Macroeconomics derives a number of tools which are applied in some purposeful way. It has hardly something to do with the historical arguments behind a country's success.
To put it briefly, monetary policy is described in rather more short-run terms. Having said that, the long-term direction of particular monetary or fiscal actions is the absolutely necessary condition for economic stability.

This is why I think it is crucial to consider macroeconomics’ factors when the ways to become rich for nations are discussed.

Besides I think that considering the Milton Friedman’s theories as neoclassical is a misunderstanding.

It is indeed pivotal, but irrelevant for the thread, which examines the non-economic factors contributing to the growth and development.

And where is said that the thread does not? But if it is true, then the thread is reaally relevant to antything?

  It is easy. If this thread does not concern an economy and every thread which has got such title just should, it means it is irrelavant to anything.

In my humble opinion, consideration a wealth and poverty without economics is a useless effort. As I said, considerations about richness and poorness without economics is like consideration ancient events without history.

Obviously, economists attempt to explain the growth using mathematic formulas, equations and human behaviour.

The latter can be easily linked to some of the factors listed in the thread.

Could you quote anything of Adam Smith that can be any mathematic formula or equation? I would like to remind that he was one of the greatest economists ever.

No. It cannot. As I said, considerations about wealth and poverty without economics is like consideration ancient events without history.

You have made loads of confusion
Have I ever said that Adam Smith used any quantitative methods ?
I have only generalised about the predominant techniques used for economic purposes.

There is some correlation between the behaviourist explanation of growth and some of the factors listed in the thread - including the broad meaning of 'mentality' and 'culture'.

And I assume you have very limited knowledge about economics.

There are not predominant techniques of macroeconomics.

No, it is not.

As I said, considerations about wealth and poverty without economics is like consideration ancient events without history.

Again, I experience serious problems with understanding your language. I have no idea what 'techniques of macroeconomics' can mean.

In fact, if you raise arguments about the methods used in macroeconomic approach - well, most of the modules I did, including macroeconomics as such or macroeconomic analysis draw excessively on quantitative techniques, including mathematic formulas or curves.

I have to make a number of assumptions in order to understand your arguments.
Anyways, some of the economists linked the growth to factors such as culture or mentality. I reckon you wish to challenge them.

Ok, acknowledged, but you phrased it third (fourth?) time. Eventually, if you are not fond of the topic, you can make up your own.