Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simply not true. Places with no natural resources to speak of and no conquering history is just as wealthy as places with plenty of natural resources and plenty of war mongering.
No one argued it is not possible to create wealth through other means.
I don't know what Australia would do without their natural resources, although they are less dependent on it that before.
Well, the apartheid gave freedom to a very limited segment of the population. Saudis have limited freedom, apart from the ruling elite. I know what you are trying to say, but a nation can benefit greatly from abundant natural resources. It is obvious.
You are missing the point regarding freedom though. I am not talking about democracy or giving every single citizen the same rights, although that would be even better. Usually, like we see in deeply corrupt countries, only a handful of elites will control the economy. They will monopolize the economy and make it impossible for even fairly well off members of society to compete. It causes total stagnation with no innovation and societal change.
The leaders in every country of course know exactly what they need to do to make the country prosper. The problem is that such prosperity will mean that the relative power, status and privilege of the current elite will be weakened. So they resist it. In every country. A country like Saudi Arabia is a clear exception in terms of being fairly well off without being productive (and the average Saudi is not that well off) and as predicted, since the elites in Saudi are not interested in any change, they produce nothing but oil. The elites are able to cling to power because oil production does not entail any societal change and the production is 100% in control of the ruling family.
No one argued it is not possible to create wealth through other means.
I don't know what Australia would do without their natural resources, although they are less dependent on it that before.
Wealth is almost always created through productivity growth. Australia? It would be no different than any other wealthy country without any significant natural resources, whether New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Finland or some other country.
Wealth is almost always created through productivity growth. Australia? It would be no different than any other wealthy country without any significant natural resources, whether New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Finland or some other country.
Almost always.
Australians used to call it 'the wealthiest 3rd world country', because their wealth came from exporting raw materials, like 3rd word countries do. It just happens to be how they got on their feet.
Australians used to call it 'the wealthiest 3rd world country', because their wealth came from exporting raw materials, like 3rd word countries do. It just happens to be how they got on their feet.
Thats definitely just a tabloid expression with no real data to back it up. Just because a wealthy country also exports raw materials doesnt make the country third world. Their wealth is not from exporting raw materials. If that were the case, their non-raw material economy would be in shambles with thousands of people doing what it takes tens of people to do in other prosperous countries (non-productive workforce). Is that the case? Almost certainly not. They have a highly educated, productive workforce and a highly competitive service economy.
What about Qatar or Brunei or the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula excluding Yemen. They essentially become developed nations through natural resources. You can’t pretend like Natural Resources aren’t a significant factor whenet he country with the highest gdp per capita is there because of oil.
What about Qatar or Brunei or the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula excluding Yemen. They essentially become developed nations through natural resources. You can’t pretend like Natural Resources aren’t a significant factor whenet he country with the highest gdp per capita is there because of oil.
They are just like Saudi Arabia. Notice its just oil and gas. No other natural resource. A tiny ruling family ruling over a small tribe of a few thousand people (how many citizens does Qatar have?) where no societal change is needed to create wealth because the oil production is in the hands of the ruling royal family. These countries are not productive. They are not industrialized. The ruling elite is merely gaining income by selling oil to industrialized or industrializing nations (like China) and then giving some crumbs to the tiny number of citizens as bribery to stay in power. Thats not a sustainable way to create wealth.
Only by having a highly productive workforce can a country have a prosperous future. Natural resources have very little to do with it. It means fighting corruption and monopolies and promoting innovation and creative destruction. In short, the elites with immense power must be open to rivals toppling their power. Thats why its so difficult to convince the rulers of any country to open up for economic development.
You would have a 50% chance of dying within your first year of life and your life expectancy would be less than 25 years. Horrible diseases, constant war and terrible starvation would be part of everyday life. You would dream of the luxuries of North Korea.
The Mali Empire was not full of starving people or in constant war. It was immensely wealthy West African empire with advanced city states and a very educated population. Have fun in North Korea.
You are missing the point regarding freedom though. I am not talking about democracy or giving every single citizen the same rights, although that would be even better. Usually, like we see in deeply corrupt countries, only a handful of elites will control the economy. They will monopolize the economy and make it impossible for even fairly well off members of society to compete. It causes total stagnation with no innovation and societal change.
The leaders in every country of course know exactly what they need to do to make the country prosper. The problem is that such prosperity will mean that the relative power, status and privilege of the current elite will be weakened. So they resist it. In every country. A country like Saudi Arabia is a clear exception in terms of being fairly well off without being productive (and the average Saudi is not that well off) and as predicted, since the elites in Saudi are not interested in any change, they produce nothing but oil. The elites are able to cling to power because oil production does not entail any societal change and the production is 100% in control of the ruling family.
The Mali Empire was not full of starving people or in constant war. It was immensely wealthy West African empire with advanced city states and a very educated population. Have fun in North Korea.
I beg to differ. Even the Roman empire was a pure hellhole for the vast majority of people by modern North Korean standards. People in all African countries today are far, far better off than the Mali empire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
