Topic: do you hold any real, personal political views
squeegee started this discussion 12 years ago #34,090
or do you just regurgitate the last thing you read about a subject you have no actual knowledge about and pretend you've always held those views?
this is something teenagers and 20 somethings do frequently that really grinds my gears.
if you have no opinion about anything that's not heavily modulated by the last news cast you saw, then just shut up.
this is something teenagers and 20 somethings do frequently that really grinds my gears.
if you have no opinion about anything that's not heavily modulated by the last news cast you saw, then just shut up.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #470,659
yeah
i think my views are pretty real
i think they're pretty genuine yeah
I also try not to be influenced by media sources completely, since they often have biases.
i think my views are pretty real
i think they're pretty genuine yeah
I also try not to be influenced by media sources completely, since they often have biases.
squeegee (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #470,660
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #470,662
squeegee (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 28 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #470,664
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #470,666
I think I do a good job at reading into, researching, and understanding ideas before I believe them.
dw skg II distribution co. llc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #470,668
yeah i get my ideas from marxist furries on twitter
ha ha
ha ha
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #470,674
lel I'm so smart I get my views from mainstream white liberals very intelligence
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #470,675
I do hold real political views but I am quite guilty of having opinions of things I don't know about.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,679
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 45 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,684
> walter
> opinion
> opinion
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,685
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,689
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 47 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,691
@470,675 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Special Ed, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on the candy drawer, and I have over 300 confirmed gold stars. I am trained in gorilla conversation and I'm the top crafter in the entire US education system. You are nothing to me but just another conversation doll. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of aspies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can confuse you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed conversation, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Johnson School Gym and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit spaghetti all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 42 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,693
@470,685 (Metæ)
"White liberalism" is a distinct phenomenon from "liberals who are white", though most of the latter engage in the former. It's a particular school of liberalism found primarily in non-poor white people.
"White liberalism" is a distinct phenomenon from "liberals who are white", though most of the latter engage in the former. It's a particular school of liberalism found primarily in non-poor white people.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,696
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,697
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
The smug attitude is a common attribute of white liberals, yeah, but it also includes a lot of imperialistic stuff, lack of any degree of class analysis beyond the most basic recognition that there is inequality, and... yeah. It's ugly. They sadly make up the majority of political representation on the "less wrong" side of things, which is kinda sad, because their perspective only represents a narrow segment of the population's interests and beliefs.
The smug attitude is a common attribute of white liberals, yeah, but it also includes a lot of imperialistic stuff, lack of any degree of class analysis beyond the most basic recognition that there is inequality, and... yeah. It's ugly. They sadly make up the majority of political representation on the "less wrong" side of things, which is kinda sad, because their perspective only represents a narrow segment of the population's interests and beliefs.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,698
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 22 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,699
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
That's a different phenomenon, though there's definite overlap between the two.
That's a different phenomenon, though there's definite overlap between the two.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,700
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
They see leftism as a sort of status symbol, that they're classier and better than those lower-class working-class right-wing Republicans!
They see leftism as a sort of status symbol, that they're classier and better than those lower-class working-class right-wing Republicans!
dw ltd joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,701
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,703
@470,700 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah, that's a pretty fucked-up attempt at leftism. Anyone who talks up their support for leftist policy in a classist manner is probably a gigantic trainwreck douchebag.
Yeah, that's a pretty fucked-up attempt at leftism. Anyone who talks up their support for leftist policy in a classist manner is probably a gigantic trainwreck douchebag.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,705
@470,701 (dw ltd)
You're a fucking idiot, and the way you type on the internet really shows it. Fuck off.
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
I honestly respect rich republicans far more than those smug rich leftie cunts.
You're a fucking idiot, and the way you type on the internet really shows it. Fuck off.
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
I honestly respect rich republicans far more than those smug rich leftie cunts.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,706
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Eh, I find rich right-wingers more insufferable. They ignore context and constantly make excuses.
A classist bourgeois ~socialist~, though, isn't much better. That's, like... supporting the cause, but not supporting the people for whom the cause fights.
Eh, I find rich right-wingers more insufferable. They ignore context and constantly make excuses.
A classist bourgeois ~socialist~, though, isn't much better. That's, like... supporting the cause, but not supporting the people for whom the cause fights.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,707
@470,697 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
citation? This sounds like the same kinda propaganda that makes the left think the right is nothing but money grubbing, selfish, idealistic and cruel. The left and the right are actually pretty identical, the only difference being how tax money should be spent.
When someone says, "the majority of the left," or "a majority of the right," followed by something controversial i tend to dismiss it as propaganda unless there's quite a lot of proof to back it up.
and you know what "weasel words" are, don't you?
citation? This sounds like the same kinda propaganda that makes the left think the right is nothing but money grubbing, selfish, idealistic and cruel. The left and the right are actually pretty identical, the only difference being how tax money should be spent.
When someone says, "the majority of the left," or "a majority of the right," followed by something controversial i tend to dismiss it as propaganda unless there's quite a lot of proof to back it up.
and you know what "weasel words" are, don't you?
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 23 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,711
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> The left and the right are actually pretty identical, the only difference being how tax money should be spent.
Sometimes not even that much.
> The left and the right are actually pretty identical, the only difference being how tax money should be spent.
