> The resource curse, geographic location and climate are huge factors as well as those 'successful' western countries usually taking advantage You have a theo

> The resource curse, geographic location and climate are huge factors as well as those 'successful' western countries usually taking advantage You have a theory of why some countries are rich and others are poor. I also have a theory. How are you so stridently confident that not only is your analysis is correct, but so obviously correct that my contrary view somehow is outside the boundaries of debate? > Bangladesh has a very rich history and was at times way ahead of the curve but the combination of various western (mostly British) influences in the region as well as a series of wars and coups have left it in shambles. Britain didn't conquer the subcontinent through superior weaponry. The Mughal Empire was one of the gunpowder empires: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-gunpowder-empires-195840 https://www.thoughtco.com/the-gunpowder-empires-195840. Britain was able to conquer the subcontinent using superior institutions and organization. In contrast, the Mughal Empire lacked such institutions, or any sense of nationalism. Indeed, the British East India company conquered India with an army largely comprised of Indians. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/armies-east-india-company https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/armies-east-india-company. Instead, the technology that enabled Britain to succeed was cultural technology. In Britain, nuclear families were the norm back in the 13th century. Those weak family ties--which, frankly, I find upsetting even as someone raised among Americans--spurred the development of civic institutions to perform functions that in other societies were handled by extended family networks.