Brexit probably wasn’t a bad idea at all – EU madness

I was with Fixit, not Brexit. The European Union is a great idea. They compiled the Articles of Confederation, enabling a bureaucracy out of control. Well, we did too, except for the bureaucracy. Try again, with a real constitution, a real federal government, a clear separation of powers, checks and balances, a careful list of restrictions, not long vague aspirations.

Europe did not take this proposal, nor the hint given by the British of their departure. The latest clue is a little puff in this hurricane of hot air, which I found This Tweet.

This sounds interesting, in wasting time on Twitter while procrastinating getting to work somehow. It has encouraged – European Commission bureaucracies are looking for outside advice, and getting out of the bubble seems like a good idea. Hey, maybe I’ll apply, I thought.

The most recent Industrial Policy Strategy Communication (COM (2021) 350 final) has shifted attention to the ecosystem approach to industrial policy, with a focus on industrial ecosystems and their complex interrelationships linked to, among others, entrepreneurship (and SMEs), innovation, skills, value creation and impact. social.

After thinking about the plain truth of war, supply chains, etc.

… a reactive attitude is not enough and must be supplemented by forward-looking thinking aimed at properly considering external factors and risk factors for which to prepare – and therefore more and more flexibility against – potential additional challenges (eg in terms of disruptions and shortages but also new health crises far from be impossible), remain consistent with critical long-term goals. Progress is more than innovation and the competitiveness of the EU, more than continued growth and geopolitical dominance. [Who are you kidding?] It is also the quality of life, sustainable production and power generation, digitally advanced (but also digitally safe and just) infrastructure, and “informed” decision making at the corporate level that is ultimately influenced by informed choices at the consumer level..

my focus. The topic is a bit ambiguous in all these negative sentences, but I think it’s “EU industrial policy”. I am glad it will make informed decisions with a scary quote at the company level and will eventually allow for some ‘informed’ choices at the consumer level.” That’s you with a pitchfork.

This may mean putting into question traditional policy parameters such as focusing on industrial sectors as happened with the shift towards an ecosystem approach, [the focus on] On the overall principle of economic efficiency as the first best way to allocate resources, for example by taking into account the risks associated with critical strategic dependence, or focus on traditional stakeholders (for example, by including a broader range of actors, in a true ecosystem mindset that goes beyond industrial activity and includes other relevant actors, such as universities, research centers and even the role of local communities). This may be more effectively inspired by policy missions, rather than sectoral or even social divisions.

Well, no wonder they need some outside economists if they’re going to fully anticipate the “important strategic dependencies” in the “ecosystem”, like, perhaps, Russia might turn off the gas someday. “Political missions, rather than sectoral or even social divisions?” I have no idea what that means.

This may also involve some change in policy priorities, for example by considering some ethical standards up front (ie, but not only, in relation to innovation),

“By looking at ethical standards up front.” Don’t you like passive? “And specifically…in terms of innovation” is really scary. This means, before you can innovate, the senior management of industrial policy will decide whether your innovation is “ethical,” because it affects “stakeholders” and the “industrial ecosystem.” What chance does the James Watt steam engine have of getting past that?

By anchoring sustainability considerations (and related externalities that have often been overlooked in the past) in the trade-offs underlying corporate choices, by carefully considering the social impact of public and private investment as a key element of choice.

Passive means us. Can any investment get past this? Yes, of course,

“Social encouragement” and “greenwashing” should become completely useless, starting with the fact that they become easy to spot. This may mean rethinking incentives and mechanisms to better align public goals with private behaviour. It could also mean improving our metric to measure progress.

Oh my gosh, we don’t want any green wash here.

If only approached from a national perspective, all the challenges and ideas mentioned above would appear to be insurmountable. A truly coordinated European approach that exploits the potential of the single market will be of paramount importance…

Now you know why the British left.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of topics of interest to DG GROW within the broad areas identified above: [edited here]

• Industrial policy in the single market: moving forward to avoid fragmentation and reduce short-term losses

Sorry, industrial policy involves “short-term” losses!

• A task-oriented single market to increase ownership, generate momentum and help prioritize actions aimed at improving its performance

Ownership can be transferred, but how can ownership be increased? Otherwise an empty sentence as I saw a long time ago.

• Strategic Dependencies, Monitoring Risks and Building Supply Chain Resilience

Yes, you did a great job at it by banning fracking and turning off nuclear power.

Dependencies and the search for new economic models

Alternative Purposeful Business Practices

Just taste the empty words. Or is it Orwellian and full of meaning?

• Open green working status. The role of the single market

• Investment needs a leap forward

Big Leap Forward? How would you jump forward looking at the previous page that said, basically, all investments should stop?

New metrics for measuring economic progress

We did not dig ourselves into a 20-meter hole. It’s only a tenth of a furlong!

I tend to submit. Show this: “Cut out your bachelor’s, get out of the way, quit and get some real jobs.” Send a check for €15,000 to Hoover.

I originally thought this would be illegal. But with a little research, the Treaty of Lisbon, which was supposed to improve the European Union, takes a huge step backwards.

It incorporated the Treaty of Lisbon into its art. 3 New language in the Basic Law expresses the ambition to give the European Union a stronger social dimension.1 Compared to the previous provision of Art. 4 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which relied solely on the “principle of an open market economy with free competition”, the fundamental objectives of the European Union were expanded. art. 3 TEU now includes targets that come as a promise to rebalance market and non-market values ​​through the EU’s founding provisions. In line with other broad objectives, such as combating social exclusion, this article includes a striking sentence that the EU aims for a “highly competitive social market economy” that seeks “full employment and social progress”

Of course this is not likely to go anywhere, to hire economists with PhDs to write reports that no one reads. But who knows, after you’ve missed the real estate crash, sovereign debt crisis, pandemic, energy crisis and war, the European Central Bank is doubling its stress tests on climate change, so you never know what could make it foolish in politics.

And not everything is that bad. Ukrainians look east versus west. A bunch of bureaucratic deception looks a lot better than what Vlad the Impaler offers. Go to Europe. Someday, fixed.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.