The best prediction of the past 20 years?

Before answering this question, let’s first examine what has happened over the past 20 years.

1.  The world has gotten much more peaceful.  I recall reading that the last couple years were the most peaceful in all of human history (and pre-history for that matter.)  Perhaps someone can find the article.

2.  The world has gotten much more democratic.  The number of democratic countries has soared at the fastest rate in history, by far.

3.  The world has gotten much more market-oriented.  There has been a huge wave of privatization and deregulation of prices and market access.  And this trend extends far beyond the formerly communist countries.

So the obvious choice for most successful prediction is Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 claim that “history was ending,” that the great ideological battle between democratic capitalism and other isms was essentially over, and that henceforth the world would become gradually more democratic, peaceful, and market-oriented.

So you would think that intellectuals would treat Fukuyama as a hero, that he would be figuratively hoisted on our shoulders and paraded around as the prophet of the new age.  Just the reverse.  I must have seen his name mentioned dozens of times in intellectual outlets like the New York Review of Books.  And every single time, without exception, the reference has been derisive, mocking, a sort of rolling of the eyes in wonder than anyone could have believed anything so foolish.  So what gives?

1.  One possibility is that intellectuals are as impatient as little kids; and when the world didn’t reach nirvana almost immediately after his essay was published intellectuals assumed he was wrong.

2.  Another possibility is that he was too optimistic.  To be intellectually respectable one must sound pessimistic, otherwise you seems like a fool who just doesn’t realize all the “serious problems out there.”

3.  Another possibility is that the thesis was too simple, and intellectuals love to talk about how complicated things are.

4.  Or perhaps it was too triumphalist, suggesting that right-wingers like Reagan were correct.  Recall that most intellectuals lean to the left.

5.  Maybe one needs to see the world though the lens of statistics, and most (non-autistic) intellectuals perceive reality as a series of stories presented by the media.

For whatever reason, the most impressive prediction of the past 20 has been met with almost universal derision.  I should mention that one can find partial exceptions, people who acknowledge at least one of the three trends discussed above.  For instance Stephen Pinker and Gregg Easterbrook have discussed the decline in violence, but more as a very long run trend.  And of course there was Julian Simon.  Many economists are aware of the neoliberal revolution, but I am also struck by how many I meet that are unaware of this trend, especially for the non-communist countries.  But despite these partial exceptions, I don’t recall many people coming right out and saying; “Fukuyama was right!”

Now for the hard cases, the places where history still hasn’t quite ended.  What do the following groups have in common?

1.  The Christians of Lebanon

2.  The rich of Venezuela

3.  The Tutsis of Rwanda

4.  The Sunni Arabs of Iraq

5.  The whites of Bolivia

6.  The residents of Bangkok, Thailand

7.  The Serbs of Yugoslavia

8.  The whites of South Africa

Each is a minority group that considers (or recently considered) itself the “natural rulers” of their country.  And in the age of democracy that is a recipe for instability.   (The Lebanese case even gives us a bit of time series evidence, as the troubles began about the time the Christians slipped into the minority.)

BTW, the reason for each group’s traditional dominance varies; it could be wealth, education, or an aristocratic tradition of military skills.   I didn’t think the Iraq War would lead to a civil war, but that’s because I didn’t know the Sunni’s viewed themselves as the natural rulers of Iraq.  Those who did, correctly saw that a US invasion could lead to a very unstable situation.  Had Iraq been 70% Sunni Arab, then the US invasion might have gone smoothly.  But perhaps there would have been other problems that I still don’t see.   (No, I’m not suggesting that we look for majority Sunni countries to invade.)

I get very annoyed when I see people say “the Chinese case proves that economic development doesn’t inevitably lead to political liberalization.”  There are so many problems with this sort of statement that one hardly knows were to begin.  China has seen incredible political liberalization since 1978, indeed even some progress since 1998.  But what about western-style democracy?  To answer that question, consider the list above.  I would argue that China most resembles Thailand.  Both have similar per capita GDPs, both have a huge split between the urban elite and the rural poor.  My hunch is that consciously or subconsciously, the urban residents of China are not thrilled by the idea of a pure democracy that would effectively turn the country over to the rural poor.  But wait a few decades, when China goes from being 60%-70% rural, to 60%-70% urban, and from mostly poor to mostly middle-income, and from mostly undereducated to mostly educated.  Then let’s see how Fukuyama’s thesis holds up.

History is still ending.  Or maybe I should say “his story” is ending, the story of war, revolution and voyages of discovery.  The Illiad and the Odyssey.  And “her story” is beginning.  A world focused on improving education, health care, cuisine, leisure time, the arts, communication, animal rights, the environment, etc.


Tags:

 
 
 

61 Responses to “The best prediction of the past 20 years?”

  1. Gravatar of David N David N
    2. September 2009 at 03:57

    I think it was 9/11 that–rightly or wrongly–toppled Fukuyama’s reputation.

  2. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. September 2009 at 04:33

    You may be right David, but given that Fukuyama did not predict that terrorist acts would immediately end, I think the term “wrongly” would be appropriate. Sometimes when I read people discuss Fukuyama I find it hard to believe that they even read his book.

  3. Gravatar of Alex Alex
    2. September 2009 at 04:40

    Alex,

    I know nothing about Fukuyama but if you like predictions my favorite one is this one:

    “…Macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”

    Robert E. Lucas, 2003.

    Many people thought that the current recession proved Lucas wrong. When in fact it was all the opposite. We didn´t have a depression, we had a recession. Our host will argue that we didn´t need to have a recession either but that is another story.

    If you don´t know the difference between a recession and a depression it is always good to remember what Ronald Reagan said:

    “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his”.

    Alex.

  4. Gravatar of dWj dWj
    2. September 2009 at 04:50

    I’m a big fan of liberal democracy, but, given the choice, would prefer “liberal” to “democracy”. I don’t know a lot about all 8 cases you’ve listed, but in 2 & 3 and to some extent 5 what we’ve seen is not simply the minority yielding power, but the new rulers using their new power in rather nasty ways.

    I haven’t read Fukuyama’s book, incidentally, and don’t know whether my comment has any bearing on it.

  5. Gravatar of David E David E
    2. September 2009 at 05:36

    Building on David N’s comment… I don’t think it is just a single terrorist attack, but rather a fear of a possible “War of Civilizations” between the Muslim world and the western world. Although non-middle eastern Muslim country’s show definite potential, middle eastern Muslim countries seem hopelessly disfunctional and potential sources of turmoil for decades to come.

  6. Gravatar of TGGP TGGP
    2. September 2009 at 05:40

    Fukuyama was looking at things from the lens of Hegelianism, and Hegel isn’t that helpful. Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” was intended to rebut Fukuyama, and I think it was pretty accurate.

    My impression is that the wave of neo-liberalism occurred in the 70s/80s. Was there that much of it in the 21st century? I thought most countries were rejecting the “Washington Consensus” then.

  7. Gravatar of Current Current
    2. September 2009 at 05:52

    I haven’t read Fukuyama’s book, so I can’t comment on it. But I can comment on this post. As I wrote in other comments on recent posts I think that historical inevitability is bunk.

    Scott, have you read Mises short essay “Trends can Change” http://mises.org/story/3314 ? Notice the time Mises wrote this too in 1951. Compare you attitude now to his then, notice that you don’t support very different things.

    The desirability of one set of social institutions has no direct effect on what social institutions are put in place. It’s all much more complicated than that.

  8. Gravatar of iamreddave iamreddave
    2. September 2009 at 06:56

    The Decline of War http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE159-EN-War.html

    Not the article about war you were looking for but a related one.

    This might be the article you were referencing
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html?full=true

  9. Gravatar of Tim Worstall Tim Worstall
    2. September 2009 at 07:05

    The best prediction of the last 20 years? Pretty much one that could have been made 20 years earlier and indeed could and should be made today about the future.

    “Things Can Only Get Better” by D:Ream.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl-ai9HuR60

    Only one slight problem, it became the campaign song for the Labour Party in the 1997 election and they’ve been doing their best in government to prove the contention wrong for the past 12 years.

    Hmm, what? You wanted serious answers? Ah, sorry…

  10. Gravatar of Bob Murphy Bob Murphy
    2. September 2009 at 07:10

    Uh, does it matter that we only have peace in the sense that Vader promised it to Luke if he would join him?

  11. Gravatar of Barry Ickes Barry Ickes
    2. September 2009 at 07:35

    To use the number of democratic countries to measure progress is inappropriate. It is like using the number of countries with people below the poverty line to measure economic development. It is more appropriate to use the number of people. Weight by population.

    We have replaced a clash of ideologies with a clash of civilizations. We are losing a lot more American soldier lives today than when Fukuyama wrote. Zimbabwe is a lot worse off than in 1991, and so is Venezuela.

    The world is too complex for lots of these predictions to be tested. Russia is a lot less democratic than in the mid 1990’s but lots more stable. And it is 142 million people. Still lots of tension with Georgia and Ukraine.

    If you argue that Fukuyama was unfairly treated, I would agree. But if you really believe those statements about the world being so much better off now I think you are being way too naive.

  12. Gravatar of Rick Rick
    2. September 2009 at 07:50

    I think there’s something wrong with your RSS feed – seems like it’s been taken over by Rx ads:

    http://i31.tinypic.com/fumdc9.jpg

  13. Gravatar of Greg Ransom Greg Ransom
    2. September 2009 at 07:58

    Ever read Mark Steyn on European demographics?

    The end of the Hegel/Marx fantasy meant the return to old fashioned history, not necessarily the triumph of liberalism.

  14. Gravatar of Dane Dane
    2. September 2009 at 08:01

    Great post. I don’t know what article you read about the world becoming more peaceful, but the Many Eyes database at IBM has lots of charts and datasets that various people have posted showing falling deaths and deaths per capita from war. For example: http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/battle-deaths-per-year.

  15. Gravatar of DJH DJH
    2. September 2009 at 08:04

    “Uh, does it matter that we only have peace in the sense that Vader promised it to Luke if he would join him?”

    That is the stench of insanity. Putting aside the framing of global issues in terms of science fiction movies, that is an attitude which embraces violence and murder over peace and prosperity based on a personal judgment of the present institutions.

  16. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    2. September 2009 at 08:10

    My impression is that the wave of neo-liberalism occurred in the 70s/80s. Was there that much of it in the 21st century? I thought most countries were rejecting the “Washington Consensus” then.

    The northern European countries have moved quite heavily towards a “free market with heavy redistribution” social model away from central planning since then. Sweden has high taxes, but in many ways, like with school vouchers, their implementations of redistribution are those preferred by free-market economists.

    Zimbabwe is a lot worse off than in 1991, and so is Venezuela.

    Yes, but you’re also cherry-picking examples. Panama and Colombia are much better off than 1991. And as you note, weighting by population is important– which means that the very real improvements in China and India (and Brazil to some extent) outweigh everything else.

  17. Gravatar of S S
    2. September 2009 at 08:17

    What about the U.S., where non-hispanic whites are expected to cease being the absolute majority in the next forty years?

  18. Gravatar of Zack Zack
    2. September 2009 at 09:14

    @Barry, as poor of a heuristic as the number of democratic countries may be, it is not without meaning. The collective world governments recognize countries as sovereign entities, and the influence countries have is not directly proportional to the country’s population. It may or may not be more appropriate to use number of people, but it does not invalidate the metric Steve used.

    Also calling the argument naive is not a proper rebuttal (assuming you intend the negative connotations of the word). No where did the author indicate a lack of information, he simply drew a positive conclusion.

  19. Gravatar of Russell Russell
    2. September 2009 at 09:54

    I certainly appreciate the optimism, but I can’t agree. While I have not read Fukuyama, I am 99.9% certain John Gray has. And I am quite compelled by Gray’s observations (pessimistic, though they may be).

  20. Gravatar of Bababooey Bababooey
    2. September 2009 at 10:49

    I’ve always used the peaceful transition of power to an opposition party without bloody retribution as the measure of democratization. Unbridled dictatorships prevent that kind of thing and they rule fewer people, fewer square miles, fewer dollars, fewer countries or fewer what have yous.

    Consider the usurpation of the PRI of Mexico (pop 109m) and the Congress party in India (900m), the Ukraine orange revolution, the Baltic countries (among others) removal from Russia, Marc Ravalomanana of Madagascar, Kuomintang of Taiwan, the peaceful transfer from dictatorships in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc. Its hard to argue that more people/miles/countries live without the ability to peacefully change their rulers than pre-1989.

    I once saw Gary Becker say that political liberalization follows economic liberalization (but not necessarily the other way around) and would do so in China specifically. The Communist party has indeed opened its ranks to businessmen. We’ll see if they permit anotehr party…

  21. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    2. September 2009 at 11:13

    Fukuyama is a me-too. If you want to talk real predictions, let’s talk Max Weber, who famously predicted that we’d all be living in an Iron Cage of bureaucratic capitalism. Weber beats Fukuyama’s 20 year prediction by a factor of 4.

