Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
American Freedom?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Ricardo
Posts: 14821
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
 RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dformell
Under the American employment system an employee's money and health care are through the company they work for. If an employee is not part of a union he can be fired at anytime. That means most Americans can be fired at anytime, for any reason while loosing their only source of income and health care. Is that freedom? In the past peasants worked the land and received part of the crop share for payment, they were abused and suffered greatly. Now we work for worthless paper printed by a mysterious organization called the Federal Reserve. Have times really changed that much? Liege Lord, if you don't give military service or work the land he owns you loose everything. Corporation, if your fired by them you loose everything. Whats the difference?
I can only speak as a musician. I feel freedom to accept whatever work I want that comes my way, to hire whatever back up artists I want, to let any of em go for any reason I choose or no reason, and of course if I fail to do exemplary work or performance, I am accepting of the fact I won't be hired again, or could be fired for any reason, or other artist may choose to work with someone else. It's on me to do a good job AND I have freedom to look around or move on. Only need I would have for a group to help me or fight for me or some one above me coat tails to ride on, is cuz I am slacking or mediocre at the job and need to do better. Money doesn't need to be real, I can see past it and realize what I am "worth" doing what I do and see how in exchange for what I can do I eat and feed my family etc. I understand not all people are like me, and I see I need others as much as they need me...but I do feel freedoms to make choices and know I will suffer the consiquences if it goes wrong.
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 27 2012 18:05:28
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
There is perhaps a little exaggeration in the original post.
Under the feudal system the tenant was not totally without rights. If he paid his rent, furnished military service when required and able, or paid someone to take his place and broke no laws, his landlord could not simply evict him for no cause. Due process was required, in England at least. When Domesday Book was compiled in 1080, about 10% of the population were slaves, without the rights just mentioned. This fraction steadily decreased until it went to zero at the end of the 16th century.
Later, people were made indentured servants when convicted of a crime. They might be transported to a distant colony in America, or later in Australia. Application of this could be overly broad, as when sizable numbers of Irish people were declared rebels and deported. But at least a formal conviction was required. There were laws aimed at preventing mistreatment of indentured servants. For example in New England it was forbidden to feed them lobsters. which were looked down upon and were cheap and plentiful enough to be used as agricultural fertilizer. Often enough, after their time was served and they got on their feet, they ended up better off than they were back in Britain.
In the present day, if the employee is an asset to the company, he or she will not be fired, unless the company must cut costs to keep from going broke. When I was a manager of 250 people for a large corporation it was effectively impossible for me to fire someone, even for extensively witnessed and documented incompetence. My only recourse was to demote them to a job with less responsibility and lower pay. This could only be done after going through a thorough management, human resources and legal review, to avoid potential legal action by the employee.
In the U.S.A people have been fired from manufacturing jobs when the jobs were shipped overseas. The justification was, and is, that the company must do it to keep from going bankrupt due to cheaper competition. This is, in my opinion, a serious drawback of the capitalist and free trade system now in effect. Something needs to be done to make this alternative less attractive. Market forces are already having some effect in this direction. Wages are going up in China. Higher wages, increasing transportation costs and the difficulties of doing business in a foreign culture with a corrupt and totalitarian regime have caused a few companies to bring manufacturing jobs back home. The capitalists and fee traders tell us that in the fullness of time everything will work to the greater good. Yeah, right. I don't know what it is, but something needs to be done.
The Federal Reserve need not be mysterious to anyone with access to the internet.
My friend who grew up in the Soviet Union says that if you didn't have a degree from a good university or political connections, you could easily starve or freeze to death. If someone wanted your apartment, all they had to do was go to the secret police and put forth a fake denunciation.
She came to the USA at age 13 when her mother married an American. Not long afterward her mother divorced him for abuse. Then she was orphaned when her mother died.
She graduated from high school, served in the U.S Air Force, worked as a civilian on a U.S. military base, earned a Bachelor's and a Master's degree, worked as a civilian contractor for the Federal Aviation Agency, bought an apartment and earned a state Teacher's Certificate. She was laid off when one contractor lost part of its work with the FAA, but was immediately hired by another on the recommendation of an FAA manager who recognized her usefulness to the Agency.
All this with no political connection, no help from anyone. She worked while she went to school, at first as a restaurant hostess, then as a waitress for more money. After making a good start on her education, she got a job with a large corporation and got her degrees. She never took out a nickel in student loans. She has done it on her own, within the U.S. system, much of the time surviving the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Were there abuses to the feudal system? No doubt. Are there abuses to the U.S. system? Of course. No system is perfect.
The U.S.A. is in fact pretty far from perfect. The only moral justification I ever see for capitalism is "It works." There are bloated and useless fat cats at one end of the spectrum and the downtrodden and degraded at the other end. These are despicable abuses.
