Why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor?

[gregory51gosh]

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.

[1715699171]

1715699171

[1715699171]

1715699171

[1715699171]

1715699171

[1715699171]

1715699171

[Mometaskers]

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

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.

[Eternu]

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?

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.

[kirch]

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.

[gregory51gosh]

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

[TheCoinGrabber]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[J Gambler]

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.

[warrior333]

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.

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.

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

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.

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.

[gollygosh]

BTC HITS 2400+ WOW WHAT NEXT

[Mometaskers]

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.

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).

[Sithara007]

Russia do have a rainy day fund, which amounts to close to $400 billion.

They better hurry up and convert that into BTC.

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.

[Eternu]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tikboyhere]

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.

[riphunter]

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

[Proximity Scan]

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

[Janation]

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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

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).

[ananas99]

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

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.