You can very probably obtain a much different result and most likely more accurate by doing this: Looking at a few metrics should be enough for you to understa

You can very probably obtain a much different result and most likely more accurate by doing this: Looking at a few metrics should be enough for you to understand that this article from The Economist is some kind of "everything is going well"-centrist-propaganda. Suggested metrics: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in... Based on the Gini Coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev... Based on the HDI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index 3. And finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... --- All of the above are criticizable indices, by themselves. However, if you take the time to superpose those statistical markers, you'll get a much better picture than whatever The Economist is trying to say in this article