What is the richest country in 2025?
51 comments
·July 19, 2025pinewurst
musikele
this page got blocked by my country's (Italy, not NK) firewall for "pedopornography" :-O
bn-l
The guy that was raided for reviewing an emulator, shutting down cloudflare to stop people streaming soccer, this.
What is going on in Italy with the internet?
justin66
> The guy that was raided for reviewing an emulator, shutting down cloudflare to stop people streaming soccer, this.
What does this sentence mean?
null
RestlessMind
The methodology finally addresses a pet peeve of mine to adjust based on prices and hours worked: "we ranked 178 countries using three measures. The first is GDP per person at market exchange rates. It is simple and intuitive, and widely cited. But it ignores price differences between countries. The second measure adjusts incomes for these local costs (known as purchasing-power parity, or PPP). This offers a better guide to living standards but one that takes no account of leisure time: the share of people in work, and how long they work, varies by country. Our final yardstick accounts for both local prices and hours worked"
tetris11
Why is average still such a persistent metric though? Isn't median more representative of an individidual's actual purchasing power?
If they paired average metrics with gini coefficient, I'd be happy
dredmorbius
NB: "average" can mean any of three measures of central tendency: the mean (sum/count), the median (middle value), or the mode (most frequently occurring value). All three may be valid choices in specific contexts.
Whilst it's common to interpret "average" as "mean", this isn't strictly accurate or reliable.
The Economist's article errs in failing to distinguish which measure of central tendency is actually meant by "average".
__mharrison__
What would be your recommended way to combine them? Or just show them separately?
xnx
Why measure "rich" at all and just go with life satisfaction surveys?
eastbound
North Africa countries have very very low suicide rates for the same reason. Many factors can change your self-reporting of events you go through.
dismalaf
Because some cultures are "complaining" cultures, meaning they complain socially.
Others will find fault with the tiniest thing, even if 99% of everything is perfect.
And others can be incredibly content with very little. It gives absolutely no insight into how good life actually is anywhere.
IrishTechie
Highest income country would be a more accurate title here I think. My country (Ireland) has a high income now but has been poor for centuries, we lack many markers of wealthy countries like subways, extensive motorway networks etc. We are well on our way to being a rich country, but not there yet.
gwerbret
> We are well on our way to being a rich country, but not there yet.
Q: Why will Ireland eventually be the richest country in the world?
A: Because its capital is always Dublin.
(I'll see myself out.)
amelius
Lots of US companies moved there because of favorable tax conditions, but now the US administration wants to revert that.
Can't say I blame them. The Irish and Dutch are the worst when it comes to tax evasion.
IrishTechie
Is that true though, quick bit of Googling has Ireland and Netherlands in many but not all Top 10 lists and none at the top. When it comes to citizens using off-shoring to evade tax, the more literal reading of your point, neither Irish nor Dutch people appear in the top ten lists I’ve come across.
amelius
You misread. It's the Irish and Dutch who have favorable tax havens. Not necessarily citizens who evade taxes.
freboard
I would like to see this for cities. Comparing countries seems so dumb to me when you have such huge geographic and population size differences
mellosouls
Yes, for instance the UK would probably fare very differently if London (which can itself feel like a foreign country to non-Londoners in the UK) was removed and the country's wealth re-evaluated.
margalabargala
This is true of basically any country except very rich, tiny countries like Singapore or the UAE.
lgvln
Na. GDP pp is meaningless without accounting for inequality and civil liberties.
igravious
agreed
breadwinner
Singapore's rise is amazing. They don't have oil or other natural resources. Singapore adopted free-market capitalism, encouraged foreign direct investment and positioned itself as an attractive destination for multinational corporations. They invested heavily in technical and higher education, ensuring a highly skilled workforce. Singapore is consistently top-three in mathematics and science performance.
whatever1
It has a unique geography and serves as a link between western and Chinese trade routes. The fact that it is Mandarin friendly also helped a lot of Chinese to move their profits there
lgvln
Singapore is an interesting case because it looks great on paper but it’s arguably one of the worst/best form of authoritarianism. For example, ~80% of Singaporeans live in public housing, which they don’t technically own (99 year lease), whose rules are dictated by a government agency. Eg, there are police cameras right up to the apartment lifts and every entry/exit; the number of pets they’re allowed to own is regulated and interestingly less than those living in private property arbitrarily (without consideration for property size). Nevermind the complete lack of civil liberties and high gini coefficient/inequality.
nikanj
Living in a police state can be awesome, if you don’t want to dissent. Way less crime, no homeless drug users living on the city streets, etc. For a law-abiding middle-class person, Singapore isn’t too terrible
lgvln
This sort of mindset is typical of the oppressed population in Singapore - oh hey nevermind it all, this police state is awesome.
dvh
Simple table with four sortable columns would be infinitely more readable.
kalyantm
honestly, who even comes up with these graphics?! More importantly, who looks at it and approves this?
another_twist
Finally something by the economist that isnt "America great, EU doomed, America, murica, capitalism yay".
