Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[tirsales]

Well, putting profit above everything else is something I will never understand - e.g. I value my life, the lifes of my nearest and dearest, etc MUCH higher then profit. Then there are some things like ethics and moral...

Regarding DixieGals post: Well, that is one reason why I never understood the sense in credit cards. This is not meant to be judging - I simply dont understand the reasoning behind a credit based system. (Credits are fine - you sometimes simply need them (e.g. buying a house, but surely not for buying a car). But surely not to pay the monthly living?) The European system differs greatly - you have a bank deposit (where you deposit your money and get a (small) revenue for it). With your bankcard (EC-Card, Mastercard, DirectDebit Card, whatever) you can withdraw money from this deposit - but normally no more (not much more) then you have deposited. So you can only spend what you have, not take a loan for your normal living ... (in fact I do have a VISA card - which directly debits my bank deposit, I dont have (nor need) any credit ...)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by YGG-

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

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

I believe my history reading said that assartage basically ended in 900 (or so) AD. Are you referring to the post Black Plague period?

But in a broader perspective, much of Europe was under Roman control in the 100-375 AD period, with organized and centralized political controls. As the Roman Empire disintergrated, local strongmen set up small areas of control, in the abandoned areas of Europe. One could say that there was then a frontier, as you could go into the forests, clear an area and it was your (that's assartage). But by 1000 AD, the easily usable land had been brought back into production, i.e. the "frontier" had closed. With the simultaneous rise of the stirrup, from then on it was a matter of who ran things from then on. At least that's what I picked up from my reading of history...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by YGG-

Probably not : you very likely include there a) your spouse if any b) your kids c) some possible extended family d) maybe other people; Profit is only possible in a regulated social system : regulations, laws, & institutions to enforce them... you're interested not only in your profit but also in the conditions that will allow you to get your profit... among those conditions you find the fact that other people will get their profit... so you're interested in their profit & fair rules for sharing this profit etc etc etc

Yes, and how does all that change the bottom line? If it’s good for you and good for me it’s good, but if it’s good for you and bad for me it’s bad!

Again, I’m only interested in profit for me. If you can make a profit too, so much the better!

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But in a broader perspective, much of Europe was under Roman control in the 100-375 AD period, with organized and centralized political controls. As the Roman Empire disintergrated, local strongmen set up small areas of control, in the abandoned areas of Europe.

Broadly correct, but not totally true. For example northern Europe never was under roman control, eastern Europe was controlled by Rome or its descendant for a (much) longer time, etc

One could say that there was then a frontier, as you could go into the forests, clear an area and it was your (that's assartage). But by 1000 AD, the easily usable land had been brought back into production, i.e. the "frontier" had closed. With the simultaneous rise of the stirrup, from then on it was a matter of who ran things from then on. At least that's what I picked up from my reading of history...

Hmm - it depends. You might put colonization or conquering wars into the same category - after all it gave people the possibility to enter foreign lands and start new. After all northern America did have some inhabitants, they simply got killed.
Still I think I know what you mean - pioneers (historically) have not been that important in Europes newer history.

[TheLongshot]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Regarding DixieGals post: Well, that is one reason why I never understood the sense in credit cards. This is not meant to be judging - I simply dont understand the reasoning behind a credit based system. (Credits are fine - you sometimes simply need them (e.g. buying a house, but surely not for buying a car). But surely not to pay the monthly living?) The European system differs greatly - you have a bank deposit (where you deposit your money and get a (small) revenue for it). With your bankcard (EC-Card, Mastercard, DirectDebit Card, whatever) you can withdraw money from this deposit - but normally no more (not much more) then you have deposited. So you can only spend what you have, not take a loan for your normal living ... (in fact I do have a VISA card - which directly debits my bank deposit, I dont have (nor need) any credit ...)

I use credit cards mostly to have most of my expenses as one bill (or three in my case, since I have three). It also helps me get a bigger picture about where my money is going.

I've always been wary of debit cards from the standpoint that I don't want my actual money to be THAT easily accessable. Maybe silly on my part, but that's the way I feel.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by wodin

Yes, and how does all that change the bottom line? If it’s good for you and good for me it’s good, but if it’s good for you and bad for me it’s bad!

Again, I’m only interested in profit for me. If you can make a profit too, so much the better!

Well, taking "profit" (that is: the material benefit) as the only measurement for "whats good for one" seems kinda strange too me.
Well, we are here to discuss differences, so .. found one

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by TheLongshot

I use credit cards mostly to have most of my expenses as one bill (or three in my case, since I have three). It also helps me get a bigger picture about where my money is going.

Yes - you have "one bill" with a direct debit card too - you simply have to deposit the money before you spend it, you dont buy on credit.

I've always been wary of debit cards from the standpoint that I don't want my actual money to be THAT easily accessable. Maybe silly on my part, but that's the way I feel.

Hmm - well .. you can access your money just as easily with a credit card - after all you have to repay the money, dont you?
To "ensure you dont spend all your money" you could simply have multiple deposits and only some of them accessible with a debit card.

--edit: I agree to DixieGal and apologize for the OT. Still the topic is "Cultural Divide" not "How you see each other" and "credit based economy" vs "deposit based economy" is a difference

[DixieGal]

Let's not get too far off the OP about how we view each other across the Atlantic as nations, not as individuals. We are straying a bit too close to making this into something else.

[TheLongshot]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Hmm - well .. you can access your money just as easily with a credit card - after all you have to repay the money, dont you?

But when something goes wrong (i.e. your card gets stolen) it is easier to deal with a credit card than it is with debit cards, especially if the guy overdraws your bank account and now you have to argue fees with the bank. Also, a credit card company is more likely to warn you if they see unusual activity.

Not to mention there are usually more benefits that you can get with credit cards. I don't see too many debit cards that give you cash back or bonuses of some sort. As long as you pay it back every month, it can be a good deal.

Edit: sorry, I agree we are getting a bit off topic here.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by TheLongshot

Funny, but we talked about this a lot over the weekend with my family.

One aspect that is ignored here is the the "full freight" price is also inflated. The people who are making money hand-over-fist are the insurance companies, medical supply companies and drug companies. All of those players are gaming the system to net the most profit.

Interesting. I observe that a number of the largest medical insurance "companies" in the country are the various "Blues" (for example Blue Cross and Blue Shield of PA) -- which are non-profit organizations! If they're making money hand-over-fist, then something is seriously wrong. (And I'm certainly open to considering that possibility. It's just that making money is not supposed to be part of their raison de etre [add your own ^%$&^%$C accents!]).

Other than that, I simply note that the price I was describing as "full freight" is the "reasonable-and-customary" amount set by the government. One can always argue about whether they correctly figured out what the R&C price should be, but that's a different issue. As to whether or not the R&C price is inflated... of course it is! We'll take my general practitioner's office, for one example. The R&C price computed by Medi* (I'll just call it UncleSam from here on) for lab work on blood samples just nicely covers what the lab charges them. At least, it would... if Uncle Sam actually paid the entire R&C price. Since they pay far less than that, my GP takes a hit on every blood test done for a Medi* patient. Since the doctors and nurses can't survive on air, the money must be made up somewhere. That somewhere is the R&C prices of the procedures they perform in-house.

The economist I referred to earlier (whose name I still can't recall, darn it!) computed that the market equilibrium price for these various procedures would fall between the R&C price and the much lower amount Uncle Sam actually pays -- but a good deal closer to what Uncle Sam pays than to the R&C number.

Originally Posted by TheLongshot

Talking with my brother-in-law, who has worked in various places in the medical industry, most health providers are fine with Medicare and Medicade since they pay semi-reasonable prices and pay on time. I've seen many complaints about dealing with different insurance companies and that it seems like every company does it differently and getting their money in a timely fashion is often a complex process. Both my father and my brother-in-law think that the future of heath care coverage in this country is going to be through a single source provider, whether it is government run or not. My brother-in-law has already seen signs of it, with the local health care conglomerate near him buying out local practices and surgery centers.

