Very interesting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Certainly makes some great points in there about a loss of efficiency in the system in America. But "Soviet Style Collapse of the US of A" is such a massive overstatement I don't even know how you got there.
The best points I see in there are on the lack of individual fiscal responsibility, and the lack of efficiency in the government.
People used to save large portions of their money. Having a couple thousand (adjusted) in the bank was the norm, whereas today the norm is several thousand in debt. Americans need to spend LESS and save MORE, or we are headed for trouble indeed. Our grandparents' frugality is something we should attempt to incorporate into our lives. We don't have to live exactly like them, but they knew how to buy things in moderation, out of necessity, and how to put money away for a rainy day. I think some of that comes from the war mentality. The government of that era asked the people to sacrifice, and they were used to it by the end of the war. Gluttony was present, but was beaten down by the message of self sacrifice. I'd almost call it a very mild indoctrination, not to be wasteful, to always save something away when you don't REALLY need to spend it. We've come a long way.
Efficiency is I think at the heart of the article though. Had a WW2-esque government been in charge during Katrina I have little doubt that when the warnings came in, the President would have dispatched a team of engineers and laborers to reinforce the levies, or barring that, would have orchestrated a massive evacuation effort to empty the city and then help the people aftewards.
In the past the government has been stunningly efficient in relocating refugees from disasters, or creating whole new cities for them, relatively cheaply, and very quickly. But the beauracracy, and yes, even special interests have made this into a slow, expensive, laborious process.
The failure during Katrina was a beauracratic one, and an administrative one. Key people did nothing when they should have ordered more stringent measures be taken.
However. I think it is very disingenous to compare Katrina to WW2. During WW2 the attitude of the American people was vastly different than it is today. It was also greatly different than the time that preceded and succeeded it. I think some of it could be gotten back if the government made it a point to start asking for self sacrifices from the people of this nation, but this administration, like those of the previous three decades have it in their heads that the government should do everything, and the people nothing.
America collapsing? Pfft, it's ridiculous and laughable based on that specific article. But the end of America as we know it? Well, perhaps that happened decades ago. And there are very hard times looming on the horizon for America. But they needn't be devastating, it depends entirely on how they are handled by the people in charge and how it is received by the American people.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm quite worried about the state of our infrastructure, especially electricity supply and fresh water. General level of consumer debt is disturbing, but I'm really worried about the level of international investment in my country; i.e., so much of "ours" seems to be owned by others. I don't think food is going to be as much of an issue as electricity (which we've run short on in the past) and fresh water (which is being rumbled about to the north and south).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's the progress on desalinization on a large scale?
I'm not worried about fresh water so much, but then, I'm surrounded by it on three sides.
Electicity production is so much an issue as the electical grid itself. That huge power outage that struck the east a couple years ago was because of the crappy electrical grid. It needs to be updated and improved. It will cost billions, but it needs to be done.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know. Infrastructure stuff. I have this gloomy sense of infrastructure metaphorically crumbling around me while people are praying not to get sick (for some of them, it's the current "healthcare plan") and we careen deeper and deeper into national debt.
I'm kinda bummed lately, but Spring might help. More sunshine.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
kinda reminds me of the state of the roads in quebec, the government hires contractors to repair the roads, borrows 10,000,000$ for it and the contractors use about 7,000,000 of it for actual repairs and salaries and the rest is kick backs that go directly into the pockets of the contractors.
So thus Quebec is in poor financial state and the state of the roads are horrible since we're missing 3 mil each time the roads are done.
The title came from the original title but I spiffed it a little to gain peoples attention.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Lyrhawn> People used to save large portions of their money because they had large portions of money to save. Relatively speaking, the WW2 generation still lived in reasonable comfort even during rationing, and in any case, the rationing took up only a small part of their lifespan. Today, the only possible way to keep up with innovation and not live in misery is to spend like mad.
In short, if you want us to save, increase our incomes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't buy it Mabus. Our generation is flooded with luxury items that the WW2 generation did not have to deal with. You missed the bulk of what my point was, gluttony versus frugality. The generation of old knew hot to NOT spend their money on things they didn't NEED, and they saved the money away.
Saying you need even more money to put some away is a cheap way out. With average American debt hovering around what, seven THOUSAND per household, increasing your income would get you out of debt maybe, but it still won't get anything into your savings. For that you need to put a chastity belt on your checkbook.
The Chinese (by god, I'm actually going to say something Blayne might agree with), save away as much as, if not more than 40% of their income on average. And they make a teeny tiny fraction of what we make on average.
It's a cop out Mabus.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Today, the only possible way to keep up with innovation and not live in misery is to spend like mad.
This is extremely false. Today most people have far more than they actually need.
That they think they need it doesn't mean they actually do need it.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Today, the only possible way to keep up with innovation and not live in misery is to spend like mad.
This is extremely false. Today most people have far more than they actually need.
That they think they need it doesn't mean they actually do need it.
QFT
I don't see how a parallel can be drawn between the US and China given thier completely different demographic base and economic structuring. Also it seems that the fiscal responsibility we are referencing in this thread is at the governmental rather than personal level. It seems to me that under capitalism the people get wages and grant the government a stipend, under communism that is reversed. Given that type of economic setup fiscal responsibility would definitely be easier here, but most of us (including me) are unwilling to live under such extreme control.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The fiscal responsibility argument works at BOTH levels. Government spends more than it makes, and so do the people.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Hurricane Katrina and World War II are so not the same that it makes my brain hurt to try to conceive of them together in the way that this guy is doing.
And it's 6am, and I've been writing papers all night. I'm delirious enough to wrap my brain around almost anything.
-pH
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
What do you want from the average American?
They pay attention more to who is going to win American Idol than to who is the mayor/governor/president of their country.
They complain and complain about being in debt, but then they see that brand new car/t.v./banana and they now they can buy now / pay later. They don't mind paying a couple thousand later if they can have their object now.
Americans are looking for the instant fix, without looking at the long term. Instant gratification is all the rage in this day and age, and until someone says STOP! and can hold the public's view for more than it's 2 second attention span, maybe something will change. Until then, the consuming and the gluttony will continue.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin:
What do you want from the average American?
They pay attention more to who is going to win American Idol than to who is the mayor/governor/president of their country.
I assume you're taking this from those ads for American Dreamz? Not that it's not true ...
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
Actually I'm taking it from talking with adults and students in my state. They are more interested in American Idol/ Survivor/ (fill in any television show) than any world issue.
The reason most commonly given to me: "It's less complicated"
To be noted: The most common answer I received when I asked "How many states are in the US, was 51."
Johivin Ryson
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, Puerto Rico isn't really a state, last I checked, but...
-pH
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
It is scary that 51 was the most common. The 51st was actually in most of these cases not Puerto Rico but Washington D.C.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
One of my former College professors wrote an article about Iran and how many of its hardliners firmly believe that the US is on the brink of Soviet style collapse, link to article,
http://www.iranian.com/kazemzadeh.html (Read "The Gathering Storm," however he has written several excelent articles that I find very interesting and could only be written by somebody with his background)
Personally I do not see America as being on the verge of collapse. Maybe an economic depression, but certainly not a political collapse. Irridentism does not exist in any capacity right now. Nobody within the US thinks they ought to form a seperate state. I do think the current economic state of the US is something that concerns me, but its going to take MUCH more than the war in the Middle East and economic difficulties to cause the US to go into full USSR collapse.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i agree, I think its quite impossible for any state in the USA with the possible exceptions of Hawaii and Texas (who needs em?) could possibly wish to leave.
What is the issue with Lousiana? I know they speak french their is there any sort of move going on their for more soverignty?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
A good indicator of political stability is that after every single election no matter how contraversial within the US, in the aftermath people all accept the results and get on with their lives. Even when Bush was elected without a popular majority people did not scream that they should leave the Union, they settled down (for the most part and got on with their lives.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It is scary that 51 was the most common. The 51st was actually in most of these cases not Puerto Rico but Washington D.C.
Meh.
1) I can't point to either Washington D.C. or Puerto Rico on a map.
2) Until a few years ago, I didn't know Puerto Rico was a part of the U.S.
3) I still meet people who think Hawaii is off the coast of Texas...and that Alaska is right next to it.
4) I'm pretty sure I can't name all 50 states from memory - or at least, not directly.
5) I don't think I can name more than 5 state capitols.
That said, I could tell you the names, parties, previous political offices and rough number of terms served for almost every senator and maybe 2/3 of the house, so it's really a matter of what you deem important.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Uh. Washington D.C. is in the middle of Maryland. Anyone who has played Sid Meier's Pirates! should easily be able to tell you where Puerto Rico is. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: What is the issue with Lousiana? I know they speak french their is there any sort of move going on their for more soverignty?
We don't speak French. Well, okay, some people do but not like in Canada.
Our law code is based on the Napoleonic code, though. Which is unique to the state. And we're very stubborn about states' rights.
-pH
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
With respect to the WWII generation:
Bear in mind that the WWII generation was also to a great extent "the depression generation." And also the "dustbowl generation." These people learned the hard way that you couldn't count on unlimited reserves of anything.
Living with the limitations of rationing during WWII was a cinch compared with the limitations of the depression and the dustbowl, and once the war was over and the economy was still strong, it was still habitual to save for the proverbial rainy day.
Today's generation has no experience with deprivation. And once again we have bought into the idea that the economy is best served by consumption. When did that happen last... when a generation lived by the rule of conspicuous consumption...invested on credit instead of capital... invested in paper instead of property...?
Funny thing is, I've never heard that a lack of resources was a causative factor of the great depression. Add economic collapse to depletion of resources and you've got problems way bigger than the ones that caused the depression.
As to the thread title, the "style" of the collapse of the Soviet was actually fairly similar to the secession of the South prior to the American civil war. Countries that didn't like being under the Soviet thumb seceded in rapid succession, in a reverse of the "domino theory." I don't know that I'd link Russia's economic woes to the same event, at least not directly.
I have no doubt that the USA will not last forever. The question is whether it ends as a result of long term incremental changes, or a Soviet SCALE collapse. Bit I don't think it will be a Soviet STYLE collapse..
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
Think about what is being discussed concerning the WW2 generation and how people spend in the "disposable" age. I think much of the change in thinking had to do with television and the mass marketing capabilites that it brought with it. Not only that, but the attention span of people had decreased since this advent. And that kind of mindset is pervasive in society right now. How many people do you think suffered from ADD 60 years ago? The problem is also that media celebrates the "on the go" lifestyle of people and families.
I don't think there is any way that we will, as a society, ever go back to the "stop and smell the roses" mentality.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Not merely television, but the science and psychology of market research. There is a whole industry dedicated to studying how to get people to believe that they can't live without unnecessary things. And that spending money is a goal in itself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't think there is any way that we will, as a society, ever go back to the "stop and smell the roses" mentality.
Oh, I do. We won't have any choice.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
Glenn,
What leads you to believe that?
I think that with the Internet and televisions and the media's desire to break news so quickly (and inaccurately in some cases), plus the ever growing number of channels and selections on TV, people's attention spans are continually shortened.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think it follows that breaking news quickly leads to short attention spans.
I also don't think short attention spans lead to an "on the go" lifestyle. I suspect it is the other way around - an "on the go" lifestyle teaches us more multitasking skills and develops less of an attention span. Hence, if you eliminate the "on the go" lifestyle, then you would develop a longer attention span. I think that could easily happen, but it would require a change in American values.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
I respectfully disagree. The instant gratification of having everything at your fingertips leads directly the mentality of a fast paced lifestyle. I am guilty of it too, I just look at headlines, skim articles becasue my real time is set that way in this world.
Consider it this way using the "real time" concept. Years ago, when it took longer to get places, make things, get things, real time was much less. In today's society, we spend much less time in the process of gaining things. And it snowballs so that we expect that of everything, hence the instant gratification and "on the go" lifestyle.
You would think that with more real time to do things, people would actually take the time to stop and smell the roses but they don't as they are constantly caught up in the whirlwind.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
and got on with their lives.