The Comeback Continent
Today I'd like to talk about a much-derided contender making a surprising comeback, a comeback that calls into question much of the conventional wisdom of American politics. No, I'm not talking about a politician. I'm talking about an economy - specifically, the European economy, which many Americans assume is tired and spent but has lately been showing surprising vitality.
Why should Americans care about Europe's economy? Well, for one thing, it's big. The G.D.P. of the European Union is roughly comparable to that of the United States; the euro is almost as important a global currency as the dollar; and the governance of the world financial system is, for practical purposes, equally shared by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve.
But there's another thing: it's important to get the facts about Europe's economy right because the alleged woes of that economy play an important role in American political discourse, usually as an excuse for the insecurities and injustices of our own society.
For example, does Hillary Clinton have a plan to cover the millions of Americans who lack health insurance? "She takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies," sneers Mitt Romney.
Or are top U.S. executives grossly overpaid? According to a Times report, Michael Jensen, a professor emeritus at Harvard's Graduate School of Business whose theories helped pave the way for gigantic paychecks, considers executive excess "an acceptable price to pay for an American economy that he believes has outstripped Japan and Europe in growth and prosperity."
In fact, however, tales of a moribund Europe are greatly exaggerated.
It's true that Europe has had a lot of economic troubles over the past generation. In the mid-1970s the Continent entered a prolonged era of sluggish job creation, which contrasted with vigorous employment growth in the United States.
And in the 1990s, Europe lagged behind America in the adoption of new technology. For example, in 1997 fewer than 15 percent of French homes contained personal computers and fewer than 1 percent were connected to the Internet.
But that was then.
Since 2000, employment has actually grown a bit faster in Europe than in the United States - and since Europe has a lower rate of population growth, this has translated into a substantial rise in the percentage of working-age Europeans with jobs, even as America's employment-population ratio has declined.
In particular, in the prime working years, from 25 to 54, the big gap between European and U.S. employment rates that existed a decade ago has been largely eliminated. If you think Europe is a place where lots of able-bodied adults just sit at home collecting welfare checks, think again.
Meanwhile, Europe's Internet lag is a thing of the past. The dial-up Internet of the 1990s was dominated by the United States. But as dial-up has given way to broadband, Europe has more than kept up. The number of broadband connections per 100 people in the 15 countries that were members of the European Union before it was enlarged in 2004, is slightly higher than in the U.S. - and Europe's connections are both substantially faster and substantially cheaper than ours.
I don't want to exaggerate the good news. Europe continues to have many economic problems. But who doesn't? The fact is that Europe's economy looks a lot better now - both in absolute terms and compared with our economy - than it did a decade ago.
What's behind Europe's comeback? It's a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe's broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.
What European countries definitely haven't done is dismantle their strong social safety nets. Universal health care is a given. So are a variety of programs that support families in trouble, helping protect Europeans from the extreme poverty all too common in this country. All of this costs money - even though European countries spend far less on health care than we do - and European taxes are very high by U.S. standards.
In short, Europe continues to be a big-government sort of place. And that's why it's important to get the real story of the European economy out there.
According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we're told, and the economy will shrivel up - the same way it supposedly has in Europe.
But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe's economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
36 Comments so far
Show AllHello TheTrucker,
Whatever you do' don't mention Marx. The guy was a lifelong sponge (off of Engels) who fabricated almost 70% of the citations in his "Magnum Opus". Paul Johnson did a tremendous dissection of the falsehoods in Capital a few years back.
Anyhow... as I tried to point out, it is not the existence of the common stock corporation which gives rise to its political power; it is the inherent corruptibility of the political process, and the extant (and often innate) corruption of the vermin who become politicians.
Take our little teensy Emperor Sarko; he is never happier (being a VERY short man) than when he is in the same room as people with a lot of money who treat him as an (almost) equal. Being a politician has enabled him to have TWO wives who normally would not spit on such an ugly little brute if he didn't have a decent wedge of dough behind him, and he lives in a palace. Whats not to like? (That's his thinking, not mine).
