|
|
|
#51
No, you don't get away with that. You made a ridiculous statement, it's up to you to either back it up or admit you made it up. You claim my list of countries is wrong, you need to show how it is wrong.Your list of countries is incorrect and does not apply in the context. Hope you can figure out why, I don't feel like explaining.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
#52
Because those people aren't paying for the degrees, we are. Specifically, we're paying through government-provided student loans. Loaning someone money to study 'surf science' only makes any kind of sense if that person is already rich enough that they don't need loans.Originally Posted by Agdune
Basically, the main problem is that college education costs too much for us to subsidize it for degrees that aren't actually going to help people pay off the college loans.
How is a degree in 'Gender Studies' more useful than a degree in the actual work that you're planning on doing?
Sorry, but that's a completely bullshit degree; it doesn't provide any sort of employment opportunities, which makes it a terrible investment. If you just want to study gender studies and such, fine, take it as a minor - that's what minors are for, for the most part - but having it as a major is a terrible idea.
#53
I hear double degrees are a thing.How is a degree in 'Gender Studies' more useful than a degree in the actual work that you're planning on doing?
Pure Gender Studies is entirely for pursuing a career in academia. Which is a valid career path.
Let's Play Europa Universalis 3: Divine Wind
Let's Play Master of Magic: Abandoned
In the beginning there was nothing. Then Steam crashed.
Not really Langy. There are plenty of fields where Gender Studies could be very, very helpful.
Off the top of my head? Advertising? Politics? Journalism?
It takes a lot of argument
to convince most people
that they are lying.
#55
Certain branches of psychiatry as well, especially dealing with rape trauma or transgenderism.
Langy, I think you underestimate just how many career paths there are.
Climatology - There's a huge amount of money being pumped into climate research and we do really need to know if and how we're affecting things. So that one fits personal and social usefulness.The rest in your list are pretty junk, though, from a 'help me find a job and make money!' standpoint, which is the only point that matters when comparing investments.
Environmental Science - If you want to build anywhere (in the UK at least) you need environmental surveys done. These guys do it.
Wildlife Management - Forestry, environmental tourism, hunting and more need these fellas.
Anthropology and Horticulture were explained by others, but they all make sounds investments both for society and personally. Astronomy, I'm not so sure about. It's definitely important on a society wide basis, but whether it fits the criteria of being useful for finding a job I don't know.
Population demographics between the US and China are heavily skewed by immigration and the one child policy. If the US economy and standard of living declines less will migrate there, less immigrants having children means an older population. On the other hand if China's standard of living increases and they somehow run out of workers, people will immigrate there, skewing their population demographics downwards. They could always relax or repeal their child policy as well, suddenly a billion and a half chinese "outyouth" the US population easily.Population numbers mean that there are more people to pay for stuff and to make stuff, to keep economy going. When a counntry suddenly finds that all it has is old people, it wont be able to do much
*edit*
@Aron
When I was at uni I went into the public toilets one day and some genius had written "Sociology degree, please take one" on the loo roll. Even ten years ago they were generally considered to be the degree people took who just wanted a degree and didn't care what it was.
Last edited by Jonny; 25th Jul 12 at 5:40 AM.
#57
A sociology degree lets you scam the government out of its tax money by pretending you know how to conduct scientific research. I hear it is quite the career path.
#58
@ Langy; That's sortof the point of it being a loan, isn't it? Rather than being a grant, it's something that needs to be paid off (aren't you guys fairly ruthless about that in the US?). It's not a magical money pot that sends capital into another realm forever and ever, it's an investment which in almost all cases, gets paid of eventually, in some way. The issue comes in when people with no clue about the subject start trying to dictate what's a good investment or not. Without having firsthand experience which ecompasses basically everything ever, you can't say whether or not the 25k loaned to a guy to get a degree in whatever-ology is a good investment for society or not.
Besides, this isn't the world where everything works exactly as it should; if that money wasn't going towards educational investments, it'd probably just be going towards something like better staff cars for local ministers (or whatever the analogy is for the US, I can't remember. What do you guys call local representatives again?). Given the choice between the two, I'd take the chance that someone in the class of 40 can find something useful out of a course on various forms of weaving over handing extra money to some entitled prick who's just going to waste it on perks. That's how the system works, unfortunately; pick the least bad option.
@Aron: hur hur, yes good job, you made a funny. I'd actually recommend sociology as a minor to anyone persuing a career in human services; fat chance making any good decisions in a social services role if you've never even bothered to study models of how society works. It's one of those fields that appears to be teaching incredibly fluffy and obvious shit when you're starting out, but once you get past the introductory units and figure out what the hell the point of it is, it actually has the capacity to teach a lot of tools for recognising social trends and causes for various issues. e.g. understanding what a moral panic and how they can come about is can be useful as hell if you're working in a place that has paedophiles in the client base.
(...Just avoid the classes about classical sociology, like analysis of marxism and such; they're really aimed towards people wanting to become professional sociologists (yes, it's a profession...))
Dammit, not again!
#59
I actually pursued a degree in social work for a year and a half. I felt compelled to drop out because of all the nonsense in the social sciences. The problem wasn't learning their crackpot theories so much as the fact that those theories had no empirical backing and nobody seemed to notice. Understanding of the scientific method was so low that our lecturers frequently talked about how things like representative samples, statistical significance, and falsifiable hypotheses were so yesterday, if they had even heard of it at all. We took a course in scientific methodology where it was obvious the professor did not understand the difference between correlation and causation and our textbooks would often describe theories so vague they approached (and sometimes entered) tautological territory. At first I thought the problem might be endemic to my particular uni (the 500 years old Uppsala University, for the record), but then I started noticing similar fallacies being propogated in the peer reviewed literature we studied, at which point I gave up hope.
You'll have to forgive my disillusionment, but I basically consider the social sciences a field of frauds. I know there are proper scientists there, of course, who apply proper scientific methodology, but the standards of the field are so low I don't even want to think of how much tax money has been spent on charlatans' research.
#60
Not really. Government student loans are incredibly forgiving, and if you get a rubbish degree that can't pay off the loan then they eventually forgive the entire thing.
And yes, it's effectively a magical money pot - those government-provided or guarnateed student loans are one of the primary, if not the primary, reasons that college tuition is so damned expensive and just going up faster and faster compared to inflation.
And yeah, you need to do due diligence to determine whether a degree is a good investment, but the problem is the government does not do that. They just give anyone and everyone a loan, no matter who they are, what situation they're in, or what degree they're pursuing. That's the problem; if someone actually paid attention and did due diligence to determine if the loan was a sound investment, it wouldn't matter. And that shouldn't just be purely based upon what degree they're after.
Say what? is it really that easy to get a student loan? Fuck this place, I'm moving to the USA if that's the case. What's the application process and criteria?And yeah, you need to do due diligence to determine whether a degree is a good investment, but the problem is the government does not do that. They just give anyone and everyone a loan, no matter who they are, what situation they're in, or what degree they're pursuing. That's the problem; if someone actually paid attention and did due diligence to determine if the loan was a sound investment, it wouldn't matter. And that shouldn't just be purely based upon what degree they're after.
Also, a lot of those majors are incredibly beneficial to individuals and society, but only if you pursue further education (IE, a masters or phd) in those fields because that sort of position gives you the opportunity and clout to do serious research.
Have i been out in the world? Not beyond Europe.
I am quite aware that i leave the impression that i think US to be some bastion of greatness. I know it isn't, i think Europe, or parts of it to be much better places in many ways. But it is not the great devil either, nor is it about to collapse.
Why it would be bad news? I'm not going to answer this question, the answer to it is too obvious and complex at the same time. I do believe you can figure it out
I think i said most of what i wanted to say in my second post actually.
@Johnny, yes there are solutions to demographic problems on both sides. As i said somewhere, its a speculation, might not be popular but i side with the idea that US wins
I do stand by that statement and i do "get away" with it, since this is not the topic of this discussionNo, you don't get away with that. You made a ridiculous statement, it's up to you to either back it up or admit you made it up. You claim my list of countries is wrong, you need to show how it is wrong.You may disagree of course If you want. (Not trying to be evil, just not interested in getting off topic)
Last edited by Jondu; 25th Jul 12 at 7:59 AM.
#63
Yes, it really is that easy to get a student loan. The process is pretty simple - just fill out a FAFSA (Federal Application For Student Aid) form. If you're poor, you can get more and better loans, but even if you're not you pretty much automatically qualify for a pretty large helping.
For those who want to know the default rates on US student loans, broken down by state, I found them here:
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/def...staterates.pdf
All we want to do,
Is eat your brains.
We're not unreasonable,
Nobody's gonna eat your eyes.
#65
If you aren't willing to back them up you shouldn't make unsupported statements like you did. Especially ones that are so obviously either born out of ignorance or are things you just made up on the spot. You made a blatantly false statement about the USA being in a unique geographical situation, and when I called you on it you did the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LaLaLaLaLa I'm not listening to you and I'm not talking to you any more".I do stand by that statement and i do "get away" with it, since this is not the topic of this discussion
You did the same thing with LoCo when you said this: "Why it would be bad news? I'm not going to answer this question, the answer to it is too obvious and complex at the same time. I do believe you can figure it out".
That's not discussing things, that's you making wild assertions and not having the integrity to take responsibility for them.
@Nuri: I was talking in very general terms. To give a meta example, (meta because at the time period I question everything was done via apprentices, there was no actual degree like education system for a direct comparison to be possible), back in the renaissance era steam powered anything was considered lunacy and anyone investing time in pursuing it was considered to be wasting both their time and money. And yet look just a littlie further forward in history and those so called losers and their dead end hobby had transformed the world.
@Jhonny: The observations of astronomers have ultimately been vital time and time again to furthering our understanding of the universe. Without them our scientific progress would be severely muted and much of our modern technology that is built on those foundations would never have been devised. Not everything would be gone of course, but you’d notice the lack.
@Aron: That’s clearly an issue though with the universities themselves IMHO. If they don't enforce that what is taught, discussed, and researched at their university follows proper scientific method, (for sciences of course), then that is an issue with university policy. If this is also prevalent off university campus then it's a problem with the whole subject. But even then that doesn’t mean you should automatically assume every subject that sounds off is like that. There's always going to be genuine dud's. But dismissing everything out of hand on that basis is a recipe for disaster.
@Langly: then you have a stupidly generous system then. The British system which I’m passively familiar with, (i.e. all word of mouth), is much stricter being available to low income families only. The repayment terms are pretty generous, but it still has to be paid off.
I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.
Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.
#67
Let me remind you that you brought up the topic of the US being in a unique geographical situation, as evidence that the U.S. have a unique advantage in terms of international stability. Thus:I do stand by that statement and i do "get away" with it, since this is not the topic of this discussion
You made an argument A
You gave evidence B to support A
GeoffS countered evidence B
You then claim that evidence B "is not the topic of this discussion", and thus justifying it is to go off topic.
Thus, either evidence B is not the topic of this discussion, and hence irrelevant to proving argument A,
Or evidence B is relevant, on topic for this discussion and has to be justified.
Which one is it?
@ Paladin's amazing post
I don't know how it is in America, but I do know that literacy in the UK is going down. There isn't an anti-intellectualism movement like that, but an overreliance and completely deferral of knowledge and responsibility to "experts". That's what children do, or are expected to do. Even the most intelligent children will show enough questioning and critical thinking to blow open most creationist arguments if they are allowed to ask questions freely (i.e. not getting told to sit down and shut up).
What we need to encourage is critical thinking and people willingly expanding their knowledge base. I consider it astute to learn enough enough about finance to understand what the banks are doing with my money, or what the next scandal is about, what mechanisms they are using/abusing, and indeed what laws they are breaking, if at all. Unfortunately a lot of these scandals are not technically illegal, the LIBOR rigging scandal is a good example of that.
Good investigative technique usually involves cross-referencing expert sources along with learning the basics of a subject to understand what is going on. Sure, you might not be able to understand every single word being written in a biology paper about homosexuality and the Darwinian Paradox, but with liberal use of Wikipedia (not a joke), Google and GCSE level understanding of genetics and inheritance (I suppose also some knowledge supplemented by independent learning in the past), I could understand almost everything. Is that because I was an expert? No. It was because the paper is well written, well explained and online resources covered the holes in my knowledge.
Do this for a paper and you understand an argument. Do this for 5 or 6, and read up the meta-analysis of a subject area, and you'll understand what the current research says- is it unanimous, disputed, or completely up in the air?
It's a lot less difficult than people give it credit for.
Oh and for anyone who's interested, this is a good read and very interesting.
"Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals"
http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p...Beh424-433.pdf
This has changed in recent times. It used to be the case that university was completely free. For example my mother didn't have to pay a single penny to go to university in London, and got maintenance grants for living expenses too. Even up until recently there was little to pay (relative to before) in terms of tuition fees, and number of students at university, and hence student loans were offered to a much broader spectrum of society. What with the recession, increased student numbers (and hence proportion of young people going to university), each student is getting charged more, the government has to lend more per student and hence they are stricter with their loaning policy.
Your knowledge may be current but the British system has only gone this way due to outside pressure. It's like the American spelling of Aluminum, the English used to do it but have since moved on :P
@ Oxbridge being advantageous
Sure it can be advantageous, but there are some people who leave the place unemployable. My Guardian has told me about some guys who walk into the workplace thinking they are the shit, that the ladder is there for them to climb, and that life is a cakewalk. No, they want enthusiastic, hard working guys with experience and a skill set that fits into the company. Employers (according to a Careers Service talk I attended, can find the source later if you want) care less about your degree in the UK than work experience and relevant skills.
These things can and should be built up at any university, so any respectable university will give you a good platform to start. I am an Oxford reject too. Do I care? Not a jot.
Last edited by Codex; 25th Jul 12 at 9:38 AM.
Rather than write a huge piece on this I decided to dig out windows sound recorder. It's about 30 minutes long and i get a bit meandering and repetetive at the end. I also forget what i was going to say for about a minute and a half at around 19 minutes in, please bear with me.
p.s. if anyone wants to mirror this somewhere where it can just be listened to as an embedded object, feel free, I don't really know of any such places.
http://www.gamefront.com/files/22034...ucation+01.rar
Aye, I know that mate. Langy's criteria for a non-shit degree was that it should make you employable, all of the others I fished off that list have had industries described in which the degrees do make you eminently employable, but I'm drawing a blank with astronomy. All I can come up with are research institutions like observatories or possibly NASA or ESA and I doubt there are enough jobs there to make an astronomy degree fit his criteria.@Jhonny: The observations of astronomers have ultimately been vital time and time again to furthering our understanding of the universe. Without them our scientific progress would be severely muted and much of our modern technology that is built on those foundations would never have been devised. Not everything would be gone of course, but you’d notice the lack.
