World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Mentality differences
Here I am guys on this ever present subject. This my view: I think the US has a punishment syndrome. It wants to punish those that don't succeed. Like you say Nik, if you fail, you die. My father was a victim of this. He lost all his money in the 1987 Black Monday crash. All his friends abandoned him. He was forced to sell all his assets. Maybe this was a payback (what you do in life, is how you will be treated) he told me once: "I never hire a person who was fired from his job. They are failures. I don't want failures around me." This attitude comes out in the book I wrote: "Hidler's Point". I find the ever increasing Laissez-faire attitude the US is bringing back from the depths of the 18th & 19 Century, DESTRUCTIVE, COLD, and IMMORAL. It lacks humanity, compassion, and understanding. It turns man into an animal.
I've also believed everything should be in balance. There should be a bit of everything. Whenever one system goes too far in any direction, you begin is see destruction, chaos, moral breakdown, etc.
Society is best when all elements are near the center, a little tip to one side is okay, it keeps thing in motion. But, what we have today is uncontrollable.
I think part of the difference lies in the fact that the US considers itself a land of opportunity, based on what was going on about hundred years ago. Yes, there are still opportunities in the US, but so there are elsewhere. The big difference in the US is that is much easier to finance a big idea there. New Zealand is an unusual country in that it has tried most of the options. When I was young, we had essentially full employment, higher taxes, universal health care, and "dedicated taxes". Thus there was a petrol tax that was for building new roads (or repairing/upgrading). There were strong unions, and these had disproportionate power, so much so that eventually during an economic crisis around 1987, the economic system was turned upside-down. Dedicated taxes got "raided" for other purposes (usually projects to re-elect politicians) and the nominal "socialist" party turned extreme right wing!! The net result of all this is that I would like to see a balance. There has to be the right to make a lot of money, but not at the expense of others. I personally feel that education and health should be independent of the throw of the genetic dice at birth. I also think that at least part of the health problem in the US is the greed at the top. Big Pharma says there has to be research and this costs. That is true, BUT the money invested in research is nowhere near what is spent on "marketing" and various management perks/stock etc.
I think in the U.S., there is a real disdain for laziness, whether actual or perceived. Working hard is praised. Feeling entitled, even to basic things such as food and healthcare, is looked down upon. So what you might call a "less successful member of society", many Americans might call "lazy". The tables have turned now that many jobs have been outsourced while healthcare and higher education are less affordable than ever. It means that many Americans cannot afford to live in their own country as the generations before them did. So to these struggling families, the socialist approach can seem like a breath of fresh air. However, those who have built a somewhat comfortable life for themselves tend to be worried about what a socialist system will do to their finances (even more taxes).
The way I was raised was pretty strict against government handouts. If you're broke, you don't go to the government for food or anything else. You just work hard and survive on beans/rice until you can afford better food :D. You take the bus, walk, or drive an old car until you have saved enough for a better one. You power through just about every illness and keep working. Maybe harsh, but that was the norm for mine and many immigrant/refugee families.
There is something to be said about motivation to better yourself when coming from that mentality. I think it is hard for people raised similar to me to understand why anyone would expect anything that they did not work for, and that is what socialist government looks like. Sure there is not a whole lot of chance to fail and die, but socialism seems absent of the pride and sense of accomplishment that are at the core of American values, and the chance to rise from rags to riches.
I personally would like to see the end of corrupt pharma/insurance, introduction of universal healthcare that works, and jobs brought back into the country. Just these changes would mean a huge improvement in the American way of life imo.
Ian wrote: "I think part of the difference lies in the fact that the US considers itself a land of opportunity, based on what was going on about hundred years ago. ... I also think that at least part of the health problem in the US is the greed at the top. ..."Ian, I'd have to agree with these statements. The greed-at-the-top problem isn't limited to health issues though; it applies to just about everything, now.
My impression is that a strong post World War II sense of nationalism created a common bond and goal to build a strong America that provided the best of opportunities for everyone. I hadn't yet been born then, but that's my impression - and I think that nationalism and opportunity lasted through the 1950s and 1960s, if not longer. But that has faded with the rise of what Ian calls the greed at the top.
With the corruption of those in power and of their motives, the best interests of the people, our society, and our nation are disregarded, and it feels to me as though this is the beginning of the decline of the mighty US of A, unless either (a) the people at the top who are currently driven by short-term financial gain come to their senses, or (b) the people seriously decide enough is enough, and make sure something turns things around to head in a more positive direction. The election of Trump seems like the slightest of stirrings of (b).
