@ my USA friends

[IndyBrit]

Huge topic to resolve in one little thread. Let me just make a few observations:
1) To have a better lifestyle than others, a group of people must be able to do something others cannot or do a think better than others can - otherwise no one will surrender their treasure to that group to support their lifestyle
2) The USA used to lead on point 1 by a significant margin, but we have been lazy and sitting on our gains for a couple of decades now. We now believe a wonderful lifestyle is owed to us despite the fact that we can no longer provide dramatically better goods and services than our competitors.
3) Nothing any politician or corporation can do can re-instate the situation of point 1 with point 2 in place - the life style will inevitably erode and the belief in corporations or politicians (or "capitalism" or "socialism") will merely cause people to blame others not holding their own view, but it will not change the situation of the decline
4) The decline of the USA is a relative matter - we are falling back into the pack, which is probably also inevitable. We have more stuff than we have ever had before. Our houses are bigger and nicer, we have more TVs, cars, food, etc. Therefore, we are only upset that we seem closer to others, which is probably a good thing as they are getting better.
5) The rich and poor ar closer than ever today than they have been historically. The measure of the rich and poor gap as a dollar value is artificial and has little historical significance. If you look at the lifestyle and political power of the people, the distance from the top to the median is quite small. The rich can no longer kill the poor at their whim, the poor almost universally have food and housing and even transportation. The poor have legal and political rights. There is still unfairness, but the gap is dramatically lower than the historical average.

Or, I could be wrong.

[froggyman]

Referring to point 5..

Maybe historically we are better off now but as it stands inequality in the world is still far too high .

I mean Africa only owns 3.1% of world GDP to America who owns 20+%. "The poor universally have food" is by far wrong...

I do not think this could be considered fair at all. However to what you also say about the rich being nicer to the poor I personally thin is not true..

But this is only my point of view everyone has their own xD

[huGGy]

A big problem is that people, who once reached a status of having 5 Televisions, will feel bad when they lose 2 of them. I don't know why it is this way (human nature maybe), but it's just stupid thinking, though i have it myself to be honest. But even if it's getting worse, the standard is still pretty high and decent in the western world.

In Germany the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger again. And that is dangerous for the whole system. I want to walk through the streets without being afraid of getting robbed or whatever. That's some kind of freedom and peace money can't buy.

And talking about Moore: He knows very well that his Books and Films are exaggerated. I think with a normal analysis of the situation people from all over the world wouldn't talk about it in a gaming forum like this one.

[wicked_assassin]

[quote=""froggyman""]Referring to point 5..
I mean Africa only owns 3.1% of world GDP to America who owns 20+%. "The poor universally have food" is by far wrong...

[/quote]

About africa It's frustrating that they keep fighting and having civil wars. They have the mentality of europeans in the middle ages. They are actually destroying their own oppertunities.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""wicked_assassin""][quote=""froggyman""]Referring to point 5..
I mean Africa only owns 3.1% of world GDP to America who owns 20+%. "The poor universally have food" is by far wrong...

[/quote]

About africa It's frustrating that they keep fighting and having civil wars. They have the mentality of europeans in the middle ages. They are actually destroying their own oppertunities.[/quote]

Very good points indeed. Their own short-sightedness and bloodlust will always stop their progress. Knowing people involved in some of the relatively "more developed" countries - the gangs and corruption of the system control everything. Even prominent doctors fear them. This is the anti-thesis of capitalism.

@froggy - Indy was referring to the good old US of A and the gap between the rich and the poor.

I didn't mean to turn the post into Bush v Obama and it wasn't the point of my post. Everyone in this country is too divided to see past both of their faults (and as mentioned by a very wise Rascal their stinky political parties) and see that as soon as the American people start holding their political appointees accountable and start acting responsible themselves then progress can be made. The policies of the current party in power will not fix the problems that this country has, and Capitalism is not a problem. As Luukje said before it's the abuse in the system ala corruption that is breaking what good the system is. That will happen in any system that is abused.

Lastly - Moore has an agenda and is not objective in any of his films. He always asks leading questions and points to his conclusions. He never shows the benefits of the side he is opposing.

[IndyBrit]

Do a "think" better, like typing.

Yes, my post was USA-centric, due to the thread topic. I agree with many of your points worldwide. I would be careful comparing rich-poor through GDP though, as monetary measures in dramatically different systems are not necessarily a good point of comparison.

I would add about Africa - we have no model for this so it's little wonder that it's broken. It will sort out over time. Imagine Europe in 1300, and suddenly someone shows up and says "we have great medicines and we'll feed you". Sounds great. However, what you get is a drop in infant and childhood mortality where everything else about the system stays the same. Population explosion, and suddenly institutions are expected to manage 10 times or 100 times the people they were designed to handle. Europe and America, as examples, "grew up" over a several hundred years, not overnight. The societies in Africa are growing up in an environment we've never had before, so it looks different than anything we've seen before. Unfortunately, there will be much suffering between here and when they get straightened out, but it will happen.

[KingKaramazov]

You don't see the direct effect of the president's actions until a few years afterward...it's impossible to judge Obama's presidency yet when he has barely been in office for a year.

However, I think it's plain to see that George Bush had a negative overall effect on the country.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

Ah, I get called off for a few days and I miss a priceless thread like this one

I never saw Michael Moore's new movie. I have written about the response to it, though. I found it strange that the MPAA rated it R--just like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine--even though it just contains stock news footage and interviews without four-letter words. I guess the evening news is not for kids.

Capitalism v. socialism. That's the debate. Indy and I debate about this one all the time. He knows where I stand on it. Frankly, the whole process just saddens me. I really don't like the bleak view of human nature that capitalism requires to function. On the other hand, I don't deny that purely socialist governments have not fared well over the decades. I think many European governments correctly mix capitalism with socialism, and that's the trick. The United States has a proportionally higher capitalism component than a socialism one. And capitalism tends to devour everything in its path until nothing is left for anyone else, creating a "pyramid" of wealth at the top.

True, those without capital might have "rights" in the United States. But I argue that those rights are at best illusory. I might have done well in law school, but I have no faith at all in the law. I think that powerful interests can just sidestep it when necessary. After all, it exists for them; it would defeat the whole system if it suddenly sanctioned them.

Well, I could go on all day about this. But I have written enough about it in my blog to fill several volumes. Try a satire if you'd like:

http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... itary.html

Or if you want a solution to all our governmental problems--capitalist or socialist--we must adopt Abercromocracy Under Law:

http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... ss_21.html

I find it's easy to just laugh about this whole subject, all while crying at the same time.

[wicked_assassin]

The US has the reputation of a country who doesn't really take care of the weaker persons. Be unlucky that you had an accident and lost a part of your physical capacity or mental capacity or any other thing that limits you earning your bread? You are basicly screwed in the us.

It's like the us is a system of the survival of the fittest. A cruel and heartless society.

[IndyBrit]

[quote=""wicked_assassin""] A cruel and heartless society.[/quote]

That's just so wrong, I can't rationally respond. We're in the trenches helping people all the time.

Some of us do have the belief that compassion with other people's money is not really compassion at all, but I see that as logical not "cruel and heartless".

[huGGy]

I think wicked didn't mean the people, but the system of health insurance and what belongs to it. When you have the money it is good and you'll be in the best hands, but if you don't have the money...oh well. At the moment we have an ok (not good) system in Germany, but because of the high costs it will drift into the way i described it above. Everybody needs addicional insurances and that stuff, even though we pay so much money right from our fee. Money that never makes the way to our bank account.

[wicked_assassin]

[quote=""HuggyPierre""]I think wicked didn't mean the people, but the system of health insurance and what belongs to it. When you have the money it is good and you'll be in the best hands, but if you don't have the money... oh well. At the moment we have an ok (not good) system in Germany, but because of the high costs it will drift into the way i described it above. Everybody needs addicional insurances and that stuff, even though we pay so much money right from our fee. Money that never makes the way to our bank account .[/quote]

the cost is really dependable on how far driven your social system is. You have basic healthcare assurance, but in europe it has mostly a lot of stuff extra.
I heard once the prices of a dentist in the us. I almost fell from my chair. It are prices you would consider a rope and a brick (to pull your tooth out) if you don't earn that much.
It's the complete oposite, what for kind of country is willing to invest billions in a war, but not for it's commen wealfare of his people. I'm not saying you have to go as far as we the europeans, but at the very least some basic stuff.

I say sometimes harder statements then necessairy, politicians do the same when they are making their statement

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

I say sometimes harder statements then necessairy, politicians do the same when they are making their statement[/quote]

No need to worry about that; I do, too. That's the satirist's art: Exaggeration. Or at least the polemical art. Just ask Friedrich Nietzsche. Sometimes you need to throw a grenade to get people's attention.

About dentists, my Lord, you are right. I couldn't afford to go to the dentist for several years. Then I got a few cash gifts for Christmas in 2008 and I rewarded myself with a full exam and cleaning. Given my partial English heritage, I need to watch my teeth; I shouldn't wait as long as I do between visits. But it's solely because it's so expensive, and dental insurance is virtually non-existent unless you are a corporate bigwhig.

And I don't take offense to the "cruel and heartless" society statement, either. You're addressing it to the basic nature of American economic life, not individual Americans. I'm an American citizen and I'm not cruel or heartless (at least, I try my utmost not to be... some call me weak for not being crueler or more heartless). But I've encountered many of the social problems that you describe and have said to myself about them: "These are the products of a cruel and heartless system."

Still, in the end it's not directly about cruelty or heartlessness. That would be giving the system too much credit. It's basically just about profit, and that indirectly causes cruelty. Real capitalists don't really have hearts anyway; they just calculate bottom lines and to hell with all the rest. That looks like heartlessness. But they're not being "mean." They're just being "economically pragmatic in an effort to generate healthy returns consistent with shareholder expectations."

[wicked_assassin]

Kaiser_von_nuben are you a politician?

But i agree with you.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""wicked_assassin""]Kaiser_von_nuben are you a politician?

But i agree with you.[/quote]

Heh, perhaps I'm a politician for a particular philosophical perspective, but alas, I'm merely a writer... and former lawyer! 8O