Connect with us

International

Europe Can’t Survive Without America

Published

19 minute read

  Sven R Larson

But it is not America’s job to save the old continent

The most beautiful place in the world is located smack dab in the heart of northern Europe. It is a small town called Östersund. It stretches along the eastern shore of Storsjön, the “Great Lake”.

Across the strait from Östersund is the island of Frösön. From the farmlands in its center, you can see 30 churches, dense forests, crop fields, and on the far side of the Great Lake a horizon filled with snow-clad mountains. There is a church there, on the Frösön, where the world’s happiest marriages begin: when the bride walks out from the church, she is so overwhelmed by the gorgeous view that she forever loses her ability to speak.

My Swedish hometown is not the only place where Europe brims with beauty. From endless oceanic views in Ireland’s Galway to the meandering riverside cityscape in Budapest; from the midnight sun in Nordkap to the seductive darkness of Palermo; cities that let you marinate in living history, like Munich, Stockholm, Vienna, Rome, and Edinburgh.

Europe has it all. And yet, that continent is slowly, sadly, but inevitably sinking. It is a terrible conclusion to reach, but I see no other path forward for them.

Thanks for reading Larson’s Political Economy!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

There are a multitude of reasons for this; the destruction of such a solid piece of civilization does not come easy. Which, in all honesty, is a tribute to the solidity of the Western project in itself: it takes decades of political and economic mismanagement to bring a continet of 500 million people from the top of world prosperity into the murky quagmire of industrial poverty.

However, that is precisely what the Europeans are now doing. Their decline only seems to be reinforced by every new measure to prevent it.

From an American viewpoint, the increasingly depressing state of Europe has not yet risen to the peak of the news cycle. Perhaps it never will, but the transformation of Europe from the world’s most advanced economy (alongside America) to an economy-class Latin America will have major economic, geo-strategic, and cultural consequences.

Before I dissect those consequences, let me point to the main character traits of Europe’s self-inflicted demise.

 

Lack of Leadership

If there is one thing Europe does not have, it is visionary political leadership. Not that our own crop of political heralds in Washington are much to brag about, but the new Trump administration actually does have an idea of how to make America better. By his fast-paced, confident leadership, Trump is now challenging the Democrats to step up to the plate; with a little bit of luck, we will go into the coming elections choosing between candidates running on different versions of “America’s best days are ahead of us”.

None of that exists in Europe. To the extent their leaders formulate ideas for the future, it is all about how government can spend more money, regulate more of the private sector, and dole out grants to NGOs to run the internet era of a billboard campaign themed around some empty political slogan. This is endemic in the EU, and it has tangible consequences: just last year the Europeans realized that America was running away with the path to artificial intelligence, while Europe has not yet even built its own Silicon Valley for old-school computer technology.

The realization among Europe’s political leadership that they are losing the AI race led the EU to issue a report suggesting more regulations on private-sector AI development and more government spending to investigate the potentials of the AI revolution.

Such is the European response to every issue, including the so-called green transition. When Americans elected a new president to end the mad dash into EV transporation—and instead let the free market be the arbiter on how we propel ourselves around town—the EU and national government leaders in Europe waged a virtual economic war on fossil fuels, without being even close to replacing it with “renewables”.

The German energy debacle went so far that major German manufacturers accelerated their foreign direct investments in other countries. This is one reason why there will be a lot more auto industry jobs here in America in the coming years. While European political leaders get fixated on some outlandish economic fantasy, America gets down to business, goes to work, and moves forward.

In addition to the fantasy that the green transition should be shoved down people’s throats by government, Europe’s political leaders have surpassed the Biden administration many times over when it comes to immigration—legal and illegal. Instead of asking pragmatic questions about the balance between a mostly uneducated labor supply and Europe’s perennially high unemployment rates, the elected officials and their unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris, Berlin, and other EU capitals forge ahead like drunken cows. They have deliberately unhinged themselves from reality; it is only in a fantasy world free of opposing arguments that you can flood the streets of your cities with endless waves of immigrants, without causing major social, economic, and public safety problems.

 

A War on Democracy

Again, America is not immune to this kind of make-believe leadership, but unlike America, Europe has no voice of opposition. Where the Tea Party turned MAGA movement showed how true democracy works, forging a nationwide organic alliance of voters, Europe has invented institutions, conventions, policies, and a political culture of efficiently suppressing opposition.

There is no First Amendment in Europe, which politicians in both the EU and national governments have taken advantage of. In what can only be described as a war on the core of democracy, the European political elite is fighting an increasingly aggressive battle against dissenting voices. National governments are formed not to further the will of the people, but to quell the voice of dissent.

Coalitions of resentment against the people have appointed prime ministers in Sweden, Finland, Austria, France. A coalition of resentment is trying to form a functioning government in Germany. Where hatred of a common adversary is the only common denominator, there can be no room for visions. All political eyes remain in the rearview mirror, anxiously trying to keep the distance from the last election results.

People are blinded by a common hatred they cannot see the future.

From the viewpoint of policy, the only thing that these coalitions of resentment can produce is a regurgitation of the past. This explains why there is no debate in Europe over the “green transition” and why there is only token talk about immigration. Prevailing paradigms, which caused people to vote for alternative parties, reign unchallenged.

As do their consequences. In other words, the more Europe’s anti-democratic leaders double down on policies that thwart free speech, choke their economy, and fragment cohesive societies, the more they will distance themselves and their continent from the future.

 

A Stupid Economy

Europeans pay far more in taxes than we Americans do. Income taxes often start at 30-40 percent—for the lowest incomes—and there are value-added taxes, VATs, on everything they buy. Excise taxes, “green taxes”, fees and administrative charges run amok.

At the same time, they don’t get much more than we do. If anything, they get less of most of things. In health care (which I hope to have time to write more about in closer detail), Europe’s foremost contribution is the waiting list. You have the right to health care, but that does not mean you can get it.

The same is true for the countries in Europe that have elaborate systems of child care: you have the right to it, but that does in no way mean it can find a spot for your kid when the time comes.

Europeans brag about their paid-leave programs. It is true that, e.g., parents can take a lot of time off from work to be with their kids. They also have long vacations. However, since these benefits are mandated by law, they are in no way reflective of what businesses can afford in terms of an absent workforce. Yes, it is nice to be able to be at home with your baby for the first year or 18 months of its life, but during that time your employer needs to hire a replacement.

When I talk to Europeans about their paid-leave system, they often suggest that we Americans have no paid leave at all. I point out that just because government does not provide it, does not mean it does not exist. We prefer to let employers and employees handle the paid-leave issue as part of a workforce benefits package.

Fixated on letting government take care of as much as possible of their lives, Europeans have created a welfare state that demands taxes close to—and sometimes higher than—50 percent of GDP. This is well above the 40-percent line where GDP growth permanently slows down; once the tax burden crosses that mark and no one cares, the country inevitably sinks into economic stagnation.

There is no advancement in the standard of living. Private purchasing power is no longer adequate to keep businesses going. Capital formation stagnates and eventually moves abroad. The tax base is eroded; a consequence-impaired governing coalition of resentment responds with even higher taxes.

All in all, Europe has ended up in a vicious downward economic spiral. Her leaders are unable to understand the problem, let alone offer a solution. Among the many repercussions of this is the slow decline in standard of living that is already passed on from parents to their children: each new generation of Europeans will find life to be a little less prosperous than their parents did.

 

The Role of America

For all these reasons—lack of leadership, a dwindling democracy, and a stagnant economy—the European continent is unable to break out of its self-inflicted societal stranglehold. But what made it drift into this fog of endless political self-harm?

In one word: America provided the Europeans with a shield of security during the Cold War. Germans, Brits, French, Dutch, Spanyards, and others got so used to living under the protective shield of American military might that they believed they no longer had to think about existential issues. Instead, they could spend their time inventing new entitlements for their welfare states.

Again: make-believe politics. They never thought that their growing welfare states would sink their economies; in fact, economists never thought that this would happen either. I was the first one to point out this relationship, and I did it only a decade ago.

Likewise, Europe’s make-believe politicians thought that they could enjoy free-of-charge American military protection forever. The end of the Cold War did not exactly change their minds: suddenly, they thought they had somehow “won” that war, and that they as the victors could dictate the terms of their own existence—without having to work for it.

When America gradually began orienting itself away from Europe, there was at first massive denial across the old world. Due in no small part to foolish rhetoric from our neocons (both Presidents Bush, Vice President Cheney and his daughter Liz, John Podhoretz, Senator Graham of South Carolina, Irving and Bill Kristol…), the Europeans were led to believe that America would still provide that shield of safety no matter how many other parts of the world we were engaged in.

