Why the Southern Hemisphere is Poorer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2021
- Start your day by learning what's going on in the world with the free Morning Brew newsletter: bit.ly/mbwendover
Watch Extremities at / extremities
Buy a Wendover Productions t-shirt: standard.tv/collections/wendo...
Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): / halfasinteresting
TH-cam: / wendoverproductions
Instagram: / sam.from.wendover
Twitter: / wendoverpro
Sponsorship Enquiries: wendover@standard.tv
Other emails: sam@wendover.productions
Reddit: / wendoverproductions
Writing by Sam Denby
Research by Sam Denby and Tristan Purdy
Editing by Alexander Williard
Animation by Josh Sherrington
Sound by Graham Haerther
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster
Select footage courtesy the AP Archive
References
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geograp...
[2] www.economist.com/graphic-det...
[3] archive.org/details/civilizat...
[4] ourworldindata.org/grapher/gd...
[5] www.jstor.org/stable/40568423
[6] data.worldbank.org/indicator/...
[7] ourworldindata.org/grapher/sh...
[8] www.fao.org/3/u8480e/u8480e07.htm
[9] medcraveonline.com/OAJS/effec...
[10] data.apps.fao.org
[11] ourworldindata.org/burden-of-...
[12] halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/h...
Also many educated specialists tend to move to a richer country where where they can earn multiple times more than in home country. This leaves their home country with less specialists. If we think of smart people as a resource - then that resource is actively moving from poor to rich countries.
Then we could stop importing them
@@javierm.n5455 it is naive to believe that rich countries don't require migrants and imported labour capital
Sadly.
@@angrygopnik2317 There is no long term benefit of importing wage slaves
Free trade in labor makes everyone better off. Countries don't have the capacity to suffer or thrive, people do!
Well to be fair, Antarctica's gross GDP is severely skewing the average.
You would guess they excluded antarctica.
@@FlyLeah But did they?
But they are smart penguins
@@wolvenar they’re not a country, so yeah.
Those 150 or so scientists would just making those numbers higher than usual.
In the early 20th century, Argentina (and Uruguay) was poised to be as developed an economy as either Australia/New Zealand or the rich Northern Hemisphere economies, until political and economic instability increased steadily through the 20th century starting in the 1930s-1950s.
Argentina is a case very sad. Was a country with a lot of natural and human resources, a lot of opportunities to live a good live in the beggins of the XX century. They must be a country that help and inspirate the develoment of the region, a good example.
In 1869 have 1.8 millions of inhabitants but since there until 1940s received 6.5 millions of immigrants italians, spanish, etc. But, since 1920s and over all, 1940s, the country choose populism and give more power to the state that the private initiative. The public sector, taks, control to free market and population that depent of public support growth, drowning the private sector. That help the country? Give good public services? No, only make more richest to political class, national businessmen that dont want external competition and sindicates, all part or associatte with the state. Now, since years, the best educated people just go outside. Sorry the bad english.
So how do you explain Australia and New Zealand, Australia is primarily a primary resource exporter and today it's manufacturing sector is miniscule, yet it is a first world nation with a GDP hovering on the edge of the top 10. Your economic geography argument doesn't stack up.
@@user-hs3sq2jh6h In my opinion, it's not necessarily a matter of exporting primary resources much more than manufacturing that counts, so much as it is how they manage the economy and keep that and the politics stable. Australia and New Zealand score excellently in that regard. By contrast, ex-Communist Bloc countries in Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union that have relied heavily on manufacturing haven't scored as well on that count (and the industries there haven't been as efficient as in the West, creating even more serious pollution).
Imagine going from developed country to developing to underdeveloped
@@leirumf5476 You can blame that on the nazis running from Germany to Argentina after they lost
I was wondering why we hardly hear about *any* innovation in the south. Then it hit me: when I hear visa holders complain, their problem pretty much centers on *not* wanting to return to their country of origin (though their phrasing can be undiplomatic af). It makes me wonder if there's a 'brain drain' also happening: if you're the type of person to innovate, then you're probably not the type of person to stick around the south any longer than you have to.
That’s 100% facts. It happens every day, I currently have family member that instead of staying in their home country for post secondary education, they came to the US. Most immigrants that come to the US end up bringing their immediate and extended family members along at some point
Reminds me of the brain drain in Malaysia, with many of it arising from the Chinese minority population due to the country's policies favouring the Malay majority more. Many of them move to neighbouring Singapore I think, which has a similar culture & thus relatively easier to assimilate into. Others would continue staying in Malaysia (those who live nearer to the Singapore-Malaysia international border e.g. the state of _Johor_ ), where the cost of living is lower, but commute regularly into Singapore for work, where salaries are higher, but the pandemic & it's resultant restrictions (e.g. 2-3 week quarantine) made that arrangement no longer practical. This has affected people in various ways e.g. home renovation fees have increased as many contractors are Malaysian & now need to be paid more, as they now have to seek accommodation in Singapore, where the cost of living is higher. Other Malaysians have now stayed put there & stopped working in Singapore, losing their salaries there, & thus find some things less affordable now
the best example of this is india.
That's part of how America got so powerful. People flee 3rd world countries to the US where they can get paid the most and have access to the best resources and the best schooling.
Wendover: "the temperature or physical environment of a place does not change a person in any meaningful way"
*Florida has entered the chat*
the heat makes Florida a hell, because the heat creates Floridamen
🤣🤣🤣
It does. It influences mindset and culture of people who are adapting to their environment by behaving differently in different parts of the world. You would still be equally inteligent or kind whereever you were born, but your behaviour would be different, as would your outlook on life. The culture influences you, and environment influences your culture.
From a human perspective it is logical that we want to solve this. But from an economic perspective it is not profitable to do so. Could we conclude then that the world economy is inhumane?
It’s almost as if he writes the script without reading it back to himself.
12 therefores. I think that’s a Wendover record!
I didn’t count the Howevers.
I was looking for a comment about this before I said anything lol
"I counted 12 therefores. However, I didn't count the howevers. Therefore, my analysis of the therefore-however index of this Wendover video is incomplete."
I'm glad someone has been looking for these words!
He could have said "So..."
@@CubicSpline7713 he did sub in “for that reason” which worked well.
What seems odd about the theory of being further away being better for development is that up to the middle age it didn't seem to be that way. Mesopotamia and later Rome were far more advanced than more Northern regions
Look at the Americas. The Aztec, Mayan, and Incan civilizations were building pyramids and developing mathematics while the tribes in much of the modern US and Canada were still in the Stone Age.
Different eras, different topic. In those times, abundant water and food sources were the most basic and fundamental causes for a civilization to grow (OC there were other important factors, too). It's also important to remember that in the middle ages and before that, "advanced" meant having nice buildings, good agricultural yield (fertile land, techniques, equipment), competent military leaders, quality weapons and armour, and OC a relatively large population. Now it means using sophisticated and expensive tools to produce wonders of technology that people 100 years ago wouldn't have thought possible.
@@KV_zacc when where those things not linked together?. Can't have nice buildings or good yield without advanced knowledge. Military is still very important, just look how many governments were overthrown by foreign powers with better military and intelligence
@@tomlxyz, your answer is ambiguous IMO. Which things are linked together? What ages are you referring to?
If you mean that the same things made a people or an area advanced both in the past and in the present: there clearly were common criteria, like I hinted, too.
This topic is too big for a few commenters under a YT video; you brought up a topic, and I just gave a simplified answer.
It's a question of culture, not geography.
It's pretty unfair to say Africa is decolonized tbh
Can you elaborate on that? I'm not trolling. I've heard some such thing but I've also had my doubts. Then I heard about the relationship that France has with former colonies so if you want to enlighten me I'm happy to consider what you put before me.
@@unclejoeoakland
This is an europhobic take.
The idea is that Europe, especially France, still control those countries.
Which is false, the last anti-French coups in Africa prove it.
What happened is just that Africa kept having strong diplomatic and economy ties with their former colonizer. Which is very much to be expected, as their economy and political system were build by them.
It's like saying Canada is an America colony.
I love how Wendover can almost make the word "Therefore" its own sentence.
ok
However
Wendover accent is interesting
Don't forget, "You see..."
Can't stop hearing it now
"In the US's National Hockey League..."
**Angry Canadian noises**
Angry Canadian noises: You made me upset :(
th-cam.com/video/h0ZXUoewGWQ/w-d-xo.html
Oh boy, they managed to anger a canadian. (Last time I experienced that was vancouver 11...)
To be fair the NHL has National in the name, and is also the only Hockey League worth anything to an English speaking audience.
Founded in Quebec, 7 Canadian teams and 25 American Teams.
Your choice if its Canada's or America's "National" League.
Alternative interpretation, the NHL is Canada's League (possession) but since it is the highest hockey league the USA participates in that is why its America's league. (Participation)
Like your highschool it the one you go/went to not the one you own.
PS: Great Joke
Edit: reading further on Wikipedia the league was originally purely Canadian (Hence national) and in 1924 the Boston Bruins joined making it an International League.
So the correct explanation is that the NHL is Canada's League that America joined, but the USA has way more major cities capable of hosting teams.
Once I got to this point of the video I gave up.
The southern hemisphere used to actually be very rich in ancient times - there were many kingdoms throughout South America and Africa and also southeast Asia and India that were amazingly beautiful and luxurious, with large armies and palaces for royalty.