Didnt know Qatar scored so high on GDP per hours worked metric, but I guess they dont measure hours worked in construction as that one is largely immigrants working in unsafe conditions with confiscated passports. Source - the book Inside Qatar.
readthenotes1
On a more basic measure, you could just look at whether there are people willing to risk life and limb in order to get into your country instead of getting out...
Infinity315
That's measuring desirability--or at least immediate desirability, which is sometimes related but distinct from wealth.
It also quickly becomes meaningless as people risking life and limb tend to flee to the nearest stable country. For example, Syrian refugees for the most part tended to stay close to their home country with the majority fleeing to nearby Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq--or, moving elsewhere within Syria.
Measuring wealth of a country by measuring how many refugees it takes in is like projecting future revenue/success of a convenience store by measuring how many people come into the store during an active-shooter situation.
Going by your metric, it would suggest that a Pole is wealthier than a Brit because Poland has nearly 1 million Ukrainian refugees to the UK's .25 mil.
knorker
So mostly Europe, according to this logic?
But that's not entirely fair, since Africa to Europe may mean risking your life on a tiny boat, but Mexico to US is at least a land border.
Also UK gets it's share of life risking boats.
I guess Australia was the winner on this, until they took drastic measures to get people to stop risking their lives in tiny boats.
returningfory2
Crossing the Mexico US border illegally nowadays involves a multi-day hike through the desert and is extremely dangerous. I’m not sure if it’s as dangerous as crossing the Mediterranean on a smuggler boat, but many people do die making the trek from Mexico to the US.
igravious
"The ranking does not consider inequality"
it should try. because it's using gdp per capita it's stating that it cares how the entire gdp is averaged out over the entire population. the more inequality there is the less useful or representative this averaging out is
dismalaf
Rich countries, even with inequality, will generally still have good institutions and infrastructure and poor people are better off there despite their income being low.
Measuring median also ignores that the upper middle can be doing very well, as it's literally just a slice from the 50th percentile.
It's like the US, where the top 10% make as much as the top 1% in Canada (as an example), but if you simply take the median it ignores the massive middle and upper middle class in the US.
crawfordcomeaux
This doesn't take into account resources in the ground, otherwise it would need to show how rich the so-called "poor" countries locked into debt slavery and colonized infrastructure/governance the "rich" countries continue to impose on them.
If the measures ignore the sources of wealth discovered and not yet extracted, it doesn't accurately indicate what's happening. The whole story is left untold. Not reporting worth basing economic decisions on, except to hire better economists.
hibert
The article is entirely about income and not at all about wealth. Content was a little surprising given the title, but I wouldn't see the point of a comprehensive wealth analysis given the resource curse you allude to.
null
dismalaf
Lol, Canada in the first column (barely) then just drops off...
nikanj
Canada’s GDP is awesome as long as you include real estate, but selling the same set of houses back and forth with ever increasing prices doesn’t really improve the lives of anyone
dismalaf
Yup. Stats would look even worse if the economist used income instead of GDP per capita. The difference between the numbers is larger for Canada than, say, France or Germany.
glitchc
Canada's PPP and quality of life seem to decline every year due to brain-dead government policies.
dismalaf
Canadians will still insist we're the richest country in the world though. The propaganda here is wild in that it's super subtle but everyone will insist things are great even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Edit - lol and here come the down votes, even in the face of actual evidence in the article.
igravious
I love how a publication called "The Economist" doesn't have the wherewithal to measure supposedly economic outliers like Ireland and Luxembourg and just throws its hands up in the air and doesn't try.
ashishb
I was in Dublin, Ireland[1] All of its so called high power capital GDP is mostly accounting gimmick.
Japan, Singapore, or even Eastern European capitals felt more prosperous to me.
https://archive.ph/1rt11