I'm sure @ADigitalArtist got the joke.
-
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!
Nice statue of a Marxist.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
No, it's closer to the opposite of that.
Economic systems create emergent properties in societies,
but there are additional important factors, eg, society, government.
I'm not sure that a "system" is really the be all and end all. Obviously, every society has to have some sort of system of laws, government, and basic organization, in one form or another.
But if we're talking about actual material existence, then I would look at the actual "materials" as being the primary factor. Things such as arable land, food production, mineral resources, as well as transportation, communication, industry, education. In a lot of ways, America's success was probably more due to "dumb luck" than anything related to a "system." Well, not just luck, but also a somewhat amoral and exploitive viewpoint when it came to human relations.
Just the same, America's well-being came about from those who were out there actually doing the things - such as building mines, factories, railroads, along with developing land, farms, and ranches. It wasn't done by egghead economists who do nothing but talk about "systems." We also had the advantage of having access to Western European technology and knowledge which had still not yet permeated into other areas of the world.
Russia was in a much different situation in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power. Russia was still far behind the West in terms of industrial and technological development. I know you don't believe me when I say this, but the fact is, the Soviet system did make improvements over what they had before, at least in terms of industrial and technological development. Granted, it wasn't completely on par with the West, which still enjoyed many advantages, for some of the reasons I've outlined above.
Because of this, many Americans would look at the U.S. and compare it with the Soviet Union, and then conclude "our system is better." I never accepted this line of reasoning. It seems too simplistic to me, and it ignores a myriad of other factors which make or break a nation's economy.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
America could grow much faster than Europe because it was very efficiently set up: A society where you can rob your neighbour because they have a different skin color, and are therefore not really people and have no right to their property, will accumulate wealth and property much faster than one that has to sail across half the world to do the same.
Europe had a long & profitable relationship with slavery.
Christian, Jew, Muslim....all had a hand in it.
Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia
And where did Ameristan get its slaves?
Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
"The major Atlantic slave trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish."
And as for stealing from one's neighbor, Europe excelled at that too.
There's a notorious Austrian who nearly took it all.
After supplying the South with slaves, Britain proceeded to buy
from it most of its cotton for its mills....until 1859, the 1st year of
the big cotton oopsie.
Oh, & there's also....
The Negative Legacy of 19th and 20th Century Belgian's Colonialism
So if Europe fell behind Ameristan economically, it wasn't for lack
of profit due to slavery.
Last edited:
Omg is that Silvio from The Sapranos?
Yes, but he's Norwegian now.
Ahh So that’s what happened to him.
He works hard to fit in there.
Does this mean he had the makings of a varsity athlete all along? Or is it proof he never had a shine box?
(Sorry, Soprano memes. I couldn’t resist)
Never watched The Sopranos, so all references are lost on me.
I thought "shine box" would have been a reference to Goodfellas
Tommy was a funny guy.
Lol that’s probably where it comes from. If I’m not mistaken that same actor (or at least the character’s likeness) later shows up as a character called Phil Leotardo in the Sopranos.I thought "shine box" would have been a reference to Goodfellas
Tommy was a funny guy.
The show is actually heavily influenced by such movies anyway, so it’s not that surprising.
Last edited:
Yes, it is the same actor, Frank Vincent, who also appeared in the movie Casino, which had many of the same actors and the same basic theme, although a completely different plot, setting, and characters. Still, a lot of fans make note of the fact that in Goodfellas, Joe Pesci's character murders Frank Vincent's character, yet in Casino, Frank Vincent's character murders Joe Pesci's character.
To some extent, I think some of the appeal might be that these stories are kind of the "dark side" of the American Dream. They're mostly about people from humble beginnings, living in tenements, little to no educational opportunities, facing widespread discrimination and bigotry. Yet, they arose from that - due to their own skills, toughness, moxie, or whatever else they might have had - and managed to rise to a level of great wealth and power in a relatively short period of time. People feared and respected them, and they were mostly considered "untouchable" and nobody to mess with.
Ha it’s like all these movies and shows have little in jokes going on between them.
I recall in the Sopranos there’s a running joke where Silvio’s character would reenact the “just when I though I was out, they pull me back in” line from the Godfather 3 (I think?)
It was always very poor but all the “wise guys” would eat it up and think it was amazing.
Yes a lot of those movies do celebrate that appeal. That’s why I loved the Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire. Those shows carefully deconstruct the myth and pull back the glamour. It shows the toll that those lifestyles have on the main characters. Though it also shows why those characters chose that life in the first place. Both had Steve Buscemi in them. I think I underestimated him as an actor before Boardwalk Empire.