Then the Northern hemisphere came and stole a lot of it.
@@Hanloss Not that Southern elites were willing to share those riches with their people anyway
South east Asia and India aren't in the southern hemisphere though, and as far as I know the only large native kingdom's from the southern hemisphere we're the Inca and majapahit empires. I could be wrong though, the history of this region isn't my strong suit so feel free to correct me.
@@sleven1160 I think what he probably means is that the “Economic Centre of Gravity” was much below than what it is now cuz the Horn of Africa, Swahili Coast, India, SE Asia and the Arabian Peninsula were extremely prosperous
@@Hanloss thats not how they got most of their wealth, they produced it in manufactured goods and innovation
Personally, I would have been more interested in comparing Australia and New Zealand with some African or South American nations in the same relative latitude. Given that sort of comparison, I believe that your assertions and conclusions would be far different from what is presented here.
Or even an Argentina/Uruguay that would have remained rich with other South American countries.
that would be an interesting comparison!
i think the thought proccess would remain the same, since those countries have had a very different relationship with colonization compared to that of africa and latin america - much like the usa, their populations are composed much more of european settlers than most former colonies, which indicates that alongside common colonial ventures like plantations and mining (which generally used non-european workforce and slave labor), there was a process of settling and expansion of industrial economy from european capitals (and their respective industrialists) to their colonies that would only happen much later in other countries, when they were already independent. that is why, to this day, native and/or miscigenated populations in these "first world" former-colonies still live pretty much in third-world conditions, including the usa.
@💋𝗙**𝗖𝗞 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 РR0FIL You're right! I missed that. Good catch!
@тαρ мє αи∂ ѕєχ ωιтн мє Grace well when Japan didn’t have the resources to bolster it’s industry, the government and business interests choose to expand and take resources thorough an empire. And then it got rebuilt as a US economic partner after ww2. And was projected to rule the world economically. Japan has a very one of its kind economic history.
pretty easy to make the argument that new zealand is poor or underdeveloped when u leave them off half the maps lol
Thats actually by design - COVID can't know where we are if we aren't on any map *taps head*
@@dynamo1796 Protip: always live in Antartica, New Zealand, Tasmania, Iceland or Hawaii to escape COVID, they use regular maps instead of Google maps
@@SacsachCCABP
the only covid 19 cases that arrive in new zealand
come from australia
and australia barely had any cases.. apart from this massive outbreak
New Zealand is a volcanic island. It literally has one of the most fertile soils around. It’s the only exception, and it’s for an obvious reason.
@@SacsachCCABP Alaska and Hawaii have boxes around them on North American maps so you'd think they'd be completely COVID free!
Most people "employed" in agriculture aren't really employed at all. They grow food at the subsistence level for themselves and their family and maybe barter with what little extra they may have (which can also partially explain how people scrape by with such a low income). Imo these people aren't exactly comparable to old MacDonald and his farm.
Or they are basically owned as serfs, like with the palm oil industry. From birth they're destined to a choice of "starve to death, or work 70 hour weeks in brutal conditions for pennies a day farming palm oil".
Yep, hundreds of millions of people rely on the unpredictable weather just for enough crops to grow to only feed them and their family,hours are needed to get water,wood and sow crops so children can't go to school so the cycle of subsistence farming continues
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy Unrelated to the point I'm making.
tales of villages of people die from starvation from a poor harvest is as old as it gets
and it's only getting worse with climate change fucking things over
@@Jilktube Not really, I was adding to your point that most farmers are not what westerners think of as farmers. They basically don't make money.
"There is an increasing, albeit controversial, consensus that our modern global economic system might be working to widen the gap between rich and poor"
Controversial? Might? We even have massive gaps of wealth within developed countries. Scamming or enslaving poorer countries' citizens has been a thing for a while now. As if that has no significant effect on economy
he has to word it like that cuz he doesnt that to pick a side. his vids can already be mad controversial to some
I agree. It's nothing new. Even as someone drawing the short end of the stick, I accept this as reality. Labelling it as controversial only avoids the problem imo.
If that was true, and today everyone has access to education and so on, poor countries would not continue with the same position and do not change their strategy. (with some few examples as the Asian Tigers). Poor countries are poor because they are trapped in a poor mentality/lifestyle.
"Samming", "enslaving" those are buzz words you are using there. That may have been the case a century ago, but not today. Free trade is the key, and are trade is voluntary. Your thesis is wrong. You don't get rich, because others get poor. When two individuals exchange goods and services voluntarily, they both benefit (otherwise they wouldn't do the exchange). Now, some may be getting richer at a higher rate than others, but that isn't bad as long as the others are still getting richer. So, inequality is not inherently bad or good. It is just something that happens. People want different things so we shouldn't expect the same or similar outcomes for everyone.
@@pedromora9927 So wrong, not all trade is equally beneficial or voluntary. Larger economies can and do manipulate trade, via prices, bribery, sanctions, dodgey backhand deals, manipulation of government, manipulation of law and allsorts of very unscrupulous means..
Rich countries want poor countries to stay that way, unstable yet controllable.
Having read "Why Nations Fail" this video falls rather short in explaining the phenomenon. Any country could break out of its position if its institutions were structured to do so, yet few former colonies have achieved this. "The Mystery of Capital" is equally good reading as it demonstrates that capitalism is not working for most poor countries because property rights are not nearly as strong as they would need to be in order for capital (not money) to exist.
"Few former colonies have achieved this" - other than Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the largest economy in the world, the USA.
"Capitalism is not working for most poor countries because property rights are not as strong as they need to be"...... The lack of enforceable property rights says a lot more about corruption than it does about capitalism.
Can you link the book you are referring to in your comment.
What are these "strong property rights" you talk about and how do they influence capital production?
@@igorgracchia5788 If you take a loan to plant some crops on a land and then someone else steals them you’re not going to get any capital.
Not to mention no bank would even give a loan out to begin with if the property is not secure.
??????? Capitalism literally *encourages* the cultivation and maintenance of corrupt institutions since it allows large multinational corporations to bypass regulations and seize control of local institutions such as the police and courts. Consequently, these same MNCs are allowed to get away with illicit financial outflows, tax evasion, and indigenous dispossession without any accountability. This is the exact opposite of what you're proposing, since in every single one of these cases, the sovereignty of the company("pRopERTy RiGhTS") is prioritized over the wellbeing and security of the native population.
Some examples of this phenomenon in action include Nigeria and Honduras.
I am also genuinely baffled by this statement: "[They] are not nearly as strong as they would need to be for capital to exist". If they have the opportunity and resources to do so, capitalists are consistently more than eager to flood developing nations with their finance capital whether it be through FTAs, offshoring, etc. Have you ever heard of tax havens?
Australia kind of skews this though, they do send a lot of raw materials elsewhere, but they are a high GDP economy like a northern hemisphere nation.
You're really bad at this. You're just supposed to pretend that the things that get in the way of your preferred worldview don't exist.
Cuz yt
Because they don't get exploited by foreign company's.
Furthermore they have traditional strong tourist and work visa sector.
A strong public sector and a decent social security system. (Pretty bad by European standards) strong stimulus power.. and being part of the Nato and die to its locations nobody has the interest to invade them recently
Australia has strong property rights for individuals and government structures which allow for individuals to petition for redress if the marketplace is skewed towards dominant or monopolistic players. Most other natural resource driven economies (with the exception possibly of Botswana) tend not to have these institutions.
Ditto with New Zealand. A primarily agricultural country in the Southern Hemisphere that still happens to be an affluent first world society. But these are I suppose anomalies. The norm seems to be that in the Southern Hemisphere, most nations are either subtropical or tropical and thus have to deal with a lot of tropical diseases, drought and famine, thus virtually all of them end up being developing nations for the most part. There are other factors too, I suppose.
Brute majority of the developed + the emerging NICs, esp. the BRICS nations, happen to be in the North Hemisphere.
Well at the very least, we've enjoyed being better at Rugby than the Northern Hemisphere.
A key indicator that wasn’t mentioned.
This man speaks the truth
My man spitting the facts
Plus much superior kangaroo and kiwi racing!
and football :D
This video started out strong but somewhat degraded along the length of it. Too many factors conveniently, such as at 8:45. Wheat is a primary crops for europeans and north americans, while most of population of asian and african countries grow rice and corn.
13:01 the time that a country industrialize themselves almost is a redundancy considering that in global free market environment, countries have emerged tremendously fast from barely nothing such as Japan, which was first connected to industrialized world in mid 19th century compared to countries like Brazil and Mexico.
15:40 how come that demand of the primary goods stays the same when the demand of manufactured products goes up? Why is there an assumption that the manufacturers wouldn't try to increase the supply to meet the demand? This is somewhat violating market logic in the first place just to make the point that manufactured products' supply stay stable thus the demand for raw materials stay the same. Meanwhile the oil rigs constantly are built, mining is getting out of hand, etc.
Mexico and Brazil were slave agrarian states before and after their independences, especially Brazil.
Both had entrenched colonial structures that linger on as a source of major systematic problems to this day.
