Please Get Off Your High Horse, World

[Yum]

Little time but let's see...

Yum said:

You think the US economy absolutely has to optimize its usage of resources for "growth"?

Which to me sounds like you use all possible resources to maximize GDP% increase while keeping all other affected variables at a subsistence level thereby "optimizing resources (only) for growth".

Not optimize resources (in general?) as Bearcat said succeeding that:

Yes, an economy should optimize its usage of resources. Of course, optimize means "to make the best," not "make the biggest."

Which to me is just too broad and convenient to say for an Economist. Oh and once again I am Sooo very tempted to make the lawyer quip too

Secondly,

The US doesn't have to grow at any particular rate, but its generally better for it to be high

What would you consider "High" for a country like the U.S. ?

Japan and Germany are useful comparisons. I'm having a difficult time parsing "You yourself saying East Germany had to be absorbed therefore putting Germany "lower" and giving it a higher potential for growth?" since I never said absorbing East Germany gave it a higher potential.

No, that higher potential was my take on it.

Actually, I said it stunted growth, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who's cracked a middle-school history text.

Trying hard not to be mean. But seriously you sometimes simplify the worst things to simplify - the political, economic and social pressures to develop East Germany post-Cold War must've been significant, but yeah a whole essay can be written on that. Unless of course... you want a middle school answer.

Oh and you expressed growth in terms of percentage though, remember?

Um, no, Japan and Germany now. Germany has managed to keep a relatively high (nearly 3%) growth per year, despite having absorbed East Germany, which was stripped of resources by the Soviets until 1990, and despite having few natural resources other than coal, production of which the government has been trying to reduce. Japan has a similar lack of natural resources, compounded by lack of arable land, and despite this, has a growth rate higher than the US (3.3% vs. 3.2%).

Hypothetically ok? Lemme give an extremely simplifed example, using resources produced instead of GDP

Shitty country

3 (Total resources produced at the end of the year) /10 (Total Resources at the beginning of the year) = 30% per annum

Nice country:

200 (Total resources produced at the end of the year) / 1000 (Total Resources at the beginning of the year) = 20% per annum

Looks like shitty country has a higher resource production rate right? Necessarily a good thing? Nah.

My point was not that the theories are right, but that free-trade nuts are hypocritical when they invoke Adam Smith et al. and the invisible hand and all that jazz to support their policies, but then don't accept the corollaries. I personally think most country's immigration laws are too strict, and criticizing the US isn't the same thing as elevating other countries. I'm fairly certain there are lively debates on Japanese blogs about their immigration policies. I simply know the US better and my opinions have more power here than Japan since a) my comments are in English and b) I can't vote in Japan.

I see. Fine I agree About the free-trade thing. Maybe, Haven't checked what you typed in about it earlier but whatever.

As for Japanese immigration laws, last time I checked? They were way stricter than the US'. And probably one of the strictest in the world - Such is the general consensus among Japanese liberals. Go research and tell me why.

Seriously though, I'm thinking of posting a few more before leaving this topic altogether, development economists have written essays and books on these topics and unless we were in a debate where solid political influence was at stake, I really don't feel it right to argue about these things. Hell, I was planning on going on to say that growth can be defined differently for each country and that growth doesn't necessarily mean development which in turn blablabla but nah.... it feels so pointless.

 

[Jeff the Green]

Which to me is just too broad and convenient to say for an Economist. Oh and once again I am Sooo very tempted to make the lawyer quip too

Never said I was an economist, just saying I didn't mean using all our resources as quickly as possible. I would probably define optimize as using them to maximize net benefit, which is how economists would define it as well.

Hypothetically ok? Lemme give an extremely simplifed example, using resources produced instead of GDP

Shitty country

3 (Total resources produced at the end of the year) /10 (Total Resources at the beginning of the year) = 30% per annum

Nice country:

200 (Total resources produced at the end of the year) / 1000 (Total Resources at the beginning of the year) = 20% per annum

Looks like shitty country has a higher resource production rate right? Necessarily a good thing? Nah.

