Brazil will surpass the United Kingdoms as the 6th biggest economy. (place, speaking)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's your point here? Some African countries had higher growth rates. They are STILL 3rd world countries. And they will stay at that level for quite some time.
My point is that in those African countries there is no major growth in the middle class, and that is one thing that differentiates the case of Brazil and most of the other BRIC countries.
This is more akin to the dramatic change economies such as Singapore, South Korea, even Japan had during the 20th Century.
Here's one example of a country that in the 1960 was dirt poor (at the same levels Haiti was at that time) and today is among the wealthiest and most developed countries on Earth:
All of that in less than one generation, the naysayers comments not withstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious
They sell their stuff to the 1st world. Because it's the 1st world that has the money to buy it.
No one disputes that that is still the case, but what is the topic of this thread and you seem to not want to accept is that things are changing.
For example, China's economy is now, more than ever before, being sustained on internal demand. That's why it has remained so robust while the US, its main trading partner, fell into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Brazil's economy is also being sustained on internal demand and aggregate demand from China.
India is also being sustained on internal demand and has become an important focal point for the global economy, becoming one of the major economies keeping the World's economy afloat while the US, Europe and Japan are mired in economic problems.
Do you see a trend here?
In Latin America, the country that did worst economically in last few years has been Mexico, due in no small part to the extreme connection its economy has with the USA. Not so in South America. There was never a recession in most of those places and this has never happened before.
There used to be a saying that said when the US sneezes, Latin America gets neumonia.
For the first time in World history, that is no longer true. This is a major change and is a sign that we no longer live in the same World of the 20th Century.
My point is that in those African countries there is no major growth in the middle class, and that is one thing that differentiates the case of Brazil and most of the other BRIC countries.
This is more akin to the dramatic change economies such as Singapore, South Korea, even Japan had during the 20th Century.
Here's one example of a country that in the 1960 was dirt poor (at the same levels Haiti was at that time) and today is among the wealthiest and most developed countries on Earth:
All of that in less than one generation, the naysayers comments not withstanding.
No one disputes that that is still the case, but what is the topic of this thread and you seem to not want to accept is that things are changing.
Changing, huh ? Not really. Brazil is a developing country. Time to get over it.
Like it changed Africa? Strong economic growth since 1980 and still a 3rd world hole, sadly.
For example, China's economy is now, more than ever before, being sustained on internal demand. That's why it has remained so robust while the US, its main trading partner, fell into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Brazil's economy is also being sustained on internal demand and aggregate demand from China.
India is also being sustained on internal demand and has become an important focal point for the global economy, becoming one of the major economies keeping the World's economy afloat while the US, Europe and Japan are mired in economic problems.
Do you see a trend here?
No. Because it's factually false. For instance, China is heavily exporting.
There used to be a saying that said when the US sneezes, Latin America gets neumonia.
For the first time in World history, that is no longer true. This is a major change and is a sign that we no longer live in the same World of the 20th Century.
Sources? They are all over the internet. Go and look yourself how crappy Russia is doing. It's a poor country, had rapidly declining population, corruption etc. etc. And ask your grandma.
I did mentioned the CIA World Factbook, which is the easiest US government factbook available online with a very simple and quick Google search.
Not sufficient.
They are not going to update much of those economic info I posted any time soon, so google it and you shall see the light.
Changing, huh ? Not really. Brazil is a developing country. Time to get over it.
No one said Brazil is not a developing country--BRICS are developing countries, and no one said otherwise. And they're developing pretty fast which means there's change. When so many signs are pointing otherwise that you're denying there's change, then I think it's possible change is actually occurring. This would not be the first time that a country's gone from the boonies into a first world country in relatively recent times (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Ireland, New Zealand and most recently Chile). What is it that sounds so ridiculous to you?
Daily chart: Africa's impressive growth | The Economist
Like it changed Africa? Strong economic growth since 1980 and still a 3rd world hole, sadly.
Right, and Africa started from an even worse state and had a far larger population boom than Brazil did so it's going to be quite a bit worse. Growth is quick, but growth has to be based on what current GDP is and for now it's still really small. Africa is going to need several more decades at least--this is not the case for the BRIC countries especially on a per capita basis (well, maybe for India). For the most part, sub-Saharan Africa is way behind Brazil in their development and infrastructure on all levels so it would take several decades of very large growth differences in order for the two to be equal and there's also a lack of base line political and social infrastructure in many of those nations. Though you do bring up a good point--it's possible the change is so extensive that even the poorest countries right now might find themselves reaching a significantly higher standards of living.
No. Because it's factually false. For instance, China is heavily exporting.
How is this factually false when China hasn't collapsed even while demand from Europe and the US has more or less collapsed due to the recession? The answer is because China has actually developed a very large domestic market which has boomed in the last decade as well as the opening of many other non-European/US markets.
Ok, some random website. Next.
Really? You don't know Charlie Rose or Fareed Zakaria? I mean, I don't expect you to agree with them, but if you're talking with so much authority about international politics, then shouldn't it be expected that you actually know some of the big analysts and commentators?
Sources? They are all over the internet. Go and look yourself how crappy Russia is doing. It's a poor country, had rapidly declining population, corruption etc. etc. And ask your grandma.
There's actually been a lot of debate over whether or not Russia should be included with Brazil, India, and China for very many reasons. It's actually a wealthier than the above per capita by a significant margin and about on par with the eastern members of the EU in terms of GDP per capita (but far larger overall). You're definitely right about the corruption, though it doesn't seem to have hit the recession as terribly as many of its European counterparts. Also, the the rapidly declining population thing is from the late 90s and early 00s--it's actually stabilized and 2009 saw a slight growth. I think perception generally lags a little behind reality.
Not sufficient.
He actually mentions a source and you say not sufficient, but right before that you tell him to go look for himself how crappy Russia is doing. Is that sufficient?
well south Korea was considered an third world nation in the 1950s and 60s but all of that has changed and they also have an very strong middle class.
GDP figures, and currently, South Korea is the 14th largest economy in the world, at almost US$600 billion, accounting for 1.6% of total world output, which highlights the phenomenal turn around for South Korea, from an underdeveloped third-world nation, to becoming a high-tech and rich manufacturing economy.
Anyway these days much of the worlds economic growth is in the Asian region and Brazil is also seeing the effects of it. Here in Australia the economy is largely out of recession and one aspect is due to the demand by China on the natural resources here.
I dont know much about the Brazilan economy however its an good sign considering the way the USA as well as some of Europe is doing. The UK is going down and here in Australia lots of British are comming out here due to economy is better out here and alot more jobs being advertised compared to the UK. Of course people from just about every country want to come out here too including Brazilians.
To observe actual change, you can't look at a 5 year time frame. If you think Brazil will be 1st world one day... ok. But just because they are doing well now dosen't mean anything.
" Africa started from an even worse state and had a far larger population"
There are plenty of small countries in Africa that have had a lot of growth but are still crappy. I can't imagine they used to be worse off. It can't be any worse there, imo. They hit rock bottom long ago and that's where they still are, sadly.
Yes, I do know Fareed Zakaria. He can't predict the future. At least I don't think he can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99
well south Korea was considered an third world nation in the 1950s and 60s but all of that has changed and they also have an very strong middle class.
GDP figures, and currently, South Korea is the 14th largest economy in the world, at almost US$600 billion, accounting for 1.6% of total world output, which highlights the phenomenal turn around for South Korea, from an underdeveloped third-world nation, to becoming a high-tech and rich manufacturing economy.
Anyway these days much of the worlds economic growth is in the Asian region and Brazil is also seeing the effects of it. Here in Australia the economy is largely out of recession and one aspect is due to the demand by China on the natural resources here.
I dont know much about the Brazilan economy however its an good sign considering the way the USA as well as some of Europe is doing. The UK is going down and here in Australia lots of British are comming out here due to economy is better out here and alot more jobs being advertised compared to the UK. Of course people from just about every country want to come out here too including Brazilians.
I didn't say it never happened before. For each Korea, you can name dozens of countries that are still crap. Brazil is a developing country and not as interconnected/globalized as developed countries. Not much of a big surprise their economy didn't go down the drain. Look at the GDP per capita. That's what's important. It's easy to grow your national GDP when your population grows. Brazil had 7.1% average growth between 1950-1959, 9% between 1980-1989 etc.
So they have had strong economic growth for a long time. Still, they aren't a developed country.Strong economic growth alone dosen't mean anything.
By the way, I don't give a crap about Brazil. It just came up. Could have been some other country. Brazil is just an example. Sure, maybe they will get there someday.
And good for Australia. But Europe and the U.S aren't in a recession, either.
To observe actual change, you can't look at a 5 year time frame. If you think Brazil will be 1st world one day... ok. But just because they are doing well now dosen't mean anything.
" Africa started from an even worse state and had a far larger population"
There are plenty of small countries in Africa that have had a lot of growth but are still crappy. I can't imagine they used to be worse off. It can't be any worse there, imo. They hit rock bottom long ago and that's where they still are, sadly.
Yes, I do know Fareed Zakaria. He can't predict the future. At least I don't think he can.
I didn't say it never happened before. For each Korea, you can name dozens of countries that are still crap. Brazil is a developing country and not as interconnected/globalized as developed countries. Not much of a big surprise their economy didn't go down the drain. Look at the GDP per capita. That's what's important. It's easy to grow your national GDP when your population grows. Brazil had 7.1% average growth between 1950-1959, 9% between 1980-1989 etc.
So they have had strong economic growth for a long time. Still, they aren't a developed country.Strong economic growth alone dosen't mean anything.
By the way, I don't give a crap about Brazil. It just came up. Could have been some other country. Brazil is just an example. Sure, maybe they will get there someday.
And good for Australia. But Europe and the U.S aren't in a recession, either.
Well your right the US is not in recession now yet the growth is slow, yet Euorpe is expected to do so:
On Monday, economists at Goldman Sachs downgraded their economic forecast, projecting the 17-nation euro zone to fall into recession at the start of the fourth quarter, while posting full-year 2012 growth of just 0.1%.
The Goldman economists expect gross domestic product to contract in the fourth quarter of 2011 and first quarter of 2012, which would meet the widely-accepted definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of shrinking growth. They expect the recession to be mild in Germany and France, while hard-hit peripheral economies will see a deeper and long-lasting episode.
In the past 100 years the world has been turned upside down.
In November 1911, European moneymen were flocking to Beijing.
A revolution had just toppled China’s last emperor, and the newborn Republic of China was penniless.
It was desperate for European loans to keep it afloat.
A century on, European moneymen (and women) are back in Beijing. But they are not there to lend to China.
Well your right the US is not in recession now yet the growth is slow, yet Euorpe is expected to do so:
On Monday, economists at Goldman Sachs downgraded their economic forecast, projecting the 17-nation euro zone to fall into recession at the start of the fourth quarter, while posting full-year 2012 growth of just 0.1%.
The Goldman economists expect gross domestic product to contract in the fourth quarter of 2011 and first quarter of 2012, which would meet the widely-accepted definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of shrinking growth. They expect the recession to be mild in Germany and France, while hard-hit peripheral economies will see a deeper and long-lasting episode.
In the past 100 years the world has been turned upside down.
In November 1911, European moneymen were flocking to Beijing.
A revolution had just toppled China’s last emperor, and the newborn Republic of China was penniless.
It was desperate for European loans to keep it afloat.
A century on, European moneymen (and women) are back in Beijing. But they are not there to lend to China.
Yeah, and Goldman also projected we would have crappy growth, but it's been alright. And they say we will be close to a recession next year, too. I guess that's what you get when you rescue their butt. Projections change. For instance, Germany is doing well right now and the unemployment rate is supposed to drop to 5.9% next year from 6. something percent right now. There's not gonna be a recession. And if your like me, a person who keeps track of those projections, you will know that they revise them constantly. If Goldman's projections were any good, they would not have gone down the drain in 2008.
China is keeping the country purposely poor, imo. If the wages rose, everybody would leave them and go to other poor countries.
Yeah, and Goldman also projected we would have crappy growth, but it's been alright. And they say we will be close to a recession next year, too. I guess that's what you get when you rescue their butt. Projections change. For instance, Germany is doing well right now and the unemployment rate is supposed to drop to 5.9% next year from 6. something percent right now. There's not gonna be a recession. And if your like me, a person who keeps track of those projections, you will know that they revise them constantly. If Goldman's projections were any good, they would not have gone down the drain in 2008.
China is keeping the country purposely poor, imo. If the wages rose, everybody would leave them and go to other poor countries.
Well things are better in Germany compared to other european nations at the moment. France things are doing ok but much of the rest of Europe is not.
Well many industries move to China due to the low costs and an large educated workforce. Massive amount of people in the manufacturing industries in the west have lost their jobs due to the companies they working for have relocated to china or cant compete against cheap Chinese imports. Its due to globalisation. globalisation means competition.
Anyway Chinese people are buying huge amounts of properties in australia including the very expensive ones. They have brought up large tracks of land as well as some of the mines here. They are now the largest foreign investor in Africa too. Anyway people know that China is the sleeping giant of the 21st century. Anything could happen.
To observe actual change, you can't look at a 5 year time frame. If you think Brazil will be 1st world one day... ok. But just because they are doing well now dosen't mean anything.
What's been going on in China and Brazil have been large structural changes having started several decades ago (China started opening up and switching to a market economy in 1978 and had to go through grueling structural changes in order to have the kind of economic growth it has now; Brazil has been trying to away from being so much of a raw resource economy with varying levels of success). Them doing well now is not necessarily a flash in the pan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious
There are plenty of small countries in Africa that have had a lot of growth but are still crappy. I can't imagine they used to be worse off. It can't be any worse there, imo. They hit rock bottom long ago and that's where they still are, sadly.
Small countries, but large population growth compared to their economic growth. It's arguable it was worse in some places, better than others--though the biggest point is that sub-Saharan Africa hasn't been consistently growing over the last decades. I don't see them being very analogous to Brazil or China which have mostly been alternating between steady and explosive growth over the last few decades and actually creating infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious
Yes, I do know Fareed Zakaria. He can't predict the future. At least I don't think he can.
No, he can't, but you seemed to not recognize the names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious
I didn't say it never happened before. For each Korea, you can name dozens of countries that are still crap. Brazil is a developing country and not as interconnected/globalized as developed countries. Not much of a big surprise their economy didn't go down the drain. Look at the GDP per capita. That's what's important. It's easy to grow your national GDP when your population grows. Brazil had 7.1% average growth between 1950-1959, 9% between 1980-1989 etc.
You're right about there being a lot more sad sacks than there are Korea--a lot of is former colonies with little large scale civil society beforehand dealing with trying to come into the modern world after decolonization. For the most part, Latin America, India, and East/Southeast Asia have pretty long traditions of large societal infrastructure for that to work. No one claims Brazil isn't a developing country, but its GDP per capita is also growing, not just total GDP. Brazil is fairly interconnected as their exports are pretty important for the continuing growth less resource rich China and India (who are also not going down the train and are pretty big in global trade).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious
So they have had strong economic growth for a long time. Still, they aren't a developed country.Strong economic growth alone dosen't mean anything.
By the way, I don't give a crap about Brazil. It just came up. Could have been some other country. Brazil is just an example. Sure, maybe they will get there someday.
They have had strong growth for a long time and they've also had large setbacks in the past (most of the 80s). This isn't to say they can't have these again. However, it's somewhat different as Brazil seems to have a fundamentally more diverse economy than in the past.
I think you're interchanging all of the developing countries into one bucket despite the many social, political, cultural, economic, etc. variations that the countries where the vast majority of the world reside.
Well things are better in Germany compared to other european nations at the moment. France things are doing ok but much of the rest of Europe is not.
Well many industries move to China due to the low costs and an large educated workforce. Massive amount of people in the manufacturing industries in the west have lost their jobs due to the companies they working for have relocated to china or cant compete against cheap Chinese imports. Its due to globalisation. globalisation means competition.
Anyway Chinese people are buying huge amounts of properties in australia including the very expensive ones. They have brought up large tracks of land as well as some of the mines here. They are now the largest foreign investor in Africa too. Anyway people know that China is the sleeping giant of the 21st century. Anything could happen.
Yeah, Germany is doing very well. They do face some huge problems in the future, though.
I just mentioned China because you did. I don't have much to say about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Small countries, but large population growth compared to their economic growth. It's arguable it was worse in some places, better than others--though the biggest point is that sub-Saharan Africa hasn't been consistently growing over the last decades. I don't see them being very analogous to Brazil or China which have mostly been alternating between steady and explosive growth over the last few decades and actually creating infrastructure.
But that kind of economic growth ( according to his logic ) should have improved at least something. But it didn't.
No, he can't, but you seemed to not recognize the names.
I didn't look at it. Dosen't change much. He still dosen't know what's gonna happen. Nobody does.
You're right about there being a lot more sad sacks than there are Korea--a lot of is former colonies with little large scale civil society beforehand dealing with trying to come into the modern world after decolonization. For the most part, Latin America, India, and East/Southeast Asia have pretty long traditions of large societal infrastructure for that to work. No one claims Brazil isn't a developing country, but its GDP per capita is also growing, not just total GDP. Brazil is fairly interconnected as their exports are pretty important for the continuing growth less resource rich China and India (who are also not going down the train and are pretty big in global trade).
Of course it's growing. But is it growing fast enough to catch up with the 1st world? That's the question. Not gonna help them if it grows by 10% and the per capita of the 1st world grows by 15%.
They have had strong growth for a long time and they've also had large setbacks in the past (most of the 80s). This isn't to say they can't have these again. However, it's somewhat different as Brazil seems to have a fundamentally more diverse economy than in the past.
I think you're interchanging all of the developing countries into one bucket despite the many social, political, cultural, economic, etc. variations that the countries where the vast majority of the world reside.
I'm not. His point was how this economic growth will make them as wealthy as the U.S. , Europe, etc. And they have had a lot of time to catch up, since they have had strong growth. Of course things have improved, but the same happened to the 1st world countries. In order to catch up to this level, you have to outperform the top countries in more than just economic growth. My point is simply that it dosen't mean much at all. There are countless examples that show economic growth alone dosen't do much. Like I said, I couldn't care less, but it's funny how people always point out economic growth, and think that's all it takes and everything is gonna be great.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Found it...