    What you call liberalism is really a government-bureaucracy maintained (market disciplined) set of vertically integrated bureaucratic agents (firms) that engage in horizontal contractual transactions. It is one flavor of Weber’s efficiency-directed process of social rationalization. The notable characteristic being that it is self-reinforcing due to competition (both intra and international), vis-a-vis such institutions like capital markets and elections.

    To say that history is ending, however, is different from saying _how_ it will end. The great question is whether we are rushing headlong into a utopia, or a dystopia.

    Or (more likely) something in between.

  22. Gravatar of 123 123
    2. September 2009 at 11:43

    Last year’s war in Georgia does not fit your pattern of intragroup conflict. It is a continuation of cold war and a serious threat to Fukuyama’s hypothesis.

  23. Gravatar of rob rob
    2. September 2009 at 12:57

    I agree that Fukuyama’s prediction looks good for the past 20 years, but measuring the end of history might require more hindsite. I’m reminded of Robert Musil’s novel, The Man Without Qualities, in which Austro-Hungary has a massive celebration of peace and progress a few months before the end of it.

  24. Gravatar of Brian Moore Brian Moore
    2. September 2009 at 13:20

    I think the reason people don’t like Fukuyama’s statement is that the present always looks crazy and complex. There are so many things going on that most people don’t understand. Later, when we get a good clear (at least, to us) picture and the “story” (as you put it) is written, I think people will think very highly of “the end of history.”

    9/11, the Georgian conflict, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan all seem very important right now. But they won’t really look that way 50 years from now. And if people were actually comparing these conflicts to the truly definitional conflicts of the 20th century, they seem rather tiny even today. More people died (if my #’s are right) on single days of WW2 than over the entire scope of multiple modern conflicts.

    Sure, people may throw around the term socialistic to describe left wing policies in America or Europe, but they really are relatively small change in a sea of market oriented-ness. We can say “national healthcare is socialistic!” but during the cold war, if the Soviet Union won, that would not have been the only thing they would have changed.

    Totalitarianism fought democracy and lost. Communism fought the markets and lost. We’re just working out just how democratic or market-oriented we (the world) want to be. The question is settled, and future historians will realize this, even if we can’t today.

  25. Gravatar of TGGP TGGP
    2. September 2009 at 17:34

    Georgia’s war was not a return to the Cold War, but the pre-communist era in which the Russian empire considered eastern europe part of its legitimate sphere of influence.

    The European Union would have gotten its new constitution without the people getting to vote on it had Ray Crotty‘s case not won in the Irish supreme court. The result was deemed totally unacceptable by the authorities, so they will have to do that over. Does that sound like democracy or Bertol Brecht’s “Die Lösung”?

    Totalitarianism fought democracy and lost.
    Nazi Germany fought the Soviet Union and lost. That’s what the bulk of WW2 consisted of. When the U.S warred with communist countries, as in Korea and Vietnam (both of which are still communist), it didn’t go quite as well. Who successfully warred with the Soviets? Afghan mujahideen.

    The Victorian era before WW1, which Krugman has called the first great age of globalization, seemed so orderly that many couldn’t imagine what came next. Can we be more sure of ourselves than people of that era were?

    Speaking of the minority “actual rulers”, you might be interested in Theodore Wright’s paper on “The Identity and Changing Status of Former Elite Minorities“. When a lot of such groups lost their status, the result was not very democratic and much less liberal.

  26. Gravatar of nyongesa nyongesa
    2. September 2009 at 18:38

    Bravo!

    Very succinct post, and the final paragraph is very profound. As several commenter’s have astutely observed, most don’t have the breadth of knowledge to make comparative analysis viable, and so they are trapped in the news cycle perspective. As delicious as cynicism is, it is wholly unsatisfying once the taste wares off. It is cowardice to not take a stand on the relative differences evident every where in incremental change.

    The Zimbabwe example sums up the issue, it is a spectacular failure and backslider, as is Somalia, which was despite an awful place under Said Barre at least a functioning state, Ivory Coast, or the human catastrophes still unfolding in Sudan or worse yet the Congo, never-the -less, these are all anomalies in the current Africa whereas they were de rigueur in the past. More over, If one had the patience and the inclination to follow Africa at a micro-level for the last thirty years, and interact with it’s vibrancy today, Fukuyama’s prediction is exemplified there. The number of democratic states has gone from zero to a couple, the number of transitory democracies is now the majority. The multitude of small privations that makes life more bearable and fertilizes progress and liberalism have grown in myriad ways, but it is not easily observable to the CNN and Time perspective. The heart of the African transformation is the end of a bipolar world and the resolution of ideological stances.

    That is the crux of things. India, brazil, China, Russia, Indonesia, and on and on, looking at the small stuff, 100, 50, 25, last year on a human scale, access to courts, access to policing, access to medical care, food etc. the changes are extraordinary. Remember , there is a difference between corrupt police, death squads, and anarchy, this is the point. The real changes have been in the small subtle stuff that typical observers miss. And the corner has truly been turned., not everywhere, as that’s why its considered a corner. We are witnessing just the end of the opening chapter, but the direction is clear. Again your last paragraph is profoundly observant, of the beginning of a new age. I think like any good game of ping pong, it will be the developers who will ressed the west with new ideological vogour in the latter part of this comming century. But first we have to survive China’s tumultous transition through the womb of enfranchisement.

  27. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. September 2009 at 21:30

    Alex, I agree, that prediction has held up so far.

    dWj, I understand the argument that liberalism without democracy might be better than the opposite. But when you choose “non-democracy” you don’t know what you will get. It is far more likely that you will get an illiberal regime, than some place like Hong Kong.

    David, I don’t buy the “war of civilaztions argument.

    You said;

    “middle eastern Muslim countries seem hopelessly disfunctional”

    I think that is too strong. It seems to me that some countries in that region are progressing. Turkey is one example that I would cite. I don’t think anyone would deny that some cultures have more difficulty than others in adjusting to the modern world. And I’m sure Fukuyama understood that point quite well.

    TGGP, If Huntington refuted Fukuyama, then which of the three predictions that I discussed was wrong? It seems pretty clear to me that the world is far more market oriented, peaceful and democratic than in 1989. If you think any of those three predictions didn’t bear out, I’d love to hear the evidence. Yes, you can find countries like Venezuela that have recently rejected the Washington consensus in economic policy, but even in the 21st century far more companies are being priovatized than nationalized, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.

    Current, I really don’t see how your comment refutes my argument. Of course trends can change, indeed Fukuyama was making precisely that argument, that the trend toward statism was changing. But just because things change, doesn’t mean one can’t make an argument that some things that have changed will not return.

