Tennessee John wrote:

Dr. Kwaltz wrote:

Corneel wrote:I have said this before on the other site, but I feel that using the term "Third World" in conjunction with the US is at best hysterical hyperbole at worst callous disregard for the problems of real Third World countries, in comparison with which what the US faces is merely some discomfort.

That is not to say that the US doesn't face some real problems, and that it won't be difficult for those that are caught up in this, but I'd still prefer by far to be a US factory worker that just got fired and lost his health insurance than an average Chadian villager with a 50% chance of access to safe drinking water and extremely limited access to health care.

IOW: "Third World" is to the US as "communist" is to Barack Obama.

USA is not a full fledged third world country, saying so would be dishonest, but USA is socially still as close to a third world country you can be without actually being one and it's getting worse every year.

Well, what's a good definition of a third world country? How about one that doesn't have drinking water that is safe for it's citizenry?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html

Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering

Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va.

In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater — polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals — caused painful rashes. Many of his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.

Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.

“How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?” said Mrs. Hall-Massey, a senior accountant at one of the state’s largest banks.

She and her husband, Charles, do not live in some remote corner of Appalachia. Charleston, the state capital, is less than 17 miles from her home.

“How is this still happening today?” she asked.

CONTINUED

Corneel wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
It depends on which indice one uses to reach the conclusion.

Third world countries have always been characterized as one's that have no middle class and in which small minorities control the great majority of the wealth and massive majorities live in abject poverty as they fight over the slim pickings that are left.

Well, that's exactly what's happening in America, fewer and fewer people are controlling more and more of the wealth, and more and more people are being left to fight over the slim pickings that are left, pushing them out of a fast disappearing middle class and into the ranks of the poor.

Two per cent of Americans now control more than half the wealth, a trend that is continuing apace.

These are the facts from which the idea that America is fast becoming a third world country originates.

Massive majorities in abject poverty? In the US? Oh, please, how many Americans have to walk for a mile to get to some source of safe drinking water and have to wait in line?

More than you'd think.

How many of them don't have any access to safe drinking water?

About 19.5 million. See NYT article, above.

How many of them do take their shower with a bucket?

I think the figure of people without indoor plumbing is now about 1 and a half million.

How many of them have no elictricity at all year through and have to have their children study by the light of an oil lamp (if they can afford it)?

Not a clue.

How many of them have to send out their children to collect dead wood for cooking?

Probably few.

How many of them have to get by at 2$ a day or less?

That's a bullshit question, and I think you know that.

How many American families don't own a vehicle? Or a TV?

Few.

Even if 98% of Americans control only 50% of US wealth, that's still on average a great fucking lot more than the average inhabitant of a Third World country can hope to control in his life. 50% percent of American wealth is by no measure "slim pickings".

It is if it's distributed between 300 million people.

I don't claim America is a Third World country (and upon reflection, neither does Huffington, her claim is that if we don't stop the slide now, we'll get there).

NineOneFour wrote:

Corneel wrote:I have said this before on the other site, but I feel that using the term "Third World" in conjunction with the US is at best hysterical hyperbole at worst callous disregard for the problems of real Third World countries, in comparison with which what the US faces is merely some discomfort.

That is not to say that the US doesn't face some real problems, and that it won't be difficult for those that are caught up in this, but I'd still prefer by far to be a US factory worker that just got fired and lost his health insurance than an average Chadian villager with a 50% chance of access to safe drinking water and extremely limited access to health care.

IOW: "Third World" is to the US as "communist" is to Barack Obama.

Okay, you have a point here. If I could, I would re-title the thread "Evidence of the decline of America". Would that make everyone happy?

It would make me happy (the change of the title, not the decline of America). Sorry, I feel quite strongly about that.

Corneel wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Corneel wrote:I have said this before on the other site, but I feel that using the term "Third World" in conjunction with the US is at best hysterical hyperbole at worst callous disregard for the problems of real Third World countries, in comparison with which what the US faces is merely some discomfort.

That is not to say that the US doesn't face some real problems, and that it won't be difficult for those that are caught up in this, but I'd still prefer by far to be a US factory worker that just got fired and lost his health insurance than an average Chadian villager with a 50% chance of access to safe drinking water and extremely limited access to health care.

IOW: "Third World" is to the US as "communist" is to Barack Obama.

Okay, you have a point here. If I could, I would re-title the thread "Evidence of the decline of America". Would that make everyone happy?

It would make me happy (the change of the title, not the decline of America). Sorry, I feel quite strongly about that.

I have sent a message to the mods.

Nineonefour: concerning your article on the contaminated water. Do you know if this is a very temporary contamination or if it's more or less structural failure?

babel wrote:Nineonefour: concerning your article on the contaminated water. Do you know if this is a very temporary contamination or if it's more or less structural failure?

I've no idea. A few years ago there was a USA Today article entitled "How Safe is Your Drinking Water?" but I was unable to find the actual article.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2 ... at_jfk.php

Schiphol buys terminal at JFK airport

Thursday 12 August 2010

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport has taken full ownership of Terminal 4 at JFK in New York. It is the first time a foreign company has had control of a terminal in the US.

The airport already owned 40% of the shares and has now bought the remaining 60% for €10.1 mln. The agreement includes a provision that any future financial set-backs will have no effect on the Schiphol Group.

CONTINUED

When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

NineOneFour wrote:http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/08/schiphol_buys_terminal_at_jfk.php

Schiphol buys terminal at JFK airport

Thursday 12 August 2010

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport has taken full ownership of Terminal 4 at JFK in New York. It is the first time a foreign company has had control of a terminal in the US.

The airport already owned 40% of the shares and has now bought the remaining 60% for €10.1 mln. The agreement includes a provision that any future financial set-backs will have no effect on the Schiphol Group.

CONTINUED

When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

Not sure why that is controversial, plenty of infrastructure in the UK is owned by foreign companies, and we own plenty of other countries. There is some weird nationalism in the so called free market in the US. Is it true that American government contracts must go to American companies something that is generally unhead of in any other western nation?.

I'm not a big fan of unrestricted capitalism but there is absolutely nothing wrong in a foreign company running anything bar defence as long as they are subject to local laws. Even in defence I would hope nations would still go for the most efficient solution if it is with reliable allies

NineOneFour wrote:When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

No, that's just the way it is these days, every country owns bits of each other. Really, you ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined, as it seems to me to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation! I know it's not what Marx would have wanted, since he reckoned we'd all be eating each other.

Strontium Dog wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

No, that's just the way it is these days, every country owns bits of each other. Really, you ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined, as it seems to me to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation! I know it's not what Marx would have wanted, since he reckoned we'd all be eating each other.

Marx. Good one!

At what point are we measuring decline from? Post WW2? 70s? What?

Corneel wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
It depends on which indice one uses to reach the conclusion.

Third world countries have always been characterized as one's that have no middle class and in which small minorities control the great majority of the wealth and massive majorities live in abject poverty as they fight over the slim pickings that are left.

Well, that's exactly what's happening in America, fewer and fewer people are controlling more and more of the wealth, and more and more people are being left to fight over the slim pickings that are left, pushing them out of a fast disappearing middle class and into the ranks of the poor.

Two per cent of Americans now control more than half the wealth, a trend that is continuing apace.

These are the facts from which the idea that America is fast becoming a third world country originates.

Massive majorities in abject poverty? In the US?

That's not what I said. Read my fucking post again.

Corneel wrote:
Oh, please, how many Americans have to walk for a mile to get to some source of safe drinking water and have to wait in line? How many of them don't have any access to safe drinking water? How many of them do take their shower with a bucket? How many of them have no elictricity at all year through and have to have their children study by the light of an oil lamp (if they can afford it)? How many of them have to send out their children to collect dead wood for cooking? How many of them have to get by at 2$ a day or less? How many American families don't own a vehicle? Or a TV?

Even if 98% of Americans control only 50% of US wealth, that's still on average a great fucking lot more than the average inhabitant of a Third World country can hope to control in his life. 50% percent of American wealth is by no measure "slim pickings".

You've misinterpreted my remarks to serve your own agenda and in the course of that you missed the point completely.

So take the blinders off for a moment and understand what this is all about, which is a trend, as NineOneFour has pointed out, a trend in which the number of Americans who share the wealth equitably is declining and has already declined well below the norms established over the past several decades.

Can you get that?

Americans don't own their homes or their cars or their digital gadgets, the bank owns them; consumers get to use them provided they make their payments on them on time. And some three million Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure in just the past 18 months and home foreclosures are up in 2010 over 2009.

Can you get that?

A Mexican cannot buy a car on credit or a home or a DVD player.

The fact that some refer to the declining share of the wealth among middle and lower middle class Americans as a "third world" situation is simply because of the way it mimics the distribution of wealth in third world countries, it has nothing to do with anything else.

Can you get that?

It reflects a simple comparison of one reality with an emerging reality that's trending toward the same kind of reality.

Can you get that?

The comparison has merit and is valid.

Can you get that?

Strontium Dog wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

No, that's just the way it is these days, every country owns bits of each other. Really, you ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined, as it seems to me to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation! I know it's not what Marx would have wanted, since he reckoned we'd all be eating each other.

I was quite surprised NineoneFour came up with the economic nationalism its usually hard for me to find much to disagree with him on but it keeps life interesting.

Most British airports are Spanish owned and to be honest I couldnt give a toss as long as they run. If they don't run the government can go in bash some heads and nationalise them but until then leave them be

mrjonno wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

No, that's just the way it is these days, every country owns bits of each other. Really, you ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined, as it seems to me to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation! I know it's not what Marx would have wanted, since he reckoned we'd all be eating each other.

I was quite surprised NineoneFour came up with the economic nationalism its usually hard for me to find much to disagree with him on but it keeps life interesting.

Most British airports are Spanish owned and to be honest I couldnt give a toss as long as they run. If they don't run the government can go in bash some heads and nationalise them but until then leave them be

Interestingly, when financial interests in Dubai sought to buy major parts of New York's Port Authority infrastructure (and other ports as well), the Bush Administration quashed that immediately. Why? They cited the fact that such infratructures were national assets with crucial roles to play in national security and having them in foreign hands was risky business.

If Britain and Spain were to ever go to war, you might have a real problem on your hands trying to keep your airports operating. eh? Their Spanish owners might just hang signs on their gates that say, "CLOSED" and shut them down.

SD's contention that we "ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined" because to him it seems "to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation" is fine as far as it goes, it just doesn't go very far in today's realpolitik, in which national security plays the dominant role.

If Britain and Spain were to ever go to war, you might have a real problem on your hands trying to keep your airports operating. eh? Their Spanish owners might just hang signs on their gates that say, "CLOSED" and shut them down.

In that unlikely event the airport would be grabbed by the military (in fact even if it was British the same thing would happen). Security is a police/border agency matter not civilian staff whoever owns the airport. Not to mention to run any major airport you basically need people from all over the world just for the language/culture skills

mrjonno wrote:

If Britain and Spain were to ever go to war, you might have a real problem on your hands trying to keep your airports operating. eh? Their Spanish owners might just hang signs on their gates that say, "CLOSED" and shut them down.

In that unlikely event the airport would be grabbed by the military (in fact even if it was British the same thing would happen). Security is a police/border agency matter not civilian staff whoever owns the airport. Not to mention to run any major airport you basically need people from all over the world just for the language/culture skills

Well, obviously, I was being facetious, but nevertheless, Spanish owners could muck things up pretty badly before your troops ever arrived, especially in destroying commo, navigation, and flight management systems, in effect making the airport INOP for an extended period of time, and if this occurred at several airports, you'd have a real mess on your hands during which your enemy just might gain the upper hand.

In security management, one never considers anything that's even remotely possible to be an "unlikely event." Because all it takes is once.

mrjonno wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/08/schiphol_buys_terminal_at_jfk.php

Schiphol buys terminal at JFK airport

Thursday 12 August 2010

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport has taken full ownership of Terminal 4 at JFK in New York. It is the first time a foreign company has had control of a terminal in the US.

The airport already owned 40% of the shares and has now bought the remaining 60% for €10.1 mln. The agreement includes a provision that any future financial set-backs will have no effect on the Schiphol Group.

CONTINUED

When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

Not sure why that is controversial, plenty of infrastructure in the UK is owned by foreign companies, and we own plenty of other countries. There is some weird nationalism in the so called free market in the US. Is it true that American government contracts must go to American companies something that is generally unhead of in any other western nation?.

I'm not a big fan of unrestricted capitalism but there is absolutely nothing wrong in a foreign company running anything bar defence as long as they are subject to local laws. Even in defence I would hope nations would still go for the most efficient solution if it is with reliable allies

Well, that's interesting. You are correct, though, it is weird nationalism. I didn't realize this.

(Aside: thanks for the re-title, mods!)

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:When you start selling off your infrastructure to other countries, that would seem pretty bad...

No, that's just the way it is these days, every country owns bits of each other. Really, you ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined, as it seems to me to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation! I know it's not what Marx would have wanted, since he reckoned we'd all be eating each other.

I was quite surprised NineoneFour came up with the economic nationalism its usually hard for me to find much to disagree with him on but it keeps life interesting.

Most British airports are Spanish owned and to be honest I couldnt give a toss as long as they run. If they don't run the government can go in bash some heads and nationalise them but until then leave them be

Interestingly, when financial interests in Dubai sought to buy major parts of New York's Port Authority infrastructure (and other ports as well), the Bush Administration quashed that immediately. Why? They cited the fact that such infratructures were national assets with crucial roles to play in national security and having them in foreign hands was risky business.

If Britain and Spain were to ever go to war, you might have a real problem on your hands trying to keep your airports operating. eh? Their Spanish owners might just hang signs on their gates that say, "CLOSED" and shut them down.

SD's contention that we "ought to rejoice that all of our fortunes are so intertwined" because to him it seems "to be the surest way of ensuring perpetual peace and co-operation" is fine as far as it goes, it just doesn't go very far in today's realpolitik, in which national security plays the dominant role.

Oh, no, the Bush administration was all for that deal. It was quashed by a revolt of nationalist Republicans and Democrats who saw a way to drive a wedge between the Bush administration and national security.

I find it hysterical that Americans are concerned about some owners on the other side of the world but have no problems having all the crap they need for their daily lives come from China - go figure!

mrjonno wrote:

If Britain and Spain were to ever go to war, you might have a real problem on your hands trying to keep your airports operating. eh? Their Spanish owners might just hang signs on their gates that say, "CLOSED" and shut them down.

In that unlikely event the airport would be grabbed by the military (in fact even if it was British the same thing would happen). Security is a police/border agency matter not civilian staff whoever owns the airport. Not to mention to run any major airport you basically need people from all over the world just for the language/culture skills

Bear in mind too that both Spain and the UK are EU memebers and objecting to Spanish owners of UK airports would be akin to objecting to a company based in Ohio owning an airport in Texas.

(On reflection, that might not be a good example )

Dr. Kwaltz wrote:I find it hysterical that Americans are concerned about some owners on the other side of the world but have no problems having all the crap they need for their daily lives come from China - go figure!

Well, that's George Bush and the Republicans for ya!