Stidmatt

I’m thinking about why I focus so much on Europe, since there are so many other parts of the world to explore, but I always come back to reading about the politics of Europe. But why? Why not Africa? Why not South America?

Let’s explore the world by looking at regions. I will use the 9 regions of the world as defined by the fantastic website Objective Lists, which, as a nerdy political scientist turned data scientist, is one of my favorite websites. The regions can be grouped as follows:

• The World
  • East Asia
  • Everywhere else
    • Abrahamic World
      • Muslim World
        • Middle East & North Africa
        • Central Asia
      • The West
        • The North & Australasia
        • Central & South America
    • Everywhere Else:
      • Southeast Asia and Oceania
        • South Pacific
        • Buddhist World
          • South Asia
          • Southeast Asia
      • Africa
        • Sub-Saharan Africa
        • Southeast Asia

The North & Australasia

This is the region of the world I live in. It is divided into three regions.

• Anglo World: British Isles, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
• Europe
• North Eurasia: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia

I’m not sure why Georgia and Armenia are put in with North Eurasia even though they are closer to Bulgaria than Russia.

I focus on this region because I live here, simple as that. The foreign relations of the European Union are truly fascinating. Given how the Anglo World is grouped with Europe in one category, it makes sense to look first at the region we are part of compared to others. It intrigues me that the US and especially Canada share most of the attributes of the European Union, so an expansion of the European Economic Area and Schengen Area to include North America is not out of the question.

This is not just my opinion, it’s based on fact. If you look at the world from the perspective of the Arctic, Canada is a natural extension of the European political system and the United States through Canada. Australia and New Zealand are on the other side of the world, but merging the Trans-Tasman agreement and the Schengen Area seems like a good idea.

Regarding North Eurasia, I find it interesting that Ukraine is listed in the top ten similar countries to Georgia but not Russia. I believe the gap between Ukraine and Russia will widen over time.

The expansion of democracy in Eastern Europe and expansion of European institutions has been gradual over the last 25 years, with something exciting happening almost every year. It is the region in the world which is most likely to change over the next few years. The economic power of Europe makes it important for everyone on Earth. This is why I follow European politics closely.

Central & South America

Latin America is the most similar region to the North based on the calculations I have made with this dataset. Most of these countries are democratic. They are so similar that most of them are grouped under one subcategory. Venezuela and Nicaraguan democracy are under threat, but the rest of them are democratically strong. Brazil is separate because it speaks Portuguese instead of Spanish, but it is definitely a Latin American country.

With democratic systems, the main distinguishing factor between Latin America and the North is their economic well-being. They have a lower average years of schooling compared to countries in the North, and this reverberates across their economy. In time, as their mean years of schooling increase and corruption is rooted out, expect the line between Latin America and the North to become very small. They will probably be statistically one region within 50 years.

Latin America is fascinating politically. Several free trade and free movement agreements exist in the region with the Andean Community, Mercosur, and CA4. I predict Mercosur and the Andean Community will merge into one free movement organization. Chile will be the last to join since it is the wealthiest country in Latin America.

Foreign relations are very stable in Latin America. Bolivia is the only country that joined Mercosur since it was formed and has stayed a member. It joined in 2024. The Andean Community has not changed since 1969. So once you understand the relationship there isn’t too much to follow. The region will continue to develop economically and corruption will continue to be reduced over the next few decades. It is an exciting time for the region, and the biggest change that is likely to happen is a full merger of the Andean Community and Mercosur into one free travel bloc.

In the rplot of the world, Latin America is the region most similar to the North.

Middle East & North Africa

I find this region to be the least interesting. These countries suffer from institutional rot. They are not democracies. The problems are myriad and complex, with systems rooted in corruption and exploitation. The countries that are moving towards democracy have undergone serious conflicts, which have destroyed their economies. Terrorism is widespread and uncontrolled, further undermining institutions. Oil has been a plague to the region, increasing corruption and graft. The rich have gotten richer and use their riches to cement their authoritarian power. Ethnic conflicts exist in every country in the region. Even when Tunisia started to break out, its current president has consolidated power, with extreme democratic backsliding.

There is not much else to say from a political angle. It’s a depressing region. It will take over a century for the tyrants of the region to be finally be fully defeated. The democratization of the Middle East will not happen in my lifetime.

