The World Order
Discussion
Not sure where this goes, but this is related to economics, so I am putting it in here.
The world order used to be, roughly:
1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
At some point in my life time, it might even have already happened, China is going to overtake us in terms of technology, etc and will eventually take over America for the world's biggest economy.
That surely then moves them from developing to First world. Does that then move us to developing?
This was promoted by the Porsche financial results thread where their profits have tanked largely because the Chinese are no longer interested in expensive western cars and seem to be quite happy with their own, ever increasing, car brands.
The world order used to be, roughly:
1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
At some point in my life time, it might even have already happened, China is going to overtake us in terms of technology, etc and will eventually take over America for the world's biggest economy.
That surely then moves them from developing to First world. Does that then move us to developing?
This was promoted by the Porsche financial results thread where their profits have tanked largely because the Chinese are no longer interested in expensive western cars and seem to be quite happy with their own, ever increasing, car brands.
Megaflow said:
Not sure where this goes, but this is related to economics, so I am putting it in here.
The world order used to be, roughly:
1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
At some point in my life time, it might even have already happened, China is going to overtake us in terms of technology, etc and will eventually take over America for the world's biggest economy.
That surely then moves them from developing to First world. Does that then move us to developing?
This was promoted by the Porsche financial results thread where their profits have tanked largely because the Chinese are no longer interested in expensive western cars and seem to be quite happy with their own, ever increasing, car brands.
The 'First world' were those countries aligned with NATO, the 'Second world' those with the Warsaw Pact, and the 'Third world' those not aligned to either, though over time it entered the common vernacular as meaning poor or developing countries. It was never a ranking system.The world order used to be, roughly:
1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
At some point in my life time, it might even have already happened, China is going to overtake us in terms of technology, etc and will eventually take over America for the world's biggest economy.
That surely then moves them from developing to First world. Does that then move us to developing?
This was promoted by the Porsche financial results thread where their profits have tanked largely because the Chinese are no longer interested in expensive western cars and seem to be quite happy with their own, ever increasing, car brands.
Hereward said:
Megaflow said:
...Does that then move us to developing?...
We are Declining.When it comes to China I think we are being told a lot of porkies. They are so advanced they are probably 20 years ahead of us. Yes the rural areas are still old world but the cities - virtually all EVs. Clean, high speed rail, high speed wifi / internet. Modern hospitals, plenty of property (if not too much) and parks / outdoors / activities that make us look like Victorians.
Yes the government have total control - but honestly we are just told we are "free".
Yes the government have total control - but honestly we are just told we are "free".
I don't think those categories work any more. There is still definitely a 'developing' world but not so sure about a 'First World'. It smacks to me of being a definition created by us in the West that very much fitted and suited us to consider ourselves the richest, most advance, sophisticated nations through the mid 20th century.
Today, we are the grandpa in the chair and China and the asian / middle eastern countries are very much the hungry, youthful, ambitious and creative nations. Like old people moaning about the music of the youth, we don't like some aspects of how these places operate and how their values don't match ours. But that's very much through the lens of our perspective. We aren't wrong. But neither are they from their perspective. No-one has the absolute global right to determine what is right or wrong.
We seem to be all terrified of China but I honestly don't know why. I'm more scared of the US right now as trump's America seems to be the one fixated on short term thrashing out, chaotic and knee jerk policy making - well, not even that. Just acting with little logic or rationale on the whim of an old and mentally fragile man-baby who happens to have absolute powers to do anything he wants it seems. At least with the Chinese you do get a sense their play is very much slow, steady, considered and long game. For which they are reaping the rewards having stuck to that for a long time now.
Today, we are the grandpa in the chair and China and the asian / middle eastern countries are very much the hungry, youthful, ambitious and creative nations. Like old people moaning about the music of the youth, we don't like some aspects of how these places operate and how their values don't match ours. But that's very much through the lens of our perspective. We aren't wrong. But neither are they from their perspective. No-one has the absolute global right to determine what is right or wrong.
