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'm originally from India and I gotta admit that China is leagues ahead of India when it comes to development and infrastructure. Maybe, just maybe India will approach their current level in 50 years, but by that time China would be another 50 years ahead. I'd say China is somewhere between India and Japan when it comes to infrastructure.
I would now count India as a first world country, based upon a savings rate of 38% of GDP, strong market fundamentals, gold imports (a key factor often overlooked in mainstream analyses), HDI considerations, political stability and military expenditure.
The counters to this are wealth disparity (which is increasingly a feature of traditional first world countries, so not as much of a criticism as it was in the past), and an as yet embryonic banking system.
I would now count India as a first world country, based upon a savings rate of 38% of GDP, strong market fundamentals, gold imports (a key factor often overlooked in mainstream analyses), HDI considerations, political stability and military expenditure.
The counters to this are wealth disparity (which is increasingly a feature of traditional first world countries, so not as much of a criticism as it was in the past), and an as yet embryonic banking system.
Perhaps you should try visiting India before you state this. The slums are incredible.
Perhaps you should try visiting India before you state this. The slums are incredible.
I agree wealth disparity is a big concern (as is the literacy rate), but it is simply not as much of a substantive criticism as it used to be, given current global trends.
By this I'm referring to negative socioeconomic trends in long-standing first world populations, compared to the sheer pace of urbanisation in India, the rise of innovative entrepreneurship, demographic changes, extensive trade networks and foreign investment portfolios, a steady PMI and booming industry - all features of only the most highly sophisticated "first world" nations today.
This is not to mention the recent history of extensive squalor in pinnacles of the first world such as New York City, or the currently observable trend in Detroit, Michigan.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 07-07-2013 at 04:44 AM..
I would now count India as a first world country, based upon a savings rate of 38% of GDP, strong market fundamentals, gold imports (a key factor often overlooked in mainstream analyses), HDI considerations, political stability and military expenditure.
The counters to this are wealth disparity (which is increasingly a feature of traditional first world countries, so not as much of a criticism as it was in the past), and an as yet embryonic banking system.
I promise you even Indians don't believe they are the first world.
I agree wealth disparity is a big concern, but it is simply not as much of a substantive criticism as it used to be, given current global trends: ie. negative socioeconomic trends in long-standing first world nations, and the sheer pace of urbanisation in India.
If it's the simple existence of slums, per se, then it's easily countered by appealing to the history of New York City, much of which resembled an uninhabitable wasteland in the late 1960s and 1970s. Moreover, a trend that is currently being revisited de novo in Detroit Michigan.
If India is a first world country, then there's practically no third world country left in the world.
If India is a first world country, then there's practically no third world country left in the world.
I'm afraid such views mainly rely upon long-held preconceptions of India that simply don't resemble the ostensible socioeconomic trends in the country and the macro data. This is somewhat similar to the now defunct arguments that China would never be a global economic power to rival the dominance of the USA.
There are arguments either way and numerous factors to consider aside from wealth distribution. If, as you claim, India is so obviously a part of the third world, then questions such as the following would be arbitrary and pointless:
I'm afraid such views mainly rely upon long-held preconceptions of India that simply don't resemble the ostensible socioeconomic trends in the country and the macro data. This is somewhat similar to the now defunct arguments that China would never ever be a global economic power.
There are arguments either way. If India was so obviously a part of the third world, as you confidently claim, then questions such as the following would be arbitrary and pointless:
Being a major global power and a first world country are not the same. A super large country has a large potential to become an influential country in the world, no matter how low the quality of life their citizens have.
The general census is that Nordic countries are highly developed and their citizens have some of the best quality of life. But none of the Nordic countries has the possibility to become a global power in any sense.
Is China a global economic power? It is! What would happen if 1 billion cheap labor Chinese stopped working suddenly? It's no doubt that this would have a major impact on world economy!
First world countries are characterized with higher standard of living, not necessarily the status of being global power.
Indians are doing whatever they can to immigrate to developed world, many Indians I know have complained about their misfortune of being born in a third world country.
Being a major global power and a first world country are not the same. A super large country has a large potential to become an influential country in the world, no matter how low the quality of life their citizens have.
The general census is that Nordic countries are highly developed and their citizens have some of the best quality of life. But none of the Nordic countries has the possibility to become a global power in any sense.
Is China a global economic power? It is! What would happen if 1 billion cheap labor Chinese stopped working suddenly? It's no doubt that this would have a major impact on world economy!
First world countries are characterized with higher standard of living, not necessarily the status of being global power.
Indians are doing whatever they can to immigrate to developed world, many Indians I know have complained about their misfortune of being born in a third world country.
This is basically an argument that hinges upon a restrictive semantics of "first world" that identifies it only with HDI. This is evidently weak, given that popular-level and specialty references consistently refer to much broader post-cold war definitions.
This is basically an argument that hinges upon a restrictive semantics of "first world" that identifies it only with HDI. This is evidently weak, given that popular-level and specialty references consistently refer to much broader post-cold war definitions.
Okay, are you willing to move to India or China?
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.
