Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 3

Regions of Population Growth/Decline in France

Based on these two maps here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Historical_population_of_metropolitan_France -- which I personally made based on (apparently reliable) data from INSEE, it appears that other than in the Paris suburbs and exurbs, the fastest population growth in France since 1975 (as well as the fastest projected future population growth in France) has primarily been in the southern and western regions of France. Does anyone with more knowledge in regards to this know why this is the case? Also, is the slower population growth and in some cases population decline in northeastern France and in parts of central France due to the fact that these areas are primarily focused on (heavy) industry and/or on agriculture, and thus can't attract population growth to as large of a degree/extent as other parts of France? Again, it would be nice to hear what someone who is more knowledgeable in regards to this topic/issue has to say about this. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very much like population shifts in the US. In particular, an aging population likes to retire to warmer climates. StuRat (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well, and while that makes sense for southern France, I am not sure that the climate in northwestern France (where the population is also growing and is also projected to grow extremely quickly) is much warmer than the climate in northeastern France (where there is much slower population growth and even population decline) is. Thus, I wonder what is causing the large population increases in northwestern France. It would also be interesting to see which areas of France have the highest percentage of immigrants--maybe this information/data can help explain a part of this. Finally, for the record, if anyone does not know this yet, there are scales for both of the maps in my link which you will see once you will click on these maps themselves. Futurist110 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a phenomenon (not certain if it is at play here) of cyclical real estate valuations, for a US comparison the Rust Belt 50 years ago was the real estate that was most pricey, places like Orlando and Las Vegas, even Seattle you could get huge bargains, 25 years ago this was completely inverted and yet now the large swaths of the Rust Belt (Detroit being a notable exception) are coming back relative to the real estate values bust in most parts of the sun belt. Places like Miami and Detroit (noted above) are some exceptions. Real estate values have a ton to do with migration patterns and like any other commodity show a pattern of cyclical valuations over generations, there is a Graduate school of Business in Florida named "Crummer" which is a somewhat curious thing to name one of the state's top MBA programs. Crummer it turns out "saved" Florida real estate (Florida was suffering in real estate was my first thought too) in the 1930s when the combination of some unluckily severe back-to-back hurricanes and the Great Depression had the huge Art Deco and hotel developments of Henry Flagler et. al. go belly up and with them the tax base of stretched out munis which all sold bonds galore to pay for massive infrastructure improvements, so Florida went boom in the 1920s bust until the 1950s and really didn't boom again until the late 1970s and now large parts of the state are bust again, and since there are only so many people rushing in and out of these booms the supply/demand factor dictates they are buying in other regions until they are priced out of a gentrified market and move back to the area their parents laughed at as a "bust", much similar to how places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo were the brunt of jokes in the 1980s, 90s and now have leaders from the sunbelt visiting to learn from the now reversed Rustbelt how to get out of their own real estate (and thus population) busts. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

See also Immigration to France which must also be a factor. Alansplodge (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the immigration to the North of France, OK so it may not be warmer than the rest of France, but it sure is warmer than the UK and other regions of Europe that are north of there. It is relatively easy to live anywhere in the EU if you are already an EU citizen. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

With that in mind, it would be interesting to note who is migrating to NW France. If it's people from the UK, they might just want to be in France but as close as possible to the UK for visits home. The Chunnel may have contributed to this migration. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Britons famously take up residence in Provence (see A Year in Provence) in the South, where the landscape is stunning and there's a wealth of deserted farm houses at a fraction of the price that you could buy one for in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia addresses this in Geographical distribution of French population; a rough translation is "The regions with the lowest population increase (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Champagne-Ardenne) are formerly industrialized areas with a higher unemployment rate than the national average. With the Picardie region, they are also the sources of emigration to the more sunny regions such as Languedoc-Roussillon, Midi-Pyrenees, Aquitaine and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur." In other words, it confirms the reasons suggested above. The article describes but does not explain the increase in Brittany and Pays de la Loire. 184.147.119.205 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

