~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Folks might wonder why I haven't blogged about the Chris Hedges thing - the perfect example of what I've been blogging about (especially the confluence between such things in education and in news media). Right down to the hand-wringing over the student's reaction coming from people who were and are never troubled when conservative speakers are harassed and shouted down, and the assertions that students need to be "challenged" by hearing these sorts of views - when they're the predominant viewpoint from the education establishment and the students have been exposed to them quite a lot, actually - and what may be needed is some real ideological diversity.
Right down to the romanticized self-image of highly paid Leftist speakers and the committees that choose them viewing themselves as some sort of embattled band, while in their usual doublethink believing that the graduation was their day, their last chance to try and get the students to believe what they think the students should believe, rather than the student's day.
Well, there's really no point in discussing the Hedges episode too much. The thing speaks for itself.
Sure, the students should have been more polite. Cutting his mike was going too far. Walk out or demonstrate displeasure but without shouting him down (singing would have been a nice idea). But really campuses have only themselves to blame - they've indulged this thing for decades, when it comes to Leftists acting up, shouting down, even threatening those they disagree with. They established the precedent that this sort of thing was "activism" and thus demonstrated the student's "commitment to their beliefs".
However, their mistake was they didn't fully explain, or the students didn't completely understand, that this only applied to one side of political debate. That there was a double-standard: toleration for this kind of thing when done by the Left, intolerance when done by everyone else.
(Actually, I think they did convey that. But there are good signs of a rebellion against that sort of thing - some of the students, at least, didn't internalize the double-standard - which is something we should encourage. We should encourage it to find its outlet in appropriate ways - leave the mike-cutting to the Left Fascists who are masters of such tactics. Sing "God Bless America" or "America the Beautiful" or something, and tossing the cap and gown in contempt was fine, but don't cut the guy's mike).
So some are saying that because the French voted "aye" on the UN Resolution yesterday, they've surrendered and the war is over. Steven Den Beste has a long and good post on the French accepting defeat in the UN over this Resolution. But, remember, it wasn't long ago that folks like us were talking about the final demise of the UN and prospects for replacing it with something better. I also think that Steven over-estimates the degree to which the French accept defeat.
I have no desire to prolong the war. But I beg to differ. The French have made a tactical retreat. Or consolidation. They've accept it in narrow terms (for now, over this; they lost this battle and the need now is to preserve a "force in being" for the future; or, as the article in the link immediately following says, "But they hope the successful passing of the resolution will restore Washington's confidence in the UN" - so they can use it again in the future). But their vision continues:
He made clear yesterday that, despite the debacle over Iraq, he is clinging to his vision of a global balance of powers, with France as an alternative to America.
He said Evian's main goal would be "to build the institutions and rules of a global democracy, open and interconnected", a swipe at the American administration, which has little patience for such rhetoric. . .
This "global democracy" would be of the "one dictator, one vote" sort, if France got its way - or of some other sort that we don't normally associate with democratic institutions and the rule of law. More on that later in this post.
M Chirac said the summit was a chance for "nations to show that they can and want to get along, to act together in the service of mankind". He believes many countries are suspicious of America's leadership and prefer France's emphasis on international rules and institutions.
Well, of course "rules and institutions" that bind the Anglo-Americans but the French and others don't feel bound by:
M Chirac's talk of Third World development, will raise smirks in Whitehall, since it is his refusal to reform Europe's common agricultural policy to the detriment of French farmers which has crippled Third World agricultural exporters trying to crack the European market.
When they invoke the concepts of democracy and law, they could be said to use these terms the same way Soviet apparatchiks did - but they are using the ideological framework of Corporatism (their attitude towards what we normally consider democracy is really very much like this); individuals won't be represented in this "global democracy", nor will any of its institutions be accountable to people - if accountable at all, it will only be to other bureaucrats and NGOs with tiny memberships (considered relative to national populations). Institutions - governmental and nongovermental will be the only things represented (things, not people, will be represented). They will make the rules, but will themselves answer to no one in particular. We covered some of these ambitions in this post on an "idealist" who's vision of a UN as the enforcer of global socialism may seem like the activities of a crank.
But when one compares his vision with the UN's own vision they are remarkably similar, and it is clear that this is what Chirac is talking about. These people talk in terms of altruism for the poor of the world, but they're really talking about themselves. Take France - France has insurmountable domestic economic problems. At least ones they cannot surmount themselves - they could, in theory, be solved through external expropriations. They pushed for EU integration in no small part because the French saw it as a means to maintain themselves at others' expense. But it turns out Germany isn't providing, as originally hoped (Germany has deep problems of its own) and Britain is resisting wealth & power transfers to France. They need to think in larger terms:
The U.N.'s plan, dubbed "Our Global Neighborhood," is a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member "independent commission," created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: "To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."