Yes, I think the people want a change, and one of the things Trump said struck home: "What have you got to lose?" I think only too many knew that Hillary would continue to let Wall St get away with just about anything, so they wanted someone to break that up. Whether Trump will is more difficult to say, but who else was there at the end?
Ian wrote: "Yes, I think the people want a change, and one of the things Trump said struck home: "What have you got to lose?" I think only too many knew that Hillary would continue to let Wall St get away with..."The future results of decisions and events described here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/bus...
may answer the "What have you got to lose?" question. It doesn't seem to bode well.
I did not mean there was nothing to lose. I simply meant the phrase might have struck a note :-)
I think Marie summarizes neatly the American approach and I bet many there were brought up on the same values. I personally think it rests on a little too simplistic assumption that says: if you don't succeed, you are lazy, if you work hard, you succeed and assuming that a more 'social' approach is about handing out money to any lazy bum.I can come up with probably a dozen examples just offhandedly, where hardworking people are fired because their factory closes down or can't find job because they are 50+ and so many more.
Moreover, you can be hardworking and still having hardships closing the month.
And why 'hard'? -:) I say 'any' working. Sounds like some anti-union propaganda. Are senators 'hardworking', 'billionaires' necessarily so? Btw, some are very hardworking, but there are enough of those that close their best deals in the fanciest restaurants, drinking finest champagne. Achievements are not necessarily connected to an effort. And in general there are probably very few 'easy' jobs.
I'd hate to finance lazy bums through my taxes either, but I'm gladly willing to extend a helping hand in a whole bunch of different circumstances where it'll be justified. I also believe in basic safety net. I believe a kid of a 'lazy bum' is not guilty that his father is like this or left his mother long ago and in my opinion is still entitled to healthcare, education and a piece of bread - even if financed from my taxes.
Most social safety nets are really basic and incentivize to return and keep working.
Not coming to stress that American way is somehow inferior -:), vice versa it proves to be very supportive to entrepreneurial types. All our systems probably require updates every once in a while-:)
Ian wrote: "I think part of the difference lies in the fact that the US considers itself a land of opportunity, based on what was going on about hundred years ago. Yes, there are still opportunities in the US,..."Ian, I agree with you 100% on your article. Here in Germany, there is little spent on Advertising, maybe that's one reason cost of goods are reasonable. Pharmas cost very little here. So, I don't see the reason for research and development cost they constantly harp about. Cut out the ad, especially on TV. Don't sponsor big name sports events. That's were the money is going. I read years ago that cosmetic firms spend 80% of their profits on advertising. If anything should be advertised, it should be on contraception, not products, especially rectal dysfunction drugs.
About opportunity, did anyone read that article on the yahoo.news: The American Dream is well and good, but not in America. It turns out 5 other countries rank higher. Sweden being number 1, then Denmark, England, Germany, France. US, as I remember, was down around 10.
About taxes: As I remember in California, the same thing happened as it did in Austria. Everybody started dipping into the pot, taxes didn't go to their designated purposes. Prices went up, and they said it was because of XYZ. I say, cut out the XYZ and be politicians for the people, not special interests. The Reagan syndrome has trickled down to the common man--greed.
Denise wrote: "America would have seen positive change if Bernie Sanders was the President. Instead of choosing an honest, hard-working man, people supported a liar or a pompous ass. We had one of us in our hands..."The American people would have chosen him, had he not been run off the track by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. The fact that nobody protested that obvious example of corruption and favoritism, and that Bernie went on to support Hillary, shows just how broken the US system is. The government here needs to be willing to allow other parties to participate in the election process, to get other ideas and opinions heard. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon, the Dems and GOP (different wings on the same bird) are selfish children who are in no hurry to relinquish their monopoly on power.
Nik wrote: "I personally think it rests on a little too simplistic assumption that says: if you don't succeed, you are lazy, if you work hard, you succeed and assuming that a more 'social' approach is about handing out money to any lazy bum."Yes it is too simplistic and contributes to the thought process that the poor are not trying hard enough but the rich got there through hard work, neither of which prove to be true a lot of the time.
