For negotiating treaties and tracking the particular athletes of Olympics or World Cup soccer, you are correct: you are not a singular entity.
However, for many discussions about economics or plate tectonics “Europe” is a convenient shorthand label.
Your nationalistic rant is misapplied here.
OK, now your own numbers show that the US has among the lowest rates of corporate taxation of the major economys which is contrary to your earlier claims that it had the highest rate. We’re much closer to agreement on this now than we were before.
And if you think some US or foreign corporation isn’r going to invest in the world’s richest market because taxes somewhere else are lower then you’re off your rocker. Not only is America is the world’s wealthist market, but it’s full of highly-educated smart natives who can help you make and sell your stuff to the hundreds of millions of (comparatively) rich, smart natives who make up that market. The market also has a fantastic transport and distribution infrastructure and the world’s best corporate legal and financial services, all huge advantages that add value to the whole invest-in-America thing. In short all the advantages that comparatively high-tax developed economys have over their competitiors. Even if American corporate taxes were higher than average or the highest it would do little to discourage investment where you can make the most money in return. The idea that a. corporate taxes are too high and b. that companies will invest more if these nonexisten high taxes are cut is just boilerplate crap from the same right-wing nutjob think tanks that have spent the past few decades claiming tax cuts pay for themselves and lead to higher economic growth and that the more the economy and the financial system is deregulated, the better economic situation we’ll have. None of it has any basis in reality.
Except this has nothing to do with economics - Sam wants to know if a grand slam of right wing parties winning head-of-state elections is symptomatic of some European trend. It’s not, and it can’t be because we don’t consult each other when making political decisions. We don’t check what right wingers and left wingers across the border are doing, we’re not looking at the political, social and economical record of the British Labour party before we cast our vote for Der Labourisches Partei or El Trabajisto Partido or whatever.
For example, in France Sarkozy got elected in large part for two reasons : France is evidently not mature enough to handle a woman in charge (you wouldn’t believe the sexist crap that was being flinged around… or maybe you would, since Hillary caught some too), and the 2005 riots which scared the proles quite a bit, a fear Sarko played like a cheap fiddle not entirely unlike Bush harped on terrorism. How does *that *fit in with your socialist collapse, **Sam **?
What bizarre analysis.
It can’t be a “trend” because nobody “consulted each other”? The definition of a “trend” is coordinated and deliberate coordination?! That makes no sense.
When historians say that the 18th century saw a “trend” across Europe of replacing monarchies with democratic governments, we don’t discount the word “trend” just because revolutionaries in each country didn’t have Twitter accounts to consult each other about Enlightenment thinking.
And when archaeologists notice a worldwide “trend” of humans in South America and Asia farming the land instead of hunting animals, we don’t dismiss the idea of a “trend” just because those early civilizations didn’t use satellite phones to consult each other about gardening techniques.
I think you’re being unreasonable.
If you still insist on your bizarre definition, please give an example of a legitimate “trend” that was caused by heads of state “consulting with each other” as you call it.
Fair point. As usual, I skipped mental steps while talking, and worded what steps I didn’t skip in a weird way. What I mean is that each country will have its own reasons for electing a right wing government. Here in France it’s the “law and order, tough on crime” angle. Somewhere else it might be economic reasons. Somewhere else a protest vote against some scandal, et caetera.
Reading it as a universal testament that Socialism Will Fail and that everyone across Europe is coming to that realization all at once, as the OP seems to do, is misguided at best. Clearer ?
The ‘universal testament that socialism will fail’ is not something I said. The OP was quoting from the New York Times, and the title of the thread also comes from the Times. I even said in a later message that I recognize that pendulums swing around, and I’m sure the new right-wing governments will get their own trouncing some time in the future.
As for treating all of Europe the same… Of course it isn’t. But then, when people speak of ‘Americans’, they aren’t taking into account that rural Texans are very different people than Berkeley residents. All of us tend to speak in generalities when it comes to such things, because otherwise communication becomes tedious. I’m fully aware that the political forces in France are very different than what they are in Sweden or the UK. And again, the ‘Europe’ generalization was from the New York Times - not me.
What do you think about my analysis up in post #68 then? Up there, I argued social democrats across Europe are struggling with a number of issues with regard to which they need to redefine themselves, including most importantly immigration and integration. You mentioned that the 2005 riots cost the PS the elections. Now look me deep in the virtual lies and tell me that the PS is not struggling with this issue of immigration and integration, making a stand against social inequity while at the same time guarding national identity. It’s tough on social democrats. And it is something that is seen across Western Europe, which is because there is such a thing as a shared ideology that Social Democratic parties across Europe adhere to. You may not know this:
but it’s true nonetheless.
This development of struggling social democracy is not, and there I agree with you, indicative of the final collapse of social democracy, and certainly not of the collapse of the welfare state that social democrats helped build, and it is most certainly no indication whatsoever for how Obama’s plans will fare since he is no social democrat by a long shot and to call him or the Democratic Party that is to either to be stupid or to be disingenuous.
All these countries are Capitalistic. I suppose some living in a black hole of right wing ideology call any programs that help the people as socialistic.
Our hospitals, clinics, doctors ,our suppliers of medical equipment are all capitalistic. Nobody has suggested a socialistic system for any of them . All of these are for profit. The only group in question is the insurance companies. They do not provide health care whatsoever. They detract from it. They add a layer of inefficiency and cost.
If it is socialistic to care for the weak and under-represented ,I am a socialist. If it is socialistic to care about those who are very ill and will lose everything, I am a socialist. If caring for sick children who will deplete their parents savings is socialistic, then i am a socialist. If stopping people from losing their homes and declaring bankruptcy is socialism, sign me up.
Right wingers have to face it. They are selfish pricks who don’t care about the people. They suck up to the rich figuring they will be rewarded with some trickle down while obfuscating their beliefs as being a help to the country. It is a black mark for America that we show the world what selfish assholes we are.