Posted on 07/18/2007 3:09:29 PM PDT by WesternCulture
AS EVERY actor knows, it is easy to be typecast. The role assigned to Europe for the past decade has been that of sclerotic under-achiever: a slow-growing, work-shy and ageing continent that is destined to be left behind by the United States, China and India. Unnoticed by the audience, Europe, under new political leadership first in Germany and Italy and now in France and Britain, has changed the plot. Since the end of 2006 euro-area GDP has outpaced America's: in 2007, it should grow by 2.7%, ahead of both America and Japan. The euro is at new highs against the dollar and the yen. Unemployment has fallen to 7%, the lowest since the euro started life in 1999.
The transformation has been most remarkable in Germany, the biggest European economy, once tarred as “the sick man of Europe”. From 1995 to 2005 German GDP grew at an average of only 1.4% a year. But in the first quarter of 2007 it expanded more than twice as fast, despite a large rise in value-added tax. The 2004 reforms in labour markets and welfare made by the previous government under Gerhard Schröder are bearing fruit. On international definitions, unemployment is down to 6.4%, not much above the level in Britain. German business is doing spectacularly well: the country is again the world's biggest exporter, profits are at a record, competitiveness has improved sharply (see article).
Where Germany leads, the rest of Europe follows. In truth the picture of an entire continent in a slump was always distorted. Several countries in Europe have been doing well for some years. Britain and Spain have grown consistently. Ireland has produced the nearest thing to an economic miracle outside Asia; smaller east European economies are seeking to emulate it. Scandinavia boasts three countries that top most league tables for competitiveness. The truly troubled economies of Europe were always the core euro-area ones: Germany, France and Italy. Now that Germany has picked up speed, the other two are improving too. The new French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is promising to boost growth. Some Europeans may be tempted to conclude that their economic problems are behind them, their structural faults have been put right—and there is no need for more painful reforms.
THE TURN OF THE CYCLE
Such a conclusion would be wrong on pretty much every count. Yes, there have been structural improvements in the core euro area, especially Germany. But much of the recovery is really cyclical. When the global economy is registering a fourth successive year of near-5% growth, it would be surprising if the world's biggest exporter did not benefit; indeed, growth of 3% seems rather modest. Moreover, much of Germany's renewed vigour reflects stringent control of real wages, which has secured a fall in unit labour costs when they have been rising elsewhere. Yet merely squeezing pay to gain competitiveness is not a long-term solution.
The gain also comes at the expense of other euro-area countries, such as France, Italy and Spain. This creates tensions of its own, much on display this week when the hyperactive Mr Sarkozy dropped in to a meeting of euro-area finance ministers in Brussels. He announced that France might again flout the euro-area stability pact's restrictions on budget deficits, and repeated his previous complaints about the strength of the euro and the tight monetary policy of the European Central Bank. He ran into a stony hostility, notably from the Dutch but also from the Germans (see article). The French president has similarly been to the fore in attacking European Union competition rules and talking up the causes of industrial policy and economic patriotism.
A MYTH, Mr SARKOZY, AND YOU KNOW IT
The charitable explanation for this nonsense is that laying into Brussels is a way of diverting French voters from the genuine (and long overdue) reforms Mr Sarkozy is planning for the labour market, welfare and taxation. But his agenda seems also to be driven by a common belief in France (and in other parts of Europe) that the euro's macroeconomic management and the obsession in Brussels with pursuing pro-competitive reforms are to blame for the region's economic ills.
This is to get things entirely backwards. As is obvious from the divergent performance of individual countries, the euro area's troubles are not macroeconomic in nature. Rather they are microeconomic, reflecting the failure of several countries to reform rigid labour markets and overly regulated product markets. These countries have been suffering not from too much competition, but from too little: for too long, too many of their workers and producers have been sheltered from competition, fostering high costs and inefficiency.
