Mapping

[Dmitry Melnik]

Hi, Dmitry. Could you save me the eye strain and simply point out the statistic you want to discuss? Thanks.
Hi Alan. I'd encourage you to read and understand the doc. It's enlightening and entertaining, and it would make much more
sense for me to discuss the data with ones who at least have looked it through
So, briefly, based on the numbers for the year 2002:

By categories
Total # of immigrants admitted  1063732   100.0%
Family sponsored immigrants      673817    63.3%
Employment based preferences     174968    16.4%
Diversity program                 42829     4.0%
Other categories                 172061    16.2%
By countries of birth:
Mexico   219380    20.6%
India     71105     6.7%
China     61282     5.8%

These numbers IMHO give enough fuel to a popular belief, that the majority of incoming
immigrants does not have to be quite educated at all.
An immediate relative to a US citizen (for instance) does not have to be quite educated to
become an immigrant. And (s)he might be poor as well.
The strict immigration procedures to weed these sorts out are being applied only to
"Employment based preferences", which make about 16% of all immigrants.

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Dmitry Melnik:
Hi, Dmitry. Could you save me the eye strain and simply point out the statistic you want to discuss? Thanks.
Hi Alan. I'd encourage you to read and understand the doc. It's enlightening and entertaining, and it would make much more
sense for me to discuss the data with ones who at least have looked it through
So, briefly, based on the numbers for the year 2002:

By categories
Total # of immigrants admitted  1063732   100.0%
Family sponsored immigrants      673817    63.3%
Employment based preferences     174968    16.4%
Diversity program                 42829     4.0%
Other categories                 172061    16.2%
By countries of birth:
Mexico   219380    20.6%
India     71105     6.7%
China     61282     5.8%

These numbers IMHO give enough fuel to a popular belief, that the majority of incoming
immigrants does not have to be quite educated at all.
An immediate relative to a US citizen (for instance) does not have to be quite educated to
become an immigrant. And (s)he might be poor as well.
The strict immigration procedures to weed these sorts out are being applied only to
"Employment based preferences", which make about 16% of all immigrants.

Well, yeah, and probably to the many of the 63% who come over as family of those 16%.
Or am I misinterpreting the data, Dmitry?

Alan

[Mapraputa Is]

Alan, I am often amazed by how much alike we think ("I like you, Joe" was a recent example ) and this makes me wonder: don't you sometimes feel like a foreigner in your own country? This is a serious question, actually. I once asked a guy who emigrated to Israel, where he feels more at home, and he said "neither here nor there". Seems that some things are irreversible - not sure what kind of "smile" to put here.

[HS Thomas]

My post earlier seems to be lost. Found it. Post No 32ish on page 5.
The US are the worst environmental pollutants from fossil fuels.
On environmental issues I'd downgrade that to a 1. Yes that's right a 1.
Bush has cut back on a lot of EPA programs to fund his re-election campaign and to fund the war effort.
And to fund Star Wars.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Joe King]

OK, sorry for all the posts in a row, but I've only just noticed this fantastuc thread - surely got to be one of the most entertaining I've seen in a while.

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Yes. We are made of "sterner stuff".

Sorry, but this is blatantly racist.

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

One interesting thing about true democracy:

<pedeantic mode>The US is NOT a true democracy, its a representative democracy. There never has been a true democracy. The only one that came close was the referendum style democracy in ancient greece, but that was flawed because of the number of people that were excluded from voting. </pedantic mode>
The US is also very undemocratic because you cant really run for presedent unless you are white, rich and christian.... but I'm digressing here....
I'm not saying that any other country is more democratic mind you.... here in the UK it is blatantly un-democratic with the house of lords having so much power.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What makes America the greatest country in the world

America thinking that it is the greatest country in the world is precisely what makes it not great. No country that is that arrogant and has such a simplistic black-and-white view of the world can call itself great. In fact, no country really can.

[Joe King]

The United States is the still the only country I know that wants to tell the world what's best for it and be loved for taking the time to do it.

I can think of a few others:
* Nazi Germany
* Stalinist USSR
* Napoleonic France
* Imperial Britain

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So you would say that Brazil, China, India, Mexico, are all doing better? You think that 70% of the world's nations are doing better with the environment?

The problem is that pollution is far more dangerous than WMD, and will surely kill more people over the next centuary. The rest of the world sees America put loads of effort (rightly) into trying to save people from terrorism, but at the same time is the single biggest polluter in the world. Its time that the west (its not just america at fault - it just so happens that it is big enough to make the most damage) takes a look at itself and realises that damage that it is causing.

[HS Thomas]

Too right! Try a little humbleness and America will be truly great..
There must be parallels in Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.
Try a Little Tenderness
[ January 29, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Joe Pluta]

Sorry, but this is blatantly racist.
No, it's not. If you're going to be pedantic about democracy, I'm putting my foot down on racist. Anyway, I'm offering everyone an opportunity to actually identify where America stacks up. The truth is America really IS a great country, but if you think it's not, take the opportunity to say why not. But please do it specifically and statistically. This silliness about "America isn't great because it thinks it's great" is simple anti-American polemic. We're unloved because we're not ***humble***?! Oh get over your bad selves.
Honestly, which country does more for the world? I presented a way for you to identify it quantitatively. You want to be pedantic about democracy, I'm going to ask that people get specific about what's wrong with America.

The US is also very undemocratic because you cant really run for presedent unless you are white, rich and christian....
Yes you can, but you can't win... yet. And that's about as democratic as you're going to get.
Remember, 50 years ago you couldn't win if you were Catholic. Things change.
Joe

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Sorry, but this is blatantly racist.
No, it's not. If you're going to be pedantic about democracy, I'm putting my foot down on racist. Anyway, I'm offering everyone an opportunity to actually identify where America stacks up. The truth is America really IS a great country, but if you think it's not, take the opportunity to say why not. But please do it specifically and statistically. This silliness about "America isn't great because it thinks it's great" is simple anti-American polemic. We're unloved because we're not ***humble***?! Oh get over your bad selves.

OK, I'll put it a different way. I think that being arrogant is not a Great characteristic, and that by being less arogant, America would be a bit greater.
Yes America is has done good things, but it has also done some bad things, like just about every other country. I dont think that anyone has reason to say that one country is "The Greatest Country In The World". No country is that good!
Yes, you are unloved by many because you appear to be arrogant. This is only to be expected though. I imagine that every super power is or was arrogant. When the British Empire was at its peak, we brits were probably saying much the same... when the Romans ruled, they thought they were great etc. You say "Oh get over your bad selves"... well, I'd same the same back. In a nice way of course
As for the racist comment, you seemed to be implying that Americans are intrinsically better than Germans... that you are "made of" something better. If I were German, I'd be highly insulted by this. However, because of their habit of beating us in penalty shootouts, I'm not going to stick up for them too much

Honestly, which country does more for the world? I presented a way for you to identify it quantitatively. You want to be pedantic about democracy, I'm going to ask that people get specific about what's wrong with America.

OK, America does do a lot, but then it can afford to. Just because its rich doesn't mean that its the greatest. Maybe we could dig up some figures for overseas charity spending (offset by demands for repayments of foreign debts) per capita. This, of course, is only one small area. There are plenty of ways in which plenty of countries do things for the world. It is impossible to say that one country does more for the world than another - how do you measure cultural and ethical affects upon other countries?

The US is also very undemocratic because you cant really run for presedent unless you are white, rich and christian....
Yes you can, but you can't win... yet. And that's about as democratic as you're going to get.
Remember, 50 years ago you couldn't win if you were Catholic. Things change.
Joe

LOL, actually its not as bad as in this country (the UK), where out head of state legally has to be CoE.
Basically my overall point is that, in the same way as there isn't The Most Evil Country In The World, there isn't such a thing as The Greatest Country In The World. One of the reasons that many people get annoyed with America is the largely American view point that the world is split into two camps - Good vs Evil, Us vs Them. Its not that simple. There is no such thing as a totally good or totally evil state/organisation/person. Neither is there greatest state/organisation/person.
There's nothing wrong with saying that your country is good (most of us think our own country is), but saying that it is the best is arrogant and a little shortsighted.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Joe Pluta]

There is no such thing as a totally good or totally evil state/organisation/person. Neither is there greatest state/organisation/person.
Well, Hussein fits pretty well into the former. And if you're argument is that there's no "greatest", then I at least submit that America is far more a member of the "good" side than the "bad" side. There's a lot more Luke Skywalker in us than Darth Vader.

