Is Argentina really part of the 'developing world'?

[Mich the Tester]

Daily Wail says Pope Frankie is the first from the 'developing world'. Now OK, Argentina has it's problems, a troubled history of dictatorships and is currently run by a woman of subnormal intelligence who can't think of how to solve the economic troubles so picks fights with other countries (Britain in this case) in the finest tradition of useless politicians, BUT; Argentina was once the world's richest country, it has quite a lot of industry, a highly developed culture and would probably do very well indeed with a more sensible government. It has a large, educated middle class (who've suffered the brunt of government incompetence) and to my mind it's actually a highly developed country that went into decline, much as Europe and the US are doing right now. If anything it's a picture of our future if UK, EU and US governments don't get their bloody act together, so why are the Daily Wail referring to Pope Frankie as coming from 'the developing world'?

[bless 'em all]

The IMF classes Argentina as a developing economy - I suppose, in this instance, the Wail's correct.

Brazil, China and Russia are also on the list .....

Developing countries are, in general, countries that have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and have, in most cases, a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

I wonder if the UK can get down graded?

[Ignis Fatuus]

Daily Wail says Pope Frankie is the first from the 'developing world'. Now OK, Argentina has it's problems, a troubled history of dictatorships and is currently run by a woman of subnormal intelligence who can't think of how to solve the economic troubles so picks fights with other countries (Britain in this case) in the finest tradition of useless politicians, BUT; Argentina was once the world's richest country, it has quite a lot of industry, a highly developed culture and would probably do very well indeed with a more sensible government. It has a large, educated middle class (who've suffered the brunt of government incompetence) and to my mind it's actually a highly developed country that went into decline, much as Europe and the US are doing right now. If anything it's a picture of our future if UK, EU and US governments don't get their bloody act together, so why are the Daily Wail referring to Pope Frankie as coming from 'the developing world'?

I agree, more or less. It's a developed country that stagnated, decended into incompetence (more than once), and failed to achieve its promise. 100 years ago it bid to be at least the equal of Canada, say.

You could say the same of Brazil. Possibly Chile too.

They all had promise, and seemed to be fulfilling it. Then they all slumped. But there is a view that that was due not so much to incompetence as to corrupt elites selling out to foreign interests.

At any rate, I am not at all certain that the UK, and some other EU countries, are not well on the same road already. Just as we reflexively class Argentina as "developing" when it is not at all like Bolivia, we also reflexively class ourselves as "developed", when we are actually in long-term irreversible decline, we just try not to see it.

[Ignis Fatuus]

BTW I believe it is the only country to have had 2 female presidents, doesn't that count for something?

[Mich the Tester]

The IMF classes Argentina as a developing economy - I suppose, in this instance, the Wail's correct.

Brazil, China and Russia are also on the list .....



I wonder if the UK can get down graded?

'There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.'

Yep, but Argentina has middle income, a high human development index and low population growth due to very low birth rates.

[Mich the Tester]

At any rate, I am not at all certain that the UK, and some other EU countries, are not well on the same road already. Just as we reflexively class Argentina as "developing" when it is not at all like Bolivia, we also reflexively class ourselves as "developed", when we are actually in long-term irreversible decline, we just try not to see it.

/\
|
|
whs, but I don't see the decline of Europe as 'irreversible'. There is still time and opportunity to reverse the decline; I'm just not particularly optimistic given the rise of populism all over Europe and in the opposite corner an establishment that has it's head in the sand. Look at the fights over the EU; we have EU 'leaders' like Herman van Rumpy-pumpy who think the only way is 'ever closer union' and seem to have their brains stuck firmly in the cold war era, and parochial populists who seem to think the only way is to give up on European cooperation and withdraw from the world into our own little nation states. The reality is that European countries will have to trade freely amongst each other and with the rest of the world, and will have to cooperate in some way to do that; I don't see any European leaders who are prepared to think about new ways forward, except perhaps David Cameron who would like to see a more informal cooperation.

[Gibbon]

Yep, but Argentina has middle income, a high human development index and low population growth due to very low birth rates.

Why not ask them?

How to Contact the IMF

[Ignis Fatuus]

Yep, but Argentina has middle income, a high human development index and low population growth due to very low birth rates.

The so-called "developing" countries of the world actually fall into quite distinct groups, based largely on which continent they are in. The major problems for the southern countries of Latin America have always been hyper-inflation, corruption, and frequent military governments. they haven't had a problem with population, education, or overall GNP per capita. So if one of them fixes hyper-inflation (at least down to "Western" levels), avoids extremes of politics, and keeps the Army out of the Presidential Palace, it is doing OK. It may not stand out as a Utopia, but it's OK.

I suggest that Argentina and Chile are both in that position now. Their civilisations are Western, their countries function well, and if their economies are not exactly trashing Germany's, who are we to criticise?

[Ignis Fatuus]

/\
|
|
whs, but I don't see the decline of Europe as 'irreversible'. There is still time and opportunity to reverse the decline; I'm just not particularly optimistic given the rise of populism all over Europe and in the opposite corner an establishment that has it's head in the sand. Look at the fights over the EU; we have EU 'leaders' like Herman van Rumpy-pumpy who think the only way is 'ever closer union' and seem to have their brains stuck firmly in the cold war era, and parochial populists who seem to think the only way is to give up on European cooperation and withdraw from the world into our own little nation states. The reality is that European countries will have to trade freely amongst each other and with the rest of the world, and will have to cooperate in some way to do that; I don't see any European leaders who are prepared to think about new ways forward, except perhaps David Cameron who would like to see a more informal cooperation.

It needn't be, but I suspect it is. In the case of the UK in particular, we have been living off past or outside wealth for generations. Decline set in after Victoria, not after Thatcher (and definitely not because of either).

[bless 'em all]

The Visigoths are inside the walls.

<fingers in ears, la la la la la>

FTFY