Nor will partial reforms of the kind so far carried out be sufficient. This can best be seen in the labour market in Germany, which (like Italy's) has been only partly freed up. The result has been not just a welcome explosion of temporary and part-time jobs, but, more insidiously, the entrenchment of a two-tier labour market. Insiders have permanent, protected contracts; outsiders have short-term, unprotected ones. This will fuel resentment among outsiders (often the young or immigrants). It also threatens to introduce new rigidities into the wage-bargaining process, because insiders may feel sufficiently insulated to demand higher pay in the knowledge that any resultant job losses will fall on outsiders.
The unpalatable truth remains that Europe's economies need substantial further reform if they are to prosper in an ever more competitive, globalised environment. And the recent upturn may make it harder for political leaders to get their voters to understand this.
European countries that have introduced radical reforms have usually done so in times of serious economic crisis: Britain in 1979, the Netherlands in 1982, Ireland in 1987, Denmark, Finland and Sweden in the early 1990s. Yet as all these countries found, it is easier to change when times are good, not when they are bad. That is a lesson that Germans, French, Italians and other Europeans should ponder as they bask in today's sunshine.
I would be most pleased to see our European cousins embrace western culture and apply it across the continent, especially the beserkers against the muslim terrorist interlopers.
- I agree, to some extent. But it’s not quite as simple as that.
Today, two economically healthy parts of Europe are the Britain + Ireland and Scandinavia (including Finland), especially the latter.
Since the early 1990s, GDP growth levels of the Scandinavian countries have been extremely healthy. Recently (May 2006), the GDP grew (on annual basis) by almost 7% in Finland, my neighbor country (I live in Sweden).
In Sweden, we’ve been talking of a ‘feast of consumption’ for something like 13-14 years. Last year, real (as opposed to nominal) wages increased by a staggering 7%. 15 years ago, people drove around in wrecks, today a car like a big Mercedes or a Volvo XC90 SUV are ‘average cars’.
In terms of nominal GDP/capita, Scandinavia is today THE richest part of the world.
The strange thing about this is that, at least on the surface, Scandinavia is also - still - the most ‘Socialist’ part of Europe.
I’m definitely not a Socialist. Sooner, I’m a Conservative who believes high taxes and generous amounts of public services doesn’t necessarily have to counteract economic growth, Capitalism and what I view as the core values of Conservatism.
What the Scandinavian countries have done since around 1990 is to make three specific economical goals top priority;
- Reducing national debt
- Creating a healthy business climate
- Achieving economic growth while MAINTAINING the welfare society
The third priority is what I feel separates the ‘Thatcher Model’ from the ‘New Scandinavian Model’, but there are also many similarities.
The Scandinavian countries have maintained high levels of taxation, while Britain has lowered them. On the other hand, because of the comparatively good economic performance of The UK since the end of the 1980s, the quality of things like health care and public run schools have improved in The UK.
In my opinion, the Scandinavian countries have a different traditional culture compared to another rich place on earth like the US and therefore, ideas concerning economic policy as well as economical structures themselves are indeed different. We nurture an egalitarian culture, while US Americans tend to put the ideal of freedom above everything else. BUT, an important similarity is that we both believe in hard work, law and order and national progress through Capitalism, technology, science, entrepreneurship and investments.
To me, Conservatism is about preserving ‘institutions’ in any given society that have proved to be of great national value. Sometimes, change will be needed and sometimes the health of one institution will be in conflict with the survival of another (like the position of the nobility versus the institution of democratic influence).
Scandinavia, The UK and The US will all enjoy a prosperous future if their populations remain intelligent enough to preserve the great, although different, cultural traits that have made these nations successful in terms of economy and international competition.
Instead of using a Thacherist ‘blueprint’, each European nation must rediscover it’s true national identity and make the reforms needed to restore it.
Europe will not slumber forever.
It all depends on leadership.
Do you have a self imposter like Sarkozy on the weel or the polish twins or are there visionary workers in place that know what their people can and what they cannot achieve.
