One way to help answer this question is to imagine what would happen if, around the same time Larry & Sergey started Google, two identical grad students were working on the same thing at a university elsewhere in the world. The second story would have played out a lot differently.
This thought experiment isn't a complete answer, but it's not irrelevant either.
That's interesting. There's quite a few places around the world where it would've been different, but how different depends on the targeting.
At the time Google started up, Yahoo! was the biggest (IIRC, it was a long time ago). Both were American companies and both initially targeted the US (I distinctly remember using Google and finding it crap for UK-specific stuff, so went back to flitting between Lycos and Altavista.
Had Google started up in Cambridge or Oxford, I imagine they would've targeted the UK and possibly Europe initially, focusing on different search patterns, different promotional strategies and so on. They may well have been intimidated by Yahoo in some respects but would've seen an opportunity to attack Yahoo's poor local search.
Had they have started in China they could've been Baidu.cn.
Of course, all this is academic but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
I think if Google started in the US at the same time as a UK search engine, the UK engine would've been more reliant on the UK market and would've seen slower growth once there's initial traction, but Google's search domination isn't completely global.
In the US and specifically Silicon Valley, they got a check for $100,000-ish to help them in the early years. In most any other country (or even most other parts of the US), that money wouldn't have been available to 2 unknown people, regardless of how smart they were.
That's not the only piece of the puzzle, but it's significant.
For example, Linus went to a university in Finland, it was free so he stayed there for 8 years or so. If he was in the US at the time, would he have had the time and freedom to work on a Free kernel full time? He would probably be in a deep debt like most students.
The point being, there are many other things that other countries have that America doesn't have.
It could be argued that he is the exception that proves the rule. He did something great, but he did not start Linux, the company, and make billions. Also - Linux would be useless without the GNU project - which is arguably very American.
I didn't mean it as "against commercial use". I meant the spirit of it favors community over commercial use.
The whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from "sealing away" the source code and favor commercial gains over the hacker community.
I view capitalism as "valuing money above all things". Don't confuse capitalism with the free market; the free market existed over a thousand years ago. Many people got rich through trade. Perhaps not in Europe (I don't know).
Err, what's the other definition? "allowing people to sell stuff and earn money?", that's a very old notion, like I already said, it's not exclusive to North America, and it's not a product of the European Renaissance, it existed more than a thousand years ago.
So? That doesn't imply that your definition of capitalism is correct.
> it's not exclusive to North America,
No one said that capitalism was exclusive to NA, was invented by Europe, or is new.
That said, capitalism isn't binary - it's a range and you left out important details.
For example, what does "allowing" mean? What people? What stuff?
The standard definition, cribbed from Wikipedia is "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market".
>> Propriety software is privately owned by the makers of the software, they control everything.
> GNU and the FSF were born because this model was deemed unethical by RMS and many who basically agree with him.
Actually, free software is owned and controlled by its creators. They determine the terms and if you don't like those terms, you don't get to use it.
You seem to think that "control" implies a particular class of terms. It doesn't. Control is actually the ability fo the creator to choose whatever terms she likes.
BTW - RMS is an American and got his seed funding from Americans....
Your working definition of "American" seems blinkered. One of the sources of our cultural strength is the diversity of views that make up our intellectual heritage. In my opinion, RMS is a great American. John Muir, Edward Abbey, Wendell Berry, Helen and Scott Nearing. All great Americans.
GNU, and FOSS in general, is neither capitalistic nor communistic. It is academic.
It works in exactly the same manner that Western academia has for much of its recent existence, in which discoveries are published, shared, collaborated on, and built on, albeit at a pace much accelerated by the ability to collaborate in real-time over the Internet, instead of having to wait for the publication of monthly journal articles and expensive lab experimentations (like the LHC).
Just because the people involved in FOSS are not doing this directly for money does not mean they're giving away the fruit of their labor for free, or being coerced as Soviet Communism was known for. While creating things that directly improve their own lives (scratching their own itches), they also gain the opportunity to spend their lives living their passion doing stimulating work, gain recognition amongst a group of peers spread all around the world, become known as experts in their field (leading to paying gigs from commercial outfits), and create things with the potential to advance the human race and make the world a better place. All of it 100% voluntarily, uncoerced. If that's not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, I don't know what is.
Go reread what Ayn Rand says about trading value for value. Whether you're trading the fruits of your labor and talent for money, or for something else of value to you, either fits just fine with her philosophy. Ultimately, she was an advocate for the creation and fair exchange of value and real wealth, of which money is just a store, and without coercion. There is absolutely nothing about FOSS that is incompatible with her beliefs.
This is one of the biggest problems with the Conservative movement these days, a misunderstanding and misapplication of their own ideology. Too many seem to have merely a superficial understanding of it, a worldview that if corporations, direct profit motive, and consistent % improvements in quarterly statements aren't the driving force behind something then it can only be the antithesis of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Be it FOSS, Net Neutrality, movements to reduce corporate spending in politics, if corporations are against it or orthogonal to it, then it must be anti-American.
Einstein once advised that 'everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.' I think the right would do well to reconsider their world view with that in mind.
GPL is not designed for academic research. MIT and BSD licenses are, but the GPL is certainly not.
> Just because the people involved in FOSS are not doing this directly for money does not mean they're giving away the fruit of their labor for free, or being coerced as Soviet Communism was known for
Read my reply to PG. I wasn't trying to imply that GNU has any similarity to the USSR; that's very silly.
I actually support the ideals of GNU, but I'm not ideological about it. I'm fine with selling closed software, so long as one is not just leeching off open source without contributing anything back.
RMS sold GPLed software in the early days. RMS is also someone who made deep personal sacrifices to see a certain vision of freedom prevail, or rather be preserved. That seems to me to be very American.
Sacrificing yourself for the greater good? Doesn't sound very American to me.
The fact he made sacrifices instead of making billions to develop software is a proof of my point about GNU being very far from the ideas of capitalism.
I said "freedom" and you changed that to "greater good" to try to win the argument. Stallman was pursuing his lifestyle, people started to mess with it, so he created a legal document to secure his own freedoms and those of others. This enabled him to live his life as he wanted and helped a lot of other people - many who disagree with him on points minor and major - to live their lives the way they want to. In that sense its an individualistic community that values freedom protected by a clever legal document. Now if you think "making money" describes the USA better than "individualistic community that values freedom protected by a clever legal document", you'd be wrong.
I am not from America, but looking from afar I often get sick of the crude anti-Americanism that seems to get an intellectual free pass all the time. What can be more American than high level science? Given the endless Nobel prizes and technical innovations of the USA I'd think you could point to the AI lab at MIT as being a good symbol (among many) for the American contributions to science. It's ultimately American. Smack bang in the middle of the one of the first states which has always been an intellectual powerhouse mirroring the parts of England from which its settlers first came. A place which also bears the name "the Cradle of Liberty" with many political triumphs. The "blue states", as a reductionist might call them, don't play themselves up to us in the rest of the world, or domestically, as often as they perhaps should; that doesn't mean they aren't powerful or haven't changed the world in massive ways. And more than just residing in a center of American liberty and intellectual achievement Stallman used a clever legal document to do it. Lawyer jokes aside, using the beautiful common law system to protect rights, what could be more American? Starting a revolution rather than play along with it when someone gets up in your face and starts messing with your lifestyle. Tell me which country fits that description better than the USA. Yes, there is more than one America, there is Wallstreet and the Ayn Rand impulse you point to. I am not denying those exist, but don't try to claim them as being the only America or claim that they are the summation of one of the most important countries (perhaps "the most important country") in the history of human civilization. Stallman is as American as apple pie.
I didn't change what you said. You said "to see a certain vision of freedom prevail", I just shortened that for you.
Stallman isn't just pursuing his own lifestyle, he think his lifestyle is the only valid lifestyle. OK, not exactly, but when it comes to "Free Software", he basically thinks his point of view is pretty much the only ethically acceptable one, and any attempt to make propriety software is unethical. He never intended for any part of GNU to be used in propriety software, although sometimes GNU programs get shipped with closed systems (I believe some parts of the GNU user-land get shipped with OS X).
So, people who disagree with him (by opinion and by action) end up benefiting from his work, but he never actually intended that, and he would always try to circumvent that when ever possible, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
"What's American?" is somewhat a philosophical question, but in this context, I'm referring mainly to the part of mainstream America that encourages collecting large sums of wealth for creating technology.
> What can be more American than high level science?
Science is much, much older than America, and scientific research exists in many places throughout the world.
> I'd think you could point to the AI lab at MIT as being a good symbol (among many) for the American contributions to science.
It is. "America contributes a lot to science" is one thing, but "science is American" is a completely different thing.
I'm actually sick of all the good things being attributed to America. On the international stage, America, as a country, is the biggest bully.
> Starting a revolution rather than play along with it when someone gets up in your face and starts messing with your lifestyle.
Funny, because when other people do that, they're called "terrorists".
Where did you get this notion that innovation can only happen in Silicon Valley?
Does the Silicon Valley produce anything remotely close to Japanese Anime? Do Americans produce cars that are anywhere close to German or Japanese cars? Do Americans produce desserts that are anywhere near in quality to European desserts? There are many things that Americans are simply horrible at doing.
Why was the competition wiped out? Why did the USA win WWII? I think you'll find a circular reference here.
People act as if American Imperialism is responsible for it's economy, when it's the opposite. We are by no means great war fighters. We just build more than anyone else.
>the IMF insists that the foreign exchange reserves maintained by other nations are held in the form of dollars, so no matter how much debt the US accumulates, its economy will not collapse.
Nothing to do with OPEC using the dollar as its only accepted currency, meaning if you want to buy oil you need to get dollars by selling things cheap to america?
Because they control the medium of exchange: the American Dollar is the de-facto standard for all currencies of the world.
I've heard (or maybe read?) a quote to the effect that the US dollar is one of the top things that America exports.
It's also the reasons Banks are rich, even though they don't practically produce anything. If they were simply accounting firms managing people's money and doing nothing other than book-keeping, without the ability to "create" money out of thin air, they wouldn't have become so rich.
Japan and China on the other hand, became rich solely due to their hard work.
I'm particularity fascinated by how Japan raised from the ashes, literally, to become what they are. The quantity and quality of creativity over there is just amazing.
Too bad Japan decided to save the banks in the 90s crash, and drain their citizen's cash savings by keeping interest rate at 0%. Fast forward to present day where the savings rate is close to 0%, and they have 200% GDP public debt.
US is trying to do the same thing, but alas, it won't have the same effect as Americans have a negative savings rate, and dollar will suffer massive inflation in the process, dooming 60% of the population that live on less than 40k a year.
As soon as you start counting on things like having the world's reserve currency, or house prices never declining, etc. etc., you lose it. Economic history is replete with that theme. Will we ever learn?
One well-known fact is that nearly every petroleum producer trades petroleum in US dollar. Rumour has it that if some major producers attempt to switch to another currency, she hurts US economy and will be retaliated by US.
Printing more money does not benefit Americans in general. Much of money is taken by US financial firms to overseas for speculation instead of going to manufacturing sector when the devaluation of US dollar is foreseeable. Sudden flux of speculation hurts the economy of other nations.
I know how it works, but the trend to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency is already happening, being driven primarily by China and Russia. Be it a currency basket, IMF SDRs, 'petro', or something else, they're working on alternatives. It won't happen overnight, and the effort may ultimately fail, but it would foolish and complacent of the US to count on having the world reserve currency forever. A multi-polar world eventually won't accept it, both b/c of the Triffin dilemna and balance of power games.
"Japan and China on the other hand, became rich solely due to their hard work."
Every country that becomes rich does so due to hard work. Whether you borrow the knowledge and technology from an already developed country as Japan and China did, or figure it all out the hard way yourself as Europe and the US did during the Industrial Revolution, none of it is easy.
I suppose the one exception might be natural-resource-rich countries that allowed foreign companies to extract the riches in return for profit sharing, but it remains to be seen whether that's sustainable.
"I'm particularity fascinated by how Japan raised from the ashes, literally, to become what they are."
Keep in mind Europe and Britain did that too. It's hard to say which was more decimated - Europe after years of bombing and tank warfare razed much of the continent, or the Japanese mainland after months of localized firebombing and two atomic blasts.
Also don't forget that Japan had already developed into a superpower on its own by the early 1900s, a relatively short time after the Meiji Restoration opened the country and accelerated industrialization in 1868. They had the experience and knowledge to do it again after WWII, with a little funding from the US who needed an Asian bullwark against Soviet Communism.
Japanese culture is arguably the very best in the world at learning from other cultures, and have been doing it for hundreds of years, borrowing parts of their language, fashion, military techniques, and other aspects from others, originally China and somewhat Korea, more recently the US and Europe. There is an admirable curiosity and lack of shame at learning from others and building on it. Of all the countries in the world, Japan may be the least affected by 'Not-Invented-Here' syndrome.
I really wish more of that would rub off on the US.
Every country that becomes rich does so due to hard work.
Sorry to abuse your illusions but some countries have become wealthy by stealing and/or borrowing from other countries - Spain after the conquest of the new world, for example.
It is certainly true that wealth based on conquest or credit doesn't last. That might be a reason for American policy makers to reconsider current policy. But you should never assume that just because a person, organization or country has a fat bank account, they ipso facto worked hard for it. If the world is just, it's only just in a long time frame.
You're right there, no disagreement from me on that point. I should have qualified it with Post-Industrial Revolution, which is what I meant. After humans learned on a widescale that a viable alternative to stealing wealth is literally creating it.
I've heard (or maybe read?) a quote to the effect that the US dollar is one of the top things that America exports.
Ha, Ha
It's a great business to be in: "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost." (Ben Bernanke)
The problem comes with such "business" perhaps not having great staying power.
For those wondering what the Economist site runs on, the error message is:
Pressflow
Site off-line
The site is currently not available due to technical problems. Please try again later. Thank you for your understanding.
If you are the maintainer of this site, please check your database settings in the settings.php file and ensure that your hosting provider's database server is running. For more help, see the handbook, or contact your hosting provider.
I think the the tenacity and perseverance of the American character results in a nation that is better equipped to produce wealth than any other nation. It is founded on entirely different principles than the rest of the world. Americans are optimists and that leads them to have the courage of conviction to do things like a Marshall Aid plan. America realizes that it stands on top of the world and thus the only way to lift itself up is to lift everyone else up with it.
For many years America was one of the freest places to do business. Because of that and their geography they were able to leverage massive industrial power to fuel the Allied war machine while charging a large portion of that back to their allies. After WW2 they correctly realized that they needed a plan to get the rest of the world on track, because they were the only ones left with functioning industry, they gave and sold the world the means of production. (Marshall Aid plan)
From these acts they became the worlds reserve currency and leveraged that into massive monetary expansion and reaped the rewards of seigniorage.
The problem is that American has adopted a very anti-business climate (Sarbox, Dodd-Frank, etc) and is still acting like it represents 60% of world GDP.
It's pretty much Silicon Valley that is still keeping the US in the game.
Also, not to forget is the Americans were smart enough to offer to pay the Sauds their bribe to be able to protect them. The British scoffed at this offer and the rest is pretty much history. Basically, the Sauds said 'someone pay us for the privilege of protecting us'
I'm not American but hold a deep respect for the things the country has done for the world.
Bold ideas are what change the world. I don't think that it is the companies or the particular ideas that are keeping the US in the game, it's the spirit and the character.
It's having the courage to dream, the passion to execute, and the friends and colleagues who will offer a hand up after you fail.
No where else have I seen this spirit so embodied and embraced than in SV.
I don't believe the "American character" is fundamentally any different to that of the people of, say, the Ukraine or Brazil. When you get down to it, people are people, and the variance in people within nations is far greater than that between them.
The reason that places like the US are prosperous is down to the basics: Low corruption; a functioning legal system; public trust in the institutions of the state. These are the (interrelated, and mutually reinforcing) preconditions for a stable and prosperous society.
The US also has the advantage of very favourable geography - it has strategic depth, it is isolated on two sides by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and it has excellent internal transport routes to facilitate internal commerce (eg. the Mississippi River system).
For the most part of America's history, there actually is a difference between American character and most of the rest of the world. America was made up of those who decided to leave their home countries. Even in extreme cases (Irish Famine) it takes a 'special' type of person to willingly uproot themselves and move to somewhere else where there is no real guarantee of work or success. America (and other high immigration countries) DO fundamentally have a different character. Though it is not inherent, it's emergent. And therefore, if you're not careful, you can lose it.
People come to the US because they hear they can make a good living over there. None of the immigrants actually believe in any of the so called "American Values" that the right-wing media is so vocal about.
Most of the immigrants don't actually uproot their origins; most immigrant communities still bond with their own country men, and they're probably more loyal to their home country than to the US. (of course, they can't show it when they're interviewed by the media; they have to pretend they've ditched their origins and became "Americans").
Well, it wasn't really, it was only formally wealthy and really in decline.
The simple answer today for why America looks wealthy on paper that our currency is chronically over-valued from our historical position as the last super power. From this, all the things we produce seem more valuable than they are. Of course, we aren't actually selling these things to that many people in other countries. Instead we coast on the credit China is willing to conveniently advance us to buy their goods. We're "so productive" we no longer need to produce ... that much.
The world's overall currency and trade relations are amazing unbalanced with both US and Chinese policy makers apparently willing to feed the illusionary value of the dollar for as long as it suits their mutual policy interests.
Silicon Valley is a huge source of innovation but it's one of last things of value to the world that the US has. There are other things on that list but the list hasn't gotten longer for a while now.
Also, US government spending is on-par with Europe (~33%+ of GDP!) but the US somehow provide little to no "safety net" to its citizens. The US still a large manufacturer - it's just that a large portion of it's manufacturing goes directly to the defense sector.
The real questions should be: "...and yet, so blighted, and so plain ugly to look at in most places? And why, despite all this wealth, are the standards of living and general education levels so shockingly low?"
It's actually a hard question to answer. Being a good place for innovation (as pg suggests) is definitely part of the answer. But if you look at a list of rich countries (excluding mineral wealth & havens eg Qatar,Norway & Luxemberg,Andorra), it's hard to put a finger on a cause. If you asked the residents of those countries why they're rich, you'd probably get few commonalities.
US: freedom, innovation
Singapore: extreme k-12 education, trade center
Switzerland: dunno
Netherlands: Progressive culture, social justice
Ireland: Intelligently designed & centralized tertiary education system, bribing key companies to set up shop
France: Liberte, egalite... ( just kidding, sort of)
57 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadThis thought experiment isn't a complete answer, but it's not irrelevant either.
At the time Google started up, Yahoo! was the biggest (IIRC, it was a long time ago). Both were American companies and both initially targeted the US (I distinctly remember using Google and finding it crap for UK-specific stuff, so went back to flitting between Lycos and Altavista.
Had Google started up in Cambridge or Oxford, I imagine they would've targeted the UK and possibly Europe initially, focusing on different search patterns, different promotional strategies and so on. They may well have been intimidated by Yahoo in some respects but would've seen an opportunity to attack Yahoo's poor local search.
Had they have started in China they could've been Baidu.cn.
Of course, all this is academic but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
I think if Google started in the US at the same time as a UK search engine, the UK engine would've been more reliant on the UK market and would've seen slower growth once there's initial traction, but Google's search domination isn't completely global.
In the US and specifically Silicon Valley, they got a check for $100,000-ish to help them in the early years. In most any other country (or even most other parts of the US), that money wouldn't have been available to 2 unknown people, regardless of how smart they were.
That's not the only piece of the puzzle, but it's significant.
For example, Linus went to a university in Finland, it was free so he stayed there for 8 years or so. If he was in the US at the time, would he have had the time and freedom to work on a Free kernel full time? He would probably be in a deep debt like most students.
The point being, there are many other things that other countries have that America doesn't have.
RMS talks about valuing "community and freedom" over "features". That's pretty much what the "communism" ideal is all about, right?
Not saying GNU is communist, that's very taboo, but the ideals and motivation are definitely not "very American".
Fortunately, however, the source code is not aware of this.
The whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from "sealing away" the source code and favor commercial gains over the hacker community.
I view capitalism as "valuing money above all things". Don't confuse capitalism with the free market; the free market existed over a thousand years ago. Many people got rich through trade. Perhaps not in Europe (I don't know).
That's nice, but it means that no one can communicate with you because they agree that it means something else.
So? That doesn't imply that your definition of capitalism is correct.
> it's not exclusive to North America,
No one said that capitalism was exclusive to NA, was invented by Europe, or is new.
That said, capitalism isn't binary - it's a range and you left out important details.
For example, what does "allowing" mean? What people? What stuff?
The standard definition, cribbed from Wikipedia is "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market".
GNU and the FSF were born because this model was deemed unethical by RMS and many who basically agree with him.
> GNU and the FSF were born because this model was deemed unethical by RMS and many who basically agree with him.
Actually, free software is owned and controlled by its creators. They determine the terms and if you don't like those terms, you don't get to use it.
You seem to think that "control" implies a particular class of terms. It doesn't. Control is actually the ability fo the creator to choose whatever terms she likes.
BTW - RMS is an American and got his seed funding from Americans....
It works in exactly the same manner that Western academia has for much of its recent existence, in which discoveries are published, shared, collaborated on, and built on, albeit at a pace much accelerated by the ability to collaborate in real-time over the Internet, instead of having to wait for the publication of monthly journal articles and expensive lab experimentations (like the LHC).
Just because the people involved in FOSS are not doing this directly for money does not mean they're giving away the fruit of their labor for free, or being coerced as Soviet Communism was known for. While creating things that directly improve their own lives (scratching their own itches), they also gain the opportunity to spend their lives living their passion doing stimulating work, gain recognition amongst a group of peers spread all around the world, become known as experts in their field (leading to paying gigs from commercial outfits), and create things with the potential to advance the human race and make the world a better place. All of it 100% voluntarily, uncoerced. If that's not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, I don't know what is.
Go reread what Ayn Rand says about trading value for value. Whether you're trading the fruits of your labor and talent for money, or for something else of value to you, either fits just fine with her philosophy. Ultimately, she was an advocate for the creation and fair exchange of value and real wealth, of which money is just a store, and without coercion. There is absolutely nothing about FOSS that is incompatible with her beliefs.
This is one of the biggest problems with the Conservative movement these days, a misunderstanding and misapplication of their own ideology. Too many seem to have merely a superficial understanding of it, a worldview that if corporations, direct profit motive, and consistent % improvements in quarterly statements aren't the driving force behind something then it can only be the antithesis of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Be it FOSS, Net Neutrality, movements to reduce corporate spending in politics, if corporations are against it or orthogonal to it, then it must be anti-American.
Einstein once advised that 'everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.' I think the right would do well to reconsider their world view with that in mind.
> Just because the people involved in FOSS are not doing this directly for money does not mean they're giving away the fruit of their labor for free, or being coerced as Soviet Communism was known for
Read my reply to PG. I wasn't trying to imply that GNU has any similarity to the USSR; that's very silly.
I actually support the ideals of GNU, but I'm not ideological about it. I'm fine with selling closed software, so long as one is not just leeching off open source without contributing anything back.
The fact he made sacrifices instead of making billions to develop software is a proof of my point about GNU being very far from the ideas of capitalism.
I am not from America, but looking from afar I often get sick of the crude anti-Americanism that seems to get an intellectual free pass all the time. What can be more American than high level science? Given the endless Nobel prizes and technical innovations of the USA I'd think you could point to the AI lab at MIT as being a good symbol (among many) for the American contributions to science. It's ultimately American. Smack bang in the middle of the one of the first states which has always been an intellectual powerhouse mirroring the parts of England from which its settlers first came. A place which also bears the name "the Cradle of Liberty" with many political triumphs. The "blue states", as a reductionist might call them, don't play themselves up to us in the rest of the world, or domestically, as often as they perhaps should; that doesn't mean they aren't powerful or haven't changed the world in massive ways. And more than just residing in a center of American liberty and intellectual achievement Stallman used a clever legal document to do it. Lawyer jokes aside, using the beautiful common law system to protect rights, what could be more American? Starting a revolution rather than play along with it when someone gets up in your face and starts messing with your lifestyle. Tell me which country fits that description better than the USA. Yes, there is more than one America, there is Wallstreet and the Ayn Rand impulse you point to. I am not denying those exist, but don't try to claim them as being the only America or claim that they are the summation of one of the most important countries (perhaps "the most important country") in the history of human civilization. Stallman is as American as apple pie.
Stallman isn't just pursuing his own lifestyle, he think his lifestyle is the only valid lifestyle. OK, not exactly, but when it comes to "Free Software", he basically thinks his point of view is pretty much the only ethically acceptable one, and any attempt to make propriety software is unethical. He never intended for any part of GNU to be used in propriety software, although sometimes GNU programs get shipped with closed systems (I believe some parts of the GNU user-land get shipped with OS X).
So, people who disagree with him (by opinion and by action) end up benefiting from his work, but he never actually intended that, and he would always try to circumvent that when ever possible, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
"What's American?" is somewhat a philosophical question, but in this context, I'm referring mainly to the part of mainstream America that encourages collecting large sums of wealth for creating technology.
> What can be more American than high level science?
Science is much, much older than America, and scientific research exists in many places throughout the world.
> I'd think you could point to the AI lab at MIT as being a good symbol (among many) for the American contributions to science.
It is. "America contributes a lot to science" is one thing, but "science is American" is a completely different thing.
I'm actually sick of all the good things being attributed to America. On the international stage, America, as a country, is the biggest bully.
> Starting a revolution rather than play along with it when someone gets up in your face and starts messing with your lifestyle.
Funny, because when other people do that, they're called "terrorists".
Actually, "sacrificing yourself" for what you believe in is very American.
You seem to think that America is a specific class of alternatives. It isn't. It's the freedom to make the choices that you prefer.
Does the Silicon Valley produce anything remotely close to Japanese Anime? Do Americans produce cars that are anywhere close to German or Japanese cars? Do Americans produce desserts that are anywhere near in quality to European desserts? There are many things that Americans are simply horrible at doing.
But now they've all rebuilt and caught up. Now the US is in trillions of debt, the largest debt holder in the world.
People act as if American Imperialism is responsible for it's economy, when it's the opposite. We are by no means great war fighters. We just build more than anyone else.
We also get the misfits from other places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monetary_and_Fin...
>the IMF insists that the foreign exchange reserves maintained by other nations are held in the form of dollars, so no matter how much debt the US accumulates, its economy will not collapse.
I've heard (or maybe read?) a quote to the effect that the US dollar is one of the top things that America exports.
It's also the reasons Banks are rich, even though they don't practically produce anything. If they were simply accounting firms managing people's money and doing nothing other than book-keeping, without the ability to "create" money out of thin air, they wouldn't have become so rich.
Japan and China on the other hand, became rich solely due to their hard work.
I'm particularity fascinated by how Japan raised from the ashes, literally, to become what they are. The quantity and quality of creativity over there is just amazing.
US is trying to do the same thing, but alas, it won't have the same effect as Americans have a negative savings rate, and dollar will suffer massive inflation in the process, dooming 60% of the population that live on less than 40k a year.
Printing more money does not benefit Americans in general. Much of money is taken by US financial firms to overseas for speculation instead of going to manufacturing sector when the devaluation of US dollar is foreseeable. Sudden flux of speculation hurts the economy of other nations.
I know that US bashing is popular, but the US has in the past done tremendously generous things for the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan#Industrial_...
Every country that becomes rich does so due to hard work. Whether you borrow the knowledge and technology from an already developed country as Japan and China did, or figure it all out the hard way yourself as Europe and the US did during the Industrial Revolution, none of it is easy.
I suppose the one exception might be natural-resource-rich countries that allowed foreign companies to extract the riches in return for profit sharing, but it remains to be seen whether that's sustainable.
"I'm particularity fascinated by how Japan raised from the ashes, literally, to become what they are."
Keep in mind Europe and Britain did that too. It's hard to say which was more decimated - Europe after years of bombing and tank warfare razed much of the continent, or the Japanese mainland after months of localized firebombing and two atomic blasts.
Also don't forget that Japan had already developed into a superpower on its own by the early 1900s, a relatively short time after the Meiji Restoration opened the country and accelerated industrialization in 1868. They had the experience and knowledge to do it again after WWII, with a little funding from the US who needed an Asian bullwark against Soviet Communism.
Japanese culture is arguably the very best in the world at learning from other cultures, and have been doing it for hundreds of years, borrowing parts of their language, fashion, military techniques, and other aspects from others, originally China and somewhat Korea, more recently the US and Europe. There is an admirable curiosity and lack of shame at learning from others and building on it. Of all the countries in the world, Japan may be the least affected by 'Not-Invented-Here' syndrome.
I really wish more of that would rub off on the US.
Sorry to abuse your illusions but some countries have become wealthy by stealing and/or borrowing from other countries - Spain after the conquest of the new world, for example.
It is certainly true that wealth based on conquest or credit doesn't last. That might be a reason for American policy makers to reconsider current policy. But you should never assume that just because a person, organization or country has a fat bank account, they ipso facto worked hard for it. If the world is just, it's only just in a long time frame.
Ha, Ha
It's a great business to be in: "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost." (Ben Bernanke)
The problem comes with such "business" perhaps not having great staying power.
For those wondering what the Economist site runs on, the error message is:
Pressflow
Site off-line The site is currently not available due to technical problems. Please try again later. Thank you for your understanding.
If you are the maintainer of this site, please check your database settings in the settings.php file and ensure that your hosting provider's database server is running. For more help, see the handbook, or contact your hosting provider.
For many years America was one of the freest places to do business. Because of that and their geography they were able to leverage massive industrial power to fuel the Allied war machine while charging a large portion of that back to their allies. After WW2 they correctly realized that they needed a plan to get the rest of the world on track, because they were the only ones left with functioning industry, they gave and sold the world the means of production. (Marshall Aid plan)
From these acts they became the worlds reserve currency and leveraged that into massive monetary expansion and reaped the rewards of seigniorage.
The problem is that American has adopted a very anti-business climate (Sarbox, Dodd-Frank, etc) and is still acting like it represents 60% of world GDP.
It's pretty much Silicon Valley that is still keeping the US in the game.
Also, not to forget is the Americans were smart enough to offer to pay the Sauds their bribe to be able to protect them. The British scoffed at this offer and the rest is pretty much history. Basically, the Sauds said 'someone pay us for the privilege of protecting us'
I'm not American but hold a deep respect for the things the country has done for the world.
It's having the courage to dream, the passion to execute, and the friends and colleagues who will offer a hand up after you fail.
No where else have I seen this spirit so embodied and embraced than in SV.
The reason that places like the US are prosperous is down to the basics: Low corruption; a functioning legal system; public trust in the institutions of the state. These are the (interrelated, and mutually reinforcing) preconditions for a stable and prosperous society.
The US also has the advantage of very favourable geography - it has strategic depth, it is isolated on two sides by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and it has excellent internal transport routes to facilitate internal commerce (eg. the Mississippi River system).
Most of the immigrants don't actually uproot their origins; most immigrant communities still bond with their own country men, and they're probably more loyal to their home country than to the US. (of course, they can't show it when they're interviewed by the media; they have to pretend they've ditched their origins and became "Americans").
Well, it wasn't really, it was only formally wealthy and really in decline.
The simple answer today for why America looks wealthy on paper that our currency is chronically over-valued from our historical position as the last super power. From this, all the things we produce seem more valuable than they are. Of course, we aren't actually selling these things to that many people in other countries. Instead we coast on the credit China is willing to conveniently advance us to buy their goods. We're "so productive" we no longer need to produce ... that much.
The world's overall currency and trade relations are amazing unbalanced with both US and Chinese policy makers apparently willing to feed the illusionary value of the dollar for as long as it suits their mutual policy interests.
Silicon Valley is a huge source of innovation but it's one of last things of value to the world that the US has. There are other things on that list but the list hasn't gotten longer for a while now.
Also, US government spending is on-par with Europe (~33%+ of GDP!) but the US somehow provide little to no "safety net" to its citizens. The US still a large manufacturer - it's just that a large portion of it's manufacturing goes directly to the defense sector.
http://www.suite101.com/content/top-us-imports--exports-2009...
US: freedom, innovation
Singapore: extreme k-12 education, trade center
Switzerland: dunno
Netherlands: Progressive culture, social justice
Ireland: Intelligently designed & centralized tertiary education system, bribing key companies to set up shop
France: Liberte, egalite... ( just kidding, sort of)