No Country Is Perfect, But The U.s. System Is The Closest To Perfect,

[Virgil61]

... I have family in Italy. Until the early 1980's they were definitely worse off than my parents and me in Ohio. This is no longer true. My Italian cousins enjoy a better standard of living and a better democracy than we in the USA do now.

 

That's not common. My aunts, uncles and cousins are in Italy as well. They live well but I'd never say they were better off then their US relatives. Taxes are high as hell and the price of food and fuel are incredible in Italy although they have a family farm that supplies a lot of goodies. Using per capita income as a guide wages in the US are around 35% higher than Italian.

 

This statement was made by someone:

 

No country is perfect, but the U.S. system is the closest to perfect....

 

I asked whether the statement was meant to be serious.

 

I'm not certain about the Israel portion but the portion I've left in is a common theme in US political discourse.

[Moonlapse]

Right to pursue happiness, not a right to happiness as Roosevelt would put it.

 

Is that how Roosevelt WOULD have put it? Which one, Teddy or Franklin?

Actually, as a capitalist, I prefer laying on my backside collecting dividends and clipping coupons.

 

Sorry 'bout that. I'm referring to Franklin and his Economic Bill of Rights.

[Moonlapse]

I don't believe that the Reichsbank serves the same purposes as the Federal Reserve System. One might just as easily say that the FRS was patterned after the Bank of England. The FRS came about as a result of the financial crises of the 19th century. The 'reserves' of the smaller banks were kept in larger banks and so on up a line to a major money center bank. If this last bank failed, then all below had a tendency to fail, thus creating 'runs' and additional failures. (The 'reserve' function was taken over by the Fed.) This failure was repeated during the Great Depression when the Fed tightened the money supply rather than loosening the reins. The Fed's actions increased the depth of the depression and caused a need for social programs to protect the U.S. from itself.

The Federal Reserve has more in common with the Reichsbank in that it, or the Reserve Banks, doesn't carry 100% gold reserve for issued notes, as the Bank of England did, for the sake of elasticity.

 

Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government was to do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves. The vast majority of the people could not or did not save for emergencies or old age or lost their savings to the stock market inflation of the 1920's, and the subsequent collapse.

Depends how you interpret Abe's words. I interpret them as meaning that the purpose of government was to do for people that which they literally cannot do for themselves, not what they have failed to do for themselves or did but lost to misfortune. However, this still supports the Fed's role, IMO, but not most social programs.

 

The U.S. Army did not adopt the Prussian General Staff system.

I'll agree that it wasn't an exact copy, but it was used as a model in the 19th century reforms and subsequently adapted.

[phil25]

Sorry guys - but don't insult me about my analysis of my own country's political system.

 

I am an historian of the English monarchy and follow British politics closely. It is you who are both slighting and wrong!!

 

We can discuss the subject elsewhere in detail, if you wish.

 

But just speaking constitutionally, Britain IS a "monarchy" and that element of the state is a major factor in the evolution and maintenance of a stable democracy.

 

But then, as we all know, names mean little. The US system is essentially an elected monarchy with the president a "king" by another name!!

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

But then, as we all know, names mean little. The US system is essentially an elected monarchy with the president a "king" by another name!!

Phil

 

That is what our Supreme Court and Congress are allowing it to become. The U.S. Constitution does not prescribe this.

[Kosmo]

I think that US sistem it's great. Less taxes compared to Western Europe and more control over the money. I'm not a fan of the extensive social security that chokes initiative in E.U. and I hate the romanian sistem that really sucks (high taxes with no return)

The best thing about the US it's the fact that most things are private and not public financed and that keeps the competion and the economy going.

 

Some very wrong statements have been made about Israel. You can not say that it's second to US ahead in comparison ahead EU or Japan, Australia etc, but of course it's better than his neighbours.

On the other hand it's not either fascist or theocratic. It's very small and his population it's very mixed along ethnic, linguistic, religious and political lines. I think conflict with arabs it's what keeps it from breaking. This black and white view from TV does not apply there because there are a lot of colours.

[Andrew Dalby]

I think that US sistem it's great. Less taxes compared to Western Europe and more control over the money. I'm not a fan of the extensive social security that chokes initiative in E.U. and I hate the romanian sistem that really sucks (high taxes with no return)

 

If I may ask, Kosmo, how do you feel about the coming accession of Romania to the EU? (I'm interested because I know Romania a little myself, though I haven't visited for some years now.) Will it be better or worse for Romania overall?

 

There are some British people who dream of Britain skipping out of the EU and becoming the 51st (or is it 52nd?) state of the US. Not me, though.

[Moonlapse]

Out of curiosity, do Americans here think the 'system' would be better if more control was held on state and local levels, and not so much on the federal level?

[Ludovicus]

Moonlapse,

As a US citizen, I would most appreciate if government in my country were less under control of Exxon, the defense contractors, and other large cooporations. If you want to know who's calling the shots in Washington, you need to know who's buying off the elected representatives of the US Congress.

[Kosmo]

In my opinion Romania joining the EU will be good in long term. Money will come here bringing better payed jobs and qualified people from here can go and work elsewhere (not only construction workers and other low pay jobs)

Of course, some of the surviving old industries will collapse, but that it's not always bad news.

Other positive aspect will be the decrease of influence in economy of corrupt politicians and the weaking of their political power. Romanian bussinesman will have to face increase competion from large international companies. Most had build their fortunes by using political power and influence, so they are unprepaired for a fair competition against strong opponents.

The EU will stop Romanian goverment of wasting the money and inflating the currency and some money will be under administration of the EU with less corruption.

I think less authority the romanian politicians have it's for the better. It would be better if we had a strong goverment in control of few sectors like police, defence, justice and less or no goverment in education, health, industry etc.

[longbow]

The Tory party are wanting to ban Romanian's from working unrestricted in the UK when Romania joins the EU.They say the Government got it wrong when Poland joined up and Polish nationals were allowed to come into Britain and work,they dont want Romanian's to have the same privilege.

The Labour party claimed that 12-15,ooo Poles had came into Britain to work,but the actual figure is more like 250,000.I find it shocking that the Government doesnt actually know how many migrant workers are here!but thats Britian for you.

But as nearly all those 250,000 are actually working (200 or so are claiming unemployment benefits) i dont see what the problem is with the Poles,there's three working at the same company as me and there a great bunch!it can be a bit of a brain bubbler trying to communicate with them as none of them speak English yet but they get the idea in the end

Daily Mail

 

L

[Gaius Octavius]

In my opinion Romania joining the EU will be good in long term. Money will come here bringing better payed jobs and qualified people from here can go and work elsewhere (not only construction workers and other low pay jobs)

Of course, some of the surviving old industries will collapse, but that it's not always bad news.

Other positive aspect will be the decrease of influence in economy of corrupt politicians and the weaking of their political power. Romanian bussinesman will have to face increase competion from large international companies. Most had build their fortunes by using political power and influence, so they are unprepaired for a fair competition against strong opponents.

The EU will stop Romanian goverment of wasting the money and inflating the currency and some money will be under administration of the EU with less corruption.

I think less authority the romanian politicians have it's for the better. It would be better if we had a strong goverment in control of few sectors like police, defence, justice and less or no goverment in education, health, industry etc.

 

Gee! Kosmo, Are you saying that your 'democratic' government is corrupt? What am I to think of your prior posts?

 

There are some British people who dream of Britain skipping out of the EU and becoming the 51st (or is it 52nd?) state of the US. Not me, though.

 

Which would the penultimate state be? (Now you're in the muck )

[M. Porcius Cato]

As a US citizen, I would most appreciate if government in my country were less under control of Exxon, the defense contractors, and other large cooporations. If you want to know who's calling the shots in Washington, you need to know who's buying off the elected representatives of the US Congress.

 

Can you name any representatives who have accepted bribes for their votes and not been caught? I'm sure their political opponents and ambitious prosecutors would love to hear about it, especially in an election year.

 

Also, if the government were really under the control of Exxon, why can't Exxon manage to secure a simple building permit that would allow them to open a new oil refinery in the US? Why--if Exxon controlled the government through their vast conspiracy--have they been unable to build a single off-shore platform off California? Or Florida? Or Alabama? Or Louisiana? Why--if Exxon really has this vast network of paid-off Congressman--can't they purchase a railroad to haul their oil? Or a trucking company? If Exxon really controls Washington, how is it that they continue to be subjected to idiotic controls that they have opposed for over 50 years of lobbying???? I'd really love to hear this one!

 

Isn't it possilbe that the Exxon conspiracy--like the nefarious Black Helicopters of the New World Order, the hidden UFOs at Roswell, the secret Cars That Run On Water--is simply another bogus hoax that cynics and conspiracy types love to swallow?

 

More broadly, private oil companies are one of the most important institutions in modern life. Unlike state-owned oil companies that are inefficient and support murderous and repressive regimes, private oil companies are well-managed, responsible to their share-holders, and have a financial stake in promoting governments that respect the rule of law and private property. This is reason that petty authoritarians like Putin and Chavez attempt to get their grips on these private companies right away, why the (rare) collapse of state-owned oil companies in the Mideast has been a godsend to those countries that ran out of oil, and why nations with more private oil companies tend to have more secure, dynamic, and diversified economies overall (e.g., Britain versus Norway).

 

Defense contractors are another story...

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The Tory party are wanting to ban Romanian's from working unrestricted in the UK when Romania joins the EU.They say the Government got it wrong when Poland joined up and Polish nationals were allowed to come into Britain and work,they dont want Romanian's to have the same privilege.

The Labour party claimed that 12-15,ooo Poles had came into Britain to work,but the actual figure is more like 250,000.I find it shocking that the Government doesnt actually know how many migrant workers are here!but thats Britian for you.

But as nearly all those 250,000 are actually working (200 or so are claiming unemployment benefits) i dont see what the problem is with the Poles,there's three working at the same company as me and there a great bunch!it can be a bit of a brain bubbler trying to communicate with them as none of them speak English yet but they get the idea in the end

Daily Mail

 

L

 

 

The problem with the 250,000 Poles that have come to this country to work is that there's 250,00 Englishmen out of work and if the same amount of Romanian's turn up looking for work then that's half a million people out of work, the problem is that the majority of the immigrants coming over are in the construction industry and will work for a lot less money than the English guys so obviously the big companies are going to employ them.

I have quite a few friends in the building trades who are struggling for work at the moment because of the cheap labour so i totally agree with the goverment (for a change) about banning anymore immigrants coming into this country for work.

 

 

Please don't take offence by this Kosmo i have nothing against the Romanian people or any other Eastern European country, it's my goverments fault in the first place and i hope they manage to sort this mess out amicably

Edited August 29, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Gaius Octavius]

M.P.C.:

We are in agreement! The cookie jar raiders all are innocent as they have not all been caught. It is a well known fact that all congressmen are (mostly) as pure as the driven snow, especially when it comes to ear marks. That Indian money bit was a mere peccadillo. Personally, I am not in agreement with the likes of that great Un- American patriot, Mark Twain, who slanderously held that the greatest ongoing criminal conspiracy in America, is the U.S. Congress. The lout!

 

But I do have a question. Why would any of the oil companies want to go through the expense of building a refinery when they can make the same net profit without building one? Summertime and the driving is costlier. Wintertime and the heating is costlier. All the time. The fact that I could gas up my chariot for $25 a couple of years ago and it now costs me $80 is a matter of 4% or 5% inflation. The oil depletion allowances should not be considered as a gift from our alleged representatives. As you might have put it, which 'idiotic controls'? Do the deadly sisters pay any attention to them anyway or to the IRS for that matter?

 

We all know that all corporations operate for the benefit of their shareholders. The recent exposes by the likes of the communist Wall Street Journal to the contrary not withstanding. I am positive that these charges were all falsehoods. That little insignificant bit about the $400,000,000 bonus voted by his board to the CEO of Exxon was just another Liberal lie. Came out of my dividends. Not a concern. And, of course, I simply adore their proxies.

 

And once again, we are in agreement. Private oil companies do not support corrupt governments, such as Nigeria. They most certainly never, but never, supported the likes of King Idris. Or have anything to do with the downfall of Mosagdegh.

 

Norway is the perfect example where the polloi are suffering under a corrupt, undemocratic, undiversified regime. Much like the state of Alaska.