Europe: 2 questions
Locked
 
Administrator
|
I really appreciate our mail list that started 10 yrs or so ago has become so world-wide. So I'd like to ask two questions which the US press ignores or misunderstands, and to which my only other regular source, the Economist, may have a bias.
They are: - Multiculturalism (MC). - Euro monitory union without political union. As I understand it, MC is based on "separate but equal", a horrid phrase used here during the segregation era, but within europe may simply be a welcoming phrase meaning "come, and you do not have to change abruptly to local cultural values". The US has eschewed MC for "integration", which has its own problems and forces a generation-long battle with local bigotry. But as difficult as integration is, it seems to ultimately be successful and avoids the horrid anomaly I read of: A muslim husband was pardoned by a judge for beating his wife because MC allows breadth of law to include muslim practice. All of which I suspect was completely misunderstood from start to finish!
The euro strikes closer to home, and as I mentioned earlier, I fear is the real financial problem we face. But I feel doomed by the euro debt problem simply because it's half an economy! I don't understand how an economic union can exist, at the scale of the EU, without political unity as well. I know of large trade pacts that work to some degree, but they can always dissolve, and have power over their fiscal policy.
So the questions are how can either MC or a non-political euro work? But broader, I'd like any (sane, reasoned, non-violent, non slashdot, non snarky [sorry Doug]) insight you may have. -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I have a clarifying (to me) question: When you say "MC" and
"integration" and "The US has eschewed xyz", what scale and mechanisms provide your context? By scale, I mean spectra like from interpersonal <-> US culture and city ordinance <-> Constitution, borrowing tools from neighbors <-> credit default swaps, etc. By mechanisms I mean things like your two examples of common currency and agreements like the EU, but also things like common law, options for incorporation, tax-exemption, licensing, guest worker programs, the electoral college, etc. It's just not clear to me where your question's coming from. Owen Densmore wrote circa 11-08-09 09:38 AM: > They are: > - Multiculturalism (MC). > - Euro monitory union without political union. > > As I understand it, MC is based on "separate but equal", a horrid phrase > used here during the segregation era, but within europe may simply be a > welcoming phrase meaning "come, and you do not have to change abruptly > to local cultural values". The US has eschewed MC for "integration", > which has its own problems and forces a generation-long battle with > local bigotry. But as difficult as integration is, it seems to > ultimately be successful and avoids the horrid anomaly I read of: A > muslim husband was pardoned by a judge for beating his wife because MC > allows breadth of law to include muslim practice. All of which I > suspect was completely misunderstood from start to finish! > > The euro strikes closer to home, and as I mentioned earlier, I fear is > the real financial problem we face. But I feel doomed by the euro debt > problem simply because it's half an economy! I don't understand how an > economic union can exist, at the scale of the EU, without political > unity as well. I know of large trade pacts that work to some degree, > but they can always dissolve, and have power over their fiscal policy. > > So the questions are how can either MC or a non-political euro work? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Owen,
My understanding of European 'Multiculturalism' - gained through many discussions with European colleagues - is that it has all of the vices of the old US 'separate but equal', with none of the virtues. That is, there is no real caveat for 'equal' and no real caveat for 'separate'. The MC experiment was an honest, well-meaning attempt to allow 'come as you are, be as you came.' It was an attempt not to impose anything that might resemble colonialism... because the Europeans were too sensitive to hints of colonialism or suggestions of European-superiority, not because the immigrants were. Thus, for example, to suggest that immigrants to Germany might want to learn German, or even that their children might be required to attend a school where German was taught, or even that German tutor might be assigned to whatever school they happened to be in... well, that is an assault on their cultural values! (Again, so said the well meaning Germans.) What has resulted is like the old phenomenon of enclosed china-towns in the US, except without the likelihood that their kids will speak English and integration will occur across generations... Oh, and their are more group-X-towns in many parts of Germany than there are Germans. They don't integrate with the Germans or with each other, and yet they keep conflicting, because nothing is keeping them separate, and certainly no one wants them to be equal. At any rate, when people say things like "The experiment in Multiculturalism has failed", they don't mean that everyone has to become German, they only mean that we should start doing things to integrate society. Even admitting that you might force German-as-a-second-language classes to be available in schools is an abandonment of the ultra-multicultural attitude. Hence, my impression is that many of the citizens of these European countries knew what they were doing at the start, but were very utopian in their imagining of how it would go. Now they have so empowered the immigrants, they have no idea how to change course. I have no clue on the Euro-zone economics / politics thing. Eric On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 12:38 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Our friend Paul Krugman at the (NY) Times has written on the latter
subject a number of times, including this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/opinion/30krugman.html The gist of his argument is I think two issues: 1. Monetary union without true mobility is not feasible (more specific than "just" political union). If things get bad in Nevada, people can move elsewhere to look for jobs. If things get bad in Greece, it's not realistic to expect Greeks to move to and get jobs in Germany. 2. There's been no formal commitment for parts of the EU to bail out other weaker parts. Again, if things are bad in Nevada, the Feds have an opportunity/obligation to assist with funds collected from the entire nation. In Europe, it seems as though everyone hopes Angela will pick up the tab without similar legislated expectations. On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: > I really appreciate our mail list that started 10 yrs or so ago has > become so world-wide. So I'd like to ask two questions which the US > press ignores or misunderstands, and to which my only other regular > source, the Economist, may have a bias. > > They are: > - Multiculturalism (MC). > - Euro monitory union without political union. > > As I understand it, MC is based on "separate but equal", a horrid > phrase used here during the segregation era, but within europe may > simply be a welcoming phrase meaning "come, and you do not have to > change abruptly to local cultural values". The US has eschewed MC > for "integration", which has its own problems and forces a > generation-long battle with local bigotry. But as difficult as > integration is, it seems to ultimately be successful and avoids the > horrid anomaly I read of: A muslim husband was pardoned by a judge > for beating his wife because MC allows breadth of law to include > muslim practice. All of which I suspect was completely > misunderstood from start to finish! > > The euro strikes closer to home, and as I mentioned earlier, I fear > is the real financial problem we face. But I feel doomed by the > euro debt problem simply because it's half an economy! I don't > understand how an economic union can exist, at the scale of the EU, > without political unity as well. I know of large trade pacts that > work to some degree, but they can always dissolve, and have power > over their fiscal policy. > > So the questions are how can either MC or a non-political euro > work? But broader, I'd like any (sane, reasoned, non-violent, non > slashdot, non snarky [sorry Doug]) insight you may have. > > -- Owen > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have a clarifying (to me) question: When you say "MC" and In terms of where these two questions come from, they came from thinking about the recent discussions about two events:
- The shootings in Norway - The debt crisis/crises in US & Europe ... and generally while reading the Economist magazine which appears to have reasonable opinions and analysis. I'm not sure there is, exactly, a spectrum .. although thinking about your examples, I can see that there might be. On MC: I really don't think of this as having a spectrum. I think of "integration" is a point signifying, relative to immigration (and race here in the US), that on some level people are judged equally. This is not a value judgement, and indeed not necessarily "just". (And indeed, within race (and even within culture .. such as university admission), there are non-equal laws called affermative action which attempt to create a broad experience of race and culture.) Basically, in countries that have an integration approach to immigration, the immigrant is expected to align with the existing culture into which they are immigrating.
MC, as I understand it, feels immigrant cultures should flourish independently, proud and with strong identity. This even extends into rights and privileges. But as Eric suggests, the downside is much like the "separate but equal" phase in US racial history.
If I were to attempt a spectrum, it would be the strength of expectation of the immigrant shedding their culture at least as far as law and desire to adapt the culture of the country they are coming to.
In terms of the EU monetary policy, there may a similar spectrum, but I wasn't thinking of it. (No monetary affermative action for the various EU countries!) But you have a point: there may be tighter financial integration without having complete political integration. I.e. you can be federated with the idea of "state's rights". But it appears the EU is attempting a union solely on currency, with the minor addition of an initial debt to GDP ceiling requirement.
I do think its possible for the EU to succeed but I don't have a clue what would need to be changed. Maybe if I *did* have a spectrum, I'd be better off. But it seems to me that until there is a stronger federation politically, the EU will be troubled. I think the only reasonable solution will eventually be a United States of Europe. Yup. German and Italian voters voting on (some of) the same things. Why? Because what they vote on will impact fiscal health.
So if there were a spectrum, it would be individual EU countries and voters having a say in each others policy. I suppose that would mean a scalar quantity measuring degree of federation. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Sadd
John Sadd wrote circa 11-08-09 12:22 PM:
> 1. Monetary union without true mobility is not feasible (more specific > than "just" political union). If things get bad in Nevada, people can > move elsewhere to look for jobs. If things get bad in Greece, it's not > realistic to expect Greeks to move to and get jobs in Germany. Just thinking out loud, here: I've had several discussions with the "sustainability" folks here in the PDX area and those discussions often seem to boil down to cheap energy. Where (and to whom) energy is cheap, all sorts of things seem to happen transparently (finding blueberries grown in South America at your local Safeway, for example, when they grow quite well right here). I think the same kernel might be hiding underneath the mobility part of the argument. In a similar vein, I've often heard that people who travel a lot are more tolerant/aware of various customs and may take a more "liberal" view of how others choose to live their lives. Again, if energy is expensive, then only the rich will travel a lot, perhaps implying that those of us with fewer resources will tend to be more bigoted, xenophobic, or (at least) ignorant. Finally, I've also noticed that some people (e.g. me) like to move around a lot and live in different (albeit not that different) places, whereas others (e.g. my S.O. and most of her family) prefer to live in close proximity to their family or where they were born. And it seems to be that way regardless of the resources they have available. So, I can't help thinking there's also a biological basis for (lack of) mobility as well as an economic one. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Sadd
Glen,
Excellent observation at the end. I don't know much about the human data (is there an anthropologist in the house?), but for every non-human primate species I know of, and most other mammals, either males disperse from their childhood groups, or females disperse. To have members of both sexes routinely leaving their place of birth is very rare. Also worth noting, male dispersal is much more typical. Such dispersion tends to happen around puberty, and is surrounded by much within group conflict (any parents of teenage children reading this?). There is quite a lot of modeling / theory / investigation as to the social and environmental factors that determine which sex will disperse. Good stuff. There is little experimentation though, so I suspect that underlying the stability is a very stable environment, rather than an extremely robust behavioral system. Either way, humans show more flexibility 'in the wild' than other primate species with regard to similar traits. With that in mind, I would bet one could identify a set of factors that determine the likelihood a given man or woman will want to move around a lot. It is likely that if one did so, that environmental factors in childhood would be better predictors of dispersal than current environmental conditions. Put another way: It is reasonable to presume that some childhood environments lead to men who want to move a lot, and different environmental factors that lead to women who want to move a lot. Eric On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 08:41 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric CharlesJohn Sadd wrote circa 11-08-09 12:22 PM: > 1. Monetary union without true mobility is not feasible (more specific > than "just" political union). If things get bad in Nevada, people can > move elsewhere to look for jobs. If things get bad in Greece, it's not > realistic to expect Greeks to move to and get jobs in Germany. Just thinking out loud, here: I've had several discussions with the "sustainability" folks here in the PDX area and those discussions often seem to boil down to cheap energy. Where (and to whom) energy is cheap, all sorts of things seem to happen transparently (finding blueberries grown in South America at your local Safeway, for example, when they grow quite well right here). I think the same kernel might be hiding underneath the mobility part of the argument. In a similar vein, I've often heard that people who travel a lot are more tolerant/aware of various customs and may take a more "liberal" view of how others choose to live their lives. Again, if energy is expensive, then only the rich will travel a lot, perhaps implying that those of us with fewer resources will tend to be more bigoted, xenophobic, or (at least) ignorant. Finally, I've also noticed that some people (e.g. me) like to move around a lot and live in different (albeit not that different) places, whereas others (e.g. my S.O. and most of her family) prefer to live in close proximity to their family or where they were born. And it seems to be that way regardless of the resources they have available. So, I can't help thinking there's also a biological basis for (lack of) mobility as well as an economic one. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Hm. I was a corporate kid whose family was transferred globally every three years. I came back to the US to go to college (did not do the Junior Year Abroad option) stayed in that same town for 8 years after graduating, then began to move again; around the US this time, every year or two, sometimes more often. New Mexico is the longest I've been anywhere. I do get restless and travel often, in the US and EU. I have noticed that every year or two, if I do not move, I rearrange the furniture and rooms in my house, often quite dramatically. I have always wondered at my now-ingrained need to uproot familiar circumstances after a couple of years, and derive it directly from what I perceived as benefits to leaving everything and starting anew. Feels strongly psychological to me. I feel like a shark who needs to keep swimming or I will suffocate. My one sibling, also female, does not have this.
