Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

This week I listened to a live C-SPAN interview with Mark Steyn. While he's full of great conservative anecdotes, his prediction of collapse for Canada and Old Europe doesn't jive with their strong, albeit welfare-saddled, economies.

Posted by John Kavanagh at February 27, 2005 08:15 AM

Just what is it that's "strong" about either of those ecomomies? Germany is at its highest unemployment rate in decades.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 27, 2005 08:31 AM

Rand, You hit the nail on the head and don't forget who "Old Europe" always blamed for their economic woes and add radical Islam on top of that. If I were a Jew in France, I'd think about emigrating for my family's sake. The fascists in Germany are making noise now, just think what may happen if and when the economic situation gets worse. Some may say it can't happen. Of couse they should be saying it can't happen again.

Posted by Bill Maron at February 27, 2005 08:53 AM

I think when "it" does happen there will be some cheering in the US: because when "it" will happen it won't be targeted at the Jews but at the islam. If extremist parties in Europe talk about foreigners, they are not talking about the Jews.
I also don't see what good it would do for the US to speed up the collapse of the "Old Europe". Because when it does collapse there will emerge some regimes which won't be very democratic. And as Bush says: a democratic world is a safe world for the US.

Posted by Problem at February 27, 2005 02:59 PM

You can deride the EU all you want. As for the unemployment rate, it is all a matter of lying with statistics. Add the prison populations to the list, and you will see who comes out on top with unemployment. We give the underpriviledged money for basic food, clothing and housing. You put them in jail, and have to pay for their food, clothing and housing just the same. The metric for the number of unemployed should simply be adult population which is fit for work minus working population.

Regarding blame for economic woes, the talk I hear from current EU leaders mentions the negative birth rates and insuficient R&D investment as the problem. Not the USA.

Regarding increasing unemployment rate, the root of the problem is the same everywhere. Globalization is increasing the pressure on several sectors which have not recovered yet. The end of the tunnel isn't visible. The transition to a global economy is being handled poorly. The USA has applied safeguard clauses to their economy which the EU has not. Now you tell me who is following statist policies, and which are better. :-)

Posted by Gojira at February 27, 2005 03:09 PM

Rand: Western Europe, while not as free a market as the United States, is still one of the three pillars of the global economy. If these economies are so dismal than why are they attracting tens of millions of job seekers from the new EU members in eastern Europe?

Leftist policies on the Continent that prevent corporate restructuring and incentivize joblessness are closer to being dismantled today than at any time in the last half century. Foolish politicians could still choke their economies by preventing adequate immigrant flows to replace moribund domestic birth rates. But the new EU members are already showing a positive example with flat tax rates and business friendly policies.

A midcourse correction is still possible for western Europe's economic policies to avoid Mark Steyn's doomsday collapse.

Posted by John Kavanagh at February 27, 2005 05:37 PM

So tell me, Gojira, are you suggesting we throw our "underprivileged" in jail for no good reason, or are you suggesting your "underprivileged" are un-punished criminals?

If are smart enough to realize the question is a false dilemma, you should be able to figure out that the two situations are not directly comparable.

Posted by Rick C at February 27, 2005 05:42 PM

I think that we shouldn't confuse Europe with the EU. I think the CIA is probably on the money about the end of the EU because it'll take some time for the train wreck to finish. And perhaps Europe will end up with a new better EU 2.0? But Mark Steyn needs some lessons on demographics. He says:

For what it's worth, I incline to the latter position. Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature.

According to the CIA, the US has double the immigration rate of the EU. So is the US not absorbing a immigration load that dwarfs that of the EU? Maybe so. But it does weaken Steyn's argument when he fails to mention the US here.

Rick, I tend to agree with Gojira on the issue of US prisons. There's too many people in prison for drug crimes. It appears that people solely convicted of drug offenses constitute no more than 20% of the people in US prisons (of 2.08 million people in US prisons at the end of 2003).

Meanwhile, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are roughly 140 million employed as of January. So just the portion that has been jailed for drug offences would make roughly 0.3% of the total working force and total in prison would make roughly 1.5%. In comparison, the national unemployment rate was 5.2%. It should be disturbing that prisons contain roughly a quarter as many people as are technically unemployed in the US.

So given that the US doesn't have notably better crime statistics than Europe and that so many people are jailed for drug offenses, I'd have to say that probably a significant portion of US citizens are jailed for no good reason. Further, it's pretty well known that a lot of crime is associated with drug users attempting to get funds for buying drugs.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 27, 2005 07:28 PM

"(of 2.08 million people in US prisons at the end of 2003)."

The 2.08 million people in US Prisons constitutes 0.7% of the US population (295,500,000). Thus the Metric that Gojira wants is only modified by this miniscule margin, placing the Gojirized US unemployment (~5.2 + 0.7 = 5.9%) at a third less than the current non-Gojirized EU unemployment (~8.9%).

Geez, if you're going to make up new statistics and metrics, at least construct them so that they support your argument.

"Add the prison populations to the list, and you will see who comes out on top with unemployment."

indeed.

-S

Posted by Stephen Kohls at February 27, 2005 08:45 PM

Kohls: Nice debunk of Gojir's prison argument.

Posted by John Kavanagh at February 27, 2005 09:06 PM

Stephen Kohls: Got links to the stats?

Posted by Gojira at February 27, 2005 09:12 PM

Drug crime prisoners also incur costs for the guards and prisons. If we reduced the prison population by 15% (suppose that 25% of drug criminals should stay in jail) we could reduce the tax burden needed for corrections by 15%, a terrific savings for states and local governments.

Okay, 5.2 becomes 5.9

How large is our military compared with Europe? It appears the US has perhaps 1 million more men and women in uniform than the Europeans.

Okay, does that mean 5.9 becomes 6.6 or 6.7?

In addition such folks drain the Treasury more than minimal welfare benefits would drain the Treasury and do not add to GDP. Given our much higher military spending, we NEED more economic productivity just to stay even. (However necessary the military may be otherwise.)

We believe Iraq regime change was necessary. Europe did not. Regardless of who is "correct" on that the Iraq war (and the world's largest military) is a drain on our economy that requires a larger economy just to stay even.

Finally, Europeans count folks who have abandoned looking for work as unemployed. The US does not. Add those people into our statistics and the difference grows even smaller.

After all, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

= = =

In any event, given our globalized world, the economic implosion of anywhere is bad news for all of us. Hopefully Europe and the US and Japan and China and India and Brazil can all avoid economic implosion.

North Korea? Implode away! Been there done that.

Posted by Bill White at February 27, 2005 09:22 PM

Ok, I found this table for USA unemployment stats:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

This for the EU stats:
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-07012005-AP/EN/3-07012005-AP-EN.PDF

Where did you get the prison stats? Can anyone get more up to date stats?

Thanks.

Posted by Gojira at February 27, 2005 09:26 PM

In addition such folks drain the Treasury more than minimal welfare benefits would drain the Treasury and do not add to GDP.

Bill: The United States military exports security around the globe and therefore contributes significantly to the US GDP.

Consider the peaceful commerce of global trade on the seas. If the US Navy did not provide safe passage for vessels carrying oil, raw materials and manufactured goods from and to foreign ports then a large part of the US domestic economy and US production overseas would grind to a halt.

Security is a prerequisite to a free market economy. The system shock and GDP hit of September 11th is a good example of what happens absent that security.

Men and women in uniform *do* add to the GDP.

Posted by John Kavanagh at February 27, 2005 09:58 PM

I think it's fair to say most of the prison population is working age. That would be up to 1.5% of US total employment as of the begining of this year. And those in prison are a quarter of the total unemployed in the US, ie, there were roughly 8 million unemployed (I guess averaged through the entire year 2004).

Gojira,

Where did you get the prison stats? Can anyone get more up to date stats?

Check the link out. And it's the end of 2003. Maybe they have something for last year, but it would only be a year more recent.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 27, 2005 10:06 PM

Gojira, the prison stats were from the post one above where they were qutoed - direct from the DOJ.

And the discussion of the military as a debtor's prison neglects the difference between 'active duty' and 'reserve'. Reservists are generally _on_reserve_. They have non-military jobs too. There's 39,000 reservists in Iraq, hardly enough to put a dent in the size of the active military at 1.6 million according to GlobalSecurity The table doesn't include everyone in the EU... but if you include the Turks there's more active duty European military on that list than there is USA active military.

Posted by Al at February 27, 2005 10:20 PM

Bill: The United States military exports security around the globe and therefore contributes significantly to the US GDP.

I agree security is necessary.

