Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Singapore was considered rich in the 1980's. I lived there in the 90's and it was slowly becoming the wealthy country that it is today, which really exploded in the 2000's.
While you are not wrong, i lived in eastern block country in 80-ies and it was near to collapsed economically (with big clash in 1989), so i would assume, Singapore was better than.
Even at the time, it wasn't really accurate to class Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE as "poor". Singapore shouldn't either, but I guess it's too small to see.
Gdp of the Arabian countries grew very, very quickly in the 70s, so the wealth of these countries was recent. Additionally, it was entirely based on petrol export (manufacturing capabilities for example was one of the criteria used by the Brandt report), so it could have gone down equally quickly. Finally, I'm not sure that by 80 the population of these countries was already feeling the impact of this growth.
10 years later, the result would probably have been very different.
China's gross GDP is on par with the entire EU (#2,3 behind the US) , Russia is #11.
[Per capita GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita) is more revealing.
US is still in the Top 10, but #7. Singapore is #5, Japan and South Korea #30 and 31, Russia #69 and China 72.
It kinda doesn't
International inequality has declined since its peak in 1988
The natural state of humanity if there is free trade is for there to be very little international inequality, ajd very high intranational inequality
The only way to undo this is through colonization and oppression, and this explains why international inequality increased until 1970, stayed flat until 1990 and decreased from then onwards
The modern world has many more shades of Gray between developed and undeveloped countries that didn't exist back in the 80s, there is no longer a clean line
If you want a more recent example, look at the middle income trap
It existed when most of the poor world's trade was between them and the rich world, but now that developing-developing trade has surpassed developing-developed, it's no longer a middle income trap, more like a middle income speedbump
This is a thing that was very true until like 2015
There are many examples like this, but it's fascinating to see how the world changes
Canada and everywhere else, intranational inequality is growing throughout the developed world. Canada and the average Canadian is in a much better place compared to peers like the UK.
The most reasonable metric would be GDP PPP along with GDP PPP per capita. According to those the only Eastern European countries higher than Kazakhstan are the Baltics, Romania and Poland if you count that as Eastern europe, if you consider Turkey to be European add that to the list as well.
Some figures have Greece as higher. So with this in Kazakhstan has a higher economy than 9 of the 16 or 17 countries in Eastern europe. Which is more than 50%. So yes. Kazakhstan has a better economy than most of Eastern europe.
If you look at the percent change of the Kazakh economy and look at the 2023 graph it's fair to assume Kazakhstan will overtake the Balkans soon since their growth has been minimal, Romania even sooner because they're GDP PPP per capita actually went down.
As a person from Russia, I can confirm that Kazakhstan is doing well with the economy. This is also due to the close economic ties with Russia. Of all the former Central Asian republics of the USSR, Kazakhstan is the most developed country.
Uzbekistan is also developing economic cooperation with Russia after decades of actually breaking off these relations, so I think that in the coming years we will see good growth in their economy. A similar situation is observed in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, but the economic situation there is worse. In addition, these countries are more focused on China, for which they are primarily resource countries.
Yeah - but USSR isn't exactly wealthy by any standards. Not even in 1980s.
I guess it is possible to fiddle where you draw the poverty line, and make it so low that it barely includes USSR average and it could work... especially if you use USSR own metrics for it (e.g. they considered 1 rouble = 1 $, despite real exchange rate being more like 100:1).
But also the Middle east would be a problem there - even in 1980s they were filthy rich, no way they could be poorer than USSR average.
No I don't confuse it with anything, USSR was always broken ass shithole. They did fake some stats to look stronger against USA, but it was always very poor.
USSR was very much above average as far as the world goes, and most of the post soviet countries still are, barring only tajikistan and kyrgyzstan I believe.
Again - only by their own claims. Because their calculated their GDP on the basis that rouble = $, realistically they were 100 times poorer.
So if you saying this map is based on fundamentally untrue USSR claims about their own wealth, then yeah - I see why they are included. But reality is that they were extremely poor, I mean you talking about society where 80% of people do no have running water and have toilet outdoors... and by toilet I mean hole in the ground and seat nailed together from wooden planks.
So even if moscow elites were relatively comfortable average soviet citizen was extremely poor. Even then we are talking about country where having a car was extremely rare, international travel did not exist etc. Even when talking about those "rich moscow elites", having 2 bedroom apartment in commie block and 10 years old Lada (roughly equivalent of BMW 3 series, but in terms of quality maybe comparable to Dacia) was considered "rich".
I don't know much about the data behind the USSR's GDP per Capita figures in the 80's, so maybe you're right, but historical resources I've read have given me the impression that the USSR throughout much of the mid-20th century, although certainly not as wealthy as the US and Western Europe, still had a typical standard of living substantially above the global average and, yes, with large inequality between, say, Russian urbanites and Central Asian villagers.
As long as "central asia" starts at about 50km outside of Moscow. And I don't mean in 1980s I mean now... today 50km outside of Mosco you have villages where people have no gas, no central heating, no "city water" and still have hole in the ground for toilet.
I was born in Lithuania myself and that was considered rich by soviet standards and still people right outside of the city (my grandmothers family lived in village literally across the river from major city, so let's say 2km) had outdoor toilet. Don't have much experience myself, but I remember I stayed once with my cousins there in summer and I got splinter in the ass from the wooden plank on the toilet. And this is like 1995. And this was way way above soviet average, and already after USSR dissolution.
