HeHe I wore that shirt today too! I am voting this afternoon :)

I’m glad that I hear lots of people are inspired again to go voting for this election.
I heard on the radio today that there are waiting rows of 6 hours (??)

I’m curious for the results!

though i too have voted, i did not wear that shirt.

Death to all Republicans… and Libertarians.

Sorry I didn’t get your message last night. Try me again or ad ‘work’ to the end of my IM name if I’m not around.

Work, what’s up with that?! Hehe and Sofie, the lines are not long if you go vote at 7:15 am! I suppose it depends on where you live though. :)

Supposedly record numbers of people are registered to vote this year—we’ll see what happens tonight!

And dammit Kev, get with the program!

Posted by: Jennifer on November 02, 2004 @ 12:41 PM

I’m glad you indeed voted. Even more so, I like your motivational post! So two thumbs up from my side!

Anyways, one tiny remark on the waiting time for casting a vote: You guys voluntarily queue up at Disneyland for 6 hours for a shitty rollercoaster-ride, but you guys complain if you have to wait half the time to do your deed as responsible citizens.

Hehe Martin, that may be true to some extent, but SoCal regulars never wait that long for those rides. And we complain about EVERYTHING—the wait of voting lines as well as amusement park lines.

I suppose complaining about long voting lines comes from the fact that during most elections, most people don’t bother to vote, so the lines are non-existant. I avoided the problem by voting early in the morning—voting absentee is also another wait-free method.

Complaining or not, at least the people waiting are still casting their vote, so that’s worth something, right?

Posted by: Jennifer on November 02, 2004 @ 2:11 PM

lol @Martin. You are right there :))
Tho.. I’m obligated to vote in my country, so the waiting is always there :P

I’m not so keen on these results. hopefully the Democrats won’t go down without a fight this time.

This sucks.

I’m not either.. but I think I have nothing to say about this point ;) .. it’s your country.
btw.. I was wondering.. do you all like it how a president gets elected via those representative persons for each state?
(I don’t know the exact english term for them, my apologies)

You’re referring to the Electoral College, Sofie, where each state, depending on population, gets a certain number of votes under that system.

I don’t really like it—I’m pretty sure no one does. It’s confusing and most of the time it doesn’t even make a difference. But in instances where the person won under popular vote but loses the Electoral Votes, then it kinda sucks.

But it all dates back to the days of slavery, when slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person. They couldn’t vote, but they counted toward the population, and thus could increase the number of Electoral Votes for a state. You can imagine that slave-owners liked this idea.

It was all done as a compromise for issues that don’t even exist in this country anymore. So it’s lame and there’s no need for it.

Hmm, I think I covered everything. Anyone have anything to add, or point out something I missed/got wrong. It’s been awhile since 8th Grade Government and AP US History!

Posted by: Jennifer on November 03, 2004 @ 7:35 AM

Thanks for pointing that one out to me! ;)

thanks for the clear explanation :)

Actually, the Electoral College is there because the US is a Federalist system. The Founding Fathers didn’t want everyone to vote. In fact, very few people did. It was gradually over the last couple hundred years that. But the idea is simple. The US is a federation of states.

Even today, the mechanics of an election by popular vote would probably be difficult. There would be massive equal protection issues, and never mind voting rules are 100% state based. A popular vote might cause even more problems. I think the people that hate the electoral colleges hate it because Gore lost. If the reverse had happened this year (bush wins by 3.7 mil votes, loses the electoral college) i suspect that the Dems would be lovin’ the system.

At any rate, the blues need to figure something out. They got spanked last night. Like bad…

I agree that the Founding Fathers didn’t want everyone to vote. Frankly, they just didn’t trust the masses to be informed enough to make a good decision. Funny, I still kinda feel that way about the masses.

Anyway though, the reason for the Electoral College is primarily because it was a COMPROMISE—it was a way to get everyone to sign the Constitution. The small states were worried that their voices wouldn’t be heard, but the big states didn’t want to give up the advantages of larger population.

