You left out “peace.”
It’s all going to hinge on one’s definition of ‘most’ and ‘successful’. Obviously that means different things to different people. Also, frankly, people have an emotional stake in the answer one way or the other. If you don’t like the US, then you are going to nit-pick the problems and convince yourself that it’s certainly not the ‘most successful’ nation in human history. If you like the US then you are going to highlight thing things that make us powerful (military) while minimizing the negative aspects.
I think the US is the most successful nation in human history…but then I’m biased toward the US. One of the things that I haven’t seen mentioned that I think is a factor is our ability to be a melting pot of literally every culture, race and creed on earth. Not always harmoniously, mind, but usually moving progressively forward. Contrast that to places like Europe when they emphasize multi-culturalism…which is another way of saying everyone keep to themselves. Of course, this definition of success is going to vary…and I’m sure that some would disagree that a melting pot is better than maintaining separate and segregate cultures (especially the ‘home’ culture).
No nation or empire in history has ever dominated the world like the US has done post WWII, and especially not since the fall of the Soviet Union. Not only does the US economy dominate the world markets (both in terms of products generated but in terms of how the rest of the world conforms to our domestic markets to produce goods and services for our use), our military is THE most dominant in history by any metric one cares to use. Additionally our cultural impact world wide is the greatest of any nation in history. You can literally go into any country in the world and see SOME indication of US culture (be it a Coke tee shirt or some other icon of US culture or business).
No other nation has had that level of influence world wide. Not the Romans who had zero influence on, say, the Chinese empire at the time (or myriad other nations who frankly had never even heard of them). Not the British or French Empires who, while very powerful, never had the same dominance either militarily OR culturally (or economically, neither of which had any where close to the same level of economic prosperity or standards of living as the US). Not Nazi’s or Soviet Union who never had either the standard of living OR the cultural impact or influence. Not the modern EU, who may have similar standard of living but doesn’t have the cultural impact (nor the military capabilities to project any kind of real force beyond it’s boarder, relying on the US to do that for them).
The US has it all…it’s a hyperpower the likes of which has never been seen. This of course doesn’t mean we are perfect or that we have no problems. But pointing at the fact we don’t have Universal Health Care (when it’s pretty clear that in the past the majority of our citizens didn’t WANT it) as an example of why the US isn’t the most successful is missing the point. It’s not any one thing that makes the US what it is…it’s the combination.
Complete horsehit. EVERY dominant military power in history got that way through either technology or training. In the case of the US it’s through technology AND training…and logistics capabilities. It’s not so much that our weapons are so advanced (they are), but that our soldiers are frankly better trained than every other nations (when measuring like kinds)…and even more importantly that we can actually GET our soldiers and their fancy weapons to somewhere outside our borders in numbers to matter. The Brits, Germans, French, etc all have weapons systems that are as good (or nearly so) as many of our own…but they don’t have the numbers, training or ability to project them.
Perhaps, though I’d need some convincing this was so. The US has the highest standards of living for the most people (percentage wise) than afaik any other nation. What that means is that we have a richer upper class, and richer middle class than any other nation…while perhaps having a poorer poor class than some nations. This isn’t necessarily a problem but a feature…at least by the standards of America. We CHOOSE (at least in the past) to have less government controls and less social engineering than some nations. It’s a trade off. What it means is that instead of a few poor and a few rich and everyone generally in a muddle in the middle (but making overall less), we have more poor, more rich and a wider variance in the middle. We pay less taxes and we get less government…but we STILL have a safety net that the majority of us are comfortable with. And of course, because of our system the bar can always be reset…all you need to do is convince some large percentage of the population that things need to change and they will change.
As for ‘happiness’…not sure how you would even quantify that. I concede that most Euroean’s I know are VERY happy with their system. It works for them…they like it the way it is, they don’t mind paying more to get more. Most American’s are happy too of course, but we have a more derisive and dynamic social mix…which means there are going to be wildly varying ideas of how happy one is.
Here is the thing that. Because nation X has (perhaps, depending on how you quantify it) more ‘happiness’ than the US, or nation Y has (perhaps, same same) a higher standard of living, or nation Z has more zombies or whatever, that doesn’t mean the US suddenly is less successful. It’s the sum total of effects, not isolated aspects, that makes the US the most successful and powerful nation in history.
-XT
This is exactly what I mean. War from the beginning of civilization to modern day has toyed with this idea. As a political science major, given the lethality of what we can now accomplish, it makes even more sense. I’m not going to get into a debate over this in this thread because I don’t wish to hijack the OP any further. Frankly, I don’t feel strongly enough to convince other people to accept my views. I just wanted the OP to entertain another thought, which is what he did in his response to me.
