Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

History in the use suggests otherwise.

Well, it's not perfect in Germany (historical evidence is presumed to be known) - but: The law nowadays guarantees equals treatment (up to a given level). Unequality gets kicked from judges on a quite regular base. Public welfare has been introduced by Reichskanzler Bismark (ending 19th century, beginning 20th century) - and has since then never been revoked.

For example, throughout the Jim Crow era in the US, government funding most certainly did differentiate on the basis of (ethnic) group membership. During the same period, much private philanthropy did too... but quite a bit did not.

Well, e.g. welfare housing is open to whatever ethinc, religious or social group you come from (and yes, differing based on sexual preferences is illegal). OTOH private organizations (like e.g. churches) tend to differ e.g. based on religious reasons.
I am an atheist - and could thus never get a welfare flat paid by one of the churches - but governmental ones would be open (they are not allowed to differ).

On the front of governments providing "guaranteed funding," I observe (anecdotally) that government funding is by no means guaranteed.

It is (for the important parts) in Germany. But of course there is always some fluctuation, change of priorities, etc
In Germany people tend to do volutary work in associations (e.g. most youth soccer clubs are trained and regulated by voluntaries) - so it's more of a work-based charity instead of a money-based one (no intention to judge the value of each).

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Well... we also lionize Nobel Prize winners. And Turing Award winners. And leading academics. And successful business people. And authors, musicians, painters, preachers, soldiers (sometimes)...

Please dont start a Nobel Prize discussion - it is not a fair measure for a variety of reasons

It should be no suprise that literacy and education was not a high prioirty to be given to peasants. They might become competitors.

See me last post
This is (quite simply) not true for quite a bit of Europe. We never had too many natural resources, so getting "smart people" was literally our only chance of success. (And education was (and is) in great parts valued higher then success or money).
Feudal systems (to what you, I believe, where referring) are so 17th century

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I'm curious about something. What do Europeans do if they believe they are not receiving the best care available? Over here, we fuss and grumble and write letters to clinic managers until a problem is solved.

We fuss and grumble and protest and fuss and grumble a bit more.
Then we complain to televisions or newspapers - gives the next "big medical scandal of the year" (until next week)

The medical system in Germany was one of the best of the world. It perhaps still is - but its running downwards quite fast.
We have a strange system - everything is paid by health insurance companies. You (literally) must be insured - if you dont have the money to pay the insurancy, the government will cover for you.
This ensures (to a given part) that medical treatment is equal to everybody - everybody has the same kind of insurance, so everybody pays the same to the hospital.
Well - and thats when it gets complicated, because there are treatments that dont get covered (somehow simplified: One standard therapy is covered. If you want to differ from this (e.g. a different kind of hearing implant) you either have to have a very good reason - or you pay (the difference) yourself).
There are insurancies that cover more (or more expensive) therapies, etc. If wanted, I can explain it in more detail.
This is a "standard solution" that can be found in quite a number of different parts - some level of treatment/living/whatever is guaranteed (and, normally, really achieved equally for everybody). Above this point you have to pay for yourself.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Maybe it is just me? Because I'm a bargain hunter, and now seems like the perfect time to stock up on houses and stocks. You know, buy 'em cheap now and sell 'em high when things turn around.

Interesting approach, I suppose, but I've never owned stocks or made any kind of investment for profit in my life. Maybe it's that whole 'pessimism' again coming through? I don't know, but I can't say I've ever thought of this current crisis as anything but a terrible event.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by wodin

One of the ways the USA differs from Europe and much of the rest of the world is that the US has an extra layer of Government. The United States of America is exactly that, a[...] federation of Governmental entities called States, which theoretically have the sovereignty of an independent nation but who have united together for certain functions like the common defense and interstate commerce.
[GREAT BIG SNIP]

Indeed, some of the individual states retain (by treaty) some of the rights they had as independent nations. For example, Texas has the right to maintain its own Navy, to carry out foreign policy separately from the rest of the US, and the right to split into 3 states (thus winding up with 6 Senators instead of 2) should they choose to do so.

Or maybe that should be "had the right," as I'm not sure whether those rights survived the US Civil War. They certainly had those rights when they joined the Union, though.

The Texas Navy certainly survived the Civil War, and is er... quite real (for certain values of "real"). It has one ship (The U.S.S. Texas -- a WWI battleship decommissioned from the US Navy and permanently docked), a very few enlisted men, and a whole bunch of Admirals! For a long time now the only thing the Texas Navy has been used for is as a way to recognize native sons who have done well in life, by having the Governor appoint them to the position of "Admiral of the Texas Navy."

I seem to recall that a few other states have (or had) various treaty terms left over from when they joined up. California springs to mind, but I can't remember what (if any) odd-ball treaty provisions still survive there. But I digress.

Anyway, in theory relatively local issues like basic law-and-order are left to the states or to counties/cities/etc.; the Federal government deals only with a small set of national issues like common defense and interstate commerce. For example, there are no Federal laws against murder -- that's entirely an issue for the individual states.

This changed during the great depression -- FDR was quite upset that most of the legislation from his first 90 days was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So he informed the justices that he was asking the Congress to pass similar bills again, and that if the Supremes struck them down again, he'd just appoint enough additional Supreme Court Justices to outvote the existing members of the court. (The number of Supreme Court justices is not specified in the Constitution, although the manner of their selection is specified.) For some odd reason, the Supremes didn't strike the bills down the second time 'round. Instead, they discovered that nearly every human activity has an impact on interstate commerce and that as a result the "commerce clause" of the Constitution can be invoked to allow the Federal government to legislate on whatever topics they like. [Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the viewpoint and political outlook of the reader...]

Anyway, nowadays the Federal government has its fingers in nearly every pie, without regard to little details like the enumerated powers of the constitution.

Xenophon
(Sorry about wandering all over the map in the above...)

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by tirsales

[...] Well - and thats when it gets complicated, because there are treatments that dont get covered (somehow simplified: One standard therapy is covered. If you want to differ from this (e.g. a different kind of hearing implant) you either have to have a very good reason - or you pay (the difference) yourself).
There are insurancies that cover more (or more expensive) therapies, etc. If wanted, I can explain it in more detail.
This is a "standard solution" that can be found in quite a number of different parts - some level of treatment/living/whatever is guaranteed (and, normally, really achieved equally for everybody). Above this point you have to pay for yourself.

Hey Tirsales! Where've you been so long? Missed you!!

What you are saying sends chills of horror up my spine. Because my inborn lack of trust in too much bureaurocracy (spell it however you wish, I'm not looking it up) screams: Right - and then the govt covers fewer services, so more people go to private insurance, which saves the govt money, which encourages them to encourage fewer services in a downward spiral. It is a visceral reaction that I had no control over, but instantly felt threatened when I read that. Strange, never really paid attention to that until now.

[tirsales]

Back to topic now: In my opinion governments have several reasons to exist. First they have to guarantee a certain level of security and "lawfulness" (monopoly of violence, jurisdiction, etc). Second they have to guarantee a certain level of "equal chances" (e.g. education). Third they have to care for those, who cant care for themselves (e.g. poor, old, children, etc)
In return they receive a couple of things (monopoly of violence, certain power over their inhabitants, taxes, etc) - in theory its a feudal system, only that we have a nation instead of nobility.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

bureaurocracy (spell it however you wish, I'm not looking it up)

Yeah, I always found that word a toughie!
Now, I just remember it's 'bureau' - a word I can spell - with 'cracy' on the end.
Hope that helps someone, somewhere, sometime.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm not exaclty sure what you mean by opportunity? Do you mean, profit from the crisis?

A volatile stock market is fertile ground for day traders.

[YGG-]

My 2 cents :

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The US is an achievement based culture. It always has been.

SO is Europe --I'm an anthropologist (been for the past 30 years) I yet have to find a culture which is not based on some kind of achievement

It's an artifact of having an open frontier for 200+ years (circa 1650 - 1890). If you failed, you simply moved out to the edge and started over.

SO was Europe until ca. 1300... then it filled up...

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Hey Tirsales! Where've you been so long? Missed you!!

Working

What you are saying sends chills of horror up my spine. Because my inborn lack of trust in too much bureaurocracy

Yes, bureaucracy is a difficult problem in Germany - we have much too much of this. (Oh and I am using an add-on to correct my spelling, otherwise I would never write words like that )
Still - the "insurance system" in Germany is not necessarily the problem Greater problems occur through stuff like overzealous documentation requirements, the insurances are normal companies (and they dont care whether they get their money from the government or from the person).

(spell it however you wish, I'm not looking it up) screams: Right - and then the govt covers fewer services, so more people go to private insurance, which saves the govt money, which encourages them to encourage fewer services in a downward spiral. It is a visceral reaction that I had no control over, but instantly felt threatened when I read that. Strange, never really paid attention to that until now.

Nah, it's not like this - as I said it is complicated. Most people pay their insurance for themselves (actually half is paid by the employer, the other half by the person) (not working family members are covered by the insurance of the working members). Only some (e.g. unemployed, old) get *their insurance* paid by the government (so the insurance gets its money from the government, not the hospital). That way the hospital does get exactly the same whoever you are.
Then there are private insurances that you can buy in addition (e.g. to get better dental therapies) - but this is totally unrelated to governmental services or payments. Whether you have this "additional insurance" or not does not give or cost the government any money. (The government wont pay for those additional insurances in any case).
And yes, this is greatly simplified - because this complete set is only true for most people. There is a second kind of insurance (called private medical insurancy) - it is more expensive and you are only allowed to get it if you earn more then a certain degree. (Now, this is not meant to be some "feudal system"). This insurancies *will* pay the hospital more money, they will cover more therapies, etc (e.g. pay for a single room in the hospital, etc) And: if you ever switch into one of those insurancies, you cannot switch back (and no, the government will not cover for them - whatever happens). So you should be sure about your job before switching
Yes, its even more complicated. Like I said - bureaucracy is somewhat of a German hobby. (But please believe me: The system is working reasonably well).

But the principal system (same insurance for everybody, insurance pays a certain level, etc) is IMO a very, very good one. For example it spares the mentioned problems with "medical therapies for social weeks not paying off for the hospital" and really ensures some kind of equality.
And it ensures that you get a good medical therapy whatever happens (loosing your job does NOT mean ending a therapy - the hospital would never need to know).

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Indeed, some of the individual states retain (by treaty) some of the rights they had as independent nations.

<-------------- snip ----------------->

Anyway, nowadays the Federal government has its fingers in nearly every pie, without regard to little details like the enumerated powers of the constitution.

Xenophon

Thanks for the Xenophon, I was aware of where we were, but not how we had gotten here!

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I hope this don't trigger our European brethren, but Europe never had a frontier to develope the ethos.

yes there was, around AD 1300. Then we grew up (cheap shot I confess).

There has always been somebody on top running things.

As everywhere else --there has never been a culture without a structure of power (some say: to organize it)

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

LOL I think the "American Dream" idea is interesting, because all I can find in my culture (UK) is the idea of the "Stiff Upper Lip" or "Keep Your 'ead Down", both inherently pessimistic.

The American Dream says that you can have whatever you want, be whomever you please, that opportunity is there for the taking.

The Stiff Upper Lip mentality is that life is hard, keep it together, don't show what's inside, soldier on.

I think there's something important in those two cultural attitudes that might explain the differences in opinions.

The point is also : how will both survive the peak oil & climate change? (remember, what we used to worry about before the subprimes..)

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I find it interesting how many things are considered to be a "fundamental human right" that no government would have dreamed of funding 100 years ago.

It's called progress

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think I'll take the bureaucrats over Global-Hyper-Mega-Profit-Corp any day

I AM a federal bureaucrat, and I appreciate your confidence; but believe me, you would very much rather have someone who has to compete for a profit doing it than someone with a monopoly like governments have.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by wodin

A volatile stock market is fertile ground for day traders.

Indeed. But for those of us who believe in investing rather than gambling, the decisions are much easier. If you are at least 20 years from retirement, simply ignore the current state of the market. Just stick another $X (where X is an amount you can afford) each month into your retirement accounts (where it should be mostly invested in the broad stock market, probably via an index fund) and sleep well at night.

If the market is down, your investment buys a larger fraction of the total market than it did when the market was high. Hooray!

If the market is up, your previous investments have done well. Hooray!

As you get closer to retirement, you'll want to start moving a fraction of your money into more-stable investments as a hedge against volatility. Cash and cash-equivalents spring to mind for this purpose. Just make sure that you remember that you'll probably live 20+ years after retirement, so you still need market-level growth in a significant factor of your portfolio. And that means keeping a fair fraction of your retirement kitty in the stock market.

All of this is very basic conservative practice for long-term investments. Exactly the kind of thing you should do with $$ intended for retirement.

Xenophon

P.S. For those who take the current market downturn as an argument against privately owned and invested retirement accounts -- in order for my 401K fund to be as bad a deal as Social Security, the market would have to go down by another factor of two... and then never recover until I retire in another 22-or-so years. And even that assumes that SS will pay out for me at the rates they currently promise. Which seems unlikely, given that I am just after the tail of the baby boom.