ARG ranks 49 in Human Development Index

[Diskosis]

From Wikipedia: "However, relatively few British migrants — compared to other postwar arrivals, such as Italians, Greeks and Turks — took up Australian citizenship. Consequently, many lost their Australian resident status later on, usually through leaving Australia."

Also from Wikipedia: "During these recent 55 years, when Italians migrated more to Australia, their moral conduct had been superior to that of the many other nationals here represented, British included. Italians are work and savings-oriented, intelligent, sober and very much sought after. The only hostility comes from the British labourers who, confident of their origin, look at their Italian competitors with a surly mood, because they are afraid - without any evidence - that Italians could work for lower wages than theirs."

These were mainly southern Italians too.

 

[orwellian]

From Wikipedia: "However, relatively few British migrants — compared to other postwar arrivals, such as Italians, Greeks and Turks — took up Australian citizenship. Consequently, many lost their Australian resident status later on, usually through leaving Australia."

Yes relatively. That is not the same as more. The large majority were English. 5 times larger according to these statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia#Country_of_Birth_of_Australian_Residents

Also from Wikipedia: "During these recent 55 years, when Italians migrated more to Australia, their moral conduct had been superior to that of the many other nationals here represented, British included. Italians are work and savings-oriented, intelligent, sober and very much sought after. The only hostility comes from the British labourers who, confident of their origin, look at their Italian competitors with a surly mood, because they are afraid - without any evidence - that Italians could work for lower wages than theirs."

These were mainly southern Italians too.

It would help if you provide a link to your source and not just state it's from Wikipedia. Your source happens to be an account from an Italian priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Australian

And besides, I am not saying that these people aren't hard workers. My point is how the society is organized and how efficient it is. And that has not much to do with the country's workforce.

 

[jp]

So in other words; it's just a big coincidence that north of Europe/Spain/Italy is rich and south isn't?

This isn't a question, its a loaded statement. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make anymore. Are you talking about heat affecting culture or the efficiency of 19th century factories?

There are plenty of reasons why some north western european countries are wealthy, and why some southern european countries are less wealthy. You only have to look at the history of each country for a fairly comprehensive explanation. If you want to know why the north of Italy is rich, look at how Italy is structured and why. Same goes for Spain. I don't think heat is a particularly important factor, and I don't see much beyond speculation suggesting that it is.

 

[orwellian]

This isn't a question, its a loaded statement. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make anymore. Are you talking about heat affecting culture or the efficiency of 19th century factories?

There are plenty of reasons why some north western european countries are wealthy, and why some southern european countries are less wealthy. You only have to look at the history of each country for a fairly comprehensive explanation. If you want to know why the north of Italy is rich, look at how Italy is structured and why. Same goes for Spain. I don't think heat is a particularly important factor, and I don't see much beyond speculation suggesting that it is.

It is a yes or no question, sorry if it sounded bad. I believe you think that it is a co-incidence. Of course you need to look at the history of each country. But you cannot deny that there is a link between climate and an efficient society, IMO.

My point is and has always been that there is a reason why north of Europe is richer than the south. By that I mean right now, today.

It cannot only have to do with the reasons you stated as all European countries used to be poor before the industrialization. The capitalistic wealth obviously springs from this, so why weren't the south of Europe successfully industrialized? The answer to that lies in climate, IMO.

And culturally this has affected the way the European colonizes where organized (e.g Argentina and Australia). Another important aspect that hasn't been mentioned is corruption.

 

[jp]

It cannot only have to do with the reasons you stated as all European countries used to be poor before the industrialization. The capitalistic wealth obviously springs from this, so why weren't the south of Europe successfully industrialized? The answer to that lies in climate, IMO.

Eh? Northern Europe has always been wealthy, even before industrialisation. Who were the rich countries, when europe was poor? Take a look at this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_182-economy-gdp-per-capita-1820

Then maybe have a dig about here:
http://www.gapminder.org/

If you look at who was wealthy in 1800, then 1900, then 1950, then today there's a strong correlation between modern wealth and historical wealth. Unsuprisingly. So then you need to figure out how and why nations were historically wealthy. Who had empires, successful military conquests, strong merchant fleets, favourable trade agreements, strong trading partners, strategic access to rivers, ports, seas, key trading routes etc.

Within individual countries, you need to understand the regional structure, levels of regional autonomy, the effects of foreign war, civil war, political instability etc. Then how these domestic issues affected international standing. There's a zillion different factors, attributing it to climate is simplistic and there's nothing to really support it. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[orwellian]

Eh? Northern Europe has always been wealthy, even before industrialisation. Who were the rich countries, when europe was poor? Take a look at this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_182-economy-gdp-per-capita-1820

Then maybe have a dig about here:
http://www.gapminder.org/

If you look at who was wealthy in 1800, then 1900, then 1950, then today there's a strong correlation between modern wealth and historical wealth. Unsuprisingly. So then you need to figure out how and why nations were historically wealthy. Who had empires, successful military conquests, strong merchant fleets, favourable trade agreements, strong trading partners, strategic access to rivers, ports, seas, key trading routes etc.

Within individual countries, you need to understand the regional structure, levels of regional autonomy, the effects of foreign war, civil war, political instability etc. Then how these domestic issues affected international standing. There's a zillion different factors, attributing it to climate is simplistic and there's nothing to really support it. Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes you are right, they obviously had a lot of gold from killing and looting South America and the rest of the world. But the peasants of Europe were starving. This was the major reason for the French Revolution.

Interesting statistics but would be even more interesting to see the same statistics a 50 years earlier, before industrialization had started. But why isn't England and Greece on there?

I have already stated several times that there are several factors to why a country is poor, I agree with you on that. I am not only attributing it to climate.

 

[Matt84]

If a people gets rich by looting gold, then we'd have to assume that the previous owners of such gold were rich.

I believe that historically the most gold ever accumulated per capita was by the Mali Kingdom and their Glorious Leader Mansa Musa, who took so much of the stuff during his pilgrimage to Makkah that he deflated the value of gold throughout the civilized (interconnected) world. Now, I don't think that neither the Malians nor the Inca enjoyed a great standard of living despite all that gold - nor that looting metal is a way to riches even less standard of living - for a nation.

Free Trade is. That's what enabled Britain to "invent" industrialization which in turn enabled her to surpass the gold rich Spanish without having to defeat them in any major war.......

edit: As JP pointed out there are MANY factors. Level of individual freedom is probably the easiest common denominator for assessing chance of material and spiritual success (standard of living).

Why do I have to type all this when I can just say "Hong Kong" ?