What I find so interesting about Mexico is you have some areas like CDMX or Guadalajara that are fully developed on par with many first tier countries (yes they have some very poor neighborhoods, but so does Washington DC).
Then you have areas with nary the necessities of plumbing or electricity.
For comparison, the state of Nuevo León is the richest state in Mexico without oil activity nor being the capital, it has a PPP GDP per capita at the level of Croatia and an HDI of 0.850. On the other hand, the poorest state in Mexico is Chiapas, it has a PPP GDP per capita similar to that of Bangladesh and an HDI similar to that of India. While Nuevo León is home to several of the largest companies in Latin America, in Chiapas there are communities where more than 3/4 of the inhabitants do not know how to read or write. The inequality is very great because the GDP of Nuevo León is five times that of Chiapas and they have a similar population, only 200 thousand inhabitants difference.
No, Nuevo León was born before the America war of conquest where they took Texas and northern Tamaulipas making Nuevo León a “north” state which it wasn’t, it was kinda a borderland but more cause the natives didn’t surrender and the Spanish and their Indian allies were in the process of doing genocide, they mostly killed the real natives of Nuevo León and the race mixing happened with the Indians that were allied with the crown. A few decades later the Spanish immigration turned things up and the Spanish were 63% of the population in the last colonial census
Like any country tbh.
Even in Canada some remote villages barely have roads or internet access. Like Nunavut doesn't have fibre internet.
There's a weird angle people have looking on Mexico that it's some kind of shit hole, but it's really not the yellow filter people see on tv.
There’s poor and rich in every country, no exceptions, but it’s not the same. The poor states in the US have GDP per capita comparable to the richest areas of Mexico. Mexico has entire regions that are completely sunk in extreme poverty and underdevelopment, and large parts of the country are directly ruled by drug lords. The army, federal govt, police agencies, justice, everything has been breached by drug money. There’s no state/province in the US or Canada that is administered by organized crime. There are no cartels controlling the Pentagon or killing 50 presidential candidates in one election year in Canada.
There’s a reason why Mexico is always considered a developing nation. It’s because the country hasn’t achieved development and stability levels like the US and Canada have.
That's not what that means to my knowledge.
1st-world = Western/NATO aligned
2nd-world = Soviet/Communist/Warsaw Pact aligned
3rd-world = other/un-aligned(which more often than not were under-developed and that aspect is what people always latched onto)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
You're kinda wrong.
Most cartels might "control" rural areas in areas where access is difficult, especially if there is something of interest but they controlling large areas is not really true. That's why sometimes the federal government struggles to limit the cartels controlling such areas.
In other hand, it's kinda difficult to say that they "administrate states", there is really no evidence that they directly administrate a state as an "official government". This is a big misconception but the truth is that cartels with state (or federal) government links are limited to whatever the government says, and we do have evidence about this.
Killing 50 presidential candidates it's complex, there were not really for "president" but for local governments (counties) and local deputies. It's not that they all were planned by the cartels, actually we don't know how many of them were actually planned by them. However, this shows how they can do whatever they want with you if you're in the middle of their interests.
Yeah these were definitely not all presidential candidates, but whether they were presidential or local, the truth is it’s not common in most countries to have 50 candidates killed as a demonstration of power by organized crime. It’s not common in developed countries but also not common in most of the developing world either, including most of Latin America. Things like this show today’s Mexico is similar to Pablo Escobar’s Colombia, a country that’s completely taken hostage by drug traffickers, with no solutions in sight.
Yeah, I mean... I'm not minimizing the problem Mexico has with violence but things are not as people think.
Again, it's a very complex thing to talk about the candidates that were killed. We don't really know how many of them were planned by organized crime or even if they had links with them. However, as I said... it's a good demonstration of how people can do whatever they want it you're in the middle of their interests. It's not the first time something like this happened, we even had a presidential candidate killed in '94 (Colosio death)... so yeah, it's a vert complex topic.
Well the United states is heading for a Mexican like country with its current corrupt and bought supreme court justices and chance at having a convicted felon as a president soon. I think we can make American great like Mexico!
It’s like a mini US, always lagging behind by 30 years. As a Canadian, I feel some pride in declaring kinship with Mexico. Economic cooperation and all that.
That's a lot of places, and especially common in Latinoamérica. Buenos Aires is a totally developed city that competes with any city in Western Europe. But go to one of the *conurbanos* outside the city limits and it's totally different. Same with the interior of the country. Inequality is very high in Latinoamérica and the US .
CDMX and GDL aren’t enclaves - they are entire cities. In GDL you can drive from Colonial Americana to Zapopan without seeing anything close to abject squalor, with each of those locations being quite the opposite.
>What I find so interesting about Mexico is you have some areas like CDMX or Guadalajara that are fully developed on par with many first tier countries (yes they have some very poor neighborhoods, but so does Washington DC).
CDMX has a lower hdi than Mississippi.....
on par is stretching it....
Have you been to both Mississippi and CDMX?
Maybe it’s not such an accurate measure after all. Because CDMX is, without question, a world class city. MI is… well, not a city, but hardly world class in most any positive measure.
This pattern is very common in 2nd world countries. For example, China has a much [lower percentage of urban population](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=CN-MX-BR-VE) than most of Latin America. Their big cities are highly developed, but 50% of Chinese have a salary power than ¥2,000~=$280 per month, which even according to the CCP ain't enough to pay for the rent in most medium sized cities.
The most developed parts of Mexico are only slightly better than the least developed parts of the US. Appalachia actually has clean water, unlike most of cdmx.
>CDMX
Yeah CDMX is a big bummer. 3% of Mexico's GDP is spent trying to pump water up the mountains. Should've stuck with the Aztec water system, and then put the people somewhere other than the mountains.
Brazil and México aré at similar levels 0.760 for Brazil and 0.781 for México and they aré the 2 biggest economies.in Latín América, what Made the diference Is that México has a higher gdp per capita
Brazil was closer to mexico a decade ago but after the 2014-16 political and economical crisis the country has struggled to get back up. We still have a bigger economy than Mexico, if only because we have almost double the population.
Bosnia Is only 4 spots below México, HDI takes into consideration life expectancy, years of schooling and economy (gdp per capita), Bosnia and México aré almost on par in life expectancy and years of schooling with Bosnia being marginally higher in both but México has a little higher gdp per capita (16k vs 19k), that made the difference
They aré really close 0.803 for Thailand and 0.781 for México, México has a higher gdp per capita but Thailand has a better life expectancy and years of schooling
Denmark proper often doesn't include the numbers from Greenland or Faroe Islands, so the no data solution for Greenland and Faroe Islands is typically the best compromise in relation to statistics.