Either way, I don’t know what the right answer is. The masses ARE uneducated about the issues, and some educated people abstain from voting because they know that under the current system their vote won’t make a difference. Something needs to be done, but regardless, I wasn’t really all that inaccurate with my description! You’re just being picky! :)

Posted by: Jennifer on November 03, 2004 @ 12:56 PM

the blues didn’t get spanked, bad. they lost by one state and maybe 150,000 votes. The nation is divided 51% with bush and 49% against bush. the nation doesnt care about the war or the economy as #1. its about so-called moral values. the cosmopolitan northeast and west coast, along with the great lakes voted overwhelmingly for kerry (popular vote). the heartland barely for bush, and the south….all bush. if you look at the exit polls, the war was secondary, the economy tertiary, it was about values — people decided they could compromise their views on the war and on economy, but refused to compromise on values. so, since 4 million more evangelical christians turned out this year, breaking 90% for bush, there’s your margin of victory.

that said, the dems are about to gut the party and eat their own. its going to be an internal bloodbath.

Kev, I was talking about the Senate and House too. Bush won by a good margin, but the real victories were in the house and senate. We haven’t seen a sweep of that magnitude in generations. The reds have found a winning game plan, and the blues need to catch up to the game or they’re only going to suffer worse defeats going forward. And if the Reds can capitalize on the Hispanic vote (which I think they will in the next decade), the blues will be dead in the water.

The problem is that their candidate was too far to the left. And as angry as the angry left is, they’re no match for the voting power of the evangelicals. They need to appeal to them too.

Blacks break 80-90% for Kerry. It makes them no less of a part of the electorate. The dems need to find a way to reach out to the evangelicals (as the reds need to find a way to reach out to more urban minorities).

Is there a possibility that Kerry comes back over 2 year? Or is a running candidate only allowed to run for president once in his carreer?
Or should we be starting to worry that Arnold Swaggy is going to run in 2008 againt Hillary Clinton? :P

Arnie can’t be president. You have to be a natural born citizen for that.

Hillary is UNELECTABLE. If the dems nominate hillary in ‘08, expect a bloodbath for the donkeys.

And Kerry can run as many times as he wants, though it’s unlikeley that he’ll ever get the chance again. Edwards has a shot, however. Though if the republicans nominate McCain, he’ll likeley coast to an easy victory.

As a side note, I’d like to add to my earlier comment: Don’t mistake the vote for “moral values” as ignoring the war. I suspect that many of those voters had children and friends overseas fighting, and they didn’t feel right trusting their sons to die under someone they regarded as untrustworthy. I suspect those moral values voters sided with the president on the other issues because of their similar ideological outlook.

As I said before, If the dems don’t cut the angry left “progressive” crap (and god I hope they do), I suspect we could be headed for a New Deal like era of, this time, Republican domination. Which.. admitedly.. would be quite bad for the country.

bush sent their children into war to die. no president has even had the gall to run again during an unpopular war. (LBJ chose not to) And no president has ever had the arrogance to govern the way bush did while losing the popular vote. this has been a baffling election.

If the democrats cut the progressive crap, then they’re just republicans, and that’s no good either.

Yea Sofie, no Governator for President. As Martin pointed out, you have to be born here—no such requirement exists for other offices.

And yea, with a party as large as the Democratic one, Kerry probably won’t get another shot. But you never know, stranger things have happened….like Grover Cleveland serving two nonconsecutive terms as a Democrat!

I just think it sucks that it came down to a “morals” race. And morals really means religion. And in a country where religion isn’t supposed to be an integral part of government, it just seems wrong that that’s what the major issue was.

Posted by: Jennifer on November 03, 2004 @ 2:40 PM

Religion is ALWAYS the issue. Or at least people that aren’t religous follow their ideologigies like one.

You have your beliefs (though they may not be religiously based), and they have theirs. You believe things that aren’t 100% substantiated by fact, as do they. Theirs just has a face and yours don’t. And people’s beliefs will alwasy be a fundamental cornerstone of the political process. Such is the nature of government.

And Kev, my point exactly: Bush sent their kids to die, and they agreed with him because they believed in his “moral values.” Do those people deserve less of a vote? The point is, you may think they were duped, but they don’t.

