The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
What I am saying is that I'm not clear on how Europe needs any of that, to such an extent that it going away would create a serious crisis.
The world changes. Sometimes it changes in your favour, sometimes it changes in someone else's favour. To say that "Europe's problem" is that the world is changing in someone else's favour is to give "Europe's problem" an air of inevitability that it does not necessarily deserve.
That is, is the problem that Europe fundamentally cannot deal with this reality and remain a comfortable place to live, or is it merely that Europe is currently politically unwilling to deal with reality? And in the latter case, is Europe's problem really that the world is changing? It would seem to me that in that case Europe's problem is that it has an obsolete political structure.
This is a crucial point, because it is the difference between operational and political constraints - that is, between having to change the world vs. only having to change your mind. For all the difficulty in effecting political change, it is a great deal easier than changing the laws of nature.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Shell, BP and Total are profitable companies, but they no longer impose leonine contracts on the former colonies, they operate at market prices, more or less. Strip mining of the seas is open to anyone with a factory ship; the biggest hit is possibly in the armaments industry, but I guess we'll just have to bite that bullet. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
It's not clear to me that the vestiges of colonial privilege are of any great advantage. (One indication is that Germany has no such economic heritage.)
Flippant counters aside, Germany has been benefiting from first the British and then the American imperial order, because they were inside it but big and strong enough (and had enough white people) that they were not reduced to a colony.
The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of just partition, or acquisition by industry, but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many and large traces of its origin. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race.
That quote is from the same paragraph that contains "the principle of private property has never had a fair trial in any country". guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Here's an online source
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlP14.html
Private property, in every defence made of it, is supposed to mean, the guarantee to individuals of the fruits of their own labour and abstinence.
Indeed.
But I don' see much recognition of the level of change that would be needed to compensate for all that going away.
or indeed the recognition of the effects of all the cheap immigrant labour taking these right wing goons seriously and all going home...
to my semi-educated view, it seems factual that many of the great concentrations of wealth in europe, be it in the royal houses, banking giants like rotschilds, uber-industrialists like the krupps etc were all aided enormously by the conquest and occupation of the third world, be it for resources, and then captive markets, (the english/indian cotton, for example).
the influx of gold from the iberian colonies in central.south america may have had disequilibrating, inflationary effects on european economies, but the wealth was arriving, and fortunes were made, then invested wisely on the hubbert upswing to create the fiction that 20% returns were the norm for cautious investors. if fiction perseveres long enough it becomes as near to fact as makes no difference.
it becomes an axiom, and only those with long term historical memories can see the pattern of past bubble/busts, and thus through the illusion.
capitalism did spread a lot of wealth downwards to a burgeoning, and increasingly well-educated middle class, forming a new elite of the cunning, rather than the blue-blooded. this is the base for randian celebrations of the driving force behind the growth of the last two centuries of industrial economies.
but now the elite has formed itself above the clouds of toil and care again, and once again is believing in its own myth of divine selection and rights. onceagain it is stealing not just from the poor, (the middle class is totally cool with that), but from the middle class itself. blind greed has taken over...
the poor have few tools to organise and affect macro events, but it's a different story with and educated, disaffected middle class who have put up with a lot of feeling inferior to their 'masters' anyway, and now feel betrayed by the unwritten pact between the two rich classes, that they would do the upper class 1% shitwork, (the kind that you do from a desk, an HQ, a parliament, civil service position), in return for being able to look down on the dalits who really do the shitwork of going down mines, working sweatshops, infantrypersons in wars with no honour and the like.
europe was a metaphorical middle class between the fabled riches of the american empire in flush, and the wretched hordes of foxconn asia, and now as the orient's wealth waxes, and america's wanes, we still want that gig, understandably.
the only possible hope for us to deserve, let alone retain that semi-privileged position would be to power up the alternative energy tech, (in which we are already world leaders, and ramp that sucker all the way up, a thousand or more times what it is now, while we still can).
it's a faint, but hitherto undying hope, indeed it is a very thin thread to find our way out of a very dark labyrinth. of course there will be much buggy whip collateral damage, but whichever course is taken that'll be the case, the faster we come to grips with this reality the brighter our future will be.
the alternative might be the horse and cart for us, in which case the buggy whip makers will thrive likely as well as bureaucrats and bankers... The power of knowledge is in mortal combat with the knowledge of power. It really is that simple... That's the Edenic apple we are all munching on.
by DoDo - May 23 40 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2340 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments