Well, trying to start an economics debate here that's not so based on capitalism-socialism.
How do you think under-developed countries can get movin'?

Um, having lived in one myself, I think the answer is relatively simple.

The majority of Third World countries are based around a primitive culture consisting primarily of the honor complex. Everything is centered around honor and you must always keep face. This means never taking risks, never doing anything "odd" or "uncommon", etc. Until that line of thought is broken, Third World countries will remain as they are.

Hasn't Japan got a strong sense of Honor as well, but still isn't third world?

Yes, but they overcame that, largely.

We're not all samurais my friend. Actually while we often refer to it as "honor" in Japan the culture your thinking of is actually more or less just common courtesy and respect. Also for some odd reason Japanese people tend to be extremely ambitious, I'm sure everyones heard the "blah blah blah parents overworking the japanese kid to make him smart: thing. But in all actuality the students ACTUALLY WANT TO LEARN HERE!

EDIT: Anyways Demon Jelly pretty much nailed it. Honorm Traditions and customs that certain countries for whatever reason didn't scrap once the world started to "shrink" and countries didn't have to rely as much on there own resources. Unfortunately now it would be nearly impossible to jumpstart some kind of initiative to bring a country out of the dark so most don't bother.

EDIT2: Also the reason alot of African countries are 3rd world is simply because they don't have resources people want anymore. Most of the English and other european invaders cleaned the continent clean of it's exportable resources.

@Meidou's EDIT2: Yeah. Africa's pretty much screwed barring some good minds.

Meidou, you're pretty much thinking theory of dependency there. If you notice, true richness doesn't lay in natural resources. Look at China, it's not truly as rich in natural resources, and it gets its economical boom money from treating stuff with industry rather than gathering stuff or mining.
Ireland is a country with heavy tradition, that was oppressed during centuries (until quite recently) and that 15 years ago was as good as a third world country. They used a combo of attracting investment, working hard, accentuating technical careers rather than letter careers...

I think the true key is stability, political and social. Africa doesn't have that... I mean, would you invest in Africa, with its common coups and internal wars? Would you invest in a country that keeps changing its political bearing, shifting every time it can from left to right?

Not to mention, your map of Africa today isn't worth shizzle tomorrow because the country names all changed that night.

Unfortunately, it's a true fact of life: for one man to succeed, one must fail.

That is how the world is now. While the western world has become very wealthy, the rest of the world has not.

This is true, in my opinion, but I think the disparity could stand to be reduced on an international scale, at least.

This is false, their is enough wealth, resources and food to provide global growth if shared correctly.

The main problem I see is over population, the growth of some countries, especially sub-Saharan families where the food is limited, means poverty risks the growth. Also political instability in alot of Africa, lack of education and poor technological advancements, especially in agriculture mean they are struggling to get out of poverty and make a profit. In order to become successful, the developed world really needs to start investing in infrastructure, education and sustainable projects, it's a shame that Africa relies mostly on NGO's for this aid, who do not provide sufficient aid or support. It's a shame that the United Nations is failing to help and provide for Africa's troubled outlook, I don't see much real progress, when they should be steam rolling ahead like eastern Asia.

A poor country which works hard on improving it's economy can move up. Look at China, very educated in engineering etc and are growing at a good 6 or 7% a year. And the world is moving in the positive direction, due to aspects of globalization, however current economic instability in the developed world could risk this prosperity.

The Trends Research Institute, one of, if not the most accurate trends company in the world is predicting a very bad outlook globally. Basically the TRI look at past data, why the data is like that, and then predicting the trend. They have been very accurate with nearly every prediction. Anyway it's interesting if you take a look at their current predictions : here, some concerning the recovery, police, health etc... Anyway, the current economic outlook in the developed world is looking so bad it could risk the growth of the developing world.

BS Vera. That's theory of dependence, and it's been taken from a "gospel of idiots" (in the words of some of Latin America's most prominent intellectuals, don't take it as an offense), it maintains that richness isn't generated but it is only stolen.
That computer you're on, whom did you still it from?

Also, if you took all of Latin America's GDP and compared it to the US', it would only be around the 10th part I think. The third world isn't a consequence of the development of the first world. That is a thesis that has been proved wrong many times and that is now considered by nearly all economists and many journalists as outdated and even (by the most, let's say, stark) stupid.

The Third World is a result of not wanting to go modern.

Distaste for modern technology or methods, modern industry, etc.

That, or incapability because of geographic constraints (take Indonesia for example).

But, becoming modern requires money, which the Third World doesn't really have. It also needs people to operate technology, with we don't really have either.