All the west coast of France is desirable from a retirement/second home perspective and that contributes to the forecast increase in Brittany and Pays de la Loire. Brittany is an export-oriented centre of agribusiness (dairy and pork products). The Pays de la Loire also has agricultural production (Muscadet, maize). Leisure boatbuilding in the Vendee. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I know at least Loire-Atlantique (in Pays de la Loire) has been positioning itself as a leader in technology recently - aeronautics (there is an Airbus assembly at Nantes Airport), information technology, banking, agribusiness. I know they promoted these types of businesses when I lived there. I'm not sure about the west of France in general but I suppose it's the same. Sometimes people even come from Paris to work there, rather than the other way around. Also, the weather's not bad, rainy but relatively warm. It doesn't get too cold even in the winter...it snowed when I was there but that was apparently the first time in 16 years. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

summary of the world political situation, snowden revelations

This is a two-part question.

1) Could you tell me about the major "factions" in the world (alliances, wars etc) among all parts of the world. What or how many "sides" are there today? (For example that a high school student might care enough to read about in 200 years).

2) What about the Snowden revelations. He is thinking of defecting to Germany. Is Germany in some sense on a different 'side' from the U.S.? What are the "sides" that there are in world-wide intelligence?

I'm sorry about the super-vague questions. Also, what active wars are there right now worldwide - are these major or minor? I really, really don't care about history and have not been paying to current events like at all. I'd just like a birds-eye, 200-year overview of the present day. Thanks! 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your question is rather vague and open-ended, but we do have List of ongoing armed conflicts... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Germany have an extradition treaty with the US? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole EU has an extradition treaty with the US (that devolves to the constituent states). So Germany can extradite Snowden to the US. It can also decide that he is the subject of political persecution, which would trigger a clause in the German constitution and, IIRC, an exemption clause in the treaty that would make an extradition impossible (on constitutional grounds) and optional (based on the treaty). In the end, this is possibly a political decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously any such extradition attempt would have to be negotiated, with guarantees to ensure no capital punishment and no torture and to otherwise comply with EU's view of things. This is where the US messed up by charging him with "espionage". If they had kept it to "theft of government property", it would have been tougher for a country to claim that it was political. Theft is theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not vague. Pick a year (1850, 1930). You can talk about what alliances or factions there were in the world, what the history of internatoinal politics was at that time (roughly). I'm asking for the same birds-eye summary today. Granted there may be more areas like the middle east and Asia that we are paying attention to than in 1800 but the principle stands. I'd like an overview. Also, you didn't even try to answer the second question which is more specific. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain it to me like I'm 5 - don't assume I know anything, because I don't. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the answer to my question: Does Germany have an extradition treaty with the US? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

