13 February 2007

The Euro Joneses

One of the interesting things in global politics is how much countries compete with each other for bragging rights. Who is better at creating jobs? Who has the smallest deficit? Who has the strongest military? Who gives its people the most rights? In any of these discussions all measures of success are relative to other countries of a similar position.

The attitude of "keeping up with the Joneses" is prevalent among countries just as it is among neighbors. For just one example, look at colonialism. European countries raced for control of Africa. Just as quickly, those same countries abandoned Africa when they saw others doing the same. Peer pressure in this regard can be both positive and negative. In this example, the de-colonization would be positive peer pressure, while the colonization would be negative.

America is currently the world's only superpower (beware of China), but that does not seem to lessen our desire to compare ourselves to the Joneses.

Enter Europe. The United States and Western Europe have long been each other's best comparable. In the aftermath of WWII, and again in the aftermath of the Cold War, we saw Europe trend in the direction of the United States: free markets arose and private industry flourished. In the last ten years or so there has been a growing though subtle movement to push the U.S. in the direction of Europe: bigger governments trending toward social welfare state status.

A few days ago France's Socialist candidate, a powerful woman named Segolene Royal, laid out her platform for France's upcoming presidential election. Here are just some of her proposals:
  • Increase pensions
  • Make it harder for small businesses to fire or lay off workers
  • Increase the minimum wage to the equivalent of $2,000/month
  • Raise taxes on business profits
  • Make employers raise wages for all workers
  • Free contraception for women
  • More money for the unemployed and disabled
As if all that weren't enough, she summarized her platform with this sweeping statement:
The unfettered rein of financial profit is intolerable for the general interest. You told me simple truths. You told me you wanted fewer income inequalities. You told me you wanted to tax capital more than labor. We will do that reform.
More equality, less wealth, higher taxes, more government. That is the French way.

What does that have to do with us? I fear the United States is on the slow drift in that direction. Politicians in America are offering many of these same things, but in much more moderate forms. Don't these policies sound great? Wouldn't we all love the government to step in and allow us to work less while earning more? Wouldn't we all like to be more equal to Bill Gates? Wouldn't we like to have the government give us everything we need? Yes, yes, absolutely, and of course.

But America should not follow Europe down this road. While these things sound great, they end up strangling an economy and generally allowing everyone to have less (though in a more equal fashion). As a percentage of the total economy (GDP) the American government spends far less than its European counterparts, yet:In short, Americans have it much better than Europeans. This is in large part because our government does less, not more.

In the wikipedia entry about the French economy it discusses the virtues of the French social welfare state: they work less hours, have guaranteed vacations, are protected from firing, have incredibly strong unions, and the list could go on.

But buried toward the end of the entry is a little tidbit that should be very informative. In trying to solve their unemployment problems, some French politicians are advocating "removing or weakening workforce legislation and lowering payroll contributions in order to stimulate employment". In other words, to create jobs they need to be more like America. They need less government. They need freer markets. They need lower "contributions" (read: taxes).

With the very long and grinding presidential election season bearing down on us we are going to hear politicians of all stripes explain how they will wield government power to solve your problems. The effect will be sending America down the road of Europe.

Of course America has problems, but solutions must come from outside--not inside--the government.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reading today, I took notice to something interesting you said "(beware of China)." For the past 2 years I have been saying, mostly to myself, watch out, in the next ten years there is going to be a world war that will make WW2 seem like Granada. It won't be a good versus evil war like WW2 kind of was. It will be a war between every civilizied nation in the known world fighting to remain a civilization. The war will be fought over oil. The life blood of the world. I don't know the exact numbers but soon, being at most 10 years, China is going to be the number one consumer of oil. Which means that a huge, enormous, unthinkable amount of oil is going to be going to U.S. and china. How much is going to be left for everyone else? This alone will start it all. During this time period the price of oil is rise making it much more difficult for a country to maintain the status quo. People are going to have to pick sides, make alliances to survive. I'll leave out Russia for simplicity. It will all end with a major showdown in the Middle East for oil, for freedom. Who ever controls that area will control everything. I know that I paint a bad picture but this is coming quickly. Why else does Bush want to increase the amount of oil we have in reserves? He knows what is going to happen. Why do you think that have a Democratic force in the Middle East is so important to him? If we leave, we will lose. Then who is going to run that area? Islamic nut jobs. What is there purpose in life? Death to America. How can they destroy us? By destroying our economy. How do they do that? They set the middle east on fire. Is it important to find an alternative fuel? Yes, why else does Bush want to increase incentives for finding alternative fuels. The problem is while finding another source of energy is a big deal, we don't have the time. This is going to happen faster than we can find another source. You can say that Iraq is dumb we shouldn't be there etc. However don't be stupid. Think ahead. We can't leave yet.

k. randolph said...

Whoah there Captain Apocolypse...while your theory is certainly plausible, I find it unlikely. Without going into each part of your idea (which would take a very long time), remember this basic thing: China needs us more than we need China. Imagine if we stopped trading with China today. What would happen? We would suffer a short-term shortage of goods, and resulting increase in consumer costs (short-term inflation), but that would end when production is shifted to other Asian nations (Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Taiwan, etc.). What would be the effect on China? A return to pre-1900 levels of poverty. The problem for them would be multiplied by about a thousand times because there is now a massive, well-educated middle class in China that has become accustomed to economic mobility. Should their economy collapse this group is in the perfect position to topple the government in Bejing--the very thing the Chinese government is willing to murder its own people to avoid. Entering into a war with the U.S. is textbook "biting the hand that feeds you" or "cutting the limb you are sitting on" or "another silly analogy like that".

Anonymous said...

What would happen if we stopped trading with China today? It would definitely devastate China, you are correct, k.r.

However....this will never happen, and China knows it.

Our trade deficit for 2006 was higher than ever, CNN told us today (approaching $1 trillion!). 1/3 of is with China. The U.S. does not appear to be changing its way.

All we're worried about is China replacing the United States as the most powerful economy in the world....of course it's not going to happen for several decades, probably around 2044 or so.

However, 2044 will be very different than 1888, the last time the U.S. was not the #1 economy. In 1888, a newly industrialized United States overtook Great Britain as the most powerful economy. Back then, it was one democracy replacing another as the largest economy....Great Britain knew it was going to happen, but by this time, we were allies and ideologically similar, so for them, it was probably not a huge deal.

Flash forward to today. China and the United States are not allies. We are not ideologically similar. While China is dependent on us economically, it was the same for us 150 years ago.

For 100 years after our nation’s founding, we were economically dependent on Britain. Then we overtook them. However, once we became the top economy, did we abuse Britain? A little. Did we take advantage of them? Slightly.

What about in 2044? When China becomes the strongest economy, will they abuse us? Almost certainly. Will they take advantage of us? Absolutely.

I guess I can’t bring myself to trust a country (a country that will obviously challenge the U.S. in the 21st century) that is already positioning itself to harm the U.S. economically, or a country that continues to deny horrors of the past and imprison those that try to enjoy freedom of speech. Pax Sinica in no way will be more ideal than Pax Americana. Never.

Right now, we’re dependent upon each other, but what will happen when China no longer needs us? The U.S. certainly does not need the U.K. economically anymore. I hope our American grandchildren aren’t harmed by our trade deficits today.

k. randolph said...

Your analysis is quite reasonable, and I find your analogy of 2044 to 1888 very powerful (and scary).

Two things: First, I don't trust China as far as I can throw them (which is zero). They are the only non-oil rich country that has the power to truly rival the United States, and we should view them as such. Apologies if I made it sound like we should not fear them--we should. I just don't think the situation is as dire as Gern made it out to be.

Secondly, and more importantly, the situation of 1888 and 2044 will be incredibly dissimilar in this key regard: GB was not a mass-consumer on the scale that the US is today. Unless we see a marked and dramatic rise in the earning power of people in the Third World (particularly in SE Asia) between now and then, China will not have the market it will need to sustain its economic prowess.