4 ms·

>But what to say about Americans, who squandered natural resources Yeah, they squandered their natural resources on the way to becoming the richest, most power

>But what to say about Americans, who squandered natural resources Yeah, they squandered their natural resources on the way to becoming the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the planet... How can people say things like this with a straight face? The fact that there are some tough political issues that have or may span a couple decades doesn't erase centuries of history, or millennia of future prospects.

hcurtiss 7y ago
Exactly right. Many Americans are so ashamed of the US, when in many ways it's a shining example of how to do things right -- certainly relative to many other countries. The US is a spectacularly prosperous country, and all it seems anyone talks about is how to fundamentally change the systems that made it that way. There are always in which a society can improve, but man -- let's not forget what's worked well.
- kaibee 7y ago
  > The US is a spectacularly prosperous country, and all it seems anyone talks about is how to fundamentally change the systems that made it that way. The things that made America so wealthy were changed pre-2000. It takes time for those changes to really impact society, and for people to realize it. And no one really talking about "fundamental" change. They're talking about raising taxes back to what they used to be like in the 60s and 70s. Not just in terms of the rate, but the percentage of the tax burden that falls on each segment of society.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    While there are many other proposals, that kind of tax policy change would, in itself, definitely be a big change. I encourage people to use this calculator to determine your effective tax rate at various times in the past. If your family is like mine, reverting to the tax policy of the 60s and 70s would be a very large hit to us every year. https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/ https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
- duderific 7y ago
  I think the reasons for that are twofold: 1) There is a tendency to focus on the negative 2) The general trend of wealth inequality has been going in the wrong direction for many, many years and it is only getting worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- asdfgasd 7y ago
  > when in many ways it's a shining example of how to do things right US prosperity is largely a function of imperialism and military might, not some magical economic formula. For instance, in South America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... The US government overthrew a democratically elected government for the prosperity of a _fruit company_. > all it seems anyone talks about is how to fundamentally change the systems that made it that way. Many of the people are fighting the systems that have heavily exploited poor countries around the world for the last ~100 years because they see it as fundamentally immoral. The US doesn't _deserve_ the standard of living it has achieved, and it's built on the blood of dead South Americans and Middle Eastern people. It's honestly pathetic that poor Americans aren't provided for given the absolute spoils of war the elite have enjoyed.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    Oh please. If imperialism and military might were the source of a country's wealth, then Mongolia would be on top, and Russia, and the sun would have never set on Great Britain. No, strong property and contract rights combined with the rule of law and relatively low corruption is what made the US wealthy. And, yes, natural resource extraction and up until recently relatively prudent management of its fiscal resources.
    - asdfgasd 7y ago
      Mongolia's dominance was far before the industrial revolution. That argument is so devoid of context it's not worth addressing. They did achieve huge gains in wealth through imperialism anyway... The USSR was imperialist, and did achieve massive increases to the standard of living of the elite through imperialism. It's much easier to feed Russia when you can starve Ukraine. Colonial Britain and the Dutch East India company both achieved massive gains in wealth through imperialism. The only argument you've made is that strong property and contract rights with rule of law and low corruption can prevent squandering the spoils of imperialism. I'm not sure if I agree with that, we're too early into the US's age of dominance to tell, but it's adjacent to my point.

hcurtiss 7y ago

Exactly right. Many Americans are so ashamed of the US, when in many ways it's a shining example of how to do things right -- certainly relative to many other countries. The US is a spectacularly prosperous country, and all it seems anyone talks about is how to fundamentally change the systems that made it that way. There are always in which a society can improve, but man -- let's not forget what's worked well.

kaibee 7y ago
> The US is a spectacularly prosperous country, and all it seems anyone talks about is how to fundamentally change the systems that made it that way. The things that made America so wealthy were changed pre-2000. It takes time for those changes to really impact society, and for people to realize it. And no one really talking about "fundamental" change. They're talking about raising taxes back to what they used to be like in the 60s and 70s. Not just in terms of the rate, but the percentage of the tax burden that falls on each segment of society.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  While there are many other proposals, that kind of tax policy change would, in itself, definitely be a big change. I encourage people to use this calculator to determine your effective tax rate at various times in the past. If your family is like mine, reverting to the tax policy of the 60s and 70s would be a very large hit to us every year. https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/ https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
duderific 7y ago
I think the reasons for that are twofold: 1) There is a tendency to focus on the negative 2) The general trend of wealth inequality has been going in the wrong direction for many, many years and it is only getting worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
asdfgasd 7y ago
> when in many ways it's a shining example of how to do things right US prosperity is largely a function of imperialism and military might, not some magical economic formula. For instance, in South America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... The US government overthrew a democratically elected government for the prosperity of a _fruit company_. > all it seems anyone talks about is how to fundamentally change the systems that made it that way. Many of the people are fighting the systems that have heavily exploited poor countries around the world for the last ~100 years because they see it as fundamentally immoral. The US doesn't _deserve_ the standard of living it has achieved, and it's built on the blood of dead South Americans and Middle Eastern people. It's honestly pathetic that poor Americans aren't provided for given the absolute spoils of war the elite have enjoyed.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  Oh please. If imperialism and military might were the source of a country's wealth, then Mongolia would be on top, and Russia, and the sun would have never set on Great Britain. No, strong property and contract rights combined with the rule of law and relatively low corruption is what made the US wealthy. And, yes, natural resource extraction and up until recently relatively prudent management of its fiscal resources.
  - asdfgasd 7y ago
    Mongolia's dominance was far before the industrial revolution. That argument is so devoid of context it's not worth addressing. They did achieve huge gains in wealth through imperialism anyway... The USSR was imperialist, and did achieve massive increases to the standard of living of the elite through imperialism. It's much easier to feed Russia when you can starve Ukraine. Colonial Britain and the Dutch East India company both achieved massive gains in wealth through imperialism. The only argument you've made is that strong property and contract rights with rule of law and low corruption can prevent squandering the spoils of imperialism. I'm not sure if I agree with that, we're too early into the US's age of dominance to tell, but it's adjacent to my point.