The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
As to the U.S., the government fostered western expansion, not identity. America is unique in that indiviual achievement, individual freedeom and individual prosperity is the founding cornerstone. That is what Americans see as their identity.
It's not because Truman fosters suburbization, or because the government told people to go west or because Eisenhower installed the national highway system. Americans dont say their american because of Conrail or Route 80. It is because we believe in economic and individual freedom.
Europe by contrast just got around to getting itself free in the last 100 years. Most a lot less. So, there has never been much autonomous freedom of the individual or much economic opportunity for individuals. FOr the most, part Europe's experience has been completely totalitarian. England is probably the only real exception. Therefore, you have a band of elites who think they are smarter than the other europeans and want to control them through socialistic mechanisms. That's at least how I see the EU. Most of what I have read here only confirms that suspician. Terry
From what I understand, the whole point of the EU is to economically compete with large markets like the US, China, Southeast Asia. Slice it anyway you want, but that is why countries want to join. Not mutual defense.
Globalisation is certainly one factor and mutual defense is only beginning to be addressed. But you miss all the other things - regional development, sectoral development, environmental policies, human rights, security cooperation - and all the things that are best handled on a Europe wide basis.
You forget a few things about the EU.
Your Tuscan friends are buying into this game. The reality is Italy would be a basket case without the EU and the Euro - and is in significant difficulty even with them. Alitalia has more debts than it has assets despite massive (illegal) Government subvention and support.
The reality is all EU policies are agreed by EU Governments. Some suit some members better than others, and so a lot of horse-trading takes place. You get a lot of messy compromises - a bit like the US Budgetary process.
If anything it is too easy for a particularly short sighted or self-interested Government to block necessary proposals. The evidence presented by the surveys cited here is that most Europeans view the EU positively, would like to take a more active role in many areas, and support its enlargement.
Far from being governed by an unaccountable bureaucracy, most people actively support and vote for the policies which have been implemented. I have argued long and hard that the level of transparency, accountability and efficiency in decision making needs to be radically improved as the EU grows larger and deeper.
You say that Americans are individualists and want to restrict the power of Government as much a possible. Europeans see Americans as being ruled by corporations, the military/industrial complex, private interest groups and lobbyists, and would prefer to be ruled by an inefficient Government rather than an unaccountable corporation. Index of Frank's Diaries
I trust individuals to make free, unfettered decisions. Americans support their system because it has promoted individual achievement and generated personal wealth.
As for the mutual defense, does Germany still want Alsace Lorraine? Europe's borders have been cemented over the past 50 years. Democracies do not war with each other. America has pretty muched guaranteed europe's freedom from soviet threats. So, war in Europe shouldnt really be a factor. When there was (Kosovo), europe didnt do anything about it.
And if Europeans wholeheartedly support the EU, why are the member states governments trying to backdoor popular referendums to avoid "Non" votes again? Terry
Corporations don't vote. The government does regulate and tax corporations as well as give them certain benefits. As it does for enviromental groups, unions and other entities. Europe does not do the same?
Corporations don't vote, but they influence the law-making directly, via impressively effective lobbying. We're all free to lobby, true, but it costs money and thus somehow ends up favoring those that can actually afford to do it on a systematic basis.
Government does regulate and tax corporations, but it is doing an increasingly poor job of it because of corporate lobbying. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Americans also have free speech (provided they aren't labeled a communist) but corporations control what voices are heard. I don't doubt that many Americans buy into the corporatist culture you exult in, but many do not.
In contrast more Europeans tend to buy into and participate in their local and national political cultures -including the emerging EU dimension to many of those aspects of Government - and this despite the fact that Europeans come from many different and diverse countries without the homogenising effects of a single dominant national culture which you so often express here on behalf of the US. Index of Frank's Diaries
But there are also unions, enviromental groups, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Women's groups and a host of other leftist groups that also attempt to buy influence and do. This doesnt go on in Europe? Come on.
Communists and Socialists have the right to free speech and often use it in the U.S. Most socialists actually hide within the Democratic Party because most americans dont like socialism. Socialism likes to hide its agenda under other agendas because socialists here cannot convince the electorate otherwise.
Those who dont participate in the US political system tend to support the way its going. Massive turnout happens when the electorate is very upset with the current state of affairs.
As to corporations, why are corporations so evil? Corporations employ people and provide goods and services. In fact, I believe one employs you Frank. If it wasnt for corporations, you probably wouldnt have a computer to type on. Corporations dont take anything from anyone. They offer a good or a service that people buy voluntarily. Socialists tend to be people who really cant produce anything on their own. Thus, they advance themselves by taking the means of production into their own hands (by force) so that THEY can be in control. Terry
From what I understand, the whole point of the EU is to economically compete with large markets like the US, China, Southeast Asia.