Normally that's true, which is why the highest growth is happening in former Soviet Bloc countries, like Georgia. East Germany is unique (and, by the way, I did write an entire essay on this subject) because Stalin and his successors spent most of their time trying to make sure that East Germany's economy was permanently ruined, in retaliation for Stalingrad, etc. They systematically stripped it of natural resources and human capital, as well as the industrial strength of the Nazi regime, which the Allies and later the West German government left in place and strengthened. In the rest of the USSR there was at least some attempt to keep industry going and repair the damage done by WWII.

As for Japanese immigration laws, last time I checked? They were way stricter than the US'. And probably one of the strictest in the world - Such is the general consensus among Japanese liberals. Go research and tell me why.

Because Japan has a history of xenophobia and still hasn't gotten over it.

 

[Yum]

Never said I was an economist, just saying I didn't mean using all our resources as quickly as possible.

Yeah but you're using Economic theory to argue something related to Economics... Let's say we were in opposing forces fighting for our sides/ lives where we used armed force to kill each other - makes us soldiers doesn't it? In this case, I consider you an Economist - And when someone supposedly versed in Economic theory says something as wtf easy as "it's best to optimize the economy" I have to stop listening because I don't learn anything and neither does anyone else. I get bored. I might as well tell you "Grass is green."

East Germany is unique (and, by the way, I did write an entire essay on this subject) because Stalin and his successors spent most of their time trying to make sure that East Germany's economy was permanently ruined, in retaliation for Stalingrad, etc. They systematically stripped it of natural resources and human capital, as well as the industrial strength of the Nazi regime, which the Allies and later the West German government left in place and strengthened.

Just how intensely did the Allies strengthen it and what factors determined that intensity? Yum said

the political, economic and social pressures to develop East Germany post-Cold War must've been significant

I'd go so far as to say your rebuttal was IRRELEVANT. (well I wouldn't actually) :'( But you didn't rebut that at all. Your supporting argument just ran parallel to mine.

So much shit determines growth and development, not just human capital and natural resources - savings ratio, incremental capital/ output ratio both of which can come from foreign aid or in this case West Germany and the Western powers - and that's only one possible method.

Point is West Germany and the Western powers have done so much for it: You yourself say that. It's a charity case - charity cases get help and develop "fast" from low beginnings. Returning to our original argument, where you say that the USA has to develop as good as Germany did during that period...

A.) The USA isn't a charity case and does not receive Aid in the form that Germany did, so why oh why even compare growth rates?
B.) my other point, still simple, still solid: Low beginnings, faster development - The USA is too high, Germany was too low - percentages get deceiving... well, they deceived you at least.

Both of which contribute well to my other points on US economic solidarity as well as debunking even further your point of comparing the two countries' GDP% increase (USA and Germany) and that the US should match Germany.

Because Japan has a history of xenophobia and still hasn't gotten over it.

Good lord, what did I tell you about oversimplification ;_; I swear to god, the next time I hear a westerner talk about Japanese xenophobia- I'm gonna... I dunno ugh. Go research about the Jimin-tou's structure and the corporate system and Japanese business models/ systems for reasons and you'll find out why it's so damn hard to integrate foreign workers into Japan. And ffs as for history go google rangaku, o yatoi gaikokujin and the meiji period.

But more importantly

Quote:
As for Japanese immigration laws, last time I checked? They were way stricter than the US'. And probably one of the strictest in the world - Such is the general consensus among Japanese liberals. Go research and tell me why.

Bearcat: Because Japan has a history of xenophobia and still hasn't gotten over it.

XD he agrees with me. Thus his point earlier about the U.S. having stricter immigration policies than Japan is Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

AFTER ACTION REPORT

Now, lemme check... my points linger, some even strengthened or totally missed by your latest post. On top of that, you've totally ignored some of my points about you saying somethings (e.g. Japanese education system) without justification (you followed it by saying Japan had a higher growth rate than the U.S. - made no sense) FINALLY You still havent proven why the US had to match the ratio of Japanese and German GDP increase post 1990s, so my point that the US economy is pretty developed to begin with remains... replacing your entire and sole argument that the US economy is underdeveloped and that you had ideas which could make it better. Hmm. My Win.

With all due respect, your latest post... I dunno, you don't seem very credible anymore (to me at least). You sound like someone who gets average (probably at most above average) grades in Economics [i.e. knows and flaunts some theory but not enough critical reasoning/ innovation/insight and grasp of real world econ] and you oversimplify too much to do well in Politics or History. Finally, your Law-related skills pertaining to semantics and syntax are severely lacking. This isn't a flame. I'm just saying - There's no point to argue this further. It's clear, I've made my points stand, you couldn't make yours stand. I play because there's a challenge, if there's no challenge then I won't see any reason to reply to your further posts.

As it stands, I don't see any reason to reply to your further posts.

Good game.

 

[Jeff the Green]

Good God, Yum, I simplify because if I went into the entire theory it would take 30 pages and I'd lose most people.

Plus, you're acting a complete idiot. When did I say the US has stricter immigration laws than the US? Didn't you read the post when I said "I personally think most country's immigration laws are too strict." I never said that the US had to match Japan or Germany (if you like wage stagnation), just that the fact that we're not matching them (when we have so many advantages) is proof that we're not doing as well as we could. And this is, what, the third time you've "left"?

 

[Andy6000]

So yeah, guess which people just got banned out of this thread?! I swear to god, listen for fuck's sake.

 

[baniff]

But you could try to be less "Yes, God bless America and its soldiers killing the People of Iraq"

lol this is why i like you pine!!

Sorry for the spam. But his words moved me. :s

 

[Brosek]

Spoiler: I think this is original ...

I haven't seen a debate like it, atleast not within the most recent 5 pages.

Also this is aimed at everyone from everywhere. If you think you're being singled out ... Well, quit being pretentious.

Har, har. If you point out the hypocritical statement there you win a cookie.

Is it really United States of America vs. The World?

I'm R-E-A-L-L-Y sick of seeing these people from other countries badmouthing the country I live in. I swear, I barely hear a pretentious thing about anyone else.

What I'm trying to say is: Shut the hell up. Not just you, everybody.

I know I'm opening a can of worms here but it's getting very old. It's not just the internet. It's television, radio, word of mouth. The fashionable thing to do these days is talk bad about The United States. Even fellow Americans (mostly, liberals) put down their own country--usually to make themselves look better and more "cerebral".

There are a lot of problems going on in the country, especially now, what with "the war" and everything. It's easy to imitate cookie-cutter statements about the intricate political workings of a country that you've undoubtedly overheard some pundit mention. But it's not so easy to actually sit back and really take in other opinions or appreciate past actions, and the fact that you really don't have the slightest clue about what you're speaking of.

Even if you are very learned in politics, does it give you the right to drag our flag through the proverbial mud?

You're allowed to have opinions, I have no problem with it. But sit back and consider: is it really your opinion? Or are you just trying to be a fashionable elitist who's pretending to have a well-developed and highly organized speculation on something you actually don't care two shits about? How many times have you said, "Oh, hey, a story on Iraq. I think I'll read it", or "Wow! A legitimate discussion on the financial assessment of America, I think I'll sit down and have a gander!"?

I keep seeing people suck in and fart out the bull that big media presents to the people. Yeah, BBC included, since they're the biggest media of all.

How easy is it to say:

• "Americans are the world police!"
• "America doesn't care about its people because they have no universal health care."
• "America is way in debt!"

But how hard is it to follow up those blanket statements when asked:

• "You realize that it's not just America in the middle east, right? Also, do you think the Iraqis are better off with Hussein? Do you honestly think that sitting back and doing nothing with our thumbs up our asses speaks louder than action when attacked within our own border?"
• "America has a much larger population than, say, Canada. Canada has ~33 million people. The U.S. has ~301 million people. 21% of the U.S.'s overall spending budget is allocated in Social Security already. Would the current step toward Universal Health care be approved (H. Clinton's idea), it would cost upwards of $130 billion/year, increasing every year. That's more than the education budget. Also, in countries with U.H.Care, waiting lists can become indeterminably long and doctors become less efficient, being able to spend only a fraction of the time with patients. How do you propose we get around this enormous speed bump? More taxation?"
• "After World War II, nearly all of Europe was decimated. Who supplied vast, vast sums of money to get these countries restored? Also, it still stands that the U.S. has the highest GDP as a single country (as the E.U. is a conglomeration of countries), trumping the runner-up by nearly $9T USD. Statistically, although the value of a USD has decreased worldwide, the stock markets are still at a high. What say you to that?"

