June 01, 2015 - 05:46 pm
Who is the best U.S. president of all time?
The question is asked at regular intervals, particularly toward the end of a presidential term as now with Barack Obama.
An obvious choice for first place is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He had such a grip over the electorate that they changed the law after his death — so that no president could be elected more than twice.
Comparing presidents is a kind of a national sport in the United States. There are perhaps not quite as many opinions as there are Americans, but many there are, and the topic is always on everyone’s mind and kept up to date.
My personal favorites are two very different men: John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Different in every way, yet (I think) "typical Americans."
Many may protest when I put Kennedy and Reagan equally high. But most important for both was to govern the country well and both were successful, in my opinion. Nixon also, at least partially succeeded, but something inside him did not fit properly and so things went the way they did.
I admired Ronald Reagan for his policies that won the Cold War and led to the dissolution of the USSR. But even more because he was elected president when he was 69 years old. Far into the retirement age, he sought the hardest job there is. Kennedy never had time to do all the things he could have done, and grew into a great symbol of light and hope after his murder.
Reagan and Kennedy both end up pretty high, in 11th and 14th place on the ranking recently presented by the Brookings think tank. Brookings asked 100 American political scientists to rank the country's 43 presidents.
The winner was unsurprisingly Abraham Lincoln, followed by George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt in third.
Americans in general likely rank Washington, Lincoln and possibly Eisenhower as the foremost as well. The choice of Washington is obvious, as is Lincoln as a figure of light and Eisenhower because he led the country to victory in World War II.
Personally — I must admit — I liked Nixon rather well, but here I know I’m not getting backed up in my views. Nixon flew to Beijing, met with Mao and helped China out of isolation and alienation. It was his greatest achievement, no doubt the work of a great statesman. At the same time, he sought détente with the Soviet Union and brought the Vietnam War to an end (which undoubtedly could have gone faster).
My final review is that Nixon led the super-power with skill and balance. His own demons led him to become entangled in the Watergate scandal and led to his downfall.
Nixon ends up far down the Brookings list, in 35th place just before George W. Bush.
Few politicians in the world — if any — are the subject of such tenacious, thorough and tireless scrutiny as U.S. presidents. Although media might sometimes take it easy with favorites like Kennedy, Nixon, who was unpopular, was regularly hit with negative reviews, whether deserved or not.
The question of who is the best president is obviously impossible to answer. The circumstances vary, the world is changing and the country too. Perhaps the United States — to its glory — is the country that is changing most rapidly of all. It is a young country, full of people from different parts of the world: the unhappy, the ambitious, the most enterprising and the most hopeful.
Obama then? It's too early to determine his place in history. But on the Brookings list he is currently ranked number 18 of the 43.
0 comments
November 07, 2014 - 11:57 pm
I know I should comment on the Swedish election after being quiet for some time. But alas and quite honestly, the election of 2014 brought no surprises to most of us with one foot still in Sweden.
I am also somewhat speechless when I look at its aftermath. Neither does the new government seem fit to govern nor do any of our established parties seem willing to interpret the results to make policy changes (or let unspoken sensitive areas reach the public arena). It seems to me that the distances between people of different opinions, and between people and politicians, are getting ever wider. Whatever happened to the politicians of yesteryear who were of the people, by the people and for the people?
Be that as it may, there are more important world events to acknowledge this year. November 9 marks the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall and the world rejoices, or is at the very least filled with happy thoughts.
And the Germans themselves are celebrating most of all — that they were finally able to take down the wall of shame that had divided their land. It was a great victory for democracy, even if the victory was not complete.
Some of us remember the amazing images of thousands of East Germans rushing into West Berlin on November 9, 1989, on the same site where over the decades many had been shot dead during escape attempts from the communist East Germany (GDR). But now it was wide open.
The divided city, the symbol of the Cold War, was reunited and the two German states became one Germany — and the leading European power.
Maybe some of you also remember that we (well, some of us) felt "we won."
