Development level: first World, third World, second World? (transfer, wedding)

[BennyBucks]

Originally Posted by MrPilot

with work I've spent 3 months in mumbai/bombay and I didn't need to see the country to understand it was a third world country... heck not even listen to it's chaotic streets, but the smell! Oh god! India has 30 years to go before I would even considering it a "developing country". The things I saw there still haunt me to this day...

This sounds like word perfect description of nyc in the summer, except more pleasant. Mumbai is similar, except without the crowds of frothing mutant homunculi and crazies crowding the streets and it has dry heat rather than the intolerable pea soup thick miasma that new yorkers have to gag on throughout summer.

[Citizen401]

As far as I'm concerned, NYC is basically uninhabitable for three months of the year in Summer.

Quite frankly, I'd rather be in Bombay at the time, which isn't that bad. If you elect to focus upon the worst aspects of a city, or work dictates that you see more of the slums than you would electively, of course you'll walk away with a terrible experience.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by MrPilot

I'm sorry but you sound a bit biased...

We've gone over the arguments for and against, and it basically reduces to a question of 'historical context' rather than 'bias'.

If you want to give arguments one way or another here, you need to provide something more substantive than an appeal to emotion based upon your street-level experience of one city. You need to look at the broader factors that determine developmental state. It's an easy trap to be swayed by base emotions and prejudices in matters like this.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Ag77845

How do you define second world?

First-world science, excellent system of education, ( free for everyone, with easy access to higher education,) vast social services and lavish spending on arts on one hand, combined with severe limitations of personal initiative and restrictions of ideology on another. So basically half-way between the West ( first world) and third world countries.
This terminology of the "second world" was reserved for the Soviet Union; once it was gone, you can't really find examples of the "second world." It's basically "the West and the rest" now, although the degree of development of the "rest" can vary.

[MrPilot]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

We've gone over the arguments for and against, and it basically reduces to a question of 'historical context' rather than 'bias'.

If you want to give arguments one way or another here, you need to provide something more substantive than an appeal to emotion based upon your street-level experience of one city. You need to look at the broader factors that determine developmental state. It's an easy trap to be swayed by base emotions and prejudices in matters like this.

How about GDP per capita? Supporting my views with misc. data is like scoring in a game of soccer with no goalie.

A great way to see at a glance how different parts of the world is doing is by checking out HDI



Here you can clearly see that N.America, Southern South America, Europe, Australia and parts of Asia are in Dark Blue and you can clearly see how india is doing.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by MrPilot

How about GDP per capita? Supporting my views with misc. data is like scoring in a game of soccer with no goalie.

A great way to see at a glance how different parts of the world is doing is by checking out HDI

Here you can clearly see that N.America, Southern South America, Europe, Australia and parts of Asia are in Dark Blue and you can clearly see how india is doing.

Sorry, but you need to read the full thread. It already covers much more than the above, including trend data and other macro information, not to mention contextual considerations.

If by 'bias' you suspect I have a personal agenda to promote, or that I have an Indian background, you're simply wrong on this.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Here are the key points.

Features of first world status:

1. Third largest GNI (purchasing power parity-adjusted) in the world after USA and China, with strong market fundamentals.
2. Savings rate of 38% of GDP.
3. Significant net gold imports.
4. Booming industry; steady PMI.
5. Innovative entrepreneurship.
6. Extensive international trade networks.
7. Extensive foreign investment portfolio.
8. Political stability.
9. Modernised navy and airforce.
10. Sophisticated space program.

Features of third world/developing status:

1. Wealth disparity: Extensive urban area slums, low income per capita.
2. Embryonic banking system.
3. Primitive infrastructure in places: Street level ambience is still third world.
4. Relatively low literacy
5. Relatively high child and young adult mortality rates

Key considerations:

1. Extensive subsistence agricultural tradition.
2. Vast population size, thus poorly amenable to governance.
3. Recent macroeconomic "catch down" regression in 'traditional' first world countries.
4. Historical context: Extensive poverty and squalor during ascendancy of OECD leading member states.

