Topic: Why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor? - page 15. (Read 16644 times)

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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