Jim: Well anyway, why are we having an official visit from this tin pot little African country?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, I beg of you not to refer to it as a tin pot little African country. It’s an LDC.
Jim: A what?
Sir Humphrey: Buranda is what was used to be called an under-developed country, however this term was largely regarded as offensive, so they became known as developing countries and then as less developed countries or LDC’s.We are now ready to replace the term LDC with HRRC.
Jim: What’s that?
Sir Humphrey: Human resource rich countries.
Jim: Which means?
Sir Humphrey: That they’re grossly over-populated and begging for money.
Helmut er Schmidt er dybt bekymret over Europa
Tidligere forbundskansler Helmut Schmidt er skuffet over Europas toppolitikere. Han savner stærke personligheder og mener at EU’s udvidelse er en katastrofal fiasko. Situationen er efter hans mening, værre end nogensinde siden Anden Verdenskrig.
“I øjeblikket er Europa uden ledelse,”sagde Schmidt til NDR. “Der er ingen lederskikkelser for tiden. Dette er en værre situation, end vi nogensinde har oplevet igennem 60 års europæisk integration.”
“Det er forrykt”: Bemærkningerne fra den tidligere kansler faldt i en samtale med tidligere finansminister Peer Steinbrueck i dokumentarfilmen “Steinbrück ser ned i afgrunden – en krisemanagers magt og afmagt”. I hårde vendinger beklagede Schmidt sig også over EU-udvidelsen : “Ved Maastricht-konferencen, var vi tolv medlemsstater. Så blev vi 15 og så blev vi 20 og 26 og 27. Det er forrykt.”
Fokus på to gamle mænd: Schmidt siger om de nye EU-medlemmer: “Det var rigtigt at give dem psykologisk støtte. Dertil ville NATO medlemskab have været tilstrækkeligt, det ville også have tilfredsstilet amerikanerne. Men at optage dem i EU samtidigt uden at tilpasse spillereglerne i denne kæmpeforening, det var en katastofal fejltagelse.
Helmut Schmidt mærker at der i befolkningerne er en foragt for den politiske klasse. “Nogle politikere påskønnes først, når de er blevet forhenværende” siger Helmut Schmidt: “Ja, sådan gik det for Richard von Weizsäcker og mig. Det hænger kun sammen med, at tyskerne i øjeblikket ikke er tilfredse med deres lederskab. Så kommer der fokus på to gamle mænd som os ” Focus: Helmut Schmidt tief besorgt über Europa. (Snaphanens oversættelse. Helmut Schmidt er født i 1918.)
Oh, What a Lovely, Useless (Afghan) War
A more useless and unnecessary thing than an expedition into this country could not be imagined…These are words lifted from the diary of Brigadier-General Henry Brooke who, in April 1880, took command of the British garrison in Kandahar.The Brigadier-General was shot and killed on August 16 1880 as he led an attempt to clear insurgents from the village of Deh Khoja not five thousand yards from the walls of Kandahar One hundred and thirty years later, the coffins still arrive and we continue to mourn the fallen. Taki.
Forleden da det forlød, at den folkelige opbakning til Afghanistan var nede under 50 %, stod en af de unge venstrefolk frem – en af dem der ligner en statist fra en Niels Malmroes-film fra 50 érne, med tykke briller og halvfedtet hår – og sagde at “vi har ikke forklaret krigen ordentligt overfor befolkningen.” Så sagde han, at vi ikke trak os “før arbejdet er gjort færdigt og landet er genopbygget,” og så var vi jo allerede meget klogere. Man manglede kun “demokratiet og den afghanske feminisme.” Jeg håber stadig der er en overordnet forkromet, geopolitisk grund til tilstedeværelsen, der bare er for fin til at fortælle gemene folk som os om. Ellers ved jeg ikke hvad der er værst: at blive der, eller rejse med et nederlag – og altså en trimuf til stammefolkene. Raketstyrene, Kalashnikovernes og de afghanske mødres 5.5 børns sejr over verdens mest avancerede militærstyrke.
Niall Ferguson: En verden uden USAs dominans?
Professor i historie ved Harvard University Niall Ferguson (‘hr. Hirsi Ali’) fremskriver et scenarie hvor USA, svækket af en uløselig økonomisk byrde, mister sin globale dominans i løbet af meget kort tid. Skulle dette ske, er jeg kun sikker på én ting: Konsekvenserne vil blive forfærdelige også for den venstrefløj hvis virke i fred og frihed reelt er en luksus der udspringer af den amerikanske paraply. Dette kan man ikke overbevise dem om her og nu, og det er for de fleste formentlig en taget-for-givet status der først erkendes når paraplyen er væk (LFPC).
[…] Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly indeed in Washington, as the US contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $US1.47 trillion ($1.64 trillion), about 10 per cent of GDP, for the second year running. Since 2001, in the space of just 10 years, the federal debt in public hands has doubled as a share of GDP from 32 per cent to a projected 66 per cent next year. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, the debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and reach 146 per cent by 2030 and 344 per cent by 2050.
These sums may sound fantastic. But what is even more terrifying is to consider what ongoing deficit finance could mean for the burden of interest payments as a share of federal revenues.
The CBO projects net interest payments rising from 9 per cent of revenue to 20 per cent in 2020, 36 per cent in 2030, 58 per cent in 2040 and 85 per cent in 2050. As Larry Kotlikoff recently pointed out in the Financial Times, by any meaningful measure, the fiscal position of the US is at present worse than that of Greece.
For now, the world still expects the US to muddle through, eventually confronting its problems when, as Churchill famously said, all the alternatives have been exhausted. With the sovereign debt crisis in Europe combining with growing fears of a deflationary double-dip recession, bond yields are at historic lows.
There is a zero-sum game at the heart of the budgetary process: even if rates stay low, recurrent deficits and debt accumulation mean that interest payments consume a rising proportion of tax revenue. And military expenditure is the item most likely to be squeezed to compensate because, unlike mandatory entitlements (social security, Medicaid and Medicare), defence spending is discretionary.
It is, in other words, a pre-programmed reality of US fiscal policy today that the resources available to the Department of Defense will be reduced in the years to come. Indeed, by my reckoning, it is quite likely that the US could be spending more on interest payments than on defence within the next decade. […] Niall Ferguson: Sun could set suddenly on superpower as debt bites