Both also had, thanks to them being extraction and not settler colonies like the USA, Australia and Canada, deeply entrenched post colonial agricultural aristocrats and later oligarchs that heavily opposed industrialization and as such stifled said countries' growth for decades or even centuries, and still are a force at play that we struggle to keep at bay. The time at which you industrialize is a factor at play, building infrastructure takes time and even if that time is lessened significantly today it still requires capital, which is not as easy to acquire from primary sources considering multinationals tend to be the ones to swarm in.
The reason Australia and New Zealand don't share the same issues faced by brazil and Mexico is due to their historical context being incredibly different, the difference between settler and extraction colonies correlates a lot on which former colonies ended up developing quickly. As for Japan, well they weren't colonized in the same aggressive manner, arguably not at all compared to their neighbors(such as Indonesia, which echoes a lot of the issues faced by other post extraction colony countries)
Even still, Brazil especially is the 9th largest economy in the world today, and as solutions to our major internal issues started to be applied we skyrocketed to near developed country status in the past two decades and likely will reach the full thing by this one, reach it country-wide that is as the brazillian south and southeast are either there or basically there... So long as we don't get 1964 CIA-d again that is.
@@AltaryaDeFlammes1996 who cares tho
@@sidjones1911 you clearly did if you took the time to write that or click in this video lmao
@@sidjones1911 you do
@@AltaryaDeFlammes1996 Canada was very much an extraction colony for lumber and furs. The vast colony remained largely unsettled for several hundred years. In fact Brazil surely received more settlers from Portugal pre-industrialization than Canada ever did from France and Britain.
Good one Sam!! Thanks
You know sometimes I forget that most of the worlds population is above the equator
Whereabouts do you live?
thanks to only 2 countries
@Homie I- I should stop clicking every link I see 😂😂😂.
@@gidd INDIA and CHINA
@@lukakulukaku2348 Bingo. India and China combined have a population of roughly about 2.7 billion, out of the current 7 billion people on this planet. With the 3rd place country, America, it goes up to 3 billion. The Southern Hemisphere has the Congo (both), Brazil, and Indonesia, but even combined, they don't equal even half of India's population.
There are so many people in India that you could kill 100,000 people there a day and it would still take 27 YEARS to drop India's population to that of 3rd place.
The northern hemisphere also has a huge geographic advantage for trade and culture exchange with inland seas like the Mediterranean or rives suitable for trade, these factors maybe not be as relevant today but it was a decisive factor for civilization development historically especially prior to and during the bronze age
What about the great African lakes and rivers?
@@youssefmohamed5638 Well, the Grand Canal of China was built by hand. It's not something that simply appeared to help the Chinese.
Bingo! It's also largely contiguous and so the many nations traded between each other, serving as a macro-level multiplier, allowing all the nations to thrive that much more!
@@EkEMaN91 You're merely thinking of excuses.
So I guess North America must be poor then... Oh wait
6:45 Super proud to see my country, Singapore, bucking the global trend by a large margin
Your example of the two countries at the end is so good. Such a good explanation!
Wouldn't the economic center of gravity technically be somewhere in the mantle?
Hmm yes a 3D think
How is the point that far north anyway? The entirety of the contiguous US, China, and most of Western Europe is South of it.
@@andrejsk6211 if you imagine it as a globe it is centerd pretty nicely.
no, unless theres a giant mantle economy there and you could reasonably prove it
i guess wendover is a flatearther then.
Just wanna point out that on minute 9:52 when talking about temperate climate, the area highlighted in the southern hemisphere is the Patagonia in both Chile and Argentina. Not a great place for crops. The weather on the southern hemisphere doesn't correlate 1:1 with the latitude and weather in the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere tends to be cooler, mainly because of the Humboldt current and stuff yara yara
thanx mate
yes, the patagonia has a clmate closer to syberia and northern canada than anything else. the temperate climate in south america is mostly right above what he showed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_climate#/media/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_C_present.svg
He said "temperate zones of latitude" though, and the temperate zones of latitude are defined as being between the tropics and the polar circles, so he's completely correct. If you're going to argue that Patagonia is wrong then you'd also have to argue that most of Asia and North America are wrong since the majority of these continents are also within temperate latitudes but without a (technically) temperate climate.
@@user-xi6by2we2i listen to the full line again: "those warm but not hot places are overwhelmingly located in the temperate zones of latitude". there are no "warm but not hot places" in patagonia, it's generally very cold.
then he mentions that these areas encompass very little of the SA's landmass, but again, the warm parts of south america aren't there in the first place, so it's simply dishonest to explain it like that.
@@floppyearfriend But Patagonia isn't "very cold", I have no idea why you think this, unless you're just thinking of the mountains (in which case the exact same applies to mountainous regions anywhere in the world) and southernmost tip which make up a very small proportion? Most of Patagonia has a similar temperature to central and northern Europe...
To me, this is less about southern hemisphere vs northern hemisphere, but rather simply about why Africa is so underdeveloped compared to most of the rest of the world. When you begin comparing hemispheres, the immediate thing that sticks out is just how comparatively little land there actually is below the equator. If this were truly south compared to north, you also would have to consider Australia and the South American countries a little more closely, and then I think the conclusions would be far different.
Nah, this has little to do with land actually, even accounting for that there is a strange divide between the wealth of the southern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.
Australia is one thing, but it is nothing compared to countries above the equator.
I learned something new, keep up the work!
I'm going to have to object to the claim about primary goods theory with counterexamples:
1) falklands islands economy is mostly fishing and farming yet beats the UK in GDP per capita
2) Arabian peninsula is again, mostly "primary goods" yet have a lot of wealth (well apart from yemen)
3) Australia produces mostly "Primary goods" and yet has one of the world's most developed economies
The issue is not the composition of the economy but rather the structure and institutions of the nation, a nation sitting on a huge bullion of gold gives its rulers little reason to educate the population, if anything that would be bad for their grip to power, an uneducated population sustaining off subsistence farming is far more commandable and just as effective at mining your gold as a well educated population. most of these countries have bad institutions that discourages investment and thus don't have the investment to grow.
1 and 2 don't make sense, but your point is good. One of the reasons Brazil is not a first world country is because it has a strong aristrocracy.
Historically sugar, coffe and rubber gave them so much money that they din't want to invest in industry at all, and even saboted the ones that did. The thing is that as long as they are making billions, why risk investing in high tech industries that will mostly likely go bankrupt. But for sure they will invest in things that will do good for them.
Australia's GDP is actually dominated by the service sector, which comprises around 61 percent of the economy, very similar to northern developed economies. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia
Similarly Saudi Arabia's service sector makes up more than half of their GDP with a good chunk also coming from industry.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia
As for the Falklands, it is true that they derive the vast majority of their GDP from fishing and agriculture, they really seem to be an exception. Cool note, similar to Norway, they have a kind of national wealth fund that has grown quite a bit over the years in order to try and diversify their economy.
My point here is that, although places may be known for exporting certain products or materials, most "developed" nations depend on the services and high tech industrial sectors. Australia and Saudi Arabia are developed nations and much less reliant on natural resources than one might think.
This all being said I don't disagree with you entirely and you have a good point, but the argument can be made that these places lack institutions because of things like colonization and in place infrastructure designed for resource extraction, built by colonizers, not by design to begin with.
The Falklands has, relative to it's population, a vast amount of ocean resources that they can collect fees. The Arabian peninsula managed to build a lot of their wealth through cooperation with other oil producing areas and basically price fixing through OPEC. Australia, I think, does a lot of the processing of their metal ores before they ship it, and, like the Falklands, have a relatively small population relative to their mineral wealth.
You can get rich exporting primary goods... they just have to be higher end primary goods and you have to be able to extract them with relatively low manpower (of course, if you are richer, you can buy more machines for that... you see some of the sulfur mines in Indonesia where they are basically being mined by hand... when you are mining by hand you don't get rich.
It's more of how you use the resources. Look at Saudi Arabia vs Iraq, both similar in size, climate, oil, etc.. but one is richer simply cause they used their oil in a smart way while the other did not. Nothing preventing Iraq or Venezula from doing the same, they just have to want to, but currently do not want to. When they want to then we will see breaking news reports of "economic miracle growth" there.
@@TheEmolano "The thing is that as long as they are making billions, why risk investing in high tech industries that will mostly likely go bankrupt."
This doesn't make sense to me. You can take more risks when you have more money, because even 1% of your total capital can be quite significant as "risk capital". If that venture goes bankrupt, it's still just 1%.
I don't think you can look at a whole hemisphere like this. What drives Africa is completely different to what drives Oceania and South America. Different histories, different geography, limited common factors.
I understand that it's just a mechanism to talk about your real topics, but still, I don't buy it.
ALL of the southern hemisphere was colonized and exploited by world super powers. That's what connects them all
@@bunnypeople Just like your mom. She got colonized by the whole block.
It is a common concept, the "Global South" basically refers to trend of nations in the southern hemisphere being poorer.
While it may not take into account that those nations vary greatly it is useful in drawing attention to nations less able to protect their people from coming challenges like Climate Change, Disease, Water shortages, political/ideological conflicts ect. And that when making policy in big nations/Entities like the USA, EU, Russia, China, NATO, ect. that less fortunate nations should be considered.
