Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Right, that would be "US common usage sense." Although I expected that to be clear from the context of the message.

Xenophon

Sure I'm just a little... tired of hearing welfare state = socialism from Americans. It's annoying like when Europeans believe all Americans to be gun-totin', extreme-right capitalist, Christian fundamentalist fanatics.

[tirsales]

Actually I am under the impression that "Sozialist" is some kind of "rude term" in the United States - something that must be avoided at all cost. This is interesting. Politically some people seem to use it to cut off discussions or bluntly shoot a political or social proposal down.
Why is there such a great angst of "Socialism"?

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Tirsales -- it seems to me that responding to wodin by invoking McCarthy might be going a bit far.

No, I believe not - because McCarthy was seeing Socialism wherever he wanted (and used this term to denounce political opponents) - and this term is still used like this in the US (at least thats my impression after reading newspapers, discussions, etc)

But in most day-to-day discussion here in the US, the operative definition of "socialist" is "farther left than the speaker approves of."

And I think thats strange

But as a small-l-libertarian I don't really fit the traditional left-right divide at all! As always, your mileage may vary.

I consider myself as being liberal as well (liberal in the classic "out of the book" definition).

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Ea

Sure I'm just a little... tired of hearing welfare state = socialism from Americans. It's annoying like when Europeans believe all Americans to be gun-totin', extreme-right capitalist, Christian fundamentalist fanatics.

They are not

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by wodin

However, they seem a little lacking in bringing new products/ideas to market. They didn't invent any of those things but they made all of them better, some to the point of having a monopoly in them.

In fact thats not true for quite some years now - they did invent quite a number of new techniques (e.g. in automobile security)...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Actually, I've done that analysis. The scheme I was recommending is certainly not completely resilient in the face of a 20-year bear market, but it comes close. You need to consider a few things to understand this:

It's called dollar cost averaging.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Dollar cost averaging is the practice of investing a fixed dollar amount at regular intervals (such as monthly) in a particular investment or portfolio, regardless of its share price. In this way, more shares are purchased when prices are low and fewer shares are bought when prices are high. Dollar cost averaging is also called DCA and constant dollar plan in the US, pound-cost averaging in the UK, and by the currency-neutral term cost average effect.

Some financial advisors such as Suze Orman claim that DCA reduces exposure to risk associated with making a single large purchase.

It's a well know and effective investing stratagy.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tirsales

[SNIP]
No, I believe not - because McCarthy was seeing Socialism wherever he wanted (and used this term to denounce political opponents) - and this term is still used like this in the US (at least thats my impression after reading newspapers, discussions, etc)
[SNIP]

I see what you mean. And if you equate the word "socialist" or "socialism" with the dictionary definition, many Americans will sound like they are "seeing Socialism wherever they want." Maybe even most. But note that common usage in America does not match the dictionary definition any more.

All that said, the part of the comparison to McCarthy that I was objecting to is that McCarthy deliberately engaged in:

• Denouncing opponents on less-than-no-evidence.
• Destroying careers (and lives!) both wholesale and retail.
• Deploying the machinery of the state to suppress (and oppress) his political opponents.
• Engaging in outright cynical demagoguery for political gain.

And nothing anyone has said in this thread comes close to being even a pale shadow of those things.


Xenophon

P.S. I'm not intending to suggest that the stuff I listed is what you had in mind when making the comparison. But it's what springs to mind for most Americans (or so I think), far more than does "misuse" of the term socialist.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ea

Sure I'm just a little... tired of hearing welfare state = socialism from Americans. It's annoying like when Europeans believe all Americans to be gun-totin', extreme-right capitalist, Christian fundamentalist fanatics.

You're right. That's not fair to all the American gun-totin', extreme-right capitalist, agnostic fanatics...

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by Ea

[ ... ]gun-totin', extreme-right capitalist, Christian fundamentalist fanatics.

I see you met my in-laws!

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I see what you mean. And if you equate the word "socialist" or "socialism" with the dictionary definition, many Americans will sound like they are "seeing Socialism wherever they want." Maybe even most. But note that common usage in America does not match the dictionary definition any more.

