TW: I completely agree with Brooks that at some point an American POTUS with his or her party supporting will have to make a similar speech. I disagree that it will be a Republican. My hope is Obama does so at the right time. The middle of the Great Contraction is not the right time. Perhaps next year, perhaps the next might be.
Osbourne hit the right points: raise the retirement age, make public service workers participate in salary freezes etc, NO tax cuts. Obama may not make such a speech but I will put my money on him making it before any viable Republican.
From David Brooks at NYT:
"...Britain has hit its reality moment...the climate of opinion has turned. There, voters are ready for a politician willing to face reality. And George Osborne, who would become the chancellor of the Exchequer in the likely event that his Conservative Party wins the next election, has aggressively seized the moment.
In a party conference address earlier this month, Osborne gave the speech that an American politician will someday have to give. He said that he is not ideologically hostile to government. “Millions of Britons depend on public services and cannot opt out,” he declared. He defended government workers against those who would deride them as self-serving bureaucrats: “Conservatives should never use lazy rhetoric that belittles those who are employed by the government.”
But, he pivoted, “it is because we treat those who work in our public sector with respect that I want to be straight with you about the choices we face.” The British government needs to cut back.
Osborne declared that his government would raise the retirement age. That age was scheduled to rise at some point in the distant future. Osborne vowed to increase it sometime in the next five to 10 years.
Osborne declared that there would be no tax cuts any time soon. He said that as a matter of principle he believes that the top income tax rate of 50 percent is too high. But, he continued, “we cannot even think of abolishing the 50 percent rate in the rich” while others down the income scale are asked to scrimp.
Osborne offered government workers the same sort of choice that many private sector executives are forced to make. He proposed a public sector pay freeze in order to avoid 100,000 layoffs. He said that the pay freeze would apply to all workers except those making less than £18,000 (nearly $29,000) “because I don’t believe in balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest. Nor do you.”
...Osborne’s speech was not an isolated event. The Conservatives have treated British voters as adults for a year now, with a string of serious economic positions. The Conservatives supported the Labour government bank bailout, even though it was against their political interest to do so. Last November, Osborne opposed a cut in the value-added taxes on the grounds that the cuts were unaffordable and would not produce growth. It is not easy for any conservative party to oppose tax cuts, but this one did it.
And the public has responded. The Conservatives now have a dominating lead over Labour. Over all, support for the Conservatives rose by 4 percentage points after Osborne’s speech. The polls reveal that nearly 60 percent of Britons support the austerity measures. The Conservatives have a 21-point lead when it comes to being honest about public finances and a 14-point lead on economic policy generally.
...If any Republican is looking for a way forward, start by doing what they’re doing across the Atlantic."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1
Showing posts with label European Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Can Do Capitalism? Viva Italia
From Economist:
"IT CAN be costly for firms to recruit new talent and find appropriate matches for open positions. Innovative solutions to reduce the time and expense of the hiring process are always in demand. Like this:
'Italy Post Office May Depend on Nepotism to Cut Costs
Under a draft plan detailed to unions, postal workers at 140 branches who agree to early retirement can cede permanent job contracts to their children. The “heir” must be at least 30 years old with a high school diploma. Talks on the policy are at an “advanced stage,” and it could be implemented by early October, said Walter de Candiziis, head of Failp-Cisal, the union that first suggested the plan in 1997.
...Nepotism has deep roots in Italy. The word derives from the Latin for nephew and has its origins in the practice of popes elevating their nephews to the position of cardinal to create papal dynasties.'
I suppose there is something to be said for the transparency of the thing."
TW: Nepotism makes the world go round, right? Why not just institutionalize it?
"IT CAN be costly for firms to recruit new talent and find appropriate matches for open positions. Innovative solutions to reduce the time and expense of the hiring process are always in demand. Like this:
'Italy Post Office May Depend on Nepotism to Cut Costs
Under a draft plan detailed to unions, postal workers at 140 branches who agree to early retirement can cede permanent job contracts to their children. The “heir” must be at least 30 years old with a high school diploma. Talks on the policy are at an “advanced stage,” and it could be implemented by early October, said Walter de Candiziis, head of Failp-Cisal, the union that first suggested the plan in 1997.
...Nepotism has deep roots in Italy. The word derives from the Latin for nephew and has its origins in the practice of popes elevating their nephews to the position of cardinal to create papal dynasties.'
I suppose there is something to be said for the transparency of the thing."
TW: Nepotism makes the world go round, right? Why not just institutionalize it?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Anachronisms: G8, IMF, UN...etc.
TW: The G8 leaders are meeting today (don't know who the two dudes on the right are). One of the challenges the world is going through currently is the transition from post-World War II governance structures to new expanded structures reflecting the evolving realities of our world. There are numerous institutions almost all of which were created in the immediate aftermath of WWII, which are the cornerstones of international governance- the U.N., the IMF, and the G8 are but a few. These structures are all dominated by Western nations with the U.S. at least a first amongst equals.Circumstances have changed world economic, demographic and military power is now far more diversified. These institutions will either change or fade into irrelevance as the excluded powers ignore or create their own institutions. The challenge, of course, is that the incumbent powers are highly reluctant to cede their prerogatives. Conservatives in the U.S. experience apoplexy at the mere hint of any ceding of U.S. pre-eminence. The French and British permanent seats on the U.N. security council are indefensible in substance,but I would not want to run on a platform of giving either seat up if I were there.
Form is important but in the long-run substance drives power. Institutions created post WWII have worked effectively in many cases but WWII ended over 60 years ago. One huge challenge will be creating institutions with more disbursed power but which retain effectiveness. Managing a group of 7 or 8 is one thing, managing a group of 20 or 25 another.
Here are some GDP stats comparing 1950 and 2008
U.S. 27.3%/26.7%
U.K. 6.5%/4.8%
France 4.1%/4.6%
China 4.5%/6.3%
Brazil 0.4%/2.3%
India 0.2%/2.0%
Monday, June 29, 2009
European Legislators Putting Their Noses To the Grindstone...So To Speak
TW: I know it is not really 7 pm but these are too special
Sunday, June 28, 2009
To Burqa Or Not To Burqa
TW: You would be hard pressed to find someone more adamantly secular than me. But I find things like banning burqas counter-productive and destructive. The above cartoon frames the challenges of the state determining acceptable expressions of taste, morality and religion. A burqa to me is not an attractive expression of religion, taste or morality but that is me. In the U.S. we tend toward permitting individuals to make these decisions within limits of safety and certain moral constraints (i.e. prancing around nude in generally restricted).If the state intervenes regardless of the grounds, it opens a pandora's box best left closed in my opinion, where does it stop? Furthermore, I suspect like most cultural bans, folks will only be motivated to embrace the use of the burqa as a protest if for no other reason.
From Economist:
"...Now Nicolas Sarkozy has sparked another by calling the burqa, a head-to-toe Islamic garment, “a sign of subjugation…of debasement” that is “not welcome on French territory”.
Mr Sarkozy’s comments came after a group of deputies, led by André Gerin, a Communist, had called for a parliamentary inquiry into the wearing of the burqa, with a view to a possible ban. This would mean in all public places, since it is already banned in state institutions under the 2004 law. The deputies called burqas “veritable walking prisons”.
France’s strict secularism, entrenched by law since 1905, keeps religion firmly out of the state sphere. There are no religious studies (let alone nativity plays) in state schools, nor may public workers sport the headscarf. The government denies that such policies constrain religious freedom or are especially aimed at Islam. France welcomes private Muslim schools. Mosque-building is widespread. The 2004 headscarf ban outlawed “conspicuous” religious symbols of all faiths. Yet there are growing worries about the spread of hard-line Islamism in the heavily Muslim banlieues.
...In fact, few women wear the full garment in France. But mayors of cities with big Muslim populations report a steady increase in numbers, due not to immigration but to its adoption by French-born women—often from North African countries where the burqa is not traditionally worn.
Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the official French Council of the Muslim Faith, has suggested that the inquiry would itself stigmatise Islam. A ban might be misunderstood abroad, and not only in the Muslim world. In his recent speech in Cairo, Barack Obama said that “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”
Not so, say many French politicians—including such prominent Muslims as Fadela Amara, the cities minister. The founder of a women’s-rights group, Ms Amara has called the burqa “a coffin that kills individual liberties”, and a sign of the “political exploitation of Islam”.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925890
Monday, June 15, 2009
Soft Power: An American University In Bulgaria
TW: These are somewhat feel good stories but represent the U.S. and others trying to do good things. Soft power is disdained by some but to me the day the U.S. stops performing things like building American Universities abroad will be a sad day. The day emerging powers start doing so will be a good one (and no madrassas do not count in my book).
From NYT:
" Back in late 1991, when things seemed very dark in the Balkans, I came to this nondescript town of 70,000 or so at the foot of the Rila and Pirin mountains, and found something rare, and inspiring.
At the time, Serbs and Croats were dying by the scores — for their leaders’ delusions — in the ruins of the city of Vukovar...it was trebly refreshing, on a wintry Balkan day, to talk to the pioneering souls who had then just set up the American University in Bulgaria.
...The enthusiasm of the 13 American and 3 Bulgarian faculty, and the first 195 students, was hard to miss. “This is where the action is, this is where people are making choices that have rarely been made in history,” gushed Janet Connolly, then a 62-year-old law professor from Temple University. “We’re not just learning the ropes,” said John Fleming, another American faculty member. “We’re weaving them.”
In the years since, the university has known ups and downs — visits from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but also disputes over authority and customary uncertainty over funding.
...Funded from the start by the Bulgarian government, the Blagoevgrad authorities, the U.S. government and the Open Society Foundation of George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire, the university has swollen to about 1,100 students. They live in gleaming residence halls and enjoy a 100,000-volume library, the largest such in southeastern Europe.
Between 30 and 40 percent of the students come from outside Bulgaria — many from other former Communist countries as far east as Mongolia. Faculty, too, is international, with around 40 percent American. Instruction, of course, is in English.
...The salutatorian, with a 3.98 grade point average and acceptance letters from eight American schools for graduate studies, was Laila Zulkaphil, from Ulan Bator, Mongolia. She heads to Georgetown University in Washington this autumn to study conflict resolution.
...To list all this sounds boosterish, and also misses the point that most of this university’s graduates stay in their home regions, declining to join the “brain drain” that took so many bright Balkan youngsters West.
...As Slavenka Drakulic, the Croatian writer who gave the keynote address, noted: “Freedom is a rare and precious fruit in this part of the world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/world/europe/29iht-letter.html
From NYT:
" Back in late 1991, when things seemed very dark in the Balkans, I came to this nondescript town of 70,000 or so at the foot of the Rila and Pirin mountains, and found something rare, and inspiring.
At the time, Serbs and Croats were dying by the scores — for their leaders’ delusions — in the ruins of the city of Vukovar...it was trebly refreshing, on a wintry Balkan day, to talk to the pioneering souls who had then just set up the American University in Bulgaria.
...The enthusiasm of the 13 American and 3 Bulgarian faculty, and the first 195 students, was hard to miss. “This is where the action is, this is where people are making choices that have rarely been made in history,” gushed Janet Connolly, then a 62-year-old law professor from Temple University. “We’re not just learning the ropes,” said John Fleming, another American faculty member. “We’re weaving them.”
In the years since, the university has known ups and downs — visits from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but also disputes over authority and customary uncertainty over funding.
...Funded from the start by the Bulgarian government, the Blagoevgrad authorities, the U.S. government and the Open Society Foundation of George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire, the university has swollen to about 1,100 students. They live in gleaming residence halls and enjoy a 100,000-volume library, the largest such in southeastern Europe.
Between 30 and 40 percent of the students come from outside Bulgaria — many from other former Communist countries as far east as Mongolia. Faculty, too, is international, with around 40 percent American. Instruction, of course, is in English.
...The salutatorian, with a 3.98 grade point average and acceptance letters from eight American schools for graduate studies, was Laila Zulkaphil, from Ulan Bator, Mongolia. She heads to Georgetown University in Washington this autumn to study conflict resolution.
...To list all this sounds boosterish, and also misses the point that most of this university’s graduates stay in their home regions, declining to join the “brain drain” that took so many bright Balkan youngsters West.
...As Slavenka Drakulic, the Croatian writer who gave the keynote address, noted: “Freedom is a rare and precious fruit in this part of the world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/world/europe/29iht-letter.html
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Dutch Model: Healthcare
TW: Russell Shorto (btw he wrote "Island at the Center of the World", great book on the very early years of Manhattan 1600-1700) wrote a long piece for NYT about life in Holland where he is apparently camped out for awhile. He compared many aspects about life here v. there, health care was one.
A key attribute of the Dutch system is one I favor- a core insurance scheme for everyone with a system that allows individuals supplement with more expensive and sophisticated coverage as they wish. Society cannot provide a Mercedes to everyone, our current system tends to be a mishmash of VW bugs, Cadillacs, beat-up Chevys and the occasional Porsche.
From Russell Shorto at NYT:
"...The Dutch health care system was drastically revamped in 2006, and its new incarnation has come in for a lot of international scrutiny...The old system involved a vast patchwork of insurers and depended on heavy government regulation to keep costs down. Hoogervorst — a conservative economist and devout believer in the powers of the free market — wanted to streamline and privatize the system, to offer consumers their choice of insurers and plans but also to ensure that certain conditions were maintained via regulation and oversight. It is illegal in the current system for an insurance company to refuse to accept a client, or to charge more for a client based on age or health. Where in the United States insurance companies try to wriggle out of covering chronically ill patients, in the Dutch system the government oversees a fund from which insurers that take on more high-cost clients can be compensated. It seems to work. A study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 54 percent of chronically ill patients in the United States avoided some form of medical attention in 2008 because of costs, while only 7 percent of chronically ill people in the Netherlands did so for financial reasons.
