Seriously thoughtful US/Europe Cultural Divide -- Musings

[thomasmorus]

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)...

So a large fraction of the US reads the scandal rags and "wanna be" Paris Hilton. This differs from the Royals.... how? (I'm talking about your "lucky by birth" comment, and not about sovereignty issues, b.t.w.)

I think that the popularity-and-riches thing is a relatively widespread issue that is not unique to either side of the pond.

Xenophon

Sorry this ist just not right: Overall there are 399 Nobel prize winners in the EU verus 309 in the US ( mayby not 100% correct as some are doule counted) (see list in wikipaedia) Also if you compare individual countries you find 102 in Germany , 113 in the UK which gives them a much higer average per acapita then the US

[thomasmorus]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Working

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).

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).

Sorry guy
I have to speak against you. Since I am back from the states I love Germany Buerocracy - The are just efficient, Fast and in the last three or four yours even friendly- You just need a compoarison to really like them!

[thomasmorus]

Originally Posted by wodin

I think I speak for the majority when I say I'm only interested in profit for me!

Sourosly if you are not joking I do not thin that you are even speaking for a mAyotity in the US but surly not in Europa.
But I think you lerned your history especilly LENIN: He was the one whonamed the Bolschiwiky - which mens in Russian - The Majority even when they never were the Majority!!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The attitude that "the government is my enemy and is trying to harm me" does seem to be a uniquely American perspective (not one, I know, which all Americans share!). I've often seen it expressed by Americans, but never by a European. We may not always agree with what our governments do, but I don't think that any of us actually believe that our government is actively trying to harm us.

It comes back to cultural formation. For the last 1000 years there has always been a government controlling things in Europe. Therefore the culture is molded into one that believes in government controlling things. The US has a different cultural perspective, because it was built on a different cultural perspective, i. e. you took care of youself, because there wasn't anyone else to take care of you, as there wasn't anybody else around. (and many people liked it that way!)

Because of the different cultural formation, you get different perspectives. In Europe, Liberty is something a government grants, from it's absolute powers, as it see fit. It has the right to do anything, without limit. It's limits are set by the government in power at any particular time, not by any inherent cultural limit. This goes back to feudalistic government types.

The US has no feudalistic background, it's background is surviving an anarchic frontier with harsh weather and harsher existing dwellers. People who survived and thrived in such evironments, don't need to be granted choices from an all-powerful government form, they grant powers to a not-all-powerful government form. And they withhold the rights to grant powers when they see fit. Government is a hired hand in the American form, government is a boss in the European form.

Is this a strict US form? It would be interesting to see and Austrailian weigh in on their view of government...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Because of the different cultural formation, you get different perspectives. In Europe, Liberty is something a government grants, from it's absolute powers, as it see fit. It has the right to do anything, without limit. It's limits are set by the government in power at any particular time, not by any inherent cultural limit. This goes back to feudalistic government types.

No, it is given those rights by the people. And if the people don't like it, the government will not get back into office!

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It's limits are set by the government in power at any particular time, not by any inherent cultural limit. This goes back to feudalistic government types.

Sorry, but that's total and absolute bullshit. Comparable, perhaps, to my saying that "the US colonies were founded on greed (tobacco planting, defrauding, chasing away and killing natives) and racism (slavery)."

We have constitutions here, you know.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ea

You seem to imply that there is something wrong with this attitude - and you forget what we pay in taxes. You also seem to imply that there is something inherently noble and right about giving money to charity, and especially doing it personally. Why?

I have always thought the the reason people give money in US is mainly for their own gain. They get advantages like higher social status and a feeling that they have done something extra good.

Giving money through taxes is a more unselfish behavior.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by thomasmorus

Sorry guy
I have to speak against you. Since I am back from the states I love Germany Buerocracy - The are just efficient, Fast and in the last three or four yours even friendly- You just need a compoarison to really like them!

Swedes usually complain about the bureaucracy in Sweden but after having experience the same thing in the US they usually have the same reaction as you.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it is given those rights by the people. And if the people don't like it, the government will not get back into office!

Well, in the UK at least, we can have majority governments with minority support (as we have now).
And once in power, a majority government is pretty much an elected dictatorship for the duration of its term.

We don't have a system of proportional representation, so it's only the votes of a few thousand people in marginal constituencies that determine who will govern.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Well, in the UK at least, we can have majority governments with minority support (as we have now).
And once in power, a majority government is pretty much an elected dictatorship for the duration of its term.

We don't have a system of proportional representation, so it's only the votes of a few thousand people in marginal constituencies that determine who will govern.

I don't agree, Sparrow. A government serves at the pleasure of the sovereign. Perhaps I have more "faith" in the system than you do, but I truly believe that no government in this country could succeed in turning itself into a tyranny. For one thing, it does not have direct "command" of the armed forces, or the police.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't agree, Sparrow. A government serves at the pleasure of the sovereign. Perhaps I have more "faith" in the system than you do, but I truly believe that no government in this country could succeed in turning itself into a tyranny. For one thing, it does not have direct "command" of the armed forces, or the police.

Yep, I think I have a more cynical pov.

But the main point I was trying to get across was the shortcomings of our democratic system, which fails to reflect the will of the people.
Personally, that's one reason I'm glad we're in the EU - it acts as a check on our government.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Sorry, but that's total and absolute bullshit.

Harry, Zerospinboson, my statement is an obvious burr under your saddle. But your responses acutally back up my thesis. Let me rephrase -

What is the inherent limit that a government cannot do, if elected, in Europe?

Look over the last thousand years. People and politican entities traded back and forth like trading cards. Not true? Look at England's adventuring in the continent ca. 100-1500. Burgundy being given as a wedding present?

(But we're modern now and such things can't happen now...)

But fascism was elected in Italy and Germany. In Great Britain, they did a TV show in the 1960's, The Prisoner, about a man under continuous survellance, with the premise that such was a bad thing. Now most of London is under continuous survellance (be seein' ya!). My point is that there is no inherent cultural <you can't do that, no matter who you are> in European viewpoint of government. Only those of the government you elected at the time, which could be swapped out at any time you please for another government that could do whatever it was elected to do, without limit, that it's electorate felt needed to be done. Even if that was to scrap all freedom or the market economy. I'm not saying that that choice is currently in the cards, but there's no cultural worldview saying that to do so is inherently evil. the people in power do what they have been granted power to do, just like an absolute monarch...

[HarryT]

In the UK at least, though, Ralph, the Monarch and the government form a "check" on each other's power. The Monarch acts as a check on a government doing anything too "tyrannical", through the power to be able to dismiss the government. The government acts as a check of the power of the Monarch by being able to get rid of a Monarch who tries to act as a tyrant. Don't be fooled into thinking that the British Monarch has no "power" any more; by tradition the Monarch allows the government to "rule" on their behalf, but the Monarch can choose to exercise virtually limitless power, should be circumstances demand it.

In European countries which are no longer monarchies, the president serves much the same role.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the UK at least, though, Ralph, the Monarch and the government form a "check" on each other's power. The Monarch acts as a check on a government doing anything too "tyrannical", through the power to be able to dismiss the government. The government acts as a check of the power of the Monarch by being able to get rid of a Monarch who tries to act as a tyrant. Don't be fooled into thinking that the British Monarch has no "power" any more; by tradition the Monarch allows the government to "rule" on their behalf, but the Monarch can choose to exercise virtually limitless power, should be circumstances demand it.

In European countries which are no longer monarchies, the president serves much the same role.

But that's my point. It's power versus power. Where is the concept that nobody can do certain things, that both Monarch and Government are prevented from doing things.

The US culture believes in such limitations...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But that's my point. It's power versus power. Where is the concept that nobody can do certain things, that both Monarch and Government are prevented from doing things.

The US culture believes in such limitations...

With respect, Ralph, the division of the US government into the three branches of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, was precisely to provide an equivalent system of "checks and balances" as is represented by that which exists between the Monarch and Parliament in the UK.

Can you give an example of something that a British government could do, but a US government could not?