UK Living Standards Outstrip US [Archive]

Capn_Birdseye

January 6th, 2008, 02:50 PM

Can this really be true? Having just returned to the UK from a prolonged Christmas/New Year break in the US I find it difficult to believe - the cost of petrol, eating out, clothes, electricals, etc seem so much cheaper than in the UK even taking into account the current favourable sterling/dollar rate. People in the US seemed to be out there spending as though there was no tomorrow!

From The Sunday Times
January 6, 2008
UK living standards outstrip US

Living standards outstrip those across the Atlantic for first time in over a century

David Smith, Economics Editor

LIVING standards in Britain are set to rise above those in America for the first time since the 19th century, according to a report by the respected Oxford Economics consultancy.
The calculations suggest that, measured by gross domestic product per capita, Britain can now hold its head up high in the economic stakes after more than a century of playing second fiddle to the Americans.
It says that GDP per head in Britain will be £23,500 this year, compared with £23,250 in America, reflecting not only the strength of the pound against the dollar but also the UK economy’s record run of growth and rising incomes going back to the early 1990s.
In those days, according to Oxford Economics, Britain’s GDP per capita was 34% below that in America, 33% less than in Germany and 26% lower than in France. Now, not only have average incomes crept above those in America but they are more than 8% above France (£21,700) and Germany (£21,665).
“The past 15 years have seen a dramatic change in the UK’s economic performance and its position in the world economy,” said Adrian Cooper, managing director of Oxford Economics. “No longer are we the ‘sick man of Europe’. Indeed, our calculations suggest that UK living standards are now a match for those of the US.”
Although many people will be surprised by the figures, Americans have long complained that average incomes have been stagnant in their country. One often-quoted statistical comparison suggests that in real terms the median male full-time salary in America is no higher now than it was in the 1970s.
Oxford Economics says that while the comparisons are affected by sterling’s high value against the dollar, they also reflect longer-term factors. “The UK has been catching up steadily with living standards in the US since 2001 � so, it is a well established trend rather than simply the result of currency fluctuations,” its report says.
It concedes, however, that a significant fall in the pound against other currencies would push Britain back down the ladder. It has assumed an exchange rate of just over $2 for the purpose of the calculation but in recent days the pound has slipped below that level.
The Oxford analysts also point out that Americans benefit from lower prices than those in Britain. With an adjustment made for this “purchasing power parity”, the average American has more spending power than his UK counterpart and pays lower taxes. (In the run-up to Christmas many Britons travelled to New York and other American cities to take advantage of the strength of sterling against the dollar and those lower prices.)
However, the British typically have significantly longer holidays than Americans as well as access to “free” healthcare.
The figures may be of small comfort to Britons worried about house prices and facing a severe squeeze on their incomes this year as a result of record petrol prices and rising energy bills.
Citigroup, which was the most accurate forecaster of Britain’s economy last year, predicts the slowest rise in consumer spending this year since 1992.
“After the credit-fuelled boom in domestic demand and asset prices, the UK economy now faces a hangover, with slowing credit growth, falling property prices and tightening lending standards,” said Michael Saunders, its UK economist.
Last week oil prices hit $100 a barrel, presaging a rise in petrol and diesel prices on the fore-courts. Npower, Britain’s fourth biggest energy supplier, announced that energy prices would go up sharply, raising the prospect of the average household bill rising above £1,000 for the first time.
America overtook Britain economically in the final years of the 19th century, during the so-called second industrial revolution, which brought mass manufacture and sharply rising prosperity to the United States.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece

ablarc

January 6th, 2008, 03:05 PM

You can buy close to twice as much stuff with $23,250 in the U.S. as you can with $23,500 in the U.K.

Also, both those figures are highly suspect. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

lofter1

January 6th, 2008, 03:10 PM

... People in the US seemed to be out there spending as though there was no tomorrow!

And saving ... nary a dime :cool:

BenL

January 7th, 2008, 09:07 AM

Americans have more expendible income but I think the point is that doesn't necessarily equate to the standard of living.

lofter1

January 7th, 2008, 12:08 PM

I 'm not so sure that Americans really have more "expendible" income ... they just spend it, whether they have it or not, with the blessing of short-sighted banks and credit card companies.

MidtownGuy

January 7th, 2008, 12:26 PM

Will the dollar keep falling? Will it get below 2:1 with the Euro? Is America on the decline permanently when compared to Britain, Europe, etc?
They've really managed to screw things up BIG TIME and I just can't see it getting much better.:(

investordude

January 12th, 2008, 11:54 AM

If we just measure currency exchange rates and how much milk a British person can buy, this might be correct. But outside of a few cities on the coasts, housing is still very cheap in the US. By contrast, almost 20 percent of UK residents living in metro - London, a brutally expensive area. I think when you factor in big ticket items like housing costs, Americans are better off on average.

MidtownGuy

January 12th, 2008, 12:15 PM

Not just Britain, I observe that most Europeans have a much better life than Americans.
Unfortunately most of the traditional indices of "quality of life" don't even consider a lot of aspects that I consider important.
We could start with the food supply in America. It's mostly genetically poisoned frankenfood. If you want to actually eat healthy in America, you pay much more than in Europe.
They have better vacations, better urban spaces, better nightlife, better education, better eveything!
Plus, America is a giant bubble of debt swirling right down the toilet.
We just spent 1 trillion in Iraq. This kind of lunacy will not pave a better tomorrow.
In fact, I don't see the dollar ever being on par with the Euro again, much less the British pound. The US might be the Brazil of the 21st century. If you are in the minority of the wealthy here, life will be just peachy keen. For most everyone else, especially the dwindling middle class, life will be getting worse.

investordude

January 13th, 2008, 12:35 AM

Luca

January 14th, 2008, 10:53 AM

A couple of notes.

First of all, the article seems to be comparing nominal GBP/USD amounts of GDP per capita.

1. This does not take into account (glaring) price differences and
2. GDP per capita is a pretty poor measure on quality of life once you are talking about small differences at the upper end (it’s a good proxy if you are going from, say, 10K to 20K).

MidtownGuy wrote:

“…most Europeans have a much better life than Americans.”

Not by all measures, surely.

“They have [better food], better vacations, better urban spaces, better nightlife, better education, better everything!”

Arguably true, though not sure about the nightlife or education, overall.

investordude wrote:

“…but middle income people can get a big house and a life similarly rich people in Europe can hardly imagine.”

Where? In some culturally/culinarily/urbanistically wasteland of nowhereness?

“though Americans think New York dining is expensive, its cheaper than comparable places anywhere in Europe.”

No. London, maybe. Certainly not southern Europe. How can you even think that is the case, man?

Fabrizio

January 14th, 2008, 11:17 AM

I agree with everthing above however:

The average American family does have much more space.

If the comparison is not between cities, Euros have more nightlife.

Dining: in the US you get LOTS of cheap food cheap... but to eat the way we do, in my neck of Europe, it costs a fortune in the US. Food is expensive here but the quality is high.

investordude

January 14th, 2008, 01:22 PM

As long as we're comparing continents, its so obvious Asia has the best nightlife among continents. Just curious if anyone disagrees?

They also have the cheapest food (excluding Japan, where food is admittedly very expensive). Fabrizio, I wonder if the issue is you like French and Italian food specifically. The US has a lot of "fancy" French and Italian restaurants which are overpriced and emphasize ambiance.

All I know is everything I ate in Italy was exorbitantly expensive except for the pasta. This may be in part because it was in tourist zones, but still, I was surprised by how high the prices were.

One note about US food - the east coast has mysteriously bad fresh produce compared to the rest of the country. Go to California and incredibly good fresh fruits and vegetables (far better than Europe) are cheaply available in the supermarket. Overall, I'm still with my assessment, outside oddball markets like New York food is very cheap in the US. Try a Costco or Sam's - hard to beat those prices in the developed world.

MidtownGuy

January 14th, 2008, 01:51 PM

Europeans have better vacation packages, but the other points are silly and in certain cases factually incorrect. Also, just a note about an American paradox is that rich people cluster in places like Manhattan where there is kind of a self imposed poverty, but middle income people can get a big house and a life similarly rich people in Europe can hardly imagine. America is surprisingly equal in that respect, for all our talk about rich and poor. Anyways - here's some rebuttals on your specific omparisons.

And here are mine:

Food: Check out a Zagat guide and it will always point out that even though Americans think New York dining is expensive, its cheaper than comparable places anywhere in Europe.

What I said was: "We could start with the food supply in America. It's mostly genetically poisoned frankenfood. If you want to actually eat healthy in America, you pay much more than in Europe."

First, New York is not typical of America. Restaurant prices/quality, even if what you said were true, is not the aspect of the food supply that I was talking about; I specifically mentioned food supply in regards to genetically modified crops and the price of eating healthy food that isn't stewing in a soup of chemicals. Don't even get me started on the meat supply in America. Crap food is plentiful and cheap, fresh healthy food costs a premium.
Your focus on restaurants is puzzling until it is considered that you're a New Yorker and probably eat out more than you eat home cooked food. So that's what you're thinking about when you read my comment. Again, we in NYC are not typical of people outside the City or in most of Europe. Or the world for that matter. More relevant than Zagat restaurant ratings might be an examination of the prices/offerings in supermarkets. In America, they are huge, with so much variety on offer, but like I said the wholesome stuff is ridiculously overpriced.

I spend quite a bit of time in Europe and much of it is not in hotels or tourist zones but in self-catering apartments or with friends, so you might say I've shopped in many, many supermarkets there. The variety is smaller, but the standards are higher and the prices for wholesome foods are lower. (increasingly not for us though, with the dollar sinking like Titanic.)
In Dusseldorf, for example, you find stores selling "bio" food (organic) for amazingly low prices all over the place.

Besides, America is a diverse country and we have restaurant variety here, which I like. London has decent ethnic food but most of Europe doesn't. In America, even second tier cities like Dallas and Atlanta have great food and great variety. We do have a portion control problem - but our issue isn't frankenfood - we just eat too much because food is so much cheaper than it is elsewhere in the world.

Again, restaurants seem to be your main concern. And yes, frankenfood IS an issue if you are paying attention to what is legal and typical in Europe compared to here.

Education: The US indisputably has the worlds best univesity system.

If you are rich or willing to submit to outrageous loans.

And what about our public schools, before you even get near a university? I was really talking more about public education, which is what matters as an average child growing up when you are stuck in a place. If you were lucky enough to go to a public school with computers and books more important than security guards and metal detectors I suppose it all looks peachy keen. There are two Americas.

Also, we don't force people in high school to make vocational choices but rather encourage them to broadly explore a liberal arts education and pursue their dreams.

huh?

Finally, on the one issue Americans like to worry about, poor people in the US go to school and consistently achieve happier and better outcomes as fully integrated members of society than anyone gives them credit for.

Any facts to offer, or are you giving us personal impressions? Are you just talking about universities again? The American public school system is crap in so many communities (not the rich ones, of course). SO much inequality and underfunding. Just really pathetic for a country like this.
Your defense seems limited to such a narrow realm of existence and, perhaps, experience.

Nightlife: When European cities start running their subways 24 hours, come back and we'll talk.

Doesn't matter. We run the subways 24 hours a day, but run our nightlife industry into the ground.

Anyway, most cities in America shut down by 2 am. And don't have a subway at all.
In Madrid or Athens, people are still having their after dinner drinks.

And have you ever heard of Vegas?

Ever heard of someone NOT actually interested in giant silicone tits or plastic versions of the real thing in actual cities?
I've been to Vegas 4 times for menswear industry conventions and I can tell you that the nightlife there is not great unless Celine Dion, erotic dancers or the Hard Rock Cafe are what you get into to.

Plus, they don't even run subways at all in Vegas:p

Parks: Yosemite, YellowStone, etc.

Those aren't urban spaces so that isn't a rebuttal to any of my points.

All I know is everything I ate in Italy was exorbitantly expensive except for the pasta. This may be in part because it was in tourist zones, but still, I was surprised by how high the prices were.

Yes, you must have stayed in tourist zones. Understandable, and typical for most Americans with their small vacation packages; you didn't have the chance or the interest to see the real neighborhoods.

Fabrizio

January 14th, 2008, 02:04 PM

Investordude: "Fabrizio, I wonder if the issue is you like French and Italian food specifically"

No. Specifically, I like good produce. Meat not filled with hormones. Cut in front of me as I request. Whole fish (or cut by the fish monger). Artisinal cheeses of a wide variety, both fresh and aged. Artisinal cured meats... ham, salami... handmade sausages. Bread that has been baked the day that I buy it (wood oven baked if possible). Extra virgin olive oil. Butter that is sweet, fresh and of high fat content. Fruit and vegetables that are locally grown and in season. Wine that is produced locally without additives. etc. and etc.

In other words, the way most of the people I know eat. And we are not talking about schooled gourmands. We are talking about a culture.

As far as "fancy" restaurants go... I frequent them, if for some reason, I must. "My" places are simple and chef/owner run.

I agree with you about the wide variety of ethnic food avaiable to all in the US... it's wonderful and something I really enjoy when I visit.

Tourist food in Italy can be very bad and expensive, a rip-off all the way around. And even in "good" touristy restaurants, you must understand how to order.

Prices: with the dollar so low, everything is expensive here for Americans.

---

pianoman11686

January 14th, 2008, 10:41 PM

I realize I might be stepping into a polarizing argument here, so I will keep my comments anecdotal and objective. (I am NOT trying to start a back-and-forth with anyone.)

Since the majority of points seem to center around food, here's my take:

In America, I think eating out is undoubtedly cheaper than it is in Europe (even adjusting for exchange rates). Whether it's better, nutrition-wise, is up to debate: there are just way too many restaurants to make a broad generalization. And I'm not talking about fast-food. We have literally thousands of full-service, very affordable restaurants that serve a wide range of cuisines. Places like Friday's and Applebee's offer perfectly good food, IMO: they've caught on to some of the healthier trends, and if you order a dinner without alcohol, you can eat a full meal for 10-15 bucks in many cases, with tip.

Raw food, I'm not so sure about. My experiences in Europe with supermarkets are limited to Poland, where, I can say objectively that food is almost as expensive as it is here (despite the much lower wages there). And quality is lacking in many areas, especially meat and produce. Talking to friends and family there, most people think the supermarkets are very under par. That being said, you can still get good, reasonably priced food items at specialty stores. Bread is excellent there, if it comes from a local bakery. As are some other things like butter, eggs, potatoes, and mushrooms.

I don't know how expensive, relatively, food is here in the US. I do know that prices vary widely (as with other things like housing). Costs of living are far lower in places like Denver, Dallas, Charlotte, and Minneapolis than they are in New York and San Francisco. I think that, specifically, Whole Foods has been a tremendous success in bringing high-quality, organic and fresh foods to almost every major market in America. It is undoubtedly more expensive than your local supermarket, but I think it's worth going to occasionally for that good piece of steak, fish, or cheese (and they've got great selection). They also have great working relationships with local suppliers of bread and produce. If food quality really is a problem for a lot of America, I hope that Whole Foods (and other chains like it) will help to raise the level generally by not only expanding but also putting pressure on others to change their standards.

Quick note about education: from the statistics I've seen, we still have one of the best primary education systems in the world. Our 4th graders score as well as anyone else, and 8th graders are just a bit worse. The real trouble comes in after 8th grade: high school is where our education system fails children. The biggest problem is the lack of qualified math (and to a lesser extent, science) instructors. We need to find a way to change the pay structure (which right now pays an English teacher just as much) to attract more qualified people with Math degrees who choose to work in the private sector where their skills are well compensated. This will ensure our students will be able to pursue the advanced degrees in engineering, math, and computer science to stay competitive for skilled jobs.

In addition, widespread zoning reform should be undertaken to eliminate de facto segregation of minorities and whites in the public school system. It's a tremendous failure on the part of policymakers to have perpetuated such a grave inequality, and it's one of the biggest reasons I despise zoning as it currently works in the US.

investordude

January 15th, 2008, 01:16 AM

OK, if what you're discussing is local supermarkets in random places in Europe, I have no idea so I can't discuss that - yeah I was thinking of America's dining out culture. I have nothing intelligent to add to what the cost of milk in in random places in Europe, though its worth noting that food gets a lot cheaper in smaller US cities too.

I still think if what you're looking for is great urban spaces, natural foods, and fantastic nightlife Asia is much better than Europe. I'm probably showing I'm not that much of a history buff by saying that. But if history is not your thing, comparing nightlife or urban spaces in Tokyo or Seoul or Hong Kong to Europe almost seems silly if you ask me. You get people out at all hours, excitement, hussle and bustle - all the good stuff about New York jacked up on steroids plus very interesting food and people who are often friendlier than I think you find in big cities in the west.

Oh well, maybe this is a case of too each his own. American suburbia is wildly underrated though for everyday living - sometimes we forget what we have in this country I think.

Minato ku

January 15th, 2008, 02:50 AM

U.K forgot to show this.

UK slips behind France on economy

By Chris Giles, Economics Editor, Financial Times
Published: January 12 2008 02:00

The size of the British economy has slipped below that of France for the first time since 1999 thanks to the slide in the value of the pound.

Sterling's rapid fall to 11-year lows against European currencies has also pushed Britain into sixth place in the world.

The US, Japan, Germany, China and France all had larger economies than the UK in the third quarter of 2007 - and in 2006.

The figures represented a "political economic cataclysm" for Britain, said Martin Weale, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who noted that the UK government often boasted of Britain's being the fourth largest economy, and then the fifth largest when China overtook the UK in 2005.

The UK's demotion to sixth place will put pressure on the government's reputation for economic competence, particularly as it is Britain's ancient rival, France, that is moving ahead.

Mr Weale said that, although the change in rank had no immediate effect on British living standards and the UK still had slightly higher gross domestic product per head, the falling exchange rate would crimp income growth compared with overall growth in economic output.

In 2006, the GDP of France was €1,792bn compared with £1,304bn for the UK. With sterling worth €1.47 on average in 2006, this put the UK economy comfortably 6.7 per cent ahead of the French economy.

But with sterling's more than 10 per cent fall against the euro in the past six months to €1.32 to the pound, the UK's economy in 2008 is now 4 per cent smaller than France.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1667a024-c0b0-11dc-b0b7-0000779fd2ac.html

So I am not really sure that U.K have a bigger GDP per capita than USA actually.

investordude

January 15th, 2008, 01:10 PM

I think this shows France has an easier road to improvement than Britain, which has already done a lot to modernize its economy and where economic conditions are relatively good. France's bloated, statist society is ripe for making the adjustments that will allow for more robust future growth off a relatively lethargic base. But, I think anyone who has visited both France and England realizes that England has the more dynamic economy at present.

Ninjahedge

January 15th, 2008, 03:10 PM

Piano, on education I agree with you. There is very little motivation for someone with an advanced math/science degree (hell, with Buisness earning more than ay other math/science, it is hard to get people to GET those degrees now!), there is almost no way someone trained in those fields would work in todays schools.

The other thing that does not factor in well is the socioeconomic split. Classic upper middle class flamilies having less children, but spending extra time and $$ to make sure their kids do well, to lower income families that, on average, have more kids and are less motivated to encourage them to do well (many believe it is up to teh teachers to teach and is not the parents responsibility to do anything but hold them to it).

This split does more to damage the "average" education level of students across the nation than just about any lack of funding. When a society wants to learn, you can get a group of them in a rickety shack in the middle of a 3rd world town all scribbling with chalk on their slates learning more english than some of our own children do where it is expected that they be provided with computers and equipment for sports like Football.

Anyway.

As for food, on the Mediterranian cruise the wife and I took, we saw many touristy spots, but the best were the spots we visited just outside the beck and call. there was something more genuine about a lot of them. The Italian farm and such. Although some areas were run down and downright depressing, others were fun to explore and great to find that little shop that served stuff more for the workers of teh tourist trade than the tourists themselves.

I also agree that you can find so much here, but it is still difficult to find things of quality in any bt the regoin that caters to it. Old El Paso does NOT make a good salsa, and Ortega is NOT a good taco mix. La Choy is a HORRIBLE soy sauce and Ragu is an absolute cattle-piss of a tomato sauce. But, if you are not in an area with a large XXX population, that is what you get.

Oh, MTG, I know this is sensitive, and I agree with you 50%, but sometimes 100% "organic" is not healthier than the use of some chemicals. People have this stigmata against everything, and I agree that BGH, steroids and certain insecicides are bad for your health, but untreated "natural" fertalizer can be worse (e-coli being a biggie there) and other infestations and pathogens.

The problem is not really in the use of these substances, but in the lack of concern with the optimal SAFE levels to be used. With the push for cheap and fast (99¢ lettuce?) farmers and packagers do not care too much about putting that extra bit of preservative, so long as they have a low waste rate in their products.

That being said, I am very much against the current trend of horticulturalists in their desire to crossbreed or gene-splice better LOOKING foods. They are not looking for a better tasting tomato, they are looking for one that is bigger, redder, and stays on the shelf longer. And they are doing very well with that.

So thanks to people who don't know what to look for, and who have never really tasted anything genuinely good, the market is being driven to produce what they want. Good looking stuff.

MidtownGuy

January 15th, 2008, 03:43 PM

bloated, statist society

^These kinds of irritating slogans/buzzwords are tired and propagandistic.
When I hear them it's like nails on a chalkboard.

What does modernize mean, really? your wording implies that there is only one way to be modern, the way you have in mind? It's offensive, actually.

Plenty of people in Europe would say their economy and way of doing things are much more 'modern" than ours. Some, even, might say our system is barbaric: a corporate elitist feeding frenzy at the expense of the people, far from modern but actually quite regressive. They have no desire to emulate it.
When you throw around words like bloated and statist, you might consider that the American government is bloated too...but in favor of an overgrown military-industrial complex and corporate welfare instead of for the interests of average people.

France is doing just fine, evidently, and wouldn't want to make the mistakes that have been made here in recent decades.

In case you haven't noticed, the way we do things here doesn't seem to be working too well; this whole country is going down the toilet.

The European Union is on the ascendancy.

pianoman11686

January 15th, 2008, 07:37 PM

investordude

January 15th, 2008, 07:45 PM

In both Merkel and Sarkozy, France's two most important economic leaders, policy shifts are occuring to reduce the big government anti-entreprenuerial union state. Prior to Sarkozy, France has 10 percent unemployment and riots in the street. That's hardly doing fine. Sure, they're better off than Malawi, but they needed Sarkozy just like Germany needed Merkel.

I hope you're right that the EU is in "ascendancy." They are our allies, and the EU has twice the population of the United States. It would enhance democracy if free enterprise reforms help them grow their economy to levels of per capita income more in keeping with US and UK standards. I hope Japan shakes off the doldrums and starts growing again too. The worst thing imaginable would be for the US to be the only successful large democratic state.

But even if we have a small recession, we'll get new leadership in 8 months. Until France starts having Google and ipods and 4 percent unemployment, I think the American entreprenuerial approach is still the way to go - and so do the French people who put Sarkozy in office.

Fabrizio

January 15th, 2008, 08:11 PM

Investordude: whose talking points do you listen to?

Paul Klugman NYTimes Jan11 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html

More:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/another-jobs-picture-europe-vs-us/

---

investordude

January 15th, 2008, 08:30 PM

I read Krugman's piece. We all know Krugman is a leftie. The bottom line is the economy in France and Germany improved when they elected leaders who were more pro-US and more hostile to labor unions than their predecessors. I've met a lot of people who for one reason or another had to leave the US (usually because we have a stupid visa system that I hope will get reformed when a new leader takes office in 8 months). A lot of them moved to continental Europe, and they'd write back to us about how bleak job prospects were and how few innovative companies there were, and how they weren't really welcomed into the culture in the way they were in the US. Some of them went back to home countries like Russia or China eventually rather than stay in Europe, and they all wanted to come back to the US.

That means we're idiots for not keeping these bright people, and we need to fix that, but the bottom line is it doesn't seem like people in China, or Iran, or India are confused about where the promised land is.

Fabrizio

January 15th, 2008, 08:46 PM

(oh boy... )

first of all, immigration to Europe is absolutely soaring, now rivaling numbers to the US.

And Krugman? He's wrong, statistics and all, because he's a lefty.

In otherwords: what is true, is what you agree with.

Smart.

investordude

January 15th, 2008, 08:54 PM

I don't dispute that Europe has bounced back economically. I just don't see why he fails to connect that with Merkel and Sarkozy taking power. Clearly, one happened before the other, and many columnists have remarked positively on those transitions - both liberals and conservatives. The burden is on Krugman to prove he's wrong.

Immigration to Europe is soaring from lower levels than exist in the US, and again, its soaring in part because of new leadership in Europe that is less union friendly and more interested in being open in the way the US is. Still, the US still seems to be the premier destination for highly skilled immigrants - except in cases where our idiotic visa system keeps them out. And like I said, that's something the US needs to fix to regain its economic mojo.

I think its great Europe is doing better these days - but Krugman doesn't show why he thinks that's not a result of new leaders who take a more US style economic approach. (He sort of admits it in paretheses in fact before continuing his America bash)

Luca

January 16th, 2008, 04:12 AM

It is difficult to dispute investodude's point about the dynamism of the UK's (and the US') economy.

If anyone wants me to spend 20 minutes demolishing Krugman from a professional perspective that can easily be arranged... ;)

I think Fabrizio and MT Guy's point, while perhaps expressed inchoately from an academic economics standpoint, is that once you get above a certain GDP/capita, the cost of squeezing out the next 1K per year may not be worthwhile, form an overall utility perspective.

One classic example is health expenditure, where the US wildly surpasses other rich countries but with often somewhat disappointing (relatively speaking) outcomes. Measured in GDP terms, the US is 'better off' but in reality, on this front, it is not, for instance.

investordude

January 16th, 2008, 04:46 AM

I think this is increasingly America's biggest policy blunder - the failure to deal with health care in a logical way. On this point, I have no dispute that the US has screwed up its policies (although I am not sure the same is true of the UK - their health care system seems like it more or less works).

I think the challenge with health care is its very difficult to come up with a solution that correctly evaluated the right moral tradeoffs. For example, European systems seem to emphasize return on investment, although I question whether that really completely captures the moral issues with health care. If a rich insured person can save the live of their child for 20 million dollars, should they pay for it? If they do, that skews a lot of US medical statistics to look worse economically than they are (especially if the child still dies)

Still, we seem to be especially bad economically on health care - especially among less affluent people or people who, for whatever reason, aren't in the right "risk pool" to get insurance. I'm not sure what the answer is - there's a question of whether Europe's measures capture the right issues when they cite economic statistics about lower cost of care for the same average outcome, but our medical system in the US is totally broken. No doubt about it.

Fabrizio

January 16th, 2008, 07:52 AM

An interesting take from from The New York review of books.

Tony Judt

Europe vs. America

Consider a mug of American coffee. It is found everywhere. It can be made by anyone. It is cheap—and refills are free. Being largely without flavor it can be diluted to taste. What it lacks in allure it makes up in size. It is the most democratic method ever devised for introducing caffeine into human beings. Now take a cup of Italian espresso. It requires expensive equipment. Price-to-volume ratio is outrageous, suggesting indifference to the consumer and ignorance of the market. The aesthetic satisfaction accessory to the beverage far outweighs its metabolic impact. It is not a drink; it is an artifact.

This contrast can stand for the differences between America and Europe—differences nowadays asserted with increased frequency and not a little acrimony on both sides of the Atlantic. The mutual criticisms are familiar. To American commentators Europe is "stagnant." Its workers, employers, and regulations lack the flexibility and adaptability of their US counterparts. The costs of European social welfare payments and public services are "unsustainable." Europe's aging and "cosseted" populations are underproductive and self-satisfied. In a globalized world, the "European social model" is a doomed mirage. This conclusion is typically drawn even by "liberal" American observers, who differ from conservative (and neoconservative) critics only in deriving no pleasure from it.

To a growing number of Europeans, however, it is America that is in trouble and the "American way of life" that cannot be sustained. The American pursuit of wealth, size, and abundance—as material surrogates for happiness—is aesthetically unpleasing and ecologically catastrophic. The American economy is built on sand (or, more precisely, other people's money). For many Americans the promise of a better future is a fading hope. Contemporary mass culture in the US is squalid and meretricious. No wonder so many Americans turn to the church for solace.

These perceptions constitute the real Atlantic gap and they suggest that something has changed. In past decades it was conventionally assumed—whether with satisfaction or regret—that Eu-rope and America were converging upon a single "Western" model of late capitalism, with the US as usual leading the way. The logic of scale and market, of efficiency and profit, would ineluctably trump local variations and inherited cultural constraints. Americanization (or globalization—the two treated as synonymous) was inevitable. The best—indeed the only—hope for local products and practices was that they would be swept up into the global vortex and repackaged as "international" commodities for universal consumption. Thus an archetypically Italian product—caffè espresso—would travel to the US, where it would metamorphose from an elite preference into a popular commodity, and then be repackaged and sold back to Europeans by an American chain store.

But something has gone wrong with this story. It is not just that Starbucks has encountered unexpected foreign resistance to double-decaf-mocha-skim-latte-with-cinnamon (except, revealingly, in the United Kingdom), or that politically motivated Europeans are abjuring high-profile American commodities. It is becoming clear that America and Europe are not way stations on a historical production line, such that Europeans must expect to inherit or replicate the American experience after an appropriate time lag. They are actually quite distinct places, very possibly moving in divergent directions. There are even those—including the authors of two of the books under review—for whom it is not Europe but rather the United States that is trapped in the past.

America's cultural peculiarities (as seen from Europe) are well documented: the nation's marked religiosity, its selective prurience, its affection for guns and prisons (the EU has 87 prisoners per 100,000 people; America has 685), and its embrace of the death penalty. As T.R. Reid puts it in The United States of Europe, "Yes, Americans put up huge billboards reading 'Love Thy Neighbor,' but they murder and rape their neighbors at rates that would shock any European nation." But it is the curiosities of America's economy, and its social costs, that are now attracting attention.

Americans work much more than Europeans: according to the OECD a typical employed American put in 1,877 hours in 2000, compared to 1,562 for his or her French counterpart. One American in three works more than fifty hours a week. Americans take fewer paid holidays than Europeans. Whereas Swedes get more than thirty paid days off work per year and even the Brits get an average of twenty-three, Americans can hope for something between four and ten, depending on where they live. Unemployment in the US is lower than in many European countries (though since out-of-work Americans soon lose their rights to unemployment benefits and are taken off the registers, these statistics may be misleading). America, it seems, is better than Europe at creating jobs. So more American adults are at work and they work much more than Europeans. What do they get for their efforts?

Not much, unless they are well-off. The US is an excellent place to be rich. Back in 1980 the average American chief executive earned forty times the average manufacturing employee. For the top tier of American CEOs, the ratio is now 475:1 and would be vastly greater if assets, not income, were taken into account. By way of comparison, the ratio in Britain is 24:1, in France 15:1, in Sweden 13:1.[2] A privileged minority has access to the best medical treatment in the world. But 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all (of the world's developed countries only the US and South Africa offer no universal medical coverage). According to the World Health Organization the United States is number one in health spending per capita—and thirty-seventh in the quality of its service.

As a consequence, Americans live shorter lives than West Europeans. Their children are more likely to die in infancy: the US ranks twenty-sixth among industrial nations in infant mortality, with a rate double that of Sweden, higher than Slovenia's, and only just ahead of Lithuania's—and this despite spending 15 percent of US gross domestic product on "health care" (much of it siphoned off in the administrative costs of for-profit private networks). Sweden, by contrast, devotes just 8 percent of its GDP to health. The picture in education is very similar. In the aggregate the United States spends much more on education than the nations of Western Europe; and it has by far the best research universities in the world. Yet a recent study suggests that for every dollar the US spends on education it gets worse results than any other industrial nation. American children consistently underperform their European peers in both literacy and numeracy.

Very well, you might conclude. Europeans are better—fairer—at distributing social goods. This is not news. But there can be no goods or services without wealth, and surely the one thing American capitalism is good at, and where leisure-bound, self-indulgent Europeans need to improve, is the dynamic generation of wealth. But this is by no means obvious today. Europeans work less: but when they do work they seem to put their time to better use. In 1970 GDP per hour in the EU was 35 percent below that of the US; today the gap is less than 7 percent and closing fast. Productivity per hour of work in Italy, Austria, and Denmark is similar to that of the United States; but the US is now distinctly outperformed in this key measure by Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, ...and France.

America's longstanding advantage in wages and productivity—the gift of size, location, and history alike—appears to be winding down, with attendant consequences for US domination of the international business scene. The modern American economy is not just in hock to international bankers with a foreign debt of $3.3 trillion (28 percent of GDP); it is also increasingly foreign-owned. In the year 2000, European direct investment in the US exceeded American investment in Europe by nearly two fifths. Among dozens of emblematically "American" companies and products now owned by Europeans are Brooks Brothers, DKNY, Random House, Kent Cigarettes, Dove Soap, Chrysler, Bird's Eye, Pennzoil, Baskin-Robbins, and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Europeans even appear to be better at generating small and medium-size businesses. There are more small businesses in the EU than in the United States, and they create more employment (65 percent of European jobs in 2002 were in small and medium-sized firms, compared with just 46 percent in the US). And they look after their employees much better. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights promises the "right to parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child" and every West European country provides salary support during that leave. In Sweden women get sixty-four weeks off and two thirds of their wages. Even Portugal guarantees maternity leave for three months on 100 percent salary. The US federal government guarantees nothing. In the words of Valgard Haugland, Norway's Christian Democratic minister for children and family: "Americans like to talk about family values. We have decided to do more than talk; we use our tax revenues to pay for family values."

Yet despite such widely bemoaned bureaucratic and fiscal impediments to output, Europeans appear somehow to manage rather well. And of course the welfare state is not just a value in itself. In the words of the London School of Economics economist Nicholas Barr, it "is an efficiency device against market failure": a prudential impediment to the social and political risks of excessive inequality. It was Winston Churchill who declared in March 1943 that "there is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies." To his self-anointed disciples in contemporary America, however, this reeks of "welfare." In the US today the richest 1 percent holds 38 percent of the wealth and they are redistributing it ever more to their advantage. Meanwhile one American adult in five is in poverty—compared with one in fifteen in Italy. The benefits don't even trickle down anymore. To many foreigners today this is a distinctly unappetizing vision: the "American way of life" is at a steep discount. As an economic model the US is not replicable. As a social model it offers few redeeming qualities. One is reminded of Oliver Goldsmith's mordant reflections upon an earlier age of private greed and public indifference:

Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Europe-Superpower-Supremacy/dp/1594200335

http://www.amazon.com/European-Dream-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/1585423459

Ninjahedge

January 16th, 2008, 10:12 AM

I don't think the UK should be too worried about France moving up. France is a larger country (both population wise and geographically). They should have a larger GDP. The more important measure is GDP per capita, and the UK is still 6 spots ahead of France, last time I checked. (U.S. is far ahead of both of them, in 4th place currently.)

Ninja: you might be interested to know that the FDA just approved cloned animals for meat, dairy, etc.: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/15cnd-clone.html?hp

Interesting. So long as they get it right, there should be little problem.

The ONLY thing they should be aware of, and they have had problems with in the past, is that when you have a stock that is too close to each other in genetic makeup, they can all be succeptable to the same diseases and viral strains. Where nature built in a little variance to make sure that an entire didnt get wiped out because of a nasty flu bug, our commercial cloning will pick the most profitable pig/cow/sheep and copy them to produce their entire stock.

Unfortunately, THAT issue will never come to the forefront as most people are just farful of science and the whole idea of cloning. So their argument against it will RARELY be a logical one based on real-life problems that may be faced with it, and rely more on fear and ignorance of the issue to argue the point.

After all, we know all scientists are evil, right? :p

I don't know about the "better-looking" produce argument. The trend I've noticed recently is the move to "heirloom" produce (especially with tomatoes). They recreate strands of prized produce that are in some cases over 100 years old, and these are, by and large, ugly-looking things. Yet, they command a price premium.

Strawberries are a classic example. They are larger now than I EVER remember them as a kid. But they are losing their tang and zip. The medium berries have always tasted better (in season, of course) than those over-bloated monstrosities no matter how red they are.

Cosmetics have always been an issue. Some o teh best tasting lemons have looked like bumpy troll bunions, but most people (Admittedly I am one of them) look for the pretty smooth bright deep yellow ones when we are at the store.

Apples seem to be redder now, but they look funny, like they have been given red water akin to making a white rose pink to make the fruit itelf seem riper. (that is not a breeding issue, but more alongthe cosmetic issue).

I know what you are talking about with the "classic", but I still see more perfect red "Vine Ripe"s selling than the bloated split Jersey Ugly Tomatoes (although, if you get them from an Iron rich soil farm, the Uglies taste the best!)

About food, in general I like to think that there's plenty of good stuff out there (including authentic ethnic foods). I'm consistently amazed at how many new shops and limited-service eateries I keep finding here in the lowly triangle of North Carolina that serve up high-quality German meats/breakfasts, French baked goods, Greek and Mediterranean dishes, and Thai/Indian/Mexican/Japanese fast food. (Of course, if you don't feel like driving off the main drag with the Wal-Mart, Burger King, and Red Lobster, you won't find these, but they're still there.)

I think they are harder to find than elsewhere. Also, try going to suburban Ohio, Tennessee, or Iowa. There is a lot of area, and people, between the coasts.

As for German, they all moved out of NYC years ago. They went through NJ, and a lot of them ate now in PA from what I hear. They took with them a lot of the true Octoberfest celebrations (besides the marketing "Buy our crap and get drunk" octoberfests that now occur in the same mode as the equally facetious "Cinquo de mayo(sp)" drinking binge celebrations) as well as most of the decent Bratwursts. :(

And about education: I don't know about your socioeconomic argument. If anything, I find that minorities are more likely to pursue math/engineering fields. Whites (even the affluent ones) are far more likely to stick to liberal arts.

I don't know where you are coming from with that. 95% of our workforce in engineering is not black, hispanic, or other major minority. Most of our workforce is Indian, Korean, Chinese, Caucasian, Russian/Eastern Block, and European. There is still a gap somewhere in the system hindering these demographic groups (who are comprised mainly of the two minorities mentioned).

My Calculus, Physics, Chemistry and other sciences were also comprised of mainly the same groups, although certain ethnicities tended more toward certain majors (more european towards Civil engineering, more caucasian towards mechanical, more asian towards electrical).

But the split I was talking about was more along what was available. Physics, to most, is not an easy subject. It requires either an innate ability to understand the concepts, or a lot of work to learn how to do it right. As a tutor in HS, I found that parents were more than willing to pay me to teach their kids (my classmates) in this. But that is money that some parents do not have. As a result, less tutoring is done (and other helpful corses/additional study) in less affluent neighborhoods.

I am not saying that there are not people less willing to work, but our system has gotten a little weird on how it tries to help good students. It really doesn't. I have great respect for anyone coming from a poor area that has excelled in these technical fields, but as a reflection of that, one of the reasons I have respect is that it IS harder coming from those areas and as a result there are fewer that make it into those fields.

Is this getting too far OT? ;) Sorry if it is......

investordude

January 16th, 2008, 11:09 AM

MidtownGuy

January 16th, 2008, 01:20 PM

What is your race?

investordude

January 16th, 2008, 02:42 PM

Midtownguy, c'mon, what kind of question is that?

MidtownGuy

January 16th, 2008, 03:24 PM

Seriously, I'm just wondering.

Ninjahedge

January 16th, 2008, 04:04 PM

You put the same Asian kids in the same poor schools, and they do spectacular. Look at Monterey Park, CA, or even Flushing here in NY. I'm sure there are problems with some schools being poorer than others, but the bottom line is in the US, if you want to succeed, you can.

And how does this refute my other statement indicating the lack of parental participation? Asian culture pushes more. (I married asian). There is more of a mindset to push for achievement and success, especially in first or second generation asian neighborhoods.

You get into 4th or 5th and peopel start getting lazy again. Our system does not work.

I'm not really sure why there are fewer black and hispanic engineering students, but I think its far from clear the problem lies solely with the school rather than with a lack of interest in engineering.

It is many layered. Lack of school programs, unpopularity, lack of parental participation, lack of funds to help (tutor) students, our general social attitude in "native" neighborhoods (more than 2 or 3 generations removed from their roots).

You combine them in certain ways, you see trends. One will not dominate so long as the others compensate.

Still, I would submit these groups are better integrated and more happy about their lives than minorities who have historically been targets of discrimination in Europe. You don't have to be an engineer to be successful, and engineering, because of its structured sequential nature, advantages those whose parents gave them a head start by emphasizing education - so I'm not sure that's the fairest test of education based mobility.

Engineering was not the only area I was referring to, but the one I have the most experience in.

Ninjahedge

January 16th, 2008, 04:05 PM

What is your race?

Republican?

pianoman11686

January 16th, 2008, 11:51 PM

Is this getting too far OT? ;) Sorry if it is......

Yeah, I think so.

When I made my point about who's pursuing more math/science degrees, I didn't specify which minorities. Certainly people of Asian and Indian descent are far more prevalent than Hispanics or Blacks. More prevalent than whites? Probably not, but there's a lot.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here. Do you agree that it would be a good idea to change the pay structures of high school teachers so that we pay premiums for the more important subjects? Remember that getting kids interested in something that may seem just like a lot of hard work and boring is not a separate goal from getting kids to do well in those areas. That's part of the job of a teacher, and a good one will get more kids interested, and more kids excelling where they need to to get good jobs later. (I say this with a certain air of biased confidence; I was blessed with great teachers in most subjects, and I can see the effects of that to this day.)

Oh, and do massive reform of zoning to purge our schools of the de facto segregation they're now plagued with. But you probably won't agree with me on that since arguing with me on that other thread.

pianoman11686

January 17th, 2008, 12:08 AM

If anyone wants me to spend 20 minutes demolishing Krugman from a professional perspective that can easily be arranged... ;)

I, for one, wouldn't mind. :) I've probably tried to do that on a number of occasions, but in the end, it comes down to an ideological debate. Neo-Keynesians and Neo-Classicals are doomed to fight it out until the world either becomes one giant country or self-destructs.

Contemporary mass culture in the US is squalid and meretricious. No wonder so many Americans turn to the church for solace.

This one raised my eyebrows. No, really, I can't even begin to fathom why the author would make this connection. Probably indicative of an axe to grind.

As T.R. Reid puts it in The United States of Europe, "Yes, Americans put up huge billboards reading 'Love Thy Neighbor,' but they murder and rape their neighbors at rates that would shock any European nation."

Again, I'm dumbfounded.

In the year 2000, European direct investment in the US exceeded American investment in Europe by nearly two fifths. Among dozens of emblematically "American" companies and products now owned by Europeans are Brooks Brothers, DKNY, Random House, Kent Cigarettes, Dove Soap, Chrysler, Bird's Eye, Pennzoil, Baskin-Robbins, and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Isn't this a good thing? This means foreign investors see value in our businesses. Their investment only helps us (as long as it's not done for non-economic, political reasons). The fact that America's not investing as much in Europe probably means there aren't as many good opportunities for investment there. (Note: Chrysler is now American-owned. Lot of good that partnership with German management seemed to do it.)

I find it interesting that articles like the above point out the failure of US policy to redistribute income fairly enough, in contrast to its Euro counterparts. Yet they fail to mention why long-run unemployment rates in those European countries, where governments account for close to half of GDP (twice the percentage of the US), are twice as high. So, while certain aspects of welfare may be better in Europe, the most important aspect - having a job - is still lagging, substantially. (I'd like to say it's not a coincidence that this is the case, but I have a feeling I'll get flamed.)

investordude

January 17th, 2008, 12:24 AM

I think we agree on schools ninja. I was actually arguing that the mantra that the US is unequal because there aren't as many of certain groups isn't that bad when compared to other societies like Europe. On the zoning changes, just elimiante rent control and public housing, and de facto segregation will disappear in the northeast like its disappeared in most suburbs of all income levels that don't have these things - again Monterey Park is a diverse community [although its become more Asian as a virtuous cycle of good schools attracts parents who care about good schools, which in Southern California often means Asian Americans].

I'm hostile to local democratic politics because its criminal and corrupt (did you see Vito Lopez-D Brooklyn is trying to seize by eminent domain a parcel that Pfizer wants to redevelop as housing so he can redevelop it as housing with his politically preferred developer ??? Now that's chutzpah!)

On a national level, the religious right scares me, and I believe in free trade, sexual freedom, civil rights and I think the Iraq war was a mistake - so I'll most likely vote democrat although if Clinton continued Rovian tactics like on the Nevada caucus lawsuit and the republicans nominate McCain, I'll think long and hard about that.

Fabrizio

January 17th, 2008, 12:39 PM

Isn't this a good thing? This means foreign investors see value in our businesses. Their investment only helps us (as long as it's not done for non-economic, political reasons).

It is not only European tourists that are going to the US with their stong currency to shop... so are European corporations.

The fact that America's not investing as much in Europe probably means there aren't as many good opportunities for investment there.

Maybe it means the dollar's worth peanuts.

--

Returning to food for a sec. : it really should be noted that things have a strange way of getting worse and better at the same time. The proliferation of farmers markets, a chain like WholeFoods (expensive I know), the food publishing industry, the Food Network... so many opportunities to enjoy food in the US that were not there before.

This BTW is a great organization, if anyone is interested:

http://www.slowfoodusa.org/

--

Capn_Birdseye

January 17th, 2008, 03:10 PM

May I say on my recent visit to Colorado I was highly impressed with all the supermarkets I went to, in fact returning to my favourite supermarkets in the UK, Waitrose & Sainsburys, left me feeling very disgruntled.

Particularly liked Whole Foods and Wild Oats (who I understand have now been taken over by Whole Foods).

I found the choice of food, the way its displayed, its price, and the strong customer service ethic very attractive.

pianoman11686

January 17th, 2008, 06:11 PM

It is not only European tourists that are going to the US with their stong currency to shop... so are European corporations.

I realize this. Anyone who knows what influences international flows of capital would expect capital to flow where it is cheapest. That, currently, is in the US. That's why Lufthansa bought a big stake of JetBlue. And why investment authorities of governments like Singapore, Kuwait, and the UAE are pouring billions into American banks.

Maybe it means the dollar's worth peanuts.

It's been lower in the past. Last time it sunk in value so much, it was the Japanese who were buying up American companies and trophy office buildings in Manhattan.

Currency markets are cyclical. The dollar will continue to decline if the Fed keeps lowering rates. I wouldn't be surprised if it neared $2/Euro, in fact. But as soon as that happens, we will have reduced so much of our imports that it will put downward pressure on foreign currencies until a new equilibrium is reached. In other words, the dollar will rebound.

I repeat: anyone who's fooled into thinking the dollar has somehow become permanently devalued is sorely mistaken, and hasn't studied the history of currency markets enough to know that the decline was not only expected, but was needed to reverse certain unsustainable trends.

investordude

January 17th, 2008, 06:24 PM

Pianoman, I think I agree the dollar is undervalued vs the euro over the long term, but I also think it is overvalued relative to Asian currencies especially the yuan. I think things will be unpredictable until the yuan reflects its real value, which may take a while.

Luca

January 18th, 2008, 10:41 AM

I think Judt's NYT article does have a big axe to grind and many points, especially on the purely economic side, are easily disputed.

However, I think he captures part of the debate very evocatively. The coffee example is actually fairly good.

There is a great deal of confusion in US culture regarding
quantity vs. quality
newness vs. timelessness
spontaneity vs. deliberation
output vs. achievement
convenience vs. diligence
dynamism vs. patience
academic achievement vs. erudition

I think that many USians question the balance of those considerations in the US and find the system somewhat wanting. In these discussions, we often leave out the obvious fact that USians and Euros are not monolithic.

It is entirely possible that in continental Europe, the balance is exceedingly on the other side.

Perhaps as a function of my aging, I find myself trending toward a balance that is skewed toward the 'slower' end of the spectrum.

Fabrizio

January 18th, 2008, 11:47 AM

"quantity vs. quality
newness vs. timelessness
spontaneity vs. deliberation
output vs. achievement
convenience vs. diligence
dynamism vs. patience
academic achievement vs. erudition"

This is a very nice list. Thought provoking.

Gregory Tenenbaum

January 18th, 2008, 09:07 PM

Why would so many Britons in 1750, 1850 and 1950 and even today, risk their livelihoods, connections and their whole world, just to settle in the New World?

There must be some reason.

investordude

January 19th, 2008, 03:34 PM

I mean, to be fair, both the US and the UK were very different in 1850. I'm not sure you can compare than to life in the modern day.

BenL

January 19th, 2008, 07:51 PM

Life was miserable in British slums and America offered opportunity and hope. Surely you know that Gregory? I, however, didn't know of high levels of emigration between 1950-today...

pianoman11686

January 20th, 2008, 04:46 AM

I think Judt's NYT article does have a big axe to grind and many points, especially on the purely economic side, are easily disputed.

Glad you agree.

I think that many USians question the balance of those considerations in the US and find the system somewhat wanting. In these discussions, we often leave out the obvious fact that USians and Euros are not monolithic.

It is entirely possible that in continental Europe, the balance is exceedingly on the other side.

Perhaps as a function of my aging, I find myself trending toward a balance that is skewed toward the 'slower' end of the spectrum.

I've thought about this a lot, and I'm not sure of the answer, but I'll take a stab at it. Is there maybe just a baseline cultural difference between what's valued in America versus Europe? And is what's valued in Europe necessarily "better"? I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Europe is an older continent - both in terms of population, and how long it's been around.

Gregory Tenenbaum

January 20th, 2008, 06:25 AM

Life was miserable in British slums and America offered opportunity and hope. Surely you know that Gregory? I, however, didn't know of high levels of emigration between 1950-today...

Last year it sat at about 207,000 Britons leaving for mainly Australia, USA, Canada and NZ.

Meerkat

January 20th, 2008, 03:26 PM

^ hmmm. Out of 60 million people i would say that is a very, very small number and is hardly a figure which could back up an effective argument.

It also doesn't take into account those who come back disullusioned after a short period of time.

Really, some people should stop reading the Daily Mail. So middle class.

investordude

January 20th, 2008, 03:46 PM

I imagine some of those people have logical reasons for moving. Certainly, if you're a doctor, the US would be a tempting destination from the UK, for example. Also, I'd imagine there are expatriates working in finance or media in the US who meet someone, get married and stay. Finally, there may be some South Asian families who see the US as a land of more opportunity because there is less discrimination here.

But still, its a fairly small number given how easy it is to resettle from the UK to these other countries. And don't forget, there's also some reverse migration so the net migration is probably small.

ZippyTheChimp

January 20th, 2008, 03:56 PM

Returning to food for a sec.

There is a great deal of confusion in US culture regarding
quantity vs. quality

Elephant garlic vs garlic.

Capn_Birdseye

January 20th, 2008, 04:09 PM

GT seems to be concerned about the number of Britons leaving the country but figures show that Britain has become the no.1 destination for those seeking a better life in a new country - in fact the scale of uncontrolled immigration is such that its now causing housing problems in the UK, tensions within communities and a breakdown in our social fabric and infrastructure, putting great pressure on schools & hospitals.

Britain has to build 2million new homes - just to cope with growing number of immigrants
-Daily Mail

Last updated at 16:08pm on 14th January 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/i/commentIconSm.gif Comments (77) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508084&in_page_id=1770#StartComments)
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_03/buildingsiteREX_228x300.jpg New homes: Britain needs to build 2million new houses, just for immigrants

Almost 2million new homes will have to be built just to cope with the immigrant influx, peers will be told tomorrow.

It means 263 houses must be constructed every day for almost 20 years – the equivalent of five cities the size of Birmingham during the next 18 years.

Four in ten of all new homes will go to new migrants, a report by Migrationwatch UK claims.

Chairman Sir Andrew Green said immigration levels “are 25 times higher than at any time in nearly a thousand years of our history”.

He added: “The economic 'benefits' are trumpeted by the Government at every opportunity. But very little is ever heard of the costs, such as the huge addition to infrastructure requirements in order to build the millions of homes required for new immigrants."

And he said the extra pressure that will be put on schools, transport and health services "will have massive ramifications for everyone living in this country for decades to come".

The Government predicts that migration into England will grow from 130,000 a year now to 171,500 in 2026. Sir Andrew said the country is already very nearly the most crowded in Europe.
“We cannot allow this to continue. Our objective now must be a broad balance between immigration and emigration,” he added.

New households overall will rise from 223,000 a year to 246,000. New migrant homes will account for 39 per cent of those.

The report concludes: “The overall economic benefit of migration is small and heavily outweighed by the implications of adding 18million to our population in the next 50 years.”

The think-tank will present its findings tomorrow to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which is examining the impact of immigration, after evidence from Immigration Minister Liam Byrne.

Houses are allocated on a need basis, meaning immigrants are often more likely to be given a property as they are frequently newly arrived in the country with nowhere to live. In 2006, immigrants were handed 10,000 council homes worth £1.3billion, with the Government paying almost half that amount. The remainder was funded by housing associations and developers.

The Government's equality chief Trevor Phillips recently said the fear that migrants are jumping council queues for homes is fuelling tensions.

The Migrationwatch report also attacks what it calls the Government's “four favourite fibs” on the benefits of immigration.

It dismisses claims that migrants are needed to fill 600,000 job vacancies – because around 900,000 people have come since 2001 but the vacancies remain the same.

It rejects suggestions that immigrants account for 8 per cent of the workforce but contribute 10 per cent of gross domestic product, and attacks claims that immigrant earnings are 13 per cent higher than those of indigenous workers.

And claims that our pensions depend on immigrants were rejected by the Lords committee five years ago, it says.

The report comes as around a million migrants gather on the coast of Libya planning a sea crossing to Europe, some hoping to head for the UK.

There are growing fears that Labour's open-door policy is putting an increasing strain on already overstretched resources.

Britain's population could virtually double in a lifetime due to soaring immigration and rising birth rates, figures showed last year. Numbers could top 110million by 2081, the Government Actuary's Department said.

The number of children born to Eastern Europeans in Britain has soared 100 times faster than those born to British mothers, figures showed in November. ms that immigrant earnings are 13 per cent higher than those of indigenous workers. And claims that our pensions depend on immigrants were rejected by the Lords committee five years ago, it says.

MidtownGuy

January 20th, 2008, 04:13 PM

Investordude wrote:
Certainly, if you're a doctor, the US would be a tempting destination from the UK,

Don't be so certain. Unless you have numbers to convince me of a big influx of British doctors to the United States, I'll take your statement for what it is...more unsubstantiated smoke blowing.
Just because doctors make more money here, it wouldn't necessarily mean a better life, and certainly not one with more meaning or integrity as a lifesaver.
In Sicko, a typical British doctor is interviewed. He has a beautiful home. A beautiful car. A good life in Britain. He doesn't need 3 homes, 3 cars... he is interested in administering good medicine according to the dictates of his conscience and training, not the dictates of an HMO. For that reason, he would never practice in the US. I bet countless doctors would feel the same. You know, investordude, many European doctors are more concerned with healing people than acquiring 2nd, 3rd, and 4th homes if it means playing ball with a corrupt and immoral system of healthcare.
So again, until you show me some numbers that convince me of a mass exodus of British doctors to the United States, statements like this:

"Certainly, if you're a doctor, the US would be a tempting destination from the UK, for example."

are just the ravings of an ideologue.

For many doctors, our system of healthcare is a nightmare, not a dream destination.

ablarc

January 20th, 2008, 04:49 PM

in fact the scale of uncontrolled immigration is such that its now causing housing problems in the UK
Is it in fact uncontrolled?

Meerkat

January 20th, 2008, 05:10 PM

^ It certainly appears to be at the moment, although the media reports so many conflicting statistics it's impossible to know exactly what is going on.

But it certainly appears that for many people abroad, including Australia, New Zealand as well as mainland Europe, the UK is seen as offering a better life.

As a previous poster wrote - there must be some reason.

ablarc

January 20th, 2008, 05:16 PM

^ So I could just move to the UK right now --no questions asked?

Oh ... that damned weather ! (Forgot about that.)

Meerkat

January 20th, 2008, 05:24 PM

^ yep, just drop by, plenty of room! (theres a small corner of Kent not yet built on).

investordude

January 20th, 2008, 05:39 PM

Somehow, I think that on average, people like making more money than less money, when talking about themselves individually. You can find an exception, but I don't think that makes the idea people prefer more money idealogical.

Britian is definitely benefitting from a net influx of immigration, though, like the US and unlike Canada and Australia, too many new immigrants are unskilled to be quickly absorbed. There wouldn't be a crisis in housing if new migrants to the UK had enough earnings potential to buy their homes. Still, in the long run, I think even unskilled immigration creates enormous overall benefits for society. Compare California to Ohio. Who has the better economy? Even though prices are higher in California, its obvious to me life is better there right now. Likewise, Britain is benefitting from its immigrantion influx (although they need to do a better job at curbing radicalism among certain new immigrants and making those people feel patriotic to Britain the way most poor immigrants in America feel patriotic to the US).

MidtownGuy

January 20th, 2008, 06:04 PM

Like human life.
Maybe you will evolve to that point someday.;)
In the meantime, you should have picked a better example than doctors for your argument...the good ones tend to believe the way I do.

MidtownGuy

January 20th, 2008, 06:08 PM

So, where's the big influx of British doctors to the United States?
Show me the numbers if you have any. You believe in numbers, Mr. Economics, don't you?

lofter1

January 20th, 2008, 06:52 PM

... Compare California to Ohio. Who has the better economy? Even though prices are higher in California, its obvious to me life is better there right now.

But what about next week?

Some think it's not looking too rosy for California in 2008 (http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr08/yr08rel8.asp)

ablarc

January 20th, 2008, 07:17 PM

Plenty of people in Europe would say their economy and way of doing things are much more 'modern" than ours. Some, even, might say our system is barbaric: a corporate elitist feeding frenzy at the expense of the people, far from modern but actually quite regressive. They have no desire to emulate it.

To a growing number of Europeans, however, it is America that is in trouble and the "American way of life" that cannot be sustained. The American pursuit of wealth, size, and abundance—as material surrogates for happiness—is aesthetically unpleasing and ecologically catastrophic ... Contemporary mass culture in the US is squalid and meretricious.
"America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation."

--Oscar Wilde.

Alonzo-ny

January 20th, 2008, 07:25 PM

Don't be so certain. Unless you have numbers to convince me of a big influx of British doctors to the United States, I'll take your statement for what it is...more unsubstantiated smoke blowing.

Im not supporting ID's arguement but that is not what he said. he said would be tempting he did not say there was a massive influx to the US

^ So I could just move to the UK right now --no questions asked?

Its pretty open for EU member countries I think not for other countries. And for the record NY weather is much worse than UK weather IMO. Colder, heavier though less frequent rainfalls and extremely hot in summer.

ablarc

January 20th, 2008, 07:45 PM

^ Yeah, I was just indulging in stereotypes.

(But actually ... it was pretty cold and dank the summer I lived there.)

MidtownGuy

January 20th, 2008, 08:03 PM

he said would be tempting he did not say there was a massive influx to the US

Alonzo, IF it was as 'certainly' tempting for doctors as he said, it would follow that a sizeable and meaningful number could be observed giving in to the "temptation", and actually moving.

If he was saying they are just generally "tempted" and he didn't mean to imply they would actually follow through and move, then what is the bloody point?
Totally specious! I'm tempted by lots of things, then reason and logic step in.

If he is serious and his example has merit, it should be possible to reference a meaningful number of British doctors following through on it and coming to the US, causing an influx.
Otherwise, it really is just a lot of hot air and speculation.
"Certainly" my ass.

Fabrizio

January 20th, 2008, 08:04 PM

Somehow, I think that on average, people like making more money than less money, when talking about themselves individually. You can find an exception, but I don't think that makes the idea people prefer more money idealogical.

Speaking strictly monetarily, it would be to my advantage to live in the US.

Sorry, I'm perfectly happy here.

----

For investordude:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0711_030711_money.html

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 01:17 AM

The stuff about western europe having millionaires I don't think is that surprising is it? I'm not actually sure what you're point is, western Europe is a relatively nice place to live - no question about it.

MTG: Well, I can personally tell you that I've had medical care by a doctor who moved to the US from the UK because the pay was no good and he could make more here. There was also a lot of discussion on the UK's overreliance on foreign doctors when an Indian doctor was implicated in a bombing plot last year, although I support the UK policy of allowing foreign doctors to come in and lower medical prices even if it discourages UK nationals from going into medicine. The US press tends to highlight Canada's doctor shortage more than the UK shortage - here's an editorial from a Canadian paper arguing the shortage is serious: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=222287

I also question your claim you personally don't care about money, given what you've told us about your lifestyle where you enjoy travel, good food, living in midtown (guessing from your username) etc. I think that's great, I like those things too. But I also realize they cost money, and that I therefore care about how much money I make, just like the vast majority of the human population. I'm a cynic about us in that respect - we all want to get rich. On the other hand, I think "greed is good" as Oliver Stone would say, so I'm not sure desire for wealth is bad unless its immorally gained.

Meerkat

January 21st, 2008, 01:54 AM

I support the UK policy of allowing foreign doctors to come in and lower medical prices even if it discourages UK nationals from going into medicine

You think that this is fair?? As a healthcare worker i think it's appalling.

''Record numbers of British junior doctors face unemployment this year after a court ruled that they will have to compete for jobs on equal terms with foreign medics. The decision means that three junior doctors - who each cost the taxpayer £250,000 to put through medical school - will be chasing every training post''.

Full story http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23430920-details/Junior+doctors+jobs+go+abroad+(for+second+year+run ning)/article.do

MidtownGuy

January 21st, 2008, 02:03 AM

I also question your claim you personally don't care about money,

When did I say that?:confused:

You should at least try to understand what people are writing. Otherwise you'll look really stupid, like you just did.

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 02:18 AM

Meekrat, you can probably shed more light than I can on whether the amount of money medical people make has an influence on your decisions.

I don't think its fair, and evidently, neither did the US congress which tightened similar policies here in the 1970s. But look at costs of medical care in the US - they are out of control. I think if we let doctors come here that would cause medical prices in the US to revert to levels which are sustainable, although it would obviously be unfair to people who got their degrees expecting a certain wage.

Actually, MTG, I guess I am dumb because I'm not sure what you're point is. Is it that there are other things people care about besides money? Umm, OK. But I'm not sure how that contradicts anything else I said.

MidtownGuy

January 21st, 2008, 02:38 AM

Doctors. Oh forget it. Just go back and read again maybe you'll have an epiphany.

I think if we let doctors come here that would cause medical prices in the US to revert to levels which are sustainable,

No it wouldn't. The reason prices are out of control is because of the basic architecture of the system.

Gregory Tenenbaum

January 21st, 2008, 05:14 AM

Capn_Birdseye

January 21st, 2008, 05:53 AM

In the meantime, there is a record middle class exodus from London.
Little wonder when our own Home Secretary is frightened to walk the streets of the capital! This Labour government has allowed feral knife-carrying yobs and anti-social drunken scum to take over our streets, robbing and raping at will. This is the government that introduced 24-hour drinking, despite public opinion being against it, so is it any surprise that alcohol has become a major problem in our town & city centres? Why did Labour do this? Money. They get huge financial kick-backs from the drinks industry.

'It's not safe to walk the streets of London after dark', admits Home Secretary skewered in kebab farce

By JAMES SLACK - 20th January 2008 - Daily Mail
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_04/jsmithDM2001_228x378.jpg'I don't get out on my own now': Jacqui Smith yesterday

Jacqui Smith suffered a barrage of criticism yesterday after admitting she would not feel safe walking the streets after dark.
Opposition MPs said the Home Secretary had made an "admission of failure" to the millions of shift-workers who have no option but to brave the threat of violence.
Aides of Miss Smith compounded her gaffe with a desperate attempt to undo the damage by claiming she had recently popped out in the evening to "buy a kebab in Peckham".
In fact, she has round-the-clock police protection.
And the owner of the kebab shop in question told the Daily Mail yesterday that Miss Smith had been accompanied by a burly minder when she dropped in for a £3.90 doner last Wednesday - at teatime not late at night.
The Home Secretary made her admission in an interview at the end of a week when three teenage thugs were convicted of murdering father-of-three Garry Newlove, kicked to death outside his home.
Asked whether she would feel safe walking the streets of Hackney, one of the most deprived parts of London, she replied: "Well, no, but I don't think I'd have ever have done."
Asked why she would not feel safe on Hackney's streets at night, the Home Secretary replied: "Well, I just don't think that's a thing that people do, is it, really?"
She was also questioned about how she would feel if she was walking through the affluent area of Kensington and Chelsea after dark.
Miss Smith responded: "Well, I wouldn't walk around at midnight and I'm fortunate that I don't have to do that."

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 06:44 AM

I dunno - some of this sounds like hysteria. Outside of slums, what is the crime rate in inner London?

Also, England seems like an example of a country that has struck the right balance between population growth and sustainability. I don't think immigrants are making UK people unhappy, except for the problem of radical immigrants that's specific to certain groups in the UK and needs to be addressed.

Capn_Birdseye

January 21st, 2008, 07:12 AM

I don't think immigrants are making UK people unhappy,
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of British people seeking a decent place to live and seeing 1 out of every 3 properties being given to immigrants.

Tell that to families who see their over-crowded schools filled with non-English speaking kids.

Tell that to families who cannot get to see their doctors or go into hospitals because both are under pressure from local communities being swollen by massive immigration.

Sorry, investordude, but you've got to be here to witness it first-hand to see how really bad it is.

lofter1

January 21st, 2008, 12:32 PM

England ^ sounds a lot like California.

Gregory Tenenbaum

January 21st, 2008, 05:46 PM

I read that article Captain, thanks for posting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXLhLP4Inng

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 06:33 PM

lofter1, call me crazy but I kinda like California. The ironic thing about all the griping about immigrants is that its probably the immigrants who staff the hospitals and build the new homes that you guys are claiming England needs.

lofter1

January 21st, 2008, 06:52 PM

I have love California, too ... mostly a nostalgic love.

Grew up there. Back when the State Parks were top notch. And the University system was accessible and didn't leave your bank account empty. When rolling hills were covered with oak trees, poppies and mustard flowers. Not houses and houses and houses.

But I don't live there now. Don't have to deal with the additional 20,000,000 folks. Or 4 hour commutes. Don't have kids to put through overcroweded and underfunded schools there. Or have to navigate a swamped health care system. Back in my day you could actually swim in the ocean off LA without worrying about dysentary. It's a different world now.

I like it in short spurts. I'm planning a trip there now. But aside from a few spots way way up north there aren't too many places in CA where I want to spend much time anymore.

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 09:24 PM

lofter1, I'm totally baffled. Isn't New York worse on most of the things you just mentioned (long commutes, overcrowded, etc).

Also, haven't the UCs been continuously improving while SUNY implodes? That actually I think is an important highlight about why immigration works there as well as in Texas (the UT system is also good). Immigrants are powering these universities - giving them a global feel and global policy perspective as well as supercharging key departments like engineering, medicine, and science. If you compare that to Europe, the only thing immigrants tend to excel at studying there in large numbers is Wahhabism. I think England needs to find a way to assimilate its students the way America does so that they get the full benefit they offer society.

lofter1

January 21st, 2008, 09:56 PM

I don't commute in NYC so that doesn't effect me. I go for months here without getting inside an automobile. Whereas if I lived in CA and was pursuing work there then I'd be in a car on a daily basis -- probably for hours at a stretch. To me that's a version of hell.

NY schools? I'm done with that. Thank goodness. Don't really have a clue about SUNY. And not sure that the University of California system is actually "improving" (whatever that means) from where it was many moons ago.

NYC's population is not that much different than it was years ago -- unlike CA where the crowding has sprawled everywhere and kind of ruined the whole wide open, spacious California thing.

Like I said, I was being nostalgic -- comparing what was "then" with what it's like on the west coast now. Not a great way to compare things but, hey, it's just a forum where we toss out ideas and share thoughts. Nobody here is remaking the world.

ablarc

January 21st, 2008, 10:48 PM

^ If you didn't experience it the way it was, it's pretty good the way it is.

Alonzo-ny

January 21st, 2008, 10:55 PM

Little wonder when our own Home Secretary is frightened to walk the streets of the capital! This Labour government has allowed feral knife-carrying yobs and anti-social drunken scum to take over our streets, robbing and raping at will.

Give it a rest your just talking nonsense.

This is the government that introduced 24-hour drinking, despite public opinion being against it, so is it any surprise that alcohol has become a major problem in our town & city centres?

If you knew anything you'd know not alot of those licences have been given out to bars, not enough to increase the existing problem.

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 11:16 PM

I'm just curious how old you guys are that you remember some time when LA was a clean city wth easy commutes and little pollution and great health care and good public schools. I mean, that situation hasn't really existed since the 1950s. And let's not kid ourselves - LA had other problems in the 1950s.

As far as England, if you can remember some time when it was idyllic, I'm just wondering when that was. The 1950s were a time of hope and promise and rebuilding in England for sure, but they also came against the backdrop of the blitz, the horror of war, and the decline of empire. It was pretty easy to improve from the 1940s but surely you're not suggesting life was better than that it is now.

MidtownGuy

January 21st, 2008, 11:24 PM

If you compare that to Europe, the only thing immigrants tend to excel at studying there in large numbers is Wahhabism.

Investordude: What drugs do you take and are you getting help for that?

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 11:33 PM

midtown, do you really think that response adds to the debate?

lofter1

January 21st, 2008, 11:34 PM

Who's talking about LA?

CA is a big state. LA is the worst of it, now and then.

But I do remember it when the traffic was OK and you didn't need freeways to get around.

Scary that I can, but I do.

investordude

January 21st, 2008, 11:48 PM

I guess you could make the argument SF suburban traffic is starting to deteriorate, but most California cities (Sacramento, San Diego, etc) still seem like they offer the idyllic lifestyle of good weather, clean living etc. And although its a long drive from SF to Silicon Valley, they really are two separate cities that happen to be adjacent to each other. Most people don't commute that far to get to work in northern California. Besides, if there's any region in the world where immigration is an unambigious net positive, I think that region is clearly the Silicon Valley. A little traffic is a worthy exchange for being the beacon of technology and enlightenment in the world I'd say.

So, I guess lofter1, I think most of the things that people complain about California they are usually talking about the endless sprawl of LA. Which region did you feel has an overpopulation problem.

lofter1

January 22nd, 2008, 12:08 AM

Maybe this will paint a clearer picture and disabuse you of the mistaken belief that traffic in the SF Bay Area is somehow idyllic:

In the area where I grew up the road to Oakland / SF was at that time a two-lane winding thing through the hills. The drive into the city was incredibly pleasant.

That same route is now a 12-lane freeway (with an accompanying BART track along side) which is invariably packed with traffic, often bumper-to-bumper and backed up for miles. That roadway through the hills had at that time one tunnel; they are now preparing to bore tunnel number 4. Even with more roads it now usually takes 2 - 3x as long to drive into the City as it did when I was going back and forth.

And I'm not sure where you get the idea that folks don't commute long distances up north. They not only commute from the outer valleys into SF, but they often drive hours to get from one ex-urban / suburban area to the other.

Some folks like that and do it. Some folks hate it but have to do it. Some folks just sell the car and move away :cool:

Alonzo-ny

January 22nd, 2008, 12:19 AM

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of British people seeking a decent place to live and seeing 1 out of every 3 properties being given to immigrants.

Tell that to families who see their over-crowded schools filled with non-English speaking kids.

Tell that to families who cannot get to see their doctors or go into hospitals because both are under pressure from local communities being swollen by massive immigration.

Sorry, investordude, but you've got to be here to witness it first-hand to see how really bad it is.

Blowing everything out of proportion. There are far more immigrants in places in the US than anywhere in the UK.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 12:41 AM

capn, one point. As long as you make sure you explain the importance of children learning English, and provide the means, they will learn it. You can't run a hospital of a university in America without non-English speaking people.

The real problem is there aren't enough immigrants who view learning English as a priority, or are given the chance to learn English in school. I'm cautiously optimistic though - the US made similar mistakes and got past them.

lofter1, the MacArthur maze is the root of all evil - no doubt about it. In fairness though, I think Oakland is a prominent example of a city that didn't adapt very successfully to the post-industrial economy. Go south - once you get to Fremont or Milpitas I think you will find the land of promise you remember from your youth (not to mention the west bay, where most of the affluent nice places in the bay area have developed since WWII).

MidtownGuy

January 22nd, 2008, 01:15 AM

If you compare that to Europe, the only thing immigrants tend to excel at studying there in large numbers is Wahhabism

OK then, here is another response to your ignorant statement.
Please provide something, anything, to back up what you said.
The sad fact is, you wouldn't be able to because it is the same kind of statement you always make...one that is completely unverifiable and based only on your own small minded impressions.
The statement I quoted above is crap, investordude. More unintelligent than any response I could give to it. What I wrote was actually the only type of response such an outrageous statement deserves.
You're always good for a laugh, but then so was Archie Bunker. Oops, I mean George Jefferson.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 01:39 AM

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/london-mayor-ken-livingston-saudi.html

Here's one of many articles demonstrating that even left wing politicians in the UK have accurately identified Wahabism and extremism as deterimental elements underming the ability to integrate immigrants in the UK. It's just a simple fact that while immigration is a positive force in the UK, the inability to instill patriotism and educational excellent and assimilation among these immigrants is a problem that doesn't exist in the US.

That's why I think capn has a negative view of UK immigration where as I think most Americans view it in a positive light. Beyond the pure economics is just our own personal experience seeing the goodness and patriotism of so many American immigrant families of all economic means and walk of life.

You can scream all you want, but Ken Livingston is hardly a right wing radical. (In fact, maybe he's a left wing radical :) ). But the simple truth is the negative impression Britons have developed of immigrants is related to the failure to teach some of them patriotism, the rule of law, and other immutable values necessary for them to participate in British soicety.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 01:51 AM

here's some more on why I think Britons like capn have developed a negative impression of British immigration: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/europe/22veil.html?scp=6&sq=britain+muslim+extremism

I think people should have the right to wear the veil. But I'm also glad that immigrants to the US mostly adopt vaguely western norms about how to treat women in society. I think the difference is we don't threaten religous expression here and we encourage civic patriotism among immigrants here, so people who don't feel threatened decide to become assimilated full participants in our society.

MidtownGuy

January 22nd, 2008, 02:29 AM

you said this:

the only thing immigrants tend to excel at studying there in large numbers is Wahhabism
That is NOT what Livingston said.
I think anybody can see the difference.
Try again.

lofter1

January 22nd, 2008, 02:44 AM

IDude: Tell me you're joking:

Go south - once you get to Fremont ... I think you will find the land of promise you remember from your youth ...

If you're not joking then you are definitely certifiable.

Or simply an a troll-spree :cool:

Fremont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont,_California)? LMFAO.

It weren't so pretty back in my day. Now, with 10x the population and all the cars to boot I hesitate to imagine ...

Home to 210,158 people as of a 2005 estimate, Fremont is the fourth most populous city in the San Francisco Bay Area. Due in large measure to immigration by refugees fleeing the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Afghan Civil War, and small amounts during the Taliban government during the late 1980s and 1990s, Fremont had the largest Afghan population in the United States in 2001. The diverse city demographic includes many Asian ethnic groups, including Indians, Chinese and other Asian groups, concentrated most heavily in the Mission San Jose District.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 03:46 AM

I'm more of a Milpitas man than a Fremont guy, but yeah - I like it there. Here's what I like about it - its a place where people come with nothing in their pocket but a dream, and in spite of being a modest and humble place, its a place where those dreams come true. In a way, it represents the "bad stuff" about the United States. It's boring, and strip mallish, with office parks, etc. But underneath the surface is the kind of situation where people from all walks of life live in harmony, and where people who were persecuted where they came from can move to America and end up building the future of the technological world, meet and fall in love, raise their families and send their children to college.

I think this is basically the perennial promise of the "west" as a place where a man can stake his claim in the world, and I think its still true in places like Milpitas the way it probably was in Oakland when you were a kid. Sure, there's some driving, but I don't think most folks in Milpitas have long commutes. The world has changed, so of course people don't live in small towns any more - but if you accept that, then I think places like Milpitas still represent light in the darkness. If you see conflict or places with repression, then I think you see what Milpitas offers that, say, a city like Moscow doesn't, despite its glamour.

Fabrizio

January 22nd, 2008, 03:58 AM

... the inability to instill patriotism and educational excellent and assimilation among these immigrants is a problem that doesn't exist in the US.

Now that is a beaut.

It is the USA that was brought to a standstill on 9/11. Who were those guys? And how about the first WTC attack? Where those immigrants patriotic and assimilated?

-----

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/489.html

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 04:15 AM

The hijackers are not representative of American Muslims, so I think that's an unfair analogy. American Muslims are highly successful, and well integrated into our society.
They hijackers were essentially foreign trained terrorists who were highly trained to seem "normal" but obviously were not. Here's an analogy of your argument - its like saying that Russian Americans aren't patriotic because there were a few Russian spies in the US during the cold war.

My point is in the US, immigrant communities are very patriotic, they respect the rule of law, they strive to work with law enforcement and get by with their neighbors. There's a separate thread on Islamic extremism in the UK documenting the wildly dissimilar situation among even relatively mainstream immigrant organizations there. More to the point, I think if capn and others on this thread bashing immigration in the UK had lived in the US, they'd have a totally different impression of what immigrants are like. The hard work, decency, and values of Americans immigrant communities are the backbone of American society.

Fabrizio

January 22nd, 2008, 04:42 AM

Have you been to London? Frankfurt? Rome? Paris? Filled with hard working immigrants, Muslims and others with their own businesses, getting along with their neighbors etc. Immigrants who have found the land of opportunity in the countries of Europe. Cities like Frankfurt or Paris have had big Muslim populations longer and more succesfully than the US has ever had.

I will bet you I have more day to day contact with Muslims than you ever will.

Problems? You bet. Just as the US went through years of riots and social upheavel among the discontented, through to the devestating terrorist attacts by immigrants on 9/11, Europe has things to work out. But the MAJORITY of the immigrants here do fine and get along.

You truly do not know what you are talking about. Some statistics for you:

http://www.ilaam.net/Intl/PopStats.html

Percentage of Muslims (CIA World Fact Book)

Germany: 3.7%

France: 7.5%

Sweden: 3.6%

Austria: 4.2%

Netherlands: 5.5%

Switzerland: 3.1%

U.K. 2.7%

USA 2.5%

---

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 05:11 AM

You know that's not what I said. If you look at my posts, you will clearly see that I stated repeatedly that I think immigration to the UK is a *positive* thing. Why would I say that if I didn't think there were hard working immigrants there?

My point (and I think you know this is what I said) is that there are also, unfortunately, some organizations, even suppossedly main stream organizations and groups in the UK that are breeding unpatriotic values and a disregard for the rule of law, and that people are not criticizing those groups or pressuring them for changes. Actually, Tony Blair tried, and he was attacked for it as "demonizing Muslims" even though that very clearly was not what he was doing.

I don't quite frankly see any of the same problems in the US. And I think that explains why there's less fear of immigrants here. There is a debate over fairness and how to balance the interests of legal and illegal immigration in dealing with the fact that more people want to live in the United States than we can absorb. And talk radio makes ugly accusations - this is a free society. But as a litmus test, McCain and Huckabee finished at the top in South Carolina - in a very conservative southern state in a republican primary during a recession, voters ignored the most strident anti-immigration candidates overwhelmingly.

I see more phobia of immigrants, as well as more tolerance for unhealthy radicalism, in the UK than I do in the US. At some point, those judgements are subjective but I imagine if you took a poll in either the US or the UK asking to compare things you'd get a similar result.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 05:16 AM

Speaking of polls, here's one for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201463.html

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 05:34 AM

Here's another poll, showing that Europeans have a more negative impression of Muslims that not only Americans, but also Israelis. So fabrizio, you are somewhat statistically rare in your views on the subject as far as Europeans go, which is sad but apparently true - and my subjective assessment is the reason is tolerance for extremism feeding a vicious cycle.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572510216&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Fabrizio

January 22nd, 2008, 06:08 AM

When the Muslim population in the US reaches 5, 6 or 7 percent of the population has it has in Europe then we'll talk.

And geographically Europe is much, much smaller than the US. We live closer side-by-side. Less private schools, no gated communities to speak of... to keep things at a tidy distance.

Consider too that Europe has been free of the protests and riots that the US had for years with the poor and discriminated against. The poor and discriminated against have not ransacked our cities as has happened in the US.

And Muslim immigrants here have not caused the death of 3,000 citizens in one day.

Europe has it's work cut out for it, problems to be sure... but as you can see from the satistics we have much larger Muslim populations, and we have hoards of immigrants settling here.

Capn_Birdseye

January 22nd, 2008, 06:09 AM

You can scream all you want, but Ken Livingston is hardly a right wing radical. (In fact, maybe he's a left wing radical :) ).
Yes, very left wing!

From Times Online
January 19, 2008

Atma Singh's full article on Ken Livingstone

I started work in City Hall in July 2001 as a policy adviser on Asian Affairs for Ken Livingstone. I had previously worked on his 2000 campaign and even entered Romney House on the Sunday after his election with his team. Norman Foster’s Greater London Assembly (GLA) building had not been even been built.

I was introduced to Ken Livingstone years earlier in the 1990s through involvement with the Anti-Racist Alliance (ARA). I worked on the GLA executive and about three months after the ARA had started in November 1991.

I was involved in left-wing politics and respected him as a prominent figure on the left of the Labour party. I had come to know many of those who now make up his most trusted advisers years earlier through a Trotskyite group called Socialist Action. I joined in 1981.

Socialist Action believed themselves to be the inheritors of the Fourth International — a Marxist group seen as the true inheritors of Trotsky’s political vision. Essentially, they believed they were working towards a global revolution. Their support of Hugo Chavez today reflects these earlier political beliefs. The Venezuelan president’s stated aims of establishing a workers’ state chime with Socialist Action’s own objectives in the 1990s and early 2000s of advancing global revolution.

They believed Britain needed a workers’ revolution and hoped to foment anti-state forces. In the early days, they held rallies and marches and published pamphlets in the hopes of mobilising a political alliance with forces of international socialists.

Socialist Action’s leaders were John Ross, who has acted as economics adviser to Ken Livingstone for many years, and Redmond O’Neill, his deputy chief of staff. Other members of the group included Anne Kane, who has undertaken consultancy work for the mayor, and Simon Fletcher, the mayor’s chief of staff, who was always on the periphery.

We would meet in pubs and community centres around London, although the hub was in Shacklewell Lane in Hackney, where Lithoprint printed Socialist Action’s monthly magazine and other pamphlets.

In the late 1990s, Socialist Action decided to operate as an entryist organisation so at meetings and rallies we would use code-names. I was called Chan.

One of their key objectives was to put “their” people in positions of responsibility in other organisations. I suppose they wanted to ensure they would not be marginalised and would always be tapped in to left-wing politics. In the last 20 years they have had members working for the National Assembly Against Racism, the National Abortion Campaign, Labour CND, NUS Black Students Campaign, Stop The War and even at one time Sinn Fein.

But those jobs have often been given at the expense of others who actually understand the issues better. It is a trend which I have observed continuing to the present day at the heart of the mayor’s office.

This is typical of the behaviour of many Marxist organisations and after a while I began to feel it wasn’t right especially when it came to Asian affairs. They always wanted to impose their own views and positions on what I was going on behalf of my community. I officially left Socialist Action in 1994; I wrote to Redmond O’Neill at the time to explain that I no longer wanted to be considered a member. Socialist Action didn’t understand the basic principles of black politics, which has to begin with respect and honesty and a willingness to promote black people as political figures.

Despite this rift I continued working closely with SA members, and even carried on paying a small subscription into the group’s bank account until 2004.

In the mid-1990s Socialist Action became very loyal to Ken Livingstone. I think that Ken Livingstone ultimately wanted political power so he didn’t object to Socialist Action pursuing their agenda as long as this coincided with him having an increase in power.

They organised his campaigns successfully and deal with spin. Ken Livingstone was never a member of SA but he was close to the group. Almost like the leader – certainly the most prominent politician that the group is associated with.

... and his apparent fondness for whiskey ...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23433239-details/Mayor%20Ken%20Livingstone%20accused%20of%20'shocki ng'%20drinking%20habits%20by%20Channel%204/article.do (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23433239-details/Mayor%20Ken%20Livingstone%20accused%20of%20%27shoc king%27%20drinking%20habits%20by%20Channel%204/article.do)

MidtownGuy

January 22nd, 2008, 12:02 PM

investordude:
You know that's not what I said. If you look at my posts, you will clearly see that I stated repeatedly that I think immigration to the UK is a *positive* thing.

the only thing immigrants tend to excel at studying there in large numbers is Wahhabism.

Right...it's a positive thing, and the immigrants only excel at studying Wahhabism. :confused:

You are all over the place.

Troll!

By the way, you should know that many of Britain's immigrants aren't even Muslims, much less Wahhabists.
Many are Hindu, in fact. And quite successful at studying all sorts of things.
You just don't know what you're talking about and I'm embarrassed for you.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 01:13 PM

I think maybe you're the troll. I think there is clearly something weird about your conduct with me on this board, and although I'm not sure what it is, I don't think it is simply a political disagreement with me. Frankly, there seems to be a slightly obsessive and weird reaction to most of my postings that extends beyond just an interest in sparring over the issues.

zupermaus

January 22nd, 2008, 01:20 PM

...on a completely unrelated matter... nightlife in europe is WAY bigger than US, not the other way round as stated earlier in the thread. The average 2 million + Western European city can have more watering holes than NYC... In my hometown of 20,000 Ive counted 40 pubs and bars, 30 different ethnic restaurants and 3 nightclubs to choose from (dont worry though, theyre all shite).

central London would go up to 8,000 pubs and thousands more bars (that pick up where the pubs close), 15,000 restaurants, and clubbing space for 500,000 clubbers any night/morning/afternoon/evening of the week. The Soho district alone (one of several entertainment districts) gets over half million people passing through it in a night, doubling on weekends. Hop over to a much smaller German city, say Hamburg, Berlin and the numers of bars would be around 10,000 too.

Now Spain, that is just monstrous, 30,000 bars in Barcelona, 40,000 in Madrid.

I think the only place with more drinking options is Tokyo, but then there are 10x more people there.

(New York 5 boroughs has just over a thousand bars.)

MidtownGuy

January 22nd, 2008, 01:26 PM

ID: My reaction is simply an unwillingness to allow your ignorant, convoluted, and self-contradictory statements to go uncontested.
You are a trollish presence on this forum, and that is becoming continually more evident to many of us.

back to the topic:
zupermaus, I agree, I think European nightlife is much more dynamic and vibrant than in the US.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 01:34 PM

Midtown, no it isn't. You're desparately latching on to things I'm saying for the purpose of blowing up an image in your own mind that I'm some sort of evil figure. You asked before what my race was, at random, probably so you can help visualize a hateful view of me. You asked me whether I was on drugs. You've refused to accept my clarifications and are instead dwelling on a comment you know very well you're blowing out of proportion.

I think the problem is you're taking a fun disagreement and making it about personally disliking me - and that's not what I'm hoping to get out of this board, so I'm going to stop responding to you. That's not to say anyone else needs to walk on egg-shells around me.

MidtownGuy

January 22nd, 2008, 02:28 PM

You're desparately latching on to things I'm saying for the purpose of blowing up an image in your own mind that I'm some sort of evil figure.

Not really evil, just contrary with everybody including yourself. It often seems to concern things about which you know very little, in this case immigration in Europe. You just spout off, then people factually and logically refute your statement, and then you morph it slightly to create a new distortion. It's quite artful the way you do it.

You asked before what my race was, at random, probably so you can help visualize a hateful view of me. You asked me whether I was on drugs.

Race- I asked not so that I could formulate hate, but to try to understand the contradictions among your posts regarding the nexus between social and economic issues like schooling, civil rights, immigration, religion, etc. I concluded to myself that you are either Asian or Black, and was curious to see if I was right.

I asked if you are on drugs because the quoted statement was so outrageous...it's an expression. Don't tell me you've never heard that before; obviously I don't actually think you are on drugs, it is an expression meaning "Are you nuts?"

You've refused to accept my clarifications and are instead dwelling on a comment you know very well you're blowing out of proportion.

Your 'clarifications' were nothing of the kind. You posted Ken Livingston's remarks, switched your angle, and then tried to skip past the stupidity of the original comment.

Going forward: Stop responding to me if you prefer, but don't expect me to stay silent when you make untruthful or specious statements.

lofter1

January 22nd, 2008, 03:17 PM

... the way it probably was in Oakland when you were a kid.

IDude: you need to learn to read :cool:

I don't come from Oakland -- although I did have my tonsils removed at the Children's Hospital there ;)

Oakland when I was a kid was basically in the toilet. They were leveling it for urban renewal projects and for building freeway interchanges. It was what you drove through to get to SF. And where the Black Panthers were hanging out (which made it both scary and enticing). While in high school we would take a quick drive to Oakland to buy alcohol -- there were a few liquor stores over there where kids from the other side of the hills could zip off the highway and get some guy to buy a bunch of brews.

Oakland was a sad city back then -- huge swaths of of it were red-lined, which kept the city and its inhabitants down and out for way too long.

investordude

January 22nd, 2008, 03:25 PM

Oh I guess I misread you lofter. By the way, I hate driving too - that's one reason I came to NY. But I still like to visit out there. The Bay Area has a very hopeful feel - I like the Silicon Valley vibe.

Alonzo-ny

January 22nd, 2008, 11:01 PM

Meerkat

January 23rd, 2008, 03:32 AM

60 Million people on a small island. Hmm. Its no wonder people aren't happy there

On the contrary, most people are quite happy here - where do you get this nonsense from? Do you make it up as you go along, or have you been reading the Daily Mail again Gregs.

This continued obsession with the affairs of our small island is of course very very flattering, but getting a bit tired now i think.

But at least you manage to get the population right (well almost, the actual figure - mid 2006 - is 58,845,700). Next trick is to find out where the UK actually is on the map:rolleyes: (hint, somewhere in Europe).

But seriously, when you live here, then i think you will be in a position to give your opinion, until that time try to get another hobby.

Capn_Birdseye

January 23rd, 2008, 05:22 AM

60 Million people on a small island. Hmm. Its no wonder people aren't happy there.

A comparison of the population density between NYC & London shows that NYC is far more crowded.

Population per sq. mile: NYC 25,925 London 11,192

Are New Yorkers happy?

http://www.cesla.med.ucla.edu/Documents/Press%20Releases/Density%20Report/charts.pdf

Luca

January 23rd, 2008, 09:29 AM

I was actually widening when 'Mr T(annenbaum) was going to wade in...:rolleyes:

I'm not sure why investordude and midtownguy are at daggers drawn with each other. chill out guys... :cool:

On the specific "doctors" issue, one must be careful not to draw general conclusions from a specific instance. Partly due to the very substantial bargaining power of the NHS/government as a near monopsony for Doctors' services, UK medical pay ahs tended to lag, as a % of median domestic income, developments in countries, including the US, where the market for such services is largely private.

Since the second Labour parliament, healthcare worker pay has caught up a little bit because people in the profession were voting with their feet. Last time I read about this (sorry, not a healthcare economist), GPs and consultants’ (specialists’) pay including all sources had increased substantially and caught up somewhat. No question, though, that a young doctor, especially, could make more money in NYC than London. Of course that is only one of several motivations and there are of course considerable transaction costs (utility-wise) to such a move.

On immigration/emigration. The UK has a positive net balance, largely thanks to the influx of new EU member citizens (and no, it’s not a freed-for-all, far from it).

It is undeniable that there is a net loss of native-born Britons. Partly, that is due to the large cost-of-living differential with even rich continental Europe and partly due to the Europeanization of demographics (i.e., a retiree who 20 yrs ago would have gone to live in Bournemouth these days may often move to Spain). But it’s not just wrinklies.

On crowdedness: the UK ahs more technically ‘buildable’ land per person than many more mountainous countries in continental Europe and yet property prices are a multiple. This is due largely to regulatory environment.

-----

As a foreign immigrant into the UK, I think that what attracts people is economic opportunities/dynamism. I find London an eminently agreeable place, though I'd happily live in NYC, too.

Meerkat

January 23rd, 2008, 09:47 AM

Meekrat, you can probably shed more light than I can on whether the amount of money medical people make has an influence on your decisions.

The vast majority of Drs relocating to other parts of the world do so because they can't get a job here (read the link i posted). If a Dr relocates merely for financial gain, then they should take a long look at why they came into the profession in the first place. Its a similar situation with nurses / physiotherapists etc. Half of all physiotherapists who graduated last year have not been able to find work (1800 of them), this has cost £43 million to train them - what a wast of money (so much for the NHS being safe in labours hands.....). Speaking to a Doctor on my ward today i was told there are currently 9,000 vacancies with 29,000 applicants (by law applicants abroad have the same chance of being given a job here as those trained in the UK) -because of this 20,000 'home grown' Drs will be unemployed here. Absurd.There simply aren't many of these jobs around these days, hence an exodus of nurses/ Drs etc .
The job i applied for had 60 other applicants, and its the same story for every nursing post - newly qualified student nurses are finding it very hard to get employment. Most people i speak to when the talk about leaving the country do so for that reason, and that reason alone (regardless of Tenenbaums absurd ramblings). I considered working in the US for a few years (hence i sat the NCLEX exam), but that was for adventure, no other reason. I've since got my own flat and am settled in my job so i've changed my mind.

Money has nothing to do with it, being out of work is the reason people leave.

Fabrizio

January 23rd, 2008, 10:28 AM

What Investodude does not understand is that when Americans are out of work, they "get up and leave" too.

They get up and leave for another State... for another Coast. European countries are tiny. When you are out of work and prospects do not look good (for what ever reason) you move.

pianoman11686

January 24th, 2008, 03:12 AM

Sorry to backtrack this thread a little, but I felt the need to respond to some of the posts about Muslims in the US vs. Europe.

While I won't agree with everything Investordude had to say, he's correct on several accounts. Firstly, Muslims are widely regarded to be much more assimilated, and successful, in the US than they are in Europe. They're much more likely to be highly educated, and have higher-than-average salaries, in the US in contrast to Europe. They also tend to be less fundamentalist, and more likely to break with religious proscriptions by, for example, intermarrying. (Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007151)

While a lot of statistics about American Muslims are up to debate, most data I've seen suggest there are slightly more Muslims in the US than in France. Keep in mind, though, that Muslims tend to be clustered in the US, especially near borders. This makes sense because a very large percentage of Muslims are immigrants, and recent ones at that (since 1990). Map of Muslim distribution in the US: http://www.pluralism.org/resources/statistics/islam_distribution.gif

For these reasons, I think it's a bad counterargument to cite higher percentages of Muslims in Europe, since Islam has been around there for much longer than in the US, and Europe is closer to the Muslim world. I think it's especially revealing that the UK, with a slightly higher percentage, has among the most problems of any country in Muslim assimilation, and dealing with related violence/unrest.

It's absolutely incredible that someone can cite the 9/11 attacks as evidence of Muslim immigrants being more hateful towards the US than in Europe. The people that committed those attacks were not homegrown terrorists like the 7/7 bombings in London (or the countless other smaller bombings in Germany, Holland, France, Spain). They came here for the specific purpose of carrying out those attacks - far away from the norm of a Muslim American.

While IDude might have made some callous generalizations, his bottom line assertion is correct: Muslims are more patriotic, more assimilated, and more successful in the US than they are in Europe. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the problem there is much worse. In fact, it's not a problem here at all (at least for now).

Fabrizio

January 24th, 2008, 05:35 AM

I am rushing so this might be rather dis-jointed:

Piano... you haveaway of comprehending that is truly all your own:

"While a lot of statistics about American Muslims are up to debate, most data I've seen suggest there are slightly more Muslims in the US than in France. "

Well of course. France is as big as Texas. And has a population of about 65 million. Compare that to the US. What France does have is a much higher percentage of Muslims.

The Washington Post article is largely largely bunk.

Let's see here:

It mentions, "So does the U.S. have a "Muslim problem"? If the data above are accurate, they strongly suggest we do not..."

Yet then says:

"...U.S. mosques funded by Saudi Arabia, which can serve as a conduit for the kingdom's extreme Wahhabist brand of Islam. Mr. Al-Ahmed calls these mosques "an incubator for suicide bombings and terrorism." Another is that, while most American Muslims have successfully integrated into American life, there remain culturally isolated and impoverished enclaves of Muslim immigrants. It was in just such an enclave in Jersey City, N.J., that the disciples of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Similarly, in Lodi, Calif., where two Pakistani men have been charged with attending terrorist training camps, some 80% of the Pakistani community does not speak adequate English."

And whever the "data suggests" it is the US that has experienced the most brutal terrorism by Muslims.... so please.

---

The fact remains: Europe is surroundedby Muslim Countries. There has even been a push to get Turkey into the EU.

Europe is a boat ride away for many poor Muslims. Just look at Albania on the map. Hoards of poor Muslims have ventured here. There is not the filter of oceans and air-fare. Boat loads of Muslims simply wash up on the shore.

Many more Muslims, many more poor Muslims.

But Europe has not experienced the terrorism that the US has.

And that's the bottom line.

---

Ship arriving ar Bari with immigrants. These scenes are unbelievable and most Americans have no idea... :

http://www.lucaturi.it/upload/2007/08/nave.jpg

http://www.diloscenter.it/web/sulfilodellastoria/bari/vlora-1991.jpg

We get boat loads every day:

http://www.ladestra.info/public/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/clandestini.jpg

http://gallery.panorama.it/albums/userpics/10028/normal_clandestini220407.jpg

Luca

January 24th, 2008, 09:41 AM

Many more Muslims, many more poor Muslims.
But Europe has not experienced the terrorism that the US has.

I find that statement is utterly absurd.

1. London, Madrid and other locales have been subjected to very serious terrorist attacks.

2. In Britain, in particular, the most striking element of the realized and prevented attacks was the degree to which they were executed and planned by British citizens, as opposed to ‘foreigners’.

3. The US 9/11 attacks were partly successful and massive due to the US law enforcement/intelligence community being complacent/disjointed. SINCE 9/11, Europe has suffered several attacks (and prevented dozens) while the US has, to date, been mercifully free of attacks (though several were planned and forestalled by LE).

I DO NOT buy into the idea that we can prevent Islamic extremism/terrorism in Europe by having “fewer Muslims”, for a number f fobvious reasons. But facts are facts and we do no one a service by perverting them.

Fabrizio

January 24th, 2008, 09:55 AM

Luca, of course there have been attacks but nothing as devestating as those in the US.

I understand the point about homegrown terrorism , but c'mon, I get a little perplexed at the following:

"I don't think it's a stretch to say that the problem there is much worse. In fact, it's not a problem here at all."

At all?: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/exclusive-us-st.html

( and BTW FYI Madrid attacks were carried out by Morrocan nationals not Euro citizens.)

Europe has large and long established Muslim communities but it also has the phenomena of easy access with Muslim nations at our borders and much larger percentages of Muslims.

And: I never said or even suggested that: "we can prevent Islamic extremism/terrorism in Europe by having “fewer Muslims”.

--------------

investordude

January 25th, 2008, 02:53 AM

I do think 1 problem with the US these days is we've become really paranoid about our place in the world. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html

The problem with all these articles is they start with the claim that we ever were hegemonic, or desired to be. I don't think we do - or at least not people with somewhat common sense views of America's place in the world. The other thing that's strange is all of these dire predictions that Americans make. The scenario sounds more like Tom Clancy than reality.

I think the decline of the British Empire has given the UK more of a perspective on the fact that its not a big deal for other countries to do well, as long as they are not evil or crazy nations. I think America would actually start to prosper and strengthen again if we let go of the paranoia about the need to be "number 1." As long as nations our rising because they are becoming our friends and gradually adopting our values (like China), why does it really matter what our relative position is as long as we're all getting rich and prosperous together?

Fabrizio

January 25th, 2008, 03:23 AM

investordude

January 25th, 2008, 04:12 AM

I dunno. In 50 years, we'll have Mr. Fusion powered energy in every home, space planes that can get anywhere in the world in 2 hours, and space mining operations that make commodities shortages as unimaginable as not have TV is today.

In which case, there won't be geopolitical tensions over commodities and there won't be any center because its too easy to move around the world quickly for that concept to make sense.

I'm exaggeratting what's possible I guess, but the 19th century concept of a center of the world and the mercantilist implications of that I think will be increasingly obsolete among advanced or relatively well developed politically stable regions of the world.

Fabrizio

January 25th, 2008, 06:53 AM

Gee... you sound like a liberal Democrat. Would a Neo-Con administration ever get your point?

investordude

January 25th, 2008, 07:19 AM

I can't actually tell you I understand what a neocon is. Everyone uses that word, but aside from "someone who for whatever reason favored the Iraq War" I can't actually identify a coherent philosophy. The problem is there are too many rationales given for why we invaded to clearly identify the philosophy of the supporters, or the opponents. Just look at wired. Some people think its about energy, others about liberty, others about nuclear terrorism, others about al Queda. And I am still not sure why Colin Powell is not considered a neoconservative but Dick Cheney is, other than Colin thought Cheney and Rumsfeld were incompetent in their tactical execution.

And certainly, I think there is a big group of people who oppossed the initial invasion and just think we shouldn't withdraw because we would leave chaos behind that have no particular philosophy other than "don't create the conditions for genocide and then wash your hands of responsibility" who have no imperial aspriations for the United States and may not be "neocons."

My point is simply that we can use our military for strategic purposes, but building an empire isn't one of them and framing a withdrawal of Iraq as a decline of American empire is ridiculous because one of the genious qualities of America is its general scorn for empire.

zupermaus

January 25th, 2008, 08:14 AM

ablarc

January 25th, 2008, 08:42 AM

Britain has been under threat of terrorism for 30 years... The IRA and its mainland bombing campaigns from the 70s, 80s and 90s...
Small-potato terrorists.

(Not equipped with suicide bombers.)

Ninjahedge

January 25th, 2008, 10:13 AM

They are also a bit nicer.

They call ahead and make bombing reservations.....

BenL

January 25th, 2008, 10:26 AM

What will happen in the next 50 years is Europe will unite with Russia and then with China. It will be a political/economic pact that will extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific and it will be the center of the world. Tensions between the EU (particuarly Britain and the ex-Warsaw Pact countries) and Russia are not far from Cold War levels.

I can't actually tell you I understand what a neocon is. Neo-conservativism as I understand it in foreign policy is the belief in putting American interests first. They argue that democracies never fight one another and that democracies in the Middle East and South America, as well as being morally justifiable will reduce terrorism and increase stability. They argue for increased defence spending and and expansionist foreign policy. Domestically, they are associated with the New Right and emphasise social stability and cohesion (old-fashioned values etc.) combined with and probably taking precedence over free market economics. (For example taking a tough stance on immigration even though it's arguably benefitial to the economy.) Think Ronald Reagan, Bush or Irving Kristol.

Too often, it's simply used as a perjorative for people who supported Iraq or are opposed to isolationism. I supported the war and support British (and American) intervention overseas but I am by no means a neo-conservative.

Fabrizio

January 25th, 2008, 10:28 AM

Tensions between the EU (particuarly Britain and the ex-Warsaw Pact countries) and Russia are not far from Cold War levels.

The context is today is very different however. I believe the end result will be close cooperation.

------------------

Societies are terrorized from within in many ways: political terrorists, the mafia, urban street gangs etc.

Capn_Birdseye

January 25th, 2008, 01:00 PM

You guys do know Britain has been under threat of terrorism for 30 years? The IRA and its mainland bombing campaigns from the 70s, 80s and 90s, with The City destroyed no less than twice, and Manchester city centre too.
Lets get one thing straight, the City nor Manchester city centre were not destroyed, they were damaged in certain specific places.
The IRA had a clear political agenda with a defined objective that related to wanting a united Ireland, a problem that was originally caused by British policies over the centuries. The British government was often in secret contact with the IRA, either directly or through intermediaries.
It's a totally different concept, and of a different scale to the concept of Jihad and/or Al Queda terrorism.

Meerkat

January 26th, 2008, 03:33 AM

The IRA and its mainland bombing campaigns from the 70s, 80s and 90s

And the fact they terrorised their own community - extortion rackets, kneecappings / beatings etc. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether they are ETA / IRA / UFF, Corsicans burning French holiday homes or the myriad Islamic groups, just to mention a few. It is always the innocent who suffer.

pianoman11686

January 26th, 2008, 09:28 PM

I am rushing so this might be rather dis-jointed:

Piano... you haveaway of comprehending that is truly all your own:

"While a lot of statistics about American Muslims are up to debate, most data I've seen suggest there are slightly more Muslims in the US than in France. "

Well of course. France is as big as Texas. And has a population of about 65 million. Compare that to the US. What France does have is a much higher percentage of Muslims.

And you have a way of picking out parts of my posts and refuting them without including the context. My comparison with France was meant to illustrate bottom-line numbers, because I've seen numbers all over the place. How convenient of you to ignore, though, that I point out the population is concentrated in a relatively small area of the US (land-wise). The US is a lot bigger than France, no? And your whole point about refuting investordude's claims was to point out the concentration of Muslims. Why don't you go back and reread my post. You probably were rushing too much.

The Washington Post article is largely largely bunk.

Of course it is, how convenient. Even though it uses a substantial number of statistics and
irrefutable facts.

And whever the "data suggests" it is the US that has experienced the most brutal terrorism by Muslims.... so please.

For the last time: that argument is specious. Ask anyone here whether they consider the 9/11 attacks to be on par with most attacks in Europe, as far as being a homegrown attack. Then maybe you'll change your mind.

The fact remains: Europe is surroundedby Muslim Countries. There has even been a push to get Turkey into the EU.

Europe is a boat ride away for many poor Muslims. Just look at Albania on the map. Hoards of poor Muslims have ventured here. There is not the filter of oceans and air-fare. Boat loads of Muslims simply wash up on the shore.

Many more Muslims, many more poor Muslims.

Again, you need to reread my post. I talk at length about the fact that Europe should have more Muslims because of proximity. I don't know if the US' separation by an ocean is a factor that limits poorer Muslims from immigrating here, but the bottom line is, the ones who DO come here tend to be much more assimilated, much more successful, much less fundamental, and much less likely to commit attacks against their own country. THAT is the point investordude was trying to make, and that's the point I'm making.

But Europe has not experienced the terrorism that the US has.

And that's the bottom line.

If you expect that claim to stand, you should probably research how many European citizens have died from Muslim terrorist attacks in the past decade or so. Then compare it to the US, and let me know what you find.

Fabrizio

January 27th, 2008, 08:44 AM

Ok. My findings:

In the US: 2001: NYC: about 3,000 deaths with over 6,000 injuries. 1993: NYC: 7 deaths with over 1,000 injured.

In Europe: 2004: Madrid: 190 deaths (injuries ?). 2005 London: 52 deaths, about 700 injured.

pianoman11686

January 27th, 2008, 07:39 PM

You just don't get it. You think listing the attacks in London and Madrid and stacking them up next to the two New York attacks is going to prove your point. The fact of the matter is, the US has had two (2) terrorist attacks committed by Islamic extremists in the past 15 years or so. Europe has had scores. Granted, most of them have been on a smaller scale, but most of them have also been carried out by European citizens, which is what this argument is about.

The US' problem with Islamic terrorist is unique from the European problem. In fact, many have argued the basis of the US problem is the European problem: the guys that committed the 9/11 attacks came from a Hamburg cell, as did Richard Reid (the shoebomber).

Europe has a problem because, since WW2, thousands of Muslims have immigrated and failed to properly integrate into European society. This is why you see senseless killings like the assassination of the Dutch filmmaker Van Gogh, or the Turkish attacks on German businesses, or the Algerian attacks on French trains, or the London bombings.

Recent news: Extremists plotted attacks across Europe, Spanish paper says (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/27/spain.europe.terror.plot/)

You'd do well to read up some more about this. I sort of suspected there was a problem, but it wasn't until doing my own research did I become convinced how serious the problem is.

Europe's Angry Muslims (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8218/)

And about how there really isn't a terrorist threat in the US:

Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html)

MidtownGuy

January 27th, 2008, 09:45 PM

Who doesn't get it? You told Fabrizio to:

research how many European citizens have died from Muslim terrorist attacks in the past decade or so. Then compare it to the US, and let me know what you find

He did exactly that, and when his findings didn't mesh with all of your bluster,
you moved the goalpost to the number of attacks instead of how many died.

We have a lot of that on this forum lately. It makes civil discourse extremely challenging.

pianoman11686

January 27th, 2008, 10:08 PM

He didn't do any research. He just repeated the 4 attacks that have already been brought up several times: 2 in the US, 2 in Europe. He didn't even have a number for injuries in Madrid (I've seen various estimates from 600 to 800).

I contributed sources that back up my argument, which is not a controversial one. All I'm saying is that homegrown Islamic terrorism is far less prevalent, and less likely, in the US vs. Europe because of the differences in demographics.

lofter1

January 27th, 2008, 11:34 PM

Pianoman: If your position is that more people have been injured and / or killed in Europe than in the US due to terrorist attacks by "Islamists" you've offered nothing to counter Fabrizio's presentation. Even with your additional "this or that" number of probably injured persons in Spain your challenge doesn't hold up -- at least not so far.

Fabrizio

January 28th, 2008, 03:27 AM

pianoman: debating 101: you are coming from a good position so why muck everything up by asking me:

If you expect that claim to stand, you should probably research how many European citizens have died from Muslim terrorist attacks in the past decade or so. Then compare it to the US, and let me know what you find.

Or by stating:
I don't think it's a stretch to say that the problem there is much worse. In fact, it's not a problem here at all (at least for now).

You continually shoot yer self in the foot.

zupermaus

January 28th, 2008, 09:26 AM

thousands have died in the UK, Ireland, Italy and Spain from IRA, UDF, Eta, etc activities over the years, more so than Americans, and the govts have been dealing with the constant threat of terrorism for decades, the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties and Nineties. If you check out your history the whole 'terrorism' ideology of the Twentieth Century came out from the Parisian political universities in the 1960s, and was first effectively used to bring down the European colonies across the world aswell as be taken up by Europeans themselves fighting for independence, eg the Basques, the Catholic Northern Irish, the Corsicans etc. Notably the first being Algeria which won itself independence through, among others, civilian bombing campaigns and whose leaders studied in Paris. Check out 'positive freedom' and 'negative freedom.'

Basically the stance goes roughly that the Western democracies operate using negative freedom, whereby people are free to be free, and left to their own devices (think: those rosy advertising images of 1950s America). The only problem with this is the entrenched hierarchy where people, left to their own devices, are kept discriminated against in a polarised society and millions under the grate of poverty (read: capitalism, racism, sexism, ethnic division, class etc). Also people find their lives valueless, with the only main goal being to make more money for themselves, an ultimately emptying prospect despite the success. Through corruption this is ripe breeding grounds for dictators in developing countries (think Africa).

Positive freedom enforces freedom on people, where people are taught or forced to learn to be free, even if it kills them. Thus the old order is 'reeducated' or downright disposed off (either by killing or exiledom). The slate is then cleared for an equal society with people given meaning and stability to their lives (the greater good of all, patriotism, arts, education etc). This was the ideology adopted by the communist states, and on their downfall, increasingly taken up by Islamist causes. Through corruption this is ripe breeding grounds for dictatorial governments in developing countries (think Stalin, and more recently, the Taliban).

The real problem is of course the corruption of both ideals, with negative 'democracies' funding dictators across the board to keep the status quo, and who increasingly employ positive freedom's firm hand of propaganda, censorship, imprisonment without trial, alongside their own negative brand of funding wars and foreign instances of genocide away from the rule of law.

Likewise postive 'freedom' can easily set up a hierarchy just as in the days of old, where party members become a new elite, and where funds are funnelled (think the New China), with millions in an unequal, unjust society.

In the end, just like Animal Farm, the animals look from human to pig to human again, and see no more the difference between the two. Just like terrorists who claim they are the ones being terrorised, with both sides seeing themselves as being the victimised ones (think Israelis and Palestinians).

...ANYWAY, back to the point
The point being is not the numbers btw of how many died etc but how long terrorism has been part of the cultural issues, aswell as day to day living. I think it would be in a tad in bad taste to start listing dates and death rolls, who when where and how many in some kind of measuring contest. If we get back to the issue Europe has been dealing with these issues, as in part it gave birth to the whole thing (or at least spread the idea across the world, thereby shooting itself in the foot), longer than the US, but that shouldnt mean US is lesser for being a newer entry to this historical timeline, considering the atrocity it has endured.

Fabrizio

January 28th, 2008, 09:45 AM

zupermaus : the discussion has been about Islamic terrorism.

zupermaus

January 28th, 2008, 12:01 PM

Its just funny how the underlying notion is that the quality of life is dependent on the number and culture of Muslims (read: terrorists) in that country.

my 2 cents, for perspective, were:

1.Living under the threat of Islamist terrorism is no different than life in the previous few decades, especially in Europe. In the greater context measure your quality of life on whichever contemporaneous issues you want eg the levels of restlessness and patriotism of your multicultural nation, but keep it in perspective. Imho this doesnt dint on my quality of life (unless of course I read The Daily Mail and find it offensive to even look at a Muslim person in my country).

3. This perceived 'war of civilisations' is actually just another take on the old 'war of political ideologies', whence the Iron Curtain has been replaced by a religious one, but is the same in all but name. In other words whether the terrorism is by an Islamist or not is a moot point, especially since most of us were bought up during the Cold War. the coverage may be different, with different names, but we have the same level of threat / security depending on the way you want to look at it.

...which leads to my conclusion, why are we having this specific an argument when we (were) talking quality of life? Education, taxes (and where they go), liberal freedoms, cultural output, career opportunities, social life, open space et al is what makes it for me, but hey just thinking aloud here.

So yep, I agree, the thread's been derailed.

Ninjahedge

January 28th, 2008, 01:33 PM

One side point Fab, and this is not meant to cause trouble, but you still have to look at it carefully.

The attack on 9-11 was a surprising success. Even the planners never though that it would succeed on such a large level. After all, other plane crashes into other buildings did not result in their utter collapse.

How many people were killed on the initial strike? How many died because they were told to stay put? How many died because of our own poor communication system on our ERTs?

Counting pure numbers is a poor way of getting a good idea about what is happening and I wish both of you would stop harping on it.

Piano, there were more US citizens killed by terrorists than in Europe. Fab, there have been more attacks, and quite possibly more of a chance of experiencing an attack first hand in Europe than there is/was in the US.

You start bean counting too closely you forget that we are not talking about beans.

'nuff said!

Carry on!

Luca

January 29th, 2008, 03:32 AM

Well put Ninja.

Capn_Birdseye

January 29th, 2008, 09:43 AM

Ninja, were you a referee in another life? If not, may I suggest you become one.

Ninjahedge

January 29th, 2008, 09:52 AM

I am an excellent mediator so long as I do not take it personally! ;)

nicholsaurus

January 29th, 2008, 08:21 PM

You can probably agree that faced with an ongoing threat of terrorism--as the Israelis, N. Irish, Palestinians, faced/face--a population still pursues its optimum quality of life. It bothers me that fanatics get so much credit as to consider them in this discussion. Did Al Qaeda stop New York? Terrorism is violence as vandalism: pointless, arrogant and foolish. Death is always tragic whether it's one or one thousand. Acts of terrorism should not impede the pursuit of happiness in a free and courageous people anymore than graffiti should take away from a city's beauty.

And by the way, I wonder how much the US standard of living would rise against the leading European countries if we'd just get a damn healthcare system in place. I think that's where other countries get an edge.

investordude

January 31st, 2008, 07:12 AM

Just curious. Some of the flash button issues like climate change would be less of a problem with McCain as president I think, and he hasn't done nearly as much Europe bashing as Romney. I imagine many people will respond by saying "we'd rather have the democrats" but if that's not going to happen, how do Europeans and British in particular think of him?

Luca

January 31st, 2008, 09:21 AM

Well, we haven't taken a vote yet... :rolleyes:

The UK press seems to be somewhat impressed by McCain's solidity but overall they are moire itnersted in the Dem's priamries since a Dem is expected to win the White House. {I'm simplifying hugely here}.

Personally, I'm a big fan of McCain. I think that if he became POTUS, some of his pragmatic views/stances would endear him to Europe but his generally tough defense of US interests would be a minus.

MidtownGuy

January 31st, 2008, 09:59 AM

What on Earth makes you a big fan of him?
He's a spineless shill. His "solidity" is nothing of the sort. Couldn't even stand up for his family when they were attacked by the Bush machine years ago. He plays according to the rulebook of his masters. I'm wondering just how many of you people over there actually know much of his politics and how much is this false image that has been manufactured for you in the corporate media.
McCain won't win so don't spend much time on it. Republicans are TOAST in 2008, I don't care if they run Jesus Christ himself. There has been a sea change, finally.

Ninjahedge

January 31st, 2008, 10:15 AM

I would not be that harsh MTG, but I do agree he has a broken back.

Back in 2000 when he was first running he seemed to be a bit freer in his words and stronger of his own opinion, but seeing him cave into party lines that you know were not in line with his own opinion was tough. You saw him when he was being interviewed on things like the Daily Show where questions were asked that almost hurt him. His answers said one thing, but his eyes and demeanor said another (You know John was trying to get John to speak his mind, not his party's position).

After I saw him with Robertson, I lost a LOT of respect for him. I still think he is a great guy, but he really does not have his own moxie anymore... :(

MidtownGuy

January 31st, 2008, 11:11 AM

He wants the Presidency so bad he'll say anything at this point to get it. I never believed he was the maverick everyone talked him up to be, and his actions in recent years have proven it.

Ninjahedge

January 31st, 2008, 12:20 PM

He wants the Presidency so bad he'll say anything at this point to get it. I never believed he was the maverick everyone talked him up to be, and his actions in recent years have proven it.

I never put him in the "Maverick" category....

He was just not status quo. Odd that so many on the SQ somehow believe that anyone that isn't is somehow a maverick. Maybe we need a genuine one to show us what that term truly means!

I saw him gradually bend to the will of the GOP, most notibly after questions of the link between Iraq, terrorism, Al Queda and 9-11 started becoming more transparent and disproven. (not the last two, but their association with Iraq and the war).

He does not seem to mention the connection anymore. Smart. He only focuses on the instability of the region that we screwed up and his unwillingness to just leave. Unfortunately he does not have, nor will probably ever have, a solution to the mess that we are in. It seems like we are in an "all or nothing" mode that no candidate seems to be able to get out of in our age of 30 second clips and 5 second sound bites.

I like the man. I liked him better, like I said, back in 2000. I would have rather had him now than GW, but then again, I probably would have prefered anyone short of Plastic Romney!

I feel more sorry for him than angry.

Will that make me vote for him? Nope. But then again, I am in NJ, and despide all the press about NJ being a possible flip-state, it has been so solidly blue that my votes have been nothing more than an "aye" in a crowd of the same.

Democracy has its merits, but state feudalism (if that is the right term) gets depressing when it comes down to the sheer lack of power an individuals vote truly has. :(

pianoman11686

January 31st, 2008, 05:59 PM

Didn't NJ basically vote 50-50 for Bush/Kerry?

Ninjahedge

January 31st, 2008, 07:17 PM

Didn't NJ basically vote 50-50 for Bush/Kerry?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/nj/

U.S. President -- New JerseyUpdated 11/24/04 1:59 AM ET
Precincts:100% Incumbent* http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/election2003/images/red_check.gif declared winner CandidatesVotes %
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/election2003/images/red_check.gifJohn F. Kerry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/johnkerry/) (D) 1,812,956 53% http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif
George W. Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/georgewbush/) * (R) 1,594,204 46% http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/globalnav/images/spacer.gif
Other 29,853 1

220,000 votes. Yep, just missed it!

All along people were saying that Bush had a deciding lead, or there was a risk, etc etc. But this was no Ohio:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/

Even Cali was only 54/45!! And cali was a democratic "sure thing".

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/

BenL

February 2nd, 2008, 01:41 PM

MidtownGuy

February 2nd, 2008, 02:32 PM

So, you want us to stay in Iraq as it bankrupts our country and puts future American generations in permanent debt. Nice. Would you Brits like to foot the bill? It's running around $275 million a day.

You can start by covering my personal household share up till now: write me a check for $4,100. BenL, you think we should stay in Iraq but you wouldn't want to pay for it. As you said, you are looking at this from a distance. Now actually put yourself in American shoes for longer than just Election Day and you might feel differently.

And Lieberman...what a wretched SOB. Of course he and his admirers would be Iraq hawks, it's good for Israel. Like the billions we send them too.

BenL

February 2nd, 2008, 02:45 PM

America spends £16bn on NASA alone. I'm sure there's areas of government which could have their budget cuts, or the Bush cuts for the rich could just be repealed. Obviously I'm looking at this from a distance. I'm not putting myself in American shoes at all and if I was an American, I'd probably vote Clinton. As I've made clear in other posts I want Britain to stay in a war that has cost my country a lot of money too...

Capn_Birdseye

February 2nd, 2008, 02:47 PM

Obviously I can't speak for all Brits but I am coming close to supporting McCain. If I lived in America, this decision would be far more difficult for me as I support the Democrat domestic policy. However, looking at this from a distance, I care most about what America can do for the world with its influence and so I want a President which will stay in Iraq, continue the war on terror, oppose torture and Guantanamo and try to fight global warming. I'd love to see Lieberman as a running mate.
If I was a US citizen I'd vote for Hillary although there are certain aspects of her that I dislike, but in politics you never get the 100% package, you have to compromise.
Perhaps she'll turn out to be the US's Margaret Thatcher! Now there's a thought.

Meerkat

February 2nd, 2008, 03:17 PM

As I've made clear in other posts I want Britain to stay in a war that has cost my country a lot of money too...

Money that would be better spent on health, education, transport, fighting crime, getting millions of pensioners and children out of poverty etc, not to mention the cost in our servicemen and womens lives. Would you like to go out there and fight? I doubt it very much. Why are we fighting to 'rid' Iraq of a dictator, when there are several other dictators who are just as bad, and some a bigger threat to world peace (not to mention their own people). Our government should be sorting out our own problems before they go racing around the world trying to sort out everyone elses.

Capn_Birdseye

February 2nd, 2008, 04:44 PM

Totally agree Meerkat.

BenL

February 2nd, 2008, 09:08 PM

Money that would be better spent on health, education, transport, fighting crime, getting millions of pensioners and children out of poverty etc, not to mention the cost in our servicemen and womens lives. Would you like to go out there and fight? I doubt it very much. Why are we fighting to 'rid' Iraq of a dictator, when there are several other dictators who are just as bad, and some a bigger threat to world peace (not to mention their own people). Our government should be sorting out our own problems before they go racing around the world trying to sort out everyone elses. That's a valid argument but the "schools and hospitals" reaction can be used as an argument against any kind of non-essential public funding. Britain's armed forces sign up to do a job which neither of us could do, but they expect, and often want to fight. In fact, the argument I find most difficult to challenge is that the money used to fund the war could achieve a huge amount in international development.

We are not fighting to get rid of a dictator. We are fighting (or at least we were before this rushed pull-out) to stop Iraq falling to fundamentalist militia, backed by Iran or Al'Qaeda and stop the country descending into civil war. Whatever one's belief on the invasion, it is the responsibility of a country which has invaded enough for humanitarian reasons (or ostensibly, if you take the "war for oil" line...) to repair the country and ensure it is left a stable democracy. I can think of few dictators worse for their own people than Saddam, under whose reign 1.5 million civilians died, including 600,000 children, as a result of corruption. Villages were wiped out by poison gas and 100,000 died in his invasion of Iran.

I object to your last point: as a relatively powerful country, Britain has a moral responsibility to protect other human beings. This extends to aid and support for developing countries (doubled under Blair) and freeing victims of dictatorial rule. These countries' sovereignty can not be respected because their rule is inflicted upon their people and are unaccountable to them. Quite simply, the wider world has bigger problems than us and I would be ashamed to be British if we didn't try and do something to help.

investordude

February 3rd, 2008, 01:04 AM

Sounds like the public, at least among US allies, is having the same dialogue about the war that America is. One thing I hope the democrats ensure if they win is that people overseas who stuck their neck out to defend America don't feel like they got burned if we leave. Likewise, McCain is going to need to do a better sales job overseas for the war if he wins - the least excusable part of Bush's war strategy was his arrogant disregard of world opinion.

Either way, I hope America takes a more humble and respectful tone in the next presidency - (and of course as someone who opposses the war I'd especially prefer the dems win)

lofter1

February 3rd, 2008, 01:36 AM

ID: The USA is just about the only member of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" (love that Bush-ism -- or maybe it's a Rove-ism) that has any number of troops remaining in Iraq.

All of the other countries have long since said "Adios" and pulled out.

The citizens of those countries already know they've been burned.

Now it's our job -- the next President & the citizens of the USA -- to fix the mess we allowed to take place and let the rest of the world know that we are not warmongering cretins, but honorable people who can be trusted, both in business and in politics.

Achieving that is a big task.

Capn_Birdseye

February 3rd, 2008, 07:16 AM

We are not fighting to get rid of a dictator. We are fighting (or at least we were before this rushed pull-out) to stop Iraq falling to fundamentalist militia, backed by Iran or Al'Qaeda and stop the country descending into civil war.
... if you care to recall BenL, we are in Iraq because Tony B Liar said, (and had a dodgy dossier compiled to prove it! :)), that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he deploy within 45 minutes!

Are we stopping the country descending into civil war - I would have thought that's precisely what we've achieved!

Ninjahedge

February 4th, 2008, 11:58 AM

Why we WENT there was a lie.

Why we ARE there is a reality. We leave and we pretty much just flikked a ciggie into the pine barrens in August during a drought.

The problem is that the US did not have a good foreign policy and continued to lie about everything when things started going poorly. We lost even our most ardent supporter (UK) in the face of our own reluctance to admit that we were WRONG about thnigs and that we could use the help.

But no. Not the country of Freedom Fries!

Capn_Birdseye

February 4th, 2008, 04:42 PM

Why we ARE there is a reality. We leave and we pretty much just flikked a ciggie into the pine barrens in August during a drought.
Stay, and the result is very much the same, probably worse. The reality is we shouldn't be there and need to get out because staying won't help. What's the saying about if you're in a hole you should stop digging? (or is it surging?)

Ninjahedge

February 4th, 2008, 05:29 PM

Stay, and the result is very much the same, probably worse.

Not necessarily. I think a qualification of what you are saying is needed to make it fit.

If we stay there and continue what we are doing, it will probably not get any better (and possibly worse). We need to change the way we are doing things there, that is for sure. And if we can't send over a LOAD of people, long term, simple occupation will not cut it.

The reality is we shouldn't be there and need to get out because staying won't help. What's the saying about if you're in a hole you should stop digging? (or is it surging?)

No, I am saying that leaving will only make it worse. We have a real bleeder here, but taking our hand off the wound will only let the person die. We have to find a better way to stop the bleeding, even if that means a tourniquet. Whether that loses some of our potential land holdings, or our pride, so be it.

We can't try to hold everything in our hands the same way we started doing it. It simply will not work.

lofter1

February 4th, 2008, 09:39 PM

Send in more troops???

To do WHAT?

Iraq is an untenable, unworkable situation.

We need to pull back and let the Iraqis sort it out.

Look at it this way: No matter what, Saddam was going to die some day -- and then Iraq would have inevitably started to unravel. Unwittingly the USA made that happen sooner and faster than was good for almost all involved. But that genie is now out of the bottle. We cannot stop or control the divisions that have existed and which have now been exacerbated.

There Will Be Blood.

And apparently it will flow no matter what we try to do about it.

So let us ease our military out. And hope that something good comes of it.

pianoman11686

February 4th, 2008, 10:03 PM

Why does this thread continue to veer off-topic? Is the topic undebatable or does it just lend itself to tangential arguments?

lofter1

February 4th, 2008, 10:13 PM

Could be because the stupid war is the engine driving US living standards down the sewer.

zupermaus

February 5th, 2008, 10:09 AM

I can think of few dictators worse for their own people than Saddam, under whose reign 1.5 million civilians died, including 600,000 children, as a result of corruption. Villages were wiped out by poison gas and 100,000 died in his invasion of Iran.
.

just my 2 cents, 1 million of the dead you quote of which 680,000 were children ,by the UNs own estimates, were caused by the UN sanctions. After Gulf War 1 the sanctions were continued for 9 years despite every UN nation voting against them, aswell as the UN Secretary Generals. Of course the two countries that vetoed the votes were UK and US.

The sanctions were designed not to target Saddam, but specifically, the people. Water, food supplies, medicines, medical equipment, milk powder were all sanctioned, and the ensuing humanitarian crisis was documented by several relief agencies over the years.

So, who do ya blame more, the guy with the trigger personally shooting 10 Olympic stadia full of children, nonstop for 9 years, or the guy not giving in to the ransome?

Even when the food-for-oil (thats what we're really talking about here) program was grudgingly instated, the majority of aid was cut at the last minute by the US/ UK.

The sanctions are seen as one of the most damaging 'tactics' in history, with awful 'collateral' damage inflicted. Its predicted Saddam and his regime could have survived for decades longer with or without them. Saddam specifically targetted and killed about 200,000, the 'UN' 1 million, but it's not like you'll ever see a memorial to 680,000 dead kids anywhere. This is why there is so much skepticism at our motives on why we invaded, do we really have the Iraqi people in mind when we were so complicit (if not entirely blameworthy) for killing so many of them for so long a time?

Ninjahedge

February 5th, 2008, 10:26 AM

Send in more troops???

To do WHAT?

Iraq is an untenable, unworkable situation.

Within the means we have available in the methods we are choosing.

What more troops, and I do not mean 20K, would do would be to help stabilize some areas and make it so that people can feel a bit safer. Move the battle to the borders.

Now the second problem would be diplomacy. Increasing troops is useless until we get on the other side and try a bit more from there. Until we get Iraq's heart beating again, putting band-aids on the open wounds will do very little.

We need to pull back and let the Iraqis sort it out.

After we farqued it up?

That is not a very tenable solution. I do not like the fact that we have so many people over Terre, or spend so much cash, but we cant just pick up and leave.

We need to pull Blackwater and a lot of these special contractors OUT of there and start getting our money, and reputation back. Throwing money at a problem will never work, but the least we can do is maybe act more as a police force than an occupational army. help them maintain order and sort their own problems.

We need to practice better diplomacy and stop sticking our own guys in charge of everything there.

Look at it this way: No matter what, Saddam was going to die some day -- and then Iraq would have inevitably started to unravel. Unwittingly the USA made that happen sooner and faster than was good for almost all involved. But that genie is now out of the bottle. We cannot stop or control the divisions that have existed and which have now been exacerbated.

There Will Be Blood.

And apparently it will flow no matter what we try to do about it.

So let us ease our military out. And hope that something good comes of it.

I am just not in 100% agreement Loft. You don't start a riot and then just let them all "sort it out".

We need to stop stepping up to the front on this though. I agree that it is their problem to solve, not ours, but we need to help provide some sort of stability that will enable them to do this on their own.

Nevermind training these guys, or selling them guns, or sticking in our own support for one "candidate" or another in their political system.

Is their an easy solution? Not really. If there was, someone would have denounced it by now!! ;)

Capn_Birdseye

February 5th, 2008, 11:11 AM

Ninja, your simple analogies about riots and bleeding wounds are not appropriate to the Iraqi situation, its a lot more complex than that.

For starters, Iraq is an artifical state created by us Brits after WW1. It combines three provinces from the old Ottoman empire, Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, and as such includes people from different tribal, ethnic and religious backgrounds who have a history of hatred toward one another. When the "country" was granted independence in 1932 it was congenial only to dictatorship such as Saddam supplied for many recent years.

The fact that US & UK forces now occupy the "country" and are preceived by Iraqi's and other arabs in the region as Christian Crusaders does nothing to help the situation, it only exacerbates the problem. We need to get out and allow the Arab League to take over, and the sooner the better.

The main goal of the Arab League is to:

"draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries."

But of course the US, nor the UK will agree to that, (1) because of loss of face after their monumental cock-up, and (2), the real agenda, OIL.

Meerkat

February 5th, 2008, 10:07 PM

That's a valid argument but the "schools and hospitals" reaction can be used as an argument against any kind of non-essential public funding.

Yes, it may be a trite for me to say this, but at the end of the day its true. In this country, an estimated 13 million people live below the poverty line, including 3.8 million children http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty.html. This is where the money should have been directed.

This war has cost us an estimated £5 billion http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/20/nterr20.xml (not to mention the war in Afghanistan), which is obscene when you picture our own pensioners shivering in the cold because they can't afford to turn up the heating, or children living in damp, crumbling accomodation in our inner cities - that £5 billion would have changed so many lives here for the better, rather than leaving Iraq in ruins, and hundreds of our troops dead (not to mention the multitudes of Iraqis killed). Maybe i'm idealistic, but Surely any government should act in the best interests of its own people - i don't see how becoming embroiled in a war in an obscure foreign country in any way helps those vulnerable people here. I'm proud of my country, but i'm ashamed of the actions of this government. You say that we are fighting to prevent Iraq falling to fundementalist millitia (which would never have happened under the iron fist of saddam), while here at home scores of fundementalist Islamic preachers are busy recruiting hundreds of young moslems here to fight 'jihad' against our troops - their own countrymen. Instead the government turns a blind eye, as they have for 2 decades (creating a rod for our own back, which i'm sure in a decade or two we'll feel the full force of - go for a walk around the east end one day, you'll see what i mean).

As for our troops wanting to fight, maybe in some cases its true, but i imagine when the vast majority joined the army, they thought they would be doing so to defend their own country - not fighting an unseen enemy, in a hostile country - not to mention the well publicised lack of essential / faulty equipment. To throw our troops into that hell hole shames this government.

I'm not going to speculate on the reasons for war, i'm merely saying that we have enough problems of our own, and until they have been dealt with, rather than playing the global policeman we should focus on making the lives of our own people better. We are a relatively powerful country, as you say, but the moral responsibilty is to our own people first.

lofter1

February 5th, 2008, 11:10 PM

Even the Royals are speaking up ...

Prince Andrew: US Didn't Listen To British Advice In Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227627.stm)

Meerkat

February 6th, 2008, 12:25 AM

^Its all very easy for him to say the 'US should have learned lessons from British colonial history', maybe the British government should have learned lessons from our own history. The US didn't force us into the war, the government voted for it - 412 votes to 149 to approve the government's resolution supporting the use of "all means necessary" to ensure Iraq's disarmament. Though exactly what we are supposed to be disarming them from continues to be an unanswered question.

Ninjahedge

February 6th, 2008, 10:13 AM

Question Meer.

How much would the UK military have cost if it did not go to Iraq?

This is the one thing I never really hear about on any side. One side does not bring up ANY numbers because spending Taxpayer money is always bad, no matter what it is spent on. The other side lists total costs to exaggerate the overall burden and strengthen their cause.

But what is the actual cost that Iraq has levied upon us? We are nearing the $1T point. The two questions would be are:

1. Have all the bills been included in this assessment? (Halliburton, Blackwater et al?)

2. How much money have we lost in Iraq and Iraq alone? How much extra money (reservists, loss in equipment, munitions, etc) was spent in Iraq as compared to just having our troops stationed at home?

I always get the impression that we are being lead around by the rings in our noses whenever these numbers are brought up and it would be a good thing to know a bit more about what our politicians and spokespeople, on both sides, are really talking about.

nick-taylor

February 6th, 2008, 10:15 AM

Capn_Birdseye

February 6th, 2008, 12:08 PM

Even the Royals are speaking up ...

Prince Andrew: US Didn't Listen To British Advice In Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227627.stm)
Airmiles Andy should stay out of politics, and certainly not go flying around the world at British taxpayers expense, telling other countries how they should behave! This privileged but rather dim member of the "royal family" should zip his mouth and get back to what he does best - nothing - apart from the odd round of golf. The man is a parasite on our society and certainly has no credibility in representing our country at any level or in any capacity.

Airmiles Andy racks up £100,000 private jet bill for taxpayers (after selling his house for £15 million) By JULIE MOULT - Last updated at 16:15pm on 4th February 2008 http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/i/commentIconSm.gif Comments (38) (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511960&in_page_id=1770#StartComments)
Prince Andrew was under fire again last night for using taxpayers' money to fund a tour of the U.S. by private jet.

He will enjoy the luxury of a 12-seater plane at a cost of £100,000 on a series of visits in his capacity as the UK's special representative for trade and industry.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/andrewMOS0202_468x326.jpgAirways: Andrew hops from a Citation II private jet in Aberdeen for his 2006 golf break

Yet Trade Minister Digby Jones, who is making a similar tour at the same time, will use scheduled flights.

The latest lavish spending of public cash by the man dubbed Air Miles Andy came as it was revealed that he has made a personal fortune by selling his former marital home.

Sunninghill Park, near Ascot, was a wedding present from the Queen in 1986.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/andrew2MOS0202_228x371.jpgFairways: the Prince at a Wentworth tournament last year

It had been on the market for four years and it was thought the prince had finally accepted a "knock down" price of £6-£7million. But Land Registry documents show the 12-bed-room mansion actually changed hands for £15million.

The revelation will intensify criticism of Andrew's fondness for subsidised travel.

For their tour of the U.S., beginning next Sunday, the 47-year-old prince and Lord Jones will both fly from London to Miami on scheduled flights. Then they will split up.

While Lord Jones tours northern states by normal flights, Andrew will be ferried around 60 engagements in the south on a private jet.
His spokesman insisted: "Given the number of engagements this is the only way of doing it."

But Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said last night: "There is no justification for hiring a private jet. It's just another example of the Duke of York spending taxpayers' money as if there were no tomorrow."
Andrew has previously been accused of using taxpayer-funded transport to hit the ski slopes or the golf course.

In July last year, he spent £6,000 of public money to fly to the Open championship in Scotland. In 2006, he used a helicopter to cover the 17 miles between his Berkshire home and the Farnborough Air Show.

Andrew, who receives £249,000 a year from the Queen, became a trade ambassador in 2001 after serving as a Navy helicopter pilot.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/SunninghillDMc0302_468x251.jpgSunninghill Park, which the Queen gave Prince Andrew as a wedding gift - and which he then sold for a fortune

He currently lives in the Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, former home of the Queen Mother, with daughters Beatrice, 19, and Eugenie, 17.

Despite market estimates valuing it at £20million, the prince paid just £1million to buy a 75-year lease in 2004.

The Crown Estates waived the annual rent of £250,000 after he carried out a major refurbishment.

Andrew's former home, Sunninghill Park, was built as a gift from the Queen to mark his marriage to Sarah Ferguson, now the Duchess of York.

Its controversial design saw it nicknamed SouthYork, after the mansion in the TV series Dallas.

The Queen retained ownership until 2000, four years after the Yorks divorced, when she signed it over to Andrew.

The house is believed to have been bought by a businessman from Kazakhstan who is thinking about converting it into a hotel.

Meerkat

February 6th, 2008, 07:12 PM

Question Meer.

How much would the UK military have cost if it did not go to Iraq?

This question got me thinking as i have no idea how much the government spends per year on defence. It appears in the period 2007 - 08 we spent an astonishing £33 billion, compared to £31 billion for the period 2004 - 05.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm

The fact still remains that £5 billion has still been wasted in Iraq, and although this figure may seem small in comparison with the total expenditure on defence, its still money that could have been put to better use.

As for Prince Andrew, maybe he should learn to keep his mouth shut, like his mother does. I respect the Queen (lets face it she does the job she's paid to do well), but her offspring are a waste of time.

Ninjahedge

February 7th, 2008, 10:36 AM

That's the hard part Meer. I agree that the money, ours nearing a Trillion $, would be much better spent elsewhere (as it is not being spent very wisely in this war. We are not exactly getting CostCo rockets here...).

I was just wondring how much of the 5B that the UK spent was exclusive to being additional $$ as opposed to having their military home, elsewhere, or in reserve.

Even if it was "only" 1B, that is still a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere.....

BenL

February 8th, 2008, 09:18 AM

Yes, it may be a trite for me to say this, but at the end of the day its true. In this country, an estimated 13 million people live below the poverty line, including 3.8 million children http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty.html. This is where the money should have been directed.

This war has cost us an estimated £5 billion http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/20/nterr20.xml (not to mention the war in Afghanistan), which is obscene when you picture our own pensioners shivering in the cold because they can't afford to turn up the heating, or children living in damp, crumbling accomodation in our inner cities - that £5 billion would have changed so many lives here for the better, rather than leaving Iraq in ruins, and hundreds of our troops dead (not to mention the multitudes of Iraqis killed). Whilst it would be wrong of me to deny our country has its problems, they pale in comparison with the wider world. We will never sort all our problems out - that doesn't mean we should stop giving to Oxfam. One of the things that makes me most proud about our Labour government is the doubling of international development funding so that Britain is now spending the second most in the world on aid. Now I'm sure the billion we spend each year could build a lot of schools and hospitals but as a rich, powerful country we have a responsibility to help our fellow human beings where they can't, for financial or political reasons, help themselves.

I frankly think it's obscene we're talking about pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan when teenage girls with down syndrome are being forced into suicide bombings and kids from the age of 11 are given AK-47s and told to kill Americans.

Maybe i'm idealistic, but Surely any government should act in the best interests of its own people - i don't see how becoming embroiled in a war in an obscure foreign country in any way helps those vulnerable people here. I'm proud of my country, but i'm ashamed of the actions of this government. You say that we are fighting to prevent Iraq falling to fundementalist millitia (which would never have happened under the iron fist of saddam), while here at home scores of fundementalist Islamic preachers are busy recruiting hundreds of young moslems here to fight 'jihad' against our troops - their own countrymen. Instead the government turns a blind eye, as they have for 2 decades (creating a rod for our own back, which i'm sure in a decade or two we'll feel the full force of - go for a walk around the east end one day, you'll see what i mean). That is very low. Under the "iron fist of Saddam", genocide was committed and any form of opposition was punished by torture and execution. It was one of the most backwards regimes in the world. Supporting a horrific dictatorship, by any standards, for the sake of order does seem at all idealistic to me.

It's naive not to recognise the fact that the world is interconnected. If we retreat from Afghanistan, the Taliban will return and Al'Qaeda will be regroup and create the very training camps which spawned the terrorists of 9/11. If we retreat from Iraq, it will become an anarchy, and very possibly civil war with Iran extending its sphere of influence or even borders and a very powerful victory for the insurgents who will almost certainly use it as a base.

A retreat from either of these countries, if they are left without stable democracy will be a victory for violent, fundamentalist Islam across the world, from Pakistan to Malaysia and Indonesia. Indeed, to Britain and America. As the second most powerful country in NATO, a British pull-out would certainly precipitate the pull out of German and Canadian troops and increase support for an American retreat.

David Aaronovitch (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3308248.ece)puts it better than me:

"Here are the likely consequences of such a pattern. The Afghan Government would collapse, to be replaced by an overt civil war fought between the Taleban and local governors in the various provinces. A million or more Afghan refugees would again flee their country, many of them ending up in the West. Deprived of support from the US, as recommended by our commentators, President Musharraf or a successor would effectively withdraw from the border regions, leaving a vast lawless area from central Afghanistan to north central Pakistan. Al-Qaeda and other jihadists would operate from these areas as they did before 9/11.

This time these forces - already capable of assassinating a popular democratic politician - would seriously impact upon the stability of Pakistan, which is a nuclear state. Jihadists everywhere, from Indonesia to Palestine, would see this as a huge victory, democrats and moderates as a catastrophic defeat. There would hardly be a country, from Morocco to Malaysia, that wouldn't feel the impact of the reverse. That's before we calculate the cost to women and girls of no longer being educated or allowed medical treatment.

And would there be less terror as a result? We have been here before. After the Afghans managed to defeat the Russians, the Yanks - and everyone else - left Afghanistan alone, to be swallowed up by the Taleban. Who then let Osama bin Laden in. It wasn't us who provoked the ferocious Pashtun in 2001, it was their Mullah Omar who gave sanctuary to the topplers of the twin towers. Many of bin Laden's people had themselves been radicalised by the failure of the West - in another non-intervention - to prevent Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims.

Whatever the failures of Western policy - which have usually been about doing too little, not too much - they will not be dealt with by the creation of a new myth of non-interdependence. Just as the genocide in Darfur has refused to confine itself within the borders of the Sudan, but has now destabilised neighbouring Chad, so anything that happens in Pakistan or Afghanistan, whether we cause it or not, will come back to us in the shape of fleeing people, apocalyptic ideologues, weapons proliferation and the export of terror."

As for our troops wanting to fight, maybe in some cases its true, but i imagine when the vast majority joined the army, they thought they would be doing so to defend their own country - not fighting an unseen enemy, in a hostile country - not to mention the well publicised lack of essential / faulty equipment. To throw our troops into that hell hole shames this government.

I'm not going to speculate on the reasons for war, i'm merely saying that we have enough problems of our own, and until they have been dealt with, rather than playing the global policeman we should focus on making the lives of our own people better. We are a relatively powerful country, as you say, but the moral responsibilty is to our own people first. Considering we've been in Afghanistan for near seven years and we haven't directly fought a war directly in our land's defence since 1982, if you do count the significantly smaller conflict in the Falklands, I think most British soldiers are under no illusions of the kind of war they'll be fighting. Brown's contempt for the military and providing decent equipment for them is shameful but it is a practical issue which must be rectified. I do not believe in interfers with the moral and political justifications for our commitments in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Capn_Birdseye

February 8th, 2008, 02:13 PM

One of the things that makes me most proud about our Labour government is the doubling of international development funding so that Britain is now spending the second most in the world on aid. Now I'm sure the billion we spend each year could build a lot of schools and hospitals but as a rich, powerful country we have a responsibility to help our fellow human beings where they can't, for financial or political reasons, help themselves.
... as we drain the third world countries of their desperately needed doctors and nurses - guilty conscience perhaps? Its not something I'm proud of as a Brit nor is it compatible with your words, (quote), "we have a responsibility to help our fellow human beings."

Britain's NHS 'taking away Africa's medics'

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40915000/jpg/_40915271_nurse203.jpg Africa's health workers are deserting the continent's poorer countries

Doctors' leaders have strongly criticised the continuing reliance on medical staff from developing countries to fill NHS vacancies.

British Medical Association chairman James Johnson said taking much-needed staff is morally indefensible.
The BMA says African nations in particular are being damaged.

The government's tougher code to prevent the active recruitment of such workers does not stop those who volunteer to come to the UK, it says.

Last year two thirds of newly-registered doctors, and more than 40% of nurses, came from abroad.

About 12,500 doctors currently registered to work in Britain are from African nations that face serious staff shortages themselves, said the BBC's Mike Thompson.

And, over the last six years, nearly 16,000 African nurses have registered to work in the UK.

Aids deaths

In Zambia only 50 out of 600 doctors trained since independence are still practising in the country.
Three-quarters of Zimbabwe's doctors have left since the early 1990s.

More than half of all Ghana's doctors have left the country and a quarter of Malawi's remaining health workers are expected to die from Aids within five years.

In Uganda there are only 10 nurses for every 100,000 people - 10 times less than in the UK.

If we retreat from Afghanistan, the Taliban will return and Al'Qaeda will be regroup and create the very training camps which spawned the terrorists of 9/11. If we retreat from Iraq, it will become an anarchy, and very possibly civil war with Iran extending its sphere of influence or even borders and a very powerful victory for the insurgents who will almost certainly use it as a base.

A retreat from either of these countries, if they are left without stable democracy will be a victory for violent, fundamentalist Islam across the world, from Pakistan to Malaysia and Indonesia.And if we stay ...... ?

From The Sunday Times

February 3, 2008
Fall back, men, Afghanistan is a nasty war we can never win

Britain’s commanders ignored every warning that the Taliban were the toughest fighters on earth

Simon Jenkins

The American secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, flies to Britain this week to meet a crisis entirely of London and Washington’s creation. They have no strategy for the continuing occupation of Afghanistan. They are hanging on for dear life and praying for something to turn up. Britain is repeating the experience of Gordon in Khartoum, of the Dardanelles, Singapore and Crete, of politicians who no longer read history expecting others to die for their dreams of glory.

Every independent report on the Nato-led operation in Afghanistan cries the same message: watch out, disaster beckons. Last week America’s Afghanistan Study Group, led by generals and diplomats of impeccable credentials, reported on “a weakening international resolve and a growing lack of confidence”. An Atlantic Council report was more curt: “Make no mistake, Nato is not winning in Afghanistan.” The country was in imminent danger of becoming a failed state.

To read the whole article see link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3295340.ece

Alonzo-ny

February 8th, 2008, 02:26 PM

The government's tougher code to prevent the active recruitment of such workers does not stop those who volunteer to come to the UK, it says.

Like the the government doesnt force us to incur debt they are not forcing all those doctors to come to the UK.

BenL

February 8th, 2008, 03:00 PM

It's very nice you can post comment pieces but why not respond to the points I raised?

That said, here's a report from last wek in the BBC:

New rules to limit non-EU doctors

Doctors resident outside the EU will no longer be able to apply for postgraduate training posts in the UK under new immigration rules. The Home Office announcement follows sustained criticism from doctors' bodies that UK graduates are unable to find work due to the competition.
The new rules will come into effect for the 2009 recruitment round.
In the past, the NHS has employed many foreign doctors because there were too few UK medical graduates.

But an expansion of medical school places redressed this shortage, leaving doctors fighting for places. The rules, which will not apply to those doctors already working in the NHS, will produce a drop of between 3,000 and 5,000 overseas applications next year, official estimates suggest.

This year it is thought there will be about 9,000 places on speciality training programmes, and employers expect there may be as many as 23,000 applications. Without a training post, a junior doctor from the UK cannot become a GP or consultant.

Critics argue that it is a huge waste of taxpayers' money to spend some £250,000 on training each medical graduate and then being unable to provide them with a job. Others suggest that such fierce competition for places among both foreign and UK candidates mean patients end up with the best possible doctor in the job.

Health Secretary Alan Johnson said: "I cannot stress enough that we are not closing the door to international doctors working in the NHS. These new rules only apply to training places in the UK. "International doctors will still be able to come and work in the NHS in thousands of other non-training posts and will still be able to fill training places in shortage specialties."
Separately, the government is currently appealing to the House of Lords against ruling which stopped them giving priority to UK graduates over foreign doctors already here in the UK.

The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), the organisation which challenged this guidance, said the new immigration ruling was the right decision but "very late". "We have been warning the government about this for many years. Of course we should be looking after local applicants first," said Dr Ramesh Mehta, BAPIO's president. "What's important is that those who are already here - who came here in good faith in different times - are not discriminated against."

NHS Employers said it too welcomed the decision. "Employers will see this as a positive step in addressing the current oversupply of doctors," said director Steve Barnett. "We have grown the graduate workforce in the UK and now need to maximise opportunities for UK and EEA graduates by giving them priority in the first few years of their postgraduate training."

Shadow Health Minister Stephen O'Brien said the measures should relieve UK doctors of some of the pressure but that better workforce planning could have avoided the situation in the first place. "And what will happen if we end up needing doctors from outside the EU in the future? I fear a bad taste may be left in the mouths of doctors who have left home and family behind to bring their expertise to the NHS."

Dr Hamish Meldrum, of the British Medical Association, said: "Taxpayers have made a major investment in the careers of UK doctors, and it makes sense to manage the numbers of international doctors coming to work in the NHS in future. "Our concern is that the overseas colleagues already working in the UK are being both scapegoated and sent confusing messages. "At a time when they need clarity, it's being made very unclear to them what jobs they can apply to and when."