The Dutch are free-marketers, but they also have a keen sense of fairness. As Hoogervorst noted, “The average Dutch person finds it completely unacceptable that people with more money would get better health care.” The solution to balancing these opposing tendencies was to have one guaranteed base level of coverage in the new health scheme, to which people can add supplemental coverage that they pay extra for. Each insurance company offers its own packages of supplements.
Nobody thinks the Dutch health care system is perfect. Many people complain that the new insurance costs more than the old. “That’s true, but that’s because the old system just didn’t charge enough, so society ended up paying for it in other ways,” said Anais Rubingh, who works as a general practitioner in Amsterdam. The complaint I hear from some expat Americans is that while the Dutch system covers everyone, and does a good job with broken bones and ruptured appendixes, it falls behind American care when it comes to conditions that involve complicated procedures. Hoogervorst acknowledged this — to a point. “There is no doubt the U.S. has the best medical care in the world — for those who can pay the top prices,” he said. “I’m sure the top 5 percent of hospitals there are better than the top 5 percent here. But with that exception, I would say overall quality is the same in the two countries.”
Indeed, my nonscientific analysis — culled from my own experience and that of other expats whom I’ve badgered — translates into a clear endorsement. My friend Colin Campbell, an American writer, has been in the Netherlands for four years with his wife and their two children. “Over the course of four years, four human beings end up going to a lot of different doctors,” he said. “The amazing thing is that virtually every experience has been more pleasant than in the U.S. There you have the bureaucracy, the endless forms, the fear of malpractice suits. Here you just go in and see your doctor. It shows that it doesn’t have to be complicated. I wish every single U.S. congressman could come to Amsterdam and live here for a while and see what happens medically.”
I’ve found that many differences between the American and Dutch systems are more cultural than anything else. The Dutch system has a more old-fashioned, personal feel. Nearly all G.P.’s in the country make house calls to infirm or elderly patients. My G.P., like many others, devotes one hour per day to walk-in visits. But as an American who has been freelance most of his career, I find that the outrageously significant difference between the two systems is the cost. In the United States, for a family of four, I paid about $1,400 a month for a policy that didn’t include dental care and was so filled with co-pays, deductibles and exceptions that I routinely found myself replaying in my mind the Monty Python skit in which the man complains about his insurance claim and the agent says, “In your policy it states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.” A similar Dutch policy, by contrast, cost 300 euros a month (about $390), with no co-pays, and included dental coverage; about 90 percent of the cost of my daughter’s braces was covered..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=russell%20shorto%20dutch&st=cse&scp=1
A key attribute of the Dutch system is one I favor- a core insurance scheme for everyone with a system that allows individuals supplement with more expensive and sophisticated coverage as they wish. Society cannot provide a Mercedes to everyone, our current system tends to be a mishmash of VW bugs, Cadillacs, beat-up Chevys and the occasional Porsche.
From Russell Shorto at NYT:
"...The Dutch health care system was drastically revamped in 2006, and its new incarnation has come in for a lot of international scrutiny...The old system involved a vast patchwork of insurers and depended on heavy government regulation to keep costs down. Hoogervorst — a conservative economist and devout believer in the powers of the free market — wanted to streamline and privatize the system, to offer consumers their choice of insurers and plans but also to ensure that certain conditions were maintained via regulation and oversight. It is illegal in the current system for an insurance company to refuse to accept a client, or to charge more for a client based on age or health. Where in the United States insurance companies try to wriggle out of covering chronically ill patients, in the Dutch system the government oversees a fund from which insurers that take on more high-cost clients can be compensated. It seems to work. A study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 54 percent of chronically ill patients in the United States avoided some form of medical attention in 2008 because of costs, while only 7 percent of chronically ill people in the Netherlands did so for financial reasons.
The Dutch are free-marketers, but they also have a keen sense of fairness. As Hoogervorst noted, “The average Dutch person finds it completely unacceptable that people with more money would get better health care.” The solution to balancing these opposing tendencies was to have one guaranteed base level of coverage in the new health scheme, to which people can add supplemental coverage that they pay extra for. Each insurance company offers its own packages of supplements.
Nobody thinks the Dutch health care system is perfect. Many people complain that the new insurance costs more than the old. “That’s true, but that’s because the old system just didn’t charge enough, so society ended up paying for it in other ways,” said Anais Rubingh, who works as a general practitioner in Amsterdam. The complaint I hear from some expat Americans is that while the Dutch system covers everyone, and does a good job with broken bones and ruptured appendixes, it falls behind American care when it comes to conditions that involve complicated procedures. Hoogervorst acknowledged this — to a point. “There is no doubt the U.S. has the best medical care in the world — for those who can pay the top prices,” he said. “I’m sure the top 5 percent of hospitals there are better than the top 5 percent here. But with that exception, I would say overall quality is the same in the two countries.”
Indeed, my nonscientific analysis — culled from my own experience and that of other expats whom I’ve badgered — translates into a clear endorsement. My friend Colin Campbell, an American writer, has been in the Netherlands for four years with his wife and their two children. “Over the course of four years, four human beings end up going to a lot of different doctors,” he said. “The amazing thing is that virtually every experience has been more pleasant than in the U.S. There you have the bureaucracy, the endless forms, the fear of malpractice suits. Here you just go in and see your doctor. It shows that it doesn’t have to be complicated. I wish every single U.S. congressman could come to Amsterdam and live here for a while and see what happens medically.”
I’ve found that many differences between the American and Dutch systems are more cultural than anything else. The Dutch system has a more old-fashioned, personal feel. Nearly all G.P.’s in the country make house calls to infirm or elderly patients. My G.P., like many others, devotes one hour per day to walk-in visits. But as an American who has been freelance most of his career, I find that the outrageously significant difference between the two systems is the cost. In the United States, for a family of four, I paid about $1,400 a month for a policy that didn’t include dental care and was so filled with co-pays, deductibles and exceptions that I routinely found myself replaying in my mind the Monty Python skit in which the man complains about his insurance claim and the agent says, “In your policy it states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.” A similar Dutch policy, by contrast, cost 300 euros a month (about $390), with no co-pays, and included dental coverage; about 90 percent of the cost of my daughter’s braces was covered..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=russell%20shorto%20dutch&st=cse&scp=1
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Europe a Great Power: Not So Much (cont.)
TW: Continuing the theme from the previous post on Europe's challenged positioning amidst the world. This piece on China's view of Europe frames some of Europe's challenges. Competing national interests lead to lowest common denominator policies which dilute the impact of Europe's economic, moral and cultural power. The quotes harken of a bit of Chinese arrogance relative to Europe, which is probably overblown, not to mention one could assume such arrogance would not be limited merely to Europe if true. Regardless the piece speaks to the difference between a large powerful economy and political entity with a confederated structure versus an executive structure.