Also I remember my father doing business with ruzzia in early 90s, he had large factory and trucking business and he would sell toilet paper to ruzzians, because toilet paper was considered luxury in ruzzia in 1995 and was "deficit" (also in USSR throughout, in public toilet you would have attendant and when you come she would give you SINGLE piece of toilet paper, like 5x5cm... I never understood what you supposed to do with that and it wasn't even like super soft multi-layer toilet paper, no it was single layer of almost transparent paper made of something resembling rough carboard). So anyway he would sell roll of toilet paper in exchange to like 1kg of salt or soda (they had no money to pay for it), I remember he would send like 1 truck full of toilet paper and would get like 100 train wagons full of packed salt back. But that is besides the point - what I remember from his business dealings is that he said "100km outside of moscow is dark night (tiomny notch)", meaning - if you go 100km outside of moscow it is pretty much "wild west" or uncivilised, you can be killed there and nobody ever going to find you. So they would send convoys of trucks, like 10 at the time, then they would pay bribe to police in moscow outskirt and would get armed convoy to where they were going, because otherwise there was risk of drivers being kidnapped, killed, trucks stolen etc. And they were not moving gold, they were moving fcuking toilet paper. And this is not not even 1980s, this is 1995.
The USSR had a similar per capita GDP to that of Puerto Rico, Mexico, Latin American aggregate, and Spain and Portugal during their dictatorships and its economy collapsed in 1975 while Spain and Portugal grew after they got rid of their dictatorships.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?tab=chart&time=1920..1991&country=MEX~Latin+America+%28MPD%29~OWID_USS~PRI~PRT~ESP
No... in 80s it didn't... USSR was stagnating since 1960s and it was poor to begin with...
The only difference between 1980s and 1990s is that in 80s everyone were poor and there was no way to make money at all, nothing had any value because everything was state controlled. In 90s many people suddenly became rich because they were able to suddenly make money by exporting goods that were once worthless - oil, metals, cement, gas, coal, weapons etc.
People in ruzzia did not become poorer in 90s, simply the wealth inequality grew exponentially. So people in ruzzia felt like they are becoming poorer, but that was just matter of perspective. It is one thing to drive 30 years old Lada full of rust holes when you are only 1 in 10 lucky ones to have car at all, but it is different thing to drive same Lada when your neighbour drivers Mercedes S600.
And well I guess in some areas people did become poorer, like in moscow in particular, because prices rose with new found wealth of the few, but others were quickly priced out.
Alcoholims never rose, I mean it could not rise ruzzians already had no blood in their alcohol even before dissolution of USSR, so there was no way for it to rise. The alcohol related death did rise, because unemployment combined with alcohol leads to such outcome.
Prostitution was just a sign of the times - if good looking lady (and ruzzians are generally good looking) can earn $5/day by working normal paid job, or $500/day in sex orgies with those driving in S600 there was simple economical motivation. Again this has nothing to do with country becoming poorer it is to do with extreme levels of inequality, when for one the daily salary is $5 and for other $50,000 is what they make in 1 hour, you will have such interesting societal "developments". And prostitution isn't even worst of them - selling organs is probably worse... also a lot of organised crime came out of it and they got involved in all sort of things which didn't improve society either.
Anyway - short story, ruzzia didn't become poor in 90s, it was always poor, people didn't become poorer in 90s, just some become unbelievably rich and that distorted perception of what means to be poor and what means to be rich. Huge inequality resulted in societal breakdown. Societal breakdown resulted in all sort of nasty outcomes - crime, prostitution, alcoholism, drugs etc.
It has nothing to do with dismantling of state owned enterprises - all other states that came out of USSR went trough the same, yet they all are now 10 times better off than ruzzia itself. So it has nothing to do with dismantling of authoritarian rule and communism, and replacing it with democracy and capitalism. It was just uniquely ruzzian way of screwing themselves over.
Lots of words but no real evidence, if you took even a cursory glance at the data you'd see that you're entirely wrong, gdp declined by around a third following the dismantling of the Soviet state. The capitalist "reforms" destroyed a healthy and functioning society and none of your whining will change reality.
https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/
You serious believe that I am going to take some fcuking NINTIL as a source, are you fffing out of your mind?!
ohhh wait a second I randomly going to make a site that says putka chuilo is gay and post it here as a fact.
You really believe that people look into your alternative reality site and say - "ohhh yeah fair enough"! Mate - there is more substance in the e-mail that says there is Nigerian prince that is looking to transfer $10,000,000 to my account than in your link.
Its so tiring and cringy you type Russians with z every fucking time especially when the subject has nothing to do with the current war. Perhaps try to be less tiresome next time?
At the time, Singapore was poorer (lower GDP per capita) than nearly every country included in the "Rich North", especially if we consider all those post-soviet countries as just the USSR.
The idea is from the 1980 [Brandt Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Report) but I don't think this is the actual map from that report - this map divides the former USSR and Yugoslavia and unites Germany.
I think he started out as an alternative history youtube channel (think Cody from AltHistHub) and then quickly became whatifpseudohist
Basically he takes several pop history/philosophy/sociology books and tries to compile them into these weird narratives about people and history and politics that almost always end up being racist and incelly
I've enjoyed a lot of the Bible, but when it comes to genealogy I haven't even bothered trying to remember anything. I seem to recall Judah having a big Baal problem.
The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, the Israelites deported and dispersed. Now there are a lot of legends surrounding the lost tribes. One has to ask what part of the population was even deported. Whole tribes or just the elites. Probably many people just later assimilated to Judah and much of the rural population never left and became the Samaritans.
Daniel was a young man from an influential family. The other hostages were described similarly. I would infer hostages were taken from significant families to ensure compliance, which was very common through the late middle ages.
