NationStates Jolt Archive

Europe's economies
A new pecking order
May 7th 2009
From The Economist print edition
There has been a change in Europe’s balance of economic power; but don’t expect it to last for long

FOR years leaders in continental Europe have been told by the Americans, the British and even this newspaper that their economies are sclerotic, overregulated and too state-dominated, and that to prosper in true Anglo-Saxon style they need a dose of free-market reform. But the global economic meltdown has given them the satisfying triple whammy of exposing the risks in deregulation, giving the state a more important role and (best of all) laying low les Anglo-Saxons.

-Le modèle français -
http://media.economist.com/images/20090509/1909LD1.jpg
At the April G20 summit in London, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel stood shoulder-to-shoulder to insist pointedly that this recession was not of their making. Ms Merkel has never been a particular fan of Wall Street. But the rhetorical lead has been grabbed by Mr Sarkozy. The man who once wanted to make Paris more like London now declares laissez-faire a broken system. Jean-Baptiste Colbert once again reigns in Paris. Rather than challenge dirigisme, the British and Americans are busy following it: Gordon Brown is ushering in new financial rules and higher taxes, and Barack Obama is suggesting that America could copy some things from France, to the consternation of his more conservative countrymen. Indeed, a new European pecking order has emerged, with statist France on top, corporatist Germany in the middle and poor old liberal Britain floored.

A cockpit of competing capitalisms
It is easy to dismiss this as political opportunism. But behind it sits a big debate not only about the direction of the European Union, the world’s biggest economic unit, but also about what sort of economy works best in the modern world. Thirty years after Thatcherism began to work its cruel magic in Britain (see article (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610705)), continental Europe still tends to favour a larger state, higher taxes, heavier regulation of product and labour markets and a more generous social safety-net than freer-market sorts like the Iron Lady would tolerate. So what is the evidence for the continental model being better?

The continental countries certainly have not escaped the recession: France may be doing a bit better than the world’s other big rich economies this year, but Germany, dragged down by its exporting industries, is doing significantly worse. Yet Mr Obama is right to admit that in some ways continental Europe has coped well. Tough job-protection laws have slowed the rise in unemployment. Generous welfare states have protected those who are always the first to suffer in a downturn from an immediate sharp drop in their incomes and acted as part of the “automatic stabilisers” that expand budget deficits when consumer spending shrinks. In Britain, and to an even greater extent in America, people have felt more exposed.

The downturn has also confirmed that the continental model has some strengths. France has a comparatively efficient public sector, thanks in part to years of investment in better roads, more high-speed trains, nuclear energy and even the restoration of old cathedrals (see article (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610197)). Nor is it just a matter of pumping in ever more taxpayers’ cash. By any measure France’s health system delivers better value for money than America’s costlier one. Germany has not just looked after its public finances more prudently than others; its export-driven model has forced its companies to hold down costs, making them competitive not only in Europe but also globally. By design as well as luck, much of continental Europe avoided the debt-fuelled housing bubbles that popped spectacularly in Britain and America (though Spain did not, see article (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611650)).

But will it last? The strengths that have made parts of continental Europe relatively resilient in recession could quickly emerge as weaknesses in a recovery. For there is a price to pay for more security and greater job protection: a slowness to adjust and innovate that means, in the long run, less growth. The rules against firing that stave off sharp rises in unemployment may mean that fewer jobs are created in new industries. Those generous welfare states that preserve people’s incomes tend to blunt incentives to take new work. That large state, which helps to sustain demand in hard times, becomes a drag on dynamic new firms when growth resumes. The latest forecasts are that the United States and Britain could rebound from recession faster than most of continental Europe.

Individual countries have specific failings of their own. Even if it did everything else right, Germany’s overreliance on exports at the expense of consumer spending has proved a grave weakness in a downturn (see article (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611300)); its banks also look weak. The rate of youth unemployment in France is over 20% and it can be twice as high in the notorious banlieues where Muslim populations are concentrated. Italy and Spain have seen sharp rises in unit labour costs and their labour-productivity growth has stalled or gone into reverse. It may not be long before the fickle Mr Sarkozy is re-reading his Adam Smith.

Not what you aim for, but how you do it
If there is to be an argument about which model is best, then this newspaper stands firmly on the side of the liberal Anglo-Saxon model—not least because it leaves more power in the hands of individuals rather than the state. But the truth is that the governments on both sides of the intellectual divide could go a long way to making their models work better, without changing their underlying beliefs.

On the continental side, there is nothing especially socially cohesive about labour laws that favour insiders over outsiders, or rules that make the costs of starting a business excessive. Even Colbert might admit that Europe’s tax burdens are too onerous today, particularly since they are likely to have to rise in the future to meet the looming cost of the continent’s rapidly ageing populations.

For the liberals, even if the cycle swings back in their direction, the financial crisis and the recession have shown up defects in the way they too implemented their model. Getting regulation right matters as much as freeing up markets; an efficient public sector may count as much as an efficient private one; public investment in transport, schools and health care, done well, can pay dividends. The pecking order may change, but pragmatism and efficiency will always count.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13610767

Excellent article, I do say. I also side with the liberal Anglo-Saxon model, though I am at times envious of the efficiency with which the public sector works in, for example, Germany, Switzerland and France (although more so Germany and Switzerland than France). I think that, while the French system may be popular right now during a recession, simply because it can/may help to defend people from the blunt of the economic storm, when the economy comes back into wellbeing again, the French system (and those like it) will retard dynamic growth and hurt the individual while hurting, overall, the speed and ability of the economy to make it into recovery.

What do you guys think about this article? Of those three systems, which is your favorite? Why?

I hate economics and I hate Europe, so...

I hate economics and I hate Europe, so...
Aren't you British?

Aren't you British?

Yeah.

Yeah.
Well then it's relevant to you, as the UK would fall under the Anglo-Saxon Model.

However, if you'd prefer being apathetic and ignorant, please, feel free to do so. Just don't waste space in my thread.

Well then it's relevant to you, as the UK would fall under the Anglo-Saxon Model.

However, if you'd prefer being apathetic and ignorant, please, feel free to do so. Just don't waste space in my thread.

The UK isn't in Europe.

Well then it's relevant to you, as the UK would fall under the Anglo-Saxon Model.

However, if you'd prefer being apathetic and ignorant, please, feel free to do so. Just don't waste space in my thread.

Yeah, wasting space is my job.

The UK isn't in Europe.

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The topic of the socio-economic model of the Anglo-Saxon Model is shared by the UK and other Anglo Nations. So I fail to see your point.

Yeah, wasting space is my job.
Can't we share?
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The topic of the socio-economic model of the Anglo-Saxon Model is shared by the UK and other Anglo Nations. So I fail to see your point.

tbh, I rarely see the point of what I say, I just say it.

tbh, I rarely see the point of what I say, I just say it.

Problems you will have, my young padawan.
http://img1.uplood.fr/211/acph_yoda.gif

Yeah, wasting space is my job.


Thought that was the OP's....

Thought that was the OP's....

Dude, check out the nose on that guy in the OP. That sucker's huge! I want to give him something to sniff so that he can track its owner.

Problems you will have, my young padawan.
http://img1.uplood.fr/211/acph_yoda.gif

lol, like?

lol, like?

To blurt everything that comes to your mind will, in the long run, bring you a lot of problems. Think before saying something.

Dude, check out the nose on that guy in the OP. That sucker's huge! I want to give him something to sniff so that he can track its owner.

Starcky in ten years...

http://www.tanmonkey.com/images/monkey/proboscis-monkey-big-nose.gif

To blurt everything that comes to your mind will, in the long run, bring you a lot of problems. Think before saying something.

Oh, in RL I rarely speak. And I fail to see how it could get me into trouble here.

Dude, check out the nose on that guy in the OP. That sucker's huge! I want to give him something to sniff so that he can track its owner.

Thought that was the OP's....
Coming into my thread to flame[bait], not adding anything . . . don't you have some Palestinian terrorists to go defend and shed some tears about? Get lost.

Coming into my thread to flame[bait], not adding anything . . . don't you have some Palestinian terrorists to go defend and shed some tears about? Get lost.

I don't think commenting on the man's nostrils was flamebaiting.

Coming into my thread to flame[bait], not adding anything . . . don't you have some Palestinian terrorists to go defend and shed some tears about? Get lost.

They're not terrorists- they're freedom fighters.

Dude, check out the nose on that guy in the OP. That sucker's huge!
He's French and some people in his family were Jewish. It's science, dude. :p



tbh, I rarely see the point of what I say, I just say it.
Well why not but that attitude to good use by saying something constructive?

He's French and some people in his family were Jewish. It's science, dude. :p

<insert racially insensitive joke here>

He's French and some people in his family were Jewish. It's science, dude. :p




Well why not but that attitude to good use by saying something constructive?


Um... hard hats? Er... fluorescent jackets? Concrete?
(ya see? I can't help myself- this shit just comes out)

Oh, in RL I rarely speak. And I fail to see how it could get me into trouble here.

I'm falling asleep here. If you don't stop hijacking this thread you will be in a world of pain with me, bucko.

I'm falling asleep here. If you don't stop hijacking this thread you will be in a world of pain with me, bucko.

Oh, really? From... 3,000 miles away?

Wait, you're falling asleep? Ain't it like 4o'clock?

Oh, really? From... 3,000 miles away?

Do you believe in voodoo, British lad?:eek2:

Nanatsu, I see you voted for 'Modell Deutschland'. What do you like about Germany's export driven model over the liberal, individualistic Anglo-Saxon model or the rather statist modèle français?

Nanatsu, I see you voted for 'Modell Deutschland'. What do you like about Germany's export driven model over the liberal, individualistic Anglo-Saxon model or the rather statist modèle français?

Germany's far more dynamic than the other 2 models.

Do you believe in voodoo, British lad?:eek2:

Nope, sorry, try again.

Nope, sorry, try again.

Discuss the topic or go away. <_<

Germany's far more dynamic than the other 2 models.
How so?

Discuss the topic or go away. <_<

Or both.


Anglo.


Bye.

How so?

