Good on the psychological consequences, but I think as a causal analysis (“focus on measurable vs unmeasurable blindness”) it doesn’t compute.
The actual migration Europe can attract, compared to other destinations, is of those who prefer higher welfare availability over lower taxes. Obviously this is biased towards those who expect to net receive!
Migration into Europe thus tends to depress per capita GDP; most extraeuropean immigration is received by countries having a hard time restricting the benefits package received by immigrants (duh):
Exactly the one that was not sustainable at the higher per capita net productivity of the autochthonous population, hence the GDP scramble.
Migration within Europe is more of a success story, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Now all of this would actually be easily measurable, but everyone except Denmark is studiously avoiding taking, let alone focussing, these obvious candidate KPIs, and France is even actively prosecuting those who try to measure them on their own. The problem here is clearly not what is measurable vs. what isn’t – because what’s measurable would point in the same direction, if only measuring it in a way that would allow gaining a holistic picture were not studiously avoided. It’s the literal joke of “we lose on every item, but we make it up in volume”, and it’s hard to take this refusal to look as an oversight.
Denmark looked at the actual overall picture, took action, and is now the ~only* West European country with a political system that is not permanently locked up in some version of cordon sanitaire and/or mutual radicalisation spirals on both sides. And yet nobody else seems to be imitating them. This is also hard to accept as an oversight.
* Except maybe here in Ireland – which has high discontent on this topic, as you have often noted, to no relevant electoral effect whatsoever, as you have often noted. We’re in a curious place.
Good article and comments. I think Chesterton is very relevant here too though, when it comes to explaining the actions of European and Irish: “When a religious scheme is shattered (…), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”
Hope the relevance is clear. It’s a theological question in the end. (It often is.)
Also, I’m not completely convinced that there is a measurement deficit. Feelings among the population can be tracked (and put onto charts) through good polling data and voting patterns. I think the Chesterton quote may explain why these metrics are being ignored.
There's a speech Tony Blair gave in the nineties where he basically told the British public they must accept the rigours of an open, globalised, rapidly changing world or be swept away by the tides of history. Even the Guardian's John Harris, who appears to be basically in favour of those things, recognised that most people aren't psychologically suited to the Blair vision of progress.
Good on the psychological consequences, but I think as a causal analysis (“focus on measurable vs unmeasurable blindness”) it doesn’t compute.
The actual migration Europe can attract, compared to other destinations, is of those who prefer higher welfare availability over lower taxes. Obviously this is biased towards those who expect to net receive!
Migration into Europe thus tends to depress per capita GDP; most extraeuropean immigration is received by countries having a hard time restricting the benefits package received by immigrants (duh):
Exactly the one that was not sustainable at the higher per capita net productivity of the autochthonous population, hence the GDP scramble.
Migration within Europe is more of a success story, but I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Now all of this would actually be easily measurable, but everyone except Denmark is studiously avoiding taking, let alone focussing, these obvious candidate KPIs, and France is even actively prosecuting those who try to measure them on their own. The problem here is clearly not what is measurable vs. what isn’t – because what’s measurable would point in the same direction, if only measuring it in a way that would allow gaining a holistic picture were not studiously avoided. It’s the literal joke of “we lose on every item, but we make it up in volume”, and it’s hard to take this refusal to look as an oversight.
Denmark looked at the actual overall picture, took action, and is now the ~only* West European country with a political system that is not permanently locked up in some version of cordon sanitaire and/or mutual radicalisation spirals on both sides. And yet nobody else seems to be imitating them. This is also hard to accept as an oversight.
* Except maybe here in Ireland – which has high discontent on this topic, as you have often noted, to no relevant electoral effect whatsoever, as you have often noted. We’re in a curious place.
Good article and comments. I think Chesterton is very relevant here too though, when it comes to explaining the actions of European and Irish: “When a religious scheme is shattered (…), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”
Hope the relevance is clear. It’s a theological question in the end. (It often is.)
Also, I’m not completely convinced that there is a measurement deficit. Feelings among the population can be tracked (and put onto charts) through good polling data and voting patterns. I think the Chesterton quote may explain why these metrics are being ignored.
There's a speech Tony Blair gave in the nineties where he basically told the British public they must accept the rigours of an open, globalised, rapidly changing world or be swept away by the tides of history. Even the Guardian's John Harris, who appears to be basically in favour of those things, recognised that most people aren't psychologically suited to the Blair vision of progress.
I think a lot of the Harris-esque reads on the situation tend to be of the “you can’t blame people for being backward” type