I often see references to the DR being a Third World country. Without using academic or statistical citations what do you think? I think 2nd world would be more appropriate.
"Second World" meant the former Communist bloc so would not be appropriate. That's how the expression originated in the Cold War days. All developed and (more or less) democratic countries were First World. Any country not First World or Communist was "Third World" so obviously that catch-all group included some countries twenty times richer and more developed than others (Argentina v Ha?ti, for example).I often see references to the DR being a Third World country. Without using academic or statistical citations what do you think? I think 2nd world would be more appropriate.
They can, but folks don't want to pay for it.Any country that is unable to provide its citizens with 24 hour electricity is third world. IMHO>
They can, but folks don't want to pay for it.
Big difference.
It has nothing to do with capability.No difference. It's their refusal to pay that contributes to their status as a perpetually-developing nation.
Any country that is unable to provide its citizens with 24 hour electricity is third world. IMHO>
They can, but folks don't want to pay for it.
Big difference.
Great post and so true. In the UK, for example, despite being near bankrupt after fighting the Nazis (for a long period alone, apart from the British Empire), within a decade they had an advanced social welfare system, good(ish) free education for all, and had rehoused tens of millions in vastly better homes.This is a huge point. It illuminates the effect of the mindset of any nation's citizens on the overall productivity and development of that nation. Just to use the US as an example, before every surge in national productivity and transition (agrarian to manufacturing to scientific and technical development) there was some national crisis (usually a major war or economic upheaval) which required national unity and individual sacrifice. The individual dedication to the public good is what separates the countries which progress and prosper regardless of the obstacles before them (great depression, dust bowl or other natural disasters, wars, etc.).
As the collective spirit wanes, so does the national fortune.
The Marshall Plan certainly helped.Great post and so true. In the UK, for example, despite being near bankrupt after fighting the Nazis (for a long period alone, apart from the British Empire), within a decade they had an advanced social welfare system, good(ish) free education for all, and had rehoused tens of millions in vastly better homes.
When I think about what makes up a third world country I think lack of human rights, of lawlessness, corruption, huge class divides and serious lack of basic services, anything done or involving the government doesn't actually work, serve any purpose or is very poor. It seems that behind any third world country is a bad government.
Do I think this country qualifies? How many of the above do you think qualify?
The Marshall Plan certainly helped.
Assets were sold because the social welfare system couldn't be sustained.
Same as is happening all across Europe. The problem is after assets are sold and the credit cards are maxed out...sovereign equity has been depleted and the Piper has come to be paid.
I disagree. It implies the Collective is more important than the individual, and some faceless gubmint bureaucrat gets to decide what's "best" for the individual.Every deck needs to be reshuffled occasionally. I don't think that "socialism" should be a scary term.
Driving is a priviledge, not a mandate. One proper function of gubmint is safety of the infrastructure.Bad socialism: Maximum travel speed on all County, State and Interstate roads in the country = 55mph.
Good socialism: All road markings and traffic laws are enacted in compliance within a set of Federal guidelines as deemed appropriate by State or local jurisdictional authority.