US vs. Europe vs. Third World
To deeply understand the main differences between the EU and the US we must first establish what is what sets Western Civilization apart the rest of the world. Mainly, which are the major principles which separate the US and Western Europe from poor and volatile places like the Middle East (currently in the media spotlight), Africa, China, and my own cultural background of Latin America? These principles are individualism, the institution of private property and the free markets. It is from Individualism which the other two principles build up and is also the most controversial. It has been correctly linked to self-interest and “ethical-egoism”. Is there really no moral justification for individualism? Does it mean one has to reject any sense of obligation to others? No, but one should only recognize those obligations which he has voluntary assumed. One might have obligation to one’s children, to his friends or to any group which with he has, in his own self interest, voluntarily associated himself. Individualism does recognize the need for cooperative association but only when it is voluntary nature. When one is forced or by law instructed to serve the self interest of others, it is not cooperation, it is servitude. In the following five part blog postings I will discuss how some of these principles affect and make a difference between the US and EU.
Unlike Individualism, altruism is a very ethical principle. Altruism is the antonym of individualism and it means by definition, “devotion to the interest or welfare of others”. Over the last decades the US and more so European countries have both been moving away from the individualism principle and more towards the altruism principle. Some Europeans even find the US social policies offensive for not having a large enough safety net. There is a widespread notion in EU and in the US that individuals that find themselves in the position of receiving welfare benefits are somewhat blameless and guilt free. Contrary to common notion, the policies in which the state tries to alter social and economic imbalances actually give an incentive for those imbalances to grow. We can see that in certain parts European countries where entire groups of people just don’t work and collect welfare payments. This reality can be even viewed on HBO’s show The Ali G Show. Ali G, the main character is a man from Berkshire, England who collects welfare payments since it’s easier than having a job. Although a TV character, I can assure you that the idea for this show was taken from thousands of people who do presumably that. We can see it in the US in the provision of financial aid to lone parents. In order to qualify for this program you cannot be living with a partner and should be out work. Although the intentions of the program are very honorable, we cannot help but notice that programs like this will lead to more poverty. The woman now has the encouragement not to look for a job and not live with a partner in order not to loose her benefits. So did the program reduce poverty or encourage it? State programs like welfare make individuals alter their normal behavior to take advantage and maximize their income and benefits from these programs. Scholar Charles Murray said that “the increase in poverty in the USA since the early 1960’s was a direct response to the introduction of measures aimed at relieving poverty.” It is very natural that some people in Europe see their social policy as strength. There is no doubt that their concerns and objectives are praiseworthy, but can they really say their programs are a success? Instead they should try to portray personal responsibility. When someone is involuntary unemployed they have various choices: to restrain, move to another area (in Europe the language barriers might make this option less practicable but none the less possible), take a low-paid job, take more advanced job training, or wait along until the right job comes. Taking advanced training this day in age is very different from before. The amount of training establishments around the country have grown dramatically and the internet has made education much more accessible and cheaper. More people would save money for hard times if personal responsibility was promoted than if they were told they could be irresponsible and that it is the proper role of the government to take care of them. My views on this matter come from the personal experience, that most of Americans and Europeans don’t have, of living in one of the poorest countries in the world and interacting everyday with it citizens. Although my country is very different from the US and EU, the best way to help it get out of poverty is to promote the three basic principles of individualism, the institution of private property and the free markets. The incorrect alternative would be Collectivism, Restriction of Property right in order to serve better the state and a state controlled economy. In order to shed some light to how these principles can help the poor in third world countries Hernando de Soto correctly asserts, “The real problem lie in the fact the poor and the middleclass are not allowed to use their assets as the more privileged classes are. One of the great political challenges facing the Third World is to have these goods move from the "extralegal" sector, where they stand now, to a less excluding legal property system, where they may be more productive for all, in addition to generating capital for their owners.” He continues, “Their (the poor) assets in Peru amount to close to 90.000 million dollars, or 11 times over the value of all the stocks listed in the Peruvian Stock Market and 40 times more than the sum of the foreign aid that the country has gotten since the end of WWII. In Mexico the estimated amount is 315.000 million, seven times more than the value of PEMEX, that country's national oil corporation.”
Unlike Individualism, altruism is a very ethical principle. Altruism is the antonym of individualism and it means by definition, “devotion to the interest or welfare of others”. Over the last decades the US and more so European countries have both been moving away from the individualism principle and more towards the altruism principle. Some Europeans even find the US social policies offensive for not having a large enough safety net. There is a widespread notion in EU and in the US that individuals that find themselves in the position of receiving welfare benefits are somewhat blameless and guilt free. Contrary to common notion, the policies in which the state tries to alter social and economic imbalances actually give an incentive for those imbalances to grow. We can see that in certain parts European countries where entire groups of people just don’t work and collect welfare payments. This reality can be even viewed on HBO’s show The Ali G Show. Ali G, the main character is a man from Berkshire, England who collects welfare payments since it’s easier than having a job. Although a TV character, I can assure you that the idea for this show was taken from thousands of people who do presumably that. We can see it in the US in the provision of financial aid to lone parents. In order to qualify for this program you cannot be living with a partner and should be out work. Although the intentions of the program are very honorable, we cannot help but notice that programs like this will lead to more poverty. The woman now has the encouragement not to look for a job and not live with a partner in order not to loose her benefits. So did the program reduce poverty or encourage it? State programs like welfare make individuals alter their normal behavior to take advantage and maximize their income and benefits from these programs. Scholar Charles Murray said that “the increase in poverty in the USA since the early 1960’s was a direct response to the introduction of measures aimed at relieving poverty.” It is very natural that some people in Europe see their social policy as strength. There is no doubt that their concerns and objectives are praiseworthy, but can they really say their programs are a success? Instead they should try to portray personal responsibility. When someone is involuntary unemployed they have various choices: to restrain, move to another area (in Europe the language barriers might make this option less practicable but none the less possible), take a low-paid job, take more advanced job training, or wait along until the right job comes. Taking advanced training this day in age is very different from before. The amount of training establishments around the country have grown dramatically and the internet has made education much more accessible and cheaper. More people would save money for hard times if personal responsibility was promoted than if they were told they could be irresponsible and that it is the proper role of the government to take care of them. My views on this matter come from the personal experience, that most of Americans and Europeans don’t have, of living in one of the poorest countries in the world and interacting everyday with it citizens. Although my country is very different from the US and EU, the best way to help it get out of poverty is to promote the three basic principles of individualism, the institution of private property and the free markets. The incorrect alternative would be Collectivism, Restriction of Property right in order to serve better the state and a state controlled economy. In order to shed some light to how these principles can help the poor in third world countries Hernando de Soto correctly asserts, “The real problem lie in the fact the poor and the middleclass are not allowed to use their assets as the more privileged classes are. One of the great political challenges facing the Third World is to have these goods move from the "extralegal" sector, where they stand now, to a less excluding legal property system, where they may be more productive for all, in addition to generating capital for their owners.” He continues, “Their (the poor) assets in Peru amount to close to 90.000 million dollars, or 11 times over the value of all the stocks listed in the Peruvian Stock Market and 40 times more than the sum of the foreign aid that the country has gotten since the end of WWII. In Mexico the estimated amount is 315.000 million, seven times more than the value of PEMEX, that country's national oil corporation.”
posted by LA Samayoa at 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home