Standstill due to the elections?

[deeve007]

I think a better way would be to compare specific countries within a discussion. Eg. Argentina is less developed than the US ...etc.

Just because something is commonly used doesn't mean it's the best thing to use.

 

[fedecc]

Yes well, i not going to name one by one every country im referring to.

 

[steveinbsas]

Here your hole life can change from one day to the next because of some new policy or decision.

This is the most appropriate misspelling ever!

It isn't only true for Argentina. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 wiped out many who had invested in limited partnerships to buy property and legislation that closes other "loopholes" that were created to "stimulate" a particular industry often hurts the "working man" far more than it does the rich.

 

[sundae]

Argentina is a bit different than most countries... 'redeveloping' is probably a more accurate description given its history. I would say it's 2nd world. You can definitely live and feel like you're in a first world country here, but you can't ignore the filth, the villas, the kids begging for money in the middle street, or the cartoneros and their horses on the road.

I don't know what's going to happen in the elections, but I hope things slowly improve. But unfortunately, much like US politicians, there isn't really anyone I have much faith in. They all come off as either well-intentioned but inept or somewhat competent and extremely crooked.

 

[deeve007]

Yes well, i not going to name one by one every country im referring to.

It's not that hard ffs. Most conversations are referring to a specific country in relation to another country.

eg.
So how is it living in Argentina?
Well it's a little less developed than the US... yada yada.

Or do you live to be bundled into a label that doesn't fit you? Southern red neck? Dumb American? Country bumpkin?

Anyway, it's all arguing semantics which is never going to end in a definitive agreement. But just perhaps don't be so quick to label things so easily. It's certainly not accurate to call Argentina "developing", nor to say it's quite as developed as the US or Australia.

 

[citygirl]

Anyway, it's all arguing semantics which is never going to end in a definitive agreement. But just perhaps don't be so quick to label things so easily. It's certainly not accurate to call Argentina "developing", nor to say it's quite as developed as the US or Australia.

To be fair - have you spent any substantial time in areas outside of BsAs or other cities in Argentina? B/C once you get outside of those cities - life is very different. Very few cars, no paved roads, no gov't services, no internet, no phone lines, riding your horse to the store, etc.

I'd say developing indeed!

 

[starlucia]

To be fair - have you spent any substantial time in areas outside of BsAs or other cities in Argentina? B/C once you get outside of those cities - life is very different. Very few cars, no paved roads, no gov't services, no internet, no phone lines, riding your horse to the store, etc.

I'd say developing indeed!

Exactly what I was going to say. Buenos Aires ≠ Argentina. The country is HUGE, and the majority of it is far less developed than its handful of urban centers. Some areas don't have reliable electricity, fire departments or running water. Heck, even within Greater Buenos Aires -- just a train ride away -- there are large shantytowns living in jaw-dropping third-world conditions (take a remis ride through Villa Itati in Quilmes to see what I mean.) I think that's a big difference between a country that's developed or not -- whether large-scale slums are allowed to continue to exist.

 

[John.St]

Argentina ... I would say it's 2nd world.

2nd world is/was used to designate the Sovjet Union and the east Block countries (WAPA).

((1+3)/2) world is more correct

 

[John.St]

... But just perhaps don't be so quick to label things so easily. It's certainly not accurate to call Argentina "developing", nor to say it's quite as developed as the US or Australia.

Problem is that we can't have a practical conversation without labels, we need to use them all the time, as all languages must contain large numbers of labels.

"That Tralfamadorian politician is a corrupt clown."

Four labels (Tralfamadorian, politician, corrupt, clown), which themselves spawns more labels (Tralfamadore, country, politician, elected representative, elect, representative, ...), the explanation of which will take hours.

 

[deeve007]

To be fair - have you spent any substantial time in areas outside of BsAs or other cities in Argentina? B/C once you get outside of those cities - life is very different. Very few cars, no paved roads, no gov't services, no internet, no phone lines, riding your horse to the store, etc.

I'd say developing indeed!

Hence why these labels are so inaccurate, however you use them.

And you don't "need" labels, unless you're too lazy to actual describe accurately what you're talking about. At least make an effort not to be like the mainstream media.