Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Republican victory

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Niek Holtzappel

unread,
Nov 9, 1994, 2:54:25 PM11/9/94
to
It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and
the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
become richer.
You americans want to pay lower taxes, but the result is you have to pay
more insurance, more money for study, more money for private security
services etc. In Europe the taxes are higher but the police functions
quite well, the crime-rate is much lower. We are all insured for health
for a payable price. All talentent people can follow the right education,
also for a reasonable price or even for free.
Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a
combination of free enterprice and a social law system.
Wasn't economic growth in US not at an extreme high level during WW II ?
when economics where led by government ? Are the Asian countries not
booming becouse of the combination of free enterprice and government
economics?

Julien Maisonneuve

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 11:20:48 AM11/10/94
to
In article <elswick.1...@primenet.com>, els...@primenet.com (Bill Elswick) writes:
|> But the waiting list for American work permits is enormous and growing. I have
|> personally vouched for several friends from the UK who wanted to come here to
|> work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
|> a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.
This is not true, I don't even consider myself incredibly talented and I earn
enough to live confortably and many people I know are in my case.
Of course, if I wanted a 1M$ sport car, a 10000sqft villa with swimming pool, I
would be better off in the US. I would have to pay private cops too. I also see
many European returning from the US because they weren't paid as much as they
hoped, and had lots of others problems. Many called, few elected.

|> It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is
|> discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.
Yes, look at scandinavian countries : no innovation, no industries. Get real.

|> Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of
|> socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
|> world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
|> let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
|> stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....
Basket case ? We may have a slighlty lower gnp/capita, but we're not too far
from you. Let me remember you your povery rate is the highest in the
indistrialized countries (with 25% of your children under the line), your
medical care the most expensive while covering only a small minority, the
highest crime rate (USSR stats apart) and the highest population (and rate) in
jail in the whole world.
Nice place, really.
--
--_________ Julien.Ma...@inria.fr jul...@sor.inria.fr
/ _ _ _ ...!uunet!inria!corto!julien
/ /) ' ) ) ) INRIA : 33 (1) 39 63 52 08
__/_ // o _ __ / / / _ o _ _ __ __ _ _ _
/ / (_(_(/_(_(<_/) ) / ' (_(_(_(_/_)_(_)_/) )_/) )_(<_(_(_( \_)-(<_
(_/
"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive ?"
WWW Home page: <A HREF="http://prof.inria.fr/SOR/members/julien.html">Julien</A>

Niek Holtzappel

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 11:59:38 AM11/10/94
to
els...@primenet.com (Bill Elswick) writes:

>>It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and
>>the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
>>become richer.

>Not exactly. For once, the middle class may avoid being the cash cow for
>socialist politicians.
The middle class thinks only in short terms i.e. lower taxes. They don't
realize that in a free market economy there will be no middle class
anymore on the long term.


>>You americans want to pay lower taxes, but the result is you have to pay
>>more insurance, more money for study, more money for private security
>>services etc. In Europe the taxes are higher but the police functions
>>quite well, the crime-rate is much lower. We are all insured for health
>>for a payable price. All talentent people can follow the right education,
>>also for a reasonable price or even for free.

>But the waiting list for American work permits is enormous and growing. I have
>personally vouched for several friends from the UK who wanted to come here to
>work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
>a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.

Most Europeans (from the well educated conyinent -not Britain-) are
horrified by what we call "American circumstances". Even conservative
politicians say always that they never want to establisch the American model.


>>Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a
>>combination of free enterprice and a social law system.

>It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is
>discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.

I know a lot of self made millionaires by myself (for example my father).
Of course they cry about the high taxes, but wich millionair doesn't?
If you have talents, even the society will pay for your education if you
don't have money.


>Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of
>socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
>world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
>let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
>stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....

You forget my country, the Netherlands. If we were so individualistic
like in the New World The country was still a part of the North Sea.
Thanks to a central government we have the best techniques in the
world to keep our country dry. Americans who are in Holland say that
they feel so save on the street. And that for the most densly
populated area in the world !!!. Among 15 million inhabitants there are
"only" 300 killings each year. We pay only 1700 guilders( +/- $ 1000) each
year for an excellent health care, and the doctors are in spite of it
quit well payed.If you are in public health service you pay less (when
you earn less than the average income).


David Miller

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 2:06:07 PM11/10/94
to
Bill Elswick (els...@primenet.com) wrote:
: In article <39r9dh$p...@news.xs4all.nl> nho...@xs4all.nl (Niek Holtzappel) writes:
: >From: nho...@xs4all.nl (Niek Holtzappel)
: >Subject: Republican victory
: >Date: 9 Nov 1994 19:54:25 GMT

: >It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and

: >the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
: >become richer.

: Not exactly. For once, the middle class may avoid being the cash cow for
: socialist politicians.

If there were any real difference between the Republicans and
Democrats I would agree with you:)

: >You americans want to pay lower taxes, but the result is you have to pay

: >more insurance, more money for study, more money for private security
: >services etc. In Europe the taxes are higher but the police functions
: >quite well, the crime-rate is much lower. We are all insured for health
: >for a payable price. All talentent people can follow the right education,
: >also for a reasonable price or even for free.

: But the waiting list for American work permits is enormous and growing. I have

: personally vouched for several friends from the UK who wanted to come here to
: work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
: a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.

: >Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a

: >combination of free enterprice and a social law system.

: It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is

: discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.

No, it's not the worst. Outright confiscation of all rights by a
totalitarian regime is the worst, whether it be socialist, fascist,
statist, or some other flavor. Social Democracy still provides *some*
incentives.

On the other hand, the US became a great nation by being a *republic*
that respected individual rights. Social democracies, on the other hand
have been declining for decades.

: Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of

: socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
: world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
: let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
: stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....

: Or do we??

Individual rights, stable government, social homogeneity, and limited
government sound like reasonable factors to me....

: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
: Anyone who maintains a consistent political position will eventually be
: tried for treason --- Mort Sahl
: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

--
David Miller Usual disclaimers apply
Maine State Government

Bill Elswick

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 3:32:41 AM11/10/94
to
In article <39r9dh$p...@news.xs4all.nl> nho...@xs4all.nl (Niek Holtzappel) writes:
>From: nho...@xs4all.nl (Niek Holtzappel)
>Subject: Republican victory
>Date: 9 Nov 1994 19:54:25 GMT

>It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and

>the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
>become richer.

Not exactly. For once, the middle class may avoid being the cash cow for
socialist politicians.

>You americans want to pay lower taxes, but the result is you have to pay

>more insurance, more money for study, more money for private security
>services etc. In Europe the taxes are higher but the police functions
>quite well, the crime-rate is much lower. We are all insured for health
>for a payable price. All talentent people can follow the right education,
>also for a reasonable price or even for free.

But the waiting list for American work permits is enormous and growing. I have
personally vouched for several friends from the UK who wanted to come here to
work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.

>Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a

>combination of free enterprice and a social law system.

It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is
discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.

Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of

socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....

Or do we??


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Michael L. Coburn

unread,
Nov 11, 1994, 2:40:54 PM11/11/94
to
In article <39th90$b...@news-rocq.inria.fr>,

Julien Maisonneuve <jul...@druuna.inria.fr> wrote:
>In article <elswick.1...@primenet.com>, els...@primenet.com (Bill Elswick) writes:

>|> work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
>|> a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.

>This is not true, I don't even consider myself incredibly talented and I earn

>|> It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is

>


>|> Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of
>|> socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third

>Basket case ? We may have a slighlty lower gnp/capita, but we're not too far


>from you. Let me remember you your povery rate is the highest in the

>Nice place, really.


>--
>--_________ Julien.Ma...@inria.fr jul...@sor.inria.fr
> / _ _ _ ...!uunet!inria!corto!julien
> / /) ' ) ) ) INRIA : 33 (1) 39 63 52 08
> __/_ // o _ __ / / / _ o _ _ __ __ _ _ _
> / / (_(_(/_(_(<_/) ) / ' (_(_(_(_/_)_(_)_/) )_/) )_(<_(_(_( \_)-(<_
>(_/
> "Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive ?"
>WWW Home page: <A HREF="http://prof.inria.fr/SOR/members/julien.html">Julien</A>

This thread seems to be arguing the liberal vs conservative stuff
that eveyrone hashes over continually. We have the 'DemoCrooks' who want
the government to run my life (liberal) and we have the 'RepubliCons' who
want the banks to run my life (conservative). Then we have the
Libertarians who want Conan the Barbarian to run my life. I don't want
anyone to run my life other than me, but I realize that some government is
needed to deter Conan, and that a level playing field does not exist thus
generating a need for some liberal policies. The Libertarians get my
vote, but only because the alternatives are absolutely sickening.
The RepubliCons are enjoying their backlash and then the DemoCrooks will
enjoy theirs. A Constitutional Convention to throw them both out in the
street it probably the only answer.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Let me assure you that | Michael L. Coburn | mco...@halcyon.com |
* my employer agrees with| Softfolks Inc. | softfolk.wa.com |
* what I say. He's me. | UNIX,c,X/Motif,Oracle,DCE,CM,& SYS ADM |

Niek Holtzappel

unread,
Nov 11, 1994, 6:11:09 AM11/11/94
to
jul...@druuna.inria.fr (Julien Maisonneuve) writes:

>|> It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is
>|> discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.
>Yes, look at scandinavian countries : no innovation, no industries. Get real.