Europe needs more responsible leadship like I’d dare to say is practiced now in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finnland.
Thatcher wrecked the car she was driving and let people experience how it feels if their jobs go down the river. Then certainly people had to get out of their hammocks.
Denmark just took away the ‘protection of employment’ now every boss has the right to fire immediatly - and the state will pay the wages for 3 month. Result - unemployment dropped by 50% the state safed a lot of money.
If it’s unsocial it’s not inherent economicaly wise - allthough everyone wants to kick a unionist sometimes.
Lastly the most important point is about brain power. Imagine two workforces .. one extremely intelligent and technically well educated. Say a masters in engineering degree person. The other a bunch of morons who can barely pass high school. No matter how much liberty the morons have and how low the taxes, try as they might they can’t engineer a ship. Building thingis in today’s world is more about brain power then throwing hundreds of laborers on a job.
Norway’s shipping wages I bet are twice ours, yet our shipyards are shutting down, while they are building great huge ships, like cruise ships.
Also long term vision, if a company invests in its workers skill and its capital year after year it can get ahead in technology. On the other hand if we ruthlessly cut costs and try to pump up the stock price and flip the company.. not so much.
Luckily America isn’t 10 morons and Europe 1 engineer.. but we are definately falling behind them by far in technical education. I think we graduated 60,000 engineers last year, versus 220,000 for Europe.
The cost safers have cost us quite a lot in germany - ignacio lopez was a sheer nightmare.
As the duch say - you safe money and you buy trouble.
Rummenigge and ran20, Thank you for your interesting posts!
I’ll try and deal with them both in one single reply.
(Rummenigge wrote) “..a self imposter like Sarkozy..”
- A typically German opinion (no offense)!
‘Sarko’ probably isn’t able of running a country like Germany, but perhaps he’s able of leading France?
Give him a chance (like the French have decided to do).
I can easily understand if someone, especially someone from a country like Germany, Sweden (my country) or Finland, views Sarkozy like an irresponsible, self deceiving attention seeker. In OUR cultures we don’t seek charisma in a leader, we desire a competent administrator with, not only a sound, but an infallible sense of judgement.
In many areas, the French and also the Americans are more of individualists (which is neither better or worse than being collectivists). If a leader wants people from these cultures to perform well, the first thing he has got to do is to ‘make a great impression’ on the personal level.
The French badly need to wake up and realize they have chosen the wrong path, namely the ‘Maximum social security and six hour work day’-one and this is something I would say Sarkozy HAS understood. However, in order to bring about major changes, I think he also understands that he has got to gain the confidence of the ordinary people of France first.
Let Merkel (whom I also have faith in) take care of Germany and Sarkozy of France and Europe might just prosper again. Already, GDP growth is on the right track. Let’s hope the biggest economy on earth, the EU, actually is gearing up for steady growth.
(ran20 wrote:) “No matter how much liberty the morons have and how low the taxes, try as they might they can’t engineer a ship. Building thingis in today’s world is more about brain power then throwing hundreds of laborers on a job.”
This is true. Brain power is extremely important in most fields of human competition. Although it often has proved beneficial to the economy of a nation, cutting taxes, at least today, isn’t enough to gain true national competitiveness.
If national success in the area of economic competition simply depended on a recipe like constantly cutting taxes , my country, Sweden, would have been the slowest growing economy on earth during the last 150 years.
But does reality look anything like this?
Not exactly. During 1870-1970, Sweden was THE fastest growing economy on earth. Then, we went through a period of very slow GDP growth for about 22 years (1984 was actually a good year though...), but since the early 1990s, Sweden has belonged fastest growing economies of the industrialized world - despite having the highest taxes in Europe and among the highest taxes in the world if not the highest ones.
Cutting taxes is sometimes the right thing to do, but it isn’t always.
So, should The US become like Sweden?
No way!