And no Democrats sans the Progressive ideology wouldn’t be Republicans. Clinton was a fine Democrat, and I’m sure there are many more like him. Seemingly Edwards and Liberman are too just off the top of my head. My point all along has been that if the democrats want to avoid being a party of the past, they gotta appeal to the current composition of Americans because right now they’re fighting a losing battle. Next time they won’t be running against a President stuck in an unpopular war.

religion is one issue. ideology is another. for some theyre the same, for others they arent, but no one will compromise on it. thats where the divide is.

those people, M, don’t deserve less of a vote. and i dont consider them duped. my point is that they would rather vote for someone who sent their child to die (for shifting reasons, but a lot of america still believes that WMDs were found and that Sadaam was directly behind 9-11, which just baffles the hell outta me — and yes, those people deserve less of a vote) because that person has the same moral outlook as them — that gays are evil, abortion is wrong in every instance, creationism is science, and abstinence should be the end-all of sex education. they may hate the war in iraq, they may not have a job, they may be more heavily taxed, they maybe have to send another son off to war, but they’ll accept all that just so that gays can’t marry, scientific progress is halted, and children aren’t told how disease is spread and babies are made. You’re right, they don’t think theyre duped. They’re not. they believe all those things are right, and more important than their son fighting in a ridiculous war. Of course, as i said, to many of them they believe the war is justified because of false beliefs.

First. I agree mostly with your point with a couple caveats. I think this sort of intellectual vacancy runs deep on both sides. Thos ppl that thought Saddaam had a hand in 911 probably believe so more out of conspiracy theories rather than misinformation. And for others, they just see it as a religion (Islam) gone wrong, and that they all want the same thing so they cooperated. I suspect that some also (rightly) think that we went into iraq to spread democracy.

On the other side, there are those idiots that have seen Farenheight 911 too many times and believe that Bush went to war to line the pockets of Cheney’s cronies at Halliburton, which I feel is just as ridiculous a position as saying Saddaam cooperated in the attacks. Morover there are people who think that violence can never solve international disputes. Such a position has ZERO intellectual basis. To be honest, I’m not one for supressing ideologies or people you simply think are stupid. Maybe some of those Evangelicals are directly talking to god. And they get to use their one vote accordingly. I guess I’m not that disappointed, and to be honest, I think they might partly be the reason that we have a significantly lower unemployment rate.

well i must say that at least there is circumstantial evidence for the haliburton theory. the sadaam behind 9-11 theory is out of thin air. (and i never saw fahrenheit 911, btw)

frankly i hate it when anyone votes uninformed, whether its the right or the left. and most people are misinformed and its not their fault — the candidates, parties and media distort the crap out of everything.

i agree that international issues sometimes need to be solved through military action. i disagree that democracy should be spread by the barrel of a gun. we abandoned that policy after vietnam and i think in this world, its best not to go around nation-building in that manner. but i admit that is my opinion.

what bothers me about the far right is that they are out to oppress opposing viewpoints. the far left is about allowing all viewpoints. The far left will allow the viewpoint of the far right, as long as they don’t push it on anyone unwilling and respect the rights of others. the far right seeks to outlaw the rights and freedoms of those it disagrees with.

Can we call them malformed voters :P

Actually, I suspect that you’ve never been to a political rally in the bay area (Berkeley or San Francisco). I’ve found them far less tolerant than my religious friends. I remember this far right guy came onto the Berkeley campus and people blockaded the entrance to his talk. Police had to escort the speaker away in fear for his safety. A friend of mine was walking around the Berkeley campus on the day of Israeli independence with an Israeli flag on his backpack and someone stopped him (not an Arab, btw) and said, “Some people get killed for showing that flag.”

When the television stations were going to air an anti-Kerry program, democrats halted the presentation of it by threatening no less than a dozen lawsuits agains the company. I saw no such action against film studios or movie houses for showing Moore’s film.

Rest assured, plenty of far lefties are extremley intolerant of my points of view and I often feel uncomfortable talking about them to any but my closest friends in Northern California.

Now. I know you’re probably talking about legislative obstacles such as the Patriot act. First let me remind you that half the senate democrats voted for the Patriot Act. Second, let me ask you if someone, ANYONE, who has been arrested for saying someting against the Pres or the right. If they have, it’s news to me.

