Will the world economy collapse if the third world modernizes?

Question

Will the world economy collapse if the third world modernizes?

Answer 1

It is definitely possible for all nations to be developed, if they stop wasting resources on wars and suppression of their own people. The research convincingly shows that economic development is determined first and foremost by the quality of a nation's institutions. Here's how Daron Acemoglu, one of the most eminent experts on the subject, puts it:



Economic institutions encouraging economic growth emerge when political institutions allocate power to groups with interests in broad-based property rights enforcement, when they create effective constraints on power-holders, and when there are relatively few rents to be captured by power-holders.



[End of quote]



Now note that exportable mineral resources are just that: a rent that can be captured by power-holders. This rent can be so large that it can sustain not only an otherwise untenable regime, but its armed opposition as well. Paul Collier from the World Bank was one of the first to point that out and do some rather convincing statistical analysis on the matter...



Also, I highly recommend Paul Krugman's 1994 piece, "Does Third World Growth Hurt First World Prosperity?", where the issue is presented from the developed countries' point of view.

Answer 2

Short answer is no. I'm not sure why you would think that the worlds economy would collapse if 3rd world nations modernized. The world economy (nor the US economy) is not a zero sum game. For one country to become developed does not require another country to be impoverished. In fact the more economically viable countries we have the better,those are potential markets for other countries goods.



Now think.... Why would a natural resource rich country be so backwards? Developed nations,as you said,buy more than they sell to the third world. I submit that the third world remains the third world because of a lack of a free market economy in those countries. The lack of capitalism keeps people oppressed. Think about it,almost all "third world" countries are run by despots who are corrupt to the bone. These dictators depend on impoverished subjects so they can remain in power while starving their own people. Freedom would go along way in making those countries more economically viable and more freedom makes the world a better place.

Answer 3

Since some past civilizations have boomed with little or no interaction with outsiders, it would seem that it is possible for the enitre planet to become developed.

Answer 4

Something I learned about in Econ...when the 'third world' modernizes, eventually...the countries that lost employers because they relocated for the lower labor costs...will have to come back to the 'new third world'. It's a big cycle, and people don't matter when you consider that cycle. Thousands of Americans lost their jobs when hundreds of American companies went overseas. Now our nation, the good ol' USA has to pretend to continue to be well off...take a look at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I don't mean to look at the papers that talk about economy, go there and look at all the derelict business buildings. Miller closed down all their competition there by buying out the other breweries, then closed them down. Some of the buidlings were put to honorable use, like community college classrooms and parking lots. Others were renovated and became the county welfare offices...still others are still sitting derelict. The other companies that were there either went out of business, or moved overseas. The biggest businesses now in that area are Community Service Providers. I had to move back to California because there was no decent work available there...now I am in California where the municipality enjoys overtaxing the big businesses, so they leave the area, to such places as Japan, the Philippines, Mexico, and other places where the minimum wage is pennies to the US dollar. So I am trying to find another place to go for work. I was offered some good jobs overseas--I don't want to be considered an economic traitor, but my family needs money. The US is one of the richest resource rich countries...but we prefer to exploit the countries with less sophistication. What to do? I guess we have to go with the uncaring flow of the economy.

Answer 5

No big deal, the world economy would only be much better off if the 3rd world was wealthier and more developed. No there is no "requirement" that half the world be impoverished and backward -- in fact that is very much a drain on the developed world's resources.



Current international trade is the way it is, simply as a result of all parties taking best advantage of the current opportunities available. If those fundamentals changed, patterns of trade would simply reorganize to the maximum benefit off all trading partners.

Answer 6

I don't know if the world economy would exactly collapse but capitalism is based on making a profit. So once that profit diminishes by 3rd world countries demanding and obtaining a higher standard of living, those sectors that relied on them for cheap labor and materials become desperate to find their next alternative to fit in with the business model that demands a profit to be made...

Answer 7

Yes, it is possible that all countries could someday be considered developed. When that time comes, countries will be realligning their resources to maximize their competitive edge. That means they would drop or reduce production from enterprises where they were weak and boost output of industries where they were strong. In such a scenario, businesses would be global in outlook seeking every minute advantages they could squeeze to remain competitive. The purchasing power of residents of third world countries would rise affording them ability to buy domestic and foreign products in greater quantity. So instead of collapsing, the world's economy will keep rising to the point where economic parity among nations would likely be reached. What would collapse or decrease in importance is regionalism and nationalism. People of all races would be citizens of the world.

Answer 8

The world economy would simply become interdependent upon one another. Countries would specialize and produce a limited amount of products because they can produce it better than any other country. Also, "developing" is a relative term. There will always be rich and poor because to life in a finite world where everything is relative.

Answer 9

I wish to qualify your question so I could give a quality answer.

First, trade deficit is the difference, usually monetary, between import and export. This means that there's no real physical deficit because goods are exchanged.

Second, all the nations cannot develop at the same time, with the same level of development and with the level of efficiencty in production. There will always be a gap and all will have to go through the IGPDO cycle (Intro, Growth, Peak, Decline, Obsolescence). Over-development will lead to Intro to another phase of development cycle. Yes, it's possible that all nations will be Industrialized Countries (ICs) but their industry-bases will not be the same.

Third, the only way for ICs to exploit the resources of rich but yet Developing Countries (DCs) is to keep them from becoming industry-based. I think it's a system that will stay with us for long.



So, my quality answer is: World economy will not collapse even when developing countries become industrialized because levels oof industrialization will be complementing.

Answer 10

no it wldn't collapse. taking it down to the simplist level, one example would be back in the early days of our country when people or groups of people had areas of expertise or products,, they traded. now some people may trade lower value needs vs some would trade with higher value.



each country would hv a main resource ((maybe oil, diamonds, farms, textiles, electronics, aviation, labor, etc)) depending on their natural resources and what they're motivated to do,,, if countries spread themselves to thin by trying to master every single thing it only hurts their growth and development. but then that leads to their leadership and type of government, does it hurt or help their growth.

Answer 11

The world economy might collapse, but for reasons other than alterations in trade deficits. Increases in population, scarcity of natural resources, increases in pollution and environmental destruction, accelerated global warming, increases in competition for those scarce resources, tensions resulting in more global conflict, use of atomic weapons, a nuclear winter - that's all she wrote folks.

Answer 12

No the 'system' doesn't work quite that way. Countries rich in natural resources do not need to be impoverished. And, conversely, countries lacking in natural resources do not either. ie Japan.



Your premise isn't real sound, or at a minimum, needs to take into consideration some other factors. The world economy is not a net zero sum equation. That is to say, when one country makes money, another country doesn't necessarily have to 'lose' the same amount.



Think of it in terms of value added. When goods and services are produced, and they are developed, refined, enhanced, modernized, etc. we say they have value added to them. And this can and usually does take place within one country and without another countries involvement.



Secondly, the term 'developed' is a nebulous statement. If we compare ourselves (just about any country) to a hundred years previous we can almost certainly see where progress has been made. It is even more dramatic to do so with an earlier millenium. So to expect to define when a country is 'developed' is not like walking through a doorway. You are either inside or outside. It is an evolutionary and developmental kind of thing.



The day will never come when one can look around and say all countries are now developed. The ancient Greek and Roman empires I am certain thought themselves as developed. Compared to todays standards they had hardly begun.



Lastly, when a country has a trade deficit it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Think of it as leveraging other resources. Similar to you leveraging your good name, credit rating and possible equity you have accrued in other assets when you wish to borrow some money. Example: your house is worth $100,000. You owe $25,000 on the mortgage. You use the $75,000 equity to borrow money for something else. Maybe a car. You have leveraged the equity in your home to purchase the car. And this is a good thing and wise financial manuver. It is an efficient use of the asset.



The worst thing that can happen in the world economy is for nations to quit trading with each other. And, to a lesser degree, limit the trading that occurs or restrict it through tarriffs etc. It has been proven that isolationism is very detrimental to an economy. In fact, look at what we do when a country is disciplined by other countries, eg North Korea. We place trade sanctions on them via the United Nations. The more freedom an economy has, the healthier it is. The more restrictive it is, the problems it endures.



Oh yah. I believe in the capitalist system and free market economies. It's what the world is running on. It makes the world go around.

Answer 13

No the world economy will not collapse if the "third world" modernizes, actually the economy might collapse if it doesn't. The one "negative" side effect of a modernizing third world is that people will pay a little more in some western countries, the standard of living there will go down a bit. However that standard of living is overly high,especially in western europe and the US so it's lowering to a more moderate level will not be so horrible a thing. This will cause some intitial slowing of economic growth but will quickly even out.



what would cause the collapse of the world economy would be to erase the trade deficit with the third world countries, if that were done through trade barriers then the world economy would collapse, as it stands that deficit is what is developing the third world.



I think it's a good thing, but needs more work.

Answer 14

As long as corruption stays in fashion things will never improve in all of the third world.



Take South Africa, where I sit here writing this.



I could'nt have written it an hour ago because we had no power. Why no power.



Well a power station in the Cape about 1000km away had a problem so the entire country had to start shedding loads and cutting off towns.



Whats my point, well this country has been gifted with billions of dollars from overseas and is rich in minerals and come to it tourism wealth.



In fact the USA is the largest benefactor and the new Ambassadour could not get a meeting with our health minister for three months. Only when he complained about it in a Sunday newspaper article did he get results! Thats how we treat a country that donates many millions of Rand.



We are in no way a third world country.



Even so infrastructure is collapsing fast here.



Another good example, here in the town where I sit a new textile factory is opening, an overseas company is being given all sorts of deals for bringing employment. Even to the point of removing that factory from South African labour laws. Now is that the way to develop? Encourage sweat shops?



I think I've lost the thread. The third world is a lot further behind than people that have never left the first world would believe.



So far behind that there will always be a gap.



Sorry for the rant.



Perhaps if more of the third world had oil.

Answer 15

In simple terms, no it will not and cannot be possible for all nations to be equally developed. It is possible for a country to become more modernized and "developed" than others over the course of time. However, with that said, it will always be the countries with the highest levels in three areas that will maintain the highest development potential. These three areas are education of the citizenry, resource acquisition, and economic freedom.



