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.
I think a good definition for this thread would be, which society had the first middle class make up the majority? That is the one major thing that differentiates developed and developing nations today, the size of the middle class.
I think a good definition for this thread would be, which society had the first middle class make up the majority? That is the one major thing that differentiates developed and developing nations today, the size of the middle class.
Good idea in theory, but... even in developed economies like Denmark, Germany and the US the middle and upper classes are only about 50% of the populations, as today the majority of the wealth is generated to the wealthy few.
Even in "no-good socialist Sandersian" countries like here in Finland the lower 50% owns less than 7% of all wealth in this country.
Good idea in theory, but... even in developed economies like Denmark, Germany and the US the middle and upper classes are only about 50% of the populations, as today the majority of the wealth is generated to the wealthy few.
Even in "no-good socialist Sandersian" countries like here in Finland the lower 50% owns less than 7% of all wealth in this country.
Ok true, perhaps a small tweak is needed. Which was the first society to have a consumerist economy. All developed nations today have economies driven by consumerism. If the middle class all of sudden stop spending money and only buy the bare necessities then the whole thing comes crashing down. Like wise developing nations are ones that rely more on extraction of raw materials or production of goods and then exporting them to these consumerist countries. So which was the first society to have the majority of the population have enough money to spend on luxury items, things that a person can do with out such as designer clothes, or going to restaurants, spending time at the theater and what not.
Ok true, perhaps a small tweak is needed. Which was the first society to have a consumerist economy. All developed nations today have economies driven by consumerism. If the middle class all of sudden stop spending money and only buy the bare necessities then the whole thing comes crashing down. Like wise developing nations are ones that rely more on extraction of raw materials or production of goods and then exporting them to these consumerist countries. So which was the first society to have the majority of the population have enough money to spend on luxury items, things that a person can do with out such as designer clothes, or going to restaurants, spending time at the theater and what not.
Probably some Greek city-state. Or Venice, Genoa and some German Hansa cities. And then they died of cholera.
Sorry, I don't think this will be flawless either.
No, the Phoenicians invented the alphabet. The Romans developed the alphabet.
I never said the Romans invented the alphabet.
The Romans took a pre-existing alphabet and modified it slightly. No, the Romans did not develop an alphabet from the Phoenicians. The Roman alphabet can be traced back to the Phoenician alphabet, yes, but it went through a number of changes by various cultures before arriving, on Italic shores, in a condition that was vastly closer to what the Romans used than to what was used in Phoenicia.
Look, no one runs around talking about the Anglo-Saxons 'developed' an alphabet. Because they didn't. They took most of the Latin alphabet, created a couple of letters by combining other Roman letters, and threw in a little runic for good measure. No one claims that the English of the Middle Ages 'developed' an alphabet by discarding thorn and ash and a few other letters, and adding letters like U and J. Because they didn't. They slightly modified a pre-existing alphabet.
How about approaching from another angle...right now, what is the most primitive (or least developed) country you would consider to be developed? Maybe a strong borderline 2nd world country? Maybe Mexico? Certainly the U.S. (and most European countries and many Asian countries) was at THAT level far, far, before the 1970's...right?
People's Democratic Republic of Korea. It's paradise. Or Bhutan, with its "gross national happiness" index.
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.
