** Fear**

I believe that I have been misled for the following reasons:

(i) The Russians were never going to attack us. The cold war was a myth. The Russians never believed the West would attack them either.

(ii) Global warming is rubbish. Yes, the world is warming up - but not to the extent it has done in the past. Data the scientists use is corrupted by the Urban Heat Island Effect, by bad observation (using dendrochronology of trees in the southern hemisphere to model behaviour in the northern hemisphere) and does not conform to the minimum standard scientific method. Watch out for the word 'consensus' This means people agree but DO NOT have evidence.

(iii) Deaths through terrorism have decreased dramatically over the last ten years - this includes 911. The risk of dying due to a terrorist attack is at it's lowest in 30 years (in the West) Deaths due to Islamic terrorism is the smallest it's been for nearly 50 years.

(iv) The risk of a child of whom you are a parent being abducted (or worse) is the lowest it's been since records began (in the UK)

(v) The risk of being a victim of violent crime (in the UK) is the lowest it's been for two generations

(vi) The risk of contracting a non curable disease is the lowest for nearly 10 years.

What can one make of these facts?

I think it is govts controlling populations through fear.

That all sounds great... but do you have links to support those statement?

I'll dig them out. It might take a while.

Not strictly relevant but a point, nevertheless:

* 9/11 death toll: 2,976
* UK Death toll from smoking since 9/11: 280,000 (approx.)
* UK Death toll from alcohol since 9/11: 70,000 (approx.)
* Global Death toll from cars since 9/11: 12,500,000 (approx.)
* Global death toll from conventional weapons since 9/11:1,166,666(approx.)
* Global death toll from starvation since 9/11: 38,325,000 (approx.)
* Global death toll from HIV/AIDS since 9/11: 30,660,000 (approx.)
http://www.jimpix.co.uk/words/terror.asp#conc

but:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/520764/posts

on the Russians (and everyone else)
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...a=view&id=1245

I'm afraid you will have to pay (the Hadley centre) for the dendrochronolgy problems but understanding that less than 2% of the ice in the world is in the arctic and over 70% is in the antarctic:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast27dec_1.htm

Regarding crime in the UK you should be able to find corroborating information here:http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm#Crime

Regarding serious diseases:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/UNREG/cCsSML...al/0031-9155/1

Google 'have cure rates increased' and read 4e4 the results.

I will dig out the pages I got the stats from tonight and post over the weekend. The above is simply a taster

I congratulate on joing the 'Everything is a lie by the government tin foil hat' club.

So where did you prove anything about government control with all your 'facts' you posted?

what does diseases have to do with it? How has government controlled you with disease and how does declining disease rate show abnything to prove it? Where is the government shouting "OH MY GOD, you may all die from disease. Stay in your homes and give up your right?"

Cold War made up? Ok so what does that long article about ballisitc missle threat prove anything about a made up cold War and did that era make you feel controlled?

Abduction? Again what does tha have to do with anything? How has the 'evil Illuminati' used abduction to control you?

As far as I am concerned your list is just some random facts with nothing in common with each other trying to drive home yet another Illuminati control theory.

I would sooner believe based on irrelevant facts that due to the growing number of government conspiracy theories and web pages dedicated to them, that an Illuminati type group is trying to instill fear of government into people to breed anarchy and lawlessness to seize control.

Oh dear Cander, Oh dear.

The relation of facts is the concept of fear.

I would like to ask you a few questions:

(i) In hindsight was fear of complete nuclear fallout rational
(ii) Is fear of non-curable disease rational? If so, then, how can you live a normal life.
(iii) Do you believe that climate change is manmade. If so, where is the evidence, and not the consensus
(iv) Is fear of harm to your children irrational? It is a fact that the vast majority of all serious child crimes are committed by family members, and or close friends. Is letting your child go out front to play something to be afraid of?
(v) Is conducting you life differently according to the fear of terrorism valid? If you think so, then the terrorists have already won - they no longer need to kill people. As the deaths dues to terrorists incidents have consistently fallen over the last decade (or two) I suspect they do not actually have to do anything - because of people like you who continue to propogate such fear.

