I-it doesn't look so bad guys!

I-it doesn't look so bad guys!

You just know they're very concious about the colors they used. Usually it'd be green-yellow-orange-red or even black. Light blue looks more pleasant than red or orange.

Cuba is looking pretty good.

Why be unpleasant when you can be pleasant?

...

In fact Greece is higher than:
Estonia Slovakia Poland Lithuania Malta Saudi Arabia Argentina Chile Portugal Hungary Latvia Croatia

No greenland and why is guiana white when france is dark blue.

that is true. Also, I do not understand how V4 countries can be counted as "high"

but how

it's a debt ridden wasteland with poverty and rampant unemployment

Yea but they got roads and economic freedom™

This map is shit.

*sigh*
No, it's just a grouping of the highest HDIs, they're not all actually on the same level.

This is how one can easily tell n00bs to graphs.

Is the implication here that the 3rd world is not capitalist?

Spoiler: It is.
It's the reason the first world has a lot of rich people and the 3rd world has a shitton of poor people.

But there aren't two poles. It's just one pole of varying happiness.

The 3rd world is basically the first world minus ~50-100 years.

It's a pole of the highest versus the lowest. Are you familiar with this illusion? This would show why monochromatic schemes can be misleading in cases like this.

No it isn't
The third world has been capitalist just as long as the first one.
Indeed, the primary reason people starve in Africa is because they have lower purchasing power than consumers in the West, ensuring that African land-owners sell cash-crops to the West and let their countrymen starve.
This problem is only getting worse, as internationally wealth-disparity is getting worse, and while average wealth in the 3d world has increase *median* wealth has barely moved at all, because only very few people (business-owners) benefit from trading with the rest of the world.

The 3rd world is in other words not the 1st world -50 years.
The 1st world is the first world because the 3rd world is the 3rd world and the 3rd world is the 3rd world because the 1st world is the 1st world.

My point was that these people would object if you called the Third World "poor" and ask you to use "less rich" instead. It wasn't so much about graphs.

Oh, very well.

i thought colonialism was good, what happend Holla Forums

Google industrialization and maybe it will explain why some countries are richer than others.

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

"Capitally-challenged"

Google primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of economy and maybe you'll realize why the West has a vested interest in making sure it can its raw materials for dirt-cheap.

Google stats on wealth-disparity and you'll see that it has gotten worse internationally.

Google the World Hunger Institute and read all about how the primary cause of starvation in the third world stems from lacking relative purchasing power and then realize that this is made worse with increasing wealth disparity.

Alright, maybe I shouldn't have replied in this way but I was on my phone. What I wanted to say is that, as I am sure you're well aware of, Western Europe was first when it came to building a competitive advantage against the rest of the world. You are merely describing the effects of the last 200 years of history, even more if you add the first wave of colonialism. Maybe we should focus on the causes and assess whether it's an ethical question or an economic question.

tl;dr: what could have been done differently so that this 'inequality' wouldn't exist

Also, of course it's getting worse as the machines are getting more potent. Even first-world populations are starting to feel the pain.

Some places, like Venezuela, haven't been updated in 4 years or more.

H-H-How does the DPRK have the same HDI as Somalia???

The white parts means they can't find find enough information to measure human development in the region so they just leave it blank.