Interesting Civilization Discriptions...

But we should listen to your random bar graph?

No, you should research the topics yourself, look at all sides, and come to a proper conclusion through research (not saying you should do some official research project). But, if you had to ask a question like that, I guess some people will just continue to believe everything someone feeds them. Therefore, I will feed you this below.

------ Continuation of the difference of America and Europe from here.

Perry underlines the point by comparing European countries with American states. "Although [the] Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark are among Europe's wealthiest countries, as U.S. states they would be between 14.5 percent and 18 percent below the U.S. average.... If France became a U.S. state, it would rank No. 48 out of 51 by per capita [gross domestic product], just barely ahead of America's two poorest states, West Virginia and Mississippi.... Belgium, Finland, Britain, Germany, and Spain would rank in the bottom 20 percent of U.S. states by per capita GDP, just barely ahead of Arkansas but below Kentucky."

.....

Put it this way: If America's living standards suddenly descended to Europe's, rather than the other way round, it would be a calamity that would make the country's present economic difficulties look trivial.

And yet, as I say, higher U.S. productivity is not the main reason for this prosperity gap. Comparing America with the richest European countries, output per hour worked is not that different. In levels of productivity, Europe's most successful economies have caught up. Then why are they still so much poorer? Because Europeans work less. A higher proportion of the U.S. population is employed, and Americans work longer hours. Effort, not efficiency, is why Americans are richer.
 
Do you know anything about the world outside the USA?

Do you know anything about the world outside the <enter where you live here>? I was speaking about the US above, not <enter your country here>.

But from reading your quote below, it seems that you do not.

A set of scientist screwed around with a set of climate data, which of course invalidates all climate data and research made over the past 30 odd years by thousands of scientists around the world. :rolleyes:

Read this, a randomly picked google article... and you can perhaps learn something about how the whole thing happened.

And you make a good point, corrupt scientists trying to fulfill political agendas constantly skew scientific data and make up things like 'global cooling, global dimming, and global warming' without 'actual' proof to try to meet their ends. Even within the past 30 odd years. Thanks taillesskangaru!
 
@Reginleif: Did you miss the whole Climate scandal? Scientists were skewing scientific data to make global warming seem like it was happening, when it is not. It was being done so they could claim that developed nations are destroying the world, and to force some kind of global re-distribution of wealth.

The same thing happened in recent history where the same type of people claimed global cooling was going to destroy life forever with another ice age, and they wanted similar wealth re-distributions.

For being in the age of information, I don't see how people ignore looking up basic facts for themselves... everyone should know you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

Even if some scientists were screwing with data, that vast majority of climatologists agree that it is taking place. Yes people did claim that an Ice Age would take place, but as more information was discovered, proffessionals changed their veiws (Although some places like Europe will get cooler). That's just how science works, it may change but only when there is evedence that objects to this. This is a good thing.

I must also point out you sound very conspiratorial about the whole international re-distribution of wealth thing. The way science works this sort of conspiracy can't really take place as scientists are rewarded for challenging established concepts. If you think about it, what famous scientist has ever become a household name by conforming? True people may use a scientific claim for political advantages, but that doesn't make science any less true.
 
Conspiracy theory? So you turn a blind eye to world events?

The progressives (along with the self-proclaimed Communists, Marxists, and Democratic Socialists that go along with the progressives) that control Washington D.C. have said during this administration many many times that Re-distribution of wealth is what they want to do. It's no secret. Cap-and-trade is a way to do that, which goes along with the 'skewed data' of global warming. The reason it failed was probably partially due to the falsified information from the ones claiming global warming.

1 quick example: US can't drill for oil in Gulf, but we gave billions of $ to Brazil and Mexico to drill oil in the Gulf.. this is an example of global re-distribution. Progressive has said something like: They want to lower the means of the US purposely to match the rest of the world.

Evidence also shows the Earth has been cooling. If a political party or individual says global re-distribution and global governance/govt is what they want to achieve to the public, and it happens on many many occasions (recently)... there is no longer a way for you to justify conspiracy theories (do you claim conspiracy theory because you have no other way to defend that the Earth trend is not warming through actual data because of pollution).
 
Perry underlines the point by comparing European countries with American states. "Although [the] Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark are among Europe's wealthiest countries, as U.S. states they would be between 14.5 percent and 18 percent below the U.S. average.... If France became a U.S. state, it would rank No. 48 out of 51 by per capita [gross domestic product], just barely ahead of America's two poorest states, West Virginia and Mississippi.... Belgium, Finland, Britain, Germany, and Spain would rank in the bottom 20 percent of U.S. states by per capita GDP, just barely ahead of Arkansas but below Kentucky."