Sometimes not even that much.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,713
@previous (Metæ)
conservative = i don't want things to change very much, not without good reason
liberal = i don't want things to stay the exactly the same, not without good reason
it's the same as being a pessimist or an optimist, one sees the glass as half full, the other half empty. But they both see the glass and wish to consume the liquid, even if they can't agree how to label the volume.
conservative = i don't want things to change very much, not without good reason
liberal = i don't want things to stay the exactly the same, not without good reason
it's the same as being a pessimist or an optimist, one sees the glass as half full, the other half empty. But they both see the glass and wish to consume the liquid, even if they can't agree how to label the volume.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,730
@470,707 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You're... seriously trying to suggest that the Democrats are any sort of left wing?
Ahahahah.
Hahahahah.
Ahahahahah.
Wow.
Liberalism is emphatically not leftism, and leftism is emphatically not liberalism. There're essentially zero leftists in elected positions in the US — all liberals, "centrists", libertarians, and reactionaries.
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You're... seriously trying to suggest that the Democrats are any sort of left wing?
Ahahahah.
Hahahahah.
Ahahahahah.
Wow.
Liberalism is emphatically not leftism, and leftism is emphatically not liberalism. There're essentially zero leftists in elected positions in the US — all liberals, "centrists", libertarians, and reactionaries.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,734
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
They are the same as the Republicans, with slightly different branding and rhetoric. If you look at Obama's actions (not words) he's clearly a neoconservative cast in the same mold as Bush.
> Liberalism is emphatically not leftism, and leftism is emphatically not liberalism.
The terms liberal and conservative really need to be scrapped. They no longer have any real meaning.
They are the same as the Republicans, with slightly different branding and rhetoric. If you look at Obama's actions (not words) he's clearly a neoconservative cast in the same mold as Bush.
> Liberalism is emphatically not leftism, and leftism is emphatically not liberalism.
The terms liberal and conservative really need to be scrapped. They no longer have any real meaning.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,738
@470,730 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
all i see are a bunch of meaningless labels.
i don't see how conversations about -isms do anything but make it harder for anyone to ever compromise.
all i see are a bunch of meaningless labels.
i don't see how conversations about -isms do anything but make it harder for anyone to ever compromise.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 34 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,742
@470,734 (Metæ)
> They are the same as the Republicans, with slightly different branding and rhetoric. If you look at Obama's actions (not words) he's clearly a neoconservative cast in the same mold as Bush.
Pretty much. The slightest bit of better policy is enough to make people forget the vast similarities between Obama and his predecessors.
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Peak non-analysis, wow.
"Compromise" is not some magical, inherently good thing - and considering the ideologies of those involved in mainstream politics, it's a gigantic disservice to humanity to ~compromise~ with any of them.
> They are the same as the Republicans, with slightly different branding and rhetoric. If you look at Obama's actions (not words) he's clearly a neoconservative cast in the same mold as Bush.
Pretty much. The slightest bit of better policy is enough to make people forget the vast similarities between Obama and his predecessors.
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Peak non-analysis, wow.
"Compromise" is not some magical, inherently good thing - and considering the ideologies of those involved in mainstream politics, it's a gigantic disservice to humanity to ~compromise~ with any of them.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,744
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> "Compromise" is not some magical, inherently good thing - and considering the ideologies of those involved in mainstream politics, it's a gigantic disservice to humanity to ~compromise~ with any of them.
Agreed. Same with "bipartisanship" (at least in this country).
> "Compromise" is not some magical, inherently good thing - and considering the ideologies of those involved in mainstream politics, it's a gigantic disservice to humanity to ~compromise~ with any of them.
Agreed. Same with "bipartisanship" (at least in this country).
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,745
@previous (Metæ)
Exactly. When the political perspectives are essentially a choice between active reaction and token concessions to whatever the least threatening activism is, you're left with... yeah. A friend of mine put it quite well: if you're choosing between nuking twenty random cities and ten random cities, you don't compromise on fifteen, you fucking yell and scream and fight for zero.
Exactly. When the political perspectives are essentially a choice between active reaction and token concessions to whatever the least threatening activism is, you're left with... yeah. A friend of mine put it quite well: if you're choosing between nuking twenty random cities and ten random cities, you don't compromise on fifteen, you fucking yell and scream and fight for zero.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 53 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,766
> "Compromise" is not some magical, inherently good thing - and considering the ideologies of those involved in mainstream politics, it's a gigantic disservice to humanity to ~compromise~ with any of them.
i see this as exactly the reason congress is hopelessly deadlocked. villainizing the other side and an unwillingness to deal with "any of them" has allowed our country to slip and we are falling further and further behind every year we in-fight and childishly refuse to put one foot in front of the other. We're just standing here while the left foot argues with the right foot over who goes first. we have to go forward, just start walking, we'll figure it out as we go along and compromise over which way is forward. This is how congress has operated for over 200 years, you scratch my texas back, and i'll scratch your yankee back. remember reading about the 1800s with their smoke filled rooms and back room deals? wheeling and dealing is how things are done.
holding you breath and stamping your feet until everyone agrees with you is not how you make laws, but that is what congress is doing today. I would fucking love for a whole bunch of crooked thieves to run the country, at least they'd help each other out to screw us over. but i can't tolerate these ultra patriotic, i'm stonewalling for the founding fathers because it's a disservice to humanity to make a deal, mother fucking boyscouts who think they're out to save the world with their narrow ideology.
fuck off, go make it so wages stop stagnating for 40 years while corporate earnings are higher than they've ever been. do something useful.
and fuck off if you make less than 50k a year and you defend the system that fosters such inequity. you're earning the same thing your fathers earned in the 70s, yet houses are three times expensive and executive pay has grown 1000 times over. your politicians, and mine, have let us all down, and they continue to do so with the kind rhetoric that actively prevents us from moving into the 21st century.
