[Welcome Steven Hill, and Host R. Daniel Kelemen.] [As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age
Host: Daniel Kelemen, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for European Studies, Rutgers University.
We’ve all heard of the ‘American Way’, but is there a ‘European Way’? In Europe’s Promise, Steven Hill explores European approaches to a range of contemporary policy challenges – from economic policy, to social policy, to health care, to climate change, to foreign policy – and shows that there is a distinctive ‘European Way’. He also argues convincingly that Americans have much to learn from it.
Part one of the book describes Europe’s social capitalism. The discussion is far ranging, as Hill takes us from the post-War roots of labor-management relations policies in Germany to European reactions to the 2008-09 financial crisis. Throughout this section, Hill makes it clear that European countries have established a distinctive approach to capitalism that combines the pursuit of economic growth with a far greater commitment to social cohesion than America’s ‘Wall Street Capitalism’ allows. Along the way, he reveals the economic advantages of labor ‘co-determination’ and ‘flexicurity’ policies and highlights how European social policies and childcare policies provide support to European families and reflect real ‘family values’. Of course, generous social policies have to be paid for. But Steven Hill shows that the idea that Europeans are taxed to death to support the welfare state is a myth. Rather, he shows first that differences in tax rates in Europe and the US are modest when all forms of taxes are considered and second that most Americans are forced to pay out of pocket for many services – from health, to education, to elderly care – that are financed by tax revenues in Europe.
After discussing Europe’s social capitalism in general terms, Hill turns to an in depth discussion of health care. Again, he dispels myths and caricatures. While many Americans equate ‘socialized medicine’ with the British National Health Service, Hill shows that France, Germany and other European countries have achieved universal, quality healthcare without a ‘government takeover’ of the health care system.
Next Hill explores ‘Sustainable Europe’, focusing on energy and transport policies. For those who recall America’s role as a leader on environmental issues in the 1970s, these chapters may make for depressing reading. Europe has become a global leader in renewable energy and fuel efficient transport while the US has lagged.
Having surveyed a range of domestic policies, Hill looks at the emerging role of the European Union on the world stage. He shows that the increasing integration of Europe has given the member states of the EU a new kind of influence on the world stage. While the EU lacks the military might of the US, it is a superpower in other respects and has enormous influence across a range of issues from global trade talks, to development aid, to democracy promotion.
Hill concludes the book by looking at a number of the major challenges to the ‘European Way’. Two demographic challenges stand out. Substantial increases in immigration to western Europe have created strains, as countries wrestle with questions of how to integrate new immigrants groups. And while there is much political and social resistance to increased immigration, Europe actually needs more people! Indeed, immigration has been one of the few trends counteracting the population decline in Europe. For the European model to be sustained into the future, countries with extremely low birthrates – such as Germany and Italy – will have to introduce policies to encourage greater fertility.
Europe’s Promise will be an eye opening read for many Americans. As Hill shows, much of the American media coverage of Europe is slanted to reinforce caricatures of the ‘Old Continent’ – that European economies are inefficient, overtaxed and uncompetitive, and that Europe is deeply divided politically. Instead, he demonstrates that the economically advanced democracies of Europe have developed a model of social capitalism and a wide range of public policies that may serve as models for American reformers.



99 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Steven, Welcome to the Lake.
Daniel, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hello Steven. It is a pleasure to be hosting a discussion of your terrific new book. Let me start things off by asking you a question that I’m sure you hear a lot. In the book you describe the advantages of ‘the European Way’ and of ‘European’ approaches to a number of crucial public policy issues. But some readers might wonder – given the incredible diversity of policies/ approaches/ achievements of different European countries – why it makes sense to speak of a ‘European Way’ as a whole?
Hello Bev, thank you. Nice to be here. I am looking forward to this discussion
Hi Dan, thanks for that question.
While it’s true that there is a great diversity within Europe, it’s also true that increasingly under the leadership of the European Union, those that joined the EU must agree to 80,000 laws that govern a host of important areas. And those laws increasingly make these various countries act in similar ways and adopt similar policies. While it’s easy to stress the differences between the countries of Europe, it becomes increasingly clear what they have in common when you compare just about any European country to the United States. That’s when it becomes more obvious that there is a distinct “European way” that is quite different from an “American way.”
Good afternoon and welcome to FDL Stephen and R Daniel (you have no idea how close I cam to typing R Daneel just now)
Stephen, I have not had a chance to read your book so forgive me if you cover this in there but how does the current worldwide banking system with all of its problems and crooks impact the “European Way?” Or the large multi-national corporations who seem to search for the most agreeable place to incorporate?
a Bit more on that. For example, tThe member states of the E.U. elect a common parliament, have a common executive branch and other continent-wide institutions, and dispense hundreds of billions of euros in development aid to domestic projects. They have similar approaches to their national economies, health care and other workfare supports, energy, transportation, and democracy and generally have bound their destinies together in a way that transcends national sovereignties or geographic borders. While some European nations hew to this “way” more than others, the overall trend line is unmistakably clear. As political scientists Sven Steinmo and Jeffrey Kopstein have observed, the differences between E.U. member nations increasingly are not that much greater “than the differences among Alabama, New York and Minnesota.” Considered together, the similarities in their basic fulcrum institutions today compose a European Way that is distinct from the American Way.
Angela Merkel seems to be trying to wean Germany from the European way. Is that accurate or have I overinterpreted the bits I’ve read? If true, why is she doing it and how far is she going?
Europe has a very different corporate structure than in the United States. Europe has introduced elements of “economic democracy” into their corporate structure. For example, codetermination (Mitbestimmung) which is used in Germany, Sweden and other countries, includes a framework of supervisory boards (Aufsichtsrat) where elected worker representatives sat side by side with stockholder representatives on corporate boards of directors, and works councils (Betriebsrat) in every workplace, which gave workers a great deal of input at the shop floor level. Imagine Wal-Mart’s board of directors having anywhere from a third to a half of its directors elected directly by its workers. It’s hard to even conceive of such a notion from the American standpoint, yet most European nations employ some version of this as standard operating procedure. The impact has been immensely significant.
I’m sure Steven will reply to your question about the impact of global finance and ‘forum shopping’ by corporations on ‘the European Way’, but I would say that his book does a great job of dispelling the myth that corporations find Europe an ‘uncompetitive’ place to do business. One of the standard stories you hear from critics of Europe is that with all its regulation and high taxes it is a hostile business environment – and that corporations and finance might flee as a result. But Steven reviews lots of evidence demonstrating just how highly competitive the advanced economies of Europe really are.
Welcome, Steven and Daniel;
Thank you, both, for joining us.
DW
No, I would not interpret Merkel’s policies as weaning Germany from the European Way at all. In fact, she has been very prominent — surprisingly so — in saying that is important to defend “social Europe”. And she has pursued policies to back up those claims, including kurzarbeit, also known as “short work” which has all employees taking a little bit of time off during this economic crisis, instead of laying off millions of people, as we’ve done in the United States (as a result Germany’s unemployment rate has barely increased during this economic meltdown). She also has tripled the number of child care centers in Germany, she has continued Germany’s record of being a global leader on implementing the latest conservation and renewable technologies. She was the leader in getting the countries of Europe to agree to the 20-20-20 plan, for instance, which establishes Europe on a trajectory of reducing carbon emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2020, and using 20% renewables by then. But she also has tried to maintain Germany as an export and manufacturing nation. I confess, I am a great admirer of Angela Merkel, she is truly turned out to be a savvy leader who knows how to build consensus. And she is a conservative in Germany, which no one expected from the conservatives.
Welcome, Stephen and Daniel!
From Daniel’s post:
Have the recent revelations about Goldman Sachs helping Greece to hide its debt problems caused you to revise (or temper) your thinking on this? As Der Spiegel put it last week:
Sounds like Goldman Sachs is exporting “Wall Street Capitalism” fairly well.
Yes, one of the many “myths” that I think Europe’s Promise dispels is that Europe has a weak and “sclerotic” economy (the word that is often used.) For example, Europe actually has the largest economy in the world, producing nearly a third of the world’s economy, almost as large as the United States and China combined. It has more Fortune 500 companies than the U.S. and China combined, and some of the most competitive national economies in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. From 1998 through 2008 (until the global economic collapse), Europe had a higher per capita GDP growth rate than the U.S., and currently the continent previously known as the “land of high unemployment” has a lower unemployment rate than the U.S. (U.S. 10%, European Union, 9.5%, Germany 7.5%, France 10%).
Europe is the largest trading partner both of the United States and China. Europe’s stocks and investment returns have out-performed those in the U.S., making Europe an international investment magnet. In fact, Europe is corporate America’s biggest target for foreign investment, U.S. businesses make far more profits there than anywhere else in the world, over twenty times more than what they have made in China. But Europe’s economy is not just powered by Fortune 500 companies and big corporations. It has more small businesses than the U.S. that provide two-thirds of Europe’s jobs, compared to about half the jobs in the United States.
I agree very much with Steven’s take on Merkel. Also, I think it is important to consider that even when a European leader is forced to make some cutbacks in social programs or seeks to loosen some aspects of labor regulation, this shouldn’t be taken as a sign they are abandoning the ‘European Way’. They are making adjustments around the edges, but no one has in mind a move toward a US style labor market or minimalist social programs.
Thanks. That is very good to know.
Speaking of myths you work to dispel in your book Steven… what do you think are the biggest misconceptions about contemporary Europe that Americans are fed in the press?
I heard on cspan yesterday that the U.S. is ranked 22 in the percent of GDP produced by small business, allegedly an important source of economic growth. There must be quite a few European countries above the U.S.?
No question, Goldman Sachs involvement in Greece’s current difficulties has come as a surprise to just about everyone, except for Greece and Goldman Sachs. But I think it’s important to keep this in perspective. I did a radio interview for the BBC this morning (at 4:30 AM!), in which I and other panelists had a vigorous discussion about this. Here’s a few points from that discussion:
1) The world economy suffered a massive economic shock of about 8.0 on the Richter scale over a year ago, and since then has been experiencing a number of aftershocks, and will continue to do so. Greece’s danger of defaulting is one of those aftershocks, as was (in the US) the state of California nearly defaulting, leading to its request for federal relief (which was denied) and eventually having to issue IOUs (paying 4-5% interest) as a way to pay its bills and honor its commitments to right itself.
2) the Greece aftershock is a concern, but I agree with many analysts who believe that it is being a bit overblown. Greece’s situation has been known for awhile, as is the situation with other countries. It’s been unfolding for a year now. But with some sizable loan payments just ahead for which Greece will need to refinance, the markets got skittish and chose now to make a bigger deal out of this.
3) But putting all this into a BROADER PERSPECTIVE: Greece’s economy only makes up 2% of the European economy, compared for instance with California, which makes up 14% of the US economy – California is much more of a case of being “too big to fail.” But California also has a balanced budget amendment, and its deficit to GDP ratio is much less than that of Greece. Greece’s deficit to GDP ratio is about 12.5% — not that much more of that in the US and Japan, both around 10.5%.
4) the Euro zone has a fairly low deficit to GDP ratio by today’s post-collapse standards – only 6% (compared to US 10.5%). So Europe has the capacity to absorb this, with Greece only making up 2% of Europe’s economy – IF IT WANTS TO. And that really is the key point here, what is new about the situation with Greece. The idea that Germany and France should be financial backstops for Greece is very new for everyone. That’s going to take some time to get used to
Why does Europe need more population? Why not just grow GDP per capita with increasing labor productivity? Or, is it the aging population that needs young workers to pay for their benefits?
Dan, there are many myths about Europe that we Americans grow up learning. Indeed, I have posted on the website for the book, http://www.EuropesPromise.org, a document called “10 Myths of Europe” (you can find it on the bottom left side of the homepage). There might be too many to go into all in one breath in this forum, but here’s one of my favorite ones that I will start with:
Myth 5. Europeans pay more taxes than Americans.
FACT: For their taxes, Europeans receive a seemingly endless list of benefits and services for which Americans must pay extra via out-of-pocket fees, premiums, deductibles, tuition and other charges, in addition to our taxes. For example, many Americans who have health care coverage are paying escalating premiums and deductibles, while Europeans receive health care in return for a modest amount deducted from their paycheck. Other Americans are saving a hundred thousand dollars per child for their college education, yet European children attend for free or nearly so. Millions of Americans are scraping to save the amount they will need for retirement beyond Social Security, but the European retirement system is much more generous. Many Americans pay extra for child care, or self-finance their own sick leave or parental leave after a birth, but Europeans receive all of these and more — in return for paying their taxes. When you sum up the total balance sheet, it turns out that many Americans pay out as much as or more than Europeans — but we receive a lot less for our money.
That is very good news, indeed, Daniel.
Most Americans are very surprised to learn that Europe’s output and “share” of world “commerence” is almost as large as America and China combined.
But then, neither our media nor the Political Classes want that knowledge to be largely in the American consciousness.
Dissembling is the name of the larger “game”, in America, that, and pushing fear.
DW
Thanks for that question. I actually don’t know the percent of GDP created by small business in United States for various European countries. But as I wrote earlier, the number of jobs as well as the percentage of jobs in Europe is quite a bit higher than in the United States. Two thirds of the jobs in Europe are created by small businesses, and 70% in Germany which is the largest exporting nation in the world (depending on how you count these things, some say that China has now surpassed Germany). Which is interesting, because the United States likes to think of itself as the land of small business, and likes to think of Europe as the place where businesses are snarled and strangling in red tape. But if the latter were true, how would so many small businesses be thriving in Europe? Again, another of the many myths that we Americans learn about Europe.
Further to Steven’s comments about Greece… while some analysts are questioning whether the Greek crisis might threaten the viability of the Eurozone currency union, I expect that over the long range, the crisis will actually strengthen the Eurozone and the EU more generally. The Goldman Sachs affair will play into that too. Why? Well, because members of the Eurozone commit themselves to keeping the deficits in check (normally below 3%, except during emergencies like the current crisis). To monitor compliance, the European Commission has some powers of ‘fiscal surveillance’ over EU countries. But obviously, now that everyone sees that Greece cooked their books under the previous government (with Goldman’s help), there will be enormous pressure from Germany and others to strengthen that fiscal surveillance. In other words, more power for Brussels to monitor what countries are doing with their budgets.
Thanks for sharing your take on Greece and the EUs ability to absorb this. But my question was more about the “social cohesion” vs “Wall Street Capitalism.”
Isn’t the fact that Greece was willing to engage in these deals with Goldman Sachs in the first place a bit of evidence that says that there are at least a few major players in the EU who are quite willing to adopt the values of Wall Street Capitalism?
Again from the same Der Spiegel piece:
Certain European countries, Germany, Italy and Spain in particular, have alarmingly low birth rates. But France, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries and Britain are holding their own, at or just below replacement levels. Central and East European countries also have low birth rates, but those closely track with the end of communism when economic uncertainty and the collapse of child support structures caused women to postpone births; there is evidence of birth rates rebounding there. Low birth rates cause concern because of what is known as the “dependency ratio,” you need a certain number of workers to produce the wealth that pays for your health and social benefits. Everyone has their crystal balls out on this one, making their predictions about “the end of Europe” or how Europe will cope with this situation. It’s fair to say that nobody really knows, but here’s the consensus, more or less, about how Europe can deal with this issue: By raising the age of retirement, allowing a reasonable rate of immigration, increasing the number of women in the labor force, and continuing its long term productivity gains, Europe should be able to cope with these demographic uncertainties and their impacts on its social systems. While there is cause for concern in some countries, it is way premature to be pronouncing the end of Europe.
I have always been impressed that in Europe they have more diversity of political parties and perspectives sitting at the table. Do you think that that affects the European Way?
Our MYTHS, whether of superiority or “exceptionalism”, as well as our great generosity and moral rectitude are literally killing us, they have destroyed the social contract and daily dimmish our humanity.
DW
yes, I tend to agree with Dan on these points. What the Goldman Sachs situation, as well as the overall Greek situation, shows is that this economic and financial crisis, at heart, is a POLITICAL problem. The capitalist countries have got to get a handle on the rules that have allowed the investment world to become a giant casino. Heavens, even casinos have rules and regulations, and that’s what is needed now because Wall Street is clearly out of control. And it’s clear now that nowhere is safe, no sovereign nations are safe, no country is beyond collapse. So I think we’re going to see the Germans and French, in particular, pushing not only Greece and the other PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy and Spain) to tighten their rules and regulations, but they also going to be pushing the Obama administration to do the same thing in the United States.
That would be good news indeed, if it plays out that way. But are the banks and political players going to be willing to invest more authority in Brussels? Giving more power to Brussels means less in Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc. Are parties like the CDU/CSU going to be willing to give more power to Brussels because the Greeks played the system?
Certainly there are major players in Europe who share the values of Wall Street capitalism, but I wouldn’t take the Greece/Goldman Sachs affair as an example of that necessarily. You could view it another way: probably the main reason that Greece wanted to find a way to disguise its debts was that it found it politically impossible to make the cutbacks in health and pension benefits necessary to bring its deficit down.
What do the Europeans think of corporate “personhood”?
Are they bedeviled by this type of legally sanctioned absurdity?
DW
I wish that countries’ GDP growth per capita would be more easily accessible. Much of the apparent “growth” in the U.S. economy (back in the day when there was growth) just makes up for population growth, and would not compare so favorably with Europe is both were measured per capita.
What are the highest marginal personal income tax rates in some of the large European countries? How does the corporate tax rate compare to that in the U.S.?
It is not Greece per se but the PIIGS that pose a threat to the Eurozone. Germany has made it clear it doesn’t have the resources or the will to bail them out. The state of many Eurobanks is likewise quite dicey. They were geared up even higher than US banks. I am not sure that the European elites are any more competent than their American counterparts so where do you see this going?
Yes, Europe certainly has a much more pluralistic political system. European voters can pick from a range of viewpoints, left, right and center, and actually see those points of views all get elected into the Parliament. This is a result of very specific institutions that they used in Europe, including proportional representation electoral systems (the most important for creating multiparty democracy), public financing of campaigns (for the most part they do not allow corporations to give donations to candidates or parties), free media for parties and candidates, universal voter registration, and other components that give them a vibrant democracy. I would argue that European democracies are far more representative than the US democracy, and are able to forge a consensus from a broad range of viewpoints that allows for policy formation. And the proof is in the pudding, virtually all European democracies have enacted policies that we are still struggling with in the United States — universal healthcare, policies to deal with global warming, and many others.
What do European countries now feel about being members of NATO and being dragged into endless U.S. adventures in Afghanistan?
Steven devotes two chapters of his book to this topic – looking at the impact of European political institutions, including proportional representation elections and multi-party democracy. As he shows, ‘winner-take-all’ plurality voting (which we use in the US) tends to favor more rural and conservative interests. Europe’s proportional representation voting and the multiparty systems that produces does allow a wider range of views and voices to enter parliament. Of course, that includes both progressive voices and very reactionary ones.
but to give one example, certainly the emergence of Green parties since the 1980s gave environmental issues a stronger position on the political agenda across a number of European countries than we see in the US.
I am not aware of any European jurisprudence that regards corporations as “individuals” with individual rights, the way the recent Supreme Court decision on corporate donations and campaigns did. Indeed, in Europe, the ownership of property and the exercise of individual and commercial property rights are not seen as absolutes as they are in the United States. Rather, they are viewed as a privilege that confers reciprocal social obligations. In the European conception, those who own and hold property—especially the wealthy and corporations that own lots of it—have a responsibility to contribute to the common good for the privilege of exercising those property rights. Article 14 of the postwar German constitution, for example, specifies that “property imposes duties. Its use should also serve the public weal.”
