[moki]

A noted German poet who begs to differ

HAMBURG -- Like politicians, in the face of history, poets don't always get it right. Gerhard Schroeder voted against the treaty enabling German reunification. Guenter Grass opposed his country's unity, suggesting it was an unfitting reward after Auschwitz.

They were brave then perhaps, certainly in the German minority. Schroeder later wanted to put off the euro's introduction indefinitely, and tried as a provincial governor to stop the Gulf War. Now, with the vast majority of opinion-polled Germans, the chancellor will have nothing to do with a strike on Iraq, rejecting the possibility of United Nations approval months before it was proposed. Grass, the country's dominant literary figure, turns up (again) on the same page.

The poet who sees things differently these days is Wolf Biermann, lyricist, balladeer, an incontravertible figure of respect in Germany. Hard to classify, this lank-haired man with washed-out blue eyes who writes poems, sings songs, and offers up an occasional, enormously readable political essay. ''Great poet'': So says, very judiciously, a man from the chancellery, having just heard, a couple of days later, what Biermann thinks of his boss.

Biermann, 66, is sitting at a little table, near the window of his house in Altona, a nice suburb, close to downtown, a good place for his small children.

Schroeder is not his main preoccupation. It is his country, its ''harte deutsche Vaterlands-Mus,'' or, roughly and inadequately, ''the hard must of the German Fatherland.'' But with his name slipping into the conversation, Biermann contrasts the current chancellor's soft position on Saddam Hussein with a Churchill battling appeasement, or Tony Blair's treading against the flow.

''Schroeder's opportunism is the worst,'' Biermann says. ''He's a victim of a democratic pratfall. All this guy wanted to do was get elected, and he turns out morally to be under Chamberlain and Daladier. Their appeasement policy was wrong, but at least they were serious. There was no historical experience to go on then.''

He slashes on, turning to Goethe and Brecht for verbal flanking fire.

''Every error has its time,'' Biermann insists, calling on phrases from the two German giants as witness. ''There are mistakes that are on the level of history, and those that are under the level of history. Schroeder's appeasement policy is under that level. It's worse than a mistake, it's a crime.''

Schluss. Case quickly closed on Schroeder. Biermann goes to the core. Democracies, regrettably, cannot only fake threats and hope for success against regimes that have total contempt for humanity. In both France and Germany, there are amnesiac people who will never excuse the Americans for having liberated them. But in Germany, he goes on, the movement against the war has been co-opted from honest pacifists by old Reds, frustrated '68ers, former East German functionaries, and disillusioned Christian Democrats, whose single register bares the mark of German nationalism.

This is minority stuff here; Biermann can think of none of his friends, in Hamburg at least, who agree with him. But like Grass, he has the exceptional German bonafides to sustain his view and have it heard in a society that craves riskless consensus.

The son of a Communist murdered by the Nazis, he left West Germany at age 17 for East Berlin, where he became a writer whose renown and eventual role as a dissident grew together. In 1976, he was expelled from East Germany to in stant elevation as a cultural hero in the West. His poetry remained a source of vast admiration, but his politics gradually changed. From someone, after coming West, who joined demonstrators blocking U.S. Army bases (and remembers, he says, ''how good it feels to be part of the Oh So Very Good''), he returned to the dissident's role as a German who sees ''vulgar hatred'' and paranoia in the ''the propaganda bogeyman'' that has been projected here onto the White House.

In fact, with a German press, like Britain's, that has much more a pro and con division on Iraq than the single, missionary position of French newspapers, Biermann hardly speaks from persecuted isolation.

But what he says is tougher, more direct, and comes with the whip-stroke of his rage. He calls the meld of Germans now challenging the use of force against Saddam ''National Pacifists'' - no small damnation in a language where the word national, as in National Socialists, shakes with the sound of abjectness, a curse.

The movement against a war on Iraq, Biermann says, is bringing together into a ''macabre,'' nationalistic community, a nation that is in many ways even more divided now than before the fall of the Wall.

In defining the German state of mind, Biermann makes reference in part to the legacy of Nazism.

''The Bible says you're damned until the fourth generation. I didn't understand this before. What's the deeper meaning? The first (postwar) generation goes against the fathers in a process of opposition. The next goes against that opposition. The Germans are now in the second phase.

''There are power vectors all pressing in the same direction. The first is the reflex against the postwar generation. The second is the panic-reflex against globalization. You see it everywhere. As the world gets closer together, you hang on to what's smallest. The third is confronting European unification, a kind of two-front war--the first against America, and the second to see who's top monkey in Europe.''

But the bombs, the deaths to come? Biermann tells a story of he and his mother surviving the storms of fire that devastated Hamburg after British air raids in 1943. Down the street from the flames, his mother told him then that these ''terrible, terrible bombers are going to free us from evil, evil people who took Papa away.''

Who will listen in Germany, a visitor in Biermann's house asks him?

He replies: ''The muses say, 'Come here little Biermann. You write the prettiest poems.' The rest can kiss my ass. My poems will last longer than Schroeder. I only stay in power when I follow my muse. The Schroeders last only as long as they follow the rabble."

- John Vinocur, 3/11/2003, International Herald Tribune

[Spheric Harlot]

Interesting read. I disagree with his assessment, and the article is very editorial - Schröders vote against re-unification, for example, was opposition against doing it *now*, IIRC. That was the SPD's position at the time. Turns out they were right about taking a slower route, and our country is broke now as proof for that.

I think Biermann is pretty interesting since his perspective is fairly unique from an East-/West-German view.

However, this little bit really got me:

Originally posted by moki:
single, missionary position of French newspapers

-s*

[theolein]

Ja well, since everyone's now tripping over their respective feet to mend the differences I think this is basically moot. German poltics are very harsh and very personal, and German newspapers are very critical, both of which sometimes get to me, but in general I find that Germany is reasonably democratic and free. This whole Iraq thing was good for the Iraqi's on the one hand because they're free of Saddam, but on the other hand it's also a mess, with still no solution in sight for an Iraqi government, if there will ever be an aceeptable solution for that country. I suppose most people will forget that no really large amounts of WMD were ever found, the named reason for that war, and Bush and Blair will go on into the next elections strengthened by their precieved resolve to do what they want to do, even if it means having to twist the truth. The real test will come in a few years time for Blair and next years for Bush and will be based on the condition of their countries' economies.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
This whole Iraq thing was good for the Iraqi's on the one hand because they're free of Saddam, but on the other hand it's also a mess, with still no solution in sight for an Iraqi government, if there will ever be an aceeptable solution for that country.

I believe that Iraq will be infinitely better off within 2 years (which is really a rather short period of time).

Originally posted by theolein:
I suppose most people will forget that no really large amounts of WMD were ever found, the named reason for that war, and Bush and Blair will go on into the next elections strengthened by their precieved resolve to do what they want to do, even if it means having to twist the truth.

I for one will not forget. Despite supporting the war, I damn well expect to know why the WMD are not found (if that ends up happening -- it is too early to say, IMHO).

Look, it really had to happen. It was fairly clear that the UN was pulling a Chamberlain and allowing Saddam to milk the oil for food program for billions, while oppressing the crap out of his people. That situation as it was was simply inhumane and untenable, not to mention making a mockery of the UN's resolve.

Regardless, that does not let our leaders or intelligence organizations off the hook by a long stretch. If WMD are not found, I'm going to be damn sure to vote against Mr. Bush, regardless of who else is running.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
If WMD are not found, I'm going to be damn sure to vote against Mr. Bush, regardless of who else is running.

That would be a perfect time to finally vote third-party.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That would be a perfect time to finally vote third-party.

Well, people have been doing that here for years... but sure, that works for me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, people have been doing that here for years...

Hardly. Unfortunately, I think the effect will be an even more embarrassingly low voter-turnout.

Imagine a "democracy" where nobody votes...

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Imagine a "democracy" where nobody votes...

The Netherlands is close to that actually.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
The Netherlands is close to that actually.

I believe you're quite wrong about that. They had a very low voter turnout for the European elections a few years back, but we're talking about domestic parliamentary/presidential elections, where only one European nation comes close to the US's apathy: Switzerland. The Netherlands consistently range around 80% voter turnout.

Here: http://www.spsr.ch/Archive/Vol2/Issue4/Articles/t05.pdf (In German, unfortunately, but look for Table 3, comparison of 18 countries, 1960-1993).

and here: http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache...e&ie=UTF-8 (50s through 90s, averaged voter turnout)

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
where only one European nation comes close to the US's apathy: Switzerland. The Netherlands consistently range around 80% voter turnout.

The 2001 General Election in the UK had a turnout of around 59% (putting it it the US range). Link There was a lot of discussion about it in the UK at the time, although most of that seems to be un-google-able now.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The 2001 General Election in the UK had a turnout of around 59% (putting it it the US range). Link There was a lot of discussion about it in the UK at the time, although most of that seems to be un-google-able now.

Ok. I didn't know that.

But then, the UK isn't Europe.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I believe you're quite wrong about that. They had a very low voter turnout for the European elections a few years back, but we're talking about domestic parliamentary/presidential elections, where only one European nation comes close to the US's apathy: Switzerland. The Netherlands consistently range around 80% voter turnout.

I don't believe I am incorrect. I just returned from visiting friends of mine in Amsterdam, and I read the stats on elections in the Netherlands. Yes, they *used* to be good, but no longer. Pim brought a bit of life back into the whole affair but, well, he was assasinated.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
I don't believe I am incorrect. I just returned from visiting friends of mine in Amsterdam, and I read the stats on elections in the Netherlands. Yes, they *used* to be good, but no longer. Pim brought a bit of life back into the whole affair but, well, he was assasinated.

79.1% in the 2002 parliamentary elections.

Even adjusted for total voting-age population (incl. non-registered voters), that's still over 70%.

http://www.int-idea.se/vt/region_vie...CountryCode=NL

The UK in 2001 was just shy of 60% (57.5% VAP-corrected).

The USA is at around 50% VAP-adjusted, meaning that less than 25% of eligible voters actually elected the current president.

Now, if all those disgruntled and apathetic non-voters would vote third-party, you might actually get some democracy going...

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Now, if all those disgruntled and apathetic non-voters would vote third-party, you might actually get some democracy going...

-s*

What if 51% of those apathetic voters voted Republican, and 49% voted Democratic (or the other way around). What exactly would that change? Basically, you are assuming, with no evidence, that non-voters don't vote because of a lack of a third choice. But it is equally likely that they don't vote because they are happy with things as they are.

By the way, wasn't low turnout in the first round in France's last election the reason people gave for Le Pen's success, and the Socialists' failure? I do believe I recall reading articles on that. Yes, I thought so. Look at this and scroll down to April 21, 2002. Turnout in the first round of the last presidential election in France was 41.42%. That's lower than a typical US presidential election.

By the way, France is in Europe.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What if 51% of those apathetic voters voted Republican, and 49% voted Democratic (or the other way around). What exactly would that change? Basically, you are assuming, with no evidence, that non-voters don't vote because of a lack of a third choice. But it is equally likely that they don't vote because they are happy with things as they are.

I'm not assuming anything. I said "what if". It would certainly be interesting.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, wasn't low turnout in the first round in France's last election the reason people gave for Le Pen's success, and the Socialists' failure? I do believe I recall reading articles on that. Yes, I thought so. Look at this and scroll down to April 21, 2002. Turnout in the first round of the last presidential election in France was 41.42%. That's lower than a typical US presidential election.

True. And it caused quite a stir. And the second round was 61%.

Low voter turnout, and you see what they got for it.

Is the US political situation any surprise in the light of that?

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Is the US political situation any surprise in the light of that?

-s*

There is a pretty significant difference between France and the US. The US does not have viable parties at the political extremes. There isn't a Le Pen poised to take advantage of low turnout. Therefore, people may tend to feel more comfortable with letting others choose their president for them. That could partly explain lower turnout. It could easily be the case that the higher the stakes, the more people will take an interest in politics. This seems to be demonstrated by the jump in turnout between the first and second French presidential elections.

Maybe part of the difference and the reason why US politics tends to be more moderate is also that both parties in the US are usually involved in government at the same time. It is common for the president and one house or another of the Congress to be in the hands of different parties. It isn't the case now, but that is unusual. With both major parties more or less in government, both are fairly moderate. Thus neither is at the scary extremes. There therefore isn't the same perception that if you don't vote, an extremist like Le Pen would be elected.

In any case, there is no real impediment to voting. The decision not to vote is a voter choice. I would prefer people to vote, and I think that it is a civic duty (along with the duty to cast an informed vote, not just an ignorant one). But I wouldn't force anyone and I don't consider it a problem as such if people make the choice not to exercise their right to the franchise. A shame, maybe, but not a problem.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is a pretty significant difference between France and the US. The US does not have viable parties at the political extremes.

Two points of disagreement:

1) From a European perspective, the only two parties ever to have ruled *are* at a political extreme - Republicans more so than Democrats.

2) Small political parties situated at the extremes *become* viable once they have enough support. The Green Party in Germany, for example, is far less extreme as a party than it used to be before becoming a part of Parliament. Being a radical and actually having political responsibility tend to be difficult to reconcile. So really, once you give them a chance, they pretty much automatically become viable, because they *have to be*.

I think 'mericans are just too damn afraid of pinko Commies to actually risk a change for the better.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Two points of disagreement:

1) From a European perspective, the only two parties ever to have ruled *are* at a political extreme - Republicans more so than Democrats.

This isn't Europe. Neither Republicans nor Democrats claim to represent Europeans or the European range of opinions. They represent Americans. And by and large, they mirror the range of opinions here fairly well.

Small political parties situated at the extremes *become* viable once they have enough support.

This is just circular. Parties become viable once they have support, and once they have support, they become viable. But if they nether have support nor are viable, they are just insignificant. That is the situation here.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is just circular. Parties become viable once they have support, and once they have support, they become viable. But if they nether have support nor are viable, they are just insignificant. That is the situation here.

Yes. Contrary to your assessment, I believe that to be a problem.

Could be I got it wrong, and everybody in the nation feels well-represented by the two "options" they have.

I just can't really imagine that, and I think that apathy is definitely the easier choice than trying to get informed and make a difference.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes. Contrary to your assessment, I believe that to be a problem.

Could be I got it wrong, and everybody in the nation feels well-represented by the two "options" they have.

I just can't really imagine that, and I think that apathy is definitely the easier choice than trying to get informed and make a difference.

-s*

Everybody? No, of course not. There are third parties here. And there are those that claim that no party fairly represents them. But the numbers are apparently too small to support viable third parties. Most people seem to find a reasonable home in the two major parties. Between them, those parties cover the ideological ground inhabited by the vast majority in the US. That's probably the reason why third parties fail. Traditionally, the process is that third parties are swallowed up and absorbed by the major parties, unless the third party is truly a fringe on the extremes.

I can only assume that what you want is for some kind of state subsidy to support small parties that otherwise fail to win enough support to remain or become viable on their own? Is that what you are getting at? How is an artificial state subsidy making a difference? Surely, it is the antithesis of grass roots involvement.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
79.1% in the 20

I'll see if I can dig up the related articles; I believe I saved 'em.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I think 'mericans are just too damn afraid of pinko Commies to actually risk a change for the better.

How would an 11.2% unemployment rate be a change for the better (where Germany is at currently)? The socialistic system in Gemany is broken; real reforms are needed, and they are going to happen.

Ironically ,the reform talk out of Germany closely resembles the way the welfare system works in the US.

The problems facing Germany are compounded by a negative birthrate, immigration issues, and a strong Euro that are all conpiring together to bring forth a real crisis.

Similar problems face France as well. Socialism, like communism, is a no-brainer. It sounds wonderful, but in practice, it is not sustainable unless the country in question has a very motivated populace, and the economy *never* falters.

With a massive welfare/pension system, a high unemployment rate, and fewer people in current generations to pay for the programs, there are serious problems.

Mix in the strong Euro which is already hurting exports, and, well... I think we'll keep our system, imperfect as it is, for now, thanks.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by moki:
How would an 11.2% unemployment rate be a change for the better (where Germany is at currently)? The socialistic system in Gemany is broken; real reforms are needed, and they are going to happen.

Ironically ,the reform talk out of Germany closely resembles the way the welfare system works in the US.