The statement that developed countries have a trade deficit with undeveloped countries is highly limited in it's point of view. For example, the U.S. might have a trade deficit with a country like South Korea but if a person looks at the whole economic picture of resources, financial aid packages, food supplies, military training and support, etc., the trade deficit goes away.



The system does not require a resource rich country to carry a trade deficit as illustrated by the U.S. through much of it's history. However, due to fiscal irresponsibility, the growing international world market, and freedom of business to seek the lowest labor costs even if that means out-sourcing, it is a trap for more developed nations to carry a deficit with less developed nations.

Answer 16

No, because a "trade deficit" isn't really a deficit. You and I incur no debt if a third party buys or sells goods from another country.



It may be possible for all nations to be developed, but the cost of living would be higher. Even if every country were developed, each one would still have comparative advantages in different areas. This is why trade is beneficial to both parties.



The system in no way requires resource rich countries to be poor. The US is extremely rich with many natural resources, and we're not exactly impoverished.

Answer 17

No, that wouldn't be the cause of any collapse that might occur (maybe a refusal to grow, e.g. mid-east countries). Third worlders are not buying (importing) much of anything right now; but if they get enough money, they will increase demand. Many globalists promote job growth - or redistribution - as a contribution to world peace. Well, maybe - but there's no guarantee!



The third world may even begin selling things to the first and second worlds that can't be made there - cheaper or otherwise - just as is now the case with foods and products that cannot be grown just anywhere. So, yes, poor countries can grow their way to "developed" status.



Everyone in the U.S. once had outhouses, but the wealthiest had someone to "tend" them and carry it all outside! Now the poorest can stay indoors. So - over time - contrasts that seem so clear at first may not hold up.



One day manufacture, mining, vending and agriculture will be entirely automated - like accounting. The internet has in a sense automated a small portion of even law and medicine - the professions with the strongest unions! People will have to do what people do best (we may not yet know what that is) to earn a "living" but it will involve (produce) things beyond necessities. Necessities would become so available, some will choose not to work; it will be without the welfare stigma, because no one else is supporting them. Boredom and drive (and greed, etc.) will motivate the rest to choose the creativity of work.



Such a world is sufficiently in the future to allow the poorest countries to convert their resources - in whatever form - to be competitive globally and "catch up" - so, no, they need not remain impoverished.

Answer 18

No. Part of the problem does not have to do with third world countries remaining impoverished due to them not being developed but the governments these nations have in place.



While most third world countries want to improve living standards for their people, the bottom line is that most see that with poverty comes control. This prevents the common citizen from having a say in how their country is ran. Having a developed nation only makes the job of governing harder for the leader who only really cares about themselves and how much power they have.



As for the statement about resource rich countries you only have to look at Canada for example of how this is not the case.



This country is not only not impoverished but in fact one that the United States depends on. Even if the US continues to have their trade deficit grow, Canada can find new markets to sell their natural resources to. Many of the other nations are also in the same situation.



Therefore, as you can see, as the world modernizes, the economy will still keep right on going the way it has. Competition only improves the quality of life in the long run but that can only occur when the corrupt governments are forced out. Only then, will we know the answer as to if the world economy will collapse due to too much of a good thing.

Answer 19

If the Third World modernizes it would mean more competition but that would also result in improved productivity. More cutting edge research gets done and new research and technology has the potential to change our lives for the better.



Remember that most of the jobs now moving to the third world are low end, manufacturing and technology jobs. This does put a pressure on the unskilled and semi-skilled in the developed countries and forces them to work harder and upgrade skills. This is a good thing because new drugs, new technologies become available to all of us as a result of the increased efficiency. The third world buys most of it's medicines, weapons, ipod's, computers from first world nations so there is a balance maintained.



Eventually the world may polarize into the intelligent and the not so intelligent and we may set-up a new class system based on intellect. However, we may instead discover new chemicals and medication and genetic re-engineering to make not-so-intelligent and hardworking people more intelligent evening out the difference between skilled and un-skilled.

Answer 20

No. Absolutely not. Think of it in terms of a family. If only one parent works and then the kids grow up and move out and the other starts working does the family income collapse? No. The family gets wealthier. Maybe they get enough to buy a rental property and make even more money. Wealth begets wealth. The more wealth you have the more that you can do. For instance in the U.S. as we got wealthier, we moved ahead in industry, technology, education and food production. We then moved our wealth around the world. Our market supported flourishing economies everywhere. The more we had the more we could buy. The more we bought the more others could have. The more they have ... etc. It is not a one winner one loser mindset. More like everyone wins. But the key is to see wealth as more then just money. Wealth is measured in technology, ability, food production, manufacturing capacity etc. To answer your other question do resource rich countries need to remain inpoverished, the answer is no. They will still be able to sell those resources whether they are impoverished or not. If the resources are being used to quickly, alternatives will have to found. Wealth and techonolgy make that more realsitic. If every country has meaningful wealth then the possibilities are greater that those alternatives will be found.



Hope that makes sense

Answer 21

Most of the trade of developed nations is with each other, not developing nations. Just think, do you buy more products from Japan or Ghana, Germany or Bolivia? The developing countries are relatively minor players in the global economy. In a modern economy, most of the value of the products produced is due to intellectual capital and technology, not raw materials.



So in fact, many raw material producing developing countries run trade deficits not surpluses, because they have to buy finished goods that they can't produce themselves, and most of the value is in the technology and intellectual capital, not the raw materials.



However, if a developing country is running a trade surplus, there will be a flow of funds into the country, which can be used to fund development. Even if there is a deficit, the developing country can invite foreign investment and make up the difference.



The important thing for you to note is that it is not raw materials sales that make a country developed and rich, it is the development of a modern legal system, capitalist system and property rights system which allows private enterprise to flourish, and development of the intellectual capital of the population.



In 1956, South Korea was a developing country completely leveled by war. Now South Korea is a developed nation producing cars, electronics and computer chips. They completely modernized the country and enriched the population by rigourously pursuing education and private enterprise, and by constructing a legal system where property right and investment are protected.



In fact most of Asia excluding Japan were developing nations 50 years ago. Now large middle classes exist in China, India, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand. Their rise has created business for the developed nations of Europe and North America, since middle class people have money to buy things. Just think of all the American companies trying to sell their products in the Chinese market. As I said, the biggest producers of wealth are developed nations selling to one another. Which is why the global economy has led to higher personal wealth in the developed countries like the US.

Answer 22

It will be the contrary, the world economy will expand. The world along with individual country's economy is not a fixed pie. It expands and contracts.



The trade defecit along with a country's defecit isn't a true indicator of the economy's health. It is more like a credit report.



The only exception, a country being plundered by a dictator and running the printing presses. That being destructive no matter where. It is like a corporation borrowing on false financial reports.



There is no reason that all countries could not all be prosperous.

India and China being examples of emerging eonomies and slowly providing prosperity. Just can not be done over night.



The world economy could expand to that. However we have one influence that ruins it.................which is human behavior. Greed, rascism, power, genocide, religion, communism etc. tend to stall development of the countries that need it the most. Particularly in Africa and the Middle East.



A good example might be Jamaica which has so much to bring prosperity to its people. Natural recources, tourism and ambitious hard working people. Forty years ago Britain turned control of its colony, Jamaca, over to its own people. However all that happened was that corrupt Jamaican politicians took over, nationalized all large business and land. The countrys economy has never expanded over these 40 years. People still live in poverty and tourism is the major industry where Jamaicans can work at low wages. The country has all it needs to prosper but is held back by a corrupt greedy government. Jamaicans can not cut trees, collect firewood on land cuz it belongs to the government. A Jamaican can not even pick a banana off a tree cuz it belongs to the government. Not rascism, cuz all are black. Cuba would be another good example.



The system does not require rich countries to impede emerging countries. Capitalists, governments and business people would love to sale their products and services, or invest in poor countries or emerging countries. . Everyone likes to make money. Even Communists. Sadly it is their governments and politicians who do not let this happen. These people like their power and are willing to oppress their own..

Answer 23

Here in Michigan, union labor is being shunned for overseas labor, unions are losing membership, and unskilled labor without mobility is finding a way to cope with a lower quality of life. In essence, the First World is shifting places with the Third World, wealth is becoming more localized, the middle class is dissipating and their former homes are left derelict. Urban praries abound in places where healthy businesses once existed.



My answer, then, is no, the world economy will not collapse if the third world modernizes, because as Third World countries modernize, the First World will suffer and trade places with the Third World. In some ways it is a zero sum game, particularly in the labor market, and doubly so with the IT and manufacturing sectors. Every job gained in Asia is a job lost in America in these two fields, as it's simply a question of who is cheaper and how easily the facilities can be relocated if necessary.



That being said, if labor somehow becomes more expensive in the Third World (lets say workers unionize in India, or by some miracle, in China), then poor states like Michigan will see a windfall of new business in the lines of dirt cheap labor. This however is a pipe dream due to the fact that there are far more people in India and China and thus human value is lower, and competition is higher. Asia will have an upper hand in cheap labor for at least a century, if not longer.



The Midwest has suffered tremendously due to the Third World being poor; we are now exiting a housing slump that the rest of the US is now entering, so in a sense we have a crystal ball on this sort of thing. Driving down certain streets in Detroit, one would think they were in a Third World country, only bizzarely derelict and underpopulated. The decay is a monument to America's waning economic health.

Answer 24

It sounds like a good idea but I do not think the third world has the means to catch up to the developed.

I have traveled to countries like Mexico and the Philippines and the governments there are so corrupt that the middle class does not exist. Its either the rich or the poor and their is a lot more poor then rich.

Just look at the rate the people in these countries try to get into the developed countries. There is a great drain of the third world's best and smartest people to the developed nations.

Plus I have tried to help people in the Philippines and most of the time the money and time that I spent is wasted as these people just waste the money that is given them on material comfort items and do not try to help themselves. If they do not want to help themselves (because of a lack of education or motivation) then there is little you can do but try to get them to a country like the U.S. or Japan then at least they can send some money back to their famies...as this is probably the biggest source of income these countries have...Its a vicious cycle that will not be brooken as in the third world countries the "haves" do not show any indication of helping the have nots.

Answer 25

Absolutely not! The trade deficit has nothing to do with third world countries. The vast majority of our trade deficit exists between us and China, which is hardly a third world country. The trade deficit with China is primarily due to the fact that they refuse to trade their currency on the world market. This results in A) A lack of parity between Chinese labor wages and the wages of other countries. B) A lack of buying power for their currency.