Which, in an era of cross border ownership and transnational corporations , is no point at all, since you only compete with yourself.
"Competition" is all about depressing wages and living standards for the many to the benefit of the few. As has been exhaustively analysed and presented on ET...
Having said that, I know I'm in a minority here on ET since it is not clear to me what the EU is actually for in a globalised world. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Competition and free market economies benefit the CONSUMER. Business produces goods and services for people in exchange for money and profit. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Price is determined from information from a varity of sources. No one person controls the price of anything. That is what is democratic about the pricing system. Free marketers dont want government intervention into the pricing system because it distorts market prices and causes unintended consequences such as shortages, etc. So, for example, government starts giving out student loans to help students. Now, students have more money to go to college if they are willing to hock themselves in debt. The result in the US, massive inflation in education costs. Or, Clinton imposed a luxury tax on boats in the 1990s. The result-boats went up in price-massive layoffs in the boating industry, lost profits, lost taxes. Or, government starts subsidizing corn for ethanol. The resulting distortion, massive inflation for corn products, corn sweetener, animal feed resulting in higher beef prices. Poorer people now have to pay more for food. All for ethanol which is not a good fuel alternative.
Here is a great link to Milton Friedman explaining the economics of how a pencil is produced-it is two minutes long but worth 4 college credits.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU Terry
Competition and free market economies benefit the CONSUMER.
No one person controls the price of anything.
So, for example, government starts giving out student loans to help students. Now, students have more money to go to college if they are willing to hock themselves in debt. The result in the US, massive inflation in education costs.
Suitably regulated markets are among the tools we have to achieve our aims as a society. The stock and financial markets rely on brutal regulation to function at all: look what happens when the regulations are enforced badly or not adapted to the changing market.
I dont agree that energy, railroad and healthcare are good areas for government intervention. These are business areas and bureaucrats are incapable of regulating industries properly. If they were, they would be in the private sector. Our medical industry is heavily regulated, especially with prices. This causes massive distortions in prices. So, a doctor I know gets paid $75 for a spinal tap. My father in law goes into the hospital for observation only for ten days and the insurance company pays $65,000.00 (no tests, no operations).
As to education, I dont have a problem with a public role. It's just that private schools are better. The curriculum is more reading and writing oriented toward a British style system.
As to the higher education costs, do a lot more people have access to higher education now thanks to student loans? No, because the price of one year at college went up to $45K a year. Student loans do not come close to that level.
As to stock markets, I think they are casinos. I do not think buying stock is "investing", it is gambling.
Being a free marketer doesnt mean your against regulation or laws. It depends on the regulation and what is trying to be accomplished. Unfortunately, much government regulation ignores human nature resulting in unintended consequences. Terry
You understand very little. (That was not even runner-up in my reasons when I votes Yes for Hungary to join the EU.)
Not mutual defense.
No one said it's mutual defense.
the government fostered western expansion, not identity.
And Western expansion fostered identity. It's a basic logical chain.
indiviual achievement, individual freedeom and individual prosperity is the founding cornerstone.
Depends on whom you ask. It may be true for you. At any rate, the old American state, regional (say, Confederate...) and religious identities, and economic structures like plantations, were washed away by the forces I mentioned, and made it possible in the first place for Libertarians and like-minded Republicans to preach individualist capitalism the defining mark of the USA today.
Therefore, you have a band of elites who think they are smarter than the other europeans and want to control them through socialistic mechanisms.
LOL. Your caricature couldn't be further from the truth. Our elites aren't much of a believer in socialistic mechanisms, they are increasingly believers in opressive and anti-democratic free-market mechanisms.
Most of what I have read here only confirms that suspician.
I have noticed earlier that you don't undestand what you are reading here. Say, Migeru on natiuonalism and Spain. I suggest you first make the effort to understand before making judgements. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Americans going west doesnt make them feel american. They went out west because they saw opportunity.
Perhaps you dont see europe coming together for common defense, but others here have mentioned that as a reason.
Precisely how does free marketism anti democratic? Terry
What way do you propose that better allocates resources? Socialism? Pure socialism exists on the kibbutz. These systems have failed because they ignore human nature. Some people work hard, others dont. Yet, everyone gets the same earnings. It's known as the freeloader or freerider effect. At some point,the hard workers get fed up and leave. That's exactly what's been happening in Israel. Terry
Who are you going to vote for, if I may ask? "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
I've decided to write in Putin. That's my plan until someone successfully sells me on Edwards. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Edwards is not totalitarian though. His "Two Americas" is probably in line with your politics. Of course, I like how he is carving out his multi million dollar mansion in a forest miles away from civilization. He will live in a large estate off the beat track while all the commoners live in the suburbs and cities. All while he is preaching about two americas.
