OP's link (tropical climate with hot, humid, rainless summers and a rainy season where most of the year's rainfall are dumped within a few months).

Converting $400 billion to Bitcoin would cause a sharp spike in the exchange rates, and the total market cap can reach the $1 trillion mark. That means an exchange rate of around $62,500 per coin.

I guess there is ups and downs for every country. Even big countries can feel unstable, and that make people who live in it not very happy. But in the end i think that not only that the leaders of one country are responsible for its prosperity, but also the people who lives in it. Because it is up to them, if they are working hard enough and have a good leader which they chose, country will be rich or will become rich.

Rich countries become more rich because their self confidence was already established which is a good weapon for the be more successful in the future. At the same time most of their treasure was been transferred to the new era that makes them more stable and confident to take risk like getting into a business. While poor people needs to undergo lot of challenges to be rich and this make some to be afraid to take a risk to fight for their future. This unjust state makes the to be more a negative and makes them poor.

The rich countries have their trust everywhere in the world, and the poor countries are always countries that need food, and the political system in these contries is really lack of modern equipment so that they can't develop the country

People in poor countries don't have access to high level education, this is why they remain poor without any development.

It is not that they can't access the high level education, it is that, they can't afford it. And most poor people are not concentrating to get a high level education, they are more focus on getting a job because as I've said, their parents can't afford them to enroll in a school, and they are also thinking that, going to achool is a waste of time, because they are saying, they graduate or not, they will be landing at the same place, working.

There are poor countries where the quality of education is exceptionally high (an example is that of the former USSR nations such as Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova). And there are also filthy rich nations, where the citizens are much less educated when compared to the developing nations (examples can be drawn from the GCC region, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar).

Most of the very poor countries are those officials who are responsible for this condition. Of course there is another fault of this little education of those citizens who live poorly. But it is unequivocal in this matter bitcoin can help no one, if the statement of the question sounded just like that.

Its simple rich countries developed technologies and battled corruption early on. The main reason poor countries stay poor is because they are getting robbed by the people running their countries. The technology is there for every country in the world to become developed.

Underdevelopment is due to a number of reasons. You can't single out a particular reason. Corruption and lack of education are among the top reasons, but each have exceptions. For example, Turkmenistan was recently rated as the 6th most corrupt country in the world by Forbes. But still it remains a very rich country.

Regardless of what level of life Turkmenistan has, this country has every opportunity to succeed and improve its social guarantees for citizens, for example, from a country such as Nigeria or Somalia or something like that.

Its all done to the leaders in the country, some leaders want to make their country great whiles others want the position just to loot the national coffers. And that's the difference.

People must do everything to eradicate corruption in the country and remove bad officials and then each country can be rich enough for citizens to live normally.

Because Turkmenistan is like Venezuela before the oil price drop.
They have one of the biggest natural gas deposits in the world and huge oil deposits with just 6 million citiziens (venezuel 31 million citiziens).

Electricity, water, gas and oil (some hundred liters per month) is free.... free.... venezuela much? ::)
They are just lucky that they have 1/5 of the population.

Rich people exists cause poor people exists. If there was no poor people, there would have been no rich people. There always will be class difference. It's all natural. Imagine if everyone was extremely rich. Would anyone want to work? Nope. There would be a total disaster. Equilibrium will be lost. The rich and the poor balances the nature.

That may be true. But there is no democracy in that country, and a lot of people are trying to escape from the dictatorship. The political prisoners are being held in labor camps, similar to those in North Korea.

This is so called economics. And this is the way of thinking of developed countries about domination over poor countries. If there is no longer available for poverty then how a greedy country lead a corruption. Poverty is a curse.  Many African countries have huge amount of mineral resources but the lack of discipline they're being deprived of their own things, sad but true that developed countries are always trying to put a dispute among the natives and so that big fish can grab the fruit of the land.

When you talk about Turkmenistan or North Korea, you deliberately avoid Russia. This country is also mired in corruption and the most educated people try to leave it. For this reason, Russian is very poor in a very rich country.

No simple answer to that question. A lot of factors play a role. Aside countries that experienced war, corruption is the major reason why some countries are poor. By being poor, it implies that life is hard for a large number of people. You will see some countries with a lot of resources but due to mismanagement of public funds et al, the money is in circulation within just few people, and the masses just suffer and live each day with stress and struggles. The funniest part is that some countries that don't even have huge resources will find a way to make things work for them by developing their country to the optimal level to make it worthwhile for even their generations unborn. This is one of the advantages of having good leaders in the helms of affair.

Russia may be corrupt, but it is not as corrupt as your own country (Ukraine). So I thought that there is no point in singling out Russia. BTW.. perhaps it will be better for you guys to take care of your own country, rather than dragging the name of Russia in each and every topic here?

The rich countries include industrialization, advanced technology, advanced education system, improved agricultural system and skilled workers. There is no system in the poor countries, poor countries are largely dependent on agriculture. But poor countries have poor agricultural system. So poor country They are poor.

There is not anything funny about that. Its the topic of this entire thread. Some nations and tribes have inherent IQ and culture, that produces people with high work ethics. Others do not. The only question is how large role do those two play.

We can agree on the fact, that resources are not everything - as they eventually run out. Rich Arab states will become poor again, when oil dries out. Japan or Iceland will stay rich regardless.


Rich countries used to be poor at one time too (altough we are probadly talking about time in history, where your "poor countries" of today did not even exist on map), they were able to develope, more often than net without outside help.

On a side note, this just made me laugh out loud in the morning.

The research found that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Neolithic Levantine, Anatolian and European populations. The mummies tested did not share strong genetic links to Africa often found in modern Egyptians.

“This suggests that an increase in Sub-Saharan African gene flow into Egypt occurred within the last 1,500 years,” Wolfgang Haak, who led the research team, said in a statement.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/scientists-map-the-genome-of-ancient-egyptian-kings-and-they-werent-from-africa/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social (http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/scientists-map-the-genome-of-ancient-egyptian-kings-and-they-werent-from-africa/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social)

Further proving, that capability to organize productive culture might be atleast partially backed by inherent IQ and genetics.

That is not the reason. In poor countries, usually 80% to 85% of the population is dependent upon agriculture. In the developed nations, this percentage is around 2% to 3%. If the farmer population is larger, that means less land per farm, and less profits per farm owner.

To find out why there are rich countries and some poor countries, we must have some things, the first is the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is a measure of the economic level of a country. Simply put, GDP is the addition of all production activities of goods and services within a year. The greater this amount (eg buying iron and turning into a car), the greater the GDP of a country. Indonesia's GDP rating in 2014 is 16, this is higher than the Netherlands (17) and Malaysia (35), then is Indonesia a rich country?

Unfortunately the large GDP is the contribution of the entire population of the country, so you can imagine we have an income of Rp. 100 million but have 100 children, our life will be very bad. To better see the size of individual wealth, we will use per capita GDP that divides GDP by population. Indonesia's per capita GDP is ranked 118, the Netherlands (13), and Malaysia (62).

Based on these measures, poor countries are countries with low per capita GDP, and rich countries are countries with high GDP per capita. Why is there a rich country? Because they are able to produce high value products with many numbers, this is the concept of PRODUCTIVITY. In the case of GDP per capita, countries wishing to improve their welfare should (1) increase activity and goods, or (2) reduce their population.

Well rich countries' economy and politics are very stable compare to poor countries that the politicians are very corrupt that's why poor countries can't see the light of the country being lift. Pity.

"Thanks" for wikipedia definition  ;) I think even dead are able to make difference between poor and rich.

The thing is, that some countries were able to grow from poor to rich, while other stayed poor.


True, however, if you went back in history, youd find that practically all of current existing societies were dependant on agriculture. Netherlands, cradle of capitalism used to be backwards fishery of Reich just 500 years ago and Norways living standarts were comparable to those of Somalia. Something changed and those countries emerged as world leaders in productivity over the course of several generations. Without apparent help from outside too.

