Is Europe a first world continent?

I personally think its around 2nd world, except for England.


0|0
1|5

Most Helpful Guy

  • Europe's a biggish place, culturally.

    Scandinavia, low countries, germany, france are definitely 'first world'. Southern Europe is 'first world' = it's miles ahead of developing countries, but it's clearly not as wealthy as the north. Eastern Europe is probably considered developing, but it's developing fast and the standard of living is pretty good.

    From an economic standpoint, U. S. GDP/person is 54000 as of 2014. In Canada we're at 50000. The United Kingdom is 46000. Germany is actually 48000 for instance, the Netherlands 52000. France is 43000. Sweden is 59000 - higher than U. S. Finland is same as Canada.

    If you go to southern Europe, italy is 35000, spain 30000 for instance. Greece is now at 21000, so that's a big gap vs. Canada or the US. They're close to say south korea which is 28000 (greece wishes it was) Italy is on par with Japan, per capita

    Countries like poland, slovakia, lithuania etc. are in the teens.

    For what it's worth, Norway has been awash in oil money with a small population, and has a GDP/capital almost double the U. S.

    From a military standpoint, it's the U. S., then everyone else by a mile. Global rankings of the top 10 militaries, in order, go: USA, Russia, China, India, UK, France, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Turkey.

    So that gives you some idea as well.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • What about Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland and France?

    1|2
    0|0

What Guys Said 4

  • Europe is a first world continent. Countries like Germany have a very high standard of living.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Apparently Sweden is technically third-world.

    0|3
    1|0
  • On what do you base the "2nd world" I wonder?

    0|0
    0|0
    • maybe this country would have good healthcare and education but not a good military or infrastructure

    • I'd say Sweden, how I know of it, is a definitely a "first world" country because it has great education, healthcare, social security, infrastructure etc. and yet it's military is in an utterly laughable state, but that's because they have decreed that they have no need for it instead of being unable to support a modern and effective military. Does that make them "2nd world" to you? And on what do you base your definition of a "good" military anyway? Size? Budget? Modernization? Record? And for the record, I think that the British public education and healthcare systems are utterly lacking in comparison to the Nordic countries so I'd decree England more of a "2nd world" country than many others in Europe.

  • It depends where in Europe. Every country is different.

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...