Re traveling / wealth / tolerance and bigotry: I do not believe this one is a direct correlation. The willingness to take in new ideas is exacerbated by travel experiences, but not limited to them. Reading has given me as much desire to understand and tolerate as seeing very diverse cultures all satisfied with their adaptations. And there certainly are bigoted, close-minded people whose travel is wide-ranging yet which is used to confirm their own sense of superiority. Another element entering into the discussion for us here is the aging parent phenomenon: people of either gender, or couples, who move near the parental orbit to take care of them, not necessarily because they would choose to live there otherwise. More and more of that. WIth two-income families the norm as well, not an issue in primates, proximity to family that one can trust to care for the kiddies is a requirement for many. Victoria On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:03 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by John Sadd
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM, John Sadd <[hidden email]> wrote: Our friend Paul Krugman at the (NY) Times has written on the latter subject a number of times, including this one: I like the article, for example:
.. although I don't think simply giving "help" is anywhere near the answer. I do believe the individual EU countries should be able to be more fiscally flexible, but I don't think Krugman is willing to actually say what this means: either autonomy (i.e. quit the EU) or greater union (i.e. greater political integration.)
-- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Multiculturalism is a good thing, the USA is a good example for this. In
Europe we have France, Italy, Germany, Greece and Spain. Each country has a its own wonderful language, individual history and rich culture. And yet all of them have a common economic and political system. I think an economic union can exist without a political union, as long as the economic and political systems are similar enough. The economic system in western europe is based on social market economy. The political system is based on democracy and free elections. Monetary union can exist if there is an economic union, which exists in the EU. If things get bad in Germany, people are allowed to work in Greece, and vice versa. Europeans can work in any European country. Did someone notice that all these talks about the Greek debt crisis suddenly stopped as Greece gained access to the emergency funding program of the EU? Is it possible that all these talks just covered a hidden power struggle who gets access to the rescue funding program of the EU? You need to stir up attention to wake up the bureaucracy of the EU. Greece is not bankrupt, there is a lot of money there. It is still a rich European country, compared to Africa and other regions. The money is certainly not equally distributed, and often it is spend for the wrong things (like ridiculous expensive military machinery). Tourists leave a lot of money in countries like Greece, but the money is in the hands of a few big corporations and some very rich people. The riots in London and Athens are a sign that people are unsatisfied with the growing gap between the rich and the poor. So what is wrong? We need more transparency, more democracy, and more concern for the environment. In return we need less bureaucracy, and less military spending. There is too much bureaucracy in the EU, especially in the European Commision. If there is no crisis, the bureaucracy will hardly move. The political system is partly corrupt and controlled by lobby groups, which represent the big corporations and banks. All western countries have so much deficit that they seem to belong to the banks already. We are ruled too much by bankers and lobbyists. At some places, capitalism is getting out of control. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The Europeans should think about the social problems of capitalism, if the social market economy is really social enough. Jochen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Yes, but... economic issues aside... there was a greater risk in the
European mission of ultra-multiculturalism than many appreciated. If you want
to be a great, open democracy, you take the risk that one day enough religious
Muslims will move to your country that they can democratically enact sharia
law. This is not a problem limited to Europe, but the small size of European
countries relative to the number of immigrates, and the egalitarian nature of
their multiculturalism effort makes the problems hit more rapidly. The US,
despite being relatively 'open' has very strong integrationist requirements to
gain citizenship. The people I know who have immigrated to the US as adults
understand our government much, much better than the average citizen.
An situation in the US similar to the multi-cultural crisis in europe came when the Libertarian Party launched a mass migration to the state of New Hampshire. They saw New Hampshire as a state full of people who had similar views, and that had a small enough population that a wave of new arrivals could quickly become the majority voting block. Now, in my limited experience, people in New Hampshire are very open, very pro-democracy, and all for allowing people to have their say. That said, many of the 'natives' were not at all happy to see a wave of 'immigrants' trying to fundamentally redefine their social order. Another good example from the US is the increasing rights given to Hispanic 'illegals' in California. How can a person walk into one government building and get a valid state drivers license, when that same person can be deported if a federal police officer pulls them over while driving? This is political schizophrenia. Why are 'illegal' children allowed into the public schools? Much of the problem boils down to finances: By virtue of being non-citizens, working under the grid, their parents are not paying the taxes that support the public schools. Thus you have communities with enormous local taxes, because many community residents are not paying. Thus one solution is to make it easier to become a citizen, and that is the solution I favor. Understandably though, many others are afraid of the implications of that many people with a different culture having that type of voting power. I'm not arguing for one side or the other, but agreeing with Owen's observation that it is a very difficult problem, and well-meaning people did not seem to appreciate all the potential directions in which it might go. Eric On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 03:09 AM, "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric CharlesMulticulturalism is a good thing, the USA is a good example for this. In Europe we have France, Italy, Germany, Greece and Spain. Each country has a its own wonderful language, individual history and rich culture. And yet all of them have a common economic and political system. I think an economic union can exist without a political union, as long as the economic and political systems are similar enough. The economic system in western europe is based on social market economy. The political system is based on democracy and free elections. Monetary union can exist if there is an economic union, which exists in the EU. If things get bad in Germany, people are allowed to work in Greece, and vice versa. Europeans can work in any European country. Did someone notice that all these talks about the Greek debt crisis suddenly stopped as Greece gained access to the emergency funding program of the EU? Is it possible that all these talks just covered a hidden power struggle who gets access to the rescue funding program of the EU? You need to stir up attention to wake up the bureaucracy of the EU. Greece is not bankrupt, there is a lot of money there. It is still a rich European country, compared to Africa and other regions. The money is certainly not equally distributed, and often it is spend for the wrong things (like ridiculous expensive military machinery). Tourists leave a lot of money in countries like Greece, but the money is in the hands of a few big corporations and some very rich people. The riots in London and Athens are a sign that people are unsatisfied with the growing gap between the rich and the poor. So what is wrong? We need more transparency, more democracy, and more concern for the environment. In return we need less bureaucracy, and less military spending. There is too much bureaucracy in the EU, especially in the European Commision. If there is no crisis, the bureaucracy will hardly move. The political system is partly corrupt and controlled by lobby groups, which represent the big corporations and banks. All western countries have so much deficit that they seem to belong to the banks already. We are ruled too much by bankers and lobbyists. At some places, capitalism is getting out of control. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The Europeans should think about the social problems of capitalism, if the social market economy is really social enough. Jochen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
Not to Bump, but the Warren Buffet Op-Ed & Charlie Rose interview both referred to the strait jacket each of the 17 EU countries is in: they can't print money!
I suppose the Euro Bonds are an attempt to fix all this? http://goo.gl/JWpWZ
But when one of the worlds most successful financial practitioners hasn't an answer for the EU financial difficulties, its a bit spooky! -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |