TheProwler wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The most often quoted percentages are that the top 2% of the wealthy consume over 80% of its resources. Resources includes energy, minerals, timber, fish agricultural products, etc.
I see. So what does a fish count in terms of barrels of oil? Or a 10 foot piece of 2x4 spruce count in terms of nuclear generated electricity?
Since when did the world become nothing more than oil and electricity?
Why do fish matter? They feed a large portion of the world, supply a huge portion of our economy. They also matter because what happens to water is a foretaste of what happens to us.
Why does timber matter? Set aside that most people live in wooden houses and sleep on beds made from wood, set aside the number of people employed by the timber industry (STILL pretty huge, even with large stretches of forest already cut in our country). Set aside the vast recreation opportunities afforded by these forests ...itself another industry. They supply a good portion of the air we breath.
It is fine to understand economics and politics, but to completely ignore what those figures represent ... is a very BIG part of why we are currently in such a mess. You can trade and borrow all you want, but unless there is something, somewhere backing that paper, it eventually amounts to fluff.
TheProwler wrote:
Those figures are over-simplified and I would speculate very inaccurate.
Speculate?
You quoted an article to me that contained the same data.... and that was even a very narrow article. It did not mention ALL resources, only energy.
TheProwler wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:The exact figures vary.
At any rate, to deny that the US consumes far more than its "share" of resources is to deny reality. WE DO contribute much, but not as much as we consume AND our nation has supported policies that are part of why other countries stay poor. Support policies and people -- people like Saddam Hussein, Castro, etc. ... all very well known (well documented) used US help to gain power.
Correct about USA contributing a lot towards positive things like medical research, scientific advances in general, etc. etc. All of which costs natural resources and money and time. And benefits people all around the world.
About keeping other countries poor: We'll never know what would have happened if some of the other countries had gotten rich and strong and militarily powerful. And that might be the reason you and your family are still alive.
And you accused
me of over-simplifying?
We are not talking about keeping other countries from becoming rich and powerful. US foreign policy is more often that of a bully enforcing its will than that of a tolerant big brother. Do you even realize I spoke the absolute truth when I said WE installed Saddam and Castro? Check it out .. it is hardly a secret. So, sure, we deposed a tyrant when we took down Saddam, but would it have been necessary if we had not firt put him there?
US is hardly the only country that has contributed positively to this world, but the US is most recently more guilty of ill-doing than most others, partly just because we have been in the position of power. (earlier, it was Britain).
The US does what powerful companies in the US want. Sometimes this cooincides with what will benefit me and my fellow "average" citizens, but often it does not. That is an intentional part of how our goverment works, but recently a mand named Bush has neatly subverted a lot of the checks normally in place... but that is whole set of topics itself.
Just look Blackwater as just one of the most
recent and
blatant examples. Bush and Cheny like to talk about "shrinking our government" and making things "more efficient". YET, the reality is that every job Blackwater contractors do (and it is not just security) costs the US far, far more than the same jobs done by soldiers. Further, as we have seen, that company does not feel it has to follow rules of engangement like the soldiers do (and the soldiers do enough bad things, but they do have a few limits). Are we REALLY safer because some bullies decide its OK to ignore rules of engagement, to act with impunity? Impunity so great that the FBI has been spending millions just to investigate ... despite
complete lack of support from the US government?
I worked for the government. My job description, like any other GS-4/5 (entry level for almost all natural resource positions) said essentially that I made no decisions, followed orders, collected data. In reality? I ran a program. I wrote most of my boss's PhD. I might have done a bit more than most, but my story is not all that unusual. FEW federal employees, at least in natural resources, actually do as little as their job titles claim. THAT is the TRUE reality for natural resource employees.
In the cases where you do have employees who do little, you will find lots of competition in the private world. Far from reducing expenses, the "competition" means that a few folks (Cheney is one, by the way) get some nice checks from the companies they create. They generally pay MORE, not less (and even when they pay more, have greater administration costs). The better employees in many of these positions go for private industry where they can get paid more. So we, the taxpayers are left with the disgruntles and the poorly qualified. BUT, those are few and are mostly the higher level administrative positions.
PLAYER57832 wrote:For a really interesting tale, though try looking into the history of Hawaii. We ousted a sitting monarche because, essentially, the head of Dole wanted us to.
Wow. Americans must feel so guilty. How do you sleep at night?[/quote]
to quote Winston Churchill... "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it!".
I change what I can and try to accept what I cannot change... but above all, I always try to find out more, see if what I am being told on the surface is the real truth. That is what is wrong with the "regular" media. It is impossible to cover complexities in 30 second sound bytes. So, they end up giving a distorted and highly biased picture ... even when they TRY to be unbiased. In the case of Fox, there is not even the pretense of no bias ... they have an outright agenda to promote "conservative" values (which, ironically, are not TRULY conservative in the original meaning of the word .. but again, I diverge to another topic).
It's easy to look at things very simplistically and point out the shortcomings of the USA. But hindsight is, as they say, always 20-20. Look at the record of madmen being elected to power in other countries. Or madmen forcibly gaining power in other countries.
You either missed or have dismissed the part where I said the US PUT many of those folks into power!
Now, aren't you just a little happy that those countries weren't powerful enough to crush all of the free world?
You should thank USA for the level of safety and wealth you enjoy.
Again "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it."
Should we beat ourselves up because, in times past our forefathers made mistakes? No. There is little point, unless there is an active harm still needing to be fixed (we DO, for example, still owe many Native Americans much ...the casinos have helped some, but far from all to really enter the 21rst century and the "American Dream").
BUT, we do have an obligation to study the past so we can DO BETTER in the future.
"To whom much is given, is much expected"... that is another quote I value!
