Which is really best? European socialist policies or US extreme free market policies?

[Munin]

Before you vote please read this:

I myself am a European and for a long time I ve been split on this issue as I will explain now.


First I was a pro free market with unlimiting rules & very right wing person (in Europe that would put me on the extreme right, in the US however I would be almost on the left). But some things have changed and I ve become more moderate, because of the reality of seeing the real life effects of the unlimited free market.


What I ve learned: the unlimited free market means that jobs & salaries confirm with supply & demand. & the laws of the jungle apply: the strong prey on the weak.

Which is odd considering that the US is such a religious Christian country & Jesus was practically a preacher of the opposite.


As a result you ll see that people with low market value (no work experience or no education) are the weak that are preys of the strong (Wealthy corporations, ...). Exploiting students for high loans is one example of this:


Preying on the weak N°1 Students

Two-thirds, that’s right, two-thirds of students graduating from American colleges and universities are graduating with some level of debt.

How The $1.2 Trillion College Debt Crisis Is Crippling Students, Parents And The Economy - Forbes

Opposite to this you have the European subsidised school system in Western European countries, that removes the need for student loans & makes European students start their careers without debt.


Preying on the weak N°2 low education jobs jobs

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB0I5K_2KKs]Fast Food Fight: Thousands of low-paid workers take to US streets - YouTube[/ame]

This means market prices, your jobs become commodities which are dragged down by how many workers are available compared to the ammount of jobs. If your job is so common as for example a fast food worker then your salary will be similarly low.

This means: Minimun wages vs bigger quantity of jobs
The US has a minimum wage policy that is fairly low & with free market regulations that does mean that supply & demand will determine your salary (you got a job that a lot of people are capable of doing = low salary, possibly even a salary that doesn't allow you to survive just on that salary)


Personally I think people are not charity workers that work for a company and still live in poverty, if you have a job, work hard & long hours then you shouldn't live in poverty. The working poor it is called.

This contradiction between Europeans used to higher minimum wages is often clear when Europeans come to the US & eat at a restaurant and are reminded by their American friends that you have to pay a tip so the waitress can survive. People don't get tipped in Europe because they have a decent salary in restaurants & bars. By now you may guess on which side I am on the minimum wages discussion, as I m not used to tipping a waitress. As for me it is peculiarity to have something like that: to be a full time employee & have to begg to get the salary you re supposed to get in the first place.

That is kind of a big difference between Europeans & Americans: Europeans have workers rights & Americans have more freedom: but their freedom, means that if you re young don't have rich parents you re working beggar to earn what Europeans take for granted. The positive side of it is that employers can be more flexible with their company, the expense is that it comes at the expense of the people working there.


Preying on the weak n°3 illegal jobs

This one is actually the same in Europe as in the US, because funny enough: in the black market, the rules of the free market always apply.

Even neighbouring countries like Mexico will draw down the salaries of those low education wages. In that sense the illegal immigrants from mexico coming to the US are no different from the Eastern European immigrants going to Western Euro countries. But the blame doesn't rest on the immigrants looking for a better life, because if you re an American: most likely the reason for you being an American is because your ancestors did the same as those immigrants re doing.

The only problem is that cheap labour will become even cheaper & the most desperate people will work for lower salaries than the desperate ones are willing to work for.



On the plus side for the US: the brain drain

If you are however one of the higher skilled workers & have a degree that is not as common, then as an American you do benifit much more than being a European. You ll be able to be a doctor, salesman, ... & exploit the working poor. Much higher salaries as an advantage, which draws people from all over the world to make their fortune.

The only thing is, you need the money & the rich parents to get there. As a European this is much more a thing taken for granted compared to being an American that may put himself in debt & possibly drop out of college as a result of financial problems.



Yes my view is very Biased as I m basing it upon a couple of positive things from the European view comparing a lot of downsides of the American way of life. But I m quite sure the view of some of you with only having corporate funded newschannels & corporate funded politicians may be equally or more biased.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

False premies. There is no free market in the US. And certainly not an "extreme" version.

 

[oreo]

Well if you don't mind 12% unemployment--the majority being youth--then go for the European socialist economy. Because 12% unemployment is actually what places like France brag about. They believe 12% unemployment is GOOD.

 

[Munin]

Yes, but it is a more free market than the European version of it. To Europeans, the US market is much less regulated. This is because in Europe the Unions have had an actual impact on policy that has resulted in laws.

Those laws restrict how the market is working.

European Higher minimum wages = lower ammount of jobs & less flexible for employers to hire people

European Obligated severance pay (In my country it is at least 3 months pay if you have a "indefinite duration contract", the more years you ve worked at a company the higher the severance pay = less flexibility for employers to fire people, which also has an impact on hiring people (more long term decision to hire someone)


I m quite sure the US market is more free & flexible than the European one. There is of course no perfect free market & I m certainly not pretending that the US is a 100% free market. But the differences between Europe & the US are more easly explained with that idea of free market which is a more policy directing influence than in Europe.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, but it is a more free market than the European version of it. To Europeans, the US market is much less regulated. This is because in Europe the Unions have had an actual impact on policy that has resulted in laws.

Those laws restrict how the market is working.

European Higher minimum wages = lower ammount of jobs & less flexible for employers to hire people

European Obligated severance pay (In my country it is at least 3 months pay if you have a "indefinite duration contract", the more years you ve worked at a company the higher the severance pay = less flexibility for employers to fire people, which also has an impact on hiring people (more long term decision to hire someone)


I m quite sure the US market is more free & flexible than the European one. There is of course no perfect free market & I m certainly not pretending that the US is a 100% free market. But the differences between Europe & the US are more easly explained with that idea of free market which is a more policy directing influence than in Europe.

The US has corporatism, which is different than socialism. What neither place has, to any gauge-able degree, is a free market. The US 'market', os heavily regulated and controlled.

If you wanted to discuss the differences between the central planning system in Europe, vs. the central planning system of the US, that would make a good discussion.

I simply point out (right out of the gate) that your current premise is false.

 

[Doubletap]

There is no US extreme free market policies.
What we have is a mixture of freedom and controls.
Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed, anywhere, at any time.

 

[The Rabbi]

A good book on this is COwboy Capitalism by Olaf Gersemann. The original German subtitle is : Die falsche Angst der Deutschen vor dem Cowboy-Capitalismus, or the false angst of the Germans over cowboy (i.e. American) capitalism.
In it he describes German attitudes as exactly like yours. The American economy is basically a big casino with lots of losers.
He also describes how this isn't true at all, and how the American model has resulted in far better outcomes across the board.

 

[Munin]

Well if you don't mind 12% unemployment--the majority being youth--then go for the European socialist economy. Because 12% unemployment is actually what places like France brag about. They believe 12% unemployment is GOOD.

No, I don't think 12% unemployment is good. And yes I 100% agree that it is a downside of more limiting free market.

The difference is, in the better developped European countries (talking about the richer ones like France, Belgium, Germany, the netherlands, scandinavian ones. Not the poor countries like spain, greece, italy, ...): The workers that are unemployed get a unemployment compensation that is close to the minimum wage. (which is also both good and bad in my opinion as you have people who don't see the point in finding a job as they make as much money as minimum wage by not going to work, which is a valid economic decision but imo not a valid long term economic decision)

12% unemployment in Europe doesn't mean 12% extreme poverty as it would in the US. If that is what you mean with Europeans bragging about unemployment then I agree, they have an unemployment they can brag about: the unemployed Americans dying or living in poverty (& loosing their houses) because of an economic crisis caused by banks & bad goverment policies can unfortunatly not say the same. Unemployed Western Europeans also don't loose their health insurance as a lot of unemployed Americans do when they loose their job.(as the health insurence in Europe is both government supplied or semi government organized)


Not sure they brag about it, their current socialist president is extremely unpopular because of the high unemployment. So I m guessing it is some anti French prejudice there, don't get me wrong I understand where it comes from.

French people work to live, more anglosax people like Americans work to survive or to be able to work even harder (after you get a promotion to earn more money, but then don't have the time to spend it as French people have more vacation days ).


Yes French people will bring down the country with strikes if they see that their workers rights are attacked. And I agree the unions there do it too often, so often that they destoy the credibility of France as a place to invest in for foreign corporations.

So yes there is some truth in the French stereotype, but it is more complicated than that. Americans have become their own stereotype by being the complete opposite of the French stereotype: Bill Maher explaines it very well here [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOE71yGxFDk]Bill Maher on Unions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Meathead]

The difference goes back to feudalism, which was a contract between the landed aristocracy and the peasants. The peasants would work for the landlords and in return were protected from marauders and given stored food when crops failed, excessive weather and such.

In the US, especially with outward expansion, the government was remote and of little use. Your klan and rifles were your defense and whatever you produced, you kept.

In light of this, there is little surprise in the different systems given these legacies. I prefer the latter.

 

[Munin]

I simply point out (right out of the gate) that your current premise is false.

Srry if that is the case, I may ve used the wrong wording as I interpreted it differently (see my explaination below trying to give my reasoning and how I interpreted it). I know it can be interpreted differently




I m using the wiki definition:

Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US ideologic policy (politics & real life implications)
free market => "A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority"

European ideologic policy (politics & real life implications)
A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws controlling who is allowed to enter the market, mandating what type of product or service is supplied, or directly setting prices.

directly setting prices => minimum wages for example will affect prices of the products made by those employees as their wages will be calculated in the end price of the product/service.

 

[bripat9643]

What "extreme free market" policies?

 

[bripat9643]

There is no US extreme free market policies.
What we have is a mixture of freedom and controls.
Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed, anywhere, at any time.

America had something very close to a free market until 1914, when the Federal Reserve was created. The bottom line is that the closer we get to a free market, the faster the economy grows and the better off people become.

 

[Munin]

The difference goes back to feudalism, which was a contract between the landed aristocracy and the peasants. The peasants would work for the landlords and in return were protected from marauders and given stored food when crops failed, excessive weather and such.

