NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

Or, we just saw that there were merits to both systems and that they might be combined in a manner.

"Fear" of a totalitarian communist regime or some of the expression of the far-left is not enough to dismiss the valid points of socialism/leftism, as is not "fear" of anarcho-capitalism or some of the expressions of the far-right enough to dismiss the valid points of capitalism/rightism.

Oh, and "Europe" can only be seen as "so socialised" from an American point of view. From my Scandinavian point of view, it isn't really "so socialised".

Or, we just saw that there were merits to both systems and that they might be combined in a manner.

"Fear" of a totalitarian communist regime or some of the expression of the far-left is not enough to dismiss the valid points of socialism/leftism, as is not "fear" of anarcho-capitalism or some of the expressions of the far-right enough to dismiss the valid points of capitalism/rightism.
Okay then, thx

I have no idea. It's only 14 years since the Berlin Wall fell and sometimes I think the Russkies won, not us.

Thing is, I don't actually object to a socialized system if it's run right, but outside of Scandanavia I don't see it being run right, I see debacles (Most especially here in the UK.).

Well.. at least in my country (Netherlands) the following notion seems to live:
Extreme left = communism
Extreme right = fascism

This is of course not entirely right, but the idea has taken root. Since the nazis actually occupied us they are feared more than the commies. In fact, since the Russians helped the fall of Hitlers little empire public opinion was somewhat favourable. Increased through provo, hippies and other flower power "be nice and care for eachother" social groups that got very popular in in the sixties of course.

As far as I know - but i am not that old of course - there never was any real fear of communism.

Socialism and communism are two pair of shoes anyway. Also, Western Europe was surely not united against the USSR. Switzerland and Austria were neutral and basically between the two blocks. Austria for example has been "socialist" since the beginning of the 2nd republic in 1955 and it's surely not a communist country.

And Europe hasn't just now embraced socialism. Germany had a socialist party for several decades as well. It's nothing new. Well, maybe in a country like America where people only know two political parties and where weird people like Hoover had witch hunts for communits it is pretty new.

Most of Europe had some socialism tendancies way before the cold war. I think in most country it raised with the end of monarchy. Its just that USA have a conception of rigth is good and left is wrong. You migth perceive most europeen party in power like left wing party, but in theire one country they are considered right wing.

Lets say on a scale of 10, USA is 1 (ultra capitalism) and Russia was 10 (ultra comunisme). Most of europeen party may be around 6-7. Many french wont consider Chirac as a left wing socialist. Same as in Canada, Paul Martin liberal party's is considered rigth wing by many, just not as much as the conservative.

For example, many people will preach for economical freedom, but we just can't imagine someone dying in a hospital because he dont have any medical insurance. It's cultural I guest.

Britain became socialized because of the post-war creation of the welfare state and the NHS. Granted, healthcare provision in Britain before this was appauling, but I'm not sure the right thing was done. Anyway, that's what happened in Britain. Socialists got elected and, well, acted like socialists.

EDIT: By "post-war" I am of course referring to WWII.

For example, many people will preach for economical freedom, but we just can't imagine someone dying in a hospital because he dont have any medical insurance. It's cultural I guest.

Apparently it's fine for them to die if the government are the ones who screwed it up though.

Lets say on a scale of 10, USA is 1 (ultra capitalism) and Russia was 10 (ultra comunisme). Most of europeen party may be around 6-7. Many french wont consider Chirac as a left wing socialist. Same as in Canada, Paul Martin liberal party's is considered rigth wing by many, just not as much as the conservative.


The USA is by no means "ultra capitalism". Ultra capitalism means absoultely minimal taxation and the only purposes of government to be defense (internal and external), a court system and the provision of some public land (roads and the like). The USA is just the best example of a country with capitalism implemented which actually exists.

Hoover had witch hunts for communits

The "witch hunts" are more attributable to senator McCarthy. That's where "mccarthyism (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=mccarthyism)" comes from. Mind you, that self-loathing closet case Hoover was no angel, either.

It's cultural I guest.

it's not really just a cultural thing. there are plenty of people in the us that support more socialist-minded policies. the problem is that for every one person that thinks socialist reforms would be a good idea, there are 10 people that will call that person an unamerican communist bastard that should move to cuba.

The USA is just the best example of a country with capitalism implemented which actually exists.

There are other examples in history (e.g. the republic of the Netherlands). For some reason they tend to evolve into more socialist states over time.

I'm getting a little sick of Amerikkkans always asking this question. Can't you understand that we actually CARE about other people? Thats why we introduced national healthcare, social security, state pensions, free transport, vastly improved education systems and so on. Take your so called 'freedom' (basically the 'freedom' of one capitalist scumbag to screw over some poverty stricken people in Columbia or Africa) and shove it because we don't want it here in Bold Europe.

I'm getting a little sick of Amerikkkans always asking this question. Can't you understand that we actually CARE about other people? Thats why we introduced national healthcare, social security, state pensions, free transport, vastly improved education systems and so on. Take your so called 'freedom' (basically the 'freedom' of one capitalist scumbag to screw over some poverty stricken people in Columbia or Africa) and shove it because we don't want it here in Bold Europe.

Oh, yes, please, give the rest of us Europeans a bad reputation. :rolleyes:

(Please, don't feed it!)

In the Netherlands the left-wing political party's and large part of the media try to give the term "right-wing" a sinister meaning, taking advantage on the memory of the Nazi-occupation.

Whilst doing that they forget that the communists have commited as many, if not more, cruelties as the Nazi's.

Luckily the Dutch aren't so stupid to fall for those dirty political games, since we have a Parliament with a right-wing majority.

Oh, yes, please, give the rest of us Europeans a bad reputation. :rolleyes:

(Please, don't feed it!)

Sorry my friend but I am stating fact, we don't see the idea of some rich scumbag screwing over people while the poor rot in little more than shanty towns without even basic healthcare as the prime example of 'freedom' here in Europe.

Sorry my friend but I am stating fact, we don't see the idea of some rich scumbag screwing over people while the poor rot in little more than shanty towns without even basic healthcare as the prime example of 'freedom' here in Europe.

You, sir, are no friend of mine.

/off to report for trolling, if it hasn't already been done.

The USA is by no means "ultra capitalism". Ultra capitalism means absoultely minimal taxation and the only purposes of government to be defense (internal and external), a court system and the provision of some public land (roads and the like). The USA is just the best example of a country with capitalism implemented which actually exists.

ultra-capitalism means that the wageslaves pay all the taxes and the corporations don't, but get tax overpayment back even though they didn't pay any taxes at all. And the only purpose of the guvmint is to make sure that nobbody slips up.

Sorry my friend but I am stating fact, we don't see the idea of some rich scumbag screwing over people while the poor rot in little more than shanty towns without even basic healthcare as the prime example of 'freedom' here in Europe.As if social rights are solely the terrain of the left-wing groups.

We in the Netherlands hate the poor condition of many in the USA. Our right-wing however has much better ideas about a lasting affordable social security-system than our left-wing.

This is what I mean, left-wing people take a bad example of a right-wing political group and generalize that to the whole right wing.

As if social rights are solely the terrain of the left-wing groups.

We in the Netherlands hate the poor condition of many in the USA. Our right-wing however has much better ideas about a lasting affordable social security-system than our left-wing.

This is what I mean, left-wing people take a bad example of a right-wing political group and generalize that to the whole right wing.

You're making a mistake, the mistake is that you are equating the Netherlands right with the American Right. The European Spectrum is much furhter to the left than the American Spectrum (one of the most polarized in the World).

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

The U.S.S.R was never socialist or communist it just said it was to try and give a regime some sort of credibility. it was just totalitarianism plain and simple. It may of had some slightly left learning polices, such as free housing, but not by any stretch of the imagine was it socialist.

Modern china calls it self socialist, go there as i have and tell me its socialist.

Look at the democratic republic of Korea, aka north Korea, is it democratic republic, sure isunt.

Modern Europe socialism, is all about big government, but big civil liberties and equality.

You're making a mistake, the mistake is that you are equating the Netherlands right with the American Right. The European Spectrum is much furhter to the left than the American Spectrum (one of the most polarized in the World).
people have got the whole right left thing completely bastardised.

Right
Order and Security
(as it comes from the 1st and 2nd estate in the French revolution, the aristocrats and the church, sat right of the king)

Left
Liberty and Equality
(as it comes from the 3rd estate, the people representing the middle class, who sat left of the king)

Its really that simple, that’s what it means, I don’t care what i means now, those interpretations are wrong.

You're making a mistake, the mistake is that you are equating the Netherlands right with the American Right. The European Spectrum is much furhter to the left than the American Spectrum (one of the most polarized in the World).So you mean in that context I am left-wing? NOOOOOOOOOO!! The Shame!!!

(The original statement that in the Netherlands left is using the memory of WW2 for political gain against right still stands though.)

Amerikkkans
Ahh you're not new, I've seen you before, I'm guessing you got deleted but I forget who you where.

Sorry my friend but I am stating fact, we don't see the idea of some rich scumbag screwing over people while the poor rot in little more than shanty towns without even basic healthcare as the prime example of 'freedom' here in Europe.
Errr...
Something like 9/10 poor people in the US own a color TV, microwave, refrigerator and some means of motorized transportation.
My family qualifies as 'lower middle class', and we live in a bloody huge house, which, while not of the highest quality construction has not yet collpased and killed us all, and have two cars.
Our healthcare is just fine, we have this thing called 'insurance' that basicaly pays it for us. No offence to Europeans, but I personaly think that fully socialized healthcare is a terrible idea, most of the socialized healthcare Ive seen is just bad, with malpractice suits everywhere against underpaid doctors who barely graduated medical school.

Errr...
Something like 9/10 poor people in the US own a color TV, microwave, refrigerator and some means of motorized transportation.
My family qualifies as 'lower middle class', and we live in a bloody huge house, which, while not of the highest quality construction has not yet collpased and killed us all, and have two cars.
Our healthcare is just fine, we have this thing called 'insurance' that basicaly pays it for us. No offence to Europeans, but I personaly think that fully socialized healthcare is a terrible idea, most of the socialized healthcare Ive seen is just bad, with malpractice suits everywhere against underpaid doctors who barely graduated medical school.

Actually your own social Healthcare programmes are some of the most inefficient in the World, mostly because 90% of the time they are handled Privately, The US spends more proportionally to GDP than any other country on healthcare yet has a the highest proportion of population without healthcare in the Industrialized World, similarly the same when concerning poverty. The UN described a few years back that certain inner city areas and countryside areas (in the rust belt) in the US where of equivocal living standards to areas in the Third World.

Actually your own social Healthcare programmes are some of the most inefficient in the World, mostly because 90% of the time they are handled Privately, The US spends more proportionally to GDP than any other country on healthcare yet has a the highest proportion of population without healthcare in the Industrialized World, similarly the same when concerning poverty. The UN described a few years back that certain inner city areas and countryside areas (in the rust belt) in the US where of equivocal living standards to areas in the Third World.
Exactly, it doesnt work.

Anyway, there was another study somewhere (CNN about five years ago, I think) saying that almost all homless and poor persons were perfectly capable of, say, getting a job.
That may not be true now, but I imagine alot of the non-crazy homless guys out there would be welcomed at a number of jobs that, while low-paying no doubt, provide enough money to rent a decent apartment and buy three middling sized meals per day.

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?
Note to ignorant Americans:

EUROPE IS MORE CAPITALIST AND LESS SOCIALIST NOW THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR 2.

The only reason you think Europe is "socialized" is because Europe has started criticizing the US government since the end of the Cold War, and, as far as American right-wing media is concerned, anyone who doesn't support Bush is a socialist.

Of course, Europe is more socialist than the USA, but all the socialist elements in European economies were introduced before 1980. You didn't seem to notice them back then, because we were such close allies.

You have to put things in some kind of historical perspective. Look at the histroy of capitalism in Western Europe, and how it evolved out of the Feudal system. When the industrial revolution started in the UK, the world was essentially Feudal, which meant that the concept of individual rights, fair treatment of the workforce etc. did not exist. This led to an ultracapitalist society in the UK, at least, for a hundered years or more. Workers were disposable assets. If one died, you hired another. Health and safety were costs to be avoided and so on. There were exceptions to this, few and far between, but it was from these exceptions that the notion of socialism arose to start with.

Socialism is native to Western Europe, it is its homeland. The USA did not become industrialized until after the evolution of social concerns, and as such never went through the hell of a pseudo feudal industrial society.

The impulse toward welfare statism exoisted prior to the First World War, prior to the Bolshevik revolution. Between the wars, there was a primary concern of rebuilding the infrastructure and economy of nations that had lost significant numbers of their male population, that had large numbers of widowed mothers etc. This is something that did not hapen in the USA. In terms of man power loss, the USA came out of WWI very lightly compared to Western Europe. These factors promoted welfarism even further.

Then WWII. Hitler's Germany was extremely right wing. Hitler's Germany was identified after the war in Europe as being evil. Communist Russia was not too good, but it was not the evil to the countries that had been overrun that Nazi Germany had been. After all, it had been an ally against the Axis forces. There were stronger emotional reasons to avoid going to the right than there were to avoiud going to the left. The trend toward the left had already been established by prior historical events, hence the development of demoicratic socialism in most of Western Europe.

Additionally we had no McCarthy type paranoia of communism. Communism in Russia was seen as a reaction to an overly oppressive and antiquated feudal monarchy wherin all power had rested in the hands of very few absolute lords. We trusted in our democracies to protect us from such events. Apparently some in the USA did not trust in their democracy.

Sumarising: Historical factors pushed Europe to the left, Naziism pushed again. Communist revolution was not seen as a threat to democratic societies.

Now I am curious as to why it was seen as such a threat in the USA.

Of course, Europe is more socialist than the USA, but all the socialist elements in European economies were introduced before 1980. You didn't seem to notice them back then, because we were such close allies.

It's interesting that the German Empire was the first to institute state run social security, some 60 years before the USA.

However, the only major downside to heavy amounts of social spending is that the slow the economy to a crawl or stagnation.

It's interesting that the German Empire was the first to institute state run social security, some 60 years before the USA.

However, the only major downside to heavy amounts of social spending is that the slow the economy to a crawl or stagnation.

All large economies slow down, you can't expect an economy of the size of Germany's (the heart of Europe) to have 10% growth rates.

So you mean in that context I am left-wing? NOOOOOOOOOO!! The Shame!!!
There's no shame in being left-wing by American standards (there's no shame in it by European standards either), in fact several European Far Right parties would be considered left-wing in the US.

In my own country (Belgium) for example the right-wing parties have points of view on social security, national healthcare, civil rights, etc. that would be considered Far Left by American standards.

There's no shame in being left-wing by American standards (there's no shame in it by European standards either), in fact several European Far Right parties would be considered left-wing in the US.

In my own country (Belgium) for example the right-wing parties have points of view on social security, national healthcare, civil rights, etc. that would be considered Far Left by American standards.
True. Then again, almost everyone in the non-American Western world would be considered Far Left by American standards.

Just like America is Far Right by our standards.

True. Then again, almost everyone in the non-American Western world would be considered Far Left by American standards.

Just like America is Far Right by our standards.

It's so polarized, I hated John Kerry as much as I hated Bush. Both of them were rich elites with no regard for any kind of meaningful reform.

The real irony in all of this is that by absolute standards the US position as a free market capitalist nation is fairly dodgy, to say the least.

Tax rates in the United States are actually surprisingly high, there are many trade barriers (particularly in agriculture), and federal government subsidies to industry etc (for example the $15b air transport stabilisation bill, or continued local government incentives for large companies to base themselves in their localities) are frequent.

To find a real capitalist/free market economy you really need to look at countries like Hong Kong or New Zealand, where trade barriers and government subsidies barely exist.

It's so polarized, I hated John Kerry as much as I hated Bush. Both of them were rich elites with no regard for any kind of meaningful reform.

we're so lucky to be European ...

we're so lucky to be European ...

Indeed.

It's so polarized, I hated John Kerry as much as I hated Bush. Both of them were rich elites with no regard for any kind of meaningful reform.
The supporters of Bush and Kerry were polarized, but the candidates themselves weren't. Kerry was center-right even by American standards...

The real irony in all of this is that by absolute standards the US position as a free market capitalist nation is fairly dodgy, to say the least.
Free market capitalism is like communism: You'll rarely find a pure example of it.

Tax rates in the United States are actually surprisingly high
Actually they're the lowest in the Western world. The only countries with lower taxes than the USA are either city-states (Hong Kong, Monaco), or very poor countries.

The supporters of Bush and Kerry were polarized, but the candidates themselves weren't. Kerry was center-right even by American standards...

Oh I don't doubt it. I feel so sorry for Americans, Kerry was apparently 'way out on the left bank' (according to that stupid redkneck texan). I mean, the only person with real credibility is Nader.

Actually they're the lowest in the Western world. The only countries with lower taxes than the USA are either city-states (Hong Kong, Monaco), or very poor countries.

Ah, but it is high by American standards. The general reaction an American has when I tell them of our tax rates is "Arrgh!", then they fall to the ground clutching at their chests. CPR usually has to follow. =/

Oh I don't doubt it. I feel so sorry for Americans, Kerry was apparently 'way out on the left bank' (according to that stupid redkneck texan). I mean, the only person with real credibility is Nader.

Hah, that self-serving nut? No, the person with credibility was Badnarik, and having never seen him that's only because of being the LP candidate.

I'm getting a little sick of Amerikkkans always asking this question. Can't you understand that we actually CARE about other people? Thats why we introduced national healthcare, social security, state pensions, free transport, vastly improved education systems and so on. Take your so called 'freedom' (basically the 'freedom' of one capitalist scumbag to screw over some poverty stricken people in Columbia or Africa) and shove it because we don't want it here in Bold Europe.
Wow, thank you for enforcing the sterotype of the ignorant European

Hah, that self-serving nut? No, the person with credibility was Badnarik, and having never seen him that's only because of being the LP candidate.

Actually the American idea of Libertarianism is pretty despicable, Libertarianism was traditionally used to differentiate coercive Statist forms (authoritarian) of socialism from cooperative anarchist forms (libertarian). It was then Adopted by the right-wing in the early 1900s to describe an extremist capitalist philosophy, who now try claim to have exclusive use of the term and ignore its roots.

Wow, thank you for enforcing the sterotype of the ignorant European

I assure you, there are far more ignorant Americans than ignorant Europeans, thus the stereotype of the ignorant American.

I assure you, there are far more ignorant Americans than ignorant Europeans, thus the stereotype of the ignorant American.
The first step to knowledge is realizing you are ignorant - I admitted my ignorance in the first post and then you start with your AmeriKKKans bullshit.\

I have seen surveys carried out by accounting firms on income taxes in various countries, and I'm sorry to tell you that at least on reasonably high incomes (say 50 000+), the US is actually high tax nation. It actually more or less stands to reason - all of that military funding, the loss making postal service, the massively complex tax system etcetera all have to be paid for somewhere.

Of course those comparisons would be based on an average spending pattern to take deductions and so on into account, but you might be surprised to see exactly how high tax rates really are.

(Incidentally this sort of situation is very common - smaller countries will carry out benchmarking studies on how other countries carry out public policy, and then choose a preferred option - whereas it's extremely hard to imagine someone in the US Senate or Congress saying 'the system they use in Canada (let alone Singapore) is fantastic, let's copy it.)

Because the united states is a modern industrial nation where money is the most important thing.

Europe is older and has more values and is more conservative, unfortunately I fear that Europe is leaning towards the American system it will be a great loss

I'm getting a little sick of Amerikkkans always asking this question. Can't you understand that we actually CARE about other people? Thats why we introduced national healthcare, social security, state pensions, free transport, vastly improved education systems and so on. Take your so called 'freedom' (basically the 'freedom' of one capitalist scumbag to screw over some poverty stricken people in Columbia or Africa) and shove it because we don't want it here in Bold Europe.


Thats a laugh.

You can put labels on whatever you like, but the fact is that the bottom benefit from a smaller share of a quicker growing pie than they do from a larger share of a smaller growing pie.

Europeans have taken the easy road politically. You guys are paying for it now though. Have fun, enjoy. Explain to me why systemic double digit unemployment is "we actually care for other people" . Oh, and BTW: American secondary education is considered best in the world. And we give free rides to many foreigners(and locals). The Uk wouldnt allow my cousin to get his CA there, he got a free tide in a Us school and went there instead. He is Indian, and techincally should have pretty free access to the UKs education system, given that he was living there with family.

Yeah, bang up job your free education did for him.

Oh, BTW, did you know that the US reserves 5%(this isnt exactly a hard and fast rule) of organ transplant for foreigners, whether legal or illegal. This is even stupid to mention, because hospitals cant even ask whether a patient is in the country legally or not.

Oh, Boo Hoo the mean capitalists who only care about money. I mean, the fact that the hospitals serve everybody regardless of the means to pay(or even if they are in the country legally) makes them so evil.

get a clue, grow up, travel a little before you whine.

All large economies slow down, you can't expect an economy of the size of Germany's (the heart of Europe) to have 10% growth rates.

Correct.

But over 2% would be nice.

And if u guys could do under double digit unemployment(for the last decade) it would be nice too.

And maybe if you could conform to EU starndardsof deficit vs GDP that would be an added bonus.

I mean really, you guys cant have any reasonable fiscal policy AND you dont have to worry much about military spending??? WTF are you(Germans) doing??

Here's data from the OECD: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/28/34545117.pdf

Lower tax/social security burden than the USA:

Czech Republic, Luxembourg (also higher GDP/capita if I recall rightly), Slovakia, New Zealand, Spain, Japan, Greece, Portugal, Ireland (that one's richer per capita too), Korea, Mexico.

I'm not too sure about Eastern Europe, but Luxembourg, Switzerland, Japan, Ireland and Korea all have broadly similar standards of living to the USA. (Incidentally with regards to the education comment, *graduate school* education in the USA is considered the best, but at other levels the USA is not usually considered by universities worldwide as worth learning from.

As to the argument about 'better to have a small share of a quickly growing pie', research has shown that the poorest (I believe 10%) of workers in the United States have actually got poorer (i.e. less buying power) over the last 20 years, although inflation has pushed up the actual number of dollars they receive. It's seen as a major challenge for the future that work available to unskilled workers is reducing more and more quickly over time.

So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?
It has nothing to do with fear of the USSR. Our governments, who are not as ideologically driven as American governments, just saw what needed to be done and did it in a practical manner. The fact that some policies came from socialism is coincidental.

because socialism isnt evil

It's also rather cultural. People in Europe have a more community spirit than the individualism that prevails in American culture. The US Consitution for example protects both personal and economic freedom.

It's also rather cultural. People in Europe have a more community spirit than the individualism that prevails in American culture. The US Consitution for example protects both personal and economic freedom.

How do I get myself on the political compass? I have my scores somewhere I think. I remember scoring almost exactly as Milton Friedman. So that would make me in the top right part of the bottom right hand quadrent. lets see if I can find those scores.

Oh, and BTW: American secondary education is considered best in the world.
hahaha, you're making this one up aren't you? US students routinely come below #10 in rankings of the academic performance of students in OECD countries in almost all subjects.

How do I get myself on the political compass? I have my scores somewhere I think. I remember scoring almost exactly as Milton Friedman. So that would make me in the top right part of the bottom right hand quadrent. lets see if I can find those scores.
Just tell me your score and I'll put it on.

To be fair only Germany has double digit unemployment, and that’s entirely down to the nock on effects of the reunifications, aka east Germany is vastly dragging the rest of Germany down.

As for France, there trade unions are wayyyyy to powerful, they just strike for whatever reason, and powerful trade unions naturally force unemployment up but the living standard in Germany and France, is still very very high so it compensates.

As for Britain, we have hardly any unemployment, hell it probably haunt been lower since the industrial revolution, bar frictional unemployment (people in-between jobs, which as always about a million at any given time.) there are probably less then 500,000 people unemployed. that’s absolutely amazing.

The British economy has literally been the slow but incredibly steady grower for the past what is it 7 sevens years since Gordon brown became chancellor.

Hell the guy was a Trotskyite in collage, and look at our economy, in relative terms the only economy in the world with more sustained growth than the U.k is china (and for various reasons that’s going to go pop i think soon)

you see unlike strict capitalist boom and bust economics, true socialist economics is a slow and steady and most importantly maintainable level of growth.

Look at the American economy, the only thing propping it up is colossal military spending (I don’t mean to sound like European communism but its true) and that’s causing your government since Regan to run a phenomenal current account deficit.

Not a good thing.

So no more economic arguments against the European socialist countries

Okie?

The British economy has literally been the slow but incredibly steady grower for the past what is it 7 sevens years since Gordon brown became chancellor.

Hell the guy was a Trotskyite in collage, and look at our economy, in relative terms the only economy in the world with more sustained growth than the U.k is china (and for various reasons that’s going to go pop i think soon)

you see unlike strict capitalist boom and bust economics, true socialist economics is a slow and steady and most importantly maintainable level of growth.

So no more economic arguments against the European socialist countries

Okie?

This would be a fine argument if Gordon Brown had actually been following socialist economic policies. The argument fails quite badly though as New Labour actually has nothing to do with socialism at all. After nearly twenty years in opposition, Labour decided that a socialist party simply would never gain power in the UK. As the head honchos and directors of the party considered power to be more important than principle, they shifted policy. If you look at Tony Blair's political compass results, he is a conservative, or at least should be by the policies he has adopted.

Sorry, good try, but it is no defense against the economic weaknesses of the left wing position as New Labour are not left wing.

It's far more a question of how the US ended up without any socialist parties. The Democrats are considerably to the right of most European parties, and the Rep's are over the horizon and coming up behind.

I like to think that this is because Europe went through years and years of totalitarian Monarchies, and when the revolutions started happening and people started losing heads we decided it made sense to look after the people at the bottom of the heap too. The US never had this kind of social revamp. After the War of independence, the government system, and indeed the social ideals, were pretty much lifted from Britain's and then had a few words changed. The US civil war was more about enforcing them hegemony of Washington over the other states, and indeed was completely unconstitutional, but it wasn't about wealth redistribution or social equality in the way Europe's were. In the US, white men were never serfs.

Communism was pretty thoroughly demonised throughout Europe in the early 1900s, and it was felt the best way to avoid communist revolution would be to sort out the antiquated class divisions and try and put everyone on a more equal pegging. This kept communist parties from gaining too much support, as people were happy enough to accept the worker's rights and suchlike, without having to give away all their pay for equal distribution.

In the US, however, communist immigrants were blocked pretty thoroughly from entering. Any form of left-wing ideal espoused after 1945 put you down as a potential commie sympathizer. It became political suicide to suggest, for instance, free healthcare. The US population has always been rather paranoid and selfish compared to most, but the cold war lead to massive growth in these characteristics, much as in the USSR American values like freedom of speech and the free market became the very empitome of decadent pro-capitalist pigdogs, and had to be avoided at any cost. Ideological distancing is inevitable in any war.

Of course, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, there's no need for left-wing politics to be considered evil any more. Hence the horrific political divide in the US now; you've finally got the equivalent of the conditions which led to the decline of Europe's monarchs and the rise of European democracies. Hopefully the US will be able to set up it's own leftist parties without the violence and bloodshed of, say, France; imagine a present day Napoleon with the atom bomb...

hahaha, you're making this one up aren't you? US students routinely come below #10 in rankings of the academic performance of students in OECD countries in almost all subjects.

Which part of secondary did you not understand?

Just tell me your score and I'll put it on.

Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

thanx

Oh, and BTW: American secondary education is considered best in the world.

By whom ? And by what standards ? From what I see of US students coming to study in Europe is that it varies wildly where their secondary education took place. It does on average seem to be better than the extremely socialised German system, but less than the Dutch.

Of course the Dutch have different types of secondary education for differently talented groups. Not all diplomas give access to universities, though someone for whom the highest level of secondary education is too hard to do at once can take a longer route and end up at college if they persevere. So comparing is not easy. Which is why I want your source ;)

I don't believe most Europeans ever feared Socialism. We feared Totalitarianism from either side. It was the Americans who were paranoid about Communism, much as they are now paranoid about Islamism, because their politicians told them to be. American politics began relying on the Politics of Fear decades before European politics lowered itself to the same level.

In Europe we have seen the excesses of the Right and the Left and chosen the middle path, with minor variations to either side, while America has always chosen the path to the Right.

I think this is what is the basis to the cultural difference between "Europe" ( with not just 1 culture, but a good 2-3 dozen) and USA (still with many cultures as well, I hope).

Europeans have a tendency to see more than one alternative to socialist reforms, whereas Americans only state one: Move to Cuba.



it's not really just a cultural thing. there are plenty of people in the us that support more socialist-minded policies. the problem is that for every one person that thinks socialist reforms would be a good idea, there are 10 people that will call that person an unamerican communist bastard that should move to cuba.

By whom ? And by what standards ? From what I see of US students coming to study in Europe is that it varies wildly where their secondary education took place. It does on average seem to be better than the extremely socialised German system, but less than the Dutch.

Of course the Dutch have different types of secondary education for differently talented groups. Not all diplomas give access to universities, though someone for whom the highest level of secondary education is too hard to do at once can take a longer route and end up at college if they persevere. So comparing is not easy. Which is why I want your source ;)


I dont follow. Secondary education is colleges and post grad doctorates ect.

Primary education(k-12) sucks in the US, But our colleges and further education cannot be beaten, at best it can be matched.

Keep in mind, things like this(secondary education) are mostly a function 1)available resources and 2)proper allocation of said resources.

Let me illustrate the point I am trying to make.. I would bet on an average Indian IIT student over your average US IVY league student. But this has nothing to do with the level of education you get in India/how good the system is or is not. It has to do with the few hundred/thousand seats available in IITs(countrywide) vs the billion odd people in India fighting for those seats(yes, the entire population isnt fighting for those seats but I only know the population figure, so extrapolate the real number for yourself). The only people that get into IITs are the freaking geniuses, they are gonna learn regardless of what resources they are given(which is actually crap resources, cause the govt has no money and IITs are govt run)

On the other hand, I wouldnt pay an average Indian MBA 1/100th of an average American MBA. I am unsure if the average Indian MBA can do basic math(not joking at all, I have interviewed mbas here who cant do basic math, they can spit out a formula, but have no idea what it means or how to apply it). Seriously, I am Indian and I say this.

This has everything to do with the system and the resources. Proper resources and standards and motivation sets are what makes American secondary education great. We dont have as many "career " students in the US as there are in Germany of France. Education costs, and the students want to get something out it vs just passing time.

There are many great European universities, I am not begrudging them. Getting a degree from Oxford or LSE carries serious weight. But, because we are not socialised in regards to education, because we have more resources and because we can allocate those resources to people who actually want to learn vs those who spend decades simply getting degrees for no other purpose than simply getting degrees, we have a better more world renowned system.

I would bet on your average American college student vs your average european equivilent. Hands down, its a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

Primary education(k-12) sucks in the US, But our colleges and further education cannot be beaten, at best it can be matched.

I would bet on your average American college student vs your average european equivilent. Hands down, its a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

Those are arrogant statements. I guess you also think America is the best country to live in, errrr? If the U.S. do have a good education system, they wouldn't be attracting highly educated foreignors from Europe to work in the U.S.

Socialism aint bad. In fact... marx had a real good idea... but this idea won't ever work with mankind. there will always be some who have plenty and some who have none...

So, the best you can do is manage to have both sides of the coin. Try to give the best of socialism to the people as well as giving the best of capitalism to them...

best thing for capitalism are people who can afford to buy - what means: you have to give to a lot of people the chance to earn - and of course you need people who are able to work - what means: you have to assure, that they stay healthy.

that's what many european countries tried to do... the problem is, that thos stupid politicans don't get the fact, that you can't earn wages if people have nothing... they spend all the mony in military causes, give them to those woh already have enoug and forget that you have to care for the base... the people... 'cuz where's the sense in getting cheaper workers, if all those people you want to sell your stuff to have no money to buy? that's the problem at the moment.


but returning to the question which got first here...
many were afraid of the atombomb... not the socialism... we didn't fear equality... we were afraid of the military powers. and since wie found out, that those powers still are, but are now in the hands of crazy beeings... we rather embrace them and calm them that way, than to live in fear again. the best way to lessen your enemy... is to raise friends... you know ;-)

I went to secondary school in the US, Spain, and France.

The US education was by far the most practical one. I found it much more enjoyable than being in the Spanish or French school systems.
That said, the standard in the US was pathetic. The first year I was there I got 4.0 without even speaking English, and when I eventually got back to Europe I flunked all subjects for several months.
The reason is that European education is mainly university-oriented. If you don't plan on going to University, there are alternatives to the mainstream school system (UK colleges, Spanish FP, etc.)
American education is oriented at creating the future workforce. There's nothing wrong about that, it's just a different point of view. In fact, the European stance is somewhat demagogical. For example, Spain doesn't need hundreds of new aeronautical engineers every year, yet the State must assure everyone access to any degree they want, provided they are clever enough. The result: the average time to complete your degree there is 8 or 9 years.

However, the ones that make it through University amply surpass their American counterparts. When you get to postgraduate education, American Universities are full of foreigners, and not only students. In my field of research, all the big names are in America. But none of them were educated there. The US system works, so they have the money to buy in talent. It's always been like that...

I dont follow. Secondary education is colleges and post grad doctorates ect.

Ah - not here.
Primary: Learn to read, write, simple mathematics etc. The basic stuff.
Secondary: Learn more advanced things like integral math, biology, languages and preparing for either a job or a university education
Third level: universities and college (which to increase confusion is called a highschool here).

EDIT: lets do the Dutch system in more detail: < 3 pre-kindergarten. Making nice paper animals. Singing. You get the idea.
3-6 kindergarten. Simple words. Count to ten. Social skills
6-12 primary school. Simple Math, including fractions, square roots etc. Basic geography and history. Dutch and English tuition, gymnastics, music.
12- 16 or 18: secondary school. Depending on the aptidue shown in your previous school career this focusses on getting you a job or for university. There are several types, but roughly 3 levels: VMBO: lowest level; takes 4 years. Schools that educate for a profession (mechanic, carpenter, cook etc) often recruit at this level .
HAVO: prepares for college. They get a more advanced program and take 5 years.
VWO: prepares for Uni. Take 6 years, hardest program and can get Latin and Greek.When one finishes a lower level you can "step up" into a higher level. So even someone who did not seemed capable of reaching a university can reach it eventually if they persevere.
18+ uni or college. An artificial distinction; college is said to focus on the practical side (training for a high level job), university on the theoretical (training for a scientist).

All these ages are guidelines of course.

It is my experience that the American universities vary too greatly to make a fair comparison with the Dutch, which are all on par. On average I'd say the American level is lower, but something like MIT beats us - if only due to the budget they have.

On the other hand, I wouldnt pay an average Indian MBA 1/100th of an average American MBA.

That is wise. In fact, I would go further: I wouldn't pay an average MBA 1/100th of what I would pay a graduate of any discipline with relevant experience.

The definition of primary and secondary education is exactly the same in the US as in Europe.

Those are arrogant statements. I guess you also think America is the best country to live in, errrr? If the U.S. do have a good education system, they wouldn't be attracting highly educated foreignors from Europe to work in the U.S.

Whats arrogant about that statement?

And yes, I think that if you arent rich then America is by far the best place to live in. If you are rich then countries like India/Pakistan and some middle Eastern countries are far better.

I would rather be poor in America than middle class in Europe. My quality of life(eg stuff I have(food cars gas ect)) is going to be much better. And then add in that it is much easier in the Us to climb up the social ladder than it is in Europe and it is a no brainer. Unless of course you are reffering to those people who will find any excuse to not be productive. For them, Europe is far better.

Oh, do you know why America has consistantly attracted the best and brightest from around the globe? Because we reward these people for their skills and talents and hard work. We reward ability and effort in the USA, unlike more socialist countries.

If you are smart or hard working or have a skill, the place that is going to reward you the most is America.

If you want plush working conditions and dont care about performance/effectiveness and want 2 months of vacation a year...well, you know where you can go

Oh, do you know why America has consistantly attracted the best and brightest from around the globe? Because we reward these people for their skills and talents and hard work. We reward ability and effort in the USA, unlike more socialist countries.

During the cold war the Soviet union had better scientists. The rest of their society was pretty fucked up though.

I would rather be poor in America than middle class in Europe. My quality of life(eg stuff I have(food cars gas ect)) is going to be much better.

Eeehm.. no. REALLY no.

It is my experience that the American universities vary too greatly to make a fair comparison with the Dutch, which are all on par. On average I'd say the American level is lower, but something like MIT beats us - if only due to the budget they have.
I concurr. And it would be a mistake to have Americans believe that there is such a thing as an "American" education and a "European" education. Even with the Bologna-delaration in place, the educational capacities differ greatly not just between countries, but especially between cultures (of people and of economics, do NOT underestimate this fact). There is great difference between our Belgian higher education system and the Dutch system, although our two fairly small nations together will fit in the city of New York. And between, for instance, the universities of Leiden (Dutch) and Antwerp (Belgium), there is a general difference of infrastrcutural and pratical operation, and even internally in Antwerp (my own alma mater) there is great difference between the applied economics faculty (otherwise known as: the ultra-liberal greedy bastards) and our very own faculty of arts (otherwise known as: the people who really know what is best, but are sadly lacking in handsomness to ever be allowed to speak out in public in our ever more so becoming superficial society) ;).
I know people who have studied in the US (one in Columbia, one in Kalamazoo, and on in Cornell) - two of them are "sans occupation" at the moment, because their degree does not confer with what they actually can do, and what their employers want them to do. The third one has a great job, not because she is very intelligent, but because she knows a lot of people that can vouch for her. HOW she got to know those people, I couldn't say. All I know is, she ain't got more that a few dimes in her head. Everything she IS good at, has been thought her in our very own Belgium high-schools. No MBA ever changed her - except she "finally understands the value of money now", as she so eloquently put it. (<= insert sarcasm here)
Don't think this post cleared anything up, but hey - I never miss out on an opportunity to crap on the economics-guys ;)

I would rather be poor in America than middle class in Europe. My quality of life(eg stuff I have(food cars gas ect)) is going to be much better.

O tempora, o mores!

That is human nature: we measure our quality of life by the number of cars in the garage. Even if it means oppressing other people to get gas to run them...

Do you even know what the poor in America live like? I used to help in a soup kitchen when I was in the States, and believe me: you don't want to be poor in America.

Oh, do you know why America has consistantly attracted the best and brightest from around the globe? Because we reward these people for their skills and talents and hard work. We reward ability and effort in the USA, unlike more socialist countries.

To clarify, this statement needs one extra point: "We reward ability and effort IN ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE MATTERS in the USA, unlike more socialist countries." Sadly, this edited statement is true, I believe. If you're a scientist who has discovered something that could be potentially turned into a great profit, then the US are the first on your doorstep to offer you money or a scholarship. In Europe, there is (or at least: there used to be) more of a debate if society actually benefits from said invention. Nowadays, funding is more in sync with the US; high rewards for innovations with commercial use, no or lower funding for socially beneficial (or more longterm oriented) research, for instance in the field of anthropology or sociology. I, for one, do not find this a turn for the better.

"We reward ability and effort IN ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE MATTERS in the USA, unlike more socialist countries." Absolutely true.

To clarify, this statement needs one extra point: "We reward ability and effort IN ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE MATTERS in the USA, unlike more socialist countries." Sadly, this edited statement is true, I believe. If you're a scientist who has discovered something that could be potentially turned into a great profit, than the US are the first on your doorstep to offer you money or a scholarship. In Europe, there is (or at least: there used to be) more of a debate if society actually benefits from said invention. Nowadays, funding is more in sync with the US; high rewards for innovations with commercial use, no or lower funding for socially beneficial (or more longterm oriented) research, for instance in the field of anthropology or sociology. I, for one, do not find this a turn for the better.
That is so true. It explains why one of our lecturers left to go head a biotech company in the US. :rolleyes:

During the cold war the Soviet union had better scientists. The rest of their society was pretty fucked up though.

People are people, I make no judgement as to what particular race is better or worse. Perhaps there are differances, but this is mitigated by the system they operate under.

And no, the USSR didnt have better scientists, they had better spies.

But even this doesnt matter because they could not ultimately properly utilize/allocate/expand the resources they had.


Eeehm.. no. REALLY no.


Whatever, believe however you want to believe. Doesnt impact my life. Pay 4 times the cost per mile driven to go shop at a store because of taxes, pay much more as a percentage of income for food and electicity than we do here.

Whaever makes you happy. Ive been to Europe when the dollar was strong and when it was weak. I spent a week with a family that is "middle class" there(Germany)(2 worked for Luftanasa). I wouldnt trade their life styles for mine unless you put a gun to my head. They lived fine, but everything was very controlled/budgeted(food travel ect).

Food in the US is basically free if you want to go the supermarket and prepare it yourself. It isnt an expense. We have beaten thousands of years of history here. I cringe at food prices in Europe. US restaurants are cheaper than Europes supermarket prices. This doesnt affect the rich, it affects the middle class and poor.

If you want to keep thinking that Europe is better off..more power to you, less competition for me......Then again I am in India now so this is a moot argument.

Whaever makes you happy. Ive been to Europe when the dollar was strong and when it was weak. I spent a week with a family that is "middle class" there(Germany)(2 worked for Luftanasa). I wouldnt trade their life styles for mine unless you put a gun to my head. They lived fine, but everything was very controlled/budgeted(food travel ect).

Food in the US is basically free if you want to go the supermarket and prepare it yourself. It isnt an expense. We have beaten thousands of years of history here. I cringe at food prices in Europe. US restaurants are cheaper than Europes supermarket prices. This doesnt affect the rich, it affects the middle class and poor.

This is true, I've heard it from some of my American colleagues. But, on the other hand: here in Europe, there are other things that are cheaper than in the US - education (even on high levels), health-care, etc. And although taxes might seem "punitive" to you, the middle-class and the poor get the most return on their taxes, seeing as how certain things are cheaper for people below a certain income level, there is support in certain areas (like education, healthcare) which is also based on income level, etc. Buying and owning stuff isn't all to life, you know...

And no, the USSR didnt have better scientists, they had better spies.



Please, don't embarrass yourself. Russia had better scientists than the US. And so did Germany.


Whatever, believe however you want to believe. Doesnt impact my life. Pay 4 times the cost per mile driven to go shop at a store because of taxes, pay much more as a percentage of income for food and electicity than we do here.

Well... in Europe you don't have to drive miles and miles to go to a shop. But can't you see why it is so cheap there? Please...



Ive been to Europe when the dollar was strong and when it was weak. I spent a weak with a family that is "middle class" there(Germany). I wouldnt trade their life styles for mine unless you put a gun to my head. They lived fine, but everything was very controlled/budgeted(food travel ect).

I thought you said the poor in America had higher living standards than middle-class Europeans. Are you poor? I don't get it.


Food in the US is basically free if you want to go the supermarket and prepare it yourself. It isnt an expense. We have beaten thousands of years of history here. I cringe at food prices in Europe. US restaurants are cheaper than Europes supermarket prices. This doesnt affect the rich, it affects the middle class and poor.

I never saw a poor person at Red Lobster. And again, this goes back to the origin of that low cost base. As long has the US has control of the world's energy resources, I can't argue with you. The US economy will be the strongest.

Whatever, believe however you want to believe. Doesnt impact my life. Pay 4 times the cost per mile driven to go shop at a store because of taxes, pay much more as a percentage of income for food and electicity than we do here.

Whaever makes you happy. Ive been to Europe when the dollar was strong and when it was weak. I spent a week with a family that is "middle class" there(Germany)(2 worked for Luftanasa). I wouldnt trade their life styles for mine unless you put a gun to my head. They lived fine, but everything was very controlled/budgeted(food travel ect).

Food in the US is basically free if you want to go the supermarket and prepare it yourself. It isnt an expense. We have beaten thousands of years of history here. I cringe at food prices in Europe. US restaurants are cheaper than Europes supermarket prices. This doesnt affect the rich, it affects the middle class and poor.

If you want to keep thinking that Europe is better off..more power to you, less competition for me......Then again I am in India now so this is a moot argument.


It is curious that everything in your argument revolves around money..
Who cares if the US is richer than Europe? I am happy here. I am free here. I can live my life without care, with far less stress. I can work and be payed enough to feed myself, then i get out of work, and i go to the beach, smell the sea, and its great. In the weekend, i don't drive an expensive SUV, but a small car can get me pretty damn fast (or even a train) to any place that has more history than your entire nation altogheter.

And by the way, out of curiosity.. can you get a full meal in the USA (lunch or dinner) for 10 Euros? (less than 10 dollars)

This is true, I've heard it from some of my American colleagues. But, on the other hand: here in Europe, there are other things that are cheaper than in the US - education (even on high levels), health-care, etc. And although taxes might seem "punitive" to you, the middle-class and the poor get the most return on their taxes, seeing as how certain things are cheaper for people below a certain income level, there is support in certain areas (like education, healthcare) which is also based on income level, etc. Buying and owning stuff isn't all to life, you know...
I like you. And as others have said, money isn't everything. I have no desire for a fancy car or huge house, even though I will probably be able to have one. Quality of life goes much further than that.

It's an interesting assertiont that it's better to be poor in the US that Europe - have you considered the big costs that everyone worries about so much in the US, like education, medical insurance, insurance against crime, and saving for retirement?

Those things are (to the most part) covered in many European countries through taxes. Likewise I was able to work through university myself, paying a total of around $15 000 US for five years of education. (And at that, we still worry that tertiary education (i.e. university) isn't accessible to young people.) If you are at university in the USA, look around yourself and see how many people have poor parents. Are you still keen to be living there now?

The thing to realise is that the taxes you pay actually get you something in return.

O tempora, o mores!

That is human nature: we measure our quality of life by the number of cars in the garage. Even if it means oppressing other people to get gas to run them...

Do you even know what the poor in America live like? I used to help in a soup kitchen when I was in the States, and believe me: you don't want to be poor in America.


We have to judge by some standard. If god(in whom I do not believe) came down and said "use this standard", then I would use that standard.

Barring that I have to look at things like living space, caloric intake, cars, % home ownership, ACs, televisions ect. By these objective measures, the Us wins hands down.

If you have the lock on the "Happines" standard, please, let me know, I would love to take a look at it.


And as far as helping in soup kitchens.. well, I was forced to during college(first year only). But my second job was building infrastructure in slums in Bangalore,India. The poor in America are not "poor" by any objective standards. Poverty is malnutrition and lack of shelter and education. American poverty does not come close to this.

My mother is also a doctor for the DOH. she mostly wors in public school now, but she worked in shelters for a few years. She is a die hard liberal/bleading heart and she was disgusted by what went on.

There are people that need help and then there are parasites. When the govt gets involved, it isnt the people who need help that actually get it.

O tempora, o mores!

That is human nature: we measure our quality of life by the number of cars in the garage. Even if it means oppressing other people to get gas to run them...

Do you even know what the poor in America live like? I used to help in a soup kitchen when I was in the States, and believe me: you don't want to be poor in America.


Wow, a long thought out response destroyed because f the lag on these forums... very nice

I cant be bothered to reply again.

Thanks jolt

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

In the UK I wouldn't say things are exactly socialist (per se) at all lol!!! And in Europe it is a liberal place, but it doesn't by any means mean that the state is running absolutely everything and people have no right to property etc, and everybody is far-left.

I think "embraced" was a bad word to use. It's not like socialism is a new thing. You sound as if it was a movement that picked up a couple of years ago. Plus the USSR was communist, I am pretty sure that socialism is not that extreme. Plus you make it sound like a crime and yourself paranoid.

I wouldn't say socialism either, I'd say that social democracy is popular in Europe though definetly whether I agree with it or not.

In Europe fuedalism gave people a sense of class I think, maybe that is why socialism has support.

Poverty is malnutrition and lack of shelter and education. American poverty does not come close to this.

Neither does European poverty.

Our social system is designed to deter malnutrition by offering a monthly cash fee or a cashier system with guidance, to supply free basic healthcare and almost-free enhanced healthcare (like, artery surgery will cost you about 125 USD - the rest is paid by the govt instances), and to supply housing at reduced cost to all who are below a certain income level. Granted, in real life it's not all pretty - the rich still get better health-care than the poor, we too have seen the rise of private clinics. But I do believe the system works. I won't say it's perfect, and I believe that both our systems have their faults and strengths. In the end, it all comes down to people. The fact that both you and I think our own system works (or, in your case "is the best") means that we are both happy with it. But I do think you should accept that our system isn't a la-la-land for the lazy, and that socialists are not intent on stealing your money and giving it to homeless bums.

Communist revolution was not seen as a threat to democratic societies.


Unless you were Polish, Latvian, Georgian, Estonian, Lithuanian. . .

I get the impression that many countries still do have a problem with communism in Eastern Europe.

Barring that I have to look at things like living space, caloric intake, cars, % home ownership, ACs, televisions ect. By these objective measures, the Us wins hands down.

If you have the lock on the "Happines" standard, please, let me know, I would love to take a look at it.


You are right. You are free to pick your own standard. The "happiness" standard has nothing to do with your objective measures, though. The richest MBA I ever met was also one of the unhappiest people I've seen in my life. And he is about to buy his second island in the South Pacific (in case the first one disappears as the sea levels rise, I guess). But he is sad. He is sad because he gave up what he liked best in order to enrich himself. Now he's old and he's accomplished nothing other than building up a fortune. He said if he could start again, he would have chosen a different route. If you cannot be happy with a little, you will never be happy with a lot. It's that simple.


And as far as helping in soup kitchens.. well, I was forced to during college(first year only). But my second job was building infrastructure in slums in Bangalore,India. The poor in America are not "poor" by any objective standards. Poverty is malnutrition and lack of shelter and education. American poverty does not come close to this.


The poor in India are far poorer than the average poor in America. That is true. But you are saying that there are no poor people in America?

I am sorry you had to be forced to help at a soup kitchen. And I know exactly what you mean about life in America. I know what it's like. I've been there. The question is whether we want to live like that at the expense of others.
And that's a hard question to answer.

Barring that I have to look at things like living space, caloric intake, cars, % home ownership, ACs, televisions ect. By these objective measures, the Us wins hands down.

If you have the lock on the "Happines" standard, please, let me know, I would love to take a look at it.
.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/24/MN165379.DTL

As for Britain, we have hardly any unemployment, hell it probably haunt been lower since the industrial revolution, bar frictional unemployment (people in-between jobs, which as always about a million at any given time.)

True, but still, the amount of jobs created which are payed for by taxes causes suspicion. 250,000 unneccessary civil service workers is it?

I'm sorry to quote you so often, but it's just that you make such interesting statements. ;)

Barring that I have to look at things like living space, caloric intake, cars, % home ownership, ACs, televisions ect. By these objective measures, the Us wins hands down.

Yep. But have you ever considered the fact that quality of life just might not be quantifiable? Let me quote a statistical cliché: if I'd wade through a river with an average depth of 1 foot without swimming at some point, I'd drown. How in the world is the average number of cars per capita ever going to show quality of life? Have you considered the fact that the idea behind those statistics originated from the people that would actually come out looking good in them? And why would you need a high average number of cars if the distances you need to travel are all below 10 miles? Can you even fathom our culture, where puberty isn't centered around "getting your drivers license"? Please, try to consider the possibility that statistics are more often than not neither historically nor culturally contextuated - precisely why they are, in the end, useless and prone to provoke confusion. The economic culture of the US, that seems to be centered around quantification and the idea of profit, is not the same as "human nature".

There are people that need help and then there are parasites. When the govt gets involved, it isnt the people who need help that actually get it.

So how do we define "people that need help"? Clearly, the chance we have a different view on this is ever more increasing...

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

Many concepts and ideas of Socialism are benefical to everyone, even if the actual execution of these plans and ideals have not been, but we wont get into that right now. The Labour Gov't of Atlee which took power in '45 in Britain did alot of work, like creating the NHS, affordable housing for the working classes and social welfare.

During the period 1945-1990 and beyond in Europe, there were many Socialist parties either in power or in prominent positions to influence those in power, and had alot of support from the people. European Socialists had abandoned the idea of achieving their goal by revolution, so to link Socialists in Europe [that is Western Europe] with those behind the Iron Curtain is wrong, for those in the East were never Socialists.

Socialism died in Russia not when Stalin took the reigns, but when Lenin followed the idea of the dictatorship of the Proletariat, and any true Socialist will tell you, the moment you take the power out of the hands of the people and "do" things for them, thats the moment the revolution dies. What masqueraded behind the Iron Curtain as Communism or Socialism was State Capitalism and Tyranny. And another thing, as a person of 21 years age living in Ireland and having widespread contact with other Europeans, I never encountered fear or hatred of the USSR except by the Baltic or Polish peoples, who I guess had good reason to feel that way. The American Gov't did a far better job of instilling fear of "the Reds" amongst their own people than the Russians could have ever done themselves.

I like you.

Thanks, my new-found Aussie friend ;)

One thing I'd like to know: how does the Australian social system compare to the rest of the world? Is it more or less the same as in Europe - as I would expect, seeing as how Australia once was part of the "Great Commonwealth" (Tally-ho, etcetera). This may seem like a silly question, but it's just that I do not know anything in particular about your country - other than the facts that you have something called "flying doctors" and that your people spawned the most gorgeous actress ever (a.k.a. Nicole Kidman).

And why would you need a high average number of cars if the distances you need to travel are all below 10 miles? Can you even fathom our culture, where puberty isn't centered around "getting your drivers license"?

Very true - the public transport is excellent here. So good in fact that people complain if their train is 5 minutes late, or the bus doesn't stop with 100 metres of their home. Very few actually need a car - though they are still enormously popular. A car is a luxury, not a necessity. A luxury lots of people can and will afford.

Thanks, my new-found Aussie friend ;)

One thing I'd like to know: how does the Australian social system compare to the rest of the world? Is it more or less the same as in Europe - as I would expect, seeing as how Australia once was part of the "Great Commonwealth" (Tally-ho, etcetera). This may seem like a silly question, but it's just that I do not know anything in particular about your country - other than the facts that you have something called "flying doctors" and that your people spawned the most gorgeous actress ever (a.k.a. Nicole Kidman).
Well, we have Medicare, which is basically taxpayer funded healthcare which covers things like basic consultations and gives rebates towards most necessary medical procedures and visits. It's great, and I think it should be defended and expanded upon. Unfortunately the government wants to create a "two-tiered system" which would give only those receiving welfare access to Medicare and force everone else to get private cover. Also the Medicare rebates aren't rising fast enough to keep up with the costsof running a practice, so many doctors also charge a "gap" fee, which is an out-of-pocket.

Education is free in public schools up to year twelve. And the schools that perform best academically are pretty much ALWAYS public. Private schools are either for religious people or snobs who want to spend their time riding horses or whatever... Tertiary education is either full-fee paying, or Commonwealth Assisted, which means you don't have to pay anything upfront and can defer payment untl you're earning over a certain threshold, at which time payment is deducted with your taxes. It would be good if the government hadn't increased fees by 25% AND moved to increase the number of full fee places. For the first time people will be able to take my course and pay fees. It will cost them $210 000. It costs me $40 000 and I pay nothing upfront.

There are also loads of welfare and assistance programs, such as rent assistance, unemployment AusStudy and AbStudy.

Eit: At the moment, I have a licence, but don't have a car. I walk to university and use public transport elsewhere. It's probably more convenient for me, since parking is hell in the city. Cheaper too.

A car is a luxury, not a necessity. A luxury lots of people can and will afford.
... And they will go through hell to be allowed to drive it too fast or have it use up as much fuel as possible, I know. It is sad, really. Can you imagine what will happen if the car-manufacturers get their way, and succeed in supplying EVERY Chinese citizen with a car - preferrably actually one per person "cuz it's good for the economy, and as such we will all undoubtedly benefit" bla-bla-bla. Omg...

Education is free in public schools up to year twelve. And the schools that perform best academically are pretty much ALWAYS public. Private schools are either for religious people or snobs who want to spend their time riding horses or whatever... Tertiary education is either full-fee paying, or Commonwealth Assisted, which means you don't have to pay anything upfront and can defer payment untl you're earning over a certain threshold, at which time payment is deducted with your taxes. It would be good if the government hadn't increased fees by 25% AND moved to increase the number of full fee places. For the first time people will be able to take my course and pay fees. It will cost them $210 000. It costs me $40 000 and I pay nothing upfront.

There are also loads of welfare and assistance programs, such as rent assistance, unemployment AusStudy and AbStudy.


Looks a lot like our system, I think (especially the health-system, which I am therefore not quoting). One thing, though, about the education. I myself am situated beneath a certain income threshold, and as such I have paid a total sum of 320 EUR (about 270 USD, I think) for a 4-year university education (a master, as I believe you call it) instead of the normal amount which would have cost me 800 EUR - not counting any extracurricular spending (like food, books, and such). Furthermore, over the four years of my university education, the govt has supplied me with a state scholarship of almost 6.000 EUR, which I've used to cover expenses for books, food, and computer equipment. That's a whopping return on taxes, I believe. Now it's up to me to do good when I'm older, and I'll happily pay taxes knowing that some not-so-well-doing youthster is getting the same chances as I used to get...

Neither does European poverty.

Our social system is designed to deter malnutrition by offering a monthly cash fee or a cashier system with guidance, to supply free basic healthcare and almost-free enhanced healthcare (like, artery surgery will cost you about 125 USD - the rest is paid by the govt instances), and to supply housing at reduced cost to all who are below a certain income level. Granted, in real life it's not all pretty - the rich still get better health-care than the poor, we too have seen the rise of private clinics. But I do believe the system works. I won't say it's perfect, and I believe that both our systems have their faults and strengths. In the end, it all comes down to people. The fact that both you and I think our own system works (or, in your case "is the best") means that we are both happy with it. But I do think you should accept that our system isn't a la-la-land for the lazy, and that socialists are not intent on stealing your money and giving it to homeless bums.

