Comments on: UN Human Development Report 2004

By: cd

cd — Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:46:00 +0000

Hey, Paul, check out who had the world’s third largest air force up until the Sixties. The answer may surprise you.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:02:23 +0000

…I left out a “not” in “The whole culture behind welfare that prevails in Europe is just not the approach in the US”…

By: mc

mc — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:00:22 +0000

Paul, no, the irony is that the US has “provided that benefit” to themselves first of all. European nations had their own military all along. Of course after WWII and with NATO there was a mutual pact and mutual benefits. Even without NATO, European countries that were members to it would have never had the amount of defense spending the US has, it would have been disproportionate to their needs. In fact, that spending is disproportionate to the purpose of providing security for American citizens alone. It is proportionate to the costs of maintaining a global strategy that go far beyond that purpose. It is also proportionate to the interests of a whole gigantic military industry which in turn feeds back into the economy. So the self-interest argument is very relevant in a response to your “generosity” argument. Even more relevant is the fact that it is not a lower defense budget that allows most European countries to provide more welfare. It is higher taxes and a different mentality. And on my part, no, I have no interest in criticising the US for “not running a – take your pick of descriptors, ‘more generous’ or ‘more indulgent’ – welfare state” – like I said, different countries choose different systems, its got to be ok with their own citizens, not with others. As long as Americans are happy with their system, and Europeans with theirs, I see no reason for silly “who’s your daddy” arrogance from one side or snobbishness from the other. I don’t see countries as entities in competition on these matters, and I’m quite happy with them having their own preferred system. I just find it very disingenous to claim a higher welfare expense would likely have prevented it from providing the security that contributed to the efflorescence of the welfare state in Europe – that’s a string of biased assumptions and hypotheses you can’t verify. The US has a relatively lower welfare expense because it has a different history and a different mentality about that is prevailing, sooo, there are lower taxes and a different system of spending that money. It’s not just “because” there is huge military spending). I don’t see that direct cause-effect link, I don’t see why one has to posit this either/or absolute dichotomy. The whole culture behind welfare that prevails (used to prevail) in Europe is just the approach in the US, just like the mentality about gun ownership is not the approach in Europe. IF there was enough political support and widespread cultural acceptance for the idea of subsidies like they get in Scandinavian countries, I don’t see how the US would struggle to meet that demand, even while at the same time maintaining its huge defense spending. It’s simple. You just raise taxes. Of course if people are used to have relatively lower taxes than in other countries, and also tend to have a notion of welfare as “freeloading”, or if that notion tends to be prevalent in business circles, etc. etc. etc. then it becomes politically hard to do that. It’s a mentality thing first of all, that’s where the main difference between US and Europe lies, on this matter as well as others. And it goes back a lot longer than the cold war. The US achieved independence by rebelling against taxes. The US have always emphasised the idea of self-reliance. Protestantism added to that a lot. Whereas in most of Europe, Catholicism contributed hugely to the modern idea of welfare. Just as communism did, and that’s another influence the US didn’t have. There’s lots of factors but they’re mostly a matter of culture that were present even before the era of American military expansion. It’s a bit too reductive to ignore them in favour of that cliché about European welfare being entirely the creation of US military strategies.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:23:57 +0000

Paul, In asymmetric wars and wars against terrorism, conventional military defense capability is unlikely to be effective. That was the lesson from Vietnam and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. Winning hearts and minds is more likely to do better, as well as, sad to say, pervasive and intrusive intelligence gathering with covert operations. We need to re-focus on the threatening ideologies and the capabilities of their adherents.

By: Paul Craddick

Paul Craddick — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 02:48:18 +0000

Bob, “Military prowess is much less important than the capability to win hearts and minds.” Good pt – I believe that that complements my contention that “military capacity” is a necessary, though insufficient, condition vis-a-vis the proper defense of a nation. But, by definition, the absence of a necessary condition vitiates that of which it’s a necessary condition.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:31:27 +0000

Paul, Britain’s counter-insurgency campaign in Malaysia was successful in that the country did not succumb to the (Communist) agenda of the insurgents. The outcome was the creation in 1963 of an independent state, which has maintained the practice of regular contested elections since and which withstood, without violent conflict, the secession of Singapore in 1965. In both military and political terms, the campaign was successful. It’s perhaps important to recognise that in asymmetric wars, what matters is which side eventually achieves its aims and objectives, not upon whether the outcome depended on failing political will on the part of the powerful combatant or its military failure on the battlefield. Military prowess is much less important than the capability to win hearts and minds. Consent is what matters in the end.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:31:47 +0000

Q: I don’t think heat is a factor. I grew up in NW Minnesota in an area which I found out later was one of the poorest non-minority areas in the North. Many kids I grew up with had wood heat and no running water. But you did not see the pathologies of poverty (crime, ignorance, dependency, disease) that you would in California. I think that it was because of strong, religiously based (Catholic or Lutheran) local communities plus the Minnesota welfare state, which approximated European standards. It was also an extremely rural area and there are local amenities which soften rural poverty (absent strip-mining or the KKK)—the whole place is like a park or a zoo.

By: Paul Craddick

Paul Craddick — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:36:59 +0000

Bob, I’m wondering at how you defined the criteria for success: “successful counter-insurgency campaign in an asymmetric war leading to a benign outcome.” That seems overly restrictive to me, but even in the case of Vietnam, surely it’s at least arguable that the failure was one of (political) will, not some military deficiency. To simplify, I’m thinking of necessary conditions (troop numbers, hardware, organization, military culture, etc.), not sufficient ones. MC, I guess you think my thesis is nearly below rational engagment – since your reply, in essence, was merely a proclamation to the contrary. That the U.S. has extended the “umbrella” for self-interested reasons is irrelevant to my point, as is the relative cost of running a viable military in the U.S. vs. somewhere in Northern Europe. I answered the question that Harry had posed – what do “Anglosphere” nations do for their own citizens that is “better” than what the Nordic governments undertake for their populations? My answer: fulfill the first, primary function of government – protect from enemies within AND without. The irony I noticed is that the U.S. has essentially provided that benefit – yes, at a “price” – to the nations of Europe too; yet it is roundly criticized for not running a – take your pick of descriptors, “more generous” or “more indulgent” – welfare state, which would likely have prevented it from providing the security that contributed to the efflorescence of the welfare state in Europe.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:06:35 +0000

mc: “It wasn’t done out of sheer generosity so the Swedes and Dutch could enjoy their generous state subsidies.” May be for the quantity or quality of personal welfare benefits but for industrial subsidies (or State Aids) the Swedes and the Dutch are entirely the wrong countries to target. “The European Commission said Tuesday it was demanding that telecommunications operator France Telecom repay back taxes amounting to between 800 million (990 million dollars) and 1.1 billion euros plus interest to the French state. . . “The European Commission said Tuesday it was demanding that telecommunications operator France Telecom repay back taxes amounting to between 800 million (990 million dollars) and 1.1 billion euros plus interest to the French state. . . “The case of France Telecom is one of a string of disputes between Paris and the commission over competition issues and state aid.” – from: http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040720135427.7zp8ek2y Btw while Sweden tops the west European league table for total tax revenues (including social security) as a percentage of national GDP, the tax burden in the Netherlands, measured that way, is relatively modest by European standards, as readers can confirm here: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=2-01072004-EN-BP-EN&type=pdf The EU State Aids (to business) indicator scoreboard is here: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/key_indicators.html A full and recent EU report on State Aids is here: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/2004/en.pdf

By: mc

mc — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:38:59 +0000

Paul Craddick: if I had a dollar for each time I heard that security-umbrella argument, I’d be beating Norway to the top of that list. It’s a cliché, like all clichés where politics come into play, it has one part truth and three parts ideology and myth, and maybe it’d be nicer to separate the two things. Also, that so-called “security umbrella” didn’t come for free. And it was primarily in the interests of the US to be a global military power. It wasn’t done out of sheer generosity so the Swedes and Dutch could enjoy their generous state subsidies. Besides, the expense needed to maintain the military in the US would be ridiculously out of proportion in any European country. So what’s the point of comparing that? I mean, there’s a whole lot of other factors and differences involved if you want to make a comparison at all, you’ve got to take them into consideration. I would think this sort of lists have some usefulness as indicators of what they’re supposed to reflect, but they’re hardly contest results. They leave out so many aspects and they abstract and generalise too much. I don’t even think a higher/lower poverty and class divide depends entirely on the welfare model. But even the welfare model itself relies on a certain culture and mentality rather than just economic factors. I don’t think every country has to embrace it, just like, say, Europe doesn’t have to embrace certain peculiarly American mentalities and social models. It’s different countries, different histories, etc.. There’s not one absolutely best solution. It’s all relative, and how each country organises itself doesn’t all revolve around America and its superpower status that certainly no one forced upon her, no matter how the myths on that would have it.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:56:46 +0000

Paul: “The Anglosphere countries (well, the U.S., and Britain to a point) provide their citizens with a military that is truly efficacious – able to forward-deploy and project credible force.” The trouble is that didn’t work for the US in Vietnam just as it didn’t work for the Soviets in Afghanistan or for the French in Indo-China and Algeria. The only example since WW2 of a successful counter-insurgency campaign in an asymmetric war leading to a benign outcome seems to have been the British in the “state of emergency” in Malaya 1948-60. The eventual result was the independent, sovereign state of Malaysia. I found this on Fourth Generation warfare illuminating: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html

By: cw

cw — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:52:16 +0000

No one in the absolout vrs. relative poverty dispute has said anything about cost of living. Where I live in the US the median home cost is $200K. A gallon of milk is $2. A trip to the doctor is about $150. Etc. The way poverty should be figured is at what percentage of the population in terms of earnings do you have to be at to afford the basics. Depending on where you live in the US you can make $1500 a month and not be able to afford the basics. That same $1500 a month is a kings ransom in, say, india.

By: q

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:02:38 +0000

And on a related point, it would be worth getting separate figures for: Italy-North, Italy-Middle Italy-South.

By: q

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:35:23 +0000

I wonder how it varies across the USA? Texas vs California vs Minnesota vs Illinois vs Colorado. If you can’t afford to heat your home in Minnesota, you’ve got a problem. Less so in California.

By: hutong

hutong — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:09:24 +0000

All caveats acknowledging the pitfalls of cross-country comparisons, etc… Canada, for instance, has 67% more immigration (as a share of pop., 17.4% vs. 10.4%) than the US, yet Canada has better development outcomes: infant mortality, literacy, life expectancy, #’s of pop. in poverty, relative and absolute. (Interestingly, the UK has less than half the US rate of immigration). Some (conservatives) claim that Canada gets a different “class” of immigrant than the US, more Asian, less Latin American. (Still poor, nonetheless). Even if true, the numbers aren’t sufficient to explain differential outcomes between US and Europeans/Canadians. I believe one need look elsewhere for the main causal factor. The US has a substantial, and persistent, population of poor. Relatively and absolutely. Claiming US poor are better off than rich in the third world is not really the issue. Whether US poverty might be alleviated with more generous welfare policies is another matter.