The Richest Countries In The World All Have THIS In Common

[@haleffect9011]

I think there is a fallacy here. It makes sense that the variance (both positive and negative) is much greater among small countries rather than large countries. The reason is that it is far easier for all of a small country to be either in a wealthy region or a poor region than a large country which would have a mix of wealthy and poor regions. (If we take geography as a factor) We see this in the fact that aside from some unfortunate states, many of the smallest economies per capita are small countries, which wouldn't be the case if there was truly a correlation between size and wealth. However, I would recommend that you look at cities within large countries and the smaller countries. Because generally, small countries are almost all urbanised. And I suspect that that is what correlates most highly to wealth

[@haleffect9011]

@Henrik Wallin That is true, but if you look at the GDP per Capita in small countries like Kuwait, and regions like Ile-de-France (Paris region), you see that the larger country actually has a higher GDP per capita. In fact, looking at it like this, even Inconspicuous countries such as the Antofagasta region in Chile compares with the Netherlands in GDP. In fact, if you would compare how many regions in the world would compare with the top 20 countries by per capita GDP you see that 83 regions (though about half are from the USA) would fit neatly within the top 20 countries (from OECD countries, actual numbers may be far greater). What I would say is that more urbanized economies create far greater wealth for its people than rural or industrial economies. And since by definition small countries have very little farm-and and few resources, they need to build up their urban sectors disproportionately to their other sectors relative to larger countries in similar locations. This creates "Miracles" such as Singapore, and HK, and Ireland (Other reasons do exist for Ireland though). Whereas larger countries cannot concentrate what few resources they have into their cities and must spread the resources to other non-profitable endeavors such as growing food and educating large amounts of people a little. Small countries have only one option and that is importing food. However, given these problems, even large countries such as Chile, can still create provinces which are relatively much richer than surrounding areas and in line with small states. Therefore the problem isn't the size of said country, but rather priorities, institutions, and the wealth disparity they are willing to support. After all, small countries are a bit lucky, but I doubt that the population of the larger countries would like it if their capitals just decided to go off on their own leave the majority of the country in the muck, and size alone doesn't seem to be the main issue.

[@jochemvanrens8938]

@@haleffect9011 good points. If you categorize the Netherlands as a small country that is highly urbanized it might be good to know that this country is the world's second biggest agricultural exporter next to the US. It is indeed as you said about priorities as the Netherlands always had an agricultural culture meaning they focused on improving their farming to make sure they could turn profits while farming.

[@rodolphov.santoro8829]

Completely agree. But i still think there is some truth to what he said about how effective a centralized governament can be to large countries. Though i think the world where every large country split up, would be a mess of 300~400 countries, which could lead to lots of wars between poorer countries; and even in a peacefull cenario, would just make trade and foreign relations more complicated overall. I think the solution would instead be to just federalize larger countries.

[@user-hj1dc2wp7v]

Kidney cancer rates in the USA are lowest in counties that are mostly rural, sparsely populated, and located in traditionally Republican states in the Midwest, the South, and the West. Kidney cancer rates in the USA are highest in counties that are mostly rural, sparsely populated, and located in traditionally Republican states in the Midwest, the South, and the West.

[@user-hj1dc2wp7v]

@@jochemvanrens8938 Agricultural exports in NL are so big because they have the biggest port in Europe. Most of what they export isn't produced by them.

[@jjosephs6521]

13:11 Just for clarification, 'Sealand' is not an oil rig, it an abandoned sea Fort originally called HM Fort Roughs, built as an anti-aircraft gun platform by the British during World War II.

[@MrLrebelo1]

@@neverluckym8728 long the mighty empire of Sea land!!

[@nevreiha]

Dr Congo, yes, we need this

[@bosh6604]

Dk? DOCTOR KONGO

[@andrewhovermale2731]

We need an African superhero movie with shitty special effects

[@SilvanaDil]

Toycat has drawn the correct conclusion from the facts: Be a country with a small population (and a valuable card to play) or be the USA.

[@Eibarwoman]

The US at various times also had valuable cards like Michigan, Louisiana, and Silicon Valley as the outlier inflation adjusted at one time or another to Singapore when it was cars between 1920 and 1974, cotton between Louisiana Purchase and 14th Amendment, and post 1990.

[@SuperSMT]

Small population, as long as you aren't an isolated Pacific island

[@benjaminbatema6963]

The US has lots of farmland as resource, we export way more food than anything else.

[@FacelessQueenie]

@@benjaminbatema6963 A lot of European food comes from Europe because US food doesn't always comply with EU food regulations. When I go to buy meat from the supermarket most of the time it'll say 'British Beef/British Pork/Scottish (British) Salmon'. A lot of the chemicals in food also come from Europe or the UK itself here. The things that the US does export here and elsewhere are manufacturing, technology, finance, petroleum (the US is 4th globally for oil exports). I'm sure the US exports more agricultural goods to Asia and South America but it's not too significant in terms of exports as most of it will be used internally.

[@cbboswell7910]

@@FacelessQueenie you're pretty much right, the US exports most of its food to other places rather than europe, but also meat isn't the main food export of the US. We mainly ship out crops such as grains, corn, and soybeans. We Americans love our meat too much to send it away, especially our beef lol

[@oswald7597]

Those Irish borders have triggered half the audience, and gave the other half an Iregasm

[@thebritace9351]

Mohok Basu 26+6=32

[@thebritace9351]

Mohok Basu nah ur the one saying stupid things, 26+6=32 not 1

[@thebritace9351]

Mohok Basu fucking dimwit

[@oswald7597]

Northern Ireland + KZbin = war in comments

[@Hayxu]

26 + 6 = 1

[@naniandrea3344]

"Gambling is not a natural resource " Me with a gambling addiction: HoW dArE yOu!?