The fact that their wages are so ridiculously cheap for prospective manufacturers easily explains the deficit. American manufacturers move to China, adding the goods they produce to the China's exports, while reducing American exports by the same amount. In addition, the fact that their money has virtually no buying power makes it difficult for them to buy foreign goods, while the average American could buy piles of goods from just about any Chinese factory. There is also some debate if there actually is any real trade deficit between our two countries. The fact that their currency isn't traded globally, along with other factors, makes calculating the trade balance difficult.



When other third world countries become developed, which, given time and government friendly to capitalism, will inevitably happen, two counterbalancing events will take place. First, the price of everything will rise as cheap labor becomes more and more scarce. Second, incomes and employment in the manufacturing sector of developed countries will increase as off-shoring becomes less popular. Once again, capitalism will benefit everybody concerned.

Answer 26

Short answer is No. A Modernized third world will develop more efficient ways to use resources. It is sometimes the first world or developed countries that try to exploit the third world countries by exploiting human resources or natural resources - because it is cheaper to get it from there. It is possible for all nations to be developed, but at varying degrees.



Some resource rich countries are also developed countries - like Saudi Arabia. Trade imbalances may sometimes help an economically poor, but resource rich country to become developed, but only if they manage growth properly. But when a third world country modernizes (due to money from exports), it also creates the demand for goods produced, because of a bigger middle class. More demand for goods will make the economy of the world better.

Answer 27

I does not mather is the 3rd world develops , is all about demand and supply . There will be always people that have less income than others and those will be making the jobs nobody wants to do.

You can consider that Mexico (my country) is really develop now compare to how it was in the middles ages , and what happen nothing , all adjusted.

Remember that prices are relative to the income of the person that is facing them. That is for a person from burundi paying for an Play station 3 is impossible but the grandkids of warren buffet cost nothing, and it was the same imposible for a pharaom of egypt cus his money wasnt enough to build that technology, so everything is relative .

Dont worry that is the good about capitalism everything adjustes with supply and demand

Answer 28

It just doesn't work that way. As third world economies develop, they generate domestic consumption and branch out into other sectors.



The market adapts. In a hypothetical scenario where there is no place left on earth that offers inexpensive labor, prices increase as business seeks to retain a profit margin. But you can't account for other factors, such as technology or the margin of profit that corporations would be willing to settle for in the future.



There are too many variables to make a real prediction, but to say that it would collapse simply because the world as a whole attains industrial advancement is counter-intuitive. One would expect exactly the opposite.

Answer 29

Just like in nature, world economy has a balance. If third world countries became developed, I think there will be a need for reclassification of countries as to how modern they are. Though all nations are developed, there may be countries that are MORE developed than the others. Every country, like every organism, has a niche. There's no way that ALL of us win becasue that's not how life works. It's always survival of the fittest.

Answer 30

No I do not think that economy of any country will collapse if the third world modernizes. In fact the Economy of each and every nation is directly related to a few of its special products or services or entertainment tools or tourism etc. Mainly the speciality of one nation is not directly affected by the speciality of other nations except a few cases . If the third world countries get developed their speciality products/ services/ tourism will get a boom and it will not adversely affect the economy of other countries.In fact many a developed and developing countries will get good market for their products once the third world modernizes. Our Indian Mythology believes in the principle of SARVA JAN HITAY, SARV JAN SUKHAY i.e. all our actions should be for benefit of each and every person so that all can be happy.

Answer 31

I think the third world could never modernizes because this is the way the world work. I mean, there are developed nation because there are developing nations. We (poors countries) cant decide what to do with our resources, we have to sell it to the developed nation and we never produce final products, we buy it from the first world. There is no posibility to be all the nation developed because the developed countries need a place where they can find resources and if every country has his own industry noone will buy the products that the others countris export. And yes, the system require that resource rich countries remain impoverished because the developed nations can buy the resources very cheep.



Sorry, my english is not very good. I hope you have understood something I wrote... Bye bye... Mariano (from Argentina)

Answer 32

I believe that over the next couple hundred years, that every country will have a chance to become dominant. You may see the U.S. loose its spot at the top, and may even see people leaving the U.S. to get better jobs. Right now the key to success is stability and entrenchment. Stability will always be important, but countries like S. Korea and Indonesia are showing you can move up. Good leadership and an educated public can make any country successful.



I don't think that these changes will ruin the world economy, but it will be rough when a country falls from grace. The former Yugoslavia is a great example of riches to rags. So when you choose not to vote or to not to care, just remember that all those bad things that happen in other places can happen here too.

Answer 33

The question is very interesting even if it carries a paradox within itself. Modernization and economic collapse do not go together. The relationship is bleak, if any, and is theoretically unwarrntable. In practice, the world has evolved over the years in a way that parts of the globe which were the erstwhile backward and even primitive areas and have now become fairly developed and advanced have made the world more balanced and self-sustaining. In the long run, modernization augments demand for products and services. In additon to this, not only demand for products and services grows over time, there are changes in tastes and preferences. The latter is a mighty big force which propels innovations, new products, new uses of existing products, and with the evolving of nations on the higher end of development dynamics, a radical shift can be seen in trade patterns. We have already reached a stage when demand does not grow by itself; it has now become a chained process. There are now bunches of commodities and packages of services which go together. And an erstwhile exporter enters the import bingo and vice versa. Such trends will perpetuate the need for global trade and economic growth. The world has witnessed several cyclical changes and other economic events and no downswing has ever succeeded in making the peril ubiquitous. All downswings have invariably been followed by upswings. many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon but the fact remains that the world economy has neither shrunken nor have reached the brink of disaster. The diversity and deptth in consumption that comes in the wake of modernization emerges as a vital force to keep the global economic structure going strong and the prospect is very bringht, it seems to all researchers and observers of the scenario. There is one more fact which needs to be mentioned in this context. Advanced nations may have trade deficits with raw material suppliers but they need not have it with all the countries. Raw material suppliers need finished products and also enormous funds to finance their operations. In its early stages, therefore, world trade was limping on this trend--flow of raw materials from the less developed part of the world to the more advanced nations and the reverse flow of manufactures and funds from the advanced nations to the less developed nations. Overall, trade surpluses existed and lasted several decades. And then, payment deficits were seldom to be seen. They have become a more recent phenomenon and yet the world economicy seems to be standing on firm footing with no signs of a collapse or even an adverse shock that would shake the equlibrium permanently and beyond correction. The world today is more strewen together in inter-dependencies than ever before. And this just cannot be said as to who depends on whom? It can happen to any one and any time! We have, of course, no visible power to predict the complete collapse!

Answer 34

i would'nt think that the economy would colapse. Using the idea that wealthier nations import more and export less (raw materials) i would think the economy would shift more than colapse. Third world countries demnding more for a raw material would get wealthier and wealthier nations would now grow ever more impoverished with the extra expense of having to finance (through purchases) third world improvements. One of the reasons our country (usa) is so wealthy is that we purchase things at a very cheap price. If our expenses were to go up i believe we would become poorer and countries exporting the raw goods would become wealthier in comparison. i believe the system does require some nations to be impoverished i also believe the system requires a shift in wealth for any of this to happen.

Answer 35

If the third world modernizes they will be able to consume goods rather than acting as a drain for resources on a charity level and an NGO pork barrel fund extravaganza.



There is zero trade deficit with developing nations...only someone who has been brainwashed by the left wing media elite who claim that the united states is an imperialist power monger, when it is the only country that has fought imperialism in this and the last century as a mark of its own identity, since it fought against imperialism to found its own country.



The system does not require that resource rich countries remain impoverished...the impoverished are just too ignorant of the world to know the true reality of the vast gap...and due to familial, neighborly, or village/tribal ties, they do not migrate to a better standard of living or wage, or are trapped in an archaic language divide. It is easy to blame the rich for being rich...they are...they earned it. The hard part is blaming the poor for being poor. That level of earning is what no one is willing to admit. It is more sheik to call primitivism a collective problem established by rich power mongers or an industrial war machine or market flux lack of equilibrium...



Unfortunately, the reality is simple. When education of freedom or the original thought of market economies and entrepreneurship and capitalism infiltrate the psyche of the poor working underclass within the superstrata of the resource guild...at that point, a quasi revolt occurs. It starts as a lust for knowledge... It then transforms into a lust for equality. Then when the realization that equality was what kept them at the level they were for so long, they seek for nationalism to reclaim what they had sold so cheaply... Then, once that militant strain of protectionism passes, the nationalism subsides into a demand for a stable government to back a market economy that will guarantee a way to break out - a land of opportunity and inequality and flux.



All begins with the education and instruction on the market mechanism to an educated, energetic, mobilized public. Without that step, you are dreaming about the modernization and development of the third world.



The world economy is going to collapse under the weight of the third world burden if things continue as they are...or the first and second tiers of civilization will simply level down...and drop down a few rungs as they pick up the slackers... That is to say, while the median income in America is 31,000 dollars for a family ... it is less than 3100 per family in the third world...Less than 10%.



If that leads to a trade deficit, then I am a purple gorilla on steroids. What is set to happen is the entire world will shoot to equalize the equilibrium at somewhere around 6,000 dollars per working family the world over...put that in your pipe and smoke the dregs of communism and one world government as our southern border remains open for a purpose too insidious for anyone to see because they are working to survive rather than paying attention to their environment.



-Muhalo

Answer 36

The 'developed nations' (US, Europe, Japan) aren't really that developed at all, they are called 'developed nations' more due their political allegiance than their development.







The world economy will collapse if ALL people are self suefficient and can longer trade things since all of them got what they need and want.



In short, the absent of all kinds of poverty (physical, mental, and so on) lead the world economy to a collapse.



If a woman want a book while a man who is a book collector want a child, they can work an agreement so the woman can give him a child while he give her a book.



If a woman want a book and have a book while a man who is a book collector want a child and have a child, they no longer need to come into an agreement.

Answer 37

First of all, I do not know what you meant by the word "modernized" as this word implies an array of shadows I personally do not feel comfortable with. Therefore I am going to assume that you meant "industrilized". Correct me if I am wrong.



