What makes some countries rich and others poor?

>I did a reverse image search on a map of the world
Jesus Christ.
Not to mention the source is stated in the filename. If you're too lazy to look it up then just trust me, I care about this shit and it's legit.

Not that guy but I also question the Russian figure. Does it count only liquid assets? Because the Russian real estate bubble alone would put them in the top 50.

>Median Wealth
>If a rich person has $1 million and a poor person has nothing median wealth is $500,000
That's even more misleading than GDP per capita.

You need to look at GDP per capita (wealth creation) + Gini coefficient (wealth distribution) to get an accurate picture of how people live.

Wouldn't that be average wealth? I recall Median wealth is supposed to give a picture of what most people actually have in a country.

commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Median_wealth_per_adult,_2016_Credit_Suisse.png#mw-jump-to-license

Tracked it to here, no source is given

You're confusing average with median.

wtf is democratic pluralism?
Pretty sure he meant pluralism as in economic diversity. As in, there's a lot of different kinds of goods and raw materials they're selling so they won't end up like pic related (Venezuela) and be pants on the head retarded and base your whole economy on the expectations that the oil prices won't go down.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_complexity
quora.com/What-are-the-most-and-the-least-diversified-economies-in-the-world

No I'm not.

The median value tells you very little of the outliers.

>>If a rich person has $1 million and a poor person has nothing median wealth is $500,000
THAT WOULD BE THE MEAN WEALTH, RETARD. THE MEDIAN WEALTH IS PRECISELY CALCULATED TO ACCOUNT FOR SUCH INEQUALITY IN DISTRIBUTION.
Learn the fucking vocabulary before you attempt to criticize things.

Russian's mean wealth is ~$10k per adult, its median wealth is below $1k per adult. (2013 numbers but it hasn't really gotten better since the embargoes.)

>Credit Suisse
It's their Global Wealth Report 2016.

>THAT WOULD BE THE MEAN WEALTH, RETARD. THE MEDIAN WEALTH IS PRECISELY CALCULATED TO ACCOUNT FOR SUCH INEQUALITY IN DISTRIBUTION
No, I will admit my example was rather extreme but in an economy where one individual has $1 million and one individual has zero, median and mean value would be the same.

Median value is more trustworthy than mean value but still insufficient for very unequal societies, no need to get so triggered.

Gini+GDP is still more accurate.

>Russian's mean wealth is ~$10k per adult, its median wealth is below $1k per adult.
That's not what I fucking asked.

Here is the 2016 profile if people care.

>in an economy where one individual has $1 million and one individual has zero, median and mean value would be the same.
Yeah, that's true if there are exactly 2 people in the country. I kind of assumed you knew there are way more destitute people than extremely rich people in any country though, and you weren't actually talking about a country with 2 inhabitants.
>insufficient
How is it "insufficient" when the mean wealth in Russian is literally 10 TIMES its median wealth?

>Gini+GDP is still more accurate.
How? GDP doesn't reflect household wealth and debt-based purchases.

nowadays it involves how good a location is as a center of industry and the
security/stability/corruption/tyranny of society and government, while oil wealth is a factor in some places

before the renaissance agriculture was more important for GDP and trade centers were the only places with a higher than average GDP per capita

the spread of technology is also important from the renaissance onwards

this about sums it up, though it isn't accurate, you really need to look into the specifics for a particular place and time

scratch that agriculture was important through the industrial revolution, only declining in the postwar "green revolution"

also add disease as a factor, though this can be roughly coupled with agriculture

Thanks user.

>How is it "insufficient" when the mean wealth in Russian is literally 10 TIMES its median wealth?
Because a country where there are 50% destitute starving people and a few very rich, can have the same median as a country where 70% is middle class, 15% is rich and 15% is lower class.

See chart in Two very different distributions with the same median. Gini takes this difference into account.

>How? GDP doesn't reflect household wealth and debt-based purchases.
GDP reflects production of goods and services aka actual wealth generation capacity. The fact that it filters debt is a good thing.

Also GDP can be calculated at Purchasing Power Parity whereas median wealth is calculated at current nominal rates, again more accurate if we want to measure actual living conditions.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

>The fact that it filters debt is a good thing.
It doesn't filter debt. Wealth statistics count debt as negative wealth, while GDP counts it all as economic activity regardless.
"Wealth generation capacity" is not wealth, never mind that's a strange way to redefine GDP.

