Is Thailand A 3rd World Country Still?

[zzap]

Age of a culture (most of them totally legendary, like Rome and Maya, or Siam) or a religion doesn't make it better, just because it's older.

I agree on that fact that older doesn't necessarily means better, just two other points:

1- there is nothing legendary in the fact that the foundation of the first "Thai" Kingdom is actually dated around the XV century (as the Thais themselves say)

2- there is nothing legendary in the fact that Roma did exist in the year 753 before Christ, the legendary bit is Romolo and Remo sucking a wolf's tit and the fact that the Roman myths fixed the fondation of Roma at that precise year. The actual year of foundation isn't of course known but is placed a couple of centuries BEFORE the traditional one.

It doesn't cease to amaze me how you manage to dodge every single point raised...

The question "is Thailand still 3rd World?" is one of teleology. It assumes that development is a linnear progression, with a fixed goal at the end... usually one established by "Western" standards.

I thought it's the much despized pc-terms which suggest such?

And, do you differentiate between the stage of development of, for example, the US and Thailand? And how do you call the US?

We do indeed, you may have read the odd comment or two in this thread?

[Octaviousbp]

It's a teleological question in that the word still is used. As in, a nation progresses through the categories of development. For me, calling one word PC over another is kind of pointless. All of the words have connotations that come with them, be they a hierarchical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd), or developing vs developed, north vs. south, etc, etc. For me, it doesn't really matter. I think what I am more concerned with is the fact that the nation as a whole is the category of study, rather then those whom are excluded from the benefits of the globalized world order. Some people in Thailand, as many throughout the thread have pointed out, are extremely "developed". They have access to markets, they are skilled in valuable ways to the global work force, and they are involved in decision making processes. These people, as well as those who are excluded from globalizations benefits, transcend state boundaries. So why is the nation-state still the unit of analysis used for comparison?

Obviously the nation is still extremely important, but would the semantics of "development" not benefit from a shift of focus to people, rather than the geographical containers they are grouped into?

Just enjoying the debate...

[zzap]

And just how would you assess this?

But I agree, the hierarchical 1st, 2nd etc. is outdated (for obvious reasons); 'developed', 'developing' have value judgements attached to them as well.

The crux of the matter is, all classifications originate from the most 'developed' nations, and many qualities for which folks like myself prefer to live in Thailand, for example, are not accounted for.

Edited February 24, 2006 by zzap

[markuk]

Just want to know, not that it matters, just got asked by my mate and i dont know if it is or not.

very much so!

[Octaviousbp]

zzap,

Lots of problems assessing it, but that hasn't stopped people from trying!

The King of Bhutan came up with the Happiness Index, alluded to here

Critique of it here

[zzap]

Good one.

[BAF]

When i studied Economics ans Economic history at University it always went like this

[...]

NIC - is the term often used in Thailand pre-97 crash

"Used" as in "we dream to become a NIC" or "we are a NIC"???

Thailand was before the 97 crash and is still now a full fledged 3rd world agricultural based society with 80% of its population living in rural communities. Compare this with Malaysia (a NIC) and its 60% of urbanized population.

[zzap]

A developing country at the edge of becoming a NIC, as I recall, or one of the Asian 'tiger cubs'.

A slight difference to "a full fledged 3rd world agricultural based society", I think.

But keep going, BAF, you may yet convince somebody.

[thaibebop]

The year number used in thailand relates to Buddha, birth, death or year of enlightenment I am not sure.

But it bears no relation to any event in Thai history, "Thailand" didn't exist at that time.

You are not very good at connecting the dots are you?

Theravada Buddhism(Thai Buddhism), the "oldest" form of Buddhism was imported from India over serveral centuries. One of the highes points being during the reign of Rajendra of the Cholas when he consturcted a navy that increased trade with South East Asian. Meaning, there was a culture there that could absorb the religion. This culture is the precursor to what we know today. The name Thai is a throw back to the earlier Tai that settled the S.E. area. I hope you don't think the Thai just "sprang up" when they renamed the country, do you?

[zzap]

Read the history link.

[thaibebop]

Read the history link.

I did and I read Thailand A Short History by David K. Wyatt and A History of India by Romila Thapar which discusses the exporting of Theravada. So, here's my left nut, suck it.

[BAF]

BAF

FOr a living, I actually have worked as an analyst in the past, classifying things without the benefits of all the dross available on countries. It isn't hard. You use statistics a lot to come up with groups, and usually define the differences between them using measures of statistical significance....

The usual steps, are coming up with some classifiers, coming up with a way to measure data and then putting objects into the groups. There are some stats to test significance of difference and so on, but basically it is very simple. Children do the same thing putting piles of things together that are red, green and so on.

So a well experienced and skilled analist who keeps asking for directions to do a simple search of other peoples' analitic work and who ends up using (and defending as a valid and reputable source) Wikipedia..!

To do this for countries is not hard, and I merely picked ONE way of doing it, since you said that you are not willing to share the ones you are using, on the basis they are so complex, and I should go find out myself.

