To advertise on this space
Per inserzioni pubblicitarie
Um hier Werbung zu machen

Europe

All the news not fit to print
To advertise on this space
Per inserzioni pubblicitarie
Editorial correspondence | Back to History | Back to the world news
TM, ®, Copyright © 2005 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.

Articles on Europe after 2008
Why the European economy is more resilient than the USA
Expel the nationalists
Europe to the right
2007 articles

  • (july 2008) Why the European economy is more resilient than the USA. The mortgage crisis and the oil crisis have hurt the USA more than they have hurt Europe. In fact, the European bank has immediately increased interest rates while the USA federal bank has been reluctant to do so, despite already having very low interest rates. European economies are still growing, despite the oil prices, while the USA is stuck in a de-facto recession.
    The reason that Europe is not affected as much as the USA by the double wham of the mortgage crisis and the oil crisis is simple: it was better prepared for it. Europeans don't borrow money as much as USA citizens. Europeans don't drive inefficient cars for long distances like USA citizens do. An increase in interest rates would send one million USA citizens bankrupt, while it affects very few European citizens (and mostly the affluent ones). An increase in gasoline prices hurts tens of millions of USA families who have no alternative for commuting to work, while it affects very few European citizens (and mostly the affluent ones) because the vast majority of Europeans are served by a large and efficient network of public transportation.
    Europe is also better sheltered from the other two big crises that loom on the horizon: the health-care crisis and the higher-education crisis. Fewer and fewer USA citizens can afford to pay for health care, whereas every European is covered for free under a national program. Fewer and fewer USA citizens can afford to send their children to a good college, whereas most European children have a chance to attend a government-funded college that is at least in the average.
    Europe has been doing business as usual (in fact, Germany has become the largest exporter in the world) whereas the USA has been begging the Arabs to increase oil production, has been begging China to buy USA-made goods, has been begging Russia to stick by the rules. Both China, Russia and the Arabs have rebuffed the USA that USA citizens have caused their own problems by living above their standards (and paying too little in taxes), so now they only have themselves to blame for their troubles.
    The USA conservatives who snobbed and derided Europe over the last 20 years (such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity) may soon have to emigrate to Europe. They should hurry because the collapsing dollar compared with the rising euro will soon make European homes too expensive for USA citizens. They were the ones predicting that the euro will never ever challenge the supremacy of the USA dollar, weren't they?
    TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
    Back to the world news | Top of this page

  • (june 2008) Expel the nationalists. The member states of the European Union once worked out a constitution. They made the mistake of letting their countries vote for or against it in fair referendums. It was killed even in France. Now they worked out a new "constitution" under the euphemistic name of "Lisbon treaty". This time most governments were smart enough not to let their citizens vote for it. Except one: Ireland. Sure enough the one and only referendum in the European Union delivered the feared verdict: the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty. This comes short of being an affront because Ireland is the one country that has benefited enormously from the European Union. It was a country of poor farmers before it joined the EU. A few years later it had become the economic miracle of Europe. Nonetheless even they, once they become wealthy, don't really want political integration with the rest of Europe.
    The European Union can insist in trying to work out complicated and costly treaties that at least one country will eventually reject (a process that is rapidly becoming a joke) or simply recognize that you cannot create a federation of 27 states (each convinced of being home to a superior race) without using some kind of pressure. If people have nothing to lose, why not say "no" when asked "do you agree"? It is easier than saying "yes" because you know the world as it is, whereas the world after your "yes" is an unknown. If you are doing well, why risk? That's precisely what the European Union has to introduce: risk. What next? Will Luxembourg (a tiny state that is basically a ridiculous leftover from the Middle Ages) veto the next treaty?
    Ireland should be expelled from the European Union until it approves the Lisbon treaty. That simple. Let the Irish find out how well they can do without the charity that they have received from the other European countries.
    The truth is that, had there been a referendum, Europe would have no euro and there would be no European Union to start with. After centuries of wars, racism and colonialism, Europeans are nationalistic to the bone. The masses are opposed to any effort to create global entities. They want to remain the nation that they have been for centuries.
    Let them pay the price, not reward them.
    There is a fundamental problem that has been taboo to discuss in Europe. When a nation is asked to vote for a new European treaty, they are asked to decide based on whether it benefits "their" country. They are allowed to put their state above the Union. That is not how one creates a federation. That is how one creates wars. The European Union has avoided the issue of how to create a European nation (made of Europeans that identify themselves with Europe first and with their state second). As long as nations are asked to vote as independent nations, some will continue to vote "no". Before they can pass wide-ranging legislation, European governments need to create the psychology that their citizens are voting for the good of the whole Union not just for the good of the people who speak their home language. Had the Irish been voting for the good of Europe, and not just for the good of Ireland, the result may have been different.
    Unfortunately when the Irish voted "no", they cared zero whether their vote had a positive or negative influence on the rest of Europe. Hence the rest of Europe should care zero for them.
    TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
    Back to the world news | Top of this page

  • (may 2008) Europe to the right. Right-wing parties have been winning elections in a Western Europe that many in the USA considered a socialist stronghold. Notably, Merkel won in Germany, Sarkozy in France and Berlusconi in Italy. The Conservatives are also projected to win in Britain (Labour sank to third place in the local elections of may 2008). I think there are two reasons.
    1. The socialists claim that they are the party of the people but they display the typical behavior of the Left, a misunderstanding that began with Lenin during the Russian revolution: "we the leaders of the revolution know what you the masses want, therefore we don't need to ask them" (or, worse, "we know better than the masses what the masses need"). It is a worldwide tradition that socialists give the masses what they (the politicians) think the masses want, instead of asking the masses what they really want. This has created a huge gap between them and the masses that they claim to represent at the same time that the right-wing parties have embraced the issues that are more popular with the masses.
    2. Fascism collapsed in 1945. It took 40-50 years but eventually the old "fascist" parties reformed themselves and adapted to a world in which fascism will never return. They kept what makes sense of their right-wing ideology and threw away the obsolete crap. It turns out a lot of things were appealing. Marxism collapsed in 1989. There are certainly elements of Marxism that could still be appealing, but the socialists have not yet adapted to a world in which Marxism will never return. The socialists sound outdated and obsolete, even when they are more honest and more humane than the others. For example, they suffer from trivial contradictions: they have embraced the causes of environmentalism and human-rights (because it is consistent with their hatred of capitalists), but then they tend to defend countries such as China that are the worst offenders on both counts. The new fascists, instead, have learned to distance themselves from anyone who is... fascist!
    In a sense, the very notion of "populism" has changed dramatically with the geopolitical (collapse of the Soviet Union) and social (globalization) issues of the 21st century.
    The right-wing parties are supposed to be the parties of the rich and the capitalists, but they have actually learned to listen to what the masses want. Right now the masses want to fight crime, curb illegal immigration, fix the budget deficit, etc.
    In an age in which ideologies have largely lost their appeal (particularly with the younger generations), the right-wing parties are also less "ideological" than the socialist parties. In fact, it's hard to tell what the ideologies of Sarkozy, Merkel and Berlusconi are. That's precisely why people voted for them.
    Ironically, at the same time the USA is moving to the Left. Polls show that an overwhelming majority of USA citizens wants a liberal for president. Bill Clinton may not be the most likable person in the world, but he must be credited for turning liberals into likable people faster than his European counterparts.
    TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
    Back to the world news | Top of this page

  • 2007 articles
Editorial correspondence | Back to the top | Back to History | Back to the world news