A sick Europe

[Leader]

Sick Economy, Sick Society

By James K. Glassman Published 06/17/2004

At a symposium at my college reunion last week, my classmates -- refugees from the '60s, still lefties after all these years -- were complaining that America wasn't enough like Europe. You know, compassionate and unstressed, with free health care, two-month vacations, a lovingly isolationist foreign policy and great food.

Food aside, there's irony here. While many Americans, including the putative Democratic presidential candidate, admire European ways, Europeans themselves aren't so cheery.

In recent years, it's finally dawned on them that they're living in a fool's paradise. So far, however, they lack the will to do anything about it, preferring instead to revel in their sense of moral superiority, looking down on Americans as overweight, gun-toting rubes and mindless workaholics, hooked on commercialism, violence and religion.

Funny thing, though: Americans are happier and more optimistic than Europeans, and we have reason to be.

A giant 2002 Pew Research Center survey found Americans comfortably ahead of Europeans in satisfaction with income, family life and job. More important, when asked how they see the next five years, 61 percent of Americans were optimistic and just 7 percent pessimistic (and this was just 12 months after the attacks of 9/11). By contrast, only 35 percent of Germans were optimistic, 19 percent pessimistic.

Europeans have good reason for gloom. Their economy is sick, and so is their society.

Economy first: Over the past year, the GDP of the Euro Zone countries (the large European nations, except Britain) grew just 1.3 percent, while American GDP grew 4.4 percent. Unemployment in France is 9.8 percent; Germany, 10.5 percent; Spain, 11.4 percent; the United States, 5.7 percent. Numbers Don't lie

None of this is new. Germany, the largest European economy, averaged 1.3 percent annual growth over the past decade; the United States, 3.3 percent. A half-century of increasing prosperity in Europe has come to an end -- and for the obvious reasons. Europe is overtaxed and over-regulated, with a welfare system that discourages work and a guild mentality that deters entrepreneurship.

It was a European, Joseph Schumpeter, who explained that a lust for "creative destruction" makes an economy grow. But risk-taking is not on the menu in Europe; smug entitlement is the house specialty.

As Andrew Grimson wrote in The Spectator, "This civilization has the defects of its virtues. It is peaceful but passive; stable but stagnant; morally concerned but preposterously self-righteous."

Meanwhile, Europe's vaunted state-run retirement and health-care systems are on the verge of collapse. Price controls have chased drug research to the United States, and Europeans wait in line for such common procedures as hip replacements. (The prime minister of Sweden got his after an eight-month wait.) Social sickness? As crime has declined sharply in the United States, it has exploded in Europe. The rate of victimization even in Sweden, that socialist dreamland, is 20 percent higher than ours, and crime has hit new highs in Paris, Madrid, Stockholm and Amsterdam. Plus, how healthy is a society where population is falling because parents don't want to have children? The fertility rate in Italy is just 1.3 births per woman -- far below the replacement rate of 2.1.

But more and more Europeans understand that the jig is up, as German researcher Horst Opaschowski confirms in a new report. "The days of ease and luxurious living are over," he writes. But without strong political leadership -- which Europe (with the notable exception of Britain) has lacked for about 20 years now -- the transition to free markets and self-reliance will be postponed for another decade.

The most hopeful event was the accession of 10 new countries, led by Poland (population 40 million), to the European Union in May.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was correct in January 2003 when he characterized Eastern European nations as "new Europe" and France and Germany as "old Europe." I would define a slightly different dichotomy -- between "aspiring Europe" (the outer rim of nations, including Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, perhaps Britain and Italy and certainly Poland and its cohorts) and "complacent Europe" (France, Germany and Belgium).

The days of complacent Europe are numbered. Its role in world affairs is declining along with its economy. "Learning to Live Without Europe" is the title of a recent appraisal of the continent's value in global security by Thomas Donnelly, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute.

What's frightening is that the United States could have gone the same way if Ronald Reagan hadn't led us in a new direction 24 years ago. Still, for many American politicians, the European temptation remains dangerously enticing.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/061704F.html

[Confed999]

Parts of Europe are fun to visit, but I would never ever live there.

