• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The U.S.A.: A Third Would Country In the Making

Actually, we already have a third world political class, so we're more than half way there!

What are the things that make a country a third world country?



I'd agree with this, but I'd also point out that in addition to inequality there is also a total lack of social mobility in third world countries. In the U.S.A. we haven't entirely lost that yet. It's when people feel trapped in the lower classes that the rot really starts. People in the U.S.A. still aspire to make it, but that is starting to change. Young people, for example, are finding out that education doesn't do them much good. This is a dangerous development.

https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/usa-a-third-world-county-in-the-making-14064ea5c534


I might have to disagree on a couple of points, respectfully.

The RIGHT education does them very well.
Majoring in Medieval Literature will get you a burger flipping job or teaching.
majoring in Law, Engineering, or technical areas you will do just fine in.
Even those that do not go to college and pick the trades can still do very well.

The middle class in this country is still doing just fine.
You can go to any town and see middle class neighborhoods everywhere.
That means home ownership generally.

Thank you
 
Actually, we already have a third world political class, so we're more than half way there!

What are the things that make a country a third world country?



I'd agree with this, but I'd also point out that in addition to inequality there is also a total lack of social mobility in third world countries. In the U.S.A. we haven't entirely lost that yet. It's when people feel trapped in the lower classes that the rot really starts. People in the U.S.A. still aspire to make it, but that is starting to change. Young people, for example, are finding out that education doesn't do them much good. This is a dangerous development.

https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/usa-a-third-world-county-in-the-making-14064ea5c534

Sorry, but there is one HUGE flaw in that argument: We don't have "much poorer majority", "angry poor mob" or "Few have any regard for the laws."

What this article is talking about is Venezuela and like places. Places where the majority of the people don't have food. THAT is the "much poorer majority". In the US, it is a much smaller number who don't have food. In Venezuela, the "much poorer majority" HAS turned into an "angry poor mob"...trying to find food. Not so in the US.

And I'd like to see some numbers that justify saying that, in the US, "few have any regard for the laws".


Frankly, I see that article writer...and you...as engaging in ridiculous and totally unsupported hyperbole.

/thread
 
Actually, we already have a third world political class, so we're more than half way there!

What are the things that make a country a third world country?



I'd agree with this, but I'd also point out that in addition to inequality there is also a total lack of social mobility in third world countries. In the U.S.A. we haven't entirely lost that yet. It's when people feel trapped in the lower classes that the rot really starts. People in the U.S.A. still aspire to make it, but that is starting to change. Young people, for example, are finding out that education doesn't do them much good. This is a dangerous development.

https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/usa-a-third-world-county-in-the-making-14064ea5c534

Hmmm... That list describes every socialist country in the world. What could it mean... What could it mean... Must just be a coincidence.
 
How is new wealth distrusted? I don't understand.

If the poor are truly getting poorer, why is it they have cars, and big screen TVs?

New wealth is generated all the time and no it ALL doesn't go to the top. How do you explain that dollar in your pocket? There are millions of people that spend everyday. That wealth comes from somewhere and it certainly isn't being held by "the top."

That's the point, you don't understand. Let's look at how wealth distrubition has been since ww2 and the trends.

9-30-16pov-f1.png


As you can see, starting in 1980, the wealth distribution starting going mainly to the top, while the medium and lower 20% have been flat.
 
The destructive nature of weapons, by the very definition of the term, destroys "wealth". Just because you play games with the measuring stick of wealth (dollars) does not mean you are creating "wealth". Wealth is also measured in durable goods, energy for labor, etc.

Anything produced generates wealth. No matter how you want to look at it. See, you are choosing to look negatively at wealth as being scarce when in fact it is abundant as new wealth is generated on a daily basis.
 
Anything produced generates wealth. No matter how you want to look at it. See, you are choosing to look negatively at wealth as being scarce when in fact it is abundant as new wealth is generated on a daily basis.

It seems rather that my definition of "wealth" varies from your own.
 
