Why are some countries rich and some poor? Geography is one reason. As Jared Diamond shows in his book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’, climate and topography impact immensely on a region’s development.  Western Europe’s temperate climate, navigable rivers and plentiful harbours explain a good deal of its economic success. Around 93% of the population of the 30 highest-income countries lives in temperate and snow zones. Thirty nine of the 42 poorest countries are tropical or desert societies, and the other three are landlocked and isolated. But as Singapore, Hong Kong, The Bahamas, Barbados and Costa Rica prove, geography is not destiny.

Race is irrelevant. All humans descend from common ancestors in Africa and are of the same genetic stock. History laughs at theories of inborn racial characteristics, and few things are more amusing than the changeable destinies of nations. The vanished empires of Sumer, Egypt and Rome all at one time ruled the world. The feared and bloodthirsty Vikings have become peace loving Scandanavians. Hitler’s ‘cowardly Jews’ now have the most respected army on earth.

Britain is the most instructive example of all. Little over a century ago it produced over 50% of the world’s GNP and ruled a quarter of the earth. Not only had the nation of Shakespeare and Newton given mankind parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, the free press and government budgeting, it’s industrial revolution had virtually created the modern world. Yet this small island had less than one percent of the world’s population and even less of its land mass. Surely, argued many at the time, the British were superhuman.

But where was this supposed innate superiority before the 16^th century? Until then Britain was a backwards country compared to Egypt, Italy, China or India. Not a single Briton’s name entered history’s pages before Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 BC.

Today Britain is still a highly successful country, but it is now just one of many. And the British Empire, like all before it, is only a memory. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Yet though racial differences are superficial, the same is not true of cultural ones. Certain cultures have at times proved superior in some aspects to others. Liberal democratic, free market societies have been more successful than any others at improving the economic lot of its citizens. Where and when this culture originated is today irrelevant. Many of its ex-colonies are now richer than Britain.

Economic success depends not on a country’s historical background or racial stock but on its mindset. Sustained growth requires a long term recipe of good education, high saving, the rule of law, openness to trade, low taxes, and sound monetary and fiscal policies. But once this stable political platform has been laid (and it is arguably the most difficult part of the equation) a country’s wealth depends largely on how hard its people are willing to work, physically and especially mentally.

Many feel rich countries got that way by exploiting poor ones. Eric Williams argued that only slavery allowed Britain to become the first industrial nation. But in ‘The Wealth and Poverty of Nations’ David Landes dismisses this notion. Slavery (which was an unforgivable sin committed by Arab and European traders and African chiefs) may have enabled Britain to develop faster, but it was not an indispensable foundation stone in the establishment of modern capitalism. And while colonialism was no benevolent tea party, it did not make imperialist countries rich. According to Thomas Sowell in ‘Conquests and Cultures’,  “Counting the costs of conquest and administration against the profits and taxes extracted from the colonies, Britain as a whole did not benefit economically from the colonies.”

Slavery was a horrible crime against humanity. But though we must never forget, an institution that ended over 150 years ago can not be the cause of our present dilemmas. Barbados underwent the same experience. Yet its per capita GDP is over four times ours and it ranks 24^th on the World Human Development Index, while Jamaica ranks 75^th. Singapore was a backward British colony in 1962, with a lower per capita income than Jamaica’s. It now has one almost twenty times as high. These countries have clearly done many things right, and we have done many things wrong.

Jamaica has never been productive by world standards, and the one world globalized market has only exacerbated our lack of competitiveness. Globalization is certainly not all for the good. Who can but deplore its McDonaldization of world culture and its crassly materialistic measuring stick for everything? A part of us instinctively agrees with Capleton - ‘Firebun pon Kentucky! Firebun pon cable TV! Cable TV a mash up the world!’

But few people seem able to resist the greater and cheaper choices globalization has given us. Even commentators who bewail the proliferation of fast food outlets patronize them. Nationalists write condemnations of American neo-colonialist imperialism on computers which only millionaires could afford ten years ago. The number of Jamaicans with cars has doubled over the past few years because real prices have fallen sharply. The privileged who always had cars grumble about growing traffic jams, but why should only rich people drive?

For good or bad, it is all a matter of choice. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy Nikes or watch BET. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. Jamaica wants to consume like a first world country – witness all the Pajeros and Tommy Hilfiger clothes - but we have shown no evidence of wanting to produce like one. We continue to have no regard for time. We remain unwilling, especially the men, to exert our brains and improve and discipline our minds by reading books. And we continue to tolerate what advanced countries would consider an unacceptable level of corruption in our public figures.

They say money is not everything, and man can not live by bread alone. Singapore’s wealth, organization and safety are admirable, but certainly not its regimentation, lack of joi de vivre, and cultural sterility. Would the average Jamaican swap places with the average Singaporean? Some claim that even Barbados is a restrictive place.

But Jamaica is one of the most indebted nations in the world, and no country or individual can indefinitely keep spending more than it earns. We face the simple options of producing more or consuming less. So do we want to work like Singapore and Barbados, or become like Haiti? It is our choice.