Is China very poor?

[Hamartia Antidote]

since "quora" is suddenly a reliable fact site...

https://www.quora.com/Is-China-very-poor?share=1

Some parts of China are very poor, according to senior government development official Zheng Wenkai over 82 million Chinese still live on less than about US$1.25 a day. In some regions, houses are made of clay, children study in dark classrooms and villagers have no clean water. Many young people from remote areas chose to work in bigger cities, left their children alone with their grandparents.

In contrast, some parts of China are rich with an estimated 2.4 million millionaires households. People live in houses worth of millions of dollars, drive expensive cars and travel constantly…

 

[nang2]

Those poor regions are mostly in some very harsh environments. Hard to build any infrastructure.

 

[dbc]

No China is rich!

@Hamartia Antidote you can't cross post from another forum its against the rules.

 

[tower9]

China has some of the richest and most advanced places on earth and some places that are straight up third world.

If I had to break it down, I'd say China is 20% First world, 70% Second world, 10% Third world.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

No China is rich!

@Hamartia Antidote you can't cross post from another forum its against the rules.

Oops..Well then I'd ask the mods to move this and others to their proper locations.

 

[nang2]

China has some of the richest and most advanced places on earth and some places that are straight up third world.

If I had to break it down, I'd say China is 20% First world, 70% Second world, 10% Third world.

China is big enough to be like the world itself.

 

[tower9]

China is big enough to be like the world itself.

China is big. But it still needs the world.

 

[firas607]

Oh they are rich. They pretend to be developing country to keep taking advantage of the world

 

[tower9]

Oh they are rich. They pretend to be developing country to keep taking advantage of the world

Partly true. But China IS a developing country. It's just extremely different from other developing countries because of its size, culture and organization.

The problem is that China is huge. So while it is TECHNICALLY a developing country, the regions that could be considered on par with a developed country, already has a population equivalent to that of the United States. If you look at the aggregate however, I would say China is generally middling 2nd world tier.

 

[dbc]

First World = NATO
Second World = Warsaw PACT
Third World = Non Aligned Nations

This is the now defunct definition of the original world order. First world does not mean rich and third world poor.

 

[antonius123]

Partly true. But China IS a developing country. It's just extremely different from other developing countries because of its size, culture and organization.

The problem is that China is huge. So while it is TECHNICALLY a developing country, the regions that could be considered on par with a developed country, already has a population equivalent to that of the United States. If you look at the aggregate however, I would say China is generally middling 2nd world tier.

Not only that. China is very advanced in technology and is very competitive.

Thats the reason why China is so competing with US, Europe and Japan.

 

[Secularindian]

This is the now defunct definition of the original world order. First world does not mean rich and third world poor.[/QUOTE]
Countries Like Singapore And Malaysia were NAM countries

 

[Khan_21]

Oh they are rich. They pretend to be developing country to keep taking advantage of the world

Its still a middle income country with Human development index lower than Srilanka.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

quora is dominated by indian hindus, not many quality answers there

 

[tower9]

Not only that. China is very advanced in technology and has is very competitive.

Thats the reason why China is so competing with US, Europe and Japan.

So I agree that China shouldn't be given the perks of a developing country under international trade regimes. Maybe 20 years ago, it was arguable. Not now.