Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Which developing countries are on track to become developed by 2030 and 2050?

developing countries developed countries 2030 2050 africa asia latin america

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Thanks, Futurist. I'll take a look.



#22
michael92

michael92

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

 

Interesting you listed Sweden. Why? I could definitely imagine Greece losing developed status.

 

Uhm, Greece got already reclassified as an emerging market like 2 years ago. We are alreay a developing country :D



#23
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

I really want Libya to become developed, but the way things are going right now, I'm afraid we won't even make it to 2100.



#24
Ewan

Ewan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

may i ask how did you come up with this?

 

indonesia, malaysia, thailand, philippines are already newly-industrialised countries (though not yet developed). vietnam is least developed from the previously mentioned and is just trying to crawl back and rise up among its economic peers - laos, cambodia, myanmar, timor leste- though they are rising fast. it will take them a few more decades before the level of economy these tiger cub economies are now. so it is highly unlikely that vietnam will become a first world country in 2050 ahead of indonesia or the philippines.

 

i based my previous list on these:

 

---------------

List the economy of countries that will dominate in 2050:  (only SEA countries are listed below)

Source: HSBC

 

Size of Economy

 

#16: Philippines - $1.7 trillion  (Year 2000 dollars)

#17: Indonesia - $1.5 trillion (Year 2000 dollars)

#21: Malaysia-  $1.2 trillion (Year 2000 dollars)

#23: Thailand - $856 billion (Year 2000 dollars)

#41: Vietnam -  $451 billion  (Year 2000 dollars)

#42: Singapore - $441 billion (Year 2000 dollars)
 
**

 

Income per capita: 

 

Singapore: $84,405

Malaysia: $29,247

Thailand: $11,674

Philippines: $10,893

Indonesia:  $5,215

Vietnam: $4,335

 

----------------------

----------------------

 

High potential of becoming, among the world's largest economies in the 21st century:

Source: Goldman Sachs

 

BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India, China

N11 -  Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam

 

 

It's just a rough estimate because you can see how long it has taken similar economies in the past to grow to developed status. I think your list is mostly correct aside from the larger countries China, India, Indonesia will take longer to develop. They of course will soon become the worlds largest economies but it will be a while before they are advanced economies. 

 

That being said something I didn't appreciate in my last post is that countries could develop faster due to automation. The manufacturing sector will shrink and more people will have to work in the service sector because thats where the jobs will be. 

 

But you never know how history will change things & if growth will continue. Japan is a prime example of this, rapid growth till the mid 90s with no falls then just stagnation for almost 20 years. If Japan had continued to grow at a similar level to the 90s their economy would be similar or slightly larger in size than America now. 

 

Perhaps someone will be interested by these two charts that were on /r/europe today, ex-soviet economies from 90s till 2015:

 

http://i.imgur.com/p6Ww8KB.png

http://i.imgur.com/cMDcP2F.png



#25
raxo2222

raxo2222

    e^x

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • LocationCanada, AD 2100, December 31st.

Hmm wonder when Poland becomes developed country.


Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.* - A. Clarke
Any magic sufficiently analyzed is indistinguishable from technology.** - Somewhere from Internet

*Relatively, comparing to rest of world. Go back in time with modern tech. **Lets assume its working only in fantasy/simulated world. Go forward in time with unicorns.


#26
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,167 posts

I'm afraid we won't even make it to 2100.

Without degenerating into chaos or without being merged with another country?



#27
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Thanks, Futurist. I'll take a look.

No problem! :)



#28
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

I really want Libya to become developed, but the way things are going right now, I'm afraid we won't even make it to 2100.

Libya appears to be a rather sad/tragic case of how the West helped a country overthrow a dictator only to have various rebel groups in that country be unable to cooperate with each other afterwards. :(



#29
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Hmm wonder when Poland becomes developed country.

 

2020


“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#30
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

I really want Libya to become developed, but the way things are going right now, I'm afraid we won't even make it to 2100.

Libya appears to be a rather sad/tragic case of how the West helped a country overthrow a dictator only to have various rebel groups in that country be unable to cooperate with each other afterwards. :(

Just you wait till I become fluent in Arabic and go back to Libya. I'll become a warlord and name myself "Commander Cosmic" and take control of Libya with a sick ass name. I'll be like the coolest dictator ever. I won't wear formal clothes, instead I'll wear like Wu-Tang clan shirts and black hoodies. I'll be taking dictatorships towards a whole new level of swagger.

And I'll impose economic plans that would impress any other ruler. I'll be the leading country of renewable energy investment. With my Oil money, I'll make grand changes in the social structure. A sizeable sum of the GDP will go towards welfare and research.

But! You can't have leadership without anything backwards so public executions are a must! Just kidding. I'll just revive gladiators and make serial rapists and murderers fight to be death for their freedom. That's a good way of doing it whilst also attracting tourists.

