BAF

Sorry I think there was an evolved culture in Siam long before Romulus and Remus started sucking wolf tit!

Oh I know what "you think" and that is why I am ROTFL

Check your maths, even assuming as good your hilarious "2500 years old Thai kingdom" (reply elsewhere) Romulus and Remus were sucking wolf tit and, traditionally, founding Roma 300 years before that and the traditional foundation of Roma in the VIII century A.C. (753 a.C.) is 2100 years BEFORE the traditional foundation of the Kingdom of Ayutthaya (1350 d.C.)

In reality a Roman monarchy was already existing from at least 200 years before the date tradinationally assumed as its foundation and, above all, at the time there were many others well established and more powerful cultures in Italy (for example the Etrurians) and elsewhere in Europe (just think of the Greeks).

I know where I would choose to live!

If you don't like Bangkok or Thailand perhaps.....

I LOVE Bangkok and Thailand

I don't like the stinking hot weather, the mostly inedible food and, especially, the omnipresent dirt, smell and noise but I do love the cheap boozing and cheap whoring that Bangkok and Thailand offer me

Of course if, compared to the average American or French, I was as rich as I am compared to the average Thai I would move to one of those aforementioned "sh!tholes" (Los Angeles, Paris etc) in a heartbeat

Thailand doesn't fall into any of our pat little western classifications which give some of us comfort.

Thailand is a 2500 year old Kingdom which possesses more culture, grace, and history than all the western countries put together!

"a 2500 year old Kingdom"

"Thailand possesses more culture, grace, and history than all the western countries put together!"

The fact that in Europe there are much older cultures which were refining the ars retorica, cultivating arts and science, founding the longest lasting empire ever and building streets, cities and infrastructures which are still being used while the rest of the world was still painting their faces and shitting in holes in the ground is probably Sci-fi for you...

I think anyone who can classify Thailand as third world sh!thole is wrong. If that's what they want they can move. There are plenty of places in the world which qualify: Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few.

Definitely, third world sh!tholes like Los Angeles, London, Paris, Chicago, Miami, just to name a few, have much to learn from Bangkok. I hope one day they manage to catch up.

steveromagnino, I will reply to you in 2 parts since the post is too long it seems to mess the quotings up.

Part 1

Thank you, for finally providing the key to your system.

"Finally??" I have been repeating exactly the same all along the thread...

I have indeed explored the UN site, but given how slow it is to load things up, and how infrequently references occur using YOUR system compared to the system everyone else uses...well what can I say, your post here is the only one clear to me. Thanks.

So....to be clear then... any communist country, or ex communist country, is 2nd world. Therefore, Cuba, is 2nd world, and so is North Korea while Poland and the ex sattellite states of USSR are 2nd world. Totally economically disparate, but ok, that is one group.

Clearly, since we have never been communist, we can also never be second world here in Thailand. So I don't need to spend time looking that up around the net.

You are right on one thing though, cruising the web looknig for definitions is a waste of time, luckly Wikopedia did it for me, establishing....

[...]

HelpContents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by its users in over 200 languages worldwide. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and its contents are free and open."

Forget everything you have "learned" there.

To say that it is contracdictory is an euphemism and anyway you should have found there all and its contrary, not just the selected excerpts that you have copied&pasted (you find there definitions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th world and NI countries).

For example:

NICs "The category of Newly industrializing countries (NICs) is a social/economic classification status applied to several countries around the world by political scientists and economists.

NICs are countries that are not quite yet at the status of a full-fledged first world nation, but still more advanced than countries in the third world or in the category of least developed countries. The most significant feature in a country being classified as a NIC is obtaining a considerable level of industrialisation, the switching of primary business from agricultural to industrial economies.

NICs usually share some other common features, including:

Increased social freedoms and civil rights.

A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, specially in the manufacturing sector.

An increasingly "open" economy, allowing for freer trade with its neighbours, such as that obtained by joining a trade bloc.

NICs often receive support from non-governmental organizations such as the WTO and other internal support bodies."

So... how about we agree between us to use the HDI, and just use their breakdown, since it is, unlike your awkward mixture of political type (communist vs. non-communist vs. the rest) an index based on objective measurement of development in a variety of criteria

"Your" proposed method is based on three (3) criteria and is just a socio-economic approach while I'm telling you that the classification we are talking about comprises hundreds of socio-economical AND political indicators ("yours" 3 included).

The HDI is based on just:

1- life expectancy

2- two education indicators

3- GDP per capita

Now....let's see how they rank in order from top to bottom....

[...]

And that...ladies and Gentlemen...is the top 30. Taiwan is not included since it isn't a country, but according to calculations it would slot in just above Singapore, which makes that, ahem, 3 countries about on par with Portugal which is, and let's get really clear about this, in your definition a first world country right? And since we are on that,

Oh ######.. what was that about Korea? It isn't developed enough to be first world? OK, I know it from business terms, and they are kicking butt, no question. You could argue on the literacy thing but they are better than Japan at english.... and life expectancy is good.

What does all of this have to do with the matter at hand?

What does taking 3 out of the hundreds of socio-economic parameters possible, ranking the countries accordingly and verifying that in the top 30 you find the first world countries plus some NICs tell us?

OK, this is, according to one source, who is in the OECD...

[...]

Not that surprising tat Singapore is missed out, after all, they are tiny and apparently they have also asked not to be included in the group due to lack of development, but nevertheless they are certainly more developed than Korea, and OMG, how did Korea get in there? Guess they must be first world then.... what with their fancy phones and all. And Taiwan would be in there too. Korea joined in 1996, incidentally.

Do you actually know what the OECD is and what its purpose is?

It is, today, just one of the countless organizations for the economic cooperation and (mutual) development.

Being a member means nothing more than accepting to confront oneself with the others on economic matters and sharing informations and experiences.

Far from being an exclusive club of fully developed first world countries it ha members like Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary...

Interestingly, you haven't mentioned them.