Low taxes and the idea of ‘small government’ is a basic trait of the political tradition of The US. It is a part of American culture. Cultures do not change easily and in general, there is no reason why they should.
Obviously, both The US and Scandinavia are very rich parts of the world, so both concepts seem to work well.
Above all, let’s remember Conservatism doesn’t necessarily imply eagerness of making tax cuts.
(Rummenigge wrote:) “Thatcher wrecked the car she was driving and let people experience how it feels if their jobs go down the river. Then certainly people had to get out of their hammocks.”
(ran20) “Norway’s shipping wages I bet are twice ours, yet our shipyards are shutting down, while they are building great huge ships, like cruise ships.”
- Concerning Norway, The UK, Thatcherism, cars and ships;
One great aspect of the Thatcherist revolution, of which the rule of Blair was very much of a prolongation, has been the wrecking of industries that had nothing more to give, especially the British coal mining industry. However, somehow an industry that didn’t need to be scrapped, namely the British automotive industry, also was gotten rid of. I don’t know if the unions, the managements or the different British governments are to blame, but it sure is a tragedy.
In my country, we still know how to build cars (however, since some years, SAAB Automobiles is owned by GM and Volvo Cars is owned by Ford), but just like most of the British car industry today is dead, Sweden no longer builds large amounts of ships.
Norway on the other hand, is immensely succesful in this area, like ran20 pointed out above and yes, wages are probably twice as high in this field compared to The US. In general, Norwegian wages (measured in US dollars) are nearly twice as high as those of American workers. Even though this doesn’t mean the Norwegian standard of living is “twice as high” as its American counterpart, it illustrates the fact that high wages, as such doesn’t always constitute a threat to the competetiveness of a nation
Two questions in relation to this:
1. Why have the German and Swedish car industries (and even the French one) been succesful, at large, while the British car industry has collapsed?
I believe the explanation to this development is a very complex one, but a basic problem was that the British failed to realize HOW fierce the international competetion was actually becoming. The British are far from stupid and they also possess great fighting spirit, but I feel they too often adopt the ‘Island perspective’. The automotive business of today is one - and there’s no running away from this fact.
2. Why can Swedes build cars but not ships while Norwegians can build ships but not cars?
Again, the reality behind this aspect of today’s industrial life is intricate, but the reason a large part of the once famous Swedish shipbuilding business failed to survive was the lack of a clear view of reality. Most people involved in this branch of Swedish industry failed to fully realize the shift in demand from smaller cargo ships to supertankers. The shipyards of Sweden simply weren’t large enough to produce supertankers, but IF we had NOT been too scared of facing reality, we could have constructed shipyards large enough in time.
One reason Volvo and SAAB are viewed as attractive cars today is the hard work that these companies have realized was needed NOT to go under. In its turn, one major reason to this insight is that in connection to the closing down of the Swedish shipyards around 1980 as well as the economic crises of the early 1990s, Swedes have begun to realize we are not invincible in the territory of global competition. Ford and GM have of course meant a lot too, but the products were of a high quality before their involvement as were the levels of know how.
The prime reason Norway hasn’t developed a car industry is probably that their home market is too small, even if there are other reasons too.
While we Swedes failed to understand in what direction the shipbuilding business was developing, the Norwegians have been much more aware. I believe this superior understanding is due to the fact they for a long time have been more of a seafaring nation than most other ones. The shipping business in general has been of major importance to the Norwegians for hundreds of years. Norwegians have a stronger tradition of being ship OWNERS than the Swedes and in part because of this, they had a clear idea of what actually was going on in the shipBUILDING trade, which we did not.
(ran20 wrote:) “Luckily America isn’t 10 morons and Europe 1 engineer.. but we are definately falling behind them by far in technical education. I think we graduated 60,000 engineers last year, versus 220,000 for Europe.”
- If this is true it’s really shocking!
However, if we have a look at science and engineering graduates (not engineers only), the picture is still alarming, although it seems to be a little bit brighter from an American perspective:
“In 2000, Asian universities produced 1.2 million science and engineering graduates. European universities produced 850,000. The United States produced 500,000.”
