Friend, I am researching your views on man made global warming, and am giving you the benefit of a doubt when it comes to credibility. However, this post denigrates that credibility. You are basically trying to redefine what a nation is, claiming the US is not a 'true' nation. Utter nonsense.
I'm not asking for credibility, I am simply presenting arguments to be judged on their own merit. People can be wrong about one thing and right about another.
My argument on nationhood is far less objective than my argument that the current global warming trend is anthropogenic. Even so, I invite you to point out any of my supporting statements that you can prove to be wrong. Honestly, it's a collection of observations that suggest a fundamental difference between two types of countries.
The term "nation" is fairly ambiguous to start with. Wikipedia defines it as...
"a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture"
So, I'm really not trying to "redefine" anything. The term "nation" is just the closest approximation that I can think of to describe my thoughts. This is often the challenge of original thinking.
You are trying to use that new definition to justify why the US does not live up to your expectations. More nonsense.
It's not that the U.S. doesn't live up to my expectation
... it's more like it doesn't live up to my standard
but that is exactly what I do expect
and my argument offers a possible, partial explanation for that. In other words, my disappointment is exactly what I expect and here's why.
I'm not sure it even makes sense to suggest that I am trying to justify my disappointment. LOL
Your underlying assumption is that businesses are NOT people, and they are.
Well, that's one way to spackle over the reality that business decisions often conflict with public interest! LOL! Look, I know business is people. I co-founded three businesses over the span of my career, it's not an alien concept for me. But I also know about the conflicts that arise between private and public interests. So, you can try to hide that with as much of that "business is people" kumbaya as you want but the conflict of interests, once realized, isn't something that can be unrealized.
The vast majority of wealth is owned by many millions of individuals owning tiny portions of various corporations.
That's actually incorrect. As of 2019, 70% of the wealth in America is owned by only 10% of the people. The bottom 50% of the American people own less than 7%. The other thing to realize is that the tiny shares we all have in the stock market don't yield the same returns as the shares being bought up by people in the top 10% that are so big, they actually manipulate the market.
You're actually providing more fodder for my argument. Wealth distribution is not as uneven in the progressive countries that serve the people first. Not only are the antitrust laws, designed to limit run-away corporate power, much stronger in the progressive countries that I mentioned but those cultures don't try to hide it either. The fact that so many Americans think vast majority of wealth is shared between many millions of people is I think attributed to a culture of ignorance designed to keep Americans in the dark about how they are getting shafted.
That is not a perfect system, but neither is it a weakness......it is a strength.
I think that's a relative statement. Yes, it's a strength for any one who wants to exploit people for profit.
As far as the other countries are concerned, they can afford their various 'free' benefits, lame though many of them are, because the United States of America has spent trillions of dollars over the last 80 years to free them, to protect, them and to stabilize and support them.
Yeah, I don't agree with any of that either. I honestly think it's spoon-fed BS. First of all, progressive politics offers nothing for free. Every benefit is paid for through taxes. Secondly, there's no basis for suggesting the benefits provided by progressive governments are any more "lame" than what we have here. I lived in Europe for a few years and my experience with healthcare over there was far superior to what I've experienced here. Granted, that's only the experience of one person, but various studies over the years seem to agree with me. Cancer treatment is the ONLY service provided in the U.S. that proves to be better here than anywhere else and I suspect that's because of the profit potential in cancer treatment.
I don't agree with that tired old argument that progressive countries can afford to spend money on their people because the U.S. is protecting them either. It's true that not allocating the majority of their revenue to military spending allows them to spend more on their people instead. But they would make that decision whether the U.S. military was there or not. In fact it's been a half a century since countries like Germany and France has actually asked for any protection from the U.S.
So why are we there? Well, this gets back to the theme of my argument. It's great for business. Our military-industrial complex thrives on the illusion that the whole world needs our protection. It "justifies" the billions of dollars that American tax slaves are forced to dump into it. In fact, ever since the Balkan War, Europeans have been proposing a united European Army but each time it came up the U.S. insisted that no such army should exist. It's been suggested that the reason for this is that it would weaken the illusion that the U.S. MUST be there.
So, it's not that these progressive countries need or even want the "protection" from the US military. It's more about the U.S. MIC securing their sales.
Every one in America has healthcare.
Then how is it that neither of my kids do? If EVERYONE in America has health insurance, why do so many of my friends not have any?
br Inefficient, expensive, and frustrating as it ... (
Again, I've lived in England for a while where I used their National Health. My first hand experience says that our system is far from being the best. I've heard people bring up that "long wait" argument over and over and over and over again, like some kind of mantra, but having experienced both systems first hand, I would take the British system anyday. Long waits happen in both systems, for various reasons and people often cherry pick the examples to suit their narrative. There is absolutely nothing inherent in the systems that make one more prone to long waits than the other.
My father and my uncle both got Parkinson's at roughly the same time a few years back. My dad lived in PA and my uncle lived in England. They both got about the same treatment, but the National Health system sent young people to my uncle's house to help my aunt with daily chores so she could spend more time helping her husband. All my mom got from our system was a pile of bills that she's still trying to pay off eight years later.
I'm sure you're not going to want to believe what I am saying... I am familiar enough with your arguments to know that they often come from many years of exposure to the same stories and I'm not expecting to turn it all over with a single post on a web site, but I'm being honest with my opinions here and I'm open to correction if I'm wrong.
I am also aware that my politically incorrect arguments often offend the patriotic side of a person's belief system, so I just want you to know that I am not "slamming" America just to be spiteful. I am simply describing my observations and theories. Please don't take offense.