Uncomfortable Question - Is "1st World" POSSIBLE Without Exploiting 3rd-World ?

[[e-mail]]

Either by direct, or economic, 'imperialism' we got
what we now call 1st-world countries.

The big QUESTION is whether this sort of status is
POSSIBLE without basically ripping-off the resources
of the 2nd/3rd world ?

I'm gonna posit "NO".

"Ordinary" economic activity alone just doesn't
seem to do it. You can only get just SO far.

Consider the UK - once a global empire. The more
it divested, the crappier things became. At this
point it's worse than broke ... indeed BROKEN.
Combined with 'socialism' I think it's headed
into the dustbin of history, fast. Who knows
what, if much, will emerge.

Yea yea, there are some "small" 1st-world countries,
but they have been PARASITES, living off the BIG boys.
Switzerland is a currency cross-point, but there have
to be BIG countries swapping lots of currency. The
Dutch do well, but only because they've positioned
themselves to be major trade middle-men between BIG
concerns.

[a425couple]

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Either by direct, or economic, 'imperialism' we got
what we now call 1st-world countries.
The big QUESTION is whether this sort of status is
POSSIBLE without basically ripping-off the resources
of the 2nd/3rd world ?
I'm gonna posit "NO".

I disagree with you.
I think a well off country that is creating new
ideas and processes can do well without "exploiting"
3rd world countries.

So you have a few "geeks" in the northwest corner
of the USA. They played with electricity and
developed computers. This led to the world's
obsession with cell phones. Nobody is forcing
the "3rd world" to come up with trade goods to
trade for cell phones.

Post by ***@ud0s4.net
Consider the UK - once a global empire.

How many Nobel Prizes have they come up with
in the last 20 tears?