    Analogy: Suppose some Fukuyama had predicted in 1865 that with the victory of the North, slavery would eventually be abolished as OFFICIAL POLICY in every nation on earth. It didn’t happen right away, and they have certainly been backsliders like Nazi Germany, but I think even today that prediction would hold up pretty well as the generally direction of historical change.

    In any case, my post was much more modest. I was not claiming that Fukuyama was right, but rather that Fukuyama was right so far—which seems indisputable. Therefore why is he held in such disrepute? Let’s see how things play out over the next few centuries, before we determine that he was wrong.

    I’ll respond to the rest later. And thanks for all these great comments, I’m surprised this post attracted so much attention.

  28. Gravatar of happyjuggler0 happyjuggler0
    2. September 2009 at 22:48

    To Bob Murphy’s point, which I suspect got lost in the subtlety for most readers, can coercive democracy actually be honestly considered peace? Give us your money or you go to prison to face possible rape is not peace.

    At a minimum, a republic is radically better (or less worse) than a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is where such a vote can’t take place, and where any votes that do take place apply to everyone equally.

    Perhaps a Caesarship of some sort, combined with “right to flight”, combined with with countless other methods of governance to choose to flee to, is best.

    This isn’t to negate Fukuyama’s thesis, which seems to have borne out, unfortunately. If we are lucky though it won’t be the end to history, and those democracies will, if nothing else, progress to republics instead of a system where rampant unjust theft and predation via majority is a given.

    By the way, does anyone doubt that there are fewer empty bellies in China than in India, not only on a per capita basis, but in total numbers? Which would you all prefer, democracy or prosperity?

  29. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. September 2009 at 02:25

    Thanks iamreddave, There will be lots more civil wars, but I do think we are nearing the end of wars between sovereign nations. Ijn significant areas ofd the world such as North America ands Western Europe, we have probablt seen the end of warfare between states. I expect this zone of peace to expand rapidly. Indeed with political change in North Korea I would add East Asia to the list.

    The line that wars have been around for all human history means nothing to me. All sorts of things in today’s world are radically different from 99% of human history. The world median age is much higher than it has ever been, for instance, and it will soon be much much higher than it is today. Seventy year olds typically are less enthused about fighting wars than 20 year olds.

    Tim, No jokes are fine. I didn’t expect all my commenters to sit around singing Kumbayah.

    Bob, You said.

    “Uh, does it matter that we only have peace in the sense that Vader promised it to Luke if he would join him?”

    I don’t fear that prospect, as liberalism doesn’t cause wars, repressive states are to blame for every war in human history. (Or did I miss one somewhere?)

    Barry, You said;

    “We are losing a lot more American soldier lives today than when Fukuyama wrote.”

    I don’t think this is true. I thjink more soldiers died each year in the late 1980s and early 1990s than will die in 2009.

    Russia is far more democratic than in 1989 when Fukuyama made that prediction. A few countries have slid backward, such as Venezuela, but over all Latin American is much more democratic than in 1989. I would add that even authoriarian states feel a need to play lip service to democracy, as the the prestige of dictaroships has plummeted. Many of the countries that have recently become less democratic (Venezuela, Russia, etc) none the less have leaders who were elected. I remember a time when many Latin American countries were ruled by military officers, without even a pretence of elections. Ditto for the Soviet bloc. So even that is progress.

    But again, I think people need to take the long view. The world is a messy place, but there really is no longer any plausible alternative to market democracies. We are in a mopping up operation. The ideological battle is over save a few holdouts in the mountains of Afghanistan.

    You said;

    “If you argue that Fukuyama was unfairly treated, I would agree. But if you really believe those statements about the world being so much better off now I think you are being way too naive.”

    I may be naive, but so far no one has presented a shred of evidence that my three claims were incorrect. Mentioning a few places with problems hardly qualifies.

    Rick, Thanks. I frequently have that problem. I may not be able to fix it until I return.

    Dane, Thanks for the info.

    Greg, Mark Steyn is a great writer, but I don’t buy his argument about demographics. He ignors the fact that over time “the other” become “us.”

    DJH, I don’t agree with Bob’s point, but I am pretty sure he didn’t mean to embrace violence and murder. At least I didn’t take it that way.

    John, Those are all good points. And despite backsliding, Russia is still more democratic than in 1989 (but less that in 1999.) And the 4th most populous country, and largest moslem country (Indonesia) is much more democratic than in 1989.

    S, That statistic is widely touted, but is misleading. The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “white” is expected to drop from 79% now to 71% at mid-century, if my memory is correct. The problem with the sort of forecast you cite is that there is massive intermarriage among white anglos, Asians, and hispanics. My daughter is half Asian, but as an adult will probably view herself as “white”. So these estimates tend to ignor that fact that the white group will gain adherents due to intermarriage. I don’t want to get sidetracked on a debate about immigration, but the history of America should give pause to anyone brave enough to predict the cultural splits 50 to 100 years hence. (Recall how the Irish were viewed in 1850, for instance.)

    Thanks Zack.

    Russell, I have read Gray, and have not been “compelled” by his arguments.

    Bababooey, I agree, and many, many more examples could be cited to support your point.

    Statsguy, Those are good points. I can’t see any logical endpoint for humanity, which makes me think that in the very long run we are headed to an unimaginably strange world (good or bad). Just as our world would be unimaginably strange to the Neaderthals. I think Fukuyama has a follow-up book claiming biotech inventions will eventually change human nature itself. I haven’t read it, has anyone out there looked at it?

  30. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. September 2009 at 03:15

    123, The war in Georgia is certainly an exception, but not enough to change the general thrust of recent history.

    rob, My point is that he has been right so far, and yet he is treated as if his predictions failed. You are right that things might fall apart in the future. BTW, I love Musil’s novel.

    Brian Moore, Very well put. I agree 100%.

    TGGP, I don’t regard the EU as a country, so I am not too worried about its lack of democracy. If it becomes a country, that would be a disaster. I hope the US breaks up into 50 separate countries, and forms its own EU.

    I can’t let this slide;

    “When the U.S warred with communist countries, as in Korea and Vietnam (both of which are still communist), it didn’t go quite as well.”

    North Korea invaded South Korea. We successfully defended South Korea against that invasion. South Korea is not communist. I count that as a win. Vietnam is rapidly moving to capitalism. Isn’t that what we fought the war for? (It sure wasn’t democracy, as we had non-democratic allies on our side (like South Korea.)

    The Victorian era is a cautionary example. But it was nothing like modern times. France fought a war with Prussia in 1869. There was the Crimean war. The US had a bloody Civil War. The US fought with Spain. Etc. War between and among North American and European powers wasn’t unthinkable in the way it is today.

    I agree that when minorities have lost power things haven’t always gone well (Rwanda is a notorious example.)

  31. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. September 2009 at 03:29

    nyongesa. Good comment. You probably know more about Africa than I do, but it sounds to me like you got things just about right. I agree that the press often focuses on major problems, and ignores incremental improvments in things like health, women’s rights, communications (such as cell phones) etc.

    Happyjuggler0, You should look at Sen’s research on famines. He claims that famines almost never occur in democracies, as the government fears the wrath of voters. Certainly far more people have starved to death in China than India since 1950.

    I also think it helps to compare countries with similar cultural characteristics. On that basis China is much more like Japan, the 2 Koreas, Vietnam, and small Chinese economies such as HK, Taiwan, Singapore. It is much poorer than most. Vietman is poorer than China, but also non-democratic. North Korea is much poorer than China, and is also much less democratic.

    Now turn to South Asia, former British India. India is the most democratic country in the region, and the most successful economically. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma are all doing more poorly than India.

    So when you compare like-to-like, I think democracy looks good.

    I think we need much more democracy, even in the US. New Hampshire town meetings are more democratic than NYC school boards. Switzerland is much more democratic than any other country in the world, and has lower taxes on the rich than most European countries. So I don’t buy the wolves and sheep argument. In my state it was the working class towns that voted to abolish the income tax in a referendum about 5 years ago. The rich towns voted for an income tax. So maybe we shouldn’t let rich people vote, they’re a bunch of commies in my state.

  32. Gravatar of Barry Ickes Barry Ickes
    3. September 2009 at 04:49

    Scott:
    You are way off on military deaths. The Congressional Research Office gives a table with deaths due to various categories (illness, accidents, murders). Deaths due to hostile actions of US soldiers:
    1980 0
    1981 0
    1982 0
    1983 18
    1984 1
    1985 0
    1986 2
    1987 37
    1988 0
    1989 23
    1990 0
    1991 147
    1992 0
    1993 0
    1994 0
    1995 0
    1996 1
    1997 0
    1998 0
    1999 0
    2000 0
    2001 3
    2002 18
    2003 343
    2004 739
    2005 739
    2006 761

    This is not even a close call.
    Nursulatan Nazarbaev was elected as Party Secretary in Kazakhstan when it was still a Soviet Republic, and is still President by election now. I am not sure what that suggests. The same holds true for Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan.

  33. Gravatar of wkwillis wkwillis
    3. September 2009 at 06:12

    Alex
    Reagan’s election was followed by the 1981 crash and double digit unemployment surge. Perhaps he really meant that ‘recovery is two years after Jimmy Carter loses his job’?

  34. Gravatar of TGGP TGGP
    3. September 2009 at 06:24

    Somalia, which was despite an awful place under Said Barre at least a functioning state
    According to Peter Leeson, Somalia actually IMPROVED under anarchy:
    http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/02/better_off_stat.html

    The new E.U constitution is intended to make it more like a country. The U.S used to be decentralized and referred to in plural. The replacement of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution and numerous events afterwards continually centralized power. Expect the same for the E.U. I have read that some countries receive more legislation from the E.U than their own legislature, make the E.U their real “country”.

    Paying lip service to democracy is worth nothing. Both the Nazis/fascists and communists have their origins as political parties, and justified their regimes as representing the will of the people. Think of all those countries named “Democratic Republic Of…”. In contrast, colonialist powers didn’t bother with pretending and generally did a much better job of governing (even American independence doesn’t seem a clear improvement).

    Huntington’s point wasn’t about markets, since he’s a political scientist rather than economist. He was saying that history isn’t over, we are identifying with civilizations rather than ideologies like communism/capitalism now, and many countries reject the U.S’ vision of the world (this includes many rising economies of East Asia).

    He ignors the fact that over time “the other” become “us.”
    You haven’t read “Generations of Exclusion”. People that claim the demographic-destiny folks are ignoring assimilation rarely have data to point to.

    My daughter is half Asian, but as an adult will probably view herself as “white”.
    Asians are in a certain sense “honorary whites” who are often not included as minorities, but America still has something of a “one-drop” rule. Mixes between white and non-white are deemed non-white. Tiger Woods is unusual in embracing all his ancestry, Obama is always called “black” and never “white”.

    So maybe we shouldn’t let rich people vote, they’re a bunch of commies in my state./i>
    Could be in your state, but that goes against the findings of most political scientists (and economists who study public opinion) on political attitudes by income.

  35. Gravatar of happyjuggler0 happyjuggler0
    3. September 2009 at 07:51

    End italics 🙂

  36. Gravatar of happyjuggler0 happyjuggler0
    3. September 2009 at 08:06

    Scott,

    I don’t think that comparing deaths by starvation under Mao is fair, although I can see why you would think that way.

    Anyway, I am thinking about now, not then. Looking around, I see several city-states right now that have made extreme progress and which most of the world’s people would love to live under, namely Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, and Monaco.

    With the arguable exception of Singapore, they are all non-democracies, and they stand as models one way or another for new charter cities in my opinion. In other words, as methods of governance for others to model themselves after. Far better models than the US or France for example, let alone India.

    As Patri Friedman (David Friedman’s son) would say, let a thousand nations bloom. Basically I am thinking about a post-democratic world, where everyone has the right to emigrate to any of a thousand or so territories competing for citizens, and each run in a different way, ranging from the proverbial New England town hall meetings to something owned and run by people like Bill Gates under his rules.

    Anyway, I think we can both likely agree that jurisdictional competition is the way to go, even if we both have different ideas about which jurisdictional governance system we’d want to make our home in.

  37. Gravatar of Tomasz Wegrzanowski Tomasz Wegrzanowski
    3. September 2009 at 08:29

    Before you ask why people ignore Fukuyama, ask if his predictions were really true. Yes, Pinker is right that today is more peaceful than prehistory, but is 2009 really significantly more peaceful, market-oriented and democratic than 1989?

    10th bloodiest war in history – the Second Congo War – happened in 1998-2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll
    There were also first big wars in Europe in generations (Yugoslavia). There were genocides in Rwanda and Iraq. 1979-1989 on the other hand seems relatively more peaceful decade, with no major war other than Iraq-Iran.

    It seems that on average countries and economies went a bit more democratic and market-oriented, that’s true. However, due to demographic changes the least democratic and least market-oriented countries grew a lot bigger, so average person in 2009 has perhaps as much chance of being born into a non-democratic and non-free-market country as 1989.

    Perhaps after counting it all there was really major shift the way Fukuyama predicted, but it’s not at all clear from the evidence I’ve seen.