Stephen, have you seen TR Reid’s book “The Healing of America”? If so, I’d love to hear your take on it. (He did a Book Salon chat here back in October.)
Is this a good book to get for someone who is a newly avowed libertarian? My older son told me this in a recent conversation. (“I don’t believe in Welfare.” etc.)
He doesn’t realize how many times we were saved by WIC, etc. over the years.
Yes, I think it would be useful to discuss Steven’s take on health care (and TR Reid’s book). Steven devotes a couple chapters to health care, and like TR Reid, he shows that health care systems in Europe are not about ‘government run health care’ as US critics wrongly claim.
Incredible. How civilized and reasonable. No wonder our “leaders”, Political and Economic, would rather vilify “socialist” old Europe.
And the American people, blinkered by “their” myths, are content to believe whatever they are told …
Thank you, Steven, this is all most enlightenening.
DW
Well, you’ve convinced me. What’s the best country to move to?
The Europeans seem to be very ambivalent about the war in Afghanistan. They certainly say the right things about being allies with the United States on this front, but they do not back that up with any sizable amount of resources, either troops or even financial backing. After weighing all the different angles on this, I have concluded that Europeans truly do not feel the threat from Afghanistan or the middle east in general that Americans seem to feel. Here’s a few things to think about: who is the major threat today, is it Iran? Iran has a GDP about the size of New Jersey’s. Is it Afghanistan? Afghanistan has a GDP about the size of Rhode Island’s. In other words, this is not the Soviet Union anymore, and Europe does not see these places as a threat quite the way the United States does, which is kind of interesting, when you think about it, because Europe is much closer geographically to these situations than we in the United States. For whatever reason, Europe does not perceive the threats that we perceive, and certainly does not seem to believe that the US “hammer” approach is the correct one. Europe has spent decades crafting its own “way of foreign policy” based on Marshall plan-like aid, trade and investment as a way to foster where I call in my book, “peace and prosperity partnerships” on a regional basis. And that difference in “threat level” as well as differences in strategies to take towards the perceived threats amounts to a huge difference in what policies Europe is adopting. Yet for some reason Europe continues to play along with the endless “Osama bin Laden chase” that America seems determined to continue.
It was obvious for a long time that countries in the Eurozone were cooking their books to come in under the 3% rule. The Germans turned a blind eye to it. What you don’t point out is that to achieve that target now countries like Greece would have to enact draconian and socially destabilizing austerity programs.
I am familiar with Reid’s book, but I have not read it. I have read other things that Reid has written about healthcare, I have learned a great deal about Europe’s healthcare from his other writings. He also wrote another extremely interesting book called the United States of Europe, which I also highly recommend. Reid is one of the more interesting writers and researchers in America today, in my view.
I think so. Steven shows that American views of ‘Welfare’ are rather distorted, in that many of the social policies in Europe play a vital economic role by helping working families to afford childcare, to stay healthy, to stay in their homes… so that they can remain productive members of society.
This no doubt explains their successes in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Hey, be careful not to denigrate the Bush Administration. They worked 24/7 to instill the fear of AQ into the U.S. population. It’s one of the few areas where they succeeded.
In Europe health care is run mostly as a nonprofit venture with the goal of keeping people healthy and working compared with the U.S. approach of running health care as a for-profit commercial enterprise. It’s no coincidence that as America tries to grapple with soaring health care costs and lack of universal coverage, UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received an obscene $124.8 million in compensation in 2005. He’s just one of many grossly overcompensated kingpins of the U.S. health care industry. The health care industry’s profits were up 34 percent in 2006 from the previous year, led by UnitedHealth Group’s $4 billion in profits, which was a 26 percent increase.
Once a health care system with the proper values is in place, the rest becomes relatively straightforward and leads to impressive results. Everywhere I traveled in Europe, when I asked which country had the best health care system, France, Belgium, and Switzerland were most often picked as the top places. In those countries, health care is affordable and comprehensive, with short wait times for services, including surgery, even shorter waits than in the United States. Patients are free to choose their doctors, most of whom are in private practice, and they have no limits on the number of services covered
In comparison to America, what you speak of, Steven, seems like heaven …
DW
Here’s the nitty gritty on France’s health care system. France’s health care system, rated by the United Nation’s World Health Organization as the best in the world, is a good one to study more closely, to see how the French produce affordable, comprehensive, and quality health care for their sixty-two million people. Whatever other difficulties France may suffer, including a restless population of young minorities and immigrants, all of the French have access to good health care. Yet France spends far less than the United States to achieve that.
Contrary to stereotypes portrayed in the American media, France and many other European nations do not use what is commonly known as “socialized medicine” or “single payer” health care. Under single payer, the principal source of funding is general taxation and the centralized system is mostly owned and operated by the national or local governments, which establish price levels and cost controls. In most cases the doctors, nurses, and medical bureaucracy work for the government, and hospitals usually are government run. Britain uses a single payer system, as do Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Spain, and Canada (except that in Canada most doctors and nurses work for private health organizations). But France, as well as Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and many other European nations, does not use single payer.
Instead, France and these other nations have health care systems based on the principle of “shared responsibility” among workers, employers, and the government, all of which contribute their fair share to guarantee universal coverage, reasonable costs, and quality care. Participation for individuals is mandatory, not optional, just as a driver’s license is mandatory for driving an auto. Also, the backbone of the French system is private insurance companies, as in the United States, and most French doctors and nurses work in private practices or for private health organizations, not for the government. There’s no “in-network” or “pre-authorization”; you can pick any doctor or hospital and be covered by your health insurance. Doctors are required to post their prices on the wall of the waiting room, so the unaccountability of American-style medical billing is removed.
But here’s the real critical difference: unlike the insurance companies in the United States, which are huge, profit-seeking corporations, the French insurance companies are nonprofits. There are three of these Sickness Insurance Funds, or SIFs, in France, with national headquarters and regional networks. These funds are financed by compulsory payroll deductions that amount to 13 percent of employees’ wages, with employers paying 70 percent of this amount and employees the other 30 percent (much like Americans have wages deducted from Social Security). However, French employers contribute a smaller amount toward their employees’ health care than U.S. employers pay toward their employees’ health care.
