Why are countries that are close to equator poorer than northern and southern countries?

Why are countries that are close to equator poorer than northern and southern countries?

They have much more resources down there.

pic related.

i used to kinda believe it was cause of the cold.. the colder it gets the richer the country is...


but nah its actually cause the northern and southern cointries are a bunch of fucking THIEVES..

THATS WHY.

PIC UNRELATED.

>southern cointries are a bunch of fucking THIEVES

what?

>Maria Ozawa
She was best.

>tfw we're finally 15k+ now as of 2017

Unstable government, legally unpunishable criminals, deep seated self hatred and silent wars with forces backed by our neighbors tend to take a toll on us.

>we are finally over 15k...


how can you guys be poorer than mexico?
i thought since your drug problem got weaker you would rise really fast but you didnt.

>since your drug problem got weaker
I remember when i used to believe too.

We have a problem called inequality. The central region is quite wealthy while the coastal reagion, especially the pacific and the northernmost part of the country are really poor. Some departments in the amazon are poor as well. Check this map for reference > how can you guys be poorer than mexico?
are you serious man? check your neighbor. we don't have the largest economy of the world right there nor 1 million people crossing the border back and forth. That's a huge source of revenue for you guys.

> you would rise really fast
well,, that problem was "solved" just a couple of months ago, its results will be visible in at least a decade, man.

As long as we remain a multicultural society, inequality will forever be present.

There's no real correlation, Pataginia, Tierra del Fuego, Australia and New Zealand were all barely populated areas that had known nothing but missery until the late 19th century, the same does actually aply to arctic areas in the northern hemisphere as well. Large amount of resources vs relatively low population was not a factor until the 20th century, for the most part they remain miserable areas for what remains of native populations and their current "success" is arguably linked to their participation in modern global trade and suply chains.

Reality is it was a massive demographic bonus that was a big part of the success of Western Europe during the industrial revolution and that poverty, via migrants, was one of its main exports. In the US massive migration made up for a rate of population growth its population could've never sustained, that is still the case today which is the reason they're not aging as fast as Europe, or Japan, and enjoy an economic vitality that would otherwise be the result of high birth rates.

The demographic equation now favors other nations and we are currently looking at an ongoing shift in power centers that's moving them closer to the equator. The theory that people in colder climates "work harder" than those near the tropics is bs that doesn't explain the last few centuries and does not correspond to the actual location of craddles of civilization.

nah you darkies just lazy because of the heat lol

but their small amount of population could be correlated with the cold weather.

here we have a lot of inner-migrants and most of them choose Buenos Aires over the patagonia, when it's well known that Buenos aires is full of people so it's harder to get a good job than in the patagonia.

What exactly is needed in the Patagonia in regards of work?

as far as i know, everything. but the patagonia is huge and only a small area of it, is paradise on earth. the rest is a desert with really strong winds and low temperatures the hole year. that's where the big cities are, and that's where workers are needed. not in the nice side.

falling snow made human create advanced technology.

When all year round, all you have to do is open your mouth and let the fruit fall down into it from the tree, you don't have much incentives to work.

But when you know winter is coming, and you might die from it if you don't gather what's needed to pass it, __that's what puts you to work. __

>but their small amount of population could be correlated with the cold weather.
In which case it's population and not climate that is the factor, there's real advantages in terms of agriculture to being able to grow crops year round, nevermind a much larger variety available.

Now I'm not familiar with the specifics of inner migrations in Argentina, but in Mexico average wages are much higher in the cities and lead to higher disposable incomes even with higher costs of living, life quality is also better comparing urban vs rural areas (access to healthcare, entertainment options, etc.) and there's a better chance to obtain jobs that don't require hard manual labor.

Perfect, i was never one to enjoy smoldering climates, i shall go there and work as whatever a highschool degree holder can get.

That's a long debunked 18th century theory, it's not reality, this paradise in which people didn't have to work hard never did exist in tropical climates, no environment exists on earth that could sustain human life on just its easy to gather surplus, even in the south pacific, where you could conceivably live on coconuts alone, no such society ever did exist.

Panama can into decent PIB per capita!!! :D

i think you can get a job in the oil industry, it's a hard life but the payment is good, and while you are donw there you don't have much options to spend it.

here is more or less the same. Buenos Aires is the best place to live in the country, and maybe in south america.
anyways a lot of people who comes here strugle to get a job, while they could move further south and get better chances to work.
i think that the only thing that stop them is the wheater and the isolation.

It's all to do with the climate and animals, many regions did not have animals to domesticate. They were still foraging and farming until the age of colonialism.
With poorer farming techniques like not having an ox to pull a plow, or horses to communicate faster their societies were very stagnant. How can they support engineers and writers when they'll need to spend all their time hunting their own food.
The lack of variety in their diet cause of this left their genetics much weaker over the course of millenniums if comparing to Europeans and East Asians. Japan has an average IQ of 105 and Jamaica 71. They both had devastating earthquakes can you guess which one worked with their fellow man to rebuild?

Ancient winter purges idiots and weaklings

Look at that dive

Dude, they existed, but they didn't last. Humans are like cockroaches, if they find such a paradise, with plenty of game, fruit and fish, they multiply like microbes until there's never enough.

Theoretically, if humans could control their numbers and greed, they could live in harmony with only what nature provides to them.

jews

it IS the cold though

Wars for natural resources.

It's the cold thing indeed

Nature doesn't provide shit compared to modern farming and zootechnics.

No man, they did not exist, the garden of eden is mythology. What European explorers found on the south Pacific on first contact were, political correctness aside, incestuous half starved canibals, not "elohim" living a perfect sensuous existence.

I live in the north (green part) and the cities and people are shit, but you truly can gain good money here

Its bcos ur brown lmao btfo

here is the same but in the south.

How is Taiwan better than Japan and Korea?

I'm sorry, I was a bit tired when posting this comment. I meant that nature provides anything and science is a mere jewish ruse.

the land is of poorer quality close to the equator
also the heat makes people dumb and lazy, and theres 1% less gravity than in the poles

cold

You need warm clothing or you die.
You have to build sufficient shelter or you die.
You have to make food stocks or you die.
You have to master the fire or you die.
You have to need shelter and foodstock for your farm animals or they die.

All this leads to planning and management.

In areas without winter you just can herpaderp the whole year around.

>likes maria ozawa
opinion discarded

>They have much more resources down there.
They have them, whites don't. Que colonialism and white extinction.

there are more responsibilities living in colder climates than warmer ones, thus you grow and mature as a person. even in countries where non-natives live you can see how people in the warmer climates do worse than people in the cold like the us, australia, argentina, brazil, mexico etc.

if we drop 2 groups of naked humans with nothing in a jungle and tundra, the humans in the jungle are far more likely to survive meanwhile in the tundra, only the humans who can hunt animals, use their fur as clothing and find cover for the night and snow storms will survive.
like a math class taking 2 tests, one with a calculator and one without.

>he doesn't have any education on history or how the world functions

white people

>the humans in the jungle are far more likely to survive
I take it you've never actually been somewhere you could call a jungle

their """resources""" were used for a white cock and there was not much left for locals

and i take you never have been in a tundra

now overlay a map of IQ and you will have your answer

>blames demographics
>what is r/K selection

shoo shoo wetback

Mate in the cold you will be dead after a few hours if unprepared. And if you survive there wont even be anything to eat.

Go fuck yourself muhamad

I'm not the one claiming one is easier to survive than the other

well you should

You can die in a few hours in deserts too from just exposure, and I'd love to see you finding food in a rainforest without the requisite skill set, same as in tubdra.

Literally a must to be clever and build shit just to survive in the frozen north.
What do you do when it's hot as fuck? You chill, you go "fuck it, I'll do it tomorrow".
In the north when it's so cold you die if you don't get shelter and warm clothes. "fuck this I'm building a warmer house, fuck this I'm making better clothes, fuck this I'm building better food supplies, fuck this I need central heating. On and on it goes.

Jesus Christ whites are so insecure.
>Hey man look my ancestors 1000 years ago lived in harsher conditions than yours.
>I'm the master race
Pathetic

The difference being that the rainforest actually have resources you can learn to pick. There is bugs and all kind of plants and stuff you can eat if you know where to find it.
When you are alone on the tundra, the frozen wind is howling and everything is white as far as the eye can see? There is nothing. No vegetation, no insects, no fruits, no berries.
Just ice and snow.

Read a theory somewhere that a tropical climate leads to laziness because for some reason a warm climate doesn't encourage people to work hard in the field. People in tropical places generally only have to worry about rains, while people in temperate areas have to worry about rains and snow as well. As least that's what I heard in uni before.

True. When I country is always hot there will pretty much always be food available (deserts not included).
All you need is water and some shade from the elements.
When you live in a place that is dead and barren for 6+ months of the year you need to build up food supplies, you need better clothing, you need warm houses.
There's a reason farming evolved, and there is a reason the harvest has been an almost magical time of the year through out Europe, especially the north. If your harvest failed, your family would starve in the winter.

We should encourage climate change though. Maybe if winter happens here suddenly, maybe it could kill all the filthy squatter bisaya and mudslimes, and we'll finally become a first world country

It isn't just "picking" stuff up as you seem to be implying, bugs and berries will not sustain you and you're running a good risk on poisoning yourself on those, actual resources, sweet potatoes or heart of palm, take a while and some work to get.

Also you're going on extremes here, tundras for the most part remain with little population, you people mostly live on grasslands and temperate forests, both easier environments to pick bugs and berries on than rainforests.

>The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources (like fossil fuels and certain minerals), tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for and exceptions to these adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.

GDP PPP of Taiwan was higher than Japan and Korea for years.

What the fuggg really? I always thought it's a Belarus of Asia. Like the stage between poor Russia and wealthy Poland

Taiwan = ROC is as rich as Singapore, both are Chinese diaspora without communists rule.

>IQ is static and doesnt change with literacy

Mexico was for decades one of the wealthiest LatAm countries, but in the past years many countries (including Colombia) closed the gap a lot.

Harsher climate have forced a different mentality. Greater need for collaboration and planning. Cooler climate is easier to combat to remain productive.

>font: Bancos centrales e institutos de estadistica
[Which ones?]

The equator area is rich in resources which makes the best place for a dictatorship to rise.
The less resources a nation has -> The more urge it has to industrialize which in turn makes it rich.

yeah except the places that count in regards to civilization are mediterranean in climate. your hypothesis doesnt stand up when looking at how snowniggers lived a few hundred years ago, or how inuits live today

Apparently tropical climates makes you lazy and stupid...

Hi, Tincho Lavie.

Los de cada país, Dane, INE, Indec, etc

=D how did you recognize me?

A few hundred years ago we lived already pretty ok.