The Decline and Fall of Europe.

[sourboy]

Yes, well it's obviously much different, but a unified Europe over a long period of time would look and act much like the current US. I'm just saying that there are many kinks as the separate cultures continue to share more and more ties. Down the road, one may no longer see much difference from country to country, as it is now from state to state in America.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yes, well it's obviously much different, but a unified Europe over a long period of time would look and act much like the current US. I'm just saying that there are many kinks as the separate cultures continue to share more and more ties. Down the road, one may no longer see much difference from country to country, as it is now from state to state in America.

And if that comes to pass, the European countries will be much less of nation states than what they are today.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Why do people seem astounded to learn that a country with 70 million people (UK)

Well, to emphasize your point even more, the UK only has 60 million people.

Anyway, perhaps I am just being a glass half empty person here, but why is the EU falling away from the United States? It has a smaller population, and yet the wealth gap is widening? Is it simply demographics?

 

[Masquerouge]

I could care less if I was less richer than my neighbour, if this meant I had more free time. All I want is just enough money to be able to to the things that I like without worrying about tomorrow, and a good safety net that I'm willing to pay for so that I'm not afraid of being sick or unemployed.
If my neighbour wants to work his butt off trying to make millions of dollars he'll never be able to spent anyway, that's fine by me.
you have to realize that for a lot of people, accumulation of wealth is NOT a lifestyle.

Now I readily admit that some policies can be a bit over the top as far as safety nets are concerned. When it is a viable economical choice to be jobless, you have to ask some questions. But please do not equate economical success with happiness.

Now as far as scientifical research is concerned, I'm not sure Europe is in that bad of a shape. We may not have 100% of the Nobel prizes, but I think waht is happening right now is more the situation going back to what should be rather than Europe's brain decaying.

 

[luiz]

I think that the main problem when it comes to science in Europe is that its universities are really no match to the american one. With the exception of a few british Unis, the continent seems to perform rather poorly in that area(compared to the US, compared to the rest of the world it's still quite good).

Are most Universities in Europe public? I hate to be repetitive but that might be the cause.

 

[betazed]

It may be interesting to someone that, according to figures in the latest Nature, France still spends twice as much on research as China and India combined* - Europe still has quite some way to fall.

I have no idea of these numbers but are these numbers corrected for PPP or are the numbers in just plain dollars. If it is in plain dollars then it should be corrected for PPP? Once that is done it would be interesting to see the numbers.

* State monies spent on research, that is. It would seem unlikely that the private contributions to research are very much higher proportionally in India and China than in France, however, so it should be a decent gauge of relative research spending.

Don't know about China but in India private contribution in research is significant (once again I do not have numbers but I will not be surprised if it is actually more than government research). One of the premier pure theoritical research centers in India (TIFR - Tata Institute of Fundamental Research) is entirely privately funded.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I have no idea of these numbers but are these numbers corrected for PPP or are the numbers in just plain dollars. If it is in plain dollars then it should be corrected for PPP? Once that is done it would be interesting to see the numbers.

Plain dollars. Adjusting for PPP would not necessarily help, since the cost of research can't be assumed to divide between local stuff and imported stuff at the same proportions as the kind of everyday stuff used to compute PPP ratios, and furthermore probably differs by discipline.

Don't know about China but in India private contribution in research is significant (once again I do not have numbers but I will not be surprised if it is actually more than government research). One of the premier pure theoritical research centers in India (TIFR - Tata Institute of Fundamental Research) is entirely privately funded.

Significant, sure, but is the private/state ratio much higher than in Europe (where it is, I believe, somewhere around 1.0-1.5)? If not, it doesn't really change anything in my comparison.

 

[EdwardTking]

Europe in the past occupied a position that was never sustainable. We were top of the world. It's natural that Europe will "decline". So will the US in time. But it's not like we're becoming some sort of third world continent, as the US posters and the initial article seem to believe.

The reason for Europe's decline? Europe is tiny. Europe is by nature a very minor player in world politics. Due to a number of factors, we got lucky. And the rest of the world got very unlucky. But now those factors are gone. Our headstart will dwindle, and eventually we will be overtaken by some other place that gets lucky. The same will happen to the US.

Why do people seem astounded to learn that a country with 70 million people (UK), is gradually being outpaced by a country with over a billion? People seem to have this delusion that "the West" is some sort of magical place that is by definition the only place that progress can occur in. The leaders of the world. This is utter rubbish- the non-white countries vastly outnumber us, what's surprising is that we ever held this position of power to start with.
End rant.

First sensible post.

Europe is now behind the USA in:

(a) slower worker turnover (greater life expectancy in Europe)
(b) fewer people enjoying state hospitality (in their prison cells)
(c) not executing so many people
(d) being reluctant to invade other countries (on blatant falsehoods)
(e) shorter working hours (and so more time with family and friends)
(f) having replacement rather than unsustainable population growth rate
(g) being fetishly addicted to that economic resoure allocation tool ($)
(h) dependency upon the motor car

Oh dear, it is all such a terrible tragedy.

 

[Ebitdadada]

First sensible post.

Europe is now behind the USA in:

(a) slower worker turnover (greater life expectancy in Europe)
(b) fewer people enjoying state hospitality (in their prison cells)
(c) not executing so many people
(d) being reluctant to invade other countries (on blatant falsehoods)
(e) shorter working hours (and so more time with family and friends)
(f) having replacement rather than unsustainable population growth rate
(g) being fetishly addicted to that economic resoure allocation tool ($)
(h) dependency upon the motor car

Oh dear, it is all such a terrible tragedy.

I'd think it would be nice if we could all decide that the US does better than Europe in some areas and that Europe does better than the US in some areas but that's just me.

In refference to (a) and (e), I think its a cultural difference. I think its more common for Americans to rely on their jobs for personal satisfaction. Whether that's good or bad I don't know.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

First sensible post.

Europe is now behind the USA in:

(a) slower worker turnover (greater life expectancy in Europe)
(b) fewer people enjoying state hospitality (in their prison cells)
(c) not executing so many people
(d) being reluctant to invade other countries (on blatant falsehoods)
(e) shorter working hours (and so more time with family and friends)
(f) having replacement rather than unsustainable population growth rate
(g) being fetishly addicted to that economic resoure allocation tool ($)
(h) dependency upon the motor car

Well, perhaps not all of them. But previous posts are right. You cannot discount Europe for everything in comparison.
Oh dear, it is all such a terrible tragedy.

No, the real trajedy is:

USA is now behind (blank) in:

(a) slower worker turnover (greater life expectancy in Europe)
(b) fewer people enjoying state hospitality (in their prison cells)
(c) not executing so many people
(d) being reluctant to invade other countries (on blatant falsehoods)
(e) shorter working hours (and so more time with family and friends)
(f) having replacement rather than unsustainable population growth rate
(g) being fetishly addicted to that economic resoure allocation tool ($)
(h) dependency upon the motor car

Well, perhaps not all of them. Point is as in previous posts, you are comparing one nation to a continent that will vary opinion and result.

 

[Verbose]

I think that the main problem when it comes to science in Europe is that its universities are really no match to the american one. With the exception of a few british Unis, the continent seems to perform rather poorly in that area(compared to the US, compared to the rest of the world it's still quite good).

Are most Universities in Europe public? I hate to be repetitive but that might be the cause.

What "Europe"?

As far as research and university education is concerned, it's still virtually all national. And on that level things differ wildly.

The EU level of research spending is still tiny by comparison — but unfortunately bureaucratically sluggish already.

And sure, the funding for major top-flight US universities dwarf anything Europe can show except Oxford and Cambridge. It's a testament to the economic success of US industry in the 19th c. The US still derives huge benefits from the accumulation of capital up until about the 1970's.

And the expansive push of US science after WWII that we are still looking at the effects of was federal, as part of the Cold War mobilisation. A lot of that went into this thing Eisenhower named "the military industrial complex".
Federal science spending increased already during WWI, but dropped to pre-war levels after 1918 again. The increase was even greater in WWII, but the really astonishing bit was that in 1945 it not only didn't drop, it just kept on soaring for decades.

So the reason US science is extraordinarily well funded isn't just private money (which it also enjoys in abundance), but a whopping huge amount of govt. money, mostly geared towards military research.

But that money isn't all patriotic. Science being international, the US money tends to be directed where it's assumed to be most productive. The US wins by virtue of a continuing winning streak. Of course US universities to their damndest to try to prolong it, but it's not a given.

And there are areas of research where the US isn't doing so great. Take a look at the worlds leading biomedical research institutes for example. I'm pretty confident such a list will show you how Europe leaves the US choking in the dust — British, Swiss and Swedish to be precise.

OTOH the US educational system is to a large extent based on "the talented tenth" while European nations tend to want to go for higher averages.

I.e. US university standards vary from a small number of "Best In The World" institutions with serious money, to places that can barely compete academically with an average German Gymnasium or French lycée.

If the objective is to compare the top 10% of universities and reserach institutions then the US wins hands down. Extend it to 50% and things get less obvious. At 100% Europe will do better.

