Europe waking up to the futility of the Muslim immigration solution

April 12, 2010

 A sharp rise in support for right-wing populist parties opposed to Islamic immigration is occurring in Europe, as an increasing number of indigenous Europeans start to ask themselves why a continent plagued ongoing economic problems has been busily importing low-skilled immigrants from an alien culture.

 The obvious clue that Europe’s economic problems can’t be solved by bringing in cheap labour,  is the continent’s persistently high level of unemployment. Generally speaking, there are two main reasons for high unemployment – either people can’t find work because there is a recession, or there are jobs available but the unemployed don’t have the skills do the available jobs. Conversely, where jobs are available that people are capable of doing, they will usually do them.

 While recessions come and go, major structural problems with the economy take much longer to sort themselves out. Europe’s structural is that it simply doesn’t have a lot of jobs than low-skilled workers can do even if they want to. Economically, Europe has been on coal face of the global battle for industrial supremacy between East and West, and unlike colonial countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it can’t survive by exporting resources or selling real estate to Asians – in other words, it actually has to make or design stuff.

 In this extremely competitive environment, Europe is having to compete with high-IQ oriental workers who not only seem to be genetically well-suited towards the world of high-end manufacturing but are also willing to work for third world wages, and unfortunately for Europe, most of its Muslim immigrants can’t seem to compete on either price or IQ.

 Admittedly it’s doubtful if even East Asian immigration could have saved European manufacturing. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have been importing large numbers of Asian immigrants for about 20 years now, and even with the high education levels of these immigrants there’s little evidence to suggest they have developed any new industries in their new homelands. Even high IQ people often struggle to perform in a multicultural society which is not of their making.

 While high crime rates, terrorism and rioting have been the main reasons for the rise in populist opposition to Islamic immigration, there are worrying signs that this immigration may already starting to erode the technological standards of Western European culture. One thing that hasn’t been talked about in the media (strangely) has been the ominous decline in the reliability of German cars, which has been occurring at the same time as the big increase in the percentage of non-native German workers in its car plants.

It seems pretty obvious that Europe’s elites have failed to take account of cognitive factors in their quest for cheap labour, but their blunder doesn’t stop there, since they’ve also failed to take account of cultural differences as well. The other main reason elites have been pushing Muslim immigration is to try to prop-up the tax base so there are more young workers paying taxes to support the growing elderly population.

 Unfortunately, Muslims tends to have large families, but don’t tend to draw in big enough wages to support them. This means that instead of being net contributors to the tax base, many end up being net consumers of welfare. Compounding this problem is that as offspring of welfare dependents, it’s unlikely these Muslim welfare kids will grow up into productive high IQ workers. One of the ironies of life in a developed country, which today’s elites fail to grasp, is only the most successful can afford to have large families without government help, yet it is the most intelligent and successful who tend to have the smallest families.

 Centre-right governments may be able to repair some of the damage from Muslim immigration by insisting that in future immigrants can’t raise more than two children on welfare, but it would be politically and socially difficult to restrict welfare for those Muslim citizens who already have large families and now can’t survive without state handouts. Subsequently, it’s vital that Western European governments act fast to stop further Muslim immigration and to discourage the next generation of young Muslims from using the welfare system to raise large families that they can’t support on their own. If European governments fail to do so, then it’s likely that Europe will slide down to socio-economic level of the overpopulated Middle-Eastern countries from which Muslim immigrants are trying to escape from.


The End of the Social Welfare State?

March 28, 2010

On March 11th, up to 60,000 people rioted in Greece over the government’s new austerity plan, “a $6.5 billion austerity package that cut civil servants’ wages, froze pensions and raised consumer taxes.”  Apparently, the Greek government has spent so much money and gone so far into debt, that it just has no more money to spend. “We’re out of money!” they might have said. “We don’t care,” the rioters would have responded. The citizens of the social democratic welfare state have been trained so well to feel entitled by the politicians, that there’s just no taking “we’re broke!” for an answer. On top of it, the Greek government tried to guilt trip the Germans (of course, there’s some war guilt there, but why did they wait until now to bring it up?). They want the Germans to pay them back for the looting the Nazis did during WWII.

