Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
You can't expect people to be reasonable all the time, especially if anything they disagree with is a "leftist conspiracy."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Americans Living in the Past?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Some people are lucky, some are born in regions offering various opportunities, some are driven, type A personalities.
People should not be penalized for not being wired type A, or being born in a region with few opportunities
And 97% of bears s**t in the woods...
The traditional oligarchic serfdoms of South and Central America were ripe for exploitation by American Industry. Under the Monroe Doctrine we considered them American 'protectorates', after all.
Google "Banana republic."
Dictators are always useful -- we install or maintain them in power; they ensure a compliant citizenry and large profits.
In the middle East we've also played the old installing leaders, opposing reforms, quashing dissent game, but it became unstable. When a protracted drought destabilized the regional economy and sent hordes of bankrupt poor pouring into the cities the whole system cracked.
I can still remember when "Democrat, "democratic" and even "liberal" were considered acceptable in polite company.
Not all, but a significant portion.
America was never in the business of promoting Democracy, social reform or sharing a countries resources with The People.
“The chief business of the American people is business,” as president Coolidge said.
History and historical observations are not 'dated', and "leftist ideology" is a facile talking point.
The "leftist ideology" is working where it's been applied -- it worked here in the US when it was applied. Historically, reactionary, right wing policies have produced economic bubbles, at the expense of the scheduled classed. They then pop and devolve into recession, violence, even war.
"Luck" had absolutely nothing to do with it. If you believe that you have to be lucky to become successful than odds are you never will.
I'm doing well now and certainly worked hard to get to where I am, but I can look back and see many points along the way where all of that wouldn't have happened if not for events completely out of my control
... i.e. luck.
There's a tendency among many successful people to over-attribute their success to their own qualities and downplay the role that luck and help from others played. I wonder if that's going on with you.
Edit: and remember why it's important to acknowledge the role of luck and outside influences: it's not about giving poor people an excuse not to follow their dreams; it's about instilling a sense of gratefulness in the successful. It's also about establishing a starting point for policy so that we can systematically remove those outside influences that serve as barriers to success for many people.
Last edited:
BSM1
What? Me worry?
There is no such thing as a magical "luck" in business or life. There are opportunities that present themselves to all of us; we just have to ready to recognize and capitalize on those opportunities. If you had not chosen to put yourself in a position to experience those defining moments you never would have seen them in the first place. That, my friend, is not "luck" that's you being ready to move on the moment.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
In most instances yes....Just as people have the delusion that having a bachelor's degree is a financial accomplishment considering in most cases a bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. A stark contrast from what it once was in the past where it actually meant something.
I'm talking about luck in this sense:
- I went to school for engineering. I paid my own way for the most part, but there were a few points when I couldn't have gotten through without my parents' help.
- my father got accepted to engineering as well, but before he could start his program, his father took sick to the point that he couldn't work. My father had to give up on school to get a job to help support his family.
My father worked harder than I do and took opportunities as they came, but the fact that I now make much more than he ever did comes down to factors entirely outside his control. I did better because things were easier for me.
Shad
Veteran Member
"I realize rocket scientists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingram all think Denmark and countries like it are bad for business and employment, but their moon rockets tend to explode on the launch pad. You'd better do some googling before you allow them to sucker you into parroting their propaganda again -- as you apparently just did."
You assumed my sources merely because I disagree with you. You parroted a leftist talking point without bothering to ask for my sources nor the basis of my views.. That makes you a leftist spouting slogans. Heck you are still assuming my sources and still strawmaning what I said. Good NPC. Attack an argument I never made. beep beep.
Shad
Veteran Member
Perhaps you too show read what I posted. You will see the assumption Sunstone made and attacked instead of addressing what I actually said or bothered asking me for the basis of my views. I do not listen to Limbaugh, Hannity nor Ingram. That was her assumption which she then knocked down.
I watch Tucker clips on YT for comedy as he gets the most radical guests possible. He is good for a laugh, nothing more.
Shad
Veteran Member
Such as?
I never said America had such a goal of spreading Democracy.
Your article you linked is 6 years out of date based on numbers from 2012. Ironically enough during Obama's years. The article does contain leftist ideology as it is promoting social programs while conflating those programs as opportunities while in reality those just pay someone else's bills.
Many of those policies were never applied in the US nor does paying someones bills equate opportunity
This is just slogan babble making assertions while not addressing what I said. You are merely projecting your political enemy on to me as if I said anything about right wing polices.
Not everyone has equal opportunity, and not all regions even provide opportunity. In many places there are simply not enough jobs. In many places what jobs there are are low wage &/or part time. In many places there's no safety net, and a promising educational or employment track can be derailed by medical, family or other misfortunes.
Not everyone can rise by 'pluck and luck'.
@BSM1 - I think that this "there's no such thing as luck" mentality is often selfishness masquerading as work ethic.
If a successful person acknowledges the role of outside help and luck in getting to where they are, this can create a sense of gratitude and obligation to the people and systems who helped him as well as a sense of sympathy towards those who weren't successful as him through no fault of their own.
The implication of all this is that the person ought to "pay it forward" and help others as he has been helped. Obviously, there's a cost associated with providing this help.
OTOH, if he can ignore the help and luck that allowed him to be where he is, then he can hold an attitude of "what's mine is mine! Get your own somewhere else!" with a lot less cognitive dissonance and hold onto more of what he has.
If a successful person acknowledges the role of outside help and luck in getting to where they are, this can create a sense of gratitude and obligation to the people and systems who helped him as well as a sense of sympathy towards those who weren't successful as him through no fault of their own.
The implication of all this is that the person ought to "pay it forward" and help others as he has been helped. Obviously, there's a cost associated with providing this help.
OTOH, if he can ignore the help and luck that allowed him to be where he is, then he can hold an attitude of "what's mine is mine! Get your own somewhere else!" with a lot less cognitive dissonance and hold onto more of what he has.
Aw...how horrible of me to inject some humor into this discussion! What a monster I must be! And you have sources now? Sources you're reluctant to divulge, but you might -- just might -- clue us into them if we beg you to? Shad, you're a wonder.
Hey, here's something interesting -- and you don't even need to beg me for it -- Denmark has the highest upward social mobility of any OECD country, an organization that includes the US. In fact, while Denmark rants number one for upward social mobility, the US ranks only 13th in that group. Could that have any influence on how few Danes immigrate to the US, you think?
"The relationship between father-son earnings is tighter in the United States than in most peer OECD countries, meaning U.S. mobility is among the lowest of major industrialized economies. The relatively low correlations between father-son earnings in Scandinavian countries provide a stark contradiction to the conventional wisdom. An elasticity of 0.47 found in the United States offers much less likelihood of moving up than an elasticity of 0.18 or less, as characterizes Finland, Norway, and Denmark." [Source]
To tie my last post back to the OP: I think the myth of the "self-made man" is an example of Americans living in a fictionalized past.
I think Dan Carlin is right: Americans never got over the closing of the frontier. It's been more than a century since this happened, but there's still this pervasive myth that the "ideal" American lives on his own without the support of community.
IMO, it's at the root of this support of right-wing economic and social policy: ignore support from - and impacts on - your community. Build policy as if you're out on a homestead in the 1800s a day's ride away from anyone else and your fortunes are only dependent on the weather and how hard you work.
Same with gun control: YOU are the one responsible for your own safety. You can't count on the sheriff to get to you for a day or two, and you also don't have to worry about collateral damage of gun culture on society... since you aren't really part of society.
It even shows up in urban planning, with the American obsession (which is exported to countries like mine) for single detached homes on freehold lots.
I think Dan Carlin is right: Americans never got over the closing of the frontier. It's been more than a century since this happened, but there's still this pervasive myth that the "ideal" American lives on his own without the support of community.
IMO, it's at the root of this support of right-wing economic and social policy: ignore support from - and impacts on - your community. Build policy as if you're out on a homestead in the 1800s a day's ride away from anyone else and your fortunes are only dependent on the weather and how hard you work.
Same with gun control: YOU are the one responsible for your own safety. You can't count on the sheriff to get to you for a day or two, and you also don't have to worry about collateral damage of gun culture on society... since you aren't really part of society.
It even shows up in urban planning, with the American obsession (which is exported to countries like mine) for single detached homes on freehold lots.
Last edited:
Really? One of my closest friends -- a guy I grew up with and have known almost since he was born -- was raised in a household that subsisted near the Federal poverty line all the while he was growing up. He eventually became a self-made millionaire -- a feat that would be much harder to do today than it was in his time, according to whatever science you want to study.
He's told me more than once that he owes about a third to half of his success to luck. I take him as more of an authority on the matter than you, unless you're a self-made millionaire too.
By the way, three other factors he usually mentions are sustained hard work, connections, and social programs like the Pell Grants that were key in allowing him to attend university and graduate almost debt free.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
True
I think when most Americans living today talk about America as a land of economic opportunity, they're actually talking about a relatively short period of time, from about 1945 to 1970, when America experienced unprecedented economic growth and Americans were more affluent than they ever had been. That was, of course, the result of FDR's New Deal which brought us out of the Great Depression. It wasn't "capitalism" as such, but rather a mixture of capitalism and socialism (aka "Keynesianism" as some call it).
The Depression was a pivotal landmark in US history which pretty much demonstrated all the blatant flaws of the previous economic system - which even today's economic ideologues try to dissociate themselves from.
Yes, America was a land of economic opportunity. How could it not be? After all, a bunch of European colonists found themselves on a mostly pristine continent teeming with resources ripe for exploitation. Millions of acres of forest land, not to mention millions more acres of arable farmland, along with mountains full of mineral resources. The bonus was that there were very few indigenous people to defend the territory, and the opportunity of bringing in slave labor to work the land was readily available.
Of course, the government was the main source of it all, first by forcibly conquering the land, and then giving away the spoils to any white person who staked a claim on a given parcel. Further perks were given to railroaders, mining companies, and industrialists - who employed child labor, exploited immigrants, and operated sweatshops to bolster their profits. If the workers started to get restless, the government would provide ready-made goon squads (or allow private companies to employ their own) to settle any labor disputes or quell any uprisings.
This was the golden age of capitalism and the flourishing of American industry, which would eventually lead us to becoming the major superpower on the world scene. It was also a helpful boost that we were somewhat detached from the political scene in Europe, whose major players continuously squabbled with each other over who should rule Europe and the rest of the world.
But this was the time (roughly the period between the Civil War and WW1) that a lot of Americans look back upon as the "good old days." All those wonderful inventions were being created; new scientific discoveries - the great cities of America were booming with industries and skyscrapers. Many of our patriotic ideals and concepts of freedom and our economic system were formulated around this time. It was also the time when the west was won - and it's no accident that a lot of folklore and legend of the American mythos revolves around pioneers, cowboys, and frontier life.
But there was still a lot of discontent and hardship associated with that time. The labor movement started to gain more momentum and public support. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson supported widening social programs. The Great Depression was largely blamed on the Republicans, who paid dearly at the polls and fell out of power for 20 years, during which time FDR made monumental changes in the US economic and political system. The world itself changed drastically during those years.
Life in America, particularly for that of the common workers, improved immensely after WW2, not so much due to capitalism itself, but due to programs designed to rein in and restrain the excesses of capitalism - which even most capitalists today tend to disavow and dissociate themselves from.
Shad
Veteran Member
Sorry but I do not buy the excuse of "It was humor". It is nothing but backpedaling. You didn't bother to ask for my sources. You just told me what my sources are.
So? Merely citing a results does not establish any policy(s) work or not.
Denmark isn't a 3rd world nation. It is a 1st world nation surrounded by other 1st world nations. Why immigrate to the US when Sweden, Norway, France, UK and Germany are within driving distance.
Select Denmark then look at the numbers.
Immigrant and Emigrant Populations by Country of Origin and Destination
This does not establish where the failure lies. A lot of son's could have made stupid choices. A lot of father's could have ruined their children's lives as per the single mother percentage in the US.
You aren't even trying to address my argument, are you? I guess that makes you the winner according to the high standards of the internet.
Shad
Veteran Member
You have no arguments. I addressed your lack of data. Hence I addressed a failure on your part.
You just cite results with no policy, no real data nor even bringing up a single policy which you can use as supportive of your claims. So cite a reason why Denmark is higher than America instead of googling results with no data.
Are you seriously under the impression that we're talking about why Denmark is "higher than America"? Come on, Shad. That's outside the scope of this discussion, which is whether Americans are living in the past. Denmark came up in reference to the point that immigration to the US is largely from hell holes like Honduras and Guatemala, and not from countries like Denmark. Shad, please try to focus on the conversation, rather than ramble on and on about whatever your mind wants to discuss.
I'll let you get the last word in, but I'm bowing out of this. I don't debate people's fantasies.