# What developing countries closer to achieving developed country status?



## FAAN

isakres said:


> Wheres Uruguay?


Do not put Uruguay, for although it is a good country with HDI, yet has a large GDP.


----------



## FAAN

chornedsnorkack said:


> My current data (IMF, 2010):
> 1) China - 5878 - 4382
> 2) Brazil - 2090 - 10 816
> 3) India - 1632 - 1371
> 4) Russia - 1480 - 10356
> 5) Mexico - 1034 - 9522
> 6) Turkey - 735 - 10309
> 7) Indonesia - 707 - 2974
> 8) Poland (sic!) - 469 - 12323
> 9) Saudi Arabia - 448 - 16267
> 10) Iran - 407 - 5449
> 11) Argentina - 370 - 9131
> 12) South Africa - 350 - 7274
> 13) Thailand - 319 -4992
> 14) United Arab Emirates - 302 - 57884
> 15) Venezuela - 293 - 10049
> 16) Colombia - 289 - 6360
> 17) Malaysia - 238 - 8423
> 
> So, which of these countries is closer to achieving developed country status - Poland, or United Arab Emirates?


 The two lists according to the HDI 2011, are already developed.
*United Arab Emirates*: 0,846
*Poland*: 0,813


----------



## Acosta

Any country that has a +0.792 HDI is considered to be developed by this criteria. However, a huge group of countries, like Chile, Argentina, Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic, etc, is still far from being really developed.


----------



## FAAN

Acosta said:


> Any country that has a +0.792 HDI is considered to be developed by this criteria. However, a huge group of countries, like Chile, Argentina, Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic, etc, is still far from being really developed.


Only if they have a stable economy, which is not the case in Argentina.


----------



## Acosta

That has nothing to do with being or not developed.


----------



## Occit

*Developed:* HDI over 0.792 + GDP Percapita over 20.000 US$

Note: Poland is already developed.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

Occit said:


> *Developed:* HDI over 0.792 + GDP Percapita over 20.000 US$
> 
> Note: Poland is already developed.


Poland is NOT an advanced economy by IMF.

Unlike Czech Republic.

Neither of these has 20 000 US$ GDP.


----------



## delfin_pl

Poland is ranked as a very high developed country (HDI).


Human Development Index (HDI) - 2011 Rankings

*Very High Human Development* 

1.Norway
2.Australia
3.Netherlands
4.United States
5.New Zealand
6.Canada
7.Ireland
8.Liechtenstein
9.Germany
10.Sweden
11.Switzerland
12.Japan
13.Hong Kong, China (SAR)
14.Iceland
15.Korea (Republic of)
16.Denmark
17.Israel
18.Belgium
19.Austria
20.France
21.Slovenia
22.Finland
23.Spain
24.Italy
25.Luxembourg
26.Singapore
27.Czech Republic
28.United Kingdom
29.Greece
30.United Arab Emirates
31.Cyprus
32.Andorra
33.Brunei Darussalam
34.Estonia
35.Slovakia
36.Malta
37.Qatar
38.Hungary
*39.Poland*
40.Lithuania
41.Portugal
42.Bahrain
43.Latvia
44.Chile
45.Argentina
46.Croatia
47.Barbados


----------



## chornedsnorkack

Interestingly, Portugal has lower HDI than Poland.


----------



## delfin_pl

^^ nothing strange, level of education, wealth distribution, internet penetration is much higher in Poland, PKB per capita is also similar and growing in Poland unlike in Portugal.


----------



## Acosta

Internet distribution is also higher in Argentina (70%). That doesn't make Poland nor Argentina - very similar countries - developed. I can consider this possibility for the C. Republic due to its similar standards to Slovenia, a developed country. None in Europe consider Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovak Republic and the Baltics as developed.

Cheers.


----------



## Name user 1

chornedsnorkack said:


> Poland is NOT an advanced economy by IMF.Unlike Czech Republic.
> Neither of these has 20 000 US$ GDP.


actually yes PPP GDP of Slovenia, Czech republic,Slovakia and Poland are according to IMF, World Bank well above $ 20 000 and Hungary is very very close with $ 19 700 

otherwise Slovakia is by IMF considered developed country since 2009




Acosta said:


> Internet distribution is also higher in Argentina (70%). That doesn't make Poland nor Argentina - very similar countries - developed. I can consider this possibility for the C. Republic due to its similar standards to Slovenia, a developed country. None in Europe consider Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovak Republic and the Baltics as developed.


its takes longer time to change mind set of people - I will not worry about that  its already happens and people are being aware of that


----------



## isakres

chornedsnorkack said:


> Interestingly, Portugal has lower HDI than Poland.


Yet Portugal is considered as developed for most of the world :crazy2:

Poland developed.


Again, where is Uruguay?


----------



## Acosta

Uruguay has very good standards, but it doesn't have a large economy, likewise Chile. That's why they are not put here. 

@Name user 1: So that means that when Argentina get the $20,000 GDP per capita, probably in 2014, it will be considered a developed country? I don't agree with this criteria. For me, a country is only developed when it reaches $30,000 GDP per capita, +0.840 HDI and good overall infrastructure.


----------



## Name user 1

Acosta said:


> when Argentina get the $20,000 GDP per capita, probably in 2014, it will be considered a developed country? I don't agree with this criteria. For me, a country is only developed when it reaches $30,000 GDP per capita, +0.840 HDI and good overall infrastructure.


I cant influence your criteria on what you or not agree. Only what I can do is raise your awareness

regarding your question I think you can find the answer alone


----------



## isakres

Acosta said:


> *Uruguay has very good standards, but it doesn't have a large economy, likewise Chile. That's why they are not put here.*


Didnt knew having a "small one" was such a problem lol. Not at least in a thread with the title: What Developing Countries closer to achiveving developed status.

Of course all of us gifted with a "Big One" are more relevant on the global scale, but lets give some credit to our smaller brothers lol.




Acosta said:


> @Name user 1: So that means that when Argentina get the $20,000 GDP per capita, probably in 2014, it will be considered a developed country? *I don't agree with this criteria. For me, a country is only developed when it reaches $30,000 GDP per capita, +0.840 HDI and good overall infrastructure*.



Send an inquiry to the World Bank, the FMI and the UN.

You can start with something like: Dear Mrs Lagard, please stop talking crap and delist Portugal, Poland and the Czeck Republic from your developed countries list.

Cheers.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

*Can somebody close this thread as it's the same topic as this one:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1453816&page=26*


----------



## Acosta

isakres said:


> Didnt knew having a "small one" was such a problem lol. Not at least in a thread with the title: What Developing Countries closer to achiveving developed status.
> 
> Of course all of us gifted with a "Big One" are more relevant on the global scale, but lets give some credit to our smaller brothers lol.


It's not a problem, but the host of this thread decided to consider only the big developing economies. And Argentina, although has a bigger economy because it's much more populated, is as relevant as Chile.




isakres said:


> Send an inquiry to the World Bank, the FMI and the UN.
> 
> You can start with something like: Dear Mrs Lagard, please stop talking crap and delist Portugal, Poland and the Czeck Republic from your developed countries list.
> 
> Cheers.


Don't be such pathetic. If they want to consider Argentina, Chile, Hungary, Croatia, Russia... as developed in two years, it's not my problem, but I think it's lacking criteria.


----------



## isakres

LOL this thread.


----------



## Occit

chornedsnorkack said:


> Poland is NOT an advanced economy by IMF.
> 
> Unlike Czech Republic.
> 
> Neither of these has 20 000 US$ GDP.


Look at this updated list by wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita


----------



## SydneyCity

Russia is pretty close these days.


----------



## chornedsnorkack

SydneyCity said:


> Russia is pretty close these days.


There are closer ones.

The poorest advanced economies outside the eurozone are Czech Republic (2010 nominal GDP per capita 18 277 US$) and Taiwan (18 558). 

Russia (10 356) is still slightly behind Poland (12 323), Hungary (13 024) and Horvatia (13 776).


----------



## Jonesy55

isakres said:


> You can start with something like: Dear Mrs Lagard, please stop talking crap and delist Portugal, Poland and the Czeck Republic from your developed countries list.
> 
> Cheers.


And New Zealand, their GDP per capita is also less than $30,000


----------



## Acosta

But New Zealand and Israel are another case. They don't have very big GDP per capita, but are stupidly rich and developed countries on the contrary to Portugal or Greece. The last ones are developed, but nothing like the others. If you say they are developed, you should also consider a huge whole from Eastern Europe. 

Actually the GDP per capita is not very recommended. It's better to verify the average disposable income. 

And please let's consider the PPP for per capita.


----------



## henrique42

wow.....
the leaders of the world should start reading SSC.....such well informed, intelligent, all-knowing participants over here.......


----------



## seattle92

Acosta said:


> And please let's consider the PPP for per capita.


And why should you do that? Because it's the only way Argentina looks good in the picture?


In nominal per capita, Argentina's 10,640$ are really close to Portugal's 22,700$ ou Greece's 27,800% :lol:

If an Argentinian wants to buy a Mercedes, their PPP "money" will really be helpful :nuts:


----------



## isakres

Jonesy55 said:


> And New Zealand, their GDP per capita is also less than $30,000


Lol true, for some reason I thought New Zealand had a GDP PC above USD$30,000.


----------



## isakres

seattle92 said:


> And why should you do that? Because it's the only way Argentina looks good in the picture?
> 
> 
> In nominal per capita, Argentina's 10,640$ are really close to Portugal's 22,700$ ou Greece's 27,800% :lol:
> 
> *If an Argentinian wants to buy a Mercedes, their PPP "money" will really be helpful *:nuts:


lol I thought PPP is actually helpful to determine how much somebody can purchase at their own country.....including....Mercedes.


----------



## seattle92

^^

Sure, you buy your imports with that fantasy money :lol:

Do you even know what PPP is?


----------



## henrique42

argentina still is a another 3th world country.
with inflation over 23 %, poverty rising again, and a government prohibiting everybody and everything whose trying to publish these numbers,(for example by owning every company that makes paper for newspapers) argentina still is that pathetic country trying to be european. 
development is more than just money, it's about civilization, something you can't buy.


----------



## Acosta

That's not true. Poverty is not rising again (it's climbing DOWN and Argentina among Chile and Uruguay are the countries with less poverty in Latin America; yes, there are more slums in Buenos Aires than before, but the country is not being poorer again) and yes they have a pathetic government. That doesn't mean that the country is pathetic, because it isn't.



seattle92 said:


> And why should you do that? Because it's the only way Argentina looks good in the picture?
> 
> 
> In nominal per capita, Argentina's 10,640$ are really close to Portugal's 22,700$ ou Greece's 27,800% :lol:
> 
> If an Argentinian wants to buy a Mercedes, their PPP "money" will really be helpful :nuts:


I'm not from Argentina if you assumed that.  Moreover, it's not as developed as Portugal or Greece. I've never said that. Argentina is a 3rd world country, like all the others in Latin America and most in Eastern Europe.

That's the only way that Argentina looks good? :lol: I don't think a HDI of 0,797 is bad.


----------



## henrique42

''Poverty is not rising again (it's climbing DOWN''

who says so? the government? that same government that prohibits any institution besides the oficial, governmental ones, to publish any numbers of the economy?
the same kind of government we have over here in brazil, where oficial numbers mention an unemployment number of 5,8 %, while an independent institution says it's at 10,2?
and sorry, most of eastern europe is miles, and centuries, ahead of us


----------



## seattle92

Acosta said:


> I'm not from Argentina if you assumed that.


Good for you, nor i have anything against Argentina. Already been there and loved the place. 

But a person that went to Argentina and Portugal or Greece knows pretty well that Argentina still has some work to do. 

Even so, i don't want to get into a country vs country fight. I just find amusing the bashing that some people (from countries that aren't considered developed yet) are doing to Portugal and Greece.


----------



## Nacho_7

henrique42 said:


> argentina still is a another 3th world country.
> with inflation over 23 %, poverty rising again, and a government prohibiting everybody and everything whose trying to publish these numbers,(for example by owning every company that makes paper for newspapers) *argentina still is that pathetic country trying to be european. *
> development is more than just money, it's about civilization, something you can't buy.


Be careful... you are closer to an banned


----------



## henrique42

''you are closer to an banned''

sure. I suppose there must be a southamerican on the SSC board, (our history is full of it, isn't it?)


----------



## henrique42

'' I just find amusing the bashing that some people (from countries that aren't considered developed yet) are doing to Portugal and Greece.''


that's just wishful thinking. we call it the ''mutt-complex''


----------



## Nacho_7

henrique42 said:


> ''you are closer to an banned''
> 
> sure. I suppose there must be a southamerican on the SSC board


:doh: ...


----------



## Acosta

seattle92 said:


> Good for you, nor i have anything against Argentina. Already been there and loved the place.
> 
> But a person that went to Argentina and Portugal or Greece knows pretty well that Argentina still has some work to do.
> 
> Even so, i don't want to get into a country vs country fight. I just find amusing the bashing that some people (from countries that aren't considered developed yet) are doing to Portugal and Greece.


I've never said that Portugal and Greece aren't developed nor that Argentina is close to them. Those three countries are amazing. I'm not bashing down them. But it's true that neither Portugal nor Greece are in the same level of the other developed countries and in a similar level of development of Czech Republic or Slovenia. 

And henrique42 (suppose that you're brazilian), please, stop behaving so childish.


----------



## Acosta

henrique42 said:


> ''Poverty is not rising again (it's climbing DOWN''
> 
> who says so? the government? that same government that prohibits any institution besides the oficial, governmental ones, to publish any numbers of the economy?
> the same kind of government we have over here in brazil, where oficial numbers mention an unemployment number of 5,8 %, while an independent institution says it's at 10,2?
> and sorry, most of eastern europe is miles, and centuries, ahead of us


Not the government, the Universidad Catolica Argentina that made a research for the oppositors. And it stated that poverty in Argentina went down from 32% in 2006 to 25% in 2010. 

And again, i'm not argentinean.


----------



## henrique42

dear acosta, childish is all of this ''discussion'' over who will be developed.


----------



## xJamaax

^^You can add them just after Romania (RO) .:lol::jk:


----------



## Aaronj09

Probably true though..


----------



## drag

snt3000 said:


> Looks like Bulgaria is missing from the graph.


 
This graph is about how strong is your currency against Euro or Usd. Thats why Poland and Hungary looks bad. Zloty and Forint were weak last couple months. Euro/zloty was around 4,40-4,60 , today 4,20 but still to high. The same Euro/forint situation. For example August 2008 - Euro/zloty 3,00. 

Lt looks good becouse they have "frozen" stock exchange rate of Euro/Lt at low levels becouse they want Euro currency. Thats why during the holidays a lot Lithuanians and Slovakian,Germans did purchase of foods in Poland . Compare to Lithuana food cheaper in Poland around 30%.

Compare Poland to Slovakia(developed country from 2009)

Netto salary in zloty.
Poland - 2400 , Slovakia -2020

Unemployment
Poland - 10% , Slovakia - 13,5%

How much you can buy Disel for salary netto?
Poland -414 l , Slovakia - 333 l.

source Eurostat, Wold bank.

but still is much to do. Infrastructure is still bad , today Poland is U/C, 900km of new fast roads this year , its crazy, a lot of new railways,stadiums,central station and airports. Users of internet 60% could be better becouse 80% its good level.


----------



## Hermeto

Inflaciontina :lol:


----------



## onosqaciw

chile, malaysia, uruguay are already almost becoming a developed countries...
for a far bigger country like china, india, brazil, indonesia, russia (i think they are already developed) having 20000 gdp/ capita would be a very hard progress IMHO
but imagine if they are able to do that....all the countries above would be having at least 4000 billion USD on GDP and would become a very major player both on business and politics.....well even permanent UNSC has to be changed to acomodate those countries above


----------



## Jakuub

GDP per capita is not the decisive factor which describes if country is developed or underdeveloped country.
Compare Qatar and Norway for example, both are high-income countries, both have huge oil and gas reserves, but Qatar has no literature, no famous scientists,its HDI rating is much, much smaller. 
To be developed country, one needs to have strong political and economic institutions, high quality of welfare (I don't mean social benefits from the state) and public services (like education), good and precise law, good justice system and other elements.


----------



## Skyprince

Jakuub said:


> GDP per capita is not the decisive factor which describes if country is developed or underdeveloped country.
> Compare Qatar and Norway for example, both are high-income countries, both have huge oil and gas reserves, but Qatar has no literature, no famous scientists,its HDI rating is much, much smaller.
> To be developed country, one needs to have strong political and economic institutions, high quality of welfare (I don't mean social benefits from the state) and public services (like education), good and precise law, good justice system and other elements.


But Qatar has only less than 300,000 citizens, and was extremely poor 50-60 years ago, so you cannot compare the intensity of its literature, scientists per capita etc to that of Norway . Also, what really drags Qatar's HDI is its literacy rate , by which only the older generation are illiterate. You don't find illiterate young Qataris. 

Qatar has great number and great diversity of restaurants ( Qataris and Gulf Arabs are generally obsessed about dining etc. ) , trendy shops , hypermodern malls etc, brand-new cities and suburbs using the latest design and technology , very huge house size per-capita its a "hyper-consumerist" nation which I didn't find in Europe.

What I like about Qatar and other Arabian Gulf countries like UAE is they embrace* the World !* Putting aside nationalistic approach , they Invite the best of the World to contribute in their nation-building :cheers:


----------



## Motul

snicket said:


> Down of Chinas´s booming will turn down latin american and african growing, so I dont know the future for Colombia and Peru
> 
> Brazil with Pre Salt Petroleum + Comoditties + its Huge Industry can make it developed by 2025
> 
> Chile By 2018
> 
> Argentina and Uruguai are linked by Brazilian economy so they must be developed by 2020



Both Colombia and Peru are expected to grow more than Brazil in the following years.. Morgan Stanley predicts 6,7% growth for Colombia in 2012, the government is expecting more than 5,5% kay:.. no signs of "chinese decceleration" in sight.


----------



## FAAN

Motul said:


> Both Colombia and Peru are expected to grow more than Brazil in the following years.. Morgan Stanley predicts 6,7% growth for Colombia in 2012, the government is expecting more than 5,5% kay:.. no signs of "chinese decceleration" in sight.


The Brazilian government was seeking to slow the economy grew 7.5% in 2010 so that inflation was controlled, but today there are stimuli for the economy heating and Brazil grow 5 to 7%.. kay:


----------



## Motul

Let's see, but 4% for Brazil is more likely this year kay:


----------



## FAAN

Motul said:


> Let's see, but 4% for Brazil is more likely this year kay:


I believe in 5%


----------



## Pradable

Chile, Uruguay, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia are the next countries to become developed soon probably between 2015 - 2018 IMO

I don't know much about Malaysia so i won't have an opinion on this one.


----------



## LADEN

barbados


----------



## oliver999

IMO,a country without advanced tech ,science cant be called"developed "country.
Isral,south korea are developed country,but some gulf countries which is even richer are not developed country.


----------



## oliver999

first quater china gdp rise 8.5%


----------



## calaguyo

India
Brazil
Egypt
Indonesia
Philippines


----------



## Abinash89

calaguyo said:


> India
> Brazil
> Egypt
> Indonesia
> Philippines


I guess you forgot to mention China first.


----------



## bagus70

It's quite surprising for me to see Indonesia is in the top 10. Perhaps the smaller gap in the state development between Jakarta and other Indonesian cities that contribute to this factor? 
Thanks to the advancement of Information technology and transportation (airline ticket becoming increasingly accessible for lower middle class people), it is possible for those who live far away from Jakarta to achieve same income as those in Jakarta.


----------



## aaabbbccc

I would by 2050 or 2070 every single nation will reach that level ?


----------



## vladanng

Balkan countries for example, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Hungary.


----------



## sebvill

Jonesy55 said:


> I get the impression that these are 'the forgotten lands' by other South Americans!


We know nothing about them! Sometimes someone does a thread of them in Latinscrapers. Theres no much to say about them either. Guyana is almost the same size than the United Kingdom, but is has less than 800k people living there. I know Venezuela has a land reclamation over half of Guyana.
This countries are basically rainforest, so they are isolated from the rest of the continent. And since their coast is a river delta, they dont have nice beaches either to promote tourism. I know theres a lot of Asian descendant population in this countries.


----------



## Motul

South America's ghost nations...


----------



## Jonesy55

The only contact we seem to have with Guyana is once every four years when the England cricket team goes to play a match there while touring the Caribbean and a few hundred adventurous fans make the trip from the beaches of Trinidad or Barbados or St Lucia to follow the team.

French Guiana is best known in Europe for the Ariane rockets and spaceport while Suriname is probably only known by Dutch people...


----------



## Jonesy55

..


----------



## jefferson2

sebvill said:


> In South America
> 
> Chile
> 
> Uruguay
> 
> Brazil
> Peru
> Colombia
> 
> Venezuela
> Ecuador
> 
> Paraguay
> Bolivia
> 
> 
> 
> With Argentina you never know. I would never bet for it or against it.



With the exception that I agree that Chile has a higher level of development that Bolivia, I disagree with (the order of) most of this list


----------



## jefferson2

vladanng said:


> Balkan countries for example, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Hungary.


I would say Hungary and Croatia are already developed. Certainly Czech Republic and Slovenia are. 

Estonia should probably be considered as highly developed too.


----------



## derechaconservadora

jefferson2 said:


> With the exception that I agree that Chile has a higher level of development that Bolivia, I disagree with most of this list


make your own list.
in my opinion chile and argentina are almost developed nations right now.


----------



## NickABQ

I think there are some clarification issues that keep arising. I disagree with Baleares in as much as there is definately a difference in the "development" status of say, the C.A.R with the U.S. There has to be a term to describe this....and right now "developed" vs. "developing" is the way the world quantifies this. 

Whether or not it is an appropriate or accurate way to describe this phenomenon is a different debate. 

I DO however agree with a point I think Baleares is trying to make, which is that "development" is relative, especially if we fail to agree on a set of quantifiable objectives. Which is exactly what we have done! 

Is this measured in HDI? Internet penetration rates? Rate of "happiness"? It's easy to see why the last thread like this got locked. 

Anyway, this thread seems to be very Latin-American focused.....


----------



## jefferson2

derechaconservadora said:


> make your own list.
> in my opinion chile and argentina are almost developed nations right now.


its the order of the list i didnt like

i do agree that chile and argentina are both developed, especially chile


----------



## Suburbanist

Baleares said:


> It has nothing to do with the conception of developed and developing countries. And no, everyone knows that US is far from being "same standard of living" of Sweden or Switzerland or even Canada. Just because the UN Guys decided to move those methodologies to HDI and improved themselves the US numbers, it doesn't mean that HDI really show us the whole reality. Actually its just like Life: There is always more into the bottom.


You are making a preempting declaration to support your claim.

Standards of living is a tricky thing because they take into account medians or averages, and they reveal different facts.

US has more income disparity, but it also has much lower taxes which means increased consumption power for those on the upper third of the income distribution.

It is much better to be upper-middle class in US than in these other countries in terms of purchasing power and access to goods and services (even if they cost more like health care). However, it sucks to be poor in US and live is much, much harsher for the -say - bottom 20% of income distribution in US than anywhere else in the developed World. 

But that doesn't mean US standards of living are necessarily lower. To assume the standards of the poorest count more is in itself a political assumption. And then you have all the American European-wannabes who bash their own country for things like "not having public transportation" ignoring the marginal cost effect of "world class transportation" in European taxation base is higher than the reduced costs of car mobility there - just to keep a limited example.


----------



## jefferson2

Suburbanist said:


> You are making a preempting declaration to support your claim.
> 
> Standards of living is a tricky thing because they take into account medians or averages, and they reveal different facts.
> 
> US has more income disparity, but it also has much lower taxes which means increased consumption power for those on the upper third of the income distribution.
> 
> It is much better to be upper-middle class in US than in these other countries in terms of purchasing power and access to goods and services (even if they cost more like health care). However, it sucks to be poor in US and live is much, much harsher for the -say - bottom 20% of income distribution in US than anywhere else in the developed World.
> 
> But that doesn't mean US standards of living are necessarily lower. To assume the standards of the poorest count more is in itself a political assumption. And then you have all the American European-wannabes who bash their own country for things like "not having public transportation" ignoring the marginal cost effect of "world class transportation" in European taxation base is higher than the reduced costs of car mobility there - just to keep a limited example.



I think this is very true. The US does relatively better on the high end, but relatively worse on average as compared to Europe. This makes it complicated to measure development comparatively.


----------



## derechaconservadora

jefferson2 said:


> its the order of the list i didnt like
> 
> i do agree that chile and argentina are both developed, especially chile


ok, is just that the other forumer made a very ideologized list. i mean he overrate the political factor.


----------



## sebvill

jefferson2 said:


> With the exception that I agree that Chile has a higher level of development that Bolivia, I disagree with (the order of) most of this list


Its not the current situation. Is what I think the order of arrival to development will occur. Right now, no South American nation is developed. I know the economic policies as well as the opportunities, threats, strenghts and weakness of all the South American economies very well. And, unless something strange happens, that would be the order of development status achievement in the region. The only country I cant manage to unravel is Argentina. Anyhting could happen there, and Im not talking about a 10 year prediction, Im saying I dont know what can be the situation there by the end of this year.

But anyway my list is by no means the only opionion. You are invited to do your own. What I say or you say is not gonna change anything.


----------



## vladanng

Croatia is very close to be developed country, same Hungary, it will sure be in next 10 yrs, Slovenia can consider as developed, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Montenegro maybe for 20 yrs.
Bosnia, Macedonia, even more yrs nedded than Bulgaria, Serbia...
Greece is already developed, but question is how long will it stay like that?


----------



## Baleares

Suburbanist said:


> You are making a preempting declaration to support your claim.
> 
> Standards of living is a tricky thing because they take into account medians or averages, and they reveal different facts.
> 
> US has more income disparity, but it also has much lower taxes which means increased consumption power for those on the upper third of the income distribution.
> 
> It is much better to be upper-middle class in US than in these other countries in terms of purchasing power and access to goods and services (even if they cost more like health care). However, it sucks to be poor in US and live is much, much harsher for the -say - bottom 20% of income distribution in US than anywhere else in the developed World.
> 
> But that doesn't mean US standards of living are necessarily lower. To assume the standards of the poorest count more is in itself a political assumption. And then you have all the American European-wannabes who bash their own country for things like "not having public transportation" ignoring the marginal cost effect of "world class transportation" in European taxation base is higher than the reduced costs of car mobility there - just to keep a limited example.


I was not talking about Europe but Sweden or Switzerland and USA. Sorry but for me and i believe, for most people, Standard of living in USA is far from being as good as Swedish. 

Doesn't matter if the rich in USA live better. Upper class is the minority in all the countries of the World and in USA its not different. We could make a lot of comparison here to prove it but that is not my point. 

The point is that call a country "developed" is the same to assume that it country has achieved satisfactory development standards in all it's ways; And its not true because all the countries have something to improve. Some have not much, like Sweden or Luxembourg, some have a lot like USA and some have much more than a lot like Brazil, Mexico or Argentina.

My conclusion is that all countries are developing countries. What changes is it's level of advance in each sector of it's societies and economies. Its my opinion of course.


----------



## Jonesy55

The very poor are also a small minority in developed countries. It is no more meaningful to judge the living standards of a country overall by looking only at the bottom 10% than by looking only at the top 10%.

The US is a huge country anyway, the way people live in rural West Virginia or Texas border towns or Flint, Michigan is very different to the way people live in Manhattan or downtown Seattle or Orange County or a wealthy New England small town or suburb of Atlanta.

I dont think saying country x is more developed than country y has much meaning unless you specify who in those countries you are talking about and how you are measuring 'development'


----------



## Baleares

Sorry but i'm not talking about way of life. I'm talking about standard of life. And in that matter, USA has a lot more to improve than the countries i've mentioned. 

BUT... As i said, that is not the point of my discussion here. The point of my opinion is that the concept of Development NEEDS to be reviewed. 

First because the measurement "Developed" is in fact wrong. All the countries of the World are still "Developing". Some have got more advances and others not... But the fact is that there is no Developed country in the World because, much less or much more, the majority of the countries in the World nowadays face the same social problems. But some of them got more advanced economies and societies, what gave them much less intensity and much more weapons to fight against those problems. 

And second, we need more accurate terms to distinguish development because it's not just about have money and nice social indicators. In my opinion, it's completely possible a country with better social indicators and not be developed. 

Of course, not being developed will limit the social indices of it's country. So development to me is much more than nice HDI index or number of nice roadways. To me it's mainly cultural and involves much more indicators than life expectation or years in school for example. And looking by that side, we can assume that there're only a few "near" developed countries in the World.

Of course that all are MY opinions. Being so i think it's very difficult to say what is next Developing country to be developed but i bet for Sweden, Norway, Finland or Switzerland. Latin American countries are very far from that standard and i think most of the Latin forumers here actually know that even if you take the conventional "Developed and Developing" countries definition by truth.


----------



## ParadiseLost

FAAN said:


> 1. Brazil, Russia and Mexico: 2020 to 2030
> 2. Argentina and South Africa: 2025 to 2035
> 3. Turkey and Saudi Arabia: 2030 to 2040
> 4. India and China: 2030 to 2050
> 
> Maybe so in the future!!!


Argentina is definitely much closer than Brazil or Mexico and always has been.
It used to be a developed country, I'm not sure if it is now. In South America I think only Uruguay is more developed. And Chile is close. Brazil is making great progress though but so is Argentina, and Brazil still has a massive crime and poverty problem.


----------



## FAAN

^^In Argentina for example has a hyperinflation, economic and political problems listed, making it a instable country. You are right in saying that the Argentine HDI is higher than the Brazilian. But Brazil has a more stable economy and politics relatively quiet. I just put Brazil among these years because they are actual statistics from the government, since the others were just guesses based on the world stage today.


----------



## ParadiseLost

Yeah but in addition to that Brazil has massive poverty and crime issues. Also the Argentinian economy is unstable but last count it was growing very fast. Faster than Brazil even (imf stats, not sure how reliable but they are no friends of Argentina so no reason to doubt I guess). Brazil also has bigger education issues than Argentina.

Don't get me wrong I think Brazil is making great strides, I just don't think they are at the level of Argentina yet and Argentina is not really losing any momentum compared to Brazil at the moment. But it's all very hard to predict.


----------



## Baleares

sebvill said:


> This map is tricky. Why is Peru divided in regions and Brazil not? The biggest region in dark blue in north-east Peru only accounts for 750,000 people. While the small region in the central coast almost white accounts for 9.5 million people, or 30% of the population. If you divide Brazil in Regions, you will have dark coulours in the big northern regions that accounts for a small percantage of the total population while the small south east region will be lightblue, which is the most populated one.
> 
> HDI its what it is, a measurement of 4 representative variable. Peru has a higher life expectancy than Brazil, a higher school enrollment and very similar child mortality rate. While in GDP per capita PPP Peru is in USD 10,100 and Brazil in USD 11,800.


Actually MPI is far more accurate than HDI... It doesn't mean that HDI is not accurate in what it concerns... But when trying to compare countries, we should use not only HDI... But HDI, MPI, PISA and other variants... 

Take a look at the PISA research and these:

*Multidimensional Poverty Index*

% of People who are MPI poor

Brazil 2,7%
Argentina 3,0%
Mexico 4,0%
Peru 19,9%


Average Intensity of MPI Poverty 

Argentina 37.7
Mexico 38.9
Brazil 39.3
Peru 43.2

Number of MPI Poor People

Argentina 1.160 million
Mexico 4,313 million
Brazil 5,075 million
Peru 5,421

Percentage of people who are Income Poor (Less than 2,00 USD perday)

Argentina 7,2%
Mexico 8,6%
Brazil 9,9%
Peru 14,7%

*PISA Results (Measurement of Education)*

General PISA

Mexico 425 points
Brazil 412 points
Argentina 398 points
Peru 370 points

Mathematics PISA

Mexico 419 points
Brazil 386 points
Argentina 388 points
Peru 365 points 

Science PISA

Mexico 416
Brazil 405
Argentina 401
Peru 369

WHO Healthcare System Ranking

Mexico 61
Argentina 75 
Brazil 125
Peru 129

WHO under five Mortality rate 

Argentina 14
Mexico 17
Brazil 19
Peru 19

Total Health Expenditure Percapta according WHO

Argentina 734$ 
Brazil 734$ 
Mexico 625$
Peru 236$

Life expectancy according WHO

Mexico 76
Peru 76
Argentina 75
Brazil 73

Neonatal Mortality Rate

Argentina 7
Mexico 7
Peru 9
Brazil 12

Immunization Coverage 

Argentina 99%
Brazil 99%
Mexico 95%
Peru 94%

Population using improved drinking-water sources 

Brazil 98%
Argentina 96%
Mexico 96%
Peru 85%

Population using improved sanitation

Argentina 91%
Brazil 79%
Mexico 85%
Peru 71%

Underweight children (under five)

Brazil 2,2%
Argentina 2,3%
Mexico 3,4%
Peru 4,5% 

Prevalence of Smoking (Tobacco) among Adolescents 

Peru 19,5%
Argentina 41%
Mexico 42,5%
Brazil 44,5%

Physicians per 10k population

Mexico 19,6
Brazil 17,6
Peru 9,2 
Argentina No data

Hospital Beds per 10k population 

Argentina 45
Brazil 24
Mexico 16
Peru 15


All those data are available in WHO reports.


----------



## Baleares

We can also compare wealth researches, macroeconomics policies, fiscal policies, investment, employment generation rates, income increasing, real monthly salaries and etc... And all of them will show us that actually not only Argentina is NOT an advanced Country nor Brazil is less advanced than Argentina because if we make an average of all those variants, both of them will be practically at the same level. The point is that just a few years ago, that situation would never be imagined. So we can presume that there're great probabilities that not only Brazil but also another Latin Americans countries surpass Argentinian advances. 

Despite that, Latin America has a long long way till get close of countries like Sweden or Germany. By now, countries like Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay and Chile are likely to be in the "path of development". I mean in the right way... All we can do is wish good luck to them.


----------



## derechaconservadora

the real world: list of not yet developed nations by PPP per capita

51 Croacia	18.331
*52 Argentina	18.319
53 Chile	17.974*
54 Rusia	17.691
55 Gabón	17.053
56 Botsuana	16.579
57 Letonia	16.235
58 Malasia	16.186
59 Líbano	15.985
*60 Uruguay	15.786*
61 Bielorrusia	15.756
62 San Cristóbal y Nieves	15.617
63 Mauricio	15.595
*64 México	15.178
65 Panamá	15.082*
66 Turquía	14.853
67 Granada	14.238
68 Dominica	14.203
69 Bulgaria	14.021
70 Kazajistán	13.926
71 Irán	13.072
*72 Venezuela	13.070*
73 Santa Lucía	12.927
74 Rumania	12.843
*75 Costa Rica	12.425
76 Brasil	12.181*

brazil is poorer than romania. sorry guys the real world says, brazil is just an average latinamerican country. but argentina and chile are the head of latinamerica.


----------



## FAAN

^^If you consider the GDP (nominal) Brazil is better than Argentina (for example). Only if the appearance PPP per capita (which means little). Because if you consider something like the power, international importance, educational development, better infrastructure, real social and economic growth, Brazil is the best.


----------



## FAAN

*International Monetary Fund (2010-11)*

GDP (nominal) per capita:

Some of Latin America:

46 - *Chile*: $14,278
48 - *Uruguay*: $13,914
53 - *Brazil*: $12,789
57 - *Argentina*: $10,945
60 - *Venezuela:* $10,610
62 - *Mexico*: $10,153

In other rankings updated:

*World Bank (1990–2010)

*53 - Chile
55 - Uruguay
59 - Brazil
64 - Mexico
66 - Argentina*

CIA World Factbook (2000–2011)*

48 - Uruguay
50 - Chile
57 - Brazil
59 - Venezuela
62 - Mexico
63 - Argentinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#cite_note-5

Source: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#cite_note-3


----------



## bowyer333

We should use the newest data, the GDP rank by wiki in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


----------



## Baleares

Only misinformed people use GDP PERCAPTA do measure QUALITY OF LIFE AND DEVELOPMENT. 

According to you guys countries like Gabon, Botswana and Iran are better to live than Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico. And actually, if you compare ALL the social and economics variants of those countries... We can prove that it is not TRUTH. 

So i think some people here need to take aside it's crazy nationalism and start looking at objective data with rationalism, not passion. I dont need to say anything more... I posted some social data above and we can see that i'm true about development. There is no ranking or data that can prove which country is better than the other.

Only with detailed survey of all variants that make up the social , economic and cultural indicators of a country is that we can measure their level of advancement. I'm sorry if its hard to understand and that takes too much to ask for nationalist people...


----------



## psychedelic

Excuse me while I peer into my crystal ball.


----------



## Jonesy55

Baleares said:


> Only misinformed people use GDP PERCAPTA do measure QUALITY OF LIFE AND DEVELOPMENT.
> 
> According to you guys countries like Gabon, Botswana and Iran are better to live than Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico. And actually, if you compare ALL the social and economics variants of those countries... We can prove that it is not TRUTH.
> 
> So i think some people here need to take aside it's crazy nationalism and start looking at objective data with rationalism, not passion. I dont need to say anything more... I posted some social data above and we can see that i'm true about development. There is no ranking or data that can prove which country is better than the other.
> 
> Only with detailed survey of all variants that make up the social , economic and cultural indicators of a country is that we can measure their level of advancement. I'm sorry if its hard to understand and that takes too much to ask for nationalist people...


What is wrong with Botswana? They have the HIV problem along with the rest of southern Africa but the government has taken great steps to combat the epidemic and the country is generally well managed and stable with a strong middle class.


----------



## isaidso

The average Iranian is very well educated and has purchasing power slightly greater than the average Brazilian so I'm not sure why Iran is on that list either. Iran likely has a far better income equality than Brazil to boot.


----------



## tita01

Intensity of Poverty


----------



## everywhere

Baleares said:


> The more advanced BRIC countries (Brazil and Russia) are way too far from being developed nations in the conventional means. China and India probably won't be developed in this century either.


China is much ahead of the other three. Second, third and fourth tier cities witness massive construction and economic boom.


----------



## onosqaciw

lol because Iran has a bad press, certainly the USA has succeed for bashing Iran


----------



## George W. Bush

FAAN said:


> *International Monetary Fund (2010-11)*
> 
> GDP (nominal) per capita:


Nominal GDP values are useless for international (and intertemporal) comparison purposes. That's why the concept of purchasing power parity has been invented.


----------



## Jonesy55

everywhere said:


> China is much ahead of the other three. Second, third and fourth tier cities witness massive construction and economic boom.


Because it has a much bigger population.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the average citizen has a better standard of living and quality of life though.


----------



## Alex Roney

Jonesy55 said:


> What is wrong with Botswana? They have the HIV problem along with the rest of southern Africa but the government has taken great steps to combat the epidemic and the country is generally well managed and stable with a strong middle class.


Botswana along with Namibia are among the most unequal countries on the planet, most live under $2 a day.


----------



## Alex Roney

isaidso said:


> The average Iranian is very well educated and has purchasing power slightly greater than the average Brazilian so I'm not sure why Iran is on that list either. Iran likely has a far better income equality than Brazil to boot.


I would honestly like to compare incomes between both countries. I doubt Iranians make more, GDP PPP is NOT a real measure for actual income gains. I don't doubt that they're better educated but I also think many are unemployed for lack of opportunities which is not the case in Brazil.


----------



## Nelju

isaidso said:


> The average Iranian is very well educated and has purchasing power slightly greater than the average Brazilian so I'm not sure why Iran is on that list either. Iran likely has a far better income equality than Brazil to boot.


Latin American countries have a key advantage in the developing world. The debate over religion is marginal. I agree the main challenge is inequality. One of the key issues is how to insert uneducated people in a modern economy.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

derechaconservadora said:


> the real world: list of not yet developed nations by PPP per capita
> 
> 51 Croacia	18.331
> *52 Argentina	18.319
> 53 Chile	17.974*
> 54 Rusia	17.691
> 55 Gabón	17.053
> 56 Botsuana	16.579
> 57 Letonia	16.235
> 58 Malasia	16.186
> 59 Líbano	15.985
> *60 Uruguay	15.786*
> 61 Bielorrusia	15.756
> 62 San Cristóbal y Nieves	15.617
> 63 Mauricio	15.595
> *64 México	15.178
> 65 Panamá	15.082*
> 66 Turquía	14.853
> 67 Granada	14.238
> 68 Dominica	14.203
> 69 Bulgaria	14.021
> 70 Kazajistán	13.926
> 71 Irán	13.072
> *72 Venezuela	13.070*
> 73 Santa Lucía	12.927
> 74 Rumania	12.843
> *75 Costa Rica	12.425
> 76 Brasil	12.181*
> 
> brazil is poorer than romania. sorry guys the real world says, brazil is just an average latinamerican country. but argentina and chile are the head of latinamerica.


I don't understand the obsession of this several times banned Chilean troll with PPP numbers. They mean nothing, fairy tale GDP. US$ 1.00 worths US$ 1.00. That's why Brazilians are buying the whole Miami. Weak currencies mirror weak countries.

And Brazil poorer than Romania? Gives us a break. The average income of Brazilian workers is R$ 1,900.00, not much smaller than Portuguese's. Last year, *3,426,000* cars were sold in Brazil. In Romania, *82,000*. Almost 5 times more in per capita terms.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Is this thread about the world or only Latin America? Keep nationalism out of the debate!


----------



## Jonesy55

Yuri S Andrade said:


> I don't understand the obsession of this several times banned Chilean troll with PPP numbers. They mean nothing, fairy tale GDP. US$ 1.00 worths US$ 1.00. That's why Brazilians are buying the whole Miami. Weak currencies mirror weak countries.
> 
> And Brazil poorer than Romania? Gives us a break. The average income of Brazilian workers is R$ 1,900.00, not much smaller than Portuguese's. Last year, 3,426,000 cars were sold in Brazil. In Romania, 82,000. Almost 5 times more in per capita terms.


Surely price levels must have some bearing on standard of living? 

With a monthly income of $500 you might live a reasonable life in Vietnam but be homeless and hungry in Switzerland.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
OK, but GDP per capita is NOT income. So it's completely nonsensical to use PPP to talk about GDP, especially to imply one country is wealthier than other. In any case, things like oil might cost the same in both Switzerland and Vietnam.



Rinchinlhumbe said:


> Is this thread about the world or only Latin America? Keep nationalism out of the debate!


That's because most of the countries to reach developed status are in the region.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, as I said in the locked thread, for one country to reach the *developed status*, it might have simultaneously a *GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 (nominal)* and a *HDI over 0.800*.


----------



## Jonesy55

Maybe average wages at PPP rates would be more useful....

Of course a 30% cheaper overall cost of living doesn't mean that everything is exactly 30% cheaper, it may be that ipads cost the same, cars are 15% less, apartments are 30% less, steaks are 45% less and maids are 60% less. The PPP rate attempts to find an average for a typical basket of goods and services.


----------



## FAAN

everywhere said:


> China is much ahead of the other three. Second, third and fourth tier cities witness massive construction and economic boom.


We're talking about social development, so Russia and Brazil are far ahead of China and India. In the GDP, China (5.900) is ahead of three and Brazil (2.781) in the second place. kay:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

_Dark Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800
Light Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 or HDI over 0.800
Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 and HDI over 0.700

GDP per capita 2011 (FMI) and HDI 2011 (UN)_

^^
To me, the developed are the dark blue ones. The light blue, will be the next developed, followed by the green. Of course, things might change in the future.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

GDP and HDI means nothing. Saudi Arabia will never be a developed country in my book.


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> OK, but GDP per capita is NOT income. So it's completely nonsensical to use PPP to talk about GDP, especially to imply one country is wealthier than other. In any case, things like oil might cost the same in both Switzerland and Vietnam.


GDP per capita is not income per capita but correlates with it, it is the (theoretical) upper limit for average wages and income from self-employment before taxes and social contributions (if depreciation, investment and capital gains were zero). And of course it is not nonsensical to use PPP - it was precisely to make international comparisons possible that the concept was invented. People outside the US usually don't buy products with US dollars unless they are on holiday in another country or mail order something from another country. Except in very rare cases only the national prices are relevant to the consumer - and this does include oil derivated products (whose local prices usually are greatly affected by local circumstances, especially national taxes or, sometimes, subsidies). Hence it is absolutely necessary to consider local pricing to make correct comparisons.
You as a Brazilian should know better. Ten years ago the Brazilian real's external value in US dollars was less then half of what it is now. The doubling of the real's external value neither did imply the doubling of the purchasing power of a Brazilian nor the doubling of Brazil's internal value of production (i.e. GDP in Brazilian real).


----------



## isaidso

Poland and Chile will be the next countries to achieve developed status.



The Cake On BBQ said:


> GDP and HDI means nothing. Saudi Arabia will never be a developed country in my book.


It's more accurate to say that GDP and HDI are important barometers, but not the whole story. Social development is vital and I agree with you regarding Saudi Arabia. Likewise, I don't consider the UAE to be a developed country. They still have a very long way to go to advance civil liberties and human rights.


----------



## jefferson2

FAAN said:


> We're talking about social development, so Russia and Brazil are far ahead of China and India. In the GDP, China (5.900) is ahead of three and Brazil (2.781) in the second place. kay:


How do you quantify social development? I mean, China and India are old cultures. You can say you personally identify or prefer more with the Russian form of social development (and I would tend to agree with you), but in what way is it more advanced than China? Do you mean in terms of health care, education, etc, and how much access the average person has to these services?


----------



## FAAN

jefferson2 said:


> How do you quantify social development? I mean, China and India are old cultures. You can say you personally identify or prefer more with the Russian form of social development (and I would tend to agree with you), but in what way is it more advanced than China? Do you mean in terms of health care, education, etc, and how much access the average person has to these services?


There is nothing related to the different cultures of each country. I meant that Brazil and Russia are more advanced than China and India in terms such as education, health, sanitation, security and the like.


----------



## jefferson2

FAAN said:


> There is nothing related to the different cultures of each country. I meant that Brazil and Russia are more advanced than China and India in terms such as education, health, sanitation, security and the like.


I would think you are probably right then. I don't know enough about China to say what sort of health, education or sanitation services the average person receives , but I would guess it is less than either Russia or China (even if we ignore the countryside in China). I would also assume though that they are improving quickly in China, the big coastal cities look functional and modern to me. They have new infrastructure, airports, transit, etc.


----------



## Kenwen

FAAN said:


> There is nothing related to the different cultures of each country. I meant that Brazil and Russia are more advanced than China and India in terms such as education, health, sanitation, security and the like.


China GDP last year was 7.3 trillion USD, it will stil grow by more than 8% in real growth or around 20% in figure, so by next year GDP per capita would probably hit 7000 to 8000usd, closing the gap among Russia and Brazil. Life expectancy is like 73 years old, I'm pretty sure it is higher than Russia. Crime rate of China is definitely lower than that of Brazil, the crimes in Brazilian slums are quite famous,imo. Brazil is no more developed than the eastern coast of China.
And also, China it is not in the same league as India, with GDP per capita of 5400 usd, which is 4 times higher than that of India.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Kenwen said:


> China GDP last year was 7.3 trillion USD. Life expectancy is like 73 years old, I'm pretty sure it is higher than Russia. Crime rate of China is definitely lower than that of Brazil, the crimes in Brazilian slums are quite famous,imo. Brazil is no more developed than the eastern coast of China.
> And also, China it is not in the same league as India, with GDP per capita of 5400 usd, which is 4 times higher than that of India.


Russias life expectancy for women is pretty high, about 74 years. This does not apply to men though: just 60 years for the male part of the population. The reason is not a lack of doctors and hospitals but: wodka, cigarettes, hard labour.

China is well ahead of India in almost all respects, thats true. 
But please do not forget that Brazil and Russias development started decades before Chinas closed economy opened to the outside world in the 1980s. Russia has a complete infrstructure comparable to much wealthier European states, but parts of it are outdated and only partly or not well functioning. Chinas infrastructure is much more modern, but in some parts of Qinghai, Tibet or Yunnan there is just no infrastructure at all, although this is now quickly changing, especially after the installation of the stimulus package in 2009.


----------



## Baleares

Kenwen said:


> China GDP last year was 7.3 trillion USD, it will stil grow by more than 8% in real growth or around 20% in figure, so by next year GDP per capita would probably hit 7000 to 8000usd, closing the gap among Russia and Brazil. Life expectancy is like 73 years old, I'm pretty sure it is higher than Russia. Crime rate of China is definitely lower than that of Brazil, the crimes in Brazilian slums are quite famous,imo. Brazil is no more developed than the eastern coast of China.
> And also, China it is not in the same league as India, with GDP per capita of 5400 usd, which is 4 times higher than that of India.


By your point of view we can assume that eastern China is not even so developed as Southern Brazil either... Its NON SENSE. If China has great and modern cities in the East Coastal Brazil also do in the most advanced regions of the country. If China has nice infrastructure in most advanced cities, Brazil and Russia also do in most of it's advanced cities... So the point????

We are comparing countries not regions. If we start comparing regions China will have only nice skylines and financial districts... All the high end cities in Brazil and Russia are better than High End cities in China and India. I'm sorry but that is truth. So true as everybody can see that if we compare Brazil and Chile, Chile will certainly be more advanced even if in Brazil we have more skylines and more financial centers...

We are talking about development and development is not ONLY economics... China growth of 8% is just Angola's growth of 16%. A poor country that is getting richer has generally higher growth rates than more advanced ones... Its not news... Most of Latin American countries has passed that out. In the 70s Brazilian growth rate was even higher than China's... About 14% per year... So??? 

As i said development is not only GDP and Highways. Actually the monthly real income is much more accurate than GDP to measure wealth of a population. And wealth is not THE ONLY variant necessary to show us a Country advancement. 

As i said you guys need new parameters of what really Development mean.

So what do you guys think? That everythin in Brazil is like this?:










And everything in Russia is like this?:











Above is just part of those countries reality. Just take a little trip:

Brazil

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-25.3...=0SYzgqbTTVBhRy6G2h08CQ&cbp=12,125.34,,0,7.68

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-25.4...=KNOAH0JT3vpuT2xib2JpiA&cbp=12,15.04,,0,-2.92

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-30.1...=VeNhg6n1_4P2mu1xSNxYxA&cbp=12,167.15,,0,3.84

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-30.1...=Tr2Lm05iyY_BWJKtjbxktQ&cbp=12,226.85,,0,5.03

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-27.5...d=gZDGaeB3dttk_hEVdGgluw&cbp=12,65.97,,0,0.46

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-27.5...d=4R5jFg8I12H5XGlH_P4ahA&cbp=12,28.19,,0,0.37

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-23.7...d=JMVy-lqqSnzuBszmRbqfhg&cbp=12,130.2,,0,1.46

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-23.0...=tEyyxDlkASLfuDQbnd_OGA&cbp=12,345.75,,0,4.57

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-22.9...id=62sCbCJU2ldVCOOSrgLDWA&cbp=12,77.35,,0,5.3

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-22.9...=JGYr5ze58aY5S75IjFlDgA&cbp=12,359.32,,0,4.02

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-23.5...=aHH0ePWIxRb1edr0rRL5MQ&cbp=12,130.2,,0,-1.92

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-23.5...d=627_tYnUo1JafPfauXDAoA&cbp=12,322.04,,0,2.1

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-22.6...anoid=EQWbGlFWODVI0s0MxoQNiA&cbp=12,7.86,,0,0

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-22.9...=tWHEXR36sNla9Qt_ektUzg&cbp=12,206.21,,0,0.82

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-26.2...=U__qiDRiM-3cYhYKUpHtPA&cbp=12,171.12,,0,6.58

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-23.3...=b9jJRHf2jGrhzf9zVDuxtQ&cbp=12,122.59,,0,3.93

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=-21.7...=qg5j5cXWeRI4Db1cIssEoQ&cbp=12,267.66,,0,0.82

Russia

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=55.74...=wMuxDjmsSzzjTcG5ouljaQ&cbp=12,121.94,,0,0.18

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=55.70...0lqiCCIoNbNFwg1ClIko_g&cbp=12,260.51,,0,-4.11

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=55.90...=qYSApMewxYADOvon-IKC2A&cbp=12,162.74,,0,1.19

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=55.75...d=In1pB9027K5CGZmYN-ENcg&cbp=12,261.1,,0,0.91

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=59.92...=UbEVO1WmB_aL7e6nHBBpfg&cbp=12,246.41,,0,0.18

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=59.96...=errXA1grMCPdyAeUO56FCQ&cbp=12,304.65,,0,0.55

http://maps.google.com.br/?ll=59.94...XQiig0pa5jt34wjGVxJGWg&cbp=12,274.82,,0,-0.09

Oh and none of the districts above are Upper Class... They are common middle class districts of Brazil and Russia... And some of them are commercial/financial/historic districts. 

So can you guys see it? We cannot compare just regions. We need to take the whole country for comparison.


----------



## Suburbanist

Comparing personal (net) wages at PPP is also not a measurement free of serious flaws.

For a starter: some countries have tax burdens much larger than others, but deliver public services like health care and/or tertiary education "for free".


----------



## Cedar Teeth

Baleares said:


> By your point of view we can assume that eastern China is not even so developed as Southern Brazil either... Its NON SENSE. If China has great and modern cities in the East Coastal Brazil also do in the most advanced regions of the country. If China has nice infrastructure in most advanced cities, Brazil and Russia also do in most of it's advanced cities... So the point????
> 
> We are comparing countries not regions. If we start comparing regions China will have only nice skylines and financial districts... All the high end cities in Brazil and Russia are better than High End cities in China and India. I'm sorry but that is truth. So true as everybody can see that if we compare Brazil and Chile, Chile will certainly be more advanced even if in Brazil we have more skylines and more financial centers...
> 
> We are talking about development and development is not ONLY economics... China growth of 8% is just Angola's growth of 16%. A poor country that is getting richer has generally higher growth rates than more advanced ones... Its not news... Most of Latin American countries has passed that out. In the 70s Brazilian growth rate was even higher than China's... About 14% per year... So???
> 
> As i said development is not only GDP and Highways. Actually the monthly real income is much more accurate than GDP to measure wealth of a population. And wealth is not THE ONLY variant necessary to show us a Country advancement.
> 
> As i said you guys need new parameters of what really Development mean.


High End cities in China are far better than High End cities in Brazil. Not a single Brazilian city has the infrastructure you find in Shanghai or Beijing. If you compare Shanghai to Sao Paulo for example, there is no doubt that Sao Paulo has a far worse road infrastructure, metro system, airport and ovrall urban planning. 

And this is true if you make a nationwide comparison too. The Chinese highway network make Brazilian roads look as if they were built by the Romans for horses. Outside of the state of Sao Paulo you don't find any road with European motorway or US Interstate standards. In China, such high quality roads can be found as far out as Xinjiang. 

Also Brazil didn't grow at a 14% average in the 70s, we grew at 11% for a brief 5 year period then went back to normal growth levels and a catastrophic recession already in the late 70s (all this with an inflation of over 20% every year from 65 all the way to 92).


----------



## Baleares

China is number Cedar Teeth... How can you compare the infrastructure of a 1.3 billion people country with a 192 million country? We all know tha infrastructure is not the best of Brazil and actually we all know that it is one of the worst things in our country, but infrastructure is not the only thing that show us how much a country is developed.


----------



## derechaconservadora

now we can compare (share) the car sells by 100,000 people. and sorry for you my friend, but argentina is ahead of many developed nations in that point.


----------



## Baleares

Just don't take this thread to where you're trying to take it.


----------



## George W. Bush

derechaconservadora said:


> now we can compare (share) the car sells by 100,000 people. and sorry for you my friend, but argentina is ahead of many developed nations in that point.


And I think that those countries with the highest number of Buddhist temples per capita are the socially most advanced.


----------



## derechaconservadora

what you want? we can compare everything. murder rates, corruption, foreign investment, airports. i just put one good example. of course no one country will lead everything, but if we can show more and more rankings the things will be clear. 

exports, ports, railways, subways, car sells, real estate prices. education quality of the average school, education quality of the top universities, scientific development, death of babies under 2 years, death of mothers, undernourished population, people living under 2 dollar per day, cost of living against salaries, cigarrette sells, even (its maybe weird but) cocaine consumption. all that things show you how developed is a country.


----------



## Baleares

That is just what i'm saying ¬¬

And some of the indicators i've puted up in the past page.


----------



## null

Baleares said:


> China is number Cedar Teeth... How can you compare the infrastructure of a 1.3 billion people country with a 192 million country? We all know tha infrastructure is not the best of Brazil and actually we all know that it is one of the worst things in our country, but infrastructure is not the only thing that show us how much a country is developed.


Then how do you compare the GDP per capital of a 1.3 billion people country with a 192 million country? Brazil is a resource rich country and had a much better economic base than China in the 1960's and I'm suprised it's still developing today. What did China have? A lower economic base plus a very lame government (Mao regime) since day one.


----------



## null

Some interesting stuff from Wiki:

List of Chinese administrative divisions by Human Development Index 

HDI (2008 data)[1] Comparable Country
(2007 data) 
Very High human development 
- Hong Kong 0.944 (2007 data)[2] 
- Macau 0.944 (2007 data)[3] 
1 Shanghai 0.908 
High human development 
2 Beijing 0.891 
3 Tianjin 0.875 
4 Guangdong 0.844 
5 Zhejiang 0.841 
6 Jiangsu 0.837 
7 Liaoning 0.835 
8 Shandong 0.828 
9 Jilin 0.815 
10 Hebei 0.810 
11 Heilongjiang 0.808 
12 Fujian 0.807 
13 Inner Mongolia 0.803 
14 Shanxi 0.800 
Medium human development 
- Mainland China average 0.793[1] 
15 Henan 0.787 
16 Hubei 0.784 
17 Hainan 0.784 
18 Chongqing 0.783 
19 Hunan 0.781 
20 Guangxi 0.776 
21 Xinjiang 0.774 
22 Shaanxi 0.773 
23 Ningxia 0.766 
24 Sichuan 0.763 
25 Jiangxi 0.760 
26 Anhui 0.750 
27 Qinghai 0.720 
28 Yunnan 0.710 
29 Gansu 0.705 
30 Guizhou 0.690 
31 Tibet 0.630 


Brazil:

Rank States and Regions HDI Comparable country 
2005 data Compared to 2004 data 2005 data 2004 data 
1 (0) Distrito Federal 0.874 0.868 Italy 
2 (0) Santa Catarina 0.840 0.833 Cyprus 
3 (2) São Paulo 0.833 0.825 Libya 
4 (0) Rio de Janeiro 0.832 0.826 Malta 
5 (2) Rio Grande do Sul 0.884 0.829 Qatar 
6 (2) Mato Grosso do Sul 0.830 0.802 Chile 
— Southern Region 0.829 0.825 Malaysia 
— Southeast Region 0.824 0.817 Serbia 
7 (0) Paraná 0.820 0.816 Russia 
— Central-West Region 0.815 0.809 Russia 
— Brazil 0.808 0.800 Brazil 
8 (1) Espírito Santo 0.802 0.794 Lebanon 
9 (0) Goiás 0.800 0.794 Lebanon 
10 (3) Minas Gerais 0.800 0.795 Lebanon 
11 (0) Mato Grosso 0.796 0.793 Tunisia 
12 (2) Amapá 0.780 0.762 Iran 
13 (0) Amazonas 0.780 0.766 Iran 
14 (2) Rondônia 0.776 0.768 Dominican Republic 
— North Region 0.764 0.755 Indonesia 
15 (0) Tocantins 0.756 0.751 Gabon 
16 (0) Pará 0.755 0.749 Gabon 
17 (0) Acre 0.751 0.748 Philippines 
18 (0) Roraima 0.750 0.741 Philippines 
19 (1) Bahia 0.742 0.732 Syria 
20 (1) Sergipe 0.742 0.741 Syria 
21 (0) Rio Grande do Norte 0.738 0.724 Palestine 
22 (0) Ceará 0.723 0.717 Vietnam 
— Northeast Region 0.720 0.713 Moldova 
23 (0) Pernambuco 0.718 0.710 Equatorial Guinea 
24 (0) Paraíba 0.718 0.709 Equatorial Guinea 
25 (0) Piauí 0.703 0.698 Egypt 
26 (0) Maranhão 0.683 0.686 South Africa 
27 (0) Alagoas 0.677 0.670 South Africa


----------



## null

Russia(2009)

Very High human development 
Rank Federal subject 2009 HDI 
1 Moscow 0.964 
2 Saint Petersburg 0.904 
High human development 
3 Tyumen Oblast
(including KMAO and YNAO) 0.882 
4 Tatarstan 0.864 
5 Sakhalin Oblast 0.855 
6 Belgorod Oblast 0.852 
7 Tomsk Oblast 0.850 
Russia (average) 0.840 
8 Sakha Republic 0.836 
9 Krasnoyarsk Krai 0.834 
10 Omsk Oblast 0.834 
11 Komi 0.832 
12 Orenburg Oblast 0.831 
13 Lipetsk Oblast 0.829 
14 Arkhangelsk Oblast
(including NAO) 0.828 
15 Sverdlovsk Oblast 0.828 
16 Krasnodar Krai 0.828 
17 Novosibirsk Oblast 0.828 
18 Bashkortostan 0.827 
19 Chelyabinsk Oblast 0.826 
20 Samara Oblast 0.825 
21 Kursk Oblast 0.823 
22 Udmurtia 0.823 
23 Yaroslavl Oblast 0.823 
24 Vologda Oblast 0.821 
25 Saratov Oblast 0.820 
26 Moscow Oblast 0.820 
27 Nizhny Novgorod Oblast 0.818 
28 Rostov Oblast 0.818 
29 Voronezh Oblast 0.817 
30 Magadan Oblast 0.817 
31 Perm Krai 0.817 
32 Oryol Oblast 0.815 
33 Kaliningrad Oblast 0.812 
34 Kemerovo Oblast 0.812 
35 North Ossetia-Alania 0.812 
36 Kaluga Oblast 0.811 
37 Irkutsk Oblast 0.811 
38 Volgograd Oblast 0.810 
39 Chuvashia 0.810 
40 Dagestan 0.810 
41 Mordovia 0.809 
42 Murmansk Oblast 0.809 
43 Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 0.809 
44 Khakassia 0.809 
45 Astrakhan Oblast 0.808 
46 Ulyanovsk Oblast 0.807 
47 Ryazan Oblast 0.807 
48 Penza Oblast 0.806 
49 Leningrad Oblast 0.805 
50 Tambov Oblast 0.804 
51 Khabarovsk Krai 0.804 
52 Primorsky Krai 0.804 
53 Stavropol Krai 0.801 
54 Karachay-Cherkessia 0.800 
55 Tula Oblast 0.800 
Medium human development 
56 Karelia 0.799 
57 Novgorod Oblast 0.798 
58 Kamchatka Krai 0.798 
59 Altai Krai 0.796 
60 Kurgan Oblast 0.796 
61 Adygea 0.795 
62 Smolensk Oblast 0.795 
63 Vladimir Oblast 0.795 
64 Kirov Oblast 0.792 
65 Kostroma Oblast 0.792 
66 Buryatia 0.791 
67 Bryansk Oblast 0.791 
68 Amur Oblast 0.789 
69 Tver Oblast 0.789 
70 Kabardino-Balkaria 0.788 
71 Mari El 0.788 
72 Kalmykia 0.782 
73 Zabaykalsky Krai 0.782 
74 Ivanovo Oblast 0.776 
75 Pskov Oblast 0.772 
76 Chechnya 0.765 
77 Altai Republic 0.763 
78 Ingushetia 0.762 
79 Jewish Autonomous Oblast 0.762 
80 Tuva 0.732 


India (wrong algorithm is used on comparable countries):

High human development 
1 Kerala 0.920 [2] Japan 
2 Chandigarh 0.892[citation needed] Greece 
Medium human development 
3 Lakshadweep 0.796 Argentina 
4 Mizoram 0.790 Argentina 
5 Delhi 0.789 Argentina 
6 Goa 0.779 Cuba 
7 Nagaland 0.770 Saudi Arabia 
8 Andaman and Nicobar Islands 0.766 Malaysia 
9 Daman and Diu 0.754 Russia 
10 Puducherry 0.748 Russia 
11 Manipur 0.707 Iran 
12 Maharashtra 0.689 People's Republic of China 
13 Sikkim 0.684 People's Republic of China 
14 Himachal Pradesh 0.681 Thailand 
15 Punjab 0.679 Thailand 
16 Tamil Nadu 0.675 El Salvador 
17 Haryana 0.644 Philippines 
18 Uttarakhand 0.628 Syria/ Namibia 
19 West Bengal 0.625 Namibia/ Honduras 
20 Gujarat 0.621 South Africa 
21 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 0.618 Indonesia 
22 Arunachal Pradesh 0.617 Indonesia 
23 Tripura 0.608 Tajikistan 
24 Jammu and Kashmir 0.601 Tajikistan 
25 Karnataka 0.600 Tajikistan 
26 Meghalaya 0.585 Vietnam 
- All India 0.575 [3] 
27 Andhra Pradesh 0.572 Iraq 
28 Rajasthan 0.537 India 
29 Assam 0.534 Congo 
30 Chhattisgarh 0.516 Bhutan 
31 Jharkhand 0.513 Kenya 
Low human development 
32 Uttar Pradesh 0.490 Pakistan 
33 Madhya Pradesh 0.488 Angola 
34 Orissa 0.452 Haiti 
35 Bihar 0.449 Lesotho


----------



## George W. Bush

null said:


> Then how do you compare the GDP per capital of a 1.3 billion people country with a 192 million country? Brazil is a resource rich country and had a much better economic base than China in the 1960's and I'm suprised it's still developing today. What did China have? A lower economic base plus a very lame government (Mao regime) since day one.


Brazil's (or rather São Paulo's) industrialization started for earnest more or less in 1930. The economy developed fast (in the southern part) until the 1970s but then somehow remained a bit stuck for a whole generation. The quality of government has improved since the mid-1990s, so Brazil seems to have regained new force. Even though its economic dynamic is still below potential there has been considerable socio-economic progress in the last decade.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Completing the map:









_Dark Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800
Light Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 or HDI over 0.800
Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 and HDI over 0.700
Light Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 or HDI over 0.700

GDP per capita 2011 (FMI) and HDI 2011 (UN)_


----------



## Baleares

null said:


> Then how do you compare the GDP per capital of a 1.3 billion people country with a 192 million country? Brazil is a resource rich country and had a much better economic base than China in the 1960's and I'm suprised it's still developing today. What did China have? A lower economic base plus a very lame government (Mao regime) since day one.


I told you that HDI is not the only thing to measure development. And about that HDI ranking posted above, you may take attention to year the data was taken in Brazil, China and Russia. You can't compare HDI-M of Brazil in 2005 to HDI (different methodology) for China or Russia in 2008 or 2009. 

As i said, you need to take all variants of social, cultural, political, economical and technological areas to approach of what we could name a country advance level. 

Only lookin for HDI is not accurate enough.


----------



## Kenwen

Baleares said:


> I told you that HDI is not the only thing to measure development. And about that HDI ranking posted above, you may take attention to year the data was taken in Brazil, China and Russia. You can't compare HDI-M of Brazil in 2005 to HDI (different methodology) for China or Russia in 2008 or 2009.
> 
> As i said, you need to take all variants of social, cultural, political, economical and technological areas to approach of what we could name a country advance level.
> 
> Only lookin for HDI is not accurate enough.


If we are talking about technology, China is surely more advance. Our rockets, launch man into the space, Beidou system(chinese GPS), super computer, things like deep water crane ship, China lead in machine tool market.etc


----------



## jefferson2

Kenwen said:


> If we are talking about technology, China is surely more advance. Our rockets, launch man into the space, Beidou system(chinese GPS), super computer, things like deep water crane ship, China lead in machine tool market.etc


... and modesty

(although I do agree that China is high tech in some areas, like transit, computers and space)


----------



## derechaconservadora

brazil is definitely more advanced than china. china is similar to peru if we look salaries, average richness. of course china have very rich cities, but also brazil have very rich cities, like sao paulo, sao paulo as example is richer than santiago de chile. this is impressive.


----------



## italiano_pellicano

russia , brazil , chile , china


----------



## italiano_pellicano

50 millions of poverty in mexico , mexico and peru have more than 50% of the population in the poverty


----------



## Motul

Colombia has GDP per capita over $10,000 *and* HDI over .700. Same as Peru.

Of course, I'm talkiing about the GDP per capita that matters: PPP.


----------



## Baleares

Kenwen said:


> If we are talking about technology, China is surely more advance. Our rockets, launch man into the space, Beidou system(chinese GPS), super computer, things like deep water crane ship, China lead in machine tool market.etc


I totally agree about that. China's technology is more advanced specially in Spacial Technology. But in that matter Brazil and India are not meaningless either. Brazil is going to become in 2013 one of the few countries capable of launch spacial missiles (The first step to launch Nukes or even men) and India is already part of that group.

Russia is far above China and the other BRIC countries not just in spacial technology but also in military technology. Not even is possible a comparison. 

But we cannot take this discussion just to a Country x Country. All i want to prove is that first, there is not a Developed country in what it really should mean. Actually it would be very nice if we start changing the term Development for Advancement. 

And second that we cannot just say that Country X is more advanced than Country Y if we dont study all the variants that composes it measurement.


----------



## Baleares

italiano_pellicano said:


> 50 millions of poverty in mexico , mexico and peru have more than 50% of the population in the poverty


Sorry but that is NOT truth. Actually Mexico is one of the countries in Latin America with less amount of poor people. The point about Brazil and Mexico is that those countries (Such as China and India) have a very hard way till get to level of advancement of Canada or Australia just because they have huge populations. 

Peru not even has more than 50 million people... How could it have 50 million poor people? Let's be serious ok?


----------



## Baleares

Motul said:


> Colombia has GDP per capita over $10,000 *and* HDI over .700. Same as Peru.
> 
> Of course, I'm talkiing about the GDP per capita that matters: PPP.


Actually what does matter is not the GDP percapta but the real income of those countries. For example, in GDP percapta PPC Argentina is a lot ahead of Brazil. Something like 17000 vs 12000. 

But if we look at the average wages we get something very close. Something like 4096 pesos in Argentina (916 dollars) and 1720 reais in Brazil (847 dollars)... The difference drops just to 7.36%. 

I dont know how much is the average wage in Colombia but according to some sources its about 692 dollars, very alike of Mexico which is about 618 dollars. All we need to make is turn that value into PPC and we can see the real average wage of a country.


----------



## Motul

But then you also have to consider the cost of living, which in brazil for example is much higher than Colombia.

There's alot of variables to consider.


----------



## George W. Bush

Stop writing "percapta".


----------



## Baleares

Motul said:


> But then you also have to consider the cost of living, which in brazil for example is much higher than Colombia.
> 
> There's alot of variables to consider.


Of course. For example the "Canasta Básica" in Argentina is according to INDEC is 422 dollars. In the case of Argentina it will depend on what source you take as parameter because the INDEC is not a very reliable source. In Brazil it is about 170 dollars. Brazil is expensive but Brazilian food generally is not.

An Argentinian will have more money to buy clothes than a Brazilian but won't have more money to buy the basic food items. Actually Brazil is really expensive but not in everything. Its something we could analyse.


----------



## ..Polkator..

As for Latin America: First Chile, then Uruguay and Argentina.


----------



## FAAN

^^As for Chile and Uruguay agree with you, but I think possibly even Mexico reaches the status of development before of Argentina.


----------



## snicket

PPP per capita and HDI, Argentina goes right behind Chile


----------



## FAAN

^^I know. But as has been discussed for quite a while Argentina is a country very unstable and susceptible to large rapid changes, which can worsen the quality of life in the country.


----------



## snicket

I think that the faster growth of GDP per capita from richer countries is a challenge for emerging countries, I mean:

List of countries by future GDP (PPP) per capita estimates:

2013:
United States - 51,058
Uruguay -16,607

2014:
United States 52,817
Uruguay -17,466

2015:
United States 54,921
Uruguay -18,391

2016:
United States 57,220 
Uruguay -19,369


A convergence seems impossible hno:


----------



## FAAN

It is true after all must be 50 or 100 years of economic backwardness.


----------



## agus_southMVD

snicket said:


> I think that the faster growth of GDP per capita from richer countries is a challenge for emerging countries, I mean:
> 
> List of countries by future GDP (PPP) per capita estimates:
> 
> 2013:
> United States - 51,058
> Uruguay -16,607
> 
> 2014:
> United States 52,817
> Uruguay -17,466
> 
> 2015:
> United States 54,921
> Uruguay -18,391
> 
> 2016:
> United States 57,220
> Uruguay -19,369
> 
> 
> A convergence seems impossible hno:


The thing is that it wouldn't be accurate to compare absolute values of GDP per capita growth, as GDP per capita, like most cumulative indexes, usually grows exponentially.
This means that, even if American GDP grows more than Uruguayan GDP in absolute terms (6012 against 2762), GDP per capita is growing relatively faster in Uruguay (16.6% in the three years), than in the US (12% in the same time).
Thus, if they continue growing at the same rates for a very long time (although I don't think that's likely), Uruguayan GDP may eventually reach American GDP.
Being myself from Uruguay, I'm confident that with stable income growth, long term planning and an efficient and redistributing government, Uruguay can get to be considered a developed country in about fifteen years. That's not fast or impressive, but it's not so much time after all. I'll be 32 by then


----------



## drowningman666

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Completing the map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Dark Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800
> Light Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 or HDI over 0.800
> Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 and HDI over 0.700
> Light Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 or HDI over 0.700
> 
> GDP per capita 2011 (FMI) and HDI 2011 (UN)_


I think that Poland and Slovakia both have GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Poland --- GDP per capita US$ 13,540 --- HDI 0.813
Slovakia --- GDP per capita US$ 17,644 --- HDI 0.834

Slovakia will probably become dark blue in a couple of years. For Poland, it will take a while.




Motul said:


> Colombia has GDP per capita over $10,000 *and* HDI over .700. Same as Peru.
> 
> Of course, I'm talkiing about the GDP per capita that matters: PPP.


The fairy tale money again... Do you use it when you go to the US?...

Colombia's GDP in 2011: US$ 328 billion (which means each person in Colombia produced *US$ 7,100* average); 

Peru's GDP in 2011: US$ 174 billion (which means each person in Peru produced *US$ 5,800* average). 

There's no shortcuts to the development.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

^^ Why do you use GDP Per Capita nominal? Is it because it favors Brazil? Purchasing Power Parity is the better measure to gauge the development of a country since it takes into account inflation, cost of living, relative costs and incomes whereas nominal is just based on exchange rate and is better for measuring the size of the whole economy. Peru, Colombia SHOULD be green and Poland and Slovakia SHOULD be dark blue.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Because it's the REAL one. Colombia's economy produced US$ 328 billion in 2011. Period. If one wanted to buy everything Colombia produced in 2011, that's the ammount to be paid. We're NOT talking about income or wages here (which are already inside HDI formula), therefore purchase power is irrelevant.

About favouring Brazil... I couldn't care less. I use GDP nominal because that's the one the world operates under.


----------



## Motul

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Poland --- GDP per capita US$ 13,540 --- HDI 0.813
> Slovakia --- GDP per capita US$ 17,644 --- HDI 0.834
> 
> Slovakia will probably become dark blue in a couple of years. For Poland, it will take a while.
> 
> The fairy tale money again... Do you use it when you go to the US?...
> 
> Colombia's GDP in 2011: US$ 328 billion (which means each person in Colombia produced US$ 7,100 average);
> 
> Peru's GDP in 2011: US$ 174 billion (which means each person in Peru produced US$ 5,800 average).
> 
> There's no shortcuts to the development.




95% of colombians never go to USA .. What matters is how much the locally produced can purchase IN THE COUNTRY. 

I bet if brazil was benefited by PPP all your brazilians would use it. But that's no one's fault other than your skewed macro economics and overvalued currency which makes it a ridiculously expensive country in spite of being third worldly.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

I also think this is a better measure of HDI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

"measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account. It captures the HDI of the average person in society, which is less than the aggregate HDI when there is inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. Under perfect equality, the HDI and IHDI are equal; the greater the difference between the two, the greater the inequality"

It will solve this petty dispute about poverty in Brazil, China, India, Russia blah blah blah

Change the required 0.700 HDI to a 0.500 inequality-adjusted HDI for Green or 0.600 for Blue and then no wildly unequal countries would filter into being developed on your map


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Motul said:


> 95% of colombians never go to USA .. What matters is how much the locally produced can purchase IN THE COUNTRY.
> 
> I bet if brazil was benefited by PPP all your brazilians would use it. But that's no one's fault other than your skewed macro economics and overvalued currency which makes it a ridiculously expensive country in spite of being third worldly.


Colombia should definitely be in the same GDP Per Capita category as Brazil. The difference is negligible and even the IMF groups countries with nominal scores of $6 400 – $12 800 into a bracket. Plus, I agree that PPP should be used. It's biased voodoo macroeconomics to make one country look better than another when Colombia and Brazil are at basically the same level of development

Plus, @Yuri nominal is 1000% the wrong measure. Nominal is better for measuring international trade and the size of national markets while Purchasing Power Parity " accounts for the relative effective domestic purchasing power of the average producer or consumer within an economy". And "The method can provide a better indicator of the living standards of less developed countries, because it compensates for the weakness of local currencies in the international markets". We don't measure prosperity by trade or the strength of the Brazilian real, you measure it by the purchasing power the average person has in a country. Using nominal here when it clearly doesn't belong just makes it look like you are trying to prop up Brazil and screw other Latin American Countries in some pointless "my **** is bigger than yours" crap that we get in every country ranking thread. If you want people to look objectively at your ranking, don't try to skew the results with biased data measures.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Motul said:


> 95% of colombians never go to USA .. What matters is how much the locally produced can purchase IN THE COUNTRY.
> 
> I bet if brazil was benefited by PPP all your brazilians would use it. But that's no one's fault other than your skewed macro economics and overvalued currency which makes it a ridiculously expensive country in spite of being third worldly.


Who are "all Brazilians"? Don't be childish.

Colombia imports using REAL dollars not fantasy ones. Colombia exports using REAL dollars not fantasy ones.

R$ is overvalued?!?!?! Prove it! Brazil had a *US$ 40 billion trade surplus* last year. The exports grew almost 20% with a R$ 1.66 exchange rate. And it's precisely the strong real that's helping to control inflation, as we are able to import more. 

BTW, Brazilians bought 10 times more cars as Colombians last year, much more alligned with REAL GDP than the fantasy GDP.

And please, if you want to keep this nonsense, send me US$ 1,000 and I'll send you 1,000,000 Colombian pesos back. For today. Deal?




Manitopiaaa said:


> Colombia should definitely be in the same GDP Per Capita category as Brazil. The difference is negligible and even the IMF groups countries with nominal scores of $6 400 – $12 800 into a bracket. Plus, I agree that PPP should be used. It's biased voodoo macroeconomics to make one country look better than another when Colombia and Brazil are at basically the same level of development


Why should Colombia be in the same category of Brazil when Brazilian GDP per capita is as almost twice as bigger? All indicators show Brazil is clearly wealthier than Colombia. *A weak currency mirrors a weak economy*. As soon as Colombia economy grow strong, their currency will get stronger as well.




Manitopiaaa said:


> Plus, @Yuri nominal is 1000% the wrong measure. Nominal is better for measuring international trade and the size of national markets while Purchasing Power Parity " accounts for the relative effective domestic purchasing power of the average producer or consumer within an economy". And "The method can provide *a better indicator of the living standards of less developed countries*, because it compensates for the weakness of local currencies in the international markets". We don't measure prosperity by trade or the strength of the Brazilian real, you measure it by the purchasing power the average person has in a country. Using nominal here when it clearly doesn't belong just makes it look like you are trying to prop up Brazil and screw other Latin American Countries in some pointless "my **** is bigger than yours" crap that we get in every country ranking thread. If you want people to look objectively at your ranking, don't try to skew the results with biased data measures.


That's why I also used the *HDI* on my map. Also, GDP per capita is NOT income, wages, therefore it's completely useless to talk about fantasy currencies when the topic is GDP.

Finally, the exchange rate is now US$ 1.00 to R$ 2.00. Do you think I'll change my opinion because of it? Keep waiting... As I said, I couldn't care less how Brazil will look on the map. I care only about *reality*. The reality is that the entire world works with REAL dollars, not fantasy ones.


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Because it's the REAL one.


It is not.

PS:
The only thing one may sensibly question is the adequacy of the PPP factors in use. There is no single universally accepted method to determine them. Hence there are different factors in use, for every country (the World Bank uses other factors than the IMF and the Penn Table has several different).


----------



## agus_southMVD

Come on! This discussion is turning into nonsense. Bringing up statistics out of nowhere and using them improperly. I understand both arguments, but to my mind PPP adjusted GDP per capita is a more accurate reflection of the standard of livings of the population than regular GDP per capita. If we are speaking about development, I think the purchasing power of the population is indeed very important, even more than the production. A weak currency does not mirror a weak economy and is not entirely related to the level of prices. A country can be very expensive even if it has a weak currency and vice-versa.


----------



## Motul

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Who are "all Brazilians"? Don't be childish.
> 
> Colombia imports using REAL dollars not fantasy ones. Colombia exports using REAL dollars not fantasy ones.
> 
> R$ is overvalued?!?!?! Prove it! Brazil had a US$ 40 billion trade surplus last year. The exports grew almost 20% with a R$ 1.66 exchange rate. And it's precisely the strong real that's helping to control inflation, as we are able to import more.
> 
> BTW, Brazilians bought 10 times more cars as Colombians last year, much more alligned with REAL GDP than the fantasy GDP.
> 
> And please, if you want to keep this nonsense, send me US$ 1,000 and I'll send you 1,000,000 Colombian pesos back. For today. Deal?



All the brazilians who immediately look past PPP while everyone else gives it it's place.

Colombia's imports are aided by the currency's strength.

Brazilian exports are aided by protectionism. 164 protectionist moves in 2011 (Colombia: 7).

Colombians are in a house buying frenzy due to the low interest rate and abundant credit; this translates into lower car sales. Also, Colombian law is hostile towards car ownership. A pedestrian/public transport oriented society is favored and actively sought.

Ps- the way it works is, come with $1,000 and you will be able to afford many more things here than in Brazil.. That's the whole point in PPP.

From computers (MacBook pro at $1,100), to food, to clothing and everything in between.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
What the prices of things in Colombia has to do with GDP? I'm not talking about wages. 

It's so pathetic you dismiss all my arguments accusing me of "patriotism" as you're the one doing this only to bring Colombia up. Everything Colombia produced last year worths US$ 330 billion. Period. All the rest is "what if". 

BTW, where are my US$ 1,000?!?!?!?! On the end of the day, it seems Colombians don't care about PPP: prefer US$ 1,000 than 1,000,000 pesos...

P.S. Brazilians imported in 2011 almost US$ 1,200 per capita. Colombians, just over US$ 800. So, despite all the protectionism you're talking about, Brazilians imported way more than Colombians.




George W. Bush said:


> It is not.
> 
> PS:
> The only thing one may sensibly question is the adequacy of the PPP factors in use. There is no single universally accepted method to determine them. Hence there are different factors in use, for every country (the World Bank uses other factors than the IMF and the Penn Table has several different).


Exactly! PPP is a fantasy, as it changes from street to street. Impossible to calculate. But more important: it's useless when it comes to GDP.

Another thing: people say exchange rates change all the time. So what? Soybeans prices change all the time, oil, rice, tomatoes, everything. 

In any case, to my map, GDP nominal is the important one as I used the HDI for income, health and education. A country cannot be expected to be regarded as "developed" with a GDP per capita under US$ 20,000.


----------



## agus_southMVD

I understand both arguments, but people should be careful not to use statistics improperly and it's not good to compare data without clear comprehension of what it means. Purchasing Power Parity is important to measure the ability of the population to by goods and services, which reflects in some way the standard of living (although considering inequality would give you a better picture of the quality of life of the average person).
As for the topic itself, I believe the countries which are closest of achieving a developed country status are some of those from eastern Europe: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary.


----------



## Baleares

agus_southMVD said:


> Come on! This discussion is turning into nonsense. Bringing up statistics out of nowhere and using them improperly. I understand both arguments, but to my mind PPP adjusted GDP per capita is a more accurate reflection of the standard of livings of the population than regular GDP per capita. If we are speaking about development, I think the purchasing power of the population is indeed very important, even more than the production. A weak currency does not mirror a weak economy and is not entirely related to the level of prices. A country can be very expensive even if it has a weak currency and vice-versa.


Actually when talking about purchasing power... As i said, GDP PPP is NOT a measurement. Tell me, what is GDP?

Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. 

Although it can give us an idea of ​​the productivity of a country, GDP per capita can not show us the quality of life and the average income of the population. It is not meant for that.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

agus_southMVD said:


> I understand both arguments, but people should be careful not to use statistics improperly and it's not good to compare data without clear comprehension of what it means. *Purchasing Power Parity is important to measure the ability of the population to by goods and services*, which reflects in some way the standard of living (although considering inequality would give you a better picture of the quality of life of the average person).
> As for the topic itself, I believe the countries which are closest of achieving a developed country status are some of those from eastern Europe: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary.


As we're talking about GDP and NOT income, the only that matters is the REAL one. I crossed it with HDI which gave us a very good picture of the development. 

If you pay attention, my map fits exactly with the most accepted definition of developed world, which means the criteria used by me is very good:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Completing the map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Dark Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800
> Light Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 or HDI over 0.800
> Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 and HDI over 0.700
> Light Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 or HDI over 0.700
> 
> GDP per capita 2011 (FMI) and HDI 2011 (UN)_


Figures for the "light blue" missing GDP per capita:

Slovakia --- US$ 17,644 --- 0.834
Estonia --- US$ 16,583 --- 0.835
Chile --- US$ 14,278 --- 0.805
Hungary --- US$ 14,050 --- 0.816
Poland --- US$ 13,540 --- 0.813
Lithuania --- US$ 13,075 --- 0.810
Latvia --- US$ 12,671 --- 0.805

Figures for the "light blue" missing HDI:

Kuwait --- US$ 47,982 --- 0.760
Oman --- US$ 23,315 --- 0.705
Saudi Arabia --- US$ 20,504 --- 0.770

^^
It seems Slovakia, followed by Estonia and Chile will be the next developed.

Next year, Argentina will probably be "light blue". The year after that, maybe Croatia. 

Also this year, Malaysia and Lebanon will likely turn "green". Turkey, Belize, Tunisia, Jordan and Algeria will turn "light green".


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Exactly! PPP is a fantasy, as it changes from street to street. Impossible to calculate. But more important: it's useless when it comes to GDP.


They deviate one from another, but rarely by much. If different methods lead to similar PPP factors then this is an indication of the sensibility of the concept.
It seems totally obvious to me that you can't use wildly changing currency exchange factors relative to some other currency (why US dollars and not euros or yen? - PPP instead uses a fictitious international dollar to avoid the arbitrariness of choosing a specific real currency). Brazil with its highly volatile currency is an excellent example.

US dollar to Brazilian real exchange rate










And besides, do you really think the people in IMF, World Bank, U Pennsylvania (Penn World Table) etc. would waste decades of research on how to determine realistic PPP conversion factors if the PPP concept didn't have a use?


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
I don't understand what you mean by this graphic. And yes, we can display Brazilian or Colombian GDP in euros, pounds, yen, their own currency, no problem...

PPP has indeed use, for income, for wages, but NOT for GDP.


----------



## Baleares

Manitopiaaa said:


> Colombia should definitely be in the same GDP Per Capita category as Brazil. The difference is negligible and even the IMF groups countries with nominal scores of $6 400 – $12 800 into a bracket. Plus, I agree that PPP should be used. It's biased voodoo macroeconomics to make one country look better than another when Colombia and Brazil are at basically the same level of development


Sorry but that is NOT truth. I could prove it posting a lot of social, economic and political indicators to prove that Colombia and Brazil are not in the same level of development as well as Peru is not more developed than Brazil, as showed in HDI report. 

The point is that you're taking just two or three variants to assume that Colombia is in the same level of Brazil. 

I would divide America Countries in the next levels...

Advanced Countries:

1 Canada
2 United States
3 Bahamas

New Advanced Countries:

1 Chile
2 Uruguay

Nearly Advanced Countries:

1 Costa Rica
2 Mexico
3 Argentina
4 Brazil


Middling Advanced Countries

1 Panama
2 Ecuador
3 Colombia
4 Venezuela
5 Peru

Low average Advanced Countries

1 Cuba
2 Paraguay
3 Rep. Dominicana
4 Honduras
5 Nicaragua 
6 Guatemala
7 El Salvador
8 Haiti

I've made myself a ranking based on all the social, economic, political and commercial indicators that i've found in internet and made my own methodology with the support of my university supervisor. It may contain failures but i'm pretty sure it's a lot accurate according to the disposed data. I'll post it here soon.


----------



## George W. Bush

Malaysia and Peru are completely different socio-economic leagues. Malaysia has very little poverty and is economically more advanced than any Latin American country.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Completing the map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Dark Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800
> Light Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 or HDI over 0.800
> Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 and HDI over 0.700
> Light Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 or HDI over 0.700
> 
> GDP per capita 2011 (FMI) and HDI 2011 (UN)_


----------



## snicket

I think Brazil, Peru and Colombia are quite similar in develoment.

Peru and Colombia are open economies and easy of doing business

Brasil is inovative, more competitive and less corrupt than the other both

Only time will tell 'who" will get there first


----------



## Baleares

snicket said:


> I think Brazil, Peru and Colombia are quite similar in develoment.
> 
> Peru and Colombia are open economies and easy of doing business
> 
> Brasil is inovative, more competitive and less corrupt than the other both
> 
> Only time will tell 'who" will get there first


But the point is "i think"... We can think whatever we want but if you take all variants that composes a Country Standard of Development, Peru and Colombia won't be at the same level of Brazil and Brazil won't be at the same level of Chile for example.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

George W. Bush said:


> Malaysia and Peru are completely different socio-economic leagues. Malaysia has very little poverty and is economically more advanced than any Latin American country.


Every country is different from another. Should I make a map for one colour for each country? 

Malaysia --- US$ 9,700 --- 0.761
Peru --- US$ 5,782 --- 0.725

^^
As I said, by the end of the year, Malaysia will be "green".


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> I don't understand what you mean by this graphic.


Those are the historical market exchange rates, i.e. the conversion factors for determining _nominal_ GDP in US dollars. PPP conversions factors don't reflect exchange market volatility, they only change in accordance with the inflation rate of the specific country. That's the way it should be.



> And yes, we can display Brazilian or Colombian GDP in euros, pounds, yen, their own currency, no problem...


But then you don't seem to realize that market exchange rates develop very differently for every target currency. This easily shows the inadequacy of using market exchange rates as conversion factors.


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Every country is different from another. Should I make a map for one colour for each country?
> 
> Malaysia --- US$ 9,700 --- 0.761
> Peru --- US$ 5,782 --- 0.725
> 
> ^^
> As I said, by the end of the year, Malaysia will be "green".


Man, you should make a visit to Peru and Malaysia, then you would see _in a blink of an eye_ the difference between both countries and how far from reality your map is.
Which again is an indication of how nonsensical it is to use nominal GDP values.


----------



## Baleares

That is because his map is taking just a little of economic variants + HDI to measure development.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
And yet it gave a very good defintion of development. The countries I painted in dark blue are usually the ones regarded as developed by 99% of the people.




George W. Bush said:


> Man, you should make a visit to Peru and Malaysia, then you would see _in a blink of an eye_ the difference between both countries and how far from reality your map is.
> Which again is an indication of how nonsensical it is to use nominal GDP values.


It seems to me Malaysia and Peru are more similar in HDI than in GDP... So your whole PPP argument is flaw. Anyway, let's see, by the end of the year, when Malaysia will be "green", if you will complain Argentina and Malaysia are not on the "same league"...

I was the only person in this thread that answered the question "what developing countries closer to achieving developed country status" backed by some sort of criteria (US$ 20,000 and HDI 0.800).


----------



## George W. Bush

Baleares said:


> That is because his map is taking just a little of economic variants + HDI to measure development.


Anyway, it is rather inconsistent to combine nominal GDP values with HDI, as one of the parameters to calculate HDI is GDP per capita at PPP. If somebody rejects the PPP concept, then by logic he must also reject the HDI concept.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Wrong: HDI uses INCOME PPP and NOT GDP PPP. 

And what's "inconsistent" with my map? The countries I painted in "dark blue" are usually the ones regarded as developed by 99% of the people. HDI alone is problematic, suggesting for instance Czech Republic is more developed than UK or Cuba is some sort of paradise. The combination GDP per capita-HDI corrects all those problems.

The only complains I'm getting come from people obsessed by their own countries. Other than that, my map is doing very well, indicating which countries are already developed and which countries are getting there.


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> It seems to me Malaysia and Peru are more similar in HDI than in GDP...


Peru has more than 10% of its population living in severe poverty. In Malaysia the value is almost zero.


----------



## George W. Bush

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Wrong: HDI uses INCOME PPP and NOT GDP PPP.


I'm sorry, but this is definitely wrong.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/calculator/


----------



## derechaconservadora

peru have been growing fast since a decade at least. they still have some very bad social numbers, but they are improving year by year. and this year the peruvian currency is gaining value against dollar and against most of currencies. dont be surprised if peruvian nominal gdp reach 7,000 in one year. plus they have very low inflation. just 8 years ago the peruvian per capita was about 2,500 this year IMF predicted 6,000 but i think it will be higher (probably 6,500). they are not so different countries. 
and malaysia is not more advanced than chile in any thing, maybe they have just a better gini. but chile is richer if we compare nominal per capita, ppp per capita, hdi, and all social meassures.


----------



## George W. Bush

derechaconservadora said:


> and malaysia is not more advanced than chile in any thing, maybe they have just a better gini. but chile is richer if we compare nominal per capita, ppp per capita, hdi, and all social meassures.


Ok, they are head on head. They almost seem to be in sync, historically.









Source: World dataBank


----------



## derechaconservadora

they just have taller towers. but built with public money. thats some kind of typical third worlder mentality (to show the world an image of powerhouse). in chile tallest towers are build with private money just because is a good bussiness (still the tallest in latinamerica).


----------



## Fabio_l

sebvill said:


> If by a suburb you mean a _favela_ and by a farmer you mean the owner of a vineyard in the south of France, well yes...the farmer in Europe will be much richer than the city dweller in Latin America.
> 
> Even in Latin America there are a lot of farmers richer than not only the poorer city inhabitants but the middle classes also. The thing is that city inhabitants have acces to better health and education services.


I think I expressed myself wrong (my english isn´t that great).

When I said farmer, I meant families wich lives in rural areas from agriculture, and not a great farmer of a vineyard. And when I meant suburb, yes, I meant "favelas" (wich in latin america generally is located on suburbs).


----------



## calaguyo

endymar said:


> Man this is some pretty stupid shit.
> 
> Estonia more developed than Luxembourg, Japan and France :lol:
> The country with the most expensive food prices in EU, low wages, very high unemployment, crap infrastructure, people fleeing from the country etc.
> :bash:
> Oh wait... the list is made by bank crackheads... when it comes to kissing banks' asses Estonia is always a good boy. Very good at numbers, who cares that people live like shit.


The biggest factor might be the acceptance of Estonia into OECD countries 2 years ago.

The post you quoted is only the ranking for Knowledge Based Economy and does not cover the entire agenda of being a developed country.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Kenwen said:


> You still can't convince me how Kuwait rank high in the knowledge base survey. Wow! universities accessible for women, amazing!


Well, pls try to understand. You cannot compare Kuwait to China because Kuwait is a tiny state with just 3 million people. So it has a very small GDP. But it is well organized and has a good education infrastructure. Compare wealthy Macao to Mainland China and you will have the same result.
Of course it is easier to develop a small country with huge petrol reserves like Kuweit than such a huge and densely populated country like China. But this is not subject to discussion.



Kenwen said:


> you are as bad as Hitler


As bad as Hitler!!!??? Never - Im much worse:lol:

Thx a lot for your psychoanalysis. Pls give me your bank connection so that I can forward the money to you. What about the anger therapy you mentioned yesterday?


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

sebvill said:


> Actually his talking more like the Communist Party of China rather than Hitler.


e.g., like Mao Zedong? 
Thats cool. 

Mao Zedong, Hitler....what about Stalin?
Anyone?


----------



## isakres

Fabio_l said:


> I think I expressed myself wrong (my english isn´t that great).
> 
> When I said farmer, I meant families wich lives in rural areas from agriculture, and not a great farmer of a vineyard. And when I meant suburb, yes, I meant "favelas" (wich in latin america generally is located on suburbs).


Latinamerican farmers does also live better than those living in favelas.....


----------



## Baleares

Specially Brazilian, Argentinian and Uruguayan farmers... Maybe he is referring to some of the "Sem terra" people.


----------



## Jay

It would be nice if the United States became a developed country, or at least acted like it was one.


----------



## megacity30

Jay said:


> It would be nice if the United States became a developed country, or at least acted like it was one.


huh? :nuts:


----------



## -Corey-

Jay said:


> It would be nice if the United States became a developed country, or at least acted like it was one.


Too much weed today?


----------



## Kenwen

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> e.g., like Mao Zedong?
> Thats cool.
> 
> Mao Zedong, Hitler....what about Stalin?
> Anyone?


You are like hitler in the way of forbid people to express their own idea,but hitler is so much more intelligent than u do.


----------



## Kenwen

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> Well, pls try to understand. You cannot compare Kuwait to China because Kuwait is a tiny state with just 3 million people. So it has a very small GDP. But it is well organized and has a good education infrastructure. Compare wealthy Macao to Mainland China and you will have the same result.
> Of course it is easier to develop a small country with huge petrol reserves like Kuweit than such a huge and densely populated country like China. But this is not subject to discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> As bad as Hitler!!!??? Never - Im much worse:lol:
> 
> Thx a lot for your psychoanalysis. Pls give me your bank connection so that I can forward the money to you. What about the anger therapy you mentioned yesterday?


How much are u going to pay me, u know just making sure of things


----------



## Skyprince

"Manufacturing power" is only 1 of the many criterias in such knowledge based survey I think

So its not surprising Kuwait scores alot better - vast majority of its population live in comfy luxurious villas , almost all its young population are internet-literate and have easy access to internet, most Kuwaitis speak good English , theres world-class infrastructure accessible to everyone, etc. A relatively disciplined & educated population too.....


----------



## Jay

-Corey- said:


> Too much weed today?



I was kidding, but mostly making fun of the US's lack of ability to build good infrastructure, have decent education for the whole populace and get rid of dangerous 3rd world neighborhoods in cities.


----------



## -Corey-

Third world neighborhoods??? Not even in New Orleans! Unless you're talking about those empty houses in Detroit.