A rather drastic step backwards could be a step forward, Colonial Imperialism. It's not surprising that quite a number of Third World countries have a "brain drain", wherein the educated people immigrate to ex Colonial powers, (France, England, etc). A procedure needs to be set up in Third World countries so that the educated people stay in their country of origin and help it progress. Once again the problems of History coming forward to haunt us from the shadows.
And it doesn't help that in many Third World countries their preferred method of economics is something akin to Socialism, which only exacerbates the problem of "brain drain".

i think you fail to understand that what i said is not literal and economic, it's philosophical. i could explain it but i'd be going on and on about stuff.

Then you shouldn't apply it to an economical context...

I swear in the third world like 90% of the people are as selfish as hell and throws litter and stuff all over the place
Just because i adress you with the same 'status' as me doesn't mean you can swear at me, the kids here likes to exploit that kinda sucks.
I think the only way to do so is by changing the people, i see old people littering(as in like their 60s) and it really saddens me, how are the small kids suppose to modernise when their grandparents are a bunch of well... idiots?

Uhhh..umm....arrrr....what? People are in poverty because they drop litter? UMMMMMMMMMMM

Yeah, actually. I saw litter all the time in Indonesia, people throwing trash around indiscriminately. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you lack disposable items.

Also, Indonesians have a strong tendency to burn trash.

As bad the effects of litter are on the environment, it's not really a reason preventing people from escaping poverty. You should see the streets of leeds, the streets are white with chewing gum...

I would agree, I was just pointing that out.

Frankly (and I'm going to be hated and reviled for saying this), I think that a common strain among Third World nations is a strong Muslim or Hindu influence. Sure, it's not exclusive, but Indonesia has a very strong Muslim influence. Also, the poorest province in Indonesia before the tsunami (and after), Aceh, is the only province that had Sharia law. Now sure, the Arab peninsula has played out differently. But I'd also point out the massive separation there between rich and poor (far greater disparity than the US), and the nations which have succeeded have a more Western work ethic.

Indonesia has a simpler work ethic: everything has been decided by Allah, so it doesn't matter what you do. Thus, most Indonesians live on a day-to-day basis...this is the single most common thread between Third World nations, though...hmm...the day by day thing.

Maybe I need to look at that...

I understand this is a serious debate, but if anyone wants a laugh, here's a video related to this topic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyGHHxUFY6w

Now, personally I was born in a 2nd world country and left when I was 3 years old. Whenever I didn't finish my food my parents used to shake their heads and say something along the lines of "It's because he's never stayed hungry" to eachother. I don't know how life is in a 3rd world country but I sure wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I think Africa, for example could make use of its natural resourse of diamonds. Instead of other countries smuggling diamonds and usurping their natural resourses with a little help africa could make a very profitable campaign. For example, with a little help from the outside world they could start a business, this would be intended for wealthy. What it would be is that since diamonds in general aren't huge and very large ones are very rare so someone with enough money and will that wanted to get a large diamond couldn't get one. Now the solution is, these african diamonds are exactly like regular diamonds, composed of the same materials, exactly the same. Now it's the same with clothes. Some t-shirts are sold for 1$ in chinatown whereas others, made up of the exact same material are sold for hundreds just because of the brand-name and the reputation. These diamonds would be sold all over the world, with some kind of certificate, or seal or mark on the diamond letting everyone know you 1) paid twice as much for this diamond and 2) Helped africa in the process.
Anyways, that's just an example and those are my two cents. There are problems with the example but I got it off the top of my head, instead of critisizing try to help and improve?

@TPAM: I know a lot of people will probably find it offensive, but it was kinda funny in a way...

But I agree. We discussed overpopulation in my English class yesterday (sort of long story), and decided that the world can support its population. The problem is that goods, services, and most importantly food goods are not properly distributed. This can be easily illustrated through the following:

On average, one American consumes as much energy as

• 2 Japanese
• 6 Mexicans
• 13 Chinese
• 31 Indians
• 128 Bangladeshis
• 307 Tanzanians
• 370 Ethiopians

So we basically consume 31x more food than a "rich" Third World nation. India.

However, compare to a true Third World nation, Ethiopia, and you get a more harrowing statistic.

It's a cylce of poverty. One of the problems with Ethiopia, for example, is that they still use "traditional" means of farming and agricultural, oftentimes with an inefficient hand-drawn plow. If they had a good ol' John Deere, they could till up that soil a thousand times better. That's why, to boost their economic status and/or get themselves out of debt, they'd have to throw themselves into more debt, which is risky and not something most people want to do.