So.... having come from a picture that there is only Japan within Asia that is in the 'developed group' which you are calling 'first world' we then jump straight to 3rd world with 2nd world being this awkward catch all for ex comm countries (incidentally, around the web I have REALLY struggled to find definitions for most of YOUR terminology, especially compared to the terminology more often used which you write off as 'PC'. Actually, I am struggling to find definitions at all!

Actually you are struggling to even find the patience to browse the UN website "because it's slow to load things up"...

Haven't you already found proof in your Wikipedia that this isn't MY terminology anyway?

Now let's see just how screwed up this crazy bunch of cowboys are:

according to the UN

'Definition of:

developed, developing countries

There is no established convention for the designation of “developed” and “developing” countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania and Europe are considered “developed” regions or areas. In international trade statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as developed region and Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and the former USSR countries in Europe are not included under either developed or developing regions.

Reference

United Nations. Standard country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. Series M, No. 49, Rev. 4 (United Nations publication, Sales No. M.98.XVII.9). Available in part at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.

So...what we have is this massive bloated organisation that are full of pumped up civil servant types, bandying around terms, and they haven't even got a decent classification system for them?!

No wonder it can't be summarised in a book for dummies!

"[i]In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania and Europe are considered “developed” regions or areas.[/i]" (no mention of Thailand and South Korea, it seems)

Funny how it exactly corresponds to what I have told you eh?

As for the "[i]There is no established convention [...][/i]" bit, to quote myself:

"[i]This definiton isn't univocal, although the various "flavors" cooked by the different international bodies are largely congruent.[/i]" (as is proved when they go on to say "[i]In common practice [...][/i]"

"[i]The category "3rd world" is part of a [b]complex and blurred[/b] socio-economical-political definition.[/i]"

"[i]Well, you are surely not asking me to report here all of the hundreds different socio-political indicators (and how [b]they are differently defined and misured[/b]) universally used by the the countless international organizations to study, compare, categorize and rank the various socio-political realities around this world... are you?[/i]"

By comparison, some of the things i know a little about...playing the piano, intellectual property law, marketing, finance, creating indexes, yacht design - how strange that these little things are so easy that each can be summarised into a book with definitions and a cover and everything!

You know, trying to assess the stage of the [b]socio[/b]-economic-[b]political[/b] development of a country is a bit harder than comparing yacht designs...

I'll summarise like this.... I think you are fighting a tough debate here... you claim that Thailand is 3rd world, and neither of us have agreed on terms or definitions,

WE do not have to make or agree on any term or definition, we aren't studying the matter here, we are merely researching the work done by real analists. You are not an analist and you can't pretend to be able to discuss the stage of development of a country after having read a couple of links on Wikipedia.

Moreover, you have already found out that [b]Thailand is a developing countryand is not in the same league of the most developed ones[/b] as per virtually any of the links and classifications that you have copied&pasted here apparently without realizing their meaning!

to which you have finally offered a 'rosetta stone' connecting accepted terminology used today

I have "finally" offered that "Rosetta Stone" because I realized you seem to need something like:

[u]3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"[/u]

to understand the meaning of the more "structured" and "complex" sentence:

[u]3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better).[/u]

That was (and has been repeated all along the thread) IN MY FIRST POST.

Do you want examples and quotes also for 1st world, 2nd world, 4th world and NICs?

Part 2

(which you claim is solely the result of being 'PC' as opposed to the reality that political boundaries of the cold war are no longer relevant) with your own terminology which you challege us to debate that Thailand is 2nd world or find a link doing so, when by your own definition 2nd world is communist or ex communist.

You scare me.

Somebody on this very thread said that Thailand is a 2nd country even after I had explained what a 2nd world country is so I challenged them to prove it (which is, as you have finally realized, not true).

You are also trying to convince me that Korea is by SOME definition not developed,

Yes, it is not as [b]socio-politically[/b] developed as the first world.

and should be a NIC which is yet another term (what is it in your 1st - 4th world terminology again - the plus 1 right?)

Right.

when it is OECD,

Which doesn't mean that it is a fully developed country as I have proved you above.

it ranks high enough on the HDI to be developed

Which comprises just THREE criteria (and [b]just socio-economic criteria[/b] at that).

and is was also considered to be part of the first world (as an American ally) in the 'non PC' system you continue to use.....

That was just the [u]all political[/u] original meaning of the cold war era classification in 1st, 2nd and 3rd world country. [u]It has nothing to do with the modern socio-economic-political classification in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th world and NICs.[/u]

Well, anyway, I know now about this HDI, and I am back comfortable in the believe that the almighty west is not the only developed part o' this little ol' world. That's what I see from the data I've posted. Can you guide me as to what I am missing about Korea?

What kind of development are you talking about? Economic?

NICs are as, or almost as, developed as the West. I have clearly stated that ad nauseam.

And yes, I go there, actually I was there as late as last month. Can't say I've been to Italy lately, I enjoy Taksin's antics, not sure if his Italian twin is as funny though. Did he do a reality TV show too ler?

Yes, it involves the extrajudicial killing of thousands of Italian citizens by hand of Carabinieri and Polizia in the streets of Roma, Milano, Venezia, Firenze and, IIRC, Napoli.

My point all along has been not that Thailand is or isn't developed, but that we should use terms that make sense, not some antiquated cold war terms.

So what are these term, what is Thailand and how do you answer to this thread's topic "Is Thailand a 3rd World Country still?" (hint: REconsult your links, stats and classifications).

oh boy, now you've asked for it.

I've asked for a link to get details on the case you brought up and all I got is a copy&past mostly from the same BBC article with no link to it and where many things are mentioned with no references to the original cases (names, places, rulings' nos etc).

Great journalismn and great reporting by you NOT.

exerpts of some results for your easy reference...

For "my easy reference" I need a link and/or names/references not anonimous excerpts. I had to google all of it loosing a lot of time chasing this anonimous crap.

Premise 1: most of the legal terms I'm going to use are directly translated from the Italian so they will probably be inaccurate.

Premise 2: the Corte di Cassazione is the third grade of judgement in Italy, after the Tribunale (Civile and Penale) and the Corte di Appello.

Italian court draws fire with sex ruling

Sexually abusing a teenager is less serious a crime if the girl is not a virgin, Italy's higher court said in a controversial ruling that immediately drew a barrage of criticism.

The court ruled in favour of a man in his 40s, identified as Marco T, who forced his 14-year old stepdaughter to have oral sex with him after she refused intercourse.

Women's rights, did you say? The rape of a woman in Italy is now a lesser offense if she is not a virgin.

BS. Suprema Corte di Cagliari, sentence no 6329, Valentina P. against Marco T.

In the first 2 grades of judgement Marco T. had been sentenced to 3 years and 4 months of jail and a fine of € 5000 plus the expenses of the judgement for having had consensual sex (a BJ) with his stepdaughter. It wasn't a violent rape, but the fact that Valentina was at the time 14yo (he was 31) legally made it a rape and automatically prosecuted.

The judge recognized the aggravating circumstance (which upped the punishment) that the minor was under his custody.

He appealed in the third grade because he was asking for the fact that the sexual act was consensual (and there was no physical violence involved) to be recognized as a mitigating circumstance (to balance the aforementioned aggravating circumstance).

The Suprema Corte has accepted to recognize this (and to balance the aggravating circumstance with this mitigating circumstance) and in motivating the sentence has also mentioned the fact that since the age of 13 she, admittedly, has been regularly having having sex with coetaneouses and other adults.

Italian court says no to mom's last name

Italy's Constitutional Court has upheld a law preventing children from taking their mother's last name as a surname unless the father is unknown.

The court said it did not have the power to change the law, adding that lawmakers should address the issue, ANSA reported. The court said the law is a throwback to a dated legacy of a patriarchal concept of the family.

Arcidonna, Italy's largest women's rights group, said the ruling reveals a growing gap between Italian society and political life.

Again crappy journalism.

The only thing true is that children have to take their father's surname if he is alive at the time of their birth and their parents are, at the same time, legally married. However they can also take their mother's surname, written either first or after their father's surname, they just can't take their mother's surname ALONE with no mention of the father's surname.

In all the other cases (father dead or not legally married or unknown) they can take whichever surnames their parent/parents choose.

And in all cases (the first included) once they are 18yo they can change their surname and adopt only that of their mothers if so they want.

Absolutely earth-shattering indeed...

And for the sexual harassment case i refered to earlier, its from BBC world news published on 25 Jan, 2006.

Italian court allows bottom patting

Italy's highest appeals court has ruled that a pat on the bottom is not sexual harassment, provided that it is "isolated and impulsive".

The Court of Cassation supported a decision overturning an earlier guilty verdict by a lower court against a public health agency manager accused by a female employee.

The woman also accused the manager of threatening to damage her career if she reported the incident, which occurred in 1994 in northern Italy......

BS. Corte di Cassazione, sentence no 623 25/01/2001, M.E against D.A.

In the first grade the Tribunale di Venezia found M.E guilt and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months of jail plus a fine of the equivalent of € 1500 plus the expenses of the judgement. He appealed and in the second grade he convinced the Corte di Appello di Venezia that his act wasn't of a sexual nature and was made between friends (he was able to prove that their relationship went beyond the office) but he was still found guilty of menacing his subordinate of damaging her career if she reported the incident (he got 10 months of jail and a fine of the equivalent of € 1000 plus the expenses of the judgement).

She appealed and in the third grade the Corte di Cassazione ruled that although their relationship was of a friendly nature his act was an "intrusion in her sexual sphere" rather than a comradely one and since their understanding of the nature of their relationship wasn't evidently the same her interest prevails because of the "sexual nature" of the part of her body which he (non violently) slapped. They reconfirmed the first sentence and he got 1 year and 6 months of jail plus a fine of the equivalent of € 1500 plus the expenses of the judgement.

(cont'd)....The court, which has the final say on all appeals except those related to the constitution, has drawn criticism in the past for its alleged sexism.

It threw out a sexual harrassment case in 1997, maintaining that the defendent was in love with his victim and was "just being gallant" by kissing her.

BS. Corte di Cassazione, sentence no 6651 27/04/1998, Napoli. D.F.S. against N.P.

D.F.S. had been found guilt in the first 2 grades of judgement of violenza sessuale ("sexual violence") for having kissed on a cheek a girl (while telling her that he loved her) with whom he was used to take the bus with and the Corte di Cassazione declassed the sentence as a less serious "aggression" (with no violence nor injury involved) and gave him a less heavy sentence of 8 months of jail and a fine of the equivalent of € 1000 plus the expenses of the judgement.

And it caused a storm in 1999 when it ruled that a woman wearing tight jeans could not be raped.

It said that the woman would have had to help get the jeans off, and this was tantamount to consenting to sex.

Feminists responded by calling a "skirt strike", insisting they would wear jeans until the decision was changed. [/i]

BS. Corte di Cassazione di Potenza, sentence no 1636 02/1999, Carmine C. against Rosa. P.

They were used to go out together and one day they went together in an isolated street with his car and had a sexual intercourse, he had been found guilt of rape because in the 1st and 2nd grade of judgement the judges believed her that she changed idea at the last minute. She had absolutely no sign of physical violence and it was, according to an hospital medical visit, a "normal, non-violent, sexual intercourse". She had to admit that initially her intention was of having sex with him (she had to admit this because her jeans were so tight and his car was so small that she had to get out of the car to take her pants off, while sitting on the ground), so it was essentially her word against his.

So since she admitted ("thanks" to the jeans) that she initially wanted to have sex with him and since

the doctors said that both of them had absolutely no laceration, contusion, wound or any other physical sign indicating a collutation, resistance or even a "strong" sexual act the Cassazione deemed there wasn't proof but her word that she changed idea at the last minute and that that was forced sex.

Now, i'm not sure about "out of line" comments qualifying for sexual harassment,

For example, a guy has been recently sentenced because he told a coworker that he wanted to cum on her big knockers...

but the courts have consistently shown how it is ready to relax the rules in other more serious cases. Perhaps the judicial system and its stance towards women's rights should more correctly be compared to that of say, Afganistan? Does this also raise the possibility that some NICs like S Korea are somewhat more evolved, and hence superior to some old 1st world countries like Italy?

As my circumstantiated reply shows, the only thing consistently shown here is crappy journalism and crappy researching&reporting skills.

Is there anything wecan do to help & would they listen?

Yes we can (and we are largely doing so) but since helping them develop to Western standards is harming us why should we in the first place?

Fortunately they aren't really listening and Thailand won't catch up anywhere in the foreseeable future

BAF - you ask.....

Well, you are surely not asking me to report here all of the hundreds different socio-political indicators (and how they are differently defined and misured) universally used by the the countless international organizations to study, compare, categorize and rank the various socio-political realities around this world... are you?

No. We are merely asking you to post a link which defines the terminology that you are using (1st, 2nd, 3rd and now 4th world) in terms that are either political ideology based as per the definitions given by others throughout this thread (in which case everything you say about defining where Thailand sits in terms of development is pointless, since it is a political classification rather than a development one) or using measures of development which may or may not include socio political measures.

You still havent' got that we are talking about socio-economical-political definitons, have you?

Even if you pretend to define "developing", "developed", "least developed", "most developed", "less developed" and all the rest of this confusing PC crap purely from an economical point of view, Thailand would still be a "developing country" since its economy is still agriculture based.

Below you say that you have already explored the World Bank site and that you have verified there some of the financial (economic) indicators which define Thailand as a developing country. Now you say that you are interested in nothing else than an economic approach (i.e. you are refusing to consider the socio-political aspects of the development of a country) so what else is there to add??

Having posted such a link, we can then go and explore ourselves, as I have done for instance for the income data from World Bank site (which for me is an interesting one; I like financial development, I am not so interested in the other ones in top line analysis because I can't get my head around some of their measures).

Please do not send links to classifications such as newly industrialised, less developed countries etc, as these are different classifications to the 1st - 4th world system.

???

1st world = "most developed countries", "developed countries"

2nd world = communist and, in part (see my previous posts), ex-communist countries

3rd world = "developing countries", "less developed countries"

4th world = "least developed countries"

NIC = "newly industrialized countries" which are technically 3rd world countries (hence my "4+1" remark in previous posts) that have economically developed to, or almost to, 1st world level but which still have to socially and/or politically catch up

And don't forget to thank the PC brigade for your total confusion on this matter...

All I want is to start off a debate with clear guidelines as to the classification system, then we can use the data available to assess where Thailand sits on YOUR classification system.

Sorry but if you ignore (and refuting to believe) even the basics (see above) I really don't know where I can point you to...

OK, what about browsing the UN site (www.un.org) and seeing what terminology they use, where Thailand stands and what it is called then putting in a search engine "3rd world" and "developing countries" to verify the correspondence?

You can do a cut and paste if you want, but as it stands now, the person not understanding this 1st - 4th world classification system is me, because I still haven't got definitions of what makes up each category, least of all 4th world.

Sorry, you won't find a concise definition in a pocket book titled "Geo-politics and world socio-economical-political matters for dummies".

As I have written to zzap I don't have the time nor the interest in giving a crash course in geo-political matters on a Thai-related message board, I have simply pointed out to you what the universally accepted, well known and well studied reality is.

You and others are of course free to do researches of your own (with your own time) and report here that Thailand is a 2nd world country, a 1st world one or whatever else you pretend it to be, I will then check your sources and accept the result.

zzap, as expected, has left. What about you?

I have told you Thailand is a 3rd world country (or a "developing country" which is nothing else that the PC label for the same exact meaning). Go check on some of the international organizations how Thailand is called, go verify on a search engine that saying "developing country" is indeed the same as saying "3rd world country" and report back here.

actually i'd choose south korea. not that i've been there or anything

Since you seemed so surprised and unconvinced that South Korea is a NIC I took it as a given that you had at least some basic knowledge on its socio-political reality and that it was said knowledge to suggest you that South Korea is something else than a NIC... (I also assumed that you chose Italy as representative of any other Western country)

But it now seems that you:

1) have never set foot in both of those places

2) don't even consider Italy as really representative of a typical 1st world country (on the base of a news report...)

So, what are we talking about?

In which way my comparing two places you know nothing about can help you understand why South Korea is a NIC and not a 1st world country? And what do you base your "feeling" that South Korea is something else than a NIC on?

also, i've read news reports about some pretty surreal italian court decisions such as the one recently that ruled that a pat on the bottom is not sexual harassment so long as it is "isolated and impulsive". wow, big can of worms there.

Are you suggesting that an Asian country (or any other on the face of earth, for that matter) is more attentive than a Western one to women's rights??

In Italy even "out of line" comments qualify for sexual harassment, let alone pats on the bottom...

Please provide a link to this very interesting piece of "news report".

The terms 1st/2nd/3rd world, Developing Country et al, are terms which need to be either updated or dropped altogether.

To be replaced with..?

You have to understand that these are not definitions, these are merely labels which refer to categories part of a complex definition.

This definiton isn't even univocal, although the various "flavors" cooked by the different international bodies are largely congruent.

Too many groups, with too many agendas, decide who is a 1st/2nd...5th world country. The criteria for determining a country's status is too varied. One country may have 1st world GDP numbers, but 3rd world health care standards, 2nd World corruption, 4th world life expectancies, 5th world welfare, ect.

This doesn't make any sense. Saying that a 3rd world country "has 1st world GDP", or better said 1st world per capita income", (which, BTW, would make it a NIC unless it could achieve such result with an agricultural based economy) but other 3rd or 4th world country characteristics means that country doesn't comply with all the requirements to be considered a 1st world country and it is not a 1st world country. It also is not a 4th world country if it has "4th world life expectancies" since the main difference between 3rd and 4th world countries is the annual rate of development (or, more appropriately, growth), not the life expectancies (which is a so called "secondary character").

Who actually makes the definitive judgement about whether a country is 1st/2nd/3rd World ? Is that status based on how a country matches up against a certain superpower ?

All the international organizations involved and operating worldwide in social, economical and political studies, relations, aid, cooperation etc etc etc use such type of classification. The bigger ones conduct their own studies and come up with their personal interpretations (and definition) of the data available. Some of those organizations have coming up with such rankings and definitions as their very own "reason for living".

As for "Developing Country" label, that would imply that there are fully developed countries already in existence. Which countries can be considered "Fully Developed" ? I don't know of any perfect countries. Even the "Developed, 1st World" countries continue to develop themselves further. Again, who makes the definitive judgement, and is it based on how a country matches up against the US ? (While being better than some countries, it can hardly be considered a "perfect, fully developed country")

Copying&pasting things already said and said again is becoming really tiresome...

BAF, post #56 "Well, you rarely hear 1st world countries called "developed countries" but rather "most developed countries" or the like.

Remember that this is just the consequence of wanting to find substitutes for the perceived insulting expressions "3rd world" and "4th world"."

You have to ask for an explanation to the PC brigade, not the analists community.

Should there be an "Un-Developing" label for countries that seem to be going backwards (like the Sudan, Somalia, or the Congo) ?

Well, they are properly defined 4th world countries. (One of the) PC equivalent is "least developed countries".

This has already been talked about as well...

Sigh..., this is going round in circles.

Oh I agree, but what we probably disagree on is who is to blame...

The point myself and others have made is that there are more accurate terms which carry less derogatory connotations than '3rd world'.

'A developing country on the edge of industrialisation', for example, sounds different from '3rd world country', and it fits Thailand, it is more specific as well as positive.

You really should read the thread you are replying to:

BAF, post #13 "For the PC types, 3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better)."

BAF, post #46 "There isn't anything PC in the expression itself, the PCness is in the fact that it's being used to avoid using the original expression "3rd world" because it has somehow "developed" an almost insulting (!) connotation to PC eyes.

It's the same story with everything else with the PC brigade.

In itself what has the noun "negro" of insulting? It was initially the perfectly normal word to indicate dark skinned Africans. Then it was "deemed" insulting(!) and it was "black", then the story repeated and it has to be "person of color"... and so on and on...

And don't think that it happens only in the English language. It's the same everywhere in the West (because the PCness is the same).

In my own mother tongue (Italian), and using the same example as before it was "negro", than "nero" (which means black), then "persona di colore" (which means person of color).

Even "developing country" and "less developed country" are (misteriously) growing an insulting connotation so yet other expressions are being used nowadays..."

PCness rarely leads to accuracy, it usual produces just moronic results, as others have already pointed out in this thread. Personally, I despise PCness but you are of course free to use whatever expression you prefer as long as the results keep some resemblance with reality.

The point of this thread is that somebody disagrees on the fact that Thailand is a "developing country" (that's "3rd world country" for me and most of the analists community) and thinks that LOS is something else (NIC, 1st world country, 2nd world ecc).

I don't think the subject of this thread is ever been that to establish whether it's better to use "3rd world country" or the PC equivalent "developing country" (to indicate the same thing). I'm not interested in this either.

Perhaps it's your turn now to stop evading and wriggling out, but give concise to the point responses to the queries posed to you? You haven't made any convincing case for your terminology, after questions about the '2nd world', or the difference between Italy and S-Korea, for example.

It's not MY terminology, it's the correct terminology. I've simply pointed this out to you.

You are talking about "gut feelings" (like the poster who is not convinced S. Korea is a NIC and has never even been there), I'm talking about (part of) what I have been studying.

"Making a convincing case" for my terminology would mean giving a crash course in geo-political matters on a Thai-related message board, something I don't have the time for and don't have any interest in.

You and others are of course free to do researches of your own (with your own time) and report here that Thailand is a 2nd world country, I will then check your sources and accept the result...

BTW, you didn't seriously expect an answer to whether I live on the same planet as you?

Now more than ever...

Incidentally, I take this that you really didn't know what you were talking about regarding the NATO, the EU etc and your comment on our planets of origin was meant to mask that.

You just had the "gut feeling" that my reply to mittheimp on these matters where somehow "out of order" but you didn't actually know and couldn't, in fact, explain the reason why so you just came out with this "funny" remark.

I don't know anything about the police/judicial system in either of these countries, what I'd think is hardly a measure as to their development status. I would assume laws and procedures in different countries vary, how does this influence the rating (as to 1st wrld or not)?

Since you brought up this example, please elaborate.

As per your post #60 and my (still unanswered) reply #62, before being able to reply to you on this other subject I have to know if we are indeed from the same planet because if we are not my reply will likely not be applicable to your own reality.

BTW, the fact that you may be in a parallel universe would also explain why you say "though it's been tedious asserting that there is more to it than "3rd world or not", we do have a number of terms and criteria to apply by now, thanks to Meadish, Kat, et al, to finetune the status of Thailand compared to its neighbours and others," and you go on (probably referring to me) "it just seems that some are hung-up on using the inaccurate '3rd world' label, for their own reasons" while it's especially me the one who has been trying to explain that there are "a number of terms and criteria", much wider than what you and others here believe, to assess and describe a country's status of development (and that Thailand, by "those number of terms and criteria", is a 3rd world country).

I see. What are these social-political reasons, and how are they measured? Perhaps you could explain comparing say South Korea and Italy.

Well, you are surely not asking me to report here all of the hundreds different socio-political indicators (and how they are differently defined and misured) universally used by the the countless international organizations to study, compare, categorize and rank the various socio-political realities around this world... are you?

Anyway, just to keep the discussion on a practical level suitable to a non-specialized message board: imagine to be involved in a foreign country in a serious matter like, say, a murder or a financial dispute which may see you losing all of your properties.

Without asking if you have ever lived in Italy and South Korea, would you rather be handled by the Italian police, Italian justice system and Italian laws or by the South Korean police, South Korean justice system and South Korean laws?

Do you think the treatment (by the police and justice system) you would be subjected to would be practically equivalent?

Do you think it would be equally respectful of your perceived basic human rights?

Do you think it would be appreciably different if you weren't a foreigner?

Do you you think an Italian facing a murder/big financial dispute in Italy, a South Korean facing a murder/big financial dispute in South Korea and you facing a murder/big financial dispute in your homecountry all go through very similar and practically interchangeable experiences?

Just some basic questions to kick start the discussion, please keep the answers as short as possible and try to avoid widening the scope of our discussion.

With the exception of Japan (which as you have pointed out, have now mixed their culture sufficiently to qualify as a 1st world country), would you say that being a predominantly white society would give a country an edge in 1st worldom?

Of course not. The race and the color of the skin are not important, the culture is.

There have been enough explainations and queries already to make you think about the validity of the term "3rd world", I'd like to see a definition of it which distinguishes countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and Venezuela from each other. Or are you just stuck up and avoid anything which might be "PC", whatever this means to you?

There have been enough explanations already on the differences between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th world and NI countries.

Copying&pasting isn't fun.

Israel is not in europe so membership to the EU would be a bit odd.

Turkey isn't really in Europe either and has been forever in talks to become part of the EU.

There are several different geo-political considerations to support its membership and the only thing really impeding its entry is that Turkey is socio-politically as European as the som-tam is

Such problems don't exist in the case of Israel. Actually, Israel is probably more "European" and "Western" than some of the recently admitted ex-Eastern Bloc countries.

Could you tell us where exactly Israel is located geographically?

Tell me what you are exactly alluding to amongst all the possible misinterpretations your reply implies and I will address it.

Secondly because of Israel's reluctance to comply with many UN resolutions their membership of NATO would undermine the organisations status and role in global affairs.

These are really minor considerations with little bearing especially in the case of NATO membership.

...

Which planet do you come from?

The one where at least 3 out of 5 of the permanent members of the UN council have a long story of disregarding the maximum international organition's leads and various other international organizations' prescriptions and recommendations and that doesn't seem to undermine their status and role in global affairs in the least. And the one where the NATO was born a defensive treaty and has been adding members picked amongst the former enemies and only very recently (1999) is giving itself new purposes and goals other than the original defensive one.

Is it the same as yours?

Israel is not in europe so membership to the EU would be a bit odd.

Turkey isn't really in Europe either and has been forever in talks to become part of the EU.

There are several different geo-political considerations to support its membership and the only thing really impeding its entry is that Turkey is socio-politically as European as the som-tam is

Such problems don't exist in the case of Israel. Actually, Israel is probably more "European" and "Western" than some of the recently admitted ex-Eastern Bloc countries.

Secondly because of Israel's reluctance to comply with many UN resolutions their membership of NATO would undermine the organisations status and role in global affairs.

These are really minor considerations with little bearing especially in the case of NATO membership.

The fact that EU membership could limit Israel's choices carries a much heavier weight when considering the opportunity of such move.

Israel's EU membership wouldn't undermine the organization's status but would change Israel's role in global (local) affairs and limit its choices. Furthermore, the EU would also have to take, then, much more responsability for what happens in the region and would have to take a much more active role there and it clearly doesn't want it, I don't think it even can.

The European Union isn't the United States of America, hot air apart we can't act as a unitary entity because we are not (yet)

I wonder if and when we can ever be.

So what would Hong Kong be labelled as?

Its not a NIC, seeing as it has a higher GDP per capita than many "developed" countries, and you cant mention socio-politic reasons, seeing as they have the worlds most free market system, most press freedom, least corruption etc...

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China.

HK, on its own, would be one of those NICs on the verge of being considered 1st world IF the Legco hadn't been stopped by China in 1997 and IF its efforts had actually leaded to a socio-politically overhauled Constitution and fully democratic institutions (which HK, as it stands today, HAS NOT).

Isnt a NIC just ANOTHER PC label aimed at patting the country in question on the head, "Your not quite here, yet, But soon.." We dont refer to first world countries as AIC (Already Industrialised Countris) or IC's.

Actually, the expression ICs IS sometimes used comprising 1st world countries AND NICs.

As for PC or not PC, it is irrelevant to me. Keeping the 'insulting' definition out of the way and concentrating on what it was coined as, it seems to have played out its role. It simply wasnt a very good way of classifying. Then why keep it? I thought we all tried to develop our discourse as well as our thoughts here?

Further, about 'developing countries' it is a bit silly as a definition as well.

It is, in fact, the PC substitute for "3rd world"

You don't have to use silly definitions if PCness is, as you say, irrilevant to you

Sort of seems to imply those countries belonging to the 'developed' group have stopped developing - are they all standing still, have nothing to improve anymore, or is it just a way of patting each other's backs?

Well, you rarely hear 1st world countries called "developed countries" but rather "most developed countries" or the like.

Remember that this is just the consequence of wanting to find substitutes for the perceived insulting expressions "3rd world" and "4th world".

Generally speaking, t'is a bit silly trying to cram hundreds of vastly different areas of land, containing vastly different peoples and conditions, denoted by imaginary concepts such as borders,

This is what you ALWAYS get when you have the need to categorize things and situations

If you pretend to perfectly define and "categorize" each particular situation all you end up with is a useless LIST

into three little boxes.

There are "4+1" little boxes.

We can look at actual variables and from those variables see that Thailand has come a bit further in terms of economy and material standard than Laos, Burma and Cambodia. We can also see that Malaysia seems to be yet a bit further on the way.

You are not the first to notice this, many others have already pointed this out in this very thread and it seems that even the socio-economical-political analists community has thought of this...

I seem to recall that I have already posted thrice (or was it four times?) that the countries you name above are not in the same category as many here like to think and get mad about or using it to give Thailand 1st or 2nd world status

Malaysia can be considered, today, a NIC, Thailand is a 3rd world country, Laos, Burma and Cambodia are 4th world countries.

The world is anything but static though, as the Buddha reminds us... and we should remember to ask ourselves ?what? do we want to develop... lest we forget that economic development always takes a high toll on the environment, for example. Wide topic.

I would be interested to know what you or Buddha have to say about the lack of economic development and its toll on the people...

Wide topic indeed and I don't think I want to discuss it

What about Israel?

First? not a member of NATO

Second? not a communist country

Third? Is this a poor country?

NIC ?????

First of all, being a NATO member has nothing to do with 1st world status (look at the NATO member eastern European countries and Turkey).

Israel is one of those NICs on the verge of being considered 1st world. So close, in fact, that for this and other reasons has been proposed more than once to become part of the NATO and the EU.

Unfortunately it seems there always is somebody who gets in the way... I guess you know who they are

BAF ,

What about asian countries like South Korea and Singapore, or for that matter Taiwan? Will their "cultures" stand in the way of them being 1st world countries? How much development is necessary for a developing country to be a developed country? What are the objective criteria for first worldom?

They are NICs but they are not first world essentially for socio-political reasons.

"Developing countries" isn't meant as just "economically developing countries", remember we are talking about socio-economical-political definitions. NIC is one as well.

Since there are now definitions of 1st, 2nd 3rd and now 4th world, can we get a clear definition of each in non political terms, so then we can debate where Thailand fits; preferably using UN, IMF, World Bank or CIA references if they use this definitation system (which I understand they do not).

"In non political terms"? It IS a (socio-economical-)POLITICAL definition

UN, IMF etc indicators are all to be used as well since they all are part of the complex definition of a country's development stage.

BAF

Regarding Japan, you comment that 'History teaches us that what prevents 3rd world countries to become 1st world is, most and foremost, their 3rd world cultures.' and you go on to say 'Japan has made it to 1st world status and look at how socio-economical-politically different it is from all the rest of the Asian societies.'

Obviously, it was very different socially to other Asian countries anyway, since each country in this part of the world at least tends to be somewhat varied.

Of course, but my point is that it is NOW much more socio-economical-politically different from the rest of Asia than it was BEFORE.

However, I am very curious to understand what cultural elements Japan gave up in order for them to become 1st world?

I wouldn't say "given up" and I have, in fact, written "[...]mixed in such a short time with their local flavour of typical Asian values and principles[...]"

It surely cannot be business practices, since the quality and innovation aspects of most of the way they do things is emulated in the west rather than a copy of the west (e.g. Toyota manufacturing is the benchmark for Boeing, they've left most of the American car manufacturers behind);

You have a very short historic memory

Japan has been in its relatively recent past not much different from what China is today (RE "the quality and innovation aspects of most of the way they do things").

It cannot be the culture of the people, since so much of Japan is still very different, at least from what I can see, to this more developed west you speak of.

And in fact I said "mixed" and not "substituted".

Certain aspects of today's Japan aren't much different from what they were before and from what the rest of Asia has always been. For example, look at their laws RE citizenship...

I can think of several reasons for Japan's emergence, and there are other parts of Asia that are emulating that success in certain industries; would you also propose that each of these areas is also in some way giving up their '3rd world culture' and if so, which parts?

They aren't "giving up" anything, they are DEVELOPING.

You think our own today's culture is what it was 100 or 200 years ago?

You think our culture of the time is compatible with how we run things today?

They (non Westerners) are all to various degrees resisting the change because the path their cultures have been following is much different from our's and would lead them in a (sometime much) different direction than where the West is headed today so adjusting the direction and the pace takes them much more effort than it takes us to simply "naturally" follow our "nature".

Some cultures are more willing (and adept) to change and compromise, some others not.

That's (also) why you see different degrees of development and different paces of growth.

Some cultures don't deem desiderable to follow us at all and they are following their own path, some others just want our wealth and nothing else and they are not getting it because, simply, their way of doing things don't lead to wealth.

I am further curious as to what you define as 'western' because there are a lot of countries in the world.

Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. In other words, the Western Europe and the countries whose today societies are prevalently of European heritage and share a largely common set of values and principles. (you may want to call it "farangland" )

And like all the other definitions and concepts expressed here, it's not "my definition".

I am most curious as to what these 'Western culture and principles' that 'form the only way to development' are. [...] Some are made up of immigrants, and many of these countries owe much of their success to the rape and pillage of other countries. I was not aware that this was exclusive to the 'west' but is this one of the only ways to development of which you speak?

China is doing a fine job in Tibet, ah, perhaps this is indeed why their economy is going to overtake the west within my lifetime most likely.

Sorry but you are mixing up so many different issues and I don't want to open other cans of worms than the ones already opened

This kind of stuff is part of what I have been studying in a past life and whenever I get into this kind of discussion I usually get banned because most people can't stand honest and solidly argued truths

Also, there is nothing "PC" about the term "Developing Country",

There isn't anything PC in the expression itself, the PCness is in the fact that it's being used to avoid using the original expression "3rd world" because it has somehow "developed" an almost insulting (!) connotation to PC eyes.

It's the same story with everything else with the PC brigade.

In itself what has the noun "negro" of insulting? It was initially the perfectly normal word to indicate dark skinned Africans. Then it was "deemed" insulting(!) and it was "black", then the story repeated and it has to be "person of color"... and so on and on...

And don't think that it happens only in the English language. It's the same everywhere in the West (because the PCness is the same).

In my own mother tongue (Italian), and using the same example as before it was "negro", than "nero" (which means black), then "persona di colore" (which means person of color).

Even "developing country" and "less developed country" are (misteriously) growing an insulting connotation so yet other expressions are being used nowadays...

it is simply more accurate and less confusing, just note that nobody argues what a Developing Country is, but some, like yourself, BAF, have made lengthy, yet still unsatisfying attempts to give the term "3rd World" a definition.

I haven't attempted to give the expression "3rd World" a definition at all

I have written that "3rd World" is a category part of a complex and blurred socio-economical-political definition and I have then just completed the list of the other remaining categories.

A lot of Eastern European countries aren't first world... unless you conveniently forget about them to support your argument.

I haven't forgot them, it's just that you have apparently not read or not understood what I have written (twice) about them:

"[...] the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones)."

Yes, Thailand is and will remain for the foreseeable future a 3rd world country.

The category "3rd world" is part of a complex and blurred socio-economical-political definition.

Those who try to give Thailand any other but 3rd world status (because, they say, "Thailand isn't one of those starving poor countries") simply ignore that those countries whose development is practically still or proceeding at a much slower pace than countries like Thailand, China, India and the like are nowadays defined and called "4th world countries" (for the exact reason of distinguishing the countries that have, so far, much bettered their original "3rd world" situation from the countries that have not).

For the PC types, 3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better).

The 1st world is made up of all of the Western countries plus Japan and the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones).

History teaches us that what prevents 3rd world countries to become 1st world is, most and foremost, their 3rd world cultures. Japan, China and India are perfect examples of the fact that values and principles aren't changed by economic development, it's quite the opposite. It's the change in the culture, in the values and principles on which a society and its approach to others is based that makes possible a drastic economic development (which then, of course, also has a part in the further development of those values and principles).

The less willing to change the societies and the cultures are, the slower the pace of their development is.

Japan has made it to 1st world status and look at how socio-economical-politically different it is from all the rest of the Asian societies.

Japan is also the sole non-Western 1st world country and look at the inner tensions and contrasts that adopting many Western values and principles (which are the only ones leading to development) has created when mixed in such a short time with their local flavour of typical Asian values and principles...

Do you see Thailand adopting the Western ways (particularly in the business and economic environment) in the same way and at the same pace than Japan has done (and is still doing) and China and India are doing now?

This is crazy

People continue to post this nonsense about Thailand not being a 3rd world country because much more developed than parts of Africa and Cambodia and ... and ... and ...

Some people even say that they are now 2nd world (I must have missed their Red October)

Tried to read the post which I am quoting above?

Those dirt poor countries you are comparing Thailand with are 4th world countries.

The definition of "4th world" has been introduced because ex 3rd world countries have been developing at many much different paces and so some of those 3rd world countries have left far behind some other ones which have been developing at a much slower pace.

So countries like Thailand are today still 3rd world countries (or "developing countries" or "less developed countries") while some other countries like the ones compared here to Thailand are today 4th world countries (or "least developed countries").

End of story and if for some reason you can't accept that you should raise some valid arguments (I'm sure the socio-economical-political analists' community is waiting for your input) before keeping on saying things like Thailand can't really be 3rd world because they have TVs and they are not starving in mass...

Thailand was yesterday, is today and is set to remain for the foreseeable future a full fledged 3rd world country. Sorry.

Again, my 'yawn' was in reference to the description of the holding company's offices. I have no interest in what a billionaire PM does with his funds, described in detail for the nth time. My issue here is with the portrayal of holding companies and offshore banking.

Their portrayal of holding companies is accurate (you yourself say "(yawn) Just like any holding company out there.") and it doesn't seem like they were surprised by what they found nor they made it appear as unusual (the Nation writes "There were no surprises; it was what might have been expected, particularly by people familiar with nominee companies") so your other claim that "All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies" also seems unsubstantiated.

What really annoys you is made quite clear by the part of your last post that I quoted in bold

As for me, I am somewhat inclined to believe that the concealed and lied about offshore funds of the Prime Minister of Thailand playing with his homecountry's interests (along with his own) should be of some interest at least to that country's citizens, residents and taxpayers.

Mind you, as long as the majority of the Thais keep on yawning at their ruling class screwing the country for their personal gain I know I have another cheap playground to choose from for my personal fun so I am not really complaining about anything here

I didn't say they were writing articles for themselves.

They have written an article that portrays offshore holding companies in a misleading way. After their vivid description, they don't include the fact that the majority of offshore holding companies don't even have actual offices. They don't include the fact that there are literally millions of legitimate businessmen, investors, royalty, heirs, actors, actresses, world class athletes, who keep their funds offshore through similar methods used by the PM.

Well, actresses' and athletes' offshore funds are "yawn" material (and even that is not always true, a couple of examples from Germany and Italy come to mind...), the (concealed and lied about) offshore funds of the Prime Minister of Thailand should be not

Especially for the Thais

Well, I guess the purpose of the article was not to show how Toxin's dummy company is different from the others but how the Prime Minister of Thailand is basically scoffing the whole country whose interests he has sworn to defend...

...yawn

All it shows is that the Nation and its reporter isn't familiar with offshore holding companies. Hypocritical IMO because the top dogs at the Nation probably are familiar with the true nature of offshore holding companies. Sondhi as well, most likely.

(yawn)

Why are you supposing that the Nation and its reporters write articles for their own private reading?

As opposed to what you seem to believe, they haven't written the article to educate themselves on the true nature of offshore holding companies

They have written the article for the benefit of those (naive, ignorant as in not well informed or just plain stupid) who need to be shown in graphical details the lies they are being fed and the fuming pile of crap they are mistaking for hot chocolate pudding

Unfortunately the reaction of most Thais is likely to be... YAAAWN

(yawn) Just like any holding company out there. Headquarters/offices don't need to be any wider than a PO Box. Rarely if ever will you even need to visit the country where your holding company is located. Intermediaries/attorneys (and I use the latter term loosely) are more than happy to take care of all of this for you.

Well, I guess the purpose of the article was not to show how Toxin's dummy company is different from the others but how the Prime Minister of Thailand is basically scoffing the whole country whose interests he has sworn to defend...

...yawn