Andrew Smith, a loyal MR reader, writes:
You said in one of your
recent MR posts that although you did not find the European model
sustainable over the long run, frequent trips to Europe revealed much
in the model that delighted you. I believe you singled out Stockholm…as being a particularly vivid illustration of all that
social democracy could do right.
I, too, am a free-market enthusiast who is delighted by
European cities, but when I think carefully about what delights me I
find that it is less anything developed since World War II and more the
remnants of the Europe that existed before the First World War.
First, there is the dense urban development that created
incredible communities from the rise of Venice in the Middle Ages to
the Paris that Haussmann created in the mid-19th century. I cannot
think of a single community built mostly after World War I that has
much charm and those built mostly after WWII — like the tower
communities that ring Paris — are downright depressing, worse than any
of the strip malls and sprawl American capitalism has produced since
the war.
The regional cuisines, the sidewalk cafes, the specialty merchants, the distinctive aspects of each area’s art and music — it all came about before WWI and now lingers as
a slowly fading twilight of Europe’s high noon. (True, farm subsidies and merchant regulations do help maintain the beautiful countryside and the small shops, but I think Europeans have enough passion for local that both things would mostly survive in a free market.)
What part of the Europe that you enjoy so much owes its existence to social democracy? Just curious.
Excellent points. My answer is twofold. First, social democracy has kept Europe, its high standard of living, and its historical wonders, more or less intact. Through much of 1914-194? this outcome was by no means obvious. I am willing, at times, to resort to crude historicism.
Second, European social democracy offers its citizens the most wonderful vacations elsewhere. I just don’t see how most Americans tolerate only two weeks’ vacation.
(Mind you, I am not lazy; my vacations, done my way, are more strenuous than any work day. In fact I consider a work day my source of relaxatoin. If I have to relax, at least I want to be getting lots done.)
As an aside, I do find contemporary Finland visually attractive, and I believe Lille would please me also, from the photos I have seen.
In any case, Smith’s points should cause us to downgrade that "aesthetic halo of achievement" which social democracy has around many of our heads.
The beautiful countryside is also the product of zoning regulation. It may not be due to social democracy, but is incompatible with free markets. You can find beautiful countryside in the US, but you have to go far from the population centers to do so.
True, farm subsidies and merchant regulations do help maintain the beautiful countryside and the small shops, but I think Europeans have enough passion for local that both things would mostly survive in a free market.
Mr. Smith is highlighting the flaw in his own argument here. He seems to be saying that, yes, regulation has helped maintain these things, but then asserts, without much support, that it really isn’t necessary.
I suspect he’s wrong about that. Isn’t it at least plausible that zoning rules, architectural requirements, and various sorts of restrictions on building have helped to preserve the beauty of European cities?
And by the way, were these cities created by laissez-faire policies? Wasn’t “the Paris that Haussmann created in the mid-19th century” heavily controlled and financed by government? So perhaps it was not social democracy, but neither was it free-wheeling capitalism.
I think it is fair to say that the “charm” factor of most American cities is found in its pre-WW2 architecture too. And the “quaintness” of classic American open markets is cultivated here too since suburban, auto friendly, shopping sprawl has eroded the vitality of many urban centers that developed their pedestrian friendliness pre-automobile. And we too have spirit-crushing concrete towers in less-central areas that attempt to serve the US’s needs for affordable housing. So is free-market capitalism with highly restrictive access to vacation time, sick time (for many workers), and healthcare responsible for that modernist gloom here? Or did Europe’s benefits from social democracy reduce its risk factors as a tinderbox for social inquality that fueled two World Wars a generation apart? The ancient and medieval architecture of Europe could have been more vastly demolished if the cycle of armed conflict had persisted there, leaving little charm for American tourists to admire.
And we too have spirit-crushing concrete towers in less-central areas that attempt to serve the US’s needs for affordable housing.
Government housing projects. You can blame this eyesore on government, not on capitalism.
So is free-market capitalism with highly restrictive access to vacation time
As has been mentioned, you can get more vacation if you’re willing to earn correspondingly less. Most Americans are not. That is a choice, not a restriction.
social inquality that fueled two World Wars a generation apart
I do not believe that it was social inequality that sparked the first world war. As for the second, it was started by Hitler, who gained power through a combination of democracy and coup, and who I would not say was himself primarily motivated by social inequality. As for the reasons Hitler’s party got a lot of votes, I don’t think it was obvious to those who voted for him that he was going to invade his neighbors and start a second world war, so even if a plurality people voted for him because of social inequality (which itself is not obvious), they might easily have voted for someone who would not go on to start the second world war.
These are wonderful places to visit. Basing an opinion of an areas quality of life simply based on a vacation experience has massive potential for observer bias.
I am not so sure these areas would be as wonderful to live in and try and support yourself and a family.
Constant,
There probably were not the types of zoning rules we have today. Still, as in Paris, there probably was a heavy governmental hand on urban design and architecture. Not a social democratic hand, perhaps, but an entirely visible one nonetheless.
Government housing projects. You can blame this eyesore on government, not on capitalism.
True enough. But we have plenty of privately built ugly or sterile buildings of all types. While there is some incentive to put up attractive buildings – prestige, public relations, etc. – I don’t think the payoffs are sufficient to make them common. Is Houston, so proud of its lack of zoning, an architectural gem?
