Should the U.S. Copy Europe?

[Adam's Apple]

What a ridiculous question.

Should We Copy Europe?
by Walter E. Williams, Human Events
November 22, 2006

Some Americans look to European countries such as France, Germany and its Scandinavian neighbors and suggest that we adopt some of their economic policies. I agree, we should look at Europe for the lessons they can teach us. Dr. Daniel Mitchell, research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, does just that in his paper titled "Fiscal Policy Lessons from Europe."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18143

 

[Stephanie]

:thumbdown:

If that's how you want to live.....then you should move, and go live over there..........

BYE.............

Don't let the door hit ya.........:

 

[Adam's Apple]

Go back and read the post again, Steph. Did you miss the sentence above the article's title? And in no way can it be implied that Dr. Williams is saying "Yes, the U.S. should copy Europe."

 

[KarlMarx]

My parents are from Italy. My father, especially, used to believe that things were somehow better in Italy, America was full of greedy people, even the television shows were more wholesome and family oriented.

I used to tell him that things weren't so rosy in Italy and that Socialist economic policies were ruining the place, but to no avail. He remembered the Italy of his childhood back in the 1940s and 1950s.

A couple of years ago, my parents went to Italy for a few weeks to visit relatives and friends. When they came back, they told me, among other things, how many people didn't have jobs in Italy and how expensive everything was over there (gasoline was something like $5 a gallon or more). I said, "I told you so".

You know, ever since then, my father hasn't said much about how great Italy is....

It's just like Tom Wolfe said .... You never can go home again.

 

[Stephanie]

Your my bud AA.......
Yes I do read the whole article,, but the total gist is enough for me........

That's just me......
But you can never convince me, that the European model is the way.........

 

[red states rule]

Why would we want to take our roaring economy, and flush it down the toilet?

Europes economy is in the pits and its workers are spoiled brats

Look at France and you will see "workers" who do not want to work, and a government that offers cradle to grave handouts.

I know this sounds like heaven to US libs, but it is a disaster for the people paying the bill

 

[KarlMarx]

Why would we want to take our roaring economy, and flush it down the toilet?

Europes economy is in the pits and its workers are spoiled brats

Look at France and you will see "workers" who do not want to work, and a government that offers cradle to grave handouts.

I know this sounds like heaven to US libs, but it is a disaster for the people paying the bill

 

[red states rule]

I admit I snickered as the thugs in Paris rioted for nearly a week over having to work a 40 hour week

The workers are lazy and do not have to produce to keep their jobs

 

[KarlMarx]

I admit I snickered as the thugs in Paris rioted for nearly a week over having to work a 40 hour week

The workers are lazy and do not have to produce to keep their jobs

If idle hands are the Devil's Workshop
The French ought to be teaching Shop Class

 

[red states rule]

If idle hands are the Devil's Workshop
The French ought to be teaching Shop Class

Q. Why do we need France on our side against Saddam and Osama?

A. So the French can show them how to surrender.



Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows, it's never been tried.



Q. Why don't they have fireworks at Euro Disney?

A. Because every time they shoot them off, the French try to surrender.



Q. Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?

A. So the Germans could march in the shade.

Q: How many gears does a French tank have?
A: 4 reverse and 1 forward, in case the enemy attacks from the rear.

Q: How can you identify a French Infantryman?
A: Sunburned armpits.

Q. What's the difference between Frenchmen and toast?

A. You can make soldiers out of toast.



Q. What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?

A. The Army.



Anyone see the French Military Rifle on eBay? It's never been shot and only dropped once!

 

[KarlMarx]

It seems to me that fairness is a universal constant. The more you try to make something fair, the more unfair something else becomes to make up for it.

The Left regardless of its intentions, makes a grave error where human nature is involved. The Left will delay the construction of highways and dams to save an endangered species of fish or owl. They will advocate far reaching policies to save us from real or imagined ecological catastrophes. They seem to believe that nature is so fragile that any change will cause untold harm. Yet, when it comes to human nature, they consider it infinitely malleable and changeable at the drop of a hat. I feel they are entirely wrong on this, human nature is not changeable, only controllable. For instance, if humans are allowed to do whatever they please without regard to consequence, they will sink to the lowest level of depravity. This is because humans are driven by the need to survive and to feel pleasure. If killing someone or cheating on my wife will help me feel good, I'll do it. That's why society, its laws and norms are so important, to save us from each other and from ourselves.

Some things about human nature, on the other hand, i.e. the need for children to grow up in families with two parents, differences between the sexes, and so called "profit motive" should not even be toyed with. To do so is to invite a true catastrophe.

People will work hardest and achieve the greatest good when they are allowed to do so out of self interest. That line is from Adam Smith. I don't believe that punishing people for working hard and making money does anyone any good.

 

[red states rule]

It seems to me that fairness is a universal constant. The more you try to make something fair, the more unfair something else becomes to make up for it.

The Left regardless of its intentions, makes a grave error where human nature is involved. The Left will delay the construction of highways and dams to save an endangered species of fish or owl. They will advocate far reaching policies to save us from real or imagined ecological catastrophes. They seem to believe that nature is so fragile that any change will cause untold harm. Yet, when it comes to human nature, they consider it infinitely malleable and changeable at the drop of a hat. I feel they are entirely wrong on this, human nature is not changeable, only controllable. Some things about human nature, i.e. the need for children to grow up in families with two parents, differences between the sexes, and so called "profit motive" should not even be toyed with. To do so is to invite a true catastrophe.

People will work hardest and achieve the greatest good when they are allowed to do so out of self interest. That line is from Adam Smith. I don't believe that punishing people for working hard and making money does anyone any good.

There is nothing more powerful then freedom and capitalism working together for the better of all

 

[KarlMarx]

There is nothing more powerful then freedom and capitalism working together for the better of all

One example that I've thought of that proves my point is Christmas.

For centuries, Christmas was a holiday that was more like an orgy of drinking and violence, rather than than the a holiday of today. In fact, in some places, the celebration was outlawed.

It wasn't until the early 19th century when our observation of the holiday became the custom. There are many reasons for this change, but one of them was that merchants saw an opportunity to profit from the annual gift giving. This helped to change Christmas from an out of control drinking party to the celebration that it is today.

 

[Hobbit]

It seems to me that fairness is a universal constant. The more you try to make something fair, the more unfair something else becomes to make up for it.

The Left regardless of its intentions, makes a grave error where human nature is involved. The Left will delay the construction of highways and dams to save an endangered species of fish or owl. They will advocate far reaching policies to save us from real or imagined ecological catastrophes. They seem to believe that nature is so fragile that any change will cause untold harm. Yet, when it comes to human nature, they consider it infinitely malleable and changeable at the drop of a hat. I feel they are entirely wrong on this, human nature is not changeable, only controllable. For instance, if humans are allowed to do whatever they please without regard to consequence, they will sink to the lowest level of depravity. This is because humans are driven by the need to survive and to feel pleasure. If killing someone or cheating on my wife will help me feel good, I'll do it. That's why society, its laws and norms are so important, to save us from each other and from ourselves.

Some things about human nature, on the other hand, i.e. the need for children to grow up in families with two parents, differences between the sexes, and so called "profit motive" should not even be toyed with. To do so is to invite a true catastrophe.

People will work hardest and achieve the greatest good when they are allowed to do so out of self interest. That line is from Adam Smith. I don't believe that punishing people for working hard and making money does anyone any good.

Only the incentive of profit can drive the incredible device of the invisible hand to creat everything the average human needs in the most efficient manner possible. The Soviets tried to replace the invisible hand with an iron fist, and look where it got them.

 

[Avatar4321]

I admit I snickered as the thugs in Paris rioted for nearly a week over having to work a 40 hour week

The workers are lazy and do not have to produce to keep their jobs

Actually, the rioting was mostly over the fact that employers would be able to fire them for not doing their jobs. What a radical idea huh?

 

[Avatar4321]

It seems to me that fairness is a universal constant. The more you try to make something fair, the more unfair something else becomes to make up for it.

The Left regardless of its intentions, makes a grave error where human nature is involved. The Left will delay the construction of highways and dams to save an endangered species of fish or owl. They will advocate far reaching policies to save us from real or imagined ecological catastrophes. They seem to believe that nature is so fragile that any change will cause untold harm. Yet, when it comes to human nature, they consider it infinitely malleable and changeable at the drop of a hat. I feel they are entirely wrong on this, human nature is not changeable, only controllable. For instance, if humans are allowed to do whatever they please without regard to consequence, they will sink to the lowest level of depravity. This is because humans are driven by the need to survive and to feel pleasure. If killing someone or cheating on my wife will help me feel good, I'll do it. That's why society, its laws and norms are so important, to save us from each other and from ourselves.

Some things about human nature, on the other hand, i.e. the need for children to grow up in families with two parents, differences between the sexes, and so called "profit motive" should not even be toyed with. To do so is to invite a true catastrophe.

People will work hardest and achieve the greatest good when they are allowed to do so out of self interest. That line is from Adam Smith. I don't believe that punishing people for working hard and making money does anyone any good.

I disagree. I think human nature can and must be changed. And that is only possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which most of the left denies. Hence why they will never be successful at changing human behavior. They try to change the environment and thus change men. Meanwhile, Christ changes men who then change their environment.

I do agree with the importantance of laws. They exist for exactly the reason you say. Without them, the natural man would destroy itself. And I fear we will see many die in the upcoming future because of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

One example that I've thought of that proves my point is Christmas.

For centuries, Christmas was a holiday that was more like an orgy of drinking and violence, rather than than the a holiday of today. In fact, in some places, the celebration was outlawed.

It wasn't until the early 19th century when our observation of the holiday became the custom. There are many reasons for this change, but one of them was that merchants saw an opportunity to profit from the annual gift giving. This helped to change Christmas from an out of control drinking party to the celebration that it is today.

Ive never heard of Christmas being an orgy of drinking and violence, but knowing medival Europe i could believe that. In fact, ive read that one of the main reasons for the crusades, other than the defend Byzantium from the muslim assaults, was because the Pope wanted to get all the thugs out Europe because they were constantly feuding with each other and destroying the place. It was actually quite effectice considering the renaisance began shortly afterwards. Mostly from a combination of the greek and roman classics returning and because they didnt have the thugs to keep the more intellectual and rational people from having a say in society.

 

[Avatar4321]

As for the original question, no we shouldnt be emulating Europe's economic policies. Why would we want higher unemployment, lower GDP, and all the other economic problems they have? Does anyone honestly think they would be seriously going through with the European Union if they could compete on their own?

 

[red states rule]

Actually, the rioting was mostly over the fact that employers would be able to fire them for not doing their jobs. What a radical idea huh?

Oh the horror of the French - not having a guaranteed job with guaranteed benefits

These people are to to damn lazy to work for a living as well as defend their own homeland

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Actually, you're both wrong. The rioting was because they wanted to institute a different standard of employment for YOUNG WORKERS. Only NEW workers would be subject to firing, when ALL workers should have been subject to accountability. It was unfair. It was age discrimination.