If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
the american dream
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
turning into the rest of the worlds nightmare.
0
Comments
I personally hate that phrase though. It romanticises(spelling? is it even a real word?) the reality far to much for my liking.
Which is as we all know, in reality complete tosh. Those born into money will make money, those born into poverty will be poor.
Of course there are occasional exceptions; but as people can only thrive on other's failure, the American Dream for one is the nightmare for hundreds of others.
Regards,
With such a positive attitude, I'm sure you'd do well.... :rolleyes:
I'm sure I will too. I'm going to be the one with the dream whilst the others suffer. The fact that I notice the flaws with the "American Dream" is the very reason I shall avoid those flaws and do well for myself.
"I detest the capitalist system in many ways shapes and forms............ BUT I LOVE IT BECAUSE I'M RICH
Hehe.
Regards,
You really have a very limited concept of economics, don't you?
Regards,
As Greenhat pointed out, you clearly have a very limited view of economics. Would the phrase "zero-sum game" mean anything to you? As in, living in the real world is not necessarily a zero-sum game -- the success of one is not necessarily conditional on the failure of another. In fact, one could say that a major part of the capitalist ethic is to enter into agreements with others that are mutually beneficial.
It is both. I do both. This is a forum in which those who spout random crap get it thrown back at them. This is a forum in which you had better mean what you write, particularly when you use quantifiers like "all," "every," "only," "never" and so on. If you want serious discussion, you will have to pay the price of serious examination of what you have written.
Is American society REALLY that meritocratic? The 'American dream' simply is a pipedream. How many people actually 'make it' in the US?
That's part of the nature of a free market economy; if your prices aren't competitive you lose out. And?
Boomba, I was not criticising the capitalist system. I was not saying it's necessarily wrong to have competition, in fact I quite like the way it can raise standards and help technology progress. My point was, as you've already touched on, that this notion of the "American Dream" is not as metitocratic as some make it out to be.
If you think about, how relatively 'young' the american society is, then you have to admit that rather a lot of people 'have made it' in America.
Compare Americas achievements, to countries who have a history which goes much further back than theirs...
Puts things into perspective.
Add to this a global financial system built around the IMF and World Bank whose policies are set by the industrialised West and you get an even fuller picture.
Moreover, despite its youth, the US also enforces its economic will with superior military force, effectively taking what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and the picture is nearly complete.
Finally, don't overlook the oppressive and often corrupt regimes put in place or propped up by this young nation, its government, and/or industries in the form of kickbacks, bribes, and military collusion (to squash insurgencies that might prove uncooperate to its interests) and it's not really any surprise at all.
*waits for Greenhat to claim we don't do any of this and are ever so egalitarian!" :rolleyes:
Read a little history, Clandestine. Large numbers of people were "making it" before the US was either a dominant economic or military power. The "American Dream" did not and does not occur because of global wealth, but individuals achieving the "American Dream" has a great deal to do with America's position in the world (in other words, the opposite of what you seem to be stating).
To paraphrase a Union Sergeant in The Killer Angels: "I'm fighting to be judged on who I am, not who my father was".
And yes, by and large the US is that meritocratic. Our history is full of large and small examples of those who have "made it" regardless of their background.
Then i suggest you read it again, your comprehension isn't up to snuff tonight obviously.
That position though is founded on a global economic system, political manipulation, and military interventionism which indeed leave many nations or regions impoverished or behind in development nonetheless.
Maybe you should reread it. I did read it again. Seems the writing may be lacking, because I comprehend all the shite you wrote there.
Yep you definitely live in safe little world of "my country right or wrong" and of course noone ever suffers in the world because of our actions or economic hegemony eh? :rolleyes:
Yep our military personnel undergo only the finest brainwashing Uncle Sam can provide! lol.
Didn't say that. But I didn't imply that the "American Dream" is necessarilly on the back of others. You did.
Shall we go back to the late 1800's-early 1900's and examine the exploitation of women and children in domestic sweatshops where the distinction between between those who were getting rich and those who were the fodder for that acquisition of wealth was indeed marked? oops, indications of a zero sum game at work, oh oh!
Or shall we go back to roughly the mid 1800's and look at the Railroad tycoons who built America's railways on the back of Chinese immigrant and prison labour under harsh conditions and treatment that was the death of many of them?
Or how about 100-200 years prior to that and look at the wealth that was amassed on the back of slave labour both in the North as well as the South?
Or if you want to be more philosophical and exmine the underlying concept of the "American Drean" as merely raising one's lot in life we could argue that the leading figures of early American history came out of the context of British colonial and imperial expansionism where we can look at examples of the exploitation of India and Africa and their populations which earned great wealth for a relative few (by comparison).
You see, Greenhat, do not be so quick to play the "historic" card thinking it offers only shining examples of sheer meritocracy. The American Dream was often made possible upon the misery, domination, or marginalisation of others.
Nevertheless, the foundational examination still leads us back to the current situation of near economic hegemony on a global scale of which there is an enormous body of data to support the view that the zero-sum game is alive and well and getting more sophisticated.
Why need physical slave labour at home when we can build sweat shops in Asia and pay the workers meagre wages under conditions that would never be permitted in the West for reasons of safety, worker health and a host of other exploitative conditions?
The data and analysis is out there en masse so perhaps you might want to concede that "history" isnt the ace up your sleeve you'd hoped it was.
Or perhaps you will just persist in refusing to acknowledge that America (or the industrialised West for that matter) has built its wealth upon much more than mere meritocracy.
BTW All business is built off the backs of others, they're usually referred to as the workers. Not socialist crap, just an observation...
One can be a "worker" with just and equitable compensation and working conditions or one can be essentially exploited. Either way one cannot say that those who "make it" under the guise of "The American Dream" do so solely according to their admirable qualities, talents or ingenuity without considering the numerous examples that point to a zero-sum game in operation (as some have already tried to dismiss utterly).
So tell me, Clandestine, who did Abraham Lincoln oppress to get to his "American Dream"? How many places have you been in Asia? How many of those "sweat shops"? And how do the working conditions and benefits of those "sweat shops" compare to the rice fields that those workers left?
I'm sure you're happy with your "education" that lets you see the world in the manner you wish. Of course, reality being a bit different doesn't bother you, does it?
Can you tell me a continent where slavery has never existed?
As for your "zero-sum" game, the world today has significantly more wealth (food, material goods, leisure time, lifespan, etc.) than it had 300 years ago. Now, how in the world can that happen in a "zero-sum" game?
The thing about capitalism is it works, and it works better than any other economic system that anyone has devised. It seems that pisses you off, but nobody promised you that life would be fair. Life is a bitch. Live with it.
I assume that we can all agree, that no country is perfect, or has been based on perfect grounds and under perfect circumstances.
Though this mutual 'understandent', isn't good enough for you. You try to highlight all the wrongs of America, time after time, effort after effort. And to be honest, I can't remember a single post, where you have maybe showed any kind of positive thoughts and leanings towards America.
I understand criticism, but your writings go beyond that. Way beyond.
What is it that makes you deny, any good conception from the US?
Just something which I have been wondering about...
That is frankly a shit argument, the comparison must be between weatern standards and those in the developing world and the question must be why are they different?
So, you would create a situation in which it is impossible for those rice farmers to economically survive? That is what you create if you insist on placing western standards immediately into developing countries. Think about it.
I don't dey that my country has brought good to the world, but once again we are dealing with an issue of diminishing returns here.
My argument arose from reading comments which suggested that the "American Dream" was not and is not a zero-sum game, as if wealth were created ex-nihilo (out of nothing) or in some form of vacuum according to which we should all simply applaud some unique capacity of "Americans" to overcome their socio-economic environment and become wealthy.
Sure, it has happened and does happen today. The "Horatio Alger" story of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps was undoubtedly what Greenhat was vaguely referring to in his roundabout way. Nevertheless, that does not fully explain why today we have the greatest concentration of wealth in the smallest percentage of the population than ever before.
What I tried to inject into this discussion was the notion that with greater wealth and opportunity comes greater responsibility, responsibility to end the growing disparities between rich and poor, opportunity and disenfranchisement. This is something one can easily see my country is failing to do as it exercises increasing global hegemony on the world resources or the means of production.
Fact is that any substantive analysis of global imperical data will show clearly that we have used the global economic system to deny or at least slow the development of many nations or regions in order to satisfy the "American" way of life (which is more a catch-phrase for gluttonous overconsumption and waste) regardless of the conditions of deprivation it leaves in its wake.
Here are some interesting indices (some of which are taken from CIA data of global wealth concentrations) which you might find interesting:
http://www.gritty.org/Pages/GrittyBook/pages/06WealthPoverty.pdf
Frankly to say that the "American Dream" does not create more losers than winners signals in my opinion a blind, jingoistic devotion to the the country which will do nothing to foster a more equitable distribution of global resources so that this "American Dream" might be as open to the greatest number as our advertisements make it appear.
And one more thing Jacq, sometimes one has to advocate a view that is more extreme than one might personally adhere to on a daily basis in order to counter those who refuse to acknowledge that anything is wrong with the way we deal with the larger portion of our global neighbours.
Lastly, Greenhat, why do you think it is that such Asian workers (for sake of argument) would have only the options of working in the rice paddies or working in Western factories (under conditions which have long since been made illegal in the West) making our industrialist even richer in exchange for attrociously low wage compensation regardless of the standard one employs. Actually one might retain greater dignity staying in the rice paddy.
IF we were truly as magnanimous in bring new economic opportunities to under developed countries then our vastly wealthy industries should be more than capable of ensuring consistent treatment and compensation to their workers regardless of geographic location.
A little research on your part might open your eyes to the fact that this just isnt the case.
The "American Dream" has NEVER implied equity of distribution. In fact, the whole "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" analogy implies that you leave people behind and advance yourself. Only a complete fool would believe that this money is created from nothing.
The point that you neglect, while I agree with your statements about the concentration of wealth (top ten percent of income in US earns 27 times what the bottom tenth does), is that money is not somehow removed from the economy.
Even neglecting taxes, the wealth of the rich helps those lesss fortunate because of our banking system. It is illegal to hoard money in the US, in case you didn't know, there are laws against possessing large amounts of cash for over a year. So therefore, the wealthy put money into banks. Banks, in order to pay interest to depositors, lend money to individuals and businesses...for capital speculation.
Without this ready and large supply of cheap capital, there would be no small businesses. No research and development that leads to new drugs and technology. Advancements that improve the quality of life far beyond the US borders.