You said it yourself. The dynamics of work in the public sector are way better in Germany, although you do mention France. Why do you side with the Anglo model?

You said it yourself. The dynamics of work in the public sector are way better in Germany, although you do mention France. Why do you side with the Anglo model?
Allows for new companies with new ideas to enter the market more easily, with less state interference. Allows for a more rapid resurgance from down-times by having a mobile and agile laborforce. Allows for the most individual profit and individual sucess, if one is willing to take the risk. Less taxes.

Though, like the article states, pragmatism and efficiency are key and we (states like America) shouldn't be afraid of producing an efficient public sector in an area like public transit (trans national trains).....but, with the way our public trains are now (see Amtrack), I'd rather see it privatized. If we can get our act together to be efficient, that's one thing. If we're gonna have a shitty system, privatize it so the private sector can ramp it up in order to sell it. (Federal Government doesn't have to sell it, it just exists).

As someone rather firmly against the individual accumulation of wealth I much prefer the French and German models to the Anglo-Saxon one, that said they could both do with being even more socialist.

Allows for new companies with new ideas to enter the market more easily, with less state interference. Allows for a more rapid resurgance from down-times by having a mobile and agile laborforce. Allows for the most individual profit and individual sucess, if one is willing to take the risk. Less taxes.

Though, like the article states, pragmatism and efficiency are key and we (states like America) shouldn't be afraid of producing an efficient public sector in an area like public transit (trans national trains).....but, with the way our public trains are now (see Amtrack), I'd rather see it privatized. If we can get our act together to be efficient, that's one thing. If we're gonna have a shitty system, privatize it so the private sector can ramp it up in order to sell it. (Federal Government doesn't have to sell it, it just exists).

Going private isn't always working well. Also in UK. I have one word for you: trains.

Trains?

Trains?

Train company put 'profit before safety' - inquiry

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/train-company-put-profit-before-safety--inquiry-716990.html

As someone rather firmly against the individual accumulation of wealth I much prefer the French and German models to the Anglo-Saxon one, that said they could both do with being even more socialist.
Why are you against the right for an individual to receive individual profit from his or her work?
Going private isn't always working well. Also in UK. I have one word for you: trains.
There is no reason why trains couldn't run any less well than planes can, privately.

Why are you against the right for an individual to receive individual profit from his or her work?
What 'right'?

What 'right'?

Isn't it rite? Or is that just religious?

Why are you against the right for an individual to receive individual profit from his or her work?

There is no reason why trains couldn't run any less well than planes can, privately.

The plane industry is having an enormous package of laws ruled by the governments.

Safety is not the only issue. For social reasons it can be interesting to have low profit lines. Low profit (or even no-profit) lines are not interesting for the private share.

What 'right'?
We, as individuals, may offer up our services and, in return, be paid individually based on what others are willing to pay for our skills and services.

The plane industry is having an enormous package of laws ruled by the governments.
So? That industry, like all industries, is subject to varrying levels and degrees of regulation.

For social reasons it can be interesting to have low profit lines.
No.

We, as individuals, may offer up our services and, in return, be paid individually based on what others are willing to pay for our skills and services.
How is that a right, though?

So? That industry, like all industries, is subject to varrying levels and degrees of regulation.


No.

And no why?

So? That industry, like all industries, is subject to varrying levels and degrees of regulation.


So the fastfood industry should have the same amount of regelations as the airplane industry?

How is that a right, though?
Philosophically, it is an integral part of Western Culture enough that it has become a right that can be legally challenged if infringed upon. Using someone's service or skill[s] without giving them individual payment in return is slavery (unless it's a favor or charity) which is illegal. We have a right to work, and a right to be paid for our work.
And no why?
Because societies that try to do away with profit-motivation having only suceeding temporarily postponing human progress in those societies. Only temporarily, though, because eventually that sort of fucked up, backwards thinking gives way to the reality of how humans work, and caves. Always.

So the fastfood industry should have the same amount of regelations as the airplane industry?
. . . use your brain . . .

First of all, where did I say that? Second of all, they are differnet and require different kinds of regulation due to their different natures. Seriously, where the hell are you going with this?? :rolleyes:

Philosophically, it is an integral part of Western Culture enough that it has become a right that can be legally challenged if infringed upon. Using someone's service or skill[s] without giving them individual payment in return is slavery (unless it's a favor or charity) which is illegal. We have a right to work, and a right to be paid for our work.

Because societies that try to do away with profit-motivation having only suceeding temporarily postponing human progress in those societies. Only temporarily, though, because eventually that sort of fucked up, backwards thinking gives way to the reality of how humans work, and caves. Always.

So people in an isolated area don’t have the right to transport? We could build a highway as well. Which will cost more, pollute more, etc... The 'isolated' people are also paying taxes for stuff that you like and use.

You see the same in the medical business. The pharma industry is like any other industry intrested in profit. They don't often do 15 years of research in rare diseases. So bad luck for people who are having them?

I'm even silent about the typical third world diseases, which do not occur a lot in the west. But because the (third world) customers can't pay the medicaments, the pharma industry isn't keen on R&D on such medicaments.

Bad luck for them, isn't?

. . . use your brain . . .

First of all, where did I say that? Second of all, they are differnet and require different kinds of regulation due to their different natures. Seriously, where the hell are you going with this?? :rolleyes:

People do use their brain all the time. Even when they are sleeping. So it's weird to ask that I should use it. It's not that someone has another opinion, that you have the right to start an insult fest.

Not specific the fastfood industry, but you used 'all'. That's including the fastfood one. I could compare it to zillion other industries as well.

Maybe the train companies can't handle the bulk on rules in a profitable way. Maybe that's the reason why UK trains crash more since they went private.

How about all three at different points of time, in their own individual and appropriate environments? To say "I like model x, and only model x regardless" seems remarkably short sighted and likely to feed us into an inflexible, doctrinaire system that closes off whole hosts of policy solutions to the endless sorts of problems we're always going to face. Environments and attitudes shift and change, and you ought to do what works at different points in time.

Philosophically, it is an integral part of Western Culture enough that it has become a right that can be legally challenged if infringed upon.
One cannot legally challenge any instance of not making a profit from one's own work; otherwise all failed business ventures would be clogging up the courts.

Using someone's service or skill[s] without giving them individual payment in return is slavery (unless it's a favor or charity)...
Only if it's coerced work.

There's plenty of not-for-profit work that's not charitable nor done for favours. Cooperative work, for example.

Allows for new companies with new ideas to enter the market more easily, with less state interference. Allows for a more rapid resurgance from down-times by having a mobile and agile laborforce. Allows for the most individual profit and individual sucess, if one is willing to take the risk. Less taxes.

Though, like the article states, pragmatism and efficiency are key and we (states like America) shouldn't be afraid of producing an efficient public sector in an area like public transit (trans national trains).....but, with the way our public trains are now (see Amtrack), I'd rather see it privatized. If we can get our act together to be efficient, that's one thing. If we're gonna have a shitty system, privatize it so the private sector can ramp it up in order to sell it. (Federal Government doesn't have to sell it, it just exists).

I do admit that I am a bit outside of my element here. In reading the article, Germany's model seemed like a good choice, and I still like it better. But I do see the sense in the Anglo model.

Anglo-Saxon model, very much for the same reasons as TAI.

Nanatsu, I see you voted for 'Modell Deutschland'. What do you like about Germany's export driven model over the liberal, individualistic Anglo-Saxon model or the rather statist modèle français?
The thing with the German economy which relies heavily on exports (great in good times, worse in bad times) is that while yes, there's a domestic market, it would simply not be enough for our economy to only have that.
Our country doesn't have many natural resources, so there's little choice but to import raw materials and turn them into something that can be sold abroad. That's why knowledge and invention are fundamental to our society (which, sadly enough, do not receive enough funding when looking at the educational sector!).
However, the German service industry is not to be underestimated, either.
Allows for new companies with new ideas to enter the market more easily, with less state interference. Allows for a more rapid resurgance from down-times by having a mobile and agile laborforce. Allows for the most individual profit and individual sucess, if one is willing to take the risk. Less taxes.
While that is all true - I believe that the social market economy model does provide a safety net that the Anglo-Saxon model seems to lack.
If you're doing fine, things are great and you reap everything - but should anything go wrong, you're on your own. I prefer the social contract here that gives one the opportunity to succeed and yet the safety should things go awry.
But that has the precondition that as a member of said society, you'd have to be willing to contribute. I feel that in the Anglo-Saxon model, people tend to fend for themselves and for themselves only.
Though, like the article states, pragmatism and efficiency are key and we (states like America) shouldn't be afraid of producing an efficient public sector in an area like public transit (trans national trains).....but, with the way our public trains are now (see Amtrack), I'd rather see it privatized. If we can get our act together to be efficient, that's one thing. If we're gonna have a shitty system, privatize it so the private sector can ramp it up in order to sell it. (Federal Government doesn't have to sell it, it just exists).
I object to privatizing industry or sectors for which the public has paid.
That includes railroads, highways, power grids, hospitals, emergency services, and so on.
Heck, I even believe that there are sectors which should be completely state-owned like the health care system, water plants, and to a certain point energy companies (electricity + gas), or waste removal. Why? Because the private sector has shown time and again that a) they cannot be trusted because they will always put profit over security and b) there are things which the market cannot and will not regulate.

Privatizing the national phone company, the power industry, or the national mail service have only shown one thing: The private sector does not necessarily guarantee to lead to a better, more readily available, more cost-efficient state of affairs.
For social reasons it can be interesting to have low profit lines. Low profit (or even no-profit) lines are not interesting for the private share.
I agree. Sometimes, the profit is to be seen in the whole of society profiting from an existing system, not some company making a quick buck.

Ever since the German railroad was privatized, the only trend to be seen is increasing transportation costs while the network is reduced from a comprehensive coverage down to only profitable segments. How much good does that do to those who live in remote areas? None!

Now, while I see that the German social market economy is far from perfect, I do prefer it over other models.