In similar regard, for some reason Roman and old chinese empires emerged where they did and how they did, not in Africa or South America. Then and there. For "some" reason  ;)

Poor countrys will stay poor until people rise up and change the corrupted politicians.. and do so until they get some1 fair.. when they had it enough and start doing changes as a group every time some1 start to do something his way, they will grow... every country has potencial, just need right push :)

I would not really think of a poor country base on its assets(fiat) but rather than its human accpetance amd nature preservation. I would rather live in a place in which moeny is not an issue as long as there are foods(nature) around me and how can you consider your place as poor right?

Corrupt regimes in third world nations are preferred by the developed nations. I can give you numerous examples. Remember Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso? He was a revolutionary leader, who tried to eradicate corruption and bring progress. But he was murdered in a CIA-backed coup, as the American companies found it impossible to bribe him. Another example is that of Patrice Lumumba, who was also assassinated by the CIA.

In all developed countries the state pays large subsidies to their farmers so they can cheap sell their products. This contributes to the fact that on the world market very low prices for food. This scheme allows rich countries to use agricultural state as slaves. Probably the agricultural economies need 1-2 years to supply its products to the market and the situation will change, but they don't want to unite.

the rich countries are rich due to judicious use of there resources,unlike the poor countries most especially African countries,the high rate of corruption is high.everyone governing is trying to satisfy their pocket not thinking about the betterment of the masses,selfishness is what is paramount among them.the rich countries they invest more on innovation and technology,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

If you can walk out your front door any time of the year and grab fruit from a tree, why would you concern yourself about storing food? Long term planning is something most low iq, resource rich, low gdp per capita countries lack. Long term planning is the basis for any rich country. If you look at the IQ map posted, most high IQ countries fall within temperate zones where long term planning is required to survive winter. These countries also tend to have the highest GDP per capita aside from a few outliers. Reminds me of Cebu, Philippines where they purchased a bunch of extended length buses for use in mass transit. The buses got here and then they realized.... Oops! The buses are too long! They can't make the turns when driving through the city streets!

Regarding corruption, it's been my experience that when there is a corrupt leader the population itself is also corrupt. These corrupt countries also tend to be in areas with no long term planning and low average IQ rankings. What the corrupt leader fails to understand when they're selling out their country is that they can make more money via corruption with long term planning and building their country up than they can by raping it. Take zimbabwae as an example, printing money to the point that they've stolen all wealth of the nation. Mugabe has been in power for 30 years, devalued the currency so that it's worthless, and systematically raped the country. If instead, he had built up his country he would have been able to steal what their current annual gdp is and no one would even notice! Their current GDP is only 14 billion annually. If he had built up his country to the scale of south africa, he could steal 14 billion annually and still have 298 billion to build up the country! His shortsightedness not only robbed him but everyone in the country.

So are you saying, that only thing holding subsaharan Africa back from becoming superpower is CIA? Is that correct?


I think we are getting closer to the point. Everybody once lived in a stone age. Some got well past that to the point where they not only got rich but shared knowledge (and medicine) with rest of the world. Others seem to be pretermined to be dead weight, regardless how much time and money others spend on them.

No. I am not saying that. I am just saying that if the western nations such as the United States and the corporations from these countries stay out of the third world, then the world will be a much better place for the humans to live.

"Better" is subjective, yet quite possible in material aswell as cultural terms. Sure.

To do that however, we do not have to battle local corruption as that is inherent part of human nature - and only indidual men and countries can deal with it. If we want to help third world, we ought to abolish globalization, otherwise this cycle of strong using the weak will never end.

Would you stay out of bussiness of your neighbour even if he was doing something selfdestructive? You should, because its precisely human rights agenda, which is used by western governments and corporations to meddle in internal affairs of foreign countries.

I found an interesting exchange...  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/08/16/why-nations-fail/


It's like having a street where all of you are selling the same sort of items, would be really hard to make a sale. Unlike my example where you can get ahead by innovating, farmers usually just have the same technology as their neighboring farmers. Would be hard for them to make a profit. Might be better to leave the farming to a small number of farmers, replacing the lost workforce with modern machinery. This would allow a small number of farmers to cultivate a really large area.

I agree with you. In order to attain a profit, the farmers need a minimum area under cultivation. For example, in the western nations, individual farms usually measure in thousands of acres. But in the third world nations, the average farm size is very small, mostly measuring only 2 to 3 acres. It is very difficult for the farmers to earn a profit from this small area.

In my opinion, I think its because rich country invests more and they know how to make more than in poor country that they need to survive and get their own needs that they wish to turn down others eventhough they are family. I think crab mentality is the word to describe it..

The "why" here can go back hundreds, maybe thousands of years. So the answer would depend on the time period in which you wanted to determine the why. The most significant factors are culture, technology, and imperialism.

Can't agree. Some of the nations were super-rich a few hundred years back, but they are dirt poor now. There are several examples, such as India, Peru (Inca empire), Mexico (Aztec empire).etc.

Unfortunately, land reform is hard to come by in many countries. For example, here in the Philippines, unlike our neighbors, we had a landed elite which when Americans introduced democracy (don't you love it every time they do that?) has become entrenched in the politics of the country, making it even harder to make any reform on land ownership.

And even if we get to that point where farmers own their land, as you said, it would be many farmers owning small tracks of land. I believe in some areas where farms were indeed given to farmers, they're not allowed to sell it, meaning it's unlikely for one to be able to get all the land. The intention was good (to prevent a new breed of "hacienderos" emerging and to ensure they always have a land they can call their own but the effect is not good IMHO.

I guess in a situation like that, the only thing that can be done is to lease equipment to the farmers to at least allow them more free time (less time on the field, more time to do other things to earn money). Or maybe organize them into cooperatives where they share equipment.

Countries which are blessed with natural resources are usually rich, when compared to those countries which don't have any. Look at the rich countries such as the United States, Canada.etc. It is very evident.

  :o

My country is 66, now it's explained why many politicians in my country are retarded.
The biggest problem of Africa is corruption and lack of democracy

The legal system and the police are corrupted by the state

You are from Mozambique, right? It is tough to be born in these countries. It is not just the corruption. Mozambique only got independence some 4 decades back. By then, the Portuguese colonists had looted most of the natural resources.

One can certainly answer the question why one country is rich, and the other is a poor comma only if one analyzes who is in power and how the country's economy develops. For some reason in developing countries and poor countries, very strong And a large level of corruption along with people's poverty. While officials are very rich.

    Basically it is due to corruptions of some other officials governing the country. But for me in order to build government people are need to make it as whole functionally, so there would be none other than to blame but for some people that got swallowed by greed and power.

Don't buy in to this. Remember how Arabs used to look down on Europeans as uncultured, dirty infidels.

IQ is a very complex thing to be easily quantified. And even then, those people with high IQ don't always succeed in life. You can expect a country's average IQ level to go up as it starts to prosper since people would have more access to knowledge and "brains" starts to look as an attractive trait in a mate and so would be selected for.

This a complicated issue. many of the poor countries will remain poor because they have no money to invest into technology or development of the same and that can be due to war, previous corrupt governments, lack of educated people,etc... that question cannot ne answered that easy and it's not the same problem and it's solution for every country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

And don't tell me in Africa with free market it is not possible. It is. Look at Botswana

The poorer the country the richer live in it officials. For me this is a sure indicator. It seems to me that the cause of the ills of Africans are not officials, and the people who vote for them. Dictatorship is not born in a vacuum. Her arrival help the people themselves which bring the dictators to power. So I am sure that you need to start not with the regime change, and with ourselves.

Hmm... Nigeria is a classic example. Most of the military rulers became filthy rich after a few years in power. Ibrahim Babangida, who ruled Nigeria from 1985 to 1993 is believed to have stolen at least $12 billion from the national treasury.

