POOR COUNTRIES, RICH POPULATION

The biggest difference between “first world” countries and “third world” countries is that in the former, people owe almost everything they “have” (i.e., they have nothing), while in the latter, most people own the little they have. Whether it's some land, a small house or an old car, they may not be the most luxurious, but they are theirs. They had to save up to build/buy them and don't have to answer to anyone else to keep them.

The most advanced depend on an interconnected financial system of betting and leverage that can leave them out on the street if they can't keep up with the treadmill they find themselves on. While the poorest are more resilient and freer, they don't have a leash tied to them in the first place, meaning they don't have to work to keep what they have, because they already have it, while they are also more resilient to structural crises because they have probably already experienced them in the past.

The former have always lived in reality, so it will not be difficult for them to adapt to it, while the latter have lived in an paper (i.e., consumer credit) illusion that will be hard to let go of. It is like the son of a rich man (paper rich) who becomes poor (stock market collapse) and the poor man who has always been poor: for the latter, it is more of the same, but for the former, it will be an unbearable hell.

The other thing is that poor countries are also generally more sovereign because they are poor, that is, they do not import essential goods such as energy and food. On the other hand, rich countries, so confident in their economic capacity, outsource essential production chain processes, adding structural third-party risks to basic subsistence products (mostly food).

These are some of my thoughts on this topic today.