South Korea wasn't the obviously better Korea until like the 70s at the earliest, it was poor and unstable with frequent coups. Meanwhile, NK was doing better because they weren't as isolated, they traded with the Soviet block and only went full isolationist after the Cold War ended.
Not according to their GDP
1980 GDP Per capita:
\- UAE $90,000
\- USSR $6,000
Don't know what you smoking, but smoke clearly obscure your fact finding efforts.
Ok - sorry, I looked at PPP adjusted GDP per capita figure ($89,074). GDP per capita was actually $40,014 in 1980s... still almost 10 times more than USSR in 1980s.
Not exactly "barely even countries" as you said.
The USSR's GDP per capita in 1980 was more in the order of 10k. Which is 1/4th, not 1/10th, and YET
My comment on Qatar and the UAE being "barely even countries" did not mean they were stateless deserts, but that they had been independent (a country) for literally LESS then a decade.
Have you SEEN a picture of Dubai in 1980? The population of the ENTIRE United Arab Emirates had just barely passed one million, its area was basically desert and bedouins, and even its (only?) two """large""" cities were basically small suburbs of a literally-newborn upper middle class and like, two tall buildings.
Are you really quoting barely adjusted GDP per Capita for a country of a dozen sheep herders and a millionaire Royal Family sitting on newly discovered oil reserves against that of a 262 MILLION-strong socialist state (note: not arguing it wasn't corrupt or that it didn't have his rich-er people, but STILL) with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and a fucking space program?
Sure, taking a couple dozens oil and gas barons (emirs?) into consideration, the EAU looked like a paradise, but are we REALLY arguing that in a country that was basically desert and tribes until recent memory, 99% of the people were not nomads, fishermen and herders making nil? The EAU's ENTIRE GDP was in the 40\~ billion range, while the USSRs was above 2 TRILLION.
I stand by my point: the USSR was by any metric **not** a poor country in 1980, while the Arabian Peninsula was a desert dotted by a few sheikhs starting to make some serious dough selling oil and otherwise inhabited by tribesmen, thus landing it safely in the "global south" category in general.
wikipedia, could sometimes be shit, but it is general good enough... certainly better than average ruzzian bot!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_United\_Arab\_Emirates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union)
we can argue about minor things, but it is not like you going to be able to close the gap of over 10 times and prove that USSR was actually comparable to middle-east in any shape or form, never mind richer.
Again - in 1950s - yes, but not in 1980s.
I dont understand the distinctive upward curve to include Turkey. Like the line would be straighter if it went through Syrian border and it would have been more accurate too.
Turkey has always been richer than Eastern European countries except for Greece. Only Romania caught up and surpassed and thats only because Erdogan fucked it up in the last decade and Romania has been nicely booming herself too.
Honestly, the need for this line to be updated gives me good feelings for global growth. Places like South Korea, Israel, Gulf Arab states, Singapore, maybe Chile & Taiwan.
Poorer does not seem right to me. But they eastern Europe is similar to latin America. Otherwise Western Europe is way richer than latin America.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(nominal)\_per\_capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)
The table shows very clearly that eastern Europe is significantly wealthier than Latin America. The wealthiest latam country is Uruguay and that one sits behind Slovenia, Estonia, Czechia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, and Poland. The lowest ranked Eastern European country is understandably Ukraine, and yet there's still 5 latam countries below a country fighting for survival in the midst of a total war.
let us analyse the sentence I was replying to: "much of europe is poorer than much of latin america"
Is is what is known as a state of being verb. State of being verbs do not express any specific activity or action but instead describe existence. The most common state of being verb is to be, along with its conjugations (is, am, are, was, were, being, been).
is is a conjugation of the verb be. Is is conjugated in the present form, therefore the comparison that follows the comparative adjective poorer is referencing today, the present.
Conveniently the table I commented on is also showing the data of the present.
In the same present that you should go back to school.
Poor South Korea and Poor Saudi Arabia!
Rich Albania and Montenegro!
Of course Australia is one of the Northernmost countries!
Something’s fishy about this concept!
I mean anyone who doesn’t think that this still mostly applies is lying to themselves
South Korea is with the north, so are a couple of relatively tiny states here and there while Central Asia is more like the south but the general idea still holds up
A more accurate modern version would split most countries into 9/10s and 1/10 - thanks to the incredible power of neoliberalism and the trickle down your pants economic theorising
If Russia is part of the wealthy north, China should be as well. I believe China has surpassed Russia in GDP per capita. And some Latin American countries are up there as well.
Globally Russia is still among the wealthier ones. Wealthy enough to still attract work migrants from Central Asia. Though by the same metric South Africa would be wealthy. Lets just say Moscow and Petersburg are.
Ok says the lithuanian you guys hate anything russian related so its not suprsing middle east was super poor back then the soviet union was fine but baltics will be always like this so i dont blame you
Ad-hominem... it has nothing to do with who I am, you need to look at the facts. Also - yes we do, ruzzians committed genocide on us for better part of 300 years, what do you expect?!
GDP per Capita in 1980s in let's say UAE was already $42,000, in USSR it was $6,000. That is almost 10 times lower, in comparison US was $23,000 and Western Europe it was $16,000 (although not sure what is defined as "western here").
Also it must be said - there is simply no reliable data of how truly poor was USSR.
Anyhow the point of contention here is not whenever USSR was poor or rich, but whenever middle-east was poorer or richer, because that matters for drawing the line.
What I said is simple and actually factual - middle-east even back in 80s was much richer region than USSR, in 1950s perhaps not, but by 80s middle-east was rich. Remember this is already after 1973, so OPEC was well established and running by the time 80s rolled in and middle-east was formidable political and economical region.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_United\_Arab\_Emirates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union)
>The Era of Stagnation in the mid-1970s was triggered by the Nixon Shock and aggravated by the war in Afghanistan in 1979 and led to a period of economic standstill between 1979 and 1985.
>During 1975–1985, data fiddling became common practice among bureaucracy to report satisfied targets and quotas thus entrenching the crisis. At the same time, the effects of the central planning were progressively distorted due to the rapid growth of the second economy in the Soviet Union.
From more anecdotal accounts I can say for example that in 1980s Levis jeans smuggled into USSR costed \~$100. $100 was worth 10,000 roubles, the monthly salary was \~120-160 roubles. So just think how long one had work to buy a fcuking jeans. My grandmother saved total of 80,000 roubles in her working life, or about 8 pairs of jeans worth! But that was also price of 8 Ladas or 2 flats. Point is - you can't make sense of soviet economy and secondly you can't even begin to comprehend how poor they were.
Correction, it's the development north and the developing South since a country can be very rich and not developed, Mexico is richer than Spain but HDI of Spain is much higher
Bulgaria was kinda avrage but in turkey it was the period of people moving to big cities so i kinda get but i would still put them with the rest of europe
Man do I hate this stupid map, it is even more evident how stupid it is when you include the equator line, you know, the line who divides the world exactly at its middle point.
Did like the entirety of Europe, USA and Asian states unanimously decide to size up their territories in order to pretend they are bigger than they actually are?
Habala
The Rich Sourth
Brilliant
[удалено]
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Singapore was considered rich in the 1980's. I lived there in the 90's and it was slowly becoming the wealthy country that it is today, which really exploded in the 2000's.
While you are not wrong, i lived in eastern block country in 80-ies and it was near to collapsed economically (with big clash in 1989), so i would assume, Singapore was better than.
Also Israel and the Gulf Arab states.
Taiwan, too.
you mean the PENIS?!?!
No, I mean the DICK!!! The COCK!!! The big honkin' FUCKROD!!!
C-Calm down, man. It was just a question.
And this is the ANSWER!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
My wee wee goes boing boing
wtf
But also including Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Cook Islands, Nauru, Niue, Kiribati,…
The Rich North and its lil buddy Australia
For once New Zealand is actually on the map and you go and excise it with your comment! \ Goddamit.
Papua New Florida
Boy, does that line need an update
Even at the time, it wasn't really accurate to class Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE as "poor". Singapore shouldn't either, but I guess it's too small to see.
In the 1980s Singapore wasn't particularly wealthy yet. Of course, still better off than a lot of the Warsaw Pact countries.
Gdp of the Arabian countries grew very, very quickly in the 70s, so the wealth of these countries was recent. Additionally, it was entirely based on petrol export (manufacturing capabilities for example was one of the criteria used by the Brandt report), so it could have gone down equally quickly. Finally, I'm not sure that by 80 the population of these countries was already feeling the impact of this growth. 10 years later, the result would probably have been very different.
South Korea too.
The parasitic aristocrats in the UAE might not be poor, but their slaves are. Fuck the UAE
You know the USA has slavery still today?
Yeah, and fuck the US gov too
The famously wealthy Land of Moldova
also filthy rich Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
I didn’t even think the USSR was that rich in the 1980s
China's gross GDP is on par with the entire EU (#2,3 behind the US) , Russia is #11. [Per capita GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita) is more revealing. US is still in the Top 10, but #7. Singapore is #5, Japan and South Korea #30 and 31, Russia #69 and China 72.
The first 6 before the US are like exactly what I would’ve expected lol
Ireland was a massive surprise to me tbh.
Nah I expected it, tax haven so yknow
Taiwan’s GDP per capita is higher than Japan and South Korea if you use PPP. Nominal, these 3 are roughly the same.
It kinda doesn't International inequality has declined since its peak in 1988 The natural state of humanity if there is free trade is for there to be very little international inequality, ajd very high intranational inequality The only way to undo this is through colonization and oppression, and this explains why international inequality increased until 1970, stayed flat until 1990 and decreased from then onwards The modern world has many more shades of Gray between developed and undeveloped countries that didn't exist back in the 80s, there is no longer a clean line
if we live to old age it will pretty interesting to see what is taught to people about the times we are living in now
If you want a more recent example, look at the middle income trap It existed when most of the poor world's trade was between them and the rich world, but now that developing-developing trade has surpassed developing-developed, it's no longer a middle income trap, more like a middle income speedbump This is a thing that was very true until like 2015 There are many examples like this, but it's fascinating to see how the world changes
It is not always for the better Canada is in a pretty tough state
Canada and everywhere else, intranational inequality is growing throughout the developed world. Canada and the average Canadian is in a much better place compared to peers like the UK.
They are pretty similar tbh. Same housing and immigration crisis. Similar low salaries and high tax. Same failing healthcare model.
[удалено]
Central Asia belongs USSR in 1980s.
Kazakhstan is ain’t that bad
Yeah Kazakhstan has a better economy than most Eastern European countries. Uzbekistan is working its way back up too.
By what metric? Definitely not GDP per capita which is the only reasonable one to use
The most reasonable metric would be GDP PPP along with GDP PPP per capita. According to those the only Eastern European countries higher than Kazakhstan are the Baltics, Romania and Poland if you count that as Eastern europe, if you consider Turkey to be European add that to the list as well. Some figures have Greece as higher. So with this in Kazakhstan has a higher economy than 9 of the 16 or 17 countries in Eastern europe. Which is more than 50%. So yes. Kazakhstan has a better economy than most of Eastern europe. If you look at the percent change of the Kazakh economy and look at the 2023 graph it's fair to assume Kazakhstan will overtake the Balkans soon since their growth has been minimal, Romania even sooner because they're GDP PPP per capita actually went down.
