thoughts on the French troubles ?

[ricecrispi]

Trickle down thoery is just a theory. Where's the hardcore evidence it exist or research on it? Models and theories are water down and simiplified and not always reflective of reality and society.

Trickle down/reaganomics/governatornomics is a catch phrase politicans use for a very simplified model of economics that joe six packs eats it up because he think he benefits by buying stuff and suddenly jobs grow for him and lead to a rainbow road to a strong economy. Economics is much more complicated than that but it's used because a moron like arnold and reagan can use it. Plus the economy was best when the government was fiscally responsible a few years back which also has to do with efficiency.

In theory the trickle start top down. That is why Dubai is a good example of it but it started with a billionaire deciding to be constructive with his money. In a sense it is very pure but there isn't enough middle class or working class to reflect how spending by these two class will lead to future investments.

The rich will always be investing because they have the resources to do so. They are just looking for good opportunities. The middle class invest when they have money.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by ricecrispi

Lothar,
Taxes do help but they can be bad. You insisted taxes are bad when they serve a purpose. If they didn't taxes us we have no army, no schools, no freeways etc etc... Again it's how efficient the government spends and what they spend it on. If they go blowing the money on things we don't need then yeah, it's inefficient. Might be the case for France but might not be for other countries.

It's just bothersome that your arguement is purely being hey, they ain't capitalist that must be the source of the problems type of thinking, very republician like. US wouldn't have survived the depression without socialist policies. There is a time for socialism and a time for capitalism. Government should be a correct balance of both. It seems to me the US is focusing too much on the capitalism part right now.

I've never stated taxes were bad, however heavy taxation certainly is bad. The primary job of government is to provide for things that individuals are incapable of providing themselves. For instance the military, infrastructure and yes social safety nets which help ensure social stability during economic transition. However if taxes become a mechanism for mass wealth redistribution it will have a negative affect on the economy.

I think it is interesting that you mention the New Deal because I am a tremendous fan of Roosevelt. However, you know that the policies of the New Deal are almost the exact same policies that Ronald Regan in the 80’s (interestingly enough also the policies of Julius and Augustus Caesar). Classic supply side economics...including the trickle down effect. Roosevelt was "pumping and priming the economy and trying to save American Capitalism not make the country socialist. I suppose if you listen to Ann Coulter or one of those NeoCon idiots you start to think Roosevelt was a socialist. When nothing could be further from the truth. Especially when you look at his heavy handedness toward unions at various times.

My point about France is that their economic policies have created a good quality of life for those who work however it is at the expense of a lot of unemployed people. My life experience and knowledge of history have shown me that once you pull back the veneer of race, religion, culture or nationality every human conflict will boil down to a conflict between the "Haves" and "Have nots"

[pauldenton]

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

The average poor person in the US has a Lifestyle equal to that of a utopian socialist middle class British citizen. Must be that trickle down effect........

hmm - i'd love to see your evidence for this (unless your use of "middle class" is different from ours......)
in particular:

a) just how many foreign holidays does the average poor person in the US enjoy each year? - (and how long.....)

b) how many hours of domestic service can they expect to have done for them by paid employees each week? (cleaners, nannies, au pairs etc.)

c) can they expect to put their children through private education for their whole school careers? - or just up to 16??

[Long Haired Git]

Are OS holidays, domestic service and private schooling for kids the domain of the middle class? Yikes, I am most likely lower class then. I would have held these as upper class domain?
Self delusion ?
Lower class: Rent, old cars purchased 2nd hand, short local cheap holidays, public education.
Middle class: Mortgage, new or near-new car, long holidays perhaps OS at top end, public education or some private if really lucky.
Upper class: Own home and perhaps others, new luxury car, OS holidays and travel, all private education.

Naturally a scale of grays and not three bands.

[UNDERBYTE]

Originally Posted by pauldenton

hmm - i'd love to see your evidence for this (unless your use of "middle class" is different from ours......)
in particular:

a) just how many foreign holidays does the average poor person in the US enjoy each year? - (and how long.....)

b) how many hours of domestic service can they expect to have done for them by paid employees each week? (cleaners, nannies, au pairs etc.)

c) can they expect to put their children through private education for their whole school careers? - or just up to 16??

A little digging shows that the UK's median household income is 21,700 pounds/year. (I picked this up from a secondary source, a Guardian article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...51551,00.html).

The PPP for various nations is available at the IMF. The PPP rates I used were linked from the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity . The UK's PPP rate is shown as 0.685.

This means that the UK has a PPP median household income of $31,700, compared to a US median household income of $43,500 (in 2003, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...statemhi.html).

That means the US median household income is about 35%-40% greater than that of the UK. By most accounts the UK is the wealthiest of the major European countries, so comparisions to other European nations are likely to be even less flattering.

So at 31,700 USD median household income(middle class) your hiring maids and nanny's for the kid's, plus send their kids through private school, paying a mortgage etc. seems unlikely to me.


As an equalizer many poor in the US can get daycare subsidzed ($10 to 15K annually per child in my state) Plus many options for collage for the poor - scholarlships etc.
middle class generally pays their own way.

Vacations , well that's a national choice or preference

Do not take this personal I love the UK -

[pauldenton]

Originally Posted by Long Haired Git

Are OS holidays, domestic service and private schooling for kids the domain of the middle class? Yikes, I am most likely lower class then. I would have held these as upper class domain?
Self delusion ?
Lower class: Rent, old cars purchased 2nd hand, short local cheap holidays, public education.
Middle class: Mortgage, new or near-new car, long holidays perhaps OS at top end, public education or some private if really lucky.
Upper class: Own home and perhaps others, new luxury car, OS holidays and travel, all private education.

Naturally a scale of grays and not three bands.

i would say that OS holidays are virtually universal in the UK (i.e. basically the only people who don't have at least one (1 week+) are the unwaged, and people who could, but choose not too.....) - of couse there are many degrees of OS holidays....
{part of the reason is that the UK is not a cheap destination.... so in these days of cheap air travel it makes no economic sense not to jet off to warmer/cheaper climes...}
Middle class norm would be 2 weeks long haul/upmarket europe in the summer + 1-2 weeks skiing/winter sun.....

pretty much universal for the middle class to have at least a cleaner once/week also ime {partly because they work long hours - so the time/cost tradeoff is favourable}

68.2% owner occupation in england/wales the 2001 census (29% outright, 39% with mortgage - the outright owners being more likely to be the retired rather than the rich...)

7% of children in the UK are privately educated (at what are misleading called "public schools" here) - but in london that rises to 20% (and is below 7% in wealthy areas where there are still selective schools.) .... and on top of that many parents in the state sector pay for extra tuition, and/or spend to manipulate the state school system (by buying - or even renting a second home- in the catchment areas of good schools etc.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...605924,00.html

[pauldenton]

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

A little digging shows that the UK's median household income is 21,700 pounds/year. (I picked this up from a secondary source, a Guardian article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...051551,00.html.

The PPP for various nations is available at the IMF. The PPP rates I used were linked from the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity . The UK's PPP rate is shown as 0.685.

This means that the UK has a PPP median household income of $31,700, compared to a US median household income of $43,500 (in 2003, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...statemhi.html).


That means the US median household income is about 35%-40% greater than that of the UK. By most accounts the UK is the wealthiest of the major European countries, so comparisions to other European nations are likely to be even less flattering.

So at 31,700 USD median household income(middle class) your hiring maids and nanny's for the kid's, plus send their kids through private school, paying a mortgage etc. seems unlikely to me.


As an equalizer many poor in the US can get daycare subsidzed ($10 to 15K annually per child in my state) Plus many options for collage for the poor - scholarlships etc.
middle class generally pays their own way.

Vacations , well that's a national choice or preference

Do not take this personal I love the UK -

yes that's what i meant by your use of "middle class" being different to ours - there is no way that someone on UK median income would be described as "middle class" here...
(that is about what an average University graduate earns as a starting salary..)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3890313.stm

if you look at that guardian article - i fixed the link btw. - you'll see that it also says that Median household income for skilled manual and non-manual workers is about £27,000 before tax - these are people who would be described as (skilled) "working class" in the UK.....

the "middle class" benchmark is more the example it gives as "galaxy man", in the top 20% of the income distribution.... at a family income of £60k *- so $87,600...
and don't forget that he has no need to shell out on health insurance here (he may well do, or get it from work, but it's cheaper because of the NHS as a backup for extremes and because drugs/costs/wages in healthcare are lower than the states...), and he can send his kids to oxford/cambridge for a fraction of the cost of harvard/yale etc.

