PDA

View Full Version : Brazil snatches Britains wig - now 6th biggest economy in the world


The Witch-king
Mar 6th, 2012, 05:54 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/26/brazil-overtakes-uk-economy

Brazil has overtaken the UK to become the world's sixth-largest economy, according to a team of economists. The banking crash of 2008 and the subsequent recession has relegated the UK to seventh place in 2011, behind South America's largest economy, which has boomed on the back of exports to China and the far east.

Russia and India are expected to benefit from a surge in growth over the next 10 years and push the UK into eighth place. Like most economies, India is struggling with high inflation and slowing growth, but its highly educated workforce and skills in growth areas from IT and services to engineering will push the economy into fifth place. After a decade of selling oil and gas to Europe and other parts of Asia, Russia will be at number four.

The only compensation for ministers concerned by Britain's relative fall is that France will fall at a faster pace. Nicolas Sarkozy can still boast that France is the fifth-largest economy behind the US at number one, China, Japan and Germany, but by 2020, the Centre for Economics and business Research (CEBR) forecasts it will fall past the UK into ninth spot. Germany will also slip to seventh place in 2020.

CEBR chief executive Douglas McWilliams said: "Brazil has beaten the European countries at soccer for a long time, but beating them at economics is a new phenomenon. Our world economic league table shows how the economic map is changing, with Asian countries and commodity-producing economies climbing up the league while we in Europe fall back."

Europe is expected to suffer a "lost decade" of low growth following a credit binge over the past 20 years. Paying back debts over a short timescale will restrict growth and prevent many countries, including the UK, from clawing back output lost in the banking crash for many years.

The European Union, recently described by one Chinese official as "a worn-out welfare society", will remain the world's largest collective trading bloc, though a recession next year is expected to hit global growth. The latest forecasts by the CEBR show world growth falling to 2.5% in 2012, a downward revision from the forecast made in September.

However, the CEBR warned a scenario involving "one or more countries leaving the euro, sovereign defaults and banks going bust and needing to be bailed out" would reduce global growth in 2012 to 1.1%. The European growth slowdown is forecast to be even more marked, with a fall in GDP by 0.6% and a possible fall of 2% if the euro currency club breaks up. The US forecast is better, with growth of 1.8%.Emerging economies, which have seen their stock markets dive in recent months as investors assess the fallout from the euro crisis, would regain their momentum, said the CEBR.

China is forecast to grow by 7.6% and India by 6%. But other recent star economies with closer links to the EU or commodity prices are likely to face an economic slowdown with Turkish growth slowing to 2.5% from 7.1% this year, Saudi Arabia at 4% after 6.1% this year, Russia 2.8% after 3.8% this year, and Brazil 2.5% after 2.8% this year.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/ejaydahater1/A%20Bitch%20Is%20Fierce%20Gifs/34qque0.gif

Just Do It
Mar 6th, 2012, 05:59 PM
Not surprised at all, good thing for Brazil but still, like half of the nation lives in poverty. Brazil, Russia, China, India, Turkey ... all progressing but it's just a matter of time when will they fall into recession.
That GIF killed me.

Sammo
Mar 6th, 2012, 06:01 PM
Great, I've never liked GB :wavey:

ptkten
Mar 6th, 2012, 06:08 PM
Brazil has nearly four times as many people so it's no surprise it eventually passed Great Britain. While improving, Brazil still has too many people living in poverty to be a complete economic success story.

Annie.
Mar 6th, 2012, 06:15 PM
behind the US at number one

http://i44.tinypic.com/fd63r8.gif

Talita Kumi
Mar 6th, 2012, 06:39 PM
vamos irmaos! :cheer:

Sylvester
Mar 6th, 2012, 07:18 PM
Vamos Brasil! :cheer:

SwingVolley93
Mar 6th, 2012, 07:20 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/fd63r8.gif

And this.

The United States has almost triple the national GDP than that of second place China.
Step. :oh:

Nicolás89
Mar 6th, 2012, 07:39 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/fd63r8.gif

Please, the US is passed its peak, will never win a slam again and will have its wig snatched by Maoland in a few monthsyears more. Just wait.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/PaulaTinaMente/2jctquc.gif

miffedmax
Mar 6th, 2012, 07:50 PM
As Jo-La knows, it's all about per capita anyway.

Annie.
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:01 PM
Please, the US is passed its peak, will never win a slam again and will have its wig snatched by Maoland in a few monthsyears more. Just wait.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae240/PaulaTinaMente/2jctquc.gif

Many have tried, and all have failed. We remain unfazed.

http://i40.tinypic.com/zx4qp.gif

Sean.
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:05 PM
Great, I've never liked GB :wavey:

Feeling's mutual.

Valanga
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:12 PM
Great, I've never liked GB :wavey:

:haha: gurl you are a mess

Sammo
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:36 PM
Feeling's mutual.

Actually the 4 British people I know in person like me :oh:

Lucemferre
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:45 PM
What a way to deliver economy news and some of the posts :haha:

Nicolás89
Mar 6th, 2012, 09:27 PM
Many have tried, and all have failed. We remain unfazed.

http://i40.tinypic.com/zx4qp.gif

Numbers don't lie.

http://i.imgur.com/izvud.gif

ranfurly
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:01 PM
The greatest economy in the world.

Switzerland.

It's exports are Patty Schnyder :-) Such a Valuble Commodity!

SwingVolley93
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:08 PM
Numbers don't lie.

http://i.imgur.com/izvud.gif

Uhm..what are you trying to argue...:scratch:
USA is by far the world's largest economy...

Londoner
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:16 PM
[QUOTE=Sammo;21060490]Great, I've never liked GB :wavey:[/QUOT

:yeah: good, one less who wants to come here then! ;)

Nicolás89
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Uhm..what are you trying to argue...:scratch:
USA is by far the world's largest economy...

Try reading from the beginning instead of just the final maybe?

LoveFifteen
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:35 PM
*death* @ the USA has passed its peak and will never win a Slam again. :rolls:

As many have said, it's all about per capita income, and to be honest about Brazil, the economy there is growing so quickly that I think eventually things will become a bubble. Housing there has been going up in value like crazy, for example.

le bon vivant
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:40 PM
I'm loving this TF interpretation of this semi-recent news :lol:

SwingVolley93
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:45 PM
Try reading from the beginning instead of just the final maybe?

I did :wavey:

Nicolás89
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:48 PM
Please, the US is passed its peak, will never win a slam again and will have its wig snatched by Maoland in a few monthsyears more. Just wait.


I did :wavey:

Ok.

Novichok
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:23 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/fd63r8.gif

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!!!!!!!! Annie I love your gifs. :worship:

Your fave country could never. :oh:

antonella
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:27 PM
OK, now time for a reality-check. I wouldn't want to live in any society where Port-au-Prince meets Beverly Hills. Paraisópolis (São Paulo), BR. These pictures say A LOT:

The Morumbi section:

http://a.imagehost.org/0608/2_10.jpg

http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv165/MARIATHERESA/Morumb20.jpg

http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv165/MARIATHERESA/Morumbi4.jpg


Pavão-Pavãozinho (Copacabana):

http://www.vnews.com.br/imagem/201005/17093110.jpg

http://banco.agenciaoglobo.com.br/Imagens/Preview/200807/b06d7fb2-bce4-43d7-a902-03d57cbe8999.jpg

It's Rocinha's turn:

http://eyesonbrazil.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/21_mhg_rio_rocinha1.jpg

http://www.baixaki.com.br/imagens/wpapers/BXK3113_RocinhaRJ800.jpg

I think I'd prefer Britain.;)

le bon vivant
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:37 PM
OK, now time for a reality-check. I wouldn't want to live in any society where Port-au-Prince meets Beverly Hills. Paraisópolis (São Paulo), BR. These pictures say A LOT:

I think I'd prefer Britain.;)This is a good point. Brazil has the second largest level of income disparity in the world. I dont think anyone is disputing that though. :lol:
Britain is not perfect either, though.

tennisbum79
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:37 PM
Not surprised at all, good thing for Brazil but still, like half of the nation lives in poverty. Brazil, Russia, China, India, Turkey ... all progressing but it's just a matter of time when will they fall into recession.
That GIF killed me.
You have a funny way of celebrating a country success.


The fact is ordinary western citizens have been critizing these emerging countries for a very long time, I think news like this coming from one those countries should be absolutely welcome, and for a second suspend the usual putdown.


IN the USA, if the laissez-faire capitalism of the republican has its way, actual number of people living in poverty will rise dramatically, but on the paper, because wealth would have moved considerably to the top 1%, the the GDP would still be higher.

Nicolás89
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:43 PM
Britain has the biggest income disparity in the developed world though.

