Canada has a ton of natural resources, they ought to be wealthy.
Resources help with economic performance, but can also be a hindrance (see "Dutch disease"). Colonies were often acquired for prestige, but turned out an economic loss. They certainly did not play a part in the economic development of Germany, and countries like South Korea or Taiwan have very successfully grown their economies after being colonies.
What matters for long term economic growth is political stability and institutions that protect investments and limit corruption.
Are you aware that we call that a social cost and condemn it? Why are you stating a tautology, "good work requires effort"?
“Condemn it” - but I didn’t condemn it? I was just pointing it out. You assumed I made a value judgment when I didn’t.
“Good work requires effort” - that’s well known. Anything big or complex does require effort and no one expects different. My contribution (such as it was) was that even something that appears simple like gathering the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion before sharing an opinion is too much effort. Far easier to take the simplistic view, share that and move on.
I hope that meets your high bar for a comment and you won’t come after me with further critique. And if you do, I hope you actually read what I’ve written and not imagine I’ve written something else.
Some of us are obsessed with the "Oh my, why were they not taught to think and behave" that you noticed "as if a detail"...
...The mismanagement of inflationary gold extraction from the Americas by Spain...
> What matters for long term economic growth is political stability and institutions that protect investments and limit corruption
...and especially, actively valuing competence...
If those are the determining criteria, how do you explain Singapore?
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.
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.
Regardless, is it so bad if the UK becomes an inconsequential country? I feel like Brexit only happened because people here thought the UK was somehow special or important.
The UK will never be a small inconsequential country in any of our lifetimes.
>They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources.
These two parts framing the idea about how the "UK has no business being a top economy" were complete non-sequiturs.
The UK does have some natural resources, also they have an Island, from my memory of playing Risk that's worth something. Can be defended and not easily invaded. The UK was a place of importance well before modern colonialism, that's why the Romans and the Vikings visited.
Culture also plays a role. It's possible the UK will become less consequential but they'll probably still have some weight for some time. Their colonial past still plays some role in terms of their relationships with various countries, connections also matter.