All our systems probably require updates every once in a while-:)
Yes! :)
One of the problems with benefits is they are discrete, i.e. the person either gets paid or he does not. That means the odd "lazy bum" is going to get through. To minimize that, you need administration, which means hiring people to do a job that is not really productive, and the question is, how many people do you hire to catch the miscreants? You can cut that down to some extent by making the punishment for cheating severe (the strategy most countries use to catch tax cheats) but you will always miss some.Me, I am prepared to accept that some of my taxes are going to be wasted on the lazy bum, mainly because I do not agree that all you have to do is work hard. You can be unlucky. If you were a shoe worker and your employer fired you so he could get them made in Indonesia much cheaper and sell them to you moderately cheaper, and meanwhile pass go and personally pocket a billion, how is that the worker's fault? He could get another job, you say. Where? If all the shoes are made in Indonesia, what can he do? He has no skills outside cobbling. The successful who say they got there through hard work almost inevitably overlook the good luck they also had, and they are almost inevitably not factory workers.
I also accept some tax waste because I know that far more of my taxes are going to be wasted on politicians pork barreling to get re-elected. And I also know the partial answer is to level the laying field a bit by taxing the Indonesian shoes, but the politician won't do that because the billionaire is donating to his campaign.
There are also ways to minimize waste. New Zealand has a way of making pharmaceuticals cheaper. For national health, pharmaceuticals are purchased by one national agency and this is done by tender for the type of pharmaceutical. The health system does not get brand choice; what is purchased is the cheapest of that type of drug that has adequate performance. There are costs to that - we miss out on the very latest drugs because it takes time to evaluate performance and draw up tenders, but overall while a few have to find the means to pay for an exotic drug, the bulk are cheaper than most other places. The US big pharma companies hate this system, but so what?
Ian wrote: "I did not mean there was nothing to lose. I simply meant the phrase might have struck a note :-)"Oh, I got that, Ian!
Denise wrote: "America would have seen positive change if Bernie Sanders was the President. Instead of choosing an honest, hard-working man, people supported a liar or a pompous ass. We had one of us in our hands..."I'm not sure how much change a President can actually bring about, without a like-minded Congress. Sure, he affects the worldview of our country. But Obama tried to bring about changes, and Congress refused to cooperate. I recall at one point a discussion of Obama's desire to provide tax incentives for corporations to bring back or keep jobs in the US. As I understand it, that went nowhere in Congress. Everything Obama requested of Congress, the do-nothing conservatives refused. That's why he resorted to so many Executive Orders. With polarization between the executive and legislative branches, we get nowhere.
The US is dynamic and competitive. Unfortunately that open competitive idea can lead to greed.I disagree with the broad brush generalization described in the OP. But, as they say, if it bleeds it leads, so the negative stuff always gets the most attention, gets the headlines, etc. I see a different side. I've been all over and there is no place I'd rather be than here. Can it be improved? Yes (not with the new administration), but yes.
Ian, sure there is always a certain percent cheating the system and some lazy bums abusing benefits. As long as this percent is low - let's say within 5 percent, I don't care much.But any welfare needs to conform local culture. I heard from Dutch people years ago that their system was such that one could never work and get subsidy from the government, yet very few abused it, because it just wasn't in their blood. But offer something like this in Russia and I believe 60% would drink vodka the entire day -:)
Nik- great point about Russia. 60% seems a little conservative, is all.I agree with a lot of the posts in this thread, starting with Marie's, about the general attitude here in the US- that there's something shameful in not working hard, and the suspicion that every person who's out of work or homeless did something to deserve it. Seems like a very naive faith in the justice of capitalism. It's anecdotal, but my dad is unstoppable for about 20 minutes any time he hears someone use the word 'deserve'; 'you deserve shit!', he likes to say. I guess it all goes back to the Puritans.
It's probably also a bit of a self-sustaining mechanism; I mean, if you're poor but somehow work your ass off and achieve a good lifestyle- it's only natural that you'd expect others to do the same. No one helped me when I was down, this person will probably think, so why should I help others now?
But Nik, I agree with you, with the caveats you mentioned. A few lazy bums, sure, but I pay taxes now and don't really get a lot out of it- I still had to go tens of thousands into debt to go to college, and it costs me a couple hundred if I need to go to the doctor. My taxes may as well go towards creating a system where we try to take care of everyone.
The whole issue is not that we punish the lazy or that we think people should be left to sink and swim. After all, some of the most conservative-minded individuals can be the most generous when it comes to charitable giving. People all over this country are open with their wallets when it comes to the unfortunate whether it's the homeless, the poor, or deathly-ill children. The discussion over universal health care is part of a larger issue over what the government's role should be.When England decided to open this continent up for colonization, they pretty much dumped people over here with no support from home. The first colonists had to do everything for themselves. If food ran out before winter ended, everyone starved and died. Relations with the Natives depended entirely on the colonists - there was no British diplomat crossing the ocean to set up deals and secure rights with the native inhabitants, the colonists themselves dictated the course of relations. When the Natives helped them get through the winters, it was because the colonists negotiated that help. When fighting broke out with the natives, it was because the colonists antagonized them. From the beginning, they couldn't count on Britain sending in the troops for the defense of the colony unless it was part of a broader struggle with their European adversaries. We have a long history of self-reliance in this country.
