Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Gomoto]

private charity vs. government action?

Tent Cities rising in USA or in Europe?

Private charity vs. government action is certainly an example of the kind of thing on which I'm seeking the views of other. As for the "Tent Cities" remark... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please explain.

Xenophon

Government action enables citizens to live in more human conditions when they are out of job. Private charity alone fails at this task. The Welfare State is a precious cultural achievement.

Take Care
Gomoto

[BlackVoid]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

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.

Before you do this, take a look at the japanese stock market for the last 20 years. There is a fair chance that it is happening to other stock markets all around the world. A 20 YEAR BEAR MARKET. Hooray???

Investing is not that easy, you cannot just put money to the same place (stock market) and forget about it. It may work for 40 years, then there are ten years when it is a very bad idea. If that 10 years happens before your retirement, then you will have no retirement.

[BlackVoid]

As for the US vs. Europe. It seems that in the USA, people have no problem with bailing out failed private companies with taxpayer money. Yet universal health care financing with tax payer money is a bad idea. Strange indeed.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is of course funded by the tax-payer, but, because it is funded by the tax-payer, it is freely accessible to all British people; it does not depend on one's personal ability to pay for it.

Your comment about 18 week surgery waiting lists applies to "routine" stuff. Obviously, if you have something urgent (like the heart attack that you mention), you get immediate surgery!

I've found several medical studies that either state or imply heart attacks don't get you emergency surgery in the UK. You're on the same waiting list as anyone else. Can you show that NHS has changed the policy?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I've found several medical studies that either state or imply heart attacks don't get you emergency surgery in the UK. You're on the same waiting list as anyone else. Can you show that NHS has changed the policy?

I have personal family experience: not with heart attacks, but cancer. A couple of years ago my Mum was diagnosed with bowel cancer. Two weeks after the diagnosis she'd been operated on, and was in one of the best specialist cancer hospitals in the country, where she went on to make a full recovery. One couldn't have asked for better - or faster - treatment.

[WDecraene]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

My emphasis - Who is 'we'?
There are dissenting voices on that point (that healthcare should be government-run) in Europe.

There may be dissenters, but I don't think there are a lot. There are differences in opinion on how far government should go but I'm certain an overwhelming majority of Europeans support the way our healthcare systems work. In Europe, as in the US there's a whole spectrum of opinions from left to right, but let's just say that the average is way more to the left in Europe.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by WDecraene

There may be dissenters, but I don't think there are a lot. There are differences in opinion on how far government should go but I'm certain an overwhelming majority of Europeans support the way our healthcare systems work. In Europe, as in the US there's a whole spectrum of opinions from left to right, but let's just say that the average is way more to the left in Europe.

Actually, I was suggesting there were dissenting opinions about whether the health system in the UK should be 'government run'.

I think there is a growing view that it should be left to the medical professionals, rather than politicians.

Although I do agree with you that Europe generally has a more left-wing outlook than the US - that seems to be the fundamental difference between the two 'cultures' imho.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I've found several medical studies that either state or imply heart attacks don't get you emergency surgery in the UK. You're on the same waiting list as anyone else. Can you show that NHS has changed the policy?

Could you please link to a few of these studies before asking Harry to disprove it? The most recent things I can find about this are studies from a decade ago.
That aside, I'm not sure the UK's NHS is really the best (or even a paradigmatic) example or implementation of how a system where everyone can get medical care is supposed to work. Further, Britain still has one of the largest rich/poor divides in Europe (along with italy and portugal), which is relevant to the other part of the "health" equation: "prevention is better than cure." Malnutrition and resulting Obesity-related diseases are fairly big problems in the UK too.

Off-topic: On the feasibility of the "American Dream" in the US and Europe and the rich/poor divide (apparently there was an OECD report in oct. 2008 on this)

[HarryT]

I don't think anyone would claim that the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, ZSB, but my personal experience of it has been overwhelmingly positive, and I would much rather that we had it than not. It is also the only healthcare system that I am personally acquainted with, of course!

It would be interesting to hear from people in other countries about what their views of their own healthcare system are.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

...
Off-topic: On the feasibility of the "American Dream" in the US and Europe and the rich/poor divide (apparently there was an OECD report in oct. 2008 on this)

This was very interesting. THank you for posting the links.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

It seems that in the USA, people have no problem with bailing out failed private companies with taxpayer money.

I think you mean "some" people. Because there is a LARGE percentage of people that don't think we should have bailed out these private companies.

There are many that think we should have just let the chips fall. That the market will adjust and the need will be fulfilled.

Many felt that doing the above meant economic ruin. Millions would loose their houses. (Regarding the bank/mortgage issue)

Thousands would loose their jobs if GM went out of business. Perhaps that is true. But, many feel that those jobs would be replace by Toyota or Honda or some other auto company that would fill the gap.

