Europe ain't so great.

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Maybe we should close this discusion because I believe that there are not a lot of people here that lived in the US and EU and studied in both to see how the education is.

Our conclusion is: There are good and bad colleges in both parts of the world!

isn't that good

 

[Elmer Gantry]

That list stinks to high heaven. Looking at it from an Australian perspective, I'd struglge to find anyone that would rank ANU so far above Uni of Melb and Uni of Sydney and since when does Uni of Qld outrank Monash and Uni of NSW?!?

I think the comparitive methodology (and I did read it) is very questionable.

 

[mattflanders]

Did I mention how much I love Flanders? One of my favorite cities in the world is there....
Ive also spent a lot of time in Ghent.

Now you're talking! :tongue: Ghent's a great city indeed.

 

[cachondo]

If the US is so bad and iots people so stupid why does half the world want to live here? Besides, this topic should be in some other forum not LPSG. What a yawner. Cachondo

 

[Drifterwood]

Well the way you see it is wrong.

I don't think so, unsurprisingly

Euros GDP is slightly less than the US but we have a higher cost of living and higher taxes. I am talking Western Europe.

Our governments take at least 40% in tax, whilst yours 20%. The fundamental difference is therefore that your government is not allowed to take your money and spend it on your country to the extent that happens in Europe. This is why you call us socialist.

Those with money in the US have more disposable income and therefore when you spend it on Universities and healthcare, these facilities are the richest and best in the world. I know more about your universities than hospitals and Harvard for example is unbelievably rich, probably better endowed than some small countries' entire further education programme.

The issue is for lower middle earners and below, whose families can not help towards a college fund and those who can not afford medical insurance. I don't know what the percentage of your population that is. It isn't as bad as it could be because you are a rich successfull country.

The European model allows better access for those who can't afford the US model, so long as the government spends the money well, which isn't always the case, I grant you. Over the long term, the Euro model should allow for a more equal and inclusive society, whilst in the US the danger is for an ever growing gap between rich and poor.

 

[B_phe1249]

I don't think so, unsurprisingly

Euros GDP is slightly less than the US but we have a higher cost of living and higher taxes. I am talking Western Europe.

Our governments take at least 40% in tax, whilst yours 20%. The fundamental difference is therefore that your government is not allowed to take your money and spend it on your country to the extent that happens in Europe. This is why you call us socialist.

Those with money in the US have more disposable income and therefore when you spend it on Universities and healthcare, these facilities are the richest and best in the world. I know more about your universities than hospitals and Harvard for example is unbelievably rich, probably better endowed than some small countries' entire further education programme.

The issue is for lower middle earners and below, whose families can not help towards a college fund and those who can not afford medical insurance. I don't know what the percentage of your population that is. It isn't as bad as it could be because you are a rich successfull country.

The European model allows better access for those who can't afford the US model, so long as the government spends the money well, which isn't always the case, I grant you. Over the long term, the Euro model should allow for a more equal and inclusive society, whilst in the US the danger is for an ever growing gap between rich and poor.

Actually, your income tax system is lower than ours- we pay far greater tax. Example what are rates on a 400k home in the UK? We pay tax on the same money over and over.

Ive not paid 20% fed income tax since my part time job whilst in University-
Because private citizens choose to endow harvard is there a problem? My uncle is an alum and made a large donation-whats does have to do with anything? 97% of their money come from the private sector

We will stay the course with our system old chap- remember we do have a middle class to serve. Most importantly we never want to use the class based moded of the UK or Europe as a model for anything. It's really hard to share this but important, most Americans dont really think Europe to be that progressive and don not want to pattern our ways after them. Thanks for your input.

 

[Drifterwood]

You are confusing several issues.

The tax take is part of GNP. We also pay local property taxes and a sales tax of 17.5% on most items.

My point is quite simple and has nothing to do with your funny stereotypes of British Upper Class twits. Please refer to the elitism thread.

Government in Europe takes nearly double the cake as in the US. You are a wealthy country, so should there be any surprise that when your wealthy people spend their money on their own health and education they expect and pay for the best? Money talks - simple. The original Cambridge still comes third in the OP's list and you can if you wish pay $50,000 a year on private high school education in the UK and Europe, and trust me, these schools are as good as those in Chicago.