And how is this so differant than what it is in the states? Except that you guys are weighed down by higher taxation rates?

Nobody is refused medical care here in the US, the only distinction being that if you can fford to pay for it, you(or or your insurance company) is obligated to do so.

And as far as malnutrition goes, even people in India dont have to fear for lack of food. Are you trying to claim that Americans do? Obeasity is the problem facing the poor in the US, not lack of caloric intake.

On the other hand, we have much better growth rates and much lower unemployment rates than the major economies of Europe(UK, france, Germany). Surely, even in your eyes, this must count for something.

And by the way, out of curiosity.. can you get a full meal in the USA (lunch or dinner) for 10 Euros? (less than 10 dollars)

You are joking right??

I can get a full steak and eggs(including coffee and desert) meal for far less than 10 euros in NYC. 10euros = about 13 dollars btw, currently

I can get this same meal in florida for maybe 6 euros

and If I were to go to the midwest my costs would drop to maybe 4-5 euros max.

But this is restauant food, I am paying for labour which is pricey in the US.

If I was prepared to cook this food myself, I could get it for less than $1 in most states.

If I bought the steak in a supermarket, in the mid west, I could get it for less than a $1 a pound. Eggs are basically free, maybe $1 for a dozen in the midwest. They costs about $2.50 for a dozen in NYC so I am guessing.

But I can get a full steak and eggs dinner for less than $10 in NYc, so I bet if I was willing to cook I could do it for less than $2. hmm, making me hungry

Do you have any clue of what you are speaking of?

Nobody is refused medical care here in the US, the only distinction being that if you can fford to pay for it, you(or or your insurance company) is obligated to do so.
I am not sure, but that I do believe that is not entirely true. A friend of mine once told me that it depends on the type of care you need (or get), and on the fact if you are insured or not - he said that hospitals will often refuse care to people who are not insured in some areas of treatment. When you walk into an emergency room in Europe, you will get treated as fast as possible without anyone asking you if you are insured - I myself even had to go to an E.R. in Spain once, and they didn't even ask me my name before trying to come to a diagnosis.

And as far as malnutrition goes, even people in India dont have to fear for lack of food. Are you trying to claim that Americans do? Obeasity is the problem facing the poor in the US, not lack of caloric intake.
No, I am not claiming that. I'm sorry if I wasn't at all clear in my statement. I'm just saying that poverty isn't all about lack of food and housing, it's also about lack of chances and guidance. I just presumed that you thought poverty for Europeans meant "no food, no house". Which it doesn't, as far as I know.

On the other hand, we have much better growth rates and much lower unemployment rates than the major economies of Europe(UK, france, Germany). Surely, even in your eyes, this must count for something.
No, it doesn't, I'm sorry. What you're saying all depends on what kind of category or turving-system you use in your statistics. Using the stats of the IMF, the US will do fine, I'm sure. But who is the boss of the IMF? It's not because it says "international" in its title, that it is not biased. The stats you are referring to even use a different definition of "unemployment" - for one, it's the part of the public between a certain age-span that is not working, for another, it's the part of the public between a certain age-span that does not seem to find a job. Even the age-spans can differ... There's nothing in this world that cannot be proven by a statistic - and that, my friend, is a very gruesome fact.

Make no mistake, I am not "against" the US. And on the other part, there's a lot about Europe that I don't agree with as well. But we would all do good to have a basic criticism of anything that can be traced back to possibly biased sources or cultural practices. Statistics, my friend, is in fact a cultural practice - and biased, even more so. You always have to consider this: where did it originate from, why did it happen, why did it happen when it happened, what could possibly be the benefit for whomever made it happen? It are those kinds of questions that I, as a historian, am trained to ask, so I in turn may be biased about this, but: I think we all need to ask those questions... It feels good to be able to find out (or even to just ask) why something happens, and who is behind it...

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

The US has also embraced socialism. Most every labor benefit that the US and other countries have today were first proposed by "radical" unionist, socialist organizations. Things we take for granted like the five day workweek, 40 hrs of work per week, 8 hr workday, minimum pay, health insurance. I could go on and on.

The US has also embraced socialism. Most every labor benefit that the US and other countries have today were first proposed by "radical" unionist, socialist organizations. Things we take for granted like the five day workweek, 40 hrs of work per week, 8 hr workday, minimum pay, health insurance. I could go on and on.

So true. Socialism is not new - in fact, one can't even point to something and say "now that is socialism". Throughout history, there have been several "socialist" changes (to use an anachronistic term). Even in the Middle Ages in Europe, most cities had a system of poor-relief (which later on turned into a gargantuan oppression-system of Leviathanic proportions, but that's another story). And, this might come as a shock: America has socialism as well...

Which part of secondary did you not understand?
In my country secondary comes after primary education (usually from 5 y.o. to 12 y.o.) and secondary students usually are between 12 y.o. and 18 y.o. The US has some of the best university education in the world, but its public high schools are largely atrocious.

I am not sure, but that I do believe that is not entirely true. A friend of mine once told me that it depends on the type of care you need (or get), and on the fact if you are insured or not - he said that hospitals will often refuse care to people who are not insured in some areas of treatment. When you walk into an emergency room in Europe, you will get treated as fast as possible without anyone asking you if you are insured - I myself even had to go to an E.R. in Spain once, and they didn't even ask me my name before trying to come to a diagnosis.


No one in the Us is refused medical service. Doesnt happen. It doesnt matter if you are legal or illegal. It doesnt matter if you can pay or not. If you need medical care, Hospitals, clinics and even private doctors MUST see to your well being.

No exceptions.

Once you are stabilized,, then people can barter about your long term care. The poorest/indignent are reffered to medicaid(which is great because unlike provate insurance, they actually pay on all their claims).(of course, maybe half of the people they are paying benefits for have been dead for some time, but they dont pay much in any case.)


Try and get a heart bypass in the UK(socialized medicine) if you are ILLEGALLY THERE. Do the same in the USA, then tell me which medical system actually cares for people. In the US, BY LAW, a person cannot even be asked if he is legally inthe country when it comes to medical or welfare services. Do you claim NHS or the Canadian medical is so free with their services? Maybe they are, I dont know, but I dont think so.

Yeah, I guess we are the ones who are skumbags drawing blood where we can.


No, I am not claiming that. I'm sorry if I wasn't at all clear in my statement. I'm just saying that poverty isn't all about lack of food and housing, it's also about lack of chances and guidance. I just presumed that you thought poverty for Europeans meant "no food, no house". Which it doesn't, as far as I know.

I am all for society protecting people to some extent. I dont want people starving when they live in a modern society. On the other hand, I dont think that a lack of a game boy or full spectrum cable qualifies as poverty. A person is disabled..I want to support them. A person cant work, I want to support them. A person is lazy, well I will support them too. But I wont support them to the extent that they have as comfortable a life as a person who works.

I am sorry, TV, Cable tv, fast food(any food you dont prepare yourself), going out, alcohol, grugs, cars, video games, meat, more than a minimum amount of clothes, the ability to buy books/newspapers vs. going to a library and maye waiting, renting movies, ect ect are all luxuries when someone else is paying for them.

When you are living on someone elses dollar, you are subject to their rules. That is why charity is great and govt welfare sux. There are a few people on this board that are good examples of how govt welfare ruins lives(at such a young age too)......less competition for me I guess

In my country secondary comes after primary education (usually from 5 y.o. to 12 y.o.) and secondary students usually are between 12 y.o. and 18 y.o. The US has some of the best university education in the world, but its public high schools are largely atrocious.


I would substitute the word mostly for largely in the above statement. Things are a changing though(i hope). If we could localize public education that would a great first step.

Glad we cleared it up about the university thing though.

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....


Because unlike a lot of Americans on here Europeans can tell the diffrence between socialism and communism. And we know that socialism is an economic model and not a level of how controling a government is on individual freedoms.

Try and get a heart bypass in the UK(socialized medicine) if you are ILLEGALLY THERE. Do the same in the USA, then tell me which medical system actually cares for people. In the US, BY LAW, a person cannot even be asked if he is legally inthe country when it comes to medical or welfare services. Do you claim NHS or the Canadian medical is so free with their services? Maybe they are, I dont know, but I dont think so.

The NHS is not representative for the rest of Europe - but you are right about the point you stated. Here in Belgium, healthcare is also open for people who are illegal.
About the refusal of medical care: yeah, maybe you're right - after all, you live there. We only hear stories of people who had bad experiences - maybe they aren't as representative as well...

Yeah, I guess we are the ones who are skumbags drawing blood where we can.
Wow, I didn't say that! Are you sure you aren't just unhappy with how you THINK people see your country, and not with how the reality works out? Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to just accept the fact that the US is not a perfect place to live, that is has its faults - and that some other cultures focus on those faults because, in their own gaze, they are considering them to be heinous and evil. For instance: some cultures might hate yours for offering freedom to both the sexes. Europeans won't dislike you for that, since we do the same. But the fact of the matter is, that we seem to differ on social and economic thought. Let's not degrade this argument to a "you're evil, we're good" discussion. As I said before, all systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.



I am all for society protecting people to some extent. I dont want people starving when they live in a modern society. On the other hand, I dont think that a lack of a game boy or full spectrum cable qualifies as poverty. A person is disabled..I want to support them. A person cant work, I want to support them. A person is lazy, well I will support them too. But I wont support them to the extent that they have as comfortable a life as a person who works.

I am sorry, TV, Cable tv, fast food(any food you dont prepare yourself), going out, alcohol, grugs, cars, video games, meat, more than a minimum amount of clothes, the ability to buy books/newspapers vs. going to a library and maye waiting, renting movies, ect ect are all luxuries when someone else is paying for them.
So you feel that poor people should just be allowed the minimum of clothing, should stay in their lesser-quality houses all day, shouldn't be allowed to watch TV or go to certain public spaces, shouldn't be able to buy books or newspapers? This is a VERY sharp-edged statement you make here. You should consider the fact that in other times and places, similar efforts were made - one of them ended up with certain people wairing yellow stars on their vests...

When you are living on someone elses dollar, you are subject to their rules. That is why charity is great and govt welfare sux. There are a few people on this board that are good examples of how govt welfare ruins lives(at such a young age too)......less competition for me I guess
More often than not, charity is used as a facade for the rich to come over as "gentile" and compassionate. Or charity is only given to people that are considered to be "earning" it, not unlike the fact that public response to the slaughter of innocent baby-seals is much more massive than the similarly unnecessary destruction of "evil" sharks can ever hope to attain. And, last but not least, not all charity ends up where it is needed. There's a reason it is called a charity-business.

Try and get a heart bypass in the UK(socialized medicine) if you are ILLEGALLY THERE. Do the same in the USA, then tell me which medical system actually cares for people.

If you are illegally there you will be given emergency treatment. A heart bypas operation is not emergency treetment.

If you are illegally there you will be given emergency treatment. A heart bypas operation is not emergency treetment.

See, I thought there was something off in Isanyonehome's statement... Glad you found it.

The NHS is not representative for the rest of Europe - but you are right about the point you stated. Here in Belgium, healthcare is also open for people who are illegal.
About the refusal of medical care: yeah, maybe you're right - after all, you live there. We only hear stories of people who had bad experiences - maybe they aren't as representative as well...

Well, there are many misconceptions about medical care in the US. My parents are doctors and I spent 2(miserable years) running one of their clinics. People think Us medicine is a free market system. This is very untrue. Something on the order of 60% of medical dollars are spent on govt medical programs(medicaid/medicare/SS).