(source:
http://www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/Presidency/W06_Kirwan.htm )
So, what is my final conclusion about what really matters in the world of global competition of today?
- Education is of vital importance. But there is also a need for a realistic approach to reality
Look at the example above; the people of the Swedish shipbuilding industry had the technical skills needed to stay in the business and they also saw how the market was developing, yet they failed to understand the causes to it as well as the consequences, therefore they failed to response in a proper way.
After years of unparalleled economic achivements, Swedes felt too secure. It cost us our shipbuilding industry and it nearly cost us our automotive industry. We had to get rid off the notion of Swedish prosperity being something given by nature and we successfully did.
It’s a good thing to know how vulnerable you are.
As a European, I wish all of Europe wakes up and dares to face the fact that we are not making full use of our gargantuan production capacity.
It’s not only a matter of material wealth per se. Unemployment and economic stagnation mean HUMAN SUFFERING.
It’s not only a matter of material wealth per se. Unemployment and economic stagnation mean HUMAN SUFFERING.
How very true. If we keep on acting like earning money was immoral - gene products were from hell and nuclear force was to dangerous to handle we just might not have what it takes to feet a world of nine billion.
As to sarko - I am far from prescribing the frenchies a president after all they had not much choice ;-)
But this guy is not the bees knees I want to see - he just promised ghadaffi a nuclear reactor - ok it was me who said we should loosen up a bit on technology but not that way.
Apart from that we just had a charismatic leader - and I was not overly impressed - you think that’s because I am german ?
- Exactly.
Many people of today view technology, corporations and money as something evil and threatening while they really are not. It is this attitude that is evil and threatening.
“But this guy is not the bees knees I want to see - he just promised ghadaffi a nuclear reactor - ok it was me who said we should loosen up a bit on technology but not that way.”
I agree.
I don’t feel safe with Libya disposing of nuclear energy.
Gadaffi isn’t the worst problem in this context, the problem is that we don’t know in what direction Libya will develop after Gadaffi.
Furthermore, to be perfectly honest, neither do I feel safe with Pakistan having a nuclear BOMB.
“Apart from that we just had a charismatic leader - and I was not overly impressed.”
I guess few Germans were impressed with Schröder in the end. In one way, it’s strange that he was re-elected in 2002.
I’m glad things are developing in the right direction in the biggest EU member. Today, I’m feeling optimistic about Germany.
“..you think that’s because I am german?”
- What I wrote about typically German opinions was said ‘tongue in cheek’. Naturally, things are not as simple as that and I believe you have good reasons for not trusting Sarkozy.
However, my impression IS that charisma matters less in Germany, Sweden and certain other countries than they do in France.
We are more focused on concrete results than things like personality (I’m not saying the French do NOT care about results though).
In my country, Sweden, a person doesn’t even have to be a competent speaker and be good with media to make a successful political career. Maybe you could say Palme was charismatic (whatever one thinks of him), but most Swedish PMs have been rather dull.
From what I’ve understood, Germans are more or less the same as we Swedes are in this sense. Even though many Germans are charismatic, open, friendly and cheerful, my impression is that these personal qualities are not as important for success in our countries as they are in a country like France or the US. In Germany, it is more important to be really make an impression of being solid, sincere and trustworthy just like it is in Sweden (it’s important in all countries, but MORE important in some).
I’d say Schröder managed to make this impression for a long time AS WELL as he was rather charismatic - there is no necessary conflict between being charismatic and trustworthy.
I guess my views about different cultures and nations are very easy to prove erroneous if one wishes to do so. Comparing cultures is difficult, but there’s nothing wrong with this as long as it’s done in a respectful manner.
Anyhow,
Grüsse aus Göteborg, Schweden!
Hälsningar till Göteborg från Aachen den gammala staden av Carolus Magnus - ledare av det första européväldet.
:)
Thanks for your interesting reply! That is interesting about Norway’s shipping industry betting right, as they are ship operators too. It reminded me of Boeing’s contrarian bet that has been paying off in the billions. Well Boeing isn’t an operator, but to show how bets on which direction to do the mass research can affect an entire country’s industry!
One thing I will say is with the right education even when an industry goes downhill.. the engineers for example can quickly take maybe 6 months to 1 year more courses and enter a new discpline. Those Swedish engineers involved in ship building, didn’t just get laid off or go into restaraunt jobs. They will have gone into other tech fields.
Your numbers on engineers + scientists give a much better overall picture. I chose engineers because they are the worst problem for us in relation to the other advanced nations. In other areas, for example human biology America is the undisputed world leader. Even on eof the major Euro pharma companies moved its world headquarters to Massachutes! Our other great strength here is software. We are also the strongest player in the world in software, backed up by countless brilliant programmers.
Still 850,000 S&E graduates versus 500,000 is quite a large gap. And if you look at the performance in highschool students I would say the trend is moving still further in Europes favor.
For the UK the loss of shipbuilding bothers me. As my family heritage is Scottish and Scotland at one time produced 15% of global ships! Finance is now a great industry there, but the problem I see in finance is a few people get very rich but it isn’t as good at producing national wealth. Ok there are countract lawyers, accountants and so on, If you are one of those guys who made 2 million pounds in one year great! But what about thousands of engineers, tens of thousands of skilled tradesman each making a high middle class income.
Btw I forgot to add you have a very mature way of looking at politics. I realized the same thing as you after maybe 7 years thinking and reading about it. There doesn’t have to be one ‘perfect’ system.. its usually crazy utopians who want that.
Instead each nation can have a system that makes sense for them. For their history, for their culture, for where they want to go as a nation. For example America ‘the land of opportunity’ should always strive for low taxes and regulations imo. Sweden is always known for fairness, generous worker benefits, quirky technology. Swedes don’t want desperately poor Swedes in their nation.
Thats two bad weaknesses of Europe right now, nuclear and gmo foods. In GMO foods they risk having America lock up many of the patents early.. then those american companies dominating globally because of higher yield, more cost effectiveness etc..
In nuclear well the only way to have clean, and reliably cheap energy is nuclear. And Europe’s plan of high electrical costs is stupid. Puts industry at a big disadvantage.. But I have a solution for them. France can build plant after plant in France.. and export the power west to England, East to Germany, South to spain and Italy. They can pay france for the electricity at the border and pretend they don’t know where it comes from:).
The French could mainly retire and live off their fat energy money.
“Hälsningar till Göteborg från Aachen den gammala staden av Carolus Magnus - ledare av det första européväldet.
:)”
- That was perfect Swedish. I’m impressed!
Unfortunately, I haven’t visited Aachen yet, but I know it’s famous for many things, like the beautiful cathedral.
Have a nice weekend!/Schönes Wochenende!
“It reminded me of Boeing’s contrarian bet that has been paying off in the billions. Well Boeing isn’t an operator, but to show how bets on which direction to do the mass research can affect an entire country’s industry!”
- Boeing seems to be a very well run company. Globally speaking, I’d say it’s one of the most well reputed of all American companies (and even among corporations of all nations).
“One thing I will say is with the right education even when an industry goes downhill.. the engineers for example can quickly take maybe 6 months to 1 year more courses and enter a new discpline.”
- To a large extent, I believe this is true. An engineer that has worked with, say, electronic systems of trains could probably learn rather quickly about something like advanced car electronics. However, in some fields of technology, the development is so rapid that a great deal of what engineers were taught at universities is totally obsolete within 10-15 years from their graduation and many engineers fail to keep up with the pace. I often hear this from people involved in the IT business here in Sweden. Guess it’s the same in the US.