The point is, that your system, which has done very well for the successfull, is based on winners. Winners can get whatever they want. But what happens to the not so winners and those who can't win at all for whatever reason? Our "socialist" system is supposed to help the wider population. I grant you that your system is great for the winners and the heirs of winners.

Judge a society by how it helps those who can not help themselves.

 

[Drifterwood]

Wrong. Look up the tax take on the whole economy. We also pay local property taxes and 17.5% sales tax on most items.

Your system is based on winners. It's great if you are a winner, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that the many winners in your society get very high standards in health and education when they spend their money.

Our "socialist system" takes more money into central government to be redistributed to those who either are not currently or can not be winners.

Your system is a rather brutal survival of the fittest, which is OK, it's your choice, you like it, no problem.

I have tended to follow the mantra that you judge a society by the way it helps those who can not help themselves.

EDIT - apologies for the slight double post - I'm in a third world country (Wales :biggrin1 and the connection is rubbish.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

it's not really fair to compare the 'worldlyness' of Europeans to Americans considering that a European can drive a few hours and be in a different country, whereas an American driving the same distance will probably still be in America (border hugging towns excepted, of course.)

You know I hear that as an excuse (and it is an excuse) time and time again for why Americans are not well versed in global issues. It's bullshit.

Certainly America is a diverse and wonderful place to travel in and study and just enjoy. But what the fuck has that got to do with knowing who was recently elected president of Pakistan? I don't know that fact because, in my youth, I travelled to Hungary. I don't know that fact because in the last two years I've been in 7 different countries. I know that fact because I watch and pay attention to the world news - which I do from the comfort of my own living room. I watch documentaries. I read books. I read newspapers. I understand those things are available in the US. In fact, I know they are - I was just there and I saw loads of resources for studying the outside world. There's also this natty little thing called the internet! Heard of it? You can look up all sorts of shit (though you wouldn't wanna believe everything you read - 'cept this, you can believe this :wink.

Being 'worldly' is nothing to do with how many international boarders you have crossed, or can cross within a few hours drive of your house. Being worldly can be done from your armchair. So, while I agree that one could spend all one's time finding interesting and wonderful things in America, it's not something Americans are in any way forced by the geography of their country to limit themselves to.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Being 'worldly' is nothing to do with how many international boarders you have crossed, or can cross within a few hours drive of your house. Being worldly can be done from your armchair. So, while I agree that one could spend all one's time finding interesting and wonderful things in America, it's not something Americans are in any way forced by the geography of their country to limit themselves to.

True, but our history and culture seems to have discouraged young kids from becoming worldly. No, I agree, it's no excuse!

By the way, healthcare and university costs were not like they are today.

Anyways, people come to the US to strike it rich, not any European country. That's why my brother-in-law left England. He knew that he had a much better chance of making a damn good living in the US than in the UK.

Again, the US has its faults as does all countries, but it seems that most of the world still wants to come here to live. How strange considering how much I'd like to leave North America for a life elsewhere in the world.:wink:

 

[deleted213967]

Again, the US has its faults as does all countries, but it seems that most of the world still wants to come here to live.:wink:

More fossilized pre-packaged notions about 'merica is Number 1.

Some LPSG members seem functionally incapable of holding nuanced and fact-based views on anything; it's always one extreme archetype vs. the other.

Before you serve us some trite cliché about the whole world stampeding to break into "America", take seconds of your time to learn some facts from our very own US government about citizenship figures:

http://www.immigration.com/frame/satisuscisfr.html

Do you observe any factual evidence that German, French, British, Italian or other Western European people want to become American?

That was a rhetorical question.

I rest my case.

 

[davec94]

You know I hear that as an excuse (and it is an excuse) time and time again for why Americans are not well versed in global issues. It's bullshit.

Certainly America is a diverse and wonderful place to travel in and study and just enjoy. But what the fuck has that got to do with knowing who was recently elected president of Pakistan? I don't know that fact because, in my youth, I travelled to Hungary. I don't know that fact because in the last two years I've been in 7 different countries. I know that fact because I watch and pay attention to the world news - which I do from the comfort of my own living room. I watch documentaries. I read books. I read newspapers. I understand those things are available in the US. In fact, I know they are - I was just there and I saw loads of resources for studying the outside world. There's also this natty little thing called the internet! Heard of it? You can look up all sorts of shit (though you wouldn't wanna believe everything you read - 'cept this, you can believe this :wink.

Being 'worldly' is nothing to do with how many international boarders you have crossed, or can cross within a few hours drive of your house. Being worldly can be done from your armchair. So, while I agree that one could spend all one's time finding interesting and wonderful things in America, it's not something Americans are in any way forced by the geography of their country to limit themselves to.

I don't think comparing yourself to this notion of unworldly Americans is fair either. Not only are you on the internet, but you are in a Politics forum on the internet. Do you think this is the norm? Do you think this is the norm in Europe too?

Your opinion of worldly-ness also doesn't matter at all. The big Europeans vs. Americans worldlyness stereotype is driven primarily in the fact that they seem a homogeneous people, who speak one language, and are self-absorbed in their own local issues. The general comparison is made by people from areas where it is not uncommon to speak several languages and to have been in 'seven different countries'.
You are instead judging worldlyness by awareness of global events. In reality if you go to small towns in the middle of nowhere in Europe, you are just as likely to share the road with tractors and meet people who dont, indeed know who the president of Pakistan is (and to be honest, i'm not even sure if Pakistan knows who their president is at this point.) If you spend time in America's more urban centres you will find tons of people who will know as much as you about global issues so your stereotype is kind of silly.

 

[davec94]

True, but our history and culture seems to have discouraged young kids from becoming worldly. No, I agree, it's no excuse!

By the way, healthcare and university costs were not like they are today.

Anyways, people come to the US to strike it rich, not any European country. That's why my brother-in-law left England. He knew that he had a much better chance of making a damn good living in the US than in the UK.

Again, the US has its faults as does all countries, but it seems that most of the world still wants to come here to live. How strange considering how much I'd like to leave North America for a life elsewhere in the world.:wink:

American news, as flawed as it is, is filled with global coverage. This stereotype is mainly projected because it is a very popular American, and global pasttime to make fun of uneducated rural people which has become an exported form of entertainment (like for example the beverly hillbillies.) You won't see many European countries doing the same because 1) they don't have the hollywood machine to export this sort of entertainment and 2) they generally view such people as an embarrassment, something to hide, even if they do take pleasure in attributing such things to their neighbours.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I don't think comparing yourself to this notion of unworldly Americans is fair either. Not only are you on the internet, but you are in a Politics forum on the internet. Do you think this is the norm? Do you think this is the norm in Europe too?

Your opinion of worldly-ness also doesn't matter at all. The big Europeans vs. Americans worldlyness stereotype is driven primarily in the fact that they seem a homogeneous people, who speak one language, and are self-absorbed in their own local issues. The general comparison is made by people from areas where it is not uncommon to speak several languages and to have been in 'seven different countries'.
You are instead judging worldlyness by awareness of global events. In reality if you go to small towns in the middle of nowhere in Europe, you are just as likely to share the road with tractors and meet people who dont, indeed know who the president of Pakistan is (and to be honest, i'm not even sure if Pakistan knows who their president is at this point.) If you spend time in America's more urban centres you will find tons of people who will know as much as you about global issues so your stereotype is kind of silly.

You are rather putting words in my mouth and spin on what I said that was not part of my intent. At what point did I say that all / the majority of Europeans were worldly and all / the majority of Americans were not. I was merely pointing out that the attempt to use geographical circumstances as an excuse for any unworldliness that does exist in the US is, to my mind, unreasonable.

I have lived in more than one place where I have shared the road with tractors - at no point did this stop me (nor any of the people who drove the tractors) watching world news reports.

I know well educated Americans exist - I have met them in my academic pursuits, my personal life and my professional life. I've said this here in the past - the majority of Americans I have met and conversed with, including those from this board, have not been in the least dumb, nor insular.

I don't see the American people as homogenous. I think the different states of the USA are as diverse as the countries of Europe. There is a common language - that's a plus not a minus.

Finally - if you are so unhappy with my defnition of worldliness (in this context) as familiarity with the ways of the world and world events would you care to explain what you believe it means?

 

[davec94]

You are rather putting words in my mouth and spin on what I said that was not part of my intent. At what point did I say that all / the majority of Europeans were worldly and all / the majority of Americans were not. I was merely pointing out that the attempt to use geographical circumstances as an excuse for any unworldliness that does exist in the US is, to my mind, unreasonable.

i boldfaced the important part. it only seems unreasonable because you define worldly as watching the news. Most people define it as being travelled, and having experienced first hand many different cultures in their cultural places.

I have lived in more than one place where I have shared the road with tractors - at no point did this stop me (nor any of the people who drove the tractors) watching world news reports.

that's nice.

I know well educated Americans exist - I have met them in my academic pursuits, my personal life and my professional life. I've said this here in the past - the majority of Americans I have met and conversed with, including those from this board, have not been in the least dumb, nor insular.

I don't see the American people as homogenous. I think the different states of the USA are as diverse as the countries of Europe. There is a common language - that's a plus not a minus.

Great, that's nice too.

Finally - if you are so unhappy with my defnition of worldliness (in this context) as familiarity with the ways of the world and world events would you care to explain what you believe it means?

see above. the people who would snub their noses at americans in general for being 'unworldly' are the same who would laugh at someone who may know quite a lot about the world, but have never been outside their country.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't know you weren't here to actually discuss anything. Please carry on with the misplaced smugness. You seem to be enjoying it.

• (n) worldliness [...] (the quality or character of being intellectually sophisticated and worldly through cultivation or experience or disillusionment)
• (n) worldliness (concern with worldly affairs to the neglect of spiritual needs)

WordNet Search - 3.0
​

worldliness (uncountable)

1. The quality of being worldly; familiarity with the ways of the world.

worldliness - Wiktionary​

 

[davec94]

what is the point of these definitions? ways of the world is not a very specific term you know. Someone that people perceive is familiar with the 'ways of the world' could well be a connoisseur of wines and purveyor of languages who knows jack shit about pakistan, or politics in general.

and as for 'smugness'...well, i'm sorry but i really dont care if you lived in a rural area and watched world news reports...so have i and nobody is stating anything categorically here. You are referring to your personal experience to demonstrate a more general point, and your personal experience is the opposite of general so why should i pay it heed?

 

[deleted15807]

Huum Europe is over-represented with the world's happiest people. How did the baaadasss US end up way down at #23?

HOW THE NATIONS RANKED ON HAPPINESS

1st - Denmark
2nd - Switzerland
3rd - Austria
4th - Iceland
5th - The Bahamas
23rd - USA
41st - UK
90th - Japan
178th - Burundi

BBC NEWS | Health | Denmark 'happiest place on earth'

 

[Calboner]

Huum Europe is over-represented with the world's happiest people. How did the baaadasss US end up way down at #23?

Obviously, we need more of these:

:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:

There, now. Is everybody happy? Good. Carry on.

 

[B_phe1249]

You are confusing several issues.

The tax take is part of GNP. We also pay local property taxes and a sales tax of 17.5% on most items.

My point is quite simple and has nothing to do with your funny stereotypes of British Upper Class twits. Please refer to the elitism thread.

Government in Europe takes nearly double the cake as in the US. You are a wealthy country, so should there be any surprise that when your wealthy people spend their money on their own health and education they expect and pay for the best? Money talks - simple. The original Cambridge still comes third in the OP's list and you can if you wish pay $50,000 a year on private high school education in the UK and Europe, and trust me, these schools are as good as those in Chicago.

The point is, that your system, which has done very well for the successfull, is based on winners. Winners can get whatever they want. But what happens to the not so winners and those who can't win at all for whatever reason? Our "socialist" system is supposed to help the wider population. I grant you that your system is great for the winners and the heirs of winners.

Judge a society by how it helps those who can not help themselves.

Actually I am not confusing any issues-
We have great friends in Rochester, Kent, we did a compared cost tax wise on similiar valued homes and income. We blew them out of the water! They pay 1800Lbs per year for three people- we pay 12k per year. Your sales tax is 17.5 while ours is 10.5, I can refer to many many taxes and fees that we pay on the same money that you dont. Id like you to compare the user fees and tax on your electric bill or airline ticket with mine.

As far as Goverment in Europe, I guess im confused- going forward should I think and respond to Brits, French, Germans etc or just Euros?
As for the take tax wise- I dont believe you. If you comparing income tax alone perhaps, but we pay many more taxes than you.
Example when you buy property, do you pay a 2% transfer tax at closing?

Your comments on our system is completely incorrect. We offer access and opportunity for those who want to do something with their lives.