Why Aren’t Americans as Optimistic as They Were in the 1980s, 1990s, and Early 2000s?

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

Three things I think contribute to why Americans aren't as optimistic:

• There's a growing set of problems that require global coordination and can't be solved by America alone.
• The usual binary ideological model isn't very well suited to solving some of today's more complex problems.
• Some of the solutions those problems require don't sit very comfortably with the traditional American mindset.

Edited 15 hours ago by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

and why do you think that is?

They hadn’t lived through movements that claimed they would resolve it only for them to get worse 

[Schizophonia]

-Rising prices and scarcity of oil and other raw materials (rare earths, fertilizers, etc.) have caused purchasing power to gradually decline since the 2000s.

-Significant loss of purchasing power over the course of a decade due to COVID, the war in Ukraine, and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

-Aging population; so even lower production and an even heavier pension burden on the taxpayer in a pay-as-you-go system.

-The widening of monopolies and social inequalities in general; a growing gap between those who hold assets (businesses, real estate) and everyone else.

-Mass immigration that has brought insecurity and even ethno-cultural replacement, depending on the location.

-Social media platforms that fuel the ego loop and its defense mechanisms.

-The content is becoming increasingly "brain rot." People play video games to regain a sense of freedom...
At first video games grew in popularity; then people started watching videos of others playing games while acting like morons like PewDiePie and now we have Shorts. 

There are always interesting videos, games, and TV series that are subtle and revolutionize the mind.
I am referring to the majority of cases who are just here to numb the mind and Impairs your ability to focus.

-It is harder to find a partner and build social connections in general. If you aren't particularly privileged you are more likely to suffer because of this.  You are going to be misunderstood, rejected, betrayed, ghosted, and so on. The price of freedom is stress.

-Endocrine disruptors and less nutritious junk food.

-Significant and dangerous phenomenas such as global warming, AI, the risk of world war...

Edited 10 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Karmadhi]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Most people are not woke enough to understand the structural problems of capitalism. Capitalism as an ideology runs very deep, even in poor folk. And socialism doesn't really offer a practical solution either.

There is a better alternative which is what is applied in Western Northen European countries

Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia etc

It is not perfect, but there is less inequality, a much more livable minimal wage and overall life is much more stable and secure.

It has downsides ofc, like it makes innovation harder

But the pie is much better distributed.

I notice Americans never take into account that middle ground which is what is applied in the countries I mentioned

To them it is either American style capitalism or Soviet socialism (which has failed)

 

[Leo Gura]

@Karmadhi American culture is more ambitious than European culture. This comes with pros and cons.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[OmniNaut]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Karmadhi American culture is more ambitious than European culture. This comes with pros and cons.

If you are talking about creating wealth and maximising profit and consumption I would say yes. 

Don't underestimate the ambition it takes to create a society where the most people benefit not only a select few like in the US.

A lot of people had to fight (in the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's) for more equal rights. It was not born naturally.

Orange ambition vs Green ambition is still ambition.

Edited 2 hours ago by OmniNaut

[Karmadhi]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Karmadhi American culture is more ambitious than European culture. This comes with pros and cons.

Yes it is more Orange like

Orange has its limits

USA is feeling them

Only way to move forward is to evolve towards Green which i am happy to see slowly happen.

Started with Obama and now is going stronger with DSA becoming more and more popular within democrats

Evolution marches forward

I feel Americans on this group seem to be not as enthusiastic about it as they should be considering going from Orange to Green is a leap in evolution and progress.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Karmadhi

[Karmadhi]

9 minutes ago, OmniNaut said:

If you are talking about creating wealth and maximising profit and consumption I would say yes. 

Don't underestimate the ambition it takes to create a society where the most people benefit not only a select few like in the US.

A lot of people had to fight (in the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's) for more equal rights. It was not born naturally.

Orange ambition vs Green ambition is still ambition.

USA culture is more engrained with capitalism because of its success

USA is seen as the most successful country in history since it is also the most powerful

They attribute it to capitalism, especially since they basically won the cold war against another system (communism)

However, that system is now reaching its limits in its current form and USA is too stubborn to let it evolve as they attribute the unregulated capitalism to its success

However, it has already happened

Capitalism has evolved, you have the case in Western/Northen Europe where you have a capitalism system but it is softer and more regulated

It takes the good part of communism like striving for equality with the good of capitalism like rewarding ambition and private property

USA acts like its special but they will eventually become more and more like Western Europe

We see it with DSA becoming more and more popular within democratcs, especially in more liberal states like New York

[AION]

Masculinity is being uprooted in the US. Testosteron levels are getting lower too. I think these are two big factors. But I don't see this as something bad though. Too much testosteron started unnecessary wars. The bad part is that with no men around, there won't be a lot of families. There was this study on wealth and how it influenced men visavis women. When men get money they start a family. When women get money they spend it on themselves. 

[Hardkill]

5 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

There is a better alternative which is what is applied in Western Northen European countries

Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia etc

It is not perfect, but there is less inequality, a much more livable minimal wage and overall life is much more stable and secure.

It has downsides ofc, like it makes innovation harder

But the pie is much better distributed.

I notice Americans never take into account that middle ground which is what is applied in the countries I mentioned

To them it is either American style capitalism or Soviet socialism (which has failed)

 

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Karmadhi American culture is more ambitious than European culture. This comes with pros and cons.

European culture hasn’t been able to compete as well as the American culture when it comes to technology and innovation because how much smaller in national economic scale countries like the UK, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, and other individual EU countries are. 

Smaller national population and economy → smaller domestic market, capital pool, procurement capacity, and specialized ecosystem → greater difficulty supporting the entire innovation-and-scaling system independently.

It’s also because of securities laws, pension system, federal research spending, immigration, universities, bankruptcy rules, and long history of venture finance in the US.

That being said, the EU has for a very long time been trying to unify all of the countries in the union together so that Europe as a whole can one day compete with US and China at the continental scale.

However, the United States and China each possess continental scale within a single national system, whereas Europe’s comparable scale is divided among separate countries. Institutional fragmentation then prevents Europe from using its collective size as effectively as the United States and China use theirs.