Though Charlemagne has always tended to be hostile to Europe, as is typical of the Brits, last week's  'The Economist' does not simply display its customary anti-European slant, it does so in an especially nonsensical manner. And that is disappointing. I've long been a fan of 'The Economist' magazine, considering it be one of the precious few sources of intelligent current-affairs analysis in English.
To illustrate, the article starts:
"VIEWED from afar, Europeans are a complacent, ungrateful lot. Nannied from cradle to grave by the world’s most generous welfare systems, they squeal like spoiled children when asked to give up just a few of their playthings."

"Squeal", "spoiled children" and "playthings"?!? And of course what this author is referring to as "playthings" are useless toys like ... a decent healthcare, a decent standard of living (for regular citizens) and ... generally ... a government doing the job it is meant to be doing ... namely to try and improve the lives of its citizens. Brits are 'subjects', as opposed to 'citizens', and maybe they forget what a government is for, but still ... WTF?

And it's like that for the whole article:
"Even President Nicolas Sarkozy, usually averse to abstract nouns, has spoken of “the politics of civilisation” and asked economists to measure output in terms of happiness, not just [economic] growth. Put simply, if Europe stands for something, it is decent treatment for all. To this way of thinking, to guarantee a comfortable retirement is akin to banning child labour or giving women the vote: not optional perks, but badges of a civilised society. Such social preferences are what Europe is for, and what makes it different from America"



And according to this author this is a bad thing!!! He offers "America" (the United States of ) as the 'right' model. He seems to consider that a "high standard of living" ... ought not to be shared by the majority of citizens but must instead be reflected by bizarre extravagance from some economically boated multi-gazillionaires ... the lifestyles of whom the majority of citizens may vicariously enjoy through vacuous 'lifestyle' TV and magazines.

The article ends thus:
"Until now, much of Europe has chosen to put its values before growth. In reality, the 35-hour working week in France was not a mark of progress, but a brake on job creation and a spur to deindustrialisation to lower-cost countries; the French may have more time on their hands, but they have little money to do anything with it. Retirement at 60 in an ageing society is not a sign of civilisation, but a cruel joke played on the next generation. The Euro-zone crisis has exposed such hypocrisy. It may still take time before Europeans conclude that they must compromise their ideals in order to secure the growth needed to preserve what they can of their lifestyles. But if they did, that would be real progress."

So, this guy scoffs that "the French may have more time on their hands, but they have little money to do anything with it". Well, how much money do you really need to read Montaigne in a park, meet a friend at a cafe, invite friends for a spaghetti-dinner or take your family on a pick-nick in the beautiful French countryside? Instead, this article is basically advocating unhappiness for the sake of stuff like 'job creation', 'economic growth' and 'more money'. Stuck in a 'going to the mall' mentality, for him, 'free time' can only mean 'time to consume stuff'. It's simply idiotic!

The Economist's Charlemagne

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Economist: EPP Secretary-General should find another line of work (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Phony Choices From a Bogus Profession (wallstreetpit.com)