America--great--so fast

Shadowshine! Wow what an entrance!

No sir and yes sir, what I was referring to can be found on this site as well as others;

http://www.coe.uga.edu/~rhill/workethic/hist.htm

From the above site;

"With the Reformation, a period of religious and political upheaval in western Europe during the sixteenth century, came a new perspective on work. Two key religious leaders who influenced the development of western culture during this period were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Luther was an Augustinian friar who became discontent with the Catholic church and was a leader within the Protestant movement. He believed that people could serve God through their work, that the professions were useful, that work was the universal base of society and the cause of differing social classes, and that a person should work diligently in their own occupation and should not try to change from the profession to which he was born. To do so would be to go against God's laws since God assigned each person to his own place in the social hierarchy (Lipset, 1990; Tilgher, 1930).

The major point at which Luther differed from the medieval concept of work was regarding the superiority of one form of work over another. Luther regarded the monastic and contemplative life, held up as the ideal during the middle ages, as an egotistic and unaffectionate exercise on the part of the monks, and he accused them of evading their duty to their neighbors (Tilgher, 1930). For Luther, a person's vocation was equated as his calling, but all calling's were of equal spiritual dignity. This tenant was significant because it affirmed manual labor.

Luther still did not pave the way for a profit-oriented economic system because he disapproved of commerce as an occupation (Lipset, 1990; Tilgher, 1930). From his perspective, commerce did not involve any real work. Luther also believed that each person should earn an income which would meet his basic needs, but to accumulate or horde wealth was sinful.

According to Weber (1904, 1905), it was John Calvin who introduced the theological doctrines which combined with those of Martin Luther to form a significant new attitude toward work. Calvin was a French theologian whose concept of predestination was revolutionary. Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect, those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other people were damned and nothing could change that since God was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly the only evidence was in the person's daily life and deeds, and success in one's worldly endeavors was a sign of possible inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned, but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God's chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930).

Calvin taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest the profits of their labor into financing further ventures. Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset, 1990).

Selection of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty. Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930).

The norms regarding work which developed out of the Protestant Reformation, based on the combined theological teachings of Luther and Calvin, encouraged work in a chosen occupation with an attitude of service to God, viewed work as a calling and avoided placing greater spiritual dignity on one job than another, approved of working diligently to achieve maximum profits, required reinvestment of profits back into one's business, allowed a person to change from the craft or profession of his father, and associated success in one's work with the likelihood of being one of God's Elect."

So I hope you now understand what I meant?

Regards,



Edited by opuslola - 10-Nov-2010 at 23:08

One of the reasons why Germany is so big economy is that Americans likes to buy German goods, especially cars. In the technology France is more advanced than Germany ;)

TGS wrote;
"Why is it that, for example, Vietnam is poor, while South Korea is rich? Its an interesting question really."

Yes it is a really interesting question! And, I suppose the only real answer is the fact that S. Korea was occupied and restored by the USA as an allied nation! Thus American aid was passed to its allies in more ways than military aid, developement grants or loans became available, and the nations government held a pro-American stance!

One can only compare the situation in Vietnam after America retreated from it! Aid was eliminated, the Viet rulers were violently anti-Amercian and Pro Soviet or Chinese, and pro-Communist, anti-Capitalist, etc.!

Surely that is the most easily accepted explanation?

Regards,

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba Originally posted by BIG D of course, AND considering your points, Germany and Japan do EXTREMELY well per GNP--with Germany just behind China and Japan just ahead[[2009]]--and this is my question from before, how do they do so well WITHOUT the things you mention[natural resources,etc.??ty Japan and Germany are both export reliant countries. As long as they export goods, they prosper. Both make high tech and luxury equipment, which is why their economies do so well. For example, prior to WWI, Germany was a leading exporter. What the British did was they blockaded Germany during WWI to prevent any natural resources going to Germany and prevent any exports going out, therefore the German economy collapse. Its the same with Japan, Japan needs to export goods for its economy to do well.

as opposed to the US having a 'self-reliant' economy'??well, why are these 2 countries doing better than others that are roughly equal in size and resources???

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba Japan and Germany are powerhouses, but their growth is limited to their size and amount of natural resources they poses. For example, Japan is severely lacking in major natural resources such as oil, minerals, etc... This limits their capacity for growth (and was a major factor of why they attacked the United States and expanded in Asia in the first place). For example, just recently, Japan had to sign a deal with vietnam for rare earth minerals because China, the largest supplier of this important natural resources (used to make high tech equipment) refused to sell any to Japan due to territorial disputes.

of course, AND considering your points, Germany and Japan do EXTREMELY well per GNP--with Germany just behind China and Japan just ahead[[2009]]--and this is my question from before, how do they do so well WITHOUT the things you mention[natural resources,etc.??ty

Japan and Germany are powerhouses, but their growth is limited to their size and amount of natural resources they poses.

For example, Japan is severely lacking in major natural resources such as oil, minerals, etc... This limits their capacity for growth (and was a major factor of why they attacked the United States and expanded in Asia in the first place).

For example, just recently, Japan had to sign a deal with vietnam for rare earth minerals because China, the largest supplier of this important natural resources (used to make high tech equipment) refused to sell any to Japan due to territorial disputes.

Originally posted by Athena I will vote for the greatness of the US being the vast resources, which are now depleted.  How wonderful it would be to have everything free for the taking, at the same human consciousness was developed enough to advance technologies and world markets. Surely the US's geographical position, outside of the fighting common to Europe, was a huge advantage, but this would not have been that great of an advantage if it had not been for the vast farm lands that could feed both the US and Europe, and the industry dependent on mineral resources that could be locally obtained.   The advantage here is two fold.  The first is the psychological advantage of having the much abundance provided by god/nature.  Second, is the the material and economy reality that achieving the good possible.   People didn't have to sell their children to the factory, because they could move west and own enough land to be self sufficient.  That is one hack of an advantage.   No one told them want to do, or denied them a livelihood because of the human problems that divided management from laborers.  Mother nature is a tyrant and she doesn't care if who dies.  You play by her rules or you are dead.  But something is something a whole lot cleaner and empowering in dealing with her, then in dealing with humans in the city.

This is true, The United States vast abundance of natural resources is a major factor of why its the economic power house it is. Also, you are correct in mentioning that the large "available" territories helped as well in terms of population growth.

Countries such as Japan and German are limited in their growth do to their size/lack of lots of natural resources. China's growth will eventually become constrained when they start finding it hard to feed their economy due to lack of natural resources.

Today we are seeing a new type of imperialism, where powerful nation states are doing whatever they can to secure natural resources for the future. China is already very successful in Africa.


Edited by TheGreatSimba - 30-Oct-2010 at 17:56

I will vote for the greatness of the US being the vast resources, which are now depleted.  How wonderful it would be to have everything free for the taking, at the same human consciousness was developed enough to advance technologies and world markets.

Surely the US's geographical position, outside of the fighting common to Europe, was a huge advantage, but this would not have been that great of an advantage if it had not been for the vast farm lands that could feed both the US and Europe, and the industry dependent on mineral resources that could be locally obtained.   The advantage here is two fold.  The first is the psychological advantage of having the much abundance provided by god/nature.  Second, is the the material and economy reality that achieving the good possible.   People didn't have to sell their children to the factory, because they could move west and own enough land to be self sufficient.  That is one hack of an advantage.   No one told them want to do, or denied them a livelihood because of the human problems that divided management from laborers.  Mother nature is a tyrant and she doesn't care if who dies.  You play by her rules or you are dead.  But something is something a whole lot cleaner and empowering in dealing with her, then in dealing with humans in the city. 

I beleive America had a pretty good fleet before WW I, do any of you remember the "Great White Fleet" and Dewey?

And, yes America had a pretty good sized fleet in 1939! It was though probably second to Japans in the Pacific, and second or third in the Atlantic!

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba Originally posted by BIG D yes, I meant, wasn't it getting to be[or was] an economic power I believe it had the biggest economy in the world, unless you include the British and French Empires as a whole (as opposed to just the economy of Britain or just the economy of France). Originally posted by BIG D ..but also it's navy wasn't small--how many countries had aircraft carriers pre 1939???the US had at least six.. I dont think the United States had as big a navy as Britain or France prior to WWI. I could be wrong on this. Originally posted by BIG D immigrants brought ideas/know how...were these immigrants more apt to be more industrious/hard working??? The United States did attract a lot of immigrants which provided a work force for its factories and other economic sectors. But I dont think this is the main reason for the United States' economic and industrial growth.