List of United States extradition treaties. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly typical, though, for extradition treaties to be written with exceptions that allow a country to refuse to extradite if they think the charge is political or otherwise violates what they see as human rights. So I imagine Germany would have an "out" to refuse extradition if they wanted to. And I suppose they kind of might want to, as a little payback for bugging Angela Merkel's phone. But the political cost might be fairly high, and if I were Ed Snowden, I don't think I'd count on it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. And if Germany were found to have been spying on us also, they wouldn't want to cop too much of an attitude in the interim. Russia has no extradition treaty with the US, so he's better off there. But we are allies of both, or at least we have diplomatic relations with both. Any country that could have diplomatic relations with another country but doesn't, is not much of an ally. It get tricky where al-Qaeda is concerned, because they are a network of insurgents who have no actual nation, or at least not openly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, this stream-of-consciousness musing doesn't help the OP. You don't know anything about international relations, so sit back and let other people respond. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP likewise claims to know nothing, while making comments that indicate he knows something. But you're obviously not nearly as dumb as I am, so what are the right answers to his questions about Germany? And by the way, the OP's snippiness towards AnonMoos doesn't help the OP either. Oh, and one more thing, Judith: Where's your own degree in international relations? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, yes I am qualified in these areas, but please judge my contributions on their quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's your questions about Germany, not the OP's. I gave you a link. You can thank me for it. There is an extradition treaty. Also note that Germany is in the Schengen area. If there was an inkling of extradition procedures Snowden could be in France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy or other countries within a few hours' drive. You can just go straight through on the motorway at 100 kph. These other countries also have extradition treaties with the USA. Who knows how it will play out. Probably in favour of the Internet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was in fact going to thank you for finding that link, but the edit conflict beat me to it. I had been trying to find it, and somehow overlooked it in the article on the general topic of extradition laws in the US. And the OP did ask about Germany: He claims (without citation) that Snowden is thinking of "defecting" (whatever that means in this context) to Germany. And he's asking whose side Germany is on. The US and Germany are allies, and neither one is keen on giving undue advantage to terrorist organizations, so in the bigger picture they are necessarily on the same "side", even if they might disagree about details. But I'm obviously an idiot, so tell me what "in favour of the internet" means. Unless you're just being funny or ironic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What I meant by "in favour of the Internet" is that there seems to be a war of position between on the one hand national governments and on the other an increasingly connected global citizenry. The powers spy on us, telling us that it is essential in order to defend democracy and defeat terrorism, while we continue to update our statuses with lolcats. It is becoming quite clear that it doesn't matter an iota what Obama, Cameron or Merkel think. What matters is public opinion in the West, i.e. what is said below the line on the newsblogs, and that could go either way, but is most likely to go in the direction of "I want to post invites to my party without worrying whether the drugs enforcement agency will be alerted." Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Which side are the owners of entities like Google and Facebook on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On the side of the governments, of course. It's capitalism! But not necessarily as we know it. Give it two years, will we all be using Google and Facebook? Who knows? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be one reason that the youth are moving away from Facebook, as reported in an online story the other day. (I forget where - maybe cnn.com). Give it a few years and Facebook might be history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And as for that weirdo Wikipedia outfit, all I can say is "Obviously it will never work, and is due to disintegrate any day now". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

According to that report linked on my talk page, wikipedia is indeed disintegrating, but it's at a snail's pace. (I almost said at a glacial pace, but in these times of global warming, that analogy doesn't work so well anymore.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In the world there are two classes of people, people who own things that make things (bourgeoisie), and people who own labour that makes things (proletariat). Much in the same way that Feudalism was primarily defined by the repression of those who laboured agriculturally or in towns (third estate), by the priest nobility (first estate) and the non-priestly nobility (second estate), our period of time will be seen as defined by the class conflict between workers and bosses if social history has the least to say historiographically about our period. Other answers may be possible depending on people's theory of history and whether they're Marxist or liberal in terms of their historiographical attitude. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Communism doesn't work. Even the poorest of the poor and the most-exploited of the exploited like to own things. Marxism, as attempted in some countries, has been a colossal failure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you don't know this, Bugs, but Marxists distinguish between personal property (bicycles, clothing, artworks, furniture, things for use) and private property (factories, things to exploit other people to make money). You get to keep your personal property. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, I sure wish I lived in Cuba, where everyone gets to drive 1950s cars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Following from Fifelfoo's helpful comments, directly to the OP, not to Bugs, you could have a look at the foreign policies of the great powers, particularly China, the USA and Russia. These three countries are, on the surface, friendly towards each other. If you follow the ideas of Noam Chomsky you will think that below this surface structure is a deep structure. Which powers are in economic competition with which others? Well, the USA is still the richest country, but its economy is dependent on Chinese money. (So much for the rejection of Communism.) The politics is not identical to the economics, whatever Chomsky or some very mechanical Marxists think. Politically, and this is your question, the blocs that you need to take into account are 1) USA and western Europe 2) the Muslim world 3) China. It could be a bit different net year. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain how propagandizing for a totally failed idea is in any way "helpful" to the OP. Unless you're just being funny again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What propagandising? Count Iblis' analysis is good, except that the changes since 2008 also need to be theorised. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Filfelfoo = Count Iblis??? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's nice Bugs. In historiography Marxism is still highly credible, and many if not all historians that deal with 200 year remembrance of world history use class. If you'd like to ask questions about Marxist ideologies in control of failed states, you know how to start a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Marxism failed because Marx himself failed to take human nature into account. Be that as it may, have fun answering the OP's questions below. I can't give him any good information, as I'm an idiot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, the Ref Desk doesn't depend on any respondent being an expert in the relevant field. Even idiots sometime find good references for OPs (assuming they look, that is).  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, I'm too much of an idiot to understand what you're saying. Considering what Miss Manners said, it's a miracle I even learned to read and write. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

While an interesting perspective, your factual claim is wrong as our article (Human_nature#Modernism) indicates. Young Marx on species being and older Marx on the social construction of what it is to be human. Marx accounted rather heavily for human nature. I think, rather, that you're asserting that your own personal view of what human nature is indicates that Marx is wrong. Unless you're going to write very interesting and lengthy accounts of why Marx is wrong, I'm going to prefer to stick with people like Leszek Kołakowski whose accounts of why Marx may be wrong are nuanced, based on readings of Marx himself, and can philosophically substantiate claims about transcendent human natures. (Kolakowski's claim certainly isn't something trite like greed, but the far more defensible fallibility in terms of human subjectivities not being the totality.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why hasn't the working class embraced their greed and seized control of the means of production? →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Who says they haven't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

200 years from now, historians would consider the current period to be the direct aftermath of the end of the Cold War. They will explain the current situation we find ourselves in by invoking the US support for the resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That ultimately led to Afghanistan becoming a failed state leading to the problems with the Taliban and Al Qa'ida there and in Pakistan, which in turn led to the US becoming involved in the war against terror and then this whole drive to spy on almost everyone. Also, the weakening of the Soviet Union due to the escalation in Afghanistan, led to an anti-Western sentiment in the Soviet leadership which eventually led to the coup against Gorbachov. That in turn led to the Soviet Union falling apart, a weak Yeltsin government took over, there was an insurgency in Chechnya. This caused Putin to become a popular strong leader of Russia. The big non-aligned coutries like India, South Africa, Brazil, would ally themselves with Russia and China. Also, South America would distance itself from the US more and persue a more socialist path. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

While I agree this is a good summary of the period, I'm pretty sure that the post-Soviet era will suffer from bowdlerisation in the mythic imaginary. Almost nobody considers Napoleon I to be the next thing to Satan. And only committed followers of pro-force Anabaptism would demonise Luther today. YMMV, I'd hope that 200 years from now the public awareness of contemporary geopolitics is so strong. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We may be drifting a little, but the present-day descendants of the Anabaptists are mostly peace churches, not "pro-force" in any sense I understand (wow, that Müntzer guy doesn't sound like he'd really fit in with any Mennonites I've ever met). The worst things I hear about Luther are mostly from hardcore Catholics. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis - you are using these terms but I don't understand them. I recently found out that Bangladesh was a country, or that Scandinavia isn't. You need to like...dumb it down a bit more for me please.

1) What areas of the world are there? (For example: Communist East, Capitalist East, Arab World, Israel, Europe, North America, South America). But is that the best listing of areas of the world?

2) What are the major "poles" or alliances? For example: "China & North Korea versus the entire rest of world. Arab world versus all of G5 countries + Israel". These are just guesses. I don't know squat.

3) What are the active conflicts by region?

I was happy for a moment about the wall of text above, but it turned out to be about just a tangent. I'd like a coherent, like very much "dumbed-down" version (like that you would tell a 5 year old, who doesn't even know what the Soviet Union is). Please try to just like generalize as much as possible and give me an overview. Thanks! 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine trying to explain world politics to a five year old. Does a five year old even know what a war is? (Unless, goddess forbid, he's in a war zone.) You want to dumb it down? Tell the five year old that in the world there are two classes of people: Those that want to hurt him, and those that don't. If he grasps that, then you can start talking about war. Then you can show him a world globe and give him a lesson in geography - and of places on that globe (such as Syria) which have a large number of people trying to hurt each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is both some extremely interesting contributions and also for an editor that I both admire in expertise and at times can't understand why there is a seeming intent to enflame: extremely entertaining and if I can say 'quote worthy' on many levels. I mean this in the most genuine sense, this has been a joy to read, intellectually and for my funny bone. To Bugs: we're all here to learn and discuss our life experiences (the expertise we have acquired), I value all contributors here even ones I disagree with so a 'Wikipedia sunbeam' for you and I hope you are having a good day with the idea that everybody likes to see their contributions valued.

To Itsmejudith, very impressive information, a joy to read and if I could say so your discourse was actually made better by some of the challenges in the discussion, so please don't feel that those detracted from your points for readers. I very much value Bugs contributions in the sense that he sometimes makes me a better contributor with better readable material despite the concurrent desire to throw plates across the room ;-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1 & 2) I'll take a shot at this. In the Middle East, there's Shia Islam controlled nations (Iran, the government controlled areas of Syria, and since Saddam was deposed, Iraq) against Sunni Islam controlled nations, and Israel out on it's own, with the US one of it's few allies. China is pretty much on it's own, and has been pissing off all it's neighbors with aggressive military threats. North Korea is dependent on China, but that doesn't exactly make them allies, as NK pretty much ignored China when they developed nuclear weapons, which China doesn't like because it makes others in the region likely to get nukes, too. India is also pretty much independent. Many of the smaller Asian nations co-operate in the ASEAN alliance. In the West we have NATO (along with a few others, like Australia and maybe New Zealand) with the remnants of some of the Warsaw Pact nations (mainly those nations with lots of Russians living there) in opposition. There also seems to be a small anti-US axis in the Americas, with Cuba, Venezuela, and perhaps another tentative member or two. There's not much of a power base in Africa, although some nations do co-operate here and there. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - you seem to be jumping around a lot. There's very little structure in your paragraph and I'm finding it very hard to follow. Can you please try to be a bit more general! I'm really bad at geography as well (as indicated). I would just like you to go through the parts of the world as it exists in 2013 in some kind of structured order. Feel free to enumerate. I mean, you only have to get through 196 countries broken down into some kind of sane order. This is obviously going to be totaly different from the 'parts of the world as it exists in 1800' or whatever even though - obviously - with a few tiny differences (a few tiny bits of land reclaimed from the sea, I guess) it is almost 1:1 the same exact Earth. I would just like an overview. Is Earth REALLY that big. I mean you can spin a globe in under 10 seconds, even rather slowly. Here is an example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spinning_globe.gif - so I would like you to put some kind of order on it that I can understand. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you expect me to list all 196 countries and their current alliances, then you expect too much. Try following some of the links I provided, such as NATO and ASEAN, to get lists of members for those organizations. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's too much to ask. NATO and ASEAN is good. Can I assume ASEAN and NATO forces are at war? You don't say either way. In fact you don't mention any war openly. Since I'm asking for a high-level overview, don't you think talking about the relationship between NATO and ASEAN would be a good start? What about Russia? For my second question: do these organizations share intelligence, for example? Or are they rivals? (and would do counterintelligence on each other for example)? What about China, which is not part of ASEAN? What about Israel? etc. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, the world is divided into Us and Them. Leaving Them to one side for the moment, Us, (or We, as it's sometimes called), are divided into You and Me. And Me, (or I, as I prefer to be called), am right, always, but you can be my friend (or Ally, as the experts call it) if you agree to agree with me about absolutely Everything.PiCo (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

George Will once said that countries don't have "friends", they have interests. Hence if they have sufficient common interests, they can be allies. Hence our alliance with Russia against Germany during WWII, and our alliance with Germany against Russia afterward. (As satirized in 1984.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Another approach is to look at those countries who see freedom and democracy as the most important factors in government (the US and most "western democracies" including European countries); those countries who see economic progress and control as the most important factors (China, N Korea and some others); those countries who see adherence to religious values as the most important (some but not all Islamic countries); and the majority of smaller and less developed countries who often adhere to a mix of, or fluctuate between, those values. (Not all governments, and not all people, take it for granted that freedom and democracy should override everything else, strange as that may seem to Americans in particular.) Underlying all that is the fundamental divide between rich countries (US, Europe, Japan, Australia), poor countries (most of Africa and much of Asia), and those countries somewhere in between. It's complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As to whether the US and western Europe are on the same side of intelligence gathering or not, this article may be of interest.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)