The situation of the majority could be better. It's not as good as it was in the 1950s-1960s. There are forces at work to make it worse. There are also forces at work to defend and improve the rights and livelihood of the middle class.
We in the U.S.A. need to work hard to correct abuses, improve the lot of the average person, reduce unemployment, rebuild the economy in general, reduce our annual government deficit, enable access to education without loading the student with crippling debt, and address important environmental issues--among other things.
But let's not exaggerate. It's a distraction from important stuff that needs to get done.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 27 2012 19:44:05
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
quote:
Under the American employment system an employee's money and health care are through the company they work for. If an employee is not part of a union he can be fired at anytime. That means most Americans can be fired at anytime, for any reason while loosing their only source of income and health care. Is that freedom? In the past peasants worked the land and received part of the crop share for payment, they were abused and suffered greatly. Now we work for worthless paper printed by a mysterious organization called the Federal Reserve. Have times really changed that much? Liege Lord, if you don't give military service or work the land he owns you loose everything. Corporation, if your fired by them you loose everything. Whats the difference?
If you were trying to point out certain deficiencies in the American system, dformell, you completely undermined your thesis with your almost laughably gross exaggerations. Richard stated that, "Perhaps there was a little exaggeration in the original post." That is either an attempt to be polite or a deliberately understated attempt at sarcasm.
You are wrong stating that in most companies, if you are not part of a union you can be fired at any time. Most companies have procedures in place that must be followed in order to fire someone. And it usually involves termination "for cause," that is, the employee must have done something in violation of company rules, or his performance must have been consistently deficient. The fact is, the huge majority of American workers are not fired and perform admirably in their jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011, the percentage of private sector wage and salary workers who were members of a union--the union membership rate--was 11.8 percent. To read your post, one would think that the rest--88.2 percent of American workers in the private sector--"have no freedom" because they could "be fired at any time." That is not only misinformation about the employer-employee relationship in the United States, it demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of "freedom," but that is a debate for another thread.
As for your "mysterious organization called the Federal Reserve" printing "worthless paper," what do you consider "mysterious" about the Federal Reserve? And by what standard are you considering U.S. currency "worthless paper"? Who has refused to accept your Federal Reserve notes in payment for an item you purchased or a service you received? Who has refused to accept checks you have written because they were written on accounts that contained "worthless paper"?
Yes, some manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas because of lower labor costs. That is regrettable, but in most cases it made economic sense. Some industries became uncompetitive, and American-made products were priced out of the market. It made no sense to continue much of the textile industry in South Carolina, for example, when workers were getting paid a wage that forced the American consumer to pay much more for clothing made in South Carolina than that made in Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Vietnam, and China. So, naturally, the textile industry moved to those countries. Unfortunately, there were workers who lost jobs, but the vast majority of Americans who buy clothing were beneficiaries of the move. It would have been irrational to maintain an inefficient, cost-heavy, labor-intensive industry in order to keep a few thousand workers, at best, employed, at the expense of the millions of Americans who would have paid the price in higher clothing costs. The rational approach to the workers who lost jobs would have been re-training in order to enter a more forward-looking industry, such as computers or the service industry. In any case, as labor and other costs rise in these other countries, some manufacturing that was shipped overseas is returning to the U.S., although its manufacture will be of a more high-tech sort. But then, that is what America is good at.
As has been stated often enough, neither America nor capitalism is perfect. There are always ways in which we can improve things, although I'm sure many of us would disagree on the direction those efforts should take. But as one who has lived in many countries overseas, including those ruled by both communist and right-wing authoritarian governments, I find that your comments demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of the American system.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 27 2012 22:35:28
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
I know lots of people think his books are passe' today, but I recommend reading Iberia for a good historical background of Spain.
I couldn't agree more, Stephen. I have always enjoyed Michener's books, and "Iberia" is a very good read on the history and culture of Spain. I regret that many authors I have enjoyed are little read today: Lawrence Durrell, the great writer from Crete Nikos Kazantzakis, the marvelous short stories of Somerset Maugham that still hold up today. Although I recognize that they are a bit dated in today's environment, I still cherish the works of Henry Miller. And, of course, V.S. Naipaul (though he is not considered passe'), that marvelous chronicler of the so-called Third World, which in its attempts to reject its former colonial masters ends up aping them. Black comedy at its best!
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 1:00:03
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
Yes, Michener spent time working here in Austin. In an interview someone asked him, "Why Austin?" He mentioned the fantastic University of Texas Library...and all the good looking girls on campus.
Ohh...I liked "iberia", too. Not sure I made it all the way through "Texas", though.
I got my version of Texas history from my grandfather, my great uncles, and the public school Texas history courses. I'm not sure it's all perfectly accurate, but it makes a good story. My great-grandfather was five years old when Texas won its war of independence from Mexico in 1836, 14 years old when it became a part of the USA.
For example, Professor Américo Paredes's account of the Gregorio Cortez affair of 1901 differs substantially in facts and perspective from the way I heard it from my cousin Tommy's Texas Ranger grandfather--whose father and grandfather were themselves Texas Rangers.
Tommy's grandfather was a member of the posse that was led a merry chase all over South Texas by Cortez after he killed that sheriff. Paredes's mission in life was to try to correct some of the gringo bias of official Texas history during the late 1950s, when I was at the University.
I don't doubt they were each faithful to their sources. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.
Tommy's great-great grandfather fought in Texas at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma in 1846 with Captain Walker's company of Texas Rangers, the first Texan troops to arrive in support of Zachary Taylor's U.S. expeditionary force sent to repel Mexican invasion. Professional officers of the US Army commented on the Rangers' "eccentric appearance and behavior," and their valor and ferocity in battle.
He went to Mexico 1847 with the Ranger forces attached to Winfield Scott's command, and fought in the crucial battle at Cerro Gordo that cleared the way from Vera Cruaz to Mexico City. The U.S. Army Engineers, including such figures as Robert E. Lee, George McClellan and G. T. Beauregard, claimed credit for finding the obscure mountain path that allowed the U.S. forces to surround the Mexicans, but the Rangers said it was their scouts who found it. ¿Quién sabe?
I don't remember how Michener told either tale, but I remember thinking he might have been a bit one-sided at times.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 2:17:15
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
As far as getting fired goes, a personal experience comes to mind.
The contract was awarded to a new company at the high tech U.S. military base where I worked in the Central Pacific. Benefits were cut, so I said I would stay on for a 10% raise in salary. I was in a critical job. The guy doing the tech hiring for the new company had been my boss a few years back. He knew my qualifications and performance. I got an offer for a dollar more than I had said I would take, on the first day offers began to go out, e-mailed to me while I was on vacation.
The bonehead who was briefly the president of the Bechtel/Lockheed Martin subsidiary who got the contract had a few glasses of wine too many at a large dinner party for contractor management, the Army and the Army's scientific advisor contractor, MIT Lincoln Laboratory. Señor Bonehead announced that he was going to save money by getting rid of all those overpaid people over 50 years old. I was 64 at the time, and one of the four or five highest paid people on the 2,000-person contract. I didn't take it very seriously. I was an old hand in industry. Señor Bonehead was a recently retired military officer with little experience in the private sector. He clearly didn't understand his legal situation.
In passing, I mentioned Señor Bonehead's remarks in a phone conversation with my daughter the lawyer. Her immediate response: "Congratulations, Dad!"
"Why 'Congratulations'?"
"Earlier retirement, lots more money, less stress. If you want the names of a couple of good lawyers..."
"This idiot goes around talking about 'employment at will'."
"Same laws apply. I'm looking forward to you being back in the states sooner."
"No, I don't think so. He'll get reined in by the lawyers at Lockheed and Bechtel as soon as the Army complains to them. Mr. Bechtel himself will probably tell him to pull his socks up clear to his armpits. Mr. Bechtel doesn't like to lose money getting sued."
Even the Army knew he was out of line, and I had to remind them over and over again that a civilian could quit a job any time he wanted to if his employer pissed him off, even if he was a laborer or a tradesman, and especially if he had saved a lot of money on a well paid tax advantaged overseas contract. Every American that worked there in the Central Pacific had at least once pulled up their tent pegs and made a big move, a lot of them several times.
In the event, Señor Bonehead was arrested for nudity, having sex on a public beach (at night) with his secretary. His wife was home snug in bed a few blocks away. He was gone within a week. He wasn't just ignorant of employment law, he was comprehensively stupid. There were dozens of places on the island where they could have hidden.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 7:25:26
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
quote:
The federal reserve is a private institution controlled by private shareholders. Other than the president appointing the chairman of the board the government has no control over the federal reserve.
Was your latest post meant to provide evidence to support your initial post, dformell? If so, I don't see the evidence. I see a lot of your questions, but I don't see your evidence. Most telling, when you attempt to provide specifics, you get it wrong. The Federal Reserve is a public-private entity. It is not meant to be "controlled" by the U.S. Government, but it is not entirely private either. Moreover, the president does not just appoint the chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, as your above-cited quote suggests. The president in fact appoints all seven members of the Board of Governors. From the seven members of the Board, the President appoints both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.
And what does Nixon taking us off the gold standard have to do with your thesis? I suppose you mean that it resulted in the "worthless paper" you mentioned in your initial post. But if that is what you meant, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how the financial system works. Or am I wrong? I would gladly welcome your explanation of why U.S. currency is "worthless paper."
Regarding your questions about U.S. education, college tuition, single-payer health system, dependence on finite energy, and a Manhattan Project for energy, these are all good questions, but they have nothing to do with your initial post about U.S. workers lacking freedom. Moreover, it is not as if no one is discussing them. They are discussed, debated, and argued over all the time. I don't know what is behind your posts, and I may be wrong in suggesting this, but it appears to me that you might be thinking there is some sort of "conspiracy" afoot. Please flesh out what you are driving at.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 18:43:59
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dformell
Hello Everybody,
Thank you for your posts. I just wanted to state a few of facts:
1. Multiple times I've seen, 1st hand, competent people fired because a manager didn't like them. It had nothing to do with business, just personal.
Yes, it happens. I believe it happens less often in large corporations because they have been sued by people with the resources to enforce their rights, and have lost money because of it. If you're fired from a smaller business and have no savings, you will have a hard time finding a lawyer to take your case, because the lawyer would have little prospect of earning any money out of it.
quote:
2. Most jobs in the U.S.A. are at will employment which means the employee can be fired at anytime.
As I pointed out in my own experience, "at will employment" doesn't mean you can be fired at any time without due cause. I'm no lawyer, but my daughter is, and she walked me through the situation in my case.
quote:
3. Roughly 48000 Americans died in 2010 for lack of health coverage.
4. In the U.S.A. most people under 65 have employer paid health coverage.
You lose your job you loose your health care.
The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") takes steps to correct this, but as far as I know it may not be the final solution.
quote:
5. The federal reserve is a private institution controlled by private shareholders. Other than the president appointing the chairman of the board the government has no control over the federal reserve.
6. President Nixon took the U.S. dollar of the gold standard in 1971.
You have a tradeoff. On the gold standard there was low inflation over a long period of time, but prices fluctuated much more on the short term. Which would you rather have, 4% inflation or 17% price instability year to year? Under the gold standard unemployment was higher in the USA, an average of 6.8%. The historical average is 5.9% off the gold standard. Neither the gold standard nor fiat money is a perfect system, but the consensus of the civilized world is that fiat money is better. Here's a relatively balanced analysis of the pros and cons of the gold standard.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.htm
quote:
What's lacking in our current system is democracy in the economy and workplace.
A few questions are in order:
1. Why is the level of public education in the U.S.A. so low?
Largely because we won't pay good enough salaries to make teaching a prestigious profession, as it is in Europe.
quote:
2. Why is college tuition so high?
Because we refuse to pay the taxes to support government subsidies to higher education. When I went to the University of Texas in the late 1950s I could pay a year's tuition out of money I saved from my summer job working at a gas station or a cotton gin. I could live quite decently on my salary as a student math instructor. Texas was a big oil producing state at the time. Taxes on oil exports to the rest of the country supported the state government and there was plenty of money to subsidize education. Now the oil is gone, and people refuse to pay the taxes required to support public higher education. They are encouraged in this by their liking for right wing state legislators. These legislators run on a platform of social issues, low taxes, and opposition to government in general. In Texas we really like this and vote 'em in by the dozens. Other states go for low taxes for their own reasons.
quote:
3. Why doesn't the U.S.A. have a single payer health care system?
Because people won't vote for one. A fair majority are in favor of repealing Obamacare, even though they are in favor of what it does. Single payer systems in Canada and Europe pay less money for better medical outcomes, on average. People in the USA bitch about rapidly ascending insurance premiums, but they don't want the government telling them what to do.
quote:
4. Why are we so dependent on a finite energy source?
5. Why aren't we treating our energy problem like the Manhattan project in WWII?
Because people can still afford to fill up their gas tanks and heat their houses--just barely in many cases. The Manhattan Project was started and run at the highest levels of secrecy, consequently no opposition could build up against it.
But I think there's a common thread that runs through all these issues, except the gold standard. No significant faction wants to go back to the gold standard.
"Political debate" in America is not about serious issues. It's a series of sound bite "gotchas" and propaganda, often outright lies. "You didn't build that," says Obama, meaning the political and physical infrastructure. "Yes I did," say the Republicans, meaning the businesses they built, enabled by the political and physical infrastructure that they didn't build. The Koch brothers fund "think tanks" that deny human induced climate change. The Democrats charged right to the bitter end that the Republicans would make Medicare into a voucher program, costing seniors $6,000 a year that few of them have, while in fact the Republicans quickly backed away from that and said they would run vouchers in competition with a government single payer plan.
Both parties play the game. People are distracted from serious political issues by the media circus, a show put on by both "liberals" and "conservatives". People get really emotionally involved in this stuff, which is precisely its objective. With the public out of the loop, powerful interests hash things out in the back room.