Example, Tampa Bay Florida built a desalination plant to supply fresh water from the ocean in a sustainable way. (25-35 million gal/day for $110 mil USD in 2007, built by private sector to save money) Compare that to the Nile valley nations fight for water rights, Sudan has a GDP of ≈30billion USD and has an entire nation to run. Adjusted for inflation that 1 plant costs ≈ 0.45% of Sudan's GDP, and they would probably need to pipe that water from their coast to their major population center along the Nile.
The ending point of the video is that economics kick you when you're down, and that is why poor nations with extraction/agrarian economies tend to stay poor. Rich nations can help with this for either charitable or selfish reasons (basically buying votes in the UN).
@Hernando Malinche if you don't like it then explain, with sources and examples to back up your point. Otherwise you are just insulting people on the internet.
Geopolitics are very complicated and the laws of economics are as unforgiving as the laws of the universe. Supply and Demand is just as indisputable as the Law of Gravity or Maxwell's Equations.
@@jasonreed7522 Simple answer for me corruption. The majority of governments in the southern hemisphere are inept and corrupt. If the resources had not been siphoned from the national budget by these corrupt politicians. Although slowly the developing nations would fare much better with more money being investing back into the people.
I Love how some people like to use Australia as a proof some individuals are superior , but totally ignoring the fact that most Australian cities are located in the southern Australia ... Where the climate is comparable to Europe ... Last time I spoke with a European guy, he seemed surprised to learn some of south American nations were actually as cold as the UK... There is a confusion between our human conception of the southern hemisphere and the realities of climate ... And btw latitudes are not the only determining factor since currents also influence climate. Don't forget NY is at the same latitude as Spain ...
There are so many variables to consider (even outside historical factors)...
Then explain darwin, Cairns, Broome, Townsville, and the hundreds of other towns and cities in the far north of australia
@@mwbgaming28 these are small towns !
Western territory and Queensland populations are mostly concentrated in the south (Perth and Brisbane)
Most of the Northern Territory is mining and tourism, I suppose these northern cities ensure Australia geographical integrity and serve as connection to southeast Asia and China. and NT is the least populated territory ... What a surprise !
You can go deeper by analysing economic figures.
This dude totally forgot one massive MASSIVE problem: Government corruption. They HAVE MONEY to build and improve their infrastructure. Hell the Governments around the world give "Foreign aide" aka Dictatorship fun fund. Stop blaming the west for the failure of the east and Africa. Its your own damn fault.
@@youwouldntclickalinkonyout6236 Yeah but that's not politically correct, and it makes Africa look like an underdeveloped shithole (which basically undermines the whole illusion that the left is trying to create)
@@Swyrynia91that's not the point I'm making
Hi! Dedicated fan here and I loved this breakdown! I try to understand macro-economic factors of the global economy and its peoples as much as I can.. hence I'm subbed to your channel(s).
I was wondering, could you do a gollow up on this video? 🤔
I understand that theory can and will likely change over time, as it already has. That said, the endeavor to counter this imbalance still seems prudent and worthwhile.
The obvious question then is simply.. How?
Knowing this, or rather believing it to be in part, if not wholly, disepparate and superior to the preceding theories upon which it has been wrought... what then shall we do? What is the ought here?
Specifically, what outliers exist in the data to demonstrate that a nation of manufacturers may increase the exponential output of current staple/raw goods producers?
I would certainly love to see what has worked so far (if anything) presented from your deliberate and studied perspective.
Thanks for presenting this material in such a digestible way. It absolutely leads my mind to the question of action for global benefit.
I appreciate your dilligent work, and look forward to whatever you present next.
I'll propose another explanation.
Eurasia sits entirely in the northern hemisphere. And for... all of history the major population, cultural and innovation centers were all located in a string from Europe to China going through the middle-east and India. Those civilization being close to each other ensured that innovations in one of those civilizations would end up spreading throughout the continent. While the Americas and Africa fell behind due to their isolation.
move every landmass down so that Eurasia gets bissected by the equator and it would be the same thing.
Why is the Indian subcontinent so poor? It was one of the biggest economies of middle age.
Edit: Of course, I know it's because of being under British rule. I was asking a rhetorical question. Some of you are arguing India is behind because of its lack of industrialization. But do you think if India was not being ruled by the British Monarch and was being used as the fuel for British industrialization, they wouldn't industrialize themselves? Westerners have a really white-washed history of the British rule of India.
Also, someone also mentioned that countries in the subcontinent slow downed after it's independence. Don't you have any idea how that might have happened? Don't you think the partition had anything to do with that? Are you saying that Separating a "SUB-CONTINENT" with diverse cultures and languages on the basis of religion, and in that manner had nothing to do with the geopolitical tension between Bangladesh-India-Pakistan that we can see to this day?
If your whole platform is that colonialism had little to nothing to do with the fate of every country on the sub-continent, then I'll say it was nice talking to you. Have a good day.
@@WhyWorldSucks First off, it is not as poor as commonly thought in the west.
And second, it is still industrializing, some parts of the subcontinents, mostly in India are already tech hubs, and parts of the south already enjoys good living conditions.
@@WhyWorldSucks Because the British Empire drained it of any wealth they could during the 19th century. China was never conquered to the same extent as India, but it did have a lot of internal strife throughout the 20th century, which is why it's ahead of India, but behind Europe and NA
@@shreyavenkat434 That's actually because Europe industrialised and the Americas went from having no nations at all to a whole bunch of them. Like the USA didn't even exist when India had 17% but was the #1 economy when India got independence. Also if you look at historical GDP growth for the region, British India had a higher rate of GDP growth than Mughal run India. It's the years since independence where India has fallen behind other developing nations like China.
@@WhyWorldSucks colonialism. the uk treated its colonies very differently. they treated colonies like singapore and hong kong really well because they were very important for the brits themselves and didnt have much natural resources to offer. the indian subcontinent meanwhile had a shit ton of resources, the most important one being spices, which could easily be exploited to oblivion, which is exactly what the uk did.
This is a pretty controversial one. In 'Why Nations Fail', they have devoted several pages to explain why exactly there is no correlation between poverty and latitude. There are far too many exceptions to the rule.
Poverty to me is a political problem, and we all know what aspects of politics contribute to poverty, in Sub-Saharan Africa, and even in certain parts of India (my country), where GDP per capita of richest states is almost 10 times those of poor ones.
Political institutions and poverty have the strongest correlation.
I did like your video though-keep it up !
This book is great
That's pretty much the conclusion of the video.
True. I was thinking about this as I watched.
I also think about this a lot (being Indian), but I never bought the conclusion of this book. While politics is indeed true, I feel the factors described in this video, then colonialism, lead to the broken politics argument.
Also the books thinking is very western centric, imo. That whatever achievements their society has gotten is not because simply geographical lottery, but their cultural superiority which lead to better politics.
@@arpanm71 This is definitely a tricky point and I might agree with you. One could argue politics isn't an independent entity, and also depends on geography, history etc. Like the book talks about broken politics of today in Latin America, because of their spanish colonial history.
It could be a chicken and egg situation. But for me, political institutions would still be the strongest factor.
"and has never, in modern history, enjoyed a similar level of development to it's northern counterpart" - Australia and New Zealand laugh.
Credit Suisse just awarded Australia the "world's richest citizens 2021".
I'd always wonder since living in one of the southmost Caribbean Islands, 'Trinidad', I'd wonder why there was so great a disparity between the lower and upper hemisphere, well, at least I've got some idea now. Thanks Great Vid by the way
You oversimplified the climatology way too much. Ocean currents have a big affect on the climate. You can't just draw an arbitrary line on the globe.
It's probably just an average line he drew.
ahhh, that makes sense
🟩 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE WENDOVER PRODUCTION🟩
And he kind of messed the timezones too. I speak by myself but I'm way more productive at 10C than in 30C, but it's factual.
@@DerpedOutTroll Yes, but he uses that to refute specific examples, all of which had different climates due to their geography.
You forgot that politics can be a factor whether a country can be rich or poor
The environment was there before politicians though
@@jeddafakee91 doesn't matter, you need the brain to bring the country out of the poor... just look at Singapore... they were on the a similar level as the African countries when they got independence, but the brains behind it's political elites brought it out of the pits.
@@PrograError I think you overlook the advantages of being conveniently located at a crucial geographical location in the world economy during a period where those straits saw increasing and increasing use.
@@PrograError Singapore is also quite small and you need me to list the people who were bringing good government go African but got assassinated by a rival with the help of the french and British for example? A lot of african countries were dictatorships for a long time after independence becuse the colonial powers never left, and once we got democracy then new leaders had to also play ball
@@PrograError Singapore leveraged it's location to get money. They then invested that money wisely in education, housing and a lot of other things. Think of it like compounding interest... the bank may be paying a high rate, but if you don't have money to put in the account in the first place you won't get rich.
But, you are right... you can get money and if you mismanage it you can end up poor. Look at Nauru. They had a ton of wealth from nitrates. They used up the nitrates and now they are one of the poorest countries in the world, with all these super expensive cars sitting broken down along the sides of their roads. Having a resource that you can use up can be a real trap. You export it, which gives you a glut of foreign currency, which drives down the cost of imports, which destroys any local industry, but people don't notice, because for a little while they have money and purchasing power. Then the resource goes away and you don't have anything. That's one of the reasons countries like Saudi Arabia have sovereign wealth funds (a way to get that extra foreign currency out of their economy so their local industry can do all right, and a way to hedge future income) and why they are trying to diversify into banking). Nauru, on the other hand, invested in flop Broadway musicals and get rich schemes.
