Instruction To Your Bank Or Building Society To Pay By - Uk Theatre: Fill & Download for Free

You will have to weight a lot of factors here and not just listen to one opinion but I can give you my experience from having studied in the US and in Europe.I am from Norway, where higher education is supposed to be free. Hence even when I study abroad they pay a lot of your tuition.I studied in the US and my government paid part of the tuition. I did about one year master in the US, before moving to the Netherlands and starting a similar Master program over again. So I had the first year of Masters to compare in both places.This experience made me think American higher education was really overrated. Going to the American University was much more expensive. Yet the Dutch university which was really cheap was IMHO a better University and a much better overall student experience.I think this is important to point out, because there is typically a very strong bias towards Anglo-Saxon countries for students who go abroad. I know I certainly had it. I assumed everything was bigger and better in the US.Let me give some examples of how the Dutch University was better IMHO:Better facilities. We had more modern computers at the computer labs. We had a large brand new library with a large selection, with all sorts of little study rooms. It was just really nice to be there. The library at my American university was nothing like it in comparison.My American university used a lot of foreign professors with terrible English pronunciation, and sometimes really odd ways of teaching. All my Dutch professors spoke English very clearly. Obviously not as good as my native American professors. But the point is that my experience with professors in the US varied widely. One of my best professors ever I had in the US. But some of my worst I also had there. In the Netherlands the quality was far move even.American universities use a lot of TAs (teaching assistants). These are not experienced professionals. In the Netherlands and that is also the case in my native Norway, you instructions are primarily given by experienced professors. TAs only help with things like lab work and maybe grading on simple assignments.American universities give more workload but simpler work. Dutch University and I think that applies to Europe in general. Gives you a lighter workload but push you to think more. Assignments can be a bit harder. I find that they prepare you much better for research if you want to do that later.Initial Experience, Professionalism and OrganizationMy initial experience in the US, was that I felt like I had to take care of everything myself. Nothing was ever arranged. I had to figure out how to get sheets for my bed, how to setup a bank account, learn how American society works etc.In the Netherlands all of this was amazingly well organized:I got an introduction meeting with other fellow students. They gave us all the basic for the first week like pillows, bedsheets etc. In the US I think families just drive a lot of this stuff out to the dormitories their kids stay at.There was a schedule where they took us get all sort of important stuff setup like a bank account.We got introduced to a buddy group. Where dutch students would help us foreign students become accustomed to dutch culture. They would take us around. We would eat dinner together and stuff like that to get to know each other. I was a great experience for me.We where introduced to some psychologists which talked to us about problems foreign students can encounter and explained what culture shock is (not quite what people think).Basically my first two weeks in the US compared to the Netherlands was night and day. In the US I felt totally lost and kind of lonely. In the Netherlands I really felt I was taken care of and got to know all the important stuff I had to know and got into a social network quickly.HousingI don’t know how it is all over Europe but I think the Netherlands was quite typical. Usually you live in some kind of student housing, which I found much better than my dormitory experience in the US.Sharing a room like I did in the US can be kind of cool but also quickly drive you kind of nuts. In the Netherlands you always had a separate room in an apartment you shared with other people. I quite liked that. It is more like being a grown up. In the US I would only eat at a large facility with prepared food.The European approach seems to typically involve that you use an apartment kitchen and make your own food. Sometimes you make it yourself at other times you make food together with the people who share apartment with.Part of the fun is just going out and shopping your own food in a different country with entirely different things in shelves. In the Netherlands there are a lot more stuff on campus. Like they actually had grocery store and even a bar.One of the benefits is that it also teaches some more responsibility. My impression is that the whole dormitory setup just made everybody a little crazy. My Americans friends where way more out of control than in Europe. They would wreck stuff, scream and party like crazy sometimes.Drugs and AlcoholIronically no alcohol was allowed on my American campus and I think that applies to most American campus. Nor any drugs of course. Maybe that looks great on paper to parents sending their loved ones there.Meanwhile on my Dutch campus drinking was fully legal and this being the Netherlands soft drugs was of course also legal. They even had a Heineken bar right outside my student housing.The American campus even had people patrolling the dorms making sure nobody was drinking or doing drugs. Nothing like that in the Netherlands since it was all legal.Based on these facts you would perhaps assume the American campus experience was really calm and wholesome while the Dutch one was some kind of den of sin.Reality was that it was almost 180 degrees the opposite. The drinking and drug use on my American campus was totally crazy. It almost looked as if the more illegal something was the more eager they where to do it. This was a conservative state btw. And those American Fraternity houses. Not exactly the kind of place I would recommend any girl to go.In contrast everything seemed way safer in the Netherlands. Despite it all being legal. Very few students actually smoked weed in the Netherlands compared to what I experienced in the US. Drinking was far more moderate. Nobody did stuff like drinking games which I experienced in the US all the time. I never experience any pressure to drink a lot like I often did in the US.I would say it is probably easier to be a serious student in Europe. You got your own room, and there are plenty of entertaining things to do which does not involve alcohol. All sorts of culture, museums, historical towns etc to see. I frankly struggled with my studies when living in the dormitory in the US, because I felt like it was party all week. I felt people where more respectful towards each other, keeping quiet etc at my Dutch University.Now this requires some explanation. The US is really large and so most other students will be Americans. While most countries in Europe are quite small. Hence while a Dutch university may capture people from equally size geographic area as an American university, that area compromise a much greater variety of countries. People there are different languages, culture, expectations etc. You learn to try to be respectful towards others because everybody is a bit different from you.Student Life ExperienceI am happy I got to spend time in he US and experience its culture, but to be honest I felt that Europe in general is much better suited for student life. American cities are often very heavily zoned, spread out and with poor public transport. As a student that can make it hard to get around unless you have a car.In many European student cities it is very well built out with bike lanes. In particular the Netherlands, Denmark, parts of Sweden and Germany biking is very easy to do. In the Netherlands in particular the cities are quite dense so you can easily bike to town, to go to the movies with friends, a park, a party or whatever. And importantly biking is very safe. You are very well separated from the car traffic and motorists are very used to bikers. That made biking a joy there for me.Part of the fun of being a student is of course to go and explore, meet new people, see new things. Europe is fairly dense with an extensive train network which makes it easy to go go on all sorts of weekend trips with fellow students to different places.A problem I found in the US, is that things are so far apart that you often have a hard time going anywhere. You eat up a lot of your weekend when it takes too many hours to get somewhere.Various organizations at university would organize days trips to different places in the Netherlands you could sign up for. I met a lot of fellow students taking day trips to different Dutch towns and doing different activities. Once we biked to a cheese market in a dutch town known for that. Other times would be a sort of guided tour around Amsterdam.I had nothing like that in the US. Which partly made me feel alone there. It always felt like you had to know somebody in advance to get into something. In the Netherlands it felt more like you could just sign up for a bunch of stuff and get to know new people. And it could be almost anything. Somebody could be organizing a BBQ at some park or a picnic.My life in the US often felt like I was either on campus, on Wall Mart, Best Buy or some random house a friend had driven me to.In the Netherlands I could be biking along canals line with beautiful old 400 year old buildings. Sit on a street cafe having a beer with friends while watching people bike or walk past. Sometimes I would just walk around the cobble stone streets at random. I could buy a new phone and walk to a move theatre for a movie right afterwards. In this kind of dense towns you got everything in proximity.I remember biking through tulip fields past old windmills along canals from one town to the other. These towns where so close you could do it in a couple of hours.In North Dakota where I studied in the US, there would be no point to this. Outside of town there was nothing. Just grain fields as far as the eye could see. Not a single tree. Certainly not any windmills. And just highways, no actual bike lane.I know this very specific to my experience in North Dakota and the Netherlands but some things are true all over.Regardless of where you study in the US, thing will frequently be very far apart. Traveling around to see different places will not be easy.Europe in contrast contains large number of countries in a fairly small area. While not every country is as bike friendly as the Netherlands. Most European cities will be pedestrian friendly and have good public transport. For a student which doesn’t have a car, that will typically give a lot more opportunities to do things and see things. Whether that means visiting friends, see a museum, go to a bar or watch a movie in the theaters.What About Language Skills if English is Not the Local Language?This is why a lot of students pick the US, Canada, the UK, Australia etc. Everybody knows English. Going to a country where English is not the main language seems scary.However this is much less of a problem than it seems. In Nordic countries and the Netherlands everybody speak very good English. In Germany, Austria, Belgium and possibly Portugal enough people speak it that it is not a huge problem.Many European countries offer their programs in English. I am not sure how good the selection is at Bachelor level. But at least in the Netherlands all master level programs are all in English.Often there are language programs as well. I mostly used English when I lived in the Netherlands. But I did take a couple of hours of dutch classes each week for about half a year. It is enough to handle simple conversations in a store, read labels etc.It is worth noting that I could have learned dutch much quicker but I never really had to because everybody spoke English. If you study in say Spain you can probably pick up the language much faster.Even if you study at a University and the lectures are not in English and you don’t know the language well, it may not be a total disaster. Frequently the books are in English. E.g. when I studied for my bachelor in my native Norway. At that time all the lectures where in Norwegian (not sure what they are now), but 90% of our books where written in English.So somebody not entirely fluent in Norwegian could still easily read the homework chapters.Final Remarks on Why I would Pick EuropeI think the US charges a premium from being English speaking, from having high ranking universities, and a bit from the Hollywood halo effect. Hollywood makes America look really cool and all teenagers dream about pool parties in LA as they’ve seen in the movies.For most people though reality is different. Ranking is often a bit pointless. It measures often how good the research coming out of the university is. But it does not necessarily reflect the quality of the classes or the facilities at the university.So I think you will simply get a lot more bang for the buck by studying in Europe. I think you will get a good learning experience but also build friendships and experiences for life.And maybe worth keeping in mind that the social and political situation in Europe in general is a lot more stable these days than in the US. European campuses are not as politicized and polarized as I have been given the impression that American campuses have developed.

1 IntroductionThis question is one of the most fascinating issues and the Answer has deep roots in the personality and character development of people within the family. I am not a psychologist so much of what follows is based upon my observations, my reading and personal experience and while I think what I will tell you is a major key as to why “liberals” and “Republicans/Conservatives” behave as they do, there has not been adequate research in this vital area of human behaviour. What “liberals “get” that Republicans/Conservatives don’t seem to understand” is a conclusion to the following discussion.2 “Who do you admire most, your mother or your father?” This has been my question for many of my acquaintances, because what it is really referencing is “Which of the human behaviours do you admire most, love/compassion or power/authority?” Many of the people who choose one partner over the other fall into the political camp of the loving liberals or the callous conservatives when they answer this question. Very few have said “Both” and identified themselves as more balanced individuals while even fewer have said “neither” usually followed by a tirade about how their mum and dad were losers but the answerer was a great money-making machine and conservative who failed to acknowledge the foundation of his (or her) personality within the family. And a small number of very bright people have said “The right answer is obviously both” and responded in a way that was sometimes at odds their behaviour.3 Examples From HistoryThese examples are inevitably drawn mainly from the Western history of the 20th century, but the history of Asia and probably elsewhere and otherwhere in the native histories of the African, Aztec, Inca, European, and Indian empires probably provide many examples which my lack of in-depth knowledge and focus on brevity exclude, but I may mention some of these in passing in the final summing-up. As Ezra Pound once observed“I remember when writers left blanks in their pages, I mean for the things they didn’t know.”3.1 The Historical Liberals3.1.1 Wang Anshi (1021–1086) The Caring First Investment Credit EconomistThis outstanding Chinese Prime Minster was the first investment credit economist and his outstanding economic understanding produced the first industrial revolution in 11th century China. This Answer can only provide a very brief summary of his extensive actions, but what he did wascreate productive investment credit and canalise hundreds of thousands of cheap loans to Chinese merchants causing an economic boomprovide seedtime to harvest loans at 20% pa to farmers, thus feeding all of China’s population and creating an agricultural surplus, and also providing such loans for city-side market gardensabolish slavery and legislate for wages to be paid to previous slaves for future work donecare for the poor by establishing the first welfare state with state incomes for the poor, for widows and the disabled and the unemployedconstruct orphanages and hospitals and public buildings to improve public welfare and state administrationimprove roads and ferries and water distribution schemes to the rice-growing terraces of farmsabolish monopolies and replace them with state companies or several private companies operating in the public interestrestructure schools by placing their provision under the contol of knowledgable professors, thus creating the first universitiesintroduce mathematics to the Imperial Examinationsand much else. See Wang Anshi - Wikipedia and New Policies (Song dynasty) - Wikipedia and Wang Anshi’s economic reforms: proto-Keynesian economic policy in Song Dynasty China and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263043799_Wang_Anshi_and_the_origins_of_modern_public_management_in_Song_Dynasty_China and How did Wang Anshi contribute to the economic world? and see “Wang Anshi and ChinaToday” at On Wang Anshi | China Heritage QuarterlyWang Anshi’s outstanding economic understanding and behaviour provides a guide to policies even [and perhaps especially] for today’s politicians and nations. I cannot image a higher comment being made about upon any previous Prime Minister and/or leader. Wang Anshi focused upon raising the living standards of ALL his people, and his major motivation was to improve the lives of the Chinese people. That’s why his 11th China became not only the largest first industrial economy in the world but why modern China, with the same focus, is again becoming what is was, the greatest world economy with the highest GDP/person and best socially developed country in the world.3.1.2 Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) the self-sacrificing mother of a manThis Republican President was not a reflection of modern-day Republican policy: he was very anti-racist and he tried to govern and act in the interests of all the people in the United States. He was, judging by what did, a liberal.Abraham Lincoln fought the bloodiest American Civil War (1861–1865) which was an unusual war (see American Civil War - Wikipedia) becauseit was the first Western war in which gunpowder was in widespread use (the first such event was the Mongol seige of Kiafeng in 1262–33 - see Mongol siege of Kaifeng - Wikipedia)the war was a soldier-on-soldier effort and fought continuously through at least hundreds of major battles and thousands of armed skirmishes -see Civil War Battles | HistoryNet which states that“The Civil War consisted of nearly 10,500 battles, engagements, and other military actions including nearly 50 major battles and about 100 others that had major significance. The remainder were skirmishes, reconnaissances, naval engagements, sieges, bombardments, etc. The engagements were fought in 23 different states and resulted in a total of over 650,000 casualties.” [There were 31.4 million people in the USA according to the 1860 census, but hundreds of thousands of men immigrated to join the Union Army, so the men killed as a percentage of the population is not readily or reliably calculable.]although the war originated in the desire for black emancipation it mutated into a war about the unity of the United States of Americaafter victory it seems that Lincoln had to face the suggestion from some of his administrators that the South should pay for that war through “reparations.” [I have never been able to find out what he said to that request despite or perhaps because there is so much data about that civil war but I can imagine he was of the opinion that he had not won the war between the states only to bankrupt the South by following through and turning victory into vengeance. I believe no reparations against the South were ever raised. If any Quora reader has better information that I have upon this subject, please advise me, and I may amend this entry.]Lincoln had three bullet holes in his hats which were the result of unsuccessful assassination attempts. The cry at the theatre from his killer John Wilkes Booth may have been based upon the idea that there had been a basic right to State secession written into the Constitution of the United States. But Lincoln said no, that’s impossible, and he wanted to make the United States a permanent union, which for him had become the fundamental purpose of the war. But this issue is still contentious. See Secession in the United States - WikipediaLincoln stated his views with total clarity at the Gettysburg Address. He objected to the view that the United States was a country which would in future come under the group that “this, too, must pass” and he said in praise of the purpose of the honourable dead and as a guidance to his listeners asking:“that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom"[8]— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”So he told his military guardian to stop protecting him because he did not wish to live behind his praetorian guard and the protection duly ceased.Lincoln must have known he was likely to be killed, but he was a loving self-sacrificing mother of a man who wanted to place the seal of his death on the “eternal union of the United States.” He wanted the Union more than he wanted his life, and he got what he wanted but he lost what he had. He did what he said at Gettysburg the honourable dead had done - he, too, died for the Union.The Union army became by 1865 by far the most effective army in the world. Its armaments were mainly provided by the factories in the States that were lakeside to the Great Lakes, which became the great manufacturing areas of the USA. Some observers have commented that only the Atlantic prevented the US from having a European empire.And nearly all of the subsequent history of the USA - its great growth which resulted in the USA becoming on some estimates the largest world economy a mere fifteen years later in 1880, FDR’s economic miracle which made the USA the hegemonic leader of the world - were only possible because the States of America were United.Lincoln was one of the greatest liberals in the history of the United States. He was undoubtedly the greatest US President of the 19th century. If I can, I will visit the Lincoln tomb at Oak Ridge, Springfield and leave a rose at his tomb the next time I am in the USA.3.1.3 Franklin Delano RooseveltFranklin Delano Roosevelt was an astonishing president. He was the man who created FDR’s American Economic Miracle 1938-44, or the First Economic Bomb - The USA from 1938 to 1944 (Part 1)FDR’s economic miracle produced six years growth averaging 12.2% pa. He achieved that by involving all the American people in his objectives and by treating his workers fairly.This subject is one of the four papers for my PhD so I will not expand on that topic here and now but I will elsewhere and later.3.1.4 Clement Atlee The Originator of Britain’s Welfare StateWar has been the economic education of Conservative politicians, because only during the late stages or after a major war does the ruling elite acknowledge that the people, not the ruling elite, won the war and deserve “homes fit for heroes” and better social services. Before World War II ended, Rab Butler proposed and the wartime Government accepted the 1944 Education Act which for the first time provided for a good free British education in primary and secondary and FE College and university Education.The post-war welfare state based upon the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report proposals to deal with the five giants of British poverty - Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness - were ultimately tackled by a state-provided minimum income, the NHS, a fully-funded primary, secondary, tertiary college and university education system, a housing programme and a Keynesian policy of full employment.The British people benefitted enormously from all that, but it came to an end with the 1979 election of the social-contract-destroying governments of Margaret Thatcher.3.1.5 The ScandanaviansThe history of Scandanavia and the four countries within that group - Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland- has led to the highest family incomes and the best social packages in the world. Their example does show that national leaders can act in the interests of their people for not only decades but for centuries if the will and the idea are both present.3.1.6 The Chinese Paramount Leader Deng XiaoPingDeng Xiaoping was the realistic Paramount Leader of China that set the nation on the prosperity-producing focus on the priority-of-the-people path it still follows today.3.2 The Historical ConservativesMy definition of a Conservative ruler is a person who elevates one racial, national or elite group above the rest of the people. Throughout most of history, the momentum of development in nearly all societies has been to elevate their elite into the government-supported privileged position within the nation. The sociologist who has majored in analysing the topic is the German Oswald Spengler, and it is his first major observation in his book The Decline of the West - Wikipedia3.2.1 Genghis Khan (1162–1227)If a choice had to be made about which man had the greatest effect on modern history, Genghis Khan would probably be the only candidate. Of course the leaders of religions in the view of many of their supporters would be an alternative choice. But no-one, apart from Ghengis Khan, had such a devastating and profound effect on the cultures of China, Europe, and Africa and maybe even India. Genghis altered the pattern of livestock and people in the world in a way no other person has.Genghis Khan’s Mongol “Loyal oath” provides one insight to his character. That oath is“You will immediately kill whoever I order you to kill without question.”That oath was regularly obeyed. The Mongols were the pre-historical equivalent to an atomic war, because they murdered millions of people in their ground-clearing and city-destroying behaviour. They not only destroyed cities physically by burning or flooding the city but tried destroy its culture, by burning their books or throwing their library books into the local river (as they did in Baghdad, turning the river black ) but they annihilated the previous population of a city by only allowing a few Genghis-raped women to live, and killing all the previous inhabitants livestock in and around a city. See A Brief Guide To Early Chinese History: The Mongol Conquest Of China And Its Consequenceswhere I say:“The Mongols were by far the most pitiless mass murderers in history: they had a rule that if, when the Mongols were laying siege to a city, one child threw one stone at one invading Mongol soldier, then everyone and everything in the city should be killed. They did not always do this, but they usually did. The Mongol programme for area-clearing and city massacre was very similar to their animal clearing activities in the steppe - destroy all the lightly-defended small towns and farming communities, killing all the inhabitants; construct walls around, invest and conquer cities; then drive all of the people out of the city into giant concentration camps (first invented by the Mongols) one for men, one for women and children; thoroughly loot the city, concentrating on the movable assets which could be carried away on horseback; kill all the men, kill all the children, rape and kill all the women. The whole population of captured cities were often marched through one city gate, all other exits having been closed, and the people were often corralled, as animals sometimes still are in slaughter-houses, through a baffle, so that they could not see what was happening ahead of them; each person was systematically beheaded in an almost industrial process, the heads being stacked in neat pyramids, the tally of murders per man day being counted, until the massacre was complete. After the capture or surrender of a city, each soldier of whatever rank had to butcher an equal number of captives - the Mongols only had a democracy in butchery. The quota of the required number of beheadings per soldier was sometimes several hundred. The Mongols probably killed a greater proportion of the population of the world than any other people before or since. In the Middle East, the Mongols created pyramids of human heads to avoid any possible recovery of the wounded or any escape by anyone hiding among the dead. This was what they also did to the Hsia population.“In my view the Mongols were the pre-industrial equivalent of atomic war. They destroyed previously flourishing cities and regions. They halved the 12th century population of China by killing nearly everyone in the cradle of Chinese civilisation, in the “land within the passes” of Northern and North West China. The almost complete massacre of the Hsia population altered the balance of Chinese civilisation from northern-dominated to Southern-led. As Professor C P Fitzgerald has commented:Fitzgerald continues:“A region which in T'ang times had been wealthy and cultured, as the Buddhist Scriptures and cave monasteries prove, became a semi-desert, the poorest and most backward part of the Chinese Empire."C.P Fitzgerald, "China - A Short Cultural History", Century Hutchinson, Melbourne, p 433.”Genghis Khan, whatever his positive achievements, was an egocentric mass murderer who behaved as if other people were only briefly useful for his pleasure and his aims. After conquering a city, he routinely raped several nubile women nightly for a week or two and sent them on their way with some treasure to help their survival. These raped and often pregnant women were often the only survivors of a city which previously had a population of hundreds of thousands or millions. The other nubile women of a city - the females enslaved for the brief pleasure of the Mongol troops - were always mass murdered when these troops moved on, because female slaves could not be allowed to slow down the Mongol army. The behaviour of Genghis and his immediate descendants explains why about six percent of the inhabitants of central Asia have had one ancestor, who can only have been Genghis Khan. See Descent from Genghis Khan - Wikipedia and 1 in 200 men direct descendants of Genghis Khan - Gene ExpressionGenghis Khan’s castration and death at the hands of a Chinese Princess after the partial destruction of the people of Hsia ceased his personal spreading of his seed. His instruction on his deathbed that all of the people of Hsia were to be butchered was completely carried out after his death by his descendants, and explains why North West China is still largely comparatively unpopulated. [About one person in 100 may have survived such massacres.]The elevation of one man and his descendants to this almost incredible extent has no other valid parallel in history. When Kubla Khan ruled China, he officially continued his rape-a-few-women-nightly behaviour using the Chinese Civil Service to select and supply these women.The major reason for the relative brevity of the Yuan/Mongol Empire was that Kubla Khan forbade the Han Chinese from learning Mongolian, and he printed large amounts of consumer credit to fund his troops, creating inflation, and he neglected to repair the rice terraces or water-distributing works, causing starvation, all of which led to the fall of the Mongol Empire.And four of the key inventions of the Chinese people - gunpowder, paper, woodblock printing and the compass -flowed over the Silk Road and started the European renaissance and the industrial revolution. And the Western demand for the silks and spices of China, after the Silk Road was shut down by quarrels between Genghis’s successors, drove the European sea explorations [“voyages of discovery”] which made Europe aware of the location and potentials of other lands as Europe’s tiny boats with their scurvy-suffering sailors ruled the waves.It should be noticed in passing that the 25,000 plus sailors and troops of each of the seven Chinese Treasure fleets did not suffer from scurvy because some of their 500 plus ships were entirely laden with fresh water for drinking, washing and growing fruits and vegetables to feed the fleet.3.2.2 The Conservatives in 14th century ChinaOne of the several highs of Chinese civilisation was the achievements of Great Ming period of the Yongle Emperor, who from 1421 to 1424 launched the seven Treasure Fleets to demonstrate the vast superiority of China to the Asian, Indian and African countries whose seaports are now being upgraded as the “sea Roads” of the B&RI/OBOR project.The 15th century ships of the Chinese Treasure Fleet were much larger and better constructed than European vessels at that time. The Nanking shipyard where the vessels were built was by far the greatest shipbuilding facility in the world. See George Tait Edwards's answer to What are major Chinese innovations? where I observe“The Conservatives and their usual promotion of the interests of the rich and their traditional xenophobic philosophy of fear of outsiders and the elevation of tradition above innovation, and isolation above development, dominated the actions of the late 15th century Ming court. As The Ming Voyages | Asia for Educators | Columbia University records under the heading “The Fateful Decision”“The Ming court was divided into many factions, most sharply into the pro-expansionist voices led by the powerful eunuch factions that had been responsible for the policies supporting Zheng He's voyages, and more traditional conservative Confucian court advisers who argued for frugality. When another seafaring voyage was suggested to the court in 1477, the vice president of the Ministry of War confiscated all of Zheng He's records in the archives, damning them as "deceitful exaggerations of bizarre things far removed from the testimony of people's eyes and ears." He argued that "the expeditions of San Bao [meaning "Three Jewels," as Zheng He was called] to the West Ocean wasted tens of myriads of money and grain and moreover the people who met their deaths may be counted in the myriads. Although he returned with wonderful precious things, what benefit was it to the state?"Linked to eunuch politics and wasteful policies, the voyages were over. By the century's end, ships could not be built with more than two masts, and in 1525 the government ordered the destruction of all oceangoing ships. The greatest navy in history, which once had 3,500 ships (the U.S. Navy today has only 324), was gone.”It is no exaggeration to say that this is what Conservatives/Republicans usually do. They “save” money and destroy industry. They think they are acting in the interests of the elite by impoverishing the workers. The emphasise tradition and isolation rather than progress and funding economic development. That has never “worked”because such policies reduce the scale and effective operation of the economy.It is not only an historic event - these policies of isolationism and rule by the rich are active in Trump’s USA and Brexit Britain. Neither can have successful results.3.2.3 Adolf HitlerThe odd beliefs of Adolf Hitler and his elevation of what he regarded as superior “Aryan” characteristics of blonde hair and blue eyes above all other “racial types” is too well known for me to retell it here. In addition to his elevation of the “Aryans” and the Germans above the rest of humanity he victimised and murdered millions of Jewish people. And he sacrificed millions of Germans in his wars.His economic policies helped fund major German innovations in the jet engine and in rocketry but his murderous policies ensured that Germany could not win any war against the Allies.The Jewish genius Albert Einstein emigrated to the USA and wrote an historic letter to FDR recommending the development of the atomic bomb.Clive James’ comment that pre-WWII Germany decided “To lose weight by blowing its brains out” is pertinent.3.2.4 Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan was the President who from 1980 turned America away from Keynesian full employment and FDR’s social packages and into a rule-by-the-rich country enforcing the ineffective Washington Consensus Macroeconomics both domestically and on other nations.These policies guaranteed accelerating US economic decline and the loss of US hegemonic power. The kindest comment that could be made about this President is that he probably did not know what he was doing.His consent to the CIA peddling of hard drugs in California to fund action against the drug lords of Columbia is a permanent stain on his presidency. See CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking - Wikipedia3.2.5 Margaret ThatcherTo say that Margaret Thatcher admired her father more than she admired her mother is a great understatement. In an independent article about The woman who brought up Margaret Thatcher the author, Andy McSmith, notes that Beatrice Thatcher, her mother’s name, is given no credit by her daughter:Thatcher exhibited callousness to an enormous degree both to the British workers whose industries were destroyed by her policies and internationally. She described anyone (including cabinet ministers) who opposed the cruelty of her policies as a ”wet”. Nigel Lawson’s use of oil revenues [which had also raised the value of the pound] to reduce taxes for the very rich, on several reliable estimates destroyed about 20% of British industry, which was said to be “more than Hitler had done.” Thatcher’s privatisation policies for the nationalised industries of the railways and coal and steel often created large and lasting levels of unemployment in one-main-industry towns like Motherwell/Steelopolis and Corby (also a steel town) and many others and in whole counties where employment in the coal industry had been the major source of employment.Thatcher’s international cruelty reached its peak in the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war. Tam Dalyell- see Tam Dalyell never held office, but he was Margaret Thatcher's sternest critic - never forgave her for that. The sinking caused the Argentine fleet to stay in ports and avoided a sea war, but it was nonetheless a murderous act.Thatcher caused the Falklands war by cutting Navy budgets in the South Atlantic. Lord Carrington nobly volunteered to take the blame for that.The Falklands fleet was so rapidly assembled that Thatcher sent an atomic-tipped fleet to the Falklands. The Russians objected to that, misreading the situation as a war prelude. The fleet stopped off at the Ascension Islands and the atomic bombs were all transferred to the RFA Fort Austin. Just as well that ship was not hit by an Exocet.3.2.6 Tony Blair the Conservative Wolf in Socialist DisguiseMargaret Thatcher described Tony Blair as “her greatest achievement,” and although he won elections for labour, once in office he never reversed any Conservative policies and quietly pursued some of these (such as PFI). He did a little more for Britain’s poorest but he was probably the most disappointing Prime Minister ever elected. The joy at Labour’s May 1997 election turned slowly into bitterness as Blair’s “New Labour” policies were discovered to be mainly a cover story for the continuation of Thatcherism. At first he admitted an admiration for Thatcher’s style, but he ultimately confessed he was a complete Thatcherist. If he had said that in the first place he would never have led the Labour Party or become Prime Minister. Over the more-than-a-decade of Blair’s premiership, nothing effective was done to reverse the economic decline of Britain, and Blair tutored his successor Gordon Brown into abject compliance to the wishes of the City of London which led to the August 2008 Credit Crunch. SeeFSA head: Gordon Brown helped fuel banking crisisTony Blair showed no effective compassion for the workers and families whose lives had been devastated by industrial decline. His pre-election “cocktail offensive” on the City of London with Mo Mowlem may have assisted his election prospects but he promised the City that nothing effective would be done to limit their speculative activities.Blair had the opportunity to reverse the economic decline of Britain and he muffed it. He could have been a British FDR but he was too limited in his economic understanding and by his enormous egotism. Blair served the rich and powerful, whose ranks he ultimately successfully joined, but although he was personable and a good communicator he was a kind of better-educated Fettes College British version of George W Bush.———————4 Economic Miracles and their Leaders and Conservative politicians and Economic Decline4.1 Many Economic Miracles Were Created By Two-Man TeamsMany economic miracles are based upon the fortuitous happenstance of a determined political leader and a great economist or activist. Eleventh century China had Prime Minister Wang Anshi the first great investment credit economist and his friend and supporter the Shenzong Emperor, 15th century China had the Yongle Emperor and the great eunuch explorer and leader of six of the seven Treasure Fleets Zheng He, FDR’s economic miracle had John Kenneth Galbraith supporting FDR, the Japanese economic miracle had the second great investment credit economist Dr Osamu Shimomura and his friend and Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, and Clement Attlee had the great liberal economist William Beveridge - Wikipedia (1879–1963). All economic miracles have an immense social dimension based upon improving the lives of all the people through state action to provide the underlying superstructures of an economic miracle. Unless economic miracles create and maintain such foundations their economic and political primacy does not last. Britain seems to be the main example where a great social welfare net was created without the political follow-through into a post war economic miracle.4.2 There Is No Inevitability About The Rise of Rule-By-The-RichThe major first point made by Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West - Wikipedia is that all the Western democracies will inevitably evolve into ruled-by-the-rich plutocracies. While no-one who has examined the facts of history could deny this has usually historically happened, there seems to be much less inevitability about that process than Spengler assumes.Conservative politicians do not have to follow an economic philosophy which impoverishes large sections of their population, degrades their economies and reduces their political and social influence in the future of the world.During the Keynesian era of 1945–1979 they didn’t. The USA was then regarded as a helpful development model for other nations, which during the era - seen in the afterglow of history as a “golden age” - allowed LDCs to develop as best the could.The best recent comment I have ever heard about from a Washington Consensus economist is “Well, we got away with it for almost forty years!!”But the game is now up. The only large country now prioritising the wealth and welfare of its people - China - is growing so rapidly on that basis that its economy is going to completely dominate the future of the world. Its economics should also do that, but Shimomuran-Wernerian macroeconomics has not so far escaped from its most recent locations in the Tokyo Consensus Zone.————————4.3 Ivories and Ovaries and Consequences, ConsequencesA few of my acquaintances have been great seducers of women and have left a trail of emotional devastation in their wake. I asked one of them how he did it, and he replied with commendable frankness“I cover my teeth with flowers. I persuade them that I love them, but when they surrender themselves to me I do whatever I want and then it’s goodbye to Gabby.” [He called all women Gabby because he said they talked too much, and his greatest failures where with women who did not, because they regarded him with derision and murderous looks and would not “let him in”.]That’s the major programme of all right-wing Conservative and Republican parties - they keep saying they love the people, and will act in the interests of all the people, but once in office they will do whatever they like in their own interests and will do their utmost to preserve their power using a compliant money-serving media and voter-reducing activities, and they will serve the rich through tax cuts and destroy the wealth and welfare of the people to fund these tax cuts. And the people, to use the vernacular, will be totally screwed.That has been and is the continuing programme of the US Republicans and the UK Conservatives.5 Provisional Conclusions5.1 The activities of nearly all politicians can be analysed into the two major categories as liberal-loving or callous-Conservative, and the fate and prosperity of the people depends upon what kind of leader a country possesses. The origins of these contrasting behaviours may lie within the family but have major effects on the political behaviour of leaders.5.2 The vast majority of recent Western politicians have accepted the economic-decline-producing Washington Consensus Macroeconomics (WCM) and their economies have consequentially declined in world status. The decline of the previously hegemonic UK and USA is particulary notable.5.3 The politicians of the Tokyo Consensus Zone have for decades embraced Shimomuran MacroEconomics (SME) often with its Wernerian SME-improving local banking system and their populations have profited by the experience.5.4 But as soon as some Asian politicians have accepted the WCM, their economies have nose dived into decades of much lower growth and persistently higher poverty levels among their people (eg South Korea from 1981 and Japan from 1991). It is difficult for recent national leaders to exit from such an experience by resuming SME.5.5 There are few Western politicians who are genuine democrats and who run their countries in the interests of all their people.But some of them have been and more of them will be, once it is recognised that this is the major route to national economic success.6 Over-Arching Conclusions and Further Questions6.1 The strength of economic inertia is so high that most national leaders take the easy way out and “go with the flow” of elite-serving and prosperity-denying WCM despite the likelihood that their place in history would be best guaranteed by adopting SME.6.2 While there are many billionaires that luxuriate in the wealth produced in their interest by the ruled-by-the-rich plutocracies, there are none so far that have assisted the restoration of Western democracies operating under a leader in the interests of all their people. I think that is sure to happen once they are better informed, but the burning question is “When?”6.3 China’s economic development is soundly based upon the rapid increases in the incomes of its people and as long as that condition is maintained, the further high growth of that nation is unstoppable.7 AnswerThe simple truth that liberals “get” that the Republicans don’t seem to understand is that higher rates of economic development rests upon the prosperity of the people.That is not an opinion but an observation supported by the evidence of the history and recent and current experience of the circumstances of the nations where high economic growth occurs.Frank Seward, thank you for this fascinating question, and I hope you find my Answer equal to your enquiry.