I have mentioned several tijmes, the famous 'dots' speech from The Third Man (1949, but relevant whenever people die as a result of sick psychopathic political calculus).
Connect the 'dots', make them aware of the extent to which they have been sold a lemon: get them motivated and the world of the parasitic politician ends. And with it, the massive redistribution of money from the tax base toe the DONOR base. Tu vois?
But don't quote fucking Marx; the guy was a moral sewer (a parasite, and he fathered a bastard with his housekeeper, who he never paid... and he had the temerity to babble about exploitation of the working classes). I want the current system changed 9to a geneuine free market) and I detest ALL politicians... to move leftwards it to empoverish everybody even more than they are currently... 60 cents in the dolalr goes to Federal, State or Lcoal taxes, and the budget is STILL IN DEFICIT!!!
Cheerio
GT
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
The notion that capitalism creates huge corporations that "milk" net accounting profits for the sake of the managers and owners of the corporation is correct. That is, in fact, the result of latter day capitalism and unless and until this concept (political economy) is altered it will so remain. That ancient dude named Marx thought that the people would revolt and overthrow this sort of thing, but the rich finally figured out how to appease the people just enough to keep this from happening. The primary tools are religion, patriotism, "The Economy", and propaganda. The latter two, of course, are the vehicles for the former.
Why would we measure the "economy" the way we do? Why would we not measure the "economy" as the quality of life? Quality of life measures seem to abound and it seems to me that they are the true indicators of economic success. If we all work 80 hours a week and spend no time with our families then the GDP will be huge, the unemployment will be low, and the workforce participation index will be quite substantial. Such numbers do not, to me, indicate a "good economy".
To my way of thinking a better measure of economic performance in America would be the wage to land price ratio. The question is one of "how long does the average person of rudimentary wage have to work so as to acquire the right to live on suitable land (like in a suburb drawing a pension or in a flat/apartment) without the payment of a land rent or a mortgage?". This does not imply that the escape from land rent is the golden fleece. It is, instead, just a true and correct method of measuring economic performance (maximum utility). Wage maximization should be the golden fleece of all economics because it is the general utility and the general freedom index. The purpose of division of labor, economies of scale, and real capital development is to maximize productivity. Proper economics is about distribution of the benefits in such a way as to maximize total long run utility.
As far as the political part of getting things done, you will find my soul at GreaterVoice.org and Thirty-Thousand.org. The American people have lost control of their government and they must get it back before anything will change. It isn't easy.
Yesterdays posts,..... I know, but it is my contention that what you(we) imagine comes true. In the scheme I'm imagining, the government would be much smaller and also anwerable to the people, but would still be the overseer and the corporations would always be answerable to a strict criteria which makes them responsible for funding the refurbishing of the lesser and decrepit portions of our society, otherwise, once again, they lose corporate license to operate and are declared null and defunct by the swift authority of Zeuss, no democratic rights for corporations, either produce community positive results or cease to be. The corps would have authority and discipline only within themselves in order to create and manage wealth and efficiency and also they would be accountable to human rights within. Why not imagine it all the way, the way we want it? If we don't speak to the way we would like it, can we blame anyone else who does? A power change is coming, let us imagine that we are truthful and loving, and that our institutions relect us, all of us, why not? Love yourself, love your corporations as they love you. Be of good cheer! "Eat the rich!"
I'd drop my US citizenship for Scananavian, Dutch, French. German or many other countries in a heartbeat. Trouble is, I'm already sick with a chronic health condition (stress related) that makes working and living in the US harder than ever. Oh well. I still love this country.
We just has some backass priorities.
I just write my tax checks to Halliburton. Faster that way.
eddievalgould:
Interesting proposition. But how can you achieve this when corporations ARE the government?
Thanks for the info MimiCcs and Geoffrey Transom.
Dichterfreund said:
"Since corporations are better at organizing
and getting stuff done than government"
I suppose this is meant ironically since no one who's worked for one could possibly imagine that corporations are anything other than cancerous growths — designed to produce a single function at the expense of all social functions, they can never be given license to operate on the basis that they would operate to benefit anyone not subsumed to their immediate & all-consuming purpose."
I think the premise is true. Cancerous growths are very efficient at killing their host.
heavyrunner,
The government (who owned France Telecom) didn't give everyone a computer... they made it possible for subscribers to get a 'minitel', which is a small terminal connected to a system very much like the internet which has been available in France (the minitel network) for nigh on thirty years.
We still have 'annuaires' (paper telephone books) here in France.
The reason that the eurozone is strong, is because of German growth - that is the engine, and nobody ought to pretend otherwise - and the fact that Germany's east was growing off a very very small base. Other economies feed German growth and get dragged along as a consequence.
Furthermore, increases in consumer willingness to take on DEBT has resulted in the consumption component of GDP (which counts EXPENDITURE) rising quite sharply. Business investment expenditure has done likewise... but the BALANCE SHEETS of households and businesses are now loaded with debt. Not as badly as English or Americans, but still way out of whack with historical norms.
Thats the problem of measuring prosperity through expenditure - it takes no account of the extent to which you are selling the family silver in order to buy gimcracks and flat-panel TVs. Increases in household balance sheet liabilities do not enter the GDP identity and nobody takes any notice of them in the National Accounts.
Here in regional France, the French are getting by primarily through DEBT. Paris, Lyon and other major cities have a core of people who are making out like bandits (Sarko and his ilk) but the majority of households are faring poorly.
I read somewhere that 85% of French income earners gain less than 1500 euro a month 'brut' (before income tax). I think that excludes contributions for retirement and health care (which are paid by the employer - raising non-wage costs to 60% of the wage bill). I had been looking at France as a domicile for a business, but frankly its taxation regime and its labour market are absolutely anti-business (unlss you're politically connected).
Outside Paris and a couple of other major population centres (and even in Paris, outside the peripherique) France is a third world country. They might have good broadband, but they have banana Republic levels of debt and they have not had a government surplus in THIRTY THREE YEARS.
I like it here though... except you can't get bacon and eggs, or proper English cheddar... or a good old Aussie meat pie. On a recent visit to Australia (after two years' absence) I was absolutely gobsmacked at the level of prosperity... not that Oz had changed,; I had got used to France.
The French people are brilliant - even in Paris (we lived just off Avenue Foch in the 16th, then on Rue St Dominique in the 7th, before moving to the country). That that's true only if you bother to try to speak French (unlike 90% of Americans in Paris - the "manges-craches" or "spit eaters").
Cheers
GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
PS - I'm the guy who forecast the CDO meltdown, FOUR YEARS ago. It's on the blog's front page again as a memento.
"Since corporations are better at organizing
and getting stuff done than government"
I suppose this is meant ironically since no one who's worked for one could possibly imagine that corporations are anything other than cancerous growths -- designed to produce a single function at the expense of all social functions, they can never be given license to operate on the basis that they would operate to benefit anyone not subsumed to their immediate & all-consuming purpose.
There's nothing 'wrong' with America's attachment to the 'free' market as a tonic to growth. It leads to a dynamic economy and much innovation. It's personally ruinous to most Americans, who only get the bill for this in their later life when there's little they can do about it. The problem is that most of what America gives away to the rich for re-investment...
gets invested in Cambodian child prostitutes, Central American real estate, and a 'cult of personality' that makes most Europeans (rightly) cringe.
I also have long considered far superior to America, but not just how its government functions--its culture. After talks with my Danish professor, which I know is not a general sample, but still interesting--it became apparent that elitism is general frowned upon. She said lifestyles that conspicuously extol wealth are not visible. I know for most progressives Scandinavia looks like heaven. I certainly am thinking about moving after I graduate.
But, is anyone aware of literature on the Scandinavia model or Europe. I know of Rifkins work, but want to read more.
"According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity."
Then I guess these anti-government frauds (sub-chapter S coprorations, etc.) won't be needing Congress to burden average-Joe taxpayers with another corporate welfare "bailout" after Wall Street Bankers and Hedge-funders have to write off hundreds of billions in losses as a result of their subprime greed.