*£60k is about what 2 (reasonably experienced but unpromoted) teachers earn in england/wales (london would be higher, as is scotland where they pay teachers more) - and is low compared to private sector/professional wages - so i guess then equates to a 1.5 earner couple maybe. one-earner couples are rare here, at least in the south, except at the extremes of the income range...
a measure of just how bizarre the UKs welfare setup has become under the Bliar junta is that it is quite possible for a family on this level of income to recieve state help towards childcare/a nanny....

[koslov]

While this thread has totally derailed from the original topic, is this perphaps a crack in the NHS system in the UK?

Now that the violence appears to be subsiding, the big question is which direction will France go? Attempts to appease the African communities? Or hardline policy such as this:

"Far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen said French nationals of immigrant backgrounds should be stripped of their French citizenship and sent "back to their country of origin" if they committed crimes."

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2221062005

[pauldenton]

Originally Posted by koslov

While this thread has totally derailed from the original topic, is this perphaps a crack in the NHS system in the UK?

typical labour meddling... only a few years ago they set up a body to make these cost/benefit decisions (National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence, NICE) and at the first time a politically awkward decision has come they have preempted it.... which will cause chaos as there is no budget to pay for it (like any other unapproved treatment)
she has, of course, a background completely unsuited to running a health service (particularly one which is the 2nd largest employer in the world after the Red Army...)
http://www.patriciahewitt.labour.co.....cfm?Page=1368

hmm - having watched the near annual ritual of burning tyres from farmers, hauliers etc. for many years, perhaps they'd be happier with immigrants who were less french

[UNDERBYTE]

Originally Posted by pauldenton

yes that's what i meant by your use of "middle class" being different to ours - there is no way that someone on UK median income would be described as "middle class" here...
(that is about what an average University graduate earns as a starting salary..)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3890313.stm

if you look at that guardian article - i fixed the link btw. - you'll see that it also says that Median household income for skilled manual and non-manual workers is about £27,000 before tax - these are people who would be described as (skilled) "working class" in the UK.....

the "middle class" benchmark is more the example it gives as "galaxy man", in the top 20% of the income distribution.... at a family income of £60k *- so $87,600...
and don't forget that he has no need to shell out on health insurance here (he may well do, or get it from work, but it's cheaper because of the NHS as a backup for extremes and because drugs/costs/wages in healthcare are lower than the states...), and he can send his kids to oxford/cambridge for a fraction of the cost of harvard/yale etc.

Interesting economic breakdown on the EU vs US. - The US Poor are not the same as the EU poor and like I said our poor are on par with the EU middle class

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

All of the EU faces the same economic problem as france -

France hard line on the rioters was great to see

[HAL-9000]

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

Interesting economic breakdown on the EU vs US. - The US Poor are not the same as the EU poor and like I said our poor are on par with the EU middle class

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

All of the EU faces the same economic problem as france -

France hard line on the rioters was great to see

There are some things to remember about the USA that need to be taken into context when comparing us to other countries. As an American, it is unfortunate that they are not so flattering, but they need to be accounted for in any comparison.

The United States median household is 42 grand or so, and in Europe it is somewhat less. But an important thing to remember with the USA is we live beyond our means. This discrepancy shows up in both the goverment's deficit, and the trade deficit. We import about half a TRILLION more dollars worth of goodies and services than we export. We pay for that with nothing more than paper, we didn't earn that excess. An interesting circle happens here that will get more vicious with the passing years. Our goverment runs a similiar sized deficit. It raises that debt by selling bonds.