From Economist:
"Here is a quick way to spoil a Brussels dinner party. Simply suggest that world governance is slipping away from the G20, G7, G8 or other bodies in which Europeans may hog up to half the seats. Then propose, with gloomy relish, that the future belongs to the G2: newly fashionable jargon for a putative body formed by China and America.
The fear of irrelevance haunts Euro-types, for all their public boasting about Europe’s future might. The thought that the European Union might not greatly interest China is especially painful. After all, the 21st century was meant to be different. Indeed, to earlier leaders like France’s Jacques Chirac, a rising China was welcome as another challenge to American hegemony, ushering in a “multipolar world” in which the EU would play a big role. If that meant kow-towing to Chinese demands to shun Taiwan, snub the Dalai Lama or tone down criticism of human-rights abuses, so be it. Most EU countries focused on commercial diplomacy with China, to ensure that their leaders’ visits could end with flashing cameras and the signing of juicy contracts.
...As ever, Europeans disagree over how to respond. Some are willing to challenge China politically—for example, Germany, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands. But they are mostly free traders. That makes them hostile when other countries call for protection against alleged Chinese cheating. In contrast, a block of mostly southern and central Europeans, dubbed “accommodating mercantilists” by the ECFR, are quick to call for anti-dumping measures. But that makes them anxious to keep broader relations sweet by bowing to China on political issues.
The result is that European politicians often find themselves defending unconditional engagement with China. The usual claim is that this will slowly transform the country into a freer, more responsible stakeholder in the world. The secret, it is murmured, is to let Europe weave China into an entangling web of agreements and sectoral dialogues. In 2007 no fewer than 450 European delegations visited China. Big countries like France and Britain add their own bilateral dialogues, not trusting the EU to protect their interests or do the job properly.
There are now six parallel EU and national “dialogues” with China on climate change, for example. Alas, familiarity with Europeans does not preclude contempt. EU-China dialogues on human rights or the rule of law are a way of tying Europeans down with process, avoiding substance.
...Chinese interest in the EU peaked in 2003, when it looked as if the club would soon acquire a constitution, a foreign minister and a full-time president. But the honeymoon had ended by 2006, after China failed to get the EU to lift an arms embargo imposed after the Tiananmen Square killings of 1989. At policy seminars and closed-door conferences, state-sponsored Chinese analysts now drip condescension. America is a strong man and China a growing teenager...Europe is a “rich old guy”, heading for his dotage. At a recent Wilton Park conference in Britain, a Chinese academic called the EU a weak power, unprepared to challenge American hegemony: China was not about to work with it on a new world order.
If you wanted to design a competitor to show up European weaknesses most painfully, you would come up with something a lot like China. It is a centralised, unitary state, which is patient and relentless in the pursuit of national goals that often matter more to the Chinese than anyone else. European governments do not even agree on what they want from China. They are fuzzily committed to EU “values”, but will readily trample on those in a scramble to secure jobs and cheap goods for their voters. They do not share the same vision of trade policy, or how best to press China on climate change. Worse, the biggest countries, especially France, Germany and Britain, compete to be China’s favourite European partner. This causes damage. It was mad that the British and Germans did not rush to back Mr Sarkozy when he was bullied over the Dalai Lama. They could easily have insisted that EU leaders meet whomsoever they want.
Yet talk of a “Chi-merican” G2 running the world is overblown. For one thing, China will probably prefer to keep its own global options open. For another, senior Brussels figures rightly insist that the EU’s voice cannot be ignored in global economic discussions. It is China’s largest trading partner, after all, with two-way trade worth a huge €300 billion...
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496093
From Economist:
"Here is a quick way to spoil a Brussels dinner party. Simply suggest that world governance is slipping away from the G20, G7, G8 or other bodies in which Europeans may hog up to half the seats. Then propose, with gloomy relish, that the future belongs to the G2: newly fashionable jargon for a putative body formed by China and America.
The fear of irrelevance haunts Euro-types, for all their public boasting about Europe’s future might. The thought that the European Union might not greatly interest China is especially painful. After all, the 21st century was meant to be different. Indeed, to earlier leaders like France’s Jacques Chirac, a rising China was welcome as another challenge to American hegemony, ushering in a “multipolar world” in which the EU would play a big role. If that meant kow-towing to Chinese demands to shun Taiwan, snub the Dalai Lama or tone down criticism of human-rights abuses, so be it. Most EU countries focused on commercial diplomacy with China, to ensure that their leaders’ visits could end with flashing cameras and the signing of juicy contracts.
...As ever, Europeans disagree over how to respond. Some are willing to challenge China politically—for example, Germany, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands. But they are mostly free traders. That makes them hostile when other countries call for protection against alleged Chinese cheating. In contrast, a block of mostly southern and central Europeans, dubbed “accommodating mercantilists” by the ECFR, are quick to call for anti-dumping measures. But that makes them anxious to keep broader relations sweet by bowing to China on political issues.
The result is that European politicians often find themselves defending unconditional engagement with China. The usual claim is that this will slowly transform the country into a freer, more responsible stakeholder in the world. The secret, it is murmured, is to let Europe weave China into an entangling web of agreements and sectoral dialogues. In 2007 no fewer than 450 European delegations visited China. Big countries like France and Britain add their own bilateral dialogues, not trusting the EU to protect their interests or do the job properly.
There are now six parallel EU and national “dialogues” with China on climate change, for example. Alas, familiarity with Europeans does not preclude contempt. EU-China dialogues on human rights or the rule of law are a way of tying Europeans down with process, avoiding substance.
...Chinese interest in the EU peaked in 2003, when it looked as if the club would soon acquire a constitution, a foreign minister and a full-time president. But the honeymoon had ended by 2006, after China failed to get the EU to lift an arms embargo imposed after the Tiananmen Square killings of 1989. At policy seminars and closed-door conferences, state-sponsored Chinese analysts now drip condescension. America is a strong man and China a growing teenager...Europe is a “rich old guy”, heading for his dotage. At a recent Wilton Park conference in Britain, a Chinese academic called the EU a weak power, unprepared to challenge American hegemony: China was not about to work with it on a new world order.
If you wanted to design a competitor to show up European weaknesses most painfully, you would come up with something a lot like China. It is a centralised, unitary state, which is patient and relentless in the pursuit of national goals that often matter more to the Chinese than anyone else. European governments do not even agree on what they want from China. They are fuzzily committed to EU “values”, but will readily trample on those in a scramble to secure jobs and cheap goods for their voters. They do not share the same vision of trade policy, or how best to press China on climate change. Worse, the biggest countries, especially France, Germany and Britain, compete to be China’s favourite European partner. This causes damage. It was mad that the British and Germans did not rush to back Mr Sarkozy when he was bullied over the Dalai Lama. They could easily have insisted that EU leaders meet whomsoever they want.
