Rob Reger

Michel Albert

Les relations avec les pouvoirs publics peuvent être traités ici sous l’angle du social. En effet, chez nous, la majorité des actions sociales sont de l’ordre de l’Etat. Celui-ci fait appliquer toute les règles qui y sont soumises. On peut citer comme exemple les assurances sociales, qui dans le modèle rhénan, sont des prélèvements obligatoires, la sécurité qui est fournie par l’Etat, prise en compte des inégalités sociales, etc.
Au niveau américain, tout ceci est très différent. Premièrement, toutes les assurances sociales ne sont pas obligatoires, tout est réglé selon la loi du marché, donc bien de personnes ne sont pas assurées. Deuxièmement, les USA comptent de fortes inégalités du fait que l’Etat ne s’occupe pas du tout de la redistribution des revenus et tout ce qui s’en suit. On peut dire que l’Etat n’est pas concerné par ces problèmes. De plus, pour terminer, nous sentons très bien que les USA sont défavorable envers des prélèvements d’impôts trop élevés, car ils constituent selon eux un frein à l’économie et au travail. D’un certain point de vue, ils n’ont pas tout tort mais ils sont peut-être un peu trop à l’extrème. Faut-il donc prélever des impôts?
Pour conclure, le modèle rhénan est sans aucun doute le plus performant que ce soit socialement ou économiquement parlant mais au niveau du rêve et de la gloire, le modèle néo-américain l’emporte largement.

The Economist

That is too simplistic. Inequality, as measured by Gini coefficients, is simply a snapshot of outcomes. It does not tell you why those gaps have opened up or what the trend is over time. And like any snapshot, the picture can be misleading. Income gaps can arise for good reasons (such as when people are rewarded for productive work) or for bad ones (if poorer children do not get the same opportunities as richer ones). Equally, inequality of outcomes might be acceptable if the gaps are between young people and older folk, so may shrink over time. But in societies without this sort of mobility a high Gini is troubling.
Some societies are more concerned about equality of opportunity, others more about equality of outcome. Europeans tend to be more egalitarian, believing that in a fair society there should be no big income gaps. Americans and Chinese put more emphasis on equality of opportunity. Provided people can move up the social ladder, they believe a society with wide income gaps can still be fair. Whatever people’s preferences, static measures of income gaps tell only half the story.

清沢洌

考え方が違っても愛国者であり得、また意見が相違しても団結することができる。そう我国の「愛国者」は考うることができぬ。

橘子译

そういえば、ロシア語の中に Гулять так гулять （遊ぶならとことんと遊ぼう）という決まり文句があります。要するにパーティーなどでハメをはずすことですけれども、そのときたとえ人に迷惑をかけたとしても、それはむしろ「しっかり遊んだ」証拠になるようで、ちっともかまわないようです。
日本人にとって「ちょうどいい」状態がロシア人にとっては「中途半端」だったり「物足りなかったり」するという感性の違いもありますけれども、実は、もう一つ、ロシア人の性格・性質から来る問題もあります。「ちょうどいい」という状態は案外絶妙なバランスを必要とする場合が多いのですが、それを達成したり維持したりするには日本人のような「きめ細かさ」や「丁寧さ」が必要なのです。ところが、豪快なロシア人はそういうのが大の苦手。ロシア人はどちらかというと、「細かいことは気にしない」、「大枠で考える天才肌」の人が多いのです。
・・・これだけ性格が違うと、日本人とロシア人との間で誤解やトラブルがあっても不思議はないでしょうけれども、付き合い方によっては案外お互い補い合える部分はいくらでもあるのではないかと思います。

坂根シルク

人と違うことは当たり前のはずなのに、友達と同じでないと不安を感じることが多い今のこどもたち。人に合わせることが必要なこともありますが、自分らしさを見つけ出し、それを認めることができると、自分と違う人の事も認めることができるようになり、人間関係も楽になります。ムーミンの住む世界が平和なのはムーミンたちがお互いの違いを認めているからなのです。　そして実はそれこそが本当の「国際人」になるためにも必要なことなのです。
日本では知らない人がいないムーミン。フィンランド人の作者が書いたムーミントロールの話は実はフィンランドとロシアが戦争中に作者が自分自身を慰めるために書いた物語でした。
ムーミンに登場する人物はみんな個性の強い、それぞれ違った性格や考え方、体つきをしています。人はお互いに異なって当たり前なのです。
その違いを認めることができると自分自身を認めるようになり、友達や周りの人だけでなく、世界のいろいろな文化や人を認めることができるようになるのです。

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace.

Rémi Gaillard

23 Archiefdingen

G20 in Toronto:

Canadian,

American,

French and

Italian

John Stuart Mill

One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests.

Alan Wolfe

When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.

Samantha Smith

Dear Mr. Andropov,

My name is Samantha Smith. I am ten years old. Congratulations on your new job. I have been worrying about Russia and the United States getting into a nuclear war. Are you going to vote to have a war or not? If you aren't please tell me how you are going to help to not have a war. This question you do not have to answer, but I would like to know why you want to conquer the world or at least our country. God made the world for us to live together in peace and not to fight.

Sincerely,

Samantha Smith

Koenraad Elst

The common denominator in all these costly mistakes was a lack of realism. Gandhi refused to see the realities of human nature; of Islamic doctrine with its ambition of domination; of the modern mentality with its resentment of autocratic impositions; of people's daily needs making them willing to collaborate with the rulers in exchange for career and business opportunities; of the nationalism of the Hindus who would oppose the partition of their Motherland tooth and nail; of the nature of the Pakistani state as intrinsically anti-India and anti-Hindu.

加藤公康

Adam Fisher

C. P. Snow

A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?

Caitlin M. Fausey

In English, if I knock this cup off the table, even accidentally, you would likely say, "She broke the cup." However, in Japanese or Spanish, intent matters. If one deliberately knocks the cup, there is a verb form to indicate as much. But if the act were an accident, the speaker would essentially say, "The cup broke itself."

("コップが割れた" in Japanese; "La taza se rompió" in Spanish.)

Lera Boroditsky

... the mechanics of using a language such as English, which tends to assign an agent to an action regardless of the agent's intent, also tends to more vividly imprint that agent in the speaker's memory. Other linguistic differences help young children in aboriginal cultures achieve powers of navigation that would confound a Harvard professor.

Boroditsky's own journey began in Belarus, where she was the only child of parents who were both engineers. At 12, she says, she spoke Russian and struggled with Belarusian and Ukrainian. She was learning English in school when her parents got the opportunity to emigrate. A close friend had preceded them by three months and settled in Skokie, Ill., where they went as well. Boroditsky's background and passion for argument earned her the nickname "Red Fury" in high school, she says with a laugh. She recalls thinking even as a teenager about the degree to which language could shape an argument and exaggerate the differences between people.

Luna Filipovic

Spanish-speaking suspect’s non-agentive (and appropriate in Spanish) description of events (“se me cayó”, roughly “to me it happened that she fell”) was translated into English for the broader court into the agentive (and appropriate in English) “I dropped her.”

Pieter Brueghel the Elder