[List]

Low birthrate is obviously not a bad thing. I'm distressed that it would be put forth as something negative by this article. Much of the world is overpopulated, and much of the world has birthrates it cannot possibly support. As a country becomes prosperous, its people no longer require their children to work. As women join the workforce, they often decide to put off having kids until they are established in their careers. Almost all developed nations have low birthrates. Their birthrates decreased as they become more prosperous, and if birthrate was used as an indicator, negative natural population growth is actually a good thing. Even the United States has a low birthrate relative to much of the world(just at replacement rate as I recall).

As for crime, the United States still has much higher robbery and homicide rates than most of western Europe. It is rated the 7th most livable country in the world according to the 2003 UN human developement index, behind Australia and 5 European nations. Its cities rarely make the top 10 in international studies.

That isn't meant as a knock at the United States, but I think that article is very much an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Leader]

Low birthrate is obviously not a bad thing. I'm distressed that it would be put forth as something negative by this article. Much of the world is overpopulated, and much of the world has birthrates it cannot possibly support. As a country becomes prosperous, its people no longer require their children to work. As women join the workforce, they often decide to put off having kids until they are established in their careers. Almost all developed nations have low birthrates. Their birthrates decreased as they become more prosperous, and if birthrate was used as an indicator, negative natural population growth is actually a good thing. Even the United States has a low birthrate relative to much of the world(just at replacement rate as I recall).

A growing population creates a growing economy. The US birth rate is above the replacement rate. Also people tend to have more children when they of happy. Judging by the numbers many Europeans are unhappy. Which isn't surprising given that "Over the past year, the GDP of the Euro Zone countries (the large European nations, except Britain) grew just 1.3 percent, while American GDP grew 4.4 percent. Unemployment in France is 9.8 percent; Germany, 10.5 percent; Spain, 11.4 percent; the United States, 5.7 percent."

As for crime, the United States still has much higher robbery and homicide rates than most of western Europe. It is rated the 7th most livable country in the world according to the 2003 UN human developement index, behind Australia and 5 European nations. Its cities rarely make the top 10 in international studies.

The point is the direction. Crime in Europe is going up. Crime in the US is going down.

That isn't meant as a knock at the United States, but I think that article is very much an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

The US is not like Europe. We have a very different culture and economic system then Europe.

[List]

You make some fine points, however the article seems to be attacking one of the leftist ideals, that the United States be more like Europe. And while the article indicates that parts of Europe may be in a decline(as the United States has been in the past), parts of Europe are still better off in many ways than the United States. I find it odd that you'd still want to be less like a part of the world that is still more livable in many ways. There's absolutely no reason to think the econimic and social trends in parts of Europe will permanently damage the nations in question.

As something of a side note, though the article claims to be displeased at the "leftist" notion that the United States should be more like Europe, the decreasing crime rate and record period of growth in the American economy occurred throughout the Clinton administration. Not exactly the most right wing administration available.

I still disagree with the comments about birth rate. First off, you're making a link, one that's tenuous at best, between fertility rate below replacement level, and declining societies. Canada is doing quite fine, with a fertility rate significantly below replacement(1.61). Secondly, much of the world is overpopulated, and sheds of hordes of emigrants every year. Those people need places to go. Negative natural growth just means more room for immigrants. Canada takes in around 200,000 immigrants a year, with a total population of approximately 32,000,000. There are enough well educated immigrant seeking gainful employment and a new home to go around. Immigration can be easily regulated(though the states obviously has a Mexico problem), so if the fertility rate were to rise, the immigration rate could drop. Lastly, the United States does not currently have a fertility rate that reaches replacement rate. As of 2004 it is estimated at 2.07, below the 2.1 replacement rate. A significant difference over such a large population.

I didn't mean to imply by my comment that the United States was so much like Europe in that sense. Even Europe isn't like Europe. Those countries differ wildly in economies, in quality of life. I was merely pointing out that the criticism being leveled at Europe stinks of hypocrisy, given the current state of America. In some of the areas mentioned by the article, many European nations are still much better off than the States. Downward trends in Europe won't continue forever, and upward trends in the States likely won't last either. Economies are cyclical.

[ZFBoxcar]

List, economic growth is not completely random in any part of the world that has a government. Governments, especially in a democracy where people keep voting themselves more public money, often hurt the economy by levying more and more taxes and nationalizing certain things (ie health care, certain industries). The US has better long term prospects than Europe because it has not fallen (that far) into the trap of tax-and-spend at the whim of voters (partially because US politicians, overall, seem to care more about their country than their political careers, unlike European politicians and partially because US voters are more conservative than European voters).

Canada has certain advantages that Europe doesn't have. We have a huge amount of natural resources, we have the US defending us (not to mention the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) so that we only spend 1/5 of what the major European powers spend on defense. Canada also has a more decentralized structure than Europe (although since Trudeau it has become more centralized than before) This allows provinces to make their own decisions on taxation and spending, giving Canada more flexability than Europe, which is composed of centralized states. And finally, Canada's economy is so incredibly interlinked with the US economy that we can't help but do better than Europe.

I don't like massive immigration because its success in helping the economy blinds people to the structural problems in the system. Immigration would not be necessary if we had the right economic policies, as people would be having more children and everyone would be more prosperous and economically stable. Instead we just add more people while not increasing wealth correspondingly. If we were drastically underpopulated that would make sense, but the fact is we just need to make sure we can replace this generation and keep the average age sufficiently young (working age), we don't need to increase our populations. Immigration is not the ideal solution.

[List]

No, it isn't, however many other nations have tried and failed to boost birth rates(Russia, Japan, and Italy are good examples). We are rapidly approaching the point where the ratio of old to young may cause a structural collapse, even a significant increase in fertility rate would not solve this problem. Increasing fertility rate significantly over a short period of time is virtually impossible anyways, while maintaining and increasing the level of immigration is much easier. I don't think having the right economic policies would have any significant effect on birth rate.

Most of your other comments are well taken. Canada is in both a very good, and a very bad position. We have the United States as a buffer against illegal immigration. We are not at a high risk of attack from any nation, other than possibly, at some point, the States. We have access to the United States' military might if need be. We do have a wealth of natural resources. Our economy is interlinked with an often strong States economy. That said, if the United States ever encounters serious trouble, we will encounter it too. We have a flawed electoral system that isn't likely to change soon, and our concentration on the importance of individual provinces is constantly dividing the nation.

I can't argue against your comments about the dedication of American and European politicians either way. I can say, however, that the United States and Canada have two of the least representitive electoral systems in the developed world. As for European nations taxing and spending at the whim of voters, American voters almost always want lower, or at least stable taxes. So American politicians give it to them. If European voters are willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for high government spending, their politicians give it to them. Politicians are there, to a certain extent, to whore to the masses. While we've built systems of government designed to protect against some of the stupidity of our populations, politicians will always have to appease the masses to stay ellected. I can't say whether European or American or Canadian politicians are bigger whores though.

[Ray]

Every country ahs a different mindset.

Superimposing cultures, ideas, financial rota or looinjg through prism of self deluding righteousness and philosophy would not work.

Europe has been there for a very very long time. No one complained.

They have been colonial powers (some rather repressive) and yet they are not despised. They must be having some merits surely!

[ZFBoxcar]

If having 30 parties with seats and never having a majority government is full representation I don't want it. And it isn't really better representation because often in coalition governments you have wildly conflicting parties in the same government and nobody's voice is heard. I like Australia's system the best, where one house of their parliament is elected by proportional representation and the other is elected using ridings.

What you said about politicians being whores is true, then I guess it just means the average US voter either just understands economics better than the average European or Canadian, or they are just more self-reliant and don't need the government to baby them through life. Its sort of a culutral thing. In Europe and to some degree, Canada, there is a consensus that the government has unlimited powers of taxation if mandated by the people. By a large percentage of the US population, the whole idea of having your money taken by the government still seems wrong. /opinion.

Ray, what Europe has going for it is that it isn't the US. Because the US is the most powerful nation on Earth, anyone who looks like it can be a counter-balance seems ok to most people. Be it China, the EU, a revived Russia, w/e.

[Leader]

You make some fine points, however the article seems to be attacking one of the leftist ideals, that the United States be more like Europe. And while the article indicates that parts of Europe may be in a decline(as the United States has been in the past), parts of Europe are still better off in many ways than the United States.

Not if you’re speaking of a life free from government interference.

I find it odd that you'd still want to be less like a part of the world that is still more livable in many ways. There's absolutely no reason to think the econimic and social trends in parts of Europe will permanently damage the nations in question.

We are talking about decades of such social and economic trends. So yes, there is much reason to think that Europe is on the down slope.

As something of a side note, though the article claims to be displeased at the "leftist" notion that the United States should be more like Europe, the decreasing crime rate and record period of growth in the American economy occurred throughout the Clinton administration. Not exactly the most right wing administration available.

Europeans tend to see countries solely embodied by the countries leader because most European governments are parliamentary systems. However, the United States does not have such a system. The Presidency is just one of three equal branches. The Republican Party held both houses of congress for 6 of the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. To credit Clinton with solely with the economic growth would be an error.

I still disagree with the comments about birth rate. First off, you're making a link, one that's tenuous at best, between fertility rate below replacement level, and declining societies.

Although I would not be surprised if such a link existed, I have not stated that.

Canada is doing quite fine, with a fertility rate significantly below replacement(1.61).

I'm not sure Canada is doing fine.

Secondly, much of the world is overpopulated, and sheds of hordes of emigrants every year. Those people need places to go.

Those people should say in there own countries and work to make them a better place.

Negative natural growth just means more room for immigrants.

Immigrants bring many problems that natural born citizens do not. Particularly, they are predominantly poor. Many of them lack the skills and education necessary to become more then lower rung works. Some bring flawed cultural values such a mistreatment of women from there previous homes. All of these create burdens on the citizens already living in the country. The medical system in the southern Border States is near collapse because illegal immigrants who have no way to pay for heath care of swamping the hospitals.

I'm not against all immigration. If you have the capability to take care of yourself or you have family here that is willing to help you get on your feet and you wish to be an American, I'd be more then happy to have you here. However, this country was founded on individualism. If you are not going to respect that cultural value, then you are not welcome.

Canada takes in around 200,000 immigrants a year, with a total population of approximately 32,000,000. There are enough well educated immigrant seeking gainful employment and a new home to go around. Immigration can be easily regulated(though the states obviously has a Mexico problem), so if the fertility rate were to rise, the immigration rate could drop. Lastly, the United States does not currently have a fertility rate that reaches replacement rate. As of 2004 it is estimated at 2.07, below the 2.1 replacement rate. A significant difference over such a large population.

You have an estimate for 2004. The 2003 real number is 2.3.

I was merely pointing out that the criticism being leveled at Europe stinks of hypocrisy, given the current state of America. In some of the areas mentioned by the article, many European nations are still much better off than the States. Downward trends in Europe won't continue forever, and upward trends in the States likely won't last either. Economies are cyclical.

Economic and social policy has an important effect on economic and social trends. If Europe continues its current policies, it well get the same results.

[Leader]

That said, if the United States ever encounters serious trouble, we will encounter it too. We have a flawed electoral system that isn't likely to change soon, and our concentration on the importance of individual provinces is constantly dividing the nation.

I'm not all that familiar with the electoral process in Canada. However, what you have described is much like the US system. I see a balance between the Federal and State Governments to be a good thing. From my view, people in Alaska can decide things much better for themselves then people in Washington can.

I can say, however, that the United States and Canada have two of the least representitive electoral systems in the developed world.

The US electoral system although it excludes those at the fringes it empowers those in the middle. Parliamentary systems tend to create fractionalized governments. These governments have a tendency to be unstable, for example Italy. Although such a system may work well in other countries, America is the world's only superpower. If America is unstable so is the world.

