To Everybody CURRENTLY living in KUWAIT

[Beti ona]

It's the same thing with certain Cities in China--the buildings look like something out of the future, but neither China, Dubai, nor the rest of the Middle East are more"advanced" than the US...at least not from a technological standpoint. In fact, I would argue (strongly) than NO country in the world (with possibly a few countries that may rival us) surpasses the US in terms of overall technological capability (but that is another talk for another day).

There is a reason that places like Dubai LOOK more advanced...and it has NOTHING to do with them being more technologically advanced than the US. In reality, the US BLOWS DUBAI AWAY in terms of overall technological advancement, which is why every war we fight with ANY country in the Middle East lasts a few days (laughable) before they finally crumble beneath the feet of our crushing military (which is WORLDS more advanced than ANYTHING the Middle East possesses), but I digress...

The reason countries like Dubai look more advanced is due to their architecture...and the reason for this is that these countries JUST RECENTLY came into their wealth. Therefore, their construction is much newer...and with an oil-loaded country like Kuwait, they can afford to hire the best architects (many of which come from the US) to build these structure for them.

In contrast, the vast majority of architecture in NYC is MUCH older, as the US has been far wealthier for far longer. The US built its cities up to pretty much what they are now 60-70 years ago...not just recently like the Kuwaitis or Chinese. When many of the buildings in NYC were built, they were considered technological marvels of their time, but when 70 years goes by...well, not so much anymore.

In general, the US CRUSHES the Middle east in terms of technological capability. While the whole world might have access to the same architectural capability (if they have the money to hire the best architects), FEW countries have the technological capability that the US does over such a broad range of areas. The US is the world's foremost super power for a reason.

I am NOT, in any way, bragging about my country, as we have PLENTY of problems over here, but to generally state that the middle East is MORE advanced than the US is just not accurate.

It is only the ego of the sheikhs of those countries, they feel inferior to the West and they want to show their power by building beautiful skyscrapers.

The advance of a society is much more than skyscrapers, technology and military power. In fact, all this only indicates that they are societies with a primitive value system, which includes all the countries of the world.

 

[Beti ona]

Yes, we do have the greatest military---and not because of numbers, but because of our technological MIGHT. If you think for one second that ANY other countries is just ALLOWING the US to tell them at to do, think again. We do (which I don't agree with in many cases) because we can...and if any of those countries could stop it, they would. They can't...so they don't...and it sure isn't for lack of trying. If there is any single area of technology one could look to in order to gauge a country's technological capability, it would be the military, as it encompasses so many cutting edge sciences...

Well, you spend 5 times more in the army than Russia, China and the rest of the countries combined. It is logical that have a better technology.

 

[beastmode121]

It is only the ego of the sheikhs of those countries, they feel inferior to the West and they want to show their power by building beautiful skyscrapers.



The advance of a society is much more than skyscrapers, technology and military power. In fact, all this only indicates that they are societies with a primitive value system, which includes all the countries of the world.

That’s not true. Matter fact, they hate the West. They just kiss ass to stay protected , other than that he skyscraper is an attraction, they know how to get ppl to come to what once was a desert


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Arnold]

Unfair comparison. Thinking in terms of GDP per capita is much more realistic to determine one country's real wealth/standard of living... and if you do so, you'll notice the US and Australia are actually extremely close, respectively ranking (according to the IMF) 7th and 10th in 2017, with an average "income" of around $59,000 for the US, and $55,000 for OZ.

Which btw is FAR from the top 5, ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES exceeding $70,000 per inhabitant... Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland and Iceland. Even QATAR is ranked before the US...

So as you can see, statistics are only a matter of interpretation...

Great post, BUT using a country's "standard of living" (per capita income) in order to gauge a country's wealth is HIGHLY misleading and in truth, simply inaccurate.

Here's why. Look at the countries you listed above, all of which have an average income of 70K per inhabitant (15K higher than the US, which comes in at 55K). These include Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland and Iceland.

The reason these countries have a higher average income is simple and comes down to one thing--population size. Let's compare the populations for those countries relative to the U.S. See below...


Luxembourg: 590,677
Switzerland: 8,401,120
Norway: 5,267,146
Ireland: 4,761,865
Iceland: 348,580

TOTAL Population of the above 5 countries combined: Roughly 19.5 million


TOTAL U.S. POPULATION: 300 million



This means that the US has a population over 15 times greater than all those countries combined. When looking at these countries individually, the U.S. possesses a population roughly 35 times larger than the most populated country on that list (Switzerland) and a full 508 times more people than the country with the lowest population (Iceland).

If ANY of those countries had anywhere near the population that the U.S does, their average income would go WAYYYYYY down. The more a country's population rises, the greater the discrepancy between the various income classes will become. To put it another way, there will always be more poor people than wealthy people...and the more people there are, the wider this gap will be. This directly and adversely affects a country's per capita income.

So, rather than looking at average incomes as a determinant of a country's wealth, let's look at a country's population size relative to it's per capita income. When we do that, we see that no other country in history has ever maintained a standard of living as high as the U.S. with anywhere near as many people as it currently has. This is truly an incredible feat.

If you want to look at other highly populated countries as an example, you will find that their per capita income is grossly lower than the U.S. Not even in the same ballpark.

It is also worth noting that the U.S., as of 2016, had 10.8 millionaires living within its borders (it has surely risen since then). That is 10.8 MILLION people who can rightfully call themselves millionaires! That is more people than the entire population of Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway and Iceland combined! The bottom line is that there are many, many, MANY more wealthy people living within the U.S than any of the countries you listed (or anywhere else in the world).

 

[Bloxz]

Kuwait and legal anabolics.

 

[maldorf]

How about communist countries?

Great post, BUT using a country's "standard of living" (per capita income) in order to gauge a country's wealth is HIGHLY misleading and in truth, simply inaccurate.

Here's why. Look at the countries you listed above, all of which have an average income of 70K per inhabitant (15K higher than the US, which comes in at 55K). These include Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland and Iceland.

The reason these countries have a higher average income is simple and comes down to one thing--population size. Let's compare the populations for those countries relative to the U.S. See below...


Luxembourg: 590,677
Switzerland: 8,401,120
Norway: 5,267,146
Ireland: 4,761,865
Iceland: 348,580

TOTAL Population of the above 5 countries combined: Roughly 19.5 million


TOTAL U.S. POPULATION: 300 million



This means that the US has a population over 15 times greater than all those countries combined. When looking at these countries individually, the U.S. possesses a population roughly 35 times larger than the most populated country on that list (Switzerland) and a full 508 times more people than the country with the lowest population (Iceland).

If ANY of those countries had anywhere near the population that the U.S does, their average income would go WAYYYYYY down. The more a country's population rises, the greater the discrepancy between the various income classes will become. To put it another way, there will always be more poor people than wealthy people...and the more people there are, the wider this gap will be. This directly and adversely affects a country's per capita income.

So, rather than looking at average incomes as a determinant of a country's wealth, let's look at a country's population size relative to it's per capita income. When we do that, we see that no other country in history has ever maintained a standard of living as high as the U.S. with anywhere near as many people as it currently has. This is truly an incredible feat.

If you want to look at other highly populated countries as an example, you will find that their per capita income is grossly lower than the U.S. Not even in the same ballpark.

It is also worth noting that the U.S., as of 2016, had 10.8 millionaires living within its borders (it has surely risen since then). That is 10.8 MILLION people who can rightfully call themselves millionaires! That is more people than the entire population of Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway and Iceland combined! The bottom line is that there are many, many, MANY more wealthy people living within the U.S than any of the countries you listed (or anywhere else in the world).

Then you have countries like China that has the 3rd highest GDP in the world, they are communist. How many businesses are owned and run by the government? At least somewhere like the US most of it is privately owned, by the people. Look at the standard of living for the average person there in China.

Wondering about socialist countries, are government run entities a big part of that GDP?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise

 

[Elvia1023]

Great post, BUT using a country's "standard of living" (per capita income) in order to gauge a country's wealth is HIGHLY misleading and in truth, simply inaccurate.

Here's why. Look at the countries you listed above, all of which have an average income of 70K per inhabitant (15K higher than the US, which comes in at 55K). These include Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland and Iceland.

The reason these countries have a higher average income is simple and comes down to one thing--population size. Let's compare the populations for those countries relative to the U.S. See below...


Luxembourg: 590,677
Switzerland: 8,401,120
Norway: 5,267,146
Ireland: 4,761,865
Iceland: 348,580

TOTAL Population of the above 5 countries combined: Roughly 19.5 million


TOTAL U.S. POPULATION: 300 million



This means that the US has a population over 15 times greater than all those countries combined. When looking at these countries individually, the U.S. possesses a population roughly 35 times larger than the most populated country on that list (Switzerland) and a full 508 times more people than the country with the lowest population (Iceland).

If ANY of those countries had anywhere near the population that the U.S does, their average income would go WAYYYYYY down. The more a country's population rises, the greater the discrepancy between the various income classes will become. To put it another way, there will always be more poor people than wealthy people...and the more people there are, the wider this gap will be. This directly and adversely affects a country's per capita income.

So, rather than looking at average incomes as a determinant of a country's wealth, let's look at a country's population size relative to it's per capita income. When we do that, we see that no other country in history has ever maintained a standard of living as high as the U.S. with anywhere near as many people as it currently has. This is truly an incredible feat.

If you want to look at other highly populated countries as an example, you will find that their per capita income is grossly lower than the U.S. Not even in the same ballpark.

It is also worth noting that the U.S., as of 2016, had 10.8 millionaires living within its borders (it has surely risen since then). That is 10.8 MILLION people who can rightfully call themselves millionaires! That is more people than the entire population of Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway and Iceland combined! The bottom line is that there are many, many, MANY more wealthy people living within the U.S than any of the countries you listed (or anywhere else in the world).

Great post. I agree with what you wrote but I am thinking more on the general quality of life for each country. The US is massive so everything you state is true. You will always have a mix of people in every country. But forget about populations and millionaires. It's about the quality of life of the average person to me. How many who are rich/poor comes into it as well. In addition to crime rates, food, amenities etc. Actually I don't even know why we are talking about this as the thread is about Kuwait

 

[little slice]

Great post. I agree with what you wrote but I am thinking more on the general quality of life for each country. The US is massive so everything you state is true. You will always have a mix of people in every country. But forget about populations and millionaires. It's about the quality of life of the average person to me. How many who are rich/poor comes into it as well. In addition to crime rates, food, amenities etc. Actually I don't even know why we are talking about this as the thread is about Kuwait

I don't think it's tremendously fair to compare (what used to be ) very homogenous societies like Finland, etc.

to countries like the US that have been invaded by 10's of millions of uneducated, typically violent, welfare-sucking mongrels.



you can't have open borders combined with a welfare state... regardless of what the economically illiterate inbred liberals will tell you.

 

[little slice]

to be fair though, we NEED diversity





but only in white countries...right guys?

 

[Elvia1023]

I don't think it's tremendously fair to compare (what used to be ) very homogenous societies like Finland, etc.

to countries like the US that have been invaded by 10's of millions of uneducated, typically violent, welfare-sucking mongrels.



you can't have open borders combined with a welfare state... regardless of what the economically illiterate inbred liberals will tell you.

We were comparing countries so that is a factor. Look at the UK... your description of the US at the end of your post could be written about the UK as well. The UK is great imo but it's generally got much worse in the last 10 years. Many US guys think of London as the UK (mainly because it's pretty much the only place people from faraway travel to within the UK). To me London is like a different country in itself.

 

[Voxide]

Nah, the US sucks, but not for the same reasons that liberals think.


Best country? Anything with the least of amount of ethnic/linguistic diversity as possible. GDP and shit like that is irrelevant. Some arbitrary "quality of life index" is garbage and doesn't mean anything. Your quality of life will increase inadvertenly if you tighten up on the demographics in your country. How do we do that? Lock the borders up and do not allow women to make any decisions about pretty much anything dealing with international/national relations.

Think Poland, Belarus, Japan, South Korea, etc.

The governments of these nations don't have to worry about refugees. The citizens themselves would make damn sure they won't be getting comfortable. People who think multiculturalism is a good thing are literally insane. Then you get the faggy centrist that's like "But omg what about the new foods". We lose so much more from cultural enrichment than we gain. It's a shame really.

 

[maldorf]

Many US guys think of London as the UK (mainly because it's pretty much the only place people from faraway travel to within the UK). To me London is like a different country in itself.