I want to say that Saab and Volvo are better cars than all that American
and Japanese stuff.


>|> Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of
>|> socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
>|> world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
>|> let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
>|> stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....
>Basket case ? We may have a slighlty lower gnp/capita, but we're not too far
>from you. Let me remember you your povery rate is the highest in the
>indistrialized countries (with 25% of your children under the line), your
>medical care the most expensive while covering only a small minority, the
>highest crime rate (USSR stats apart) and the highest population (and rate) in
>jail in the whole world.
>Nice place, really.

Exactly, for money you can't buy a happy feeling.
I prefer a few dollars less income, so I can walk safely on the street
without being blocked by begging victims of Republican policy >--

Alex Stephens

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 5:20:30 PM11/12/94
to
Niek Holtzappel (nho...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: els...@primenet.com (Bill Elswick) writes:

: >>It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and
: >>the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
: >>become richer.
: >Not exactly. For once, the middle class may avoid being the cash cow for
: >socialist politicians.

: The middle class thinks only in short terms i.e. lower taxes. They don't
: realize that in a free market economy there will be no middle class
: anymore on the long term.

The middle-class certainly seems to be growing in capitalist East Asia.

: >>You americans want to pay lower taxes, but the result is you have to pay

: >>more insurance, more money for study, more money for private security
: >>services etc. In Europe the taxes are higher but the police functions
: >>quite well, the crime-rate is much lower. We are all insured for health
: >>for a payable price. All talentent people can follow the right education,
: >>also for a reasonable price or even for free.
: >But the waiting list for American work permits is enormous and growing. I have
: >personally vouched for several friends from the UK who wanted to come here to
: >work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
: >a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.

: Most Europeans (from the well educated conyinent -not Britain-) are
: horrified by what we call "American circumstances". Even conservative
: politicians say always that they never want to establisch the American model.

Interesting, isn't it, that the British economy outpaced the continental economies by a wide margin during the Thatcher
years. Could it be that Mrs Thatcher's pro-market policies worked? On the other hand, I think the small-government Asian model
would be preferable to the medium-government American model.

: >>Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a
: >>combination of free enterprice and a social law system.
: >It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is
: >discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.

: I know a lot of self made millionaires by myself (for example my father).
: Of course they cry about the high taxes, but wich millionair doesn't?
: If you have talents, even the society will pay for your education if you
: don't have money.

Primary and secondary education are paid for by the government in the US. Tertiary education should be, but entitlement
programmes have put such a strain on state governments that they can no longer afford to fully pay for it.

: >Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of

: >socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
: >world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
: >let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
: >stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....
: You forget my country, the Netherlands. If we were so individualistic

What's the current unemployment rate in the Netherlands? Last I heard, it was rather high.

: like in the New World The country was still a part of the North Sea.

: Thanks to a central government we have the best techniques in the
: world to keep our country dry. Americans who are in Holland say that
: they feel so save on the street. And that for the most densly
: populated area in the world !!!. Among 15 million inhabitants there are
: "only" 300 killings each year. We pay only 1700 guilders( +/- $ 1000) each

The Swiss also have a very low crime rate, despite the requirement that all adult males under 47 own an assault rifle (a real
assault rifle). Switzerland also has a very small government sector. Whatever the root of the crime problem in the US is,
it's neither the availability of firearms, nor that the government is 'too small'. My guess is that the US crime rate would
drop dramatically if drugs were legalised.

: year for an excellent health care, and the doctors are in spite of it

: quit well payed.If you are in public health service you pay less (when
: you earn less than the average income).

I take it the waiting lists for medical treatment aren't as long in the Netherlands as they are in Britain. Even so, I doubt
medical innovation in the Netherlands is comparable to that in the United States.

--
Alex Stephens

Niek Holtzappel

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 8:38:23 AM11/13/94
to
ale...@ccnet.com (Alex Stephens) writes:

>The middle-class certainly seems to be growing in capitalist East Asia.

But in the Reagan/Bush years the middle class was shrinking, so did the
middle class in Britain during the Thatcher years.


>: Most Europeans (from the well educated conyinent -not Britain-) are
>: horrified by what we call "American circumstances". Even conservative
>: politicians say always that they never want to establisch the American model.

>Interesting, isn't it, that the British economy outpaced the continental economies by a wide margin during the Thatcher
>years. Could it be that Mrs Thatcher's pro-market policies worked? On the other hand, I think the small-government Asian model
>would be preferable to the medium-government American model.

Yes, In the beginning Thatchers policies worked, because Britain was
locked by the labour unions (the labour unions on the continent are much
different and didn't cause these kind of problems).
But Thatcher went too far. The result is: Middle class people who have to
sleep in the parks, Growth of poverty etc.


>Primary and secondary education are paid for by the government in the US. Tertiary education should be, but entitlement
>programmes have put such a strain on state governments that they can no longer afford to fully pay for it.

>: >Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of
>: >socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
>: >world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
>: >let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
>: >stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....
>: You forget my country, the Netherlands. If we were so individualistic

>What's the current unemployment rate in the Netherlands? Last I heard, it was rather high.

It is far too high, but an unemployed has often to spend more than many
hard working in the U.S.

>The Swiss also have a very low crime rate, despite the requirement that all adult males under 47 own an assault rifle (a real
>assault rifle). Switzerland also has a very small government sector. Whatever the root of the crime problem in the US is,
>it's neither the availability of firearms, nor that the government is 'too small'. My guess is that the US crime rate would
>drop dramatically if drugs were legalised.

I agree, but the government in Switserland is bigger than the government
in the US.
Legalising drug will reduce crime dramatically, and I support it.
Legalising drugs will also bankrupt Switserland, because Swiss banks are
now filled with money from organised crime.

>: year for an excellent health care, and the doctors are in spite of it
>: quit well payed.If you are in public health service you pay less (when
>: you earn less than the average income).

>I take it the waiting lists for medical treatment aren't as long in the Netherlands as they are in Britain. Even so, I doubt
>medical innovation in the Netherlands is comparable to that in the United States.

Medical innovation is at the same level as the US. Universities are paid
by government. In AIDS research the Netherlands are on the top.

Alex Stephens

unread,
Nov 16, 1994, 6:08:17 PM11/16/94
to
Niek Holtzappel (nho...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and
: the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
: become richer.

Funny that your scenario didn't bear out in the US in the 1980's when taxes were cut. American growth exceeded growth in the
European welfare states by a wide margin, the poverty rate fell, the median family income increased, and many families moved
from the <US(1989)$50,000 income level to the >US(1989)$50,000 level, while the percentage of families earning
<US(1989)$10,000 fell.

: You americans want to pay lower taxes, but the result is you have to pay

: more insurance, more money for study, more money for private security
: services etc. In Europe the taxes are higher but the police functions
: quite well, the crime-rate is much lower. We are all insured for health

Most Americans are in favour of spending more on law enforcement. The problem is in entitlement payments. If entitlement
programmes were abolished, taxes could be lowered substantially, while spending in proper areas (law enforcement,
infrastructure, education, etc.) could be increased. That having been said, the United States government spends more per
pupil on education than any other government in the world (of course, the American GDP per capita is much higher than in any
of the European welfare states, so Americans can more easily afford to spend more). The education problem clearly isn't
related to not enough government spending. The crime problem, again, is due primarily to cultural decay (the level of
violence in American culture is astronomical) and the war on drugs. By distorting the market, criminalisation of drugs has
made prices exorbitant. Further, distribution of illegal drugs has promoted the formation of gangs (along with the decline
of the family brought about, in part, by the American welfare-state programmes). I'm not sure what the specifics are, but I
wouldn't be at all surprised if Americans spend more per capita on law enforcement than Europeans.

: for a payable price. All talentent people can follow the right education,

Yet medical innovation is stifled, and people often have to wait for major medical care (at least in the UK).

: also for a reasonable price or even for free.

Many (I would guess most) 'free-market fundamentalists' support state-funded education. In the US, primary and secondary
education is state-funded (and state-run), but tertiary state-run education has gradually moved from being free to costing
quite a lot. The reason is that entitlement programmes are continually growing, taking up more and more tax revenue, and
starving tertiary education of funding.

: Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a

Perhaps not. American GDP per-capita dwarfs that of all the European welfare states. Additionally, unemployment levels in
Europe are extremely high. Last I checked, unemployment in France was close to 12%, German unemployment (in the west) was
approaching double-digits, and unemployment in Italy was over 13%. Switzerland, on the other hand, has a GDP per-capita
nearly as high as that of the United States, and even in recession, unemployment only reached 4.8% in 1993 (up from 1.1% in
1991). Which is the better model? I think the figures speak for themselves. How's the unemployment rate in the Netherlands?

: combination of free enterprice and a social law system.


: Wasn't economic growth in US not at an extreme high level during WW II ?
: when economics where led by government ? Are the Asian countries not

Yes, growth during the war was high, and growth after the war reached -19% (yes, NEGATIVE NINETEEN PERCENT) in 1946. A wartime
economy (with the production and destruction of war goods, a huge portion of the labour force serving in the military, and
often rationing) just isn't comparable to a peacetime economy.

