NationStates Jolt Archive

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366940,00.html

Imagine it's 2030 in Europe. The last automobile manufacturing job has finally been transferred to China, the social system is collapsing because the population has shrunken to the point that it can no longer finance pensions, competition from abroad and a perpetually stagnant economy has suffocated business. Immigrants are further isolated and alienated from society than ever before, with parallel societies deeply rooted across the continent. The dream of European unity has long been forgotten.


I like this article. It's not all that often that Americans actually "get it" so to speak. Or at least here on these forums...:p

Bang. Zoom. Straight to the moon!

That article speaks the truth. 100% of it. Being an asshole is imbedded in our "culture", if you want to call it that. "ZOMG J00r nawt wurking all dayz longg!!1!!!1!11!!"

Now, NOW you see why I want to leave this country for good.

Edit: When I think about it, this disparity is actually very much like that between Western Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire back in the middle ages. Sure, people in the East worked, but they weren't fanatical about it. They led leisurely lives, and they were far better-educated than people of the West.

Interesting.

Damn... that article was GOOD!

This shocked me, i mean I knew it was bad- but thats just wasteful...

For example, the United States uses one-third more energy than Europe even though Europe has 450 million people compared to our 280 million.

I found the rest of the articles...It's a whole series!

Constitution
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366942,00.html

Economics
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html

America needs the EU
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366945,00.html

Outsourcing to robots?
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,368155,00.html

The next Industrial Revolution
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,368305,00.html

I think I might be too impatient...but surely more than two people would have something to say about this.

Bunch of globalization propaganda b.s.

I hope the european nations fair well and I hope this doesn't sound like I don't care about them. The truth is however that their situation isn't as dire as they make it in the article due to the fact if something breaks, people THEN begin to really work and fix the problem. Before it breaks, everybody ignores it.

Second, well this is from an American perspective I must admit... but aside from the "American dream" segment, the author comes off as a lazy son of a bitch American who can't hold a job and wants to make an excuse to take more breaks and fuck around while his co-workers do all the work for him.

"wah wah wah... other people work a lot, and they don't. wah wah wah."

Christ, what a complainer.

Probably a goddamned trekkie. commie, or something lazy.

Bunch of globalization propaganda b.s.

I hope the european nations fair well and I hope this doesn't sound like I don't care about them. The truth is however that their situation isn't as dire as they make it in the article due to the fact if something breaks, people THEN begin to really work and fix the problem. Before it breaks, everybody ignores it.

Second, well this is from an American perspective I must admit... but aside from the "American dream" segment, the author comes off as a lazy son of a bitch American who can't hold a job and wants to make an excuse to take more breaks and fuck around while his co-workers do all the work for him.

"wah wah wah... other people work a lot, and they don't. wah wah wah."

Christ, what a complainer.

Probably a goddamned trekkie. commie, or something lazy.

Don't expect anybody to take you seriously after that post.

I don't. However, as I read this, I found it to be to similar to propaganda than facts.

Don't be so quick to buy into it. Europe will be fine. This guy is just griping. A more dire situation is Japan's economy.

"wah wah wah... other people work a lot, and they don't. wah wah wah."

Christ, what a complainer.

Probably a goddamned trekkie. commie, or something lazy.
Real classy.

I don't. However, as I read this, I found it to be to similar to propaganda than facts.

Don't be so quick to buy into it. Europe will be fine. This guy is just griping. A more dire situation is Japan's economy.

Uh, it's not about "the fall of Europe". It's about the European Dream being a dream worth saving; a dream that's actually worth something, unlike the American "Dream". It's about people who actually live their lives, rather than work them away.

You can't see that, though. You just have to jump on the "OOOHGZ J00r COMMIESZEZ!1!!!11!111!1" bandwagon.

A more dire situation is Japan's economy.

Actually, a more dire situation is the health of the Japanese workers. They really over-do it, to the point that it kills them.

Of course, in Capitalism, we all know that money is more important than life itself.

It's about people who actually live their lives, rather than work them away.
Life sucks, deal with it. Sure you can be lazy, but don’t expect to get anywhere.

Life sucks, deal with it. Sure you can be lazy, but don’t expect to get anywhere.
That's the point!
Whether or not that is true ultimately depends on the way you organise society (and yes, I believe in practice laws do organise society).

Sure you can be lazy, but don’t expect to get anywhere.

why the hell shouldn't we? in the u.s. we have had amazing productivity growth over the past century. if the system worked (which it doesn't) a person ought to be able to have the same standard of living as somebody working 40 hour weeks in 1950 by working a mere 10 hours per week. hell, our productivity growth is such that a it only takes 29 hours per week to equal the output of 40 hour weeks from 1990.

in other words, we are completely deserving of getting everywhere while being increasingly lazy. but mysteriously, we (the vast bulk of americans) don't get the benefits. fuck all these 'labor saving devices' and automation and technological progress if they don't create increasing affluence and leisure for everybody.

That's the point!
Whether or not that is true ultimately depends on the way you organise society (and yes, I believe in practice laws do organise society).

but isn't the organization of society handed down from on high by our corporate overlords?

fuck all these 'labor saving devices' and automation and technological progress if they don't create increasing affluence and leisure for everybody.

Exactly. If they're only used to increase profit margins (thus fucking a lot of people over), they're bad. Very bad.

But, if they're used to improve everyone's quality of life (labor only being done by machines; people no longer have to work), they're great.

IThe truth is however that their situation isn't as dire as they make it in the article due to the fact if something breaks, people THEN begin to really work and fix the problem. Before it breaks, everybody ignores it.
Tell that to the 5 million people without a job in Germany alone - and the various cities that are actually dying out thanks to unemployment rates of 20%+.

Probably a goddamned trekkie. commie, or something lazy.
Have you read the little info box about him? He's an economist.
Not all of those are lazy! :D

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366940,00.html



I like this article. It's not all that often that Americans actually "get it" so to speak. Or at least here on these forums...:p

Heh. You would. Rankin is another one of those wankers from the "Futurist" magazine who never wanted to admit that his particular vision of gloom and doom never came to pass. Since you seem to have a taste for their sort of thing you might like to have a look at Richard Heilbronner's "On the Human Propect" as well. ^_~

This passage in particular seemed to me to be indicative of the entire mindset of their little Malthusian intellectual circle:

"Finally and with great reluctance, I must advance one last implication of my argument. It is customary to recognize, but to deplore, the authoritarian tendencies within civil society, especially on the part of those who, like myself, are the beneficiaries of the freedoms of minimally authority-ridden rule. Yet candor compels me to suggest that the passage through the gantlet ahead may be possible only under governments capable of rallying obedience far more effectively than would be possible in a democratic setting. If the issue for mankind is survival, such governments may be unavoidable even necessary.", p. 110. While his next sentence disclaims a desire that his book be an apologia for such governments I could not escape the feeling that this disclaimer was very pro forma and in truth it did seem to a more usually unspoken assumption among those who favored "sustainable growth" and "small is beautiful". Mr. Rankin is very much of that tradition and were I a European the knowledge that he writes so fervantly on behalf of the "European Dream" would cause little alarm bells to ring in my head.

BTW, with that in mind, do you mind if I return the favor by giving you some reading material as well? ^-^

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/02/Theguidingphilosphybehind.shtml

I'm curious to see if you feel Mr. Den Beste's essay an unfair assessment as to what "The European Dream" actually stands for and, if so, why. ;)

Airlandia, aka Solarlandus

Tell that to the 5 million people without a job in Germany alone - and the various cities that are actually dying out thanks to unemployment rates of 20%+.

Crazy, huh? I've got German citizenship, but I don't feel anything will ever make me move there at the rate things are going. I'm worried that Europe is gonna have to deal with a lot of crap, especially economic, in the future, and it won't be pretty.

Heh. You would. Rankin is another one of those wankers from the "Futurist" magazine who never wanted to admit that his particular vision of gloom and doom never came to pass. Since you seem to have a taste for their sort of thing you might like to have a look at Richard Heilbronner's "On the Human Propect" as well. ^_~
I must admit that right now, I don't get it. Who's "Rankin", and what does he have to do with Mr Rifkin?
And this isn't that futurist, is it...it seems like much of what this guy says in the last two parts of the series seems to be fairly solid.

I'm curious to see if you feel Mr. Den Beste's essay an unfair assessment as to what "The European Dream" actually stands for and, if so, why. ;)
The answer is fairly predictable, don't you think?
I think he's misinterpreting the whole thing by quite a margin.
I can't speak for other European nations, but at least in Germany things are being seen, and have been seen for a long time, differently. And besides, Britain is one of the least pro-EU countries, yet it arguably lost the most out of this great American gift of representative capitalism (as if it hadn't existed in Europe before).
At least for me it never had anything to with being better than the Americans, I just think that killing people is wrong, and making war to achieve political goals is not something I admire.

Secondly, Marxism didn't shape Western European politics that much. The majority of actual Marxist groups were hampered by their belief in violent revolution, and preferred to shoot and explode people rather than actually influence politics. That being said, worker's parties did improve working conditions - while in the US there has never been a worker's party, and especially after WWII with the Soviets around the mere mentioning of the word "worker" was heretical.