You have no idea how rife this is with fraud. Fraud engendered by the very fact that that the govt is involved. Let me give you a couple of cases that I know personally.

1) We bought a practice from a doctor that passed away. Pops business partner though it would be a good idea to add to our clininc. Unfortunately, no one actually went through the patient records. Turns out that the doctor(he passed away) whom we bought the practice from(we bought it rom his widow/business manager) was running a mill

Mill in the sense that he was drugging up his patients heavily. Prescribing narcotics when other alternatives were available. So, given that we are legit, and we dont expect our doctors to do such things, we closed the practice within 4 months.

A few months later, we were getting calls from madicare to stop harassng them about payment. We told them that we had no idea what they are talking about. Turns out that the doctors widow was continuing to bill the govt for services her husband performed(AFTER HE WAS DEAD)

She was billing people even though the doctor(her husband) had passed away(in apr 2003, this a year later when it was reported). And medicare was paying her. We pointed this out to the govt, and do you know what they did... Nothing. This lady was commiting fraud, proven fraud and the govt doesnt want to do a damn thing because some govt lifers record is gonna look back if its reported.

Ya, more kudos to govt programs.



Wow, I didn't say that! Are you sure you aren't just unhappy with how you THINK people see your country, and not with how the reality works out? Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to just accept the fact that the US is not a perfect place to live, that is has its faults - and that some other cultures focus on those faults because, in their own gaze, they are considering them to be heinous and evil. For instance: some cultures might hate yours for offering freedom to both the sexes. Europeans won't dislike you for that, since we do the same. But the fact of the matter is, that we seem to differ on social and economic thought. Let's not degrade this argument to a "you're evil, we're good" discussion. As I said before, all systems have their own strengths and weaknesses.[quote]

Every system has its faults. That doesnt bother me. What bothers me is when people dont objectively look at the good and bad of a particular way of being.



[QUOTE=Druidvale]
So you feel that poor people should just be allowed the minimum of clothing, should stay in their lesser-quality houses all day, shouldn't be allowed to watch TV or go to certain public spaces, shouldn't be able to buy books or newspapers? This is a VERY sharp-edged statement you make here. You should consider the fact that in other times and places, similar efforts were made - one of them ended up with certain people wairing yellow stars on their vests...

I think society should gurantee some sort of basic minimum. Beyond that it is up to the person to strive(or not) and make(or not) something of themselves.

I dont think that someone who have done nothing his/her whole life deserves the same things that someone who has struggled and is talented. I am sorry, effort and talent and luck count.


More often than not, charity is used as a facade for the rich to come over as "gentile" and compassionate. Or charity is only given to people that are considered to be "earning" it, not unlike the fact that public response to the slaughter of innocent baby-seals is much more massive than the similarly unnecessary destruction of "evil" sharks can ever hope to attain. And, last but not least, not all charity ends up where it is needed. There's a reason it is called a charity-business.


In the face of American charity, you are wildly off base on this. You are so wrong that I will leave it up to you to correct yourself or not.

Or, we just saw that there were merits to both systems and that they might be combined in a manner.

"Fear" of a totalitarian communist regime or some of the expression of the far-left is not enough to dismiss the valid points of socialism/leftism, as is not "fear" of anarcho-capitalism or some of the expressions of the far-right enough to dismiss the valid points of capitalism/rightism.

Oh, and "Europe" can only be seen as "so socialised" from an American point of view. From my Scandinavian point of view, it isn't really "so socialised".

You dont think you are socialized? Just take a look at your latest taxes, that'll tell a different story, hell over here we dont even get taxed for stuff that should be taxed. Such as the Iraq expidition.

You have no idea how rife this is with fraud. Fraud engendered by the very fact that that the govt is involved. Let me give you a couple of cases that I know personally.

1) We bought a practice from a doctor that passed away. Pops business partner though it would be a good idea to add to our clininc. Unfortunately, no one actually went through the patient records. Turns out that the doctor(he passed away) whom we bought the practice from(we bought it rom his widow/business manager) was running a mill

Mill in the sense that he was drugging up his patients heavily. Prescribing narcotics when other alternatives were available. So, given that we are legit, and we dont expect our doctors to do such things, we closed the practice within 4 months.

A few months later, we were getting calls from madicare to stop harassng them about payment. We told them that we had no idea what they are talking about. Turns out that the doctors widow was continuing to bill the govt for services her husband performed(AFTER HE WAS DEAD)

She was billing people even though the doctor(her husband) had passed away(in apr 2003, this a year later when it was reported). And medicare was paying her. We pointed this out to the govt, and do you know what they did... Nothing. This lady was commiting fraud, proven fraud and the govt doesnt want to do a damn thing because some govt lifers record is gonna look back if its reported.

Ya, more kudos to govt programs.

I'm sorry to hear all that - but don't you think that such a thing can happen in every kind of system? Whenever there is a system, there's a possibility of fraud. I myself have been the victim of fraud - but from companies, not govts. Which would probably explain my sympathies, as well as yours.

Every system has its faults. That doesnt bother me. What bothers me is when people dont objectively look at the good and bad of a particular way of being.
Which is exactly what I said, as well. Glad we agree on that.

I dont think that someone who have done nothing his/her whole life deserves the same things that someone who has struggled and is talented. I am sorry, effort and talent and luck count.
That all depends on the definition of "nothing" and "talent". And I'm sorry, I don't think people should be punished for being unlucky.

In the face of American charity, you are wildly off base on this. You are so wrong that I will leave it up to you to correct yourself or not.
Sadly, you telling me that I am wrong just won't cut it. Bring me an argument. Bring me a fact. Then we can discuss this further. And, again, I am not saying that my point counts for all of charity. Just that it is not the Holy Grail of welfare.

Well, this has been fun, but now I outta here - my stumach demands attention as well... Greetz to all of you for a most interesting discussion!

I'm getting a little sick of Amerikkkans always asking this question. Can't you understand that we actually CARE about other people? Thats why we introduced national healthcare, social security, state pensions, free transport, vastly improved education systems and so on. Take your so called 'freedom' (basically the 'freedom' of one capitalist scumbag to screw over some poverty stricken people in Columbia or Africa) and shove it because we don't want it here in Bold Europe.

Bold Europe, yes of course.

And on the note about the US not caring about other people. The reason the southwests hospitals suck so much is because they are getting no money from illegal immigrants from Mexico who cross the border with no money and get whatever treatment they want.

Not all Europeans countries are socialist.

Take Ireland for example, well I accept that its more of a "mid atlantic" nation than a "European" nation i.e. Heavily influenced by UK/USA, and it is probably the only wealthy exception (i.e. excluding new EU members)

Highest GDP in the EU after Luxembourg, not far off American rate.

It had highest economic growth in EU over last decade.

Out of ~140, the socialist party holds 1 seat in Dáil Éireann (The Parliment).

5% Growth rate predicted for this year. (highest besides new EU states)
Double EU average.

Highest home ownership rate in Europe. (Or close to that)

Lowest (or one of) national debt/GDP ratios.

Lowest level of unemployment in the EU.

Fairly low tax rate. (12% Corporate Tax)

Oh my, ever time I get to the end of a page, another page pops up...



Oh, and BTW: American secondary education is considered best in the world. You are joking! Your lot learns basic chemestry like redox at about 16. We in the UK learn redox at 12. Your lot have very little knowledge of very much, at least that's what I can tell from some of the Americans that I have spoken to online.


I dont follow. Secondary education is colleges and post grad doctorates ect.

This is the British Blog of education:

Primary education/Primary schools/Junior schooling = Key stage's 1-3 = ages 5-10
Secondary education/secondary schools/Senior schooling = Key stage 3+ = ages 11-16 = ends in about 10 GCSE courses
6th Form College/Furthur education = 1-5 2 year A-Level courses
Uni/Furthur education = Any courses after A-Level.

I would bet on your average American college student vs your average european equivilent. Hands down, its a no brainer as far as I am concerned. Because the European bloke would win so easily?

That said, the standard in the US was pathetic. The first year I was there I got 4.0 without even speaking English, and when I eventually got back to Europe I flunked all subjects for several months. That's what I'm saying!


Please, don't embarrass yourself. Russia had better scientists than the US. And so did Germany. Actually, the top mind that worked in America on the A-Bomb during WW2 was a German Jew. You may have heard of him (Einstein).

As long has the US has control of the world's energy resources, I can't argue with you. We and Norway have das Nordsee.

I can get a full steak and eggs(including coffee and desert) meal for far less than 10 euros in NYC. 10euros = about 13 dollars btw, currently Lesse, in England or france it's about 4 Euros...

In the face of American charity, you are wildly off base on this. You are so wrong that I will leave it up to you to correct yourself or not. that makes no sense.

Lol, and a funny story about one of my friends at school. Both of his parents work for the NHS as doctors. So he gets free electronics. And they can just say that they need the items for his education.

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

First of all: Socialism isn't the same as communism.
The fact is that most european nations (except the communist ones) sat and watched the great big USA/USSR pissing contest without all the crazy propaganda. So, I guess there is a part of the answer. We were never exposed to the massive "communists eat children" propaganda campaign like you americans. At least not to the same degree. I guess that is also why most americans think "left is evil".
Someone allready pointed out that most europe is at this moment more rightwing than it ever has been. This is true.
The system seems to work fine though. At least where I'm living.

Food in the US is basically free if you want to go the supermarket and prepare
it yourself. It isnt an expense. We have beaten thousands of years of history here. I cringe at food prices in Europe. US restaurants are cheaper than Europes supermarket prices. This doesnt affect the rich, it affects the middle class and poor.

Junk Food may be cheap in the US. The good stuff is from my point of view far to expensive: real cheese (not that orange looking cheddar stuff), vegetables (preferred: not genetically altered), chocolate, good beer. Even though the quality and selection has improved during the last years.
I lived in the US for a while and enjoyed it, Never the less I prefer my European Life Style which I would describe with less quantity and higher quality, that ranges from cars, and consumer goods to the simple possibility to walk through a city or town or read a newspaper in a clean and reliable public transport system.

Not all Europeans countries are socalist.

Take Ireland for example, well I accept that its more of a "mid atlantic" nation than a "European" nation i.e. Heavily influenced by UK/USA, and it is probably the only wealthy exception (i.e. excluding new EU members)

Highest GDP in the EU after Luxembourg, not far off American rate.

It had highest economic growth in EU over last decade.

Out of ~140, the socalist party holds 1 seat in Dáil Éireann (The Parliment).

5% Growth rate predicted for this year. (highest besides new EU states)
Double EU average.

Highest home ownership rate in Europe. (Or close to that)

Lowest (or one of) national debt/GDP ratios.

Lowest level of unemployment in the EU.

Fairly low tax rate. (12% Corporate Tax)


Definately a tiger, but that is because it doesnt hold to the same policies as the bulk of Europe does. I dont know about others, but when I say bad things about Europe, I am generally talking about Germany and France. Sometimes the UK and RARELY places like Spain and Italy. Eastern Europe I think is great. Given what they started with, they have progressed well in a short span of time.

See, I thought there was something off in Isanyonehome's statement... Glad you found it.

I think he is talking about the UK. We do organ transplants on illegals(with no hope of being repaid) in the states.

Actually, the top mind that worked in America on the A-Bomb during WW2 was a German Jew. You may have heard of him (Einstein).


Einstein, like everyone else in the country became AMERICAN by virtue of being here. The country is composed of people from elsewhere, we attract the best and the brightest, along with the taxi drivers that speak only dead languages.

I mean, the only person with real credibility is Nader.

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh man, Ralph Nader, that's a good one.

I have not read every post but lets get a few things straight, the USSR was never communist, more or a slightly socialist dicatorship....if you don't believe me just google for a defintion of communism.

As for Europe as a Brit who errs on te left of the political spectrum I would say that my education allows me to see that everyone can win froma situation, most American thinking seems to see a winner and a looser. European socialism sees winners everywhere.

So making this simplistic, if we educate everyone to a very high standard everyone has a good chance of getting a good job, this prevents ghettoisation
but more than that it lifts the bottom of the country up, raising everyone standards.

if everyone has the skills to get a job the need to turn to say crime diminishes, therefore people with money don't need to fear crime, don't need ot spend money on alarm systems, private security, gated communities.

Okay that's idealistic, I admit that but that is a situation where everyone wins.

it's a different mind set.

I have not read every post but lets get a few things straight, the USSR was never communist, more or a slightly socialist dicatorship....if you don't believe me just google for a defintion of communism.

As for Europe as a Brit who errs on te left of the political spectrum I would say that my education allows me to see that everyone can win froma situation, most American thinking seems to see a winner and a looser. European socialism sees winners everywhere.

So making this simplistic, if we educate everyone to a very high standard everyone has a good chance of getting a good job, this prevents ghettoisation
but more than that it lifts the bottom of the country up, raising everyone standards.

if everyone has the skills to get a job the need to turn to say crime diminishes, therefore people with money don't need to fear crime, don't need ot spend money on alarm systems, private security, gated communities.

Okay that's idealistic, I admit that but that is a situation where everyone wins.

it's a different mind set.

The only thing I can visualize when you say "socialism sees winners everywhere." is five children circling eight chairs as the music plays. The teacher stops the music, the children all slowly chose a chair and the teacher brightly says, "Everybody's a winner! Yeah!"

The only thing I can visualize when you say "socialism sees winners everywhere." is five children circling eight chairs as the music plays. The teacher stops the music, the children all slowly chose a chair and the teacher brightly says, "Everybody's a winner! Yeah!"

yeah but in that game evey body dose win.

Out of ~140, the socalist party holds 1 seat in Dáil Éireann (The Parliment).

There are 166 TDs. That is misleading. By American standards, Labour, Sinn Fein, the Green Party and possibly even Fianna Fail would be considered "socialist".

yeah but in that game evey body dose win.

yeah, but it is a class for slow students.

yeah, but it is a class for slow students.
I think that sum's of the 'mob' quite well,

give them a game they can all win and eveyones happy.

prehaps thats what socialism is about.

I think that sum's of the 'mob' quite well,

give them a game they can all win and eveyones happy.

prehaps thats what socialism is about.

how depressing.

how depressing.
Thats exaclty how ive felt since reading the republic.

people on the whole are stupid. All they really want is bread and games, maybe the job of socialism is just to do that.

In the Netherlands the left-wing political party's and large part of the media try to give the term "right-wing" a sinister meaning, taking advantage on the memory of the Nazi-occupation.

Whilst doing that they forget that the communists have commited as many, if not more, cruelties as the Nazi's.

Luckily the Dutch aren't so stupid to fall for those dirty political games, since we have a Parliament with a right-wing majority.
Pff...Balkenellende. De Haagsche kliek. Twee handen op een buik. PVDA, VVD of CDA. Naaien doen ze ons allemaal. Waar we bijstaan.

It's interesting that the German Empire was the first to institute state run social security, some 60 years before the USA.

However, the only major downside to heavy amounts of social spending is that the slow the economy to a crawl or stagnation.
The economy of imperial Germany was everything but stagnating.

I assure you, there are far more ignorant Americans than ignorant Europeans, thus the stereotype of the ignorant American.
I heard a story once on a German forum. There was this guy who lived near a complex of the US occupation forces. The GI's there told him they were there to protect them from the East-German, communist dictator. You know, Adolf Hitler. :D

I heard a story once on a German forum. There was this guy who lived near a complex of the US occupation forces. The GI's there told him they were there to protect them from the East-German, communist dictator. You know, Adolf Hitler. :D
What i dont get it, were the G.I's just really stupid.

To be fair only Germany has double digit unemployment
If you count in the number behind the comma. But then every country would have doubledigit unemployment.

and that’s entirely down to the nock on effects of the reunifications, aka east Germany is vastly dragging the rest of Germany down.

It has more to do with incompetent government officials squandering the money for rebuilding. The states governments in the east often use the financial aid to lower their deficits. While it is intendet for investments to create jobs. But most of it got invested in the infrastructure and nothing else. That way approxamatly over 1 trillion Euros where wasted.

I heard a story once on a German forum. There was this guy who lived near a complex of the US occupation forces. The GI's there told him they were there to protect them from the East-German, communist dictator. You know, Adolf Hitler. :D

:D I believe it...I've met quite a few of those GI's.

What i dont get it, were the G.I's just really stupid.
They also told stories of former exchange students who went to the US. One guy from Austria was asked if he came to the US by train or car. :D
But my favorit story was when one of them was asked what he like best about the US. He told them, American students who asked him, that he was fullfilling a childhood dream of his. Finally seeing the moon. Since the US was the only country on the planet where you could see it with the naked eye.:D And they believed him.

*snip*

Well thats what my west german drinking buddies say, mind you they just really hate ossies.

Well thats what my west german drinking buddies say, mind you they just really hate ossies.
Ah well. They aren't entirely wrong. Since the East with it's unemployment rates of 20+% does make the average rate go up. And thats a huge drain on the economy. But thats hardly the fault of the people themselves.

Ah well. They aren't entirely wrong. Since the East with it's unemployment rates of 20+% does make the average rate go up. But thats hardly the fault of the people themselves.
according to them the dole(unemployment benefit/money) is enough to buy a house with, or somthing like its stupidly high.

is that true i doubt it. they bascially blame that for germanys strugaling economy.

according to them the dole(unemployment benefit/money) is enough to buy a house with, or somthing like its stupidly high.

is that true i doubt it. they bascially blame that for germanys strugaling economy.
Yes. Thats true. But not because it's so terribly high. But because buying a house is subsidised by the federal government. A single with no more then 70,000 Euros income in a 2 year timespan can get a minimum of 1250 Euros federal a year for 8 years to a maximum of 2556 Euros. For every child they get 800 Euros extra. For couples the maximum income to qualify is set at a maximum of 140,000 a year. And every child with couples makes the maximum income they have to qualify go up by 30,000. So 1 child 170,000. Two 200,000 etc....

There are 166 TDs.

Ah 166, I couldn't remember and I was in a hurry. Thanks.

That is misleading. By American standards, Labour, Sinn Fein, the Green Party and possibly even Fianna Fail would be considered "socialist"

Ya that's actually a fair point. I doubt though if Fiannia Fáil would be considered socialist, well maybe centre-right.

Sinn Féin's economic policy (or lack of) one is insane. Heard someone try to defend it during the last election............. involved some combination high tax for anyone on a moderate wage, high welfare and sky-high corporate tax....... if I was the Finance Minister looking for a way to send Ireland back to 1970 I couldn't think of a better way!

Ya that's actually a fair point. I doubt though if Fiannia Fáil would be considered socalist, well maybe centre-right.
Well, the Democrats seem to be a bit to the right of Fianna Fáil, and they are considered socialist in America, apparently.

Einstein, like everyone else in the country became AMERICAN by virtue of being here. The country is composed of people from elsewhere, we attract the best and the brightest, along with the taxi drivers that speak only dead languages.

If you only attract the best and brightest, then how can you ever hope to become a society (in the literal sense). The dutch word for society is samenleving which in essense means 'living together'. You can't just live only with the 'good guys' and throw away the 'bad guys'. That's immoral, not to mention the fact that it requires an enormous ego and self-confidence in judgment matters. To be expected, as a buddhist I believe no being on earth (or some deity in proposed heaven that's being misused by those on earth, mind you) can make that kind of judgment-call. Every person has its worth (and 'utility', although I hate to use that word), the strength of human society in the long run lies in its complementarity - it is the essence of our existence that we have strenghts and weaknesses.
So what is to be done with the not so 'best and brightest', I wonder? Stuck together in certain city-areas? I guess the free market figures it all out by itself: if you don't have the cash or the goods, you're obviously not worth it.
And for the record: having a 'green card lottery' that's being flashily advertised on all kinds of commercial websites is not my idea of 'attracting the best and brightest'. Which is true to history, seeing as how the American continent, per definition, has always attracted the most bold and reckless - free thinkers, but also religious minorities, people that had to emigrate because of poverty (the Irish, the Dutch, etc.), and outright criminals. As I said - both the good and the bad.

along with the taxi drivers that speak only dead languages.

????

Latin?

Well, the Democrats seem to be a bit to the right of Fianna Fáil, and they are considered socialist in America, apparently

So does that mean that anything 'left' of the Republican Party is considered socialist?

Joe Higgins would be amused to hear Fiannia Fáil being called socalist. (Remember when Bertie claimed to be the last socialist in the Dáil :) )

He told them, American students who asked him, that he was fullfilling a childhood dream of his. Finally seeing the moon. Since the US was the only country on the planet where you could see it with the naked eye. And they believed him.
Lol!

So does that mean that anything 'left' of the Republican Party is considered socialist?

Joe Higgins would be amused to hear Fiannia Fáil being called socalist. (Remember when Bertie claimed to be the last socialist in the Dáil :) )
Yes, that's how it seems to be. And yeah I remember Bertie's "I am a socialist" comment. He's a loony.

Yes, that's how it seems to be. And yeah I remember Bertie's "I am a socialist" comment. He's a loony.

Well we've had worse!

Okay, an ignorant American has a question for all you Europeans: How did Europe become so socialized?

Here's where things don't add up to me: Through the Cold War, the US and Western Europe stood against the USSR and its totalitarian socialist regime. So if we all feared and opposed the USSR why is it that Europe has now embraced socialism?

Granted that it's a much more benign form but it seems like either they didn't fear the USSR as much as the US, or some people had perhaps forgotten what living in fear of them was like.....

This is NOT an attack on European socialism btw.

In the UK there have been socialist movements since the late 19th century. At the same time as britain was "standing against" the USSR, it was nationalising coal, steel etc, creating the NHS and the welfare state, basically being what the US considers "socialist".

The EU so-called "socialist" populations aren't thinking of becoming totalitarian states with 100% command economies etc. We just like a bit of fairness. And we've been into it for over a century.

Or, we just saw that there were merits to both systems and that they might be combined in a manner.

"Fear" of a totalitarian communist regime or some of the expression of the far-left is not enough to dismiss the valid points of socialism/leftism, as is not "fear" of anarcho-capitalism or some of the expressions of the far-right enough to dismiss the valid points of capitalism/rightism.

Oh, and "Europe" can only be seen as "so socialised" from an American point of view. From my Scandinavian point of view, it isn't really "so socialised".

*nods* We didn't equate the Soviet regime with social policies. Besides, it is indeed a matter of perspective. Most of us in Europe don't tend to see our countries as really socialist, far from it. We tend to see them more as... well, balanced. And we view the US as being on the capitalist extreme of the spectrum.

Einstein, like everyone else in the country became AMERICAN by virtue of being here. The country is composed of people from elsewhere, we attract the best and the brightest, along with the taxi drivers that speak only dead languages.

What you're really pointing out is that the US has become a gathering place for many of the world's best and brightest. It's just unfortunate that the best and brightest are often not educated or brought up in the USA. For example the Germans who started the US space programme (with the knowledge they had from the V2), invented the cruise missile, made the first production jet aircraft), the many Europeans who made atomic energy work, not to mention numerous Nobel prize winners who live in the USA.

The US is right up there as a user of talent, but unfortunately it seems to be fairly indifferent as a nurturer of talent - those who are American and are successful largely do so outside the formal US education system (e.g. the large numbers of wealthy tech company CEOs who never finished or even went to university).