Yet talk of a “Chi-merican” G2 running the world is overblown. For one thing, China will probably prefer to keep its own global options open. For another, senior Brussels figures rightly insist that the EU’s voice cannot be ignored in global economic discussions. It is China’s largest trading partner, after all, with two-way trade worth a huge €300 billion...
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496093
Europe A World Power? Not So Much
TW: "Europe" encompasses a large population, a large economy and many wonderful cultural attributes. What it does not exhibit is a strong, central government which can focus those attributes into a world power along the lines of the U.S. or an emerging China. The three different "presidents" Obama (or other world leaders) encounters when visiting Europe symbolizes the diffusion of power. Furthermore it is unclear whether the Europeans wish for such a focus.
Large entities without unified control and authority will remain relevant but secondary players on the world stage. An American government fashioned under the original Articles of Confederation would have been such an entity. With the disparate interests and biases of the numerous states within the EU (small v. large, richer v. poorer, northern v. southern v. eastern etc.), Europe will inherently punch below its economic weight on the world stage. Not necessarily a bad thing but the entity will not be in a position to frame world politics the way some there would prefer.
From Economist:
“...When the American president arrived, three Europeans were with him: the Czech prime minister, whose country holds the six-monthly presidency of the EU; the prime minister of Sweden, who will come next; and the president of the European Commission.
...To euro-types in Brussels, such...vignettes point to one blindingly obvious conclusion: as soon as possible, all 27 EU members must ratify the Lisbon treaty, which creates the new job of a full-time EU president, so that small, incompetent countries like the Czech Republic no longer take turns to speak for Europe...Such critics often seemed inspired by a doctrine set out by President Nicolas Sarkozy, when he surrendered the EU presidency at the end of 2008, that “it is for big countries to take the initiative” in Europe. In other words: small countries pipe down.
...Does the Lisbon treaty’s full-time president hold the answer? It would sweep away the “Welcome to Lilliput” aspects of the EU that exhaust visitors like Mr Obama, notably the need to share a platform with three different euro-representatives. But consider the three big requests that Mr Obama made during his European tour: for more help in Afghanistan; for more fiscal stimulus; and for Europe to become more serious about energy security (ie, buy more non-Russian gas). Almost nothing was offered on the first and third, and the G20 conclusions papered over lingering transatlantic differences on stimulus plans and financial regulation. And Mr Obama also earned a public rebuke from Mr Sarkozy for strongly backing Turkish membership of the EU, which the French president opposes.
...Imagine that Europe already had a full-time president (Tony Blair, say)...How much would change? A President Blair might be able to push for a bit more EU unity over gas supplies. But he could hardly force governments to embrace Turkey, send troops to Afghanistan or change their views of financial capitalism.
During the NATO summit in Strasbourg, Mr Obama came up with a sharp observation. In its “wheeling and dealing”, and constant pursuit of different interests, political interaction in Europe is “not that different from the United States Senate”, he remarked. He was too polite to complete the thought: that European leaders, like senators, combine verbosity and limitless self-regard with a readiness to be bought off with money for voters back home, or favours for special interests.
...expect more people to argue that only a full-time president can save Europe. Be sceptical. Internal EU disputes will not melt away just because a powerful figure chairs leaders’ meetings. Dynamic Mr Sarkozy may be remembered fondly now, but many governments were relieved when his presidency ended. With Mr Sarkozy in charge, the prospect of a two-speed Europe yawned too widely for some people’s liking. It is the same externally. European and American leaders disagree because, on some issues, they disagree, not because of the way they organise their summits."
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13445660
Large entities without unified control and authority will remain relevant but secondary players on the world stage. An American government fashioned under the original Articles of Confederation would have been such an entity. With the disparate interests and biases of the numerous states within the EU (small v. large, richer v. poorer, northern v. southern v. eastern etc.), Europe will inherently punch below its economic weight on the world stage. Not necessarily a bad thing but the entity will not be in a position to frame world politics the way some there would prefer.
From Economist:
“...When the American president arrived, three Europeans were with him: the Czech prime minister, whose country holds the six-monthly presidency of the EU; the prime minister of Sweden, who will come next; and the president of the European Commission.
...To euro-types in Brussels, such...vignettes point to one blindingly obvious conclusion: as soon as possible, all 27 EU members must ratify the Lisbon treaty, which creates the new job of a full-time EU president, so that small, incompetent countries like the Czech Republic no longer take turns to speak for Europe...Such critics often seemed inspired by a doctrine set out by President Nicolas Sarkozy, when he surrendered the EU presidency at the end of 2008, that “it is for big countries to take the initiative” in Europe. In other words: small countries pipe down.
...Does the Lisbon treaty’s full-time president hold the answer? It would sweep away the “Welcome to Lilliput” aspects of the EU that exhaust visitors like Mr Obama, notably the need to share a platform with three different euro-representatives. But consider the three big requests that Mr Obama made during his European tour: for more help in Afghanistan; for more fiscal stimulus; and for Europe to become more serious about energy security (ie, buy more non-Russian gas). Almost nothing was offered on the first and third, and the G20 conclusions papered over lingering transatlantic differences on stimulus plans and financial regulation. And Mr Obama also earned a public rebuke from Mr Sarkozy for strongly backing Turkish membership of the EU, which the French president opposes.
...Imagine that Europe already had a full-time president (Tony Blair, say)...How much would change? A President Blair might be able to push for a bit more EU unity over gas supplies. But he could hardly force governments to embrace Turkey, send troops to Afghanistan or change their views of financial capitalism.
During the NATO summit in Strasbourg, Mr Obama came up with a sharp observation. In its “wheeling and dealing”, and constant pursuit of different interests, political interaction in Europe is “not that different from the United States Senate”, he remarked. He was too polite to complete the thought: that European leaders, like senators, combine verbosity and limitless self-regard with a readiness to be bought off with money for voters back home, or favours for special interests.
...expect more people to argue that only a full-time president can save Europe. Be sceptical. Internal EU disputes will not melt away just because a powerful figure chairs leaders’ meetings. Dynamic Mr Sarkozy may be remembered fondly now, but many governments were relieved when his presidency ended. With Mr Sarkozy in charge, the prospect of a two-speed Europe yawned too widely for some people’s liking. It is the same externally. European and American leaders disagree because, on some issues, they disagree, not because of the way they organise their summits."
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13445660
Sunday, April 26, 2009
French Envy
TW: I was catching up on some Int'l Herald Tribune reading and ran across editorials from a couple of weeks ago when Obama was swinging through Europe. There were three editorials- a German, an English and a French- they were all fawning. Now obviously the cynics can assert caution and certainly there are residual easy comps given his predecessor. Yet, given that predecessor and the cigar challenges of the occupant before him, it is remains nice see a POTUS cut through Europe like a hot knife through butter. It beats the alternative.
From Amelie Nothomb French author in NYT:
"THE feeling in Europe, and especially in France, about Barack Obama’s presidency is as clear as day: we are envious.
We are aware that the results of Mr. Obama’s economic policy are not good — not yet — and that there is little chance they will be wonderful any time soon. Here, too, the results of our leaders’ economic policies are not at all good. We know these things. Nonetheless, we are envious because Americans are so evidently proud of their president. What is worse, we feel that Americans have a kind of faith in Barack Obama. We would love to feel the same way about our presidents and our leaders.
Naturally, our presidents and leaders are even more envious than we are. They all seem to be wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved. Some of them are trying to play up their resemblance to Mr. Obama; others are suggesting that he is overrated. And so on. ... It is an extremely amusing spectacle.
Envy is a complex passion. It engenders both love and hate. Many French intellectuals hate Barack Obama because they feel that too many people adore him, and with too much ardor. But by and large, the optimism and excitement that the majority of French people felt during Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and at the moment he was elected have not diminished.
We had a chance to appreciate Mr. Obama’s spirit of cooperation with Europe at the G-20 summit meeting. It came almost as a surprise, for we are no longer accustomed to such things after years of George W. Bush’s isolationism. Mr. Obama’s position on Iran has provoked a more-than-favorable reaction all across Europe, and particularly in France, and nothing seems to be clouding the blue skies of the old continent’s love story with President Obama. Mr. Obama’s anger is portrayed here as something holy. And when he laughs, we laugh.
When our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gets angry, on the other hand, we laugh. When he laughs, we wonder why. We feel that Mr. Obama confers dignity on his country and its people. We, too, would sorely like to feel dignified."
From Amelie Nothomb French author in NYT:
"THE feeling in Europe, and especially in France, about Barack Obama’s presidency is as clear as day: we are envious.
We are aware that the results of Mr. Obama’s economic policy are not good — not yet — and that there is little chance they will be wonderful any time soon. Here, too, the results of our leaders’ economic policies are not at all good. We know these things. Nonetheless, we are envious because Americans are so evidently proud of their president. What is worse, we feel that Americans have a kind of faith in Barack Obama. We would love to feel the same way about our presidents and our leaders.
Naturally, our presidents and leaders are even more envious than we are. They all seem to be wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved. Some of them are trying to play up their resemblance to Mr. Obama; others are suggesting that he is overrated. And so on. ... It is an extremely amusing spectacle.
Envy is a complex passion. It engenders both love and hate. Many French intellectuals hate Barack Obama because they feel that too many people adore him, and with too much ardor. But by and large, the optimism and excitement that the majority of French people felt during Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and at the moment he was elected have not diminished.
We had a chance to appreciate Mr. Obama’s spirit of cooperation with Europe at the G-20 summit meeting. It came almost as a surprise, for we are no longer accustomed to such things after years of George W. Bush’s isolationism. Mr. Obama’s position on Iran has provoked a more-than-favorable reaction all across Europe, and particularly in France, and nothing seems to be clouding the blue skies of the old continent’s love story with President Obama. Mr. Obama’s anger is portrayed here as something holy. And when he laughs, we laugh.
When our president, Nicolas Sarkozy, gets angry, on the other hand, we laugh. When he laughs, we wonder why. We feel that Mr. Obama confers dignity on his country and its people. We, too, would sorely like to feel dignified."
Monday, March 30, 2009
German Views On Afghanistan
TW: The German news magazine Der Spiegel summarizes some reaction from German editorials regarding the latest initiatives in Afghanistan. What strikes me is the lack of any consensus or clear mission in the editorial voices.
One sees the center-right paper patting Germany on its back for having invented the concept of nation-building (huh?) and excusing Germany's ability to avoid combat because they picked the quiet region first before others picked their regions (a kind nyah, nyah approach). The lefty paper rightly mocks the German commitment to increase their police training force by a whopping 150 or so while acknowledging even that paltry change will run into resistance. The German financial paper basically says the U.S. will be left holding the bag.
I have read before that European public opinion has melded the extremely unpopular Iraq situation with the poorly understood AfPak conflict far more so than even here in the U.S. Obama and European leaders have much work to do in order to motivate the European publics to commit their blood and treasure to the AfPak theater.
From Der Spiegel:
"In the run-up to next week's NATO summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech on Thursday in which she offered support for Obama's plan and described the war in Afghanistan as the "most important contemporary test" of the 26-state NATO alliance. At the same time, she said Germany had no plans to send any additional troops to the country. The relatively small number of additional civilian helpers Berlin plans to dispatch to the country has come in for some criticism. On Germany's editorial pages on Friday, commentators are scathing of the country's contribution.
The financial daily Handelsblatt writes:
"Every member of NATO wants a success in Afghanistan But it is the US that has had to handle most of the military work. That will be the conclusion at next week's NATO summit after the niceties have been filtered out of the closing statement. German Chancellor Merkel made that very clear for Germany on Thursday. Germany will not increase its number of troops in Afghanistan. Instead it wants to intensify its civilian reconstruction efforts. But that can't be truly successful without the security that only the military can provide."
"If Obama had any illusions whatsoever when he took office about whether his partners would abandon their increasing reserve on the issue of Afghanistan, then those have been buried by now...Germany may be willing to keep its current 3,400 troops in the country, but other countries are firmly holding to their plans to withdraw. Holland will pull out 1,700 troops by 2010, and a year later Canada's 2,800-soldier contingent will return home. The success or failure on the main front in the battle against radical Islam will be determined by the US's engagement there."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Germany can 'really stand by' what it has achieved in Afghanistan since December 2001 -- and with that remark, Chancellor Merkel was right...The fact that NATO's most important mission is in the Hindu Kush is, after all, due to a German initiative. And because Germany was the first to send a reconstruction team to the region, it gave them the chance to select the comparatively peaceful north of the country. There the German forces...were able to fulfil the task set before them."
"Now they are boosting the size of the team, they are sending more trainers for the Afghan army, and more troops in time for the election. But they are always being deployed in the north. Sending troops to other parts of the country, places where there is fighting, will become difficult to avoid in the long term. And experience shows: Taking the initiative yourself early is preferable to being forced into something late in the day."
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:
"..NATO, of course, understands that, in places like Afghanistan, it can only play a small part in any solution and that the rebuilding of civil society is the most important priority."
"It is a platitude which fails to gain extra meaning through repetition in parliament. Merkel's suggestion would only be revolutionary if it were followed by action. But in that respect, Merkel keeps quiet. The fact there are German forces in Afghanistan speaks for itself, according to the chancellor -- and that was all she had to say. There was no mention of Germany sending more police trainers to Afghanistan than those already planned. In total 120 are due to be sent, along with 45 military police. But that's a joke. What is needed are hundreds of civil trainers."
"But that would leave the chancellor in a difficult conflict with the German states, which would be in charge of committing police. Angela Merkel sidestepped this conflict by announcing a revolution -- and then taking a well-trodden path. That is nothing more than political window dressing."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,615878,00.html
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Should We Let the Brits In?
TW: I posted recently about the Scotland potentially wanting devolve away from the UK. This piece suggests the UK joining the U.S. I like the concept. I have always thought the Canadians would make for a nice expansion as well. Am tired of the EU claiming to be the world's biggest economy only because they keep adding new countries.
Will it happen? Of course not, the Republicans would freak as we would be adding about 8-16 new Democratic senators and a commensurate amount of representatives. Not to mention the Brits and Canadians might have concerns (I mean the piece might have been written with a bit of sarcasm).
From the Independent:
"...Becoming the 51st State of the Union would be a colossal promotion. There would be downsides to yielding what passes for our sovereignty, of course. The Sovereign would have to go, and most of us would miss her and the amusement her family selflessly provides. Any residual misplaced sense of superiority would need to be jettisoned as well.
But the upsides would more than dwarf the regrets. At a stroke we would inherit a written constitution – and what a constitution – guaranteeing such essentials for a functioning democracy as fixed-term government, proper checks and balances to executive power, and freedom of speech. We'd be defended from the worst ravages of economic collapse by belonging to what will, with the euro facing mounting pressure from the imminent bankruptcy of member countries, remain the world's premier reserve currency. We would have a political leader to revere, for eight years at least. And in the US tradition of slightly out-of-the-way cities holding the honour, we could make Norwich our state capital, with the Union Jack replaced as flag by a pot of Colman's Mustard.
...Now there will be objections, and not just from royalists. Some, fretful of our place in the pecking idea, will feel slighted at ranking 32nd in size between Louisiana and Mississippi. But New York state's square mileage isn't much more, so size couldn't matter less. Others may think us too distant to make it practicable. Yet we're only a few hundred miles further away from the US mainland than Hawaii – a state with a useful recent record of producing Presidents despite having four electoral college votes to the hundred or so that our population would merit.
...It is ever more apparent that on its current path, or rather trapped in its current stasis, Britain is absolutely stuffed. Whatever ersatz prestige devolved from London's status as global financial services capital has gone, while the tacky veneer of the "young country" of Mr Tony Blair's lively imagination faded long ago. Britain is a befuddled geriatric, roughly cared for by a political class without energy, original thought or compassion, its populace too fatigued and apathetic to care about the incessant infringements on personal liberty.
....Dribbling and muttering incoherently about the glory days when the map was suffused with pink and the sun never set, clinging to the permanent seat on the Security Council like the second childhood security blanket it is...
...All of which begs the obvious question of what could possibly be in it for the United States to have us live with her in a granny flat 3,000 miles round the corner. Apart from the strategic value of adding a gigantic air base in western Europe to the control she already exerts over our "independent" nuclear deterrent, the health tourism possibilities might appeal..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-turn-us-into-the-51st-state-why-not-1637570.html
Will it happen? Of course not, the Republicans would freak as we would be adding about 8-16 new Democratic senators and a commensurate amount of representatives. Not to mention the Brits and Canadians might have concerns (I mean the piece might have been written with a bit of sarcasm).
From the Independent:
"...Becoming the 51st State of the Union would be a colossal promotion. There would be downsides to yielding what passes for our sovereignty, of course. The Sovereign would have to go, and most of us would miss her and the amusement her family selflessly provides. Any residual misplaced sense of superiority would need to be jettisoned as well.
But the upsides would more than dwarf the regrets. At a stroke we would inherit a written constitution – and what a constitution – guaranteeing such essentials for a functioning democracy as fixed-term government, proper checks and balances to executive power, and freedom of speech. We'd be defended from the worst ravages of economic collapse by belonging to what will, with the euro facing mounting pressure from the imminent bankruptcy of member countries, remain the world's premier reserve currency. We would have a political leader to revere, for eight years at least. And in the US tradition of slightly out-of-the-way cities holding the honour, we could make Norwich our state capital, with the Union Jack replaced as flag by a pot of Colman's Mustard.
...Now there will be objections, and not just from royalists. Some, fretful of our place in the pecking idea, will feel slighted at ranking 32nd in size between Louisiana and Mississippi. But New York state's square mileage isn't much more, so size couldn't matter less. Others may think us too distant to make it practicable. Yet we're only a few hundred miles further away from the US mainland than Hawaii – a state with a useful recent record of producing Presidents despite having four electoral college votes to the hundred or so that our population would merit.
...It is ever more apparent that on its current path, or rather trapped in its current stasis, Britain is absolutely stuffed. Whatever ersatz prestige devolved from London's status as global financial services capital has gone, while the tacky veneer of the "young country" of Mr Tony Blair's lively imagination faded long ago. Britain is a befuddled geriatric, roughly cared for by a political class without energy, original thought or compassion, its populace too fatigued and apathetic to care about the incessant infringements on personal liberty.
....Dribbling and muttering incoherently about the glory days when the map was suffused with pink and the sun never set, clinging to the permanent seat on the Security Council like the second childhood security blanket it is...
...All of which begs the obvious question of what could possibly be in it for the United States to have us live with her in a granny flat 3,000 miles round the corner. Apart from the strategic value of adding a gigantic air base in western Europe to the control she already exerts over our "independent" nuclear deterrent, the health tourism possibilities might appeal..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-turn-us-into-the-51st-state-why-not-1637570.html
Monday, March 23, 2009
Stripping Hyperbole Away From the Fiscal Debate
TW: Had a minor epiphany relative fiscal policy when reading this piece. If one strips the political hyperbole out of the equation, the debate is fairly simplistic. Toss away talk of fiscal prudence and conservatism, it is BS.
There is a consensus (except amongst certain Hooverite Republicans) amongst many Republicans and most Democrats that fiscal stimulus is necessary in order to mitigate the impact of the demand contraction. Certainly the Republicans favor tax cuts more than the stimulus spending favored by Democrats but neither side has sufficient theoretical standing to assert an all or nothing tax cut or spending approach. The opposing ideologues would push to go all one way or the other but the reality is a hybrid approach is likely the best approach.
In the long-run the U.S. needs to eventually bring its fiscal deficit back to balance no doubt. Timing is everything and the next two or three is not the time. But what happens afterward? Conservatives have a legitimate concern that government spending tends to be sticky once initiated. I would argue tax cuts are similarly sticky as evidenced by the shrieking emanating from conservatives as Obama seeks to restore the tax rates on the wealthy back to Clinton levels. And understand the Friedman philosophy about which many Republicans have an almost religious zeal states very clearly that in order to have the magical economic impacts attributed to tax cuts (e.g. Laffer curve drivel etc.) the tax cuts must be permanent in order to engender the proper incentives.
Putting stickiness aside, the baseline U.S. fiscal deficit is growing without any new spending on new wars, universal health care, green initiatives etc. So when I hear or see a politician pontificating on fiscal policy I would ask the following questions:
1) Do they believe some type of stimulus is needed? If not they are Hooverites, suspect either economic ignorance, political expediency or most likely both.
2) If they do support some stimulus, how do they propose to address the long-term fiscal challenges? Earmark reform does not count (i.e. stalks of grass amidst a meadow full of weeds). As I have said before, one either must increase taxes or cut spending in either social security, health care or defense. There is no way around these options unless one believes in the tooth fairy known as the Laffer curve whereby taxes are cut and magically more revenue appears. If the person is unwilling to define how they would address these options and you do not believe in tooth fairies then consider them BSers or merely a typical political flack.
How does Obama fair on these questions?
Re #1: He is clearing in the pro-stimulus camp using a hybrid, if you buy the need for stimulus all of this hyperventilation from these newly minted fiscal hawks (where were they prior to Obama's inauguration?) should be discounted.
Re#2: He has work to do but his restoration of the Clinton tax levels for the wealthy and the cap and trade policy would generate some revenue. He is making some baby steps on reforming the cost side of health care. He will spend less than a Republican would on defense (except massive hyperbole about throwing American security to the wolves/bears/dragons as soon as he announces some defense program cutbacks). He has yet to address social security. But given all of the fretting about him already biting more than he can chew I will be patient on the latter.
There is a consensus (except amongst certain Hooverite Republicans) amongst many Republicans and most Democrats that fiscal stimulus is necessary in order to mitigate the impact of the demand contraction. Certainly the Republicans favor tax cuts more than the stimulus spending favored by Democrats but neither side has sufficient theoretical standing to assert an all or nothing tax cut or spending approach. The opposing ideologues would push to go all one way or the other but the reality is a hybrid approach is likely the best approach.
In the long-run the U.S. needs to eventually bring its fiscal deficit back to balance no doubt. Timing is everything and the next two or three is not the time. But what happens afterward? Conservatives have a legitimate concern that government spending tends to be sticky once initiated. I would argue tax cuts are similarly sticky as evidenced by the shrieking emanating from conservatives as Obama seeks to restore the tax rates on the wealthy back to Clinton levels. And understand the Friedman philosophy about which many Republicans have an almost religious zeal states very clearly that in order to have the magical economic impacts attributed to tax cuts (e.g. Laffer curve drivel etc.) the tax cuts must be permanent in order to engender the proper incentives.
Putting stickiness aside, the baseline U.S. fiscal deficit is growing without any new spending on new wars, universal health care, green initiatives etc. So when I hear or see a politician pontificating on fiscal policy I would ask the following questions:
1) Do they believe some type of stimulus is needed? If not they are Hooverites, suspect either economic ignorance, political expediency or most likely both.
2) If they do support some stimulus, how do they propose to address the long-term fiscal challenges? Earmark reform does not count (i.e. stalks of grass amidst a meadow full of weeds). As I have said before, one either must increase taxes or cut spending in either social security, health care or defense. There is no way around these options unless one believes in the tooth fairy known as the Laffer curve whereby taxes are cut and magically more revenue appears. If the person is unwilling to define how they would address these options and you do not believe in tooth fairies then consider them BSers or merely a typical political flack.
How does Obama fair on these questions?
Re #1: He is clearing in the pro-stimulus camp using a hybrid, if you buy the need for stimulus all of this hyperventilation from these newly minted fiscal hawks (where were they prior to Obama's inauguration?) should be discounted.
Re#2: He has work to do but his restoration of the Clinton tax levels for the wealthy and the cap and trade policy would generate some revenue. He is making some baby steps on reforming the cost side of health care. He will spend less than a Republican would on defense (except massive hyperbole about throwing American security to the wolves/bears/dragons as soon as he announces some defense program cutbacks). He has yet to address social security. But given all of the fretting about him already biting more than he can chew I will be patient on the latter.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Scotland: The Next European Country
TW: I have argued for quite awhile that globalisation generally and European economic integration in particular would lead to increased regional nationalism. As European wide institutions are created such as the Euro, certain ties binding countries (e.g. common defense, economic synergies etc.) are being loosened. Those remaining cultural factors (i.e. language, religion and ethnicity) can rise to the fore.
Scotland is quietly (from an American viewpoint) but perhaps inexorably moving towards a fairly substantive independence. Will it happen who is to say? My guess is the greatest impediment will be other Europeans not wanting the Pandora's box of regionalism to be blown wide open. If it were to happen, a slew of Spaniards, Italians, Belgians and a dozen others might be right behind them.
From Greenway at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...After centuries of fighting the English to maintain independence, the two thrones were united when James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603, after Elizabeth died childless. In 1707, the two countries were joined under one parliament - the one in London. For the next 300 years, Scotland helped build the British empire, contributed more soldiers per capita to Britain's wars than any other region, invented more things, and had more than its share of prime ministers.
...Ten years ago, Scotland got its own parliament back, with limited powers. Defense and diplomacy are in London's hands. The Scottish National Party won the election of 2007 by a whisker. Some thought the Scottish Nationalists' minority government would fail, but it hasn't.
...[the Scottish first minister Salmond's]plan is to get a referendum on Scottish independence before the people sometime next year. Polls don't show a majority of Scots ready for independence yet
...Salmond's independent Scotland would keep the monarchy and the English language, although efforts are being made to keep Scottish Gaelic alive.
...The SNP's nationalism is based on citizenship, rather than on ethnicity, religion, or language, and is pro-immigration; quite different from many national movements"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/03/opinion/edgreenway.php
Scotland is quietly (from an American viewpoint) but perhaps inexorably moving towards a fairly substantive independence. Will it happen who is to say? My guess is the greatest impediment will be other Europeans not wanting the Pandora's box of regionalism to be blown wide open. If it were to happen, a slew of Spaniards, Italians, Belgians and a dozen others might be right behind them.
From Greenway at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...After centuries of fighting the English to maintain independence, the two thrones were united when James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603, after Elizabeth died childless. In 1707, the two countries were joined under one parliament - the one in London. For the next 300 years, Scotland helped build the British empire, contributed more soldiers per capita to Britain's wars than any other region, invented more things, and had more than its share of prime ministers.
...Ten years ago, Scotland got its own parliament back, with limited powers. Defense and diplomacy are in London's hands. The Scottish National Party won the election of 2007 by a whisker. Some thought the Scottish Nationalists' minority government would fail, but it hasn't.
...[the Scottish first minister Salmond's]plan is to get a referendum on Scottish independence before the people sometime next year. Polls don't show a majority of Scots ready for independence yet
...Salmond's independent Scotland would keep the monarchy and the English language, although efforts are being made to keep Scottish Gaelic alive.
...The SNP's nationalism is based on citizenship, rather than on ethnicity, religion, or language, and is pro-immigration; quite different from many national movements"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/03/opinion/edgreenway.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)