Tag Archives: politics

Send troops to the Fed?

Pardon me for wading into Twitter Drama, but Rohan Grey is a remarkably unserious “intellectual” and I couldn’t help myself.

Before I start, let me share a tiny story from “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.” This book was a thoroughly unenjoyable read for teenaged me, but it has one anecdote that still sticks with me. If memory serves, there is a university that is being threatened with losing its accreditation due to repeated failures and the students are naturally protesting as this would make their degrees worthless. One student talks to the narrator and claims that the University in fact can’t lose its accreditation, because if someone tried to take it “the Governor would send the national guard to protect us!”

I shouldn’t have to spell out the ridiculousness, but I want to hit word count so I will. Accreditation isn’t held in a vault, it isn’t something you can protect with guns and soldiers. Accreditation is the trust that other institutions have in you, and while some of it is legally codified most of its power is in the uncodified trust that a society is built on. You can’t protect accreditation with and soldiers any more than you can protect trust or friendship.

And so it was with bewilderment that I read an Assistant Law Professor on Twitter making the same mistakes as the nameless student from a book. Rohan Grey wants to do an end-run around the debt ceiling by having the Treasury mint a one trillion dollar platinum coin and deposit it in the Federal Reserve. This coin would then pay for the USA’s financial obligations without the need to borrow money. A big (and usually ignored) problem is that the Fed would have to accept the coin, and as Josh Barro writes, the Fed has expressed the opinion that this chicanery is illegal and undermines Fed independence. (Read Barro’s article, it goes into great detail as to why this idea probably wouldn’t work). Undeterred, Grey thinks the Fed’s opinion doesn’t matter, and that if they refuse to accept the coin then Biden should send troops to the Federal Reserve and force them to accept it.

Grey’s mistake is thinking that guns can be used to enforce trust. The Federal Reserve has the trust of the markets, and its power to move markets is based on that trust as much as anything else. The Federal Reserve trades bonds and sets rates, but those bonds and rates have value because people trust the Fed to keep its word, Jerome Powell’s speeches about the Fed’s plans have as much or more power as any action taken by the Fed. Now imagine a scenario where troops are instructed to besiege and occupy the Federal Reserve, where Powell is held at gunpoint and forced to accept a one trillion dollar deposit from the Treasury which he and the Fed have gone on record as saying is illegal. Trust in the Fed would be shattered, nothing Powell says or does matters anymore because the troops (and by extension the President) are running the show. Investors would flee from US government bonds, causing yields (and thus America’s cost of borrowing) to skyrocket, because America’s currency will have been debased against the will of its central banks, and will now be at the whims of the President.

And you may say “that’s fine, I like Biden as President” but do you like DeSantis? Do you trust that DeSantis wouldn’t be willing to send his own troops to force his will on the Fed? Would you buy a 10-year government bond if there’s a chance that DeSantis or Trump will be controlling it 2 years? And furthermore, Powell’s remarks on inflation will become worthless. Maybe Biden doesn’t like the rate rising that Powell needs to do, or maybe when the election comes he wants to juice the economy. So what’s to stop him from leaning over and reminding Powell who’s boss? What’s to stop Trump or DeSantis from doing the same? People like Grey once griped that Trump’s complaining caused the Fed to pause rate rises in 2019 (ignoring of course that inflation went under the Fed’s 2% target, which should cause them to pause rate hikes all on its own). Now Grey wants to make the Fed wholly subsumed by the President, so Trump would be able to do whatever he wanted.

Once you’ve sent troops to the Fed, you can’t unring that bell. Investors invest in American Dollars and American bonds in large part because they trust the Federal Reserve to do its duty with regards to the currency. Shattering that trust with soldiers would shatter investor confidence in the American economy as a whole. You’d have a trillion shiny dollars, but they wouldn’t be worth a pence.

Maker vs Taker states

Last year, Elon Musk paid over 11 billion dollars in income tax, more than the amount paid by every single person I know COMBINED. Yet for all that I have no desire to see him get special privileges, or to have his complaints be heard over other people’s. I know we live in the real world where money buys access, but we should all strive to live in a better world where all are presumed equal regardless of wealth. So if Elon Musk shouldn’t get special favors, why should California or New Jersey?

California and New Jersey have been described as “maker” states, in comparison to “taker” states like Mississippi and New Mexico. California and New Jersey residents pay much more to the federal government than their state collectively receives, and vice versa for Mississippi and Mexico. This has led some lawmakers, like Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) to call out the “moocher” states, and say that laws should be written to benefit the people of his “maker” state, by lowering their tax burden or enacting their preferred policies.

I’ve seen this exact line of reasoning before all across social media. When Republicans complain about the priorities of the government, Democrats come out of the woodwork to say that since blue states pay more tax, red states need to shut up and put up. Yet this is an absurd, Romney-esque line of reasoning that would have been utter heresy in 2012, the idea that wealthier groups of people should be heard over the voices of poorer groups. The next time Gottheimer complains about Musk, will he remember to shut up and put up since Musk pays more taxes than almost his entire state populations combined?

I think this belies the maddening hypocrisy of the maker/taker argument, it was true when Romney said it and it’s true when Gottheimer and lefties online say it. There is ALWAYS someone richer than you, and if you wouldn’t bend the knee to them then no one should bend the knee to you. Furthermore we live in a democracy, one man one vote. The votes of the poor carry just as much weight as the votes of the rich, and there is no special provision that says otherwise. That goes for poor people just as much as poor states. If Democrats want to be the party of the people, I’d better never hear another one of them insinuate that rich voters matter more than poor voters.

The End of Growth Part 4: At what point is China no longer a bubble?

I’m still reading The End of Growth by Richard Heinberg. As a reminder, Heinberg claimed (in 2011) that the world’s economic growth was essentially over, and that in the future any “growth” would be an illusion created by nations fighting over an ever shrinking economic pie. A nation may have a quarter or two of growth, or some prolonged growth as they stole more of the pie from their neighbors, but taken as a whole there was no more economic growth left for the world, largely because Heinberg also thought there was no more oil left for the world. The problem or course is how do you explain China?

It’s a lot easier to brush away claims of “growth” in the Western world, growth has been anemic (although still positive) for the last decade and a half since the Financial Crisis. And although US GDP has growth by 20% or more in that time, most Americans don’t “feel” any different, and so it’s easier for Heinberg to claim (as he does earlier in the book) that this growth is all just an illusion funded by debt. But China is different. Growing their GDP at near double digits for 3 decades straight cannot be easily ignored, and the Chinese middle classes have definitely seen massive changes in their lifestyles as almost anyone today in China can afford more and better stuff than their parents could. Houses are larger, food is more varied, technology is cheaper and easier to get to, China continues to experience massive economic growth, and that’s a difficulty for Heinberg who claims that’s impossible.

The first thing he does is punts, like anyone who doesn’t like the outcomes of China growing economically, Heinberg claims China’s growth is really just a bubble ready to collapse. I’m not about to say that China’s economy is perfect or that it doesn’t contain massive real estate speculation, but I’ve been hearing “China’s economy is a bubble that’s about to collapse” for over a decade now and I’m wondering when people will stop claiming this. A bubble is no longer a bubble is it never pops. China’s economy does experience downturns like everyone else’s, but I haven’t seen any evidence that the whole thing has or will soon collapse, as the world “bubble” would imply.

Heinberg goes on to say that China’s growth is also unsustainable because of falling exports to the West, depleting resources like coal, too many old people with too few young people, and all the other stuff that people have been claiming will implode China any day now. My question for today is: when does this end? If China continues growing at a steady clip, at what point do people update their theories to fit the facts? At what point can we conclude that China’s economy is not a bubble and has the momentum to withstand all the same shocks and stresses as a Western economy? China’s economy has more than doubled since Heinberg wrote his book, and I’m curious to know if he would accept this as disproving his theory or if he’s pushed “the end of growth” date back like so many pushed back “the end of oil.”

Now again, I’m not saying China or its economy is perfect. The Chinese Communist party is a totalitarian nightmare committing genocide in its own boarders and threatening war outside of them, the Chinese economy has vast structural problems that the government papers over, Chinese demographics are not ideal for a growing economy and there is no easy solution to any of these. But I don’t think China is going to collapse any time soon, I don’t think it’s economy is just a bubble, and I think people have been claiming the Chinese Sky is Falling for far too long without ever admitting that they are divorced from the actual facts.

People are always fighting the last war

We live in a time of high inflation and rock bottom unemployment, but I remember less than a decade ago reading the prognosticators of economics talk about how low inflation and high unemployment (or underemployment) were the inevitable future of our economy. It was said with as much certainty as could be mustered that the Financial Crisis had fundamentally changed the nature of our economic reality, no more could we expect governments to bail us out (they all had too much debt), instead we were going to keep suffering for a long while for the profligate lending of the banks. Of course that wasn’t true, and neither is it true that inflation and low employment are a certainty for the rest of time.

What’s crazy to me is that both predictions were made with the same data. Our population is aging, globalization inevitably moves certain jobs overseas and forces American workers and companies to compete with those in foreign nations. Our government has high debt, real wage growth is anemic or negative, and the job of fixing all this has landed solely on the head of the Federal Reserve since the rest of the government can’t or won’t do so. This describes 2012 as much as 2022, and yet this evidence is used just as confidently by the takemongers of 2012 who predicted an eternal low-growth as the takemongers of 2022 predicting eternal inflation. It reminds me of all the sci-fi books and movies from the 70s and 80s predicting a far future of the 21st or 22nd century in which the Soviet Union still existed, people routinely project their current reality onto the future without any further thought. If pressed they’ll then use any evidence at all to defend their predictions, even if the same evidence could be used for an entirely different conclusion.

The 2010s were a period of low growth, low inflation, and high unemployment/underemployment. The 2020s have so far been a period of higher growth, high inflation, and very low unemployment. Both decades have challenges, and many of the challenges are the same. But I see no reason to believe that the trends of today will last forever.

Gas is expensive, isn’t that a good thing?

So this post will be a little political, but laying all my cards on the table: global warming is happening and does need to be fixed. Decarbonization and renewables is a laudable goal that our country and world should be working towards. With that said, why are the environmental champions bemoaning the consequences of their own actions? For a long time, Democrats have been reminding us that raising the price of gas is the quickest way to make people use less of it. And this is absolutely true, as price goes up, demand goes down. In addition to direct carbon taxes, Democrats were proud to campaign on reducing domestic fracking and the production of oil and pipelines for the entirety of the Trump presidency. But now it feels like an “oh no, the consequences of my own actions” moment as the price of gas rises and Democratic administrations struggle to lower the price at the pump. The Strategic Oil Reserve has been emptying in order to reduce prices, many Democratic controlled states have suspended their gas taxes, some states are directly compensating drivers. All these things subsidize the price of gas and therefore increase it’s usage. Which is absolutely contrary to every effort and piece of climate messaging we’ve seen for the past 5 years at least.

I just feel like this should have been obvious, if domestic oil production goes down, then the price of gas will go up. We should have known that people wouldn’t like the price of gas going up, and someone should have thought about “how do we mitigate the harm to consumers if the price of gas goes up?” But instead that question was ignored, and now since the price of gas has gone up due to things outside the Democrats’ control (OPEC, Russia), the only response is to desperately try to bring the cost back down again. It makes a nonsense of all the efforts that came before it. There are ways to mitigate the harm to consumers brought about by the price of gas, but it should have been obvious that this would be the result of pro-climate policies.

“No one wants to work”

Inflation is up, unemployment is down.  This year there have been tons of stories about shortages and supply chains, and invariably a call has arisen from business owners: they’d like to hire more people but no one wants to work.  

When I see stories on local restaurants and businesses closing, inevitably I see an owner blaming their failures on no one wanting to work.  They had a good and profitable business going on, then after the pandemic suddenly no one wanted to work anymore.  This meant they couldn’t hire employees and so couldn’t do anything at all to make money and thus were forced to close down.  This is a dumb argument for many reason’s but to just pick one: labor has a market just like any other service. There is a supply and a demand for labor.  If you are demanding labor while the supply is constricted, the price you pay for labor will go up, and if you refuse to pay that price then you will go without, just as if I refuse to pay more for a Pepsi I can’t get one.  The price you pay for labor is the wage or salary so if you can’t get people to work for you then you need to increase the wage or salary you are offering.  No one is going to work for less than the market rate and so if you can’t afford the market rate of labor then I’m sorry but you’re going to go out of business just as if you couldn’t afford the market rate of rent or supplies or anything else a business needs.  People want to work, but no one wants to work for you if you’re not willing to pay them.

This “no one wants to work” nonsense got spread around a lot as the price of labor increased and many businesses found themselves unprofitable.  It was easier for owners to blame the moral failing of society than to admit that they weren’t good enough to turn a profit in a high wage environment.  But while this nonsense was rightly criticized by many, it reminded me of a similar economic trope that I don’t see get much criticism.

I’ve been reading “The Rise and Fall of Nations” by Ruchir Sharma.  What stood out to me was his discussion of immigration where he used a very popular left-of-center talking point that “immigrants do the jobs natives don’t want to do.”  He justified this with several anecdotes, but to me this smacks of the same false narrative as “people don’t want to work”.  It’s not that natives don’t want to do those jobs, it’s that those jobs are unwilling to pay a higher cost for labor and so usually receive special carve outs and exceptions allowing them to pay less.  This in turn makes the jobs unattractive to natives who have other options, and when the job creators whine to the government saying “no one wants to work!” the government responds with selected programs to allow the importation of cheaper workers.

Just look at agriculture in America.  In Massachusetts the minimum wage is $14.25, but it’s just $8.00 for farm workers!  Farm workers are also except from overtime pay and some OSHA requirements alongside the NLRA and many state laws.  The law has excepted farm workers from a majority of the protections and benefits afforded to other workers, so why would anyone work on a farm?  Why work on a Massachusetts farm for $8.00 an hour with no overtime, no safety, and no protection when you could make $14.25 an hour working for Walmart.  So instead these jobs go to immigrants, especially immigrants on special visas which only allow them to work on farms!  There’s no fear of your workers leaving for a better job if your government forbids them from doing so!  So let’s be honest, are these jobs that natives don’t want to do?  Or are they jobs that natives refuse to do because they have low pay, low benefits, low safety, and there are plenty of better options available.  

Farm employers say that it has to be this way: they can’t raise wages or they’d go out of business, or prices would rise, or America’s food economy would be destroyed by cheap imports.  This is the same excuse the “no one wants to work” crowd gives for refusing to raise wages, and is strikes me as the same 19th century nonsense that people used to use to argue against the minimum wage and every single worker’s rights law for generations.  Which is why it’s so infuriating that many left-of-center voices believe in the “jobs natives don’t want to do” narrative, even while they rightly point out that “no one wants to work” is a false narrative.  If farm jobs were as good as Walmart jobs we’d see far more Americans take them.

The American Challenge Finale: Eurofederalism for the future?

I know I haven’t written much about the American Challenge for a while, but as I read through the book I realized most all of my critiques would be retreads of what I had already said.  In the end, Jean-Jacque Servan-Schreiber’s thesis was made clear from the outset: Europe was falling behind in technology and economics and his preferred cure was Eurofederalism.  As an aside, some of my American readers might not know what Eurofederalism is, it’s basically the idea that Europe (the EU to be more specific) should continue forming an ever closer union between the states, such that political and economic power rests more and more with the supranational EU rather than the nations themselves.  Exactly what the end goal of Eurofederalism is varies from person to person, some people envision a United States of Europe, some want more federalism, some want less, but most would agree that the current amount of cooperation is not enough.  

With Servan-Schreiber’s thesis laid before us, it’s tempting to look back and try to judge how right he was.  On the one hand, I can see all his arguments from 1968 being made today in 2022: Europe still falls behind in certain sectors to American multinational corporations, and many Europeans still think the cure is Eurofederalism, so it’s tempting to call him a true visionary who noticed these things well before others did.  On the other hand, many of the problems he identified from 1968 were solved by Europe without the kind of Eurofederalism he envisioned.  University graduation steadily climbed in Europe to reach the same highs it did in America, Europe’s growth rate climbed so that America never outpaced it to the extent he though they would, and although Europe does not control many of the tech companies of today, they still have not missed out on the productivity gains that tech has brought because buying a computer is still as good as building in yourself.  Perhaps the Four Freedoms on the EU have helped Europe reach this point, but it’s clear that a common, EU-wide industrial policy was not necessary to maintain Europe’s economic growth in the face of American corporations.In the final tally, I do believe Servan-Schreiber was prescient for his day, identifying key weaknesses in the European economies and key strengths in the American one.  But in other ways he was wide of the mark, many industries he wanted to throw money at are not the ones building the future, and his preferred answer was not necessary for Europe to “catch up” in many ways to America’s standard of living.  Overall though, a very enjoyable read: 8/10.

The American Challenge Part 7: Building an economy by predicting the future

I’m still going through The American Challenge by Jean Jacque Servan-Schreiber, the 1968 book which opines on what Europe needs to do in order to not be economically dominated by America.  A consistent theme for Servan-Schreiber is that European governments should direct investment towards key industries which he thinks are important for the economy of the future.  In some cases he was incredibly prescient, he urges Europe to invest in semiconductors and computers years before they hit the mainstream.  In other cases he seems woefully misinformed, claiming that all future air travel will be supersonic and the Concorde will be surpassed by American supersonic planes.  And in some places he’s oddly silent, saying little to nothing about the future need for renewable energy and global reductions in carbon.

Now of course, he shouldn’t be dismissed for not correctly predicting the future, should he?  Who knew that supersonic flight would never take off?  And how accepted was the idea of global warming in 1968?  Yet this is exactly my problem with his economic model, he can’t predict the future, and no one can.  So his claim that the cure for Europe is to decide which industries are “the future” and invest heavily in those industries above all others doesn’t strike me as very sensible.  Instead of the government choosing which industries to invest in, why not create an economic system which allows good industries to start up and flourish?  A government is by its nature a centralized organization, and that centralization comes with both costs and benefits.  Notably, the people directing the government’s economic investments can’t always be experts in every industry they want to invest in, it’s just not possible for a few hundred government workers to include an expert in everything.  So what if you panel on government investment doesn’t include anyone familiar with computers?  Do you pass the idea up?  And what if your panel does include “experts” in cold fusion, do you redirect all efforts towards a futile project?

This to me isn’t an idle criticism, I don’t think a centralized entity can replace a decentralized market with the same kind of efficiency.  I’m not some harebrained anarcho-capitalism mind you, I’ll try to write later about where the government should get involved, but the maxim of “the government shouldn’t try to choose winners and losers in the market” is one I think has merit, the government just can’t be expected to have enough people and enough breadth to be an expert on all the decisions a market can make.

I think there’s more to this “can’t predict the future” argument too.  Servan-Schreiber has what I have called before a “Sid Meier’s Civilization” view of technological progress.  In essence, this viewpoint is that technology costs a certain amount of “something,” be in money or man-hours, and once you discover a technology it’s yours to use while your opponents don’t have it.  Technology thus progresses as a race where countries need to either catch up to the techs their opponents have (by spending money and man-hours) or find new techs their opponents don’t have (so they can have a decisive advantage).  The problem with this view is that there are many technological paths that prove to be a dead-end where you’d have been better off not spending your resources, and we don’t know which are dead-ends beforehand.  I said last week that the Concorde jet was one such dead-end, it costed billions of dollars with not a lot to show for it, and that was money that could have been invested in the NHS or other government services.  The idea was that if we just keep pouring money into Concorde, eventually we’ll create supersonic flight and it will be just as profitable and useful as we’ve always dreamed it would be. Or at worst we’ll learn a lot of lessons about what we need to do in order to create profitable supersonic flight and our next project will be the one that works.  That wasn’t the case, it turned out supersonic flight just couldn’t compete with moving a massive amount of people slightly more slowly.  Another dead end would be fusion power, an area where we still don’t know if we can do it with modern tech let alone tech from the 20th century.  Many many people predicted that fusion was The Future, and urged governments to invest in it.  But fusion wasn’t the future and it’s probably a good thing that a lot of money wasn’t spent on it.

You can’t predict the future, so a government can’t reasonably be expected to know which opportunities to invest in and which to avoid.  A market uses the wisdom of crowds to decide, and so can be relied on to provide at least some of the efficiencies a government board lacks.  It’s easy to look back 50 years and say “if only Europe had invested more in computers!  We could have had European versions of Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon!”  But it’s hard to sit where you are today and decide which of the many investment opportunities are “the one” to invest in.  For example, if Europe should have invested in computers in the 60s, what should it invest in right now?  What is the game-changing area, with returns equal to or greater than the computer industry of the 60s, that Europe should throw all its money in?  3D printing?  Genetic modification?  Robotics?  What is the “investment of the future?”  I’d hazard a guess that no one can agree, and so it’s probably better to rely on the wisdom of the crowds than the political decisions of a government.

The American Challenge Part 6: The future will not be supersonic

As readers will know, I’ve been reading The American Challenge by Jean Jacque Servan-Schreiber, a book written in 1968 about the problems Europe will face competing economically against America.  It’s always a joy reading through old books and seeing their predictions for the future, and while this book has definitely been a doozy as we’ve seen, I feel the author was WAY off was his predictions about supersonic flight and the French/British Concorde jet.  At a glance the Concorde venture seems to be an example of exactly the kind of public/private partnership that Servan-Schreiber says will be necessary and useful in the economy of tomorrow.  I didn’t take note of it but in discussing the “post-industrial” economy of future-America, he envisions that “private enterprise may no longer be the major source of scientific and technological development” and “the free market may take second place to the public sector.”  Essentially he envisions even the governments of capitalist countries taking on more of the burden of economic risk and development.  He even lays this out as part of why American companies are so successful: they grow to a sustainable size and then get big government contracts that launch them into international relevance.

Yet for all that, Servan-Schreiber spends most of his time griping about how the Concorde is an inferior product to what he expects Boeing will produce with the 2707.  He lays out all the ways Concorde has fallen behind: the Boeing will use titanium because an American public/private partnership has made that economical, and the Boeing will use a swing-wing design which the Concorde’s engineers in their risk-aversion did everything in their power to avoid.  The Boeing will even carry almost twice as many passengers as the Concorde, so while Concorde will get to the market first, Boeing will certainly gobble up its market later with a better, more efficient plane.  All in all, the author claims that Concorde will be the last plane of an old era, perhaps in service no more than 10 years, while the Boeing 2707 will be the first plane of a new era with a longer lifetime and much more to build off of design-wise.

My older readers will already be chuckling.  The Concorde lasted a quarter of a century from 1976 to 2003, while the Boeing 2707 was canceled before Concorde even entered service and Boeing never released a supersonic passenger jet.  Yet Servan-Schreiber’s griping about Concorde may have been vindicated for the exact opposite reason he envisioned: because the future was not supersonic.  The Concorde, for all its technological marvel and prestige, was regarded by the private sector as little but a technological boondoggle.  It costed about 2 billion pounds in R&D and only 20 were ever made.  Inflation adjusted, the tickets for a New York to London flight would cost about 13,000$ today, and they’d have almost zero amenities since every ounce of weight needed to be saved.  You were paying super-premium prices for economy class seats, and no recliners!  To the private sector, the Concorde was a failure and no supersonic passenger jets have followed it.  It was a government prestige project built partly on fear of missing out and losing to the Americans, and was sustained even after the Boeing 2707 was canceled due more to political than economic arguments.  The amount of investment never justified its return, and if you traveled back in time to tell Harold Wilson’s Labour government what it’s future would be, he might have been justified in dumping all that Concorde money into the NHS instead. The Concorde was an example of exactly the kind of public/private partnership that Servan-Schreiber thought Europe needed more of, yet most of his gripes were that the French and British weren’t playing nice with each other and they needed more unity to make the thing work. 

But alas, the future was not supersonic, the future was 747.  The Boeing 747 was introduced in 1970, over 1500 have been produced, and it still flies today.  And the development costs were comparable to the Concorde, total cost of 3.4 billion dollars for the 747 (in 2004 dollars) vs 2 billion pounds for the Concorde (in 1976 pounds), if someone wants to check my math with the inflation and conversion go ahead, but that looks pretty comparable to me.  And in some ways Boeing did succeed for a few of the reasons Servan-Schreiber defined, they had more capital than their European competitors, and better access to management and technology that would allow for big developments in engineering and design.  Having a bigger number (the biggest plane, or the fastest plane like Concorde was) is very important for national prestige and so always invites government investment, but sometimes just making something good and economical is better, and from 1970 to today American companies have been very good at doing just that.

The American Challenge Part 5: Why can’t Europe Compete?

In my continued posting about Jean Jacque Servan-Schreiber’s The American Challenge, written in 1968. We have come to the part in the book where he lays out why he thinks Europe fell behind economically by his time period. We have already seen that American Companies are seen as more dynamic, with higher profits, larger investments, and a larger educated cadre of workers to hire. For all these reasons, Servan-Schreiber claims that rather than being a boon to European business, the 1960s forerunners of the EU such as the EEC (European Economic Community) and others are simply being a boon to America. Now instead of needing to have different branches in each country, an American company can set up a single European branch and export its products to the whole EEC. American companies can take advantage of these efficiencies while European companies, still struggling with lower profits and less educated workforces (says Servan-Schreiber) are outcompeted. In short, Servan-Schreiber says that since the beginning of the EEC, the economic gap between America and Europe has only gotten wider.

One of his greatest laments appears to be a very modern one, that despite the supposed economic union, each European country continues to pursue its own goals and directives completely divorced from the others. The demand for unanimous rather than majority voting means that nothing can be done which is unacceptable to any state, and this means that all controversial problems are shoved to the side while the nations of the EEC continue to do their own things. Even when the nations do try to work together, he claims they spend most of their time arguing to ensure they each get a fair share of the money in the pot, rather than actually trying to get something done. He even claims that despite the common market for European Coal and Steel being the very first of the EU/EEC pan-European institutions, “by 1968, there is no longer a common market for coal and steel.” Each nation is busy protecting its own industries and the capital markets are completely divorced from each other. So a German or French industrial company operates almost entirely within their own nation, while an American industrial company will operate not only in America but in all the nations of the EEC as well, gaining an economy of scale benefit that EEC countries lack.

In short, Servan-Schreiber is a Eurofederalist.

As blithe as that statement may be, it feels an accurate one from my reading of him. He does have some other kooky ideas to be fair, he speaks about a future where each European state commits to specialization in a few areas “in the Sweden or Swiss model,” and to spend their resources prudently in only these areas, but that seems like a fantasy with a bad outcome. If Germany decides to specialize in cars, who’s to say their cars will always be the best? Why shouldn’t German cars face competition from Italian or Swedish cars that are also quite good and have investments from their own governments? But a few kooky ideas aside, his main point seems to be that the current European unity is an illusion, and Europe needs real unity in order to compete with the United States.

In some ways this may be oddly prescient. Remember the earlier chapters in which Servan-Schreiber made dark predictions that America would skyrocket past Europe economically? How Europe would be reduced to a near colonial status while America enjoyed unimaginably higher standards of living? Yeah, none of that actually happened, America and Europe are still close together in economic standards of living. I’m no historian, so I can’t tease out the cause and effect, but how much of this was caused by the EU itself? The EU is after all a Eurofederalist’s dream from the perspective of 1968. A truly common market where selling across borders in Europe is no different than selling across state lines in America. Add to that the prodigious increase in college educated workers that Europe gained during the 20th century, and it seems like perhaps Servan-Schreiber’s dark predictions did not come to pass precisely because Europe took the steps he suggested to mitigate them. It’s food for thought at least.