Topic: Why are rich countries rich and poor countries poor? - page 17. (Read 16644 times)
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.
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.
Yes you're right they rarely choose ferraris, Bugattis and gold and silver plated cars are more popular among the Arabs. 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.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.
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...
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 gasSo, 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.
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...
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 gasSo, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's argue for a bit. Do you believe a country is rich, because its citizens are brave and smart?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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's argue for a bit. Do you believe a country is rich, because its citizens are brave and smart?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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
]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.
Ah, good ol' vicious cycle...
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.
Let's argue for a bit. Do you believe a country is rich, because its citizens are brave and smart?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.
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?
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...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
because they were putting their mineral assets to such good use before westerners arrived thereReminded 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.
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.
Let's argue for a bit. Do you believe a country is rich, because its citizens are brave and smart?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.
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?
Jump to: