Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 2 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 89% |
Arguments: | 17 |
Debates: | 2 |
I agree that this an argument rather than a debating site (fightclub). However, and in view of the toothless reactionary ranting taking place, maybe there should be several categories: 1) the over sixties, retired and from Florida; 2) the somewhat very conservative mid-thirties; and 3) the more modern 0-30 model.
I'm a bit kidding and just 16.
I agree with the distinction between biologic "purpose", which is the reduplication and natural selection of genes, with no particular planned design. In this sense,
human beings are the product of chance and necessity-- that is, evolution.
However, Humans ultimately evolve as social beings, and their social groups acquire consciousness that attempt to make sense of the world through the creation of myths and the definition of Purpose . From then on, biological and sociological(human) evolution go in pair, and we continue to create and recreate ourselves.
Globalization, forced privatization, the power of so-called free markets, have hurt socially and economically many countries-- most of Africa and large parts of Asia
have regressed. Why hasn't India progressed as much as 'communist' China or
social democratic Brazil?; progress is political as well as economic.
China produces 'junk'? They're orbiting telecommunication satellites, manufacturing airplanes and high speed railways . They're catching up in high-technology; and as of late, China is investing heavily in African development.
'Third world' is a term that isn't used anymore--it's not 'politically correct' and doesn't mean anything. We don't say 'retarded' or 'underdeveloped', but rather
'challenged'( I guess)! The United Nations uses various indices to classify countries, the most common being the ' human development index'.
GPD per capita is misleading because it is a statistical average. In addtion, GDP does not take into account many important social factors , such as education, health, pollution, etc.. In general, well-being or quality of life measurement is complex, and is not adequately reflected in pure economic data.
For U.N. data concerning economic development, you can refer to a pdf document 'Human Devlopment Index' that ranks countries into 5 groups, the U.S. being #13 and China #81 (2008).
If 18 is old enough to bear arms and die in the military it is certainly old enough to have a beer. If eighteen years-old can vote for senators or president, or be a father or mother, than they should be responsible enough to have the freedom to drink. In any case college kids will drink or have sex and prohibitions won't change anything. Therefore, set the drinking age at 18. For younger persons
learning to drink responsibly and very occasionally can be allowed by parents under their supervision as part of learning to be an adult.
As a Social Democrat living in Europe (16 and born in the States),
I completely agree. I believe health care for all should be available,
and no one should die or go bankrupt because they or their family are
seriously ill. I believe that the financial industry should be regulated so
we avoid the social miseries caused by depressions and recessions. I believe
in achieving social fairness and justice through opportunities for all
in education ( at all levels). Business interests are contributing to
the destruction of the environment and should also be strongly regulated.
A fair tax code as well as strong and democratic unions should be able to act as a countervailing power to wealth and corporate interests, in order to protect workers ( I include the middle class).
Contrary to what somebody said elsewhere, I believe that libertarians
are right wingers who defend corporate interests under the mask of liberty.
They believe in the survival of the strongest in the jungle of unrestrained, 'everything goes' markets.
China has gained the world economic top spot by the rapid growth,
probably unprecedented in history, of manufactured goods exports.
Once it shifts its emphasis from exports to its vast internal markets, it
will become even more powerful. As it is now, I believe its world
power is getting close to the States'. All this has been achieved by
a political structure that could be considered 'oxymoronic': State
Capitalism, with protected economic barriers, led by a very
authoritarian Communist Party.(No, Victoria, capitalism and the
creation of a wealthy class doesn't necessarily lead to democracy).
China is the world's banker. It has amassed enormous amounts of
foreign reserves and ,economically, it holds the States by the throat.
That country subsidizes our fiscal and commercial deficits, and we
are almost powerless against its undervalued currency or its
economic, and therefore political expansion.
And so I believe GDP per capita tells little of the story, and the term
'third world country' is misleading.
|