Europe v. U.S.

In the econblogosphere the Chait-Manzi debate (New Republic vs. National Affairs) is getting a lot of attention. Here is one of two Tyler Cowen posts on this. I particulary like this point:

"8. Countries have to start from where they're at. If you're constructing policy advice, you can either build on what a country is really good at or you can try to revise the internal culture of the country. If you're going to do the latter, come out and say so. Most of my policy recommendations are based on the former approach, namely strengthening what (the better-functioning) countries already are good at. I'm not suggesting that countries never change, but getting such changes right by deliberate policy interventions is very hard to do. I wish to stress this point applies to the pro-U.S. as much as the pro-Europe side.

I'd like everyone to have a sign, which they would hold up when appropriate: "My policies seek to revise the internal culture of my country." That's OK, but you're raising the bar for your own ideas and don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise."

He also makes the very obvious (to me) point that levels of prosperity are more important than growth rates. I see some of the fallacy of arguing otherwise when people compare the U.S. to China. Of course, they have much higher GDP growth rates. They are a very poor country. Let's look at per capita GDP, although I also think we need to really consider whether GDP is the most useful measure to use.

Who do you think won the debate?

Finally, Gwynne Dyer's column in the Tribune today reminded me of my thought that if the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) realized that they were all worshipping the same God, we would all be a lot better off.