Another Euro - USA thread...

[William67]

Yes it's very understandable.

I honestly sometimes wonder if the Scandinavian welfare state idea is just a utopia. Most of the building blocks of it owe to the fact that there was worldwide threat of Communist revolutions in the world during 1900's and that made rich and powerful people very afraid of antagonizing the working people, or they might join communists and call in help from Moscow. So they kinda gave in easily for demands made by the working class.

But now it's gone and there isn't much to be afraid of so it might be that when the generations who used to take the threat of working peoples revolution seriously are gone, and their kids realize that if they push for a more hardcore capitalism, nothing bad is going to happen anymore so why not.

In US communism was never popular like it was in Europe, for example, there was a civil war in Finland between commies and the rest about 100 years ago, can't see that happening in the US really.

You should also consider the fact that the US stood between much of Europe and the former USSR. If we hadn't, Europe would have had to spend much more of their resources on defense instead of social programs.

 

[Jack of Spades]

You should also consider the fact that the US stood between much of Europe and the former USSR. If we hadn't, Europe would have had to spend much more of their resources on defense instead of social programs.

It's oversimplification. Finland and Sweden are not members of NATO, so US has never had zero commitment for their defense, and does not have now. Since ww2, both countries have been responsible of their own defense. That's why they both have had obligatory military service for all males, and Finland still does, altho I'm not sure about Sweden.

And just for the record, Finland has actually fought two wars against Red Army of the Soviet Union. One of them alongside Germany and the other one alone. That's something American armed forces have never done. And for further record, while Finns were fighting the second one of those wars, US was allied with Stalin, not with Finns.

So, maybe the Scandinavian social democrats are not relying as much of the US protection as you might think they are.

 

[William67]

It's oversimplification. Finland and Sweden are not members of NATO, so US has never had zero commitment for their defense, and does not have now. Since ww2, both countries have been responsible of their own defense. That's why they both have had obligatory military service for all males, and Finland still does, altho I'm not sure about Sweden.

And just for the record, Finland has actually fought two wars against Red Army of the Soviet Union. One of them alongside Germany and the other one alone. That's something American armed forces have never done. And for further record, while Finns were fighting the second one of those wars, US was allied with Stalin, not with Finns.

So, maybe the Scandinavian social democrats are not relying as much of the US protection as you might think they are.

Nope, my statement still stands. If the US hadn't been there, the Soviets would have rolled over Europe, all of it, not just eastern Europe. I believe your timeline is a little off. The US didn't enter into an alliance with Russia until the end of 1941. Russia had already attacked Finland months before.

It was the non-aggression pact the USSR had signed with Germany in 1939 which allowed the Russians to focus on Finland. Germany attacked Russia in May, 1941. The US didn't enter the war until after we were attacked in Dec., 1941. Even then, it took us some time to gear up for war.

That still doesn't change the fact that the US stood between Russia and the rest of Europe after 1945, when Europe was going socialist. We spent billions of dollars defending Europe. It was also our dollars that rebuilt much of Europe after the war. A war that was started in Europe, by Europeans. And all that money spent on defense is what kept Russia focused on us, which allowed Europe to divert much of its resources to "social programs".

Finland didn't have to be a member of NATO. It still benefitted from NATO. It reaped the reward without the risk.

 

[Cearbhall]

You should also consider the fact that the US stood between much of Europe and the former USSR. If we hadn't, Europe would have had to spend much more of their resources on defense instead of social programs.

I'm not saying I agree with this 100%, but I certainly agree that our defense budget keeps us from having some of the things that make Scandinavian countries a "utopia." You can't afford the most effective solutions to domestic problems if you decide to be the world's police.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'm not saying I agree with this 100%, but I certainly agree that our defense budget keeps us from having some of the things that make Scandinavian countries a "utopia."

I think this is pretty interesting website, there are loads of up to date statistics about world militaries. This one is defense budget per country in 2015, you find links to others at the bottom of the page:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

I believe your timeline is a little off. The US didn't enter into an alliance with Russia until the end of 1941. Russia had already attacked Finland months before.

Because the original claim was that it was US commitment to the European defense, which made social democracy possible, my timeline starts from the era when the social democratic policies were first put into practice. This was before ww2. US was pretty much out of the European picture when Finland and Sweden began to adopt welfare policies. WW2 and American commitment in European defense came after that.

If the "American protection makes social democracy work" - argument is true, then I wonder why social democracies are so concentrated in Northern Europe and not in other places, like for example in Kuwait or Taiwan.

If the US hadn't been there, the Soviets would have rolled over Europe, all of it, not just eastern Europe.......Finland didn't have to be a member of NATO. It still benefitted from NATO. It reaped the reward without the risk.

In case of all out ww3, it's true, but again it's not the whole truth. Sharing +1000 kilometer land border with USSR, most likely war scenario for Finland has always been being singled out as a target of Soviet invasion, like in 1939. Finnish military non-alignment made possible for Soviet Union to invade Finland without ínvolving NATO. Why the Soviet steam roller never crossed the Finnish border during the Cold War is an open question, and I believe only Soviet leaders of the time could answer it. If you want to think it was somehow because Americans, feel free to do so, because I don't know the answer, and I can only speculate.

 

[blackribbon]

There is a big push for free university level schooling in the US. What they don't realize is that unlike the US where almost anyone can go to a college or university, the students that receive "free university tuition" are the top students. Here, the same students get "free" tuition in the form of scholarships. And in those countries that offer free tuition, that tuition is paid for by taxing people including those that never qualified for the benefit.

I don't know that I put much credence in using standardized scores for determining the level of education a child is getting. Most in the US really are just scoring the school's achievement and many are simply measures of how many kids are working at grade level.

I have a friend who did poorly in high school...just barely well enough to graduate. He just didn't care. However, he went on to a major private university and made almost a 4.0 because he was suddenly studying something that interested him. A few years later, he went back to law school and is now employed in corporate/contract law.

What Americans forget is that we have options. We can go to any school that we can qualify for...as long as you are willing to pay for it. We don't have to stay close to home. We don't have our career paths per determined for us. I personally would like to see trade schools given more emphasis because I do see too many people wasting time on university degrees that they are just not suited for and they will not make as good of a living as if they had a hands-on job like an electrician, plumber, or auto-mechanic.

 

[Cearbhall]

There is a big push for free university level schooling in the US. What they don't realize is that unlike the US where almost anyone can go to a college or university, the students that receive "free university tuition" are the top students. Here, the same students get "free" tuition in the form of scholarships. And in those countries that offer free tuition, that tuition is paid for by taxing people including those that never qualified for the benefit.

Yeah, I don't agree with guaranteeing free tuition by law. There would have to be some sort of qualifying criteria anyway, and it would amount to basically the same system we have now. I was eligible for an automatic full-ride at a number of universities. I ended up not choosing one of them because the other financial aid packages were almost as generous.

 

[Jack of Spades]

What they don't realize is that unlike the US where almost anyone can go to a college or university, the students that receive "free university tuition" are the top students.

If you're talking about Scandinavia here, there are tests for people before they get accepted to university. You can't just walk in and start studying. With some programs, the tests are extremely difficult, even more difficult than any exams in the actual program.

Like for example to study law, to pass the test, you must practically memorize every page of something like 4 books of legal theory, which totals something like 1000 - 1500 pages of pure theory. The universities are free to decide their entrance tests, so more popular the program is, more difficult tests they make, so they get the kind of people they want to have.

 

[blackribbon]

Same goes for the "free healthcare"....but I don't think people realize how high taxes are in countries that have this "free" benefit. Nothing is really free. We just have to decide who pays for it. And if the government (well, actually the taxpayers) pays for it, then the government also gets to decide who benefits because even then, the funds are limited. So I may pay into the system but not qualify for the benefit.

In a state where there is free healthcare, there are limitation to who gets what and if certain technology even is available.

 

[MarkSB]

"Teachers profession is highly popular"

- It's popular because teachers get 2 to 3 months paid vacation per year.

They get the same thing here, essentially. In some states teachers get paid pretty well, and they get 3 months off in the summer.

 

[blackribbon]

They get the same thing here, essentially. In some states teachers get paid pretty well, and they get 3 months off in the summer.

Teachers get the option of dividing their salary over 12 months or the 9 months they actually work. (At least my mom always did). They really aren't being paid for those months off but rather collecting money they already earned.)

 

[MarkSB]

Teachers get the option of dividing their salary over 12 months or the 9 months they actually work. (At least my mom always did). They really aren't being paid for those months off but rather collecting money they already earned.)

Not from what I've seen, lol. You can look at it that way, I'm sure, but in PA teachers get paid pretty well. They work over 40 hours per week, sure, but when you compare it to many private sector jobs, the salary vs. hours worked would undoubtedly tip in favor of being a teacher. There's not much of a doubt in my mind.

That's not to say that their job isn't important... I'm just saying that on a $/hour basis, in this state they get paid pretty well.

 

[Cearbhall]

If you're talking about Scandinavia here, there are tests for people before they get accepted to university. You can't just walk in and start studying. With some programs, the tests are extremely difficult, even more difficult than any exams in the actual program.

Like for example to study law, to pass the test, you must practically memorize every page of something like 4 books of legal theory, which totals something like 1000 - 1500 pages of pure theory. The universities are free to decide their entrance tests, so more popular the program is, more difficult tests they make, so they get the kind of people they want to have.

To get in? That's interesting. Here, the law school entrance exam contains zero law content. It's 100% an assessment of general skills like reading comprehension and logical reasoning. No knowledge-based studying involved. That being said, you need to have a bachelor's degree already to enter law school here, but law schools don't care whether students took law-related classes at the undergrad level.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I'm not saying I agree with this 100%, but I certainly agree that our defense budget keeps us from having some of the things that make Scandinavian countries a "utopia." You can't afford the most effective solutions to domestic problems if you decide to be the world's police.

Not to mention if you also look into what Congress spends it's money on in defense, it's ridiculous. We literally have warehouses of tanks that have never and probably will never be used. Here's an article where the Army went to Congress "Enough, stop, we're good.", but Congress didn't listen...
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

 

[William67]

Not to mention if you also look into what Congress spends it's money on in defense, it's ridiculous. We literally have warehouses of tanks that have never and probably will never be used. Here's an article where the Army went to Congress "Enough, stop, we're good.", but Congress didn't listen...
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

My grandfather enlisted in January, 1941. We didn't warehouse equipment back then. He said the men he trained had to share rifles on the firing range. They practiced the manual of arms using wooden cutouts they made themselves even after the cowardly attack on December 7, 1941. It took months to manufacture enough weapons for the growing military. Its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I would imagine that the army knows when they have enough better than Congress does. They have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[William67]

I would imagine that the army knows when they have enough better than Congress does. They have to draw the line somewhere.

I actually agree with that. Unfortunately, politicians tend to vote so that manufacturers are happy. The "military industrial complex".

 

[Jack of Spades]

The North American wild turkey is sort of the American answer to the peacock. Male Turkeys can even display their tail feathers in the same manner.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y34gnIk-yuY/maxresdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y34gnIk-yuY&docid=m4Oy3yFgQTVICM&tbnid=wDrcHjwDk3WyUM:&w=1080&h=720&hl=en&client=safari&bih=672&biw=1024&ved=0ahUKEwiw2MDEsJ7NAhVDzIMKHTdMArAQMwgkKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

It's the same bird people grow up in farms here, but it doesn't live in the wild.

Closest wild thing we have would be Pheasant. But compared to a peacock it's a rather dull bird...

Spoiler

All the wild animals here are pretty small and colorless, hardly anything exotic here. It's the cold weather.

Are there any cool species of eagles or hawks in the US?

 

[grandvizier1006]

It's the same bird people grow up in farms here, but it doesn't live in the wild.

Closest wild thing we have would be Pheasant. But compared to a peacock it's a rather dull bird...

Spoiler

All the wild animals here are pretty small and colorless, hardly anything exotic here. It's the cold weather.

Are there any cool species of eagles or hawks in the US?

I think we have pheasants that look like that, too. I assume they were brought over if you have them, too (interestingly, that's how the turkey got its name: it was from The US originally but was imported to the Middle East as an alternative to chicken--namely, Turkey the country. The Biritish, I think, assumed it was native and called it the "turkey bird".)

As for interesting birds of prey, we have the same Ospreys the rest of the world does. I've never seen them dive, but I assume they look cool. We have the red-tailed hawk, which makes the generic "eagle" sound effect sometimes seen in movies (even though it's a hawk and not an eagle).

Hawks of any species tend to be fairly small, but they look decent up close. They also, much to the frustration of bird watchers like myself, look very similar to each other.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...Z7NAhUCzoMKHVlxB4cQMwhXKBAwEA&iact=mrc&uact=8

There is also the broad-winged hawk. Alone it's not much, but at certain times of the year around summer, around the Southwest, I believe, you can find migrating flocks that number in the hundreds, all soaring around. People have gathered just for this and somehow managed to count each and every individual!

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...Z7NAhVn0YMKHT_wBuAQMwgtKAswCw&iact=mrc&uact=8

There's of course the bald eagle, our nation's national bird (there was some suggestions of the turkey, but an eagle is much cooler!) it was an endangered species for a while but it has since made a comeback. I actually saw some a year ago.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...p7NAhXCzIMKHeHuBGYQMwhKKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

Somewhat fittingly, bald eagles have been seen in pretty much every state by now. Given the size of the U.S. it's fitting to have a bird that can be found all over it!

There's also the peregrine falcon, which I haven't seen yet IRL. When they dive down to catch prey, they can hit 200 mph, which is around 320 kph. It's the fastest animal, hands down.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...p7NAhWE5oMKHa9ECZEQMwhyKBcwFw&iact=mrc&uact=8

There's also a number of colorful, tropical birds in the Americas, although most of them can't be found in the US even during migration. There is the painted bunting, though, although it's not a bird of prey in any sense.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...57NAhXr6IMKHYjKBYQQMwg6KAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

[Jack of Spades]

@grandvizier1006

All those birds of prey look rather familiar, I think we have either the same birds, or some species which are very close. For example we don't have the bald eagle (it's name in Finnish translates literally "white headed sea-eagle"), but there are sea eagles, which is more or less the same bird, just without the white color in the head.

There is a classic fisherman's story which everyone's friends friend has heard about Ospreys, that someone was fishing and caught something. When they were pulling the fish up, first thing they saw coming from under the water was large wings and they got so scared they let it go. Supposedly, it was an Ospreys which had struck it's claws in the back of a too big fish, and was drowned with it, being still stuck in the fishes back. I have no idea have this ever actually happened, but I've heard it sometimes.

I didn't know the bald eagle is the US national bird, but now that you said it, I realize I've seen pictures of the bird many times in some military related things. Eagles are the coolest bird ever, it's a very cool symbol.

Finland's national bird is the whooper swan:

Spoiler