Sean.
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:44 PM
Great, I've never liked GB :wavey:

Actually the 4 British people I know in person like me :oh:

He says, writing in English! :oh:

Novichok
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:44 PM
Britain has the biggest income disparity in the developed world though.

No that would be the USA. :sobbing:

Novichok
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:45 PM
He says, writing in English! :oh:

American English. :oh:

WowWow
Mar 6th, 2012, 11:52 PM
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!!!!!!!! Annie I love your gifs. :worship:

Your fave country could never. :oh:

:rolls:

and rofl@ every topic being described through wig snatching in this forum :spit::lol:

SwingVolley93
Mar 7th, 2012, 12:00 AM
Ok.

its not even close is what I'm emphasizing. America will be on top for a long, long time. :kiss:

Novichok
Mar 7th, 2012, 12:03 AM
its not even close is what I'm emphasizing. America will be on top for a long, long time. :kiss:

I think I said something like this about Wozniacki. :oh:

Talita Kumi
Mar 7th, 2012, 12:31 AM
I think I'd prefer Britain.;)


i think id prefer Brasil :oh:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TmZczMe3fe8/TqiKf3-stSI/AAAAAAAAIUo/fSnLAG4Q-JA/s400/riodejaneiro2.jpg

brickhousesupporter
Mar 7th, 2012, 01:09 AM
OK, now time for a reality-check. I wouldn't want to live in any society where Port-au-Prince meets Beverly Hills. Paraisópolis (São Paulo), BR. These pictures say A LOT:

I think I'd prefer Britain.;)
Those pics remind me of Venezuela. I was amazed by how close the barrios were to the main high rises. I was struck by the level of poverty in other countries.

LeRoy.
Mar 7th, 2012, 01:28 AM
Per Capita Income >> size of the economy.

China is under-reporting inflation and over-estimating growth. Their "real" growth rate is way below the 7-8%. Not surprising given how shady China's politicians are. India is slowing down due to rapidly rising inflation and corruption continues to be an enormous problem. USA's numero uno position is good for a while . ;)

I doubt any country in the world will every influence pop culture the way USA has. :D

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:04 AM
I doubt any country in the world will every influence pop culture the way USA has. :DAnd thats truly a key indicator when assessing global power. :lol:

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:17 AM
Brazil is certainly a rising force in the world...

Yet regardless, Britain, pound for pound has had a truly astonishing impact on the world, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad...

The very game which so defines Brazil, Football, is British. Of course your national team kind of surpassed us...;)

But it's still our game, and if you don't like us, we will come and take it back!;)

LeRoy.
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:24 AM
And thats truly a key indicator when assessing global power. :lol:

Did i say that ? :lol: :weirdo:

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:29 AM
The very game which so defines Brazil, Football, is British. Of course your national team kind of surpassed us...;)

But it's still our game, and if you don't like us, we will come and take it back!;)

Aztecs & the ancient Chinese disagree.

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:31 AM
Did i say that ? :lol: :weirdo:I thought you were saying that pop culture influence is important, and I was agreeing...:rolleyes:
Soft power like cultural influence (which America dominates) is just as important as military and economic power.

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 03:38 AM
Aztecs & the ancient Chinese disagree.

Well, they are wrong!

The Witch-king
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:02 AM
And this.

The United States has almost triple the national GDP than that of second place China.
Step. :oh:

Many have tried, and all have failed. We remain unfazed.

http://i40.tinypic.com/zx4qp.gif

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!!!!!!!! Annie I love your gifs. :worship:

Your fave country could never. :oh:

IMF Says China Will Overtake US Economy by 2016 (http://www.investorplace.com/2011/04/imf-says-china-will-overtake-us-economy-by-2016/)

... http://i51.tinypic.com/snl849.jpg

The Witch-king
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:15 AM
You have a funny way of celebrating a country success.


The fact ordinary western citizen have been these emerging countries for a very long time, I think news like this coming from those country should be absolutely welcome, and for a second suspend the usual putdown.


IN the USA, if the laissez-faire capitalism of the republican has its way, actual number of people living in poverty will rise dramatically, but on the paper, because wealth would have moved considerably to the top 1%, the the GDP would still be higher.

Yep and it's so typical. I noticed that every report by American, and especially British, news channels when reporting on the success of 'less developed' countries is always tinged with cynicism about how much people are 'suffering' and how 'unhappy' they are in those countries :rolleyes: and yet you rarely see reports on the US and UK like that... as if there are no poor, miserable people there :lol:

People are so threatened by the growth of the south they'll say and do anything to minimise it. :lol: Just look at the responses in this thread.

The Witch-king
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:17 AM
Aztecs & the ancient Chinese disagree.

The Africans that invented running want that back too

KournikovaFan91
Mar 7th, 2012, 07:39 AM
Yep and it's so typical. I noticed that every report by American, and especially British, news channels when reporting on the success of 'less developed' countries is always tinged with cynicism about how much people are 'suffering' and how 'unhappy' they are in those countries :rolleyes: and yet you rarely see reports on the US and UK like that... as if there are no poor, miserable people there :lol:

People are so threatened by the growth of the south they'll say and do anything to minimise it. :lol: Just look at the responses in this thread.

Because these traditional powers still have a colonial outlook on the world the thought of the old colonies of India and Brazil now surpassing the imperialists infuriates some in North America and Europe. Not to mention how countries in South America in particular abandoned the Washington Consensus and then started rapidly developing, showing how useless the neoliberalism promoted by the US and Europe really was.

I look forward to the continued rise of the South and the lessening influence of the imperialists.

ranfurly
Mar 7th, 2012, 07:45 AM
I look forward to the continued rise of the South and the lessening influence of the imperialists.

I do as well,

Providing in the near future that a country, such as Brazil finds more sustainable ways of creating an economy which isn't going to dessicate the Amazon Rainforest etc etc

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 08:22 AM
i thought about posting exactly this article here back in december when it was actually breaking news.

anyway, i think it is good news that countries of the third world are developing and i see no reason to put their success down in any way. i see favelas are mentioned and while it is sad that more than 10 million people live in them it's still just 5% of the brazilian population. the us government considers 50% of the brazilian population "middle class".

instead we might mention that recently the us military bought aircraft produced by the brazilian company embraer. indeed, aircraft is one of the important exports of brazil. here are some pictures of what this new and improved brazil is giving to the world:

http://austrianaviation.net/uploads/pics/embraer_170_175_190_inflight_C_Embraer_05.jpg

http://www.austrianwings.info/grafik/meldungen/pr/aua_lufthansa/lufthansa_embraer_e195_d-aeca.jpg

brazil is also one of the leading car producers. incidently plenty of europeans are presently going to brazil for work. wages in brazil are on a par with some (admittedly poorer) european countries. the average wage for my profession is not far below the austrian average.

i don't think there will be a major bubble in the brazilian economy because it is based on production.

of course there are still many problems and challenges but things are going in the right direction and i agree that latin america slipping out of the us control plays a positive role.

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:16 AM
Yep and it's so typical. I noticed that every report by American, and especially British, news channels when reporting on the success of 'less developed' countries is always tinged with cynicism about how much people are 'suffering' and how 'unhappy' they are in those countries :rolleyes: and yet you rarely see reports on the US and UK like that... as if there are no poor, miserable people there :lol:

People are so threatened by the growth of the south they'll say and do anything to minimise it. :lol: Just look at the responses in this thread.

Partly true, goodness knows some of our media can be ugly. Worth mentioning we also have the BBC, which is pretty much the most widely respected broadcasting organisation in the world.

The British view of a country like Brazil is likely only half-right and tainted with pre-conceptions. Yet I would argue that equally those who are anti-British, aren't seeing the whole truth either.

matthias
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:30 AM
i guess it´s just normal that "small" countries fall behind huge like russia, brazil and one day india :shrug:

Apoleb
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:33 AM
I can't at this thread. :crying2:

Apoleb
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:39 AM
OK, now time for a reality-check. I wouldn't want to live in any society where Port-au-Prince meets Beverly Hills. Paraisópolis (São Paulo), BR. These pictures say A LOT:

The Morumbi section:








Pavão-Pavãozinho (Copacabana):





It's Rocinha's turn:





I think I'd prefer Britain.;)

Thank you for this very unbiased perspective. As if Britain, the US or any other country for that matter don't have their share of shitholes. Heck, most of the proper city of LA (not surroundings) looks like a mess.

Lin Lin
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:47 AM
GDP is useless when we have a population of 1.3 billion:lol:

Valanga
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:07 AM
Brazil is certainly a rising force in the world...

Yet regardless, Britain, pound for pound has had a truly astonishing impact on the world, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad...

The very game which so defines Brazil, Football, is British. Of course your national team kind of surpassed us...;)

But it's still our game, and if you don't like us, we will come and take it back!;)

:sobbing: I can't. Football is not a British invention.

Lin Lin
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:10 AM
:lol:

Ashi
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:20 AM
This thread is priceless. :lol:

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:36 AM
Well, they are wrong!

FIFA agrees with them.

The Africans that invented running want that back too

No I think that was evolution.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 7th, 2012, 12:20 PM
i thought about posting exactly this article here back in december when it was actually breaking news.

anyway, i think it is good news that countries of the third world are developing and i see no reason to put their success down in any way. i see favelas are mentioned and while it is sad that more than 10 million people live in them it's still just 5% of the brazilian population. the us government considers 50% of the brazilian population "middle class".

instead we might mention that recently the us military bought aircraft produced by the brazilian company embraer. indeed, aircraft is one of the important exports of brazil. here are some pictures of what this new and improved brazil is giving to the world:

I love Embraer jets, hopefully they can break the Boeing-Airbus duopoly once and for all. I believe they are looking into creating a larger jet with 5 across seating. A widebody Embraer seems decades away if ever but I really hope someday there is a widebody Embraer to challenge the Boeings and Airbuses of the world.

Russian aircraft building is essentially dead and China are way behind in this regard so its good to have some alternative builder of these narrowbody regional jets.

Valanga
Mar 7th, 2012, 12:25 PM
This thread is priceless. :lol:

a bit irrelevant but...
Once one of my British friends told me Chicken Korma was from Britain :lolwut:

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 12:33 PM
:sobbing: I can't. Football is not a British invention.

It is. Others might claim to have invented games with some similarities. But Association football, the game we recognize today, is British in origin.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 01:11 PM
Because these traditional powers still have a colonial outlook on the world the thought of the old colonies of India and Brazil now surpassing the imperialists infuriates some in North America and Europe. Not to mention how countries in South America in particular abandoned the Washington Consensus and then started rapidly developing, showing how useless the neoliberalism promoted by the US and Europe really was.

I look forward to the continued rise of the South and the lessening influence of the imperialists.

Where are the countries that were colonized by the US? :confused:

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 01:13 PM
Aztecs & the ancient Chinese disagree.

Didn't the Aztecs play a type of soccer using human heads?

The Witch-king
Mar 7th, 2012, 01:42 PM
No I think that was evolution.

evolution invented running?

Where are the countries that were colonized by the US? :confused:

A country doesn't have to have official 'colonies' to be ascribed as having a neo-colonialistic mentality... see the US's presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Korea, etc and the rest of the world basically

Valanga
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:10 PM
It is. Others might claim to have invented games with some similarities. But Association football, the game we recognize today, is British in origin.

you need help:help:

miffedmax
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:29 PM
It is. Others might claim to have invented games with some similarities. But Association football, the game we recognize today, is British in origin.

Ummm, yes.

From FIFA:

Modern football was born in 1863 when the English Football Association was founded yet the roots of the game stretch back centuries. Indeed there is evidence they were kicking a rudimentary ball around more than 2,000 years ago in China. Other countries have their own claims to have played the first football - ancient Greece and Rome included - but it was in England where the village contests of medieval times evolved into popular ball games in the public schools of the 19th century. By 1863, the first basic rules were established. Tripping opponents was forbidden and handling the ball would soon follow suit.

http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/index.html

FIFA's own official history of the game begins in 1863 with the codification of the Cambridge rules.

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:32 PM
you need help:help:

I cant imagine why what i have said is remotely controversial, nor is there any need to be personal about it.

Britain was the origin of Association football, we shaped and refined the games rules, held the first games, founded what is today the oldest football team in the world, the first football association, founded the worlds oldest football competition held the first international game...there is no country with a stronger case as birthplace of the game.

You can say that other nations played games which had elements of what would become football, but they are not recognizably Association football, and I dont believe, say that the game played by the Aztecs led to the game we play today.

delicatecutter
Mar 7th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Where are the countries that were colonized by the US? :confused:

Philippines

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 03:37 PM
I cant imagine why what i have said is remotely controversial, nor is there any need to be personal about it.

Britain was the origin of Association football, we shaped and refined the games rules, held the first games, founded what is today the oldest football team in the world, the first football association, founded the worlds oldest football competition held the first international game...there is no country with a stronger case as birthplace of the game.

You can say that other nations played games which had elements of what would become football, but they are not recognizably Association football, and I dont believe, say that the game played by the Aztecs led to the game we play today.

So because the British were the first to group together a match and make it official by their own rules now soccer becomes their invention? it doesn't seem right. It is like grouping together some men colonize some deserted island and then claim it as if was it your own from the beginning of times, oh wait.

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 03:41 PM
evolution invented running?


Yea, if we hadn't evolved into bipedal mammals we wouldn't be able to run. :lol:

Sammo
Mar 7th, 2012, 04:45 PM
Didn't the Aztecs play a type of soccer using human heads?

:haha::worship:

Expat
Mar 7th, 2012, 04:56 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/26/brazil-overtakes-uk-economy


The European Union, recently described by one Chinese official as "a worn-out welfare society",

what an accurate description.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:30 PM
evolution invented running?



A country doesn't have to have official 'colonies' to be ascribed as having a neo-colonialistic mentality... see the US's presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Korea, etc and the rest of the world basically

Not buying it. Britain had colonies all over the place including the US. Portugal had Brazil. The French had a bunch of places as did the Dutch. Influence is not the same thing as colonization.

And "neo-colonial mentality" (whatever the hell that is) is now the same as actually having colonies? Really?

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:34 PM
The US colonized the Philippines in the most traditional fashion, made motherland proud.

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:37 PM
Not buying it. Britain had colonies all over the place including the US. Portugal had Brazil. The French had a bunch of places as did the Dutch. Influence is not the same thing as colonization.Well you should buy a book on American history. The Phillippines were definitely an American colony. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1898-1946)

ptkten
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:42 PM
It's not perfect by any means but I think the Human Development Index is the best indicator of overall quality of life within a country. Based on what I've seen, it passes the eye test the best out of any of the other ways to quantify a country's overall wealth.

While the U.K is surprisingly low on this list at 28th, Brazil is all the way down at 84. They have a ways to go to have the same standard of living of many of the other economic powers.

The top 5 are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, United States, and New Zealand.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:45 PM
Well you should buy a book on American history. The Phillippines were definitely an American colony. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1898-1946)

Actually they were colonized by the Spanish. :lol: The Spanish seemed to do a lot of that by the way. But let's grant your claim about the Phillipines (though it's far more complicated than you suggest) where is your outrage about the Spanish, the French, the British, the Portuguese, the Dutch etc who had multiple colonies.

The Witch-king
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:46 PM
Not buying it. Britain had colonies all over the place including the US. Portugal had Brazil. The French had a bunch of places as did the Dutch. Influence is not the same thing as colonization.

And "neo-colonial mentality" (whatever the hell that is) is now the same as actually having colonies? Really?

Well if you don't know what neocolonialism is then I cant help you

Novichok
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Actually they were colonized by the Spanish. :lol:

And then it was territory of the US after the Spanish-American War.

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:52 PM
I love Embraer jets, hopefully they can break the Boeing-Airbus duopoly once and for all. I believe they are looking into creating a larger jet with 5 across seating. A widebody Embraer seems decades away if ever but I really hope someday there is a widebody Embraer to challenge the Boeings and Airbuses of the world.
embraer is far behind the other 2 even if it's the third aircraft manufacturer in the world. i just wish people would think of things like embraer when brazil is mentioned and not just samba, carnivals, football and favelas.

Not buying it. Britain had colonies all over the place including the US. Portugal had Brazil. The French had a bunch of places as did the Dutch. Influence is not the same thing as colonization.

And "neo-colonial mentality" (whatever the hell that is) is now the same as actually having colonies? Really?
the phillippines were a classic colony and one might mention that some of the territories incorporated in the us originally belonged to the american natives and mexico. but anyway, having a colony or "influencing" a country by means of military intervention is not much different except that the latter is cheaper. colonies in africa were largely formed during the scramble for africa because it was agreed by the european powers that they can claim a territory only if they really control it in order to prevent a war between them (it only postponed it), not because that was the best way to run an empire.

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:53 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Puerto Rico as one of the US colonies. :oh:

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:53 PM
The US colonized the Philippines in the most traditional fashion, made motherland proud.

From Wikipedia:

Spanish colonization and settlement began with the arrival of Miguel López de Legazpi's expedition on February 13, 1565 who established the first permanent settlement of San Miguel on the island of Cebu.[4] The expedition continued northward reaching the bay of Manila on the island of Luzon on June 24, 1571,[5] where they established a new town and thus began an era of Spanish colonization that lasted for more than three centuries.[6]

Spanish rule achieved the political unification of almost the whole archipelago, that previously had been composed by independent kingdoms and communities, pushing back south the advancing Islamic forces and creating the first draft of the nation that was to be known as the Philippines. Spain also introduced Christianity, the code of law, the oldest Universities and the first public education system in Asia, the western European version of printing, the Gregorian calendar and invested heavily on all kinds of modern infrastructures, such as train networks and modern bridges.

The Spanish East Indies were ruled as part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain and administered from Mexico City from 1565 to 1821, and administered directly from Madrid, Spain from 1821 until the end of the Spanish–American War in 1898, except for a brief period of British rule from 1762 to 1764. During the Spanish period, numerous towns were founded, infrastructures built, new crops and livestock introduced. The Chinese, British, Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese, and indigenous traders, complained that the Spanish reduced trade by attempting to enforce a Spanish monopoly. Spanish missionaries attempted to convert the population to Christianity and were eventually generally successful in the northern and central lowlands. They founded schools, a university, and some hospitals, principally in Manila and the largest Spanish fort settlements. Universal education was made free for all Filipino subjects in 1863 and remained so until the end of the Spanish colonial era. This measure was at the vanguard of contemporary Asian countries, and led to an important class of educated natives, like Jose Rizal. Ironically, it was during the initial years of American occupation in the early 20th century, that Spanish literature and press flourished.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:54 PM
And then it was territory of the US after the Spanish-American War.

The operative word. :)

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:56 PM
embraer is far behind the other 2 even if it's the third aircraft manufacturer in the world. i just wish people would think of things like embraer when brazil is mentioned and not just samba, carnivals, football and favelas.


the phillippines were a classic colony and one might mention that some of the territories incorporated in the us originally belonged to the american natives and mexico. but anyway, having a colony or "influencing" a country by means of military intervention is not much different except that the latter is cheaper. colonies in africa were largely formed during the scramble for africa because it was agreed by the european powers that they can claim a territory only if they really control it in order to prevent a war between them (it only postponed it), not because that was the best way to run an empire.

And did anybody colonize Mexico?

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:57 PM
Actually they were colonized by the Spanish. :lol: The Spanish seemed to do a lot of that by the way. But let's grant your claim about the Phillipines (though it's far more complicated than you suggest) where is your outrage about the Spanish, the French, the British, the Portuguese, the Dutch etc who had multiple colonies.Colonialism is more than just the initial process of conquering a foreign land. Colonial possessions were traded from country to country (for many reasons, most times in post-WAR treaties :lol:) quite often.

And colonialism is/was outrageous, no matter who was doing it. I don't understand why you're so defensive here, all Western nations were engaged in colonialism. :lol:

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 05:58 PM
How you call the action of directly intervene in foreign land to such degree that all your costumes, speech & culture overtakes the natives own ways? :confused: After the war Philippines don't even speak spanish anymore. :lol:

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:00 PM
It's not perfect by any means but I think the Human Development Index is the best indicator of overall quality of life within a country. Based on what I've seen, it passes the eye test the best out of any of the other ways to quantify a country's overall wealth.

While the U.K is surprisingly low on this list at 28th, Brazil is all the way down at 84. They have a ways to go to have the same standard of living of many of the other economic powers.

The top 5 are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, United States, and New Zealand.
human development index is definitely a more accurate way of assessing a country's development but not of quality of life. you can break it down to individual components and see how many indicators really affect ordinary people. the us ranking is as high due to some indicators which don't affect your average joe much, like the development of sciences and such.

if course brazil is still far behind developed countries. for me it's more about prejudice about brazil.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:05 PM
How you call the action of directly intervene in foreign land to such degree that all your costumes, speech & culture overtakes the natives own ways? :confused: After the war Philippines don't even speak spanish anymore. :lol:

Which was the original language of the Phillipines. :lol:

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:07 PM
Colonialism is more than just the initial process of conquering a foreign land. Colonial possessions were traded from country to country (for many reasons, most times in post-WAR treaties :lol:) quite often.

And colonialism is/was outrageous, no matter who was doing it. I don't understand why you're so defensive here, all Western nations were engaged in colonialism. :lol:

Actually if you go back far enough, all nations who had a bit more power than their neighbors were engaged in colonialism, no?

Or is this something that can only be laid at the doorstep of the West? :)

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:07 PM
And did anybody colonize Mexico?
the spanish did, so what? mexico gained independence from them only for their warlike nothern neighbour to take over. the american conquest of the phillippines (and puerto rico) was a classic example of an imperialist war, 2 colonial powers fighting over colonies. the us did there what germany tried to achieve in the ww1. european empires were stealing colonies from each other all the time over past 5 centuries and the us joined the fun as soon as they got strong enough.

miffedmax
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:08 PM
The U.S. has lots of colonies in the Pacific. Ask the folks from Bikini about the joys of being an American colony.

HZyIVVW1mFY

On the other hand, it's also true that Europeans happened to have hit their stride at a time when technology gave them a tremendous advantage when combined with their impulse to colonize. Other groups (i.e. the Chinese, the Mongols, the Persians, the Zulu, the Aztecs, etc.) were just as happy to carve out empires at others expense, they just lacked the technology (and in some cases the immunity to smallpox) to do so on a worldwide scale.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:09 PM
the spanish did, so what? mexico gained independence from them only for their warlike nothern neighbour to take over. the american conquest of the phillippines (and puerto rico) was a classic example of an imperialist war, 2 colonial powers fighting over colonies. the us did there what germany tried to achieve in the ww1. european empires were stealing colonies from each other all the time over past 5 centuries and the us joined the fun as soon as they got strong enough.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. OK.

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:10 PM
Which was the original language of the Phillipines. :lol:

Mind answer the question?

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:11 PM
The U.S. has lots of colonies in the Pacific. Ask the folks from Bikini about the joys of being an American colony.

HZyIVVW1mFY

On the other hand, it's also true that Europeans happened to have hit their stride at a time when technology gave them a tremendous advantage when combined with their impulse to colonize. Other groups (i.e. the Chinese, the Mongols, the Persians, the Zulu, the Aztecs, etc.) were just as happy to carve out empires at others expense, they just lacked the technology (and in some cases the immunity to smallpox) to do so on a worldwide scale.

The real point.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:13 PM
Mind answer the question?

You killed your own argument. Unless you believe that Spanish is the original language of that area. Many of the Phillipinos that I know speak Tagalog and other languages in addition English.

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:15 PM
Actually if you go back far enough, all nations who had a bit more power than their neighbors were engaged in colonialism, no?

Or is this something that can only be laid at the doorstep of the West? :)
but it can be laid at the door of the west even if it can be laid at the door of others, no? historically the west happens to be the region with most of the imperialist traditions in recent times with a lot of influence on the present. mongols were also huge imperialists and bloodthirsty bastards, but that was in the middle ages.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. OK.
ok what? the very next sentence mentions why the spanish became irrelevant. the got their butts kicked out of there. should i criticise spain because the us stole 40% of the territory of independent mexico :weirdo:

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:18 PM
On the other hand, it's also true that Europeans happened to have hit their stride at a time when technology gave them a tremendous advantage when combined with their impulse to colonize. Other groups (i.e. the Chinese, the Mongols, the Persians, the Zulu, the Aztecs, etc.) were just as happy to carve out empires at others expense, they just lacked the technology (and in some cases the immunity to smallpox) to do so on a worldwide scale.
i honestly don't consider americans that different to europeans. the us is a british colonial offshoot. and not all empires wanted global expansion. some were isolationist, like china. there were plenty of supporters of isolationism in the us as well. bottom line is that the us was not different from european, or should i say "white", imperialist nations.

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:20 PM
Actually if you go back far enough, all nations who had a bit more power than their neighbors were engaged in colonialism, no?

Or is this something that can only be laid at the doorstep of the West? :)If we're speaking in purely philosophical terms, then sure - Ancient Egypt, Imperial Rome, the Mongols - those were all empires based on colonialism. But if we're talking about the contemporary patterning and global economic and political power, then yes. We can lay the current system (as we know it) squarely at the feet of the West. Its not necessarily a good or a bad thing - it is what it is.

Do you find this to be problematic or something? :lol:

The Witch-king
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:23 PM
The real point.

Hardly.

deadparrot
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Where are the countries that were colonized by the US? :confused:

Denmark actually sold the Danish West Indies (St. Thomas, St. John & St. Croix) to the US for 25 million dollars in 1917 :lol: Now they're called the United States Virgin Islands. That counts as a colony, no?

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:25 PM
You killed your own argument. Unless you believe that Spanish is the original language of that area. Many of the Phillipinos that I know speak Tagalog and other languages in addition English.

I killed nothing. I just said that to put in contrast the similarities of the US & Spanish influence in the Philippines. :shrug:

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:27 PM
The U.S. has lots of colonies in the Pacific. Ask the folks from Bikini about the joys of being an American colony.

HZyIVVW1mFY

On the other hand, it's also true that Europeans happened to have hit their stride at a time when technology gave them a tremendous advantage when combined with their impulse to colonize. Other groups (i.e. the Chinese, the Mongols, the Persians, the Zulu, the Aztecs, etc.) were just as happy to carve out empires at others expense, they just lacked the technology (and in some cases the immunity to smallpox) to do so on a worldwide scale.You must have read Guns, Germs, and Steel? :lol: The Europeans took gunpowder from the Chinese and the compass from the Arabs, so its not a matter of not having the requisite technology to exploit others. Europeans just developed a economic rationale (mercantilism, then capitalism) and scientific justification (scientific racism, white racial supremacy, etc.) that obliged them to "civilize" (subjugate) as many people as possible. That ideological distinction is just as important as any technological advancement.

Nicolás89
Mar 7th, 2012, 06:29 PM
Denmark actually sold the Danish West Indies (St. Thomas, St. John & St. Croix) to the US for 25 million dollars in 1917 :lol: Now they're called the United States Virgin Islands. That counts as a colony, no?

Alaska is another example of US colonization.

debopero
Mar 7th, 2012, 07:44 PM
...Hawaii too?

azdaja
Mar 7th, 2012, 07:48 PM
...Hawaii too?
yes

miffedmax
Mar 7th, 2012, 08:02 PM
You must have read Guns, Germs, and Steel? :lol: The Europeans took gunpowder from the Chinese and the compass from the Arabs, so its not a matter of not having the requisite technology to exploit others. Europeans just developed a economic rationale (mercantilism, then capitalism) and scientific justification (scientific racism, white racial supremacy, etc.) that obliged them to "civilize" (subjugate) as many people as possible. That ideological distinction is just as important as any technological advancement.

Scientific explanations for Western superiority arose AFTER the West has asserted it's technological superiority over the rest of the world (and, of course, conveniently ignored the fact that yes, the West borrowed many of "its" innovations from other cultures).

The fact is that Western European technology, in the late 1400s, perfected ships and navigation techniques that were capable of long-distance voyaging on a fairly consistent basis, something nobody (including the Arabs and the Vikings) had done before. They also perfected the ability to produce vast quantities of firearms relatively cheaply--ironically, their tradition of casting church bells gave them an advantage over the Arabs and Chinese in this area--was a huge advantage.

It's worth noting that even at a time when the West was colonizing vast stretches of the New World, its domination of the Old World was far from assured. The Turks took Constantinople a scant 40 years before Columbus set sail for the Americas, and Vienna, the heart of the Hapsburg Empire and one of the power centers of Europe, nearly fell to the Turks in 1529 and again in 1683.

The emergence of the new shipping and weapons technology, coupled with the Turkish incursions into Central Europe, played a major role in shifting the wealth and power of Europe to its periphery, i.e. England, Spain, and Portugal and to a lesser extent France while the traditional late medieval/early Renaissance powers of Italy went into decline. This shift to the periphery also eventually weakened Europe's greatest rival, the Ottoman Empire which lost it's trade routes, and also many of the empires of North Africa.

The original impetus for the "inferiority" of others was their resolute insistence on not being Christian, not the "scientific" idea they were inferior which led to the sort of schizo idea that you could economically exploit people in this world because you were saving them in the next--an idea that not a few Arab societies had also exploited when they had the opportunity.

Having said all that, it is true that the Old World had a definition of "war" that was far more brutal and complete than most New World cultures. As John Keegan put it (and I paraphrase) pre-Columbian Americans and most Africans in interior Africa fought to take prisoners, and Europeans and Asians fought to inflict casualties.

That was especially true in the gunpowder era, when warriors ceased to be from the upper crust (and ransomable) and came from the peasantry--might as well waste a peasant, since nobody could ransom him, and it was fairly cheap to train a harquebusier or pikeman.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 08:59 PM
but it can be laid at the door of the west even if it can be laid at the door of others, no? historically the west happens to be the region with most of the imperialist traditions in recent times with a lot of influence on the present. mongols were also huge imperialists and bloodthirsty bastards, but that was in the middle ages.


ok what? the very next sentence mentions why the spanish became irrelevant. the got their butts kicked out of there. should i criticise spain because the us stole 40% of the territory of independent mexico :weirdo:

Stole? Did the Muslims "steal" the areas that they now control that used to be Christian?

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:01 PM
i honestly don't consider americans that different to europeans. the us is a british colonial offshoot. and not all empires wanted global expansion. some were isolationist, like china. there were plenty of supporters of isolationism in the us as well. bottom line is that the us was not different from european, or should i say "white", imperialist nations.

This is your real point. You should have been honest about it sooner.

HippityHop
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:03 PM
If we're speaking in purely philosophical terms, then sure - Ancient Egypt, Imperial Rome, the Mongols - those were all empires based on colonialism. But if we're talking about the contemporary patterning and global economic and political power, then yes. We can lay the current system (as we know it) squarely at the feet of the West. Its not necessarily a good or a bad thing - it is what it is.

Do you find this to be problematic or something? :lol:

What I find problematic is the seemingly dishonest attempt to deny that others besides the West engaged in Imperialism. You don't get to decide where the cut off point in history is. :p

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:19 PM
Scientific explanations for Western superiority arose AFTER the West has asserted it's technological superiority over the rest of the world (and, of course, conveniently ignored the fact that yes, the West borrowed many of "its" innovations from other cultures).

The fact is that Western European technology, in the late 1400s, perfected ships and navigation techniques that were capable of long-distance voyaging on a fairly consistent basis, something nobody (including the Arabs and the Vikings) had done before. They also perfected the ability to produce vast quantities of firearms relatively cheaply--ironically, their tradition of casting church bells gave them an advantage over the Arabs and Chinese in this area--was a huge advantage.

It's worth noting that even at a time when the West was colonizing vast stretches of the New World, its domination of the Old World was far from assured. The Turks took Constantinople a scant 40 years before Columbus set sail for the Americas, and Vienna, the heart of the Hapsburg Empire and one of the power centers of Europe, nearly fell to the Turks in 1529 and again in 1683.

The emergence of the new shipping and weapons technology, coupled with the Turkish incursions into Central Europe, played a major role in shifting the wealth and power of Europe to its periphery, i.e. England, Spain, and Portugal and to a lesser extent France while the traditional late medieval/early Renaissance powers of Italy went into decline. This shift to the periphery also eventually weakened Europe's greatest rival, the Ottoman Empire which lost it's trade routes, and also many of the empires of North Africa.

The original impetus for the "inferiority" of others was their resolute insistence on not being Christian, not the "scientific" idea they were inferior which led to the sort of schizo idea that you could economically exploit people in this world because you were saving them in the next--an idea that not a few Arab societies had also exploited when they had the opportunity.

Having said all that, it is true that the Old World had a definition of "war" that was far more brutal and complete than most New World cultures. As John Keegan put it (and I paraphrase) pre-Columbian Americans and most Africans in interior Africa fought to take prisoners, and Europeans and Asians fought to inflict casualties.

That was especially true in the gunpowder era, when warriors ceased to be from the upper crust (and ransomable) and came from the peasantry--might as well waste a peasant, since nobody could ransom him, and it was fairly cheap to train a harquebusier or pikeman.Max, great points. However I disagree that the original impetus for the inferiority of non-Europeans came from their insistence on not becoming Christian, because even when indigenous peoples were converted to Christianity, they were still enslaved. When the Spanish conquistadores read El Requerimiento to the natives, that wasn't a genuine attempt to give the natives an opportunity to convert and save themselves. It was just standard procedure before the subjugation began. The point of colonialism was not to civilize the heathen people, there was a much stronger mercantilist/capitalist rationale in exploring these foreign lands and extracting natural resources from them. The pseudo-religious explanations just obscured the obvious moral bankruptcy of raping, killing and plundering people en masse. The economic exploitation is what sparked colonialism and made sure that it flourished. They weren't establishing colonies because it made the Pope happy, but because the slave trade made a lot of bankers and financiers rich, back in the various metropoles of Europe.

donellcarey
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:25 PM
A Chinese passing by...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgzh20ik7E1qahei0.gif

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:30 PM
What I find problematic is the seemingly dishonest attempt to deny that others besides the West engaged in Imperialism. You don't get to decide where the cut off point in history is. :pWell of course we can go back to Ancient Egypt as an exemplar of Imperialism. But how relevant is the Egyptian Empire to the unprecedented political and economic changes the world has experienced since Columbus sailed the ocean blue?

Its coming across that you feel the need to be an apologist for the West, by saying "but other people did it too!!" While that is true, it doesn't really advance this current conversation, you know? ;)

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:31 PM
So because the British were the first to group together a match and make it official by their own rules now soccer becomes their invention? it doesn't seem right. It is like grouping together some men colonize some deserted island and then claim it as if was it your own from the beginning of times, oh wait.

No comparison...even FIFA credit us as the birthplace of modern football.

Not worth arguing over. Bye.

tennisbum79
Mar 7th, 2012, 09:54 PM
Because these traditional powers still have a colonial outlook on the world the thought of the old colonies of India and Brazil now surpassing the imperialists infuriates some in North America and Europe. Not to mention how countries in South America in particular abandoned the Washington Consensus and then started rapidly developing, showing how useless the neoliberalism promoted by the US and Europe really was.

I look forward to the continued rise of the South and the lessening influence of the imperialists.
But what is dirsturbing is that news like this is automatically met by cynism even from ordianry citizens, who usally have very limited knowledge of the economy, but are very well versed in giving those reharsed answers such as "but the majority of the people are still in proverty".
After years of riducle and contempts toward these countries, some refuse to acknowledge the steady, positive, directional course those countries have taken the last 15-20 years to arrive at this level of success.
And they achive this success mostly with their own people, with soultion teyr designed theemsleves for their people, not something conceived elsewhere in a western capital.

This is something these merging countries were not doing, they would usually fly some experts from a western, who would spend few months at great cost for the already poor country, and prescribe solution that are usually inadequate for the curlture.

India and Brazil are shining examples that within every country, lies ingeuity that, with the right leadership, can be tapped in for the betterement of its citizens.
That possibility exists everywhere.

le bon vivant
Mar 7th, 2012, 10:43 PM
But what is dirsturbing is that news like this is automatically met by cynism even from ordianry citizens, who usally have very limited knowledge of the economy, but are very well versed in giving those reharsed answers such as "but the majority of the people are still in proverty".
After years of riducle and contempts toward these countries, some refuse to acknowledge the steady, positive, directional course those countries have taken the last 15-20 years to arrive at this level of success.
And they achive this success mostly with their own people, with soultion teyr designed theemsleves for their people, not something conceived elsewhere in a western capital.

This is something these merging countries were not doing, they would usually fly some experts from a western, who would spend few months at great cost for the already poor country, and prescribe solution that are usually inadequate for the curlture.

India and Brazil are shining examples that within every country, lies ingeuity that, with the right leadership, can be tapped in for the betterement of its citizens.
That possibility exists everywhere.Lies.
Hard work, ingenuity? Those are exclusively American cultural values. :lol::lol:

Edward.
Mar 7th, 2012, 10:52 PM
So it would appear that Dodgy Dave and the Conservatives, not content with flatlining our economy, crushing social mobility, bulldozing our healthcare service and terrorising the British public with their mad austerity plans are now overseeing our slide down the league table.

And yet the Conservatives lead in the polls. This country is completely fucked.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/tom_f2fcb0_839731.gif

Novichok
Mar 7th, 2012, 10:57 PM
So it would appear that Dodgy Dave and the Conservatives, not content with flatlining our economy, crushing social mobility, bulldozing our healthcare service and terrorising the British public with their mad austerity plans are now overseeing our slide down the league table.

And yet the Conservatives lead in the polls. This country is completely fucked.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/tom_f2fcb0_839731.gif

:awww:

I'm sure it's not that bad. :lol:

Halardfan
Mar 7th, 2012, 10:58 PM
But what is dirsturbing is that news like this is automatically met by cynism even from ordianry citizens, who usally have very limited knowledge of the economy, but are very well versed in giving those reharsed answers such as "but the majority of the people are still in proverty".
After years of riducle and contempts toward these countries, some refuse to acknowledge the steady, positive, directional course those countries have taken the last 15-20 years to arrive at this level of success.
And they achive this success mostly with their own people, with soultion teyr designed theemsleves for their people, not something conceived elsewhere in a western capital.

This is something these merging countries were not doing, they would usually fly some experts from a western, who would spend few months at great cost for the already poor country, and prescribe solution that are usually inadequate for the curlture.

India and Brazil are shining examples that within every country, lies ingeuity that, with the right leadership, can be tapped in for the betterement of its citizens.
That possibility exists everywhere.

Certainly a fare amount of truth in that. The rise of Brazil is a good thing which we should welcome. I have a lot of family in Brazil, so I'm glad for them.

It was just albeit light heartedly initially the thread was set up in a Brazil v Britain context, and that did two things, it got Brits (and some westerners)into a defensive frame of mind, where they wanted to denigrate Brazil's achievement and it also motivated those with (sometimes justified, sometimes not) anti-British, anti-Western feelings to express those.

So people pared off into two camps.

brickhousesupporter
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:10 PM
Denmark actually sold the Danish West Indies (St. Thomas, St. John & St. Croix) to the US for 25 million dollars in 1917 :lol: Now they're called the United States Virgin Islands. That counts as a colony, no?
I was not born in no damn colony.....if the US bought it, how can it be a colony of the US. A danish colony maybe, but then again you have look at how Denmark acquired them. The history of the Virgin Islands is very varied, so you really can't say who colonized who. BTW I really should like Caro because of my Danish heritage, but I just can't.

Six Feet Under
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:18 PM
Just thought I'd mention Qatar, the best economy PPP and P/C wise.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 8th, 2012, 12:15 AM
But what is dirsturbing is that news like this is automatically met by cynism even from ordianry citizens, who usally have very limited knowledge of the economy, but are very well versed in giving those reharsed answers such as "but the majority of the people are still in proverty".


Many British media outlets keep pushing the idea that Britain and the empire is great and that everyone else is lesser, I mean the Telegraph, Daily Mail, the Sun, to a lesser extent the Daily Mirror. The EU-skepticism while justified in many ways is another tool the media in the UK use to basically say Foreign = Bad, British = Good.

For example the reaction to the fact Jamaica wants to be a Republic, not exactly glowing support from London despite the fact whether the Queen is Jamaica's head of state is actually irrelevant to anyone in the UK.

Expat
Mar 8th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Just thought I'd mention Qatar, the best economy PPP and P/C wise.

Natural gas. :hearts:

Halardfan
Mar 8th, 2012, 01:24 AM
Many British media outlets keep pushing the idea that Britain and the empire is great and that everyone else is lesser, I mean the Telegraph, Daily Mail, the Sun, to a lesser extent the Daily Mirror. The EU-skepticism while justified in many ways is another tool the media in the UK use to basically say Foreign = Bad, British = Good.

For example the reaction to the fact Jamaica wants to be a Republic, not exactly glowing support from London despite the fact whether the Queen is Jamaica's head of state is actually irrelevant to anyone in the UK.

Certainly some truth in that, the Mail and The Sun in particular are destructive and give their readers a distorted, Little Englander view of the world.

My view is simply this...

Brits who are blindly anti-foreigner are stupid and ignorant.

Foreigners who are blindly anti-British are stupid and ignorant.

There are plenty of both kinds in the world.

Nicolás89
Mar 8th, 2012, 01:38 AM
Certainly some truth in that, the Mail and The Sun in particular are destructive and give their readers a distorted, Little Englander view of the world.

My view is simply this...

Brits who are blindly anti-foreigner are stupid and ignorant.

Foreigners who are blindly anti-British are stupid and ignorant.

There are plenty of both kinds in the world.

You keep saying that but you've failed to give examples of that happening in this thread. Unless you think that saying soccer is not a british invention is anti-british.

SwingVolley93
Mar 8th, 2012, 02:10 AM
omg wtf has this thread turned into :help:

Halardfan
Mar 8th, 2012, 03:02 AM
You keep saying that but you've failed to give examples of that happening in this thread. Unless you think that saying soccer is not a british invention is anti-british.

I haven't got the energy.

miffedmax
Mar 8th, 2012, 03:32 AM
Max, great points. However I disagree that the original impetus for the inferiority of non-Europeans came from their insistence on not becoming Christian, because even when indigenous peoples were converted to Christianity, they were still enslaved. When the Spanish conquistadores read El Requerimiento to the natives, that wasn't a genuine attempt to give the natives an opportunity to convert and save themselves. It was just standard procedure before the subjugation began. The point of colonialism was not to civilize the heathen people, there was a much stronger mercantilist/capitalist rationale in exploring these foreign lands and extracting natural resources from them. The pseudo-religious explanations just obscured the obvious moral bankruptcy of raping, killing and plundering people en masse. The economic exploitation is what sparked colonialism and made sure that it flourished. They weren't establishing colonies because it made the Pope happy, but because the slave trade made a lot of bankers and financiers rich, back in the various metropoles of Europe.

I think we actually agree on a lot of points. The fact that Western financial institutions were built around the relatively radical idea of things like charging interest (something that the Islamic world eschewed) drove an explosion in economic growth in Western Europe that allowed its technological lead (which was threadbare over Islam in the 1500s, not really existent at all over China, and not as large over the mercantile empires of North and Central Africa as is commonly supposed) to snowball. Incidently, it was that same shift of trade away from the Islamic world and the Mediterranean that wiped out the wealth of some emerging African empires.

I also agree that the drive to Christianize other peoples was often window dressing--like I said in my previous post this was often justified with the idea it was okay to oppress the shit out of people in this world because you were saving them in the next. And eventually science replaced religion as a justification for enslaving people.

Apoleb
Mar 8th, 2012, 05:20 AM
I also agree that the drive to Christianize other peoples was often window dressing--like I said in my previous post this was often justified with the idea it was okay to oppress the shit out of people in this world because you were saving them in the next. And eventually science replaced religion as a justification for enslaving people.

The racial justifications were already there in the 15th/16th centuries, before they were dressed with scientific theories and in close tandem with the brutality. Racism is thought to be a key issue I believe going back as far as the Inquisition. As LBV said, Christianity doesn't provide an ideological support that was strong enough to justify the continued domination (what reason would they have when they convert them), so they needed a much more "inherent" criterion. Incidentally, I think that's when the "Western consciousness" was formed, then later justified by going to Rome, Greece and all that nonsense.

The Witch-king
Mar 8th, 2012, 08:05 AM
Certainly some truth in that, the Mail and The Sun in particular are destructive and give their readers a distorted, Little Englander view of the world.

My view is simply this...

Brits who are blindly anti-foreigner are stupid and ignorant.

Foreigners who are blindly anti-British are stupid and ignorant.

There are plenty of both kinds in the world.

You know I don't even think it's an pro british vs anti-british thing. Along with the neocolonialism point KournikovaFan made earlier I think it comes down to the fact that people like to think their country is the best/better than others because they feel it somehow reflects on them :weirdo:. So when they see countries they thought they were better than on the come-up they don't want to hear it.:shrug: Its a weird mix of patriotism and egotism ...

p.s. i was actually referring to the BBC when I talked about British media actually :help::lol:. You're saying it gets worse???

azdaja
Mar 8th, 2012, 08:07 AM
This is your real point. You should have been honest about it sooner.
:facepalm: you do know that superiority of white race was used as a justification for colonialism as late as 20th century? and anyway, the following post sums it up:

Well of course we can go back to Ancient Egypt as an exemplar of Imperialism. But how relevant is the Egyptian Empire to the unprecedented political and economic changes the world has experienced since Columbus sailed the ocean blue?

Its coming across that you feel the need to be an apologist for the West, by saying "but other people did it too!!" While that is true, it doesn't really advance this current conversation, you know? ;)
there have been empires throughout human history but they have little relevance for the modern world. european colonialism shaped the world we live in. a simple and superficial example would be borders of most modern states. did african or american natives decide on where borders would be?

stupidly repeating "others did the same" is not getting this conversation anywhere.

european colonialism also shaped the attitude of european superiority over others which persists to this day. it can be found right on this thread where people feel the need to belittle brazil's success.

But what is dirsturbing is that news like this is automatically met by cynism even from ordianry citizens, who usally have very limited knowledge of the economy, but are very well versed in giving those reharsed answers such as "but the majority of the people are still in proverty".
yeah, it's incredible. it seems people believe brazil overtook the uk in the size economy simply because of the huge size of its population, but brazil's population is 200 million. brazil's gdp per capita is on a par with countries like poland or hungary. brazil is catching up with developed countries fast in the same way as korea and taiwan did, they are far ahead of china and india in this regard (nothing to take away from their progress either).

This is something these merging countries were not doing, they would usually fly some experts from a western, who would spend few months at great cost
actually huge part of the aid developed countries are sending to the third world is used to pay those experts.

Halardfan
Mar 8th, 2012, 08:51 AM
You know I don't even think it's an pro british vs anti-british thing. Along with the neocolonialism point KournikovaFan made earlier I think it comes down to the fact that people like to think their country is the best/better than others because they feel it somehow reflects on them :weirdo:. So when they see countries they thought they were better than on the come-up they don't want to hear it.:shrug: Its a weird mix of patriotism and egotism ...

p.s. i was actually referring to the BBC when I talked about British media actually :help::lol:. You're saying it gets worse???

There is again a fair bit of truth in what you say, about the insecurity at the heart of it in regards to some in the British media. Of a nations place in the world slipping as others rise. Im ashamed of the superior attitude of some in Britain.
Just I would add I think that it's sometimes mirrored by an anti-British attitude which I am also dismayed by.

But I don't think we have common ground as regards the BBC. Im very proud of it...it is one of the best things Britain has produced.

It's the tabloid press, (and in addition The Daily Mail) which is usually the ugly face of our media. Even there, it's a non-Brit (Rupert Murdoch) who has played the strongest hand in shaping its worst excesses of ugliness and xenophobia.

The Witch-king
Mar 8th, 2012, 09:03 AM
There is again a fair bit of truth in what you say, about the insecurity at the heart of it in regards to some in the British media. Of a nations place in the world slipping as others rise. Im ashamed of the superior attitude of some in Britain.
Just I would add I think that it's sometimes mirrored by an anti-British attitude which I am also dismayed by.

But I don't think we have common ground as regards the BBC. Im very proud of it...it is one of the best things Britain has produced.

It's the tabloid press, (and in addition The Daily Mail) which is usually the ugly face of our media. Even there, it's a non-Brit (Rupert Murdoch) who has played the strongest hand in shaping its worst excesses of ugliness and xenophobia.

well i dont know if this comforts you but in my experience it happens everywhere

but what are some examples of anti british attitude you mention?

Halardfan
Mar 8th, 2012, 12:37 PM
well i dont know if this comforts you but in my experience it happens everywhere

but what are some examples of anti british attitude you mention?

I dont want to get into specifics, merely that I believe that the narrow minded prejudiced bigots that are present in Britain have their equivilent everywhere. Also that it's right that people should take Britain to task on particular issues, and I will sometimes readily support them. But I think there are some people in the world who are judging Britain based on their own prejudices rather than the merits of a given case.

WowWow
Mar 8th, 2012, 01:12 PM
A Chinese passing by...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgzh20ik7E1qahei0.gif

:haha::worship:

HippityHop
Mar 8th, 2012, 01:34 PM
Well of course we can go back to Ancient Egypt as an exemplar of Imperialism. But how relevant is the Egyptian Empire to the unprecedented political and economic changes the world has experienced since Columbus sailed the ocean blue?

Its coming across that you feel the need to be an apologist for the West, by saying "but other people did it too!!" While that is true, it doesn't really advance this current conversation, you know? ;)


That argument is basically saying that history is compartmentalized. I don't believe that. Everything that has happened in the past leads to the present and influences it in some way.

le bon vivant
Mar 8th, 2012, 01:41 PM
That argument is basically saying that history is compartmentalized. I don't believe that. Everything that has happened in the past leads to the present and influences it in some way.Yes, but some things are more influential than others, right? I think most scholars would agree that the Age of Exploration is a pivotal moment to kick-start this kind of discussion.

Expat
Mar 8th, 2012, 02:15 PM
I am sorry but most nations harken back to their most successful days as a nation when they rely on history. For Europe as a whole it is the recent past but for say Greece it would harken back to 2000 years ago. They wouldn't want to remember their "achievements" or be influenced from their humiliating situation under the Turks when they were colonized even if it were the recent past. Iran same way seems to recall Cyrus,Darius et al when projecting Iranian power.
Most Europeans wouldn't discuss of ideas that came about in their Dark Ages also. The West talks about the recent past because its when it was most influential. China will recall when it was the global leading power when it tries to project its influence on its globe.
To assume that only the recent past is more worthy is perpetuating the viewpoint of the colonial Europeans and excluding others when they were dominant.

le bon vivant
Mar 8th, 2012, 04:46 PM
I am sorry but most nations harken back to their most successful days as a nation when they rely on history. For Europe as a whole it is the recent past but for say Greece it would harken back to 2000 years ago. They wouldn't want to remember their "achievements" or be influenced from their humiliating situation under the Turks when they were colonized even if it were the recent past. Iran same way seems to recall Cyrus,Darius et al when projecting Iranian power.
Most Europeans wouldn't discuss of ideas that came about in their Dark Ages also. The West talks about the recent past because its when it was most influential. China will recall when it was the global leading power when it tries to project its influence on its globe.
To assume that only the recent past is more worthy is perpetuating the viewpoint of the colonial Europeans and excluding others when they were dominant.As with all things, it depends on context.
If we are interested in a protracted longue durée approach to the development of human history, then we should go back to antiquity.
But we are talking about European Imperialism and how it has created the current global order. I don't think this viewpoint is perpetuating any idea - its just stating fact. I did not know this was so controversial.

pov
Mar 8th, 2012, 05:03 PM
GDP per capita (WikiPedia):

15 - USA (48,147)

22 - United Kingdom (39,604)

53 - Brazil (12,917)

91 - China (5,184)

-----------
I'd say Britain has its natural hair still growing well.

azdaja
Mar 8th, 2012, 06:03 PM
i wish people would stop confusing things. having higher gdp per capita might be an indicator on how an average person in a country lives but then going by statistics an average human is slightly more male than female because of the global sex ratio, right? but if brazil and china have 100 or 200 million people living at the same level or above the british that's not irrelevant even if the rest are poor, so overall size of the economy is very much important in terms of power a country has.

Nicolás89
Mar 8th, 2012, 06:29 PM
GDP per capita (WikiPedia):

15 - USA (48,147)

22 - United Kingdom (39,604)

53 - Brazil (12,917)

91 - China (5,184)

-----------
I'd say Britain has its natural hair still growing well.

That doesn't mean much. One part of my country has a GDP per capita of 50,000 yet they're constantly complaining of their situation, their conditions are hard, they're isolated from the rest of the country. I don't even think much of the people there have that much money....

Lin Lin
Mar 9th, 2012, 12:55 AM
GDP per capita (WikiPedia):

15 - USA (48,147)

22 - United Kingdom (39,604)

53 - Brazil (12,917)

91 - China (5,184)

-----------
I'd say Britain has its natural hair still growing well.

:bounce::bounce:Go!China !One day we will be #1 on this list!:lol::lol:

bulava
Mar 10th, 2012, 08:02 AM
Russia and India are expected to benefit from a surge in growth over the next 10 years and push the UK into eighth place. Like most economies, India is struggling with high inflation and slowing growth, but its highly educated workforce and skills in growth areas from IT and services to engineering will push the economy into fifth place. After a decade of selling oil and gas to Europe and other parts of Asia, Russia will be at number four.

By 2020 China, United States and India will be the world's largest economies. And by 2030, the US would be at 3rd but it's hard to say who would be at the top between China and India :) In almost 300 hundred years, those two giant Asian nations would be back at the top where they were at.

As Jo-La knows, it's all about per capita anyway.
I didn't know you got promoted as a Moderator, good for you Max :)
Well, it's not all about PCI. It's just another parameter such as GDP.

Not surprised at all, good thing for Brazil but still, like half of the nation lives in poverty. Brazil, Russia, China, India, Turkey ... all progressing but it's just a matter of time when will they fall into recession.
Not ruled out & none is immune in this present Global Economy model. Still, such an event wouldn't stop their destiny because those nations have the greatest asset: people :)

Partly true, goodness knows some of our media can be ugly. Worth mentioning we also have the BBC, which is pretty much the most widely respected broadcasting organisation in the world.

Oh really? :eek::lol:

Novichok
Mar 10th, 2012, 02:40 PM
:bounce::bounce:Go!China !One day we will be #1 on this list!:lol::lol:

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Williamsser
Mar 11th, 2012, 11:46 PM
Per Capita Income >> size of the economy.

China is under-reporting inflation and over-estimating growth. Their "real" growth rate is way below the 7-8%. Not surprising given how shady China's politicians are. India is slowing down due to rapidly rising inflation and corruption continues to be an enormous problem. USA's numero uno position is good for a while . ;)

I doubt any country in the world will every influence pop culture the way USA has. :D

Millions of Chinese and Indians want to immigrate to the USA. However, few Americans want to immigrate to China or India. I don't see these trends changing anytime soon.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 12th, 2012, 04:42 AM
Millions of Chinese and Indians want to immigrate to the USA. However, few Americans want to immigrate to China or India. I don't see these trends changing anytime soon.

Nowadays I think most Indian emigration is to the Gulf states particularly the UAE, not the USA. There are approximately 1.5 million Indians living in the UAE. While traditionally there was emigration to the US I really don't think its that big anymore.

Lin Lin
Mar 12th, 2012, 06:18 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

You know it's our dream:secret:

HippityHop
Mar 12th, 2012, 12:39 PM
Nowadays I think most Indian emigration is to the Gulf states particularly the UAE, not the USA. There are approximately 1.5 million Indians living in the UAE. While traditionally there was emigration to the US I really don't think its that big anymore.

Let’s hope that you are correct about immigrating to stay. However this is good stuff:

<snip>
"During a recent visit to Disney World, a perennial favorite among Brazilians, Obama unveiled measures aimed at making it faster and easier to obtain tourist visas for citizens of developing countries such as China and Brazil with “rapidly growing economies, large populations and emerging middle classes.’’
“More and more of their people can now afford to visit America who couldn’t come before,’’ Obama said.
He said the State Department has been instructed to process 40 percent more visa applications for Brazilian and Chinese nationals this year."

The rest of the article is here:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-11/news/31145893_1_brazilians-consumer-credit-high-commodity-prices

Ashi
Mar 12th, 2012, 02:19 PM
I think you guys are confusing the term 'emigration' here. Yes, there's lot's of people in India who would like to vsit the US, experience the sites etc. Most middle class in India have the finances and inclination to do it. Emigrating to the US is a very difficult, not to mention tedious process. You cannot emigrate unless you are very highly skilled( have a skill which the US economy will benefit from) like a medical professional, engineers, IT specialists etc which is a miniscule part of the Indian population.

Many individuals will go on holiday, go to the US for a job stint and return. Only students pursuing their Masters or above manage to remain there and then get absorbed into the system after having contributed to the US economy. You can even graduate in America( most Indians don't have the finances for it).

It's much easier to get Austrailian citizenship compared to US citizenship even if you have a sponsor.

So your idea that most Indians want to live in America is sadly misguided. Most Indian's go to work in the Gulf( unskilled labour). Back in the day, when my father was still a youngster(1960's) most Indians went to Turkey and Iran for work. Mind you, they were paid handsomely. Sadly, it's not the same anymore in the gulf.

Infact, US emigration is the most difficult of all countires which are open to emigration (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc).

Getting a tourist visa is tedious enough. :rolleyes:

Ashi
Mar 15th, 2012, 11:45 AM
H1- B OR L1 is for very highly skilled workers, grads from the top most institutes from India. They make up a miniscule portion of the Indian workforce.
This article just reinforced what I stated.

bulava
Mar 17th, 2012, 07:01 AM
Millions of Chinese and Indians want to immigrate to the USA. However, few Americans want to immigrate emigrate to China or India.
Few numbers are enough to start the trend in a big way :) The fact is ten of thousands of Americans and Europeans work and reside in India, if we look at the various high end jobs alone.

Well, I should be honest about onething. There is double standard practiced by my country too. Govt. expects Indians who emigrate into the US or EU are welcomed with open arms but they don't follow what they preach when it comes to the home turf! (more foreigners on work visa) :tape:

I don't see these trends changing anytime soon.
I agree with you, large numbers won't happen in short time. But remember, it took decades for 6+ million (Indians & Chinese) getting into the United States due land of opportunities boom. So I think it's not really impossible to think Americans moving in large numbers because this century clearly belongs to Asia and its growth/opportunities :)

bulava
Mar 17th, 2012, 07:23 AM
Sadly, it's not the same anymore in the gulf.
I'm not because it's a good thing to happen in the long run (I get the short time suffering like being jobless etc). Actually, I employ the Gulf returned women (ex: packing jobs in my company), also I actively advocate the people NOT to move to the Middle East on unskilled jobs. In the name of making fast buck, they either end up with debts or get cheated by dubious agents based in India/Gulf. Why should they go through all that suffering? Say, She/He could earn a few hundred rupees/day by running a "Pan Shop" :)

IMO, people shouldn't work and live when there is no respect, recognition and rights (say, buying a home on your name). Those are the few reasons why many talented Indians don't choose to emigrate to the Middle East. Plus, there is religion perspective too. They can't stomach India and its progress/population, this is at least 1200 year old saga!