In the US, especially with outward expansion, the government was remote and of little use. Your klan and rifles were your defense and whatever you produced, you kept.

In light of this, there is little surprise in the different systems given these legacies. I prefer the latter.

Very good insight & good explaination. Thx, it makes me understand American beliefs & ideas much better.


Only downside is that individuals vs organisations are always at a disadvantage. Unions balance out the wages vs the corporations, whether you like them or not. To be honest I never liked them (as I previously only had bad experiences with the results of those Unions: strikes that immobilised public transport, airports, ...), but real life situations made me accept the need for them to exist.

 

[Munin]

What "extreme free market" policies?

Well I could give a couple, but keep in mind this is from comparing a more regulated market (European Countries) to a much less regulated market (the US)


Regulations concerning how easy a worker can be fired, these law imposed restrictions are much higher in Europe than in the US.
Advantages, Disadavantages:
++ more flexible market: people can switch jobs more easely
-- less individual worker security, if you get fired at a bad moment (economic crisis), you re more screwed. As it is much more unlikely to get a new job. European laws buy you more time with the extra months of salary you can use to bridge the gap to search for your new job.


In terms of medication & drug policies:
Pharmaceutical companies do not have free reign in pricing their products for the end consumers in a lot of European countries as they do in the US, governments in Europe will intervene when they see that corporations are abusing their voters. In the US this would directly become a conflict of interest for some politicians as their campaign funding is possibly from a company like this (but this corruption of politics by corporations is a different discussion).


One more extreme example: in the US everything can be privatized, this for me as a European can be strange (almost unthinkable). As the privatizing of the military on big scale is something that I thought would be only possible in science fiction, but in the US it is reality Blackwater USA .




Medical services pricing (Hospitals & private doctors)

This is strictly regulated in Europe, as a result prices for medical expenses are very low due to universal health care coverage (semi-private or government provided). The prices in the US are extremely high compared to what Europeans have to pay for their medical services.

++ Cheaper healthcare for individuals. More experienced doctors as a result of having to treat more patients (everyone has health coverage).
-- Bit longer waiting time for certain hospitals, but this is not as extreme as I the propaganda I read about from some US sources that tell how bad it is here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The difference goes back to feudalism, which was a contract between the landed aristocracy and the peasants. The peasants would work for the landlords and in return were protected from marauders and given stored food when crops failed, excessive weather and such.

In the US, especially with outward expansion, the government was remote and of little use. Your klan and rifles were your defense and whatever you produced, you kept.

In light of this, there is little surprise in the different systems given these legacies. I prefer the latter.

So you'd have preferred to exterminate the Indians yourself, instead of letting the US Army do it.

 

[Munin]

The difference goes back to feudalism, which was a contract between the landed aristocracy and the peasants. The peasants would work for the landlords and in return were protected from marauders and given stored food when crops failed, excessive weather and such.

In the US, especially with outward expansion, the government was remote and of little use. Your klan and rifles were your defense and whatever you produced, you kept.

In light of this, there is little surprise in the different systems given these legacies. I prefer the latter.

So you'd have preferred to exterminate the Indians yourself, instead of letting the US Army do it.

man you made me laugh

 

[Meathead]

The difference goes back to feudalism, which was a contract between the landed aristocracy and the peasants. The peasants would work for the landlords and in return were protected from marauders and given stored food when crops failed, excessive weather and such.

In the US, especially with outward expansion, the government was remote and of little use. Your klan and rifles were your defense and whatever you produced, you kept.

In light of this, there is little surprise in the different systems given these legacies. I prefer the latter.

So you'd have preferred to exterminate the Indians yourself, instead of letting the US Army do it.

Don't be such a self-righteous prick. I would have defended my family from anyone who threatened them, and there was no shortage of white outlaws either.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- tHE BEST IS THE MIDDLE Dem ground, then the EU- greedy idiot chickenhawk ugly American savage capitalism is a disgrace...And thanks for all the cronyism/corruption bubble/bust scandals, recessions, and world depressions...hater dupes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The difference goes back to feudalism, which was a contract between the landed aristocracy and the peasants. The peasants would work for the landlords and in return were protected from marauders and given stored food when crops failed, excessive weather and such.

In the US, especially with outward expansion, the government was remote and of little use. Your klan and rifles were your defense and whatever you produced, you kept.

In light of this, there is little surprise in the different systems given these legacies. I prefer the latter.

So you'd have preferred to exterminate the Indians yourself, instead of letting the US Army do it.

Don't be such a self-righteous prick. I would have defended my family from anyone who threatened them, and there was no shortage of white outlaws either.

I think that was the Indians' point of view.

 

[Munin]

So you'd have preferred to exterminate the Indians yourself, instead of letting the US Army do it.

Don't be such a self-righteous prick. I would have defended my family from anyone who threatened them, and there was no shortage of white outlaws either.

I think that was the Indians' point of view.

Is it also not that of the colonists & the first settlers?


After all was the first American Army not something that resembled more a militia than the regular army the European powers at the time had?