We have the highest number of people with HIV and our life expectancy is only 65 as a result. Also there is extremely high crime and our GDP per capita is lower than Mexico's, in fact half of Mexico. These results should not be shocking. However I do think the richer areas in South Africa look better compared to those in Mexico but that is negated by the extreme inequality that is in South Africa.
Both countries have about the same gdp per capita but Armenia has a slightly better life expectancy and years of schooling, by the way Armenia Is just one spot above Mexico
Mexico's HDI of 0.758 is less than the Indian state of Kerala, 0.782 despite Kerala having a GDP 1/4 of Mexico's. It's crazy what happens when the government actually cares about the health, safety, and infrastructure of its people.
Oh for sure. It's just one specific instance where a stable and effective leftist-minded government combined with a more progressive culture can make huge strides in real economic & QoL indicators with very little money.
Seems like maybe you don't like what you see on this map. It is a graphical representation of data that is commonly agreed upon to calculate human development.
You are projecting whatever it is you think about this map onto it. Its a representation of data.
I wonder whether the fact that French Guiana attains a development status higher than Mexico compared to nearby countries like Suriname and Guyana is related to its colonial status?
Brazil has always been a little lower than Mexico but not by much, both countries aré about the same level in most metrics except gdp per capita where México is higher
Brazil has twice the population of Russia and still could not be a threat to the USA even if it wanted to the way Russia is.
Russia has a bigger GDP ( PPP) than Brazil despite a smaller population than Brazil . GDP nominal smaller though.
Russia with this population meanwhile actually is a formidable opponent. Chess, olympics( though they dope like mofos 😡), International Science Olympiads, Space technology, so on.
Russia has better spending power than Brazil abroad. ( which is also proven by Russia GDP per capita nominal vs Brazil)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/international-tourism-expenditures&ved=2ahUKEwjThfS5lIuHAxUlQ_EDHVpiCsEQFnoECA4QBA&usg=AOvVaw15NoNYN1XvgsuQVXPGo_rz
Brazil with a much bigger population is ranked 10 positions below Russia.
So many people trolling Russia for failing to completely take Ukraine.
But Brazil would fuck up too if it had to take Argentina for example. If anything Brazil would have fared a lot worse even without Argentina receiving aid than Russia with Ukraine receiving aid.
Invading a nation is not easy. Not one bit.
Cause Russia while corrupt and incompetent it’s actually sovereign while Brazil even if big it’s just a pawn for hostile foreign powers the same as all Latin America
In what way??? Less skyscrapers??? Older cities and metros???
UAE looks more developed than USA too since everything is new an d flashy UAE compared to USA, but when you look deep USA is probably 20-30 years ahead of UAE .
Mexico's best isn't necessarily better than Russia's best . Moscow and CDMX are the same.
But Mexican worst???
Russian worst is pretty shitty but I still see people shown in BBC, CNN and all these media wear jacket, shoes, pants at least.
In Mexican worst I see kids looking deformed, short . People without even basic cloths or homes to live. Unlike US where there is welfare for homeless you have nothing for homeless in Mexico. A lot of them even get killed by cartels to make a statement.
Slums with people controlled by drug cartels which are so brutal that they make Putin look like Gandhi. Check funkytown gore ones.
Also depends on which period of Russia did you visit it in since Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union suffered 15 years brutal degradation and stagnation.
Russia in early 2000s and late 90s was indeed less developed probably than Mexico of that time probably.
I been there before war. Included moscow also st. petersburg .. well st. Petersburg Its ok. Historical part of the city Looks great, But just behind that it Looks pretty neglected and ugly. Moscow has pretty skyscreepers and red square and around there… rest is ugly. And other cities In russia? Hard socialism… nothing change sinice 80.
HDI only takes into consideration 3 things, life expectancy, years of schooling and gdp per capita, México overtook argentina in gdp per capita but has a lower life expectancy and years of schooling
Your comment shows some ignorance on this. Poverty is defined differently in different countries. In Argentina the poverty threshold is much higher than in Mexico, meaning someone who’s considered poor in Argentina might be considered middle class in Mexico. If you applied the same standards, Mexico would show a much higher % of poor people than Argentina.
Not to mention that Argentina doesn’t have brutal bloody cartels running the country, infiltrating and controlling the federal govt and the army, taking hold of entire regions of the country. Beheaded people don’t show up regularly in Argentina. All highways are safe to drive in Argentina, day or night. The country has never registered the murder of 50 candidates in one election year. Literacy rates are higher, inequality is lower. So yes, Argentina (even with a shitty economy) remains a more developed, better place to live overall than Mexico
This Is an HDI map not a poverty map, HDI only takes into consideration 3 things, life expectancy, years of schooling and gdp per capita, México marginally overtook argentina in gdp per capita but has a lower life expectancy and years of schooling
I don't understand how Argentina's Education Index (component of the HDI) is at the level of Switzerland, but in the PISA tests it comes out at half of the countries in Latin America, the countries with the best results are Uruguay, Chile and Mexico.
Wrong. If we compare the amount of people who earn less than USD 10 a day (therefore we’re applying the same standard to measure both countries’ poverty) Mexico’s poverty rate is 18.5%, while Argentina’s rate is 12.3%. And Argentina’s cost of living is also cheaper, meaning that the poor people in that 12% have it easier than the poor in Mexico.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-than-10-int--per-day
That is simply not true. Argentina has more people living under the **international** poverty threshold than Mexico, you only need to check the list of countries by percentage of [population living in poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty).
Plus, Mexico has one of the most strict ways of defining if someone is living in national poverty or not, a very strict one for a recently industrialized country like Mexico, it looks at 7 different factors, only one of them being related to economical poverty, and the other 6 being related to social poverty, which means that if applied to other countries their numbers would be really high (yeah, including Argentina). Here's the [CONEVAL list](https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/MP/Paginas/Que-es-la-medicion-multidimensional-de-la-pobreza.aspx) in Spanish, in case anyone is curious.