Your task wasn't to pick up a method to reclassify the countries but to find out if it's true that the classification I used was the one internationally used.

You should have stopped at the UN quote you dug up which states what I have been saying all along. I (and, I suspect, the UN and Wikipedia as well) am not interested in your amateurish attempt of a geo-political analisys based on an extemporary web searched knowledge when I have actually been studying this matter in a university course.

If you can point me to a better place than the UN (which is a site that our network cannot upload for the most part) then I'll look at that.

Why, isn't the UN statement you have already found enough? (well, I guess it isn't since it proves my point and not yours...)

Anyway, pick any one of the countless international organizations which study, compare, categorize and rank the various socio-political realities around this world, any one of the countless international organizations which work in the field of economic cooperation and socio-economical-political development and tell me Thailand is defined something else than a developing country.

As for the equivalence between "developing country" and third world it's your Wikipedia itself to say "Terms such as Global South, developing countries, least developed countries and the Majority World have become more popular in many circles, due to the potentially offensive and out of date connoations of describing a 'Third' world."

All your sources, links, tables and classifications say that

1- Thailand is a developing country

2- developing country = third world

How long are you going to drag this on before replying YES to this thread's topic????

[As far as your 'strawman argument' re. the wikipedia, unless you are going to refute something I have quoted, then it is unimportant of the source right,

I have already done so posting the definition of NICs (totally coherent with MINE) given by them and referring you to the definitions given by them to 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th world which are all to some degree in contradiction. Another example is the fact that "least developed countries" are called "third world" in a definiton and correctly called 4th world in another.

since most of the bits I posted were referenced back to UN and others and since you did not raise issues, I'll assume what I posted was ok then....]

This is mere data analysis. I did much the same thing when I was fresh out of university, I've had the chance to do bits and pieces of this sort of work for organisations associated with groups like the UN (admittedly in a financial only component); I've done it for academic research and it is not hard. Of course what to do with the results is another matter, but we aren't concerning ourselves with that here.

Haven't I already pointed out to you that the result of your "accurate" research is based on just 3 criteria and that those criteria are only of socio-economical nature?

What does the HDI tell us about, for example, a country's women's rights????

And BTW I assume you might not be familiar with yacht design... Compared to yacht design, this classifying stuff is a proverbial walk in the park.

Seeing how you got lost in the park I wonder how you score in yacht design...

I have NEVER stated that Thailand is not a developing country. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? I have stated that people do not use the term 3rd world anymore

NO, you have questioned the equivalence between the expressions "third world country" and "developing country".

If what you say were true you would have replied to the thread starter:

- Is Thailand a 3rd world country still?

- Yes it is but I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the expression "3rd world country" is outdated, now "developing" is used.

Oops! I have just rewritten MY initial reply in this thread...

- it is antiquated and confusing and the definition is not clear - so could we use some other term. You have responded that 3rd world is fine,

I responded that the equivalent PC expressions are confusing.

And this thread proves my point.

and have now introduced 4 + 1,

NOW????

but continue to only offer commentary that I should look things up myself if I don't believe your system.

And what's wrong in this?

Your claim as to why people use terms which are far more intuitive and use far more widespread you attribute to 'PC' and in fact blame the confusion on this. er WHAT?

??? You seem to imply that I deem these PC expressions confusing merely because of their PC nature as if "being PC" always equals to "being confusing".

I blame the confusion on the fact that these PC expressions are extremely inconsistent (developed/most developed/developing/least developed etc) and do a very poor job of substituting the original cold era expressions and the new ones added by the analists community (4th world and NICs).

At least as far as this thread goes, you are the one responsible for the confusion!

Reread the whole thread, as far as this thread goes here it's full of ignorant children dreaming hilarious things up (I am not just referring to the in topic ones like "Thailand is a 2nd world country", "Thailand isn't a developing country" etc) and spouting them on the net challenging others to do the hard work to research and prove their BS wrong.

I am the fool who is wasting his time doing so

Please refer to what I wrote, for your reference as to why I object to Thailand being referred to as 3rd world; mostly because people don't understand what 3rd world means,

So what? People don't understand what "developing countries" or "countries on the verge of the industrialization" or "emerging nations" exactly mean too.

...BTW those 3 expressions are ALL PC speak for 3rd world.

most people I know have NEVER heard of 4th world + 1 that you are pulling from somewhere,

"From somewhere"? Even your Wikipedia knows about it!

And what is the fact that "most people I know have NEVER heard of 4th world and NICs" supposed to prove?

and generally it is nice when experts in their fields speak a language others can understand,

Unless the "language others can understand" is just a greater source of confusion...

