Prior categorizations of world development were not flexible to changing technology or changing geopolitics. The Second world of the first, second and third world referred to the countries under Soviet control. The third world referred to the undeveloped world. There are non-controversial measurements of progress around access to basic needs.
I will categorize as follows:
1. Struggling for the basics
2. Engaged and useful for world economy
3. Create Corporate giants and competitive with innovation
4. Leading and creating major change for the future.
Access to clean water, food, clean toilets, electricity, literacy and basic education, basic medicine are absolutely essential for a healthy population. This is greatly captured by tracking the World Bank sustainable goals.
However, in ten to twenty years the population without basic needs could shrink to 100 million people or less. Currently, it is down to about six hundred million to one billion people. This is now about ten to twelve percent of world population. This is down from 50-70% of world population in the 1950s. Increasing the standard to those who are poor and not extremely poor increases the number of people still needing higher per capita income to 2 billion or 25% of the world population.
Those are basic needs that are needed for a development foundation and to overcome extreme poverty. This is what is needed for a population to not waste their days struggling to survive. The poor people without the basics have to spend days getting food, water, wood and other basics.
Country Engaged in the Basic Global Economy
The next level correlates to industrialization and a country capable of engagement in the global industrial economy. In 2010, Li Keqiang, now premier of China’s State Council, told the US Ambassador to China that China had bad GDP statistics. Li, used three data points to evaluate Liaoning’s economy: electricity consumption, rail cargo volume and bank lending.
Having industrial infrastructure and transportation means that people are not restricted in getting goods for their business. It is not the individuals or family but the business they can create that has basics.
This is the level where the country is useful to the powers in the global economy.
The requirements for this level have increased with the need for a high bandwidth communication system, high levels of smartphone usage and a workforce that can use and create software.
Almost all of Asia, South America and parts of Africa are fairly completely engaged in the global economy.
This level is having a significant market, capable workforce and an interesting consumer economy.
Able to Create Global Tech Giants and Lead Major Innovations
In the 1980s, Japan was considered a true global competitor because they created corporate giants.
Those companies are now tiny compared to the US giants. Toyota ($220B), Sony ($120B) and NTT ($90B) vs $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion for Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.
China has two big tech companies (Alibaba, Tencent) which are each around $700B in market cap.
Saudi Arabia has Saudi Aramco at about $1.7 trillion in market cap.
Taiwan has Taiwan Semiconductor. This is a $550 billion company that has the world lead in semiconductor lithography.
Korea has Samsung with a market cap of $540 billion.
Europe has three $300B+ market value companies. They are Nestle, Roche and LVMH (LV bags).
The seven most valuable U.S. technology companies — Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook, Tesla and Nvidia added $3.4 trillion in market cap in 2020.
India has Reliance and Tata which are around $150B-200B in valuation.
Europe’s largest firms, including Skype ($2-3B), Spotify ($60b), Lovefilm and Klarna ($11B fintech) are fuelling the next-generation of startups, scale-ups and unicorns.
Players Dominating the Near and Mid Future
It is not just the value, growth and current market cap of these global companies. The countries and companies need to be creating the innovation that will make the 2020s and 2030s.
The biotech giants in gene editing (Crispr, Editas, Intellia) and companies on the path to cancer vaccines and antiaging.
Opening up space is dominated by SpaceX. China and Europe are a generation or two behind in Space technology.
SOURCES- Wikipedia, Value Today
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
As long as it was put up by you, no worries then. Since the initial author indicated as admin and not you, it struck me as weird. The autosubscribe youtube link is not your usual style with sponsored articles, so that struck me as potentially a marker for a hack.
Yes, these things are quite subjective.
If not for television and the internet, the uninformed masses would judge the quality of their lives and personal happiness more favorably than they do currently.
There is something to the old adage, "ignorance is bliss".
Quality of life? And how is that determine exactly? Oh that's right, it's mostly self reported.
I've read and watched a lot from Peter Zeihan, and would say he's got a big chance of being correct about a lot of stuff.
But if I read him correctly, what you're talking about is (in historical terms) a short and sharp transitional period – akin in effect to WW2, though this time it might be a series of regional conflicts or political shufflings that establish regional powers.
Many poor nations will suffer greatly during that transition.
But afterward, relatively free trade probably resumes within many if not all of the new regions, and inter-regional trade will be negotiated between the new regional powers. I see no reason to expect that progress could not thereafter resume for many of the poorest nations – though the character of the dominant nation of their region may alter that for some.
Hey Brian, if you look at biggest companies by revenue, the list looks a lot different.
Netherlands is at place 5 with Royal Dutch Shell, and many other European countries on the list.
High margin is currently mostly in internet companies, but they can also quickly fade (yahoo). High revenue means a lot of economic value: lots of workers getting paid by the companies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
Demographics/Geopolitics expert Peter Ziehan is saying the opposite. He's saying the global free trade system is about to implode. The burden for keeping it going is shouldered by the USA alone, and no other country can replicate this trade system now or in the foreseeable future.
The USA no longer sees a lot of value in maintaining it. Especially so if countries like China can weaponize it and use trade imbalances to attack the USA and destroy its manufacturing base.
I would be more inclined to support teams, systems, and methodologies to reinforce the tech tree. If a country loses the ability to generate power, process metals, or perform some other service, that ability needs to be spun back up as quickly as possible.
Eugenics as it has been practiced always was about limiting the reproduction by "inferiors". Part of my work is about increasing the frequency of beneficial potentials in everyone. Those who have the least, have the most to gain.
It doesn't matter all that much. My main point though is that we've removed natural selection and won't be able to survive that change. We must husband our own genes to replace natural selection. The same technology will also offer the potential for parents to insure that their children inherit the best genes that the parents have. Parents will do that.
AI has many potentials including for teaching, but it's only going to help with understanding so much. Just the electronic media have been a great improvement that hasn't been well exploited yet. "If creating virtual memory and developing virtual instant recall are possible at speeds that already exceed the speed that pulses travel along human nerves, what will be left to teach and learn at the advanced levels? " That's certainly not going to help.
Um, yeah, and it appears to have worked? Down from 50-70% living in deep poverty to maybe 10%?
The biggest problem may be that poor nations are now more dependent on exporting resources and importing food or fertilizer or fuel or other products. If the global system of relatively free trade should degrade, that might slow or reverse some of the progress of the past decades. But short of global war, any such degradation will probably not happen particularly fast.
They tried that already in the 1960s and 1970s.
No need to wait a few generations.
Neuralink FTW
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/we-are-underestimating-artificial-intelligence-and-bciNFor
http://www.nicolelislab.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SREP-12-04012-5e86523b-1562-41b8-bcd1-c83506e6b9bc.pdf
Third World countries should understand that you don't need to go thru the same evolutionary path that the current First World countries went thru. You can skip straight from subsistence farming to information services. While you may need to move cargo you may not need to move people.
So the way to improvement is education, vaccination, telecommunication, and distributed power.
So, then, Gattaca, Brave New World, etc. Or are you suggesting a move toward laboratory-induced eugenics? The ethics of such things could often be classified as "bad juju" lol. I'm curious, now. I'll take a look when I get home.
I mostly study human genetics, but in a large sphere of human civilization. Did that put you to sleep? It normally would but much of the postulate of my work is that much of what we have called human progress is the removal of natural selection (medicine, food production, etc.). That happening at the same time as increased mutation rates because of older parents will lead to a genetic load of broken genes. This isn't something that might happen. It is happening. The only economical, ethical way to survive that will be to use pre-implantation artificial selection to imitate and replace natural selection. It will work many times better than natural selection though because natural selection is … so blunt, mindless and stupid. Humans can easily get much better results. Artificial selection isn't something just for the elites. Everyone using genes for reproduction will need to do it.
So, where does that fit in this article? Measures of National Capability assessments will eventually need to include genetic wealth, a gift that keeps on giving. In a few generations, a nation could greatly improve the "health, beauty and brains" of its citizens. Healthcare is often measured as 15% or so of a nation's costs. What would be the value to a nation of raising the average IQ by 10 points? How would it effect National Capability? Would a "genetics arms race" start? I describe the future as well… http://zagwap.com/videos/index.html
I think the distinction between the paid articles and the real articles is absolutely clear.
I can't see how anyone could be confused.
This is a very American Centric view of progress. Both Europe and and China have economies comparable in size to the US. Quite a number of European Countries enjoy a quality of life higher than that of the US, a smaller but a growing club has a higher GDP, WITHOUT so much reliance on big corporations. I consider it as an advantage.
The obviousness of its ad nature is like billboard. Don't look at it. i took off the internet category so the main category is sponsored. I am being as clear as possible while following the terms of the deal.
It is a sponsored post. It is in the sponsored category. No comments for it.
I indicated what it was. Think of it as an inline ad.
Is market cap the best benchmark to measure "Levels of National Capability"? Wouldn't a better benchmark be the total value of actual goods and services?
That landscape of companies would be very very different.
Hey Brian, is the blogpost after this one promoting google workspaces actually you, and not a hack? That desamark site is shady as hell, and the youtube link rigged with an autosubscribe flag is very SEO scammy…