Even flash forward to modern times, and take a look at the Civil Rights struggles in this country. Ever since the slaves were freed, blacks in this country have had to fight for every right they're supposed to enjoy. Sure we've had government efforts to intervene when local and state governments block attempts to integrate schools, or attempts to vote, but this segment of our population has had to claw and fight for a hundred and fifty years to get where they are today since we abandoned slavery.
Not for nothing, but this attitude is also why so many people were furious when we bailed out the banks in 2008. To an extent, we don't care how much risk they decide to take on to make money, but we sure do feel they should be willing to accept the consequences when those risks fail them.
Things like free health care sound good, but we don't trust our government to deliver on it. Not only that, but we don't trust our government to handle it properly. We were a country built on personal action and personal responsibility. What's more, is we are a country where we don't like being told what to do. Just look at our recent election. Strip away the issues, and essentially we were told from the beginning who was supposed to win and who we were supposed to vote for. The Democratic Party told their base Clinton was supposed to be the nominee, and you saw a lot of Democrats revolt and vote for Sanders. The Republican Party told voters their nominee wasn't going to be Trump, so what happened? Voters revolted and chose Trump. In the general election, we were basically told by the press that Clinton was going to win, that she was so far ahead in the polls it wasn't a choice...and what happened? We told them otherwise. It was similar the the Truman-Dewey match-up in the 40s.
To look at it another way, we're already being taxed for the services and roles our government already offers/provides. When you take out state and federal taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and all the other deductions the government comes after you for, you've lost almost a quarter of your pay. That doesn't figure in sales taxes you pay on everything you buy, property taxes you pay to your local government, and fees you pay for services when your taxes should have covered them already.
Our government is far too bloated as it is. I won't debate individual line items on the budget, because the bottom line is the problem is with every line item. It is true, if we didn't have to pay for half the stuff the government funds, we could afford to provide health care. But it is also true if we did not have to pay for all of that, many more of us could afford to buy health insurance to begin with.
To stick with health care, there is an inconvenient fact nobody really seems to talk about, that that is the aging population. When the baby boomer generation is firmly in retirement, we will be looking at the largest percentage of our population out of the workforce in history. That's not just the US, that is Europe, that is China, etc. Here in the US we're already looking at having to supplement the Social Security fund with general tax funds before this generation is gone. If you add government-funded health care on top of that for a population that will be using it disproportionately, the question will be where you get that money? Eventually we will reach a tipping point where there is nothing less to borrow, and with fewer young people contributing to the pot, taxes are going to climb to cover the shortfall.
The aging population is an interesting problem for healthcare. The problem is, the older you are, the more likely you are to need it. For public funding, the government simply needs to fund it year by year. The younger pay more in taxes. For private, the insurance companies need to make a profit, so they can lower premiums for the young, and raise them for the old. The problem then is, the old can't afford the premiums. Now what? As JJ notes, just about every prosperous country is facing this issue because of the population boom after WW2, and the fact that their children have cut down breeding. I don't think anyone knows where this problem is going. In New Zealand the problem will be exacerbated by the fact that soon all the baby boomer doctors will retire, so not only will fees be a problem, but also the means to actually treat people. It is interesting that this is a problem that was eminently foreseeable, but politicians have steadfastly ignored it.
Denise wrote: "America would have seen positive change if Bernie Sanders was the President. Instead of choosing an honest, hard-working man, people supported a liar or a pompous ass. We had one of us in our hands..."Denise, I disagree with you. Knowing America and its problems with liberal ideas, and what they turned socialism into, a dictatorial ogre. The US will never or want to understand socialism--it's preached to people everyday. The powers that control the wealth in the US will never go for a system that is for people. I think this is the reason Trump won't be any different. He's too tied to the values of capitalism and its philosophy. His version of the "Make America Great Again" is just a ploy to get wealthier. He had to make it look good in order to get control.
Ian wrote: "The aging population is an interesting problem for healthcare. The problem is, the older you are, the more likely you are to need it. For public funding, the government simply needs to fund it year..."I agree with you, Ian. But, I think it's more like greed, everybody wants more. Doctors aren't in it for humanitarian values. We all know that. Years ago, I saw prominent doctor in a discussion on TV about this subject (1970s). He said, he didn't know any doctor that was in it for humanity. Every doctor he knew couldn't wait until they got out of Med School to make tons of money. He got so much flack from that statement, he was booed off the show.