I stated

'1. Because 3rd world means not part of the west, or the communist band; with regards to backwardness other than to comment mistakenly about Thailand economically and match it alongside Cambodia and Laos as a 3rd world country is not very accurate, and if someone was to do so around me then I would try to explain to them why this might not be the case, and ask for clarification about what they meant by 3rd world, since to me it is no longer a particularly useful concept with the fall of communism. So in answer to your comment, well I object to Thailand being referred to as a 3rd world country with regards to backwardness. That would like saying USA is a licencious country, with regards to the country seeming to have a lot of people with driving licenses'

Once again, "3rd world" has long lost his political-only meaning.

You keep justifying using a system that seems not to be in significant use compared to other definitions (such as NIC, Developing, blah blah blah which you keep having to use so we can understand what YOU mean by the worlds and the +1 you are using, when you could just switch to the language that most of the world seems to be using).

I use it for clarity and the thread starter and many other posters also used it (so much for your "most of the world seems to be using").

I also explained the equivalences.

Many have used "my" terminology incorrectly, many have used the PC terminology incorrectly, many don't know the correlations between the two of them.

So as you see the PC terminology which has been added to the original (very famous) one has just added to the confusion.

Language develops. For instance... your own language. YOU start by saying:

'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).'

In your first post you make NO mention of the +1, and have conveniently added this to handle Korea (and presumably Singapore) when pulled up on it, the NIC, and we also have added a 4th world as well somewhere along the way so now we are having 5 groups....

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

So Malaysia and Korea are NICs, ok, fair enough, but why not mention them at the beginning!

"also have added a 4th world as well somewhere along the way"????

It is like all the rest in my FIRST post!

The fact that I haven't talked about NICs in the first post is because (like I wrote and repeated ad nauseam) NICs are technically third world countries.

While 3rd world countries are socio-erconomical-politically defined, NIC is just a socio-economic definition meant to distinguish amongst the 3rd world countries which have ("newly") reached industrial maturity (i.e. their economy isn't agricultural based anymore).

It took 6 pages before you responded to an accurate list of definitions (agreed not definitions, but at least now I can look at UN documents etc, and know what they are talking about, since they use the 'PC' words that everyone except you seems to also now prefer)

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

Haven't you already mentioned this? And haven't I already replied to you:

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

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

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

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

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?

All the while, you continue to make comments like on page 6, 'It's not MY terminology, it's the correct terminology. I've simply pointed this out to you.' ' I have simply pointed out to you what the universally accepted, well known and well studied reality is.'

The problem is, I get the impression it IS your terminology, and it is not a universally accepted well known well studied reality.

Where do you get this impression?

By the today's temples of PCness like the UN by chance? Or by the work of some well known geo-political analist or community?

I totally agree Thailand is not developed, therefore by YOUR own definition above Thailand can never be 2nd world, so stop trying to push that one on us, we get it.

Haven't you already mentioned this TWICE? And haven't I already replied to you TWICE that I was replying to those who stated that Thailand was a 2nd world country or a 1st and challenged them to find a link to prove so.

What and where am I "pushing" on you??? Quote me.

I would debate that using terminology like 'third world' is somewhat pointless, because people don't always understand what that means. Therefore, I said right at the beginning, as have others, that Thailand is a developing country. People get that.

I would have understood this reasoning which is fine for me, the problem is that I fail to find it "right at the beginning" of this thread. Can you please show me the post "right at the beginning" of this thread where you have stated that?

You've totally reinforced my belief that 'third world' is a poor choice of term because everyone takes something different away from its meaning. You can stick to your guns and keep using it, but you are in a minority. Regarding your other choice of word 'Negro', good luck with that in South Central LA, I am sure the 'Negroes' in that area will surely enjoy your choice of words.

It's not "my choice of words", it was an example which "strangely" you haven't understood.

People are today (without reason, which was the point I was making) offended by it hence I don't use it.

I look at a country which is, in my opinion (to use your words) a 'third world sh!thole' like Italy

MY WORDS???? Is zzap contagious?

How can you pretend to understand a topic discussed online in a message board if you are totally unable to follow and comprehend quotes and replies??

(and you've levelled similar criticisms at other cities, so my opinion is no different to yours)and I would argue that Korea has surpassed Italy in many areas of development. Which bit of the socio, economic or political component of Korea do you consider to be so far behind Italy? Ah...police and women's rights... I recall now. So.... can you provide some decent indicators I can look at to compare the two countries, since it is obvious that Korea is almost on par with Italy and is going to overtake Italy economically shortly, and your contention is that Korea is stopped from being 'first world' (by your own definition, and not by the classification cold war period definitions of others) due to lack of socio development right?

For a start you could look in the area of the human rights (as I was hinting), from the protection granted by the law to the minorities to the rights granted to foreigners, and the political maturity of a country where the first civilian head of state (after the last military backed dictator) in a long time has been elected in december of 1992 under a brand new, finally democratic constitution...

I am sure that you being such a formidable analist (heck, you were used to do it for a living) you won't have any problem showing me how higher than Italy South Korea scores...

'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 '

If you believe that having a debate using terminology you don't and refuse to define clearly, with a constantly changing set of categories is an honest and solidly argued truth...well clearly we have quite different views on what constitutes a debate.

We are having a debate?