Syria is the country right now with the best shot at developing. I hope they succeed.

The Middle East is the region of the world which is most similar to the North and Latin America.

Sub-Saharan Africa

This is a very diverse region. Some countries are extremely poor, some are moving in the right direction. Ghana is a standout on the Gold Coast with the least corrupt most democratic system, and the most prosperous economy in the Gold Coast. There is hope for the Gold Coast.

The Congos suffer from extreme poverty, low levels of education, and extreme corruption. Rwanda has suffered from extreme backsliding. Without removing their dictators, they can’t develop. The same can be said about many other countries.

The former British colonies in East Africa have the cleanest governments and most democratic systems, along with South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho, and Botswana. Their economies are the most developed, and regional integration is growing. Angola, Zimbabwe, and Eswatini stand out as they struggle with extreme poverty and institutional rot.

Mauritius is so developed and unique that it is calculated not to be part of Africa, but instead Latin America.

Southern Africa can be viewed as two distinct regions.

Some are democratic and moving in the right direction.

Some are extremely poor, extremely corrupt, and this corruption goes back before the colonial era. These countries were ruled by the kings who sold slaves to European slave traders, taking the wealth from the Europeans to further enrich their authoritarian rule. This created extreme rot which was continued through the colonial era, and even into the post-colonial era. It did not start with colonialism, the colonial powers just took advantage of the already existing political situation which continues to this day. Slavery systems are very difficult to undo. But as we saw with Europe and the development of capitalism, it is not impossible.

I do not believe Sub-Saharan Africa is doomed to poverty. Many countries in the region prove my point. But the ones which have not developed yet need to change their ancient institutions in order to improve their quality of life. Other regions have done this very thing and have benefited.

I don’t study this region much because I find it depressing, the lessons are pretty much the same once you learn them, and things don’t change frequently. Studying developmental economics showed the answers countries have used to develop can be applied elsewhere, but they threaten the powers in charge of the region, leaving only revolution as a way for many countries in the region to change. Revolution is never a guarantee.

Sub-Saharan Africa is closest to Oceania and South East Asia. These three regions form a sibling branch with the North, Latin America, and the Middle East.

South Asia

South Asia is fascinating to me. Comprising of only 5 democracies, it is stable. Corruption is rife which keeps the countries in the region poor. Education is lacking, and child labor remains a problem. But they are democratic so there is hope and I believe every country in this region will develop over my lifetime. India shares an open border with Bhutan and Nepal.

South Asia is most similar to Southeast Asia. These two branches form what I call the Buddhist World.

Central Asia

Turkey is an American ally and quickly developing. They are a member of the European Customs Union. If they can keep their democracy and implement necessary reforms they will join the European Union in my lifetime.

Mongolia is a sparsely populated democracy squeezed between the two most powerful authoritarian regimes in the world. If they were invaded there would be next to nothing they can do.

The remaining countries are authoritarian to various levels. Kyrgyzstan is experiencing democratic backsliding and the remaining countries are depressing dictatorships.

I don’t study this region much, things don’t change a lot and most of them are depressing.

Unsurprisingly, Central Asia is a sibling branch to the Middle East.

East Asia

PRC, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are stable democracies. They are highly developed and their first world problems can be solved.

The People’s Republic of China is in a period of transition. The question remains… can a dictatorship become wealthy on manufacturing without a change of government? It’s never happened before. We will see.

North Korea is the worst country in the world.

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are the most likely region outside of the North to form a free travel agreement given their clean governments, well educated populations, and prosperous economies. The 5th most similar country to Japan according to Objective Lists is Italy. If the Schengen Area were to expand outside of the region known as the North, it would expand to these three countries in East Asia first. The only major differences are demographic and culture.

In the rplot of the world provided by Objective Lists East Asia stands separate from all other regions of the world. I find that interesting.

Southeast Asia

I want to travel to Southeast Asia. Burma, Laos, and Vietnam are dictatorships, but the remaining countries are very interesting politically and economically. Corruption is an issue which harms their economies and education levels are lower than they should be… but I believe if they make the right investments they will develop into high income countries over the next few decades. They are all members of ASEAN, which is unnikely to grow.

I have a lot of hope for the region.

Southeast Asia is a sibling branch to South Asia, forming the Buddhist World.