'real wages' peaked in 1979; very few workers currently survive on one income

OUR government blows $$$$$ on war like it's the only game in town; oh, that's right ............. it is the only game in town

OUR government is making enemies around the globe & in our own backyard

our infrastructure is going to Hell

$20 TRILLION debt with an additional $235 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the foreseeable years

Federal Government that is a POS that gets pretty much nothing done


yeah; we're doing great :golf
 
'real wages' peaked in 1979; very few workers currently survive on one income

OUR government blows $$$$$ on war like it's the only game in town; oh, that's right ............. it is the only game in town

OUR government is making enemies around the globe & in our own backyard

our infrastructure is going to Hell

$20 TRILLION debt with an additional $235 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the foreseeable years

Federal Government that is a POS that gets pretty much nothing done


yeah; we're doing great :golf


I also must say that IMO our propensity to constantly go to war with those we don't like, blow the **** outta those we don't like, one day will come back to haunt US .............
 
That's the point, you don't understand. Let's look at how wealth distrubition has been since ww2 and the trends.

9-30-16pov-f1.png


As you can see, starting in 1980, the wealth distribution starting going mainly to the top, while the medium and lower 20% have been flat.

Ah, you meant distributed, not distrusted.

Yes, the top gets richer. So what? That doesn't mean money is scarce. That means the rich are better at wealth accumulation. Why do some middle class people grow wealthy? I was a poor kid growing up. I applied myself, worked hard, remained focused on my goals, and grew wealthier. How did that happen if the rich have ALL the money?
 
Ah, you meant distributed, not distrusted.

Yes, the top gets richer. So what? That doesn't mean money is scarce. That means the rich are better at wealth accumulation. Why do some middle class people grow wealthy? I was a poor kid growing up. I applied myself, worked hard, remained focused on my goals, and grew wealthier. How did that happen if the rich have ALL the money?

Over the past half century the "wealthy" have gotten wealthier through think tank legislation and a rerigging of the economic system to extract societal wealth and redistribute it to the top. You do understand that redistribution is not subtaction, yes?
 
Over the past half century the "wealthy" have gotten wealthier through think tank legislation and a rerigging of the economic system to extract societal wealth and redistribute it to the top. You do understand that redistribution is not subtaction, yes?

Of course.
 
Some people admire success, and I have yet to find anyone to turn down money.

Admire success all you want. But then don't complain about the 'wealth inequality'.

I have NOTHING against people who make money. God Bless them. But this BS that every economic decision and problem can be solved by 'cutting taxes' is nonsense. That's been shown to not work.

People can't whine and bitch about the 'elite' but then vote Republican, that makes no sense. The Republicans have been protecting and increasing the elite class in this country for decades.
 
Actually, we already have a third world political class, so we're more than half way there!

What are the things that make a country a third world country?



I'd agree with this, but I'd also point out that in addition to inequality there is also a total lack of social mobility in third world countries. In the U.S.A. we haven't entirely lost that yet. It's when people feel trapped in the lower classes that the rot really starts. People in the U.S.A. still aspire to make it, but that is starting to change. Young people, for example, are finding out that education doesn't do them much good. This is a dangerous development.

https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/usa-a-third-world-county-in-the-making-14064ea5c534

I browsed over the article, and I was surprised to find a picture of a closed down, boarded up Lena's grocery store in Milwaukee in the article. :lol:

The photo is true of that store. It stands boarded up now. I'm from Milwaukee and the North Side but not that particular neighborhood but I am very familiar with that area.

But I'm looking for the words to articulate this....

Okay, let me first start off by saying I found the article extremely over-simplistic. Not that we need to make things complicated because we don't. But there are times you can probably oversimplify a thing.

The case of the City of Milwaukee and Lena's grocery store is exactly that. But why?

Because Lena's is or was (I think they may still retain 1 store in Milwaukee but I'm not sure) a Black-American owned grocery store which is rare socio-economic phenomenon in the USA. And by grocery store I am not talking about what we term "corner stores" in Milwaukee, usually run by Arabs in the Black-American neighborhoods. Almost all grocery stores in the USA are owned by white American just as with banks, large manufacturing companies, industries that make earth moving machinery, major general contracting companies etc.

This has importance due to its relation to numbers of employees they can hire and scales of economy. Issues of power and real wealth.

Milwaukee actually had a Black-American owned bank in that same neighborhood as that Lena's photo. Right down the block actually. It was opened by a few local Black-American women in the city with experience in banking. But through over extending the bank's balance sheet in loans to the poor blacks in that area before and during the Housing Collapse period resulting from Wall Street (and other factors), the bank was forced to close. Fortunately, a Black-American owned bank from Chicago stepped in and established their Chicago bank in that exact location and building.

Black-America already hit the point white America is talking about the country "heading in." It hit that point decades ago. But Lena's is a more complicated story of success and failure. Particularly in the Black-American story. But Milwaukee and black Milwaukee are far and away a larger success, adaptive story (transition from industrial to service economy) than Detroit. The Milwaukee-Racine region still has a large industrial manufacturing sector relative to most nations on earth. Even in the USA it ranks in the top 10 or so if not in 2nd or 1st place. If memory serves me correct.

But back to Detroit. The largest black city in the USA. Several years ago that city had zero grocery stores in the city proper. Zero. The population bought groceries at corner stores. It had fewer snow trucks than Milwaukee (even with a larger population and larger geography). About the same number of public schools. And about the same number of police. And now whole areas of the city have been demolitioned and turned into mini-farmland.

Milwaukee city proper is stark contrast to Detroit proper in terms of grocery stores. There are many different (companies) grocery stores in Milwaukee. And we have two with bars in them selling beer on tap and wine. One of them with underground parking and the other with a 3 or 4 level parking complex and the grocery store has two floors with elevators, modern chandelier over the wide stair case, faux fire place by the bar with piano. This latter one is admittedly not officially the city proper but its suburb, but you cross the street literally and you are in Milwaukee city proper.

There is more I can say on this but that is just the grocery store issue.




The grocery store where you cross the street you are in Milwaukee, cross the street the opposite way you are in its well-to-do suburb of Shorewood.




The one that is in Milwaukee city proper, on the Lower East Side as well.

 
In addition:



Mexicans have their own in Milwaukee. No bar inside. These are just a few of the major grocery stores in Milwaukee. As I said, Detroit had none as of a several years ago (unless that has changed).

 
Ah, you meant distributed, not distrusted.

Yes, the top gets richer. So what? That doesn't mean money is scarce. That means the rich are better at wealth accumulation. Why do some middle class people grow wealthy? I was a poor kid growing up. I applied myself, worked hard, remained focused on my goals, and grew wealthier. How did that happen if the rich have ALL the money?

In fact, it does mean that money is scarcer for the middle class. And, the reason the 'rich are better at wealth accumulation' is the implementation of treating capital gains different that regular income. Notice, it started diverging in 1980, when capital gains got taxed at a lower rate than other income. The implantation of supply side economics much of the inequality we see today. Your not being very realistic... and thing the conditions when you are young and poor are the same for the poor today.
 
Back to post #1 and its article:



There are truths in the article. But again, some thing I feel are too oversimplified.

#1. I get the common use of the term "Third World." I use it at times myself. But the truth closer to reality is that the simple term blurs the greater reality. The term itself is outdated. It was a term created in the West during the Cold War which divided the world up into 3 simple categories:

First World: the democratic, capitalist countries of the world.

Second World: the communist and socialist countries of the world.

Third World: the rest of the countries on earth, many of which were run by right-wing dictatorships (such as Brazil was once upon a time).



#2. In those Third World nations it was true once upon a time that they had a tiny middle-class if at all and really no socio-economic mobility existed.

But the Soviet Union collapsed and dictatorships throughout Latin America fell and capitalist-democracy spread. The preferred terms today to reflect a newer reality are "developing countries" and "high-income countries," "middle-income countries," and "low-income countries."

Mexico, Chile, Brazil all fall under "middle-income countries," at least last I checked a year or more ago. Those countries have had growing middle-class. Currently, Brazil's economy has spun downward, its in an economic crises, so the middle-class is not growing at present.

The USA remains a high-income nation (this has more to do with inflation over decades and more than a century than to do with buying power per se) but it's gap between the rich and poor has shot up dramatically. In this way it reflects the trajectory of the so-called "Third World" countries of old.

The infrastructure--relative to developing countries--is still very good in the USA, although this has both been decaying and failing to move in forward thinking like a Vancouver, Canada or your Scandinavian countries. I only point this out because after WWII, having been impressed with the great infrastructure of Germany (particularly the roads and high ways), the US led the world in infrastructure. I would say that is no longer the case.
 
In fact, it does mean that money is scarcer for the middle class.

Like I said, if you believe money is scarce, then it will be. If you believe you have potential and the drive to success and abundance, money comes easily. Wealth is generated everyday. Get some.
 
Yep, seriously. The Republican answer for EVERYTHING the past 30 years is 'cut taxes on the rich', which is a big reason for the shrinking MC and wealth inequality. So how anyone can vote Republican, defend the cut taxes on the rich Republican agenda and then also support billionaire Republican Trump and his Admin's billionaires boys club is mind boggling.


Your victimhood and blame game can’t be backed up by facts. Lets keep in mind that the top 20% of those that pay federal Income tax (100,000+) equates to 85% of the total. In some reports its as high as 92%, In the lower tiers it’s actually a negative percentage.

I won’t pretend to be an expert or an economist but in real life there are glaring reasons why the middle class and lower tiers are struggling. Job growth over the last eight years was heavily tilted towards lower paying service industry jobs. One could easily argue that over regulation and an almost purposeful effort to halt any manufacturing growth and reinvestment was a very big factor, The (D) side owns that in my opinion.

Student loan debt, the cost of higher education is just ridiculous, These young adults come out of the university system as indebted slaves. Payments on that debt can be as much as a mortgage payment. This system, this liberal gravy train with the lion share going to the liberals that control it is shameful. And before you suggest free education for all, giving these people an open checkbook is such a ridiculously bad idea. If there was ever an industry that needs regulation, salary caps and strict overseeing it is the public university system, they should be at the top of the list before any CEO of a private company because (all) tax payers back the loans and grants. Personally, I’m totally in favor of a free ride for Associate degrees as long as the university/collage meets certain standards.
 
People can't whine and bitch about the 'elite' but then vote Republican, that makes no sense. The Republicans have been protecting and increasing the elite class in this country for decades.

Leftists have done their fair share of protecting and increasing the elite class as well. Perhaps more so. Don't kid yourself.
 
Unfortunately too many American tax dollars are used for things that generate absolutely no wealth... like the exorbitantly priced, destructive, and wasteful weapons of the American military industrial complex.






In todays volitive climate, one enhanced by the diplomatic mismanagement of the last administration how should we proceed? Should we continue to let our military not be battle ready? Only three of the Army’s 58 brigade combat teams are prepared to fight, 53% of all navel aircraft can’t even fly. These examples go thru all branches of the military.

I’m unsure of what bubble you live in but the world is a dangerous and unforgiving place. Its impossible for the US to start drinking the unicorn milk and be some kind of isolationist utopia filled with only kitten kisses for all.

Our strength and influence world wide does generate (wealth) that military is responsible for the freedom we all enjoy.
 
In todays volitive climate, one enhanced by the diplomatic mismanagement of the last administration how should we proceed? Should we continue to let our military not be battle ready? Only three of the Army’s 58 brigade combat teams are prepared to fight, 53% of all navel aircraft can’t even fly. These examples go thru all branches of the military.

I’m unsure of what bubble you live in but the world is a dangerous and unforgiving place. Its impossible for the US to start drinking the unicorn milk and be some kind of isolationist utopia filled with only kitten kisses for all.

Our strength and influence world wide does generate (wealth) that military is responsible for the freedom we all enjoy.

Our military adventurism has added massive debt to our accounts and has had very few positive effects in the regions where we have directed our efforts.
 
Back
Top Bottom