Thank you for the video. A lot of interesting, relevant information, but I think much of it is far more pertinent to how the divide initially happened than to why it persists. It's a sad state of affairs that the theory you described at the end is even taken seriously. From Ireland and Scandinavia to Singapore and Botswana, dirt poor countries, even agricultural backwaters in modern times compared with developed economies, have become wealthy in a generation or two (Botswana is still a bit early on) by simply developing certain repeatable features. In fact, pretty much every country of any size that has become wealthy has either done these same things, or had large quantities of oil. The trap you described simply does not exist, though it's reasonable to call it a minor speed bump.
Jared Diamond's classic Guns Germs and Steel offers an interesting look at similar questions. Another factor is that Asia and Europe are oriented generally east-west, whereas the Americas (particularly South America) and Africa are oriented more north-south. When you domesticate a useful plant species, it is easy to spread it east-west. Generally the climate is consistent when you move that way. North south is a LOT more challenging. There's also a meaningful difference in the distribution of species that are suitable for useful domestication. It just so happened that Europe and Asia lucked into having more native animals and plants that were adaptable to farm use, compared to Africa and South America.
Thank you, that fact came to my mind as I was watching this and was surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Video uploader is bad. He didn't reference Jared Diamond's book. It is proven that literacy, education, and spread of information help develop a society and push it to innovate and create higher value products.
Andrew Beveridge Agreed, but notice that Diamond basically kept China out of the discussion. And China led Eutope for centuries, even millennia.
@@dennisweidner288 The basic premise of the book was "why did Europeans conquer the Americas, and not the other way around?" Within that frame, the minimal discussion of China is perfectly sensible.
@@AndrewBeveridge461 I have to admit that I read the books years ago. But I seem to recall a wider frame than just the Americas. (You yourself mention not only the Americas, but also Eurasia--the geographic orientation.) I'll have to dig it out and have a look. But at any rate, the question remains that China led Europe in technological innovation until about the 17th century. In fact, before that time much of Europe's technology came from China. After all, trade with China was important because they had goods the Europeans wanted. The problem for the Europeans was they had very little the Chinese wanted. Spain solved this problem because they found a mountain of silver (Potosi). This financed the China trade. Even as late as the 19th century this was a problem that led to the Opium Wars. The British wanted to use opium to pay for Chinese goods and the Imperial government tried to stop it.
So why was it that Europe invented modernity (democracy, capitalism, science, the industrial revolution, etc.?) This leads me to my main criticism of the Dimond book--ignoring the power of ideas, especially capitalism. It is capitalism that explains to a large degree why it was the West that dominated the world. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Diamond book is insightful, an important work. But I don't remember any discussion of the power of ideas.
So hear me out.
Gravity goes down.
So in Southern Hemisphere the money falls out into the sky.
I think you're on to something. Write that down dammit, write it down!
Wait does that mean there is a pool of millions of dollars worth of international currency in the north pole? Ok some grab me a polar bear I have some plans.
Replying to myself as I didn't realize r/usernamechecksout
I feel like you're overlooking the sociological and historical factors that lead to these economic "prosperities."
agreed.
There are many exceptions for the "sociological factors". Also, this one is very biased by ideological beliefs
For example, rampant imperialism by Britain and the US
@@TurboZarya some peoples took lessons from empire and became rich, others were nuked twice over and still became rich, others who complain stayed poor.
@@churblefurbles you realize that not every country can be rich right? In order to be rich you have to take from others. This mindset you have is just stupid. Nobody is poor because they want to be or are incapable of becoming rich.
I heard from this Half as Interesting guy, Wendover Productions was supposed to be named Bendover Productions
Great video as always
This video kind of feels like it is everywhere, yet missing a lot of important info.
Economics Explained video on "Why Are Cold Countries Richer Than Hot Countries?" is a less comprehensive topic, but does a much better job exploring its topic.
Whatifalthist's video on "How Does Latin America Work?" is a very good answer as to why many Latin American countries as still poor.
Link to Economics Explained video on "Why Are Cold Countries Richer Than Hot Countries?"
th-cam.com/video/lmrra8i4hZY/w-d-xo.html
Link to Whatifalthist's video on "How Does Latin America Work?"
th-cam.com/video/efz4Aket2ao/w-d-xo.html
I am literraly subscribed to all of these channels haha Do you have some other recommendations ?
@@pseudounknow5559 macro & money.
Kraut's American-Mexican border series excellently explains why much of central and south America is so much poorer than the US and Canada.
The short answer is that Spanish colonialism was a different beast from British colonialism.
@@gabrielfraser2109 I think Kraut's video is mostly based on the book Why Nations Fail.
As others have said, splitting the world in two based on an imaginary line is not the best, Africa and Australia have little in common. Continents are highly variable and have direct influence within themselves, that should have been the topic.
Northern Europeans displaced the native populations of North America, Australia and New Zealand. It is they who are responsible for the high GDP of those countries. Unfortunately native populations missed great opportunities for advances in science, trade, communication, travel, and wealth creation not missed by Europeans. Separating the globe into north and south without considering people's origins makes the video seem contrived.
@@randyfone2067 It's not exactly fair to say they "missed" the opportunities to advance since they often didn't have the means to use those opportunities in the first place. The European settlers came in with more advanced technology and domesticated livestock which literally didn't exist in those regions of the world.
It not imaginary
An imaginary line? Imaginary? Really?! Have you never actually figured out what the equator is?
@@thatmanfred It is imaginary. There isn't a giant line around the planet that we can see from space. It's a concept that we use to separate north and south
There is a fatal flaw in one part of your analysis. 13:45 :- after decolonization, the wealth has continued to go to former colonizers through various coercive means as well as inherent corruption of local power groups (including, but not limited to, "Banana Republic" countries). These are the result of political machinations of multiple countries through organizations like GATT and later, WTO.
Poor countries export primary goods, and the manufactured goods are sold back to those same countries. This is exactly the model followed by European colonial powers, which famously went to the extreme of forcing even drug trades (e.g., the opium wars in China) and making basic products illegal (e.g., domestic production of salt ... yes, sodium chloride, the stuff we add to food, being made illegal in India). Today, the process is more subtle, but countries like the Central African Republic are still forced -- or coerced -- to sell cobalt and other minerals at dirt cheap prices, just so that finished products like cell phones and other electronics can remain at a reasonable price for a consumption-based economy in other parts of the world. There is a huge amount of academic and policy research on this topic, but I rarely see this being discussed in more easily accessible fora.
Very true
Exactly- it continues to be lost- or maybe, so pervasive as to be invisible- that the Euro-north would not be wealthy were it not for resources usurped from others- most especially the global south nor could it maintain this status without ongoing usurpation, though more covert. Nothing "free market" about any of this, rooted in colonial law. This parasitic economic model is, on this tiny, finite, closed loop of an earth, unsustainable & reliant upon oligarchy/mobsters.
In addition to rampant corruption in developing countries. Not that there is not corruption in the developed world, but when it happens in a place with limited resources the effect is more severe. For example, the money laundered, robbed, misplaced abroad, could have been used in developing a countries industry and manufacturing. We are talking about billions of dollars annualy lost due to local corruption, at least here in Ecuador.
The sad, unfortunate Divine justice of this economic model rooted in theft is it now being turned against those, previously, chosen-thus-exempt citizens from the colonial-monied developed nations. The same corporations (the "big men" behind them) are colonizing them, their assets, governing structures, local-oriented production/services...freedom. Indeed, as MLK warned (& Thomas Jefferson!), injustice to one begets injustice for all.
And I think the "poor" countries ar actually the rich. Who needs who? Imagine the world if it suddenly shifted to real asset-based currencies, what Gaddafi, Saddam, Chavez etal were working on for oil-trade. Thanks for sharing History.
Very good digestible vid. This needs to be shown in schools.
A theory is not a consensus. It’s a model for explaining an aspect of reality which attempts to take into account all available data relating to that aspect. Some theories hold more explanatory power than others and might eventually come to be regarded as consensus, at least until the next “paradigm shift”. You should look into Thomas Kuhn!
Thats not what the bible says
You have to talk to God before writing all this stuff
That's not really how the term "theory" is used in the scientific community. "consensus" might be too strong a word, but not by much.
@@PP-xs7hu I wish I could talk to God
@@PP-xs7hu, This literally has nothing to do with god.
2020: wendover and planes
2021: Wendover and therefore.
“and so on, and so fourth”
You're ignoring the fact that the kgb and cia often times interfered with the economies of many countries and stopped the development of those countries for several decades.
Yeah exactly just look at the Cuban blockades
Edit: embargoes*
@@tacct1kk715 Cuba doesnt have a blockcade
@@ferbsol2334 embargo is the word I was looking for sorry
yeah thats also cope btw, like half of this video
Perfect explanation !!
Oh boy. This is going to be a fun comment section.
Don't worry, its being censored heavily.. The truth won't be allowed too much leeway here.
And here... we... Go! 🤡
@@cecilhenry9908 What's that supposed to mean?
@@Menon9767 It’s true the YT algorithm takes down A LOT of comments
@@Menon9767
They're mad they can't say the n-word. It's literally just that.
