Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

[QUENTIN]

boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?

There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.

If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.

Is 3% too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?

 

[QUENTIN]

Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin: You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra). Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra).

Idiot.

Again, you're deflecting.

It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are not industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.

Now...

How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what you did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.

You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.

How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?

Hypocrite.

Yes, indeed. I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE. Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries. (Third time posting the link...amazing.)

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries"

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

China
Mexico

IMF Developed Countries:

Australia • Germany • Malta • South Korea
• Austria • Greece • Netherlands • Spain
• Belgium • Hong Kong • New Zealand • Sweden
• Canada • Iceland • Norway • Switzerland
• Cyprus • Ireland • Portugal • Taiwan
• Czech Republic • Israel • San Marino[19] • United Kingdom
• Denmark • Italy • Singapore • United States
• Finland • Japan • Slovakia
• France • Luxembourg • Slovenia (No China or Mexico!)

[/QUOTE]

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan
* The Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Belarus
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia
* Botswana
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Brazil
* Bulgaria
* Burkina Faso
* Burma
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* China
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Croatia
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Fiji
* Gabon
* The Gambia
* Georgia
* Ghana
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Hungary
* Indonesia
* India
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Latvia
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Lithuania
* Macedonia
* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Marshall Islands[18]
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Mexico
...

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

(third time posting these explanations...amazing).

In addition to the IMF, here's the CIA's current, present tense reiteration: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html

developing countries
a term used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the bottom group in its hierarchy of advanced economies, countries in transition, and developing countries; IMF statistics include the following 126 developing countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, Uganda, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe; note - this category would presumably also cover the following 46 other countries that are traditionally included in the more comprehensive group of "less developed countries": American Samoa, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Cook Islands, Cuba, Eritrea, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gaza Strip, Gibraltar, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Jersey, North Korea, Macau, Martinique, Mayotte, Montserrat, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Tokelau, Tonga, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Western Sahara

It's clear that despite the information contained within your link, you still don't know what a "Newly industrialized country" is. They're countries that ARE not industrialized, but are in the PROCESS of becoming industrialized. To again analogize economic development to human development, they're adolescents who have outpaced their child counterparts but are not yet adults. You keep insisting a 13-year-old is an adult because it's no longer a baby and sure is growing up fast.

NICs are not industrialized countries or developed countries, they are the developing countries most rapidly going through the process of industrialization.

Again, the UN, IMF, and CIA, the three major international bodies of economic classification are in agreement that China and Mexico are not industrialized.

How you can still claim otherwise, despite the evidence provided in your own links and now thrice highlighted here for you is rather amazing.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Si modo]

Again, you're deflecting.

It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are not industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.

Now...

How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what you did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.

You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.

How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?

Hypocrite.

Yes, indeed. I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE. Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries. (Third time posting the link...amazing.)

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

(third time posting these explanations...amazing).

It's clear that despite the information contained within your link, you still don't know what a "Newly industrialized country" is. They're countries that ARE not industrialized, but are in the PROCESS of becoming industrialized. To again analogize economic development to human development, they're adolescents who have outpaced their child counterparts but are not yet adults.

NICs are not industrialized countries or developed countries, they are the developing countries most rapidly going through the process of industrialization.

Again, the UN, IMF, and CIA, the three major international bodies of economic classification are in agreement that China and Mexico are not industrialized.

How you can still claim otherwise, despite the evidence provided in your own links and now thrice highlighted here for you is rather amazing.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

A newly industrialized country IS industrialized. Sorry, time doesn't stop for dishonest posters.

 

[boedicca]

boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?

There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.

If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.

Is 3% too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?

I'd say a great deal of the Democrats currently follow Progressive philosophy.

 

[boedicca]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

^^^ Speaking of Brick Walls.

 

[Samson]

boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?

There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.

If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.

Is 3% too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?

I'd say a great deal of the Democrats currently follow Progressive philosophy.

Translation: "19 are too many."

 

[boedicca]

Way too many!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!

 

[QUENTIN]

boedica, how many progressives do you think are currently elected to national government?

There's Dennis Kucinich, arguably Alan Grayson, Maurice Hinchey, Jan Schakowsky, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, George Miller, Yvette Clark, and Lynn Woosley in the House. In the Senate, there's Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders (an Independent and socialist), Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Ben Cardin, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

Out of 535 elected representatives in Congress, that's 19, or 3%.

If you think being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus automatically means you're a progressive or that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Obama is a "progressive," okay, but that's a bastardization of the term. Politicians can and do claim whatever affiliation they want (Bush called himself a conservative while overseeing massive expansions of government), but it's their actions and voting record that define them and only those who consistently advocate progressive causes are really progressive, just as only those who consistently advocate libertarian positions are really libertarians.

