Do you fear a crash similar to 2001?

[pizzadreams]

Cannot let this comparison slide. It is often said Chile may be this or that, but unlike Argentina, getting an education is only for the well off. More Chileans hold a high school and tertiary/University degree than its neighbours in Argentina, where roughly half of its students don´t finish high school.

 

[lamarque]

Is funny I think you oversimplify things as well, what i wrote is mostly an superficial description of course I’m aware of that, i agree that there are other factors, but what you write basically put all of the weight of development in only 2 factors, and to me as well that is an oversimplification , i have to divide your post in parts to answer, first it doesn’t matter if Argentina have or doesn’t have the same amount of cooper, as that cooper will have to still support 4 times the population, and as long as we know there isn't much cooper in Argentina anyway and the mining industry is a lot cheaper when you have the port near the extraction point and exploration point as is the case of Chile and you are able to open the economy without fear of losing jobs then you have a serious advantage to mine that cooper in Chile, that doesn’t mean that argentina could not be a mining country by no mean, neither it means that I don't agree with you on what you say about a country that could have a lot of resources and fuck it up, that is totally true, or even country’s like Japan that didn't have much of anything and they success, that is not something I will discuss because i agree.

Lol you thing that I don't agree on argentines been responsible of their excessive spending?? and populism and other things? jajja you have no idea of my opinion then.

What I was defining you is the historical context that lead to the current situation, the people is formed by history and culture, Argentineans are the way they are because of it history, the ones that where different crashed a wall many times until they learned that was not a good surviving strategy, the thing is that you are observing a snapshot of now a days and making big jumps to conclusions, and you use data that support my postulate to negate what I postulated witch is weird, for example when you compare Venezuela with Norway, of course Venezuela is a country that did all they can to screw things up and Norway on the other side save most of the oil income to build up one of the biggest saving investment portfolio in the world for when they run out of oil. But again you are comparing apples with peaches, Norway has only 5 million inhabitants and export as much as 103 billion dollars 90% of it is oil and minerals and fish raw resources, you need just a fraction of that to cover all the import needs of a 5 million population so from the first moment you had plenty of resources to save over time and still you will supply for the entire need of your population, so you don’t have the problem of them turning on you because of needs, so you have a very stable situation to carry on a hard saving strategy for the future (they have other things that help, normally cold weather country’s had ingrained in their culture the need of saving during good times for the bad time “winter” so is more natural to save in such a country than in country’s where is always summer, there you have your people cultural part), they can live really well with a very small fraction of the oil they produce, while Venezuela has 32 million inhabitant and export around 80 billons with is less than Norway with a population almost 7 times bigger, of this 80 billons 90% is oil and that has to pay for the entire import needs of their whole economy.

So quite a bad comparison, by the way Norway does not have a lower gpd per capita than Venezuela, you need to seriously look better where you look for your data, you say "

Norway, in spite of having a much lower GDP per capita today, is still one of the richest countries in the world. What do we make of this, then? That the reasons you mentioned are insufficient to explain why Chile is what it is today.

", do you even know how you measure this, you just made a double negative and took as result a positive to deny my text, while you actually confirmed what I say lol, The GDP per capita is what measure how rich a country is, and one of the highest gpd per capita is the one of Norway so please do proper research when you try to talk about economy saying another person how simplistic his analysis is.

 

[lamarque]