I give us 20 years and we're #2 in everything, including economy. China will blast past us. in ten we'll be jealous of japanese AI and robots, but in 20 we'll be jealous of highway infrastructure and city planning and communications and all kinds of remarkable shit that just won't happen here because for the next 20 years we'll be figuring out how to stop fucking arguing and learn how to cooperate.
i see this as exactly the reason congress is hopelessly deadlocked. villainizing the other side and an unwillingness to deal with "any of them" has allowed our country to slip and we are falling further and further behind every year we in-fight and childishly refuse to put one foot in front of the other. We're just standing here while the left foot argues with the right foot over who goes first. we have to go forward, just start walking, we'll figure it out as we go along and compromise over which way is forward. This is how congress has operated for over 200 years, you scratch my texas back, and i'll scratch your yankee back. remember reading about the 1800s with their smoke filled rooms and back room deals? wheeling and dealing is how things are done.
holding you breath and stamping your feet until everyone agrees with you is not how you make laws, but that is what congress is doing today. I would fucking love for a whole bunch of crooked thieves to run the country, at least they'd help each other out to screw us over. but i can't tolerate these ultra patriotic, i'm stonewalling for the founding fathers because it's a disservice to humanity to make a deal, mother fucking boyscouts who think they're out to save the world with their narrow ideology.
fuck off, go make it so wages stop stagnating for 40 years while corporate earnings are higher than they've ever been. do something useful.
and fuck off if you make less than 50k a year and you defend the system that fosters such inequity. you're earning the same thing your fathers earned in the 70s, yet houses are three times expensive and executive pay has grown 1000 times over. your politicians, and mine, have let us all down, and they continue to do so with the kind rhetoric that actively prevents us from moving into the 21st century.
I give us 20 years and we're #2 in everything, including economy. China will blast past us. in ten we'll be jealous of japanese AI and robots, but in 20 we'll be jealous of highway infrastructure and city planning and communications and all kinds of remarkable shit that just won't happen here because for the next 20 years we'll be figuring out how to stop fucking arguing and learn how to cooperate.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,772
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Given China's population, they only need ~1/3rd of US GDP per capita to eclipse us in total GDP, which is not terribly impressive. Also the Chinese real estate/credit bubble's about to pop.
Given China's population, they only need ~1/3rd of US GDP per capita to eclipse us in total GDP, which is not terribly impressive. Also the Chinese real estate/credit bubble's about to pop.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,775
@470,766 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You can start working towards a solution by shutting the fuck up about "America" and taking a look at the problem on an international scale. Who the fuck outside of the US cares that the US is stagnating? People care about the US not fucking destroying their lives, not the US ~stagnating~. Holy fucking Christ. Your country literally does not matter. My country literally does not matter. If your political discourse starts and ends atAmerica! America! America!, you are literally the fucking problem with the world, holy shit.
You can start working towards a solution by shutting the fuck up about "America" and taking a look at the problem on an international scale. Who the fuck outside of the US cares that the US is stagnating? People care about the US not fucking destroying their lives, not the US ~stagnating~. Holy fucking Christ. Your country literally does not matter. My country literally does not matter. If your political discourse starts and ends at
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,776
holy shit why can't i stop agreeing with DMW ITT?
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,777
@470,775 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?! USA! USA! USA!
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
INDEFINITE GITMO DETENTION AND WATERBOARDING FOR YOU, ENEMY COMBATANT!
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,778
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,779
@470,775 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
oh, don't worry, you won't have to worry about america doing much of anything here pretty soon. look to china, because you're right. America literally doesn't matter anymore, we're slipping. holy fucking christ, it's all we can do to keep our military up over here, it's all about to come tumbling down.
@470,772 (Metæ)
yeah, maybe not impressive when they are at 1/3rd of us GDP per capita but what makes you think they'll stop at that unimpressive number? China has a new policy as of this month, the Chinese Dream policy, they are moving 250 million people from the country to the city.
250 million people. That's almost the entire population of the US. if you think they are anywhere close to being finished you are just burying your head in the sand. they will have 10 times our GDP just as soon as they catch up to us, and at the speed they are advancing that will be in our lifetimes.
there is no reason why china cannot eclipse american GDP, they have billions of people. And when a billion people have the same per capita wealth as just a half billion... their GDP will be enormous, like fucking insane enormous, unheard of numbers, and that'll happen probably in just a few decades.
oh, don't worry, you won't have to worry about america doing much of anything here pretty soon. look to china, because you're right. America literally doesn't matter anymore, we're slipping. holy fucking christ, it's all we can do to keep our military up over here, it's all about to come tumbling down.
@470,772 (Metæ)
yeah, maybe not impressive when they are at 1/3rd of us GDP per capita but what makes you think they'll stop at that unimpressive number? China has a new policy as of this month, the Chinese Dream policy, they are moving 250 million people from the country to the city.
250 million people. That's almost the entire population of the US. if you think they are anywhere close to being finished you are just burying your head in the sand. they will have 10 times our GDP just as soon as they catch up to us, and at the speed they are advancing that will be in our lifetimes.
there is no reason why china cannot eclipse american GDP, they have billions of people. And when a billion people have the same per capita wealth as just a half billion... their GDP will be enormous, like fucking insane enormous, unheard of numbers, and that'll happen probably in just a few decades.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 57 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,780
@470,778 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Goddamn commies, I knew the Soviets would beat us. Before you know it, America will be #2 in indefinite inhumane detention facilities. In ten years, we'll be jealous of North Korean detention technology.
