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.
I wasn't putting emphasis on homogeneity as much as I was on ”boring”.
Not all immigrants have benefited America, my point was that such an influx of people has stimulated violence and general instability in the country.
Violence can be very bad, but it also can create a lot of innovation. It also stimulates risk taking, such as westward expansion. There were a great many fraudulent scientific claims coming out from that era to promote westward settlement.
One such idea was that rain followed the plow. They were saying that wherever people tilled the land, rain followed. That's nuts, but it was used to justify large swaths of people moving west and settling in conquered territory.
Though we're changing too, security is becoming much more important, but the general belief in high yield explosive growth has shuffled over to the financial sector.
Could we have become powerful without this culture of violence and instability? Maybe, but it definitely factors into to the country as of now.
I understand your thought-process, and how you arrived at your conclusions. These conclusions seem to be based on various correlations which make enough sense that they sound reasonable. But if these conclusions were true, they should be true in all contexts(IE in other countries), but they're not. A conclusion that is only true in the United States, isn't true.
With that said, I think your argument can really be summed up in the part bolded.
I agree that violence is certainly a huge driver for innovation, but it's not violence so much, but war. As you know, ”Necessity is the mother of invention”. The government spends a lot of money developing the technologies and industries necessary to make war. These technologies then filter into the consumer market. Think nuclear power, computers, the internet, etc.
So yes, violence in the form of international wars is ultimately a good thing in many ways(or at least the ever-present threat of war), but I don't see how internal violence is economically-uplifting. For your theory to make sense, Japan would be more economically-successful if it was more violent. Same with Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, etc. The more violence the better, right?
And while the United States did employ violence to conquer the continent from the Native-Americans. Are you saying that if there had been no Native-Americans we would be worse off? And that if the Native-Americans continued to raid white farms and murder entire families, that it would lead to greater economic growth?
And what about Sweden? Most of its economic growth happened when it was nearly 100% white and Swedish. There has been mass-immigration in recent years that has led to an upswing in violence, but the economy has stagnated. By your theory, this upswing in violence should have led to an economic boom.
You claim that violence and instability leads to risk-taking. This assumption is likely based on the fact that violence and instability "cheapens life", and thus makes life seem more disposable. People in high-crime areas tend to be more willing to take risks. Or more specifically, they are more willing to risk their lives and their futures because they don't believe they have a future.
But that type of risk-taking is looking only at short-term gain. It focuses on taking whatever it can today without consideration for tomorrow. That type of risky behavior is fundamentally destructive. The types of risk-taking that is good for the economy is the risk that promises a future return. But in order to expect a future return in say, 10 years or 20 years, there has to be peace and stability. Without stability no one would make investments.
At best you could argue that group rivalries are good for the economy because they spur competition. That the obsession with social-status motivates men to try as hard as they can to make money. And that the greater the consequences for failing in this endeavor, the greater the motivation for all men to "succeed".
Reminds me of that joke from George Carlin.... "You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the **** out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-10-2021 at 05:50 AM..
I understand your thought-process, and how you arrived at your conclusions. These conclusions seem to be based on various correlations which make enough sense that they sound reasonable. But if these conclusions were true, they should be true in all contexts(IE in other countries), but they're not. A conclusion that is only true in the United States, isn't true.
With that said, I think your argument can really be summed up in the part bolded.
I agree that violence is certainly a huge driver for innovation, but it's not violence so much, but war. As you know, ”Necessity is the mother of invention”. The government spends a lot of money developing the technologies and industries necessary to make war. These technologies then filter into the consumer market. Think nuclear power, computers, the internet, etc.
So yes, violence in the form of international wars is ultimately a good thing in many ways(or at least the ever-present threat of war), but I don't see how internal violence is economically-uplifting. For your theory to make sense, Japan would be more economically-successful if it was more violent. Same with Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, etc. The more violence the better, right?
And while the United States did employ violence to conquer the continent from the Native-Americans. Are you saying that if there had been no Native-Americans we would be worse off? And that if the Native-Americans continued to raid white farms and murder entire families, that it would lead to greater economic growth?
And what about Sweden? Most of its economic growth happened when it was nearly 100% white and Swedish. There has been mass-immigration in recent years that has led to an upswing in violence, but the economy has stagnated. By your theory, this upswing in violence should have led to an economic boom.
You claim that violence and instability leads to risk-taking. This assumption is likely based on the fact that violence and instability "cheapens life", and thus makes life seem more disposable. People in high-crime areas tend to be more willing to take risks. Or more specifically, they are more willing to risk their lives and their futures because they don't believe they have a future.
But that type of risk-taking is looking only at short-term gain. It focuses on taking whatever it can today without consideration for tomorrow. That type of risky behavior is fundamentally destructive. The types of risk-taking that is good for the economy is the risk that promises a future return. But in order to expect a future return in say, 10 years or 20 years, there has to be peace and stability. Without stability no one would make investments.
At best you could argue that group rivalries are good for the economy because they spur competition. That the obsession with social-status motivates men to try as hard as they can to make money. And that the greater the consequences for failing in this endeavor, the greater the motivation for all men to "succeed".
Reminds me of that joke from George Carlin.... "You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the **** out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs."
Maybe you're right.
But it doesn't have to factor into all other countries for it to be true here. Internal violence is mostly bad elsewhere, but I think America has accepted a form of individual violence other places are less inclined to do so.
There are things just unique to a certain country's disposition. China has many mannerism like their central government that is taken for granted, but the same system doesn't automatically work elsewhere. I am not saying Americans or Chinese are fundamentally different people from others, only that we have grown up in an environment where one is seen as useful for our development.
Settlers in uncharted regions would need to be armed to protect themselves, and having groups of individuals spread to uncharted territories is what helped expand the government's reach.
We have a higher tolerance for gun ownership than other places, and those guns aren't just meant for shooting wild animals.
I'll grant you internal violence today like gangs and domestic violence have not been conducive to a good environment, but at the very least it has helped make us what we are today.
As for risk taking, yeah its often times short term like in the stock market, but spurts of explosive growth can fundamentally change a country. The 1920s led to a crash, but the US became an automobile market far faster than others, the gilded age helped rapidly monopolize major industries like rail and oil.
Things didn't always work out, but not having a well planned out approach to the future can have its advantages when a country is developing. Or maybe that's just an American thing.
Settlers in uncharted regions would need to be armed to protect themselves, and having groups of individuals spread to uncharted territories is what helped expand the government's reach.
Our government wanted to seize control of as much territory as possible. So did Spain, France, Britain, and everyone else. And in fact each had to seize the territory to prevent the others from doing the same. Had the United States not stolen this land, it would be French, or Spanish, or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
We have a higher tolerance for gun ownership than other places, and those guns aren't just meant for shooting wild animals.
Gun ownership is typical in rural areas. The United States is still one of the most rural countries. But I don't think American violence is because of the gun-culture, but rather the gun-culture is a consequence of American violence.
As violence goes up, the desire for guns goes up. This was most clearly exhibited last year from the BLM/antifa riots. Even the lefties who had for decades advocated getting rid of guns, were out buying guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
I think America has accepted a form of individual violence other places are less inclined to do so.
What is the cause of the violence? And how does America fix it? What is the cost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
I'll grant you internal violence today like gangs and domestic violence have not been conducive to a good environment, but at the very least it has helped make us what we are today.
And slavery "helped make us what we are today". Does that mean slavery is the reason for our success?
You seem to be saying, "We had slavery and we are rich today. Therefore we are rich because we had slavery."
This is a non sequitur. You can't say that everything that ever happened in this country was beneficial merely because this country is rich today. That is like saying the woman who drowned her seven kids in a bathtub "helped make us what we are today."
Pot turns people into Democrats. Once they tried it and liked it, they always vote for Democrats.
Hmm. That's interesting, because the poster I addressed, Mister 7, hates "leftists" but seems to be pro-weed. Pot doesn't seem to have transformed him yet.
But you might want to warn him, anyway. Because that's really scary!
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 02-10-2021 at 09:27 AM..
Our government wanted to seize control of as much territory as possible. So did Spain, France, Britain, and everyone else. And in fact each had to seize the territory to prevent the others from doing the same. Had the United States not stolen this land, it would be French, or Spanish, or whatever.
For military and political reasons it was important to claim land. The Spanish returned the Louisiana province to the French so it would act as a buffer state between the US and Spain.
But regardless, for it to be economically viable, it needs human settlement. Even after a century of European control, Louisiana had not been charted or settled. The people most willing to move there had to be accepting of violence and their use of firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Gun ownership is typical in rural areas. The United States is still one of the most rural countries. But I don't think American violence is because of the gun-culture, but rather the gun-culture is a consequence of American violence.
Yeah, in more urban areas its not common. But even in Manchester people may not open-carry their weapons, but they own them locked up in their houses.
And the relative geographic distance between cities and rural areas mean a higher influx of guns into the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And slavery "helped make us what we are today". Does that mean slavery is the reason for our success?
You seem to be saying, "We had slavery and we are rich today. Therefore we are rich because we had slavery."
This is a non sequitur. You can't say that everything that ever happened in this country was beneficial merely because this country is rich today. That is like saying the woman who drowned her seven kids in a bathtub "helped make us what we are today."
Some civilizations develop in different ways. The Europeans had more politically instability than east Asia, but they industrialized faster. That does not mean political instability is good for a developed country.
The settlement of people west wasn't an orderly affair, and the first wave of migrants produced a lot of violence and instability in local settlements. It wasn't good for business, but it helped populate the west faster than it otherwise would have been had people taken an economically approach to expansion.
In the same way the stock market being fueled by speculatory bubbles is not good for the economy in general, but at specific moments it did help apply new technology quickly and at a wider scale than what would have been.
If you're saying there were better ways to make the US advanced, then you could be right. But we did develop more because of this culture of violence and instability.
Point: Violence helped our development rather than impede it. Even if there was a better way it turned the wheel forward so to speak.
Maybe it's no use to us anymore, and that is why the coils are tightening, but I do think it did helps us in a way at some point in history.
And just because it worked in the American case does not mean it could or should be applied elsewhere.
What is the cause of the violence? And how does America fix it? What is the cost?
And slavery "helped make us [the US] what we are today". Does that mean slavery is the reason for our success?
...
Black slavery & cotton were instrumental in the economic development of the US. See
The half has never been told : slavery and the making of American capitalism / Edward E. Baptist, c2014, Basic Books.
Subjects
Slavery -- United States -- History.
Slavery -- Economic aspects -- United States -- History.
African Americans -- Social conditions -- History.
Summary
Historian Edward Baptist reveals how the expansion of slavery in the first eight decades after American independence drove the evolution and modernization of the United States.
Length
xxvii, 498 pages : index, chapter notes
An excellent economic & political overview. (My emphasis.)
Most of the violence is caused by people who are trying to get something for nothing by robbing and stealing.
1) Diversity causes crime.
2) Inequality causes crime.
3) Population density causes crime.
If you raise these three things, you'll have more crime. If you lower these three things, you'll have less crime. Though there are other factors as well. And the concept of diversity is somewhat arbitrary. Diversity doesn't just refer to race.
The question is, why is America so diverse? Is diversity our strength? Or is diversity just something we ended up with because of other reasons?
Secondly, while inequality causes crime, does that mean inequality has no benefits? Is the cost of reducing inequality greater than the cost of crime?
Isn't inequality to some degree also a driver of the economy? The fear of being poor is not so much the fear of not being able to eat, but rather the fear of having to live in poor(unsafe) neighborhoods. Moreover, inequality is not only the natural outcome of a capitalist economy, it also helps drive the market. Differences of income are one of the main reasons people trade with each other. If I you make $100 an hour, and hire people at $10 an hour to do your menial work, freeing up more time to work at $100 an hour, you would.
But if everyone earned the same amount of money for their labor, they would tend to do more work for themselves. And if people work for themselves, there is no money changing hands.
As for population density. That is simply the natural outcome of a modern industrial/service economy. Large industry is just more efficient than small industry. And businesses that are closer to their customers tend to have more customers and less overhead costs, making them more profitable.
The evils of population density can be greatly reduced with an abundance of police, which make it difficult or impossible for criminals to operate without being caught. But the desire to commit crime is still there, waiting for an opportunity.
I used to joke that, if we woke up tomorrow and there were suddenly no police at all. Pretty much every major city in the country would be looted and burned to the ground within a week. While rural areas would barely notice.
The reason America is so diverse, is because it is a "Nation of immigrants". But regardless of what people think, America doesn't really want to be a nation of immigrants. It just wants population growth, for the purpose of economic growth.
In the early years, the British crown couldn't get enough people to come to the United States, so they forced people to come here. Criminals were banished here to penal colonies. Indentured servants were pressed into service from places like Ireland. People who fought against Oliver Cromwell were deported to the British colonies. Then of course there were chattel slaves.
The reason is because we have a vast continent that needed to be peopled. This country can easily support a population of a billion people. And the faster we get there, the more powerful we will be. If the United States had a population of a billion people today, we wouldn't be worried about China.
The United States would love to bring in even more immigrants than we already do, but immigrants cause crime, and immigrants create political and social instability, which could potentially threaten the true rulers of this country. Thus there is only so much immigration that we can have at any time before it becomes so chaotic it threatens the very existence of the country.
Once this country is "full", the immigration spigot will basically be cut off like it is in most other countries. Unless of course the population becomes so focused on their careers, and if capitalist profiteers push up the cost-of-living to the point most people can't afford to have children, so that fertility-rates fall to unsustainable levels, and the only way to sustain the current population is to import more people.
Some civilizations develop in different ways. The Europeans had more politically instability than east Asia, but they industrialized faster. That does not mean political instability is good for a developed country.
The failure of East Asia was that China never really had any serious geopolitical rivals. It may have been threatened by the Mongols and other bands of steppe peoples, but these were uncivilized, technologically-backwards brutes.
What pushed Europe ahead was the life-and-death struggle between the various nations for technological and commercial dominance. Moreover, the balance of power in Europe prevented the complete dominance of one power over the entire region, which kept the European rivalries going for hundreds of years.
In East Asia, China had so thoroughly dominated the entire region that it had no real competition. And Japan was basically an isolationist country for hundreds of years because it felt relatively safe on its own island.
The geography of Europe was also important for the carving up of Europe into a dozen competing powers. The abundant network of rivers, the mountains, and the seas created natural boundaries between nations. The only region of Europe that was easily consolidated was Eastern Europe by the Russians, since it is basically just one big open field with few natural boundaries of any consequence.
Currently, the United States is doing whatever it can to grow our economy. Not just because some rich people want more money, but because it is the only way the United States can remain a superpower. But imagine if the only country in the whole world was the United States. Without a rival, growing our economy would no longer be a matter of national security. In fact, it would cease to be important at all.
If we had something like a "one-world government", there would no longer be competition between nations. The apparent need to use fossil fuels to out-compete your geopolitical rivals would end.
The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because it couldn't compete with the United States. If there was no United States, the Soviet Union would have taken over the entire world.
China was too successful in consolidating pretty much all the important parts of East Asia to the point that its primary threats came from within. Not only did it not have a rival in the region to compete against, but it had no real outside threat to rally against to encourage the growth of Chinese Nationalism(IE a strong central government).
It wasn't until the rise of imperial Japan that China was suddenly jolted into the restructuring of their country. But this was more difficult than it was for Japan, since China's population was more diverse and its government less-centralized. It wasn't until Mao that China was finally able to consolidate into a strong national state.
It's not that European countries had more political instability than Asia, they had more outside threats. These outside threats forced the European powers to innovate, to colonize, to trade, and to monopolize. Political instability in China was much greater than in Britain or Germany.
In the Taiping Rebellion as many as 50 million people were killed.
Point: Violence helped our development rather than impede it. Even if there was a better way it turned the wheel forward so to speak.
Violence was necessary for our development insofar as violence was required to seize the territory that is now the United States. Your argument seems to be that if we had seized this territory without having to fight for it, we would be worse off. I don't see any evidence for that.
The development of the United States didn't come because we were threatened by the Native-Americans, but by the Europeans. Our goal was to become more powerful than the Europeans.
If the United States never had Europe as a geopolitical rival, and only had the Native-Americans to compete against, the impetus for technological advancement would have been nothing. We could defeat the Native-Americans with the guns that existed hundreds of years earlier.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-10-2021 at 02:26 PM..
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.
Certainly a contributing cause