I recommend the book "Why Nations Fail" to the video creator and all the viewers who want to dig deeper.
The factor of political instituons is another highly influential one, which is very well explained in the book.
I’ll have to check that one out. I read “why national fail” and it largely discusses the difference that inclusive vs extractive institutions can make for a country.
@@djolsen13 that's the one I meant :'D
Everything stems from geography
@@curious_one1156 then why are there differences between South Korea and North Korea? Or the South Western part of the US and the Northern part of Mexico?
Fantastic book by Acemoglu.
Good video, but it ignored one of the biggest factors holding back poorer economies: corruption. Global corruption indices regularly rank poorer countries as far more corrupt than wealthier ones. This is because their public officials regularly steal from national treasuries and pocket most of the foreign aid that wealthier nations send in the hopes of speeding development. This leads to a culture of corruption within the top echelons of the government that makes the elites very rich while leaving the general population poor. It also discourages foreign companies from investing or building in those countries, as they must continually grease the palms of those in power or risk being shut down. This cycle is self-perpetuating, as even when a new leader takes power, they rarely succeed in changing the corrupt networks that are entrenched throughout all levels of the government. But where does this corruption originate? Of course the answer is complicated and varies by country, but at its core, it is usually a result of different values and principles among the general population. For example, while western economies place great value on personal property rights, and have created immense legal systems to enforce them, many other cultures around the world have a more tribal/communal mentality that allows members to take whatever they need from others as needed. This leads to a general acceptance of theft as an acceptable, albeit not ideal, activity. So when the local public official dips his hand into the state coffers, it is not frowned upon as much as it would be in the west. This may not be a racial problem, but it is certainly a cultural one, and one which has thick ties to the history and religious values of each country, among other factors.
On a related note, this is why early colonialism was viewed favorably; the "backwards" cultures of the world could be tamed by the "superior" European mindset to produce a more productive native culture and economy. In some instances, this philosophy was proven correct, whilst in others the cultural clashes proved disastrous for the local population. Generally speaking, however, colonialism did manage to lift less-advanced societies into a higher economic output and establish more organized national boundaries and identities, for which we should not be overly judgemental of early colonizers nor too dismissive of their ideas.
I don't feel like your theory about why poorer countries are more corrupt holds any water, you could construct many different arguments based on the same culture. I could say that the core reason for corruption being so low in Sweden is because it _does_ have a communal mentality; there's a long tradition of collectivism which means people have greater respect for collective resources and see funds as "ours" rather than the government's so politicians are less likely to use those funds for nefarious purposes. When they do, there's more outrage than in more individualistic cultures because they didn't just steal money from the government or even from me, they stole it from _all_ of us so we're in this fight together.
This might be true but evidently different conclusions can be made about the impact of certain cultural values. If we could say for sure that individualism and valuing private property are some of the key components for deterring corruption, why would the US be so much more corrupt than Scandinavia?
One concept that was missed was the European/European farmers improving South Africa. This wasn't just a geography thing.
The truth hurts
improving south africa through apartheid 🤡?
@@unlockedaccount yes
@@ItsDemiMondaine no + racist
@@unlockedaccount Yes.
Now I can use this video to tell my friends why I can’t buy them lunch
Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated? I see the way you're acting like you're somebody else. Gets me frustrated. Just admit that you love the videos I make, my dear in
Hahaha
@A Z a g a m e t h e o ry
@A Z I don't get it.
📀 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE WENDOVER PRODUCTION 📀
Good grief... his "temperate zone" cuts out Sicily, Egypt, and Mesopotamia... the historical breadbaskets of the Roman Empire!
It’s been a few thousand years, the climates likely shifted a bit since then
@@arthurclery5731 Iran and Egypt are in the top 20 for agricultural output.... Sicily isn't, but that might be because its small size means the net output is small.
The cradle of agriculture and civilization.
@@cavvieira Indeed. And to clarify my previous comment, I meant the top 20 today.
@@arthurclery5731 Yeah, there probably weren't 50 degrees Celsius every summer in Basra like there are now. High temperatures (just like very low ones) WILL negatively impact productivity. No one can work in 50 degrees heat without putting his life in danger. But at least in low temperatures you have low-tech means to increase the temperatures. In hot temperatures you basically all but need A/C (except in very dry desert climates, where you can get away with more rudimentary evaporative coolers - the technology was known in medieval Persia, BTW).
How on earth did you manage to make a 20 minute video about wealth and poverty and not mention China?!
4:27 you got me there, almost believed it
So we're not going to talk about what happened to formerly colonial governments after decolonization? How so many high positions of power were filled by corrupt officials with wildly out of touch economic policies? Decolonization and localized governance is a good thing, but I believe its mismanagement stymied some countries' development by at least 100 years.
best part is that certain countries had their borders drawn specifically to keep them at each other's throat while the colonisers can still succ dem profits
@@wbw911 No. The borders, as arbitrary as they may be, were drawn by imperial powers long before anyone was thinking about decolonization.
@@Max-ve5tu Many? Please, name more than Hong Kong and Singapore. It sounds like you're just offended at your country being at fault for others suffering in any way. If you counted all the former colonies, almost none of them are "doing just fine". And how would us admitting superpowers messed them up stop them from developing???
It's not rocket science to realize that rich nations did a lot of damage to poor ones, and that even after decolonization we didn't stop meddling by assassinating leaders we don't like, installing dictators that are friendly towards what we want, funding coups and civil wars, etc. You'd have to have never studied the histories of these nations (or ours) to believe that.
@@Max-ve5tu Sure there are some countries that are fairing better than others, modern day Rwanda is a good example. But the number of countries in which an in an increase in prosperity (ushered in by responsible governance and sound policy) immediately followed decolonization certainly make up a small minority of the cases.
But the fact that the colonizer came from temperate regions and the south globe got colonized has everything to do with this video.
While throughout history Europe, the Near East and Asia had major empires and civilizations, the global south was basically forever undeveloped - thus easy targets for eventual colonization.
From below the equator line, the ONLY historical power and civilization that I can think of is the Incas. The only one, on the entire human history.
“Why the Southern Hemisphere is poorer”
Australia and New Zealand: *laughs in rich*
Australia is especially contradictory to the theory presented as it is a wealthy country that also primarily produces primary products.
@@jinyuliu2871 And mining
South Africa has join the group
@@justtrip7554 nah SA is fucked
@@thebpulse6477 uhhh… Wine and Coal tho?
Edit. Thought you meant South Australia
The whole primary vs manufactured goods theory seems to be the same argument sometimes used to explain the general disparity found between rural and urban areas within a country.
Very well researched
It is funny how he choses what examples to use, for example: he ignores that many countries in Asia or even in Europe have the same level o development as south America. When he talks about farming he also ignores the fact Brazil is the second food exporter just behind USA. He also don't take in consideration that Australia and new Zealand are in the south hemisphere. This video was more like Africa and not south hemisphere as a whole.
you should know that the food production of brazil its somewhat new, terrain is not that good, but is cheap and able to grow GMOs adapted organism for feeding animals
He is scared of being labelled racist. Which is why he disregarded any racial differences.
@@cleetorres676 what racial differences?
As a half-Brazilian and half-German, I can't really support this point.... First of all, practically all countries in Europe have a higher development than Brazil (except for some countries of the former Eastern Bloc and countries that have been affected by wars in recent years, e.g. Bosnia).
Secondly, I know the differences in agriculture between Germany/Europe and Brazil and I must say that the two countries have completely different conditions for agriculture. In general, the natural conditions are much more favorable in Germany. Yes, Brazil is an important exporter of agricultural products, but the difference is that the necessary investments are much higher in Brazil. If you want to farm profitably in Brazilian states like Mato Grosso, you have to invest a lot of money in infrastructure. In addition, the soil conditions are worse than in Central Europe. As a result, only large-scale farmers can afford to farm there at all. Yes, these large-scale farmers make great profits from agricultural exports, but these profits do not reach the normal population. Among other things, this leads to the fact that the wealth in Brazil is extremely unequally distributed... In order for a country to really develop, however, prosperity must reach everyone, and that is currently not in sight in Brazil.
@@cleetorres676 The non existent biological differences that you can’t even prove with genetics?
Video forgets important factors:
- Finance: WHO controls the money?
- Political influence on Governments and corruption
- Weapons and war
- Education, child labor and the role of women
All are present in underdeveloped countries, but aren't those just more consequences of the factors discussed in the video?
I agree all factors there have been direct consequences of the geographical diffences allowing the countries in Europe etc to develop much quicker there for being able to control finance bigger army’s and having the money to allow for better education
What you suggest, however, leads to all kinds of conspiracy theories about just who controls the world. Starting with the Rothschild family and their influence on international finance.
@@ewanmcpherson9368 I think religion and culture also play a part. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Iran. Both Muslim but Iran has a diversified economy with a lot of talent. Afghanistan still looks the same culturally to the Afghanistan that the British Empire interacted with. While Asia was growing Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages.
Japan and Germany have a hard working mentality. Both had few resources and went on to wage war on multiple countries in WW2 winning huge swaths of land despite being outnumbered by their opponents before eventually being overcome by the manufacturing capabilities of the US and USSR. Germany was in ruins and Japan got atom bombed twice but both then became the largest economies in the world right behind the USA (if you discount the Soviets) years after WW2. And both kept those positions until the largest population in the world, China, overtook them around decade ago.
