December 23, 2004
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER:
Europe's Last Summer (David Fromkin, December 14, 2004, The Globalist)
In 1901 — and in the 13 years that followed — the peoples of Western Europe and the English-speaking Americas were becoming consumers rather than warriors. They looked forward to more: more progress, more prosperity — more peace.To virtually everybody alive in the vibrant early years of the 20th century, nothing would have seemed further away than war. [...]
For those with a comfortable income, the world in their time was more free than it is today.
According to the historian A. J. P. Taylor, "until August 1914, a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state." You could live anywhere you liked and as you liked. You could go to practically anywhere in the world without anyone's permission.
What Europe was building up toward was not a better world — but a smash-up, the accumulated explosive power that advanced science had developed was concentrated on the goal of mass destruction.
For the most part, you needed no passports — and many had none. The French geographer André Siegfried traveled all around the world with no identification other than his visiting card — not even a business card, but a personal one.
John Maynard Keynes remembered it, with wonder, as an era without exchange controls or customs barriers. You could bring anything you liked into Britain or send anything out.
You could take any amount of currency with you when you traveled, or send (or bring back) any amount of currency — your bank did not report it to the government, as it does today.
And if you decided to invest any amount of money in almost any country abroad, there was nobody whose permission had to be asked, nor was permission needed to withdraw that investment and any profits it may have earned when you wanted to do so.
Even more than today, it was a time of free capital flows and free movements of people and goods.
George Kennan remembers that before the 1914 war, Americans felt a sense of security “such as I suppose no people had ever had since the days of the Roman Empire."
An outstanding current study of the world as of 2000 tells us that there was more globalization before the 1914 war than there is now —"much of the final quarter of the 20th century was spent merely recovering ground lost in the previous 75 years."
Economic and financial intermingling and interdependence were among the powerful trends that made it seem that warfare among the major European powers had become impractical — and, indeed, obsolete.
One could easily feel safe in that world. Americans felt it at least as much if not more than Europeans.
The historian and diplomat George Kennan remembers that before the 1914 war, Americans felt a sense of security "such as I suppose no people had ever had since the days of the Roman Empire."
They felt little need for government. Until 1913, when an appropriate amendment to the Constitution was ratified, the Congress was deemed to lack even the power to enact taxes on income.
The core myth of Modernity is progress, which requires us to believe that we live lives vastly superior to those who came before us. Americans in particular have the obviously fanciful notion that they are freer now than ever before. One need only consider how unlikely it is that an ancestor would ever have had much contact with government of any kind to see the foolishness of this belief. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 23, 2004 8:55 AM
OJ, the ability to move freely from place to place was a right of the affluent not ordinary people. It's like saying both rich and poor have the right to sleep under a bridge.
The feudal-era system of marriages and secret treaties combined with the nonsensical ideas of Empire and protectionism caused the destruction that was WWI, not the technology and certainly not something as nebulous as 'progress.'
If you want to live your life as if it is still 1066, that is your business but do not insult our intelligence by saying it is the right thing for all of us.
In 1900, the life expectancy of the average American was 46. Today it is 75.
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 10:36 AMBart:
Living longer is a worthwhile goal, but it's different than being happy or free.
Posted by: oj at December 23, 2004 12:19 PMAnd much of that difference can be explained by infant mortality. If you compare the life expectancies of five year olds, the difference is much less than most people think.
Of course, if you counted the unborn, those figures would be a lot closer.
Posted by: Peter B at December 23, 2004 1:08 PMPeter,
That is simply untrue. There are over 100,000 people in the USA over 100 years of age. People are fully functional into their 70s and 80s in ways thought impossible even a generation ago.
I refer you to Shakespearean references to 'an old hag of 40.'
Posted by: Bart at December 23, 2004 3:24 PMI dunno. I don't doubt there are more old folks per capita now than at any other time in history, but I suspect that's kind of like pornography -- the fact that we've got an abundance of it doesn't mean it's some remarkable new thing.
I couldn't find much on "old hag of 40" on Google so I don't know the context, but it's quite possible for a woman to be an old hag at 40 under the right circumstances -- take a look at some of the police websites that post pictures of crack whores. If anything, I would suspect that the "of 40" would be added to emphasize hard living; otherwise wouldn't it suffice just to say "old hag"?
Posted by: Guy T. at December 23, 2004 8:51 PMGuy,
One only needs to look at Social Security. When it began there were 16 payers for every recipient now it is about 3. Also, people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s are generally much more active today, especially if you move up the income and educational scale.
