Texas Democrats turn to the Bible

Dallas, TX, Apr. 4 (UPI) -- Texas Democrats are turning to the Bible to build support and reframe the debate in the Legislature.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breakin...03032-1160r.htm

I love how they are using the Bible to try and justify their socialist/communist view of "social justice."

Nowhere does the Bible say what the government should or shouldn't do. Instead, it speaks to the individual reader and to the church. As a result, there is an enormous amount of charity in this country, which isn't government enforced.

In the original church (spoken of in Acts 2:44 and 4:34) the rich members provided for the poor members. There are also many passages suggesting that some type of communism is the best method to live life. If you actually think about it, the Communist Manifesto was a beautiful theory, (and I'm a staunch capitalist).

However, now we look at how simple, fallible humans have faired with this, possibly Godly goal. We can't make it work. Stalin was a miserable failure. Why? Here is my theory:

The original Christians gave so much because they were allowed to choose to enter the system or not. People who abused the system were expelled, and the organization was small in scale. None of this is true of government-enforced socialism/communism. People who work become suckers, while those who abuse the system are truly the smart ones, because they aren't punished but rewarded.

One final thought: Studies that have been done on the developed nations show that the more socialist a country is, the poorer their standard of living. America's poor have a higher standard of living than the average European. (see here for information/a place to start)

Capitalism and a free market works.

Have you ever read "The Origin of Virtue" by Matt Ridley? It is a fascinating book about the economics of morality. I think you will find it utterly fascinating.

Also, welcome aboard - I appreciate your posts. Well thought through.

I do take exception to your using the Heritage Foundation as a source, though. They have some veerrry interesting theories and not whole lot of hesitation about skewing data to fit theory.

This for example. I'm pretty sure that the average Swede lives far, far better than your average welfare family. I've never ben to Sweden, but I'm willing to go out on a limb.

I *have* been to Canada, although not for an extensive period of time. I'd also be willing to go out on a limb that your average Canuck is better off than Mr. and Mrs. Lifetime McDonald's Employee.

Anyway - the Heritage Foundation's "Standard of Living" index has to do with "Trade policy, Fiscal burden of government, Government intervention in the economy, Monetary policy, Capital flows and foreign investment, Banking and finance, Wages and prices, Property rights,
Regulation, and Informal market activity. "

None of this actually has anything to do with whether or not you can afford to get Jenny her braces.

Almost all of it is also quite subjective.

Thanks for the welcome, and the compliment.

I apologize though. I incorrectly assumed that everyone knew that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. I should have said that explicitly.

You are also right about the Swedes. The Swiss are a financially secure nation. I would argue though, that their security doesn't come from their governmental structure (even though I love the fact that every man is required to own a hand gun). They are a huge exporter of electricity. Every year when the snow melts, they have huge runoffs, which they have shrewdly tapped and sell to their neighbors. Excellent business strategy. And of course, I don't need to mention their banks.

The average European includes those from Sweden, but also from small countries, which I don't profess to know the names of. Also, it includes the Brits, France, and Germany. All of which are below us from at least an economic stand point.

I would argue that the standard of living for a country is directly correlated with how strong their economy is. The Heritage index lists the strengths of these countries relative to their government's trade policy, burden, etc. However, it doesn't make the standard of living leap in the report. That is my own opinion with its own inherent bias.

Welcome to the Bear Pit.

I would make a distinction between standard of living and quality of life. The annual quality of life survey released by Mercer Human Resource Consulting ranked the top 20 cities are as follows:

GENEVA, Switzerland
ZURICH, Switzerland
VANCOUVER, Canada
VIENNA, Austria
FRANKFURT, Germany
MUNICH, Germany
DUSSELDORF, Germany
AUCKLAND, New Zealand
BERN, Switzerland
COPENHAGEN, Denmark
SYDNEY, Australia
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands
BRUSSELS, Belgium
MELBOURNE, Australia
BERLIN, Germany
LUXEMBOURG, Luxembourg
STOCKHOLM, Sweden
TORONTO, Canada
WELLINGTON, New Zealand
OTTAWA, Canada
PERTH, Australia

Within the top 20; 13 are European, most noteably Switzerland and Germany, 3 Canadian, 2 New Zealand and 2 Australian.

To Le Tonk:

I find the last post to be very interesting and informative. Thank you for the information. I find it interesting that the highest cities are mainly European.

I'm not ignorant to the fact that there are many wealthy areas in Europe. Old money is the best money they say. One of my friends told me that the cost of living in Paris is exceedingly high, but that the people who live there are even richer. (I realize Paris was not on the list).

I am happy that those people are lucky enough to live in an area with such a high standard of living. However, all countries have high and low areas. Many factors play into this, not least of all being local government policy. However, as countries, many are simply not competing.

On the whole, many of Europe's socialist governments are staying afloat because of capitalist dollars flowing from America in the form of tourism. I do not begrudge them this, and would like Americans to spend their money where they choose. However, without this, countries already in financial trouble like France and Germany would be in crisis.

I am familiar with the Heritage Foundation. it is a neoconservative think tank. I disagree with a lot of what they say as I find that a lot of the time they skew facts to support theory.

For example, you said that as a condemnation of socialist contries in Europe. But you used all the countries in the equation, not just Sweden but also the Baltics. This makes any conclusion about Sweden, in particular, unwarranted. But the conclusion was made.

In addition, the equation and definition itself is highly subjective, and relies highly beliefs of right and wrong held by the Heritage Foundation.

Another example, is how exactly is Europe's economy kept from total financial disaster by American tourist dollars? Don't Europeans visit America, too? I'd just like to see the figures on that.

I have tried to find some figures on comparisons of tourism between France and America. However, as I got a click away from what I wanted, the WTO told me I'd have to pay 5 Euros for the info. So much for that. Hopefully someone else will have better luck. While I didn't get complete statistics, I was able to find the total amount of tourism receipts. You can go here (pdf) for the same info. The most important stat was that their tourism was a $28.067 million industry, in 1995 dollars. However, the GDP for France was around $1.8 billion (again 1995 dollars I believe). So you are talking about a small percent of GDP. So it appears at least, that I am mistaken about the importance of tourism into France...even though the Encyclopedia says its important. Also, the number may not be correct, and they are definitely old.

However, another point I would bring up is our monetary aide to many countries in Europe, which includes France. Also, our responsibility of paying for a huge portion of the UN budget. My tourism stat seems wrong, but I have no doubt that our capitalist nation is stronger economically than their (France/Germany) socialist ones.

I'm sorry but you seem to be unaware that both France and Germany are democratic countries that have an economic and political system in which trade and industry are principally controlled through private ownership for profit, rather than by the state. Public utilities and transport are largely operated and subsidised by the state. Indeed all of Europe practices capitalism in one form or another. Where we differ from the US is in the degree to which each country taxes its population in order to provide greater degrees of social welfare. In all of Europe you may work for whomsoever you like and travel freely, you can set up your own business, and own your own home.

As for the US giving monetary aide to many countries in Europe, Eastern Europe maybe, but France and Germany, I think you are rather out of date there.
As for the UN, if you paid your dues I'd agree with you.

I'm sorry but I haven't answered these in order.
You seem to miss the point that there is a difference between living, and enjoying life. You can earn a fortune but not take time to enjoy it. Similarly there is much to be said for living in a well maintained city where taxation pays for good schools that are free, good health care that is free, good public transport that is subsidised and therefore cheap. This facet of Europe is not confined to the big cities and not just for the rich, poor people get free health care and education too.

Regarding American tourists supporting much of Europe I do think you'll find you're wrong there, whilst American dollars are welcome, so are Japanese Yen and currently I think you'll find more Europeans making use of the strong Euro to go on shopping trips to the States that Americans visiting Europe.

I had trouble finding the value of tourism as a proportion of GDP. I did find the estimated value of tourism and travel Link and I obtained national GDP figures from Yahoo and then calculated the percentage of GDP. This of course includes domestic tourism which is important in a country like the US where many people don't travel abroad. France has the highest income from tourism as a proportion of GDP, but it is the worlds most popular tourist destination. So France must be getting something right

• Country................... GDP.............Tourism..............%GDP
• USA .....................9,022,081.........1,244,100............14%
• Japan....................2,820,000.........407,888 .............14%
• Germany....... .......1,806,722.........270,767..............15%
• France ........ .........1,363,697.........257,071..............19%
• UK............... .........1,268,979........218,545..............17%
• Italy............ ......... 1,188,770.......197,023 ..............17%
• Canada...... ...........717,351........ ..107,668..............15%
• Australia...... .........412,230...........71,844................17%

Figures in US$ millions

You are quite right Le Tonk. France isn't completely socialist, but it's a far cry from a capitalist country. I would like to verify a few things, of which I may be un-informed. I didn't know we had dues in arrears, but I am proud to say our money isn't funding an organization with so many serious charges laid against it. Also, I wouldn't fund something like the UN unless it was transparent, and I was allowed to see where my money was going.

Back to things I would like verified/refuted:
I know the French government has set limits on how long a person can (or can be made?) work in a week. Is the number 30 hours a week? Also, I have heard that they cannot work for the majority of the month of August. I may be off-base, if so please inform me.

Also, I hear it is very hard to fire someone in France because the equivalent of American tenure for teachers applies to all employees. Basically, that amounts to their job being secure, even if they are incompetent. Again, I'm more asking for info rather than debating based on these points.

Also, I applaud France's move to privatize certain areas. However, it was not always so. They used to control key industries and banks as well.
(Gotta love that Encyclopedia for quick fact checks)

Finally, are not some of France's welfare payouts falling short of promised benefits? I am under the impression that this is because of the drain the large, nany-ish government is having on the economy. That France simply isn't growing fast enough to meet these promises.

I look forward to hearing from you, as I figure you are a great source of info.

You will find that all countries within the EU and all countries within Europe have economic systems based on capitalist principals where:

"[1] private ownership of property exists;
[2] aggregates of property or capital provide income for the individuals or firms that accumulated it and own it;
[3] individuals and firms are relatively free to compete with others for their own economic gain;
[4] the profit motive is basic to economic life.

Among the synonyms for capitalism are Laissez-Faire economy, private enterprise system, and free-price system. In this context economy is interchangeable with system." [source: Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms]

As I've said where European countries differ is in taxation, given the choice in elections, citizens in Europe opt to vote for political parties that advocate higher taxation in return for greater social welfare. Healthcare and education are largely free, utility companies may be state owned and subsidised, public transport may be state owned and subsidised. Previously natural resources such as oil and coal may have been state owned but in many countries in Europe these have been privatised.

In the case of France the state still plays an important role in the economy. Notably in the provision of services such as healthcare and education, in the energy sector (where the gas and electricity incumbents, Electricite de France (EDF) and Gaz de France (GDF), are still 100%-owned by the state), telecommunications (the leading operator, France Telecom, is still majority-owned by the state) and transport (the railways are run as a state monopoly).

One source of confusion is the multitude of political parties and party names within Europe, America has a simple two party system. A country like France has many flavours of politics. You are probably unaware that President Jacques Chirac belongs the the centre right neo-Gaullist party Union pour un mouvement populaire (UMP), he is not a socialist.

Le Tonk

I will agree that the major difference is the government tax burden, and amount of welfare spending.

I have always thought Jacques Chirac to be an opportunistic capitalist. His wanting to sell arms to anyone who will buy, including Iraq and China, and the Oil-For-Food scandal are illustrative of his profit incentive.

The rest was good information. However, I would like to ask again for clarification on certain laws. Is the number of hours in a work week limited? Do French employees have a "right to work," or something closely resembling tenure? Also, is there a minimum wage, and if so, what is it (in US dollars please)?

I realize that the Euro is stronger these days than the dollar. For the longest time, this was not the case. If memory serves me correctly, Europe was putting a lot of pressure on the US to get our dollar strong once more. Is that correct?

Again, thanks for the info.

• The minimum wage in France is about US$ 7.70, I believe in the US the rate is now US$6.15.
• The 35 hour limit was relaxed this year (BBC News).
• With 10% unemployment you could not say there is a 'right to work'!
• There are many old fashioned practices within the public sector, they need reform, public expenditure needs to be revised and economies made, but the politicians don't wish to bite the bullet, hence the number of strikes in France (see BBC item above).
• The US does what it wishes. Though most Europeans find living on credit in the way the US government and its citizens do to be abhorrent. Credit cards are not so widely used in continental Europe, the UK is similar to the US. The weak dollar makes European goods less competitive, so Europe would prefer to see the US defend the dollar. However, a weak dollar makes US exports more competitive and as the US borrows in dollars, if the dollar is weak it pays its creditors back less.

I wouldn't consider Jacques Chirac any less of an opportunistic capitalist than G.W. Bush and his cronies are with their Haliburton scams in Iraq, less polished maybe.

Finally, can I point out that I am not from France, I am European, but in the same way that not all English speakers are English not all Francophones are French.

Thank you very much for the good information. I apologize for assuming you were French. Now that you have corrected me, I realize that people speak French all over the world. Like people in our neighboring Canada.

I will agree that credit debt is abhorrent. Many families have 3 credit cards maxed and can't even pay the interest off, let alone the capitol they actually owe. I am glad I have found another respectable quality of Europeans.

Was the 35 hour law relaxed completely? Does that mean there isn't almost a month off of work, or was there never one?

Thanks for the PM, I haven't had the time to read all the posts people are making. It really does get tougher than I imagined.