Sunday, June 9, 2019

The Economist

The Economist


Sometime in the 1970’s, I had a subscription to The Economist magazine. Why, in the face of poverty did I find the funds to buy a subscription? I just don’t know, but it was an education. Thank you, The Economist, for sharing erudite information and a unique perspective on the world. For one thing, it began to solidify my skepticism on the state of American journalism.

These people are not only smarter than me, they have good information and they know how to use the language to communicate that information.

For example, this (please be kind about their spelling and capitalization customs):

Why, a strategist from Mars might wonder, do Europeans doubt their ability to defend themselves against Russia without American help? The total gdp of nato’s European members is more than ten times that of Russia, which has an economy about the size of Spain’s. They spend three-and-a-half times as much on defence as Russia, which has lately had to cut its budget sharply because of a broader squeeze on its economy. True, Russia has 13 times as many nuclear warheads as western Europe has, but surely Britain and France, the two nuclear powers, have more than enough to deter an attack?
For decades Europeans did not need to worry about the Martian’s question, because America’s commitment to their defence was not in doubt. That has changed. “The times when we could unconditionally rely on others are past,” Angela Merkel told the European Parliament in November. She echoed the call of France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, for “a true European army”. In January the two leaders signed a treaty between France and Germany which includes a mutual-security pledge similar to nato’s Article 5 (as well as Article 42.7 of the European Union’s Lisbon treaty).

Did you know that NATO’s European members have GDP ten times that of Russia? I didn’t know that. It seems that Putin is not only the leader but the mascot of Russia—puffed up bigger than they are, the Phillies Phanatics of world leaders and nations.

Did you know that Russia has an economy the size of Spain? I didn’t. So why is it a big deal if they sell natural gas to Western Europe?

Texas, on the other hand, has a diversified economy that exceeds Russia’s by about $400 billion. California is much larger.

Why are the Democrats obsessed? Dunno. But they should start to worry about China rather than Russia. China is the real deal, not some puffed up façade. For example, Texas has a GDP of about $58,000 per person; Russia, $8,700. They, the Russians, are, however, among the world’s leaders in corruption.

A final perspective about Russia. They currently have a population of about 140 million, say 10% the size of China. Roughly a third of the US. Between Hitler and Stalin, they lost 20 million people in the WWII time frame. Not a family in Russia escaped violent loss and much of their country was devastated. No wonder they were angry and hard to get along with during the Cold War. Now they have about 11 million more women than men…maybe due to alcohol? They got issues!

Trump said the US provides over 70% of the resources to protect Europe. So-called “fact checkers” despise Trump and will skew facts to support their positions. They cite that the US provides a much lower percentage of the NATO spending. True. But NATO couldn’t exist without our ability to perform air-to-air refueling, provide aircraft carriers, and a whole host of services that do not exist in the other nations’ arsenals. Basically, if NATO were a house, members other than the US would provide the furniture, the US would provide everything else—the foundation, the roof, the frame. You get the picture.

Again, Trump is right, the “fact checkers” are wrong.

Another factoid—only a handful of countries in NATO live up to their pledge to pay their “fair share” which is a factor of their GDP. Greece is one, but it is pretty easy when you have very little GDP. Germany does not. Not even close. But they posture, provocatively.

If you want an informed perspective on the world’s affairs, read The Economist. Worth it.

No comments:

Post a Comment