A country with all these excess dollars (China and Japan for instance) then offloads them by buying U.S. Treasuries. So, we Americans get to have cake and eat it to. We get an extra half trillion of goodies for "free" and then these countries turn around and take that money and give it back to us, so we can then do what we do these days in the gov. Basically that amounts to buying Viagra for gramps, cutting checks to various interests, and bombing Iraqis. Whether you politically agree or disagree, that is what we physically do with that money. This is also important to remember when we think of the high tax burden European countries tend to have, because they pay for virtually all of their goverment. Americans get a big messy goverment too, but finance 25% of it every year instead of paying for it. If we actually PAID for all our goverment, our tax burden would be similiar to Europe's average.

But now we Americans are paying back our free loan, over the lifetime of those bonds, plus interest. The Federal goverment's interest payments on the national debt is now bigger than all other expenditures except for Social Security, DoD, and Medicare. Every other thing the gov has going, NASA, HUD, the DOT, DOE, FAA, FCC, CIA, FBI, the alphabet soup goes on, does not spend even half as much money COMBINED as we spend on deficit financing as it is today. This will only become more acute as we continually borrow more money. Another thing you see happening is those excess dollars start coming back to this country to acquire American assets. Lenovo's purchase of IBM's PC biz comes to mind, or Petrochina's attempted purchase of Unocal is another example.

Coming and going, we inflate our economy by about a trillion dollars (~10% of GDP) per year. Subtract that scheme we have right now, and jack up taxes so we actually PAY for our goverment instead of using rock-bottom financing from the People's Bank of China, and you have a financial situation that basically is like, well...France.

Americans have a sweet deal going right now with the rest of the world where we basically get to spend money we print, and spend it twice. No free lunch like that lasts forever, and unless we get our own financial house in order the French will be having a nice chuckle at our mess in thirty years or so. END RANT

[Long Haired Git]

I remember an analysis of empires (Roman, Greek, Egyptian etc) putting 25 years on the USA before it crashed. When the USA invaded Iraq, I think they dropped that to 15 years before you see the USA collapse.

Fundamental issue with democracy: each govt care about the next four years far more than the years after that. Imagine the outcome if a political party went the next election promising to fix the above by raising taxes and reducing spending?

[pauldenton]

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

Interesting economic breakdown on the EU vs US. - The US Poor are not the same as the EU poor and like I said our poor are on par with the EU middle class

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

All of the EU faces the same economic problem as france -

hmm - a quick skim suggests that at least some of his stats are definitely wrong! (for example on page 16 he claims that only 3 percent of UK households have a car! - according to the 2001 census this should be 73% or so, which is considerably more than the US figure of 57%...)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2...es/housing.asp

he seems to include Switzerland, but not the 2 other EFTA countries Norway and Iceland (both richer than switzerland, and in the case of Norway richer than the USA also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita

i'm dubious about his comparision of 2000 (US) and 2005 (elsewhere) GDPs when they are at PPP - in 2000 a $ was worth more than 1 Euro, whereas now it is under 0.86 - so the ppp adjustment figure will be wrong.....

[Kemist]

73% is likely % of families in uk with at least one car, attached is Worldbank data.

The 3 in the other report is probably a typo

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tra_car

Country Description Amount
1. Italy 539 per 1,000 people
2. Germany 508 per 1,000 people
3. Austria 495 per 1,000 people
4. Switzerland 486 per 1,000 people
5. Australia 485 per 1,000 people
6. New Zealand 481 per 1,000 people
7. United States 478 per 1,000 people
8. France 469 per 1,000 people
9. Canada 459 per 1,000 people
10. Belgium 448 per 1,000 people
11. Sweden 437 per 1,000 people
12. Norway 407 per 1,000 people
13. Finland 403 per 1,000 people
14. Japan 395 per 1,000 people
15. Netherlands 383 per 1,000 people
16. United Kingdom 373 per 1,000 people
17. Denmark 353 per 1,000 people
18. Ireland 272 per 1,000 people
Weighted Average 458.1 per 1,000 people

[ricecrispi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

However if taxes become a mechanism for mass wealth redistribution it will have a negative affect on the economy.

New Deal are almost the exact same policies that Ronald Regan in the 80’s

Lothar how does FDR~ Reagan?

FDR was a great president and a realist and that made him great. He realized he didn't have a solution and asked the brightest minds what was needed to be done to save a nation. FDR wasn't a socialist, but shows there's a time and place for everything and used socialist programs to help people get jobs. That's not trickle down, that's socalism. Really stepping over the definition of a term but I geuss trickle down is so broad anyone can use it in any context now......

Reagan was an ex actor who had a good smile, gave great speech, had an air of confidence, and that is why so many people loved him. Reagan was never about socialist programs. He cut taxes to fool people with a little lolipop, cut socialist programs, and while piling up the deficiet unresponsibily. The bull market was due to confidence in US power and US standing over the Soviets.

Reagan had such tunnel vision to end the cold war and put us in the deficit predictament Hal-900 was talking about. HE set off the domino effect that G. Bush Sr. and G W. Bush are continuing. I still don't understand how he got credit for end the USSR when it pretty much failed on it's own.....

Originally Posted by HAL-9000

Americans have a sweet deal going right now with the rest of the world where we basically get to spend money we print, and spend it twice. No free lunch like that lasts forever, and unless we get our own financial house in order the French will be having a nice chuckle at our mess in thirty years or so. END RANT

Hey, that rant makes sense and makes a very valid points. I agree the US is digging it's own hole but hey, if all the politicians are dead they don't suffer from it or dont care if they were responsible for it because they are dead.

[UNDERBYTE]

Originally Posted by HAL-9000

There are some things to remember about the USA that need to be taken into context when comparing us to other countries. As an American, it is unfortunate that they are not so flattering, but they need to be accounted for in any comparison.


Coming and going, we inflate our economy by about a trillion dollars (~10% of GDP) per year. Subtract that scheme we have right now, and jack up taxes so we actually PAY for our goverment instead of using rock-bottom financing from the People's Bank of China, and you have a financial situation that basically is like, well...France.

END RANT

Germany actually has a trade surplus, Yet they still have 10% plus unemployment, low growth and the same powder keg of political instability that France has,

500 billion dollars trade deficit could be termed as the largest transfer of wealth in history, a rich to poor redistribution that any socialist would consider fair.

Yet at this same time the US economy is growing at about 500 hundred billion a year which probably works out to a wash on some economist spread sheet model. Some of those dollars do come back in the form of Germans Japanese building auto manufacturing plants in the US (China wanted to buy an oil company recently) so I think it is probably a net gain for the US on the free trade scenario.

The main economies that do not practice free trade are the socialist economies and they are the world’s worst performing ones. It looks to me like the US has more of a winning strategy long term while not perfect we historically low unemployment and relatively low inflation with strong economic growth. Probably not perfect but it works.

What gets me is the leftists socialists and communist model wherever it has been tried it has failed as a viable political /economic structure. Russia, eastern Europe , Europe, china, south America (I can not believe they are trying it again) etc. It feels great when you stop beating your head against the wall so why keep doing it?

Clinton and Blair’s third way is just a rehash of Hitler’s third way. No new ideas. The left wing communist and socialist template is second wave political philosophy in response to the 1880’s Industrial age social upheaval and generally hit it’s peak during the 1920’s to 1960 FDR and LBJ’s Great Society. Technology is transforming the world as much as the industrial revolution did and what form it take nobody knows. Bush’s ownership society? Something else? Nobody knows but my guess is that inefficient models i.e. left wing will fade as serious contenders.

US Government spending is out of control and despite what people say that my tax rate is 35% add 13.9% SS (I am self employed) federally mandated taxes through the state income, property and sale taxes it actually brings the amount to over 50%. And what gripes me on this one is that LBJ decoupled the fund so the government could spend the surplus , which they have on off budget Items. Then Clinton set it up so the government can now Tax SS income. Taxing me twice on the same money? SS is under funded? It is my money! I could spend it more eff. Than any government employee I think we fire all republicans and democrats (limit them all to one term) and keep a little more ourselves.

[pauldenton]

Originally Posted by Kemist

73% is likely % of families in uk with at least one car, attached is Worldbank data.

73% is indeed the percentage of households* with a car (in england - elsewhere in the UK is higher i think - because cars are thinner on the ground in london...)
*household in the census sense of 1 or more people in the same dwelling...

his table is headed "Percentage of households owning...." and his US figure (57%) is clearly too high to be autos per 100 people...

he doesn't seem to have a "statistical source" that would provide this table, so maybe it's lifted from another article? :shrug:

[bobo5195]

Originally Posted by UNDERBYTE

Germany actually has a trade surplus, Yet they still have 10% plus unemployment, low growth and the same powder keg of political instability that France has,

500 billion dollars trade deficit could be termed as the largest transfer of wealth in history, a rich to poor redistribution that any socialist would consider fair.

Yet at this same time the US economy is growing at about 500 hundred billion a year which probably works out to a wash on some economist spread sheet model. Some of those dollars do come back in the form of Germans Japanese building auto manufacturing plants in the US (China wanted to buy an oil company recently) so I think it is probably a net gain for the US on the free trade scenario.

The main economies that do not practice free trade are the socialist economies and they are the world’s worst performing ones. It looks to me like the US has more of a winning strategy long term while not perfect we historically low unemployment and relatively low inflation with strong economic growth. Probably not perfect but it works.

What gets me is the leftists socialists and communist model wherever it has been tried it has failed as a viable political /economic structure. Russia, eastern Europe , Europe, china, south America (I can not believe they are trying it again) etc. It feels great when you stop beating your head against the wall so why keep doing it?

Clinton and Blair’s third way is just a rehash of Hitler’s third way. No new ideas. The left wing communist and socialist template is second wave political philosophy in response to the 1880’s Industrial age social upheaval and generally hit it’s peak during the 1920’s to 1960 FDR and LBJ’s Great Society. Technology is transforming the world as much as the industrial revolution did and what form it take nobody knows. Bush’s ownership society? Something else? Nobody knows but my guess is that inefficient models i.e. left wing will fade as serious contenders.

US Government spending is out of control and despite what people say that my tax rate is 35% add 13.9% SS (I am self employed) federally mandated taxes through the state income, property and sale taxes it actually brings the amount to over 50%. And what gripes me on this one is that LBJ decoupled the fund so the government could spend the surplus , which they have on off budget Items. Then Clinton set it up so the government can now Tax SS income. Taxing me twice on the same money? SS is under funded? It is my money! I could spend it more eff. Than any government employee I think we fire all republicans and democrats (limit them all to one term) and keep a little more ourselves.

Germany has demographic problems like Japan, its high unemployment like france is a production of the German employment system for better or worse, it depends on your way of looking at things.

As for it being fair socialist redistribution that is a complete misunderstanding of terms as your making money for the money men. I would look at as China owning the USA ass, (I think it currently owns $2 trillion and bush keeps giving them more). Mortgaging of the future.

That $500bn is a direct result then of a massive budget deficit giving china more and more control of the US economy. Fighting a war in Afghanistan which ended up flooding Europe with large amounts of cheap heroin and trying to control a country where everyone has a AK47 under their bed. Similarly in Iraq where nobody likes the invaders and is rapidly turning into a country in anarchy with as one British general said “stupid” military tactics.

Germany and France are both far bigger trading countries as a percentage of national income than the USA is. EU means that they probably rank as some of the most (if not the most) free trading states (within a trade group in the world). Winning strategies have come and gone throughout history. The current one is no different to the older basis based on Keynesian economic thought, that produced large amounts of inflation the current one racks up the debt. The current US (and indeed Brittan) situation looks more and more like an assest price bubble that could go pop. Consumer debt is at an all time high, if people start defaulting it could start triggering a proper genuine economic depression. Current interbank derivatives are so diverse that there is a very real worry that if one bank goes pop that things could go very red. This is a very real result of low interest rates. Low rates have also fueled a property bubble current UK house prices are about 30% over valued vs rents it could be the 1980s all over again. Inflation has only remained low due to low oil prices in previous years and a massive 40% drop in prices thanks to china coming on the world scene. Other prices have been going up at above normal rates. This causes a long term problem in that the trade balance is hopelessly skewed in the USA to import of cheap manufactured groups. Chinese growth will remain good for a while but soon high oil prices and higher wages in china are going to bite. Also employment maybe to low causing wage inflation. I don’t think the US economy is doing well I think its on the bus home, totally hammered on cheap drinks, and in the morning comes the hangover and credit card bill. Examples are GM which is nearly bankrupt and if that goes a lot of things are going to go awfully wrong.