---------------------
So in summation, if you're "against" the U.S., why do you feel you can make such pretentious and uncalled-for statements about the country?

If I wanted your opinion I'd ask. I never say anything bad about other countries.

So here's your chance to pose your opinion, when it's called for. Your (atleast somewhat) EDUCATED opinion. I'm tired of the pundit-imitation.
---------------------

I'm sure I'll get all sorts of opinions from folks who didn't even read half this rant but if you read only one thing, read this:

PLEASE make an educated statement to defend your case. I know many of you will defer to blanket statements about "The Iraqs" and "President Bush" but PLEASE provide some details.

ALSO this is not about the upcoming elections. I don't care what you think about so-and-so here.

Some people from this country will go to other country and say its "swarming with minorities"
Some people from this country think its the best thing since sliced bread and that every other country doesnt have any good points like this one.
Some people from this country ... well I dont need to go further..

Yet I agree.. even though America is cocky and full of people that think they're farts are diamond and cinnamon extract.

Other countries have just as many if not more skeletons in their closet that they're embarrassed of. People in general like to as you said... put down some things to make a pedestal out of it to stand on. Though I am not to proud of the things that go sometimes in America.. and I hate Bush because he is like what every American shouldnt be... I love being an American.*sniff* ... Just not in the stuck up "Im better than you" way that other people love America. If America is being cultural... or whatever you wanna call it and mixing cultures then embrace it..because we're one baby step close to becoming a Utopia, and thats what this world needs, everyone to just shut the fuck up and sing 'come by here my lord' while holding hands under a toasty campfire with marshmallows and footie pajamas

 

[kaB00M]

Well, I'm from Puerto Rico and your country made my country a FUCKING COLONY since 1900. What's your awser to that? The United State is an EMPIRE. Yes; just like in the games. Empires should go DOWN!!! Yes; just like in the games.

 

[Andy6000]

Well, I'm from Puerto Rico and your country made my country a FUCKING COLONY since 1900. What's your awser to that? The United State is an EMPIRE. Yes; just like in the games. Empires should go DOWN!!! Yes; just like in the games.

Because every empire in existence was obviously the worst thing to ever happen to anyone ever. You realize the only 'bad' empire was the Empire, right? (and in case you didn't get it, that was from Star Wars)

I mean sure, some empires are bad from certain points of view, like the way the French operated in Vietnam wasn't exactly stellar, and I'm sure some things elsewhere were bad, but that's completely an eye of the beholder thing. Also I'm sure your life isn't all slavery and death at the hands of your American oppressors. Though maybe it is I dunno!

 

[Venetia]

I've been to Puerto Rico. My husband is Puerto Rican (born and raised there, too). It's better off having been adopted by the U.S., in our opinions, anyway. Some people want to make it a state, so they can get even more funding/protection than they're currently getting. They enjoy a massive revenue hike, all the same shipping partners we use, a constant supply of money in their educational systems and social funds, and the protection of our military (without being "policed" by it). Some Puerto Ricans want to secede from the U.S., because now they may be financially independent enough to do it, but there's a reason they're not: the gravy train will stop rolling in. I can understand wanting to be an independent nation, but they nearly are right now anyway, and still get massive funding. There really isn't a downside if you don't work for the government (there are a few restrictions on their local legislative powers).

And please note: Every world power experienced Imperialist (not 'Emperial') tendencies. Egypt did. Greece did. Rome did. Britain did (hello, why do you think there was an American Revolution? Also: India ring a bell?). Russia is right now. So is China ... In the oil game. Yeah, they're drilling right outside our waters.