Well, I do not believe that other countries have to be impoverished and lag behind so that developed countries would enjoy their life style. This, in fact, is masked imperialism. Neither do I think that capitalism, as practised nowaday, is the solution. Patterns of trade should be redefined to accomodate the maximum benefit of all trading partners. This will be achieved if developed countries develop mutually beneficial relationship with the developing countries. This, of course, implies that the world economy will be better off if developing countries become welthier and more developed. It is just illogical that for one country to become developed, another country has to be impoverished. In fact, the more other countries become economically viable, the more potential markets will be availabe for goods to be beneficially circulated.



Nevertheless, I have to reiterate that I am not implicating any reference to a utopian society as there will always be poverty, may be not on the countries, but the individuals scale, i.e, citizens of countries.



Countries are not granted equal, but diversified natural resources, so an equality of development is not really possible. Same logic can be expanded on the individuals (citizens). Therefore, there will always be rich people and poor people, in comparison. But the middle class will be broader and more dominant; ...a healthy sign as far as society is concerned.



In a nutshell, the global bakery baskit is big and full enough to feed everybody on this Earth. The bread loaves lying therein are of diversified nature; .. natural resources and human resources, etc. We just have to learn that we have to be fair when distribution is concerned, instead of burning and wasting crops and products in order to influence the local and internationl market price; .. being influenced by economical laws that are in no way humanetarian.



In light of the above, I have to say: No, the world economy will not collapse if the third world modernizes. On the contrary, it will flourish.

Answer 38

No, but there will be a dramatic shift on income distribution. Developed nations will see their standard of living suffer a relative decline towards standard of living of the developing nations. There is no such thing as unlimited growth.The world's economy is like a cake in slices. The more people to eat the cake, the smaller share each person will get. That doesnt mean, 1st world nations will be poor or collapse. But its people will face growing job competitivity and the high standards of living alot people in America,Europe and Japan take for Granted today will be harder to be achieved. As a whole the planet will be richer, the GDP will be bigger, but that extra income will be re located mainly to parts of the planet that dont get its share today. We'll get used to it.

Answer 39

No. Absolutely not. Every nation on this Earth can become wealthy. Every person in our country should become wealthy as well. Our poorest people are among the most wealthy in the world. Do you know the reason why Oprah Whinfrey started giving to other countries and not to the U.S.? It's because she was sick of American inner city children telling her that they "needed" an IPOD or a new pair of basketball shoes.



Their are many people out there who will tell you that redistribution is the answer. The question that you asked was basically, "does redistribution of income work?" The answer to that is, "no, it doesn't". If we give a lot of our money away to try and solve this problem the people will never get it. The government in power will not redistribute it- they will keep it for themselves. Also, giving money to people is never the answer...look at people who win the lottery...the overwhelming majority of them end up broke. They essentially give that money right back to the people that are rich (through buying their products, more gambling).



The solution to reducing the poverty rate around the world as much as possible is begun by setting people free. Anyone who disagrees needs to look at the United States of America...where even the poorest among us still own a big screen high-def TV.

Answer 40

No...I believe that if the third world were able to modernize then they would be able to produce tangible goods from their own stockpile of resources and we would actually have a true "global economy". The markets would certainly change as products were produced at previously unattained levels, but they would not collapse. Call me egocentric, but we (in the developed nations) have mastered commerce and learned to adapt to changing structures over the last thousand years or so. AKA - we have taken our knocks. The newly formed industrial nations would still have to learn to deal with problems we solved years ago. Quite a learning curve.

Answer 41

No, in fact, it would be great if all those who go to first world countries to study, and then remain there, would go back to their third world country for at least for ten or twenty years and rebuild and improve it, that is the whole point of the student visas. If these countries would stabilize and refine their own natural resources into finiished goods, and there is no reason they can't go from ore to finished product. In fact, with growing regulation on enviroment and labor, businesses are going to third world countries in droves. BUT what we need is a level playing field, a world wide standard of human rights, labor and enviromental regulation. Kyoto is not it, it unfairly puts the burden on countries like the US, but allows the fastest growing polluters to be unregulated, and the undeveloped countries to sell "pollution credits" to those that pollute too much. That's just plain stupid. All the reduction the USA makes if they complied will only be offset by China's increase. It would be so much easier to develope "green" when you start from scratch, than the retro-fitting and rebuilding the USA has to do to go "green". Wind, water, tidal and solar power, no one alone will solve the energy situation, but if they put these green sources near the biggest demands on the electric grid there at least would be a reduction in coal and oil use/dependency. Right now we are getting set up for a energy crisis same as occurred when Carter came into the White House, all new projects and generation plants stopped by NIMBYs and enviromentalists despite Nixon's warning that we had to quit depending on foreign oil (1974!), demand continued to grow and guess what? Supposed "shortages", record high prices and long gas lines. No countries have to be impoverished, the first thing they have to do is get their priorities straight, stop whining and get moving, eductae your people, build sanitary housing, roads and railroad/mass transit, and power stations, don't stamp out small businesses or drive people out with taxes to punish teh successful, and don't give welfare people a better standard of living than the working poor, or they won't work (DUH).

Answer 42

Certainly not.



It is a misconception that there is a limited supply of wealth, or money, in the world.



Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations to illustrate that wealth is created by production and trade. The world economy will become stronger as third world nations modernize. The production and trade of third world nations will cause more goods and services to be available. This increase in available goods, and the reduced costs due to specializiation, will make the world economy richer for everyone.

Answer 43

Not at all, the world economy will expand in general and selective third world nations will experience dramatic rises in their average citizens standard of living. That is, if their kleptocratic governments and ruling class elite don't siphon off the lions share of the gains for personal benefit.



The developed nations will experience improvements in the standard of living as well, but less dramatic than that of the select third world.

Answer 44

Binary options let users trade in currency pairs and stocks for various predetermined time-periods, minimal of which is 30 seconds. Executing trades is straightforward. The system uses user-friendly interfaces, which even an 8 years old kid, can operate without having to read any instructions. But winning trades is Not easy.

Binary trading is advertised as the only genuine system that lets users earn preposterous amounts of money in ridiculously short period of time. Advertisers try to implicate as if you can make $350 every 60 seconds; if it was true then binary trading would truly be an astonishing business.

However, does it make any sense? Can every trader make tons of money in binary trading? Who is actually paying all the money or the profit to traders?

The first challenge is finding a trustworthy binary broker; secondly, you need to find a binary trading strategy, which you can use to make profits consistently. Without an effective trading strategy, there is no way you can make money in this business.

Learning a profitable trading strategy is possible, You should watch this presentation video https://tr.im/4f450

It's probably the best way to learn how to win with binary option

Answer 45

Let's face it no man is an island so to speak..The first world countries take advantage (positively or negatively) of third world countries, that is why globalization is expanding, here outsourcing takes place wherein there is cheap labor and cheaper raw materials. And do you think these first world countries will share their share of the cake? I don't think so they'll have it and eat it too. It may be possible for these third world countries to develop but only in a certain level but it will be a far cry to be at par with the first world countries. THEY NEED THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES...to exploit? you decide....

Answer 46

No, it shouldn't. As third world nations modernize, that will create more new buyers in the third world countries just like it has in China. However, the buying power of the lower and middle class in 1st world countries will decrease because they will be paying more for their everyday goods since the 3rd word countries would have modernized and could ask more for their labor.



The ones that stand to benefit most are the world's richest people. They will have more people buying off of them than ever.



Another reason why it will sharply hit the lower and middle class of 1st world nations worst is because resources will be stretched thinner since more people are buying. The further resources are stretched the more demand goes up. As demand goes up, prices go up. And those increases in prices will hit the lower and middle class of first world nations the hardest.

Answer 47

No. And as a matter of fact, it will be good for the economy of most countries. It will improve the economy of the USA and the EU, because the USA and the EU control most of the manufacturing machines and infrastructure needed to transport and store products. Also, if the third world wakes up and shakes their superstitious ways, they could use western technology to improve thier agriculture.

Answer 48

Actually quite the opposite should happen as more countries become developed as developed countries would access far larger economic value pool of developing economies.



For example when US trades with China, several US owned companies which produce and sell in china, tap into the huge domestic potential. The US company earns profits .. however the same company may be importing services from US and exporting some of its products back to US. In this import-export equation, we must analyse the component of buy-back by developed economies like US, Europe and Japan, which actually is huge and sometimes tilts the argument on trade deficit..sometimes it extends to arguments that the developed nations are taking away jobs or dumping low cost products.



Secondly, developed nations have strengths of intlectual capital which has been the engine of innovation and breakthroughs that go beyond simple price-cost equations. The developed nations should continue to invest into the higher intelectual property, technology etc so that they can continue to earn their leadership.

Competition from the developing nations is healthy as that would keep developed nations on their toes neccesary to stay fit and ahead. Examples of companies like infosys india, lennovo china, samsung korea, acer taiwan, singapore airlines , shanghrila hotels malaysia have shown us that they can compete on all fronts ; cost, brand, technolgy, innovations as these companies are giving the developed country competitor's run for their money. Therfore intelectual property , technolgy or brand is not property of only developed, though as of today they are leaders. Therfore, while competition can not be wished away, the developed must retain their leadership by competing better.



Thirdly, the economies have been always been inextricably liked to socio behaviour of a nation. For example, the developed nations during their growth to glory period have worked very hard and commited to nation's welfare. As these nations (example- western europe) leaned toward social security, socilasitic attitudes, its people attitudes have evolved towards more self centred approach wherein people want to work only 35 hours a week..may be less if that is acceptable. Countries laws do not permit sacking of inneficiecient labour.Taxations as high as 50% in europe demotivates honest individual employee. All that is adding up to reversal of Euroean empire that once prided itself of leadership in culture, technology,services,education...



Countries, political leaderships, ecomonies , its people are all inextricably tied up....it is like a closed loop learning process that perhaps has long feedback, learning and course correcting cycle.



If history is a good teacher, one can see that economies of India, China would in future become increasingly powerful and important due to the sheer desire, will and the firepower of it's people who want to lead the globe again.



Finally, it is not system that requires any rich or poor countries to behave in any particular pattern..mostly it is the leadership of the nation, the will of it's people.. Politics,transparency, corrupion, beurucracy, human rights issues are being better understood by develoing nations, over time this would be flattened v/s the west. It appears that the fire in the belly attitude closer family ties, spirtulism would give especially the Asians nations edge over the west on longer term.



It appears that Asia is the future, America present and Europe perhaps the past.. western world has perhaps not fully gauged the innovation, creativity, intlectual growth, firepower to win, combined with spirtulism of especially the east.



Ajay Puri

expatriate from India in Malaysia.

Answer 49

Listen Kid, go to wall mart (the largest company in the world), see the tv plasma price made on China or India. See other products special prices made in Mexico or El Salvador or Chile. Inconceivable without the work of international trade. Global model focused on the individual buyer ,not the nation state.

Dont worry,global trade is very good for everyone all around the world......

keep away politicians.

Answer 50

The only way I see a 3rd world country developing would be to get 6 feet of top soil across the whole country. Then the people would have food, markets, jobs, business would open and an economy would start. Any natural resources would only be an added asset. The whole world would benefit (tourism, franchises and on and on).

Answer 51

It is unfortunate that a large deal of our nations debt is to China and Korea.



The "balance" game that is played in the trade of goods globally puts us in a precarious situation. US manufacturing does not exist at the extent it did during the post WWII era. A large portion of the manufactured goods the US purchases moneys go directly into other economies and weakens the US dollar.



Developing economies deal with many complex socio-economic issues, Wages for example are low, but the cost of living is low. Here in the US the cost of living is much higher and wages are high. However, there may well come a time when jobs are hard to come by because of the large influx of illegal immigrants taking "jobs" US workers don't want (now) but may well want in the future. We have to recognize this factor in the scheme of things.

I've worked in meat packing when wages were substantial higher then they are now because of the large number of illegals in the industry, illegals have already impacted Construction trades forcing many construction workers to take less money to do the same amount of work they did 5 or 10 years prior.



Economic collapse? I don't know.. I do wander if we need to rethink our trading policies, and immigration policies, to reduce the amount of money we send to Mexico or China.

Answer 52

We should not concentrate only on exports and imports, the important thing is to give or emphasize on the 'know-how' rather than the 'fund' when helping under developed countries.



I don't think the economy collapse if the 3rd world modernizes. It will be the other way around.

Answer 53

Well, relativity is quite a spectacular thing. That which we, today, consider to be "undeveloped" would have, centuries ago, been considered very advanced. So, if by what you mean is, will the developing nations one day be as developed as the United States (for instance) is today? The answer is of course, that it depends on the developing nations. Different developing nations have different commodities in excess, and developed countries value these commodities differently. Consider the Middle East, with considerable fossil fuels (something developed countries consider VERY valuable), yet the power structures in place in many of the resource heavy areas prevent the average Middle Easterner from profiting from this valuable resource abundance. What happens, often, is that the rich get richer, and the poor stay around the same. However, such a hierarchical system allows the rich Middle Easterners to maintain a standard of living higher than the average american. In other words, the developing nations will likely never reach the exact state that developed nations today find themselves in. They will likely have some super-rich individuals, while the average standard of living slowly increases, but likely not as fast as the standard of living increases in developed nations.



The world economy will never collapse. The playing field will not be equal, at least not in the visible future.

Answer 54

third world countries development is always indirectly conrtolled by developed countries , so well being of third world always depend on develped countires good will.



for example many african countires are still under poverty level and through out the year looking for help from other friendly nations , such extended help is never paid back ,the reason is they have no sources to pay



secondly the developing nations are also under the watch of developed countries for alll their developments and technologies . even if the devloping countries develop on their own, this also again put under jeopardy by increasing the essential commodity price by cutting down the developemnt in terms of economy

so ther is no question of collapse of world economy as this word

world economy is always under watch by developed nations.

Answer 55

The whole world will benefit if the third world modernises. Modernisation will give those countries access to cleaner technology, a higher lever of education. They will then be able to contribute more to the global prosperity and deal with the dangers facing humanity like climate change. People travelling more will discover new cultures and learn from each other. The problems faced by the world now is the imbalance between the rich and the poor. With a higher development of technology, if accompanied by a greater moral developement, of the whole world, we could reverse climate change, have clean water all over the world, the energy could be provided by solar panels in desert areas, where security would be provided by the prosperity of its inhabitants.

Answer 56

The world economy is going to collapse. Like watching a dog chasing his own tail.

Answer 57

Definitely not. The beauty of the capitalist system is that more consumers make it stronger.



Think about when the US and the world came out of the depression; mroe consumers, more money, economy growth. Much like the theory behind the Bush Tax Cut.

Answer 58

historically, developing nations have always become developed nations, and the former developed nations have become developing "relative" to the newly developed nations

during the time of WW1, when Europe was very developed but the US was an emerging economy, capital flowed from Europe to the US. and now, with the EU and US as economic hubs, India, China and other developing countries have recieved capital from them. its a cycle... and its a stable one!

Answer 59

No the economy does not necessarily collapse. But the environmental impact would be devastating. We are talking about 4 billion or so. When they all have cars and electric appliances and lord knows what all you want to define as modernized, that puts more than twice as much strain on the resources and waste problems than we have now.



Sensible planned parenthood (population control) is the only hope for the future.

Answer 60

There is presently no comprehensive man-made system imposed on the world economy. Increasing ease of travel, shipping, and communication has resulted in a fluid dynamic. Therefore the world economy takes on the characteristics of a natural system and as such moves toward equilibrium without any questions of morality involved. Money flows to developing countries from higher cost producers to lower cost in turn. Countries such as China reap the lion's share of benefits today even as they pay the price in pollution, and a consortium of other countries such as Singapore pick up business and position to take over by improving their ease of handling foreign business and leveraging their lower cost of living as long as possible.



The high standard of living in developed countries will fall gradually or suffer periods of collaspse while the standard of living rises in China to the point where their wages are too high to support new business and they too will fall. The benefits of getting cheap manufactured goods from other countries while all domestic jobs go away is short-term and unsustainable, although strong competitve factors, partnerships, and ad hoc rules can gain a temporary respite. As in nature, the move toward equibrium will slow as powerhouses such as the U.S. decline and thus slow the growth of those who benefit from our trade imbalance.



There is no such thing as everyone being rich and living well. If you tip a pan of water to the north until the surface touches bottom on one side, the north will be water-rich while the south will be water-impoverished. If you let it sit flat without interference, all will be level at half the height of its former high point. Within each nation, the most aggressive and advantaged people will continue to impose local constraints, thus maintaining the rich-poor imbalance, (redividing the smaller pie in the US, Europe and Japan; and the larger pie of developing nations) regardless of what happens on a global scale.



It is possible that improved technology adds some "water" for everyone, but only if the advantage is not taken away by the greed of those who seek shortcuts to wealth and power.



New resources can also add "water," and China hopes to do that by importing from the Moon. As it becomes economically necessary and feasible, all countries will make the same attempt. I hope we all succeed.

Answer 61

From a strictly economic perspective, having the whole world with the same degree of modernization should not cause collapse. Although it would be an interesting situation. Each country would presumably have the capacity to support all of its needs, sans any raw material advantages and disadvantages. Trade policy would become critical. Trade policy and government regulations would become the major constraint on the markets.



In the real world, an equal and modernized world CANNOT be achieved. We are consuming non-renewable resources faster than a drunk with the keys to a liquor store. At some point in the not too distant future global scarcity will become the major constraint on technological modernization and standard of living.

Answer 62

No-it's not a zero sum game. What's good for the developing world is good for the developed world. The price mechanism will allow resource importing economies to cope with changing commodity prices. After all-oil prices are high, but life goes on.

Answer 63

I dont know what will happen to our country, but I am assuming that the united states will become impoverished do to the minimum wage increases which is driving many businesses out of our country. Watch for China to become the next USA (in regards to 1st world propsperity). There might be more problems for china though due to its large population. They are already having a hard time growing enough food to support its own population...the government it giving grants to people to leave the cities and start farming food. You will see that the cities become very wealthy while the populations that live away from the cities stay in poverty. When China starts to demand more worker securities and benefits, I think that even poorer countries in Africa will become the next China, since they will work for less. Esentially, the work is going to find its way to the poorest people.

Answer 64

Guess What...? Most likely, becouse, after all African, South Ameriacan and Assian countries go "American and Japans" economically, who will be "THE" economic benchmarck? What will be the point of arguments in the circles of political economy? l dont see it happening in the 21st generation. So, yes, the world economy might collapse.

Answer 65

I believe very little the economy of developed countries can be damaged, but even for that small percentage, Europeans Americans are torching war among other countries.



for instance, although India is a developing very fast and already it has reach very high technology, but for a small differences between India and Pakistan that other countries has caused, most of the income in these two countries are used for military purposes, while more than 50% of the population of both countries are living bellow poverty line.



The same for Africa.



But for the countries that Americans and Europeans have interest immediately they act, for example Afghanistan, so quickly they acted, also for Iraq what is happening now, no matter for Bush administration how many Iraqi is dieing every day.

Answer 66

No, but capitalism is still bad. Lol.



Even when there is not need there will always be want. And want fills the void that creates demand. Even when 'third world' countries are no longer that 'way' there will still be need for certain products and they will still need jobs regardless of the wage it will pay. As the system goes on the rich get richer and the poor get richer and the middle stays somewhere in the middle. The countries that American corporations take advantage of for cheap labor will still offer cheap labor. If anything else it will just even things out and cheap labor jobs will come back to the US. That is unlikely, though, because the rich will always be purchasing from the poor and the poor use that purchasing to become rich, eventually.

Your question is rather one sided, too. Keep in mind that the US and Canada ('rich' countries) were at one point, and still are in some areas, very resource rich. And many impoverished countries have no resources, or not ones that can be used for practical purposes, it was poor leadership (or no leadership) that lead them where they are.

Answer 67

The economy would be the least of our worries.Did you know that access to clean water is a luxury that most of the people in the world do not enjoy?Not running water,not hot water,not a sink,not a bath or shower, just having clean water to drink.The things that we take for granted in the developed world,have only come about in the last few generations at great expense to nature and to the indigenous people of the planet.Be grateful for all that you have,but do not expect it to last.

Answer 68

the developing countries that rely on capitalism have always exploited other nations for labor and raw materials so the system must change to accommodate these new emerging nations and the diminishment of lesser nations to exploit.

a better system that does not rely upon exploitation for profit must be invented.

communism has failed and capitalism will ultimately fail so some new economic system must be developed or else we can sink back into a former state and start over.

you are right that the present system requires some poorer nations so that there can be richer, but this is a mere happenstance developmental phase and not a fixed rule for all time.

Answer 69

What do the developed nations import and waht does they export that is a question.. Which means that do thjey import food articles and export electronic goods and petroleum and technical items..

If developing countries like India gets developed then the USA and European Countries will have to be self sufficient..

In case all countires become developed then all countires will have to be self sufficient

Looking for a job and marraige

http://www.maheshnbiomedical.com

Answer 70

Resource rich countries that cannot "add value" to their resources will always remain poor. A tree that is cut down is basically useless...until it is machined into lumber, paper or whatever other use it is designed for. The wealth comes from the conversion of the resource.

Answer 71

As long as the 3rd world does not emphasise education and continues a political path of tyrant after tyrant. This question will remain a hypothetical with very little chance of coming to any sense of fruition.

Answer 72

Question 1. The world economy may not callasp. However it is the current rich nations that may suffer as they may gain less and less money as the developing nations make more money. Example--look at the chinese economy as they were geting more it had an effect on the u.s economy (u.s was getting less). look at simple economics. As their is more competition they could be a possibility of less concumers per competitor --thus less money per competitor.





Q.2 Under this Capitalist system all nation's will never be developed--unless an 'infinite money system' is in place--money is scarce under ever economic system except the 'infinite money system'



q.3 those countries can become rich. and may offset the economy in current rich nations for the worst-- ' their adding competition'



the 'infinite money system' is the only way forward.

Answer 73

Every Nation is aware of 'supply and demand', therefore the United Nation have been aware of the survival of the sources that we may call... like fishing, ariculture, and other environmental issues. It is just the Nation concerns who are not particular of the problem as profit is the main course of their agenda.

Answer 74

If the 3rd world modernizes, We will be in the midst of what I like to call Global Communism. I know people are screaming at me now saying BULLS*#T!! But remember this, Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production, and what will happen...everybody will be equal. Communism isn't that much of a dirty word as one might think.



If the ruler of a communist country can properly figure out the formula, The society will be upgraded to a "Utopian" society. Anyway upon equal distribution of wealth we will go through a major inflation fluctuation.

The poor will remain "poor" but with things sooo expensive because now everyone can afford stuff, they will receive the rough end of the stick nonetheless.

So basically what im trying to say is Poverty will always be a part of life and it will NEVER change.

Answer 75

Name a few things we make?Everyday more and more factories leave to where they make things cheaper no unions no health care no pollution rules.And at the same time they are bringing people to do high paying jobs (H 1 -B visas)they took over the computer building jobs software etc.or truck drivers on and on .So what will that leave you. Try telling you boss your a consumer see what that gets you.So what will you be? a low paid nothing that's what.We cant all work for the government,and who will give them taxes? Nothing from Nothing is Nothing.But good luck at Micky D's They wont hire you if you can't speak Spanish,like a lot of places now .Welcome to the real world 101.

Answer 76

I think that eventually we will have more understanding of each other and unite under one single country (with state that have rights and is hopefully a democracy) with one giant economy.



We will probably be under one language but keep the old languages for tradition.

Answer 77

Lets put it this way



war impoverishes people



look at iraq impoverished

look at united states broke



the current birth tax in usa is over 1/4 million in debt per person at birth today thanks to war (individual share of deficit)



birth tax.



Iraq is simply impoverished and devestated, the cost in repairs alone exceed a lifetimes earnings per person living there.



many countries could have been modernized with the trillions spent, many people who starved to death in the duration could have been fed, these people would have been able to help their own people and countries out of poverty.



With newborns in the usa having a birth tax multiple hundreds of of times the fee the politicians had when they were born people simply do not realize the implications of this and it's not pointed out to them that the USA is most rapidly becoming the economical disaster it is.



The USA is spiralling into bankrupsy and its rate exceeds many other countries called third world. Poverty in USA is escalating as money get burned in the form of oil products to run the war machine.



You can expect the USA and Harper to declare war on Canada in the future as they eyeball the tar sands project in Canada to fuel their war machine.



Bush tries to show his generosity by sinking 1 billion into hydrogen technology and development, had he spent the money or half of it that was spent in Iraq, we would have hydrogen cars by now less pollution less pollution clean up and healthier more ablebodied people.



A trillion in hydrogen development would have helped develop hydrogen for the economic development of the USA and third world countries. It would invest the economy in life and profit would result in time making it a wise and profitable investment.



To war with and for oil burns money, wastes life, destroys the economy and the planet and leads to bankrupsy which is why the USA is well on its way to becomming a third world country itself.



If third world countries modernize the same way the USA does then yes the world economy will collapse because they will stay bankrupt also.



Economically speaking i wouldn't want to be born in the USA today.



Ob1

Answer 78

If Third world war happens I think rich countries will remain impoverished and countries that are living in poverty will become more poorer because poor economy will bring poverty because smaller countries will fall.

Answer 79

I think it will evolve, not collapse. Each country will be more independent in some ways, and more responsible for developing its own natural resources. But countries will also specialize. Think about what it was like before "trade deficits". You had your French fashion, your Swiss clocks, your Indian spices and your silk from China. More developed nations means more demand for individualized and luxury goods -- and people won't be satisfied with "boring" local stuff when they can get stuff with the flavor of the exotic. That's just human nature.



OTOH, I think you'll see more interest in self-sufficiency, hand-made goods and primitive things and developing local products -- in fact, we are seeing more of a boom in that today. The "local product" thing is quite the catchword with Japanese local governments.

Answer 80

It seems to me that if the third world modernizes it would just mean they would enter into the world economic stage which in turn would mean more money circulating, and as such the world economy would be enriched by it.

Answer 81

no .why would it ? the rescource rich are corrupt from the top all the way down ,name one third world govt that is not like mexico or haiti or brazil in the rampant social corruption of chaos they foster.they love to blame all there problems on imperialism when the truth is the blame lies with these so called govts that cheat the people there supposed to be working for.so is it possible for them to devolop yes but only if they stop the rampant govt decay of corruption in there own lands.

Answer 82

There'd probably be a big price jump on simple textile goods and stuff but as the profits reaped by the few remaining manufacturers increases, it will allow manufacturers to produce those goods and pay Western wages for the labor.

Answer 83

I think yes, since in order for there to be winners, there has to be losers.

In order for there to be rich countries in the world (Canada, USA, etc.), there must be poor ones.

So if we're all rich, some will be richer, and others will fall poorer. If 3rd world countries gain wealth, where do they get it from? Us.

Answer 84

Prejudice is esencial to logic and betrayal, it does ensure reason is being helped into economical matter and substance of any kinds necesary to production are in order and in time to run operations and distress into world orders (former competition). Agendas and last-century lobbies used criteria to impose and condemn, now it is smart to press and allot instead. So being careful about scandal is abhortive and catastrophic to liabilities most.

Development on the other hand is a slow and profuse emoticon in markets, rather pityful to become understood in third world countries, and very expensive nowadays with more airlines around. The third world is not to modernize or run errands into merchandising, it does progress steadily and profoundly yet not to modern pace or enjoyable charisma, except for Peru.

Modernization is a current trauma and postlabor enthusiasm for entrepreneurs and some wiz crackers who will one day claim they preserved the american institution behind banks. This absolute call on reserves and exploits is ridiculous and reciprocous at most, and some bankers are to see truth in running achievement not progress in third world countries.

Achievements are close to ethics, and that profouses in these countries, with success or grants to farming and ecological ventures, with perhaps more aproach to reality than in first world countries, expectancy is about culture not folklore. This becoming accepted in other places is a shock to investors and will cause the collapse definitely in Asia due to control and trust to logic, instead of math or basic algorithms.

In Europe and North America collapse is due to mass imports of veggies and accepted goods from south, and winds are not to change, because there are some treaties to become respected all over, so the world is to turn from english speaking markets and origins (except cars) to willing exports from low inhabited countries with minor risk, probability and affordability, this being a nuisance because it is not detected in industries.

Fact is many details of production are not into government agencies unlike developed countries who will rely on the system instead of inteligence, becoming acostumed to capitalism is a big mistake if prejudice is observed as fatality and demeanor towards credit advisors for a change and release from finance breakdown and mortgages unpaid, very much happening right now in Europe and Rusia, no mistakes here.

Prejudice is determined to become the major economic system in near two months, very much because it is dependable and manageable beyond doubt and treason from leaderships.

Bye.

Answer 85

Actually, it should strengthen the world economies, as these developing third world nations come up. As they come up in economic standing, they tend to buy more products from other countries, strengthening their individual economies. Its a win win for most countries dealing with them, supplying them and so on, as they become better at paying their bills and become more stable socially, economically, and usually politically too. This in turn, helps other countries who border them or who have had to send in people to police them, send money or food. Its sort of like that brother you had who just never did too good, didn't finish school and flunked college. But one day, he manages to clean his act up, stop begging beer money off you, gets a nice job and slowly starts to pay his own way, getting a nice car, a nicer place to live, dressing himself instead of feeding off Mom and Dad. Eventually, doesn't it help you that he isn't borrowing from you? You're not having to cough up bail money for him? Not spe4nding your kids education money on his light bills? Sure it does! It doesn't ruin your budget, it helps your budget. And if he really is nice, he tries to pay you back, but even if he doesn't, you're still ahead just in getting sleep, not haqving to worrry about him stealing your tv out of the basement kind of stuff and so on. So yes, its good when our thrid world economy neighbors improve thei lot, if we have good relations with them, we can now have better ones, they can buy stuff they once couldn't afford, their people doen't try and run across the border to feed off our governments free handouts (now more for us) and we don't have to spend so much helping them keep themselves fed and housed, better, too, for us and so on. SEE? Hope this helps you understand, why its so important for us to encourage develpong countries to become stablized in the world economies. Each one that does that, is one less to drain all our natural resources and one who can help make the whole worlds economies less dependent on just one or two countries being theri friend. After all, if they are trading with us and others, we all benifit in more work for us, more money is our coffers, more taxes collected and so on. BTW, great question!