But that said, and considering the nature of research, the US spending its money on a 10% elite prolly produces a better short term pay-off than the European tendency to spred the money out more evenly.

In the long term it's hard to tell if Europeans derive hidden benefits from this. Could be. Or maybe not. It's not as if "higher mass education" has been around for a very long time.

 

[Dr Tiny]

http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/ChinaScience/

Well the US is definately the lead individual country in terms of scientific output, the paper I have linked to shows that the EU as a whole produces more scientific papers than the US. Interestingly they talk about China's emergence as a world player on the scientific stage as they have moved up to 5th behind US, UK, Germany and Japan in terms of publications. This rise for China would appear to be at the expense of the US..the EUs publications have remained steady or even increased slightly. This makes sense, for a long time the US was a major destination for foreign doctoral scientists with some 30% of postdocs being non-US. Since 9/11 and subsequent tightening of US visa laws this has changed, foreign scientists would rather stay at home thus China's braindrain to the US has slowed and China reaps the benefits of its best minds and the US loses out. The EU was never a major destination for asian postdocs and has failed to capitilize on this change and is thus unaffected.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So acording to some serious no wishful thinking source it is just the other way around, US going down and EU remaining (and possibly growing fast in the next year due to fast development in new memebers) I wonder why US right wingers have wet dreams with the fall of Europe...

 

[The Last Conformist]

@LR: See why I've grown cynic?

 

[Dr Tiny]

Another study, this time printed in Nature, comes to pretty much the same conclusions
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/pdf/430311a.pdf

They do discuss some other measures which show the US being ahead of the EU such as business enterprise R&D expenditure as a % of GDP.

But as for the EU 'being off the map' in terms of science output LOL

Edit - added this link
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040506/02/
A US report on the problems faced by US research.

 

[Winner]

Europe certainly has her problems, but talking about her Fall, that's just a wishful thinking of people, who want to see her Fall. I must disappoint you, it is not going to happen

First, massive economic growth is not sustainable for a long time and neither is the stagnation. Europe boomed in 60's, rebuilding herself from rubbles after the WW2. Now, the Western Europe is going through a period of stagnation. But it will hardly last forever. After much needed reforms are finally made (and trade unions crushed), the growth will speed up again.

Second, most of the new member states economies are growing much faster.

Third, relative decline is to be expected. Europe conquered almost entire world because her started the process of industrialization in 18th century. Combined with her superior military capabilites (Europe has been divided since the Fall of Rome and constant fighting has improved the military tactics and technologies), it got enormous advantage over all other world powers. But again, this can't last forever. Other countries are now also rapidly modernising. This will lead to relative decline of Europe as well as the US, like it or not.

Fourth, multipolar world divided alonmg the cultural lines will be reality very, very soon. Europe is, unlike the US, prepared for this. We no longer claim to be the world hegemon. We accepted our position in this new world order. US, on the other hand, still lives in it's past. It will take few more wars for them to realize, that they can't be the hegemon forever.

Fifth, Europe's economy isn't as bad, as some doomsayers like to point out. Our exports are larger than our imports (again, in sharp contrast with the US), our economy is still the second largest in the world and our science certainly isn't neglectible. The new members will experience a strong growth for decades, WE states will catch up once they reform their welfare states.

 

[willemvanoranje]

If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German.

If present trends continue, the U.S. economy will collaps, and the dollar will fall..

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Fifth, Europe's economy isn't as bad, as some doomsayers like to point out. Our exports are larger than our imports (again, in sharp contrast with the US), our economy is still the second largest in the world and our science certainly isn't neglectible.

To be exact looking at PPP GDPs , EU countries combined economies are equal or slighty larger than US´s GDP.

According to the IMF:
European Union 12,020,939
United States 11,628,083

According to the world bank:
European Union 11,723,816
United States 11,605,185

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

 

[Lotus49]

To be exact looking at PPP GDPs , EU countries combined economies are equal or slighty larger than US´s GDP.

According to the IMF:
European Union 12,020,939
United States 11,628,083

According to the world bank:
European Union 11,723,816
United States 11,605,185

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Those are 2004 numbers. 2005, and 2006 estimates show the U.S. GDP (PPP) is higher than the E.U. You're going to have to keep adding countries to the EU, in order to keep up. The U.S. economy grows nicely, while you're just adding more nations into your 'club'. Not really an accurate picture of real growth rate.

Apples and oranges, anyway. Why not compare Germany, to the NAFTA countries, combined? heh.

 

[Winner]

GDP per capita is a very bad indicator of real living standard. Especially for egalitarian societies in Europe.