Two of the big contributors to this state of affairs, in my opinion, are career politicians in legislatures, who are more interested in getting reelected than they are in solving problems, and the flood of money supporting the media circus to get them reelected. Neither of these forces was remotely imagined by the framers of the Constitution, who did their best to balance competing interests and centers of power. I think things are seriously out of whack.
quote:
Interesting post Flamencito, My uncle Joe lived in Holland for 3 years and it really made an impression on him; He never saw people living in the streets. Joe also told me that the level of public education was much better than the U.S.. No system is perfect but there is always room for improvement.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 19:47:25
|
|
Mark2
Posts: 1872
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
I've never worked for a big company, in fact, at 54, I haven't had a job since I was a teen. I started a business many years ago, and I was free, free to starve because I was more interested in playing the guitar than working in the business.
But, today, despite working way more hours in the business, I'm still free. I can walk in and fire anyone who works for the company, or everyone, at any time. I can stop paying heathcare insurance, including my own, sell everything and move. Or stay.
My employees are also free-free to tell me to fark off and go work for someone else.
Freedom means freedom for everyone, not just the employee, but the boss too. That means the boss doesn't have to guarantee you a job, or pay your heathcare costs, and it also means no one has to guarantee you can afford to go to college, or the movies for that matter.
It means I can work as many or as few hours as I want, and that I have to live with the results of that choice.
So while it's true, as the op said, at least in my world, that someone can be fired for no reason at all, they can also leave. They are not servants, but individuals free to choose. Since I value the guys who work with, as opposed to for, me, I treat them and pay them in such a fashion as to discourage their exercising the freedom they have to leave.
Your about as free as you can get in the US if your willing to take the risk of being free to succeed or fail.
If that's not to your liking, there are alternatives.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 19:56:09
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Flamencito)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Flamencito
Why are lots of US people convinced that their system is the best in the world, while they have never experienced living in another system. IMO being happy about the system from your society is different from 'knowing' it's the best system in the world.
I have lived in Canada for a year. Great country... But one thing i noticed is that there is no public debate about the system, like for example in The Netherlands. It seems to be more like: you are with us or against us... If you don't like the financial system or social system, soon people will judge those for: 'being a socialist' without even knowing exactly the reasoning behind it..
Wondering what you guys think about these questions from outside..
I spent six weeks in Europe this spring: Italy, Germany, England and Spain. Even with their financial problems, infrastructure and health care are better in Italy and Andalucia than they are in Texas, one of America's most prosperous states. Germany is obviously far better off economically than the USA. My ex-wife's grandparents were Norwegian. We visited her Norwegian cousins years ago when our children were in school. One of her cousins was a high school teacher. Public education in Norway was vastly superior to the USA, despite the fact that our children's school was selected as one of the 80 best high schools in the USA, and the principal (headmistress) was invited to dinner with the President.
Still, most Americans believe our political and economic systems are the best in the world. A very effective campaign tactic for the Republican presidential candidate in the recent election was to claim that the Democrat candidate wanted to make the USA more like Europe. One of my close relatives reacted with horror. She is an educated woman who has lived overseas, though it was in the Near East many years ago.
Most Americans of both parties think the USA runs a large government deficit and borrows heavily because government spending is out of control. Total taxation is the USA is 26% of Gross Domestic Product, while in northern Europe it is about 40% of GDP. Northern Europe has lower unemployment and a higher growth rate (except for Norway, where the growth rate is lower, but unemployment is only 4.5%). We have a range of paths to fiscal stability. We could eliminate the deficit entirely by raising taxation to the European level and maintaining government spending at its present rate. We could eliminate the deficit by dismantling Medicare and Medicaid, seriously reducing other government spending, and keeping taxation at the present rate. Or we could do anything in between. Yet when I point this out, most people I talk to are either incredulous, or simply don't understand what I am talking about.
Why is this? you ask.
I have a few ideas, but I remain puzzled. As the son of a military officer my childhood was spent in many parts of the USA and abroad. Unlike most Americans, I have the immigration stamps from more than 50 countries in my passport. I have worked a significant amount of time in Europe. I'm not a typical American, but I'll take a shot at answering your question from my point of view.
America is a huge country, and hugely diverse. It is more culturally and ethnically diverse than Spain or the United Kingdom. But hardly any Americans speak a foreign language except recent immigrants. Relatively few Americans travel outside the USA, and when they do it is most often to another English speaking country, or as members of tour groups who are thus pretty well isolated from foreigners. All over the world you meet young people who are traveling to experience other cultures. Most of these people are Europeans. Few Americans are among them. So, much of the American attitude of superiority stems from a lack of knowledge of other countries and cultures.
A required article of faith among American politicians is "American Exceptionalism". Anyone casting doubt on this belief will lose votes by the tens or hundreds of millions. According to this faith, America is exceptional in its devotion to democracy and personal freedom, and to the "free enterprise system." America is far more religious than Europe. American Exceptionalism extends to a belief that American virtue springs from being specially favored by God. In the minds of many this extends not only to the Constitutional guarantees of individual rights, but to the capitalist economic system as well.
America spends more on the military than the next dozen or so countries combined. Yet cutting military spending is another loser of giant slices of votes.
Much of these attitudes may result from our history as well as from our insularity. We see ourselves as the first to rebel against oligarchy. We see ourselves as the first to establish personal freedoms through the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. We see our conquest of North America still through the lens of Manifest Destiny. Divine Providence, or at least fate backed our land grabs. We see ourselves as winning World War II. The average American is ignorant of the role the Soviet Union played in WW II. The average American is unaware that British Empire troops significantly outnumbered Americans in the D-Day invasion of Europe. Yes, we played a decisive role in the conflict, but you won't see many foreign allies in American WW II movies.
We emerged from WW II as the only industrialized power left standing, and as the Leaders of the Free World. There is enough truth in this to make it a powerful idea. We remade Japan. Not in our own image, as we meant to, but still very different from the militarist imperialist pre-WW II Japan. We helped to set western Europe back on the course of liberal democracy with the Marshall plan of economic assistance.
We won the Cold War against the Evil Empire. Or so we see it. As an active participant in the Cold War, I was aware of the severe internal stresses that weakened the Soviet Union nearly to the point of collapse. I knew D1ck Perle, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy who coined the phrase "The Evil Empire." Of all the U.S. Cold War leaders I knew, Perle was the only one who scared the piss out of me. He feared our allies nearly as much as he did the Soviets. But the public attitude, promulgated by our political leaders, was that we single handedly defeated the Soviets through our superior economy, adherence to freedom and military power. There's a considerable element of truth in this. I'm proud of my small role in the effort. But the Soviet Union played a very considerable role in destroying itself.
We prevented the encroachment of communism in other places--well, except for Vietnam and Cuba--even at the expense in many cases of installing or propping up right wing dictators.
So we see ourselves in a rather heroic light. We must be doing things right. Those other countries we left behind when we came here are doing things wrong. That's why we didn't need to debate basic issues for quite a while.
When I worked on contracts for the British government, an English friend asked, "Why do you bother to have elections at all in America."
My response,"???"
He repled, "Both parties are the same, there's not a pennyworth of difference between them. Why not just alternate and save yourselves the trouble?"
I am reminded of Dorothy Parker's comment about a stage performance by the famous film actress, Katherine Hepburn. "Last night at the Shubert, Miss Hepburn ran the emotional gamut from A to B."
At that time in Britain, major industries like coal, steel and aerospace were nationalized, but Labour's popularity was seriously on the wane.
Now I think there is a serious difference between the parties in the USA. One wants to slightly expand, or at least maintain our partially built welfare state, which originated in the Great Depression. The other party seriously wants to dismantle the whole thing. The political spectrum has shifted far to the right in the USA since my youth, and the electorate is split right down the middle.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 20:25:02
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
Your two posts, entitled "American Freedom," have elicited responses from me and several other Foro members, dformell. I have tried to be succinct in my challenge to your thesis that American workers lack freedom because, according to you, they can be fired summarily, at the will of their employer. My sense is that you are using anecdotal experience and applying it broadly, in a manner that does not withstand serious scrutiny. Others have offered their views on your posts and expanded on their own experiences.
I could address your issues and questions point-by-point and offer reasons why I think you are off the mark on many issues, and I could do it in a lengthy treatise filled with evidence and anecdotes that would require scrolling down to read it, much as his editors must have done with Jack Kerouac's first draft of "On the Road," which was written on a continuous roll of toilet paper. That would accomplish nothing, as it would be me didactically assuming I know your positions and offering my evidence and anecdotes when I haven't even heard much of yours.
I would like to hear your evidence, beyond personally witnessing colleagues fired, supporting your contention that this is done throughout American business. I would also like to hear why you think American workers lack freedom. How do you define freedom?
The questions you posed in your second post concerning U.S. public education, college tuition, single-payer health-care system, energy dependence, and a Manhattan Project for energy, are good questions that, as I have said, are discussed, debated, and argued over all the time. Nothing new there. But you seem to pose them in a way that presumes there is only one correct answer. What are your views on them, and how would they be accomplished? For example, I'm assuming you think we should have a single-payer health-care system. There are some good arguments for and against such a system. Some countries that have implemented such a system have experienced long delays for medical procedures, rationing of care, and other obstacles. I would be interested in your views on why it is a better system, rather than some other changes we might make to ours in order to improve it.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 23:01:17
|
|
Flamencito
Posts: 334
Joined: Oct. 31 2012
From: The Netherlands
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to dformell)
|
|
|
I am flattered by your your response Richard. It's great that you take the time to answer such a hard to answer question...
quote:
I'm not a typical American, but I'll take a shot at answering your question from my point of view.
Luckily I am aware of that :)
I just selected some of the things your mentioned which i found very interesting and give a little interpretation on it.
Following quote is a very interesting one to get along with:
quote:
A required article of faith among American politicians is "American Exceptionalism". Anyone casting doubt on this belief will lose votes by the tens or hundreds of millions. According to this faith, America is exceptional in its devotion to democracy and personal freedom, and to the "free enterprise system."
In this sentence you probably give a quite accurate essence of my main concern...
These values have a wide variety opinion to me.. Let's try to explain:
quote:
devotion to democracy and personal freedom
So far so good...
quote:
and to the "free enterprise system."
NOT to be against this point of view, but there is a big gab in meaning between these aspect. To get a bit philosophical, are these not contradicting each other? Doesn't personal freedom mean that you should be able to 'not believe in the 'free enterprice system'?
And indeed...
quote:
America is far more religious than Europe. American Exceptionalism extends to a belief that American virtue springs from being specially favored by God. In the minds of many this extends not only to the Constitutional guarantees of individual rights, but to the capitalist economic system as well.
Yes..... It seems that you really understood my my question :)
quote:
So, much of the American attitude of superiority stems from a lack of knowledge of other countries and cultures.
This is an interesting one indeed? To me it concerns me... a great topic of debate... It has all to do with personal freedom.. In what way this is an example of that?
quote:
We see ourselves as the first to establish personal freedoms through the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.
When I worked on contracts for the British government, an English friend asked, "Why do you bother to have elections at all in America."
My response,"???"
He repled, "Both parties are the same, there's not a pennyworth of difference between them. Why not just alternate and save yourselves the trouble?"
Now I think there is a serious difference between the parties in the USA.
Is this believe just part of the contrasting summation of 'freedom, free enterprice and religious belief'?
Looking forward to hear more interpretations on the topic
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2012 23:35:50
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Flamencito)
|
|
|
quote:
quote:
devotion to democracy and personal freedom
So far so good...
quote:
and to the "free enterprise system."
NOT to be against this point of view, but there is a big gab in meaning between these aspect. To get a bit philosophical, are these not contradicting each other? Doesn't personal freedom mean that you should be able to 'not believe in the 'free enterprice system'?
Actually, Flamencito, In America personal freedom does indeed mean the freedom not to believe in the free enterprise system. There is no contradiction. That many Americans believe in both personal freedom and the free enterprise system does not mean that all Americans believe equally in both. There are Americans who believe in socialism, and there is still a Communist Party in America, although it is very small and insignificant. But they are as free to believe in their political/economic philosophies as those who believe in the free enterprise system. No one in America is oppressed or imprisoned for having beliefs that do not go along with the predominant belief in free enterprise. The Communists, socialists, and other fringe movements may not get elected to office in most cases, but that is because the voters have the personal freedom to vote for their opponents if they so desire. In summary, Americans have the personal freedom to believe in pretty much anything they want, but they do not have a right to expect a predetermined outcome that favors their position.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 29 2012 1:08:15
|
|
Flamencito
Posts: 334
Joined: Oct. 31 2012
From: The Netherlands
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
thanks for your response Bill...
quote:
That many Americans believe in both personal freedom and the free enterprise system does not mean that all Americans believe equally in both.
I am for sure very aware of that.. otherwise posting my reply would be quite useless..
From my point of view though, i see a clear difference of opinion between our cultures, which i think is interesting to discuss..
For example, in The Netherlands we don't have this big group in society who have these specific beliefs combined.. We have other relations that make no sense... But to get an idea... we vote between quite some parties that have actual potential to govern within a coalition of parties:
- A party for freedom democracy and free market
- A party for freedom democracy free market and christian interpretation
- A party for freedom decocracy, free market and social regulation
- A party for freedom democracy, market with social control, but focus on free market
- A party for freedom democracy, market based on the more real socialistic points of view
- A party for freedom democracy, nationalism (close to extreme right)
these are quite equally spreaded... Which make me think... what would be the situation if there would be only two parties? Could that be better? if yes, why?
I do understand that we have very different countries though, but that's what makes it instesting i think :)
Cheers,
Rogier
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 29 2012 1:53:16
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Since you ask my opinion flamencito, I will say that I agree with Bill Barkell. You are free to believe in just about anything.
You are not free to attempt to overthrow the US Government by force or violence, but in theory at least, you are free to believe it should be done. However, to advocate it would be against the law, and would subject you to criminal penalties.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
But a politician attacking the "free enterprise system"--or the Christian religion for that matter--would be very unpopular in America. I wasn't talking about what you are, or are not free to to believe. I was talking about what I think most people in America believe.
But let me reemphasize the great diversity of America. Although the great majority of people in America may believe a particular thing, there are likely to be plenty of people who don't. There are lots of socialists, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims in the USA. But politically they are relatively small minorities.
