Well, help me out with this because I don’t see mental illness, addiction and obesity as a problem that only the poor suffer.
But only the poor (and then only some of the poor) would have issues getting treatment for those things I think is the point. I guess I’m not seeing whatever point you are trying to make in all of this with respect to the thread (i.e. the US is becoming a banana republic)…do you have a point, if so could you spell it out?
I think he believes that almost everybody in the US* suffers from a life-destabilizing disease which is not indicated in general overall wellness statistics. You might live to 82, but if you’re in the US, you’re guaranteed to either have diabetes/angina/gout/obesity/alzheimer’s/etc because… well, because that’s what he believes.
So Americans might be living longer, but they’re doing it in worsening health. Which makes a lot of sense in the same way that “my car gets better mileage, but it uses more gas to drive the same distance” does.
*“Except the rich, cause they’re the only healthy ones because they have money”, right?
Nor are they problems that only Americans suffer.
This has nothing to do with comparing the current state of US technology to a previous state of US technology. It’s comparing the relative state of US technology to the state of other countries. This goes for other comparisons, not just technology.
We could have the same technology/health metrics/quality of life factors that we have always had, and if other countries improve these areas, they will rank higher relative to us. I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp. It has nothing to do with whether we do something better or worse than we used to.
But apart from the aqueducts, irrigation, the roads, education, medicine, the fresh water system, viniculture, and public health - what have the Romans ever done for us?
Regards,
Shodan
But that wasn’t the question. The question was “Is the US becoming a banana republic”? The data we’re showing answers that question, not the new, goalpost-moved question of “Is the US lagging in some metrics that one would think could be improved?”, which the answer is, “Yes, just like all countries. Doesn’t make one a banana republic, however.”
Very true. And I could point out that the U.S. is way ahead of most of the rest of world in reducing the worst scourge of all, cigarette smoking. That’s huge. Smoking In Asia: A Looming Health Epidemic
Two consistent elements in the critiques in this thread are the cherrypicking of individual flaws about the U.S. and the failure to mention any equivalent flaws about anybody else.
As a reminder, way upthread, I specified which aspects of a “banana republic” I was interested in discussing:
In this article, the author discusses the same topic and the same characteristics. The article is a few years old, but still relevant to the discussion. Maybe a little outside perspective, which people have been prescribing for me, would help here.
An excerpt from the article:
"But a banana republic isn’t characterised only by a rotten political system, ruled by a small, wealthy, and corrupt clique usually put in power or supported by foreign interests (in the 20th century, in the case of several Central and Latin American countries, by the US), but also by huge wealth and income inequities, poor infrastructure, backwardness in many sectors of the economy, low capital spending, a reliance on foreign capital, money printing and budget deficits, and of course a weakening currency.
A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people’s personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies. Moreover, the fact that the ruling class or the elite comes from different political parties isn’t a relevant factor in classifying a country as a banana republic; what is relevant is the determination of the elite, irrespective of which party its members belong to, to shift wealth from the majority of the people (the masses) to themselves, usually through simply printing money and incurring chronic budget deficits, and frequently also through senseless warfare.
Now, I am not insinuating that the US is already a banana republic, but the trend is undoubtedly there."
Which are increasing in the U.S. But they are no higher than at other points in history. And critically, the U.S. is predominately middle class, which is conspicuously lacking in a banana republic.
This doesn’t mean that not enough money is being spent; it means that in a banana republic infrastructure is non-existent.
Again, this doesn’t mean that some pieces of the economy are lagging; it means that pieces are essentially non-existent, obviously not true in any conceivable way for the U.S…
It’s not clear whether this refers to public or private spending; either way capital spending in the U.S. is enormous.
Now we’re getting into sheer comedy. Most of the world buys U.S. treasuries because it is the safest currency in the world. Calling the world economic leader weak in this regard is fantasy.
The budget deficit has been cut by a trillion dollars in the last five fiscal years. The extremely mild quantitative easement being practiced by the Fed is standard economics. The U.S. economy is actually recovering from the recession in far better terms than most other large economies.
The dollar is still the world’s default currency. Of course it fluctuates regularly against other currencies, but you can see that over the past year it has not moved very far against the Euro and the pound [click on 1Y to get yearly figures], and it is at a five-year high against the yen.
Please try to make the case that anything - anything - in the U.S is a heavy-handed military dictatorship or even moving toward one. I would love to read that.
No, it’s not. Not in any way. Not even close. You have no comprehension of what life in a banana republic was like. Nor have you made any actual case for the U.S. becoming one.
No matter how you twist and torture the definition, no one is going to buy into the US becoming or is a banana republic unless they have delusions AND a political axe to grind. We aren’t, and we aren’t on the path to become one.
