The decline of America

[steve.foote]

I don't know if you realize it, but it is not the job of business to give anyone a job. It is the individual's responsiblity to find one for themselves.

That may be your philosophy but it's not mine, we are not allowed to discuss this here so I ask you to stop stating philosophical/political views in this thread.

 

Umm, there was nothing political in what I was saying. I'm not sure how you could construe it that way.

[steve.foote]

But, again you keep coming back to giving people jobs (or in this case giving away jobs). I don't know if you realize it, but it is not the job of business to give anyone a job. It is the individual's responsiblity to find one for themselves.

I disagree, it is the responsibility of all parts of a society to support the society as a whole. A society can only survive through cooperation, it will not survive if businesses do not fulfil their proper role of creating jobs for the members of the society that supports them.

 

Bob, now it is you who is going down that political alley. It's probably alright since we have a wink-wink-nod-nod system going on here anyway.

 

Look, my intention here isn't to award a blue ribbon to the best idiology. It is to refocus our debate on what was done right to get us to the point of greatness (however anyone here wants to describe that). One cannot ignore the amazing story of the United States. So, armed with an understanding of how it came to be, we ought to be able to draw some patterns from it that we can follow to move towards more success. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

[Whip]

That is an amazing statement. I understand how you feel, and I respect it. But in my mind this is exactly what has caused our decline.

And I think exactly the opposite, and your actions follow my philosophy.

 

 

I guess your right.

 

Long as we both understand it is my choice and not mandated by big bro.

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

That is an amazing statement. I understand how you feel, and I respect it. But in my mind this is exactly what has caused our decline.

And I think exactly the opposite, and your actions follow my philosophy.

 

 

I guess your right.

 

Long as we both understand it is my choice and not mandated by big bro.

 

 

I believe responsibilities are innate not mandated.

[Bob Palin]

One cannot ignore the amazing story of the United States. So, armed with an understanding of how it came to be, we ought to be able to draw some patterns from it that we can follow to move towards more success. That's all I'm saying.

And I could not disagree more! The current world situation economically and in respect of the ability to transport heavy goods over huge distances very rapidly has rendered the pattern followed to reach this point largely irrelevant. We now have to figure out a new way to continue taking into account the new factors (and it's not limited to the two I mentioned) It won't ever be the same as it was...

[FlyingFinn]

The current world situation economically and ie]And I could not n respect of the ability to transport heavy goods over huge distances very rapidly has rendered the pattern followed to reach this point largely irrelevant.

 

I was just going to say "The world has changed and what worked then doesn't work now."

But, as usual Bob put it into words way more eloquently.

 

--

Mikko

[beemerman2k]

OK, I'm not going to let anyone leave this thread until we expound on Ken's suggestion that we drum up a new economic paradigm that will serve as our competitive advantage going forward. I figured I'd wait for things to die down a bit and then remind us of that dangling thread, but I guess I'm getting impatient :smile:

[Selden]

The current world situation economically and in respect of the ability to transport heavy goods over huge distances very rapidly has rendered the pattern followed to reach this point largely irrelevant. We now have to figure out a new way to continue taking into account the new factors (and it's not limited to the two I mentioned) It won't ever be the same as it was...

You've grokked it. Not only has the world changed, it's going to continue changing, and societies, as well as individuals, that are not comfortable with change are going to fall by the wayside.

[beemerman2k]

I wonder what the cost to our society has been of unemployment and welfare benefits, broken families, drug and alcohol addiction, lost tax revenues, crime, etc., from jobs lost due to outsourcing. I wonder what the future cost to our society will be from the loss of "faith" in our system of those unable to find jobs and their families.

 

Do you suppose if those costs were measured and divvied up among the products we import, they would still be a bargain?

 

Great question.

 

In my view, this is definitely a case of the wealth win, everyone else loses. This system benefits the few at the cost of the many. You and I are paying a dear price for this practice. And to think of all the "pro-American" marketing Walmart does. That place has to be China's #1 retail outlet in this country, and they have closed the doors of countless family owned American businesses.