Contribute to GDP? If the other nations pay us for global security then yes, it contributes to GDP. If we carry the load ourselves then it is a drag on GDP no matter how necessary.

If the other nations choose to "free ride" we need to reconsider whether we are spending our resources prudently.

Posted by Bill White at February 28, 2005 06:43 AM

If we carry the load ourselves then it is a drag on GDP no matter how necessary.

Bill: The absence of the security provided by the US military would negatively affect the US GDP.

The additional cost of the increased security risk - ie. the resulting piracy, unreliable delivery of raw materials and manufactured goods in the supply chain - would cripple the productivity of American business. Witness the crimpining of 1970s OPEC oil supply and the resulting US stagflation.

If the other nations choose to "free ride"...

Sure, others free ride. But, if the US doesn't provide the global security then who will? And would they act in the interests of the US economy?

Consider that many of the successful free riders such as Japan and South Korea purchase US debt with money would otherwise be required for national defense. They purchase American debt and therefore US business have access to cheap capital . The cost of financing would be much higher otherwise.

...we need to reconsider whether we are spending our resources prudently.

The peace dividend of the military investments that the United States puts into to international security is the incredibly successful globalized economy. The production efficiencies and new markets realized from this secure global economy generate significant prosperity for the United States.

Posted by John Kavanagh at February 28, 2005 08:07 AM

I think the US has more options than all or none here. The question should be not whether the US (or any group) should have security or not, but whether or not the US tax dollar is being well spent in the military and related services. Also it puzzles me why we should consider military jobs as a form of unemployment (IMHO it isn't in the US), but no other government job is in that category.

Sure, others free ride. But, if the US doesn't provide the global security then who will? And would they act in the interests of the US economy?

There are other options. For example, the US could charge for its protection. In fact as you note, it effectively already does by selling low interest treasury securities. But maybe the US should be getting more value for its money.

It's clear that the global economy is generating prosperity for someone, but will the US voter perceive themselves getting a piece of the action? I think it's becoming apparent, for example, that capital benefits far more from global trade than expensive labor in the developed world. Given the collective voting power of expensive workers over owners of capital, I think it prudent to work on a bribe to get the masses to back globalism. Otherwise, there will be a reaction, counterproductive as it may be.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at February 28, 2005 10:55 AM

Oh wait! So, let's get this straight:

The EU is supposed to implode because it's constitution is too big? WTF?

I think you're assuming that a document called 'a constitution' actually *is* a constitution, when every commentator will tell you (except the CIA apparently who hasn't actually noticed) that it obviously isn't.

Further, you seem to be assuming that a constitution is actually important or necessary. Well, I'm sure it's important to America , but, well, your constitution didn't actually get written down by any superior being, and other countries, like England, haven't actually had a written constitution for most of the last thousand years or so. Did the Roman empire have a written constitution? No, it did not. It seemed to last a *rather* long time...

And then we get to the CIA bit. The EU will fold because the *CIA* says so?

The CIA is the most freaking incompetent organisation I have ever heard of. If the CIA says something- expect the opposite to happen. I can't actually remember any prediction of the CIA ever coming true. Wasn't the CIA one of the organisations that claimed that Iraq was riddled with WMDs? I'm still waiting.... Arms for hostages? That was one of theirs wasn't it? Guatemala? Pinochet? All politically expedient great big f*ck-ups.

The only way that the EU would fold is if the CIA went around assassinating EU politicians to install their own pro-US leaders. They've done stuff like that before, but I don't think even the CIA are that stupid. Actually for all I know they are that stupid, but not even Bush would authorise that one.

Anyway I apologise for any interruption of your enjoyment of your propaganda I may have caused, and return you to your Fox, CNN etc. and your religious rereading of your constitution.

Posted by Ian Woollard at February 28, 2005 08:12 PM

I will readily admit I'm not a SME on Europe, but I submit one of the problems with the EU (as embodied in their Constitution) is their lack of flexibility.

Posted by Brian Dunbar at March 1, 2005 07:42 PM

I don't know what criteria the CIA uses, but presumably it's more involved than measuring the length of the EU's constitution. Incidentally, Mark Steyn apparently is a commentator that believes the EU "constitution" is a constitution. So that readily disproves that particular assertion.

I don't see any political processes that would distort significantly the CIA's report on the EU's longevity so I think we should take the report seriously even if it turns out incorrect.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 2, 2005 05:52 AM

Post a comment