What about replying point by point to my posts like I do with yours? It would show how wrong, confused and argument-less you are. It would also help us to reach some sort of conclusion instead of keep going in circles and mixing up arguments, posts and replies...

[thaibebop]

Read the history link.

I did and I read Thailand A Short History by David K. Wyatt and A History of India by Romila Thapar which discusses the exporting of Theravada. So, here's my left nut, suck it.

Ya know, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I now realize that this is going no where but a fight, and not a fun one, so sorry again and I withdraw.

[PeaceBlondie]

Leaving off ontology and teleology, let's discuss nomenclature (unless they mean the same thing!).

What we have (or had, 15 years ago) is an outdated numerical system, which used numbers that didn't indicate hierarchy, didn't say the third world was any worse than the second, since we now know that many Soviet countries were undeveloped and poor, didn't say anything about development or industrialization, just geopolitical alignment.

What we need to do is to stop using the old numerical system(s) to describe something different altogether. Stage of development or industrialization shouldn't use numbers. Just because it's easy to count to four or even five, doesn't mean we should oversimplify and only use numbers. Words are good, too - and far more descriptive.

In answer to a question, I would describe the UK, USA and similar countries as 'Over-developed.'

This whole thing is too complex to describe in a word or three. Even the rural rice farmers have TV and motorcycles and mobile phones (well, many of them probably do), and even rice farmers are literate (well, many of them are). But you've got manufacturing plants, you've got computerized billboard companies in Chiang Mai, you've got chain restaurants in Hua Hin, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a Burger King in Khon Kaen. Not that those measure 'development,' exactly.

Would you pass the rice, please? Thanks.

[BAF]

What we have (or had, 15 years ago) is an outdated numerical system, which used numbers that didn't indicate hierarchy, didn't say the third world was any worse than the second, since we now know that many Soviet countries were undeveloped and poor, didn't say anything about development or industrialization, just geopolitical alignment.

Yes and the hierarchy indicated by the ordinal numbers in the classification related to those blocs' weight and importance on the geopolitical scene of the time.

What we need to do is to stop using the old numerical system(s) to describe something different altogether. Stage of development or industrialization shouldn't use numbers.

Plain absurd. Describe to me, for examle, the percentage of the urbanized population of Malaysia and Thailand without using numbers.

You will probably end up saying something like "urbanizing population", "less urbanized population", "least urbanized population", "most urbanized population" and "over-urbanized population"

Using just words all you can do is (non scientifically and non accurately) comparing 2 different realities. You can't effectively compare and categorize a complex multi-reality and, above all, you can't misure anything. So you will never know how much industrialized Malaysia and Thailand are.

Just because it's easy to count to four or even five, doesn't mean we should oversimplify and only use numbers. Words are good, too - and far more descriptive.

Those numbers aren't "descriptions", they are labels for categories very complexly defined.

In answer to a question, I would describe the UK, USA and similar countries as 'Over-developed.'

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between Thailand and Malaysia? How do you call them?

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between Thailand and Cambodia? How do you call them?

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between the USA and Poland? How do you call them?

And how do you differentiate (if you do) between the USA and Russia? How do you call them?

So far the only two categories you have introduced are "developing" (Thailand and ... ?) and "over-developed" (the USA, the UK and "similar countries", but what are these similar countries??).

This whole thing is too complex to describe in a word or three.

In fact, people here think these (1st world, "developing countries" etc) are descriptions but they all are merely labels referring to very complex descriptions.

A big part of the confusion introduced by the PC expressions lays right here, in the fact that they pretend to be (or better said, to look) "descriptive" in a couple of words!!

Even the rural rice farmers have TV and motorcycles and mobile phones (well, many of them probably do), and even rice farmers are literate (well, many of them are). But you've got manufacturing plants, you've got computerized billboard companies in Chiang Mai, you've got chain restaurants in Hua Hin, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a Burger King in Khon Kaen. Not that those measure 'development,' exactly.

Even in some dirt poor fourth world countries you will be able to find some sandwiches, TVs, motorbikes, electronic billboards and in a couple of them even oil industries but since you know that a couple of electronic billboards don't make a country "developed" why are we talking about them..?

Would you pass the rice, please? Thanks.

Here it is but I think I will go for maccheroni in ragù alla bolognese, thanks

[zzap]

Read the history link.

I did and I read Thailand A Short History by David K. Wyatt and A History of India by Romila Thapar which discusses the exporting of Theravada. So, here's my left nut, suck it.

Ya know, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I now realize that this is going no where but a fight, and not a fun one, so sorry again and I withdraw.

Thanks, never mind, I wasn't sure what exactly you were on about, anyway. I think we can agree what the year number refers to and that 'THailand', as a nation, made its first appearance much later than that.

[zzap]

I blame the confusion on the fact that these PC expressions are extremely inconsistent (developed/most developed/developing/least developed etc) and do a very poor job of substituting the original cold era expressions and the new ones added by the analists community (4th world and NICs).

So how consistent and accurate is the use of "2nd world" today?

You should have stopped at the UN quote you dug up which states what I have been saying all along. I (and, I suspect, the UN and Wikipedia as well) am not interested in your amateurish attempt of a geo-political analisys based on an extemporary web searched knowledge when I have actually been studying this matter in a university course.

He hasn't "dug up" the UN quote, you pointed to it.

Ohh, you've been to a university course? Why can't you even spell "analyst", then?

I look at a country which is, in my opinion (to use your words) a 'third world sh!thole' like Italy

MY WORDS???? Is zzap contagious?

How can you pretend to understand a topic discussed online in a message board if you are totally unable to follow and comprehend quotes and replies??

It doesn't take an university education to use quotation marks to indicate the use of someone else's words (which you haven't in the post concerned). It appears you are the one lacking certain basic comprehension and debating skills.

And, I might add, this has made it extremely tedious and time-consuming for some to debate with you - without any perceivable agreeable outcome.

[thaibebop]

Read the history link.

I did and I read Thailand A Short History by David K. Wyatt and A History of India by Romila Thapar which discusses the exporting of Theravada. So, here's my left nut, suck it.

Ya know, that was uncalled for and I am sorry. I now realize that this is going no where but a fight, and not a fun one, so sorry again and I withdraw.

Thanks, never mind, I wasn't sure what exactly you were on about, anyway. I think we can agree what the year number refers to and that 'THailand', as a nation, made its first appearance much later than that.

Yes! The only point I wanted to make is that Thai culture is older than the Thai nation. Sorry again.

[thohts]

Thailand is the hub of 3rd-world countries...

At last, a true hub of something.

[BAF]

So how consistent and accurate is the use of "2nd world" today?

This is why I have been ignoring your last few posts, you keep asking questions which have already been answered and this means that you either don't understand the answers or you are just plain trolling.

BAF, post #13 "[...] 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)."

BTW, you might be shocked to know that there are countries, around, which still call themselves and still are "communist"...

The ones that are abandoning the command economy are not called "2nd world" anymore.

You should have stopped at the UN quote you dug up which states what I have been saying all along. I (and, I suspect, the UN and Wikipedia as well) am not interested in your amateurish attempt of a geo-political analisys based on an extemporary web searched knowledge when I have actually been studying this matter in a university course.

He hasn't "dug up" the UN quote, you pointed to it.

steveromagnino, post #83 "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.[/i]"

As I said, just like steveromagnino you seem to be totally unable to follow a topic discussed online in a message board.

Ohh, you've been to a university course? Why can't you even spell "analyst", then?

Because I am Italian and I have been attending an Italian university course in an Italian university?

Pointing to spelling errors is not only against the netiquette but is also especially pathetic when is directed to non-native English speakers and is usually the last resort of argument-less people.

And BTW, in Italian "analyst" is "analista" and "analysis" is "analisi". Try to guess whether the Italian comes from the English or the English comes from the Italian...

It doesn't take an university education to use quotation marks to indicate the use of someone else's words (which you haven't in the post concerned). It appears you are the one lacking certain basic comprehension and debating skills.

I was replying to kasi (who, I suppose, can remember and recognize his own words which he had just used) and just above the sentence in which I was using his expression said expression was even quoted in full.

Putting quotation marks, besides being unnecessary and "overkill", would have ruined the intended effect which was to show how funny seeing Los Angeles and Paris being called "third world sh!tholes" looks (like kasi stated).

You and steveromagnino are the only ones I know of who are having troubles comprehending this. Coincidence?

And, I might add, this has made it extremely tedious and time-consuming for some to debate with you - without any perceivable agreeable outcome.

So stop doing it.

Point by point replies would have helped the discussion but it seems some folk is incapable of doing that.

[Octaviousbp]

BAF, is Gramsci popular in Italian universities?

[BAF]

Yes! The only point I wanted to make is that Thai culture is older than the Thai nation. Sorry again.

You are saying that since nowadays the majority of the Thais believe in Buddhism and since Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is believed to have been born in the year 543 before Christ the "Thai culture" was "born" in the year 543 b.C. as well.

It's clear you don't realize how ludicrous all of this really is.

And I won't even mention the statement that "Thai culture is older than the Thai nation" which is another logical nonsense (provided you know what "culture" and "nation" mean).

BAF, is Gramsci popular in Italian universities?

Less and less, maybe there is hope for socialist Europe.

[thaibebop]

Yes! The only point I wanted to make is that Thai culture is older than the Thai nation. Sorry again.

You are saying that since nowadays the majority of the Thais believe in Buddhism and since Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) is believed to have been born in the year 543 before Christ the "Thai culture" was "born" in the year 543 b.C. as well.

It's clear you don't realize how ludicrous all of this really is.

And I won't even mention the statement that "Thai culture is older than the Thai nation" which is another logical nonsense (provided you know what "culture" and "nation" mean).

BAF, is Gramsci popular in Italian universities?

Less and less, maybe there is hope for socialist Europe.

What makes you such a fcking expert? What gives you the right to say I am wrong? What have you studied,what have you read, who told you this information? Yes, I know the differnence between culture and nation, and they are two separate things, what dumba$$ would agrue with that? It's clear you have something to prove.

[Octaviousbp]

Less and less, maybe there is hope for socialist Europe.

Who are some of the theorists you are studying who give you this hope? Just curious... sorry to take away from the topic...

Edited February 27, 2006 by Octaviousbp

[BAF]

What makes you such a fcking expert? What gives you the right to say I am wrong? What have you studied,what have you read, who told you this information? Yes, I know the differnence between culture and nation, and they are two separate things, what dumba$$ would agrue with that? It's clear you have something to prove.

Yes, that you are an ignorant "dumba$$" (quotation marks added to zzap's benefit) who pretend others to believe the same absurdities that his evident blind obsession for everything Thai (and possibly his hate for the West) makes him to believe

There are many like you on these Thai related m.boards, just look at this very thread.

I have been studying and researching all it takes to get a degree in "Socio-Political Science" and my studies tell me that you can't backdate a culture to the oldest element that said culture have absorbed and/or reelaborated from other older cultures. This is basic stuff.

As for cultures and nations, a Thai culture can't precede a Thai nation i.e. the Thais themselves.

A nation can exist without a state but you can't define a culture as of a population that don't yet exist.

[kat]

It's a teleological question in that the word still is used. As in, a nation progresses through the categories of development. For me, calling one word PC over another is kind of pointless. All of the words have connotations that come with them, be they a hierarchical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd), or developing vs developed, north vs. south, etc, etc. For me, it doesn't really matter. I think what I am more concerned with is the fact that the nation as a whole is the category of study, rather then those whom are excluded from the benefits of the globalized world order. Some people in Thailand, as many throughout the thread have pointed out, are extremely "developed". They have access to markets, they are skilled in valuable ways to the global work force, and they are involved in decision making processes. These people, as well as those who are excluded from globalizations benefits, transcend state boundaries. So why is the nation-state still the unit of analysis used for comparison?

Obviously the nation is still extremely important, but would the semantics of "development" not benefit from a shift of focus to people, rather than the geographical containers they are grouped into?

Just enjoying the debate...

Ok, I've purposely tried to stay out of this thread, because it has descended into a pseudo-intellectual pissing match, with no basis in facts as they are on the ground. As I said earlier, the analysis of how or why criteria is formed to classify a country is much different than the official classification itself. If you want to wax poetic and massage your theoretical - well, let's say egos to keep it polite - that is a different discussion, that can be dissected for hours on end.

However, do realize, that understanding and naming the OFFICIAL designations is not a slur. The World Bank, United Nations, IMF, and international insurance risk assessments use the classifications of developed, developing, middle-income, least developed, etc. - everything that has already been discussed ad nauseum. The fact that Thailand is a lower middle-income developing country is not a slur or a slight, it is a FACT, according to international institutions whose business it is to classify these facts. If you disagree with these designations, that is a philosophical disagreement, not a factual one.

As for the HDI from the UNDP, I mentioned earlier that it is one alternative measure that compares other forms of development. It is a supplement and not a replacement of other financial and socio-political measures.

Edited February 28, 2006 by kat

[Boon Mee]

Ok, I've purposely tried to stay out of this thread, because it has descended into a pseudo-intellectual pissing match, with no basis in facts as they are on the ground.

Typical of a Liberal-Arts education, eh?

[steveromagnino]

OK, I would respond point by point, but it makes more sense to summarise my issues with your posts into 3 areas:

- use of terminology

- wealth and development (the western way)

- your choice of words

First....

I have spent quite a bit of my time going through what pages i can on the UN, UNCTAD and so on.

I am REALLY struggling to find a lot of pages listing categories of 1st world, 2nd world, 3rd world and 4th world - the reason I guess being the overwhelming use of Developed, developing etc etc.

So...you keep using the terminology you are taught in your socio-political degree (and which even within this thread seems to be the subject of continued debate, not helped by your comments like this):

someone states....'about 'developing countries' it is a bit silly as a definition as well.'

to which you reply:

'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'

then you later go on to say....

'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.'

You state that:

'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.'

But actually it has evolved into that because pretty much all the organisations you refer to are using developed, developing, LDC etc...so then you provide a key so we can compare the two systems... (which do not match the comment directly above, as there is now developing and LDC matching 3rd world)

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

Which is fair enough, so since your definition of 3rd world is using the terms from other organisations - developing, less developed etc and NIC by the UN and others, would it not just be easier to use the terminology that pretty much all the organisations I have been referred to by you and others use (the ones down the right hand side?)....

Then later on, when someone else points out:

To my understanding, 1st, 2nd and 3rd World were categories of nation-states created out of Cold War neo-realist theory. The first two massively generalized countries into the "Free World" and "The Soviets" while the Third World was Non-Aligned.

which you agree to, you then add

'It has to do with the fact that the all-political original definition has been substituted by a much more complex socio-economical-political one.'

