EPTAnyone knows the position of Austria on theses questions? (you can also post sources if you have some)
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 86
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Xialos
Canada508 Posts
Anyone knows the position of Austria on theses questions? (you can also post sources if you have some) | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 03 2015 08:27 Wegandi wrote: Europe could use a new Voltaire or La Boetie about now. Odd how France developed some of the worlds brightest individualist minds, but has been a polar opposite for a long long time. France is dead from an intellectual standpoint. The media and the educationnal system will never let a new free thinker appear. The few that did stays rather confidential because of those two institutions. But it's not a specificity of France, look at Germany and its long tradition of philosopher, and now they only have Habermas who's so old he knew the world before the 2nd world war. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 03 2015 16:45 WhiteDog wrote: France is dead from an intellectual standpoint. The media and the educationnal system will never let a new free thinker appear. The few that did stays rather confidential because of those two institutions. But it's not a specificity of France, look at Germany and its long tradition of philosopher, and now they only have Habermas who's so old he knew the world before the 2nd world war. Perhaps, but Germany was never known for its liberal individualist intellectuals, whereas France was. I mean, you gave us Jean Baptiste-Say, Anne-Robert Jacques Turgot, Richard Cantillon, Frederic Bastiat, Charles Dunoyer, and the list can go on and on and on. So many great minds, and yet France has always been extremely collectivist. Just seems so odd, given the juxtaposition to American individualists. We're pretty bad off, but we're not France bad off :p Just a curious observation I suppose. I'm with you, it just seems that colleges now-a-days inculcate rather than expose, and let's not kid ourselves on which side of the spectrum most campus' faculty lean. I mean George Mason University for example is like a bastion in the US, for instance. Ah well. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 03 2015 16:59 Wegandi wrote: Perhaps, but Germany was never known for its liberal individualist intellectuals, whereas France was. I mean, you gave us Jean Baptiste-Say, Anne-Robert Jacques Turgot, Richard Cantillon, Frederic Bastiat, Charles Dunoyer, and the list can go on and on and on. So many great minds, and yet France has always been extremely collectivist. Just seems so odd, given the juxtaposition to American individualists. We're pretty bad off, but we're not France bad off :p Just a curious observation I suppose. I'm with you, it just seems that colleges now-a-days inculcate rather than expose, and let's not kid ourselves on which side of the spectrum most campus' faculty lean. I mean George Mason University for example is like a bastion in the US, for instance. Ah well. It is funny how you consider it to be even remotely close to being consensus that "great mind" and "collectivist" are somehow diametrically opposed. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 03 2015 16:59 Wegandi wrote: Perhaps, but Germany was never known for its liberal individualist intellectuals, whereas France was. I mean, you gave us Jean Baptiste-Say, Anne-Robert Jacques Turgot, Richard Cantillon, Frederic Bastiat, Charles Dunoyer, and the list can go on and on and on. So many great minds, and yet France has always been extremely collectivist. Just seems so odd, given the juxtaposition to American individualists. We're pretty bad off, but we're not France bad off :p Just a curious observation I suppose. I'm with you, it just seems that colleges now-a-days inculcate rather than expose, and let's not kid ourselves on which side of the spectrum most campus' faculty lean. I mean George Mason University for example is like a bastion in the US, for instance. Ah well. I am not French or European for that matter, but I cannot help but cringe at this laziness. The way you use great mind, individualist, and collectivist is putting a monopoly on what a great mind is. What I am really curious about now is where you place "collectivists" such as Sartre and Camus. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
My problem with the collectivism in Europe is this: while the standard of living in many EU countries is extremely high (good food, cycle lanes, safety nets, free education, healthcare, etc) the economies in the EU have pretty much completely stagnated and the people seem content with the current standard. There has been some growth in countries that have benefited from globalization (eg. selling German cars to China) and some prosperity based on bubbles (finance in the UK), some based on natural resources here and there, but generally the stagnation is a fact of life. In some places it translates in huge unemployment for young people (because the system is rigged in favor of those established), in other it creates resentment against minorities ('they took our jarbs' knee-jerk response), but it seems no one is actually putting the system into question. In my opinion, the collectivist states we have created are ultimately conservative and have the objective of preserving the status-quo. This is particularly disturbing as it seems we are again facing an age where we have the opportunity to develop and deploy massive technological advancements in the coming decades. Europe is rich today because it was at the fore-front between 1850-1950 when technologically innovation was at a high and a lot of industries were created: chemicals, automobiles, airplanes, mass-transit, consumer packaged goods. Today, with the coming of age of consumer internet and the upcoming technological changes coming from VR, AR, AI, autonomous vehicles, digital retail, IoT, GMOs, among many others, Europe is content with either having the US lead all the innovation or in some cases even fighting it (ie. Uber, GMOs). Look at the volume of VC dollars invested in the US vs EU. Compare the number of unicorns (companies valued at >$1bn) born after 1995 in the US vs the EU. Examples in the EU are often niche and often copycats of US solutions (Samwer brothers). There is nothing remotely close in Europe to companies the size of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Ebay, Twitter, Linkedin, Yahoo, Netflix. Most European capitals already look like glorified museums (where preservation of status-quo leads to huge living costs). It seems as if we're quite happy to just be the wax figures in those museums instead of partaking in the advancement of civilization. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 03 2015 20:28 warding wrote: It's really interesting how ideologically opposed EU vs US posters are. My problem with the collectivism in Europe is this: while the standard of living in many EU countries is extremely high (good food, cycle lanes, safety nets, free education, healthcare, etc) the economies in the EU have pretty much completely stagnated and the people seem content with the current standard. There has been some growth in countries that have benefited from globalization (eg. selling German cars to China) and some prosperity based on bubbles (finance in the UK), some based on natural resources here and there, but generally the stagnation is a fact of life. In some places it translates in huge unemployment for young people (because the system is rigged in favor of those established), in other it creates resentment against minorities ('they took our jarbs' knee-jerk response), but it seems no one is actually putting the system into question. In my opinion, the collectivist states we have created are ultimately conservative and have the objective of preserving the status-quo. This is particularly disturbing as it seems we are again facing an age where we have the opportunity to develop and deploy massive technological advancements in the coming decades. Europe is rich today because it was at the fore-front between 1850-1950 when technologically innovation was at a high and a lot of industries were created: chemicals, automobiles, airplanes, mass-transit, consumer packaged goods. Today, with the coming of age of consumer internet and the upcoming technological changes coming from VR, AR, AI, autonomous vehicles, digital retail, IoT, GMOs, among many others, Europe is content with either having the US lead all the innovation or in some cases even fighting it (ie. Uber, GMOs). Look at the volume of VC dollars invested in the US vs EU. Compare the number of unicorns (companies valued at >$1bn) born after 1995 in the US vs the EU. Examples in the EU are often niche and often copycats of US solutions (Samwer brothers). There is nothing remotely close in Europe to companies the size of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Ebay, Twitter, Linkedin, Yahoo, Netflix. Most European capitals already look like glorified museums (where preservation of status-quo leads to huge living costs). It seems as if we're quite happy to just be the wax figures in those museums instead of partaking in the advancement of civilization. There is something to that i can not deny. What i do not get is what is your proposition? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
Edit: the whole point, my whole point as far as EU goes, is not to have those kinds of giants anymore, ever. it'll come a point when everything bigger than <X> will have to be bailed out since it will be to big to fall/fail. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On April 03 2015 20:39 xM(Z wrote: @warding: - i'm not saying i disagree with you but, is your definition of civilization: Facebook, Netflix and Google?. to me, they look very much like your wax figures but not yet in a museum. They are certainly part of it. Google is undeniable. I dare you to have a productive life today without using Google products (using copycat products doesn't really count). Netflix is vastly superior to the content delivery services we had been used to and bring a lot more value to the consumer at a lower price. I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion over the value of Facebook, but I'm led to think that when a product/service has such a massively quick expansion to over 1bn users in less than 10 years, then they definitely must be creating value for people. EDIT: The argument that 'we don't want big companies' has some depth to it - a scenario where Google dominates all mankind is not pleasant. However the number of large companies is merely one metric that indicates that technology innovation and deployment is happening at a much larger pace in the US vs the EU, which is my main argument. And whether you like big companies or not, if they are created in the US that will affect the EU just as well - we're no less influenced by Facebook or Google than someone in the US. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
Saying there is no future for any tech in Europe is just weird. Maybe what you call stagnation is the only way to achive global income equality in any kind of realistic time frame. The American system obviously is not better at rising the living standard for the general population. A few lucky tech billionaires make for nice news stories, but the general wealth in the US does not go to them. I am sure you are familiar with Pickettys work? | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
The problem here is not that Europe will be left behind and that's sad for me as some sort of patriot. The problem is that I want to see what can be created through technological innovation within my lifetime. Europe has hundreds of millions of highly educated human beings, and it is choosing to live out life as it is rather than engage with creating a much better society. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
EU has barely few decades of existence ('93 Maastricht?), smaller, poorer, way more diversified culturally (i mean, if you take into account here only the language issue - english is the language spoken on the internet vs <a host> of languages spoken across EU; there is no doubt that it helped US companies greatly with their technological advances), last but not least - many people from EU countries are working for US corporations so to pin the advancements of those on US of A alone, is a bit much. US is just riding the globalization train. Edit: if i were to oversimplify and generalize things, i'd just say the people from all over the world went where the money were (and are as far as EU vs US goes). US was the biggest winner of WW2 and the rest is history. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Language is one (minor) reason but there are other reasons much more closely related to the collectivist systems in place in europe: - While private universities in the US have a huge incentive to promote start-ups and the spinning out of technology into business (because the results often come back to the endowment), public universities in Europe have no such incentive and often become sclerotic and seniority-based. The only university in Europe that can even be remotely compared to Stanford or the MIT in terms of generating a start-up ecossystem around it is the University of Cambridge. After that no one even comes close. - It's more difficult to legally introduce innovations that disrupt established corporations (not just individual businesses but whole industries) like Uber for taxis, AirBnb for hotels; - The government is such a huge part of the economy in European countries that the incentive for start-ups is often to sell to the government. You have an innovation in education or healthcare? Then your client is the government and your marketing euros will have to be used to gain political influence. That model is then much harder to scale to places outside of your local market and your company will never grow; - As the government is such a huge part of the economy, the EU and local governments create their own schemes of incentives to promote local businesses that end up distracting them from the goal of actually finding product/market fit and instead work towards getting more and more incentives; - Given the high cost of living in urban areas in Europe, it's a much easier choice for talented people to choose to work for the government or established corporations with a solid career path, than risk and try to create something new. - Tax burden. The top effective income tax rate in Portugal is over 70% (and the high tiers are absurdly low in comparison to western europe). I'm now in Copenhagen where it isn't much better (the VAT at 25% is also awesome for start-ups looking to sell physical products within the EU), | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
Currently there is no incentive to move production and transportation markets to a state where their yield and their margins become zero, as this is opposed to the profit motive of the actors involved. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On April 03 2015 21:33 puerk wrote: Maybe abundance will work or maybe it won't and only people with connections and culturual "start up"-capital will get into the circle and the rest will be living from the scraps. Which is why I think a basic guaranteed income will probably be a good idea in the future and so do a lot of other people in tech. Currently there is no incentive to move production and transportation markets to a state where their yield and their margins become zero, as this is opposed to the profit motive of the actors involved. There was also no incentive for actors in the music industry to have music costing virtually zero for consumers. then technology hit them in the face. Competition also plays a huge role. The only thing stopping technology from bringing much lower prices for everything to consumers is not the profit motives of the actors, it is legislation protecting incumbent industries. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
It's not really an illusion. You can get access to almost everything through a premium service for like 7 euros/month whereas before you are paying 15€ for ONE CD. Here's why it's not an illusion: ![[image loading]](http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea2acccd1d54e7c030000/music-industry.jpg) Music industry revenue way down while consumption is WAAAY up (lazy for numbers but lets be real, people listen to a lot more music if it's almost free than if they had to pay for CDs or use shitty FM radio). | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 03 2015 20:28 warding wrote: It's really interesting how ideologically opposed EU vs US posters are. My problem with the collectivism in Europe is this: while the standard of living in many EU countries is extremely high (good food, cycle lanes, safety nets, free education, healthcare, etc) the economies in the EU have pretty much completely stagnated and the people seem content with the current standard. There has been some growth in countries that have benefited from globalization (eg. selling German cars to China) and some prosperity based on bubbles (finance in the UK), some based on natural resources here and there, but generally the stagnation is a fact of life. In some places it translates in huge unemployment for young people (because the system is rigged in favor of those established), in other it creates resentment against minorities ('they took our jarbs' knee-jerk response), but it seems no one is actually putting the system into question. In my opinion, the collectivist states we have created are ultimately conservative and have the objective of preserving the status-quo. This is particularly disturbing as it seems we are again facing an age where we have the opportunity to develop and deploy massive technological advancements in the coming decades. Europe is rich today because it was at the fore-front between 1850-1950 when technologically innovation was at a high and a lot of industries were created: chemicals, automobiles, airplanes, mass-transit, consumer packaged goods. Today, with the coming of age of consumer internet and the upcoming technological changes coming from VR, AR, AI, autonomous vehicles, digital retail, IoT, GMOs, among many others, Europe is content with either having the US lead all the innovation or in some cases even fighting it (ie. Uber, GMOs). Look at the volume of VC dollars invested in the US vs EU. Compare the number of unicorns (companies valued at >$1bn) born after 1995 in the US vs the EU. Examples in the EU are often niche and often copycats of US solutions (Samwer brothers). There is nothing remotely close in Europe to companies the size of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Ebay, Twitter, Linkedin, Yahoo, Netflix. Most European capitals already look like glorified museums (where preservation of status-quo leads to huge living costs). It seems as if we're quite happy to just be the wax figures in those museums instead of partaking in the advancement of civilization. My problem is that most of your points are false. The biggest growth the european never had existed in a time where the state was MUCH MORE involved in economy than today. And it has been 20 years that the state has, in fact, took less and less initiative in the economy, with POOR result. So Europe is NOT dominated by "collectivist" : just because we have OLD structure and institutions that dates back to the thirty glorious doesn't mean that we are still collectivist. Look in France : we had highest growth with public electricity production, public gas production, public transportation, public water, public banks. Today ? Most of that has been privatized. It is also amazing that people in this day and age actually believe the status quo is a reality. Did you look at income and capital ? Don't you see the inequalities ? How is that the status quo ? Your arguments got to match reality at least a little. About Wegandi well... Voltaire and J. B. Say in the same sentence just says a lot about how perverted libertarian have become. There is nothing in common between individual freedom (Voltaire) and the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak (Say), but somehow they always mix up the two. On April 03 2015 21:13 warding wrote: I haven't read Piketty but have followed the debate in economics blogs. My opinion on long-term economist's predictions is that they are usually completely oblivious to technological change. You know, what if AI, driverless cars and robotics alone will bring farming, food processing and delivery to almost zero marginal cost? It's not ludicrous to start imagining how the current tech trends may conflate to start truly creating abundance. We already have abundance in almost everything that can be converted to bits: music, literature, all sorts of entertainment. If technology does bring forward these advancements, then Picketty's work is pretty much rendered obsolete, no? Creating abundance seems to me like a much better solution for inequality than trying to enhance the splitting of the current cake. The problem here is not that Europe will be left behind and that's sad for me as some sort of patriot. The problem is that I want to see what can be created through technological innovation within my lifetime. Europe has hundreds of millions of highly educated human beings, and it is choosing to live out life as it is rather than engage with creating a much better society. And most of the ground breaking and innovative research has been made under PUBLIC FOUNDING. Investment in France prior to the euro is a much more heavily "collectivist" economy was way higher than today. This idea that economic "laissez faire" produce growth and innovation is empirically false. But the apple generation cannot understand that : they believe putting an apple on a product and making a synthesis of various innovation is being innovative in itself. Sure. | ||
| ||
