Why Europe Keeps Failing........ merged with "EU Seizes Cypriot Bank Accounts"

[Kirkhill]

Individuals can't build a school, manage roads, airline safety, stand up an army or police force.

Your argument that individuals should do it  is juvenile.

Nemo:

Notwithstanding the discussion about whether indivduals can do the things you list,individuals have done all of them in the past and continue to do them today.  Even here in Canada.

In fact most of the institutionalized services you describe started out as privare ventures.

 

[Nemo888]

It's possible. Just inefficient, wasteful of resources, geographically limited and prone to logistical duplication in some areas while other areas get no service at all.

It also carries some very heavy political implications. By the individualist theory democracy is your dollars. One dollar, one vote. That produces a plutocratic fascist dictatorship. I prefer participatory democracy with all it's flaws.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you want inefficient and wasteful, consider a proliferation of government offices to provide a service, even in regions of low population where the service isn't anywhere near 100% busy.

I prefer representative democracy.  Participatory democracy leads to Californication.

 

[bridges]

I think we should hire some professionals to do some of these jobs, while the rest of us are busy working at our other jobs... they can be our agents, if you will.  We can call them our "government". 

 

[Brad Sallows]

I do hire professionals to do things for me.  I call them "contractors" and "mechanics" and "lawyers" and "accountants" and so forth.  They freely post their rates and compete with each other, primarily on the bases of quality and cost.  Generally I get more of one at the expense of the other.

What I don't do is allow a third party to set the terms of payment between me and the professionals, especially when that third party occasionally is composed of a faction ideologically committed to knitting the hairs of its nose to the asses of the leaders of the professionals' "movement".

 

[Kirkhill]

I do hire professionals to do things for me.  I call them "contractors" and "mechanics" and "lawyers" and "accountants" and so forth.  They freely post their rates and compete with each other, primarily on the bases of quality and cost.  Generally I get more of one at the expense of the other.

What I don't do is allow a third party to set the terms of payment between me and the professionals, especially when that third party occasionally is composed of a faction ideologically committed to knitting the hairs of its nose to the asses of the leaders of the professionals' "movement".

Agreed across the board Brad.

The Government is "hired" to supply services under a least cost formulation.  Typically that involves qualified personnel: ie. people wth a track record, or, failing that, certifictions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To go further, the proper business model for government to follow is Walmart.

 

[Danjanou]

To go further, the proper business model for government to follow is Walmart.

Price cutting, ugly customers in spandex, outsourcing to China, and cranky old people in vests covered with pins at the entrance, yeah that works for me 8)

 

[a_majoor]

Price cutting, ugly customers in spandex, outsourcing to China, and cranky old people in vests covered with pins at the entrance, yeah that works for me 8)

That can describe many government offices right now! 

 

[Nemo888]

Price cutting, ugly customers in spandex, outsourcing to China, and cranky old people in vests covered with pins at the entrance, yeah that works for me 8)

Sounds like the Pet. All the junk at  Canex is from China and probably many parts in our equipment if rumours are true about fake replacement components.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I find I am remarkably indifferent to the attire of other shoppers and the decor of the store.  To the point: I don't enjoy well-attired customers and a well-appointed store enough to pay more for the privilege.  I'll go to the beach if I want some scenery.  I actually have read blog posts by people who are too snobby (really, there's no other word for it) to shop at Walmart.  Since much of my clothing came from K-Mart in the 1970s, I suppose I grew up conditioned to be indifferent.

But what I meant to highlight is: unrelenting pressure on suppliers to reduce costs, and staying out of everything except the core enterprise(s) of the organization.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sounds like the Pet. All the junk at  Canex is from China and probably many parts in our equipment if rumours are true about fake replacement components.

Do you enjoy being this unhappy?

 

[Brad Sallows]

a) The glass is half empty
b) The glass is half full
c) The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

 

[Kirkhill]

a) The glass is half empty
b) The glass is half full
c) The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

d) The glass only needs to be filled up half as often
e) I can drink faster.