: booming becouse of the combination of free enterprice and government
: economics?

The Asian economies have small government sectors combined with low to moderate wages (in part due to weak or nonexistent
trade unions) and pro-growth industrial policies. While the industrial policies do certainly play a role, they haven't done
all that well in France, and they certainly failed in the Soviet Union. The keys to rapid economic growth in Asia are a
small government sector (as a percentage of GDP) and the fact that most of them are in the process of industrialising (and
therefore will naturally grow faster than mature economies).

--
Alex Stephens

Julien Maisonneuve

unread,
Nov 17, 1994, 8:30:14 AM11/17/94
to
In article <3ae3d1$d...@ccnet.ccnet.com>, ale...@ccnet.com (Alex Stephens) writes:
|> Funny that your scenario didn't bear out in the US in the 1980's when taxes
|> were cut. American growth exceeded growth in the
|> European welfare states by a wide margin, the poverty rate fell, the median
|> family income increased, and many families moved
|> from the <US(1989)$50,000 income level to the >US(1989)$50,000 level, while
|> the percentage of families earning <US(1989)$10,000 fell.
According to the US census bureau, the bottom 30% spent and consumed less in 1988
than in 1980 (in inflation adjusted dollars) (Business Week, nov 21 1994, p72).
Since 1988, the US population below poverty level is constantly increasing (it
was also before but I have no accurate figures) :
1989 32.4M 13.1%
1992 38.0M 14.5%
1993 39.3M 15.1% (Daniel Weinberg, chief of the Census Bureau's
Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, in a Newsweek article)
Face it : poverty IS growing in the US, and there are more and more riches too.
In 1993 median family income fell 1.9% after inflation, while GDP per capita
increased by 1.8%. The top 20% get 42.6% of the national income, increased
by 1.6% from 1992.

|> The crime problem, again, is due primarily to cultural decay (the level of
|> violence in American culture is astronomical) and the war on drugs.

Yes, yes : you're alone in the world to have those problems and they have
nothing to do with social and economic preblems. Carry on, you'll go far away.

|> I'm not sure what the specifics are, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if
|> Americans spend more per capita on law enforcement than Europeans.

I'm sure you do, and that's so efficient that you crime rate is ten times
higher that of most European countries, even though 1,440,000 people are in
jail (1 out of 200 ! France has a 1 to a 1000 rate and is one of the most
repressive states in Europe). Prisons for so many people cost a lot too.

(education things deleted)
I won't go into detail about you ramblings about education : in the US, higher
education is expensive, often unaffordable for common people. In most of
Europe, it is just free (at least for universities). If you're good enough,
you'll go high (almost) regardless of your money situation.

|> Perhaps not. American GDP per-capita dwarfs that of all the European
|> welfare states.

Dwarfs, mmm that's a bit strong (US GDP 5549 Bn$, Europe 6250 Bn$, 1991,
population roughly equal).

|> Additionally, unemployment levels in Europe are extremely high. Last I
|> checked, unemployment in France was close to 12%, German unemployment (in the
|> west) was approaching double-digits, and unemployment in Italy was over 13%.
|> Switzerland, on the other hand, has a GDP per-capita nearly as high as that of
|> the United States, and even in recession, unemployment only reached 4.8% in
|> 1993 (up from 1.1% in 1991). Which is the better model? I think the figures
|> speak for themselves. How's the unemployment rate in the Netherlands?

I'm so glad you speak about it : your 6% current rate is irrealistic.
According to an 1992 American Express study, it would be closer to 9.5%
(International Herald Tribune, "Unemployment: blacker than painted", 25 jan 94).
Robert Reich (US labor secretary) even goes up to 12.47% (Time, 22 nov 93).

Unemployment statistics are biased. This is also the case is other countries, but
particularly in the US where they are based on inaccurate polling methods.
Also, a number of jobs are paid under the subsistence level, still counted as a
job by the statistics, but not providing enough to live.
Remember the BIT regulations define unemployment as "people actively
looking for a job". Some people fall off this conception, and a large
number : people that live in neighbourhoods where there are no jobs at
all, people that gave up employment research after years of continual
failure.
According to this metric, Peru has a 6% unemployment rate, but is at
the the brink of collapse.

|> The Asian economies have small government sectors combined with low to
|> moderate wages (in part due to weak or nonexistent trade unions) and pro-growth
|> industrial policies. While the industrial policies do certainly play a role,
|> they haven't done all that well in France, and they certainly failed in the
|>Soviet Union.

There hasn't been a real economic policy in France for 20 years. Since the,
France's policy has been deregulate, privatize, open markets, lower barriers...
As to soviet Union, they have many defects beside their supposed industrial
policy (why shoot ambulances ?).


|> The keys to rapid economic growth in Asia are a small government
|> sector (as a percentage of GDP) and the fact that most of them are in the
|> process of industrialising (and therefore will naturally grow faster than
|> mature economies).

