 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
A good exercise is to look at the economy of the US as a portion of the total global pie and assume that national power = economic power. You can see that the US only has 25% of the power, augmented by our allied power of 25% in many/most situations. |
Oh, well, if you want to use THAT argument, then right after WW2 the US was much closer to being a hegemon, because it made up about 50% of the world's GNP and manufacturing capacity. Yet obviously the US was not a hegemon right after WW2 - it was a bipolar world at that point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
What's the rate of inflation in NYC? What are living costs compared to the rest of the States? |
The NYC area is one of the most expensive, if not the most (San Fran. is also expensive) areas in the country. I would say that cost of living is at least 50% higher than in the rest of the country, with housing being the single biggest cost of all. A recent study by a housing group found that 1/3 of people in the Bronx and Brooklyn (too outer boughroughs with lower costs than Manhattan) spend 1/3 of their annual income on housing costs alone. This fraction is probably lower i manhattan, 'cause while the housing is far more expensive here, the earnigs of most Manhattannites are too. Example: the apartment I live in, 2 BedRooms, 1.5 bathrooms, common dinnind-living room, small kitchen (not a very big apartment at all) goes for in the market for about $300,000 if you wan to buy.
As to the workers: I agree that the Unions demands are far too high given the finacial situation of the State and the city, both of which are deep in red ink. The city can't afford a transit strike at this moment, and the union needs to do everything in its power not to strike, and they shou;ld be penalized if they do.
The flip side is the MTA: This Authority is an independent group, with a board made up of political appointees (the governor, not the Major of NYC, is in charge), which does not allow for independent monitoring of its books. No one, only the board, knows the financial situation of the system, and they don't let anyone see it. Just a few years ago, they had a surplus but now they are in a billion dolla hole, but won't tell anyone how they got there. The board is as guilty as the Union about the current situation and the governor is really not doing enough at all to put pressure on the board. As I have said, they need to increase fares, and an increase is already in the works: in theory then, more money wil come into the system. The MTA needs to start honest negotiations with the union at this very moment, and Pataki is not doing enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
It's good to see the conversation staying firmly on topic...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
They are probably corrupt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
Hegemony - The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
Oh, and if you were wondering:
Predominant -
1. Having greatest ascendancy, importance, influence, authority, or force.
2. Most common or conspicuous; main or prevalent
--
So it is obvious that the US, which has the predominent influence in the world, is the hegemon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
A hegemon is a state that is so powerful that it dominates all other states in the system. No other state has the military capability to put up a serious fight against it. In essence it is and can only be the sole great power in the system. This is not the case in the global system today and the US is the only state to ever achieve the vaunted distinction of regional hegemon. |
First of all, as Imran pointed out, that's a faulty definition.
Second, even if we use your definition, the US *IS* the only great power, and a power that cannot be militarily challenged. Unless you'd like to point out a country which, today, could actually put up a good fight against the US in a global war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timexwatch
|
 |
Columbia Heights, Washington D.C.
Jul 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
"Great Britain was the global hegemon because it set the rules in much of the world."
"Human rights is a US forced value."
I'm not sure what you mean by human rights Imran.
IIRC, one of the major influences of the British Empire was the abolition of slavery and the destruction of the slave trade. Britain only passed the abolition bill after they had a 'hegemony' over France after the defeat of Napoleon, and they could enforce the rules with their navy, thereby retaining a competitive advantage. If human rights include the abolition of slavery, then the US did not originate human rights! |
I'm sorry, but you're a bit mistaken. The slave trade in the Empire was banned in 1807 and the practice of slavery was abolished in 1833. Yes, the British initiated their blockade in 1807, but before then the British themselves dominated the slave trade, especially since they gained the right of asiento during the War of Spanish Succession. I'm not sure why you're refering to a "competitive advantage" when the British totally dominated the market. Even after the abolition of slavery, the 'apprentice' system persisted in Jamaica and indentured laborers from India and China replaced slave imports as a source of manual labor. As to your claim that the British outlawed the slave trade for economic reasons, you're partially right. By the 1800s, the transistion from serfdom and indentured labor in Europe to "free"  labor was already occuring. Also, well-connected Evangelical sects like the Methodists and the Clapham sect had already begun to exert huge influence the government. During his younger days, William Wilberforce was a close personal friend of Pitt. Abolition of the trade occured over the heavy objections of MPs on the payroll of plantation owners in the Carribean.
As to the origin of human rights, I'd guess the credit for articulating the early concepts the most would probably be the French, although I'm not well read in the Enlightenment. I'd give a date for the emergence of the idea at around 1740s. Collective human rights, from my studies, came before individual human rights in the intellectual development of the Enlightenment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
AS: Wouldn't #4 unfairly make it much harder for the poor to drive as much?
John Tierney of the NY times has an opinion on this......
http://query.nytimes.com/search/art...75BC0A961958260
quote:
Man With a Van
By John Tierney
Vincent Cummins looks out from his van with the wary eyes of a hardened criminal. It is quiet this evening in downtown Brooklyn . . . too quiet.
''Watch my back for me!'' he barks into the microphone of his C.B. radio, addressing a fellow outlaw in a van who just drove by him on Livingston Street. He looks left and right. No police cars in sight. None of the usual unmarked cars, either. Cummins pauses for a second -- he has heard on the C.B. that cops have just busted two other drivers -- but he can't stop himself. ''Watch my back!'' he repeats into the radio as he ruthlessly pulls over to the curb.
Five seconds later, evil triumphs. A middle-aged woman with a shopping bag climbs into the van . . . and Cummins drives off with impunity! His new victim and the other passengers laugh when asked why they're riding this illegal jitney. What fool would pay $1.50 to stand on the bus or subway when you're guaranteed a seat here for $1? Unlike bus drivers, the van drivers make change and accept bills, and the vans run more frequently at every hour of the day. ''It takes me an hour to get home if I use the bus,'' explains Cynthia Peters, a nurse born in Trinidad. ''When I'm working late, it's very scary waiting in the dark for the bus and then walking the three blocks home. With Vincent's van, I get home in less than half an hour. He takes me right to the door and waits until I get inside.''
Cummins would prefer not to be an outlaw. A native of Barbados, he has been driving his van full time ever since an injury forced him to give up his job as a machinist. ''I could be collecting disability,'' he says, ''but it's better to work.'' He met Federal requirements to run an interstate van service, then spent years trying to get approval to operate in the city. His application, which included more than 900 supporting statements from riders, business groups and church leaders, was approved by the City Taxi and Limousine Commission as well as by the Department of Transportation. Mayor Giuliani supported him. But this summer the City Council rejected his application for a license, as it has rejected most applications over the past four years, which is why thousands of illegal drivers in Brooklyn and Queens are dodging the police.
Council members claim they're trying to prevent vans from causing accidents and traffic problems, although no one who rides the vans takes these protestations seriously. Vans with accredited and insured drivers like Cummins are no more dangerous or disruptive than taxis. The only danger they pose is to the public transit monopoly, whose union leaders have successfully led the campaign against them.
The van drivers have refuted two modern urban myths: that mass transit must lose money and that it must be a public enterprise. Entrepreneurs like Cummins are thriving today in other cities -- Seoul and Buenos Aires rely entirely on private, profitable bus companies -- and they once made New York the world leader in mass transit. The first horsecars and elevated trains were developed here by private companies. The first subway was partly financed with a loan from the city, but it was otherwise a private operation, built and run quite profitably with the fare set at a nickel -- the equivalent of less than a dollar today.
Eventually, though, New York's politicians drove most private transit companies out of business by refusing to adjust the fare for inflation. When the enterprises lost money in the 1920's, Mayor John Hylan offered to teach them efficient management. If the city ran the subway, he promised, it would make money while preserving the nickel fare and freeing New Yorkers from ''serfdom'' and the ''dictatorship'' of the ''grasping transportation monopolies.'' But expenses soared as soon as government merged the private systems into a true monopoly. The fare, which remained a nickel through seven decades of private transit, has risen 2,900 percent under public management -- and today the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still manages to lose about $2 per ride. Meanwhile, a jitney driver can provide better service at lower prices and still make a profit.
''Transit could be profitable again if entrepreneurs are given a chance,'' says Daniel B. Klein, an economist at Santa Clara University in California and the co-author of ''Curb Rights,'' a new book from the Brookings Institution on mass transit. ''Government has demonstrated that it has no more business producing transit than producing cornflakes. It should concentrate instead on establishing new rules to foster competition.'' To encourage private operators to make a long-term investment in regular service along a route, the Brookings researchers recommend selling them exclusive ''curb rights'' to pick up passengers waiting at certain stops along the route. That way part-time opportunists couldn't swoop in to steal regular customers from a long-term operator. But to encourage competition, at other corners along the route there should also be common stops where passengers could be picked up by any licensed jitney or bus.
Elements of this system already exist where jitneys have informally established their own stops separate from the regular buses, but the City Council is trying to eliminate these competitors. Besides denying licenses to new drivers like Cummins, the Council has forbidden veteran drivers with licenses to operate on bus routes. Unless these restrictions are overturned in court -- a suit on the drivers' behalf has been filed by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm in Washington -- the vans can compete only by breaking the law. At this very moment, despite the best efforts of the police and the Transport Workers Union, somewhere in New York a serial predator like Cummins is luring another unsuspecting victim. He may even be making change for a $5 bill. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2002 21:26
|