The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Economics Page 1 of 88

What Is A Communist?

One annoying tendency in modern political discourse is right wingers and centrists calling people communist.

They don’t know what the word means.

A communist believes that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the proletariat: the workers.

If you don’t believe this, you aren’t a communist. Wanting universal healthcare doesn’t mean you’re a communist unless you think the health workers themselves (or, just perhaps, the party or government) should control the healthcare providers.

Wanting universal healthcare, in the modern context, makes you a socialist.

Now there’s a lot of argument around what it means for the proletariat to control the means of production. If the “Party” controls it, like in the USSR or pre-Deng China, is that communism, or is it just old fashioned government authoritarianism?

Is modern China communist? About half the economy isn’t controlled by the Party, and worker co-ops are minor players. There’s clearly a capitalist class controlling vast amounts of the means of production, though government is very willing to intervene. The Chinese Communist party says this is still communism but that seems like a stretch to me. The same is true in Vietnam: the Communist party is in charge, but the economy isn’t communist.

Note that you could have a market economy which IS communist. If workers co-ops or something similar control most of the organizations, that would be communism, and it’s something that a lot of intellectuals in America and Europe during the 50s pushed for: a sort of “best of both worlds.”

Centralized control economies like the USSR, from this point of view can’t really be communist, because the workers aren’t really controlling capital.

For myself, I’d say moving away from stock companies and towards a mix of worker owned organizations and perhaps mutual companies (or mixed versions) would be the best way to move towards something that might both be communist and workable, allowing the dynamism of the market.

Generally speaking my time in the workforce convinced me that upper management is usually clueless because they don’t do the job and haven’t done it in ages. You have to be on the front lines to have some idea what the issues actually are.

Communism is worker control of capital, and nothing else. We’ve never really tried it.

It’s The Economy, Stupid (AKA Economists)

Over ninety-nine percent of economists did not predict the 2008 financial crisis.

The vast majority of economists were pro-globalization, by which I mean pro offshoring and outsourcing. They said it would be good for America, they were wrong.

China is predicted to wind up with over 50% of the world’s industry by 2030. Forget all the bullshit about great power competition. It’s over. There may be a war, but if there is one the West will either lose or the world will be destroyed in a nuclear exchange.

Back in the 90s an economist called Brockway liked to say “Economists are bad for your health.”

(If you like the writing here, well, support it if you can. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. Please Subscribe or Donate.)

Let’s bring this back to the election. I thought that abortion would be the election defining issue. Stupid of me, though abortion was and only four percent behind inflation. It was inflation, which given how much I write about it, I should have expected. Two tables from the CNN exit polls:

Abortion was the second most important issue. Inflation was , and people who voted for pro-abortion measures voted about 9% less for Harris.

Economists meanwhile keep talking about the : the idea that there is no recession, people just think there is.

Economists, as usual, are full of shit. They have a professional dependence on official statistics and refuse to realize that many of them don’t reflect reality. As I have written in the past, according to official inflation statistics the price of cards did not rise between 2000 and 2020. In another case, you will be happy to know that medical service costs are going down. Hedonic adjustments are completely out of control: prices are dropping, you see, because products are so much better now. (There are other finangles, this is the main one.)

Growth numbers are based entirely on nominal growth minus the inflation rate, as are real wage numbers.

I would bet that the US economy has been contracting since 2008, but since inflation is understated, it isn’t visible.

I would also bet that median welfare for Americans has been declining since somewhere between 1968 and 1979, though average might have been increasing till 2008 because of how much money was being shoveled to the rich and wealthy.

We live in a pretend world, and economists are the chief pretenders, the sycophants telling the Emperor how wonderful his new clothes are.

To riff on Galbraith, economists exist to make astrologers look good.

Economics, as a discipline, should be wiped from the face of the Earth. The less than 1% of economists who aren’t charlatans or fools are not enough to justify the harm economists do, which exceeds even that of MBAs.

Harris lost because of the insistence of Democrats that the economy was good, inflation was fine, and that voters were too stupid to read their own grocery bills. Because of this belief Harris said she wouldn’t have done anything different than Biden did. What she needed to do was get out there and say she was going to drive down prices, especially rent and groceries.

As for Trump, we’ll talk more about the effects of his economic plans, if instituted, later.

When Labour Opposes Rapid Technological Change

So, I recently saw this:

our obsession with jobs might trap us – everything could look like healthcare, still using fax machines when email and text exists.

“sorry I know this is possible via AI but we have our manual spreadsheet guy, following regulation 1284”

Leaving aside the word “AI”, because it’s not clear how expansive the use case for current AI really is, there’s a point here and it’s an important one.

He’s exactly right about our obsession with jobs, but I’d state it a different way:

It’s our obsession with distributing resources through money gained by jobs. A pre-requisite of speedy technological adaptation is people knowing they won’t be hurt by it.

Recently we had the longshoreman’s strike. The issue that caused the strike is machines replacing workers. Longshoreman jobs are some of the few blue collar labor jobs that pay well. If the longshoremen lose them, most will never get a job again that pays as well.

But the issue isn’t the job. It’s the money. And the money is just a proxy for resources: housing, food, heat, cold, transport, medical, entertainment and so on. No money and your life is shit, and probably short. Not much money means misery in most cases.

Labor; which is to say the proletariat, people who have to sell their labor to survive, embrace technological change when it benefits them, when it doesn’t hurt them, or when they have no choice.

During the industrial revolution people were forced off the land thru enclosure. They worked in factories 12 hours a day, for 6 1/2 days a week because they had no choice.

After WWII in America, people flooded off the farms into the cities and suburbs because jobs that provided a better standard of living for less work were abundant.

(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)

This lesson goes far beyond workers. No one wants change that hurts them. One of the main factors stalling industrialization in most countries was that most land couldn’t be bought: it was controlled by nobles or the Crown and they didn’t sell land if they could help it. The land was the basis of their wealth and power. Until they either perceived otherwise or they lacked the power to keep their land, they wouldn’t sell. (The game Victoria III, while not a very good game, is great for modeling this. Play Japan or Dai Viet and you will FEEL this: sheer hate of reactionary landowners holding you back.)

There was also the issue of money: for most of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages you couldn’t borrow large amounts of money, in part because the Church was against lending at interest and the Church was powerful. (There were other reasons, Economists include them in their hand waving of “primitive accumulation of capital” which is why sociologists, anthropologists and historians have written most of the important literature in the area.)

If you want change, whether technological or social, you either have to get people to be OK with it (for it, or not mind) or you need to remove their power to resist.

It is that simple.

 

Austerity, Demand and Reindustrialization

This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.

So, it’s clear from the response to my last post that some readers aren’t familiar with the effects of austerity on balance of payments and vice-versa. Balance of payments is, oversimplified, how much money is going in and out of a country.

When money goes into a domestic economy, if it is used to buy something that is imported, that effects balance of payments negatively.

If you’re selling more than you buy, which can mean services as well as good, then that helps balance of payments. It also includes financial games: so if people are sending money to the London financial center, well, that improves BoP. London’s the world’s second largest financial center, after New York.

Now here’s the thing. Britain doesn’t grow enough food to feed its population. It doesn’t have a lot of industry left. North Sea oil is depleting, to the point that Britain became a net importer of oil in 2013. (Take a look at that chart.)

When the government spends money it isn’t magically siloed from causing import demand. The government cut back on heating subsidies, for example, and limited child support payments to two children. Without that money, oil and other demand is not as high as it would be otherwise.

Indeed, nothing is really siloed. If the government spends, almost always some of that money is going to go overseas and spike imports.

Britain controls its own printing press. It can print as many pounds as it wants, but it can’t make people in other countries take the money. The more they print, the less the pound will be worth, and the more inflation there will be because the dropping pound will increase prices of imported goods.

The pound is not the world trading currency any more. It hasn’t been since WWII. It can’t print pounds the way the US can print dollars and expect everyone to just take them.

Austerity is, in many ways, cruel and stupid, but if Britain (or Canada, or Australia, or even Europe) is to print money without it causing serious economic issues and to actually reindustrialize, it has to be done intelligently, along with serious industrial and domestic economic policy. (Currently tons is printed, but siloed to the rich, which keeps general demand from exploding but destroys markets’ ability to function properly.)

Now the thing is that Britain is a high cost of living economy: food and housing are expensive. Very expensive. Workers need to be paid well to survive, and that makes Britain un-competitive against lower cost (or higher productivity) countries.

If you wanted to make Britain competitive again, you’d have to crash housing and rent, to start. You can imagine how politically fraught that is: people who have high net worth due to real estate aren’t going to like it.

Then there’s the issue of the City, the financial center. Financial center profits are HIGH. That’s a problem, because people would rather put money into finance than into industry or farming or whatever since returns are better. Finance cannibalizes the rest of the economy. So you have to weaken the city and silo it, and probably tax it a lot. That’s hard to do, because the City has a lot of power, and there’s a real issue because it does, actually, bring a lot of money in to Britain, it’s just that money doesn’t get spread around.

When you industrialize, or re-industrialize, you have to make sure that money in the domestic market buys domestic goods, doesn’t buy a lot of foreign goods, and is used primarily on industrialization: capital goods, primarily. It’s unpleasant, it means a lot of goods (imported goods) aren’t available or are very expensive. Your new industry, ideally, either serves the domestic market, or is good for export, or both.

Austerity doesn’t exist just because governments are run by stupid psychopaths (though that’s part of it), it exists because of very real constraints caused by a need to send more money out of the country than is coming in to the country. In the seventies the UK was in so much trouble it had to actually go to the IMF for help, and join the EU so Europe would help it bail out.

Now, again, there are ways around this, but they require taking on powerful interests and hurting a big chunk of the population, especially in the short to medium term (about twenty years or so.) It means, as much as possible, making do with what you can produce yourself, and when you can’t, going cheap. No foreign fresh fruit imports, except the cheapest (hope you like bananas.) Cheap phones and appliances. Etc…

It also means ending all sorts of stupid financial games: no more Private Equity. No stock buybacks. No huge stock option grants. You want money reinvested. Currency controls so money doesn’t flood out. Possibly a dual currency.

All of this is painful. But if you don’t do it, decline inevitably continues and eventually you’re back to being a third world country.

Austerity is a pressure bandage on a wound that still won’t stop bleeding. It slows down the decline, but it doesn’t heal the wound.

Update: Just for kicks, here’s Germany’s BOP:

And China:

Dollar Hegemony Decline Watch

So, nice little chart here:

Seems… bad. At least for America and Europe.

Let’s lay this out:

  1. Most of what you want to buy you can buy from China, you don’t need to get it from the West, so why use dollars?
  2. China almost never uses sanctions or seizes foreign currency. The US often does. US dollars are risky, the right to use them can and is often taken away, and so often are the dollars themselves.

So why use the dollar, except that it’s still easier in some cases?

What happens when it’s no longer easier? The BRICS are spending a lot of time on an international banking system which bypasses the West and it’s allies (Japan and South Korea, basically). As that system becomes easier to use, why use the Western system or the dollar? It only exposes you to risk.

This is similar to what happened after the Huawei sanctions. Chinese firms saw the damage that was done to Huawei (they’ve roared back, but it was touch and go for a couple years.) The cry in Chinese business was “delete America.” If you bought anything important from the US you needed to find another source outside of the West, which for manufactured goods usually meant domestically, and for resources meant Africa, South America and Russia.

For a long time the way the banking system was set up you had to use the dollar, but more and more you don’t. And for a long time some key providers, like oil producers, would only take dollars, but now they’ll take Yuan.

So, again, why use the dollar when there is a safer alternative which can be used to buy or sell almost anything you want?


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

Has Communism Happened Yet?

Marx was probably the most important intellectual of the 19th century, based on impact, but it’s generally believed he was wrong about his major predictions, and thus his theories are largely garbage. I have some sympathy for this view, but let’s look at the counter-argument.

Marx said that Communism would develop from industrial nations, with the proletariat, finally realizing they were producing all the value, taking control. What happened instead is that the two major “communist” revolutions happened in agrarian societies: Russia and China, and while China’s hard communist period (pre-Deng) advanced China significantly, they didn’t become a massive surplus society until market reform took place.

If you call a dog a duck, it’s still a dog.

The correct response is simply that they weren’t Communist nations: they called themselves that, and China still does, but that’s ridiculous. They couldn’t be, because the proletariat wasn’t in charge. (One might make an argument that it was, briefly, in Russia, but if so it didn’t last.) The proletariat couldn’t be in charge, in agrarian societies they hardly exist.

Central to Marx’s argument is that over time the global rate of profit under capitalism will fall. That argument has been dismissed, but there’s a good case that it is, it’s just taking quite a while. Michael Roberts makes the case, and I’ve included some of the key graphs below.

Global Rate of Profit:

x

US profit rate.

Now it’s fair to say that technical arguments can be made against these charts, but they support the general idea of lower profit over time. The crisis of capitalism is expected to occur when surplus produced by the system falls to catastrophic levels.

Again, I could argue against this, but the simplest argument is that Marx didn’t foresee climate change and ecological collapse and they’re going to hit first.

Arguing that communism hasn’t failed because those who claimed to be communist does smack a little of neoliberals and other ideologues screaming that their system has never really been implemented, so their ideas are still fine, but Marx was clear about the process of how Communism would occur and it didn’t include revolutions in agricultural states. By Marx’s dialectic, that wasn’t possible: you have to go through capitalism first.

I don’t, personally, expect real communism to happen any time soon. Even if Marx was right, the timer is running out. Perhaps in collapse, workers will, indeed, unite and take over. The problem is primarily what Marxists call “class consciousness”: the realization of shared interests and that the people running the system are both evil and stupid—they produce terrible results, over and over again. They are sociopath & psychopaths or people who might as well be, because the decisions they make are psychopathic.

They aren’t needed. Oh, the scientists and engineers are, certainly, but the capitalists? No. We just need another system of allocating capital which doesn’t make it accumulate in the hands of the worst people.

If that happens, we’ll have something better, whether or not it’s communism.


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

The “China Cycle” Is Mostly A Thing Of the Past

So, this was true once:

The Chinese learned a lot from Western Joint Ventures, and I remember talking to a consultant back in the early 2000’s about tech transfer. He said it was very clear: you got into the Chinese market and/or used their lower cost production and what they got in exchange was tech transfer. This isn’t some evil conspiracy, back in the 80s when the US fell behind on cars they basically forced Japanese car companies to set up factories in the US, and yeah, there was transfer of knowledge to American companies.

Now, for the West, what Western companies and the West in general got in return for their tech was not worth the cost: it was stupid and short-sighted, but companies were lining up to do it and economists and business gurus and politicians in the West were for it: the only thing that mattered was making more short to mid-term profits and all sorts of nonsense about it not mattering where goods were produced was espoused by very important intellectuals and officials. There was no attention to the long term cost in terms of loss of technological lead and moving the industrial base to China. I know: I was one of the voices warning, publicly, to stop taking short term profits by selling China our future.

But at this point it’s no longer accurate. Chinese car companies are more advanced than Tesla: they have better batteries, better HUDS, better auto-pilots and they also have faster product cycles.

Again, in most fields the Chinese are now more advanced than the West: the remains are important but in a minority—things like lithography and aerospace, but they’ll catch up in both in time and for Aerospace I’d already buy a jet-liner from China before Boeing, and Boeing’s problems have nothing to do with China. Airbus is still clearly better, but it won’t be in twenty years, and possibly not even in ten.

The West was 100% complicit in the “China Cycle”, but that cycle is almost entirely over and China is now just straight up more advanced and out-competing us.

The West made this choice. We could have maintained our tech lead for another fifty years or so if we wanted to and followed the necessary policies. We didn’t, and to expect China to not use the same methods every other major country used to industrialize is insane. Every accusation made in the “China Cycle” is something the US did to Britain back in the 19th century.

Perhaps China could have industrialized without it being disastrous for the West, but not under any sort of laissez-faire or neoliberal international trade regime.

If you’re young, learn Mandarin. Maybe even if you’re not young.


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

How Europe Could Reinvigorate Their Economy

Every once in a while it’s important to do a policy piece, to show how society could work if we wanted to do the right things. Not because I think anyone in the West will implement enough good policy to matter, but to show that it is possible.

Back at my last corporate job I did a major workflow redesign. In the notes to management, along with the technical details were two highlighted lists. I noted that in order to receive the benefits of the change:

  1. Do these things, and;
  2. Don’t do these things.

Management appears to have reversed the lists. I left not long thereafter, and I was one of only two people who understood the entire workflow of the department. (I accept plenty of the blame, I didn’t play politics well or understand the sheer cupidity of management. I should have understood the second at least.)

The point is that policy often requires a number of actions to be taken, and that opposing action not be taken. You can’t just pick and choose: policy actions must support each other.

Big Picture On The European Economy

Europe is in decline.

  • Energy costs are too high for their heavy industry and many modern internet and computer technologies.
  • They are not in play when it comes to scientific and technical research.

  • They don’t produce significant raw or refined resources compared to other regions, with the single exception of basic agricultural crops, and the end of AMOC will smash European agriculture, probably sometime between 2025 to 2075;
  • The Chinese are pulling ahead in major export fields, like automobiles;
  • They import much of what they need, and pay for it with exports;
  • They aren’t creating a lot of new companies with new products and are, generally, falling behind in old technology;
  • Much of their industrial base is moving out of Europe (Germany, mainly). Much of that to the US.
  • Their cost structure is too high,

European prosperity was based on being able to sell advanced tech to less-developed country. Until recently, if you wanted that tech you could get it from Europe, the US, or other Western allies like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. But now that tech can be bought from China, who almost never sanction, don’t lecture and sell and finance for less while not telling less-developed countries how to run their internal economy.

The IMF was the main economic enforcer in Western hegemony. These austerity policies in developing countries were generally a direct result of IMF requirements, or undertaken due to general financial pressure:

But this ability to force the third world into selling cheap resources to the West in exchange for Western tech and finance is coming to an end. Burkini Faso recently declined an IMF loan which was contingent on austerity measures, for example.

So Europe is in serious decline, and the structure of the world economy is moving from one designed to support it to one that no longer needs it. To put it in market terms, they’re actually going to have to compete again, and can’t keep coasting on advantages created generations ago.

Like this lists I produced for my ex-bosses, the policies which follow are intended to work in concert. Each of them is required, not optional. It will be obvious that his wish list is politically impossible, which is part of why European decline will continue.

End Austerity

Europe still has a fair bit of room to maneuver. They produce plenty of food and they still have a fair bit of industry left. Austerity needs to end. Government needs to spend. What it should do is arrange that spending to be used mostly on internal goods: if you give money to people for food, you want them to buy what Europe produces. Domestic production must be ramped up for what people and companies need and the necessary tariffs, barriers and subsidies put in place so that government spending mostly creates European demand. (Many further policies are based around making this happen.)

End Neoliberal Taxation

This means high marginal tax rates on income, including corporate income. High estate taxes. High corporate taxes on profit not reinvested. End all stock buybacks and stock options and end the doctrine of shareholder supremacy.

Institute excess profit taxes on all old products, probably basing profit levels on 2019. New products will be allowed to make higher profits, perhaps as much as 30%, with the amount of time dependent on how new they are. A product which is only a minor upgrade or alteration will not qualify.

Understand that government’s job is to create positive externalities. Government can fund actions, like good education and health and industrial subsidies because it doesn’t care who makes money from them. But this is only true if it recaptures that money from whoever is making lots of money. You let ordinary people keep most of their income but you take most of the money back from winners, then plow that money into further policies which create positive externalities.

So high marginal tax rates are necessary to run good industrial and social policy.

You also need to ensure that companies are using their profits to reinvest into the business, especially with reference to creating new products.

While you’re at it, you must put an end to moving money offshore to avoid taxation. No significant amounts of money moves outside of Europe without being taxed first. Criminal sanctions for anyone who tries and anyone who makes it possible.

End Sanctions and Sanctimony

Unilaterally end all sanctions against China and other countries, including Russia. You need their cooperation to fix your economy. Stop lecturing other countries on human rights, unless they reach severe heights like genocide.

Cut deals with China and Russia

From Russia you need cheap resources. Force the Ukraine war to an end, fix the pipelines and be good business partners.

China’s a harder nut: China is now ahead of Europe. What Europe needs is deals to allow it to keep some of its advanced areas. To get these deals they’re going to need to let China into the European market in other areas. Where Europe is behind, but wants to catch back up (electric vehicles, for example) they should bargain for branch plants in exchange for market access.

End Imposed Third World Austerity and Forgive Debt

Since the ability to coerce the third world is ending relationships will have to fairer. Forgive most of their debt, get rid of the IMF as it now exists and reform the World Bank. Cut deals for needed resources without requiring control over internal politics. Europe now has to compete with China to buy what it needs from the third world and thus will need to offer actual good deals. An end to third world austerity will also lead to better markets for any European goods.

Reform World Trade Laws and Learn How to Tariff and Subsidy

Europe will need to produce what it can domestically because it isn’t going to be able to buy much of what it needs from foreign countries. To make European goods competitive will require tariffs and subsidies. This will have to be negotiated with other countries and if Europe wants to do it, they have to allow others to do it as well.  The idea that “foreign made” is cheaper is only true if you have enough money to buy foreign made and remember that they have to want your currency. The Euro is going to be worth less and less until or if Europe creates enough tech that others must have and can’t get cheaper elsewhere.

If you can’t reform the WTO and so on, then leave and make a new organization or bilateral treaties, especially with China.

And get rid of almost all ability for private companies to sue countries for domestic laws. Countries need to have policy freedom and other than branch plants and so on Europe will require that most business is domestic.

Reduce the Cost Structure

Economic rent must be hunted down and killed. Landlords should make a decent living but not get rich. Housing should be turned into a utility: relatively cheap and easy to afford. (Some European countries are close to this already, some aren’t.) High returns on financial games must be ended: move to public (postal) banking. End high returns on financial companies. Break up the big financial firms, and make the new smaller banks and finance companies loan to new businesses. End stock market bubbles and enforce 50s style financial regulation.

Where utilities, roads, trains and so on have moved into the private sector, nationalize them.

As a general rule no one gets wealthy without creating new products for export or creating products which reduce the need to import, and billionaires become a thing of a past.

Kill Admin Bloat

Pull out your favorite admin bloat chart, look at what the administrative percentage was back in the 60s, and aim for that. The teeth to tail ratio needs to become much higher. If you aren’t doing the actual work of an organization, what you do to support it must be actually necessary. In general to receive subsidies you must reduce this bloat or your funding is cut off. There are a lot of subsidies already and in such a regime there will be much more.

We don’t want to be paying for useless jobs.

Reform tax codes to make them far simpler. Go thru the extensive regulations Eurocrats love to much and change most of them to ends, not means, then hire lots of inspectors and auditors. “We don’t care how you achieve the following environmental or workplace safety metrics, but we will check to see if you do and if you don’t we’ll fine you first (actual decision makers, not the companies), then put you out of business and if you hurt people, put you in prison.”

End Corporate/University Research Partnerships

University researchers should be government funded. Corporations who want product research should pay for it themselves, and generous subsidies should exist.

Fix Universities and Colleges

A lot of this comes ending admin bloat. Start there. Faculty should teach, some should research as well as teach and faculty must be forced to take control of universities again, with significant power for students. Administrators must have no significant policy power.

Academic publishing as it exists now must end. All academic publishing must be free and online.

All patents that are a product of government funded research are free for domestic use and available for foreigners with a fee.

Academics must no longer be judged based on volume of research. Their work must actually be read, those who hire or promote them must sit in their classes and witness their teaching. Replication of results must be emphasized and funded.

Research funds must be spread around far more, with fewer and weaker “principal researchers.”

Ties with advanced universities in foreign countries must be emphasized and student exchanges encouraged. Yes, this means China, which has most of the world’s best universities for science and technology now.

Kick NATO out and Form a European military

If you want to avoid further forced centralization form it from national units. Europe needs to make policy America isn’t going to like, it can’t do that while occupied.

Force the US to reduce embassy staffs by 90% and remove all US NGOs and similar organizations.

Same reasons. As the joke runs, “why doesn’t America have coups? Because it doesn’t have an American embassy.” America has too much influence in Europe. Reduce it.

Vastly reduce lobbying

Entrenched interests can’t be allowed to control government

Allow national subsidies to Mitigate the Effects of the Euro

For some countries the Euro is too high, and that makes their industry uncompetitive. For others it is too low and this gives industry a subsidy. Allow countries to subsidize industry to make up the difference if necessary and perhaps tax countries which are benefiting.

Make Creating New Companies Easy

Easy business loans, easy registration and removal of barriers of industry are key here. The policy of regulation by results will also help, since it reduces the massive burden of endless regulation with a simple “make sure you’re meeting our regulatory goals.” Subsidize chosen industries and make those subsidies easy to get, but audit for results and cut off those who aren’t making it.

Subsidize new companies, reduce their subsidies over time.

Make bankruptcy easy, frequent and painless. If a company fails, it fails. You keep your home and enough money to get by on for a couple years.

Final Remarks

We could go on, or each point could have its own full article, in many cases an article many thousands of words long. There’s little point in doing all that work now, since implementation is impossible. But it’s important to lay down the marker that good policy is possible and to show, generally speaking, what it would look like.

By the time Europe is willing to consider good policy its position will be far worse and digging out of the hole (when in a hole, stop digging) will be far harder. The most likely outcome is that Europe returns to being what it has been for most of history: a backwards peninsula on the edge of Eurasia, largely meaningless to anyone but themselves.

The world is changing, in huge ways, bigger than any changes since the industrial revolution, most likely even bigger than those. Europe is no longer the world’s leader, nor is it any longer the favored vassal of a super-power. It can adapt or see an end to the European garden.

So for it is choosing to see an end to the “garden.”

So be it.


My writing happens because readers donate or subscribe. If you value that writing, and you can afford to, please support it.

Page 1 of 88

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén