I don’t have much of a review. I could have done with less of the China butt-kissing. The afterword or whatever it was, written by the editors or whoever was sprinkled with small, but noticeable doses of TDS. Grow the heck up and get over it. Trump, although flawed for sure, did not start any wars, unlike his war-monger predecessor.
Here are some interesting quotes:
Welfare State
“… you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want the competitiveness that America currently has, you cannot avoid creating a considerable gap between the top and the bottom, and the development of an underclass. If you choose instead the welfare state, as Europe did after the Second World War, you naturally become less dynamic.
If welfare spending had simply stagnated at a certain level, the situation might still be under control. Instead, such spending has a tendency of growing over time, not just in absolute terms but also in terms of its share of a nation’s total income. This is partly because populist pressures prompt the expansion of
existing schemes. But more important perhaps is the uncanny ability, observed by veteran Swedish journalist Ulf Nilson, of the welfare system to ‘generate its own demand’. He wrote in 2007, insightfully: ‘Welfare produces clients, assurance against injuries in the workplace produces injuries… the refugee policy, refugees; the ability to retire before retirement age, people who retire early.’ In other words, some rational citizens of these European countries invariably end up gaming the system, whether consciously or unconsciously. In some cases, people reportedly collect unemployment benefits, which can go up to three-quarters of their last-drawn salaries, while engaging in part-time work in the informal economy. This gave them two sets of income, to the loss of the taxpayer.
The most pernicious effect of the welfare state, however, lies not in its inflexibility or its unaffordable nature but in the negative effect it has on the individual’s motivation to strive. If the social security system is designed so you get the same benefits whether you work hard or lead a more laid-back lifestyle, why would you work hard? The spurs on your hinds are not there.”
“As a student in England after the war, I remember being enamoured of the early efforts of the Clement Attlee government to fund generous cradle-to-grave benefits for one and all. I was pleasantly surprised, for example, to be told that I did not owe any payment after receiving a brand new pair of glasses from the optician. They came with the compliments of the National Health Service. What a civilized society, I thought. What I did not understand at the time, but did later, was the potential of such blanket provisions to promote inefficiency and inaction. The intentions were entirely noble. Having gone through two world wars which destroyed almost everything, the governments and peoples of Europe wanted a quiet, peaceful life for everyone with the burden shared equally. The people who fought and paid the price in blood were not the elites as much as the proletariat. There was a strong feeling of indebtedness towards the lower classes. So, when there was a move by politicians calling for fairness and for social welfare policies that looked after the unemployed, the sick and the old, widespread support was secured fairly effortlessly. For many years, Europe could afford these policies. The Marshall Plan helped most of Western Europe get back on its feet by fuelling a relatively robust recovery from the desolation of war. Workers’ salaries rose and the taxes they paid could fund the welfare state. But nothing stays static. The game eventually changed for Europe. As the world became more globalised, the lower-skilled European workers found themselves competing not just among themselves but with workers from Japan, and later from China and India as well. Exports were undercut and industries gradually moved their production centres to Asia. Naturally, the wages of European workers also declined. Without the entrance of China, India and Japan, the welfare state would probably have remained viable for quite some time. But with their entrance, it did not take long for welfare to become unsustainable. The Europeans, of course, tried their best to evolve towards the production of higher-value goods and services, but there is a limit to how much a country can do on
this front. You may want to move up the scale but significant segments of the population may not be able to move because it would involve learning new skills, which takes time, energy and, above all, will. Moreover, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Indians are not incapable of upgrading themselves. This is an unrelenting contest of constant self-improvement, and the gains you can make on your competitors in any given year are usually meagre. It finally depends on the innate qualities of a people and the way they are organised and governed. If it were Europe versus Fiji or Tonga, then it may be true that the latter have no hope of catching up. But we are talking here about Europe versus Japan, Europe versus China and Europe versus possibly India. It is a completely different story.
Laws and policies, unfortunately, do not change as easily as global circumstances do. Entitlements, once
given, are notoriously difficult to take back. There is a tremendous penalty in votes for any government that has the guts to try. Margaret Thatcher of Britain used what political acumen and capital she had to try to reverse the policies. In the end, she succeeded only in half-reversing them. The other European leaders must have watched and seen her partial success. But they faced electorates that were in no mood to give up what had already been taken for granted over the years. The problem had become entrenched for many of these European countries.”