Goddamn commies, I knew the Soviets would beat us. Before you know it, America will be #2 in indefinite inhumane detention facilities. In ten years, we'll be jealous of North Korean detention technology.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,781
@470,779 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
You've got to be fucking kidding. Your trash government is funding fascist coups in both Ukraine and Venezuela right now. That's not "not much of anything" to the people fucking living there.
Granted, the PRC is roughly as bad in terms of human rights, but don't pretend that the US is neutered and unthreatening when it's still at the forefront of destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. The US has a long way go, either down or up, before it's not a threat to humanity as a whole.
@previous (Metæ)
Dude. It's gonna be hard for anyone to beat the US. The prison-industrial complex is a beast unseen in most of the rest of the world.
You've got to be fucking kidding. Your trash government is funding fascist coups in both Ukraine and Venezuela right now. That's not "not much of anything" to the people fucking living there.
Granted, the PRC is roughly as bad in terms of human rights, but don't pretend that the US is neutered and unthreatening when it's still at the forefront of destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. The US has a long way go, either down or up, before it's not a threat to humanity as a whole.
@previous (Metæ)
Dude. It's gonna be hard for anyone to beat the US. The prison-industrial complex is a beast unseen in most of the rest of the world.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,782
@470,780 (Metæ)
really all the chinese have to do concede a bill of natural rights and the only difference between capitalist china and capitalist america is how the governmental hierarchy divides up power. both have top down/bottom up structures but right now china more resembles the gilded age than the progressive era. But, they will more than likely come up the ramp. they have been now for 20 years.
Federalism is not, nor will it ever be, the end-all-be-all of governmental hierarchy. at the moment we're making a really shitty example of it. maybe, just maybe, we could take some ideas from other societies to help refine our oft imperfect system of government.
blasphemy, i know. maybe america isn't a shining city on a hill! maybe shang-ri la will dawn the new age.
really all the chinese have to do concede a bill of natural rights and the only difference between capitalist china and capitalist america is how the governmental hierarchy divides up power. both have top down/bottom up structures but right now china more resembles the gilded age than the progressive era. But, they will more than likely come up the ramp. they have been now for 20 years.
Federalism is not, nor will it ever be, the end-all-be-all of governmental hierarchy. at the moment we're making a really shitty example of it. maybe, just maybe, we could take some ideas from other societies to help refine our oft imperfect system of government.
blasphemy, i know. maybe america isn't a shining city on a hill! maybe shang-ri la will dawn the new age.
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,784
@470,781 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> You've got to be fucking kidding. Your trash government is funding fascist coups in both Ukraine and Venezuela right now. That's not "not much of anything" to the people fucking living there.
i'm not sure how we can afford to fund literally every single coups in the world. Jesus, you'd think us funding the coups in egypt and lybia and syria and probably even the iraqi insurgents, right? cause america is the devil. big satan, funding all the coups.
literally no one in the world ever revolts against their government unless they get funding from uncle sam.
god this song is old, you foreigners keep singing it though. i guess you're bound to be right about one of them if you just blanket accusation all of them
> Granted, the PRC is roughly as bad in terms of human rights, but don't pretend that the US is neutered and unthreatening when it's still at the forefront of destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. The US has a long way go, either down or up, before it's not a threat to humanity as a whole.
Dude, you can't say that "Your country literally does not matter" in one breath and "it's a threat to humanity as a whole" in the next.
either we're the most powerful influential country on the planet, or we're not. make up your mind!
> You've got to be fucking kidding. Your trash government is funding fascist coups in both Ukraine and Venezuela right now. That's not "not much of anything" to the people fucking living there.
i'm not sure how we can afford to fund literally every single coups in the world. Jesus, you'd think us funding the coups in egypt and lybia and syria and probably even the iraqi insurgents, right? cause america is the devil. big satan, funding all the coups.
literally no one in the world ever revolts against their government unless they get funding from uncle sam.
god this song is old, you foreigners keep singing it though. i guess you're bound to be right about one of them if you just blanket accusation all of them
> Granted, the PRC is roughly as bad in terms of human rights, but don't pretend that the US is neutered and unthreatening when it's still at the forefront of destroying the environment and exploiting the poor. The US has a long way go, either down or up, before it's not a threat to humanity as a whole.
Dude, you can't say that "Your country literally does not matter" in one breath and "it's a threat to humanity as a whole" in the next.
either we're the most powerful influential country on the planet, or we're not. make up your mind!
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,785
@470,779 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> what makes you think they'll stop at that unimpressive number?
Because the economic factor that has fueled this high growth (infinite cheap labor) is going to be exhausted soon. We're reaching Peak China, so to speak.
> China has a new policy as of this month, the Chinese Dream policy, they are moving 250 million people from the country to the city.
Mass migration to the cities from the country is part of any countries' industrialization. Also, that may take place over a dozen years
> 250 million people. That's almost the entire population of the US.
And it's 92 times the population of Jamaica. So?
> if you think they are anywhere close to being finished you are just burying your head in the sand. they will have 10 times our GDP just as soon as they catch up to us, and at the speed they are advancing that will be in our lifetimes.
Because economic trends always continue. Look at Japan: they were set to take over the world in the '80s -- now: not so much. In fact, the whole thing sounds eerily like what they were saying about Japan in the '80s. A more realistic scenario: as China becomes more developed, their rate of growth levels off, just like South Korea or Japan.
Let me put it this way: I'd rather live in New Zealand than Bangladesh, even though the Bangladeshi economy is more than twice as big.
> what makes you think they'll stop at that unimpressive number?
Because the economic factor that has fueled this high growth (infinite cheap labor) is going to be exhausted soon. We're reaching Peak China, so to speak.
> China has a new policy as of this month, the Chinese Dream policy, they are moving 250 million people from the country to the city.
Mass migration to the cities from the country is part of any countries' industrialization. Also, that may take place over a dozen years
> 250 million people. That's almost the entire population of the US.
And it's 92 times the population of Jamaica. So?
> if you think they are anywhere close to being finished you are just burying your head in the sand. they will have 10 times our GDP just as soon as they catch up to us, and at the speed they are advancing that will be in our lifetimes.
Because economic trends always continue. Look at Japan: they were set to take over the world in the '80s -- now: not so much. In fact, the whole thing sounds eerily like what they were saying about Japan in the '80s. A more realistic scenario: as China becomes more developed, their rate of growth levels off, just like South Korea or Japan.
Let me put it this way: I'd rather live in New Zealand than Bangladesh, even though the Bangladeshi economy is more than twice as big.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,788
@470,782 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Confederacy would be a neat idea if the vast majority of its real life supporters weren't just dying to reenact Jim Crow.
Confederacy would be a neat idea if the vast majority of its real life supporters weren't just dying to reenact Jim Crow.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 52 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,789
@470,785 (Metæ)
well, japan has about half our population. so i would never expect them to be anything but half our GDP.
so right now US GDP is 16 trillion and our population is about 300 million. that's 53,333 per person.
japan has a GDP of about 6 trillion and a population of about 130 million. that's 46,153 per person.
pretty even, actually, but japan is measurably behind.
China has a population of 1.3 billion. if we assume they level off about like japan did, we'll say they level off at 40,000 per person
that's 52 trillion dollars GDP... let's say that with 52 trillion dollars they can afford a few societal overhauls and earn as much as americans at 53,000 bucks after renovating their entire civilization.
that's about 69 trillion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
well, japan has about half our population. so i would never expect them to be anything but half our GDP.
so right now US GDP is 16 trillion and our population is about 300 million. that's 53,333 per person.
japan has a GDP of about 6 trillion and a population of about 130 million. that's 46,153 per person.
pretty even, actually, but japan is measurably behind.
China has a population of 1.3 billion. if we assume they level off about like japan did, we'll say they level off at 40,000 per person
that's 52 trillion dollars GDP... let's say that with 52 trillion dollars they can afford a few societal overhauls and earn as much as americans at 53,000 bucks after renovating their entire civilization.
that's about 69 trillion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,791
also, if you'll notice, china has already eclipsed japan and they only earn 6,153 per person. they've got a long way to go and they're already at our 50% mark. this should be something to take note of when considering chinese growth... they're really not very far along and they've already come so far.
squeegee !first/o5zA triple-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,793
@470,788 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
i think the next big thing will be a world government where countries observe each others laws either by a confederation type thing or by creating one big cohesive full blown republic. but it'll probably take a few more wars...
i think the next big thing will be a world government where countries observe each others laws either by a confederation type thing or by creating one big cohesive full blown republic. but it'll probably take a few more wars...
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 31 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,794
@470,789 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
And if they make 500 million bazillion dollars each they could afford to terraform Mars. If the richest country on Earth can't afford a societal overhaul (whatever that means), then how can China? Yes, they'll have more total money than us, but it will be spread amongst three times as many people. It would be like saying Canada's a third world hellhole cause their economy is less than 1/10th the size of ours.
And if they make 500 million bazillion dollars each they could afford to terraform Mars. If the richest country on Earth can't afford a societal overhaul (whatever that means), then how can China? Yes, they'll have more total money than us, but it will be spread amongst three times as many people. It would be like saying Canada's a third world hellhole cause their economy is less than 1/10th the size of ours.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,795
@previous (Metæ)
...but the tax money flows to one central authority to wield like a much larger version of the big bat we wield today!
...but the tax money flows to one central authority to wield like a much larger version of the big bat we wield today!
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,799
@470,794 (Metæ)
no, that would be like me saying Canada has a population of 35 million and a GDP of 1.8 trillion. That's 51,428 per person which is really, really very close to america and quite good! fits right in line with the GDP of other first world countries.
When china is a first world country, they will be the new dominant world power. specifically because their bat will be 4.3 times larger than ours. Think our military spending is nuts? wait till china's is 4.3 times more expensive. Think we can wield power and influence world events with our paltry 16 trillion bucks. wait till china has 4.3 times more power and influence.
do the number yourself, yo. scared me the first time i crunched them. We are destined to be #2.
no, that would be like me saying Canada has a population of 35 million and a GDP of 1.8 trillion. That's 51,428 per person which is really, really very close to america and quite good! fits right in line with the GDP of other first world countries.
When china is a first world country, they will be the new dominant world power. specifically because their bat will be 4.3 times larger than ours. Think our military spending is nuts? wait till china's is 4.3 times more expensive. Think we can wield power and influence world events with our paltry 16 trillion bucks. wait till china has 4.3 times more power and influence.
do the number yourself, yo. scared me the first time i crunched them. We are destined to be #2.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 31 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,800
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,801
@470,799 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Why, seriously, do we have to be world policeman with the biggest stick with the most regime changes? You'd make Dubya blush with that jingoism.
Why, seriously, do we have to be world policeman with the biggest stick with the most regime changes? You'd make Dubya blush with that jingoism.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,804
@470,784 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Not "literally every" - just quite a few fascist coups. A few tens of them since the '50s. Not nearly all, but enough to rack up a few tens of millions of deaths.
@470,784 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Misinterpreting. I'm saying that the fortunes of the US cannot be valued over that of humanity - that, quite frankly, if the US needs to fucking burn to the ground for the sake of the rest of the world, it must happen.
Not "literally every" - just quite a few fascist coups. A few tens of them since the '50s. Not nearly all, but enough to rack up a few tens of millions of deaths.
@470,784 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Misinterpreting. I'm saying that the fortunes of the US cannot be valued over that of humanity - that, quite frankly, if the US needs to fucking burn to the ground for the sake of the rest of the world, it must happen.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,809
@470,800 (Metæ)
they will not.
@470,801 (Metæ)
because we are the dominant world power because of it, china knows it, and they will take the responsibility upon themselves to guarantee their status for generations. just like we did. They've got our fucking playbook, bro.
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> I'm saying that the fortunes of the US cannot be valued over that of humanity
i agree with that 100%, i believe fully that when the american constitution was drafted the founders had the whole world's population in mind when they conceded rights, meaning that the US isn't valued over humanity and we don't have the right to threaten all of the world. But, control over who has what rights ends at our borders only because we can't enforce them in foreign lands. unfortunately many people here think Americans are better, Americans are born here, No one else has the rights Americans have, nor should they. And i think that's so far from the intentions of this place that's it's shameful.
but, as you'll see, money and power really dictate who "controls the world," not an arrogant mindset of "we're better than everyone else."
that mindset will be a real lark when china has all the robot servants in this century the way americans had all the cars last century.
we'll be like, "Oh, i got a self driving google car." and they'll be all, "cool, i've got a fully autonomous artificially intelligent humanoid android that drives me around, but neat! look at your little car :)"
they will not.
@470,801 (Metæ)
because we are the dominant world power because of it, china knows it, and they will take the responsibility upon themselves to guarantee their status for generations. just like we did. They've got our fucking playbook, bro.
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> I'm saying that the fortunes of the US cannot be valued over that of humanity
i agree with that 100%, i believe fully that when the american constitution was drafted the founders had the whole world's population in mind when they conceded rights, meaning that the US isn't valued over humanity and we don't have the right to threaten all of the world. But, control over who has what rights ends at our borders only because we can't enforce them in foreign lands. unfortunately many people here think Americans are better, Americans are born here, No one else has the rights Americans have, nor should they. And i think that's so far from the intentions of this place that's it's shameful.
but, as you'll see, money and power really dictate who "controls the world," not an arrogant mindset of "we're better than everyone else."
that mindset will be a real lark when china has all the robot servants in this century the way americans had all the cars last century.
we'll be like, "Oh, i got a self driving google car." and they'll be all, "cool, i've got a fully autonomous artificially intelligent humanoid android that drives me around, but neat! look at your little car :)"
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,811
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Well, let them have it. The Chinese can go disarm Assad and nation build Iraq and Afghanistan and manage the Arab Spring and install a puppet in the Ukraine.
Well, let them have it. The Chinese can go disarm Assad and nation build Iraq and Afghanistan and manage the Arab Spring and install a puppet in the Ukraine.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,814
@470,809 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Can you stop with the whole "I'm gonna piss my pants about the PRC pulling ahead of the US" routine? Rome died, the British Empire fell (but not without pulling off the largest genocide in history), and I guess the US is the next to fall. Shrug. The world can become a better place regardless of who currently holds the power.
Can you stop with the whole "I'm gonna piss my pants about the PRC pulling ahead of the US" routine? Rome died, the British Empire fell (but not without pulling off the largest genocide in history), and I guess the US is the next to fall. Shrug. The world can become a better place regardless of who currently holds the power.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,816
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)But don't you see?! Look, LOOK AT THIS GRAPH! Can't you SEE they're about to overtake us in military spending?!?!?!
FREEDOM ISNT FREE, FFS!
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,818
@470,811 (Metæ)
um... i'll be more worried when they do that here...
@470,814 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
if you'd rather listen to a bunch of people go on and on about how america can't fall then by all means you listen to that misguided drivel.
i wouldn't say i'm pissing my pants, but it was quite the realization when over here you're inundated with nothing but patriotic lies about the greatness of america and the inherent flaws of literally everywhere else on earth. people here think we're perfect, bro, and we are far from mother fucking perfect. but saying stuff like that can get you punched if you say it to the wrong person, our weird nationalistic pride runs disturbingly deep.
um... i'll be more worried when they do that here...
@470,814 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
if you'd rather listen to a bunch of people go on and on about how america can't fall then by all means you listen to that misguided drivel.
i wouldn't say i'm pissing my pants, but it was quite the realization when over here you're inundated with nothing but patriotic lies about the greatness of america and the inherent flaws of literally everywhere else on earth. people here think we're perfect, bro, and we are far from mother fucking perfect. but saying stuff like that can get you punched if you say it to the wrong person, our weird nationalistic pride runs disturbingly deep.
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,819
@470,816 (Metæ)
you keep acting like i'm talking about tomorrow, i've said repeatedly this time scale is over 20 - 50 years. just looking at that graph they will over take our military spending as soon as they hit 30,000 per capita GDP if you look at military spending as a function of GDP. They spend 150 billion when they earn 6k per capita, we spend 650 at 53k.
they only need 30k per capita to hit 700 billion in military spending. 5 times their current economy.
it's also worth nothing that we spend 700 billion for every 16 trillion.
if china went from 8 trillion to 16 trillion, their military spending would simply double as well, to 300 billion.
