What is a developed country?

Tonington
Avatar
#1
In the Obamacare thread, there's a lot of talk about what is and is not a devleoped nation. GDP, GDP per capita, bankrolling rich nations... in other discussions, arguments for status of developed, developing nations look at things like the degree of industrialization or the newish Human Development Index, which places more emphasis on the sophistication of the economy/nation to rate the degree of development.

I'd like to hear some alternatives. I personally prefer indexed scores, which can consider multiple variables at a time, which can tend to obscure the greater reality one might find in these countries.
 
Walter
#2
No country is developed; all countries are developing.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#3
Don't look at me for an answer. I was under the impression all of them are developing, some faster than others.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

No country is developed; all countries are developing.

Yes exactly, that's one feather in the cap for the Human Development Index. Countries get a score somewhere between 0 and 1.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#5
I've been told that the only measure of a developed country is per capita income.
 
EagleSmack
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by tenpennyView Post

i've been told that the only measure of a developed country is per capita income.

rofl
 
JLM
Avatar
#7
I think it's kind of a stupid statement- virtually every country is develped in certain ways- any country that has any kind of government is at least partly developed, if they have a sewer system they are more developed, if they have roads they are more developed etc. etc.
 
JLM
Avatar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I've been told that the only measure of a developed country is per capita income.

That statement is about as stupid as they get, like saying the only sign on an educated person is how well he can add.
 
Lineman
Avatar
#9
It may be too simplistic an answer but it has to have a proper and maintained sewage system.
Think it through, countries with exploding populations and no sewage system suffer from pollution, poor economies, unrest and disease. Those who have it have good economies, stable governments, and a middle class.
Theres likely a lot more to it, good education system as an example, but overall, it seems to be applicable.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

It may be too simplistic an answer but it has to have a proper and maintained sewage system.

That would take Canada off the list!

Pumping sewage out into the ocean is hardly 'proper and maintained'.
 
#juan
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

That would take Canada off the list!

Pumping sewage out into the ocean is hardly 'proper and maintained'.

There are sewage treatment plants all across Canada. I'm aware that raw sewage has been, and continues to be pumped into the ocean from some cities. I'm also aware that this practice is being reduced as treatment plants are being built in Victoria and some cities on the East coast.
If we are going to chide Victoria, we should also mention that large cities in California are also guilty of this practice. San Diego dumps 50 billion gallons of sewage into the ocean every year. I don't even want to think about LA.
 
Blackleaf
Avatar
#12
I wouldn't say France is developed, considering it relies on other countries' money to stay rich.

Britain contributes billions each year to the Common Agricultural Policy, of which France is the main benificiary because its farmers, unlike those in Britain, are inefficient and lazy. And if Britain didn't have its EU rebate, which France wants to take off us, it would pay an incredible 14 times more to the CAP than France despite having a similar sized economy.

And France doesn't even spend its CAP money on actual agriculture, as that newspaper report from a few years ago which showed French farmers - who do nothing - posing by their sports cars paid for by the generous English (the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish also only survive thanks to English money) taxpayer.

And the pitch in France's national football and rugby stadium, the Stade de France, is a disgrace. They can't even grow proper turf.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Mar 24th, 2010 at 11:07 AM..
 
TenPenny
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

I wouldn't say France is developed.

Oddly, this comes as no surprise.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by LinemanView Post

It may be too simplistic an answer but it has to have a proper and maintained sewage system.
Think it through, countries with exploding populations and no sewage system suffer from pollution, poor economies, unrest and disease. Those who have it have good economies, stable governments, and a middle class.
Theres likely a lot more to it, good education system as an example, but overall, it seems to be applicable.

Let me see, the USA has a sewage system in most places where there are people. It pollutes even the sewage system. There is unrest in the USA. There's disease there. And it's economy could definitely be better. I guess the USA is undeveloped according to your standards. lol
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

I wouldn't say France is developed, considering it relies on other countries' money to stay rich.

Britain contributes billions each year to the Common Agricultural Policy, of which France is the main benificiary because its farmers, unlike those in Britain, are inefficient and lazy. And if Britain didn't have its EU rebate, which France wants to take off us, it would pay an incredible 14 times more to the CAP than France despite having a similar sized economy.

And France doesn't even spend its CAP money on actual agriculture, as that newspaper report from a few years ago which showed French farmers - who do nothing - posing by their sports cars paid for by the generous English (the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish also only survive thanks to English money) taxpayer.

And the pitch in France's national football and rugby stadium, the Stade de France, is a disgrace. They can't even grow proper turf.

And the UK develops riots where people get killed in football games. Last I heard, games were supposed to be a source of fun and friendly competition.
 
#juan
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

And the UK develops riots where people get killed in football games. Last I heard, games were supposed to be a source of fun and friendly competition.

Football in Europe has not been "fun and friendly competition" for decades. A fan is in serious trouble if he cheers for his team while in the wrong side of the stadium.
 
AnnaG
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Football in Europe has not been "fun and friendly competition" for decades. A fan is in serious trouble if he cheers for his team while in the wrong side of the stadium.

I'm happy that someone else besides me has noticed.
 
EagleSmack
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Football in Europe has not been "fun and friendly competition" for decades. A fan is in serious trouble if he cheers for his team while in the wrong side of the stadium.

Perhaps Europe is developing still.
 
SirJosephPorter
#19
I noticed this thread just now, and as I expected, it degenerated into trivialities, everybody saying why a particular country is not developed. The conclusion seems to be that no country in the world is developed. Then why do we talk of developed and developing countries?

Which really emphasizes the point I made in the other thread. Everybody is expressing their opinion as to which country is developed and which isn’t, without much concrete evidence.

Well, to me, the main criteria is per capita income or per capita GDP. There are some other minor criteria (industrialization, Human development Index etc.), but per capita income is the major criteria. You usually cannot have industrialization or high Human Development Index without also high per capita income or per capita GDP.

Anyway, I go by the International monetary Fund list of developed and developing countries. Anything else is pure speculation, personal opinion without any evidence.

--

--

Anyway, here is one specific definition (there are other, less specific definitions).

In its most recent classification, economies are divided using 2008 Gross National Income per capita. In 2008, countries with GNI per capita below US$11,905 were considered developing.
 
TenPenny
#20
Quote:

Well, to me, the main criteria is per capita income or per capita GDP. There are some other minor criteria (industrialization, Human development Index etc.), but per capita income is the major criteria.

The 'main' criteria?

I was told it was the ONLY criteria.
 
SirJosephPorter
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

The 'main' criteria?

I was told it was the ONLY criteria.

I never said it was the sole criteria, Tenpenny. But it is at least the main criteria. And in the definition I have posted, it indeed was the sole criteria. So it can be the sole or the main criteria.
 
TenPenny
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I never said it was the sole criteria, Tenpenny. But it is at least the main criteria. And in the definition I have posted, it indeed was the sole criteria. So it can be the sole or the main criteria.


Quite so, and that is why you wrote

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Money, income, GDP (per capita) has everything to do with it. That is what decides if a country is developed country or a developing country.

 
SirJosephPorter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Quite so, and that is why you wrote

And where did I say that that was the sole criteria? Mind you, according to one definition that is the sole criteria. So I wouldn't be wrong if I said that is the sole criteria. So you are arguing about nothing.

But what I am saying here is that a country cannot be developed without high per capita income, per capita income has everything to do with it. But other factors could also contribute.

But I fail to see how you go from one to the other.

Let me give you an analogy. Being intelligent, being smart has everything to do with becoming a doctor. That doesn't mean that that is the only factor. What that mean is that if you are not intelligent, you won't become a doctor.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#24
Quite so; it is but it isn't, and I said it was but I didn't say it was.

You're trying to argue about nothing, because I agree with you completely when you say that you said it or you didn't say it, and that it is or it isn't.

It's quite refreshing that you have opened your mind, and are now able to see the Truth.
 
SirJosephPorter
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Quite so; it is but it isn't, and I said it was but I didn't say it was.

You're trying to argue about nothing, because I agree with you completely when you say that you said it or you didn't say it, and that it is or it isn't.

It's quite refreshing that you have opened your mind, and are now able to see the Truth.

That doesn't make sense. Oh well, as long as you are happy.
 
Libertarian
#26
Anything that doesn't resemble countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe, or Cambodia.
 
JLM
Avatar
#27
Being intelligent or smart has a lot to do with being an electrician or a carpenter, in fact most jobs. I learned years ago there are 7 different kinds of intelligence, the important thing is to have the type needed for the job you choose.
 
JLM
Avatar
#28
Actually for most jobs there are other criteria as important as intelligence- determination, ability to plan, meticulousness, patience.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

I noticed this thread just now, and as I expected, it degenerated into trivialities, everybody saying why a particular country is not developed. The conclusion seems to be that no country in the world is developed. Then why do we talk of developed and developing countries?

Which really emphasizes the point I made in the other thread. Everybody is expressing their opinion as to which country is developed and which isn’t, without much concrete evidence.

Well, to me, the main criteria is per capita income or per capita GDP. There are some other minor criteria (industrialization, Human development Index etc.), but per capita income is the major criteria. You usually cannot have industrialization or high Human Development Index without also high per capita income or per capita GDP.

Anyway, I go by the International monetary Fund list of developed and developing countries. Anything else is pure speculation, personal opinion without any evidence.

--

--

Anyway, here is one specific definition (there are other, less specific definitions).

In its most recent classification, economies are divided using 2008 Gross National Income per capita. In 2008, countries with GNI per capita below US$11,905 were considered developing.

Cool, we can all relax now and quit working so hard. We're developed now.

Um, does that mean we need another goal to reach for or have we done it all?
 
AnnaG
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

And where did I say that that was the sole criteria? Mind you, according to one definition that is the sole criteria. So I wouldn't be wrong if I said that is the sole criteria. So you are arguing about nothing.

But what I am saying here is that a country cannot be developed without high per capita income, per capita income has everything to do with it. But other factors could also contribute.

But I fail to see how you go from one to the other.

Let me give you an analogy. Being intelligent, being smart has everything to do with becoming a doctor. That doesn't mean that that is the only factor. What that mean is that if you are not intelligent, you won't become a doctor.

lmao Everything means everything, not part-thing or most-thing.
 
no new posts