Interesting. The providers I talk to here in Pittsburgh tell me that Medi* pays well below their actual costs. They also say that payments are slow-ish, ranging from a few days quicker than promised (I forget the official time-frame) to about 3 weeks late. By comparison, the better insurance companies pay R&C prices with prompt payment. The average ones pay R&C prices on a schedule that's modestly quicker than Medi*. The dregs of the insurance companies take up the vast bulk of the time and effort these providers spend dealing with insurance. The lousy insurers pull things like denying payment repeatedly until the provider bills the patient and the patient screams at the insurance company. Then the insurer sends the check to the wrong provider, thus delaying payment another 60 days! There are other paths, but this is a typically hideous example. The companies at the bottom appear to be really really sleazy!

Finally, on the topic of gaming the system to make the most profit, my experience is that most people try to do the best they can within the rules of the game. When the game has rules that are arbitrary, baroque, and impenetrable, people appear to have no compunction about taking advantage of odd combinations of rules to get maximum benefit. And I am not sure that these individuals and companies are doing the wrong thing! (But the sleaze I described in the previous paragraph is clearly wrong...) Rather, I suspect that it's a symptom of a system that is at least partly broken and could use some fixing. Of course, I rather suspect that my idea of the right fixes diverges substantially from (say) Moejoe's -- and likely from most of our other European members as well.

Xenophon

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well, putting profit above everything else is something I will never understand - e.g. I value my life, the lifes of my nearest and dearest, etc MUCH higher then profit. Then there are some things like ethics and moral...

Although many people think of profit as financial, it is not necessarily tied to money. Anything that improves my quality of life is profit, and anything that degrades it is loss.

In my economic system, money has a large part of that, but not all of it. Being able to live behind my belt buckle is also a large part, and then there is health, family etc. etc. etc.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by wodin

Although many people think of profit as financial, it is not necessarily tied to money. Anything that improves my quality of life is profit, and anything that degrades it is loss.

Well, this is a relatively broad perspective (and one I could (to some degree) agree too, because for me e.g. ethics and "overall quality of living" are part of "quality of living").
I apologize for (gravely) misunderstanding you beforehand.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might put colonization or conquering wars into the same category - after all it gave people the possibility to enter foreign lands and start new. After all northern America did have some inhabitants, they simply got killed.
Still I think I know what you mean - pioneers (historically) have not been that important in Europes newer history.

The colonization or conquering wars in Europe were more to determine who controled the peasants (and their production) that for the peasants to get away from oppressive government control. Two (or more) sets of haves, treating the have-nots as prizes for the winners....

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The colonization or conquering wars in Europe were more to determine who controled the peasants (and their production) that for the peasants to get away from oppressive government control. Two (or more) sets of haves, treating the have-nots as prizes for the winners....

Shouldn't we open a new thread for this discussion? Its somehow OT here.
Oh and you have a very negative view on feudalism - I agree its been a bad thing in most cases, but the theory behind it was quite different.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tirsales

[SNIP]
Regarding DixieGals post: Well, that is one reason why I never understood the sense in credit cards. This is not meant to be judging - I simply dont understand the reasoning behind a credit based system. (Credits are fine - you sometimes simply need them (e.g. buying a house, but surely not for buying a car). But surely not to pay the monthly living?) The European system differs greatly - you have a bank deposit (where you deposit your money and get a (small) revenue for it). With your bankcard (EC-Card, Mastercard, DirectDebit Card, whatever) you can withdraw money from this deposit - but normally no more (not much more) then you have deposited. So you can only spend what you have, not take a loan for your normal living ... (in fact I do have a VISA card - which directly debits my bank deposit, I dont have (nor need) any credit ...)

I have a VISA debit-card too. But mostly I use my credit cards instead. The reason is twofold. First, the legal protections for credit card users are much more robust than for debit cards. There's no fundamental reason why it should be so; it's the current state of the law. I have much greater protection against fraud, theft, bad products, etc. when I use my credit card than with the debit card! Second, while the debit card allows easy access to my bank accounts, it doesn't provide side benefits (like cash-back on all purchases). A typical credit card gives at least 1% back -- and I'm happy to take the money!

In either case, it's only sensible to pay off the entire bill at the end of the month. Credit card interest rates are amazingly high; don't get caught behind that particular 8-ball unless you can't possibly avoid it! Taking a "loan" from your credit card company is nearly always a bad choice.

Xenophon