Oceania

Most countries in Oceania are very small, but they are all democratic. The biggest issue facing these countries is the size of their population and their extreme isolation, but this is not insurmountable. Many people in Papua New Guinea remain uncontacted to this day.

They tend to have lower incomes, but they are all free. This is the least populated region defined by Objective Lists.

Oceania is a sibling branch to the Buddhist World.

Comparing regions to Europe

When analyzing all the regions of the world, Europe stands out with several main characteristics.

• All but two countries in Europe are democratic.
• Most countries in Europe have strong economies.
• Europe has the largest economy in the world, regardless if the country in question had colonies or not.
• You can travel by land to most countries in the region.

There is no larger bloc of developed democracies which share land borders with each other than the European Union.

When analyzing countries which struggle with issues, whether they are from education systems, economics, or just plain old corruption, its pretty easy to find good answers on how to solve these problems.

Europe is different because it is unique in how it is highly developed, highly democratic, and highly integrated. It is the only place in the world with these three characteristics, and there is no other region in the world which is going to be like Europe in the next 30 years. The one place which I believe could be similar to the European Union in the next 50 years is Latin America.

Every other region has clear issues which distinguish them from Europe.

• Latin America: Middle income, low mean years of schooling.
• Middle East: corruption and authoritarianism.
• Sub-Saharan Africa: corruption, authoritarianism, and poverty.
• South Asia: corruption and poverty.
• Central Asia: Corruption, authoritarianism, and poverty.
• East Asia: Very democratic and wealthy in some, very authoritarian in others. Only a few countries.
• Southeast Asia: Corruption remains an issue, but democracy exists and economies are developing.
• Oceania: Very small population, very poor, but democratic.

So that’s how I am viewing the world right now.

World Governance Indicators

I have been frequently using the World Governance Indicators in a way to filter out countries to study. They are very useful because they include every UN member state except the Vatican with indicators which allows an efficient and accurate way to understand how a country is doing on social issues.

If we filter out all countries which score positively on these six indicators outside of the North, Latin America, and Oceania, along with a GDP per capita of at least $10,000, we end up with only Japan, Seychelles, South Korea, and Taiwan. Every other country misses at least one of these indicators.

If we remove our $10,000 indicator we find Botswana, Malaysia, and the Seychelles. The Seychelles is not included in Objective Lists. Malaysia will surpass my arbitrary GDP per capita mark soon.

Many countries in the Americas and most countries in Europe pass these 6 indicators from WGI.

Conclusion

That’s basically why I write more about Europe than other regions. I like development economics but as I said earlier, many of the issues faced by the other regions have solutions which are basically solved problems. Honestly, writing one article after another about countries facing the same issues gets boring.

It’s important, but when writing and doing analysis on an issue I like to be at the cutting edge.

I like to look at more cutting edge and more rapidly changing situations and Europe is very much at the cutting edge of diplomacy and changes more often than other regions of the world.

That is why I write more about Europe than any other topic on my blog.

Congressional Republicans are saying they want to extend the Trump tax cuts at the cost of $5 trillion over 4 years or $1.25 trillion per year. How can they offset these tax cuts with spending cuts?

They also want to increase military expenditure.

Using the Fiscal Year 2024 as our baseline… how could they cut the budget by a trillion dollars?

Total budget: $6.8 trillion.

We will not reduce discretionary defense expenditures, so that is $850 billion off the table. $6 trillion remaining.

We must pay interest on debt from previous (mostly Republican) budgets. With another $880 billion off the table, we have $5.1 trillion remaining.

Social Security OASI is $1.5 trillion, funded through payroll taxes. It does not contribute to the debt. It cannot be cut quickly, so we have $3.6 trillion remaining.

Medicare and Medicaid would be idiotic to cut. It would not save anyone money, and would be cruel to millions of Americans. So that’s another $1.4 trillion off the chopping block. $2.2 trillion remaining.

Income Security programs include programs like disability and unemployment. I doubt the Federal government will cut this. They cost $370 billion, so we have $1.8 trillion remaining.

This $1.8 trillion is every other program the government spends money on. The government cannot cut mandatory spending. Leaving us with only $960 billion in discretionary spending that Congress can cut this year to cover the $1.25 trillion hole they are proposing to make in the budget.

It is impossible to cover the $1.25 trillion hole through nondefense discretionary spending alone.

Of that nondefense spending, it goes to a myriad of different programs. The largest amount goes to Veterans Benefits. The second highest goes to transportation. The third highest goes to every education program the government funds. These three programs add up to $380 billion. Every other non-military discretionary program the government does costs $580 billion. I highly doubt they will seriously cut these budgets.

Covering $1.25 trillion with $580 billion of cuts is a fascinating way of doing math.

The idea that the federal government is wasteful is a myth.

People have debated spending a billion dollars on extending Max to Vancouver, Washington, for decades. The problem is that the existing buses from Portland to Vancouver are faster than Max will be, because it is a streetcar. It doesn’t make sense to spend a billion dollars on a slower mode of transport when you could instead add more double-decker buses to the commute.

So then I thought, well, if light rail doesn’t make sense, why not add a commuter rail between Portland and Vancouver, Washington? If you can get there in under 30 minutes, a commuter rail option would be preferable to any other mode.

It currently takes 26 minutes on Amtrak Cascades between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. The main issue is that the bridge across the Columbia River is 30 mph and is an indirect route.

But this can be easily solved.

Instead of running west of the Willamette River, they use the UP Portland Subdivision. A commuter rail could easily cut out time wasted going the long way around. Run the train across the Steel Bridge and drop passengers off at Portland Union Station.

It is possible to start a 20-minute commuter rail between Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. Most of the infrastructure already exists. It will be twice the speed of the proposed Max extension, be separated grade, and the infrastructure already exists.

Why wait, Portland and Vantucky? Start the Portland-Vancouver commuter rail today!

The main point of Schengen is not so much about boosting tourism, though it is about that and does a great job at it… It is to ensure that if any member state starts to fall to fascism, there will be minimal barriers for citizens of member states to relocate.

The ability to quickly move to another country and get employment and housing quickly with minimal red tape is the strongest defense against fascism. This is why I believe the arrangement should expand outside of Europe.

Congress can be corrupted. Courts can be stacked.

It is far more difficult to repeal the ability of your citizens to leave.

Even when a country decides to leave a single market, like the United Kingdom did with Brexit, it is not feasible for them to completely undo the progress and integration that their membership in the European Union created. The UK-EU withdrawal agreement allowed citizens in the EU to stay in the UK, and the same for Britons in the EU.

This is the reality of attempting to undo a freedom of movement agreement. It’s not possible to do it fully without causing major economic disruptions. The integration of the United Kingdom with the rest of Europe is impossible to fully undo without putting the British economy into a full collapse, which will guarantee rejoining the European Union.

I can’t stress this enough. A true Brexit, a full Brexit where the privileges of EU citizens in Britain are fully revoked, is impossible.

The timing of Schengen is a remarkable achievement in history, unlike any other. It is the largest and wealthiest free travel bloc in the world. The period after World War II saw the evolution of Europe from a collection of fighting monarchies to the largest bloc of democracies in the world. The first part was the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. This intertwined the coal and steel markets of France and Germany to make it impossible for them to fight with each other. This was followed up by the formation of the European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community in 1960.

The European Community was formed in 1967, merging these three organizations into one umbrella.

In 1993 the European Union was formed by the Maastricht Treaty, bringing more treaties, TREVI and the European Political Co-operation under one umbrella.

The Schengen Area was formed in 1995, 10 years after the treaty was signed in 1985. At this point, the economies of Europe were intertwined in many different ways, and freedom of movement as a right for citizens was fully established.

From this point on, any country in the bloc falling to fascism will face a triple threat. The intertwining of their economies would make war infeasible. The decline in their economies will cause severe hardship, reducing the popularity of their government. Plus, freedom of movement will cause citizens of the state engaging in foolish policies to move to other safer states, draining the distressed state of labor.

This means that any national policy that harms the economy of any member state will hurt them politically and demographically.

Likewise, the full withdrawal from the bloc will cause severe economic hardship, as seen in the United Kingdom. Britain has been unable to fully withdraw because of the treaties allowing EU citizens who already lived and worked in the UK to stay, and vice versa. This means full Brexit has not happened. If Britain were to start to fall to fascism, the EU citizens would move back, starving the British economy of essential workers at all levels, causing the economy to shut down. Also, British citizens who live in Europe will not move back in such a situation.

