Why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor?

[merchantofzeny]

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.

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. 

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. 

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

[TheCoinGrabber]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[Netnox]

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..

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

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.

[Bunsomjelican]

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.

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

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.

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.

[Sadlife]

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.

[Sweetbtc]

It all depends on natural resources, geographical position, general mindset, ruler skills, and the main focuses of the country.

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.

[Sithara007]

It all depends on natural resources, geographical position, general mindset, ruler skills, and the main focuses of the country.

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

It all depends on natural resources, geographical position, general mindset, ruler skills, and the main focuses of the country.

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.

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?

It all depends on natural resources, geographical position, general mindset, ruler skills, and the main focuses of the country.

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.

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.

[Boov]

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?

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.

[rahmat92]

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

[haroldtee]

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

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.

[pat4cryptoreal]

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…
 

[Xester]

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.

[Sithara007]

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

[Terraformer]

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.

[Lancusters]

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

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

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%.