 

[ModlrMike]

a) The glass is half empty
b) The glass is half full
c) The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

d) The glass only needs to be filled up half as often
e) I can drink faster.

f) The 1% have stolen half the contents of the glass.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two articles caught my attention today (it's raining in HK  :'(  ): one by Martin Wolf in The Financial Times and the other by Niall Ferguson in Newsweek. Both aim to explain what's happening in Europe but both, it seems to me are more prescriptive than explanatory and both appear to prescribe the same harsh remedy: union.

It seems to me that the EU has been, broadly, a runaway success story. The European civil wars that dominated 20th century history are over: Germany failed to unite Europe by force but, now, as Ferguson said, Germany risks losing all it has gained - and make no mistake Germany is the big winner in the EU - by being timid and isolationist. It is time to save the euro (€)  the EU itself by going the next step: a confederation. Some countries, notably the UK but, likely, also Denmark and Norway and Switzerland (which are not even in the EU) will not wish to join the new union but they will wish to revise the European Free Trade Area and secure a full free trade deal with the union.

But isn't the EU already a union? Yes, but not a full one; that's why it can even consider kicking Greece out of the Eurozone and that's why it cannot have sane, sensible economic policies. What else must they do? First they need to make themselves look a lot more like Canada: a very loose, highly decentralized federation but one in which a single, sovereign government sets economic (fiscal and monetary) policy, trade and foreign policy and even defence policy.

I would suggest that the new Union of European States (or whatever one wants to call it) should be even looser than Canada. The member states should have full control over their social policies and programmes - but they must be able to fund them through their own state taxes and through a system of transfer payments copied, in aim but but not in too much detail, from Canada. They must pay taxes to the new, federal superstate for areas of federal responsibility, which includes M. Hollande's call for growth because, right now, the EU/Eurozone cannot "do" growth - austerity is the only course open - because it has no resources of its own. Nations should retain their "own" armed forces but some fixed amount (say 75% of manning levels) must be assigned to be "under command" of the superstate's MOD. (It must be recognized that states have legitimate internal security requirements that requires state level "national guards," but hundreds of thousands of European men and women must be enlisted in national ships and units (flying squadrons and wings, regiments, brigades, divisions and even corps) which will serve under a combined command.) (NATO will have to die.) The superstate will be big, strong and rich and able to pursue a strategy comparable to, say, America's or China's.

Oh, and since the new superstate will set foreign and defence policy I am about 99.99% certain that the French nuclear forces are gone.

Thus, I see a three level structure for Europe:

1. European Free Trade Group: the new European superstate plus Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Norway and Switzerland;

2. Independent states, which includes the new European superstate and all other states in Europe including the ones mentioned above plus Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, etc; and

3. "Member states" of the European superstate which still have "national" identities, are likely UN members, maybe even have "national" passports, but are no longer independent in economic, foreign or defence policies.

I'm pretty sure the Germans don't want it and French will hate it, but ...

And UK Prime Minister David Cameron may be thinking along similar lines in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Sunday Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9367479/David-Cameron-We-need-to-be-clear-about-the-best-way-of-getting-what-is-best-for-Britain.html

David Cameron: We need to be clear about the best way of getting what is best for Britain
David Cameron says he will consider a referendum on Britain's future relationship with Europe, but only when the time is right.

It is vital for our country — for the strength of our economy, for the health of our democracy and for the influence of our nation — that we get our relationship with Europe right.

We need to be absolutely clear about what we really want, what we now have and the best way of getting what is best for Britain. We need to answer those questions before jumping to questions about referendums.

I am not against referendums in our parliamentary democracy. Parliament is elected to make decisions and be accountable, but when powers are transferred it is right to ask the people. That is why we will ensure the Scottish people can hold a referendum having elected a government on a mandate to do just that.

I am also not against referendums on Europe. The last government should have held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They didn’t, so this Government put in place a referendum lock so that no government can ever again pass powers from Britain to Brussels without first asking the British people.

But back to the prior questions: what we want and how we get it.

As a trading nation Britain needs unfettered access to European markets and a say in how the rules of that market are written.

The single market is at the heart of the case for staying in the EU. But it also makes sense to co-operate with our neighbours to maximise our influence in the world and project our values of freedom and democracy.

Here Britain makes the running in the EU, so I don’t agree with those who say we should leave and therefore want the earliest possible in/out referendum. Leaving would not be in our country’s best interests.

An “in” vote too would have profound disadvantages. All further attempts at changing Britain’s relationship with Europe would be met with cries that the British people had already spoken.

Yet the fact is the British people are not happy with what they have, and neither am I. That’s why I said on Friday that the problem with an in/out referendum is that it offers a single choice, whereas what I want — and what I believe the vast majority of the British people want — is to make changes to our relationship.

So what is wrong with what we’ve got? Put simply, for those of us outside the eurozone, far from there being too little Europe, there is too much of it. Too much cost; too much bureaucracy; too much meddling in issues that belong to nation states or civic society or individuals. Whole swathes of legislation covering social issues, working time and home affairs should, in my view, be scrapped.

The Coalition parties will have different views on this, so we will be reviewing the balance of the EU’s competences, to provide a national audit of what the EU currently does and its implications for our country.

Finally, and vitally, how do we maximise the chances of actually getting what we want?

First, we need to recognise that Europe is changing — and fast . The single currency is driving a process that will see its members take more and more steps towards fuller integration. They are necessary if the euro is to survive, but mean that the EU and relationships within it will change. We have shown not only that we can stay out of that integration, but that we can also get out of things — such as bail-out funds — that we don’t like.

At Friday’s summit we ensured that the key parts of banking union would be done by the European Central Bank for eurozone members and not for us. We won’t stand behind Greek or Portuguese banks, and our banks will be regulated by the Bank of England, not the ECB.

There is more to come where we can take forward our interests, safeguard the single market and stay out of a federal Europe. Those who say we would never say “no” were proved wrong by my veto last December. And those who instead say we risk giving up all influence are also wrong.

Two of the last big decisions about European institutions have gone our way: we have a British head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and a home in London for important parts of the new EU patent court.

Second, let us start to spell out in more detail the parts of our European engagement we want and those that we want to end. While we need to define with more clarity where we would like to get to, we need to show tactical and strategic patience. The eurozone is in crisis which needs to be resolved, and we are in a Coalition government during this parliament.

Nevertheless I will continue to work for a different, more flexible and less onerous position for Britain within the EU.

How do we take the British people with us on this difficult and complicated journey? How do we avoid the wrong paths of either accepting the status quo meekly or giving up altogether and preparing to leave? It will undoubtedly be hard, but taking the right path in politics often is.

As we get closer to the end point, we will need to consider how best to get the full-hearted support of the British people whether it is in a general election or in a referendum.

As I have said, for me the two words “Europe” and “referendum” can go together, particularly if we really are proposing a change in how our country is governed, but let us get the people a real choice first.

It sounds like Cameron wants to move Britain into the outer ring ... an area in which some non EU members (Norway and Switzerland) might find a "home."

 

[Brad Sallows]

Every toilet is shaped like a ring.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Every toilet is shaped like a ring.

Exactly ...

In another (political) context I have often used a gravity well to illustrate the problem that most people, nation-states and cultures face.

My thesis is that everyone/everything enters the gravity well at the top and begins to circle. Most people, nation-states and cultures act like a star or planet (or a coin if you are in a science museum), they slowly, at first, but surely, drop farther and farther into the well, eventually disappearing into human history's own black hole. Some, however, have their own source of energy - maybe it's finite: think station keeping fuel on a satellite - which they can use to stay near the top of the well while others sink to the bottom.

It seems to me that Prime Minister Cameron wants Britain to use whatever energy it has left to continue orbiting in that outer ring, near the top of the well while others (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France) shed their energy as they fall towards the bottom/centre ~ your toilet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Are we old enough to be this cynical?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Are we old enough to be this cynical?

I am ...  :'(  ... sadly.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm cynical; maybe I'm just realistic. My life experience, all over the world in 70 years, says that a lot of people and places (nation states) have failed, are failing and will fail. I've said before that culture matters and some of us were born lucky, born into strong, sophisticated, energetic and entrepreneurial cultures; others were unlucky and were born into illiberal societies (neither good liberals, like us Anglo Saxons, nor good conservatives, like some East Asians) which are likely to go down the gravity well/toilet.