Then-U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed the commission, and the U.N. provided significant funding. The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:
Eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council;
Authorizing global taxation on currency exchange and use of the "global commons;"
Creating an International Criminal Court;
Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general;
Creating a new Economic Security Council;
Creating a new People's Assembly;
Regulating multinational corporations;
Regulating the global commons;
Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms.
Note the phrase "democratic transnationalism" - people have often tried to say there's no such thing as Transnational Progressivism (usually the people claiming there is no such thing are people who endorse all its goals and methods). But clearly "democratic transnationalism" is just a euphemism for Transnational Progressivism.
And on that, there has been no surrender, no retreat. Just a tactical withdrawal and the playing for time (eventually, someone else will be in the White House, after all).
So I was rather hoping that what emerged from the House-Senate Conference would be the best of both worlds (the Senate version ended up, IMO, being pretty decent). But instead what emerged is, again in my opinion, the worst of both worlds and some of the provisions will make it harder, if not impossible, to make further cuts in the dividend tax and the whole package makes the tax code more complex, thus missing the opportunity (by a mile, if not more) to make it simpler, which was one of the virtues of Bush's original proposal.
All in all, it's disappointing and IMO probably no longer worth it as the economic incentives found in the original proposals have been washed away and are but a shadow of their former selves.
(Yes, expecting the Conference version to be the best of both worlds was certainly a triumph of hope over experience on my part. "Politically do-able" usually triumphs over "economically positive" in these things; also, as for "politically do-able", they looked only at the short run; like I said, it will be politically difficult if not impossible to go back in the future and achieve what really should be done, with this bill making it politically harder rather than politically easier to push for tax simplification especially on dividends).
By the by, for those tempted to assert that I'm talking out of (direct) self-interest here, I get less than four bits - that's 50 cents to you greenhorns out there - in dividend income in a year. We all (indirectly) benefit from increased investment, though.
We have the Washington Post report, characterizing it as a victory for the American position and a great climbdown for the French Axis.
We have the BBC's online report which is pretty straight - the U.S. got what it wanted, but the UN is back in the spotlight.
Then we had the BBC World Newshour radio report with Judy Swallow(s) (I bet she does!) this morning, where she (easily, in my opinion, the most far-left activist anchor the BBC's radio news service has) spent her time guiding interviewees and leading listeners by the nose to the impression that this was a great humiliation for the Americans who had to go hat in hand to the UN, talked about "concerns some had" that the U.S. would have diverted the funds but now that the UN is going to supervise things, everything will be better, at least in the areas the UN is involved, because, of course, the UN naturally - it didn't even merit a mention, really - is uncorruptable. Lengthy love-fest "interview" between Swallow(s) (I bet she does!) and Clair Short. No one really representing the other side, but a couple of the folks did seem slightly embarrassed by Swallow(s)'s repeated insistences and implication that this whole thing was the gravest violation of international law ever (one person felt the need to mention the Kossovo thing, but Swallow(s) was undeterred in her efforts none the less, and on the whole he, too, agreed). The French were portrayed by Swallow(s) as the selfless guardians of international norms, making a compromise in accepting the UN Resolution for the greater good.
I've said before that the BBC's web reports are actually, compared to their over-the-airways broadcasts, pretty good. But their broadcasts verge on TASS propaganda.
I tried to add the below to yesterday's post on Scheer, but for some reason the post didn't update to include it. It's there now, after some fiddling with it by myself this morning. But I figured I'd be advised to make a separate post out of it as well. Also, if you haven't read this already, it's worth doing so.
Additional: Roger Simon replies, via an e-mail titled "perhaps you didn't get my intention" (and after reading his mail, I probably didn't), that:
the idea is not to pick a food fight with Bob Scheer the man, but his ideas. but giving him a slight tip of the hat (facetious though it may be) you are able to deal with what he is trying to say more directly. Also make an impact on him ,perhaps. If you get into a straight on you're an evil critter fight with someone like that you really accomplish very little. Save those kind of attacks for the Arafat's of the world.
I'll grant that to be true in many cases. I've done that, too (given kudos along with criticism). Perhaps it's just me in this case: I really have a dislike for Scheer (some have it for, say Krugman, there are just people that get under your skin and who you can't stand to cut any slack).