So, after withdrawing from such a treaty, you will never see a full withdrawal occur.

Given what is happening in the United States, it has never been more apparent that we need the Schengen Area to expand to the United States and Canada.

If we were a member state of Schengen, you would see large numbers of Americans moving to Canada and Europe, along with Canadian and European citizens who live here, leaving the USA. No one would move to the US to fill the empty jobs, causing a severe labor shortage. This would starve America of the labor we need at all levels for our economy to survive if another president tries the same trade madness we are seeing from Trump.

We need to remove the president’s ability to unilaterally levy taxes. It was insane to give him such power in the first place. We must repeal the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122, and move the power to tax back to Congress.

Here is another good article describing the legal basis of Trump’s madness.

Businesses have already sued the administration for the sweeping tariffs, but the US Court of International Trade sided with the Trump regime, claiming a lack of standing. This is why I said that courts are not an effective deterrent against radical regimes. They can be corrupted, as I fear the USCIT has been.

Another step to prevent fascism is to make it so the President needs a majority of Americans to vote for them, and we do that by amending the Constitution and replacing the racist Electoral College with instant runoff voting.

So that’s my plan:

• Roll back presidential power to levy taxes. All taxes must be passed through Congress as our founders intended.
• The United States and Canada join the Schengen Area.
• Replace the Electoral College with Instant Runoff Voting.

This is how we defeat Trump today and prevent a future President from abusing the power of the presidency like we are seeing today.

There is talk about creating a federal Europe, where the EU would have more power than they do now. I’m not convinced this is a good idea.

The Treaty of Lisbon was the final major amendment to the Charter of the European Union. It was passed in 2007 and while it sounds like a big deal most of it is pretty boring. It restructures the legal structure of the EU into one legal person, modifies the powers of parliament and the European Council, includes a mutual protection pact, implements a citizen’s initiative, and a withdrawal procedure which allowed Brexit. All in all it is a good treaty, but honestly as laws go its one of the more boring ones out there.

There are talks about a federal Europe bringing its countries closer together. But what part of EU law will this engage? There is no need to move health care or education up to a federal level. Defense could perhaps be moved up. I can see the advantages of a unified foreign policy sometimes, but its a double edged sword. A unified defense policy as well turns into a double-edged sword. I don’t know what the advantage of a unified defense policy would bring. They already have interoperability and a mutual protection pact. What advantage would bringing defense under a single European Union command bring? This is not clear to me.

So the benefits of a federal Europe will not be seen in health care, defense, or education. These are the largest roles which governments play a part. They already have the benefits of being able to travel, live, and work between countries freely with no red tape. I think the structure of the European Union is fine how it is.

Unification is a doubled edged sword. If Europeans elected thoughtful and considerate leaders it could lift up the poorer countries in the European Union.

Likewise,  if they elected leaders with less noble ideals they could easily end up pushing down the wealthier parts of the bloc without any substantial benefit.

Unifying large amounts of countries for trade and travel almost always comes with substantial benefits. Fiscal unions however are far more complicated beasts to deal with. I do not see any benefit to unifying health care programs at such a massive scale. We find that size is obviously not a major factor. Iceland has fewer than a half million citizens, and Japan is the second largest developed democracy in the world yet they spend about the same amount on health care per capita. Education sees almost no benefit to scale.

We can compare to the United States as well to see how such a massive fiscal union across disparate regions doesn’t make a lot of sense. It becomes extremely difficult for states to implement reasonable laws such as universal health care because the federal government sucks up so much tax revenue, while the large Southern bloc of states blocks a lot of laws which would be beneficial to the country. This is while we see a clear trend that Democratic led states do significantly better than Republican led states on almost every metric.

My argument is simple. There is no benefit to large fiscal unions. It would be better to bring fiscal programs down to the state level where for democratic states would see no reduction in quality of life and actually save money by no longer funding Southern corruption. States which are worse off would then need to take on these programs and improve their procedures and no longer depend on being bailed out by wealthy democratic led states. This gets us to the same desired endpoint of fiscal union without the potential downsides of a bad government.

So I think the European Union right now has the ideal structure for such a large and diverse group of democracies. I don’t know how to improve on it. Some laws which hold back innovation perhaps, though this gets complicated. My advice to Europe is keep the system you have. It provides a large amount of benefits with few downsides.

