Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Here's an attempt to get more on the thread topic. Why is it that Americans seem less bothered than others by the fact that our government does stuff behind our back, not in our interest, but in the interest of some corporation.

Here's an answer to your attempt.
While Japher raises much crap by waving his flag (proclaiming that non-exclusively money driven coutries are impoverished, which completely goes against the examples of Swiss or Canada for example), I think he does has a point : the US view money very differently than other countries. In the American culture (at least, chat I know of it), money and wealth are an explicit way to measure the value of people. The expression "X is worth 5 millions $" is very American.

In France and Germany (the culture I know and the culture I somehow know), there is a completely different relationship to individual wealth. It is somehow a taboo, and the rich tend not to show it too much. One can even be shameful to confess his wealth, or to tell someone is wealthy.

Same thing goes for companies : wealthy companie here *must* have something bad to hide (and actually they do ). I think that Americans are more prone to trust corporations than non-Americans. But I may be wrong, as I said, my knowledge of American mentality is very limited.

[TCO]

Huh? The Swiss are not money-centric? Have you ever been there?


One reason why there is a little more freedom about showing wealth in the US is that we have more neveau riche here. As opposed to Europe which is much more old money. And even has some traces of class structure in people's interactions and in the mood.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That is exactly my point. How hard is it for a corporation to paint a nationalising government as communist at the height of the red scare? Not hard, not hard at all.

Will it be harder for the US government now? I think it might be. They used to do things like that before the Cold War, (i.e. the USS Maine), but that was a different time.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Here's an answer to your attempt.
While Japher raises much crap by waving his flag (proclaiming that non-exclusively money driven coutries are impoverished, which completely goes against the examples of Swiss or Canada for example), I think he does has a point : the US view money very differently than other countries. In the American culture (at least, chat I know of it), money and wealth are an explicit way to measure the value of people. The expression "X is worth 5 millions $" is very American.

In France and Germany (the culture I know and the culture I somehow know), there is a completely different relationship to individual wealth. It is somehow a taboo, and the rich tend not to show it too much. One can even be shameful to confess his wealth, or to tell someone is wealthy.

Same thing goes for companies : wealthy companie here *must* have something bad to hide (and actually they do ). I think that Americans are more prone to trust corporations than non-Americans. But I may be wrong, as I said, my knowledge of American mentality is very limited.

I don't think it is so limited. No matter what status Americans hold they all seem to think they will soon be Bill Gates. They don't trust corporations. It's just that they want to run them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Here's an answer to your attempt.
While Japher raises much crap by waving his flag (proclaiming that non-exclusively money driven coutries are impoverished, which completely goes against the examples of Swiss or Canada for example), I think he does has a point : the US view money very differently than other countries. In the American culture (at least, chat I know of it), money and wealth are an explicit way to measure the value of people. The expression "X is worth 5 millions $" is very American.

In France and Germany (the culture I know and the culture I somehow know), there is a completely different relationship to individual wealth. It is somehow a taboo, and the rich tend not to show it too much. One can even be shameful to confess his wealth, or to tell someone is wealthy.

Same thing goes for companies : wealthy companie here *must* have something bad to hide (and actually they do ). I think that Americans are more prone to trust corporations than non-Americans. But I may be wrong, as I said, my knowledge of American mentality is very limited.

Just reading this I can tell that your reticence has a lot to do with your revolution and the guillotine.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I don't think it is so limited. No matter what status Americans hold they all seem to think they will soon be Bill Gates. They don't trust corporations. It's just that they want to run them.

Not only that, but every kid knows that he can be president of the United States.

The ability to become rich, the ability to be president, no matter your background has a lot to do with muting class envy.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned


Not only that, but every kid knows that he can be president of the United States.

The ability to become rich, the ability to be president, no matter your background has a lot to do with muting class envy.

I didn't say they really could become the president or the CEO of microsoft. I believe there has only been one president that didn't come from a wealthy family, Jackson.

Americans have dillusions about these things. They live vicariosly through their leaders. That makes them less critical of them. There isn't nearly as much social mobility as Americans think there is, especially since Reagan became president.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe there has only been one president that didn't come from a wealthy family, Jackson.

You have an interesting view of wealthy!

Off the top of my head: 20th Century Presidents that were from the middle class:

Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton.

There isn't nearly as much social mobility as Americans think there is, especially since Reagan became president.

I'd argue EXACTLY the opposite. There has been much more social mobility since the Reagan years. Lifting restirctions from small business have allowed wonderful enterprises to be started in the last 20 years. People moving from middle class to rich all the time since then. The people in the top marginal tax rate has expanded much greater than it ever has had in the past. There has to be social mobility for that.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I believe there has only been one president that didn't come from a wealthy family, Jackson.

You have an interesting view of wealthy!

Off the top of my head: 20th Century Presidents that were from the middle class:

Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton.

All of these presidents came from families with wealth. They were at least upper middle class. Although Nixon liked people to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

There isn't nearly as much social mobility as Americans think there is, especially since Reagan became president.

I'd argue EXACTLY the opposite. There has been much more social mobility since the Reagan years. Lifting restirctions from small business have allowed wonderful enterprises to be started in the last 20 years. People moving from middle class to rich all the time since then. The people in the top marginal tax rate has expanded much greater than it ever has had in the past. There has to be social mobility for that.

There has been some mobility. Mostly those already moderately wealthy becoming more wealthy. A lot of people went down too. That isn't the kind of social mobility that we are talking about here. The social mobility that you are talking about is rich people getting richer.

[spartak]

Cool- obly another 10 posts or so and this threrad is toast. I better Horsie never expected his troll to be as successful..

[Imran Siddiqui]

All of these presidents came from families with wealth.

BULLSHIT!

Truman came from a fairly poor family. Eisenhower was upper middle class (that isn't rich), Nixon was from a dirt poor family, Ford was middle class, Carter was upper middle class, Reagan was middle class, Clinton was from a dirt poor family.

Wanna try again?

There has been some mobility. Mostly those already moderately wealthy becoming more wealthy. A lot of people went down too. That isn't the kind of social mobility that we are talking about here.

Social mobility that I'm talking about is the middle class becoming richer and the poor coming into the middle class. Since the 1980s, the higher and middle tax brackets have seen more and more people entering into them. The lower tax brackets have been losing people. A lot of people did not go down, but went up. That's pretty good social mobilty for me.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

All of these presidents came from families with wealth.

BULLSHIT!

Truman came from a fairly poor family. Eisenhower was upper middle class (that isn't rich), Nixon was from a dirt poor family, Ford was middle class, Carter was upper middle class, Reagan was middle class, Clinton was from a dirt poor family.

Wanna try again?

Quote:

There has been some mobility. Mostly those already moderately wealthy becoming more wealthy. A lot of people went down too. That isn't the kind of social mobility that we are talking about here.

Social mobility that I'm talking about is the middle class becoming richer and the poor coming into the middle class. Since the 1980s, the higher and middle tax brackets have seen more and more people entering into them. The lower tax brackets have been losing people. A lot of people did not go down, but went up. That's pretty good social mobilty for me.

Now this is what I call delusional

[Drake Tungsten]

You're wrong, Duncan, about both the "wealthy" presidents and the lack of social mobility.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Now this is what I call delusional

What color is the sky in your fantasy world?

[Thud]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Let's look at a few issues:

Gun control - The US is the only Western country that doesn't have it.

The death penalty - only the United States executes criminals.

Crime and punishment - The US has a prison population about 10 times larger than the Western average.

Support for Israel - only the United States is 100% behind Israel.

War on Iraq - only Americans claim this is somehow anything but a cynical exercise in power and oil politics.

War on Terrorism - does anyone else believe in it outside the US? Note the difference in the muted Australian reaction to Bali and the hysterical US reaction to 9/11. The European reaction to the frequent terrorist incidents there.

Guantanamo Bay - The US is the only Western country that thinks its okay to hold prisoners without legal process.

Social Welfare - The US, although the richest country in the world, is the only Western country without a social safety net. In some ways the US is more like a Third world country for many of its poorer citizens and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

Healthcare - The US is the only Western country that doesn't offer a universal health care scheme to its citizens.

Abortion - the only country where the right to an abortion is under serious threat.

War on drugs - the only Western country which thinks prohibition is the answer.

I mean, don't you find these differences striking? And I've listed just a few.

As an American, I am anti-American, if these are the differences.

Though I disagree with a few:
War On Iraq: Most Americans oppose war with Iraq.
War on Terrorism: Come again? Thousands died, remember? Two of our greatest nationalist (see, I admit it) symbols were destroyed. Bali pales in comparison. Largest terrorist attack on the UK too.

Otherwise, a good portion of Americans, arguably a majority, are aligned with Europe on many of these issues. (My exception is abortion: I don't believe there is a right to abortion to be taken away, I beleive it is a right to a type of murder being taken)

I would add one more to the list: The enviornment :disgust:. Our government is absolutly ignorant of the enviornment.

(4) We play soccer. American football is boring.

Actually, I agree completely.

The American way is explicitly rejected by most Western countries. Why?

Call me odd, (don't worry, my friends do), but I prefer the British way of speech.

[Ted Striker]

The American way is explicitly rejected by most Western countries. Why?

More like explicitly in denial.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Thud
Call me odd, (don't worry, my friends do), but I prefer the British way of speech.

You are odd.

A Louisiana or Tennessee accent beats them all hands down.

[Ted Striker]

Pretty good troll by the way AH.

6/10

Trojan horse grenade but pretty obvious when there is a big lump in the birthday cake:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame65.html

[DanS]

"War On Iraq: Most Americans oppose war with Iraq."

A full 76% of Americans support military action against Iraq if Saddam is hiding WOMD (which we know he is).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
"War On Iraq: Most Americans oppose war with Iraq."

A full 76% of Americans support military action against Iraq if Saddam is hiding WOMD (which we know he is).

Care to share the details with the UN?

Or have the weapons been found and no-one told me?

[Dauphin]

A piece on US war protests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2672809.stm


I found this bit amusing:

The demonstrators, braving a freezing chill despite brilliant sunshine, plan to march on the Washington naval yard and demand the right to inspect US weapons of mass destruction

[Viking Berserk]

What is it that makes them so unlike the rest of us?

*Well, 25% of Americans are fat *

Seriously. It's because they are hysterically christian.

The demonstrators, braving a freezing chill despite brilliant sunshine, plan to march on the Washington naval yard and demand the right to inspect US weapons of mass destruction.

I think the UN should send inspectors to USA. Maybe if that happened, Iraq could be more willing to let them search for it in Iraq.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

What color is the sky in your fantasy world?

I'm very much a realist. The sky in your fantasy world is very blue though, I'm sure.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose that we were to take an American, between age 30 and 50, at random. What do you think the chances are that that American would have jumped the social ladder. Leave out that their income is a little higher from job promotion or savings. Of course people are going to increase their income as they approach retirement. I can honestly say that I would be willing to give you 10 to 1 odds that they have either remained in the same socio-economic class or gone a step or two down. Now that is realism for you.

Yes, there is slightly more social mobility in America than in other countries. Americans do take more risks. What goes along with that is the fact that most of the Americans that take risks lose.

My point is social mobility would not be significant even if it were twice what it was in this country. What is significant is that most Americans are delusional about social mobility and they may be more inclined to accept the faults of their leaders because of their delusions.

[Thud]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Here's an attempt to get more on the thread topic. Why is it that Americans seem less bothered than others by the fact that our government does stuff behind our back, not in our interest, but in the interest of some corporation.

Because many corporations have a good image in our view. Disney, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, all have friendly, do-no-harm images, and these are some of the largest corporations in America. Even AT&T or Bell have a certain historical and nationalist appeal. Nameless "Telekom" companies that could very well be from Sweden do not, they are a collection of suits, and only judged as such.

A full 76% of Americans support military action against Iraq if Saddam is hiding WOMD (which we know he is).

I'm sure that this many Europeans would support war if we had a 'smoking gun' on this one.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Thud


Because many corporations have a good image in our view. Disney, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, all have friendly, do-no-harm images, and these are some of the largest corporations in America. Even AT&T or Bell have a certain historical and nationalist appeal. Nameless "Telekom" companies that could very well be from Sweden do not, they are a collection of suits, and only judged as such.

Read a few posts before this one. Get meaning from the context.

[raghar]

This thread is rather long what about start new one?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk


*Well, 25% of Americans are fat *

Actually, 66 are either fat or obese

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Not only that, but every kid knows that he can be president of the United States.

... the ability to be president, no matter your background has a lot to do with muting class envy.

Unless, of course, that kid is female (granted you did say he), a member of a visible minority, Jewish or any other non-Christian, particularly ugly or a whole host of other reasons.

[Drake Tungsten]

Unless, of course, that kid is female (granted you did say he), a member of a visible minority, Jewish or any other non-Christian

Why is any of this a barrier? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that there is no chance for it. I think we'll see a female president in the not so distant future, for example, and Colin Powell could win if he would run.

I agree with you on the ugly thing, however...

[Sava]

Hey, this thread has 500+!!!