Another aspect is territory.  There are some countries that are obviously sitting on literal gold mines, oil reserves, exportable this and that, all manor of resources. 

Probably there can not be such to avoid the poor and rich countries. The world is so constituted that the rich countries are like vampires drink blood from poor countries that is why they are poor. To escape from this circle very difficult. If China will succeed he will be a worthy example to follow.

It boils down to how corrupt the government is and how respo si le the people residing in it are. Though i think it's more on the government side. If you look at the poor countries, the government that runs the country would be riddled with corrupt politicians and a few rich personalities that doesn't seem to mind the country's status. The regular citizens also doesn't seem to mind and have been used to it as well.

Yes, the corrupt government improves only its standard of living, and not the standard of living of the country. If there were no corruption in many countries, they could significantly improve their standard of living.

This don't explain resource-rich countries that are still poor though, it seems even that some countries grow poorer after discovering resources like oil and diamonds. There's also those countries with no resources to exploit that get rich. Venice in the past grew so rich and powerful they were able to go head-to-head against empires, even to the point of gaining colonies, despite the city sitting on nothing but mud and brine. Singapore seem to be the modern counterpart (minus the colonialism).

In addition it depends to the president or leader of that country.  If the leader is pure and has no corruption in mind, then the country will prosper.  A country can be rich if all the people living there are educated, or maybe people there are smart, then if they have resources, and if the leader is not corrupt. 

Hi, I'm the one who posted the original query. So basically what I'm taking from these now is that there are several factors required for a country to prosper, right?

So basically, enough resources to exploit but not so much that it can make a dictatorship rich. Enough people that are smart and well educated. And low corruption.

That last one seem to stump everyone in the developing world. It almost seem that it is ingrained in their institutions. I wonder if this is only a matter of circumstance (setup by colonialists and was not replaced, a dictatorship in the past that set the country backwards, etc...) or if there is a cultural aspect to.

You can certainly pay attention to what countries were colonies of other countries, in past years. But the fact is that in poverty depends not only on the historical facts of the past, but also on how corrupt the government is.

the question is, why is the poor country poor?
maybe inability to utilize/convert available resources around them into source of income.
or low technological development, poor socialisation with neighboring country.
all this are factors that may be responsible for their poverty.

In my opinion unless the country is a dictatorship the president won't matter. I believe as you that corruption is the key factor, but I don't think the rest of what you mentioned really matters because every country has some resources and smart people. I believe poor countries are poor primarily due to corruption and I think whats going to finally get them out of those problems are going to be technological solutions to help keep track of the money they spend. Blockchain technologies are going to be great for this as there is a public record of where everything goes.

Corruption exists in all countries, but the income is different. The welfare of the population directly depends on how people can control their politicians. The more control the richer people live. And it does not depend on the state of the management model and system.

Newly developed countries very often use poor countries as a testing ground. And for these countries get pears, they money. Although this money does not even reach their citizens, who are rabbits in the laboratory.

I'd say it's in the genes somewhere. I know it sounds racist, but think about it for a while.
2000 years ago people in China were writing books and building monuments, Romans were conquering Europe, and tribes in Africa were running naked and living in straw huts. They had to look for water every day, were being killed by wild animals, and never did anything about it.
The rest of the world built wells, aqueducts, dams, castles, finally factories, power plants, space stations, and tribes in Africa are still running around and killing each other for scraps.

How did rich countries got rich in the first place? You are walking around it as if the Earth was created that way in the first place.


Its not racist at all to recognize, that cognitive ability alters how you handle learning and applying skills in life.

In Africa also you have both über-rich and very poor folk, side by side. You are any-ist for recognizing, that the richer half of continent uses their heads better. You are using your own intelligence to correctly analyze ongoing process.

No actually this is all about the lifestyle you are quite right in terms of how rich people uses or rotates their money. Poor people usually tend to buy things that they dont need and woulf always ended up having a debt

Natural resources are the key. But abundance of natural resources can be a curse sometimes. Look at DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo). It is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. But the abundance of these resources has resulted in countless civil wars, and as a result the inhabitants are some of the poorest in the world.

If ever there is someone "pure" enough to act as head, I don't think that would be enough. It seems that the poorer countries have a high level of corruption that goes all the way down to the grassroots. I wonder if there's anything cultural about it....


You'd be called a racist if you ever mention genes. "Mah, he just called blacks genetically-inferior. He's a racist mah!"  ;D

Well back to Africa, this "running around naked" seem to be mostly confined to the sub-Saharan areas. Egypt was fairly advanced for its time. I bet just the mention of it would enough to start blacks coming here claiming everyone's black.

Experts seem to differ in opinion but may believe "civilization" sprouted in certain areas first, before being spread to other areas. The amount of domesticable animals and plants also mattered.

Sigh, in the modern age it boils down then to corruption? I wonder how you can limit it. I mean, are certain cultures more prone to this problem?

What I'm getting from some of the answers here was there was already a predisposition to do things "under the table" that were magnified by the institutions that were set up during foreign rule.

Your post is quite confusing. Why should poor people buy things, which are not needed? They don't have enough money, and therefore they will be giving preference to basic necessities such as food and drinking water. How can you say that these things are not needed in everyday life? On the other hand, it is the rich who are more prone to purchase useless things.

True that, each country can only be poor if the officials in  the goverment are so corrupt. Those corruptors actually
must put in jail there abusing their authority to get what they want.

Its only corruption, if you are poor  ;) it is "lobbying", when you are rich.

You are missing something, though. Even before modern era, some people were rich and some were poor. Some people had work ethics and some did not. Some cultures were heavily regimented while others were plagued by perpetual clan warfare.

East Asia was able to develop quickly after the last war since fundamentals for its rise were already in place.

Nothing can be done if the entire system is corrupt. Take India as an example. The bottom most tier of the law enforcement (policemen) is corrupt to the core. If you move up the ladder, to the politicians, bureaucrats, officials.etc, everyone seems to be corrupt. But it is the top most tier (judiciary) which is the most corrupt sector.

One the main reasons of a country becoming poor is corruption this monetary system that we all lived in is being abuse by our elected leaders that says they will improve our way of living bit instead it is worsening and nothing still change in their few years of the position instead they create some laws to steal money from their people this is called tax that is highly overrated. Clearly there is something to be done here and not just stand idle and watch if a country reallgly wants to reach the 1st world, ive seen countries that's been changing and progressing it is called Philippines i guess with their long history of corrupt leaders they've decided to finally make a move and pick leaders that is worthy of the position and that is Rodrigo roa duterte and indeed he is a great leader.

Then, there are some countries that are nothing but a desert or ice or whatever.  As time passed, the rich companies could afford the military to knock the poor ones back a little farther, taking the land and resources that they did pocess and leaving them nothing.

Most of the times, it is the infighting in these poor nations which allow the other foreign powers to invade them and loot their resources. Look at the Democratic Republic of Congo. A civil war has been ongoing for many decades now, fueled by the Coltan trade.

So how did rich become rich in the first place to push back the others?

Perhaps you should go back and read what others have already wrote on this subject. Are you capable of doing that?


Yeah, to be honest, there was no Congo before king Leopold of Belgium came around. Just jungle and tribes roaming around it. Artifically created states do naturally have a ton of internal friction. Nobody can do nation building, if natives dont want do it.

We can also see alot of friction in say Phillipines and India but people there show will to build up their country - and nation. Not so in Congo.

There are many factors in defining rich and poor countries but most people determine it through the country's economic status. It is true that even weather is a factor but I think the greatest factor is in the people's knowledge about their resources. I mean, for example if those people in countries with rich minerals just know how to make profit of it, their lifestyle would really improve. The sad truth is that, most of them doesn't know and have settled in their current situation while the rich and knowledgeable countries would grab the opportunities.