[@Max1715]

@ haha veri funni jok

[@LunaBari]

You mean gambling addiction

[@LunaBari]

@ does that make sense in this context?

[@naniandrea3344]

@@LunaBari true

[@aryan_kumar]

Gambling plus gambling is gambling gambling minus gambling that's gambling quick maths

[@Strelky]

Leichtenstein be on the CIA's good side

[@samiyousef9377]

High standard of living in U.A.E Yeah, until you step directly outside of Dubai lol

[@red2theelectricboogaloo961]

dont tell him

[@ab-do7li]

Abu Dhabi?

[@jameshowlett2694]

Until you step onto any construction site

[@greywolf7577]

@@ab-do7li Right next to Agrabah.

[@jjosephs6521]

You lied, you said "we're going to talk about The Wealth of Nations", I thought we were going to hear about, Adam Smith's book 'The Wealth of Nations' If no one's cotton on to the fact I'm trying to be funny and failing, I feel more sorry for you than I do for me hahahaha.

[@red2theelectricboogaloo961]

cotton on

[@ianprince1698]

some of the British House of Lords sit on Wool Sacks to remind their Lordships of the then wealth of the country

[@lukaswirmsberger6260]

Toycat, you're drawing the wrong conclusions there :D This is all about probabilities. As you noticed yourself - all these small top nations have some form of "resource" going for them. If you sprinkle 50 micro countries all over the world, some of them are gonna end up on a resource hub or develop into one (like Macau). There are lots of extremely poor small countries too though. Because they didn't hit the right spot on the map. If on the other hand you were to split the world into countries the size of Macau only - there will be tons of countries with no resources at all. And - you know - there can only be so many tax havens and gambling spots.

[@NickyPhils]

I agree. If you want to want to assert a theory like ibx2cat's, you should at least make a scatterplot showing all the countries.

[@tritium1998]

Something so glaringly obvious that he leaves out is that those tiny demographies and geographies are way more dependent on foreign countries in order to enjoy being rich.

[@isaacbobjork7053]

Dr. Congo 🤣

[@sarahm3767]

I’ve been watching so many of your videos lately, so glad I found your channel! I’m an American with an international affairs degree, it’s so fascinating to hear your perspective on the world.

[@oliverhines8099]

I like how you said South America is the only exception, so in 10 years I'll be flying Doha-Antartica

[@Gia1911Logous]

What did colonialism give you? Britain: It gave me my precious tea! France: It geb me mon Maple Syrup in Quebec! Germany: It made me a force to be reckoned with! Italy: It allowed me to compete with the other Europeans! Russia: It gave me access to the Atlantic and the Pacific! Austria: It gave everyone in the empire knowledge of culture! Netherlands: So many spices and tulips! Spain: It gave us a lot of gold! Portugal: It gave us SUGAR! Belgium: You guys want HANDS? Everyone: *_stares in disgust_* Belgium: What? Hey look, they look like chocolate!

[@osas9104]

Mohuk Basu could you explain that please?

[@osas9104]

@Mohok Basu Brazilian Portuguese is quite different from Portuguese Portuguese

[@krehetpi]

History Egg Does Ireland not exist in your little world?

[@krehetpi]

No surprise that you’re a Brit then?

[@harrywolfe923]

@@krehetpi triggered nationalist lol

[@NikolausUndRupprecht]

18:00 That doesn‘t sound as if it was a sound argument: Have you also tried to falsify your hypothesis that country size (in terms of population) matters? With so many poor countries around the world it should also be possible to find enough poor and small countries. In addition you should also compare evenly sized countries and look at their wealth. My guess is that size doesn’t matter. There are other factors that are much more likely to have an effect such as social structures and political stability.

[@Matso444]

yeah, there are many small countries which are quite poor, like Burundi, Cambodia, Benin, Haiti, El Salvador, Djibouti just to name a few. Also, many poor countries have big populations because they are poor,and not the other way around, since poor people often have more children, so that they will support them when they get older, since they think having more children will mean more income. this seems like the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; correlation does not imply causation

[@Anti_Woke]

I was not taking the video as serious science but it might be interesting to do a multi-variant regression to identify the predictors. As far as I'm aware no-one has used modern AI on that problem.

[@VulcanTrekkie45]

I think your first postulate that having heritage as part of the British Empire is inherently flawed. Sure several of those countries are quite rich today, but was that the case when they were actually part of the British Empire? Most of them really weren't. I know for example that Ireland was very poor and its economy didn't take off until after it joined the EU.

[@PongoXBongo]

But, they all seem to have recovered the most since decolonization. That was his point, I think.

[@roadhouse6999]

Ireland has a higher GDP than England. Ironic.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

The Wall Street Journal said, "Capital goes where it's welcome, and stays where it's well treated." Lots of natural resources don't guarantee success: the Soviet Union had enormous natural resources, but its people were poor. In order to become rich, a government must provide people with an incentive to create wealth and to keep it in the country. That requires moderate taxes and the rule of law. (The government should not confiscate the wealth that people create and corruption should be minimal. If a government seizes wealth, residents will send it abroad.) Ideally, a government should make starting a business fairly easy. Democracy is not essential to becoming rich (particularly in the cases of small nations) but the rule of law is.

