‘Derision of West misguided’

[جوري]

yeah, that's why i said 'its citizens' ;\

New York alone has 1.4 million that can't afford food
http://www.nyccah.org/
so it is a wonder at all where nearly half of my substantial salary goes..

oh I know where it goes...

right here:

you know, getting everyone to start helping out the poor around the world has its consequences;

Yes indeed, you might not have a little five year old wasting while a vulture stands behind her

if things were so simple you would not have the great debate between the left & the right.

Only idiots make complicated matters out of things that seem rather rudimentary.. Get your asses out of sovereign nations for starters and let's see how well they do?

anyway, even the poor of western countries are living in luxury compared to other places in the world.

true that!

I do think that eventually that corruption will be filtered out of the 'system' for the most part and the rest of the world will enjoy prosperity...in the long run anyway. i guess i am an optimist. The condition of humans is getting better not worse!

I believe that too but for entirely different reasons than yours!

all the best



I had not thought about it that way...very true.

I think the source of all the 'good' things mentioned in the article about the West and why Muslims leave their home countries is precisely the consequence of having a democratic state where the happiness of the people come first.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lynx]

New York alone has 1.4 million that can't afford food
http://www.nyccah.org/
so it is a wonder at all where nearly half of my substantial salary goes..

oh I know where it goes...

But on average the country is far better off than almost everywhere else. Of course there's going to be holes, the system is not perfect; humans are not perfect but we are trying to get there. Mistakes happen & people die, managing nations is not an easy thing for any political or economic theory. Look at Islam for instance... moments after the prophet's death there was controversy over how to run the state which ultimately resulted in the assassination of some of Islam's most praised figures. Running things ain't easy. EDIT: to link this back to the OP, the West is doing pretty **** well since everyone runs from their countries to the west to seek the better living conditions. Same is said for probably most of the users here and that's because of the West has created a place for minorities to thrive and prosper...something they can't get in other places.

Only idiots make complicated matters out of things that seem rather rudimentary.. Get your asses out of sovereign nations for starters and let's see how well they do?

i agree with the latter of what you said, though i am not sure what it had to do with the part of my message that you're replying to. Anyway, what's rudimentary? the stuff that economists argue about?

 

[جوري]

But on average the country is far better off than almost everywhere else.

Not only is that subjective, but one hazard ask how you got to be 'far better off than' if for the afore mentioned reason and that is precisely why, then not only do you not deserve the 'far better off' but it will most assuredly come to bite you later one.. and it is in fact starting to.. pretty soon you'll have nothing but third world despots and equal economic collapse!



all the best

 

[Supreme]

It was certainly a very interesting and enlightening article. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Argamemnon]

democracy and capitalism make the west a good place to live for its citizens.

Yes, by stealing other nations' resources, bombing and invading and terrorizing them. You must be very proud.

 

[Dagless]

But on average the country is far better off than almost everywhere else.

Even if it were true that it is better off than almost everywhere else, you cannot say this is down to capitalism or democracy.

 

[M.A.S.H.]

Are you saying depression would cease in a perfect islamic state?

 

[M.A.S.H.]

i wasnt expecting this from al-qarni ... I think he has only done a superficial analysis. he is true to some extent, ONLY. You will also see millions of americans who are depressed despite all these so-called Islamic values they have.

Are you saying depression would cease in a perfect islamic state?

Sorry, double post.

 

[M.A.S.H.]

Yes, by stealing other nations' resources, bombing and invading and terrorizing them. You must be very proud.

Britain, Spain, Tturkey, Portugal have been stealing other nations's recources for centuries and they're far worse off than the US whi has actually never colonized or stolen from a recourse-filled nation, at least not officially. And they couldn't have stolen that much off the books, at least not enoough to take the US where it is economically compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Lynx]

Not only is that subjective, but one hazard ask how you got to be 'far better off than' if for the afore mentioned reason and that is precisely why, then not only do you not deserve the 'far better off' but it will most assuredly come to bite you later one.. and it is in fact starting to.. pretty soon you'll have nothing but third world despots and equal economic collapse!



all the best

of course it's subjective. some people rather live in caves than in houses and that's fine by me. i am not speaking to those people nor about them. what do you count as deserving & why do you count it as such?


Dagless

Even if it were true that it is better off than almost everywhere else, you cannot say this is down to capitalism or democracy.

well i think it's very plausible that the reason why there is an abundance of human rights in secular countries of the west is due to the implementation of a functioning democracy. i mean the political theory is why there are human rights in western countries which i think is the point of the OP...the western political ideologies are much more equitable in human rights. economically, the free market style of economics that is used by Europe and North America and slowly China & India seems to work also so I don't know where else to lay the blame for financial success.

 

[جوري]

of course it's subjective. some people rather live in caves than in houses and that's fine by me.

The alternate to houses isn't caves believe it or not.. my sense is that you need to be better traveled?
Muslims that move to the west, find the west currently what the Muslim world was in its golden ages.. it pains me personally to not offer what I know to people I deem deserve care, but I try to do my best to dedicate my time.. I know if I went to Palestine right, I'd end up in some Israeli prison rather than giving vaccines and health care to those who deserve it. and that is through no fault of the Palestinians or Islam as a religion, rather the effete and ineffectual govt. that run have a strong grip in the region and by a direct order from the west. Every effort that is made to usurp these govt. and establish proper khlaifate nipped in the bud!
we are at an age predicted and largely in part due to what we have offered.. but it doesn't mean that we are less capable, we are in fact alot more capable, and so tell us your own govt. consensus:

Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated, with 49 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28 percent of natives.

Median earnings for Middle Eastern men were $39,000 a year compared to $38,000 for native workers.

they tend to be better-educated than native U.S. residents — about half hold bachelor's degrees, compared to 28 percent of natives. They also perform as well economically as natives — 30- and 40-year-old Middle Eastern males with a college education have the same median income as natives, and Middle East immigrants are more likely be self-employed.




Middle Eastern Immigrants in U.S. Educated, Prosperous, Study Says
Gannett News Service, August 15, 2002

(Also ran in Arizona Republic - 8/15)

WASHINGTON — Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are well educated, earn more money than most Americans and are predominantly Muslim, according to a report released Wednesday.

They also are among the nation's fastest-growing immigrant groups, according to the report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, a think tank that supports reducing the number of immigrants to the United States.

The report says the number of Middle Eastern immigrants increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1.5 million in 2000. The overall number of foreign-born residents in the United States tripled to 31 million over the same period.

The report offers a rare portrait of an immigrant group that has received intense scrutiny and negative publicity since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Project MAPS, a survey of "Muslims in the American Public Square" conducted in 2001-2002 by researchers at Georgetown University, found that 86 percent of all Muslim professionals were concentrated in three careers: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Law, law enforcement, and politics accounted for a minuscule 0.6 percent. American Muslims, some demographers say, have also been voting well below their numbers in the population -- registering to vote at only half the national rate, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey [PDF], a project of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "If they ever did play to their weight" in the electoral arena and in Washington, Muslims "would be a much more considerable force in public policy-making," says Steve Clemons, a Democrat who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/p...ab_America.pdf
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/mideastcoverage.html

​

what do you count as deserving & why do you count it as such?

This is complicated and I don't wish to get into a windy argument about it when I have a migraine and need to work on my other thread (which at least should serve some purpose)

all the best

 

[Dagless]

well i think it's very plausible that the reason why there is an abundance of human rights in secular countries of the west is due to the implementation of a functioning democracy.

Depends if you call it a true democracy. Human rights are slowly going out the window if recent history is anything to go by. Nevertheless you cannot say success is based on democracy and capitalism just because you happen to be living by those rules and surviving. Many nations have been successful without them.

economically, the free market style of economics that is used by Europe and North America and slowly China & India seems to work also so I don't know where else to lay the blame for financial success.

"seems to work" is hardly a reason to call it successful or a good thing.

