United States vs. European Union

[Rodge]

By the turn of the 20th Century, the USA was the biggest economy and theoretically most powerful nation on earth - a heck of an achievement in 130 years.

OK that still gives us a few morw years and the way things change today, that's a long time.

I echo your sentiment to an extent. Although i fear the bureaucracy and the agenda of the EU, the theory of it is a good thing to aim for.

I think this generation of leaders/EMPs won't achieve much, but I still feel that the theory can become reality, as long as this trend to "dislike" all foreigners (fuelled, especially by today's tabloids) is curtailled and quickly.

[StiffUpperLip]

Interesting article in the New York Times about the US maybe breaking up into pieces or becoming a more decentralized governed nation the bigger its population gets:

SOMETHING interesting is happening in California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to have grasped the essential truth that no nation — not even the United States — can be managed successfully from the center once it reaches a certain scale. Moreover, the bold proposals that Mr. Schwarzenegger is now making for everything from universal health care to global warming point to the kind of decentralization of power which, once started, could easily shake up America’s fundamental political structure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opini ... ovitz.html

If this forecast becomes true the EU might become a role model for the US states working together if each state becomes so strong to form its own nation-like government.

[Mr Blue Sky]

Interesting article in the New York Times about the US maybe breaking up into pieces or becoming a more decentralized governed nation the bigger its population gets:

SOMETHING interesting is happening in California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to have grasped the essential truth that no nation — not even the United States — can be managed successfully from the center once it reaches a certain scale. Moreover, the bold proposals that Mr. Schwarzenegger is now making for everything from universal health care to global warming point to the kind of decentralization of power which, once started, could easily shake up America’s fundamental political structure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opini ... ovitz.html

If this forecast becomes true the EU might become a role model for the US states working together if each state becomes so strong to form its own nation-like government.

That would be an interesting turnaround. Of course no matter how the US is divided up governmentally it will always have the advantage of cultural and linguistic unity.

[JT]

Interesting article in the New York Times about the US maybe breaking up into pieces or becoming a more decentralized governed nation the bigger its population gets:

SOMETHING interesting is happening in California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to have grasped the essential truth that no nation — not even the United States — can be managed successfully from the center once it reaches a certain scale. Moreover, the bold proposals that Mr. Schwarzenegger is now making for everything from universal health care to global warming point to the kind of decentralization of power which, once started, could easily shake up America’s fundamental political structure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opini ... ovitz.html

If this forecast becomes true the EU might become a role model for the US states working together if each state becomes so strong to form its own nation-like government.

I fundamentally don't agree the author's point in this article. "A certain scale"? Technology is what mitigates the destructive political/social force of scale. The American founders did indeed grapple with the question of a workable federal system. It was foremost in the minds of men such as Thomas Jefferson. It was foremost in the mind of Abe Lincoln during the American civil war as well. Then, to illustrate the difference, when two people separated and a person moved from Virginia to Illinois they might never see each other again. Regionalization had a very predictable influence on the viability of workable and cohesive governmental institutions. Communication technology. Cars, airplanes, Internet, TV, radio, etc. "Scale" is not nearly so poisonous a factor anymore.
Also, this from the article: "A recent study by the economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico Spolaore of Tufts demonstrates that the bigger the nation, the harder it becomes for the government to meet the needs of its dispersed population. Regions that don’t feel well served by the government’s distribution of goods and services then have an incentive to take independent action, the economists note." Really? no ____, Sherlock! But again, this "recent" study (trying not to laugh) would be suitable if released in 1776. It's anachronistic. Also, "the government's distribution of goods and services"? Sorry, but here in America the government (or as some say, gumment) does not really distribute goods and services. The people do that. Private citizens. Businesses. The government may regulate and oversee, but does not have, nor should have, that responsibility. Remember, "America" starts with the individual.
Also, from the article: "Scale also determines who has privileged access to the country’s news media and who can shape its political discourse. In very large nations, television and other forms of political communication are extremely costly. President Bush alone spent $345 million in his 2004 election campaign. This gives added leverage to elites, who have better corporate connections and greater resources than non-elites. The priorities of those elites often differ from state and regional priorities." I don't think this is primarily the result of "scale". At least in the geographic sense. Again, technology brings people together. Isn't the world becoming, however slowly, more homogeneous as a result of technology?
There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And, as some of you might predict, I place most of the blame for these developments squarely at the feet of modern liberalism.

[Mr Blue Sky]

There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And, as some of you might predict, I place most of the blame for these developments squarely at the feet of modern liberalism.

What a surprise!

It's hard to argue with the points you've made though JT, the points in the article regarding scale appear misplaced.

[Rodge]

Communication technology. Cars, airplanes, Internet, TV, radio, etc. "Scale" is not nearly so poisonous a factor anymore.....
Remember, "America" starts with the individual. ......
Again, technology brings people together. Isn't the world becoming, however slowly, more homogeneous as a result of technology?

JT your politics purely revolves around survival of the fittest, and that is why you scoff at the article because it does not agree with your theories. Yes, the world may be becoming smaller due to technology, improved transport etc, but there is probably 30% of the population who cannot afford such "luxuries" America is a globe leader when it comes to economics and technology, but in it's rush (greed) to get to this point it has forgotten about the under-privelaged. I remember your statement after the hurricane that it was the fault of the people because they had been given warning. So I guess you are the kind of person who expects the elderly and crippled to just get up and walk? Is it the case that right wing politicians just want these people to disappear as they complicate their theories?

There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And, as some of you might predict, I place most of the blame for these developments squarely at the feet of modern liberalism.

Or it could be said:
There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And the blame for these developments lies squarely at the feet of outdated and outmoded capitalism.

[JT]

Communication technology. Cars, airplanes, Internet, TV, radio, etc. "Scale" is not nearly so poisonous a factor anymore.....
Remember, "America" starts with the individual. ......
Again, technology brings people together. Isn't the world becoming, however slowly, more homogeneous as a result of technology?

JT your politics purely revolves around survival of the fittest, and that is why you scoff at the article because it does not agree with your theories. Yes, the world may be becoming smaller due to technology, improved transport etc, but there is probably 30% of the population who cannot afford such "luxuries" America is a globe leader when it comes to economics and technology, but in it's rush (greed) to get to this point it has forgotten about the under-privelaged. I remember your statement after the hurricane that it was the fault of the people because they had been given warning. So I guess you are the kind of person who expects the elderly and crippled to just get up and walk? Is it the case that right wing politicians just want these people to disappear as they complicate their theories?

There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And, as some of you might predict, I place most of the blame for these developments squarely at the feet of modern liberalism.

Or it could be said:
There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And the blame for these developments lies squarely at the feet of outdated and outmoded capitalism.

"outdated and outmoded capitalism"? what does capitalism have to do with a purported danger of fractionalization? except to maybe help bridge differences with inter-state commerce? BTW, what is "outdated and outmoded" about capitalism. Its a historically proven engine. Socialism is not. Unregulated capitalism is another matter.
My politics do not revolve around "survival of the fittest". A major part of my politics, however, does revolve around the preeminence of the fittest. An ideal system must respect the bell curve. If you plot performance in any endeavor among a population of individuals, you will get a bell curve. Too often in the US, because of the influence of run-amok Liberalism, we confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Ideally, a society will always have relative degrees of "haves" and "have nots". IMO the mere existence of socio-economic classes is not dysfunctional. Its natural. I do not believe in leaving people behind, however. Many people are indeed born into unpriveledged circumstances. Ideally, a society will have mechanisms in place to help such individuals develop tools to become competitive. I am not the type of Conservative that likes priveledge by birth. I like priveledge by achievement. I would even support a sort of socio-economic based affirmative action type program (government regulated!) that attempts to address the issue of the disparity in priveledge at birth. More help to poor kids to develop. But this does not mean the Liberal perversion of quotas for getting jobs and acceptance into universities.
I scoff at the article not merely because it does not reenforce my theories, but because it does not make much sense for the reasons I stated.
America, the big, bad bully imperialist country has not forgotten the underpriveledged in it's "greed". American culture has done far more good for the "underpriveledged" than bad.
There were indeed many in New Orleans who, Darwinianly (to coin a word with poetic licsense), chose not to leave in the face of warnings. No governmental proactiveness in the world can overcome that kind of individual stupidity. The Katrina incident was, as I have said, the fault of individuals, local/state and federal government. Much of the media treatment afterwards, however, is based on dysfunctional beliefs about the role of government in America. Most of the outrage was from Liberals (including the main-stream media). Remember, America starts with the individual - his (her) energy, creativity, conscience, compassion, achievement, judgement, and responsibility. The elderly and crippled , if unable to care for themselves, should be assisted by their family, friends/neighbors, private institutions, local, state and then federal government. It does not start with the federal government, though. Why didn't individuals evacuate if they could? Why did the local city government not utilize all of those rows of school buses to evacuate the disadvantaged? What bureaucratic dysfunctionalities in local, state, and federal governments led to the inaction of strengnthening the dam? The media's perspective was entirely liberal, of course. All those poor people, what government would let that happen? Lets get some perspective, people!

[Moon-Crane]

Communication technology. Cars, airplanes, Internet, TV, radio, etc. "Scale" is not nearly so poisonous a factor anymore.....
Remember, "America" starts with the individual. ......
Again, technology brings people together. Isn't the world becoming, however slowly, more homogeneous as a result of technology?

JT your politics purely revolves around survival of the fittest, and that is why you scoff at the article because it does not agree with your theories. Yes, the world may be becoming smaller due to technology, improved transport etc, but there is probably 30% of the population who cannot afford such "luxuries" America is a globe leader when it comes to economics and technology, but in it's rush (greed) to get to this point it has forgotten about the under-privelaged. I remember your statement after the hurricane that it was the fault of the people because they had been given warning. So I guess you are the kind of person who expects the elderly and crippled to just get up and walk? Is it the case that right wing politicians just want these people to disappear as they complicate their theories?

There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And, as some of you might predict, I place most of the blame for these developments squarely at the feet of modern liberalism.

Or it could be said:
There are, however, other pernicious influences on future US political and social health. And the blame for these developments lies squarely at the feet of outdated and outmoded capitalism.

"outdated and outmoded capitalism"? what does capitalism have to do with a purported danger of fractionalization? except to maybe help bridge differences with inter-state commerce? BTW, what is "outdated and outmoded" about capitalism. Its a historically proven engine. Socialism is not. Unregulated capitalism is another matter.
My politics do not revolve around "survival of the fittest". A major part of my politics, however, does revolve around the preeminence of the fittest. An ideal system must respect the bell curve. If you plot performance in any endeavor among a population of individuals, you will get a bell curve. Too often in the US, because of the influence of run-amok Liberalism, we confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Ideally, a society will always have relative degrees of "haves" and "have nots". IMO the mere existence of socio-economic classes is not dysfunctional. Its natural. I do not believe in leaving people behind, however. Many people are indeed born into unpriveledged circumstances. Ideally, a society will have mechanisms in place to help such individuals develop tools to become competitive. I am not the type of Conservative that likes priveledge by birth. I like priveledge by achievement. I would even support a sort of socio-economic based affirmative action type program (government regulated!) that attempts to address the issue of the disparity in priveledge at birth. More help to poor kids to develop. But this does not mean the Liberal perversion of quotas for getting jobs and acceptance into universities.
I scoff at the article not merely because it does not reenforce my theories, but because it does not make much sense for the reasons I stated.
America, the big, bad bully imperialist country has not forgotten the underpriveledged in it's "greed". American culture has done far more good for the "underpriveledged" than bad.
There were indeed many in New Orleans who, Darwinianly (to coin a word with poetic licsense), chose not to leave in the face of warnings. No governmental proactiveness in the world can overcome that kind of individual stupidity. The Katrina incident was, as I have said, the fault of individuals, local/state and federal government. Much of the media treatment afterwards, however, is based on dysfunctional beliefs about the role of government in America. Most of the outrage was from Liberals (including the main-stream media). Remember, America starts with the individual - his (her) energy, creativity, conscience, compassion, achievement, judgement, and responsibility. The elderly and crippled , if unable to care for themselves, should be assisted by their family, friends/neighbors, private institutions, local, state and then federal government. It does not start with the federal government, though. Why didn't individuals evacuate if they could? Why did the local city government not utilize all of those rows of school buses to evacuate the disadvantaged? What bureaucratic dysfunctionalities in local, state, and federal governments led to the inaction of strengnthening the dam? The media's perspective was entirely liberal, of course. All those poor people, what government would let that happen? Lets get some perspective, people!