#31
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

 

 

Interesting you listed Sweden. Why? I could definitely imagine Greece losing developed status.

 

Uhm, Greece got already reclassified as an emerging market like 2 years ago. We are alreay a developing country :D

 

You gave us Greek philosophy and so much more - basically the foundations for modern society and we are forever in your debt. Pun not intended. ;) Though many I believe don't know or don't care anymore, I do. :)



#32
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

 

I really want Libya to become developed, but the way things are going right now, I'm afraid we won't even make it to 2100.

Libya appears to be a rather sad/tragic case of how the West helped a country overthrow a dictator only to have various rebel groups in that country be unable to cooperate with each other afterwards. :(

 

I think it's more a tragic case of economic sabotage gone right for the US and some of her allies under the guise of liberating the Libyan people. They've done this through the latter half of the 20th century and in the early 2000s; the most recent case now being 2011. Who knows where else?

 

Destabilise a region, oust dictactor, install puppet leader who supports their corporate interests, profit.

 

They knew what ousting Gaddafi would do but they did it anyway. If they had truly wanted peace and prosperity for the Libyan people, they would not have done that.

 

Read about Gaddafi and his plans to introduce the dinar to rival the dollar: http://rt.com/news/e...oil-gold-libya/. Sure, the source is RT but there are more sources on this.

 

As for really trying to revamp some of these conflicted countries, I don't think you can just force democracy on them. It's not like democracy eradicates all problems. I think some of these countries should go the South Korean and Singaporean route. Realistically, they need a dictator who can keep chaos at bay and who genuinely has an interest in building their countries. Sure, dictatorships can often go wrong but ousting dictators is hit-or-miss. I know it's not just simple to find a benevolent dictator who can keep the peace and deliver but I think it's preferable to a weak democracy where there are many factions fighting for power. So far it's working in Rwanda, is one of the least corrupt and one of the most organised countries in Africa.

 

Ultimately, if the people don't want a dictator, it should be up to them to decide and not foreign entities.



#33
caesarathallah

caesarathallah

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

 

2050 is unlikely for India & China, they're huge countries with vastly different incomes across the board. Some parts of China already are developed but the country is too big to be classified as developed any time soon. There was a thread like this before when I made a larger post but I can't seem to find it. 

 

 

i thought the same, smaller countries with high workforce population would be able to climb up easier. take a look at singapore, they were able to rise up from thrid world to first in more or less just 2 decades. city-states are easier to manage.

 

 

I think some countries in SEA will be developed by 2030 (Malaysia perhaps Thailand) & some by 2050 (Vietnam). I'm not sure Philippines or Indonesia will be, perhaps for the former, probably not for the latter. 

 

 

may i ask how did you come up with this?

 

indonesia, malaysia, thailand, philippines are already newly-industrialised countries (though not yet developed). vietnam is least developed from the previously mentioned and is just trying to crawl back and rise up among its economic peers - laos, cambodia, myanmar, timor leste- though they are rising fast. it will take them a few more decades before the level of economy these tiger cub economies are now. so it is highly unlikely that vietnam will become a first world country in 2050 ahead of indonesia or the philippines.

 

i based my previous list on these:

 

---------------

List the economy of countries that will dominate in 2050:  (only SEA countries are listed below)

Source: HSBC

 

Size of Economy

 

#16: Philippines - $1.7 trillion  (Year 2000 dollars)

#17: Indonesia - $1.5 trillion (Year 2000 dollars)

#21: Malaysia-  $1.2 trillion (Year 2000 dollars)

#23: Thailand - $856 billion (Year 2000 dollars)

#41: Vietnam -  $451 billion  (Year 2000 dollars)

#42: Singapore - $441 billion (Year 2000 dollars)
 
**

 

Income per capita: 

 

Singapore: $84,405

Malaysia: $29,247

Thailand: $11,674

Philippines: $10,893

Indonesia:  $5,215

Vietnam: $4,335

 

----------------------

----------------------

 

High potential of becoming, among the world's largest economies in the 21st century:

Source: Goldman Sachs

 

BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India, China

N11 -  Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam

 

 

That per capita thing is wrong, Indonesia's gdp per capita is $11,000 while the Philippines's gdp per capita is $7,000



#34
tierbook

tierbook

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • LocationCharleston sc

 

 

I really want Libya to become developed, but the way things are going right now, I'm afraid we won't even make it to 2100.

Libya appears to be a rather sad/tragic case of how the West helped a country overthrow a dictator only to have various rebel groups in that country be unable to cooperate with each other afterwards. :(

 

I think it's more a tragic case of economic sabotage gone right for the US and some of her allies under the guise of liberating the Libyan people. They've done this through the latter half of the 20th century and in the early 2000s; the most recent case now being 2011. Who knows where else?