There's nothing wrong with saying that your country is good (most of us think our own country is), but saying that it is the best is arrogant and a little shortsighted.
My statements are in response to the constant America bashing that I see, especially here in MD. And if you read the thread, Joe, you'd see that I'm willing to accept that perhaps, in some people's opinions, America isn't the greates country in the world. But what I am saying is that if you take an honest look, you'll see that America is far more of a good country than a bad one.
There are people who post here in MD who constantly say that America is a horrible country. I'm sick of the never-ending knee-jerk reactions. I'm giving everyone an opportunity to tell me why without using rhetoric and bombast. America is NOT the greatest country? Well, then, show me where it comes up short. And show me who is better.
Why is this so hard to do? I've come to believe that there are people who are so vested in their anti-American hatred, that it is in fact such an important part of their identity, that they can't say otherwise. If it turns out that the virulent America baiters can't even rise to the simple task of saying objectively WHY America is so evil, then I'll drop the line of questioning, because at that point I'll realize there's no talking to those people.
Yeah, I love my country and I think it's the greatest country in the world. And while I am biased, I am honestly asking you to show where I am. In so doing, I ask you (the collective "you") to take an honest look at my country, and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that it's not as bad as the anti-American faction would have us believe.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Maybe we could dig up some figures for overseas charity spending (offset by demands for repayments of foreign debts) per capita.
Something like this: Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)

[Dmitry Melnik]

Well, yeah, and probably to the many of the 63% who come over as family of those 16%.
16% of the 63% (about 10%) would be my guess. US citizens who used to be immigrants of other than employment based categories have relatives abroad too

[Dmitry Melnik]

Guys, how do you tell charity spending overseas from (advance) payments for political favors?

[Joe Pluta]

Something like this: Top 100 Economic aid - donor (per capita)
That's a good resource, Map, although a little out of date. For instance, Japan used to be the largest supplier of foreign aid in the world, but the US recently overtook them. Our foreign aid budget for 2002 was over $11 billion.
Also note that while spending by pretty much everybody in the world is dropping, America's expenditures continue to rise. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. These are all roughly the same or lower than what the same countries gave in previous years, except for the US, whose expenditure has nearly doubled. In fact, the amount of increase in spending of the US from 1997 to 2001 was nearly equal to the entire amount given by France in 2001.
In any event, we currently show up as a '1' in both overall expenditure and per capita expenditure. And that's without factoring in the huge amount of private donations. Unfortunately, it's hard to put a hard number on those, but estimates range in the tens of billions of dollars.
(Quick update - according to this story private American foundations do indeed contribute billions of dollars in aid to foreign aid. Additionally, foreign workers in America send tens of billions more to their home countries.)
Still, it's hard not to be a little bit ashamed when you realize that the Netherlands gives nearly as much as any other nation in the world. At the same time, you may want to continue watching this particular area; every nation in Europe is predicting drastically reduced spending in foreign aid in the 21st century. Only the United States seems to be ramping up it's aid.
Joe
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Mapraputa Is]

That's a good resource, Map, although a little out of date. For instance, Japan used to be the largest supplier of foreign aid in the world, but the US recently overtook them.
So what?
Luxembourg contributed 14,5 times more per person than the US. Did the US increase its foreign aid 14 times for last a couple of years?
In any event, we currently show up as a '1' in both overall expenditure and per capita expenditure.
Joe, you ordered everybody to show their sources (actually two sources -- "the simple basics kids learn in high school journalism classes" ), but you do not apply the same requirements to yourself?
every nation in Europe is predicting drastically reduced spending in foreign aid in the 21st century.
Really? Where did you get these information? And I heard that dollar is going to fall and US economy crash. :roll:
In any case, to diminish US's contribution to the world's well-being wasn't my intention. It's a noble thing and should be only appreciated. I am just trying to show why I personally do not like to participate in this kind of socio-economic discussions: anybody can prove whatever he wants to prove with an endless chain of arguments:
"America is the greatest country because it gives more aid than other countries"
"no, it is not because other give more per person"
"but our private foundations contribute big sums also"
"other countries also have private foundations"
"but other countries are predicted to drastically reduce their spending"
"how reliable is this information"
-- we can waste time like this forever!
My own problem with "the greatest country" is what your namesake said: "America thinking that it is the greatest country in the world is precisely what makes it not great." But this is a cultural thing, I guess: some countries value modesty higher than other. I remember you once said that American employees tend to somewhat overstate things on their resumes, while Russian tend to understate a little. What Americans see as simply stating their achievements, other see as bragging.
This silliness about "America isn't great because it thinks it's great" is simple anti-American polemic.
No, it is cross-cultural communication.
We're unloved because we're not ***humble***?! Oh get over your bad selves.
Same advice to you. Do you allow for the possibility that there are other ways to perceive the world than American? Do you agree that they have right to exist?
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Terimaki Tojay]

I don't see any reason why there can't be a greatest country in the world? We do see comparisons of countries on various parameters in magazines for example, best place for vacationing, best place for business, best labor laws and what not. So if you just sum all these up, you'll get "Best place for ALL PARAMETERS". Substitute place by country and you'll get the Best Country for ALL PARAMETERS -> Best Country Overall -> Best Country -> Best Country in the world.
If anybody does an honest evaluation, I think US will definitely come out on the top.
BTW, there is an evilest country in the world too. It is England/Britain/UK or whatever it is called. No other country has ripped of people all accross the world more than this country. Saddam or Hitler or Stalin come nowhere close. But then that's another thread

[John Smith]

I don't see any reason why there can't be a greatest country in the world? We do see comparisons of countries on various parameters in magazines for example, best place for vacationing, best place for business, best labor laws and what not. So if you just sum all these up, you'll get "Best place for ALL PARAMETERS". Substitute place by country and you'll get the Best Country for ALL PARAMETERS -> Best Country Overall -> Best Country -> Best Country in the world.
If there was a country in the world that would rank #1 in all the categories, then yes, you could call it the best. The reality is that any particular country is all over the place among the different criterias. What's critical is how you weight these categories. For example, Norway comes very high on foreign aid, living standards, and social services, but it has very high suicide rates and taxes, low average winter temperatures, and little sunshine. Now, if you don't mind taxes, cold, and your neighbor hanging himself, Norway is indeed the best country in the world, given the weights that you assigned to the criterias. But someone else would give very little importance to foreign aid and social services, and his weighted average of Norway may as well mke it the worst country in the world.
Thus, arguing about which country is better can be reduced to arguing "What's better, -- a mild winter or a mild souce?". It's true that most people would probably agree on what really matters, and based on that they could nominate the best country in the world. But that would mean jst that, -- it would be the best country for them.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I don't see any reason why there can't be a greatest country in the world? We do see comparisons of countries on various parameters in magazines for example, best place for vacationing, best place for business, best labor laws and what not. So if you just sum all these up, you'll get "Best place for ALL PARAMETERS". Substitute place by country and you'll get the Best Country for ALL PARAMETERS -> Best Country Overall -> Best Country -> Best Country in the world.
If there was a country in the world that would rank #1 in all the categories, then yes, you could call it the best. The reality is that any particular country is all over the place among the different criterias. What's critical is how you weight these categories. For example, Norway comes very high on foreign aid, living standards, and social services, but it has very high suicide rates and taxes, low average winter temperatures, and little sunshine. Now, if you don't mind taxes, cold, and your neighbor hanging himself, Norway is indeed the best country in the world, given the weights that you assigned to the criterias. But someone else would give very little importance to foreign aid and social services, and his weighted average of Norway may as well mke it the worst country in the world.
Thus, arguing about which country is better can be reduced to arguing "What's better, -- a mild winter or a mild souce?". It's true that most people would probably agree on what really matters, and based on that they could nominate the best country in the world. But that would mean jst that, -- it would be the best country for them.

