The problem with America, is that it is full of Americans.

reply to post by purplemer


Buy responsibly. The educated consumer controls the system.

Buying is voting in the corporate democratic machine.

One day hopefully, it will be better.

Originally posted by watchitburn
From what I have observed, it seams that Americans do not want to help themselves.

Reeeeeealy?? I'd say you don't enough Americans then... Do you even LIVE in the US? If so I don't think you have any kind of grounds to judge or make assumptions on Americans.

Or maybe it's the opposite, and that is all that they want, is to help themselves.

That is more like it. I don't know one person who is happy with the way our country is. Many do try but what can you do when your government doesn't give a crap basically?!

Obviously this country is not heading in the right direction. This is evidenced by the continuing downward spiral of the economy. But does that deter Americans? Hell no, they are going to keep on electing big Govt., corporate puppets, and religious zealots.

Reallllly? Do you really think the American voting system is done the way they say it is? I sure as hell don't.

It is just mind bottling that they continue to vote for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. What do they hope to accomplish?

Do you SEE the options?! It's pick which one is least likely to be an idiot and well that's hard when all choices are idiots! It doesn't matter if there is a great candidate he/she will be run off!

Apparently they are not interested in seeing things get better.

Apparently you are not American....you couldn't be more WRONG.

"Hey, lets vote for the same scumbags that have been running stuff and hope for a different outcome."

Again I say REALLY? You sure know it all don't you? Yea we Americans are idiots and can't vote. Um where do you live? I guarantee your country isn't so hot and honest and I BET your officials aren't squeaky clean. Every where on this planet is having elected official issues NOT just America....Do you even read?!

From this point on, I am done with the US. It will get
what it deserves.

edit on 22-1-2012 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)

What I want to say to you here the T&C won't allow me.

Then please be gone! We don't want people with attitudes like you anyway.



These American/US bashing threads are getting ridiculous. There are plenty on here why do we need more? What is wrong with this site lately and the negative rude posts that are allowed to stay?

reply to post by Gorman91


Change to China's culture to embrace democratic institutions will indeed take a long time. What is happening in Hong Kong is hardly a good example of advanced civilization. It is a culture of extremely poor, who are essentially slaves, serving the capitalist who control the economy. Their success is completely dependent on our good will in trade treaties, which has only managed to serve the super rich and continue to do extreme harm to our economy. It is completely dependent upon unsustainable rising levels of debt.

The rise of Hitler leading to WW II was a result of a broken world economy, that was not sustainable. What the U.S. did after WW II was much more sustainable, and if we returned to those policies could still be a better system, but other factors are coming into play that will force considerable change. It is much more complicated than you are willing to admit.

Empires create more grandiose nations, but that is hardly a sign of a more advanced society.

Most of Romes building technology, and the creation of the aqueducts, was all developed by the republic before it became an empire, and Rome never developed a working steam engine. Rome began its decline shortly after it became an empire.

I would say that the flaws in our patent system has much more to do with our flawed legal system than the patent system, and even more to do with our flawed banking system, which JP manipulated for his own purposes.

What is also ignored by institutionalized versions of history is that culturally, the Europeans had always been primarily democratic in nature, and the rise of guilds and the Renaissance was more the result of the deeply embedded cultural traditions of Europe than any contributions of the stagnating cultural movement of the Catholic traditions and the divine rights of kings. Too much credit is given to the grandiose symbols of empire, and not nearly enough credit is given to democratic style governments and the culture that creates these styles of government.

Our advancement over the centuries has primarily came from the development of democratic style governments, and most of the instability and destructive pursuits of war have came from those who seek to re-establish empires. Hitlers short reign was primarily financed by U.S. industrialist seeking to break the very unions that enabled Germany to become so successful. Our current course of self destruction is being driven by the very same mentality.

reply to post by watchitburn


Thanks.

I would say this discussion is a continuation of many similar discussion through many threads.

I would like to think that it goes to the very heart of the large conflicts we are currently experiencing in the U.S. and Europe as well as the rest of the world.

Large and very powerful forces are about to assert their influence over our future and this debate within this very decade. As I see it, one of our best hopes is to resolve this debate, and come to a better understanding in order to deal with the great forces that are about to reshape our future.

reply to post by Gorman91


Except these days our market system has been corrupted even more than our political system.