American attitudes change. In the recent election, some states legalized gay marriage. Two states voted to legalize and regulate the recreational use of marijuana, despite federal laws imposing strong penalties for the same. Either result would have been unthinkable anywhere in the country during my youth 50 years ago. Either result would be unthinkable in many American states right now. America is diverse.
Fifteen percent of the people in my fairly affluent neighborhood in Austin are Asian immigrants. They have top paying jobs in high tech industry, or are professionals like my doctor. Their children contribute to the high academic achievement of our schools. These people are here because they would rather be in Texas than in India, Pakistan,Taiwan or Singapore.
Twenty-five years ago I lived half the time in Silicon Valley. There was a big wave of immigration from Hong Kong due to its impending turnover from British rule to the government of mainland China. People shopping for houses complained of people showing up in a Mercedes with 5-year old kids, paying more than the asking price in cash for houses in my well off neighborhood.
Thirty-five year ago I lived in an Austin neighborhood of similar economic standing. Every single person I knew there was born and raised in Texas. I think there were two black kids in my children's high school. Both were sports stars and academic standouts. I don't remember any Asians at all.
Things change in America, sometimes rapidly.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 29 2012 2:27:06
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Flamencito)
|
|
|
As to the existence of the two-party system in America, political scientists attribute it to the winner-take-all electoral system here. To get a seat in a legislature you have to get more than half the vote. If you get 50.0001% you get all the political power that resides in that voting district, the other 49.9999% of voters get none. So to get any power at all you have to have a continuing program and an organization that will often enough attract more than half the vote. Any party that can't come close is not viable. There's not room for more than two parties in this setup, or so the political scientists say. Seems plausible to me. Note that the physical scientist in me won't go any further than "plausible". The United Kingdom has winner-take-all constituencies, but three viable parties at present.
The framers of the Constitution did not belong to political parties. In effect parties didn't exist in America at the time. Their views on some subjects were diverse. They arrived at compromises. Many expressed the hope that the evils they viewed as arising from the party system in the United Kingdom would not be visited upon the new republic. In this their idealism led them astray--though not very far astray. Had the proportional system now used in Europe even come into existence anywhere in 1789? If so, I'm not aware of it.
As soon as the third presidential election came around there were two strong parties which dominated the political landscape. They had originated in the policy disputes between two leading members of Washington's cabinet, Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson was one of the candidates to succeed Washington. Adams, Washington's vice-president, was supported by the Hamiltonian faction. The unanimous vote of the electoral college accorded twice to Washington was never again awarded to any successor. America's vituperative and intemperate style of political rhetoric sprang into full bloom. We have had a two-party system ever since. Third parties have arisen from time to time, but have faded quickly.
During my adult life our two-party system used to produce compromise when the electorate's votes were closely divided, or it produced lopsided victories when the people were strongly in favor of one party over the other. During my great-grandfather's lifetime it produced a destructive and bloody war over slavery. Recently it has produced gridlock on many important issues.
The bulk of Americans don't seem to see much wrong with the idea of the two-party system. They take sides more enthusiastically than they do even for the World Series or the Super Bowl. But they're severely dissatisfied with how it has operated lately.
In Europe the proportional representation system makes more parties viable. If you only have to get a relatively small fraction of the vote to get a seat in the legislature, parties representing fairly small fractions of the electorate can be viable indefinitely. And they can grow from a small party to a sizable plurality as the Greens have in Germany.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 29 2012 4:37:42
|
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
In summary, Americans have the personal freedom to believe in pretty much anything they want, but they do not have a right to expect a predetermined outcome that favors their position.
That is what i think is the essence of freedom in a state, and why freedom is practically useless. In democratic states you have (in certain limits though) the right to express an opinion, but only if you give up any practical relevance of it. This reduces all the talking and discussing in democratic regimes to mere babbling, and thats why political talkshows are so annoying. The initial motivation for people to have any opinion on society was to improve something in society (it can be any idea literally: more/less healthcare, more/less kindergardens, overthrowing the state LOL). Now they get told whether its considered an improvement or not will not be decided by them, but by the state. The idea that you could have an idea that contradicts the rules or goals of the state and simply "vote" for people to make these ideas practically come true is nuts. Even if a large percent of the population would favor that idea. Democratic states, just like other states, have been known to have a comprehensive set of tools, to render such ideas useless. They reach from values like freedom, which offer an ideally compensation, which seems to attract many people, over not permitting demonstrations or beating them down to executing the people who have such ideas. Latter is not so favorable because you cant kill all your population. People who offend the states rules are very insignificant and not executed right now, but this is only because they are insignificant. This is what it means being ruled upon.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 29 2012 8:56:12
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.1757813 secs.
|
Printable Version