The problems facing Germany are compounded by a negative birthrate, immigration issues, and a strong Euro that are all conpiring together to bring forth a real crisis.

Similar problems face France as well. Socialism, like communism, is a no-brainer. It sounds wonderful, but in practice, it is not sustainable unless the country in question has a very motivated populace, and the economy *never* falters.

With a massive welfare/pension system, a high unemployment rate, and fewer people in current generations to pay for the programs, there are serious problems.

Mix in the strong Euro which is already hurting exports, and, well... I think we'll keep our system, imperfect as it is, for now, thanks.

Contrary to popular belief, we do not have a socialist system. It is called social market economy -- we have had social elements when we still have had a Kaiser and all, about 130 years ago. But we also have free markets plus the usual regulation (anti trust laws, etc.).

And right now, we are not moving at all. Unfortunately. Opposition blocks (no matter which party is in opposition) which stuns the government and makes a real fresh start impossible. I have seen them on TV today again. The only one that has really made the smartest comments has ended his political career (or at least takes a break). The woman from the Green Party was ok, too.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I think 'mericans are just too damn afraid of pinko Commies to actually risk a change for the better.

After seeing what happened to East Germany, and the difficulties of reunification, I'd think if anyone should be "too damn afraid" of pinko Commies, it'd be Germans.

::shrug:: Socialism as in evidence in Germany is closer to Communism than what we have in America, though, so perhaps it makes sense that you'd feel that way.

[moki]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Contrary to popular belief, we do not have a socialist system. It is called social market economy -- we have had social elements when we still have had a Kaiser and all, about 130 years ago. But we also have free markets plus the usual regulation (anti trust laws, etc.).

Well, call it what you will, but the pension/welfware system in Germany is what I'd term "socialist" -- forgive me for the incorrect label.

[undotwa]

Isn't the reason why Germany's economy is stalling because:

• Massive subsidies to eastern germany
• Heavily industrially based economy which
• has low demand for goods because of a crappy world economy

[moki]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Isn't the reason why Germany's economy is stalling because:

? Massive subsidies to eastern germany
? Heavily industrially based economy which
? has low demand for goods because of a crappy world economy

Also the strong Euro... but yes, those are some of the reasons.

But the welfare/pension system is a separate issue. It happens to be exasperated by the economy, but it is a different thing entirely. Reforms are coming, and it won't be pretty.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The only one that has really made the smartest comments has ended his political career (or at least takes a break).

I would *so* love to see Lafontaine run for chancellor. He makes far too much sense, though, and might actually be able to turn the cart around, so there's no way he'll have enough party support until the **** *really* hits the fan.

Maybe 2010?

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Reforms are coming, and it won't be pretty.

This is something you're probably right on - though I think one reason the reforms won't be pretty is because, as Oreo mentioned above, the ruling coalition will be stalled out by the opposition no matter what.

Which, while politically understandable, is quite damaging to our country.

And I'm sorry, but your comment about *us* having to fear pinko Commies *may* have been just returning a quip, but really, it's utter nonsense. There is a place in the political spectrum for Communists, and lo and behold, it's somewhere far beneath the 5% mark.

It's buying other countries we need to look out for - not that it's gonna happen again (how could it?).

Liken it, if you will, to the United States *buying* (annexing) Mexico, and then having to bring it up to federal standards economically and socially. Would you claim that a reason for 'mericans to be afraid of Mexicans? I think not.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is something you're probably right on - though I think one reason the reforms won't be pretty is because, as Oreo mentioned above, the ruling coalition will be stalled out by the opposition no matter what.

yep, Labor is going to fight it tooth and nail.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And I'm sorry, but your comment about *us* having to fear pinko Commies *may* have been just returning a quip, but really, it's utter nonsense. There is a place in the political spectrum for Communists, and lo and behold, it's somewhere far beneath the 5% mark.

Sure, there's a communist part in the US, too. But that isn't what I meant... I meant you saw first-hand the devastating effects on the populace that came from Communist rule in the East.

Consider that after WWII, the USSR was given the East, and the alies were given the west. Look what came from American occupation of the west: Germany rose to become the wonderful nation it is today. Look what came from the USSR occupying the east.

It could have been a hell of a lot worse for you, the communists could have been ruling all of Germany. Thus my comment.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Liken it, if you will, to the United States *buying* (annexing) Mexico, and then having to bring it up to federal standards economically and socially. Would you claim that a reason for 'mericans to be afraid of Mexicans? I think not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

And yes, Germany did bear a large burden when it assimilated the East. However other socialistic countries in Europe (France, for instance) are facing similar problems that Germany is now facing, so it is fair to say that we are happy to keep our flawed system here in the US for now.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, call it what you will, but the pension/welfware system in Germany is what I'd term "socialist" -- forgive me for the incorrect label.

Yes, because of your perspective. No offense taken. Canada is more of a socialist system than we are. Historically, socialism refers to something different -- e. g. the system of the GDR. (Most Americans on this board don't even think that their sense of conservativeness has not much to do with -- say -- German conservatives or French conservatives.)

The foundations of our system were laid out inndependently from what is known as communism or socialism. Some German conservatives label the social democrats as communists (some still do, seriously), although they are quite independent from that. I didn't vote for them, but still I insist on fairness.

Our problem is that our welfare system has been formed quite a while ago when the premises were different (mainly in the 70s) -- very low unemployment rate, a healthier ratio of working vs. retired, etc.

Now we have different premises and `old' people with `old' ideas (and I would include Lafontaine here) will have trouble solving new problems. I like the principle of the Green party here that is `sustainability' -- we need a system that we can afford. I am all for health care, etc., but a system that collapses is of no use for anyone.

Blindly borrowing pieces from reforms in other countries won't help much. We need to put the pieces together. But every single bold approach is blown apart by lobbies and politicians that are afraid of resistance. It's not only the unions, it's also the strong lobby of the retired (losing their votes would mean defeat), then there are the public servants that are hopelessly overrepresented in the Bundestag (and in fact any parliament in Germany).

Hopefully all parties are beginning to wake up.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Isn't the reason why Germany's economy is stalling because:

? Massive subsidies to eastern germany
? Heavily industrially based economy which
? has low demand for goods because of a crappy world economy

Our industry depends on exports (something like 70 %), so a struggling world economy has a huge impact on us. All the conservatives fearing the weak Euro didn't see that the industry was happy, because low Euro=cheap exports. Now, the Euro is very high, exports are suffering.

Add a social security system that is due for a major overhaul, etc., and you are close to a deflatioin (take a look at Japan).

[moki]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Add a social security system that is due for a major overhaul, etc., and you are close to a deflatioin (take a look at Japan).

Well, thankfully though there are similarities between Germany now and Japan a decade ago or so, some of the key pieces such as the extent of bad loans are not present in Germany.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by moki:
...

Sure, there's a communist part in the US, too. But that isn't what I meant... I meant you saw first-hand the devastating effects on the populace that came from Communist rule in the East.

Consider that after WWII, the USSR was given the East, and the alies were given the west. Look what came from American occupation of the west: Germany rose to become the wonderful nation it is today. Look what came from the USSR occupying the east.


...

Ditto. I have lived in the Eastern part from 1993-1996. People still don't trust each other. Neighbors spied and betrayed neighbors.

The idea of Communism is a very idealistic one and -- if you consider when Communism was created -- its ideas have had a useful influence on the European free market.

But its upsides have been largely incorporated into the free market while it proved to be unfeasible (corruption, lack of control mechanism, checks and balances).

America, on the other hand, has yet to introduce real social security reforms. Despite all its problems, the German health care system is a lot better than -- say -- the British one. People are not dying here, because they have to wait for surgery. Look at our teeth (really tells a lot). A social security system raises the average standard of living.

[moki]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
America, on the other hand, has yet to introduce real social security reforms. Despite all its problems, the German health care system is a lot better than -- say -- the British one. People are not dying here, because they have to wait for surgery. Look at our teeth (really tells a lot). A social security system raises the average standard of living.

In the US, if you have lots of money, you will get the best medical care in the world. If you have no money, you will get the best medical care in the world.

It's when you have a little bit of money that you get screwed (below middle class, but above poverty).

As it is, though, the vast majority of companies offer excellent medical/dental healthcare programs. Among the people I know, medical care here has never been an issue.

The idea of a universal healthcare system such as in evidence in Canada is not something that is wanted by the majority of people in America. As it is, people in Canada who can afford to come to the US for treatment rather than getting on a waiting list in Canada.

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:

With a massive welfare/pension system, a high unemployment rate, and fewer people in current generations to pay for the programs, there are serious problems.

Before you go all out and say that a this doesn't work you should read up on how this system works in Sweden. Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the best healthcare systems in the world, unemployment benefits, pension system, etc, etc. It is highly ignorant of you to say that a system like this doesn't work.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
Before you go all out and say that a this doesn't work you should read up on how this system works in Sweden. Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the best healthcare systems in the world, unemployment benefits, pension system, etc, etc. It is highly ignorant of you to say that a system like this doesn't work.

No, it is not ignorant of me. Ignorant implies I'm not aware of Sweden, or of the success of a socialistic system there. I qualified my statements very carefully; it is also working in Norway.

Ignorant would be not knowing why it works in Sweden and Norway, but not elsewhere in Europe. I'll assume that you are not ignorant of said reasons, and are instead merely taking a pot shot.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaelmbbates/column327.htm

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8

Things have not always been rosy for Sweden, either.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:
In the US, if you have lots of money, you will get the best medical care in the world. If you have no money, you will get the best medical care in the world.

It's when you have a little bit of money that you get screwed (below middle class, but above poverty).

As it is, though, the vast majority of companies offer excellent medical/dental healthcare programs. Among the people I know, medical care here has never been an issue.

The idea of a universal healthcare system such as in evidence in Canada is not something that is wanted by the majority of people in America. As it is, people in Canada who can afford to come to the US for treatment rather than getting on a waiting list in Canada.

In Canada everyone has the right to healthcare. The system has faults, but the underlying principle is that everyone, no matter how much or how little money you have has a right to get a certain level of treatment.

In contrast, there exists no such right in the US. If you have no money or health plan you are out of luck.

This site has alot of info if you are interested

Interesting to note, people in Canada have a life expectancy of 79.4 vs US's 77.1 ....so we must be doing something right.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html

http://pages.prodigy.net/michaelmbbates/column327.htm

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8

Things have not always been rosy for Sweden, either.

Oh ya, nice unbiased sources you got there.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by moki:
The Netherlands is close to that actually.

WTF...!?

Spheric Harlot is correct, it's ±80%

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
In contrast, there exists no such right in the US. If you have no money or health plan you are out of luck.

That's untrue -- people with no money, even illegal immigrants, are regularly treated for ailments in US hospitals.

However it is true that for many maintenance health issues, there is no universal health care in the US. The fact is that the majority of people are covered either by a private company-sponsored plan, or by Medicare/Medicaid.

It is also true that people with money regularly come to the US for treatment, which says more than a little bit about the quality and timeliness of care in Canada.

A good friend of mine is a doctor; she's seen first-hand how the healthcare system works in Canada, and other countries in the world. Indeed, she's moving to the Netherlands soon (her husband is Dutch), but she's coming back to the US to have her children -- and with good reason.

You can have your "right" to healthcare. You can also have your ridiculously high taxes, mediocre care, and get in line when you need to be treated.

[moki]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
WTF...!?

Spheric Harlot is correct, it's ±80%

hrm... my bad, apparently I was mistaken. I need to find the article in which I read about the declining voter turnout in the Netherlands, clearly my memory on the subject is hazier than it should be.

I could have sworn the article was chronicling voter apathy, making the point that Pim had reinvigorated voter turnout. Apparently that's not the case, apologies.

According to http://www.idea.int/vt/region_view.cfm?CountryCode=NL it did indeed dip down from the late 80's, only coming back up to historic levels in 2002 -- however even then, it was at 70% compared to the US's 46% for the same year.

Perhaps the history of compulsory voting has something to do with it? Regardless, Australia has us all beat.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Oh ya, nice unbiased sources you got there.

Look, believe what you want, but it is no big secret that Sweden had serious problems that slowly built up from the 60's into the 90's. Things are back on track now, however -- but the point remains that the blend of socialism and capitalism works in Sweden and to a lesser extent (socialistically speaking) in Norway for good reasons.