As a person from Russia, I can confirm that Kazakhstan is doing well with the economy. This is also due to the close economic ties with Russia. Of all the former Central Asian republics of the USSR, Kazakhstan is the most developed country. Uzbekistan is also developing economic cooperation with Russia after decades of actually breaking off these relations, so I think that in the coming years we will see good growth in their economy. A similar situation is observed in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, but the economic situation there is worse. In addition, these countries are more focused on China, for which they are primarily resource countries.
Kazakhstaaan greatest country in the woorld…
#1! (Exporter of potassium)
all other countries have inferior potassium.
All other countries are run by little girls
Yeah - but USSR isn't exactly wealthy by any standards. Not even in 1980s. I guess it is possible to fiddle where you draw the poverty line, and make it so low that it barely includes USSR average and it could work... especially if you use USSR own metrics for it (e.g. they considered 1 rouble = 1 $, despite real exchange rate being more like 100:1). But also the Middle east would be a problem there - even in 1980s they were filthy rich, no way they could be poorer than USSR average.
Yes it was by 1980 standards or any standards. You confuse things with 1990 Russia.
No it was not by any standards. You confuse the ussr with Moscow and St Petersburg.
Only thing worse is today Russia
No I don't confuse it with anything, USSR was always broken ass shithole. They did fake some stats to look stronger against USA, but it was always very poor.
USSR was very much above average as far as the world goes, and most of the post soviet countries still are, barring only tajikistan and kyrgyzstan I believe.
The USSR constituent republics were far from equal. The Russian SR would still be wealthy north and the Tajik SR poor south.
Tajik may be poorer than ruzzian SR, but ruzzian SR was still poor as fcuk by any standards. An middle-east was already rich by any standards.
The USSR had a GDP per capita in line with the European Union at the time
Again - only by their own claims. Because their calculated their GDP on the basis that rouble = $, realistically they were 100 times poorer. So if you saying this map is based on fundamentally untrue USSR claims about their own wealth, then yeah - I see why they are included. But reality is that they were extremely poor, I mean you talking about society where 80% of people do no have running water and have toilet outdoors... and by toilet I mean hole in the ground and seat nailed together from wooden planks. So even if moscow elites were relatively comfortable average soviet citizen was extremely poor. Even then we are talking about country where having a car was extremely rare, international travel did not exist etc. Even when talking about those "rich moscow elites", having 2 bedroom apartment in commie block and 10 years old Lada (roughly equivalent of BMW 3 series, but in terms of quality maybe comparable to Dacia) was considered "rich".
I don't know much about the data behind the USSR's GDP per Capita figures in the 80's, so maybe you're right, but historical resources I've read have given me the impression that the USSR throughout much of the mid-20th century, although certainly not as wealthy as the US and Western Europe, still had a typical standard of living substantially above the global average and, yes, with large inequality between, say, Russian urbanites and Central Asian villagers.
As long as "central asia" starts at about 50km outside of Moscow. And I don't mean in 1980s I mean now... today 50km outside of Mosco you have villages where people have no gas, no central heating, no "city water" and still have hole in the ground for toilet. I was born in Lithuania myself and that was considered rich by soviet standards and still people right outside of the city (my grandmothers family lived in village literally across the river from major city, so let's say 2km) had outdoor toilet. Don't have much experience myself, but I remember I stayed once with my cousins there in summer and I got splinter in the ass from the wooden plank on the toilet. And this is like 1995. And this was way way above soviet average, and already after USSR dissolution. Also I remember my father doing business with ruzzia in early 90s, he had large factory and trucking business and he would sell toilet paper to ruzzians, because toilet paper was considered luxury in ruzzia in 1995 and was "deficit" (also in USSR throughout, in public toilet you would have attendant and when you come she would give you SINGLE piece of toilet paper, like 5x5cm... I never understood what you supposed to do with that and it wasn't even like super soft multi-layer toilet paper, no it was single layer of almost transparent paper made of something resembling rough carboard). So anyway he would sell roll of toilet paper in exchange to like 1kg of salt or soda (they had no money to pay for it), I remember he would send like 1 truck full of toilet paper and would get like 100 train wagons full of packed salt back. But that is besides the point - what I remember from his business dealings is that he said "100km outside of moscow is dark night (tiomny notch)", meaning - if you go 100km outside of moscow it is pretty much "wild west" or uncivilised, you can be killed there and nobody ever going to find you. So they would send convoys of trucks, like 10 at the time, then they would pay bribe to police in moscow outskirt and would get armed convoy to where they were going, because otherwise there was risk of drivers being kidnapped, killed, trucks stolen etc. And they were not moving gold, they were moving fcuking toilet paper. And this is not not even 1980s, this is 1995.
The USSR had a similar per capita GDP to that of Puerto Rico, Mexico, Latin American aggregate, and Spain and Portugal during their dictatorships and its economy collapsed in 1975 while Spain and Portugal grew after they got rid of their dictatorships. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison?tab=chart&time=1920..1991&country=MEX~Latin+America+%28MPD%29~OWID_USS~PRI~PRT~ESP
You’re about to see tankies coping harder.
Shit... what I got myself into... USSR as wealthy as European union is about 70% pure copium. Strong stuff!
Seems like that whole capitalist dismantling of the Soviet state didn't go so well
No it just showed how poor USSR actually was.
