The definition of 'getting rich' in this article seems rather vague. Are we talking about the average standard of living of the entire population, or the accum

The definition of 'getting rich' in this article seems rather vague. Are we talking about the average standard of living of the entire population, or the accumulation of wealth by a handful of privileged elites? A gross measure like GDP doesn't distinguish between the two situations, does it? The general trend in poor countries with exportable raw materials over the 20th century has been this: wealthy and powerful countries make deals with small groups of elites to extract those resources and ship them to the wealthy countries industrial production sectors at relatively low prices, while propping up the local tinpot dictators with weapons and cash so they can keep control of their populations. Saudi Arabia is one example (America being the wealthy patron), Niger is one example (France's supply of uranium ore), and that's how the Soviet Union operated in the various 'stans of Central Asia as well. The poor countries may have 'become rich' but in general, their average standard of living remains extremely low relative to the industial wealthy powers. The only way for such countries to raise their overall standard of living is to add value to their raw materials domestically by building up their manufacturing potential. For example, if they have lithium deposits, they should be building factories to convert the lithium into batteries, and then sell the batteries on the global market. Now they have an industrial center, which brings in revenue, and they have begin to have a well-paid professional sector, medical and legal experts, a higher standard of living and so on. At least until their brilliant financial gurus realize they can increase their personal wealth 50-fold by shipping the entire industrial sector to some Third World hellhole and wrecking the whole system, like Wall Street did to the Rust Belt in the United States.