I love this site. I really do. I love my country, also, just like you.
As it just so happens, my country is America.
Now, before you get out your swords+3 of fascist slaying, listen to me for a minute.
All I'm asking is that the "Amerikkka is teh devilllz!" stuff stop.
Please, by all means, criticize my nation's policies, my nation's leaders, but just try to remember that we're a nation of 300,000,000 and it's only natural that once in a while a total asshole will get elected to office, and said asshole doesn't speak for each and every one of us. Further, we're a democracy, and sooner or later, this asshole will be out the door. Additionally, we're a young nation, and are probably taking a lot of licks right now that other nations have already taken, learned from, and moved on.
There's good things, evil things and confusing things about just about every culture out there. I firmly believe this, and this is why I don't want to slag on your country of origin (wherever it may be), although no matter where you're from I'm pretty sure I could find some sort of dark underbelly to criticize and then generalize against your people.
I see many of you offering this same sort of perspective on other countries, and I commend you for it. Take for instance many of your opinions on North Korea: the North Koreans are people, just like you and I, that happen to have a total bastard in charge. That's commendable. You're not characterizing the North Koreans as a nation of drug-smuggling, counterfeiting saber-rattling nuclear cowboys intent on dominating Asia. You know why? It's because they're not. Kim Jong Il is. But his people aren't. Further, no one is calling for the utter annihilation of North Korea on this board - at least anyone that I've seen - reform? Yes! Destruction? No. Why? because they're people, and they probably want the same things you and I want: food, security and a safe place to raise their kids.
I just hope that you'll maybe consider applying some of the same logic to my country, which, again, I love just as much as you love your own.
Before anyone draws any conclusions, this thread isn't targeted at a specific individual, and I'm not really interested in starting a fight. I know for a fact that there are probably other Americans that feel exactly the same way that I do, but are probably wary to say so for fear of being labeled as some sort of nationalist or nutjob. If you're reading this, and you agree with me, it's fine if you don't want to chime in. I understand.
I hope that I won't get flamed to a crisp over this post. You guys are some of the smartest, most decent folks I've had an opportunity to electronically hobnob with in a long while, so I'm hoping that this won't be the case, but if you have to, then that's fine. I've said my piece.
Matt
You love your country? You must have a HUGE bed.
Hilarious!
Yeah, I love all the hot American Wimmenz....oh...and your wimmenz too.;)
Dude, I rather like America. It has tons of good stuff going for it, not least the Dresden Dolls who are currently my favourite band.
American foreign policy currently pisses me off, and the attitudes of the religious right I think are fuckwitted, but disliking the country would put me in the position of disliking the land that gave us jazz, the blues and rock'n roll and that just is not happening.
As for loving my country, I don't love any country. Mine is nice enough and I like it enough to stay, but I feel no special attachment otherwise.
I can completely respect that. We have our fair share of fuckwits over here, for sure.
The working class has no country.
Typical, another American whinging about how the world is oppressing him!
I wonder if the Romans every did. "Oh dear, why is it the Gauls hate us so? I do wish they'd stop. We're really rather nice people. Of course Caesar slaughtered and enslaved thousands of the Gauls, but is that any reason to hate us?"
I don't think the Romans whined quite so much.
Just suck it up and take it. You have 4% the world's population, and consume 25% of its resources. The price you pay for that is that the world hates you. Just harden up, grow a pair and take it.
:flameon2:
No one likes the top dog, fact of life. I'll try to cope with the world's disdain by burning $2.00/gal gas in my un-smog-checked car as I drive to town to plunder the riches of the world.
Ain't hegemony a bitch?
Quote from: JimBobOzJust suck it up and take it. You have 4% the world's population, and consume 25% of its resources. The price you pay for that is that the world hates you. Just harden up, grow a pair and take it.
:flameon2:
Circuses would pay to show off a giant, talking penis.
Quote from: JimBobOzTypical, another American whinging about how the world is oppressing him!
I wonder if the Romans every did. "Oh dear, why is it the Gauls hate us so? I do wish they'd stop. We're really rather nice people. Of course Caesar slaughtered and enslaved thousands of the Gauls, but is that any reason to hate us?"
I don't think the Romans whined quite so much.
Just suck it up and take it. You have 4% the world's population, and consume 25% of its resources. The price you pay for that is that the world hates you. Just harden up, grow a pair and take it.
:flameon2:
Australia?
A) Nice job with the Aborigines.
B) "White Australia" Immigration policy
I'm remeinded of the words of Bill Hicks, who when asked if he was proud to be an American replied that he didn't have much say in the matter seeing as his parents just happened to fuck there.
I don't love my country. I'm not even sure how that would feel. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and the Scotsman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cSngpUiow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cSngpUiow)
I know its making fun, but I still like it. :)
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm remeinded of the words of Bill Hicks, who when asked if he was proud to be an American replied that he didn't have much say in the matter seeing as his parents just happened to fuck there.
I don't love my country. I'm not even sure how that would feel. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and the Scotsman.
Dude, I'm Scottish and I assure you I have all the patriotism of a drunken gerbil.
The concept has never made the slightest sense to me.
All of you may hate American, but I've got to say that I come to this site as a way to talk shit about games and related topics. Make of it what you will, but if you manage to create a site that is redolent with hostility toward *any* nation or people, you're going to end up losing a lot of folks in the long run.
I've tried to be civil about this - I really have - except for pointing out Australia's vehemently racist past (shouldn't have done this) - and all I'm asking is for a place to come where I feel as welcome as the rest of you.
The hypocricy of some of you is astounding: I don't see a lot of posts ripping into China (big resource drain, abhorrent civil rights record, big player in insurrections and violence around the world), or any of the countries that seem to export nothing but violence and misogyny, or hell - your own countries: seeming like you all claim to be Citizens of the World, I'd expect for you to want to offer criticism about the countries where you currently reside (surely, they're not perfect, no?), instead, it's America, America, America.
And it's not about American policy or what-have-you, it's this "America is utterly evil" crap that some of you dig up.
I'm just saying how would you like it? I assume that you come here for the same reasons that I do, and probably hear enough about the world's problems offline.
If you wanted this site to be the free of Americans, you should have said so in the beginning. Now, I've gotten attached to the place, and am instead asking just a handful of you to knock it the fuck off, or at least tone it down a notch. Hell, if you're a German, it's not like I'm babbling on about the Nazis, the Holocause and the resurgence of that nation's skinhead movement, or if you're French, I'm not talking about the oppression of Muslim students and their headware choices in your schools, or if...if....see? It's ridiculous! I could literally go on, and on, and on.
Fuck, I don't even offer a Pro-American opinion. Why? Because that isn't the reason I come here. Again, for the love of whatever the hell you hold sacred, please try to tone it down just a lil' bit.
I have a compromise: perhaps we can all unite to rip on Ghana for a while. What the hell have they done for us lately? That, or let's slam Nunavat. Just where the hell do they get off having some measure of self-government?! Give Nunavut back to the Narwhals!
Quote from: Zachary The FirstI have a compromise: perhaps we can all unite to rip on Ghana for a while. What the hell have they done for us lately? That, or let's slam Nunavat. Just where the hell do they get off having some measure of self-government?! Give Nunavut back to the Narwhals!
Easter Island, man. How dare they display those Monoliths of Mass Tourism right in front of everyone! ;)
And, as a measure towards reconciliation, I, as a representative for all Americans, would like to apologize for MTV and the films of Woody Allen.
Quote from: JongWKEaster Island, man. How dare they display those Monoliths of Mass Tourism right in front of everyone! ;)
You're getting the hang of this, I see. Here's one:
Mongolia! "Buffer state", eh? Sure...let 'em alone for awhile, and the next thing you know, 500,000 horsemen are rampaging across Central Asia! There's blood on your hands, Minister Temujin!
OK. I'm off my soapbox now, and am committed to getting along with everyone...so I to offer the following in reconciliation to my European/Australian/Asian/Whateverthehellian fellow RPGSITErs:
1) A formal statement of acknowledgement of full responsibility for the horror inflicted upon the world in the form of (a) 1980's era Hair Metal (b) Paris Hilton.
2) An offer to extend the American Sofa of Hospitality to any foreign nationals who might visiting and wish to enjoy its sundry comforts.
Nuff said.
Quote from: mattormeg1980's era Hair Metal
I REGRET NOTHING!!!!! ;)
Quote from: BalbinusDude, I'm Scottish
...and it tears me up inside!
I only mentionned it because during the summer you couldn't switch on the TV without running into another story of an Englishman in Scotland having his house burned down or some such rubbish.
Quote from: Mr. Analytical...and it tears me up inside!
I only mentionned it because during the summer you couldn't switch on the TV without running into another story of an Englishman in Scotland having his house burned down or some such rubbish.
So what, you object to people having hobbies now? The nights are long in Scotland, people need something to do.
That said, I think the manner of the news reporting of those incidents distorts how common they are and arguably increases their occurrence by making Neds* think they can get on tv if they wreck some English guy's stuff.
That said, those cretins are the sort of people who were they English would join the BNP. I have nothing but contempt for them.
Ned is the Scottish word for Chav by the way.
Quote from: Mr. Analyticall. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and the Scotsman.
zzzzz...huh? What? I must've fallen asleep there. Oh, yeah. Patriotism...blah blah...
Quote from: BalbinusSo what, you object to people having hobbies now? The nights are long in Scotland, people need something to do.
Fair enough. I'm all for native customs. This is before the dancing about in drag right? If it wasn't for the fact that nobody in the world actually knows how to play the bagpipes, the rest of the world would have worked out a long time ago that those pipers are actually playing "I will survive" and "Dancing Queen".
Seriously, I know that the media was massively over-representing those events. Plus during the World Cup you can't turn on the TV without being assaulted by coverage of the England Team. I was following the football and was absolutely fed up with seeing English flags everywhere.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstAnd, as a measure towards reconciliation, I, as a representative for all Americans, would like to apologize for MTV and the films of Woody Allen.
I would also like to apologize for the following:
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, W, Ronny Reagan, the SJG forums and most especially the user called Paladin who constantly derides other countries while preaching American supremacy. (He also makes refferences to people's mothers and attacks users who've been banned and can't fight back, marking him as a douche and a coward, so please try to ignore him.)
Quote from: mattormegI've tried to be civil about this - I really have - except for pointing out Australia's vehemently racist past (shouldn't have done this) - and all I'm asking is for a place to come where I feel as welcome as the rest of you.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out Australia's racist past. Nor would there be anything wrong with pointing out its racist
present, either. However, then you'd have to deal with people pointing out the USA's racist past and present, too. The USA is a very confused place. The person who wrote their founding words, "all men are created equal" held slaves. At the time the USA liberated Europe from Nazism, it was itself a racist state, with its own apartheid, called "segregation." It makes national heroes of butchers like Custer.
They key thing, though, it that the USA tends to throw its weight around, invading other countries, etc. Amazingly, that pisses people off ;)
Quote from: mattormegThe hypocricy of some of you is astounding: I don't see a lot of posts ripping into China (big resource drain, abhorrent civil rights record, big player in insurrections and violence around the world), or any of the countries that seem to export nothing but violence and misogyny, or hell - your own countries: seeming like you all claim to be Citizens of the World, I'd expect for you to want to offer criticism about the countries where you currently reside (surely, they're not perfect, no?), instead, it's America, America, America.
If you hop on over to Tangency Open subforum on rpg.net, you'll see a lot of criticism from me towards my own country of Australia, and only secondarily to the rest of the world. Here, I've not criticised Australia, but I've not ragged on the USA, either, except in this thread where you asked for it.
But in the end, most people of the world are not offended by another country unless it comes and bothers them. If China invaded (say) Vietnam, with the pretext of searching out WMD and terrorists, I think you'd find a lot of criticism of China, too. But they don't bother anyone outside their own borders much. In the 1920s when the USA only hassled its own citizens, and the UK was stomping around the Middle East, there was a lot of criticism of the UK, too.
Basically, it's the price you pay for being top dog. The other dogs will growl at you. So either toughen up and take it, or step down and let someone else be top.
Quote from: mattormegFuck, I don't even offer a Pro-American opinion. Why? Because that isn't the reason I come here. Again, for the love of whatever the hell you hold sacred, please try to tone it down just a lil' bit.
You could always stay out of the off-topic forum... I've not seen any pro- or anti-any country threads in the roleplaying sections of the site.
Quote from: Dominus NoxI would also like to apologize for the following:
... the SJG forums and most especially the user called Paladin who constantly derides other countries while preaching American supremacy. (He also makes refferences to people's mothers and attacks users who've been banned and can't fight back, marking him as a douche and a coward, so please try to ignore him.)
Yes but he's not a gamer.
Non-gamers hanging around on gaming sites are always a bit fucked in the head and post strange stuff. No gamer should worry about them. They're just friction in the machine.