We seem to be all terrified of China but I honestly don't know why. I'm more scared of the US right now as trump's America seems to be the one fixated on short term thrashing out, chaotic and knee jerk policy making - well, not even that. Just acting with little logic or rationale on the whim of an old and mentally fragile man-baby who happens to have absolute powers to do anything he wants it seems. At least with the Chinese you do get a sense their play is very much slow, steady, considered and long game. For which they are reaping the rewards having stuck to that for a long time now.
gotoPzero said:
Yes the rural areas are still old world but the cities - virtually all EVs. Clean, high speed rail, high speed wifi / internet. Modern hospitals, plenty of property (if not too much) and parks / outdoors / activities that make us look like Victorians.
The average salary in Shanghai is over 3k USD per month. That is not developing by any standard.Megaflow said:
The world order used to be, roughly:
1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
As others have already mentioned, these are largely meaningless definitions.1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
If you wanted a robust means to measure where one country is against others, you need to look at the UNDP Human Development Index.
This measures a range of things (indicators); access to healthcare, life expectancy, education, governance, and many others. It's a far more comprehensive measure of development than when looking purely at economic factors.
The last time it was updated was 2023.
Iceland is number 1.
Norway, Switzerland (both 2nd), Denmark (4th), Germany and Sweden (both 5th) make up the rest of the top 5.
United Kingdom is joint 13th (with Singapore).
The USA is 17th.
China is 78th. Iran, Albania, Armenia, Kazakhstan all rank higher than China!
WH16 said:
The 'First world' were those countries aligned with NATO, the 'Second world' those with the Warsaw Pact, and the 'Third world' those not aligned to either, though over time it entered the common vernacular as meaning poor or developing countries. It was never a ranking system.
Everyday is a school day, I didn’t know that.StevieBee said:
Megaflow said:
The world order used to be, roughly:
1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
As others have already mentioned, these are largely meaningless definitions.1) First world - America, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
2) Developing - China, Brazil, Eastern Europe, etc.
3) Third world - Africa, etc.
If you wanted a robust means to measure where one country is against others, you need to look at the UNDP Human Development Index.
This measures a range of things (indicators); access to healthcare, life expectancy, education, governance, and many others. It's a far more comprehensive measure of development than when looking purely at economic factors.
The last time it was updated was 2023.
Iceland is number 1.
Norway, Switzerland (both 2nd), Denmark (4th), Germany and Sweden (both 5th) make up the rest of the top 5.
United Kingdom is joint 13th (with Singapore).
The USA is 17th.
China is 78th. Iran, Albania, Armenia, Kazakhstan all rank higher than China!
I think you just answered it, I’m going to go and find that.
Rivenink said:
I'm just confused by the notion that one nation becoming developed means another nation must therefor be classed as developing.
Is it an us vs them thing? "They" are winning, so "we" must be losing?
Quite. It's complete bIs it an us vs them thing? "They" are winning, so "we" must be losing?
ks. The first, developing and third classifications just describe economies that are:
(1) working close to capacity
(2) those that have spare capacity because until recently they've been f
ked up(3) those that are f
ked up (e.g. dysfunctional government, no public infrastructure, crap education system, population perpetually on the edge of starvation).It's isn't a stable set of categories. You'd expect everyone in (2) to catch up and become part of (1). But they don't overtake (1). They just catch up with it. That's been going on for decades. Look at what's happened with the "Asian Tiger" economies and the former Warsaw Pact nations who joined the EU or sit on its border.
China and India are going through the same process of catching up, with India lagging China by a significant amount.
Of course they're growing rapidly. They bloody ought to be. Their productivity was way, way, way behind the "first" world, so you'd expect their economic activity to expand enormously once they finally got their s
t together and allowed their populations to become productive. And you can already see China's growth rate reducing precisely because they are getting closer to catching up with first world productivity. They've also started outsourcing lower added value manufacturing to cheaper economies, just like the developed world did to China in recent decades. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff