A nation's culture should be judged by how much money its' citizens make per capita...

[ShcShc11 0]

According to Mr. Romney, a nation's culture should be judged based on per capita $.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/palestinians-protest-romney-statements-as-racist/?hpt=hp_t2

Quote

"As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," Romney said.

Citing the book "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," Romney detailed his interpretation of author David Landes' thesis.

"He says if you can learn anything from the economic history of the world, it's this: culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said.

Hmm..
what do you guys think



Cheers!
Shc

[davjohns 1]

Not quite the same as standard of living. I prefer something that attempts to measure that. If we all make millions, but the government takes 100%, what's the point? Or if a loaf of bread costs billions...etc.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jclalor 12]

There must be a few OPEC countries with a lot more "culture" than we will ever have.

[kelpdiver 2]

I believe the numbers are closer to 30k versus 1.5k.

but the point of his speech should be obvious- he's courting money and one of them is a potential 100M $ donor.

The PLO, otoh, has little to offer his campaign. Not dollars or votes.

But however clumsy he is, there is a difference in culture.

The Israelis refuse to be a victim again and have built their nation against great odds, with constant risk of destruction for the first 3 decades of its existence. It still has to live with constant attacks on its civilians.

The Palestinians are still playing the victim. Fighting an unwinnable war, with poor support from its allies.

[billvon 3,173]

>According to Mr. Romney, a nation's culture should be judged based on per capita $.

Well, that's pretty shallow. I mean, there are countries out there that are dirt poor - and still many of their citizens have great hair.

[jcd11235 0]

It a decent correlative metric for standard of living. Notice how many of the countries outperforming the USA have mixed economies.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

I believe the numbers are closer to 30k versus 1.5k.

but the point of his speech should be obvious- he's courting money and one of them is a potential 100M $ donor.

The PLO, otoh, has little to offer his campaign. Not dollars or votes.

But however clumsy he is, there is a difference in culture.

The Israelis refuse to be a victim again and have built their nation against great odds, with constant risk of destruction for the first 3 decades of its existence. It still has to live with constant attacks on its civilians.

The Palestinians are still playing the victim. Fighting an unwinnable war, with poor support from its allies.

In all honesty, both Palestinians and Isralis are both the victims and the aggressors.

If your people's fate had been decided in WWI during the Balfour Declaration, I think its a little more than "playing the victim"... They are the victims and they've been occupied quite brutally and many imprisoned in concentration camps (according to human rights watch reports).


On the other side, you have Israli cities that could potentially be bombed (and have been bombed) by mortar. A development of smart bombs by Palestinians have the potential to kill hundreds and we've seen in 2006 that cities such as Tel'Aviv is easily in range.

Many criticized the IDF for "exaggerated attacks"; but really, I don't think any Western nations would tolerate a fraction of what Israel already did.


I've always found it odd that people "took sides" in this discussion when both countries are right in their assessment of self-defence.


Cheers!
Shc

[kelpdiver 2]

WWI and II had a lot of winners and losers.

Yugoslavia was a loser - created out of thin air and collapsed horribly once the Soviets stopped maintaining a regime. Pretty much all of Eastern Europe was a loser, held by the Soviets as a land buffer to prevent yet another invasion.

The Jews were incredible losers, and moderate winners out of Allied guilt. After surviving the Nazis they had to survive nearly constant war for another few decades.

The "Palestinians" were losers, sort of. Amazon pointed out that far more Jewish owned land in the Middle East nations was reappropriated as compared to the land of Israel. Those nations pocketed it and have continued to do little for their people in Palestine.

Now that it's 64 years later (ie, 3 generations), it might be time to stop holding onto 1947. The hard liners won't accept Israel existing at all, making it very difficult for their side to live up to a deal.

So I'll reiterate a personal opinion - if these people put as much effort into rebuilding society as it did in smuggling in weapons to engage the IDF and the citizenry of Israel, they'd be much better off.

[ShcShc11 0]

Its lovely that you're downplaying Palestinian plights and finding ways to justify their current treatment.

Quote

The Jews were incredible losers, and moderate winners out of Allied guilt. After surviving the Nazis they had to survive nearly constant war for another few decades.

"Moderate winners out of Allied guilt".
Israel didn't come out of Allied guilt. It became into existence because the British were seeking influence into the U.S and Russian administrations. Wilson's closest advisers were pro-creation of Israel while Lenin and Trotsky were also for a creation of Israel (though not as much as Wilson's advisers). Britain absolutely wanted is to break the WWI stalemate and needed the U.S to come to war (while hoping for the Russians to stay in the war).


In Churchill's memoir by Martin Gilbert, it is said that "quite a significant resource of British military" was spent in occupying the Middle East territories after WWI in order to honour their words.

The whole Nazi paranoia of "World Jewry conspiracy" originated from this.

The Weimar Republic relied on U.S businesses such as JPMorgan to cancel war debts imposed by France (Allied) and became VERY pro-Israel as well because they hoped to get help from Jewish members to have businesses more intertwined with the U.S [see wages of destruction book by Adam Tooze].

So to say Israel came out of "Allied guilt" isin't true.
Its far too simplistic and there's whole history behind it (negociations, treaties, deals, etc...).

It madly drove a non anti-semitic country (Germany in the 1920s were considered less anti-semitic than France) to doing what is considered the most heinous racial genocide.


So again, in a way they are victims and in another perspective, they're not the victims. They fought bravely (and very impressively) in the Six Days War for their survival, but Israel wasn't given out of "guilt" and its legitimacy is very grey.

IDF should be unapologetic with their military actions because they are trying to protect Israeli kids and hope they can live a peaceful life. People against Israel doesn't seem to acknowledge how devastating smart weapons can be hence harsh border controls necessary.

But Palestinians too are justified in what they are doing because they are being oppressed through Israeli harsh military actions.


Cheers! Shc

[champu 1]

Quote

A development of smart bombs by Palestinians have the potential to kill hundreds and we've seen in 2006 that cities such as Tel'Aviv is easily in range.

Quote

People against Israel doesn't seem to acknowledge how devastating smart weapons can be hence harsh border controls necessary.

You keep referring to "smart weapons" and their "potential to kill hundreds" and be "devastating" and I'm curious what you're on about. ...not sure if you're being sarcastic.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

A development of smart bombs by Palestinians have the potential to kill hundreds and we've seen in 2006 that cities such as Tel'Aviv is easily in range.

Quote

People against Israel doesn't seem to acknowledge how devastating smart weapons can be hence harsh border controls necessary.

You keep referring to "smart weapons" and their "potential to kill hundreds" and be "devastating" and I'm curious what you're on about. ...not sure if you're being sarcastic.

In a way, I was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

The 2006 Lebanon War.
It didn't involve any smart weapons, but it did expose glaring vulnerabilities to Israel.

A small (vastly underfunded) group such as Hezbollah were able to launch hundreds of missiles in important cities such as Tel'Aviv. They were dumb missiles so very few of them got into heavily populated areas. Many were duds.


There are reports that one of the biggest concerns of IDF Generals are smart weapons. How do you defend yourself against missiles that can be easily directed in heavily populated areas? If those dumb missiles happened to be just a little more sophisticated, then 2006 Lebanon war would have been very different.

So no, its not sarcasm. Its a real concern that doesn't have any solutions apart from prevention.

And this is what Israel has been trying to do for the past few years: preventing the enemy from getting sophisticated weapons.

Palestinian borders are rigorously checked to the point where even trucks with medicine weren't able to cross.

Raids are conducted regularly on ships that are suspected of having "weapons" (think about the controversial Gaza Flotilla Raid where IDF boarded ships that had no weapons).



Cheers!
Shc

[champu 1]

I'm fairly up to date on the conflicts in the ME, this was just some terminology confusion. I'm not used to hearing weapons described as "smart" simply for having any guidance system at all.

On one hand I suppose it's all relative, on the other, it kinda misses the point of the moniker.

[kallend 2,219]

Well, an infusion of $3 Billion/year from the USA helps the Israelis a lot, I'm sure.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands all have superior culture to the USA according to Mitt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, an infusion of $3 Billion/year from the USA helps the Israelis a lot, I'm sure.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands all have superior culture to the USA according to Mitt.

though not so if you switch to pricing parity.

[Southern_Man 0]

Clearly this is wrong and culture should be judged on the number of gold medals won.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Clearly this is wrong and culture should be judged on the number of gold medals won.

thus elevating China to the top? Or do you want to convert to per capita basis?

Points for longevity, but have to penalize for the human rights.

[davjohns 1]

I've given this some thought. As I think of 'culture' I would relate it more to happiness than money. I just don't know how to measure happiness in a culture. Money is easily measured, but hardly is it an indication of happiness.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Hermes70 0]

Quote

According to Mr. Romney, a nation's culture should be judged based on per capita $.

Quote

"As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," Romney said.

Citing the book "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," Romney detailed his interpretation of author David Landes' thesis.

"He says if you can learn anything from the economic history of the world, it's this: culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said.

I don't think he's judging the culture itself, but rather the economic success of the culture. Just look at the border between America and Mexico to get an idea of what a stark difference "culture" can make. The land is the same on both sides, the ordinary people have the same values on both sides, but the culture is different. But Mexico has a horrible problem with drugs, violence and corruption. And that means that America thrives, while many Mexicans wallow in poverty and violence. There's no question that America's system where the law is enforced is better for the economy.

[davjohns 1]

Maybe. Too many variables for me to make it cut and dried.

The US has a breadbasket that makes subsistance farming unnecessary. That likely enabled the industrial revolution to a great extent. Then, there are the raw materials available.

One can't discount that the US has raw resources that made 'flourishing' much easier than some other geographical configurations. Much of the middle east got lucky with the oil reserves. Somalia and Haiti were and are screwed. Culture in some cases has little to do with it. Sometimes, however, culture can surely hold one back or allow one to overcome lack of resources.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I've given this some thought. As I think of 'culture' I would relate it more to happiness than money. I just don't know how to measure happiness in a culture. Money is easily measured, but hardly is it an indication of happiness.

you can 'measure' that with many devices, though all lead to charges of bias.

crime rate is one valid measure - content people don't commit crimes, the malcontent do. Wealth inequality or unequal opportunity, or even just unequal results tends to lead towards unhappy people, who then commit crime. On that measure, the US will not fare so well. A theoretically perfect communist state should rank high, though we know how reality differed from theory. And its inefficiencies lead to overall lower production.

immigration versus emigration rates are another vald, yet imperfect measure. But it only works well when free movement is permitted, like between states in the US, or (to a degree now) nations in the EU.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One can't discount that the US has raw resources that made 'flourishing' much easier than some other geographical configurations. Much of the middle east got lucky with the oil reserves. Somalia and Haiti were and are screwed. Culture in some cases has little to do with it. Sometimes, however, culture can surely hold one back or allow one to overcome lack of resources.

Haiti shouldn't be so much worse than its neighbors, though. In that regard it resembles the Palestinians. It can't get out of a negative feedback loop.

Somalia does have oil - but I doubt anyone is optimistic that it will be used for the greater good of its people.

[davjohns 1]

When I was working on my master's in International Relations, I learned Somalia and Haiti are often mentioned as examples of 'fourth world' countries. The only chance they would have to be economically viable would be tourism. That's due to their lack of natural resources and infrastructure. Sadly, their culture of violence destroyed the tourism option. It was recommended that the UN take them under some sort of stewardship. The branch of the UN that oversaw disestablishing colonies was recommended for this. Not sure what happened with all of that.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.