Now on spite of this I think you think that I’m thinking that there are no other factors, and i know perfectly that there are other factors, many many other factors that come to play, but still in small commodity dependent country’s people see how rich they are and they think wow they did it so well, while most of the work was done by nature and luck, when you see this cases of small not very populated country's that cross themselves with gold, oil, cooper, or ......... (put the name of your high priced commodity of choice here), in reality many of this other factors most of the times only happen with country’s that had it easy to start with, they were hit with an enormous amount of wealth and a very low population base, of course they could had wasted all but even then is almost impossible when your population base is small and you are sitting on top of a gold mine to do so, you have very good chances that you will save and probably very comfortably plan the future, is not the same case when a very unproductive, poor society with many needs and large population base cross itself with a gold mine, their need and the social fight this will cause over the use of this new money is going to cause turmoil (go tell a person that cannot fulfill even his basic needs that the smarter choice is to save that money for 50 - 100 years so the future generations can enjoy prosperity while this people can only see that they need food or cloth or electricity or medicine tomorrow to subsist, you see is not at all the same case, it can be done but is a very high wall to climb compared to the smaller population base country with same increase in resources), and they will not be able to save much anyway as their suppressed needs are many and their new richness not enough to feed all this mouths that mostly will depend exclusively on this. So is very different one case with the other, you probably picked up the worst case to demonstrate your point, 103 billons divided 5 million persons that happen to be located near a rich and stable continent as it is Europe that will demand at premium prices your commodities because you are inside the union and you are very near to the market, are a lot of advantages compared to a 32 million inhabitants of Venezuela, that are located in a region with a lot of instability, social unrest, and added to that a 32 millions person to divide this 80 billons of exports, add to that the historical fight and division between poor and rich and you have the perfect pot to have a disaster, of course they could have used better this resources, and I agree they did the worst they could to ruin it, but you cannot compare the case of Norway with Venezuela by no means, neither can you compare Venezuela with Chile, Chile has 3 times less population with a natural product that allows them to export 3 times more per capita of a commodity whose price raised almost 10 times faster than oil.

You say "

Check what Chile did with its copper industry. It instituted a copper fund decade ago where its revenues can only be accessed during bad years. Can you imagine something like that occurring in Argentina? That, to me, is concrete evidence -not just a general perception of our day to day interactions with a few Chileans- of cooperation.

" - yes I can actually imagine that, it was proposed and was on it way to be instituted with lavagna here in argentina, but then Nestor kischner kicked him away. Regardless this can only happen when you have an excess to save, I already postulated why is easier for the government to take this kind of policies in small commodity dependent country’s, and is great that they do, it will be catastrophic if the cooper price collapse and they weren’t saving at all, they were lucky with cooper price up until now, let hope they don't need this savings in the future but is really good that they do so.

You say "

Argentina never opened its economy enough to compete with the world and be a competitive player in global supply chains or adopted a true liberal stance like that of Chile, which is not to say Chile doesn´t have it´s own problems.

", As i mention before is not so easy to open an economy when you have to compete and your labor force depend on this industrial jobs, than opening your economy when you are a monoproducer and most of the trades you do with the world outside commodity exports are imports of the rest. Just totally different case, in any case I’m a liberal and I do agree that free trade is a good thing and that Argentina has chosen the wrong path, the easy one but the one that will make it fail over the long term, but still you need smart trade agreements and a total change on the way the things are done in this country to open the economy, if not you are meant to fail and to cause more free trade haters.

You say "

One last thing, many countries protect certain sectors of the economy from competition; Argentina, on the other hand, adopts a radical stance (as with everything) and protects itself from EVERYTHING, never mind how inefficient it is to do that when not even national companies are free to import goods or products they need to develop their own production. Chileans are smarter in this (and many if not all) regard. Chile -like New Zealand, like Australia, like Canada- will never have a productive and competitive textile industry, so they import what they need. Argentina is one of the most closed economies in the world where the population has to pay up to 4 times the price of something while the ones taking advantage of this are union leaders, politicians and businessmen that get extremely rich at the expense of everyone. Lastly, it is not true that you will have unemployment by opening up the economy. You will have a better allocation of resources because does it really matter if you have 7% unemployment rate when most of the people working do so in jobs that aren´t needed or/and aren´t productive? Importing what you will never produce means people will not only benefit from lower prices and better quality of goods, but will keep more money in their pockets, money that will fuel REAL jobs and productive companies and investment. Your logic here is unfortunately a fallacy that many Argentines share. To sum up everything, what you need -just take a look at the leading countries in social and economic indicators- is a relatively open economy and a sane and honest enough population. The latter a result of historical processes across the centuries, something which cannot be changed -if it can- overnight.

" - lol to this i just need to laugh, you have no idea what my mindset is, I’m a libertarian, I agree in all of this but you are just oversimplifying things, as soon as you open up the economy you will have a lot of this unproductive people on the streets, and yes I agree with you that eventually there will be new more efficient industries that will take some of them (not all because not all of them are useful necessarily, many of them will need reeducation or a lot of spending to adapt to the new industries) and surely if well executed on the long term it will lead to a lower unemployment rate, problem is that elections are every 4 years, and people will kick you away of the pink house if unemployment goes up to 20% all of a sudden ( at the end of the day people needs to work and survive, and this 20% will then become criminals if they don’t manage to get enough to survive), and that is not only in this country, that will happen in any other place. That why I put as an advantage to start a free trade policy when you produce very few things like Chile and opening your economy will make people mostly happier as the price of goods go down without tariff, while doing the same here is quite hard hopefully not impossible but this things need to be done in a smarter way if you don't want a kristina Kirshner coming back into power and destroy all the advancement you did on that field.