QuoteIt makes national heroes of butchers like Custer.
Just a nitpick, but I can't say as I've ever heard Custer referred to as a hero. I've seen more mockery in my lifetime than anything.
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalFair enough. I'm all for native customs. This is before the dancing about in drag right? If it wasn't for the fact that nobody in the world actually knows how to play the bagpipes, the rest of the world would have worked out a long time ago that those pipers are actually playing "I will survive" and "Dancing Queen".
Great, I'm moving in just a few hours, and now my brain is wondering exactly what that might sounds like and if there are recordings of bagpipe versions of pop songs floating around the net... :eyecrazy:
@Mattormeg: There is a Johnny Horton song about the British in New Orleans, isn`t there?
Quote from: droogThe working class has no country.
Thank god for that! Imagine how badly it would smell!
RPGPundit
Quote from: J ArcaneJust a nitpick, but I can't say as I've ever heard Custer referred to as a hero. I've seen more mockery in my lifetime than anything.
He was considered a hero before he died and for a little while after he died too, until sanity took over. Deadwood addresses the idea quite nicely.
Even today he's considered more of a fool than a genocidal butcher and ethnic cleanser, which is what he basically was.
Folks here in the states still think Custer was an idiot. I've never seen an episode of Deadwood, but I personally don't know a soul who thinks of him as hero material.
Same thing with Bufallo Bill, since we're talking about legendary figures of the Wild West. I live in a rural state with tons of hunters, and even we learned in school how wasteful and despicable he was.
Manifest Destiny hasn't done too well with a century of perspective between us and it.
EDIT: And yes, there is a song about the Battle of New Orleans. "1820 and we took a little a trip/along with General Jackson/down the mighty Mississip'..."
Quote from: mattormegFolks here in the states still think Custer was an idiot. I've never seen an episode of Deadwood, but I personally don't know a soul who thinks of him as hero material.
Same thing with Bufallo Bill, since we're talking about legendary figures of the Wild West. I live in a rural state with tons of hunters, and even we learned in school how wasteful and despicable he was.
Custer may be the worst war criminal in US history. In the end, he got what he deserved.
Quote from: Settembrini@Mattormeg: There is a Johnny Horton song about the British in New Orleans, isn`t there?
Quote from: fonkaygarryEDIT: And yes, there is a song about the Battle of New Orleans. "1820 and we took a little a trip/along with General Jackson/down the mighty Mississip'..."
The Johnny Horton version goes "In 1814 we took a little trip/along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississipp'" Actually, here are the lyrics in their entirety:
In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.
[Chorus]
Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well
[Chorus]
Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**
We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.
[Chorus]
Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
All I have to say is, if you're from Nebraska and you're not a Husker fan...you're some sorta communist man.
Go Big Red!
Bill Callahan has sucked what joy there once was out of Nebrasky football.
Quote from: fonkaygarryBill Callahan has sucked what joy there once was out of Nebrasky football.
Since the Huskers have pretty well sucked the last few years (though not bad this year it seems), life must really stink Nebraska. Without football to talk about, what else it there?:)
Quote from: McrowSince the Huskers have pretty well sucked the last few years (though not bad this year it seems), life must really stink Nebraska. Without football to talk about, what else it there?:)
Hey, around here Husker football is a way of life. ;)
They're back and getting better. Bill Callahan had to come in and pick up the pieces of Frank Solich running our team into the ground. He had a couple years there where he was still having to deal with Solich's recruits but now things are looking up. They won their 800th game last Saturday (the fourth program in history), the record is better than the past few years at 6-1 overal and 3-0 in the Big 12,
and as of today they've moved up to 17th in the AP and 16th in the coaches poll! I think Texas is going to have their hands full this weekend.
I do miss the smash mouth, ram the ball down the field, running game under Osborn though.
As a Sooner fan, it would be an early Christmas present if the Huskers managed to
BEAT TEXAS
Oops, slip of the tongue...
Quote from: fonkaygarryAs a Sooner fan, it would be an early Christmas present if the Huskers managed to
BEAT TEXAS
Oops, slip of the tongue...
You and me both! I got a funny feeling Texas is going down. These are the types of games I have to watch alone....
Quote from: JimBobOz...
But in the end, most people of the world are not offended by another country unless it comes and bothers them. ...
Basically, it's the price you pay for being top dog. The other dogs will growl at you. So either toughen up and take it, or step down and let someone else be top.....
I think this is the heart of the matter. Anti-american criticism and sentiment is a result of American power and foreign policy (for the most part, anyway). Even if you don't agree with those policies, you might find some of the criticism offensive. Especially if it's carelessly worded or overly generalized. People who make blanket attacks at Americans for our country's actions, however, well [hyperbole] "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" [/hyperbole].
But I wouldn't really come to this site for political discussion.
re: Custer: what everybody else said. More a footnote than a hero.
@Balbinus: the Dresden Dolls are pretty infectious in their way, aren't they?
Quote from: algaubleI think this is the heart of the matter. Anti-american criticism and sentiment is a result of American power and foreign policy (for the most part, anyway). Even if you don't agree with those policies, you might find some of the criticism offensive. Especially if it's carelessly worded or overly generalized. People who make blanket attacks at Americans for our country's actions, however, well [hyperbole] "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" [/hyperbole].
I think that's reasonably accurate. Also the septics tend to get a bit more huffy, even the amiably lefty and unconventional ones, when you criticise the US. I think there's a much stronger undercurrent of nationalism and patriotism than a lot of people (mostly us Europeans) are comfortable with.
Quote from: algaubleI think this is the heart of the matter. Anti-american criticism and sentiment is a result of American power and foreign policy (for the most part, anyway). Even if you don't agree with those policies, you might find some of the criticism offensive. Especially if it's carelessly worded or overly generalized. People who make blanket attacks at Americans for our country's actions, however, well [hyperbole] "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" [/hyperbole].
One most excellent moderate muslim scholar recently commented on that statement. He said "the world's moderate muslims hear things from the president like "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists", and they think to themselves.. "well, I'm not with YOU, so..." "
Its an example of the most utterly unproductive thing Bush could have said to the muslim world. "Either you agree with everything I, George Bush, am saying and doing, or you're a friend of the terrorists". The average muslim will look at that and say "gee, i guess i'm a friend of the terrorists then, because I sure as fuck aren't going to give you carte blanche, asshole.." :idunno:
RPGPundit
Maybe a part of the problem is that people don't realize that most Americans don't approve of Bush or his actions in general. I don't think his approval rating has been above 40% for quite some time.
Personally, I can stand that he is our president. He has lost the respect for our country , that most people around the world had @ one time. He pretty much plays into all of the stereotypes that people have for Americans.
Though, I still say that some of the hate thrown @ us is because some people just have to hate the big guy on campus no matter what.
I think that part of the problem is historical, and part of it is Bush-specific. Historically, there were a lot of times that you guys have had assholes running your government that basically shit on the rest of the world for their own interests.
Contrary to what you may believe, the Cuban Revolution didn't happen because the cubans "hate your freedoms", it happened because the US-backed United Fruit Company had tried to turn an entire continent into a slave plantation.
And the hatred an American might find in south america is because the Nixon white house specifically initiated a plan (Plan Condor) that involved intentionally destroying every democratically elected government in south america and replacing them with military dictatorships.
So you guys have a lot of baggage to make up for.
Part of the problem today is that in Bush the world sees that sort of government again, but worse. And its fine and good to say "50% of us didn't vote for him", but the democratic parts of the world look at the guy and say "yea, but 50% of you DID vote for a guy who wouldn't be able to fill a beerhall in any other part of the western democratic world. You let yourselves fall for him, TWICE".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditI think that part of the problem is historical, and part of it is Bush-specific. Historically, there were a lot of times that you guys have had assholes running your government that basically shit on the rest of the world for their own interests.
Contrary to what you may believe, the Cuban Revolution didn't happen because the cubans "hate your freedoms", it happened because the US-backed United Fruit Company had tried to turn an entire continent into a slave plantation.
And the hatred an American might find in south america is because the Nixon white house specifically initiated a plan (Plan Condor) that involved intentionally destroying every democratically elected government in south america and replacing them with military dictatorships.
So you guys have a lot of baggage to make up for.
Part of the problem today is that in Bush the world sees that sort of government again, but worse. And its fine and good to say "50% of us didn't vote for him", but the democratic parts of the world look at the guy and say "yea, but 50% of you DID vote for a guy who wouldn't be able to fill a beerhall in any other part of the western democratic world. You let yourselves fall for him, TWICE".
RPGPundit
I'm with you on most of this, It pisses me off that 50% of our people are stupid enough to have voted for the guy TWICE!!!!!!!!!
Even so there are plenty of other contries that have had similar lapses in their government. England for one, but you don't see people actively insulting the english.
Quote from: McrowI'm with you on most of this, It pisses me off that 50% of our people are stupid enough to have voted for the guy TWICE!!!!!!!!!
I'm not certain they really voted for him the first time.
I've heard the guy say one thing, ONE, that I totally got behind: "Let's go to Mars".
That's it.
The rest has been...ehhhh, I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him, and frankly, I can't even get to him from here, so...
Quote from: McrowEven so there are plenty of other contries that have had similar lapses in their government. England for one, but you don't see people actively insulting the english.
If it would help, I could say something disparaging about limeys and their dubious dentistry.
So many specific responses, so little time. Instead,
I'm of the opinion stated here that runs along the lines of "grow a few and stand up." Don't like the President, we have a way to change that. It's called an election. In fact, there's another one for President in a couple of years. In the mean time, you can change Congress. Christ you can change huge swaths of it every two years. And trust me, if you make Democrats the majority in Congress, you will see things come to a screeching halt - for better or worse, agree with them or not, that's what will happen.
So stop trying to hide behind "I didn't vote for him so don't blame me, " shit. You're being a coward. I hated Clinton (except for welfare reform and a couple of other specifics), but I stood behind him whenever them thar fereners started howling. And then when it was time to vote, I voiced my opinion in the booth, baby. And look, he fooled everyone twice as well!
So, you don't like us being the big dog? Take it away, fuckheads. You don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us? Fine, take over your own protection. Don't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back. Oh...wait...you don't want them? Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.
I'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it. Problem is, we can't. Too many threats from too many corners, for one. For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.
And bullshit on the idea that the world loved us before Bush. Hell, take a look at the polls of Middle East feelings towards America before 2000 – they are already at something like 85% hate. Oh no, we went to 95%, how horrible. If you look at the numbers from 2000 and 2002, Western Europe was only slightly down. But after that, it drops like a rock. What changed? Iraq. Countries don't hate the US because of Bush, they hate the US because the US went to war in Iraq, against the "better judgment of the world community." Agree with those outside the US or not, that's the reason. Bush is just a nice target so that countries that disagree with that action, can still say "but we love Americans," and get our tourism (among other) dollars.
Lastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources? You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD. (http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2050678) That's a damn good return on your investment, I'd say - and all with just a tiny little 4% of the population. What the fuck are the rest of you all doing, jesus, how 'bout you chipping in a little, huh? And just like I said before, if you don't like it, change it. It would be nice to take a vacation from that kind of responsibility once and a while. I'd love a guaranteed job from which I could never be fired and could have 10 paid weeks of vacation (have to take holiday in August!). Come to think of it, no I wouldn't – at least not for what I'd have to give up in return.
I think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?
Is it that people are idiots, or that they actually approve of his actions? Naw, couldn't be...
Shocking it may be, but it takes more than "I'm not Bush!" to win over voters who don't actively hate him.
Quote from: James J SkachSo many specific responses, so little time. Instead,
I'm of the opinion stated here that runs along the lines of "grow a few and stand up." Don't like the President, we have a way to change that. It's called an election. In fact, there's another one for President in a couple of years. In the mean time, you can change Congress. Christ you can change huge swaths of it every two years. And trust me, if you make Democrats the majority in Congress, you will see things come to a screeching halt - for better or worse, agree with them or not, that's what will happen.
So stop trying to hide behind "I didn't vote for him so don't blame me, " shit. You're being a coward. I hated Clinton (except for welfare reform and a couple of other specifics), but I stood behind him whenever them thar fereners started howling. And then when it was time to vote, I voiced my opinion in the booth, baby. And look, he fooled everyone twice as well!
So, you don't like us being the big dog? Take it away, fuckheads. You don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us? Fine, take over your own protection. Don't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back. Oh...wait...you don't want them? Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.
I'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it. Problem is, we can't. Too many threats from too many corners, for one. For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.
And bullshit on the idea that the world loved us before Bush. Hell, take a look at the polls of Middle East feelings towards America before 2000 – they are already at something like 85% hate. Oh no, we went to 95%, how horrible. If you look at the numbers from 2000 and 2002, Western Europe was only slightly down. But after that, it drops like a rock. What changed? Iraq. Countries don't hate the US because of Bush, they hate the US because the US went to war in Iraq, against the "better judgment of the world community." Agree with those outside the US or not, that's the reason. Bush is just a nice target so that countries that disagree with that action, can still say "but we love Americans," and get our tourism (among other) dollars.
Lastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources? You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD. (http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2050678) That's a damn good return on your investment, I'd say - and all with just a tiny little 4% of the population. What the fuck are the rest of you all doing, jesus, how 'bout you chipping in a little, huh? And just like I said before, if you don't like it, change it. It would be nice to take a vacation from that kind of responsibility once and a while. I'd love a guaranteed job from which I could never be fired and could have 10 paid weeks of vacation (have to take holiday in August!). Come to think of it, no I wouldn't – at least not for what I'd have to give up in return.
I think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?
Now that is a fucking rant! 9/10 in my book. :D
It was hard to rant given the blood that had fountained out of my eyes splattering the monitor from reading the whining going on here. So, I thank you.
:bow:
Quote from: McrowEngland
You mean 'Airstrip One'.
If its any consolation, a lot of us despise Tony Blair even more than we despise Bush; because we actually expected much more from Blair.
RPGPundit
Ask the people of Somalia and Darfur about being the US being the protector of the world.
That rant has the ill-informed smell of the isolationist about it. The petulant and childish bleating of "Well if you don't like it we can leave you all to rot, you need us more than we need you".
The problem, of course, is that while that line of argument might have held some water in the 1950's when the US economy made up half the world's wealth. It's certainly not true now. As a protector of human rights and dignity, the US's record is essentially nill and based largely upon the now-irrelevant, then-questioned and ultimately fictional counter-factual that should the Russians have invaded that you'd have come over the help us out, protecting us.
Yeah right.
Since then America has bombed from 40,000 feet in 2 successive genocidal european conflicts, sat by while hundreds of thousands were butchered with machetes and are now happily doing nothing while genocide goes on unquestioned and unmolested in Africa. Not only does your government do nothing, but your population's largely uninterested.
In fact, even as a strongman, you're being sidelined. During the recent war in Lebanon you flexed your muscles and tutted and nobody listened to you. You've alienated the middle-eastern powers to such an extent that even being seen to co-operate with you is a liability and your political pull with your friends is negligeable too seeing as pretty much everyone thinks your president's a cunt and standing up to him would probably give them a boost in the polls.
The basic fact of the matter is that America can't afford to be isolationist. It needs to keep those foreign markets open, it needs to drum up those trade talks, it needs to keep the other powerblocks sweet. At this point in time, you need the rest of the world because you owe hundreds and hundreds of billions to the Chinese and if you shut the doors on the rest of the world you wouldn't be able to pay the interest on those loans, let alone pay them off.
I'm actually quite sympathetic to the US and in terms of Hegemons there are worse possibilities. But trying to pretend that you're A) somehow victimised and misunderstood or B) doing the rest of the world a favour is utterly ludicrous.
Quote from: RPGPunditIf its any consolation, a lot of us despise Tony Blair even more than we despise Bush; because we actually expected much more from Blair.
But that anger's more about being angry with oneself.
Tony Blair's premiership has been nothing short of cataclysmic.
He's overseen the plundering of British pensions, pissed BILLIONS up the wall in public spending with very little to show for it, reacted to genocide in Kosovo by bombing Belgrade and killing hundreds of innocent Yugoslavians, overseen a war in Afghanistan which cost tens of billions and had no effect as all it did was send the Taliban scurrying into the mountains for a couple of years, followed the US into a war in Iraq which would have been far more humane and morally justifiable if instead of going to war we'd given Saddam 100 billion in return for shooting several thousand of his own citizens a month AND he's so profoundly fucked up community relations in this country that we seem close to going through a period of religious intolerance and diviciveness unheard of in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell.
Not only has it been the fault of the British people for systematically re-electing him with huge mandates but the abject cowardice and moral degradation of his own party that refused to stand up to him and the conservative party for thinking that this is still the 1950's and that the way to unseat the most gifted British politician of the 20th Century was to talk about the UN being soft on asylum seekers.
Tony Blair's a moralising authoritarian but he's nothing when weighed against the intellectual and moral failings of the British political classes which, since the time of Thatcher hasn't come up with any vision of the way forward for Britain other than "we need to pay more tax to save the NHS".
Quote from: James J SkachSo many specific responses, so little time. Instead,
I'm of the opinion stated here that runs along the lines of "grow a few and stand up." Don't like the President, we have a way to change that. It's called an election. In fact, there's another one for President in a couple of years. In the mean time, you can change Congress. Christ you can change huge swaths of it every two years. And trust me, if you make Democrats the majority in Congress, you will see things come to a screeching halt - for better or worse, agree with them or not, that's what will happen.
So stop trying to hide behind "I didn't vote for him so don't blame me, " shit. You're being a coward. I hated Clinton (except for welfare reform and a couple of other specifics), but I stood behind him whenever them thar fereners started howling. And then when it was time to vote, I voiced my opinion in the booth, baby. And look, he fooled everyone twice as well!
So, you don't like us being the big dog? Take it away, fuckheads. You don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us? Fine, take over your own protection. Don't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back. Oh...wait...you don't want them? Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.
I'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it. Problem is, we can't. Too many threats from too many corners, for one. For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.
And bullshit on the idea that the world loved us before Bush. Hell, take a look at the polls of Middle East feelings towards America before 2000 – they are already at something like 85% hate. Oh no, we went to 95%, how horrible. If you look at the numbers from 2000 and 2002, Western Europe was only slightly down. But after that, it drops like a rock. What changed? Iraq. Countries don't hate the US because of Bush, they hate the US because the US went to war in Iraq, against the "better judgment of the world community." Agree with those outside the US or not, that's the reason. Bush is just a nice target so that countries that disagree with that action, can still say "but we love Americans," and get our tourism (among other) dollars.
Lastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources? You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD. (http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2050678) That's a damn good return on your investment, I'd say - and all with just a tiny little 4% of the population. What the fuck are the rest of you all doing, jesus, how 'bout you chipping in a little, huh? And just like I said before, if you don't like it, change it. It would be nice to take a vacation from that kind of responsibility once and a while. I'd love a guaranteed job from which I could never be fired and could have 10 paid weeks of vacation (have to take holiday in August!). Come to think of it, no I wouldn't – at least not for what I'd have to give up in return.
I think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?
(http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/supreme_beating/images/Pwn3d.jpg)
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAsk the people of Somalia and Darfur about being the US being the protector of the world.
That rant has the ill-informed smell of the isolationist about it. The petulant and childish bleating of "Well if you don't like it we can leave you all to rot, you need us more than we need you".
The problem, of course, is that while that line of argument might have held some water in the 1950's when the US economy made up half the world's wealth. It's certainly not true now. As a protector of human rights and dignity, the US's record is essentially nill and based largely upon the now-irrelevant, then-questioned and ultimately fictional counter-factual that should the Russians have invaded that you'd have come over the help us out, protecting us.
Yeah right.
Since then America has bombed from 40,000 feet in 2 successive genocidal european conflicts, sat by while hundreds of thousands were butchered with machetes and are now happily doing nothing while genocide goes on unquestioned and unmolested in Africa. Not only does your government do nothing, but your population's largely uninterested.
In fact, even as a strongman, you're being sidelined. During the recent war in Lebanon you flexed your muscles and tutted and nobody listened to you. You've alienated the middle-eastern powers to such an extent that even being seen to co-operate with you is a liability and your political pull with your friends is negligeable too seeing as pretty much everyone thinks your president's a cunt and standing up to him would probably give them a boost in the polls.
The basic fact of the matter is that America can't afford to be isolationist. It needs to keep those foreign markets open, it needs to drum up those trade talks, it needs to keep the other powerblocks sweet. At this point in time, you need the rest of the world because you owe hundreds and hundreds of billions to the Chinese and if you shut the doors on the rest of the world you wouldn't be able to pay the interest on those loans, let alone pay them off.
I'm actually quite sympathetic to the US and in terms of Hegemons there are worse possibilities. But trying to pretend that you're A) somehow victimised and misunderstood or B) doing the rest of the world a favour is utterly ludicrous.
See, I love responses like this... I love them even more from Americans, but you can't have everything.
I'll translate it for you:
How dare you invade other countries when we, the rest of the world, didn't like it. Why the fuck aren't you invading these other countries instead?
Seriously, the Kurds were being slaughtered systematically. Female Afghans were being rapped and murdered more or less systematically. The US goes in, gets a by on Afghanistan but not Iraq. But get's pasted over not going into Darfour? What the fuck is up with that?
YOU go to Darfour then. I'm fucking busy.
Well at the moment in Afghanistan, women are forced to wear the veil in much the same way as they were before the war. In fact, they don't go to school either because if they do the Taliban have said they'd murder them all.
Iraq, which was secularised to the point of women being able to have jobs and veils being largely a matter of private conscience, now sees women also wearing the veil for fear that they'll be attacked by the religious militias who run their neighbourhoods. Much the same is done for female children who would attend school.
The Kurds, on the other hand, had been essentially independent of the rest of Iraq since the Gulf War. Their lot is largely unchanged.
If you're going to be the world's policeman then surely your job is to protect the citizens. In recent times America goes to war and in effect makes things either worse or largely the same while it doesn't lift a finger while acts of genocide are carried out in Europe and Africa.
The Europeans are just as bad, don't get me wrong, but Europeans, unlike Americans, do not go around considering themselves global leaders or the planet's policeman.
The American century is over... America's now little better than China; a regional power that's content to throw its weight around either in crude self-interest or in moments of misguided zeal utterly adrift from the realities of the world we live in. It's competence suspect, its motives questionable and its aims confused.
A nation whose government is so morally bankrupt that it does nothing to prevent genocide but is quick to invoke genocide on expedient grounds when it needs to justify its adventurism.
A nation whose government is so inept and misguided that it launches a war in search of fictitious weapons of mass destruction whilst not lifting a finger to prevent other nations actually come up with some of their own.
So, Mr. Analytical,
when exactly were you in Afghanistan last? I was just there and I assure you that veil wearing was not as mandatory or prevalent as all that. In fact, I spoke to one young man who had a girlfriend who was pregnant and getting an abortion so her family wouldn't find out. Yes, so she would not be stoned to death (illegally, true, but that is part of why we are there, to stop that shit)... in fact currently there are two or three women Ministers running the country, alongside a double dozen men, a fair ratio compared to some western nations.
As for Iraq? I've never claimed we should be there, or that we were doing good. I merely point out the hypocrasy of pointing out that the US is fighting a war where people don't want us, while suggesting that we SHOULD be fighting some other war where the same shit is going down.
You don't want the US telling other nations that they should, or should NOT do such and such (support terrorists, etc) yet you just called for the US to do something to prevent North Korea from having Nukes. You don't agree that the US should have stopped the Kurds from being massacred (or gotten justice for the same) yet you hold the Darfour situation over our heads like we are carrying the blood stained knives.
Again, you want peace in Darfour? Fine, you pick up a gun and go to Africa. I'm a little busy in the Middle East... or should I point out that Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism owes a LOT of it popularity to the British Colonial Empire?
Actually it depends where in Afghanistan you were. If you were in Kabul then I understand that things are comparatively liberal there. But the rest of the country? By all accounts I've read, the outlying provinces are far less photogenically liberal. This isn't uncommon though, there's the same problem in Palestine. The right-wingers come in, the hair goes under cover.
Absolutely I claim you shouldn't be in Iraq but you should be in other places. That's because I think that the US should have committed itself, post-Cold War to peacekeeping and an ethical foreign policy. The Americans have no business being in Iraq but they have every reason to be in Darfur.
Darfur and Somalia are absolutely on the US's conscience because it had the power to stop them but instead it does and continues to do nothing. Europe, of course, is no better but Europe doesn't call itself the world's policeman or a leader.
I'm a realist, I have come to terms with the greed and amorality of international politics. But America has explicitly set itself apart from that and the guy who posted a rant explicitly pointed to the fact that the US is a global leader. If you guys want to walk in Woodrow Wilson's shoes and lead the world then do so because at the moment you're adventurist thugs who don't want to risk the blood of a single US serviceman to prevent genocide.
As for the British Colonial Empire, firstly, what the fuck do I care? I wrote a long post in this very thread about how much this country sucks. Secondly, actually British colonies by and large have a better history of wealth and respect for human rights than those of a lot of other colonial powers (Belgium being the worst as evidenced by central Africa). I know that in America you guys take insults to your country personally, but by and large in the UK we just don't give a fuck. So you can talk about the hideous history of colonial British oppression all you want and I'll most likely agree with you before asking you why you've changed the subject and pointing out that we were actually talking about America.
My brother spent nearly two years in Afghanistan, while in the us army. He said that very few girls were wearing veils or headdresses. Things have improved in Afghanistan, no thanks to the rest of the world.
Now I'm sick of the rest of the world pissing and moaning about us not helping Darfur or elsewhere. In their own words we are not the "leader". If so why the hell do they always expect us to do something?
quit your bitching and get off your pansy- ass and do something about yourself, or, shut the hell up.
We can't be everywhere.
Got your back, Pika...
See, he makes the ultimate point that I was making when I mentioned Guantanimo. Y'all tell us you want us to do this, but not that. But no matter what, don't make us do any of the work or suffer any of the consequences.
Why is it that in Darfur, it would be OK for the US to get involved, but it wasn't OK in Iraq? If it's not OK to bomb from 40,000 feet (Serbia, etc.), and it's not OK to invade (Iraq, etc.), then just what the hell do you want us to do in the Sudan, write a nasty letter? Wait, we have the UN for that.
Quote from: Mr. Analyticalbased largely upon the now-irrelevant, then-questioned and ultimately fictional counter-factual that should the Russians have invaded that you'd have come over the help us out, protecting us.
Are you serious? I mean, are you implying that we would not have helped? Or are you saying that we never were needed in the first place? Is it now irrelevant? How nice for you in 2006 to make an assessment like that. It's amazing that nobody else thought that in 1950, 1960, 1970, or 1980. I do agree it became irrelevant in 1989. How do you think that happened, luck?
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you're going to be the world's policeman then surely your job is to protect the citizens. In recent times America goes to war and in effect makes things either worse or largely the same while it doesn't lift a finger while acts of genocide are carried out in Europe and Africa.
This is an interesting assertion. It seems to imply that you'd be OK with the use of American power, as long as it was on your terms and under your direction. Well, move here, run for office, and then you could do the job. Or you could just convince the powers that be in your realms to pick up the slack. What's England doing in whatever place you think America should be? Oh, you don't have the resources...I see...
So what this is really about is that we have the resources but we act in a way you don't like. Tough shit, get your own stuff, fuckface. Isolationism? Are you fucking kidding me? I just said part of me would love to, but we can't – I even gave two reasons why we can't right now. Oh yeah, there it is, right in the fucking text:
Quote from: James J. SkachProblem is, we can't. Too many threats from too many corners, for one. For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.
And I don't think "you need us more than we need you." I honestly don't give a shit if you need us or not. So take your isolationist straw man and shove it up your tight British ass.
Then admit that you're not the global leaders and you have no moral authority and no interest in doing the right thing on the international stage.
The problem is that the American government isn't willing to do any of those things and as a result Darfur proves them to be hypocritical expedient scumbags who are little more than regional strongmen using force to suit their own self-serving needs.
America's no better than the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese of any other nation that used force to suit its own needs. My problem is with the fact that America (and the OP) seemingly don't recognise this.
Quote from: James J SkachSee, he makes the ultimate point that I was making when I mentioned Guantanimo. Y'all tell us you want us to do this, but not that. But no matter what, don't make us do any of the work or suffer any of the consequences.
In Guantanamo, the whole world wants you to put these people up for trial and release them if they're found innocent. It also wants you to stop torturing people or giving people to other states in order to be tortured because it's wrong.
Nobody asked you to start interning people who were picked up off the streets of Afghanistan and then throw them in prison and torture them for years simply because they had a foreign passport. This is all you guys. Stop it. There's no hypocrisy, no laziness. Stop.
QuoteWhy is it that in Darfur, it would be OK for the US to get involved, but it wasn't OK in Iraq? If it's not OK to bomb from 40,000 feet (Serbia, etc.), and it's not OK to invade (Iraq, etc.), then just what the hell do you want us to do in the Sudan, write a nasty letter? Wait, we have the UN for that.
Because it's okay to move into a country where the government is butchering its own people by the thousands, but it's not okay to move into a country because you think there might be weapons of mass destruction there and in fact there aren't, which is what everyone was telling you.
Meanwhile, when Saddam WAS gassing his own population. You guys did nothing, in fact, I seem to remember that your current SoD was the guy selling the chemicals.
In Sudan you could, put a load of infantrymen out to guard the refugee camps. So that next time the genocidal madmen turn up they'll have to deal with soldiers and not unarmed starving civilians.
QuoteThis is an interesting assertion. It seems to imply that you'd be OK with the use of American power, as long as it was on your terms and under your direction. Well, move here, run for office, and then you could do the job. Or you could just convince the powers that be in your realms to pick up the slack. What's England doing in whatever place you think America should be? Oh, you don't have the resources...I see...
Again... attacking the country I live in gets you nowhere. I'm the first to say that this country's foreign policy is ethically bankrupt and strategically braindead.
I think the US should use its considerable power to actually make the world a better place. As opposed to using it out of greed and stupidity and then TRYING to argue that you did it in order to make the world a better place.
Quoteup your tight British ass.
Well I'm not British and I'll thank you for not thinking about my arse.
Quote from: James J SkachYou don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us? Fine, take over your own protection.
Speaking as an Australian, we do in fact have a Defence Force, and it's quite capable of defending us from likely adversaries. The only time we've had to expand it dramatically is one occasion - when Japan was coming. Turns out they were never planning to invade anyway, so we needn't have bothered. All the other times we've had to expand our military, it was to fight a war at the behest of an imperial master - the UK in WWI and WWII, the USA in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq. While it was certainly worth fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and it was in principle worth fighting the Communists, by associating our war effort with the USA we ensured we'd lose along with them. Should have pulled out of Vietnam about 1968 when we realised the USA was fucking it up hopelessly. Same in Iraq.
So I'm entirely content for the USA to dissassociate itself with Australia in terms of defence. We can do well enough by ourselves. Thanks, bye.
Quote from: James J SkachDon't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back. Oh...wait...you don't want them? Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.
Only one Australian citizen remains at Guatanamo. To my shame, our Australian government, subservient to the US government, does not ask for him back. To the USA's credit, every country which has asked for them back (Britain, France, Afghanistan) has got them back. If it were up to me, I'd take the guy back.
Quote from: James J SkachI'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it. Problem is, we can't. Too many threats from too many corners, for one. For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.
So you'll withdraw if we want you to... but you won't withdraw. Rightyo. And you're doing all this for our own good. Really. It's entirely unselfish. Ah, the generosity of empires! Bringing civilisation and coca-cola to the world! Thanks ever so much.
Quote from: James J SkachLastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources? You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD. (http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2050678)
It always helps to read the articles you quote, and read some more, too.
Quote from: The EconomistSince 1995 almost 60% of the cumulative growth in world output has come from America, nearly twice America's share of world GDP
Despite its name, "Gross Domestic Product" does not reflect actual "products". For example, if I buy a house this week for $200,000 and sell it next week for $220,000, I have added $20,000 to the GDP. Chances are, I've also added $20,000 to net debt, as well. So while I've added $20,000 to float around in the economy, in adding $20,000 of debt, I've also created a drain on the economy, too. A lot of the US GDP growth comes from debt-burdened growth. Two large companies merge, and in buying each-other's stock, load up on debt. So we get one huge company with a huge debt. But the GDP went up! So a rise in GDP does not necessarily mean that anyone's better off. The article mentions this obliquely, noting,
Quote from: The EconomistIn the past three years almost 3m jobs have been lost in American manufacturing, one out of six in that sector.
So your economy is growing, but people are losing jobs. A few people are getting richer, but at the cost of millions getting poorer. And this is the model you propose the world should follow? No, thanks.
The article mentions this large debt burden in the USA. World's largest debtor now. And a lot of the debt is to foreign countries. That's the reason the article is saying that the world's growth has to catch up with the USA's - because otherwise, US growth will collapse. Other countries have to grow their economies, increasing imports from the USA - or the USA is fucked. The USA is like a shopkeeper who's taken out mortgages on his shop - five, from five different banks - and is now shitting himself, and begging his neighbours to shop from him. Because if they don't, then when the debts are called in, he's going to lose the lot.
So the USA has bought great GDP growth at the cost of great economic insecurity. And of course that growth has gone to the already wealthy, not to the middle-classed or poor. The NY Times notes that (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1161230400&en=668f834c20aebb84&ei=5070),
Quote from: NY TimesThe median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation... As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s... At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising.
So the growth in wealth has gone to the already-rich. Not much to cheer about from the perspective of the whole country.
US Today tells us that (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm)
Quote from: USA TodayAverage family incomes fell in the USA from 2001 to 2004... The decline — the first since 1989-92 — was accompanied by the smallest increase in net worth in that period.
...the Fed said the median net worth of the bottom 40% of families declined, while those at the top saw gains...
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, says job growth and incomes have been picking up since the survey period. But the report provides more troubling evidence of a rising gap in wealth in the USA.
"The household balance sheet is in good shape, better shape today ... but it's not improved for everybody. It's improved for the people in the top distribution of income and wealth," he says...
There was some good news in the report. Minorities, who have long lagged behind whites in income, saw healthier gains. Homeownership rates rose. Still, minority income remains much lower, about 60% of whites.
So your rich are getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middle-classes stagnating or dropping back. Meanwhile, blacks remain poor, with less than two-thirds the income of whites. Classism and racism - this is the model the world should follow? What, you think we don't have classism and racism of our own already?
Secondly, you're assuming that any lack of growth in other countries is due simply to their own laziness. In fact, across the developing world, stagnant economic growth is due to the liberal globalisation economic policies forced on them by the EU, USA, and IMF. The developing countries lack the financial and educational resources to enter manufacturing on a globally-significant scale. So they focus on commodities, such as coffee, cocoa, nuts for margarine oil and so on. The modern liberal economy encourages monopolies of large multinationals. Their buying power means that they can buy entire countries' crops. So when Ghana, for example, devotes 40% of its agricultural land to producing nuts for export to the EU to make margarine (as it does), the slightest dip in world prices of nuts can ruin hundreds of thousands of lives; if the company buying them decides to gouge a lower price, they can do so, by threatening to stop buying at all. That 40% of Ghana's farmers can't live on nuts, after all.
By price supports and subsidies to their own farmers, the EU and USA keep world prices low. Price support is when the government says, "okay, farmer, I see that your cost of production is $150 a tonne for wheat. We'll guarantee that price. So if you want to sell it for $120 a tonne, we'll make up the other $30 a tonne."
So this guarantees a certain low price. US and EU farmers can compete on the global market in absolute security. They can offer the lowest price without worrying about making a financial loss.
Some perspective here. In the USA or EU, a farmer may own 1,000 hectares, and with tractor, combine harvester, and chemicals, get a yield of 9.4 tonnes/hectare of maize (corn); he has 9,400 tonnes to sell at that minimum price of $150 a tonne. In Africa, a farmer may own two or three hectares, and get a yield of 1 or at best 2 tonnes/hectare, and so have 2-6 tonnes to sell. So $150 a tonne isn't going to keep him going for too long. He needs a price more like $300 a tonne to be able to afford what he and his family need in the local economy. But he can't get that price, because $150 a tonne is the price on the world market.
Without US and EU price supports and other subsidies, American and European farmers would be forced to either lower their prices, causing them to sell up their land and find new professions, or raise their prices.
In the old days, Ghana or whichever country wanted to grow its local production would simply throw a tariff on the imports. "Imported grain, 100% tariff. So if it costs $150 on the world market, it'll cost $300 here. No the locals can sell for $290 a tonne, and do well. Plus the government gets some revenue from the tariffs, and can use this revenue to spend on education, etc."
But the modern liberal global economy doesn't allow that. Or rather, the EU and US don't allow it. The IMF uses the developing world's loans to ensure a liberal economy free of tariffs in the developing countries. Then the EU, US - and Japan and China, by the way - use subsidies, price supports, and their own tariffs, to ensure that their $10 or $20 an hour workers can compete with the developing world's $2 a day workers.
So perhaps the rest of the world's lack of great economic growth has something to do with these things. There's an old racist joke, "How do you stop a nigger from drowning? Take your foot off his neck." We might say, "How do you stop a developing country from collapsing? Take your foot off his neck."
They don't have poor economic growth
despite US and EU growth and policies; they have it
because of EU and US policies - and China and Japan.
Quote from: James J SkachI think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?
Though you meant the last humorously, it says a lot. It shows something else the world dislikes about the USA - its ignorance of the world. Now, it's certainly true that (for example) Japanese and Chinese are just as ignorant about the rest of the world as Americans. But American ignorance is
loud, because of their dominance of the world media. So we notice it more. If you stand on a soapbox naked in the middle of the public square waving your cock in the air, then don't be surprised when people look at you.
Edit: I should like to separate myself from Mr. Analytical's communist comments in this thread. Criticising what the US has done wrong should not stop us from praising what they have done right. The USA has absolutely been a force for much good in the world. If the USA has been slack in places like Somalia or Rwanda, well then that's simply because it's what the population of the whole Western world wanted. The Red Cross, Medicin Sans Frontieres and similar organisations bravely work in these places, and always require money and volunteers. Simply throwing troops at the place doesn't always help. You can help if you wish. It's insulting to the people of these countries to pay them no care, except for using them as a rhetorical stick to beat the USA with. Show you care for these places by helping them as best you can, rather than simply bitching at the USA for not helping them.
Quote from: Mr. AnalIn Guantanamo, the whole world wants you to put these people up for trial and release them if they're found innocent. It also wants you to stop torturing people or giving people to other states in order to be tortured because it's wrong.
Nobody asked you to start interning people who were picked up off the streets of Afghanistan and then throw them in prison and torture them for years simply because they had a foreign passport. This is all you guys.
You're fucking kidding me, right? The whole world wants? Go fuck yourself. Now you're going to tell us how to do things? Besides, take you're ill-informed rhetoric elsewhere. They've all been given at least one military review. If I'm not mistaken, most have been given at least three. Many have been released, either because the evidence didn't support keeping them, or they were deemed safe to release. Don't think they aren't getting a fair shake. And to imply that they were just walking along minding their own business, and the eeeevil amerikans came along and picked them up for the hell of it is just fucking ludicrous.
Quote from: Mr. AnalBecause it's okay to move into a country where the government is butchering its own people by the thousands, but it's not okay to move into a country because you think there might be weapons of mass destruction there and in fact there aren't, which is what everyone was telling you.
A) In your opinion. B) Do I need to point out how many people around the world believed he had the WMD? I hardly think everyone was telling us differently. Did you know that most of the western world also agreed that Iraq was a Great/Moderate Danger? (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=165) Let's see, Britain, 85%; France, 67%; Germany, 82%. And that's not even the best quote:
Quote from: Pew Global AttitudesMajorities in Great Britain, Germany and France also agree with Americans that the best way to deal with Saddam is to remove him from power rather than to just disarm him.
So stop with the 20/20 hindsight. Please, stop.
Quote from: Mr. AnalIn Sudan you could, put a load of infantrymen out to guard the refugee camps. So that next time the genocidal madmen turn up they'll have to deal with soldiers and not unarmed starving civilians.
So could you. Why is it always "America needs to do this"? If we're not the world leader, then do it yourself. Nothing is stopping Britain – except that at the moment you're sad cowards who don't want to risk the blood of a single British serviceman to prevent genocide.
Quote from: Mr. AnalAmerica's no better than the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese of any other nation that used force to suit its own needs. My problem is with the fact that America (and the OP) seemingly don't recognise this.
You and I can agree, I think, on one thing. The requirements for the US going abroad should involve American interests. So you could say that America is no worse than the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese or any other nation that uses force to suit its own need. My problem is with the fact that those other countries (and Mr. Anal) seemingly don't recognize this.
Quote from: JimBobOzSpeaking as an Australian, we do in fact have a Defence Force, and it's quite capable of defending us from likely adversaries. The only time we've had to expand it dramatically is one occasion - when Japan was coming. Turns out they were never planning to invade anyway, so we needn't have bothered. All the other times we've had to expand our military, it was to fight a war at the behest of an imperial master - the UK in WWI and WWII, the USA in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq. While it was certainly worth fighting the Nazis and the Japanese, and it was in principle worth fighting the Communists, by associating our war effort with the USA we ensured we'd lose along with them. Should have pulled out of Vietnam about 1968 when we realised the USA was fucking it up hopelessly. Same in Iraq.
So I'm entirely content for the USA to dissassociate itself with Australia in terms of defence. We can do well enough by ourselves. Thanks, bye.
Australia is the only country in the world that has been with America in every war we've fought. I've not no gripe with Australia - not even those who oppose us. They've proven time and time again to be a good friend, both when they agree with us and when they don't. I'd be willing to bet that Australia is light years ahead of the EU in self defence - goodonyamate.
Quote from: JimBobOzOnly one Australian citizen remains at Guatanamo. To my shame, our Australian government, subservient to the US government, does not ask for him back. To the USA's credit, every country which has asked for them back (Britain, France, Afghanistan) has got them back. If it were up to me, I'd take the guy back.
And if it were up to me, you'd get him back.
Quote from: JimBobOzSo you'll withdraw if we want you to... but you won't withdraw. Rightyo. And you're doing all this for our own good. Really. It's entirely unselfish. Ah, the generosity of empires! Bringing civilisation and coca-cola to the world! Thanks ever so much.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. We do things for
selfish reasons. We go to the Middle East so the oil will flow; we defeat the Nazis so we don't have to worry about them attacking the homeland; ditto the Nipponese. We participate in the UN because we'd really actually like to avoid war. But that place is an ineffective cesspool, so it rarely works. What I'm saying is that we'd like nothing more than to relax on Sunday and watch an American football game than to be about in the world. But our security is now at risk, and we'll do what we have to. And freeing people is not a bad by-product.
Quote from: JimBobOzIt always helps to read the articles you quote, and read some more, too.
I did, it was a rant, not an economic debate, but if you'd like, well, here we go.
Quote from: JimBobOzDespite its name, "Gross Domestic Product" does not reflect actual "products". For example, if I buy a house this week for $200,000 and sell it next week for $220,000, I have added $20,000 to the GDP. Chances are, I've also added $20,000 to net debt, as well. So while I've added $20,000 to float around in the economy, in adding $20,000 of debt, I've also created a drain on the economy, too. A lot of the US GDP growth comes from debt-burdened growth. Two large companies merge, and in buying each-other's stock, load up on debt. So we get one huge company with a huge debt. But the GDP went up! So a rise in GDP does not necessarily mean that anyone's better off. The article mentions this obliquely, noting,
So your economy is growing, but people are losing jobs. A few people are getting richer, but at the cost of millions getting poorer. And this is the model you propose the world should follow? No, thanks.
I know what GDP is. I also like you're little sleight-of-hand (I want a check at DC 17!). "Chances are," means strawman.
In the last three years, the American economy has added, oh, something like 6 million jobs. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of schedule. Unemployment is, I think, 4.6%, or in that neighborhood. Middle class wages are up, according to the most recent figures I heard, but I didn't catch by how much. Do I think the rest of the world should follow us? I could give a flying fuck. Just leave us to our own devices and we'll leave you to yours. I think socialism is a huge mistake, but I'm not opposed to watching anyone who wants to use it – good luck!
Quote from: JimBobOzSecondly, you're assuming that any lack of growth in other countries is due simply to their own laziness.
I'm not, really. I think people bust their asses in shitty conditions to make 1/10th of what I make, and I'm just a middle class guy trying to over his nut. I'm reacting to people who think we're evil because we use 25% of the world's resources. I'm simply saying they get a good return. If they are loaning us the money, don't we pay them interest? If they are buying from us, don't they get goods? If they are selling to us, don't they get paid? And the growth for which America counted 60%, was it worth the debt and the resources for the US to help the world get out of the recession – even if it was for our own selfish reasons?
What I won't do is argue about nut growers in Ghana – not now – except to say that I hate our agricultural policy as well, and I vote to change it every year. But I won't be a hypocrite and say it's not my policy.
Quote from: JimBobOzSome perspective here. In the USA or EU, a farmer may own 1,000 hectares, and with tractor, combine harvester, and chemicals, get a yield of 9.4 tonnes/hectare of maize (corn); he has 9,400 tonnes to sell at that minimum price of $150 a tonne. In Africa, a farmer may own two or three hectares, and get a yield of 1 or at best 2 tonnes/hectare, and so have 2-6 tonnes to sell. So $150 a tonne isn't going to keep him going for too long. He needs a price more like $300 a tonne to be able to afford what he and his family need in the local economy. But he can't get that price, because $150 a tonne is the price on the world market.
Without US and EU price supports and other subsidies, American and European farmers would be forced to either lower their prices, causing them to sell up their land and find new professions, or raise their prices.
Look, this is basic economy of scale. I get it, I really do. And I agree that anything the US government does to undercut price is bad. But if the price difference is based solely on the difference in scale, then I'm not buying it – no pun intended. But most of my ire isn't directed at the third-world countries. Again, I'm answering a charge of disproportionate use of resources with the perspective of what the world gets in return.
What really pisses me off is when they then pay farmers not to harvest the shit.
Since old Skach has ignored 9/10th of what I wrote, it seems pointless to respond to him. In essence, for other readers, I would emphasise:
- Growth doesn't mean much to most people, if they're not going some of it.
- Most people in the USA are not getting some of the growth.
- This growth of the USA is based not on actual productivity, but on financial jiggery-pokery, and unsustainable debt.
- Because it's based on debt, it's very fragile and unstable; and while the mass of people aren't getting the growth, they'll sure as hell get the drop if the debt bubble bursts.
- This growth, such as it is, can occur only because of exploitative trade and economic relations between the West and the developing world.
- And that's why the developing world doesn't like the West much.
- The USA is the leader of the Western world, and is the loudest representative of it, so it gets the bulk of the hatred of the developing world. The EU, Japan and to a lesser extent China are just as responsible for the developing world's misery, and the developing world is most responsible itself; but the USA is the most prominent member, so it gets most of the anger, and anyway who wants to blame themselves for their troubles? Not the USA or EU, certainly not (say) Zimbabwe.
And that's one of the many reasons the world hates the USA. That, and the random invasions of countries recently. That always makes people angry. Plus, nobody likes a puffed-up, boastful, self-righteous person - and the USA's got that in spades.
That Skach didn't read it is no great surprise. People tend not to read online, they
scan. With the scan, they pick up a few key words, and fill in the blanks with their own prejudices, the wreckage of previous similar conversations, etc. It's one reason pdfs will never replace books - and I say that as a guy who made a respectable amount of money from selling rpg pdfs.
Ooooh. Borrowing a little bit from the GW playbook eh? News flash bucko: 6 million jobs is a useless fucking number when you're not taking into account the quality and pay level of those jobs.
You know where that job growth is coming from? Service jobs. Shitty minimum wage jobs like stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, or taking orders at McDonalds. Meanwhile all the indistry jobs that were once the bread and butter of the middle and lower classes are being shipped overseas. Now we're even seeing white collar jobs like IT and call center work being outsourced to India and Bangladesh.
And as for your claim about the national debt, well, I don't even know where the fuck you got that. The national debt has been rising daily for the last year. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) And expect it to keep rising, considering they just raised the debt cieling back in March. (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-debt-limit,0,7762448.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)
Mr. A...
You seemed to miss the thrust of my point. You see, I don't personally give a flying rat fuck if you are British or American or Darfurian... you condemn an action on the one hand, and demand it on the other. Hypocrasy, and it is fucking annoying as shit.
As far as I know Darfur is completely without American involvement, currently or historically that leads up to the massacres there. We had business in Iraq, we were partly responsible even for what was going on in Iraq. As flimsy as our excuses for this invasion, ,as weak as our justification for going we have even LESS fucking reason to intervene in Darfur, other than the fact that YOU want it, as you didn't want Iraq. Bullshit. We use our military as we see fit, you use yours as you see fit. You don't like Darfur? Fine, lobby YOUR military to intervene. Fucking grab a gun and a plane ticket and go yourself if you have the balls.
As for the situation in Afghanistan: They were wearing veils in the remote Pashtun regions long before the taliban came to power, who the fuck do you think the Taliban tapped for their popular support? That sort of cultural change takes a long time. So, no, we haven't made things worse by any measure.
Quote from: James J SkachThey've all been given at least one military review. If I'm not mistaken, most have been given at least three.
Ah... that makes it alright then. My apologies, let the torture continue.
QuoteAnd to imply that they were just walking along minding their own business, and the eeeevil amerikans came along and picked them up for the hell of it is just fucking ludicrous.
Actually, for a lot of them that's EXACTLY what happened. Most of the inmates of the Guantanamo camp weren't picked up by US soldiers but by Pakistani or Northern Alliance types. Many of the people picked up were picked up on the assumption that they were spies because they had foreign passports. In the case of a UK detainee, he was kept in Guantanamo for a couple of years because someone else, under torture, claimed he had seen him with Osama bin Laden. Only problem was that at that point the guy was in the UK, working in a shop in his local highstreet.
QuoteA) In your opinion. B) Do I need to point out how many people around the world believed he had the WMD?
Actually no... not in my opinion. In fact and in international law. Even if I accept that loads and loads of people believed he had WMD's 1) most of those people would also have agreed that the UN should have been left time to settle the matter and 2) If you're looking to legitimise the US' s foreign policy then you really don't want to start appealing to what lots of people think.
QuoteSo stop with the 20/20 hindsight. Please, stop.
No hindsight here. 3 million people marched through the streets of London in opposition to the war, all the moderate press favoured giving the UN more time and you just tried to suggest that 85% of people in the UK supported the war. I even remember being in the War Studies department in the run up to war and the concensus among the staff was that there were no WMD (and if there were it was going to be a couple of decade old mustard gas cannisters) and that the US were being foolish.
Current US opposition to the war can absolutely be chalked up to hindsight seeing as the government bilked you good but not in the rest of the world.
QuoteSo could you. Why is it always "America needs to do this"? If we're not the world leader, then do it yourself. Nothing is stopping Britain – except that at the moment you're sad cowards who don't want to risk the blood of a single British serviceman to prevent genocide.
I agree. But America are not only morally bankrupt cowards but they're also morally bankrupt cowards who claim to be morally righteous and global leaders.
QuoteMy problem is with the fact that those other countries (and Mr. Anal) seemingly don't recognize this.
Don't recognise that you're a regional strong-man using force to further its own ends and greasing the wheels with the blood of thousands of innocents? Oh don't worry... I think the rest of the world realises this.
The problem is that America sets itself above such concerns. It thinks of itself as a global leader and a force for good. This argument is because whereas America SAYS it's a force for good, in reality it really isn't.
Quote from: J ArcaneOoooh. Borrowing a little bit from the GW playbook eh? News flash bucko: 6 million jobs is a useless fucking number when you're not taking into account the quality and pay level of those jobs.
You know where that job growth is coming from? Service jobs. Shitty minimum wage jobs like stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, or taking orders at McDonalds. Meanwhile all the indistry jobs that were once the bread and butter of the middle and lower classes are being shipped overseas. Now we're even seeing white collar jobs like IT and call center work being outsourced to India and Bangladesh.
And as for your claim about the national debt, well, I don't even know where the fuck you got that. The national debt has been rising daily for the last year. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) And expect it to keep rising, considering they just raised the debt cieling back in March. (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-debt-limit,0,7762448.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)
Unemployment among college grads is 2 percent. The jobs are there, you just have to pay your dues and do the hard work to get them. Nothing is handed to you on a silver platter.
Quote from: J ArcaneOoooh. Borrowing a little bit from the GW playbook eh? News flash bucko: 6 million jobs is a useless fucking number when you're not taking into account the quality and pay level of those jobs.
You know where that job growth is coming from? Service jobs. Shitty minimum wage jobs like stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, or taking orders at McDonalds. Meanwhile all the indistry jobs that were once the bread and butter of the middle and lower classes are being shipped overseas. Now we're even seeing white collar jobs like IT and call center work being outsourced to India and Bangladesh.
And as for your claim about the national debt, well, I don't even know where the fuck you got that. The national debt has been rising daily for the last year. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) And expect it to keep rising, considering they just raised the debt cieling back in March. (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-debt-limit,0,7762448.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)
I'll take your first as it's the shorter response (I hope).
Now it's not how many jobs (though that was the statistic quoted) it's the
kinds of jobs. Well, coming from a person who was un/under employed for the past four years, I'll take the job that pays me 75% of my top. I'll restart and work my way up. Though I'm a "professional," I applied at all kinds of places..service jobs at Lowes or Target...hell...even Starbucks. So take your holier than thou these jobs suck and shove it...snob.
And read what I wrote, dumb-fuck. I didn't say Debt. I said Deficit. They are two different things. They raise the debt ceiling every couple of years, so that's not really news now, is it. Oh wait, it's a Republican (which, btw, it may surprise you to know I am not) in office, so
now raising the debt ceiling is bad....
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI know that in America you guys take insults to your country personally, but by and large in the UK we just don't give a fuck. So you can talk about the hideous history of colonial British oppression all you want and I'll most likely agree with you before asking you why you've changed the subject and pointing out that we were actually talking about America.
Sorry it took so long to get back to this point...
See, it's not about attacks to our country per se. It's attacks against Americans, over and over and over again that gets tiresome. I don't care how blase you are, howlittle you give a fuck about attacks against the UK, if you go into a non-international politics website and see nothing about how the UK is full of Faggot Tea Drinkers every fucking time, you'll get sick and tired of it.
When you couple that with typical armchair hypocrital comments about 'you shouldn't fight that war, you should fight this war'... or something tea related, you will get tired of it even faster. Don't tell me to go to Darfur, don't fucking tell me we need to take up arms against North Korea, or even fucking imply it, unless you are signing up to go yourself. In fact, if you want to critisize the war in the middle east (pick one or the other) as 'international bullying' then you have even less a leg to stand on with me. I don't take that shit from people here, why the FUCK would I take it from someone from another country?
Now for JimBob...
Quote from: JimBobOzSince old Skach has ignored 9/10th of what I wrote, it seems pointless to respond to him. In essence, for other readers, I would emphasise:
Hehehe...I like this trick. I'll claim he didn't respond, then I can get away with claiming the same thing I just did, and I'll look like the magnanimous one. I like it...I really, really do.
To be honest, as I said, I didn't want to get into an economic debate late last night (for me). I'm not so sure I want ot get in one now while I'm supposed to be working. but I'll see if I can ignore 9/10th...oh wait,I mean respond.
Quote from: JimBobOz- Growth doesn't mean much to most people, if they're not going some of it.
- Most people in the USA are not getting some of the growth.
Growth is always good for everyone, whether they are direct or indirect beneficiaries. Some people are getting more than others – that's just the way the world works - unless, of course, you believe in the the forced redistribution of property to account for the discrepancy. As I specifically noted in my ignoring 9/10ths of your post, there were roughly 6M jobs created in the last 3 years. Those didn't come from nowhere; they came from growth in the economy. I don't have the figures handy, but the economy, on a yearly basis, has been growing wonderfully, and kicking off all sorts of benefits.
Quote from: JimBobOz- This growth of the USA is based not on actual productivity, but on financial jiggery-pokery, and unsustainable debt.
One of the great things about the US economy is that productivity has risen tremendously over the past several years. So I disagree with your summary execution of growth as nothing more than "financial jiggery." In fact, by one estimate I read, productivity for the period between 2001 and 2004, productivity growth averaged around 3.8%. this is a truly amazing figure. to put it in perspective, between the first quarter of 1969 and 2002 there was no eight-year period in which productivity growth exceeded 3.0 percent. That's not to say we don't have too much debt; but it's not
only reason for growth, and probably not a significant one (my assertion based on these productivity numbers, I don't have a specific number of the % of GDP based on what you term "financial-jiggery").
Quote from: JimBobOz- Because it's based on debt, it's very fragile and unstable; and while the mass of people aren't getting the growth, they'll sure as hell get the drop if the debt bubble bursts.
- This growth, such as it is, can occur only because of exploitative trade and economic relations between the West and the developing world.
- And that's why the developing world doesn't like the West much.
These points are moot as the premise is wrong. They assume your opinion that the US economic increases are due only to debt, which I dispute based primarily on productivity numbers that seem to show there's something else to our growth.
Quote from: JimBobOz- The USA is the leader of the Western world, and is the loudest representative of it, so it gets the bulk of the hatred of the developing world. The EU, Japan and to a lesser extent China are just as responsible for the developing world's misery, and the developing world is most responsible itself; but the USA is the most prominent member, so it gets most of the anger, and anyway who wants to blame themselves for their troubles? Not the USA or EU, certainly not (say) Zimbabwe.
On this I think we can agree, to a greater or lesser extent.
Quote from: JimBobOzAnd that's one of the many reasons the world hates the USA. That, and the random invasions of countries recently. That always makes people angry. Plus, nobody likes a puffed-up, boastful, self-righteous person - and the USA's got that in spades.
There was nothing random about it. And Americans don't like whiny, spinless, why-can't-you-do-want-I-want petulance (from which, btw, I've excluded Australia, among others). Perhaps we can just agree to dislike each other.
Quote from: JimBobOzThat Skach didn't read it is no great surprise. People tend not to read online, they scan. With the scan, they pick up a few key words, and fill in the blanks with their own prejudices, the wreckage of previous similar conversations, etc. It's one reason pdfs will never replace books - and I say that as a guy who made a respectable amount of money from selling rpg pdfs.
First, I can't explain it. No matter where I go, I'm known by my last name. Within weeks of starting this job, though I'd been a consultant here for a year before they hired me, I suddenly went from "Jim" to "Skach." Oddest thing.
I have nothing against you, JimBob. If I'm not mistaken, I was relatively polite in my response. In fact I agreed with you on a number of points – such as US subsidies to farmers = bad (even if we disagree on the reason they are bad), or that Australia should get back the Gitmo prisoner.
Having said all that – fuck you. I did read that article. There were several reasons I didn't quote some of the economic data:
- The information was not pertinent to rebut the specific charge of disproportionate use of resources.
- The information was out-of-date. The article was from September of 2003. While the article contained the most recent I could find that showed the American percentage of world growth, the specifics about the American economy have been updated in the interim.
- It was a statistic used in an article that seemed, to me, to be an opinion piece. It seemed to draw conclusions and those conclusions were based on out-of-date information. They, therefore, didn't seem pertinent.
If you have more recent information about America's percentage of the overall growth of, say, that last 5 years, I'd be happy to see it. I just couldn't find any on-the-spot.
So take your opinion of how I actually did what I did, and shove that with all the rest. How the fuck would you know what I did? Instead of assuming there might be legitimate reasons I didn't quote other parts of the article, you assume I cherry-picked for some nefarious purpose and then filled in with...what was it again...oh yes... "the wreckage of previous similar conversations." What would cause you to assume that instead of asking - perhaps your own prejudice? Oh wait, that can't be, you're better than me. I'm sorry, I forgot.
I see some funky assumptions about economics from some folks. Now, I'm hardly the Subject Matter Expert, but I have taken a few courses on the subject.
Growth is good for everyone. The STOCK MARKET is not Investment, in economic terms, and is NOT the GDP. Growth in the Stock Market is not necessarily Growth in economic terms, though both can grow at the same time. The Stock Market is the popularity contest of the economic world.
If the rich get richer, so fucking what? They worked for that money (most of them) and generally want to make even more money, which means they have to spend it on GROWTH. If I am richer than my neighbor I might open a small business to make even more money, and as my business grows, I have to employ some dumb sumbitch to work the counter. Growth in action, a job was just created because I was 'rich'. One miserly rich bastard does not change the basic dynamics, so please don't use the exceptions to prove the rule. Don't make me shake Bill Gates at you.
The GDP is not based on financial jiggery or debt. It is P for Product for a reason, people. The GDP has no ties to the governments budget.
Farmer subsidies are bad. All seem to agree. While I'm at it, Minimum wage is bad, so are garaunteed jobs for life.
None of which has a fucking thing to do with the OP, except tangentially. If you don't like how much of the world's product is going to the US, get your governement to stop exports to the US. Simple.
I'll leave the economics to Skatch in the future, he seems to have a stronger hand on the till...
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAh... that makes it alright then. My apologies, let the torture continue.
Oh yes, because all of the crying about torture is true! And because I was responding to your assertion that they are not getting a fair trial by rebutting that fact, you bait-and-switch to torture. Nice. A Master Baiter is I ever saw one (sorry, couldn't resist)
Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalActually, for a lot of them that's EXACTLY what happened. Most of the inmates of the Guantanamo camp weren't picked up by US soldiers but by Pakistani or Northern Alliance types. Many of the people picked up were picked up on the assumption that they were spies because they had foreign passports. In the case of a UK detainee, he was kept in Guantanamo for a couple of years because someone else, under torture, claimed he had seen him with Osama bin Laden. Only problem was that at that point the guy was in the UK, working in a shop in his local highstreet.
First, you assert it was "under torture" that someone else named him. Yeah, I know. In fact, in America, you can buy a tour to go down and get your torture-groove on. It's been so long since we've really had a good outlet for torture. Your detainee is in the UK now, yes? So it took a couple of years to determine who was telling the truth. That's amazing; what with all the torture we can use and stuff. And don't even try that "torture doesn't work" bullshit - don't fly with me. Man, we were able to pick him up on highstreet and take him to gitmo? We are good, aren't' we.
QuoteActually no... not in my opinion. In fact and in international law. Even if I accept that loads and loads of people believed he had WMD's 1) most of those people would also have agreed that the UN should have been left time to settle the matter and 2) If you're looking to legitimise the US' s foreign policy then you really don't want to start appealing to what lots of people think.
Actually, according to International Law, we were still officially at war with Iraq. According to International Law, this was nothing more than a resumption of hostilities that had started with the liberation of Kuwait.
1) Th UN had allowed this to fester so long it would never have an answer. This is not even taking into account the oil-for-food scandal that had completely corrupted the UN's ability to act - too mnay conflicts of interest. the onyl way to know,
to really know was to go in. I once had a disucssion with a friend who was againt the war (before it started). The only solution we could agree on was "under the UN auspices, we'll send 50,000 NATO troops in, effectively shutting down the country, and allowing the inspectors free reign to get a final answer. If, after that, he's given a clean bill, we're gone." I would rather have him gone, but it was a fair exchange to get the knowledge about the current threat. Only one problem - it was never going to happen. 2) I'm not, except that you're looking to de-legitimize it based on what others think - good luck with that.
QuoteNo hindsight here. 3 million people marched through the streets of London in opposition to the war, all the moderate press favoured giving the UN more time and you just tried to suggest that 85% of people in the UK supported the war.
They didn't support the war - great. That's not what we were discussing. We were talking about the hindsight of saying
now that there were no WMD. That's not what those crowds were chanting. I should be more specific. I do not remember the charge being "There are no WMD." The charge was "Give Peace a Chance." Two different things.
QuoteI even remember being in the War Studies department in the run up to war and the concensus among the staff was that there were no WMD (and if there were it was going to be a couple of decade old mustard gas cannisters) and that the US were being foolish.
Fucking bully for you. How come that's not what the world consensus was? How come that's not what Britain said it's consensus was? What about Germany? France? Russia? Poland? Italy?
QuoteCurrent US opposition to the war can absolutely be chalked up to hindsight seeing as the government bilked you good but not in the rest of the world.
It is your belief that we were bamboozled. I disagree. At the very least this is one American who did not base my opinion on WMD, but on the threat. The only way in which I was fooled was into thinking these yahoos would go all out, once the decision was made.
QuoteI agree. But America are not only morally bankrupt cowards but they're also morally bankrupt cowards who claim to be morally righteous and global leaders.
Wait, are we cowards or not? I mean, were willing to fight all over the world for this adveturism, but now we're cowards. If you want o claim we're morally bankrupt, we can have that discussion, but first make up your minds if we're cowards or not.
QuoteDon't recognise that you're a regional strong-man using force to further its own ends and greasing the wheels with the blood of thousands of innocents?
And our region is the world, baby. Don't like it, change it. You fucking Europeans. I swear this really sets it up for what it is. You like to claim we're a regional power because you can't stand the fact that we're more than that, and you aren't. You're like Milwaukee.
And we prefer just to take the oil to grease the wheels. Blood takes an extra step.
And that's the other thing that happens. Everyone wants to put a 't' in the name :)
Ack! Don't give it to me. I'm no international money expert. And I never brought up the Stock Market - did someone and I missed it?
One of the 'other guys' used it as an explanation for the 'inflated' GDP.... or somesuch.. these long ass posts are hard to memorize even when you DON"T scan them like the lazy american pika I am...:D
Scanner!
Ohhh...I should get that movie...that guys head exploding was so cool...back then, anyway...and it fits in with the Americans are torturers theme.
Anyway, the entire economics thing is a massive sideline, completely trivial to the main topic. I just get tired of hearing the same economic assumptions over and over again from supposedly smart, educated people. I mean, it took about two minutes for me to be disabused of most of those when I stepped into my first class. Of course, that was four years and two 'wars' ago for me, so my memory of details has gotten a bit fuzzy... but I seem to recall electric shocks being applied each time we said something as stupidly false as the shit I saw posted here....
That's it. I'm putting you guys on speed-dial for these sorts of discussions.
Please don't..really...my blood pressure can't take it.
I'd probably get along great with JimBob if we never talked politics. It's why I don't talk politics with any but my closest friends for this very reason.
I'd hate to lose JimBob as a resource to bounce gaming ideas off and vice versa simply because are from different political perspectives.
Quote from: James J SkachI'd hate to lose JimBob as a resource to bounce gaming ideas off and vice versa simply because are from different political perspectives.
Why the fuck would that happen? Mate, despite what these lonely losers online living in their parents' basement tell you, it's entirely possible to get along with someone and disagree with them on this or that thing.
What, you think everyone in my game group votes for the same political party, all like the same kinds of chicks, etc? Fuck that noise. We argue all the time. Liking or disliking someone has nothing to do with whether you agree with him. You like him because he's a good bloke, and dislike him because he's cocksmock. Simpe as that.
QuoteNow it's not how many jobs (though that was the statistic quoted) it's the kinds of jobs. Well, coming from a person who was un/under employed for the past four years, I'll take the job that pays me 75% of my top. I'll restart and work my way up. Though I'm a "professional," I applied at all kinds of places..service jobs at Lowes or Target...hell...even Starbucks. So take your holier than thou these jobs suck and shove it...snob.
Wait wait, this is too rich. I'm a "snob" for wanting a job that can actually provide me a living wage? I'm "holier than thou" because I'm frustrated to see every decent employer in my city either moving its jobs over seas, or going out of business because they can't compete with those who do?
Get some fucking perspective. Goddamn nationalists.
Quote from: J ArcaneI'm a "snob" for wanting a job that can actually provide me a living wage?
No, for looking at someone else's job that he's happy to have as not good enough. That makes you a snob.
Quote from: J ArcaneI'm "holier than thou" because I'm frustrated to see every decent employer in my city either moving its jobs over seas, or going out of business because they can't compete with those who do?
Yes, holier than thou because you know better than the people who own thos businesses what to do with their businesses. If you don't like what they are doing, use your own business for your social engineering.
Quote from: J ArcaneGet some fucking perspective. Goddamn nationalists.
Hey...Fuck You! I've got perspective. I've been out of work. I've been happy to take those "shitty" jobs you look down on. So, yeah...Fuck You.
If I'm an American, and I think it's the best economic system in the world, that makes me a nationalist. If you're an American, and you think it's a shitty economic system, that makes you...what? Anti-American? See the flaw in that logic?
Quote from: JimBobOzWhy the fuck would that happen? Mate, despite what these lonely losers online living in their parents' basement tell you, it's entirely possible to get along with someone and disagree with them on this or that thing.
What, you think everyone in my game group votes for the same political party, all like the same kinds of chicks, etc? Fuck that noise. We argue all the time. Liking or disliking someone has nothing to do with whether you agree with him. You like him because he's a good bloke, and dislike him because he's cocksmock. Simpe as that.
JimBob, I don't know you from Adam. The sum of our relationship has been a rather heated echange about politics.
Now I'm
not assuming you are going to hold this against me. But I've seen people do it. Forgive me for not knowing you well enough to know if this is will happen or not. I'm hopeful is doesn't, but it's never good to assume that you can tell someone "Fuck You" and have them not be mad at you. This medium only makes those kinds of hopeful assumptions harder.
"Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is." -- Sydney J. Harris
Quote from: J Arcane"Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is." -- Sydney J. Harris
Nice quote.
Quote from: James J Skach..it's never good to assume that you can tell someone "Fuck You" and have them not be mad at you.
Mate, three points,
- I'm Australian
- I used to be in the Army
- Now I'm a chef
"Fuck you" is just water off a duck's back for me. I'm not tough - it's just that this horse has been broken.
That's the thing some websites don't get. A "personal attack" has to be
personal. You have to
know a person to really insult them properly. Aside from that, you might accidentally hit some tender spots - but in general, not.
If someone constantly streams abuse at me for my views and ideas, I'm not going to hate them, I'm just going to stop reading them when they're addressing me. But that's not the abuse itself, just the repetition. It's like old Gleichman. He comes onto every site around saying how fucked up the site is, and how gamers are all freaks, and then says he's leaving roleplaying and that site and will never come back. A couple of weeks later... so, even though he's never insulted me, I'm not going to read what he says, because it's just repetitive. We could make a bit of software that could do the same thing. It ain't a conversation.
I worry about things which affect me. A bit of abuse from some random stranger on the internet doesn't affect me. But if my girlfriend tells me I'm looking a bit pudgy, I might cry. :( Know what I mean? It ain't a "personal attack" unless it's
personal.
I mean, we're men, aren't we? We can toss around a bit of profanity, a bit of "don't be a dumb cunt!" and "hey, haven't seen you in ages, how are you, you motherfucker?" and no-one's going to burst in tears, yeah? 'Cos it ain't
personal. It's just talking shit.
Quote from: James J SkachNo, for looking at someone else's job that he's happy to have as not good enough. That makes you a snob.
Yes, holier than thou because you know better than the people who own thos businesses what to do with their businesses. If you don't like what they are doing, use your own business for your social engineering.
Hey...Fuck You! I've got perspective. I've been out of work. I've been happy to take those "shitty" jobs you look down on. So, yeah...Fuck You.
If I'm an American, and I think it's the best economic system in the world, that makes me a nationalist. If you're an American, and you think it's a shitty economic system, that makes you...what? Anti-American? See the flaw in that logic?
This has to be the most incoherent and nonsensical reply I have ever recieved on a message board.
I have read, and re-read, this post over a dozen times today, and I still have absolutely no fucking idea what the gorram hell you're talking about. Nor do I understand what the hell it has to do with, well, anything at all.
The best I can piece out at this juncture is that you somehow take personal offense to someone daring to criticize the state of the job market in the United States.
This is, at least, a conclusion that makes some level of sense, given the level of whacked out jingoist nationalism you've displayed here these past few days.
But to be honest, I'm really just grasping at straws here.
Its tempting to create a Gleichbot, programmed to come in every two weeks, shit on the place, and then claim he's leaving forever. He could be programmed in BASIC.
Maybe then the real deal wouldn't feel the need to bother.
RPGPundit
Quote from: JimBobOzI mean, we're men, aren't we?
We are Devo.
Quote from: J ArcaneThis has to be the most incoherent and nonsensical reply I have ever recieved on a message board.
I'm #1; I'm #1. See, I'm an American nationalist, and we're so stupid, we don't care in what we're #1- we just like to scream it out.
Quote from: J ArcaneI have read, and re-read, this post over a dozen times today, and I still have absolutely no fucking idea what the gorram hell you're talking about. Nor do I understand what the hell it has to do with, well, anything at all.
The best I can piece out at this juncture is that you somehow take personal offense to someone daring to criticize the state of the job market in the United States.
Well, let's see if I can recap.
- Someone claims the American economy is crap because even if we have growth, it's all a sham.
- I claim that's funny, because new jobs were created an unemployment is low.
- You claim that's not good enough because they aren't the right kind of job.
- I claim you're a snob because you believe that a job that pays $7.00/hour isn't good enough.
- You say get perspective.
- I claim I have perspective due to my employment history.
Does that help?
I didn't take it personal until you made the "get a perspective" remark. See, me calling you a snob is not me taking it personally. It's me having the ideological belief that people who claim new jobs and low unemployment aren't good because "they aren't the right kind of jobs," are snobs. This is based on the concept of "who the fuck are you to say whether someone else's job is good enough?" See, if someone was offered one of those new, not-good-enough-for-you jobs, and they felt as you, then they wouldn't take the job. If six million jobs are added
and unemployment goes down, that's a pretty good signal that people are taking those jobs. And if the unemployment rate is so low, that puts the worker in a much more enviable position. Don't meet his demands, and he'll go somewhere else. Hell, there are 5,999,999 other new jobs to look at.
So I'm not taking it personal until you make it so. I'm pointing out I have perspective on whether or not those jobs are worthy to take. I'm not so sure you do, but I'm not making that assumption.
Quote from: J ArcaneThis is, at least, a conclusion that makes some level of sense, given the level of whacked out jingoist nationalism you've displayed here these past few days.
But to be honest, I'm really just grasping at straws here.
Yes, I've noticed. See, when someone responds to your assertion, it appears you have two answers.
- You're a whacked-out-jingoistic nationalist.
- You don't know what you're talking about.
See, we might agree that the economy isn't all it could be. However, I'll give credit where credit is due. It appears you will not. So let's flip your quote around. Your quotation implies that to be a patriot you must be proud of your country's virtues, but be willing to acknowledge its deficiencies
I'm asking, what are you if you trumpet only your country's deficiencies, and deny its virtues?
In reality, we probably just see what is a virtue and what is a deficiency as completely different things. For example, I'll acknowledge a deficiency: the economy is not capitalist enough; it's far too regulated. I'm willing to bet you think differently. If that's the case, we'll just argue past each other without much crossover.
Quote from: James J SkachThat's not to say we don't have too much debt; but it's not only reason for growth, and probably not a significant one (my assertion based on these productivity numbers, I don't have a specific number of the % of GDP based on what you term "financial-jiggery").
Never let it be said that I'm unwilling to return to discussions with actual figures and facts.
US public debt figures in dollars and cents, from 1950 to 2005 (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm). - From the US Dept of the Treasury.
US GDP figures, in billions of dollars, from 1947 to 2006 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDP.txt).
Now, what do we get from those? Let's just look at the past ten years, mainly because I had to reformat the data for this forum, and it was a tedious job, and going back to the 1980s gave even more depressing figures. Sorry for the formatting, but the forum doesn't do tables, as far as I know.
1995 GDP 7522.5 billion, Debt 4974 billion
1996 GDP 8000.4 billion, Debt 5224.8 billion
1997 GDP 8471.2 billion Debt 5413.1 billion
1998 GDP 8953.8 billion, Debt 5526.2 billion
1999 GDP 9519.5 billion, Debt 5656.3 billion
2000 GDP 9953.6 billion, Debt 5674.2 billion
2001 GDP 10226.3 billion, Debt 5807.5 billion
2002 GDP 10591.1 billion Debt 6228.2 billion
2003 GDP 11219.5 billion, Debt 6783.2 billion
2004 GDP 11970.3 billion Debt 7379.1 billion
2005 GDP 12573.5 billion, Debt 7932.7 billion
In the ten years, the GDP has increased by US$5,051 billion. Public debt has at the same time increased by US$2,959 billion. The debt, then, is 59% the GDP increase in absolute terms.
I would say that 59% is "significant." If a private individual were to increase their income from $7,522 annually to $12,574 annually, we'd congratulate them on their $5,051 increase. We'd be less impressed that their debt went from $4,974 to $7,933, a $2,959 increase. Would you call that "significant"?
Annual GDP growth from 1995 to 2005 averaged 5.3%. Debt grew at 4.8%. These figures are significant because obviously, if your debt is growing faster than your income, then eventually your debt payments will exceed your income. If a private citizen or company's debt payments exceed their income, we declare them bankrupt, and their future prospects are grim. Well, debt's only increasing at 91% the rate of GDP, so you're not bankrupt yet. However, if you have a few bad years in a row, you could be in trouble.
Of course, you may argue that the accumulating debt is not in fact fuelling GDP growth, so it's "not significant." You could argue that, but then the debt looks even worse. If it's not helping your economy grow, and the public's not receiving any more services than before, then where the fuck's it all going?
I note that you mentioned a productivity increase of 3.8%. By comparison, US debt increased by 7.50% from 2004-5, and the GDP by 5%. So productivity growth alone cannot explain the GDP growth.
Quote from: James J SkachSomeone claims the American economy is crap because even if we have growth, it’s all a sham
A paid job is a paid job, and is not a sham. However, looking longer-term, you have to ask yourselves if it's sustainable. The debt can't go on forever. At some point, it's either paid off or written off. It does not seem reasonable to conclude that it could be paid off within the next generation. Writing it off would be an option, the USA built its nineteenth-century prosperity on written-off railway loans, and torn-up treaties with Amerindians, after all. But given that much of USA debt is foreign, and the USA depends so much on imports, the USA cannot really afford to lose creditworthiness. If, for example, the USA were to tear up all the Chinese-owned Treasury bonds, ridding themselves of about US$900 million of their debt, it seems reasonable to suppose that China might cut back on imports of US goods, and exports to them. Likewise, the 12 million barrels of oil a day the USA buys from outside its borders, countries might start asking for hard currency, rather than Treasury bonds. In the present time and world economic and diplomatic climate, debt writing-off would do the USA more harm than good. Of course, things may change in future. Some war might give the USA the excuse... Not that they'd start one with China, but if it did start, riiiip go the bonds. So much US money being in the hands of foreign countries cannot be entirely a good thing for the USA. It gives them rather a lot of influence over US policy. Were China to sell all its US Treasury bonds tomorrow - and they're all controlled by the government in Beijing, not by private citizens, so it can be done - US mortgage rates would rise a few percentage points, putting many people out of their homes. This must be of concern to the USA in the longer term, as well.
A job is like a home. Any one is better than none, but it's better if it rests on solid foundations, and won't disappear tomorrow.
Quote from: SpikeThe GDP is not based on financial jiggery or debt. It is P for Product for a reason, people. The GDP has no ties to the governments budget.
Unfortunately that is not so. "Product" is not all tangible products, nor even private services. GDP is simply the sum of all the money spent in the country. Whether it's $1 million from Exxon to Alaska to clean up an oil spill, $1 million for Bill Gates to rent out a Hawaiin island to get married out, $1 million of roleplaying books, or $1 million in food stamps, is irrelevant. It's all spending, and all adds to GDP. Federal government spending in the USA in 2007 will come from $1,890 billion in revenue, and $423 billion in debt, as noted by the Whitehouse (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/overview.html).
I do not think you can rationally argue that spending of US$2,316 billion, which is about 16% of US GDP, will have no effect on the GDP.
Quote from: SpikeIf you don't like how much of the world's product is going to the US, get your governement to stop exports to the US. Simple.
I'm more concerned about Australia's products going to Asia and the EU, where we sell underpriced nonrenewable resources. Exporting primary goods, from nonrenewable resources (iron, coal, and the way we grow is unrenewable, so grain, too), is a very colonial way to live, leads to a Third World economy. No thanks.
Certainly we could usefully disengage from the USA in many other areas, such as keeping them company on whatever war they've decided to lose this decade. Unfortunately, it's difficult to persuade our Prime Minister to remove his tongue from between the US President's buttocks. This situation appears regardless of who is PM, or President. It's simply the unimaginative course they've chosen, sadly.
Quote from: JimBobOzTypical, another American whinging about how the world is oppressing him!
I wonder if the Romans every did. "Oh dear, why is it the Gauls hate us so? I do wish they'd stop. We're really rather nice people. Of course Caesar slaughtered and enslaved thousands of the Gauls, but is that any reason to hate us?"
I don't think the Romans whined quite so much.
Just suck it up and take it. You have 4% the world's population, and consume 25% of its resources. The price you pay for that is that the world hates you. Just harden up, grow a pair and take it.
:flameon2:
Here, let me handle this one.
I, too, am an American - and I don't give a flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks of us. I get pissed off every time we BACK DOWN from you - You hate US? That's fine - then why the FUCK do we CARE what you think, and let it hold us back? As far as I'm concerned, the only reason why the world as we know it, with all its wonders and riches and standard of living and lifespans and such even EXISTS is because of us. We're the world's BEST GODDAMN HOPE for anything resembling a decent futute, so you better get used to the idea! We made it, built it, earned it, and protected it, so fuck YEAH we'll use it as we please. All the hatred and protesting is just sour grapes from a bunch of coddled solicistic morons who couldn't defend their country from a brigade of retarded MS patients if you spotted them a battalion of French tanks. Learn2Empire you whiny freaks. You'd be in such a hole WITHOUT us that you'd BEG us to invade your pathetic little countries. :kickback:
There. I said it. :mad:
Quote from: JimBobOzThey key thing, though, it that the USA tends to throw its weight around, invading other countries, etc. Amazingly, that pisses people off ;)
Well, we tried that isolationist thing for awhile, we tried REAL HARD in the 30's.
But then Hitler assed up and Churchill begged for 3 years for our help, so we shook off the winter hibernation and came and helped.
Personally, I think it's hilarious that people are so upset at the way we throw our weight around. Maybe if we save the world again in THIS century we'll get another hall pass.
Or not. It beats being Canada.
Chuck
That's cute. I think Nox saved you a seat on his couch.
Quote from: Thanatos02That's cute. I think Nox saved you a seat on his couch.
How dare you insult Nox like that. :)
Good grief, what an insane thread.
I'm not going to touch the foreign policy issues, since I can't afford the 'time suck'.
I will say, though, that I lived in the U.S. for about 10 years (1994-2005; I lived outside the U.S. for 1999-2000), in different parts (Ithaca New York, Ann Arbor Michigan, San Francisco California).
For the most part, I found Americans to be decent, friendly people. Most were socially liberal -- not surprising, of course, given the places in which I lived. Even those who were relatively 'socially conservative' seemed reasonable. The economic views of the Americans I knew (and still know, as I still have many very good friends there) ranged from socialist to libertarian (although 'centrist' was most common).
Aside from some notable exceptions, the Americans that I knew and became friends with were not 'U.S.A.-uber-alles' types. They seemed to have balanced perspectives -- they were critical of some (or many) aspects of U.S. politics and culture, while proud of other aspects.
Of course my perspective would have been radically different had I spent my time in the 'Bible Belt', as opposed to the more liberal parts of the U.S. (San Francisco is by far the most left-wing place I've ever lived in). But hey, that just illustrates Mattomeg's main point, viz. it is ridiculous to make generalisations about a huge, diverse country of 300 million people.
If there was one negative generalisation that I would make about Americans based on my 10 years in the States, though, it is that they generally seem far less informed (and even curious) about the rest of the world than people in other countries. Even reasonably well educated Americans were often surprisingly ignorant of other nations and cultures. There were some definite exceptions, but it was rather depressing how inward looking even erudite Americans were. Oh well, no people is perfect.
As a place to live, the U.S. was fine. I've lived in four countries in my life, and I would rank the U.S. in the middle. But again, a lot would depend on the city/region. I would rather roll naked over broken glass than live anywhere in the southern U.S. (the 'Bible Belt'), whereas I really like New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. Similarly, while I prefer Ireland and Canada as places to live over the U.S. overall, there are parts of Ireland and Canada that really suck. (Well, not Ireland! Except for Limerick ... that place blows.)
Okay, I've wasted enough time here. Suffice to say, Americans are a varied lot -- moreso than most countries. It is thus foolish to make sweeping generalisations about them as people. The Berkeley Maoists publish a newspaper that is more anti-American than anythiing you'd find in France.
Quote from: WerekoalaHow dare you insult Nox like that. :)
Nox? Well, pretty easily, I can assure you. :rimshot:
My lord, talk about necromancy!
Thanks for the figures. I’ve been fuck-all busy with a car accident, kidney stone, and Christmas. So thanks for doing the research.
And now, on to the show.
Quote from: JimBobOzAnnual GDP growth from 1995 to 2005 averaged 5.3%. Debt grew at 4.8%. These figures are significant because obviously, if your debt is growing faster than your income, then eventually your debt payments will exceed your income. If a private citizen or company's debt payments exceed their income, we declare them bankrupt, and their future prospects are grim. Well, debt's only increasing at 91% the rate of GDP, so you're not bankrupt yet. However, if you have a few bad years in a row, you could be in trouble.
Of course, you may argue that the accumulating debt is not in fact fuelling GDP growth, so it's "not significant." You could argue that, but then the debt looks even worse. If it's not helping your economy grow, and the public's not receiving any more services than before, then where the fuck's it all going?
According to my Excel spreadsheet crunching numbers from the source you provide, the average growth in debt, year-to-year, for the years 1950 – 2005 is 6.4%. The average over period 1995 – 2005 is 4.9%. The average growth in GDP from 1950 – 2005 is 7%, while the average growth in GDP between 1995 - 2005 is 5.3%. So, historically, the debt has grown at a lesser rate while the GDP has done so as well. This seems to support your theory that there is some correlation between debt and GDP – all the way back to at least 1950. It also seems to indicate that the current situation is relatively typical for the last 55 years.
During that time, the US economy has undergone tremendous ups and downs. It looks as if the major changes took place about 1970. At that point it seems as if the debt started rising, YTY, about 9%. The GDP seems to rise about 7.3%.
It is certainly true that if the US consistently has several years where the ratio of Debt to GDP is unfavorable, it could be bad. Right now, the debt is 63% of the GDP. In 1951, it was 74% - what with the war to pay off and all. In 1960, it was 55%. In 1970, 35%. In 1980, 30%. In 1990, 55%. So we have fluctuated from 74% down to 30% and back up to 62%. I would never argue that carrying this much debt is a good thing. It creates a certain amount of drag on the economy. However, it is also not the end of the world. It’s not as if the current rate of 63% is out of bounds or unsustainable.
But these are arguments we can never end. You might say anything over 30% is horrible. I might say anything under 80% is sustainable. We might both be right. We might both be wrong. Time will tell. I would argue with the assertion “the public’s not receiving any more services than before.” As you note, the federal government spends more than it ever has. This alone is certainly not proof, but then again your statement is almost impossible to prove or disprove – so it’s an opinion at best. But we can agree completely on one thing: “where the fuck’s it all going?”
However, all of this was never really my point in countering your fundamental assertion.
Quote from: JimBobOzI note that you mentioned a productivity increase of 3.8%. By comparison, US debt increased by 7.50% from 2004-5, and the GDP by 5%. So productivity growth alone cannot explain the GDP growth.
Well, let’s be clear. I had to go back and look at the previous posts from months ago. I do not believe (I can find no evidence) that I claimed productivity growth
alone explained the GDP growth. Instead, I was refuting your assertion that it was
financial jiggery alone that explained GDP growth. Now you did not use those exact terms, but you said “This growth of the USA is based not on actual productivity, but on financial jiggery-pokery, and unsustainable debt.”
Now, is it possible that we can agree that the GDP growth has, as its sources, a number of factors including, but not limited to, debt and productivity growth? We might argue the significance of the various factors, but to assert that any
one is the source of GDP growth is incorrect, yes?
We can argue 19th Century growth and Chinese interests later, it’s Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
EDIT: Just noticed in another thread that JimBob said he could give a fuck about the birth of Jesus (as he's Jewish) - so Happy Chanukah And Happy New Year!