Socialism has worked pretty well in Europe I think. I would hardly call Europe a failure. They are trying it again for the very reason why socialism works. It is a redistribution of wealth to help eliminate the inequalities created by a free market things. These cause unrest and social problems. An example is there are 1 million Americans below the poverty line. European gini curves look nice, American gini coefficients look like a African military junta. Assuming that all things are measured in $ now is a little optimistic. For example European social mobility is now better than the US, the cancer drug mentioned for the UK, is there even debate about that in the US? Of course, you’ll get it if your rich (Probably very rich), some people get nicer cars the poor people die it’s the way the system works. There is no hard definition for efficiency of the economy. They maybe problems as is currently being shown but that could well be a factor of European societies being more integrated, the rioters are rioting precisely because more Anglo Saxon methods are being introduced.

If the third way is fascism, then the US is a Feudal monarchy (say Hillary gets voted in 2008, and wins a second term how many years of two families running the USA. Jeb could run and spice things up as well) . The plan of the 1960s is very much being repeated by Bush at the moment, high gov. spending on military and social acts. As for failing socialist system I’m not sure about that. Current technological development is slowing. Less R&D is being done (since perversely the 60’s), and the rate of development is slowing. Its slowing because business are focused on quick returns and quick bucks promoted by the same system that you are advocating. They are failing because long term research is not cost efficient.

Business get taxed it is the way of things, my business get taxed, I get taxed. The peverse thing is I was looking at apply to jobs in the USA and while they got much higher pay my overall rate of pay minus taxes and essentials was roughly the same in the UK and I would work less hours to boot. I had more enforced holidays which allows me to distress and unwind, and be a productive worker.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by ricecrispi

Lothar how does FDR~ Reagan?

FDR was a great president and a realist and that made him great. He realized he didn't have a solution and asked the brightest minds what was needed to be done to save a nation. FDR wasn't a socialist, but shows there's a time and place for everything and used socialist programs to help people get jobs. That's not trickle down, that's socalism. Really stepping over the definition of a term but I geuss trickle down is so broad anyone can use it in any context now......

There economic policies in many respects were very similar. Both spent lots of tax dollars in order to pump and prime the economy. FDR use huge public works project to get people back to work. Reagan use a military build up to stimulate the economy and help hasten the demise of the Soviet Union. Incidentally Regan gave numerous speeches supporting FDR and the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by ricecrispi

Reagan was an ex actor who had a good smile, gave great speech, had an air of confidence, and that is why so many people loved him. Reagan was never about socialist programs. .

If you have ever been in a leadership position you would know that command presents, common sense and positive attitude are 99% of the job.

Originally Posted by ricecrispi

He cut taxes to fool people with a little lolipop, cut socialist programs, and while piling up the deficiet unresponsibily. The bull market was due to confidence in US power and US standing over the Soviets. .

The tax cuts were not an effort to fool people. The tax cuts were made in order to try and stimulate the economy. I agree with you that the deficit spending did get out of control. BTW the stock market really is not relevant when discussing the overall health of the economy it’s reflective but not dependent.

Originally Posted by ricecrispi

Reagan had such tunnel vision to end the cold war and put us in the deficit predictament Hal-900 was talking about. HE set off the domino effect that G. Bush Sr. and G W. Bush are continuing. I still don't understand how he got credit for end the USSR when it pretty much failed on it's own..... .

I think he did well to hasten the end of the Cold War. I remember those were very dangerous times. Yes it would have failed on its own and the Trilateral Commission predicted the economic collapse of the Soviet Union in 1980. However from a systems stand point the longer the Cold War continued the greater the possibility of mistake that would lead to a nuclear exchange. As to the last bit...it’s really only the very vocal rightwing zealots who give him credit for ending the Cold War. I think most people acknowledge that opportunity he was presented was due in large part to the work of 1000's of men and women over almost 40 years.

