"America is the richest nation in the world" and "America is the

[Skidmore]

greatest nation in the world."

Sorry, folks, but I just don't see it that way any more. I hear the politicians punctuate their speeches with these saws, but they ring hollow.

I hear the first claim and the only thing that comes to mind is a national debt so large that generations will have to work to pay it off, probably if nothing were added to it from this point on.

As for the second claim, I hear about how badly our military is compromised and how shabby our infrastructure has become and how compromised our social and civil structures have become, and I just can't buy it.

[stepnw1f]

1. Greediest Nation in the World

Stupidest too. At least when it comes to leadership.

[BlueManDude]

2. how about - "best health care system in the world"

hear that all the time.

what we have are the best doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicines and technology - but that is not a "system". all the above mentioned stuff doesn't mean squat if the citizens don't have access to it.

[MsConduct]

3. Makes you wonder who they're trying to convince, us or

themselves. They need to open up a new can of rhetoric, this one has been rotten for a long time.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I agree with you

I think those statements have never really been true. We were in a favorable position after WWII-we were the only major industrialized nation that hadn't been devistated by war. But even in that "great" era, we were a racist nation and one that propped up dictatorships and encouraged other countries to buy our weapons systems. We had our flashes of idealism-the Marshall Plan, Head Start, etc-but I have never felt that our nation was head and shoulders above others-we just had a lot of luck. And now our luck has run out.

[shadowknows69]

6. and 44th in free press

So the other two statements are immediately suspect.

[arachide]

5. Not from where I'm sitting in Europe...

more like the greediest, the most unequal, the most violent. We moved to Ireland to get to a country where our taxes paid for health care and not death.

[sweetheart]

7. "bush is the leader of the free world"

That one makes me blow chunks and laugh.

Richest nation depends on how many people you accept in dreadful
poverty whilst averaged with a rich lounging in opulent gardens.

The rhetoric is indeed starting to clang like tin.

[Vogon_Glory]

14. The People Pushing Bush As The Leader Of The Free World Are Also

The right-wing propagandists and toadies pushing the line that Buckaroo Bush is the leader of the Free World are also the same bozos who are pushing for a new cold war not only with China, but also the social democracies of Europe.

"Leader of the Free World"? What a crock of right-wing BULL!

[orwell]

8. The United States...

...is the richest nation in the world. But at its present rate of growth vis a vis countries like India and China, that could change within the next 25 years. This is keeping in mind the total level of internal debt, which is running close to 80% of GDP.

It is far from the greatest nation in the world if you measure by statistics like poverty level, infant mortality, life expectancy and quality of life.

[arachide]

13. if you define rich as strictly a monetary/personal posession question,

but I think a lot of people in the world are looking for a quality of life that doesn't hinge on buying, throwing away, buying more and always consuming. To me, I think living in a place where everybody has access to at least minimal health care is a much "richer" life than living someplace where lots of people drive SUV's. Maybe we need to re-define their rhetoric away from terms like rich?

[orwell]

20. That is...

...how I believe those who spew this "richest nation" statement define it so I am simply commenting on that. If you read the rest of my post you will see that I mention that I do not see this as translating to a great "quality of life."

I personally believe in the notion of hedonics, or economics as defined by more than money. This is a relatively new area of academic interest which offers great promise in recognizing that "money does not buy happiness."

I couldn't agree more with your last statement.

[Skidmore]

15. To me that says we are only a nation in severe debt.

Wealth exists when there is an excess of revenue. When you owe every red cent you will make from here to eternity then you are poor. No amount of accounting voodoo can change that basic fact. The only true wealth this nation has is its land, and we are destroying that as well now.

[orwell]

21. Wealth

I would define material wealth as the store of excess labor. But wealth in a larger context could mean that which is materially or spiritually beneficial to one's existence.

We don't owe every red cent. We owe about 80% of yearly GDP. Think of it this way. If you made 20K a year and owed 16K in debt that required service, you could probably still get a bank loan as long as you had the assets (collateral) to back it up. Such a loan might be a new car loan or home loan as the bank would be able to hold the title to the asset against the loan amount.

If however you were borrowing to go on a vacation, without the collateral, a bank would probably refuse, as the loan would be for an expenditure that did not represent an asset (My boozing and dancing in Barbados would not impress a loan officer.)

The US has more than enough assets to collateralize its loans. This is due to the tremendous raw material assets, land, buildings, intellectual capital, and world class infrastructure among other things. That is why there are so many offsetting capital flows into the US to finance our current account deficit.

Also, as a perverse reality, we harbor the world's largest store of WMD's, which some would argue represents the "ultimate collateral".

Are we "living beyond our means". Absolutely. The current account deficit screams this. Can we get away with it indefinitely. Well, here the question becomes more sticky. I would posit no. Eventually, the twin deficits, along with a growing lack of labor competitiveness, political blundering, weakening currency, diminishing intellectual capital, and other self inflicted wounds will eventually take their toll. It will all show up in the dollar.

My personal cosmology defines wealth as both spiritual and material. I realize this is somewhat radical. But that being said, I see the rate of wealth creation in both spheres to be decidedly slowing. I suspect it is only a matter of time before it becomes apparent to even the most narrow minded of observers.

And thus is the way of all empires.

[Skidmore]

22. I don't see how manipulating "wealth" in the way you

describe it is operating from a position of strength. If I have all my wealth is spoken for, and I am emotionally and spiritually drained because I'm totally tapped out, how does that allow me to do anything but focus on ways to resolve the situation? Yes, we can take the household weapon and go rob a bank, but what does that accomplish. Also, how does giving up as collateral my real property make me stronger and safer? It puts me in a position in which become subservient to the agenda of those who own my debt.

[orwell]

23. Counterpoint

"I don't see how manipulating "wealth" in the way you describe it is operating from a position of strength."

I don't accept your characterization of what I said. There is no "manipulation" implied or stated in my response. I am simply defining the term from my perspective so that we can have a discussion.

"If I have all my wealth is spoken for,"

This is an inaccurate analogy. The US does not have all its wealth spoken for, not by any stretch of the imagination.

"and I am emotionally and spiritually drained because I'm totally tapped out, how does that allow me to do anything but focus on ways to resolve the situation?"

This becomes an "apples and oranges" statement. By asserting a false premise, the conclusion becomes irrelevant.

"Yes, we can take the household weapon and go rob a bank, but what does that accomplish."

In practical terms, our ability to annihilate the rest of the world is not the same as robbing the bank. Bank robbery can be punished by society, who has imbued the state with the power to arrest and even execute. As we have proved in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can essentially operate with impunity when it comes to exerting our will through force. This is a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union as an effective countervailing global superpower. I am not saying this is desirable by any means as I am a confirmed street-marching pacifist. I am just stating it as a current reality. As far as what force accomplishes, precious little in the long run.

"Also, how does giving up as collateral my real property make me stronger and safer?"

Any loan can have benefit if it allows leveraging of current assets to undertake a productive endeavor. In other words, sometimes a productive enterprise can not be realized without additional external capital (for example building an invention or infrastructure project that returns many times the original investment in greater efficiencies. "The wheel" would be a classic example.) But a loan to finance my aforementioned Barbados Bacchanal would be an example of a more frivolous use of loaned capital that would most likely return a hangover rather than a direct economic benefit. In that example of "collateral risk", we would be in complete agreement.

BTW, I do not conflate "strength" with "safety". Safety can flow from many sources. I prefer love and compassion.

"It puts me in a position in which become subservient to the agenda of those who own my debt."

This is a growing risk the US is now facing, the loss of sovereignty due to the external ownership of the current account deficit. This is seen in the form of the vast Eurodollar and foreign central bank ownership of US assets in the form of currency and other financial assets. Most of us are guilty of "living beyond our means", defined by greater levels of consumption than our levels of production. There is another, far more serious aspect to these "unfunded liabilities" as well - the "laying off" of costs in the environmental sector. By our wasteful levels of energy consumption and high levels of environmental pollution, we are effectively avoiding (externalizing) some very real long term costs of our so-called economic prosperity.

That is why I favor a new form of economic study, based more on quality of life than simply measuring aggregate money flows.

Thanks for the response.

[Skidmore]

24. I'm not sure I agree with the following:

"The US does not have all its wealth spoken for, not by any stretch of the imagination."

In this consumer/ownership society, wealth and possession is defined and its transference and disposal is codified. I think huge portions of it are spoken for--even to the point that the airwaves and water in the aquafers are "owned". I don't believe that there is that much out there free to the masses to make those types of productive choices you refer to.

[orwell]

25. Gaia

Your original statement was:

"If I have all my wealth is spoken for..."

I was responding to that statement as if it were a metaphor supplanting the word "I" for the Untied States. If that was an incorrect assumption I apologize.

But this latest reply seems to indicate that I was correct in my original assumption, so I will respond as if I was.

Wealth is not codified as I understand it. It may be an established term in academia, especially in economics, but as I have tried to state, I don't accept that definition. Now I will agree that possession, transference and disposal (if I understand the term as you use it) has been codified into law as it is foundational to our economic system, whether I agree with such codification or not.

By your definition, huge portions of it are spoken for, as they must be in a capitalist system as we have defined it. In the larger sense, it matters not whether I agree with it, I am bound by such rules if I (freely) live in this society.

Where we differ is over the statements about what is "free to the masses." A significant portion of the nation's wealth is owned by the masses in the form of real estate and other capital assets. I think where the problem lies, and where you might be misstating an argument that I believe we essentially agree on, is not whether or not "the masses" can improve their lot through wealth acquisition (through savings and investment), but rather their ability to be fairly and equitably represented in the system because of their relative lack of political and social power. In other words, the reason control of wealth tends to concentrate in the elite's hands is because they write the rules.

But...it is within the power of the lower classes to change this disequilibrium in a democracy if they vote according to their own class interests as opposed to accept being manipulated into voting against their own class interests. I would even take this one step farther. I think the greatest good to the greatest number (which should be the starting point of any conversation regarding benevolent political structures) occurs when people think of the big picture rather than their own narrow interests.

For example, my wife and I have no children. Very early on in our tax paying lives I considered it an unnecessary burden to pay half of my state tax money to support other people's children's education. My wife and I made a conscious decision not to have children, why should I subsidize someone else's. I sounded like a standard RW talking point.

After a little thought, it didn't take me long to realize that I receive great benefit from public education, in the form of societal (intellectual capital) wealth creation. That young girl that I helped put through school may find a cure for cancer or become a great writer or teacher. The point is, we need to integrate our own narrow interests (survival instincts) with the broader realization that we are never alone is this enterprise. This is what I believe (hope) is slowly dawning on many across the planet as I write.

We are finally coming to grips with the integration of ourselves with the universe. In a way this is the second great consciousness raising of humankind. The first being the realization of self consciousness. (I think therefore I am.) That is why this is so gut wrenching and difficult. We will literally become a new species or we will perish as the "old ways" destroy us from within.

How does this apply to our little discussion. The whole nature of capital, ownership, wealth, and what it means to be part of this complex ecosystem is undergoing a fundamental transformational state. Einstein blew everything apart with E=MC2. In the end, Newton alone just couldn't describe the amazing changing miracle that is this universe.

The masses will eventually have to wake from their NYT/CNN/Faux News mind control slumber or they will continue to be utilized as little more than chattel by the elites. It is incumbent upon all of us to be responsible for not only our own well being, but also that of the society as a whole. We now know the universe is tightly integrated, not composed of separate parts. The sooner we all realize this fundamental fact, the better we all will be. But it will not come easy.

Thanks again

[Ready4Change]

9. If you are Rich in the USA, it's all true.

You are one of the richest individuals in the history of the world.

You can afford the best health care.

You can buy your way out of being found guilty of most crimes.

You are nearly free of taxes, due to various loopholes.

You own your government representatives.

What a country.

[samplegirl]

10. As Howard Dean stated

If 40 industrial nations can balance a budget
and provide health care....we need someone in
the Whitehouse who can chew gum and think at
the same time.

[samplegirl]

11. As Howard Dean stated

If 40 industrial nations can balance a budget
and provide health care....we need someone in
the Whitehouse who can chew gum and think at
the same time.

[Vogon_Glory]

12. The Myths About Our American Homeland

I am old enough to remember when the US did indeed have the world's highest standard of living (This was before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.) I am also discerning enough to know that these days that the US no longer has the highest per capita wealth and that a number of other countries do have average incomes and higher standards of living (At least for the remaining 80 per cent of the population as opposed to the upper 20 per cent).

It really pulls the right-wingers' chains when you do mention that the US no longer has the world's highest standard of living and that the average person in many other industrialized countries have higher earnings than their US counterparts.

By the way, isn't there an on-line source comparing average household incomes between the US and other industrialized countries? It's not only a point that needs to be made, but it's also worthwhile and fun to whack the right-wingers over the head with it, too.

[enigma000]

19. GDP (per capita)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

[MN ChimpH8R]

16. Why would it matter even if it were true?

I can think of a number of places that would be better for an average person to live in for general quality of life - New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Australia. None of those places are constantly bragging about themselves.

The only things the US is Number One in are arrogance, greed, ignorance, religious insanity, exploitation of the average person, military spending and income inequality. Not a pretty list.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. America is the richest nation in the world

but somebody needs to cut up her credit cards.

While the 'economy' has been improving for the last 4 years, the average income has declined, poverty has increased, the number of uninsured has increased, and national debt has skyrocketed. The income for the top tier of individuals and corporations has increased, overbalancing the declines in all other groups making for a false positive when everything is averaged out.

Living wage laws and guaranteed healthcare would increase the income of all the lower tiers and cut the uppermost tier, resulting in the same average, but it would be a true positive, not illusory. It would make for a few dozen fewer billionaires, but also a few million fewer homeless. That is a trade-off we should be able to live with.

[maxsolomon]

18. its the lie we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night

if you do 3 things:

1. halve the pentagon's budget
2. end the war on drugs
3. end the prison industrial complex

you can have national health care & no deficit. we'd still be spending more on defense than any other country.