I was at UCLA at the time when Reagan was governor, and putting together a magazine for the Dental School, and one of the articles was about how much a dentist makes. They make so much money within three years, they could pay back there education and loan on their practice. Governor Reagan saw the mag and pulled it from publication. He said it would cause an uproar in the community. He may be right, but it shows the greed of society.
Ian wrote: "The aging population is an interesting problem for healthcare. The problem is, the older you are, the more likely you are to need it. For public funding, the government simply needs to fund it year..."Two more comments on the aging Baby Boomer population.
The first is a more lighter realization that with our economy shifting heavily toward health care in the next twenty or so years as we try to deal with the aging population, my generation, Gen-X will be in a pretty good place when it comes time for us to retire and depend on that system. As a society, we don't plan much for the future. As you note, government works to prepare for the present. Upgrades to medical technology, expansion of the medical industry, and overall quality of care, etc., will all come while the Baby Boomers are in retirement, not ahead. All that research and development will come to fruition around the time they die off, leaving it to my generation to enjoy the results.
But, more seriously, this issue of the aging population ties into the immigration/refugee argument. As you note, birth rates fall in developed countries because of the availability of contraceptives and the ability to plan family size instead of letting nature takes its course. It has allowed us to keep population in check, but conversely we're not growing enough to maintain a healthy balance of old vs. young.
Our system now depends on the influx of immigrants to restore that balance. Despite a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the politics of immigration policy, most of these immigrants are young people coming to look for work and opportunity. Most of them are people who will pay taxes and contribute to those health care expenditures. It might be fine for a country to decide they want to hold back immigration in order to keep a homogeneous society, but such a country has to weigh those other issues. People need to think about it a little more and decide if keeping our societies to ourselves is worth the strain our own aging population places on the tax base in the coming years.
Are there different approaches within the capitalist world? What do you think?
I read your original post, Nik. I usually read through everything from the beginning, but there was just too much there, so I may be repeating some ideas.I'd say the difference in mentality between the States and European countries is the presumption by politicians that Americans want to pay the least amount of tax possible. There's a debate now about tax reform, with politicians emphasizing lower taxes. Politicians are afraid to increase taxes to pay for social programs such as health care and education. Personally, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes in order to improve both of these, and I think others, even those in my moderate income bracket, would be willing to do the same. But the inept politicians don't bother to find out what we want. They just assume that we want the lowest taxes possible.
It is in the mentality, but I don't know exactly what. In Europe, in many countries people know that while they may pay more tax, they get stuff for it, like healthcare and pensions, and if they did not pay those taxes, they should pay for those things privately. In the States, there is this belief that the private sector is more efficient, and therefore cheaper. The Europeans believe that the private sector makes things more expensive because of the profits scooped up. The Americans are probably skeptical that the politicians can be trusted to keep things going in the long run. It is hard to tell who is correct all the time, but In note that the US probably has the most expensive health care systems in the world.
Good, Ian. But I'm not sure I got my point across. Maybe read my post again. People like me are willing to pay more taxes in order to have universal health care and subsidies for college, despite what the politicians believe.
One huge difference presently between the United States and Europe: Americans in general and their politicians in particular are seemingly obsessed with 'God', 'Christ' and the Christian religion in general. You can't go to an American political rally without having the speakers invoke God at least a couple of times. The same is nearly unheard of now in Europe, Canada and Australia.
Michel wrote: "One huge difference presently between the United States and Europe: Americans in general and their politicians in particular are seemingly obsessed with 'God', 'Christ' and the Christian religion i..."I don't remember Clinton or Sanders invoking God on the campaign trail last year. Generally speaking when Democrats speak of religion, it's in terms of tolerance and inclusion. True there are segments of our politics that focus on our religious liberties, but that is only a segment. I'm sure the liberals in this country would find it offensive that you stereotype all Americans under such an ignorant, blanket statement. I'm sure that's just your opinion and I can respect that, but you are not presenting it as opinion.
Fact is, religion in this country is no more an issue than speech, guns, or any other "right" enshrined in our Constitution. Politicians take it up because if they don't, it becomes acceptable to curtail it as people grow more and more comfortable with not talking about it. Right now, I'm thinking of France attempting to ban Muslim headscarves. Despite the noise in the media, the US is an accepting country. With a few bad exceptions, we tolerate Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or anyone else who wants to practice their beliefs here.