I also think this method is good when it can work. But I really do think of Scheer as a domestic-equivalent of Arafat, at least in one sense: Arafat's nature isn't going to change, he's proved that, no matter how much sweet talk and kind words he's given (the Europeans have done that forever, and Clinton tried, sincerely I believe, to use this method on Arafat - he might be transformed into a man of peace if he was treated as a man of peace).
I differ with Roger Simon in my evaluation of Scheer. Scheer is a committed Leftist of the same general sort mentioned here (which is not the set of all Leftists, much less all Liberals). I think Scheer is driven by animus towards the things that make our country what it is. I think he's part of the propaganda wing of the "Bad Philosophy Popular Front". I don't think he'll be persuaded to change.
That, of course, is my opinion. I think it's an informed opinion. Roger Simon - who's opinion is at least as well informed as mine - has a different conclusion and believes Scheer can be reached. Fair enough.
Also, in "dealing with what [Scheer] says more directly", I think placing what he writes within the context of his long and very consistently expressed beliefs and opinions is the way to do that. Of course, again, your milage may vary - I might be wrong and Roger might be right, and I admit that, as I said, Scheer is one of those guys who gets under my skin. Not for who he is in a personal extent, but for his beliefs and his IMO ill-intentions.
That's a rather long-winded way of saying that now that Roger has explained the sound reasoning behind what he wrote, I certainly don't begrudge it. I still wouldn't cut Scheer that kind of slack, myself. But then, Roger and I aren't the same person - even if you haven't seen us in the same room together. 8-)~
I think this is all kind of sad actually (small s) because I'm sure Scheer is fundamentally a good guy and a good journalist.
I'm not sure of that. When was Scheer a good journalist? He was writing identical foam-at-the-mouth rants for Ramparts back in
the '60s (so Simon is right that Scheer would be familiar with "reified"),
and spewing uncorroborateable venom when he was with Tom Hayden's "Red
Family" Commune.
Perhaps I'm too young or "good journalist" means something else to some
folks. But I don't see any historical record of him being a journalist (as
opposed to propagandist for the Hard Left) ever, at all, much less a good or objective one.
(And yes, this post is an example of the "New McCarthyism" that is all the rage now, and consists of not letting Hard Leftists masquerade as members of the mainstream, just like the Hard Right isn't allowed to. I know, I know: we're supposed to have a double-standard. Don't I remember my Marcuse? "Tolerance for movements of the Left, intolerance for movements of the Right" and all? I remember it. I just don't buy into it. Robert Scheer was an "early adaptor", though).
Update: Here's a helpful guide to what's appropriate and what's censorship.
Additional: Roger Simon replies, via an e-mail titled "perhaps you didn't get my intention" (and after reading his mail, I probably didn't), that:
the idea is not to pick a food fight with Bob Scheer the man, but his ideas. but giving him a slight tip of the hat (facetious though it may be) you are able to deal with what he is trying to say more directly. Also make an impact on him ,perhaps. If you get into a straight on you're an evil critter fight with someone like that you really accomplish very little. Save those kind of attacks for the Arafat's of the world.
I'll grant that to be true in many cases. I've done that, too (given kudos along with criticism). Perhaps it's just me in this case: I really have a dislike for Scheer (some have it for, say Krugman, there are just people that get under your skin and who you can't stand to cut any slack).
I also think this method is good when it can work. But I really do think of Scheer as a domestic-equivalent of Arafat, at least in one sense: Arafat's nature isn't going to change, he's proved that, no matter how much sweet talk and kind words he's given (the Europeans have done that forever, and Clinton tried, sincerely I believe, to use this method on Arafat - he might be transformed into a man of peace if he was treated as a man of peace).
I differ with Roger Simon in my evaluation of Scheer. Scheer is a committed Leftist of the same general sort mentioned here (which is not the set of all Leftists, much less all Liberals). I think Scheer is driven by animus towards the things that make our country what it is. I think he's part of the propaganda wing of the "Bad Philosophy Popular Front". I don't think he'll be persuaded to change.
That, of course, is my opinion. I think it's an informed opinion. Roger Simon - who's opinion is at least as well informed as mine - has a different conclusion and believes Scheer can be reached. Fair enough.
Also, in "dealing with what [Scheer] says more directly", I think placing what he writes within the context of his long and very consistently expressed beliefs and opinions is the way to do that. Of course, again, your milage may vary - I might be wrong and Roger might be right, and I admit that, as I said, Scheer is one of those guys who gets under my skin. Not for who he is in a personal extent, but for his beliefs and his IMO ill-intentions.