----------



## WeimieLvr

-Corey- said:


> Third world neighborhoods??? Not even in New Orleans! Unless you're talking about those empty houses in Detroit.


There are truly no third world areas in the U.S. There are certainly poor areas, but nothing compared to real third world.


----------



## snicket

I bet:

Chile, Malaysia, Uruguay, Russia and China.

That´s all.


----------



## -Corey-

Except for Russia and China.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

-Corey- said:


> Except for Russia and China.


Actually Russia and Malaysia are comparable developed, so why not? It has grown really fast the past 10 years and will continue to do so.

Agree that China won't become developed in the near future, however my prediction is that China will reach developed status around 2030.


----------



## Jay

WeimieLvr said:


> There are truly no third world areas in the U.S. There are certainly poor areas, but nothing compared to real third world.


Maybe compared to the worst of the worst but the US has far more poor/dangerous areas than all other developed countries, and a terrible education system, no high speed rail etc.


----------



## snicket

-Corey- said:


> Except for Russia and China.


China will continue to grow around 7.5, 8% in the next 20 years.

So it will achieve Malaysia and Russia.


----------



## Kenwen

snicket said:


> China will continue to grow around 7.5, 8% in the next 20 years.
> 
> So it will achieve Malaysia and Russia.


If China continue to grow like 7.5 to 8 percent, it will catch up with Malaysia and Russia in a matter of 5 years.We will see.


----------



## pesto

Jay said:


> It would be nice if the United States became a developed country, or at least acted like it was one.


Never happen. The US is beyond a developed country. It is such an explosion of insanity and creativity that it can't be categorized. That's why it is so admired and so feared.


----------



## Jay

snicket said:


> China will continue to grow around 7.5, 8% in the next 20 years.
> 
> So it will achieve Malaysia and Russia.


No country anywhere grows 8% a year for 20 years, there will be a rapid slowdown much sooner.


----------



## Jonesy55

pesto said:


> Never happen. The US is beyond a developed country. It is such an explosion of insanity and creativity that it can't be categorized. That's why it is so admired and so feared.


I hear that the people there are very modest too.


----------



## Kenwen

Jay said:


> No country anywhere grows 8% a year for 20 years, there will be a rapid slowdown much sooner.


China had achieved that for 20years, so did Japan,S.K and Taiwan.


----------



## snicket

Kenwen said:


> China had achieved that for 20years, so did Japan,S.K and Taiwan.


Exactly


----------



## George W. Bush

But to mantain high growth an already huge economy like that of China will have to rely proportionaly less on exports and increase its internal purchasing power. There is only so much the rest of the world can absorb in Chinese products. Especially now, where China's top trade partners Europe and the US need to reduce their huge debt load for some years to come.


----------



## Chrissib

Kenwen said:


> China had achieved that for 20years, so did Japan,S.K and Taiwan.


Don't forget Hong Kong and Israel. And countries like Spain and Greece weren't that far away from it.


----------



## Jonesy55

Possibly Singapore too.

How did Italy do in the 1954-1974 period? They were probably not far off either...


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Kenwen said:


> China had achieved that for 20years, so did Japan,S.K and Taiwan.


Actually China has grown with an average of 10% per year for the last 30 years.
I think in the coming 20 years China will grow at an average 5-7%.
Does anyone agree?


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Chrissib said:


> Don't forget Hong Kong and Israel. And countries like Spain and Greece weren't that far away from it.


Ireland?


----------



## George W. Bush

Ireland has a tiny population, smaller than some suburb of Shanghai.


----------



## tonttula

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Actually China has grown with an average of 10% per year for the last 30 years.
> I think in the coming 20 years China will grow at an average 5-7%.
> Does anyone agree?


There's all kinds of things that make China kind of special case.

USA and China are pretty much artificially keeping each other up with USA taking huge current account deficit year after year, actually largest in the world. 
China in return is getting dollars and using it mostly at buying USA's government bonds (buying USA's debt in other words). This would normally be crazy to do this in this scale and so long, but of course China needs to keep USA's buying power up.


As long as that "money pump" stays healthy and China gets richer and yuan reaches it's goal as floating currency some day, China's growth will get a lot slower in years time. Also copying existing technology (in business terms) will reach it's limits at some point.

Copying existing technology coupled with cheap labor was pretty much the reason why Finland and Norway where the fastest growing countries economically from 1900-2000. Norway found oil and we managed to use our school system and big investments on innovation to keep the growth after the "reaching others" growth slowed down.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Kenwen said:


> You are like hitler in the way of forbid people to express their own idea,but hitler is so much more intelligent than u do.


Stop whining and talking about personal issues, 体弱的人. This thread is about country development and not about your weak, tortured soul.
I easily could get rid of you now since a comparison with a mass murderer like Hitler is reason enough to kick you out of the forum. But Im the last to forbid you expressing your opinion as I am a democrat, something you do not consider very inportant, though. Nevertheless, I still take the right to comment on your opinion, and this might be a brandnew challenging experience you spoiled one-child policy victim.:lol:

btw, do you really expect any sympathies from posting like this:



Kenwen said:


> China is becoming much more wealthier and more powerful than ever, it is getting further from breaking down as time goes by, I'm sorry, that maybe the saddest thing that can ever happened to u!!!





Kenwen said:


> And China will not fall, if China galls, USA and EU and the rest of the world will fall too,





Kenwen said:


> I think is USA, cuz they almost control the whole Asia excluding China and Russia, and she will try hard to fight any country that doesn't obey her order such as Afganistan and Iraq, Syria and Iran are her next target, war will never stop until every nations in Asia summit to the command of USA


this I found by chance some time ago, didnt know that it was from you then, quite amusing and hilarious to read: 


Kenwen said:


> The Mongolian lives in Mongolia are not the true Mongolian. The decendants of the golden Khan lives in today eastern inner Mongolia, thats the area where Mongol tribe originate and conquered the other slave tribes, the Outer Mongolian were the slaves of the Golden Khan.


and this actually is stone aged racism, thank god its only in Chinese


you think, Hitler was intelligent...? Ok, now I understand why.


----------



## Jay

Kenwen said:


> China had achieved that for 20years, so did Japan,S.K and Taiwan.


Those countries don't have 1.3 billion people, many of whom are very poor.


----------



## Chrissib

Jonesy55 said:


> Possibly Singapore too.
> 
> How did Italy do in the 1954-1974 period? They were probably not far off either...


They had 5.6% from 1950 to 1973.


----------



## Chrissib

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> , and this might be a brandnew challenging experience you spoiled one-child policy victim.:lol:


As a big demography fan, I had to laugh on this. :lol:


----------



## Kenwen

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> Stop whining and talking about personal issues, 体弱的人. This thread is about country development and not about your weak, tortured soul.
> I easily could get rid of you now since a comparison with a mass murderer like Hitler is reason enough to kick you out of the forum. But Im the last to forbid you expressing your opinion as I am a democrat, something you do not consider very inportant, though. Nevertheless, I still take the right to comment on your opinion, and this might be a brandnew challenging experience you spoiled one-child policy victim.:lol:
> 
> btw, do you really expect any sympathies from posting like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this I found by chance some time ago, didnt know that it was from you then, quite amusing and hilarious to read:
> 
> 
> and this actually is stone aged racism, thank god its only in Chinese
> 
> 
> you think, Hitler was intelligent...? Ok, now I understand why.


Seems like u are so obsesse on me, dig every posts of mine, I scared of u, Plz leave me alone, and stop tracking me from every forums to forums, u r disgusting. And also u can not kick me out of this forum, u thought u can but u don't have the authority to do so, and by rights I can talk anything I want, loser! And I said Hitler is more intelligent than u doesn't mean he's intelligent. Clearly u have no idea of one child policy in China, I have a brother.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Kenwen said:


> Seems like u are so obsesse on me, dig every posts of mine, I scared of u, Plz leave me alone u nazi youth.


acknowledged, Great Chairman!


----------



## Kenwen

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> acknowledged, Great Chairman!


Good, go do your work now or u lose your ration of the day.


----------



## Jay

this is an internet board not a 2nd grade classroom, dear sweet jesus.


----------



## isaidso

Jay said:


> this is an internet board not a 2nd grade classroom, dear sweet jesus.


I think you're mistaken. They're usually one in the same.


----------



## bowyer333

China GDP in 2011 reach 7.5 trillion with 1.37 billion population. 
So GDP per capita is $5450, still long way to go.

Malaysia will be the mostly.


----------



## maldini

Kenwen said:


> Clearly u have no idea of one child policy in China, I have a brother.


They don't have a clue, LOL.


----------



## Chrissib

maldini said:


> They don't have a clue, LOL.


But we know that the seed of China's declinein the second half of this century, the one child policy, had already been planted.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Kenwen said:


> Leave me alone


 here you are. 
And now pls stop whining, pussy and back to topic..



maldini said:


> They don't have a clue, LOL.


So there was no such thing like an one-child policywithin the last 30 years in China ?
Of course this policy does not affect every person living in China. Eg.g. foreigners, ethnic minorities and image neurotics like Kenny are excluded.


----------



## pesto

isaidso said:


> I think you're mistaken. They're usually one in the same.


True dat.


----------



## pesto

What's the issue? China has grown fast over the last couple of decades, as have lots of other countries over selected decades. Of course, starting as low as China did (as did Japan, Germany, Italy, etc., after WW II) helps the numbers.

Conversely, the problem is that high growth rates get harder and harder to sustain as you approach the top third or so of presently attainable income levels. You can no longer just replace obviously inefficient methods for those which the more advanced countries are using. You have to actually have large numbers of people who are willing to risk what they have to try something new and risky (unless you can steal it without paying royalties). This is usually the make or break test for developing economies.


----------



## snicket

pesto said:


> What's the issue? China has grown fast over the last couple of decades, as have lots of other countries over selected decades. Of course, starting as low as China did (as did Japan, Germany, Italy, etc., after WW II) helps the numbers.
> 
> Conversely, the problem is that high growth rates get harder and harder to sustain as you approach the top third or so of presently attainable income levels. You can no longer just replace obviously inefficient methods for those which the more advanced countries are using. You have to actually have large numbers of people who are willing to risk what they have to try something new and risky (unless you can steal it without paying royalties). This is usually the make or break test for developing economies.



You're right. History shows that Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey FAILED.

But things change.


----------



## italiano_pellicano

china and russia


----------



## Paddington

I think reaching "developed country" status for the current crop of fast growing, up and coming, middle income countries will be a lot harder than it was for the up and comers of a generation ago like South Korea and Singapore.


----------



## maldini

It is possible that some developed countries will slide down into middle class category.


----------



## isakres

Italy and Greece???


----------



## -Corey-

maldini said:


> It is possible that some developed countries will slide down into middle class category.


Like Portugal??? Greece is the only one I can think of... Maybe Italy...


----------



## Kenwen

-Corey- said:


> Like Portugal??? Greece is the only one I can think of... Maybe Italy...


Italy has a solid foundation in their manufacturing sector, I think Greece and Portugal has much bigger chance than a big country like Italy.


----------



## Gorky

^^ :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: yeah right:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## [email protected]

maldini said:


> It is possible that some developed countries will slide down into middle class category.


Of course. Argentina and Uruguay happened to be two of the world's richest countries until the 1940s and they are both typical middle-income countries now.

As for the original question. Now that a handful of Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia) as well as Taiwan and South Korea have achieved the developed country status during the last 15 years or so, the most likely contenders to do so in the near future are IMO Malaysia and Panama. 
Both have a robust growth and a stable investment-friendly government.
Chile might make it as well, however their growth has slowed down and the divide between the rich and poor is growing larger in recent years there.


----------



## Skyprince

Being informal, if u ask me, a developed country shud be developed not only materially, but also socially/spiritually. 

I've been to some East Asian countries including China and while I was impressed with discipline, hard work, high standard & speedy development there , many of them are still not open to foreigners , there's quite a big gap between us ( foreigners ) and locals . I was in China and when I told that Im from Malaysia ( even pronounced it in Chinese way ) many of them don't know where Malaysia is  Quite hard to find anyone who can speak English well and highly interested to speak to foreigners. 
A huge drawback and quite depressing , sorry to say .

I like a country not only with high material life & nicely diversified economy, but also "global-minded" very open to different cultures , cosmopolitan ( I *deeply* dislike largely mono-race society ) with vibrant *highly consumerist* life style :cheers: 

To me, only the UAE, Qatar, Canada, Singapore, Switzerland & Australia fulfill my own term of "developed countries" so far :cheers:


----------



## Gorky

Skyprince said:


> *To me, only the UAE, Qatar, Canada, Singapore, Switzerland & Australia fulfill my own term of "developed countries" so far* :cheers:


:lol::lol::lol: OH MY GOOOODD...UAE?!?! QATAR!!?! SINGAPORE??!!

where is the women's rights or common citizen in these countries?!

Gay Rights?!?!

Abortion?!? etc etc etc....

Development is not only having half a dozen good infrastructure my Dear! :cheers:


----------



## Skyprince

Gorky said:


> :lol::lol::lol: OH MY GOOOODD...UAE?!?! QATAR!!?! SINGAPORE??!!
> 
> where is the women's rights or common citizen in these countries?!
> 
> Gay Rights?!?!
> 
> Abortion?!? etc etc etc....
> 
> Development is not only having half a dozen good infrastructure my Dear! :cheers:


As said, that's just my opinion  There's no right & no wrong in this matter 

I didn't see any issue of women's rights in Arab Gulf countries so far , yea I used to think women in Arab Gulf states are "opressed" and discriminated against but what I saw there during my trip is totally opposite. 

Same with gay rights , slave labour etc, What's on paper and reality ( real enforcement ) are two different matters.


----------



## Jonesy55

Well I haven't been to Egypt so I can't really compare, $5k ppp does seem a bit low perhaps, the only other country I have visited with a similar level was Fiji and there too you can find many nice comfortable houses and people having what seems to be a reasonable standard of living.

Though there was a very big difference there between urban and rural which seems to be the case in many developing countries while in the developed world prosperity also extends to small towns, villages and rural areas.


----------



## sebvill

I had the same good impression like Skyprince of Morroco last year. But I was only in Marrakech, Agadir, the Atlas mountains and the desert near Marrakech.

Im short of Rabat, Casablanca, Fes and Tangier. Will have to go again to visit those places.


----------



## Suburbanist

In countries where the income disparity is very high (like Gulf States, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and others), it is fairly easy for one, looking to the "right places", find areas that look developed as in luxury cars, modern/exquisite housing, nice landscaping, high-end stores etc.


----------



## sebvill

But in the countries you mention is as common to see high class neighbourhoods than shanty towns. At least in Brazil and Mexico there as many people in the two tails of the income distribution. Although the middle lower is bigger than the middle upper, and with a big crisis in the emerging World the middle lower is the most likely to go back to poverty.

Not even talking of the Gulf States. South Africa is probably one level down, but still, lots of nice neighbourhoods.


----------



## Skyprince

Jonesy55 said:


> Well I haven't been to Egypt so I can't really compare, $5k ppp does seem a bit low perhaps, the only other country I have visited with a similar level was Fiji and there too you can find many nice comfortable houses and people having what seems to be a reasonable standard of living.
> 
> Though there was a very big difference there between urban and rural which seems to be the case in many developing countries while in the developed world prosperity also extends to small towns, villages and rural areas.


Im aware of the big difference between urban & rural quality of living , but what I saw in "every inch" of Morocco towns, suburbs and countryside I visited are faar above every inch of towns, suburbs and countryside I visited in Egypt or Sri Lanka. Even slighly better than what I saw in Indonesia. 

And all public toilets, including the toilets in *crowded Casablanca bus terminal *I visited are very, very clean and impressive. This is far beyond what I expected from a "developing country " !!! :cheers: By contrast, all public toilets I saw in Egypt and Sri Lanka are extremely horrible , most of them have no running water at all. 



sebvill said:


> I had the same good impression like Skyprince of Morroco last year. But I was only in Marrakech, Agadir, the Atlas mountains and the desert near Marrakech.
> 
> Im short of Rabat, Casablanca, Fes and Tangier. Will have to go again to visit those places.


I think u had great impression of Moroccan people too. They are very clean, overall disciplined and hospitable too.


----------



## sebvill

Of course, they are all your _habibis._


----------



## Jonesy55

Anyway, I will hopefully finish uploading my Marrakech photos to Flickr later today then I will create a thread in the urban showcase section with them....


----------



## RyukyuRhymer

Suburbanist said:


> In countries where the income disparity is very high (like Gulf States, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and others), it is fairly easy for one, looking to the "right places", find areas that look developed as in luxury cars, modern/exquisite housing, nice landscaping, high-end stores etc.


is Mexico really bad? it seems to have a similar Gini co-efficient to the US
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png


----------



## Skyprince

Gini is boring & unfair measurement. Countries with diverse population surely have higher inequality than countries with largely ****-genius population, simply because each group tend to have different economic goal.


----------



## aaabbbccc

I was born in Morocco and now live in the US , been there many times , to me Morocco is both a very advanced first world country and a very backwards third world country at the same time , it has both depending where you go , it also has a lot of diversity and it is a beautiful country but still has many many problems , lately the foreign population has exploted mostly from France , Spain , Algeria , Central Africa , china , Pakistan and even from the US , this is the first time in a very very long time that Morocco is experiencing such a huge rise in foreign immigration , it is a mixed feeling will Morocco become a first world country ? maybe it will but it still has a very very long way to go but it is heading toward the right direction even with all the social problems and corruption


----------



## Motul

Like any developing country.. 

Go to Colombia and some cities look very developed, but then a few others feel like western Africa


----------



## onosqaciw

well it is indeed the typical problems of developing countries, i hope that whent they climb up to developed countries the economic inequality will be decrease


----------



## isakres

RyukyuRhymer said:


> is Mexico really bad? it seems to have a similar Gini co-efficient to the US
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png


Well, Gini measures how far are the wealthier and poorer populations of any given country from the national average income (standard deviation). In Mexico, as in any other emerging country, the national average income is lower than in the US or other developed nations, thus, you can see more people earning less money (lower middle class) than in the US. 


ABout Morocco, havent been there yet. But as in pictures (have seen tons), it doesnt seem to have that lower living standards as its GDP per capita suggest. Maybe tourism has been a driver for Moroccan leaders to mantain the cities clean and with decent infraestructure, but maybe they have leaving Education and Health aside :dunno:, maybe rural Morocco is a bit different than urban places as Fez, Casablanca and Marrakech, I dont know, but certainly the images missmatch the GDP or HDI figures.

As in my experience, GDP and HDI figures correspond with reality, those with better figures looks more developed in real life, with just a few exceptions.


----------



## isakres

onosqaciw said:


> well it is indeed the typical problems of developing countries, i hope that whent they climb up to developed countries the economic inequality will be decrease


Inequality is not an exclusive problem for developing countries.


----------



## onosqaciw

yeah i know even USA and has it's problems....just a general thumb


----------



## Skyprince

in many "developed countries" I visited like South Korea and Taiwan I saw many "3rd-world " horrible neighborhoods and bad-looking villages 

I only experienced Moroccan countryside nearby Marakkesh ( Ourika Valley ) and all along the bus journey Tangier-Marrakesh, Marrakesh-Casablanca and Casablanca-Fes , they don't look bad at all . Some older apartments in Casablanca and Marrakesh look bad but I saw many such apartments in South Korea Taiwan and even Japan ( especially public housing ) 

Inter-city buses are efficient and drivers are highly disciplined for all trips I took in Morocco- they drive slowly and follow traffic rules very nicely . Many roads, buildings etc are brand-new and very very beautiful.


----------



## Jonesy55

^^ I started my Marrakech photo thread btw if you are interested...


----------



## Skyprince

^^ Will look at it now !!


----------



## Rascar

Skyprince said:


> Gini is boring & unfair measurement. Countries with diverse population surely have higher inequality than countries with largely ****-genius population, simply because each group tend to have different economic goal.


Gini is not perfect as an indicator any more than raw gdp is, but it is useful nonetheless. 
The situation you describe with different groups having divergent levels of economic power should be analysed rather than swept under the carpet.


----------



## aaabbbccc

The average salary in the greater Casablanca region is 15,000 dollars a year but in Morocco it is only 4500 dollars a year , as you can see you see a huge difference


----------



## FAAN

megacity30 said:


> What is the source of this data?
> 
> Please refer to the latest UN Human Development Report:-
> 
> http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table1.pdf
> 
> Brazil has an HDI of 0.718. This is considered a high level.
> How can a favela have an HDI so much higher than its country's average?
> 
> Also, India's overall HDI isn't so high as 0.612. It's still at 0.547 which is considered a medium level. However, 10 of India's 35 states / union territories have an HDI of 0.748 and above, two of which have an HDI greater than 0.9, that are all considerably higher than Brazil's overall HDI.
> Also, 30 of the 35 states / territories have an HDI higher than its national average. It is only the bottom four states that have an HDI below India's overall average; since, they have a combined population of 415 million people (a third of India's population in a smaller area), it drags down the entire country's HDI.
> It's something like if only the states of Alagoas, Maranhao, and Piaui dragged down Brazil's overall HDI to 0.5 which of course is not the case, fortunately.
> 
> Also, within Africa, we have Algeria, Tunisia and Mauritius that are in the high level of HDI. Libya, in fact, has a higher HDI (0.755) than Brazil.


The data are of 2010, when Brazil's HDI was 0.813. But now with the redesign that are 0.718, did not post the 2011 data from Favela da Rocinha, because such data are lacking. Regarding the HDI in Brazil as well as in India, the states with the majority of the population have HDI above the national average. The regions above the average are the South, Southeast and the Midwest Region of Brazil, which together account for 120 million inhabitants (65%).


----------



## Skyprince

city_thing said:


> I imagine Malaysia will soon be developed. There was a grand plan started years ago to be a fully developed nation by 2020. I'm not sure how close the nation is to achieving that goal but it can't be far off. Singapore to the south is a good role model for Malaysia to follow, it's a shining example of how a nation can develop quickly.
> 
> We can only hope political reforms will soon follow in Malaysia.


If u come to my city ( Shah Alam city , 30 km outside KL ), ull get the impression of First World developed country. Impresssive roads, buildings, many elite & upper middle-income beautiful houses, great shopping & dining option etc. Same with many other towns & cities in malaysia, but most rural area is still full of low standard of living 

I don't think Singapore is a good model to follow overall , it's just *a small island of roughly 30 km X 20 km*, without any experience of governing rural area & secondary/smaller towns.. And it doesn't have to share its wealth with other cities. There are some issues can be learned from SIngapore, but not many others.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Malaysia has a problem of brain drain of mainly talented and ambitious Malaysian Chinese who feel discriminated. I know many Malaysian Chinese that have emigrated or wanting to do so. The ones that emigrate are the usually the talented and ambitious ones, the people that Malaysia really needs in this stage of development. Chinese make up about one quarter of Malaysia's population so it's they are not a small minority. They feel that Malaysia's is only for the Malay's.

Quote from Wikipedia:



> There has been a serious brain drain from Malaysia. Major pull factors have included better career opportunities abroad, compensation while major push factors included *corruption, social inequality, lack of religious freedom and educational opportunities, and the government's Bumiputera affirmative action policies. *As of 2011, Bernama has reported that there are a million talented Malaysians working overseas. Recently the brain drain has increased in pace: 305,000 Malaysians migrated overseas between March 2008 and August 2009 compared to 140,000 in 2007. *Non-Bumiputeras particularly Malaysian Chinese* were over-represented in these statistics. Popular destinations included Singapore, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. This has caused Malaysia's economic growth rate to fall to an average of 4.6% per annum in 2000s compared to 7.2% in the 1990s.


----------



## Svartmetall

Skyprince said:


> Gini is boring & unfair measurement. Countries with diverse population surely have higher inequality than countries with largely ****-genius population, simply because each group tend to have different economic goal.


No, this is absolutely not the case. Often European countries have very low Gini coefficients yet have far from a homogenous population. Spurious argument.


----------



## Rekarte

FAAN said:


> Belem is the capital of my state, I visit the city often. In the city there are many lower class neighborhoods, but what you might call slums are really few. The other even though lower-class homes and simple, has paved streets, water access, schools, hospitals, etc.
> 
> Maybe you do not know Brazil. The South, Southeast and Midwest of Brazil are the most developed, but the North (where I live) and Northeast, are poorer but are not full of "slums" as you say, but have many lower class neighborhoods, but are not even on hills or swampy areas. I think you should revise your concept of slum. But I think even the poorest neighborhoods of Brazil, are not as poor as a district in Africa or India. I agree with Skyprince in his comparison between Brazil and countries like Romania or Bulgaria, Brazil is much more developed than many other countries "third world".


Sure,Brazil is better than many african countries,no doubt about it
But I don't think is the same level of countries like Chile or Malaysia


----------



## xrtn2

Rekarte said:


> Sure,Brazil is better than many african countries,no doubt about it
> But I don't think is the same level of countries like Chile or Malaysia


Some states in Brazil have HDI like Chile.

And dont forget, today Brazil have the city with the biggest HDI in latin america.


----------



## derechaconservadora

Sadly Brazil is growing slow last years (including this year), in the case of Chile we have a decent growth even this year (wich have been very bad for most of the world) thanks to our president Piñera (sadly he is not popular and we probably will be back to the social democrat slow growth)


----------



## FAAN

Rekarte said:


> Sure,Brazil is better than many african countries,no doubt about it
> But I don't think is the same level of countries like Chile or Malaysia


States such as Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Parana, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Espirito Santo, Minas Gerais, Goiás and Distrito Federal, HDI is comparable or even better than Malaysia or Chile, it is worth remembering that the states mentioned concentrated more than 110 million people, or 65% of the population. But the rest of the country is less developed is not full of slums, on the contrary has good infrastructure and great level of education, but the HDI is lower than the states of South, Southeast and Midwest regions of the country. 

Only 5% of Brazilians live in what might be called a slum. And many cities in Brazil, even big cities or medium, HDI is comparable to that of developed cities in the USA, or in any other country that is developed.


----------



## FAAN

derechaconservadora said:


> Sadly Brazil is growing slow last years (including this year), in the case of Chile we have a decent growth even this year (wich have been very bad for most of the world) thanks to our president Piñera (sadly he is not popular and we probably will be back to the social democrat slow growth)


It is better to have a slower growth with a controlled economy and low inflation, which is the case of Brazil. As grow and have a very high inflation without worrying about the citizens, which is what happens in many Latin American countries.


----------



## Rekarte

^^
I'm talking about Brazil,not some brazilian states...


----------



## FAAN

Rekarte said:


> ^^
> I'm talking about Brazil,not some brazilian states...


I know, I'm just saying that most of the country lives in conditions better or comparable to those of Chile or Malaysia for example. Yet the northeast and north always left out and said with little development, now ensure a good part of Brazil's industrial growth, energy sources and improving infrastructure. I know that Brazil has a lot to improve, but I guess you could say that Brazil is at the level of these countries, perhaps not only by the HDI, but for education, health, sanitation, infrastructure, economic growth and so on. kay:


----------



## sebvill

Economic Growth? Brazil? :lol:


----------



## derechaconservadora

fist of all, im not sure that some brazilian states are better than chile (dont forget that sometimes the national HDI have different numbers than the internacional HDI, and that usually tends to make a misunderstood). i doubt it. maybe santa catarina alone. second, chilean inflation is very low too, but we have better growth than brazil in the last years, same for peru wich have high growth and low inflation. peru is one of the best examples in good economic management by a goverment.


----------



## FAAN

^^I really admire the way that Chile grows. Regarding the Brazilian states is true that many HDI is comparable to or greater than Chile. The cities with the highest HDI in Brazil are not in Santa Catarina, but in Sao Paulo.


----------



## Skyprince

Many ppl like to compare Malaysia and Chile

I am impressed with Chile, their cities ( from outside ) look much better than in some richer Western European countries . I just visited Santiago city thread and I saw a forumer saying "Santiago looks like an Utopian city"- I totally agree with that. 

Malaysia- being a tropical country - there is many misunderstanding by Western tourists when they looked at "wooden houses" they found here- they think wooden houses symbolize poverty, which is not true. Yeah some of them are really poor, but being a hot country there is no serious need for too solid building with too solid insulation system, and many such wooden homes despite looking bad from outside, can be very comfortable & neat inside. 

In Brunei also 10% of its hyper-rich population live in wooden village in the capital, they look very bad from outside, but when u look deeper inside ( furniture, decoration etc ) they are heaven and many of them own luxury cars :cheers:


----------



## FAAN

^^The same thing happens in Brazil, when they see houses diferantes the standard European or North American ever to associate with poverty.


----------



## Skyprince

^^ Not many countries in hot/warm regions are developed or close to developed country status. Only few. I can only name Singapore, southernmost part of USA, smaller Arab Gulf countries, Brunei, and nowdays many Latin American states and Malaysia are approaching that level . Where else ? 

The building code, the attitude/local culture of people , street culture etc in warm region tend to be different from cold region. Houses made from wood or street food stalls don't neccessarily portray "poverty" or related to anything "Third World "


----------



## FAAN

^^I totally agree with you


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Most of Brazil looks like this. The first impression gives a poor and run-downed feeling.

This doesn't look like a developed country. They need to refurbish the houses and fix the roads with new pavement and sidewalks before it can look like a developed county.


----------



## SydneyCity

South Korea is very close if not already there.


----------



## daniel220776

SydneyCity said:


> South Korea is very close if not already there.


South Korea is already developed. It is also the country in the world with the best results in education (better than Finland that is a close second).


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

daniel220776 said:


> South Korea is already developed. It is also the country in the world with the best results in education (better than Finland that is a close second).


No it's Shanghai, China. Shanghai's population is 23 million and Finland 5.4 million so Shanghai can be compared to countries as it's larger than many including Hong Kong and Singapore.


----------



## Chrissib

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> No it's Shanghai, China. Shanghai's population is 23 million and Finland 5.4 million so Shanghai can be compared to countries as it's larger than many including Hong Kong and Singapore.


I don't think that Shanghai can be truly representative of China, since it's a rich city and can fund it's schools better. Then there is the question which schools they have tested (also the schools for students without Shanghai-hukou?).