I completely disagree with his assertion that America eliminated the worker though and made them all burgeois - obviously there still are rich people and poor people in the states, so that reason doesn't hold water I don't think.

And what is it with this ubiquitous idea that the EU was created by leftists? The ECSC was started by a "pragmatist" of no particular leanings and promoted by conservatives (and the US). Churchill, who first made the idea public, was everything but a leftist.
The same goes for the treaty of Rome...Adenauer was certainly not inspired by Marxism. The various people on the Delors Commission were not dominated by either side. But Delors himself was in the French Socialist party, so maybe that's enough. :rolleyes:

The "European Social Model" does not and did never amount to state planning - he needs to check up his vocabulary, for a welfare system is not the same as central planning and indeed if we wanted to be doing that kind of thing, we wouldn't open our markets in the first place.

And finally, his thing about Europe not trusting the masses...the constitution was supposed to change that by giving a lot more power to the elected parts of the system. I think my link gives a reasonable answer for why it was rejected. But ultimately, NAFTA wasn't voted on by the American citizenry either - that was just an agreement among governments too.

So I don't know who this guy is and why he writes these things, but they really seem to be the usual anti-European rant from someone in the US who might be just as worried that the EU could work as he thinks we are about them.

I can't be bothered to read the article; I'm ashamed of myself. :confused:

When Europe is compared to the US, it's one of the few times I feel at all patriotic.

I completely disagree with his assertion that America eliminated the worker though and made them all burgeois - obviously there still are rich people and poor people in the states, so that reason doesn't hold water I don't think.
This obsessive fixation on wealth disparity is totally mind boggling. Does everything boil down to money to you people? Wake up and smell the coffee: the most striking, unfair and critical form of disparity is not the economic one. There are great and disastrous disparities in some of the most basic human needs- and not a single one of you money grabbers lifts a finger to alleviate it.

WHAT ABOUT THE SEXUAL DISPARITY? Why is it so important that one person earns more money than the other, and why is everyone ignoring the fact that some people only have one or two sexual partners (hell, some even die virgins!!!), while others have dozens, hundreds of them! Is sex less of a basic need than money? We need government action, damn it,we need REDISTRIBUTION OF SEX, and we need it NOW!!!


And what is it with this ubiquitous idea that the EU was created by leftists? The ECSC was started by a "pragmatist" of no particular leanings and promoted by conservatives (and the US). Churchill, who first made the idea public, was everything but a leftist.
Indeed. The first activist for the united Europe was Hitler, after all- and he was hardly a leftist :)

We need government action, damn it,we need REDISTRIBUTION OF SEX, and we need it NOW!!!
You must be pretty desperate, hey? :D

You must be pretty desperate, hey? :D
Of course.:p The survival of our civilization is at stake, damn it. Why do you think the birth rates are falling? It's all because of sexual disparity, and we need to abolish it.

Care to join my new "Make abstinence history" campaign?

Care to join my new "Make abstinence history" campaign?
Consider me a member!

Bump

Bang. Zoom. Straight to the moon!

That article speaks the truth. 100% of it. Being an asshole is imbedded in our "culture", if you want to call it that. "ZOMG J00r nawt wurking all dayz longg!!1!!!1!11!!"

Now, NOW you see why I want to leave this country for good.

Edit: When I think about it, this disparity is actually very much like that between Western Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire back in the middle ages. Sure, people in the East worked, but they weren't fanatical about it. They led leisurely lives, and they were far better-educated than people of the West.

Interesting.

Well by all means, don't let the door hit ya on the way out. I imagine the Canadian border shouldn't be too difficult to sneak across.

Uh, it's not about "the fall of Europe". It's about the European Dream being a dream worth saving; a dream that's actually worth something, unlike the American "Dream". It's about people who actually live their lives, rather than work them away.

You can't see that, though. You just have to jump on the "OOOHGZ J00r COMMIESZEZ!1!!!11!111!1" bandwagon.

You just expect to live nicely working 30 hours a week? I don't know if you know this, but things cost money. Sucks, I know. But that's the way it is.

Either you pay or the state pays...and when the state pays it pays with the money it takes from you.

Europe could be force for good in the world. But it needs to realise that it can't compete with countries like China when it comes to the price of Labour. It stop the Eu becoming third rate it needs to innovate and accept longer hours, I know its a pain but it important for European influance. By modernising its markets, driving for a invotive manufacturing at a standard higher then anywhere else it can claim to be the Byzantium to America's Rome. But at the moment it is dominated by those who can't accept the simple truth that being European does not guarantee you a place in this world, and where letting it slip.