But which you have not defined except in the explanation above, and it certainly doesn't seem to have changed or become more complex since it now merely has 5 groups (compared to the previous 3 or the more commonly used developed,developing etc categories) and yet you still try to justify your use of the 4 + 1 system as better than the ones used by most of the organisations you name by stating:

"Developed/developing/least developed countries" is a much more over-simplified homogonization.

So to summarise, my first issue has been one of terminology; but you seem determined to use terminology that almost few other people use; I guess that is up to you, but FYI one of the rules of yacht design (the thing you belittle, remember?) is KISS - keep it simple stupid. Using terminology the same as UNCTAD, UN, etc - PC or not - is simply easier for everyone to understand. But up to you in the end

My debate with you has never been about whether Thailand is 2nd world or whether it is more than developing - and in fact almost no one on this thread has suggested either. It is mostly about why you continue to use a system of 1st - 4th world + NIC when as far as a layperson like myself can see, the overwhelming use of terminology is developed/developing/etc due to the massive confusion surrounding 1st - 3rd world. On the UN site I cannot even find a match for the phrase '4th world' so despite your repeated advice to check UN, I simply cannot find the details there using YOUR terminology. On the other hand, the developed/developing terminology is there in abundance.

You've stated numerous times that 3rd world is not considered PC anymore for whatever reason, then insist on still using it. I am puzzled as to why, when you can see the direct result with the confusion in this thread still ongoing after 10 pages (and no, not just from me!).

I actually have learned something from all this, including some interesting stats on the development state for women in Italy vs. Korea (e.g. Korea has a higher percentage of women in the workforce, pays 100% maternity leave for 3 months vs. Italy which is 80% for 5 months; that the unemployment rate in Korea for women is 3% vs. Italy which is 12%, and that the number of parliamentary seats held by Korea and Italy is almost the same (13% Korea vs. 12% Italy). It seems like the gap is not so much, and without going into much depth on this subject, I doubt these would be the right measures, but unless you are willing to tell me which are, I'll leave it at this - you have given the hypothetical situations of being in jail, getting a trial and so on, but to be honest my own personal judgements are irrelevant here; what matters are facts and figures - so....cough some up if you have them, or refer me to somewhere where I can get them, with some pointers as to what is worth looking at. The purpose of this sort of forum is surely to educate others.

OK....next you believe that culture opens the door to economic development, and comment:

'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. '

So my first line of questioning, is what elements of their culture require development? This is not a challenge, it is a request for knowledge from someone who is clearly more of an expert than me!

The other point of debate is your idea of wealth (which is one reason why I focused on the economic side of things):

'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.'

You imply the only way to wealth (and here you are ONLY talking about wealth) is through some sort of western way if I read this correctly. I find the Korea Italy comparison very interesting, because to me Korea is still incredibly, well, Korean in the way they do things and yet in wealth terms they have shot ahead incredibly fast. You are indeed right that Korea is indeed classified as a developing country overall, although economically it is developed (as per Singapore and a few others), so does 'their way' not lead to wealth then?

Incidentally, I could shoot a few holes in this 'western way is the way to wealth' by pointing out the massive differences between the different western ways (say NZ pre 1984 state welfare system vs. USA's system showing there is no single western way) or the rise of the Middle east and their vast wealth from oil (e.g. Saudi) despite adoption of virtually none of the 'western ideas' which at a guess you might say are democracy, freedom of the press, women's equality, social welfare, justice, police. And then we can look at somewhere like Singapore, which is vastly developed, and again has big gaps in 'western ways'. So I'd dispute your comment above, and we've got a bit too focused on Korea, but there are other countries out there that undo this 'wealth' argument.

Lastly, perhaps you could consider reviewing the comments below and explain how any of these bear relationship to discussing (or lecturing me while I do not listen, since this is how you perceive your role I suspect in this dialog):

-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. (when I never mentioned anything about 2nd world)

- 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). (refer above)

- So a well experienced and skilled analist who keeps asking for directions to do a simple search of other peoples' analitic work and who ends up using (and defending as a valid and reputable source) Wikipedia..! (never said I was well experienced of skilled; perfectly normal to ask someone for pointers (if you asked me about yacht design, windsurfing, Thai language, marketing, etc I would be VERY HAPPY to share those links; used wikipedia and you did not even dispute the content, using the strawman arguement, that it cannot be trusted, then you quote it later on!)

- I (and, I suspect, the UN and Wikipedia as well) am not interested in your amateurish attempt of a geo-political analisys based on an extemporary web searched knowledge when I have actually been studying this matter in a university course. (for sure amateur; I totally admit that; and it is most annoying that someone unable to use terminology on websites like UN and er, Wikipedia who has at least some knowledge in the subject basically refuses to share what they know and instead insists I go and find the information myself then complains about what I choose to present ...thanks I guess, at least I learned something - not least of which your terminology is outdated, your categories and definitions are unclear and your contention about wealth stemming from 'our way' is offbase, while there is at least some evidence that Italy and Korea are not that far apart.)

