Guest Alma Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Let see... The problem in Europe isn't that "the people of Europe have grasped" anything but that the governments have assumed that they have an immobile population that they can tax. They were helped during the cold war by the fact that there were relatively few countries were you could invest capital or where you could move. Thus, the people of Europe could lull themselves in the idea that they could be as improductive as possible and still rich. This has changed with the end of the cold war, the reason of the underperformance of Europe, especially the overtaxed, overregulated Western Europe. The entrepreneurs are leaving in drove, business creation doesn't take place and you have an underclass who lives on the dole. England is very lucky to have gotten Ms Thatcher but the denizens of this forum make me think that it may have been a fluke... There won't be mass unemployment in the United States, except if, as in the 30s, the states start a protectionist course (the real reason of the Great Depression) and the Fed mismanage money. Today, even duting a recession, unemployment rates are much lower in the United States... Maybe you haven't heard: Keynes is dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP Raud Dugal Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 you have an underclass who lives on the dole. Could you explain to me, european as I am (and french...), how more than 50 million of your fellow citizens are doing when they are ill? How can they live when they lose their jobs? You're right, Enron is just a detail in the history of capitalism... Keynesianism is perhaps dead but a certain idea of fraternité (sorry for this word ) still remains. Jean Philippe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alma Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Actually, I had not long ago a long discussion with one of my colleagues at the Hoover institute who specializes in these problems... Out of the 50 millions, more than half (I don't remember the exact number, but around this) are young people who on purpose do not take insurance because they don't believe they need it. There are about 10-15 millions who have affordability problems... Most of these problems are in part the result of the introduction of medicare/medicaid which gave incentives to do research without looking at cost, a problem your sécurité sociale has... But these people have access to a network of caregiving institution... And maybe I'll remind you that when we do have heat waves, our elderly citizens do not die ... Even without access to sécurité sociale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP Raud Dugal Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 And maybe I'll remind you that when we do have heat waves, our elderly citizens do not die ... Even without access to sécurité sociale... What a caricature you are. You must be in a museum... I was looking to the GW Bush website and you are right into that (and perhaps a bit more...). Anyway, (and I don't want to say nothing of your quotation because I, as a human being, I repect the people who died and never play with) It is very interesting for everyone to have a look to the different ads of Kerry and Bush. You can found them on internet. For students (and that's what we are (nearly...) supposed to do..teaching hum..), Kerry is not what we can call a 'keynesianist'. But, the tone with Bush ads is slighly different. In France, the issue of their struggle as seen in the newspapers is not on taxation but on the hability of the candidates to fight against the unemployement (Alma or whtaever is you name, no need to speak about French one I'm not the PM...), and the possibility to become again strong allies, as we were in the past) Is it the same in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alma Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Well, I believe you'll have a problem... France is hated in the United States now... I have met some French people who are absolutely flabbergasted on the hostility and disdain they meet when travelling in the United States (outside New York). Even if Kerry is elected, he won't want a "rapprochement" with France as he will deal with an hostile Congress (I don't foresee a change in control) and an hostile population. Chirac and Villepin have succeeded very well here, in turning the population against France. And the election will be won outside New York and Massachussetts (remember McGovern?) I mean, the fact Kerry has a French cousin is perceived as a negative by some!!! As to Kerry not being a Keynesian, he already talks about raising taxes and using the government, which do not bode well for the future. Of course he'll have to deal with the Congress, which has other ideas but then I don't trust the legislators not to use pork barrel. Unemployment and outsourcing are issues, and their course in the next few months will determine a lot. My guess is that the numbers will get better, helping president Bush. But this is only a guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 15, 2004 Author Share Posted March 15, 2004 Well, I believe you'll have a problem... France is hated in the United States now... I have met some French people who are absolutely flabbergasted on the hostility and disdain they meet when travelling in the United States (outside New York). Even if Kerry is elected, he won't want a "rapprochement" with France as he will deal with an hostile Congress (I don't foresee a change in control) and an hostile population. Are you really suggesting that the American people are so mindless that they hate the French because of a political decision made by its government? If that is the case, America is in deep, deep, trouble. I suppose this also explains your prejudice against immigrants and Muslims. You seem to have this idea that if a small number of a particular group do something you do not like you have a right to hate the whole group. What would your attitude be if we Europeans made comments about the American people because of the actions of George Bush? What distinguishes you from most members of the forum is your complete lack of empathy. You have a total inability to put yourself into the minds of other people. You appear to have no idea what it is to be a poor person living in the United States, an Arab living in the Middle East, or an immigrant living in Europe. As someone once said, morality is imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alma Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 The American people never was mindless... But they have seen that it wasn't only a government think, but polls showing that the majority of French that wanted the Iraqi to win the war and the Americans to lose, affirnations by the chattering class etc... They have drawn the inference that the people was with the government. And this answers your comment about what Europeans have said on Americans... I have heard worse than that on European media... Of course the whole is tainted with a terminal envy of America's wealth and power (this in France especially)... Two weeks ago, I had lunch with investment bankers in NYC and in these restaurants you cannot have Perrier, only San Pellegrino and nobody ordered French wines, something that they used to do. Which shows that the wounds go deep (from what I have been told, the number of American tpourists in France has dramatically decreased too)... As to my prejudice against muslims, it comes from both having seen their comportement in France and elsewhere in Europe AND having read quite extensively on Islam and the Arabs... Not to add that I have seen Arab armies at work... And heard Arab propaganda in full swing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP Raud Dugal Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Are you sure that your presence on this list is necesserary and bring something to the debate? The things you are saying are so miserable that if it's not you, I will leave the list soon. Hope to never hear from you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Are you sure that your presence on this list is necesserary and bring something to the debate? I tend to agree here with Jean Philippe. The main aim of this forum is to foster friendly discussion between professional teachers and educators around the World. So far we have been treated to a good deal of xenophobia and racism from the still anonymous "Alma" - not exactly in keeping with the Board Guidelines I think everyone would readily agree. I for one am not prepared to let this board's reputation be besmirched by unthinking racists of this ilk. "Alma" has once again been requested to provide details of "her" identity and institution so we can check her credentials as an educator - if only for the youth of America I hope she is lying about her status and role. I have also seen fit to delete a recent post of hers for its racist overtones. Unless this member starts to comply with our very liberal board guidelines then I am afraid that the account will have to be deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alma Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I see that the standard answer of the left is prior restraint... Well nihil nove sub sole and this one is not new either... You don't want a debate but a mutual admiration society! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I see that the standard answer of the left is prior restraint...Well nihil nove sub sole and this one is not new either... You don't want a debate but a mutual admiration society! No, wrong on all counts We just want you to abide by the guidelines which govern this forum. Letting us know your real name and the educational insitution in which you work is the first step. I won't hold my breadth for this information For the information of others I have just warned "Alma" about sharing "her" account with other users. The reality of several people posting under this username might help explain the wild fluctuations in "her" ability to spell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 30, 2004 Author Share Posted April 30, 2004 Recent polls show that if the United States presidential election only concerned domestic issues, Kerry would have a large lead over Bush. However, the situation is reversed when foreign policy becomes the main issue. The reason for this is that a large percentage of people in the United States have been convinced by government propaganda that the country is under siege from terrorism. Bush is portrayed as Churchill whereas Kerry is Neville Chamberlain. A study by the University of Maryland shows that 57% of Bush’s supporters believe that “before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaida”. Moreover 65% believe that “experts” have confirmed that Iraq had WMD. It has been suggested that this is an example of what the philosopher William James has called “the will to believe”. In other words, the American people feel very insecure. Not to believe Bush would increase that sense of insecurity. As long as this sense of insecurity is maintained, Bush is likely to be elected in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush, who were rated based on: 1. Scholarly achievements 2. Writings that they produced without aid of staff 3. Their ability to speak with clarity, and 4. Several other psychological factors which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidential term: 142 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt 132 - Harry S Truman 122 - Dwight David Eisenhower 174 - John Fitzgerald Kennedy 126 - Lyndon Baines Johnson 155 - Richard Milhous Nixon 121 - Gerald R. Ford 175 - James Earle Carter 105 - Ronald Wilson Reagan 098 - George Herbert Walker Bush 182 - William Jefferson Clinton 091 - George Walker Bush In IQ order: 182 - William Jefferson Clinton 175 - James Earle Carter 174 - John Fitzgerald Kennedy 155 - Richard Milhous Nixon 147 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt 132 - Harry S Truman 126 - Lyndon Baines Johnson 122 - Dwight David Eisenhower 121 - Gerald R. Ford 105 - Ronald Wilson Reagan 098 - George Herbert Walker Bush 091 - George Walker Bush The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. ! "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now