|
Post by k on Nov 6, 2004 17:20:24 GMT -5
A monetary system (the euro) and now a constitution. European nations embrace globalism! National sovereignity is history. Too bad. Gone are the national ambitions of these countries. Too bad. A big socialistic land of limited opportunities. Many Europeans don't own their own house and yard. Probably most.
Europe's day of greatness is over. Nationalism is over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2004 17:30:58 GMT -5
Texas, California and Ohio unite to overthrow the US consitution ... All against globalism ! All for an indipenent Illinois and Utah !
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 7, 2004 14:10:22 GMT -5
I didn't realize that it was such a necessity to own one's own house and yard. Did you ever think that a possible reason why so many Europeans don't own their own house/yard is because there's no room left for everybody to own their own house and yard? From what I've heard, housing is a little more cramped in Europe. Individual houses are not all that feasible anymore because of the high population compared to the land area. From my understanding they've been dealing with that for a long time. The U.S. is starting to feel that pinch in some areas. Millions of people in the U.S. don't own their own house/yard. Someday I hope to be able to own my own house/yard, but I don't know if I ever will. Time will tell. K, you are rather self-contradictory. You don't like the idea of globalism, but yet you seem quite content with spreading "americanism". You don't like other countries meddling with our affairs, but you think it's just fine to spread the U.S.'s influence over the whole globe. andy
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 7, 2004 15:13:25 GMT -5
k (as always) does not know what he (or she) is speaking about. Here are the statistics for house owning in Europe ... (form the "Eurostat Yearbook 2002 – The statistical guide to Europe", Data 1990-2000
Can k provide the corresponding data for the USA ?On average, 59% of households in the EU owned their housing in 1998. The percentage of owner-occupiers was highest in Spain (82%) and Ireland (75%), and lowest in Germany (41%) - the only country in the EU in which less than one household in two owned its housing. As regards the type of dwelling, 52% of households lived in houses in the EU, compared with 48% in apartments. The percentage of households living in houses was highest in Ireland (92%), followed by the United Kingdom (81%) and Belgium (77%). In Italy, in contrast, one third of households lived in houses, while the proportion was 38% in Germany and 39% in Spain. The percentage of the population living in overcrowded housing, as defined by a number of occupants higher than the number of rooms, is markedly higher in the countries of southern Europe. Greece had a rate of 42%, Portugal 35%, Italy 32% and Spain 27%. In the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, in contrast, the rates were only 4% and 9% respectively. The average rate for the EU was 19%. See table at epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-27052002-AP/EN/1-27052002-AP-EN.HTML
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 7, 2004 15:20:23 GMT -5
Here are some data for the USA which prove that it is in the USA where people do not own their housesIn 1995, about 56 (+/- 0.8) percent of American families (current owners as well as renters) could afford to purchase a modestly priced house in the area where they lived. That is, they could afford to purchase a modestly priced house with cash or could qualify for a 30-year conventional mortgage with a 5 percent down payment. Ninety-five percent of this group currently own their homes. A modestly priced house is one that is less expensive than 75 percent of all owner-occupied houses in the area of residence. See box 1 for definitions. The percentage of families able to buy a modestly priced house was lower in 1995 than in 1984 or 1988 when about 60 percent (+/- 1.0 in 1984, +/- 0.5 in 1988) could afford such a purchase or in 1991 and 1993, when about 58 percent (+/- 0.8 In 1991, +/- 0.6 in 1993) of families could afford to purchase a modestly priced house. From www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hsgaffrd/afford95/afford95.html
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 7, 2004 15:22:57 GMT -5
Europe's day of greatness is still to come !. Europe is in - the USA is out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2004 3:20:05 GMT -5
... k is a p r i c k k k k k k k .... ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2004 7:52:30 GMT -5
I see k has no more arguments. So he will now open a new thread about naughty Europeans and good americans .... where he will soon get some arguments which he will be unable to reply and so on and so forth. I knew that energy is cheap in the USA but apparently k can so easily produce hot air that he could move the world ...
