Culture shock when moving from a 1st world nation to another 1st world nation? (appointed, houses)

[Supine]

Originally Posted by Ag77845

How do you define second world?

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

Don't know if 2nd world was the right term.
i meant nations like Brazil, Mexico, Russia, China who arent exactly third world but arent first world either.
the quality of life in cities like Mexico City, Moscow and Shanghai seem pretty good to me.

Originally Posted by Ag77845

Brazil, Mexico are a bit better than typical third world countries like China and India.

[...]

[...]

Brazil is nice in that it's far less polluted than other developing countries.

Since the question was asked... social scientists (I'm not one) consider the terms "first world" and "third world" no longer relevant and reflective of the geopolitical landscape of today. The preferred terms are "developed nations" and "developing nation."

Some social science textbooks also use the terms "high income nations" and "low income nations." I think the term "middle income nations" is placed between the two if I'm remembering correctly.

The terms "first world" and "third world" were created by politically invested people inside the United States and Western Europe during the Cold War.

"First world nations" were all the capitalist democracies. The "second world nations" were all the socialist and communist nations. And lastly all the nations on earth not fitting into those two categories were labeled "third world nations."

China and Cuba in this sense would be regarded as second world, and Mexico and Brazil would be regarded as third world.

But does anyone believe being a middle-class Mexican or Brazilian in Mexico and Brazil respectively, is a lower quality of life materially and in political freedom than in China and Cuba?

Even in terms of developing nations Mexico and Brazil are not quite Afghanistan or Burkina Faso. The problem with nations like Mexico and Brazil in their current stages of development is their contradictions (glaring levels of inequality). You have people in Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro living literally in so-called "first world" luxury and accommodations while you have rural poor in both those nations living like they are in Afghanistan and Burkina Faso.

[Supine]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

China is well in front of India in every measure, honestly, nothing against India but I don't know why people think it might be in China's league soon. Maybe in 30-40 years but not soon.

Depends on how much you value democracy. India is the world's largest democracy.

India also is nuclear weapons nation if I remember correctly. It's the strongest militarized ally of the United States in Asia against communist China.

The growth rate of both nations are impressive but you are right that China's growth rate is the most impressive of the two. Arguably, one reason behind this is a leftist style capitalism in China in which the government is fiscally liberal and far more financially invested in the infrastructural development of its nation's cities than either India, the United States, or Brazil's respective national governments are in their respective nations.

The downside of this is that the Chinese economy may be hitting a balloon ready to pop if people can move into its many residential developments, pay rent/mortgage, and consequently the contractors/developers can't pay back government loans.

Here is something on 60 Minutes about the housing and commercial development in China.


Zhang Xin China's real estate mogul - YouTube



60 Minutes China's Real Estate Bubble 3-3-13 - YouTube

[BIMBAM]

India is not an ally of the US against China. The US has warmer relations with China then it does with India, because the US has historically worked mostly with Pakistan in the region. China and the US have very closely linked economies and a multi-faceted codependent relationship. India's more of a lone wolf then either of them. Whether or not a country is a democracy has never mattered to the US in terms of foreign relations, India being more closely in the Soviet Union's sphere meant the two were at odds for many years, and so the US backed the regional dictatorships instead. Likewise, when Vietnam and China opened up their markets, their being totalitarian regimes was revealed to be completely unimportant to the US government.

[Supine]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

India is not an ally of the US against China. The US has warmer relations with China then it does with India, because the US has historically worked mostly with Pakistan in the region. China and the US have very closely linked economies and a multi-faceted codependent relationship. India's more of a lone wolf then either of them. Whether or not a country is a democracy has never mattered to the US in terms of foreign relations, India being more closely in the Soviet Union's sphere meant the two were at odds for many years, and so the US backed the regional dictatorships instead. Likewise, when Vietnam and China opened up their markets, their being totalitarian regimes was revealed to be completely unimportant to the US government.

You may be right, BIMBAM. Though, I do remember reading (regardless whether it is true not) that the U.S. has used and perceived India as a strategic force in Asia against China and that India has been a close ally of the United States.

I don't doubt some would say Japan has been a stronger force for capitalism against communism/socialism in Asia and that Japan has been a strategic, military center of gravity in East Asia for the United States. The island of Okinawa having a for a long time a U.S. military base.

[BIMBAM]

Certainly if it ever came down to the US having to fight China, India would be a natural ally, so I see how that could have been perceived, it's just that the situation isn't quite like that at the moment. I think that while the US has a productive relationship with China right now, they are also wary of them becoming too powerful, so are also happy that India is there to act as a sort of counterweight to Chinese power in Asia, no one wants the balance to become too skewed.

[Ag77845]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

India is not an ally of the US against China. The US has warmer relations with China then it does with India, because the US has historically worked mostly with Pakistan in the region. China and the US have very closely linked economies and a multi-faceted codependent relationship. India's more of a lone wolf then either of them. Whether or not a country is a democracy has never mattered to the US in terms of foreign relations, India being more closely in the Soviet Union's sphere meant the two were at odds for many years, and so the US backed the regional dictatorships instead. Likewise, when Vietnam and China opened up their markets, their being totalitarian regimes was revealed to be completely unimportant to the US government.

China and Pakistan are allies.

There are a lot of conflicts between Pakistan and India, and some conflicts between India and China.

China's military strength is actually very weak. Without nuclear weapons, China could be conquered by Japan in a few months. Sometimes, the U.S government is trying to tell you how dangerous China is, and therefore increase in military budget can be justified.

[Rozenn]

We're veering off the thread's subject. I've moved the discussion about development in this thread. It can be reversed, but the conversation was pretty long and probably deserves its own thread.

[Ag77845]

Originally Posted by Supine

Depends on how much you value democracy. India is the world's largest democracy.

India also is nuclear weapons nation if I remember correctly. It's the strongest militarized ally of the United States in Asia against communist China.

The growth rate of both nations are impressive but you are right that China's growth rate is the most impressive of the two. Arguably, one reason behind this is a leftist style capitalism in China in which the government is fiscally liberal and far more financially invested in the infrastructural development of its nation's cities than either India, the United States, or Brazil's respective national governments are in their respective nations.

The downside of this is that the Chinese economy may be hitting a balloon ready to pop if people can move into its many residential developments, pay rent/mortgage, and consequently the contractors/developers can't pay back government loans.

Here is something on 60 Minutes about the housing and commercial development in China.


Zhang Xin China's real estate mogul - YouTube



60 Minutes China's Real Estate Bubble 3-3-13 - YouTube

By the way,do you know that the U.S is not a democracy?

[Supine]

Originally Posted by Ag77845

By the way,do you know that the U.S is not a democracy?

It is a democracy. It's a representative democracy--otherwise known as a "republic."

I don't know why people split hairs over this.

It's like arguing over which is blue, the Ultramarine Blue (5002) or the Signal Blue (5005)?

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by Supine

It's like arguing over which is blue, the Ultramarine Blue (5002) or the Signal Blue (5005)?

Neither,

its (5022) night blue