If a culture is defined by some commonality of experience, what is a global culture? Who are its members and what binds them into the whole? Suss
Ratesquad, What tangled webs we weave. Bourdie may well be referring to the US class structure but he applies the attributes of European, 19th century class stereotypes. Canât you see that? Itâs anachronistic. Isnât the case that the US has always been (loosely) a meritocracy; that oneâs parentage or background is (mostly) irrelevant? This social mobility and opportunity is what constitutes the âAmerican Dreamâ. I accept that oneâs early life influences - perhaps defines - preferences and values but these are neither innate or fixed. Some of my questions were rhetorical, eg âDo they pay their maids above the going rate?â . The point being, to spell it out, does their philanthropy extend beyond the confines of the MOMA, ie is it superficai? What does âYAâ mean? âOnly Americans have cocktail parties (and wear tuxedos to weddings)â. This was a dig, a joke. Guildenstern, Old money vs new money. Now its getting complicated. I agree with you. I donât know about the US but in the UK the influence of the âaristocracyâ is non-existent (ie it lacks its former economic clout). Itâs been replaced by ânew moneyâ . However, the origins of this decline can be traced back hundreds of years with an emerging merchant class. At an extreme, the 11th century English aristocracy complained of losing influence and power to incoming âparvenuâ, Norman aristocracy. Similarly, the Elizabethans didnât like the emerging powers of the wool merchants and privateers. My point being, the âoldâ (UK or US) will retain influence as long as its viable. What a cynical world we live in. Dagobaz, âThe elites of England have always hated Americaâ. The elites are/were generally contemptuous of anyone (domestic or foreign) of an inferior class. So what? They are an irrelevance; they lack influence. The resentment is the realisation that to survive, they must become âtradeâ, ie work. The primacy of national language reflects its rulers and presumably economic influence and expediency. Why do so many foreign nations teach English as a second language? Because of trade, actual or potential. For the same reason, Chinese is also becoming increasingly popular. To say the UK is a back-bencher is unjustified. The UK is still a significant economic force. We may lack the economic clout of the US, but the US lacks the clout of China. Itâs all relative, isnât it. And we are the only ally the US has at the moment (which I support). Grant.
Bullshit.. People with money ARE happier.. Anyone who says different has never had money. Money won't get you a nice family or better friends - it's a matter of security. Security = stability. Stability more likely leads to happiness.
Ahem, China is a long way behind the US in terms of economic clout, as are Japan, Germany, UK etc... Suss
and might I add that Instability leads to stress which leads to health problems which leads to hospital bills that you can't afford to pay which leads to more stress...and so on...
Susukino, Your right. From Wikipedia, 2005 figures from the IMF show US GDP ($m) at 12,277,583, China at 9,412,361. India is is fourth position. Surprisingly, Russia is in tenth position, behind Brazil. What will the rankings be like next year? I reckon China, Russia and India will strengthen further, especially where the weaker dollar reduces import costs of raw materials. Lower input prices increases profit margins which provides output price flexibilty. This could partly counter weaker export demand. Grant.
The binding experiences would be media, pop culture, the internet, Hollywood, reality tv, etc. Everyone that plugs in can experience pretty much the same thing. One hundred years ago, people lived in sheltered communities not far from where they were born. The well-heeled had access to a decent education while masses were close to illiterate. Critics might say that culture is getting dumber. That would not be because the field is being levelled. Look at what is passed as highbrow by the elite nowadays.
Suicide statistics seem to point the other way. Also, look up some quotes by the original US oligarchs. It may buy financial security but judging from some young rich kids I know, it does not buy security in one's self. A few studies done on the topic shows that money does not buy happiness but it may make achieving your happiness goals much easier. This is US based. The key flaw here is that Americans are conditioned to think that "money=happiness" so the people rush out to get money and more money. That ends up transfering into consumerism and that whole vicious cycle of empty materialism. I think money is more of the means to the end, and sometimes it's not even a big factor. Like the guys that just wanna surf all day and chill by the beach, they do not need much money and may not even need any capital stake if they can provide for themselves doing some related like teaching surfing. A.K.A. the British Bankers Association & the Rothschilds. The core of the paper pushers.
I would suggest money should lead to hapiness because it provides (greater) freedom from the principal pressure facing the majority - inadequate funds to maintain a decent standard of living, eg paying the rent, mortgage, school/college fees, medical bills (it may be free here in the UK but it's a shit service). Financial independence allows one to pursue non-financially oriented interests, surfing (mentioned above), charity work (begins at home), gardening, study - use your imagination. Money addresses the material but it doesn't always address the psychological, spiritual or intellectual. Grant.