On the other hand, if a weak social safety net for average-Joe is "essential" to Wall Street's prosperity, then this would mean these anti-government frauds will rely heavily on Congress to bail them out, further "weakening" any social safety net still available.
We could live like Europeans if we did not have to spend 1 trillion dollars a year on being the global policeman and maintaining an Empire where the only ones that profit are multi-national corporations. WTF are we still in Europe for, let them defend themsleves, scrap NATO.
Also, Europe and London pretty much have been able to influence American politics and economics through the Fed since 1913. We let them steal most of our Gold when we went off the Gold Standard in 1933, thanks to the Fed.
These interests control the Federal Reserve through about 300 stockholders:
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn, Loeb and Co. of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Amschel Meyer Rosthschild, 1838 "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws".
Even before the Fed sealed our fate, Europeans were messing with us. The civil war was financed by European bankers who sought to divide up the country after being defeated in their attempts to to get a central bank. They financed the south and England and France moved troop into Mexico and Canada. The south wanted to secede because of unfair trading practices that favoured the North over the South. The Northern bankers ganged up on Lincoln and tried to charge usury interest rates on loans to finance the war, but he double crossed them and issued his own money (greenbacks)-he would pay for that evil deed. Russia then came to our aid and prevented the British and French from supplying the South (we had to by Alaska at the end of the war to repay them). Lincoln in an effort to get public opinion behind the war turned it into a War on Slavery. When it became apparent that Europe had failed in their efforts to divide and rule the US, since the North would win, and that Lincoln still would not go for a privately controlled Central Bank nor would he let them loot the South and enslave them, the Rothschilds had him assassinated.
Some believe that the British in fact still rule America. Sir Greenspan was just knighted by the Queen of England who is recognized by a commonwealth of 53 countries, in return for his tanking the US economy I guess. The tax free havens that manipulate our markets with derviatives using illegal naked short trading in the US and launder the money of the drug dealers are in British controlled territories. With Rockefeller weakening and losing power, it may well be that control of the country is now more entrenched than ever by Anglo-European-Israeli interests. As a nation of immigrants, many of those in power in the US are from other countries, and may put Americas interests 2nd.
The first war in Iraq was to protect British oil interests in Kuwait.
We overthrew a Democratic Iran in 1953 due to they nationalized their oil industry that was controlled by Britain.
Our entry into WW I was unfathomable, and could only be explained by our efforts to bail out Britain and France.
WW II was another bail out.
Iraq II was more about Israeli interests than British, not to mention oil, as is the hype over Iran.
Funny how we keep going to war for Britain and now Israel. Israel in fact would not exist today without the British Balfour Declaration and their policies allowing immigration, controlled as it was, during the Mandate years.
It was once said during the course of a debate on slavery, that no good business man would ever want slaves. With slaves, you have to buy them, and then feed them, house them, educate them and cloth them, and when they get sick, you have to treat them, and when they die, you have to bury them. With the worker, you just pay them a salary, and let them go home after work and fend for themsleves. If they get sick, old, slow, you just fire them and get a newer and better replacement. And if you can get the workers to go into debt to borrow money created out of nothing, then he becomes your slave anyways w/o you having to waste any capital on his/her purchase and care.
We might just have been European slaves for the last 100 years, but I still think those who rules us think outside of national borders and are simply globalists, based in America, Europe, Israel and Asia, who have a common goal to dominate the herd and enrich themselves so they can become more powerful. The problem now is they have shipped your jobs to China, and you can not pay your debt let alone borrow anymore money, and you are getting older, so now you are a burden on society. They might be thinking about culling the American herd a bit.
"Watch out for Germany. The government is investing heavily in solar power technologies. Germany could be the next energy superpower."
Not terribly likely - there just isn't that much sunshine there.
Had a cabby in London last summer (where I got hosed every time I opened my wallet) who was visiting the states this winter to go skiing.