[superart]

A lot of people from former soviet countries also give him a lot of credit, not just "right wing zeolots" True, he did not do it all alone, but the big thing he did is help open up soviet borders and allow more people to get out of the USSR and into America. For this reason, a lot of (former) soviet imigrants give him credit.

[gmat]

Funny how this thread started with riots in France and is now about cold war politics..

To bring back up the starting point, rioters have been tracked by our national intelligence services (the 'R.G.'). It turns out that:
* rioters were not organized bands as promoted by the media
* the first car burned in Lyon were actually set afire by overzaelous jounalists !
* rioters had no specific religion, or ethnic origin, again this goes against the propagand
The R.G. found out that riots were mainly due to the growing social misery, the poor getting poorer and the rich getting fewer and richer, the growing police oppression (we have a small facist in command of the police), the growing general oppression (higher taxes for the poor, lower taxes for the rich, corporations dictating laws like the recent one against P2P and internet use, 'big brother' laws being passed, radars everywhere on the roads), etc.. well nothing really surprising.
The riots were actually *fueled* and provoked by our own minister of interior who kept insulting the immigrants, and lower social classes in general, calling names and repeating the insults in front of the parliament. His strategy was to provoke an uprising in the poor/immigrant population to make an example and promote his own agenda, which is basically extreme right / facist usual agenda (kick the immigrants out, close the borders, set up a police state). He almost succeeded on the 'police state' part already... (and the immigrants are being expelled at an increasing rate.. there goes our main cheap labor force).

Now is it unusual or specific to our own country ? Not at all. England and Italy have quite a lot to fear from their poor population, as the way they treat their poor is even worse than ours (and Berlusconi recognized it publicly). Actually Italy nearly followed suit... Germany, Belgium also have a strong immigrant population that is providing basic labor forces...

[BillA]

well Hi gmat, dare I say welcome back ?
as has occurred before, you are correct - the venality of politicians should never be underestimated

indeed it seems the 'problem' far transcends the French, the IHT has an interesting series of articles
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/02/news/islam7.php is one

not intending to start anything, but . . . . .
2 situations:
the importation of slaves into the Americas
and
the importation of moslem 'guest laborers' into Europe

comparable impacts ?
eventual assimulation, 'dual' culture, separate culture ?
(all barely started of course)

[gmat]

Hi Bill, i was missing your grumpyness :P (and i like the new 'pro/silent' idea)

Actually our 'muslims' situation is more similar to your 'mexicans' situation: they come to Europe to escape the dire situation in their own countries, often illegally, in order to feed their own families. Nothing special here, only the usual extreme right-ists who make lots of noise about that and claim that all evil in this world is done by not-white, not-christian people, who steal our jobs and whatnot. The problem is that kind of discourse was previously held by only the extreme-right nationalists, and now it's being held by our prominent minister of interior affairs, who's basically the number #2 in our governement. This is disturbing. I understand that under fear & oppression, people revolt and start burning things at random...

Immigrants who fail to earn enough money fall into the 'poor' category and are forced to live in poor suburbs, where they are concentrated and form some kind of ghettos. Again, nothing special, every country in the world has this problem. But our dear minister threw oil on the fire by claiming it was their fault of being there, and they were all religious zealots / terrorists / etc. Of course those people felt insulted...

Can we really call our immigration process 'assimilation' ? Maybe, or maybe not. In the past we had several waves of immigration prompted by the need of construction workers (for example), that was when lots of portuguese came to France. Now about 40 years later, they have children (who are NOT automatically French !! They had to choose to become so at 18) and are a complete part of our culture. Assimilation is a strong word then, i'd use it carefully. Most children of immigrants still retain their parents' culture and language (most people i know of portuguese origins speak portuguese fluently). So basically in one generation they adapted to our culture, keeping theirs intact in the process. I think that 'adaptation' is maybe more appropriate than 'assimilation'.
What about the impact.. that would be the work of a socioligist (which i am not) and/or an economist (which i am not as well) and would lead us into pages long discussions...

[Joe]

HOLY SHIT

Gmat, Welcome back man! I know pH and I have talked a few times how you just dissapeared one day. Good to know your still around and kicking!

[gmat]

Hey thank you Joe. But, wtf with the 'thermophile' tag ? is it just for me ?