[Lingster]

And before the Canadians get their Dudley Do-Right jodhpurs in a bunch, here's an article that explains how Canadian health care free rides on the U.S.:
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/001111.html

[Yaponvezos]

Lingster, I'm impressed you actually took the time to look up on some things about Greece. Usually, no one really does. But living our problematic economy from the inside, I can tell you with the utmost certainty, the root of our problem has nothing to do whatsoever with socialism. There are two far bigger problems: corruption in the public sector and tax evasion. Actually the former is what led to the latter.

So we 're locked in a vicious circle for various reasons. In the end, what matters for our economy is that the tax evasion equals the country's budget. So eliminating tax evasion would automatically double the government's budget. Plus we 're still paying off loans from the time of the greek revolution…something like 185 years ago (some of which were payed off just a few years ago). Loooooooooong story.

Nevertheless, I really find this discussion interesting. Being a foreigner, the whole subject, from the american point of view, is totally new to me.

[Lingster]

Well, government-paid old age pensions are a socialist policy, and as near as I can tell those pensions are the largest impending fiscal threat to Greek stability.  They're a problem here in the U.S., as well – there are varying dates at which the U.S. "social security" system is predicted to fail, but it seems likely that things will be getting ugly before 2020.

I'm due to retire in about 30 years, and have been paying into the system for more than 20 years already, but I doubt I'll ever see any pension money from the government.

Europeans often view U.S. politics through the lens of their national politics, and so in European media the Democrats are usually depicted as Social Democrats or Socialists and the Republicans are depicted as Christian Democrats or Nationalists.  That's not a valid framework.  Both parties in the U.S. are far more in the liberal tradition than almost any Continental European party, and nationalism is a very weak thing in the U.S. because American identity is non-ethnic. 

We would use the term "Jeffersonian" to describe the liberal tendency in both parties, but what that basically boils down to is a commitment to ideals articulated in the Scottish Enlightenment on the 18th Century – mostly forgotten in Europe but utterly critical to American politics.  Even the Democratic Party, which definitely tends more toward socialistic policy preferences, has a stronger focus on individual rights than most European "Liberal" parties.

[peirrotlunaire]

Hmmm… it would seem that Lingster and I regardless of the information we present will not agree.  To your credit Lingster, you do back up your points of view and do not reduce yourself to name calling, which is nice, thank you. 

However, you (and others in this thread) have an unwavering belief in the free market, whereas I do not.  I believe some things, like medicine, education etc.. should not be left to the whims of the market.  This of course is a fundamental values question, not an economic situation one.  Therefore, I don't feel the need to continue this discussion, suffice it to say I agree to disagree.

A couple things that were bugging me though.  Last time I checked, the United States was incredibly nationalistic, correct me if I am wrong.  Economic parasitism goes both ways with Canada and the U.S., look at the softwood lumber dispute and Bush's failure to follow the rules of NAFTA.  And finally, please tell me you know more about Canada than Mounties and Molson…. :-

[Lingster]

The United States is not nationalistic at all.  We have a few fringe groups that believe in white, Mexican or black nationalism, but nothing to rival the BNP or NF in Britain, or Le Pen's Front National in France.  The only active nationalist group of any remaining significance in the U.S. is La Raza (NCLR), since the KKK, the Black Panthers and other groups are mostly finished. 

You may be confusing "patriotism" and "nationalism" – nationalism is generally used in an ethnic or cultural context.  As the U.S. is ridiculously multi-ethnic and far from mono-cultural, there's really nothing much to be nationalistic about.  We're very patriotic, though, but that generally reflects our shared political belief system.

Your example of trade disputes suggests that you don't really understand what I'm talking about.  It's much bigger than a mere trade dispute.  Canada spends about 10% of its total GDP on health care.  It also spends about 1% of GDP on military expenditures.  Absent the U.S. to free-ride on, Canada would have to spend (at least) 15% of GDP on health care and 4% on military spending.  That would add 50% to Canada's government spending – $90 billion on top of the current $180 billion budget.  It could bankrupt the country.  Do you comprehend the magnitude of this?

[Lingster]

Here's a guy with a set of balls: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/calling_michael_moores_socialist_bluff/

[peirrotlunaire]

Well, I said I was going to leave it but I won't. 

As far as nationalism vs. patriotism, point taken.  I think were splitting hairs a bit here.  However, the support for the invasion of Afganistan and War in Iraq (at the time) by the general American population surely speaks of at least some nationalism.  And before you go off on a tirade, I'm well aware of your opinions of those conflicts.  Let's just say we disagree. 

My use of the softwood lumber dispute was merely an example.  Of course it is not the same magnitude as healthcare expenditures, but it served as an example of the U.S's own free market system not meeting the US's needs and the government stepping in to help the economy through job preservation. 

Of course, the Canadian and American economies rely on one another, we are each others largest trading partners.  Canada and the US economies would be in real trouble if they stopped trading with each other.  However, drugs would be cheaper for everyone if the American drug companies were not so dependent on making a profit and were geared around the public interest.  More money for real cures instead or baldness preventative and beauty enhancement as well. 

As far as military spending goes, is the number 4% one you made up? where did you find it?  Yes, Canada has a very small military, however, the government has increased its funding in just this past year.  However, the military is not an essential part of the Canadian identity.  We are proud of our service men and women (patriotism, I believe), but traditionally (last 50 years) our military has been used as UN peacekeepers (originally a Canadian idea), so a large military is unecessary.  We also have a reputation as a fairly peaceful country, without a great need for a large defence force.  A large military seems to do little good against random terrorist attacks anyway.

[Lingster]

However, drugs would be cheaper for everyone if the American drug companies were not so dependent on making a profit and were geared around the public interest.

And who would decide that public interest?  I trust the market a lot more than any elected official.  And btw, you talk a big game for someone whose primary source of pharmaceutical innovation is the free market of a different country than your own.

As far as military spending goes, is the number 4% one you made up? where did you find it?

Four percent is what China spends, which seemed analogous.  Without the U.S. covering for it, Canada would actually have to spend an unusually large amount of money on defense – probably more than 4%, because of its enormous land mass and coastline.  The 15% of GDP spent on health care that I used is simply what the U.S. spends with a free market.

[platinumbird62]

4% is what China admits to, but probably not what they actually spend.

And I have to disagree.  The U.S. is incredibly nationalistic.  Then again, most countries are.

[Lingster]

Nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing.  Nationalism generally means racial or cultural pride of the sort that really began to rear its head after World War I.  Patriotism is generally meant as the more restrained sense of devotion to a state or territory that was prevalent prior to World War I, and remains dominant in places like the U.S.

I'm a dedicated patriot, but not much of a nationalist.  How can I be a nationalist when there's no ethnicity called "American"?

[Author]

Posts