Presumably they are 23% more moral than Virgil and a hell of a lot more moral than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
Printable View
Presumably they are 23% more moral than Virgil and a hell of a lot more moral than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Who? Venice, Nepal, the rainforest countries, Kenya.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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.
What does it say about the people who call others "fat, ignorant, nationalistic, vulgar person with no class"?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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.
this thread is beginning to repeat itself, which to me is a sign that's it's pretty well finished.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I understand that. But anyone can walk into an emnergency room and even if they are in the country illegally will be treated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
And if he's implying that poor people aren't covered, then he doesn't understand our system. Medicaid covers the poor.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. -- Arthur Schopenhauer.
That's the only comment I wish to make.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.
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.
don't know when, where, or how this got started or ended, but everlasting drops of sweet wisdom may last forever, regardless of opinion?
No - that's not what I said. I said free at the point-of-delivery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
R e m i n d e r
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Such posts will be deleted without any further notice.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Nik, it's medicaid.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
If you like it, keep it. I don't want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
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_sys...a#Business_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.
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.
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.
*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}
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}
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}
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
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.
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.
don't worry, we're getting there. just give us 5 more years :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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 or is it the tallest?? Consider this: The record for being the tallest building expires as soon as another taller building gets built.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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.
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 ;)Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
In 20 or 30 years China, then India will pass you by. Even the E.U and Russia will rival the USA.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.