There are three things that are generally used as a reason for a nation to be poor or rich, although facts show different things:

Geography
Culture
Knowledge

Leaders! The truth is when a country is built on a very wrong foundation, it is always hard trying to refix. A country that has been built on corruption, though with plenty resources, it will never circulate. It would just be some few people in the high places, that would be busy squandering and looting funds to their private accounts instead of utilising it to build the nation. Very greedy fellows! So many countries have huge resources but they are still poor while some make use of just one resource to create a great future for their country, people and generations unborn.

The Belgian rule resulted in a lot of positives, but at the same time Leopold II used terror to subjugate the natives. It is estimated that at least 10 million natives perished as a result of starvation, slave labor and outright genocide. The Congolese natives who couldn't meet the extraction quotas for rubber had their limbs cut off.

The reason why a country is poor or is not the age of the Nation.

This can be demonstrated by countries like India and Egypt, which are more than
2000 years old and are still poor countries.

   On the other hand, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which 150 years back were insignificant, today are developed and rich countries.

The difference between the poor and rich nation does not also depend on the available natural resources.

Japan has limited territory, 80%  mountainous, unsuitable for agriculture or farming, but is the third in worlds economy. The country is like an immense floating factory, importing raw material from the whole world and exporting manufactured products.

Second example is Switzerland, it does not grow cocoa but produces the best chocolates in the world. In her small territory she rears animals and cultivates the land only for four month in a year, nevertheless manufactures the best milk products. A small country which is an image of security which has made it the strongest world bank.

Executives from rich countries who interact with their counterparts from poor countries show no significant intellectual differences.

The racial or colour factors also do not evince importance: migrants heavy in laziness in their country of origin are  forcefully productive in rich European countries.

What then is the difference?

The difference is the attitude of the people, moulded for many years by education and culture.

When we analyse the conduct of the people from the rich and developed countries, it is observed that a majority abide by the following principles of life:

1. Ethics, as basic principles.
2. Integrity.
3. Responsibility.
4. The respect for Laws and Regulations.
5. The respect from majority of citizens by right.
6. The love for work.
7. The effort to save and invest.
8. The will to be productive.
9. Punctuality.

In the poor countries a small minority follow these basic principles in their daily life.

We are not poor because we lack natural resources or because nature was cruel towards us.

We are poor because we lack attitude. We lack the will to follow and teach these principles  of working of rich and developed societies.

WE ARE IN THIS  STATE  BECAUSE
WE WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE  OVER
EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE.
 
WE ARE IN THIS  STATE  BECAUSE
WE  SEE  SOMETHING  DONE  WRONG
AND SAY  - “LET IT BE”
WE  SHOULD  HAVE  A  SPIRITED MEMORY
AND  ATTITUDE…
 

A post that is really good to read.  All are correct and awakening.  Plus rich countries stays rich because they uses their richness to suppress the poor countries.  They manipulated the economy of these countries.  They will give donations everytime there were calamities or will give any assistance.  It is not wrong but was it really their objectives?  Poor countries have many resources yet they still poor because those who maneuver those resources were foreign countries.

India was one of the richest countries in the world, before the Islamic invasion began in the 12th century. The invaders looted most of the treasures (such as gold, precious gems and artworks) and destroyed the major cities. The intellectuals and other important sections of the society such as physicians and scientists were disproportionately targeted.

The lack of natural resources is to blame for everything. We are all born in unequal conditions. Soil fertility, population density, the level of education. For example, on such a big territory like Canada live only 50 million people, and that country is rich as we all know. Simple.

Poor countries have no chance at a rich life until the world economy will work according to the laws invented by the rich countries. No matter is, the country has natural resources or not, in any case in the elite G7 club seats available and never will be.

More than two-thirds of Canada is Arctic wasteland. And most of the remainder is in the Rocky Mountains area, where the terrain is not very conductive for any productive activity other than tar sands extraction and mining. You can't compare Canada with a nation like Bangladesh. In Canada only around 5% or 10% of the total land may be suitable for productive activity. In Bangladesh, that proportion may be well over 80%.

Bad administration of governors/respurces, people value's, and other things.
A strong example could be Venezuela, they're in desvastating conditions and the scenario is turning even worse.
Rich countries have organized systems and ways to optimize their resources.

In each country, poverty and wealth go hand in hand, because some people make profit about others, and the poor could not oppose the rich, which takes even the last money from them. Died very rudely with poor people, but this is nowhere to go and this trend has been going on for many years.

It's not just the wrong management of the country. In fact, to bring the country out of crisis and poverty, it is necessary to make fundamental changes. People from poor countries are used to living in poverty and it is very difficult to change their mentality

Sometimes its not about leadership that determines if a country is rich or poor, Its also about natural resources or how technologically advanced the country is.

Rich countries rely on natural resources, minerals and foodstuffs for export to countries around the world. The people here have high income and better living standards. Yet there are still many countries in the world that are very poor in their lack of food, clothing, shelter, entertainment. The standard of living of the people is low

Because rich countries produces things that cost more in $. Cars, electronics, medicaments... IQ is important thing I would say, but not decisive.

Rules of the nature, if there are no poor then you'll never know the meaning of being poor, if you have no plane to fly with, then no matter how many times you hear about flying you'll never truly understand what it is because you'd never been able to experience flying.

What about the richest country in the world (Qatar)? They don't produce any cars or medicaments. All they have is huge natural gas deposits, which they export mainly to the European Union, South Asia and Japan.

You are just looking at gdp per capita. Which can be totaly wrong like in the case of quatar when the royals own 90-95% of the nations wealth.

Heavily relying on the exploitation of a non-renewable resource is hardly the best way to ensuring sustainable growth. Especially if much of that income is siphoned off by an elite class. The Middle East don't look like Congo but the amount of money "paid" to royals is still staggering. The subsidies citizens get are just a small fraction of the total wealth from oil, just enough to keep them from complaining.

IMHO services and manufacturing would be the best way out of poverty for poor countries that are also resource-poor.

Some rich countries are poor and some poor countries are rich. Why? Some wealthy countries such Alaska, Canada *some areas*, Iceland and etc. are poor because but they lack of population. Yes, They are wealthy in terms of Job and resources but at some point it has a disadvantages. Some poor countries such as Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia, Thailand and etc. are Rich in terms of culture, natural resources, man power.

To answer the question. Why rich countries are rich? Government could be one factor, Good government contributes to good economy and many investors. With this people in the certain countries are satisfied because of the benefit that they're receiving. Why poor countries are poor? Again Government could be a factor. Corrupted government would do no good in the economy. Language barrier could also a factor, Investors are afraid to invest due to the country's location or the market is so small that at some point there company would be force to close.

crap cultures. 

Many factors that cause it,
Such as the economic growth rate of each country, the low level of education causes the economic system is less significant.

It is a cycle that eventually hard enforces the 80/20 rule and separates society in geographic, social and financial groups.

As the people become poorer, the country has to stretch their money to assist them and that drives the system down further.  and same happened with India.

Philippines have lots of natural resources but still poor as fuck. Really hate the governance of this country. The real reason why poor country can't develop it is because of the oligarchs. Businessmen creates the president.

I personally think it is the competence of governance and also the values and culture of the country. If the leaders are competent and implement good policies, the country will flourish. However, there're many countries where their poor systems have been entrenched since long ago and are hard to overhaul for the better.

Well, the people became poor as a result of the foreign invasions. There were a number of Islamic invasions in North India, killing hundreds of thousands of people every time. The major temples were looted, and the treasures were stolen.

You are onto something, political instability is partly responsible for poverty.

However, not, if you take 300, 400 or 500 years into account. South Korea was for much of 20th century either occupied, at war or ruled by dictators, yet today its living standarts are broadly comparable to Germany.

Rather I propose model where resources per people (ie. overpopulation), local work ethics aswell as geopolitics all play a part in overall scheme of things.

Race makes all the difference. Race and behavior.

https://jihadisnojoke.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gangs1.jpg

Much depends on the government. Where rulers care only about themselves in the country there will always be disorder and poverty.

