March 5, 2005

NON-PARTICIPANTS:

Yet Another Reason They Dislike Us: Europe is rich, but the United States is richer. (Russell A. Berman and Arno Tausch, Winter 2005, Hoover Digest)

In 2000 the European Union initiated its so-called Lisbon Process, with the stated goal of becoming “the most competitive and dynamic, knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, creating more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by the year 2010. To aspire to a more dynamic economy is hardly controversial, but the Lisbon Process was also, in effect, a unilateral declaration of competition with the United States. The race between the euro and the dollar on world currency markets added to the sense of competition between two systems that had once been considered part of an integrated “Atlantic West” in the not-so-distant years of the Cold War.

The tension between Europe and the United States has been accompanied by a rising chorus of generalized anti-Americanism in European streets, largely with the pretext of the war in Iraq but in fact based in deeper structures independent of the war. This anti-Americanism grew precisely in the years in which the newly launched Lisbon Process turned into a failure. In terms of economic productivity, job growth, and other factors, both “Old Europe” (the Western European member states before enlargement, or “EU-15”) and “New Europe” (the “EU-25,” including 8 former communist states along with Cyprus and Malta) are far from becoming “the most competitive and dynamic . . . economy in the world.” When one thinks of Europe today, the word dynamic does not come quickly to mind.

By and large, Europe has not participated in the world economic expansion of 2004, especially relative to the spectacular growth in China and the growth in the United States (aided by the recent tax cuts). GDP growth in the EU-15 in 2003 was a very sluggish 0.8 percent, followed in 2004 by an unimpressive 2.3 percent. More important, however, is the long-term perspective: Europe has simply failed to reduce the productivity gap with the United States. Political rhetoric notwithstanding, Europe was never a genuine competitor, let alone a threat to U.S. economic predominance in the global economy, and Europe continues to lag behind the United States after the initiation of the Lisbon Process just as much as it did before. Since 1995, differences in economic growth have grown wider in every year except 2001.

This difference in economic performance translates into a big difference in income. When we try to understand the bitterness with which some Europeans have come to view the United States, it would be foolish to ignore this factor. How big is the difference? Consider the latest data only for Old Europe (the wealthier Western European countries) and leave aside the much poorer New Europe still recovering from the devastation of communist policies and the difficult transitions to market economies. Even with this handicap built in, European real purchasing power is quite sorry. Between 1995 and 2004, European per capita income ranged between 70.1 and 73.7 percent of U.S. real income. With that in mind, anti-Americanism begins to look very much like basic human greed and envy.


Feeding the vicious cycle are both the demographic implosion and the artificially high interest rates they've sported since the run up to Iraq began--a futile attempt to show their currency matters even if they don't.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 5, 2005 6:54 AM
Comments

oj -

The cycle may be even more vicious than that. What if interest rates/currency exchange are not artificially high but as high as they "need" to be to suppress a stubbornly high inflation rate? What if stubbornly high inflation is being cast in stone by low productivity which is hindered by a rigid labor markets and punitive taxation of labor and capital? What if you can not change your taxation policy without causing a fiscal crisis in your completely under-water, retirement plans? What if your only way out is to kick start population growth, but you do it by mostly attracting "unassimilatable" loafers who consume more than they produce? Oy!

Posted by: Moe from NC at March 5, 2005 9:19 AM

Inflation? With declining population growth, workforce, and spending?

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2005 9:22 AM

oj, With a declining population, workforce, and spending the Western Roman Empire experienced inflation in the 200s A.D. History repeats itself.

Posted by: Bartman at March 5, 2005 9:27 AM

They didn't have a central bank, though it's certainly the case that as European decline registers in peoples' minds they'll have to start printing euros like there's no tomorrow. But that's a while away.

Posted by: oj at March 5, 2005 9:34 AM

I agree with oj's conclusion that Europe, Japan, and to some extent the United States are in a strong deflationary spriral and that monitary policy is way too tight, especially in Europe. While the standard inflation measures show "stable" prices, these measures have been distorted over time as we've all gotten richer. When the median family spent nearly all of their income on core commodities, the measures accurately reflected inflationary effects on the family. As the median family gets richer, and has an ever increasing share of income which it spends on products that are dropping rapidly in price (electronics, computers, phones, etc.), deflationary effects steadily increase. I think Greenspan's policies have done a reasonable job mitigating these effects but the central bankers of Europe and Japan have done a dismal job.

Posted by: Bret at March 5, 2005 12:12 PM
« IMAGINING A STATIST COOLIDGE: | Main | DOESN'T A DEBATE REQUIRE OPPOSING VIEWS?: »