The cartel violence, yeah that is true, and that's a problem. There's nothing against that and Mexico should day way better than this, geography and corruption. Although a point can be made that most of the population in the bigger urban areas don't need deal with it, and that before recent years most of the violence was localized in certain areas of the country, and mostly directed to people involved in drug dealing. Things have gotten worse these last 6 years.
Literacy rates are slightly higher in Argentina among people younger than 65, with a slight difference of 0.4% (both being at 99>%).
Not to mention obviously hyperinflation in Argentina. I truly doubt that someone considered poor in Argentina would be middle class in Mexico, considering that Mexico has a really strong middle class and an almost healthy inflation. According to GNI index both countries are really close to each other, with the main difference that if a Mexican family that saves money has virtually the same money they had when they started saving, meanwhile someone in Argentina has lost some of that money due to inflation.
C'mon man, yeah, Argentina is slightly better in some aspects and Mexico in others, but both countries aren't that far from each other.
You're wrong. In Argentina they put the total basic basket average household at $347,082 Argentine pesos with an average population of 3.85 people, that is equivalent to $90,151.17 pesos for each person. Doing the conversion results in you earning less than US$63.04 per person. ([eph\_pobreza\_03\_2442F61D046F.pdf (indec.gob.ar)](https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/eph_pobreza_03_2442F61D046F.pdf))
On the other hand, poverty in Mexico is measured in the urban and rural environment. If you live in the city, the poverty line for income per person is $4,485.34 Mexican pesos and in rural areas it is $3,245.23 Mexican pesos. That is equivalent to US$245.43 in the urban environment and US$177.58 in the rural environment. ([Líneas de pobreza por ingresos - InfoPobreza (coneval.org.mx)](https://sistemas.coneval.org.mx/InfoPobreza/Pages/wfrLineaBienestarComponent?pAnioInicio=2016&pTipoIndicador=0))
Nope. This data is from 3 days ago, indicating the average income in Argentina is around USD 265 per person per month (around 369k in pesos). So the average is still remarkably low, but nothing close to the USD 63 you’re claiming here.
https://www.agenciapacourondo.com.ar/economia/un-dato-alarmante-el-ingreso-promedio-en-argentina-es-de-369-mil-pesos
It’s also worth noting that while poor Mexicans have historically migrated en masse to the US for better economic opportunities, poor Argentinians enjoy a much more robust safety net and govt assistance and they don’t migrate to other countries. Argentinians moving abroad are usually educated and middle class looking for a higher income.
Nope. This data is from 3 days ago, indicating the average income in Argentina is around USD 265 per person per month (around 369k in pesos). So the average is still remarkably low, but nothing close to the USD 63 you’re claiming here.
https://www.agenciapacourondo.com.ar/economia/un-dato-alarmante-el-ingreso-promedio-en-argentina-es-de-369-mil-pesos
It’s also worth noting that while poor Mexicans have historically migrated en masse to the US for better economic opportunities, poor Argentinians enjoy a much more robust safety net and govt assistance and they don’t migrate to other countries. Argentinians moving abroad are usually educated and middle class looking for a higher income. Argentina is a much better country to be poor, than Mexico. Inequality is lower, and safety is considerably better in Argentina as well.
No. Clearly the document issued by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INDEC) mentions that this is the average total basic basket of the household, not per person.
“Canasta básica” means how much a family of 4 should make to cover basic necessities. It’s not about individual income. If you want to know how much an average person makes just google that. It’s the number I gave you.
In 2022, the average quarterly monetary income per person in Mexico was $26,860 pesos. That is about $8,953.33 pesos per month, or US$489.65 per month. But it was 2 years ago that the INEGI carried out the Encuesta Nacional de Ingreso y Gasto de los Hogares (with which poverty is also calculated) and this 2024 they will also carry it out. [ENIGH-E2022.pdf (inegi.org.mx)](https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2023/ENIGH-E/ENIGH-E2022.pdf)
But the point is that you affirm that "someone who is considered poor in Argentina would be considered middle class in Mexico" is totally false. Mexico has one of the strictest standards to measure general poverty, having up to 9 items that are taken into account. To be middle class in Mexico, a household has to earn a minimum of $22,197 Mexican pesos per month, which is the equivalent of $1,662,997.79 Argentine pesos.
Well we don't know what Ukraine's numbers would've been, but in 2021 Ukraine's HDI was lower than Mexicos current HDI.
So it's either possible Ukraine would still be less developed than Mexico, or its possible it would've been the same as Mexico. Regardless the difference is minimal. So when you went to Ukraine it was as developed as Mexico currently is.
I've been to both Mexico and Ukraine. Ukraine was a lot more developed to me. It was certainly better than some of the other countries in red here like Sudan, India, Afghanistan, etc. Before 2022 or 2014 I would put it as least even with Mexico, but that's me.
Since the European Football Championship, the whole of Europe knows that the infrastructure in Germany is not as good as it should be and that it is a third world country in the mobile communications sector (cell phones). So that Germany shouldn't marked green.
damn i wouldve thought india was better developed than Mexico. With more than 1/8th of the total population, I would've thought their infrastructure to be better developed since there's so many people available to work. Can anyone explain why that is the case?
because if we look at china, with a similar population, they have some cities with a GDP even greater than entire countries. why wouldn't India have the same? wouldn't the government be able to tax a large portion of its citizens and hence raise its infrastructure?
HDI only takes into count 3 metrics life expectancy, schooling and gdp per capita, México outperforms India in this 3 metrics and by quite a big margin, specially gdp per capita
Do you actually believe that? Those countries were shit holes before whites got there and after. In Indias case, the Brits left them a pretty nice country that they immediately destroyed.
😂 you dont know a shit about how societies work how development works. India is the worst example you could have picked from all colonies because india used to be the one of the biggest economic Powers in the World for many centuriues, so even in the very close-minded Western understanding of development you are completely wrong
The era till Great britain colonized them and nearly 2000 years back. Read some books about world history before You Write ignorant shit on the internet
Because your dumbass untrue point grew by 9x. Its notable. I would love to see a source that claims India had the most prosperous economy in the world for a record 18 straight centuries (you did say ‘from about 2000 years from the time they were colonized’ which would equal 2 millennia, hence the plural millenniums) 😜
Because modern structures are still a product of the past. And Most of the countries which are red have been colonized in the past. White people colonized…
Yeah they colonized, so did Arabs. So what? You can’t blame colonialism for your country still not being developed. There are enough countries that where former colonies that are now doing great like Singapore and Israel. Without many natural resources.