 

[InfiniteMercy]

The thing that many people (ofcourse there are many that dont fall in this category) in the west fail to understand is that democracy (REAL democracy which is something very rare), human rights,etc,etc isnt something that can just happen and be put in place...these things take many, many years and only once the country is TRULY SOVEREIGN (and independent from foreign influence!!) and has a SOLID ECONOMY and the earnings and education of the average citizen increased to good level then all these good things such as democracy, human rights, free media, etc will follow..these are basic fundamental principles that most people dont understand...So if u want to truly "spread Democracy and improve human rights" in a sustainable way follow the basic steps above and not invade, install puppet governments, support dictators, secretly organize coups, exploit natural resources......

 

[Lynx]

The alternate to houses isn't caves believe it or not.. my sense is that you need to be better traveled?
Muslims that move to the west, find the west currently what the Muslim world was in its golden ages.. it pains me personally to not offer what I know to people I deem deserve care, but I try to do my best to dedicate my time.. I know if I went to Palestine right, I'd end up in some Israeli prison rather than giving vaccines and health care to those who deserve it. and that is through no fault of the Palestinians or Islam as a religion, rather the effete and ineffectual govt. that run have a strong grip in the region and by a direct order from the west. Every effort that is made to usurp these govt. and establish proper khlaifate nipped in the bud!
we are at an age predicted and largely in part due to what we have offered.. but it doesn't mean that we are less capable, we are in fact alot more capable, and so tell us your own govt. consensus:

Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated, with 49 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28 percent of natives.

Median earnings for Middle Eastern men were $39,000 a year compared to $38,000 for native workers.

they tend to be better-educated than native U.S. residents — about half hold bachelor's degrees, compared to 28 percent of natives. They also perform as well economically as natives — 30- and 40-year-old Middle Eastern males with a college education have the same median income as natives, and Middle East immigrants are more likely be self-employed.




Middle Eastern Immigrants in U.S. Educated, Prosperous, Study Says
Gannett News Service, August 15, 2002

(Also ran in Arizona Republic - 8/15)

WASHINGTON — Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are well educated, earn more money than most Americans and are predominantly Muslim, according to a report released Wednesday.

They also are among the nation's fastest-growing immigrant groups, according to the report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, a think tank that supports reducing the number of immigrants to the United States.

The report says the number of Middle Eastern immigrants increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1.5 million in 2000. The overall number of foreign-born residents in the United States tripled to 31 million over the same period.

The report offers a rare portrait of an immigrant group that has received intense scrutiny and negative publicity since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Project MAPS, a survey of "Muslims in the American Public Square" conducted in 2001-2002 by researchers at Georgetown University, found that 86 percent of all Muslim professionals were concentrated in three careers: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Law, law enforcement, and politics accounted for a minuscule 0.6 percent. American Muslims, some demographers say, have also been voting well below their numbers in the population -- registering to vote at only half the national rate, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey [PDF], a project of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "If they ever did play to their weight" in the electoral arena and in Washington, Muslims "would be a much more considerable force in public policy-making," says Steve Clemons, a Democrat who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/p...ab_America.pdf
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/mideastcoverage.html

​

This is complicated and I don't wish to get into a windy argument about it when I have a migraine and need to work on my other thread (which at least should serve some purpose)

all the best

I was reading through your post and wondering why you're giving me this info then I realized how my post sounded! i didn't mean to say Muslims come from caves haha I meant even if someone wanted to live in a cave then that's fine by me. I had no intention of bringing up the classic dumb stereotype of mUslims; I was agreeing with your claim that living standards are entirely subjective. apologies for any confusion.

Depends if you call it a true democracy. Human rights are slowly going out the window if recent history is anything to go by. Nevertheless you cannot say success is based on democracy and capitalism just because you happen to be living by those rules and surviving. Many nations have been successful without them.



"seems to work" is hardly a reason to call it successful or a good thing.

capitalism is successful because it is the mode of production that has yielded the greatest wealth for the countries who have adopted it and it apparently works for countries newly adopting it like china or india or other BRIC countries. even Marx, the greatest critic of capitailsm (and the father of the only criticism?) acknowledged the power of capitalism and how successful it is in raking in the doh . critiquing it on moral grounds is different than critiquing it as an economic theory which is what marx critiqued it on.

i don;'t know what you mean by human rights have been going out the window. if you can clarify that it would be great.

 

[جوري]

I was reading through your post and wondering why you're giving me this info then I realized how my post sounded! i didn't mean to say Muslims come from caves haha I meant even if someone wanted to live in a cave then that's fine by me. I had no intention of bringing up the classic dumb stereotype of mUslims; I was agreeing with your claim that living standards are entirely subjective. apologies for any confusion.

.

Ok.. thanks!

peace

 

[Dagless]

capitalism is successful because it is the mode of production that has yielded the greatest wealth for the countries who have adopted it and it apparently works for countries newly adopting it like china or india or other BRIC countries.

As I mentioned before I don't know how you can justify something or say its good/successful because "apparently it works". The people who are rich are few, the people who are poor are numerous. That doesn't sound like a great system to me. You say it works for people in west but even there the lower classes are biggest by far. In the UK there are a huge number of people below the poverty line. No country as rich as the UK should have that type of situation in existence.

i don;'t know what you mean by human rights have been going out the window. if you can clarify that it would be great.

Holding citizens without charge or trial.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Democracy is necessary for freedom, but it is not sufficient. A democracy is only as good as the moral fibre, attentiveness and awareness of its people. But in a democracy you at least have some chance of your voice being heard, unlike in a monarchy, theocracy or dictatorship.

Oh and for those who are bashing "the west" for all the evil things it has done to third world countries, I think you need to look a little deeper than tribal identities. If and when the situation is reversed, these who are oppressed are the oppressors. There is no "side" that is inherently more moral to the core than the other. I have been reading Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and in it he relays a number of stories of genocides, exploitations etc for material gain throughout history all throughout the world - whereever there is a marked imbalance of power. More fair media and information to the populace may actually empower a democracy to stop its power rich from embarking on these attrocity campaigns.

Also note that this western exploitation of the east isn't all the west's doing. Africans have been very quick to sell each other out for personal gain, and corruption in poor countries is often the greatest obstacle to outsiders getting aid to those who need it.

 

[Lynx]

As I mentioned before I don't know how you can justify something or say its good/successful because "apparently it works". The people who are rich are few, the people who are poor are numerous. That doesn't sound like a great system to me. You say it works for people in west but even there the lower classes are biggest by far. In the UK there are a huge number of people below the poverty line. No country as rich as the UK should have that type of situation in existence.

First and foremost, there's a limited amount of resources and not everyone is going to be a 'winner'. Someone's going to end up with less and that's just the reality and point of running a sound economy.

What's a great system to you? One where everyone is equally rich or equally poor or equally middle class? That sounds great to me too now let's go put that into practice...I hope you get my point. In a functioning society you are not going to have equal income for everyone; that isn't sound economics. Imperfect as it is, it still attracts flocks of people who don't seem to be running off to Saudi Arabia to live out their lives. Why do you think that is? Because everyone knows, even if they come to a western country like Canada where I live, the poverty level, as low as it is, is still better off to whatever they are escaping back home. Being poor in a western country isn't so bad compared to being poor in a non-western country and that's because the over-all quality of life is far superior to anywhere else. People living in the poverty line over here are enjoying free medical care, government subsidized education, & right to live as they want to live. Most people aren't CEO's of companies raking in billions of dollars but so what? Most people can buy cars, buy houses, and find jobs and even if they can't it ain't so bad; there has to be some losers somewhere. Is it a perfect system? No, is it the best we've got? Yes, and it's getting better and better as our quality of life increases and this goes for the rest of the world too.

EDIT: and I am not even including people who just led an imprudent life and find themselves in poverty.

Holding citizens without charge or trial.

How many countries has this been happening in? How much more is it happening than before for you to say 'human rights are going out the window' and is this your only example?

 

[Dagless]

First and foremost, there's a limited amount of resources and not everyone is going to be a 'winner'. Someone's going to end up with less and that's just the reality and point of running a sound economy.

Everyone might not be a winner, but everyone having basic necessities for life such as food, shelter, heat, light, are all more than viable.

What's a great system to you? One where everyone is equally rich or equally poor or equally middle class? That sounds great to me too now let's go put that into practice...I hope you get my point.

Not really, because a perfect system was never part of the argument. The topic is whether democracy and capitalism is good and successful. Keep up.

In a functioning society you are not going to have equal income for everyone; that isn't sound economics. Imperfect as it is, it still attracts flocks of people who don't seem to be running off to Saudi Arabia to live out their lives. Why do you think that is? Because everyone knows, even if they come to a western country like Canada where I live, the poverty level, as low as it is, is still better off to whatever they are escaping back home. Being poor in a western country isn't so bad compared to being poor in a non-western country and that's because the over-all quality of life is far superior to anywhere else. People living in the poverty line over here are enjoying free medical care, government subsidized education, & right to live as they want to live. Most people aren't CEO's of companies raking in billions of dollars but so what? Most people can buy cars, buy houses, and find jobs and even if they can't it ain't so bad; there has to be some losers somewhere. Is it a perfect system? No, is it the best we've got? Yes, and it's getting better and better as our quality of life increases and this goes for the rest of the world too.

Interesting that your argument essentially consists of describing the current economic system. So what if you get health care, and the poverty level is better than back home, how does that make it good or successful? Are you saying there is no way that places like the UK or Canada could have no poverty? In fact there is more than enough food in the world to go around but its the extravagant lifestyles of the few which cause problems to the many.
Your statement about it getting better and better is not an argument either. Cancers are becoming more and more treatable, that doesn't mean having cancer is a good thing does it?

How many countries has this been happening in? How much more is it happening than before for you to say 'human rights are going out the window' and is this your only example?

My only example happens to be the backbone of human rights. If you can't get that right how can you call the system sound?

 

[Lynx]

Everyone might not be a winner, but everyone having basic necessities for life such as food, shelter, heat, light, are all more than viable.

The point of the current system is that everyone who wants the necessities of life will have them; this is happening as you look at the quality of life and how much it increases (and has increased at the onset of capitalism!) over time. Nothing can make the world fixed in one go. It can take hundreds of years and the issue is vastly complicated.

Not really, because a perfect system was never part of the argument. The topic is whether democracy and capitalism is good and successful. Keep up.

Because you respond with vague comments like 'that doesn't sound like a great system to me' and then you cite how the top tier of the income bracket is less than the other tiers so I am forced to ask how you would want it. You're not going to get a system where everyone has equal wealth; that's called communism and it leads to problems. Rich is always going to be marginal, poverty has to be marginal (as it is in Western countires) but the bulk has to be well off and that IS happening. The point of the system, as I mentioned before, is to have even the losers of the country to not be so bad off and a lot of the times they aren't.

Interesting that your argument essentially consists of describing the current economic system. So what if you get health care, and the poverty level is better than back home, how does that make it good or successful? Are you saying there is no way that places like the UK or Canada could have no poverty? In fact there is more than enough food in the world to go around but its the extravagant lifestyles of the few which cause problems to the many.

First, there is no obligation for rich people to give away their wealth and forcing them to do so arguably leads to economic problems. Second, rich people who don't give away money do not cause any problems; the problems are already there they just don't do anything about it. Third, even if every rich person felt like giving away money away around the world, corrupt governments tend to kill the effort. For example Mugabe of Zimbabwe used to take donated food and give it to people who would vote for him. The problem isn't just in the hands of Greedy rich guys. Fourth, yes, my argument depends on describing the current system and how much better it is than everywhere else. I think appealing to how the system works better than its competitors is a powerful argument considering the point of politics and economics (macro anyway) is practical application. Anyone can criticize capitalism and democracy strictly on armchair arguments but the strength of a system is only demonstrated when its put it in use and nothing has topped the current system so far.

Your statement about it getting better and better is not an argument either. Cancers are becoming more and more treatable, that doesn't mean having cancer is a good thing does it?

.
The quality of life is increasing, people are getting richer and are able to have more stuff (one of the merits of capitalism) and that's a sign of being good & successful. Your cancer analogy is just begging the question.

My only example happens to be the backbone of human rights. If you can't get that right how can you call the system sound?

there's never Not going to be any corruption or abuse of human rights in a country. this is a fact that i concede however, If it's only one or 2 countries that do this during times of war then I don't think is a very convincing argument. I don;t think the system is perfect but for most people it works fine and most people's rights are guaranteed in the West.