

The Scary New Rich - cubix
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234589

======
patio11
_The emerging bourgeoisie is a patchwork of contradictions: clamorous but
rarely confrontational politically, supporters of globalization yet highly
nationalistic, proud of their nations' upward mobility yet insecure and
fearful they will fall back, fiercely individualistic but reliant on
government subsidies, and often socially conservative._

This is pretty much _verbatim_ what folks said about the rise of the United
States. And, for that matter, the British before us. And, for that matter,
Japan.

(Though foreign observers haven't frequently described Japanese as fiercely
individualistic since, oh, the 1920s or so. Fun fact about changing
perceptions of culture: Japanese people also used to be well-known as poorly
educated slackers.)

~~~
xiaoma
Like the OP, I'm also interested in building up a modest income with a side
project. I have a question about it that you seem particularly likely to be
able to answer:

How do you go about setting up an LLC from abroad (like you in Japan), and was
it the sort of thing that could be done on a shoestring budget?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161997>

~~~
xiaoma
sorry, I posted this on the wrong thread

------
d4nt
I don't buy it. France's middle class already think and behave very
differently from America's. The fact is though that in any society, people
don't like corruption or being told what to think and the ones with a bit of
money will vote with their wallets. That might not look the same as western
democracy but I'm confident it will trend towards the rule of law and
individual freedoms.

~~~
swwu
_the ones with a bit of money will vote with their wallets_

The problem with this (regarding China in particular) is that the "ones with a
bit money" and the "people" sometimes intersect at very few points.

~~~
d4nt
I would have to conceed that point. But if the ruling elite use the promise of
expanding prosperity to stay in power then sooner or later they either won't
be in power any more or there will be greater prosperity.

------
nalbyuites
I try to steer clear of articles such as these but got fooled by the
submission title. These attempts to paint the world in such broad strokes may
seem to provide information in easily digestible forms but are useless, being
just one step higher than black and white or good and evil.

No matter how appealing it may be to simplistically classify millions of
people like that, the devil is in the details always. We can just begin to
form some crude models with an in-depth study of the economies and sub-
economies (and sub-sub) of the world (a humble attempt here:
<http://www.gapminder.org/> ), let alone their equally complex social and
political data.

And despite the authors' beliefs, we are still evolving in all spheres -
political, social and economic. Today's liberal views can yet be viewed as
conservative in the future when better *cracies will form, very many of them
from the so-called second and third worlds.

------
nazgulnarsil
people who have to work pretty hard for everything they have tend to be
conservative in the literal sense of the term. middle class in china have a
50% of income savings rate or so I've heard.

~~~
CoreDumpling
I wouldn't put it that way. Think of the subsistence farmer struggling to make
ends meet after the social safety net got taken away. Or the factory worker
whose newborn child has birth defects likely induced by hazardous pollution in
the work environment. These people fall well within the category of "work
pretty hard" but they are also the most likely advocates of reform.

I think the article got it right -- the "conservatives" simply feel they have
more to lose. China's urban baby-boomer generation grew up during the Cultural
Revolution in the '60s and '70s, where it was effectively mob rule by the Red
Guards at a local level and many were sent to the countryside for re-
education. They've seen what misguided "reform" can do and are not clamoring
for it to happen again.

------
olh
Welcome to the real world. Your country is nothing more than a really big
corporation. If your big corporation can not control and predict the money
flow, your big corporation will be susceptible to bankruptcy.

This article is just an erroneous generalization. The "middle class" culture
and politics aren't the same in these countries.

------
pw0ncakes
The Cold War definitions of First, Second, and Third "worlds" are obsolete.
Updated for 2010:

First World: politically liberal, transparent government, rich countries with
universal healthcare and mandated vacation floors. Moderate to high economic
growth. Poverty is virtually nonexistent; it's not tolerant. The major flaw of
these countries comes from their strength-- although completely nonmilitant,
they can be a bit insular and closed to outsiders.

Second World: politically conservative, high degree of corruption, overt
elitism and stark class (and often race) discrepancies. Low degree of
political freedom. Lots of poverty and economically-motivated crime. Usually,
high economic growth. These are countries that are sacrificing freedom and
quality of life in order to increase or maintain relative status.

Third World: persistently underdeveloped and poor countries-- often too
corrupt and wartorn even to get off the ground-- that, absent substantial
change, have grim economic futures.

This article is about the Second World mentality. First World includes most of
the EU countries and Canada. Second World includes the BRIC (Brazil, Russia,
India, China) countries as well as the Arab oil states, most of Latin America,
Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai, and (to a large degree) the United States
post-Reagan.

In fact, I'd argue that the main political tension in the US is between a
First World (Blue States) and Second World (Red States) subnation that are
emerging, and diverging, within one country. The post-2001 militancy is our
Second World component expressing a willingness to sacrifice prosperity,
lives, and political freedom for national dominance.

~~~
euroclydon
Oh please! Name me a first world country (by your standards) with three
hundred million or more people. The sheer size of countries like: China,
India, U.S., and Russia, makes them totally different than Finland or The
Netherlands.

~~~
yequalsx
Well, the conclusion, if your point is correct, is not that the op is wrong
but that large, prosperous nations tend toward 2nd world status.

