Lost in America

[SpeedoGuy]

Do you ever get the feeling that our country is lacking a goal or direction for our future? Do you get the feeling that no one really cares? Or is the future just really really scary and people just don't want to think about how dire it's going to be?

Gotta agree with jason about China.

From my perspective:

The US is a market based economy that pretty much thrives on the here and now, usually leaving the future to take care of itself. Consumers call the shots: they vote with their dollars more than with their ballots. Canny political leaders learn this or risk extinction. So, long range planning is basically ineffective with such a mindset.

When the inevitable major jolts occur (Civil War, Pearl Harbor,
Sputnik, 9/11) we can only hope the the system is capable of reacting well after the catastrophe because it sure hasn't done all that great in planning ahead of time. Perhaps that's the price of living in a noisy democratic republic such as we have.

 

[sdbg]

Do you get the feeling that no one really cares?

I think that we have become such a selfish, spoiled society, that we're in for a rude awakening. How many people do you know who honestly demonstrate respect and manners when dealing with others? My generation did a horrible job of parenting, and it's showing painfully.

There is a book entitled THE GREAT BUST AHEAD that I read in July '07. What a mind blower it was, and the logic behind the author's predictions is based on the population of the working class. With the massive retirement of the baby boomers, the economy is going to spiral downward as all these big spenders tighten the belt in their retirement years. I hope that history will prove the author wrong, but I'm taking a conservative approach financially just in case.

 

[Drifterwood]

What I think may be happening is the evolution of a globalised economy.

The days of supremacy and the politics of the supremacy and desie for supremacy of one country or region are over.

What I see are countries/regions establishing their position and interests globally and regionally. North America, Europe, Russia and Central Asia, China and South East Asia, The Middle East, and India, and to a lesser extent South America and Africa (don't think that I have forgotten my Aussie and Kiwi mates, a lot of us will be knocking on your door).

The relative power of these areas is in the melting pot at the moment, and economically what we are seeing is the balancing of value. That means that some will go up and some will go down to form a more appropriate equilibrium.

Party politics and political ethics are mostly irrelevant in this process, what matters is the ability of government to deliver. You can talk all you like about China, but generally they are delivering and doing this in difficult circumstances.

What I hope for, is that when we come out the other end, and I don't think that that is far off, we will have a fair distribution of power and influence, gelled by mutual interest. Why some think that I am anti american is because I feel that the US sees itself as having a right to more of the cake than it merits/deserves as 5% of the world population. What worries me is that the big stick will be used outside the Middle East to take it. However, the US can not win that fight.

 

[2322]

What I think may be happening is the evolution of a globalised economy.

The days of supremacy and the politics of the supremacy and desie for supremacy of one country or region are over.

You mean, "We will, at last, have peace in our time?" If history teaches anything, it's that there is always a desire for power. Whether power is obtained individually, regionally, or culturally, nations will always vie for what is in their own interest. I always feel a twinge of foreboding any time someone says, "those days are over," because they so very rarely are.

What I see are countries/regions establishing their position and interests globally and regionally. North America, Europe, Russia and Central Asia, China and South East Asia, The Middle East, and India, and to a lesser extent South America and Africa (don't think that I have forgotten my Aussie and Kiwi mates, a lot of us will be knocking on your door).

The relative power of these areas is in the melting pot at the moment, and economically what we are seeing is the balancing of value. That means that some will go up and some will go down to form a more appropriate equilibrium.

I generally see this too. My one reservation is that declining power tends to cause nations and people to do desperate things that aren't in keeping with that harmony. The growth of a middle class is essential for political stability in democracies, but keeping a middle class is even more important.

Party politics and political ethics are mostly irrelevant in this process, what matters is the ability of government to deliver. You can talk all you like about China, but generally they are delivering and doing this in difficult circumstances.

IF free trade economics are at work, yes. The reactions of the political parties and the population to the economic changes are, however, extremely relevant. I'm not certain China can do that. The Chinese government has prepared a certain course for a certain future. If that future isn't the one they imagined, then they're up Shit's Creek.

China's an ecological mess, the human rights record is abysmal, and they're planning for a future based upon western consumption patterns while practicing laissez-faire capitalism. Their one-child policy is a time bomb and as their population becomes more educated, the more difficult avoiding democracy will become.

What I hope for, is that when we come out the other end, and I don't think that that is far off, we will have a fair distribution of power and influence, gelled by mutual interest. Why some think that I am anti american is because I feel that the US sees itself as having a right to more of the cake than it merits/deserves as 5% of the world population. What worries me is that the big stick will be used outside the Middle East to take it. However, the US can not win that fight.

Sounds a bit utopian to me and I think that if it does happen, it's very far off. There are still too many poor and disenfranchised people in the world, too many competing cultures, religions, regionalized resources, and just plain greed.

And a big, "OH PUHLEEZ!!!" The UK gobbles resources on a relatively enormous scale as well. Out of 193 independent countries in the world the UK ranks THIRD, right behind the US and Australia, in per capita ecological footprint.

Go toss some stones at your own glass house.

 

[Drifterwood]

You mean, "We will, at last, have peace in our time?" If history teaches anything, it's that there is always a desire for power. Whether power is obtained individually, regionally, or culturally, nations will always vie for what is in their own interest. I always feel a twinge of foreboding any time someone says, "those days are over," because they so very rarely are.

That's not what I am saying Jason. I am talking about political and financial reality. If Iraq is costing $10 billion a day or week or whatever it is, and they wish to be liberated, then the ongoing military option for areas that don't wish to be liberated is not real. I think you mentioned the old British Empire before, and this was the reality for them back then.


IF free trade economics are at work, yes. The reactions of the political parties and the population to the economic changes are, however, extremely relevant. I'm not certain China can do that. The Chinese government has prepared a certain course for a certain future. If that future isn't the one they imagined, then they're up Shit's Creek.

China has delivered. It's pretty much a done deal. There is no credit crunch in China as far as I can see. The danger rather is that they will use their stash of $ to pick up bargains at our financial system yard sale. Actually, I doubt that they will.

China's an ecological mess, the human rights record is abysmal, and they're planning for a future based upon western consumption patterns while practicing laissez-faire capitalism. Their one-child policy is a time bomb and as their population becomes more educated, the more difficult avoiding democracy will become.

Parts of China are an ecological mess.

The Chinese Govt. are anyting but laissez faire, I think.

Their one child policy has been a stroke of genius. It has allowed them a level of control. It's more like putting a tap on a water pipe. They control the fawcett.

It is a mistake to think that democracy is everyone's nirvana. On one level "communism" is far more democratic on a bottom-up scale. How to govern a country with 1.5 billion people will be a very interesting as it is a very challenging situation.


Sounds a bit utopian to me and I think that if it does happen, it's very far off. There are still too many poor and disenfranchised people in the world, too many competing cultures, religions, regionalized resources, and just plain greed.

There is a difference between greed and wanting to do well for your people and to have the place and influence regionally and globally that you think you merit.

Why do you see all these people and their cultures as competing?

Go toss some stones at your own glass house.

We all consume too much in the West, but you are the biggest and worst offender. Aggressive policies to support our unsustainable stupidity are themselves unsustainable.

The thread is about America, that is why I was talking about the US, Jason; I am not doing a holier than thou.

 

[CUBE]

I care...hugs to you

 

[2322]

China's single child policy is a disaster because it has resulted in an imbalance of the sexes. There are now 120 males for every 100 females. Unless 20% of the male population decides to go gay, they're not going to get women. This will make for some serious social unrest that only now is China beginning to realize.

The reason I say cultures and nations will compete is because that's what they do. Christians want everyone to be Christian, Muslims want everyone to be Muslim. Everybody feels they have to impose their way on the world. Certainly the west has excelled at this, but doesn't mean that others don't try. National security means keeping your enemies weak and your own nation powerful. Economics demands that we all compete for the greatest profit possible for the least amount of capital invested. That means there are winners and losers in the competitive market place. Nations do the same thing.

There is nothing democratic about Communism as it is practiced in China, Cuba, North Korea, or anywhere else a Communist regime has taken power. I don't know how you can defend that. I think Tiananmen Square demonstrated that China has a thirst for democracy. A pity they don't get to vote for it via ballot box in their, "far more democratic on a bottom-up scale," country.

And yes drifter, you do a, "holier than thou," routine any time the subject of American issues are raised. You appear to delight in doing so and that's repugnant particularly when you refuse to own your own nation's problems past and present. Time and again you are prepared to cast the first stone without acknowledging your own sins.

 

[Drifterwood]

China's single child policy is a disaster because it has resulted in an imbalance of the sexes. There are now 120 males for every 100 females. Unless 20% of the male population decides to go gay, they're not going to get women. This will make for some serious social unrest that only now is China beginning to realize.

:biggrin1: Do you not see your own double standard Json? You who won't tolerate an outsider having an opinion about the US, yet you throw them around like confetti. You are wrong about China. You need to look behind the official stats.

The reason I say cultures and nations will compete is because that's what they do. Christians want everyone to be Christian, Muslims want everyone to be Muslim. Everybody feels they have to impose their way on the world. Certainly the west has excelled at this, but doesn't mean that others don't try. National security means keeping your enemies weak and your own nation powerful. Economics demands that we all compete for the greatest profit possible for the least amount of capital invested. That means there are winners and losers in the competitive market place. Nations do the same thing.

Is this your manifesto? If so, yes, I disagree, but by your own terms you must attack everyone else. Good luck to you.

There is nothing democratic about Communism as it is practiced in China, Cuba, North Korea, or anywhere else a Communist regime has taken power. I don't know how you can defend that. I think Tiananmen Square demonstrated that China has a thirst for democracy. A pity they don't get to vote for it via ballot box in their, "far more democratic on a bottom-up scale," country.

Grass roots democracy is different from having a vote once every four or five years about something over which you are largely impotent.

And yes drifter, you do a, "holier than thou," routine any time the subject of American issues are raised. You appear to delight in doing so and that's repugnant particularly when you refuse to own your own nation's problems past and present. Time and again you are prepared to cast the first stone without acknowledging your own sins.

Jason, you are out of touch with british people. No one cares about the british empire, besides which I am welsh and that makes my opinion closer to the Irish.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Yes - but slightly less independant :wink::tongue:

 

[Drifterwood]

Yes - but slightly less independant :wink::tongue:

Call me Bran.

 

[2322]

Jason, you are out of touch with british people. No one cares about the british empire, besides which I am welsh and that makes my opinion closer to the Irish.

How on earth does being Welsh make your opinion anything like the Irish?? Does everyone in Wales and Ireland have the same opinion?

It's ironic that you have the nerve to patronize me and every American you can find yet have the ridiculous temerity to claim I'm out of touch? Face it Drifter old boy, the only think you see about a person is the country stamped on their passport and then make sweeping generalizations about that person's lifestyle and politics.

 

[Drifterwood]

Irony Jason is statements like "you have the nerve to patronise every American.....and then make sweeping generalisations..."