----------



## little universe

^^

Read this article based on the interview with Head and coordinator of OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Andreas Schleicher (He's your countryman BTW). That might help change your mind. :cheers:

From BBC 



> *China: The world's cleverest country?*
> 
> 8 May 2012 Last updated at 23:03 GMT
> By Sean Coughlan
> BBC News education correspondent
> 
> 
> *China's results in international education tests - which have never been published - are "remarkable", says Andreas Schleicher, responsible for the highly-influential Pisa tests.*
> 
> These tests, held every three years by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, measure pupils' skills in reading, numeracy and science.
> 
> Pisa tests - the Programme for International Student Assessment - have become the leading international benchmark.
> 
> The findings indicate that China has an education system that is overtaking many Western countries.
> 
> While there has been intense interest in China's economic and political development, this provides the most significant insight into how it is teaching the next generation.
> 
> *Incredible resilience'*
> 
> The Pisa 2009 tests showed that Shanghai was top of the international education rankings.
> 
> But it was unclear whether Shanghai and another chart-topper, Hong Kong, were unrepresentative regional showcases.
> 
> Mr Schleicher says the unpublished results reveal that pupils in other parts of China are also performing strongly.
> 
> "Even in rural areas and in disadvantaged environments, you see a remarkable performance."
> 
> In particular, he said the test results showed the "resilience" of pupils to succeed despite tough backgrounds - and the "high levels of equity" between rich and poor pupils.
> 
> "Shanghai is an exceptional case - and the results there are close to what I expected. But what surprised me more were the results from poor provinces that came out really well. The levels of resilience are just incredible.
> 
> "In China, the idea is so deeply rooted that education is the key to mobility and success."
> 
> *Investing in the future*
> 
> The results for disadvantaged pupils would be the envy of any Western country, he says.
> 
> Mr Schleicher is confident of the robustness of this outline view of China's education standards.
> 
> In an attempt to get a representative picture, tests were taken in nine provinces, including poor, middle-income and wealthier regions.
> 
> The Chinese government has so far not allowed the OECD to publish the actual data.
> 
> But Mr Schleicher says the results reveal a picture of a society investing individually and collectively in education.
> 
> On a recent trip to a poor province in China, he says he saw that schools were often the most impressive buildings.
> 
> He says in the West, it is more likely to be a shopping centre.
> 
> "You get an image of a society that is investing in its future, rather than in current consumption."
> 
> There were also major cultural differences when teenagers were asked about why people succeeded at school.
> 
> "North Americans tell you typically it's all luck. 'I'm born talented in mathematics, or I'm born less talented so I'll study something else.'
> 
> "In Europe, it's all about social heritage: 'My father was a plumber so I'm going to be a plumber'.
> 
> "In China, more than nine out of 10 children tell you: 'It depends on the effort I invest and I can succeed if I study hard.'
> 
> "They take on responsibility. They can overcome obstacles and say 'I'm the owner of my own success', rather than blaming it on the system."
> 
> *Education's World Cup*
> 
> This year will see another round of Pisa tests - it's like World Cup year for international education. And Mr Schleicher's tips for the next fast-improving countries are Brazil, Turkey and Poland.
> 
> Mr Schleicher, a German based in the OECD's Paris headquarters, has become the godfather of such global education comparisons.
> 
> Armed with a spreadsheet and an impeccably polite manner, his opinions receive close attention in the world's education departments.
> 
> The White House responded to the last Pisa results with President Barack Obama's observation that the nation which "out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow".
> 
> The next round of global league tables will test 500,000 pupils in more than 70 countries - with the results to be published late next year.
> 
> Education ministers will be looking nervously at the outcome.
> 
> "In the past, politicians could always say we're doing better than last year - everyone could be a success," he says, describing the tendency for national results to rise each year.
> 
> The arrival of Pisa tests sent an icy draught through these insulated corridors.
> 
> *No excuses*
> 
> Perhaps the biggest discomfort of all was for Germany - where "Pisa shock" described the discovery that their much vaunted education system was distinctly average.
> 
> And the biggest change in attitude, he says, has been the United States - once with no interest in looking abroad, now enthusiastically borrowing ideas from other countries.
> 
> "Education is a field dominated by beliefs and traditions, it's inward looking. As a system you can find all kinds of excuses and explanations for not succeeding.
> 
> "The idea of Pisa was to take away all the excuses.
> 
> "People say you can only improve an education system over 25 years - but look at Poland and Singapore, which have improved in a very short time, we've seen dramatic changes."
> 
> The biggest lesson of the Pisa tests, he says, is showing there is nothing inevitable about how schools perform.
> 
> "Poverty is no longer destiny. You can see this at the level of economies, such as South Korea, Singapore."
> 
> *Fair comparison?*
> 
> A criticism of such rankings has been that it is unfair. How can an impoverished developing country be compared with the stockpiled multiple advantages of a wealthy Scandinavian nation?
> 
> Here Mr Schleicher makes a significant distinction. It might not be fair, but such comparisons are extremely relevant. "Relevance and fairness are not the same thing," he says.
> 
> Youngsters in the poorest countries are still competing in a global economy. "It's a terrible thing to take away the global perspective."
> 
> He also attacks the idea of accepting lower expectations for poorer children - saying this was the "big trap in the 1970s".
> 
> "It was giving the disadvantaged child an excuse - you come from a poor background, so we'll lower the horizon for you, we'll make it easier.
> 
> "But that child has still got to compete in a national labour market.
> 
> "This concept of 'fairness' is deeply unfair - because by making life easier for children from difficult circumstances, we lower their life chances."
> 
> *'Sorting mechanism'*
> 
> So why are the rising stars in Asia proving so successful?
> 
> Mr Schleicher says it's a philosophical difference - expecting all pupils to make the grade, rather than a "sorting mechanism" to find a chosen few.
> 
> He says anyone can create an education system where a few at the top succeed, the real challenge is to push through the entire cohort.
> 
> In China, he says this means using the best teachers in the toughest schools.
> 
> The shifting in the balance of power will be measured again with Pisa 2012, with pupils sitting tests from Stockholm to Seoul, London to Los Angeles, Ankara to Adelaide.
> 
> "I don't think of Pisa as being about ranking, it tells you what's possible. How well could we be doing?"


----------



## Jonesy55

'In Europe it's all about social heritage, my father was a plumber so I'm going to be a plumber'

What nonsense, that is a vast exaggeration, the big majority of people i know do not do the same job as their parents, such examples would be quite rare I think.


----------



## little universe

^^

At least that is the case in Italy. I watched the Four Corners on ABC(Australia) last week about Europe's ongoing Crisis. The Italian taxi driver who was interviewed in that programme, his cabbie career was passed on by His father, and his Grandfather was also doing the same job. That's like a family business trap, and it is very common in Italy like what he said. That's one of the reasons why those taxi drivers reject the Prime Minister Mario Monti's reform on liberating the labour system. :cheers:


----------



## Jonesy55

Well of course you can find examples of that, I'm sure you can also find examples in China or the USA or Australia of cafe owners whose parents were cafe owners or farmers whose parents were farmers or teachers whose parents were teachers. But that doesn't mean it is generally true for most people.

I'm sure you can find many more Italians doing different jobs to their parents than doing the same job.


----------



## daniel220776

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> No it's Shanghai, China. Shanghai's population is 23 million and Finland 5.4 million so Shanghai can be compared to countries as it's larger than many including Hong Kong and Singapore.


Shanghai is not a country. Period.


----------



## sebvill

Ridiculous to compare cities in China with entire countries.

Thats as nonsense as when in Latinscrapers Brazilians say they can compare Sao Paulo state with Chile or Argentina because it has 40million people. hno:


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau then? Isn't it almost the same?


----------



## Chrissib

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau then? Isn't it almost the same?


They are more or less independent. HK and Macau are colonies of China with great autonomy.


----------



## isakres

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau then? Isn't it almost the same?


Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Japan :yes:

*Shanghai*, Finland, *Sao Paulo*, Argentina, *Istanbul*, Egypt :nono:


----------



## derechaconservadora

We are talking about countries, not cities or regions. Chile have some regions wich can be easily called developed right now with very high HDI and per capita GDP.


----------



## ukiyo

I didn't know Shanghai is a country, guess you learn something new everyday!


----------



## xrtn2

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Most of Brazil looks like this. The first impression gives a poor and run-downed feeling.
> 
> This doesn't look like a developed country. They need to refurbish the houses and fix the roads with new pavement and sidewalks before it can look like a developed county.


True, that why we are developing country.


----------



## null

Chrissib said:


> They are more or less independent. HK and Macau are_ colonies _of China with great autonomy.


Where did you learn your History?


----------



## null

sebvill said:


> Ridiculous to compare cities in China with entire countries.
> 
> Thats as nonsense as when in Latinscrapers Brazilians say they can compare Sao Paulo state with Chile or Argentina because it has 40million people. hno:


Shanghai isn't well ahead of the rest of China in terms of Education.



> Mr Schleicher says the unpublished results reveal that pupils in other parts of China are also performing strongly.
> 
> "Even in rural areas and in disadvantaged environments, you see a remarkable performance."
> 
> In particular, he said the test results showed the "resilience" of pupils to succeed despite tough backgrounds - and the "high levels of equity" between rich and poor pupils.


----------



## sebvill

Obviously Shangai has the best education infraestructure, the best teachers, the major investments, best educational programmes, etc.

Still, if Shangai is average. You cant compare cities with countries.


----------



## Motul

One thing is for sure.. China beats our asses in education where it matters the most in today's world: engineering, math, hard sciences..

Meanwhile, in latam (and the west in general), we are filled with arts and humanities majors, psychology, etc. :doh:

Too much passion and romanticism runs through our veins :lol:... We need more cold-headedness. :yes:


----------



## null

You didnt read my quoted part?



> You cant compare cities with countries.


Sure, but you can't compare a one billion+ country with a tiny nation with 5.4 million either.


----------



## -Corey-

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Brazil is NOT a poor country:
> 
> *Developed Countries GDP per capita*:
> South Korea: US$ 22,800
> Portugal: US$ 22,400
> Taiwan: US$ 20,100
> 
> *Brazil GDP per capita:* US$ 12,800
> 
> *Poor countries GDP per capita:*
> Bolivia: US$ 2,300
> Honduras: US$ 2,100
> India: US$ 1,400
> Nicaragua: US$ 1,200
> Pakistan: US$ 1,200
> Haiti: US$ 740
> Bangladesh: US$ 680
> Uganda: US$ 480
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> *6%* of Brazilians live in slums (Census 2010). On the other hand, *5.1%* of Brazilians are rich (_classe A_). So, big mansions, luxury households are as prevalent as slums in the country.
> 
> If people think every thread not featuring a favela is "propaganda", they're just stupid.


Yeah.. And that 5% represent about 40% of the Brazilian economy...


----------



## FAAN

^^Source?
The Brazilian middle class is huge and in recent times has been much of a shopper.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Iluminat said:


> And what I'm trying to say is that 6% is still quite shocking for many people, not to mention poverty is not limited to this places but many people sow films like "The City of God" and documentaries about favelas so while not the biggest Brazilian slums are among the most famous around the world. Much more than houses made from scrap around Lagos and such, perhaps because they are more accessible to a western tourist :dunno:


No, 6% is not a shocking number, at least not here in SSC. People, by the way they behave, would expect something around 80%. So 6% would rather be a shocking low number.

I'd also like to add one more thing about the favelas. Living conditions there are way better than people would expect. They usually count with eletric power, running water and several goods. In Brazil, for instance, 99% of households (PEA 2009) are eletrified. The 1% is probably in rural areas or in the Amazon basin, not on favelas.




-Corey- said:


> Yeah.. And that 5% represent about 40% of the Brazilian economy...


First of all: sources? Secondly, what's your point?


----------



## derechaconservadora

5% of brazilians are 10 million people, thats a lot of rich people. plus they have nice beaches and hot girls. what else you want if you are a rich brazilian? maybe the only bad thing about them is the security, brazil is very unsafe for rich people.


----------



## sebvill

Iluminat said:


> ^^To be honest I don't think they taught me anything about Brazil in school, at least much less than what I can learn here on SSC so perhaps everyone should just visit this forum :dunno:





ksionrze said:


> In western world education about Brazil = samba, carnival (art lessons) hyperinflation (history, economics), mud avalanches in favelas (geography)


5 World Cups, Giselle Bundchen, Kaka, Pele, Artyon Sena, Adriana Lima, economic boom, Brasilia, Corcovado Christ, Mas que Nada, Ipanema, etc. I mean if this words doesnt come to your mind when they talk about Brazil, you are really lacking important information.

Or lets make it easy, havent you seen Fast & Furious 5? Rio? Hulk? I mean, they are not the best approach to reality but at least you can see that Brazil is not missing in the map.

Look for pictures of Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Curitiba, Recife, Florianopolis, Porto Algre, Manaus, Belem, Niteroi, Vitoria, Natal, Ouro Preto, Brasilia, Blumenau, Goiana, Salvador de Bahia. Thats Brazil and its not poor. Not even for European Standards.


----------



## andre_e

In Latin America, Chile is the closer country to reach a developed country status.


----------



## fastboyRD

andre_e said:


> In Latin America, Chile is the closer country to reach a developed country status.


_... Closely followed by Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, etc.._


----------



## isakres

Of course Brazil is not a poor country, is a pretty well industrialized and middle income emerging economy. 

The problem is Brazilians became a bit nationalistic with their achievments and the rest are just trolling them.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Actually if you don't search and read for information you only know things that are taught to you or seen in movies or television. When I was a kid I taught that Brazil was a third-world country with like 70% living in favelas. In movies Brazil is shown with a bunch of favelas and crime. Even in games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 favelas is the only thing shown of Brazil. Therefore it's not anything odd how the west views Brazil. 
When people hear Brazil they these automatically show up in their mind: crime, crime, drugs, favelas, little more crime, poverty, huge inequality, violence, drugs, crime again...and so for..

Actually when I see pictures of non-favela Brazil, even me i'm so brainwashed and think that all that is a hoax and not a true image of how it looks like in Brazil.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
This might be a factor. But what's really annoying is that some people, even after confronted with solid data, still keep going with their bigoted convictions. 

I expect much more from SSC forumers than from the average person as it's very easy to get information around here.




isakres said:


> Of course Brazil is not a poor country, is a pretty well industrialized and middle income emerging economy.
> 
> The problem is Brazilians became a bit nationalistic with their achievments and the rest are just trolling them.


That's a typical trollish post. Exactly who became a "bit nationalistic"? So you dismiss all the data and arguments posted here as being just a "nationalistic" rant? Really?


----------



## FAAN

So the vision of the world to Brazil is completely wrong, it is sad that the world thinks so. As has been said several times that Brazil is not a poor country full of slums as many have in mind. I hope that with the events which Brazil hosted, is hosting or will host (FIFA World Cup 2014, Rio 2016 Olympic Games, 2007 Pan American Games, Military World Games 2011, Rio +20), change this false and unjust world view with Brazil. I think many movies (especially American), distort the image of Latin America, showing what is in the minority in most developed countries of the continent. I really hope that the vision of the world to change.


----------



## sebvill

Dont worry, from my own experience, most young people in Europe dream of Latin America in general and Brazil in particular.


----------



## isakres

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> 
> That's a typical trollish post. Exactly who became a "bit nationalistic"? So you dismiss all the data and arguments posted here as being just a "nationalistic" rant? Really?


Man you really need to :chill: and get laid asap, im not dismissing anything, I said Brazil is not poor but an industrialized middle income emerging economy. But sometimes I feel some Brazilian forumers are a bit......mmmhhh nationalistic seems to be the word that fits best, Its something I dont see among Russians, Chinese or Indians......maybe the language doesnt help for Russians and Chinese.


----------



## Rekarte

^^
brazilians hate Brazil but hate more people, that don't like Brazil or speak about bad things from Brazil


----------



## FAAN

^^I love my country and I am very proud of being Brazilian. You know Brazil or Brazilians?


----------



## Skyprince

Iluminat said:


> ^^To be honest I don't think they taught me anything about Brazil in school, at least much less than what I can learn here on SSC so perhaps everyone should just visit this forum :dunno:


Indeed. Even in our geography & history class the emphasis is quite strong on Asia and Europe

Why didnt we learn abt geography & history of Brazil, Peru, Oman, Yemen, Venezuela etc these can be far more interesting than many of what ive read about Asia & Europe :doh:


----------



## Skyprince

It's interesting that Brazilians have detailed GDP & socio-economic stats for every regions, even cities. Malaysia doesn't have such detailed figure I think


----------



## Rekarte

FAAN said:


> ^^I love my country and I am very proud of being Brazilian. *You know Brazil or Brazilians?*


sure:yes:


----------



## FAAN

In general most of the Brazilians (if not all) love Brazil, and who have to evaluate this is not you.


----------



## italiano_pellicano

brasil and china


----------



## George W. Bush

Never-ending number fetishism. Some people's pride seems to rest on GDP values.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

*According to the World Bank a high income country is this:




It classified countries as high-income if their per capita GDP, measured at purchasing-power parity, exceeds 43% of America's.

Click to expand...

USA GDP per capita: US$ 48 387

0.43 x 48,387 = US$ 20 806

The threshold goes here between Slovakia and Estonia.










I think it looks reasonable, don't you think? For me this is the "developed-country-threshold" together with a "Very High" HDI.
What do you think?

Source

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita*


----------



## George W. Bush

Slovakians will agree with you, Estonians not.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

^^

I don't think that the Estonian's will disagree so much since they know their country is going is on the verge to become developed within 1-2 years.


----------



## Jonesy55

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> According to the World Bank a high income country is this:
> 
> USA GDP per capita: US$ 48 387
> 
> 0.43 x 48,387 = US$ 20 806
> 
> The threshold goes here between Slovakia and Estonia.
> 
> I think it looks reasonable, don't you think? For me this is the "developed-country-threshold" together with a "Very High" HDI.
> What do you think?
> 
> Source
> 
> List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita


Why 43%! 50% would be a nice round number, or 40% if that is too high...


----------



## EdWood

Brazil is a large and complex country. In North or Northeast region (I'm born and raised in South) I feel like a foreigner. But in Uruguay and some parts of Argentina, I almost feel at home. Brazil It's like a 4 different countries into one.


----------



## megacity30

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> *According to the World Bank a high income country is this:
> 
> 
> USA GDP per capita: US$ 48 387
> 
> 0.43 x 48,387 = US$ 20 806
> 
> The threshold goes here between Slovakia and Estonia.
> 
> I think it looks reasonable, don't you think? For me this is the "developed-country-threshold" together with a "Very High" HDI.
> What do you think?
> 
> Source
> 
> List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita*


Inequality-adjusted (GINI coefficient) HDI is more relevant and realistic than just HDI, because it takes into account extreme inequalities in income and human development within the same country that just HDI cannot.

The 2011 UN Human Development report clearly states that Seychelles and Saudi Arabia have an inequality-adjusted HDI below 0.79, and are, therefore, not yet developed nations.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table3.pdf

Also, factors such as social and political freedom, basic human rights, a free media etc are some mandatory factors for a country to be developed; just having loads of money doesn't make a country developed.

I would consider a country like Malaysia far more developed than Saudi Arabia on these measures.


----------



## George W. Bush

Jonesy55 said:


> Why 43%! 50% would be a nice round number, or 40% if that is too high...


Whichever you use, it would mean that the United States weren't a developed country in the 1960s, or even 1970s.


----------



## Jonesy55

George W. Bush said:


> Whichever you use, it would mean that the United States weren't a developed country in the 1960s, or even 1970s.


The US had 100% of US GDP per capita in the 60s or 70s


----------



## Skyprince

It looks quite reasonable... 

U don't say Slovakia or Portugal an "Upper middle income nation" anymore, right ?

Estonia or Poland still don't give an impression of "High income" economies

So yea , look reasonable


----------



## George W. Bush

Jonesy55 said:


> The US had 100% of US GDP per capita in the 60s or 70s


True


----------



## micom1318

Skyprince said:


> Being informal, if u ask me, a developed country shud be developed not only materially, but also socially/spiritually.
> 
> I've been to some East Asian countries including China and while I was impressed with discipline, hard work, high standard & speedy development there , many of them are still not open to foreigners , there's quite a big gap between us ( foreigners ) and locals . I was in China and when I told that Im from Malaysia ( even pronounced it in Chinese way ) many of them don't know where Malaysia is  Quite hard to find anyone who can speak English well and highly interested to speak to foreigners.
> A huge drawback and quite depressing , sorry to say .
> 
> I like a country not only with high material life & nicely diversified economy, but also "global-minded" very open to different cultures , cosmopolitan ( I *deeply* dislike largely mono-race society ) with vibrant *highly consumerist* life style :cheers:
> 
> To me, only the UAE, Qatar, Canada, Singapore, Switzerland & Australia fulfill my own term of "developed countries" so far :cheers:


Considering that you come from one of the most racist countries in the world where the government freely oppress Chinese and Indian people with apartheid policies, I doubt that you should have much to say if anything. I myself is a Korean who grew up in China and I can tell you that China is quite a diverse country. Mono-racial as well as cultural sphere(ethnic groups with great similarities) preserving societies in the world has proven to be the most successful and IMO the most comfortable to live in, e.g. Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan. Besides, why must Chinese speak English? Why can't you speak Chinese? It's as redundant as when people condemn Russians, French and Japanese people for having their own language.....


----------



## Skyprince

Greece with 6% - 7% GDP decline recently seems worrying, or soon may enter Upper-middle income club 

I think Portugal too, with recent minus growth


----------



## George W. Bush

Skyprince said:


> Being informal, if u ask me, a developed country shud be developed not only materially, but also socially/spiritually.
> [...]
> I like a country not only with high material life & nicely diversified economy, but also "global-minded" very open to different cultures , cosmopolitan ( I *deeply* dislike largely mono-race society ) with vibrant *highly consumerist* life style :cheers:


Sounds good. Although being spiritually evolved and leading a "highly consumerist" life style is kind of a contradiction.


----------



## Skyprince

George W. Bush said:


> Sounds good. Although being spiritually evolved and leading a "highly consumerist" life style is kind of a contradiction.


I saw the most hedonistic ( amazing material life ), and probably the most spiritual lifestyle ( the conservative Emiratis and wonderful blend of people ) ever when I was in UAE. I saw the two extremes clashing in that small country, which is very exciting to me . And, its possible.

I think small countries like Singapore, UAE, with less than 5 million local population don't really need huge industrial corps to sustain the wealth for its population. I don't know what "industrial giants" are from Singapore, Monaco , Luxembourg origin ? 

I think countries like Brazil ( nearly 190 mil ) must come up with more industrial giants or major invention ( I think so far the most notable being "Bombardier" aircraft? ) to sustain huge population


----------



## italiano_pellicano

Russia and Brasil


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica

Skyprince said:


> I think countries like Brazil ( nearly 190 mil ) must come up with more industrial giants or major invention ( I think so far the most notable being "Bombardier" aircraft? ) to sustain huge population


Embraer...Bombardier is Canadian.


----------



## rafaelkafka

FAAN said:


> Belem is the capital of my state, I visit the city often. In the city there are many lower class neighborhoods, but what you might call slums are really few. The other even though lower-class homes and simple, has paved streets, water access, schools, hospitals, etc.
> 
> Maybe you do not know Brazil. The South, Southeast and Midwest of Brazil are the most developed, but the North (where I live) and Northeast, are poorer but are not full of "slums" as you say, but have many lower class neighborhoods, but are not even on hills or swampy areas. I think you should revise your concept of slum. But I think even the poorest neighborhoods of Brazil, are not as poor as a district in Africa or India. I agree with Skyprince in his comparison between Brazil and countries like Romania or Bulgaria, Brazil is much more developed than many other countries "third world".


Only 6.4% of Belem have sanitation. Wake up to reality. http://sbosite.blogspot.com.br/2011/01/em-belem-apenas-64-tem-acesso-rede-de.html


----------



## FAAN

rafaelkafka said:


> Only 6.4% of Belem have sanitation. Wake up to reality. http://sbosite.blogspot.com.br/2011/01/em-belem-apenas-64-tem-acesso-rede-de.html


_"Apesar dos baixos índices da cidade, Belém está entre as dez cidades que apresentam maior crescimento na rede de esgotos no período de 2003 a 2008..."_ 

_"Despite the low levels of the city, Belém is among the ten cities with the greatest growth in the sewerage system in the period 2003 to 2008 ..."_

May have less, because there is not a rich city, but is improving at a great pace. But if you see the contents of houses with electricity, paved streets, or even the city that the HDI is 0.806. 

Health is improving a lot in the city with the installation of a large hospital (Metropolitan Hospital) and UPA's (Emergency Care Units), several schools are being built or refurbished. There are countless works of transportation infrastructure, and the city grows too. At no time said that Belém was a city overdeveloped and without contrast, on the contrary said that in the city are lower class neighborhoods. But the city is making much progress.


----------



## Skyprince

Ulpia-Serdica said:


> Embraer...Bombardier is Canadian.


oh yea, always confused between two


----------



## sebvill

rafaelkafka said:


> Only 6.4% of Belem have sanitation. Wake up to reality. http://sbosite.blogspot.com.br/2011/01/em-belem-apenas-64-tem-acesso-rede-de.html


*Belem*
1.4 million people



















Not bad for being one of Brazils poorest cities.


----------



## xrtn2

^^^^

Belem



>


----------



## friedemann

sebvill said:


> *Belem*
> 1.4 million people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad for being one of Brazils poorest cities.


If lots of highrises and shopping malls are a method to measure wealth, then indeed Belem could be richer than Zurich or Munich.


----------



## xrtn2

friedemann said:


> If lots of highrises and shopping malls are a method to measure wealth, then indeed Belem could be richer than Zurich or Munich.




Ok Belem is the poorst brazilian capital but that dont mean the city is the worst place on earth.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

Maybe if Brazilians stop posting pageful datas, statistics and posts to prove that their country isn't a favela heaven and start to act more civilized without the stupid nationalistic and inferiority-complex attitude, people will start to believe them. If you are a developed nation, then start to act like one. I don't quite see why Brazilians are so eager to convince Europeans and Americans that they are developed, if you are developed, just enjoy it. 

Why the **** you guys care about what other nations think, unless you are lying about your country's condition?

I mean, I am yet to see an American or German trying to prove they are developed. Often, it's quite the otherwise actually.


----------



## eklips

^^ You shouldn't judge brazilians from what you see on SSC, personnally I have met many of them who are not like that at all and who are good, modest people with far less self-lothing turned into pathetic nationalism, for some strange reason we seem to get the worst of the worst (and not just Brazilians by the way).


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

The Cake On BBQ said:


> Maybe if Brazilians stop posting pageful datas, statistics and posts to prove that their country isn't a favela heaven and start to act more civilized without the stupid nationalistic and inferiority-complex attitude, people will start to believe them. If you are a developed nation, then start to act like one. I don't quite see why Brazilians are so eager to convince Europeans and Americans that they are developed, if you are developed, just enjoy it.
> 
> Why the **** you guys care about what other nations think, unless you are lying about your country's condition?
> 
> I mean, I am yet to see an American or German trying to prove they are developed. Often, it's quite the otherwise actually.


What a TROLL you are! People are posting data because that's THE POINT OF THE THREAD, troll. No one here is saying Brazil is developed or something. People are not even saying/suggesting Brazil will be the next developed.

No one here cares about what European or Americans think, we are discussing the subject of the thread. Again, don't be so ridiculous. 

That's the kind of crap Brazilian forumers have to deal with in every single thread on international forums. One troll posts something like this, people read it, and immediately assume it's true.




eklips said:


> ^^ You shouldn't judge brazilians from what you see on SSC, personnally I have met many of them who are not like that at all and who are good, modest people with far less self-lothing turned into pathetic nationalism, for some strange reason we seem to get the worst of the worst (and not just Brazilians by the way).


That's right, align yourself with the troll. I wouldn't expect anything different from you in any case.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

eklips said:


> ^^ You shouldn't judge brazilians from what you see on SSC, personnally I have met many of them who are not like that at all and who are good, modest people with far less self-lothing turned into pathetic nationalism, for some strange reason we seem to get the worst of the worst (and not just Brazilians by the way).


Well yeah. SSC functions as a nationalist-magnet for some reason :lol:


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

Yuri S Andrade said:


> What a TROLL you are! People are posting data because that's THE POINT OF THE THREAD, troll. No one here is saying Brazil is developed or something. People are not even saying Brazil will be the next developed.
> 
> No one here cares about what European or Americans think, we are discussing the subject. Again, don't be so ridiculous.
> 
> That's what kind of crap Brazilian forumers have to deal with in every thread. One troll posts something like this, people read it, and immediately believe it's true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, align yourself with the troll. I wouldn't expect anything different from you in any case.


You do realize I'm not talking about this thread specifically, right? And yeah, people did say Brazil will be one of the next countries to be developed, posted datas, photos and statistics at every opportunity. And I haven't say anything bad about Brazil or LatAm, so what "crap" are you talking about? I just said if you guys are developed or close to be developed, then you don't really have to prove it. But your aggressive approach explains a lot.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

The Cake On BBQ said:


> You do realize I'm not talking about this thread specifically, right?


Don't bother me with the details of your trolling.




The Cake On BBQ said:


> And yeah, people did say Brazil will be one of the next countries to be developed, posted datas, photos and statistics at every opportunity.


No, NOBODY said that in this thread, Brazilians or foreigners. Although, Brazil IS indeed one of the countries that could achieve developed status on the next 20 years. Again, you're TROLLING.




The Cake On BBQ said:


> And I haven't say anything bad about Brazil or LatAm, so what "crap" are you talking about?


The crap comes from people like you, doing gross generalizations or simply making stuff up about Brazilian forumers.




The Cake On BBQ said:


> I just said if you guys are developed or close to be developed, then you don't really have to prove it.


That doesn't even make sense. The subject of the thread is "developing countries closer to achieving developed country status". People are DISCUSSING the subject. No one is "proving" anything.




The Cake On BBQ said:


> But your aggressive approach explains a lot.


My aggressive approach it's explained by my intolerance towards trolls.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

Oh please, why would I troll you anyway? :lol: I have nothing against Brazil or Latin America. If anything, I will be happy to see that part of world becoming more prosperous and wealthier. But if there are more people like you there, then I'm afraid it won't happen anytime soon.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

And keep in mind that just because I criticised Brazil doesn't necessarily mean I hate Brazil. And even if I did, it would make you appear more mature to accept it.


----------



## eklips

The Cake On BBQ said:


> Well yeah. SSC functions as a nationalist-magnet for some reason :lol:


Yeah but there's nationalism and nationalism.... I personnally have no problem with nationalism if it's purpose is to not be ashamed of who you are, to get free from an oppression or something..... but here it's the opposite

I remember a few years ago on the DLM it was almost the same shit but with a bunch of turkish forumers acting like the brazilians here.... always posting photos of ferraris in Istambul, stats etc., arguing that they were all Europeans and posting photos of blond(e) turks. It was when people were debating Turkey in the EU. And while they acted pretty agressive with the European forumers - the truth is that they were even more anti-kurdish, anti-arab, anti-iranian and anti-working class turks. Ie very negative nationalism based on self loathing.

Though I say that but as a french guy I also don't really like most french forumers either :dunno:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
How "Brazilians are acting here", Eklips? Where are the photos with "Ferraris and blonde people" allegedly posted here? Again, more shameless TROLLING.




The Cake On BBQ said:


> Oh please, why would I troll you anyway? :lol:


That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer. I really never understood the mechanics of trolling. Maybe you could enlighten us: why a person shows up on a thread, posting something empty and offensive, only to disrupt the whole thing?




The Cake On BBQ said:


> And keep in mind that just because I criticised Brazil doesn't necessarily mean I hate Brazil. And even if I did, it would make you appear more mature to accept it.


No, you didn't "criticized Brazil". You showed up out of the blue, only to attack Brazilian forumers with a bunch of nonsensical and imaginary blablabla.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

eklips said:


> Yeah but there's nationalism and nationalism.... I personnally have no problem with nationalism if it's purpose is to not be ashamed of who you are, to get free from an oppression or something..... but here it's the opposite
> 
> I remember a few years ago on the DLM it was almost the same shit but with a bunch of turkish forumers acting like the brazilians here.... always posting photos of ferraris in Istambul, stats etc., arguing that they were all Europeans and posting photos of blond(e) turks. It was when people were debating Turkey in the EU. And while they acted pretty agressive with the European forumers - the truth is that they were even more anti-kurdish, anti-arab, anti-iranian and anti-working class turks. Ie very negative nationalism based on self loathing.
> 
> Though I say that but as a french guy I also don't really like most french forumers either :dunno:


Ah yes, I remember those times too :lol: Well, what they claimed in DLM was pretty much opposite of what they claimed in Turkish forum. Seriously, they were criticising Turkey harshly in TR forum but when they were in DLM they would turn into brainless patriots. I'm glad they have mostly left that kind of attitude tho and got a humbler approach.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> How "Brazilians are acting here", Eklips? Where are the photos with "Ferraris and blonde people" allegedly posted here? Again, more shameless TROLLING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer. I really never understood the mechanics of trolling. Maybe you could enlighten us: why a person shows up on a thread, posting something empty and offensive, only to disrupt the whole thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't "criticized Brazil". You showed up out of the blue, only to attack Brazilian forumers with a bunch of nonsensical and imaginary blablabla.


OMG why would I attack Brazilians? How is that in any way beneficial to me or anyone else Latin America staying as a poor place?

Well you don't know the answer because I wasn't trolling. If I wanted to troll you, believe me, you would be punching your monitor right now.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Let me bold the trolling parts:



The Cake On BBQ said:


> *Maybe if Brazilians stop posting pageful datas, statistics and posts to prove that their country isn't a favela heaven and start to act more civilized without the stupid nationalistic and inferiority-complex attitude, people will start to believe them. If you are a developed nation, then start to act like one. I don't quite see why Brazilians are so eager to convince Europeans and Americans that they are developed, if you are developed, just enjoy it.
> 
> Why the **** you guys care about what other nations think, unless you are lying about your country's condition?*


A bunch of nonsensical inarticulated pointless off-topic offensive crap.

Pleeeeeease, go away!


----------



## The Cake On BBQ

Once again, I wasn't trolling. I WAS CRITICISING. In this part of world when we criticise it means we care and that we want to make what we criticise better.


----------



## sebvill

The Cake On BBQ said:


> Oh please, why would I troll you anyway? :lol: I have nothing against Brazil or Latin America. If anything, I will be happy to see that part of world becoming more prosperous and wealthier. But if there are more people like you there, then I'm afraid it won't happen anytime soon.


Dont worry, LA is getting more prosperous and wealthier, not like other parts of the World.


----------



## LtBk

eklips said:


> Yeah but there's nationalism and nationalism.... I personnally have no problem with nationalism if it's purpose is to not be ashamed of who you are, to get free from an oppression or something..... but here it's the opposite
> 
> I remember a few years ago on the DLM it was almost the same shit but with a bunch of turkish forumers acting like the brazilians here.... always posting photos of ferraris in Istambul, stats etc., arguing that they were all Europeans and posting photos of blond(e) turks. It was when people were debating Turkey in the EU. And while they acted pretty agressive with the European forumers - the truth is that they were even more anti-kurdish, anti-arab, anti-iranian and anti-working class turks. Ie very negative nationalism based on self loathing.
> 
> Though I say that but as a french guy I also don't really like most french forumers either :dunno:


I remember those days. Despite the craziness that happen in DLM, the mods do a good job of banning the trouble makers from that place.


----------



## China Hand

The Cake On BBQ said:


> I don't quite see why Brazilians are so eager to convince Europeans and Americans that they are developed, if you are developed, just enjoy it.
> 
> Why the **** you guys care about what other nations think, unless you are lying about your country's condition?


They care because you have out-dated opinions that are contrary to reality.

Ignorant, in other words.

Most Americans still think that the world is basically at 1960 living standards and that everyone else is poor, starving, living in a cardboard box, and wants to leave for The States.

