Why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor?

[bryant.coleman]

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.

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).

[TheCoinGrabber]

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.

[Jingjess]

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..

[Bodywowoya]

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

[craked5]

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

[Sithara007]

Oil money is easy money. Most petro-states are extremely religious. If you want free money you'd better keep your women in line, or else suffer the consequences.

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

Oil money is easy money. Most petro-states are extremely religious. If you want free money you'd better keep your women in line, or else suffer the consequences.

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.

[criptix]

Free money today results in suffering tomorrow.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Russia_Oil_Production.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

Democracy only works in christian societies. Prove me wrong.

Christian african nations ^^"

[gregory51gosh]

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.

[kodes88]

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..

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.

[gregory51gosh]

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..



 

[Wayan_Pedjeng]

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

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..

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.

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

[Lieldoryn]

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.

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.

[gollygosh]

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

[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.

[gregory51gosh]

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..

[voltesbit777]

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.