[Logic]

Sooo, moki. Instead of finding such sources as you did perhaps we should look at the facts.

Population Growth Rate: Sweden 0,02%, US 0,89%

Infant mortality rate: Sweden 3,44/100, US 6,69/1000

Life expectancy at birth: Sweden 79,84, US 77,4

HIV/AIDS prevalance: Sweden 0,08%, US 0,61%

Literacy: Sweden 99%, US 97%

GDP-real growth rate: Sweden 1.8%, US 0.3%

GDP/capita: Sweden 25,400$, US 36,300$

Population below poverty line: Sweden 0%, US 13%

Inflation rate: Sweden 2.2%, US 2.8%

Unemployment rate: Sweden 4%, US 5%

Industrial production growth rate: Sweden 0.9%, US -3.7%

Taken from CIA Factbook. So moki, what source is more accurate and what system seems to need some reshaping?

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by moki:
According to http://www.idea.int/vt/region_view.cfm?CountryCode=NL it did indeed dip down from the late 80's, only coming back up to historic levels in 2002 -- however even then, it was at 70% compared to the US's 46% for the same year.

a little correction there, 2002 is missing in those stats, it had 79% and in 2003 it even went a little up to 79,9% (Dutch sources).

[Nicko]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
a little correction there, 2002 is missing in those stats, it had 79% and in 2003 it even went a little up to 79,9% (Dutch sources).

Not to mention you can smoke pot! Well if you want to

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
Taken from CIA Factbook. So moki, what source is more accurate and what system seems to need some reshaping?

Yes, I've seen all of the facts on Sweden, and I agree, that it paints a rosy picture (though it has not always been so, as I pointed out). It also is not a system that can succeed on any reasonable scale; it isn't a coincidence that the only countries it is working in today are small homogenous societies, one with great access to natural resources (Norway's oil).

A better question would be: why is socialism working out so poorly in so many more countries? You don't prove a rule by the exception, you look at the circumstances that allow the exception to exist.

There are also a number of statistics that Sweden does not stack up well against the US, such as suicide rate, and utterly oppressive taxation. Freedom -- including the freedom to keep your own money -- is always messy. Every country has to decide what they are willing to accept as a tradeoff.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Logic:

Infant mortality rate: Sweden 3,44/100, US 6,69/1000

I can see why you'd want to have your children in the US!!

[Logic]

Also, the dip you talked about for some reasons came exactly when Moderaterna(conservative right wing party) took over and run the country. They tried to change the system and the economy took a dive. So the system seems to work fine(excellent) in Sweden so it is not the wellfare system to blame. It is something else. What, I don't know.

Your talk about a good friend of yours being doctor and how she choose to go back to the states is also mute. My whole family is in the healthcare system(not patients, but personel) so I have indeed seen the difference between(note differences, not how much better either is) of our systems. To claim that you get the best healthcare in the world in the US is ignorant. One example is that here on Iceland if you can't get the treatment needed here, the government pays the bill for your trip/treatment/cost abroad. Does the US government/medicare system do that?

But what I'm trying to say is that you can't blame this mix of a socialistic(as you call it)/capitalistic system for an economy in trouble. So calling for reforms in this system and try to "help" European governments to move to a more US type of system is uncalled for.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
GDP/capita: Sweden 25,400$, US 36,300$

Yes, the GDP in the US is higher than in Sweden -- and it is also true that people keep more of the money they earn in the US.

Originally posted by Logic:
Population below poverty line: Sweden 0%, US 13%

This is misleading. The poverty line is determined differently in each country. In the US, the poverty level is determined as a % of income relative to the rest of society. Even if they were making $50,000 a year, they'd be considered to be living "in poverty" if they rest of the population was making proportionately more.

Originally posted by Logic:
Unemployment rate: Sweden 4%, US 5%

This is misleading too. It doesn't take into account "open unemployment".

All in all, looking at the statistics, I'm quite sure of where I'd rather live (no offense to Swedes).

People from other countries don't seem to understand that most people in the US don't *want* a socialistic system. Call it inhumane, call it what you will, but we'd rather take the good with the bad, and have equal opportunity, not equal outcome for all.