They currently spend half what we do on military spending per capita if you divide it out.
If they spent what we spent, and spent 300 billion right now instead of 150 billion, they'd only need to hit about 15k or so per capita to eclipse american military spending.
not that far off when you put pencil to paper. only about double their current economy. Give them 20 years and then see what they're spending.
it will be absolutely unheard of.
you keep acting like i'm talking about tomorrow, i've said repeatedly this time scale is over 20 - 50 years. just looking at that graph they will over take our military spending as soon as they hit 30,000 per capita GDP if you look at military spending as a function of GDP. They spend 150 billion when they earn 6k per capita, we spend 650 at 53k.
they only need 30k per capita to hit 700 billion in military spending. 5 times their current economy.
it's also worth nothing that we spend 700 billion for every 16 trillion.
if china went from 8 trillion to 16 trillion, their military spending would simply double as well, to 300 billion.
They currently spend half what we do on military spending per capita if you divide it out.
If they spent what we spent, and spent 300 billion right now instead of 150 billion, they'd only need to hit about 15k or so per capita to eclipse american military spending.
not that far off when you put pencil to paper. only about double their current economy. Give them 20 years and then see what they're spending.
it will be absolutely unheard of.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA triple-posted this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,823
also, if you don't think they will double per capita GDP in twenty years, in 1994 US GDP was 10 trillion, and our population was 263 million for a per capita GDP of 38,022 dollars. in 20 years we've raised our per capita GDP by 12000 bucks. that's about a 40% increase.
if you increase chinas per capita of 6153 by 40% over the next 20 years you get 8614 dollars per capita in 2034, almost halfway to the goal of 12000 per capita to eclipse american military spending.
And that's with the last 20 years of american growth as your standard for estimation, and chinese growth is much, much faster right now than american growth has been. we've been stagnating. they've been skyrocketing. i have a feeling 20 years might be on the conservative end of my estimate, since i used a really low bar to gauge their future economic potential.
if you increase chinas per capita of 6153 by 40% over the next 20 years you get 8614 dollars per capita in 2034, almost halfway to the goal of 12000 per capita to eclipse american military spending.
And that's with the last 20 years of american growth as your standard for estimation, and chinese growth is much, much faster right now than american growth has been. we've been stagnating. they've been skyrocketing. i have a feeling 20 years might be on the conservative end of my estimate, since i used a really low bar to gauge their future economic potential.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,825
@470,818 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> um... i'll be more worried when they do that here...
I can't see how the Chinese would install worse rulers than Team Red or Team Blue. If anything, they're going to Africa where the real goodies are.
@470,819 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
And if North Korea reached our level of GDP per capita, their military spending would be almost double China's. Again, what's your point? All I see is "if" "if" "if". If the Chinese spent double our per capita rate on defense and had a GDP 6x ours they'd spend 200% as much as we do on defense!!!!one!!!1!.
Again: why do we need to be #1 in defense spending? Australia's not #1 and no one's tried to regime change them.
> um... i'll be more worried when they do that here...
I can't see how the Chinese would install worse rulers than Team Red or Team Blue. If anything, they're going to Africa where the real goodies are.
@470,819 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
And if North Korea reached our level of GDP per capita, their military spending would be almost double China's. Again, what's your point? All I see is "if" "if" "if". If the Chinese spent double our per capita rate on defense and had a GDP 6x ours they'd spend 200% as much as we do on defense!!!!one!!!1!.
Again: why do we need to be #1 in defense spending? Australia's not #1 and no one's tried to regime change them.
NSA OPerative joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,829
@previous (Metæ)
I am currently trying to incite a revolution in Austria to overthrow Abbott and install a communist regime that will be at war with East-Asia indefinitely. It's good for business, so rich people can have an excuse for making tons of money and not contributing - they are doing their patriotic duty by helping the state run the war.
I am currently trying to incite a revolution in Austria to overthrow Abbott and install a communist regime that will be at war with East-Asia indefinitely. It's good for business, so rich people can have an excuse for making tons of money and not contributing - they are doing their patriotic duty by helping the state run the war.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,831
@previous (NSA OPerative)
I support your plan. We have, after all, always been at war with Eastasia.
I support your plan. We have, after all, always been at war with Eastasia.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,836
@470,825 (Metæ)
north korea isn't a current up and coming first world power. They are a desolate third world country with a per capita GDP of 576 dollars per year. as soon as they reach first world status, even at 53k per capita they'd still only have a GDP of 1.3 trillion dollars. they only have 25 million people, they'd need like 636,000 dollars GDP per capita to reach first world american spending. They don't have the population to support a larger economy than we do.
my whole point is, china does, and they don't even have to catch up fully to do it.
north korea isn't a current up and coming first world power. They are a desolate third world country with a per capita GDP of 576 dollars per year. as soon as they reach first world status, even at 53k per capita they'd still only have a GDP of 1.3 trillion dollars. they only have 25 million people, they'd need like 636,000 dollars GDP per capita to reach first world american spending. They don't have the population to support a larger economy than we do.
my whole point is, china does, and they don't even have to catch up fully to do it.
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,838
oh, and i haven't even mentioned india yet...
NSA OPerative replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,839
@470,831 (Metæ)
Thanks Meta, you are a true patriot. We will put your name on the rolls of honor reserved for True Patriotæ!
Thanks Meta, you are a true patriot. We will put your name on the rolls of honor reserved for True Patriotæ!
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous M double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,840
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,842
@470,836 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
But what good is the world's most expensive military if we can't even beat a bunch of religious fanatics with some old AK-47s they got at the Soviet garage sale and some homemade bombs?
