5 ms·

US firms buying politicians can only be called "lobbying" when it happens domestically in the US. Outside of the US, you have to call it "sparkling foreign inte

by pornel 3y ago

US firms buying politicians can only be called "lobbying" when it happens domestically in the US. Outside of the US, you have to call it "sparkling foreign interference". It is always a shame when governments get corrupted, but the European view is usually not "welp, the experiment failed, let's get rid of the government completely", but rather "we need to make the government stronger, to have it resist interference harder". US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We", but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. It's not "oh no, those dumb politicians stifle our precious job-creating businesses", but rather "we're the labor force, we're the consumers, and the businesses depend on us, so we won't let them fuck with us". So US firms fucking with us is a terrible thing, but the reaction will probably be to make more regulations to resist US tech even harder.

junofan 3y ago
To be fair, the European tendency to push the government to resist undesirable forces is kinda the whole reason for the Treaty of Brussels in the first place.
dwheeler 3y ago
> US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We" ... I think you misunderstand. I'm an American, so I should probably clarify a typical American perspective. Caveat: you probably can't find any statement all Americans agree on :-) ). The US Constitution does begin with the phrase "We the people", but I think you misunderstand its context. It never says the US government and its people are the same. I can quote that sentence from memory. The text follows with the goals for creating a federal government (e.g., "establish justice" and "provide for the common defense"). It ends by saying that We the People "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, it's clearly stated that the government is not the people. The US federal government is instead an organization established by the people under rules defined by the Constitution. So Americans would generally agree that the US government is NOT the people. The US government is instead an organization set up by the people, in order to accomplish certain goals. If we don't like how its current leadership runs things, the intent is that We the People can change the leadership via an election (as established by the Constitution). > but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. You'll find lots of claims about incompetence, especially at political rallies where someone is trying to convince everyone to vote for them. But while many people want someone or other voted in, and there are always proposals for changes, few call for the elimination of the US government. They just want "their side" voted in. > Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. Americans also view their government as necessary to resist undesirable forces. Per that sentence, the government exists to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". However, the American view is that governments can also be the source of tyranny. This is not a crazy view; see the various dictatorships around the world. Governments can be powerful entities. Therefore, there needs to be a way to ensure that they are (1) representative and (2) constrained so they don't become tyrannical. > This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. The US has lots of regulations, so it's not that the US doesn't have any. However, Americans are generally more skeptical of regulation than Europeans. All regulations have unintended consequences; if the regulation is not carefully crafted, the regulation can be worse than the problem. For example: I would instinctively ignore the goal of any proposed law or regulation. I don't really care what its goal is. That is mostly irrelevant. What is the actual impact of the law or regulation? If it does something good, but overall makes things worse, then it should be rejected even if it has a good goal.
- throwaway14356 3y ago
  I believe it was that the EU countries prefer law as opposed to regulation and we definitely don't like guidelines.
fallingknife 3y ago
And how is that going for them? > In 2008, the eurozone and the US had equivalent gross domestic products (GDP) at current prices of $14.2 trillion and $14.8 trillion respectively (€13.1 trillion and €13.6 trillion). Fifteen years on, the eurozone's GDP is just over $15 trillion, while US GDP has soared to $26.9 trillion. Seems like they are not protecting their citizens interests nearly so well as they believe they are. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/04/the-gdp-gap-between-europe-and-the-united-states-is-now-80_6123491_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/04/the-gdp...
- pornel 3y ago
  We have healthcare, guaranteed sick days and holidays, strong worker rights, consumer protections, passenger trains, and no daily mass shootings. We pay for this. The stereotypical view the other ways is "yes, salaries in the US are way higher, but if I go there and get cancer, I'll bankrupt my family for three generations, and still die while on hold angry-calling my insurance provider".
  - Silhouette 3y ago
    Did Europeans not already have those advantages in 2008 though? If the figures quoted are correct then the Eurozone has had negligible growth over 15 years while the US has almost doubled the size of its economy over the same period. That surely can't be explained merely by Europeans continuing to enjoy the same advantages they already had but paying for the privilege.
    - izacus 3y ago
      Why do you think GDP is a relevant metric here?
      - caskstrength 3y ago
        > Why do you think GDP is a relevant metric here? What other metric would you propose? Considering we are on HN maybe laughable SDE salaries in EU would be a more relevant metric?
Aerroon 3y ago
Europeans might see their own governments as representation, but I don't think they view the EU as representing them. I've met a lot of people who think those guys in Brussels don't give a damn about us here, wherever that "here" might be. The sentiment seems similar to what people in the USSR thought of Moscow. I think part of the problem is that the EU can't work in the same way the US federal government does or ever did. Culturally the countries are too dissimilar. There are many friction points that make a closer union very difficult to swing without trying to pull a fast one over the population (like they did with the vote over the EU constitution). One friction point is the "liking of regulations" you mention. Some European countries seem to like that but others don't. People absolutely laugh at the ridiculous German bureaucracy, how dated the way is that the French run things (cheques!!!) or how naive the Swedes are. And they usually do not want that in their own country.
- pornel 3y ago
  When European countries want to pass unpopular legislation, instead of proposing it domestically, they propose it as an EU law, and turn back and say "look what EU made us do!". EU-wide successes of course are reported as personal achievements of whoever is on TV. Pro-EU vs anti-EU is also often a rallying topic in establishment vs opposition political debates, which tends to produce exaggerated controversies, sort of like the topic of abortion in the US. So I think there will always be some voices saying EU wants to outlaw curved bananas. European countries are very different. I'm not sure if more than California vs Alabama. However, people remember that European countries used to have actual wars with each other throughout their history, up until not that long ago, so it's preferable to have disagreements worked out bureaucratically, even if that's a lot of bureaucracy.
  - dhoe 3y ago
    I have a pet theory that this is actually the main mechanism by which the EU gains power over time; anytime a grown up decision needs to be made, it's upsourced to the EU level, so that local politicians can focus on the stuff that makes everybody happy (which by the nature of things tends to be inconsequential).
  - 3y ago

by pornel 3y ago

junofan 3y ago

To be fair, the European tendency to push the government to resist undesirable forces is kinda the whole reason for the Treaty of Brussels in the first place.

dwheeler 3y ago

> US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We" ... I think you misunderstand. I'm an American, so I should probably clarify a typical American perspective. Caveat: you probably can't find any statement all Americans agree on :-) ). The US Constitution does begin with the phrase "We the people", but I think you misunderstand its context. It never says the US government and its people are the same. I can quote that sentence from memory. The text follows with the goals for creating a federal government (e.g., "establish justice" and "provide for the common defense"). It ends by saying that We the People "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, it's clearly stated that the government is not the people. The US federal government is instead an organization established by the people under rules defined by the Constitution. So Americans would generally agree that the US government is NOT the people. The US government is instead an organization set up by the people, in order to accomplish certain goals. If we don't like how its current leadership runs things, the intent is that We the People can change the leadership via an election (as established by the Constitution). > but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. You'll find lots of claims about incompetence, especially at political rallies where someone is trying to convince everyone to vote for them. But while many people want someone or other voted in, and there are always proposals for changes, few call for the elimination of the US government. They just want "their side" voted in. > Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. Americans also view their government as necessary to resist undesirable forces. Per that sentence, the government exists to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". However, the American view is that governments can also be the source of tyranny. This is not a crazy view; see the various dictatorships around the world. Governments can be powerful entities. Therefore, there needs to be a way to ensure that they are (1) representative and (2) constrained so they don't become tyrannical. > This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. The US has lots of regulations, so it's not that the US doesn't have any. However, Americans are generally more skeptical of regulation than Europeans. All regulations have unintended consequences; if the regulation is not carefully crafted, the regulation can be worse than the problem. For example: I would instinctively ignore the goal of any proposed law or regulation. I don't really care what its goal is. That is mostly irrelevant. What is the actual impact of the law or regulation? If it does something good, but overall makes things worse, then it should be rejected even if it has a good goal.

throwaway14356 3y ago
I believe it was that the EU countries prefer law as opposed to regulation and we definitely don't like guidelines.

fallingknife 3y ago

And how is that going for them? > In 2008, the eurozone and the US had equivalent gross domestic products (GDP) at current prices of $14.2 trillion and $14.8 trillion respectively (€13.1 trillion and €13.6 trillion). Fifteen years on, the eurozone's GDP is just over $15 trillion, while US GDP has soared to $26.9 trillion. Seems like they are not protecting their citizens interests nearly so well as they believe they are. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/04/the-gdp-gap-between-europe-and-the-united-states-is-now-80_6123491_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/04/the-gdp...

pornel 3y ago
We have healthcare, guaranteed sick days and holidays, strong worker rights, consumer protections, passenger trains, and no daily mass shootings. We pay for this. The stereotypical view the other ways is "yes, salaries in the US are way higher, but if I go there and get cancer, I'll bankrupt my family for three generations, and still die while on hold angry-calling my insurance provider".
- Silhouette 3y ago
  Did Europeans not already have those advantages in 2008 though? If the figures quoted are correct then the Eurozone has had negligible growth over 15 years while the US has almost doubled the size of its economy over the same period. That surely can't be explained merely by Europeans continuing to enjoy the same advantages they already had but paying for the privilege.
  - izacus 3y ago
    Why do you think GDP is a relevant metric here?
    - caskstrength 3y ago
      > Why do you think GDP is a relevant metric here? What other metric would you propose? Considering we are on HN maybe laughable SDE salaries in EU would be a more relevant metric?

Aerroon 3y ago

Europeans might see their own governments as representation, but I don't think they view the EU as representing them. I've met a lot of people who think those guys in Brussels don't give a damn about us here, wherever that "here" might be. The sentiment seems similar to what people in the USSR thought of Moscow. I think part of the problem is that the EU can't work in the same way the US federal government does or ever did. Culturally the countries are too dissimilar. There are many friction points that make a closer union very difficult to swing without trying to pull a fast one over the population (like they did with the vote over the EU constitution). One friction point is the "liking of regulations" you mention. Some European countries seem to like that but others don't. People absolutely laugh at the ridiculous German bureaucracy, how dated the way is that the French run things (cheques!!!) or how naive the Swedes are. And they usually do not want that in their own country.

pornel 3y ago
When European countries want to pass unpopular legislation, instead of proposing it domestically, they propose it as an EU law, and turn back and say "look what EU made us do!". EU-wide successes of course are reported as personal achievements of whoever is on TV. Pro-EU vs anti-EU is also often a rallying topic in establishment vs opposition political debates, which tends to produce exaggerated controversies, sort of like the topic of abortion in the US. So I think there will always be some voices saying EU wants to outlaw curved bananas. European countries are very different. I'm not sure if more than California vs Alabama. However, people remember that European countries used to have actual wars with each other throughout their history, up until not that long ago, so it's preferable to have disagreements worked out bureaucratically, even if that's a lot of bureaucracy.
- dhoe 3y ago
  I have a pet theory that this is actually the main mechanism by which the EU gains power over time; anytime a grown up decision needs to be made, it's upsourced to the EU level, so that local politicians can focus on the stuff that makes everybody happy (which by the nature of things tends to be inconsequential).
- 3y ago