I believe that the far left is significantly less tolerant of dissenting views than the right. And I’m in the middle! I agree with them on a good number of things.

I’m going to close by talking once more about college campuses. Far left profs are notorious for being intolerant of dissenting points of view. Theres a documentary out right now about Columbia professors openly ridiculing Jewish and Israeli students. I’m sorry. But I can’t believe for a moment that they’re generally civil. I’ve witnessed too much for that to be true.

Well, I’ve always said the bay area is a little nuts. ;) always has been! Those stories are pretty bad, and I’d fight against those people — that isn’t correct behavior.

And actually, the patriot act was passed 98-1 in the senate. Landrieu (D-LA) didn’t vote on it, and Feingold (D-WI) voted against. Feingold was the only D to vote against the war in the senate too. Remember when the act passed, most of the legislators hadn’t examined it — they trusted the president. And who, in the immediate wake of 9/11 (the act passed on 10/25) was going to vote against something called the PATRIOT Act? (Only Feingold, apparently, and watch for him in the coming months).

As for arrests for saying something against the president or the right, you can be very sure its happened. Check into the secret service reading livejournals. When did these “free speech zones” start at political appearances, a mile away from the actual site? People who protest outside those zones - arrested. I don’t recall that before 4 years ago.

and now im hearing rumblings that ashcroft will be the next supreme court nominee. god help us all if that gets through.

Wow! I must say I am pretty surprised reading all those comments. Despite almost everything is covered, just one more thing: There are other countries in the world with a federal systems and they DO put trust in their people to make an intelligent, informed choice. BUT: None of those democracies allows that much power in the hands of just one wanker who is beyond incompetent (oops, did I really say that?). Plus, does no one in the US stand up to say ‘Hey, there’s 51% for Bush and 49% against, how can someone be president with 50 million voters against him?’ -Shouldn’t that scare the american people as a whole? Ok, you guys only have two parties playing a role, that’s true. But what would happen if winning the elections would require a 2/3 majority? Unrealistic as this scenario may be, but shouldn’t exactly this stalemate make people re-think the whole electroal system?
To me, a system where it doesn’t matter whether you have the majority just because of 1 vote or 1 million votes in a state—you just win the 55 electors—is really really far from democratic.

Ok, said enough, here is the fun-part: http://www.supercyrus.com/2004.htm

Funny, isn’t it? Our voting system has become exactly what our Founding Fathers tried to prevent when they created it…they only wanted educated, informed people to vote, and didn’t trust the common populace with the task. And yet, what did people base their votes on? Fact, stance on issues? No, they based it all on “feelings”, morals, and religion. And religion isn’t even supposed to be an issue!

People are sheep…I guess religion already knows that, since its followers are sometimes referred to as the flock that Jesus shepherds.

Posted by: Jennifer on November 04, 2004 @ 10:13 AM

@Martin:
If it would make you feel better .. my country ain’t better .. they make us believe we live in a democratic land but when it comes to it then my country is runned not by it’s prime minister, not by it’s king and not by it’s people but by multinationals.
The country is so little that if a DHL says: “We move out to Germany.” then we have a political/country crisis and the whole system fails.
I just want to point out that it’s everywhere something else but then again everywhere just the same..

We all believe we have a vote.. in theory we have nothing and nothing can be done about it.

To Martin:
2/3 would never work. Bush is the first president in a while to actually get 50% or better vote.

If we were to assign electors based on the % vote in each state, that would just be a popular vote. I’m not saying that’s bad, I’m not saying that’s good, I’m just saying. I agree though, it needs to be rethought, but I also think voting reform is far more important, to break the 2-party stranglehold. Many people in america didn’t agree with either party or either candidate, and were stuck with a very difficult choice.

As for a stalemate, that IS possible in the electoral college (269-269) and we didn’t have it. So, really, it wasn’t a stalemate. Bush won by 4 million votes, though in reality, he only won by 150,000 (the difference in Ohio).

Martin and Jen:
That website is the most assinine thing I’ve ever seen. You apparently subscribe to the theory that only the most intelligent should rule. That is PRECISELY why Bush won. Those rural voters think the urban “eletes” have totally counted them out. And right now they control the country. You think less “intelligent” people have less valid concerns? Are the urban elites looking out for the rural farmers, factory workers and churchgoers? Apparently they don’t think so Moreover, I feel fortunate that we don’t have college professors running the country. More educated people (Martin’s more intelligent ones) know nothing about actually running a country. Martin (who I’m assuming is German) villifies us and our choice of leader, all the while, his economy has slowed with more than double the American unemployent rate, and it continually degrades. Facist movements are on the rise. Workers work 30-40% less than in the US and have a signifcantly lower efficiency of labor. Yet he (they) think(s) we have a problem and we’re stupid.
Under those circumstance, I for one feel fortunate.

To Jen, specifically, the Founding Fathers wanted a virtuious leader who would look out for the best interests of all the people. I doubt your “smart” informed people are doing that. Are YOU looking out for farmers, factory workers, economic growth, or any of those things? I suspect not.
I get seriously irritated by elitisim. You use one criteria to say that you’re so much better than the other voters out there. I could come up with others that would sway things in the opposite direction. What if we gauged votes by success in business? They’re the ones that fuel theh economy. They create the jobs and are a distinct minority. I suspect they vote quite differently from you.

Lastly, to Kevin:
I used to think, as you do, that the two party system is bad. I’ve come to realize that it is one of America’s strengths. For one it prevents fringe parties from entering the fray. I think they would only destabilize the legislative bodies. For example, take the following scenario of the senate: 45 dem, 5 green, 5 libertarian and 45 republican. Those 10 independents are going to excercise a massive ammount of political control. They’ll swing almost every issue, and so even though the libertarians managed to get elected at a 5% clip, they essentially control the senate. This allows them to get all sorts of reforms that are not popular with the American people through. I think this is one of the reasons for Europe’s chaos. The fringe parties have essentially voted away a healthy economy because that wasn’t their focus.

m-unit — i just don’t agree with your example. I simply believe that the legislature of america should represent the people, not what people had to settle for. I know plenty of people who are really libertarians that begrudgingly voted for bush or kerry because they’re realists who know their party is screwed. I really don’t find the libertarians, on average, to be extremists (though their candidate was). Many moderates in this country (as yourself, I think) looked at what the 2 parties put out this year and said “crap, neither of these guys is for me” — viable third parties are important. I dont think they destabilize — i think polarization is worse. a slight majority pushes their plans through bringing an alienated, angry large minority kicking and screaming because they don’t have any say. that’s wrong. And frankly, I don’t like the 2 party system not because I identify with a 3rd or 4th party, but because I don’t believe in any parties at all. Issue based coalitions maybe, but not exclusive parties. I think they’re terrible.

I don’t know how long Jennifer likes her commenting panel to become for just one thread, but I’d still like to respond to m-unit’s post.
To be honest, comparing the economy of the US to how we are doing in Germany is bullshit, and you know that. But before you get upset about the ‘bullshit’, have a look at the reasons. First, you could and should compare the US economy to the economy of Europe as a whole, to have a feasible comparison. Figures confirm that ‘old Europe’ is not doing too bad in the international competition, especially when it comes to ‘de-throning’ the US. Second, the problems we have in Germany are way too complex to put the blame on to politicians/policy alone. As you might have noticed, we are suffering severely from a tendency of firms to shift labour-intensive production to eastern Europe. How this affects employment I do not have to explain I guess. Further-and this is a political problem indeed-the financial situation is continuous worsening. The social security system causes immense costs, partly due to demographic changes over time, and partly due to the way how people make use of it (or should I say ‘abuse’ it?). Additionally, my country still suffers from the economic and financial burden of the Reunion. As all this wasn’t enough for an economy already, the expansion of the EU puts additional pressure on budgets. In turn, however, and this must not be forgotten, the EU still is Germany’s most important trading partner. The economic slow-down you mentioned is a fact, that’s true. But remember, this is always a function of international economics aswell! What we don’t do is conduct one war after the other and thereby keep the economic flame burning! Moreover, it is not us ourselves buying up vast amounts of oil on the European markets because we consume more than we can buy on the markets we are used to. In general, the incredibly high oil price plays its part in slowing down the economy quite well, don’t you think? -Don’t worry, should your president ever stop waging wars and could we have more peaceful times thereafter in which your Halliburtons and Lockheads don’t have full orderbooks anymore, your country will get the bill aswell.
A final remark on the political system. It is true that the bigger parties have to deal with the small ones about forming the majority in the government. In many cases, this coalition mechanism causes change in direction for the large parties. However, there is no way for them to rule alone! And this is built-in on purpose, for our history has had enough examples how things go wrong if you have ‘one ring to rule them all’, if you know what I mean. Besides, the history of Europe, and also Germany, is a history of numerous wars and conflicts between lots and lots of tiny little states, so you can’t just unite them with only two parties. Moreover, you are right with your notion on rising ultra rightwing parties. Trust me, this is concerning the majority of Germans a lot. However, as opposed I am to those movements and righwing renaissance, I believe that every voter has a right to be represented. And since our political system allows relative small minorities to be represented in (federal or local) governments, the nation as a whole is sort of forced to deal with this expression of opinion. This is also why I believe that the current US electoral systems has its major disadvantages. And this is not my opinion only, scientists all over the world share this view.
You also mentioned the elitism. Well, I am not going to respond on the intelligence-issue of the Bush administration again, I think I have made my point of view clear. Neither am I going to comment on your assessment of the competence of our leaders over here, since this whole discussion is futile. Nevertheless, it is still a miracle to me how intelligent and educated people like you can honestly believe in politicians who only have their position because they have the financial background, or are sponsored by dubious deals with multinationals. Mr Anti-Elitism, it should concern you more than me that no important US politician has ever come from the lower working-class who has not married someone wealthy. Who your leaders are sucks the most cause they have not earned the way up, they had the dollars to pave their way.

a few things, just at random:

kevin is spot on when he says this is no mandate. 51-48 is a majority, nothing more. It’s the 3 mil popular vote thing that makes Republicans claim a mandate.

They also say, correctly, that Bush received more popular votes than any President in history- 58 million something, I believe. More than Reagan in ‘84, the biggest landslide since Nixon ‘72.

However, Kerry’s 55,554,114 votes are nothing to sneeze at either. Seems he was able to enrgize us lefties after all, hmm? Not in the anti-Bush sense, but the pro-Kerry sense. For me anyway.

I really detest the caricature of liberals as somehow elitist, as if we’re all Starbucks-sipping smug snobs (Alliteration= English major!). Tell that to all of middle America that showed up at Kerry rallies and voted for him. No, there’s a label for those other snobby people: Nader voters!

I kid, I kid. I was one of those in 2000. As you can tell I haven’t lived it down yet.

Also, Youth DID vote. Don’t believe the hype. It’s just that turnout was higher overall- 59% or something. 18-30 year olds broke for Kerry 55-44. The future looks bright.

2008: Edwards? Good luck. I like the dude, but he’s peaked. He gave up his senate seat too (at least Kerry has that still). Hillary? No way. 50% of the country thinks she’s a frigid robo-lesbian who will castrate every man she sees. More likely, she’s the new Ted Kennedy- a reliably liberal legislator who is also a bigtime boogeyman for the conservatives. They’ll vote against her in droves. The D candidate in 08 will be someone we don’t expect. Some southern state D governor perhaps (Clinton & Carter come to mind, but you know what happened to them). Governors have won the Oval Office the most lately- Bush (TX), Clinton (AR), Reagan (CA), Carter (GA).

That’s all for now. This Jen kid is one smart cookie. Happy birthday my fellow Scorpio. I turned 28 on election day.

Keir-

I really, really hate that statistic about bush geting the most votes ever. because not only was kerry’s total “nothing to sneeze at” it was also more votes than any winning president ever got either — except for bush.

late 20th and 21st americans don’t elect senators — their voting records are too easy to distort, as we saw happen this election. the senate is a strange, complex place.

if Hilary is the new Ted Kennedy (which would be fine) I just hope she drinks less! ;)

Why did Edwards give up the seat? That was silly — he won’t win it again. 8/

And btw, no self-respecting Nader voter would sip a starbucks — he’s anti-corporation! ;)

Martin, let’s take this a little bit at a time:

“Mr Anti-Elitism, it should concern you more than me that no important US politician has ever come from the lower working-class who has not married someone wealthy.”

Buddy… Your US History license has been officially revoked. In no particular order: Lincoln, Ford, Nixon, Regan, Truman, Grant and Clinton have all come from modest roots. Several of America’s top leaders have come from modest roots (again, let’s not forget about Hillary). That comment is spectacularly wrong. Not just misinformed, but I’m suspicious that you just made it up becuause you’d like it to be true. But I digress.

In fact, I did not mean to implicate that Germany’s current establishment is currently at fault for all of its ills, but instead that Germany’s current problems are a result of its cumulative policies over the last thirty years.

In 1970, Old Europe had largely recovered from the war, and the economies of America and Germany were largely similar in terms of output per working adult male. Over the next 35 years, the United States’ productivity skyrocketed relative to that of Germany. What happened?

IN MY OPINION Europe’s protectionist policies created several European Companies (or workers) that simply were not viable on the world market. As protections dried up because of the EU, many of those workers quickly were forced out of business because they couldn’t produce at the same prices as cheaper labor. The United States (which had similar battles in the 80s and 90s) we had a much more open market business that couldn’t compete died as the foreign companies were born (for a recent example, see software development) which slowly took out american industry little by little. That would seem like a bad deal for american jobs, though, wouldn’t it? Well guess what? Those people learned to do other things, and the US moved into new markets (and created new markets, eg. semiconductors) to offset the losses from the old markets (cars). Morover, because domestic companies faced outside competition, they were forced to adapt and keep finding gains in efficiency. My point is, that Germans were protectionist, killing the efficiency of their economy, and now they’ve been force to join the global market, making all those markets inefficient. It’s similar to problems the US faced during the Arab Oil Embargo as much of the US capital (machines) became inefficient overnight.

For the record, I’m an economist. I’ve studied this in great detail and could write more about this, but this is Jen’s blog and I’ll spare everyone the details.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with a little logic assignment:
[[
Assume the following (for the sake of this argument): “politicians only support a position because they have the financial background, or are sponsored by dubious deals with multinationals”

Prove the following: (i) The politician’s position is wrong.

Ok. Now assume that you did (i) (which you cant), but for the sake of argument, assume it’s true. Prove the following: (ii) one can choose a political candidate.
]]

Obviously, you can’t prove (i). You’re essentially intimating rich people or multinational corps are always wrong. Nice try. As for (ii). Even if you could prove that those people/entities are always wrong, then every poltician is in their pockets and you can’t choose anybody. Sorry brother, I don’t buy it.

I don’t mean to belittle you Martin. I respect your views and I respect the German people (though as Jen can attest to, I am often critical of Germans, but as kevin can tell you, I’m often critical of America and Americans as well). I accept that my view of the world could be completeley wrong. I only ask the same of you.

LOL I missed that politicians/modest means thing that Martin said — yeah that’s patently false. I’m embarrassed as a historian to have missed it. ;) Don’t forget about one of the most modest — Jimmy Carter. I mean, the guy grew up on a peanut farm in podunk Georgia. And he’s been one of the most influential politicians to come out of the US — not so much for his presidency, but for all the work he’s done since. You don’t get a Nobel by sitting on your butt.

I thought about including Carter on that list, but I wasn’t 100% sure. I knew he was the son of a farmer, but I knew that politics were always a huge factor in his life, even early on. Which could have meant otherwise.

And yes, I did think the same thing. How the HELL did Kevin miss that?!

Of course, if anything, Americans celebrate people that moved from rags to the presidency more than the others. It’s certainly a contributing factor to Lincoln’s God-Like status in America.

Heh I missed it cuz I sorta glazed over…its been a long sucky couple of weeks, and I simply don’t really care that much about neo-european political-economic details. It’s just not my deal. So I skimmed, glazed, and moved on. ;)

Good catch though.

Mmm, glazed…I think I’m more partial to chocolate and sprinkles though.

Posted by: Jennifer on November 09, 2004 @ 8:38 AM

I’m more of an old-fashioned buttermilk sorta guy.