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

[QUENTIN]

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?

/\

 

[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.

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

Then I guess I'm just as mental as the SEC and the Congress that set it up.


If you don't see how people buying and selling equities for other folks across state lines isn't covered by the commerce clause, I'd recommend you go back to high school to learn what words mean.

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

I have, it's short, to the point, and I've quoted from it repeatedly. It demonstrates that they're not industrialized countries.

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.

Says here NICs are not yet industrialized. "Industrialized" as noted above multiple times from this link: Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is synonymous with "developed," "First World," and "most economically developed countries." ("Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".) It says plainly NICs have not yet reached First World status.

The term began to be used circa 1970 when the Four Asian Tigers[1] of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan rose to global prominence as NICs in the 1970s and 80s, with exceptionally fast industrial growth since the 1960s; all four regions have since graduated into advanced economies and high-income economies. There is a clear distinction between these countries and the nations now considered to be NICs. In particular, the combination of an open political process, high GNI per capita and a thriving, export-oriented economic policy has shown that these countries have now not only reached but surpassed the ranks of many developed countries.

All four former NICs have SINCE GRADUATED into advanced economies (look up advanced economies, see where it redirects you: to "developed countries" where China and Mexico are not listed).

There is a CLEAR DISTINCTION between these now industrialized countries and those currently considered NICs, since these former NICs have now become developed countries. Again, making clear the difference between industrialized nations and NICs.

NICs usually benefit from comparatively low labor costs, which translates into lower input prices for suppliers. As a result, it is often easier for producers in NICs to outperform and outproduce factories in developed countries, where the cost of living is higher, and labor unions and other organizations have more political sway.

It's easier for NICs to outperform developed countries, again contrasting NICs with industrialized countries and pointing out their significant differences because they're not the same.

Take your own advice and read the article, it makes absolutely, undeniably, and abundantly clear in plain English that NICs are not industrialized countries, but rather countries on their way to industrialization.

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?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

 

[Si modo]

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.

I have, it's short, to the point, and I've quoted from it repeatedly. It demonstrates that they're not industrialized countries.



Says here NICs are not yet industrialized. "Industrialized" as noted above multiple times from this link: Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is synonymous with "developed," "First World," and "most economically developed countries." ("Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".) It says plainly NICs have not yet reached First World status.

The term began to be used circa 1970 when the Four Asian Tigers[1] of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan rose to global prominence as NICs in the 1970s and 80s, with exceptionally fast industrial growth since the 1960s; all four regions have since graduated into advanced economies and high-income economies. There is a clear distinction between these countries and the nations now considered to be NICs. In particular, the combination of an open political process, high GNI per capita and a thriving, export-oriented economic policy has shown that these countries have now not only reached but surpassed the ranks of many developed countries.

All four former NICs have SINCE GRADUATED into advanced economies (look up advanced economies, see where it redirects you: to "developed countries" where China and Mexico are not listed).

There is a CLEAR DISTINCTION between these now industrialized countries and those currently considered NICs, since these former NICs have now become developed countries. Again, making clear the difference between industrialized nations and NICs.

NICs usually benefit from comparatively low labor costs, which translates into lower input prices for suppliers. As a result, it is often easier for producers in NICs to outperform and outproduce factories in developed countries, where the cost of living is higher, and labor unions and other organizations have more political sway.

It's easier for NICs to outperform developed countries, again contrasting NICs with industrialized countries and pointing out their significant differences because they're not the same.

Take your own advice and read the article, it makes absolutely, undeniably, and abundantly clear in plain English that NICs are not industrialized countries, but rather countries on their way to industrialization.

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?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

And, they ARE currently industrialized.

If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.

They ARE industrialized.

 

[QUENTIN]

And, they ARE currently industrialized.

If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.

They ARE industrialized.

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?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

 

[masquerade]

I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.

You mean these folks?


And if you hadn’t heard it before now, you may be wondering who he was talking about.

Perhaps he was speaking to Hollywood — producer/directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, who were paid $170 million and $150 million, respectively, according to Forbes magazine’s 2009 list. Less generous, but still better than I and probably you, were Jerry Bruckheimer at $100 million and Atlanta’s Tyler Perry at $75 million. Or actors such as Harrison Ford ($65 million) or Adam Sandler ($55 million).

Then again, he might have been talking to America’s television stars. Dr. Phil (McGraw) pulled down $80 million, Forbes reports. Simon Cowell of “American Idol” was close behind at $75 million. And there’s Oprah, our highest-paid celebrity, at $275 million.

But Oprah is one of the president’s biggest backers, so let’s forget the big and little screens and turn to musicians. For all the challenges to that industry, Madonna managed to bring home $110 million. There’s Beyonce Knowles at $87 million; Bruce Springsteen, $70 million; Kenny Chesney and Dave Matthews Band, $65 million each; and a cool $60 million for the band Rascal Flatts.

I could mention athletes, but Tiger Woods was in a class of his own at $110 million (a figure he won’t match this year)....

Exactly who ‘makes enough money’ in Obama’s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield

Yes! Those people!

 

[boedicca]

And, they ARE currently industrialized.

If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.

They ARE industrialized.

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?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

They're NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, you moron. That is not mutually exclusive with still developing.

 

[Flopper]

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



None of your damn business you socialist pig.

With ever president we dissect each speech, analyse each gesture, smiles, and frowns to prove some point. If the president says you've made enough money, then that means he wants to redistribute the wealth. He also said "I am an ardent believer in the free market." So by the same logic, we conclude that his policies will favor business. He bows his head to a foreign head of state, so we conclude that his policies will favor internationalism.

We need to spend less time analyzing what political figures say and more time analyzing what they do. Every politician lies. They could not get elected if they didn't.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yeah....but not the correct type of industrialized country.

That's the sticking point. They have to fall into a specific class for them to be included.

How else are these newvo brain-farted dweebies gonna be able prove their point if they can't make exceptions and rationalizations.

 

[QUENTIN]

And, they ARE currently industrialized.

If you finally want to be accurate and call them something else, go for it.

They ARE industrialized.

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?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

They're NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, you moron. That is not mutually exclusive with still developing.

Read the links. You don't know what "newly industrialized countries," "developed," and "developing" mean in this context.

"Newly industrialized country" is a phrase used to describe a developing country further along in its process of industrialization than most other developing countries but still not developed.

"Developed" = "Industrialized." They're direct synonyms in the context of national economies. One will redirect to the other, they're used interchangeably, along with the now out-of-favor "First World" and more PC "most developed countries." They all describe the same thing and are classified the same way by the aforementioned IMF, UN, and CIA, which will refer to the same group of countries (which doesn't include China or Mexico) as "industrialized," "developed," or "most developed" depending on the venue and if they have to avoid offending Zimbabweans.

A newly industrialized country, as a country that is explicitly a developing country (appearing on all lists of developing countries) and not yet developed is not yet industrialized.

It's not mutually exclusive with developing at all, you're right on that, it's a unique subset of developing countries, it is however mutually exclusive with developed or industrialized.

It seems, unless you're just as dumb or stubborn as Si modo, you're taking the word "industrialized" in the phrase "Newly industrialized country" too literally.

So here's the definition again:

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.

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".

It's all there in the definitions in the links already provided by myself and, ironically, Si modo. NICs are developing, or less developed, or underdeveloped, or non-industrialized nations that are expected to reach industrialization at some point in the relatively near future, they are not developed, or most economically developed, or First World, or industrialized nations.

Again I'll pose the question to Si modo that he's going to such great lengths to avoid answering:

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?

So, if China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

If he doesn't answer, he has no answer, and has finally admitted he was wrong whether he's willing to state it plainly or not.

 

[boedicca]

I've read the thread and the links.

They're called NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, not Nearly Industrialized Countries.

 

[mudwhistle]

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



None of your damn business you socialist pig.

With ever president we dissect each speech, analyse each gesture, smiles, and frowns to prove some point. If the president says you've made enough money, then that means he wants to redistribute the wealth. He also said "I am an ardent believer in the free market." So by the same logic, we conclude that his policies will favor business. He bows his head to a foreign head of state, so we conclude that his policies will favor internationalism.

We need to spend less time analyzing what political figures say and more time analyzing what they do. Every politician lies. They could not get elected if they didn't.

I don't think it's a case of over-analysis.

It's just called "Paying attention to what the man is saying". Not saying over and over how well he says it.

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

Yeah....but not the correct type of industrialized country.

That's the sticking point. They have to fall into a specific class for them to be included.

How else are these newvo brain-farted dweebies gonna be able prove their point if they can't make exceptions and rationalizations.

Not my "exceptions" or "rationalizations" - the UN, CIA, and IMF's standards. Words have meanings. Industrialized/developed and non-industrialized/developing are terms with specific recognized criteria established not by you or I but internationally respected bodies. NICs aren't actually recognized as a distinct group by the CIA, IMF, or UN, it's a classification some individual experts and economists use to differentiate a subset of developing countries, not an official designation. Another similar term not officially recognized by those international bodies but used by many economists is "emerging markets" which China and Mexico also are both classified as.

China and Mexico fail to meet the criteria established by the world community and economic analysts of the IMF, UN, and CIA for being industrialized or developed countries. They are instead classified as developing countries.

Again, since you apparently need to have it hammered home again and again for you:

IMF advanced economies
• 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

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009.[17]

* 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

So to anyone who still tries to claim NICs are industrialized, I pose the same question.

If China and Mexico are industrialized nations, why pray tell do the UN, CIA, and IMF classify them not as industrialized nations but as developing nations?

You're right and they're all wrong?

 

[QUENTIN]

I've read the thread and the links.

They're called NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES, not Nearly Industrialized Countries.

You too are taking the phrase too literally and ignoring the fact that it's a politically correct euphemism used to not offend the many people who were offended by being called "Third World" and "underdeveloped" and so on. It's explained that way rather clearly in a link that's been quoted again and again. Newly industrialized countries actually does mean "Nearly industrialized countries," that is its definition.

An NIC is like an adolescent or young teen on their way to becoming an adult, they're no longer a young kid, but they're not yet an adult either. They're in a transition period where they're still classified by all standards as minors (developing) but all it'll take is some time to move past that since they're nearly adults (developed). In the same way that 13 ≠ 18, newly industrialized country ≠ industrialized.

Yet again:

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.

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".

Industrialized = First World = developed. NICs are explicitly not First World, not developed, not industrialized but rather developing and nearer to being industrialized than the rest of their developing counterparts.

They are categorically not industrialized countries and NO ONE classifies them as such. Again, check the IMF, UN, CIA, World Bank, they're not industrialized nations according to anyone except a handful of posters in this thread.

I'm starting to wonder how many people here speak English as a first language.

 

[boedicca]

You can continue to spin it however you wish. They are Newly Industrialized Countries. Their economies are fueled by industrialization. They are industrialized. And that's a fact, Jack.

 

[QUENTIN]

You can continue to spin it however you wish. They are Newly Industrialized Countries. Their economies are fueled by industrialization. They are industrialized. And that's a fact, Jack.

You're the one spinning it and ignoring plain and clear definitions as well as the classification of every world expert, being uncommonly daft. And China's economy is still primarily agricultural, not industrialized.

Economy of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labor force by occupation: agriculture (39.5%), services (33.2%), industry (27.2%) (2009)

Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

They're developing, not industrialized. And that's a fact, ignoramus.

Funny how no one vainly attempting to claim they're industrialized countries will touch the fact that the UN, IMF, CIA, and World Bank say they're not.

 

[boedicca]

It's clear you are committed to persisting in a constant state of denial regarding the vast amount of evidence Si Modo and others have provided to you.

Enjoy your ignorance; it appears to be your major attribute.

 

[QUENTIN]

It's clear you are committed to persisting in a constant state of denial regarding the vast amount of evidence Si Modo and others have provided to you.

Enjoy your ignorance; it appears to be your major attribute.

Yeah, all those vast amounts of evidence. Like the evidence from the IMF, UN, and CIA saying China and Mexico are industrialized and...oh wait.

 

[saveliberty]

Over twenty-four hours of defending your stupid attack. Just give it a rest QUENTIN. You need to realize many of the countries are placed on those lists to give them special status for US aid give aways. It has little to do with their industrialization. Which, is different from developing although you refuse to admit it.

 

[JBeukema]

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



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.

I think we've established by this point that you're wasting your breath; they don't care about the facts.