Willie71 Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 With the declining middle class, increasing corruption in politics, and a militarized police state, the USA isn't the nation of freedom it claims to be. Over the past couple years, access to clean water has become more of an issue. Poverty levels are high, and health care is not available to everyone. What makes a nation third world? Despite everevolving definitions, the concept of the third world serves to identify countries that suffer from high infant mortality, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, and heavy dependence on industrialized nations. These are the developing and technologically less advanced nations of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. Third world nations tend to have economies dependent on the developed countries and are generally characterized as poor with unstable governments and having high rates of population growth, illiteracy, and disease. A key factor is the lack of a middle class with impoverished millions in a vast lower economic class and a very small elite upper class controlling the country's wealth and resources. Most third world nations also have a very large foreign debt. (What makes a nation third world? from Encyclopedia of World Geography) http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm Water issues. Not Flynt this time.
swansont Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 poor unstable governments high rate of population growth high rate of illiteracy high rate of disease. The US is not necessarily at the top of lists where these attributes are at the bottom, and we can certainly do better, but I'd have to say "no" to all of the above. The US is one of the wealthiest nations. The travesty IMO is that there is such wealth disparity. As a country we are literate and have decent access to health care (much better in the last few years). Growth is not high, net of immigration. (edit: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:USA:RUS:CAN&hl=en&dl=en http://www.census.gov/popclock/ The above says our growth is less than 1% and has been for more than a decade, and roughly half of our increase is from immigration) Lead in the water in Flint, black sludge in Texas and flammable water in some areas where fracking is happening are symptoms of governments putting the people as a lower priority than money/business, but this is still anecdotal. Worldwide, 1/10 of the people lack access to safe water. That would be over 30 million people in the US just to be average. Even though our number should be zero, "less than one percent of non-native American households have no access to safe water and/or wastewater disposal" http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/513841/outrage%3A_people_in_the_us_still_lack_access_to_clean_water 1
Phi for All Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 We aren't there by a long shot. But one thing that's greasing the skids downward is that the mega-multi-national corporations we give charter to, and place so much confidence in, don't have any allegiance to the US. They use our ports, roads, and other infrastructure while hiding profits from taxation offshore. Some of these corps spend more money to avoid taxes than they actually pay in taxes. To me that should be considered treasonous. If we can't count on these businesses to be loyal to the People and country who make them possible, if we give in to Marco Rubio's vision that ultimately it's best to be a good corporate citizen, then we'll follow them to the edge of the cliff, where we'll have to jump while they simply shift their HQ to someplace they'll be equally unloyal to. Our economy is at the mercy of profit, and we're just hoping the bean counters don't decide the US isn't worth it anymore. 2
Ophiolite Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Two points: 1. To answer the OP. No. The reasons have been noted by other members. 2. The US is in a state of flux. Breaking news: all people and all countries are always in a state of flux. Change is universal and ongoing. If you don't like change death is viable alternative, though I recommend embracing change instead. (You can even try to influence it!) 1
iNow Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Agree with the above. While there is some overlap in the types of dysfunctions being faced, most criteria for 3rd world country simply aren't met by the US. Banana republic seems like it may be a better fit, or plutocracy, maybe even corrupt oligarchy.
Willie71 Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 Interesting comments. Looking at the basic definition I posted, the USA is not a third world country. However, there are many people living in conditions that one would expect to find in a third world country. Homelessness is tough to measure, with mumbers varying between 500,000 on any given night, to 3.5milkion over the course of the year. The numbers are decreasing in the past few years, which is good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homelessness-in-america-2015 The poverty rate is about 15%. http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-facts/ The clean water issue is huge. No one knows how far spread it is. This is really alarming. The government corruption is much worse than anyone imagined. Watching this election cycle and the blatant rigging going on by the media and the Clinton campaign makes other dictatorships look not so bad. There are elements, but the USA is too rich to really be considered third world. Maybe a new classification is needed to address countries in this situation. Canada was starting to head that way, as was Britain and a few other countries. We started turning it around.
swansont Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 The government corruption is much worse than anyone imagined. Watching this election cycle and the blatant rigging going on by the media and the Clinton campaign makes other dictatorships look not so bad. Oh, please. How about we stick to other areas where we have a hope of presenting verifiable data, rather than get mired in this kind of conspiratorial Godwinesque BS?
