Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not a matter of what any of us "think", it's reality that the data shows. And it never ceases to amaze me how out of touch with reality many are. I hate to spoil the sunshine and rose colored glasses party here but here's reality:
"Nothing of the kind threatens the U.S. today. Yet it is true that the economic well-being of the average American -- defined as median household income -- has fallen since the turn of the century:"
"But there are other senses in which a nation can decline. For example, it can slip in power, wealth and prestige relative to other countries. In this sense, the U.S. has clearly declined.
There is also a third way in which a nation can be in decline -- stagnation. In this sense, the U.S. is also in decline, and has been since about 2000.
After 2000,the rate of formation of high-growth startups fell a lot -- the U.S. economy became less dynamic. Around halfway through that decade, total factor productivity growth -- the ultimate driver of improvements in living standards -- also decelerated substantially from its earlier growth rate:"
"When it comes to a few key indicators, Ireland, the UK, Canada and even Albania and Greece are surpassing America.
America is declining, in large and important measures, yet policymakers aren’t paying attention. So argues a new academic paper, pulling together previously published data.
Consider this:
America’s child poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including Greece, devastated by a euro crisis, and eastern European nations such as Poland, Lithuania and Estonia.
Median adult wealth in the US ($39,000) is 27th globally, putting it behind Cyprus, Taiwan, and Ireland.
Even when “life satisfaction” is measured, America ranks #12, behind Israel, Sweden and Australia."
"Overall, America’s per capita wealth, health and education measures are mediocre for a highly industrialized nation. Well-being metrics, perceptions of corruption, quality and cost of basic services, are sliding, too. Healthcare and education spending are funding bloated administrations even while human outcomes sink, the authors say."
“We looked at very broad measures, and at individual measures, too,” said co-author Hershey H. Friedman, a business professor at Brooklyn College – City University of New York. The most dangerous sign they saw: rising income and wealth inequality, which slow growth and can spark instability, the authors say."
“Capitalism has been amazingly successful,” write Friedman and co-author Sarah Hertz of Empire State College. But it has grown so unfettered, predatory, so exclusionary, it’s become, in effect, crony capitalism. Now places like Qatar and Romania, “countries you wouldn’t expect to be, are doing better than us,” said Friedman."
The rest of the article has even more alarming data. And not to mention the political division in this country, inner city violence, etc.
Wake up time people. Like or dislike trump, he speaks reality. If anything, I think he's too optimistic.
The paper uses GDP per capita for it's figures.
But the problem is when it comes to taxhavens like Ireland, GDP is a false indicator.
Quote:
The Republic of Ireland's statistical agency is to produce a new measurement of the country's economic performance, which removes the distorting effects of multinational companies.
There was widespread mockery when official figures showed gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 26% in 2015.
The distorted figure was the result of multinationals using Dublin as a centre for financing and taxation operations.
I know that Trumpies are averse to this word but: specifically?
For starters: Wealth inequality, corporations buying elections, institutional racism and white privilege, bombing and droning people all over the world, poverty and homelessness in a wealthy country, the high cost of education, the remaining millions of people without insurance, the school to prison pipeline, a dozen or so phobias and ism's, not taxing the rich; corporations shipping jobs overseas, the minimum wage, and on and on.
One needn't be a Trumpie to recognize how much about the U.S. Hillary and D's identify as deplorable.
Unpatriotic Trump and his followers think our country is a disaster. (Their words, not ours). They have rewritten the narrative to make us look bad as a country, because if they don't, then they don't have a crisis to fix, and if there is no crisis to fix, then he doesn't get elected.
Worst thing for his type is another Obama economy, where the Dow triples, we reach full employment, there are no terrorist attacks, and we gain respect on the world stage. When that happens, they can't distract us while he robs from the poor and gives it to the rich.
It's a sham. A majority of Americans know that. A majority voted that way, and he still one. He knew the rules, and exploited them to win the whitehouse, just like he did to cheat people out of their pay.
According to him, it makes him smart. By the time his followers wake up, it'll be too late for them to realize they are the ones who will pay the biggest price.
It's people like you that put muslim terrorists and illegal aliens ahead of native born American citizens and you have the gall to call Trump supporters unpatriotic.
You responded to me yes while still dismissing the specific example used, 'McCarthyism'.
I didn't dismiss you at all. From your examples, it seemed like you were alluding to this idea that the exploitation of fear was a relatively-modern occurrence.
You said..
"It was around the time that both sides realized that fear, as a commodity, was very lucrative & could be marketed & sold much like any other commodity. & so, both sides began to peddle fear.
This was, perhaps, one of the root or underlying causes behind officially changing our de facto motto 'e pluribus unum', by adopting 'In God We Trust' through an act of Congress in 1956.
Underlying that, Mr. Joe McCarthy & 'McCarthyism', anti-communist related activities & rhetoric, the Cold War & so on."
When you say "both sides", this makes you think of "Republican and Democrat", and your only examples were of post-WWII America. And you never even hinted to the idea that the exploitation of fear is as old as civilization itself.
Which is why I responded...
"When did the media begin marketing fear?
It seems that you believe it is a recent phenomenon. The truth is, the media, and governments, have always used fear as a means of manipulating the people, going back to the beginning of human civilization itself.
I always find it hilarious that the critics of America, love to complain about the corruption they see around them today, but most of them seem to have this delusional idea, that before some arbitrary time in history, the American government was more-or-less comprised of angels."
I understand that you took this as a personal attack. But I never claimed that that is what you personally believed. I merely said that it "SEEMS" like you believe the exploitation of fear is a recent phenomenon(based on your words). And that, I find it hilarious that "most" of the critics of modern America, think if you go back far enough, that our government was run by angels.
As I said, I was attacking an idea that I find to be common, but untrue. I was not attacking you.
And I added to my argument the video of the "Newsroom", which I know for a fact you've seen before, to exhibit my point. That many people think that the America of the past was "good", and that we only became "bad" recently.
That is a delusion.
And I know you agree with me, so there is no point in you arguing with me, except that your feelings were hurt because I wasn't completely sure of what you were saying, so I pointed-out my uncertainty, and gave additional information to clarify what I believe is a common misunderstanding.
This is not a matter of what any of us "think", it's reality that the data shows. And it never ceases to amaze me how out of touch with reality many are. I hate to spoil the sunshine and rose colored glasses party here but here's reality:
"Nothing of the kind threatens the U.S. today. Yet it is true that the economic well-being of the average American -- defined as median household income -- has fallen since the turn of the century:"
"But there are other senses in which a nation can decline. For example, it can slip in power, wealth and prestige relative to other countries. In this sense, the U.S. has clearly declined.
There is also a third way in which a nation can be in decline -- stagnation. In this sense, the U.S. is also in decline, and has been since about 2000.
After 2000,the rate of formation of high-growth startups fell a lot -- the U.S. economy became less dynamic. Around halfway through that decade, total factor productivity growth -- the ultimate driver of improvements in living standards -- also decelerated substantially from its earlier growth rate:"
"When it comes to a few key indicators, Ireland, the UK, Canada and even Albania and Greece are surpassing America.
America is declining, in large and important measures, yet policymakers aren’t paying attention. So argues a new academic paper, pulling together previously published data.
Consider this:
America’s child poverty levels are worse than in any developed country anywhere, including Greece, devastated by a euro crisis, and eastern European nations such as Poland, Lithuania and Estonia.
Median adult wealth in the US ($39,000) is 27th globally, putting it behind Cyprus, Taiwan, and Ireland.
Even when “life satisfaction” is measured, America ranks #12, behind Israel, Sweden and Australia."
"Overall, America’s per capita wealth, health and education measures are mediocre for a highly industrialized nation. Well-being metrics, perceptions of corruption, quality and cost of basic services, are sliding, too. Healthcare and education spending are funding bloated administrations even while human outcomes sink, the authors say."
“We looked at very broad measures, and at individual measures, too,” said co-author Hershey H. Friedman, a business professor at Brooklyn College – City University of New York. The most dangerous sign they saw: rising income and wealth inequality, which slow growth and can spark instability, the authors say."
“Capitalism has been amazingly successful,” write Friedman and co-author Sarah Hertz of Empire State College. But it has grown so unfettered, predatory, so exclusionary, it’s become, in effect, crony capitalism. Now places like Qatar and Romania, “countries you wouldn’t expect to be, are doing better than us,” said Friedman."
The rest of the article has even more alarming data. And not to mention the political division in this country, inner city violence, etc.
Wake up time people. Like or dislike trump, he speaks reality. If anything, I think he's too optimistic.
Re: the underlined: Agree with this. Capitalism has been successful however as it exists in the US in the present day? As the author notes, systemically it is unfettered, predatory, & exclusionary. Cui bono?
So-called Prez has benefited, as a bit player, precisely because of crony capitalism. He is no 'outsider' nor has Trump Org ever been that successful. Even as an insider to crony capitalism, he overstayed his welcome as demonstrated by the way he has to go outside the US to get financing for his schemes.
Capitalism is an economic system not a form of governance, it has been successful in other forms of governments including those in the present day.
So-called President has demonstrated no inclination to change the unfettered, predatory & exclusionary nature of capitalism as it exists in present day US. On the contrary, he has seen the great success of crony capitalism in more authoritarian countries where it is even more exclusionary. Why anyone would believe he has the intention, much less the competence to address systemic problems such as these is the reason why the expression, 'there's a sucker born every minute' was coined.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 02-17-2017 at 12:03 PM..
I didn't dismiss you at all. From your examples, it seemed like you were alluding to this idea that the exploitation of fear was a relatively-modern occurrence.
You said..
"It was around the time that both sides realized that fear, as a commodity, was very lucrative & could be marketed & sold much like any other commodity. & so, both sides began to peddle fear.
This was, perhaps, one of the root or underlying causes behind officially changing our de facto motto 'e pluribus unum', by adopting 'In God We Trust' through an act of Congress in 1956.
Underlying that, Mr. Joe McCarthy & 'McCarthyism', anti-communist related activities & rhetoric, the Cold War & so on."
When you say "both sides", this makes you think of "Republican and Democrat", and your only examples were of post-WWII America. And you never even hinted to the idea that the exploitation of fear is as old as civilization itself.
Which is why I responded...
"When did the media begin marketing fear?
It seems that you believe it is a recent phenomenon. The truth is, the media, and governments, have always used fear as a means of manipulating the people, going back to the beginning of human civilization itself.
I always find it hilarious that the critics of America, love to complain about the corruption they see around them today, but most of them seem to have this delusional idea, that before some arbitrary time in history, the American government was more-or-less comprised of angels."
I understand that you took this as a personal attack. But I never claimed that that is what you personally believed. I merely said that it "SEEMS" like you believe the exploitation of fear is a recent phenomenon(based on your words). And that, I find it hilarious that "most" of the critics of modern America, think if you go back far enough, that our government was run by angels.
As I said, I was attacking an idea that I find to be common, but untrue. I was not attacking you.
And I added to my argument the video of the "Newsroom", which I know for a fact you've seen before, to exhibit my point. That many people think that the America of the past was "good", and that we only became "bad" recently.
That is a delusion.
And I know you agree with me, so there is no point in you arguing with me, except that your feelings were hurt because I wasn't completely sure of what you were saying, so I pointed-out my uncertainty, and gave additional information to clarify what I believe is a common misunderstanding.
Re: the underlined: Agree with this. Capitalism has been successful however as it exists in the US in the present day? As the author notes, systemically it is unfettered, predatory, & exclusionary. Cui bono?
So-called Prez has benefited, as a bit player, precisely because of crony capitalism. He is no 'outsider' nor has Trump Org ever been that successful. Even as an insider to crony capitalism, he overstayed his welcome as demonstrated by the way he has to go outside the US to get financing for his schemes.
Capitalism is an economic system not a form of governance, it has been successful in other forms of governments including those in the present day.
So-called President has demonstrated no inclination to change the unfettered, predatory & exclusionary nature of capitalism as it exists in present day US. On the contrary, he has seen the great success of crony capitalism in more authoritarian countries where it is even more exclusionary. Why anyone would believe he has the intention, much less the competence to address systemic problems such as these is the reason why the expression, 'there's a sucker born every minute' was coined.
You forgot this key point and it's this....capitalism exists and is enabled in its current form/acts in the way it does because of our current donor favor based political system. Which btw Trump spoke out against unlike the other politicians in this game. But I will say speaking out against something doesn't mean the "swamp" will change so time will tell if anything changes on this matter of our bought and sold politicians/our donors connected to businesses/industries rule political system
So as for your point "Capitalism is an economic system not a form of governance", given the business world/capitalism is so connected to donors in our political system on what gets done/not done, your point is 100% invalid as you address the matter in a textbook/unrealistic viewpoint on how politics is suppose to work but doesn't, far from it. And the data still stands on the articles I referenced above regardless if you agree with the reasons or not how that occurred....the US is going the wrong way in many metrics.
Your rationales continue to be internally inconsistent, it's no wonder you seem so conflicted at times, & deny &/or minimize the libertarian influence. You've said you're no longer a libertarian, is that right? I'm sure you've read this before however I suggest reading it again while you're still shedding the libertarian nonsense.
A political-ideology is nothing more than a means to an end. If we proclaim to be a libertarian or a socialist or whatever, all we are really saying is, what we value can best be achieved through these means.
When I was a libertarian, it was because I believed that libertarianism was the best way to achieve what I most-value in this world.
Unlike many libertarians, I was not interested in libertarianism because I wanted to legalize pot. Nor was the economic argument very persuasive(though I did watch almost every Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell video on youtube).
The "end" I had in mind, was actually "morality" and "happiness".
My defense of libertarianism, has always been rooted in my belief that libertarianism(and to an even greater degree, minarchism, or even anarchism), would actually promote morality and happiness.
Though, not because of what libertarianism professes to be, but rather, because of what libertarianism actually is.
What most libertarians imagine libertarianism to be, could never exist in the real world. As I often joke to my friend, there is no way someone is going to allow prostitutes and drug-dealers to solicit in front of their homes, or in their neighborhoods. Nor would people want their children going to school with the children of drug-dealers and prostitutes.
Thus, the reality of libertarianism, is not some utopian paradise where everyone realizes that their economic self-interests can best be served by trading and cooperating with society, regardless of race, religion, or ideology.
The reality of libertarianism, is tribalism. You would have society increasingly-segregated into philosophically/theologically like-minded groups. And most of these groups would more-or-less wall themselves off from the rest of the world.
This is why I made the reference to the "shared house". Because without a strong government to hold people together, everyone would want their own house.
And at the heart of my argument is this. I think people would actually be happier, and more-moral, if they could live in their own homes, with other like-minded people. I think throwing people together in the same house, is ultimately destructive(when it comes to happiness and morality), even if it leads to greater "economic growth".
Which comes to my overall critique of libertarianism. That it will never be allowed.
The United States is a superpower for only one reason. We have the largest economy on Earth. And the reason Europe conquered the world, is because of industry, control of resources, and superior social-organization.
To adopt libertarianism in any honest sense, would weaken the United States(both internally, and geopolitically), and by weakening the United States, you are inadvertently aiding our enemies, and handing over our empire to some other world power.
Thus, as I often say, it isn't domestic-policy which controls foreign-policy. Foreign-policy controls everything. Our internal policies are always merely a reflection of our greater geopolitical interests.
A great example of this is immigration. Whatever you might think of immigration is wholly irrelevant. Our immigration policy must serve our geopolitical interests.
Everyone knows that immigration is all about providing cheap-labor for big-business. And while we want to blame these corporations for creating the immigration crisis in America, they aren't truly to blame.
The fault comes from the fact that America must have as much economic growth as possible, or it will not remain the world's only superpower.
The world's reserve currency, the petrodollar, and even the stability of society, are all at stake. This country is already teetering on the edge, it wouldn't take that much more to push it over.
Thus, whether I think this ideology is good or bad, in the end, it doesn't matter. We will pursue whatever furthers our national interests. And the big-business interests, and their corporate media arm, will guide this country in whichever direction they want to take us.
Whatever is good for Wall-Street, is good for America. That has been the mantra for decades, and sadly, it is true.
That doesn't mean that everyone benefits, or even that the majority benefits. But merely that the corporate entity, named the United States of America, has more power and geopolitical influence as a result. And that is all that really matters in this world.
When I seem to criticize libertarianism, or whatever ideology, what I'm really trying to do, is remind people that we live in the real world. And this world is driven by Darwinian forces. As a result, there is actually very little that can be done.
My defense of libertarianism, has always been rooted in my belief that libertarianism(and to an even greater degree, minarchism, or even anarchism), would actually promote morality and happiness.
When I seem to criticize libertarianism, or whatever ideology, what I'm really trying to do, is remind people that we live in the real world. And this world is driven by Darwinian forces. As a result, there is actually very little that can be done.
Looks like you've seen the light. Libertarianism is a very attractive but unrealistic philosophy, at least if carried out fully.
I used to call my self libertarian but I came to realize something. Libertarians have far too much faith in people, liberals have far too little faith in people and most conservatives are pretty adept at accurately judging man's capacity for both good and bad. I now call myself a conservatarian with and emphasis on the conservative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