Republican/Capitalist/Democratic/Communist/A N Other/ are in essence opposames when it comes to the interests of the general populace, no matter what their theoretical basis.

Whoever's fault it was for the loss of life and destruction to New Orleans back then - it's more important to understand why it is that the place seems still to be in a state of ruin after all this time? i know it wouldn't matter whether Bush or Clinton were in power - the result would be the same - why is that?

People who followed the advice and did evacuate - what have they got to return to? I genuinely ask what the current state of events is, because here in the UK, of the rare news we now see or hear about the Katrina-hit areas, it mostly shows that little has changed. It would be nice to get a first person view.

[Mr Blue Sky]

People who followed the advice and did evacuate - what have they got to return to? I genuinely ask what the current state of events is, because here in the UK, of the rare news we now see or hear about the Katrina-hit areas, it mostly shows that little has changed. It would be nice to get a first person view.

I'd be interested to hear your perspective on that also, JT. I haven't seen as much US news as I'd like of late.

[Rodge]

BTW, what is "outdated and outmoded" about capitalism. Its a historically proven engine. Socialism is not. Unregulated capitalism is another matter.

I think that's my point - It is unregulated and that is the problem. Capitalism was seen as the best form of economy, but I certainly would not say that it is a "historically proven" successful "engine".
Just today when it comes to the wellbeing of children within a nation, the two countries which closely follow the capitalist regime have the worst record of child "poverty" that is the USA followed by the UK.
IT is so simple market forces work on demand fuelled supply, but ONLY if that demand is backed by $money£.

[Mr Blue Sky]

Just today when it comes to the wellbeing of children within a nation, the two countries which closely follow the capitalist regime have the worst record of child "poverty" that is the USA followed by the UK.

I saw that UNICEF report too Rob. Truly shocking. It goes to show - just because you have a successful economy it doesn't follow that the society you live in is better off, or happier.

I notice the Dutch came out top of most leagues regarding child welfare. The country perhaps more famous that any other for it's liberal attitides.

[Rodge]

I saw that UNICEF report too Rob. Truly shocking. It goes to show - just because you have a successful economy it doesn't follow that the society you live in is better off, or happier.

I notice the Dutch came out top of most leagues regarding child welfare. The country perhaps more famous that any other for it's liberal attitides.

Exactly,
No I am not saying that Capitalism is a bad thing, but it it cannot be the only thing. I think that is the most frustrating irony in this country at the moment, that it is the Labour government which has always stood up for the working class and the less well off, making sure we have a strong welfare state, and yet it appears that it will be a "Labour" government that leads to the downfall of the NHS!

[Moon-Crane]

A nations 'wealth' will never equal a better standard of living for everybody when the distribution of wealth continues to flow into the hands of a tiny percentage at the top of the pyramid.

[JT]

I have always scoffed at talk of the "poverty" in the United States. For "normal" people, there is really no systemic poverty in the US anymore. Not really, in terms of opportunity to extricate. To those who are supposedly in poverty in the US, the question is how many color TV's they have, how many cars they have. And there is upward mobility and opportunity. There are people, who at certain times in their life are in relative dire straights because of circumstances. Thats all. I think the metric for percentage of population in "poverty" used by some of these international organizations is the disparity between the upper and lower echelon and the mean. Western European societies, because of their social welfare state I guess, have less disparity (more sameness) and thus would look better. Look at other metrics, however.