I know, for a fact, that 99.9% of Americans do not have one clue about what China looks like now. Their views are from old movies and handed down falsehoods. They think of rickshaws, junques, queues and bound feet.

They literally do not know that China has hundreds of modern cities with scores of supertalls, skyscrapers and hi-rises under construction.

They have no idea how people dress or live their lives here.

=====================================

Countries that are close to achieving developed country status?

UN defines this as middle class, planet earth, income. About 11,800 per year.

Brasil - I say is already developed and working on entering the top-tier of developed nations.
China - Will be developed in one or two years, with income inequality. But many developed nations have such inequality so that does not disqualify.
Thailand
Peru
Colombia

Any nation that is growing it's GDP and above 8,000 is a candidate for developed status. That's a great many nations.

Certainly Iran, Turkey, Mexico, etal. are developed nations moving up the ladder.

Many Europeans and North Americans look at Brasil's GDP (11,600, PPP, 2011) think of what their life would be like in Toronto, and then assume everyone in Brasil is impoverished. You cannot compare as the prices for many goods and services are often much MUCH less.

The world is becoming wealthier and many on the planet are going to be middle class soon enough.


----------



## citypia

Here in Korea, the images and views on Brazil, Argentina, Chile and the other south america countries are *quite positive.*

Brazil is unique, one of strongest countries on soccer games, has a very beautiful river, Amazon, famous carnivals with passionate people and lots of good things.
Argentina is romantic and the home of tango.
Chile is very famost for wine here in Korea.
I envy many good things about south american countries.

Here in korea, *no one care whether the countries are developed or not*, at least people around me. I think many south american contries are already culturally developed its own ways, much better than economically developed, in my humble opinion.

The most importantly, even many developed countries are still developing its own ways, I think.

Cheers for south american countries. :cheers:
That's all I want to say here. Goodbye!


----------



## jefferson2

China Hand said:


> They care because you have out-dated opinions that are contrary to reality.
> 
> Ignorant, in other words.
> 
> *I know, for a fact, that 99.9% of Americans do not have one clue about what China looks like now.* Their views are from old movies and handed down falsehoods. They think of rickshaws, junques, queues and bound feet.
> 
> =====================================


Where do you get your facts from? What about people who are on 'guess the city', that must be more than .01 percent of Americans, this is a popular website. Personally, I guessed Chongching the other day correctly! Not so fancy looking skyscrapers on an island surronded by rivers, lots of lights, some variations in elevation. Its an easy one.


----------



## George W. Bush

China Hand said:


> They care because you have out-dated opinions that are contrary to reality.
> 
> Ignorant, in other words.
> 
> I know, for a fact, that 99.9% of Americans do not have one clue about what China looks like now. Their views are from old movies and handed down falsehoods.
> [...]
> China - Will be developed in one or two years, with income inequality.


We should return to this posting in June 2014.


----------



## isaidso

Chile? It will likely be the next country in America to reach developed status. In Asia, perhaps quite a few are getting there economically, but have huge strides to make to be considered developed due few gains made socially.


----------



## tikiturf

China Hand said:


> I know, for a fact, that 99.9% of Americans do not have one clue about what China looks like now.


Source ?


----------



## WeimieLvr

tikiturf said:


> Source ?


It's not true, of course. No one can "know for a fact" what another person thinks.


----------



## friedemann

China Hand said:


> I know, for a fact, that 99.9% of Americans do not have one clue about what China looks like now.


It's normal that the view of foreign countries drops some years behind the reality, not only in the US. I guess this is the case in most countries.


----------



## Alex Roney

eklips said:


> Yeah but there's nationalism and nationalism.... I personnally have no problem with nationalism if it's purpose is to not be ashamed of who you are, to get free from an oppression or something..... but here it's the opposite
> 
> I remember a few years ago on the DLM it was almost the same shit but with a bunch of turkish forumers acting like the brazilians here.... always posting photos of ferraris in Istambul, stats etc., arguing that they were all Europeans and posting photos of blond(e) turks. It was when people were debating Turkey in the EU. And while they acted pretty agressive with the European forumers - the truth is that they were even more anti-kurdish, anti-arab, anti-iranian and anti-working class turks. Ie very negative nationalism based on self loathing.
> 
> Though I say that but as a french guy I also don't really like most french forumers either :dunno:


Who said Brazil is a developed country? Where did people post only pictures of wealthy areas? As far as I'm concerned data was posted to demonstrate that Brazil is beyond the outdated Western stereotype people perceive it as. Saying it is just a slum filled shit hole doesn't imply that its a first world paradise.

The problem is, Eklips reading your posts you seem to epitomize the old socialist way of viewing Latin America. Sociologists like you, can't fathom the positive change that has occurred across much of the region because it goes against your narrative; an evil racist, rigid class society that can only change through a radical socialist revolution. So anything that points to improvement is treated by an oligarchic ploy to portray Latin America like a European copy. Pragmatic policies (whether center left or center right) that uses government as well as free market initiatives to create wealth and promote social inclusion has not only reduced poverty but inequality with it pretty much weakens this narrative by the old left that purveys among many socialists and sociologists in academia. 

I've read so many books from this class of people that the way your argument mirrors these past authors makes me laugh because it is so outdated. The mantra of the Phillip McMichael's of the world are so old. :lol:


----------



## null

micom1318 said:


> Considering that you come from one of the most racist countries in the world where the government freely oppress Chinese and Indian people with apartheid policies, I doubt that you should have much to say if anything. I myself is a Korean who grew up in China and I can tell you that China is quite a diverse country. Mono-racial as well as cultural sphere(ethnic groups with great similarities) preserving societies in the world has proven to be the most successful and IMO the most comfortable to live in, e.g. Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan. Besides, why must Chinese speak English? Why can't you speak Chinese? It's as redundant as when people condemn Russians, French and Japanese people for having their own language.....


The great majority of the population is Chinese (Han), and thus China is often characterized as an ethnically homogeneous country; bu in fact few countries have as wide a variety of indigenous peoples as does China. Even among the Han there are cultural and linguistic differences between regions.


----------



## derechaconservadora

citypia said:


> Here in Korea, the images and views on Brazil, Argentina, Chile and the other south america countries are *quite positive.*
> 
> Brazil is unique, one of strongest countries on soccer games, has a very beautiful river, Amazon, famous carnivals with passionate people and lots of good things.
> Argentina is romantic and the home of tango.
> Chile is very famost for wine here in Korea.
> I envy many good things about south american countries.
> 
> Here in korea, *no one care whether the countries are developed or not*, at least people around me. I think many south american contries are already culturally developed its own ways, much better than economically developed, in my humble opinion.
> 
> The most importantly, even many developed countries are still developing its own ways, I think.
> 
> Cheers for south american countries. :cheers:
> That's all I want to say here. Goodbye!


Its good to read what people think about us in the other side of the world. well, here in southamerica at least in chile k-pop is becoming popular. and korean cars have been the most populars since a decade or maybe 2.


----------



## derechaconservadora

isaidso said:


> Chile? It will likely be the next country in America to reach developed status. In Asia, perhaps quite a few are getting there economically, but have huge strides to make to be considered developed due few gains made socially.


just a question. it is common in canada to call america the entire continent? i thought it was just a latin america thing to call the entire continent like that. i mean most of yanks would be even offended by that. they think they are the only 1 america and the continent its called the americas.


----------



## derechaconservadora

eklips said:


> Yeah but there's nationalism and nationalism.... I personnally have no problem with nationalism if it's purpose is to not be ashamed of who you are, to get free from an oppression or something..... but here it's the opposite


nationalism is everything but good. ok? nationalism is even crazier than religious fanatics.


----------



## isaidso

derechaconservadora said:


> just a question. it is common in canada to call america the entire continent? i thought it was just a latin america thing to call the entire continent like that. i mean most of yanks would be even offended by that. they think they are the only 1 america and the continent its called the americas.


I was schooled in the UK till the age of 11. I was taught that America meant the New World. I then moved to Canada with my family. Canadians used to say US when referring to the country to our south, but over time have adopted the US practice of calling it America or the US interchangeably. US practices and media are very powerful and influential in anglophone countries.

So to answer your question, the vast majority of Canadians mean the US when they say 'America', but I'm guided by historical accuracy rather than common practice. I never use the term 'America' to mean the US regardless of what's normal practice here. I never use the term 'Americas' either. The continent was called America in the beginning and America it remains in all its parts: northern, southern, central. 

Nova Scotia, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Mexico, Buenos Aires, etc. are in America in 1775, but not 1776 because people in the US want that name for themselves? I don't think so.


----------



## George W. Bush

But even Latin-Americans commonly refer to US citizens as "americanos" instead of "estadounidenses".


----------



## eklips

^^ Those I know just say gringos generally :laugh:



Alex Roney said:


> Who said Brazil is a developed country? Where did people post only pictures of wealthy areas? As far as I'm concerned data was posted to demonstrate that Brazil is beyond the outdated Western stereotype people perceive it as. Saying it is just a slum filled shit hole doesn't imply that its a first world paradise.
> 
> The problem is, Eklips reading your posts you seem to epitomize the old socialist way of viewing Latin America. Sociologists like you, can't fathom the positive change that has occurred across much of the region because it goes against your narrative; an evil racist, rigid class society that can only change through a radical socialist revolution. So anything that points to improvement is treated by an oligarchic ploy to portray Latin America like a European copy. Pragmatic policies (whether center left or center right) that uses government as well as free market initiatives to create wealth and promote social inclusion has not only reduced poverty but inequality with it pretty much weakens this narrative by the old left that purveys among many socialists and sociologists in academia.
> 
> I've read so many books from this class of people that the way your argument mirrors these past authors makes me laugh because it is so outdated. The mantra of the Phillip McMichael's of the world are so old. :lol:


And where did that come from? :lol: My comment was on how some forumers behave here, Maria Teresa (you remember her right?), Yuri Andrade, and others who's names I'm not sure .... and who as a hole reminded me of a bunch of turkish forumers a few years back. And I mentioned this since the forumer complaining about these brazilian forumer (and he's far from being the only one) happened to be turkish. Nothing more.

As for the rest of what you are trying to say: First of all I am not a sociologist and do not even know the author you quoted, I neither mentioned socialism nor revolution and you are just building a straw man here (for something that is not even related to the last discussions on this thread).

By the way, yes, the societies I know in Latin America are indeed marked by a rigid class system and with strong racial undertones of colonial origins, but this is off topic. And also applies to the other societies I am knowledgeable off, France where I live or even Israel/Palestine. The funny thing is that this is of course common knowledge within these countries, the only place I have seen people negate this has been SSC (and local media). 

"Change" has by the way, constantly been used to hide social reproduction (the fact that who are on top stay on top and those who are at the bottom stay there even as generations go and die), it was true in France in 1850, in 1950 and is still true in 2012. It was true in Tunisia before 2011 and right now after the revolution.... and yes, it is also true in these latin-American societies I know. This doesn't mean that no social or political changes are taking place, but they are often quite different from what is used to legitimize the social order

By the way, it's interesting how you people constantly accuse me of having some sort of antiquated perception of things to construct a straw man when so many of the arguments used here are a mix between European 19th century capitalist legitimations and mid-20th century latin-American developpement ideology. It's even funnier because I am not that knowledgeable on latin-American socialist literature of the 60s-70s and most of what I read didn't have that big of an impact on me.


----------



## Jonesy55

isaidso said:


> The continent was called America in the beginning and America it remains in all its parts: northern, southern, central.
> so.


In fact for most of its history the continent was never called America, that was a name created relatively recently by European colonisers.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

eklips said:


> ^^ Those I know just say gringos generally :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did that come from? :lol: My comment was on how some forumers behave here, Maria Teresa (you remember her right?), Yuri Andrade, and others who's names I'm not sure .... and who as a hole reminded me of a bunch of turkish forumers a few years back. And I mentioned this since the forumer complaining about these brazilian forumer (and he's far from being the only one) happened to be turkish. Nothing more.
> 
> As for the rest of what you are trying to say: First of all I am not a sociologist and do not even know the author you quoted, I neither mentioned socialism nor revolution and you are just building a straw man here (for something that is not even related to the last discussions on this thread).
> 
> By the way, yes, the societies I know in Latin America are indeed marked by a rigid class system and with strong racial undertones of colonial origins, but this is off topic. And also applies to the other societies I am knowledgeable off, France where I live or even Israel/Palestine. The funny thing is that this is of course common knowledge within these countries, the only place I have seen people negate this has been SSC (and local media).
> 
> "Change" has by the way, constantly been used to hide social reproduction (the fact that who are on top stay on top and those who are at the bottom stay there even as generations go and die), it was true in France in 1850, in 1950 and is still true in 2012. It was true in Tunisia before 2011 and right now after the revolution.... and yes, it is also true in these latin-American societies I know. This doesn't mean that no social or political changes are taking place, but they are often quite different from what is used to legitimize the social order
> 
> By the way, it's interesting how you people constantly accuse me of having some sort of antiquated perception of things to construct a straw man when so many of the arguments used here are a mix between European 19th century capitalist legitimations and mid-20th century latin-American developpement ideology. It's even funnier because I am not that knowledgeable on latin-American socialist literature of the 60s-70s and most of what I read didn't have that big of an impact on me.


Eklips decided to troll openly. I'm waiting you to quote me or other forumers behaving like those Turkish allegedly behaved. I've asked this before, but you conveniently decided to ignore.

You're disrupting this thread, with lies and personal attacks. You were already bad enough with your blatant racism, and now adding trolling to the package makes you unbearable. Please go away.


----------



## eklips

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Eklips decided to troll openly. I'm waiting you to quote me or other forumers behaving like those Turkish allegedly behaved. I've asked this before, but you conveniently decided to ignore.
> 
> You're disrupting this thread, with lies and personal attacks. You were already bad enough with your blatant racism, and now adding trolling to the package makes you unbearable. Please go away.


Examples of such posts? There's no need to look very far :

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=92680762&postcount=702

As for you, your constant crusade to show how white and western Brazil is everywhere on the anglophone forums is quite similar (on the Oasis Brazil thread for example) to the behavior of these turkish forumers, or your constant quote of stats on how many households have dishwashers and televisions you use over and over to silence anyone (including - and especially, when they come from other south American countries) who dares make any comment on the complexities of Brazil's social situation is almost pretty similar. Nonetheless, I have other things to do then to look for exact quotes since it is common knowledge on this forum that you behave this way and you obviously know it too...


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

eklips said:


> Examples of such posts? There's no need to look very far :
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=92680762&postcount=702
> 
> As for you, your constant crusade to show how white and western Brazil is everywhere on the anglophone forums is quite similar (on the Oasis Brazil thread for example) to the behavior of these turkish forumers, or your constant quote of stats on how many households have dishwashers and televisions you use over and over to silence anyone (including - and especially, when they come from other south American countries) who dares make any comment on the complexities of Brazil's social situation is almost pretty similar. Nonetheless, I have other things to do then to look for exact quotes since it is common knowledge on this forum that you behave this way and you obviously know it too...


About Belém photos, he wasn't implying Belém is "developed" or "first world", only that Belém "was not that bad".

And about me, frankly. Lies, lies, and lies. It's amazing how people completely fabricate stuff so shameless like that. Really, really sad.


----------



## derechaconservadora

Yuri S Andrade said:


> *Nominal GDP per capita*, the one which really matters in a globalized world (soy beans, oil, iron, steel, cars, industrial machinery, cost pretty much the same everywhere):
> 
> *Chile --- 14,278*
> 
> *Uruguay --- 13,914*
> 
> *Brazil --- 12,769*
> 
> *Argentina --- 10,945*
> 
> *Venezuela --- 10,610*
> 
> *Mexico --- 10,153*
> 
> *Malaysia --- 9,700*
> 
> *Costa Rica --- 8,877*
> 
> *Panama --- 8,514*
> 
> *Colombia --- 7,132*
> 
> *Peru --- 5,782*
> 
> *Thailand --- 5,394*
> 
> *Ecuador --- 4,424*
> 
> *Indonesia --- 3,509*
> 
> *Philippines --- 2,223 *
> 
> 
> *HDI*
> 
> *Chile --- 0.805*
> 
> *Argentina --- 0.797*
> 
> *Uruguay --- 0.783*
> 
> *Mexico --- 0.770*
> 
> *Panama --- 0.768*
> 
> *Malaysia --- 0.761*
> 
> *Costa Rica --- 0.744*
> 
> *Venezuela --- 0.735*
> 
> *Peru --- 0.725*
> 
> *Ecuador --- 0.720*
> 
> *Brazil --- 0.718*
> 
> *Colombia --- 0.710*
> 
> *Thailand --- 0.682*
> 
> *Philippines --- 0.644 *
> 
> *Indonesia --- 0.617*
> 
> 
> To me, *a US$ 20,000 GDP per capita nominal together with a 0.800 HDI* is where "development begins".
> 
> Clearly, Latin America is way ahead of Southeast Asia, and the countries in the region will cross this benchmark first. Actually, *Chile* already crossed the HDI mark (Argentina is about to do the same) and it's a matter of years to get its GDP per capita over US$ 20,000. Maybe by 2015, 2016.


wrong stats, chile have 15,000 per capita for 2011. 15,800 for 2012.


----------



## derechaconservadora

another thing: brazil currency this year is going down against dollar. so probably brazilian NOMINAL income will be lower than the past year. so i really want to know what yuri andrade will say when many countries suprass brazilian percapita gdp nominal this year.


----------



## Motul

derechaconservadora said:


> another thing: brazil currency this year is going down against dollar. so probably brazilian NOMINAL income will be lower than the past year. so i really want to know what yuri andrade will say when many countries suprass brazilian percapita gdp nominal this year.


He will probably "suddenly" discover the wonders of PPP. :lol:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

derechaconservadora said:


> another thing: brazil currency this year is going down against dollar. so probably brazilian NOMINAL income will be lower than the past year. so i really want to know what yuri andrade will say when many countries suprass brazilian percapita gdp nominal this year.


No dear, I've already said it, repeatedly, since the day I've subscribed SSC:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Brazilian real appreciated against the US dollar over the years precisely because the country was doing well. 2012 it's been quite problematic, and real is naturally falling. And no one do the conversion weekly. We use the average for an entire year.





Yuri S Andrade said:


> *Brazilian GDP growth* estimate for *2012* revised down once more (yes, once more): *2.05%*. Inflation 4.93%, US$ 1.00 = R$ 1.92 average. For 2013, the GDP growth is still on 4.2%.
> 
> So, GDP 2012 will be around R$ 4.43 trillion or *US$ 2.30 trillion*.
> 
> Boletim Focus
> 
> Last week, the government revised down to *2.5%* its own estimates. They started the year with 4.5%, revised down (way later than the market) to 3.0%, and now 2.5%.





Yuri S Andrade said:


> (...)
> 
> Dados de *2006*. A cotação usada é: *US$ 1,00 = R$ 2,15*
> 
> *País -- PIB 2006 (US$) -- Pop. 2008
> 
> EUA -- 13.090.776.000.000 -- 304.059.724
> 
> Brasil -- 1.102.231.000.000 -- 189.552.814*
> 
> 
> *RMs -- PIB 2006 (US$) -- Pop. 2008* (96 EUA; 40 Brasil)
> 
> 1.New York -- 1.284.888.000.000 -- 21.967.007
> 
> 2.Los Angeles -- 825.324.000.000 -- 17.786.419
> 
> 3.Chicago -- 490.906.000.000 -- 9.793.036
> 
> 4.San Francisco -- 475.561.000.000 -- 7.354.555
> 
> 5.Washington -- 366.669.000.000 -- 5.358.130
> 
> 6.Houston -- 344.516.000.000 -- 5.728.143
> 
> 7.Dallas -- 341.502.000.000 -- 6.418.810
> 
> 8.Philadelphia -- 330.066.000.000 -- 6.398.896
> 
> 9.Boston -- 321.327.000.000 -- 5.708.706
> 
> 10.Atlanta -- 262.692.000.000 -- 5.561.099
> 
> 11.Miami -- 248.029.000.000 -- 5.414.772
> 
> 12.Detroit -- 233.047.000.000 -- 5.354.225
> 
> 13.Seattle -- 217.902.000.000 -- 3.947.763
> 
> 14.São Paulo -- 209.584.000.000 -- 19.616.060
> 
> 15.Minneapolis -- 186.718.000.000 -- 3.416.832
> 
> 16.Phoenix -- 179.489.000.000 -- 4.281.899
> 
> 17.Denver -- 162.356.000.000 -- 3.049.562
> 
> 18.San Diego -- 157.509.000.000 -- 3.001.072
> 
> 19.Cleveland -- 127.784.000.000 -- 2.786.844
> 
> 20.Baltimore -- 125.918.000.000 -- 2.667.117
> 
> (...)


I'm not sure what kind of modus operandi you are familar with, but that's definitely not mine. I couldn't care less whereas Brazil, Norway or Cochinchina figures might be. The good data is the real one.




Motul said:


> He will probably "suddenly" discover the wonders of PPP. :lol:


I didn't understand the "joke". Could you give us an example of me changing my position here in SSC about any issue whatsoever?


----------



## snt3000

Suddenly this thread is all about what a single user thinks and you're all joining the bandwagon.
Come on, PPP is the agreed international standard for GDP comparisons, used by all respected economy magazines, publications and universities around the world as well the World Bank and the United Nations PERIOD.
If you have a better idea go write some friggin paper and win the bloody Nobel but stop trying to be such an attention ***** around here.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
May I ask: have you won the Nobel yourself?

GDP nominal is way more used by all kinds of medias. When China overtook Japan, Germany? Brazil overtook UK? When their REAL GDP were larger than their competitors. Nobody's paid attention when that happened with the fantasy GDP.

Anyway, very bad idea to try curbing discussions in a discussion forum.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> May I ask: have you won the Nobel yourself?
> 
> GDP nominal is way more used by all kinds of medias. When China overtook Japan, Germany? Brazil overtook UK? When their REAL GDP were larger than their competitors. Nobody's paid attention when that happened with the fantasy GDP.


*Yes, NOMINAL GDP is used when comparing countries whole GDP with each other - to compare which country's economy is the largest.

But when comparing GDP PER CAPITA, PPP gdp per capita is used to compare living standards among nations. A hair cut is the same all over the world, but it doesn't cost the same right?*


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Completing the map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Dark Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 and HDI over 0.800
> Light Blue --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 20,000.00 or HDI over 0.800
> Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 and HDI over 0.700
> Light Green --- countries with GDP per capita over US$ 10,000.00 or HDI over 0.700
> 
> GDP per capita 2011 (FMI) and HDI 2011 (UN)_


*2017*

Making a projection for 2017. For GDP, the IMF estimates. For HDI, I assumed the countries will grow the same in 2011-2017 as they did in 2005-2011: 


*GDP per capita

Kuwait --- 50,330

Bahamas --- 29,033

Trinidad and Tobago --- 26,482

Saudi Arabia --- 23,936

Oman --- 23,374

Slovakia --- 22,386

Russia --- 22,277

Barbados --- 22,122

Estonia --- 21,861

Kazakhstan --- 20,899

Chile --- 20,528

Uruguay --- 20,196

Lithuania --- 18,611

Poland --- 18,246

Croatia --- 17,504

Hungary --- 17,408

Latvia --- 16,031

Brazil --- 15,986

Turkey --- 15,865

Malaysia --- 14,194

Argentina --- 13,500

Romania --- 13,364

Lebanon --- 13,326

Mexico --- 12,985

Costa Rica --- 12,755

Panama --- 12,709

Mauritius -- 11,206

Venezuela --- 10,888

Colombia --- 9,886

Bulgaria --- 9,873

China --- 9,153

Belarus --- 8,739

Peru --- 8,313

Serbia --- 8,231

Montenegro --- 8,065

Iran --- 8,045

Thailand --- 7,868

Dominican Republic -- 7,246

Macedonia --- 6,466

Jamaica --- 6,312

Algeria --- 6,243

Ukraine --- 6,090

Jordan --- 6,076

Bosnia-Herzegovina --- 5,974

Ecuador --- 5,792

Georgia --- 5,745

Tunisia --- 5,380

Sri Lanka --- 4,721

Albania --- 4,649* 


*HDI

Slovakia --- 0.858

Estonia --- 0.849

Poland --- 0.835

Chile --- 0.831

Argentina --- 0.829

Hungary --- 0.829

Lithuania --- 0.827

Latvia --- 0.826

Uruguay --- 0.818

Romania --- 0.814

Croatia --- 0.812

Barbados --- 0.799

Mexico --- 0.799

Panama --- 0.796

Saudi Arabia --- 0.794

Bulgaria --- 0.793

Trinidad and Tobago --- 0.792

Belarus --- 0.789

Serbia --- 0.788

Montenegro --- 0.785

Bahamas --- 0.785

Russia --- 0.785

Malaysia --- 0.784

Venezuela --- 0.778

Kazakhstan --- 0.776

Kuwait --- 0.768

Lebanon --- 0.767

Costa Rica --- 0.765

Georgia --- 0.759

Peru --- 0.759

Albania --- 0.757

Mauritius -- 0.753

Jamaica --- 0.752

Macedonia --- 0.752

Bosnia-Herzegovina --- 0.749

Ukraine --- 0.746

Colombia --- 0.745

Ecuador --- 0.745

Brazil --- 0.744

Irã --- 0.743

China --- 0.741

Tunisia --- 0.729

Turkey --- 0.727

Jordan --- 0.723

Algeria --- 0.720

Dominican Republic -- 0.720

Sri Lanka --- 0.720

Oman --- 0.716

Thailand --- 0.708*


^^
So, the next *developed by 2017* will be *Chile*, *Estonia*, *Slovakia* and *Uruguay*.


----------



## sebvill

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Peru --- 5,782


Officially Peru closed 2011 with a GDP of USD 180.4 billion and a population of 29.8 millions. Therefore our nominal GDP per capita last year was USD 6,054. Still low but a little better. The annual GDP between april 2011- march 2012 closed in USD 186.2 billions. I hope we can overpass the USD 200 billions this year. I hope the international situation improves this semester.


----------



## Skyprince

Wow Malaysia & Chile have been close friends since beginning

Almost similar income level at any given time since 1980 :cheers:



George W. Bush said:


> Not in the long term. The growth pattern of Latin-American countries is more often than not quite irregular - good times alternate with long stagnation and even decline. In SE Asia only the Philippines resemble this pattern (maybe because of some common Spanish heritage ).


----------



## Skyprince

I think that most active forumers from Latin America & Malaysia in this thread belong the Upper middle-class and Upper-class bracket. 

Myself consider the life I enjoy everyday no difference than any developed countries :lol: ( We belong to "Upper middle-class bracket" in Malaysia ) 



Motul said:


> Yes, but Peru started from a lower base.. Even when it has grown way more than Colombia, only now has it come to tie it in per capita GDP (PPP). And recently Colombia has started to accelerate its economy and close the gap with Peru's growth.. So it seems both countries will remain equally rich for a good time to come..
> 
> Peru has an advantage in it's fiscal policy and well developed mining industry (in which Colombia is still in it's diapers).
> 
> Colombia has an advantage in its population (50% higher than Peru) and more developed business base (Colombia's biggest company alone accounts for 3/4 of Peru's GDP. The top 5 reach Chile's GDP by market cap).
> 
> Even so, both countries are well directed.. :yes:


----------



## Motul

Plain old middle class here.. But what's your point in making that observation? :?


----------



## snt3000

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> *Yes, NOMINAL GDP is used when comparing countries whole GDP with each other - to compare which country's economy is the largest.
> 
> But when comparing GDP PER CAPITA, PPP gdp per capita is used to compare living standards among nations. A hair cut is the same all over the world, but it doesn't cost the same right?*


This is clearer than crystal. Market exchange rates can be used to represent relative prices of goods and services that are traded internationally, NOT the relative value of total domestic output, which also consists of goods, and in particular services (like the haircut you mentioned but also much more complex services), that are not traded internationally.


----------



## fastboyRD

Skyprince said:


> I think that most active forumers from Latin America & Malaysia in this thread belong the Upper middle-class and Upper-class bracket.
> 
> Myself consider the life I enjoy everyday no difference than any developed countries :lol: ( We belong to "Upper middle-class bracket" in Malaysia )




_i'm poor, lower class, almost a homeless._


----------



## Skyprince

Motul said:


> Plain old middle class here.. But what's your point in making that observation? :?





fastboyRD said:


> _i'm poor, lower class, almost a homeless._


Oh, just noticing the demography of Skyscrapercity that in Middle-income nations most forumers belong to quite higher income bracket than average earners . And there is tendency to show the best parts/buildings/scenery in images etc. So I think its important to note that the reality of places like Chile, Malaysia, Brazil etc isn't that great what we observe around here.


----------



## xrtn2

Brazil in 2028 

Southern Brazil in 2022


----------



## fastboyRD

Skyprince said:


> Oh, just noticing the demography of Skyscrapercity that in Middle-income nations most forumers belong to quite higher income bracket than average earners . And there is tendency to show the best parts/buildings/scenery in images etc. So I think its important to note that the reality of places like Chile, Malaysia, Brazil etc isn't that great what we observe around here.


_ Chile is as great as you see it here._:banana:


----------



## derechaconservadora

Motul said:


> Yes, but Peru started from a lower base.. Even when it has grown way more than Colombia, only now has it come to tie it in per capita GDP (PPP). And recently Colombia has started to accelerate its economy and close the gap with Peru's growth.. So it seems both countries will remain equally rich for a good time to come..
> 
> Peru has an advantage in it's fiscal policy and well developed mining industry (in which Colombia is still in it's diapers).
> 
> Colombia has an advantage in its population (50% higher than Peru) and more developed business base (Colombia's biggest company alone accounts for 3/4 of Peru's GDP. The top 5 reach Chile's GDP by market cap).
> 
> Even so, both countries are well directed.. :yes:


 its senseless to compare ANUAL gdp with TOTAL value of companies (or billionaires as some people do). 

in any case chilean big companies have more value than the colombian big companies. how do you meassure that? in the stock market. and chilean stock market is bigger than the colombian. plus chilean stock market is the ONLY in latinamerica that have a higher value than the anual gdp of his country. just developed nations have more value in stock exchange than in the anual gdp.


----------



## derechaconservadora

fastboyRD said:


> _ Chile is as great as you see it here._:banana:


well chile have many ugly zones. but there are also many great places to live here.


----------



## sebvill

derechaconservadora said:


> its senseless to compare ANUAL gdp with TOTAL value of companies (or billionaires as some people do).
> 
> in any case chilean big companies have more value than the colombian big companies. how do you meassure that? in the stock market. and chilean stock market is bigger than the colombian. plus chilean stock market is the ONLY in latinamerica that have a higher value than the anual gdp of his country. just developed nations have more value in stock exchange than in the anual gdp.


Peru used to have a bigger stock market than GDP between 2005 and 2010 (except 2009). But because of international inestability thats no longer the case since last year. 2011 ended USD 180 b vs USD 130 b.

Anyway Peru, Chile and Colombia now a share a common stock market and Index and I hope that gives us strength and even more importance in the long run.


----------



## onosqaciw

well i heard that the majority of iranian people are wonderful, they even got good percentage of graduates esp in engineering....the problem are the gov are too tight on general issues like dress code or smth like that..


----------



## sebvill

onosqaciw said:


> well i heard that the majority of iranian people are wonderful, they even got good percentage of graduates esp in engineering....the problem are the gov are too tight on general issues like dress code or smth like that..


or sending missiles to the west...


----------



## Skyprince

Azerbaijan has one of the highest growing economy in the world.

Baku has impressive architecture and looks very modern ( at least in the downtown area ) 




Galandar said:


> Baku
> 
> 
> Baku by aliyev, on Flickr


----------



## Chrissib

Skyprince said:


> Azerbaijan has one of the highest growing economy in the world.
> 
> Baku has impressive architecture and looks very modern ( at least in the downtown area )


Only because of oil. Such kind of countries are excluded from the discussion.


----------



## George W. Bush

Los Earth said:


> Not everyone is supposed to hate this city.
> I find it beautiful


It's not about "hating" the city, but about tackiness. The image you posted really is the best proof of Astana's tackiness - because if that what it shows is not tacky, then I don't know what else tackiness could be. Other great examples are some prominent buildings in Shanghai's Pudong or Putrajaya in Malaysia - tacky, but nonetheless interesting and many do like it.


----------



## Skyprince

George W. Bush said:


> It's not about "hating" the city, but about tackiness. The image you posted really is the best proof of Astana's tackiness - because if that what it shows is not tacky, then I don't know what else tackiness could be. Other great examples are some prominent buildings in Shanghai's Pudong or Putrajaya in Malaysia - tacky, but nonetheless interesting and many do like it.


Tacky ? To me every single individual has own preference. Some ppl prefer older structure & rather traditional design while some like me prefer Brand-new structure & contemporary design .

The "modern design" of today may become history in the future. 

In Asia & Arab Gulf nations, as I noticed there is a strong preference for modern & contemporary architecture and people are obsessed about brand-new residential & office blocks . In Europe this may not be true


----------



## Skyprince

Chrissib said:


> Only because of oil. Such kind of countries are excluded from the discussion.


Indeed. There is a lack of diversification in Azerbaijan economy .


----------



## goschio

Los Earth said:


> Looks pretty good to me...
> hey at least people will be able to pick it out from hundreds of other cities which look so dull and drabby


you are joking right?


----------



## goschio

Skyprince said:


> Tacky ? To me every single individual has own preference. Some ppl prefer older structure & rather traditional design while some like me prefer Brand-new structure & contemporary design .
> 
> The "modern design" of today may become history in the future.
> 
> In Asia & Arab Gulf nations, as I noticed there is a strong preference for modern & contemporary architecture and people are obsessed about brand-new residential & office blocks . In Europe this may not be true


But what you see in Astana is not modern contemporary design but cheap looking tacky design.


----------



## pesto

Difficult as it is, it is possible to discuss "development" since you can develop a working defitinition and then try to find plausible numerical analogs to quantify measurement.

But even the Romans had figured out that there is no intelligent discussion possible about "taste". At the end of the day, some prefer Shakespeare and some prefer Danielle Steele. Mostly Danielle Steele.


----------



## Gorky

Chrissib said:


> Only because of oil. Such kind of countries are excluded from the discussion.


WTF?! :nuts:

Why so?!

And what about *Norway*?! Its economy *is primarily Oil*


----------



## pesto

Gorky said:


> WTF?! :nuts:
> 
> Why so?!
> 
> And what about *Norway*?! Its economy *is primarily Oil*


You hit a key point. Everyone (except extreme outliers) excludes the oil countries from developed status. But what about those that are "mostly" oil states (or resorts or special administrative states)?

Excluding oil, I would guess that Norway's income is a bit below Sweden and Denmark; but this is just an estimate. But for sure it's a developed country based on many economic and social parameters.


----------



## sathya_226

What about countries with bigger land mass like India and China? 

Its pretty obvious that smaller countries among the developing category will be able easier to become fully developed given the fact that they have to take care of only a smaller population and a smaller land area. 

But the real task will be for bigger countries like India, China and Russia, not sooner than later, the whole world is going to depend on the might of these countries.


----------



## George W. Bush

Gorky said:


> And what about *Norway*?! Its economy *is primarily Oil*


Norway was already a prosperous country before the oil bonanza started in the 1970s.


----------



## AcesHigh

FAAN said:


> ^^I love my country and I am very proud of being Brazilian. You know Brazil or Brazilians?


he is a brazilian who posts a lot on the brazilian forums. I would be surprised if he did not know Brazil or brazilians, since he only needs to look at the mirror to see one. I am surprised you never saw Rekarte in the brazilian forums.


----------



## isaidso

Gorky said:


> WTF?! :nuts:
> 
> Why so?!
> 
> And what about *Norway*?! Its economy *is primarily Oil*


People assume that rich western countries with resources are rich because of them. It's not fair or accurate. Norway has an advanced developed economy and they'd be rich without oil. Oil added wealth to an already wealthy country. 

Same goes for countries like Australia and Canada. If neither had an abundance of natural resources, they'd both still be wealthier than the EU average. Resources only accounts for 7% of Canadian GDP; it's only marginally higher in Australia.


----------



## isaidso

Skyprince said:


> Azerbaijan has one of the highest growing economy in the world.
> 
> Baku has impressive architecture and looks very modern ( at least in the downtown area )


Looks good to me.


----------



## Gorky

George W. Bush said:


> Norway was already a prosperous country before the oil bonanza started in the 1970s.



A BIG WRONG for you!!


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Gorky said:


> WTF?! :nuts:
> 
> Why so?!
> 
> And what about *Norway*?! Its economy *is primarily Oil*


True. Only a small elite benefits from this, 90% of the Norwegian population is dead poor. Ive been to Norway, its hell, believe me, same as neighbouring Sweden, hell a lot of begging street children, drug dealers, pickpockets, violence and the occasional limousine of the few nouveaux riche. It will take a long time until these Northern countries get developed.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

isaidso said:


> People assume that rich western countries with resources are rich because of them. It's not fair or accurate. Norway has an advanced developed economy and they'd be rich without oil. Oil added wealth to an already wealthy country.
> 
> Same goes for countries like Australia and Canada. If neither had an abundance of natural resources, they'd both still be wealthier than the EU average. Resources only accounts for 7% of Canadian GDP; it's only marginally higher in Australia.


Not quite. Before oil, Norway was far poorer than Denmark and Sweden. After it, Norway became way wealthier than their neighbours. Without oil, Norwegian GDP per capita could be half of it's today.

Commodities play a big role even in developed countries, specially in countries with smaller population.


----------



## megacity30

Based on projected GDP (PPP) per capita (greater than US$ 20,000) and inequality-adjusted HDI (greater than 0.80), the following countries appear to be the nearest to achieving developed country status:-

Within two years (by 2014):

*Hungary
Lithuania*


Within 5 years (by 2017):

*Argentina
Chile
Russia
Croatia
Trinidad and Tobago*


In 10 years (by 2022): 

*Latvia
Belarus
Antigua and Barbuda
Uruguay
Malaysia*

references: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita_estimates

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table3.pdf


----------



## snicket

^^ kay:


----------



## goschio

Don't you think the threshold for developed country status will go up as well?


----------



## megacity30

goschio said:


> Don't you think the threshold for developed country status will go up as well?


Over a longer period, yes, you may be correct. However, over a relatively shorter time span, there shouldn't occur any dramatic inflation unless the US$ undergoes an unforeseen currency devaluation, a global disaster, major economic shifts etc. that's why it's a projection and not a stated fact.


----------



## Chrissib

megacity30 said:


> Over a longer period, yes, you may be correct. However, over a relatively shorter time span, there shouldn't occur any dramatic inflation unless the US$ undergoes an unforeseen currency devaluation, a global disaster, major economic shifts etc. that's why it's a projection and not a stated fact.


You also have to take into acoount that the established developed countries will also grow until 2020. It's very likely that the threshold in 2020 will be around 30,000 USD/capita, taking inflation and real growth into account.


----------



## megacity30

Chrissib said:


> You also have to take into acoount that the established developed countries will also grow until 2020. It's very likely that the threshold in 2020 will be around 30,000 USD/capita, taking inflation and real growth into account.


If you read the link I had provided for projected GDP (PPP) per capita, you will see that the countries reaching developed country status in 2022 have a GDP (PPP) per capita exceeding $25,000.
Therefore, this factor has been accounted for in the projection.

Also, please remember that just because many wealthy countries become wealthier, the concept of being developed will not change. For example, the HDI threshold will remain 0.80
The standard of living (income, infrastructure) as a result of a $20000 GDP per capita in today's context will change gradually and not drastically. History bears witness to this fact.


----------



## Chrissib

What about changing the GDP criteria to a flexible one? I have thought a bit over that topic and came to the conclusion that something like 50% of the GDP/capita (PPP) of the most advanced major developed country that is not heavily influenced by a ressource windfall (e.g. Norway or Australia) or a tax haven (Switzerland, Luxemburg) would be suitable.

At the moment this would be the USA, so the threshold for being developed in 2011 was 24,193 USD/capita.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

^^

*According to the World Bank a high income country is this:




It classified countries as high-income if their per capita GDP, measured at purchasing-power parity, exceeds 43% of America's.

Click to expand...

USA GDP per capita: US$ 48 387

0.43 x 48,387 = US$ 20 806

The threshold goes here between Slovakia and Estonia.










I think it looks reasonable, don't you think? For me this is the "developed-country-threshold" together with a "Very High" HDI.
What do you think?

Source

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita*


----------



## Chrissib

43% looks so arbitrary. I prefer the 50%. ^^


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

^^

With that, then Portugal isn't developed. I think everybody would consider Portugal to be a developed country I would so too, albeit not as developed as northern Europe but still developed. Ask an average person on the street about Portugal, they would say that Portugal is a developed country. For me Portugal is the benchmark as being the poorest developed country.


----------



## Alex Roney

isakres said:


> For some reason I thought Brazil started its first Industrialization process back in the 60s and in the 70s when rural Brazilians migrate to Urban centers and contributed to create the so-called favelas. Never thought Brazil was that poor as early as 1962 but at the same level of my country. Mexico was poorer than Peru back in the 50s, but some "industrial" boom started in the 60 and hence, it was no longer that poor during that decade.
> 
> The table doesnt show the figures for Argentina, but It was clearly far reacher than Mexico and Brazil and probably richer than Venezuela in 1962.


Brazil has always been poorer than Mexico dating way back to colonial times. I think in the early 60s Brazil still had a smaller economy than Argentina. 

Industrialisation and urbanisation did increase greatly in the 60s and 70s but it was poorly planned and most importantly extremely unequal.


----------



## hmckmbc223

Future is uncertain. My guesses are
Malaysia
Tunisia
Lebanon
Chile 
Libya
Turkey
Thailand
Indonesia


----------



## Alex Roney

This is why solely looking at GDP per capita or HDI to say places like Argentina are developed or 5 years is ridiculous. One only has to go to the slums that dot much of the Southern or Western suburbs. Take the decrepit Roca train line and tell me if that's a developed country.

Panama is about to surpass Uruguay in GDP per capita, that in no way proves that they are in the same level of development. Leave the confines of Panama city and see if you come to the same conclusion. Uruguay is consistently 1st or at worst 2nd in poverty and other social figures yet that doesn't reflect their GDP per capita.


----------



## xrtn2

A lot smalls brazilian cities already is developed

]Treviso - Santa Catarina state,There is not crime in the city, the jail is empty.

0









1)


----------



## FAAN

Hopefully in the next 10 or 15 years, at least 70% of the country's cities are like that.


----------



## Los Earth

Is that just one city?


----------



## FAAN

Los Earth said:


> Is that just one city?


In the photos, yes, it's just a city. But there is not only a developed city in Brazil.
Not really not :nuts::nuts:

I think he just wanted to show a developed brazilian city (which there are lot unlike what many think).

Brazil is not developed, but most of their cities may not be considered poor. Look on Google Street View, especially the cities of the countryside.

If you are interested in some cities look like: Londrina, Maringa, Goiânia, Uberaba, Goiânia, Águas de São Pedro, Araçatuba, Novo Hamburgo, Curitiba, Porto Alegre, Florianópolis, among other hundreds in the country.


----------



## xrtn2

^^

Sorry, but Sao Caetano do Sul in Brazil, is already one developed city, The biggest HDI in Latin America.


----------



## FAAN

^^Yes, I know it's one of the many Brazilian cities that we call developed. kay:


----------



## BaiatuVesel

hmckmbc223 said:


> Future is uncertain. My guesses are
> Malaysia
> Tunisia
> Lebanon
> Chile
> Libya
> Turkey
> Thailand
> Indonesia


Libya , Lebanon have deep political problems , and as we know there is a correlation between political stability , good institutions and economic development.


----------



## null

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> I would not say slaves, cause they are working fro themselves, it's just very poor and backward with no modern conveniences like electricity and water. But as urbanization continues, more people are going to live modern lives in the cities. All the developed countries have an urbanization rate of at least 60+% and China's is 51%.


The rural areas in coastal provinces (except Guangxi) are very decent.:cheers:


----------



## null

oliver999 said:


> china has become world's largest car market for several years,50% of world totally car sales(almost 20 million), mostly price 15000USD-40000USD.
> 36 cars per 1000 population is outdated. 2011 dates would be 60cars per 1000 population. still very low. but in large cities, shanghai,beijing,etc. car sales are limited due to heavey traffic jam.


China: 18.5 million cars sold out in 2011.

http://www.bitauto.com/zhuanti/xiaoliang/conclu2011/

India: 1.95 million cars sold out in 2011.


----------



## megacity30

null said:


> China: 18.5 million cars sold out in 2011.
> 
> http://www.bitauto.com/zhuanti/xiaoliang/conclu2011/
> 
> India: 1.95 million cars sold out in 2011.


Undoubtedly, China manufactures / sells the highest number of cars in the world at 18.4 million cars (including resales) in 2011.

However, your source provides incorrect data about cars sold in India and for some other countries :bash: and no marks for guessing why. 

Paris-based “Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles” (OICA) has provided this data since 1919 for global cars manufactured / sold per country. *3.9 million cars were sold in India in 2011 (including resales).*

Here is the data for the top 12 countries with highest car production / sales (and resales) in 2011:-

1. China: 18,418,876

2. USA: 8,653,560

3. Japan: 8,398,654

4. Germany: 6,311,318

5. South Korea: 4,657,094

6. India: 3,936,448

7. Brazil: 3,406,150

8. Mexico: 2,680,037

9. Spain: 2,353,682

10. France: 2,294,889

11. Canada: 2,134,893

12. Russia: 1,988,036

references: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry

http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/


----------



## calaguyo

Q2 2012 GDP Growth Rate (the so far fast gainers)

China	7.60
*Indonesia	6.40*
Bangladesh	6.30
*Philippines	5.90*
Chile	5.50
India	5.50
*Malaysia	5.40*



1Q 2012 GDP Growth Rate (Fast gainers)

Mongolia 16.7
Ghana 8.7
China 8.1
Sri Lanka 7.9
Tanzania 7.1
Qatar 6.9
Latvia 6.9
Philippines 6.4
Indonesia 6.3
Mozambique 6.23

Source


----------



## Crash_N

Poland and Chile


----------



## Schreiber242




----------



## ProdayuSlona

Gorky said:


> :lol::lol::nuts:


What, an intelligent, coherent response. Bravo.


----------



## Skyprince

posted from Malaysian forum

Strange comparison since Finland, Denmark and Israel have far less population than us, but at least catching up with them recently



sepul said:


> number of scientific journals published *each year* [from 1996-2010] in selected countries (Malaysia, Denmark, Finland & Israel)
> 
> 
> comparison with selected countries by sky.height, on Flickr
> 
> 
> comparison with selected countries.table by sky.height, on Flickr
> 
> source: SCImagojr compiled from Scopus



Comparison with ASEAN countries




sepul said:


> number of scientific journals published *each year* [from 1996-2010] in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia & Thailand
> 
> 
> 4 largest SEA economies by sky.height, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 4 largest SEA economies.table by sky.height, on Flickr
> 
> 
> scimagojr.com


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica

^^

You should make a graph with the citations. As the director of SciVal Solutions at Elsevier North America (the organization from where the data you posted is taken) puts it.



Daniel Calto said:


> While quantity is an important indicator because it gives a sense of scientific capacity and the overall level of scientific activity in any particular field, citations are the primary indicator of overall scientific impact


----------



## Nigel20

Skyprince said:


> posted from Malaysian forum
> 
> Strange comparison since Finland, Denmark and Israel have far less population than us, but at least catching up with them recently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparison with ASEAN countries


wow...that's quite amazing.


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

Chrissib said:


> I've read that in Beijing car ownership is much higher than in Shanghai and other cities. Are the limitations in Shanghai and other cities more strict?


yes, there are. There is a registration fee imposed on top of any vehicle sold. I think, it is something like 3000 EUR per car. Given the fact that the cheapest car, the Chery QQ, costs around 3500 EUR, it is a high burden especially for potential buyers with a tighter budget.
In Beijing, limitations were less strict, but in 2011 they limited the number of new registrations to just 240,000 cars per year (sales in 2010 was 700,000) through a "lottery system". In 2011, Bejing car sales slumped by 70%, while growth in neighbouring Hebei province was exceptionally high. What a big surprise...


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

oliver999 said:


> china has become world's largest car market for several years,50% of world totally car sales(almost 20 million), mostly price 15000USD-40000USD.
> 36 cars per 1000 population is outdated. 2011 dates would be 60cars per 1000 population. still very low. but in large cities, shanghai,beijing,etc. car sales are limited due to heavey traffic jam.


well, I think the reason why the car density is lagging behind the general development stage in China is the pure fact, that there was no automotive industry and private car ownership at all until 1985. But talking about other BRICs like Brazil or Russia, there has always been an automotive industry since WW2.
It was not until around the late 90s when a lot of joint venture where set up and private car ownership began to spread. 
The golden age for carmakers in China was around 2009/10, when the government granted subsidies to potential buyers and in parallel, economic growth picked up again. Meanwhile growth has moderated and, as you pointed out, the wealthy coastal regions are beginning to show signs of saturation. But I expect the market to remain dynamic within the next 20 years as growth is shifting inlands to the less developed provinces

I read something like in Beijing, vehicle density is 200 cars/1000 inhaibtants, while in Guizhou its about 15.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> well, I think the reason why the car density is lagging behind the general development stage in China is the pure fact, that there was no automotive industry and private car ownership at all until 1985. But talking about other BRICs like Brazil or Russia, there has always been an automotive industry since WW2.
> It was not until around the late eighties when a lot of joint venture where set up and private car ownership began to spread.
> The golden age for carmakers in China was around 2009/10, when the government granted subsidies to potential buyers and in parallel, economic growth picked up again. Meanwhile growth has moderated and, as you pointed out, the wealthy coastal regions are beginning to show signs of saturation. But I expect the market to remain dynamic within the next 20 years as growth is shifting inlands to the less developed provinces
> 
> I read something like in Beijing, vehicle density is 200 cars/1000 inhaibtants, while in Guizhou its about 15.


Remember also that denser cities are less car dependent than more spread out cities like Beijing. Hong Kong has 83 cars per 1000 people and Singapore has 156. I don't think that the number of cars in cities like Chongqing, Guiyang, Kunming, and Chengdu would ever reach Beijing's levels. Even comparable rich big cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou have less cars per 1000 people.


----------



## Chrissib

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Remember also that denser cities are less car dependent than more spread out cities like Beijing. Hong Kong has 83 cars per 1000 people and Singapore has 156. I don't think that the number of cars in cities like Chongqing, Guiyang, Kunming, and Chengdu would ever reach Beijing's levels. Even comparable rich big cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou have less cars per 1000 people.


The biggest potential lies in the towns, villages and small cities. At the moment they are too poor to afford cars, but when they can they will rapidly overtake the big cities in car ownership rates.


----------



## null

Car parking is a headache in China, bicyclists are totally fucked up when you have a bicycle lane like this:


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

--- keep on posting !


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

when will the Central African Republic will be developed?


----------



## ProdayuSlona

^^
Lol, I think most people don't even know what that is


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

maybe this country does not even have a name...basically there are several Central African Republics like Congo or Gabun...but at least they can afford to have a name.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Here is the GDP per capita (PPP) were the border is drawn between Estonia and Slovakia. I have removed countries with high GDP per capita that are mainly non-advanced economies with one major commodity such oil.

*Here is my prediction:

2015​

Estonia
Poland

2017​

Lithuania

2019​

Hungary

2020​

Chile
Croatia
Russia

2021​

Argentina

2022​

Malaysia
Uruguay 
Latvia

2025​

Lebanon
*


----------



## chornedsnorkack

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Here is the GDP per capita (PPP) were the border is drawn between Estonia and Slovakia. I have removed countries with high GDP per capita that are mainly non-advanced economies with one major commodity such oil.
> 
> *Here is my prediction:
> 
> 2015​
> 
> Estonia
> Poland
> 
> 2017​
> 
> Lithuania
> 
> 2019​
> 
> Hungary
> 
> *


Why Lithuania before Hungary?


----------



## Rinchinlhumbe

I would like to raise my question again: when will the Central African Republic enter the stage of being developed?

a) next week
b) hopefully within the next 2 hours because afterwards I wanna go out to eat some tacos with my sweetie
c) yesterday
d) 2050 BC
e) bruce willis?


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

^^

Since it's amongst the poorest and least developed countries on earth with no signs of improvement I would say never or 100+ years.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

chornedsnorkack said:


> Why Lithuania before Hungary?


Lithuania has been one of the best performing countries in Europe the last decade while Hungary has kind of stagnated. Last year Lithuania grew 6% while Hungary grew 1.8%. Lithuania has a higher gear than Hungary at the moment and something drastic must happen before Lithuania will surpass Hungary in a couple of years.


----------



## onosqaciw

central african republic has few population though....who knows they discover tons of oil...and voila....


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

^^

Sure, oil can help a bit, but a country just reliying on oil will never become developed. There must also be a human development too. Fir instance people don't consider Suadi Arabia or other arab states to be developed.


----------



## Iluminat

There are many poor African countries rich in terms of natural resources so it probably wouldn't change that much.


----------



## 161803

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> <b>Here is my prediction:
> 2015​
> Estonia
> Poland
> 2017​
> Lithuania
> 2019​
> Hungary
> 2012​
> Chile
> Croatia
> Russia
> 2021​
> Argentina
> 2022​
> Malaysia
> Uruguay
> Latvia
> 2025​
> Lebanon




This looks like a good answer. I agree with Eastern Europe catching up this within this decede despite EU crisis.

I'm not sure about Russia though as they're too relient on high energy prices.

Chile and Uruguay can make the great step forward by the end of the decade if they sustein current growth rates. Both countries have solid economic policies and strong democracies. Uruguay's performance is more conditional to the performance of Brazil and Argentina though. Chile has known how to isolate from regional turbulences better. On the positive side for Uruguay, it is the only latin american country that has completed the demographic transition which means that given equal GDP growth rates, per capita income will grow 1% faster in Uruguay because there's virtually no population growth.

Argentina is more unpredictable but it's a country with lots of potential and has been on the verge of becoming a developed country since forever but they never crossed the line.

Lebanon is in a difficult neighbourhood.


----------



## snt3000

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> I would like to raise my question again: when will the Central African Republic enter the stage of being developed?
> 
> a) next week
> b) hopefully within the next 2 hours because afterwards I wanna go out to eat some tacos with my sweetie
> c) yesterday
> d) 2050 BC
> e) bruce willis?


I think you've pretty much nailed it. Under current conditions, the CAR will not become developed in the foreseeable future. Nominal GDP per capita is $456 and average growth of GDP p.p. during the last 4 years was about 2%, probably less than that if you consider the last decade, so you do the maths. 

But even economic data shine in comparison to the political and government situation of the "Republic", although the last armed rebel group has recently signed a peace deal with the government. This sort of opens the door to further institutional stabilization, meaning they may finally be able to get foreign aid again. Development institutions are tepidly optimistic about the country's short term outlook, but any guesses concerning the many decades it will take for the country to lift the 62% of its population from under the poverty line are mere speculation.

p.s. besides, development is a relative - not absolute - condition, so when/if the CAR reaches said condition, other countries will be much further ahead, so it will still be at the lower rank, i.e. not as developed...


----------



## Gorky

*Angola
Cape Verde
Turkey*


----------



## eddeux

Rinchinlhumbe said:


> I would like to raise my question again: when will the Central African Republic enter the stage of being developed?
> 
> a) next week
> b) hopefully within the next 2 hours because afterwards I wanna go out to eat some tacos with my sweetie
> c) yesterday
> d) 2050 BC
> e) bruce willis?


CAR will not develop until it has infra in place connecting the nation and its neighbors that will ensure access to its resources (people, minerals, agriculture). Connecting CAR by road/rail to Congo-Brazzaville, South Sudan, Cameroon and so on. This will allow for better access to the nation, provide more oppurtunities for investment and encourage inter-regional/continental trade which would help its economy and competition flourish, and develop its industries.

As of now there is the LAPPSET corridor plan that will connect/further open up Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Sudan. From there it can be extended all the way to CAR via South Sudan.









In addition to that the nation could connect with west Africa via Cameroun (which will connect with the rest of West Africa via Nigeria) since the nation is modernizing its rail network. This would result in the nation being apart of a larger continental railway and highway. 

All of this can be in place by 2030, or 2035, seeing as LAPPSET will be complete by then and Cameroun/West Africa should have connected road and rail as well. 

With the infrastructure in place CAR could realize its true growth potential. Having a small population and huge resources is an advantage as well. Even by 2050 the nation couldn't have anymore than 7 million people which is still tiny. And that's if growth doesn't slow and stays at 3% for 38 years (highly unlikely). 

So with all of that in mind CAR could be developed sometime in the latter half of this century (2060s-2080s). But this all depends on when infra is put in place nationally and regionally, and of course the governments economic policies/dedication.


----------



## eddeux

onosqaciw said:


> central african republic has few population though....who knows they discover tons of oil...and voila....


Bingo. Oil alone won't develop the nation, but if used properly it can provide the $$ needed for infrastructure expansion, education and so on. Since CAR is tiny too it will have more to invest per person compared to larger African nations (like DRC).


----------



## eddeux

Gorky said:


> *Angola
> Cape Verde
> Turkey*


Turkey will they be considered developed sometime in the 2020s?


----------



## 161803

No African nation south of the Sahara will be developed within our lifetime, not even South Africa.


----------



## eddeux

^^SA, yes. The rest, depends on what you mean by 'our' lifetime. 50-60 years from now, _yes _there will be some nations in SSA that will be developed. It'd be ignorant to think they'd all stay poor forever.:nuts: Development is already occurring albeit not as fast as possible and varying by nation. This decade though should see many African nations speed up in development due to ongoing infrastructure investments/reforms as of now and planned in the near future. These include Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia, Cameroun, etc. Others will or may still be around the same level of development today (Niger, Chad, CAR, Malawi, etc.) It will be an interesting decade.:banana:


----------



## 161803

^ I know Ghana is doing good things lately and so is Cameroon. Still, they'd need to sustain average growth rates of above 6% for 50 years to achieve just the current level of wealth of Latin America. 

I don't think Africa will be poor forever, but we won't see extreme poverty eliminated in Africa in this centruy.

Bear in mind how demographics also factor. For example, Latin America as whole grew relativey in some decades during the XX century, but little improvement was seen in the standard of living of the population because the countries also had high population growth rates. It was only after the population stopped growing at a fast pace (last 10-15 years) that you could notice that increases in GDP improved the quality of living of the population. The same happened in Europe in the early XXth century.

Most African countries have population growth rates of above 2% per year, which means their economies need to grow at 5% in order for GDP per capita to grow at 3% rate. The cumulative efect after a few decades is quite significative.


----------



## eddeux

161803 said:


> ^ I know Ghana is doing good things lately and so is Cameroon. Still, they'd need to sustain average growth rates of above 6% for 50 years to achieve just the current level of wealth of Latin America.


That can be easily done. Ghana, and Africa overall, have the potential to grow at 10% for a few decades due to the small base they're coming from. And by wealth you mean per capita income? Yes it will take decades but by 2050 Africa's GDP should be larger. HDI in some nations should be above .8 and most should be in the .6-.7 range. 



> I don't think Africa will be poor forever, but we won't see extreme poverty eliminated in Africa in this centruy.


Extreme poverty can be eliminated in most nations if not all of Africa by 2050. Most Africans depend on the agricultural sector for jobs. When African governments pay further attention to it extreme poverty will be eliminated. Like I said this decade should lay the foundation for some Afican nations to economically boom similar to the boom witnessed in Asia im the 1980s and 90s. Poverty though may not be gone at all, but greatly reduced if growth moves past commodities and becomes inclusive.:yes:



> Bear in mind how demographics also factor. For example, Latin America as whole grew relativey in some decades during the XX century, but little improvement was seen in the standard of living of the population because the countries also had high population growth rates. It was only after the population stopped growing at a fast pace (last 10-15 years) that you could notice that increases in GDP improved the quality of living of the population. The same happened in Europe in the early XXth century.
> 
> Most African countries have population growth rates of above 2% per year, which means their economies need to grow at 5% in order for GDP per capita to grow at 3% rate. The cumulative efect after a few decades is quite significative.


Very true which is why GDP growth should be no smaller than 7%. Not to mention the continent may start to reap its demographic dividend in the coming decades which Asia and Latin America have already benefitted from. Like I said further investments in infrastructure, sound economic policies and encouragement of intercontinental trade will propel Africa economically to levels unseen before. The continent could very well become the next fastest growing region in world (it has the human and natural resources to accomplish this). There is a lot of work left to get there, but many nations are making progress. Only time will tell.  But overall Africa's future is undoubtedly going to be much better than its past.


----------



## onosqaciw

i know oil and gas is not an insurance to be a developed countries as we see in gulf countries....it's just the easiest way (and a faster one) to be a high income countries...(not necessarily a developed countries though)


----------



## Dannyyo

hno:Lets put it in this way, if I go to Mexico , China you name it., just see around you, kids asking ford food,poor transportation outdated you should apply the 80/20 formula I'M saying in the States 80% of the infraestructure its well developed I mean clean cities,good organization,etc where I FEEL safe most of the houses dont have big metal doors in front like a fortress . in those other countries you should apply 20/80. you know what I'M TALKING ABOUT.:bash: I'


Baleares said:


> Sorry but i'm not talking about way of life. I'm talking about standard of life. And in that matter, USA has a lot more to improve than the countries i've mentioned.
> 
> BUT... As i said, that is not the point of my discussion here. The point of my opinion is that the concept of Development NEEDS to be reviewed.
> 
> First because the measurement "Developed" is in fact wrong. All the countries of the World are still "Developing". Some have got more advances and others not... But the fact is that there is no Developed country in the World because, much less or much more, the majority of the countries in the World nowadays face the same social problems. But some of them got more advanced economies and societies, what gave them much less intensity and much more weapons to fight against those problems.
> 
> And second, we need more accurate terms to distinguish development because it's not just about have money and nice social indicators. In my opinion, it's completely possible a country with better social indicators and not be developed.
> 
> Of course, not being developed will limit the social indices of it's country. So development to me is much more than nice HDI index or number of nice roadways. To me it's mainly cultural and involves much more indicators than life expectation or years in school for example. And looking by that side, we can assume that there're only a few "near" developed countries in the World.
> 
> Of course that all are MY opinions. Being so i think it's very difficult to say what is next Developing country to be developed but i bet for Sweden, Norway, Finland or Switzerland. Latin American countries are very far from that standard and i think most of the Latin forumers here actually know that even if you take the conventional "Developed and Developing" countries definition by truth.


----------



## null

^^

Huh, China has poor transportation infrastructures? :crazy:


----------



## Celdur

A pues, muchas gracias.


----------



## CavaloMarinho

I predict that by 2035 Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay will be already developed countries. What holds Brazil is its north and north-east regions, because if Brazil was only its center (which has a HDI of 0,901) or only its southeast or southern regions it would already be a developed country. 
By 2050 I bet Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala and Cuba will be joining us as well. 
Latin America will shine more than ever.


----------



## Dannyyo

:cheers2:


The Cake On BBQ said:


> Oh okay then. But simply saying "they are not from here" sounds a bit racist


----------



## Yörch1

^^Costa Rica is way ahead from Brazil in development. It meets the standards of Chile and Uruguay... Why would it take 15 years more?


----------



## Celdur

CavaloMarinho said:


> I predict that by 2035 Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay will be already developed countries. What holds Brazil is its north and north-east regions, because if Brazil was only its center (which has a HDI of 0,901) or only its southeast or southern regions it would already be a developed country.
> By 2050 I bet Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala and Cuba will be joining us as well.
> Latin America will shine more than ever.



I don't understand this line of thinking, first of all the southern parts of brazil don't have 0.901 of HDI, and second if i just count my neighborhood i would be living in a develop country. 

You either count the whole country or it doesn't make sense. Besides, Brazil is growing 2% this year, Peru is going to grow 6%, and the per cápita diference is only 2k, but Perú has less than 3% inflation and we have already surpassed Brazil in HDI. Brazil doesn't have good prospects for the future with growth slowing down. 

Why would it develop before Pacific america? counting on the fact that several of the countries you mentioned are not only growing faster than brazil but also have a higher gdp per cápita, namely Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama is growing 10% year on year, and with low inflation.


----------



## CavaloMarinho

Celdur said:


> I don't understand this line of thinking, first of all the southern parts of brazil don't have 0.901 of HDI, and second if i just count my neighborhood i would be living in a develop country.
> 
> You either count the whole country or it doesn't make sense. Besides, Brazil is growing 2% this year, Peru is going to grow 6%, and the per cápita diference is only 2k, but Perú has less than 3% inflation and we have already surpassed Brazil in HDI. Brazil doesn't have good prospects for the future with growth slowing down.
> 
> Why would it develop before Pacific america? counting on the fact that several of the countries you mentioned are not only growing faster than brazil but also have a higher gdp per cápita, namely Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama is growing 10% year on year, and with low inflation.




First of all I said the center part of Brazil has 0,901 HDI. The southern regions are also developed.

Brazil grew 2 per cent THIS year, but it still does have great prospects for the future. It is going to grow even more with the World Cup and Olympics events taking place right here. Other countries may be growing faster, but they don't have half, heck! they don't have 1/10 the money we do here (we are the world's 5th richest country). Also Mexico is NOT ahead of Brazil. Actually it is Americas' (by Americas I want you to know I mean North and South) most violent country. At least Brazil is doing a nice job getting rid of its violence. 

If Brazil didn't have good prospects Goldman Sacks wouldn't speak of it as a developed country in 2030 (which is not my prediction at all, but it is theirs) and the richest country in Latin America. 

Also Brazil is the country that most receive immigrants from Europe in the Americas after USA only. The economy growth is indeed important, but we already have enough money to be developed. What happens is that we lack enough education to choose well our politicians. But we're getting better at this. If you watch the Mensalão you'll see what I'm talking about.

Curiosity: The city of São Paulo alone has more GDP than Chile.


----------



## Celdur

You have a lot of money... because you have a lot of people. Chile has 16 million, Brazil 195... you have to compare it in Per Cápita basis. Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, etc are all more developed than Brazil with lower GDP, but way more gdp per capita. As is Chile more advanced than Brazil. 

Face reality, Brazil grew this decade only because of chinese demand, now its growth is slowing down, why is Chile, Perú, etc still growing at 5% and 6% even though we also sell commodities? the answer is the protectionist policies of Brazil, add to that the tight labor market, relatively high inflation and you have a Brazil that slowing down a lot, with no prospect to reform the administration, Dilma is doing a decent job, but no real reform has been made yet. 

Don't hold your breath for a developed Brazil, the center and south will leach the resources of the rest of the country but that will only increase inequality which is already enormous.


The World cup and the Olympics don't make you develop nor do they contribute significantly to the economy, specially because they are one-time events, what this now about immigrants? how does that matter?



I really want to you to show some evidence to back up your 0.901 HDI in the "center" region, given the fact that there are massive favelas in Rio and Sao Paulo...


----------



## CavaloMarinho

Yörch said:


> ^^Costa Rica is way ahead from Brazil in development. It meets the standards of Chile and Uruguay... Why would it take 15 years more?


Way ahead? Not really. As I said before what drags Brazil down is JUST the bad distribution of credit. That is easier to change than, let's say, turn trees into gold.


----------



## CavaloMarinho

Celdur said:


> You have a lot of money... because you have a lot of people. Chile has 16 million, Brazil 195... you have to compare it in Per Cápita basis. Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, etc are all more developed than Brazil with lower GDP, but way more gdp per capita. As is Chile more advanced than Brazil.
> 
> 
> The World cup and the Olympics don't make you develop nor do they contribute significantly to the economy, specially because they are one-time events, what this now about immigrants? how does that matter?
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to you to show some evidence to back up your 0.901 HDI in the "center" region, given the fact that there are massive favelas in Rio and Sao Paulo...


1- São Paulo has less people than Chile. Yet it has more GDP than it. India has way more people than Brazil, but we still have more money than they do. So that's no statement at all. 

2- The World cup and the Olympics do contribute significantly to the economy. They mean more investments, money, propaganda.

3- Per capita of Brazil is ahead of Mexico, Peru, etc.

4- I'd like you to know that the center region of Brazil is represented by Brasília. Rio and São Paulo are located in south-east. 

5- Massive favelas in São Paulo and Rio? True, but still Mexico has the biggest favela of the Americas.


----------



## Nigel20

CavaloMarinho said:


> I predict that by 2035 Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay will be already developed countries. What holds Brazil is its north and north-east regions, because if Brazil was only its center (which has a HDI of 0,901) or only its southeast or southern regions it would already be a developed country.
> By 2050 I bet Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala and Cuba will be joining us as well.
> Latin America will shine more than ever.


I think that Dom Rep and Panama will become developed nations by 2030-2035 based on their current growth rate. IMF is also pridicting that Panama's GDP(nominal) will expand from just over 26 billion to more than 45 billion by 2017...IMF is also predicting that Dom Rep's GDP(nominal) will expand from 50 billion to over 80 billion by 2017 and PPP from 93 billion to 130 billion by 2017.


----------



## Celdur

CavaloMarinho said:


> 1- São Paulo has less people than Chile. Yet it has more GDP than it. India has way more people than Brazil, but we still have more money than they do. So that's no statement at all.
> 
> 2- The World cup and the Olympics do contribute significantly to the economy. They mean more investments, money, propaganda.
> 
> 3- Per capita of Brazil is ahead of Mexico, Peru, etc.
> 
> 4- I'd like you to know that the center region of Brazil is represented by Brasília. Rio and São Paulo are located in south-east.
> 
> 5- Massive favelas in São Paulo and Rio? True, but still Mexico has the biggest favela of the Americas.



Perú has more GPD than Bangladesh with much less population, those are other continents, we are talking LATAM here and the average wealth of our continent. And Chile is going to hit the 19.000 USD mark this year, while brazil sits at 11.000, who is richer?. And brazil has less money than India in PPP, because Brazil its way more expensive.


Sao Paulo administers a huge part of the wealth of the whole of Brazil and Sao Paulo state has 40 million people, that contribute one way or another to the wealth of the city, the city is not autarkic, it depends and profits from the rest of the country.


Mexico has 14.000 PPP Brazil has 11.000 PPP... Perú has 10.090 but its growing way faster and for a long time more than Brazil.


You don't get it, you are only counting a small part of the country, anyone can do that, all countries in LATAM have their "developed" parts. You are confusing internal HDI with the ONU HDI evaluation.


Venezuela has the biggest and worst of LATAM, and the Pacific countries are way less violent than Brazil, namely Chile and Perú. Way less.


----------



## Celdur

CavaloMarinho said:


> Way ahead? Not really. As I said before what drags Brazil down is JUST the bad distribution of credit. That is easier to change than, let's say, turn trees into gold.



Brazil is poor like the rest of LATAM, you think you just need to redistribute what you already have to be a developed country? you are wrong, you need to quadruple your GDP to have the money necessary to distribute it among the people. 

Which is also a wrong concept, there is no free launch, no developed country distributes money among its population, the population creates wealth and that wealth doesn't just go to the rich but also to the middle class, and while Brazil is improving its still one of the worst in LATAM in distribution of wealth. Costa Rica, Panama, Perú are way better and improving faster than brazil.


----------



## Legomaniac

^^ You guys seem to be concentrating way too much on your personal choice, meaning you're both bias. 

I think Brazil has a larger possibility of becoming a a develop country due to the size of its economy, influence upon its neighbors (which includes Chile) and the strength of it's economy. Chile does infact seem more develop than Brazil, but the truth of the matter is that Chile is not bigger than Brazil in almost any way. Chile's economy lacks competitiveness, RESOURCES, and people. Like it has been pointed out various times above, small countries can't influence the world as much.

The question that i would ask is: What can Chile offer the world? As crazy as that might sound, it's not. All major powers have at least a major strength to compete with and show their superiority. Chile just doesn't. Same goes for Uruguay.

I guess a good example of that would be a country like New Zealand. They're educated, strong economy (relative to their size), small, low population, in the corner of the world (just like Chile), their strength in terms of influencing the world is low, meaning they won't achieve to be a major power.

Now, if it's between Mexico and Brazil, that really is a tough one. But i have to say Mexico.

If Mexico can do something of great importance against the cartels in these upcoming 6 years, i see Mexico developed before 2030. to me is as simple as that, Mexico has proved to be incredibly strong against the economic downturn and despite it's crime problem, the country continues to flourish.


----------



## Nigel20

Egomaniac said:


> ^^ You guys seem to be concentrating way too much on your personal choice, meaning you're both bias.
> 
> I think Brazil has a larger possibility of becoming a a develop country due to the size of its economy, influence upon its neighbors (which includes Chile) and the strength of it's economy. Chile does infact seem more develop than Brazil, but the truth of the matter is that Chile is not bigger than Brazil in almost any way. Chile's economy lacks competitiveness, RESOURCES, and people. Like it has been pointed out various times above, small countries can't influence the world as much.
> 
> The question that i would ask is: What can Chile offer the world? As crazy as that might sound, it's not. All major powers have at least a major strength to compete with and show their superiority. Chile just doesn't. Same goes for Uruguay.
> 
> I guess a good example of that would be a country like New Zealand. They're educated, strong economy (relative to their size), small, low population, in the corner of the world (just like Chile), their strength in terms of influencing the world is low, meaning they won't achieve to be a major power.
> 
> Now, if it's between Mexico and Brazil, that really is a tough one. But i have to say Mexico.
> 
> If Mexico can do something of great importance against the cartels in these upcoming 6 years, i see Mexico developed before 2030. to me is as simple as that, Mexico has proved to be incredibly strong against the economic downturn and despite it's crime problem, the country continues to flourish.


Chile has the largest proven reserves of Copper in the world and produces about 1/3 of the worlds production...there is also gold,iron,limestone and silver in Chile, so Chile is not lacking in resources.


----------



## Legomaniac

Yeah you're right, doesn't change my opinion, but true.


----------



## Voltico

Egomaniac said:


> ^^ You guys seem to be concentrating way too much on your personal choice, meaning you're both bias.
> 
> I think Brazil has a larger possibility of becoming a a develop country due to the size of its economy, influence upon its neighbors (which includes Chile) and the strength of it's economy. Chile does infact seem more develop than Brazil, but the truth of the matter is that Chile is not bigger than Brazil in almost any way. Chile's economy lacks competitiveness, RESOURCES, and people. Like it has been pointed out various times above, small countries can't influence the world as much.
> 
> The question that i would ask is: What can Chile offer the world? As crazy as that might sound, it's not. All major powers have at least a major strength to compete with and show their superiority. Chile just doesn't. Same goes for Uruguay.
> 
> I guess a good example of that would be a country like New Zealand. They're educated, strong economy (relative to their size), small, low population, in the corner of the world (just like Chile), their strength in terms of influencing the world is low, meaning they won't achieve to be a major power.
> 
> Now, if it's between Mexico and Brazil, that really is a tough one. But i have to say Mexico.
> 
> If Mexico can do something of great importance against the cartels in these upcoming 6 years, i see Mexico developed before 2030. to me is as simple as that, Mexico has proved to be incredibly strong against the economic downturn and despite it's crime problem, the country continues to flourish.


*You're a bit lost here man...the issue being discussed is "what emerging economies will achieve economic and social development any time soon....your post is almost entirely about countries gaining political and economic power in the world (due to their size) and it's totally irrelevant for the discussion....

On the other hand, I can see that you are not very well informed about the Chilean economy....first you said Chile's economy lacks Competitiveness, when actually it scores 4,65 and appears as the 33rd most competitive economy in the world (first in Latinoamerica) and Brazil is 48th 4,40...(Global Competitiveness Index, world economic forum)...

Then you said Chile lacks of resources when it's got one of the most developed mining industries in the world and produces big quantities of other types of commodities that bring lots of dollars to the country that are spent in different areas of the economy... in general the Chilean economy is a lot more developed than the Brazilian one, I think no-one that is well informed would question that...

Anyways...the main issue for any state in the world is to be able to satisfy the needs and wants of its citizen...now whether it's a super power like Japan or a socially advanced country like New Zealand it doesn't make any difference at all...*


----------



## Celdur

Egomaniac said:


> ^^ You guys seem to be concentrating way too much on your personal choice, meaning you're both bias.
> 
> I think Brazil has a larger possibility of becoming a a develop country due to the size of its economy, influence upon its neighbors (which includes Chile) and the strength of it's economy. Chile does infact seem more develop than Brazil, but the truth of the matter is that Chile is not bigger than Brazil in almost any way. Chile's economy lacks competitiveness, RESOURCES, and people. Like it has been pointed out various times above, small countries can't influence the world as much.
> 
> The question that i would ask is: What can Chile offer the world? As crazy as that might sound, it's not. All major powers have at least a major strength to compete with and show their superiority. Chile just doesn't. Same goes for Uruguay.
> 
> I guess a good example of that would be a country like New Zealand. They're educated, strong economy (relative to their size), small, low population, in the corner of the world (just like Chile), their strength in terms of influencing the world is low, meaning they won't achieve to be a major power.
> 
> Now, if it's between Mexico and Brazil, that really is a tough one. But i have to say Mexico.
> 
> If Mexico can do something of great importance against the cartels in these upcoming 6 years, i see Mexico developed before 2030. to me is as simple as that, Mexico has proved to be incredibly strong against the economic downturn and despite it's crime problem, the country continues to flourish.



What is being a "major power" have anything to do with being developed? 

The rest about Chile i defer to the post above mine. Adding that Perú has huge reserves of copper also (2nd producer behind Chile) and Chile is our ally so its not like the world can shop copper somewhere else. Its incredible though, that some people with huge gaps of knowledge dare to post comments, Chile is quite competitive FAR more than Brazil with its protectionist policies. 



And BTW Brazil has almos cero influence in its neighbours beyond Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.


----------



## CavaloMarinho

Voltico said:


> *You're a bit lost here man...the issue being discussed is "what emerging economies will achieve economic and social development any time soon....your post is almost entirely about countries gaining political and economic power in the world (due to their size) and it's totally irrelevant for the discussion....
> 
> On the other hand, I can see that you are not very well informed about the Chilean economy....first you said Chile's economy lacks Competitiveness, when actually it scores 4,65 and appears as the 33rd most competitive economy in the world (first in Latinoamerica) and Brazil is 48th 4,40...(Global Competitiveness Index, world economic forum)...
> 
> Then you said Chile lacks of resources when it's got one of the most developed mining industries in the world and produces big quantities of other types of commodities that bring lots of dollars to the country that are spent in different areas of the economy... in general the Chilean economy is a lot more developed than the Brazilian one, I think no-one that is well informed would question that...
> 
> Anyways...the main issue for any state in the world is to be able to satisfy the needs and wants of its citizen...now whether it's a super power like Japan or a socially advanced country like New Zealand it doesn't make any difference at all...*



You're wrong. The most competitive countries in LATAM are Brazil and Mexico. That's why both of them are the ones that receive more investments from outside. Chile's economy more developed than Brazil's? You've got to be kidding me dude! 8 of the 10 most powerful LATAM's enterprises are Brazilian. Brazil has the biggest car production, the 2nd biggest enterprise IN THE WORLD at making airplanes. The only country in the south hemisphere to posses a particle accelerator. The only country in the south hemisphere to posses nuclear manufacturers. The 3rd biggest TV station in the World, Globo. The most implemented and rushed airports and sea ports of LATAM. Also, together with China and the USA it is the only country to have all types of mineral sources under its territory.


----------



## CavaloMarinho

Celdur said:


> What is being a "major power" have anything to do with being developed?
> 
> The rest about Chile i defer to the post above mine. Adding that Perú has huge reserves of copper also (2nd producer behind Chile) and Chile is our ally so its not like the world can shop copper somewhere else. Its incredible though, that some people with huge gaps of knowledge dare to post comments, Chile is quite competitive FAR more than Brazil with its protectionist policies.
> 
> 
> 
> And BTW Brazil has almos cero influence in its neighbours beyond Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.



almost ZERO influence? More than 50% of Uruguay's importations come from Brazil. Also Argentina is our biggest partner in LATAM. We actually gave them money last year so the wouldn't find themselves in a much worse crisis. Also Chile depends a lot of Brazil as does Venezuela and Colombia.


----------



## CavaloMarinho

Voltico said:


> *You're a bit lost here man...the issue being discussed is "what emerging economies will achieve economic and social development any time soon....your post is almost entirely about countries gaining political and economic power in the world (due to their size) and it's totally irrelevant for the discussion....
> 
> On the other hand, I can see that you are not very well informed about the Chilean economy....first you said Chile's economy lacks Competitiveness, when actually it scores 4,65 and appears as the 33rd most competitive economy in the world (first in Latinoamerica) and Brazil is 48th 4,40...(Global Competitiveness Index, world economic forum)...
> 
> Then you said Chile lacks of resources when it's got one of the most developed mining industries in the world and produces big quantities of other types of commodities that bring lots of dollars to the country that are spent in different areas of the economy... in general the Chilean economy is a lot more developed than the Brazilian one, I think no-one that is well informed would question that...
> 
> Anyways...the main issue for any state in the world is to be able to satisfy the needs and wants of its citizen...now whether it's a super power like Japan or a socially advanced country like New Zealand it doesn't make any difference at all...*


You're wrong. The most competitive countries in LATAM are Brazil and Mexico. That's why both of them are the ones that receive more investments from outside. Chile's economy more developed than Brazil's? You've got to be kidding me dude! 8 of the 10 most powerful LATAM's enterprises are Brazilian. Brazil has the biggest car production, the 2nd biggest enterprise IN THE WORLD at making airplanes. The only country in the south hemisphere to posses a particle accelerator. The only country in the south hemisphere to posses nuclear manufacturers. The 3rd biggest TV station in the World, Globo. The most implemented and rushed airports and sea ports of LATAM. Also, together with China and the USA it is the only country to have all types of mineral sources under its territory.


----------



## Skyprince

Just returned from Turkey and I must say its not far from being developed.

Western Turkey is largely almost developed, while Eastern Turkey is still developing.


----------



## sebvill

FAAN said:


> Peru surpasses Brazil in just 0.07 points on the HDI (2011), and historically Brazil has always been ahead of Peru.
> 
> It is much easier to develop a country that most of the population live around the capital and has only 28.7 million inhabitants than develop a country with its population spread over 8.5 million km² and has almost 200 million inhabitants. Do not you think?


1. Historically Peru has been way more developed than Brazil. But we had a very bad economic period in the 80s while Brazil had a great boom in te 70s. Nevertheless, we are returning to our normal position.

2. Its not easier to develop a country with smaller population, thats a myth. Because smaller population also comes with smaller budget and less posibilities of scale economies. Population size is not determinant in development. Plus Brazil has a way larger territory with tens more resources.

3. Brazil and Peru have the same population density. Around 22 people per km2.


----------



## sebvill

CavaloMarinho said:


> Also Brazil is the country that most received immigrants from Europe in the Americas after USA only.


And how would that help you become developed? Im detecting some complexes here.

Brazil recieved millions of imigrantes like 80 years ago and you remained poor. So whats the point?


----------



## FAAN

sebvill said:


> 1. Historically Peru has been way more developed than Brazil. But we had a very bad economic period in the 80s while Brazil had a great boom in te 70s. Nevertheless, we are returning to our normal position.
> 
> 2. Its not easier to develop a country with smaller population, thats a myth. Because smaller population also comes with smaller budget and less posibilities of scale economies. Population size is not determinant in development. Plus Brazil has a way larger territory with tens more resources.
> 
> 3. Brazil and Peru have the same population density. Around 22 people per km2.


1. Peru may have returned to "normal", but even so, according to the latest reports of UNDP, Brazil has been more developed than Peru.

2000

Brazil: 0.777
Peru: 0.752

2004

Brazil: 0.875
Peru: 0.752

2005

Brazil: 0.792
Peru: 0.762

2006

Brazil: 0.792
Peru: 0.767

2007

Brazil: 0,800
Peru: 0.773

2008

Brazil: 0.807
Peru: 0.788

2009

Brazil: 0.813
Peru: 0.806

2011

Peru: 0.725
Brazil: 0.718

2. May be different opinions, but I think that developing a country with low population is easier than developing an overpopulated country.


----------



## Celdur

All poor countries are overpopulated. 

But by virtue of territory and potential resources, Brazil is not overpopulated.


----------



## Latin l0cO

CavaloMarinho said:


> 1- São Paulo has less people than Chile. Yet it has more GDP than it. India has way more people than Brazil, but we still have more money than they do. So that's no statement at all.
> 
> 2- The World cup and the Olympics do contribute significantly to the economy. They mean more investments, money, propaganda.
> 
> 3- Per capita of Brazil is ahead of Mexico, Peru, etc.
> 
> 4- I'd like you to know that the center region of Brazil is represented by Brasília. Rio and São Paulo are located in south-east.
> 
> 5- Massive favelas in São Paulo and Rio? True, but still Mexico has the biggest favela of the Americas.


Brazil does not have a larger gdp per capita than Mexico. Where did you get thay information? Also where did you hear that Mexico had the largest slum in america? I was always under the impression that rocinha was the largest.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS

Not all poor countries are overpopulated, look at Mongolia or Central Asian countries which are quite sparsely populated. There are dense countries that seem overpopulated but are rich like Japan and South Korea.

Being a smaller country is easier to develop but i doesn't mean that large countries will take to much longer. Large countries must just split the country into different regions that have different ways to develop considereing different conditions.
There must also be redistribtion system were money from more developed regions aid and invest the poorer. Similar to the EU system.


----------



## FAAN

Latin l0cO said:


> Brazil does not have a larger gdp per capita than Mexico


Depends on the type of measurement:

Nominal GDP per capita

Brazil: US$ 12,789
Argentina: US$ 10,945
Mexico: US$ 10,153
Peru: US$ 5,782

GDP (PPP) per capita

Argentina: US$ 17,674
Mexico: US$ 15,270
Brazil: US$ 11,719
Peru: US$ 10,318



Latin l0cO said:


> I was always under the impression that rocinha was the largest.


The largest slum in Latin America and the Western World is neither in Mexico nor in Brazil, but in Venezuela it is the Slum of Petare which has about 369,000 inhabitants and is three times larger and more populous than the Favela da Rocinha.

Map showing the world's most populous slums:










I don't see in Brazil hno:


----------



## Celdur

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Not all poor countries are overpopulated, look at Mongolia or Central Asian countries which are quite sparsely populated. There are dense countries that seem overpopulated but are rich like Japan and South Korea.
> 
> Being a smaller country is easier to develop but i doesn't mean that large countries will take to much longer. Large countries must just split the country into different regions that have different ways to develop considereing different conditions.
> There must also be redistribtion system were money from more developed regions aid and invest the poorer. Similar to the EU system.



Mongolia es overpopulated because it cannot provide a high standard of living for most of its population, as simple as that.


A small country has much less resources than a large one, so its balanced in most cases.


The redistribution that worked so well in the EU? i don't think so, rich regions aid in the development of the other regions if they don't choke them, but rather invest in them not "redistribute" but invest in technological advances in agriculture, jobs, etc. The only "redistribution" is the building of large infrastructure projects that single regions can not afford.


----------



## Yörch1

CavaloMarinho said:


> First of all I said the center part of Brazil has 0,901 HDI. The southern regions are also developed.
> 
> Brazil grew 2 per cent THIS year, but it still does have great prospects for the future. *It is going to grow even more with the World Cup and Olympics events taking place right here.* Other countries may be growing faster, but they don't have half, heck! they don't have 1/10 the money we do here (we are the world's 5th richest country). *Also Mexico is NOT ahead of Brazil. Actually it is Americas' (by Americas I want you to know I mean North and South) most violent country. At least Brazil is doing a nice job getting rid of its violence. *
> 
> If Brazil didn't have good prospects Goldman Sacks wouldn't speak of it as a developed country in 2030 (which is not my prediction at all, but it is theirs) and the richest country in Latin America.
> 
> Also Brazil is the country that most receive immigrants from Europe in the Americas after USA only. The economy growth is indeed important, but we already have enough money to be developed. What happens is that we lack enough education to choose well our politicians. But we're getting better at this. If you watch the Mensalão you'll see what I'm talking about.
> 
> Curiosity: The city of São Paulo alone has more GDP than Chile.


Where do you get your information from?

Growing more because of hosting Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup? Mexico hosted Olymics Games in 1968 and FIFA world cups in 1970 and 1986. And DEFINITELY the '68 Olympic Games KILLED the "miraculous" growing Mexico had during the 60's.

More recently... Have you ever heard about Greece?

And talking about violence you say Mexico is the most violent country in the Americas. 

UNODC - Homicide rate per 100,000 population

Honduras 82.1
El Salvador 66
Puerto Rico 26.2
*Brazil 22.7
Mexico 18.1*
USA 5
Chile 3.7
Canada 1.8

And Brazil's not living a drug war as Mexico does...

Source


----------



## Nigel20

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Not all poor countries are overpopulated, look at Mongolia or Central Asian countries which are quite sparsely populated. There are dense countries that seem overpopulated but are rich like Japan and South Korea.
> 
> Being a smaller country is easier to develop but i doesn't mean that large countries will take to much longer. Large countries must just split the country into different regions that have different ways to develop considereing different conditions.
> There must also be redistribtion system were money from more developed regions aid and invest the poorer. Similar to the EU system.


Agreed. Look at Cuba, Belize, Suriname and Guyana...some of these countries could also be considered as being under populated, but they are still poor.


----------



## Latin l0cO

FAAN said:


> Depends on the type of measurement:
> 
> Nominal GDP per capita
> 
> Brazil: US$ 12,789
> Argentina: US$ 10,945
> Mexico: US$ 10,153
> Peru: US$ 5,782
> 
> GDP (PPP) per capita
> 
> I will
> 
> Argentina: US$ 17,674
> Mexico: US$ 15,270
> Brazil: US$ 11,719
> Peru: US$ 10,318


Ahh the infamous PPP vs Nominal argument. To put it simply if you are comparing countries, PPP is the preferred. Why?, because of of cost of living. The purchasing power of a set amount is different by country. $5,000 USD will buy you more in Mexico than Brazil, and would buy you even more in Argentina, hence why PPP per capita is higher. In other words, if I had a salary of $60,000 USD, I would have a higher standard of living in Argentina than I would in Mexico or Brazil.

It is funny actually because this is exactly why PPP was always the preferred method used by Brazilians back in the early 2000s. This might be before your time, but there would be arguments in the latin american forums(and city vs city for all you old heads) because Mexico had a larger GDP(nominal) at the time than Brazil. Brazilians would rave on and on about how PPP is the right method of comparison, and it appears that the argument has been reversed now that nominal favors them(go figure). Infact your country man Ace's High was one of the biggest advocates of the PPP method on this forum. BTW sources such as the CIA world fact book don't even use GDP per capita nominal anymore.



FAAN said:


> The largest slum in Latin America and the Western World is neither in Mexico nor in Brazil, but in Venezuela it is the Slum of Petare which has about 369,000 inhabitants and is three times larger and more populous than the Favela da Rocinha.
> 
> Map showing the world's most populous slums:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see in Brazil hno:


You are delusional if you think there are no slums in Brazil.

I also like how you use wikipedia as your source. I guess I will you it as well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocinha
_Rocinha is the second largest favela in Latin America, and 9th largest in the world. _

How it is not listed on that map is beyond me.

Urban population living in slums








0-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
60-70%
70-80%
80-90%
90-100%


----------



## oliver999

china car produce:2008 8million-----2011,18million. no one know future.


----------



## sebvill

That map of slums is not accurate. It oversize slums in Latin America and miss lots of slums in Asia. 



FAAN said:


> 1. Peru may have returned to "normal", but even so, according to the latest reports of UNDP, Brazil has been more developed than Peru.
> 
> 2000
> 
> Brazil: 0.777
> Peru: 0.752
> 
> 2004
> 
> Brazil: 0.875
> Peru: 0.752
> 
> 2005
> 
> Brazil: 0.792
> Peru: 0.762
> 
> 2006
> 
> Brazil: 0.792
> Peru: 0.767
> 
> 2007
> 
> Brazil: 0,800
> Peru: 0.773
> 
> 2008
> 
> Brazil: 0.807
> Peru: 0.788
> 
> 2009
> 
> Brazil: 0.813
> Peru: 0.806
> 
> 2011
> 
> Peru: 0.725
> Brazil: 0.718
> 
> 2. May be different opinions, but I think that developing a country with low population is easier than developing an overpopulated country.


1. The last 10 years are not "historical", the last 100 are. For most of the last centruy Peru had way better indicators than Brazil.

2. Your opinion or mine are not important since we are not experts on the theme. But its a fact, not an opinion, that developing a smaller country is NOT easier. I already explained you why, dont close yourself in ignorance.


----------



## onosqaciw

gee...i don't realize the cvc is happen in LATAM i thought only france vs brits and india vs china....


----------



## FAAN

Latin l0cO said:


> Ahh the infamous PPP vs Nominal argument. To put it simply if you are comparing countries, PPP is the preferred. Why?, because of of cost of living. The purchasing power of a set amount is different by country. $5,000 USD will buy you more in Mexico than Brazil, and would buy you even more in Argentina, hence why PPP per capita is higher. In other words, if I had a salary of $60,000 USD, I would have a higher standard of living in Argentina than I would in Mexico or Brazil.
> 
> It is funny actually because this is exactly why PPP was always the preferred method used by Brazilians back in the early 2000s. This might be before your time, but there would be arguments in the latin american forums(and city vs city for all you old heads) because Mexico had a larger GDP(nominal) at the time than Brazil. Brazilians would rave on and on about how PPP is the right method of comparison, and it appears that the argument has been reversed now that nominal favors them(go figure). Infact your country man Ace's High was one of the biggest advocates of the PPP method on this forum. BTW sources such as the CIA world fact book don't even use GDP per capita nominal anymore.


I just showed you two different ways of measuring. Do not want to discuss which method is most important, but I think the nominal must be taken more into account, as for example when China became the 2nd largest economy surpassing Japan, was only recognized after his nominal GDP exceeds the even between Brazil and Great Britain.

I do not know the preference of brazilians the PPP method, because I was not even registered on the forums when the Mexican economy was more productive than the Brazilian.





Latin l0cO said:


> You are delusional if you think there are no slums in Brazil.
> 
> I also like how you use wikipedia as your source. I guess I will you it as well.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocinha
> _Rocinha is the second largest favela in Latin America, and 9th largest in the world. _
> 
> How it is not listed on that map is beyond me.
> 
> Urban population living in slums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0-10%
> 10-20%
> 20-30%
> 30-40%
> 40-50%
> 50-60%
> 60-70%
> 70-80%
> 80-90%
> 90-100%


I am aware of the problem of slums in Latin America and Brazil. 
All the links on the wikipedia as a source have used reliable sources. 
The Favela da Rocinha is without doubt one of the world's known, but always erroneously shown as the largest in Latin America or the world.


----------



## FAAN

sebvill said:


> That map of slums is not accurate. It oversize slums in Latin America and miss lots of slums in Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The last 10 years are not "historical", the last 100 are. For most of the last centruy Peru had way better indicators than Brazil.
> 
> 2. Your opinion or mine are not important since we are not experts on the theme. But its a fact, not an opinion, that developing a smaller country is NOT easier. I already explained you why, dont close yourself in ignorance.


1. I really do not know which methods and references you can say that.

2. I'm always open the mind to new knowledge, but what a big country to develop policies stricter and more people should be involved.


----------



## Celdur

FAAN, your main problem is in the data you manage. 

I read you say Brazil had a trillion dollars in reserve... when actually Brazil has only around 250.000 billion. 


And many brazilians posting here get their information i don't know where so they are unable to make correct assessments of the status of countries in the world.


----------



## Rodrigos_

It is really ridiculous to the brazilians discuss with people from Peru... I mean, really, r u guys going to give a shit for peruvians ? I don't get the point. It is really disreputable.


----------



## Nort

This thread is a bit...

"La Plaza in English" 

:lol:

Sorry for my bad English.


----------



## FAAN

Celdur said:


> FAAN, your main problem is in the data you manage.
> 
> I read you say Brazil had a trillion dollars in reserve... when actually Brazil has only around 250.000 billion.
> 
> 
> And many brazilians posting here get their information i don't know where so they are unable to make correct assessments of the status of countries in the world.


Where I said that Brazil has trillions in reserves?

You must have me confused with another brazilian forumer who posted here a few pages ago, who made some poles without sources.

All information that I was quoted have sources.

And the Brazilian reserves are around US$ 379 billion

http://www.bcb.gov.br/?RP20121001


----------



## hunger_games

FAAN said:


> Top 10 developing countries by GDP (nominal)
> ​1. *China*: US$ 7,3 trillion > GDP per capita: US$ 5.971,50 > HDI: 0,687
> 
> 2. *Brazil*: US$ 2,5 trillion > GDP per capita: US$ 13.636,00 > HDI: 0,720
> 
> 3. *Russia*: US$ 1,8 trillion > GDP per capita: US$ 15.948,00 > HDI: 0,755
> 
> 4. *India*: US$ 1,6 trillion > GDP per capita: US$ 2.780,00 > HDI: 0,547


India's could be a developed country only if they take care of their over population problem



> 5. *Mexico*: US$ 1,1 trillion > GDP per capita: US$ 11.530,00 > HDI: 0,770
> 
> 6. *Indonesia*: US$ 845 billions > GDP per capita: US$ 3.980,00 > HDI: 0,617
> 
> 7. *Turkey*: US$ 778 billions > GDP per capita: US$ 13.080,00 > HDI: 0,699


I certainly see Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Brazil and China as future developed countries...

   

Very slow but steady GDP per capita growth... 

   

   

   

   

Inconsistent growth...

   



China had massive GDP per capita growth in the last 30 years and has all the ingredients for a bright future




> 8. *Saudi Arabia*: US$ 577 billion > GDP per capita: US$ 23.815,00> HDI: 0,770
> 
> 9. *Iran*: US$ 482 billion > GDP per capita: US$ 11.202,00 > HDI: 0,710


With the inexistence of any signs of human rights in KSA and Iran, I am very surprised to see Saudi Arabia and Iran's HDI in the 0.7x range. These two countries are far too hindered by religion and politics to ever become a developed country.



> 10. *Argentina*: US$ 447 billion > GDP per capita: US$ 14.400,00 > HDI: 0,797


Maybe if the economy is developed further... but this wont' happen any time soon, since Argentina's economy is in crisis at the moment


----------



## sebvill

Rodrigos_ said:


> It is really ridiculous to the brazilians discuss with people from Peru... I mean, really, r u guys going to give a shit for peruvians ? I don't get the point. It is really disreputable.


:troll:

If you cant discuss properly, PLEASE dont write at all.


----------



## Rodrigos_

sebvill said:


> :troll:
> 
> If you cant discuss properly, PLEASE dont write at all.


I can discuss very properly, I just don't waste my time with people like... you know, peruvians ans other shit, hm. It's quite ridiculous to listen what these kind of people says.


----------