But what good is the world's most expensive military if we can't even beat a bunch of religious fanatics with some old AK-47s they got at the Soviet garage sale and some homemade bombs?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 39 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,846
@470,840 (M)
india ranks in as tenth world economy, has a GDP of 2 trillion with a population of 1.2 billion for a per capita GDP of 1,666 bucks.
but their growth rate is less than half that of china.
both of which are higher than current US economic growth.
it's looking like china will be passing us soon, and we will be number 2 for a while, maybe a long while, but eventually india will make us number 3.
assuming there's no mass migrations out of china, india or the US, the top three first world countries with the highest populations will be the super powers. just look at this and go down the column.
population is tied to real GDP as well as potential economic output. the only countries with higher purchasing power are norway and luxembourg. luxembourg might have the highest puchasing power of any country at 66000 per capita, but without a very large population to pay into government coffers you just can't wield any major influence.
so the concerns are fast growing economies with populations more than ours: china and india. should their economies emerge as first world leaders, then we will have to settle with being a very small number 3 (but bigger than everyone else uncombined!)
india ranks in as tenth world economy, has a GDP of 2 trillion with a population of 1.2 billion for a per capita GDP of 1,666 bucks.
but their growth rate is less than half that of china.
both of which are higher than current US economic growth.
it's looking like china will be passing us soon, and we will be number 2 for a while, maybe a long while, but eventually india will make us number 3.
assuming there's no mass migrations out of china, india or the US, the top three first world countries with the highest populations will be the super powers. just look at this and go down the column.
population is tied to real GDP as well as potential economic output. the only countries with higher purchasing power are norway and luxembourg. luxembourg might have the highest puchasing power of any country at 66000 per capita, but without a very large population to pay into government coffers you just can't wield any major influence.
so the concerns are fast growing economies with populations more than ours: china and india. should their economies emerge as first world leaders, then we will have to settle with being a very small number 3 (but bigger than everyone else uncombined!)
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,849
@470,842 (Metæ)
i dunno, ask your senator. China spends half what we do and they seem perfectly safe from foreign invasions.
Why are we spending almost a trillion a year on the military when the whole world combined spends half that.
seems shady, i'm right there with you, i wish we would spend less on military spending and more on schools and healthcare.
we're 37th on health care or some shit. seems like a big waste of money when we have so many things we could be spending it on.
i dunno, ask your senator. China spends half what we do and they seem perfectly safe from foreign invasions.
Why are we spending almost a trillion a year on the military when the whole world combined spends half that.
seems shady, i'm right there with you, i wish we would spend less on military spending and more on schools and healthcare.
we're 37th on health care or some shit. seems like a big waste of money when we have so many things we could be spending it on.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,850
@470,846 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
It's not like we're, you know, 4% of the world's population or anything.
It's not like we're, you know, 4% of the world's population or anything.
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,851
@470,849 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Wait, I'm confused. You're scared to death of China spending more money on defense than us, but you point out (quite rightly I might add) that they're as safe as us from foreign invasion while spending a pittance in comparison?
Wait, I'm confused. You're scared to death of China spending more money on defense than us, but you point out (quite rightly I might add) that they're as safe as us from foreign invasion while spending a pittance in comparison?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,853
@470,850 (Metæ)
yeah, but as a country goes we have both 3rd highest population, and third highest real GDP. that adds up to the US being the highest nominal GDP. it takes both purchasing power AND high population to be a super power. so china can have a high population and a low purchasing power and that makes them a third world shithole. however, as purchasing power rises and population doesn't decline nominal GDP goes up and suddenly new super powers emerge.
The US could certainly fail, in that despite our 3rd highest population by country, if we lose our purchasing power then we lose our status as top super power. and i bet it's a slippery slope, too. it certainly seems to a hard slope to ascend.
but ascending it countries are doing
yeah, but as a country goes we have both 3rd highest population, and third highest real GDP. that adds up to the US being the highest nominal GDP. it takes both purchasing power AND high population to be a super power. so china can have a high population and a low purchasing power and that makes them a third world shithole. however, as purchasing power rises and population doesn't decline nominal GDP goes up and suddenly new super powers emerge.
The US could certainly fail, in that despite our 3rd highest population by country, if we lose our purchasing power then we lose our status as top super power. and i bet it's a slippery slope, too. it certainly seems to a hard slope to ascend.
but ascending it countries are doing
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,854
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Empires come and go. Britain's no longer a superpower, how has that negatively affected them? Spain and Portugal used to be superpowers, as well. So did a few others.
Empires come and go. Britain's no longer a superpower, how has that negatively affected them? Spain and Portugal used to be superpowers, as well. So did a few others.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,855
@470,851 (Metæ)
i'm simply using their defense spending as a way of showing how realistically close they are to passing the US in capability
which in turn, will lead to them having influence over us
they are not far from our heels, and they have 10 times less purchasing power.
They will be monstrous, and we will be unable to keep up with them. this is a reality that as americans we need to accept so that we can deal with it and not actually decline because of our unwillingness to see the writing on the wall
i'm simply using their defense spending as a way of showing how realistically close they are to passing the US in capability
which in turn, will lead to them having influence over us
they are not far from our heels, and they have 10 times less purchasing power.
They will be monstrous, and we will be unable to keep up with them. this is a reality that as americans we need to accept so that we can deal with it and not actually decline because of our unwillingness to see the writing on the wall
dw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,863
Do I look like some nerd?
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #470,865
Kill jews