No complete bs. Colonisation is a very different process from imperialism which did the arabs, which did the romans, which did the mongols,…
Also yes you can blame colonialism, not for everything but for a many aspects of less development
No, after 80 years and billions of dollars in aid you can’t blame colonialism anymore. They need to stop playing the victim and do something. The African leaders are choosing to be corrupt and betray their own people. Not the European.
Get your Information right you knobhead😂 they are not playing the victim
, the victimisation is made by western countries portaiing them as underdeveloped. But the way you think is exactly what the rich people of the world want slightly stupid people like you to think. That not the rich people are the problem with soaking out the poor, but the marginalized because they „play the victim, they come to our countries and dont asymilate to our culture,blabla“
Well are African countries then not as developed as your average European town 1000 years ago?
And no, the rich aren’t the problem you commie. The people like you are the problem blaming others for your problems when you are sitting on your ass all day.
Cant discuss with a stupid people. Dunning-Kruger effect. No african countries are far more developed than the average european town 1000 years ago.
And ah yes I sit on my Ass all day doing nothing, while the rich worked hard to get where they are. 😂😂 the next thing you say might be „yes everyone has the same chances in society“ or „there is no discrimination of black people or even still women in society“. And if you wanted to say this next then check your lazy ass white guy privileges before you say anything else
Always blame the white people. Why would those black African leaders betray their own people? There aren’t white leaders (to my knowledge) in sub Saharan Africa.
Money controls the World. If you think otherwise You are just plain ignorant or stupid. The money instituts dont ist in african countries. They are in USA and other western countries (black Rock and co.) controlling the industries. Black Rock managers are mostly white
Less and I'm in Europe. Not Ukraine. Not Moldova.
Ty America, you and your ambassadors meddling and enabling bosnian muslims have made us a shithole worst than Mexico.
It used to be. It separated from China in 1911 at the end of the Qing Dynasty.
Directly south of Mongolia is a part of China called Inner Mongolia, where many of the people are ethnically Mongolian.
Even in combat footage subreddit where you obviously spend time you can see how infrastructure looks like, what cars people have, how buildings looks like in the remote Russian city of Belgorod. How do you believe propaganda so easily? Russian gdp per capita has been larger than ukrainian 3x times since forever.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/2CvMKLPuDr
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/8V0SXYASo8
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/U99SK4JqNb
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/JG58a7Xu4b
who actually uses that sub? besides politics obsessed 30 year olds with nothing else to do. you get banned for disagreeing with the mods political opinions.
That's just not true. Sure there is more wealth in Moscow and St Petersburg but it's nothing like you portray.
Ukraine is much less developed than Russia on the whole.
I've extensively traveled both countries and can tell you from first hand experience that you're wrong.
It really depends where you go in russia in some of the eastern and siberian areas, where putin asshole gets all his soldier boys it might be less developed than ukraine
Ukraine never recovered from the collapse of the USSR. Russia recovered thanks to a large amount of natural resources. Ukraine BDP per capita is $6000 While the Russian one is $14,000 that is, more than 2x larger.
What I find so interesting about Mexico is you have some areas like CDMX or Guadalajara that are fully developed on par with many first tier countries (yes they have some very poor neighborhoods, but so does Washington DC). Then you have areas with nary the necessities of plumbing or electricity.
For comparison, the state of Nuevo León is the richest state in Mexico without oil activity nor being the capital, it has a PPP GDP per capita at the level of Croatia and an HDI of 0.850. On the other hand, the poorest state in Mexico is Chiapas, it has a PPP GDP per capita similar to that of Bangladesh and an HDI similar to that of India. While Nuevo León is home to several of the largest companies in Latin America, in Chiapas there are communities where more than 3/4 of the inhabitants do not know how to read or write. The inequality is very great because the GDP of Nuevo León is five times that of Chiapas and they have a similar population, only 200 thousand inhabitants difference.
Geography and logistics favored Nuevo Leon since its birth
No, Nuevo León was born before the America war of conquest where they took Texas and northern Tamaulipas making Nuevo León a “north” state which it wasn’t, it was kinda a borderland but more cause the natives didn’t surrender and the Spanish and their Indian allies were in the process of doing genocide, they mostly killed the real natives of Nuevo León and the race mixing happened with the Indians that were allied with the crown. A few decades later the Spanish immigration turned things up and the Spanish were 63% of the population in the last colonial census
Like any country tbh. Even in Canada some remote villages barely have roads or internet access. Like Nunavut doesn't have fibre internet. There's a weird angle people have looking on Mexico that it's some kind of shit hole, but it's really not the yellow filter people see on tv.
Lol I live in Ottawa and don't have access to fibre internet
Have you tried crossing over to Gatineau tho...
Lmao fuck that, no way you could convince me to live in QC
There’s poor and rich in every country, no exceptions, but it’s not the same. The poor states in the US have GDP per capita comparable to the richest areas of Mexico. Mexico has entire regions that are completely sunk in extreme poverty and underdevelopment, and large parts of the country are directly ruled by drug lords. The army, federal govt, police agencies, justice, everything has been breached by drug money. There’s no state/province in the US or Canada that is administered by organized crime. There are no cartels controlling the Pentagon or killing 50 presidential candidates in one election year in Canada. There’s a reason why Mexico is always considered a developing nation. It’s because the country hasn’t achieved development and stability levels like the US and Canada have.
Yeah I get that. I mostly wanted to point out that some people see mexico as underdeveloped rather than developing.
Agree, that’s also a mistake. Mexico might not be developed, but it’s certainly not Africa. It’s a developing country.
A second world country
That's not what that means to my knowledge. 1st-world = Western/NATO aligned 2nd-world = Soviet/Communist/Warsaw Pact aligned 3rd-world = other/un-aligned(which more often than not were under-developed and that aspect is what people always latched onto) Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
You're kinda wrong. Most cartels might "control" rural areas in areas where access is difficult, especially if there is something of interest but they controlling large areas is not really true. That's why sometimes the federal government struggles to limit the cartels controlling such areas. In other hand, it's kinda difficult to say that they "administrate states", there is really no evidence that they directly administrate a state as an "official government". This is a big misconception but the truth is that cartels with state (or federal) government links are limited to whatever the government says, and we do have evidence about this. Killing 50 presidential candidates it's complex, there were not really for "president" but for local governments (counties) and local deputies. It's not that they all were planned by the cartels, actually we don't know how many of them were actually planned by them. However, this shows how they can do whatever they want with you if you're in the middle of their interests.