Right, because GDP per capita is everything. We are talking about standard of living, which is related but different.

On the HDI the United States ranked 13th, behind nine European countries. Similarly, in Quality of Life the United States ranked 13th behind 10 European countries. For the Gini Coefficient (which measures income equality) the United States fares worse than Cote d'Ivoire and worse than any European country. In child-wellbeing the United States is worse than any Western European state except for the United Kingdom.

Put it this way: If America's living standards suddenly descended to Europe's, rather than the other way round, it would be a calamity that would make the country's present economic difficulties look trivial.

Declined... calamity... I love it, you're making it sound like Europe is Ethiopia or something.

Read this, a randomly picked google article... and you can perhaps learn something about how the whole thing happened.

And you make a good point, corrupt scientists trying to fulfill political agendas constantly skew scientific data and make up things like 'global cooling, global dimming, and global warming' without 'actual' proof to try to meet their ends. Even within the past 30 odd years. Thanks taillesskangaru!

Refer to Reginleif's post. I'm too lazy to argue with a wall.
 
Conspiracy theory? So you turn a blind eye to world events?

The progressives (along with the self-proclaimed Communists, Marxists, and Democratic Socialists that go along with the progressives) that control Washington D.C.

Right. I'm just going to stop right here. You obviously know nothing. Have a good day.
 
Right. I'm just going to stop right here. You obviously know nothing. Have a good day.

Again, ignoring what the progressives themselves have stated to the public.. I am not making this stuff up, you can look it up on Youtube and watch videos.

In fact, it is you, taillesskangaru, who ignore facts and instead embrace non-truth.

taillesskangaru said:
For the Gini Coefficient (which measures income equality) the United States fares worse than Cote d'Ivoire and worse than any European country.

Of course, countries that embrace a more socialistic society, will be more likely to pay everyone a higher or more similar wage to some extent (even if the wage is too high to the point that money is lost). A free market means that you have the option to succeed or fail. Your hard work can determine your future. Therefore, the difference in wage is likely to be more dramatic. Doctors will make a lot more than say a 16 year old cart-pusher. Yet, the average US income is still higher... go figures.

And look at what happened to Greece. Germany is bailing other countries out. Oh wait, could entitlements and income equality (the supposed right to earn high income) have something to do with that?

Yea, boring topic though... I'm out also.. see you all!
 
The progressives (along with the self-proclaimed Communists, Marxists, and Democratic Socialists that go along with the progressives) that control Washington D.C.

I was going to bring this up in my first post, but do you watch Glen Beck and the like? Progressives do not run the White House and they have virtually no power in this administration. I suggest you read or listen to some actual progressive media like the Young Turks (on youtube) or Huffington Post, progessives are furous at Barrack Obama for offering a healthcare bill without a public option, a finacail reform bill that will lead to another depression, and continueing useless wars and military spending.
It is not Progressives who run D.C. but the banks and industry who bribe politicains for tax-cuts, and fewer regulations so they can increase their wallets while the world economy implodes. If you read or hear any progresive media you will discover that Obama is certainly not one.
BTW progressives do not hate America, even if you heard/read someone who did, you shouldn't assume they repersent an entire people.
 
They are mostly liberal academia type, or progressive that make up the entire democratic party. Much smaller is the centrist and conservative democrats. For instance, Hillary Clinton is a progressive as well as many other you may not even know about, Obama is definitely far left and by his action shows progressivism, and wants single payer (so did Clinton), but even with both houses under democratic control, could not get that through Congress. Dems vs Dems. And they try to blame the party that has no power anywhere. :lol:

EDIT: Just as a note, I'm not some far-right crazy. I'm not a far-left crazy either. Balanced Power is far superior in every aspect than 1-sided rule. Those who want only 1 party power to pass things that are not good for a country will come to regret that when and if the other party takes complete power. It is just the way it goes.

Anyways, this is off topic, back to interesting civilization discriptions.
 
Did you miss the whole Climate scandal? Scientists were skewing scientific data to make global warming seem like it was happening, when it is not. It was being done so they could claim that developed nations are destroying the world, and to force some kind of global re-distribution of wealth.

Not only do those who were skewing data only represent a small portion of climatologists who agree that climate change is happening, but also there was at least one major case in Britain where a group of climatologists accused of this very transgression were investigated and found to have not skewed data. So you see, not all the accusations became real issues.
 
Reality:

Global Warming is real but not due to Greenhouse Gases. The Sun is going through its cycles as it always have. The earth has been colder than it is now and much warmer based on the ice core samples. In fact overall CO2 levels lag the temperature at a rate of about 400 years. The temperature rising and falling actually drive CO2 levels. The total CO2 levels contributed by man are small in comparison to what the volcanoes, animals, vegetation and the oceans produce. In fact using CO2 levels as an indicator that the planet is heating up is like saying that the leaves falling off the tree is bringing about winter.

I think we need to take better care of our planet. Air and water pollution need to be focus but not this blind obsession with CO2 levels.

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago. Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.
 
Um... carbon dioxide is scientifically proven to be a greenhouse gas ie it traps heat in the atmosphere. The reason Earth is habitable in the first place is due to greenhouse gases causing global warming and stabilizing Earth's temperature at a "reasonable" range.
 
Well, provide some proof.

Here's some insight.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and &#8211; in the end &#8211; are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

Furthermore, if those saying these things really wanted to improve the planet, they would be pushing for things like increased re-forestation. Instead they push for things that deal with developed countries being forced to give money to certain other countries, while not dealing with the 'supposed actual problem'.

This should raise red flags since in the end, the problem remains, and the only effect is certain peoples taking other peoples money.
 
Now, I don't know the exact current data, and really don't care... but U.S. living standards are more than one-third higher than those in Europe.

The same income in many Western European countries will buy you a better lifestyle than in the US. Better infrastructure, education, healthcare, food, environment, etc... stuff that brings you "quality of life". It's the Human Development Index you have to look at.

Besides, the GDP per capita is not all it seems; the US has a large skew in the distribution of wealth, for a western country. The top 1% own a huge portion of the country's wealth. The top 10% own about 80% of the total wealth. Most of the world's richest people live in the US and lift the per capita average up. The richest may be living it up, but if you compare the lifestyle of the majority to that of continental Europe, it's a different story.

Even going by pure averages, an extra 15% income won't buy you the benefits that only economies of scale provide you, such as better infrastructure.
 
You know, what really strikes me about a discussion like this is how few people think in terms of a multipolar world. This is a legacy of the cold war, of course - two superpowers followed by one hyperpower. So China always has to be the next superpower (or hyperpower), certain nations or groups of nations are declared to be in terminal decline at the drop of a hat (or a bump in a GDP graph). Etc etc.

But this has rarely been the normal state of things throughout history. Late Victorians would easily a recognise a world with a large number of powers, great and lesser. The main resonance the 'superpower' idea would have had for them would be the UK's mastery of the seas and its vast economic power. But the UK, at its height, could not dictate events globally in the way that we now expect a superpower to behave. I simply think the concept may have to be discarded as obsolete.

And perhaps this is yet another thing that irritates me about Civ5. Economic/Cultural/Tech Victory should be, if anything, more satisfying in a multipolar world. (The economic victory in particular is silly, of course, just a matter of bribing CSs. In fact, it should partly be aided by diplomacy and trade between the major powers, not just the CSs, but diplomacy is broken and trade is pretty simple-minded.)

Instead, if there is any meagre fun to be had from the game, it is in a Domination victory, which railroads us right back into the world of superpowers...
 
The PRC itself defines literacy for a farmer at ~1500 characters.

~1500 chinese characters worth of literacy is good enough for reading newspapers and most industrial instruction manual.

But the number of peasants is accurate. The urban population of China accounts for something like 40-45% of its total population (CIA World Factbook lists it as 43%), and beyond China's urban areas there is truly little other than small villages or farms. There are very few "suburbs" like we see in the United States, and those that exist reside almost exclusively outside of major cities - Beijing, for example. Various sources list China's rural numbers as anywhere from 55% to 70% of the total pop, so my main point remains valid: China has a long way to go and a lot of people to educate before it can be considered a modern superpower.

Oh china will never be a "modern" (western) superpower. Never has any western superpower need to manage so vast a population in so crammed a place. China's path will likely be fundamentally different from the western's path. They are trying to urbanize, true, but the percentage of rural settlement will likely remain large if for no other reason than there's only so much space available in china.

And China is very unlikely to become a "superpower" as a westerner would recognize; it will probably be an economic powerhouse, but beyond securing space for its growth, it is unlikely that china will pursue a global hegemony: it simply isn't in its cultural gene. China has always been, and will continue to be, an inward looking civilization.

However, the world will need to deal with an increasing flow of chinese emigrants though. maybe that's their world domination plan ;).
 
The Roman Empire had a much better system of managing its provincials than the Chinese

That is a myth. If you multiply territory held with the duration (which should be a good indicator of the effectiveness of governance), you should get a clearer picture.

It's hard to make the paradigm shift from a eurocentric view of the world to one that is more universal, and many among the western civilizations might never attain that, but do make the effort before the great civilizations that had once contributed so much to humanity were rendered inconsequential in the coming ages, a deeply held fear in the bossom of many "westerners" I supposed.

Funny it was the americans who started the process of globalization.
 
Top Bottom