Argentina is mostly a white country in the Southern Hemisphere but is plagued by corruption and inflation.
@@Sacto1654 More white christians control more wealth than any other demographic, but please tell us your theories on Jewish billionaires being the catalyst. Bonus points if you can sneak in blood libel and totally ignore the oppression of Jews in europe which led to their history in finance since they weren't allowed in the traditional wealth-growing industries by the church and governments at the time.
I learned so much from this video, thank you! It explained it very well and gave me a lot to think about. I also want to say the music was absolutely gorgeous and I had to stop to listen to it a few times
Yeah! Cool vid man!
"The temperature or physical environment of a place does not change a person in any meaningful way."
You should ask an endocrinologist about that. Temperature and physical environment _absolutely_ change people in meaningful ways. Hormone balance changes according to temperature, and hormones affect everything, even which parts of the brain are upregulated and downregulated. Heightened aggression in hot weather is extremely well-documented.
yes Sam is quite wrong with that statement, equatorial area are one of the poorest region on the planet, that is not a mere coincidence.
Also, disease and parasite load has at the very least epigenetic effects that will take a generation or two to disappear, even if you could just switch off the causes immediately. Still, his explanation is mostly right, and the racist's "it's all genes" is mostly wrong. In any case, the best explanation is probably "Small differences + Compound Interest + Time", and whatever you do to the small differences now will help very little for quite a long time.
And those changes also become selective for reproduction and get passed down and accentuated. It's a bit dehumanizing but we do have to acknowledge that societies knowingly or not breed the traits they find preferable.
Dude! This is, unequivocally, racist! /s
True but hot and cold are relative to what your body is conditioned to. A hot day in chicago is a average day in LA, a hot day in Arizona is a heat wave in Minnesota, and a cold day in Montana is a blizzard in Texas. And that is in the US alone.
Japan was like "We don't have shitload of arable farmland or gold or oil so we need to manufacture stuff."
And we have a nation of smart, disciplined people who can pull it off.
Boy it's almost like the logic in this video is total bullshit.
Singapore uses a similar argument I think to decide to base it's economy on attracting more foreign investment, & thus have it's policies favour that e.g. worker unions have to be under the government-linked NTUC organisation (except ALPA-Singapore for pilots), where they agree to seek pay raises only when productivity has increased, and are reluctant to go on strike (perhaps a reason why we have more ambivalent relations with Japan as compared to China or S Korea, despite having been conquered by them in WW2, is that many of our earliest foreign investors were Japanese companies also). That same argument is also used to lower some political expectations, such as by arguing that some populist policies e.g. welfare state, pensions are unaffordable as a result
@@wyqtor LOL, not always. They censored shitloads of general knowledges from the classroom.
Like the Nazi shit, the occupations by the Japanese Imperialist and even slavery in the US. Many Japanese curb their potential by following blind cultural values.
Many of them are blind to the world. Hence why South Korea able to catch up to them in short decades.
@@16tonw8 Everything he said made sense though
Not the US National Hockey League, the CanAm National Hockey League. Canada's National Sport. "He shoots, he scores!"
About the 12:00 minute mark.
I am interested in the historical differences like how Greece, Rome, Constantinople, etc were the epicenter of the world at a time despite being relatively close to the equator.
Or how the early civilizations like Indus River Valley, Mesopotamia, Aztec Empire, Egypt, and China where all successful despite also being close to the equator or in the global south.
Or how Japan had hyper industrialization during the Meji restoration.
Or why some southern/equator countries are (supposed to be) successful ie Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Venezuela (was on track), Saudi Arabia (successful despite being in the desert)
the "temperate" zone in southern hemisphere is a bit further north than the one displayed on the map. Pataonia is not temperate and nearly no crops can be harvested there. While southern brazil and cnter-north argentina are great places for many crops.
In Australia A triangle between Canberra, Adelaide And Melbourne for Farming
yeah, and I don't believe for a second that the centre of wealth has a lattitude about the same as moscou. That's doesn't make any sense.
because he is just looking at latitudes; you need to look also water currents and the effect that Antarctica has on the southern seas, also the fact that when is winter in the southern hemisphere the sun is also further from the earth so the winters are colder
@@Robbedem It does, as on a globe the (spherical) triangle of the US, EU and China is centered to the north of all its vertices.
@@Robbedem "I don't believe for a second"
Me neither, belief is for … well, better not say. Dump it and check the fact.
The analogy to the NHL is a poor analogy. As when a new team joins the league, an expansion draft occurs, in which they take a player from each of the other teams, and they also get some good picks in the nornal draft. Also, the whole league pulls from the same set of players, and the total salary they can play the players is fixed. Yes, time for development of a team can be a factor in performance, as team's often go through multiple year rebuilding phases, but there has definitely been enough time for them to develop from where they started. In addition the Vegas Golden Knights have been in the league just 3 seasons now and have done very well all 3, even making it to the Stanley cup Final during their first season. So, total development time is almost a non factor.
even on the Blue Jackets topic, the Wild have been more successful than them, even when they entered at the same time. The Blue Jackets only got better with better management, and this season was just the end of the team could do with the pieces it had. Also, the Leafs have been one of the oldest teams in the league, yet their failures are numerous, especially when other, way newer teams have been more successful
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment but wasn’t his point also that the Blue Jackets time for development doesn’t really have much of an impact on their success right now?
go habs lol
The analogy served it’s purpose with the information provided, every analogy will have differences to the situation you are trying to describe that’s why you only describe the relevant parts, I don’t think the writer had much concern for draft timelines or anything like that just the relevant parts.
Lets just agree that its awesome to hear about hockey in an educational video
Wow this was great
Great video.
19:19 "As some countries are stuck selling food, minerals and other raw materials... " Yeah you just described Australia.
and the UK is the one now buying it because of Brexit
even Germany
For what it's worth, Australia has a pretty small population for all those raw materials to support. Most raw material based nations tend to have much more appropriate population sizes relative to their landmasses. It also has pretty much no internal (tribal or sectarian divisions) or external (hostile neighbours or unstable borders) tensions, unlike most other nations.
Australia has a very small population. Essentially, it is just a coastline. Coastlines are alawys rich. Poverty of poor nations comes from large segment of population away from coastline.
The US also sells a lot of food abroad and it does mine some raw materials for itself.
I'm pretty sure highly devoped countries also produce a lot of raw materials.
i mean. the US produces a ton of food but compared to the rest of its economy is a small percentage. the problem comes when that is all of your economy.
I'm also pretty sure that less economically developed countries produce lots of raw materials and have lots of natural resources too. Development economics is very complex and a myriad of factors are in play.
They are actually the biggest producers in most primary materials.
japan...singapore...no
There are generally 3 accepted types of economies.
First is the type that generates wealth by mining/ cutting/ farming raw materials and selling them (In general these are very poor countries).
Second are the types of economies that use those raw materials to produce goods and use them or sell them (Most wealthy countries used to be this before switching to third type, notable example was China until very recently).
The third and generally accepted to be the last stage of capitalism for wealthy countries is the Service economy (Which for example made up 67% of US GDP in 2018 and its even higher now).
While highly developed countries do produce raw materials, those don't really contribute much to their economies compared to their service sectors. Australia well known for its rich minerals and beef has 2.09% of its GDP come from agriculture and 25.2% from industry, meanwhile service sector makes up 66.15% of its GDP. Even China is a service economy now with the service sector making up 54% of its GDP.
This is a good video!
Great Video but you missed one VERY Crucial element: Corruption. The Issue of Corruption is a Large factor in the fact that a Lot of resource rich countries who SHOULD be making a lot of money from their extractive economies, certainly enough to kick start their own development into manufacturing economies, are simply unable to. Corruption is in part a local issue and in part an International issue. Local rivalries and elitism in a lot of those countries encourage the spread of corruption and it is exacerbated by outside political and economic tampering from foreign (usually former colonial) powers and Private Multinationals. This is certainly the case for most of Africa and the Middle east where the elites usually seize power and work to entrench and enrich themselves through corruption and are backed/provided political and economic cover by Outside powers who are happy to exploit the situation to make sweetheart deals that enrich them at the cost of the well being of the natives of the country.
This, plus tariffs imposed by the developed world on food imports. Africa could export a significant amount of food to the EU, but protective tariffs prevent them from doing so.
@@Haren94 Absolutely. It's Free Markets until it is not in their favor, then it's not so free.
I agree with what you say and let me add: corruption is a symptom and a tool of colonialism (of course it exists on every country on earth, but it plays an special and particular role in underdeveloped ones), the rich country's necessity of a corrupted elite governing a 3rd world country is fundamental so those elites can maintain power by selling their country's resources for 2 cents to them. That's why any proposal of changing this situation is answered by a reactionary attempt to keep the status quo even to the point of recurring to a coup d'état with outside help and other kinds of interventionism on foreign affairs by central powers.
In 3rd world countries many people think the root of their poverty is just "corruption" when in reality it is geo-political economical interests that breed that corruption.
There is a saying that translates like this "I am not so worried about those from outside who want to buy our country, I'm more worried about those from inside who want to sell it".
Another anomaly to the hot/cold theory: Singapore is tropical and rich, while North Korea is cold and poor.
Well, one socialise to every country to survive as a nation. One closed of to the world. It is about networking really
@@daisuke910 exactly, the weather is almost not relevant in these cases.
@@daisuke910 the uk is cold and rich
Singapore isn't just a hot/cold anomaly, it's a regional anomaly. Both of those examples are easily explained by politics and economic policy.
It’s almost as though Singapore, as is Australia, New Zealand, Child and Argentina, is populated by people from the northern hemisphere.
I'm looking at the graph at 6:30 and wondering if there's a survivorship bias here. It would be interesting to see if the nations farther from the equator have only lasted so long because they either got wealthy or failed quickly, because agriculture isn't as strong father from the equator.
The road barricade on the right at 18:26 says "Beware of Hackers". Interesting.
The quick answer is: Europeans.
England didn't "experience" the industrial revolution, it created it, mate.
In part. The first industrial revolution featured key inventions made all across Europe, while the second industrial revolution was definitely more centred in Britain, though France and other European countries still made significant contributions to it as well, and all of them enjoyed the benefits of both revolutions.
@Hernando Malinche That's not what I argued though, is it?
Don't forget that steam driven processes were at the crux of the Industrial Revolution. And the father of thermodynamics was a young French guy named Nicolas Sadi Carnot.
Wheat is an incredibly weird crop to use as an example. In Equatorial regions you can grow palm oil and cassava, far more calorie efficient crops per hectare...
In addition to rampant corruption in developing countries. Not that there is not corruption in the developed world, but when it happens in a place with limited resources the effect is more severe. For example, the money laundered, robbed, misplaced abroad, could have been used in developing a countries industry and manufacturing. We are talking about billions of dollars annualy lost due to local corruption, at least here in Ecuador.
Surprised no mention of corruption. These indicators also correlate closely with gdp and explain lack of development in many regions, even those with rich, valuable natural resources. Also explains why Australia and NZ are more like Europe than other S Hemisphere economies.
Poverty breads corruption, and corruption slows the development.
@@lampyrisnoctiluca9904 then how the hell did europe get so damn ruch so quickly.
@@dannydanny865 Because they had to keep the people on the stick. If they treated them to badly revolutions would happen and its not like the wealth gained from empire and slavery didn’t help.
@@lif3andthings763 First of all slavery was abolished in the 19th century. By the british empire and yes slavery was widely practiced across all their empire not by them but from the natives of the conquered land. Also except for some particular cases colonial empires did not actually earn any money from their colonies. Before you mention Portugal and Spain remember those two nations are some of the poorest in western europe.
@@dannydanny865 By being close to the arab world, being situated near the Atlantic ocean, the colonisation, industrial revolution, printing press...
Countries like Canada and Australia are amongst the biggest exporters of food and minerals, yet they are amongst the richest in the world. The biggest reason why poor countries are poor is because they are unstable. No one is going to invest in building a factory if there is the possibility of a mob burning it down or a dodgy government confiscating it. In 1960 South Korea and Zambia had roughly the same income per person. Now South Korea is very wealthy while Zambia has gone... no where. A *stable society, rule of law and negligible corruption* encourage investment, education, building of infrastructure and all the other things necessary for a country to become wealthy, if a country doesn't have those things, they go backward.
17:35 "just because you're necessary doesn't mean you're important".
The greatest correlation is between poverty and corruption. Africa’s leaders (and police forces, civil service, customs etc) are abhorrently corrupt, but remain in power, as does poverty.
Australia: In Southern Hemisphere, but rich
Sudan: In Northern Hemisphere, but poor
Sudan: black folks
Straya : white folks
Australia and New Zealand buck the trend anyway, but there is also a much more prominent trend than the north-south disparity, and that is that the further away from the equator you live, the richer you are likely to be. In Africa, the richest countries are the ones at the very south and very north of the continent, and in South America, the difference is particularly pronounced, with the countries of the southern cone (Chile, Argentina and Uruguay) being markedly richer and more developed than their more northern counterparts.
Of course all of this is just loose trends, and individual countries' peculiar circumstances almost always have a more profound impact. Thailand and Myanmar are at roughly the same latitude for instance, but Thailand is (relatively speaking) an economic powerhouse, while Myanmar is among the poorest and most unstable countries in the region. Similarly Argentina, while much richer than its northern neighbours, still can't match Chile and Uruguay because of its decades of political and monetary instability.
Well, again, you don't have much wealth in the desert wastes of Australia, instead, the population and highest development rates are in the temperates coastal regions.
If the people in these countries swapped land with each other, i wonder whether or not they would swap gdps'?
@@rjfaber1991 Also there's singapore, the outlier of outliers in this thing.
How do you explain the economy of Finland? A very rich country with African-level agricultural output and no natural resources that was one of the poorest countries in Europe only 70 years ago. And how about Australia? African-level output again and very rich.
The Australian economy is dominated by its service sector, comprising 62.7% of the GDP and employing 78.8% of the labour force in 2017.[6] Australia has the tenth-highest total estimated value of natural resources, valued at US$19.9 trillion in 2019.[35]so even though mining is a big sector, 8-9%, but its not the entire economy. do not know about why Finland manage to escape being a agrarian economy in 1950s, but the entire nordic area has done quite well
It's pretty easy to explain, but then some people might not like the answer XD
@@Burt1038 Please explain if you can. I'm curious. Won't be offended by any racist theories either. I think there is some truth in it. Feel free to explain.
@@amreshmohan3979 I don't think (personally at least) it is so much a 'race' issue as it is perhaps a 'culture' thing. Western nations have a particular way of being that works for them and can be successfully applied to culturally similar countries. But as we've seen in the US' various attempts to 'westernize' the political and culture identities of several countries over the past few decades, it's sort of like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Perhaps the more eastern style of advanced civilization works better for those cultures and countries, I don't know, but trying to model the social and political functions of Zambia after Sweden or Australia... wont fit.
I've been to a couple different 'backwater' countries and got to experience the cultures there to different degrees, but besides that this is a largely uninformed opinion that perhaps only makes sense in my head.
Why do you think Finland was so poor 70 years ago? What happened around that time that might have limited it's economic growth?
It would be interesting to compare the gdp per capita against amount/severity of government corruption. Venezuela shows that any advantage can be wasted
Wallerstein’s world systems theory, is the theory being discussed around 14-18 ish. It should also be noted that primary goods and manufacturing itself don’t really spread wealth among the populace, but concentrate it among a few, so the country at large is also unable to leverage its human capital successfully the way the higher gdp countries do, while the secondary goods countries allow (in theory) for greater distribution of the wealth generated
There is a portuguese saying that means : " porverty creates poverty, and the poorest a person is, the more tolerant to poverty becomes, more generalized poverty gets, and the people become less and less capable of getting out of the poverty cicle .
That sounds like what the U.S. calls culture of poverty, maybe even including generational poverty. You develop a poverty mindset, which begets certain behaviors, which makes it harder to get out of poverty. It also places all of the blame on others (at least here). It's been shown here that being born and raised in a low-income household makes it harder to leave poverty and earn much more than your parents did.
catchy, what is it originally?
@@Leskitsafrenic Well here the poor are not exactly helped a lot to get out of poverty ever. Rather they are being helped into the prison system.
@@DutchmanAmsterdam in some places of the country, that's too true :(
I taught in a poor, rural, conservative area and the average citizen just stayed ignorant, blindly loyal, and poor.
That's a long ass saying
The CRAZY logistics of being poor
I watched one video of this kind and the comment section was full of people complaining about how poor people are actualy lazy and bad with money disagreeing with the videos message about how hard is it to escape poverty. They learned nothing about how to became rich by emulating rich peoples spending habits and so on...
🔴 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE WENDOVER PRODUCTION🔴
I absolutely love these kind of documentary videos, please don't stop making more!
Whoa, didn't expect to see Hyderabad on a Wendover productions video 18:23
One thing you forgot to include was corruption. It has helped to keep many poor countries/locations poor.
Underrated comment!
The scary thing is that I see kleptocracy as a political model creeping into more of the world.
No, that was not forgotten. It's very much unclear how much corruption causes countries to be poor and how much corruption is the result of countries being poor.
For the moment, it looks like corruption is more the result than the cause though.
Corruption through perverse incentives specifically. What benefits those influential enough to enact change may not benefit the nation as a whole. Citizenry may want to remove the red tape and bribes needed to start a business, but that red tape helps the current owners maintain a monopoly on service.
@@Robbedem it is the cause and result a endless cycle
Yes! I was going to leave this comment myself. He mentions that Russia is less economically advanced than Britain possibly due to its late start in the industrial revolution, but no mention of the horrors and atrocities caused by Communism? I think that might have had a tiny impact on the country’s advancement.
Also, what about Singapore? That began with almost all of the issues he describes, but overcame them due to the right economic incentives and strategies being implemented by their government.
Another point, he mentions that some countries produce basic materials and other countries produce manufactured goods. Simply question: Why? He mentions that one country might export wood and grains, while another would make a chair from the wood-why? What is the reason that one country would begin to specialize in manufacturing beginning with something as basic as a chair? Might it have something to do with that country’s environment of freedom and entrepreneurship?