Another example why private isn't always better as public companies:

The television market. The public (government controlled) TV company is here far superior to its commercial competitors. It is containing less dumb soaps, fewer stupid movies, no phone games, almost no commercials etc... In the same time it is giving room to specific TV, which is maybe not interesting for the majority, but they are offered something in their taste maybe later.

I don’t like opera, but I accept that some people do. On a commercial TV station you’ll never get opera.

Another example why private isn't always better as public companies:

The television market. The public (government controlled) TV company is here far superior to its commercial competitors. It is containing less dumb soaps, fewer stupid movies, no phone games, almost no commercials etc... In the same time it is giving room to specific TV, which is maybe not interesting for the majority, but they are offered something in their taste maybe later.

I don’t like opera, but I accept that some people do. On a commercial TV station you’ll never get opera.

You aren't watching the right channels.

You aren't watching the right channels.

And which channels should I watch?

And which channels should I watch?

You claimed that no where on privately owned television Opera is played. Perhaps not often, or not on the more mainstream channels, but I've seen a few Operas have been playing. And promptly turned off the TV. Opera isn't my cup of tea.

You claimed that no where on privately owned television Opera is played. Perhaps not often, or not on the more mainstream channels, but I've seen a few Opera's played out. And promptly turned off the TV. Opera isn't my cup of tea.

I have no knowledge of an entire opera on our commercial TV stations. I'm rather sure it never happened.

I don't like it either, but that's not important, it's about giving you an idea. Believe me, they do more than just opera. It's about 'all' TV, you rarely see on commercial TV stations. Serious and in depth debate shows by instance. I don't see them often on the commercial ones. And if it happens, the level is rather low.

The public TV is having the biggest market share here, so I guess they are better in plugging what the audience wants.

BTW, opera lovers can see an opera every 2 weeks on public TV here.

Why are you against the right for an individual to receive individual profit from his or her work?


Chumblywumbly has pretty much already covered the fact that its not a right, so I'm basically posting out of a desire to politely indicate my agreement with him/her.

...so I'm basically posting out of a desire to politely indicate my agreement with him/her.
Polite indication of agreement noted, young chap/chapess.

Another example why private isn't always better as public companies:

The television market. The public (government controlled) TV company is here far superior to its commercial competitors. It is containing less dumb soaps, fewer stupid movies, no phone games, almost no commercials etc... In the same time it is giving room to specific TV, which is maybe not interesting for the majority, but they are offered something in their taste maybe later.

I don’t like opera, but I accept that some people do. On a commercial TV station you’ll never get opera.
Oh dear, gah, you're so right!!!

Despite being a bit more socialistic than you, TAI, I also tend to support the Anglo system more. Ultimatly, however, I think the answer (as always) lies in a hybrid. The Anglo world needs to learn how to make its public sector far more efficient. The French and German worlds need to learn to allow for failure.

The French and German models, allowing for better infrastructure and health of its citizens, enables businesses to be more efficient. The Anglo model permits greater experimentation. Greater risk, greater potential for reward. These risks, however, cannot be taken without a healthy, capable work force and the well-developed infrastructure to support it. There is no reason why the two systems can't be blended into an efficient, workable hybrid.

Ultimatly, we need a fair amount of risk. As with much of life, growth comes from pain. Creative destruction is a good thing, as it forces innovation. This can only occur when a risk can be taken. It is, however, important that the infrastructure and citizens of the country are protected as the cycle continues.

Why are you against the right for an individual to receive individual profit from his or her work?


Because if you go on your usual deregulation rant, and we know you will, then the individual starts selling poison to the general public and telling them it's really good for their health. Or maybe they decide that to cut costs, they don't need to test their drugs very much, and we get deformed babies down the line. Or maybe they decide that bribing doctors to endorse breathing in carcinogenic carbon heavy gases is good for you. Or maybe they decide that their chemical factory shouldn't have any safety measures and deny all responsibility when it blows, poisoning a good many people.

But you're perfectly fine with that sort of thing aren't you, Mr Libertarian-no-government-except-when-business-goes-bust?

Because then the individual starts selling poison to the general public and telling them it's really good for their health. Or maybe they decide that to cut costs, they don't need to test their drugs very much. Or maybe they decide that bribing doctors to endorse breathing in carcinogenic carbon heavy gases is good for you. Or maybe they decide that their chemical factory shouldn't have any safety measures and deny all responsibility when it blows, poisoning a good many people.

But you're perfectly fine with that sort of thing aren't you, Mr Libertarian-no-government-except-when-business-goes-bust?

Wow. What a worthless ad-homienem mixed in with examples of extremism more akin to corporate fiefdom than Libertarianism.

The French model is unacceptable. Even if you ignore the moral issues with it, it just doesn't produce worthwhile outcomes. It claims to protect the weak, but the weakest in French society are suffering the most from it. And at the same time it doesn't produce decent growth and makes every major business decision a political issue, with all the time delays and incentive problems that brings.

The German model has some of the same problems. It's all very easy to talk about the "social market economy", but the fact of the matter is that no one here has bothered to define it yet. It basically functions these days on the back of industrial manufacturers - multinational companies, in other words which live off the growth in the developing world. The traditionally German things about them are being phased out: Rheinland capitalism is dead, equity raising and money market debt management are the thing for them and are mostly handled not in "their" banker's office in Frankfurt, but in London.

Germany at home stalled ten years ago and is moving nowhere. There are two main reasons for this, both of which must be considered part of the "German model" as it exists. The first is the political gridlock, in which both major parties are forced by the conformist political landscape to unwaveringly aim for the status quo. There are no reforms in Germany, and the Agenda 2010 (which, if nothing else, at least had a vision) was buried in protests. And the second (and more serious) factor is the education system. If you do badly in primary school in Germany, you will be sent to the Hauptschule, and you will never get the tools you could use to move beyond the low-skilled market, where you compete with Eastern Europeans, Chinese and any number of others who have all the advantages. Who is most likely to do badly in primary school? The kids who don't have as much exposure to the German language, meaning immigrants.

But even if you somehow manage not to have been born into the wrong household in Germany, if you manage to get an Abitur, you've got nowhere to go. German universities suck across the board, and the only thing worse than the organisational system and facilities are the students themselves, who on average spend way too long there (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,408465,00.html). But what happens if you try to introduce an incentive for students to hurry up and actually remember that they should actually try and make their way towards productive members of society as quickly as possible (as an obligation not just to themselves, but to society which is financing them as well)? Or when you suggest that Germany should establish some decent unis with actual international reputation and appeal? You get protests, and deadlock in cabinet. In other words: nothing happens.

This has been going on basically since reunification, which turned out to have been a badly managed, questionable idea. Germans are afraid of change, or at least acting like they are. The positive outcomes are produced by a small strata of society, people with international connections and, for the most part, anglo-saxon mindsets. Hence why they do business with businessmen abroad: they can't talk to the German consumer anymore, because they are drifting apart over time. Other than a few car manufacturers, German businesses work primarily in export-driven B2B markets.

I don't know what the social market economy was when it still existed. I rather hope that it was better than what Germany has now.

So that basically leaves the two actual options for the future: the anglo-saxon model, because for all its failings, at least it's easy to identify what went wrong and to fix it, or state capitalism like in China or Russia, or France if the PS got its way. That's the choice here, as far as I see it.

Wow. What a worthless ad-homienem mixed in with examples of extremism more akin to corporate fiefdom than Libertarianism.

Ad-hominem? Hardly.

TAI has always been advocating deregulation in just about every industry he touches on. And it should be apparent to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the past abuses resulting from deregulation or just lack of regulation that a deregulation for the sake of profit maximization isn't necessarily a good thing.

Ad-hominem? Hardly.

TAI has always been advocating deregulation in just about every industry he touches on. And it should be apparent to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the past abuses resulting from deregulation or just lack of regulation that a deregulation for the sake of profit maximization isn't necessarily a good thing.

To be honest, I don't think I have actually, ever, specifically seen him rant about and argue that there should be 'deregulation'.

To be honest, I don't think I have actually, ever, specifically seen him rant about and argue that there should be 'deregulation'.

Is it now? It's hard to construe it as anything less when he's very much for a free for all market. When he's not doing the Muslim/immigrant scare, he generally argues against any form of state protectionism/welfare as well as regulation of businesses in European states, such as this thread. If he opposes regulation the way he does, and it is hard to believe he is neutral on the issue, the logical conclusion is that he is for deregulation no?

Is it now? It's hard to construe it as anything less when he's very much for a free for all market. When he's not doing the Muslim/immigrant scare, he generally argues against any form of state protectionism/welfare as well as regulation of businesses in European states, such as this thread. If he opposes regulation the way he does, and it is hard to believe he is neutral on the issue, the logical conclusion is that he is for deregulation no?

Seriously? The situation is just soooooooo much more nuanced than merely 'regulation' vs 'deregulation'. However, in the OP in his comments did not indicate such an opinion, and the anglo-saxon model is not a model of total deregulation.

People do use their brain all the time. Even when they are sleeping. So it's weird to ask that I should use it. It's not that someone has another opinion, that you have the right to start an insult fest.
I wasn't intending to make a personal insult, but you just became ridiculous with your comparisons and statements.

Not specific the fastfood industry, but you used 'all'. That's including the fastfood one. I could compare it to zillion other industries as well.

Maybe the train companies can't handle the bulk on rules in a profitable way. Maybe that's the reason why UK trains crash more since they went private.
Look, a private company mismanaging something does not brand all private companies as so, anymore than Cuba's public companies mismanaging something mean that all state owned companies are so.


How about all three at different points of time, in their own individual and appropriate environments? To say "I like model x, and only model x regardless" seems remarkably short sighted and likely to feed us into an inflexible, doctrinaire system that closes off whole hosts of policy solutions to the endless sorts of problems we're always going to face. Environments and attitudes shift and change, and you ought to do what works at different points in time.
The problem is, that on multiple issues, these systems have fundamental differences that one must make a choice on. For example, the Anglo Saxon version offers a more fluid and agile workfroces, while the French Model offers more job security and welfare.

One cannot legally challenge any instance of not making a profit from one's own work; otherwise all failed business ventures would be clogging up the courts.
Not what I meant. One has a right to work, and work, in the Western sense, means we sell our services and skills to someone in return for profit.