Posted by: Bart at December 24, 2004 8:10 AMJohn Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are good examples of folks living lomg and physically demanding lives. A large percentage of women died in childbirth well into the early 20th century. How many children lived past puberty? Improvements in public sanitation and medical practices were the largest factors in increasing longevity. Genes were and are the dominant factor. The world was more free but less safe and the threshold for peoples tolerance for impositions onfreedom was much lower. The cause of the American revolution was EXCISE taxes originating in Parliament. Americans considered it an outrageous imposition on liberty. Mercantilistic trade policies were the major cause of just about all international strife. Adam Smith changed all of that. In the 18th century folks were pulling up stakes in Europe and along the eastern seabord to freely settle the wilderness area west of the Allegheny mountains fully aware of the dangers. Case closed.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at December 24, 2004 9:18 AMJohn Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are good examples of folks living lomg and physically demanding lives. A large percentage of women died in childbirth well into the early 20th century. How many children lived past puberty? Improvements in public sanitation and medical practices were the largest factors in increasing longevity. Genes were and are the dominant factor. The world was more free but less safe and the threshold for peoples tolerance for impositions onfreedom was much lower. The cause of the American revolution was EXCISE taxes originating in Parliament. Americans considered it an outrageous imposition on liberty. Mercantilistic trade policies were the major cause of just about all international strife. Adam Smith changed all of that. In the 18th century folks were pulling up stakes in Europe and along the eastern seabord to freely settle the wilderness area west of the Allegheny mountains fully aware of the dangers. Case closed.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at December 24, 2004 9:36 AMAmericans in particular have the obviously fanciful notion that they are freer now than ever before.
Including Blacks, Women, and Jews. Although for them, comprising more than half the population, the term "fanciful notion" rings very hollow.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 24, 2004 2:31 PMAll but Blacks were freer then.
Posted by: oj at December 24, 2004 3:36 PMOJ,
In the 19th century, women couldn't own property. In the first half of the 20th century, there were large areas of the country where it was illegal for Jews to live, including most of Bergen and Morris County NJ. In my title searching period, I came across lots of restrictive covenants along the lines of 'no Jews, Italians or other swarthy types' a line I actually came across on a deed from the 30s in Somerset County.
If you remember the nonsense about Rehnquist buying properties with restrictive covenants, you would already know this.
Posted by: Bart at December 25, 2004 12:49 AMBart:
What do private covenants have to do with political freedom? There are just as many places now where Jews can't live.
Posted by: oj at December 25, 2004 8:25 AMMy right to live wherever my wallet can allow me to live is central to my freedom. Mobility is essential to our political freedom. In the same period, there was also no shortage of employment discrimination, and discrimination in access to higher education. I hope I do not need to explain how those affect 'political' freedom.
Where in the US can't I live as a matter of law because of my faith? There are lots of places I wouldn't want to live but damn few where I can't, and those have some logical reason beyond mere discrimination. It is certainly lawful for me to live nextdoor to a crack house in downtown Detroit, but it would certainly be unwise.
Posted by: Bart at December 25, 2004 11:13 AMBart:
Yes, but you dopn't have it. Redlining is alive and well.
Posted by: oj at December 25, 2004 11:24 AMHow many bankers do you know? If redlining exists, it has a valid economic reason. Every mortgage lender I know and I know tons of them wouldn't care if you had three heads and stripes so long as you were credit-worthy by an objective standard, so long as the property you were purchasing passed the appraisal.
Posted by: Bart at December 25, 2004 2:53 PMIt's not bankers--it's realtors, home owners, and neighbors.
Posted by: oj at December 25, 2004 2:55 PMWomen and Jews are freer now than then, by a long shot.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at December 25, 2004 9:36 PMThey work for the government for a third of the year.
Posted by: oj at December 25, 2004 9:38 PMoj,
Redlining is a lending practice. When it is found, the guys who go to jail are bankers.
Posted by: Bart at December 26, 2004 6:30 AMIt's a realtors practice too. They do things like show the black and Jewish families the best homes on the border of two towns, carefully keeping them in the one that's been integrated and out of the one that hasn't.
Posted by: oj at December 26, 2004 9:09 AMOJ,
That's not redlining, which is the refusal to lend money on properties in a specific area due to racial or ethnic considerations.
Posted by: Bart at December 26, 2004 11:00 AMIt's literal redlining, drawing lines on the map beyond which the ethnics are not allowed to live.
http://www.cml.upenn.edu/redlining/C_HOLC.html
Posted by: oj at December 26, 2004 11:13 AM