5 ms·

> Could it be that European countries care less about raising GDP at any cost, and more about making sure that wealth benefits everybody to some degree No euro

by rapsey 6y ago

> Could it be that European countries care less about raising GDP at any cost, and more about making sure that wealth benefits everybody to some degree No european politican in power is that altruistic. Ours are in no way less crazy or corrupt than the US ones. Political systems are always eventually captured by the powerful and they prevent any real change because they benefit from the status quo. Europe has old corporations and the system is built to benefit them. We also have very little VC money going around. The EU is technically a single market but in reality there are big barriers. Not anywhere close to what US or China has as a domestic market. Companies have a pretty damn tough time getting out of their country. Mostly because there is so little VC money to help them get out. The reason for limited VC money is because there are few exit strategies. Going public in the US means getting way more money. The stock market in an EU country is not anywhere near what the US stock market is. The reason the stock market is not as developed is simple, US dollar is the worlds reserve currency not the Euro.

mcv 6y ago
> No european politican in power is that altruistic. It's not about personal altruism, it's about creating the right institutions that encourages politicians to do the right thing, and to hold them accountable when they don't. In the US, these systems don't work very well. I remember when Congress had an approval rating in the single digits, yet 90% of all incumbents got re-elected. That's a pretty clear sign that the very basis of your democracy doesn't work right. > Political systems are always eventually captured by the powerful and they prevent any real change because they benefit from the status quo And yet political systems change. Absolute rulers decide to share their power, write liberal constitutions and hold fair elections, politicians in district systems decide to change to proportional representation, men vote to allow women to vote. Of course these changes often require protests by the people who used to be excluded, but those protests happened, and the people in power listened and changed the rules. It's mostly the US where a large number of people insist that the rules of two and a half century ago are sacred and should never be changed. Few other countries hold to that sort of idiocy. (Though the UK might be as bad or worse than the US in that regard.) > We also have very little VC money going around. That is absolutely true. The US is great for money. It's great for rich people and for investors. And many European startups end up moving to the US. But that doesn't change the fact that regular people aren't benefitting all that much from it. Warehouse workers for Amazon often work in atrocious circumstances that would not be allowed in the EU. How does their country's high GDP or Amazon's high market value benefit them if their job is destroying them?
- rapsey 6y ago
  > Few other countries hold to that sort of idiocy. I disagree. Politicians change when they are forced to. People in power listening and changing the rules is in my opinion a pipe dream. They only change when their positions are threatened (i.e. being voted out of office in the civilized case). What the EU had is two world wars fought on its soil. The old systems were cleansed out with blood and fire. So while culturally European countries are old, politically they are generally not. The US has never had this, so the old system has been kept and unfortunately has rotten to its core and will collapse in our lifetimes in my opinion. This is why I tried to make the point that politicians are no better over here. They are selfish cunts like all politicians are and they sure as hell don't give the slightest damn about making sure "wealth benefits everybody to some degree". They are just operating in a setting that is not a rotten corpse and act more civilized.
  - mcv 6y ago
    > "They only change when their positions are threatened (i.e. being voted out of office in the civilized case)." This is only true in some cases, not in all. The first Dutch king, Willem I, was originally made an absolute king and liked it that way, but later decided to have Thorbecke write a liberal constitution that would severely limit his power. Of course there were plenty calls in the country to do that, but he wasn't facing a revolution, and couldn't be voted out. Unless you count the Belgian independence from a couple of years earlier, but that had already happened and wasn't prevented by this decision. There are plenty of other cases where people decided to do the right thing because they saw it was the reasonable thing to do without being forced to. But the US refusing to change the broken electoral system from 250 years ago is also on the voters themselves, who keep voting for parties that don't want to improve the system. Keep voting out all incumbents until they fix the problem.
    - rapsey 6y ago
      People are not robots. Obviously there will be some selfless individuals. But the discussion was on general terms and politicians as a class. As for blaming voters, that is entirely useless and simplistic.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> No european politican in power is that altruistic. Ours are in no way less crazy or corrupt than the US ones. I very much believe that Dutch politicians are less corrupt than U.S.A. politicians, in no small part due to the fundamental operations of the electoral system. Donald Trump refused to yield power and flirted with a coup d'état after losing the election; around that time, the Dutch cabinet offered it's resignation peacefully to atone for a scandal it wasn't even directly responsible for, but took responsibility for as the ultimate executive. — it's quite a difference. I find Dutch politicians very much far less self-absorbed and egocentric, and I believe this is due to the U.S.A. system being a winner-takes-all system that thereby selects upon narcissistic risk takers, for to obtain any public office in the U.S.A., one must have taken a risk where one stands to leave with nothing after considerable investment, — such is not the Dutch system, which is not a winner-takes-all system but one where victory is a matter of degrees. Dutch politicians are generally quite down to earth rather than surrounded by pomp and grandeur. The prime minister goes to work by bike and has a part time job as a primary school teacher and lives in a normal apartment rather than a posh official residence, and this is because the system selects upon men who have power trusted upon them, not upon those who seek power. > Political systems are always eventually captured by the powerful and they prevent any real change because they benefit from the status quo. Europe has old corporations and the system is built to benefit them. In 1916, the Netherlands switched from a district-based system to a simple, proportional system. This change surely did not benefit the parties in power, but they did so anyway for the purpose of democracy, and probably because the voters wanted it.
- mcv 6y ago
  > the Dutch cabinet offered it's resignation peacefully to atone for a scandal it wasn't even directly responsible for I don't think that's true. Mark Rutte was prime minister during the escalation of the excessive fraud hunting, and has been directly involved with parts of it. He undeniably carries much of the real responsibility. He's also not a great example of a politician taking that responsibility; he has a tendency to smile problems away. That said, you're absolutely right that neither the Dutch not any other European country is anywhere near as corrupt as the US, where corruption seems to be baked deep into its political system.
p1necone 6y ago
> No european politican in power is that altruistic. Ours are in no way less crazy or corrupt than the US ones. You can't just make silly claims like this and not explain yourself. If you're just not familiar with recent US politics you're forgiven (although have you been living under a rock?), otherwise... huh?

by rapsey 6y ago

mcv 6y ago

> No european politican in power is that altruistic. It's not about personal altruism, it's about creating the right institutions that encourages politicians to do the right thing, and to hold them accountable when they don't. In the US, these systems don't work very well. I remember when Congress had an approval rating in the single digits, yet 90% of all incumbents got re-elected. That's a pretty clear sign that the very basis of your democracy doesn't work right. > Political systems are always eventually captured by the powerful and they prevent any real change because they benefit from the status quo And yet political systems change. Absolute rulers decide to share their power, write liberal constitutions and hold fair elections, politicians in district systems decide to change to proportional representation, men vote to allow women to vote. Of course these changes often require protests by the people who used to be excluded, but those protests happened, and the people in power listened and changed the rules. It's mostly the US where a large number of people insist that the rules of two and a half century ago are sacred and should never be changed. Few other countries hold to that sort of idiocy. (Though the UK might be as bad or worse than the US in that regard.) > We also have very little VC money going around. That is absolutely true. The US is great for money. It's great for rich people and for investors. And many European startups end up moving to the US. But that doesn't change the fact that regular people aren't benefitting all that much from it. Warehouse workers for Amazon often work in atrocious circumstances that would not be allowed in the EU. How does their country's high GDP or Amazon's high market value benefit them if their job is destroying them?

rapsey 6y ago
> Few other countries hold to that sort of idiocy. I disagree. Politicians change when they are forced to. People in power listening and changing the rules is in my opinion a pipe dream. They only change when their positions are threatened (i.e. being voted out of office in the civilized case). What the EU had is two world wars fought on its soil. The old systems were cleansed out with blood and fire. So while culturally European countries are old, politically they are generally not. The US has never had this, so the old system has been kept and unfortunately has rotten to its core and will collapse in our lifetimes in my opinion. This is why I tried to make the point that politicians are no better over here. They are selfish cunts like all politicians are and they sure as hell don't give the slightest damn about making sure "wealth benefits everybody to some degree". They are just operating in a setting that is not a rotten corpse and act more civilized.
- mcv 6y ago
  > "They only change when their positions are threatened (i.e. being voted out of office in the civilized case)." This is only true in some cases, not in all. The first Dutch king, Willem I, was originally made an absolute king and liked it that way, but later decided to have Thorbecke write a liberal constitution that would severely limit his power. Of course there were plenty calls in the country to do that, but he wasn't facing a revolution, and couldn't be voted out. Unless you count the Belgian independence from a couple of years earlier, but that had already happened and wasn't prevented by this decision. There are plenty of other cases where people decided to do the right thing because they saw it was the reasonable thing to do without being forced to. But the US refusing to change the broken electoral system from 250 years ago is also on the voters themselves, who keep voting for parties that don't want to improve the system. Keep voting out all incumbents until they fix the problem.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    People are not robots. Obviously there will be some selfless individuals. But the discussion was on general terms and politicians as a class. As for blaming voters, that is entirely useless and simplistic.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> No european politican in power is that altruistic. Ours are in no way less crazy or corrupt than the US ones. I very much believe that Dutch politicians are less corrupt than U.S.A. politicians, in no small part due to the fundamental operations of the electoral system. Donald Trump refused to yield power and flirted with a coup d'état after losing the election; around that time, the Dutch cabinet offered it's resignation peacefully to atone for a scandal it wasn't even directly responsible for, but took responsibility for as the ultimate executive. — it's quite a difference. I find Dutch politicians very much far less self-absorbed and egocentric, and I believe this is due to the U.S.A. system being a winner-takes-all system that thereby selects upon narcissistic risk takers, for to obtain any public office in the U.S.A., one must have taken a risk where one stands to leave with nothing after considerable investment, — such is not the Dutch system, which is not a winner-takes-all system but one where victory is a matter of degrees. Dutch politicians are generally quite down to earth rather than surrounded by pomp and grandeur. The prime minister goes to work by bike and has a part time job as a primary school teacher and lives in a normal apartment rather than a posh official residence, and this is because the system selects upon men who have power trusted upon them, not upon those who seek power. > Political systems are always eventually captured by the powerful and they prevent any real change because they benefit from the status quo. Europe has old corporations and the system is built to benefit them. In 1916, the Netherlands switched from a district-based system to a simple, proportional system. This change surely did not benefit the parties in power, but they did so anyway for the purpose of democracy, and probably because the voters wanted it.

mcv 6y ago
> the Dutch cabinet offered it's resignation peacefully to atone for a scandal it wasn't even directly responsible for I don't think that's true. Mark Rutte was prime minister during the escalation of the excessive fraud hunting, and has been directly involved with parts of it. He undeniably carries much of the real responsibility. He's also not a great example of a politician taking that responsibility; he has a tendency to smile problems away. That said, you're absolutely right that neither the Dutch not any other European country is anywhere near as corrupt as the US, where corruption seems to be baked deep into its political system.

p1necone 6y ago

> No european politican in power is that altruistic. Ours are in no way less crazy or corrupt than the US ones. You can't just make silly claims like this and not explain yourself. If you're just not familiar with recent US politics you're forgiven (although have you been living under a rock?), otherwise... huh?