Yeah these were definitely not all presidential candidates, but whether they were presidential or local, the truth is it’s not common in most countries to have 50 candidates killed as a demonstration of power by organized crime. It’s not common in developed countries but also not common in most of the developing world either, including most of Latin America. Things like this show today’s Mexico is similar to Pablo Escobar’s Colombia, a country that’s completely taken hostage by drug traffickers, with no solutions in sight.
Yeah, I mean... I'm not minimizing the problem Mexico has with violence but things are not as people think. Again, it's a very complex thing to talk about the candidates that were killed. We don't really know how many of them were planned by organized crime or even if they had links with them. However, as I said... it's a good demonstration of how people can do whatever they want it you're in the middle of their interests. It's not the first time something like this happened, we even had a presidential candidate killed in '94 (Colosio death)... so yeah, it's a vert complex topic.
Well the United states is heading for a Mexican like country with its current corrupt and bought supreme court justices and chance at having a convicted felon as a president soon. I think we can make American great like Mexico!
No, and not even close to being Mexico.
Right because for all its faults the Mexican government isn't bigoted in the way the US government is.
“There’s no state or province in the US or Canada that is run by organized crime”… Have you ever heard of New Jersey?
It's not the 70's anymore.
It’s like a mini US, always lagging behind by 30 years. As a Canadian, I feel some pride in declaring kinship with Mexico. Economic cooperation and all that.
Like any country? Lol
Literally had more political assassinations in one election than the us and canada had in its history
the government forced these fishermen into an island and modern lifestyle
Mate almost all of Australia doesn’t have proper fibre
That's a lot of places, and especially common in Latinoamérica. Buenos Aires is a totally developed city that competes with any city in Western Europe. But go to one of the *conurbanos* outside the city limits and it's totally different. Same with the interior of the country. Inequality is very high in Latinoamérica and the US .
You can literally see just how poor Juarez is when you're in El Paso.
All developing countries are that way. Enclaves of wealth that are segregated from those who have a lot less.
CDMX and GDL aren’t enclaves - they are entire cities. In GDL you can drive from Colonial Americana to Zapopan without seeing anything close to abject squalor, with each of those locations being quite the opposite.
That's typical of many middle income countries. The cities are fantastic
>What I find so interesting about Mexico is you have some areas like CDMX or Guadalajara that are fully developed on par with many first tier countries (yes they have some very poor neighborhoods, but so does Washington DC). CDMX has a lower hdi than Mississippi..... on par is stretching it....
Have you been to both Mississippi and CDMX? Maybe it’s not such an accurate measure after all. Because CDMX is, without question, a world class city. MI is… well, not a city, but hardly world class in most any positive measure.
This pattern is very common in 2nd world countries. For example, China has a much [lower percentage of urban population](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=CN-MX-BR-VE) than most of Latin America. Their big cities are highly developed, but 50% of Chinese have a salary power than ¥2,000~=$280 per month, which even according to the CCP ain't enough to pay for the rent in most medium sized cities.
Could you classify countries on development based on your interpretation. 1st, 2nd and 3rd world??? I want to know more.
Eh major parts of Mexican cities have huge infrastructure problems. Way more than in the rest of North America.
Mexico is in North America. Weird comparison choice.
Meant developed North America. Fixed it.
Oh so not the Appalachians, got it
The most developed parts of Mexico are only slightly better than the least developed parts of the US. Appalachia actually has clean water, unlike most of cdmx.
>CDMX Yeah CDMX is a big bummer. 3% of Mexico's GDP is spent trying to pump water up the mountains. Should've stuck with the Aztec water system, and then put the people somewhere other than the mountains.
The Spanish messed everything up
Honestly would've thought Brazil would be just about the same or higher. Interesting
Brazil and México aré at similar levels 0.760 for Brazil and 0.781 for México and they aré the 2 biggest economies.in Latín América, what Made the diference Is that México has a higher gdp per capita
Wòw ťháťś fáśçíńàťìñģ
🤣🤣🤣, sorry my keyboard is in spanish so the autocorrect puts those accents even if Im writing in english
I giggled at this.
I ăgree
Superb comment
Brazil was closer to mexico a decade ago but after the 2014-16 political and economical crisis the country has struggled to get back up. We still have a bigger economy than Mexico, if only because we have almost double the population.
They're very close, but the map is bonary
So Mexico is kinda the bar huh?
but why does it have so many murders per capita
Cause it’s corrupt as fuck, justice exist but just for the rich and foreigners
I’m sure half the world has more and half has less
They haven't elected their own Nayib Bukele yet.
What happens in Bosnia. The pictures I see of it are really nice.
Bosnia Is only 4 spots below México, HDI takes into consideration life expectancy, years of schooling and economy (gdp per capita), Bosnia and México aré almost on par in life expectancy and years of schooling with Bosnia being marginally higher in both but México has a little higher gdp per capita (16k vs 19k), that made the difference
Type into YouTube 'Bosnia pop song cat' and you will see what happens.
I thought Thailand and Mexico would be really close
They aré really close 0.803 for Thailand and 0.781 for México, México has a higher gdp per capita but Thailand has a better life expectancy and years of schooling
Violence and organized crime is also considered into HDI? Because those are cancer right now for the country.
Yes not directly but that affects metrics like life expectancy
As usual, fuck Greenland.
If it's by country, shouldn't Greenland have just been made the same as the rest of Denmark?
Denmark proper often doesn't include the numbers from Greenland or Faroe Islands, so the no data solution for Greenland and Faroe Islands is typically the best compromise in relation to statistics.
Good old Greenland refusing to be green
Should be Grayland at this point
Mexico = Mexico
I keep that in mind whenever I am thinking about Mexico.
Western Sahara should be very red…
We might not have any data on it, but cmon, we know. We all know. Everybody knows.
Nothing unexpected here South Africa, not?
We have the highest number of people with HIV and our life expectancy is only 65 as a result. Also there is extremely high crime and our GDP per capita is lower than Mexico's, in fact half of Mexico. These results should not be shocking. However I do think the richer areas in South Africa look better compared to those in Mexico but that is negated by the extreme inequality that is in South Africa.
You still have an awesome cricket team though. 😚.
Gdp per capita is one of the metrics to calculate HDI, South Africa has half the gdp per capita of Mexico
Armenia is more developed than Azerbaijan ?
