Ireland: Boston or Berlin or somewhere in between?

PH01

Where do you think Ireland is heading.
We said Yes to Nice (Berlin), and now we're giving the US/UK support for the War (Boston). But I bet that our Government will want to stay friendly Franco German alliance (Berlin).
Should we continue to sit on the fence, burning the candle at both ends? Or should be choose one?

birdbath

any day

Chaos-Engine

Ireland can't be held by FF's reluctance to act.
WE NEED TO ALIGN OURSELFS FIRMLY TO THE EU

I voted no to Nice on both occasions but hell I want Ireland deeper in the EU than it is today
We need a Single Common Foreign Policy and an EU representitive for all the EU states on Foreign policy (i.e. external EU relations soley under the EU). Death to Cowen!!

If we are anyway Anti-US or even just against their view from time to time we will not lose US investers. They think about money. Not what we think of the US.
AS long as we are better and cheaper they will stay in Ireland
(mind you we are shiit at that these days)

Once the Us multi-nationals fold BECAUSE our economy is over-inflated, wages too demanding, cost-push inflation ppl will become alot more open about their dislike for the US. Politics aren't the true interest of investers. Just profit...
:rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
We need a Single Common Foreign Policy and an EU representitive for all the EU states on Foreign policy (i.e. external EU relations soley under the EU).

Just as a matter of interest...

were this to happen, would you also agree that the EU should hold a single seat on the UN Security Council, instead of the two that its member-nations hold at present?

Similarly, would you agree that NATO representation should be reduced to a single member, with a single vote?

I'm not looking for a fight...its something I've been thinking about, and I'm not entirely decided which way I think it would/should go.

jc

regi

were this to happen, would you also agree that the EU should hold a single seat on the UN Security Council, instead of the two that its member-nations hold at present?

Well, there's currently 4 EU members on the security council (uk, france, german and spain) with them split evenly down the middle on this matter. In fact, you'll nearly always have three EU members on the council from the two permanent and the one that's drawn from western europe, so it could be diluted further.

However, I really can't see the UK even considering joining a single EU foreign policy body.

mike65

Half the votes say Berlin - surely wishful thinking...Ireland is everyones friend depending on the way the wind is blowing, thats the lot of small nations.

The day there is a coherent EU foreign policy is many years away, neither France or UK will easily give
up thier perminant vote on the security council.

Imagine the curent impass, as the EU tries find a common position so they knew which way to vote on the Security Council...they'd never manage. How would Ireland vote I wonder?

Mike.

Lalaland

Boston economics all the way. Mainland Europe retains a pathetic attachment to the socialist economy that spells recession for every nation in it. Germany's unemployment is pushing 10% and France ain't far off. Both nations are due for social security bankruptcy in ten years or less but both are paralysed by strong trade unions who resist change like a hedgehog-in-the-headlights.

As for foreign policy sods to the lot of them. the nation state is the one forum where you might be heard and the EU super state is a horrible idea. Think about it does any of us even know what our representatives in the EU parliment voted on last week? Brussels and Strasbourg have the most lucrative lobbying industries in Europe at the moment and I for one have no idea what these people are voting on and no hope of influencing them.

Boston for economics and us for the rest.

Chaos-Engine

lalaland...
I don't have the link to hand but this morning a report was published sighting how Ireland has the lowest investment in social provisions in the entire EU as a % of GDP..

the Average was 27.xx%

Ireland had 13.7% and the highest was Sweden, Germany and France with Sweden up at 30%...

The Boston model doesn't work in the EU as even in Ireland we belief in a welfare state.
I'm sorry but no matter what FF do and say Irish ppl won't stand for paying uber high VHI just to get seen in a hospital...

Solution: "Increase Taxation"

Its tough but neccessary

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine

The Boston model doesn't work in the EU as even in Ireland we belief in a welfare state.
I'm sorry but no matter what FF do and say Irish ppl won't stand for paying uber high VHI just to get seen in a hospital...

Solution: "Increase Taxation"

Its tough but neccessary

What's the point in increasing taxation if nothing is going to be done to tackle the massive waste and incompetence in the public sector?

Lalaland

When was Boston used in Europe?
Post-War Europe is a map of socialist policy. I've pointed out that France and Germany just can't afford their social spending (and most of it is wasted on inflated public sector wages anyway). As for Sweden it's oil wealth has bank rolled social spending for years but even they are changing tack to force those who just don't want to work back to work. Berlin's social policy is wasteful and doesn't work, health care isn't free and never will be. If you can affford to pay you should and the threshold has to be very low.

Cork

We are closer to Boston.

Look at our taxation policies and where we try and attract industry from.

I think , as a country - we were never close to Berlin.

Sand

Boston economically obviously. When youve got a choice between 10% unemployment, high taxation and the pleasure of knowing your hard work is paying for twats who never did a tap of work in their life and a economic philosophy that delivers the highest standard of living whilst encouraging self improvement and iniative its easy to me:|

Politically, prefer to be closer to Berlin - but it depends on what model is used - the French dream for Europe is terrifying, the German one of a federal europe is far more preferable. Given the wide divisions on so many issues it will be difficult to presenta common voice whilst not drowning out "regional" opinions. The federal model at least addresses that.

ppl will become alot more open about their dislike for the US.

LOL- careful there sonny, anti americanism doesnt really exist:)

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
a economic philosophy that delivers the highest standard of living

Yes, the most successful people in the world are American, and they do have the highest standard of living.

But what about the highest average standard across the nation? Havent seen the US top any charts on this, ever.

Then again, the last time we discussed one of those charts, I seem to recall your position being that anything which didnt put the US in top spot was simply not using realistic parameters.

jc

aine

unfortunately we are everybody's friend, I swear Im starting to think that this country is wothout any sort of back bone!!

PH01

Originally posted by aine
unfortunately we are everybody's friend, I swear Im starting to think that this country is wothout any sort of back bone!!

Does a Neutral 'We're Everybody'd Friend' nation need a back-bone? And if a NWEF had one, why should we use it? Haven't we come pretty far without one and have done OK?

Sand

Yes, the most successful people in the world are American, and they do have the highest standard of living.

But what about the highest average standard across the nation? Havent seen the US top any charts on this, ever.

I dont see it as a weakness that a system encourages self improvement through education and hard work, rewarding those who do with a higher standard of living whilst punishing those who dont with a lower standard of living. Id regard it as a strenth actually, as it tends to cut down on the 10% unemployment problem. Thats just my personal view.

Then again, the last time we discussed one of those charts, I seem to recall your position being that anything which didnt put the US in top spot was simply not using realistic parameters.

Hmmm, I dont recall that one tbh. I do remember something about a speech by Kennedy and the value of GDP as a measure of standards of living. Is that what youre talking about? In either case, given the tone of your post there your summarisation of my position doesnt sound too accurate or fair:)

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I dont see it as a weakness that a system encourages self improvement through education and hard work, rewarding those who do with a higher standard of living whilst punishing those who dont with a lower standard of living. Id regard it as a strenth actually, as it tends to cut down on the 10% unemployment problem.

Makes me wonder what you make of the unemployment rate among black people in the US, which is running at 11.5% at the moment, compared to 6% for the population as a whole. By your logic I suppose they just don't work hard enough. The alternative is that the US has a deeply flawed socioeconomic system, but that's obviously just silly.

I dunno, though. Something tells me that a country more unequal than any other developed country (oh and Cambodia, China, Ethopia, India, Jamaica and more) and with more poverty and a lower life expectancy than the vast majority of them is not really the model to follow. But maybe the idea of a place where the richest 0.01% receive more than 3% of ALL income appeals to you. Those people must be incredibly hard-working. As I say, either that or it's a system where the rewards are hugely skewed towards the rich, the opposite of a fair economy which rewards hard work.

Sand

Makes me wonder what you make of the unemployment rate among black people in the US, which is running at 11.5% at the moment, compared to 6% for the population as a whole. By your logic I suppose they just don't work hard enough. The alternative is that the US has a deeply flawed socioeconomic system, but that's obviously just silly.

LOL- Racism/socieconomic systems are hardly a US problem. Theyre a multicultural problem. Unless youre going to argue the Europeans have racial harmony and togetherness cracked under their quasi-socialism?:D

As for african-americans they tend to be over represented in lower income brackets, to be in my opinion badly served by welfare progrmas and plans which reckon that simply throwing more money at the problem will fix it. Theres nothing stopping any african-american or indeed any other immigrant/ethnic minority making their way in a capitalist system. Bussinessmen only care about your edcuation and your experience when theyre hiring -otherwise theyll lose profits. Its no surprise that ethnic minorities or indeed any social group that traditionally places a high value on education do best

As I say, either that or it's a system where the rewards are hugely skewed towards the rich, the opposite of a fair economy which rewards hard work.

Doesnt the system do exactly that? Dont try to work hard in school- dont be surprised when youre serving at McDonalds. Do a crummy degree with no real applications? - Dont be surprised when youre not getting the best jobs. Dont work hard in your job? - dont be surprised youre not getting those pay rises. The system also rewards investors - investment is the lifeblood of an economy, paying for the new factories and companies that create the new jobs, a lot of the US markets run away success in the "new economy" was foreign investors looking to buy in to the US companies success.

shotamoose

You seem to be offering at least three different explanations for the gap I noted between the national unemployment level and that among black people.

Firstly, it's "a multicultural problem", whatever that means, but hey the 'quasi-socialists' in Europe are no better so why bother thinking about it?

Or the second option - it's too generous a welfare system. Is that because individual black people get more welfare payments than individual white people in America? Or is it that black people are proportionately more likely to receive welfare payments, which is simply restating what I said in the first place? And following which logic, it's unemployment benefit that causes unemployment. Which is just silly, as anyone, especially any economist, can see.

The third try you have at the problem is that "Its no surprise that ethnic minorities or indeed any social group that traditionally places a high value on education do best". That may be no surprise to someone who already believes it, but I'd like some proof before not being surprised by it. Just what is it about, say, black people that they don't "place a high value on education?". And does placing a high value on education only help an ethnic group when they're a "minority"? Cos I don't know of any ethnic group that has been consistently good at getting and keeping employment no matter where and when they find themselves.

Once again you're trying to divert criticism of a social phenomenon in one country by showing that it happens elsewhere. Well, I never denied that there are similar discrepencies in Europe or elsewhere - I was responding directly to your heaping praise on the US economic system for its fairness to all. I'd like to know exactly how you can be so sure that people who get the jobs and the pay rises in the US are working harder, because something tells me that you just assume they must be because they're paid more.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
I'd like to know exactly how you can be so sure that people who get the jobs and the pay rises in the US are working harder,

I's also like to know how Sand's superior scheme is designed to support those who have worked hard but who cannot find a qualified job (witness the failure of the IT industry in the last two years, and the slew of unemployed that has created). These people - who either remain unemployed or sometimes working at McDonalds - get classed in with those who were lazy at school...its their own fault for not having a job, so they deserve no better.

Nor do those who may not be so intellectually advanced, or who have come from a deprived background. It doesnt matter if yer poppy is a drunk good-fer-nothin layabout. All you have to do while supporting your brothers and sisters at the age of 16 is work harder at that school you go to and hey....everything will be fine.

Sand - the US system might be the best in a Utopian world, but it simply is not the most appropriate fit to the reality we live in, as not everyone fits along a nice linear scale which says the harder you work, the more you get.

Sand

Once again you're trying to divert criticism of a social phenomenon in one country by showing that it happens elsewhere. Well, I never denied that there are similar discrepencies in Europe or elsewhere

Good- then youll accept that unusual patterns in emploment rates between ethnic groups are not specific to any particular economic philosophy - bar nazism of course which is a socialist model - So im wondering what youre reasoing was to criticise the "boston" model based on its unusual patterns when the "berlin" model is just as guilty?

And following which logic, it's unemployment benefit that causes unemployment. Which is just silly, as anyone, especially any economist, can see

Well having a bit of an interest in economics i learned about something called reserve wage - this is the wage that any particular requires before they accept a job. The higher your social welfare, the higher your reserve wage - in simple terms if you get 150 dollars a week for picking your nose you arent going to accept 140 to sweep streets - hell you arent likely to accept 180 or even 200 either given the fact youre effectively getting paid 50 dollars to give up 40 hours a week doing crappy work....and thats even if youre not working nixers. So yeah, high social benefits increase unemployment - which isnt silly as any economist, or indeed any person with some commonsense, will tell you.

I'd like to know exactly how you can be so sure that people who get the jobs and the pay rises in the US are working harder,

Quite simply because - And im sure all those cynical rent-a-protest students will agree with me - corporations are motivated purely by greed/profit. If youve got the education and experience to do the job then they will hire you whether youre cuban/jamiacan/asian/saudi or where-ever the hell youre from. At the end of the day youre just another name on the payroll maing them money. If they fail to hire the best people for the job theyre basically cutting themselves off from a pool of talent and that is not a profitable course of action. Sure, maybe Daddy will get his boy a job on the board but they are the exceptions - even from the fact theyre born into wealth to begin with.

I's also like to know how Sand's superior scheme is designed to support those who have worked hard but who cannot find a qualified job (witness the failure of the IT industry in the last two years, and the slew of unemployed that has created).

you can work hard for a degree in anceint greek but there isnt much marketability for it. I knew a fellah who worked hard for an English masters and spent 5 years as a damn librarian before h found a decent job. For IT graduates the gravy train pulled out before they got there - sure theyve got a practical degree, theyve no exscuse not to find a job - where Im working now a degree ( yes, even those arts toliet papers ) will get you an interview, though of course finance/bussiness is preferable- once youve got that its up to you to sell yourself. Personally I picked the course I wanted to do not because I loved the idea of doing T- accounts but because I reckoned it was a broadbased degree which would allow me to go for a lot of jobs with confidence. /me shrugs ..... Did i make the better choice perhaps? Do I then deserve the better job or indeed a job at all?

All you have to do while supporting your brothers and sisters at the age of 16 is work harder at that school you go to and hey....everything will be fine.

Ummm, my family life is *far* from the white picket fence idyllic existence - not as bad as some Ill readily admit but Ill definitly argue that yes, if youre willing to make sacrifices there is nothing to stop you getting a good leaving cert, and nothing to stop you getting a decent degree, and nothing stopping you getting a decent job.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Good- then youll accept that unusual patterns in emploment rates between ethnic groups are not specific to any particular economic philosophy - bar nazism of course which is a socialist model - So im wondering what youre reasoing was to criticise the "boston" model based on its unusual patterns when the "berlin" model is just as guilty?

Did you not argue that the existence of other dictators in no way meant that we should excuse the actions of Hussein, and that action against him was therefore fundamentally right?

Are you not now arguing with the opposite logic - that the existence of this problem in other areas means that it is not something that the US is "guilty" of, or should be criticised for?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

Once again you're trying to divert criticism of a social phenomenon in one country by showing that it happens elsewhere. Well, I never denied that there are similar discrepencies in Europe or elsewhere

Good- then youll accept that unusual patterns in emploment rates between ethnic groups are not specific to any particular economic philosophy - bar nazism of course which is a socialist model - So im wondering what youre reasoing was to criticise the "boston" model based on its unusual patterns when the "berlin" model is just as guilty?

You're actually proving my point for me. It was you who claimed that the US economic system was fair in that it rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy. I asked how this accounted for the disparity between national unemployment and black unemployment. You weren't able to provide a satisfactory answer and tried to cover up by saying that similar patterns exist in Europe. Which is exactly the point - the US system you claim to be the fairest of all is nothing of the sort, because it comprehensively fails to overcome the social inequalities that all societies experience in one way or another, and in some cases exacerbates them.

My point is that you can't account for the disparity I mentioned, and the continued (and deepening) poverty in certain areas or demographic groups in America within your framework of a rational system that allocates rewards based on hard work. This is because this framework has no basis in reality. It might work in a perfect world, but we haven't got one. The one we live in has imperfect markets, social exclusion, unequal access to resources and other unpleasant realities that governments have to deal with. It's also a world in which people with wealth or power can use that wealth and power to procure themselves more, whether it be corporate boards awarding each other hefty pay rises and bonuses while the company goes down the tube, or big companies buying other big companies and dominating markets, squeezing out smaller competitors and the leaning on the producers who supply them. These and other social realities mean that fair outcomes require extensive government intervention, not the budget-slashing scheme that punish the poor that some in the US seem to favour.

And following which logic, it's unemployment benefit that causes unemployment. Which is just silly, as anyone, especially any economist, can see

Well having a bit of an interest in economics i learned about something called reserve wage - this is the wage that any particular requires before they accept a job. The higher your social welfare, the higher your reserve wage - in simple terms if you get 150 dollars a week for picking your nose you arent going to accept 140 to sweep streets - hell you arent likely to accept 180 or even 200 either given the fact youre effectively getting paid 50 dollars to give up 40 hours a week doing crappy work....and thats even if youre not working nixers. So yeah, high social benefits increase unemployment - which isnt silly as any economist, or indeed any person with some commonsense, will tell you.

I'm sorry, I should have said any good economist. Because while the reserve wage theory makes for a pretty graph and a good argument for people who like to kick the poor, it's far less important in explaining unemployment than wider economic issues like, y'know, the job situation or the strength of the economy. When there are jobs available, people will tend to take them so that they can provide for themselves and any dependents, and have some security and prospect of advancement. What the reserve wage theory does illustrate is the need for unemployment supports that allow people to look after basic needs, and a minimum wage so that employers are not able to take advantage of poverty or inadequate benefits by paying crappy wages and getting away with it.

Sand

Are you not now arguing with the opposite logic - that the existence of this problem in other areas means that it is not something that the US is "guilty" of, or should be criticised for?

No, Im arguing that you cant attack *one* system ( Boston ) in particular on vague grounds and use that to prove/imply its somehow fails then to surpass the Berlin model - when the grounds youre attacking it on arent unique to either system. BOTH need to try and figure out why those patterns exist and solve them, you cant simply critice ONE and ignore the other.

It was you who claimed that the US economic system was fair in that it rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy. I asked how this accounted for the disparity between national unemployment and black unemployment. You weren't able to provide a satisfactory answer and tried to cover up by saying that similar patterns exist in Europe.

And yet can you explain then why arent all african americans unable to get good jobs, or unable to rise to political power ( Powell and Rice ). It must be that some work harder than others? Where are these unusual patterns located? In lower income urban areas where crime is prevalent, where a lot of the areas income comes from Government cheques? Where democrats gain a large amount of votes because they promise to send more money in government cheques? Is that a culture that encourages hard work or merely going to your representitve and lobbying for more social welfare increases? You might as well ask about the disparities between Ballymun unemployment and Templelogues. Dope any area up with free cash to remove the need to work and watch it go down the tubes. Hell, theyve even got a leadership so fresh out of ideas that they say "dont worry about it. The system is against us. No need to bother cause its someone else fault. Sue!!!"

Theres nothing stopping anyone rising to be whatever they want through education and hard work. Nothing. And under the boston system less of the hard workers earnings get diverted to increase the reserve wage of the non- hard workers so they dont have to look for work - or hold out for that "management position".

I'm sorry, I should have said any good economist.

No you should say what you mean and say any "left leaning/whoever agress with you" economist.

When there are jobs available, people will tend to take them so that they can provide for themselves and any dependents,

Depending on whether its worth their while---Reserve wage?

it's far less important in explaining unemployment than wider economic issues like, y'know, the job situation or the strength of the economy.

/me slaps head. Doh! How could I have forgotten that when talking about the relationship between high social welfare an unemployment which you dismissed.

Seeing as youre a good economist can you explain why rain or shine, economic boom or decline France and Germanys unemployment rates are shockingly high? Without mentioning reserve wage and social benefits though - cause we all know theyve nothing to do with unemployment as any good economist will tell you.

and have some security and prospect of advancement.

Hmmm, no job is secure - even CIE are learning this after years of their staff giving a crappy service. And as for advancement - well yeah, Id agree a job would do that but you wouldnt. I mean , what if their black? Dont they have unusually high rates of unempolyment/low income. Theyve no chance of advancing themselves then by hard work and education?

What the reserve wage theory does illustrate is the need for unemployment supports that allow people to look after basic needs,

LOL- Yeah, what it doesnt illustrate of course that the higher your reserve wage is the less likely you are to accept any given job and so the higher unemployment will be. No Sir-ree jimminy bob.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
No, Im arguing that you cant attack *one* system ( Boston ) in particular on vague grounds and use that to prove/imply its somehow fails then to surpass the Berlin model - when the grounds youre attacking it on arent unique to either system. BOTH need to try and figure out why those patterns exist and solve them, you cant simply critice ONE and ignore the other.

Ye gods. I wasn't ignoring anything, because I was specifically criticising YOUR contention that the US system was the best BECAUSE it is so amazingly fair that the only criterion of success or failure is how hard someone works. This is a patently absurd proposition when you look at the real details, such as continuing poverty, unemployment and exclusion in certain areas and among certain demographic groups.

And yet can you explain then why arent all african americans unable to get good jobs, or unable to rise to political power ( Powell and Rice ).

I don't have to, because I'm not the one claiming to have the secret of success, the ONE thing that explains how well a person does in life. If I had to answer the question, I would start by suggesting that, um, maybe it's quite a complex phenomenon with lots of factors feeding in, one of which is certainly hard work and another of which is blind luck. Powell supports Affirmative Action, incidentally.

Where are these unusual patterns located? In lower income urban areas where crime is prevalent, where a lot of the areas income comes from Government cheques? Where democrats gain a large amount of votes because they promise to send more money in government cheques?

So I guess unemployment must have soared during the eight years a Democrat was the President in the US? Wrong. It dropped from about 7.5% in 1992 to about 4% in 2000. And since Bush got into power its gone right back up again.

Not that I'm saying that it was simply the Democrats attitude to welfare that caused the drop. That would be silly. It was probably a lot more complicated than that.

Seeing as youre a good economist can you explain why rain or shine, economic boom or decline France and Germanys unemployment rates are shockingly high? Without mentioning reserve wage and social benefits though - cause we all know theyve nothing to do with unemployment as any good economist will tell you.

Again, I'm not the one with the monocausal explanation for unemployment. And unemployment is higher in Spain than in France or Germany, though for some reason you're not quite so keen to highlight that.

And as for advancement - well yeah, Id agree a job would do that but you wouldnt. I mean , what if their black? Dont they have unusually high rates of unempolyment/low income. Theyve no chance of advancing themselves then by hard work and education?

Oh dear. Please stop trying to misrepresent me. My point is that different people face a different mix of opportunities and obstacles, that your level playing field doesn't exist and that it's more dangerous to pretend that it does than to ignore the realities. It's a fairly simple argument, actually, but it doesn't try to dodge complexity.

Sand

YOUR contention that the US system was the best BECAUSE it is so amazingly fair that the only criterion of success or failure is how hard someone works.

My contention was that the "boston" model encourages hard work and improvement. And it does. A lower tax regime encourages people to work more and harder because they enjoy more benefit from it. The "Berlin" model doesnt encourage this, it argues for a higher tax regime to redistribute in a socially responsible manner and in so doing does not encourage hard work or self improvement. And indeed it seems to have little effect on the patterns you note amongst ethnic groups despite apparently sacrificing the rights of hard workers to keep what they earned in favour of the rights of others.

