4 ms·

> They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. If those are the determining criteria, how do you explain Singapore?

by zoky 2y ago

defrost 2y ago
Singapore's "natural resource" is location, location, location. It secured early the role of small secure island for trade transfer and is now a massively automated transit hub for a huge regional population. In world history choke points and traffic funnels have frequently been acquired, captured, secured for profit, control and influence.
realusername 2y ago
Singapore is a tax haven first and foremost. Same reason why Luxembourg is wealthy. Their wealth was built on questionable origins, no matter how much they boast about governance.
- delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
  Singapore is nowhere close to being as tax-haveny as Luxembourg, any of the Caribbean islands administered by a foreign power, the Isle of Man, or the Channel islands. Singapore saw a sustained ~8-10% real GDP growth from almost immediately after independence. It relied on manufacturing, reprocessing, and assembly to get there. Only in the past ~20 years has it really shifted to being a financial economy—and even then, it still has a pretty strong manufacturing base.
  - realusername 2y ago
    There's multiple degrees of tax haven and Singapore definitely belongs in this list. Their economy would take a hit if they would give up on the shell companies. I'd argue is even more of a tax haven nowadays due to the relocation of the business from Hong Kong.
mdp2021 2y ago
The poster clearly speaks of «top economy» in terms of absolute GDP (and related), not per-capita; just observes that some powers are non-proportional. Of course history is magnitudes more complex than a sketchy model.
TeaBrain 2y ago
Their only determining criteria is essentially internal natural resources, which excludes any advanced industries. You could also add Israel and Taiwan to the list of advanced resource poor countries.

> They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. If those are the determining criteria, how do you explain Singapore?

by zoky 2y ago

> They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. If those are the determining criteria, how do you explain Singapore?

defrost 2y ago

Singapore's "natural resource" is location, location, location. It secured early the role of small secure island for trade transfer and is now a massively automated transit hub for a huge regional population. In world history choke points and traffic funnels have frequently been acquired, captured, secured for profit, control and influence.

realusername 2y ago

Singapore is a tax haven first and foremost. Same reason why Luxembourg is wealthy. Their wealth was built on questionable origins, no matter how much they boast about governance.

delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
Singapore is nowhere close to being as tax-haveny as Luxembourg, any of the Caribbean islands administered by a foreign power, the Isle of Man, or the Channel islands. Singapore saw a sustained ~8-10% real GDP growth from almost immediately after independence. It relied on manufacturing, reprocessing, and assembly to get there. Only in the past ~20 years has it really shifted to being a financial economy—and even then, it still has a pretty strong manufacturing base.
- realusername 2y ago
  There's multiple degrees of tax haven and Singapore definitely belongs in this list. Their economy would take a hit if they would give up on the shell companies. I'd argue is even more of a tax haven nowadays due to the relocation of the business from Hong Kong.

mdp2021 2y ago

The poster clearly speaks of «top economy» in terms of absolute GDP (and related), not per-capita; just observes that some powers are non-proportional. Of course history is magnitudes more complex than a sketchy model.

TeaBrain 2y ago

Their only determining criteria is essentially internal natural resources, which excludes any advanced industries. You could also add Israel and Taiwan to the list of advanced resource poor countries.