Willie71 Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Oh, please. How about we stick to other areas where we have a hope of presenting verifiable data, rather than get mired in this kind of conspiratorial Godwinesque BS? There are a number of videos of the caucuses recorded by people who were there, with creative counting, letting unregistered Clinton supporters caucus, and letting ballots be counted without the person being present. The claim was that the people had to leave early so they left their ballots. Not how a caucus works. I wouldn't have believed it and thought it was hyperbole if I didn't see it myself. I'm a bit tied up in something today, or I would have linked them already. It's also verifiable that Sanders only received 10 minutes of coverage in 2015 on the major networks, far less than any other viable candidate. The propaganda dismissing Sanders' platform, with outright lies about his proposals can all be dragged up. How about the media proclaiming Sanders' campaign is dead, even though Sanders and Clinton are tied in delegates (super delegates shift the lead to Clinton?) how about Wasserman Schultz saying super delegates are a way to prevent grassroots campaigns from succeeding? Edit: I hit the neg rep on the above post by mistake. I was trying to quote it. Can it be reversed by a mod? I left Swansort a pm too. Edited February 23, 2016 by Willie71
dimreepr Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Edit: I hit the neg rep on the above post by mistake. I was trying to quote it. Can it be reversed by a mod? I left Swansort a pm too. Done, we've all made that mistake (not that I claim that status). Edited February 23, 2016 by dimreepr
swansont Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 There are a number of videos of the caucuses recorded by people who were there, with creative counting, letting unregistered Clinton supporters caucus, and letting ballots be counted without the person being present. The claim was that the people had to leave early so they left their ballots. Not how a caucus works. I wouldn't have believed it and thought it was hyperbole if I didn't see it myself. I'm a bit tied up in something today, or I would have linked them already. That sounds to me like an issue for the caucus organizers, not the candidate. Much like how the GOP Iowa caucus didn't ask for ID, despite that being a hot-button issue for them, and same-day registration was allowed. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/31/10-questions-answered-iowa-caucuses/79605510/ It's also verifiable that Sanders only received 10 minutes of coverage in 2015 on the major networks, far less than any other viable candidate. The propaganda dismissing Sanders' platform, with outright lies about his proposals can all be dragged up. How about the media proclaiming Sanders' campaign is dead, even though Sanders and Clinton are tied in delegates (super delegates shift the lead to Clinton?) how about Wasserman Schultz saying super delegates are a way to prevent grassroots campaigns from succeeding? How much coverage has Trump been getting? Also: no links to any stories that might corroborate the above How is any of this indicative of becoming a third-world country?
overtone Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Political corruption is probably measurable by dollars from individual or family controlled interests, and the trend is significantly bad if appearances have any relationship to reality at all. K Street is significantly engaged in corruption, bribery, and influence - calling it "lobbying" is lipsticking a pig. Ex: John Kasich is not a disgraced former Congressman who traded on his political position for personal wealth, but a respected candidate for the Presidency - despite his career and circumstances being public information. There is a published corruption appearance index for economies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index and the score of the US in it should disturb any American - especially when one considers that the sheer amount of money available amplifies whatever opportunities exist, observes that the trend in "appearance" for the US is supposedly favorable over the past few years, and notes the apparent correlation between letting businessmen do whatever they want to do and an appearance among those businessmen of there being less corruption - duh. "Verifiable data" would include such matters as the Iraq War, '08 Crash, and TARP bailout physical circumstances, which were simply criminal - period. When crime is public and unpunished like that, when the wealthy are in fact above the financial law even after the law itself has been publicly altered in their favor, that is hard physical evidence of corruption. Congressional committees are being employed to harass and persecute scientific researchers, at the behest of rich people whose interests are threatened by physical circumstance. That is hard physical evidence of corruption. The public discourse dealing with political issues of significance to specific centers of wealth and power in the major media news outlets is coordinated, in phrase and focus and choice of spokesman, and omits entire aspects of these matters. That is hard physical (statistical) evidence of corruption. Other trends aligning the US with future banana republic status: 1) consolidation of land ownership, and increasing exploitation of public land by private interests. 2) concentration of wealth - the "400 families" syndrome 3) increasing economic reliance on raw commodities - the "oil curse", and the source of the term "banana republic" 4) decreasing socioeconomic mobility, stratification of social and economic classes 5) increasing debt, both public and private, without increased taxation of the consolidating wealth. 6) Increasing absentee ownership of major economic and physical resources It's probably a lot easier to avoid or prevent a slide into bananadom than it is to dig one's way back out. The land reform opportunity the US took advantage of with the Civil War and the Homestead Acts, for example, is never coming back - future deconsolidation of land ownership in the US will involve taking the land away from wealthy and powerful people. Edited February 23, 2016 by overtone 1
Moontanman Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Oh, please. How about we stick to other areas where we have a hope of presenting verifiable data, rather than get mired in this kind of conspiratorial Godwinesque BS? Actually the fact that bribery of US officials is legal would seem to support the idea of rampant corruption.. 1
Phi for All Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Actually the fact that bribery of US officials is legal would seem to support the idea of rampant corruption.. But does that corruption warrant a comparison with third world countries? Or dictatorships? I think that was swansont's point, that perhaps these comparisons are stretched with only corruption to go on. And we don't meet the other criteria either (unless obesity is a third world disease). IOW, there's not enough evidence that we're there yet. It would seem we have to torture the definition of third world country in order to get it to fit the US either potentially or currently.
Willie71 Posted February 23, 2016 Author Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) That sounds to me like an issue for the caucus organizers, not the candidate. Much like how the GOP Iowa caucus didn't ask for ID, despite that being a hot-button issue for them, and same-day registration was allowed.http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/31/10-questions-answered-iowa-caucuses/79605510/ How much coverage has Trump been getting? Also: no links to any stories that might corroborate the above How is any of this indicative of becoming a third-world country? The corruption in the caucus is a bit if a side issue, other than corrupt governments are part of the third world problem. Bribery in the Congo is something commonly mentioned for example. Some countries have "elections" but they are rigged. The information isn't all in, showing a top down connection between Clinton, the DNC, and the individual locations, but the fact that similar problems occurred at multiple locations is suspicious. http://trofire.com/2016/02/22/something-stinks-in-nevada-multiple-videos-of-suspicious-activity-at-caucus/ The DNC recently regressed on Obama's minor finance reform, opening Clinton to more money than she had before. That doesn't benefit Sanders at all. (except that it confirms his policy positions) If the elections are rigged, it's not really democracy anymore is it? Is is as bad as the Congo? No way, but extra ballots being counted, miss counting in Clinton's favour, or letting her supporters participate without being registered are all suggesting a rigged system. But does that corruption warrant a comparison with third world countries? Or dictatorships? I think that was swansont's point, that perhaps these comparisons are stretched with only corruption to go on. And we don't meet the other criteria either (unless obesity is a third world disease). IOW, there's not enough evidence that we're there yet. It would seem we have to torture the definition of third world country in order to get it to fit the US either potentially or currently. Agreed. I thought it would be interesting to look at the similarities and differences, a nuanced discussion. I think there are more similarities to a third world country than most people are aware of, but it's a long way to go to that overall level of corruption and poverty. The current US system is probably a lot closer to fascism in Europe in the early part of the 20th century, risking Godwinning this thread. In my field, the potential for human rights violations under a charismatic leader is a pretty interesting and hot topic. I've been watching the creep towards fascism in the past decade in Canada and the USA, and it's an interesting topic. Canada is closer to where the US was in 1980 than where the US us now, but it as moving to the right. The water video pulled at a memory from my childhood. Remember those commercials where they looked for donations to help kids in Africa get access to clean drinking water? I never thought clean drinking water would be an issue in North America. I was thinking about the number of different ways people have been let down by our governments, losing rights and privileges that separated us from third world countries. It's also interesting to look at the state of the DNC too. We criticize the GOP a lot, but there are some shady things going on with the DNC. I'll list more links and videos as I have time. I had a minor family crisis late this morning, and a fluent was in crisis. Both are settling, so I'll be more thorough now. Why have super delegates to change the outcome from the will of the people? Look who some of these influential people are: Wasserman Schultz on preventing grassroots candidates: Edited February 23, 2016 by Willie71
swansont Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 Actually the fact that bribery of US officials is legal would seem to support the idea of rampant corruption.. While I disagree with the policy, the legal bit has been ruled to be not bribery.