Youll have to look hard to see where I said hard work/education was the only criterion to success because I never said that. If thats why youve been rabbiting on about rather strange unemploment rates then youve been barking up the wrong tree.

This is a patently absurd proposition when you look at the real details, such as continuing poverty, unemployment and exclusion in certain areas and among certain demographic groups.

Even more absurd would be the Berlin models apparent aim to help out the poorest members of society, to promote equality through social spending - and yet these patterns exist under the Berlin model just as bad if not worse. At least the Boston model achieves what it attempts to do by encouraging hard work and self improvement to create wealth rather than beg for it.

I don't have to, because I'm not the one claiming to have the secret of success,

Youre claiming/implying that hard work and education philosophies do not apply to african americans. That educations and hardwork is not "enough" for certain demographic groups. And yet they rise to positions of prominence and wealth. No wonder youre not interested in explainging it.

So I guess unemployment must have soared during the eight years a Democrat was the President in the US? Wrong. It dropped from about 7.5% in 1992 to about 4% in 2000. And since Bush got into power its gone right back up again.

Good Ol Bill was riding on the back of an economy coming out of recession in the early 90s, the economy began its decline under good old Bill prior to the elections ( reviving the economy was a camapaign issue hence Bushes tax cut stimulus package ). Can we blame Bill for messing up the US economy as well then seeing as were giving him credit for it also?

Again, I'm not the one with the monocausal explanation for unemployment. And unemployment is higher in Spain than in France or Germany, though for some reason you're not quite so keen to highlight that.

Exactly why I was asking you to explain the problem without reference to my "monocausal" explanation. Seemingly you cant so well have to agree the reserve wage inflates the unemployment rate. Cheers.

BTW Spain was never the huge industrial powerhouses the French and Germans were, being historically an agrarian economy, ripped apart by a rather brutal civil war and being ruled by a less than pleasant dictator whilst the French and Germans were enjoying the benefits of American "bully boy tactics" i.e. Marshall Plan. The French /Germans unemployment rate is always high regardless of economic conditions. I guess it must be because of the rain, keeps them all indoors away from their offices or soemthing. Nothing to do with their reserve wage.

Oh dear. Please stop trying to misrepresent me. My point is that different people face a different mix of opportunities and obstacles, that your level playing field doesn't exist and that it's more dangerous to pretend that it does than to ignore the realities.

Why not, youre happy to misrepresent me?:D

My point is that people face different mixes of opportunities regardless of model - but that the Boston model gives a hard working, educated person - regardless of their particualr "social category" the best chance to advance themselves and that is a worthy achievement and a strong argument in favour of the Boston system over the Berlin system which fails to do so.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
My contention was that the "boston" model encourages hard work and improvement. And it does. A lower tax regime encourages people to work more and harder because they enjoy more benefit from it. The "Berlin" model doesnt encourage this, it argues for a higher tax regime to redistribute in a socially responsible manner and in so doing does not encourage hard work or self improvement.

Alternately, one could argue that the Berlin model takes into account the existence of problems such as racial equality, etc. etc. , and attempts to offer some degree of reperation to those, by treading a more socially responsible path.

Thus, the Berlin model at least attempts to blunt the impact of these problems which you state affect everyone. The US model does not - as you have yourself admitted - it is more about "the harder you work, the better off you are, and if you're one of the disadvantaged, then tough noogies, this doesnt apply to you, but who cares".

Personally, I still think you arent making any sort of a case to show that the US system is in any way better, unless you mean "better for the better off individual" as opposed to "better for society".

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I dont see it as a weakness that a system encourages self improvement through education and hard work, rewarding those who do with a higher standard of living whilst punishing those who dont with a lower standard of living.

Youll have to look hard to see where I said hard work/education was the only criterion to success because I never said that.

Hmmm.

Still, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your revised position, which is that there's more to the explanation of socioeconomic success than education and hard work.

This, of course, is what I was arguing. Further confirmation that you agree with me comes when you account for the fall in unemployment under Clinton by pointing to the strength of the economy during his tenure. Quite right, too, and it means that the rate of unemployment was most significantly affected - determined, even - by the overall strength of the economy. Which, again, is what I was arguing.

By analogy, Germany's present high level of unemployment can be at least mostly explained by the fact that its economy hasn't grown much in the past few years. And anyway, Germany's unemployment rate has not 'always' been high, in fact during the early 90s it was lower than the US's. So the reserve wage theory is nowhere near adequate in explaining unemployment either in the past or in the future.

Youre claiming/implying that hard work and education philosophies do not apply to african americans

Either you can't read or you chose to ignore that I said that hard work is 'certainly' a factor in how well someone does in life in the US. Though maybe I spoke to soon, cos there's at least one prominent example of someone who has risen to the top despite in spite of what seems to be a complete absence of hard work - the President. Bush got to where he is now through a combination of the priveleges of birth (he got into Yale because his dad was there before him) insider trading and corruption.

Even more absurd would be the Berlin models apparent aim to help out the poorest members of society, to promote equality through social spending - and yet these patterns exist under the Berlin model just as bad if not worse.

Actually, poverty is more extensive in the US, with 14% of the population living on less than $11 a day, compared with 7% in Germany. Maybe 14% of the US just don't work hard, but if so that doesn't say much for its wonderful incentive system.

While we're on the subject, I recently read in the NY Times that in the US "1 percent of families receive about 16 percent of total pretax income, and have about 14 percent of after-tax income. That share has roughly doubled over the past 30 years, and is now about as large as the share of the bottom 40 percent of the population". Tell me, did the richest 1% of America just increase their workrate twice as fast as everyone else? Do those 25,000 work as hard as 100 million other Americans put together? Or was the explosion in their wealth more to do with the culture of huge corporate bonuses, itself dependent on an overvalued and oversold share market?

Another example of structural poverty in the US is that, according to the US Agriculture Department, three million children "experience actual hunger resulting from economic causes".

Which brings us on to education. I was interested to see you putting so much emphasis on the importance of education, as access to quality education is not exactly spread equally around the US. As well as those three million hungry children, there's about ten million more who are not adequatly nourished, and it's well known that malnourished children tend to perform less well at cognitive tasks and thus at school. But it's probably their fault for not having wealthier parents.

What's more, a higher proportion of people graduate from secondary (high) school in Germany than in the US, and a higher proportion graduate from third level education too. Also, in the US 20% of the working population is functionally illiterate - less than in Ireland or the UK but more than in Germany or Sweden (couldn't find data for France). So the Germans seem to be better at providing access to education to the whole population.

The point of all this is not to prove that the US is a terrible place or that other countries don't have worse problems. The point is that your faith in the Boston model as the best means of allocating resources according to effort and skill seems entirely misplaced, because the system not only cannot cope with social inequalities but arguably reinforces them, since the wealthy have disproportionate access to the tax dodges, corporate bonuses and political influcence that keep them wealthy while the poor have less access to the high quality educational resources that are so vital for self-advancement. The education system in the US clearly needs significantly more investment if its to help create the fair system you want, but instead Bush spent his way into power and is now running record budget deficits while pushing a tax cut that will overwhelmingly benefit the rich while probably having neglible effects on growth.

Acknowledging socioeconomic disadvantages does not condemn people to a life of disadvantage, it is the first step to doing something about it. Refusing to even see it, though, genuinely does abandon them to what should not be their fate. If you sincerely believe that social policy has no role to play in ironing out the disadvantages with which some people begin life, then you are in direct disagreemen with just about evey postwar government in the world.

[edited to correct spelling of 'functionally illiterate' :rolleyes: ]

Von

Nice try Shotamoose but the american model gave us The Onion.