5 ms·

The Cold War definitions of First, Second, and Third "worlds" are obsolete. Updated for 2010: First World: politically liberal, transparent government, rich co

The Cold War definitions of First, Second, and Third "worlds" are obsolete. Updated for 2010: First World: politically liberal, transparent government, rich countries with universal healthcare and mandated vacation floors. Moderate to high economic growth. Poverty is virtually nonexistent; it's not tolerant. The major flaw of these countries comes from their strength-- although completely nonmilitant, they can be a bit insular and closed to outsiders. Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually, high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status. Third World: persistently underdeveloped and poor countries-- often too corrupt and wartorn even to get off the ground-- that, absent substantial change, have grim economic futures. This article is about the Second World mentality. First World includes most of the EU countries and Canada. Second World includes the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries as well as the Arab oil states, most of Latin America, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai, and (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan. In fact, I'd argue that the main political tension in the US is between a First World (Blue States) and Second World (Red States) subnation that are emerging, and diverging, within one country. The post-2001 militancy is our Second World component expressing a willingness to sacrifice prosperity, lives, and political freedom for national dominance.

starkfist 17y ago
Where's Japan in your categorization?
- patio11 17y ago
  I'm presuming it is hanging out with poverty-unknown UK, racism-free France, politically-incorruptible Italy, and socioeconomically-homogenous Canada. Which is to say, right past the second star to the left, go straight on 'till morning.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  I know very little about it.
  - MikeMacMan 17y ago
    As opposed to the other countries in your list, in which you are clearly well-versed :)
euroclydon 17y ago
Oh please! Name me a first world country (by your standards) with three hundred million or more people. The sheer size of countries like: China, India, U.S., and Russia, makes them totally different than Finland or The Netherlands.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Poor management is no excuse for failing to meet the promise of a nation. I'm sure 7,000,000 people were hard to manage in 1810 by largely horse messengers.
- yequalsx 17y ago
  Well, the conclusion, if your point is correct, is not that the op is wrong but that large, prosperous nations tend toward 2nd world status.
- anamax 17y ago
  Not to mention the lack of diversity in smaller countries, especially European ones. (No, a bunch of Italians in France is not "diversity".) That is changing with Islamic immigration, and they're seeing the race/class discrepancies that they claim are "uncivilized".
david927 17y ago
I think that's a pretty astute assessment, but you mentioned the unspeakable: that America has become Second World. You'll be down-voted to oblivion out of an emotional reaction, but your analysis is smack on.
- ellyagg 17y ago
  No, he just conveniently defined the terms to make a provocative statement about the US. Consider the fact that if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income, the US's rank is far and away number 1. You have to do some intellectual contortions to match an entity like that with the second tier.
  - yequalsx 17y ago
    Can you elaborate more on: " if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..."
    - anamax 17y ago
      > if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..." Both the average and median income in the US are fairly high by world standards. As far as being poor, poor people in the US typically have a car and one or more TVs. (Yes, there are exceptions. However, it's also nearly impossible to get many US homeless to use housing that is provided.)
  - david927 17y ago
    Consider the fact that if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income you get #10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... If you sample 100 households and take median income, it falls further. If you factor in health care and university costs, it drops further. You're making an emotional response to a fairly clinical fact. I won't bring up current account and debt. You get the idea. You're making my original point for me.
MikeMacMan 17y ago
There are cultural differences in our country, to be sure, but I would hesitate to compare a red state to Russia. Journalists are assassinated in Russia. There is institutionalized corruption in many of these other countries. And don't be so quick to blame the (latest) US militancy on some 'second-world component' of our citizenry. The actions of our government don't often line up with public opinion. I don't remember people clamoring for an invasion of Iraq. Quite the contrary.
anamax 17y ago
> Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually, high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status. > (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan. Oh really? "high degrees of corruption"? "low degree of political freedom"? > overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Name three countries with comparable diversity that doesn't see that. > Lots of poverty What standard are we using? As I've pointed out, lots of US poor have a car and multiple TVs. They'd be considered rich anywhere else.
- david927 17y ago
  high degrees of corruption"? The US is #19 on the list: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/... "low degree of political freedom"? #20 in Freedom of the Press http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html
  - anamax 17y ago
    Lists don't tell you the degree of difference. FWIW, the political freedom list has lots of ties near the top and the US is tied with the UK. Both are significantly ahead of France and Italy. You remember the UK, France, and Italy - they're supposedly far above the US. Then there's the problem that the "political freedom" list doesn't actually measure political freedom. As it says: "The United States has climbed 16 places in the rankings, from 36th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this. But this sharp rise concerns only the state of press freedom within the United States. President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but his country is still fighting two wars." Obama being elected or getting the Nobel Peace Prize didn't change political freedom in the US. I expect that I'll find similar problems with the "corruption" ist.