Just parsing this:
[QUOTE=dataguy (from link)]
A banana republic is also characterised by a ruling class that curtails people’s personal freedoms and is moving towards a heavyhanded military dictatorship under the excuse of fighting guerrilla (or terrorist) opposition groups or enemies.
[/QUOTE]
We aren’t characterized by a ruling class that curtails people’s personal freedom. We aren’t moving towards a heavy handed dictatorship. We don’t HAVE opposition groups or guerrilla groups in the US. Outside of the US we are certainly fighting terrorist groups, but it’s not like we started this whole mess, though admittedly we fucked up by going into Iraq. But consider that we DIDN’T attack Syria, despite the fact that they used WMD against their own people, something that could legitimately trigger a military response. Where were these entrenched ruling classes pushing us to heavy handed military action then?
Except that we don’t have a ruling elite, and the rich aren’t shifting wealth from the poor to the rich…the pie is getting larger and the rich are simply getting a larger share, while the middle class is getting a smaller share and the poor are stagnant. There are a number of factors of why this is happening, but it’s not as described in this hyperbolic paragraph.
And so on. I know the OP really, REALLY wants the US to be a banana republic or on the path to become one, and gods know folks like Der are right there ready to egg him on, but it’s just not reality.
My point is, if you are comparing net wealth of individuals, it should be against the total net wealth of all individuals. Not the net wealth of the country.
The total net wealth of all Americans would not be anywhere near $118trillion.
Having said that, I would agree with you and would seriously doubt that the top 400 and their $2trillion would be 50% of total. I would estimate maybe 3 ~ 5%.
A bit busy right now, but I’ll see if I can look up what the actual figure is for The total net wealth of American individuals and get back with a more accurate figure, unless someone here has the time.
As for the original question in the OP.
The US is too big to be a banana republic as a whole, but I can see that perhaps it could apply on a state level. Call it a Banana State if you like. I’d propose that states like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana could possibily be considered close. If they were independent countries, they would certainly be candidates.
No. They wouldn’t. Really. Not close. Not by any definition. Please do some real research on what life was actually like in a banana republic.
The term Banana Republic was coined and was originally based on the late 18th century Honduras and Guatemala, this is true. But I have seen the words used to describe other economically backward nations. Where leaders are incapable or too greedy to invest and improve on a nations infrastructure and are in effect limited to producing raw materials/natural resources for export.
If you want to be so narrow in the definitions so as to be inflexible to the fact that the meaning may have expanded to describe poorly run countries, then fine, let’s examine Mississippi in this context.
Assuming Mississippi gained independence during the civil war. They would have had only one major commodity. Cotton, which they exported in huge quantities to textile mills in the UK. Without federal support on building infrastructure, they would have remained backward and hugely dependent on cotton. UK and US textile mills would have competed and corrupted the Mississippi rulers and so on.
So, yes, if you must use it in the context of when the term was coined then historicall, I’d say Mississippi would have been a prime candidate.
In the modern understanding of the words, I stand by my opinion.
Oh, so you meant Mississippi would be close…in an alternate reality where it became a sovereign nation in the the 1860s. That wasn’t at all clear from “…states like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana could possibily be considered close. If they were independent countries, they would certainly be candidates.”
The Mississippi of today has a median income of $36,641,, by the way.
Well, the UN had the time… in the report I provided. 
Mississippi is a banana republic because it was economically dependent on a single commodity more than a hundred years ago. Got it.
In an alternative universe where Mississippi was an independent, sovereign state. With a single crop. I guess they would be a cotton republic. Or something. Except…
[QUOTE=Human Action]
The Mississippi of today has a median income of $36,641, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
Which, ironically, probably puts them in the top 20 or so countries in the world by median income. But maybe not, in the fantasy alternative universe where Mississippi is it’s own nation with a single crop and a ruling class of elites, with bad infrastructure and worse teeth. The Cotton Republic of Mississippi would probably be fighting insurgents in the the United Rich Folks of Alabama and The Snooty French Empire of Louisiana, definitely making them a banana republic and proving the OP was right!
This was a stupid reply, my apologies. You deserved better, NiceGuyJack.
Here’s a chart showing total household net worth in the US.
The OP’s article stated (and note that this was just one of many misstatements of fact, I could have focused on others)
According to the chart, total household wealth in the US is $55 trillion.
According to Forbes, the Forbes 400 own $2 trillion of assets.
No matter how you do the math, no matter how one defines “assets” or “wealth”, the articles “statement of fact” that 400 people own half the country is completely asinine.
And, again, I could have picked other “facts” to poke holes into.