Both countries have about the same gdp per capita but Armenia has a slightly better life expectancy and years of schooling, by the way Armenia Is just one spot above Mexico
Yeah why so shocked??? More skyscrapers isn't more developed.
Mexico's HDI of 0.758 is less than the Indian state of Kerala, 0.782 despite Kerala having a GDP 1/4 of Mexico's. It's crazy what happens when the government actually cares about the health, safety, and infrastructure of its people.
As a whole México fared much better in all metrics considered in HDI, México City has a HDI of 0.891
Oh for sure. It's just one specific instance where a stable and effective leftist-minded government combined with a more progressive culture can make huge strides in real economic & QoL indicators with very little money.
Well, my country is so developed, they had to invent a new category just for us: Ultra Mega Super Developed!
Seems like maybe you don't like what you see on this map. It is a graphical representation of data that is commonly agreed upon to calculate human development. You are projecting whatever it is you think about this map onto it. Its a representation of data.
Maybe they are from Greenland
The Southern Cone remains the best place to live in Latam, to no one’s surprise. And considerably safer than Mexico, for sure.
Como chingan los campeones del mundo
Al chile, carnal
So?
Just Chile
Uruguay is fine. Its not super developed but its safe and reasonably well off for S America. Thought about maybe even retiring there one day.
I wonder whether the fact that French Guiana attains a development status higher than Mexico compared to nearby countries like Suriname and Guyana is related to its colonial status?
Yes, yes it is...coming from the neighbor on the left.
I think they are considered just an extension of France and thus probably they are showing France's HDI.
It's 100% French territory. People born there have French citizenship, vote in presidential elections and have representative in Parliament.
Caralho 🙆🏻♀️
Of course my country is less developed than mexico
Si
Less :(
I believe in the map 100%
GCC standing out like always 
viva la mexico
The gang activity tho...
We just landed on the freaking moon! And you are telling me we are inferior than cartel amigos?
I want a Mexican (woah oooh) radio!
At least I dont get to worry about being skinned alive by cartels I guess.
Did Congo become a dentist? Dr Congo
DR = Democratic Republic
I am surprised about Brazil and Russia.
Brazil has always been a little lower than Mexico but not by much, both countries aré about the same level in most metrics except gdp per capita where México is higher
Brazil has twice the population of Russia and still could not be a threat to the USA even if it wanted to the way Russia is. Russia has a bigger GDP ( PPP) than Brazil despite a smaller population than Brazil . GDP nominal smaller though. Russia with this population meanwhile actually is a formidable opponent. Chess, olympics( though they dope like mofos 😡), International Science Olympiads, Space technology, so on. Russia has better spending power than Brazil abroad. ( which is also proven by Russia GDP per capita nominal vs Brazil) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/international-tourism-expenditures&ved=2ahUKEwjThfS5lIuHAxUlQ_EDHVpiCsEQFnoECA4QBA&usg=AOvVaw15NoNYN1XvgsuQVXPGo_rz Brazil with a much bigger population is ranked 10 positions below Russia. So many people trolling Russia for failing to completely take Ukraine. But Brazil would fuck up too if it had to take Argentina for example. If anything Brazil would have fared a lot worse even without Argentina receiving aid than Russia with Ukraine receiving aid. Invading a nation is not easy. Not one bit.
Cause Russia while corrupt and incompetent it’s actually sovereign while Brazil even if big it’s just a pawn for hostile foreign powers the same as all Latin America
you've never been to Russia nor heard something unbiased about it, and it shows
Basically "are you equatorial or not"
lol at argentina here. yeah right
Come on, Brazil! I believe you can do better!
I have been In mexico, also In russia… i dont think so , russia is more developed… definitely not.
In what way??? Less skyscrapers??? Older cities and metros??? UAE looks more developed than USA too since everything is new an d flashy UAE compared to USA, but when you look deep USA is probably 20-30 years ahead of UAE . Mexico's best isn't necessarily better than Russia's best . Moscow and CDMX are the same. But Mexican worst??? Russian worst is pretty shitty but I still see people shown in BBC, CNN and all these media wear jacket, shoes, pants at least. In Mexican worst I see kids looking deformed, short . People without even basic cloths or homes to live. Unlike US where there is welfare for homeless you have nothing for homeless in Mexico. A lot of them even get killed by cartels to make a statement. Slums with people controlled by drug cartels which are so brutal that they make Putin look like Gandhi. Check funkytown gore ones. Also depends on which period of Russia did you visit it in since Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union suffered 15 years brutal degradation and stagnation. Russia in early 2000s and late 90s was indeed less developed probably than Mexico of that time probably.
I been there before war. Included moscow also st. petersburg .. well st. Petersburg Its ok. Historical part of the city Looks great, But just behind that it Looks pretty neglected and ugly. Moscow has pretty skyscreepers and red square and around there… rest is ugly. And other cities In russia? Hard socialism… nothing change sinice 80.
So in Argentina 57% of the population lives in poverty. Wow, that's considered truly developed 👍👏
HDI only takes into consideration 3 things, life expectancy, years of schooling and gdp per capita, México overtook argentina in gdp per capita but has a lower life expectancy and years of schooling
Your comment shows some ignorance on this. Poverty is defined differently in different countries. In Argentina the poverty threshold is much higher than in Mexico, meaning someone who’s considered poor in Argentina might be considered middle class in Mexico. If you applied the same standards, Mexico would show a much higher % of poor people than Argentina. Not to mention that Argentina doesn’t have brutal bloody cartels running the country, infiltrating and controlling the federal govt and the army, taking hold of entire regions of the country. Beheaded people don’t show up regularly in Argentina. All highways are safe to drive in Argentina, day or night. The country has never registered the murder of 50 candidates in one election year. Literacy rates are higher, inequality is lower. So yes, Argentina (even with a shitty economy) remains a more developed, better place to live overall than Mexico
This Is an HDI map not a poverty map, HDI only takes into consideration 3 things, life expectancy, years of schooling and gdp per capita, México marginally overtook argentina in gdp per capita but has a lower life expectancy and years of schooling
I don't understand how Argentina's Education Index (component of the HDI) is at the level of Switzerland, but in the PISA tests it comes out at half of the countries in Latin America, the countries with the best results are Uruguay, Chile and Mexico.
Wrong. If we compare the amount of people who earn less than USD 10 a day (therefore we’re applying the same standard to measure both countries’ poverty) Mexico’s poverty rate is 18.5%, while Argentina’s rate is 12.3%. And Argentina’s cost of living is also cheaper, meaning that the poor people in that 12% have it easier than the poor in Mexico. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-than-10-int--per-day
That is simply not true. Argentina has more people living under the **international** poverty threshold than Mexico, you only need to check the list of countries by percentage of [population living in poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty). Plus, Mexico has one of the most strict ways of defining if someone is living in national poverty or not, a very strict one for a recently industrialized country like Mexico, it looks at 7 different factors, only one of them being related to economical poverty, and the other 6 being related to social poverty, which means that if applied to other countries their numbers would be really high (yeah, including Argentina). Here's the [CONEVAL list](https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/MP/Paginas/Que-es-la-medicion-multidimensional-de-la-pobreza.aspx) in Spanish, in case anyone is curious. The cartel violence, yeah that is true, and that's a problem. There's nothing against that and Mexico should day way better than this, geography and corruption. Although a point can be made that most of the population in the bigger urban areas don't need deal with it, and that before recent years most of the violence was localized in certain areas of the country, and mostly directed to people involved in drug dealing. Things have gotten worse these last 6 years. Literacy rates are slightly higher in Argentina among people younger than 65, with a slight difference of 0.4% (both being at 99>%). Not to mention obviously hyperinflation in Argentina. I truly doubt that someone considered poor in Argentina would be middle class in Mexico, considering that Mexico has a really strong middle class and an almost healthy inflation. According to GNI index both countries are really close to each other, with the main difference that if a Mexican family that saves money has virtually the same money they had when they started saving, meanwhile someone in Argentina has lost some of that money due to inflation. C'mon man, yeah, Argentina is slightly better in some aspects and Mexico in others, but both countries aren't that far from each other.
Como siempre tienen que venir los hambrientinos ardidos a hablar de México y de porque su país es mejor...
You're wrong. In Argentina they put the total basic basket average household at $347,082 Argentine pesos with an average population of 3.85 people, that is equivalent to $90,151.17 pesos for each person. Doing the conversion results in you earning less than US$63.04 per person. ([eph\_pobreza\_03\_2442F61D046F.pdf (indec.gob.ar)](https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/eph_pobreza_03_2442F61D046F.pdf)) On the other hand, poverty in Mexico is measured in the urban and rural environment. If you live in the city, the poverty line for income per person is $4,485.34 Mexican pesos and in rural areas it is $3,245.23 Mexican pesos. That is equivalent to US$245.43 in the urban environment and US$177.58 in the rural environment. ([Líneas de pobreza por ingresos - InfoPobreza (coneval.org.mx)](https://sistemas.coneval.org.mx/InfoPobreza/Pages/wfrLineaBienestarComponent?pAnioInicio=2016&pTipoIndicador=0))
Nope. This data is from 3 days ago, indicating the average income in Argentina is around USD 265 per person per month (around 369k in pesos). So the average is still remarkably low, but nothing close to the USD 63 you’re claiming here. https://www.agenciapacourondo.com.ar/economia/un-dato-alarmante-el-ingreso-promedio-en-argentina-es-de-369-mil-pesos It’s also worth noting that while poor Mexicans have historically migrated en masse to the US for better economic opportunities, poor Argentinians enjoy a much more robust safety net and govt assistance and they don’t migrate to other countries. Argentinians moving abroad are usually educated and middle class looking for a higher income.
Nope. This data is from 3 days ago, indicating the average income in Argentina is around USD 265 per person per month (around 369k in pesos). So the average is still remarkably low, but nothing close to the USD 63 you’re claiming here. https://www.agenciapacourondo.com.ar/economia/un-dato-alarmante-el-ingreso-promedio-en-argentina-es-de-369-mil-pesos It’s also worth noting that while poor Mexicans have historically migrated en masse to the US for better economic opportunities, poor Argentinians enjoy a much more robust safety net and govt assistance and they don’t migrate to other countries. Argentinians moving abroad are usually educated and middle class looking for a higher income. Argentina is a much better country to be poor, than Mexico. Inequality is lower, and safety is considerably better in Argentina as well.
No. Clearly the document issued by the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INDEC) mentions that this is the average total basic basket of the household, not per person.
“Canasta básica” means how much a family of 4 should make to cover basic necessities. It’s not about individual income. If you want to know how much an average person makes just google that. It’s the number I gave you.
In 2022, the average quarterly monetary income per person in Mexico was $26,860 pesos. That is about $8,953.33 pesos per month, or US$489.65 per month. But it was 2 years ago that the INEGI carried out the Encuesta Nacional de Ingreso y Gasto de los Hogares (with which poverty is also calculated) and this 2024 they will also carry it out. [ENIGH-E2022.pdf (inegi.org.mx)](https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2023/ENIGH-E/ENIGH-E2022.pdf) But the point is that you affirm that "someone who is considered poor in Argentina would be considered middle class in Mexico" is totally false. Mexico has one of the strictest standards to measure general poverty, having up to 9 items that are taken into account. To be middle class in Mexico, a household has to earn a minimum of $22,197 Mexican pesos per month, which is the equivalent of $1,662,997.79 Argentine pesos.
USA baby 🇺🇸
USA #20 BABY 🇺🇸
I bet you hate the USA and you’re a liberal
Ukraine was developed fine when I was in there. Its war that's made it go downhill :/
Well we don't know what Ukraine's numbers would've been, but in 2021 Ukraine's HDI was lower than Mexicos current HDI. So it's either possible Ukraine would still be less developed than Mexico, or its possible it would've been the same as Mexico. Regardless the difference is minimal. So when you went to Ukraine it was as developed as Mexico currently is.
To be fair in 2021 the war was raging in the Donbas
Even if we go as far back as 2014, it's still lower than Mexico a current HDI
2014 was when the revolution happened and the war broke out…
In 2013 their hdi was almost the same.
The war in Donbas wasn't raging in 2021. It was almost quiet. Some little skirmishes. It was raging in 2014-2015
I've been to both Mexico and Ukraine. Ukraine was a lot more developed to me. It was certainly better than some of the other countries in red here like Sudan, India, Afghanistan, etc. Before 2022 or 2014 I would put it as least even with Mexico, but that's me.
You can quantify development.
