Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
This isn't a valid comparison. If you change the analogy to the person who can bench the most, is the fastest, has the most money, has the most influence, and has the culture that is emulated the most, then maybe it's somewhat of a comparison.
If you look at the world right now and ask yourself honestly to rank the top 5 countries in the world, the US would be without a doubt #1.
Europe and China and Japan can chirp all they want, but until they are #1 politically (US), #1 economically (US), #1 military (US), and #1 Culturally (US), it's a joke.
Granted, 100 years ago we could replace US with Britain, but I don't see the US ceding anything.
The pro-europeans can do and say what they want, but right now..
ship it.
I thought we had been through that point several times re: having the most money! To continue with the analogy the (U.S.) person would
not be the richest. It would be like arguing that China is a richer country than Monaco – you need to check the GDP per capita figures….
Yes, the person would have the most influence economically, politically, militarily, and culturally. Wil, you made some good points in your post, and you were one of the very few in this thread to clearly articulate what you thought made a country “great”. But I, and many others here, find this definition….unsatisfying?
Having the exact type of influence you describe could be said of Nazi Germany. But surely you would not use the term “great” here, would you?
Sure, I accept that the example may in some ways be a little extreme, but I think it captures what I am getting at here. As a side note, the two governments (Nazi and U.S.) are responsible for the death and misery of millions of people around the world, but that’s a different story….
Kim Karadashian seems to also have this kind of “greatness” you describe. But to consider her as a “great” individual? She has a lot of influence (at least over her fan base), a lot of money, and she has shared her “culture” of greed and selfishness with many. However, she is not a particularly well-respected individual and, just like the U.S., is even hated by sizable numbers of people around the world. When I think of greatness, Mother Theresa, Leonardo da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton, etc all come to mind. Donald Trump also seems to fit your standard of greatness.
Also, I am still struggling to understand how being part of a country with such a powerful military and such a strong (but declining) influence is so important to many individuals ITT, on a personal level? How are you benefiting personally from this? In the case of the U.S., this kind of state power is largely independent of the quality of life its citizens enjoy… or don’t enjoy, as the case seems to be.
As a final note, a country that whose inhabitants, relative to the rest of the word, are
not the most likely to be employed, do
not have the greatest potential for upward social mobility, do
not enjoy good healthcare, do
not have the highest income per capita, do
not rank the highest on the U.N. Human Development Index,
nor are they freest, the most compassionate, the most educated, or enjoy the greatest quality of life, yet is still considered by many as the “greatest” paints a pretty bleak picture of the world we live in.
In conclusion, yes, the U.S.A. is definitely the “greatest” by some definitions of the word. But not everyone seems to share the same idea of “great”, and that’s just fine too. This has been a very interesting thread.
Last edited by PokerIMO; 06-05-2012 at 10:14 PM.