There have been some rumbles about Italy for a while. Italy's budget deficits are relatively modest compared to, say, Ireland, but their debt is about 120% of GDP. The government has passed a plan that will balance the budget by 2014, but as with most such plans, most of the cutting comes later, while the current cuts are small. This may well be sensible fiscal policy, given the current economic climate, but it is not reassuring to the markets. Mike Shedlock estimates that Italy needs to borrow about €356 billion ($500 billion) in 2011 to cover its deficit, and roll over outstanding debt. Their 10-years are now trading at something north of 5%. Most of the estimates I've seen say that a debt death spiral becomes likely when rates hit somewhere between 6-7%, because the debt service costs start blowing up the budget deficits.
If Italy goes, it's not clear that the rest of Europe can save them. In the FT, Neil Dennis says people are talking about doubling the euro bailout fund to €1.5 trillion--or about three times the size of TARP. And you may have noticed that the bailout fund has not actually stopped Greece's descent into debt madness. Italy's public debt is not much smaller than Germany's, even though the latter obviously has a much bigger (and richer) economy. In the event that things really go south on the Italian peninsula, I don't think there's enough money in the rest of Europe to provide a rescue package.
Meanwhile, conditions in the other PIIGSs are worsening. European leaders seem to be giving up on the notion of some sort of voluntary debt swap after the ratings agencies noted that they would be forced to call this what it is: a default. Since the Greek debt load does not seem to be in any way sustainable, they're going to have to do something. Riots in Athens seem to be making it increasingly clear that over the long term, "something" is not going to be indefinitely decreasing their government consumption in order to make debt service payments. That leaves making bondholders take some sort of a haircut, aka default. It sounds as if the continent's financial leaders are starting to decide that if Greece's only option is some kind of default, they might as well bite the bullet and do the thing.
This will not be pretty. For starters, if they default, but stay in the euro, then unless really considerable aid is forthcoming from the rest of Europe, they're going to lose most of the advantages of the euro (low debt premium) while retaining the disadvantages (excessively tight monetary policy for a country that is going to be experiencing capital flight and even deeper recession). Countries like Argentina got at least some tourism and export boost from very cheap prices after they defaulted and went off their currency peg; Greece won't even get that if the euro remains at an ouchy 1.4 to the dollar. (If it doesn't remain there, but instead sinks . . . well, that means the euro zone will be having all sorts of other problems. More on which in a minute.)
Of course, even defaulting and going off the peg is hardly a gateway to paradise. It is true that after an initial period of horrifying double-digit contraction, Argentina boomed . . . but Argentina was an agricultural commodity exporter in an era when soaring Chinese demand was causing rapidly rising prices in many commodity markets. And after playing hardball with their foreign investors, Argentina has had limited access to global capital markets, which means they've had to resort to some desperate measures, like seizing the Argentinian equivalent of 401ks, and running the printing presses, to keep the government's finances in balance. This weekend, the Wall Street Journal informed me that Argentina has now resorted to filing criminal charges against economic consulting firms whose reports indicate that actual inflation exceeds the officially reported numbers by a factor of two to three.
Either way, what Greece does will have implications for the rest of Europe--and for us. As NPR's Jacob Goldstein says, interbank lending between various European nations, and the US, "looks like a web made by an insane spider".
Once Greece defaults, the immediate outcome is crisis, not calm. Within Greece, they'll need to find some way to close their primary deficit, and stem capital flight, while the economy craters. Outside of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy will face growing pressure on their debt. The euro may plummet--good for German exports, not so good for attracting the kind of capital needed to keep the banking system solvent. And the rest of us will be scrambling to keep the contagion from taking down our banking systems, or our economies. No one wants another Credit-Anstalt. But I'm not sure anyone feels quite confident we can prevent it. As I tweeted yesterday, if the drama continues on both sides of the Atlantic, we may soon get to witness a paradox: where does a capital "flight to safety" go if America defaults while the euro implodes?