There's plenty of not-for-profit work that's not charitable nor done for favours. Cooperative work, for example.
Right, but I'm talking about standard work that people do in order to receive a profitable income to live off of.

One has a right to work, and work, in the Western sense, means we sell our services and skills to someone in return for profit.
How much good does that "right" do when nobody is hiring you either because they don't need your skills or don't want your services, and you suck at freelancing and fail time and again?
Who are you going to sue or ask for help, then?

I'd say you don't have the right to work - you have the right to try to find work, but nothing more!

(Disregarding the social safety nets that may or may not be in place depending on where you live which would ensure your continued existence if only on a basic level, that is.)

I do admit that I am a bit outside of my element here. In reading the article, Germany's model seemed like a good choice, and I still like it better. But I do see the sense in the Anglo model.
No problem. For a (obviously capitalist) view into the German model, check out Neu Leonstein's post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14800954&postcount=68
Anglo-Saxon model, very much for the same reasons as TAI.
Nice.;)

The thing with the German economy which relies heavily on exports (great in good times, worse in bad times) is that while yes, there's a domestic market, it would simply not be enough for our economy to only have that.
Our country doesn't have many natural resources, so there's little choice but to import raw materials and turn them into something that can be sold abroad. That's why knowledge and invention are fundamental to our society (which, sadly enough, do not receive enough funding when looking at the educational sector!).
Indeed. Well said. And if you think education is a problem in Germany, check out America's problem. I agree that we are not doing a good enough job in teaching future and current generations through both our public and private school systems in many states (private schools here can be anywhere from shitty - like the public schools - to excellent). Obviously, the North East is going to have better schools than Southern California, but overall, my point stands. Education is important, and I have no idea how to reform it, as neither Republican nor Democrat seems to do anything about it. (My opinion is that the Teachers Union really hurts the school system by making it ridiculously difficullt to fire bad teachers)

However, the German service industry is not to be underestimated, either.
I heard a few stories down in Switzerland about Swiss getting pissed off when German tele-service people couldn't understand, either their Schweizerdeutsch or their Schweizer Hochdeutsch.:p

While that is all true - I believe that the social market economy model does provide a safety net that the Anglo-Saxon model seems to lack.
If you're doing fine, things are great and you reap everything - but should anything go wrong, you're on your own. I prefer the social contract here that gives one the opportunity to succeed and yet the safety should things go awry.
In the Anglo-Saxon model, if things go wrong, it is not that difficult to find another job (as it is in Europe), even more so if you have a good set of skillZzZ.
I feel that in the Anglo-Saxon model, people tend to fend for themselves and for themselves only.
Well, yeah, but we also of course have non-for-profit organizations and such.

I object to privatizing industry or sectors for which the public has paid.
That includes railroads, highways, power grids, hospitals, emergency services, and so on.
Heck, I even believe that there are sectors which should be completely state-owned like the health care system, water plants, and to a certain point energy companies (electricity + gas), or waste removal. Why? Because the private sector has shown time and again that a) they cannot be trusted because they will always put profit over security and b) there are things which the market cannot and will not regulate.
Not Air Travel?

Privatizing the national phone company, the power industry, or the national mail service have only shown one thing: The private sector does not necessarily guarantee to lead to a better, more readily available, more cost-efficient state of affairs.
in America, UPS, DHL, FedEx are all highly efficient and MUCH better than the United States postal service.

The problem is, that on multiple issues, these systems have fundamental differences that one must make a choice on. For example, the Anglo Saxon version offers a more fluid and agile workfroces, while the French Model offers more job security and welfare.




I guess I should clarify...

...as a government employee who's job is largely one in which I make sure that the federal government is doing what it's supposed to (I largely work on national security matters, but that may change given the current administrations penchant for spending way much in all sorts of new nooks and crannies), I'm quite in favor of the Anglo-American model, as that means less work for me.

As a government systems idealist I would hope that the government could be responsive and smart enough to keep its purse strings tight, and its role in the economy limited when times are good (which my government, at least, is awful at), but to spring to the fore in a French-like fashionwhen we get sudden panics, like we did last September-October (which my government is definitely way eager for). But, we have politicians and their political appointees *chokeschokeschokes*, who've never met spending they didn't like, regardless of party.

Which, weirdly enough, is why I like progressive taxation. The way I look at it, progressive taxes are an automatic stimulative tax cut when effective wages fall.

snip

I don't know. You could make similar, if not identical criticisms about the anglo saxon model. Much of what you point out here, I think, is more of a consequence of the rapid pace of globalization and its effects on mature industrial societies (none of which have been structurally able to keep up with the pace) rather than anything to do with market regulation.

I'll grant that the anglo saxon economies seem less moribund, but that's really only because they haven't minded lending money to install granite counter tops, and that their governments are far more willing to write blank checks to 'stabilize' financial systems.

In any event, it's still too early to make a judgment. Five or six years from now, nothing will look the same. The real question is which system will be able to adapt/transform most successfully. At this point no-one can say. (Though france and canada look less horrible).

Ultimately china will own everything anyway. So it's a moot point.

Despite being a bit more socialistic than you, TAI, I also tend to support the Anglo system more. Ultimatly, however, I think the answer (as always) lies in a hybrid. The Anglo world needs to learn how to make its public sector far more efficient. The French and German worlds need to learn to allow for failure.

The French and German models, allowing for better infrastructure and health of its citizens, enables businesses to be more efficient. The Anglo model permits greater experimentation. Greater risk, greater potential for reward. These risks, however, cannot be taken without a healthy, capable work force and the well-developed infrastructure to support it. There is no reason why the two systems can't be blended into an efficient, workable hybrid.

Ultimatly, we need a fair amount of risk. As with much of life, growth comes from pain. Creative destruction is a good thing, as it forces innovation. This can only occur when a risk can be taken. It is, however, important that the infrastructure and citizens of the country are protected as the cycle continues.
Good post. On your point about the French and German systems needing to learn to adopt experimentation and failure, I've read in The Economist that there are laws in Germany against someone who has been bankrupt to be a CEO. How backwards! It was compared to Silicon Valley, where entrepreneurs almost wear their bankruptcy histories as badges on their shirts!

I guess I should clarify...

...as a government employee who's job is largely one in which I make sure that the federal government is doing what it's supposed to (I largely work on national security matters, but that may change given the current administrations penchant for spending way much in all sorts of new nooks and crannies), I'm quite in favor of the Anglo-American model, as that means less work for me.

As a government systems idealist I would hope that the government could be responsive and smart enough to keep its purse strings tight, and its role in the economy limited when times are good (which my government, at least, is awful at), but to spring to the fore in a French-like fashionwhen we get sudden panics, like we did last September-October (which my government is definitely way eager for). But, we have politicians and their political appointees *chokeschokeschokes*, who've never met spending they didn't like, regardless of party.

Which, weirdly enough, is why I like progressive taxation. The way I look at it, progressive taxes are an automatic stimulative tax cut when effective wages fall.
Hmm, I see. I think the Federal Government did a good job springing to action in an effort to save the economy after 9/11. The problem is, springing to action 'in a french-like fashion' would mean the creation of a MASSIVE welfare state with HUGE unemployment security . . .

Because if you go on your usual deregulation rant, and we know you will, then the individual starts selling poison to the general public and telling them it's really good for their health. Or maybe they decide that to cut costs, they don't need to test their drugs very much, and we get deformed babies down the line. Or maybe they decide that bribing doctors to endorse breathing in carcinogenic carbon heavy gases is good for you. Or maybe they decide that their chemical factory shouldn't have any safety measures and deny all responsibility when it blows, poisoning a good many people.
Alright, just slow down and take it easy, dude.

That guy said "As someone rather firmly against the individual accumulation of wealth..." and I simply questioned why anyone would be against the individual accumulation of wealth, from which you somehow jumped into your almost pre-programed rant on regulation and hypothetical evil capitalists killing babies for profit. Doesn't that seem ridiculous now that you took a moment to think about everything?

But you're perfectly fine with that sort of thing aren't you, Mr Libertarian-no-government-except-when-business-goes-bust?
In the word of some hispanic bitch, 'you're talking to me like you know me.'

I'm not the extreme anarcho-capitalist libertarian you think I am. In fact, I'm not anywhere as extreme as you seem to think I am. I do favor some governmental regulations, I certainly favor the government existing (have never called for no government except for bailouts, ever:rolleyes:) and am not even a full libertarian. I have some libertarian tendancies, some nationalist ones and some conservative ones. Also, some internationalist ones.

Paint me. I dare you.

The French model is unacceptable.

*SNIP*

That's the choice here, as far as I see it.
Excellent post. Was hoping you'd show up. I hope German Nightmare replies to it, since he claimed to support the German Model.

Seriously? The situation is just soooooooo much more nuanced than merely 'regulation' vs 'deregulation'. However, in the OP in his comments did not indicate such an opinion, and the anglo-saxon model is not a model of total deregulation.

Don't douse his pre-programmed 'evil capitalist' response with a cold, hard splash of reality . . .

How much good does that "right" do when nobody is hiring you either because they don't need your skills or don't want your services, and you suck at freelancing and fail time and again?
Who are you going to sue or ask for help, then?

I'd say you don't have the right to work - you have the right to try to find work, but nothing more!

(Disregarding the social safety nets that may or may not be in place depending on where you live which would ensure your continued existence if only on a basic level, that is.)

You are more likely to find a job and find somehow hiring in the Anglo-Saxon system, where the process of hiring and firing employees is much more effficient and easy, than in the continental systems.

Also, America has constatly had excellent [low] levels of unemployment. In comparison, look at France. Generally much higher unemployment levels. Ok. Now, look at the Muslim parts of France. Unemployment levels go from much higher than America to HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE IN AFRICA!?

Alright, just slow down and take it easy, dude.

Checking again, I'll admit to having read this particular situation wrong and operated on existing bias.

Hmm, I see. I think the Federal Government did a good job springing to action in an effort to save the economy after 9/11. The problem is, springing to action 'in a french-like fashion' would mean the creation of a MASSIVE welfare state with HUGE unemployment security . . .

