Developing Nations v Rich Countries
Discussion
I wonder what qualifies a country to be a developing nation, wealthy nation and rich nation
List of developing countries include China which is second on the wealthies country list and 77th place on the richest country list
India is also on the developing country list, seventh on the wealthiest list and 127th on the richest
When it comes to the climet change Europe seems to be taken as a whole yet there are many European countries that appear on the developing nations list Rumania, Bulgeria, Serbia for example.
So I am confused, can anyone explain
List of developing countries include China which is second on the wealthies country list and 77th place on the richest country list
India is also on the developing country list, seventh on the wealthiest list and 127th on the richest
When it comes to the climet change Europe seems to be taken as a whole yet there are many European countries that appear on the developing nations list Rumania, Bulgeria, Serbia for example.
So I am confused, can anyone explain
Something to do with the spread of wealth/quality of life/opportunities across the population? China and India are massive countries so hold a lot of wealth, but both have huge amounts of very poor people living s
tty lives, much worse than e.g. only being able to afford the basic Sky package.
tty lives, much worse than e.g. only being able to afford the basic Sky package.I dare say someone will be along with smarmy comments but it's a reasonable thing to not know IMO.
The main way of assessing the wealth of a country is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is, broadly speaking, the value of everything produced in that country in a given year. Obviously countries with huge populations produce more in total: China with 1.3 billion people produces far more than Luxembourg with 650k people. However when it's broken down by population Luxembourg produces a lot more per person, hence the average Luxemburger is more prosperous than the average Chinaman.
"Development" is related but bot exactly the same. There are a whole range of development indicators such as literacy, life expectancy and consumption per capita which are used to assess how developed a country is. These are generally, though not perfectly, related to a country's GDP per capita. The richer people are the more they spend on education, health care etc. So Luxembourg can be considered more developed than China because it has better life expectancy, literacy, consumption per person etc.
Europe often seems to be discussed as one because in many ways it acts as one. The EU will have policies to reduce emissions etc. Members may be more or less developed, but the same is true of China, US and any large bloc.
The main way of assessing the wealth of a country is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is, broadly speaking, the value of everything produced in that country in a given year. Obviously countries with huge populations produce more in total: China with 1.3 billion people produces far more than Luxembourg with 650k people. However when it's broken down by population Luxembourg produces a lot more per person, hence the average Luxemburger is more prosperous than the average Chinaman.
"Development" is related but bot exactly the same. There are a whole range of development indicators such as literacy, life expectancy and consumption per capita which are used to assess how developed a country is. These are generally, though not perfectly, related to a country's GDP per capita. The richer people are the more they spend on education, health care etc. So Luxembourg can be considered more developed than China because it has better life expectancy, literacy, consumption per person etc.
Europe often seems to be discussed as one because in many ways it acts as one. The EU will have policies to reduce emissions etc. Members may be more or less developed, but the same is true of China, US and any large bloc.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I dare say someone will be along with smarmy comments but it's a reasonable thing to not know IMO.
The main way of assessing the wealth of a country is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is, broadly speaking, the value of everything produced in that country in a given year. Obviously countries with huge populations produce more in total: China with 1.3 billion people produces far more than Luxembourg with 650k people. However when it's broken down by population Luxembourg produces a lot more per person, hence the average Luxemburger is more prosperous than the average Chinaman.
"Development" is related but bot exactly the same. There are a whole range of development indicators such as literacy, life expectancy and consumption per capita which are used to assess how developed a country is. These are generally, though not perfectly, related to a country's GDP per capita. The richer people are the more they spend on education, health care etc. So Luxembourg can be considered more developed than China because it has better life expectancy, literacy, consumption per person etc.
Europe often seems to be discussed as one because in many ways it acts as one. The EU will have policies to reduce emissions etc. Members may be more or less developed, but the same is true of China, US and any large bloc.
Yip, and taking an example I’m very familiar with (Ireland) GDP and GNP are not to be confused with average standards of living. No idea where Finland ranks on the scale but I’ve family there and I’m frequently amazed and delighted watching my nephew and niece growing up in a not perfect but much fairer society. It’s a complex issue that gets dumbed down to sound bites. There’s a correlation between national wealth and living standards but it’s far from 1:1 and possibly has more to do with politics.The main way of assessing the wealth of a country is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is, broadly speaking, the value of everything produced in that country in a given year. Obviously countries with huge populations produce more in total: China with 1.3 billion people produces far more than Luxembourg with 650k people. However when it's broken down by population Luxembourg produces a lot more per person, hence the average Luxemburger is more prosperous than the average Chinaman.
"Development" is related but bot exactly the same. There are a whole range of development indicators such as literacy, life expectancy and consumption per capita which are used to assess how developed a country is. These are generally, though not perfectly, related to a country's GDP per capita. The richer people are the more they spend on education, health care etc. So Luxembourg can be considered more developed than China because it has better life expectancy, literacy, consumption per person etc.
Europe often seems to be discussed as one because in many ways it acts as one. The EU will have policies to reduce emissions etc. Members may be more or less developed, but the same is true of China, US and any large bloc.
roger.mellie said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I dare say someone will be along with smarmy comments but it's a reasonable thing to not know IMO.
The main way of assessing the wealth of a country is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is, broadly speaking, the value of everything produced in that country in a given year. Obviously countries with huge populations produce more in total: China with 1.3 billion people produces far more than Luxembourg with 650k people. However when it's broken down by population Luxembourg produces a lot more per person, hence the average Luxemburger is more prosperous than the average Chinaman.
"Development" is related but bot exactly the same. There are a whole range of development indicators such as literacy, life expectancy and consumption per capita which are used to assess how developed a country is. These are generally, though not perfectly, related to a country's GDP per capita. The richer people are the more they spend on education, health care etc. So Luxembourg can be considered more developed than China because it has better life expectancy, literacy, consumption per person etc.
countries with smaller populations a stable government and a clear national identity tend to do quite well on living standards, Singapore springs to mind but also Switzerland and Norway.
Europe often seems to be discussed as one because in many ways it acts as one. The EU will have policies to reduce emissions etc. Members may be more or less developed, but the same is true of China, US and any large bloc.
Yip, and taking an example I’m very familiar with (Ireland) GDP and GNP are not to be confused with average standards of living. No idea where Finland ranks on the scale but I’ve family there and I’m frequently amazed and delighted watching my nephew and niece growing up in a not perfect but much fairer society. It’s a complex issue that gets dumbed down to sound bites. There’s a correlation between national wealth and living standards but it’s far from 1:1 and possibly has more to do with politics.The main way of assessing the wealth of a country is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is, broadly speaking, the value of everything produced in that country in a given year. Obviously countries with huge populations produce more in total: China with 1.3 billion people produces far more than Luxembourg with 650k people. However when it's broken down by population Luxembourg produces a lot more per person, hence the average Luxemburger is more prosperous than the average Chinaman.
"Development" is related but bot exactly the same. There are a whole range of development indicators such as literacy, life expectancy and consumption per capita which are used to assess how developed a country is. These are generally, though not perfectly, related to a country's GDP per capita. The richer people are the more they spend on education, health care etc. So Luxembourg can be considered more developed than China because it has better life expectancy, literacy, consumption per person etc.
countries with smaller populations a stable government and a clear national identity tend to do quite well on living standards, Singapore springs to mind but also Switzerland and Norway.
Europe often seems to be discussed as one because in many ways it acts as one. The EU will have policies to reduce emissions etc. Members may be more or less developed, but the same is true of China, US and any large bloc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff