crimochina:

that's just it. if you gotta point to china and say well at least we aren't ... then we have failed as a country. america should be comparing itself with itself. we have the 3rd largest pop (and the top 2 are poverty stricten) , and the 1 economy and a kick ass military. we should be achieving much more. and it all falls on american citizens. we as people have stopped looking forward to see where we can go, what the next challenge is and started looking down at countries like china, india, mexico and we became too damn proud of ourselves.

mattsm84:

Yea, when it comes to island disputes the US and the Canadians have always been able to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. 

LAR:

Bill,

      "At least...............us." Well said!!!!!!!

bill8899:

My goodness Crimo if you hate your country or lost faith in your country then fine but speak for yourself.

Nya nya nya I'm done.

Shining_brow:

"....in your country"....................

That's the problem - people tend to draw big massive brush-strokes.

The 'country' isn't the problem - it's the individuals in it. You don't get to change 'a country', you have to change each and every individual in it (for any given topic or issue).

Crimo - I'd suggest that the people have become sheep... they look for a leader to give them a direction to follow. In lieu of that, they go back to their TV's and see what KK's baby bump looks like. They don't have... 'faith' in themselves.

(before I cop crap for it - yeah, it's a global issue...).

:

I second this. There are some things about the US that make me ashamed. Our gun policy is high up on the list.

philbravery:

I truly hope your President can get some form of gun control across the line

can you explain to me how much power a executive derision has over congress?

I heard it can make things happen at the stroke of a pen

great answer by the way   

crimochina:

he can not make any laws, but he can propose laws to congress

xinyuren:

Ya,  the president can only use his influence which is sometimes very significant, but it is the Congress' responsibility to pass laws.

philbravery:

thanks

giadrosich:

Yep. I'm all for gun control, too. The more control I have with a gun, the better my aim!

crimochina:

sadly it seems a black president has brought the nuts out , they somehow think he is the rebirth of mao, stalin and hitler all wrapped up in one

giadrosich:

It doesn't matter his color. Maybe he is just a bad President.

mattsm84:

It doesn't have to be, but in the first term, it often was. Remember when they thought that he was lying about being born in the US? Racism had something to do with that. Or when they said that he had "anti-colonial", and thus anti-American, world view? Again, there is probably more than a little racism involved in formulating an opinion like that, especially when you consider his absolutely cut throat foreign policy decisions on using drones to carry out targeted assassination, bystanders be damned. Or when they called him a food stamp President, knowing full well that they were dog whistling the stereotype of the lazy, welfare drawing black man. And you can't even say that those were out of the mainstream as they were all exposed by Republican presidential candidates that were at one point front runners. They wouldn't have done any of that to a white President, even a Democrat. 

MissA:

From an (entirely) outside perspective based on the news we get from America, it would seem so.

WTF was up with those 'birthers'? I can't imagine any caucasian president would have been put through that.

mattsm84:

It's because we're in the middle of a demographic change. Minorities and college educated people are making up an increasingly larger portion of the population. Case in point, Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election by something like 440 electoral votes because he was able to convince 56% of white people to vote for him. Last year Mitt Romney was able to attract that same percentage of white voters but got beaten convincingly in the electoral college by roughly 100 electoral votes. Faced with losing a fair amount of political and economic clout, these people are freaking out about it. Bush the Lesser was actually able use this anxiety, and particularly fears of massive social change that it could potentially bring, to use gay marriage as a means of gaining an edge over John Kerry in 2004, which was (hopefully) the last time that such a thing was possible. After Obama won in 2008, and then won reelection in 2012, he became the face of that demographic shift. 

crimochina:

great observation matt. 

crimochina:

according to wiki 60% of americans believe the gun laws are ok the way they are

Scandinavian:

hmmm, that is pretty bad. 

giadrosich:

We are, and getting crazier by the day!

mArtiAn:

  Hey man, i've got tattoos on my hands, arm and shoulder. What's wrong with that? They each represent various musicians that have inspired me. I've even got one on my Magic Johnson. Most of the time it just says BMW, which is fine, it's a good car, but in truth, when i'm in a good mood, it says 'Bob Marley and the Wailers.'

LAR:

Ted..OMG..you make some assinine generalizations bro! Sure, you speak the truth for SOME but not all!

TedDBayer:

Sorry guys, not a fan of tats, I don't mind one on the back of some hot babe, but if she's hot it wouldn't matter if she had hair on her chest either. Before I went to China last year, I had to go shopping for clothes in the USA. Couldn't find nice dress shoes or sport coats here, and since when did mens shirts cost $65-85? F.T. It is almost impossible to find nice mens clothing anymore, hoodies yes, whoopie And as for guns,, please. I want weapons of mass destruction. Thank God I live near a military base.

TedDBayer:

Most of us don't have guns in Canada. If we want to kill something, we can do it by running it over once.

Scandinavian:

there is a thread somewhere on here with the discussion on what would happen, if China had Liberal gun laws.

Btw. Putting up 8 years of GW is OK. At least the Americans have the leader they deserve.

mattsm84:

That's certainly news to me. I mean about the indoctrination. I might have to write my 4th grade teacher a nasty email over this very thing.  You see when I was in middle school, and I remember it specifically because it was Mrs Jowett's classes, I was told that the US had the world's largest single economy as measured by production, and that the US had the ability to project force in around world in a way that no other country in the world could. Was I miss informed on those to things? We were also told that our quality of life lagged behind that of Japan and the whole of Western Europe. Again, was I miss informed?

 As an outside observer with apparently little to no real understanding of what goes on in my country, I would love to here your thoughts and opinions about how and why my country selects its leaders. Please enlighten me. For real man, wake me up. 

Hugh.G.Rection:

Thumbs up from me Shining brow, just one caveat: You used the word 'they' several times, and I have to pick up on that as I have done the same so often when people are referring to the Chinese in the same manner. When you use 'they' to talk about a race of people you are at best indulging in a sweeping generalisation as it sounds as if you are talking about the entire race, (in this case it sounds as if you think ALL Americans are indoctrinated). This begets overly defensive replies such as those you see from Matt, (I was hoping to get this answer in before his reply and predict it, but ah well too late). I find it's much more accurate and less likely to mass offend if you use terms such as 'many' or 'most' or some similar phrase.

However you do raise some interesting points.

Shining_brow:

Thanks Hugh... yeah, I know... hard to find a good pronoun that is adequate. Of course, 'they' is a generalisation. Obviously, not all people (from anywhere) fall into one single category.. and no matter what sort of statistics you bother with, unless you 100% of the people (impossible at the moment), they are still inaccurate.

@Matt - yes, indoctrination. It comes in many forms, about a great many subjects. Perhaps the first is that where a person is born is more important than the fact they're a person. (if we look at things like that, it makes the concept of 'illegal immigrants' a ridiculous concept). Similarly, that a nation can be better or worse than another... no, how a person lives can - not a nation.

Indoctrinated to believe that elected politicians are more important than 'ordinary' people, and have more 'rights' than the rest of us. And, for that matter, that they actually know better. You'll notice how 'murder' is seen in one light, yet 'assassination' is somehow a more heinous crime - why???

Indoctrinated to believe that what the media says is true. Kids get this right from the get-go. How this is evidenced will differ between individuals and groups - some believe Fox, others Jon Stewart, etc etc. Yet, somehow, people believe what they hear through the media - and what's important is what the media tells you is important.

Indoctrinated to believe there are only 2 political parties who are supposed to tell you how things should be.

Indoctrinated to think that watching 2 people have sex is bad, but watching them fight is ok... or that money is important... or that men and women are significantly different (when in reality, there's very little difference).

To think that it's somehow important (or relevant) to mention that 2 Americans  may have been killed, but that the other 230 don't matter as much.... (for any given news story).

(whether you break out of the indoctrination.. that's a different matter... but that's the same in China!)

As for the US economy etc that you raised.... still doesn't change the fact that US gun crimes are through the roof! And crimes in general. And the lack of empathy for the rest of the world's problems is... ok.

America's leaders (like the 'leaders' of virtually ALL nations of the world) don't actually have a lot of ability... or commitment to actually improving the place. The majority seem to come from wealthier families, or have come through the legal professions, etc. (Maybe some have done a 'rags-to-riches' thing.. but it's extremely rare.) In the US (again, like most places), to enter into politics (especially towards the top ends - to actually be influential), you need power, and connections (and getting connections requires power...). *Power also includes wealth.

The simple fact is - ALL of the world's problems are solvable right now! But, we're indoctrinated to think we can't do anything about them.....

mattsm84:

That's it? Why didn't the clouds part? Why didn't the angels sing? Why wasn't the knowledge you dropped on me more persuasive or affective? I feel like I had this discussion with Hugh and either Martian or Snowball a few months ago when we discussed whether or not the pledge of allegiance counted as indoctrination. Now, I feel indoctrination as your using it implies coercion. Otherwise its simply socialization, and as human beings that's just the process we uses to disseminate norms and--often competing--ideologies. If railing against socialization is what your doing here, then thats fine, but why single out America to do it, and why start by using a loaded word like "indoctrination" before you start to make what should be a persuasive argument? You could be using a better tactic here.

After that it just gets a little scatter shot. Are Americans indoctrinated because their country has immigration laws? Every country in the world does. They do it because they are interested in not having their social welfare institutions over burdened  or having people from countries with substandard medical equipment enter a country and end up posing a health risk to the general population. I don't feel that either of those concerns are slight or unfair, but I would be open to you proposing a workable solution.

Or is it that America is a country that invests its elected leaders with with the powers to pass laws, spend and print currency, or go to war? Again, every country in the world does that. Because what's the alternative? Would we all take turns enacting what ever public policy we felt like? Or maybe we dissolve it all and see how anarchy works out? I hope its the latter as I own a 80s style ice hockey goalie mask, a pair of shoulder pads with spikes, and a speado. I'm a good foreign teacher, but I'd make an even better biker warlord. If you've got other options, I'd like to here them. Unless they include the word "Zeitgeist" then I'm not especially interested. 

(Also, assassination is a higher crime than murder because its voiding the collective political will of the people that voted both for and against the victim, or have otherwise consented to be governed by that guy or gal through murder. Remember that when people vote for a politician they are voting for both the man or woman as well as the policies that he or she promises to enact.)

Or are Americans indoctrinated because of...um...the media...uhhh...makes news judgments...or something? I'm gunna level with you here, I got no idea about what your getting at. Are you saying that the news media is suppressing stories? Or that it is selecting stories to keep of ignorant of something that is important? It doesn't work that way. When they decide to run a story or when they decide how to cover a story from an editorial prospective, they do it based around how interested they think the public will be interested in. More interest means higher circulation, which means they can charge more for ad space. The people dictate to the media what their interests are, not the other way around. If a news outlet gets caught running a story that isn't objectively true, they lose credibility, and that hurts their over all readership.

Or are Americans indoctrinated because of the fact that there are only two political parties? I don't think you understand how American political parties really work. What they are is just a coalition of different interest groups, which trade party allegiance fairly regularly. It isn't that different than what coalition government looks like in say, Canada or the UK, both of which are both currently operating under coalition rule.  In the past two presidential cycles, the Democrats were able to pull together Hispanics, women, blacks and college educated whites by crafting policies that appealed to each group, while the formerly dominant coalition of foreign policy hawks, deficit hawks, and social conservatives has been pushed out of power.  The difference between a two party system and a multi party system is that each of these interest groups would have a political party to act as an advocate for people who agree with its policies in parliamentary democracy while in the US system the whole thing is much less formal.

While arguing that crime is too high is one thing, you can't argue that progress isn't being made. According the the FBI statistics, violent crime has decreased by  nearly 50% over the last decade. And if we are being honest, most of violent that get committed have to do with the drug trade. The reason that so many Americans consider a direct ban on hand guns or whatever is because it just strikes so much of us as magical thinking as it cures the symptoms rather than the illness itself.  Frankly, the drug trade is a much stickier problem and I'm not sure that it is solvable at this exact moment.

Last, about our leaders being from the upper crust. I'm again not sure if I agree. Look at our last three presidents. Only George Bush could be considered to have been from a wealthy family. But the greater problem here is when you make that kind of statement, your talking about elected officials and government workers at the federal level, some of whom are from wealthy families, state level, where a few people are from wealthy families, and the local level, where almost no one involved is from a wealthy family.

And one more thing. Is America the same as China? Clearly not. The difference is that the Chinese force people into a specific point of view by exercising direct control over the media, education and the threat of re-education through labor. The US doesn't do anything like that.

crimochina:

we are not indoctrinated. we choose to be ignorant.

Jnusb416:

I agree with crimo, most people just choose to be ignorant. They know that information is available to them, but they don't pursue it.

Shining_brow:

Wow - I've been thumbs-downed and outed.... long time since that's happened! :D

Ok, Matt, you have some points to answer... (and, actually, yeah, we did actually have the sun come out for a couple of days back then :p)

Firstly - yes, socialisation is a form of indoctrination - there's really no question of that. However, the indoctrination in the US (and most other technologically advanced countries - who can reach so many people via the media) continues beyond mere 'socialisation'. It goes into what questions are allowed to be asked, and what answers are acceptable - from intelligent, mature, critical, educated people. When people are not willing to accept a truth about themselves, or their beliefs (in whatever respect). 

I'm discussing 'America' because a) that's the current topic, b) because that's where I see and hear it a lot, and c) Americans tend to take patriotism to a whole new level... one that is seriously ignorant of the facts. "I love my country" - fine! "America is number 1, and we never do anything bad"... seriously F-d Up! (yeah, I had someone try to tell me that a few weeks ago... "even our poor people have 2 TV's" hmmmm ) (FTR, I find most Chinese do the same...)

'Indoctrination' isn't a 'loaded' word - it's an accurate word!

let me go back to something I said previously - every.single.human.problem. in the world today, can be fixed! Now! No more poverty. No more energy crisis. No more starvation. We have the technology, and the resources - right now! It's a no-brainer. So, why doesn't it happen? You tell me...

Immigration... actually, a very interesting subject. I really do need to see that film about what would happen if every illegal immigrant suddenly stopped working in the US for a day/week...anyway, my point was more about our attitudes towards those people.

"What's the alternative?" you ask... well actually... we also have the technology for laws to be adjudicated by the general populace - similar to when you do your elections! However, I prefer the way the Athenians did it. Every single citizen (unfortunately, males only, back then) would be put into a lottery and if their name was pulled out, they served on the government. Makes every single citizen actively involved in what was going on!! (and, somewhat harder for 'investors' to influence law-making). .... Go on - tell me how ridiculous it sounds...(and how you're not indoctrinated ...).

So - 'assassination' is about... ideals? Or about the rest of the people giving them support? Or because they're part of a political process?? Again, I still think it is 'interesting' that it is considered a higher crime. Don't you?? Again, why more heinous than, say, a doctor?? In this sort of society, it has a relevance that in other societies it may not have.

I disagree with your take on the media. After all, do people really want more ads on TV or in the print? Yes, the media suppresses stories! Some stories may be printed, and others not - who chooses?? Some political scandals may be exposed, and others not. Some corruption may be attacked, others not. Just look at the media's response to Julian Assange at the moment....is he being portrayed as a hero, or an enemy of the state?? (and, WTF isn't the government being hammered???)

Drugs... a solution? Well, Amsterdam has a solution.. and it's crime rates are pretty low. (granted, I'm not sure of their gun laws).

Ok, I'll qualify what I said in relation to politicians and wealth... yes, I agree with you - I did have in mind the federal and levels - not the local.

Your last comment about the apparent difference between China and the US.... I disagree! Not that China doesn't do those things, but your claim that the US govt doesn't have it's own versions.

"...only 2 political parties" - thanks for confirming my point.. Actually, there's not! The US has many political parties ;) However, most only see the two - it's been ... what shall we call it.??? 'indoctrinated'... into society...

mattsm84:

You're really going to sit here and tell me indoctrination isn't a loaded word, or that you aren't using it as a pejorative against people who disagree with you? Or that you're using it as a means of undermining the agency I had in forming my own opinions.  I mean, I know you think Americans are idiots but give us a little bit of credit and take some responsibility for what your doing here.

RE: Every problem is solvable right now.

My suspicion here is that our problems concerning hunger, poverty, stavation ect..., are a lot more complicated than you're making them out to be. The solutions to complicated problems often take a great deal of time and effort from those involved to solve. The idea that there is a magic bullet just strikes me as being glib. Now, that I disagree with you doesn't make a pawn of the American public school system (or something similarly ridiculous/insulting), but it does mean that I have listened to what you had to say, subjected it a reasonable analysis, and found it wanting.

RE: Illegal Immigration

You said that the idea of illegal immigrants was a ridiculous concept. I responded that immigration laws--the breaking of which makes a person an illegal immigrant-- in general are a good idea. So long as you have immigration laws, you're going to have illegal immigrants. Now, whether or not those laws should be relaxed, although I feel they should, is another issue entirely. I'd add that we will probably see some immigration law reform in the very near future, prehaps even by this summer.

RE: Assassination

Actually, yes, I do feel it is a higher crime. And I feel that way for all of those reasons that you parroted back to me. Instead of asking me if that's what I really believe, assume that it is and tell me why I'm wrong. 

RE: The media

To answer your question, the people who decide what gets covered and what doesn't are the people who buy news papers or watch the news programs. If a news outlet covers a story, it covers it to attract the highest amount of readers or viewers as it can. That means that it can sell its ad space for a higher price. The volume of the ads in question is irrelevant. If a specific media outlet makes the choice not to cover a particular story in favor of the other it loses viewers who just go somewhere else for their information. How is that so hard for you to believe, but the idea that there is some mysterious "they" (The Illuminati? Bankers? the Elders of Zion?) meeting in smoke filled boardrooms to pick and manufacture news stories is so immediately credible? Except in China, then we know who the they are, they are the people who own the news outlets and the Politburo's Minister of Propaganda (actual job title). But even then, that only works because media is state funded.

RE: Two political parties

Yes, other political parties exist, but they aren't of any consequence. Most of the time they just end up endorsing a mainstreams candidate that they feel best represents their opinions. All that you've done here is demonstrated a profound misunderstanding a foreign political system.

RE: The US is every bit the authoritarian party dictatorship that China is.

No. It isn't. You can't punish people who file illegal petitions with reeducation through labor. In China it happens all the time. In fact, in the US ever petition that gathers over a certain number of signatures must be answered by the executive branch directly. 

mattsm84:

Oh, and on Athenian democracy. You're over idealizing it. It was often controlled by the city's wealthiest members, like Solon, Cleisthenes, Cimon and Thucydides, and political dynasties, like the Alcibiadians, which Cleisthenes and Pericles were a part of, were hardly rare. The reason being that wealth was a prerequisite for holding higher political office on the Athenian council or in the courts. Further, the US is often accused of being at the center of a political hegemony, however we should be aware the Athenians created the first hegemony in the form of the Delian League.

crimochina:

going to some areas in the states will confirm your opinion

xinyuren:

I forgot to add another sad truth.   crimochina's comment about the stagnation of America is very true.  America is on the decline.  This should be no surprise.  Every power must fall one day.  America has been / is  the greatest world power in history (judging by economic, cultural, military and technological influence) and it's fall will be the biggest catastrophe this world has faced, being that we all are so entwined, but that is another topic.

giadrosich:

If "Pop Art" is an indication of intelligence, Andy Warhol would be considered a genius, right up there with Einstein!

xinyuren:

Actually, to some people, Warhol was a genius.  That's the funny thing about art.  Who can say?

giadrosich:

Good point. You're right.

Scandinavian:

Indoctrination is not the purpose of a government, it is a tool a government can chose to use more or less. It will almost certainly happen in any political system, as those political systems based on democracy will need people to be indoctrinated into voting, those not based on democracy will need the people indoctrinated into not revolting.

The use of the word indoctrination is more suited towards religions or cults (imho)

Shining_brow:

To 'indoctrinate' is to make people totally believe what they are told, and not (genuinely) question it. Also, it is to ridicule (in some way - whether in thought, word, or deed) anyone who goes against those beliefs - and the questioning of them (and the answers that may come from those questions). Obviously, 'cults' and 'religions' fit this rather well, and as Xin and myself earlier suggest, so does 'socialisation' and governments.

We don't question.. and those who try to assert a different opinion from the mainstream, from what's 'allowed' do get ridiculed. Ignorance has become bliss.

Scandinavian:

hey, I am from "Not-America" 

Shining_brow:

While we all know that not all Americans are stupid (obviously, some have moved to Australia :D), are you actually suggesting that the USA is not on the decline? And, if so, what's the evidence? And in what fields??

beaufortninja:

Oil, technology, aviation, interstellar travel, entertainment, electronics, industrial processes, space-age materials, medicine just to name a few.

mattsm84:

- The US still has the same share of the world's economy as measured in GDP as it did in 1969, despite the collapse of its banking industry and a five year recession. While China's rise has been impressive, its come at the expense of countries like Germany and Japan. Meanwhile a credible case can be made that it's competitors in Europe and China have a lot of hurt coming their way in the next five to ten years. How is the UK economy going to grow when the country cut 20% of its budget during a recession? What's going to happen to the Euro when Italy and France inevitably ask for a bailout? What's going to happen to the Chinese economy when the housing bubble bursts? Or when the effects of the One Child Policy have over burdened China's social welfare institutions? 

- The US still has the world's largest  manufacturing economy despite the ascension of East Asian manufacturing powerhouses.

- Violent crime is down  50% from where it was 10 years ago.

- Even after two wars that have both spanned over a decade, the US still has an unmatched ability to project force in the world. 

I think that a better question would be what is it that makes you think that the US is on the decline.

xinyuren:

It's true that America is still the world's largest economy.  But by what margin?   It's also true that America is still the largest manufacturer, but those numbers have declined also.  In the 1960's, America was THE place for high tech research and development.  Now, many countries are close behind in this field.  You speak of Europe's financial problems, but USA is clearly not out of trouble and some would say they have permanent deficit problems.   In 5 or 10 years  America and the whole world will pay the price because America can't control it's spending.   Besides these things, the a good percentage of American's thinking is stagnant. No longer hungry, and now has gotten full and lazy. This is the cost of being a world power.  The flame can't burn forever.   The cycle must continue. By the way,  I am American.

mattsm84:

Well, it was 25% of the world's total GDP in 1969 and its 25% today. And that other countries are developing does not a decline make. Also, the people who think that the US has a serious spending problem are wrong. Spending increased during an economic recession, now we are out of that recession. We aren't going to be periodically reissuing TARP or Automotive Bail outs from here on out, and as the economy continues to recover expect the burden placed on social welfare institutions to drop. In four years expect spending to be down around 80% of GDP and falling.  

xinyuren:

Your outlook seems unreasonably rosy.  I don't expect any of those things.

mattsm84:

I'd say that your outlook seems unreasonably bleak. Why should spending continue as  it has if the US isn't in a recession, when the recession was the cause of the increase in spending in the first place? Why would we keep spending as much on Iraq and Afghanistan as they come to a close?  Why would we keep spending so much on social entitlements as the baby boomers continue to age and die out ? The deficit number on its own is a big, scary number, but it becomes significantly less scary the more you give it context. 

Shining_brow:

Beaufort... my apologies! I keep having one idea in my head, and so often forget that everyone else can't read it :p

Anyway, you are quite right with your examples.

But, in my head, I was thinking more from a social perspective, not technological/industrial (though, not sure where 'entertainment' fits in... although, that's an argument in itself).

Civil liberties in the US has plummeted in the last couple of decades, it has become one of the most hated countries on the planet, (because of the government's foreign policy - which unfortunately reflects badly on the people), and where once the US was seen as the place to move to, it has been dropping in such rankings (and surveys) for quite a few years now. It ranked 47th inf press freedom in the most recent survey (released only a couple of weeks ago).

Life expectancy in the US is still behind many other (some surprising) countries.

Environmental protection rankings have the US at 49 (of 132) which is actually higher than what it had been previously!

And, in direct response to other replies here... https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html - when you go looking for the US - keep scrolling... and scrolling..... and scrolling........

As this thread indicates, the perceptions that Americans have of their own country has also been on the decline... and honestly, I don't see that changing any time soon.

But, please, don't get me wrong - I know many Americans (and have met many more)... there are those I love, those who I almost couldn't do without in my life... and I've met some right morons! (and, like with most people, the morons tend to leave a bad, prejudiced, layer in my dealings with those in the future).

However (as I realised with the other post), you can't really argue against patriotism...

mattsm84:

Well, Bow, you aren't really arguing against patriotism so much as your arguing against facts with opinions. Case in point "the Us has become the most hated country in the world" is an opinion unless backed up by some statistical data. Even then, a perception is a difficult thing to quantify. Specific groups of people may disapprove of American foreign policy, but be strongly in favor of American cultural or material exports. Or, for places like Japan, Poland, South Korea or Taiwan, may have little use for American's cultural exports or material goods, but feel they benefited from American foreign policy positions. Breaking the whole thing down into a simple matter of like or dislike, approve or disapprove doesn't really tell anyone anything.

Or when you argue that the immigrants no longer view the US as a desirable destination when the country currently has over 38.5 million legal immigrants (which is 20% of all immigrants world wide) and another 11.5 illegal immigrants. Together that total is almost 10 times greater than any other country in the world.