That's a rather long-winded way of saying that now that Roger has explained the sound reasoning behind what he wrote, I certainly don't begrudge it. I still wouldn't cut Scheer that kind of slack, myself. But then, Roger and I aren't the same person - even if you haven't seen us in the same room together. 8-)~
This is an update to this post that got so long I decided to just make it a separate post. Richard Heddleson sends this link on the "wired battlefield" and writes that "But I think supplement would have been a better description of what is planned than replacement. The M-1 will probably last as long as the B-52."
That's possibly true. It might be an exaggeration to say the M-1 (and upgrades) will be in service as long as the B-52, but it won't be mothballed any time soon, and what Richard highlights is something people should keep in mind whenever there is a discussion of military transformation and making units lighter and the like.
People (well, reporters in particular) often seem to think these are all or nothing things. But the fact is, they aren't. We'll have more rapidly deployable units in the future, and somewhat fewer "heavy" units. But it's highly unlikely to be all one sort ("we won't have enough heavily armored troops and thus will take higher casualties") or the other ("our units are going to be so heavily they won't be able to respond to trouble spots quickly enough") - usually framed in hysterical ways like that. What we're doing is upgrading the techne (not just "technology", but techne - methods as well as means) and looking for the right mix of forces.
Also, some tend to forget or ignore the fact that though "Transformation" discussions focus on the new, lighter (hopefully) units that will come into being, heavy units will and are benefiting as well - the vaunted 4th Mechanized Infantry Division is the most obvious example.
This is more expensive (one of the sources of the NYT's ire), because R&D is spent to develop a wider array of equipment and train a more diverse (in the true, not just "race and gender", meaning of the term. Varied) military. This is what gives and will continue to give it the versatility to meet a wide variety of challenges and opponents in the greatest number of environments possible.
So while the NYT Editorial page was essentially publishing the same bitching screed about military spending a decade ago, and two decades ago (and every single year in between) as they did today, it's the very things they oppose that made, make, and will continue to make our armed forces as capable as they are (which is, quite possible, what truly offends the Leftists at the Times and in other places. Ask yourselves if, in their hearts, they really want us to have a strong military capable of doing anything it's asked to do without the need to rely upon, say, the French for help. You knew the answer to that question before I even asked it, right?)
Are there wasteful programs? Programs that don't work out? Yah. In anything so large and often experimental, there's bound to be (and why it's legitimate for people to ask if skipping a generation of weapons is wise, because it represents a great leap into the unknown. The answer very well be that it is wise - I think so. But it's a legitimate topic of discussion, and typically most knowledgeable military intellectuals prefer a more incremental approach. The U.S. Marines are darned good at what they do, and one of the reasons is they know their equipment very well - they have an institutional preference for tried, proven designs - which may not be as capable as the latest, but the Marines understand that being fully familiar with the capabilities and limitations of what they use is often a greater plus than having the latest, but less tried, equipment, the limitations of which may not have all been discovered yet and get learned the hard way).
Organs like the NYT understand none of this, though. I don't toss around phrases like "knee-jerk" often, but when it comes to military matters, their writing is based on ignorance and reflects their knee-jerk antipathy to the military in general and spending on it in particular (why, we could be throwing the money on social programs instead, the effectiveness - or lack thereof - which is already known, instead of spending it on some unproved weapon system. The NYT is reliably interested only in one kind of government waste - or, I should say, "waste", because much of what they consider "military waste" usually ends up being proven on the field of battle to be quite useful and life-saving. The tens of billions that just get lost, literally, in other government programs never really troubles them as much as military spending always does. And so much that gets spent in destructive ways - hell, it's much more constructive to spend a dollar on bombs than it is to spend that same dollar on having some social worker administer other people's lives - which the NYT Editors considers a sign of caring, no matter how many lives it ruins at great cost to us all. But I'm ranting now, and yes, this post shows I was being restrained in my expression of contempt for the NYT editors in my previous post).
Should Said's past membership in an international terrorist organization or his bountiful production of Disneyland versions of history or his thinly-veiled antisemitism and blatant anti-Americanism have disqualified him for selection by the John Danz/Walker-Ames committee? Perhaps not: if UW were to eliminate all candidates who promoted ideas so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them, the stock of possible appointees would be seriously depleted.
