Is population a good measure of a country's human wealth?why or why not?

Answer 1

I don't think so. I think it's about the efficiency of the human capitol of a country. If the country can find ways to get two people's work done by one person, they will have more wealth per person. That efficiency comes from education and training.

Answer 2

By itself, no. Nigeria has a heck of a lot of people but is backward and few outsiders want to do business there. Canada has many fewer people but lots of foreign businesses operate there.

Why not? Primarily because the level and usefulness of education is so important.
Firstly, if people learn and practise moral values -- what the Indians call dharma -- then they will be more easily happy and less greedy and non-destructive in their ways, they will tend to help each other, and that is the way to keep whatever prosperity they create. Dharma also is connected to willingness to work, some people in some Western countries and many in South Africa want something for nothing and think the world owes them a living, that is adharmic thinking and it is hard to get full econoimc value when it penetrates your country's culture.

Secondly, if they learn marketable/usable skills like maths and English and cooking and needlework how mechanical things work and can be repaired and how to read maps, and if plenty of them go on to university to gain good mastery of professions like accounting and management and computer science the people of the country will be more employable in the modern world.

Thirdly, if the culture they are in is receptive to creativity and nonconformity this is a basis for entrepreneurial initiative to flourish as well as the finer thhings of life like classical music.

All three -- morality, practical education, and creativity -- are important to look at if you are going to meaningfully assess the human capital of a country.