By replacing Mike Flynn with H.R. McMaster, President Donald Trump added one of the most talented officers the U.S. Army has ever produced to his team.
Let me be as clear as I can be: The president’s selection of H.R. McMaster to be his new national security advisor is unambiguously good news. The United States, and the world, are safer for his decision.
McMaster is one of the most talented officers the U.S. Army has ever produced. That sounds like hyperbole but isn’t. In the Gulf War, he led an armored cavalry troop. At the Battle of 73 Easting—a battle much studied since—his 12 tanks destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 armored personnel carriers, and 30 trucks. In 23 minutes.
In the next Iraq war, he led a brigade in 2005 and was among the first U.S. commanders to think differently about the conflict and employ counterinsurgency tactics to pacify Tal Afar—one of the most wickedly complex cities in Iraq. He excelled at two different echelons of command in two very different wars.
Joe Moran’s book Shrinking Violets is a sweeping history that doubles as a (quiet) defense of timidity.
The Heimlich maneuver, in the nearly 50 years since Dr. Henry Heimlich established its protocol, has been credited with saving many lives. But not, perhaps, as many as it might have. The maneuver, otherwise so wonderfully simple to execute, has a marked flaw: It requires that choking victims, before anything can be done to help them, first alert other people to the fact that they are choking. And some people, it turns out, are extremely reluctant to do so. “Sometimes,” Dr. Heimlich noted, bemoaning how easily human nature can become a threat to human life, “a victim of choking becomes embarrassed by his predicament and succeeds in getting up and leaving the area unnoticed.” If no one happens upon him, “he will die or suffer permanent brain damage within seconds.”
“I’ve never seen anything quite like” Trump’s approach to national security, says a former counterterrorism adviser to three presidents.
Updated on February 20 at 4:40 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump has made national security a centerpiece of his agenda, justifying policies ranging from a travel ban to close relations with Russia. But the United States is now more vulnerable to attack than it was before Trump took office, according to the man who served as George W. Bush’s crisis manager on 9/11.
“In terms of a major terrorist attack in the United States or on U.S. facilities, I think we’re significantly less ready than we were on January 19,” said Richard Clarke, who served on the National Security Council in the George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations. “I think our readiness is extremely low and dangerously low. Certainly [government] agencies at a professional level will respond [to an attack], but having a coordinated interagency response is unlikely given the current cast of characters [in the administration] and their experience.”
The preconditions are present in the U.S. today. Here’s the playbook Donald Trump could use to set the country down a path toward illiberalism.
It’s 2021, and President Donald Trump will shortly be sworn in for his second term. The 45th president has visibly aged over the past four years. He rests heavily on his daughter Ivanka’s arm during his infrequent public appearances.
Fortunately for him, he did not need to campaign hard for reelection. His has been a popular presidency: Big tax cuts, big spending, and big deficits have worked their familiar expansive magic. Wages have grown strongly in the Trump years, especially for men without a college degree, even if rising inflation is beginning to bite into the gains. The president’s supporters credit his restrictive immigration policies and his TrumpWorks infrastructure program.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.
When my wife was struck by mysterious, debilitating symptoms, our trip to the ER revealed the sexism inherent in emergency treatment.
Early on a Wednesday morning, I heard an anguished cry—then silence.
I rushed into the bedroom and watched my wife, Rachel, stumble from the bathroom, doubled over, hugging herself in pain.
“Something’s wrong,” she gasped.
This scared me. Rachel’s not the type to sound the alarm over every pinch or twinge. She cut her finger badly once, when we lived in Iowa City, and joked all the way to Mercy Hospital as the rag wrapped around the wound reddened with her blood. Once, hobbled by a training injury in the days before a marathon, she limped across the finish line anyway.
So when I saw Rachel collapse on our bed, her hands grasping and ungrasping like an infant’s, I called the ambulance. I gave the dispatcher our address, then helped my wife to the bathroom to vomit.
Lip service to the crucial function of the Fourth Estate is not enough to sustain it.
It’s not that Mark Zuckerberg set out to dismantle the news business when he founded Facebook 13 years ago. Yet news organizations are perhaps the biggest casualty of the world Zuckerberg built.
There’s reason to believe things are going to get worse.
A sprawling new manifesto by Zuckerberg, published to Facebook on Thursday, should set off new alarm bells for journalists, and heighten news organizations’ sense of urgency about how they—and their industry—can survive in a Facebook-dominated world.
Facebook’s existing threat to journalism is well established. It is, at its core, about the flow of the advertising dollars that news organizations once counted on. In this way, Facebook’s role is a continuation of what began in 1995, when Craigslist was founded. Its founder, Craig Newmark, didn’t actively aim to decimate newspapers, but Craigslist still eviscerated a crucial revenue stream for print when people stopped buying newspaper classifieds ads.
Experts on Turkish politics say the use of that term misunderstands what it means in Turkey—and the ways that such allegations can be used to enable political repression.
Over the last week, the idea of a “deep state” in the United States has become a hot concept in American politics. The idea is not new, but a combination of leaks about President Trump and speculation that bureaucrats might try to slow-walk or undermine his agenda have given it fresh currency. A story in Friday’s New York Times, for example, reports, “As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America.”
It’s an idea that I touched on in discussing the leaks. While there are various examples of activity that has been labeled as originating from a “deep state,” from Latin America to Egypt, the most prominent example is Turkey, where state institutions contain a core of diehard adherents to the secular nationalism of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which is increasingly being eroded by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has seen a series of coups, stretching back to 1960, as well as other activity attributed to a deep state.
Humans have been living and working with horses for more than 5,000 years, since the first domesticated equines had their teeth worn down by primitive bridles in northern Kazakhstan. Hands could not have built modern civilization without the help of hooves—to haul ploughs, pull carriages, march soldiers into battle, and carry messages of love and war across hundreds of otherwise-insurmountable miles.
An unlikely pairing of wily predator and one-ton prey, humans and horses have managed to successfully communicate across the species barrier because we share a language: emotion. Experienced riders and trainers can learn to read the subtle moods of individual horses according to wisdom passed down from one horseman to the next, but also from years of trial-and-error. I suffered many bruised toes and nipped fingers before I could detect a curious swivel of the ears, irritated flick of the tail, or concerned crinkle above a long-lashed eye.
Their history informs fantastical myths and legends, while American tales tend to focus on moral realism.
If Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn were each to represent British versus American children’s literature, a curious dynamic would emerge: In a literary duel for the hearts and minds of children, one is a wizard-in-training at a boarding school in the Scottish Highlands, while the other is a barefoot boy drifting down the Mississippi, beset by con artists, slave hunters, and thieves. One defeats evil with a wand, the other takes to a raft to right a social wrong. Both orphans took over the world of English-language children’s literature, but their stories unfold in noticeably different ways.
The small island of Great Britain is an undisputed powerhouse of children’s bestsellers: The Wind in the Willows,Alice in Wonderland, Winnie-the-Pooh, Peter Pan, The Hobbit, James and the Giant Peach, Harry Potter, and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Significantly, all are fantasies. Meanwhile, the United States, also a major player in the field of children’s classics, deals much less in magic. Stories like Little House in the Big Woods, The Call of the Wild, Charlotte’s Web, The Yearling, Little Women, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are more notable for their realistic portraits of day-to-day life in the towns and farmlands on the growing frontier. If British children gathered in the glow of the kitchen hearth to hear stories about magic swords and talking bears, American children sat at their mother’s knee listening to tales larded with moral messages about a world where life was hard, obedience emphasized, and Christian morality valued. Each style has its virtues, but the British approach undoubtedly yields the kinds of stories that appeal to the furthest reaches of children’s imagination.