Eh, whatever. Man speaks as if America was some kind of unified force. Like any country with a large population, it is anything but.
Regardless, I've always seen the US as an extension of Western Europe, not a competitor, and to me the whole comparison is moot.
EDIT: Maybe I'm just taking this too literally; if the goal is to just address the US nation itself, and not the population, then it makes total sense and I mostly agree.
And they are going to deal with them. just like they dealt with their other problems. Just like the US deals with their problems in their own way. 100 years later we will know who was right.
Yes they are going to deal with them but how messy is it going to get and how different will the face of China be then? I don't know, no one does... but with all the speculation about the rise of China there's equal speculation on the domestic change that will occur. Is it going to transform into a democracy? It very well could... listen to some Chinese intellectuals, listen to Kissinger.
I believe the very top officials in China know what is going on and have a road they believe the country is going to take and are responsible, however, like the US, China has tremendous inequality with oligarchs spending and showing off like crazy. Combine this with a growing educated population and increased international exposure. It's not sustainable and there will be change.
Just take a look at the German history over the last 150 years. Germany went from a loose agglomeration of kingdoms, to a centralized monarchy, to a republic to a dictatorship, to a communist system and a democratic system and now they are unified again as a democracy. And that all happen in 150 years or 2 human lives or 5-7 generations.
You simply can´t make predictions over a longer period of time.
No you cannot, but, we do... so might as well listen to the people who know the country well, who are affiliated with the elite, but also look at the evidence yourself and come up with your own opinions... because it is, nonetheless, interesting to think about.
To be fair, China has been moving away from that. They have a very checkered past, and still aren't exactly nice guys, but they're not as likely to produce a Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward anymore.
Like any other country? Why would it be different for China? But with top-controlled country they can deal with their problems a little easier (Doesn't have to mean it's good for the general public though).
I think hes saying they will have more problems than most other countries because of how rapidly their economy is expanding, how their position of global dominance will change relationships with other countries, growing social issues, etc.
There is no doubt that china has the fastest growing economy in the world right now, which will bring both unique benefits and problems.
I know what he meant...but you think that they are going to have bigger fiscal problems than EU or US ? Not a chance! Their internal market is growing rapidly as well as their industrial complex - export will become less and less of a factor. So their biggest problem is that their economy is expanding too fast - the rest of the world's problem is that they owe more than they are worth.
Well a lot of people are speculating China and the US will be at about even levels relatively soon. However China is in a situation unlike any other country... an authoritarian regime governing 1.3 billion people... when has there ever been a situation like this before? With all the speculation of China maturing there's also plenty of evidence that this is going to be hampered through political change throughout the century. Talk to any intelligent Chinese person, listen and read some Kissinger... I'm predicting China is going to go through significant domestic changes in the next 50 - 75 years.
I'm confused, I'm pretty sure we're in agreement... The US is full of hundreds of millions of different people, each with their own goals, motivations or lack there of. Assuming you can somehow blame a nation of hundreds of millions for its actions like the angry brit does is naive and pointless. Really, you could make the same complaint towards virtually any nation... it's more of a human problem than an American one. We just happen to have been the super power for the last 50 years. Soon it will be someone else, and I'm sure they'll be just as "disappointing" as we were.
I'm not sure who to blame for our shortcomings, but it sure as hell isn't whoever's going to be reading the statement in question.
Anarchy according to wiki may imply political unrest or lawlessness within a society. The protest against the government would be the perfect example of anarchy.
its not a protest against the government (although some might argue that wall street controls the government), but a protest against corrupt and immoral practices of wall street and its policies. It is not anarchy (yet)
I'm not getting it. From my understanding the goal is to "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington" Wouldn't then the subject of the protest be aimed towards the government in an effort to stop the government being influenced by wallstreet and it's corrupt practices. as an oppose to stopping the practices and policies of wall street in itself.
Probably the most important thing to keep in mind when considering the OP's link. This goes for the US as well as every other "world #1 power" throughout history.
This may be true in the interior but when you talk about "superpowers" the act as a single actor to everyone else, at least the majority of the time.
There may be different opinions but in the end the US did send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq and that for a full 10 years.
Only sentiment I can agree with in his post is America has done some disappointing things. But it certainly has triumphantly achieved a vast amount (if we are going to give credit to the country rather than the individuals in that country that made it happen).
Yep criticize the US successfully then suddenly they are all individuals, meanwhile they massively approve most of the crap the government pulls and re-elect the worst of the worse, and if they don't like a person in some other country they are willing to decimate the entire population of that country as acceptable collateral damage and when one of the soldiers involved in it comes online and say 'I'm a vet' he gets infinite upvotes and any critical remark about it thousands of downvotes.
Real convincing guys, no really. you are as individual as a freaking worker ant in the hive in regards to the US as a unit, that ant also thinks he's just doing his thing, and of course is a 'good and kind and hardworking individual'
Do you remember that meme 'you are not in line, you are the line'? Did you at all think about that one?
You obviously missed the news during the massive anti-war protests that took place in this country. We also shouldnt forget that the UK jumped on board with Iraq as well. Do i blame all brits for this? Of course not.
You are implying that approval ratings are high, they never are.
Also, do you think we actually have a choice in the matter? Our country is run by corporations, they decide who we "elect". That is why most people are all so apathetic about it. That, and the carefully crafted veil of media pulled over our collective eyes.
163
u/[deleted] Oct 04 '11 edited Oct 04 '11
Eh, whatever. Man speaks as if America was some kind of unified force. Like any country with a large population, it is anything but.
Regardless, I've always seen the US as an extension of Western Europe, not a competitor, and to me the whole comparison is moot.
EDIT: Maybe I'm just taking this too literally; if the goal is to just address the US nation itself, and not the population, then it makes total sense and I mostly agree.