Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Europe is so socialist (and dangerously close to communism) that you've never heard about European private companies. Beucase Ikea, Nokia, Eriksson, Shell-Royal Dutch, BP, ACS, Bayer, VW, Ferrari, Versace, etc are Government-owned gargantuan monopolies, mmkay?
Europe is so socialist (and dangerously close to communism) that you've never heard about European private companies. Beucase Ikea, Nokia, Eriksson, Shell-Royal Dutch, BP, ACS, Bayer, VW, Ferrari, Versace, etc are Government-owned gargantuan monopolies, mmkay?
A cursory search through Google Finance would tell you this is absolute rubbish.
Ikea and Versace are very successful privately-held companies. No state has any stake in them. And last I heard, they didn't maintain a monopoly in furniture or luxury goods.
Ferrari is a subsidiary of Fiat. A public company...which by the way also has a controlling stake in Chrysler.
Nokia's biggest shareholder (at a stonking 2% of shares) is FMR Capital Management -- aka Fidelity-- a Boston-based private equity house. And a monopoly? Heard anything about the iPhone recently?
The biggest shareholder of Royal Dutch Shell is Barclays Bank (at just over 3%) -- one of the few non-state-owned banks in the UK, by the way. A monopoly? Heard anything about Exxon?
Just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean you're right.
For those of you knee-jerk "love it or leave it" people who are about to write "Why don't you move to Europe", please send me the funds to do so. French lessons would be a plus. Thanks in advance!
I bet you if you start a web page requesting this you'll have plenty in no time. Might want to wear a wig and padded bra though.
Or ask ya buddy Obama, I'm sure he needs another charity.
A cursory search through Google Finance would tell you this is absolute rubbish.
Ikea and Versace are very successful privately-held companies. No state has any stake in them. And last I heard, they didn't maintain a monopoly in furniture or luxury goods.
Ferrari is a subsidiary of Fiat. A public company...which by the way also has a controlling stake in Chrysler.
Nokia's biggest shareholder (at a stonking 2% of shares) is FMR Capital Management, a Boston-based private equity house. And a monopoly? Heard anything about the iPhone recently?
The biggest shareholder of Royal Dutch Shell is Barclays Bank (at just over 3%) -- one of the few non-state-owned banks in the UK, by the way. A monopoly? Heard anything about Exxon?
Just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean you're right.
I guess you didn't get the sarcasm in the original post
What do most European nations do better than we do in America?
* Provide health care to many more people at a level of quality equal to what average (not wealthy) Americans receive for half the cost that we pay
* Educate their youth to the level of our college sophomores, two years earlier than we do
* Use far less energy and other resources per capita than we do
* Dispose of far less garbage per capita than we do
* Achieve greater socioeconomic equality without depriving citizens of their right to choose an occupation and receive just rewards for their efforts
* Spend more on basic scientific research that will lead them into the future of the global economy rather than blowing it all on a massive military
* Maintain neutrality with respect to the internal affairs of sovereign nations while the USA consistently meddles, conducts covert operations and invades them
Those are just off the top of my head.
For those of you knee-jerk "love it or leave it" people who are about to write "Why don't you move to Europe", please send me the funds to do so. French lessons would be a plus. Thanks in advance!
Where do you get the idea that it is the job of the federal government of the United States of America to .........provide health care and education?
Regardless of details I sometimes find it a bit odd when I read posts that suggest not changing from the past just in order to maintain the way things used to be, to keep doing things in what people assume is the American or European way, not to develop in a certain way just because another country or region has developed in that direction first.
I find that dangerous. Systems evolve, they need to evolve in order to keep up with new challenges etc. The goal is not to stay the same under any circumstances just for the sake of staying the same, but to find the system that works best for as many people as possible. Naturally such a system will comprise elements from various older systems.
The Constitution was created specifically to limit the powers of the government because as the government gains power, the citizens lose it.
Many of the European countries are now finding that their model is not working and can't be sustained. They're trying to reverse the trend. Why would we follow the model that has created significant trouble for many of them? (Before I spark outrage, I do think we need safety-nets for those that really need it. I think that a responsible society should do that.) Many forms of government have been tried. The most successful to date has been the Constitutional government of the US. It has allowed for tremendous prosperity, innovation, and generosity. Yes, there are people that have difficult lives. Despite impressions, the reality is that this is also the case in Europe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.