The second key difference between the French and U.S. health care systems is cost controls. As in the U.S. system of Medicare, charges for services in France are negotiated among representatives of the health care professions (doctors, nurses, etc.), the government, patient consumer representatives, and the three principal SIFs. Together they establish a national agreement for treatment procedures, fee structures, and rate ceilings that prevent health care costs from spiraling out of control. For some services patients may pay a small out-of-pocket fee, and the average charge for an office visit, whether to a general practitioner or to a specialist, is around twenty dollars. These kinds of government-regulated price controls keep cost levels well below those in the United States. That’s not only good for health care consumers, it’s also good for French businesses, since they are paying less money for their employees’ health care and can forecast with greater assurance their health care costs. In fact, because America has nothing like these sorts of price controls (outside Medicare), some of Europe’s drug companies make one-third of their profits in the U.S. market, where they can sell their prescription drugs for a lot more money than they can in their own countries. Sometimes the same tablet made in the same factory costs a dollar in the U.S. and twenty cents in Europe.
Those are the key elements of the French “shared responsibility” health care system, including nonprofit insurance companies and negotiated price controls, which is ranked first in the world in “overall health system performance” and fourth in “level of health.”
Good point re: abject failure of European foreign policy in the former Yugoslavia. However, the repeated failures of individual European states and the EU collectively in that region has sparked a dramatic set of developments in the EU’s “European Security and Defense Policy” in the last few years. After decades of inaction and political disagreements, EU member states have finally put in place structures to run military operations without relying totally on NATO. To be sure, these mostly remain small scale. But they are moving in the right direction.
Hardly a welfare state, Europe’s economy and comprehensive social system are two halves of a well-designed “social capitalism” that is better geared than America’s “Wall Street capitalism” to support families and individuals, and keep them healthy and productive. Europeans are supported with quality health care, more job training, child care, paid sick leave, a comfortable retirement pension, more vacation time and more. This is more “workfare” than “welfare,” since it keeps workers in good health and able to work. And it reveals real family values, as it provides families the support structure they need in this economically insecure age. The overwhelming evidence shows this has been good for the economy, producing highly productive workers who have sufficient wages to be active consumers.
Hugh raises a good point. Yugoslavia and the Balkans certainly are examples of where Europe’s foreign policy has not always accomplished its goals. But the thing to keep in mind on that situation is that the European Union wasn’t launched until the early 1990s with the Maastricht treaty. Before then, what we know today as modern day Europe was really in formation. And keep in mind that it was formed from former combatants! Quite a remarkable thing, when you think about it. So it was naturally going to take quite some time before those former combatants would trust each other enough to start thinking about doing military operations together. It took the United States about 80 years from its first government in 1790 to congeal to the point where you really could say it was a nation and not a collection of regions. Europe is still in formation, in that sense.
Another interesting factor that I have observed about Europe is that out of crisis is how the EU has always evolved and changed. After each crisis the partner nations come up with new informal rules and agreements to patch things up and move on. And then every 15 years or so they take all the previous agreements and put them into a treaty, i.e. Maastricht, Lisbon, etc. So the Balkans were one such crisis that pushed Europe closer together. This recent situation over the Greek deficit may turn out to be another. We shall see.
Another eye-opener.
I’m prepared to just stop asking questions and simply listen, Steven.
Please go on.
DW
Steven, your book highlights a range of policies in Europe that will certainly appear desirable to many readers. But many might wonder whether such policies could really work here in the US. Which policies that you cover in your book strike you as the most feasible to apply in the US? Either in terms of the politics of getting them adopted and more generally in terms of their ‘fit’ with US culture?
Yes, it may lead to some extreme budget cuts in Greece. But I live in California, so how is that any different? In some ways California is a more worrisome situation than Greece. Greece is only 2% of Europe’s economy, but California is 14% of the United States economy. Having a state that is 14% of the national economy in dire straights, with layoffs and furloughs occurring unabated (the city of Los Angeles just laid off 1000 workers), programs being cut, high unemployment, will act as a drag on the rest of the national economy in ways that could have bigger impact in the US than Greece can in Europe (unless France and Germany decide not to backstop), since Greece is only 2% of Europe’s economy.
I would be most interested in hearing your answers to Daniel’s question @58.
DW
Dan, those are very good questions. I will give just a few quick thoughts. I think we could start with a few basic things like mandatory paid sick leave. 60 million American workers do not have paid sick leave where they work, and so either my show up at work sick or self subsidize their own paid sick leave. And many of those workers without sick leave our service sector workers, quite a few of them in the restaurant sector. So that means when you go to a restaurant, the person handling your food may be sick. In the age of swine flu and avian flu this makes absolutely no economic sense, never mind the humanitarian issues. So I could see something like this being passed rather easily, and the Obama administration has made a little bit of noise about it.
The same with mandatory paid parental leave, and perhaps increasing the amount of mandatory vacations. On the political front, perhaps providing free media time for candidates and a bit of public financing of campaigns. Some of those may be more practical to pass at the state level first.
On the economic front, I would love to see a member of Congress introduced a bill for codetermination — that’s the one where major corporations like Wal-Mart would have to allow their workers to elect 50% of their board of directors — and then let’s see what the arguments against it will be. I would like to see the Republican talking points on that one, as they argue why workers should not have consultation rights where they work. (On that point, it is interesting to note that following World War II the victorious Allied powers were greatly encouraging of the line of thinking that led to codetermination, since it manifested in economic structures that decentralized economic power, shifting it away from the German industrialists who had supported the Nazis. American planners in postwar Germany understood the pragmatic impact of institutions. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they “punished” the Germans with economic democracy as a way of handicapping concentrations of German wealth and power.)
Of course, we’ve already seen the difficulties of passing health care. And in this age of the “filibuster gone wild” Senate, it’s difficult to imagine much of substance getting done. The Republicans at this point are using the filibuster as a political weapon in anticipation of this November’s congressional elections. So I’m not optimistic that much will get done prior to November elections.
Another area where Europe has excelled is in the area of energy and transportation. Europe’s energy efficiency is the best in the world. As a result of widespread implementation of conservation and renewable technologies, Europe’s ecological “footprint” (the amount of the earth’s capacity that a population consumes) is about half that of the United States for the same standard of living. The European landscape is being transformed slowly by giant high-tech windmills, vast solar arrays, underwater seamills, hydrogen-powered vehicles, “sea snakes,” and other renewable energy technologies. Europe is implementing conservation and “green” design in everything from skyscrapers to fuel-efficient automobiles, high speed trains, low wattage light bulbs, and low flush toilets. Europe has gone both high- and low-tech: it has also developed thousands of kilometers of bicycle and pedestrian paths that are used by people of all ages. In the process, Europeans are creating entire new industries and tens of thousands of new jobs.
As a result of this activity, Europe has reduced its energy reliance on Russia (Russian gas now supplies only 6.5 percent of the overall E.U. primary energy supply) and the Middle East, diversifying its foreign sources of oil and natural gas. The heads of all 27 E.U. nations have agreed to make renewable energy sources 20 percent of the union’s energy mix and to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020. For all these reasons, BusinessWeek has stated that Europe is better prepared than the United States for this era of energy uncertainty.
I think I can safely say that the first member of Congress to introduce a bill for codetermination would be [Edited by Mod.] by all the Republican members of Congress and a good portion of the Democrats.
[Mod Note: We don't go down that road even as a rhetorical device
Going back on my words, Steven, would you favor doing away with the filibuster?
A major discussion about this very question is ongoing at Firedoglake.
Your thoughts would be most appreciated.
DW
Steven I think those are all excellent ideas. In terms of framing them, I liked very much how you discussed a number of European social policies (ie paid maternity/paternity leave, subsidies for child care) as ‘real family values’ policies. I think that is how advocates should sell them. Likewise, for paid sick leave, framing it as a matter of ‘public health & safety’ in an era of H1N1 is probably the way to go.
Hugh, another point I would make is that as Europe’s “union” has congealed, so has its own particular brand of “smart power.” Contrary to its reputation as a military weakling that “punches below its weight,” Europe has the second largest military budget in the world after the United States (larger than China’s), with two countries possessing nuclear weapons (France and Britain), over two million European soldiers in uniform (more than the U.S.), and many boots on the ground in peacekeeping missions and hot spots around the globe in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Congo, and elsewhere.
But Europe’s real strength is that the European Union has had lots of practice at forging consensus among dozens of players, and that gives it a skill set that is more effective than America’s hard power at bringing large segments of the world together over the many challenges we collectively face. Indeed, the top analyst in the U.S. intelligence community wrote in September 2008 that U.S. superiority in military power will “be the least significant” asset in the era that is unfolding. In an emerging, multipolar world, I really think Europe is transforming our very notions of “effective power.”
For example, Europe has achieved some impressive foreign policy accomplishments that force us to reevaluate of how we define “power” in the 21st century. America’s aggressive brand of unilateralism and military “hard power” has suffered unexpected setbacks in recent years. But Europe’s “smart power,” which is based on multilateral diplomacy and regional networks of investment, trade, and Marshall Plan–like foreign aid, has produced more concrete results than its critics will admit. For starters, this velvet diplomacy has been instrumental in bringing greater peace, democracy, and prosperity to the former communist dictatorships of eastern and central Europe, as well as to neighbors such as Turkey, Ukraine, and others in its periphery. All told, this “Eurosphere” links two billion people — one-third of the world, including many Arab countries — to the European Union and its way of doing things. Europe’s smart power also shows the right temperament for slowly nudging Russia, China, the Middle East, and other hot spots toward rapprochement with the West.
Yes, I would certainly get rid of the filibuster. Needing 60% of the vote in any legislature to pass policy is a formula for paralysis. The argument in favor of needing such a high threshold is that it would foster consensus, but I don’t see that happening in the Senate. Instead it is allowing the minority of Republicans (and before that the minority Democrats, though not as extensively) to have a potent weapon to stop the majority party from governing. And then they intend to use that paralysis as the excuse to say “get rid of them and elect us” in the November elections.
I’m not aware of any legislature in any other part of the world where you need such high threshold to pass policy — except in California perhaps, were you need two thirds to pass a budget or to change revenue streams/taxes. And that has led to paralysis in California as well.
No, the filibuster is doing nothing good and allowing for a lot of political mischief that is hurting the United States. I say it’s time for it to go. But apparently it will take 67 votes in the Senate to get rid of it. Good luck.
Yes Dan, I agree. I have done some conservative talk radio is part of the tour for my book, Europe’s Promise, and when you frame these things as “how do we support families and individuals,” or “what economic sense does it make to have people showing up to work sick and infecting their coworkers or the food that they handle,” even some of the conservatives can see that this is neither left nor right, it’s just common sense to some degree. So I think by repositioning some of these issues, we might be able to forge more of a consensus. That’s certainly what I have tried to do in my book. Showing, for example, that Europe is not “socialist” at all, it is actually quite capitalist with more Fortune 500 companies than in the United States. But Europe has figured out how to “harness” its capitalism in a way that creates a more broadly shared prosperity. And how to do all of that in a way that is environmentally sustainable as possible, i.e. lowering carbon emissions and pollutants. In fact, the average American emits twice the amount of carbon as the average European, and over four times the amount of carbon as the average Chinese or Indian. So we really have a ways to go before we start matching the European standard. And I think we can make progress on at least some of these things by framing them with a “family values” sort of meta- theme.
The argument put forth, here, against removing the filibuster is two-fold, first that removal would give the majority party too much power, and would, further, empower the pollitical parties but NOT indiviual Senators, and that it is only those individuals who might be willing to risk “change” which BOTH parties refuse to do.
But yes, we’ve little “luck”, it would seem, as citizens.
DW
I heard Europe is not as innovative and doesn’t have as much technonogy as the US. Is that true?
That is very interesting Steven. I am curious to hear more about the reactions you got to your book on conservative talk shows. I remember Mike Huckabee at the Republican National Convention talking about how he worried about dangerous ‘European’ ideas that Obama might bring back from his trip their during the campaign. And of course, attacking France and all things European as ‘socialist’ is a staple on the right. So, what sort of reactions did you get? And do you think the right will continue to treat Europe as a kind of bogeyman for socialism, to try to scare people off of sensible European ideas?
Basically, we, the American people, are trapped, by lies and entrenced power (and MONEY) interests.
Short of major civil unrest, nothing will be allowed to change.
A depression, which seems ever more likely, might encourage that “unrest”, if the demagogues don’t get to power first …
We are in very dire straits.
DW
I guess it depends on your philosophy of government. I think the way representative democracy works best is that a political party or parties is elected to put in its program. And if it’s program works, then normally it gets reelected. If it does not work, then that government is ousted and another political party takes its place. That’s what the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of politics is supposed to be about. But instead, what we have is a result of the filibuster is that the party in power is not able to implement its program. And that leads to great frustration on the part of voters. I know some conservatives who voted for Barack Obama, not because they agree with everything he said or proposed, but because they thought he represented a change, a new direction for the country. And they were willing to give that a shot. But what they can’t deal with is the sense that Obama is ineffective. He is not able to implement his program. So the filibuster really undermines the accountability of the politicians and parties. The Democrats can blame it on the Republicans and the filibuster, the Republicans can blame it on the Democrats. And the voters will be confused and disgusted. I think this is already starting to occur in the United States as a result of the current situation.
While Europe’s technological prowess has been compared unfavorably with the U.S., more than anywhere else Europe is the place of high speed trains, vast solar arrays, high tech windmills, hydrogen and electric cars and power from the sea. Europe is populated by high tech companies and projects such as Airbus, BMW, Mercedes, Nokia, Siemens, Alston, the world’s largest particle accelerator at CERN, the largest fusion power project at ITER, and more. Its high tech manufacturing base has made many European countries into high export nations — China and India hunger for European technology. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s “Global Information Technology Report 2008–2009” ranked European nations in the top two spots and in seven of the top ten; the U.S. was ranked third. Europe also has more people on the internet, and its internet speeds are faster and less expensive than in the U.S.
As I said above it isn’t just Greece but the whole southern tier of Europe often referred to as Club Med. All of these countries have severe problems and it is not clear what Germany or the EU can do for them.
I would note that Europe’s ability to project military power remains small and dependent on us.
I would also wonder about your inclusion of Turkey. It’s a NATO member and has if I remember correctly the largest army, after ours in NATO. Yet it has been effectively shut out of the EU, most notably by France. We can talk pluralism all day but the exclusion of Turkey is mostly about it being a Moslem country.
I agree with you, Steven.
DW
Doesn’t Europe have a lower standard of living than the United States?
When I am doing a conservative talk show, I look for ways to find common ground. I look to see if it’s even possible. And so I don’t necessarily have a chance to talk about everything related to Europe. But you typically hear that Europe is “socialist” which I easily rebut by saying “it has more fortune 500 companies and more small businesses creating more jobs than the US”. And you also hear a lot about “Europe free rides on America’s military power. They aren’t paying their fair share. They owe us big time for saving them in World Wars I and II.” So I find it sometimes enjoyable to interact with that particular constituency over these questions. When it comes to talking about “Europe owing America,” I point out many of the things I’ve already said in this forum, as well as the knowledge that certainly the post-World War II Pax Americana allowed Europe to build itself up. But it’s also interesting and kind of fun to remind them that without the French, who basically saved a young America when it was fighting the British, we wouldn’t even have a country today. So how far back do we want to reckon these things? Once I can get them focused on the present, then we can have a good discussion about “what is the real threat to America today? How much of a threat is Iran and Afghanistan?” Surprisingly, I have found a fair number of conservatives to agree that they are nowhere near the threats that the Soviet Union was. Also, I like pointing out that United States military budget is a bloated federal bureaucracy. We are still building weapons systems that many military experts say are geared to fight World War II, and not geared for the current threats of today. Why is that? Because that weapon system is built in some Congress members district, that’s why. In other words, much of our military budget is strictly a jobs program, an ongoing fiscal stimulus to the economy. Our economy has become what Republican Pres. Dwight Eisenhower warned in the 1950s about a creeping, sprawling military industrial complex that has wrapped its tentacles around our economy. Again, surprisingly, a certain number of conservatives will agree that the military is very wasteful.
So I kind of enjoy having that conversation, probing and discovering where there is some kind of common ground.
Hugh, just one more comment on Greece and the Club Med countries deficit problems… Germany is not supposed to do anything for them. In fact, the EU Treaty states absolutely that member states will not bail out other members of the Eurozone. They had to put this in the treaty to avoid a ‘moral hazard’ problem, where countries would be tempted to run up debts knowing they would be bailed out (like American banks did!) In fact, states that run deficits that are too high are supposed to be penalized (it is called ‘the excessive deficit procedure’). The problem is of course, it is tough to penalize a country when they are running a massive debt. I say all this just to underline the balancing act that Germany, France and others are playing… they don’t want Greece or others to default, but they don’t want to send a signal to other governments that they would bail them out. So ultimately they want to crack the whip at Greece to make them cut their deficit, and perhaps help them in subtle ways… through trying to instill confidence in the markets or perhaps providing some guarantees, but without giving them a cash infusion.
this is another one of those myths that I typiclly hear, that Europe has a lower standard of living than the US. But the facts say otherwise. For example, in the United States nearly 14% of Americans live in poverty – about 40 million people — compared to 6% in France, 8% in Britain, and 5% or less in Germany, Sweden and Belgium. Twenty percent of American children live below the poverty line, as do nearly 23% of the elderly, the highest figure by far in the west with the exceptions of Russia and Mexico. The U.S. is ranked 29th in infant mortality, tied with Poland and Slovakia (in 1960 the U.S. was ranked twelfth) and 37th in health care (France is ranked first). The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now owns 70 percent of the wealth but in Germany the top 10 percent owns 44 percent. With numbers and indicators like these, that has prompted some analysts to state that if you were looking at no other facts but these, you would think that the United States was a developing country.
The claim that Americans have a higher standard of living is based on the U.S. having a higher ‘average income’ than most European countries. But average income doesn’t convey much about income distribution; if Bill Gates walked into a bar the ‘average income’ of everyone in the bar would increase by about a billion dollars! Besides, Europeans invest their wealth into other important things besides income that benefit everyone equally, such as quality health care, child care, more vacations, more generous retirement pensions, paid parental leave after childbirth, free or nearly free college education, affordable housing, supportive senior care, better parks and more. In today’s economically insecure age, quality of life is not only about income levels but also about adequate support institutions for families and individuals. If the average American has more income than a European, how come Europeans have a much higher savings rate than Americans?
So sorry to be late to this thread, as this book is in my wish cart at Amazon!
Steven – do you have any opinion about language as regards a certain common sense Europeanism? By that I mean this example; there is a certain form for politeness in bothe the Romance and Germanic languages that remains fairly tightly observed. The example in French “N’est ce pas?” comes top of mind.
The speaker is offering the opportunity of disagreement to the listener; this is a feature not hugely highlited in American English.
So do you think this is part of the European culture that fosters much of the promise?
Depends on how you measure it. Standard measures, like GDP per capita (think the U.S. comes out ahead that way but not by much), do not include the added leisure time and higher health that is prevalent in Europe. Am not familiar with more sophisticated measures, but if you travel in Western Europe you will readily see, as a visitor, that their standards of living are at least as high as in the U.S. If you take that mental exercise one step further, and imagine that as a worker you are getting all that for fewer hours worked, then their standard of living is higher. Of course, there are poor in Europe, and the Muslims, including ones living there for a generation or more, are discriminated against. But isn’t that the same or worse in the U.S.?
That search for common ground is critical.
As you realize a sense of humor is most useful.
;~DW
Hugh, I will address both issues you raise in two different posts. First, what severe problems does greece have that California and many American states don’t also have? Greece has a deficit of 12.7%, but there are at least a half a dozen US states that have even larger deficits than that. Like Greece, those states also are in major belt tightening mode. But here’s a real difference: at least in the midst of Greece’s crisis all Greek families and individuals still have access to health care and the other social supports that Europe is known for. But in California and these other states, millions had no health care before the crisis, and even more have lost their jobs and along with it their health care. Unemployment compensation is comparatively miserly, as is the overall safety net, which impacts consumer spending and further weakens the economy. In other words, even during a crisis, Europe’s social capitalism continues to deliver, while America’s Wall Street capitalism and its “ownership society” – better understood as “on your own society” — has faltered.
Yes, good points. And Steven’s reply to Lucy really cuts right into the myths about Europe’s lower standard of living. Just to amplify some of these points, I would emphasize that:
while the US has higher GDP, it does not have higher GDP/hour worked in many cases. in other words, where Europeans earn less per year, it is because they work much less (enjoy more vacation, shorter work week etc)
also, if you earn a bit more, but face dramatically higher costs for essentials like healthcare and education, then you don’t end up with more truly ‘disposable’ income. These are all points steven makes in his book.
Excellent point, Kelly.
We twist and trash our language, to mean the opposite …
Or simply, to confuse.
DW
As we come to the end of this Book Salon,
Steven, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and Europe.
Daniel, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, if you haven’t bought Steven’s book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Oh, and the most important point. If you consider that the European civilization is much older than that of the U.S., and the culture is much higher, then the legacy of all that civilization gives Europeans a wealth of beautiful buildings, art and music that can still be enjoyed today. Taking that into account, European standards of living blow the U.S. ones away. And the Alps are more gorgeous than any mountains I’ve seen in the U.S., although there are some rivals in Canada.
Thanks Steven and Bev. This was really enjoyable.
here’s the second part of my answer to your questions. I don’t agree that Turkey has been shut out — yet. The “accession process” as it’s called to become a member of the European Union is geared to take many many years, over a series of stages. Turkey has passed several of these stages. There are many many good reasons to include Turkey, but if Turkey were admitted it would be the second most populous member state, with over 70 million people. So this is a huge bite for Europe to take, it’s not like admitting tiny Slovenia or Estonia. Even new member Poland only had about 40 million people. This would be analogous to the United States adding Mexico, a very populous country, to our country. Currently there is a leadership in Germany and France that had indicated opposition to Turkey’s membership. But Turkey’s membership it will not ultimately be decided until the next decade. By then, there will be a new generation of leaders. We shall see how this plays out.
Also, you apparently did not read my earlier post, that Europe actually has more soldiers in uniform that we have in United States.. It has two nuclear powers, (France and Britain) and it has helicopters, tanks and military hardware. Europe has the second-largest defense budget after the United States, spending more on its defense than China does (though there’s some dispute about how much China really spans). In other words, Europe is hardly a military lightweight. It just has a different philosophy about when to use that military power.
Thank you, both, Steven and Daniel, it has been a most-informative pleasure.
Don’t be strangers, that is, visit when you can.
DW
hello Kelly, thanks for joining the forum. Unfortunately, language is not something I know very much about. But perhaps we can learn more from you about this subject, please say more.
Do the Europeans recognize that the U.S. empire is in a state of decline and are they willing to accept economic and political refugees from the U.S. prior to the final collapse?
Steven’s website – http://www.newamerica.net/
Timely question, Bluetoe.
DW
Thanks to Bev and fire dog lake for hosting this great conversation. And thanks to Dan for moderating and for adding some thoughtful and informed contributions. And thanks to all of you for participating. One of my reasons for writing this book was to foster just this type of dialogue in the hopes of dispelling certain myths about the transatlantic relationship. I hope this online conversation was helpful for you. I am in the middle of a national book tour, I may be coming to a city near you so stay tuned. The website for Europe’s promise, http://www.EuropesPromise.org, has a list of my speaking schedule.
Thanks to all,
Steven Hill
OK – perhaps this is a bit dry, but I think it’s important.
Cultures express themselves in language. European languageshave specific forms of address that dictate a few things culturally:
- Do not assume familiarity too quickly, and familiarity must also be acknowledged by both parties in the relationship. The French call this tutoiement.
-Offer the listener the opportunity to disagree. I made an example above of “n’est-ce pas” which means “is that not so?” Some folks think that this form was developed to avoid duels, and the form survives as it fosters harmony despite disagreement.
-There are universal terms of endearment, cherished people, types of people, things. For instance, children and pets are almost universally regarded in the diminutive, and one may be familiar with either children or pets instantly, as they should be protected and cherished.
I could go on, but you get the idea. These concepts are absent and very foreign to US English speakers.
Kelly, I wish you would go on.
Are there any books you might recommend regarding this important aspect of meaningful communication?
If not, might you consider writing further, yourself?
I cannot tell you how important I consider what you are saying, to be.
DW
Is this another one of those flowery AW manifestations that German and French are romantic and English is devoid of such use of language?
Some countries in Europe have as high or higher rates of divorce as America does, that logic goes right out the window.
Though a smaller percentage; European women find American men very interesting (look at the K1 Fiance Visa statistics) while AW have continued to devalue men as a whole. American Women continue to shout “victim” when its clearly not as lopsided as many Americans seem to think.
I don’t know how I missed this thread, I was off all weekend, NASCAR I suppose is to blame…
Having spent a fair amount of time in Europe (both Western and Eastern), I can completely agree with Steven and his book. America has been too busy playing ass-backwards politics, while Europe has spent years recovering from war(s), we squandered the next 40-45 years chasing shadows in foreign policy and telling Americans that we have not only a better standard of living than Europe, but anyplace else including health care, education, etc, etc.
When the fact is we have slipped into the double digits when measured against Europe. I think Lucy was a troll, all this stuff is easy to find even in Conservative rags like Forbes Magazine.
I am planning on moving, I can’t handle anymore “Change I can believe in”
Denmark is high on the list of desirable locations, its constantly in the Top 10 “Best Places To Live” list along with Switzerland’s to largest cities. I should mention Switzerland had big problems with its health care system until the 90′s and reformed it to such a degree that its consider one of the most affordable and highest quality in Europe.
Though I have holding out hope that California can show me some political will and shift the focus of this State in more “European” Progressive direction. There are several powerful things in the works, I am confident I might not have to leave after all.
My premise on this web blog has been to say, if your unhappy with the direction of your country, city, county, state, etc, how you going to show this level of dissatisfaction to those in charge?
You can vote -
If that doesn’t work
You can boycott/strike -
If that doesn’t work
You can either -
Leave or Take Up Arms, which one will you choose?
I am choosing to leave, among other things Black Men are not treated equally or fairly and even a Bi-Racial President has to tippy-toe around the subject of race because he knows the level of White Supremacy in America would cause such a political backlash it might result in him not getting re-elected…
Errrrr – Back to 2010 All Star Weekend