- How long are you going to drag this on before replying YES to this thread's topic???? (you know I have NEVER disputed that Thailand is developing right?! - do you even read what I write?)

- If what you say were true you would have replied to the thread starter: - Is Thailand a 3rd world country still? - Yes it is but I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the expression "3rd world country" is outdated, now "developing" is used. (ah yes, read my first post!)

- Seeing how you got lost in the park I wonder how you score in yacht design... (nice one, I would be a whole lot less lost if you were remotely helpful rather than simply insulting in this case - BTW I am NOT an expert in yacht design, but I speak to many who are, and they are a whole lot more helpful than this!)

- am sure that you being such a formidable analist (heck, you were used to do it for a living) you won't have any problem showing me how higher than Italy South Korea scores... (nice personal attack)

- As I said, just like steveromagnino you seem to be totally unable to follow a topic discussed online in a message board. (###### right, unable to follow you!)

- You and steveromagnino are the only ones I know of who are having troubles comprehending this. Coincidence? (er, what?)

If nothing else, this is educational So thanks for that. You keep alluding to the difficulties of all these definitions and how complex this all is....I think I can learn something about this tough subject if you'll be kind enough to refer me to some good books or websites.

[Octaviousbp]

Ok, I've purposely tried to stay out of this thread, because it has descended into a pseudo-intellectual pissing match, with no basis in facts as they are on the ground. As I said earlier, the analysis of how or why criteria is formed to classify a country is much different than the official classification itself. If you want to wax poetic and massage your theoretical - well, let's say egos to keep it polite - that is a different discussion, that can be dissected for hours on end.

However, do realize, that understanding and naming the OFFICIAL designations is not a slur. The World Bank, United Nations, IMF, and international insurance risk assessments use the classifications of developed, developing, middle-income, least developed, etc. - everything that has already been discussed ad nauseum. The fact that Thailand is a lower middle-income developing country is not a slur or a slight, it is a FACT, according to international institutions whose business it is to classify these facts. If you disagree with these designations, that is a philosophical disagreement, not a factual one.

As for the HDI from the UNDP, I mentioned earlier that it is one alternative measure that compares other forms of development. It is a supplement and not a replacement of other financial and socio-political measures.

Hey... who are you calling pseudo?

Now that the "facts" have been put down for us... I'll go back to eating my bottle of paste

[steveromagnino]

However, do realize, that understanding and naming the OFFICIAL designations is not a slur. The World Bank, United Nations, IMF, and international insurance risk assessments use the classifications of developed, developing, middle-income, least developed, etc. - everything that has already been discussed ad nauseum. The fact that Thailand is a lower middle-income developing country is not a slur or a slight, it is a FACT, according to international institutions whose business it is to classify these facts. If you disagree with these designations, that is a philosophical disagreement, not a factual one.

As for the HDI from the UNDP, I mentioned earlier that it is one alternative measure that compares other forms of development. It is a supplement and not a replacement of other financial and socio-political measures.

Yep; actually I have learned a fair bit about the classification system and many of the stats collected about many countries around the world, and I have this thread to thank for that Who would have guessed just how poorly women are represented in politics for instance? Especially in a country which is 'developed'?

I don't think too many people disagree with the categories you refer to, rather the question is what terminology should be used. There is only one poster who seems to have problems with the official designations your refer to, and despite continuing suggestions by that poster for me to go out and find 1st - 4th world classifications, I think he may actually possibly a friend of mine from the World Bank possibly sending me on a fool's mission, because the organisations you mention seem to use the classifications you mention....strange that! (I have emailed the friend concerned who is strenuously denying it but.... he has been known to play this on me before).

There isn't much that is complex in classifying based on measurements...coming up with meaningful actions based on the data available...now that is the interesting bit. We should move onto that bit shortly; however it has been touched upon that culture leads to developed country status, and western ways in particular lead to wealth. The first one is true in part, although I am not sure which culture changes lead to developed country status (I can guess on a few) and the second, well there are quite a few exceptions to that.

I do quite like the HDI, nice formula, easy and well explained. The official classifications are far richer in detail though, for sure.

Since yacht design has come up, not sure how a formula for yacht design is so much easier to condense into a book than these various classifications, but there you are, someone has managed to come up the with classification system for boats using a formula called IMS, one of several classification systems mostly for boats 28 - 50 feet. I won't make you search for it yourself, if you are interested, it is here:

http://www.orc.org/fileadmin/user_upload/d...oad/imsbk5b.pdf

Incidentally, this rule is actually dying, as IOR did before it, and the meter rules before them. So...nowadays people tend to use the most modern rules (or classification systems) when designing boats, or racing them, anyone still using IOR as a classification system would end up probably talking to themselves since the world has moved on past that antiquated way....hmmm... seems strangely relevant here in a way I cannot put my finger on....