It has turned into one of the more fascinating debates online in quite a while. Why? Because both sides are civil, smart as whips and intellectually honest. And because the deeper issues they are tackling – the balance between defense and welfare – are tectonic matters beneath our political discourse that merit being unearthed and examined. And what's striking to me is that when bloggers set this tone, even comments sections get the message. Here's an illuminating to and fro between Manzi and a reader. The reader first:
[You wrote]:
“From 1980 through today, America’s share of global output has been constant at about 21%. Europe’s share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40% of global production in the 1970s to about 25% today. Opting for social democracy instead of innovative capitalism, Europe has ceded this share to China (predominantly), India, and the rest of the developing world.”
How do you know this drop in productivity was due to adopting the welfare state? That’s just a huge assumption. Why couldn’t it be the industrialization of countries with pools of cheap labor?
And if you are comparing the US to Europe it seems to me that, even if the drop was tied to adding a welfare state, that Europe comes out ahead. They equal our global productivity AND they have a welfare state. Or to look at it another way, we spend all this money to ensure global dominance, the main purpose of which is to promote our economic interests—but we can only equal Europe in output, who spend way less on global dominance.
And we can’t afford a welfare state.
It seems to me we are underachieving considering how much we invest in global dominance. I mean, we control the sea lanes, our military protects countries all over the world, we have the biggest and most influential economy, the world’s currency is based on the dollar, our culture is fast becoming the worlds culture… All that and we can’t even equal Europe.
— cw · Jan 6, 01:54 PM · #
Manzi's response:
I agree with a lot of what you say here. Probably the central point of the article was that we face a tragic choice. Europe’s (of Western Europe, or the “social market” economies, or whatever definition we want) have employed a package of responses to deal with the fundamental problems created by a market. This has created many advantages for them. One of things they have not been able to do, however, has been to maintain their share of the world economy. Over the long-term a civilization needs aggregate power to protect itself in an inherently hostile world. In this respect (though certainly not in all ways) Europe is free-riding on the US, and following a non-sustainable strategy in a world that (IMHO) will always turn violent.
My italics. I hope to return to that core debate soon, because, in my view, it really does affect a whole array of choices America has in front of it.
The Dish 