"Third World America" - Is this possible in our lifetimes?

[msmith537]

@Cat_Whisperer

• The industrial base is disappearing in the US, taking with it manufacturing jobs.

It is true that manufacturing jobs as a % of the economy have been decreasing, although the USA still leads the world in actual goods produced.

Many of those factory jobs have been replaced by “knowledge worker” jobs like IT or accounting.

@Cat_Whisperer

• The education system is a disaster.

Based on what?

@Cat_Whisperer

• The infrastructure of the US is crumbling, and necessary repairs are being put off.

Is there any point in the USA you can’t get to from any other point in the USA?

@Cat_Whisperer

• Massive amounts of federal money (i.e. taxpayer money, taken from the Middle Class) is being used to fund Wall Street and foreign wars (as she says about the Wall Street bail-outs - “socialized losses and privatized gains”).

Well, most of the money used to bail out AIG has been repayed at a profit to the government.

@Cat_Whisperer

• Massive amounts of federal money is not being used to help Middle Class people who are being hit with job loss, house foreclosures, rising costs of living, and bankruptcy due to health crises.

Are most of AIG’s 57,000 employees or GM’s 202,000 employees not part of the middle class?

@Cat_Whisperer

• The story of what is actually going on in the US is not being told. Media ignores it mostly, and politicians only talk about self-serving issues.

Bitch please.

[XT]

I mostly agree with what you are saying msmith537, but:

[QUOTE=msmith537]
Is there any point in the USA you can’t get to from any other point in the USA?
[/QUOTE]

Several off the top of my head. The Playboy Mansion for one. Inside the perimeter of Groom Lake for another. Then there is the bathroom in the Whitehouse reserved for the exclusive use of the President…

[grude]

@Chen019

Either way, it’s a major social and economic problem.

Decline of the working man

…I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Chen019…

[RickJay]

If that is the substance of Ms. Huffington’s argument, I am not convinced she even knows what causes countries to BE Third World in the first place.

A country does not become Third World because it gets poor; poor and Third World are the same thing. There are certain conditions that predictably correspond with poverty, and almost every truly failed economy is characterized by:

• Extreme governmental corruption
• Disrespect for the concept of pluralism
• Lack of economic freedom
• Ineffective civil law system
• Extremely protectionist trade policies
• Lack of education, especially among women
• Undiversified economy

None of these apply to the United States; before anyone says “oh gosh this scandal” or “oh man that education problem,” we’re talking about these traits to an extent that simply does not exist in the United States at all.

[RandMcnally]

@bldysabba

Cite?

Sorry for taking so long.

Here is a link to the wiki particle on World-systems theory and in there they have the subsections on core, periphery, semi-periphery.

[Evil_Captor]

@Becky2844

As a nation, no. But if you’ve ever been to backwoods Appalachia or to an Indian Reservation you might think, “Still?”

Weeeel, as a north Georgia native on my father’s side, I’d say, “Yes.” They still got stills up there.

[Evil_Captor]

We are definitely trending toward being a Third World country. One of the key elements is already in place: both major parties are pretty much owned by Wall Street and the plutocrats. The Republican agenda: destroy the social safety net, reduce taxes on the rich and put them on the middle class and the poor, get involved in a war with Iran, put more Americans in prison for minor drug offenses, privatize those prisons, etc. … will get us to Third World status eventually. Just a question of how fast.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Evil_Captor

We are definitely trending toward being a Third World country. One of the key elements is already in place: both major parties are pretty much owned by Wall Street and the plutocrats. The Republican agenda: destroy the social safety net, reduce taxes on the rich and put them on the middle class and the poor, get involved in a war with Iran, put more Americans in prison for minor drug offenses, privatize those prisons, etc. … will get us to Third World status eventually. Just a question of how fast.

So what’s your summary of the Democratic agenda in these regards?

ETA: I should add, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your summary of the Republicans - I’d just like your take on the other side.

[moonshot925]

Everyone knows the Democrat Party is owned by Wall Street and the big unions. Their goal is to destroy American freedom and impose socialism.

[Mekhazzio]

Ah yes, Wall Street, that well-known hotbed of socialist behavior.

[the_diego]

The US DOES have poor sections, whether in some of the cities or in the countryside, doesn’t it?

[XT]

@the_diego

The US DOES have poor sections, whether in some of the cities or in the countryside, doesn’t it?

Yes, of course we do. So does Europe and every other country in the world. What point are you trying to make?

[the_diego]

So outwardly, the richest country in the world has a poor sector, if only based through relative terms, internally (a poor American can’t be compared with a poor Filipino.)

So if every country has a poor sector, how does it earn the title “Third World?”

[Evil_Captor]

@Cat_Whisperer

So what’s your summary of the Democratic agenda in these regards?

