The Picture of the Century

Arthur Anderson49 said:...

So, you’ve gone ahead and spent your time putting together a little summary of everything that’s already been done, which is fine, I guess, but let’s be honest—that part of the game is already over. It’s a closed chapter.
So, you think everything is just fine exactly the way it is? Well, personally, I couldn't disagree more. Why? Because if we keep playing the game this way, this country is never going to move an inch forward. It’s all just smoke and mirrors, pure window dressing to keep us from seeing the truth. We’ve been sold out, plain and simple. If the reality is that Americans just aren't built to be leaders or take charge of their own destiny, then honestly, I'm done. I'm checking out.
Look, I’m telling you, we actually had a shot. I know, I know—it sounds like I'm just playing Monday morning quarterback, sitting here acting like it's easy to critique everything once the dust has settled, but that’s not what I’m getting at at all. Why am I saying this? Because as voters, we did exactly what we were supposed to do: we cast our ballots for the candidate who presented us with the most solid platform and the best vision for the future, right? So, if those politicians then take that platform, twist it out of shape, or completely ignore the very promises they made to the American people, how on earth is the public responsible for that betrayal? It’s not on us.
I’m not even going to waste my breath talking about the looting or the systemic corruption, because let’s be honest—we all know exactly how much that gutted this country. I don't see any point in sitting here dissecting everything they managed to steal or mismanage; even a bird on a fence knows enough about that mess to tell you we were screwed. It’s old news, and frankly, it's a waste of time. Instead, I’d rather focus on what actually *could* have been done to make our lives better, rather than just rehashing the disasters they already handed us.
Let’s keep this moving: if you ask me, the biggest mistake this country ever made was pivoting toward a trade-based economy instead of actually building things. It feels like factories were being shuttered on purpose, pushed straight into bankruptcy just to clear the way for something else.
Sure, people made money off those backroom deals, but let me ask you this: who actually saw that cash? And more importantly, where exactly did all that greed leave us? Look at where we ended up—stuck staring at the gates of the White House and wondering how we got here. The looming shadow of China’s expansionism is becoming impossible to ignore, and frankly, it’s getting harder to watch everyone pretend everything is fine while they're essentially being outmaneuvered on the global stage. We aren't just talking about trade deficits or cheap consumer goods anymore; we are looking at a calculated, systemic effort to assert dominance that feels more like a slow-motion occupation than simple economic competition. It’s frustrating to watch the hesitation from leadership when the reality is staring us right in the face—they are playing a long game designed to reshape the entire world order to their advantage, and if we don't wake up to the sheer scale of the threat, we're going to find ourselves completely sidelined in our own backyard..
It's exactly as I said.

Kenneth Myers10 said:Only an idiot buys a car with cash...

Look, you really shouldn't take everything so incredibly literally.
The whole point of what I was getting at was simply that Mate has (meaning he has the liquidity, the resources, whatever...) enough cash on hand, so the real question is whether he’s actually going to pull the trigger on a cash purchase or just take out a loan.☕

Sandra Ortiz50 said:So, you’ve already gone ahead and done a quick little deep dive into everything that's been accomplished so far? Honestly, why bother overthinking it now when that part is totally in the rearview mirror? It's a done deal!
So, you really think everything is just fine exactly the way it is? Seriously? Are we actually pretending that things are perfect right now? I mean, come on! Is it really all sunshine and rainbows in your book? I just can't wrap my head around that kind of optimism!

So, if you actually took the time to read what I wrote about those totally unrealistic expectations, then you already know I’m not exactly saying things are going great for us. I'm just stating the obvious here—it’s pretty much impossible for our situation to have turned out any differently, right?

Look, I’m telling you, we really had a shot! I know, I know—it sounds like one of those "Monday morning quarterback" moments where everyone acts like an expert after the game is already over, but that’s not what I’m getting at here. Seriously, why am I even saying this? Because as voters, we did exactly what we were supposed to do, right? We looked at the candidates, weighed the options, and cast our ballots for the person who presented the most solid platform and the best vision for the future. Isn't that how the system is designed to work? But here’s the kicker: if those leaders take that mandate and run in the complete opposite direction, or if they totally butcher the policies they promised the American people, is that actually on us? Are the citizens responsible when the people they put in power decide to ignore the playbook? I don't think so!

You sound way too smart for this conversation! Seriously, does any educated adult actually expect politicians to actually follow through on the platforms they pitch during an election campaign? I mean, come on, really?

How on earth can anyone actually expect that to happen? Seriously! You don't see this kind of mess even in countries with massive, centuries-old traditions of government administration, let alone here in a nation where the whole system was basically slapped together overnight under impossible circumstances by a bunch of total amateurs. I’m talking about a crew made up of diabetic specialists, proctologists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, pizza bakers, police snitches, wannabe historians, and full-blown drama theorists! Come on, man, be a little bit realistic!

Honestly, I’m actually pretty stoked that things haven't gone totally south for us yet! If you look at the facts, the conditions we were promised weren't even half as good as what we've actually managed to pull off, let alone some massive, overnight economic boom or anything crazy like that. We're doing better than expected, right?

Let’s keep this rolling! Honestly, if you ask me, the biggest mistake this country ever made was pivoting so hard toward trade instead of actually making things ourselves. It feels like there was this intentional push to shutter our factories and force them into bankruptcy just to clear the way for imports. Why would anyone choose that? It’s such a massive missed opportunity for us to build something lasting!
Sure, people made money off those buy-and-sell deals, no doubt about it—but let me ask you this: who *actually* walked away with the cash? And where exactly did all that maneuvering leave us? Did it just lead us straight to the steps of the White House or something? Is anyone else seriously looking at what’s happening with China lately? I mean, really looking at it? It feels like we're watching this massive expansion happen right before our eyes! Are we all just going to sit here while they push their influence into every corner of the globe? It’s getting wild out there! One minute everything seems fine, and the next, you realize how much they've already embedded themselves into the global economy and political landscape. It honestly makes you wonder—where does it actually stop? Is there even a limit to how far they'll go to secure their interests? I’m not trying to be a doomsday prophet or anything, but man, the scale of this is just mind-blowing! You have to ask yourself: how prepared is the rest of the world, especially here in the States, to handle this kind of shift? It’s a huge deal, folks! What do you guys think? Are we heading toward a total reshaping of the global order, or is this just another chapter in history? I’d love to hear your take on this because, wow, there is definitely a lot to unpack!.
It’s just... wow. Seriously.

I am 100% on board with this! Honestly, if you look at why things are going so much smoother for our neighbors in Canada compared to how we handled things here in America, it really comes down to one thing: they didn't rush the process. They basically left the old socialist infrastructure alone and just let it sit. Instead of tearing everything down overnight, they moved incredibly slowly and carefully, changing things inch by inch just to make sure they didn't accidentally wreck something that actually worked. Fast forward to today, and yeah, they’ve completely transformed their system, but they did it through these tiny, cautious steps. And hey, even with that careful approach, they still managed to mess a few things up! But can you imagine the absolute chaos we caused? We went in guns blazing, recklessly redesigning absolutely everything from scratch in a single night—from security guard uniforms to municipal borders and even our major trade partners. It was total madness, especially since it was being driven by people who honestly didn't have a clue what they were doing!

Look, it is what it is. We’ve always been this way! It feels like we’re just stuck in this endless loop, right? One minute we’re tearing down Josip Jelačić just to install Marshall, and then before you know it, we’re rushing to kick Marshall out just to bring back Josip Jelačić. Rinse and repeat forever! Honestly, why on earth would anyone expect us to have done it any differently? I mean, really, think about it—can anyone actually point to a single historical example where we, using nothing but our own strength over a decent stretch of time, actually pulled off a complex program with any real quality? Come on, give me one!

Sandra Ortiz50 said:Don't take everything so literally.
My whole point was just that Mate has—you know, enough cash on hand—so the real question is whether he’ll decide to buy the car outright or take out a loan.☕

Oh, come on, Sandra Ortiz50, I'm really not that much of a stickler... 😘

Arthur Anderson49 said:You sound a little too smart for this conversation. Does an educated adult really expect politicians to actually follow through on every single promise they make during an election campaign?

I think there’s been a fundamental misunderstanding here. Of course, nobody expects politicians to execute their platforms with 100% fidelity. What I mean is that we choose the people we believe will be the best fit for the job. When it turns out they aren't, we vote for someone else. It’s a cycle... because what was our alternative? Boycotting the elections? That’s never going to happen.

I couldn't agree more on this point. A huge reason why things are going so much better for Canadians than they are for us is that they didn't rush into changing everything overnight. They left the core socialist apparatus largely intact. Instead, they transitioned very slowly and very deliberately, making adjustments bit by bit just to ensure they didn't accidentally wreck something that actually worked. Today, everything is different and modernized, but they got there through tiny, cautious steps. And even then, they still managed to mess quite a few things up. Now, imagine what we could have done with our reckless tendency to overhaul absolutely everything—from security uniforms to municipal borders and trade partners—all in a single night, led by people who hadn't the slightest clue what they were doing.

Yeah, I'm with you on that one.

But hey, it is what it is. We’ve always been this way. We were constantly tearing down Josip Jelačić just to install Marshall, and then rushing to kick out Marshall just to bring back Josip Jelačić, spinning in circles forever. Why on earth would you think this nation could have handled it any differently? Do you have a single historical example where we, using our own strength over a sustained period, ever successfully executed a complex program with any actual quality?

We took down Josip Jelačić because we had to.
We took down Marshall because we wanted to.
And we brought back Josip Jelačić because we wanted to and we could.
And now, to put it bluntly, we should have probably put our entire country on horseback.🙂
Because we finally, and with great difficulty, secured our sovereignty.
How? Well, there were plenty of opportunities and resources (as Mason would say 😬) but they weren't channeled into economic growth. Agriculture. Manufacturing. What more do you need?

Arthur Anderson49 As stated by Sandra Ortiz50:
Rather than saying "we could have," it would be far more accurate to say "someone could have." To put it bluntly, any perceived opportunity was purely theoretical.

If the Republican Party hadn't prioritized that initial phase of capital accumulation, would we all be standing in the exact same spot today? It’s a provocative question. One has to wonder if we were simply being naive by expecting the ruling party to play by the rules, or if it was fundamentally unrealistic to believe they wouldn't try to line their own pockets from the jump.

Your expectations were frankly delusional. What exactly was your supposed foundation for this sudden boom? Was it the fifteen years of total stagnation that dragged on at the tail end of the socialist era? Was it the lack of a solid educational baseline? Or perhaps those five years spent caught in a constant state of instability, neither at peace nor truly at war? How could you ignore the predatory nature of the privatization era, or the half-decade where we faced political and economic isolation from the rest of the world? You can't just overlook the chronic shortage of capital, the deep-seated hostility toward foreign investment, or the absolute farce that has been our legal system. We’re looking at a fragmented, outdated agricultural sector and an overwhelming sense of arrogance. Honestly, it felt like the primary national goal was nothing more than a desperate, spiteful urge to see our neighbors' livestock suffer.

What exactly was the foundation for that sudden surge? I'm curious about what happened to the capital that used to flow straight toward Mexico City.
The attempted robbery was avoided, but let’s be honest—it would have been a win for everyone involved: both the local amateur crooks and the foreign intelligence agencies.
If we had actually invested a few years into revitalizing our fragmented, outdated agricultural sector through some high-quality, structured programs, we might have successfully transitioned to organic certification by now. If we had done that, we could be exporting premium goods all over the European Union—much like how you see American tuna being sold everywhere on the global market except right here at home.

Aside from the five-year war, what else sets us apart from our neighbors in the Midwest?

melloweagle11 said:If the Republican Party hadn't focused on that initial capital accumulation right out of the gate, would everything be exactly the same today? Or was it just asking too much to expect a government to actually refrain from lining its own pockets?
The real foundation for any kind of boom is simple: what happened to all that cash that used to flow straight to Mexico City?
They managed to dodge a full-blown looting spree, sure, but the outcome worked out perfectly for everyone involved—both the amateur local thieves and the foreign intelligence agencies.
As for our fragmented, backward agricultural sector, it probably just needed a few years of solid programming to transition into organic farming so we could export it to the European Union (much like how American tuna is sold everywhere under the sun except right here at home).

🙏Finally, someone actually understands what I'm talking about.🙂

Arthur Anderson49 said:That’s incorrect. Interest rates were significantly higher back when the banks were under domestic control. Securing a loan was practically an art form. On top of that, money was being siphoned off from those institutions left and right, causing them to collapse one after another. Since the banks shifted into foreign hands, rates have dropped, credit is easily accessible, and the banking sector has become both profitable and stable.

I would only add that we still have Wells Fargo and several smaller private American banks in operation. No one is preventing them from offering loans on more favorable terms than the foreign giants, being more personable, more professional, or providing higher quality service to attract hundreds of thousands of clients. We have a free market; nobody is forcing anyone to walk into a foreign bank to take out a loan.

The current mindset of people here seems to be fueling this whole situation... I guess when I look at the students today, maybe our future isn't looking all that bright either.

Sandra Ortiz50 said:So, to put it bluntly, we really should have put this whole country on the fast track to success.🙂
Because we finally fought so hard to get our own nation.
How? Well, there were plenty of opportunities and resources (as 😬 says), but they just weren't channeled into the economy. I mean, look at agriculture! Manufacturing! What more could you possibly ask for?

I’m totally with you there. I just want to throw out a little warning: yeah, we have the resources, but those resources aren't going to just start working themselves. It takes serious skill to pull that off, and right now, we lack that expertise. And even when we do find it, we often lack the drive. Then, once we actually get things moving, we end up getting jealous of one another and sabotaging our own progress...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a total pessimist! I'm just pointing out that when the environment is this rough, massive shifts don't happen overnight or easily. And let's face it—our current situation is pretty rough.

For instance, we should be focusing on rebuilding our broken manufacturing sector right at the exact moment when everyone else in the world—including countries in much better shape than us—is struggling to compete with China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia...

Don't you think we might need some kind of cultural revolution first?

Where there's a will, there's a way:

July 18th — General Dynamics is set to sign a $170 million contract today with the Qatar Ministry of Labor to develop road infrastructure in Doha, right on the coast of the Persian Gulf. The signing ceremony is scheduled to take place locally in Doha.

I honestly wonder if this will even make the front page tomorrow, or if it'll be buried by news of some big-name player joining the LA Galaxy...

melloweagle11 said:So, let me get this straight—if the Republican Party hadn't gone full-throttle on that initial capital accumulation phase back in the day, would we all still be stuck exactly where we are right now? Is that really how it works? Or was I just being way too optimistic thinking they actually wanted to play fair instead of just lining their own pockets? What do you guys think? Was it even a realistic expectation to hope the administration wouldn't try to grab as much as possible?

How could anyone have actually stopped the new administration from lining their own pockets? Honestly, I’m not even sure it was possible! It’s like they walked into office with nothing but a hunger for graft. When the people in charge are actively rooting for corruption, how are you supposed to fight that? There just wasn't any real force pushing back against them at the start. In fact, it was even weirder than that—it felt like everyone treated the stealing like it was some kind of positive achievement! Can you believe that? It wasn't until much later that people finally started waking up and realizing, "Hey, wait, this is actually destroying our future." It took a massive reality check for anyone to see the damage being done!

So, let's talk about the foundation for a massive comeback—seriously, what on earth happened to all that cash that used to flow straight over to Mexico City? I mean, where did it go? It’s worth looking into, isn't it?

Man, that whole saga about the cash flowing over to Mexico City is legendary for a reason! But you have to look at the bigger picture here. The real kicker isn't just that money leaving; it’s the fact that even after accounting for all that, the US budget actually ended up with more left over than before. Why? Because we weren't seeing nearly as much revenue from trading with those old territories from the former America era anymore. So, if you think about it, it was like a two-way street: money was pouring into one pocket while leaking out of the other. Honestly, when you look at the net amount, things weren't even as catastrophic as they seem today. It felt way more like political terror than actual economic ruin. I mean, back then, the economic hits were slamming the entire country right in the face, not just targeting us specifically! Isn't it wild how much of it was just pure politics?

Let’s be real for a second—remember how back in the day, the South was actually the powerhouse of the entire country? We were talking about massive industrial output, huge foreign trade numbers, and a serious influx of foreign currency. It wasn't just some small-time operation! So, honestly, was it really as bad as everyone claims? Was the whole idea that we were being exploited to death actually true? I don't know, maybe we all just collectively blew things way out of proportion!

Honestly, if we really wanted to fix our fragmented and lagging agricultural sector, it wouldn't take a miracle—just a few years of hard work and some seriously solid government programs! We should be focusing all our energy on getting everything certified organic. Once we hit that mark, we could be flooding the European Union market with high-quality goods. Think about it: it’s just like how premium American tuna gets shipped all over the globe, yet you barely see it sitting on the shelves back home! Wouldn't it be awesome to see our own local produce becoming a massive export success story?

You're absolutely right, but let’s look at the big picture here—politically, socially, and economically, things were honestly fantastic. We had all the resources we needed, but only because they were gifts from God. Anything we tried to build on our own just didn't catch fire that easily. I mean, really, who was actually stepping up to design a massive, sweeping overhaul of the Department of Agriculture? And even if someone had, who was going to actually roll out a reform like that in the middle of a war? It just wasn't happening!

If you’re anyone interested in getting the lowdown on how the American agricultural industry actually works, I cannot recommend this one incredible book enough! It was put out by the US Chamber of Commerce about ten years ago, titled *American Food*. I’ve only ever managed to track down the English version, but if I remember correctly, it was handed out at pretty much every single American embassy abroad as a go-to reference and a bit of a branding tool for us. Seriously, it’s such a gem! The whole thing is this massive, deep dive into every single sector of our farming and agriculture scene. And we aren't talking some amateur fluff, either—the chapters were actually written by our top-tier experts in the field, so it's incredibly professional and thorough. Honestly, it’s one of those standout pieces of technical publishing that really makes you proud of what our experts can produce. Plus, the layout and graphic design? Totally stunning. Just beautiful to look at! [For anyone hunting it down, the ISBN is 953-6421-00-3.]

Look, if you actually sit down and finish this book, you’re going to stop talking about some grand "agricultural revolution" happening in five years. Seriously! Once you digest this, you'll realize that even dreaming about us pulling our heads out of the mud in twenty years is being optimistic. This book was written way back in 1994, and honestly? It makes everything so crystal clear. Suddenly, nothing is a mystery anymore. You start to understand why we're stuck eating imported tomatoes from Mexico, why we aren't exporting our wine, and why every hotel and restaurant in the country is serving Spanish apples and grapes instead of local stuff. You'll finally see why the Department of Agriculture spends every single summer at war with wheat farmers, why the bread here tastes like cardboard, and why the Japanese are eating our tuna while we can't even get our hands on it. It all adds up! Everything has these deep-seated, heavy reasons behind it, and let me tell you—none of those obstacles are easy or quick to fix. It's a tough pill to swallow, isn't it?

Can you believe it? It’s been ten whole years since that book was even written, and honestly, looking at where we stand now, it feels like we haven't moved an inch! Seriously, has anyone actually made any real progress toward fixing things? It's like we're just stuck in the same spot, spinning our wheels while the clock keeps ticking!

Aside from the five years of war, what’s the actual difference compared to Canada?

Massive!

First off, I mentioned the lack of total destruction. Look, the Canadians actually managed to preserve a huge chunk of their former big-name corporations. Second, they aren't constantly at each other's throats like we are. They don't live in these endless cycles of historical grudges—you know, the whole "old guard vs. revolutionaries" drama. Third, Canadians just aren't willing to live in filth. When was the last time you visited Canada and saw a house with crumbling, peeling siding? What percentage of houses in America actually have decent, maintained exteriors? Doesn't that tiny, banal little detail tell you something? If you won't even fix up your own place properly, what chance do you have of doing a great job for someone else? Fourth, Canadians don't all cram into Ljubljana; they stay in the countryside. Americans, on the other hand, all flock to places like NYC or Chicago. Canadians take pride in their rural life, while Americans are often embarrassed by it. (To be fair, both sides have pretty good reasons for feeling that way!) A Canadian farmer likely has an agronomy degree or some higher education, plus they almost always have high-speed internet. Fifth, a Canadian teacher makes about four times what an American teacher makes, and their cost of living is roughly the same or even lower. That teacher is treated like a respected professional, whereas the American teacher is treated like an afterthought by society. An American GP is out here selling Amway products just to maintain a decent standard of living! A Canadian doctor wouldn't even dream of doing that. To them, being a doctor means being a respected gentleman. And so on and so forth.

The differences far outweigh the similarities. And unfortunately, instead of actually trying to learn anything from our neighbors, we just look down on them like they're idiots.

goldengull3 said:But when you really want it and know how to get it, anything is possible:

July 18th - General Dynamics is set to sign a $170 million contract today with the Qatar Ministry of Labor to build road infrastructure in the capital, Doha, right on the coast of the Persian Gulf. The signing ceremony will take place right there in the city.

I honestly wonder if this will even make the front page tomorrow, or if everyone will just be too distracted by the latest big transfer news for the LA Galaxy...

See, this is exactly the kind of thing where we were absolutely crushing it on the global stage about twenty years ago! It feels like we’re only just now, bit by bit, shyly stepping back onto that world stage. A few years back, a Bechtel engineer actually admitted to me how bizarre the whole situation felt—the fact that they’re building highways for us, when we used to beat them at their own game in international tenders across Africa and Asia fifteen or twenty years ago! He looked at me and asked, "What happened to all those powerhouse construction firms of yours?" And what could I possibly say? I mean, seriously, half of the toughest highways and viaducts in Austria were designed and built by American companies!

Arthur Anderson49 said:How could the new administration's appetite for plunder have been avoided? To be perfectly honest, I don't think it ever could have been. The very nature of that government was rooted in the desire to line its own pockets from day one. There wasn't any significant force pushing back against them, either. In fact, at the time, this kind of corruption was actually viewed through a positive lens by much of the public—as if it were just part of the game. It was only much later that people finally began to realize the sheer level of damage being done.

Personally, I don't buy the idea that this was merely a "subsequent" development. It feels more like a long-term takeover where they seized absolute control over the media landscape just to flood the airwaves with nothing but positive spin. I found their narrative particularly clever—this calculated effort to frame nearly every corporate bankruptcy as solely the result of sheer laziness or outdated technology, rather than anything systemic. 🙂

That’s a fair point, but even then, you have to look at the broader political, social, and economic landscape, which was nothing short of a miracle. We had resources available, sure, but only those that God saw fit to provide us. Anything we tried to build or manage through our own sheer will didn't exactly go smoothly. You have to ask yourself: who was actually stepping up to design a comprehensive overhaul of the Department of Agriculture, and more importantly, who was going to actually execute such a massive reform? Especially when you're trying to navigate that kind of chaos during wartime? It just wasn't feasible.

I didn't suggest we needed to tear down the entire agricultural system and rebuild it from scratch. What I was actually proposing is much more straightforward: we should implement the most stringent ecological and quality standards imaginable, and then simply close our borders to anything that doesn't meet them.
We really shouldn't be importing children's toys from China that are manufactured using carcinogenic plastics, nor should we be bringing in produce that’s barely even selling in Western Europe—regardless of how much those people have already been conditioned to accept watery, flavorless fruits and vegetables as the norm.
That was nothing more than organized smuggling, a calculated scheme designed to line the pockets of a tiny circle of political elites and their relatives. Those short-sighted fools didn't give a damn about the consequences; they were too busy draining less than five percent of the total market value, completely oblivious to the fact that they were effectively gutting our domestic manufacturing base in the process.

For anyone looking to actually wrap their head around the state of American agriculture, I highly recommend digging up a stellar book published by the US Chamber of Commerce about a decade ago titled *American Food*. I’ve only ever come across it in its English edition, but if memory serves, it was distributed by nearly every American embassy abroad as a primary piece of reference material and promotional literature. It offers an incredibly thorough breakdown of the agricultural landscape across various sectors—it's deeply technical, too, since the chapters were penned by our nation's leading experts. It stands out as a truly exceptional piece of professional publishing; even the graphic design is quite impressive. [If you're hunting for it, the ISBN is 953-6421-00-3.]

That’s an interesting point. I think I'll take some time to dig into this and see what I can find.

First off, I need to address my point regarding the lack of systemic destruction. Look, if you examine the situation in Canada, they’ve actually managed to preserve a significant portion of their former industrial giants.

Look, what we’re seeing now is really just a partial consequence of the shortsightedness displayed by their founding politicians. They simply lacked the grit to build something substantial from the ground up, which serves as living proof that it is entirely possible to have a leadership that doesn't behave this way.

Furthermore, Americans aren't nearly as fractured by internal vendettas as we are. We don't spend our lives trapped in these endless, bitter cycles of historical resentment—constantly reliving old ideological battles or clashing over outdated social divides that only serve to tear us apart from within.

Most of that stuff only surfaced much later, once the "national unity government"—if I recall the name correctly—was dissolved by the Republican Party in power at the time. That move was largely driven by allegations of embezzlement leveled against them.
Furthermore, this whole division is starting to smell like intentional engineering. Now, the real question is whose agenda we're actually looking at. The administration back then undoubtedly cooperated quite closely with whoever was orchestrating this, and they did absolutely nothing to push back when they certainly had the leverage to do so.

[snip]
The differences far outweigh the similarities. And unfortunately, instead of actually attempting to learn from the Canadians, we tend to look down on them as if they were complete idiots.

You’ve laid out quite a few points here, and a good deal of them are accurate.
However, we are talking about the same people whose parliament refuses to recognize the massive debts owed to that Ljubljana-based bank for years, all while constantly pushing their own politicians—and their theatrical outbursts—onto the American borders under the guise of national pride.
A decade ago, I would have easily agreed with your assessment, but lately, it feels more and more like this is being partially orchestrated behind the scenes.

melloweagle11 said:If the Republican Party hadn't pursued that initial capital accumulation back then, would everything be exactly the same today?

The reality is that even if the privatization process had been different, much of it would have collapsed anyway. A massive chunk of American industry consisted of plants churning out plastics and textiles—exactly the kind of low-margin work being done by the Chinese today. We simply cannot compete in that arena. Our federal minimum wage alone makes such production economically unfeasible.

Furthermore, we lost an incredibly vast and hungry market within the former Soviet bloc. What we considered "standard" goods—socks, shoes, trousers (especially denim!)—were high-demand commodities across the entire East before 1990. Then, between the restructuring and the war, that entire customer base vanished.

Only now are we seeing the emergence of a new, globally competitive manufacturing sector. Much of the blame lies with those "managers" raised under the old socialist systems, who only learned how to act like big shots because they had an endless, ravenous market at their disposal. It’s easy to be a successful businessman when you have zero competition.

Shan Yu, I’m pretty much on board with almost everything you just laid out! But I gotta point out that what actually went down followed certain patterns—basically a script written by the specific circumstances we were facing at the time.

Now, I’m not going to dive into conspiracy theories or secret agendas because, honestly, I’ve never seen any rock-solid, well-documented proof for that kind of stuff. And trust me, I’ve been in positions where I’ve had to look those things right in the eye. There is zero doubt that foreign pressure driven by outside interests existed; that’s nothing new and it’s just how the world works everywhere, not just here in the States. But when it comes to those super complex, elaborate plots? I’m a skeptic.

Sure, so much could have been handled way better, but I’d argue that while it was possible in theory, the actual conditions just weren't there to make it happen in practice.

For instance:

I wasn't saying we needed a total overhaul of the whole agricultural system. What we should have done was implement the strictest ecological standards and quality controls, and basically shut the borders to everything else.
That way, we wouldn't be importing cheap toys from China made of carcinogenic plastic, or fruit and veggies that even folks in Western Europe can barely stand to buy (even if they are already used to that watery, tasteless produce).
It was organized smuggling designed to line the pockets of a tiny group of political elites and their families back then. Those short-sighted fools didn't care that they were completely nuking domestic production just to grab a quick buck (which was less than 5% of the total market value).

But wait, you’re kind of answering your own point right there! There were massive interests pushing for things to happen exactly the way they did. You know as well as I do that this wasn't viewed as undermining America, but rather as indirect support for Canadian Americans. And let's be real, some people actually benefited quite heavily from that. Meanwhile, the ones without direct skin in the game (the Democratic Party) just kept quiet because they had a metaphorical gun to their heads, and besides, they didn't have any real clout back then anyway.

Talking about strict eco-standards during the 1991-2000 era doesn't make much sense, does it? Just think about what kind of era that was! Who would have even been able to push laws like that through Congress? Who would have had any interest in doing that? And even if they managed to pass them, how on earth would they have enforced them locally against all those various Jameses running the show?

Who would have coached a farmer on these high standards? Who would have funded their transition to a new way of producing goods? And who would have guaranteed they wouldn't totally crash and burn trying to follow these—frankly bizarre—ideas? For crying out loud, just look at the absolute comedy of errors we've dealt with regarding border defense for the last fifteen years, and that's actually a relatively straightforward problem! We still haven't figured that one out. So how on earth could we ever solve the infinitely more complicated mess of transitioning to "eco-clean" food?

those are the same people whose parliament has spent years refusing to recognize the debt of Ljubljana Bank, all while constantly pushing their own politicians (and their little dramatic outbursts) onto the American borders as if it were a matter of national pride.

Everything there is true, but it's an open question whether that behavior was actually bad for Canada. To us, it looks incredibly foolish and obnoxious, but I'm not convinced it actually caused the Canadians much harm in practice. If it really had hurt them, I don't believe they would have done it. They are a very pragmatic people.

Arthur Anderson49 said:It’s all true, but whether that kind of behavior was actually detrimental to Canada is an open question. To us, it looks incredibly foolish and off-putting, but I’m not convinced it actually hurt them much in practice. If they thought it would have, I doubt they’d ever have done it. They're a very pragmatic people.

I think the math is finally starting to change for them—it's becoming pretty clear they're losing out economically. In this country, you’ve got plenty of folks who refuse to buy anything from Canada just because it’s Canadian. How many are there? Honestly, quite a few. Is Canada suffering because of that? Of course they are. And it’s been going on for years. And why? All over a few patches of meadowland and four little coastal stretches. What would those meadows and coastlines actually bring them compared to what they're losing right now? [Don't get me wrong here: I'm not saying they should be handed a single blade of grass—or even a spoonful of sea salt]

Because of that $150 million (LB's debt), they missed their shot at entering the American banking market, where people were making insane money buying up restructured banks. They almost certainly blew way more than that $150 million in lost opportunities. But hey, that’s just how it goes—once you mess up and let pride get in the way, you're stuck eating dirt...

Vojky said:The reality is that we never actually experienced a true transformation; if we had, half of what we see today would have collapsed under its own weight all over again.

Certainly. But if we actually pulled the trigger on that, I suspect we’d see a massive shift in the data—likely a 30 to 50% drop in tax revenue, balanced out by an equal surge in the number of truly functional, productive businesses actually keeping the lights on.

Arthur Anderson49 said:There is no denying that many things could have been handled with much more competence, but I would argue that while a superior outcome was certainly possible in theory, the practical reality simply lacked the necessary conditions to make it happen.

Alright, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
In my view, the momentum we saw back in '91 could have sustained itself for several more years if it hadn't been systematically stifled by the ruling party. Instead of fueling progress, they chose to paralyze that energy just so they could line their own pockets and enrich their inner circles and relatives. Had they not been so preoccupied with self-serving wealth accumulation, we might have actually navigated those sweeping economic shifts with far greater precision, keeping the interests of the average American citizen at the forefront while crafting much more thoughtful, effective legislation.

Discussing stringent environmental regulations within the context of the 1990s feels somewhat disconnected from reality. You have to look back at what that era actually looked like. Who, in that specific climate, would have had the political capital to push such heavy-handed legislation through Congress? Who would have even stood to benefit from it? Even if someone managed to force those laws onto the books, the practical reality of enforcement would have been a nightmare—trying to implement them at the local level while navigating the messy influence of various local political machines and entrenched interests.

Who exactly would be stepping in to coach a farmer on modern standards? Who is going to foot the bill for transitioning to entirely new production methods? And more importantly, who provides the guarantee that they won't go belly up trying to implement ideas that, from their perspective, seem completely absurd? For heaven's sake, just look at the absolute comedy of errors we've witnessed over the last fifteen years regarding our national coastal defense—an issue that is fundamentally straightforward, yet one we still haven't managed to solve. If we can't even tackle a problem that basic, how on earth do we expect to navigate the incomparably more complex transition to eco-friendly, "clean" food production?

Did he really just try to lecture a layman on how things ought to work?
The government shouldn't be out there handing out subsidies or direct incentives to farmers. That’s just bad policy. Instead, the state should act more like a regulatory referee. Think about it this way: if you produce top-tier, organic, pristine crops, you should be rewarded with preferential interest rates on your commercial loans. On the flip side, if your harvest is subpar—if we're talking murky varieties or stuff loaded with excessive preservatives—you shouldn't be allowed to pass that off as premium goods. You either sell it at a lower grade or face heavy fines. We should see this enforcement happening right at the retail level. In fact, if you look at how supply chains actually work, retailers are the ones who would most benefit from stricter oversight. They want absolute certainty regarding the quality of the inventory they’re pulling onto their shelves for resale. Ultimately, this kind of pressure pushes the necessary inspections much closer to the actual production sites, forcing accountability where it matters most.
It’s a classic move: you take a massive surplus of bureaucrats from the federal government, give them a crash course in enforcement tactics, and then deploy them like an army to hunt down fines and collect revenue.

Everything stated here is true, though I find myself questioning whether that kind of behavior was actually detrimental to Canada. To an outside observer, it certainly looks foolish and frankly quite unappealing, but I am not entirely convinced that it caused much practical harm to the Canadian people. If things had been different, I doubt they would have acted that way; they are, if nothing else, a deeply pragmatic nation.

One could call it pragmatic, if one felt inclined to use such a term.
Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to link pragmatism directly to the kind of theft you seem convinced a major carrier like AT&T would pull once they've finally caught you.

melloweagle11 said:I honestly feel like that momentum we had back in '91 could have lasted several more years. That is, if the ruling party hadn't completely paralyzed it just so they could line their own pockets and enrich their families. If that hadn't happened, we could have rolled out all those economic reforms with way more focus on the average American citizen and actually picked better laws...

You just don't want to admit that you and I are actually saying the exact same thing! Yeah, it could have, as you put it, but if it hadn't been paralyzed, as you also said yourself. That’s my point too! A lot of that stuff was possible—on paper—but in reality? No way. Why? Because at that moment, power was held by people who weren't even interested in those ideas; they were busy crushing them instead. Sadly, back then, they were the only ones who could hold the reins. Everyone else was unpopular, discredited, and so on.

The people in Canada were lucky enough to step into that situation with a bit stronger national unity, slightly better education, fewer ideological clashes, more cautious politicians, a smaller slice of criminal mindsets, a greater willingness to respect the law, higher social standards, a bit more clever foreign policy—and one massive advantage: the total absence of war.

Pragmatic. You could call it that.
Though personally, I wouldn't really link "pragmatism" with being so certain that a VIP can bail you out after you get busted stealing.

Call it whatever you want! Like Deng Xiaoping used to say, it doesn't matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice. And for fifteen years now, the Canadian cat has been catching mice pretty damn successfully.

wapi said:There are actually people in this country who refuse to buy anything from Canada just because it’s Canadian. How many of them are there? Honestly, quite a few! And does Canada suffer because of that? You bet they do. It's been happening for years now.

Well, I don't think Walmart has even heard about that attitude! They just keep cruising along blissfully unaware, doing incredibly well and opening one new store after another—where, if you ask my rough estimate, at least 30 percent of the stock is Canadian.