Is 3% too much to represent the 16% of Americans who identify as "progressives"? Or what do you think makes a progressive and how many members do you think fit that bill?

I'd say a great deal of the Democrats currently follow Progressive philosophy.

Certainly there are a great deal of Democrats who currently follow some progressive philosophy, but also follow lots of non-progressive philosophies and vote accordingly.

Progressive is a specific outlook prescribing specific policies, if a person only votes for progressive causes half the time, and votes in opposition to them the other half of the time, does that make them progressives to you?

I'm for decreasing the size and role of government in many substantial ways, gun rights, and non-interventionist foreign policy, but that hardly makes me a conservative or libertarian because there are also a lot of positions I advocate in opposition to conservative and libertarian philosophy and policy.

Is someone a conservative to you if they only support a conservative agenda say 60% of the time? Or, like Pelosi, a progressive if they only support a progressive agenda 14% of the time?

I think politicians who vote down the party line are not ideologically anything - progressive, liberal, conservative, or libertarian - they're just mindlessly loyal members of a team.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is this the same Obama who has become a multi-millionaire off a couple shitty books and a sleazy land deal with a convicted felon? THAT Obama?

Laughable.

 

[bucs90]

Is this the same Obama who has become a multi-millionaire off a couple shitty books and a sleazy land deal with a convicted felon? THAT Obama?

Laughable.

Yep, THAT same Obama.

The same Obama that bashes any company who dares make "windfall profits" as evil, while his windfall profits from being president is OK.

Well, to be honest, his windfall profits come from being black. If he wasn't black he wouldn't be president and thats pure fact. He should donate all his windfall profits to NAACP charities.

 

[Samson]

Is this the same Obama who has become a multi-millionaire off a couple shitty books and a sleazy land deal with a convicted felon? THAT Obama?

Laughable.

What's laughable is he did all that BEFORE beating McCain.





Ok its not really funny.

 

[QUENTIN]

A newly industrialized country IS industrialized. Sorry, time doesn't stop for dishonest posters.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

What part of that do you not understand?

Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?

You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?

 

[Si modo]

The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

What part of that do you not understand?

Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?

You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?

So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.

What a fucking moron you are.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm still waiting for these loony lefties to explain who their gonna rape and pillage for money to fund their government giveaways once they have reduced all the companies that turn a profit to bankruptcy status.

Seems like they kinda need companies to generate wealth... or are they just that dumb?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

What a political genius. He's actually trying to turn Republicans off from Wall Street regulation, that way they will look like the morons they are when they don't vote for it.

None of your damn business you socialist pig.

Actually Wall Stree falls under the commerce clause. But I know you're not a bit supporter of the Constitution.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm still waiting for these loony lefties to explain who their gonna rape and pillage for money to fund their government giveaways once they have reduced all the companies that turn a profit to bankruptcy status.

You do understand you can't tax a profit that isn't there, right?

 

[boedicca]

I'm still waiting for these loony lefties to explain who their gonna rape and pillage for money to fund their government giveaways once they have reduced all the companies that turn a profit to bankruptcy status.

You do understand you can't tax a profit that isn't there, right?

That's why the government is so interested in the VAT. It's a cost plus tax.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

What a political genius. He's actually trying to turn Republicans off from Wall Street regulation, that way they will look like the morons they are when they don't vote for it.

None of your damn business you socialist pig.

Actually Wall Stree falls under the commerce clause. But I know you're not a bit supporter of the Constitution.

Wall Street falls under the commerce clause... HUH???? Are you mental?

 

[QUENTIN]

The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

What part of that do you not understand?

Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?

You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?

So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.

What a fucking moron you are.

No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.

You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.

Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.

I see you've avoided even attempting to explain why China and Mexico are on current lists of the CIA, IMF, and UN of developing countries and absent from their lists of developed countries. Do you think if you don't address this glaring problem, it'll go away?

 

[Si modo]

The explanation from your link of "Newly industrialized countries," fourth time now:



What part of that do you not understand?

Better yet, if you're going to try to claim, in spite of all definitions, reason, and evidence, that NICs are industrialized because you apparently can't grasp what the term means despite having it defined for you in your own source, how do you explain the fact that the UN, IMF, and CIA all classify Mexico and China not as industrialized countries, but as developing countries, as my last spate of links demonstrates?

You're right and the UN, IMF, and CIA are wrong?

So, to you, a newly industrialized country is NOT currently industrialized.

What a fucking moron you are.

No, not to me. To the UN, IMF, CIA, all experts and the world community.

You have the definition right there in front of you, in simple and clear terms, having been presented over and over from your own source, and you still can't grasp it. It's baffling, really.

Until now I've only called you an idiot according to your own criteria. By now you've surely demonstrated that by anyone's criteria, you're a certified moron.

I suggest you actually read the link I and others have provided several times. Moron. Mexico and China, just for example ARE currently industrialized countries.