“Your numbers on engineers + scientists give a much better overall picture. I chose engineers because they are the worst problem for us in relation to the other advanced nations. In other areas, for example human biology America is the undisputed world leader.”
- The US is the world’s leading nation in the area of scientific and academic research in general. Just look at how The US has performed in the area of Nobel laureates;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country
But the numbers on engineers as such you presented above sure are alarming.
“Still 850,000 S&E graduates versus 500,000 is quite a large gap. And if you look at the performance in highschool students I would say the trend is moving still further in Europes favor.”
- On the other hand, The EU has a larger population.
“And if you look at the performance in highschool students I would say the trend is moving still further in Europes favor.”
- Most evaluations seem to indicate this, yes. It’s a good thing that many Americans are concerned over this development. But what is being done about it?
Many American presidents have announced that education is a primary field of their political engagement, but my impression is that little has been accomplished. Hope I’m wrong.
“Finance is now a great industry there, but the problem I see in finance is a few people get very rich but it isn’t as good at producing national wealth.”
- This is of course correct. In certain parts of the world, like inner London and Manhattan, a large portion of the population can live from the financial service sector, but then we’re talking the two major financial centres on earth.
Scotland has a long and proud tradition of engineering and industrial production. As far as I know, Scotland still is in possession of such an national advantage and if the European economy continues to grow at a decent pace, general demand will increase and therefore the general EU production capacity will have to expand. This means new factories being built and Scotland should be able to attracting quite a few such investments. It has a well educated population (and an english speaking one it is as well, which is important in ‘today’s globalized world’) a strong tradition of hard work, it has an excellent infrastructure and the home market of The UK is one of the biggest ones in the EU.
“I liked Schroeder overall the little bit I read of him in the international news.”
- I guess he did achieve some good things, but he didn’t manage to get Germany’s economy going. He’s not the only one to blame, but it’s fair to say no single individual had a greater responsibility in this domain than he did.
“Instead each nation can have a system that makes sense for them. For their history, for their culture, for where they want to go as a nation. For example America ‘the land of opportunity’ should always strive for low taxes and regulations imo. Sweden is always known for fairness, generous worker benefits, quirky technology. Swedes don’t want desperately poor Swedes in their nation.”
- We seem to view things in the same way.
As long as the majority of the US Americans who bother to vote agree that the idea of ‘small government’, low taxes and (individual) competition in all areas of life is what they desire and this concept, furthermore, has proved successful beyond belief for centuries, who has the right to criticise you for preserving your culture?
The same goes for the basic ideas in the field of economy, government and taxation of the Scandinavian countries. It has been working well for a long time, it promotes Capitalism and a steady increase in prosperity, so perhaps egalitarianism works at least in Scandinavia? (But I admit some aspects of it can be destructive to businesses, that’s what happened in the era of 1970-1980 in Sweden when the unions were immensely strong in the area of national influence but extremely WEAK in the field if national responsibility).
Most Scandinavians are not Socialists, but compared to the US it’s not exactly wrong to say we are MORE of Socialists. However, I’d prefer to speak about ‘collectivistic’ and ‘individualistic’ national cultures. Japan is a good example of a very collectivistic, yet very Capitalistic country which also happens to have a tradition of low taxes.
To me, Conservatism is primarily about preserving societal institutions that have proven to be beneficial, like the nuclear family or Capitalism, not so much reducing taxation levels at any cost (while I do think they could be lowered in Sweden of today). However, in the US, ‘small government’ is a vital part, an institution, of your basic political culture that has worked very well, it simply responds well to what Americans happen to desire in life.
I believe there are many roads that can lead to national progress, individual happiness and a successful business climate. If you have a look at the world’s, say, 20 richest countries, you’ll find out they got where the are today in 20 different ways.
But once having aquired prosperity holds no guarantee for future wealth. This is the lesson I think Sweden has learnt and large European countries like France, Germany and Italy are beginning to learn.
Let’s hope for the best in the case of both Europe and America.
Best of regards!
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.