You just expect to live nicely working 30 hours a week? I don't know if you know this, but things cost money. Sucks, I know. But that's the way it is.

Either you pay or the state pays...and when the state pays it pays with the money it takes from you.
True, and if you look at the later articles in the series, he actually talks about the working hour thing.
But he also argues that technology will likely eliminate what he calls "mass labour", thus either making a lot of people jobless (but not necessarily poor - the production is still there, and prices are bound to fall if people don't earn much money) or cutting the work hours down significantly (in the Industrial Revolution they worked 70 hour weeks apparently).
That may be futurism, but I think it is fairly well-reasoned and certainly likely.

why the hell shouldn't we? in the u.s. we have had amazing productivity growth over the past century. if the system worked (which it doesn't) a person ought to be able to have the same standard of living as somebody working 40 hour weeks in 1950 by working a mere 10 hours per week. hell, our productivity growth is such that a it only takes 29 hours per week to equal the output of 40 hour weeks from 1990.

in other words, we are completely deserving of getting everywhere while being increasingly lazy. but mysteriously, we (the vast bulk of americans) don't get the benefits. fuck all these 'labor saving devices' and automation and technological progress if they don't create increasing affluence and leisure for everybody.Well said. One of the IWW's main goals is the 4 hour workday at the same salary one would get for working 8 hours a day.

Is sex less of a basic need than money?Yep. :) I realize you're half kidding here, but I had to respond anyway.

You just expect to live nicely working 30 hours a week? I don't know if you know this, but things cost money. Sucks, I know. But that's the way it is.

Either you pay or the state pays...and when the state pays it pays with the money it takes from you.
Slightly extremist viewpoint, sadly most Europeans do have to work more than 30 hours, probably around 35.

Yes, things cost money. But we tend to balance this with the value of a quality of life. There is more than just rampant unregulated economic growth that has no regard for people.

Why shouldn't mothers and fathers for instance be entitled to paid parental leave when they have a child? Why shouldn't people enjoy at least 5 weeks of holiday a year? Why shouldn't we look after our citizens in old age and during times of hardship, or when they are ill? It's about a balance between the market and quality of life.

In Britain we work more then 35 but the EU wants to restrict work times (at one point I think they may have given up). I think the EU is in danger of dropping low and mean in history books will anyone remmeber that we all had colur TVS? No they will comment on are declining world influence. "Judge of nations spare us yet, lest we forget, lest we forget".

This obsessive fixation on wealth disparity is totally mind boggling. Does everything boil down to money to you people? Wake up and smell the coffee: the most striking, unfair and critical form of disparity is not the economic one. There are great and disastrous disparities in some of the most basic human needs- and not a single one of you money grabbers lifts a finger to alleviate it.

WHAT ABOUT THE SEXUAL DISPARITY?
Yes, food, which in a capitalist society can be purchased with money, is a more basic need than sex.

Wealth disparity directly causes suffering for those at the bottom end of the ladder, because the lack of money results in their quality of life being poor. Reality has shown that in societies with great inequality, (e.g. Brazil, USA), there is much more crime than in societies with more equality (e.g. Sweden). In my own country, crime rates have risen with increasing economic inequality.

Does everything boil down to sex with you?! Probably not, because to capitalists everything boils down to money.

It stop the Eu becoming third rate it needs to innovate and accept longer hours, I know its a pain but it important for European influance.
So this is the capitalist dream? Why should we ever accept it when it will decrease our quality of life?

So this is the capitalist dream? Why should we ever accept it when it will decrease our quality of life?

In the long run it will bring greater utility by alowing the EU to dicate international policy

In the long run it will bring greater utility by alowing the EU to dicate international policy

And you still fail to give good reasons for the "Capitalist Dream". Hahaha, keep the laughs coming.

I merely presume that the capitalist system is the best way to increase national utility, is that the capitalist dream, I don't know

o'de to the ignorant.

I merely presume that the capitalist system is the best way to increase national utility, is that the capitalist dream, I don't know
Sorry, I had misidentified you as a libertarian ideologue. I also desire a European economic and military superpower.

Sorry, I had misidentified you as a libertarian ideologue. I also desire a European economic and military superpower.
:eek:
I'd like to see Europe strong enough to prevent bad stuff around the world from happening, but I wouldn't want a "military superpower". Being such a hegemon will always come with all kinds of friction, and that's something I can do without.
And besides, I don't like the bit about making war on people (which is ultimately the reason for having a military, is it not?).

As an american working for a European company and having travelled extensively there, I will make following comments:

1. European "environmentalism" has a certain amount of hypocrisy. Over 40% of the cars sold in Europe are diesels and the smog producing emissions from a diesel are much, much worse than from any gas engine. the NOx coming out of the tailpipe of a modern Mercedes Turbo Diesel is approximately 17 times as much as from a Toyota Prius. The smog in Barcelona and other Mediterranean cities is worst I have seen since 1970's LA. How do I know this crap? I work for an auto maker.

2. Rifkin only mentions the positive aspects of the EU. He fails to mention the widespread unemployment and low birth rate....two things which should NOT go togther. "Sustainable development" as Rifkin puts it is just politico-speak for falling short of econominc expectations. China is growing massively, South Asia is growing massively, the Americas are booming and the EU...with the exception of GB... is only treading water....politicians need to make their excuses and "sustainable development" is it.

In his opening paragraph he mentions how bad the EU would be if all the jobs go to China...yet says nothing about how realizing the "EU dream" will prevent that. Well the answer is obvous: Trade barriers. The problem is Adam Smith knew very well that trade barriers only make consumers pay twice: They pay once for the product and agin in their taxes to maintain the trade barriers.

3. The socialist aspects which Rifkin idealizes ultimately are not maintainable. Why? Because people aren't bees.

As an american working for a European company and having travelled extensively there, I will make following comments:

1. European "environmentalism" has a certain amount of hypocrisy. Over 40% of the cars sold in Europe are diesels and the smog producing emissions from a diesel are much, much worse than from any gas engine. the NOx coming out of the tailpipe of a modern Mercedes Turbo Diesel is approximately 17 times as much as from a Toyota Prius. The smog in Barcelona and other Mediterranean cities is worst I have seen since 1970's LA. How do I know this crap? I work for an auto maker.


Are you sure about this 40% statistic? It's certainly not true here, it's obvious just from walking down the street. But also, petrol stations typically have far fewer diesel pumps than petrol, and I don't see huge queues developing for them by the 40% of cars that need them!

Additionally, it's worth looking at how many cars are owned per European, the size of them, their fuel consumption, and the number of Europeans who use public transport. All are far better figures from an environment viewpoint than USA. In fact, in most American cities it's practically impossible to rely on public transport for journeys.

Indeed. The first activist for the united Europe was Hitler, after all- and he was hardly a leftist :)
Are you kidding? The Romans were the first seeking to unite Europe and they jolly well did a better job than the Germans - at least they managed to successfully land on Britain for a while and they didn't make the stupid mistake of invading Russia just before the coming of winter like Napoleon did. Who, by the way, was also very much in favour of a united Europe.

Great Britain economy growth is nothing compared to the Danish, Spanish, or Swedish economies :P

I'm not going to elaborate much, but I am a 110% European. My only regret is that we many times fail to live to the spirit of the musqueteers (one for all, and all for one), and let our pity fights get in the way of a United Europe that can work for the better of itself, and mankind.

it sounds like were moving closer to the technocrat economy were only about 2% of the population work this would involve the elimination of the private company's so we can pass the profits to the unemployed the question is what would the unemployed do with there time? and how much will the population receive in allowance?

of course you certainly could allow the commercial sector to continue but would the profits of industry be able to fund 98% of the population?

It looks like China and India will be in trouble as there unemployment skyrockets as company’s become more automated could this lead to outsourcing flowing back to the MEDC’s?

It looks like China and India will be in trouble as there unemployment skyrockets as company’s become more automated could this lead to outsourcing flowing back to the MEDC’s?

Give it a century or so of Free trade and It'll probably even out with the west and east earning about the same when their economy grows and ours shrinks Unless they impose trade restrictions themselves, and gain the upper hand and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhh

I want Europe to be come a super power so there will finally be someone strong enough to stop America before its too late

Read into that as much as you want

the question is what would the unemployed do with there time?

i'd wager that you'd have a lot of music, art, and literature being prduced. and a good deal of inventing and general tinkering. and lots of scientific advancement. that seems to be what we historically see whenever a new group of people is freed from the shackles of mindless drudgery.

and, obviously, lots of sex and drinking.

You just expect to live nicely working 30 hours a week? I don't know if you know this, but things cost money. Sucks, I know. But that's the way it is.

Either you pay or the state pays...and when the state pays it pays with the money it takes from you.

If the state paid for all of the basic necessities such as food, clothing, housing, and education, it's likely that you would ultimately save money and be able to afford greater luxuries. It would significantly narrow the gap between the poor and the wealthy. Personally, I'd rather pay 80% in taxes and have everything taken care of than pay 20% in taxes and have to take care of everything myself. I'm sure the millionaires would profess otherwise.