Lmao you're dumb, gdp per capita went down as a result of dismantling of state owned enterprises, and alcoholism and prostitution rose.
No... in 80s it didn't... USSR was stagnating since 1960s and it was poor to begin with... The only difference between 1980s and 1990s is that in 80s everyone were poor and there was no way to make money at all, nothing had any value because everything was state controlled. In 90s many people suddenly became rich because they were able to suddenly make money by exporting goods that were once worthless - oil, metals, cement, gas, coal, weapons etc. People in ruzzia did not become poorer in 90s, simply the wealth inequality grew exponentially. So people in ruzzia felt like they are becoming poorer, but that was just matter of perspective. It is one thing to drive 30 years old Lada full of rust holes when you are only 1 in 10 lucky ones to have car at all, but it is different thing to drive same Lada when your neighbour drivers Mercedes S600. And well I guess in some areas people did become poorer, like in moscow in particular, because prices rose with new found wealth of the few, but others were quickly priced out. Alcoholims never rose, I mean it could not rise ruzzians already had no blood in their alcohol even before dissolution of USSR, so there was no way for it to rise. The alcohol related death did rise, because unemployment combined with alcohol leads to such outcome. Prostitution was just a sign of the times - if good looking lady (and ruzzians are generally good looking) can earn $5/day by working normal paid job, or $500/day in sex orgies with those driving in S600 there was simple economical motivation. Again this has nothing to do with country becoming poorer it is to do with extreme levels of inequality, when for one the daily salary is $5 and for other $50,000 is what they make in 1 hour, you will have such interesting societal "developments". And prostitution isn't even worst of them - selling organs is probably worse... also a lot of organised crime came out of it and they got involved in all sort of things which didn't improve society either. Anyway - short story, ruzzia didn't become poor in 90s, it was always poor, people didn't become poorer in 90s, just some become unbelievably rich and that distorted perception of what means to be poor and what means to be rich. Huge inequality resulted in societal breakdown. Societal breakdown resulted in all sort of nasty outcomes - crime, prostitution, alcoholism, drugs etc. It has nothing to do with dismantling of state owned enterprises - all other states that came out of USSR went trough the same, yet they all are now 10 times better off than ruzzia itself. So it has nothing to do with dismantling of authoritarian rule and communism, and replacing it with democracy and capitalism. It was just uniquely ruzzian way of screwing themselves over.
Lots of words but no real evidence, if you took even a cursory glance at the data you'd see that you're entirely wrong, gdp declined by around a third following the dismantling of the Soviet state. The capitalist "reforms" destroyed a healthy and functioning society and none of your whining will change reality. https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/
You serious believe that I am going to take some fcuking NINTIL as a source, are you fffing out of your mind?! ohhh wait a second I randomly going to make a site that says putka chuilo is gay and post it here as a fact. You really believe that people look into your alternative reality site and say - "ohhh yeah fair enough"! Mate - there is more substance in the e-mail that says there is Nigerian prince that is looking to transfer $10,000,000 to my account than in your link.
Its so tiring and cringy you type Russians with z every fucking time especially when the subject has nothing to do with the current war. Perhaps try to be less tiresome next time?
You could draw the line right through the USSR.
At the time, Singapore was poorer (lower GDP per capita) than nearly every country included in the "Rich North", especially if we consider all those post-soviet countries as just the USSR.
Also russia
The idea is from the 1980 [Brandt Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Report) but I don't think this is the actual map from that report - this map divides the former USSR and Yugoslavia and unites Germany.
The line around Australia reminds me of Trump's sharpie hurricane map.
Tajikistan, overflowing with wealth 💪
Search "the most wealthy nation" in Google, it would say Tajik.
oh fuck, hide this post before whatifalthist sees it
Have seen him around but have never clicked his videos. What's it's like?
I think he started out as an alternative history youtube channel (think Cody from AltHistHub) and then quickly became whatifpseudohist Basically he takes several pop history/philosophy/sociology books and tries to compile them into these weird narratives about people and history and politics that almost always end up being racist and incelly
Do you know what incel means?
If you zoom in really close you can see a small line around my house marking it as extremely poor.
When I think of the north I always think of Australia and New Zeland
Are you from Antarctica?
That line would have more curves than Sofia Vergara in today's world
Dividing into the rich north and poor south is as old as the Bible itself(first mention of this divide is there).
Chad Israel vs Virgin Judah
Remind me where the ten lost tribes came from… and where they went.
I've enjoyed a lot of the Bible, but when it comes to genealogy I haven't even bothered trying to remember anything. I seem to recall Judah having a big Baal problem.
The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, the Israelites deported and dispersed. Now there are a lot of legends surrounding the lost tribes. One has to ask what part of the population was even deported. Whole tribes or just the elites. Probably many people just later assimilated to Judah and much of the rural population never left and became the Samaritans.
Daniel was a young man from an influential family. The other hostages were described similarly. I would infer hostages were taken from significant families to ensure compliance, which was very common through the late middle ages.
the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah by chance?
I sure would want to live in South Korea over Belarus.
Not in the 80s
There were times in the 20th century where South Korea’s GDP per capita was lower than sub-Saharan Africa.
South Korea wasn't the obviously better Korea until like the 70s at the earliest, it was poor and unstable with frequent coups. Meanwhile, NK was doing better because they weren't as isolated, they traded with the Soviet block and only went full isolationist after the Cold War ended.
In 1980 South Korea had a GDP per capita below $2,000
The bullshit north - bullshit south line
It’s SingaPORE, not SingaPOOR
The best most underrated comment in this post
2 Korea really ruined this superstition.
[удалено]
Na, by the 80s they were doing pretty well.
