On Soldiers, Smokestacks and Socialism
by
Justine Nicholas
by Justine Nicholas
DIGG THIS
I must say:
My previous article, Oh
Happy Danes, brought me some of the most interesting e-mail
I’ve received.
A few respondents
pointed out an error in my article. Denmark does indeed have 460
troops in Iraq, whereas I said there were no Danes there. Mea
culpa. (That’s Latin for "my bad," sort of.) Still,
they are outnumbered by about 150 to 1 by US and UK forces, and
the Danish
Prime Minister has said that they will be home by August. And
I stand by my contention that military action is much less frequent,
of less intensity and not the source of national chest-thumping
for the Danes that it seems to be for Bush and his cronies, and
that war does not constitute such a portion of the Danish economy
as it does for its American or British counterpart.
One of my e-mails
came from someone who spends a lot of time in Denmark. He said that
whenever he’s there, he does find that people seem happy and relaxed.
"At least the native Danes" seemed so, he said; he was
less certain about Turks and other immigrants there. He wondered
how long Danes would remain as content as they seem to be now.
His ruminations
intrigued me. Of course, all nations change in some way or another.
Countries like Denmark and Sweden, as I pointed out in my previous
article, at least have the advantage of not trying to keep up an
empire or the appearance of one. This should at least shield people
from the military/colonial hangover I described. But the high-quality
education and healthcare to which nearly everyone in those nations
has access – two of the keys to contentment, according to the University
of Leicester researchers who deemed Denmark the happiest country
– are funded by tax rates that make Massachusetts seem like the
Cayman Islands. What will happen when the money is no longer streaming
into government coffers?
While Denmark
and Sweden share the fortunate trait of non-militarism with other
"happy" countries like Switzerland, Austria and Brunei,
they also share another characteristic with fellow welfare states
like the UK, France and Germany where the people are said not to
be as happy.
Nations that
have developed overarching government coverage against all of life’s
vicissitudes have had, from the time these systems were established
until recently, economies based mainly the so-called smokestack
industries and populations that were more or less homogenous, at
least in racial and cultural terms. Perhaps the only notable exception
is Canada, where the primarily agricultural province of Saskatchewan
started its own program of universal health coverage before the
rest of the nation – which earned most of its income from its natural
resources – followed suit. Also, by the time Canada developed its
system, there were large numbers of immigrants and their descendants,
at least in the cities.
Since I am
neither an historian nor an economist, I probably cannot adequately
analyze the reasons why welfare states develop in uniracial nations
with manufacturing economies rather than multicultural countries
with economies based on agriculture, services or high technology.
But, if I may, I will venture a guess.
A government’s
ability to tax is inversely related to the mobility of the people
or organizations that are taxed. It’s a lot harder to move masonry
and machinery than it is to transport ideas, information and capital.
Likewise, blue-collar workers are not as easily relocatable as are
their more educated counterparts. They also may not have the means
or skills to move to the jurisdiction to which their employer is
moving, or to any other place where new jobs are being created.
Blue-collar
workers and the factories in which they work, as well as the companies
for which they work, are practically sitting ducks for the tax collectors.
The more of these workers a country has, and the more they’re concentrated
in specific towns, cities or regions (Think of Birmingham, St. Etienne
or the Ruhr valley.), the easier it is for a government to collect
lots of revenue and impose its will. Also, blue-collar workers either
don’t have, or aren’t aware of, the options they have or the alternatives
they can create to government-controlled schools, medical facilities
and other institutions. Or they don’t have the means to access those
alternatives.
On the other
hand, members of what Richard Florida calls the "creative
class" and Charles Murray labeled "the
cognitive elite" can readily find alternatives to health
care systems that force them to pay for people who don’t or can’t
take care of themselves as well or who are prone (sometimes because
of their work) to debilitating conditions. Members of the creative
class, cognitive elite or whatever one chooses to call them are
also more likely to, or have access to professionals who, know how
to keep their tax bills as low as possible. Or, if they feel that
their home countries are not allowing them to utilize their education
and talents for their own benefit, they will simply move to what
they perceive as a more hospitable environment. The high-tech corridors
of Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley and Route 128 are full of the best
and brightest from all corners of the globe, and London is now referred
to (perhaps hyperbolically) as the sixth-largest
French city because so many Gallic professionals, primarily
in financial services, have moved there.
I think that
diversity is one of the reasons why the United States, even after
Franklin D. Roosevelt, never developed quite as encompassing a welfare
system as many European countries. How is that?, you ask. Well,
for starters, most of the immigrants who came to this country were
trying to shake off the yokes of poverty and government oppression.
They certainly didn’t want the taxation levels they had in their
home countries. As they became increasingly prosperous, they were
even more likely to feel this way and vote for politicians who at
least promised they wouldn’t raise taxes, or at least not raise
them too much.
Perhaps more
to the point is that most people are simply more inclined to help
someone whom they see as one of their own than to assist a stranger.
On the eve of the 1992 vote on the Maastricht
agreement, UK Prime Minister John Major famously echoed that
impulse: "Am I going to raise taxes to pay for the Italian
pension system?" It’s also expressed in much of the rhetoric
against welfare policies and programs in the other European countries
and the US: Politicians pander to their constituents’ belief that
they’re paying exorbitant tax rates to subsidize people of other
races in other places who don’t pay taxes.
In keeping
with the patterns I’ve described, the professional classes find
ways to help those people whom they consider to be their brethren,
whether in blood or spirit. This may mean moving, or simply finding
legal ways to pay no or lower taxes. Thus, if a government wants
to keep up its spending, whether on social welfare or military intervention,
it must increase at ever-increasing rates those citizens and businesses
that don’t escape from the net. Escalating tax rates depress development
and motivate the more mobile classes and companies to move. We have
seen this phenomenon throughout the industrialized world, along
with its result: More displaced people who avail themselves to social
services that are already strained, which leads to even more increased
tax rates.
So
it remains to be seen how long countries like Denmark and Sweden
can keep up their generous systems of subsidies as their economies
shift their emphases from manufacturing to technology and services.
One hopes, for their sake, that they won’t make the mistake that
France and other countries have made of nationalizing various industries
in attempts (all of which have failed) to keep them from moving.
Whatever happens, at least the Danes, Swedes and Canadians – like
the Swiss and Austrians – can move forward without the burdens of
militarism and colonialism. The US, France, the UK and Germany should
be so fortunate.
May
7, 2007
Justine
Nicholas [send her mail]
teaches English at the City University of New York.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Justine
Nicholas Archives
|