>Two very different distributions with the same median.
And? You can end up with the same Gini coefficient from different distributions too.

Awaiting your combined GDP PPP + Gini map in any case.

Wiki gives an even better example than that table:
As another example, in a population where the lowest 50% of individuals have no income and the other 50% have equal income, the Gini coefficient is 0.5; whereas for another population where the lowest 75% of people have 25% of income and the top 25% have 75% of the income, the Gini index is also 0.5.

Basically exactly what you accused median wealth of doing that Gini is supposed to fix.

>rule of law
>ethnic homogeneousness
>low corruption and high trust society
>strong educational mechanism and tradition
>access to the global ocean and trade
>participating in the 1st and 2nd industrial revolutions
>your country not being a part of the XXc. global communism fiasco
>not being a black "country" (statistically speaking)

I could give you a list of reasons to why, but they all are at the core of it, the result of IQ.

Economists largely agree that strong institutions has the biggest impact on growth. Property right, trustable and non-corrupt governments, open markets are key factors. This is called the institutional explanation of economic growth.

Economists never talk about IQ, they only talk about the symtom, but let's not kid ourselves. IQ the solve reason to why there is a disparity between countries.

Is there still room for "black countries" being an actual factor when they already have weak rule of law, ethnic diversity, high corruption low trust, little education, gated access to global trade, lacked participation in the industrial revolutions and often participated in communist fiascos?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

>IQ is the cause not the symptom

No, it doesn't only count liquid assets, and the reason you're probably surprised at the very low number is that the median wealth per adult in Russia is 1/10th of the average welath and 1/25th of GDP per capita, which were probably more in line with what you were expecting.

>homogeneity
fixd

IQ is the "disease" (if you will). Corrupt government is the symptom (the result).

What are you saying?

IQ increases drastically when a country's population has nutritious food to eat for a couple generations.

ok true, but how did they got to the point of having a lack of food? Are you also implying that the reason why people in poor countries have low iq is because of lack of education (LOL)?

I'm surprised because you basically can't purchase an apartment in Russia for under 150k - and places like Moscow are more expensive than western Europe, because of the bubble. A mansion is Spain is cheaper than the typical commieblock apartment in Moscow. Russia has an 85% home ownership rate, so if real property is included as "wealth" it's fucking impossible for the median adult Russian to only have 2000 dollars worth of wealth. It's absurd.

>Ireland in the mid-20th century
>poor shithole, among the lowest IQs in Europe
>Ireland in the early 21st century
>pretty wealthy Western country, among the highest IQs in Europe

Wow, thank God for magically raising the Irish IQ so they could become wealthy and developed!

>European brain sizes two centuries ago were disturbingly low
>European brain sizes today are the largest they've ever been since the Bronze Age or so.

Wow, thank God for magically increasing European brain sizes in the last two centuries so they could become so wealthy and developed!

Does the median Russian adult live in Moscow, own his apartment and didn't have to go into debt for it?

>among the lowest IQs in Europe
So same as today.

That's not "the same as today", you're assuming Lynn are using numbers from 2012.

>Does the median Russian adult live in Moscow
Read what I posted again.
>own his apartment
Yes.
>didn't have to go into debt for it
Yes. Russia has one of the lowest household debt rates in the world.

Prove your assertion that Ireland has high IQ then.

I don't think you've followed the debacle so here:

theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/

When the early waves of Catholic Irish immigrants reached America near the middle of the 19th century, they were widely seen as particularly ignorant and uncouth and aroused much hostility from commentators of the era, some of whom suggested that they might be innately deficient in both character and intelligence. But they advanced economically at a reasonable pace, and within less than a century had become wealthier and better educated than the average white American, including those of “old stock” ancestry. The evidence today is that the tested IQ of the typical Irish-American—to the extent it can be distinguished—is somewhat above the national white American average of around 100 and also above that of most German-Americans, who arrived around the same time.

Meanwhile, Ireland itself remained largely rural and economically backward and during the 1970s and 1980s still possessed a real per capita GDP less than half that of the United States. Perhaps we should not be too surprised to discover that Lynn and Vanhanen list the Irish IQ at just 93 based on two samples taken during the 1970s, a figure far below that of their Irish-American cousins.

Even this rather low Irish IQ figure is quite misleading, since it was derived by averaging two separately reported Irish samples. The earlier of these, taken in 1972, involved nearly 3,500 Irish schoolchildren and is one of the largest European samples found anywhere in Lynn/Vanhanen, while the other, taken in 1979, involved just 75 Irish adults and is one of the smallest. The mean IQ of the large group was 87, while that of the tiny group was 98, and the Lynn/Vanhanen figure was obtained by combining these results through straight, unweighted averaging, which seems a doubtful approach. Indeed, a sample of 75 adults is so small it perhaps should simply be excluded on statistical grounds, given the high likelihood that it was drawn from a single location and is therefore unrepresentative of its nation as a whole.

So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87, the lowest figure anywhere in Europe and a full standard deviation below than that of Irish-Americans, a value which would seem to place a substantial fraction of Ireland’s population on the edge of clinical mental retardation.

Lynn seems to have accepted this conclusion. The current issue of the academic journal Personality and Individual Differences is organized as a tribute to Lynn and contains a lengthy interview in which he describes the turning points of his career, beginning with his appointment as a research professor in Dublin. His official responsibility was to investigate the social and economic problems of Ireland, and he soon concluded that the nation’s backwardness was largely due to the low IQ of its people, with the only obvious solution being a strong eugenics program, presumably including sterilization of a substantial fraction of the population. But given the dominant influence of conservative Catholicism in Ireland, he doubted the government would consider such suggestions, which would probably just get him “accused of being a Nazi,” so he “chickened out” and chose to suppress his findings. A few years later, he relocated to Protestant-run Ulster, where he felt his racial ideas might find a more receptive audience, and he eventually became interested in whether the poverty of other countries might be due to the same low IQ causal factor which he believed explained Ireland’s problems. This led him to the research that culminated in the publication of IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

Now onto the actual Irish IQ:

ronunz.org/2012/08/14/unz-on-raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/

Here is the complete listing of all IQ studies provided by Lynn (omitting his careless duplications), including sample-size, year, and Flynn-adjusted score, to which I have added a 2009 IQ of 100 based on the recent PISA results, which were almost identical to those of Britain [!!!]:
96(1964) = 90
3466(1972) = 87
1361(1988) = 97
191(1990) = 87
2029(1991) = 96
1361(1993) = 93
2029(1993) = 91
10000(2000) = 95
3937(2009 PISA) = 100
200(2012) = 92

Now to my eye, this list of datapoints indicates a clear and obvious rise in Irish IQ, during which the gap to British scores steadily dropped from 13 points in 1972 to zero in 2009. But since my critics will surely say I’m as blind as a bat, I also took out my statistical toolkit and ran a weighted-correlation on the data, comparing year with IQ and weighting by sample size. The result was a correlation of 0.86. Indeed, the pattern is so robust that even if we drop the 2009 PISA score since “it’s not really IQ,” the correlation scarcely changes. Obviously, if tested Irish IQs were innate and unchanging as so many seem to claim, the correlation would have been 0.00, a very different value.

Within the social sciences, a correlation of 0.86 is extraordinarily high, almost implausibly so. The inescapable conclusion is that Irish IQs rose at an almost linear rate during the three or four decades after 1972.
[...]
This rapid convergence between Irish and British IQs should hardly surprise us. According to the GSS, the Wordsum-IQs of (Catholic) Irish-Americans rank among the very highest of any white ethnic group, with a value almost identical to that of their British-American ethnic cousins.

I'll also leave you the task of explaining why Ireland is now a wealthy developed country that scores well on PISA scores and other metrics if they are dumb as Balkaners and the wealth of nations is caused by IQ.

People don't go hungry simply because they're stupid. Anyone who denies that famine and hunger have many causes is deluded.

The problem with taking PISA scores is that many countries don't give a shit about this test and don't take it as seriously. This being said, until they perform a research with n>10,000 on real IQ tests, you can't really accept country-wide IQ results as legit. I've seen other results that differ from these with around half a SD.