 

Remember Ross Perot's "Giant Sucking Sound"? He predicted the jobs would flock to Mexico. Instead the situation, in my view, is much worse than what he envisioned.

 

[Quinn]

I've got two suggestions of things to look at. First, how does California compete with the other states? Their costs may be as far out of balance with the other states as the US's are with the rest of the world.

 

The Second thing is how have other countries coped with losing manufacturing jobs by overpricing themselves? Maybe Switzerland, or Holland?

 

 

---

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I've got two suggestions of things to look at. First, how does California compete with the other states? Their costs may be as far out of balance with the other states as the US's are with the rest of the world.

 

 

I don't know how far this gets you, but maybe someone can pick up on it. People who like to live in California wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I suppose this includes business owners who are willing to put up with whatever additional costs there may be to do business here (heck, I are one!).

 

I suppose everyone has their own particular reasons for wanting to live in California, but I like the open-minded attitudes toward just about anything you might want to consider.

[beemerman2k]

I've got two suggestions of things to look at. First, how does California compete with the other states? Their costs may be as far out of balance with the other states as the US's are with the rest of the world.

 

The Second thing is how have other countries coped with losing manufacturing jobs by overpricing themselves? Maybe Switzerland, or Holland?

 

Great questions. I like looking for living examples of potential solutions.

[Selden]

I wonder what the cost to our society has been of unemployment and welfare benefits, broken families, drug and alcohol addiction, lost tax revenues, crime, etc., from jobs lost due to outsourcing. I wonder what the future cost to our society will be from the loss of "faith" in our system of those unable to find jobs and their families.

 

Do you suppose if those costs were measured and divvied up among the products we import, they would still be a bargain?

This is reminding me of an interview with Ambassador to Afghanistan Eikenberry today, in which he mused (briefly) about how things might have turned out in Afghanistan, had resources not been diverted to Iraq in 2003. Then he said (if I remember correctly), "It's time to take down the rear view mirror."

 

We can grouse ad nauseum about what might have been, but it's time to pick up the pieces and focus on what we can be. As a nation, I'm not sure how that will turn out, but as individuals, we have a fair amount of control over our lives.

[steve.foote]

And I could not disagree more! The current world situation economically and in respect of the ability to transport heavy goods over huge distances very rapidly has rendered the pattern followed to reach this point largely irrelevant. We now have to figure out a new way to continue taking into account the new factors (and it's not limited to the two I mentioned) It won't ever be the same as it was...

 

Alright then, assuming that it will never be the same again, would we want our new future to be better or worse than before?

[steve.foote]

I suppose everyone has their own particular reasons for wanting to live in California, but I like the open-minded attitudes toward just about anything you might want to consider.

 

Except, of course, for the way we used to run our country.

[steve.foote]

We can grouse ad nauseum about what might have been, but it's time to pick up the pieces and focus on what we can be.

 

How can we move forward and not make the same mistakes if we don't examine where we have been?

[Bob Palin]

We can grouse ad nauseum about what might have been, but it's time to pick up the pieces and focus on what we can be.

 

How can we move forward and not make the same mistakes if we don't examine where we have been?

The same mistakes aren't even available to be made any more.

[russell_bynum]

We can grouse ad nauseum about what might have been, but it's time to pick up the pieces and focus on what we can be.

 

How can we move forward and not make the same mistakes if we don't examine where we have been?

The same mistakes aren't even available to be made any more.

 

How can you say that if we haven't even identified the mistakes?

[Bob Palin]

How can we move forward and not make the same mistakes if we don't examine where we have been?

The same mistakes aren't even available to be made any more.

 

How can you say that if we haven't even identified the mistakes?

That's a fair question and it would take a lot of analysis to really answer it. I base my opinion on observation of the population levels, the types of economy, the transport and communication speeds, that now exist both in the US and world-wide, they're so different from the conditions in which the US ascended.

[beemerman2k]

That's a fair question and it would take a lot of analysis to really answer it. I base my opinion on observation of the population levels, the types of economy, the transport and communication speeds, that now exist both in the US and world-wide, they're so different from the conditions in which the US ascended.

