Dream on America: World Increasingly Rejecting US Model

[Hueij]

BTW most industrial privitizations are a good idea...

You want a list of all the privatisations that got horribly wrong over here? If only our politicians had the guts to turn them back

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
This happened again in the Phillippines and

snip

None of this has anything to do with the US. It's only American hubris that makes them believe so.

In fact US election monitoring, and withdrawl of support for Marcos played a substantial role in the Phillipines.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
LOTM - cause we think other free states that cooperate to support freedom. Of course Venezuala can trade with Cuba if it pleases, and join with Castro in blaming all the regions problems on the US, but it would be odd to expect the US to like that.

The US in essence looked the other way at an undemocratic coup vs. Chavez. Things with him go beyond "not liking".

LOTM - precisely - those are below the raider screen.

Ah, no. The US approves wholeheartedly of privatization actions- but we have nmultiple goals, and at this point, given the mess in Iraq and our whole ME position, getting the Israel-palestine peace process back ip is more important That does not mean the economic issues are not important, only less important to us in our given predicament.

LOTM - huh? From the viewpoint of conservatives (which is what were debating here - higher social welfare means higher taxes which means lower growth)

Conservatives like a free-wheeling economic model full of growth- the US can;t feed its own growth alone, so we want others to be spending like we spend, so that ever upward growth can occur. This is the US model. If other societies are not as willing to keep this model going, the US can't on its own keep it going, thus out system is hurt by the actions of others.

LOTM - Why would they spend less on US goods - increase social welfare spending, without increasing taxes, and you get more consumption, and more imports. Youre confusing the labor-leader choice that is probably deeply rooted in cultural differences, with calls for fiscal stimulus.

If you increase spending without increasing taxes you are doing it on credit, which has to get paid back, with interest, and the money people lend you to do your buying is money they did not use to spend. Its not really a solution at all.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Which is why we're MORE similar than we were decades ago. Which seemed so F**king obvious when Clinton was prez. Now people fantasize huge differences, cause theres a Jeezus worshiping cowboy in the WH.

True : during the 90ies, making the economy more "American" was all the rage over here: the recipe to have an American-like growth seemed so easy: just privatize and deregulate!

This hysteria is fortunately mostly gone, at least in the political discourse (the entrepreneur's syndicate pushes for going further down that road, and is successful at having most of its agenda implemented). But I think the pause we had in the americanization of our economy is only a rhetorical one.

If Bush paves the way to a wider rejection of the American model, maybe there's something for which he'll deserve congratulations after all

[Lawrence of Arabia]

why cant everyone be neutral?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
That is an issue of political corruption, not economic management. In theory then, a public company free of political oversight beyond regularoty oversight should perform just as well-the difference being how profits are used, or if there are profits.

I don't believe it is corruption instead it is simply the logical out come of having politicians control companies. Sure, you could try to make a complex Chinese wall and hope that will stop the politicians from meddling but which is easier more likely to be effective? To simply privitize the company thus perminently removing the politicians primary control or to make a series of complex laws which politicians seem to always find ways around? Examples such as Renault and numerous other nationalized companies in Europe and Latin America show politicians have creative ways to get around these Chinese walls.

[Agathon]

LOTM - So why didnt you join in the Ukraine threads, when Serb and Vagabond said everything thats happened in the Ukraine (and Georgia) was the result of US action?

Because I don't care what happens to Ukrainians. They are the rudest people I have ever met.

If Putin wants to make them slaves, it's fine by me.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Hueij

BTW most industrial privitizations are a good idea...

You want a list of all the privatisations that got horribly wrong over here? If only our politicians had the guts to turn them back

You might want to reread my last response where I said INDUSTRIAL privitizations make sense in nearly all cases. Trying to privitize natural monopolies such as utilities or railways doesn't make to much sense and can be frought with dangers. If they are privitized then it is normally best to make sure natural monopolies are heavily regulated to prevent abuse.

[Agathon]

So Europe could have dealt with Milosevic by itself with it's soft diplomacy?

The US made the situation worse.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon

So Europe could have dealt with Milosevic by itself with it's soft diplomacy?

The US made the situation worse.

Having been there I'd have to say... No, no it didn't.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
The problem lies in the nature of America itself. The american dream was that you can do whatever you want if you just work hard enough. But that was only true as long as America was going to expand and there were enough fields were competition was low. Nowadays America is much more tightly packed and competition is high. The chance that you become whatever you want if you just work hard enough has become slimmer. There is only so much space in the top 10

So imperialism and expansion seem to be the solution, trying to create new areas, but then the other problems lie within America itself and the structure which has changed a lot. The expanding will has slowed and there is a phase of consolidation and people are more concerned with internal matters.
Government and 50% of the americans still don't want to realize this. IMO America will have to enter a phase to complete reorganisation and rest.

my $0.02

you asked for a response.

I don't think this analysis is necessailry relevant to the article aggy posted.

In any case, I agree that there is plenty of luck involved in the US economy such that you cannot guarentee success simply by working hard. Howevedr it probably was always a bit like this. Even when the US government was gfiving away stolen land to anybody who would settle it, it still took luck to get a good claim. There were typically more land seekers than there was adequate farm land immediately available for the would be farmer.

[Spiffor]

I still don't see what is wrong with having democratically elected politicians (i.e. the voice of the people) take decisions in a company. Especially when these decisions aim at meeting the interest of the people, such as giving them employment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I don't believe it is corruption instead it is simply the logical out come of having politicians control companies. Sure, you could try to make a complex Chinese wall and hope that will stop the politicians from meddling but which is easier more likely to be effective? To simply privitize the company thus perminently removing the politicians primary control or to make a series of complex laws which politicians seem to always find ways around? Examples such as Renault and numerous other nationalized companies in Europe and Latin America show politicians have creative ways to get around these Chinese walls.

What you described is corruption. Public companies should NOt be controlled by politicians, but bureaucrats and technocrats.

[Agathon]

In the end it is a less dynamic model with slower average grow rates that means countries with more dynamic models will simply have the luxury of being able to afford higher margins of error to still reach the same goals.

So some economists keep saying, but there is precious little evidence that this is true.

We should shoot all the economists, it's not as if they benefit anyone.

[Geronimo]

for the record i doubt most Americans think that the rest of the world views the US as something to emulate. Most Americans who would have any opinion at all on the matter appear to assume that foreigners chronically believe the US is spiralling down to an inevitable collapse. We are used to being dismissed by foreigners as an irrelevant dinosaur and couldn't care less about such attitudes at this point.