You mean IQ  ;)

There are indeed some differences between various ethnic groups. But culture (religion), politics and work ethics are just as important.

North Koreans are of same race as South Koreans but they are not economically close at all. In Europe, both Czechs and Ukrainians are part of Slavic group, the former are economically and ethically close to Germans. The latter to subsaharan Africa.

So there, buddy. Race is not everything, just small piece in overall mosaic.

North Koreans don't have the avenues to prove their talent, as they are being ruled by a lunatic schizophrenic. The North Korean defectors, who have settled down in Seoul are as intelligent as their Southern brothers. And the difference between the Czechs and the Ukrainians might have more to do with the Soviet rule. Czechs were under German rule for so long, while Ukraine was ruled by the communists.

Czechs were ruled by communists too as were eastern Germans. I am telling you, that culture, politics and yes even genes present all small pieces of larger mosaics. There is no SINGLE attribute responsible for wealth of nation.

Unless you are Saudi and were born atop of oil field.

Nah, screw them and their oil. They're still heavily reliant on labor from third world countries and expertise from first world countries. From what I'm hearing from people who worked there, they've become so lazy that they'd have "positions" in companies but have someone else do the actual job for them. Imagine a manager not actually managing anything.

The funny thing is that it was the subsidies that did this. Once it is no longer possible to keep subsidizing stuff, the situation can quickly turn. It is wealth without a solid foundation.

Of course the citizens are partly to blame. It is not all about fate. They need to think, innovate, act together as a people not as a divided group. Fate in a way because there are other countries that are actually poor in natural resources. But as a country aware of it, they should think of a way out.

But a more important point here is that the world is fast becoming a single community. Globalization is the existing idea. When a single impoverished country falters time and again, the rest of the world, especially the rich and powerful ones are partly to blame. The rich countries may actually pool together resources to save those that are experiencing too much hardship as a country.

Sadly, greed rules.

I don't know for how long they will be able to continue like this. The oil prices are not high enough to meet the budgetary expenses, and the sovereign wealth fund is shrinking in size ever since 2011. On top of that, they are waging a very expensive war in Yemen, which is costing a lot in terms of finances and manpower. If the Aramco IPO flops, then that will be the end of Saudi Arabia as an united monarchy.

Heard somewhere that Saudi Arabia would be bankrupt by around 2020 if this trend continues. They could of course always cut back on subsidies but we know how well that goes.  ;D Just look at Greece and how austerity measures were warmly accepted by the citizens.

To add to this, the conflict with Qatar as well as internal struggles within the monarchy (the king has replaced his nephew with his son as successor, angering many in the family) and the country would become even more unstable.

Because poor countries are full of corrupt leaders, in Africa they sell gold mines for $ 50,000 in cash.
In Central Asia they sell sand deserts for crumbs instead of exploiting them and taking all the profits. So wealth is poorly distributed.
Poor countries have taken the lead in this situation.

i think your government is also responsible for that, if you government is corrupt then they will give more chances to the elite classes who have more money, they will never give preference to merit. which is one of the most important element for giving equal right to every one.

Very accurate.  Poor countries are lead by selfish leaders who only wants to keep their pockets full.  The resources which th3 country have is being used by certain people.  Instead of benefiting the entire country the selfish leader only thinks on how many money will he have after his leaderships end.

CIA keeps it that way

In most of the cases, the poor countries don't have the capability or technology to exploit the natural resources. What they will do with the gold mines, if they don't have the technology to extract gold? That is one of the reasons why they auction them to the highest bidder. But at the same time, this auction process is rigged most of the times.

Can you send me your bitcoin? I think I am poor in this single global community  :)

On a serious note, globalization doesnt mean equality, quite the opposite. When people stuck in 13th century compete against people from 21st century, who will that go down, buddy? Not to even mention genetic differences between various tribes and cultures. But they do compete.

Africans outbreed people from any other continent, but are unable to compete economically.

Muslims outbreed seculars, yet will hate them for being rich even without knowing Allah.

Globalization did not bring peace like Fukuyama promised, rather it highlighted the many differences between human beings in all over the world.

In democratic societies, demography is the most important thing. Look at European regions such as Kosovo and Bosnia. These regions were historically Orthodox Christian homelands. Now they have become Muslim majority, through demographic Jihad. The natives tried to resist this change through warfare (Bosnian war of 1992-95, and Kosovan war of 1999), but the pro-Muslim NATO alliance defeated them militarily. Now the cancer is spreading to the neighboring regions. Macedonia is expected to become Muslim majority by 2030. After that it will be Montenegro.

Balkan is not really western and never was. Muslims were only able to gain upper hand in both Kosovo and Bosnia through military intervention of NATO, which wanted to weaken russian influence in the region regardless the long term consequences.

So, I am not all that concerned about people of Balkans, they were through worse and lived through it.

But for secular westerners, who dont know anything about religious wars? In 1970 there were about 5000 muslims in Sweden. Or 0.01 of population. Today there is 700 000. Swedes tell muslims, that they want to talk with them, but muslims want to talk about God and Swedes dont have any. Or French or Germans. Any of these people, who left their roots and are confronted now with inreasingly large cohorts of migrants, who see this as part of ongoing religious and cultural war.

You dont want go to a gun fight without a gun. And you dont want to be part of religous conflict with no God. Just a thought.

It is quite possible to remain as an atheist (I am one myself) and take part in the religious war. Look at China. They are officially atheist, and they have achieved something which none of the western nations have achieved so far. The Chinese have successfully integrated their Muslim population in to mainstream. No other Christian, Hindu or Buddhist nation has achieved what they have achieved.

All western nations are officially secular as are islamic states such as Turkey, Bryant  ;) I am not going into the fact, there are more evangelical christian Chinese than communist party members these days.

What you fail to realize is that Russia and China is integrating its "native" muslim population. Tatars and Chechens in Russia, Uyghurs in China. They are not immigrant brought be globalist loonies, they have roots in their countries and so dont treat them like conquerors.

Why dont Chinese and Russians import millions of foreign workers? Because they are not globalist. Their value system were shaped by their traditional faith, not by postmodernism.

Are they really that desperate for cash that everything rests on the IPO? Well, regardless, they can only keep pushing back the inevitable for so long. Just like when the dues finally catch up when you keep on borrowing money (Hello Puerto Rico), spending earnings irresponsibly will catch up when you run out of money.

What would be KSA without oil? Dubai at least have tourism to fall back on, can you imagine Western women going on a beach in KSA without having to wear a burkini? Even the "build it and they will come" policy don't seem to work. KSA has built large malls but so far tourists are not flocking there, like they would go to Dubai to shop during vacations.

Muslim creeping expansion underway across Europe. You can see how in all European countries gradually appear in whole areas of compact residence of Muslims. Eastern European countries see this and put obstacles to it. Perhaps Western Europe is also understood.

I should post my address everywhere and ask these first worlders to go help me with a small donation of a few bitcoins.  ;D

Fukuyuma, haven't read anything from him but he seems quite a Polyanna from a few reviews I saw. Even Huntington criticized him in his own book. I believe the latter's Clash of Civilization came out a year after The End of History.

With the way things are happening, it seems Huntington got the clearer picture.

You know what op, this is a serious topic. And a good one. This is something that is really asked rarely about, that link you provided can really help a lot of people understand more about this issue. plus all the answers that our fellow bitcoiners provide, this really is a worthy topic to be started in a community like this. Now in my opinion, i really think that the system in every country is really vital to how or why it is like that and will be in the future, you see, the leader and the rules or laws in every country and the strictness really is the one that can make a huge difference.
That's just for me though..

On the basis development in education & technology any country is considered as poor or rich country. The second cause of poor of a country is their popullation .if a country have denser population but annual income is not considerable then this is the most important cause of blackness of that particular country.To  development of any country it is necessary that their annual income of per person should be increased and improve their education and technology.