Or when you say that civil liberties have been in a free fall, while failing to note the progress made on gay rights or on drug decriminalization in the last few years. Even our discussions around campaign finance and gun control revolve around how to correct a problem with making sure that people's rights stay in tact. In short, I suspect you may be cherry picking here. 

On the statistics that you did use, remember that the US is alone among developed nations in terms of the size of its population. Improving the quality of people's lives means spending money and instituting plans on a scale that other countries simply don't have to contend with. That this is the situation, and has always been the situation, does not mean the US is anything less than what is was 50, 30 or even 10 years ago. Even when paired with the deficit numbers, while being mindful that the US is coming out of a recession, or the numbers that make up our trade deficit aren't enough  to build a convincing argument that the US is facing an inevitable decline in the next decade, let alone that its in the middle of one now. If I were from another country, I'm sure I would feel the same way, and I would urge you to look at the points you think you've made a little more critically.

Shining_brow:

Wow, this is getting long and... tedious.

Firstly, yes, it is against patriotism, and I have given some facts (melded with some opinion, and the recall of facts/statistics/news articles from the past weeks, months and years...). I know it's patriotism, because you haven't acknowledged even one single 'negative' point that I present... which is a clear indicator!!

I also note the mis-quoting of what I wrote to give some sort of credence to your points...

America is a bit of a mystery in the eyes of the world... some surveys make it amongst the top 10 in most hated or disliked (which, yes, I do acknowledge is incredibly subjective... but we are talking about perceptions... so that's ok). In some surveys, it joins Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, China, Pakistan...and even Turkey! (obviously, it depends on which poll you look at - as I did amongst quite a few!!) OTOH, it is also seen as a destination to go to, or emigrate to (as you pointed out). However.... one thing that I think we can agree on, as far as statistics, is that in the last 10 years, immigration to the US has declined (by about 30-40 million per year).  Hence why I wrote "as desirable" - another misquote! Unfortunately, the reasons for this aren't given... :( I'd also be interested in where most people are from.... war-torn countries? Or wealthy, industrialised countries?  But, 38 million immigrants.... not too many countries that can even take them, even if they wanted to!!! (China is one obvious country :p) I mean, that's more than half the total population of most countries in the EU (and about double that of Australia's). Size (land-mass) counts for something! and, yes, obviously, it is a 'developed' country....

Let's talk cherry-picking.... yes, obviously! We both are... I don't want to have to go through every single statistic... and neither do you. However, to pull gay rights out as a great example of civil liberties is really.... ridiculous! Wiki indicates your country is decades (and in some cases, centuries) behind the rest of the 'western' nations in this regard (although, same-sex marriage is still in issue in the vast majority of them, as are other human rights).

Drug de-criminilisation... well, I admit to being fairly ignorant of this in regards to the US, other than hearing that 2 states (yes, count them, TWO) have now apparently legalised marijuana for personal (non-medical) use, while I am aware that various other states allow marijuana for medical purposes - with stringent controls (oddly - even more stringent than for guns!!) However, again, it's a country that lags behind many others in this regard... It's also a rather odd thing to bring up as a vote for civil liberties, given the 'war on drugs' that's apparently still going on... (interesting piece of trivia - according to Wiki, North Korea has legalised cannabis!!)

But, when I mentioned civil liberties, I'm talking about the other ones - you know - you're right to privacy, your right to justice, your personal freedoms - all those things that got signed away in the last decade or so... (surely you're not going to argue against this...????)

Campaign finance, gun control and people's rights.... well, the first one I really don't see any issues with! If a political party is accepting 'donations', in a system where 'donations' equal 'favours', then quite clearly public access to records should be a given. Sure, not the small time donation... but certainly over certain amounts, and certainly if done from an organisation. Gun control... that's easy! You need a license and registration to drive a car... you usually need to register your dog, you have a social security number since..??? Of course you need to be licensed to use a gun, and have all weapons registered! (amongst other laws...). The rest of the world has similar laws, why can't the US??

Onto other factors (which also incorporate some of the above) - lower population growth (incl immigration) and an aging population (link) vs a national debt increase of 1.5-2 TRILLION USD per year (link) means serious problems in the future for the USA (link). TBH, if it wasn't for the 'debt crisis' that hit the EU in the last year or two, then the US could have been in serious trouble - with the Middle East and EU considering switching the world trade currency from the USD to... something else (Euro, probably). That would have really caused problems for the US.

The US has some great advantages over many other countries in the world... however, it's not putting its best foot forward - something many people are aware of. This is not really the direct fault of Americans in general, but they certainly are indirectly responsible, because of the government they have chosen (or, for about 40% of the eligible voter, not chosen!)

So, as I indicated previously - yes, I do see America in a decline... I think it's hit the end of its 'golden age'... though, if the govt gets its act together (or the people do), it can come back.

(NB: I'm looking from a standpoint of some decades or centuries in the future - how will they look back upon this time??)

mattsm84:

Perhaps the reason is that you've yet to present a solid point negative point that I feel is a fair indicator of Americas decline. 

Re: Fewer immigrants than a decade ago.

I'll concede that the numbers are down from where they were ten years ago, but what I'm arguing is that doesn't mean the US has become a less attractive destination. As I pointed out, its still attracting 1 in 5 potential immigrants. But more to the point, the decrease in those numbers has much more to do with other places in the world becoming much more livable. In fact, the standard of living in both China and Mexico, which produce the greatest numbers of immigrants to the United States, have both been experiencing economic booms during the last decade, so of course the numbers have fallen off. Yet, that other countries are doing better does not mean that the US is on the decline.

Re: Civil Rights and Liberties

Remember the point that you made was that our rights had been retrenching. I counter with several examples of places where our rights actually expanded in the last few years. Perhaps I should have been more specific. The repeal of DADT in the military, and the advancements made on gay marriage on the state level are both resent development. Gun rights during this period have recently expanded to allow gun owners to hunt on federal land. The first amendment was recently expanded to cover political contributions, meaning that they could not legally be limited by the government. And the while the US patriot and NDAA are certainly travesties, they are one of the few areas that the both the President and the GOP house members, many of whom campaigned against government overreach, are able find common ground, and they may not be with us for much longer now that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming to a close.

Re: Marijuana laws

I included the recent advances made in US marijuana laws because I feel that  an adult having the ability to make an informed choice about what to put in his or her body does constitute a right. This right, in the last few years has been expanding, though both blanket legalization and medical, which you should understand is little more than a brown paper bag be design. It really isn't tightly regulated as you seem to believe it is.

Re: Why can't the US adopt gun laws similar to the rest of the world

Perhaps we just value our freedom more highly.

Re The Debt as a driver of American Decline

I just don't believe that the increases in spending are going to be permanent. Specially because in five years the two greatest causes of the increase in spending, the wars, which are ending, and the recession, which is over, are no longer going to be a factor. The US isn't going to need to issue another Auto bailout or TARP. Worst case scenario we get one more round of QE.

Re: Our aging population

Again this is a short term problem. Once the baby-boomers begin to die off in the next 15 to 20 we will be spending much less on social entitlements. Americans biggest problems are temporary.

The same simply can't be said of the structural problems facing both the Euro or the Chinese banking industry, and are much, much more likily to sink their respective economy. Further, if recent events in North Africa are any indication, look to Western Europe to be driving up their defense spending.

Shining_brow:

Thanks for the more detailed responses... though I still think you're seeing things through those rose-coloured glasses ppl talk about. And, I definitely don't accept some of your conclusions!

Basically, and obviously, time will tell!

I don't get your math on immigration... less people are doing something (in this case, moving to the USA), but it's not less attractive??? Unless global numbers are down by a similar amount as well, it would indicate something is actually less desirable! Way back when, people used to move to the UK... then they started going to the US - thus, the US was seen as more desirable than the UK... I don't get how you can see it otherwise!

The Civil Rights bit... here, really, says a lot about the stances we take! Crimo has done a nice piece below... but, you think that most of those horrendous abuses of rights (both civil and human) that have been enacted into law, are likely to be appealed in the not too distant future. I doubt that (certainly, not all of them!) Similarly, I don't see US foreign policy changing anytime soon regarding having wars with other nations. It's been a part of US policy for decades now... I don't think it's going to change. (I do see a possibility or 2... energy resources are totally controlled and 'safeguarded' to the US's advantage - either through new energy technology (unlikely in the short-term.. too much $$$ in the petrochemical industry/lobbyists), or the US totally secures the oil in the Mid-East - through take-over of a few countries). You think things are going to change for the better, I don't... I have history on my side :)

Re: gun laws... don't! Just, don't! That 'we value freedom more' really makes you sound like an ignorant moron to the rest of us who don't need to have a gun culture in our society! Also, the obvious come-back would be "we value our lives more"... the only 'freedom' I lack in my home country, is to walk into a gun store and just buy one over the counter...something I'm rather happy about. It's one of those "freedoms" I'm prepared to give up, as long as everyone else has to as well! ("oh, but the criminals all have them..." - yeah, go check the crime statistics on that for Aus, NZ, Can, UK, Ger, Fra, Sp etc etc... and, what the hell, for China as well!)

US debt and decline... the two are linked, though it's not a 1-1 relationship. Also, greed was the major factor... something which no government can do much about... such greedy people will just find another loophole.  Also, the rich want to get richer, and US government contracts are incredibly lucrative - especially in the 'defense' industry (shouldn't it really be called the 'offense' industry?) That debt isn't going anywhere too soon... except worse!

And the ageing population... odd, China is facing a similar issue... however, in China, it's recognised to be a potentially serious problem.. why don't you see it as a problem for the US?? (ie, less people working to pay off the above mentioned debt)

As I said at the beginning... you see things as rosey... I don't. There's our big difference!

mattsm84:

Re: Immigration

What I'm saying here is that immigrants from certain countries have certain preferences when it comes to selecting a new country. Immigrants from North Africa will tend to immigrate to France, immigrants from the central asia are likely to end up in Russia, immigrants from parts of the world that used to be in the British Empire are likely to go to the UK, and East Asians and Latin Americans are likely to end up in the US. Now, if conditions in those countries improve, the number of people emigrating from them tends to drop, regardless of what may or may not be happening in what ever country they would have otherwise immigrated too. In this instance, conditions in Mexico and China, where the vast majority of the US's immigrant population originate, have been experiencing economic booms. Its a matter of immigrating at all being a less attractive option, rather than the US becoming a less desirable in relative terms to the next largest magnet for immigrants, which is Russia.

Re: Rights

Actually, what Crimo is talking about is a little bit different from what you and I are talking about. He's talking about New York's stop and frisk law, which gives the police greater latitude to search people if they think that are going to commit a crime. What its resulted in is people who fit the profile for gang and gun related crime, young black and Hispanic men, getting stopped and searched by the police. Its a government over reach, but one made by the city government that seems to be getting positive results if we look at NYC's dramatic drop in shootings over this past year. He also mention the NDAA, the detention of American citizens arrested while taking part in a terrorist plot over seas (in a country like Yeman). The White House has said that it isn't going to use this power, and if it did, I'd have a hard time believing that it standing up in the US supreme court. He also mentions torture, which he is flatly miss informed about. The US stopped torturing enemy combatants in 2006. 

Now, the civil rights abuses you seem to be talking about are those past in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. These are things like the US patriot act or warrantless wire taps, or other bits of domestic spying. The reason I believe that those laws won't be around forever, or even that much longer, is that they have expiration dates written into them. Every few years the congress and the president have to get together and agree to renew them. The last round was in the winter of 2009, when they were renewed as part of a deal that was required the get a bill concerning medical aid to 9/11 first responders past. Its unlikely that something like this is going to happen again. That's why I think they won't be around much longer, especially now that we are bring our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a close.

Re: Gun Laws

As an outsider, you should understand what your reaction looks like to an American. What your saying, essentially, is that you don't consider gun ownership to be a right in your country. In the US we do, and making it illegal own fire arms would constitute the loss of a right. 

That said we do have gun control laws. You really can't walking into a gun store and walk out with a gun. You need to undergo a criminal back ground check, a psychological evaluation (in some states),  pass a training course in fire arm safety, and wait for a period time that can last several up to several weeks. Still though, its important to note that in the US gun control laws are not perceived to be effective in stopping gun related crime. Illinois and the District of Columbia, for instance, have the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet have rising rates of gun related crime. 

Still though, this is a little off topic as we can't really see gun violence as a cause of an impending American decline because violent crime, and that includes gun related crime is down over 50% in the last decade.

Re: The Debt

You're going to have to do better than "people are greedy, it will get worse" if you want to win me over on this one. I presented a Keynesian argument as to why the deficit will fall, as it has in the past whenever we spent our way out of a recession, I expect to get an argument that is tied in some way to economics as a reply. 

Re: the Aging population

Well, the difference between the US and China on this issue is that China's problem with it is on a much, much grander scale thanks to the One Child policy. While the aging Baby-Boomers (people born immediately after WW2) are probably only going to over burden our social welfare institutions, like social security and Medicare, for a few short years before they die out, the Chinese in the post 1980s and post 1990s  generations are going to be supporting stuck their parents, grand parents, aunts, and uncles simply because of how quickly they all retire and how much they rely on their state funded pension funds. That's why one is a small problem and the other is a disaster waiting to happen. 

mattsm84:

Oh, and foreign policy.

Since the end of the Korean War, the US has had a number of long periods of peace following its wars. A decade and a half between the end of the Korean war and our entry into Vietnam. Almost 20 decades between the End of Vietnam and Iraq I. And then another decade between Iraq I and Iraq II/Afganistan. Further, as Europe has finally (finally) decided to start doing its part there is no reason to suspect that we may not be in for another long period period of peace once we are finally our of Afghanistan (we're already pulled out of Iraq.)

Shining_brow:

Can we get credit for this paper?? :p

Ok - firstly, immigration. You might have a leg to stand on if immigration levels around the world were dropping by a similar amount - but font of all knowledge indicates global immigration skyrocketing - about  170 million in 1990, 190 million in 2005, and 215 million in 2010. OTOH, the number heading to the US has dropped over that period. I'm interpreting what you said as 'countries where people used to migrate from are getting better, so they're not migrating out so much now - let's use Mexico as my example". Hence, my statement. The reasons don't matter - just the facts :)

Secondly - the 'rights' issue... yeah, it was about NDAA and 'Homeland Security' and other anti-terrorist acts/laws. Again, I don't see a lot of change happening with those laws in any near future. To link such laws to medical treatment?? Ok, that goes into the 'only in the US' file!  No torture since 2006?? You know this.. how, exactly?? (and, does sending these 'enemy combatants' to a different country to get tortured count?)

Good to hear NYC is now safer! But, the way you've phrased it is interesting... do the ends (lower crime) justify the means (racial profiling)? You've indicated 'no' by saying the government 'over reached', but also say 'yes' by pointing to the drop in crime figures...And that, basically, is part of my argument about 'decline' is... 'justification'.

Third - guns - I'm glad you see a little of the perspective of the non-American there. Yes, I can't say gun ownership is a 'right' in my country - even though it actually is! We just have more hoops to jump through... the measures I mentioned above (licensing, etc) are all a part of Australia's gun ownership laws. So is 'sufficient reason'. Also, while we are allowed to own guns (even in suburbia, such as the middle of Sydney), we have strict laws regarding their possession and storage!

So, I didn't indicate that it ought to be illegal in the US - just controlled! As for the requirements for purchasing guns in the US, I'm pretty sure the measures you outlined are different state to state - clean criminal record being about the only similarity across the board.

(non-trivia - after John Howard increased the gun control laws after just ONE mass shooting, Australians still took a bundle of gold medals home from the shooting at the following Olympics. Ie, said laws haven't severely impacted on sporting shooters!)

Btw, not off-topic, as that was what started this thread in the first place....

The debt issue... nope, not going to go into economic theory. Why? Because you'd be right! However, the people who actually look after the economy and such policies don't seem to get that! Hence, the 'greed' factor. I mean, firstly, I presume you are aware that the US government doesn't actually control/own the Federal Reserve. Also, printing money isn't free... it comes attached with interest. It's basically like a debt. So, if you print a $1 note, you actually owe the Federal Reserve $1 & some change in interest. That interest is privately 'owned' - not the government's money. How to pay that back? Well, that'll all depend on what those creditors are willing to accept! Unfortunately, they'll only accept US dollars and bonds... :( bummer! So, the more money the US prints, the less of the US it can control (and/or, the more in debt it gets). Sucksville! Now, is this a very smart economic position - hell no! But, as I tried to indicate, economic policy isn't being dictated by sound economic theory - it's being dictated by greed.

RE: aging population. Agreed, China is heading for a disaster. And, I hope the US's problems are short-lived. But, I still think it's going to have a greater impact than what you're suggesting. China seems to have realised it has a major problem coming... the US doesn't (hence, birth rates have been falling). Also, China has a relatively easy fix - change the laws! The US, however, has a greater problem, because it's a general social attitude - which is harder to change. We'll see....

Foreign Policy... NO! Just, NO! The problem here is, we're not just talking about an actual declaration of war, and therefore the US has been required to send its military somewhere (which, frankly, hasn't actually happened!), but it's the US government's policy to intervene in foreign powers because it hasn't liked them for one reason or another. Way back when, it was the whole 'commie' threat. More recently, it's been wars started, escalated, directed because of oil and other resources. The US government has actively participated in the overthrow of democratically elected governments, supplied arms to 'rebel' groups, and helped to support totalitarian governments (which have co-operated with the US in other areas). It has endorsed the use of terrorist activities, either by its own people, or by its allies, in many different regions of the world. It has manufactured dissent and wars. And, it has lied to the world in order to achieve some of those objectives.

THIS is the foreign policy that I'm talking about. (I seriously hope you're not going to refute the above...).

"Europe has finally decided to start doing its part"... WTF??? Europe seems to have learnt its lesson! Also, perhaps they're smarter than the US government... the world doesn't need, or want, some big powerful (militarily speaking) country bullying other countries into handing over all of its wealth, calling itself the 'world's police'.

(I'm not saying that there oughtn't be some sort of policing of basic human rights, backed up with force when necessary - but I am saying it shouldn't be one individual country that only looks after its own interests. And here, I'm pointing at the US, and it's blatant disregard for UN decisions.

I'm sure America is a great country, and has some amazing people ... but, frankly, your government sucks, and it's dragging you guys down. I would, actually, like to go there some day... but probably not going to happen :(

MrTibbles:

I totally wu-mao'd y'all and look what happened to this giant comment thread. Mission accomplished.

Shining_brow:

:p

Shining_brow:

:p

mattsm84:

After the speech the other day at his inauguration he probably just won Joe Biden the presidency in 2016, provided he does even half the things he promised to do. That's if Hilary doesn't run, in which case it'll be another 8 years out of the executive branch for the conservatives.

I got to level with you, I really enjoyed this past election cycle, first because the conservatives we so totally oblivious to what was about to happen and second because the schadenfraude I've gotten out of the aftermath has been absolutely wonderful. For real, if you could find a way to bottle those tears you'd be a millionaire.

mattsm84:

You know, there is a big difference between personal or business finance and monetary policy.

ambivalentmace:

the personnel and business actions of individuals and companies will change monetary policy of a country,

france will lose wealthy citizens because of 75 percent taxes just like america loses rich people or productive people to other countries. when these people leave , revenue falls and you have to raise taxes again. dominoes ,

the high tax states in america have the worst economic numbers for a reason , not a coincidence.

one day china will have high taxes for the ageing baby boom like america right now and i will have to move again. thats life they say.

mattsm84:

I meant about spending money during a recession. If you personally, or a business you ran were facing tough times, you wouldn't try to run a line of credit, but in terns of monetary policy one of the best things you can do for your self in a recession is print a lot of money and make a lot of public investments to encourage economic growth. Economic growth should then increase tax revenue and decrease the strain placed on social welfare institutions as few people will require them. The point you raise about taxation is a good one, but it highlights the necessity of maintaining some debt, around 50% to 80% of GDP.  Remember that spending and taxation in the abstract are much more about maintaining a certain level of currency and liquidity in the national economy than they are about paying for things.

bill8899:

matt, you hit the bullseye with respect to monetary policy during a recession.

nevermind:

Really? 

bill8899:

Good point, Traveler.

Scandinavian:

maybe you should experiment with some modesty. Us Europeans find it hard to tell American manners or lack hereof from Chinese (exaggerations could have occurred)

beaufortninja:

That's funny because most of the ill-mannered foreigners I've encountered, except for one, have been Canadian or European. 

cooter:

Then sounds like you're where you need to be, because we all know how much Chinese love black people.  LOL?

mArtiAn:

  I heard about this legal torture thing. Hard to believe it's true. The media avoiding important truths is nothing new though.

crimochina:

read cointelpro, look at what happened to the guys who made kofi and wikileaks. the gov will not go after you with small arms. they will frame you for the murder of a police officer (as they did to many activists in the 60s and 70s) they will drug you and have you run crazy in the street to discredit you. and think for a second, do you really think the govt of the usa will launch a military strike against it's own people? and do you really think an assault rifle is going to protect you from tanks, that can shoot you before you even see them; drones that will bomb you before you can even see them? you know how we should protect ourselves from tyranny. protect our privacy rights, ban all forms of  torture, stop the practice of secret detention (it already violates the constitution) 

and to say 150,000 million people own guns for 1 reason is silly. most i would assume own guns to defend themselves against criminals and crazies who are allowed to buy guns. the nra through politicians like tiehart have effectively neutered the atf. they can not do something as simple as trace a gun back to the shop that sold it, when it was used illegally in a crime. the atf has not had a director for over 6 years, because the president is not allowed to appoint one. it must be approved by congress (new legislation, written by the nra) and congress decided that they will not approve any director to the atf.  yes, i'm the moron.

crimochina:

i want to make something absolutely clear. you are worried about the 1 thing that will not happen. but are ignoring what is happening. do you really think the american citizens that make up the american military will accept orders to attack american citizens?

america is becoming more tyrannical. stop and frisk laws, warrantless wire tapping, indefinite secret detainment (without a trial),  if you make yourself an enemy of the govt. an assault rifle won't help you. because they can listen in on your phone conversations and know when to slip something into your drink to make you do something stupid. or simply wait for you to buy some weed then detain you indefinitely. 

Hugh.G.Rection:

This is the 21st Century not 1776!

If, (huge if), the American government with it's cruise missiles, nuclear subs, Stealth Aircraft, assault helicopters, Drones, etc wanted to attack the people, what are you going to do with your AR15 assault rifle and a mag of 30 rounds?

You do realise what an attack by an F18 or even an Apache on a group of poorly trained even well armed civilians would result in don't you?

Shining_brow:

Damnit! As an Aussie, I've been living in a tyrannical state all this time, and didn't know it.

So have my UK mates... and my German mates, and my French mates, and.... yeah, I think you get the picture....

Not having easy access to such weaponry does not  mean 'tyranny'.. it means we life in a safer society, where such arms generally aren't needed, and the police are given a little more respect. We also don't feel quite disenfranchised from our politicians ( I dunno about you, but I knew where our ex-Prime Minister's office was, and I was allowed to walk in - without bucket-loads of security to go through - and give my opinion (and, even expect to get a reply!!! ... (not sure where the current PM's office is, but I think I know...))

mattsm84:

Good job making the Europeans nod...

Shining_brow:

and the Aussies :)

mattsm84:

One Aussie. Traveler seems to have a much more reasonable way of looking at this, and MissA has been pretty mum.

mattsm84:

I'm sorry, but I find this to be such a shallow critique of the country. 

RE: Healthcare

How can you critique a healthcare system where in recent reforms have yet to be completely implemented? How can you say that Americans refuse to look what other countries have done after they passed healthcare law in 2010 that was modeled on the Swiss system where private insurers profit margins and coverage options are heavily regulated by the State? You're ignoring the facts just so you can whine about not having single payer at this exact instant.

Re: Medicare and Social Security. 

How can you pretend that there aren't problems with these two institutions? As Baby Boomers continue to age, they going to continue to over burden our entitlement programs. In fact, the largest single holder of our debt is American pensioners.

Re: Socialism

This isn't the mid 20th century. The world isn't divided between State Capitalism and Market Capitalism, and economies don't exist on some kind of equilibrium between the two. We have, nearly all of us, argeed on the Keynesian-esque version of market capitalism, where in economies seek to strike a balance between innovators, regulators, and the holders of capital. Like I said, every economy in the world does this, and has since the end of the Cold War. China for instance, gives a great deal of influence to the state, as both a holder of capital and as the sole regulatory body, and innovation suffers. In the US, innovation is fine (for real how much has your phone changed in the last 5 years recession and all), but this comes at the expense of regulation and we periodically risk economic meltdown until we strengthen our existing regulator institutions. Thinking of governments, economies and state institutions as socialistic or not socialist is frankly just antiquated, and people who do should be made the object of ridicule.   

Re : Lobbyists

I agree that money in politics is a problem, but one that you're overstating. First, these interests also often cancel each other out as they are all competing for the same funds. Second, even though we do place limits on how much a candidate can accept from a particular source, the idea that a political contribution amounts for a statement of political support isn't one that should be thrown aside lightly if we are going to be a country that pretends to care about people's rights. Third, the voter's can, and often do have the final say on issues. Look at what happened with PIPA. The entertainment industry was pushing hard for that one, but it proved so toxic to the voters they they eventually abandoned it. 

Re Decline

A fourth of the world economy in 1969, a fourth of the world economy in 2013. American decline is a myth.