  38. Gravatar of Current Current
    3. September 2009 at 11:59

    Scott: “I really don’t see how your comment refutes my argument. Of course trends can change, indeed Fukuyama was making precisely that argument, that the trend toward statism was changing. But just because things change, doesn’t mean one can’t make an argument that some things that have changed will not return.

    Analogy: Suppose some Fukuyama had predicted in 1865 that with the victory of the North, slavery would eventually be abolished as OFFICIAL POLICY in every nation on earth. It didn’t happen right away, and they have certainly been backsliders like Nazi Germany, but I think even today that prediction would hold up pretty well as the generally direction of historical change.

    In any case, my post was much more modest. I was not claiming that Fukuyama was right, but rather that Fukuyama was right so far””which seems indisputable. Therefore why is he held in such disrepute? Let’s see how things play out over the next few centuries, before we determine that he was wrong.”

    We agree that there are no “laws of history”. That, like the title of Mises essay “Trends can change”. Now, if Fukuyama agrees that trends can change wasn’t he having his cake and eating it?

    I don’t know if he agreed that things he doesn’t understand can change the course of history. If he did though then his predictions were worthless.

    As others have mentioned the “first great liberal age” demonstrates the problem. We may be in the same position our ancestors were on the outbreak of WWI.

    Any idiot can draw a straight line though a trend. The problem is knowing what underpins the trend.

    Perhaps there was a short retreat from statism in the 80s and 90s. That is very surely being reversed now though isn’t it? Though I firmly believe that the classical liberal side are right, I do not kid myself that we are winning.

    (Perhaps the best demonstration of that is the Hegelian and Marxian ideas so many people in this thread are expousing.)

  39. Gravatar of Current Current
    3. September 2009 at 15:13

    I was possibly a bit vague above. I’ll try to be more clear.

    If I say to you “here is a trend, I think this trend will probably continue, but there is a small chance that it won’t”. I am saying something entirely basic, I’m being a poor stock market chartist. If the trend I identify were new or interesting then I would be saying something worthy of praise.

    However, if I dress this up in the fancy language of dialectics, then it may sound more profound. I could say that a quantitative change in the number of democratic states will lead to a qualitative change elsewhere. That qualitative change will be in the nature of the world order. If you read those last two sentences carefully you’ll realise that I haven’t said much. If many democracies arise then a basic change to the “world order” will be inevitable: it will be composed of democracies. Further change is also likely since something has happened which hasn’t happened before, this is common sense. What we call the “world order” and what we don’t shapes if the above sentences are right or not. I rely on my allies defining the “world order” to my advantage.

    These are old tricks, Marx and Hegel invented them.

  40. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. September 2009 at 16:35

    Barry Ickes, You said deaths to US soldiers, not combat deaths. The accident death rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s was horrendous. I stand by my claim that fewer US soldiers will die this year than in a typical year in that period. The world is becoming a much safer place.

    In any case, it is world trends that matter, not US trends. And that fact that Kazackstan has not improved doesn’t change the broad trends.

    TGGP, You are attacking a straw man. No one said that every country was going to become like the US.

    You said;

    “Huntington’s point wasn’t about markets, since he’s a political scientist rather than economist. He was saying that history isn’t over, we are identifying with civilizations rather than ideologies like communism/capitalism now, and many countries reject the U.S’ vision of the world (this includes many rising economies of East Asia).”

    First, if you are right about Huntington than people should be using his argument against Fukuyama’s, because Fukuyama’s was about markets. Second, East Asia is clearly becoming more democratic, more market-oriented and more peaceful. I don’t see how anyone could dispute that, despite exceptions here and there. That was my claim. The fact that they supposedly cling to “Asia Values” (which by the way is something of a myth–in many ways the US is much more puritanical than East Asia) does nothing to undercut the three predictions I discussed.

    You said;

    “My daughter is half Asian, but as an adult will probably view herself as “white”.
    Asians are in a certain sense “honorary whites” who are often not included as minorities, but America still has something of a “one-drop” rule. Mixes between white and non-white are deemed non-white. Tiger Woods is unusual in embracing all his ancestry, Obama is always called “black” and never “white.””

    This doesn’t in any way conflict with what I said. I said it was misleading to say that non-hispanic whites would soon be in a minority. When I discussed the high rates of intermarriage I specifically left out blacks. Their share of the populuation is expected to rise from 13% to 14% at mid-century. This is not the impression people leave when they talk about a non-white country. I’m not saying the other commenter’s facts were wrong, just that the statistic is very misleading. BTW, I expect the “one drop of blood” nonsense to fade over time. The younger generation is much more open to mixed ancestry. I believe Tiger Woods in half Chinese in terms of ancestry (or maybe Thai-Chinese) and one quarter African-American. So I suppose one could argue he is the world’s greatest Asian athlete.

    If intermarriage rates stay at current levels, some experts argue we will become 15% black and 85% beige, in other words roughly the country I was born into in 1955.

    You said;

    “Could be in your state, but that goes against the findings of most political scientists (and economists who study public opinion) on political attitudes by income.”

    My state is an outlier, but studies show the rich steadily trending Democratic. Didn’t Obama slightly win the over $200,000/year class?

    Happyjuggler0, I understand why you think the Mao comparison is unfair, but people who cherry pick successful non democracies lose sight of the fact that if you’re going to be a dictatorship, you’ll have to take the sweet with the sour. The current Chinese government is much better than Mao, but I would argue precisely because it is more reflective of the views of the 80 million member communist party. It is not a democracy, but it is more democratic than under Mao.

    I think your city-state example is interesting, and if you saw my proposal to divide the US up into 50 countries, you’ll know that in politics I think “small is beautiful.” So at least we agree on the decentralization agenda.

    I’ll respond to the rest later.

  41. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. September 2009 at 18:10

    Tomasz, I am no expert here, and I also thought of the Congo war when I saaw these articvles on tbe decline of war. You may want to read some of the articles linked to by iamreddave, especialy the one in New Scientist magazine. My hunch is that the propoents of the decline i nbwar would makje three points:

    1. The trend line is steadily falling, despite occasional bliups upard during especially nasty conflicts.

    2. The last 3 or 4 years are (as far as we know) the most peaceful ever, with the chance of a random person dying a violent death at its lowest point ever.

    3. It is hard to estimate deaths in Civil wars, many of which are due to starvation. But wars between states are clearly declining rapidly.

    I would add that war is especially uncommon between democracies. Ands as the trend toward more democracies is much more certain, that bodes well for a continued decline in interstate conflicts.

    Regarding 1979-89, it is true there weren’t many inter-state wars, but there were lots of nasty civil wars in Latin America and Africa.

    You said:

    “It seems that on average countries and economies went a bit more democratic and market-oriented, that’s true.”

    I think that grossly understates what has happened. These are the two most important predictions of Fukuyama, and both trends have been overwhelming powerful since 1989. The trend towards markets includes big countries like China and India, and also countries that were already capitalist like Western Europe and Australia.
    The number of democracies has increased many times over. And even if some are only quasi-democracies (Russia, Venezuela, etc.) we have also seen countries move from quasi-democracy to full-fledged democracy (Mexico.)

    Current, But Fukuyama wasn’t just extrapolating a trend line. I agree that that would be useless. He gave lots of reasons why he expected these trneds to continue. I don’t see why an intelligent person would have predicted an end to war in 1913, the European powers were chomping at the bit to go after each other. They were in unfriendly alliances, not the NATO structure we have today. War was still viewed as a noble endeavor, not a disgrace, as it is viewed today.

    Earlier I said that the first half of the 20th century was partly bad luck, I think this tended to obscure the longer run trends for a while, and made post-war intellectuals far too pessimistic. But it is now pretty obvious that France and Germany are not going to go to war with each other again–or at least it is obvious to me.
    I do think that some really bad things may happen in the future, but they will probably be very different from the problems we faced in the past.

    You said;

    “(Perhaps the best demonstration of that is the Hegelian and Marxian ideas so many people in this thread are expousing.)”

    Having a theory of the direction of history doesn’t make one a Marxist. Having a communist theory of the direction of history makes one a Marxist. I don’t see any commenters expousing Marxism.

    You said;

    “However, if I dress this up in the fancy language of dialectics, then it may sound more profound. I could say that a quantitative change in the number of democratic states will lead to a qualitative change elsewhere. That qualitative change will be in the nature of the world order. If you read those last two sentences carefully you’ll realise that I haven’t said much.”

    I don’t get this. If Fukuyama is only stating the obvious, why does everyone think he is wrong? Why does everyone think his predictions have proved false? We are at nearly 40 comments and not one person has refuted my observation that his predictions have proved accurate so far, dispute widespread impression that his views have been discredited. Saying he might later be proved wrong in no way answers the question I posed in this post, as I never claimed that there was no possibility that later events would prove him wrong.

  42. Gravatar of Current Current
    4. September 2009 at 03:08

    Regarding TGGPs comments on Europe – he is quite right. I live in Ireland, currently we are undergoing saturation propaganda by the state to persuade everyone to vote “Yes” in the new referendum on EU membership. The government are claiming it’s about whether Ireland is in the EU or out of it, which is a blatant lie.

    It’s hard to say who will win. I think the No side may win because people may vote against the government on general principle.

  43. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    4. September 2009 at 05:26

    Current, Maybe because I live in America, and maybe because the EU only spends about 2% of GDP, I have never taken the issue too seriously. Perhaps you guys are right, and the lack of democracy in the EU is becoming a serious problem.

    But recall that there are still huge differences between member nations. I think top income tax rates range from about 15% to 60%, so nation-states still have a lot of leeway.

    I will keep watching the issue.

  44. Gravatar of Current Current
    4. September 2009 at 05:42

    Scott: “Maybe because I live in America, and maybe because the EU only spends about 2% of GDP, I have never taken the issue too seriously. Perhaps you guys are right, and the lack of democracy in the EU is becoming a serious problem.”

    The way the EU works the percentage of GDP it spends is irrelevant. It doesn’t do things itself, so it’s budget is small, it’s not like the US federal government in that regard. Rather the member states are required to follow EU legislation and do what the EU bureaucracy commands.

    In my view, and I think Tim Worstall would agree, the EU is much more important than the “national” governments of member states today.

  45. Gravatar of Mike Sandifer Mike Sandifer
    4. September 2009 at 11:16

    This is a good point I hadn’t considered. I found Fukuyama’s thesis ridiculous as a college student, looking at all the problems and potential problems in the world at the time. However, the media doesn’t report on long-term, stable improvements in situations very often, preferring the sensational.

    With a brief note as to the Iraq war, I always expect instability when one country invades another, that is sometimes only quelled by brutal suppression of dissent, the likes of which, even givne the American crimes there, Americans couldn’t stomach.

  46. Gravatar of Rama Rama
    4. September 2009 at 15:33

    If we include the deaths due to terrorism also in the deaths due to wars , would the thesis still be valid ? In this century perhaps the wars will be more between the terrorists and the establishment rather than between nation states. And Fukuyama’s thesis does seem to be very teleological and our version of history seems like the normal science of Kuhn ( ” The structure of scientific Revolution”) till the next paradigm takes over.

  47. Gravatar of Current Current
    4. September 2009 at 16:10

    Kuhn is another Hegelian moron. They tend to cancel each other out.

  48. Gravatar of Matt Matt
    4. September 2009 at 19:39

    The greatest thing about reading a lot of blogs is that you eventually come across someone else that thinks the same crazy thoughts you do. I thought I was the only one who thought that the barbaric world was ending(not ended but ending).

  49. Gravatar of rob rob
    5. September 2009 at 18:56

    In the same vein i think, i have an outstanding bet with a Brazilian friend that the favelas wil be gone from the hills of Rio on 15 years. My Brazilian friend thinks im crazy. But why is it so hard to give these people property rights and let someone buy their land? What seems obvious to an American seems implausible to a Brazilian. I won’t pretend I am any less ignorant on this, so why the disconnect in visions of the future?

  50. Gravatar of azmyth azmyth
    6. September 2009 at 05:28

    One interesting site to check out is Gapminder.org. It lists hundreds of countries by a wide range of quality of life indicators and after playing with it for half an hour or so, you’ll realize that the world is becoming a better place to live in over time.

    Brian Caplan writes about a pessimistic bias in his book “The Irrational Voter.” People are not really designed to think in terms of continual improvements. Throughout our history of hundreds of thousands of years as a species, things have only been improving for the last 150 years or so, and even then only in spurts. Is it really a surprise that people have not adjusted to it yet? Alex Tabbarock gave a speech on the world getting better, and the comments section tore him apart for being too optimistic. The evidence seems to point to people being very pessimistic.

  51. Gravatar of Roger Sweeny Roger Sweeny
    6. September 2009 at 06:29

    At least right now, Fukuhama is wrong that the battle of ideas is over, that everyone who matters now agrees that “democratic capitalism” is the only proper way of doing things. A very, very large number of academics, activists, foundation people, etc. believe that markets are inherently chaotic and wasteful, and that a system run by the good and smart and true will perform better and be cheaper.

    I think this answers the “Kaus question.” Why didn’t Obama and his people argue for health care reform by saying, “We will make sure everyone is covered; you will never have to worry about being denied treatment again”? Why did they instead say, “We will make sure everyone is covered; and it will cost less”? A majority of Americans seem to feel that the only way more people can be covered at less total cost is to make individual coverage less good.

    But I suspect Obama’s people just don’t believe this. They know–in the same way that theists know God is good–that they can do better, that more of the right kind of government can always do better. And that they are that right kind.

    I suppose it’s Hayek’s fatal conceit. And at least over the last few years, it seems to be more common rather than less.

  52. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    7. September 2009 at 17:38

    Current, Aren’t the EU bureaucrats picked by the democratically elected national governments? How is it different from the US, if Congress ran the show and you had a weak president?

    Mike, You said;

    “With a brief note as to the Iraq war, I always expect instability when one country invades another, that is sometimes only quelled by brutal suppression of dissent, the likes of which, even givne the American crimes there, Americans couldn’t stomach.”

    That was not the case in Germany, Japan, Grenada or Panama, all countries the US invaded. But in the case of Iraq you were certainly correct.

    Rama; You asked;

    “If we include the deaths due to terrorism also in the deaths due to wars , would the thesis still be valid ? In this century perhaps the wars will be more between the terrorists and the establishment rather than between nation states.”

    Death due to terrorism are in the 1000s, trivial compared to death due to wars. Indeed the biggest cost of terrorism is not deaths, but security precautions at airports, etc, which make our lives more annoying.

    Thanks Matt.

    rob, It will be difficult to say who is right. They will still be there, but much fixed up from what they are now, just as they are now vastly improved over the living conditions of 20 years ago (much more electricity, appliances, running water, etc.)

    Azmyth, I think you are right.

    Roger, You are attributing to Fukuyama an argument he never made. He did not predict the European powers would drop their social welfare states and become libertarian, he said the Soviet block would become more like Western Europe. And indeed it is gradually moving in that direction. If he had predicted what you claim he predicted, then I agree he would have been wrong, as there will always be debates over the exact role of the state in capitalist countries. But their is no longer a serious intellectual argument for communism. It’s all about which form of capitalism, which is precisely Fukuyama’s point.

  53. Gravatar of Tom F Tom F
    8. September 2009 at 15:02

    @Scott: “That was not the case in Germany, Japan, Grenada or Panama, all countries the US invaded. But in the case of Iraq you were certainly correct”

    I think if you need to consider pre-existing ethnic/religious tensions in Iraq that didn’t exist in those other countries.

    It’s telling… to me anyways… that under the Ottoman Empire the three regional capitals of what’s now Iraq were Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. Or in other words Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite. How anyone in the Pentagon and the Intelligence community didn’t think there would be a settling of scores by the different groups is mind boggling. That’s the real untold story of the Iraq invasion. The colossal failure to identify that was going to happen.

    Remove the oil wealth from the equation and the reality is you’d have a region that’s pretty much a big a sectarian basket case as most of sub-Saharan Africa. And one that people would probably care just about as much as…

  54. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    9. September 2009 at 03:23

    Tom, Again, I think the big problem wasn’t the ethnic split, but the fact that the most powerful group was in the minority.

  55. Gravatar of Current Current
    1. October 2009 at 03:17

    I forgot about this interesting thread….

    Scott: “Aren’t the EU bureaucrats picked by the democratically elected national governments? How is it different from the US, if Congress ran the show and you had a weak president?”

    In the EU proposing of legislation is separate from deciding on it. The European Commission are a committee with one member picked by each state. They propose legislation and they are also the directors of the executive branch.

    Another body, the council of ministers are picked by the government’s of each state. This is “doubly indirect” democracy as it is with the commission. Then there is the European parliament which is directly elected. There is a sharing of power between these two bodies, both deciding what legislation will be passed.

    The upshot of this structure is that the European Commission are the most powerful body. The parliament isn’t really very significant.

    It is rather like the US Federal Government with a very strong President.

  56. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    1. October 2009 at 10:17

    Current, You said;

    “The upshot of this structure is that the European Commission are the most powerful body. The parliament isn’t really very significant.
    It is rather like the US Federal Government with a very strong President.”

    But a very strong President elected by thr state governors, is that right?

  57. Gravatar of Current Current
    1. October 2009 at 14:06

    Scott: “But a very strong President elected by thr state governors, is that right?”

    Yes, that’s right.

    Ireland are voting on the Lisbon treaty again tomorrow on 2nd Oct. The situation is very strange.

    Now, I won’t hide my views, like Tim I staunchly against the EU. I consider it anti-democracy, anti-liberty and anti-capitalism.

    Large companies are doing huge advertising campaigns for the “Yes” campaign. Ryanair are the largest airline in Europe. They are doing a very funny set of full page newspaper adverts against the “No” campaign. Intel also have a set of full page newspaper adverts, they say “Ireland being at the heart of Europe matters to us, Does it matter to you?” A friend of a friend works for Intel her, she tells me they are being paid by the government to run these adverts.

    The “No” campaign has mainly being run by Socialist and Sinn Fein. They have made a complete mess of it. They tried to argue – quite ridiculously – that the EU is an anti-socialist organization. They also tried to argue that the EU would reduce the minimum wage to the lowest level of the other states, an outright lie. This is all a shame because there are very good reasons to vote No. Unfortunately most of the anti-europeans spent all their money during the first referendum, or they have bigger fish to fry.

  58. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. October 2009 at 10:47

    Current, I think The Economist magazine also sees the EU as anti-socialist, as trying to force countries to stop subsidizing their industries, and to force them to open markets. The argument may be wrong, but it is not “ridiculous.”

  59. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. October 2009 at 10:48

    BTW, I’d also vote no.

  60. Gravatar of Current Current
    3. October 2009 at 11:19

    The Irish voted Yes, as expected.

    Scott: “I think The Economist magazine also sees the EU as anti-socialist, as trying to force countries to stop subsidizing their industries, and to force them to open markets. The argument may be wrong, but it is not “ridiculous.””

    I see what you mean, it’s an exaggeration to say that it’s ridiculous.

    However, the reason the EU do this is because they don’t like differences between countries not because they prefer capitalism. They issue huge amounts of regulations and they subsidize agriculture and fisheries hugely. What offends the EU about the member countries subsidizing their home industries is not that there is subsidization involved, rather it’s that the subsidization isn’t part of a cross-EU program like the common agricultural policy.

  61. Gravatar of dietitian dietitian
    18. September 2011 at 12:33

    dietitian…

    […]TheMoneyIllusion » The best prediction of the past 20 years?[…]…

Leave a Reply