It's friday night and I'm typing this on a phone, so I'm not in the best state for a comprehensive polemic. If you do raise cogent objections, I'll respond to them here. It not, then I'll just leave it here.

[MrPilot]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Sorry, but you need to read the full thread. It already covers much more than the above, including trend data and other macro information, not to mention contextual considerations.

If by 'bias' you suspect I have a personal agenda to promote, or that I have an Indian background, you're simply wrong on this.

Trend? Is that an "intangible asset" ? A lot of emerging markets are showing sound fiscal policies with positive output. However, I have seen their markets gain appreciation against more mature ones but unfortunately it is not in a nominal sense "sustained", "guaranteed" or even with a net-performance at a parity level which is comparable.

I really don't feel like going into monetary and fiscal policies and micro/macro eco with you now. You see, a country's development is based on more pillars than you have mentioned.

There's FDI
HDI
Infrastructure
Healthcare
R&D
GINI
etc
etc
etc

[MrPilot]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Here are the key points.

Features of first world status:

1. Third largest GNI (purchasing power parity-adjusted) in the world after USA and China, with strong market fundamentals.

A large national GDP means two things: A) A large country with many habitants and B) Normal sized country with LOUSY family planning and overpopulation. I don't want to add my 2c as to which applies to India.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

2. Savings rate of 38% of GDP.

Peru is quite underdeveloped (was there in 2013) and they have a high monetary reserve.... that is a good anti-cyclic fiscal policy applied in many countries in different development stages. So it's not really a measurement for being developed or not.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

3. Significant net gold imports.

Here I have reason to believe that A) There is an old-fashioned culture of "show-off" midst all poverty to state, during weddings for example, that you are "worthy" somebody by buying expensive jewelry. This is true for many places around the globe. B) There is a slight conviction of possible foreseeable monetary depreciation and taking on gold instead.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

4. Booming industry; steady PMI.

I don't know what PMI stands for but a booming industry is a rare thing, there are only 5-6 countries growing with an average of 6% or so Like China, Peru, Chile etc. I don't recall India there, But I might be wrong. BOTTOM LINE: A market with a lot of ground to cover tends to be able to achieve higher growth rates than a mature industry. So this is actually a counter-argument as to where Indian industries are at.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

5. Innovative entrepreneurship.

I don't think I understand this... are you referring to a high R&D % of GDP?

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

6. Extensive international trade networks.

Most countries have HUGE FTA's nowadays and this means nothing as far as development goes

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

7. Extensive foreign investment portfolio.

A lot of countries have high FDI, this is not in any way associated with development, sorry.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

8. Political stability.

This is actually something worth mentioning. Political stability is a necessity towards development, but so is corruption and transparency.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

9. Modernised navy and airforce.

I don't know what this means for a country's development but if buying a lot of russian/soviet armament is "development" for you, than by all means

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

10. Sophisticated space program.

This is an example of what can be done with a large population. Developing countries like Brazil and China also have a diversified industry but are hardly "developed". Also please know that a Space Program is part of R&D like you mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Features of third world/developing status:

1. Wealth disparity: Extensive urban area slums, low income per capita.
2. Embryonic banking system.
3. Primitive infrastructure in places: Street level ambience is still third world.
4. Relatively low literacy
5. Relatively high child and young adult mortality rates

Key considerations:

1. Extensive subsistence agricultural tradition.
2. Vast population size, thus poorly amenable to governance.
3. Recent macroeconomic "catch down" regression in 'traditional' first world countries.
4. Historical context: Extensive poverty and squalor during ascendancy of OECD leading member states.

It's friday night and I'm typing this on a phone, so I'm not in the best state for a comprehensive polemic. If you do raise cogent objections, I'll respond to them here. It not, then I'll just leave it be.

The key points you listed as your own anti-thesis are correct, thereby rendering your statements into tiny sparks lingering in the air before sparkling into nothingness on the vast void of underdevelopment.

I'm sure India will get there eventually though, but it's the human factor of the population I'm worried about, they are NOT ready to live in a developed nation. YET

[nei]

If India isn't third world, third world doesn't mean much.