• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

"The whole of Europe is sick."

Strelnikov

4th Level Red Feather
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
1,812
Points
0
The following was written by British historian Paul Johnson and appeared in the Wall Street Journal on October 17, 2002. Comments, anyone?

Strelnikov

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Ostrich Position
By Paul Johnson

LONDON -- Americans have been angered by the hostile attitude of some Europeans to U.S. efforts to take the war against terrorism to its countries of origin in the Middle East -- a recent example of which was the suggestion, by Nobel jurors, that Jimmy Carter deserved the Peace Prize for his opposition to war with Iraq. They are puzzled by European irrationalism and weakness. They wonder, too, how the Continental economies can sustain double-digit unemployment for years on end. But the causes for all this are deep-rooted. There is no longer a "sick man of Europe." The whole of Europe is sick.

We have to remember that twice in the 20th century, Europe came close to committing suicide by wars that in retrospect seem senseless. These were followed by a Cold War that imprisoned much of Europe in a cage of fear. In this process, Europe, a collection of vigorous peoples who pushed forward the frontiers of civilization for a thousand years and created the modern world, learned to opt for a safety-first existence in which comforts and short-term security became the object of policy. They sought a cozy Utopia, with risk and pain eliminated.

Degeneration

Fifty years ago, the drive to unite Europe was seen as a daring adventure, not only burying ancient enmities but creating a new kind of enterprise society that would bring unparalleled prosperity. The project has degenerated into a defense of cradle-to-grave social-security system whose demands take priority over the market.

Under the EU's constant demands for "social protection," European societies have become a paradise for bureaucrats, trade unionists, centrist politicians and those businessmen who prefer to work under government protection. They offer little to original minds and risk-taking entrepreneurs. The fundamental assumptions of the drive to unite the continent are now half a century out of date and the EU's rigid, ultraconservative structure makes it incapable of taking in new ideas or even dumping such manifest archaisms as the Common Agricultural Policy.

France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the big four of Continental Europe, did exceptionally well in the third and much of the final quarter of the 20th century, while the global economy was expanding steadily. But we are now discovering that Europe cannot cope with recession. In its quest for comfort and assurance, it has forgotten that capitalism is Janus-faced -- it brings astonishing growth and prosperity but at the cost of periodic and often violent adjustments when sufferings must be borne and profited from in order for the advance to be resumed. Risk, ruthlessness and fortitude are inescapable requirements of successful capitalism. There is no such thing as "Safety First" in a dynamic market.

Many Europeans know nothing of American history. But it has much to teach them. For instance, why did the Great Depression in the U.S. last so long? When the stock market first collapsed in 1929-30, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon gave President Hoover good advice, perhaps the only sound advice he received in the whole of his presidency. Mellon urged him to let the crisis take its toll and accept the pain: "Liquidate labor," he said. "Liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate, and so purge the rottenness from the economy."

By allowing the Depression to apply its brutal medicine, unsound businesses would have been bankrupted, the sound would have survived, and new ones quickly filled the gaps. Hoover did exactly the opposite, trying to stamp on the Depression with all the financial resources of government. FDR continued and intensified this policy of government intervention with all the flourish of a brilliant publicity machine. The result was to deaden some of the pain but also to spread and prolong it for an entire decade. The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not recover its October 1929 levels until the 1940s, and it took a world war to restore the dynamism of the American economy.

The lessons of this dismal period have never been fully learned even in the U.S., and outside it they have been ignored completely. The Japanese were the first to suffer from this willful ignorance. Having imitated, with enormous success, many aspects of market capitalism, they revealed that they had failed completely to grasp its psychological core of risk and danger when recession came -- as come it must. For a decade and a half the Japanese ruling elites have been using state power to keep alive banks and businesses that are bankrupt. So the recession continues, and grows worse, and there is no sign of its ending, for Japan is not going to be "rescued" by a third world war.

Now Continental Europe is following dolefully in Japan's wake. Both the German and the French governments have gone to extraordinary lengths to anesthetize the necessary pain of recession, keeping badly run businesses alive -- just -- by periodic injections of state cash. The victory of the Social Democrats in the German election ensures that this policy will continue. Indeed it will become more dogmatic in its safety-first nostrums, for the SPD is entirely dependent on the Greens, a party that regards any kind of risk -- to health, safety or the environment -- as abhorrent. Germany seems set for a long period of slow or nil growth and the one-time admirable engine of EU prosperity can now barely pull itself, let alone the rest of Europe.