Vote Obama. I dont agree with anything he says. But there is no doubt that he genuinely believes in his philosophy. I can respect that at least, as to say, Hillary or Edwards. Terry
Some people work hard, others dont. Yet, everyone gets the same earnings.
and capitalism is better how? in that it is possible for the person who works hard to earn much less than the person who hardly works at all, just happens to have had money to start with. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Please explain how your system is better. Terry
I have at least done so. Terry
A: "I have what I call the minus 24 hour genie test. Imagine a genie poofed up 24 hours before you were born and asked you what kind of world you would want to live in. And you being the smart minus 24 hour baby would ask, "what's the catch?" And the genie would respond that you would have to participate in the "ovarian lottery" and draw one of 6 billion tickets. Things such as born United States or Bangladesh; white, brown, or black; male or female; smart or dumb; these would all be completely up to chance. Well then, what kind of world would you create? And my [Buffett's] world would be a society with equality that treated everyone fairly. And the Democrats seem to be better at doing that." You can't be me, I'm taken
What would work better was a balanced system that recognised the justice shortcomings of market based systems and balanced them against the need for incentives for the good of society. Redistribution is required to even make the theoretical models underlying free trade or free markets work.
Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, T. Boone Pickens, Rockfeller-I could go on. Why dont you look them up and see what these people started with. Terry
If Bill Gates ripped off somebody's software, someone would have sued him. It's not too hard to find a lawyer in the US.
Luck always helps. But let's face it, he created something from nothing. Terry
My my, you socialists are so envious of other people. If you want to tell me some soccer player makes way too much, I might go a short distance with you.
Some of you just dont like reality. People create things, produce things, provide services to make money. They do this to feed their family and buy things they want. Some do so well that they amass a lot of wealth. So what? The additional wealth creates more jobs and provide great things like that computer your typing on. The computer helps doctors, business and other industries provide better services and products. How do think that computer got in front of you? Elves didnt make it. Because of profit motive. You should probably thank these people rather than sneer at them. Terry
I live in a well functioning society where the differential between the top and bottom salaries is something of the order of 48:1. In your country it is 480:1. My well functioning society produced Nokia.
I only sneer at the people who want too much and who will trample on the rights of anyone else to get it. You can't be me, I'm taken
Most individuals want to achieve something with their lives by using the talents they have. They also have obligations, like the need to eat, the need to live somewhere and perhaps, a family to educate and take care of.
In my opinion, developing your talents to the best of your ability (ayn rand would call it "productive work") is one of the most important factors to happiness. Family, recreation, friends, love are some of the others.
48 to 1? 480 to 1? Are you saying it should be 1 to 1? 10 to 1? 5 to 1? What is fair? Who is to decide what a doctor should make and a janitor should make? Should they make equal salaries? Incomes do vary greatly in the US. The real question is what is the living standard of our poor. The answer is that the living standard of the poor is quite a bit better than most people in the world. The majority of the poor have 2 televisions, a phone, a computer, a place to live and, often, a car. That doesnt mean their life is as comfortable as say, mine. Thankfully, the US system allows for a lot of upward mobility and opportunity for those that apply themselves.
Your country may have produced Nokia. But the telephone was invented in the United States. Ironically, it was invented by a Scotsman who came to find opportunity. I wonder why he didnt stay in Europe? Terry
Thankfully, the US system allows for a lot of upward mobility and opportunity for those that apply themselves.
Unfortunately that is a myth, the US alongside the UK come at the bottom of measures of Social mobility. all of those socialist countries that you criticise come way above both of those countries. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
When I was in college, I worked at a bagel store. The store hired some Polish immigrant cheap to clean the floor. A grim task with all the fish we also sold. Within in a year, he was a baker. Two years later, he owned his own store. Terry
That's why everyone flocks here. The "myth" of opportunity and social mobility.
if you go and look at Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America (pdf warning) a report by the centre for economic performance, you'll see that you're far more likely to have a chance to improve yourself in Europe than you are in the US. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
So, it's ok for the government to take what I earn by force to give it to another person? Is that what your saying?
I work hard for what I earn. Why should my family have less just because someone thinks someone else should have more? Indeed, this is the language of socialism. That what someone makes belongs to everyone else. Society can take what you make and give it to other people. That sounds quite totalitarian to me. Terry
If you believe you have what you have solely because you worked hard for it then you are far removed from reality. Why hasn't someone stolen it all?
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 9 comments
by Oui - Sep 6
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 55 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 12 25 comments
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 52 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 39 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 170 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments
by Oui - Aug 2626 comments
by Oui - Aug 251 comment
by Oui - Aug 254 comments