Thats a bad way to look at a social construct.  Try to think of it as as a trade-off, with one culture not being right while the other is wrong, even though thats very difficult because you are already set in one cultural idealogy.

Peoples in a collectivistic culture may not want to question leaders higher up on the social ladder, but that doesn't mean that the leaders are not required to generously provide for the group.  In the West, if a leader (be it political or business) gains a lot of wealth for himself at the expense of others, our individualistic society see nothing wrong with that, but in the East if a leader does the same thing, the collectivistic society looks down on it.  Note that when I say 'at the expense of others' you probably dont agree with that, but thats how other people look at it.  Similarly, I could say that a leader rules ' without the consent of the people of his country' and some people would disagree because they dont look at it that way.

In an Invidualistic society, leaders are questioned but their personal gains are acceptable, they have limited political power and unlimited economic power.  In a Collectivisitc society, leaders are not questioned but their personal gains are not acceptable, they have unlimited political power but limited economic power.  Different means but the desired end result is the same, keeping the higher ups in check.

When you consider political science, this makes perfect sense.  Take America for instance:  Democrats want the government to control the economy, but they want the government to stay out of people's social lives.  Republicans want the government to stay out of the economy, but they want to government to have control of people's lives (Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, etc.).  Its practically the same thing as the cultural characteristics previously mentioned.

Name one collectivist society where the leader does provide generously for the group.

Also... society doesn't look down on it.  The leaders of collectivist societies get much richer off the backs of their workers then those in individualist societies.

Those with more individualist qualties are the ones who get ahead... even in collectivist societies... and then they beenfit off the collectivist mentallity of those below them.

Its obvious that things dont always turn out the way people want them to. And people in the West dont exactly agree on politics and economics.

However, when I was in Egypt a couple years ago, the price of oil was way below market price (about 25 cents a gallon). In Saudi Arabia, the government is much more generous than that. I'd wouldnt trade this country for that, but there's one example of what people in a collectivistic society expect and get from their leaders.

Egypt and Sauid Arabia rank about 40% for individualism... not exactlybastions of collectivism.

Also... I'm guessing you didn't go much out of Cairo?  Egypt actually has a very low standard of living.

Though i am loathe to use the HDI... Egypt ranks in the 100s.

What exactly is the point?  Egypt is a third world country, so it would be crazy to expect their people to be living anything but.  And I'd like to know where you got your quantitative statistics for such a qualitative idea.

Also, these cultural preferences are just that, preferences.  Preferences dont have to be absolutely good for you, but you cant change them.  For instance, Americans love meat and they like American football, while Greeks prefer more vegetables in their diet and they like football (soccer).  In regards to health, Greeks have a better diet, but that doesnt mean that we should expect Americans to change their tastes and preferences.  And you cant really argue over something like which sport is better, football or soccer.

I hate michael moore, i really dislike hypocritical people that pretend to be telling the truth but their agenda is really influencing everything they do. His movies are jut propaganda. At the end of the day humanity wouldnt progress without capitalism...

Bowling for Colombine was good, but that's it.

Yeah it's what social sciences are for.  Things in poor countries general are cheaper.

http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/

In every society, the poor tend to be the ones who have more collectivism and a higher power distance.

Power distance prevents government abuse.

Individualists are always at the top.

Thanks for the link, it is a great resource.  This shows how diverse the world is, and how diverse our political and economic expectations are.  And it also cleared up my mistake of thinking the characteristics of individualistic and collectivistic societies applied to all those things.

When you tell me some qualititive data got a 40%, I have no idea what you mean.  You could have been more specific and said it got a 40 out of 110 on the PDI scale, but I still would have no idea what that means without a definition and data to compare it to.

As for your thoughts on gasoline prices, the reality is much different than what you think.  For example, Russia is much wealthier than many, if not all, third world countries, but their oil prices are down there with Saudi Arabia and the Phillipines.  America, the wealthiest country on Earth is in the middle of the pack, and Uruguay has the highest prices in the world.  The difference here is what people expect from their government, with people in Egypt and Russia expecting the government to give cheap free oil while other people expect to get it on their own for whatever the market price is.  Of course, economics of supply and demand have a large role, but it doesnt explain differences between like countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_gas_pri-energy-gasoline-prices

Yes, it's not like Russia and Sudai Arabia don't have huge oil reserves.

Pretty much all leaders are individualists, even the ones in collectivist societies.

The only real exception is Czar... Peter i want to say.  And even he whith talk of collectivism and reform didn't really inact any of it.

Variations in the price of oil/gasoline around the world are almost entirely determined by variations in how oil is taxed/subsidized in different regions. In many countries there is a belief which I believe is somewhat justified that inexpensive readily available energy is one of the pillars of rapid economic growth, and therefore the government artificially lowers the price of energy to make it more affordable to the masses.

The unfortunate thing is that many of these countries that try to encourage growth through cheap energy tend to ignore the other factors of economic growth like contract law, property ownership and encouraging entrepreneurship.