We stopped being Imperialist in the last century. So until we decide to invade Mexico or Canada, I don't think this country'll be growing in physical size for a good while. Heh.

 

[Yum]

We stopped being Imperialist in the last century. So until we decide to invade Mexico or Canada, I don't think this country'll be growing in physical size for a good while. Heh.

Eep. I disagree with that, the U.S. is kind of still responsible for economic and political subjugation, post WW2.

Physical size isn't the only factor that composes an empire, you say yourself

So is China ... In the oil game. Yeah, they're drilling right outside our waters.

(Although I don't entirely agree with the China thing either)

But who cares if the U.S. is an empire? It's the coolest empire there is. Go USA! ^_^

Although you guys should change your national anthem... replace it with "America! FUCK YEAH! Time to save the motherfucking dayeeyeh!~... "

Sorry... I'm drawn towards greatness and success.

 

[Ratty524]

Sorry, but what other reason should we bother with foreign affairs other than business intrests/trade?

America shouldn't play the hero, it should help itself. Why should we care if the leaders of the Middle East are poor and undemocratic? It's THEIR country, not ours. The only reason we should be dealing with foreign affairs is trade, in my honest opinion.

 

[Yum]

Because, if you have significant influence on Middle Eastern countries, you can set the terms of trade - more moolah for you ^_~

Plus, you get more for less trading with underdeveloped countries ^o^

 

[Venetia]

Eep. I disagree with that, the U.S. is kind of still responsible for economic and political subjugation, post WW2.

Heh, I was joking a little when I said the U.S. hasn't been acting imperialistic. Sometimes my humor is befuddled :'3

I can appreciate your appreciation toward Team America: World Police, however. "As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinion."

 

[kaB00M]

"I can understand wanting to be an independent nation, but they nearly are right now anyway, and still get massive funding. There really isn't a downside if you don't work for the government (there are a few restrictions on their local legislative powers)."


1.What are you talking about? The FBI rules the country. We dont even have ? Senator or Legislators in the House to fight-for our needs. We only get a dummy guy in the House that doesn't even have a VOTE. To me that's only a clown.
Just last year the FBI came to the Island, cutted the electricity to a whole town, and then KILLED a nationalist of P.R.; a patriot! An equivalent to your G.Washington.

2.We get USA funding, but that is because the USA are all over the island. Its like they are paying rent, the only difference is that us, Puerto Ricans, as owners can't kick out the renters when we want to.

Up until recently the USA had one of the Largest Naval bases in the whole world in PR. Nuclear submarines were stationed here. I think the least the US could do was give us a little rent; don't you think?

3. And as for empires, a despise them all: 'greeks', Romans, French, Russians.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Luis Fortu?o is the Resident Commissioner, and he doesn't get a vote in the US Congress. Why? Puerto Rico isn't a state, it is an unincorporated territory of the USA. Why is it not a state, or why hasn't it been given full independent rule?

First came a vote in the '50s that had not included full independent rule. Other votes were held later on, some that would have given more and more freedom, but were oddly enough the Statehood Republican Party, as well as the Puerto Rico Independence Party boycotted the vote.

Most times the ability to be more than a territory isn't in the vote, but when it is (or when a better option than what is normally given is) there is always a turmoil that prevents it from being voted threw. Puerto Rico has used the popular vote for years now.

Some believe that the US Government is behind this. Others the U.N. Remember the UN decided Puerto Rico wasn't reaching the proper criteria (which was never released as far as I and my girl friend - whose mama lives in Puerto Rico), and therefore not able to stand and be recognized as a full self governing body.

The entire world seems against Puerto Rico, not just the US. Several other personalities hailing from countries in South America or the Caribbean has expressed concern over Puerto Rico becoming a self governing body, both rudely and stupidly with various edicts of not being able to sustain itself in a modern world. Which is honestly quite funny, because if you look at the modern world, it's not so advanced as one would make it sound - else no country would be able to (and honestly isn't) doing what they claim PR can't do for herself.

We the US benefit, and in some ways so does Puerto Rico. But they don't gain as much health care as they would if they were a state, or enough representation here on the "main land" as they would had they been given state class - but they can join our army which is an extremely old custom from all ruling bodies. At the same time they do not have as much control as they would on their own (but they actually have more than people give credit for) had they become a free nation.

Wrong? Quite possibly, but simple fact. Puerto Rico isn't a state, and will never get state rights until they are. If they become a free nation, then again not a state, not going to get state rights.

As for the FBI - I'm not sure if I'll believe it, but if it's true get CNN. I haven't seen that in any article I've read dealing with the FBI.

 

[second_crimson]

I agree with you, and I'll go a step further in saying I don't think it's right to attack a country in general.

I think it's ignorant to attack France, Britain, the US, Canada, any of these hot targets. It makes no sense to insult and upset people's countries. Many people have great national pride, and insulting someone's country is just going to get them on the defensive.

It's also not right to be critical of another country's state of affairs, while being ignorant to your own. Every country has downfalls, and I can't stand those that attack from afar and don't acknowledge their own country's shortcomings. People in glass countries shouldn't throw stones.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

How is it ignorant to site an issue with France, Britain, the US, and/or Canada?

China's not on your list so attacking an issue with that country - oh, like censorship and a lack of fully available outer media, wouldn't make me ignorant?
But attacking an issue with the US - oh, like censorship and a lack of fully available outer media would make me ignorant?
I'm not exactly sure how - but maybe that's splitting hairs a little too deep... or just pointing out a flaw - take one either way.

Sure there are China and the US have patriots but anyone who will defend their country without seeing someone else's logic - notice I said seeing, they don't have to agree with - would actually be the ignorant ones for jumping without seeing where they were looking - not the people who said it.
The people who said, yeah maybe they should look over their shoulders more often - but that don't mean what they said was wrong by default.

Oh and on a side note...
You can't insult the US that's ignorant because your country doesn't have Chex Mix or Klondike bars.
I'm looking at you Anglachel!!!
XD

 

[second_crimson]

Oh no, you misunderstand, I think. I am fully for discussing the drawbacks of any country. They all have them. What I am against is the more baseless attacks at a country in general.

e.g., France sucks. China is full of freedom hating commies.

Comments that seem to attack the people living in a country rather than a country's problems, whether that be political or whathaveyou. I welcome criticism towards the US, as we're not a perfect country, but I have a serious problem when people say "The US (or even worse, Americans) suck(s) because..." instead of "The US has a real problem with..."

So yeah, I'm all up for intelligent discussion about countries and their issues.

Perhaps my problem was I failed to define what I meant by "attacks".

(by the way, China was not actively excluded from the list, I simply just listed the first four countries I thought of.)

 

[availer]

Hmm, I've read this thread, many complex arguments. Some good in context, others lacking depth and "meat" so to say. However, I've come up with a new conclusion.

Your all saying this, European and Japanese economies relied heavily on U.S.A aid, that argument is very valid in the most part. However, what we would really like to know is where the U.S.A economy actually came from? Well, the answer is obvious enough, slavery. Now that is a revelation, or not? To be honest you can't go into this subject in much detail. Free labour, especially used on Money crop like Cotton means tremendous amounts of profit, that is, I think, the bases of American Economy. Now, lets see the U.S.A economy in these modern times. Lets see the data:

Highes GDP in the world without a doubt, about $13Trillion. It's bases is in microeconomic decisions which are based on the complete corporate freedom given to companies. But, because if these microeconomic decision, mixed with poor major economic decisions the actual debt rate is aboutt 65% of the USAs GDP. A central feature of the U.S. economy is a reliance on private decision-making ("economic freedom") in economic decision-making. This is enhanced by relatively low levels of regulation, taxation, and government involvement, as well as a court system that generally protects property rights and enforces contracts. A large population, a large land area, numerous natural resources, a stable government and a highly developed system of post-secondary education are almost universally regarded as substantial contributors to U.S. economic performance.

Hopefully that clears any confusions concerning the American economy and especially when it comes to how enterprises work and the true history of the American economy.