EU after enlargement - your comments?

[Panda]

Due to the mess EU administration and economy are, I was against EU enlargement and am against a further enlargement.

 

[Winner]

Due to the mess EU administration and economy are, I was against EU enlargement and am against a further enlargement.

I don't understand your logic...

 

[Panda]

I don't understand your logic...

Because the EU, due to the stagnant economic situation of key members Germany and France, can't pump in the funds necessary to raise those new countries out of the mud, and because it lacks both a flexible planning and an executional office, I was against it.

Since things are getting worse than better, I resent a further enlargement, no matter if it's the Ukraine, Turkey or Israel.

Hope that cleared things up.

 

[Serutan]

Re : Whether Eastern Europe looks towards the US or EU :

From what I've seen, it would appear that on econmic issues,
the Eastern countries look towards the EU, due to the
subsidies, and intra-European (relatively) free market.
On foreign policy type issues, they look towards the US, as
they feel that US policy gives them a better chance at
security.

All IMHO, of course.

I would actually like to see this whole EU thing
work out, although I don't doubt that you folks will have
your share of rough sailing getting there. And I am of the
opinion you folks should take a few years to digest the
latest expansion before pressing on with more...

 

[kronic]

That proves only that you don't understand liberalism.

And you prove your arrogance.

Short term effects of transition. After the pressure from the East will force Germany to do true, deep reforms, situation of "common man" will improve rapidly. In new member states (to be more accurate, CZ, Hungary, Poland or Slovakia), the average wages doubled or tripled during 10 years.

Try to survive with these wages in Germany...

Completely false. Try to look on some tables from Eurostat. New member countries are indeed a little bit more sceptical, but not so much as you think. Britain is far more sceptical.

It's false, but it's true? Ah...yes.
Everything I hear outside from Germany and France (as well as in the OT) are complains how evil these two countries are. Seems to be as popular as US bashing in Old Europe. Also as I said, reforming the EU is much more complicated now, especially with 11, 12 or 13 UKs.

Again, false impression. All new members are pretty pro-EU. Some governments used the Iraq crisis to improve their relations with US, unfortunately, but that doesn't mean they want join American Union instead of European

It was more like a big **** you to the "Axis of the Weasels" and this was as unnecessary as Chirac's famous comment. I'm convinced that most East European countries will side with the US in possible future disputes between the US and Old Europe.

Haha Obviously, western welfare state economies are UNABLE to compete with n.m. countries. Western Europe (except Britain and Ireland) stagnates, while the Eastern grows rapidly. What other proof you need to admit the welfare state is inefficient?

You don't get my point. I don't claim that welfare states are efficient. I say that simply maximizing efficiency (= no welfare state) doesn't serve society and will lead to increased poverty. Efficiency doesn't provide any informations about the distribution of wealth. A society which lives on the backs of their poorest members is morally bankrupt.
It is possible (and necessary) to increase efficiency within the welfare state, though.

You simply blame the others for your faults. That's not good.

No. All countries can follow the paths they want. But what is happening now, and you say it all the time, too, is that the new members are forcing the old ones to adopt certain policies. This is what I'm against.

GDP growth is the MOST IMPORTANT index. When the GDP grows it means that the overall wealth of the country is increasing. The growth of salaries is closely connected with the growth of GDP. You can see it on the example of Germany

Yes. The overall wealth. However, leaving 2003 aside, the German economy grew, too.

Then, salaries are five times lower, but that dosn't mean the living standard is five times lower. Due to lower prices, the living standard is about 60% of that of Western Europe (EU15).

And now think about what happens to our living standard, when our wages are going down. The fact that the living standard in the East is at about 60 %, as you claim, refers to the comparably high living costs in the old memberstates. And these certainly won't go down.

Than, your estimated time is completly unrealistic. If the current growth of Eastern Europe continues, it will reach the living standard of EU15 in about 20-30 years. That isn't so bad provided that the West had 40 years for development, while the Eastern states suffered under communist rule.

I expected that even you would understand that I was a little bit exaggerating here. Developments don't follow a set pattern. At the beginning of the 1970's, when GDP growth was pretty high, everyone predicted that these growth rates would continue. They were already proven wrong in 1973. So yeah, they may grow as fast as today in the future, or they may not.

Everybody gets his pensions, including those who aren't exactly rich.

This actually is the whole idea of a welfare state. To let those live a (relatively) comfortable live who can't afford to do so. It's not the other way round.

But if you want same pensions for everybody, you would be surely disappointed.

I don't want same pensions for everyone, nor do I want economic equality, socialism, communism etc. (all the things you are usually considering people to the left of you to want). I want a reliable basic supply for everyone, and not to let those rot, who don't have the luck to be a member of the upper close. It's a matter of morality.
Oh, and btw, this isn't that much different from the ideas of one of the most important political philosophers of the last century, John Rawls - a liberal. The difference is, that this liberal would go way more far than I would.

 

[Akka]

Good posts, Kronic
I didn't had the motivation to battle once more against the delusions of liberalist economy, but I'm glad you did

I'm already partisan of a two-speed UE, with a renewed core made of the nations that actually wish to make a political and social Europe, and downgrading the actual UE to a simple common market.

 

[Winner]

Because the EU, due to the stagnant economic situation of key members Germany and France, can't pump in the funds necessary to raise those new countries out of the mud, and because it lacks both a flexible planning and an executional office, I was against it.

Since things are getting worse than better, I resent a further enlargement, no matter if it's the Ukraine, Turkey or Israel.

Hope that cleared things up.

Yes, thank you

(I must admit new members (except Poland) can very well live WITHOUT EU subsidies. In fact, they'll recieve much less than Spain or Greece did. My country will be probably the net contributor in about 10 years.

What really matters for new members is the opportunities from free market.

 

[Winner]

And you prove your arrogance.

I am somehow disappointed in you. I've only said what is true - your views of liberalism as the pure evil, which would help only the rich and exploit the common man, are totally absurd. I am not advocating libertarianism, I just want to make European economies COMPETITIVE an this is impossible with current stagnating welfare state economies of Western Europe.

Try to survive with these wages in Germany...

I don't have to. Where I live, these wages are pretty good and average man can live with it comfortably. But you can work in Germany and live in CZ, there you will live like a king

It's false, but it's true? Ah...yes.

What is false is your impression from it.

Everything I hear outside from Germany and France (as well as in the OT) are complains how evil these two countries are. Seems to be as popular as US bashing in Old Europe. Also as I said, reforming the EU is much more complicated now, especially with 11, 12 or 13 UKs.

The reforms of the EU are faster now than ever. Just read that article about evil flat taxes again

It was more like a big **** you to the "Axis of the Weasels" and this was as unnecessary as Chirac's famous comment. I'm convinced that most East European countries will side with the US in possible future disputes between the US and Old Europe.

Well, that' your opinion. I think it's false, but I'll respect it.

You don't get my point. I don't claim that welfare states are efficient. I say that simply maximizing efficiency (= no welfare state) doesn't serve society and will lead to increased poverty. Efficiency doesn't provide any informations about the distribution of wealth. A society which lives on the backs of their poorest members is morally bankrupt.
It is possible (and necessary) to increase efficiency within the welfare state, though.

Now you see what I mean by that "you don't understand liberalism". I am not advocating economy completely WITHOUT welfare. I say, and the reality proves me right, that by promoting so rampant welfare states you undermine your economic growth and therefore your future.
You think in Slovakia or Poland are the poor, unemployed people, dying on the streets? No, they still receive welfare. The main difference is, that this welfare tries to stimulate the unemployed people to ACTIVELY search for jobs.
You're right, that lower welfare isn't possible without the sufficient number of jobs. Therefore it is necessary to stimulate companies to creating those jobs by lowering the taxation - they'll have more money which they will invest into their expansion (and thus into creating new jobs). IMHO the HUGE income taxation in Germany is the main reason why is the unemployment so high (but illogically, your Chancellor want to force new members to increase their taxation, even if it is clearly harmful).

No. All countries can follow the paths they want. But what is happening now, and you say it all the time, too, is that the new members are forcing the old ones to adopt certain policies. This is what I'm against.

Oh please. When I said "forcing old members" I mean you do this voluntarily[/
B], because you don't want to lag behind. But politically, they aren't forcing you to anything, just keep your markets open, that's what they need. Not some subsidies, but the access to markets of Western Europe (BTW Western companies are very glad, that new members joined the EU. I wonder why ).

You are missing one important point - if you want integrated EU, you must have the unified economy without barriers first. After free flow of goods, capital and services is achieved, we can start with federalisation. And I am sure that no Eastern country will then oppose it.

Yes. The overall wealth. However, leaving 2003 aside, the German economy grew, too.

Ehm, how much? 1%? If our economy grew for about 1%, it would probably result in the fall of the government Our minimum growth is about 3%, anything below that means stagnation And in even less developed countries such as Poland or Slovakia, it would mean recession

According to OECD, the "healthy" grow is about 3% with 2% inflation and about 4 or 5% unemployment.

And now think about what happens to our living standard, when our wages are going down. The fact that the living standard in the East is at about 60 %, as you claim, refers to the comparably high living costs in the old memberstates. And these certainly won't go down.

...and that's why is the GDP growth so important...

I expected that even you would understand that I was a little bit exaggerating here. Developments don't follow a set pattern. At the beginning of the 1970's, when GDP growth was pretty high, everyone predicted that these growth rates would continue. They were already proven wrong in 1973. So yeah, they may grow as fast as today in the future, or they may not.

...or they may grow even faster But generally yes, I agree.

This actually is the whole idea of a welfare state. To let those live a (relatively) comfortable live who can't afford to do so. It's not the other way round.

And liberal state helps only those, who really need it.

I don't want same pensions for everyone, nor do I want economic equality, socialism, communism etc. (all the things you are usually considering people to the left of you to want). I want a reliable basic supply for everyone, and not to let those rot, who don't have the luck to be a member of the upper close. It's a matter of morality.

I can agree with this, but I guess I won't agree on the level of this "basic supply".

Welfare states are very, very expensive. And that is a problem. You need huge economic growth to pay for it (but it appears that the welfare states also don't allow the economy to grow sufficiently fast, therefore they end up in blind pass).
Why do you think the poverty is so high in US? Because of their economic stagnation? No. It is because of the wrong allocation of money. Istead of better healthcare or welfare for the "underclass", they use that money for keeping their military on the top (and that is unsustainable - they have about 20% share on world economy, but 50% share on world military spending). But that's off-topic here. I want to say, that if the Germany grew about 5% per year, it would be possible to have the same welfare (except pensions due to demographic situation - pension system need to be privatisied to be sustainable) forever. But because of the real situation is somehow different, it is not possible to have so big welfare. You simply can't afford it. It won't help if you close your markets and kick the new members out of the EU - they are only showing you how deep this crisis is.

Oh, and btw, this isn't that much different from the ideas of one of the most important political philosophers of the last century, John Rawls - a liberal. The difference is, that this liberal would go way more far than I would.

Social and economical agenda can be merged in working compromise, according to Giddens. Look at Britain or Ireland.

 

[Winner]

I'm already partisan of a two-speed UE, with a renewed core made of the nations that actually wish to make a political and social Europe, and downgrading the actual UE to a simple common market.

That would be suicidal for you, not for us

 

[Winner]

BTW, some European economist have made a study (for Eurochambers) about the condition of European economy.

EUROCHAMBRES Study: US economy ahead of EU by at least 20 years!
4 point plan to European leaders to reflate economy

According to EUROCHAMBRES, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the economic performance of the EU is about 20 years behind that of the US. A study* presented by the business organisation at its pre-spring summit Business Forum in Brussels today compares the EU to the US in terms of GDP, R&D, productivity and employment by “time distances” between the two regions and forecasts how many years the EU will take to catch up with the US, and under what conditions of growth.

Commenting on the results, Arnaldo Abruzzini, Secretary General of EUROCHAMBRES, said: “The US has a clear economic time lead, even increasing it after 2000. The current EU levels in GDP, R&D investment, productivity and employment were already reached by the US in the late 70s/early 80s. Even the most optimistic assumptions show it will take the EU decades to catch up and this only if there is considerable EU improvement. European leaders must set a clear signal in favour of the economy at the Spring Summit!”
The time-lags for the various key indicators are as follows:

- Employment: Europe’s employment level for 2003 was achieved be the US in 1978. It will take the EU until 2023 to reach US levels of employment, and then only if EU employment growth will exceed that of the US by 0.5% p.a.

- R&D: Europe’s R&D investment for 2002 was achieved by the US in 1979. It will take the EU until 2123 to reach US levels of R&D investment, and then only if EU investment will exceed that of the US by 0.5% p. a.

- Income: Europe’s income for 2003 was achieved by the US in 1985. It will take the EU until 2072 to reach US levels of income per capita, and then only if EU income growth will exceed that of the US by 0.5% p. a.

- Productivity: Europe’s level of productivity for 2003 was achieved by the US in 1989. It will take the EU until 2056 to reach US productivity rates per employed, and then only if EU productivity growth will exceed that of the US by 0.5%.

http://www.eurochambres.be/


That's why we must improve our economic performance...