U.S. 2012 = U.K. 1945?

[Gusington]

^If you could only see some of the people I ride the train with every day you would not think that common sense is so common. A pure democracy is not a good idea. I like a republic a lot more. On paper at least. That said, as the old adage goes...representative democracy is the worst form of gov't, except for all the others tried from time to time.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I said from the beginning it would have to be a guide for expert technocrats to balance, not a literal pay for services. Frankly the services offered by government should be stable by now, there is no need for constant speeches and rehashing, pretending to do something useful. If something needs a serious change it should be voted on by the people.


You cant say the republic is great then always complain it doesnt work.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Id pick something like this:

Debt reduction	10%
Defense	5%
Education	5%
Environment	10%
General research	3%
Healthcare	25%
Infrastructure	20%
Medical Research	12%
Pensions	10%
	100%

[AmericanPride]

America's decline has very little to do with its adventures abroad (though they surely haven't helped), and more to do with the stagnation of its traditional centers of economic power: the middle class, manufacturing, infrastructure, and education. Every year, greater amounts of wealth are concentrated in fewer hands and very little actually "trickles" down. Effective tax rates for the rich and corporations are at historic lows, not to mention outright tax evasion by both. Prices of food, fuel, education, and health continue to increase while incomes remain stagnate for 40 years and home values collapse... only to be scooped up by wealthy banks and investors. So no wonder tax revenues have diminished for years. Meanwhile, there are gross inefficiencies in America's single largest expenditure: defense. Of course, it's decided to purchase more over-priced under-performing aircraft and warships while letting go tens of thousands of soldiers and diminishing their benefits... which means more deployments and tasks for those that do remain, and thus more suicides, divorces, and domestic violence. But that's not enough either, so we also have to cut spending for infrastructure, education, and social services, which means more blackouts, bridge and dike collapses, undetected financial fraud, and out of control speculation in financial markets. If America is in decline, it's not because the American people are immoral, or ignorant (which they might be since education has been de-funded and universities are cost-prohibitive to many families); it's because the power of the country has been eroded from the inside out by financial speculation, privatization schemes, and an all-out assault on the American system.

[Gusington]

For a democracy or a republic to work at least at a functional level, the citizens voting need to be aware of the issues that affect them.

[Windigo]

For a democracy or a republic to work at least at a functional level, the citizens voting need to be aware of the issues that affect them.

+2

but that's expecting a lot more than what you are getting now. Rigid voting patterns are a great example of this lack of understanding

[Gusington]

^Correct. Which makes me a sad panda. Until I forget about everything by imbibing in the aspects of bread & circuses that I love the most: books, sports, pc games and of course porn. If I didn't have access to those things I'd probably be a 21st century Patrick Henry. Oh well.

[Centurion40]

Moreover, Britain, which so proudly ruled the waves a generation ago, was tired; it lacked the willpower to pursue its imperial destiny. America's role as an imperialist is even more fragile, as it never had Britain's self-confident faith in its own imperial destiny. Americans have always been ambivalent about the role of global hegemon.

I typed up a long reply, but frankly it can be answered easily - the entire article is based on the false premise that the US has an empire.

IMHO the US has many empires, but they are not government controlled national entities.  They are (and have been) government supported corporations like Coca-Cola, Dole, Exxon and McDonalds.

[Gusington]

I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'

[LongBlade]

I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'

Exxon with guns.

That's awesome.

[Gusington]

Yeah I laughed out loud when I first heard that. Wallace is a great writer and a really funny guy.

[Centurion40]

I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'

I wonder if the British would have had the same scope of Empire, were it not for corporations like the British East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company?

[Windigo]

I've read that a pre-modern equivalent to Exxon or Coke or McDonalds was the East India Company. Historian Mike Wallace described them as 'Exxon With Guns.'

I wonder if the British would have had the same scope of Empire, were it not for corporations like the British East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company?

You ask too many questions.... shut up and skin those beavers

[Centurion40]

Hehehehe.  :D

[Gusington]

When you tie making money to growing your empire, that's a recipe for success. Look at New York City...founded to make money.