China incline USA decline?

[coberst]

China incline USA decline?

America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.

I suspect that China represents an example of how such a fact plays out. China, an authoritarian form of capitalism, is likely destined to become the dominant power in the 21st century because an authoritarian system can better adapt to a rapidly changing world. America displays a nation unable to quickly adapt to a rapidly changing world.

Karl Popper argues, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, that all ideology shares a common characteristic; a belief in infallibility.

The concept Popper illustrates in this book sounds much like the concept of a liberal democracy but his concept is more epistemological than political. It is based upon our imperfect comprehension of reality more than our structure of society. Such infallibility is an impossibility, which leads such ideological practitioners to use force to substantiate their views and such repression brings about a closed society.

Popper proposed that the open society is constructed on the recognition that our comprehension of reality is not perfect—there is realty beyond our comprehension and our will cannot compensate for that lack of comprehension. Even though the will of the power structure can manipulate the opinions of the citizens sooner or later reality will defeat the will. Truth does matter and success will not always override truth—truth being reality.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I disagree with your statement that "An authoritarian system can better adapt to a rapidily changing world...America displays a nation unable to quickly adapt to a rapidly changing world." On the contrary I believe that America is the most adaptable country in the world and the most open and willing to adapt and change.

[MANICHAEAN]

Any descendents of the immigrants that gave up, (whether by choice or circumstance), their original birthplace to make a new life in America have by definition the qualities of: character, hard work, innovation, focus and the willingness to take risk. This may appear at first glance to be a somewhat bland statement and there are many Americans who appear not to know much outside their own backyard. But then for the last twenty years I have worked with what I term the "Frontier Americans" in Africa, The Middle East & Asia. They are representative of the potential of Americans to adapt, (like the British) to a successful new role in the world. The seeds of danger always lie within the emerging power, (in this case China). With their rigid system, sensitivity to criticism, suppression of independent thinking ask yourself who you would lay your money on!

[Virgil]

I disagree with your statement that "An authoritarian system can better adapt to a rapidily changing world...America displays a nation unable to quickly adapt to a rapidly changing world." On the contrary I believe that America is the most adaptable country in the world and the most open and willing to adapt and change.

I agree. Change for the sake of change doesn't mean it's for the better. What appears to be a lack of change may actually be the correct decision. China has figured out over the last few years that freeing the economy to market forces provides the most adaptability and leads to the greater prosperity. The Chinese may not be free politically, but they certainly seem free economically these days. Top down command economies strangle because one is more likely to make incorrect economic decisions as not and over time it will show. Let the market forces determine change, and that is true adaptability. While the US lately has become more command geared economically, it's still one of among the most free of the western nations, and this command appoach willbe reversed. We sometimes go through cycles, but it won't last. I applaud the Chinese economic success. They are rising because they currently have low labor rates while western countries do not. Over time that will change, perhaps in two generations.

[OrphanPip]

China's going to have serious economic issues in 20-30 years because of the one child policy. They're entering a period where a very small portion of their population will be largely responsible for supporting a very large portion. The Western world will have a comparable problem with the aging baby boomers, except not as bad.

[wildspirit]

I agree that the US is in decline. The education system is a serious mess. There is no initiative. Students are lazy and dont care at all about learning, pop culture is the focus. Texting in class with a phone hidden in purse or pocket is the norm. Students can not be expected to participate successfully in the economy, work force or government when their focus is on designer clothing and status symbols that they can really afford. Democracy relies on it's citizens being able to make educated decisions about their leaders and if the next generation refuses to learn then US leadership will decline and other nations will rise to fill in the gap.

[9 Bean Rows]

Interesting that the question should be posed as if upon a set of scales. Must the US decline for China to incline or vice-versa? (sp.)The premise of finite wealth vs. created wealth has shaped politics for thousands of years. I personally believe in a single creator of all men. I therefore do not fear another mans good fortune as a loss to my own.

[MANICHAEAN]

Good point 9 Bean Rows. Its a sign of maturity to express appreciation at the success of others, whether it be nations or individuals.
The caveat lies in the successful ones not being too brash regards their achievements. Edward Gibbon noted it in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The British, I trust with good grace, succumbed / adjusted to their new reality of international status. For America it will involve some trauma if the scales do eventually tip adversely.

[Dinkleberry2010]

In every generation there are those who state and who believe that America is in decline, but it really picked up steam in the 1950s. Just read some of the Beat poets such as Ferlinghetti who were convinced they were witnessing the death of America before their very eyes. In the 1960s it became even more intense, but with this difference: there were some American writers who not only believed that America was dying but who actually rejoiced in it and celebrated it. Here is what I say, and I say it without apology: America is the freest, most liberal, most generous, most tolerant and most creative country on the face of the earth. That is a simple fact.

[Haunted]

America is the freest, most liberal, most generous, most tolerant and most creative country on the face of the earth. That is a simple fact.

Scholars and critics can theorize and intellectualize the decline of America as much as they want, but I've personally met and worked with some of the movers and shakers of America's upper echelon to know that this is indeed a simple and indisputable fact.

[WICKES]

Edward Gibbon noted it in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The British, I trust with good grace, succumbed / adjusted to their new reality of international status. For America it will involve some trauma if the scales do eventually tip adversely.

The USA will remain a major power in the 21st century, but it will no longer be the unrivalled superpower. Their power/status won't decline as suddenly and dramatically as Britain's (which lost the largest Empire in history in just a few years) but they will have to adjust. Unlike Britain, the USA is physically large.

The rest of the world (especially Asia) is simply copying the free market capitalism/ technology that made the USA so powerful. This is a tragedy imo. The whole world has been smothered in ugly, crude American culture: Mc Donalds, baseball caps, hip hop...At least when the British had their Empire they spread their 600 year old literature and civilisation. Perhaps the Chinese and Indians will share their great spiritual traditions as their influence grows. Anything will be better than trashy Hollywood films, coca cola, Gangsta rap and Oprah Winfrey.


Here is what I say, and I say it without apology: America is the freest, most liberal, most generous, most tolerant and most creative country on the face of the earth. That is a simple fact.

Simply isn't true. The USA is certainly free. It is more democratic than many countries, but it isn't the most free or most democratic. In 2007 The Economist magazine ranked different nations according to how democratic they really are (when you cut through all the mawkish speeches). The USA did very well, but was ranked below Sweden (number 1), Norway, Australia, Canada and Holland. It was level with the UK, France and Spain. You have complete freedom of speech in all these places (have you seen how the British ridicule their Royal Family!- Americans would never ridicule their president like that)

You say it is the most liberal. But you still have the death penalty! You execute women and the mentally disturbed. Most of western Europe and Australia have banned it.

You say it is the most tolerant, yet gay marriage/ civil partnerships are legal in Holland, UK etc but not in many states in the USA. There is definitely a more positive attitude towards homosexuality in western Europe, Canada and Australia than in much of the USA because the USA is far more religious. The same goes for abortion. There is a powerful, fundamentalist Christian right in the USA which just doesn't exist in Australia, Canada or Britain.

The French and Italians are more creative and artistic than Americans. Compare European films to the cliche riddled, sentimental, PC garbage churned out by Hollywood! The Europeans have thousands of years of culture and civilisation built up behind them. You can't buy Chartres cathedral or the 14th century Oxford colleges.

I have travelled a great deal and I like Americans a lot. You are a very generous, liberal, warm hearted, free people. But you are not the most liberal or free. France, Holland, the UK, Australia, Sweden, Norway...all these places are more liberal and civlised than the USA. If I was a homosexual, liberal atheist who suported abortion and opposed the death penalty I would feel very uncomfortable in most of the USA. I would head for London or Stockholm.

[Dinkleberry2010]

wickes, you have your opinion and I have mine--that's fine.

[stlukesguild]

The USA is certainly free. It is more democratic than many countries, but it isn't the most free or most democratic. In 2007 The Economist magazine ranked different nations according to how democratic they really are (when you cut through all the mawkish speeches). The USA did very well, but was ranked below Sweden (number 1), Norway, Australia, Canada and Holland.

How does one measure the degree of Democracy, one wonders? If Sweden is indeed the most Democratic nation how has this affected the quality of life... perhaps one might look at suicide rates... or their contributions to the rest of the world?

It was level with the UK, France and Spain. You have complete freedom of speech in all these places (have you seen how the British ridicule their Royal Family!- Americans would never ridicule their president like that).

It would seem that you don't know much about American politics... or late night television. Criticizing and even making fun of sitting presidents is virtually a spectator sport.

You say it is the most liberal. But you still have the death penalty!

It is arguable as to whether that is good or bad. Certain crimes such as child molestation and mass murder seem to call for more than a slap on the wrist.

You execute women and the mentally disturbed. Most of western Europe and Australia have banned it.

So are we to assume that women should have equal rights to men but not be held accountable to the same standards? Treatment of those with mental illness in general is something tat needs to be addressed in the US. The reality is that a great deal of the problem concerning mental illness is a direct result of misguided liberal approaches to their treatment which were in turn the result of horrific treatment by earlier generations in mental asylums (as seen in a film such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).

You say it is the most tolerant, yet gay marriage/ civil partnerships are legal in Holland, UK etc but not in many states in the USA. There is definitely a more positive attitude towards homosexuality in western Europe, Canada and Australia than in much of the USA because the USA is far more religious.

While there is a separation of Church and State this in no way precludes those with deeply-held religious beliefs from participation in the government (voting). Change is coming... certainly within a generation. I would suggest that it is economics as much as religion that stands in the way. Many businesses would rather not need to provide insurance coverage for domestic partners... for anyone they didn't have to.

The same goes for abortion. There is a powerful, fundamentalist Christian right in the USA which just doesn't exist in Australia, Canada or Britain.

Abortion is certainly legal in the US and has been for years. There are those who oppose it, certainly. Perhaps your notion of a liberal state is one in which dissenting voices are silenced? personally, I don't believe anyone is "pro-abortion" (rah-rah!) but for those unprepared or incapable of caring for another human being it may indeed be the only possible choice. Better education upon sex is certainly a better alternative.

The French and Italians are more creative and artistic than Americans.

Now that's just pure ignorance. How many great visual artists (painters and sculptors) have come out of France or Italy in the last 50 years? How many writers and poets of real merit? How many composers of serious music? How about leading architects? Innovators in Science, Medicine, and Technology. Are France of Italy leading the digital/computer revolution?

Compare European films to the cliche riddled, sentimental, PC garbage churned out by Hollywood!

Compare which European films to which Hollywood films? 90% of all art is mediocre at best. While Hollywood might churn out more schlock than the European film industries it is simply because the Hollywood machine is so huge. The American film industry... in Hollywood and elsewhere... has churned out far more than its fair share of truly classic films.

The Europeans have thousands of years of culture and civilisation built up behind them. You can't buy Chartres cathedral or the 14th century Oxford colleges.

The past is the past. Emerson argued that he would rather be part of a young culture that was still developing than part of an ancient culture in decline. Of course you deal in the present with what you have. Arguing that one culture is superior to another at present upon e basis of past achievements is like a smug pride in the achievements of one's ancestors... which you had nothing to do with. Can you buy Chartres? Perhaps not... but then again... if I recall London Bridge was last seen in Arizona, the Temple of Dendor was housed in the Met, and any number of medieval monasteries are now to be found in American museums... to say nothing of the paintings, books, etc...

Having said all this, I will be the first to admit that the US has any number of problems. I have long thought that many of these relate to our history... and current reality as a nation of immigrants. 35% of the US population call themselves immigrants. Immigrants are among our greatest resources: they are often highly motivated and hard working. It takes great motivation to move to a foreign nation where you will need to learn the laws, customs... even the language. As a result of our history as a nation of immigrants we have long held to the notion that we are a nation of "rugged individuals". We are suspicious of big government ("socialism"), the police, the welfare state, etc... Our suspicion of government and other authorities undoubtedly plays a role in our refusal to surrender our right to own guns. There is even a distrust of funding public education (primary... and especially post-secondary). We spend far more upon our military ventures than upon education... and yet it is almost certainly the decline in education that spells the most serious threat to the nation. The greatest asset we have in countering this are out immigrants. The greatest nations/states in economic, cultural, and even military terms have always been those that are the most open to outside influences. Paris dominated the culture of the West from the time of the Revolution until the First World War. When one looks at the artists involved in this culture, an endless array were immigrants or traveled widely themselves (Rousseau, Friedrich Melchior, Baron von Grimm, Chopin, Liszt, Gluck, Rossini, Van Gogh, Whistler, Oscar Wilde, Huysmans, Picasso, Dali, Max Ernst, Miro, Chagall, Man Ray, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Giacometti, Modigliani, Soutine, Stravinsky, etc...

[Virgil]

Simply isn't true. The USA is certainly free. It is more democratic than many countries, but it isn't the most free or most democratic. In 2007 The Economist magazine ranked different nations according to how democratic they really are (when you cut through all the mawkish speeches). The USA did very well, but was ranked below Sweden (number 1), Norway, Australia, Canada and Holland. It was level with the UK, France and Spain. You have complete freedom of speech in all these places (have you seen how the British ridicule their Royal Family!- Americans would never ridicule their president like that)

Well, obviously whatever study was done by the The Economist was flawed. Some of those countries have over 60-70% tax systems. Thank God I get to keep 60-70% of the money I earn. When someone has the earnings from the sweat of their labor taken away at the point of a gun (and that's what happens if you don't pay your taxes, some form of a state police system comes to address the issue) then you are no better than a partial slave. Slavery, the opposite of freedom, is being forced to work for no pay. Working for 40% of the value of your work makes you a 60% slave and only 40% free. Economic freedom is at the heart of liberty.


You say it is the most liberal. But you still have the death penalty! You execute women and the mentally disturbed. Most of western Europe and Australia have banned it.
That's a value, not a freedom. I assume there is a penal system in those countries as well. How penalties are derived are based on values.


You say it is the most tolerant, yet gay marriage/ civil partnerships are legal in Holland, UK etc but not in many states in the USA. There is definitely a more positive attitude towards homosexuality in western Europe, Canada and Australia than in much of the USA because the USA is far more religious. The same goes for abortion. There is a powerful, fundamentalist Christian right in the USA which just doesn't exist in Australia, Canada or Britain.
Again that's a value, not a freedom. I assume those countries don't allow incest and bigomy. How marriages are structured are based on cultural values. And to me the killing of an unborn child, who is innocent, powerless, and voiceless, is as unfree and unliberal as humanly possible.

EDIT: The last two responses I was assuming you were referring to classical liberalism, not political Liberalism (with a capital "L"). If you're talking about political Liberalism, who the hell cares. I would be proud not to be associated with political Liberalism.

[billl]

I just want to point out that, for some (in the U.S. in particular), to say that taxation by an elected government is slavery might seem unfair to the memory of those who suffered under the sort of oppression more commonly referred to by the word "slavery."

[Dinkleberry2010]

All I'll state in addition to what I've already said is this: I would rather live in the U.S. than any other country in the world. Call me ethoncentric or whatever you want, I don't care. I just feel that I'm fortunate to live in this country.

[Virgil]

I just want to point out that, for some (in the U.S. in particular), to say that taxation by an elected government is slavery might seem unfair to the memory of those who suffered under the sort of oppression more commonly referred to by the word "slavery."

No just the opposite. I am quite conscious of the wrongs done under slavery. I am bringing up what was done to those poor slaves to highlight what freedom means. This is not a rhetorical device. Those slaves labored for no pay. That's what lack of freedom means. If you don't what to hear it from me, hear it from Walter Williams, a black libertarian: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/06/11/are_americans_pro-slavery

[billl]

Yes, but it isn't the same as what a Norwegian is suffering under. Nor is it the same as what a corporate "wage slave" is suffering under either. I think there are plenty of people of all races that can see the difference.

Unfortunately, it did seem like a rhetorical device (like you were saying 70% taxation in Norway or wherever is "slavery"), but I apologize if it wasn't.

[Virgil]

Yes, but it isn't the same as what a Norwegian is suffering under. Nor is it the same as what a corporate "wage slave" is suffering under either. I think there are plenty of people of all races that can see the difference.

Unfortunately, it did seem like a rhetorical device (like you were saying 70% taxation in Norway or wherever is "slavery"), but I apologize if it wasn't.

I guess that's relative. If someone were taking 70% of my earnings, you damn right I would feel like a slave. I stand by what I said and so does Walter Williams who was similarly challenged.

[billl]

That would be annoying, certainly, especially compared to current U.S. rates of taxation. The word definitely captures the anger people can have about gov't sometimes, but it just seems too strong to me, since people aren't being bought, sold separately from other family members, forced to stay on at labor not of their choosing, given no voice in the gov't, forcefully restricted in movement, unprotected from abuses, etc. People are angry enough about taxes, I think. :P You might fire them up even more! But I've heard hippies use the word for controversial "wrongs" as well, so it maybe balances out.

Anyhow, unfortunately (rather, fortunately) this is all too political for here.

[Dinkleberry2010]

It seems to me that some people are absolute Utopians. They imagine that it's possible to have a government without taxation of any kind. The reality is that government of any kind demands some kind of taxation--be it in the form of tariffs, income tax, or whatever. That's just a simple fact. You may disagree with it, or you may not like it, but it's a fact. Here's another fact: If you take all things into account, the U.S. has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. It may be an illusion on my part, but I sense a lot of animosity toward capitalism in general, and toward America specifically.

[Haunted]

The French and Italians are more creative and artistic than Americans. Compare European films to the cliche riddled, sentimental, PC garbage churned out by Hollywood! The Europeans have thousands of years of culture and civilisation built up behind them. You can't buy Chartres cathedral or the 14th century Oxford colleges.


In my previous post I supported Jermac's statement that America is "the most creative country on the face of the earth."

To expand on that, the word "creative" covers more grounds than just in the artistic sense. Yet that's how the rest of the world interprets it: they see being creative as being artistic, as in films; cathedrals...maybe a pretty little lamp post in a 14th century Oxford college...

We are way beyond that.

Americans are creative thinkers. For us it's not enough to be creative only in art. We are creative in all aspects of life. That's what makes the world go round...that's where true power lies.

Sounds like you don't know us all that well.

[Virgil]

That would be annoying, certainly, especially compared to current U.S. rates of taxation. The word definitely captures the anger people can have about gov't sometimes, but it just seems too strong to me, since people aren't being bought, sold separately from other family members, forced to stay on at labor not of their choosing, given no voice in the gov't, forcefully restricted in movement, unprotected from abuses, etc.
Well, that is true. Point well taken. But let me put it this way. If a 100% of your income was taken in taxation and the gov't decides to buy your groceries, your car, your house, and whatever you may need, then would you feel free? How would you buy the things in life that satisfy your individuality? Like the books you want to read, the type of car you really want, the house in the neighborhood that suits your fancy, the types of food that enrich your taste buds, the schools you want to attend or you want your children to attend, the doctors you want to treat you, the vacations you want to take, the TV set you want to buy, the restaurants you want to eat at, the liquors you want to sip, and so on. If all your money was taken away, how would you express your individuality? How would you buy the things in life you want to buy, not what's provided for you? Now if 70% of your earnings are taken away, then your horizons have been limited.


People are angry enough about taxes, I think. :P You might fire them up even more!
Absolutely!


Sounds like you don't know us all that well.

I have found in my dealings on the internet, that Europeans do not really understand Americans. They think they do, because they read the newspapers and hear our debates, but there's a world of difference between reading newspapers and actually living under the laws that are passed and dealing with our heritage. Despite 234 years, the heritage of our founding fathers are still heavily an influence on our lives and values.

[OrphanPip]

Well, that is true. Point well taken. But let me put it this way. If a 100% of your income was taken in taxation and the gov't decides to buy your groceries, your car, your house, and whatever you may need, then would you feel free? How would you buy the things in life that satisfy your individuality? Like the books you want to read, the type of car you really want, the house in the neighborhood that suits your fancy, the types of food that enrich your taste buds, the schools you want to attend or you want your children to attend, the doctors you want to treat you, the vacations you want to take, the TV set you want to buy, the restaurants you want to eat at, the liquors you want to sip, and so on. If all your money was taken away, how would you express your individuality? How would you buy the things in life you want to buy, not what's provided for you? Now if 70% of your earnings are taken away, then your horizons have been limited.


I think the one problem with this Virgil is that those Scandinavian countries are democracies and their tax rates are decided on through free debate just like the American one is. How can you venture to say that Bjorn Bjornson in Norway is less free than you if he chooses, indirectly though it may be, to be part of a society where he gives 70% of his income to the government in exchange for certain services.

If I wanted to measure "freedom" I'd rather applaud the American ideological commitment to the ideal rather than discuss tax rates. I don't think any given Western European today is significantly more or less free than any given American. However, from my experiences with Europeans and Americans, I tend to find the Americans, with some exceptions in certain regions, to be a more accepting and tolerant lot. I think if you ask a recent immigrant to the US and a recent immigrant to France (of the non-white variety), and asked them how free and accepted they felt, I would bet on the US.

[WICKES]

I think if you ask a recent immigrant to the US and a recent immigrant to France (of the non-white variety), and asked them how free and accepted they felt, I would bet on the US.

That is because the USA thinks of itself as "a nation of immigrants" from all over the world. I'm not sure how true that is. Until the late 19th century the USA was essentially northern European in culture and character (apart from indiginous Indians and freed African slaves). I know there were other ethnic groups- Chinese for example. But if you take the Civil war as an example. That was a war fought by people of northern European ancestry.

People in the West: in North America, Europe and Australasia have really been brainwashed into thinking multiculturalism is a good thing- no debate, it's good, if you disagree you're a Nazi. The Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Russians etc are much more skeptical and hostile to this idea and I think they will be stronger for it in the coming decades. Multiculturalism causes massive tensions and undermines national identity. There are differences between people. It's a simple fact. Someone from an African slum is going to have an entirely different attitude towards women, animals, the right to privacy, corruption and so on. We pretend otherwise because the greatest sin today is racism- the 'r' word. Well, I'm ethnically a northern European. I feel more comfortable living around other northern Europeans. Sorry if that offends, but that is the way I feel. I don't wish anyone any harm, I don't want to hurt anyone and I don't think I'm superior but I don't want a multicultural, multi-ethnic West.

[billl]

WICKES, if you want to have any influence in a multi-cultural world (ie. if you want to do business or use the internet) then the more practice with multicultural interaction, the better, I think. There are Koreans, Chinese, Russians, etc. here in the U.S., and they or their children are at least as American as they are representative of their own countries. You are right to a certain degree about separation and such being a challenge and distraction, but it is a world economy now. I think the more single-minded cultures are more apt to be blind-sided by the complexities that face us as we spend more and more time encountering "others." It is more comfortable to avoid the difficulties, of course, but perhaps only in the short run.

[OrphanPip]

That is because the USA thinks of itself as "a nation of immigrants" from all over the world. I'm not sure how true that is. Until the late 19th century the USA was essentially northern European in culture and character (apart from indiginous Indians and freed African slaves). I know there were other ethnic groups- Chinese for example. But if you take the Civil war as an example. That was a war fought by people of northern European ancestry.

People in the West: in North America, Europe and Australasia have really been brainwashed into thinking multiculturalism is a good thing- no debate, it's good, if you disagree you're a Nazi. The Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Russians etc are much more skeptical and hostile to this idea and I think they will be stronger for it in the coming decades. Multiculturalism causes massive tensions and undermines national identity. There are differences between people. It's a simple fact. Someone from an African slum is going to have an entirely different attitude towards women, animals, the right to privacy, corruption and so on. We pretend otherwise because the greatest sin today is racism- the 'r' word. Well, I'm ethnically a northern European. I feel more comfortable living around other northern Europeans. Sorry if that offends, but that is the way I feel. I don't wish anyone any harm, I don't want to hurt anyone and I don't think I'm superior but I don't want a multicultural, multi-ethnic West.

You don't think it verges a bit on hypocrisy to criticize the USA for being intolerant of homosexuals and atheist while maintaining that Europeans are "more free" while being more xenophobic and intolerant of some sections of their immigrant population. I didn't think we were talking about which societies were more unified and culturally monolithic, but rather about which was more free.

[WICKES]

. It may be an illusion on my part, but I sense a lot of animosity toward capitalism in general, and toward America specifically.

A lot of people feel that the world is being ruined by free market capitalism: by greedy, vulgar, selfish, materialism. Who wants a McDonalds in Venice or Nepal? Who wants to see the rainforest disappear or the Kenyan bush turned into a tourist spot, ringed by fences and hotels? Many associate this vulgarity with Americans. The general stereotype of an American in Europe, Australia and Canada is of a fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class. Capitalism and America are viewed as synonymous, just as Judaism was linked to Communism. I know this is unfair. The whole 60s counter culture/ hippie thing came from the U.S. The problem is, just as many in the west (including the USA) are waking up to the dangers of free market Capitalism (environmental destruction, all powerful corporations etc) Asia and the third world are embracing it.

I'm not anti America or Americans (my favourite University lecturer was an American). What infuriates the rest of the world are the sort of things Jermac said : "The USA is the most free, the most liberal, the most...". Americans still seem to think the USA is special. It is true that (atm) you are the only superpower, but that is only because of the huge size of the USA, its huge population and its head start in industrialisation. Soon China and India will challenge this dominance. So, to a lesser extent, will the E.U and Russia.

Americans assume the USA is the place everyone wishes they could live. Perhaps that was true in 1940, but definitely not today. The simple fact is that many countries are just as free, just as wealthy, just as modern. This is not to say the USA isn't free and modern, just that it isn't unique. If I were to emigrate these would be my choices, in order:

1. France (better healthcare, less violent crime, older and more beautiful towns and cities)

2. Italy

3. Switzerland

4. Australia

5. New Zealand

6. Spain or Portugal

All are smart, modern, democratic and free. The standard of living is just as high, there is less violent gun crime, less ethnic tension and better health care and education. There is also more room.

7. USA (though I'd choose London over any American city).

Alongside the USA I'd put the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Finland...maybe even south Korea and Japan.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Most countries and nations in the world are generally homogeneous, that is, they are composed in the main of one certain ethnic or racial group. Of course every country has its minorities. But most countries have an overwhelming population of a certain race that in a large sense defines that country. Take Japan for example, or China, or Iran, or Mexico, or Egypt. I could go and on. The U.S. is the most multi-cultural country in the world. I'm not going to address the things you stated other than to say that I disagree with most of them. To me, the U.S. is special and unique in a number of ways.

[WICKES]

The U.S. is the most multi-cultural country in the world.

I think Brazil is as multi cultural as the USA. Personally I am very suspicious of the great multicultural experiment that is being imposed on the West. You go to somewhere like London and the indiginous, northern European Brits are being pushed out by immigrants from all over the place. There is a lot of brainwashing going on. The media/ movies etc present an entirely positive view of multiculturalism. We never get shown the down side. There is a myth that the USA was built by immigrants from all over the world. It's just not true. The Founding Fathers were essentially British emigrants and the USA was fundamentally northern European in character and culture up until the end of the 19th century.

.
To me, the U.S. is special and unique in a number of ways.

But loads of countries are 'unique' and 'special'. No two countries are the same. Americans tend to identify themselves as a 'free people', and the USA as the 'land of the free', the 'land of opportunity'. As if everyone else in the world is a slave living under dictatorship. All the rights and opportunities enjoyed by an American are enjoyed by the average Australian, New Zealander, Brit, Canadian, Frenchman, Swiss, Swede, Dane, Dutchman, Irishman etc etc... You can stand in the middle of London and shout "the Queen is a ***** who should be shot" and nothing would happen to you. If you are born into poverty in France or Sweden or Ireland you will have access to free education and the opportunity to better yourself, just as in the USA. You will probably get better healthcare, better education and be less likely to experience gun crime as well.

[Dinkleberry2010]

Go ahead and believe what you say. That's fine with me. I believe what I say as well.

[Virgil]

I think the one problem with this Virgil is that those Scandinavian countries are democracies and their tax rates are decided on through free debate just like the American one is. How can you venture to say that Bjorn Bjornson in Norway is less free than you if he chooses, indirectly though it may be, to be part of a society where he gives 70% of his income to the government in exchange for certain services.


No, it's not really slavery by definition. It's self imposed vassalage, if not serfdom. Anyone who disagrees with the tax rate in opposition to the majoriity is still forced to pay it. That is not liberty. Liberty is having the ability to control your actions despite the will of the majority, like free speech. There are no constraints on free speech, and the majority cannot limit it (other than yelling fire in a movie theatre). There are constraints on how you spend your earnings, despite one's lack of consent. Frankly to me it is immoral for the state to take at the threat of a locking you up in jail (and isn't that slavery, or certainly lack of liberty?) over one third of a person's earnings.

[MarkBastable]

No, it's not really slavery by definition. It's self imposed vassalage, if not serfdom.

That's a bit condescending, isn't it? You're saying that anyone who makes a choice to elect a government who will tax them is agreeing to serfdom.

But there might be another motive at work.

For instance I might believe, in my post-Baptist, community-minded way, that it is my duty to contribute to the common good, for reasons that are both altruisitic (do unto others) and self-regarding (I don't want vagrants sleeping in my doorway).

There are many methods by which I might make that contribution but I reckon that the most efficient and wide-reaching is to get the government to administer funds that I supply.

In pursuit of that noble end, I vote for the party that a) says they'll take the kind of money I think I ought to give and b) say's they'll use it in the way that I think best. I know, of course, that this is an inexact specification, but I prefer it to any alternative - including the option of keeping it all and tossing the occasional buck into the Lepers' Tin at the subway station.

That's not serfdom. It's an informed and considered choice.

[Virgil]

That's a bit condescending, isn't it? You're saying that anyone who makes a choice to elect a government who will tax them is agreeing to serfdom.

But there might be another motive at work.

For instance I might believe, in my post-Baptist, community-minded way, that it is my duty to contribute to the common good, for reasons that are both altruisitic (do unto others) and self-regarding (I don't want vagrants sleeping in my doorway).

There are many ways I might make that contribution but I reckon that the most efficient and wide-reaching is to get the government to administer funds that I supply.

In pursuit of that noble end, I vote for the party that a) says they'll take the kind of money I think I ought to give and b) say's they'll use it in the way that I think best. I know, of course, that this is an inexact specification, but I prefer it to any alternative - including the option of keeping it all and tossing the occasional buck into the Lepers' Tin at the subway station.

That's not serfdom. It's an informed and considered choice.

What if I don't choose to go along with that "informed and considered" decision? If I in the minority do not wish to have my earnings (that I earned through my labor) go to whatever, I have no recourse, and if I decide to not pay those taxes, I at the point of a gun am thrown in jail - jail being a lack of liberty. If you want to donate all your money to whatever you think is a great cause, go ahead and do so. You should be free to do so. Don't force me to pay for your desires. Get your hand out of my pocket. I have the right to keep what I earn or it's not liberty. I should choose how my money gets spent and used.

I'll repeat what I said above: Liberty is having the ability to control your actions despite the will of the majority.

[MarkBastable]

I'll repeat what I said above: Liberty is having the ability to control your actions despite the will of the majority.


Which means that you think that universal democracy is incompatible with universal liberty.

Which, in your terms, is true. But then I think you have to come up with an alternative to democracy that delivers as many benefits to the majority without inconveniencing the minority.

[Virgil]

Which means that you think that universal democracy is incompatible with universal liberty.

Which, in your terms, is true. But then I think you have to come up with an alternative to democracy that delivers as many benefits to the majority without inconveniencing the minority.

No, a demoicracy with minimal taxation. Like I said, any taxation above one third of what a person earns is immoral. It used to be that way. Actually for most people in the US, they do pay less than a third of their earnings.

[MarkBastable]

No, a demoicracy with minimal taxation. Like I said, any taxation above one third of what a person earns is immoral. It used to be that way. Actually for most people in the US, they do pay less than a third of their earnings.

By what established and objective convention is 33% the point at which the moral tips over into the immoral?

[Virgil]

By what established and objective convention is 33% the point at which the moral tips over into the immoral?

It's the max reasonable number I can envision. A 50/50 split is obviously wrong. A person should have the right to keep more than what he is forced to pay. A 75/25 split where I keep three quarters of my earnings is about right, and would be my preference, but I'll be flexible enough to make one third the moral breaking point. Hey, you are free to contribute as much of your earnings as you wish. Feel free. I still give to charities, despite the gov't taking 40% of what I earn. At least when i give to charities I give out of the compassion of my heart. When the gov't at the point of a gun takes my earnings, there is nothing but bile that fills my heart.

[MarkBastable]

It's the max reasonable number I can envision. A 50/50 split is obviously wrong.



Well, I think I can live with ponying up 50%. Obviously I'm prepared to take part in something immoral.

There's another part to this though - which is that what matters is the absolute amount you get to keep - not the proportion of what you earn. The market is the regulator of that. If the going rate for the standard of living for your job is 24000, and the tax rate is 33%, then market forces for labour will set the salary at 36000. If the tax rate goes up to 40%, the market rate will adjust in response and the going rate for the job will be 40000 - which means the take home will still be 24000. This will knock-on to consumer prices which will push up inflation and the economy will adjust, eventually.

Er - except America's obviously. You are where we were a hundred years ago. It's the last days of Empire, baby. Don't worry. A few decades in, you get used to it.

[billl]

What about the people who only want to pay 10%?

[MarkBastable]

What about the people who only want to pay 10%?

Presumably they are 23% more moral than Virgil and a hell of a lot more moral than me.

[Virgil]

Well, I think I can live with ponying up 50%. Obviously I'm prepared to take part in something immoral.


Feel free to pay as much as you like. :p Even the mafia lets you keep more than that for protection money. Ever hear of usury? How much is it morally right to be charged in interest? At least you have the freedom not to take a loan. If the gov't at the point of a gun takes more than a third of your earnings, they are in the moral catagory of the mafia.

[Haunted]

Who wants a McDonalds in Venice or Nepal? Who wants to see the rainforest disappear or the Kenyan bush turned into a tourist spot, ringed by fences and hotels?

Who? Venice, Nepal, the rainforest countries, Kenya.

To establish a business anywhere, a company has to apply for permits to build; they also need to apply for licenses to operate. So if you see McDonalds in Venice and Nepal, that's because those places wanted McDonalds there. Those places granted McDonalds the right to operate — McDonalds can't just go there and set up shop on their own.

Tourism is often how poor countries pull themselves out of poverty. They hire foreign consultants from developed countries to set up their tourism business for them. These countries seek advertising agencies and marketing firms, a lot of them from the US, to help them attract tourists and make money for their own government. If American companies are involved, that's because they are top-notch. These countries act on their own voluntarily — no one can force a country to develop their own tourism.


Many associate this vulgarity with Americans. The general stereotype of an American in Europe, Australia and Canada is of a fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class.

What does it say about the people who call others "fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class"?

By the way, in case you don't know, it's not acceptable in America to call others "fat" anymore. That's a form of bigotry. A company can't deny a person employment based on that, it's discrimination and a violation of civil rights. So that's another excellent example of how tolerant America is.


What infuriates the rest of the world are the sort of things Jermac said : "The USA is the most free, the most liberal, the most...". Americans still seem to think the USA is special. It is true that (atm) you are the only superpower, but that is only because of the huge size of the USA, its huge population and its head start in industrialisation. Soon China and India will challenge this dominance. So, to a lesser extent, will the E.U and Russia.

Infuriate is a strong word. Wickes, you seem to have a lot of misguided anger. That's Jermac's opinion (which happens to be quite accurate). America is a superpower not because of its physical size or population (I think China still has the largest population in the world) but the collective free, creative thinking of the population as a whole.

[MarkBastable]

. If the gov't at the point of a gun takes more than a third of your earnings, they are in the moral catagory of the mafia.


See, this is now an argument about ethics. You think a government that levies 34% tax is no better than the mafia. I think that a government that fails to supply its citizens healthcare free at the point-of-delivery is no better than the Khmer Rouge.

[MarkBastable]

America is a superpower not because of its physical size or population (I think China still has the largest population in the world) but the collective free, creative thinking of the population as a whole.


One could argue that every superpower in human history has been founded on technological superiority or economic might, or both. If the US is an exception to that, I think you have to show how.

But, actually, I don't think it is an exception. Until recently - say, forty years ago - the US was the most technolgically advanced and, because of that, the most economically powerful country in the world - for which we should all be grateful, because otherwise most of Europe would be speaking Russian.

Things are changing now though. China is flexing its economic muscles - and if you wanted to build up economic muscle, you could hardly come up with a better approach than China's communist-inside-capitalist-outside model, which gives you a huge amount of cheap labour at home producing an enormous volume of cheap goods to sell abroad.

And just about everywhere - but especially iin the East - hungry, flexible countries are becoming more technologically creative and accomplished by the day.

The trick that America is going to have to figure out is the one that the British took a century to comes to terms with: how do you retain influence in the schoolyard when you're no longer the richest, smartest and biggest kid in the neigbourhood?

We did it by swallowing our pride becoming best friends with the new dominant kid - America.

[WICKES]

Infuriate is a strong word. Wickes, you seem to have a lot of misguided anger. That's Jermac's opinion (which happens to be quite accurate). America is a superpower not because of its physical size or population (I think China still has the largest population in the world) but the collective free, creative thinking of the population as a whole.

You say the anger is misguided, then you write that Jermac is quite right to say the USA is the most free, the most liberal etc. It's just nonsense. The rest of the world laughs at Americans over this sort of thing. They really do. Americans genuinely seem to think the USA is special. From what I can make out this seems to rest on two things in particular: first that it is the land of the 'free', of the 'most free' people and secondly that it is the land of opportunity, of the American dream. Of course the USA is free and is a land of opportunity, but it isn't the most free or the most meritocratic. That is all I am saying. People living in the following countries are just as free and have just as many rights and opportunities: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain...I mean the list goes on. The truth is that many of these places are more democratic in real terms than the USA. As for the 'American Dream'/ opportunity I would argue that places like Sweden and the UK, with their strong welfare systems, provide greater chances for the weak and poor to better themselves.

As for being the most liberal, that is just absurd, I mean it is ridiculous to argue such a thing. For a start the USA is the only western nation to still execute people. It also denies homosexuals the right to legal partnerhips in many states. In fact, because of America's religious right, I would argue that places like Kansas and Texas and among the least liberal in the western world.

It's not that people hate Americans. I have met some lovely American people. What baffles the rest of the world is the (almost hysterical) self-congratulatory attitude. As if the rest of the world is living in hopeless slavery. It's just a simple fact that France, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland etc are better places to live in almost every respect than most of the USA.

What is exceptional about the USA is its superpower status. When Britain was the great power in 1900 the British all thought there was something special about Britain. The USA is so powerful for a number of reasons: first its immense size and large population, secondly its head start over Asia in industrialising and thirdly its free market system. The rest of the
world is copying you and catching up. In 20 or 30 years China, then India will pass you by. Even the E.U and Russia will rival the USA. The signs are already there. The largest scientific experiment ever conducted, the 'Large Hadron Collidor' is taking place in Europe rather than the USA. The largest building in the world is no longer in the USA but in Dubai. It is going to be hard on the USA, adjusting to being just another nation, just as it was hard on the British when they lost their Empire.

[TheFifthElement]

You say the anger is misguided, then you write that Jermac is quite right to say the USA is the most free, the most liberal etc. It's just nonsense. The rest of the world laughs at Americans over this sort of thing. They really do. Americans genuinely seem to think the USA is special.

I think it's fine to think your country is special, most people do. It is good to have a sense of 'home' and that home is the place you most want to be and you love it and you're proud of it and you want to sing that to the world. I think that's better than hating everything and moaning about it, generally. But what some people don't seem to be able to do is to empathise with the receipient of that message. That when they're saying 'we're the special-est, we're the best, we're the most creative,' and so on, what the other person hears is 'I'm great and you're rubbish'. And it comes across as narcissistic, rude, and dismissive and what makes it worse is that it's generally ill informed. No one knows that much about anyone else's country, heck we can't even say that our lives are better than the life of the person sitting next to us on the bus! We all have different priorities, different goals, different dreams and motivations, and you can't really measure happiness or contentment or joy. You certainly can't measure creativity - how can you measure something which by it's very nature accepts no limits? So when someone makes a blanket statement that means 'I am better than you', and especially when that statement has nothing to do with what they individually have achieved or that which can be objectively measured against that which someone else has individually achieved, the other person tends to get angry about it, and then they insult the person that's saying they're so great and that person doesn't understand why. It is one of those reasons why we all need to think about what we say and how we say it, and consider the impact on the other person. Put yourself in the other person's shoes and imagine how you might feel if they said something similar and if you'd get hacked off maybe it's best not to say it. It's as bad to say 'we're the best', with the inherent dismissal of everyone else, as it is to say 'everyone else is laughing at you'. Neither is very productive or very fair or even very true.

In my experience I've met very creative and liberal and free Americans and very creative and liberal and free British people and Italians and Indians and Romanians and Moroccans and Malaysians and Thais and Australians and Spanish and French and Belgians and Dutch and Icelandic people. But as to making a judgement as to who is the 'most' free, or the 'most' creative or the 'most' innovative, that is just an impossible judgement. In order to make that kind of decision you would not only have to visit but to live in and experience life living in those other countries. You'd have to really absorb yourself in their culture. Otherwise you're just firing shots in the dark and it descends into this childish 'my country is better than your country...nyer nyer ner nyer nyer' discussions that makes everyone involved in it look terrible. Like this thread, really.

[Jozanny]

You say the anger is misguided, then you write that Jermac is quite right to say the USA is the most free, the most liberal etc. It's just nonsense. The rest of the world laughs at Americans over this sort of thing. They really do. Americans genuinely seem to think the USA is special. From what I can make out this seems to rest on two things in particular: first that it is the land of the 'free', of the 'most free' people and secondly that it is the land of opportunity, of the American dream. Of course the USA is free and is a land of opportunity, but it isn't the most free or the most meritocratic.

I have stayed out of this thread because a) it seems patently political and b) I have no idea why it is in General Writing, but what you are referring to, Wickes, is called American Exceptionalism. It suffered a major blow with 9/11 and died in spectacular fashion when Katrina destroyed New Orleans, though the country is sort of now suspended, waiting to see if our historic election bears any fruit.

But this is nothing new. The Roman Empire believed in its manifest destiny, and from what I am reading of Nial Ferguson, so did the modern European Empires of the 19th century, particularly the British Empire, without which the global power of the United States, nor the rise of modern India as a regional counter-weight, would have been possible.

I do not think China is the next superpower in waiting for the 21st century, because it does not have the constitutional entrenchments that run through the 5, 600 years or so of English/US human rights, which was a very long time in the making. China has thousands of years of corruption being tied to power, most of it imperial, and not much radically transformed by Mao's adaptations of Marxism, which is all but dead in the country, but not admitted, as such, precisely because they do not have the constitutional framework ingrained within social liberalism.

I could be wrong but don't think I am--which is not to say the global power the US wields is not in flux--I just don't believe China will inherit the wind.

[Dinkleberry2010]

this thread is beginning to repeat itself, which to me is a sign that's it's pretty well finished.

[Virgil]

See, this is now an argument about ethics. You think a government that levies 34% tax is no better than the mafia. I think that a government that fails to supply its citizens healthcare free at the point-of-delivery is no better than the Khmer Rouge.

Nothing is free. You are deluding yourself if you think what you get is free. No one in the US, whether you have insurance or not, is currently denied needed healthcare. And if you're implying that poor people aren't covered, then you don't understand the US healthcare system. Poor people are covered under medicaid. Whether the gov't steals your money and spits out benefits as it sees fit to spit out or whether we go and purchase it through our free choices is the difference in systems. I prefer the free system. I refuse to be a vassal to a gov't healthcare system.

[Jozanny]

No one in the US, whether you have insurance or not, is currently denied needed healthcare.

I was, and nearly wound up homeless because of it. Providers play hard ball with pre-existing conditions Virgil. It is frightening and can be life threatening.

[Virgil]

I was, and nearly wound up homeless because of it. Providers play hard ball with pre-existing conditions Virgil. It is frightening and can be life threatening.

I understand that. But anyone can walk into an emnergency room and even if they are in the country illegally will be treated.

And if he's implying that poor people aren't covered, then he doesn't understand our system. Medicaid covers the poor.

[Nietzsche]

Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. -- Arthur Schopenhauer.

That's the only comment I wish to make.

[Haunted]

You say the anger is misguided, then you write that Jermac is quite right to say the USA is the most free, the most liberal etc. It's just nonsense. The rest of the world laughs at Americans over this sort of thing. They really do. Americans genuinely seem to think the USA is special. From what I can make out this seems to rest on two things in particular: first that it is the land of the 'free', of the 'most free' people and secondly that it is the land of opportunity, of the American dream. Of course the USA is free and is a land of opportunity, but it isn't the most free or the most meritocratic. That is all I am saying. People living in the following countries are just as free and have just as many rights and opportunities: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain...I mean the list goes on. The truth is that many of these places are more democratic in real terms than the USA. As for the 'American Dream'/ opportunity I would argue that places like Sweden and the UK, with their strong welfare systems, provide greater chances for the weak and poor to better themselves.

As for being the most liberal, that is just absurd, I mean it is ridiculous to argue such a thing. For a start the USA is the only western nation to still execute people. It also denies homosexuals the right to legal partnerhips in many states. In fact, because of America's religious right, I would argue that places like Kansas and Texas and among the least liberal in the western world.

It's not that people hate Americans. I have met some lovely American people. What baffles the rest of the world is the (almost hysterical) self-congratulatory attitude. As if the rest of the world is living in hopeless slavery. It's just a simple fact that France, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland etc are better places to live in almost every respect than most of the USA.

What is exceptional about the USA is its superpower status. When Britain was the great power in 1900 the British all thought there was something special about Britain. The USA is so powerful for a number of reasons: first its immense size and large population, secondly its head start over Asia in industrialising and thirdly its free market system. The rest of the
world is copying you and catching up. In 20 or 30 years China, then India will pass you by. Even the E.U and Russia will rival the USA. The signs are already there. The largest scientific experiment ever conducted, the 'Large Hadron Collidor' is taking place in Europe rather than the USA. The largest building in the world is no longer in the USA but in Dubai. It is going to be hard on the USA, adjusting to being just another nation, just as it was hard on the British when they lost their Empire.

I skimped through this and I apologize. Much seems to be repetitive remarks, also it sounds a bit fired up for me to respond. There's nothing else I can contribute to a discussion based on presumptions, misinformation, fallacies, and one-dimensional, literal interpretation of terms. I have already debunked a few of your erroneous claims in an earlier post but I don't want to make it a career to explain how things really work in the real world.

There are those who willingly accept passed down stereotypes and perpetuate those views. Some even make things up to make these stereotypes stick. It's all fine by me. Especially if it makes them happy. The pursuit of happiness is one of our rights in the Declaration.



But what some people don't seem to be able to do is to empathise with the receipient of that message. That when they're saying 'we're the special-est, we're the best, we're the most creative,' and so on, what the other person hears is 'I'm great and you're rubbish'.

That's a tad dramatic. The statement doesn't lead to that conclusion. However, if a particular person feels that way, then maybe there's a psychological explanation to it, such as low self esteem. If one is that sensitive, then it's a personal problem and they should seek help.

In America we have a high tolerance of ideas different than ours, we don't get "infuriated" over a statement from others which we don't agree with. Yet another excellent example of why it's just so much better to be here.

[Jozanny]

I am guilty of skimming too, and I am sorry--partly lack of interest--but my point about historical sense of destiny within empire still holds. Goodness knows that China suffered from the same sort of tunnel vision in its regional hegemony.

[gbrekken]

don't know when, where, or how this got started or ended, but everlasting drops of sweet wisdom may last forever, regardless of opinion?

[MarkBastable]

Nothing is free. You are deluding yourself if you think what you get is free.

No - that's not what I said. I said free at the point-of-delivery.

In the last three years members of my extended family have gone to the National Health Service for:

•aches and pains and rashes and childhood complaints, all dealt with by ad hoc visits to the GP
•multiple domestic emergencies at ER - burns, broken bones, cuts and unspecific stomach ache
•macular degeneration - innumerable treatments and hospital visits
•childbirth in hospital, preceded by ultrasound scans, consultation and monitoring, and followed by home visits, care advice, and general post-natal support
•routine mammograms and cervical smears
•childhood innoculations
•paramedic call-out for a suspected heart attack
•haemorrhoidectomy
•prostate cancer - diagnosis, surgery, six weeks' radiotherapy, four-monthly tests thereafter for five years
•brain cancer - diagnosis, consultation, countless MRIs, five surgeries, extensive radiotherapy, six rounds of chemotherapy, counselling

None of this has cost a penny at the point of delivery. At no stage has anyone asked us about money - they've only asked us about the conditions and illnesses under consideration.

We have paid for this amazing service in our taxes, over many years. Had we not paid for it that way, I'm damned sure we couldn't have afforded insurance to cover all these eventualities.

And here's the great thing - they do all that for anyone, regardless of income. We all contribute to the pot, and we all get to take out what we need. That's exactly how insurance works of course, except that, in this system, no one says, "You've reached your limit - go home and suffer."

Of course, in America people stay in jobs they despise for no reason other than the health cover. They dare not get fired. They are in thrall to the corporation because they fear for the wellbeing of their families.

And you think we are serfs.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Such posts will be deleted without any further notice.

[NikolaiI]

I understand that. But anyone can walk into an emnergency room and even if they are in the country illegally will be treated.

And if he's implying that poor people aren't covered, then he doesn't understand our system. Medicaid covers the poor.

Actually if you are poor in this country, poor enough that you don't make any money, there is a term for it I don't remember, but you get free medical care. I'm not sure if that's through medicaid or not.

[Virgil]

Actually if you are poor in this country, poor enough that you don't make any money, there is a term for it I don't remember, but you get free medical care. I'm not sure if that's through medicaid or not.

Nik, it's medicaid.


And you think we are serfs.

If you like it, keep it. I don't want it.

[JBI]

I'll jump in here, just because I have begun to feel a need to comment, whereas before I restrained myself for want of not talking about current politics, as fits with the rules.

First of all, I would say that 90% of this thread has been rather off topic, debating the qualities and faults of the USA, which, though partially on topic, is only half of the topic, and especially silly, given all this criticism of China as "communist" and whatnot, yet at the same time, a backhanded celebration of how free the US is because of low income tax, without a pause to consider the fact that a) Canadians pay less tax and get more services (besides military services, if you want to count that in the positive), which puts things in perspective, and b) CHINA PAYS LESS INCOME TAX.

There, I said it - how is that one - the highest brackets of income tax in China are lower than the US ones, in terms of personal income tax - the government generates other income, notably through crown industry, and Business taxes. I just thought I would throw that out there, feel free to check the Wiki, if you don't believe me, or I can work on digging up other bibliography, though it is easier to dig up Chinese sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_system_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Bus iness_Tax


Toward the question of freedom too, there is another general bias. The great scare of information control and political control as perpetuated by Western media in general is kind of double-edged - on one hand, it is reported, which implies in itself a flow of information, though makes a point in how some stuff is blocked, yet on the other hand, it doesn't question exactly how free and controlled other societies are.

For instance, Chomsky would note in the Manufacture of Consent how American media essentially works as a propaganda outlet for big business and other specific, limited interests. One could also look at American foreign policy, and how that results in an extended imposition upon others, notably Iraqis at the current hour, but historically Africans, Latin Americans, and Vietnamese (though that perhaps failed), after much disaster.

Generally, the impression I get from Chinese people, and people who a) are specialists on China, or b) have lived in China, or c) currently live in China is that in terms of freedom, China itself seems to be just as free and liberal as anywhere else. I wouldn't, for instance, suggest that an American is somehow more free than a Czech, or a Japanese person, so why then is this bias being thrown at China, a country which is essentially the same as any Western nation on a foundational level.

There is this perpetuated myth of the backwards China, the lagging behind China, the repressive China, the poor, dirty, communist China, that really is so old and silly it is almost laughable. The general impression of China from the period since scholarship has been done on China, is one both limited and rooted in propaganda and imperialism.

For instance, the foundation of Area Studies in American academies, by far, with the exception of a few French institutions and Oxford the centres of Sinological study outside of China itself, was itself started primarily as a war effort as a way to understand the enemy. An American scholar working out of New York University Harry Harootunian wrote an interesting article on the subject, entitled "Tracking the Dinosaur" which discusses this at better length.

Keep in mind though, that the bulk of information on China up until the 80s was written by people who had never been to China - even in the 90s China seems a distant blur, and the propaganda filtered through Taiwan that dominated Western views was still strongly held as truth. What China is, and was is a very questionable issue, especially given the regional and fast-changing nature of the country.

I think it safe to say that the impression of China virtually all of us have is more or less wrong, or at least flawed. That is to say, only a couple of us here are actually able to read Chinese, and even fewer actually live in China, and fewer still are moving between different areas of China, or have lived there their whole lives.

For instance, a common myth is that of the illiterate Chinese speaker, which in part has its historical grounding. Do in part to French and primarily British colonialism, as well as a bit of American imperialism (the old Boston families and a bunch of the old universities got their original funding and capital from smuggling opium into Guangzhou, keep in mind) China collapsed and living standards plummeted. That is true, but from what I understand, and what my professor said, who has just returned from a 5 year hiatus in China, the government there seems more preoccupied with administering high standards of education across all levels of society - he compared illiteracy there, with the exception of remote villages, which are another issue, with illiteracy in Canada or the US, except that the government there seems to take more interest.

Likewise, I think it is safe to say the idea of an authoritarian regime in China is kind of flawed - how "democratic" is the United States for instance? China has a historical system in place where anybody is able to go to Beijing and petition the Government, beyond that, though there is one party, I think elections there seem to be freer.

The US has two parties, keep in mind, China has one, but that one party has more people within it, deciding who heads what and controls what in the party - it is the biggest party in the world, which means, within the party itself, there are far more voices than those working for the parties in the US, whose agenda is really prescribed by business sponsorship, and whose votes barely change except in some regions who seem to alter between republican and democrat, with the rest of the States already having a "State wide consensus" on who they are voting for.

In that sense, I think the people there play a bigger role in decision making - if the goal of all political parties is to get elected, then naturally, their goal will be to display things and do things that they believe will go down most favorably with the people - is that the freest and best? and what about what they don't mention?

Quite frankly, the Chinese Communist party seems to be a party which is better at keeping itself in check than the current US government, or the Canadian government for that matter - things get taken care of much faster in China, because there isn't all sorts of crap to sift through and public nonsense that holds the party back from making decisions - the party votes, with its intention of pleasing the people as a backbone, and the best solution, based on how the members view the evidence at hand is arrived that.

Lets compare that with the US, whose parties need funding for election - what does that mean? Well, first of all, it means money is coming from somewhere - there is an uncountable amount of cash that gets tossed around around election time - how much did Obama's campaign cost, and what did it do? IT seems like parties are far more concerned with getting power than with using it. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is so minimal that in reality, the US government would seem to function more authoritatively than the Chinese - at least a lot more voices are present within the Chinese party itself, and by extension, within government itself. Hu Jintao didn't get to the top because his dad owned an oil company and was president before him, nor was he elected, despite not being able to speak the national language - he got there based on a merit based system, by a party who keeps itself in check.


Now as for this whole idea of the emerging China and the decline of the US - well, I like to think the US is in decline - certainly there is a slump, and a great deal of trouble, but perhaps it may recover, who knows? As for China going up - they already are up.

China isn't some stupid authoritarian regime - the country knows what it is doing, and does it well - it is a very successful country, and no less modern or democratic than any Western country - in truth, if it wasn't for the geographic bias of the term Western, Japan, South Korea, and China would be forerunners in the West.

A better question would be to ask India's place in the decline of US capital power in the world - that is more interesting - China's position is rather clear already; we slumped for 180 years, but we are back at the top. Whether Americans choose to accept that or not is another matter - the whole American business idea of it being a privilege to deal with the States or somehow that the US is in a position of power over the partner doesn't apply. China knows that in the relationship they are on top, and knows that it is Obama who Kowtows to China, not Hu Jintao who Kowtows to the US.


Really though, all these sorts of views at the beginning of the thread on China and the US are disheartening - they seem to be lacking in any real empirical evidence or substance. To suggest somebody from Shanghai or Beijing is fundamentally different than somebody from New York or Chicago, and somehow less free is kind of ridiculous. China is a free country, get used to the idea.

[stlukesguild]

The rest of the world laughs at Americans over this sort of thing. They really do.

They laugh at Americans the way they laughed at the Roman Empire or the British Empire. They laugh... but they also follow what we do... and they quite often reveal a sense of resentment founded in envy. What percentage of the French or German or Indian or British population followed the US election vs Americans who followed elections in France, Germany, etc...? What percentage of Americans can even identify the leaders of Britain... let alone India? Certainly this is partially rooted in our own xenophobia. Partially its rooted in a smug superiority complex shared by every superpower that has ever existed... and probably to a far greater degree than is exhibited by most Americans. Partially, this is due to the fact that for better or worse we still are the economic, military, and cultural superpower (and the three have always gone together). It makes the United States the target: we are loved and hated... but rarely ignored. JBI is quite right in venting his frustration that America largely ignores Canada... but then again... how often is Canada in the limelight in the rest of the world?

Americans genuinely seem to think the USA is special. From what I can make out this seems to rest on two things in particular: first that it is the land of the 'free', of the 'most free' people and secondly that it is the land of opportunity, of the American dream. Of course the USA is free and is a land of opportunity, but it isn't the most free or the most meritocratic.

The question becomes how do we measure who is or is not the most "free" after a certain point? At a certain point individual freedoms come at the expense of the society as a whole... eventually leading to anarchy.

People living in the following countries are just as free and have just as many rights and opportunities: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain...I mean the list goes on. The truth is that many of these places are more democratic in real terms than the USA.

Are they more "democratic"? In what way? Such blanket statements are just as meaningless as declarations by others who feel the US is still the most democratic and the most free. They are meaningless with proof. As I stated before, I am far from being an "America First... my country, right or wrong"... (and wasn't that actually a British sentiment?) supporter. There are undoubtedly many problems in the US... but last I heard there were equal if different problems to be faced in other countries as well. Personally, I would have no problem with seeing the US shed its mantel as the sole superpower and enforcer of the Pax Americana and place more of our resources at home... in education and social services... but who would fill the vacuum? Neither Europe or Asia have the greatest track record over the last few millennia.

As for the 'American Dream'/ opportunity I would argue that places like Sweden and the UK, with their strong welfare systems, provide greater chances for the weak and poor to better themselves.

And just how open and supportive to outsiders are Sweden and the UK? By the way, "The American Dream" is based upon the idea that anyone... even an immigrant... can succeed... own a home... become wealthy if they apply themselves and work hard enough (and some might say, "smart enough" as well). It does not guarantee success handed to you on a platter... at the expense of those who are more motivated and working hard. You will find that it is largely immigrants in the US... like Virgil here... or like my Chinese and Korean studio-mates who are actually the most resentful of continual handouts to those unwilling to work or attempt to better themselves.

As for being the most liberal, that is just absurd, I mean it is ridiculous to argue such a thing. For a start the USA is the only western nation to still execute people. It also denies homosexuals the right to legal partnerhips in many states. In fact, because of America's religious right, I would argue that places like Kansas and Texas and among the least liberal in the western world.

As Virgil notes, you are assuming the term "Liberal" to be something immediately embraced by all. How Liberally is one expected to treat convicted mass murderers, those who rape, mutilate, and murder children? Do they deserved to be housed in well lit, air-conditioned facilities equipped with cable TV, internet, libraries, and access to college education while such things are not guarantees to the population of law abiding citizens as a whole? I'm personally against the death penalty... but only because it inevitably results in a huge waste of taxpayer money. Equal rights for homosexuals will come... within a generation. The reality is that such laws are the result of the very rights we enjoy... the rights for individuals... even those of a more conservative leaning... to vote.

It's not that people hate Americans. I have met some lovely American people. What baffles the rest of the world is the (almost hysterical) self-congratulatory attitude. As if the rest of the world is living in hopeless slavery. It's just a simple fact that France, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland etc are better places to live in almost every respect than most of the USA.

No... a fact is not something you just pull out of your posterior... which is what this is. A fact is something that can be clearly measured... documented... proven without a doubt. If I could live anywhere in the world I
might just chose any number of places outside of the US... largely for reasons related to my own personal interests. Surely Florence would be far more conducive to my interests as an artist... but is it the best place in the world to live? Is it even the best place for an artist? I doubt it considering the slight few artists of merit coming out of Italy in the last 400 years.

What is exceptional about the USA is its superpower status. When Britain was the great power in 1900 the British all thought there was something special about Britain. The USA is so powerful for a number of reasons: first its immense size and large population, secondly its head start over Asia in industrialising and thirdly its free market system.

The US is largely a superpower for quite different reasons. Canada, China, and Russia are all larger. China, Russia (possibly), and India all have vastly greater populations. Britain and France far superseded the US in the industrial age. Britain, France, the Roman Empire, etc... were all superpowers in spite of being far smaller than the US... and often far smaller than the nations they dominated. The US' power comes first from their position on the globe. The US is situated between Europe and Asia with huge seaports able to engage in trade with either. The US was physically isolated at a safe distance from the hostilities of the two world wars and passed through them with its industrial complexes fully intact. World War II established the US as the unquestioned military and economic superpower. While France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, China, Japan, etc... struggled to rebuild, the US economy was virtually the only game in town. This resulted in an incredible degree of wealth... such that the US economy is larger than the next six or seven nations combined. Those who cheer on US economic woes ignore the fact that when the US economy struggles, the rest of the world struggles as well. Add to this the fact that the US... often in tandem with military research... stays at the leading edge of technological development. The internet, Google, Microsoft, Silicon Valley... these are are American innovations. To this we can add the open attitude in the US to immigrants. Immigrants... leaving their home and coming to a new country where they need to learn the laws, the culture, even the language are clearly motivated individuals. Their motivation and the cultures and histories they bring with them have continually revitalized the US. This may come at a cost if we compare the greater sense of community and lack of racial/cultural strife in more homogeneous cultures such as Japan... but ultimately they are a major asset.

The rest of the world is copying you and catching up. In 20 or 30 years China, then India will pass you by.

You greatly underestimate the time span. China will perhaps pass Japan within 25 years (or perhaps you forgot that Japan, not China, is by far still the economic superpower of Asia). China will need to greatly improve its infrastructure and bring 80% of the nation out of the agrarian age and into the industrial and then technological age. India is facing equal challenges with infrastructure and feeding and supporting and eventually educating and modernizing a vast uneducated and poverty-stricken population.

Even the E.U and Russia will rival the USA.

The EU? If they ever get their sh** together. Russia?:lol::lol: Not in this millennium.

The signs are already there. The largest scientific experiment ever conducted, the 'Large Hadron Collidor' is taking place in Europe rather than the USA.

Not the "largest"... merely the most expensive. Whether the experiment proves itself to be more worthwhile than the US efforts in the space travel or any number of other scientific experiments remains to be seen.

The largest building in the world is no longer in the USA but in Dubai.

And the old Soviet Union had the largest standing army and paraded them up and down Red Square. Such ostentatious shows of "power" are quite often little more than an attempt to create the illusion of real power. The US doesn't need to regularly show off its nuclear arsenal or have the president decked out with 50 pounds of medals like a South American dictator. Bill Gates never needs to dress in Armani suits accompanied with gold grills and tons of "bling" like a ghetto rapper. With a nation the size of the US such tall buildings are something of an absurdity... outside, perhaps, New York, with its granite bedrock and limited and astronomical real-estate

It is going to be hard on the USA, adjusting to being just another nation, just as it was hard on the British when they lost their Empire.

Will it happen? Yes. In my life time? I greatly doubt it... barring some catastrophic event... or even more catastrophic war. Will it be hard on the US population. Undoubtedly. But I greatly suspect it will be equally hard upon much of the rest of the world. The collapse of the Roman Empire impacted not merely Italy but much of the known Western world... and was felt even in the East... in Persia, China, and India. I'm not certain how thrilled you might be with your notions of Liberalism when China or India replaces the US as the last man standing.

[JBI]

The US is essentially the same size of China, except has 1/5 the population, and a stronger colonial foothold over the world. in 1989, while the country's economy was in transition, if the "demands" of protesters were met, how many peasants would have starved to death.

Sure, on a small scale a bunch of people running to Washington to protest legal abortions is rather harmless - legislation won't change, and nobody cares - when you look on scale with China, if the thing got out of hand - well, the cultural revolution itself was started on similar grounds, and got out of hand and ugly very quickly, so I don't think you really are suggesting the alternative would be better, right?


The reason why Tiananmen Square seems such a big topic in Western Press, is because that is the only foothold left in the colonial scheme - China owns too much of US debt right now, makes too many of US products right now, and is becoming more and more independent of the US by the day, selling off the mediocre US debt money in trade agreements with other countries (pretty much the only thing, on international markets keeping US trading power afloat, as so many people are now owed money by you guys that to let the US fall would hurt the world too drastically).

You like to point the finger at China - I say that is fair game if you also point the finger at the US, which you don't seem to want to do, and admit that the US is no better, and is perhaps worse, as are France, England, Japan, and many other Western Allies, the American Best Friend Saudis included, as well as Russia, on the other side of the world.

I see no problem with historiography that comments on these things, but I see a problem when you suggest a country is somehow less progressive, or less free, or less democratic when your own country, the other one in question has a notorious reputation for actions just as bad, and a history rooted in colonialism, expansionism, violence, racism, slavery and all sorts of other nice things.


You can mention scorching earth techniques by Chinese in Vietnam, but Napalm strikes on crops were carried out by the US there, and direct attacks on civilian crop supplies ended the Korean war with fireworks, which perhaps is at least in part responsible for the country's decent into lunacy - it's easier to forget unpleasant things when one isn't on the receiving end.

Generally though, I think it is safe to say that your argument as of now is that China is somehow less free because they had a brief incident years ago massacring a few of their own people, whereas the US only massacres other people who they, with the exception of a desire for economic supremacy over their resources, are otherwise unaffiliated with.

[Hurricane]

*Cue waving American flag in the background and stirring, patriotic music*

How are we defining free? The US has one of the most lenient policies on free speech of any country, which I personally find to be the most integral component of freedom. Even though I find their actions horribly offensive, I would do anything to defend the right of the white supremacist to spread his filth, the radical to burn flags, and the dumb kid who never paid attention in history to deny the Holocaust. That's their right. I'll take that freedom over Britain's libel laws, Germany's policy on Nazi memorabilia and sentiments, and France's prohibition on racist literature. Questioning is part of American culture, it makes us strong and in many cases keeps us honest.

I've traveled widely within the US, visited other countries, plan to visit more and am not some xenophobe sitting in a shack drinking moonshine complaining about "furreners". America is not a perfect country by any stretch of the imagination, and never has been, but it's my home. We take our hits since we're the big kid on the playground who occasionally accidentally steps on a sandcastle, but I'll take our system over anything else. America does a lot of good for the world. Please don't forget it.
Could we learn a lot from Europe? Yeah, probably. Could Europe learn a lot from us? Definitely.

{edit}

[JBI]

Iraq, Vietnam, a great deal of Latin America, central America, large parts of Africa, Korea, Indonesia, Afghanistan before and now - the list goes on. Mobutu was held in high esteem, and given his power and sanction essentially from American and other western countries. Allende was essentially taken out by American weapons, and Pinochet given power, and even sent some economists from Chicago to come and see to it that his economic plan didn't conflict with US interests.

They nearly managed to take down Chavez, but they made the mistake of not putting a bullet in his head. Of course, there are still questions with how to deal with Morales, but I think he is here to stay.

The so called democratic and fanatic problems in Iran right now perhaps can, at least in part, be attributed to the last Shah's regime, one supported by the US and quite militarily violent. Take out a history book and read, I shouldn't lecture on American history to Americans; it isn't my job.


{edit}

[Hurricane]

A country represents and protects its interests overseas, sometimes by any means necessary. Every country of any significance has always done the same thing. That's the way it goes.

Besides, you missed some of the good ones! The Philippine-American War, the Spanish-American War, that whole business with the Panama Canal, the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee and the general long-term foul treatment of the Indians (who, sadly, did fall under the category of "people we don't really care about for a while)...the list is long, but you know as well as I do any other significant power (America's Hat doesn't count), ever, has one just as long if not longer.

{edit}

[Nick Capozzoli]

Most of the posts seem to have veered off the original question, which (I think) is the US in decline and China on the "incline" (which I take to mean "on the ascendency")?...and devolved into the relative merits of US vs. Chinese (and other) government.

As an American, I believe our form of republican democracy is the best and that the USA is "exceptional." As regards Democracy vs. other forms of government, I agree with the opinion of a famous stateman that "Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

China is clearly ascendant in world trade, or at least it is becoming more and more economically dominant in manufacture of goods for sale on the world market. Much of this is due to the transfer, by companies of US and other countries, of manufacture sites to China. Why this transfer? Cheaper to manufacture goods in China. No other good reason exists. Companies care about only one thing, maximizing profits. They don't really care about "patriotism." The old saw, "What's good for GM is good for the US" sounds good but is BS. Ask the US workers that have lost their jobs to outsourcing to China and elsewhere.

The Chinese have an interesting form of capitalism that seems attractive to big business here in the US and elsewhere. It is called "State Capitalism." Karl Marx never envisioned this hybrid of communism/capitalism, and it would be interesting to hear what he'd have to say about it. Actually, State Capitalism is very much like Fascism. Have the Chinese managed to achieve the "worker's paradise" Marx looked forward to?

I guess you'll have to ask the Chinese workers. I saw a PBS documentary about a Chinese factory that manufactures cheap bead necklaces for Mardi Gras. It was quite sad and full of bathos. There was a very comfortable looking prosperous Chinese factory owner who oversaw several dozen poor rural Chinese girls in his bead factory. The girls were making more money and seemed to have a marginally better life than they would have had in their impoverished rural homes. I guess this is a plus, but there was a great deal of difference between them and their overlord boss. Switch to the French Quarter on Mardi Gras...with crowds of lewd and intoxicated Americans engaged in a Bacchanalic orgy tossing tons of necklaces during the festivity. The necklaces, the hard work of these pathetic factory girls, were just tossed around and had to be swept up as garbage after the party was over.

There is something profoundly pathetic about all of this, and it serves as an analogy for the outsourcing of manufacture from the US to China and elsewhere. :(

[JBI]

Most of the posts seem to have veered off the original question, which (I think) is the US in decline and China on the "incline" (which I take to mean "on the ascendency")?...and devolved into the relative merits of US vs. Chinese (and other) government.

As an American, I believe our form of republican democracy is the best and that the USA is "exceptional." As regards Democracy vs. other forms of government, I agree with the opinion of a famous stateman that "Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

China is clearly ascendant in world trade, or at least it is becoming more and more economically dominant in manufacture of goods for sale on the world market. Much of this is due to the transfer, by companies of US and other countries, of manufacture sites to China. Why this transfer? Cheaper to manufacture goods in China. No other good reason exists. Companies care about only one thing, maximizing profits. They don't really care about "patriotism." The old saw, "What's good for GM is good for the US" sounds good but is BS. Ask the US workers that have lost their jobs to outsourcing to China and elsewhere.

The Chinese have an interesting form of capitalism that seems attractive to big business here in the US and elsewhere. It is called "State Capitalism." Karl Marx never envisioned this hybrid of communism/capitalism, and it would be interesting to hear what he'd have to say about it. Actually, State Capitalism is very much like Fascism. Have the Chinese managed to achieve the "worker's paradise" Marx looked forward to?

I guess you'll have to ask the Chinese workers. I saw a PBS documentary about a Chinese factory that manufactures cheap bead necklaces for Mardi Gras. It was quite sad and full of bathos. There was a very comfortable looking prosperous Chinese factory owner who oversaw several dozen poor rural Chinese girls in his bead factory. The girls were making more money and seemed to have a marginally better life than they would have had in their impoverished rural homes. I guess this is a plus, but there was a great deal of difference between them and their overlord boss. Switch to the French Quarter on Mardi Gras...with crowds of lewd and intoxicated Americans engaged in a Bacchanalic orgy tossing tons of necklaces during the festivity. The necklaces, the hard work of these pathetic factory girls, were just tossed around and had to be swept up as garbage after the party was over.

There is something profoundly pathetic about all of this, and it serves as an analogy for the outsourcing of manufacture from the US to China and elsewhere. :(

No, the pathetic thing is in viewpoint - for you it's "Poor Chinese girls making necklaces to be ruined by us western louts" but that in itself is flawed, in that it removes the things in between. First of all, everywhere that manufacturing exists similar situations exist, second of all, essentially all manufacturing is dreary work - Chinese people just seem to have the manpower to do it on a larger scale.

If you go to any factory really anywhere in the world you see similar conditions - to auto-factories in Windsor, where people work long hours in intense physical labor, to American candy factories, or even to coal mines in Wales, or vineyards in France. Production, as a whole is a rather depressing bit of work when caught on film.

But what the film does though is capture an American imagination, as it seems to make Americans feel better about themselves when they bestow artificial pity on people they don't know - they feel bad for the people, but at the same time, they feel better about themselves - the camera creates a distancing, so it is those sad factory people in that repressive economy and not us sad people. All of this is deliberate - There is a Canadian photographer named Edward Burtynsky who did something similar with photographing garbage dumps and factories in China - what he did in effect was create landscape out of people, to create a distance between viewer and seer - the film itself makes the interaction less real, and the pathos disjointed - what his work doesn't mention explicitly though, is that half the photos that appear in his exhibition, and that made the documentary about his journey to China are taken in other places, including the US and Canada - garbage, it would seem, is apparent in all places.

[MarkBastable]

If you like it, keep it. I don't want it.

Well, as it has kept both my parents alive - whereas in America either they'd be dead or I'd be bankrupt, or both - I think I will keep it, thanks.

[SleepyWitch]

I think Brazil is as multi cultural as the USA. Personally I am very suspicious of the great multicultural experiment that is being imposed on the West. You go to somewhere like London and the indiginous, northern European Brits are being pushed out by immigrants from all over the place.

sorry, but there is no "indigenous" British population and neither are Brits normally called northern European. Actually, there is no "indigenous" population anywhere. Last time I checked, Britain was in Western Europe/ North-Western Europe (officially called Western), except that many "indigenous" Brits don't consider themselves European at all.
There is a reason why those "indigenous" people are "pushed out" of London: it's because they turn up their noses at immigrants and choose to move out of particular areas because they feel that the presence of immigrants devalues their property.

back on topic


America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status. The question becomes: "can a democracy survive in a world where technology is driving change at a very rapid pace?” Darwin informs us that if a species cannot adapt to its changing environment that species will soon become toast.
what exactly is the changing environment in this case? would that be "technological change" and both the USA and China have to adapt to that? who's responsible for the technological change then, i.e. who instigates it? some unknown, amorphous force? the market's demand for new technologies (can consumers demand technologies that don't even exist yet?)? or is the "environment" for each country the rest of the world minus that country? i.e. China would be part of the environment that the U.S.A have to adapt to and vice versa?

[billl]

good questions sleepy witch.

For me, it is just as much about how we adapt to technological change, as it is how we shape technological change to suit us. If we just let the course of tech development determine where we are headed, I think it might end up being a pretty efficient, networked, and bland place. But if we can bend the tech to OUR imperatives... Well, it might not be too wild, but I think that the rights of the individual could at least get a fair hearing. And so, it becomes important whether one thinks the rights of the individual are an important concern, amidst all of this change.

[Virgil]

Well, as it has kept both my parents alive - whereas in America either they'd be dead or I'd be bankrupt, or both - I think I will keep it, thanks.

Oh we're just all dying over here. :lol: Without getting into details my system has done wonders for my parents. Kept my father alive way longer than ever expected, at an incredible expense.

We just went through an excruciating debate over the nature of our healthcare system, and while I don't care an iota for what's going to be passed, but a public system decidedly was rejected by the American people, even though we have the most liberal president in our history and a decidedly lopsided congress that supports him. Thank God for American values.

[stlukesguild]

America now has an open society but few Americans have the Critical Thinking skills and intellectual sophistication required to maintain that status.

Gotta love that assertion. We're primarily a nation of illiterate bumpkins with a few exceptions, I guess while the rest of the planet is so much more sophisticated.:goof: Or is it just that as the big boy on the block... and as a nation that takes freedom of speech to heart... often to a questionable extreme... we're the nation whose dirty laundry is there for all to see. And repeated Chinese censorship of any and all negatives... of reports from hostilities in Tibet, to discussions concerning Taiwanese independence, to the control of where foreign visitors may visit, to the cover up of the 2008 Baby Milk Scandal, to black-outs of Western media including CNN International, BBC World Service, and Bloomberg Television to the banning of foreign cartoons, and extreme limitations set upon access to foreign films, to its pervasive censorship of the internet including the banning of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter that has earned it the worst possible ranking by OpenNet Initiative, a joint project whose goal is to monitor and report on internet filtering and surveillance practices by nations, with participating institutions including the University of Toronto and Oxford... all of these are undoubtedly the measure of China's great freedoms. One wonders about critical thinking skills in Canada, as well... undoubtedly a result of America media and propaganda.:goof:

But ignoring all of this, one still needs to question the fears of Chinese ascendancy. The inflated claims strike me as a bit of deja vu... for I remember similar claims being made in the early 80s for Japan. There were those who played upon ignorant paranoia organizing events in the US in which you could pay your money and take a few swings with a sledge hammer at a Toyota or Honda. These spilled over into reports of vandalism of Japanese vehicles... and even protests of the opening of Japanese auto manufacturing plants in the US which essentially resulted in American jobs. On the other side of the spectrum, there were efforts to come to terms with Japanese culture. Museums mounted exhibition of Japanese art, and Japanese film and literature classes sprung up at nearly every college and university. The Japanese language became a favored major... and a great asset for the businessman or woman. Now the discussion is all centered on China, virtually ignoring the fact that Japan is still the second largest economy in the world and will quite likely remain in that position for several decades... even if Chinese growth remains at its current level... which is highly unlikely as other players, including India, the reunified Germany, the EU, Russia... and possibly even some Middle-Eastern, African, and South American nations enter into the equation.

Undoubtedly, the American share and dominance of the whole of the world economy will decline. Such a huge control of the wealth... a result of the destruction of the economies and industries of most of the industrialized world during World War II... obviously was unsustainable. Of course it would seem that many have the assumption that the growth of economies in other nations is immediately equated with a decline in the US economy. This is something of the fallacy that suggests that the wealth of the planet is set at some finite number and that the creation of wealth and raising of the standards of living in one nation must come at the expense of all the others. This is the belief that stood behind colonialism and still influences international policies and attempts to maintain control of the third world through military and economic means. The British Empire is no longer the big boy on the block... but has the standard of living declined? Is the average British citizen living in squalor at a level beneath what his or her Victorian era ancestors knew? Somehow I doubt this is true.

[SleepyWitch]

The British Empire is no longer the big boy on the block... but has the standard of living declined? Is the average British citizen living in squalor at a level beneath what his or her Victorian era ancestors knew? Somehow I doubt this is true.

don't worry, we're getting there. just give us 5 more years :D

[Nick Capozzoli]

But what the film does though is capture an American imagination, as it seems to make Americans feel better about themselves when they bestow artificial pity on people they don't know - they feel bad for the people, but at the same time, they feel better about themselves...

Actually the film made me feel guilty, not better about American consumerism. The film was a strong indictment. It made me feel sorry for the girls who slaved away at making the beads, only to see their work swept away with the other Mardi Gras trash on the streets of New Orleans.:mad:

[Haunted]

Thanks to St. Lukes for addressing most of the key points from that post. I have a little bit of information to add.


The largest building in the world is no longer in the USA but in Dubai. It is going to be hard on the USA, adjusting to being just another nation, just as it was hard on the British when they lost their Empire.

The largest or is it the tallest?? Consider this: The record for being the tallest building expires as soon as another taller building gets built.

And how is this going to show the US falling behind Dubai? In case the news hasn't reached you, Dubai has gone bankrupt. Yes, it was all over the news last year. And that nice tall building may even be foreclosed. On November 25, 2009, Dubai World announced that it could no longer make payments on its debt for at least the next six months. And this is the state of their economy: A quarter of Dubai's office space is vacant. Workers have taken salary cuts of up to 30%. The Emirati government is in debt up to its eyebrow, $80 billion to $120 billion.


A lot of people feel that the world is being ruined by free market capitalism: by greedy, vulgar, selfish, materialism. ...Many associate this vulgarity with Americans. The general stereotype of an American in Europe, Australia and Canada is of a fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class.

Just so you know, UK banks lent billions to Dubai. That's free market capitalism at work. Hopefully no one is going to start calling the Brits fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar, no class. Americans don't like competition ;)


In 20 or 30 years China, then India will pass you by. Even the E.U and Russia will rival the USA.

China grew their economy from world trade with huge exports to the US. China's economy is sound as long as US companies outsourced their manufacturing to China. I believe other posters already said that.

Because of this trade relationship, if you're betting on the US to go down, China will possibly go down. Then we'll be singing a different tune: US DECLINE, CHINA DECLINE.

[Emil Miller]

This is probably the most important thread on this forum but we can only scratch the surface of how the geopolitical shift in the East/West relations will affect us all. That there has been a shift is without question and it leaves the USA with the quandry of how to adapt to the new scenario.
For years the world was essentially divided into two camps ie. USSR v USA but US technology eventually caused the collapse of the USSR and the dust still hasn't settled on it. Just as the US was, quite rightly, congratulating itself on their successful strategy, a new monster appeared on the horizon in the form of radical Islam and in the meantime the Chinese had stolen their economic clothes. I was speaking to an American recently who displayed an amazingly complacent attitude to the rapid rise of China; saying that it would take a long time for China to match the US in technology and that the US would remain the only super power for years to come. Well I happen to know something about the Chinese, having had friends among these people for a number of years and having been to China twice. Like the Americans they have a work ethic superior to that of the British and they are tenacious in pursuit of their aims. Unlike the Americans, however, they do not generally think in the short term where every wish is granted at the press of a button, they are in it for the long haul and it is the next generation they care about rather than their own. Of course there are examples of behaviour that we in the west would not contemplate and I have even see leprosy there but they have also just launched the world's fastest train, shot down a satellite in space and are planning their first aircraft carrier. The ramifications of this kind of technological advance cannot be underestimated. China still has huge problems which are too obvious to mention but if anyone can solve them I believe they can. Their entrepreneurial instinct is best illustrated by the story that when the French set up the penal colony of Devil's Island in the most inaccessible place they could find, the Chinese appeared shortly thereafter and began opening shops.

[Virgil]

I'm amazed at all the economic experts in this thread. :lol:

I welcome competition. Capitalist countries are interdependent countries, and while they are on a micro level competing for business, they are on a macro level intertwined. Prosperity requires economic engines that trade and each free trade is in its microscopic way a mutually enriching process. The US/China trade has been an incredible prospering exchange for both sides. Yes the blue collar union people complain that blue collar jobs have been exported, and that has enriched China greatly, but white collar jobs have increased considerably here. Until this recent recession, which has nothing to with US/China trade, our uneployment was typically around 5%, which is considered full employment, for the past 25 years, except for a couple of mild recessions in there. European countries typically have double that unemployment rate. China's transition to capitalism has been wonderful for both sides and further freeing of their markets and culture will only increase prosperity for all. Also similar can be said of India's economy and it's trade with its partners.

The EU structure has in my observation helped the European countries economically. It seems to have halted the socialist path that they were on and established a fiscal discipline that seemed to be lacking before. The gov't leaders of each EU nation can now blame the EU structure for not spending more of the public money, whether they want to or not. If anything, in my superficial observation, some of the socialism has been reverse. Thatcherism, and then confirmed by Blair, reversed the nationalizing of industry. While I'm hardly an expert, I suspect that's been going on across Europe. And it's been good, for Europeans and anyone trading with the Europeans, which includses the US.

I can envision numerous economic engines across the world, the large engines bolstering the smaller. And this will hopefully include the middle east. That's why Iraq was so important. Iraq has the potential to be the economic engine that bolsters the middle east to prosperity. As middle east countires go, they are a more educated and developed society. A free market democracy prospering in the middle east will bolster the entire region and hopefully disuade this terrorist ideology. I can envision a middle east type of EU, and as long as it's free and pro business it will be a good thing for them and us. And then perhaps we can see about Africa. The more economic engines, the better. The freer the markets, the better. Adam Smith has not been wrong yet.

[JBI]

It isn't capitalist and communist. Read James Fallows book Looking at the Sun for a good analysis out of the 90s on the subject. He describes how the American model of progress and economic development is not necessarily a universal one, and how systems may work in one place, but perhaps something different is better elsewhere.

The whole idea I think many westerns have is that the path to success lies in some North American model - so when Japanese people do things completely differently, people don't seem to get it. When China puts a system in that goes against capitalism, it is automatically assumed to be a bad idea.

The whole Capitalist Communist dichotomy is a Western construction - the same rules don't apply to the rest of the world - what works in one country, and what one country values are perhaps different things.

This whole idea of building the biggest tower is perhaps interesting - bit of a waste of time if you ask me. The truth of the matter is, if you measure success by how much a country has, perhaps the US is up there - though, from what I know more people live in terrible debt in the US than elsewhere in the world. If instead you value other things, perhaps the US has never been on top.

That's the flaw of this whole idea - the fact that the bulk of the world's capital is for sure going to move around the Pacific region for a while is inevitable. How that is distributed is another matter. If everything is made in China, and people in China are paying Chinese prices (that is, buying in an artificially low Yuan) and selling at a much bigger profit margin in the states, where the junk is resold at an astronomical margin, who exactly is getting the profit and this wealth anyway - it would seem both people are getting the same garbage, just Americans, on a world scheme are paying more, as their countries wealth is being jeopardized, whereas China's is boosted since they are dealing in US capital on the foreign market.

When it comes down to it though, the same clothes are more or less worn in both countries, and the same food eaten - the balance is just completely off - so we can say the US is richer, but how rich are the people, and how much stuff can they afford, and how much debt do they have - that is the real question - how much, for instance, would an American pay for a new heart, or kidney, or how good is the education system funded by the government, or privately?

How much of one's income gets absorbed into goods, or into education, or into interest on debt?

[Admin]

Current politics are not allowed in the forum. Why this thread made it this long I'll have no idea, but I've noticed it now, so it is closed.