Countries to be developed by 2050 (apartment, leases, homes)

[Canaan-84]

Originally Posted by Bob-666

By the year 2050, the Earth's oil and gas reserves will be seriously depleted. There may be a lesser number of "developed" nations then than there are now. Maybe the question should be which nations will still be developed and which will have collapsed back to a pre-industrial state. My guess is that India and China will have collapsed unless they have each managed to build hundreds of nuclear power stations.

By the year 2050 I'm sure there will be other means of acquiring energy, some European countries are already looking for alternative clean forms of energy. Doesn't Nuclear Energy produce a lot of pollution?

[Rodro666]

Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler

Indeed, the standard of living in Mexico is vastly better than, lets say, Nigeria, but it still lags quite a bit behind the countries in the 1st world (hence why so many of them come to America).

Here is a comparison of standards of living for four countries.

GDP per capita (PPP comparison):

United States - $47,000
Germany - $34,800
Mexico - $14,200
Nigeria - $2,300

Mexico and Nigeria are both in the 3rd world, though clearly Mexico has a higher standard of living than Nigeria. Until Mexico closes the income gap with the Western countries a little more, it will continue to be a country of emigration. I don't think there is any hope that Nigeria will be developed in the next 40 years.

I also don't think that China and India will make it to developed status by 2050 either. Even though they have such high economic growth rates, the populations of those two countries are just too big.

your data is quite wrong
Usa - $45,725
Germnay - $40,400

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_pe r_capita_GDP(nominal)

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Canaan-84

By the year 2050 I'm sure there will be other means of acquiring energy, some European countries are already looking for alternative clean forms of energy. Doesn't Nuclear Energy produce a lot of pollution?

Nuclear power not only produces polution. The development of an independent nuclear nuclear fuel cycle gives any nation the capability to produce nuclear weapons. The road to nuclear weapons is not through being able to make highly enriched uranium. It is through the conversion of some of the reactor grade fuel into plutonium. Comercial nuclear power plant of a few hundred megawatts can produce enough plutonium for several bombs every fueling cycle. The wide spread use of nuclear power will mean that most nations will be able build and have a few nuclear weapons if they want them. Mix oil, religon and a few nukes, what could possibly go wrong.

[InsaneTraveler]

Originally Posted by Rodro666

your data is quite wrong
Usa - $45,725
Germnay - $40,400

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_pe r_capita_GDP(nominal)


Pd: America isn't that good place to live.. plus most people is unhealthy fat and unattractive

Firstly, my data was not wrong. My data was retrieved from the World Fact Book. An official and credible source updated by the CIA every 2-3 weeks.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...orld-factbook/

Your information is from Wikipedia, which is notorious for putting false data regarding countries standards of living up for people to read.

Second, you are using nominal GDP per capita in your comparison, which isn't representative of how expensive it is to live in a country under its own currency. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) takes into account how expensive it is to live in a country and adjusts that into is per capita income.

[Tiger Beer]

Developed is a strange word.

Nearly every country in the world has massive infrastructure, corporations, McDonalds galore, downtowns, cars everywhere, everything you can imagine.

What more does a country need to be to be 'developed'?

[Canaan-84]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Developed is a strange word.

Nearly every country in the world has massive infrastructure, corporations, McDonalds galore, downtowns, cars everywhere, everything you can imagine.

What more does a country need to be to be 'developed'?

I suppose they put more emphasis on the quality of life and standard of living for the people? China is considered developing nation despite it's number of sky scraper cities it has around 30+ of those cities (though it seems a few already have massive pollution).

Here's photos of their Urban cities: List of cities in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tiger Beer]

If everyone has a high quality of life and high standard of living...it basically means everyone is living way beyond their means.

That means we're going to have a lot more conflict for everyone to try to get their 'fair share' of limited resources.

[Canaan-84]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

If everyone has a high quality of life and high standard of living...it basically means everyone is living way beyond their means.

That means we're going to have a lot more conflict for everyone to try to get their 'fair share' of limited resources.

I meant that perhaps people consider countries high income or first world by how their citizens are doing not by how modern they look. As you saw from the photos, China has dozens of what look like highly developed cities, yet it's still not considered first world country.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by John McClane

If Mexico is not a poor 3rd world country than why are there millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the United States.

Mexican wealth is very uneven. Parts of Mexico are essentially Third World.

However studies indicate the poorest Mexicans are often too poor, or too distant ie Chiapans/Mayans, to come here. So what might be more important is that we are just so much richer than Mexico. If we bordered Poland many Poles would likely be coming here and in fact many Poles do emigrate to wealthier countries in Western Europe. This might even be true if we bordered Portugal.

[kettlepot]

Those likely to attain First World development levels:

Eastern Europe: The Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania.

(Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, and Turkey will have a harder time of it. Turkey's eastern regions are just too poor, and it is too close to too much instability.)

Chile: because of its tradition of good government

Uruguay: If it can become the stable pivot point between an erratic Argentina and ponderous Brazil.

Costa Rica: A long tradition of good government.

Thailand: general social stability even though the governments seem to come and go. Proximity to other Asian Tigers will help.

Malaysia: It should finish its transition to First World.


Possible Middle Income Countries:

Philippines: While I would say that the board is stacked against it, it could be that at some point, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan may decide to diversify their low cost production outlets away from China. The Philippines could be the beneficiary.

Sri Lanka: Now that the Tamil guerrilla movement has been eliminated, Sri Lanka could see a real surge in development. 40 years may be enough time for it to happen.


States that will Not Achieve Developed status despite good prospects on paper:

Russia: declining population, government disrespect for private property. Russians, as they accumulate real wealth always move a portion of it overseas as protection against government seizure. As of right now, Russia is entirely dependent on mineral extraction. Resource extraction economies can accumulate real wealth, but that narrow focus really inhibits overall development.

Argentina: Argentina has been on the cusp of developed status for the past century and yet, because of a long tradition of preferring bad government over good government, they have squandered their opportunities. They will undoubtedly continue to do so because it is the nature of the Argentinian electorate. They've never met a demagogue they didn't like.

South Africa: Nothing will happen in the rest of southern Africa (Angola, Botswana, Gabon) until South Africa finally starts to ascend. But there is too much crime, too much disease, and the hard Left within the ANC still wields too much power. There is still hanging over the country the threat of a hard Left takeover. The genius of Nelson Mandela was to, temporarily, put to bed the threat of a socialist economy. Unfortunately, that threat is starting to stir again, and that will scare off some portion of long term investment.

Zimbabwe: Even after he's dead, it will take decades to undo the idiocy that is Mugabe.

Venezuela: Chavism will be difficult to root out. He too will pass from the scene some day, but he seems to have actually done a better job of cementing the legal framework that will preserve Socialism in the country.

Colombia: The reduced but still present threats of FARC and Medillin/Cali Cartels, and proximity to Chavez will make First World levels of development difficult to reach.

What do I consider to be the biggest disappointment of all of these countries? Argentina.

If Argentina hadn't squandered its material inheritance, it could have formed the core of a zone of development that encompassed, Chile and Uruguay as well. The combined impact of these three countries could have sped development in Brazil a generation or two earlier than what it is now occurring. Instead of Latin America as a region of slowly progressing middle income countries, by now it could have attained lower tier First World status. Stupidity, repeated generationally can have profound long-lasting consequences.