ETA: I should add, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your summary of the Republicans - I’d just like your take on the other side.

the Dems are in fact owned by Wall Street, but they have constituencies that are opposed to Wall Street, and unlike the Republican constituencies, they can’t be distracted by abortion or gay bashing, so they can’t be so straightforward in being Wall Street’s servants. But they still serve them: Obama flooded the banks with money, not the homeowners who were underwater, he was not able to find any criminal bankers despite the massive and obvious fraud that went on, he signs trade agreements they love, and the Dems back those agreements. Dems don’t seem to have much energy for fighting the influence of money in politics because they belong to Wall Street. I expect that if Obama is re-elected he will continue to somehow not manage to change the way the one percent is swallowing all the wealth in the country, even if by some miracle there were a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. The rich will somehow still get tax breaks, no matter what.

The Dems have no interest in war with Iran, they will not get involved in a war with Iran unless they are literally forced into it The Dems don’t have the neocon fanatics working foreign policy that Romney will (many of them leftovers from the Dubya administration), so that alone is a huge plus in my opinion. On the record, Dems have been considerably smarter on foreign policy and military issues than Republicans.

Also a sizable portion of the Dem base (minorities and the poor and the elderly) are in need of a social safety net, however tattered it might be, and the Dems are much less likely to gleefully scrap it than the Republicans are, though of course they’ll be “forced” to strike deals that will be particularly problematical for those who do or will rely on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Still, nothing compared with what Republicans will do if they have a free hand.

The Dems are also not using hatred and bigotry to attract people who hate gays, minorities and women, and so you won’t see more voter suppression, anti-gay legislation, and all the stuff that’s currently lumped in the term “the war on women” from the right.

The Dems are a huge win on foreign policy issues, social safety net issues, and social egalitarianism issues. They are a wash on economic issues, because they’ll do what the Republicans will do, they just won’t do it as publicly.

So if Obama is elected I will toss exactly one piece of confetti into the air, give one of the tiniest little golf claps imaginable and continue supporting the development of a third party for progressives. I will not feel at all disappointed in the lies and betrayals the Democrats will make on economic policies, because I don’t expect anything but that from them.

Sadly, they are still far better than the Republicans.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Cat_Whisperer

Infrastructure - electrical grids and power systems, dams, sewers, water pipes, schools, waste-treatment facilities, airports, roads, bridges - according to the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), the US needs to invest 2.2 trillion dollars in infrastructure over the next five years to bring it up to a passable level - there is only 975 billion dollars budgeted for infrastructure over that period. The infrastructure problems speak to quality of life for everyone, as well as public safety concerns.

I’ve always thought the “Our infrastructure is crumbling!” complaints were a bit overblown and this just seals it. In a five-year span, we plan to repair or replace 44% of all identified infrastructure problems. And in the five years after that we’ll work on the remaining 56% percent while pushing the newly created problems down the road to the next five-year period of time.

Instead of being a problem, that is pretty fucking efficient! It’d be great if everything was fixed right away, but prioritizing repairs so that half of it is being worked on at any given moment is great.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I’ve always thought the “Our infrastructure is crumbling!” complaints were a bit overblown and this just seals it.
[/QUOTE]

It comes from watching all of those shows on History or Discovery about the Crumbling of America, etc etc. When you see the show it looks pretty scary, until you take a step back and get some perspective.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Evil_Captor

<snip>
The Dems have no interest in war with Iran, they will not get involved in a war with Iran unless they are literally forced into it The Dems don’t have the neocon fanatics working foreign policy that Romney will (many of them leftovers from the Dubya administration), so that alone is a huge plus in my opinion. On the record, Dems have been considerably smarter on foreign policy and military issues than Republicans. <snip>

But doesn’t Iran have oil, too? The large corporations and lobbyists that run the US government will have a say in protecting the oil fields of Iran, too.

Re. infrastucture - I’m glad to hear it isn’t crumbling after all.

[RickJay]

@Cat_Whisperer

…Infrastructure - electrical grids and power systems, dams, sewers, water pipes, schools, waste-treatment facilities, airports, roads, bridges - according to the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), the US needs to invest 2.2 trillion dollars in infrastructure over the next five years to bring it up to a passable level - there is only 975 billion dollars budgeted for infrastructure over that period. The infrastructure problems speak to quality of life for everyone, as well as public safety concerns.

Shocked, shocked I am, that a trade group that stands to make a huge amount of money from investment in infrastructure would be calling on governmen t to spend more money in infrastructure.

[John_Mace]

@the_diego

So outwardly, the richest country in the world has a poor sector, if only based through relative terms, internally (a poor American can’t be compared with a poor Filipino.)

So if every country has a poor sector, how does it earn the title “Third World?”

By being Green/Light Blue as opposed to Red/Purple.

[bldysabba]

@RandMcnally

Sorry for taking so long.

Here is a link to the wiki particle on World-systems theory and in there they have the subsections on core, periphery, semi-periphery.

I didn’t doubt that it exists. I just wanted a cite to show that it’s the correct academic term now commonly in use. From your cite, it seems only that it is an academic term that one researcher has used.