Seems like some irony/self-fulfilling prophecy going on here, though. The optimist, "borrower spender" American is another side of the same coin that values risk taking and has tolerance for failure. If you are too "realist", your reality might actually end up being worse than if you were an optimist.
There's a big difference between borrowing for a business venture and borrowing to subsidize a lavish lifestyle. We have both kind of people in the US, but I have to believe the second type outnumbers the first by quite a bit.
You're both right, and that's the beauty of culture. The double sided sword yields both benefits and disadvantages. The irony is that America's historical appreciation of immigration (one of the best ways to mitigate cultural blind spots) has yielded a backlash against the lack of a cultural bedrock, and become a double edge sword itself.
> The irony is that America's historical appreciation of immigration (one of the best ways to mitigate cultural blind spots) has yielded a backlash against the lack of a cultural bedrock, and become a double edge sword itself.
Only for people who refuse to appreciate that immigration as a whole is America's cultural bedrock, and not merely the effect of immigration from a particular group or region.
Are there upper limits to the level of immigration before this bedrock starts to deteriorate? I was out at a park on the weekend and I'd estimate less than 25% of the people there could speak the same language as me. Does an inability to verbally communicate with my fellow citizens really not affect anything?
I should also clarify, I don't know what percentage of those people were capable of speaking English, based on past experience of attempts I would guess < 25%, but that's pure speculation.
Quebec, founded in 1608 (well, Quebec City), a semi-sovereign nation in Canada whom we literally fought a war with in the past, is not really comparable to the situation in Vancouver. I don't think it's my argument that isn't valid.