 

To me, what's so different is that we no longer have the sense of national pride, or nationalism, that our ancestors had. So here's a question: is there a place for a sense of nationalism in America anymore or is that an obsolete viewpoint of times past. Are we now a part of a "global community" to the point where the United States is little more significant on the global level as the state you live in is on the national level? No one calls it "off-shoring" when a company moves to a different location within the USA. Maybe its time to update our thinking to no longer care where production lines reside, its purely a logistical matter the company alone cares about. American citizenship purely points to where your taxes need to be filed and your votes are cast, otherwise there isn't much to it anymore. Anyone, legal resident or not, can live and work here freely -- if they are here, they are Americans, end of story.

 

What does it mean to be an American nowadays with respect to any rights and privileges to resources and opportunities created by American institutions?

[Bob Palin]

That's a fair question and it would take a lot of analysis to really answer it. I base my opinion on observation of the population levels, the types of economy, the transport and communication speeds, that now exist both in the US and world-wide, they're so different from the conditions in which the US ascended.

 

To me, what's so different is that we no longer have the sense of national pride, or nationalism, that our ancestors had. So here's a question: is there a place for a sense of nationalism in America anymore or is that an obsolete viewpoint of times past. Are we now a part of a "global community" to the point where the United States is little more significant on the global level as the state you live in is on the national level? No one calls it "off-shoring" when a company moves to a different location within the USA. Maybe its time to update our thinking to no longer care where production lines reside, its purely a logistical matter the company alone cares about. American citizenship purely points to where your taxes need to be filed and your votes are cast, otherwise there isn't much to it anymore. Anyone, legal resident or not, can live and work here freely -- if they are here, they are Americans, end of story.

 

What does it mean to be an American nowadays with respect to any rights and privileges to resources and opportunities created by American institutions?

Question too complex - stack overflow.

[SageRider]

That's a fair question and it would take a lot of analysis to really answer it. I base my opinion on observation of the population levels, the types of economy, the transport and communication speeds, that now exist both in the US and world-wide, they're so different from the conditions in which the US ascended.

 

To me, what's so different is that we no longer have the sense of national pride, or nationalism, that our ancestors had. So here's a question: is there a place for a sense of nationalism in America anymore or is that an obsolete viewpoint of times past. Are we now a part of a "global community" to the point where the United States is little more significant on the global level as the state you live in is on the national level? No one calls it "off-shoring" when a company moves to a different location within the USA. Maybe its time to update our thinking to no longer care where production lines reside, its purely a logistical matter the company alone cares about. American citizenship purely points to where your taxes need to be filed and your votes are cast, otherwise there isn't much to it anymore. Anyone, legal resident or not, can live and work here freely -- if they are here, they are Americans, end of story.

 

What does it mean to be an American nowadays with respect to any rights and privileges to resources and opportunities created by American institutions?

Question too complex - stack overflow.

Malware injected....

[hijack](Sorry... couldn't resist...) [/hijack]

 

[steve.foote]

To me, what's so different is that we no longer have the sense of national pride, or nationalism, that our ancestors had. So here's a question: is there a place for a sense of nationalism in America anymore or is that an obsolete viewpoint of times past. Are we now a part of a "global community" to the point where the United States is little more significant on the global level as the state you live in is on the national level? No one calls it "off-shoring" when a company moves to a different location within the USA. Maybe its time to update our thinking to no longer care where production lines reside, its purely a logistical matter the company alone cares about. American citizenship purely points to where your taxes need to be filed and your votes are cast, otherwise there isn't much to it anymore. Anyone, legal resident or not, can live and work here freely -- if they are here, they are Americans, end of story.

 

What does it mean to be an American nowadays with respect to any rights and privileges to resources and opportunities created by American institutions?

 

There you go, James. Those are exactly the kind of questions we should be asking right now. Who were we? Who are we? And, who do we want to be? I don't think you can get to the third question without understanding the first two.

[steve.foote]

How can we move forward and not make the same mistakes if we don't examine where we have been?

The same mistakes aren't even available to be made any more.

 

How can you say that if we haven't even identified the mistakes?

 

Not to mention how much of the right stuff would be lost if we were to simply forget our past.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

OK, I'm not going to let anyone leave this thread until we expound on Ken's suggestion that we drum up a new economic paradigm that will serve as our competitive advantage going forward.

James, why does it have to be a competitive advantage? Why can't it be a cooperative advantage? It seems to me that if we could devise more win-win situations in which each country's strengths were maximized and/or developed in harmony with each other we'd be more likely to succeed than setting up situations in which there has to be winners and losers.

[beemerman2k]

OK, I'm not going to let anyone leave this thread until we expound on Ken's suggestion that we drum up a new economic paradigm that will serve as our competitive advantage going forward.

James, why does it have to be a competitive advantage? Why can't it be a cooperative advantage? It seems to me that if we could devise more win-win situations in which each country's strengths were maximized and/or developed in harmony with each other we'd be more likely to succeed than setting up situations in which there has to be winners and losers.

 

It's your future, so start pontificating. You paint for us what your tomorrow should look like.

[beemerman2k]

I think that we have lost a lot of what it has traditionally meant to be an American. What were once strong American principles deeply embedded into our culture as a point of pride are now quaint old sentiments of a bygone era -- many of which the young among us aren't even aware of ever dominating this land.

 

In America

 

- you used to be innocent until proven guilty. Now, our laws and policies assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. That's why we have these invasive security procedures at airports, why 2nd amendment rights are so hard to come by, and why the police can set up inspection points on Friday and Saturday nights to see if you're driving drunk.

 

- this used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now, the LAW mandates that you wear your seatbelts when you drive, put on a helmet while its still legal to ride, and equip your kids with helmets when they ride their bicycles. You know that Geico commercial, "Does a former drill sergeant make a terrible therapist?" -- that therapist is our grandparents generation and that patient on the couch is us.

 

- this used to be:

 

"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing; land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

 

...and the last verse, which is about as anti-American a phrase one can utter nowadays, goes like this:

 

"Our fathers God to thee, author of liberty, to thee we sing. Long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light, protect us by thy might, great God our King"

 

I reference these old phrases and songs because in my youth they were prominent in my mind and heart as a boy living in the '60's when I thought of what it meant to be an American. I often chuckle in my heart when I realize that the people who taught me these songs were my black family, my black school teachers, and my black principle at John J. Bagley Elementary school in Detroit, MI. And this was in an era where many of these very people grew up in this country without some of the basic rights of American citizenship, yet obviously, being an American citizen was nonetheless a point of major pride for them all. I believe the loss of sentiments like these preceeded the loss of everything else being discussed in this thread.

 

So what is our new direction? What does it now mean -- today and going forward -- to be an American? What does "patriotism" mean and is there a place for such sentiments anymore -- beyond matters of anti-terrorism? What is the ultimate evil behind the Wiki-leaks issue -- that American lives were endangered, that American leaders were embarrased, or that it was just a plain anti-American move?

[Ken H.]

James, why does it have to be a competitive advantage? Why can't it be a cooperative advantage? It seems to me that if we could devise more win-win situations in which each country's strengths were maximized and/or developed in harmony with each other we'd be more likely to succeed than setting up situations in which there has to be winners and losers.

A key observation indeed!

[Albert]

James, why does it have to be a competitive advantage? Why can't it be a cooperative advantage? It seems to me that if we could devise more win-win situations in which each country's strengths were maximized and/or developed in harmony with each other we'd be more likely to succeed than setting up situations in which there has to be winners and losers.

 

Sorry but "cooperative advantage"? Isn't that just a competitive advantage with lipstick? I mean, doesn't the fact that one is "advantaged" imply someone else must be "disadvantaged"?

[Ken H.]

OK, I'm not going to let anyone leave this thread until we expound on Ken's suggestion that we drum up a new economic paradigm that will serve as our competitive advantage going forward.

James, why does it have to be a competitive advantage? Why can't it be a cooperative advantage? It seems to me that if we could devise more win-win situations in which each country's strengths were maximized and/or developed in harmony with each other we'd be more likely to succeed than setting up situations in which there has to be winners and losers.

 

It's your future, so start pontificating. You paint for us what your tomorrow should look like.

Although you directed your question to George, Can I butt in with my vision?

 

Ironically, although I rally against hopeless (IMHO) efforts to turn back the clock, in some respects it does involve just that:

 

A refocusing on people instead of things. A turning away from the false prophet of material happiness to the only true one – relational happiness.

 

A renewed sense, no not just sense, actual actions of cooperation instead of adversary.

 

A broad willingness on the part of the populous to forgo some individual rewards for the betterment, achievement of collective ones.

 

A return to the concept of how we treat, assist, the least most unfortunate of our brethren defines who we are, not how we treat, enable the most elite/wealthy.

 

A recognition, respect, admiration that personal accomplishment doesn’t always involve the dollar.

 

An educational system that teaches not just skills on how to create things other people will see and want to buy, but how to lead lives other people will see and want to live.

 

 

But alas, I woke up overtly pessimistic this morning and in reality both your dream James of returning to 1950s & 60s manufacturing superiority, and mine of a new people-based social paradigm are both indeed, little more than day dreams. In reality the USA, the West, will plod along, will little direction, pining for the past, while dazed about the future. It ain’t going to come back, and it ain’t going to be different. The die is cast. Too many people believe what was the best for ‘then’ is still the best for ‘next’. The fact that it took the course that it did, and put us where we are; proves though that is not the case. For if it were true, we would not be where we are.

 

[Quinn]

Is OPEC oil a co-operative or a competative advantage? Is Mexico's exporting cheap labor to the US co-operative or competative?

 

---

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Is OPEC oil a co-operative or a competative advantage? Is Mexico's exporting cheap labor to the US co-operative or competative?

 

Ahhh, the fine print. That's is always a problem, isn't it?

 

The other problem are the "spin masters" -- if the practice benefits them, even though it screws you and everybody else, it's cooperative. Otherwise, it's competitive :smirk:

[Selden]

That's a nice list, Ken, to which I would add:

 

A political system that is civil in its public debate.

 

I am so fed up with talking heads screaming at each other in so-called debates -- which are usually ginned up to create as much dissonance as possible. People (including politicians) learn from what they see on TV, and carry this sort of behavior into every day life. Unmoderated comments on most news/political web sites are a cesspool.

 

Earlier this week on The Daily Show, the Brit, John Oliver, did a sketch involving Connecticut state senate race candidates Stuart Norman ® and Andrew Maynard (D), who had agreed to engage in a "civility tour" as they campaigned for office this fall, each promising not to bring up issues that were not relevant to the campaign -- such as the fact that Maynard was gay. Even though farce, it was a refreshing change. If you don't like Jon Stewart, John Oliver's sketch starts at 4:00 into this video clip.

 

Maynard summed it up as: "Don't be a jackass."

[steve.foote]

I think that we have lost a lot of what it has traditionally meant to be an American. What were once strong American principles deeply embedded into our culture as a point of pride are now quaint old sentiments of a bygone era -- many of which the young among us aren't even aware of ever dominating this land.

 

I think so too. In my mind, this is the single greatest cause of anything which might be considered a decline in America. Fortunately, there are still a lot of folks who believe in the great experiment, but that old guard is being tested right now.

 

- this used to be:

 

"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing; land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

 

...and the last verse, which is about as anti-American a phrase one can utter nowadays, goes like this:

 

"Our fathers God to thee, author of liberty, to thee we sing. Long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light, protect us by thy might, great God our King"

 

I reference these old phrases and songs because in my youth they were prominent in my mind and heart as a boy living in the '60's when I thought of what it meant to be an American. I often chuckle in my heart when I realize that the people who taught me these songs were my black family, my black school teachers, and my black principle at John J. Bagley Elementary school in Detroit, MI. And this was in an era where many of these very people grew up in this country without some of the basic rights of American citizenship, yet obviously, being an American citizen was nonetheless a point of major pride for them all. I believe the loss of sentiments like these preceeded the loss of everything else being discussed in this thread.

 

Whoa! Who opened the door and let that fresh air in? Keep it opened for a while, it feels great.

 

So what is our new direction? What does it now mean -- today and going forward -- to be an American? What does "patriotism" mean and is there a place for such sentiments anymore -- beyond matters of anti-terrorism? What is the ultimate evil behind the Wiki-leaks issue -- that American lives were endangered, that American leaders were embarrased, or that it was just a plain anti-American move?

 

That's really where we are now. Pondering, poking at what our new future should look like. It's a tough one, and one I really don't have an answer for. I know how I would like things to be, but am jaded enough to understand that it'll fall somewhere short of my aim.

 

I've mentioned this to other members off line, but I have personally been on an emotional roller coaster these last few years. Moods have ranged between resignation and outright, spitting anger at many of the changes enveloping our nation. But, the globe keeps spinning and what will be will be. In truth, there isn't much we can do as individuals but adapt and prosper withing the reality of this new paradigm. Our founding fathers might be disappointed in the direction of our society as a whole, but it is a personal goal that they wouldn't be disappointed in me. In the end, all we really have is our lives, our families and our friends. Nothing else is within our control to manage.

[beemerman2k]

I've mentioned this to other members off line, but I have personally been on an emotional roller coaster these last few years. Moods have ranged between resignation and outright, spitting anger at many of the changes enveloping our nation.

 

You and I both my friend.

 

Our founding fathers might be disappointed in the direction of our society as a whole, but it is a personal goal that they wouldn't be disappointed in me. In the end, all we really have is our lives, our families and our friends. Nothing else is within our control to manage.

 

Nice

[Pilgrim]

Politics (which this post is not about) and economics reflect one another.

 

The extreme examples are communism, which requires a repressive state capable of making the people surrender their time and sweat to that state, and libertarian, which leaves people free to dispose of that which is theirs within the scope of public security.

 

All politics revolves around where on that continuum a country will land. Our system guarantees perennial, often heated, debate on where that will be. Until very recently (historically speaking) we operated within a relatively closed system. Our very size, plus the way communications and transport worked made that possible.

 

Most of what follows here has been touched on in this thread but I'm trying to pull together some disparate points.

 

Digesting Thomas Friedman's two books, The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The Word is Flat make a couple things clear. The most important among them is that the old "local" economic paradigms are gone, obliterated by changes in the communications and transport systems that were unimaginable just a generation ago. The only way we can go back to those paradigms is if some disaster wipes out the infrastructures that sustain the modern world. (Because they are fragile, that's not impossible, but never mind for now.)

 

One of the things brought by the new model is global competition. At one level, that's good. It forces local companies (around the world, in this frame) to get better or die. We see this with every new product that comes out. U.S. car companies are a good example.

 

But for the U.S. worker, who must now compete with sweat, thought, and ideas from around the world, it is hard bargain. Hard, yes, and as immutable as gravity as long as the modern infrastructures exist. Autarky is no longer an option, for to try it will, by definition, lead to economic isolation. Isolation leads to inbreeding and inbreeding in nations, as in life, leads ultimately to demise.

 

I see no other end to this than a worldwide leveling of economic distribution. Just as within the historical United States there were pockets of affluence and poverty despite free trade amongst the states, in a world similarly organized from an economic standpoint there will be economic backwaters. We have to work like hell to keep from becoming one of them and that will take more focus and effort than I see us being willing and able to make if the debate going about the budget and deficit is any example.

 

Pilgrim

 

[Bob Palin]

Concisely, clearly, and I think accurately put.

 

We're going to have to work hard to maintain something even approaching our current level of comfort. We'll probably have to sink a ways before people suffer enough to make the effort.

[Selden]

But for the U.S. worker, who must now compete with sweat, thought, and ideas from around the world, it is a hard bargain. Hard, yes, and as immutable as gravity as long as the modern infrastructures exist. Autarky is no longer an option, for to try it will, by definition, lead to economic isolation. Isolation leads to inbreeding and inbreeding in nations, as in life, leads ultimately to demise.

 

I see no other end to this than a worldwide leveling of economic distribution. Just as within the historical United States there were pockets of affluence and poverty despite free trade amongst the states, in a world similarly organized from an economic standpoint there will be economic backwaters. We have to work like hell to keep from becoming one of them and that will take more focus and effort than I see us being willing and able to make if the debate going about the budget and deficit is any example.

 

Pilgrim

Well stated, Pilgrim. I think this sums up what several of us have been trying to put into words -- especially the part that I highlighted in your quote. And, unfortunately, I share your pessimism about the budget and deficit "debate", which increasingly has a NIMBY tone -- "We need to balance the budget, but don't you dare touch MY fill in the blank."

[beemerman2k]

OK, while I still have questions as to what national citizenship means in this brave new world, my next question that I ask myself is, "what can I do to take advantage of all this change?" and "How can I make these changes benefit my children?".

[Bud]

I've got two suggestions of things to look at. First, how does California compete with the other states? Their costs may be as far out of balance with the other states as the US's are with the rest of the world.

 

 

I don't know how far this gets you, but maybe someone can pick up on it. People who like to live in California wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I suppose this includes business owners who are willing to put up with whatever additional costs there may be to do business here (heck, I are one!).

 

I suppose everyone has their own particular reasons for wanting to live in California, but I like the open-minded attitudes toward just about anything you might want to consider.

 

Buck Knives moved from CA to Idaho because of the costs of doing business in CA. An of course, a lot of folks sold out in CA and moved to Montana to become Californicators.

[Bud]

But for the U.S. worker, who must now compete with sweat, thought, and ideas from around the world, it is a hard bargain. Hard, yes, and as immutable as gravity as long as the modern infrastructures exist. Autarky is no longer an option, for to try it will, by definition, lead to economic isolation. Isolation leads to inbreeding and inbreeding in nations, as in life, leads ultimately to demise.

 

I see no other end to this than a worldwide leveling of economic distribution. Just as within the historical United States there were pockets of affluence and poverty despite free trade amongst the states, in a world similarly organized from an economic standpoint there will be economic backwaters. We have to work like hell to keep from becoming one of them and that will take more focus and effort than I see us being willing and able to make if the debate going about the budget and deficit is any example.

 

Pilgrim

Well stated, Pilgrim. I think this sums up what several of us have been trying to put into words -- especially the part that I highlighted in your quote. And, unfortunately, I share your pessimism about the budget and deficit "debate", which increasingly has a NIMBY tone -- "We need to balance the budget, but don't you dare touch MY fill in the blank."

 

And the result of that attitude is that NO politician has the political will to do what needs to be done to solve our financial problems. I used to think there were some politicians who had enough integrity to do what is right, now I am convinced that I was wrong.

 

As we continue to kick the can down the road hoping things will be better some day and we will no longer be in debt, the problem becomes bigger and bigger till it will take the whole economy down when the piper has to be paid.

 

[Pilgrim]

OK, while I still have questions as to what national citizenship means in this brave new world, my next question that I ask myself is, "what can I do to take advantage of all this change?" and "How can I make these changes benefit my children?".

 

The answers to these questions, my friend, are what will lead you to billionaire status. When you think of something, call me first, please.

 

Pilgrim

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

And the result of that attitude is that NO politician has the political will to do what needs to be done to solve our financial problems. I used to think there were some politicians who had enough integrity to do what is right, now I am convinced that I was wrong.

 

As we continue to kick the can down the road hoping things will be better some day and we will no longer be in debt, the problem becomes bigger and bigger till it will take the whole economy down when the piper has to be paid.

 

You're right, Bud, mostly, and the problem is that no one with that sort of integrity is willing to dive into the cesspool that American politics has become.

 

Or, if Mr. Smith does indeed go to Washington he very quickly bows out, as did, for example, J.C. Watts, and he wants no further part of it.

 

There was never what we might think of as a "golden age of politics," it's always been a hard-contact sport, but the coarsening of society coupled with modern communications and investigative tools have made the system insupportable for anyone you'd ever want in D.C.

 

Pilgrim

[lawnchairboy]

"As we continue to kick the can down the road..."

 

The title of an economist article this week, at least the kicking the can down the road part, a particularly effective metaphor for what is going on right now.

[steve.foote]

...and the problem is that no one with that sort of integrity is willing to dive into the cesspool that American politics has become.

 

Good point, Kent, and easily verifible by looking at the quality of candidates in almost any election today. Where are the pillars of society you ask? Sitting on the sidelines.

 

And, it's not that they don't want to do the job (sure it's a dirty job, but it's always been a dirty job), it's that they don't think they can contribute anything right now in a meaningful manner. High-quality, high-integrity people didn't get where they are by wasting time on futile projects. If they don't see a workable solution, they won't invest time on it.

 

In this environment, I think a lot of folks are just biding their time, waiting to see how this is all going to shake out. Once the citizenry finally decide who they want to be, I believe true leaders will step forward - the identity of which, of course, depends on what direction we ultimately choose.

[Ken H.]

Nicely summarized. (I had to look up “autarky” though. )

[Ken H.]

We'll probably have to sink a ways before people suffer enough to make the effort.

And I think that’s a key, unfortunate, but key point. Despite how bad it has become for some, overall it’s not bad enough to have yet reached the critical mass to force change. Here and there little bits of ‘good’ news pop up (“New unemployment claims were down to 416,000 last month! Cheer!”) that people latch onto as maybe, just maybe; the clock has finally started going backwards.

 

Despite the fact that things are bad in the USA in certain pockets/sectors; they’re still a lot better than many other areas of the world.

 

Will they get bad enough for US Americans to really affect real change? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe as-is is good enough. Maybe “Onward Mediocrity!” is not such a bad chat after all, relative to the song others have to sing.

 

[beemerman2k]

Ken, glad you checked back in. I've been thinking about you...

 

...I am surprised that you have not siezed this thread to promote your vision. You often criticise the way things are done in the USA, well here's your platform to suggest major overhauls. You did enter one post about what you would like to see, but even there you discounted it as day-dreaming.

 

It's easy to criticise something, but not so easy to design a replacement. We see this in elections all the time; people criticise the incumbent and promote themselves as the fitting replacement, only to get the job and prove no more effective than the person they replaced.

 

It's not only easy, but it's actually popular to criticise the United States in this day and age. Who among us can suggest a viable alternative to means by which we currently generate our revenue (aside from borrowing it from the banks :smirk:)?

 

Ken: this is your moment. The floor is yours.

 

For the record, I think you're on the right track with your "promotion of a healthly lifestyle" agenda. But the thought is very immature and unrefined. How does this lifestyle generate revenue? How does it make a society/country stronger? What does it offer of value that can be traded for imported goods? Aren't other nations in a better position to lead in this respect given their wealth of natural environments in which humans could live -- Australia, Africa, South America for instance. How does it enable a nation to remain strong against other powers that would rather sacrifice tomorrow for gains today and therefore post a thread to your well being? How does it keep a large population productively employed? Are there winners and losers in this new world? What happens to each over time?

 

Why not elaborate on it, subject it to cross examination and group scrutiny. What you'll have left is a mature and refined idea that might be worth pursuing...or not

[Ken H.]

Ken: this is your moment. The floor is yours.

 

Why not elaborate on it, subject it to cross examination and group scrutiny. What you'll have left is a mature and refined idea that might be worth pursuing...or not

Reread my post #661157 above.

[Selden]

I just stumbled on this video (courtesy of David Brooks). It provides a mesmerizing graphical illustration of what some of us have been trying to communicate about the convergence of world economies. I couldn't pull myself away from the screen for 4 minutes.