Check out the whole thing. Some of the characters (like Gramsci) that have popped up in earlier posts make cameos here.
Said and his acolytes and fellows illustrate the nexus between Cultural Marxism at home and terrorist ideologies abroad, demonstrating a clear connection between the two. One is the intellectual/propaganda wing of The Movement, and the other is the current incarnation of the armed wing of The Movement.
It's been said by several people so I don't know who came up with the analogy (anymore than Andrew Sullivan could), that Conservatives look for converts and Leftists hunt for heretics.
Like all useful generalizations, it has its limits. After all, much of what goes on in schools now is the Left looking for converts among the impressionable. And the Right has its share of inquisitionist souls. David Horowitz castigates some of them.
Now I don't want to drive these people out of the public square, much less the Conservative movement. Some of them have valuable things to add to political discourse. But neither do I want them to succeed in driving others out. Horowitz gets to the heart of the matter here:
In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all homosexuals think alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay population voted Republican in the last presidential election. This is a greater percentage than blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these homosexuals simply deluded into thinking that George Bush shared their agendas? Or do they perhaps have agendas that are as complex, diverse and separable from their sexuality as women, gun owners or Christians, for that matter?
In your confusion on these matters, you have fallen into the trap set for you by your enemies on the left. It is the left that insists its radical agendas are the agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you ready to make this concession -- that the left speaks for these groups, for minorities and "the oppressed?" Isn’t it the heart of the conservative argument that liberalism (or, as I would call it, leftism) is bad doctrine for all humanity, not just white Christian males?
Just so. Leave the separating us into "good groups" and "bad groups" to those who are masters of that tactic, we should treat people as individuals.
Meanwhile, there's one type of government spending that the New York Times Editorial Politbureau is reliably against - military spending, even in wartime.
How would these people know what's an "anachronistic" fighter or not? They probably can't tell the difference between an automatic weapon (an assault rifle, say), and a semi-automatic weapon, much less the relative merits and demerits of a combat aircraft.
They're just venting their unreflected political prejudices. As usual.
If you haven't read this piece yet, it's worth the time to read it all. This part is particularly good:
The anti-American obsession means that France is less than inquisitive as to the nature of regimes to which it lends its support in the name of multipolarity. Iraq, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Sudan: in a word, France seems to get on better with the rogue states and failed states than with the United States whose civilization it shares. It claims to defend international law by leaning on states that ignore all laws.
The comparison to the Soviet Union goes further than it may seem. Indeed, French diplomacy is less inspired by a cynical Realpolitik (whence the failures mentioned above) than by an ideological view of the world. Its anti-Americanism is the projection of its internal jacobinism onto the global stage.
I've made the Soviet analogy myself several times, and posted on the ideology driving this policy as well. But this is bitingly incisive:
Like those in the USSR of Brezhnev, French leaders compensate with a ruinous foreign activism for their inability to begin crucial internal reforms, which are impossible because they would call into question the socialist dogma at the foundation of the French state. In both cases, foreign activism both accelerates and accentuates the internal crisis. We saw what became of the Soviet Union.
Well, we've found bio and chem weapon making equipment and documentation. We've found the mass graves that show Saddam was at least as worthy of deposition as Pol Pot or Idi Amin. We've found the ties to al-Queda that everyone and their uncle was saying didn't exist. But so far nothing to declare on the WMD front itself. What gives?
Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei write that there won't be much domestic political fall-out if we don't find anything. They write that:
Before the war, the administration said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.
However, it wasn't just "the administration" claiming that; much of this came from information developed by the UN inspectors during the '90s. So when Andrew Sullivan begins to ask about the intelligence failure of the U.S. and Britain (and certainly not just the Bush Administration, as some conspiracy-therorists will want to believe, deluding people - the Clinton Administration had this info, too, and mentioned it in '98 and at other times), he's missing the mark a bit. Not that the usual suspects won't try to claim that.
But Powell used these figures in his presentation because they were widely known to all the members of the Security Council (those who opposed did not claim Saddam hadn't had this stuff, they just were ready to believe he destroyed it all in secret, without wanting to let the UN know). Some have even begun to speculate that Saddam himself was decieved by his own minions (on the fairly solid rationale that this kind of deception is de rigur in totalitarian despotisms).
Gary Schmitt, of the pro-invasion Project for the New American Century, said investigators "may well not find stockpiles, because it may well be that Saddam figured out it was better to get rid of the stuff" and start over after inspectors left.
The problem here, the issue that it was hard to get people to focus on, was that it wasn't this or that existing stockpile of whatever (mentioning that was necessary in evidence of his capacity), but Saddams ability to manufacture these things and willingness to use them (are those who are going to crow that we didn't find WMD saying Saddam didn't have them, hadn't used them against Iran and against the Kurds?)
The UN found Iraq in "materiel breach", not "just" the U.S., because Saddam was widely known to be in violation and made no effort (as previous Resolutions insisted he do - the burden was on him, having already been "found guilty" and being, in effect, a "parolee", to show otherwise) to show otherwise. But never the less, it is our credibility that is on the line if nothing is found or if the various Ba'athist officials who were involved in these things don't rat each other out. Why? Because there are so many who will be happy to pretend that we lied and Saddam was guiltless. Also because we should have done more to emphasize that it was his capacity to make these things, his willingness to use them, and his violation of multiple post-Gulf War commitments (not just on weapons, but on a range of issues) that were the problem. This or that stockpile of decaying nerve agent wasn't as important as his ability to make more and his proven willingness to use it. And on that front, we have succeeded - we found his mobile weapons labs. We found that he did have ties to al-Queda and other terrorist organizations. Had we made those points with stronger emphasis before the war, then this would be less of a problem (though still a problem, because the last thing we're interested in is having a "Weapons of Mass Destruction, Whereabouts Unknown" factor. Are these things gone, destroyed? Never existed? Or passed into the hands of others?)
So while there may be no domestic fall out in failing to find actual weapons (as opposed to the means of their manufacture and the documents showing a desire to continue to develop those programs), there will be international fall out.
Though the EU's members talk about their robust internal trade, they typically rely on the U.S. economy to pull them out of the ditch. EU countries, at least those on the continent, have averaged 1% less growth per year than the U.S. for about two decades now. They rely on the engine of America's dynamic economy to generate this growth - as a substitute for economic restructuring in their own countries. It's a crutch for them.
Thus they're rather alarmed over the slide in the value of the dollar, which might halt this pattern. This is the usual consequence of unbalanced trade accounts - but the European countries (among others) are the ones who stand to lose the most if the market plays out (so expect them to intervene to halt and reverse the dollar's slide, and become increasingly shrill in insisting we do likewise). As the FT article explains:
The US seems well equipped to minimise the negative consequences of a sharp devaluation of its currency while taking immense advantage of the opportunities it creates. A big factor in this is the flexibility and adaptability of the US economy, particularly of a private sector that is less fettered by regulations than its European counterpart and that must try to satisfy demanding shareholders.
(Emphasis added).
The EU essentially has two means of growing their economy. One is to engage in real economic reforms (of the type America and Britain went through in the '80s, and which we've gone through another mini-version of in the economic shake-out of the last two years, but they'll have to do more because they've got a deeper hole to dig out of), or, through currency manipulations, use exports to more robust economies (like America) to jumpstart theirs and (once again) put off having to deal with their real problems. Of course the politicians and bureaucrats of the EU would vastly prefer the latter, and in normal times our officials might help them out (the international version of a co-dependent relationship). But few are in the mood to do France, Belgium, and Germany any favors at the moment.
Which is actually the best thing we can do for them (nothing) in this situation:
The US private sector has already been sharpened by its ruthless and profound restructuring in response to the bursting of the stock market bubble, a slow economy, corporate scandals and the shock of terrorism and war. In contrast, Europe's labour market rigidities, heavy business regulation and closed corporate ownership structures have reduced the ability of many of its companies to react swiftly to changes in the global economy.
A cheaper US dollar will be a big challenge for European corporate leaders, for public policymakers and for union leaders. Managers in the eurozone will face unprecedented pressures to cut costs, policymakers to save and create jobs and union leaders to protect the generous benefits that they have secured for their members over the years. A strong euro could spur the creation of the coalitions needed to undertake long-awaited and so far postponed structural reforms.
(Emphasis added again).
They need those reforms. If their economies start growing, artificially, without them, then there will be far too much of a belief that it can just be let slide, again. After all, there are those who benefit from the current situation and are highly organized in their efforts to keep it. European politicians will only confront them resolutely if they must.
(By the way, the unreformed economies of continental Europe are another reason to save the Pound. If Britain goes into the "Eurozone" under current circumstances, it will just be a means for the unhealthy economies of Europe to leech off Britain's healthy economy, and again delay facing up to their problems. That's one of the reasons why the members of the "Eurozone" are so insistent in pressing Britain to adopt the Euro).