Maybe buy a computer or two.
"Everything's so cheap here!"
Are we almost a 3rd world country?
locust: As for talk of Denmark, "The country is effectively at full employment." - Int'l Herald Tribune
Get up in the morning, pick some food from your shrubs and offer your neighbor some of your surplus. You will get something great in return. The economy is in the hands of the people, always. Avoid capitalists - they are parasites.
The degree of abject stupidity in today's ruling elite in America has me absolutely scratching my head in wonder. I'm 62 years old and wonder when, if, what happened. I have trouble with the idea that a quantum leap occurred while i was under the influence of grape-flavored vodka in 1965 while watching Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs groove on the stage op my favorite night club. As the tale-end of the baby boomers, what th hell happened to make the leadership of the USA so pathetically feckless? Has Cocaine taken a strangle hold on the hallowed halls of Americas government?? BY JOVE, I THINK YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING. No big deal…… it's called sub-audition.
Sonofpowerslave also said:
"Bill BRG, of course the Europeans polute less than us; France, for example, gets half of its electricity from Nuclear Energy. Are you proposing that for the US? It would sure cut down on pollution. For now."
One of the strongest arguments against Nuclear Energy is that it produces pollution in the form of nuclear waste, the worst kind of pollution because it lasts forever and will eventually leak into the environment, bioconcentrate and kill all living things.
Sonofpowerslave said:
"...many European governments have promoted competition"
Damn, sounds to me like the Eurotrash is becoming Republican."
Republicans promote monopoly, the opposite of competition.
As a would be candidate running for president
of USA here is my platform.
Since corporations are better at organizing
and getting stuff done than government, I
propose that we remove all taxation's on
them. In return for a license to operate
here they would be then obligated to lift the
underfunctioning portions of our society
without any excuse for failure to meet that
contract or any strings attached to those
whose material and social lives they have
improved and brought up to a humane and
comfortable condition. There would be a
strict criteria with everyday oversight and
monitoring with no exceptions or fiddling or
fudging as to what was or is meant. Any
corporation not meeting said criteria and
success of implementation would lose their
license to operate and all assets would be
sold in a bidding process to corporations who
are meeting the criteria. The areas of
responsibilities would include comfortable
housing, good nutrition, health, education
and training, in fact and indeed every and
all aspects to promote a prosperous, happy
population, not a tear in any eye. As has
been stated these services would be provided
with no strings attached for future
employment or pay-back, however all who would
receive these services would be given every
opportunity to work and produce for the
providing corporations if they wish or on the
other hand to enter into business or service
of their own choosing with all help readily
available. Should a corporation not meet the
essentials required and lose their license,
they would be given one year to come up to
snuff and there would be absolutely no
appeals considered after that one year.
Next, I would negotiate with our neighbors
both north and south on the North American
Continent to remove the borders and to make
North America one country so as allow people
to move around freely and find their most
appropriate place in the greater scheme of
things.
Details and criteria to be negotiated with no corporate reprentatives or lobbyists at the table. No meaness on our part please, cause then we would actually need and love them
What do you think?
Europe is also undergoing a nasty housing bubble and soon a housing correction just like us. I wonder how that will impact their economy.
Bill BRG, of course the Europeans polute less than us; France, for example, gets half of its electricity from Nuclear Energy. Are you proposing that for the US? It would sure cut down on pollution. For now.
Denmark is at full employment because they can no longer fill jobs, so they "outsource" them to Germany, of all places, where income taxes are lower.
As for talk of Denmark,
"The country is effectively at full employment." - Int'l Herald Tribune
In 1970 Europe had more poisoning of their environment than the US. Since then, they've cleaned up many aspects of pollution while the US under Bush seems hellbent on allowing more toxicity.
In Europe, 1100 chemicals have been banned from cosmetics. In the US 9. (Environmental Working Group & Breast Cancer Fund). European health care systems integrate decreasing environmental hazards and better primary care, which is essential in preventive health care.
The amount of money spent in the US on healthcare is obscene. It goes to enrich the drug companies, the hospital & HMO execs, and the equipment companies. It does a terrible job of keeping Americans healthy. Half the US persoanl bankrupcies are due to catastorphic health problems.
Europe has far better transit, both intra and inter-city travel. They're in better shape than the US for a lower energy resource world.
The US is behind and backwards when it comes to being able to deal with the end of cheap energy/peak oil, environmental degredation and overall social policies steering their societies towards a greener future. And a healthier economy.
Denmark has replaced 50% of its income tax with a carbon tax. They lead the world in wind power.
I question Krugman's statistics on computers in French households. The phone company eliminated paper telephone books there at least 15 years ago and gave everyone a computer so they could get phone numbers on-line.
Voters Desperate for Solutions Candidates Offer Soaring Rhetoric
By Steven Wishnia
The Indypendent
www.indypendent.org
"Those reading the roster of the senator's corporate contributors might view her populist rhetoric skeptically, but it resonated with New Hampshire voters, who gave her the narrow win over Sen. Barack Obama. Democrats around the state almost universally identified their top four issues as ending the Iraq war, healthcare, the environment and global warming, and education, especially the high cost of college and the teach-to-the-test mandates of President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program. Clinton supporters often cited the economy as well."
To read more:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/01/11/voters-desperate-for-solutions-candidates-offer-soaring-rhetoric...
"hat's behind Europe's comeback? It's a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe's broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition"
Damn, sounds to me like the Eurotrash is becoming Republican.
Deregulation?
Expanded Job Opportunities?
Promote Competition?
Did Ronald Reagan get reborn over there?
Krugman might also want to talk about the very serious labor shortage aflicting Denmark. In a country where income above $40,000 is taxed at a marginal rate of 62%, curiously, no one wants to work there.
smitty88 - No one says the US military "protects the world." It protects global capitalism, which is not at all the same thing. You're right that part of this is protecting the MIC itself. But it also functions to overthrow or pressure governments that don't adopt policies dictated by Washington. That's what the dozens of CIA coups since WWII were about. That's what supporting the Contras in Nicaragua in the 80's was about. Etc etc. It's only because the US has such a formidable military, that it can strike deals with all the Gulf sheikdoms, & so on. In other words, the US military -- even if it's not sent into battle -- is a very persuasive political pressuring tool.
It is a classic logical fallacy to contend that because the worldwide US military presence exists it functions to protect the world. The fact of the matter is that the main function of the grotesque level of US military spending is to protect the military/industrial complex itself. It does little or nothing to protect the world's economy and, in fact, is generally seen as a negative influence. What, who and how has it protected? It can't even slow down the pirates off of Somalia or Malasia, much less protect the innocents of Ruwanda, Darfur or Bosnia while being responsible for enormous death and destruction in Iraq.
Factoring out Social Security and Medicare (mixed into the general budget by LBJ in 1968 to conceal the cost of the Vietnam War) and debt interest, due to past excess military spending, and it becomes obvious that about 2/3rds of the total US budget is for military spending, at the cost of not only foreign needs but urgent American ones as well.
Yes balakirev, that's exactly right that "the US ruling class does most of it for them." And it's true that this is a negative about Europe -- that even though it's a social-democratic from of capitalism, it's still capitalism. Which means, it must be willing to use force to maintain its own global advantages, even if that force is less visible for Europe than for the US. In a real sense, the EEU gets a free ride from the US military.
I don't think it necessarily follows, though, that replacing the USD with the Euro would require replacing the US military infrastructure with a comparable European one. They might work out some kind of compromise to "share" costs & benefits. It's in the interests of both EEU & US elites to maintain global dominance -- though of course, the US will attempt to remain the lone King of the Hill by itself, for as long as it's in any way possible.
Watch out for Germany. The government is investing heavily in solar power technologies. Germany could be the next energy superpower. While the U.S. economy gets crippled with $3, $6 and then $10+ a gallon for gas. But its ok, top U.S. executives will be able to buy gas for their private jets.
Though I have always admired Western Europe's form of social capitalism, we must think about why most EEU nations do not expend so much of thier government budgets on military spending.
They don't need to; the US ruling class does most of it for them.
The US network of bases, client states and dependencies plus a huge blue-water naval fleet, maintains the capitalist world-economy as a whole.
However, if the EEU elite successfully replaces the USD with the Euro as the world's trading currency, they will also need to replace the US empire's military infrastructure to maintain the unequal cost/benefit global economic system (the system's benefits go up while the costs go down).
There has to be a "stick" ready for action whenever a nation, region or an alliance of Second or Third World nations attempt to reorganize the world economy; of course, they will try to reverse the unequal cost/benefit system so they gain more benefits while redirecting the system's costs to the First World countries.
Can you imagine First World consumers paying the real prices for tropical products? These real prices would emerge if Third World workers got the same pay as First World workers.
Some of my Swedish friends don't like being taxed so high, but they wouldn't want to give up any of the benefits of their governments. The other day there was an article that for the first time the standard of living in the UK (certainly not a standard to aim for) was higher than in the US.
I moved to Europe years ago for a better quality of life such as health insurance, better pay, more holidays, better pension, safer, cleaner streets, less violence etc. And I've never regretted a day of it despite having to learn a second language, customs, making new friends, etc.
ezeflyer,
Your assertion that corporations are like cancerous growths is, to my mind, based on an observational fallacy: that is, that American and European oligopolistic conglomerates are a natural outcome of what we refer to as 'capitalism'.
I don't believe that to be the case; in an environment where there is no State protection for monopoly or monopolistic positions, firms cannot expand to the size that they do these days.
Everyone babbles on about Microsoft as a case study in a firm where their good ideas led to a 'natural monopoly'; that is horse feathers. Although they are not direct beneficiaries of industry policy, they got to that stage by exploiting US intellectual property law and the preparedness of the US government to give them a dominant position in the US government's MASSIVE demand for software.
What we see in the current US and European business sector, is fascism - whereby the State and business are inexorably intertwined, and taxation is used to subsidise gigantic firms (directly in Europe, indirectly in the US). (Boeing for example - they make the bulk of their money by selling to the US government, not to airlines... whereas Airbus gets direct subsidy in Europe).
It is not free markets that result in the sort of economic distortion that we see around us - it is the incestuous relationship between corporations and government. It perverts the role of government (i.e., it causes wars), and it arises regardless of which political party is in office.
A free market - one with no government - would never produce and ICBM or a battleship... those things are such embodiments of inefficiency that they can only possibly come from the State.
AS a wise man once said - you can accept the existence of public goods without thereby advocating for a State... on the basis that the STATE is like a cancer. In trying to use the State to fix social problems, you put in place a beast which soon evolves to suit itself - and it is never better suited than when it is at war.
Corporations aren't the cancer - but they DO exploit the political environment (as they ought to - they owe allegiance only to shareholders). Get rid of political parties, get rid of the State, and there would be no exploitation of the polity by corporations.
Cheerio
GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
I regard Europe -- particularly Scandinavia -- as superior to the US in almost every respect. It's not perfect, of course. But they don't blow their money to constantly feed a monstrous war machine, and everyone is guaranteed decent health care without being raped & degraded by the profit-gauging of US drug & insurance companies. The people work less hours per year; and if you somehow lose your job, you can still live without terror. You are less bombarded by bullsh*t & propaganda, which is virtually all that's available any more in the US, apart from the Internet.
The worst thing about Europe is the influence the US has over it, & the unfortunate degree to which they've been bullied and/or seduced into accepting our pathetic model.
Oh ... PS... WHY would there be no exploitation of the polity? Because there would be no buckets of money lying around that could be allocated in a way that was contrary to people's private preferences. That is, the only way you can sell anything in a genuinely free market, is to convince someone that they WANT to buy it.
In a political world, all you have to do is convince a few politicians (usually through well-placed bribes) that they ought to spend some of OTHER people's money on whatever youre selling. That's much easier.
Cheerio again
GT.