3 ms·

I'm not going to claim that its impossible for the US to (eventually) fall into third world status or that there aren't serious balance of trade issues to be de

I'm not going to claim that its impossible for the US to (eventually) fall into third world status or that there aren't serious balance of trade issues to be dealt with. However there are two things that are not being considered here: 1) The export of information and skills is very important and becoming increasingly more important. 2) A lot of the issues in economics are generally self-correcting. This doesn't mean that there won't be pain along the way in the US, but it seems unlikely to take the US all the way to third world status. Of course, I realize that these self-correct effects tend to come with open/fluid markets, which we don't have. However, as global trade increases, markets should become more open/fluid (which, in the end, should benefit more than just the US). Edit: Small change for clarity.

kyteland 17y ago
The United States will always be a first world country because that is the definition of first world. First/second/third world status never changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world Man, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  Interesting, I didn't know the history of the term. However, I feel you are being pedantic. If you replace "first world" with "rich" and third world with "poor" then the statements make sense (though you can disagree on if they are true or not). Or am I missing something? I realize that being the US or aligned with the US has large implications in global politics, economics, etc... but that doesn't seem to invalidate the statement "The US might be come a poor country if/unless <whatever you think might make it a poor country>."
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  The notion of the 'third world' as being poor occurred after the fact. The reason the majority of the third world countries never aligned was because they couldn't field a worthwhile military for a cold-war era threat, the vast majority of them still can't. The idea that the US could fall so far from grace that it would be incapable of fielding a military is a much, much bigger thing than people imagine. Due to the size and natural resources of the US it fundamentally has an economic bottom line, despite all the economy going to crap it will still have access to raw materials to make a sufficient military to stand with its allies. Many African countries have next to nothing in terms of established economy, or likely establishable economy. With little access to water, little access to raw materials and little access to arable land, there is quite literally zero hope for improvement, these countries by nature would be trapped in importing natural resources and exporting products, which is something no country has solely survived off. For the US to ever reach third-world poverty, it would have to have almost zero access to clean water, zero access to natural resources and zero access to arable land. By virtue of americas geographical location, it is physically impossible for it to have no arable land and no clean water unless rain never falls again. The simple notion that the US could fall so far is quite absurd, you might as well be arguing that overnight your dog turned into a cat. Unless there's a fundamental change in the ordering of the universe, a dog will never become a cat, and unless there's a fundamental change in the ecological systems of the earth (I'm talking WAY beyond global warming bullshit, the US has been habitable through ice ages and periods when Antarctica had plant life; I'm talking a dinosaur-killer required to make it uninhabitable) the US will never sink to third-world poverty. Simply put, unless we change the fundamental ecological system of the planet well beyond recognition in any way or form as to what has existed before or in the short-term future, the US will still be a thriving country with a massive population. It might not be a world-hub of technological development, but it'll still be on a map. Of first world countries there is a whole host of countries that aren't known for any real technological development, but because of expert use of natural resources over a century or more, they still have excellent wealth and development. As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money. Right now the US is still harvesting gold and diamonds out of its land, and is also harvesting black gold, most of these industries alone are more profitable than almost any of the poverty stricken countries in Africa. Zimbabwe has a GDP of ~3 billion, if it was a company we'd be talking about it being bought out by Google/Apple/Microsoft for $30bil and what they plan to do with it. There's quite literally more money in some companies than in entire swathes of Africa.

kyteland 17y ago

The United States will always be a first world country because that is the definition of first world. First/second/third world status never changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world Man, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

roundsquare 17y ago
Interesting, I didn't know the history of the term. However, I feel you are being pedantic. If you replace "first world" with "rich" and third world with "poor" then the statements make sense (though you can disagree on if they are true or not). Or am I missing something? I realize that being the US or aligned with the US has large implications in global politics, economics, etc... but that doesn't seem to invalidate the statement "The US might be come a poor country if/unless <whatever you think might make it a poor country>."
electromagnetic 17y ago
The notion of the 'third world' as being poor occurred after the fact. The reason the majority of the third world countries never aligned was because they couldn't field a worthwhile military for a cold-war era threat, the vast majority of them still can't. The idea that the US could fall so far from grace that it would be incapable of fielding a military is a much, much bigger thing than people imagine. Due to the size and natural resources of the US it fundamentally has an economic bottom line, despite all the economy going to crap it will still have access to raw materials to make a sufficient military to stand with its allies. Many African countries have next to nothing in terms of established economy, or likely establishable economy. With little access to water, little access to raw materials and little access to arable land, there is quite literally zero hope for improvement, these countries by nature would be trapped in importing natural resources and exporting products, which is something no country has solely survived off. For the US to ever reach third-world poverty, it would have to have almost zero access to clean water, zero access to natural resources and zero access to arable land. By virtue of americas geographical location, it is physically impossible for it to have no arable land and no clean water unless rain never falls again. The simple notion that the US could fall so far is quite absurd, you might as well be arguing that overnight your dog turned into a cat. Unless there's a fundamental change in the ordering of the universe, a dog will never become a cat, and unless there's a fundamental change in the ecological systems of the earth (I'm talking WAY beyond global warming bullshit, the US has been habitable through ice ages and periods when Antarctica had plant life; I'm talking a dinosaur-killer required to make it uninhabitable) the US will never sink to third-world poverty. Simply put, unless we change the fundamental ecological system of the planet well beyond recognition in any way or form as to what has existed before or in the short-term future, the US will still be a thriving country with a massive population. It might not be a world-hub of technological development, but it'll still be on a map. Of first world countries there is a whole host of countries that aren't known for any real technological development, but because of expert use of natural resources over a century or more, they still have excellent wealth and development. As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money. Right now the US is still harvesting gold and diamonds out of its land, and is also harvesting black gold, most of these industries alone are more profitable than almost any of the poverty stricken countries in Africa. Zimbabwe has a GDP of ~3 billion, if it was a company we'd be talking about it being bought out by Google/Apple/Microsoft for $30bil and what they plan to do with it. There's quite literally more money in some companies than in entire swathes of Africa.