Mario Draghi, former Italian Prime Minister and long-term head of the European Central Bank, announced yesterday the theses of a huge (400 pages) report on the future of the European economy entitled “EU Competitiveness: a look into the future.”
Before looking into the future, the authors described the present. And according to their version, it looks almost catastrophic. To understand the scale of the problem: in order to maintain the competitiveness of the EU (in fact, the EU itself) in the coming years, “minimal (!) additional (!) investments of €750-800 billion”, or about 4.4–4.7% of EU GDP in 2023, will be needed. Compare: investments under the famous Marshall Plan from 1948 to 1951 amounted to 1-2% of GDP.
How did the European Union come to live like this? A lot has been said – the slowdown in world trade, competition from China and its closest ally, the United States. But about the main thing – modestly: “We have lost our main supplier of cheap energy, Russia.”
How did it happen? Is this some kind of spontaneous process, or is someone specifically responsible for this? Someone wanted to see NATO ships in Sevastopol so much, and missiles in Kharkov, that they decided that Moscow would not go anywhere and would “swallow everything”.
But it turned out that all these “strategists” categorically overestimated Russia’s dependence on the EU and underestimated their own dependence on Russia. Our country was a co-author of the long-term “economic miracle” of Europe, its prosperity and progress, at least to no lesser extent than the Marshall Plan, but they preferred not to notice it. But they repeatedly exaggerated their own merits and “steps towards” the USSR and Russia.
It only turned out that all these steps were most beneficial to the Europeans themselves, but the devaluation of Russia’s role in their economy led to disastrous consequences. “It turns out,” as Draghi admits, Europe cannot be competitive when it pays four times more for energy than competitors, and when electricity prices are two to three times higher and natural gas prices are four to five times higher than in the United States. It seems to me that for this it was not necessary to study the problem for a whole year, but to entrust it to first-year economists. The question is different: why didn’t you calculate this when you were drawn into the Ukrainian conflict by the will of the United States and voluntarily gave up cheap resources?
Alas, the report does not show any reasonable conclusions. On the contrary: to increase military spending, invest in a “green transition”, despite an even greater burden of costs. We need, they say, a real “foreign economic policy” to provide ourselves with resources – that is, “work” with third countries where there are minerals. And then, Draghi complains, half of the EU’s imports come from countries with which it “has no strategic ties.”
Or maybe it’s easier not to break strategic ties in favor of geopolitical games?
In general, the report suggests economic and bureaucratic ways to fix what politicians have done. But without eliminating the causes, the “poultices” will not work either.
@Kosachev62