My best friend and his wife just traveled there this summer, to London, and hated it. I asked them why and they mentioned it was dirty and a list of other reasons I cant remember. The one thing that did stand out to me was how his wife said many of the bathrooms she used had toilets that didn't work right,lol!

They also went to Paris for a few days and loved it there. This time around they stayed in London for a bit over 1 week and took the train to Paris for a couple of days. They said next time they will stay in Paris and maybe visit London for a day.

Is London really that bad now?

 

[little slice]

Is London really that bad now?

it's very progressive and tolerant

 

[maldorf]

it's very progressive and tolerant

Gotta love that mayor!

 

[Elvia1023]

My best friend and his wife just traveled there this summer, to London, and hated it. I asked them why and they mentioned it was dirty and a list of other reasons I cant remember. The one thing that did stand out to me was how his wife said many of the bathrooms she used had toilets that didn't work right,lol!

They also went to Paris for a few days and loved it there. This time around they stayed in London for a bit over 1 week and took the train to Paris for a couple of days. They said next time they will stay in Paris and maybe visit London for a day.

Is London really that bad now?

I wouldn't even go to London. I have many mates who love it and some even live there. Also met so many tourists who loved it as well. My gf loved it when she visited. Parts of it will be great but it's a disaster area now. So much knife crime and acid attacks. Immigrants have ruined London and that is a fact and I am the opposite of your typical "don't let them in" person. It's crazy there have been many legit stories about men going to fight for ISIS then they come back a few months later and are welcomed back and put back on benefits Paris is like London in a sense. Really lovely tourist areas and you could go on a trip and think it's lovely but drive 5 mins down the wrong and it's a complete disaster zone. Paris was amazing when I visited it over a decade ago but like London it has changed for the same reason.

 

[Big A]

Hi Big A...i can agree with what Mike Arnold and you wrote, interesting outlook/points both you two bring up. Of all the countries/areas you have lived/stayed, which country/area would it be and why? For me, I would love to live in Japan. Thank you in advance advance.
Take care.
MS

In your opinion the best country to live in is?

That is individual. What is best for me might not be best for someone else due to their circumstances and requirements.

For my personal requirements and in my financial position:
1. Italy
2. UAE
3. Australia

 

[Big A]

I will respond in more depth later, but you state that "the U.S., Technology wise, is BLOWN away by many other countries."...and then you say that other countries are "cleaner, with better facilities, better infrastructure, better medical facilities, better education, less crime and much higher standard of living".

I would not use any of those examples, aside from medical care (but that depends on context) are a determinant of "technological capability". I could be a filthy pig and yet possess the technology to raise the dead (just an example)--something that no one else can do. Does that mean the guy with a cleanlier appearance is more technologically advanced? Nope. It's the same with every other category you listed. We possess some of the best architects/engineers (i.e better potential facilities), best colleges (i.e. better potential education), etc. As for crime and quality of life, I wouldn't list those are determinant as technological capability at all. Russia has a LOT of crime, plenty of filthy places/ghettos, poor school systems, poor medical care for its citizens (relatively speaking)etc...YET their government (and therefore the country itself) possesses some of the greatest technology in the scientific world.

Yes, we do have the greatest military---and not because of numbers, but because of our technological MIGHT. If you think for one second that ANY other countries is just ALLOWING the US to tell them at to do, think again. We do (which I don't agree with in many cases) because we can...and if any of those countries could stop it, they would. They can't...so they don't...and it sure isn't for lack of trying. If there is any single area of technology one could look to in order to gauge a country's technological capability, it would be the military, as it encompasses so many cutting edge sciences..

So, if you really want to gauge technological capability, look at the countries with the most powerful militaries (I guarantee you that the US has not revealed even a fraction of its military technology). The U.S. "bullies", as you say, because it can...and any other country, if they could do the same, would. The history of the world has proven that time and time again.

Like I said in my first post, the US has a lot of problems, a lot of poor people, plenty of regions with a comparatively low standard of living, older buildings (because it came into its wealth earlier and built its cities long before a place like Dubai), etc...but NONE of that determines technological capability. the countries with the GREATEST technological capability ALWAYS rule the roost...and it is no different today than it has been over the last 10,000 years of recorded human history.

In closing., like I said prior, the purpose of my first post was not to brag about the US, but to simply say that a region like the Middle east is BY NO MEANS more technologically advanced than the US. NOT EVEN CLOSE! So many countries in the middle east can't stand us...and if they could wipe us off the map, they would do so in a heat beat. The only reason they don't us because they know they have NO CHANCE...because our technological superiority is so far beyond theirs they wouldn't even contemplate trying.

A country, like the US, could have a shit-ton of issues, but still be far more technologically advanced than a pretty country like Dubai, which would be holding onto the U.S.'s nut-sack if any other country in the Middle east ever attacked them. Oh yeah, that already happened during the Gulf War with Kuwait, which lasted 3 days. Fastest "war" in history. Social and economic issues don't determine technological capability.

Lastly, if the US does lack in any area of technology that it cares about, it simply buys that knowledge, or the people who possess it. We are constantly taking people from all over the world to serve our best interests. Oh, one more thing. You mentioned that many other countries are more medically advanced than the US. I have to strongly disagree. Some countries may offer better health care for the majority of its citizens, but when it comes to medical technology itself, we are right up there are the top of the heap with the world's other foremost medical standouts.

...and I NEVER bought the "Kool-aide", as you say, that the US was the "best" place to live. I think any country can be the "best" if you have enough money and it offers what interests you. I just think it is wrong to say that all of Europe and the Middle east is more technologically advanced than the US. If that were so, they would be making the rules. Dumb countries with lackluster technological capability don't rule world's. I LOVE all countries. I think many countries are super cool and I would love to go there...and even live there part-time, but the US offers a lot of great things too. You may not like it here because you weren't born here, but many things about the US are pretty great.

You are missing the point. Everything I am talking about is how it affects the citizens living in that country. Who cares if the US has the most technologically advanced army in the world if that technology does not flow onto the citizens? Estonia has the best internet in the world but I don't even think it has an army.
Australia is the biggest supplier of uranium in the world. Does that make the citizens' lives better? Nope.
In the '80s Romania was the most economically successful country in the world as it had no foreign debt and it's GDP was increasing at a stupid rate. Yet the citizens were living in hell.

US might have highly advanced technology in the medical field but that does not flow onto its citizens. Australia leads most medical fields and ANY citizen can walk into a public hospital and take advantage of all those facilities at zero cost.

The US controls their citizens lives more than most countries (while giving you the illusion that you are "free"), you have the highest incarceration rate in the free world, your government shits all over its citizens, the technology available to its citizens is sub-par to the rest of the world (go to Japan if you want to see technology!), your quality of life is shit arse in comparison to most of the free world, but you all can keep beating your chest thinking that you are the best in the world simply because you don't know any better.

You have to open your eyes and see how the rest of the world lives.

 

[Big A]

As far as being successful economically, the US is he most powerful country on the planet and has been for a long time.

Over 30% of the world's economy, the US. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

Dubai which is in the UAE is nothing in comparison, and this is a group of countries, .62%. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp

Then we have a country like Australia, 2.13% of the world's economy. Peanuts.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp

How does that affect the man and woman living there?

I'd rather live in a country that contributes to 0.001% of the world economy but is right at the top of the quality of living index than live in the country that is the "biggest" and "best" at totally irrelevant things and my quality of life is shit arse.

 

[Big A]

Unfair comparison. Thinking in terms of GDP per capita is much more realistic to determine one country's real wealth/standard of living... and if you do so, you'll notice the US and Australia are actually extremely close, respectively ranking (according to the IMF) 7th and 10th in 2017, with an average "income" of around $59,000 for the US, and $55,000 for OZ.

Which btw is FAR from the top 5, ALL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES exceeding $70,000 per inhabitant... Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland and Iceland. Even QATAR is ranked before the US...

So as you can see, statistics are only a matter of interpretation...

Shit dude, don't bring reality to the yanks! They'll have a coronary that they are not the best!

 

[Big A]

Simple answer: Yalta, 4 February 1945.

Beginning of the USA's absolute and undisputed hegemony on the so called "free world", with Stalin in front officially taking under the Soviet's wing the other half. Churchill as a willing spectator.



Well, only time will tell...

Dude, I told you - stop it with facts! They ruin a good story!