A federal Europe however is probably a bad idea.

The United States started as a fairly loose country with a lot of power in the hands of states, but over the evolution of the country, power has become more and more concentrated in the hands of the federal government.

In a healthy democracy, ideas can be experimented with and the consequences will be felt. By feeling the consequences of decisions, countries can then reverse course when things get worse, without harming other states which did not make the harmful decisions. The damage is fairly limited, and the reversal can happen smoothly.

As power has concentrated more and more with the federal government, tax dollars have become more and more concentrated in the hands of the federal government. Two consequences of this are that there are more subsidies for lower income states. This is seen as a way to raise people out of poverty, improve schools, and many other benefits to those states. But it also creates a drain on public money from wealthier states.

This has two main effects.

• Recipient states do not see the full detrimental effects of their misguided policies because they have a constant bailout from the federal government.
• Donor states do not see the full benefits of their policies because a lot of the surplus is siphoned off to states with inferior policies.

On one hand it is easy to think that this is a good thing from a liberal point of view, since most liberal states are donor states, we have higher levels of education leading to higher incomes, and from a high-minded viewpoint we can often feel like it is just fair for us to share our surplus with the lofty ideal that every American should have access to a high quality education and high quality health care.

This would work if everyone shared our viewpoint. But the world obviously does not work that way.

For states which consistently choose to fund programs which do not bring large benefits, they get a constant bailout from the federal government. People in these states then feel like they keep paying taxes but never get ahead. The reason they never get ahead is their state continues destructive policies but they are never allowed by the federal government to fall apart because of interstate transfers. Because people often feel this way in recipient states, it is clear to me that our current model of siphoning wealth from productive to unproductive areas does not work.

It also happens at a local level as dense urban areas pay more in taxes compared to the cost of infrastructure and suburban areas typically pay less in taxes compared to the cost of maintaining their infrastructure. This phenomenon happens at every level of government.

Now, there are obviously some programs which are truly beneficial, namely health care and education. Food stamps effectively fight poverty. Universal basic income like Alaska or formerly in Canada are effective ways of fighting poverty. But often these programs go in ways which are massive federal grants for infrastructure which might not actually be reasonable, particularly highway construction, which distorts incentives.

It’s a complicated issue.

But I’m coming to the conclusion that in time we will have presidents like Donald Trump come to power. Trump won’t be the last, and this is inevitable. The South will never change.

So we must accept that as long as we remain as tight knit as we are today it is just a matter of time before Medicare is cut. It is just a matter of time before OASI is slashed. It’s a mathematical fact that if we don’t change how OASI is funded that it will run out of money within a few decades.

Regardless of how things go, it is only a matter of time before a Republican President slashes health care programs to an extreme level. There is nothing we can do to prevent this.

There is nothing we can do to protect seniors in the South long-term from these policies being harmed.

So the best thing we can do is protect those of us who live in donor states. If and when this government slashes Medicare and Medicaid, I welcome it. 46% of federal government spending goes to health care and OASI. Another 7.8% of spending goes to income security, bringing it over 50% of government spending or $3.7 trillion. If our current government slashes these programs and moves that responsibility down to the states our deficit will be covered and they can slash taxes even further. Liberal state governments can then pick up the tab. We can increase state level taxes to cover the difference and by no longer having as much money siphoned out of our states to bailout states in the South we won’t have to raise taxes as much as you think. We can implement universal health care, saving businesses more money on payroll than they are spending on private health insurance plans. Out of pocket spending by employees will drop substantially, not necessarily to 0, but it will be lower than what we have now. This will save people money and be more resilient than our current system.

There is no realistic path to implement any form of universal health care as long as the filibuster survives. It will take a lot longer to finally get the filibuster abolished than it will be to implement universal health care at the state level somewhere. Let’s take the win where we can and push for universal health care in our state capitols.

I wish we lived in a country where we could implement these common sense solutions at a national level, but the reality is that we don’t and we never will.

The federal government can move health care, social security, income security, veterans benefits, commerce and housing credit, transportation, education and more down to the state level. Cutting out 75% of federal government spending down to a budget of only $1 trillion. Half of it military, half of it paying interest on the national debt.

The gap between rich and poor states will increase, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. As right-wing states complain that their states keep falling behind the solution will always be there for them. The solution is, has always been, and always will be for them to elect a better government. Their infrastructure will fall apart, and that’s just the way it is. The federal government might take over the interstate highway system and railroads, paying for their maintenance and operations through tolls, taking that burden off of state governments, but for the rest of the operations that is up to the states. We might keep FEMA around, but insurance without conditions is rarely a good idea.

So the best step for progressive politics might actually be to have Trump slash the federal budget. End Medicare, Medicaid, OASI, federal income security, and other programs. Liberal states come in and fill the void. Conservative states languish.

After that transfer is done and conservative states see their economies failing they will need to implement these programs themselves, and we shouldn’t let them just re-implement them at the federal level.

Perhaps we should even move immigration down to the state level as well. That’s how the European Union does it and it works well. States could choose reciprocity with other states which implement work visas or choose not to. This would encourage best practices and if a state chooses detrimental policies it will minimize the damage.

Adoption of the United States dollar should be optional. If a state wants their own currency to focus on manufacturing and export-oriented development… let that be on their own grave. Just don’t take my state down with you.

Again, in an ideal world this would not be a problem. But there are enough states which vote in politicians who push for ridiculous policies at the federal level and I am tired of it. Let states be laboratories of democracy again. The scales of efficiency of having work done at the federal government only works as long as we continue to have presidents and congresses who are thinking through their policies. We clearly do not live in a country like that.

In terms of foreign aid states could choose to fund initiatives together in blocs. This would be more robust because if a state enters or leaves the arrangement it won’t be the sudden death of the program.

In summary, I think moving social programs from the federal government down to the state level will be more economical, be more resilient, and a more desirable outcome than what we are dealing with right now.

Please poke holes in my argument. I want to be wrong, but I don’t think I am.

The way for a country to move from a weak passport to a strong passport is actually quite simple.

• Crack down on corruption
• Improve your country’s human rights record
• Have a strong economy
• Visa reciprocity
• Low visa overstay rate

That’s really it. There are no other steps. With these five changes your country will almost certainly be granted visa-free status to the Schengen Area.

It’s not discrimination, it’s a matter of safety. The EU and United States cannot grant passports to countries which are not trustworthy.

Let’s say you have visa-free travel to Europe and you have a golden passport scheme which is being granted to Russian oligarchs. If your country does not crack down on corruption first and you were granted visa-free travel to the European Union you would immediately become the favorite destination for corrupt oligarchs to get a second passport. This is a national security risk.

There also is a lag between when your country democratizes and when you will start to see your passport become more powerful. This is because countries which are targets of criminals (especially the US and the EU) need to ensure the country will not regress after being granted more travel freedom.

I do not believe eVisas are necessary between low-corruption democracies no matter the cost.

The EU and the USA also want to ensure your economy is wealthy enough to reduce the likelihood of visa fraud so people will likely go back home when their visa-free period is up, and not commit tax fraud by working without paying taxes.

So for a few case studies let’s look at the Philippines. The Philippines has a very low GDP per capita and consistently has voted for right-wing oligarchs like their current president Marcos and their former president Duterte. This is despite the fact that Leni Robredo was running on an anti-corruption platform which is a time tested way to gain visa-free access to Europe.

Georgia and Ukraine saw the election of anti-corruption leaders similar to Leni Robredo in the 2000s and 2010s, leading to both countries being granted visa-free entry to the European Union. Corruption was reduced, economies improved, and democracy improved. As a result they were granted visa-free entry to the European Union.

We find the same thing in Colombia which has seen a reduction in cartel violence and corruption.

So the lesson is clear. If the Philippines wants to gain visa-free entry to the European Union they need to stop voting in right wing demagogues.

But honestly, that’s what I thought entering this thought experiment, but the reality is that citizens from the United Arab Emirates and Brunei are able to travel to the European Union visa-free.  So it sounds like it is more of an OR function as opposed to an AND function.

But this does not explain it either. There are still countries missing from European Union visa-free travel which clearly should have it, including South Africa, Cape Verde, and more.

Cape Verde does not have visa free travel to the EU because they lack visa reciprocity. Jamaica does not have full visa reciprocity with the Schengen Area.

The unfortunate reality is that visa-free access to the Schengen Area is mostly determined by region rather than any factor countries can control. If you are from Asia or Africa you can only really get visa-free waivers if your country is extremely democratic or wealthy. If you are from the Americas, you likely already have visa-free travel to the Schengen Area.

Every wealthy democratic country has visa-free travel to the Schengen Area.

So if you want visa-free travel to the Schengen Area you should improve your economy and remain democratic. This is why Filipinos need a visa to travel to the Schengen Area. Their economy has stayed weak and they continue to vote for right-wing demagogues. Reverse this trend and Filipinos will likely receive visa-free access to the Schengen Area.

I know… depressing.

Ironic ultranationalistic memes aside…

Let’s continue and be serious for the rest of this post.

Sorry for being a Millennial there.

Ukrainian officials are in Paris today discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think the following is the most reasonable path to peace.

1. France and the rest of the European Union promise to send Ukraine more aid, stabbing Trump and Putin in the back.
2. France and the rest of the European Union implement stricter sanctions on Russia, stabbing Trump and Putin in the back even further.

Ukraine can win the war this year as Russia’s economy collapses. It’s just that simple.

If you wouldn’t give Paris to Hitler, don’t give Crimea to Putin.

The next agenda for France is to get the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Union.

The first step is that the UK is trying to broker “deals” with other countries. Particularly Canada. This needs to be undermined. Macron must fly to Quebec City and Ottawa to meet with the Quebec Premier and the Canadian Prime Minister to offer a counterproposal that Canadians and Europeans should have the right to freely live and work in each other’s countries. Extend the European Economic Area and Schengen Area to Canada. This is a far better deal than anything Starmer is offering, simply because the European Union has a bigger economy, more places to go, and more job opportunities. Integrating Canada into the European Union would benefit both parties.

This leaves Starmer with no deal with Canada, as he keeps blabbering about. This one supposed “Brexit benefit” will then evaporate.

However, if the United Kingdom rejoined the European Union, it would benefit from free trade and travel with Canada and the European Union.

Macron can make this happen over the next few years.

The process of Canada integrating into the EEA should take around 4 years. The only barrier is aligning economic regulations with Europe.

With Canada in Schengen and Trump out of office, it is time for a diplomatic onslaught on the United States to moderate our extreme politics. If Russia can propagandize the United States to vote for a convicted felon like Donald Trump, then certainly the European Union can do the same to convince Americans that an open border with Canada and the European Union is not the end of the world, but actually would be beneficial to the United States.

Reducing trade barriers, aligning regulations, and enabling the freedom of movement between North America and Europe will benefit everyone. It will extend the most successful model of continental integration to show that even oceans cannot stop the process of global democratization. wordy and redundant. This will show that cooperation is more powerful than conflict. It will help moderate American politics as it will be difficult for Republicans to replace it. With a deep integration of workers moving freely across borders, there would be no easy way to undo these bonds without serious economic consequences.

Unlike the accession of former Soviet colonies to the European Union, the United States and Canada are already quite wealthy and have been democracies for over a century. Our incomes are closer to Germany than any country that was a member of the Warsaw Pact (excluding occupied East Germany). This means there wouldn’t be the same type of one-way flow of workers. This means that when designing regulations, the United States, Canada, and European Union would have increased pressure to converge to what are found to be best practices. We don’t necessarily need regulations from the European Union for many of these policies unless they are clearly for safety reasons. The best practices, by definition, give better results, and when companies and workers can freely move around, the reality will be to adopt best practices or fall behind. Workers will have the right to move to where the best practices are done. This forces countries to adopt best practices or fall behind.

Integrating the United States and Canada into the European Economic Area will be a tide that lifts all boats. It is likely the best plan for the United States to implement universal health care. It is the best way for Europe to increase its productivity to match that of the United States, which has slipped since the austerity crisis. The pressure of the market will force the European Union to adopt best practices regarding tech, just as it will force the United States to adopt best practices regarding health care.

There is no reason Australia, Chile, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea could not be the next countries to join.

But let’s start with the United States and Canada, which have the longest shared border in the world, starting with Canada.

This is a rosy future. But it is in reach. This is the best way to counter Russia’s influence. It is the best way to show a clear path towards a prosperous economy for countries moving along the path to democracy. It will counter authoritarians by extending systems which are very difficult to unravel.

Let’s make it happen. Bring Canada into the European Economic Area.