| Political Philosophy |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Political Philosophy
| Political Philosophy Sections |
The connection between language groups and wealth creation and
retention would seem to be tenuous at best, and most likely nonexistent.
And yet, there is something to be said that languages, as both products of
cultures, and fit representations of cultures, are directly related to how the
people who use those languages think.
Here's mere supposition: but the more free the language, the more
free the people. And freedom means learning and thus economic growth.
English seems to result in better wealth creation and retention for that
country which uses English. Learning English seems to bring a country
more wealth and creativity.
It might seem a little odd to suggest that a language shapes a culture,
but I believe that the case can be made that languages, being the first
expression of the mind, are behind cultures. There is plenty of physical
evidence that English speaking countries are wealthier and freer than
non-English speaking countries.
Belize is the only peaceful prosperous country in Central America
because they speak English. Panama, with the most English of the
Spanish speaking countries there, is the best off of the rest of them.
Argentina was the richest country in South America in 1900, when the
influence of English was at its height. As the use of English lessened
there over the ensuing decades the country has slowly declined. Chile,
on the other hand, has slowly increased the use of English and they have
found representative government and have prospered like never before.
India, and to a lesser degree Bangladesh and Pakistan, have English
as the language of the middle and upper classes, and thus they are better
off than the Chinese. Though the Chinese have embraced English now,
and thus they are on the road to peace and prosperity and a
representative government. Hong Kong had English and Macao did not;
Hong Kong is far richer and freer than Macao.
The Japanese were warlike and economically relatively poor until the
occupation brought them English and then they became a peaceful and
prosperous representative government. Egypt is the most English
speaking country in the Arab world and it is arguably the most free and
the most prosperous individually. The Gulf States of Arabia use more
English and thus are freer and better off than the rest of Arabia. The
Philippines are better off than the Indonesians because they had English
since 1900.
The increase in English leads to freedom because the language is
geared to growth of wealth, democracy and peace. The language is so
adaptable, changeable, with its use of clipping and combining, the use of
slang, initialize, acronyms, and so many other features. It is the most
welcoming of words from any other language, and the only language that
doesn't have the government or some academy controlling it and making
and changing rules. There are no language laws concerning the so-called
proper use of English.
The weird spelling allows for endless combinations that can be
pronounced any way one wants. And is extremely useful for adopting
words from other languages, because no matter how they are spelt they
are still pronounceable in English.
The lack of singular, plural and formal and informal forms of the
word "you" gives English a level of equality unmatched by any other
language. While other languages preserve a different way of speaking
based on social status or condition, English treats everyone exactly alike:
You.
English has more words devoted to freedom and liberty and
economic development and wealth creation and land ownswerhip -- not
because we have those things. But we have those things because the
language grew in tandem with those things. If you had no private land
ownership than you couldn't possibly have words related to mortages and
other land-related words. What would that language need them for?
English didn't develop the concept of rights and then instill them in
the culture. The language grew with the rights as found in the common
law. And this led to a great flowering of English far beyond what other
languages do.
Oh sure, there are all sorts of ways languages express things, and
they can mostly express the same thing. But to express many thoughts in
other languages requires all sorts of multiple words and odd phrases and
strange convoluted reasoning. While English merely creates a word and
gets on with it. The economy of the English language is one of the things
which makes it the language of economy.
It sounds like cultural imperialism -- but it is the reality.
retention would seem to be tenuous at best, and most likely nonexistent.
And yet, there is something to be said that languages, as both products of
cultures, and fit representations of cultures, are directly related to how the
people who use those languages think.
Here's mere supposition: but the more free the language, the more
free the people. And freedom means learning and thus economic growth.
English seems to result in better wealth creation and retention for that
country which uses English. Learning English seems to bring a country
more wealth and creativity.
It might seem a little odd to suggest that a language shapes a culture,
but I believe that the case can be made that languages, being the first
expression of the mind, are behind cultures. There is plenty of physical
evidence that English speaking countries are wealthier and freer than
non-English speaking countries.
Belize is the only peaceful prosperous country in Central America
because they speak English. Panama, with the most English of the
Spanish speaking countries there, is the best off of the rest of them.
Argentina was the richest country in South America in 1900, when the
influence of English was at its height. As the use of English lessened
there over the ensuing decades the country has slowly declined. Chile,
on the other hand, has slowly increased the use of English and they have
found representative government and have prospered like never before.
India, and to a lesser degree Bangladesh and Pakistan, have English
as the language of the middle and upper classes, and thus they are better
off than the Chinese. Though the Chinese have embraced English now,
and thus they are on the road to peace and prosperity and a
representative government. Hong Kong had English and Macao did not;
Hong Kong is far richer and freer than Macao.
The Japanese were warlike and economically relatively poor until the
occupation brought them English and then they became a peaceful and
prosperous representative government. Egypt is the most English
speaking country in the Arab world and it is arguably the most free and
the most prosperous individually. The Gulf States of Arabia use more
English and thus are freer and better off than the rest of Arabia. The
Philippines are better off than the Indonesians because they had English
since 1900.
The increase in English leads to freedom because the language is
geared to growth of wealth, democracy and peace. The language is so
adaptable, changeable, with its use of clipping and combining, the use of
slang, initialize, acronyms, and so many other features. It is the most
welcoming of words from any other language, and the only language that
doesn't have the government or some academy controlling it and making
and changing rules. There are no language laws concerning the so-called
proper use of English.
The weird spelling allows for endless combinations that can be
pronounced any way one wants. And is extremely useful for adopting
words from other languages, because no matter how they are spelt they
are still pronounceable in English.
The lack of singular, plural and formal and informal forms of the
word "you" gives English a level of equality unmatched by any other
language. While other languages preserve a different way of speaking
based on social status or condition, English treats everyone exactly alike:
You.
English has more words devoted to freedom and liberty and
economic development and wealth creation and land ownswerhip -- not
because we have those things. But we have those things because the
language grew in tandem with those things. If you had no private land
ownership than you couldn't possibly have words related to mortages and
other land-related words. What would that language need them for?
English didn't develop the concept of rights and then instill them in
the culture. The language grew with the rights as found in the common
law. And this led to a great flowering of English far beyond what other
languages do.
Oh sure, there are all sorts of ways languages express things, and
they can mostly express the same thing. But to express many thoughts in
other languages requires all sorts of multiple words and odd phrases and
strange convoluted reasoning. While English merely creates a word and
gets on with it. The economy of the English language is one of the things
which makes it the language of economy.
It sounds like cultural imperialism -- but it is the reality.