As for European nations taxing and spending at the whim of voters, American voters almost always want lower, or at least stable taxes. So American politicians give it to them. If European voters are willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for high government spending, their politicians give it to them. Politicians are there, to a certain extent, to whore to the masses.

As they say, you get what you vote for.

[List]

We've reached an impass. Essentially what is being said is that people in democratic nations get the governments they choose. Some people prefer bigger governments, others prefer small. Over 80% of the population, in the states, and elsewhere, has intelligence in the average range or below. I somehow doubt a significant percentage of those people have a firm grasp on even basic economics.

I would like to know where you got your 2.3 number for fertility rate. The only numbers I've been able to find have been in the 2.0-2.1 range for 2003/2004, and I somehow doubt projections would show a drop of .27 in the course of a year anyways.

[Trooth]

I think its difficult to analyse other systems and cultures objectively. My experience is that people that try it fall into one of two camps :-

Everything about the other culture or system that is different is better than their own.

Everything about the other culture or system that is different is worse than their own.

Obviously when it comes to sophisticated countries such as the the G8 etc this simply isn't true. But it does happen surprisingly regularly.

Even if you are open minded. There are a few basic tenets that you hold dear consciously or culturally) and, if these are crucial enough they discolour all others that are built upon them.

I disagree, however, that birth rates are a genuine sign of economic progress. Poor people have chiuldren. Some of the poorest people have the most children. This often has to do with creating breadwinners. Sometimes there are surges in birthrates due to powercuts! The economy is bad, people are left in the dark .... but they aren't thinking of the economy.
A friend was telling me (I haven't bothered to prove it) that there has been a increase in the birth rate in the US that coincides with 9/11, for example.

The US is a young country. Most markets within it have yet to saturate. Take the mortgage market and compare it between the US and Europe, for example. This shouldnt' be taken to imply, however that the US won't reach a similar situation.

Certainly the US is an a sustainable period of economic growth, but various trends of the last twenties years have recently been reversed. Currency strength for example.

The US benefited greatly economically from WW2, it didn't suffer the destruction that its major competitors did, and its industrial base consequently grew whilst other diminished. Coca Cola and Pepiso gained bottling plants all over the world at the assistance of the US army so GIs could have a cheap taste of home. The effects, however, of the 60 year old bounties start to wear off. But 60 years a huge chunk of a lifetime. So from our somewhat transient persepctives as people, things that aren't look like the status quo.

Hopefully all of G8 can grow, and we can do it inclusively of the less developed nations, rather than off the backs of them as we have done in the past.

[Leader]

We've reached an impass. Essentially what is being said is that people in democratic nations get the governments they choose. Some people prefer bigger governments, others prefer small. Over 80% of the population, in the states, and elsewhere, has intelligence in the average range or below. I somehow doubt a significant percentage of those people have a firm grasp on even basic economics.

Assuming votes don't know what they are talking about goes against the basic tends of democracy. You don't have to be even of average intelligence to under stand basic economics. When I talk to "normal" people about politics, I'm often surprised that they pick up many of the nuances of political debate. BTW, you stated that statistic in a rather glass-is-half-empty way. It could also be stated that 80% of the population has average or above average intelligence.

I would like to know where you got your 2.3 number for fertility rate. The only numbers I've been able to find have been in the 2.0-2.1 range for 2003/2004, and I somehow doubt projections would show a drop of .27 in the course of a year anyways.

I think I read that somewhere. Upon further research, I got 2.1.

Here are the Numbers for all nations for reference:

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicato...c_352_1_1.html

[List]

I think we're just about done. For the sake of specificity, I'd like to note that 80% of the population do not have average or above intelligence. That's more like 50% of the population. 80%(actually more like 84-85) Have iqs in the average range or above. The average range being from 85-115ish, made up of people who make up around 65-68% of the population.

Oh, and the 2.1 is probably rounded up, all of those numbers appear to be rounded.