If both can be achieved in a very short amount of time, and then have the workforce and economy weaned off of them over a period of say [insert arbitrary amount of time not exceeding one year], then sure. But during normal periods (read: non-panic periods), Anglo-American.

Indeed. Well said. And if you think education is a problem in Germany, check out America's problem. I agree that we are not doing a good enough job in teaching future and current generations through both our public and private school systems in many states (private schools here can be anywhere from shitty - like the public schools - to excellent). Obviously, the North East is going to have better schools than Southern California, but overall, my point stands. Education is important, and I have no idea how to reform it, as neither Republican nor Democrat seems to do anything about it. (My opinion is that the Teachers Union really hurts the school system by making it ridiculously difficullt to fire bad teachers)
I find myself agreeing with you. (What a strange feeling :p)
I heard a few stories down in Switzerland about Swiss getting pissed off when German tele-service people couldn't understand, either their Schweizerdeutsch or their Schweizer Hochdeutsch.:p
Oopsy!
In the Anglo-Saxon model, if things go wrong, it is not that difficult to find another job (as it is in Europe), even more so if you have a good set of skillZzZ.
I believe it has a lot to do with people's mindset. Changing your workplace and moving homes is very typical for, let's say, the U.S., whereas Germans tend to be more hesitant towards that kind of flexibility that the working market is calling for today. I believe it has to do with Heimatverbundenheit or some-such thing.
Well, yeah, but we also of course have non-for-profit organizations and such.
True.
Not Air Travel?
No. While I do believe that air travel needs to have very strict government oversight (for safety reasons alone, if not for other reasons), I don't consider air travel to be a necessity within Germany but a luxury when there are alternatives like the train.
If anything, I'd like to see air travel even more restricted. As you might (or might not?) guess, I'm not a big fan of those low-cost carriers. One of the changes I would implement is taxing kerosene. (The true cost of air travel is not represented in the cost of a ticket...)
in America, UPS, DHL, FedEx are all highly efficient and MUCH better than the United States postal service.
Same here - but they're also expensive (even if a little less so than Die Post for letters, with DHL being their parcel service), and should you not be home, sometimes a little hard to reach to get to your mail.

Indeed. Well said. And if you think education is a problem in Germany, check out America's problem. I agree that we are not doing a good enough job in teaching future and current generations through both our public and private school systems in many states (private schools here can be anywhere from shitty - like the public schools - to excellent). Obviously, the North East is going to have better schools than Southern California, but overall, my point stands. Education is important, and I have no idea how to reform it, as neither Republican nor Democrat seems to do anything about it. (My opinion is that the Teachers Union really hurts the school system by making it ridiculously difficullt to fire bad teachers)Much of the issue in talking (and reforming) the American education system is that it doesn't exist. It is highly difficult for the federal government to do anything to modify the system nationwide (It can be done with categorical funding, but even this has its issues). The unions are both good and bad...they protect good teachers from bad policy and bad administration, but hurt the profession with retaining bad teachers). As you said, both public and private schools succeed amazingly and fail horrendously.
in America, UPS, DHL, FedEx are all highly efficient and MUCH better than the United States postal service.
I'll take slight issue with this, in the same way that I take issue when people say private schools are more efficient than public. UPS et. al. is better in some instances. In low traffic areas (very rural locations, for example), however, the cost of delivery simply cannot be profitable, and therefore, difficult to impossible to justify from a business standpoint. Yes, the private sector does a fantastic job as it stands, but the public sector still holds a vital role in connecting every address in a consistant manner across the board.
Good post. On your point about the French and German systems needing to learn to adopt experimentation and failure, I've read in The Economist that there are laws in Germany against someone who has been bankrupt to be a CEO. How backwards! It was compared to Silicon Valley, where entrepreneurs almost wear their bankruptcy histories as badges on their shirts!Exactly.
The theory of education in which I was taught sets the ability to create a "safe zone" in the classroom as a paramount task. What this "safe zone" is, is a place where it is okay to get a question wrong. It is better, for example, to write a "spectacular failure" of a paper than it is to succeed in writing a very safe paper that proves its point. Anyone can take on a safe thesis and prove it. I will give a higher grade to a paper that takes on a complex, highly controversial thesis but fails to effectively convince me than a paper that easily proves its thesis, but only does so because it is easy to do.

This theory mirrors what is needed in business (this isn't a coincidence). Yes, a CEO might fail...what is important is not the failure itself, but why. Did the CEO fail because they just didn't do it right, or did they fail because they tried something amazingly new, and just not quite hit the mark? The one that failed because they tried something huge and missed the mark creates new opportunity, be it for themselves or for someone else. Their failure creates a new framework, from which the mistakes can be fixed, and the system can be tried again.

This ability to fail is actually the basis of the scientific method.

I believe it has a lot to do with people's mindset. Changing your workplace and moving homes is very typical for, let's say, the U.S., whereas Germans tend to be more hesitant towards that kind of flexibility that the working market is calling for today. I believe it has to do with Heimatverbundenheit or some-such thing.

An attitude that, interestingly enough, has transplanted itself to the US. Outside of Dover, Ohio, there's a state route that you can drive along, and it's entirely populated with a whole host of my relatives, as well as the Zoar Road Gun Club where the reunions are held.

Good post. On your point about the French and German systems needing to learn to adopt experimentation and failure, I've read in The Economist that there are laws in Germany against someone who has been bankrupt to be a CEO. How backwards! It was compared to Silicon Valley, where entrepreneurs almost wear their bankruptcy histories as badges on their shirts!

Personal bankruptcy, or someone who drove a company off a cliff? I don't really agree with it, because bankruptcy should be a fresh start &c., but I can see why there is prejudice against allowing personal bankrupts from heading publicly traded companies.

Hell, we banned Henry Blodget from being an analyst because he made shit calls. Is it all that different?

The theory of education in which I was taught sets the ability to create a "safe zone" in the classroom as a paramount task. What this "safe zone" is, is a place where it is okay to get a question wrong. It is better, for example, to write a "spectacular failure" of a paper than it is to succeed in writing a very safe paper that proves its point. Anyone can take on a safe thesis and prove it. I will give a higher grade to a paper that takes on a complex, highly controversial thesis but fails to effectively convince me than a paper that easily proves its thesis, but only does so because it is easy to do.

This theory mirrors what is needed in business (this isn't a coincidence). Yes, a CEO might fail...what is important is not the failure itself, but why. Did the CEO fail because they just didn't do it right, or did they fail because they tried something amazingly new, and just not quite hit the mark? The one that failed because they tried something huge and missed the mark creates new opportunity, be it for themselves or for someone else. Their failure creates a new framework, from which the mistakes can be fixed, and the system can be tried again.

This ability to fail is actually the basis of the scientific method.

Unlike the classroom, however, businesses don't operate in isolation. If someone fails with their paper/thesis/experiment it really doesn't effect anyone except the person doing it. That's not the case with business, there are all kinds of counterparties involved, some of whom stand to lose everything.

Now, it's fine if the risk of the new venture is fully understood by all parties participating. But, because of the way capital markets operate - through x numbers of intermediaries, few of whom probably fully understand properly what is going on in the first place - it's not really ideal to have an environment where there are no restraints on failure other than personal financial disappointment. You can look at the recent episode of financial innovation as an excellent example of this, because the vast majority of people are poorer now whether they chose to participate or not.

Of course, it's fine when such things are limited to venture capital, or are funded by partnerships who have the sophistication to handle the type of risk. But it's a bad idea to create a safe zone across the entire spectrum of business. Companies that issue bonds which are picked up by insurance companies and pension funds ought to be managed conservatively.

Personal bankruptcy, or someone who drove a company off a cliff? I don't really agree with it, because bankruptcy should be a fresh start &c., but I can see why there is prejudice against allowing personal bankrupts from heading publicly traded companies.

Hell, we banned Henry Blodget from being an analyst because he made shit calls. Is it all that different?

Depends how and why those shit calls were made. Did he have good reason, or did he just fuck up?

There was an article in the Globe today about a company called Cubist, a small biotech firm that purchased a drug (called daptomycin) from Eli Lilly & Co. The drug is an antibiotic used to treat particularly bad infections. Eli Lilly stopped development because it might have caused severe muscle damage and would have been too dangerous to prescribe. So Cubist bought the drug, and found a way to adjust dosage to make it safe. They also found it is effective against MRSA. Cubist is now one of the best-performing companies in MA.

Now, was there good reason to believe that daptomycin could become a profitable drug? That's clearly debatable...Eli Lilly said no, Cubist said yes. So Cubist took the risk, and is now reaping significant rewards.

Now say daptomycin couldn't be made workable. The CEO would have driven the company to bankruptcy. If, as is often the case in a very small company, he had significant holdings in the company, he too may have gone bankrupt. Now, yes, had daptomycin not worked, maybe we would say it was a stupid risk to take on...but that can only be judged on hindsight. The fact is, someone saw potential, and ran with it. They easily could have gone bankrupt because of this risk, possibly before they found the breakthrough. Their failure would have provided insight.

Cubist article (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/articles/the_cure_no_one_saw/)

Unlike the classroom, however, businesses don't operate in isolation. If someone fails with their paper/thesis/experiment it really doesn't effect anyone except the person doing it. That's not the case with business, there are all kinds of counterparties involved, some of whom stand to lose everything.Of course. I don't mean to imply that the two are directly comparable...only that it is important to allow, and even encourage, the taking of risks.

Now, it's fine if the risk of the new venture is fully understood by all parties participating. But, because of the way capital markets operate - through x numbers of intermediaries, few of whom probably fully understand properly what is going on in the first place - it's not really ideal to have an environment where there are no restraints on failure other than personal financial disappointment. You can look at the recent episode of financial innovation as an excellent example of this, because the vast majority of people are poorer now whether they chose to participate or not.
Don't get me wrong. There need to be restrictions. There need to be controls. As in any system, a balance must be found. But to not allow for risk is, in my opinion, a huge failure.
Of course, it's fine when such things are limited to venture capital, or are funded by partnerships who have the sophistication to handle the type of risk. But it's a bad idea to create a safe zone across the entire spectrum of business. Companies that issue bonds which are picked up by insurance companies and pension funds ought to be managed conservatively.
Agreed.

Depends how and why those shit calls were made. Did he have good reason, or did he just fuck up?

He was pumping and dumping stock on the behalf of his employer Merill Lynch (more or less). Probably more blameworthy than bankruptcy per se, but nothing that plenty of others didn't do also. He just was one of the most visible. Anyway, I was only illustrating that even in the anglosphere not everyone gets a second chance.

There was an article in the Globe today about a company called Cubist, a small biotech firm that purchased a drug (called daptomycin) from Eli Lilly & Co. The drug is an antibiotic used to treat particularly bad infections. Eli Lilly stopped development because it might have caused severe muscle damage and would have been too dangerous to prescribe. So Cubist bought the drug, and found a way to adjust dosage to make it safe. They also found it is effective against MRSA. Cubist is now one of the best-performing companies in MA.

Now, was there good reason to believe that daptomycin could become a profitable drug? That's clearly debatable...Eli Lilly said no, Cubist said yes. So Cubist took the risk, and is now reaping significant rewards.

Now say daptomycin couldn't be made workable. The CEO would have driven the company to bankruptcy. If, as is often the case in a very small company, he had significant holdings in the company, he too may have gone bankrupt. Now, yes, had daptomycin not worked, maybe we would say it was a stupid risk to take on...but that can only be judged on hindsight. The fact is, someone saw potential, and ran with it. They easily could have gone bankrupt because of this risk, possibly before they found the breakthrough. Their failure would have provided insight.

Cubist article (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/articles/the_cure_no_one_saw/)

Well I don't see why he would have gone personally bankrupt unless he had extremely poor money management skills or poor judgment. Plenty of people manage to fail with start ups without getting into personal bankruptcy. There is nothing particularly heroic about stiffing your personal creditors. As I said, I don't agree with the rule, but I can understand it. At least for company officers of publicly traded companies.

Companies that issue bonds which are picked up by insurance companies and pension funds ought to be managed conservatively.
I'd put more weight on the converse.

In the Anglo-Saxon model, if things go wrong, it is not that difficult to find another job (as it is in Europe), even more so if you have a good set of skillZzZ.
I forgot to mention the first thought that came to my mind upon reading this: "skillZzZ" looks a lot like sleeping on the job - might that be the reason to have gotten fired in the first place? :tongue:
Excellent post. Was hoping you'd show up. I hope German Nightmare replies to it, since he claimed to support the German Model.
I read that post. Yet, I have to admit, I'm not much of an economy buff and most of what I said was - while as well-informed as possible - more of a gut-feeling than based on my education. My knowledge is limited, I think.
Even though I live in Germany (and have lived in the States, so I can compare the two a little bit), all I can say is that I prefer the German model (or what it is supposed to be).
It's pretty much like the "in order to form a more perfect" not union but model.

I guess it comes back to people's mindset. If you've had two dozen jobs in the U.S., nobody questions that. If you've had two dozen jobs here, people tend to think you've done something wrong somewhere, somehow, and you couldn't stay employed with one and the same company for most of your life.

Mind you, I do see the changes that occur in our society and personal continuous work history. Still doesn't mean I have to like it.

But N.L. is right when he says that many reforms and necessary changes have not taken and probably will not take place soon or soon enough to help. Pretty much like the Reps and Dems not changing the overall system, I can see how Germany after 1990 hasn't really actively changed things to the better.
You are more likely to find a job and find somehow hiring in the Anglo-Saxon system, where the process of hiring and firing employees is much more effficient and easy, than in the continental systems.
True. Yet I feel very uneasy with this hire&fire mentality.

Also, America has constatly had excellent [low] levels of unemployment.
Doesn't that have something to do with disregarding those who've been unemployed for a certain amount of time? Don't those not show up in the statistics?
In comparison, look at France. Generally much higher unemployment levels. Ok.
Yeah, true. But on the other hand, I sometimes wish we'd have their mentality when it comes to workers cohesion and general strikes.
Now, look at the Muslim parts of France. Unemployment levels go from much higher than America to HOLY SHIT WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE IN AFRICA!?
Up till this I rather enjoyed the discussion. Is this the moment where the to be expected Muslim-bashing rears its ugly head? Man, what a pity!

I'd put more weight on the converse.

Haha, good point. But it's not practical that way. Calpers is never going to have good management. And ratings companies are just junk. (Though quasi legitimate for some reason).

Anyway, there is good reason for denying highly speculative ventures access to massive pools of capital.

Doesn't that have something to do with disregarding those who've been unemployed for a certain amount of time? Don't those not show up in the statistics?
That's the same in Germany as well. If you stop looking for work, it becomes basically impossible for the statisticians to distinguish you from, for example, a stay-at-home dad or a housewife, so you don't count as being in the labour force anymore.

Up till this I rather enjoyed the discussion. Is this the moment where the to be expected Muslim-bashing rears its ugly head? Man, what a pity!
I don't think that was Muslim-bashing. It was more an observation of what we all know: the French system is extremely bad at allowing poor immigrants to find work, because the unions and labour laws ultimately exist to serve those with jobs, not the unemployed; who compete with those who do. The choice of words was poor though.

That's the same in Germany as well. If you stop looking for work, it becomes basically impossible for the statisticians to distinguish you from, for example, a stay-at-home dad or a housewife, so you don't count as being in the labour force anymore.
True. Unless, of course, you're on Stütze like ALG-I or ALG-II. And seriously, who can afford to stay at home with no income indefinitely? So you'll still show up in the statistics.
I don't think that was Muslim-bashing. It was more an observation of what we all know: the French system is extremely bad at allowing poor immigrants to find work, because the unions and labour laws ultimately exist to serve those with jobs, not the unemployed; who compete with those who do. The choice of words was poor though.
Okay, benefit of the doubt.

Looks like, again, it's down to providing decent and relevant education, because the same is true for our German fringe groups, is it not?

I forgot to mention the first thought that came to my mind upon reading this: "skillZzZ" looks a lot like sleeping on the job - might that be the reason to have gotten fired in the first place? :tongue:lulzZz

I read that post. Yet, I have to admit, I'm not much of an economy buff and most of what I said was - while as well-informed as possible - more of a gut-feeling than based on my education. My knowledge is limited, I think.
Even though I live in Germany (and have lived in the States, so I can compare the two a little bit), all I can say is that I prefer the German model (or what it is supposed to be).
It's pretty much like the "in order to form a more perfect" not union but model.
Ok.

I guess it comes back to people's mindset. If you've had two dozen jobs in the U.S., nobody questions that. If you've had two dozen jobs here, people tend to think you've done something wrong somewhere, somehow, and you couldn't stay employed with one and the same company for most of your life.
Indeed. Culture has a direct relation on the political economy of a state.

Mind you, I do see the changes that occur in our society and personal continuous work history. Still doesn't mean I have to like it.
The changes away from what you perceive as the German Model onto a more liberal Anglo-Saxon model???

But N.L. is right when he says that many reforms and necessary changes have not taken and probably will not take place soon or soon enough to help. Pretty much like the Reps and Dems not changing the overall system, I can see how Germany after 1990 hasn't really actively changed things to the better.
Indeed.

Yet I feel very uneasy with this hire&fire mentality.
Why?

Doesn't that have something to do with disregarding those who've been unemployed for a certain amount of time? Don't those not show up in the statistics?
Those not looking for work are not counted, as the unemployment rate concerns itself with those looking for employment but unable to become (at that time) employed. The same is true in other Western Countries, I'd wager.

Yeah, true. But on the other hand, I sometimes wish we'd have their mentality when it comes to workers cohesion and general strikes.
The strikes? How un-German. Why? They ridiculously disrupt efficiency. I was with a girl, rididing the Paris metro trying to get from Gare du L'est to the Eiffel Tower, and there were various strikes with the metro system that caused it to stop multiple times while we were riding it . . . those dudes would be taken out back and shot in Germany. (And in Switzerland, not only would they be shot, but their families would be, at best excommunicated, at worst punted off the cliff of the highest Alp)

Up till this I rather enjoyed the discussion. Is this the moment where the to be expected Muslim-bashing rears its ugly head? Man, what a pity!
Absolutely not! Though I can see why, - with my posting history and my rather un-diplomatic manner of relaying that last message - you may jump to that conclusion, it'd be the wrong conclusion to make and my point still stands.

That point was, that while French unemployment rates generally (things are a bit different during the crisis) look awful compared to American ones, unemployment rates in les banlieues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue) are comparable to African levels, and go way beyond, in dismality, the general problametic level of unemployment in France.

I'm suprised you don't know of Les Banlieues and what that term notoriously stands for:

Since the 1970s and 1980s, the phrase les banlieues has been increasingly used as a euphemism to describe low-income housing projects in which mainly French of foreign descent or foreign immigrants reside, especially around Paris, but also some other large French cities.

Recently-coined terms used in politics, sociology, and the French media to describe banlieues with high levels of poverty, violence and drug trafficking include zones urbaines sensibles ("sensitive urban areas") and quartiers dits sensibles ("neighbourhoods deemed sensitive").