starkfist 17y ago

Where's Japan in your categorization?

patio11 17y ago
I'm presuming it is hanging out with poverty-unknown UK, racism-free France, politically-incorruptible Italy, and socioeconomically-homogenous Canada. Which is to say, right past the second star to the left, go straight on 'till morning.
pw0ncakes 17y ago
I know very little about it.
- MikeMacMan 17y ago
  As opposed to the other countries in your list, in which you are clearly well-versed :)

euroclydon 17y ago

Oh please! Name me a first world country (by your standards) with three hundred million or more people. The sheer size of countries like: China, India, U.S., and Russia, makes them totally different than Finland or The Netherlands.

nopassrecover 17y ago
Poor management is no excuse for failing to meet the promise of a nation. I'm sure 7,000,000 people were hard to manage in 1810 by largely horse messengers.
yequalsx 17y ago
Well, the conclusion, if your point is correct, is not that the op is wrong but that large, prosperous nations tend toward 2nd world status.
anamax 17y ago
Not to mention the lack of diversity in smaller countries, especially European ones. (No, a bunch of Italians in France is not "diversity".) That is changing with Islamic immigration, and they're seeing the race/class discrepancies that they claim are "uncivilized".

david927 17y ago

I think that's a pretty astute assessment, but you mentioned the unspeakable: that America has become Second World. You'll be down-voted to oblivion out of an emotional reaction, but your analysis is smack on.

ellyagg 17y ago
No, he just conveniently defined the terms to make a provocative statement about the US. Consider the fact that if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income, the US's rank is far and away number 1. You have to do some intellectual contortions to match an entity like that with the second tier.
- yequalsx 17y ago
  Can you elaborate more on: " if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..."
  - anamax 17y ago
    > if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income..." Both the average and median income in the US are fairly high by world standards. As far as being poor, poor people in the US typically have a car and one or more TVs. (Yes, there are exceptions. However, it's also nearly impossible to get many US homeless to use housing that is provided.)
- david927 17y ago
  Consider the fact that if you intersect the US's population with its per capita income you get #10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... If you sample 100 households and take median income, it falls further. If you factor in health care and university costs, it drops further. You're making an emotional response to a fairly clinical fact. I won't bring up current account and debt. You get the idea. You're making my original point for me.

MikeMacMan 17y ago

There are cultural differences in our country, to be sure, but I would hesitate to compare a red state to Russia. Journalists are assassinated in Russia. There is institutionalized corruption in many of these other countries. And don't be so quick to blame the (latest) US militancy on some 'second-world component' of our citizenry. The actions of our government don't often line up with public opinion. I don't remember people clamoring for an invasion of Iraq. Quite the contrary.

anamax 17y ago

> Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually, high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status. > (to a large degree) the United States post-Reagan. Oh really? "high degrees of corruption"? "low degree of political freedom"? > overt elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Name three countries with comparable diversity that doesn't see that. > Lots of poverty What standard are we using? As I've pointed out, lots of US poor have a car and multiple TVs. They'd be considered rich anywhere else.

david927 17y ago
high degrees of corruption"? The US is #19 on the list: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/... "low degree of political freedom"? #20 in Freedom of the Press http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html
- anamax 17y ago
  Lists don't tell you the degree of difference. FWIW, the political freedom list has lots of ties near the top and the US is tied with the UK. Both are significantly ahead of France and Italy. You remember the UK, France, and Italy - they're supposedly far above the US. Then there's the problem that the "political freedom" list doesn't actually measure political freedom. As it says: "The United States has climbed 16 places in the rankings, from 36th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this. But this sharp rise concerns only the state of press freedom within the United States. President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but his country is still fighting two wars." Obama being elected or getting the Nobel Peace Prize didn't change political freedom in the US. I expect that I'll find similar problems with the "corruption" ist.