Why 3rd world countries will stay 3rd world countries.

Watch
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
The answer?

Capitalism.

Countries who are already rich to capitalism continue to suck money from 3rd world countries by buying the cheapest goods they can.

When these cheap goods get to the 1st world countries they are processed in to better goods like:
cocoa > chocolate
Metals , Plastics > phones

With these new goods costing more in the developed countries most the capitalist gain goes to the 1st world countries continuously leaving the 3rd world countries behind unable to afford the top goods because they are receiving small amount of money from the raw goods, this leaves the 3rd world countries unable to buy expensive goods from 1st world countries keeping them behind.

If the 3rd world countries wanted to purchase the equipment needed to produce the high quality goods from raw materials they would need to buy from the 1st world countries as this is where all the industrial items are produced making it unaffordable for 3rd world countries to start producing top goods on industrial scale.

TLDR: The rich stay rich , the poor stay poor.
0
reply
Alien Warrior
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
There called 'deveoping countries'

Source: GCSE GEOGRAPHY (COZ OF THE PC BRIGADE)
1
reply
ODES_PDES
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
The answer?

Capitalism.

Countries who are already rich to capitalism continue to suck money from 3rd world countries by buying the cheapest goods they can.

When these cheap goods get to the 1st world countries they are processed in to better goods like:
cocoa > chocolate
Metals , Plastics > phones

With these new goods costing more in the developed countries most the capitalist gain goes to the 1st world countries continuously leaving the 3rd world countries behind unable to afford the top goods because they are receiving small amount of money from the raw goods, this leaves the 3rd world countries unable to buy expensive goods from 1st world countries keeping them behind.

If the 3rd world countries wanted to purchase the equipment needed to produce the high quality goods from raw materials they would need to buy from the 1st world countries as this is where all the industrial items are produced making it unaffordable for 3rd world countries to start producing top goods on industrial scale.

TLDR: The rich stay rich , the poor stay poor.
wow
0
reply
BristolFresher15
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
And sometimes because they don't separate church and state - and/or insist on living by outdated values/traditions as a nation or collective population.
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Alien Warrior)
There called 'deveoping countries'

Source: GCSE GEOGRAPHY (COZ OF THE PC BRIGADE)
I don't do Geography, But if that is the correct term to use then sure.
0
reply
Alien Warrior
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
I don't do Geography, But if that is the correct term to use then sure.
It's the politically correct term.

1st world = developed countries
3rd world = developing countries
0
reply
Namita Gurung
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
How can you be so certain?
Pretty sure countries like China, India and others can beg to differ.
0
reply
Namita Gurung
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Alien Warrior)
It's the politically correct term.

1st world = developed countries
3rd world = developing countries
That's when '2nd world' countries were around. Those terms aren't in use anymore so it's incorrect.
0
reply
Alien Warrior
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Namita Gurung)
That's when '2nd world' countries were around. Those terms aren't in use anymore since it's incorrect.
no it's not fool

'A developing country, also called a less developed country or underdeveloped country, is a nation with a less developed industrial base, and a low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries'
0
reply
Namita Gurung
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Alien Warrior)
no it's not fool

'A developing country, also called a less developed country or underdeveloped country, is a nation with a less developed industrial base, and a low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries'
Just saying what I've been taught. 1st world and 3rd world are terms used to refer to the political structure of a country - not to do with their wealth whatsoever. E.g. 1st world countries are capitalist, 2nd world countries are communist and 3rd world countries are neither of those.

No need to be disrespectful and call names.
0
reply
ihatePE
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Namita Gurung)
Just saying what I've been taught. 1st world and 3rd world are terms used to refer to the political structure of a country - not to do with their wealth whatsoever. E.g. 1st world countries are capitalist, 2nd world countries are communist and 3rd world countries are neither of those.

No need to be disrespectful and call names.
he's a bit special, dont mind him
0
reply
finn61
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
I would argue that many countries are essentially "frozen in development" or have become less developed as a result of capitalisms destabilising factors on geo-politics, Yemen for example, frozen in development, many countries such as Swaziland have had their population denied appropriate treatment for HIV/ AIDS meaning a dramatic drop in life expectancy, educational and employment prospects. etc. Therefore using "developing country" as a blanket term for all countries that aren't in the west/ developed is erroneous.

Not to mention the fact that capitalism needs poverty, capitalism is gaining money as an end in itself, to do this the workers essentially need to be exploited, by that I mean raising rent prices whilst lowering wages to extract the largest amount of "surplus value", keeping the poor only at subsistence level but no further, the poor will never be able to alleviate themselves out of poverty nor will they own the means to produce wealth.

WW2 & 1 were largely as a result of capitalism, as are wars today. Notice how share prices in companies such as Lockheed-Martin increase when a war is imminent, this is because capitalism profits off of war production, such a munitions and developing technology, human life is essentially the sacrifice for capital, only when we remove this plutocracy will people be free.
0
reply
Namita Gurung
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by ihatePE)
he's a bit special, dont mind him
:bubbles: Aight - I don't need any more negativity
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Namita Gurung)
How can you be so certain?
Pretty sure countries like China, India and others can beg to differ.
These countries both have populations over 1 billion.

China followed communism

India followed capitalism

Both countries produce more than enough food to feed themselves

India was milked by the British empire.

China is it's own empire of now joint dynasty's.

I would still consider India 3rd world as if you look around India you will see the many problems residents there have, overcrowded train networks that are also outdated , poverty , Lack of education.

China I think has benefited greatly from it's communist past of equality and hard set rules on trade keeping goods to themselves to develop themselves as a nation making it what it is today a big producer of top goods, if China can retain large company's there it will stay rich but without it's communist past China would be poorer than today.
0
reply
Namita Gurung
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
These countries both have populations over 1 billion.

China followed communism

India followed capitalism

Both countries produce more than enough food to feed themselves

India was milked by the British empire.

China is it's own empire of now joint dynasty's.

I would still consider India 3rd world as if you look around India you will see the many problems residents there have, overcrowded train networks that are also outdated , poverty , Lack of education.

China I think has benefited greatly from it's communist past of equality and hard set rules on trade keeping goods to themselves to develop themselves as a nation making it what it is today a big producer of top goods, if China can retain large company's there it will stay rich but without it's communist past China would be poorer than today.
Both countries have come far from what they used to be like and it's true that there are still problems with extreme poverty. However, it's changing. The change is gradual but it's still so much better compared to what it used to be like - the percentage of people in poverty have decreased. Therefore, they will not forever stay in that state.

Also, every country will have some form of poverty. They is more poverty than western countries but like I said, the state is improving.

Again, like I have said in my post before, it is incorrect to label India as a third world country. It used to be a 'third world country' but can't be labelled as that anymore. It is an old term and correctly called a 'developing country'. (It is also capitalist)

No offense but I'm confused with what you're trying to say. Your title claims that 3rd world countries will stay 3rd world but you're talking about 3rd world in relation to poverty. Perhaps you're intending to say that countries in poverty will stay in poverty?

If that is what you meant then I disagree with it as well. Poverty numbers have decreased and will carry on doing so. Poverty will never be eradicated but will indefinitely be diminished in the future.
0
reply
finn61
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
These countries both have populations over 1 billion.

China followed communism

India followed capitalism

Both countries produce more than enough food to feed themselves

India was milked by the British empire.

China is it's own empire of now joint dynasty's.

I would still consider India 3rd world as if you look around India you will see the many problems residents there have, overcrowded train networks that are also outdated , poverty , Lack of education.

China I think has benefited greatly from it's communist past of equality and hard set rules on trade keeping goods to themselves to develop themselves as a nation making it what it is today a big producer of top goods, if China can retain large company's there it will stay rich but without it's communist past China would be poorer than today.
Be careful of using blanket terms, Kerala, a region in India followed Communism and has seen fertility rates lower than that of the UK, female emancipation and a superior quality of life to that elsewhere in India.
0
reply
2016_GCSE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by finn61)
Be careful of using blanket terms, Kerala, a region in India followed Communism and has seen fertility rates lower than that of the UK, female emancipation and a superior quality of life to that elsewhere in India.
I always thought India was in whole capitalist.
0
reply
Nidhoggr
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by 2016_GCSE)
The answer?

Capitalism.

Countries who are already rich to capitalism continue to suck money from 3rd world countries by buying the cheapest goods they can.

When these cheap goods get to the 1st world countries they are processed in to better goods like:
cocoa > chocolate
Metals , Plastics > phones

With these new goods costing more in the developed countries most the capitalist gain goes to the 1st world countries continuously leaving the 3rd world countries behind unable to afford the top goods because they are receiving small amount of money from the raw goods, this leaves the 3rd world countries unable to buy expensive goods from 1st world countries keeping them behind.

If the 3rd world countries wanted to purchase the equipment needed to produce the high quality goods from raw materials they would need to buy from the 1st world countries as this is where all the industrial items are produced making it unaffordable for 3rd world countries to start producing top goods on industrial scale.

TLDR: The rich stay rich , the poor stay poor.

Well duh, lol.

The strong will always act to maintain theri strength, and the world is a zero sum game. People only gain strength and resources at the expense of other people's strength and resources.

Unless we have some mass global social revolution, I would bet third world countries are always going to be third world countries, relatively speaking of course.
0
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
because America wants them too. They could turn any country into a 3rd world country or could make a 3rd world country 1st world in good time
0
reply
popcornjpg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Alien Warrior)
It's the politically correct term.

1st world = developed countries
3rd world = developing countries
not really though, its not necessary anymore as it was used more in the context of the cold war

first world - NATO pact, allies, etc.
second world - USSR, China, Warsaw Pact, etc.
Third World - the rest
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (36)
17.06%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (62)
29.38%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (82)
38.86%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (26)
12.32%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (5)
2.37%

Watched Threads

View All