These areas are largely where many problems relating to Muslims in France occur, though often masked under the unhelpful and uninformative term of 'youths'.

lulzZz
:tongue:
Indeed. Culture has a direct relation on the political economy of a state.
I'd say so!
The changes away from what you perceive as the German Model onto a more liberal Anglo-Saxon model???
Yes. That with the inevitable counter-movement.
Why?
I believe it creates an unnecessary feeling of insecurity.
Those not looking for work are not counted, as the unemployment rate concerns itself with those looking for employment but unable to become (at that time) employed. The same is true in other Western Countries, I'd wager.
Probably so.
The strikes? How un-German. Why? They ridiculously disrupt efficiency. I was with a girl, rididing the Paris metro trying to get from Gare du L'est to the Eiffel Tower, and there were various strikes with the metro system that caused it to stop multiple times while we were riding it . . . those dudes would be taken out back and shot in Germany. (And in Switzerland, not only would they be shot, but their families would be, at best excommunicated, at worst punted off the cliff of the highest Alp)
Yeah, yet I consider warn strikes to be more ridiculous than a true, nationwide general strike.
Absolutely not! Though I can see why, - with my posting history and my rather un-diplomatic manner of relaying that last message - you may jump to that conclusion, it'd be the wrong conclusion to make and my point still stands.
Glad to read that!
That point was, that while French unemployment rates generally (things are a bit different during the crisis) look awful compared to American ones, unemployment rates in les banlieues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue) are comparable to African levels, and go way beyond, in dismality, the general problametic level of unemployment in France.
Oh, I know. And I also believe that it does have to do with education and educational options available (or not!) to those affected...
I'm suprised you don't know of Les Banlieues and what that term notoriously stands for:
These areas are largely where many problems relating to Muslims in France occur, though often masked under the unhelpful and uninformative term of 'youths'.
I'm familiar with les banlieues. A friend of mine from Paris who happens to have an immigration background lived there and through hard work and a good education managed to leave them to stand on his own two feet.

I believe it creates an unnecessary feeling of insecurity.
It's also much more difficult (read: not as simple) to hire employees (bad for young aspiring firms) and thus more difficult to counter unemployment.


Oh, I know. And I also believe that it does have to do with education and educational options available (or not!) to those affected...
It's a matter of who came first, the chicken or the egg? The culture of Les Banlieues carries with it a strong culture of outcastism (word?), lack of respect for authority and anti-social sentiments. Now, the people there claim that this is because they were forced to be outcasts by the racist authority/society, so it becomes a blame-game. But the matter is not just education, but culture as well.

I'm familiar with les banlieues. A friend of mine from Paris who happens to have an immigration background lived there and through hard work and a good education managed to leave them to stand on his own two feet.
Unfortunately, a rare, happy sucess story in a library of sorrow and failure.

Much of the issue in talking (and reforming) the American education system is that it doesn't exist. It is highly difficult for the federal government to do anything to modify the system nationwide (It can be done with categorical funding, but even this has its issues). The unions are both good and bad...they protect good teachers from bad policy and bad administration, but hurt the profession with retaining bad teachers). As you said, both public and private schools succeed amazingly and fail horrendously.
Noted . . . except that I think the teachers unions do more bad than good. A good teacher is, in my experience, less likely to be fired from bad policy than a bad teacher is to be not-fired.

I'll take slight issue with this, in the same way that I take issue when people say private schools are more efficient than public. UPS et. al. is better in some instances. In low traffic areas (very rural locations, for example), however, the cost of delivery simply cannot be profitable, and therefore, difficult to impossible to justify from a business standpoint. Yes, the private sector does a fantastic job as it stands, but the public sector still holds a vital role in connecting every address in a consistant manner across the board.
Right, and I'd never call for abolishing the postal service, just showing that the private alternatives are much more efficient and from my experience, always having lived in and around major, international cities, much better.

Exactly.
The theory of education in which I was taught sets the ability to create a "safe zone" in the classroom as a paramount task. What this "safe zone" is, is a place where it is okay to get a question wrong. It is better, for example, to write a "spectacular failure" of a paper than it is to succeed in writing a very safe paper that proves its point. Anyone can take on a safe thesis and prove it. I will give a higher grade to a paper that takes on a complex, highly controversial thesis but fails to effectively convince me than a paper that easily proves its thesis, but only does so because it is easy to do.

This theory mirrors what is needed in business (this isn't a coincidence). Yes, a CEO might fail...what is important is not the failure itself, but why. Did the CEO fail because they just didn't do it right, or did they fail because they tried something amazingly new, and just not quite hit the mark? The one that failed because they tried something huge and missed the mark creates new opportunity, be it for themselves or for someone else. Their failure creates a new framework, from which the mistakes can be fixed, and the system can be tried again.

This ability to fail is actually the basis of the scientific method.
Nothing wrong hurr.:)

True. Unless, of course, you're on Stütze like ALG-I or ALG-II. And seriously, who can afford to stay at home with no income indefinitely? So you'll still show up in the statistics.
In some statistics. But according to generally accepted definitions, to be part of the labour force you either have to be gainfully employed, or looking to be gainfully unemployed. To the extent that some people live off pensions or pension-like state support without looking for work, those people wouldn't pop up in unemployment statistics. I would suspect that unless Germany's stats office does something very different to the way other countries do, if you added the people who fit into this category, Germany's unemployment rate would be higher still than the officially reported numbers.

And keep in mind as well that these 1 euro jobs and Ich AGs and various other forms of pseudo employment would lead to people dropping out of the statistics.

I think overall it would be very hard to argue that as far as unemployment and the opportunity to find some sort of work is concerned, the US has been doing much better than continental systems. And the reasons are probably those suggested by economic theory: in low-skilled markets, the cost of employing someone is the deciding factor - that kind of labour is an interchangeable commodity. So when you look at a market in which this price is kept artificially high (for example through lots of non-wage labour costs or minimum wages) and particularly the cost v benefit of hiring someone becomes more uncertain due to regulations that prevent you from firing workers when it would be economically advantageous, then the quantity of this labour hired is smaller.

The UK isn't in Europe.

Yes it is, and even if it wasn't, that post was totally irrelevant.

Yes it is, and even if it wasn't, that post was totally irrelevant.

Not culturally.

Not culturally.

Even so, the UK is considered part of Europe.

Even so, the UK is considered part of Europe.

Geographically, yes.

Not culturally.

You can't be culturally European anyway. There are a massive variety of cultures within Europe, and even within single countries in Europe, for example England, Germany, Wales, Russia, Italy and many others. You're so unbelievably stupid I'm amazed you know how to turn on the computer you type your bullshit from.

You can't be culturally European anyway. There are a massive variety of cultures within Europe, and even within single countries in Europe, for example England, Germany, Wales, Russia, Italy and many others. You're so unbelievably stupid I'm amazed you know how to turn on the computer you type your bullshit from.

Why always with the harshness? wtf have I done to you?

Why always with the harshness? wtf have I done to you?

You've mildly insulted me a couple of times, but it's more the fact you're so unbelievably stupid and xenophobic. "No lol we're not in yoorup we're diffrunt kultrahlee lol lol"

You've mildly insulted me a couple of times, but it's more the fact you're so unbelievably stupid and xenophobic. "No lol we're not in yoorup we're diffrunt kultrahlee lol lol"

When have I insulted you?

When have I insulted you?

Oh FFS, do you want me to drag out every single post of yours every and then scour through it? I said mildly insulted, like the few times you've called me bitch etc.

To be honest RoI, whenever I call you on your idiocy and then you start whining, it just derails the threads we're involved in and ruins the experience for everyone else. Things will be easier if I ignore you.

Oh FFS, do you want me to drag out every single post of yours every and then scour through it? I said mildly insulted, like the few times you've called me bitch etc.
That insulted you? What are you a man or a mouse?
To be honest RoI, whenever I call you on your idiocy and then you start whining, it just derails the threads we're involved in and ruins the experience for everyone else. Things will be easier if I ignore you.
You do that.

That insulted you? What are you a man or a mouse?

I said they were mild insults, not they they actually offended me.

Geographically, yes.

There isn't a culturally homogenous Europe, and you know it. But Austria is Europe, Spain is Europe, Germany is Europe and so is England. Different cultures, one continent.:wink:

and so is England.

England =/= the U.K.

England =/= the U.K.

Does =/= mean not the same? Or not equal?

Does =/= mean not the same? Or not equal?

Yes. It's a maths symbol. It should really be a single = with a slash through it, but I don't have a key for that on my keyboard, so I use =/=.

Yes. It's a maths symbol. It should really be a single = with a slash through it, but I don't have a key for that on my keyboard, so I use =/=.

Ever read The Oxford History of England?

Ever read The Oxford History of England?

No, but I know it's about the rest of the U.K. as well. Still doesn't make it correct. England is one of the 4 constituent countries of the U.K., the U.K. is the union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are all countries of their own right.

No, but I know it's about the rest of the U.K. as well. Still doesn't make it correct. England is one of the 4 constituent countries of the U.K., the U.K. is the union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are all countries of their own right.

That's the point, idiot. England used to be an accepted term for not only the UK but the British Empire.

That's the point, idiot. England used to be an accepted term for not only the UK but the British Empire.

Bullshit. The British Empire was not referred to as England. India wasn't considered part of England, and anyway, used to be is the key phrase in your sentence. It is totally incorrect to refer to the U.K. as England nowadays.

Bullshit. The British Empire was not referred to as England. India wasn't considered part of England, and anyway, used to be is the key phrase in your sentence. It is totally incorrect to refer to the U.K. as England nowadays.

Give the kid a break, Adu-kun. I made the mistake too. Brain-fart and all.:wink:

Bullshit. The British Empire was not referred to as England. India wasn't considered part of England, and anyway, used to be is the key phrase in your sentence. It is totally incorrect to refer to the U.K. as England nowadays.

Twas, England was the term for all of it until Scottish nationalism came.

Give the kid a break, Adu-kun. I made the mistake too. Brain-fart and all.:wink:

This is it! I'm right for once! I just saw it on QI.

This is it! I'm right for once! I just saw it on QI.

Source it, sweetie. That'll save you from Adu-kun's bat of scorn. :p

Source it, sweetie. That'll save you from Adu-kun's bat of scorn. :p

I doubt that would do any good. But if he wants to look it up- it's series 5 episode 10.

This is it! I'm right for once! I just saw it on QI.

England was indeed the term for what is now the U.K., but India was not legally part of England. It was a colony of the British Empire.

Twas, England was the term for all of it until Scottish nationalism came.

Or not. You know, what with Wales being made a separate country rather than a principality of England sometime in the 50s.

England was indeed the term for what is now the U.K., but India was not legally part of England. It was a colony of the British Empire.

Look up the video on I player. Steven Fry is never wrong.

Look up the video on I player. Steven Fry is never wrong.