The thread, in case you missed it, is fear. Not some illuminati conspiracy as you've tried to make out. It;s not the Masons, Alien abduction, or the killers of Princess Diana either. Nor is it some religious cult, or the oddball commu)nity of VB.Net programmers. It's also not the caffeine mad C# nuts either ;

Perhaps the govts message is misheard due to media slant - to be honest I do not know (how can I know - the only information I have is dissemintated by the media; but I can make a reasoned opinion - you will note I said 'I think' NOT 'I know')

The idea was to promote discussion of which I have done (sort of) Your opinion 'is 'illuminating' ;)

Thanks

Perhaps you forgot this line you typed?

"I think it is govts controlling populations through fear."

This leads directly to same old established "government conspiracy" that is all over the internet these days.

Even if you take away that sentence, what was the point? About being mislead? Mislead to believe what? By whom? You say its just about fear? Take away all the comments about control and misleading information, are you just talking about fear of death?

I mean really you didnt give anything to provoke an actual discussion, just provoked questions to what in the world you are trying to point out.

"Perhaps the govts message is misheard due to media slant - to be honest I do not know (how can I know - the only information I have is dissemintated by the media; but I can make a reasoned opinion - you will note I said 'I think' NOT 'I know')"

Here again you just are not making any sense. What message? You say media slants things, you say govenment is trying to control through fear, so obviously government sends out the fear tatics through the media, but WAIT. Media slants things and the only info you get is through this media so they arent telling us the message of fear, so what is misleading you into fear? Did you not see how that doesnt make any sense at all? Media reports on death, media also reports on scientists making new discoveries in research to cure disease. So where have you been mislead into believing something that the stastics you post disprove?

You have done nothing to drive your point. And if your post was about it being rational to be afraid of death, well you should have typed up a post that drives that discussion, not a bunch of statistics with a bad opinion that has nothing to do with it.

Seriously, you need to step back and read what you posted to see how little sense it makes.

As I've said it's about fear.

I note, with some disappointment, that you chose not to answer the questions I posted. I have to admit - I do wonder why when you replied with such urm enthusiasm.

The corollory is not what you state it to be. It is fear spread through lies and deceit.

Let's take global warming as an example. There is NO evidence that this is down to human activities. There is scant evidence that this is a problem at all. So why talk about it. We have a number of options:

(i) It's a bad news day
(ii) There's little better to do with our time
(iii) Someone somewhere believes this to be the case
(iv) Control

I propose the folllowing answers:

(i) Unlikely
(ii) Perhaps, not too sure if I'm honest
(iii) Clearly a lot of 'scientists' believe this to be the case. Otherwise there would not be a 'consensus'
(v) I think this is likely. The implications of global warming are immense should it turn out to be true. There are issues of energy management and population management especially the developing world.

I think that perhaps you could argue that it's all a big mistake but that's an awful lot of people making exactly the same mistake. I guess it could be what I call 'the shepherd syndrome' (I'm sure you get the analogy) It could be simply a way of raising funds for research. I cannot know.

What I do know is the media report it as if it's a given fact. That it's true. Blair has put it at the top of the agenda for his G8, and EU presidency. This is not some tabloid twisting facts - there is major political mileage to be made here on a premise that has not even passed a cursory attempt at the scientific method.

So, I ask you, what's it all about? Why would someone want to politicise (sp?) it? I suggest (again I don't know) that it's a promise that Blair can spearhead the world in reducing and perhaps preventing a major world catastrophe so he can gain, regain, or keep hold of power.

That, then, is gaining control of a population (being voted in) because of some salvation promise (fear of death, destruction, mayhem) that is based on science that has little or no evidence. Hence: control through fear.

Perhaps you can help me see the Climate debate in another fashion?

Quote:

---

I note, with some disappointment, that you chose not to answer the questions I posted. I have to admit - I do wonder why when you replied with such urm enthusiasm.

---

Hmm, could it be what I feel on those issues is irrelevant?

Fine you want to know? I completely agree with you that there is no proof to be afraid of anything and that human activity is destroying climate. Did you see the news about scientists think that NATURAL bacteria plays a big part in ozone depletion?

Back down to the irrelevant stuff.

Quote:

---

So, I ask you, what's it all about? Why would someone want to politicise (sp?) it? I suggest (again I don't know) that it's a promise that Blair can spearhead the world in reducing and perhaps preventing a major world catastrophe so he can gain, regain, or keep hold of power.

---

What in gods name do you expect a politican to do? If a politican isnt supposed to politicise anything, whats the point of having elections? Just choose someone to take office because obviously them expressing to us what they hope to accomplish in office is just fear mongering to maintain control? I guess politicians should just come and say 'Hey! Vote for me just because."?

I feel that you've side-stepped the 'irrelevant stuff''

I do not expect a politician to use bad science to leverage his position. In the case of climate change the bottom line is that Blair is wagering on people's fear of catastrophe. I think that it's wrong.

This is no conspiracy. This no odd internet website. This is the 'leader' of my country exploiting people - implicitly using fear - who know no better.

. . . and to me, it's not irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I feel that you've side-stepped the 'irrelevant stuff''

I do not expect a politician to use bad science to leverage his position. In the case of climate change the bottom line is that Blair is wagering on people's fear of catastrophe. I think that it's wrong.

This is no conspiracy. This no odd internet website. This is the 'leader' of my country exploiting people - implicitly using fear - who know no better.

. . . and to me, it's not irrelevant.

---

A politician is not a scientist so how does he know its bad science? Why does he leverage it? Because the PEOPLE are asking him about it. We have this thing called freedom. Freedom to create special interests groups who have concerns. They bring these concerns to politicians on behalf of the people they represent. You are blaming the wrong people.

To put Cander's view more simply:

This is the populations controlling the government through fear.

I think this is pretty accurate. We think of the government as a monolithic body, but it isn't, and never has been. There are actual people making the decisions, and they are no better at synthesizing massive amounts of data than we are. They are pushed and pulled by all the same forces we are, and the result is the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

A politician is not a scientist so how does he know its bad science? Why does he leverage it? Because the PEOPLE are asking him about it. We have this thing called freedom. Freedom to create special interests groups who have concerns. They bring these concerns to politicians on behalf of the people they represent. You are blaming the wrong people.

---

I don't accept that.

A politician should always be accountable for his actions implied or otherwise. What sort of 'freedom' is there if a politician can simply blame someone else for bad decisions he's made? Is that accountable? No. Is that transparent? No. Here, you are advocating that a politician can always blame his advisors. That, to me, is utterly unacceptable.

If the politician has made bad decisions based on bad advice - he should employ better advisors. Or at least if he finds himself in a position of uncertaintity he should start and head the debate and encourage opposing views. That is honest, transparent, and unassuming. Qualities I'm sure we'd all like to see our politicians blessed with.

By taking bad science (from whatever source) and using it for political mileage regardless of the validity of the information received and knowing that there is a question of validity then the politican must be up to no good. If I can find questions of validity with a simple google search then why can't the politician? It is not a question of processing vast quantities of data - it is a question of open-mindedness and integrity. It is a question of listening to what's actually being said, and written.

By using climate change in the way that Blair is going to this July, then, it follows that political mileage is being made by abusing the electorates fear of massive climate change. What else can be going on?

(I can think of one other thing that could explain this behaviour. Incompetence. If that's the case then we don't want that politician in power, either.)

Quote:

---

A politician should always be accountable for his actions implied or otherwise. What sort of 'freedom' is there if a politician can simply blame someone else for bad decisions he's made? Is that accountable? No. Is that transparent? No. Here, you are advocating that a politician can always blame his advisors. That, to me, is utterly unacceptable.

---

Where did I say advisors? I said the PEOPLE. Can you understand that? It is the people that vote for politicians that bring these issues up.

Quote:

---

If the politician has made bad decisions based on bad advice - he should employ better advisors. Or at least if he finds himself in a position of uncertaintity he should start and head the debate and encourage opposing views. That is honest, transparent, and unassuming. Qualities I'm sure we'd all like to see our politicians blessed with.

---

And again, who said anything about advisors?

Quote:

---

By taking bad science (from whatever source) and using it for political mileage regardless of the validity of the information received and knowing that there is a question of validity then the politican must be up to no good. If I can find questions of validity with a simple google search then why can't the politician? It is not a question of processing vast quantities of data - it is a question of open-mindedness and integrity. It is a question of listening to what's actually being said, and written.

---

According to whom is it bad science? A simple google search will also show you the other side of the coin. Don't pick and choose your search results and try to use that as the basis for a flawed arguement.

Quote:

---

By using climate change in the way that Blair is going to this July, then, it follows that political mileage is being made by abusing the electorates fear of massive climate change. What else can be going on?

---

And yet 1 more time, he brings it up because the voters bring these issues up as concerns. Its too bad you are having a very hard time understanding this. I have explained the real issue here and you choose to ignore it. So I leave it at that. You can continue your rant all you want, but I'm not going to try to explain it anymore.

<Deleted>

<deleted>

(because of profanity and ill-thought out abuse)

Nevermind - I was going to post a moment of wisdom - but I fear it would be wasted. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

I have explained the real issue here and you choose to ignore it.

---

What exactly do you think that you have you explained? It appears to me that you have simply reacted.

Nothing more; nothing less. Your net contribution is nil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

A politician is not a scientist so how does he know its bad science? Why does he leverage it? Because the PEOPLE are asking him about it. We have this thing called freedom. Freedom to create special interests groups who have concerns. They bring these concerns to politicians on behalf of the people they represent. You are blaming the wrong people.

---

Urm - have you read this, mate?

Special interest groups do not count as advisors? Especially when they act on behalf of the people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Nevermind - I was going to post a moment of wisdom - but I fear it would be wasted. :rolleyes:

---

Wasted?!?!? I fear it would be MICROSCOPIC!! :wave:

Actually, I agree with both of you. Mostly, I feel pretty cynical whenever anybody says "The government is doing...." The government might act like a monolithic entity, but I don't believe really is one.

It drives me nuts when people say "the government" and "they did this" and "they do that". We are they!

To blame a non-existent they must make you feel completely free of responsibility for your actions!

The climate debate is just that - a debate. People who learn to debate properly use debate skills to make a point. The whole reason for a debate is for the other side to try to build up their position bigger than the other side.

No cold war? Go back to 1950's and re-think how it grew to what it was. Bay-of-pigs - nukes in the US backyard. You really can't appreciate how that real concern built into the crazy arms escalation? I'm not justifying the escalation - that's human beings - all of us - doing something absurd - which we always appear to do.

Terrorism, abduction - violence - what is your point? We should be building up our defense against all these issues - regardless of whether they trend up or down. They should completely evaporate!

Whether global warming is real or fake or used as a fear hammer to scare us is not relavent. The discussion - the debate - about whether it's our overuse or abuse of the ecology is relavent. I want the scientists to analyze the abusive nature of coal burning without proper smoke stack emission controls - I want that to be done so that we have a better tomorrow.

I remember when I lived in NYC in the 1970's - the city distributed little cards with different colors of gray along the edge. They wanted you to put the card up to your face and look at a smoke stack to judge it's pollution. This was part of an initative to clean up that act - and to educate the public.

It's been working - at least in the US. Places that had no fish 30 years ago are cleaner today. I'm certainly not saying that's everywhere - but work is always being done to fix past ignorance.

I also remember when I watched the twin-towers being built - what a incredible show of talent! For one group to decide that they should target that spot - and kill 3000 people in one instance makes whether the terrorism trend is going up or down a complete waste of breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Nevermind - I was going to post a moment of wisdom - but I fear it would be wasted. :rolleyes:

---

You don't have moments of wisdom yrwyddfa - just sputters of your own self-deemed logic.

I remember when you stated Americans got their wealth and power through luck, not through any amount of hard work on their own. The fact that Americans work more hours per week than any country and take less vacation should more than prove to you why the United States stands where it does today. I really recalled that statement when working this weekend to meet project deadlines.

In my opinion, you're nothing but a snivelling dope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

For one group to decide that they should target that spot - and kill 3000 people in one instance .

---

Just remember, thats 3 thousand after complete evacuation of the first tower, and then a recension of that evac, under the assumption that the continuing fire could burn out.

of course, I believe that was before the second strike.

But in any case, early morning, extremely less than full capacity,... it could easily have been 50,000 dead.

Esp if the planes tanks had been fuller, and that they had struck more simultaneously, and more around 10:30, 11ish am, instead of this 9ish that it actually had happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

You don't have moments of wisdom yrwyddfa - just sputters of your own self-deemed logic.

I remember when you stated Americans got their wealth and power through luck, not through any amount of hard work on their own. The fact that Americans work more hours per week than any country and take less vacation should more than prove to you why the United States stands where it does today. I really recalled that statement when working this weekend to meet project deadlines.

In my opinion, you're nothing but a snivelling dope.

---

[In paragraphs]
(i) You are, of course, entitled to your opinion

(ii) Do you not find it worrying that the US has a HUGE trade deficit and all those soooo long hours are there to pay it back? Why is it that the other nation's in the world can still compete with each other yet the Americans have to work longer hours and take less holiday in order to remain a competitive nation.

Why do you have to work longer hours anyway? Does it take you longer to get the job done. You're the sort of fellow who thinks more lines of code means better software.

(iii) That thought amuses me.

Finally - how much of your economy do you think is represented by geological wealth rather than service sector wealth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

The fact that Americans work more hours per week than any country and take less vacation should more than prove to you why the United States stands where it does today.

---

How many hours a week does the avergae american work?

http://humanresources.about.com/gi/d...f/opbils37.pdf

As you can see - despite ranting and ramblings - the American labour market has not significantly changed since the late 1980's.

I haven't confirmed this report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2223653.stm

Seems like Britain suffers the same affliction as America: 'more hours means better' employees too.

Perhaps it's a disease of the Western world . . .

I've always thought that competitiveness of an economy relies on innovation and creativity of those participating in it. After all, that's how we got to the current standards in the first place, not because we worked 60 hours a week on a pittance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

I've always thought that competitiveness of an economy relies on innovation and creativity of those participating in it. After all, that's how we got to the current standards in the first place, not because we worked 60 hours a week on a pittance.

---

I think that you are 100% right. I think that innovation, and creativity is the signature of the human condition - without out it we'd still be Cro-Magnon man hunting buffalo in Lascaux . . .

Innovation, like evolution, comes in fits and starts (Cambrian explosion?) and when it happens at an intellectual level the human race undergoes a somewhat paradigm shift. On this basis our grandchildren will enevitably look back at us and laugh at our so called 'wisdoms' and 'truths' Heisenburgs uncertainty and all that . . .

I think the likely result of a capitalist, and corporate society is having long working weeks. Even the founding fathers refused to give American corporations any mention (or rights) under the initial constitution. It was only after the American Civil war that the 'corporation' was identified and given legal rights (as an aside this is because of the appalling treatment British companies applied to all of their workers in America - the founding fathers did not want to replicate the highly conservative and capitalist society of the British)

As soon as corporations appeared, though, he workers eventually became no more important than slaves; slaves to the taxman, slaves to the employer, but most of all slave to a culture that says 'if you don't do this; then you won't be employed' The illusion, of course, is workers rights. I agree that workers should have right - but no govt will ever implement them fairly.

It's a very sad state of affairs.

But, I ask you, what is the alternative to this jungle of consumerism and capitalism today?

It's an excellent question and I have no answer.

As sad as it is I think we should, as the human race, try to work towards a sort of Gene Roddenberry Star-Trek culture - where a human being works to improve himself morally, and intellectually, not make himself/company/country more affluent.

I don't think it's going to happen - at least not in the next 4 billion generations because it just isn't the way we're made. That's why communism is great on paper, but fails miserably in practice: the guy next door will always want what you've got, or more than what he's got. This creates friction, and finally conflict and mistrust.

I think the invention of cheap and affordable replicators are the first step . . . .

I think that there is such a thing as an optimal and maximal group size. Humans are beyond any doubt social group animals but the thing is (which we observe in large herds as well) that there's a maximum amount of participants before the agreed rules within the group water down and affinity for members declines for all but immediate family and friends.

For humans that max size I believe is around 100 humans. Anything more than that we are just not capable of mustering enough interest. It's perfectly illustrated by the fact that most, if not all humans, have a core group of around 8-10 persons and anyone outside that core group will never be as interesting.

Beyond the max societal groups tend to be ungovernable, large parts break off and become unaccountable and too few people wield too much power altogether.

Chimps for example thrive well within groups of 20-50 members, anything beyond that results in no less than 'tribal wars'. The higher the species' intellect, cognitive capacity and self-awareness is, the more reliant it is on the subtle nuances to thrive within a group. The bigger the group the bigger the chance you will find something that doesn't suit you.

3 humans can cooperate well, 30 humans cooperate with a lot more difficulty, 3000 humans not at all without blanket stringent rules, 30.000 is nigh on impossible without parts breaking off and not knowing what everyone else does.

Humans in primitive tribes live on the whole a better life than us here in the big anonymous city. We aren't made to live in a tribe of millions. Whatever else they try to convince you of, we aren't. Not by a long shot.

The human zoo!

Yeah but you can't deny that 95% of our world's problems comes from human overpopulation.

Maybe -and this sounds brutal, harsh and heartless- we'll need another world war. Thinning out the herd and all that.

I don't deny it - I rather agree that over-population is a very serious problem.

Isn't the world big enough that we can spread out a little? I don't think so - as there a billion people to fill the cities for the higher paid earnings that can be had there.

I once believed that teleworking will become a reality. It has to a certain extent but only after sitting in the office for over 8 hours a day five days a week; you end up carrying on working at home due to the marvels of a broadband connection and a laptop.

I see that there is NO reason that a developer has to be in the office more than 20 hours a week. I do not spend even 20 hours a week talking to my colleagues - well not about work related stuff, anyway. Let's face it programming per se is not particularly exciting is it? Isn't it what you do with the tools that make it fun? Anyway if a conversation is worth having and it's important in a business sense it always flies around by email so people can look after their own @rses.

I would quite happily commute large distances (Scotand=>London) for those two days - 1 night in a B&B and £60 return flight so that I can bring my family up in the country where there's clean air, and that old fashioned creature that is hard to find these days -a community.

I currently live 30 miles SE of London and I work about 8 miles SE of London. It takes nearly an HOUR to drive the 22 miles along major roads that are always packed. If I go by train I have to change train THREE times for the less than 20 mile straight line journey it should be. There are no bus services servicing this route either.

I'm thinkin' 'bout farming bovines.

(rant over)

Space is our only option. Leave earth to its own devices and seek to build our lot between the stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

http://humanresources.about.com/gi/d...f/opbils37.pdf

As you can see - despite ranting and ramblings - the American labour market has not significantly changed since the late 1980's.

I haven't confirmed this report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2223653.stm

Seems like Britain suffers the same affliction as America: 'more hours means better' employees too.

Perhaps it's a disease of the Western world . . .

---

I would rather not comment on a statistical report that was concluded before major downsizing of the 2000's. I linked to a recent UK article on the subject:
http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=38

You stated - 'As a generalisation, American's do not care how they are viewed or judged by the world. They are a very powerful nation; they begot such power through a mixture of luck, and geographic wealth - not through the efforts of it's governments nor it's people.'

http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=25

That's a rather damning generalization - and if you think you're going to win intellectual attention with such a statement, you may find yourself berated instead. The manner of which you concluded such reasoning escapes me. Japan has little geographic wealth - yet outperforms most European countries. That logic is grossly ill-conceived.

As far as our competitive level dependent on working more hours - using that logic would then also apply to the UK. Also, I'm not worried about a trade defecit - we've had them on and off for decades - the recent deficits more to do so with China than any nation.

Lastly, I'm not going to discuss programming ideology with a person who thinks object-oriented design is bad programming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

I would rather not comment on a statistical report that was concluded before major downsizing of the 2000's. I linked to a recent UK article on the subject:
http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=38

You stated - 'As a generalisation, American's do not care how they are viewed or judged by the world. They are a very powerful nation; they begot such power through a mixture of luck, and geographic wealth - not through the efforts of it's governments nor it's people.'

http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=25

That's a rather damning generalization - and if you think you're going to win intellectual attention with such a statement, you may find yourself berated instead. The manner of which you concluded such reasoning escapes me. Japan has little geographic wealth - yet outperforms most European countries. That logic is grossly ill-conceived.

As far as our competitive level dependent on working more hours - using that logic would then also apply to the UK. Also, I'm not worried about a trade defecit - we've had them on and off for decades - the recent deficits more to do so with China than any nation.

Lastly, I'm not going to discuss programming ideology with a person who thinks object-oriented design is bad programming.

---

(i) It was a generalisation; it was not meant to cause offense.

To expand the idea: America was populated by many cultures (European and otherwise) because of it's inherent geographic wealth: Not because they thought Native Indians were cute, not because they thought the swamps of Florida were a nice place to live. They colonised for land, oil, spices, and other natural resources that America has (had?) in abundance. Regardless of the wars - civil, and otherwise - that have occured since: America was fought over because it was inherently a geographic powerhouse for wealth. It was not fought over because people invisaged some great democratic nation years hundred of years down the line

So it is my opinion that America was 'fortunate' to have such a rich, wealthy, start to it's nation's life. Americans have since adopted democracy and the most important of all is the dissemination of knowledge: which both America, Japan and other's share. In the modern era, I believe, it is the culture of knowledge dissemination that produces wealth.

Regardless, you cannot disagree that the vast geographic wealth that is America was not key to the early foundations of the country and more so than probably any other nation in the world. I don't think that it's fair to dismiss out of hand the fact that America is geographically extremely wealthy and that that fact was tantamount to the creation of the nation.

Do I think that you personally have contributed to America being an extremely sucessful nation? In some small part, of course you have! But I think that the foundations of success were laid by your forefathers. America, today, has inherited the wealth - it has not created it. America's current huge trade deficit and deprecation of the dollar might be indications of the current generation's of American's ability to manage such huge wealth. Yes, you have a trade deficits on and off for years: but none this bad and it worries the rest of the world that the world currency is currently USD which is performing terribly.

China may be the cause and I think it's interesting that now that we see another superpower emerging with vast geographic wealth America's economy suffers - I'm sure that it will recover, though . . .

(ii) I did mention that the UK was guilty of the same 'disease' as the Americans . . . . I simply mention it as a reposte to your urm 'argument'

(ii) I don't want to talk to you about programming ideology, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

To expand the idea: America was populated by many cultures (European and otherwise) because of it's inherent geographic wealth: Not because they thought Native Indians were cute, not because they thought the swamps of Florida were a nice place to live. They colonised for land, oil, spices, and other natural resources that America has (had?) in abundance. Regardless of the wars - civil, and otherwise - that have occured since: America was fought over because it was inherently a geographic powerhouse for wealth. It was not fought over because people invisaged some great democratic nation years hundred of years down the line

---

Wrong - simply not true.

We are talking the 1600's - right? ...oil? no. spice? none.

People came here were all of a certain type - wanting to leave the oppresion of monarchy's and build personal dreams.

Just because some used the shipping trade routes to "cash in" on the people who came to settle this nearly empty continent was more European arrogance.

Henry Ford - developed a car - invented assembly line production...

Edison - invented a lightbulb - that surely didn't come from oil, spice or abundant land.

You see you are missing the point that the people in the US are innovators because of the reasons they came here. My grandfather came from Italy in 1900 with no cash - within a few years had a shoe shop in NYC - that's innovation - maybe not at the level of Henry Ford, but still innovation.

Creating something from nothing is what the US is all about.

There is no such thing as Americans - we are the people of the world who decided to come to a place where opportunity allows you do build dreams.

Have a read of this. It's an English paper submission. I'll have to wait until I get home to produce proper published quotes as that's where my books are . . .

It concludes that 'From the first thoughts of leaving England through the American Revolution, economic motivations were the driving factor that affected the decisions of the colonists.'

http://students.northern.edu/eng-clu...e_america.html