Who You Callin' Third World?

[jimbeam1]

That's how it looks to me. The squalor that people live in here is hidden but can be found easy enough if you want to find it. Most people from western countries seem to only see the not so filthy living standards of the poor people of this country. Just as bad as the Indian slums & shanty towns of the world.

Tunnel vision perhaps or just the refusal to see anything that dosent fit into thier cosy life

The squalor is not nearly as bad. You want to see bad? go to the Phillipines or Indonesia. You have poor families who have to resort to boiling discarded chicken bones they find from hunting through mountains of garbage.

Sorry. I did not remove enough of the post. I was not answering to that actual section of the post.

But I will add that I have seen news clippings here in Thailand on television of I think ,it was Burmese,climbing all over a rubbish tip in Bangkok looking for food and anything else they could sell. Remember that is after Thais have scoured through the bins before collection.

jb1

[craigt3365]

Nice, draw your conclusions then design a survey that supports it. May I suggest adding a few other questions? GDP per person, literacy rate, live expectancy, vague things like freedom of speech and minimal corruption?

That's how it looks to me. The squalor that people live in here is hidden but can be found easy enough if you want to find it. Most people from western countries seem to only see the not so filthy living standards of the poor people of this country. Just as bad as the Indian slums & shanty towns of the world.

Tunnel vision perhaps or just the refusal to see anything that dosent fit into thier cosy life

If you've truly been to India, then you would know that statement is false. India has some of the worst slums in the world...and are far worse than anything here. And yes, I've been in the Klong Toey slums. Slummin' it as they say. But it was daylight out!

I tried to visit the favelas in Brazil, but couldn't get there as no taxi driver would take us close enough to walk! I did visit the slums in India...beyond belief.

VERY true. I work in Uganda, and i'll often come across Indians who have migrated to Uganda to escape the squalor of India.Imagine going to Africa to escape your life!

I have often said that Thai's have nothing to complain about.

Odd though, I often read here, on TV how they think Thailand is a third-workd country.

I guess some people havent traveled much.

Uganda has some pretty bad spots, but nothing like India. I spent 2 weeks traveling around Uganda via public bus and I loved it. The people were polite, spoke English, were friendly. I liked it better than Kenya or Tanzania. But all are still a huge notch below Thailand.

[happyrobert]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

Edited March 23, 2011 by happyrobert

[jimbeam1]

I think the terms 1st or 3rd world country is obsolete these days as it was used to define so called non-aligned countries during the cold war. It just so happened these countries tended to be South America, Africa, and parts of Asia and were not very well developed at that time.

It is much more accurate to classify countries as developed, developing, or undeveloped based on their social-economic progress.

The OP was trying to show that many developed countries have lower economic growth rates and as much income disparity as many developing countries. He couldn't put the GDP per person in as that would make it obvious what he was trying to do.

TH

I agree to a degree. It is the old system but the terms are still in common usage. But are the new terms truly much more accurate?

So would the States be underveloped or developing because of their staggering debt (and crumbling infrastructure)? Is Thailand developed because of low unemployment and low per capita national debt along with strong industrial growth?

Maybe we need new factors defined and new terms?

How are you defining low unemployment in Thailand? Counting the few who qualify for benefits. Or the hundred's of thousand's that do not.

jb1

I took the stats off a government website, so I'm not defining it. But, I understand what you are asking and I do know that in the States once people have used up all their unemployment benefits, they are no longer "officially" unemployed and then no longer in the statistic. But they are still unemployed.

Then we have to ask about who is better equipped to survive "unemployment". I think Thai are as they have less debt, closer extended families, houses that are generally clear and free of debt, and the ability to find food to eat 30 seconds after stepping off the road into the trees and brush. I see one guy go into the woods and the sea everyday and he eats quite well, cooking over bamboo fires.

Americans have enormous personal debt that they must pay each month, and when they want food, it's cash.

So taking stats off of a gov web site. You are working on the assumption that Thailand has less unemployed per capator than The US?

I am sorry we are not talking here about who is better equipped to survive unemployment. Although if you want to go down that route, I do agree with you that Thai's are far better equipped to survive. They have to be.

jb1

[chops]

The United States used to be 1st world. Then it squandered it's wealth on pointless wars and now it's currency is trash.

Let me ask you a question. How many Americans travel to Thailand each year? And how many Russians travel to Thailand? I see more Russians around. Now who's got more money? Seems the 1st world and 3rd world countries are changing places.

I would much rather live in a "3rd world" country these days then a "1st world" country. The "1st world" has become impoverished through socialism and government spending. Defininitely not where's it's at anymore.

[jimbeam1]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

I am sorry happyrobert. But I really have no desire to visit America.

jb1

[happyrobert]

The United States used to be 1st world. Then it squandered it's wealth on pointless wars and now it's currency is trash.

Let me ask you a question. How many Americans travel to Thailand each year? And how many Russians travel to Thailand? I see more Russians around. Now who's got more money? Seems the 1st world and 3rd world countries are changing places.

I would much rather live in a "3rd world" country these days then a "1st world" country. The "1st world" has become impoverished through socialism and government spending. Defininitely not where's it's at anymore.

Finally! Thank you! That's a very good point, and it's on topic.

See how easy it is JB?

[happyrobert]

BTW, I'm switching to Jack Daniels. Less headaches.

Edited March 23, 2011 by happyrobert

[mstribling]

Great, America bashing. That's new.

First America doesn't proclaim prosperity for everyone. We just promise you an opportunity. Nothing else.

More Russians than Americans on Thailand?

Doubtful, but remember the map?

Americans go to the cariibean to enjoy the tropics, Mexico for a cheap vacation.

Retirees go to Panama, or Brazil, and sex tourist to the Phillippines to get that Asian thing scratched.

However, people in rural areas and urban slums in America THINK they have it bad.

Try a slum in Lagos or Karachi. Believe me America is doing ok, as is Thailand.

My personal barometer. Malaria deaths?

[mstribling]

If you claim you would prefer to live in a third-world country opposed to a first world country, I don't think you ever been to the third-world.

Cambodia and Laos are at the top of the ladder in the third world, and Thailand isn't even close to being considered.

[craigt3365]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

Poor places for sure. I took my wife to Harlem a few years ago. She was scared to death...and so was I! Pretty bad.

It's one reason I cringe when I see Americans donating so much to "3rd world" countries. We have enough poverty in our own country....

[Payboy]

Great, America bashing. That's new.

First America doesn't proclaim prosperity for everyone. We just promise you an opportunity. Nothing else.

More Russians than Americans on Thailand?

Doubtful, but remember the map?

Americans go to the cariibean to enjoy the tropics, Mexico for a cheap vacation.

Retirees go to Panama, or Brazil, and sex tourist to the Phillippines to get that Asian thing scratched.

However, people in rural areas and urban slums in America THINK they have it bad.

Try a slum in Lagos or Karachi. Believe me America is doing ok, as is Thailand.

My personal barometer. Malaria deaths?

Actually, Malaria deaths as a percentage of population would rank Thailand as a 3rd world country, way behind Pakistan (or even India).

[mstribling]

Hmmm interesting, never realized that.

But the % of population is kind of swayed using those two countries as a reference.

Interesting though. Every other westerner I've met here claims the had Dengue fever, but have never heard anyone mention malaria.

Thanks for that info.

Edited March 23, 2011 by mstribling

[craigt3365]

Great, America bashing. That's new.

First America doesn't proclaim prosperity for everyone. We just promise you an opportunity. Nothing else.

More Russians than Americans on Thailand?

Doubtful, but remember the map?

Americans go to the cariibean to enjoy the tropics, Mexico for a cheap vacation.

Retirees go to Panama, or Brazil, and sex tourist to the Phillippines to get that Asian thing scratched.

However, people in rural areas and urban slums in America THINK they have it bad.

Try a slum in Lagos or Karachi. Believe me America is doing ok, as is Thailand.

My personal barometer. Malaria deaths?

Actually, Malaria deaths as a percentage of population would rank Thailand as a 3rd world country, way behind Pakistan (or even India).

I think the numbers, as reported in India, are grossly under reported:

http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/news/infectious-diseases/single-article/india-s-malaria-deaths-grossly-underestimated/c97e582e2e.html

[stevensdling]

Have you been to West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennesee?

They are not Countries.

Uhhh, yea, but they are in a country. One that lays claim to 1st world status.

and so? every country has poorer and richer regions...

[jimbeam1]

The United States used to be 1st world. Then it squandered it's wealth on pointless wars and now it's currency is trash.

Let me ask you a question. How many Americans travel to Thailand each year? And how many Russians travel to Thailand? I see more Russians around. Now who's got more money? Seems the 1st world and 3rd world countries are changing places.

I would much rather live in a "3rd world" country these days then a "1st world" country. The "1st world" has become impoverished through socialism and government spending. Defininitely not where's it's at anymore.

Finally! Thank you! That's a very good point, and it's on topic.

See how easy it is JB?

Hey HR I am not by any means singing the praises of America.Far from it. In fact I would also reply to this post. That it has some good points.

I'm from the UK and we all know who is pulling our strings?

JD

Edited March 23, 2011 by jimbeam1

[CMNightRider]

1) Thailand , 2) America , 3) I'm guessing one of the "PIGS" nations.

You are correct with the first two.

What is a PIG nation?

"The term "Third World" is not universally accepted. Some prefer other terms such as - Global South, the South, non-industrialized countries, developing countries, underdeveloped countries, undeveloped countries, mal-developed countries, emerging nations. The term "Third World" is the one most widely used in the media today, but no one term can describe all less-developed countries accurately. In comparison, the United States is part of : the West, the First World, the industrialized world, the developed world, the North."

[happyrobert]

1) Thailand , 2) America , 3) I'm guessing one of the "PIGS" nations.

You are correct with the first two.

What is a PIG nation?

"The term "Third World" is not universally accepted. Some prefer other terms such as - Global South, the South, non-industrialized countries, developing countries, underdeveloped countries, undeveloped countries, mal-developed countries, emerging nations. The term "Third World" is the one most widely used in the media today, but no one term can describe all less-developed countries accurately. In comparison, the United States is part of : the West, the First World, the industrialized world, the developed world, the North."

Your'e right about the media, they use the terms widely. According to the media, Thailand is 3rd world, America is 1st world.

So, are America, England, Ireland etc, 1st world?

Is Thailand 3rd world?

(It is interesting, now that you point it out, how the "richer" nations tend to be in the northern hemisphere, and (with the exception of Australia and New Zealand) the poorer in the south. The same holds true for many cities in the States - the poorer side of town is more often than not referred to as "south of the tracks".)

Seems like the terms are vague, as well as "developing", and "emerging". Maybe they are vague because, in the end, life is far more complex today than it was when the terms first were used. And maybe now the playing field is being leveled.

Thanks for the responses.

[WarpSpeed]

I think the terms 1st or 3rd world country is obsolete these days as it was used to define so called non-aligned countries during the cold war. It just so happened these countries tended to be South America, Africa, and parts of Asia and were not very well developed at that time.

It is much more accurate to classify countries as developed, developing, or undeveloped based on their social-economic progress.

The OP was trying to show that many developed countries have lower economic growth rates and as much income disparity as many developing countries. He couldn't put the GDP per person in as that would make it obvious what he was trying to do.

TH

I agree to a degree. It is the old system but the terms are still in common usage. But are the new terms truly much more accurate?

So would the States be underveloped or developing because of their staggering debt (and crumbling infrastructure)? Is Thailand developed because of low unemployment and low per capita national debt along with strong industrial growth?

Maybe we need new factors defined and new terms?

What has a country like Thailand contributed to the good of the world market for example? Medicines? Cures, treatments for major illnesses? Vaccines maybe? Technology perhaps?? There's a whole lot of factors besides the minor ones you put up for discussion that make the determination.. You scope is far too narrow and specifically defined..

One major reason countries like Thailand are not in the financial condition that many 1st world countries are is because those countries put far more funding towards resources and the environment, pollution control etc.. The list is endless it's easy to avoid debt and such when you don't even have a first rate health care or EMS service for example, numbers skewed for sure..

Thailand doesn't even have free education.. Apples and oranges..

Edited March 23, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[Kilgore Trout]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

Actually, AMERICA is a landmass made up of 2 continents; north and south (if you weren't aware). The United States or USA is a country, perhaps the one you are referring to

[WarpSpeed]

The United States used to be 1st world. Then it squandered it's wealth on pointless wars and now it's currency is trash.

Let me ask you a question. How many Americans travel to Thailand each year? And how many Russians travel to Thailand? I see more Russians around. Now who's got more money? Seems the 1st world and 3rd world countries are changing places.

I would much rather live in a "3rd world" country these days then a "1st world" country. The "1st world" has become impoverished through socialism and government spending. Defininitely not where's it's at anymore.

Fallacious argument as there is NO WHERE in Russia or most places in Europe (read individual countries) that have the range of weather and environment that the US does so there is little reason for most/many Americans to travel outside of the country to get those benefits unlike much of Europe most of which is as north or farther north then Virginia with few exceptions and even still would be out of one's own country.. Russia for example is the equivalent of Canada and I can tell you from personal experience there is a monstrous community of seasonal Canadians in the south of the us and predominantly in Florida.

I'd venture to say that growth has been exponential recently given the housing market in Florida lately, the drop in the US dollar versus Canadian and economy.. But the US has beautiful, warm coastlines with clean beaches from Florida to Ca and many states in between plus Hawaii any and all of which compare to anything Thailand has to offer only cleaner and maybe safer (?) so why spend the extra money??

Edited March 23, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[happyrobert]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

Actually, AMERICA is a landmass made up of 2 continents; north and south (if you weren't aware). The United States or USA is a country, perhaps the one you are referring to

Really!!!!????

( Wouldn't it be two landmasses then if it is two continents?)

[WarpSpeed]

My belief is it is the country's ability to survive and prosper in the long term, with minimal internal and external conflict. Economy plays a large part in that.

Where is this utopia? Fiji or somewhere equally detached maybe..

[WarpSpeed]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

Actually, AMERICA is a landmass made up of 2 continents; north and south (if you weren't aware). The United States or USA is a country, perhaps the one you are referring to

Really!!!!????

( Wouldn't it be two landmasses then if it is two continents?)

Many people wrongly make this mistake, there is only one AMERICA by name and it contains Americans, every country in South America or even part of north america are equally named by their countries name, I.E. Canadians, Brazilians, Mexicans, while these are both North Americans and South Americans none of them are expressly named "Americans" from the only country on those 2 continents named the "United States of AMERICA" therefore "Americans"...

[CMNightRider]

My belief is it is the country's ability to survive and prosper in the long term, with minimal internal and external conflict. Economy plays a large part in that.

Where is this utopia? Fiji or somewhere equally detached maybe..

At the moment, Thailand is utopia for me.

[happyrobert]

My belief is it is the country's ability to survive and prosper in the long term, with minimal internal and external conflict. Economy plays a large part in that.

Where is this utopia? Fiji or somewhere equally detached maybe..

FIJI:

Well developed infrastructure and a free enterprise economy

POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE: 25.5%

GDP GROWTH RATE: 1.8% (2010)

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: 7.6%

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION GROWTH RATE: N/A

PUBLIC DEBT: 7% OF GDP

Long-term visas are tricky, though.

[WarpSpeed]

My belief is it is the country's ability to survive and prosper in the long term, with minimal internal and external conflict. Economy plays a large part in that.

Where is this utopia? Fiji or somewhere equally detached maybe..

At the moment, Thailand is utopia for me.

Yes for some, but not in the terms of his description, far from it..

[WarpSpeed]

My belief is it is the country's ability to survive and prosper in the long term, with minimal internal and external conflict. Economy plays a large part in that.

Where is this utopia? Fiji or somewhere equally detached maybe..

FIJI:

Well developed infrastructure and a free enterprise economy

POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE: 25.5%

GDP GROWTH RATE: 1.8% (2010)

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: 7.6%

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION GROWTH RATE: N/A

PUBLIC DEBT: 7% OF GDP

Long-term visas are tricky, though.

Yes and your answer is?? Still it's utopia for some who don't share your criteria which is WHY it's so flawed....

Edited March 23, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[jackers]

I use simpler methods like is it safe to drink tap water? or are there open sewers? or do more than 10% of the population stand around the street all day doing nothing?

The real test for me though is the quality of the beer. If that's awful then I know I'm in a first world country and need to get on the next flight to Cambodia...

Ok, Cambodia has unsafe tap water, open sewers, 10% crippled or idle in the streets, ok...but good beer compared to Western countries? Cambodian beer isn't better than in any Western country

I wouldn't use tap water as a barometer, everybody I come across in England seems to be drinking bottled water!.

[happyrobert]

My belief is it is the country's ability to survive and prosper in the long term, with minimal internal and external conflict. Economy plays a large part in that.

Where is this utopia? Fiji or somewhere equally detached maybe..

FIJI:

Well developed infrastructure and a free enterprise economy

POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE: 25.5%

GDP GROWTH RATE: 1.8% (2010)

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: 7.6%

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION GROWTH RATE: N/A

PUBLIC DEBT: 7% OF GDP

Long-term visas are tricky, though.

Yes and your answer is?? Still it's utopia for some who don't share your criteria which is WHY it's so flawed....

You know, you and a couple of others are like politicians on the campaign trail. You criticize and mock and yet, oddly, you seem unable to come up with any of your own criteria, although you certainly want everyone to believe you are in possession of it and that it is absolutely flawless. This despite numerous opportunities to provide it for all to see.

To refresh your memory, my original post included: It would be interesting to learn what reader's personal definitions are of 1^st and 3^rd world countries, and, What other factors determine 1st or 3rd world status?

Are you on some kind of mission to attempt to antagonise?

Like water off a duck's back, bud.