 

Destabilise a region, oust dictactor, install puppet leader who supports their corporate interests, profit.

 

They knew what ousting Gaddafi would do but they did it anyway. If they had truly wanted peace and prosperity for the Libyan people, they would not have done that.

 

Read about Gaddafi and his plans to introduce the dinar to rival the dollar: http://rt.com/news/e...oil-gold-libya/. Sure, the source is RT but there are more sources on this.

 

As for really trying to revamp some of these conflicted countries, I don't think you can just force democracy on them. It's not like democracy eradicates all problems. I think some of these countries should go the South Korean and Singaporean route. Realistically, they need a dictator who can keep chaos at bay and who genuinely has an interest in building their countries. Sure, dictatorships can often go wrong but ousting dictators is hit-or-miss. I know it's not just simple to find a benevolent dictator who can keep the peace and deliver but I think it's preferable to a weak democracy where there are many factions fighting for power. So far it's working in Rwanda, is one of the least corrupt and one of the most organised countries in Africa.

 

Ultimately, if the people don't want a dictator, it should be up to them to decide and not foreign entities.

 

The US wasn't even leading what happened in Libya...

 

OT: I'm really not sure there aren't all that many countries I can look at and see their situation improving at the moment..... China maybe but that countries population is so large that it won't be noticeable for awhile.



#35
Alice Tepes

Alice Tepes

    NONDESCRIPT HUMANOID

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 199 posts
  • Locationfrom the desert town, located somewhere in the Southwestern United States, where all conspiracy theories are real.

I would like to add that the bar for being "developed" is also constantly rising with new technology. and it is also likely that some countries will un-"develop" because of social unrest, wars, or changes in the world economy like the disuse of oil for fuel.


aspiring gynoid macrointelligence


#36
Zeitgeist123

Zeitgeist123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

its correct because the GDP is a prediction of each country's per capita income in 2050, not 2016. indonesia is one of the most populous countries in the world.

 

 

 

2050 is unlikely for India & China, they're huge countries with vastly different incomes across the board. Some parts of China already are developed but the country is too big to be classified as developed any time soon. There was a thread like this before when I made a larger post but I can't seem to find it. 

 

 

i thought the same, smaller countries with high workforce population would be able to climb up easier. take a look at singapore, they were able to rise up from thrid world to first in more or less just 2 decades. city-states are easier to manage.

 

 

I think some countries in SEA will be developed by 2030 (Malaysia perhaps Thailand) & some by 2050 (Vietnam). I'm not sure Philippines or Indonesia will be, perhaps for the former, probably not for the latter. 

 

 

may i ask how did you come up with this?

 

indonesia, malaysia, thailand, philippines are already newly-industrialised countries (though not yet developed). vietnam is least developed from the previously mentioned and is just trying to crawl back and rise up among its economic peers - laos, cambodia, myanmar, timor leste- though they are rising fast. it will take them a few more decades before the level of economy these tiger cub economies are now. so it is highly unlikely that vietnam will become a first world country in 2050 ahead of indonesia or the philippines.

 

i based my previous list on these:

 

---------------

List the economy of countries that will dominate in 2050:  (only SEA countries are listed below)

Source: HSBC

 

Size of Economy

 

#16: Philippines - $1.7 trillion  (Year 2000 dollars)

#17: Indonesia - $1.5 trillion (Year 2000 dollars)

#21: Malaysia-  $1.2 trillion (Year 2000 dollars)

#23: Thailand - $856 billion (Year 2000 dollars)

#41: Vietnam -  $451 billion  (Year 2000 dollars)

#42: Singapore - $441 billion (Year 2000 dollars)
 
**

 

Income per capita: 

 

Singapore: $84,405

Malaysia: $29,247

Thailand: $11,674

Philippines: $10,893

Indonesia:  $5,215

Vietnam: $4,335

 

----------------------

----------------------

 

High potential of becoming, among the world's largest economies in the 21st century:

Source: Goldman Sachs

 

BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India, China

N11 -  Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam

 

 

That per capita thing is wrong, Indonesia's gdp per capita is $11,000 while the Philippines's gdp per capita is $7,000

 


“Philosophy is a pretty toy if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin." - Callicles to Socrates


#37
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts

Such predictions would only make sense in more or less stable world. But i seriously doubt that current world order - call it as you wish: "Pax Americana" or "liberal world" or somehow else - will stay intact till 2030 and (especially) 2050. And by that time, in this new world, their criteria of "developed country" will be very different from ours.



#38
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • LocationCanada

I cannot see China being even close to developed by 2050. The figures from the World Bank and Xi Jinping on poverty reduction are misleading because they don't take into account the huge and growing divide in wealth between not only urban and rural housholds but also the coastal cities and the interior region. If you go to downtown Pudong or Luohu you'll see most of the wealth that's been skewed from statistical figures; you'll think you're in a First World Country. But that's only a small part of China. Go to the outskirts of the city and you'll see what may not be the worst of slums, but are still not better off than a favela. Go into the interior of the country and there are still hundreds of millions of people living in poverty comparable to Sub-Saharan Africa. China has come far but still has a long way to go, having 1.4 billion people out of extreme poverty is no easy task. And with the economic slowdown now facing the country I can't see it happening anytime soon. And with that I'm not even gonna touch on India...

 

On the other end, I think some Latin American countries will be considered "developed" by 2050 for sure, such as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay. Also Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Mexico has been rapidly industrializing and I can also see it being developed, assuming crime is brought down and the southern provinces join in on the action.



#39
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,755 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

^ Never forget that China's still a communist nation. 

 

IIRC, Karl Marx himself said that communism could never happen in an agrarian society (which might be one huge reason why the 20th century was so disastrous for communist nations, where almost all of them were agrarian). China's building dozens of huge cities every year with the intention of filling them up with those impoverished people and those still living in rural areas. 

Karl Marx wrote that you needed to have capitalism before you create socialism; you can't just go from agrarian economics to socialism. Lenin said you could, and we saw what happened. Mao said you could, and we saw what happened. Pol Pot said you could, and we saw what happened. Kim Il-Sung... well, not even fellow communists thought he was actually a communist, so I dunno. 

Hugo Chavez came closest to achieving this goal, but he died and got replaced by a totalitarian.

 

I've also pointed out in the past that when communists attempt to nationalize a whole country, they fail to understand that they've turned said country into a giant corporation despite calling it state capitalism, suggesting they do recognize it happened— chalk this up to doublethink. 
If I ran a business based purely on the Bible, stacking positions with ultrafundamentalist Christians with no business experience, with the intention of using Biblical guidelines to make things work, how long do you think I'd last before my company would go under? I can tell you what would happen: we'd suffer monthly deficit after monthly deficit and wind up not having enough money to even keep the lights on. The upper executive positions will take whatever money they can get while the workers will often go without pay for weeks at a time. To keep the workers in line, we'd drive home Biblical ideology. Maybe eventually we'd cut that hemorrhaging and perhaps even turn a profit once or twice, but it's simply not a workable model.

Replace "Bible" with "Communist Manifesto/Das Kapital" and "Christians" with "Marxists" and you'd not see any real difference.

 

China, on the other hand, has managed to understand this and have owned it. That's one reason why they're so successful— they're treating their whole country like it's one big business. They don't stack their managerial positions with collegian ideologues but actual experienced technocrats. They may be feeling a slowdown right now, but that doesn't mean they're failing. 

You've got to think of their nation as being like a gigantic business in that regard. As long as they're still turning a profit, they're still successful.

 

Once they've effectively gotten enough people out of poverty and have the right capital, they'll begin moving to the next stage of socialism— ironically doing something I've been talking about on the forums: technism. Using all that wonderful automation to spread ownership about. Turning the corporation into a giant worker-owned cooperative, essentially.

 

 

At least, in theory, that's what they're gonna do. In reality, they're prolly gonna institute a social credit-based UBI and call that "socialism".


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#40
BarkEater93

BarkEater93

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 372 posts
  • LocationCanada

That would be a pretty ambitious and risky avenue to take, no? Regardless of how fast they can churn up cities to fill people with, you can't move another 600 million people there overnight. A lot of variables would have to line up before any of that could happen and right now they're not in China's favour. No matter how fast they can automate there's cheaper labour to be had right now in places like Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Peru, where China is losing its wealth. There's just not as much demand for Chinese products any more regardless. Meanwhile you have hundreds of millions of poor people fed up that they're still not part of the Chinese "miracle" and that they'll have to wait a while longer. I don't know how much longer they can keep their patience before there's a massive movement to try and rebel against Beijing, probably not much. Sure its a communist nation but that doesn't mean there won't be some sort of movement trying to develop. 

 

You can see Xi trying to tighten his hold and consolidate power because he's afraid of such a movement trying to develop, he's essentially trying to become a dictator. He's using the island building and sabre-rattling in the South China Sea as a means to maintain patriotism in the country, unite people in a common purpose and make the country appear more powerful than it really is (something countries do a lot when there's division), nothing else. I don't think the Chinese navy would be stupid enough to pick a fight with the U.S. navy, they wouldn't stand a chance.

 

Grand ambitions that could possibly be done. Automation, why not? Build more cities? Ok. Sure, China has done extraordinary things before, but wealth is already trickling to other low wage countries and the government is preoccupied in trying to keep the country united and assured that those who have been left behind will join in soon enough. But how soon would that be when right now the country is in a slowdown?

 

If you treat your country like a business like that those are some of the problems you'd face.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: developing countries, developed countries, 2030, 2050, africa, asia, latin america

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users