North Korea Conflict Thread

Lunostrelki

Woodpecker
Chinese people steal money all the time. Just yesterday I was talking to a dude who works in the educational bureaucracy. A work unit consisting of about 10 people had an annual "reception events" budget equivalent to 50,000 USD.

The key is plausible deniability (in this case, meaning the ability to escape).

Suits said:
Part of the reason for this is simply the fact that China is a third world country.
China is no more a third world country than Russia is. China is highly developed, only in an extremely unequal fashion.

Third world are places where the total fertility rate is 6 kids per woman and where they use roads built when there was such as thing as the Belgian Congo.
 

Kurgan

Kingfisher
Does anyone remember the film called The Interview that came out a few years ago where James Franco and Seth Rogen played reports recruited to assassinate Kim Jong-Un? I bet the cucks in Hollywood are pissed this didn't happen in real life with the recent negotiations.
 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
Kurgan said:
Does anyone remember the film called The Interview that came out a few years ago where (((James Franco))) and (((Seth Rogen))) played reports recruited to assassinate Kim Jong-Un? I bet the cucks in Hollywood are pissed this didn't happen in real life with the recent negotiations.


Fixed it for you
 

Suits

 
Lunostrelki said:
Suits said:
Part of the reason for this is simply the fact that China is a third world country.
China is no more a third world country than Russia is. China is highly developed, only in an extremely unequal fashion.

Third world are places where the total fertility rate is 6 kids per woman and where they use roads built when there was such as thing as the Belgian Congo.

Nope.





The definition of first world versus third world is complicated, because it's actually a misappropriation of an older model where the USA and its allies are first world, the USSR and its allies are second world and everyone else is third world.

More recently, at least since I was a elementary school student, second world has ceased to be used altogether and countries have been referred to as either first or third world, depending on their level of development. To avoid confusion, the trend has been towards simply using the two terms, "developed" and "developing."

Regardless, China absolutely does not fit the definition of first world (or developed nation) in the least. Not statistically nor characteristically. Beijing, Shanghai and the countries shiny new airports are not representative of the country as a whole and with the government only somewhat successful at stopping rural migration to major urban centers, you'll enjoy all the charm of unwashed backwater places even in modernish cities like Beijing!

For example, every Chinese city is filled with impoverished people who do whatever they can to scrape together a little money to survive on any way they can. So, at night, they raid all the garbage cans in the city looking for bottles and other materials that they can sell to recycling centers. In the morning, you'll be delighted to discover than this army of little recyclers have not only visited every public trash bin in the city, but they've simply thrown all the garbage from the bin on the ground and left it there.

Not a first world country.
 

whatday

Ostrich
Gold Member
Suits said:
More recently, at least since I was a elementary school student, second world has ceased to be used altogether and countries have been referred to as either first or third world, depending on their level of development. To avoid confusion, the trend has been towards simply using the two terms, "developed" and "developing."

That map is great.

Developed and developing works well for, say, the U.S. and Mexico, respectively, but there really should be a third term, though, for the reddish countries.

They aren't going anywhere, or at least it doesn't look like it.
 

Suits

 
Pride male said:
^Is Russia a first world country?

Like most things on earth, it's a matter of degree.

Also, the HDI averages a lot of things, so if you have a country with a significant divide between the rich and the poor, you can end up with an HDI score than while high, doesn't account for the fact that many or most people there live in very 3rd worldesque conditions.

Spaniard88 said:
Developed and developing works well for, say, the U.S. and Mexico, respectively, but there really should be a third term, though, for the reddish countries.

They aren't going anywhere, or at least it doesn't look like it.

I believe the technical term for that category of country is "hell on earth."
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
I suspect "developed" and "developing" is as much political correctness writ large than anything else. The connotation of "third world " status would be seen as offensive by the heads of such states. "Developing" infers progress, even where there is none. It allows egos to remain in tact and political correctness to be maintained.

Hence the extreme vitriol about "shitholes" earlier in the year.

"Developed" also inherently infers "needs nothing and can spare all of its surplus".
 

LeBeau

Ostrich
Gold Member
Why I want to stop talking about the “developing” world
By Bill Gates
| April 3, 2018

I talk about the developed and developing world all the time, but I shouldn’t.

My late friend Hans Rosling called the labels “outdated” and “meaningless.” Any categorization that lumps together China and the Democratic Republic of Congo is too broad to be useful. But I’ve continued to use “developed” and “developing” in public (and on this blog) because there wasn’t a more accurate, easily understandable alternative—until now.

I recently read Hans’ new book Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World—and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. In it, he offers a new framework for how to think about the world. Hans proposes four income groups (with the largest number of people living on level 2):

Level 1: One billion people live on level 1. This is what we think of as extreme poverty. If you’re on level 1, you survive on less than $2 a day and get around by walking barefoot. Your food is cooked over an open fire, and you spend most of your day traveling to fetch water. At night, you and your children sleep on a dirt floor.

Level 2: Three billion people live on level 2, between $2 and $8 a day. Level 2 means that you can buy shoes and maybe a bike, so it doesn’t take so long to get water. Your kids go to school instead of working all day. Dinner is made over a gas stove, and your family sleeps on mattresses instead of the floor.

