If one cheeeseburger didn't make you happy, 1000 will? How is true happiness in a world of **** not the ultimate goal in life?
Is China a third world country ?
- Thread starter china
- Start date
We are not discussing happiness here. The thread is not about whether China is a happy country; the thread is about whether it is a third world country. And judging from the per capita income, the answer is an emphatic, yes.
Labour is cheaper over there, so anything that is labour intensive is going to be cheaper in Malaysia, China or wherever. Another item that may be quite a bit cheaper there may be hair cut (which is labour intensive).
However, most of the consumer goods, electronic goods, imported goods etc. are not dependent upon cheap labour and probably cost about as much there as they do over here. E.g. is a BMW or a plasma TV cheaper in Malaysia compared to here? I doubt it. So per capita income usually mirrors the standard of living as well, with some exceptions.
Yes they are, Ive spent quite a bit of time in Indonesia and Thailand and everything is significantly cheaper than the US or Australia. Including imported/ niche things like protein powders etc.
But it's all relative. Everything is cheap labour now.
It costs tens of thousand of dollars per year to insure a BMW in Singapore. Does that mean they're worse off?
Is it, really? So if a BMW costs say, 60,000 $ in Canada, how much would it cost in Thailand, 20,000, 30,000 $, what? In that case, does the government subsidize it, or does BMW absorb the loss?
I wouldn't have thought that they would bother with niceties like insurance in places like Malaysia, Singapore or Thailand.
The reason cars cost so much in Canada and the US compared to say Japan is because of government taxes. If you remove most of them as a few Asian country's have cars are far cheaper but have a higher turn over, so it works out in the end.
Also I didn't say cars in my post. Some things are going to be the same wherever you go, but for the most part they are cheaper.
China is a developing country. The term "Third World" is no longer appropriate as it was a term used during the Cold War to describe the Capitalist World (the First World); the Communist World (the second World); and the undeveloped nations (Third World) that belonged to neither the First or Second Worlds.
According to UN standards there are five levels of development.
Level 1 refers to nations like Canada and the US as well as most of Western Europe. These nations have mature economies and highly developed infrastructures.
Level 2 refers to nations like Russia and Brazil which are right on the edge of being fully modern nations. However, they tend to depend primarily on the production of raw materials for their prosperity even though certain areas of their economies are highly developed. They also tend to lack the highly developed infrastructure of Level 1 nations.
Level 3 refers to nations like China and India. These countries may be developing rapidly and are clearly on the way to Level 2 and eventually Level 1. However, they tend to features a small number of wealthy people at the top and large numbers of struggling masses. Infrastructure lags far behind that of Level 1 nations.
Level 4 refers to most of the nations of Africa. These nations have serious economic and social problems and lack basic infrastructure. However, they are making slow but steady progress and may eventually develop to Level 3. These nations are also known as LDCs (Less developed countries)
Level 5. These nations are at the bottom of the heap. Their economic and social problems are so severe that any chance of improvement is considered unlikely without huge amounts of outside help. Nations like Afghanistan and Haiti fit into this category. They are also known as LLDCs (Least developed nations)
For the most part, none of these terms fit exactly. Even Level 1 nations like Canada and the US may have areas that resemble Level 3 or even Level 4 nations. Also there are obviously areas of China and India whose opulence rivals the wealthiest areas of Level 1 nations. These terms tend to be convenient labels rather than exact descriptions.
According to UN standards there are five levels of development.
Level 1 refers to nations like Canada and the US as well as most of Western Europe. These nations have mature economies and highly developed infrastructures.
Level 2 refers to nations like Russia and Brazil which are right on the edge of being fully modern nations. However, they tend to depend primarily on the production of raw materials for their prosperity even though certain areas of their economies are highly developed. They also tend to lack the highly developed infrastructure of Level 1 nations.
Level 3 refers to nations like China and India. These countries may be developing rapidly and are clearly on the way to Level 2 and eventually Level 1. However, they tend to features a small number of wealthy people at the top and large numbers of struggling masses. Infrastructure lags far behind that of Level 1 nations.
Level 4 refers to most of the nations of Africa. These nations have serious economic and social problems and lack basic infrastructure. However, they are making slow but steady progress and may eventually develop to Level 3. These nations are also known as LDCs (Less developed countries)
Level 5. These nations are at the bottom of the heap. Their economic and social problems are so severe that any chance of improvement is considered unlikely without huge amounts of outside help. Nations like Afghanistan and Haiti fit into this category. They are also known as LLDCs (Least developed nations)
For the most part, none of these terms fit exactly. Even Level 1 nations like Canada and the US may have areas that resemble Level 3 or even Level 4 nations. Also there are obviously areas of China and India whose opulence rivals the wealthiest areas of Level 1 nations. These terms tend to be convenient labels rather than exact descriptions.
Avro
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/answerxml.cfm?selectedurl=/2000/0010.html
People ,look at yourself .
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/answerxml.cfm?selectedurl=/2000/0010.html
People ,look at yourself .
petros
These / those who compare them self to each other , they are without understanding .
St Paul 2nd Corinthian :somewhere
These / those who compare them self to each other , they are without understanding .
That pretty much makes sense. The terms developed country and third world country are used interchangeably, India and China can be described as either.
The wealth of India and China is largely concentrated in the rich and the middle class. While these countries have huge middle class (perhaps bigger than the middle class in USA), they have an even bigger lower class, which is dirt poor, sometimes starving.
So when you take the average, the per capita income of these countries is very low. So call them less developed countries, developing countries, or third world countries, basically these are poor countries which are advancing rapidly.
That was a bad comparison , I mean using Canada to compare with other countries, your taxes are like the goverment reverse subsiding a product.
The three worlds as they were separated during the Cold War era, each with its respective allies. Colors do not represent current economical development. First World: the United States and its allies. Second World: the Soviet Union and its allies. Third World: Non-aligned and neutral countries.
Old map is old. China has experienced 10% + economic growth each year since 1997 with India not far behind. The world is a far different place now.
Yes they have. But they started from such a low economic base that they still are poor countries, even after phenomenal growth rate for a few years.
Also, it is important to keep it in perspective. If you start with a low economic base, say GDP of 1 trillion $ (strictly a hypothetical figure), a 10% growth rate means GDP growth of 100 billion $. USA starts with a high economic base, let us say 10 trillion dollars. Then a 2% growth rate translates into a GDP growth of 200 billion $.
High growth rate doesn't mean a whole lot if you are starting from a low economic base.
I decided to look up the GDPs of India and USA. While my figures were a stab in the dark, they are remarkably near the mark. India’s GDP was 1.242 trillion $ in 2009, USA’s was 14.5 trillion $.
So even if USA has 2% growth and India has 10% growth, that means in absolute terms, there is more GDP growth in USA that there is in India.
So even if USA has 2% growth and India has 10% growth, that means in absolute terms, there is more GDP growth in USA that there is in India.
Why are drugs cheaper everywhere but the US? Do American Drug companies "just suck it up" or are certain customers being gouged because they can be gouged?
Labour is a flimsy flimsy excuse.
No matter the retail value that Beemer has far more robot hours than human hours on it with a labour and material cost under $8000.
We are talking about CLASS not how many calories are burned in labour.
How about national and personal debt? Is that included in GDP? What about quality of life? Means ****?