Scout, I did read your post and I believe I understood it. Of course there will be some who think along your lines, but do enough of them? My personal view is that politicians should take the responsibility. Health is something that is a bit of a lottery in life, although you can make things difficult for yourself, e.g. by smoking. The advantage of the government running a health system is that you have a much bigger organization fighting to keep costs down, and yes, there will be inefficiencies, but overall it usually works out cheaper because it is one thing to charge the individual an outrageous sum - entirely another to take on a government.
@J.J. You seem to want to choose the facts that suits you and to ignore or deny the bigger picture. In your OP 34, you mention Clinton and Sanders but studiously avoid mentioning any Republican politicians, who are by far the bigger users of the Christian Faith in their discourses. One case in point: Roy Moore quoting 'God' and 'Jesus' repeatedly while denying being a child molester. Also, just go on American TV news and watch politicians and their various supporters speak, especially those from the 'Bible Belt' and then try pretend that religion is not a major issue in the daily lives of many Christian Americans. I could also refer you to many other discussion threads on GR, especially those of the Atheist Group, where other GR readers and users describe how they had suffered through the religious bigotry and intolerance of their neighbors and coworkers. I am far from alone in believing that the social and moral atmosphere in the U.S.A., contrary to most European countries, is tainted by religion. As for the French trying to ban the Burka in France, there is a simple, non-religious explanation to that: the French government is trying to break the influence of fundamentalist Muslim extremists, who have executed many recent terrorist attacks in France that cost dozens of lives, by banning one of the most visible symbol of such Islamic fundamentalism.
@J.J. You seem to want to choose the facts that suits you and to ignore or deny the bigger picture. In your OP 34, you mention Clinton and Sanders but studiously avoid mentioning any Republican politicians, who are by far the bigger users of the Christian Faith in their discourses. One case in point: Roy Moore quoting 'God' and 'Jesus' repeatedly while denying being a child molester. Also, just go on American TV news and watch politicians and their various supporters speak, especially those from the 'Bible Belt' and then try pretend that religion is not a major issue in the daily lives of many Christian Americans. I could also refer you to many other discussion threads on GR, especially those of the Atheist Group, where other GR readers and users describe how they had suffered through the religious bigotry and intolerance of their neighbors and coworkers. I am far from alone in believing that the social and moral atmosphere in the U.S.A., contrary to most European countries, is tainted by religion. As for the French trying to ban the Burka in France, there is a simple, non-religious explanation to that: the French government is trying to break the influence of fundamentalist Muslim extremists, who have executed many recent terrorist attacks in France that cost dozens of lives, by banning one of the most visible symbol of such Islamic fundamentalism.
In my view, the major reason for banning the burka is that just about anybody could be underneath it. That should be a no-no bearing in mind the terrorism that is going on.
Within a seemingly similar democratic and capitalistic societies, some things and attitudes still considerably differ. What are the mentality differences, if any, btw the States and Europe or within the English speaking world of US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ?
I think there is a significant difference in attitude towards tax and government support for the people between, say, the US and many European countries, such as Denmark as an example. I think the New Zealand population is more willing to follow a government directive, provided the people see the point of it. Here I am thinking of the acceptance of the Covid lockdowns, where by and large everybody did more or less the right thing as soon as it was announced without the protests that occurred elsewhere. At the same time, we were very critical of some ineptitude at the border. There will be some sort of test on this soon, however, as the situation regarding China becomes more prominent.
There absolutely a difference between the various countries let alone continents. We Americans are different. Government handouts are frowned upon, yet, many do see the need to help some. The problem is that is who gets the help. It is hard to understand because when someone shoots themselves in the foot, one is not so fast to want to help because you already know they have another foot to shoot. Opinions get hardened due to politics. It is not so fun when you have a true disagreement on a policy and then you get called a nasty names. It angers one. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard how we have to help someone that does not want to work because they are humans. Guess what, so am I and I worked for all of it.
We are seeing right now the problem of getting people back to work because they have it too good on unemployment. Replace the word unemployment with basic universal income and you have your future. Yet, I understand where they are coming from.
Americans are no so willing to give what they earned to someone that did not earn it and that cuts across all demographics.
We are naturally suspicious of technocrats and others not elected to watch out for our well being because generally speaking, they are not very good at it. Some of it is who we are and some of it is past history of the country.
Do not speak about taxes to us. We were founded on a tax revolt. Want to be voted out of office? Raise taxes.
As for the American dream being dead, bah. You have to work for it. That has never changed. As for people losing their home because they were living beyond the means, shame on them. That is a lesson for the rest of us. Do not do that or you will lose your home.