|
|
|
Post by Hinds to Ha on Nov 10, 2004 12:52:32 GMT -5
"Here are some data for the USA which prove that it is in the USA where people do not own their houses In 1995, about 56 (+/- 0.8) percent of American families (current owners as well as renters) could afford to purchase a modestly priced house in the area where they lived. That is, they could afford to purchase a modestly priced house with cash or could qualify for a 30-year conventional mortgage with a 5 percent down payment. Ninety-five percent of this group currently own their homes. A modestly priced house is one that is less expensive than 75 percent of all owner-occupied houses in the area of residence. See box 1 for definitions. The percentage of families able to buy a modestly priced house was lower in 1995 than in 1984 or 1988 when about 60 percent (+/- 1.0 in 1984, +/- 0.5 in 1988) could afford such a purchase or in 1991 and 1993, when about 58 percent (+/- 0.8 In 1991, +/- 0.6 in 1993) of families could afford to purchase a modestly priced house." From www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hsgaffrd/afford95/afford95.html ********************* That information is very old. I work in a financial institution, and with the rates as low as they have ever been in the last 3 yrs, home ownership in the USA has skyrocketed. See some details below: New-Home Sales Continue To Rise In September October 27, 2004 - Sales of new single-family homes rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.206 million units in September, a 3.5 percent increase from the month before, the U.S. Commerce Department reported today. The rate was 7.0 percent above the sales pace of September 2003. “With long-term mortgage rates below 6 percent and adjustable rate mortgages around 4 percent, buyers have had a powerful incentive to buy and we expect robust sales to continue in the coming months,” said Bobby Rayburn, president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and a home and apartment builder from Jackson, Miss. “The latest NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index, based on our monthly surveys of single-family builders, indicated that builders saw a large turnout of prospective buyers at model homes and sales centers in October.” “Economic conditions — low mortgage rates, healthy income and employment growth and solid house price performance — continue to invigorate demand,” said NAHB Chief Economist David Seiders. “We certainly remain on track to have another record year in 2004.” Three regions registered sales increases for the month. The Northeast posted a 6.0 percent increase. The Midwest rose 12.3 percent, and sales in the South were up 2.7 percent. The West posted a slight decline, down 0.8 percent for the month. The inventory of unsold new homes was 404,000 units in September, putting the month’s supply at 4.1 at the current sales pace, slightly lower than the previous month. ************************* from link: www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=1215
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 11, 2004 2:44:58 GMT -5
Just give us the current percentage of ownership in the US please. If the housing market has skyrocketed in the USA so it has in Europe. And the EU data are old also (1998) so there is a comparison somehow. The point is however that the percentages in the EU and the US are more or less similar (plus or minus one or two percentage points) and this does not give k the right to say (and write) that Many Europeans don't own their own house and yard. Probably most.
|
|
|
Post by to HA on Nov 11, 2004 10:20:50 GMT -5
"If the housing market has skyrocketed in the USA so it has in Europe." ************************* You may not compare the sales of homes in Europe unless the lending rates are comparable. Rates here have been awesome in the last 3 yrs. Plus there are great programs for first home buyers and also no money down purchases as well. I have no doubt that there are many home owners in Europe. Here is an article from June 2004: *********************** European Union vs. America June 25, 2004 Some critics of the American economic system point to Europe as the model we should emulate: Shorter work hours, longer vacations, generous employee benefits, and in some cases, an employer has to get the government's permission to fire a worker. “Money isn’t everything,” these people say. “Europeans have a better quality of life.” Really? Let’s take a look. According to a recent report by two economists at Sweden’s Timbro Institute, the quality of life in Europe is pretty bad. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower per capita GDP than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, if the European Union were a state in the United States, it would be among the poorest, on a par with Arkansas, Mississippi or West Virginia. It is true that most Europeans work less than Americans. It is also true that they have less to show for it. The average house in Europe is about half the size of the average American home. In fact, the average European home is smaller than the homes of Americans who live in poverty. Speaking of poverty, the percentage of poor people in the U.S. has diminished over the past several decades. For example in 1959, 22 percent of all Americans lived below the poverty line. Today, it’s 12 percent. Conditions also have steadily improved for minorities. In 1959, 55 percent of African Americans lived in poverty. Today, it’s 24 percent. Not great, but better. But what is poverty in America? The Swedish authors surveyed poor Americans to get a picture of how they live. They found that 45 percent of poor Americans own their own homes, 73 percent own a car, 97 percent own a color television, and more than half own two or more color TVs. Two out of three poor households in American have cable or satellite TV and one in four has a wide screen television. As the authors remarked, “It is better to be poor in a rich country than in a poor one.” How does this compare to Europe? According to authors, at least 40 percent of all European households would be considered poverty-stricken in America. So, what does this tell us? It tells us that despite all our problems, we’re on the right track. Conditions are better here than in most of the rest of the world, and they’re getting better for the poorest among us. The study confirms that high taxes and burdensome regulations strangle initiative and economic growth. When that happens, it is the individual who suffers. Italy, France, Germany and Spain all have unemployment rates 50 percent to 100 percent higher than the U.S., and many of the jobs in those countries and other EU members are actually public-sector jobs that “produce” nothing. Europeans may have an easier time at work, but shorter work hours, longer vacations and great benefits don’t matter if you don’t have a job. Since jobs are the focal point of this year’s presidential campaign, the Timbro Institute study ought to give us something to think about. Article taken from: 64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:hVljXQKSYnoJ:www.awb.org/cgi-bin/absolutenm/templates/%3Fa%3D644%26z%3D10+percentage+of+europeans+that+own+their+homes&hl=en
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 13, 2004 5:49:58 GMT -5
Just give us the current percentage of ownership in the US please.
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 16, 2004 2:24:12 GMT -5
This is the first attempt to create a global consciousness The European Dream is breaking out of the confines of national territory
by Jeremy Rifkin (author of «The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream»)
Tuesday November 16, 2004 - The Guardian
Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, will this week once again try to get the European parliament to back a new line-up of commissioners. Last month, Barroso ran into a wall of opposition to his first slate of appointees because of the inclusion of the Italian Rocco Buttiglione ("homosexuality is a sin") as commissioner of justice and home affairs.
MEPs charged that Buttiglione was insensitive to gays and women and therefore the wrong man for the job. They have had their way and Buttiglione has now stood aside. But Barroso's real challenge is yet to come.
Just two weeks ago, the heads of state and foreign ministers of the 25 nations of the European Union formally signed a constitution to bind all of Europe together in a single governing body, signalling a momentous event in European and world history. The constitution is now being sent to the member states for review and ratification. If we Americans thought that the recent presidential contest was contentious, consider the passions that are likely to be unleashed as 455 million Europeans debate whether to commit themselves to a constitution that binds them together, for the first time, as a European people.
All in all, the EU is a remarkable feat, especially given that even its architects are unsure of exactly what it represents. The problem is that there has never been any governing institution like the EU. It is not a state, even though it acts like one.
Its laws supersede the laws of its 25 nations and are binding. It has a single currency that is used by many of its members. It regulates trade and coordinates energy, transportation, communications, and, increasingly, education. Its citizens all enjoy a common EU passport. It has a parliament, which makes laws, and a court, whose judicial decisions are binding on member countries and citizens. And it has a president and a military force. In many of the most important particulars that make up a state, the EU qualifies. Yet, it cannot tax its citizens, and its member states still enjoy a veto on any decision that might commit their troops to be employed.
Most important of all, the EU is not a territory-bound entity. Although it coordinates and regulates activity that takes place within the territorial boundaries of its nation-state members, it has no claim to territory and is, in fact, an extra-territorial governing institution. This is what makes the EU unique.
Nation-states are geographically defined governing institutions that control specific territory. Even dynasties and empires claimed ultimate control over the territory of their subject kingdoms. The only faint historical parallel to the EU is the Holy Roman Empire of the eighth to the early 19th centuries. In that period, the Vatican claimed ultimate sovereignty over the principalities, city-states, and kingdoms of much of western and northern Europe. In reality, the Holy See's actual influence over territory-related matters was more moral and ethereal than enforceable.
After a thousand years of conflict and war, the nations of Europe emerged from the shadows of two world wars decimated: their populations maimed and killed, their ancient monuments and infrastructure lying in ruins and their way of life destroyed. Determined that they would never again take up arms against one another, the nations of Europe searched for a political mechanism that could bring them together.
In 1948, at the Congress of Europe, Winston Churchill pondered the future of a continent racked by centuries of war and offered his own vision of a European Dream. "We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and ... wherever they go in this wide domain ... will truly feel, 'Here I am at home'," he said.
Today, less than a half century after its founders began to dream of a united Europe, 60% of EU citizens say they feel very or fairly attached to Europe, while a third of Europeans between the ages of 21 and 35 say they "regard themselves as more European than as nationals of their home country". The World Economic Forum's survey of European leaders found that 92% see their "future identification as mainly or partly European, not national". This extraordinary change in how people perceive themselves has occurred in less than half a century.
The EU exists, in large part, because the challenges and threats facing a globalising world are too vast and complex to be addressed inside traditional nation-state containers. The EU is the first effort to create a transnational governing space.
Addressing global concerns requires more than a new expansive governing arrangement. It is also necessary to establish a new covenant that extends commitment and allegiances beyond the narrow confines of national territory, and the more limited protection afforded by property rights and civil rights to include the whole of humanity and the biosphere with protections encoded in universal human rights.
The EU constitution, which was formally signed last month in Rome and will be taken up for review and ratification by the member states over the next two years, is the first governing document in all of history to attempt to create a global consciousness. The constitution emphasises a clear commitment to "sustainable development ... based on balanced economic growth", a "social market economy", and "protection and improvement of the quality of the environment". The constitution would also "pro mote peace ... combat social exclusion ... promote social justice and protection, equality between men and women, solidarity between generations, and protection of children's rights".
If I were to sum up the gist of the new European constitution, it would be a commitment to respect human diversity, promote inclusivity, foster quality of life, pursue sustainable development, and build a perpetual peace. Together, these values and goals, embedded in the EU constitution's charter of fundamental rights, represent the woof and warp of a fledgling European Dream and the beginnings of a global consciousness.
Clearly, in many day-to-day particulars, European actions fall far short of their aspirations. Rather, what's important is that the European Dream is the first fully articulated vision of global consciousness, and, in this respect, represents a watershed in human thought.
Global consciousness is compelling but, I admit, seems somewhat utopian and out of reach. It's hard to imagine hundreds of millions of people coalescing around such a grand vision. But, then, the idea that people might come together around democratic values and nation-state ideology would probably have seemed equally fanciful and far-fetched in the late medieval era.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 18, 2004 5:58:41 GMT -5
“Money isn’t everything,” these people say. “Europeans have a better quality of life.” Really? Yes really! According to the AARP (an american organisation for seniors) the US is nr 13 in a survey of 16 countries on quality of life issues. assets.aarp.org/www.aarpmagazine.org_/promotions/TMND04_GlobalAgingChart.pdfThe lower classes really do look different in many north/western european countries than it does in the US. In my own country we actually don't even know such a thing as poverty. Of course the US has a biggest GDP, nothing new there, but equally unique for a western country is that they also have the biggest economic inequality. On average the US has the highest standard of living, but there's a huge gap between the rich and poor. It is true that we have smaller housing, but that's nothing to suprised about regarding the fact that with all the space there is in the US, big houses are cheap compared to here. But relatively smaller housing definitely doesn't per se damage one's quality of life.
|
|