[@greywolf7577]

Nordic countries have high taxes and also some of the highest standards of living in the world.

[@Jordan_Warrington]

So what your saying is we need to start up the colony again. *British anthem start's playing* *India starts sweating*

[@themailman124]

As an Irishman, as little as we like to associate ourselves with the exploitive past of the great powers of Europe and America, this is largely to do with our proximity and eventual participation in these systems. Scandinavia, Ireland, and other small nations in Europe that you would either 1)not associate with imperial exploitation, or 2) consider to have been exploited themselves, are nonetheless situated in such a geographic and cultural location which allowed them to enter and participate in these systems by the early-mid 20th century. I mention this only because on the reductionist argument against the greatest power of wealth distribution being exploitation, “what about (insert Ireland), they don’t have a history of colonizing and exploiting, rather the opposite.” That may be so, but at present Ireland, and countries like it, have access to the worlds largest trading block. A block established around the economies of old colonial powers, and current capitalist powers. To further complicate things, nations like Ireland/Liechtenstein have become centres of tax evasion for those nations. Other countries, situated outside of Europe, often have less hidden forms of exploitation (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar). All this is to say that if we are to tie these countries and there wealth together with one string, it is participation in, access to, or advantage from exploitive systems past and present.

[@AwoudeX]

My country was in ruins after ww2, already broke before it. We rebuilt our broken buildings and infrastructure and focussed on a couple of areas we excelled at or which came from geographical circumstance. You'll have to create something that others want and then trade it to everone's benefit. This concept is what made my ancestors live in one of the wealthier areas of the Spanish empire and partially because of heavy trade restrictions by the spanish crown, we fought for our independence and won. My country didn't rebuild on the backs of colonies at all and this is true for most former colonizing nations that are well off.

[@themailman124]

@@AwoudeX I don't know which country you are referring to but, most "we just pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps" explanations fail to give credence to the circumstances that allowed you to rebuild. I.e yes most former colonizing were not rebuilding on the backs of colonies but on U.S money, thats were the help came in. The question we should be asking though is what mechanisms and systems were in place that 1) placed these countries in a position to even have a world war 2) allowed the US to bail them out. The answers to these questions generally come down old colonial exploitation, and newer exploitations through capitalism. Colonizing powers such as Britain and France didn't rebuild directly off of colonies, but off of systems made possible by their colonizing past. Sure there are other factors such as technology, but what was that technology used for. Eventually many former colonies would return to being the engines of cheap labor through sweat shops, mines, and a myriad of other things. I guess you could take a simplistic libertarian mindset to colonial wealth distribution. However, I feel this fails to consider things such as 1) who gets to live in and own these geographically well off lands 2) Why are they colonies in the first place 3) where are profits and taxes from these places being funneled.

[@AwoudeX]

@@themailman124

[@REDnBLACKnRED]

You nailed it. All former colonies that prospered have been those that didn't break ties with their coloniser post-independence but rather continued to trade with them and integrate themselves into the world order created by these colonisers. Those that chose to shun their colonisers ended up with non-ideal trade partners and stagnation.

[@Kafei01]

Hi, english is not my native tongue and i struggle to understand every words but i love the way you talk about geography, i could listen to you for hours, thank you.

[@BallyBoy95]

7:00 Because of US and USSR pressure to destroy the British Empire. Increasing Indian mutinies and Ireland having already attained independence. It became inevitable. Colonialism is being played down quite a bit here, because of deliberate policy to not teach much about it. The British Empire broke the hands of cotton weavers in India, burned entire villages in Hong Kong, destroy indiginous education systems (almost everywhere) and just imposed the modern western education system, after all it's far superior. It wasn't just looting, there was a lot of cultural destruction etc. etc.

[@tschetatsch]

They have in common MONEY, HARD BIG-VALUED MONEY

[@delux6993]

As an American the thing that worries me the most is that the federal government is constantly getting more centralized power. Our federalist system is being corroded slowly over time. We need to fall back to our constitutional roots and become subunits that work together on big issues instead of micro issues. Large centralized countries always fail.

[@greywolf7577]

China has been been led by Emperors who had lots of power through most of its existence and it is several thousand years old. I'm a supporter of democracy, but centralization in and of itself does not mean a country will fall. If anything, centralization decreases the chances that a country will fall apart and allows the country to work together better. Look how a strong country like the Holy Roman Empire was weakened by basically being just a military alliance of many individual city states.

[@ionutunroman7525]

Your logic makes sense (being a small country is better because smaller countries tend to be more successful than bigger ones) but only in a world were global peace or generally speaking just peace is guaranteed for ever, not only militarily(war) but also economically(sanctions).

[@NegativeAccelerate]

All the (top 10 richest) countries with a ✅were once controlled by Britain ✅Qatar Macau Luxembourg ✅Singapore ✅Brunei ✅Ireland Norway ✅United Arab Emirates ✅Kuwait Switzerland ✅Hong Kong ✅USA Lol I know that they literally made it illegal to go to school in ireland so this must be more of a coincidence than revelation.

[@Alaois]

@Swapn Lok Wrong actually, the former British colonies in Africa like Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa are far wealthier than the colonies of other countries (that you conveniently forget to mention) like France, Spain and Germany. Same thing in Asia, Hongkong, Singapore, India and Malaysia are far more wealthier now in comparison to the possessions of other countries like the Netherlands and France. Then you have the main 4, Canada, The United States, Australia and New Zealand. Which all are very wealthy and happy countries. Even the Caribbean with Jamaica, The Bahamas and the Virgin Islands all being former British Colonies and being much wealthier than their counterparts like Haiti which was French and is very very poor. In terms of nations that left the best countries out of all the Colonial powers, France Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and the UK. The UK has some of the best former colonies.

[@Kornkronensalz]

It's simply about complexity. Humans are limited in their capabilities and therefore your need localism to build a system better suited for human nature by reducing the complex system around them. Big nations also let people be more likely to be corrupt by blurring accountability.

[@awijaya2116]

The argument is that free trade and specialization are what makes countries wealthier, and that smaller countries can manage the important aspects of this better than large countries. Therefore, split the big ones into many smaller ones. That should technically make everyone better off in the long run, right? This completely ignores how the global free trade system came to be. Bretton Woods, freedom of navigation and many aspects of the free trade system only work because they're underpinned by a hegemonic power (in this case, the US). Free Trade is arguably a post-WW2 phenomenon, and a distinctly American one. Split the US up (something that even the Chinese don't want, which should say a lot) and you guarantee it'll start failing soon after (unless another hegemon steps up with a similar agenda). TLDR- free trade only works because there are rules in place that keep it (relatively) free from abuse, and the rules are enforced by a hegemonic power.

[@star-scotia1465]

Canada - 1K away from being dark purple ;-; poor Canada

[@thomascrabtree]

All these countries have low taxes, rank extremely high on the free-market scale according to the World Bank, low levels of corruption, stable democracies, and most importantly COMMON LAW. Dubai and the Middle East states literally exploded in wealth not after discovering oil but after implemting Common Law legal systems in the late 90's, hiring many retired US and UK judges.

[@damasek219]

You should make currency video as well, that would be interesting. I have always wondered how could some currencies come to the point where they are worth only a small percentage of other currency or vice versa.

[@nattygsbord]

Supply and demand. You don't get hyperinflation is USA dollars despite billions are printed because there is a high demand for them, while when the same thing happens in Zimbabwe you get hyperinflation. A textbook definition of Inflation is that more money chase the same amount of goods. So what then happens when you increase the amount of goods produced? - which is easily done in a modern capitalist economy with machines that can produce stuff in gigantic amounts Well if you double the output of goods made from humans and machines, then you get deflation and you can buy more stuff for each dollar you have - which is not a funny thing if you are a capitalist factory owner. So therefore governments try to balance the amount of money produced with the amount of goods produced to get price stability. So you double the production of stuff, then you can also double the amount of money without getting any inflation. But things are not this easily and smooth in the real world. Nobody knows how much that is really produced. Nobody knows how much money people would want to take out from the bank next month and buy stuff with that money. If everyone took out all their life saving from the bank and spent it all this week, then prices would go up because the demand for goods would outstrip supply, and shortages of goods would occur and prices would therefore go up. So you would get more inflation. You could however introduce some price controls and hold back some of the inflation. And if you as a government think that there is too much inflation around, or you are regretting that you have printed too much money, then you can just raise taxes. Then you take money out of circulation, so that fewer money chase the same amount of goods. Cutting government spending does also have the same effect. So what do I think a country should do? I think a rich country should print a bunch of money and dump it into the economy. The government can pay school teachers or buy more tanks from companies. And as more money come into the pockets of workers, and those workers buy stuff with that money, then they create more demand for goods from companies that produce stuff so that they will increase production and hire more workers. And the increased amount of stuff produced will raise the GDP in your country. It will cut unemployment. And you will not get any inflation since more and more goods are being produced. So will I therefore print more money until forever? Of course not. There is no point in doing that. Why would I print more money if I cannot increase production? That will not do anything good at all. It will only create more inflation without any good effects at all. When 100% of the workforce is fully employed, then it is impossible to get workers to work more and produce more stuff. When every oil rig and gold, lithium, and copper mine is already running at 100% capacity it will be impossible to increase production no matter how much money you print. So what's then the point in making more money? - There is none!. So I will print money like crazy until my country's economy is running at 100% full capacity. And then I will not print a penny more. And if I happen to print a little too much, then I raise taxes or cut spending to eliminate that inflation.

[@Matso444]

the reason countries decolonized wasn't because they couldn't afford the colonies (as in they cost them money). Most of them were planning on keeping their colonies. America was making them decolonize in exchange for marshall aid to rebuild their own countries, which was a priority, and many of the colonies began independence movements which lead to independence wars or secession. Most european armies were crippled rom the second world war and coulnd't maintain their colonies because of this. Some colonies were earning them a lot of money, for example the dutch east indies provided the Netherlands with 25% of its government budget in the 19th century. British India was earning them 37.92% of the empire's GDP in 1913.

[@ibx2cat]

Even your alternate theory suggests that governments traded their long term sources of revenue for a short term injection of cash from America? Not the smartest of financial decisions, and it doesn't explain why the Marshall plan went or was planned to go to countries without them

[@Matso444]

@@ibx2cat because their home countries were devastated by the war, and rebuilding them with american aid was much faster and easier then trying to keep their colonies in check while their own country was in ruins, especially since in many of these colonies big nationalistic indepence movements were starting. and like I said, many of these countries did try to keep their colonies but lost them in independence wars, like France with most of its colonies. Also the primary goal of the marshall plan was not to decolonize these countries, but the ones that DID have colonies were often forced to release them in exchange for the aid. One of the main goals of the marshall plan was preventing the spread of communism by keeping these countries on America's side.

[@tdrm]

Small population is good for high per capita stats, however that doesn't lead to wealth. If you split up a country that has a successful area and an unsuccessful area, then yeah the successful area new country will have higher per capita stats, but the unsuccessful part will have even lower per capita stats now.

[@innes1964]

Great video, keep up the good work 👍🏻

[@biocapsule7311]

This is actually quite incorrect. As a Singaporean, I can tell you that it's not that simple... the idea of just being open to global investment is not that simply. You have to have the geographical factors. You can throw around the term 'free trade' but it is meaningless. Trade needs to fit locational needs, not simply 'free' (whatever that may entail). Take Tibet or Nepal, they can split up smaller and be as open as they want to be but it will be useless because their location makes them unsuited for travel no matter how open they want to be. It's not that they are all small. Measuring it in the form of nations is already a false premise. Every global financial hubs in the world are not countries, they are cities. Macau is not a country, it's a city, so is Hong Kong. And they all have different foundations that make them successful, all delicately balanced. Would you say London, New York, Shanghai to be unsuccessful? But you don't count them because they aren't nations. Singapore is both city and state and most of Qatar's population lives in Dohai. For very settlement that grew to be a global success as a city, there is a hundreds that didn't. Some location has longevity, some only have the factors in certain periods. That why some cities are very important and powerful in the past, not so much in modern day. That fact of the matter is there is only so few locations in the world at any given time, any specific level of technology, with the correct set of circumstances to achieve success. I don't even want to go into how ridiculous it is to count Africa thinking you can exclude it's history. Most African countries aren't countries that form themselves but rather lines on borders drawn by western power with no real consideration other then what they want to own. That is why the whole region continue to be unstable. And I guaranteed you that you don't want a world where all the nations are just small states with manageable populations. That comes with a whole other sets of horrors.

[@patrickboner]

13:35 ireland actually have the most scenic airport approach in the world

[@NilWo]

I like how the map at 4:57 shows a united Ireland. hehe.

[@NilWo]

@@MBasu-km8by Yes!

[@GeographyWorld]

He probably took a geographical map of the island as no other borders are shown but nice mistake nonetheless.

[@ibx2cat]

oops. guess I'm pro united Ireland now haha

[@NegativeAccelerate]

Geography World omg I swear I’m not looking for you. I just keep randomly finding you. (Probably cuz I look at Irish comments too)

[@cormacmcgale7139]

@@ibx2cat You weren't?

[@reginaldamoah8608]

The US pressured Britain and France to release their colonies to guard against communism. But even after colonialism ended the former colonial powers still controlled the global economy through the IMF and world bank. Pushing free trade also favoured countries that were already developed.

[@BargSlarg]

For every Kuwait, Hong Kong, or Norway, there’s a Suriname, Central Africa Republic, or Cambodia, so your logic is flawed

[@retractablehybrid6110]

Would you be the one that dares to explain the economy of Scotland and if they can survive if they leave the UK? It difficult to find an unbiased account.

[@cormacmcgale7139]

Or something similar with Northern Ireland and how the government of Ireland could cope with a United Ireland

[@nattygsbord]

It will survive, but it will become poorer. Is it a price worth paying? well that's up to the people living there to decide. And then is there a few complications if you would leave,and then put SNP in charge... Open borders for immigration and an open border with England does not go together.. you have to pick one of the two. And having your own currency do have many strong benefits, and if you go independent I would recommend that you get one - but on the other hand will you not be able to go to England and buy things. However, Scots dream about joining the EU, as realistic or unrealistic that may be.. but say for the sake of argument that you can join. Then you will be using the Euro currency - and in the short run will prices double when go to a shop and grocery store. I remember that even many pro-EU people in Germany and Finland had this complaint when the Euro currency came. Personally I do not think this is a big problem. But what is a big problem is that your currency will be locked to the same rate as Germany. And you will have lost all freedoms to form your own economic policies. Inflation and interest rates will be set according to Germany's needs and not to the needs of Scotland. And EU rules will force your country to run budget surpluses - which means that you will have to see hard economic austerity. You rightfully did not like austerity when it was done by Thatcher and Cameron... so you will definitely not like it when it is done to adopt the country for the EU currency. You did not have to suffer from that last time you was in the EU, because of your membership in Britain. However, this time around you will get f**ked without any lube, if you try that. So if the EU allows you to keep your own currency, then I think you should do so. Scotland is very leftwing, so why then should you have balanced budgets and a very neoliberal Thatcherite economic policy? use your common sense.

[@jameshowlett2694]

I'd say it will at first be poorer than the UK, but it has the potential to surpass it in wealth. Right now Edinburgh is a bigger financial centre than any in the EU, and if they manage their oil reserves well (they have a similar amount to Norway) they could easily build a wealth fund and become even richer

[@pirat9750]

Colonialism wasn’t taking money from other places, it was taking resources. Colonialism was a huuuuuge factor in building capitalism , we could have never got all the money we needed to found modern banking and we could have never gotten all the recourses we needed. Without colonialism there would have never been free labour to start the industrial revolution, since you needed slavery to make cotton profitable. Colonialism really really was a huge part, and now the richest countries are funded by oil or being business hubs. Both are things that we needed colonialism for to establish.

[@ManicMercurianAstrology]

England had a relatively pretty successful form of society in general which it basically exported to it's colonies, which is why former English colonies are usually so wealthy! (Yes that's an oversimplification but, idc)

[@ΛευτερηςΝτιτινος]

Do a video where you do a geography sporcle quiz

[@ashi8847]

22:10 That's not the right amount of rials for dinars I live in Iran and we pay 140k Iranian rials for 1USD 1KWD is about 447k Iranian rials

[@ibx2cat]

Thanks, do you know why it's out of wack?

[@ashi8847]

@@ibx2cat The government announces different exchange rates for foreign currencies (maybe only the euro and dollar) But there's a problem They've printed much much more Iranian rials than the foreign currencies which they announced the exchange rates , so there is a shortage of foreign currencies with the exchange rates that the government announced and 2 different exchange rates exist at the same time 1. Governmental exchange rate (currently : 30~50k rials for 1USD) and only people connected to the government have access to it 2. market exchange rate (140k rials for 1USD) , normall people exchange currencies here (btw it isn't a black market , it's legal) Connected people get Dollars at government exchange rate and sell it in the market at much higher price (in terms of rials) and repeat the cycle to get free money or take the Dollars abroad and spend it there (kind of like politicians in Venezuela) Sorry if it got too long and if my English is not good I tried my best

[@thomasstoewer2681]

@@ashi8847 Your English is great and your explanation very concise and informative. Thank you.

[@ashi8847]

@@thomasstoewer2681 Thanks

[@kohZeei]

After a few years of enjoying this second channel I am beginning to wonder how good your first channel is but im afraid to look, cause i'll probably gonna start binch watching it.

[@greywolf7577]

His first channel is all about Minecraft. Whether you think the channel is good or not depends on whether you think Minecraft is good or not.

[@kohZeei]

@@greywolf7577 yeah I was disappointed..

[@Djerszium]

Make a video about the Netherlands war against the water

[@crazymusicchick]

Australia's wealth mostly comes from mining

[@bobbun9630]

With respect to the "former British colonies" point, I think you're confusing correlation and causation. Specifically, for many of those small wealthy places that were previously colonies, the features that make them wealthy today are the same features that made them desirable as colonies in the first place. It's actually a bit funny that you don't notice the problem when you move on to talking about size and use India and China as examples.

[@chicagolongboarder]

Doctor Congo! I couldn't stop laughing when I heard that.

[@NotKnafo]

5:59 lol what a terrible map spain is labled yellow but colored red on the map also togo belongs to belgium and im pretty sure norways flag is wrong

[@szalailaci3722]

4:56 So you're for an Irish reunification. I didn't know that :D

[@Jotari]

He's actually commented that he thinks it's weird the UK has part of Ireland several times. And rather hilariously he once pointed out how odd it is that Antigua and Barbuda are a sovereignty state made up of two separate and distinct islands, completely missing the fact that he's from a country in the exact same scenario.

[@ibx2cat]

I'm pro "whatever the people of the island of Ireland what to do, man" as it's a part of the country that is much easier to live without than say Scotland

[@majesthijmenii1976]

@@Jotari well that's just a state made up of two islands. It isn't a state of one island, with a little bit of land from another states island. So I don't really see how that example is related to the UK

[@Jotari]

They both have 'and' in the name.

[@donrayjay]

It’s more rule of law and property rights that are the crucial factors

[@yodorob]

Which ex-British colonies (especially the more developed ones) are especially good at!

[@bhavyachheda7899]

Only thing that makes a country rich is urbanisation. There is a direct correlation with wealth and urbanisation. That's it. Even US being a large country is rich because of being 81% urban.

[@sebastianandribet2957]

nobody: toycat: HELLO IM SOYCAT

[@niclas3672]

Worth mentioning that wealth disparity is not only "stealing". A small aspect of it is, resources being bought from poor countries and made into something new for instance. But the vast majority of wealth disparity is not from stealing. If rich western countries were to stop creating the wealth that they do, it would not redistribute it to the poor countries. It would simply not exist and the world average would just go down. So calling it stealing is a little harsh. The DR Congo would not suddenly be a production giant if western companies stopped making their products, and China stop producing them. That's not how it works. In summary, the wealth of the rich nations would not be redistributed if they stopped. At least most of it wouldn't. Because poorer countries don't have the means to create the same wealth with the resources.

[@Covargo]

Small nations have smaller armies and are easy to conquer. They rely on bigger nations for defence if big nations didn't exist then small nations could't exist. All it takes is the rise of a conqueror who thinks they can do it better.

[@sakebiouka]

Check HBD Chick Blog and Jayman Blog, as well as the Hajnal line.

[@oxymoronx]

I love how this is exactly 25:00 long

[@cormacmcgale7139]

Why isn't the UK in the top 10 if it had that many colonies?

[@danalandrum1144]

To make sure this comment section is heated I drank 20 gallons of hot sauce

[@kbalazs1378]

Yes! Currency videos would be awesome!

[@AlexM-wq7in]

I love the fact he showed a United Ireland.

[@williamwallace234]

Interesting view, I actually agree that most of a nations troubles come from over population; therefore the only solution besides Thanosing is decentralization. However a counter point was brought up in LindyBeiges video on why we fight. The data shows that the bigger a society gets the less wars occur between it and other societies and the murder rate within the society goes down. I’d definitely recommend that watching it.

[@davediehler]

The countries are not poor because of overpopulation, they are overpopulated because they are poor. In every country and period you can see a decrease of children per woman if the population has enough money, education and emanzipation.

[@williamwallace234]

Ok, I was less talking about poverty (the topic of this video) and more about other issues. Basically you can’t make a single policy that will make a million people happy, but if you’re working in thousands then it’s a lot more manageable

[@davediehler]

@@williamwallace234 Ah I see. I think so too, just compare Icelands functionality with that of India. The biggest failure of democracy is the short term thinking, long term strategies sadly do not appeal to the majority. Also with more people you get more potential problems and idiots.

[@greywolf7577]

@@davediehler A country is overpopulated because they don't use contraception. Richer countries are more likely to use contraception because they can afford it and they have an interest in preserving their wealth. However, you can see many countries in Eastern Europe that are both poor and have a low birth rate.

[@mmcgrath2510]

Toyat- take from that what you will Me- count binface walks among us

[@isaacg1]

4:58. Trying to stir up controversy over N.I. I see

[@lizardlegend42]

Might as well do it now while it's still funny and before the troubles start again

[@UTubeTulip]

Just trying to future proof the video tbh

[@spiderduckpig]

This works with cities too: for example Berlin is less populous than Paris and London but has a higher standard of living

[@majesticsavage5322]

6:45 why does italy own spain?

[@paranoidrodent]

While country size does play a role in how manageable a country is, it seems very reductive to assume it is the primary driving factor in wealth. As some other commenters have said, urbanization, stability and education quality are huge factors and countries with existing advanced infrastructure tend to leverage it for continuing success in the future (colonial era profits can be argued to have kick started the build up if this infrastructure, either directly or via trade with nearby colonial powers - it gave some nations a head start but it wasn't a surefire thing, like for the former Ottomans or Mughals). Rich natural resources can be both a blessing (e.g. Norway, Qatar) or a curse (DRC) but the list of richest countries includes resource dependant wealth like the Gulf states, resource rich mixed economies (US, Canada, Australia) and resource poor but economically advanced states (e.g. Japan). It seems to me that geographic concentration of the population into clusters of well educated highly productive urban areas helps fuel mixed economies (just look at Canada's population distribution - it would never be prosperous with an evenly spread out population) and large areas of productive or resource rich land can fuel self-sufficiency (compare the US to say Japan) if the infrastructure exists to exploit it. Smaller nations have the ability to thrive on a single niche economic activity (petroleum, tax havens/finance, gambling, tourism) but those little countries have all their eggs in one basket, increasing their long-term risk (crashes in oil prices really hurt the Gulf states, a tourist destination that stops being fashionable can falter badly). Economic complexity encourages more robustness and sustainable growth. The small national niche approach has worked out well for some but lots of the poorest countries in the world are small too. Switzerland might be small but it is also economically complex. Norway is too plus they have oil wealth.

[@calvinhobbesliker2]

I wonder if the reason so many rich counties were part of the British Empire is because they British chose to colonize valuable areas

[@Poodz_]

Natural resources can only get you so far. The values spread by the British empire to the countries it reigned over are what make so many of them successful to this day. Not everything about colonialism was good OBVIOUSLY. But in the context of the time, everyone in the world was doing terrible things, the British were arguably doing the least terrible things, abolishing slavery at their own expense, championing the rights of individuals etc. Of course when you look back through a modern lens it's very easy to say it was all terrible and nothing good happened.

[@immortaltyrant2474]

4:52 *[Big shouty comment about the fact Northern Ireland is separate from the Republic of Ireland.]* Nevermind, 7:58 makes me happy again. :)

[@lizardlegend42]

Well, seperate for now

[@immortaltyrant2474]

@@lizardlegend42 Your opinion is irrelevant as Yi qi is your favourite dinosaur.

@@immortaltyrant2474 Ireland being richer than northern Ireland might make Northern Irish want to join Ireland and leave UK.

[@lizardlegend42]

@@immortaltyrant2474 I see you are a man of culture, despite your bad taste

[@immortaltyrant2474]

@ The UK is wealthier than Ireland and yet Ireland has no intention of rejoining the UK.

[@alphestanley7194]

I love how us Malaysians sucks at connectivity but because our southern neighbor has a pretty good airline we get to enjoy the benefits

[@crackpotofantioch4636]

A video on population pyramids....pls

[@raestera]

Hi George McClellan. You didn't lose. You merely failed to win

[@martinkovar4323]

Definitely not toxic comment section after it.

[@Aarontlondon]

If you write comments he doesn’t like, he’ll delete them.

[@OHYS]

IKR

[@philguer4802]

I'm so glad to see you agree with my plan to divide each country in thousand of small anarcho-communist communes.

[@kiankennedy1404]

What I believe causes smaller nations to be richer is the fact that more urban areas tend to be richer thus more rural tend tend to be poorer causing smaller nations to be richer because the average isn't pulled back by rural areas meaning the gdp per capita of cities like london might be even higher than the UK (meaning if just Dublin were to be counted instead of Ireland it would be even richer

[@meandmetoo8436]

For small countries to be successful you need a safe region/area or a guarantor. All of these countries can get pushed around easily by their neighbors, Monaco for exemple (why is it not on the list btw ?) Has to change it's tax policies because France was pissed off and blockaded them. Switzerland has to accept a a lot of EU regulations without having a choice over them, etc... Qatar also invest massive amounts of money to get international recognition so that arabia or Iran can't just Kuwait them.

