Replies

Countries are rich or poor based primarily, if not exclusively on the relative amount of freedom their peoples enjoy.

I think that's part of the story, but it's not anything close to the whole story. Just for starters, look at Equatorial Guinea and India. India has been a multi-party parliamentary democracy for 60 years, whereas Equatorial Guinea is one of the least free, most repressive countries on earth.

Yet Equatorial Guinea is the world's wealthiest country, measured in terms of per capita GNP, and India is, despite recent growth, still very poor. In this situation, the difference is natural resources, but there can be any number of things at play.

"Yet Equatorial Guinea is the world's wealthiest country, measured in terms of per capita GNP, and India is, despite recent growth, still very poor. In this situation, the difference is natural resources, but there can be any number of things at play."

Indian citizens have also had the freedom to move abroad and seek their fortunes elsewhere...add those incomes into the equation and it will not seem so skewed. Furthermore, whereas Indians have been generally politically free, there are religio-cultural issues that have repressed people's civil rights beyond the government's ability to protect them (i.e. the caste system.)...a similar argument could be made about the Jim Crow south in the US.

And yes, while the per capita income of Equat. Guinea may be higher, that's more the result of a low overall population. If you look at the disparity between wealthy and poor, I'd be willing to wager you'd also find one of the biggest gaps of any nation in the world....

...bottom line, the backwardness of most islamic nations is a result primarily of...well, their being islamic nations.

(Joe Sixpack)Countries are rich or poor based primarily, if not exclusively on the relative amount of freedom their peoples enjoy.

(Alter Kaker)I think that's part of the story, but it's not anything close to the whole story. Just for starters, look at Equatorial Guinea and India. India has been a multi-party parliamentary democracy for 60 years, whereas Equatorial Guinea is one of the least free, most repressive countries on earth. Yet Equatorial Guinea is the world's wealthiest country, measured in terms of per capita GNP, and India is, despite recent growth, still very poor. In this situation, the difference is natural resources, but there can be any number of things at play.

I have to disagree--- India has had a degree of political freedom, but only just now has been moving out from under the Nehru/Gandhi socialism to economic freedom--- and just look at the difference that has made already!

Inida is poor because it has not had much economic freedom. Recently, some parts of India have adopted more economic freedom, so its economy has been growing. At this link, John Stossel explains how India's government bureacracy strangles the private sector and prevents people from starting businesses, creating jobs, and creating wealth:

http://pages.towson.edu/trhoads/AmericaOne.html