My Country's Better than Your Country

I think traveling abroad definately makes a difference. People I know who spend lots of time overseas always appreciate what they have back home in the U.S., but they have a more intimate knowledge of "foreign" nations, cultures, languages, religions, cuisines, history, etc. I grew up in a very conservative household, and was a child of the Rambo and Red Dawn era of Reagan, Chuck Norris and G.I. Joe. I always believed that America was years ahead of the rest of the world, more civilized, the bastion of civil rights and prosperity.

Then I went to Tokyo and was floored: reliable, cheap, safe, fast public transportation, unfathomable courtesy, technological marvels, a seamless integration of spirituality and sectarian necessities, neon red-light districts of hedonism next to shrines and Kabuki theaters, beer in vending machines. Heck, I even accidentally left a 100 dollar bamboo sword at a subway station, took another line back, and there it was, almost 30 minutes later, untouched and in pristine condition. That certainly wouldn't happen in Houston. I came home with tons of shattered illusions about other places. I appreciate how much land we have, and our cheap Old Navy jeans and cheap-ish gasoline, but I'm also much more critical of the U.S. now. That helps our country much more than hollow jingoism and blind nationalism.

 

QFT.

Very well said.

E_S

 

Of course I went to latin America and almost kissed the floor of Miami's airport after two years away from civilization.

 

Good points for sure, but I think the point we are trying to stress is that it's almost impossible for the U.S. to win these days. Anything we do is wrong.

As far as North Korea, Kim Jung Il (spelling?) is so crazy that he will get the rest of the world's attention, and we won't have to do it. I'm hearing even France is on board, so that's a relief. Korean troops are very disciplined, and they have good weapons. Allied forces would take massive casualties for sure if we went to war.

 

heck, CHINA is on board it looks like. And thats China

 

I can't understand why it took China so long to get on board. Sometimes the CCP baffle me. Who wants a psychopath dictator with nuclear weapons as an ally? Especially given the fact that the dictator in question has a habbit of spitting in the face of the U.S.?

If China wants the U.S. to not intervene should a conflict with Taiwan arise. This is as good a chance to buddy as there's ever been.

 

It's because of things like Taiwan and Tibet and human rights which stopped China taking a public stance earlier, T65 - though by all accounts, they've been as frustrated and baffled by NK as anyone else.

E_S

 

Of course they are. The leaders of the CCP are sane even if they are proud and stubborn. Sane people are baffled by lunatics.

But I don't understand the first part of your post.

Do you mean China opposes the U.S. for the sake of it and therefore they won't stand with the U.S. on this? Or that they've not been invited to side with western democracies because of their track record?

Or do you mean something else completely?

Because I thought putting their full weight on the North Koreans to make them play ball would be the perfect opportunity for China to demonstrate that they can act in a co-operative manner with the west. It's something everyone would be in support of and a great chance to earn some brownie points.

 

No, China never publicly smacked NK around because it has this view that states should be left to their own internal devices. It was the public raison d'etre behind blocking moves to intercede in Sudan (the oil and gas deals had nothing to do with it of course ) and it's why they resist alot of internationalist missions in the UNSC. It's face-saving, basically, lest they be called to account for their own practises.

E_S

 

Thanks Ender. Though this:

China has no interest in going to war with the US; the US seems to have more of an interest in putting China "in it's place" than anything else.

Reminds me a bit of the "sleeping giant". There is great potential there that we seem to underestimate.

 

How?

As I said, China has more than enough on it's plate with China. It's not a "sleeping Giant", and assuming there's anything close to realism in, say, "The Bear and the Dragon" does the Chinese a disservice.

E_S

 

China took NKs side in the 1950s, so let's hope China will be on board with the rest of the world if NK starts going sideways.

 

The world is in one piece? What on earth does that mean? And people have more rights because of America? What history books are you reading?

This perhaps encapsulates what's wrong with the American attitude when it comes to diplomacy. There are no easy solutions. It's a point that comes strongly with the recent crop of NK related posts in this thread. People just keep expecting things to happen and people to change as if switch has been flipped.

And this manifests itself so regularly on these forums, it's irritating to read mostly American views of the world that are so simplistic, so dualistic and so naive. Comments akin to 'Oh we should just go change them' are tantamount to the most absurd kind of naivety and stupidity - perhaps even justifying antagonism towards the country.

A totally shocking concept to be sure, but one that's been the fundamental issue of international relations since 1648. Granted that many countries have ignored the Treaty of Westphalia's tenets since it's conception, but it's amazing how a Pearl Harbour and 9/11 can so alter the landscape of a country's attitude towards its neighbours and overturn such history.

All armies are brainwashed depending where you stand. Their purpose is obey the directions of a civilian arbitrator, and as such are a tool. Hitler was no more insane than Bush and Blair are now so how about we dispense with the emotional and ill-informed arguments?

LOL, this reminds of my host family in Colorado who proudly claimed that they 'done Europe' in a couple of weeks on vacation. You don't experience life in other countries by merely passing through. Equally one cannot make a judgement on a country from only a few select places. I for example couldn't possible start making credible judgements on the value and inherent awesomeness that is England since I've only actually experienced life in the wealthy south-east (and as a member of the middle class to boot).

To fall into the trap of making such wild assumptions and generalisations as you have done isn't good, and perhaps demonstrates the inherent nature of patriotism and its political purpose - to blind and shield people from the realities of their situation.

 

Sweden is by far the best country in the world.
Around 30-60% of our income goes to the state for the benefit of everybody.
We haven't got flat taxes (the not so rich pay 30% and the very rich up too 70% in taxes).
We have high quality public service television and public service radio.
We're pro-UN, pro-EU and we don't talk so much.
The unions are strong and well organized.

The only problem is we got a new leadership (moderaterna) who are up to no good, privatizing this and that, lowering taxes, weakening the unions and so on.
But in four years we'll probably be on the right track again.

I challenge you to come up with anything bad about Sverige!

 

Depending on how one looks at it, there is the issue of how Sweden treats those who are not born in Sweden. Most of this is due to, as you desrcibed, as the "strong and well organized labor union." The organized skill/trade unions in Sweden are powerful, so much so that the union is placed above the individual. As a result, there are numerous union regulations, and strict requirements for membership. In most cases, non-native Swedes are prevented from ever joining, and without union support, the individual is locked out of most career paths.

As an example, the average yearly income for those with foreign citizenship is 45% below those with Swedish citizenship. The extenseive welfare system does offer a measure of a safety net, but offer almost no hope of progression.

It could be said that Swedish taxes are used to support a system of neo-serfdom, which result a permanent dual class. I suppose this would be considered to be "bad" or "good" depending on is one is a native of Sweden.

 

"Depending on how one looks at it, there is the issue of how Sweden treats those who are not born in Sweden."

Sweden treats them well, ofcourse discrimination occur quite often as in all countries with a strong cultural identity. The solution to this is to welcome more immigrants and various anti-discrimination laws.

"In most cases, non-native Swedes are prevented from ever joining",

How are they prevented from joining?

"The extenseive welfare system does offer a measure of a safety net, but offer almost no hope of progression."

I prefer little (or even no) progression possibilities to a big underclass living in poverty. These are problems in the whole world and Sweden has got the least of them.

 

Well, I think one could argue, legitimately, that the high taxes and corresponding removal of economic freedom IS a problem.
Using nationmaster as a source, a single person, making the average income, pays 48% of his income in taxes in Sweden. Compare that with 30% in the United States and the UK, 24% in Japan, and 23% in Australia.
A single income family, still earning average income, will pay 41% in taxes in Sweden, as opposed to 20% in Japan, 19% in the United States, 18% in the Uk, and 13% in Australia.


To move away from the average income, the poorest 30% in Sweden are paying 11% of the taxes, compared to only 6% of the taxes collected in the U.S.
Similarly, the middle 40% in Sweden pay 36% of the taxes, whereas the same group in the US pay 28% of the taxes.

It comes down to political perspectives, yes, but I consider a higher tax burden so that government can grow larger to be a significant disadvantage. Its more government intrusion with less economic freedom.

 

Yes, but you're seeing maybe half the picture, intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know.

You have to consider these taxes go into providing an ROI for the taxpayers by way of comprehensive, funded retirement and welfare programmes.

You also have to factor in, and I think you haven't, that relatively speaking these NW'er European states have some of the lowest corruption according to objective measurements. So the tax isn't funding government largesse and waste, it's providing ROI to the taxpayer.

E_S

 

To go offcourse abit:

I think we can all be glad we're not dissidents living in Russia.

 

Sweden has been noted as the country with the most liberal outlook and the country with the most basic freedoms (yes, even more than America, the so-called Land of the Free) so I agree with your post, Erk.

 

I might not have been clear enough in distinguishing, but I disagree with those programs, and feel that when it comes to things like, say, retirement, its my responsibility to plan for it (example, i'm 21 and am already putting money into investments that I can't touch until retirement) but also the responsibility for everyone else to plan for theirs as well. I don't view the welfare state as a positive thing to tout, and so my point was those claims weren't as clear cut as if he'd, say, pointed to lower crime, for example.

 

Only because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's poor and have never experienced it.

The US has a strong emphasis on the Protestant work ethic, and not a social democratic culture. It's natural you're not going to see it's benefit, since you don't experience it. From day one, these guys believe otherwise.

E_S

 

What do you mean with indoctrinated to believe it's poor? Specifically, how are you using the term poor here?

And like I said, it comes down to perspective, however in that sense, as I said before, I don't consider it a selling point of a country, but a weakness.

 

An admittedly strange choice of words when referring to a program that's meant to address poverty, E_S (and yes, I just dodged using "poor choice of words").

Lowbacca, what he meant is that you are probably biased to believe it's poorly run/executed. He's talking about American culture. It values the frontiersman, the self-made man, it makes hagiographies of "entrepenuers" like Bill Gates and pours its desires into Horatio Alger novels. Everything is about the individual, and how much they can do on their own, and how other people just get in the way.

By the same token, look at how we talk about healthcare. Yes, nationalism might be a factor, but I think you can see some of the bias he's talking about in that most of time analyzing, say, Canadian or British healthcare is spent bashing the deficiencies of a nationalized program, rather than ever talking about the reality that many such nationalized healthcare systems are ranked higher by independent expert panels, and that they deliver what is essentially more/better service for a lower cost.

Similarly, in all the talk about Social Security being a "trap" and "taking people's money" how often was the point raised that the average American actually has a negative savings rate, or the estimates of how many senior citizens Social Security actually keeps out of poverty?

I'm admittedly being kind of unfair here, but I'm trying to overstate the point theat E_S was, I believe, alluding to.