[@martinkovar4323]

True

[@LittleWhole]

“Can’t just Kuwait them” lmaooooooo

[@lolzys299]

@@LittleWhole what does he mean by that lol

[@Respectable_Username]

Definitely do something on that Big Mac parity thingie that the Economist magazine does. That'd be cool

[@jnzdg]

13:31 Switzerland doesn't really have an airline presence. Swiss is owned by Lufthansa (a german company) ever since swissair went bankrupt in 2002. it was one of the largest bankruptcies ever to take place in Switzerland

[@Gia1911Logous]

Belgium didn't have that much power on the European scale, so they took their anger out on the CONGOLESE Nice one Belgium

[@WhateverNameIsStillAvailable]

I think Belgium should be punished for it and be split into 2 parts! How dare they?

[@kevincronk7981]

In the case of Russia, one person doesn't manage all that. It's federal, arguably more so than the US. However Putin does have a lot of power in the eastern part of the country

[@ThePunisheros]

please, make more currency videos, I am really curious

[@HattiYounes]

I am really curious how countries like Finland manage to employ the people and get so rich.

[@laurikotivuori1585]

Higher taxation, but the schooling and healthcare are made free/universal, and there's a strong social security net. Students also get more government aid, so even if both of your parents disowned you and you had no job, you could still get an apartment and go to the best university in the country, for free. That motivates people to keep on studying as you quite literally either save or even gain money from it, and it increases your probabilities of not becoming a bum. Hard to get a well paying job in the country without a degree, but getting one is made free/universal so not really a problem if you have discipline. No Finnish kid is gonna have too little money to study which is the core idea of the country, equal opportunities.

[@nessesaryschoolthing]

I think we might be looking at the matter backwards. I think it's far more likely that a disproportionate amount of concentrated wealth will ensure the existence of very small nations by giving them extra political weight to compensate for being otherwise unable to defend themselves from bigger, more militarized countries.

[@genericyoutubeaccount579]

I don't buy the resource argument. Sure Qatar has a lot of oil. But the Democratic Republic of the Congo has way more natural resource wealth in Uranium, copper, tin, diamonds, Gold, Cobalt, ect. Per Capita, they are one of the richest countries in natural resources. It can't be JUST natural resources. The country must also have a non-violent way of extracting these resources.

[@PongoXBongo]

The three list comparison is interesting. You would naturally think that the CIA list would be the most biased toward the US, for obvious reasons, but it actually ranks the US the lowest out of the three.

[@PongoXBongo]

To follow on your premise that "smaller is better", the US (which is realistically never going to subdivide) has been transitioning to a focus on localization. City mayors are beginning to sort of sidestep State and Federal governments to work together more directly and more efficiently. Some are even reaching out to broker their own investment and trade deals (or a sort) with foreign cities as well (all kinds of "sister cities" popping up).

[@carrot2735]

kinda sad when he said working in the rice field being dirt poor in a chinese province

[@jdasign]

yeah, that comment kinda sucked. Are you from China?

[@commonsense660]

But have you considered the fact that the UK is also a former Norwegian colony, which would make all the others on the top 10 former colonies of a former colony of Norway's, making Norwegian hegemony the common denominator for the top 15 countries? (maybe excluding the netherlands)

[@thomasstoewer2681]

Technically Germanic. Even Norway was settled by early Germanic peoples. The Franks settled in Gaul. The Goths settled in Spain. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes settled in Britain.

[@ram-lj9kz]

@@thomasstoewer2681 technically roman Romans considered England and a lot of germans have been influenced by the Romans, just think about the holly Roman empire was just the German empire

[@greywolf7577]

@@thomasstoewer2681 Yes, but the Viking ruled over much of England for a long time and then finally conquered it for good when the Normans took control.

[@SamuelChac0n]

16:42 ibx looking for france gdp per capita below the uk when it was above

[@kriss23v21]

Idea for a video: Try to make a collab with GeoWizard!

[@peterkaem7355]

Please could you do a video explaining why you think (in more detail than you already have) smaller countries have stronger economies (on a per capita basis).

[@magnusorn7313]

because they are more likely to invest in their people and infrastructure, or more apt, they are more likely to favor a system that invests in the people and infrastructure

[@SirRandom]

Good argument for Scottish independence

[@joni1405]

3 best ways to become rich: 1. Have ungodly amounts of oil 2. Be a tiny tax haven 3. Be America

[@greywolf7577]

Solar power and wind power is becoming far more common. Saudi Arabia is in for a rude awakening soon.

[@Domihork]

Or maybe the richest countries used to be British colonies because Britain chose their colonies well? So the countries would be rich regardless simply because they have those natural resources and the Brits simply noticed it and colonised them?

[@greywolf7577]

There is some truth to that, but the British did build up their colonies to make them money, which did help those areas to some degree.

[@Barista.Nathan]

On that last opinion: Sure splitting into increasingly small ethno-national or cultural subunits might be increasingly logical, but that only lasts until one big unit doesn't divide up and starts bullying all the small places until they band together to form a rival big block in the same endless cycle humans have always gone through. The Greek city states were far more successful separate, until Persia came knocking and they had to start banding together, and then when they didn't they all got gpbbled up by Alexander. Just because it makes economic sense doesn't mean it's better.

[@MooShaka89]

It is absolutely free trade.

[@manugame100]

Could you do a video on what you believe is going to happen after brexit (in terms of uk prospering or falling behind the rest of Europe). I think my political view is quite alligned with yours and was wondering what your opinion is

[@noghd2560]

Geography and climate is the biggest factor. The hotter the weather the lower the GDP on average.

[@CuttyP123]

I believe the GDP per capita numbers for Luxembourg are misleading, as over 40% of their work force is not living in Luxembourg, but in neighbouring countries.