Bad politics and greed among some leaders is one of the reasons why some countries are poor though they have enough manpower and resources. After years of oppression by colonialists, African countries for example should have strived to be the best but they still lag behind, almost half a century after most of them gained independence.

In 1962, South Korea and Kenya were at the same level. Today, the former is a 1st world country leading in technology, but the latter is currently a 3rd world country with unemployment at 40%, food insecure and one of the most corrupt in the world according to Transparency International.

Good point. You can see, that Chinese for example invested vast sums of their wealth into public education system. Unlike Africa.

According to Zhang Ping, director of the National Development and Reform Commission, China's GDP is likely to surpass 50 trillion yuan ($8.03 trillion) in 2012, while a budget report by the Ministry of Finance in March last year showed that the central government had decided to allocate nearly 2.2 trillion yuan for education in 2012.

An outline for China's educational reform and development promulgated in 1993 said that national educational expenditures as a share of GDP should be increased gradually to 4 percent by the end of the 20th century. In 1993 education expenditures were only 2.77 percent of GDP and had only reached 2.79 percent by 1999.

Government spending on education last year was almost 25 times higher than it was in 1993 and it had almost quadruple since 2006.

They recently reduced the taxes on Aramco. They hope that after this, they can sell the company for around $2 trillion (up from the previous valuation of around $300 to $500 billion by western experts). It is not urgent. Their sovereign wealth funds are still not completely depleted. Some $470 billion worth of assets are still there in those funds.

Even if they do not take taxes generally people will not go to Arab countries. This is not only dangerous but just such a trip will not bring any pleasure. Soon they face problems because the oil is not needed, and most of them have nothing to offer.

I agree with this. What makes the country poor are the people within the government that only think about themselves to be rich.

A rich or poor country depends on many factors: leadership, intellectuals, the environment, mineral resources, tourism, population density... When the leadership is integrity No abuse, no corruption also contribute to push up. How to make the country free from corruption?

It maybe because of the economy, or depending on the government, if the government is corrupt really harder countries suffer. But if someone is interested in the people and is important to him and also if they are concerned ,they can lift a future of a poor country .

Tourists may still visit countries such as the United Arab Emirates. Electronics and gold are extremely cheap there. And you will get quality products as well. And regarding jobs, the salaries may not be as high as those in the US/EU. But they are much higher than the average South Asian wages.

I think when it comes to being a poor country it is because of wrong ruler, corrupt and greedy government( officials ), and abusive people. With this kind of people, country will never have the chance to be called as developing one.
And when it come to the rich countries, because they are having a wise ruler (wide perspective), and cooperative and independent people. They already think about the future, for their production thats why they discipline themselves unlike poor countries that people wait for financial help for their needs.

I believe that much depends on the government of the country and people live in corrupt countries poorly. Although if you look really, then in any country there are poor people.

There can be many reasons such as wrong rulers and corruption. But unless the people are smart enough, no country can achieve progress. Look at India. A large majority of the people still vote for parties which ponder to their caste and religion. They will vote for a party which is biased towards their religion, rather than voting for the party which can bring development.

their citizen is the reason, the government, corruption disaster are just factors i think.
if every one of its citizen think of making their lives better and working for it, then the country would do better.

Most rich countries use assets of poor countries, the have done that for several centuries.

Devlopment of technology is the main reason behind the unfair devlopment of the world. The rich countries has developed their technology to utilise their resources but poor countries  are not capable to utilise them due to lack of technology

And the leaders of the poor countries allow these western foreign countries to do that. If the countries producing these resources use them rather than let other countries exploit them, they would be rich as well.

Personally, I think it has to do with their governments and how competent are their economic policies. The better their economic policies, the better the country does.

In most of the cases, the poor countries don't have the technology to extract their natural resources. Therefore they come up with some sort of deals with countries such as China and the United States to exploit these resources. Such deals are mutually beneficial, and definitely better than the resources sitting idle, without anyone exploiting them.

It's a complicated mix of
economic freedoms (free market is best)
education (where music and art is emphasized, is best)
parental mental health (hard to get extricated to succeed when you parents are needy children or worse)
weather (hot countries produce lethargy)
good nutrition (underrated benefit to high IQ's)
peace/war (build up or tear down local civilization counts)
type of currency (I predict first adopters of Crypto will move ahead of other countries)

The rich country knows what is the strategy on how their country becomes richest they know how to handle situation and the poor country country becomes poorer because they became slave of the richest country they always follow what they say. How can poor become rich if they willing to became slave of other country?

It is not necessary for the poor to become slaves of the rich in order to survive. They need to admit that the income disparity will always be there and they need to work together with the rich people to improve their lives.

rich countries always do the best to develop their country while the poor countries keeps killing and corrupting their nation

I agree. Rich countries utilize their money to build infrastructures that will help the citizens as well as attract foreigners to invest in their country and to develop things that they have to. Poor countries use their money in building infrastructures but is overpriced which leads to corruption instead of developing the country for the benefit of all.

I tried to analyze the richest countries and the poorest countries, why this horrific discrepancy in living condition is happening. And come up with an answer,  IQ and Culture. The poorest countries were also the lowest in the average IQ per country and their culture were not prepared to for this new industrialized way of life. Most of this countries are recently industrialized. They were mostly hunter gatherers or farmers who only gather/plant food for their self and family. They have no love for their country and other people.

While those richest countries have very high average IQ's . It is also embedded in their culture to work hard, persevere, love of their country, to trust and help other people. I think that made them successful.

It is because of the system of economy , some cases of this is brain drain people are migrating to other country to find job and seek a higher profit to provide there family necessities, they don't want to seek job to there country because of lack of profit and they cannot provide the needs of themselves.

Rich countries are rich because there decide to the right thing at the right time. Most poor countries remains poor because they fail to get their priorities right. Rich countries focused on getting their priorities right while poor countries are busy looting and laundering their chances. It's all about comparative advantage. And the rich countries know how to harness this.

All right, it is a natural process, if you are not a poor then how can you define a rich person to others. rich countries always want to dominate in the poor countries by creating different types of social crisis, many African countries are the real example of this scenario. to collect Diamond and Gold developed countries formed favorable parties to gain huge resources by investing a low amount of money...

Well I think the reason is simple, just imagine those countries who are rich and mineral but is not capable of take advantage
of what they have because of being financial unstability. That's where rich coutries come in, they usually fund those coutries
to take out those poor countries mineral and profit from it, leaving the poor country with less profit.

If they have the right type of leaders, then even poor countries can become prosperous. One example is that of Somaliland. That country is much more prosperous than Somalia, despite having hardly any natural resources which can be exploited.

Yes , it depends how the leaders in a country rule and runs his society and its up to the support of the people around him if many will cooperate then a big change will happen .

It is exactly as it is supposed to be there are countries with resources and there are countries without resources those without resources end up with nothing to sell nothing to trade

Also nothing to have this is the way the world works with people within their society and without Society works in the countries and it works in the cities and it works in the individuals

One of the primary reasons are corruption those people are usually politicians that are tyrants and implementing some laws to exploit people in order to steal their money this unnecessary laws are designed so that it's easier to control us while we all working our ass off their just in there office sitting comfortable doing some million dollar of bidding projects and the fund for that project will get snached and no one will ever know and project will only get sub materials. I think people should choose their leaders more wisely.

Rich countries are rich because they are very industrious and they develop in science and technology like that they make the best use of it. on the other hand the poor countries people cannot develop in science and technology and also they cannot get proper education for that they are poor.

History, Climate, Corruption and natural resourses.

I think reallifelore did a video about this a while ago, they said that natural resources (i.e. more is bad) and corruption allows a small minority to screw over the majority is poor countries.
That means the rich don't need the poor, so they stay very poor. Many of the richest people in the world are from the poorest countries though.

Poor countries are being explioted by Rich countries. By this way, Rich countiries are getting richer and richer. If impecunious contries had a chance to use their natural assets for their own sake, they would obviously be the richest countries on earth.

I think it is due to the second World war, which made the poor, poor and the rich, rich.
The west as they said are stealing the naturel resources of the poor countries in order to benefit from it and to sell it with an expensive price.
For example : Petrol form Lybia, Gold from Mali, Ivory from Ivory coast ... etc

I think because of the leaders they had..Leaders of the rich countries have concern in the welfare of their countrymen..Leaders of the poor countries concern in the welfare of themselves..  :o

The citizens of any country usually gets the leaders whom they deserve. For example look at the African nations. Most of the leaders there are corrupt dictators. A part if the blame must go to wards the citizens as well, as they are too tolerant about these sort of leaders.

Not all of them really. Most of the time, it is the opposite.

If a poor country was in alliance with a poor country, the rich country will be taking the advantages as a higher rate country like doing business in the poor country, the leaders of that poor country, can't do anything but accept the offer. In exchage they will be protecting them, giving them some supports like power, money and knowledge. The poor countries are not staying as poor, same of the poor and rich country are just improving in time, you can't just see it, because the time poor country improve, the rich country also improves.

ITS called capitalism friends

They voted that leaders and thats the result if a country is poor or rich it can be changed by the leader if you see china ,there are so many population there but their leader and mentality is good so they keep on developing their country.
If the citezens vote the right leader and not because of vote buying they will surely have a good leaders.

The current economic situation, third world countries cannot compete with developed countries

third world countries are poor.

first world countries make others poor

Devlopment of technology is the main reason behind the unfair devlopment of the world.

many of the poor countries will remain poor because they have no money to invest into technology

their citizen is the reason, the government, corruption disaster are just factors..

Lots of factors, like bad resources management, corruption, old ideas and more...

I don't believe people are locked if they open there minds to the countless opportunities. The problem in some of the less affluent countries is the fact that many have to focus on just getting a meal on the table and cannot see the bigger opportunities around the corner.

Can't say that for sure. People don't want to live in the third world nations for a variety of reasons. These include corruption, crime, bureaucratic red tape.etc. So the educated elite from these nations always immigrate to the first world nations. Can't blame the first world nations for this brain drain, because they are not forcing anyone to immigrate.

Corruption is one of the reason why poor countries are poor, Those who have the power are not doing their job properly, instead of helping others, these are the reasons why others are poor. Its sad for those people who have that kind of politics.

I think that's mainly the cause of it. Corrupt and greedy leaders who think og only themselves halt any country's progress in general in favor of a few high persons. Look at japan. The japanese value honor up until now and seldon would you find corrupt officials. Rich coubtries have leaders like these that puts the people's needs first. Sadly, a lot of third world countries have the resources to become rich, its just hat because of a few greedy mfs that they're having a hard time moving up

Rich countries are rich because of their resources and the people, Their work as one, And the poor countries can actually be rich cause they have still resources but the problem is maybe in the people who wants to be like that anymore they need to work as one to evolve.

But if the corrupt politicians are being tolerated by the people, and if the voters continue to support them in the elections, then whose fault is it? Normally the people get the sort of politicians they deserve.

Rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor because rich countries have high economy whereas poor countries have poor economy. Rich country has good tax paying laws which benefit both the rich and the poor of the country whereas the poor countries do not have good tax paying laws which do not benefit the poor as well as the rich people of the country.

lack of religious knowledge and its application. all about the aspects of life like society, economy and the core of everything is taught in religion. people put more personal advantage in any way, it will not achieve economic equality because of each other dropped. and I think this results in eroding morals.

Ridiculous logic. Look at the most religious nations around the globe, such as Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya.etc. All of them are poor. On the other hand, secular nations such as the European Union nations and the East Asian nations are mostly prosperous.

Rich become richer and poor become poorer, rich have money to know everything or can do study and they can invest to double their money and poor once have the time to work only to live thats why they havent time to study.

In rich countries, the government is less corrupt and makes the right decisions to improve life in the country, and in poor countries everything is the opposite.

I agree with you. If the government is a good leader, there is a possibility that the economy of a certain country will increase. It is also because they use the natural resources properly and they not wasting it. But if the government is corrupt, irresponsible and not a good leader, the economy of a country will decrease so the country will become poor one.

in fact many poor countries that remain poor are due to their human resources, low education system, poor quality of health make bad human resources, when in fact their country is not poor natural resources, some poor countries have abundant mineral wealth, but because the source human resources are not good, they can not cultivate and explore their own natural resources, ultimately the handling of natural resources is left to rich countries and forming cooperation among those who are less profitable for the poor country.
rich countries will greatly benefit from such cooperation, they can take control of the natural resources of the poor country, can profit much from the processing and exploration of minerals through the cooperation.

it depends on the government and the history of this country. Experience is very important.

Even if the poor works for 12-hours a day, what stops them from utilizing a few hours from their remaining time for studies? If you are looking for excuses, then you will get millions of them. Poverty is not an excuse for low education level.

This is depend on the leader of the country, If most of the leader officials in the government are not greed and corrupt I'll guarantee you that country for sure will become more prosper. But if one country are surrounded by corrupt leaders, it will obviously the economy of that country will fall down because of this corruptors.

The reason why rich countries are rich and the poor countries are poor it is because of the leadership of their country. It always starts from the leader cause it controls everything on their country. In the Philippines for example when our President is Marcos we are in the 1st world country but when our President change. Our country go down to the 3rd world country. And it is because of the corruption of the leaders that replace him. So I think the only way to resolve this is great leadership and good governance.

I'm reading a book with the same title now. And what is even more  surprinsing is that although it is a research, it is written in a quite understandable manner

The reason why rich countries are rich is that they take advantage of poor countries by mining their natural resources and forcing the people to mine their own resources for their own benefit. Poor countries don't have enough resources, gadgets, or technology to enrich, to benefit and use their resources properly.

Geographic location, politics, education

Some countries are more educated, more hardworking. Some have special assets like natural resources, strategic localization, ...

In general I would agree, although there are exceptions. For example, the education levels in Qatar, Brunei.etc is not very high. Yet they rank among the richest countries in the world. On the other hand, countries such as Cuba and Ukraine rank quite high in terms of education attainment. But the incidence of poverty in these nations is staggering.

Maybe because they are rich in natural resources just like Middel East, they have plenty of  oils.

The some reasons are: poor country use to it while rich country still working to get richer. Rich country taking advantage on poor country to make poor country poorer and make them richer.

Think of an economy as reflecting three fundamental features: capital, labor and what I will call the “efficiency factor.” A country’s stock of capital consists of machinery, buildings, land, etc. Labor consists of the country’s human resources that are used in production. The efficiency factor determines how well the country turns capital and labor into output.

the explanations offered were along the lines of geography, climate, soil fertility, resource endowments, culture, religion, work ethic, ignorance of economic principles and more. However, these hypotheses fail to satisfactorily explain the patterns of poverty and prosperity in today’s world. Modern scholarship points in a different direction.

Too many factors playing a role, geography, clima, tradition, culture, corruption, exploitation of poor countries by rich countries, and finally luck.

It is a mutually beneficial relationship. The poor countries don't have the capability to extract the natural resources. So they team up with the developed nations to do the same. The developed nations get a share of the profits and the remainder goes to the poor nation. But the problem is that the latter part is mostly stolen by the corrupt government officials and it never reaches the people.

Why Rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor.. Maybe because rich countries have enough funds and knowledge to make their country richer or more stable. They do what's good for their country. They discover things to make their county better. While poor countries maybe have their routine so they just do the same thing and they don't explore to discover new things. Maybe they are afraid or they get intimidated with rich countries..

Inclusive economic institutions are those that allow and encourage participation by all in economic activities. They feature secure private property rights, the rule of law, the entry of new businesses, and a level playing field in which people can freely exchange and contract.

There are bullies everywhere, but there is no such rule that bullies can only be the rich. For example, poor nations such as India are capable of bullying rich nations such as Maldives. What matters here is the economic and military power, as well as population. The rich nations can be powerless, if they don't have the military capability and population.

Simple, rich country has  the power and money to make their country richer and the poor country doesnt have the money to improve their country/

Firstly I think that the main reason a country is rich is if it was able to ytilize the natural resources given to them. Yes some countries might be a disadvantage but countries like Japan and others was able to focus on other things aside from their natural resources. Second I do think that there is a lasting effect on colonialism.

Yes, I grew up with my grandparents. It is true that "whatever adults do, children copies it" even if you don't teach them. I always knew about my grandparents generosity to other people plus the fact that they also taught me how to become one. Now that I am a grown-up too, I still apply that learning I acquired and learnt from them.

There is a major reason of why the rich countries are rich and the poor countries are poor, it is what we call LEADERSHIP. Leadership of a President of the country is responsible of what the country is or what will happen to the country. Yes, it also depends on the people living in the country but still the Leadership of the President has the upper hand.

Rich countries are rich because they have lots of resources to sustain their riches. They become richer by multiplying their resources. While poor countries are poor because they don't have riches or they have but in lesser quantity. They find it hard to make them multiply because they lack in many things. And admit it or not, government and politics also has a big connection with this issue.

Not all poor countries have few resources, just there the government misuses them and can not thus develop the country's economy. The wealth of the country depends on the actions of the authorities.

because of corruption. Why does Corruption affect the prosperity of a country?
Because the higher the level of corruption of a country then the State will not have enough state money (Tax) to build an institution that can bring his country away from the bondage "Poverty Trap"
A country that runs out of money because of corruption also can not build important institutions such as:

Even if the authorities are not corrupt and competent, it doesn't mean that the natural resources can be extracted for the benefit of the people. For example, take the case of Ghana or Ivory coast. There are huge mineral deposits in these countries. But these nations are poor and therefore they don't have the technology to extract them.

first we have to think about that country economical support and politicians rules and regulations. in some country's gold, platinum, petroleum, diesel, mining, black gold may available. but in some country's at least they had no water and no food. Russia america china japan implementing their country's in automobiles, cars, and spare parts. in some country's has no good facility's to implementing their country's. so country growth depends on people, employment, education, industry, politics and tax.

Because of Capitalization and exploitation
example:
rich people  always think about business profit by exploiting people who are working under this company or organization. they dont provide any chance for making them self establish  and that is a reason for Rich people are rich and poor people are poor
same law is used for country ..

I think corruption is the main factor of poverty, many corruptors are willing to betray the mandate, making the country miserable and the poor. they are willing to sell assets to other countries to gain personal and group benefits.

If there is a country who is rich, I think it is because most of there officials maybe are not corrupt so the results was very progressive and their economy was quite good and well, unlike in the other who are poor like Africa, Thailand and others perhaps there many corrupts officials but I'm not saying all of it.

This is a matter of justice and system, most countries are rich because they have a good economic system and give opportunity to anyone to be able to grow, while the poor countries are mostly controlled by the authorities.

I do not think that the wealth of the country depends on the corruption of officials. The world is ruled by the masses and officials are only pawns in their game. Probably they control the wealth of each country.

There is another way of saying it. If a country is blessed with good rulers, then it will rapidly progress in to a developed nation. I can give you many examples. Singapore is one, and Taiwan is another. Outside Asia, we have countries such as Seychelles and Mauritius. On the other hand, if the rulers are bad, then the economic condition can worsen. Examples are Libya and Iraq.

Because of colonialism mostly - who comes first gets all the loot.

Why are you talking about their fate?! The country's economy is linked inseparably with education and culture.

A country is rich depending on it's resources, let's say the middle east, they are rich because most of the gasoline around the world comes from them, Japan is rich because of it's technology, etc. Now, a country becomes poor because of it's government officials management within the country.

Some eich countries are rich and some poor countries are poor simply because those rich countries has strong alliances that helps them por each other to remain on their state of luxury and wealth while those poor countries were poor because they don't have the alliances or support from countries who are rich because of competitions of who are more powerful. Being rich means power.

I think a country that is considered poor is due to its high corruption and its political activities are unstable. My country has been very corrupt and politically unstable, at the same time my country is very poor.

I am living in a "poor" country, and there are many reasons why we are poor. Lack of education, corruption and over-population are a few of the reasons.

It is difficult to avoid the notion of rich and poor, the concept of rich and poor country  is a measure of the speed of development of a nation,  just like going to school with good students and weak students. That is why we learn the concept of comparison

why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor?

Rich countries are wealthy reflects on how smart and wise the President in governing the country . Good leadership , smart and wise strategy of such officials of the country results on a productive country . If the officials are corrupt and lack of skills in developing and improving the country it will surely make the country poor.

Entities such as the Word Bank makes them debt slaves. It is pure evil when a country is poor due to such evil. It benefits humanity, because the more advanced countries the higher chance of  a good invention being created.

That is a pretty critical topic to tackle. One's country's riches are very subjective, but if you are talking about assets, reserves and gross earning from exports and all other contributing factors. I think it goes down on a matter of what country has the most sources of natural resources and how they utilize it to gain profit. Also, one factor is the size and how the market is accepting their products. USA is such a big country with lots of natural resources at its disposal. On the other hand, South Korea, even if it is a small country, has a great economy because its products are prime commodities today like cars and tech gadgets.

In the rich nations, the elected governments owe a lot to their citizens and try their best to please them. They are in power on account of them and cannot afford to neglect them. In the less developed countries, the Government once they come to power, forget the needs of the people and are busy sorting out their vested interests. Corruption is higher in these countries and the people do not enjoy all the benefits of prosperity. Only a few do.

Well, I don't think we should compare the economy of an old country to a newborn country.
Imagine comparing the walking speed of a 1 yr old child and a professional athlete, doesn't make any sense right?

Not everything can be measure by numbers alone.

Some countries were only born like 50 years ago. While some countries like the UK, Egypt, Greece were born how many milleniums ago?
Of course, in terms of accumulated wealth, they will always have more.

Rich countries be come more rich because they are never stop to built up they financial.And they have big opportunity in working to gets many money and different to poor countries.They living in very limited to have a good jobs because of corruption and over population.

Yes because leaders there are not corrupt.  They really serve his country and countrymen unlike to countries which are poor.  They serve his country and not serve his personal interest like corrupting to have more wealth.  But sometimes, poor countries are still poor because they are oppressed by these rich countries.  These rich countries were the one using the natural resources of the poor countries.

Well it depends on the government that is developing the country. NU and not a small influence depends on the very location of the country.

Good question. If you would study history for a bit you'd knows that all these effects have their roots way way back. Economic interests predominated since the first people in one way or another.

Rich countries are rich because they av good leaders and vice versa

Even the leaders won't be able to do anything, if the general population is not interested in their own welfare. I can give you dozens of examples. The first one that comes to my mind is that of Thomas Sankara, the former President of Burkina Faso. He was one of the best African leaders of all time, and still he was assassinated by his own people. Another example is that of Patrice Lumumba of Congo.

Try books and lectures of Noam Chomsky. This guy explains well this "paradox" of poor and rich countries

The subject of discussion is the difference between extractive and inclusive economic institutions. Extractive puts forward extortion, dredge, tap and suck the wealth of one layer to enrich another layer. While being inclusive is creating a just market, giving people the freedom to choose a job, and providing a fair competition for everyone to compete. :)

Some countries are rich because of their good leader and the discipline that the people have. While some countries have difficulty in their economy maybe because corruption is very much alive and there is no discipline with their people.

I believe rich countries are rich because they got good government that are able to have the foresight for the country future development like attracting companies to set up in the country improving the economy and the employment rate..... As there is a saying rich become richer poor become poorer.... i guess some government might be corrupted and lead to the country being poorer and poorer