The French are in little better state. And both countries are now suffering, for the first time, from restrictions imposed on the national economies in the name of common currency. Both are effectively denied the use of budget deficits to lift their economies out of recession. Once again safety-first policies have shown that they do not eliminate pain: they merely prolong it. Germany has well over four million unemployed, and the figure is growing. France has proportionately almost as many, Spain more.

Against this background of nervous depression and debility, can anyone wonder that Europe's response to Mr. Bush's war on terrorism has been spitefully critical? It is worth recalling that the dispirited democratic societies of the 1930s were similarly reluctant to take arms against the growing dictators of the period. They behaved like ostriches, and the mentality prevails today in countries emotionally drained by lack of economic dynamism.

But Europe must realize it has much to lose. The destruction of the French supertanker off Yemen shows that France has as much to fear from large-scale terrorist acts as the U.S., probably more. Germany is a peculiarly vulnerable target with its lax security procedures. The armed forces of both are in a lamentable state. And the viciousness with which Mr. Bush has been attacked reflects their powerlessness.

War On Terrorism

It is no accident that Britain, which is semi-detached from the EU and whose economy is aligned more with the American than the European model, has been prepared to take the war on terrorism seriously. We in Britain have comparatively high growth, low unemployment, attract high investment and enjoy economic dynamism. Our armed forces, though small, are well-equipped, experienced and confident.

All these things go together. America can fight and master terrorism alone, if need be, but the support of Britain is important, materially and psychologically. As for the Continental European, we can only hope that they have lost their self-respect as great nations only temporarily.
 
Paul Johnson...

Is this gent an accredited historian Strel? That's a fairly extreme view, with an awful lot of economic theory tossed into the mix as well. Interesting, beyond a doubt, but it seems more like an editorial piece than a history lesson.
Btw, our unemployment rate on Long Island is about 2%...which is basically hard core unemployables. Every business on the Island has a permanent Help Wanted sign in their windows, it seems. Q
 
Interesting article/editorial, Strelnikov, but I must take issue with it, especially the following excerpt:

Strelnikov said:
By allowing the Depression to apply its brutal medicine, unsound businesses would have been bankrupted, the sound would have survived, and new ones quickly filled the gaps. Hoover did exactly the opposite, trying to stamp on the Depression with all the financial resources of government. FDR continued and intensified this policy of government intervention with all the flourish of a brilliant publicity machine. The result was to deaden some of the pain but also to spread and prolong it for an entire decade. The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not recover its October 1929 levels until the 1940s, and it took a world war to restore the dynamism of the American economy.

So Paul Johnson is saying that the Depression should have run its course without government intervention! :sowrong: For the record, Hoover did not do very much about the Depression until his last year in office, by which time the damage had already been done. The laissez-faire capitalism of the Roaring Twenties allowed the Depression to happen, and although Roosevelt's New Deal did not cure it, the economy GREW during most of his term. The war put an end to the Depression because it forced the government to spend a lot of money, according to Keynesian economic theory.

If all this sounds confusing, here's a link that may help you understand what I'm talking about:

http://home.att.net/~resurgence/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSION.htm

Even if you don't agree with the stuff on this website, I still think it's a great read. 🙂
 
TicklishPhoebe said:
Wow. That is a great read - thanks for the link!

You're welcome, Phoebe! I like the site because the stuff on it is well researched and supported. Still, not everyone will agree, but they don't have to! 😀

P.S. I WILL tickle your feet someday when I have enough money! 😉
 
amk714 said:

P.S. I WILL tickle your feet someday when I have enough money! 😉

Cool! Come on in, you can tickle my feet and then we can discuss the socio-economic implications of the great depression! Or not. Your choice.
😛
 
TicklishPhoebe said:
Cool! Come on in, you can tickle my feet and then we can discuss the socio-economic implications of the great depression! Or not. Your choice.
😛

I think I'm in love! :bouncybou
 
Back to the topic, please!

Q is right, this is a political editorial from a conservative economist, not a serious historical analysis.

Europe’s economy is far from being ideal, nobody here denies that. I agree on some of Mr. Johnson’s statements, especially about our obsolete agricultural politics. It needs revision badly. Labor is too expensive here because it bears all the cost for our social security system. For an average monthly salary of € 1000 (about the same amount in $), the employer has to spend about € 1600, while the employee (after tax and social security deduction) can take home only about € 500-600. Prices rise according to increasing production cost, so the consumers’ income is constantly decreasing. There’s a lot left to be desired in Europe’s (and the World’s) economy.

However, it’s also a question of priorities: European nations prefer to care for ALL their citizens, even for the poor and weak, while the USA largely shoves these ugly problems out of sight and out of society, into the shadow world of slums. That’s what happens inevitably when a country is ruled by freebooting capitalism: The strong eat the weak, nature’s prime principle of evolution. What’s wrong with that?

Well, primarily it neglects the humanity aspect. It’s what separates us from animals. Pure capitalism has many inhuman streaks. It’s a different kind of dictatorship and has nothing to do with democracy or the original values in the US constitution. And if we don’t find a balance between economic AND human values, we do not deserve to survive as a species.

It’s interesting that the Wall Street Journal brings up the connection of economy and war. I’ve read a bit about the Keynesian theory (thanks for mentioning it, amk) myself, and to me it seems that the current war drums against Iraq are a Bush attempt to sanitize the US economy in their own recession. That may also be the main reason for Mr. Bush’s rowing back from his original militaristic standpoint in the UN: US economy is unable to prosper in an isolated political position.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, German constitution (as well as most other European ones) forbids us to participate in military aggression against another state. Especially the Americans ensured that such a paragraph was inserted into post-war Germany’s constitution, and quite understandably so. And that has nothing at all to do with economic problems.

Besides, most Europeans are not convinced that a large-scale war is the right answer to terrorism. To us, terrorists are criminals. War against criminals can’t be won with bombs and tanks, it needs some different tackling: A close international cooperation of police forces and intelligence services for example. Military operations may be necessary at some stage, but for special task forces, quick and efficient raids, mobile units with special training. I’m sure that most European nations would approve of and participate in such actions. We have some long-time experience with terrorism on our own soil.

I won’t comment on Mr. Johnson’s other statements as they are largely a matter of his own views. Thanks to Strelnikov for bringing this up for discussion anyway. It permitted me to clarify a few major points on Europe's views.
 
Some clarification...

Hal, your "strong eats weak" theory is a bit leaky. Most of our states have Welfare Programs in place that provide shelter and basic food allowances that are liveable. The problem with these programs is that they get abused by a certain % of the population, and are subject to political interference and revision rather quickly. Health care is also covered in a lot of necessary areas, and it again lends itself to major abuses. I don't want to get into an abortion debate, but using county/state/federal programs as a form of birth control is a huge issue in many places in the US. BUT, I do refute your assertion that we leave our weak and ugly "behind" us. Could we do better? Probably, but especially in NY, they don't have it quite as bad as you may have been led to believe. I used to own low income housing and dealt directly with the county on client placements. There were those who had suffered some bad breaks and were down on their luck, but there was another large % that were milking the system so they could basically be semihuman parasites. As always, the full story is not known to those just reading or hearing it second hand..... Q
 
Re: Back to the topic, please!

Haltickling said:
It’s interesting that the Wall Street Journal brings up the connection of economy and war. I’ve read a bit about the Keynesian theory (thanks for mentioning it, amk) myself, and to me it seems that the current war drums against Iraq are a Bush attempt to sanitize the US economy in their own recession. That may also be the main reason for Mr. Bush’s rowing back from his original militaristic standpoint in the UN: US economy is unable to prosper in an isolated political position.

It's telling how much Bush's position has changed on America's role in international affairs. When he was campaigning in 2000, he was something of an isolationist. Then, when he became President, he found out that America and the rest of the world could not be separated from each other. I agree that Bush wants to go to war in part to turn attention away from the economy--not that I'm against going to war myself. The first Bush's war didn't turn the economy around, so it'll be interesting to see what happens if America does indeed attack Iraq before the next Presidential election two years from now. I like the Wall Street Journal, but their editorials are a bit too conservative for my taste. 🙂

P.S. You're welcome, Hal. I just wish Keynesian theory was discussed more--then maybe we could find a solution to this recession!
 
Q, it’s not my “strong eat weak” theory alone. How many US states have only a very minimal Welfare Program? How long do these programs pay? A year or two? What if these people are so deep in shit (many times caused by accidents/illness of close relatives/divorce etc) that this span of time isn’t enough? How many Americans have to die each year because they can’t afford a health insurance at all, or one that covers a bit more expensive therapies/surgeries? Just a few examples which couldn’t happen in Northern or Central Europe.

But I’m far from accusing the US for insufficient care; it’s by far better than many other industrial nations, let alone the formerly socialistic states. My previous reply was merely addressed to the highly cynical views of Mr. Johnson on this topic. Strange that such cynicism comes from a Brit, one of the nations with a rather good social care system.

Of course, there’s abuse of every welfare system, as well as of tax deductions or constitutional privileges. It has become the major conservative exculpation for cutting or shutting down welfare projects. But what is the alternative? Withdrawing the single straw of hope from the helpless? Cutting them off the only life support they have means to drive them into homelessness, alcoholism, drug abuse, criminal actions, suicide. All justified by a few percent of wrongdoers?

And Q, you should know me better than to assume that my views come from second-hand sources!
 
Logo...

I was just going to email you about the new logo that was waiting for you, but I guess you found it...obviously.

Hal, we have third generation families on welfare in NY state. Not all states are so open ended about the "help" programs, and I believe that is a correct approach. This is supposed to be a helping hand, NOT a way of life, which it often turns into when applied with a wide brush. My wife and I lived in subsidized housing our first year out of college, and it was hard work to get going, but not impossible with a bit of effort. We fell into that system because she ended up hospitalized instead of working, and we were estranged from her family at the time, due to our marriage (long story).
Nearly every job that is full time comes with a basic health benefits package, and there's PLENTY of them in the paper every single day...so once again I must refute the idea that these are an unobtainable item for a person with even a modicum of ambition.
I'm sure your sources are good Hal, but they aren't IN the trenches, so to speak. The fallacy of "no benefits" has been so entrenched in the media that it has become a given in a discussion on the topic. It's NOT the truth.
Beats me what the answer is to the "abusers", but a work/education placement program that limits your time in the welfare system is the logical setup, which is what more than half our states use in some form. This leads to states like NY being flooded with those who aren't interested in getting out of the system, and have no intention of being productive, even though able bodied. Naturally, this is a political minefield and is the major reason the system gets redesigned nearly every 3 or 4 years. Right now they're using motels for emergency welfare housing, which runs about $1500 a week for a family of four that gets billed to the taxpayers. Something needs to be done, but having an open ended welfare program certainly doesn't promote the ideal solution, namely getting some training and getting out of the system.
As for this gents assertions, they DO seem a bit edgy...lol...even to me. Social health sounds like it has some serious drawbacks as well from what I've heard from some of our international members. waiting 24-72 hours for a prescription for needed medicine sux bigtime! Guess there's good and bad to be said about both. Btw, emergency care is provided at all hospitals here for the indigent Hal...no one gets thrown in the street if they're sick enough. Not saying they get the BEST surgeon or aftercare, but they get something no matter what their circumstances. Q
 
Scattergun Response

Thanks, everybody, for the thoughtful responses.

I looked up Mr. Johnson's bibliography before I posted the article. He writes "popular" rather than "academic" history. The latter tends to be very narrowly focused, and therefore read only by other historians. A pop historian is probably a better observer - he has to see his topic as a gestalt, and present it to others who don't necessarily have a lot of background knowledge.

I'm with Q on the subject of the Welfare State. As originally conceived in this country, Welfare was intended as temporary help for working people who were down on their luck. For most of them in the 1930's, it was just that. Most were ashamed of being "on relief", got off as fast as they were able, and more than repaid what they were given with their taxes.

Unfortunately, there were enough parasites who took advantage that it created another serious problem. There have always been poor people here, but until the advent of the welfare state we never had a permanent underclass. Welfare reform, with mandatory training and time limits on aid, is intended to attack the root cause. Europeans, even the Brits, seem content to perpetuate it.

I don't buy Keynesian economics. Government intervention in the economy seldom has good results. If you doubt that, look at the concept taken to its logical end - the centrally planned economies of the former Eastern Bloc. Worked great, didn't they?