But not even neocons last forever. Reality began poking through the European bubble of political fantasies during Trump’s first term; after a “breather” during the Biden administration we are now back to the harsh reality where America is asking the Europeans to do what every other nation, or union of nations, is doing: grow up and take responsibility for their own sovereignty.

In other words, America can save Europe, but it is not America’s business to do so.

The rational reaction to this from the Europeans would have been to open a vigorous, public debate over what priorities their countries should make: the welfare state or national defense? But instead of doing just that, they have gone into an Alice in Wonderland-style mental lockdown where politicians in every cardinal direction dispense edicts about throwing Gargantuan amounts of money into military expansion projects that they have no funds for, and no industrial capacity to deliver.

At best, Europe will fragment into regional coalitions of countries, where some will make a future for themselves and others will continue to sink. The four Visegrad states, Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia, are relatively strong economically. So are the Baltic states.

The Nordic countries could form a strong regional economy, but with Sweden suffering from political deadlocks, high crime, a corrupt government, and a perennially stagnant economy, that outlook is no longer possible.

Germany is an enigmatic entity in this context. If they cannot change their own energy policy, they are going to de-industrialize at a rapid rate. That, in turn, will likely lead to growing political tensions; is therean independent, non-communist East Germany in the cards?

Southern Europe is ironically the most resilient part of that continent. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal have survived centuries of prosperity, poverty, war, and peace. They will find a way to muddle through a glacial but politically and economically visible European implosion.

The comparison to Latin America is more accurate than it might seem. Before World War II, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil were among the best, most thriving economies in the world. Then the welfare state happened…

Thanks for reading Larson’s Political Economy!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Larson’s Political Economy is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Larson’s Political Economy that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.

Pledge your support

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Health

How the once-blacklisted Dr. Jay Bhattacharya could help save healthcare

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas

Now seated at the helm of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is poised to reshape not only the agency’s research priorities but the very culture that pushed him to the fringe.

Imagine spending your career studying infectious diseases, only to find that the real virus spreading uncontrollably is censorship. That was the reality for Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford epidemiologist who committed the unpardonable sin of questioning the COVID-19 lockdown orthodoxy. His punishment? Digital exile, courtesy of Silicon Valley’s Ministry of Truth.

In December 2022, the Twitter Files exposed what many had long suspected: Twitter had quietly placed Bhattacharya’s account on a Trends Blacklist. This ensured that his posts, often critical of lockdowns and mask mandates, would never see the light of day on the platform’s trending topics. In other words, Twitter’s algorithm worked like a digital bouncer, making sure his dissenting opinions never made it past the velvet rope.

And Twitter wasn’t alone. Facebook, ever eager to please its government handlers, scrubbed the Great Barrington Declaration from its pages. That document, co-authored by Bhattacharya and other esteemed scientists, dared to suggest that maybe, just maybe, locking down entire populations wasn’t the best strategy. Instead, it proposed focused protection for the most vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function. For this, it was sent to the digital equivalent of a gulag.

These experiences took center stage during Bhattacharya’s Senate confirmation hearing for the directorship of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Republican lawmakers, who suddenly found themselves cast as the last defenders of free speech in scientific discourse, saw his nomination as a win.

During his testimony, Bhattacharya didn’t mince words. He detailed how the Biden administration played an active role in orchestrating the suppression of alternative views. It wasn’t enough for officials to push their own pandemic policies — they needed to ensure that no one, regardless of expertise, could challenge them in the public square.

The Science™ vs. The Science

Bhattacharya’s testimony laid bare an uncomfortable truth: the pandemic was a crisis of speech. “The root problem was that people who had alternative ideas were suppressed,” he told Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.). “I personally was subject to censorship by the actions of the Biden administration during the pandemic.”

In a functioning society, that statement would spark bipartisan outrage. Instead, it barely registered. The people who spent years chanting “trust the science” were never interested in science at all.

Real science thrives on debate, skepticism, and the understanding that no single expert — no matter how credentialed—holds absolute truth. But during COVID, science became The Science™ — a government-approved doctrine enforced by Silicon Valley moderators and federal bureaucrats. Deviate from it, and you weren’t just wrong. You were dangerous.

A government-sanctioned muzzle

Bhattacharya wasn’t silenced in some haphazard, accidental way. The Biden administration actively leaned on social media companies to “moderate” voices like his. In practice, that meant tech executives — most of whom couldn’t tell a virus from a viral tweet — decided which epidemiologists the public was allowed to hear.

He responded with a lawsuit against the administration, accusing it of colluding with Big Tech to crush dissent. But in a ruling as predictable as it was revealing, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, arguing that Bhattacharya and his fellow plaintiffs lacked standing. Meaning: Yes, the government may have pressured private companies into silencing critics, but unless you can prove exactly how that harmed you, don’t expect the courts to care.

The real role of science

Despite everything, Bhattacharya didn’t argue for scientists to dictate policy. Unlike the public health bureaucrats who spent the pandemic issuing commandments from their Zoom thrones, he made it clear: “Science should be an engine for freedom,” he said. “Not something where it stands on top of society and says, ‘You must do this, this or this, or else.’”

That distinction matters. Science informs, but policy is about trade-offs. The problem wasn’t that officials got things wrong — it’s that they refused to admit the possibility. Instead of allowing open debate, they silenced critics. Instead of acknowledging uncertainty, they imposed rules with absolute certainty.

Bhattacharya wasn’t censored because he was wrong. He was censored because he questioned people who couldn’t afford to be.

His confirmation hearing made one thing clear: science wasn’t about data. It was about power. And in Washington, power doesn’t like to be questioned.

Science, money and power

At the heart of the hearing was a fundamental question: Who controls science that people are allowed to talk about? The NIH, with its $48 billion budget, is less a research institution and more a financial leviathan, shaping the direction of American science through the projects it funds (or doesn’t)  fund.

Bhattacharya’s nomination comes at a moment when the battle lines around scientific freedom, government intervention, and public trust in research are more entrenched than ever. The pandemic shattered the illusion that science was above politics. Instead, it exposed just how much political and corporate interests shape what counts as “settled” science.

The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. The man once branded too dangerous for social media, blacklisted for questioning lockdowns, and effectively erased from mainstream discourse is now being handed a key role in the very government that tried to silence him. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, once forced to the margins, is now at the center of power.

A new administration has decided that maybe — just maybe — silencing dissenting scientists wasn’t the best pandemic strategy. And in a twist no Hollywood scriptwriter would dare to pitch for being too on-the-nose, Bhattacharya wasn’t being welcomed back into the conversation — he’s being put in charge of it.

Bhattacharya was confirmed following a party-line vote Tuesday evening. The decision came after a similarly partisan endorsement from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), clearing the final hurdle for President Donald Trump’s nominee.

Equally central to his testimony was Bhattacharya’s call for a sweeping shift in NIH priorities. He proposed a decentralization of research funding, stressing the need for greater inclusion of dissenting voices in the scientific process, an apparent rebuke of the consensus-driven culture that dominated during the pandemic. He emphasized targeting resources toward projects with a clear and measurable impact on public health, dismissing other NIH initiatives as “frivolous.”

Now seated at the helm of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is poised to reshape not only the agency’s research priorities but the very culture that pushed him to the fringe. His confirmation, hard-won and unapologetically political, is already shaking the scaffolding of a scientific establishment that long equated conformity with consensus.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net

Continue Reading

Automotive

Trump announces 25% tariff on foreign automobiles as reciprocal tariffs loom

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump announced a permanent 25% tariff on automobiles made in other countries that will go into effect on April 2.

Trump made the announcement Wednesday in the Oval Office. He also hinted that the reciprocal tariffs he plans to announce on April 2 could be more lenient, suggesting the tariffs would be less than fully reciprocal.

“What we’re going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the U.S.,” the president said.

Asked if any changes could avert the auto tariffs, Trump said they would be “permanent.”

“This will continue to spur growth like you haven’t seen before,” Trump said.

Trump said the tariffs will be good news for auto companies that already build products in the U.S. He also said carmakers that don’t build in the U.S. are looking to do so.

“We’re signing an executive order today that’s going to lead to tremendous growth in the automobile industry,” Trump said.

The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two.

Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Trump also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to approve a measure that would allow car buyers to deduct the interest on loans for cars that are made in America. Trump said that such a plan would make cars nearly free for buyers.

“So when you get a loan to buy a car … I think it’s going to pay for itself, I don’t think there’s any cost,” he said.

Trump also said the reciprocal tariffs he plans to unveil on April 2 would be fair.

“We’re going to be very nice actually,” he said. “It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff they’ve been charging us for decades.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tariffs would hurt businesses and consumers.

“I deeply regret the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” she said. “Tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers, in the U.S. and the EU.”

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” Trump has also used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Tariffs are taxes charged on imported products. The company importing the products pays the tariffs and can either try to absorb the loss or pass the additional costs on to consumers.

Continue Reading

Trending

X