Why are almost Protestant countries richer than Catholic countries

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, many countries which used to be part of the Roman Empire or the Muslim world have a group of opposite cultural tendencies. Work is for slaves or inferior people or kids, whereas people in charge should do as little as possible for themselves.

(Or at least, there is an obligation on those with cash to employ as many servants, poor relations, and employees as you can afford, and to outsource work; otherwise, you are taking bread from the mouth of the poor. That’s more of a feudal influence - being obliged not to steal people’s jobs, rather than disdain of work.)

The other cultural influence from the Roman Empire and other empires is the idea that you need a lot of bureaucrats, government paperwork, corporate paperwork, and permission to do everything. Anywhere that people are in love with regulations and offices for their own sake, it is going to be difficult to get anything done in a legal way. Sometimes people react by just doing whatever they feel like while putting on a facade, which is efficient but encourages dishonesty and black markets. Other times, things just stagnate or take forever, which encourages businesses to move to other countries where trade is easier.
 
Hi, Monte!

Where do you get the numbers?

What I get from your posting is that in nations where Catholicism is predominant people choose to be illiterate; while the opposite is truth where Protestantism is predominant; which suggest that it is the Church that is keeping people from learning their abcs, does it not?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Mintaka said:
Since most grammar schools for girls were run by nuns, and since many Protestant sects claimed that women did not need education in anything except domestic tasks (once they’d gotten in power thanks to educated Protestant-convert women, of course!), women’s education levels plunged in Protestant areas.
Click to expand...
Hi, Mintaka!

This is something that is completely covered up; as is the fact that it was Catholic nuns that pushed the feminist movement by empowering women to learn more than signing their names and keep house.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Cuba is shown in the chart as 99.7%.

Just about the highest in the world.

Do you really believe that?
 
THe U.S. is a very large territory with a multitude of resources (labor and capital).

Compare that to many of the smaller European countries. It’s not a comparison. Plus, most of the E.U. is landlocked.

Besides, physical wealth has a tendency to displace spiritual wealth.

Jesus was poor.
 
…well, it could be, Fidel died, didn’t he?

No. It does not seem a real and actual number.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Jesus was not poor.

margmowczko.com

Was Jesus Poor? - Marg Mowczko

Was Jesus poor? A few verses in the Gospels indicate that Jesus was not as poor as I have previously been led to believe.
margmowczko.com margmowczko.com

He was a home builder, a carpenter and handyman, drove a Ford F-150.
 
Last edited:
Some countries make sure that people go to school. Some countries and cultures believe education is important.

Rather than concentrating on Cuba, why not concentrate on the fact that the US is at about 86%.
 
Correct. But, there is some thought that he wasn’t just a homebuilder. He
and Joseph were experienced tradesman who also did metal work, and other
crafts of artisanship. And, their F150’s had toolboxes in the back!!
 
Last edited:
anhphan said:
Do you think that Protestant is the basis of Capitalism?
Click to expand...
No. Before Protestantism was even a twinkle in Martin Luther’s eye, the Mediterranean kingdoms and city states were plying their capitalist trade with the Byzantine Empire and the goods of the silk road. Venice, Genoa, Savoy, the Kingdom of Argon, etc were the richest peoples in Europe. It was capitalism that drove Spain and Portugal to look for alternate trade routes to the East in order to cut out the Italian merchants. Portugal claimed exclusive rights around the Horn of Africa, while Spain, prevented from following Portugal by Papal edict, looked for the back door round-the-world route to the East and stumbled across the Americas. After this, only the geographical positioning of England, France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal enabled them to out-compete the Mediterranean kingdoms and city states because they were able to access new resources that they cold freeze the Italians out of. Protestantism is also largely geographic. Look at a map of Europe and tell me, which countries are protestant. The farther from Rome, the more likely a country is to be Protestant. It is more a testament to the physical limits of political power than anything.

England especially contributed to the “Protestant nations are wealthy” vibe because their unique positioning allowed them to establish prosperous colonies around the globe and protect them with their Navy. Think about it too. The Brits populated North America, a largely unpopulated continent, and were therefore able to build a colony exactly how they wanted it. They colonized Australia, a largely unpopulated continent, and were able to build a colony exactly how they wanted it. Same with New Zealand. Largely the same with the Cape Colony in South Africa. They were able to be the first to new, resource rich lands and establish colonies with little to no push-back. The fact that by this time the brits had gone Protestant was irrelevant.

Long story short. Geography played much more of a role in the economic musical chairs than religious persuasion did or does.

Also, we can call such trade capitalism, but it was really merchantalism, where whole kingdoms and countries competed to directly control resources through trade.
 
Last edited:
FirstFiveEighth said:
England especially contributed to the “Protestant nations are wealthy” vibe because their unique positioning allowed them to establish prosperous colonies around the globe and protect them with their Navy. Think about it too. The Brits populated North America, a largely unpopulated continent, and were therefore able to build a colony exactly how they wanted it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we ought to overestimate English prosperity during the colonial period. There were definitely merchants who made a lot of money. But it wasn’t widely spread. And they really didn’t succeed in casting north America in their own image. One needs to realize that at the time of the American Revolution, American colonists were far wealthier than their cousins in England, per capita. Yes, America was, at the time, almost entirely protestant, but that wealth disparity between America and England was not because of religion. It was because there was land in America which, if you were sturdy, industrious and didn’t mind braving Indian attack, you could just have. The land wasn’t all owned by a bunch of noble lords. If you wanted to be a merchant, you just learned how to do it and did it, whereas in England you had to pay a license to do it and might not get it even if you did.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
The farther from Rome, the more likely a country is to be Protestant. It is more a testament to the physical limits of political power than anything.
Click to expand...
This is interesting.

The “Catholic world” in Europe is, with the exception of Poland and much of Hungary, roughly coextensive with the boundaries of the Roman Empire. And to the extent the Catholic portion is outside those boundaries, it was still within the “Roman world”, since the influence and trade of the Empire extended beyond what we think of as its boundaries like the Rhine and the Danube.

That doesn’t mean that explains the territories that went Protestant versus those that remained Catholic (Most of England, after all, was within the Empire for a time) But culturally, it likely did have an impact. Sometimes the German Rhineland and Bavaria are referred to as “Mediterranean Germany” because of the cultural differences.
 
I don’t think you can really answer this question without being somewhat arbitrary on how you define “richer”. For instance, Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita in the world, and is definitely a Catholic country. Switzerland is #4 in the world and is also a majority Catholic country.

But if we look at GDP, China is #1 and the US and the EU are about tied at #2, and the EU overall is a majority Catholic entity.

Basically, the statement that almost Protestant countries richer than Catholic isn’t true.
 
Who knows. Probably because of immigration. I know in the United States Anglicans or the Episcopalian Church adherents tend to be richer. Whether or not they are considered Protestant has been a debate for quite some time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top