War can be a tool to do as you described, but I don’t think it’s the most efficient, expedient way to do so. If you use war as a tool this way, then one party has already taken away compromise as a solution. War puts compromise back on the table, assuming the political will is there to accept it. Politics should always be there. Are the two indistinguishable? Possibly, yes, but I subscribe to the school of thought that the two are completely separate.
Yes, in the modern context. But, perhaps my use of half-ass is a bit extreme (I was implying that the US was being half-assed). Ultimately, if the US decides, Afghanistan would be a smoky mirror. Of course, such extremes are not practical, though I did not say they were unlikely. If the positions were reversed, I could clearly see a Taliban regime taking the extreme position.
According to the above linked report, at least 6 countries have a higher standard of living than Switzerland. For the record, Ireland, which in 2007 came fifth, has a huge amount of immigration per capita. The USA came in at #12
Also according to Swiss Emigration, http://www.swissemigration.ch/themen/laenderinfos/laenderliste/00151/index.html?lang=en “On 31 December 2007 Switzerland’s permanent resident population amounted to 7,591,400 persons, approximately 21 % of whom were foreign nationals.”
By the way to enter the US one must have a working visa too. So what’s your point?
Or the ability to run across the desert at night. And it turns out a great many people have this ability.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and hates the US?
You speak English.
No, it hasn’t.
Well it has if nobody is allowed to point out things it hasn’t got, I guess.
Jeez. Unbelievable. Many would disagree.
Wow. Another “examples of where I may be wrong don’t count” argument? You like that one.
Easy for YOU to say. Ask the poor people.
And we revisit the “examples otherwise don’t count” argument.
I guess you can prove anything with that. hey, Luxembourg is the most powerful country in the world! Any examples to indicate otherwise don’t count!
It’s quite fun, actually. I can see why you do it. Just dismiss anything that contradicts your own jingoistic agenda. America! Ra ra!
Fortunately, you saying it doesn’t make it true.
Any anyone who agrees with me is just spinning things in that direction as well? It helps if you read the WHOLE paragraph with special emphasis on absorbing what I’m actually saying, as opposed to what you seem to THINK I’m saying. Or, you know, you can just spin straw…
Actually, I speak English AND Spanish. What’s your point exactly? Or did you have one?
Ah…very convincing.
No one is ‘allowed’, ehe? Feel free to actually make a point in any of this.
Feel free. Point out which countries have better training, more live fire drills, more training equipment (virtual and actual), etc etc. Or, just wave your hands and go ‘Many would disagree’.
Very easy for me to say…I was born one of those ‘poor people’. I was born one of those ‘poor people’ that didn’t even speak ENGLISH. How about you?
Well, you know, you COULD actually give some examples, make some kind of point. You could actually attempt to debate the points I made instead of handwaving and bullshit. Or, you could just post drivel like this and expect it to mean something. Perhaps the whole ‘debate’ concept is simply beyond you, ehe?
-XT
If you can climb a mountain you can probably enter Switzerland as, if not more, easily.
Not that I think it matters, but how easy is it for illegals to get jobs in Switzerland? Also, I don’t think many illegals are coming to Switzerland from neighboring countries by climbing the Alps.
-XT
I did. I pointed out that English language thing as an example of extreme cultural influence, far beyond that of Coca Cola*. You dismissed it with some irrelevant point abut how you speak Spanish as well.
You’re not interested in a debate, or in hearing anything that contradicts you; you simply preemptively declare that such people are “missing the point”.
I’m not that bothered about the debate in question, just your attitude in your post.
*Or, by your logic, I can dismiss your assertion that Coca Cola is an example of major cultural influence, because I drink tea as well.
You must be having some kind of alternative reality conversation in your own head. You said “You speak English.”. Period. That’s. It. No other point made. Then you wonder why I dismissed your, um, point?
BTW, I speak English as well. Spanish was my first language. What’s the point? Gods know…but at least there is a bit more detail than cryptic one liners you seem to favor.
Sure, I’m interested in a debate…wouldn’t be here if I weren’t. You don’t seem to have the concept down though, so frankly there isn’t one between us. There is simply you giving a bunch of cryptic one liners because you have some problem with the points I raised but don’t feel the need to go into enough detail to actually A) Make a point of your own or B) Make yourself understandable enough that I can even figure out what the fuck your problem IS.
Next time provide some goat entrails or something…or better yet, try to actually make some coherent counter points, arguments, hints or something along those lines. Maybe we could discuss it…
(ok, probably not).
Have you seen tee shirts with your favorite tea on kids in Africa? In Asia? In the Middle East? How about in Central and South America. Have you actually BEEN to any of those places? I have been there and I have seen Coke (as one example) tee shirts in all of those places. I probably failed to catch the massive signs for your favorite tea variety though.
And of course, that was the point…which, it seems, you totally failed to get. Imagine that?
-XT
In all seriousness, perhaps you ought to have imposed them. The world might be a better place today. Why do I say this? It seems to be arguable that between roughly 1850 and 1900, in the USA, the UK, most of Europe, and Japan, a spark was ignited, resulting in the establishment of telephone lines, railroads*, electric power grids, plumbing and sewage systems, and everything that we now consider the basic infrastructure of modern life. In the century or more that followed, in those countries fertility went down, energy consumption went up, and the move from farm to city began. Although cities then as now had their problems with crowding, as happens when there is an influx of new residents, the fact that automobiles were not yet a factor forced large cities like London and New York to build vast transit systems. I would assert that a conditions in a London or NYC slum in 1910 were probably better than those in a Rio favela today.
Elsewhere in the world, people were left behind. Improvements in first-line medical care and vector control saved many people, but the fertility rate stayed where it was and caused the population to skyrocket. Technological progress, not in terms of new inventions but in terms of making the benefits of technology available to all stagnated. Today there are fewer telephones in all of sub-Saharan Africa than in Manhattan. More than half of the world’s people have never used a phone, and over a third do not have electricity. The Mideast, for all its oil wealth, seems beset by tribal strife under a shadow of religious fundamentalism. Tribal or ethnic strife in Africa seems to be rampant in Africa as well. While the Western world was setting up power grids, in other regions factions were fighting over which niece or nephew of the Prophet should take precedence. Schools and education systems often reflect that value, to the detriment of practical scientific and technical learning. If receptiveness to technology is a ‘cultural value’, then I’ll take ‘impose cultural values’ every time.
It’s my contention that if the technological revolution had been worldwide, rather than affecting just a few regions plus elites elsewhere, the world would be a very different place. There would have been a substantial restraint on the growth of energy consumption in the Western World, especially in the U.S. The total world population today would be MUCH lower, and the average standard of living would be higher.
[quote]
*I’ll give you the railroads in India–that was one piece of highly successful infrastructure.
You’re an angry, angry guy. There may well be some desparate unhappiness in your life, in which case I am so sorry, but your vitriol and profanity is not appropriate, and neither do I deserve it.
At least xtisme is contributing to this thread. Simple statements of “I/others disagree” (which is mostly what you’ve contributed to this thread) will not convince anyone of your position.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As others have said, “successful” is too vague to be immediately useful. I would quantify it by creating a list of areas, each with a figure of merit.
Worker Productivity: per capita gross domestic product, normalized by purchasing power. A nation is no greater than what it’s people are capable of doing.
Standard of Living: first decile income (that is, the income which 90% of the population exceeds), normalized by purchasing power. How well the poorest live indicates how well the nation works for everyone.
Technological Innovation: patents and peer-reviewed articles per capita. A measure of the long-term competitiveness of the nation.
Force Projection: how many troops can the nation maintain indefinitely on another continent (not per capita!). Keeping troops in the field is the last means of influencing other nations.
Health Care: combination of expected lifespan and infant mortality rate. Basic quality of life measure.
Those are the success measures that seem most important to me.
I don’t have a position, other than that the guy’s attitude is appalling, his debating strategy of “any evidence or examples which contradict me are irrelevant, and anyone who diagrees with me is missing the point” is logically incongruous and - worse - rude, and his use of profanity and general vitriol is uncalled for.
Maybe he’s right; maybe he’s not. But, man, is he unpleasant about it, and I have no desire to debate with someone who feels that profanity and bullying is a way to make one’s point.
Not necessarily pertinent to the OP, but both Switzerland and Luxembourg have considerably higher per capita immigration than the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop-immigration-foreign-population
Switzerland might be a contender for ‘most successful’ - standard of living, low crime rate, civil rights, cleanliness etc. Obviously Switzerland lags somewhat behind the US in terms of killing power.
If you have a problem with someone’s post go to the pit thread, particularly with this so-called “argument” quoted above you keep repeating. Your one-liners are not a debate and are not a position. We already have too much of that.
The original quote from XT is that if you feel one way about the US, then you will either nitpick or glorify that aspect to prove your point/convince yourself. Is this not true for all things upon which reasonable people disagree?
Then why are you in this thread?
Are the poor that bad, though? While there is a large homeless population, our poor are not in cardboard and plywood shacks like Manila or Nairobi. Gary and East St Louis are nowhere close to Soweto or Port au Prince. The Katrina refugees (to pick a TV-visible poor group) looked well-fed, and a majority (especially women) even looked overweight. The government sponsors medical care and food purchases for the poor, too.
Even the housing projects here in Honolulu are improvements over what southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders had in their old countries.
But you’re making a poor comparison. It would be much more indicative to compare the poor in the US with those in, say, Denmark or Sweden. Once you start doing that I suspect you’ll find the US looking not so great.
eta: I swear I didn’t mean the pun in the first sentence
Increasingly, many Americans don’t seem to feel that way:
Link to the comments section of the article which belie the subheading.
Lot’s of angry people there. And for good reason…