--- Yeah, what he said.

--- Yeah, what he said.

Got the link via Instapundit, but would have wound up reading it anyway due to the fact Forbes is one of those gift subscriptions the in-laws keep purchasing for the husband and he’s always saying, you gotta read Paul Johnson whenever a column appears. The husband is simply behind in his reading right now. I think he’s got two Harvard Business Reviews to catch up on, as well.

Forbes rotates this Current Events column between four different
and highly prominent authors. I don’t know precisely what they’re
hoping to achieve here, but I’m assuming they’re aiming for a
widely varied range of ideas. The overall effect, though, is somewhat
schizophrenic. You have Paul Johnson, historian extraordinaire, who,
some would say is reactionary. You also have Ernesto Zedillo, former
president of Mexico and the last successful candidate of the corrupt
and repressive PRI dynasty, who writes about globalization from the
Third World’s perspective. Zedillo is now at Yale, heading up some
globalization seminar---which tells you something about Yale’s
political leanings, if nothing else; forget all about globalization.
They also have Cap Weinberger (Mr. Iran-Contra) and Lee Kuan Yew, a
senior minister from Singapore (flogging, anyone?) writing for them.
Talk about a spectrum, but the only one I take seriously is Paul
Johnson. He’s good.

The paragraph I find interesting, though, is this one:

All this is wonderful, but it is dependent, even in theory, on the
European Union's expanding continuously, its economy running at full
throttle, its productivity steadily increasing and a profound peace
cocooning the world in a nest of luxurious tranquility. But in the real
world, things are different. The EU has discovered, since the autumn of
2001, that it has little ability to determine events because its armed
forces are small, underfunded, obsolete and ill-trained. Apart from
making trouble at the UN, France and Germany--those two former military
giants that once made the world tremble--have been mere spectators. Now
France, followed by a still more reluctant Germany, is being obliged to
take defense seriously for the first time in many years, thus upsetting
all its budget calculations.
It made a very tiny alarm bell of recognition go off in my head.
Let’s play a little with word substitution and you’ll see where
I’m coming from. It could have easily been written in 1933-34, when
the Nazi’s came to power, because Europe right now is facing many of
the same problems Europe faced back then. All this is wonderful, but it is dependent, even in theory, on Germany’s
expanding continuously, its economy running at full throttle, its
productivity steadily increasing and a profound peace cocooning the
world in a nest of luxurious tranquility. But in the real world, things
are different. Germany has discovered, since the autumn of 1919 ,
that it has little ability to determine events because its armed forces
are small, underfunded, obsolete and ill-trained. Apart from making
trouble at the League of Nations, France and Germany--those two former military giants that once made the world tremble--have been mere spectators. Now Germany, followed by a still more reluctant France, is being obliged to take defense seriously for the first time in many years, thus upsetting all its budget calculations.
Scary, eh? One of the main reasons historians give credence to
Germany’s rise from the ashes under Hitler’s reign was because he
was smart enough to realize that rearming Germany would be good for the
economy. Not only did he feel Germany had been humiliated by the
reparations forced on it by the League of Nations and the Treaty of
Versailles that ended WWI, he knew rearming would bring Germany back to
the economic forefront. It worked. His machinations brought Germany out
of the Depression much more quickly than either the U.S. or the UK.
France, whether they would like to admit it or not, did feel the rising
tide effect of the German economy in the late 30’s; a rising tide
that came courtesy of IG Farben, Krups and Daimler-Benz. If you were
looking at this in a theoretical, Henry
Kissinger-balance-of-power-rules! sort of way, this is interesting: all
of the same ingredients are present. I’m fairly certain they won’t
come up with the same cake that gave that gave us that smash-up,
goodtime known as WWII, but it’s interesting nonetheless. If
circumstances conspire enough, it could
happen, longstanding allies notwithstanding.
I’ll grant you, Europe’s economic woes today are not nearly as bad
as they were during the Great Depression of the 1930’s, but unless
Germany and France pull in public spending, in five years, they could
be. And much like back then, Europe’s economic productivity is tied
entirely too much to America’s. The stock market crash of 1929
brought the whole house of cards down---worldwide: 9/11 did the same
thing, but not to the same extent. The Economist
recently published an editorial urging Europe to unhitch its economic
star from the U.S’s, because it would be better in the long run if
Europe wasn’t reliant upon the U.S. for it’s economic stability.
Europe needs jobs currently. Jobs will solve the income
problems they are having in regards to financing pensions and providing
for their social needs. If Chirac and Schroeder were prone to thinking,
like Hitler, that rearming were a viable means of providing economic
prosperity, and raising their level of prominence on the world stage
because they have the power to back up their words, well, it would be a
different story, wouldn’t it? Then, all they would really need is a
common enemy to rally the people around, wouldn’t they? Le Royale with Cheese anyone?

--- Not a bad condemnation, on the whole, for a guy who’s compared himself with Hitler

The churches, in a statement, likened Mugabe's government to "the
beast in Revelation 13 which usurps power and terrorizes God's
defenseless people thus fermenting anarchy and lawlessness in the land."

. --- Hey, lookie, the Mexicans are pulling a France.
So, if wine made by the Champagne method in the U.S. can’t be called
Champagne, because only France can use the term and must be called
sparkling wine instead, if the Mexicans are successful, what will they
call Tequila that was made and bottled in America? Juice of only the finest blue Agaves?

Margarita Liquor?

Help me out here, kids. I’m bad with titling junk.

--- And here’s Arnold with your Chuckle of the Day.

--- Have a good weekend. See you on Monday.

Posted by Kathy at September 1, 2003 01:31 PM | TrackBack