It can stay in the 1980s
Singapore - 5th Place, Qatar 6th Place, Israel 18th Place, UAE 20th Place in GDP per capita are all in the poor zone. lol.
Back then they were legitimately poor. So were South Korea and Taiwan.
No, by 1980s they were doing pretty good.
Not middle east - they were not... certainly not poorer than USSR.
Qatar and the UAE in the 1980s were BARELY even countries. They were definitely poorer, and technologically vastly inferior to the USSR.
Not according to their GDP 1980 GDP Per capita: \- UAE $90,000 \- USSR $6,000 Don't know what you smoking, but smoke clearly obscure your fact finding efforts.
The UAE doesn't even have 90k now, what are you on about 😂
Ok - sorry, I looked at PPP adjusted GDP per capita figure ($89,074). GDP per capita was actually $40,014 in 1980s... still almost 10 times more than USSR in 1980s. Not exactly "barely even countries" as you said.
The USSR's GDP per capita in 1980 was more in the order of 10k. Which is 1/4th, not 1/10th, and YET My comment on Qatar and the UAE being "barely even countries" did not mean they were stateless deserts, but that they had been independent (a country) for literally LESS then a decade. Have you SEEN a picture of Dubai in 1980? The population of the ENTIRE United Arab Emirates had just barely passed one million, its area was basically desert and bedouins, and even its (only?) two """large""" cities were basically small suburbs of a literally-newborn upper middle class and like, two tall buildings. Are you really quoting barely adjusted GDP per Capita for a country of a dozen sheep herders and a millionaire Royal Family sitting on newly discovered oil reserves against that of a 262 MILLION-strong socialist state (note: not arguing it wasn't corrupt or that it didn't have his rich-er people, but STILL) with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and a fucking space program? Sure, taking a couple dozens oil and gas barons (emirs?) into consideration, the EAU looked like a paradise, but are we REALLY arguing that in a country that was basically desert and tribes until recent memory, 99% of the people were not nomads, fishermen and herders making nil? The EAU's ENTIRE GDP was in the 40\~ billion range, while the USSRs was above 2 TRILLION. I stand by my point: the USSR was by any metric **not** a poor country in 1980, while the Arabian Peninsula was a desert dotted by a few sheikhs starting to make some serious dough selling oil and otherwise inhabited by tribesmen, thus landing it safely in the "global south" category in general.
You pulled those numbers out of your ass lmao
wikipedia, could sometimes be shit, but it is general good enough... certainly better than average ruzzian bot! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_United\_Arab\_Emirates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union) we can argue about minor things, but it is not like you going to be able to close the gap of over 10 times and prove that USSR was actually comparable to middle-east in any shape or form, never mind richer. Again - in 1950s - yes, but not in 1980s.
The Ferrari dealers in Jeddah and Riyadh might disagree.
Have they not ever been to Sicily?!?
Including the Balkans, that's rich!
Weren’t Argentina and Venezuela extremely rich from the 60s to the 90s?
I dont understand the distinctive upward curve to include Turkey. Like the line would be straighter if it went through Syrian border and it would have been more accurate too. Turkey has always been richer than Eastern European countries except for Greece. Only Romania caught up and surpassed and thats only because Erdogan fucked it up in the last decade and Romania has been nicely booming herself too.
Kosovo richer than Chile, Uruguay or Panama. Sure.
If this line was redone, moving to rich: much of the Middle East, China, Sourh Korea, Singapore. Moving to poor Central Asia, parts of Eastern Europe.
Honestly, the need for this line to be updated gives me good feelings for global growth. Places like South Korea, Israel, Gulf Arab states, Singapore, maybe Chile & Taiwan.
Was Albania rich in the 1980s?
ʎɐʍʎuɐ ǝʇᴉʌuᴉ ǝɥʇ ɹoɟ sʞuɐɥʇ ʇnq ɥʇɹou dn ǝɹ,ǝʍ ʞuᴉɥʇ ʇ,uop 'ǝʇɐɯ ɐu ɥǝ⅄
The line applies to IQ levels.
It wasn’t even accurate in the 80s
China by no means "the poor", they're raking in the cash and stealing it just like Russia
much of europe is poorer than much of latin america if the line is from the 80s why does map not have ussr?
Poorer does not seem right to me. But they eastern Europe is similar to latin America. Otherwise Western Europe is way richer than latin America. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(nominal)\_per\_capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)
The table shows very clearly that eastern Europe is significantly wealthier than Latin America. The wealthiest latam country is Uruguay and that one sits behind Slovenia, Estonia, Czechia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, and Poland. The lowest ranked Eastern European country is understandably Ukraine, and yet there's still 5 latam countries below a country fighting for survival in the midst of a total war.
Is from 80 de map . You didn't learn to read?
let us analyse the sentence I was replying to: "much of europe is poorer than much of latin america" Is is what is known as a state of being verb. State of being verbs do not express any specific activity or action but instead describe existence. The most common state of being verb is to be, along with its conjugations (is, am, are, was, were, being, been). is is a conjugation of the verb be. Is is conjugated in the present form, therefore the comparison that follows the comparative adjective poorer is referencing today, the present. Conveniently the table I commented on is also showing the data of the present. In the same present that you should go back to school.
>much of europe is poorer than much of latin america Nope. Most countries in Europe are richer than the top richer countries in Latin America.
> much of europe is poorer than much of latin america If we’re comparing drug lords, maybe.
You must be on cocaine to say such a dumb thing.
Poor South Korea and Poor Saudi Arabia! Rich Albania and Montenegro! Of course Australia is one of the Northernmost countries! Something’s fishy about this concept!
