Posted on 06/10/2005 5:40:48 AM PDT by SJackson
The basic laws of economic gravity are so idiotically denied in Europe.
One of the more hilarious calls made during this week's Ba'ath Party convention in Damascus was to permit the restructuring of ailing state firms, but without firing anyone. Faced with such economic alchemy, one wonders where else in this day and age anyone in his right mind still thinks that basic laws of economic gravity could be so idiotically denied.
Well, such a place does exist, and it's called Europe.
The morning after the effective demise of the United States of Europe vision, it is clear that the project's collapse was largely caused by the Old Continent's growing misunderstanding of work and money. The French voters who torpedoed the proposed European constitution are believed to have expressed their fear for their 35-hour work week. The Dutch who opposed the scheme were often the very same voters whose aversion to low-paying work has brought into their midst the very foreign workers whose presence they increasingly resent. And the Italians who now miss the lira think their problems stem from the euro's ostensibly excessive strength.
Sadly, behind the rise and fall of the European constitution lurk not only political incompetence and historic tunnel vision, but also moral bankruptcy.
Politically, French President Jacques Chirac knows what everyone else knows, that there is a simple cause-and-effect relationship between his country's elaborate system of benefits and its ongoing failure to create jobs. Chirac also knows that his countrymen's addiction to mankind's longest summer vacation - six weeks! - is simply unaffordable in a globalizing world where millions join the workplace annually. He must have gotten word of what New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote this week, that the French had better understand that they are competing with workers as abundant, cheap and highly motivated as India's.
Yet Chirac's big chance to do what begs to be done came when he, as a newly elected president, made his one attempt at launching an ambitious economic reform, only to sheepishly retreat in the face of nationwide strikes. A decade later, despite extravagant election promises to create jobs, France's jobless rate remains in double-digit territory. Why? Because Chirac never confronted the people in disregard of what might happen to him personally. Instead of telling them, in their faces, just how grave their condition is and how he as their leader must lead them with no delay to the operating table, he allowed them to indulge in silly rhetoric about "Anglo-Saxon economics" and the "curse of globalization."
Having sensed his cowardice, the French suspected that the constitution he was promoting was effectively a nicer way of leading them to the same operating table they so much fear. A true leader would have told the unions - not now but already back in 1995 - that he had been elected and not them, and that he would do what he thinks is right, and that he does not care even if they paralyze all of France indefinitely.
And yet, all this political cowardice is dwarfed by the lack of historic intuition that the failed constitution represents.
BACK WHEN France, Germany, Italy and Benelux established what then was called the Common Market, in the mid-1950s, their ambitions were modest and their aims were noble. Initially, few spoke in revolutionary terms. What they had in mind was a framework that would allow yesteryear's sworn enemies to harmonize economically. Still, in hindsight, what was done then was visionary, since it truly transformed former enemies into allies.
Yet that was back when there still was an Eastern Bloc. Now history demanded of what by then had become the European Union a new vision for a new era. What the EU got instead was an old vision, based an old era, wrapped in a childish mixture of laziness and delusions.
First, Western Europe - by then counting 12 members - reflexively gazed where it had for the previous several decades: east. Haunted - with good reason - by its past failure to save Central Europe from Stalin's claws, Brussels focused on bringing under its wing formerly communist Europeans. Yet by the 1990s history demanded that Europe look not east, but south, to the Islamist challenge. Had it done so back then, and set in motion Turkey's accession while pushing to the back burner geopolitical sideshows like Slovenia and Slovakia, the new EU would have been as visionary as its founders. Such a move back then would have broken a path in harmonizing an ever-troubled North-South relationship and bridging a rapidly deepening abyss between Islam and the West. Instead, the EU remained shackled to a vanished era's goals, and deaf to a new one's imperatives.
The public, for its part, remained as unreconstructed as its leaders. If the leaders couldn't get the meaning of changing times, why should their voters? That is why it suddenly turned out that the same Europeans who will not part with their own unaffordable work benefits are the very ones who are still loath to welcome into their midst not only Muslim migrant workers, but even East European ones.
And why should they, if no one has been courageous enough to look them in the eye and tell them he knows better than they do what is good for them, that he is the doctor and they are the patients, and not the other way around? At a time when history demanded of Chirac to emerge as a De Gaulle, he wasn't even a Thatcher.
SURELY, IT would be futile to attribute the European Union's demise to one individual, even if he be the leader of the main country in the constitution saga.
By ceasing to reproduce, shunning hard work, indulging in luxuries and luring migrant workers only to consign them to the bottom of the social ladder, millions of people across the continent individually contributed to its degeneration. Just how they now think all this lethargy can produce a superpower that will rival America is difficult to understand. What's clear is that Europe, the very continent that gave rise to the Industrial Revolution and the Protestant work ethic, is gradually turning its back on basic work values while others, from Mexico to China, adopt them with enthusiasm.
Unless a new leadership emerges across Europe, one that will care less about rivaling America and more about restoring such basic values as working hard and raising children, future scholars will have to seek explanations for the Old Continent's decline. They may suggest that Europe emerged exhausted from its two world wars. They may argue that it could not cope with its loss of global prominence. They may suggest that it wasn't that Europe declined, but that other powers rose.
Some, at the same time, may also notice that the centuries in which Europe ruled the world were also the only time in history when most of the Jewish people lived there. They may also notice that Europe's decline began just after Europe killed most of its Jews. And they may also notice that the more Jew-less Europe declined, the more it indulged in bashing, and pandering to the enemies of, the Jewish state - a place where former Europeans still uphold the old-fashioned values of freedom, work and family, a place from which Europe's bankruptcy seems not only political, economic, and historic, but also moral.
This seems to be directly related to affluence. The US is also
losing it's work ethic. We are seeing the decay of western civilization.
Free Markets and respect for private property result in affluence -- Socialism results in decay.
Interesting Jewish comments in last few paragraphs.
I'll bite. Explain the decay in the US. We have everything and still we complain. Life is so hard!
Start by looking at the entitlement programs and the growth of the government, why should one work when one is entitled to food, clothing, a roof, and health care? The more the government is into redristubition of peoples earnings, the less there will be.
I keep hearing this, yet everyone I know, young and old alike, work very hard and take pride in the quality of their work. I have to believe that rather than losing our work ethic, the individuals in our society who have settled into a life of welfare and Medicaid never had a work ethic in the first place.
Which was exactly my point. Even the poor have everything they need.
I have seen a much different picture here in New Mexico but I agree there are many hard working people everywhere. It may be a cultural problem also.
Good article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Not quite everything ... they (I'm generalizing here) may have some material items, but the socialism seems to take away their spirit or "drive" to do better - this leads to the breakdowns we are seeing.
Every country that has welcomed Jews has thrived. Every country that has oppressed Jews has suffered. I can think of no exceptions.
I wasn't really addressing the root cause of the affluence whether it be a capitalist system or socialist, just that when a person has everything it seems to kill initiatve. After all
why try to improve yourself if you have all the things you need already. This condition can occur in both types of government. Fat and unhappy I call it. I'm my happiest when I have a tough battle to face and I work hard to solve it. Affluent societies diminish these challenges in my opinion.
Deadlines are great motivators. I would just caution on equating socialism as a creator of true affluence.
I don't see how anyone can argue with you there. However, affluence is an enabler, not a cause. On a smaller scale parents who spoil kids often get, well ... spoiled kids. Often they are content with their lives and as they grow into adults are reluctant to leave home as long as Mom and Dad pay their way and allow them to do as they please, even have lovers live with them at times. Yet, we know that the majority of affluent parents and their kids aren't like that so the reason must be deeper than just opportunity.
Everything, personally, socially, and politically, comes down to values and self-worth. If the highest value is comfort and security, both personally and emotionally, then the stay at home child and the welfare queen are the result. If the highest priority is personal achievement, free enterprise and a society of doers is the outcome. Then comfort and security follow naturally rather than artificially.
The priorities are usually set when the one being influenced is dependent. A child is dependent on his parents for survival, physically and emotionally, so the parent sets the priorities. How strong the parent is as an individual and a leader, both in personal values and feelings of self-worth, affects the longterm results.
That analogy is easily transferred to the societal and political realms (if society and politics can even be separated). The left courts dependent classes and strives to keep them that way so they can instill leftists values in them while dimishing their feelings of self-worth. This helps keep them dependent and feeling worthless while automatically enhancing the worth of the elite who feed them and control them.
Those favoring democracy, our kind of democracy, and free enterprise want and need intelligent and motivated citizens and workers.
Today, we can easily see that playing out. In America, the left has made great headway. In Europe it has won.
And that is where we are today, class.
Yes, I would agree totally.
I enjoyed the lecture prof!! And really I agree with most of what you said, but whenevern there is a problem situation one must look at root causes as well as secondary issues.The problem it seems rears it's head when things are too easy. In this case if affluence itself is not the problem then the system as you say acts as an enabler.It enables people to do great things but it also enables them to do little and still do well. Given human nature, I'm sure you know what path most would pick. This can be a very positve force
but for many people it simply lets them slide along. I have said for many years that one of the great problems we have
is that we are victims of our profound success. And success in many cases is just as hard to cope with as failure.We are still animals at heart and we need serious challenges and perhaps even hardship to be mentally balanced. This is what modern living has removed from our lives. I agree with you about values and self worth completely. As a 52 year old father of 3 year old twins I hope to instill these values in them and I will intentionally not shower them with lots of gifts. I will however give them what they need most, my time and hopefully some wisdom I have picked up along the way. I will be tough on them by contemporary standards but I believe in the long run they will benefit. Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of our democracy but I see signs of a sick society and something fundamental has changed in the last 50 years. That change is affluence. I also blame television for many problems but that is an entirely different subject(don't get me started) Thanks for your thoughtful post.
The Bible says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why? Choices. The more money we have the more choices we have. The more choices we have the freer we are, free enough to destroy ourselves.
IMO, the original sin was self-awareness and the corresponding desire for self-gratification brought about by Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The five senses, biological urges, and self-importance (ego) overwhelmed our spiritual natures.
That seems to fit well within your thoughts and your plans for your twins. However, I will offer these thoughts: You have a limited time before peer pressure and other authority figures equal your own influence with your children. With this in mind you must instill a sense of values, not just a litany of dos and don'ts while they are still yours alone. They must know of the choices they are going to face and why one way is better than the other, and why that choice is the one that will bring them the most happiness and satisfaction. Just say no must be accompanied with why, and that can't be, " Just because I said so."
When they are on there own, not necessarily for good but temporarily away from your immediate control and out with their friends, they will have to make choices that reflect their value system and their feelings of self-worth. At those times it is best if the values you have helped instill are positive values rather than negative ones, ones that make them say," this is what I want to do", rather than, "I would like to do that but I had better not or I will get in trouble." Each will have the same result but the positive way helps reinforce strength and self-worth, the idea of "that is a positive thing I did and I did it firmly because I wanted to", rather than "it was a good thing I did, avoiding that negative, but it sure would have been nice if I could have done it". It is just a different attitude toward life, IMHO.
Also keep in mind, for yourself and as you observe and guide your kids, the old 80-20 rule and the Bell curve will always be there, indifferently mirroring life. And, don't expect yourself to be perfect, you won't be.
Sorry for being long winded again.
Great advice and I appreciate it. There are many challenges ahead and I'll do my best. I'll set the example and hope they follow. A lot of carrot and a measured amount of stick when it really matters. I'll pick my battles carefully.Thanks again,
refermech
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.