The right way to become a first world country

by a-r.mirza on November 5, 2015 - 10:19am


What this article talks abouty is that to become a first world country you dont need to build bombs, invest in to your military or build bigger buildings. But invest in your agriculture. This is exacltly what Barbados is doing. Instead of wasting their money on useless things, they are investing more heavilty into agriculture so that they can obtain first world country status. 


I am so happy for Barbados. It is the only country that believes that wasting money on yourt military is useless and does not help your people. What is even more great is that they aree willing to break down any barrier that comes in their way to achieve this goal. It will not be easy but I believe Barbados can do it.  Barbados might be the most sensible country on the planet. The americans and chinese are the top spenders when it comes to military spending but their countries are utter s***. Most Americans cant afford healthcare or insurance, schooling or any other basic neccessity and the Chinese live in shanty towns and cant afford food, housing or clothing. Thwe country has really no source of healthcare or some type of food stamp to help them get back on their feet. Both of these countries spend billions of dollars on technology that is basically illegal to use because of the damage they can cause (nuclear bombs). Yet they are to dumb to notice the poor people (figuratively and literally) that are living with in their borders. Good onto Barbados for helping both their people and their economy on the expense of usless things.


The author of the article as well as your analysis efficiently express the distaste for excess spending on military which is huge issue issue not only for third world countries but for other countries such as the United States and Canada. However I think there is so much more to this issue that is left out. The first addition to these ideas I would like to examine is that there are no strict definitions on first and third world countries, many times economic guidelines are used, yet this itself omits essentials such as poverty gaps, standards of living, gender imbalances and many more. I would have a hard time believing the investment in agriculture would sufficiently address these.

Furthermore, along the same lines, one cannot suggest that there is a straight fix for the many deeply rooted and networked issues that hold developing countries in their current positions. This is taking a prescriptive approach to a problem that cannot be diagnosed. The aspect of situationally and relativity should also be considered when examining issues within developing countries. Agricultural investment may have many outwardly positive benefits for Barbados, however in a different governmental regime, climate, labour conditions ect the results may not be as broad and positive.

This leads me to examine the ability for this development process to be kept out of the lense of corruption to be able to promote positive development. For this specific case, investment is going to the Agricultural sector which will thus cause it to expand. What if this is greatly corporation or corrupt government controlled (as it many times is) and expands on to the land of local people causing huge civil unrest. Or what if the majority of the food is exported leaving the citizens still with no food, and if some did remain in the country it would have to be priced comparatively to what it is sold at elsewhere for it to be economically beneficial. I could keep going off on different underlying issues of development forever, but these are just a few more commonly occurring issues that are often disregarded in favour of the whole economic picture. There is always something else going on, keep critical eyes.

Good post, a highly complex topic is hard to cover in such a short amount of time and I think your post is a good start point to dive into issues such as this.

About the author