I think you have totally missed the point. Just a couple of weeks ago I read a report on "Which state (in US) is best for doing business?". They formulated a criteria involving, taxes, labor laws, human resource availability, cost of living etc. Obviously the best state did not score highest in all the categories. But the best state's "total score" was highest.
So, to be the best country you don't have to have best winter or best souce. You might even have worst of both and still be the best country.
Regarding weightage, I ask you...you decide the criteria, you decide the weightage, and you be the judge. Be honest and tell which country scores most points.
The fact that you are living in the US means something.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
It's true that most people would probably agree on what really matters, and based on that they could nominate the best country in the world. But that would mean jst that, -- it would be the best country for them.

What if the majority of the people feel that country XYZ is the best? Would you agree it is the best? You have to, because that's the basis of democracy. The candidate with max votes wins
In this case, I'll bet that US will get the most votes. I am even willing to bet that if US decides to give citizenship to all terrorist, the problem of terrorism will be solved It's a different matter that nobody will be remain in most of the Islamic countries

[Thomas Paul]

Sorry, but this is blatantly racist.
Actually it isn't because "American" is not a race. A German can become an American and enjoy being "a special breed" just like the rest of us!
The US is also very undemocratic because you cant really run for presedent unless you are white, rich and christian.... Tell that to Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton.

[Joe Pluta]

Joe: So what? Luxembourg contributed 14,5 times more per person than the US. Did the US increase its foreign aid 14 times for last a couple of years?
Hey Map? I was agreeing with you. I just said the book was a little out of date. Slow down a little and actually read what I say.

Joe: In any event, we currently show up as a '1' in both overall expenditure and per capita expenditure.
Map: Joe, you ordered everybody to show their sources (actually two sources -- "the simple basics kids learn in high school journalism classes" ), but you do not apply the same requirements to yourself?
Uh, Map, I used your figures. Even by your figures, the US ranks 2nd and 20th in total expenditure and per capita expenditure, both of which are in the top tenth of the 202 nations in the world, and thus both of which are a '1'. Is that clear?

Joe: every nation in Europe is predicting drastically reduced spending in foreign aid in the 21st century.
Map: Really? Where did you get these information?
Their own websites. Here's the Netherlands. Similar information can be found for France, Germany and Japan if you do a little research.

"America is the greatest country because it gives more aid than other countries"
"no, it is not because other give more per person"
"but our private foundations contribute big sums also"
"other countries also have private foundations"
"but other countries are predicted to drastically reduce their spending"
"how reliable is this information"
-- we can waste time like this forever!

Map, I didn't argue with you, only provided a little more information. Using YOUR figures, the United States rates a '1' in total expenditure, and a '1' in per capita expenditure. I wasn't arguing with your figuresm, I was agreeing with them.
Second, I only mentioned as background information that the figures are a little out of date, and that the trend seems to be that the US is providing more aid, while Europe is providing less. At the same time I acknowledged that it's kind of embarrassing that the Netherlands spends nearly as much as most of the nations of Europe. You're right, the smaller countries do sepnd more per person than the big guys!
Finally, I never said America was the greatest country because it gives more aid than anyone else. I said that, in my opinion, America on average rates higher in a broad range of categories than any other country, and then I asked people to provide their own input. So far, you've only addressed one single issue, and in that issue, America indeed rates a '1', so I thank you for corroborating my position.

I remember you once said that American employees tend to somewhat overstate things on their resumes, while Russian tend to understate a little.
Actually, Map, I said I would fire anyone who lied on their resume. I'm not sure how you got that so wrong.

Joe: This silliness about "America isn't great because it thinks it's great" is simple anti-American polemic.
Map: No, it is cross-cultural communication.
No, it's polemic .

Map: Do you allow for the possibility that there are other ways to perceive the world than American? Do you agree that they have right to exist?
Actually, I don't present my personal opinion as the same as that of all Americans. There are other opinions in my country and in the world. However, in order for me to take someone's viewpoint seriously, they need some evidence to back it up. I'm trying to get people to do just that in this thread. I base my opinions on facts. I'd appreciate seeing opposing viewpoints that were not based on opinion, insinuation and prejudice.
Yes, there are other opinions, but opinions without facts have less validity. Here's an opportunity to back up your opinion.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Thus, arguing about which country is better can be reduced to arguing "What's better, -- a mild winter or a mild souce?". It's true that most people would probably agree on what really matters, and based on that they could nominate the best country in the world. But that would mean jst that, -- it would be the best country for them.
And what I'm trying to do, Eugene, is determine what "weighting factors" are important to the people who constantly denigrate my country. If all you do is pick one bad thing and put all your weighting on that one thing, then your opinion is pretty narrowminded, and I'm less likely to take you seriously. If, however, you can present a broad spectrum of areas where America falls short, and at the same time show me examples of countries where those areas are being handled correctly, then I can begin to adjust my internal metrics and perhaps begin working towards electing officials that will help us address those shortcomings.
You see, I'm not averse to being shown my shortcomings. What I'm sick of is hearing how bad America is from people who really don't take the time to express WHY they think America is bad - either that, or they settle on one thing they don't like about America, and use that as a constant pummeling point.
Anyway, if you don't want to participate, great. That just means to me that you just hate America and that's that, and there's really nothing I can learn from you on the issue.
Joe

[John Smith]

TT: So, to be the best country you don't have to have best winter or best souce.
Look, the "best" country may have the highest average, but the weights are different for different people. That's all I am saying. A few years ago, Nashua NH was designated to be the best city to live in America. To that, one commentator said, "Who wants to live in the city with a typical snowfall of a few feet?". To him, Nashua was obviously not the best city, because his snowfall weighting was greater than what was assumed "fair". It's simply a matter of preferance, a taste.
I live in US because I like free enterprize and limited governmental controls. This is what matters to me, and my weights are high on these two categories. I don't care much about the "greedy" corporations, animal rights, foreign aid, poverty, teen pregnancies, STDs, steroids, or health care costs. So, while America may lack in these categories, the overall score is still high for me, because the near zero weight that I assign to the "lacking" factors. But for someone who is a big environmentalist, or has a "government must take care of me" attitude, or believes in the national health care, America would not score high. It's just shopping, that's all.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Hey Map? I was agreeing with you. I just said the book was a little out of date. Slow down a little and actually read what I say.
I misunderstood you then. I thought your "show up as a '1' " means "number 1", as you started with explanations that the US recently surpassed Japan as "number 1" aid donor.
Uh, Map, I used your figures. Even by your figures, the US ranks 2nd and 20th in total expenditure and per capita expenditure, both of which are in the top tenth of the 202 nations in the world, and thus both of which are a '1'. Is that clear?
Um, now it's clear. '1' means "top 10" - are you sure it's universally understood? Maybe, maybe it's only me. In any case, I deeply apologize for my contribution to misunderstanding.
Actually, Map, I said I would fire anyone who lied on their resume. I'm not sure how you got that so wrong.
Why "lied"? I was talking about perfectly acceptable and even expected social conventions. It's not about claiming 15 years of experience instead of 5, just a choice of words, like "significant experience", or something like that.
Me: No, it is cross-cultural communication.
You: No, it's polemic
These two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
TT: So, to be the best country you don't have to have best winter or best souce.
Look, the "best" country may have the highest average, but the weights are different for different people. That's all I am saying. A few years ago, Nashua NH was designated to be the best city to live in America. To that, one commentator said, "Who wants to live in the city with a typical snowfall of a few feet?". To him, Nashua was obviously not the best city, because his snowfall weighting was greater than what was assumed "fair". It's simply a matter of preferance, a taste.
I live in US because I like free enterprize and limited governmental controls. This is what matters to me, and my weights are high on these two categories. I don't care much about the "greedy" corporations, animal rights, foreign aid, poverty, teen pregnancies, STDs, steroids, or health care costs. So, while America may lack in these categories, the overall score is still high for me, because the near zero weight that I assign to the "lacking" factors. But for someone who is a big environmentalist, or has a "government must take care of me" attitude, or believes in the national health care, America would not score high. It's just shopping, that's all.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

I completely understand what you are saying. For you US is the best, for somebody else it may not be. No question about this.
However, what I am saying is that most of the people will rate US as the best country for themselves. Do you understand this?
Yes, they will have their own parameters and weightages and will do their calculation. So if for most people US is the best, isn't US the best overall?
The reason I am saying this is the way people line up for US visa lottery, illegal immigration etc. Why are so many people willing to leave their own country and trying to enter US? Obviously, they rate US better than other on their own list of parameters and weightages.

[Joe Pluta]

I misunderstood you then. I thought your "show up as a '1' " means "number 1", as you started with explanations that the US recently surpassed Japan as "number 1" aid donor.
Rated on a scale of 1-10. This issue has been addressed several times in the thread, long before the statement on Japan and aid.

Why "lied"? I was talking about perfectly acceptable and even expected social conventions. It's not about claiming 15 years of experience instead of 5, just a choice of words, like "significant experience", or something like that.
"Perfectly acceptable and even expected social conventions"? Acceptable and expected by whom? If you misrepresent yourself on a resume, you get fired. If, on the other hand, you present something vague and I don't check it, that's my fault. But at no time did I say that Americans are more likely to do this, so I still don't know where you got your quote.

Map: No, it is cross-cultural communication.
Joe: No, it's polemic.
Map: These two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
Fine. It's crosscultural polemic.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Rated on a scale of 1-10. This issue has been addressed several times in the thread, long before the statement on Japan and aid.
Joe!
This is what Alan said and what nobody objected ever since:
"On a scale of 1-10 (1 being the "Worst Country on Earth" and 10 being the "Greatest Country on Earth)"
In fact, my first thought was that you mean precisely this scale, but how could I figure that you mean "10" when you are saying "1"??? That's how I arrived on my "number 1" version.
But at no time did I say that Americans are more likely to do this, so I still don't know where you got your quote.
In "Job Discussion" forum.

I have hired dozens of people in my career, and worked with hundreds. Only a very small portion of the resumes I received in my time contained blatant lies. Some people over-assessed their skills, but that's different.
In fact, it may well be a cultural thing. The majority of my hiring was among Americans and Russians; this was during the 90's, and they were the only ones with both C++ and business backgrounds. I found that on average, Americans slightly over-assessed themselves, Russians under-assessed themelves. So self-assessment is probably culturally biased.

https://coderanch.com/t/28266/Jobs/careers/Resumes-as-fiction

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[QB]There are other opinions in my country and in the world. However, in order for me to take someone's viewpoint seriously, they need some evidence to back it up. I'm trying to get people to do just that in this thread. I base my opinions on facts.
You base your opinions on numbers. There's a difference.
Yes, there are other opinions, but opinions without facts have less validity. Here's an opportunity to back up your opinion.
Are you saying that you could "prove" that America is the greatest country in the world? Come on, Joe, let's see those cold hard statistics. Let's see the percentage signs and decimal points that would prove that "fact." This sounds almost childlike. Of course, I think you would enjoy the process, but the result would be laughable for the reasons that Evgeny mentioned. It's a matter of priorities. And yours are not universal.
Alan

[Alan Labout]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Alan, I am often amazed by how much alike we think ("I like you, Joe" was a recent example ) and this makes me wonder: don't you sometimes feel like a foreigner in your own country?
I think that at one point or another we all do....
This is a serious question, actually. I once asked a guy who emigrated to Israel, where he feels more at home, and he said "neither here nor there". Seems that some things are irreversible - not sure what kind of "smile" to put here.
Everywhere. And nowhere.
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: Alan Labout ]

[Joe Pluta]

I found that on average, Americans slightly over-assessed themselves, Russians under-assessed themelves.
Perhaps we're just missing words. In context, it meant that the Americans over-estimated their talent - this is different than purposely overstating it. Do you understand the difference?
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

"On a scale of 1-10 (1 being the "Worst Country on Earth" and 10 being the "Greatest Country on Earth)"
Yup, you're correct. I should have given the US marks of 10 and 10, not 1 and 1. The miscommunication is my fault, and I apologize.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Perhaps we're just missing words. In context, it meant that the Americans over-estimated their talent - this is different than purposely overstating it. Do you understand the difference?
Well, you said it: "purposely".
When I typed "overstated", I had rather vague concept in mind, and didn't give much thought to how better put it in words, since it was tangential to my main point. I guess, the difference was more important for you in context of "America's ungreateness" discussion, because for you "overstated" implied at least certain degree of dishonesty -- it did not my understanding, by the way.
But now, after some analysis, this is funny: we were talking about the same thing. I was talking about "socially expected overstatement" (and failed to mention "socially expected" part in my first post, and this started the confusion) and you about "self-assessment". But what is "over-assessment" if not "socially expected overstatement" if we speak about large groups of people? If we spoke about one person, it would be simply a trait of character, but if we speak about "national character", then this is how people are brought up, which is to say how society expects them to behave. Neither variant of "mis-assessment" is worse or better, it is simply a question of fitting into a society.

[Joe Pluta]

But what is "over-assessment" if not "socially expected overstatement" if we speak about large groups of people?
Well, simple logic dictates this to be a truism only if the group of people expects overstatement. For example, you seem to imply that Russians naturally UNDERstate things, which means for them over-assessment would NOT be socially expected.
And while in the very narrow example of people looking for jobs I might have found that Americans are more apt to unintentional over-assessment than Russians, I don't think you can then broadly generalize this to any larger population, or to any other situation.
I simply found that when I read resumes or did interviews, Russians thought less of their skills and Americans more. Probably a cultural thing.
Joe

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:

BTW, there is an evilest country in the world too. It is England/Britain/UK or whatever it is called. No other country has ripped of people all accross the world more than this country. Saddam or Hitler or Stalin come nowhere close. But then that's another thread

Is this just trolling, or do you believe this crap?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

The US is also very undemocratic because you cant really run for presedent unless you are white, rich and christian.... Tell that to Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton.

Yeah, but they won't win
Its kind of sad that in most democracies its not the person who is best suited to the job who becomes leader, its the one with the most financial backing, and therefore the one who has had to make the most concesions to the corporations that sponsered them.

[Joy Jade]

"Map and HS Thomas - separated at birth? "-J.Y.
this made me laugh

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Is this just trolling, or do you believe this crap?

Or he might be referring to our imperial past e.g. Chinese Opium wars, early slave trade, the Raj etc etc. In which case he has a point, up to a point - just about every country in those days was exploiting other peoples, we were just more powerful and therefore better at it. Its not something to be proud of, but its not something to beat yourself up about.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Steve Wink:

Or he might be referring to our imperial past e.g. Chinese Opium wars, early slave trade, the Raj etc etc. In which case he has a point, up to a point - just about every country in those days was exploiting other peoples, we were just more powerful and therefore better at it. Its not something to be proud of, but its not something to beat yourself up about.

This is probably what people will say about the US in years to come. Thinking about it, the British Empire (in its early years) was not that different from the US in terms of its ideas - to dominate as much as possible through trade. Its probably true that every country gets a "power trip" when it becomes dominant.
I wonder who will be next. China? Inida? They have the population and the growth rates to achieve it. Before someone comes in and says "America will never loose its power", the British said the same thing. So did the Russians Germany, Japan, France, the Turks, the Romans. All super powers come to an end eventually and let someone else take their turn. Hopefully we'll have a "special relationship" with the next one, for what its worth.