Yet Biden is spending money as if it had a use-by date that was ready to expire ?
Ian wrote: "Yet Biden is spending money as if it had a use-by date that was ready to expire ?"And how is the country reacting? Watch what happens when taxes go up....
My guess is it won't be pretty, especially for the Dems.
Papaphilly wrote: "There absolutely a difference between the various countries let alone continents. We Americans are different. Government handouts are frowned upon, yet, many do see the need to help some. The probl..."Well explained
Ian wrote: "My guess is it won't be pretty, especially for the Dems."If the economy roars and money flows, they may skate by. I am betting against it due to the nature of business. I am betting the economy stalls and people need to work. For some reason, this brand of Democrats do not understand the working people. I am not talking about highly educated nor the creative class we hear so much about, but the lunch pail Larrys trying to raise their families. When they feel they are getting hosed, they lash out. when i say there are plenty not liking people sitting on their couch and not working, these are the people I am referring. there are lots of them and they are angry. Not a good combination to be on the wrong end of.
Papa, great post 42. You explained what's going on here very well and succinctly. Anyone who wants to know what's going on in the minds of half the country would do well to read what you wrote. Of course, you write from a logical point of view, and there's a whole other liberal faction in the States that holds opposite Socialist opinions and wants to erase our history change the country. And they're well on their way to doing so.
Scout wrote: "Papa, great post 42. You explained what's going on here very well and succinctly. Anyone who wants to know what's going on in the minds of half the country would do well to read what you wrote. Of ..."Scout they may equally believe they are right and you are wrong. You viewpoint could be seen as equally incorrect as you view their opinion of your viewpoint.
History will tell. Were Roosevelt and Eisenhower's reforms revolutionary?
How about votes for women or votes for all? They were liberal ideas too and dismissed by the right thinking right. Education for all was similarly dismissed for generations. Is that also socialist?
Some viewpoint expressed on the right are closer attuned to aristocratic beliefs of the 19th century or go back further. Some opinions I have seen expressed are closer to the aristocrats of the late 18th century imposing their divine rights on the populace.
Taxation without representation if people cannot vote they are not represented. If the poor are denied votes because they are considered socialist what is the difference from 1776. Washington et al were not of the people. They were rich aristocrats too. The elite of both parties in the US do not look much like men (its still majority men) of the people. Trump the great hero of the right was the son of a billionaire who started business life with a $500m loan from his father.
Socialist, liberal, aristocrat, communist, dictator - hard to tell the difference sometimes
Nik wrote: "Within a seemingly similar democratic and capitalistic societies, some things and attitudes still considerably differ. What are the mentality differences, if any, btw the States and Europe or withi..."The 2 things that I hear most often expressed upon by those from other countries is our lack of health care for all and our freedom for all to have guns.
I grew up the same way others have mentioned - you don't take handouts, you live within your means, and you never file bankruptcy. The end result is that we had poor health care and extremely poor dental care. As kids we went without glasses until absoulutely necessary. My health pays for it now. Sadly, my children suffered the same fate. Because we paid the bills first and couldn't afford a dentist unless it became absolutely necessary. None of those shortcomings were the result of being unwilling to work hard - my father did, as did I. It sucks and I think it is one of the worst problems in our country. When employers don't provide health insurance, but you work full time as does your spouse, and you pay for childcare in order to do so, then to me it is common sense that if one parent quit working and you can then qualify for the state version of medicare for the poort, you are better off taking it. We did not do so as parents and the end result was bankruptcy because of medical bills.
The other problem I think that exists is we all want to look down on someone. Most people feel better knowing someone is worse of than (not as good as) they are. When I first became disabled, I receive food stamps for 4 months. Despite the fact that I know I worked hard all my life and that I hadn't done anything wrong, there is a stigmatism of failure and there were many people in the grocery store line that felt the need to comment negatively on people using food stamps. For me, it was worse when the looks of people who followed me out that had been in line with me saw my Miata. To them is was a 2 seater sports car and since I could afford that, I must be scamming the system. To top it off, our society then believes that they should dictate what I can buy and eat and require a drug test for me to use that benefit?
Generally, we equate too many things as being entitlements instead of basic human needs.
I don't think you can compare the US to other countries that might have a more homogenous population which affects genetic dispositions, different behaviors regarding diet, smoking, exercise, hygiene etc.I listened to the topic discussed by Ben Shapiro. Now he is a conservative and I wouldn't want to get sidetracked politically, but he has studied the issue and also is married to a doctor. He says that there are three things people seem to want in medical care: availability, affordability and quality, meaning they want to have doctors, nurses, therapists, hospitals, clinics available to them; they want the services they access to be affordable; and they want the best practitioners. The problem, he says, is that you can only have 2 out of three.
