OK, well a simple division might be rich and poor. In which case China would be classified as poor. A lot what makes China a "hard case" is that admitting it is a poor nation makes China bashing a bit harder. (Not impossible since even poor nations have responsibilities - not that the U.S. exactly lives up to all its responsibilities.)

China's per capita income is only slightly more per year than Jamaica's. In fact in sorted GDP lists, China is immediately above Jamaica.

True, but this masks great regional disparity. Places like Shanghai have living standards on a par with Latin America, while more rural areas are subject to severe poverty. (This is a source of growing tension within China - the outrage sparked when the haves are seen to be riding roughshod over the have-nots spreads rapidly.)

A lot what makes China a "hard case" is that admitting it is a poor nation makes China bashing a bit harder.

I think it's more complicated than that. China is poor per capita (though not uniformly across the country), but as you note it is still an economic powerhouse (and a growing military one). It has a great impact on the rest of the world, and the rest of the world has every right to be critical of how it uses that power. Poor countries do have responsibilities; so do superpowers, and China is both. (Likewise, both poor countries and superpowers have rights and legitimate interests. Most of what makes China a hard case is that untangling its complex and sometimes contradictory nature is genuinely hard. It isn't helped by the fact that frankly, China isn't that skillful at international diplomacy.)

For the record, I was being facetious about Jamaica-As-Second-World, and not attempting to dis it.

Though I think it might be time to revisit "-world" definitions, because countries with dysfunctional unstable governments, marginal infrastructures, robber baron/colonialist economies, or your classic 'failed states' (cf Somalia, Haiti, North Korea, Afghanistan, East Timor) surely deserve a lower gradation than Third.

Not apropos, why isn't Twitter working.

Are there second-world countries?

Here's an article about US political trends that I found rather compelling: [link]

The most striking quote (to me):

"Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing."

So you're not thinking of corrupt government and paucity of infrastructure in the aame breath as my native land?

Are there second-world countries?

That was the Soviet bloc which no long exists. Unlike "Third World" the term did not mutate.

So you're not thinking of corrupt government and paucity of infrastructure in the aame breath as my native land?

That is the reality - not the stereotype. Not really a surprise that people are wrong. I guess maybe a surprise that they are wrong about this. Popular culture portrayals and really good PR by whoever promotes y9ur tourism.

For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing."

I am horrified by this. But not surprised. People really seem to put as much belief in their actual stated intentions as I do in the claims that the President is not a citizen and a secret Muslim. I feel like I have factual accuracy on my side but they probably do too. It's a mess. And no one seems to think talking together and looking for compromise is worthwhile.