Home / Lounge room / Why Some Countries Are Poor & Others Rich

Why Some Countries Are Poor & Others Rich


Why Some Countries Are Poor & Others Rich

Currently there are 195 bordered pieces of land ascribed as countries in the world. 25 of them are very rich, defined as having an average wealth per person of over $100,000 USD a year.

They are Australia , Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hong kong, Iceland, Ireland ,Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zeland , Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK and the USA.

But far more countries are quite poor and some – which we are considering here, are very, very poor.

These are the 20 poorest countries in the world : where the per capital wealth is under a $1,000 a year, or under three dollars a day:


Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Burundi, Mozambique, Chad , Liberia, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea- Bissau, Mali, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Malawi, Cote D’Ivoire, Sudan, Gambia.

Every country is now more or less on a path to growth, but the poor ones are growing very, very slowly. If Zimbabwe continues at its current growth rate, it will qualify as a rich country in 2722 years. This is not even funny frown


Taking all this into account, keep in mind that at least 6 of some of the wealthiest countries in the world, benefited heavily from the slave trade. And some of the poorest countries in the world, with the Democratic Republic of Congo, amongst one of the countries had the most slaves sold into the new world.


So why do some countries prosper and other stagnate? Let’s get a better grip on the challenges and hurdles facing our countries.


There are basically 3 factors that determine whether a country will be rich or poor. The first is INSTITUTIONS. Institutions are beyond important. Broadly speaking , rich countries have good institutions and poor countries, well - you see where this is going. The way its outlined currently however, is that an institution must work under a Western European guise in order for it to work and prosper. Any other form is not welcomed and shunned as a non-democratic, non-capitalist, and all other forms of language to inevitably reject it. Many times done by not just rich countries, but by the citizens of some of these poor countries themselves.


 The most corrupt, crooked take it all for me politician having countries happen to also be the poorest.


The correlation between poverty and corruption is direct. The richest countries in the world are quite simply invariably also the least corrupt ones. Or, better said, the least visibly corrupt and “share” with its citizens. The most corrupt, crooked take it all for me politician having countries happen to also be the poorest.  When countries are corrupt, they can’t collect enough taxes to get the good institutions they would need to escape the poverty trap.


Half of the wealth of the world’s poorest 20 countries goes into offshore accounts (of those in power). Lost revenues in these countries totals between $10 and $20 billion dollars a year. Meanwhile, without an adequate tax base, poor countries cant invest in police, education, health or transport.


Now, a more generous way to look at corruption is that it’s really a case of clan based thinking. Say you’re hiring someone. In rich countries, you’re meant to do so simply on merit. You interview lots of candidates, then picking the best one, irrespective of any personal connection, gender, color, religion etc. This is how it should play out. But in poor countries under the sway of clan-based thinking , that approach  would itself be corrupt: it’s your duty to disregard the so-called best candidate from an anonymous bunch, in order to pick someone from your own team: your uncle, your brother, your second cousin, the guys from the same tribe. As a result, poor countries don’t allow themselves access to the intelligence and talent of the whole population.


If there is a generalization you can make about religion and wealth, it’s that the less people believe, the richer they stand a change of being.


The second thing that keeps countries poor: culture, what goes on in people’s minds, their outlooks and beliefs. A striking statistic pops up here in relation to religion. If there is a generalization you can make about religion and wealth, it’s that the less people believe, the richer they stand a change of being. 
19 of the richest countries in the world have 70% or more of their populations , saying religion is not at all important to them . The exception here is the USA, which manages to combine a great number of believers with huge wealth. The poorest nations in the world are also extremely believing ones. More damaging is that some of these poor countries have been affected by colonization, forced upon them a belief system that wasn’t theirs to begin with. During the creation of “the New World”  the Spaniards were committed, by Vatican decree, to convert their indigenous subjects to Catholicism.


Here is the percentage of the many people who think religion and the supernatural is deeply important:


Cambodia -96%
Yemen 95%
Burma 96%
Laos 96%
Pakistan 96%
Senegal 96.5%
Afghanistan 97 %
Guinea 97%
Zambia 9%
Djibouti 98%
Burundi 97.5%
Egypt 98%
Mauritania 98%
Sierra Leone 98%
Malawi 98.5%
Morocco 98%
Bangladesh 100%
Niger 100%
Somalia 100%
Democratic republic of Congo – 100%

In the world’s poorest country, simply everyone is a believer. Why is belief quite so bad for wealth creation? Because in general, religion is connected up with the idea that the here and now can’t be improved, so you should focus on the spiritual and look forward to a next world instead. It makes quite a bit of sense when  you live here.


In the rich world on the other hand, people are generally great believers in their capacity to alter their destiny through effort and talent. The USA manages to keep the balance, because of its type of religion. It is a protestant and exceptionally materialistic kind. The American God does not want you to build Jerusalem in the next world, he wants it here and now in Kansas or Huston.

The third factor is GEOGRAPHY- poor countries are overwhelmingly located in the tropical regions. This is not a coincidence (if something ever is). Life is , in many ways, simply far, far tougher there. The problems begin with agriculture. Tropical plants are generally a lot less packed with carbohydrates. Poor countries have the worse soil too. Also and perhaps, surprisingly, a tropical climate can be  disadvantageous to photosynthesis. Historically, a key determinant in the likelihood of societies growing rich was their possession of large domesticated animals which liberated a huge part of the work force from having to plough by hand. But in tropical Africa, domesticated animals have throughout time been devastated by the evil Tsetse fly, that knocks out animals on an enormous scale, which affects the ability of Africans to develop technology, increase agricultural productivity and amass wealth. Not to mention the bad luck of the tropics, where in the middle latitudes, humans are open to a terrifying array of diseases. 100% of low-income countries are affected by at least five tropical diseases simultaneously. The magical temperature , which has helped rich countries become rich is 16 degrees centigrade. However superficially unpleasant , that drop below 16 degrees as autumn starts to bite is quite literally a foundation stone of civilization. Geography also encompasses transport and poor countries are , on the whole, very badly connected. Africa has only one major navigable river, the Nile and hosts 15 land blocked nations, 11 of which have an average income of $600 or less. Not coincidentally, the poorest country in Asia, Afghanistan is also landlocked.


The Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the world’s most mineral rich countries, holding most of the world’s Coltan, which every mobile phone has a bit of inside


Then there is the matter of natural resources. Paradoxically, poor countries have them in spades. Due to that, the richer countries manipulate and fiddle with these countries politics and hand pick puppets to run these countries so that they have control of said resources. These natural resources are what economists call intensifiers: they will help to make a country with good institutions richer, but one with bad institutions get even poorer, precipitating what’s called the resource trap. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the world’s most mineral rich countries, holding most of the world’s Coltan, which every mobile phone has a bit of inside. But natural resource wealth helps the countries elite to grab money without requiring the cooperation of the society. The wealth from Coltan keeps DRC rebels armed to a T and corrupts every other citizen.



The School of Life



Over 21,000 songs and 3200 artists
Copyright © 2015 l playasonly.com All rights reserved.Created by ESTIMA