So, in other words the demographics you said supported the USA and worked against China mean sod all? It's fine to have personal preferences but it helps to provide some facts that may support it. I mean, I like the idea that the British Empire will undergo a resurgence and bring all you rebelious colonials and foreigners to heel, but try as I might I can't find any evidence which suggests it might happen.@Johnny, yes there are solutions to demographic problems on both sides. As i said somewhere, its a speculation, might not be popular but i side with the idea that US wins
#70
Er, Langy, in the US any private student loan issued after 2005 cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. They will garnish your social security checks if you have no income. Since it's hard to pay for a college education with only federal loans nowadays, many students find themselves forced into private loans (which are of course then backed by the government, creating the least-risky loan ever created) to finish school.
I think your characterization of student loan debt is pretty misleading - it's pretty much the exact opposite of forgiving. Even federal loans require you to file for bankruptcy and then prove that paying the loan would require undue hardship. You basically have to show that you are totally destitute in order to get the debt discharged.
The magical money pot is a problem, but it's not because it's easy to get out from under that debt.
#71
I know that student loan debt can't be discharged through bankruptcy. It can, however be completely and wholly forgiven if you've been having trouble making payments for long enough, and bankruptcy isn't even a requirement for that.
And it's only difficult to pay for college purely through government loans if you are going to a ridiculously expensive school. I'm paying pretty much 100% of my way through grad school on loans, and I'm not taking even half of what I've been offered from the government.
And yes, it isn't because the loans are easy to get rid of that the magic money pot is a problem. I never said that was the issue. The issue is them giving too many loans.
#72
Weird, Aus univeristies don't really have that issue AFAIK; they're wholly federally subsidised (so we still have the loan system, but the only requirement is "be enrolled in a recognised tertiary degree" and repayment is an automatic garnishing of your income once it goes above the minimum wage), but we don't seem to have the blowout in fees. I mean yeah, they aren't cheap (about $20,000 for a standard 3 year degree I think, mine's up to around $30,000 as I buggered around for a few years and switched degrees a few times) but I've not heard any concerns about the universities inflating prices or people finding them difficult to pay off (they're more a major annoyance, as they simply boost your taxes until the balance is made up). That might be more a problem with the USA's funding model than any inherent flaws in whether or not certain degrees are worthwhile; whether or not something's affordable isn't a good indicator of how worthwhile it is, especially if it's only unaffordable because the system's flawed.
#73
If I earn over $700 for the week, I have to pay $38 to cover my student loan.
I'm sure the Romans felt the same way. In fact the were in a much better demographic state than their neighbours for most of their existence, even towards the 'end'.This idea of US collapse or "western demise" is mostly fiction, or, i dont find it plausible at all. For one thing, I would simply point out, that US is in much better demographic state than Europe,China or Russia. That alone should point to a favorable future.
Same with the Carthiginians. Same with the Mayans. Same with the Anasazi. Same with a lot of vanished civilisations. As mentioned previously, historically their 'collapse' is compressed with hindsight, but the collapse may have taken decades, or in some cases centuries. It may not have been 'catastrophic'.
What happened in most cases were 'out-of-context' problems. I'm not sure that the US is dealing with an out-of-context problem at the moment though, it seems. To me, the issues seem mainly internal, which is a shame really. What an innovation powerhouse the US was, post-war!
When I was at UNSW, and also Sydney University, you see EXACTLY THE SAME graffiti in the public toilets there too - on or above the roll. Student humour is universal it seems!When I was at uni I went into the public toilets one day and some genius had written "Sociology degree, please take one" on the loo roll. Even ten years ago they were generally considered to be the degree people took who just wanted a degree and didn't care what it was.
#75
Indeed:
Spoiler
Back on topic I agree with the notion that the Romans probably never foresaw the catastrophic collapse, or at least the irreversible one.
The Roman empire much like America faces daily challenges and seemed to overcome them, and generally felt the problems were manageable.
If the US is somehow on the way to collapse it will probably be seen too late anyway, though modern telecommunications ensures authority is much easier to maintain than the Romans had.
By the same token, Nurizeko, modern telecommunications also ensure that authority is much easier to bypass.
#77
I'm not sure what you're talking about. There is no magic "nah don't worry about it" timeout associated with student loans. Ways to discharge federal student loan debt. Note that unless you've had some horrible life event, you have to go to bankruptcy court and prove that paying the loan would cause undue hardship. There is no situation like you describe, where "having trouble" is enough to make the loan go away without bankruptcy and a court appearance. And again, that's just federal loans - private loans can't be discharged under current law.It can, however be completely and wholly forgiven if you've been having trouble making payments for long enough, and bankruptcy isn't even a requirement for that.
#78
True, we've seen how telecommunications has somewhat undone several regimes in the Arab world, still I am speaking more of the hierarchy of state.
When Rome went to shit and people started doing there own thing, the bulk of people not doing their own thing could only wait so long for the leadership to give them orders or whatever.
Just as it's easier to organize civil disobedience it's also much easier to maintain a working hierarchy of state.
It's one thing for a Gaulish Roman to shrug and work with his new Frankish masters if he doesn't know about any surviving emperor, or that the empire is still strong in the east.
It's another for a Californian to work with say the Chinese when he can see TV images and radio broadcasts of the US president telling him the United States still stands and is doing so and so to salvage the situation.
You take out Rome and you severely damage the Roman empire's ability to function (in the west). You take out Washington, as long as some of the executive and legislative branches survive they can effectively administer the organs of state from anywhere thanks to telecommunications.
Then again the decline and collapse of Roman authority is a different beast from any hypothetical collapse of US authority.
#79
Ah; I think the one I was thinking of was the teacher/public service loan forgiveness (where your loan is forgiven if you make 120 payments), but I got it mixed up with something else. *shrug*
Gender Science is not BS. Gender Science is a science related to understanding the similarities between each gender as well as the differences.
Which brings me to very good question. Religion's say that God aka a man created all. The Space, Time and Universe that we have before us. If this is true then why would such a male God create a perfect male having nipples?
Wouldn't such a gender study suggest that the male species did in fact evolve from the female species at one point in time to give rise to the male species?
If we think of such a species as being a combined species where the male and female chromosomes are stored in seperate areas of the body and then combine together in the womb of the human where the human gives birth nine months later we can see that the nipples present on a man are in fact trace chromosomes of the human present in the human male that were left over after something happened during the combination process that gave birth to the first two human genderites being a male and female.
Religions always talk about God, which is a genderless entity. So it could be possible that God that was spoken of in religious textbooks in the past was actually a combined species that when the first woman and man came along the new genders called it God because both genders had come from the same origin.
#81
It's BS for getting a job. It helps not at all. There are no jobs for 'gender scientists'. The closest you'll get is something that could utilize the 'gender science' stuff as well as a proper degree, like psychiatry (I imagine it could be useful for a psychiatrist treating patients gender identity issues). But it sucks as a primary degree, because it gives you no marketable skills, which is what going to college is all about for the vast majority of people.Gender Science is not BS. Gender Science is a science related to understanding the similarities between each gender as well as the differences.
Langy, again, not quite true.
There are, again, plenty of fields where Gender Studies play an important role. Getting a job in such fields could rely rather heavily on the applicant having a Gender Studies degree.
Someone who does freelance journalism (with no journalism degree) who wants to get into writing articles from Women's magazines or Youth magazines or just general articles about every day people stuff will benefit greatly from a Gender Studies degree along side their portfolio.
So strike one for your claim it is BS.
Someone who wants to get into Advertising who has been doing copywriting for a while but doesn't have a degree in Marketing will also be able to put a Gender Studies degree to good use, depending on the range of products the company he is applying at covers.
Strike two for your claim.
A social worker would also be able to move up rather fast with a Gender Studies degree and enter the field easily well above entry level.
Strike three.
I could go on. There are many ways in which a Gender Studies degree could be very beneficial.
The problem is that you just don't know those fields very well, or disregard them (for some unknown reason). You are taking this debate solely from your perspective without taking into account those peoples wants, needs, likes, abilities, opportunities, views, or... well... anything.
Just because you can't see the use in a Gender Studies degree doesn't mean there isn't one. Open your world view a little.
So I've given examples showing that a Gender Studies degree is not BS (Even if, magically, it is only in those cases above). You claim it is. But as soon as I've shown one way that it isn't, your statement can never be true. You're going to have to start limiting your statement now. Your next step is:
"But it's BS for getting a GOOD job"
The counter to which is either:
"Not everyone wants the same job as you"
or
"Some of those people get paid rather well"
To which your argument would have to be (If you insist on continuing):
"But I, personally, don't think those are good jobs!"
And the answer to that is fairly simple:
"Some people do."
or
"Nobody cares. Other people have opinions and views of their own. Yours is not the only one that counts, you fascist bastard." (Depending on how confrontational the respondent is feeling at the time)
So, now that we've had the inevitable argument boiled down...
Is a Gender Studies degree BS for getting a job?
No. It's just not the best degree for getting a job as an accountant or an architect, but then, neither is a degree in Computer Science or a degree in Botany.
#83
So, the United States has a huge debt problem and stubborn unemployment numbers at the moment, but:
You must have a little perspective as well.
The small drop you see between 2008 and 2009 is the "massive recession" we're in. Unemployment is high, but it's only somewhat higher than what many european countries have battled with for decades.
So, the US is probably not the "top dog" anymore but it isn't crumbling to ashes either.
tl;dr: There's trouble, just not "last days of the holy roman empire" levels of it.
Last edited by roflmao; 28th Jul 12 at 5:02 PM.
What I think is often forgotten is that we're looking at a world today which simply does not work the way it did 20 years ago. Things 'move' a lot faster and, despire the benefits, this leads people to take relatively minor issues out of context more often than not. Since there's a also trend to 'use' this out-of-context perception to blow every minor issue into a major one (and that's a global trend, not just related to the US), it's often hard to predict how the world will move as an individual (and it's probably not all too different for non-individuals trying to predict it either).
All the obvious predictions are skewed by knee-jerk reactions, public outcries and sudden, unexpected events. Take India's recent power failure, I doubt many people one saw that coming. Doesn't mean India's screwed permanantly though. Short-term damage is assured but, in the end, it's just variable they and the rest of the world will have to take more seriously. In a few years it'll be forgotten by everone except the electrical companies. But, for the time being, people will go screaming about it as if India just ran itself into a black hole. And, to look at a differnt kind of sitation, the whole middle east is currently turning itself upside down. Someone probably predicted that too but, to the majority of us onlookers, it happened overnight with little to no warning. Doubt that means we'll see muslim woman's rights activists winning their case by tomorrow noon though. Just because we hear about it doesn't mean it's already happened.
Anyways, such 'dramatic' events have happened in the past before and have since the beginning of humantiy. The difference is, the speed at which they become known to the world has increased expeonentially over the past 20 years. Thus, our world view isn't defined by 'key players' quite the way it was in times past. And, put in that context, hearing about the US Debt or Tax issues or who knows what else (I don't follow US or any news very much because it drives me insane) is just one of those half-a-million bits and pieces we hear every day which lead us to think the world's coming to an end. I think the biggest mistake would be to see these changes as an issue. It's progress - just a different progress than how we used to think our world would (or should?) evolve.
So, will the US fall? Probably. So has every other large power. But I'm not entirely sure I'm sad those powers are gone. They gave way to different systems (some for the better, some for the worse). Such change seems to be the way our world improves itself one little bit at a time but it's still the same, slow process it was in the days of Rome.
But who knows? Maybe the US will descend into tribal warfare tomorrow. I wouldn't be any more surprised than if Italy declared itself a mormon state or China teleported its population to the moon. I've lost all trust in my or anyone else's ability to foresee political, social, economic and technological or virtually any other type of progress. These days, it's so up and down, we're basically guessing blind. And, back to the US, it's the same thing. Maybe this is the end. Maybe it isn't. I'd bet my money on it isn't the "last days of the empire" close to the end but, really, that's just guesswork again.
Oooh, I get it.
We don't know anything because we can't predict the future so everyone should just go home, be quiet, and wait for the end... whenever that may be.
#86
I would argue that the United States is still (generally) the most innovative/powerful/well positioned country on the planet. Most hand wringing about the American decline is almost always directly associated with economic decline. When you strip out the hype, you typically find that the US is not nearly as destitute as everyone assumes.
The commanding lead that the United States has built in the past century will take a lot of time to overcome (decades, not years). The thing with long periods of time is that a lot can change in the interim. If we are fretting about US decline based on the past 5 years and Chinese ascendance based on the past 5 years, it is hard to assume that these trends will continue, unabated, for a further 3 decades to bring China to parity with the US. For all of its foibles, the US political system will conceivably be able to maintain its long-term growth rate much more easily than the unarguably more repressive Chinese system that (by historical evidence from other repressive superpowers) is more unstable.
You might argue that the American political star is waning. Sure, I would tend to agree with that. But remember that it started at a base that is orders of magnitude higher than any other geopolitical entity. You still can't get much done on the world stage without getting America on board.
In my opinion, the underlying political, cultural, social and economic "infrastructure" of the United States will make it the biggest player on the world stage for the foreseeable future. Beyond the foreseeable future, all bets are off, but there are not any credible contenders out there today. There are over-blown challenges on the fringes (ono, anti-intellectualism on Fox News; ono, GDP is growing 2 times faster than the EU, but only a quarter as fast as China this year; ono, China is building a carrier that they still can't fly planes off of; ono, social security will bankrupt us and we only have two decades to fix it; ono, the House of Representatives are unpopular), but at its core the United States will remain a true superpower.
Why do I feel like the only non-American around here that has respect for its legitimate greatness?
Possibly because you are being more optimistic than everyone else.
That doesn't mean you are right though.
I remember no such thing. Perhaps you can provide some actual evidence for this?You might argue that the American political star is waning. Sure, I would tend to agree with that. But remember that it started at a base that is orders of magnitude higher than any other geopolitical entity.
Your argument about the "foreseeable future" is basically moot because is says your own argument holds just as much weight as those apposed.
The thing about the commanding lead the US once held is that it doesn't hold it any longer. The time when the world looked to the US is swiftly vanishing. The lead that the US got was built on their great position after WW2. That position was only possible because the other countries has suffered a lot longer and a lot worse going into and during WW2 before the US even joined in, leaving the US in a better position coming out of it. But other countries have been healing, and that healing is nearly done. Already the countries with the best tech/gadget stuff are in Asia and the Pacific. But the US has kept up their military spending which has taken a LOT away from other areas they could have invested in for improvement.
So instead of using the lead they had to shoot further ahead, they settled for infighting politically, lavish military spending, and propping up the richest in their country at the expense of the poor, dabbling in every other country's problems while their gang culture and drug culture was left to run rampant.
But... you know... optimism first yeah?
#88
I read an article about half a year ago in the South China Morning Post (it's in Hong Kong, hence the ability to be so open about it) that a professor thought, based on the distribution of wealth and huge wealth gap in the country, that China was a ticking time bomb. Based on the Gini coefficient (a way to measure imbalance, 0 being the lowest and 1 being the highest, I think they were passing 0.4 last time I looked, sorry no source I'm afraid), China is looking to become one of the worst offenders in the world, with very little actual work being done to prevent it. The Chinese government is all talk about these issues and no action, and the people of China are becoming disillusioned.For all of its foibles, the US political system will conceivably be able to maintain its long-term growth rate much more easily than the unarguably more repressive Chinese system that (by historical evidence from other repressive superpowers) is more unstable.
If this trend does continue, the professor predicted that it would lead the huge social unrest and eventually attempted revolutions.
Okay, now my extrapolation:
1. If the Communist government does keep control, I doubt it's going to continue to develop and advance economically as quickly as it has in the past.
2. If the revolution succeeds, I don't see how they are going to manage it without people dying, economy grinding to a halt for a bit, progress slowed down.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012...ni-coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
So it's hardly all sunshine and roses for China.
However, that's not to say that America isn't on the wane.
I didn't say we don't know anything. I simply believe it's hard to say where things are going beyond very broad generalizations. And predicting the future is impossible. It's predicting trends which is harder because they zig-zag all over the place these days. Doesn't mean humanity on a whole is stupid. Just means it's a different world than the divided-globe politics with one, technically two, big nations singing a tune which everyone jumped to.We don't know anything because we can't predict the future
In all honesty, what else do you intend to do? Well, not necessarily be quiet or go home, but it isn't like any single action will make a difference on a larger scale. The best you really can do is simply keep doing whatever youv'e been doing thus far - with whatever deviations you deem necessary as times change. Or you can go out and protest and demand they 'burn the wrongdoes' - not that I think that's a very helpful idea.so everyone should just go home, be quiet, and wait for the end... whenever that may be.
andPossibly because you are being more optimistic than everyone else.What country doesn't do that? Hell, I live in one of the 'stablest' and 'richest' countries in the world (Swizerland) and you know what? We have problems too. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the political parties capitalize on both. We even have a disproportionately large military eating up money in galobs, money we don't actually have and which definitely isn't used wisely by flying F18s and Saabs around the Alps. Only thing we don't have are large gangs, though there's enough small ones to go around.So instead of using the lead they had to shoot further ahead, they settled for infighting politically, lavish military spending, and propping up the richest in their country at the expense of the poor, dabbling in every other country's problems while their gang culture and drug culture was left to run rampant.
Okay, so we're a fraction of the US in inhabitants and land mass, but we have the same stuff in a smaller scale. Which isn't to mean it's right, it's just that beating the US over the head for failings every other country has in one way or another simply isn't an objective view of the word. The only real difference is the 'stupid US' telegraphs all their problems across the globe because they're a big player.
I have to agree with this statement but I'll go a step further: it's hardly roses for any country, large or small, these days. I can't think of one which isn't up to its neck in some sort of internal issues brought up and ignored during the past century. The big question is: who'll be the first global player to go under?So it's hardly all sunshine and roses for China.
Edit: As has been pointed out, most of the world is an inaccurate statement. I can speak only for western Europe.Why do I feel like the only non-American around here that has respect for its legitimate greatness?
Because most of the world's tired of 'big brother America'. I hear it from almost everyone around here. There's usually not a good reason to back it up beyond 'American soldiers bomb babys', 'Americans are ignorant assholes' and 'America ruined our planet'. But, for better or for worse, that's the general oppinion outside the States. Don't know what people think in America though. I wouldn't be surprised if many sing the same tune.
Last edited by mololu; 2nd Aug 12 at 7:07 AM.
#90
My point is that a lot of people, especially in the West, are talking about China being the next superpower... whereas I find even that slightly doubtful, let alone them superseding the USA in the near future.I have to agree with this statement but I'll go a step further: it's hardly roses for any country, large or small, these days. I can't think of one which isn't up to its neck in some sort of internal issues brought up and ignored during the past century. The big question is: who'll be the first global player to go under?
Last edited by Codex; 2nd Aug 12 at 5:11 AM. Reason: Clarification
#91
I think it's unlikely that "almost everyone around here" = "most of the world".Because most of the world's tired of 'big brother America'. I hear it from almost everyone around here.
True. I should correct my statement. I can't speak for any continent beyond Europe - and only the western part at that. And what I can speak of is really only what I witness on a day-by-day basis. Anything else is pure speculation on my part.I think it's unlikely that "almost everyone around here" = "most of the world".
Edit:
Out of curiosity, I ran a quick google.
The source is outdated but paints an interesting image. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=326&lb=btvoc,
The first more recent source I could turn up: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153929/Le...al%20-%20World
Last edited by mololu; 2nd Aug 12 at 7:19 AM.
Rotation of Power.
Power Goes Westward.
Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Europe, Britian, US.
while it is hardly true to form all the time it is a casual observation of history.
#94
@Codex: China will have to take the training wheels off their trade policies before they'll start to really grow. So yeah, as long as they maintain a dual economy where half of it is functional and half of it isn't, they're going to have high income inequality as well as poor growth.
Last edited by roflmao; 2nd Aug 12 at 4:10 PM.
#95
Look for a pattern hard enough and you'll see what you want to see.while it is hardly true to form all the time it is a casual observation of history.
Only a person with no imagination would believe those are the only options. I don't mean that as an insult. There are many other things to do, and you limiting things to just "single action" or "be quiet and go home" or "burn the witch"... well, that's just a lack of thought and imagination. I'm fairly sure if you applied yourself you could very quickly and easily come up with at least 10 more things to do, and some of those can prompt real change.In all honesty, what else do you intend to do? Well, not necessarily be quiet or go home, but it isn't like any single action will make a difference on a larger scale. The best you really can do is simply keep doing whatever youv'e been doing thus far - with whatever deviations you deem necessary as times change. Or you can go out and protest and demand they 'burn the wrongdoes' - not that I think that's a very helpful idea.
But, you know, apathy for the win.
Your answer is that every country does those things? Really? Every country has a military budget as big as the US? Every country has such a large disparity between rich and poor and with such a small percentage of the population controlling such a large portion of the wealth? Don't look at it in term of scale, look at it in terms of percentage. Where the US spends 10billion and Switzerland spends 6million, doesn't matter. Where the US spends 47% of the money it has an Switzerland spends 23%... that's a rather large discrepancy. The US has a military that should be able to dominate the rest of the world three times over based on the money it spends on it alone. It sends its military out there to fight anyone who pokes their heads up... and stumbles and fails miserably.
But you know what? Lets assume you are correct. Lets assume the US is facing the exact same problems as everyone else just on a larger scale.
So now... you tell me... what exactly did the US do with their lead if they have ended up just like everyone else?
They abandoned space.
They increased their military.
They fostered a hate for anything socialist.
They allowed drugs and gangs to run rampant when just a fraction of their military budget, funneled to law enforcement, could have that well in hand.
They poked at Russia every chance they got.
They poked at the Middle East every chance they got.
They ignored governing bodies they helped to set up (UN)
They loudly crowed about their greatness.
...
And now they are sitting in the same place as everyone else?
Yeah, they used that lead brilliantly.
#97
This is an unprovable statement. There's little, if any, evidence to support the assumption that higher law enforcement budgets equal less crime. I mean, there's a baseline, obviously, but there's absolutely no evidence that crime could be put "well in hand" just by throwing money at it.They allowed drugs and gangs to run rampant when just a fraction of their military budget, funneled to law enforcement, could have that well in hand.
In fact, there's significant evidence that the inverse is true. At a certain point, increased law enforcement resources simply make crime more profitable, and therefore more attractive.
"Fear nothing except in the certainty that you are your enemy's begetter and its only hope of healing. For everything that does evil is in pain."
-The Maestro Sartori, Imajica by Clive Barker
I was going to comment on that statement too. I was under the impression that the US has actually been throwing increasing amounts of money into "the War on Drugs" ever since the Reagan era and that it has widely been criticized as a failure. The legalization option, at least for marijuana, has been more and more on the table in various states and in Canada as well by a wide spectrum of politicians, doctors, police chiefs, etc. Gangs and various jobs depend on continued criminalization being a reality unfortunately. Portugal is actually an amazing case study in just how successful decriminalization, rather than ramped up "wars on drugs" and law enforcement can be.
http://www.cato.org/publications/whi...-drug-policies
Evolve or Die...I choose to evolve.
Steam: Ekko Tek
#99
Indeed. It's a somewhat counterintuitive and paradoxical thing, but when it comes to trade in banned commodities, the stricter the enforcement becomes, the more valuable the commodity gets. Which leads to more and nastier, more violent traders. The solution is to crack down hard, brutally hard even, on violence, but take a very lasseiz-faire approach to anything non-violent. What this does is creates criminal organizations with a vested interest in keeping their underlings from doing anything violent. You turn a relatively blind eye to the criminal organizations as long as they keep everyone in line and don't start hurting people.
Perhaps it was phrased badly.
What I intended was that some money from the military budget, even just a fraction of it, could aid greatly in reducing those problems. Whether in the form of law enforcement or in other initiatives directed against the gang violence and drug problems.
The US has been so focused on outside concerns that it has let internal problems get out of hand. I doubt you'll find any initiatives directed against gang violence and drug problems that couldn't do better with more funding.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
