A very poor nation with scarce resources, sometimes torn apart by war and constant coups, the government will be almost always very corrupt if not blatantly totalitarian, it is also possible that gangs and criminal groups rule the streets and access to quality medical care and commodities, as in the first world, is rare. It's almost certain that no one would speak English and those who do would do it with an accent. Probably the population will be brown-skinned (unless located in some Eastern European country), if located in Latin Land they’ll probably be living near a beach and among palm trees and coconuts with mariachi music and a fruit-base economy, or they can be from Europe, but somehow more similar to California’s friendly neighbors than other Europeans. If the country is located in Africa you can expect dangerous jungles and uncivilized tribes or at least tall thin shepherds and hungry children. But is it? During the Cold War the world was split in three places; the first world was Eagle Land and its capitalist allies, especially (but not limited to) NATO members, the second world was the socialist one with USSR leading the way with both its "satellite states" and some more rebellious (but still commies) pairs like China and Yugoslavia, and then the third option, the neutrals, the ones that were neither comrades, nor business partners; the Third World, also known as the non-aligned countries. note The term was ambiguous to begin with as was more based on politics than in economy, but as most members of the Third World were poor and underdeveloped then it became synonymous of "poor country", even when places like Cuba, Laos or Vietnam were part of the second world and places like Austria, Ireland and Switzerland were (in theory) third world. But the Cold War ended, the Iron Curtain fell and the second world disappears for all practical purposes. The usage of “third world” became obsolete in most academic circles and literature and nowadays is rarely used in official documents. Yet, in many media and in popular speech can still be used as a somewhat derogatory term for not the first world. Of course, what constitutes a poor country may be subjective, as for example some people would refer to Latin America, North Africa and Eastern Europe as part of the third world, even when currently they are not considered as such by the international community or economic organizations. A more Politically Correct terminology use today is:
- Developed country for post-industrial or highly industrialized countries (when the service sector provides more wealth than the industrial sector), a.k.a. high-income countries: the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
- Developing countries that still have an industrial-oriented economy yet they’re close to be post-industrial countries (essentially the “middle class” of countries) a.k.a. mid-income countries: Latin America, Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, South Africa, China, India, Russia, Iran and several Arab and Asian countries.
- Undeveloped countries or least developed countries that are still mostly agrarian economies a.k.a. low-income countries: most of Subsaharian Africa, most of Indochina, Haiti, Yemen, etc. (and these are most probably the ones Westerners refer when meaning “third world”)
- Very high development: United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Chile.
- High development: Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, most of South America, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Eastern Europe, Russia, China and Iran.
- Medium development: India, Mongolia, Indonesia, most of Indochina, most of Central America (except the aforementioned Costa Rica and Panama) and most African countries
- Low development: most of Subsaharian Africa, some parts of Asia and Haiti in the Americas.