It's spelt Stephen, and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain

this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

You can't be culturally European anyway. There are a massive variety of cultures within Europe, and even within single countries in Europe, for example England, Germany, Wales, Russia, Italy and many others. You're so unbelievably stupid I'm amazed you know how to turn on the computer you type your bullshit from.
Putting aside Colonic Immigration's ignorance, I'd strongly disagree with your statement that you can't be culturally European. Not to take away from the richly diverse cultures that make up Europe, but it's logical to safe that there still exists a definite European culture. Europe underwent an intertwined history of ideoligical movements, religious institutions, technological breakthroughs and socio-political changes that easily crossed borders and crisscrossed its way throughout Europe.

Twas, England was the term for all of it until Scottish nationalism came.
It's always our fault...


I'd strongly disagree with your statement that you can't be culturally European. Not to take away from the richly diverse cultures that make up Europe, but I'd logical to safe that there still exists a definite European culture.
So describe it.

It's always our fault...



So describe it.
It's complex, but I had started to describe common European themes in the rest of that post you cut out:

Europe underwent an intertwined history of ideoligical movements, religious institutions, technological breakthroughs and socio-political changes that easily crossed borders and crisscrossed its way throughout Europe.

Also, on 'European Culture', Wiki touches on the European institutions of music, sport, philosophy, language-groups and religion, most of which have no exact borders in Europe, and crisscross throughout the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_culture

It's complex, but I had started to describe common European themes in the rest of that post you cut out...
Aye, but I meant specifically.

Not that I think it's possible in any meaningful sense.

Also, on 'European Culture', Wiki touches on the European institutions of music, sport, philosophy, language-groups and religion, most of which have no exact borders in Europe, and crisscross throughout the continent.
A rather poor case is made by the article for any coherent European culture at all. Apart from noting that there exists music, sport, philosophy, language-groups and religion in Europe, it's hardly a description of culture. And which culture doesn't have music, sport, philosophy, language-groups and religion?

It also states outright nonsense: "European philosophy is a predominant strand of philosophy globally..."

Not culturally.

England isn't that different as the continent. If you forget their left driving and awful food then it's rather comparable to the rest of Europe.

England isn't like an African, Asian, Middle East or American country. It's European.

Besides, in big countries (UK isn't a big one) like China, Russia and USA there's some cultural difference among its citizen as well.

I don't think the typical NY guy is the same as the average man from Miami.

It's spelt Stephen, and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain

this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_History_of_England
It's always our fault...


Indeed, you are the root cause of all our problems.

(UK isn't a big one)


Bigger than Holland. http://209.85.12.227/11914/116/emo/tongue.gif

Bigger than Holland. http://209.85.12.227/11914/116/emo/tongue.gif

Holland is not a country either. Holland is a part of the Netherlands.

Holland is not a country either. Holland is a part of the Netherlands.
Holland is also an acceptable word to use for The Netherlands. It may not be as official as The Netherlands, but it is still comman usage and not incorrect. Also, Holländisch is how you call the Dutch language in German, and die Holländer is commonly how you call Dutch people in German.

For example. Dutch cheese is called Holländer Käse. This is not a case against the term The Netherlands and all forms deriving of it, but rather a case for ALSO being able to use Holland and forms deriving of it.

England isn't that different as the continent. If you forget their left driving and awful food then it's rather comparable to the rest of Europe.

England isn't like an African, Asian, Middle East or American country. It's European.
I don't know that England is closer to France or Italy than, to say, Canada. . .


I don't think the typical NY guy is the same as the average man from Miami.
Of all the comparisons to make, you make that one. There are zillions of New Yorkers in Miami. Anyway, your point is moot, because there are cultural differences in all nations. Holland has different accents every 10 miles, often. Switzerland has different languages every 100 miles or so. No Englishman here is going to say that people from London are the same as people from the north of England, near Scotland . . .

Indeed, you are the root cause of all our problems.
We try our best.

*destabilises the Union*

Holland is also an acceptable word to use for The Netherlands. It may not be as official as The Netherlands, but it is still comman usage and not incorrect. Also, Holländisch is how you call the Dutch language in German, and die Holländer is commonly how you call Dutch people in German.

For example. Dutch cheese is called Holländer Käse. This is not a case against the term The Netherlands and all forms deriving of it, but rather a case for ALSO being able to use Holland and forms deriving of it.


I don't know that England is closer to France or Italy than, to say, Canada. . .



Of all the comparisons to make, you make that one. There are zillions of New Yorkers in Miami. Anyway, your point is moot, because there are cultural differences in all nations. Holland has different accents every 10 miles, often. Switzerland has different languages every 100 miles or so. No Englishman here is going to say that people from London are the same as people from the north of England, near Scotland . . .

I'm from the Netherlands. And believe me the Dutch people don't like it to be called Hollandian except the ones from that area. Hollandic is just a dialect, the official language is Dutch. We have almost 30 dialects, so...

Yes, I think that England is closer to France than to Canada. The Canadians their environment is rather different to that of England: polar stuff like ice bears, inuit’s, the soccer looks like female soccer, etc ...

Sure, many NY ones do have a life in Miami. I was in USA twice. In NY many people were rather unfriendly, rude and making a lot noise for nothing. In Miami people seemed more friendly, open and relaxed. It's due the weather, the context of the city and other factors.

It must be noted that America imprisons (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita) about seven times more people than both Germany and France, and this affects into the unemployment statistics. Just be aware.

It must be noted that America imprisons (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita) about seven times more people than both Germany and France, and this affects into the unemployment statistics. Just be aware.
That's a valid point. The difference is actually big enough I think to be significant.

It must be noted that America imprisons (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita) about seven times more people than both Germany and France, and this affects into the unemployment statistics. Just be aware.
That is a rather good point. Hmmm....

I'm from the Netherlands. And believe me the Dutch people don't like it to be called Hollandian except the ones from that area. Hollandic is just a dialect, the official language is Dutch. We have almost 30 dialects, so...No, people call your language Dutch in English. I said in German it's common/acceptabl to call Dutch Holländisch. And I know of more than a few Dutch people who call their country Holland (when speaking in English) and use "Holländer[in]" when speaking in German . . .

Yes, I think that England is closer to France than to Canada.
Let that sink in. You are sitting here, telling the world that England is more similar/closer to France or Italy than it is to Canada . . . Are you sure? How could that possibly be so?

Of all the comparisons to make, you make that one. There are zillions of New Yorkers in Miami. Anyway, your point is moot, because there are cultural differences in all nations. Holland has different accents every 10 miles, often. Switzerland has different languages every 100 miles or so. No Englishman here is going to say that people from London are the same as people from the north of England, near Scotland . . .
I don't like being associated to those northern types.
We try our best.

*destabilises the Union*
Do you want to separate?

Yes, I think that England is closer to France than to Canada. The Canadians their environment is rather different to that of England: polar stuff like ice bears, inuit’s, the soccer looks like female soccer, etc ...

Oh, hell noes. You did not just say that.

I prefer the german model. why? Because it is roughly the same model as we have in the netherlands.

Besides, in big countries (UK isn't a big one) like China, Russia and USA there's some cultural difference among its citizen as well.

The UK may not be big, but there are clearly cultural differences. In Wales, between north and south, and the same in England, in Scotland between Highlanders, Lowlanders, Borders and Islanders and in Northern Ireland with the Catholics and the Protestants.

The UK isn't in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

Well, if:
1.being a member country of the European Union, complete with MEPs
2.being a member country of the Western European Union (which is a military alliance, in case you don't know)
3.being a member country of the OSCE
4.being part, geologically, of the european continent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Plain)
5.having a Queen hailing from a German family and a Royal Family whose motto is in French (honni soit qui mal y pense, iirc)
6.using the Latin alphabet

isn't enough to you, well, have it your way.
People who know what they're talking about, on the other hand, will talk matters.


About the OP: laissez-faire is long dead. The only viable choices currently are the so-called "social market economy" (german model) or the "enterpreneur-State" (french model). Both countries have efficient services and solid economies - maybe France has a slight advantage today, because Germany relies mostly on exports, but that's another story.

About the OP: laissez-faire is long dead. The only viable choices currently are the so-called "social market economy" (german model) or the "enterpreneur-State" (french model). Both countries have efficient services and solid economies - maybe France has a slight advantage today, because Germany relies mostly on exports, but that's another story.

Laissez faire was not mentioned, are you seriously equating the Anglo-Saxon model with laissez faire, even though in no way is it even close to that? Or did you just randomly decide not to comment on the Anglo-Saxon model?

I'm from the Netherlands. And believe me the Dutch people don't like it to be called Hollandian except the ones from that area. Hollandic is just a dialect, the official language is Dutch. We have almost 30 dialects, so...

So you object to referring to all of the Netherlands as Holland or the Dutch, as they are their own distinct parts of the Netherlands, yet...

Yes, I think that England is closer to France than to Canada. The Canadians their environment is rather different to that of England: polar stuff like ice bears, inuit’s, the soccer looks like female soccer, etc ...

...you are perfectly willing to do it with the UK.

About the OP: laissez-faire is long dead.
Pure Laissez-Faire, one could argue, has never existed. But impurities of it, political-economies based off of it, have and still do exist.


The only viable choices currently are the so-called "social market economy" (german model) or the "enterpreneur-State" (french model). Both countries have efficient services and solid economies - maybe France has a slight advantage today, because Germany relies mostly on exports, but that's another story.
France has an advantage over Germany in this crisis, only when dealing with how exports impact those respective economies, but Germany has its finances and debt better in order than France, and its unemployment lower.

Also, how exactly is the French model the "entrepreneur-state"???

So you object to referring to all of the Netherlands as Holland or the Dutch, as they are their own distinct parts of the Netherlands, yet...



...you are perfectly willing to do it with the UK.

All the while displaying a stunning lack of anything resembling knowledge about Canada, and perhaps tapdancing on the nose of a seal at the same time!

All the while displaying a stunning lack of anything resembling knowledge about Canada, and perhaps tapdancing on the nose of a seal!

Knowledge of Canada? What's there to know?

Knowledge of Canada? What's there to know?
To know that it's much more similar to England than England is to France and Italy.