no, what for?

I think an open thread is very effective if there's sufficient readership that is willing to post comments.

I, for one, would like to know, if any of you fine people have any predictions on the upcoming EU referendums: for the entry to the EU in Estonia on the 14th and in Latvia on the 20th, as well as Euro referendum in Sweden.

Any thoughts?

unfortunately not.
well yes, I have thoughts, but not on that issue.
shouldn't you be qualified to make a guess how Latvia will vote?
if there's any use to open threads, I guess it would be having people bring in information the blog-authors are not qualified to talk about, but which is nonetheless of interest to the blog's readers/theme. So share your opinion (myself, I don't know enough to even have an opinion, apart from being in favour of a pro-Europe vote)

As you noticed on my site, I have voted "Yes" on the referendum. I voted by the absentee ballot earlier than the 20th.

I think overall, Estonia and Latvia will approve their countries' entry to the European Union, though some think EU is USSR in a "drag" and other ponder why the EU doesn't allow countries to exist the Union, if they chose so. Certainly the EU is not a perfect international organization. But what organization is?

The two Baltic States are no Norway. They cannot survive on their own for a long period of time. And due ot their geographical location, they're constantly desired by other countries. Politically and economically. We might as well cave in voluntarily before we're left behind the European wagon. Seeing the two small states between a large European Union and an even larger Russia is just an accident waiting to happen. If not political, then economical. Joining the EU will allow Latvia to compete with the rest of Europe for better products, and thus building up its economy.

As for Swedish question, I am not certain how to answer it, because I am not informed enough about the issue to make a call. That's kind of why I asked.

What kind of thoughts do you have, Markus?

thanks Aleks, that's good news. as for my thoughts, just take a look at my blog.

The sound of desperation?

"Former Swedish Prime Minister and leading campaigner for a yes vote on 14 September, Carl Bildt burst into song today to persuade a rally in Uppsala to vote for the euro." - at:
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid;=12570

For what open threads? I could imagine if one of your readers wants to have discussed something, he could mail you, or?

I'd say Estonia and Latvia won't do it without any problems, all their efforts the last years were directed to this final jump. Sweden? I have not a clue.

Sweden will most likely vote no, but it's not an open and shut case. I will regretfully vote no.

Lots of weblogs have open threads. Tacitus, to name one. I'm sure our posts will not cover all topics our visitors are interested in.

On the third and fourth we had so many comments that open threads might be tenable here. Let's see.

David,

"Sweden will most likely vote no [to joining the Euro], but it's not an open and shut case."

I agree. For years, I have been posting in places that the case for Britain joining is an "on balance" case at best.

EU businesses trading across Eurozone borders as well as tourists travelling around Europe stand to gain from savings in currency transactions and avoiding exhange risks but loss of national monetary autonomy in setting interest rates to suit prevailing national conditions can lead to serious loss of national economic stability. Eurozone countries have had to learn that a that a one-size-fits-all monetary policy does not inevitably work out well. Many of the economic arguments deployed to justify the supposed economic benefits of monetary union in Europe apply also to the US and Canada in N America but Canadians show no inclination of wanting to give up the Canadian Dollar and use the US Dollar instead. And rightly so.

Some of us anticipated the present recessions and stagnation of the major Eurozone economies because of the embedded market inflexibilities and especially because the DMark entered the Euro at an over-valued exchange rate - German employment costs in terms of the US Dollar are way out of line with those of its main trading partners. Many German economists seem to have foreseen the problems ahead to judge from representations they made in early 1998 for monetary union to be postponed: http://www.internetional.se/9802brdpr.htm

The politicians, lead by Jacques Delors, president of the EU Commission 1985-94, pushed the agenda for monetary union for political reasons and took little heed of the cautionary economic advice. Very sensibly, the governments Denmark, Sweden and Britain all negotiated opt outs from EU monetary union in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

"The two Baltic States are no Norway. They cannot survive on their own for a long period of time."

Looking at the demographics one is lead to ask, can they survive at all?

Alex, is there any discussion on this topic? What are the attitudes to receiving third world, and/or especially Asian CIE immigrants.