Your vote as a consumer has even less value than your vote as a citizen.

reply to post by poet1b


If you look back, maybe like 4 or so years ago, I lot of what you are writing about I spoke was coming. Once you learn history it's sort of easy to predict the future within 5 or so years.

None the less, I don't really like the post war policies of the US. Those policies are what spread national socialism into the middle east and more or less set up all the problems we face today. I look far more favorably upon the policies of Teddy Roosevelt and other men of that time period.

Back then, when we colonized, we did it for more than just profit. We actually wanted strong buffer stats, autonomous and allied. We made Japan into a powerful nation. Had she stayed with us rather than turn against us, you may have seen a trans Asiatic-American Alliance, with Japan taking the place of Russia and Russia and Germany being at war with each other and the world. But that's speculation.

Point is, in the time before the world wars but after the reconstruction period, this country was an unstoppable force of progress and growth. The economy fell and rose to new highest an lows all within the same decades. Men lost fortunes, gained fortunes, and were forced to be honest, quick thinking, and good in order to stay with what they had. Inventions, infrastructure, all sorts of things were happening. It was the golden age.

Most of Romes building technology, and the creation of the aqueducts, was all developed by the republic before it became an empire, and Rome never developed a working steam engine. Rome began its decline shortly after it became an empire.

en.wikipedia.org...

They did. They just didn't know what to do with it.


Rome also had some things, but all her glory that we know of today came under the empire. And that empire was only possible because of a never-ending competition between mob and royalty. The royalty did not own the mob. The royalty was forced to serve the mob, or the army would take them down.

Back then, the army was an actual social class all in its own right.

The system worked only because of the societal constructs. When those changes, the system failed.

I would say that the flaws in our patent system has much more to do with our flawed legal system than the patent system, and even more to do with our flawed banking system, which JP manipulated for his own purposes.

He bailed out the economy with his own money before the federal reserve was established.

He was the type of person whom was strangely both a bleeding christian socialist an a soulless godless capitalist. Such were the men of the time. Their kind died out.

What is also ignored by institutionalized versions of history is that culturally, the Europeans had always been primarily democratic in nature, and the rise of guilds and the Renaissance was more the result of the deeply embedded cultural traditions of Europe than any contributions of the stagnating cultural movement of the Catholic traditions and the divine rights of kings. Too much credit is given to the grandiose symbols of empire, and not nearly enough credit is given to democratic style governments and the culture that creates these styles of government.

Ah but that goes back in time to when the kings authorized those things because they served him well. Because knowledge had been lost and those that had it needed the right to keep using it in order to rediscover it.

Even the church, at her better times, authorized the growth and spread of knowledge. There really is only one real really bad time period of the church, and that is the Italian Wars era, where the Pope became a political force. As a result, Luther rebelled and returned the church to its place. Such is the natural order of things.

Even so, I don't think these things are democratic. The seem far more a type of small oligarchy. It was age based, it was selective, and it was not allowed for all men. Let us not forget that all the conspiracy theories on them are targeted for those very oligarchical tendencies.

Again, culture. Even Oligarchy works at its own efficient level. Raise it to the national level and it breaks.

True democracy was not seen universally, and happened at different time periods. For the Italians, it happened in the 1500s. For the French, it happened in the 1700s. For the British, on and off for many years until finally stabilizing a bit over a century ago.

It was never some universal thing. There were unique essences to it all. And in every case, the change to modern individualism and freedom started when the culture changed for it. That cultural dna was always there, yes. But even in its primitive form, like the guild, it was inherently oligarchical.

I think Hitler was partly financed by some US business interests, but those were not commanding, but subsidiary to populist will.

reply to post by poet1b


I think the vote as a consumer is the new vote as a citizen....a citizen of the global economy.

We have to be realistic. If we want a true restoration to the citizen's vote and an elimination of the corporate consumption vote, you can only do this by using the vote that currently is the most powerful: the act of consuming. What you consume, you vote. If you wish to change this, first you must consume more intelligently.

reply to post by Gorman91


I wrote about the coming collapse of the real estate bubble long before I came to ATS. I saw it coming in 2000, lots of people did.

The time before the WWs was a period of constant economic instability. You should pick up a copy of "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. For average working people it was a terrible time.

The period after WW II was far more stable, and a more profitable time for average Americans, and we did it with high taxes and effective regulation. That was our golden age.

Sure the Roman Republic knew what to do with the technology, it was the Republic which built most of the roads and most of the Aqueduct, and expanded Romes territory the farthest. The Empire lived off of the glory and success of the Republic.

JP bailed out the fed res, saving his own fortune, using money he had stolen from the system through manipulation of the system he helped create. He simply returned some of the money he had stolen to keep the system alive for a little while longer.

The Catholic Church created the dark ages, wiping out the technology of Europe, and re-writing history. It was by throwing off the yoke of the Catholic Church that Europe was able to bloom and create a better world.

While oligarchies will always exist, they are always the fly in the ointment, the monkey wrench in the works that screw everything up. Teams where everyone does their part, and one person doesn't try to control everything always work best. The people who try to control everything are the ones who screw everything up.

reply to post by Gorman91


We need to vote as citizens and as consumers.

One without the other makes both worthless.

reply to post by poet1b


But without the Catholics, and for that matter the Italian wars, the Renaissance wouldn't have begun. And only but the corrupting that came with power, did the knowledge that the church generate lead it to it's own downfall.

I don't really see how they erased history or rewrote it either.

The Catholic church only really became a "thing" with wielding power towards the 1000s. Before that it was just one of many oligarchical organizations competing for populist control. This being a very Roman tradition.

Spain had a lot of power and wanted more, so they captured the papacy to motivate economic power to the East. Once they discovered the Americas, the crusades stopped and they let go of the pope, as he was useless. The royalty could handle the west themselves.

that followed into the Italian wars.

That's honestly the whole of the the Church when it became something with wielding unilateral power.....when one person tried to control it all.

Thus is indeed the downfall of any real thing.


But back to Rome, the republic never really on its own terms captured any land and was reputable for abusing the people under it. Only when they declared a dictator, however temporary he was, did they expand. And it usually took someone trying to capture the title, like the Gracchus family, to get any social justice done.

To link that with the unstable economic times of the turn of the century with Teddy Roosevelt, I think I want to say that I like instability. Once you have economic stability, you have oligarchy. With economic instability- mind you, with an overall positive derivative- you open yourself to a very advantageous, fast pace economy that cannot be captured by anyone. People accept the fact that at any moment they could loose everything, so they are inclined to put enough away to savings, and once they do "loose the game", they can retire or try again, etc etc. It becomes far more self reliant and "rugged individual" based.

To be honest, I like that. That is what I view as a golden age. Not established order and stability which in its very nature is oligarchical.

reply to post by Gorman91


The Crusades were the greatest catalyst for the Renaissance, Add in the Protestant movement, the signing of the Magna Carta, and the development of guns and cannons which took away the nobility's advantages with armor and walled compounds, and you have the formula.

Europe had its own writing form that was lost, in additional to all the medical technology wiped out by the witch hunts. The Catholic church literally saw all science as witchcraft. The historical record of Europe was destroyed, and re-written to make the Europeans look backwards before the Catholic take over. More and more evidence is being discovered that proves these claims false.

You really don't know anything abut the Roman Republic. They captured most almost all of the territories Rome would capture, would build centers for the cities they captured and roads to connect those cities to the rest of the empire. People captured were made Roman citizens. This greatly improved commerce and so the economic success of the Roman Republic. After Rome became an Empire, it stopped expanding territories. When the Roman Empire tried to conquer Germany, the army they sent in conquest literally disappeared, and they choose instead to built walls to protect their empire.

If you like oligarchy so much, I suggest you pick the third world country of your choice and move there. There are numerous countries in Latin America that should fit the bill.

Your desire for oligarchy certainly is not in line with the concepts on which the U.S. is founded, and certainly isn't how any of the first world nations are ran. So why bother to remain here, if you do not believe in the principles on which this nation was founded?

reply to post by poet1b


The primary catalyst for the Renaissance was that the wealthy church rediscovered ancient knowledge. That's about it.

I really fail to see how witch hunts destroyed medical knowledge, nor how the church viewed it as witchcraft.

not even the intelligent Roman trusted magic. Because magic was silly. Rome had intense scientific documents on health and safety. They didn't need witch doctors, and indeed, they laughed at those whom did just as much as the church did.

Rome had brain surgery, Eye surgery, knew about bacteria (God knows how, because as far as we know, they did not have microscopes), and they were essentially the most advanced medical technicians up until WW1.

The rediscovery of these papers triggered the re-learning of the. No magic. Because magic, almost throughout all of history since it has been written, has been silly.

Cave men tested what worked and what didn't. What worked the civilized world took. What didn't, the sly talkers took to impress a few fools for a penny.

You really don't know anything abut the Roman Republic. They captured most almost all of the territories Rome would capture, would build centers for the cities they captured and roads to connect those cities to the rest of the empire. People captured were made Roman citizens. This greatly improved commerce and so the economic success of the Roman Republic. After Rome became an Empire, it stopped expanding territories. When the Roman Empire tried to conquer Germany, the army they sent in conquest literally disappeared, and they choose instead to built walls to protect their empire.

Rome took land in war. In war, they elected a dictator to lead them. That's how they captured places. They became an empire temporarily, then returned to a democracy and sold the land to the wealthy.

Have you studied the Gracchus? The above eventually led to huge economic problems and a shrinking middle class. They virtually led a failed communist revolution in order to change the course.

The truth is, Rome was never 100% a republic, nor 100% an empire. The Republic elected dictators whom held absolute, yet limited, power. The emperor elected governors and lead for about 300 years an executive democracy. All of this focused on upholding their constitution. Only when they began to ignore it can you call it a true dictatorship, and by then they were doomed.

This is one of the reasons republics are better. They can change when their laws are written well enough and adapt to situations. A republic can be a dictatorship, and a democracy, and alternate between them as needed. America did this during the Civil War. Lincoln was more or less a temporary dictator.

If you like oligarchy so much, I suggest you pick the third world country of your choice and move there. There are numerous countries in Latin America that should fit the bill.

I don't like oligarchy. I believe my entire post was written to object to it.

Your desire for oligarchy certainly is not in line with the concepts on which the U.S. is founded, and certainly isn't how any of the first world nations are ran. So why bother to remain here, if you do not believe in the principles on which this nation was founded?

When did I say I like oligarchy? Did I not say I like instability in order to remove the chances of oligarchy? Please read what I post.


What was my country founded on? Really, to be what it needs to be. Am I not correct in saying that any and all rights and freedoms of the public are entrusted to amendments, and not the original document itself? Strip away all he amendments to the constitution, and you have a document that essentially gives the government any power the people say they have so long it protects the general welfare.

Republics don't have to be democracies. They simply run better that way. But sometimes that gets in the way. That is not to say it is good. That is simply to say, there is a reason all that we hold dear for our freedoms is not in the original document, but rather, the amendments: flexibility.

reply to post by Gorman91


The Roman Catholic Church viewed anything outside of faith as witchcraft, and that includes most medicine, and all science and technology in general.

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you seemed to claim that oligarchy always existed.

You state you like instability, well, oligarchy and empires always create instability. The Roman Empire was always a cauldron of conflict, and China's history of constant warfare as well. When bankers and the super rich have the greatest levels of power, such as in the early days of American Industrialization, instability was the biggest problem.

Sorry if I confused your position, but oligarchy always creates instability, look no farther than all the third world nations ran by oligarchies.

The people who founded the U.S. definitely believed in democracy. A Republic is a form of democracy. You want to claim that democratic institutions create oligarchies, and that is the opposite of reality. You want to claim that instability is better, and ignore the reality that oligarchies flourish under instability.

reply to post by poet1b

The Roman Catholic Church viewed anything outside of faith as witchcraft, and that includes most medicine, and all science and technology in general.

I simply don't view this as true. Mostly because I don't think Europe, in their right mind, saw witchcraft as medicine.

Medicine and witchcraft have been separate things since ancient Greece. And for that matter, witchcraft in both the Roman time period as well as the medieval time period, became a sucker's game of taking advantage of uneducated people. To that end, I'd have burned them myself.

There were cases of innocent people dying. Like the Salem witch trials. But that was 1600 years later, and in a new world cut off from the rational one.

I'm just not really remembering any sort of real medicine or real science being destroyed by the church before the late 1400s. One thing I recall. Ignorant scribes taking science documents to write the bible on, but that's only because they didn't know better. They didn't think it was magic. I'd even go so much as to say they wanted more science and technology from their Muslim neighbors and once the Spanish special interests ended, most of Europe sought to gain technology from the East. The Church was one of the first types to get cannons and guns. And that, by the way, was one of the oldest forms of "witchcraft"

How can you claim the church saw technology and science as witchcraft when it was one of the first ones to buy, literally, magical explosive tubes? The Italians all rushed to get their hands on ottoman tech and science as fast as possible.

You state you like instability, well, oligarchy and empires always create instability. The Roman Empire was always a cauldron of conflict, and China's history of constant warfare as well. When bankers and the super rich have the greatest levels of power, such as in the early days of American Industrialization, instability was the biggest problem.

In those turbulent times of Rome, the common man was most free. For China, what you said is not so true. China alternated between period of stability and instability. The Chinese people were most free in the points of flux: As stability became unstable, and as instability stabilized. Everything in between they viewed as merely transition into the next dynastic cycle.

For America, the instability prevented oligarchy. One of the reasons the Federal Reserve was established was to create a cushioning for the instability of the market. IE, have a way for rich men to ride out the storm. Ergo, proton-oligarchy. I don't know if they knew what they were doing would create oligarchy, but it did.

Oligarchy attempts to reach stability quickly. Naturally this creates instability because things are moving fast.

It follows that humanity is too stupid to realize that oligarchy inherently leads to national suicide in most cases.

They put themselves into oligarchy to protect from the instability occurring, and all that leads to is a quick path to anarchy.


I don't think oligarchies flourish in times of instability. When exactly has this occurred?

In my eyes, there are two types of oligarchies. Those founded over time through repeated trust in a line of individuals (stability), and those founded quickly by some messianic figure. (instability leading to stability)

Let's look at the Roman Emperors for this relationship.

The Roman Emperors did not begin with Caesar. Caesar was simply the first man to hold the title and not give it up, having been killed; unable to give up the power if he had any plans to.(there is historic precedence for doing this)

Romans had constructed a situation where their congress was their oligarchy born from trusting a continued line of individuals. The Senate WAS the oligarchy. Rome constructed an ideal of a man of the people, rising to the cause, then being done with his job and retiring. And a man came along just like that. before Caesar, there was Lucius Cornelius Sulla. A man whom quickly came to power, marched on Rome, amended the constitution by force, and then retired, choosing not to keep the power. Rome's history has a lot of these kind of men.

Caesar was the first to be killed before he could do anything. As a result, he was a messianic oligarchy. And because he never got rid of his power, being killed (mind you, the senate still existed), Rome became an empire. Even more so, an oligarchy from that figure. What is more impressive though, is that eventually Rome did stop having an emperor. 300 years later, Diocletian retired the position and split the empire into four pieces. The emperor(s) became more like high governors than anything else.


Point is this. In both situation, Stability and its goal was the leading cause of oligarchy. Instability ended it. Diocletian was born in instability, and ended the prolonged Roman imperial oligarchy. Sulla dismantled the stable oligarchy of the senate and made things fluctuate again.

In the case of Diocletian, his actions did cause stability. And this in turn saw the return of the imperial oligarchy that would in time destroy itself. Why? Because it lead to economic instability. That which kills oligarchy.

The people who founded the U.S. definitely believed in democracy. A Republic is a form of democracy. You want to claim that democratic institutions create oligarchies, and that is the opposite of reality. You want to claim that instability is better, and ignore the reality that oligarchies flourish under instability.

The founders did not like democracy. They liked a republic. They wanted the rule of law. They also believed in freedom and liberty and the right to peruse one's happiness. However, these were personal ideals that, knowing them to be ideals, they did not put into the core document, but rather, the amendments.

reply to post by Gorman91


Sorry, but the largest percentage of witches burned were in fact midwives, not only did they help women in birth, they were often the local doctor.

As far as I am concerned, the whole Catholic Church is nothing but a suckers game of taking advantage of foolish people. There are plenty of well educated fools out there. Anyone with any level of knowledge and ability to accomplish things like heal people was a threat to the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church responded brutally. This is well recorded history. Your seem to have a great deal of denial and bias on the subject. Your understanding of the development of firearms is also seriously lacking.

mysite.du.edu...

The fundamental inventions of gunpowder and cannon had been made by 1300, but the sources are rare, difficult to interpret, hard to date, and often contradictory. The best guess is that gunpowder followed quickly after saltpetre was discovered (that is, a process for its purification was developed) by Chinese alchemists around AD 900 and introduced to Europe via trade routes and travellers around AD 1225, and that cannon were invented in southern Europe just before AD 1300. The period 1300-1600 saw the cannon perfected, chiefly in Europe, and it assumed its classical form. Small arms appeared in this period, revolutionizing armies and warfare. Technical terms are often obscure, however, and writers can be biased and their histories fanciful. The history of developments after 1600 is much clearer and better documented, with reliable drawings and accurate dates. One must always beware of taking some later creation as original evidence, especially pictorial evidence. For example, there are excellent drawings of the siege of Stirling Castle by Edward I in 1304, that look like witnesses of how things appeared, but they certainly are not. There is not a scrap of graphic evidence of how the siege actually appeared, only a few scraps of parchment with writing, and the scene is an artist's reconstruction. Many sources contain drawings added to the manuscript at a much later date, which are in the same vein. It is important, but very difficult, to establish historical authenticity in the sources of technical history.

The Egyptian Mamluks defeated the Mongols (the first such definitive defeat in the West) at Ain Jalut in Palestine in 1260, where "hand cannons" were reported to have been used. These were pyrotechnic devices used to scare horses, not projectile weapons. Such devices were very similar to those used in China, and the pyrotechnic mixtures used are reported in Arabic sources. This shows how the pyrotechnic uses of nitrates preceded their use in projectile weapons, and that care must be used in interpreting early accounts.

You are making claims for which their is no reliable sources. Your idea that instability creates more freedom is completely the opposite of reality. During periods of instability, people have to spend far more time worrying about security and survival, and far less time concentrating on prosperity. When controlled by a rigid status quo, as opposed to living under a democratic style government, civilization always stagnates.

Those times when people come together and revolt against an unjust system, then there will be bursts of innovation, necessity being the mother of invention, but these are times when the masses are revolting against entrenched oligarchies.

I don't think oligarchies flourish in times of instability. When exactly has this occurred?

I repeat, most of the third world. Mexico is a good example. The country is an oligarchy, still ruled by the descendants of the Spanish Conquistadors.

Stability occurs when democratic institutions succeed at preventing the creation of oligarchies and monopolies, thereby providing far greater opportunity for the average person, which creates far greater innovation and advancement. This is the formula for success for all first world nations.

The way to prevent the formation of Oligarchies is with an evenly enforced fair set of rules that establishes a competitive environment.

Call it what you will, democracy, republic, democratic republic, personally I like the term representative government, the U.S. constitution was written on the concept that government should serve the people, liberty and justice for all. You want to claim we are better off ruled by emperors, and that is exactly the opposite of the principles the U.S. was founded upon.

reply to post by poet1b

Sorry, but the largest percentage of witches burned were in fact midwives, not only did they help women in birth, they were often the local doctor.

Perhaps in some cases, but even that word in my mind brings up images of the old fat gray haired women with a bowl of superstitions. All the mid wives in the world don't change the fact that infant mortality never really changed until modern science.

As far as I am concerned, the whole Catholic Church is nothing but a suckers game of taking advantage of foolish people. There are plenty of well educated fools out there. Anyone with any level of knowledge and ability to accomplish things like heal people was a threat to the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church responded brutally. This is well recorded history. Your seem to have a great deal of denial and bias on the subject.

It had its up times and its bad times. Its history is no different than any other organization. Such is humanity.

Your understanding of the development of firearms is also seriously lacking.

And yet, where in what you quoted contradicts what I said? This is the second time now that you have seemingly not read what I said. It's getting rather annoying to have to defend what I say when you seem to not read what I say.

You are making claims for which their is no reliable sources. Your idea that instability creates more freedom is completely the opposite of reality. During periods of instability, people have to spend far more time worrying about security and survival, and far less time concentrating on prosperity. When controlled by a rigid status quo, as opposed to living under a democratic style government, civilization always stagnates.

You're mixing different types of instability. I was speaking of economic instability. Now you are bringing in political, military, social, and national instability. These all have different situations.

I remain truthful to what I said. When the economy is unstable, oligarchies cannot form. When the economy is stable and predictable, oligarchies remain.

I repeat, most of the third world. Mexico is a good example. The country is an oligarchy, still ruled by the descendants of the Spanish Conquistadors.

Then that is a type of stability, not instability. Mexico has been a very stable country, and with that, had a strong oligarchy. I don't know many nations where a single party can have so much power and unchallenged authority for so long like the PRI. Only with the US war on drugs and political poking, did Mexico become unstable. And with it, the oligarchy lost its power.

The way to prevent the formation of Oligarchies is with an evenly enforced fair set of rules that establishes a competitive environment.

This is called instability.

Call it what you will, democracy, republic, democratic republic, personally I like the term representative government, the U.S. constitution was written on the concept that government should serve the people, liberty and justice for all. You want to claim we are better off ruled by emperors, and that is exactly the opposite of the principles the U.S. was founded upon.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying no one can predict the future and the situation and what is needed. So, be flexible, not bound by dogma. There are times present when a dictator is needed, and times...~90% of the time, when a representative republic works best.

reply to post by Gorman91


And of course the witch has a big nose with a wart on it. Um, you might want to consider you have been sold a bill of goods.

Here is what you said about firearms.

I'd even go so much as to say they wanted more science and technology from their Muslim neighbors and once the Spanish special interests ended, most of Europe sought to gain technology from the East. The Church was one of the first types to get cannons and guns. And that, by the way, was one of the oldest forms of "witchcraft"

How can you claim the church saw technology and science as witchcraft when it was one of the first ones to buy, literally, magical explosive tubes? The Italians all rushed to get their hands on ottoman tech and science as fast as possible.

Actually while the Europeans imported some tech from eastern civilizations, they made the critical breakthroughs.

Read what I posted. The reality is nothing like you describe. Why was Galileo convicted or heresy? Why was heresy a crime?

You're mixing different types of instability. I was speaking of economic instability.

What are you trying to imply, oligarchical Mexico is economically stable? Military, political, social, it all goes together to create the instability, and oligarchy is the one of the biggest factors. Mexico has never been a stable country.

You can only have an evenly enforced fair set of rules in a stable environment. You continue to ignore the formula to create a first world nation.

You have spent a lot of time praising empires. Your theory about instability does no match up to the historical record. There will always be degrees of instability, and natural fluctuations are necessary IMO, but the historical record shows that the way oligarchies take over is to create instability, break down the rules, undermine representative government, which is exactly what is happening in the U.S. today.

If you recognize that representative government works the best, at least 90% of the time, then you should recognize that the key to our way out of this current situation is through representative government. Should we allow a dictator to take over, then we will have sacrificed long term prosperity for short term gain. The cure is worse than the disease.

reply to post by poet1b

And of course the witch has a big nose with a wart on it. Um, you might want to consider you have been sold a bill of goods.

I must say it again. Why were infant mortality rates more or less the same until modern times?

Actually while the Europeans imported some tech from eastern civilizations, they made the critical breakthroughs.

Read what I posted. The reality is nothing like you describe. Why was Galileo convicted or heresy? Why was heresy a crime?

But they got the tech from the east. Whatever they did with it, so be it. FYI, you said that it helped destroy oligarchy because expensive Armour was irrelevant. But, then why did the Papal states and all those heretic killing nations stay powerful well into the advent of WW1?

Better yet, why was heresy still a crime in the nations you claimed rebelled from the papacy? England, Germany, and many other nations still had these crimes as protestants.

Heresy as a crime only died out in the 1600s. And it wasn't because the church died out. The nations where the inquisition was the strongest are still very much so catholic.

The reason heresy came about was because of political angst in the 1400s-1500s. Before that it was usually a rare thing done to charlatans. After the 1600s, the birth of the corporation happened, and people began seeking money and power, and religion became irrelevant. The culture shifted. That is why heresy crimes stopped. Because nations killing people for heresy started doing business with Hindus and Muslims, and suddenly heresy as a crime got in the way of profit. Thus, it was removed.

What are you trying to imply, oligarchical Mexico is economically stable? Military, political, social, it all goes together to create the instability, and oligarchy is the one of the biggest factors. Mexico has never been a stable country.

under these conditions, instability becomes a very subjective term that you can make whatever you want. You view all of Mexico's history as unstable. That may not be the view of the Mexicans themselves towards their own nation. I could call China unstable because it has nukes and is communist, and I view that as unstable. That doesn't make it true.

I therefore kept to economic instability, for it is clearly definable and clearly evident.

You can only have an evenly enforced fair set of rules in a stable environment. You continue to ignore the formula to create a first world nation.

America killed over a million of their fellow people, broke international treaties by blasting into Japan with warships, more or less fought an illegal war with Mexico to gain its land, and double crossed France and England too many times to count while they were at war with each other. They also invaded the continent of Europe in a war they were not directly involved with and forced hundreds of millions of people to conform to the image they saw as fit. Then they did that again at a larger scale 30 years later, and also nuclear bombed two civilian centers.

If you call that stability, and America is a first world nation, then you are absolutely fooling yourself.

If you recognize that representative government works the best, at least 90% of the time, then you should recognize that the key to our way out of this current situation is through representative government. Should we allow a dictator to take over, then we will have sacrificed long term prosperity for short term gain. The cure is worse than the disease.

I honestly would not have a problem if a military leader took 20 million soldiers, slaughtered a few corporations and fired the government, and then held new elections, baring anyone from the establishment from running, and then retired. In fact, this would be my ideal. This cure would not be worse than the disease. For the leader would retire and things would return to the way they ought to be.

Sometimes, a man with power needs to break the rules to remind the people that the rules still exist. The best government is the one that has designed its rules to be flexible for just when such a need arises.


Take Ron Paul for example. He's made significant evidences that if he were president, he wouldn't be afraid to use his offices to overhaul the entire system by executive force. He simply would not use his powers to invade another nation, as the powers of war making are with congress.

He knows our laws. He knows he can act like an internal dictator if he were president, and rebuild the entire system. Or, more accurately, restore it.

Take a good look at the entire world. The whole globe is going down the crapper, not just America.

Europe and the US are hopelessly over-indebted. The crisis that started in the US real estate sector in 2007 has devastated state finances on both sides of the Atlantic and is threatening to wreck the euro and trigger a second global downturn. The world lacks the political leadership needed to end the turmoil.

The longer the Western debt crises smolder on, the darker the outlook for the global economy. Because the US economy is collapsing, American consumers are buying fewer goods from China and India. And because investors are piling out of euro and dollar investments, supposed islands of stability are starting to look shaky as well. In recent weeks, the Swiss franc and the Brazilian real have appreciated so strongly that exporters in those countries have been virtually unable to sell their products abroad.

Italian bank UniCredit has predicted a "synchronous downtrend in the US, Latin America, Asia and Europe." A downtrend that would also engulf the economy that has so far been getting through the crisis better than most others: Germany.

Last year, when they rushed to the aid of Greece and set up a rescue fund for the high-debt nations on the edge of the currency bloc, they managed to calm markets for a few months. But since then, the breathing space following EU announcements has been whittled down to weeks, even days.

"Our nation isn't facing just a debt crisis; it's facing a democracy crisis," wrote the New York Times.

Life is getting more expensive in the country often referred to as the world's factory -- not just for producers, but also for consumers. Chinese consumer prices rose 6.4 percent in June year-on-year, the highest rate in three years.

...with the world economy facing a slowdown, Germany's enormous dependence on exports, the driving force behind its impressive recovery in the last two years, could now spell doom.

And in Europe, governments need to realize that they can't keep on sitting out the euro crisis. The currency bloc will either break apart or its members will move much closer together on fiscal policy.

Scaling down debt isn't easy, as can be seen in Britain. The government of Prime Minister David Cameron has imposed more rigorous spending cuts than any other traditional industrial nation. The austerity program is coming at a high price. The cuts are hitting domestic demand and have all but wiped out economic growth.

While I absolutely agree that the economy in the United States is at an all-time low, with detrimental unemployment rates, and lack of manufactoring, lack of grow and stimuli, it would be extremely short-sighted and naive to say the rest of the world isn't far behind us.

Debt Crisis