The Best and Worst of the Decade

Don · Dec 31, 2009

An article at Reason raises an interesting question for all of us. What were the best and worst events of the decade?

I'll go with two from the article, and sneak some quotes in that way.

Radley Balko said:
Worst: September 11. For the sheer horrendousness of the attacks and what they represented, but also for the corresponding overreaction from the U.S. government and resulting collateral damage to...well, just about every other area of public policy.

Brian Doherty said:
Best: Global Explosion in The Middle Class. As nearly always in human history, the good news has to be found beyond the worlds of government and public policy. In a decade of grim expansion of state power and resource grabs, and further diminution of constitutional limits on that expansion, all persons of good will (except, I guess, for people who think human wealth equals planetary destruction) should cheer a trend summed up well by Jesse Walker here at Reason Online: an explosion of entrepreneurship and wealth that has brought the middle class to dominate more than half's the world population by 2006.

What say you?

benbradley · Dec 31, 2009

Just that it's interesting they can make these "best and worst of the decade" judgements when there's still a year to go in the decade.

tarcanus · Dec 31, 2009

benbradley said:
Just that it's interesting they can make these "best and worst of the decade" judgements when there's still a year to go in the decade.

I'm sure they're counting year 2000 as the first year of the decade. 1999 being the end of the millennium, after all.

Kisatchie · Dec 31, 2009

tarcanus said:
I'm sure they're counting year 2000 as the first year of the decade. 1999 being the end of the millennium, after all.

The new millennium started January 1st, 2001. Why do you think Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Oddysey" starts with 2001? Did the first millennium start with year 0?

Shadow_Ferret · Dec 31, 2009

benbradley said:
Just that it's interesting they can make these "best and worst of the decade" judgements when there's still a year to go in the decade.

The decimal system works from 0-9, not 1-10.

:tongue

sulong · Dec 31, 2009

Kisatchie said:
The new millennium started January 1st, 2001. Why do you think Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Oddysey" starts with 2001? Did the first millennium start with year 0?

No. One (1) year had already past when they replaced the "0" with the "1".

benbradley · Dec 31, 2009

Jesus was born in the year 0 AD?

I thought only C programmers counted starting at zero.

Sophia · Dec 31, 2009

Everyone starts counting at 1. But the 1 means 1 second/minute/whatever has now passed since the 'beginning'. The decade began at the first instant after midnight 2000, and tonight is the last night of it.

benbradley · Dec 31, 2009

What year was JESUS born?

tarcanus · Dec 31, 2009

0, obviously. At 1 he was 1.

maxmordon · Dec 31, 2009

benbradley said:
What year was JESUS born?

4 BC, since the guy who did the counting screwed up a little. But there's no such thing as a year 0 on the Gregorian calendar according to Wikipedia.

Wayne K · Dec 31, 2009

I would prefer a global definition of "middle class"

profen4 · Dec 31, 2009

I think the 9/11 attacks are right up there as the worst thing for exactly the reason indicated on post #1

But in my memory the event that sticks out as the worst thing of the decade was the Tsunami in SE Asia.

clintl · Dec 31, 2009

Personally, I find it idiotic to argue over whether the decade (and the millenium) started in 2000 or 2001. Either one is arbitrary, just as any system of numbering the years is arbitrary. Including the one we use, which miscalculated the year 1 anyway.

clintl · Dec 31, 2009

swhibs123 said:
I think the 9/11 attacks are right up there as the worst thing for exactly the reason indicated on post #1

But in my memory the event that sticks out as the worst thing of the decade was the Tsunami in SE Asia.

I'd agree with that. The tsumami was on the order of 100 times worse than 9/11.

MattW · Dec 31, 2009

clintl said:
I'd agree with that. The tsumami was on the order of 100 times worse than 9/11.

While I agree that the impact of the tsunami was much worse, intent has to factor in to this as well.

People decided to hijack planes as weapons, knowing the immediate damage that would happen, as well as hoping for the jihad and wars that would possibly follow.

Natural disasters happen, but they don't escalate or retaliate.

clintl · Dec 31, 2009

I'm not disputing that. Obviously the ramifications went way beyond the incident itself. But it's hard for me to see how it comes close to an event that wiped out 300,000 people. Even the most pessimistic estimates of the death tolls from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that came as a result of 9/11 don't come close to that. I think picking 9/11 over the tsunami as the worst event of the decade shows a fairly blatant American-centric view of the world, and I'm pretty damn sure that if the tsunami had hit Los Angeles instead Malaysia, it would be on the top of the list.

Don · Dec 31, 2009

Ben, note:

the decade. Nothing about which century, or which decade. Or anything mathematically incorrect.

The aughts are 2000-2009... the third digit is all aughts.

The tens will all have a third digit of one. And so forth. And so on.

Or did the roarin' 20's start in 1921 and end in... 1930???

Sheesh! I'm gonna stop creating topics; the nitpicking seems to always be the focus, instead of the intent of the topic.

Don · Dec 31, 2009

Wayne K said:
I would prefer a global definition of "middle class"

From the cited article.

The Economist estimates that about a tenth of the developing world now lives at that level. But "those who are middle-class by the standards of the developing world," the writer adds, are now "a majority of the developing world's population." Citing the New Delhi–based economist Surjit Bhalla, the magazine also reports that "the middle class's share of the whole world's population rose from one-third to over half (57%) between 1990 and 2006," with most of that growth taking place in poorer countries.

Click to expand...

Smiling Ted · Dec 31, 2009

Don said:
The Economist estimates that about a tenth of the developing world now lives at that level. But "those who are middle-class by the standards of the developing world," the writer adds, are now "a majority of the developing world's population." Citing the New Delhi–based economist Surjit Bhalla, the magazine also reports that "the middle class's share of the whole world's population rose from one-third to over half (57%) between 1990 and 2006," with most of that growth taking place in poorer countries.

That's great news...if it's true. But a few things leap out of that statement.

The first is that the measurement ended in 2006. We're now going into 2010. What effect did the financial crisis have on this wealth creation? How much of it remains? How much of it was illusory?

The second was that this was "middle class by the standards of the developing world." Don't add on a two-car garage just yet.

The third was that Surjit Bhalla (who admittedly has credentials - Princeton, Brookings, and RAND) has a book coming out whose title is The Middle Class Kingdoms of China and India. In other words, he sort of has a stake in this thesis being true. The Economist has a habit of quoting the experts who agree with its editorial stance. And for the last twenty years, their stance has been that free trade and globalization are an unalloyed economic boon. Add to that the fact that economic statistics get mushier and more inconclusive the bigger you go - and you don't too much bigger than the developing world - and you can prove almost anything you like.

I hope it's true, and I think it's pretty clear that there has been some improvement in the developing world. But the extent of that improvement isn't clear enough for sunny, optimistic conclusiveness.

eyeblink · Dec 31, 2009

maxmordon said:
4 BC, since the guy who did the counting screwed up a little. But there's no such thing as a year 0 on the Gregorian calendar according to Wikipedia.

AD means "in the year of Our Lord", so it begins with AD 1, i.e. the first year of our Lord. (Or the first year of the Common Era, if you prefer.)

Kisatchie · Dec 31, 2009

Shadow_Ferret said:
The decimal system works from 0-9, not 1-10.

I'm looking at my fingers right now. They don't go from 0 to 9. Jeez.

Death Wizard · Dec 31, 2009

I agree with the 2000-2009 crowd.

William Haskins · Dec 31, 2009

deathwizard said:
I agree with the 2000-2009 crowd.

me too.

mathematically, of course, there was no year 0.

but we have made it along just fine without considering 1970 as part of the 60s, etc.

Death Wizard · Dec 31, 2009

William Haskins said:
me too.

mathematically, of course, there was no year 0.

but we have made it along just fine without considering 1970 as part of the 60s, etc.

The first 10 days or so of 1970 were a part of the the '60s, because everyone was still passed out.

The Best and Worst of the Decade

All Living is Local

It's a doggy dog world

Lord of the Tarcans

I stop at railroad crossings

Court Jester

It's a matter of what is.

It's a doggy dog world

It's a doggy dog world

Lord of the Tarcans

Penúltimo

Represent.

Represent.

Company Man

Represent.

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

Ah-HA!

Barbara says hi

I stop at railroad crossings

Tumhe na koci puujetha

poet

Tumhe na koci puujetha