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.
Armenia, Georgia, Russia and most of Eastern Europe are going to be high income per capita countries.
China, India, Mexico and Brazil are surely going to be developed too, but I'm not sure about their income per capita.
I'm also not that sure about most of the Central Africa, because corruption is a huge issue there and will still remain for decades.
Read the book Second World by Paraq Khanna. It provides alot of insight on the countries that aren't quite 3rd world but aren't 1st yet either.
I think 2nd world countries like Mexico and in Eastern Europe will be decidedly 1st world by 2050 but will still not be major powers. Countries like China, due to their huge population, still won't have a 1st world level of GDP/capita and low poverty rates but they will be highly developed.
Italy still doesn't have natural gas piped into many homes and there is a huge water problem in Sicily. The bureaucracy and poor/corrupt judicial system in Italy is very high which makes getting anything done a chore.
Someone mentioned Argentina moving up the latter but I doubt that seriously. Uruguay will surpass Argentina very soon if it hasn't already. Argentina is much like Italy in that it has such a horrible judicial system and cheating is a way of life there for survival. Argentina has an absolute economy in that it has everything it needs to self sustain itself but the political bureaucracy and socialist/anti-capitalist mentality will prevent anybody from accumulating wealth that doesn't already start out with it. Wealthy Argentinians basically make money by renting out their apartment flats in Buenos Aires to tourists on short term leases in American dollars and converting those dollars into many weak pesos which gives them huge buying power compared to the rest of the nation.
Do you think that there might be a connection between Italy and Argentina in terms of Argentina's decline? Argentina's population is of 50% Italian heritage. And Italians moved there in large numbers in the early 1900's. Not knocking Italians, there's much to like about them. But corruption is systemic in both countries. Makes you wonder.
I see what you mean, they're not on the same level as Europe, U.S. and Canada but I prefer the term middle income. When someone says third world I imagine famine, disease and lack of technology, which doesn't seem to be the case with Mexico. The majority of people there also live in cities some of which are quite modern (Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, Puebla, Merida etc).
I find it hard to call Mexico third world when it has cities like these:
Mod edit - copyrighted photos.
While I could not open these photos, I will say that all countries have nice areas. All countries do have an elite that enjoy luxury and a highly developed standard of living. In fact the main reason why many countries struggle to become developed is because of a rigid class structure.
I'm suprised no one has discussed so far the term "developed." While I understand where this is going, and I'm not trying to sound like one of these people that romanticizes regions of the world where there is a lot of wretched poverty,
I still think people use this term in a rather oversimplified way. You can find extravagant wealth in third world countries (corruption that people talk about is often intertwined with the legacy of colonialism.) and poverty in the leading countries of the world.
Its a good discussion to ask which countries will have growing economies, and which ones won't, but divided the world into developed and undeveloped overlooks quite a bit.
I'm suprised no one has discussed so far the term "developed." While I understand where this is going, and I'm not trying to sound like one of these people that romanticizes regions of the world where there is a lot of wretched poverty,
I still think people use this term in a rather oversimplified way. You can find extravagant wealth in third world countries (corruption that people talk about is often intertwined with the legacy of colonialism.) and poverty in the leading countries of the world.
Its a good discussion to ask which countries will have growing economies, and which ones won't, but divided the world into developed and undeveloped overlooks quite a bit.
I think we all agree that "developed" can vary as far as GDP/capita goes but has traits that must exist such as a large middle class, low government corruption, literacy above 90% for both sexes, widely available healthcare and education, and a solid infrastructure including roads, rail, plumbing, and a power grid. I also think human rights plays into this as well. Even if a country has the above characteristics (which would be difficult to have good education/healthcare without Human rights) should not be considered "developed" if it has a totalitarian government which allows the people limited rights.
Some countries have a mix currently-although they may have an impressive infrastructure they have a problem with corruption.
Do you think that there might be a connection between Italy and Argentina in terms of Argentina's decline? Argentina's population is of 50% Italian heritage. And Italians moved there in large numbers in the early 1900's. Not knocking Italians, there's much to like about them. But corruption is systemic in both countries. Makes you wonder.
This is a huge can of worms. Many would attribute this issue to "stereotypes" and would mention the many other factors that invariably exist but when you look the world over you see some ethnic groups that are efficient and others that are not. This probably ties in with the culture of the ethnic group-in that laid-back cultures will place a higher emphasis on other interests than productivity and efficiency.
This is a huge can of worms. Many would attribute this issue to "stereotypes" and would mention the many other factors that invariably exist but when you look the world over you see some ethnic groups that are efficient and others that are not. This probably ties in with the culture of the ethnic group-in that laid-back cultures will place a higher emphasis on other interests than productivity and efficiency.
After a lifetime of high efficiency I'm hoping for a nice laid back retirement in Argentina. Any country that takes siesta seriously has their heart in the right place. But I won't try to run a business or buy a house there. Have read too many times about corruption there. I think you are right b ut these days pointing out differences requires some fancy tightrope walking.
Your crazy if you think China will be developed by 2050. With 2/3 of the population living in the countryside, still making a living off of land, they have a long way to go. It will certainly be different in 2050 than what it is now, and I hope I'm alive to see the changes.........
if you look at it that way every country will eventually be developed. i don't think it's going to be that simple. realistically there will be an worldwide economic collapse within 20 years. the one that happened last year put most economies back 4-5 years. a collapse would affect every country and could put them back 40-50 years. overpopulated countries without much drinking water have to overcome many other problems before they can become 35-40 thousand dollar gdp per capita countries.
i think the countries in the best position are those will lots of resouces, land, and not many people. canada, australia, russia (though when russia starts to do better the goverment, social policies bring it back down). the problem is that when the 'powerful' countries with lots of people start realizing this they could swarm those other countries and take them over.
the arab countries appear to have the worst future. oppression, hate, not much freedom at all. they also rely almost completely on oil money, something that within 50-100 years will disappear. if iran starts a war the whole area could be put back 100 years.
population doesn't necessarily translate into power. even with 1.5 billion people and the fastest growing economy in the world, china cannot flex its muscles like the US or European countries can. they're economy is very fragile, water and oil consolidation are vital. bringing 1.5 billion people back from an economic collapse is harder than the 30-300 million western countries are responsible for.
Last edited by grmike; 07-28-2009 at 09:31 AM..
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.
But I won't try to run a business or buy a house there. Have read too many times about corruption there. I think you are right b ut these days pointing out differences requires some fancy tightrope walking.
