@Duncanario I agree

Actually the whole conversation is meaningless. How can you seriously discuss why the occupiers are doing better than the occupied? Since WWII South Korea (Germany, Japan and many other countries) are living under constant American domination — military and political. 40 000 American troops are permanently stationed in South Korea alone. Rammstein in Germany is the biggest US military base overseas. I don't even mention smaller "independent" countries.

Why is Cuba poor? Because it is living under half a century of the brutal economic sanctions. Same with North Korea. Why is Mexico poor? Because it was pushed into NAFTA and had to sent all her corn farmers to the North as migrant workers. Because when Mexico wanted to elect its own independent president in 2006 it wasn't allowed despite all the millions protesting in the rain.

The US was the sole benefactor of the WWII. Unlike Europe it retained its industrial potential, banks and infrastructure. Unlike the USSR it didn't have to sacrifice 27 million lives to defeat the Nazis. So since the creation of the Bretton-Woods agreement and after the fall of the USSR the US became the only superpower able to replace governments, change regimes, bomb some and award others with lucrative contracts. May I remind you that the constitution of Japan was drafted by the American military. .

Vae victis. But I believe this is not going to last forever. Capitalism is dying. The new dark era is looming.

Let's take Botswana as an actual example. The massive diamond resources found in the late 1960's are the key foundation of it's success story. But without the key factors brianluce named in his opening post, Botswana would have went the same unsuccessful way other resource-rich african countries went or are going.

"An MIT paper concludes that such policies were possible because of Botswana’s good political and economic institutions, which protect property rights, preserve political stability, and constrain political elites."

http://www.cfr.org/botswana/botswana-african-success-story-shows-strains/p15108 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/AFRICAEXT/Resources/Botswana_success.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/worldbusiness/09nocera.html?_r=1&ref=botswana

"If you are in bad climate, have no useful resources, no energy, no structures will save you."

Yeah. That's why Japan and Sweden are so poor. Oh wait...

I fully agree with authors of the book regarding countries being poor mostly beacuse of suboptimal political systems allowing priviledged groups to grab resources without regard for wellbeing of other. Frankly, most of resource-rich countries are actually very poor. African countries are virtually busting with natural resources but are usually very poor save for corrupt political class.

Then off course there are the socialists/communists:

Cue West vs. East Germany or South vs. North Korea. A political system where some degree of income diversity is not tolerated will quench any strive to work harder/better. Why work harder when neighbour will earn same with same work? Thus the collapse of eastern block and communism...

Of course, you cannot just jump into capitalism´/ democracy and expect to be rich. I believe that countries need to go trough all child diseases that original capitalist countries went trough: accumulationof capital, corruption etc. It took Europe 200 years to fine-tune the industrialism into tollerable system. You cannot expect former communist coutry to just skip all painful steps and become Switzerland just by havin free elections. It's a state of mind...

Why work harder when neighbour will earn same with same work?

Many reasons exist to work harder :-) They are just common among the man, not animals. Makes them hard to understand to some.

Interesting in that the authors of the study are skeptical about China's long term economic prospects.

Interesting is the source of funds this researches use. After knowing it, their position about China won't be a surprise :-)

I have exactly opposite position. China will grow, with some usual problems, by solving this problems it'll become power.
And all this democratic(tm) "new" countries will either vanish or become poor satellites supplying prostitutes, organs and workers.

I believe that countries need to go trough all child diseases that original capitalist countries went trough: accumulationof capital, corruption etc. It took Europe 200 years to fine-tune the industrialism into tollerable system. You cannot expect former communist coutry to just skip all painful steps and become Switzerland just by havin free elections. It's a state of mind...

It is all so common. :-) You need time to tune up, yep, while we need more vazeline :-).

@brianluce

It is not "corrupt research" that is the problem.
Very rare this guys can make research that seriously contradicts with foundations :-)
All of them are using grants system, and if your research will have some real troubles and will express wrong ideas, you will start to have problems with getting grants. So, it is not even normal censorship. It is self censorship, hidded deep within heads of researches.

"Many reasons exist to work harder :-) They are just common among the man, not animals. Makes them hard to understand to some."

Are they? "work hard or comrade Stalin will send you to Gulag" -reason didn't seem to have worked that well, in hindsight. Frankly, most of this "buhuhuhu, democracy is bad, look where it got us"-whining usually comes from countries with no previous experience with democracy whatsoever. Just because you can choose your leadership doesn't guarantee you'll chose wisely. Many promptly chose someone as corrupt as the old guys, and then it's "all bad". It's not. But it's not better than people make it to be.

as of July 2011, Ireland's birth rate is 16.5 per 1000, which is 3.5 per cent higher than the next-ranked country, the UK. France has a birth rate of 12.8 per 1000 while Sweden is at 12.3 per 1000.

the country with the highest birth rate currently is Niger at 51.26 births per 1000 people

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#Birth_rate_in_different_countries

@Grunf

This is why I specially noted that reasons are hard to understand to some.
Also want to note, we are not talking here on such level as you do.

Frankly, most of this "buhuhuhu, democracy is bad, look where it got us"-whining usually comes from countries with no previous experience with democracy whatsoever.

Last time I checked most whining comes from people of countries with long time democracy(tm) expirience.
Same time poor idiots practicing democracy (for quite a time already, I must say) are getting direct orders about things they can have, things they can't have and things they need to sell fast to be more liberal and true(r) democracy(tm).

What is the population growth in Sweden?

http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____25897.aspx

This is link for statistics.
Thing that I didn't find is how much of new births accounted for immigrant families (I suppose it will be most births). Add here Population Growth so far during 2012 has depended some 80 per cent on net immigration and some 20 per cent on population surplus. And you'll get quite usual picture.

@stip

If anyone thinks to be wiser than Winston Churchill, speak up

Thing that you are using is called manipulation.
Btw this exact words had been used in first lecture by all democratic(tm) propagandists some time ago :-)

@Mihuel with regards to definition of "Rich". Most people look at metrics like per capita GDP, literacy, income distribution, life expectancy, infant mortality. It's usually the same group of countries that make those lists. I'm not sure if there's any single metric that tells the complete story. @spacewig I think the Tea Party, for better or worse, was indeed grass roots initially, but it was co-opted by the right wing machine. @stip Democracy is an advanced form of government and it's also inefficient. In theory, I think it's nonetheless the best government, especially if you believe the above article because democracy, when it's done right, is best suited for empowering individuals and creating a climate for innovation which is one of the cornerstones of a wealthy society. The thing is, any political institution, democratic or otherwise, is corruptible and that's when the trouble starts.