"an even larger Russia" no, Russia is definitely shrinking, so you can rest easy on this.

BTW what is the position of the Russian speaking population in these Baltic states. A friend of mine went to Lithuania to a maths congress last year, and he told me that apart from the fact that everyone else in the room was older than him (he's 50) what struck him most was the attitude towards the Russian speakers. He told me there were about 600,000 with no voting rights since you need an exam in Lithuanian language and history to get citizenship. (Incidentally his point wasn't against minority languages per se, since he is a Catalan speaking Catalan. His preoccupation was about discriminating on grounds of language, in the same way that he would be concerned here if there was evidence of discrimination against Spanish speaking Catalans).Is this right? And if it is, are Brussels not at all concerned?

Sorry, it's Aleks, my mistake. Love your blog.

BTW Fistful of Euros is great. Congratulations!

Thank you! That's very gratifyiong, coming from you.

I think the open thread has been a qualified success, nothing like a Tacitus thread naturally.

Leaning towards that we should do continue, have them once a week or so.

I never read open threads. However, it's easy enough to skip over them if you want to include them.

To Edwards:

Thinking realistically and setting aside one's wishing thinking, one would tend to say that Latvia would not be able to survive on its own without the help of the European Union or some other large entity. The questions of immigration do come up in the debate over whether or not Latvia should join the EU.

As far as the Russian population goes, Lithuania is quite different from Latvia and Estonia, in a way that it granted the citizenship to all who decided to make Lithuania their home (I'm sure there was a language test). In Latvia and Estonia, however, to get a citizenship right after the independence, one had to prove that one's ancestors lived in the country prior to the 1940 Soviet invasion. Those who relocated to Latvia during the Soviet era and their children were not eligible to get citizenship by default. They were thought of as illegal immigrants and had to naturalize. Now the number of naturalized Russian-speaking people is decreasing. Most think it's humiliating, because they think the citizenship is theirs by right. Others are fearful of compulsotory army service. Those people are not eligible to participate in the National Referendum on the EU. And now with EU washing their hands on the status of Russian non-citizen minority in Latvia through EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Verheugen (the new item on my site through Radio Liberty), they even feel betrayed by EU as well.

The number of non-citizens is somehwere around 300,000 people in a 2.7 million population.

I hope that answered your questions.

Aleks, yes, thanks.

And thanks for blogging this kind of thing on All about Latvia. I think we all need more information of this type.

In a thread above on Supply-side economics with the Comments section blocked off, it is suggested that anyone saying taxes and tax burdens are too high is a convert to supply-side economics? C'mon.

On comparative tax burdens among the affluent OECD countries try Fig 1 at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/57/2968128.pdf with updated data through to 2001 at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/63/1962227.pdf France comes out pretty high.

Total government tax revenues as a percentage of national GDP come in at just over 45% for Belgium compared with just over 37% in Britain and just under 30% in the US. Belgium comes out very near the top for its tax burden compared with other OECD countries.

Does anyone seriously suppose that the differences in tax burdens have absolutely no effect on work incentives or risk taking in investment decisions? If so, how about raising the tax rate on all incomes to 100% and distributing the proceeds according to assessed personal needs after deducting the costs of running government, paying debt service and providing for the supply of public goods? Of course, anyone saying an income tax rate of a 100% is too high is just a benighted advocate of supply-side economics - and we've just been told that, "It hasn't worked terribly well elsewhere."

Btw a useful source for a wide range of comparative data for OECD countries is "OECD in Figures 2002", available at: http://www.oecdwash.org/DATA/STATS/oecdinfig2002.pdf

Addendum on Belgium and taxes:

"Belgium's public debt is expected to fall to about 100% of GDP in 2002, and the government has succeeded in balancing its budget." - from: http://www.countryreports.org/content/belgium.htm

"In a thread above on Supply-side economics with the Comments section blocked off, it is suggested that anyone saying taxes and tax burdens are too high is a convert to supply-side economics? C'mon."

That's not how I read it. The quote sounded a bit like genuine supply-side, or at least genuine intellectual dishonesty.

OTOH, what you're talking about is the more interesting debate.

that commments section isn't blocked off, not now at least.

David - I tend to post a lot of links to (mostly highly reputable) data sources as a sort of social service. Of course, the data can contain errors but among sad experiences in life - mentioning no names - is seeing messages about economic policy from posters who don't know too much economics and haven't bothered to make even basic checks on relating data.

Economics is unfortunately one of those topical subjects for bar room debate and one of those subjects which most politicans striving for fame and fortune lay claim to understanding. Hence, the potential scope for huge policy screw ups with popular support is enormous.

It is credibly arguable that the reparations burden imposed on Germany in the Versailles Treaty after WW1 was a significant contributing factor to the route which lead to WW2 but the idea was very popular in Britain in 1919 and Lloyd George was prime minister. How curious then that Lloyd George, the last Liberal prime minister of Britain, is on record as saying after meeting Hitler in 1936: "Fuhrer is the proper name for him. He is a great and wonderful leader."

President Roosevelt, for all his good intentions in the depression years in America, was still dedicated to balancing the US federal government's budget, thereby delaying the haul out of the depression. OTOH there are those like Fontaine, the previous finance minster in the German government until 1999, who seriously believed that the escape route from Germany's high unemployment rate was to raise wages to stimulate demand and at a time when German employment costs were already high in US Dollar terms by comparison with Germany's main trading partners.

Many enthusiasts for joining the Euro haven't checked or wondered what the consequences would be if the DMark got locked into the launch of the Euro at an over-valued exchange rate. For them, presumably, the present recession in Germany and other parts of the Eurozone is just a profound mystery.

Tax 'n' spend enthusiasts are still around. They seem never to ask whether high tax burdens could damage economic performance by degrading work incentives and the willingness of investors to accept risk. For them, it seems to be just a matter that tax cuts mean public spending cuts and how terrible that would be. A modest concession to recognising the disincentive effects of high tax burdens was made by successive governments in Belgium in decisions made to borrow instead to cover revenue shortfalls - which is how Belgium came to have a national debt/GDP ratio of over 100%, well above that of any other Eurozone country apart from Italy.

On strict application of the advisory eligibility criteria for joining the Euro in the Maastricht Treaty, Belgium and Italy shouldn't be in the Eurozone but leaving out founding signatories of the Rome Treaty was politically unthinkable. Which is all part of how we come to be where we are in Europe. In a mess. But Tony Blair evidently believes that anyone sceptical about the benefits to Britain from joining the Euro is just another xenophobic bigot. The alternative explanation is that Tony Blair hasn't a clue about economics - which is where we came in.

"I could imagine if one of your readers wants to have discussed something, he could mail you, or?"
"You" stands for David Weman here? Or is "A fistful of Euros" going to have its own address?
Suppose I want attention for the following idea (from my own -still mainly Dutch- weblog):
"...I criticized the initiative http://theworldvotes.org where a group of Dutch webloggers asks everyone (in the world) to "cast their vote" for the US presidential elections via their site.
Although I agree with them that "The outcome of these elections directly influences the lives of citizens around the world" I do not like this idea. We -non Americans- should not interfere with their internal affairs.
We can appeal however to the American voters to choose a president who will make the USA rejoin the world community. That is OUR interest in these elections. Ask the American voters to elect a man or woman who will support the International Criminal Court. Who will rejoin the worldwide efforts against the greenhouse-effect. Who respects the interests of poorer nations. Who helps strengthen the UN. Who helps debate the phenomenon of worldwide economic stability anew.
Instead of actually participating in some kind of a mirror-election from outside the USA we should formulate our appeal in such a way that the serious candidates feel obliged to response.”
Suppose. Should I visit the weblogs of all contributors to the Fistful ?
(Anyway: nice to find this “groupblog”-initiative. I discovered it just after I found this US-groupblog: http://www.ospolitics.org which seems nice too although the mission statement is not completely “The ongoing renewal necessary for the health of democracy is not achieved by the election of politicians, but in discussion and debate among citizens, in the triumph of reason and research over ideology, and, most importantly, in your participation.” Realized yet.