Answer 86

To some degree, yes. It is sad, but true. but, unfortunately, the third world will never become modernized at the same speed as a first world or third world. It is natural human nature to persecute others for their own personal profit. but people like you, who can think for themselves and are not afraid to ask the tough questions, are those who can break the cycle of oppression. I wish you good luck and godspeed, and never forget that one person can change the world. It just might be you.

Answer 87

I don't know about the world economy but I think as the 3rd world increases, some of the leading nations will decrease and are decreasing.

Answer 88

Great question, thumbs up.

I don't believe so. Money will be borrowed and spent to keep things moving along. Money makes money. If we really seek peace around the world then all nations should benefit in every way. I am no authority but it is my belief, sophomoric or not.

I shall enjoy all the answers you got tho.

Answer 89

World economy will not collapse, it will simply change. The individual economies of the G9 would collapse, as they depend on the interest rates from the loans they have lent to the poor third world, which is then forced to grow cash crops, rather than food to feed itself, to manufacture components, rather than items for retail - to pay back the loans.



The state of human greed, our ability to make war and covert our neighbours land, will never allow the world to develop into some kind of Utopian society, so there will always be inequality - thus global consumerism will survive.

Answer 90

it wouldnt collapse,, it would just be more evenly ditributed and there wouldnt be many luxuries, more or less like comunism or denmark lol. But hopefully people in the third world would get more education and this could lead them to gain conciousness of their choices in life, like how many kids to have, and the goverments in the 3d world could become less patronizing and give reponsabilities to the citizens such as their own health and economic issues

Answer 91

If the world does not take care of the impoverished systems in the third world you may have a meltdown, you need to see that

the third world starts to rebuild and house everyone, and then

you will see changes worldwide, every country needs to move

away from the parable of the poor staying there, we need to

take decisive action now to bring housing and education up

to the same standards as those of the developed nations of

the world.......................................................................................



No one wants the third world to remain in the background while

people starve, and die of diseases that could have been controlled by the right action being taken.....................................



While the western and developed world are whiling their time

away countries, with real capital in people are backsliding to the

brink of abject poverty and hopelessness.....................................

homelessness and poverty as well as helplessness need to be

addressed very strongly world wide, systems of government

which do not support the social sidetrack and provide for their

citizens need to be looked at and something done about them.....



Money must not be handed out to the third world unless assurances are provided by a system of checks and balances

that ensure that the people who are to receive the money gets

it.......................................................................................................



We need to look at the process of production, as well as job

creation, but if homelessness is addressed, and some form

of social upliftment is given to the third world on time, all these

things can be dealt with...................................................................



If you have a home you can start a business, if you have a car

and the internet you can also start something up for yourself

and eventually employ and enable someone else..........................



School skills based training as well as life skills training needs

to be addressed, as well as all forms of discrimination, colour

and religion needs to be taken out of most civil society think

tanks, or the third world will have a problem...................................



Food needs have to be met, or crime becomes an epidemic,

look at changing the structure of how you give, who you give

to and enable those at the lower end of the scale as well,

then maybe you will find some form of progress can be made,

most of all try to be colour blind, as this will sort this out...........

Answer 92

Most of you people are all wrong. The USA will always be a an economic super power because we understand that spending and consuming is the key to success. The spending and consuming countries will always be on top and the developing countries will always be second. Your first question about the world economy collapsing just because some third world country's becomes successful is a political statement not a question. When did resource rich countries become impoverished? If the world happens to survive long enough I suppose all countries will be "developed". Why would the world economy collapse if everyone is successful? What "system" are you talking about? The capitalistic system where the rich countries victimize the third world countries? sounds like a political statement not a question.

Answer 93

you see, this can be imagined, but it cant be achieved. You can

THINK about things (HG Wells envisioned many things) but

actually they wont happen, because (this is a shock) the world is all of a piece, and each occurrence is part of the whole.

And we are NOT ABLE to see the whole. We will never be God.

No use trying. No medals for trying at all. In fact......

Answer 94

i think that this might be the case. first world countries depend on third world countries to make goods ata lower cost. the third world countries need the first world countries to buy what they have. so each depends on the other. if the third world countries modernize and start to be self dependant, i think that the world economy will not nesciarally colpase, but will have a lot of problmes

Answer 95

There will always be countries with better economies than others. The trick is offering an environment that is more conducive to those who are talented and enables them to be free to pursue there talents.

Answer 96

yeah it's because that all the developed nations in the world don't want to make all the stuff in their countries because by the result of it, it will cost them a lot more money than doing the all dirty work in an underdeveloped nation. this is why most developed nations import more things than export. and let me tell you one thing that right now the major stuff that developed nations are exporting to other countries is weapons. because most of the other countries in the world that right now face any kind of problem like rebellion, terrorism, or lots of crime. it's the big nations that provide them the weaponry to fight it instead of solving it. and most of the turmoil the whole world is in right now, it's all because of the developed nations who want their international weapons market to keep running. and if with all the exporting the underdeveloped nations are doing right now, you're right that the chances prove to be that someday all the money may get there. and I won't be so sure on that one that all resource rich nations be impoverished because if that happens, they will become rebellious and instead do harm to others. for example, Iraq right now is in a great turmoil, everyday you hear braking news about another suicide bombing in some iraqi city. and the part of the turmoil is that the main thing, the main plot for which the whole USA-Iraq War was started, OIL is nowhere to be get easily because even if the troops of america are in there, oil is not proving to be get-your-hands-on-it-easily because every time you try to get it, it gets burned. some people put the whole of an oil well on fire and the fire gets down under the earth and burns more oil. so in the end, it becomes more hard to get it and that's the main reason that still after 4 years of this war and controlling the second most oil rich state in the world, we still have sky high gas prices. so even if the future govts. try to keep all the resource rich countries impoverished so they don't get developed and become expensive, eventually there's 2 things that may happen, either they'll get rebellious don't let you get your hands on their resources the easy way or find some other way to manage.

Answer 97

First of all you must understand how a capitalistic society works,

and then compare other nation's economies to it.



The western hemisphere has seen the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall, a landmark milestone in the annals of history.

Communism in the USSR's interpretation did not work, where all

public functions were state controlled (you had to stand in long lines to wait to buy toilet paper, new shoes, auto gasoline and other daily use commodities.)Want a new telephone, go on a

long waiting list, you may get one two to three years from now.

Same thing for a new Russian built automobile, most of which

never ran error free, too many design and production issues.

The only item that the Russians ever made well was the AK-47

assault rifle which is still in use, today, anywhere there is armed conflict, there will be AK-47s present.



Now, capitalism VS communism, lets look at each category, according to their merits:

Capitalism: allows each US citizen the responsibility and opportunity to seek their own fortune, as large or as small as they

wish it, depending on their own motivations (skills and abilities)

they are free of state controlled social and political laws which

may hold them back, and there is no reward for hard work and

honest effort put forth by the potential achiever.

Most success if measured in its most purest sense, holds that

those persons male or female who have an unshakeable

adherence to a valid code of ethics, usually wind up in the

board room along with the CEO and his lieutenants.

There are exceptions, of course, but most of the time this assertion will bear true witness to the premise of hard work, and

effectively applied yields a multitude of rewards, some big, and

some not so big, depends on the amount of skills and abilities

generated by the individual.

(footnote) Most CEOs, do not come from the Ivy League colleges.

many come from state colleges, and other private universities and colleges, so having a Harvard or Yale education doesn't always guarantee automatic promotion in any corporation's

business management to be a CEO.



Communism: State controlled living is present everywhere.

Under the communist doctrine, no one citizen can have any more than his neighbor, for food, clothing, shelter, et al.

This practice comes from Frederick Engels and Karl Marx

"Communist Manifesto" which the two collaborated on this book

in the 1930s, which their assertions were, no one has more or less then his neighbor, all work is to be shared, no private bank accounts, all assets public or private are to be shared, not saved

by the individual, everything had equal value, there was no

lower class, middle lower class, middle upper class, upper

lower class, upper middle class, and upper upper class.

All social classes were suspended, so no one was rich, you

could not own a yacht in the marina, no palatial estate in

Tuscany, no villa in Capri, no Tudor in Beverly Hills, everything

must be equal.

See, communism robs the individual of his/her personal

freedoms, to do what you want to do, and with what you want to do it with.

You have no choices with elected representatives in your

government, either, you must accept whoever the state chooses

to represent you as there are no free elections.



Now, to focus more on your question, world economy

collapsing, if the third word(developing nations)modernize?

I don't think so, we, in the westen world have assisted developing

countries over the past 76 years, have made policy in helping

other nations get on their feet, economically.

JFK instituted the peace corps, to help these nations get started

with grass roots programs to aid in the cause of betterment to their people, improve sanitation, teach successful agriculture,

how to plant fruits and vegetables, grow and reap harvests,

install irrigation systems, make fresh water out of salt water,

(de-salinization plants) practice better personal hygeine,

encourage their young men to become plumbers, and carpenters, brickmasons, sheet rock installers, tapers, etc.

Show them better medical skills, increase patient education,

set up a program for doctor's training, nurse's training,

HIV/AIDs education.

Teach them civil engineering, how to build dams and roads, and

power plants and explore for oil, if they have it.



In general , give them a complete master plan to build a better,

brighter tomorrow, hit them with as much education as you can,

make sure there are plenty of teachers to teach the arts, the sciences and the humanities, and of course specialized training

institutes for the building trades.



Somewhere in the world, there will always be a need for what I

have outlined, and even more.

The United States of America is the most developed country on earth, and that is why all foreign nationals have a compelling reason to live here rather then the country that they hail from.

We have all technologies, educational institutions, the greatest

military, the most labor-saving devices, the best communications

systems, he best transportation systems, (overall) the best

agricultural products, (fruits and vegetables/flora and fauna)

the biggest entertainment media, and main stream media as well.

The list goes on. . .



The one issue or concern that I see is that the country of China

has been busy buying up US debt, and that they have quietly

upped their manufacturing capabilities over 1,000 fold, and now they make everything from diaper pins to 18P nails, power tools

to even NASA standard components for the space shuttle,

everything you encounter in daily living, its "made in China"

unquestionably.

I think the American manufacturing managers should be weary of some type of take over, or what they call a bloodless coup, and we won't know what hit us, until its too late.



I hope I have answered your question.



Thats my message, good luck







Donald H. Sites

[e-mail]

Answer 98

It would be too hard for all the countries to get developed because things change so often that once they are at what we are now then we will be further developed!

Answer 99

I'm making good profit with a binary option signal software called "autobinary signal". It's great!! Check here for more information ( http://forexsignal.kyma.info )

Answer 100

Economies come and go....Some day India will be rich and USA poor....Same with China....



Then it'll start to switch back again....

But not in your lifetime.....

Answer 101

I don't know the answer to your question but that was

Brillant Question. Near genius the best I've seen thus far.

Answer 102

Why not just call them slave countries instead. Since basically thats how we treat them. But yea obviously it would effect the economy, don't know about a collapse since, there are always places you can find for cheap labor.

Answer 103

And I'll answer your question with another question...will the world work together to achieve things and will there ever be peace? Without it means all of mankind will eventually collapse.

Answer 104

World Socalism

Answer 105

the world economy you refer to must be the one enjoyed by the super powers, for who else has to concern them selves with such a term as a collapse? so yes. if the wealth were to spread out evenly, or at least allow the equal potential, world economy as we know it would suffer.

Answer 106

I doubt it. The world is an inventive place. There will be other ways to make the big bucks.

Answer 107

if one poor country takes the income from another that can happen. China keeps their dollar in line with the floating US dollar, that keeps their low cost stagnant to fluctuations within the US economy. The broad wealth of the US allows for loss manufacturing jobs to be switched over to the service sector because product costs have been reduced compensate with out sourcing. This pyramid scheme collapses when China needs more jobs to feed their growing population above what the US buys. Pop their goes the US currency down the toilet.



Guess we need a world currency - Countries need to grow their economy with new technologies not low balling their customer base.

Answer 108

The 3rd wolrd cannot immediately modernize on a dime. It would happen gradually, so the global economic structure woul dadpat to its changes. The world changes constantly.

Answer 109

i think that the so called 1st world world economy will collapse but it will remould the world economy as a whole

Answer 110

I'm not sure about that, but our planet would certainly collapse. Just look at the damage that the USA's ecological footprint has caused alone.

Answer 111

No that is just something everyone is saying. The economy will most likely fall in the Koreas as not in any of the big economys like US or Europe.

Answer 112

Well look at Vietnam, it's finally becoming a capitalistic country.

Answer 113

I don't know, but I think that the economy actually would be better if we had all nations working together peacefully and caring about one-another more.

Answer 114

Yes, It is going to collapse anyhow.

Answer 115

it wont collapse, but will change. Jobs will be created in one part of the world and lost in other parts.

Answer 116

No, development is good on the whole, provided that exigencies don't outweigh the benefits, e.g. growth at the expense of environment.

Answer 117

I just don't think it would collapse.



the system will worked in invisible hand. It wouldn't collapse but better, thought we don't know for it may collapse because of thing or two, but recovered

Answer 118

not really look how fast china is growing and the world economy

has not collapsed...



what would make it collapse would be a MAJOR FAILURE somewhere

that starts a domino effect...

Answer 119

Living standards in the west are collapsing as they inflate their economies to try to deal with lost manufacturing production and jobs, and are losing purchasing power over raw materials and resources.



Worryingly, every period of industrialisation and modernisation does seem to end in militarism and wars, as conflict over the worlds resources with the rising industrial power becomes inevitable.



We can already see hidden wars in Africa, as China is dominating the continent - backing up the most corrupt regimes in history to access resources, flexing its military muscles in a utterly amoral way.



Rich countries are rich because they are the most productive per person. Labour in these countries have been able to bargain a great share of production in wages because they have slowly growing populations - and a circular flow of income bids up thier wages and thus purchasing demand, which increases production etc.... in a circle driving up living standards.



As free trade flows have opened, this has stopped. A lot of labour with little share of production and low wages now directly competes with labour in these rich countries. However this depresses wages and bargaining power in the rich countries. The circular flow of income stops, and production moves to workers abroad.



The rich countries inflate their economies, which grows their domestic service sectors to absorb jobs lost in thier tradable sectors, but this results in growing trade deficits.



The trade deficits are a function of this labour and wage difference in world market trade and production, as demand for production from these workers outstrips the goods prices of domestic labour.



Wages drop for many domestic workers as they lose bargaining power over production to workers from abroad.



Unfortunately, the immense population growth of the third world as projected by the UN will always ensure very low wages for these wages - there is no end to population growth, and thus little bargaining power over wages.



Population growth is the main factor that makes it unlikely that the third world - as a whole - will modernise.



Any economy needs to grow at a rate to absorb its population growth.

If it cannot grow fast enough, create enough jobs and incomes to secure resources without inflation, there will be a surplus of people which creates downward pressure on wages and living standards.



If it has too many people, there is a trend towards poverty and corruption.



Many corrupt countries have a high level of population growth meaning intense demand for positions which bring income.



Worlds top 3 most corrupt countries:

Population

Camaroon - 1980: 8m ---> 1997:14m ---> 2007:17m (x2)

Nigeria ------------------------- 1991:75m ---> 2007:140m (x2)

Indoniesia ---1980: 150m -------------------> 2007: 250m (x1.8)

also mentioned -

Mexico -------1929: 10m ---------------------> 2007:105m (x10)



http://www.infoplease.com/spot/corruption1.html



Corruption goes hand in hand with immense population growth.



The extra population cannot be absorbed by the economy, and drives down wages and drives up competition on nearby resources like housing, fuel, water, food.



The low wages and the immense competition for resources encourage corruption and conflict.



With a fixed population pool globalisation in trade flows with capital moving to the lower cost production base, may, over 50 years, work to bid up general living standards as wages level out.



As the growth of the worlds population continues at a very high rate its impossible for this to happen.

Answer 120

maybe not economy, but there might be a new world power (hope not though)

Answer 121

Of course they require and they countribute for us to stay and live in poverty, that's what this country and goverment is doing right now.

Answer 122

No - in fact it would create more world wealth and more global trade.

Answer 123

I don't think it would collapse, but I do think that there would be more competition and some businesses might collapse.

Answer 124

no...the world would change...but if polititians get their head out of their butts and do things right....it would change for the good...we need those resources and the 3rd world need ours

Answer 125

yes it would because countries like the u.S, britain etc need impoverished countries to sap

Answer 126

"developing nations" you mean I think



when we all have some money, we all have more I think

Answer 127

by that time we would be able to build within space and everywhere would have there goods going out into space colonies

Answer 128

FOr modernaise the thirld We have follow to islamic economy

Answer 129

maybe yes maybe not but I believe that it will take a lot of years and the economy wont collapse

Answer 130

I don't know, but i know that the ones who control the world won't let that happen.

Answer 131

We shall soon discover the answer to this question, it's either yes or no, guaranteed.

Answer 132

Not sure what "modernizes" means, and I'm also not sure this third world/developed world duality is relevant. Would it not make more sense, economically, to think in terms of "natural resource-richness?" All countries were not granted equal natural resources, so an equality of development, I think, is not really possible.



The world economy might "stabilize" -- not collapse -- if countries developed mutually beneficial, symbiotic, relationships with other countries, through trade.



But capitalism is not about stability. So yes, I think there will be some problems -- we're already seeing it with China.

Answer 133

ya sure it will be.b'couse in this world every-body wants to go in heaven but no-one wants to die,if some-one going to die they must want to die rich

Answer 134

Hey then they can throw their batteries into the earth and we can destroy the earths core even faster oneday it-the earth will emplode somewhere and people will feel the pain of the globalization bull ****!

Answer 135

lol, you is gonna have a VERY hard time chooing a best answer...thnx for the 2 points!!!lol...but it depends...probably a no

Answer 136

that's the cursed against the first world

Answer 137

yes

Answer 138

And where is the third world ...........in the Moon?

I thought it was in this world!!!

Answer 139

WE ARE IN A WORLD OF S--T!! DOOMED BECAUSE THE CAPITALIST HAVE HAD THEIR WAY TOO LONG! MUST P-SSES ME OFF. DIDN'T THEY KNOW? ISN'T IT OBVIOUS?

Answer 140

Capitalism is about oppression. That is all you need to know and that answers everything.

Answer 141

I don't think so. If all of our money is staying in our country instead of going to third world countries, maybe our taxes or health care costs would go down.



I would like to think there would be little or no poverty in our own nation! ;)

Answer 142

no - the economy will just shift...and when some countries are in the industry lead, others will seem undeveloped in comparison...but there's always gonna be a balance...just diff countries controlling the balance



=D

Answer 143

No. Third world is culturly backward.

Answer 144

yes because it would be all computerized and no one would have a job

Answer 145

where people care about that

i thing no body to care ...!!!

money = evil

Answer 146

I think it will collapse a lot faster if the first world nations fail.

Answer 147

I dont know but that is a very good question.

Answer 148

if you dont like the world you live in

Answer 149

.It is written and has been foretold in bible proffessy.

Answer 150

The global warming caused by all the developing country's emissions will ruin a lot of things.



The population doubling ever so ofter will cause damage to the environment and the pressure of so many people will be enormous.

wars.

famine

disease

lack of usable land



Business interests don't care about all that, just the bottom line.

Then it will be to late.



The amount of mercury pumped into the oceans is horrible.



The white Chinese river dolphin was declared extinct a couple of weeks ago,



were killing ourselves off with cancers and disease caused by pollution.



It all has to do with money

it doesnt matter what race a person is.

or what country their from.



They have a plan that we dont know about though.





One world order.



Peace.



Pray for Peace.Y'all.

Answer 151

probably not

Answer 152

Why is there a black avatar?

Answer 153

NOT AT ALL

Answer 154

i hope so

Answer 155

You have no idea how macroeconomics works.

Answer 156

The global marketplace is currently most closely defined by the terms 'capitalism' or 'imperialism.' Under both of these systems, it is mandatory that there be classes - an elite, purchasing class; a middle working and purchasing class; and a lower, poor, working and not purchasing class. Assuming that each nation on earth can be defined as one of these classes, you're correct. If somehow (impossible), the developing world modernised (meaning became wealthier, of course, because it's impossible to modernise without vast financial resources), then yes - the world economy would collapse. Without the little guy to step all over, we fat cats suddenly find ourselves falling through the air with nobody to pass the buck onto.

Answer 157

NO

YES

NO

Answer 158

NO