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.