It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Did America Prosper While The Rest Of The World Remains Poor?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
America like many countries profited on the backs of slavery. They also had the added benefit of a country with abundent natural resources.

They were also able to profit from both world wars and enlarge their manufacturing capabilities. The British Empire were also leaned on to let America into their trading markets and had to give bases around the world to America in exchange for help. These factors helped America to prosper.

However for all their prosperity it has not been long lasting their are many equalities in America and like all empires America is now on the decline.

So make the most of your prosperity because the tables are about to be turned.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by keldas]

[edit on 11-6-2010 by keldas]




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Capitalism is as old as the hills. It’s never worked for the masses of people, just for those who get there first or steals and plunder the most and are then powerful enough to create a monopoly to keep others out not of their tribe or group. And it will never work because it is based on greed, selfishness, and plunder.

This “greed is good” becomes the ethic of the society that will inevitably tear at the moral fabric of any society that internalizes this degenerate ethic.

America is rich primarily because of slavery, the destruction of the Native Americans and both world wars that allowed the US to prosper from the misery of the Europeans.

America attracts the greediest predacious people in the world, that’s why it’s rich . . . but the wealth will destroy America.

Also consider that this country has only been colossally wealthy for a century or so, and before that it was plagued by sweat shops, racism, sexism, child labor exploitation. Only after unionism brought decent work rules, and civil rights some equality of minorities and woman has prosperity spread out somewhat beyond the Anglo Saxon elite.

Now people are complaining when capitalism starts to demonstrate its flaws.

They blame government spending but the great depression and this latest economic crisis had nothing to do with government spending!

These economic catastrophes are directly related to capitalist chicanery and greed not giving welfare or social security to poor people.

But look at capitalism now! With the Wall Street scams, hefty overloaded defense budget, and the diminishing of wealth to the middle class, people are falsely blaming GOVERNMENT spending for the problem.

THE PROBLEM IS CAPATALISM ITSELF AND WHAT SUPPORTS IT . . . GREED, PREDATION, AND SELFISHNESS!


[edit on 11-6-2010 by inforeal]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
They blame government spending but the great depression and this latest economic crisis had nothing to do with government spending!

Please watch this video: mises.org...

Once you know all the nuances, it is plain as day that government policy was behind the current downturn (and the Great Depression, for that matter).


[edit on 11-6-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The benefits of free markets (and I use the term loosely) far outweigh the negatives, and free markets are far superior to centrally planned government economies


I tried to explain why the US's success is not particularly special or unique, and why it's over, but seeing as you seem to have brushed over that little inconvenience, let's drop it and examine your belief that decentralized control is the most successful economic model.

The US is broke, as is every single country that followed the model. China owns almost everything, either through debt or through direct control of resources. Those are just facts, there's no point in arguing them.

If Stossel and Friedman were right, how do you explain the fact that their system has failed, totally collapsed, while the highly centrally controlled system in China seems to have worked out so well? The fact that the free market had to be propped up by governments all over the world kind of suggests that free markets just don't work!!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


I disagree that the system of America is "selfish greed". America is the most charitable nation on earth.



In absolute terms maybe, but not as a percentage of GDP or GNI.

Anyway - of course your thread is a truism - freedom and prosperity necessarily belong together.

But to say that the US is unique in its economic freedoms is jumping the shark - this might be true when it comes to externalities - the costs the gov/or the people must cover for corporate activity. But there's a strong argument to be made for the case that the american economy has more or less been centrally planned and is wholly dependant on covert subisdies to maintain its position of primacy it has enjoyed for the last century.

Central planning (in the sense you use the term in the OP, qua socialism), done right, would be more efficient and would more evenly distribute the fruits of labor while maintaining and furthering innovation and low-footprint solutions... But I definitely agree that this is a utopian idea that has ended in catastrophic cluster#s when it was tried...

I'd say that a smart combination of both is the true solution, and I guess that holds true for most of the succesful countries, even the US - which is neither the freest nor the most "greedy" of economies in the world.

An interesting polemic though. There were some really smart contributions so far in this thread. The guy who wrote that Marx got it wrong when he read progress into the cyclical nature of economies is a genius. Couldn't have said it better. Marx was not only a historian and economist, but also a true creature of the 19th century: an idealist - and as such he just couldn't resist dreaming up his own brand of Heilslehre. Very smart post. I'm impressed.

I wish I had more time. Maybe later. Very, very high-quality thread. Although I see you, TD, in a new light now. I've always taken you for a contributor who consciously avoids this kind of broad-brushing - but then again, when you start a thread, what else are you gonna do.

I would strongly disagree about Obama wanting to fundamentaly transform the american economy though. Up to now I see no reason to judge him differently than the last 11 presidents when it comes to economics....

[edit on 12-6-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


We need to look no further than who owned the original 13 American Colonies, and British Imperialism.

The United States being founded as a British colony has combined the system of governance from the British influence with it's vast natural resources of America to create an early export based economy.

Once The Indians were removed from the land, it was a proverbial free for all in accessing America's vast resources during the westward expansion backed by British Investment.

The early Virginia plantations owned by the founding fathers created a tremendous amount of wealth in the cultivation of Virginia Tobacco taught to the Europeans by the Native Americans IMA and exported to Europe.

The Tobacco industry was soon Followed by cotton which was also a very lucrative industry most of which was also exported to Britain.

Both industries and their subsequent profits, being heavily dependent upon Slave labor. For example, in 1803 alone, over 20,000 slaves were being brought into Georgia and South Carolina to work in the cotton fields.

Prosperity was in abundance in that European markets created the demand for the goods produced in the United States at a low cost due to low cost of land and slave labor.

Silver and Gold were later discovered in abundance in the west.
In fact the Comstock Lode was so rich in Silver, The US actually built a mint at it's source in nearby Carson City Nevada. Thus the "CC" mint mark on on select Morgan Dollars minted in the 1860's.

California gained immediate "Statehood" soon after the discovery of Gold thus bypassing the normal Territorial Status (the normal path to statehood) IMA.

This abundance in natural resources of America, free for the taking, fueled and created the financial foundation and fueled the Industrial Revolution, the next stage in economic development for the United States.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join