I'm going to Chavez-Land!
- Thread starter TheLastOne36
- Start date
Mise
isle of lucy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world
The three worlds as they were separated during the Cold War era, each with its respective allies. First World: the United States and its allies. Second World: the Soviet Union and its allies. Third World: Non-aligned and neutral countries.
Advanced economies, as classified by the International Monetary Fund, and as of the April 2008 World Economic Outlook [1], are colored blue. Other countries are in gray.
I hope that helps.
Also, Luiz is correct that most of South America, and many African nations have the same urban characteristics as Venezuela; that is, relatively small areas that are very, very wealthy, surrounded by large areas that are very, very poor. Comparable to Western Europe 150 years ago, but with Latin flava!
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Are we still in the cold war? no.
Poland will be on that list in the next 5 years.
The only sub-saharan country that it can be compared to is South Africa.
If you want to discuss who is in the 3 worlds, make a new thread for it.
Mise
isle of lucy
No, we're not in the cold world, which is why there are no Second World countries anymore. I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic -- I'm simply trying to ensure that you know what the term "Second World" means, as you seemed to be using it incorrectly 
No, we're not in the cold world, which is why there are no Second World countries anymore. I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic -- I'm simply trying to ensure that you know what the term "Second World" means, as you seemed to be using it incorrectly
Nah, I've always learned that there are First, Second, Third, and Fourth world nations around the world, they have just changed meaning since the cold war. First are the developed wealthy nations, Second are developed but not quite there, Third world and nations that are attempting to develop, but are struggling due to poverty, economy, war, etc., Fourth world can really be considered the countries that are in extreme poverty, or have basically collapsed.
Mise
isle of lucy
Then perhaps someone wouldn't mind correcting the Wikipedia article, as it has a completely different definition.
That's quite right, at least as far as Brazil goes. Several "favelas" in Rio, for instance, have higher per capita incomes that the brazilian average. In Rocinha, the biggest one, nearly everybody has DVD players, refrigerators, microwave ovens, etc. Even cars are relatively common. A house there might cost 50,000 USD. It's actually more expensive than regular parts of city that are located further from the core. People want to live in there regardless of the fact that it is a craphole for two reasons: it is located in the wealthy South Zone, where they can find work, and it is lawless, so they don't have to pay property taxes, they get free cable TV, free electricity, free natural gas, and so on and so forth. So they have a bigger purchasing power than "honest" citizens that make somewhat more than they do.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
O tempora, o mores!
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
i have to take a look at the article, cause iirc they gave a couple of definitions. (like the wiki article on Eastern Europe)
idk, that's basically how I learned it in Middle School...
... my teachers could have been wrong. Sorry, I only speak American 
BTW, I think we're getting a little too far off topic, lets get back to talking about the Land of Chavez.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
Good luck on your trip to South America LastOne36, and if possible try and keep in touch.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Don't worry, i'll stay on the boards, cause who knows, maybe this forum will be the last bit of sanity i will find in Venezuela.
aelf
Ashen One
Don't worry, i'll stay on the boards, cause who knows, maybe this forum will be the last bit of sanity i will find in Venezuela.
You're doing it wrong!
In Venezuela, you should be trying to get to know Venezuelan babes instead of hanging around an internet forum looking for 'sanity'
Mise
isle of lucy
Wiki has other definitions as separate entries; these differing "definitions" (actually, they define different concepts entirely) are a result of various different people (usually authors) using an existing term to describe a concept that is similar and related, but nonetheless distinct, from the original meaning. This is a fairly common thing for authors to do, because it's easier to use words that people already know than it is to popularise new, superfluous terminology. I suspect that Joecoolyo's teacher read a book somewhere or was taught by a lecturer who wrote a book somewhere that said that first to fourth worlds were like "rankings", which group worlds according to their development level; in fact, they simply describe worlds in a sort of literal "chronological" order, referring to their adoption of various economic paradigms.idk, that's basically how I learned it in Middle School...
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Well Mise, things change, and thus definitions have to change. What some countries looked like and how developed they were, are completely different from what they are now.
I say we should enter the new century with new definitions, instead of following old definitions like the bible.
1st world - Western Europe, Central Europe, Most of the Balkans, Turkey, North America, Australia, NZ, Japan, SK, Singapore, Taiwan, U.A.E, and imo in the upcoming years China.
2nd world - Most of latin America, whatever is left from Europe, Thailand, South Africa, China, Indonesia, Phillipines, Iran, parts of the Arabic world, whatever i missed in Asia.
3rd world - whatever is left in Asia after this, whatever is left in the Americas, most African country's, Papua new Guinea.
4th world - basically failed states, haiti, NK, Burma, afghanistan, Iraq untill the rebuild their stuff and get a proper police force and a stable govornment, quite a few african states, cambodia (debatable) and whatever i missed.
I say that list pretty much describes the world's situation as it is.
I say we should enter the new century with new definitions, instead of following old definitions like the bible.
1st world - Western Europe, Central Europe, Most of the Balkans, Turkey, North America, Australia, NZ, Japan, SK, Singapore, Taiwan, U.A.E, and imo in the upcoming years China.
2nd world - Most of latin America, whatever is left from Europe, Thailand, South Africa, China, Indonesia, Phillipines, Iran, parts of the Arabic world, whatever i missed in Asia.
3rd world - whatever is left in Asia after this, whatever is left in the Americas, most African country's, Papua new Guinea.
4th world - basically failed states, haiti, NK, Burma, afghanistan, Iraq untill the rebuild their stuff and get a proper police force and a stable govornment, quite a few african states, cambodia (debatable) and whatever i missed.
I say that list pretty much describes the world's situation as it is.
You forgot Poland.
Can't we all just agree that after the fall of the Soviet Union this whole "worlds" thing is pretty much meaningless? Some countries are more developed in some regards than in others, and the line is quite thin in some cases. We all like to divide stuff in multiple groups but I'm not sure it makes much sense.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Makes more sense then the 'Developed' and 'Developing' terms.
read my rant from earlier this thread if you want to know what i mean.
read my rant from earlier this thread if you want to know what i mean.
