Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 20
22
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
25 million people, a little different than trying to manage a country of 320 million people

Why? Just employ more managers. Multinational corporations seem to manage quite well as they grow in size, are you really saying that population size means the US cannot sustain a balanced system such as Canada has? Really?




posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: jimmyx
25 million people, a little different than trying to manage a country of 320 million people

Why? Just employ more managers. Multinational corporations seem to manage quite well as they grow in size, are you really saying that population size means the US cannot sustain a balanced system such as Canada has? Really?


corporate organizations has no relationship to government organizations, either would not function properly if they adopted the others organizational qualities. if a corporation ran a country it would be totalitarian in nature. the non-productive would be left to die. however, in recent decades, there have been already too many corporate similarities being used in the governance of America. what makes us human cannot reside in corporate governance



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
Fair enough, ditch the corporate comparison if you like, I'll be more direct.
Are you blaming population size for the reason the US cannot have a balanced system like Canada, as you implied earlier?
I disagree and think it is a ridiculous statement. You employ a greater number of public workers as required by the population growth.
Now if you disagree, please explain exactly why you believe popuplation size is the reason why the US could not have a system like Canada? I look forward to learning something new.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Must be that natural anarchy worked fine before the industrial age.

We had it right in the U.S. for about 15 minutes after everything calmed down from the revolutionary war.

Anarchy and the Golden Rule are all that were ever required, and refrigerators need to go too, so we are forced to share our food with passers by or be forced to feed it to the pigs and dogs or smell it rot.

Present day society and the lifestyles we lead are the reason we are all dying of preventable diseases and losing our minds.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: jimmyx
Fair enough, ditch the corporate comparison if you like, I'll be more direct.
Are you blaming population size for the reason the US cannot have a balanced system like Canada, as you implied earlier?
I disagree and think it is a ridiculous statement. You employ a greater number of public workers as required by the population growth.
Now if you disagree, please explain exactly why you believe popuplation size is the reason why the US could not have a system like Canada? I look forward to learning something new.




www.google.com...=population+of+canada

this compares the populations of Canada and California in 2012...California has 38.04 million, Canada has 34.88 million...it is much easier to have some say in California's government than the entire US. you (Canadians) have much less bureaucracy to slosh through with a smaller population level. the localized state districts of California are more in tune with voters, as compared to the entire US as a whole...look, population size is not the only reason the US could not have a system like that of Canada, in fact, I actually like Canada's system. due to the massive economic size of the US, and the multitudes of uber-wealthy players in the US economy, the regular joe has much less influence here, than Canadians have on their own national government....that's all I'm trying to say, I'm not being snarky.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
I see where you're coming from, especially with the challenges of making such a change to any major economy, but the US could have any system you can think of, if enough people wanted it.
...I'm not being snarky either.

*Edit*
But I'd still prefer to be poor in the UK than in the US


edit on 31-8-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I don't disagree with many of your individual statements, per se. I recognize the facts of your examples, and, you certainly have more direct experience of the UK if I understand correctly that you are a British Citizen and are thus far more qualified to describe the conditions on the ground than I am.

It's your overall conclusion that I find problematic:different cultural groups must be geographically separated. Yes, because of the way humans developed, there are strong social pressures to identify more strongly with individuals in the family group (which could loosely include race and nationality) than those without. I think it's even safe to say that humans are naturally more than a bit xenophobic. It's why we're so easily manipulated by religions and politics and the reason we have the phrases "us and them" as well as "divide and conquer."

Here's the thing though; I live in Georgia and I've travelled through Mississippi quite often. Have you been to Mississippi?

There's just no comparison to the UK.

Most of Mississippi is like a third world country.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It has got to the point that certain cultural groups need to be separated for the good of humanity.

I didn't make any point specifically about Mississippi, the original comment I made was more about how certain cultures are never going to integrate to the common value system of an established nation.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

It has got to the point that certain cultural groups need to be separated for the good of humanity.

I didn't make any point specifically about Mississippi, the original comment I made was more about how certain cultures are never going to integrate to the common value system of an established nation.


The point of the thread (nominal I would be the first to admit) was a specious comparison between the economy of the UK and individual States in the US, particularly Mississippi. I guess I thought we were all linking back to that somehow.

Perhaps you are referring without wishing to refer directly to the Muslim immigrants into Britain ? I think a great case could be made for the specific issues with that situation, without generalizing to "cultures not able to integrate."

The generality of your comment was the only thing I was drawing attention to. Human history is a story of the tensions between cultures assimilating, transforming and indeed overcoming each other.

I'm not sure there is enough space on the planet for every human subgroup to have it's own "yard."



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

It has got to the point that certain cultural groups need to be separated for the good of humanity.

I didn't make any point specifically about Mississippi, the original comment I made was more about how certain cultures are never going to integrate to the common value system of an established nation.


People from tribal cultures have great difficulty integrating into non-tribal cultures and vice versa. In fact, people in tribal cultures have great difficulty working with other tribes in the same country. We can see this in Iraq. Their very identity is based on their particular tribe and they resist cooperative work with another tribe even when it benefits both tribes. This may explain why democracy (or what passes for democracy in the US/UK) is unworkable in those countries. If tribal people emigrate to a melting-pot country, they have problems integrating because it means going outside their tribe. The same is true of rigid religious groups which sometimes are tribal.

People from authoritarian cultures (China, as an example) can more easily integrate into a less authoritarian culture (U.S./UK for example) because, even if they primarily associate with their own, they simply follow the laws without question and don't disrupt the new culture.

When possible, new immigrants tend to stick tightly to their own group of origin for the first generation. This is not so true of the second generation due to speaking the new dominant language and, importantly, if they look like people of dominant culture. If people can tell from across the street that you don't look like the people of the dominant culture, it's much more difficult to assimilate.

This may help to explain why a melting-pot country works well for some groups of immigrants but not as well for others. Of course, there are individual exceptions but those are exceptions.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join