The rest of the EURO PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) are not far behind, and the UK and the US not far behind the rest. Apparently, according to the Financial Times, Moody is threatening to decrease the credit rating on US bonds if the US government doesn’t get its fiscal house in order. Meanwhile, the US Congress is about to pass the largest piece of legislation, so I’ve been told, since the New Deal, effecting about one-sixth of the US economy with the massive Obamacare bill that the Democrats  want to ram through Congress in a 51 vote reconciliation procedure. As they say, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Mark Steyn posits that it’s worth the sacrifice of the 2010 Congressional Elections for the Democrats because once such a massive program is made law, if history is any guide, it will never be repealed.  He may have a point there.

Read the rest of this entry »


Haitian poverty

January 24, 2010

New Zealand centre right blogger David Farrar raises the question of why Haiti is significantly poorer than it’s immediate neighbour, the Dominican Republic, whose GDP per person is about six times higher (according to the CIA World Factbook Haiti has a GDP per person per capita of US$1,300 and the Dominican Republic $8,200).

One of the likely reasons that was only raised once in the comments thread (and conspiciously ignored) is that Haiti killed or expelled its white population at the time of independence and has not encouraged any of their desendents to return. Conversely, about 16 percent of the population of the Dominican Republic is white and over the last hundred years or so it has made a lot more effort to maintain reasonably good relations with influential majority white countries like the United States and Spain.


An Empirical Test: Capitalism vs. Socialism in Post-War Germany

December 16, 2009

After the financial crash of 2007 – 2008, Newsweek columnists Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas wrote an article, which appeared in the February 16, 2009 edition, entitled “We’re All Socialists Now.” [http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663 ] Meacham and Thomas wrote:

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world.

Ah, there it is: the voice of reason extolling the virtues of the welfare state and the need for government intervention in the economy. But is socialism really the answer?

Read the rest of this entry »


Economic blast from the past

November 17, 2009

 Russia’s post-communist economy has received a fair amount of negative labels from mainstream Western observers, from ‘crony capitalism’ to ‘anarcho-capitalism,’ and ‘the Wild East.’

Russian blogger Matt Rodina however says his country’s system is basically just good old fashioned mercantilism – the economic system that used to be dominant in the West until the mid 19th Century. He argues that the economic system in Russia is working relatively well, but western observers deride it because it represents a challenge to the reigning free-market economic orthodoxy supported by the U.S and Great Britain.

Rodina points out that one of the leading intellectual adcovates of mercantilism, Philipp von Hornick, described the key principles of this protectionist economic system, way back in the late 1600s – nearly a hundred years before the publication of Adam Smith’s treatise on free-trade, The Wealth of Nations.

In the 20th Century, mercantilism’s popularity has shifted from West to East, as former supporters like the United States and Germany have shifted to a more liberal economic model based on promoting free trade and attracting foreign investment. Subsequently, mercantilism’s main supporters today are East Asian nations like Japan and Korea, with China opting for a third way combining laissez-faire development zones with state support for industry.

 In contrast to neoliberal capitalism, mercantilism pays little regard to economic transparency, which is both a strength and a disadvantage. The lack of transparency tends to encourage higher sayings rates and less dependence on foreign capital, but also leads to higher levels of corruption and secrecy.

The downside of Russia’s secretive economy was bought into focus a few months back with the calamitious disaster at one of the country’s biggest hydro-electric power stations, which has left over 60 people dead and western observers wondering what other cock-ups the Russian government may be trying to sweep under the carpet.

In comparison to protectionist states like Russia, economically neoliberal countries like New Zealand tend to have very low rates of corruption, and receive highly favorable coverage in the international business media. The downside of this openess and transparency though, is a low savings rate, lack of freedom in economic decision making, and ongoing balance of payment problems from a hollowed-out industrial sector.

Over the next few decades it’s going to be interesting to see whether mercantilism’s emphasis on the long-term health of the national economy, wins out over the short term focus on individual prosperity that characterises contemporary western capitalism.


Managerialism v individualism

August 29, 2009

Although contemporary society is supposed to champion individualism, it often fails to do so in practice because the desires of the individual frequently clash with the smooth functioning of the managerial state. A classic example of this is the modern state’s attitude to owner-operated small businesses.

Despite the pro-small business rhetoric that we’ve been hearing since the late 70s, most modern liberal governments almost invariably consider small businesses a pain in the ass.

As DIY generalists, owner-operator businessmen and women, violate one of the primary tenants of economic theory, that people should specialise in one task if possible, since according to rational economic thinking, specialisation equals efficiency and small-scale multi-tasking doesn’t.

Government bureaucracies also find educated specialists a lot easier to deal with. This is why government and big business get on so well. Both have large bureaucracies staffed by professional employees with specialised skills who can talk to each other in the same jargon-filled language. Subsequently government’s in most western countries have been making life more difficult for small business, with increasing regulations, indirect taxes and new or expanding accident compensation levees. Some free business advice is now available, but it tends to be of the generic common-sense kind, which is often of limited use to those in specialised, technical fields.

The recent bailouts of big US and UK corporations in the financial sector, is only likely to add to the already high level of grievance felt by the western small business sector.

Interestingly, while governments in the individualist West have been steadily making life harder for small businesses, governments in communitarian Japan have been trying to make life easier for them, with specialist help for example in research and marketing, and in learning to use the latest technology.

This seems paradoxical from the perspective of western individualism -shouldn’t collectivists who believe in tempering economic goals with social ones be anti-small business? Well it does make sense if you take into account that small business is in many respects a communitarian activity, and that people often go into business for non-rational reasons.

People prefer working for themselves for all sorts of reasons; they don’t get on with their co-workers, they want to work in a place of their own choosing rather than sit in traffic for hours, they don’t have a great CV, they want to pass on a business to their children, and so on and so on.

Since Japan is more communitarian society than most western countries, it understands that rational managerialism can undermine social cohesion if pushed too far, so the country’s elites try to direct the goals of the bureaucracy towards the needs of society rather than re-mould society to fit the rational logic of the bureaucracy.

No doubt Japanese small business owners still have a lot of hassles with government bureaucracy, but at least they know that the bureaucracy isn’t ideologically opposed to them.

Unlike westerners, the Japanese also have a more concrete, producerist mentality when it comes to the economy and they realise that in a post-industrial society, many people will struggle to find productive employment which adds real value to society. Conversely, western elites seem to assume that laid off manufacturing workers can easily find steady, reasonably well-paid work in the service sector, even though much of what the service sector produces is non-essential distractions that people have to cut back on in a recession.

Another example of managerial opposition to practical individualism is secondary taxation. Since people who hold multiple jobs are an inconvenience to the state, it discourages people form taking on more than one job by overtaxing them and then making wait in hope for a tax rebate.

A similar bureaucracy first mentality exists in welfare departments, where, in New Zealand and Britain for example, those seeking short-term unemployment relief are treated like minor criminals, while long-term welfare recipients like solo parents and sickness beneficiaries are regarded as permanent wards of the state.


Coming to terms with low growth

May 11, 2009

The apathetic response of U.S authorities and the WHO to the Mexican Flu virus, highlights the modern Anglosphere’s obsession with making sure nothing gets in the way of short-term economic growth.

Despite the flu being containable (with only two deaths outside Mexico) Gywnne Dyer points out that the US and Canadian government’s response has been pretty lax compared with Japan and Europe.

Even the modest sacrifice of losing a few weeks tourism income and spending a little extra on flu medications seems to be just too much for America’s commerce-obsessed elites.

Probably the flu won’t turn out to be as serious as the media’s hyped it up to be, but the fatalistic U.S attitude typifies the short-term thinking that’s pervaded the Anglosphere since the early 70s.

Economic growth in Continental Europe and Japan has been stuck in the 0-2 percent range for 20 years now, yet it still hasn’t dawned on the English-speaking West that 3 to 4 percent growth just isn’t sustainable in a post industrial economy.

Take for example the Obama administration’s extravagant 1930s-style stimulus plan, which started out as a way to stabilise the banking sector, but has now turned into a full-blown
Keynesian attempt to stimulate consumer spending in the face of unprecedented private debt. Instead of rationing out the methadone, the Democrats are continuing to dish out the Chinese-supplied heroin.

Canada and Australia have taken a slightly more long-term view, but only slightly – the Commonwealth resource kings may have a greater concern with fiscal solvency, but their focus on sustainablity high growth rates can be seen in the on-going commitment to expansive immigration policies in the middle of the biggest recession since the end of WW2.

Industrially speaking, the English-speaking West has pretty much been in recession since 1973, when they passed the baton of industrial growth on Japan, Germany and Korea, who then passed it onto China in the early 90s.

The recent bankruptcy of Chrysler is just the latest in a long series of Anglo-American industrial setbacks starting with the ill-fated nationalisation of the British car industry in the 1970s.
From the late 70s to the early 80s there was at least an attempt to face the bad news and revive the old protestant values of thrift and prudence that took a battering in the late 60s.

President Carter warned Americans about the cost of debt, waste and dependence on foreign oil, while Reagan and Thatcher went someway to down-sizing the state and rolling back the unions.

However, by the mid-80s, voters had had enough of bad news and the baby boomers “live for today” philosophy was once again the dominant theme on Wall Street.

When the share market inevitably crashed in the late 80s the focus turned to real estate, as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S stoked-up the housing market by bringing in large number of immigrants and building houses for them (or in the U.S case simply selling the land and getting the immigrants to build their own houses).

Naturally, running an economy by selling land was only a temporary solution to economic decline and the long housing boom has now finally come to an end. For many Australians and New Zealanders is has also meant the end of the colonial dream of affordable housing for the masses.

Continental Europe of course, has had it’s own share of denial since it’s post-war peak in the 1980s.

In a age of low growth, intense industrial competition and demographic decline, Europe’s extravagant income-related welfare programs are like a heavy ball and chain on the ankles of its shrinking workforce.

On the plus side, most of Europe has at least resisted the temptation to make things worse by joining the Anglosphere’s orgy of debt-driven pseudo prosperity. This was highlighted by Angela Merkel’s curt dismissal of Obama’s stimulus appeal during his recent European visit.

The challenge now is to somehow get the Anglosphere to follow Continental Europe’s fiscal realism, while getting Europe to par-back it’s bloated welfare state and poor record in family formation.


Protectionism isn’t Marxism

March 23, 2009

As popular support for the British National Party continues to grow, the mainstream centre right has stepped up its attack on the party’s protectionist economic policies, arguing that it’s hypocritical for a socially right-wing party to be supporting “Marxist” economics.

This shows how confused many mainstream centre-right pundits are about the connection between political ideologies and economic policies.

Protectionism is an economic strategy, not a moral principle, and over the last two centuries it’s been used by both the right and left according to the economic needs of the time.

Despite what many contemporary mainstream conservatives claim, free trade is not an ideological cornerstone of conservative thinking. Many traditional conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan support protectionism because they are opposed to the modern welfare state, and would rather protect local industries from foreign competition than compensate workers through welfare.

Similarly, many of free trade’s most active supporters have been progressive left-liberal governments, who have used the disruptions caused by free trade to expand the power of the welfare state and promote left-liberal social policies. Lange and Keating for example, had no problem reconciling their anti-Western cultural Marxism with staunch support for neo-liberal free trade policies.

Similarly, many people on the nationalist right don’t necessarily support protectionism. Ethno-nationalists who support free trade argue that protecting low-wage industries will encourage more third world immigration as manufacturers seek to establish sweat shops at home rather than abroad.

Arguably the BNP does need spend more time thinking about the workability of its economic policies, and whether too much protectionism will alienate potential middle-class voters.

However, voters are unlikely to be put off from voting for the BNP just because it questions existing free trade dogma.

Trade policy is a difficult and complex area which needs to be addressed pragmatically, not ideologically.


Economic management in the second/third world

March 16, 2009

Political pundits in Western countries like New Zealand and the UK may be divided over whether raising the minimum wage is a good idea or not, but few of them would advocate the kind of drastic changes introduced in Honduras over the last few years.

Hopefully this isn’t a taste for what California can expect when it becomes part of Aztlan.


Is free trade going too far?

March 1, 2009

Listening to the radio this week, I heard the New Zealand Army is now joining the armed forces of other western countries like the U.S and Britain in having uniforms made in China.

While uniforms might not be considered a strategically sensitive type of military hardware, more significant components like aircraft parts are also being manufactured in the people’s republic.

Neo-liberal economists claim this is a good thing, since free trade supposedly discourages countries from going to war with one another.

However, the problem with this argument is that we now have an historically unprecedented situation where just one country, China, is doing almost all the manufacturing.

The West’s ability to wage war may be declining, but China’s ability to wage war is rapidly increasing.

With economic nationalism making a comeback, we might want to consider whether contracting out armaments production to a powerful non-western country that might attack us is a sensible idea.