You say “

but in the grand scheme of things, stereotypes exist for a reason, and no one would dare to call the Japanese lazy and dishonest.

”, no one smart would dare to say that of any people of any country, stereotypes do have a reason, does that mean that the reason is valid? Is the reason originally made up by the right person?, here there is still many people with the stereotype of navy Germans, and that couldn’t be farther away from how open Germany is with immigrants now a days, Stereotypes are not a good thing because you are presuming and entire society to be that way, when most likely is just a minority that has the most visible image. For example, the stereotype of the Argentineans been snobbish when they travel around the world, and the true is that mostly is just the porteños that are just a small percentage of the population, or the stereotype of trains in Germany been always on time, or buses, that is just a stereotype that maybe was true sometime in the past but rarely true now a days, or that they are fast and efficient in everything, go ask when it was suppose to be finish the berlin Airport and eternity ago, and they are still going around with it, scandals, corruption, money wasted, or in Freiburg where the center seems to always be in construction and never nothing really seems to get finished. Of course this are picked cases, but when you hear the stereotypes and then you see the reality is not the same and while there is probably a part of Germany in witch this stereotypes still applies, they are not at all valid for the whole of Germany as a country.



I close my writing here, is to long of a debate to be had in forums, i think is more for a coffe chat because i don't even think that you understand my mindset when you post things thinking that i'm the simplistic here and the anti free trade lol. Sorry i made the post so long.

 

[lamarque]

Cannot let this comparison slide. It is often said Chile may be this or that, but unlike Argentina, getting an education is only for the well off. More Chileans hold a high school and tertiary/University degree than its neighbours in Argentina, where roughly half of its students don´t finish high school.

Lol we are talking of spenging not of efficiency on the spending let not go in a totally new direction. Besides you can hold a university degree that is not the complain in chile, mostly is that then they will be paying for it the rest of their lives.

 

[pizzadreams]

Is funny I think you oversimplify things as well, what i wrote is mostly an superficial description of course I’m aware of that, i agree that there are other factors, but what you write basically put all of the weight of development in only 2 factors, and to me as well that is an oversimplification , i have to divide your post in parts to answer, first it doesn’t matter if Argentina have or doesn’t have the same amount of cooper, as that cooper will have to still support 4 times the population, and as long as we know there isn't much cooper in Argentina anyway and the mining industry is a lot cheaper when you have the port near the extraction point and exploration point as is the case of Chile and you are able to open the economy without fear of losing jobs then you have a serious advantage to mine that cooper in Chile, that doesn’t mean that argentina could not be a mining country by no mean, neither it means that I don't agree with you on what you say raincheck. ountry that could have a lot of resources and fuck it up, that is totally true, or even country’s like Japan that didn't have much of anything and they success, that is not something I will discuss because i agree.

Lol you thing that I don't agree on argentines been responsible of their excessive spending?? and populism and other things? jajja you have no idea of my opinion then.

What I was defining you is the historical context that lead to the current situation, the people is formed by history and culture, Argentineans are the way they are because of it history, the ones that where different crashed a wall many times until they learned that was not a good surviving strategy, the thing is that you are observing a snapshot of now a days and making big jumps to conclusions, and you use data that support my postulate to negate what I postulated witch is weird, for example when you compare Venezuela with Norway, of course Venezuela is a country that did all they can to screw things up and Norway on the other side save most of the oil income to build up one of the biggest saving investment portfolio in the world for when they run out of oil. But again you are comparing apples with peaches, Norway has only 5 million inhabitants and export as much as 103 billion dollars 90% of it is oil and minerals and fish raw resources, you need just a fraction of that to cover all the import needs of a 5 million population so from the first moment you had plenty of resources to save over time and still you will supply for the entire need of your population, so you don’t have the problem of them turning on you because of needs, so you have a very stable situation to carry on a hard saving strategy for the future (they have other things that help, normally cold weather country’s had ingrained in their culture the need of saving during good times for the bad time “winter” so is more natural to save in such a country than in country’s where is always summer, there you have your people cultural part), they can live really well with a very small fraction of the oil they produce, while Venezuela has 32 million inhabitant and export around 80 billons with is less than Norway with a population almost 7 times bigger, of this 80 billons 90% is oil and that has to pay for the entire import needs of their whole economy.

So quite a bad comparison, by the way Norway does not have a lower gpd per capita than Venezuela, you need to seriously look better where you look for your data, you say " ", do you even know how you measure this, you just made a double negative and took as result a positive to deny my text, while you actually confirmed what I say lol, The GDP per capita is what measure how rich a country is, and one of the highest gpd per capita is the one of Norway so please do proper research when you try to talk about economy saying another person how simplistic his analysis is.

I'm not oversimplifying or saying the only things you need are two things. I'm saying if you look at successful countries today it cannot be more clear there is a pattern where they've an open economy, which is a symptom of a cooperative society built on trust, and you can't have this without people that work towards the same goal and share the same vision (mostly)

I do have a clear idea of what your values are because it's obvious from your posts you're lean towards a liberal state and are heavily anti populist. I emphasized on your diagnosis, not on your core values.

You keep banging on the natural resources drum and population when we've seen countries that barely possess the former can be rich as well. If Norway didn't have oil it would still be a developed country and that's evident if you look at the numbers.

Again, you misunderstood. I said Norway has a much lower gdp than years before. I obviously wasn't saying it has a lower gdp per capital than failed Venezuela. That's ridiculous.

It's not really whether you've a commodity oriented economy or how many copper reserves or whatever you have. It's about what you can do with what you have, your human capital, your ability to succeed in both beneficial and adverse situations.

Regarding your last comment, many Chileans do graduate with high debt, but they also earn much more as professionals. And that's the thing, it's no use if you've the system you do in Arg if it's not efficient. That to me is what really matters.

Lastly, I feel you took my post on one hand on the personal side, but I agree it would be interesting to chat this one up over some coffee. I'll give you a raincheck.

 

[pizzadreams]

Give me a raincheck*

The lack of editing is annoying

 

[lamarque]

I'm not oversimplifying or saying the only things you need are two things. I'm saying if you look at successful countries today it cannot be more clear there is a pattern where they've an open economy, which is a symptom of a cooperative society built on trust, and you can't have this without people that work towards the same goal and share the same vision (mostly)



I do have a clear idea of what your values are because it's obvious from your posts you're lean towards a liberal state and are heavily anti populist. I emphasized on your diagnosis, not on your core values.



You keep banging on the natural resources drum and population when we've seen countries that barely possess the former can be rich as well. If Norway didn't have oil it would still be a developed country and that's evident if you look at the numbers.



Again, you misunderstood. I said Norway has a much lower gdp than years before. I obviously wasn't saying it has a lower gdp per capital than failed Venezuela. That's ridiculous.



It's not really whether you've a commodity oriented economy or how many copper reserves or whatever you have. It's about what you can do with what you have, your human capital, your ability to succeed in both beneficial and adverse situations.



Regarding your last comment, many Chileans do graduate with high debt, but they also earn much more as professionals. And that's the thing, it's no use if you've the system you do in Arg if it's not efficient. That to me is what really matters.



Lastly, I feel you took my post on one hand on the personal side, but I agree it would be interesting to chat this one up over some coffee. I'll give you a raincheck.

Well, in any case obviously we are mostly in agreement, but one of the points where i don't agree is this one

You keep banging on the natural resources drum and population when we've seen countries that barely possess the former can be rich as well.

, sure i agree there are countrys that are in this category a good example is japon, i just don't agree that norway and chile are this type of country’s, if you see their historic charts their economies goes on the hand year by year with the average price of their main export commodity’s, they as well rely heavily on their commodities, in 2013 Norway had a collapse on their economy from 580 billon dollars of gdp to 360 billons in less than a year, that is a collapse of 40% on their gdp, it seems pretty much as a commodity blessed country with low population, such a case not so much like a japon type of economy build on their own merits, and that clearly tell you when an economy is mostly related to the price of a commodity price. Answering this

If Norway didn't have oil it would still be a developed country and that's evident if you look at the numbers.

well i doubt it actually, they had still a lot of natural richness beyond the oil but before oil actually rise in prices and they started extracting it they where a relatively poor economy, so explain me how is it that in 1970 and before that, their economy was just around 10-20 billon dollars and with the rise of new gas extraction points they went upo by 2013 to almost 580 billon dollars (of course they collapsed after when the price of gas and oil dropped suddenly because of the rise in production related to shale oil and gas), so norway and chile are not necessarily the case you are looking for, many people just look the shiny numbers of norway now a days but never take the time to analize how was the process and reasons that actually made that very unpopulated country and natural rich country growth. If you tell me a country like Japan we can totally agree on that country been a case, but not with Norway or Chile. They were country’s that of course took some good decisions, but mostly their economy’s success cases where mainly related to hight prices of commodity’s, and btw Norwegian state spend money like crazy, is just that the amount they export of commodities make it impossible even with ridiculous subsides for them to spend the whole income with such a small population.
In any case better for a debate and not so much for a forum

 

[pizzadreams]

Well, in any case obviously we are mostly in agreement, but one of the points where i don't agree is this one , sure i agree there are countrys that are in this category a good example is japon, i just don't agree that norway and chile are this type of country’s, if you see their historic charts their economies goes on the hand year by year with the average price of their main export commodity’s, they as well rely heavily on their commodities, in 2013 Norway had a collapse on their economy from 580 billon dollars of gdp to 360 billons in less than a year, that is a collapse of 40% on their gdp, it seems pretty much as a commodity blessed country with low population, such a case not so much like a japon type of economy build on their own merits, and that clearly tell you when an economy is mostly related to the price of a commodity price. Answering this well i doubt it actually, they had still a lot of natural richness beyond the oil but before oil actually rise in prices and they started extracting it they where a relatively poor economy, so explain me how is it that in 1970 and before that, their economy was just around 10-20 billon dollars and with the rise of new gas extraction points they went upo by 2013 to almost 580 billon dollars (of course they collapsed after when the price of gas and oil dropped suddenly because of the rise in production related to shale oil and gas), so norway and chile are not necessarily the case you are looking for, many people just look the shiny numbers of norway now a days but never take the time to analize how was the process and reasons that actually made that very unpopulated country and natural rich country growth. If you tell me a country like Japan we can totally agree on that country been a case, but not with Norway or Chile. They were country’s that of course took some good decisions, but mostly their economy’s success cases where mainly related to hight prices of commodity’s, and btw Norwegian state spend money like crazy, is just that the amount they export of commodities make it impossible even with ridiculous subsides for them to spend the whole income with such a small population.
In any case better for a debate and not so much for a forum

I´ll explain

Norway Oil Contribution to its GDP: 22%
GDP per capita 2017: $75.000 (after the recent slump in oil prices)
Rough measurement -22%: $58.000 (on par with Sweden, Denmark and the US)

GDP per capita in 1960 (World Bank):

U.K: $1380
Norway: $1440
Sweden: $1980
Switzerland: $1780

PISA Education Ranking (2015): 24th (higher than Sweden and the US)

Nobel laureates per capita: 13 (For comparison purposes, Argentina: 5)

Corruption perception, least corrupt (Transparency international): 3rd (out of 180 countries)

Press Freedom (Reporters Without Borders): 1st most free (out of 180)

Global Innovation Index, Ranking (2018): 19th

Index for Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation (2018): 23rd

Since we´re at it, why not look into the Chilean example too:

PISA Ranking 2012 (last one was in 2015 but Argentina, ironically, was barred because of insufficient data)
Chile: 51st (1st in LATAM)
Argentina: 54th

Index for Economic Freedom (Heritage, same as before)
Chile: 20th
Argentina: 144th

Corruption Perception:

Chile: 26th/180
Argentina: 85th/180

Press Freedom:

Chile: 38th
Argentina: 52nd

Dato mata relato?

 

[lamarque]

I´ll explain

Norway Oil Contribution to its GDP: 22%
GDP per capita 2017: $75.000 (after the recent slump in oil prices)
Rough measurement -22%: $58.000 (on par with Sweden, Denmark and the US)

GDP per capita in 1960 (World Bank):

U.K: $1380
Norway: $1440
Sweden: $1980
Switzerland: $1780

PISA Education Ranking (2015): 24th (higher than Sweden and the US)

Nobel laureates per capita: 13 (For comparison purposes, Argentina: 5)

Corruption perception, least corrupt (Transparency international): 3rd (out of 180 countries)

Press Freedom (Reporters Without Borders): 1st most free (out of 180)

Global Innovation Index, Ranking (2018): 19th

Index for Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation (2018): 23rd

Since we´re at it, why not look into the Chilean example too:

PISA Ranking 2012 (last one was in 2015 but Argentina, ironically, was barred because of insufficient data)
Chile: 51st (1st in LATAM)
Argentina: 54th

Index for Economic Freedom (Heritage, same as before)
Chile: 20th
Argentina: 144th

Corruption Perception:

Chile: 26th/180
Argentina: 85th/180

Press Freedom:

Chile: 38th
Argentina: 52nd

Dato mata relato?

Sorry but I’m not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with that data. Education? Nobel prices? corruption? press freedom? lol that is just a national decision that having a lot of money makes it easier to accomplish if that is your wish as a nation. I'm really not sure why you posted some random data, where you trying to demonstrate something with it? ;? , secondly that number talking of the oil contribution to the Norwegian economy is irrelevant, and i will explain you why, 22% is the direct correlation between oil production and gdp to that you have to add aluminum and other minerals, and fishing this all will plus a very big chunk of the cake, now all this is exports that comes to them at at very low cost and Hight profit at least the oil, gas and aluminum exports. If you will have let say to make up with farming for that amount of export and money you will have that the entire population of Norway will be doomed to not have any other economic activity in order to reach an equivalent of 2 % of what that oil production implies. Now that 22% + others commodity’s exports they make, pay for the entire cake, if that where to disappear all the money that now a days move indirectly the remaining activities of Norway, mostly all the money for nursering, resale, supermarkets, services, tourism out and in (mostly out), real states, finances position that administrate the huge portfolio of savings from the oil, etc etc depend entirely on that base industry, if you where to take out the oil from Norway it wouldn't collapse 22%, as the rest of Norway activities depend indirectly from it, if no money comes with the commodities, no money goes to the shops, to the real state, to pay for government salaries, to pay for the out tourism service etc. So your real impact on their economy is a lot a lot bigger than that 22% you mention, besides 22% is only the oil, they export many other commodities as well. The economy is like a house of cards, you can take the top cards of it and it would not affect much the house, but if you take the bottom cards, you will see where the actual value was. In any case now a days they have big savings that could help them for a while but never the less they where as well only posible thanks to the huge income that produced the oil and gas. A good example here in argentina will be neuquen, their oil production is around 40% of their gdp but actually make the remaining 60% of their gdp able to exist, without that 20% all the gobernment jobs will cut by 5, and the state represent almost 40% of the jobs there, and the real state and shops and services all of it will just collapse for lack of demand, so was that 40% really 40% or was it more like 90% of their real economy?.

 

[lamarque]

I'm going to be away for a week, not sure if i will be checking the forum, in any case the true will lie between the diferent opinions, sure the fact that they develop as a country good values and low corruption helps them, as well as other things like huge cost for companies and tremendous amounts of burocracy to do anything don't help norway. But In this case is not the main reason of why they developed as the 6 richest nation in the world, they went down sharply in the last couple of years from been the richest by the way. Here you have a list of rich countrys per capita, let me know what you see in common between the top richest countrys with small population ? let me name it for you, OILLL . I will Past the articles here, there are other type of small rich countrys, that are city-states and mostly in strategical places or historical political strategical places to be hubs for free trade.
-Here you have the richest, you can see that most of them are oil countries that made saving in the time thanks to their oil or gas production, and no, many of them have no freedom what so ever, and no nobel prices or nothing related, so why do you even think that norway is the exeption to the rule?
8. United Arab Emirates ($68,250) - Ok here we have an oil producing country with small population, surprise surprise
The Dubai Marina and Jumeirah Beach Residences (L) are seen from above on February 8, 2017 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Photo by Jumana Jolie for Getty Images
The United Arab Emirates stands as one of the richest countries in the world, with an economy pushed by the oil market, according to the IMF. Lower oil prices and output led to a lack of growth for the country in 2016, according to the IMF, however, non-oil growth in the UAE, which has a population of just over 10 million, is expected to rise in 2017.

7. Kuwait ($69,670) - wow another oil producing country

Shuwaikh beach and skyline of Kuwait City, Kuwait, Middle East
Kuwait, a country of more than 4 million people, bucked the trend of other oil-driven economies faced slower growth in 2016 because to a drop in oil prices and production, according to the IMF, largely because Kuwait saw growth in non-oil areas. And that non-oil growth is expected to continue growing, the IMF said.

6. Norway ($70,590) - And yet another oil producing country
The Scandinavian nation with over 5 million residents sits just outside of the top five richest countries in the world per capita. According to the IMF, the country was negatively affected by the the lower oil price over the last couple of years. Norway also saw its growth fall to its lowest since 2008 and 2009’s economic downturn, although the country was also able to lower its unemployment rate after its peak last summer.

-And it seems that was even more affected by the lower oil prices than the rest of the oil producing countrys with small population, so i don't see so much your saying of norway been an extremely rich country if they didn't have oil.

5. Ireland ($72,630) - I lived here for 3 years working in microsoft, their strategy is to put half or less the tax than the other european countries put to tecnologie companies, but the rest of europe is already complaining and trying to obligate them to tax the companies the same, as they have a small population as well like norway and they are in the european union they greatly benefit from this as the head quarters of all the main tech companies are stablish there to pay less taxes and from there they sale to the rest of europe. Of course this only works because they have a very small population base and they open the country for tech companies to bring tech talents from all around the world without much of a hassle.
Grattan Bridge in the city centre of Dublin, Ireland
Ireland stands as a country with one of the highest growth rates in Europe helping it round out the top five richest countries in the world. Spending, investment and construction drove GDP growth in Ireland in 2016, the IMF reports.

4. Brunei ($76,740) - another oil country with few population- wow this seems to be already forming some kind of pattern, aparently norway was not at all that special after all.
Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei
While Brunei’s GDP growth declined in 2016, the country actually faired better than expected, according to the IMF. The wealthy country, has seen success in adjusting to downturns in the oil market, despite it being a main export of Brunei. Nearly 90% of Brunei’s revenue came from oil and gas, in 2014 the latest figure from the IMF.

3. Singapore ($90,530) - here we have a country that was more a hub for free trade, but is more a city state than a country.

Singapore remains one of the world’s richest countries and saw its real GDP grow by 2.7% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2017, the IMF reported. The city-state with a population of 5.6 million has been continuously growing since last year as the global electronics trades has rebounded. On a broader scale, IMF notes that Singapore’s economic growth has been limited mainly to its expert-oriented fields.


2. Luxembourg ($109,190) - Banking and fiscal paradaise
Large motorway bridge over valley in Luxembourg City.
Luxembourg, with a population of close to 600,000 ranks as the world’s second-richest country. The country possesses a strong workforce and its 2016 growth exceeded the European Union’s overall growth. However, the IMF notes that changing a changing landscape from Brexit and policy changes coming for the U.S. can create market instability.
That's beside the fact that 85% of Luxembourg'seconomy is based on banking. ... So, the economic output generated by these individuals are counted as domestic product for Luxembourg but the people who generate that product don't live in the country andso aren't part of its population when we calculate GDP per capita. However, do keep in mind that there are shadier reasons behind Luxembourg's abnormally high GDP. First, it is a tax haven within the EU and attracts many financial institutions that service all of Europe. In fact, the financial sector accounts for 28% of the nation's GDP and employs more than 11% of its entire labour force. Given that this sector is a high value-added sector, that pushes up GDP per capita. That's beside the fact that 85% of Luxembourg's economy is based on banking.

1. Qatar ($124,930) - And here again another oil country with small population.

The small Middle Eastern country often ranks as one of the richest countries in the world per capita. Qatar’s population is approximately 2.27 million, giving it a total GDP of approximately $124,930 per person and making it the richest country in world as of 2017, according to the IMF. The country has grown despite facing lower prices for hydrocarbon, a major revenue source for Qatar, which is used for fuel. Qatar’s GDP growth is expected to continue through 2017.


To resume, when you see the small countrys category you see that most of the ones that are between the top are or blessed by natural wealth like oil, or took advantage of other countrys by lowering taxes to steal companys from the countrys around, or are related with banking as fiscal paradaises. But mostly where blessed by oil, and the level of education or corruption or other factors don't seem to impact as heavely in this cases as it will in a big nation where the economy is more complex and require a lot of complexer operations to progress.

http://fortune.com/2017/11/17/richest-country-in-the-world/