I'm wondering how stupid someone could be. Writing same line over & over without any explanation.
Again nonsense. Resources is politically controlled and can't be imported without political alliance. So, even if a country has advanced technology, it will be poor without resources. In fact, a country without resources will be continually suppressed from gaining technology by countries like USA by instigating riots and war.
You just need a political engagement and not political alliance for resource. I agree that resources are important but not most important.
You claimed that
"wealth is a usually result of natural resources" which is factually incorrect. It's rather a result of diversified industry working on imported or indigenous natural resources.
Natural resources usually are not reason for prosperity of nations but industry is. Both rich & poor countries have access to high amount of natural resources but its utilization that makes them different.
It is true that manufacturing is more lucrative than resource production but getting the resource is politically restricted and hence it is the Access to critical resources which is the highest priority and what enable wealth.
Only manufacturing is lucrative. Rarely any country is world sits without access to natural resources.
Most of countries who are poor and rich today aren't because of natural resources and you can't write a contradiction. Because there isn't any.
Arms and semiconductor are the only advantage. Even in aviation, Chinese have reasonable alternative and only advantage of USA is in small fuel saving Technology. So, the major lead is in semiconductor only. Even in semiconductor, China has 28nm Technology which is an acceptable alternative to 22nm if priced lower. So, China is not much disadvantaged here either. It is a small gap.
The fuel saving techs, improved designs and manufacturing basis aren't small advantages at all.
China GDP per capita is low because of its high population and currency devaluation.
GDP besides income generated due to basic wealth accumulated with you (including natural resources) doesn't fall straight on head of population.
GDP is gross domestic income generated by people of a country every year. If you think cutting down population won't cut GDP down, you are even more stupid.
It is also true that its GDP growth is high due to high population.
No, GDP is high due to high population.
GDP growth is high due to structural reasons. These are letting money flow freely and discovering new fields of manufacturing that add more income.
Chinese population only helped in ensuring that China can make cheap goods and forcefully export is items despite political restrictions of USA.
Chinese population also used to work & earn. It increased total production, total salaries and hence overall GDP was high.
So, it is only partially correct to say that Chinese GDP is because of its large population.
Partially yes only because it would be easy to obtain goods from a single concentrated big factory than small workshops around.
We are not taking average GDP for 50 years but current GDP on annual basis. How is it meaningful to speak of early or late?
Seriously? How dumb you are?
What relevance has a "50 years average GDP" has relevance? In which way your mind moves?
GDP of every country grows or declines year on year.
Two countries have a GDP per capita of $100 each at initial point. One grows at 6% for 10 years. Other grows at same rate for 50 years. Gap will be large for sure.
Countries annual GDP isn't a result of what it just did this year. It has a base.
S.Korea. Korea itself boomed after 1995 and was a shithole even in 1980s with massive anti-USA riots taking place. So, how will your favorite Korea fit in your theory ot early or late boom?
Shithole? Korea was as good as any upper middle income economy in 80s. It had a bigger boom after 1995 transforming it into a developed country, won't change the fact that it was one of fastest growing economy for decades even earlier.
I hope you understand that GDP per capita can't be separated from yourself GDP.
It's actually a waste of time to argue with an idiot like you who believes GDP of a country is definite while only population changes to change GDP per capita.
I have listed several example to justify how natural resources access is key to economic success. You simply refuse to accept that and inside in same nonsense if technology and other qualitative aspects. Deal in quantity and numbers instead if qualitative things.
You have not a single one. Every country has to use natural resources to make something.
There are much more countries with resources around world. Successful ones are those convert resources into finished goods.
Which example you have given anyway? I'd like to know. At least I haven't seen any because every country's disagrees with you. They have periods of economic booms that enriched them.
That is your whimsical opinion without any basis. Every country today is Rich either because of own natural resource or resources via political alliance. Not even 1 single country exists which is otherwise. You just waste time like retards by giving example of city states like Singapore with 50lakh population. Or you insist like retards that korea became rich without resources despite open evidence that usa gifted free resources to korea in the name of investment.
It's you who is imposing your opinion as fact despite it being proved factually incorrect multiple. If natural resources are topmost reason of wealth, most countries with them should be rich. But they aren't.
For me, I've even provided an excellent reference earlier.
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings/growth-projections/
It is a fact that countries like korea, Taiwan got free resources from usa political alliance. It is also a fact that Korea, Taiwan got Technology in lease from USA. Wealth depends on resources and technology. But resources is the key component which decide the quantity and hence GDP as long as one doesn't have advantage in Technology Monopoly.
Technology is key component, then secondary is stability and tertiary is free market. Resources are easier to obtain and come after all these things.
There are rarely any countries without any resources.
So, natural resources aren't the usual reason of wealth.
Korea got all these Technology on LEASE from USA. It also got resources as SOFT LOANS from USA. Regardless of how educated koreans are, it is the gifts from USA that keeps Korean economy high.
That's called financing. Anyone generates finance from where it can get. US gave and gives aid to lot other countries, why they aren't showing any signs of improvement? Obviously, ROK did something different.
Most certainly, loans aren't natural resources. Don't spin your argument and stay on your words.
USA got these resources for free from Arabs and other allies like Australia as well as indigenous reserves.
Elaborate, which resources US, ROK or any country got in "free" from others.
Add, last time which country enriched because of foreign aids? Countries changed because of structural changes in society and economy. As for USA, it tries to rather control natural resources as part of its dominance to carry out economic sabotages. We all know how much effect it has.
Again, retarded socialist bashing. Afghanistan was at war since 1975 with severe Jihadi infestation. Moreover, Afghanistan never was a resource hub even before 1975. Moreover, Afghanistan survives on the basis imported food.
It's you who's a retard. Afghanistan was same as that of any neighboring states at a time who lagged behind in all aspects due to wars.
If it survived on imported foods and now even donated stuff, it just proves my point that natural resources aren't primary reason for prosperity. Afghanistan has worth $4 trillions resources. Case is different that never were exploited.
Soviets didn't attack Afghanistan for resources but for access to middle east to conquer middle east.
Soviets had multiple reasons and this too was one of them.
Unique location of AfPak belt made them surrounded by USSR, PRC, India and Iran. That was enough elevate their geostrategic importance.
If a desert doesn't have energy resources to give cooling (air conditioning) and logistics to its people, then such a desert can never have big time economy even if it has other minerals.
This isn't even argument. Afghanistan isn't poor by default. Nor its neighbor are richer than it by default.
Afghanistan can't provide facilities to its people isn't result of its economic failure but it's economic failure is the result of former problem.
Many countries avoided this problem altogether while some partially did.
Just explain to me how is USA richer than China despite manufacturing much less than China? The answer is clear - USA bloats its currency because of petrodollar agreement.
US is much richer in PPP as well. Currency appreciation de-appreciation can't affect country's living standard and income levels besides that involved in international trade.
US has industrialized far far before China, has far more diverse economy and enriched in past. It's slow now relatively. not