Please DO NOT confuse what the US Government does with what "people in the USA" think we should do or is right. For example, I never thought it was the right choice to invade Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi people were being oppressed and have been killed by a dictatorship. However, that is true of many other countries that we didn't invade.

Personally, I think the biggest problem with our (US of A) economy is the tax system. I really think moving to the fairtax.org plan would help us get back on track very quickly. It would also save billions off the US budget and really help our trade imbalance.

BOb

[Greg Anos]

Take a look at the technology changes of the last 50 years. How much of it was invented/designed/initially brought to market by the US? ( I don't mean this as a boast, just looking at the scorecard.) That's because of our inequal system, which allows nobodies to excel, (if they have the will and the ability) in a system that is driven to take the new/creative and make money off of it. But (as I've said before), we pay for all of this "creative destruction" with inequality and poverty at the lowest levels. And yes, that's a very real cost. But on the profit side of the ledger, look at all the technical innovation the world enjoys due to the results of the American system. where's the EU equivalent of "Silicon Valley" that has had the same world impact as the US one? Once again I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to describe the "upside" of the US system, instead of continually focusing on the "downside". Our open/outlier/referee/individual responsibilty culture had led to all sorts of new ideas/technologies/methods that, while many are economic, not all are. And any discusion about the American culture needs to include the good, as well as the bad...

[slayda]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

As for the US vs. Europe. It seems that in the USA, people have no problem with bailing out failed private companies with taxpayer money. Yet universal health care financing with tax payer money is a bad idea. Strange indeed.

If you believe this, you haven't been around the US people I generally associate with. I don't like the idea of your universal health (what I call socialized medicine) but I hate the idea of bailing out companies that overpay their CEOs (who have led the failure) and still believing that those same CEOs can now (with our tax paid bailout) lead the company to success. This is socialized business practices, IMO. Although I understand the rationale of "saving the company", I deplore the idea of believing the failed leadership can miraculously lead to success. (Recall that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing but expecting different results.)

The main topic of this thread (US vs EU culture differences), again IMO, comes down to general tendencies - the EU seems to prefer security over potential while the US seems to prefer potential over security. The same general tendencies occur with people who'd rather work in a regularly paid 40 hour week vs a commissioned sales job. Before anyone gets upset with this, these are meant to generalities - there are individuals in both cultures that are opposite these generalities. I'm one of them since I prefer security. Having said that, I do value to possibility of myself or any of my family being in the other category.

It should be obvious that when you prefer potential, there will be a larger discrepancy between the rich & poor. Just as there is potential for wealth (i.e. success) there is also potential for poverty (i.e. failure). I prefer to have that choice, even though I have chosen security, rather than having my government mandating that security be my choice regardless of my desires. The potential to fail is, IMO, just as much of the "American dream" as the potential to succeed.

And as I typically say, this is just one man's opinion.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Take a look at the technology changes of the last 50 years. How much of it was invented/designed/initially brought to market by the US? ( I don't mean this as a boast, just looking at the scorecard.) That's because of our inequal system, which allows nobodies to excel, (if they have the will and the ability) in a system that is driven to take the new/creative and make money off of it. Our open/outlier/referee/individual responsibilty culture had led to all sorts of new ideas/technologies/methods that, while many are economic, not all are. And any discusion about the American culture needs to include the good, as well as the bad...

Indubitably. My point isn't so much that I don't appreciate those good sides, my point is that I doubt the specific level of inequality that exists is the only one that provides sufficient "incentives" for these inventors to be motivated to do what they do. (To be somewhat polemical: Why are they only happy when other people suffer in order for them to be paid "adequately"?)
The question that remains unanswered (or unanswerable) is how much of that inequality was necessary in order to ensure that this innovation happens, and trying to balance equality against incentives. If you can have the same inventions either way, why prefer the system in which inequality is greater? And considering, say, how your current healtcare system costs about 2x what the next-most expensive one does (Germany's, I believe), with the Germans having a higher being healthier, (as a first indication: a life expectancy that is 1.5-2.5 years higher)fixing that alone would allow you to provide good health care for 2-3x the people you do now at the same cost.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by slayda

If you believe this, you haven't been around the US people I generally associate with. I don't like the idea of your universal health (what I call socialized medicine) but I hate the idea of bailing out companies that overpay their CEOs (who have led the failure) and still believing that those same CEOs can now (with our tax paid bailout) lead the company to success. This is socialized business practices, IMO. Although I understand the rationale of "saving the company", I deplore the idea of believing the failed leadership can miraculously lead to success. (Recall that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing but expecting different results.)

"Socialized business practices" would've never allowed those banks to get in the amount of trouble they did. The whole point of this crisis is that it was "liberal", i.e., unregulated. The whole idea of being a "socialist" country is to ensure that situations like this don't occur, by creating rules those businesses have to adhere to, and so making sure that they live by more or less the same rules as individuals do. What you mention, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with "socialism", and everything with protectionism (which really is something that is more in favor of individual corporations than it is in favor of "capitalism").