Level 3: Two billion people live on level 3, between $8 and $32 a day. You have running water and a fridge in your home. You can also afford a motorbike to make getting around easier. Some of your kids start (and even finish) high school.

Level 4: One billion people live on level 4. If you spend more than $32 a day, you’re on level 4. You have at least a high school education and can probably afford to buy a car and take a vacation once in a while.

You can read the rest at: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Factfulness

This seems like a better way of analyzing populations compared to past labels, but of course it doesn't capture everything.

Based on the above, or other definitions, how would you guys divide or classify the world these days?
 

Lunostrelki

Woodpecker
LeBeau said:
Based on the above, or other definitions, how would you guys divide or classify the world these days?[/b]

1st World: Roughly the "Arctic" nations of the upper northern hemisphere. Includes all the economic and military great powers except for India and perhaps China. Criteria for inclusion here would be political centralization, implementation of state power, and technological development.

2nd World: Somewhat functional "Temperate" nations like Mexico, Thailand, Iran, etc. These countries might be characterized as places that have the basics down in terms of government, social stability, and the like, but aren't really there yet when it comes to projecting their power (relative to size) or securing the prosperity of their people. India is definitely in this category and China is probably somewhere between 1 and 2.

3rd World: Utterly dysfunctional and destitute places that are too messed up to even warrant the term "developing."
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
Lunostrelki said:
LeBeau said:
Based on the above, or other definitions, how would you guys divide or classify the world these days?[/b]

1st World: Roughly the "Arctic" nations of the upper northern hemisphere. Includes all the economic and military great powers except for India and perhaps China. Criteria for inclusion here would be political centralization, implementation of state power, and technological development.

2nd World: Somewhat functional "Temperate" nations like Mexico, Thailand, Iran, etc. These countries might be characterized as places that have the basics down in terms of government, social stability, and the like, but aren't really there yet when it comes to projecting their power (relative to size) or securing the prosperity of their people. India is definitely in this category and China is probably somewhere between 1 and 2.

3rd World: Utterly dysfunctional and destitute places that are too messed up to even warrant the term "developing."

Why not rename it to the equator index? :laugh:

Incidentally, the further from the equator you get the Whiter the population. The equator index is more useful for guessing if a city itself is rich or not as well.
 

BlueMark

Woodpecker
Gold Member
^ And the one exception to the equator index was built by a Chinese man with a British education. Enough said.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
BlueMark said:
^ And the one exception to the equator index was built by a Chinese man with a British education. Enough said.

You probably should name the exception and the Chinese man, and provide a brief background and interpretation for your point. Otherwise your post will have much less rhertorical power.
 
RoastBeefCurtains4Me said:
BlueMark said:
^ And the one exception to the equator index was built by a Chinese man with a British education. Enough said.

You probably should name the exception and the Chinese man, and provide a brief background and interpretation for your point. Otherwise your post will have much less rhertorical power.

Hmmm it did seem obvious to me it was Singapore..
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
The Catalyst said:
RoastBeefCurtains4Me said:
BlueMark said:
^ And the one exception to the equator index was built by a Chinese man with a British education. Enough said.

You probably should name the exception and the Chinese man, and provide a brief background and interpretation for your point. Otherwise your post will have much less rhertorical power.

Hmmm it did seem obvious to me it was Singapore..

Now it makes sense to me, but the reference went over my head before.
 

CaptainChardonnay

Ostrich
Gold Member
Ive seen him before. Just another guy giving his opinion. It's not like he has some kind of insider information that would make his ideas more reliable than another person.

What he says in this video makes sense though.
 

Suits

 
Looks like Trump isn't winning.

North Korea continues construction of nuclear research facility despite agreement to 'denuclearize': report

Despite North Korea’s promise to work toward “complete denuclearization” following the historic summit with Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump earlier this month, new satellite imagery indicates North Korea is making improvements to one of its nuclear scientific research centers at a “rapid pace.”

The images published in a report from 38 North, a website that specializes in analysis of the Rogue Nation, are from June 21 and reveal construction of new buildings and the completion of a plutonium production reactor as well as other support facilities at the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Facility.
The center is North Korea’s main research facility, according to Sky News.

“Modifications to North Korea’s 5 MWe reactor’s secondary cooling loop, which began in March, appear externally complete,” according to the report. “A newly in-filled water channel (that includes a newly installed probable weir for controlling water flow) now leads to the pump house from the Kuryong River.”

The operational status of the reactor was not clear.

Although the images appear to show “improvements to infrastructure,” the report said the “continued work at the Yongbyon facility should not be seen as having any relationship to North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize.”

Trump and Kim signed an agreement in Singapore on June 12 stating that Pyongyang would work toward "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

Last week, the president underscored the point of “total denuclearization,” while noting that it “has already started taking place,” according to Reuters.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN Monday there is no timeline for when North Korea will denuclearize the peninsula, but said the U.S. is “committed to moving forward in an expeditious moment to see if we can achieve what both leaders set out to do.”
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe met on Wednesday to discuss how to ensure North Korea abandons its nuclear program.
 
Top