overtone Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) While I disagree with the policy, the legal bit has been ruled to be not bribery Which extends the concerns about corruption to whoever ruled or legislated in that fashion. The Court ruling on Citizens United was not a sign that huge cash contributions to a campaign no longer indicate corruption, after all. It was a sign that the Court is under the influence. It would seem we have to torture the definition of third world country in order to get it to fit the US either potentially or currently. Currently, sure. But potentially? Thing is, it's a lot harder to extricate one's country from this kind of stuff than it is to prevent it. And we are not as far from Second World - banana republic - status as people seem to assume. Notice that every evaluation that gives the US a comfortably high status rating includes per capita income, mean household income, etc, among its major and emphasized criteria. That's essentially a confusion of input with output. If you ignore income, the US looks to be "at risk" - running the bottom edge of a lot of First World criteria, and dropping over time. There is such a thing as the richest banana republic in the world. If you don't turn around, you run the risk of ending up where you are going. Edited February 24, 2016 by overtone 1
Phi for All Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 While I disagree with the policy, the legal bit has been ruled to be not bribery. I think this is a very important distinction. When we claim our officials are being bribed and are corrupt, but they don't go to jail, we kind of assume they are above the law (can't fight City Hall, and all that). But that's not really true. The laws have been re-written to encompass what they're doing as legal, and that's what we need to focus on. The officials aren't above the law, the law exempts them from scrutiny by declaring what they do is legal. Fix the system so it takes care of these instances. 1
overtone Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 The officials aren't above the law, the law exempts them from scrutiny by declaring what they do is legal Both are true, as demonstrated by the '08 Crash etc: the laws have been corrupted, and bad stuff allowed the enforcement has been corrupted, and illegal stuff left unpunished. What Angelo Mozilo did was significantly illegal. What BP did at Macondo was significantly illegal (and killed people). What the tranchers and raters did in the derivatives market was against the law. What the guys who rigged the LIBORG rates did was against the law - the US law, in several cases. What the executives overseeing the robosigners and mortgage steerers and automated foreclosure riggers did was a violation of criminal statutes. And so forth. These are matters of public record.
Moontanman Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 While I disagree with the policy, the legal bit has been ruled to be not bribery. Does making bribery legal stop it from being corruption?
swansont Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 Does making bribery legal stop it from being corruption? It's still corruption, but not in the same sense as was being used in the bit that started this tangent.
EdEarl Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) I agree with the previous several posters, and legally, legal bribery may not be corruption, but it is unethical, and will be stopped either by nature or by us. What kind of organism is humanity? A pathogen makes its host sick, perhaps kills it. The pathogen may be killed by its host or kill the host. If it kills the host, it dies with its host or spreads to another host. We can decide to kill corruption or let it rape the Earth until she stops us. In other words, humanity can decide whether we are a pathogen or a symbiot. At the moment city governments have not been corrupted to the level of Federal and state governments. I hope the cost is prohibitive, but I'm afraid corrupting the big cities with power to continue the renewable movement is possible. At the moment they are converting to renewable energy at a good pace. That's not the only issue on reformers agenda, but it is the critical one. China is closing in on the US in terms of power and prestige; perhaps they have already eclipsed the US. Without international cooperation, they are building an SKA, the worlds largest accelerator, cities overnight, a powerful military, and a big bank account. In some ways they seem like a multinational; in others they seem like a mess--change is messy. They have an energetic huge population, that drives them into the future. And, their government is not encumbered by religious movements. They seem to have realized they cannot rape the Earth and expect she will not retaliate. Nazi Germany was a scourge, and Nazi-like USA is too. Edited February 24, 2016 by EdEarl 1
MigL Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 I have a simple question for Willie from a fellow Canadian... If Canada is such a better place than the US. Or alternately, if the US is becoming 'third world' compared to us Canadians "'turning it around'. Why do so many immigrants that come to Canada get cought trying to sneak into the US ? Hardly any from the US get cought sneaking into Canada. ( and its not because of our incompetent border security )
iNow Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 As a percentage of Canadian immigrants, how many are caught "trying to sneak into the US?" As a percentage of US undocumented/unauthorized immigrants, how many are from Canada?
MigL Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) Just going by local news reports. I live in the Niagara region, with three border towns. A pretty nice area. And the other side is Niagara Falls and Buffalo, New York. Niagara falls especially is pretty grim. All boarded up. No jobs. No businesses. Edited February 24, 2016 by MigL
iNow Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 Just going by local news reports. I live in the Niagara region, with three border towns. In which case, when you said "so many" it was really more like three dudes who tried after getting drunk one night.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now