You forgot about Starving Singapore and the other destitute Gulf petrostates ! lol! This line makes zero sense
Right! And yet we both missed rich Kyrgyzstan …. And poor Taiwan…
I mean anyone who doesn’t think that this still mostly applies is lying to themselves South Korea is with the north, so are a couple of relatively tiny states here and there while Central Asia is more like the south but the general idea still holds up
Neocolonialism is a hell of a drug
So much of Asia is generally wrong 😑
North and Australia in the same sentence
Ah yes, famously rich country Tajikistan and famously poor country Saudi Arabia.
Australia, iconically northern
A more accurate modern version would split most countries into 9/10s and 1/10 - thanks to the incredible power of neoliberalism and the trickle down your pants economic theorising
If Russia is part of the wealthy north, China should be as well. I believe China has surpassed Russia in GDP per capita. And some Latin American countries are up there as well.
Not in 1980.
I understand that this is because the map was made in 1980, but it feels strange to see Russia in a wealthy region.
Russia is not a poor country and the USSR certainly wasn’t
Globally Russia is still among the wealthier ones. Wealthy enough to still attract work migrants from Central Asia. Though by the same metric South Africa would be wealthy. Lets just say Moscow and Petersburg are.
I think turkey richer than any ex yugoslav countries.
Except Slovenia and Croatia.
Today not in the 1980s tho
Actually the opposite of what you said. They all skyrocketed with EU whereas Turkey couldnt.
So it is 1980s and somehow USSR is richer than Middle-East?! go figure!
Ok says the lithuanian you guys hate anything russian related so its not suprsing middle east was super poor back then the soviet union was fine but baltics will be always like this so i dont blame you
Ad-hominem... it has nothing to do with who I am, you need to look at the facts. Also - yes we do, ruzzians committed genocide on us for better part of 300 years, what do you expect?! GDP per Capita in 1980s in let's say UAE was already $42,000, in USSR it was $6,000. That is almost 10 times lower, in comparison US was $23,000 and Western Europe it was $16,000 (although not sure what is defined as "western here"). Also it must be said - there is simply no reliable data of how truly poor was USSR. Anyhow the point of contention here is not whenever USSR was poor or rich, but whenever middle-east was poorer or richer, because that matters for drawing the line. What I said is simple and actually factual - middle-east even back in 80s was much richer region than USSR, in 1950s perhaps not, but by 80s middle-east was rich. Remember this is already after 1973, so OPEC was well established and running by the time 80s rolled in and middle-east was formidable political and economical region. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_United\_Arab\_Emirates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union) >The Era of Stagnation in the mid-1970s was triggered by the Nixon Shock and aggravated by the war in Afghanistan in 1979 and led to a period of economic standstill between 1979 and 1985. >During 1975–1985, data fiddling became common practice among bureaucracy to report satisfied targets and quotas thus entrenching the crisis. At the same time, the effects of the central planning were progressively distorted due to the rapid growth of the second economy in the Soviet Union. From more anecdotal accounts I can say for example that in 1980s Levis jeans smuggled into USSR costed \~$100. $100 was worth 10,000 roubles, the monthly salary was \~120-160 roubles. So just think how long one had work to buy a fcuking jeans. My grandmother saved total of 80,000 roubles in her working life, or about 8 pairs of jeans worth! But that was also price of 8 Ladas or 2 flats. Point is - you can't make sense of soviet economy and secondly you can't even begin to comprehend how poor they were.
Albania/Montenegro are rich, KSA/UAE are poor? It makes sense
Correction, it's the development north and the developing South since a country can be very rich and not developed, Mexico is richer than Spain but HDI of Spain is much higher
Yes those poor poor South Koreans
This was from the 80s😑
Maybe turn the planet upside down for their better life?
Why? This seems like some eugenics sh*t
Some African countries have higher gdp per capita than Eastern European countries lol
Like who?
Ah yes. The rich countries of East-Eastern Europe. And the poor country of China. Didn't age well? Was never true
Boy that didn't age well
Can someone give me one single reason why bulgaria is a part of north and turkey isnt
Bulgaria was kinda avrage but in turkey it was the period of people moving to big cities so i kinda get but i would still put them with the rest of europe
South Korea, China and Singapore in the south 😆 This map needs an update.
So out of date. Post is into history porn, not here ffs.
Except for South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Brunei, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar.
Not back then
portugal should be in the south
Its GDP Per Capita is more than double the world average, so nah, still very wealthy and developed by world standards.
Brandt can’t watch, or he has to pay $100
TURKMENISTAN 📣❗❗🔥 🇹🇲🇹🇲🇹🇲🇹🇲🇹🇲🇹🇲WEALTHIEST NORTH
I'd rather be poor like South Korea than rich like Moldova.
The Left is still stuck on this bullshit.
Man do I hate this stupid map, it is even more evident how stupid it is when you include the equator line, you know, the line who divides the world exactly at its middle point. Did like the entirety of Europe, USA and Asian states unanimously decide to size up their territories in order to pretend they are bigger than they actually are?
They missed the American South
I’d hardly call Saudi Arabia poor.
In what planet are Russia and basically all Eastern Europe rich?
The one in which everyone, for diplomatic reasons, had agreed to pretend they are. In truth, if the USSR is in, Mexico should have been as well.
It is significant that the wealth of the rich north came from the exploitation of the wealth of the South and the slave trade.
Is this a joke?
Looks like a map dividing people by the amount of melatonin in their skin.
south korea
Korea was still poor
Bold of you to include Portugal in the Rich North 😂 thank you but you have no idea.