Most of what you say about tiger economies is true, except you try to minimize
the state's role and importance, which is your usual motto.

I understand your reaction towards a foreigner criticizing your country, but
you're going a bit too far. You may consider that you have a problem and that
the less-state/more-police answer might be aggravating it in large proportions.
Your optimism about the US situation is comforting, but I'm not sure the
situation is so good. Also, you seem to completely misunderstand the causes for
a runaway criminality : you could also say it's because of the church's decay.
For some things (obviously not all), the US could consider the policies
implmented in Europe and not stick in a purely national debate, reinventing the
world regardless of what has happened outside.
After all, it's our turn to contribute, we have copied your economic policies
for the last 20 years.
Julien.

Alex Stephens

unread,
Nov 17, 1994, 4:22:42 PM11/17/94
to
Julien Maisonneuve (jul...@druuna.inria.fr) wrote:

: In article <elswick.1...@primenet.com>, els...@primenet.com (Bill Elswick) writes:
: |> But the waiting list for American work permits is enormous and growing. I have
: |> personally vouched for several friends from the UK who wanted to come here to
: |> work. Why? Because a talented individual has no option in Europe but to accept
: |> a low-paid job with no future except the social pension.

: This is not true, I don't even consider myself incredibly talented and I earn
: enough to live confortably and many people I know are in my case.

Yes, Europeans can live quite comfortably. The standard of living is a good deal lower than in the United States, but
certainly adequate.

: Of course, if I wanted a 1M$ sport car, a 10000sqft villa with swimming pool, I


: would be better off in the US. I would have to pay private cops too. I also see

I very much doubt you would have to pay for private security forces. Most of the crime in the US is in poor drug-infested
areas where gangs have arisen to manage the illegal drug trade, and addicts commit crimes to pay for drugs (which are
extremely expensive due to criminalisation). If you were living in a 10,000 square foot villa, you'd almost certainly be far
from the high-crime areas.

: many European returning from the US because they weren't paid as much as they


: hoped, and had lots of others problems. Many called, few elected.

I don't know what the immigration/emigration figures relating to Europe and the United States are, so I won't comment on that.

: |> It's actually about the worst system you could invent. Initiative is

: |> discouraged, ambition and success are denigrated, and innovation is suppressed.

: Yes, look at scandinavian countries : no innovation, no industries. Get real.

Yes, look at Sweden. I seem to recall that unemployment surpassed 12% during the last recession, and Swedish GDP per capita is
much lower than that of the United States (GDP growth has also lagged behind the American level in the last ten or fifteen
years). Regarding innovation, where exactly have the Swedes innovated?

: |> Europe has been the basket case of the developed world for years because of

: |> socialist policies. My British friends keep saying "well, we're not a third
: |> world country, after all" as if they don't really believe it themselves. And
: |> let's remember Italy, Greece, Spain, France... all basket cases. The only
: |> stable economy in Europe is Switzerland, and we all know why that is....

: Basket case ? We may have a slighlty lower gnp/capita, but we're not too far

The per-capita GDP of most European countries is a good deal lower than that of the United States. Despite a population 40%
larger than that of the United States, the GDP of the EU is smaller than the American GDP. In addition to that, EU GDP
growth over the past ten or fifteen years has lagged far behind American GDP growth. The main problems with the European
economies are sluggish GDP growth rates, lagging productivity levels, and depression-level unemployment rates.

: from you. Let me remember you your povery rate is the highest in the


: indistrialized countries (with 25% of your children under the line), your

Last I heard, the figure was about 19%, but that was a few years ago, and the overall poverty level was 14.1% in 1991. In any
case, one of the major problems is that the American welfare system pays poor, unwed mothers to have children (and punishes
them if they work or get married). In addition to that, poor immigrants flood into the United States every year, which pushes
poverty rates up.

: medical care the most expensive while covering only a small minority, the

The vast majority of Americans have health insurance, and don't have to wait months or years for major medical care.

: highest crime rate (USSR stats apart) and the highest population (and rate) in


: jail in the whole world.

The crime problem has no relation to the size of government. It has more to do with the 'war on drugs' and an unbelievably
violent culture.

: Nice place, really.

It is, in many ways. At least the US doesn't have double-digit unemployment and bloated, inefficient state-owned
industries. Funny that European cars don't seem to do that well when competing with American and Japanese models. The same
seems to be the case in the computer industry, where American companies dominate the world. Could it be that bloated,
inefficient companies like Puegot and Groupe Bull simply produce shoddy, overpriced products? Nah. It must be that those dirty
Americans and Japanese just work too hard. How unfair!

: --

: --_________ Julien.Ma...@inria.fr jul...@sor.inria.fr
: / _ _ _ ...!uunet!inria!corto!julien
: / /) ' ) ) ) INRIA : 33 (1) 39 63 52 08
: __/_ // o _ __ / / / _ o _ _ __ __ _ _ _
: / / (_(_(/_(_(<_/) ) / ' (_(_(_(_/_)_(_)_/) )_/) )_(<_(_(_( \_)-(<_
: (_/
: "Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive ?"
: WWW Home page: <A HREF="http://prof.inria.fr/SOR/members/julien.html">Julien</A>

--
Alex Stephens

Niek Holtzappel

unread,
Nov 18, 1994, 6:52:12 AM11/18/94
to
ale...@ccnet.com (Alex Stephens) writes:
>: It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and
>: the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
>: become richer.

>Funny that your scenario didn't bear out in the US in the 1980's when taxes were cut. American growth exceeded growth in the
>European welfare states by a wide margin, the poverty rate fell, the median family income increased, and many families moved
>from the <US(1989)$50,000 income level to the >US(1989)$50,000 level, while the percentage of families earning
><US(1989)$10,000 fell.

25% of yhe children in the US live below poverty level.
The prices rose also dramatically.


>Most Americans are in favour of spending more on law enforcement. The problem is in entitlement payments. If entitlement
>programmes were abolished, taxes could be lowered substantially, while spending in proper areas (law enforcement,
>infrastructure, education, etc.) could be increased. That having been said, the United States government spends more per
>pupil on education than any other government in the world (of course, the American GDP per capita is much higher than in any
>of the European welfare states, so Americans can more easily afford to spend more). The education problem clearly isn't
>related to not enough government spending. The crime problem, again, is due primarily to cultural decay (the level of
>violence in American culture is astronomical) and the war on drugs. By distorting the market, criminalisation of drugs has
>made prices exorbitant. Further, distribution of illegal drugs has promoted the formation of gangs (along with the decline
>of the family brought about, in part, by the American welfare-state programmes). I'm not sure what the specifics are, but I
>wouldn't be at all surprised if Americans spend more per capita on law enforcement than Europeans.

I agree with your statement that illegal drugs are the main reason for
the crime. Drugs should be legalised.

>: Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a

>Perhaps not. American GDP per-capita dwarfs that of all the European welfare states. Additionally, unemployment levels in
>Europe are extremely high. Last I checked, unemployment in France was close to 12%, German unemployment (in the west) was
>approaching double-digits, and unemployment in Italy was over 13%. Switzerland, on the other hand, has a GDP per-capita
>nearly as high as that of the United States, and even in recession, unemployment only reached 4.8% in 1993 (up from 1.1% in
>1991). Which is the better model? I think the figures speak for themselves. How's the unemployment rate in the Netherlands?

Unemployment doesn't say everything about economic level. Many unemployed
are living on a higher standard than the "working poor" in the US. My
opinion is : The best is full employment for good salaries
Second, a good income. People work to live and don't live to
work
The worst is working hard for a poor salary or slave labour.
In spit of high unemployment, nearly everybody in Europe has a reasonable
living standard, and that has more value than a high economic growth
combined with poverty.


>: combination of free enterprice and a social law
system.

>: booming becouse of the combination of free enterprice and government
>: economics?

>The Asian economies have small government sectors combined with low to moderate wages (in part due to weak or nonexistent
>trade unions) and pro-growth industrial policies. While the industrial policies do certainly play a role, they haven't done
>all that well in France, and they certainly failed in the Soviet Union. The keys to rapid economic growth in Asia are a
>small government sector (as a percentage of GDP) and the fact that most of them are in the process of industrialising (and
>therefore will naturally grow faster than mature economies).

The governments are rather small, but there place is taken by the big
industries, who have more power than the governments. So the industries
work together to make a planned economy.
With other words: The industries rule these countries and are the real
(big) governments.
>-- >Alex Stephens

Alex Stephens

unread,
Nov 20, 1994, 4:26:44 PM11/20/94
to
Niek Holtzappel (nho...@xs4all.nl) wrote:

: ale...@ccnet.com (Alex Stephens) writes:
: >: It's a shame that the free-market fundamentalists now rule the senate and
: >: the house of representatives. Poverty wil grow and the few rich will
: >: become richer.

: >Funny that your scenario didn't bear out in the US in the 1980's when taxes were cut. American growth exceeded growth in the
: >European welfare states by a wide margin, the poverty rate fell, the median family income increased, and many families moved
: >from the <US(1989)$50,000 income level to the >US(1989)$50,000 level, while the percentage of families earning
: ><US(1989)$10,000 fell.

: 25% of yhe children in the US live below poverty level.

Whether or not this figure is true today, the figure was around 19% (14% for whites) at the end of the Reagan years (and it was
probably a good deal higher at the beginning). Both figures are rather high, but the American welfare state pays unwed
mothers to have children, and punishes them if they work, save, or get married. In addition to that, many illegal
immigrants come to the United States to have children, knowing that a child born in the US is automatically a citizen. The
United States doesn't enforce it's immigration laws, so poor refugees continue to flood in.

It's interesting that, after President Bush increased tax rates, the percentage of children living in poverty rose from 19%
in 1989 to 25%. These figures seem to support the idea that lower taxes produce greater prosperity for everyone.

: The prices rose also dramatically.

Price levels have nothing to do with income levels in _constant_ 1989 dollars. The median income in _constant_ 1989 dollars
increased, as did the percentage of families earning over $50,000 in _constant_ 1989 dollars. Using current dollars (which
aren't adjusted for inflation) would be an extremely dishonest method of comparison, which is why I used constant dollars.

: >Most Americans are in favour of spending more on law enforcement. The problem is in entitlement payments. If entitlement

: >programmes were abolished, taxes could be lowered substantially, while spending in proper areas (law enforcement,
: >infrastructure, education, etc.) could be increased. That having been said, the United States government spends more per
: >pupil on education than any other government in the world (of course, the American GDP per capita is much higher than in any
: >of the European welfare states, so Americans can more easily afford to spend more). The education problem clearly isn't
: >related to not enough government spending. The crime problem, again, is due primarily to cultural decay (the level of
: >violence in American culture is astronomical) and the war on drugs. By distorting the market, criminalisation of drugs has
: >made prices exorbitant. Further, distribution of illegal drugs has promoted the formation of gangs (along with the decline
: >of the family brought about, in part, by the American welfare-state programmes). I'm not sure what the specifics are, but I
: >wouldn't be at all surprised if Americans spend more per capita on law enforcement than Europeans.

: I agree with your statement that illegal drugs are the main reason for
: the crime. Drugs should be legalised.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

: >: Perhaps the social-democrat model is simply the best model. It's a

: >Perhaps not. American GDP per-capita dwarfs that of all the European welfare states. Additionally, unemployment levels in
: >Europe are extremely high. Last I checked, unemployment in France was close to 12%, German unemployment (in the west) was
: >approaching double-digits, and unemployment in Italy was over 13%. Switzerland, on the other hand, has a GDP per-capita
: >nearly as high as that of the United States, and even in recession, unemployment only reached 4.8% in 1993 (up from 1.1% in
: >1991). Which is the better model? I think the figures speak for themselves. How's the unemployment rate in the Netherlands?

: Unemployment doesn't say everything about economic level. Many unemployed
: are living on a higher standard than the "working poor" in the US. My
: opinion is : The best is full employment for good salaries
: Second, a good income. People work to live and don't live to
: work
: The worst is working hard for a poor salary or slave labour.
: In spit of high unemployment, nearly everybody in Europe has a reasonable
: living standard, and that has more value than a high economic growth
: combined with poverty.

I'm not sure that the vast multitudes of unemployed Europeans would agree with you. The biggest problem with the American
welfare state is that it cuts off aid to people who work (some people can live better off of the welfare system than they
could if they worked, and had to give up their benefits). And, of course, Switzerland, Japan, and the NICs of Asia seem to do
rather well on the unemployment front, which is a better method of reducing poverty than redistributionism. With a 1-2%
unemployment rate and a small government sector, there's not a need for massive welfare-state bureaucracies.

: >: combination of free enterprice and a social law
: system.

: >: booming becouse of the combination of free enterprice and government
: >: economics?

: >The Asian economies have small government sectors combined with low to moderate wages (in part due to weak or nonexistent
: >trade unions) and pro-growth industrial policies. While the industrial policies do certainly play a role, they haven't done
: >all that well in France, and they certainly failed in the Soviet Union. The keys to rapid economic growth in Asia are a
: >small government sector (as a percentage of GDP) and the fact that most of them are in the process of industrialising (and
: >therefore will naturally grow faster than mature economies).

: The governments are rather small, but there place is taken by the big
: industries, who have more power than the governments. So the industries
: work together to make a planned economy.
: With other words: The industries rule these countries and are the real
: (big) governments.

Yes, large corporations control the economy, but aren't state-owned, so can hardly be called 'big governments'. I submit
that they do a rather better job than the governments of the west, which is a reason to reduce the size of government (and
the power of trade unions) in favour of private industry.

: >-- >Alex Stephens

--
Alex Stephens

0 new messages