The problem with the term is mostly that, as Wodin uses it, it's a discussion-ender. Rather than saying "I disapprove" he's saying "this is unamerican" (hence, communist; odd, that.), even though the preferring of corporate interests over private is very much american, but just something that "polite people don't remind eachother of". By calling it "socialist" though, he's (sort of) externalizing the blame for it, and while it may be true that it wasn't he who caused it, it surely was done by people like him, i.e., Americans.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by wodin

It's called dollar cost averaging.

[SNIP wikipedia definition]

It's a well know and effective investing stratagy.

It certainly is both well known and effective. I'm always surprised to encounter people who aren't aware of it. It's one of the most basic financial concepts around.

I went into gory detail because BlackVoid didn't seem to understand what I was suggesting.

@RalphSirEdward -- yes, tangible assets can act as a hedge against hyperinflation. I should have clearly stated that I was excluding them from consideration -- mostly because it's tough to include them in a 401K/403b/IRA style retirement account under US law. Not completely impossible, since another level of indirection solves most problems , but difficult to do directly.

Xenophon

P.S. I'm curious to hear from BlackVoid w.r.t my big long post about the Japanese bear market and its effect on retirement savings. Especially in light of the historical numbers I described.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

And nothing anyone has said in this thread comes close to being even a pale shadow of those things.

And I didnt want to compare wodin (or anyone else) to McCarthy or accuse him (or anyone else) of doing said stuff. Believe me - as a German I know what it means to be compared or judged (with regard) to historical persons.

In the following replace commun with social wherever you like.

I just wanted to state that somehow the spirit of the McCarthy era (seeing communism everywhere, denouncing or objecting people "because they are communists", (without knowing what it really means), etc) is still alive somehow. Stuff or persons get "denoted" as socialists - simply because "socialism" is (still!) some kind of a "no go area" (traditional enemy?).

But it's what springs to mind for most Americans (or so I think), far more than does "misuse" of the term socialist.

Its not the "misuse" of the term - its the denoting character of its usage: Ideas or people get rejected simply because they are "socialistic" - and so far I fail to understand the reasoning behind.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

The problem with the term is mostly that, as Wodin uses it, it's a discussion-ender. Rather than saying "I disapprove" he's saying "this is unamerican" (hence, communist; odd, that.)

THATS what I meant! May I hire you as my ghostwriter?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Its not the "misuse" of the term - its the denoting character of its usage: Ideas or people get rejected simply because they are "socialistic" - and so far I fail to understand the reasoning behind.

Taxes. The US started in a tax revolt (or so our history books tell us). Anything that makes our taxes go up is loudly condemned.

But there is also the misnomer in American thought that "social program" (such as welfare) is the same thing as socialism.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by tirsales

THATS what I meant! May I hire you as my ghostwriter?

Sure. Would you prefer a flat fee of, say, €500 per month, or €5 per post? (both after tax, of course)

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

[...] even though the preferring of corporate interests over private is very much american, but just something that "polite people don't remind eachother of". [...]

I snipped away most of your response, because I wanted to address only the quoted bit.

I would argue that preferring corporate interests over private interests is certainly a disease that America has suffered from to various degrees at various times. But it's not -- nor should it be -- a necessary part of our system. In order for a capitalist system to work well, you have to let companies fail! That failure frees up their capital assets and their workers to do things that are more valuable than what the failing company did with them. If you prop up the losers, you basically guarantee that you'll do worse than if you don't!

Similarly, I'm exceedingly suspicious when a politician/technocrat/consultant tells me that we must have government funding to encourage X, because the private sector isn't doing it (or isn't doing enough of it). Often that means that the private sector has figured out that it isn't worth doing, or isn't worth pursuing to the degree desired by said politician/technocrat/consultant.

Note: markets are not always right. But they have a better record over the long haul than do governments/politicians/technocrats/etc., in part because they adjust relatively quickly when conditions change.

But then, I'm the radical sort who believes that 90% or more of what the US Federal Government does is strictly unconstitutional -- including many things that directly affect my pocketbook like funding research at my University. Specifically, I just don't buy the incredible stretching of the Commerce Clause of the constitution that the Supremes have used to justify Federal involvement in almost everything. I believe much more strongly in the enumerated powers listed in the constitution... which would make all our recent bail-outs strictly illegal!

So take that attitude into account when you read my posts!

Xenophon