That's because we have football here in America. Some of my friends who play the sport need to consume 6,000-7,000 calories a day to fuel their daily work-outs.

I think he meant electricity

Wuuuurrrrrk

I copied in the wrong thing. Fail fail fail.

This is more complete anyway.

While over population may not seem like a problem now in terms of food, the increasing growth of the population put things in more stress. So for example food on Earth can support I think it was 14-20 billion lives, more than double what we have now. The problem is that would drastically put a strain on the economy. The economy can not handle a huge amount of over population in an area that struggles to support itself, it means that that area has to rely from imports and can not grow. Those without money can often resort to crime to feed or support themselves, and this is negative. What would be good is a population that could on a local level support itself with excess, that way any problem such as a famine would not cause loss of death.

Who the hell wants 14-20 billion people
Were bad enough with 6 billion as it is!!
And the economy is already killing itself, economic downturn is as much money spreading to poorer regions like China and India as it is that everyone in 1st world were idiots.

The economy is failing because of many different reasons, yes, China can be a considering factor because of it's added competition.



As you can see from this graph while China has grown, so has a lot of the world, even in countries it rivals it's manufacturing.
And as you can see with the picture bellow, 3rd world countries are growing in 2007, before the richer countries ran into their problems.

Yep, that happens here too, I agree... Although you also have to see, people here that do that don't have an education, I had one, and I don't do that.
Latin America's third world and has no hindu or muslim influence.

Hence, I said:

I don't think so.

Ok... How the fudge does someone survive on 100-200 calories...

Thats the point isnt it

The last running average I heard on the Third World was 600-800 calories/day.

The majority of the Third World lives on white rice. Were this to be "brown" (rice that is not hulled) rice, there would be much greater nutrition in this hugely important staple, as brown rice grown by current methods would be cheaper. There are more vitamins, antioxidants, and other nutrients in full (brown) rice than white rice.

One course of action (i'll admit, not the solution) would be to write off the huge debts that many Third World countries owe to the bigger economies. Much of it was given away irresponsibly and not at all sustainably, and they don't have much of a chance to work their way out of poverty when they have such large payments looming. Not that i'm saying that everyone in Third World Countries are poor, but it's generally too large a sum to ignore. Many of those who aren't have got out of the cycle by ill means, and who can blame them? Corruption is another huge problem, and it's not exactly easy to get rid of. No country wants to intervene on that scale when all they will get in return is sceptics claiming they are forcing change, and acting for the wrong reasons.

It doesn't help with the current economic climate, either.

That brings us to another point. No matter how much we give them, most will be taken by corrupt nice doggy!es.

And who do you think places these nice doggies in? It seems too coincidentally to me that whenever their is a corrupt, evil leader, certain transnational corporations seem to make a healthy profiting in exploiting the country. Africa is the perfect honey trap, lend money for a war you can't pay back. Africa's biggest problem is itself really, if they decided to overcome crime, corruption, violence, wars and greed, then it would be much more healthy. However, I don't want to disregard other factors, as they are very important too.

If you just pardon debts like that, you're not really teaching much to these countries.

Some of us in New Zealand are just as bad as third world countries.

Enough with teaching, people are dieing there and we should be helping them without lending. The majority of Africans have no control other their leader or country, they should not suffer more, especially make sure Europe doesn't profit from their misfortune.

It's pointless, you're just making them dependent, you're giving them money, not caring how they use it, and they're not gonna get out of their problem with you giving them money, if you stop giving them money it'll be like cutting their oxygen... Why not help them and teach them to breathe instead?

Your analogy in my opinion poorly reflects the topic at hand. They are dependent on foreign aid for a number of reasons, but primarily because they don't have the infrastructure, food or water to grow or to industrilize. They need foreign aid to encourage businesses to invest into their country, they do not have the money to do so, so without foreign aid their economy would become stagnant. Is it ethical to not help a country which can not grow and is starving to death? Yes, borrowing money was a bad idea, but it shouldn't have to be borrowed, it should be given by those who are well off, which is why I agree with undercutting the loans.

This is not Europe, or a semi developed place, it's Africa, they can't simply manufacture goods, they need the roads, factories, ports, rail lines, education..all this costs money. Africa lacks the credit to invest in this so it needs foreign aid or money to improve it's economy. You say "teach them how to breathe", do you think teaching will fix their economy? Yes, it may improve some local farmlands, but African nations can't simply rely on farming. However, those who can't find land to farm, or jobs to work after education, where do they go? You need infrastructure first which needs investment.