May 31, 2004

THE DROPOUTS:

The real problem with Europe (Martin Walker, 5/31/2004, UPI)

Whatever happened to the European economies? Since 1990, the big three continental economies of Germany, France and Italy have grown at an average rate of less than 1.7 percent a year. By contrast, the United States grew almost twice as fast over the same period.

One result of this became strikingly clear last week when the German edition of the Financial Times published a league table of the world's 100 "most valuable" companies (which means ranked by market capitalization). Were it not for the British, whose refusal to join the euro currency renders them semi-detached, the Europeans would be dropping out of contention. [...]

No wonder that Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, in his appearance before the European Union's Economic and Social Committee last week lamented that Europe needed "a radical change."

Prodi was testifying on something called the Lisbon strategy, a highly ambitious plan drawn up at the EU summit in Lisbon in 2000 that was supposed to deliver the "most competitive economy in the world by 2010." The strategy called for liberalization of labor markets, intensified competition, Europe-wide coordination of education and skills training, and reform of corporation taxes and incentives for research. The "social partners," as the EU dubs the representatives of the EU's federations of labor unions and of employers, were to be brought into the process. And this was all to be combined with a budget and investment strategy that was supposed to unleash the talents of Europe and catch up -- and even overtake -- the great spurt the American economy had displayed in the 1990s.

Instead, the Lisbon strategy has become something of a joke.


They dropped out of contention decades ago when they lost their religious faith, stopped having children and became willing dependents of the Welfare State.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 31, 2004 9:14 AM
Comments

Yes, Europe mneeds a "radical change". of course, it can't change the social system...the taxation system...or take away any of the subsidies and regulation that define a modern compassionate state...we can't spend more on the military either as we don't want to be imperialist...

We can have a radical change, as long as we can get the benefits without any real change...

Posted by: BC Monkey at May 31, 2004 9:42 AM

Since Italy's running budget deficits of 3% - 5% of GDP, and already owes 125% of GDP, and will run out of workers between now and 2050, for how long can France and Germany allow them to have Euro privileges ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 31, 2004 2:00 PM

France and Germany are in no better shape.

Posted by: oj at May 31, 2004 2:10 PM

Your single factor (lack of religious faith leading to everything else) is simplistic in the extreme.

Imagine the US as fifty different countries with as many different languages, and just as religious as it is now.

Think that would make just a little difference?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 1, 2004 7:33 AM

Most would be more conservative and successful.

Posted by: oj at June 1, 2004 7:49 AM

Doubtful. You need to study economics a little more.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 2, 2004 7:08 AM

OJ:

It is. The United States has benefited immensely from having a huge, open, internal market, with an unparalleled ability of the population to move in response to economic conditions.

While I don't have the reference handy, the Economist has also written on those topics extensively.

Just imagine the effect on the economy if the US had to deal with the same barriers to mobility that Europe has.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at June 2, 2004 11:53 AM

Yes, barriers are bad too on a completely different topic.

Posted by: oj at June 2, 2004 12:02 PM
« NOT REALISTIK: | Main | EXCEPTION NATION: »