Hal, I agree that much of the fight against terrorism is of a law enforcement nature. It's important to disrupt gangs, stop money laundering, capture individuals, confiscate money and weapons. But that's like swatting mosquitos. It's more important and more productive to drain the swamp - take the war to its origin in the Middle East and destroy the regimes that support, condone, or even tolerate it. Maybe we can do that by subversion (Iran seems a likely candidate) or persuasion (some of the monarchies are moving in that direction.) Sometimes, though, a military solution will be required. We now have a president who understands that. I wish more of our allies understood it too.

Strelnikov
 
Re: Scattergun Response

Strelnikov said:
I don't buy Keynesian economics. Government intervention in the economy seldom has good results. If you doubt that, look at the concept taken to its logical end - the centrally planned economies of the former Eastern Bloc. Worked great, didn't they?

I don't believe in centrally planned economies, but I don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism, either. If there is little or no governmental regulation in a capitalist economy, then the gap between rich and poor will grow, the environment will suffer, and the workers will be exploited. I don't know whether you visited the link I posted earlier, but here it is in case you haven't:

http://home.att.net/~resurgence/THE_GREAT_DEPRESSION.htm

I have a hunch you'll disagree with just about everything you read there, but at least the arguments on that website are well researched and supported, IMHO. 🙂
 
qjakal said:
I used to own low income housing Q

So Q was a slum lord , I mean, a real estate tycoon.😀
I have to hand it to anyone who owns low income rentals and tries to help people with that. It requires a lot of patience and there will always be a few who take advantage of what help is offered.

Also along the lines of disability. It is offered by our Social Security but from what I've seen it doesn't offer enough to the truly disabled.

I was wondering what people think about this thought. My opinion is that the churches in the US dropped the ball when government welfare was started. I think the churches should have stepped up and said that this is not for the government, the churches should be taking care of people who need help. Maybe could have prevented people taking advantage of the government system. After all nobody is going to cheat a church, are they😕
 
Cheat a church...

Hmmm..maybe you hadn't move from your current location O....they loot churches, kill priests and terrorize nuns around here fairly regularly. They are easy targets and spend their time in areas that aren't the most secure. BUT, your contention that the Churches and private sector SHOULD have taken this issue to heart is correct, imo. They couldn't have done any worse than the local/state/federal governments have done.....Q
 
Re: Cheat a church...

qjakal said:
they loot churches, kill priests and terrorize nuns around here fairly regularly. They are easy targets and spend their time in areas that aren't the most secure. Q

I know that the police say that church buildings are the least secure of any. You are right about where I live. Our church building is almost never locked. And nothing has been taken or destroyed in the 13 years that I have been here. We almost never lock our house either.
 
I am in total agreement with omega about the churches dropping the ball when welfare was started.In PA,we also have an "underclass" of people on welfare for generations.Another example of this is the reported troubles in Denmark concerning welfare and middle Eastern immigrants.
I have no problems with welfare,unemployment compensation,workers' compensation, or social security in general.The problems lie in the abuses of these benefits, and the costs in their administration.I know people who work and collect welfare supplements due to low income, or just for medical coverage.There are others who go out and purchase dozens of hot dogs with food stamps and use them for pet food,which the stamps won't cover.
Churches and other charities could have,at least,lessened the need for welfare and such,but left much of that work to the governments,who still can't figure out how to balance a budget.
This subject can be discussed for hundreds of pages.I'll stop my reply here and see what arises.
 
shark said:
Churches and other charities could have,at least,lessened the need for welfare and such,but left much of that work to the governments,who still can't figure out how to balance a budget.

My feeling is that with local people taking care of local people there may be less people taking advantage of the system. When I live right next door to you I am more likely to know if you really need help or if you are just scamming the system. Of course abuse could happen the other way. I know you really need help but I'm mad at you or you don't go to my church so no help for you. But if a church is working the way it should those kinds of things shouldn't happen.
 
More on the Underclass...

You'll find a good discussion of that particular social pathology in "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass" by Theodore Dalrymple, MD (Ivan R. Dee: 2001. pp263 hardback; ISBN: 1566633826.) Dr. Dalrymple is a British psychiatrist whose practice includes a hospital in a slum neighborhood and a prison. Quote: "The Welfare State may not have created the Underclass, but it was a necessary precondition for its existence."
 
What's New
1/27/26
Visit Clips4Sale for a great selection of tickling clips!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top