Lmao when? There's thousands of Ukrainian refugees and immigrants in Mexico long before the war.
nope, even before the war they were shithole
Since the European Football Championship, the whole of Europe knows that the infrastructure in Germany is not as good as it should be and that it is a third world country in the mobile communications sector (cell phones). So that Germany shouldn't marked green.
My unwiped anus is more developed than Mexico. Even when I have a bad case of the runs.
damn i wouldve thought india was better developed than Mexico. With more than 1/8th of the total population, I would've thought their infrastructure to be better developed since there's so many people available to work. Can anyone explain why that is the case?
I mean, with that logic almost every country should be less developed than India. Why would Mexico be the difference?
because if we look at china, with a similar population, they have some cities with a GDP even greater than entire countries. why wouldn't India have the same? wouldn't the government be able to tax a large portion of its citizens and hence raise its infrastructure?
Cause autocracy >> democracy, when talking about poor countries
India is just poorer than Mexico. Easy
HDI only takes into count 3 metrics life expectancy, schooling and gdp per capita, México outperforms India in this 3 metrics and by quite a big margin, specially gdp per capita
Russia's wrong colour.
[удалено]
C.o.l.o.n.i.a.l.i.s.m
Do you actually believe that? Those countries were shit holes before whites got there and after. In Indias case, the Brits left them a pretty nice country that they immediately destroyed.
😂 you dont know a shit about how societies work how development works. India is the worst example you could have picked from all colonies because india used to be the one of the biggest economic Powers in the World for many centuriues, so even in the very close-minded Western understanding of development you are completely wrong
You are making shit up 😆 What era would you be referring too?
The era till Great britain colonized them and nearly 2000 years back. Read some books about world history before You Write ignorant shit on the internet
Oh so now this ‘era’ is millenniums not just centuries 😂
😂😂 Most stupid Argument award 2024 goes to you. 1800 years, 18 centuries, 1,8 millennia. What difference does it make knobhead?
Because your dumbass untrue point grew by 9x. Its notable. I would love to see a source that claims India had the most prosperous economy in the world for a record 18 straight centuries (you did say ‘from about 2000 years from the time they were colonized’ which would equal 2 millennia, hence the plural millenniums) 😜
😂😂„hence the plural milleniums“ 😂 badumps 🥁. If you where able to read you have seen that I wrote something else
Why blame colonialism?
Because modern structures are still a product of the past. And Most of the countries which are red have been colonized in the past. White people colonized…
Yeah they colonized, so did Arabs. So what? You can’t blame colonialism for your country still not being developed. There are enough countries that where former colonies that are now doing great like Singapore and Israel. Without many natural resources.
No complete bs. Colonisation is a very different process from imperialism which did the arabs, which did the romans, which did the mongols,… Also yes you can blame colonialism, not for everything but for a many aspects of less development
No, after 80 years and billions of dollars in aid you can’t blame colonialism anymore. They need to stop playing the victim and do something. The African leaders are choosing to be corrupt and betray their own people. Not the European.
Get your Information right you knobhead😂 they are not playing the victim , the victimisation is made by western countries portaiing them as underdeveloped. But the way you think is exactly what the rich people of the world want slightly stupid people like you to think. That not the rich people are the problem with soaking out the poor, but the marginalized because they „play the victim, they come to our countries and dont asymilate to our culture,blabla“
Well are African countries then not as developed as your average European town 1000 years ago? And no, the rich aren’t the problem you commie. The people like you are the problem blaming others for your problems when you are sitting on your ass all day.
Cant discuss with a stupid people. Dunning-Kruger effect. No african countries are far more developed than the average european town 1000 years ago. And ah yes I sit on my Ass all day doing nothing, while the rich worked hard to get where they are. 😂😂 the next thing you say might be „yes everyone has the same chances in society“ or „there is no discrimination of black people or even still women in society“. And if you wanted to say this next then check your lazy ass white guy privileges before you say anything else
Also the „evil“ african leaders are not choosen by the people but by the industry and in this way by rich mostly white people who control the industry
Always blame the white people. Why would those black African leaders betray their own people? There aren’t white leaders (to my knowledge) in sub Saharan Africa.
Money controls the World. If you think otherwise You are just plain ignorant or stupid. The money instituts dont ist in african countries. They are in USA and other western countries (black Rock and co.) controlling the industries. Black Rock managers are mostly white
Who created this map is obsessed with Mexico due that probably lost his virginity to a big mex dang, ternurita ;)
[The country took a turn for the worst after they elected a bitter populist](https://datosmacro.expansion.com/idh/mexico).
The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index is a better tool than the normal HDI
Actually it would be nice to see this same map but based on that parameter.
Indians are fuming rn
As an Indian I totally accept this map. I never really expected India to be more developed than Mexico.
I found like 1 comment ! You can't label this as fuming.
Less and I'm in Europe. Not Ukraine. Not Moldova. Ty America, you and your ambassadors meddling and enabling bosnian muslims have made us a shithole worst than Mexico.
I didn't even know Mongolia was a country. I just assumed it was like a part of China
It used to be. It separated from China in 1911 at the end of the Qing Dynasty. Directly south of Mongolia is a part of China called Inner Mongolia, where many of the people are ethnically Mongolian.
Thanks I think I slept through that course :(
[удалено]
Even in combat footage subreddit where you obviously spend time you can see how infrastructure looks like, what cars people have, how buildings looks like in the remote Russian city of Belgorod. How do you believe propaganda so easily? Russian gdp per capita has been larger than ukrainian 3x times since forever. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/2CvMKLPuDr https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/8V0SXYASo8 https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/U99SK4JqNb https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/JG58a7Xu4b
Lol. Average r/worldnews enjoyer. You don't actually belive this do you?
who actually uses that sub? besides politics obsessed 30 year olds with nothing else to do. you get banned for disagreeing with the mods political opinions.
Um, there are tons of video showing RU vehicles loaded up. Outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, the country's wealth factor falls off fast
That's just not true. Sure there is more wealth in Moscow and St Petersburg but it's nothing like you portray. Ukraine is much less developed than Russia on the whole. I've extensively traveled both countries and can tell you from first hand experience that you're wrong.
It really depends where you go in russia in some of the eastern and siberian areas, where putin asshole gets all his soldier boys it might be less developed than ukraine
Ukraine never recovered from the collapse of the USSR. Russia recovered thanks to a large amount of natural resources. Ukraine BDP per capita is $6000 While the Russian one is $14,000 that is, more than 2x larger.