Europe is wonderful to visit – so long as you have lots of money (which you get by working hard in a free market system) and are lucky enougn to go when there aren’t any strikes. It is not correspondingly wonderful to live there – you’ll soon discover that you can’t afford any of the luxuries that you enjoy when you only vacation there, and you have to constantly put up with strikes and lack of access to things taken for granted in free marketplaces (such as transportation, air conditioning, large living areas, choice at the stores, choice among stores, stores that are open when you need them, modern appliances, etc).
There is also an amazing beauty in the modern city — the NY skyline, particularly before it was attacked — is among the most beautiful sights on Earth.
Oh, and we also have natural beauty (Yellowstone, Grand Canyon) and so forth that would almost certainly still exist were it not for government intervention — we don’t have so much pre-WWI architecture, but we are a young country, we do not have castles and cathedrals from 1100, that isn’t the fault of capitalism.
I wonder whether you would see the amazingly ugly automobile centered horizontal development if roads were privatized.
As I always point out to every upper middle class white American who talks about how great Sweden, Finland, etc are, those countries are less ethnically diverse than any state in the US. If the US was a country of 92% Anglo-Saxon and 5% Irish, then the US would have the same level of diversity as Finland.
If you want to talk about bad inner cities, suburban sprawl, and lack of community in the US, you have to talk about ethnic diversity and its effects.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We tend to be attracted to that which is different or exotic. Europe’s got a lot more old stuff than America, so to Americans, Europe possesses more that is “rare” or “dear” to American eyes. To Yanks, this raises the beauty factor of European cities.
I personally think San Francisco is at least in the same league, from the standpoint of sheer aesthetic beauty, as, say, a Venice or a Paris. I’d say the same thing of Manhattan (although Gotham’s beauty is not mostly the “charming” kind but the “thrilling” and “dramatic” kind). Large parts of D.C., Boston, Seattle, Portland, Chicago and Los Angeles are also beautiful.
Traveling is expensive. My theory is that Europeans have fewer kids because their culture is more traveling-obsessed. Also, traveling is hard to do if you have lots of kids. I think that reducing vacations in Europe would lead to more kids being born.
Iceland is an interesting counter example.
I found Reykjavic to be ugly, by conventional architectural aesthetics – but vibrant, charming and memorable – as indeed is Icelandic culture generally. So, in the end, I like to look at pictures of the place to remind me of it, as I would of my favourite cities (small) such as York, Berne, Frieburg or Girona.
What I took away from this was that the aesthetic aspect of architecture may be less important than I thought; and that there are other ways of maing a good living environment which is not just functional but has depth and meaning.
My guess is that Iceland has such a powerful litarary imaginative and historical culture that this somehow displaces the visual aesthetic. People see-through the scruffy modern buildings to the myths beneath.
Finnsense,
And what percentage of Sweden are native born non-ethnic swedes?
The reason that many middle class Americans are forced into long commute so live in the bland suburbs is that they are trying to get away from the blacks and hispanics that dominate inner cities. The white middle class cannot afford the expensive condo, expensive neighborhoods, and private schools that the rich use to get away from blacks, hispanics, and immigrants. Thus, they move into the suburbs.
My Sweden is fun to walk around it because they do not have to worry about the high crime rates that the US has. Remember, driing in your car is much safer than walking around in most parts of DC, NYC, Philly, LA, etc.
Matthew,
France tends to have more people retiring early than in the US.
In much of the public sector retirement is at 55. Also, part
of the US non-labor force participation is our much higher rate
of incarceration, something nobody is mentioning here.
Finland is exceptionally non-diverse and has kept out immigrants.
Some other Nordics, Sweden and Denmark, are much more diverse.
To all the people whining about zoning in Germany, keep in mind
that it has a very dense population, much denser than any country
in Middle or Eastern Europe and certainly far denser than in the US.
I think part of the reason postwar building in europe is largely unpleasant is to do with the destruction of the second world war. A great deal of housing was needed, and it had to be cheap because for the most part european countries were broke.
Phil,
Yes, Finland is ultra-homogeneous and anti-immigrant,
in contrast to some of the other Nordic nations, as I
hope you recognize. Their welfare states have not fallen
apart, at least not yet, despite all the worrisome forecasts
(gleefully anticipatory in some cases) of many folks.
It should be noted for other readers of this blog, although
not Phil who presumably knows this, that there is an extra
element in the insularity of the Finns. They are ethnically
very distinct from the other Nordic countries, who are
Scandinavian, while Finland is not. “Scandinavian” refers
to a subset of the Teutonic languages (which includes German
and English among others), which in turn are a subset of
the Indo-European languages.
Finnish is not an Indo-European language but a Finno-Ugric
one. It is related to Estonian, Lappish (Sami), Hungarian,
and some languages scattered across rural Russia. This adds
to their sense of uniqueness and isolation and fear of being
overwhelmed immigrants. As it is, they have historically
feared being overwhelmed by either the Russians or the Swedes,
both of whom ruled them for extended periods of time in the past.
http://www.insurance-forums.net
toshiba pa3166u-1bas battery
Comments on this entry are closed.