You can make all the hospitals and medical faciities you want available, but if you don't have enough medical professionals to staff them, it doesn't matter. It takes around 10 years to train a doctor and many hospitals are short of nursing staff. So you might not be able to have available sites staffed. The answer in a lot of areas has been to close hospitals and clinics and consolidate the staff, but then they are not always easy for the patient to get to. Or you can get staff, but they might not be the best trained - the fact is, the US has the best medical training in the world but training programs, residencies aren't training enough to meet the need without going to foreign graduates. I talked to a doctor who said the dirty little secret is the dropout rate in med school and even internships and residencies not to mention early retirements.
But if you want a lot of facilities so they are available to everyone, and want them staffed with the very best doctors and nurses, then it is not going to come cheap. So the question is - how is it going to be paid for? Some European countries are hugely taxed and even then their "universal" health care doesn't cover everything, there are quotas and long waits for services.
So it comes down to what you want and what you're willing to pay for it, but what if you don't have enough practitioners to give you what you want, and who aren't willing to take on a profession that comes with a long, expensive training period?
Then you can have all the insurance you want but no health care.
Barbara wrote: "I don't think you can compare the US to other countries that might have a more homogenous population which affects genetic dispositions, different behaviors regarding diet, smoking, exercise, hygie..."The main part of what Barbara says has nothing to do with the population makeup-, in my opinion, but it is general, and operates across a number of disciplines. Thus in engineering, there is the saying you can have cheap, quality or speed of delivery. Choose no more than two.
My daughter is a consultant at Wellington hospital, and she would say much the same about medical issues in NZ. Quite simply, highly competent staff are difficult to get. It takes a lot of time to train them, and also a real desire by the person to do a good job. The net result is that to Barbara's list you can add the danger of burn-out. Quality staff tend to have to put in far too long of hours in a crisis, and crises come up- far too often for the best staff. There may not be much of an easy solution to this because only a limited number of people are really suitable for that life.
Lizzie wrote: "....there is a stigmatism of failure..."a winner-loser mentality, automatically assigning merits to those who have visible attributes of success and demerits to those otherwise
Medicine is a basic commodity and should be generally available and affordable and the system seems to supply that in many countries. The quality is another thing. Protocols, where applicable, are designed to negate a personal impact. I imagine in any field there will be a few "best" specialists and lots of mediocre
Ian wrote: "The net result is that to Barbara's list you can add the danger of burn-out. This is a point that a doctor I know also made. He said that it used to be doctors would practice into their 60s, even 70s. Now he sees doctors looking to retire in their mid-50s and some even younger and he's also seeing a higher rate of med school dropouts, as well as doctors dropping out in training (internships and residency). So the pool of well trained available doctors is shrinking on both ends.
And I can't agree that medicine is a "commodity" - butter, fuel, electronic components are commodities, but medicine is a profession practiced by doctors, nurses, therapists, technicians with the a lot of administrative and, in this day and age, IT support necessary to deliver the service to the patient. My doctor friend refers to the "looming doctor shortage" as the result in part of a public that is being taught to think of them as commodities.
Part of the reason for a doctor shortage on the horizon is that back in the day if you had your top 10 HS students, they were probably all going into medicine or law. Now that there are so many careers that pay well opened up by technology, your top HS student might want to write software or be a game designer more than he wants to spend 10 or more years in medical training.
I wasn't aware of the subtleties that much, but it's our different conversations here made me pay attention. I might be wrong, but it seems the attitude in the States - do whatever, count on yourself, get rich, survive or die - you are on your own. You failed - your fault, nobody cares what the reason was. While in some other places - they provide a much wider safety net for less successful members of society - healthcare, benefits, different allowances. We can take Sweden as the opposite example or Germany, since GR shares with us its wonderful benefits rather regularly. The ideology there says or assumes that we, as a community, care for less successful members of society or finance what we believe is important - children, unemployment and so on.
But everything has a toll. Nobody comes to become rich to Sweden - they choose the States. Sweden is one of the most wanted emigrants' destination, primarily for its social security.
Bernie suggested to bring 'Europe' to America and he gained considerable popularity, while others suggest quite the opposite - Laissez-faire - free market.
Do you think there is indeed a mentality difference? Which approach do you prefer or maybe a fusion?