I mean simply that it was clear the West was better than the East. Democracy proved — despite all kinds of trouble and mishaps — to be not only freer and more humane but also more effective than the dictatorship.
Dictatorship is not working. Dictators like Hitler and Stalin think they know best and kill those who complain or want to have options; but in the long run, it cannot prevail. The communists built the wall, but in the end it did not hold up.
Freedom and democracy won! Let me add that of course the victory was not complete. It will likely never be, but the world has improved — just as it was improved when Hitler was defeated.
People do not want to live as slaves, that much is certain. The modern world with all its great opportunities for communications has made it easier to be free. No one is allowed to stand unchallenged. Options — sometimes phenomenal, and sometimes failed — will always come forward and become available to the masses.
The world has recreated itself and is more open and free. Yes, I dare to actually say that. Although there is obviously a lot left to be done, and hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people still live in bondage.
No, the fall of the wall and the Soviet Union didn't mark the end of the story, as some thought. There was no definitive victory for freedom and human rights; a new world order of democratic states living in peace with each other did not surface after those events 25 years ago.
China is still a dictatorship that implements a type of communist capitalism and is sailing up as the world's largest economy. The diehard dictatorship North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and is a definite threat to world peace.
And Russia under Putin is an authoritarian government that seems to be getting tougher — and that has begun to act increasingly aggressively in the neighborhood, apparently even in Swedish waters.
For a few years after the Soviet Union’s collapse the United States was the only superpower, and Americans thought they could do what they wanted after all the years of the balance of power during the Cold War. But a couple failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that U.S. power was not unlimited.
Now Russia is coming back as a military superpower while China is already an economic superpower ... and the world seems less stable than ever.
But despite all the reservations, we should all celebrate the fall of the Berlin wall. Hundreds of millions of people have gotten a better life since that event 25 years ago. It showed it is impossible to suppress freedom forever.
0 comments
May 29, 2013 - 09:17 pm
This is hard to write, but it has to be written.
Sweden is in the grip of a crisis and nobody seems to know what to do about it. There is, simply, a revolt going on.
Revolt against whom? Against what?
Well, I am not so sure. And in fact, I'm not sure anybody knows. It is not like the great uprising in Harlem many years ago (yes, I was there, reporting for Scandinavia's largest newspaper, Swedish Expressen). At that time, the cops fired their revolvers upward at the roofs where young, black guys (and some girls, too) threw rocks at anyone down there—mostly cops and reporters. Many were hurt and more were scared. Most white people saw to it to have no business in the “black” parts of town for quite some time. We, who at the time wrote about the incident, wrote many pieces about how integration had failed in the U.S., how the blacks were discriminated against, and so on. And on. It should not be denied that there was an element of schadenfreude in this: damned white Americans, so rich, so overbearing, they could have it. The fact that black Americans love their country very much, too, was forgotten.
We, the foreign reporters, I have to say, behaved and wrote like hypocrites, taking a stand against what we perceived as the establishment and for the underprivileged.
But enough of that.
Now, it is Sweden that's in crisis. One Stockholm youth after another often is in revolt. In Husby, Jacobsberg, Kista, Rinkeby, Skarpnäck and many other places, young people have gone out to make trouble, set fires, burn cars, attack “svennar” (Sven, a Swedish name, is used to mean a light skinned, native-born Swede). How many cars were burned nobody knows, neither do we know how many people have been hurt. What we do know is the suburbs mentioned are in chaos and no one in Stockholm (or the rest of the country, for that matter) speaks much of anything else. Sweden, where people have for a long time congratulated themselves for being peaceful, different from rowdy people like the French, Italians or Americans—well, the Swedes suddenly find out that “we” are not so different anymore.
There are more and more immigrants from almost everywhere. And they elicit misunderstandings, resentments and outright violence. Turns out “we” are perhaps not so different, after all. Perhaps we got the wrong immigrants or—perish the thought—we didn't treat the ones that came as well as we should have.
I can only state, with great certainty, that I do not pretend to know.
Doubtlessly, the riots and burnings will lead to extensive debate and some political decisions. For instance, there is no doubt the police will be given greater authority—and better resources.
I now foresee a long row of weeks when the debate in Sweden will deal with little else than violence and unrest in local ethnic concentrations or immigrant communities. To which Americans and others should be allowed to say:
Welcome to the club!
0 comments
November 07, 2012 - 11:27 pm
In Europe, quite a few people stayed up to watch the U.S. election. Almost all of them (I hype it only a little!) wanted Barrack Obama to win. There are two principal reasons for this:
President Obama is a black man. Most Europeans are convinced, still, that black people are treated very badly in the States. Discrimination was dealt a fatal (almost) blow during the '60s when we (yes, I was there) were marching all over the country singing “We shall overcome," and racism is today a much smaller issue than it used to be, although that hasn't really sunk in over here.
So, the Europeans wanted Obama to win and win big.
Secondly, Mitt Romney is filthy rich. That he has earned his money by hard work and wise investments carries little weight in Europe. In America, a millionaire is respected; in Europe he is despised. People are envious and prone to think that financial prosperity should go to me, not anybody else. In the United States people say, there goes a millionaire, which I'm to become tomorrow. In Europe it is rather: There goes a millionaire. What crime did he commit?
Romney, in other words, was despised by many Europeans for being so rich.
So, the Europeans voted (if only in their minds) for Obama. They hardly studied the issues and very few took the trouble to read newspapers or watch television or the Internet, which is the new way. It is, I would have to admit, surprising how a lack of knowledge colors the so-called debate in all the European countries. The U.S. is still a continent very far away. One realizes the importance of it—and resents it. Americans: fat guys who talk too loud and have too much money. And who are also against black people.…
So, well and good. As far as Europe is concerned, the right man won. The fact that China—about a billion people bigger than the U.S.—had a kind of election at almost the same time, didn't register. The names Xi and Li are hardly household words in Britain, France or Sweden. In fact, they are hardly known at all. Neither, it seems, do people discuss the fact that the second superpower—China!—is in fact a cruel dictatorship. (The Soviet union is almost forgotten around here.)
So, the Europeans are satisfied. The right man won in the U.S. and who cares who wins in China? The main thing now is to get the economies of the European countries going again. That’s going to be very hard, but there is no way to escape a long time of hard work and hardship.
Let us hope Obama can help.…
0 comments
September 15, 2012 - 12:20 pm
Back here in Europe, we read and listen to reports on the U.S. election and little do we understand.
We see one candidate, Mr. Obama, the sitting president doing very little. Sure, he gives speeches, sure he makes decisions, but its all rather low key and doesn’t much concern us. So, where is the vision? Which America will we have to live with the next presidential term?
Make no mistake about it. The U.S. is the most important country on Earth. The most powerful, by far – more powerful than Putin-land and China together and more trendsetting than Europe, Africa and Asia put together.
But, but, what is Mitt Romney going to do with the country – and the world?
Wish I could say, but I can’t. Looked upon from afar (and Sweden really is VERY far away, in both geography and mindset) you see in Romney a very handsome guy with a wonderful wife, but we are not going to be governed by appearances, are we? In Romney, we see a guy who has made up his mind not to show us what is really on his mind. In other words, he says one thing now and another in the afternoon. All presidential candidates I have followed (starting with Ike) have taken positions that have now and then contradicted each other. More or less, of course. Romney is only different in so far that he rather openly shows that he wants to please his audiences no matter what – and darned be the consequences.
So, looked upon from afar, it is not a very satisfying choice that we are offered. If the election was in Sweden, Obama would win, hands down. This is because Sweden suffers from a curious kind of racism in reverse. A black guy (or girl) is seen to have suffered from discrimination and the good Swedes want to help him/her to overcome this. In an election most Swedes almost automatically go with the colored guy. He and his people have suffered at the hands of the beastly whites, right? He deserves to get elected as a kind of compensation. At the same time the whites should be punished for sins committed by their grandfathers. In other words the Swedes very often are both prejudiced and a bit misinformed. I might add that I was U.S. correspondent for the largest Swedish paper for 17 years, so I should know…
Now, Swedes don’t have a vote in the U.S. election. Also, I think it should be noted that it matters a lot who becomes the most powerful man on Earth. A lot! But it should also be noted that not even the U.S. president is able to change basic facts and circumstances all that much. We have had – to take but one thing – several years of lousy economic development. Unemployment is high all over and pessimism rules almost everywhere. This will undoubtedly change. Times will improve and so will tempers. The next president, weather his name is Obama or Romney will profit. He who sits in the White House gets the blame when times are bad and the credit when times are good – and this whatever he did or didn’t do. Which leads us to a basic rule:
One of the most important things for any president is to have good luck.
I’m not saying, of course, that luck is the only thing. But it is important. With this, I wish the next president, whoever he is the best of luck…
0 comments
July 15, 2012 - 05:18 pm
These days you can not open a European newspaper, and not listen to any kind of broadcast without hitting the word CRISIS, generally in capital letters.
And yes, the world, particularly EU-rope, is in crisis. To put things in the simplest terms: We have spent more than we have earned and borrowed the difference. We have eaten, drunk and bought things like there is no tomorrow and now, lo and behold, the bills have started to come in.
Yes, they come in fast and furiously—and we can not pay them.
Sweden, I hasten to add, is not among the worst sinners. But, it is a very small country and very dependent on trade with the rest of the world; and first on the list is Europe.
Also, it should be noted that the countries of Europe are, more than ever, glued together and thus dependent on each other.
So crisis conferences begin anew every day, on top of those that ended in failure yesterday.
The most important, still unanswered, question is: What to do with Greece?
The Greeks have been spending billions and billions of drachmas and dollars, more and more of it borrowed (did I hear somebody say stolen?) from other countries. In professional circles it has been known for a long, long time that Greece is a basket case. Yet, the business went on as usual. Until fairly recently. Suddenly people started to talk about Greece's failure to repay. Of course, the experts had known this a pretty long time, but there was money to be made, so the show went on.
It still does.
It does, but more and more people realize this madness will have to stop. There are two possibilities:
1. The European community, led by Germany, bails Greece out.
2. Greece is shown the door out of the EU.
Neither solution is good. In fact, there are no good solutions, particularly since Portugal, Ireland and giants like Italy and Spain are in dire straits. Not as badly as Greece, but badly enough. There simply is not enough money to go around.
Many people, including some so-called experts, have pointed their fingers at Germany and said: "You rich krauts, why don’t you pony up the billions needed. Save Europe, for the sake of …"
The truth is, however, Germany simply is not big enough. Neither is the United States, for that matter. The Greeks and other Europeans will have to meet the crisis themselves, roll up their sleeves and start working.
Will it work?
Well, last time we had a really deep crisis was in the beginning of the 1930s. At that time the world order collapsed and Herr Hitler got to launch the bloodiest war in the history of mankind. This time it will not be as bad as then—war is more or less unthinkable—but bad, bad, bad it will be.
0 comments
July 03, 2012 - 05:17 pm
Is 2012 the worst year ever?
No, that would certainly be saying too much. But bad it is, make no mistake about it. Bad, very bad.
It is, of course, not as bad as 1933, the year I was born. Then, Hitler began (more or less) the career that led to the worst war in the history of the world. Between '39 and '45, the world was burning and millions of people were killed, most in war, an awful lot in prison camps, or starving in their homes.
No, as bad as 1933 year 2012 is not. But bad, bad, bad—and very possibly getting worse.
Think of Greece, that pleasant little country on the ancient shores, where civilization (we like to think) first began. The Greeks, leaders and common folks alike, have borrowed and consumed and borrowed and consumed, like there was no tomorrow. Now, tomorrow has arrived and all kinds of banks and states have started to demand that Greece repays. Which it can not do. So will it be necessary to kick Greece out of the euro? Will others have to follow? What about Spain, Portugal and that very big country, Italy. Is the euro, in effect, shot dead on its feet? Is the euro zone, in reality, too badly constructed? Will chaos ensue, just like it did in the 1930s?
Many people all around the globe look to Germany, the European giant. Can the Germans spend a couple of hundred billion to shore up the rest of the EU?
The question is silly for two reasons:
1. The Germans don't want to pay up. Chancellor Angela Merkel simply says: Nein Danke, wir zhalen nicht. And that is it.
2. Besides, in the cold light of reality, anybody can see that not even Germany is rich enough to rescue Europe. The worst sinners, Greece, Portugal, Iceland, Spain, Italy (etc.) will have to tighten belts and change their habits. Unpleasant, but necessary.
Nobody should believe that the rescue can be brought about without pain. The Europeans have long been living above their means; they have grown used to it and take it for granted that their leaders will pay—handsomely—for their votes. For indeed, that is what has happened. Political leaders, longing to be popular (and preserve their power), doled out money among their clients and hoped for the best. You could call it careless or untidy. You could, perhaps, also refer it as bribery, maybe on a giant scale.
The fact is—and it's there for anybody to see—that the European Union has not worked. There is no true European identity. Greeks are still Greeks and Swedes are still Swedes. We used to call the U.S. the melting pot, and when the European Union was formed many people (I was one of them) thought that we would become much more like Americans. In other words, nationalistic still, perhaps, but on a much wider scale, as if the Italians, British, Swedes and Germans forgot (more or less) their “old countries” and became full-blooded Americans, all for one, one for all.
It can now be said that it didn't turn out that way. All the European States are still islands in the European sea. Independence is fiercely guarded, and let's face it, many Europeans don't like other Europeans at all.
So, this summer, like all previous summers, we will gather in our home countries. Why sunbath in Italy, when you can be cold and miserable in Sweden, the country of your birth.…
0 comments
June 20, 2012 - 05:41 pm
Where is Greece going?
It is tempting to answer the question with: straight to - well, you know where I mean, but this is a family paper so I'll refrain from using the word here.
And anyway, the question is about so much more than this. It is—maybe, probably—too much to say that as Greece goes, so goes Europe. On the other hand, the sickness afflicting Greece has hit many other European countries; Sweden luckily is one of the exceptions.
On the other hand—and to get this out of the way—Sweden is small. We, the 9 million Swedes, are but a tiny fraction of Europe, and if the crisis bites really hard (maybe it already has?) there is no escape. To a large degree, Sweden depends on exports, and if the markets in Europe as a whole collapse, we will be hard hit, too. Even if many Swedes foolishly deny it, we are a part of the continent, a part of the whole. What hits Greeks, Germans and French will hit us, too. …
Prudent policies will soften the blow, but not very much. The notion that Sweden is special, somehow protected, is false. It came into being because Hitler once decided he had no time to invade the little country in the north. So we escaped the great world war and in reality—let's be honest here—we profited, really got rich from it. (This will be denied by most Swedes you mingle with; it’s the truth nevertheless.)
The Greeks basically did something one should never do: They spent more than they earned. They paid people who produced too little too much and paid people on the dole way too much. The budget was a hell hole of expenses and the deficit piled up. And the Greeks were not alone. Same did the Portuguese, the Spaniards and to a somewhat smaller degree, the Italians. The European banks, unluckily, followed suit. They lent and borrowed, and borrowed and lent. To enterprises, persons and countries. Everybody wanted a larger balance sheet, regardless of whether it was inflated or realistic.
And so it went. For several years. Until the questions became louder than the answers:
- When are we going to be paid back?
- When are we going to live on what we earn?
- When are we ... and so on.
Slowly we Europeans have come to realize that we have lived in a world of make believe. More and more have asked:
- And what about Germany? The Germans are so rich. Why can't they loan the money so we can get solvent and productive again?
To which there are two answers, both pretty good:
1. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, says no, no, no.
2. Even if she said yes, Germany would not be able to bail out the whole continent. It is simply too big, the debts too large.
So, what's needed now, I say, is a long and difficult time of austerity, penny pinching and good behavior. We do not, repeat not, live as if we are poor— we're certainly not—but we have to restrict ourselves a little. It will not be pleasant, but there is no other way.
So in a rather short time, we'll all be OK again.…
0 comments
June 05, 2012 - 04:37 pm
Can the Germans do it?
Do what?
Well, save the EU and Europe, of course!
Never before in its short history has the EU been as close to collapse as it is today. Never since the end of the devastating World War II have the Europeans been so worried—and so convinced there is little or nothing that we common people can do.
The reason, of course, is the euro.
The great project—which Sweden begged out of—was to create for the Europeans what the Americans already have: a continent with a common market where everybody pays with the same money. No exchange rates, no devaluations, no hassle.…
Or so one thought.
But the truth is—to put it very simply—the countries were not similar enough. Between the serious and strict Germans and the swaggering and carefree Greeks (many today use harsher words) there is a great gap. Same with the Italians and Dutch. And so on.
When the Italians had mismanaged their money in the pre-euro days, they could devalue. That is, make their money and thus their exports cheaper. So, when things went bad, they could lower the price of Fiats, of Italian wine and other food products, of designer dresses and elegant shoes. The world picked up the items and everybody was happy. Besides, the Italian money—then called the lira—slowly regained a higher value.
Today, the devaluation route is closed.
Countries outside the euro-zone can do it, but not the 17 insiders. So now Italians, Greeks and a couple of others have to be bailed out. The same goes for dozens of firms and enterprises all over the continent. In other words, there is a billion dollar crisis at hand and something has to be done to stop it from developing into a catastrophe.
So far, there is no solution, but what you hear is that “Germany must pay.” Germany has the greatest economy in Europe and undeniably great resources. But is Germany rich enough to save the rest of Europe?
The answer is no. The Germans can do a great deal, but in the end—or rather well before the end—all Europeans who can, will have to pitch in, mainly in the form of higher taxes and smaller handouts. And, probably, higher unemployment.
It will not be nice and millions of people will suffer. Money will be lost in foolish transactions, and perhaps even worse, when honest people do the wrong thing with their savings. Take me. I own a couple million dollars saved in different banks, and I really have no idea of what to do. Should I go to the Swedish krona—well managed, and NOT in the EMU? Or should I go to dollars and bet on the U.S.? The latter has, over time, always been right in the long run, but when you are 79 years old, long term isn't so interesting. So, should I buy a new house and hope that those who come after me can turn a profit on that? Or, or …
You get the drift. We the people of Europe are worried and filled with a vague angst, mainly because we know all too well that we don't really know anything at all about what the future will bring. Our politicians and our banks have served us badly, but we can do very little about it. It is (1) too late and (2) the ones that would follow are not better.
Quite a sinister situation, wouldn't you agree.…
0 comments
May 20, 2012 - 04:33 pm
Europe is in deep, deep crisis, even if most Europeans don't seem to realize it.
In fact, the situation is almost as grave as in the early 1930s. Then the Great Depression gave us Adolf Hitler in Germany and, soon enough, the greatest war in the history of mankind.
Will we be as unhappy this time?
The answer to that question is almost certainly no. Maybe, in fact, I could leave out the almost. There are no madmen or madwomen among our leaders—Angela Merkel of Germany might be a difficult women, but a Hitler she is not. In fact, Germany luckily is one of the best-run countries on the continent, which is very important not the least because it also happens to be the largest. So, a war there will not be and millions of young men will not be killed.
That doesn't mean the crisis is not serious. In short, the politicians have more or less ruined countries like Greece (worst of all!), Portugal, Italy, Spain and (to a lesser degree) France. Sweden is in better shape than most, thanks to relatively sound policies and a very competent minister of finance, Anders Borg.
The several states have spent money they didn't have. Unemployed men and women have been paid quite well as have other people in need. The welfare states have tried—and I say this to their credit—to abolish poverty and help everybody to a decent life. The trouble is that
1) the costs are very high and
2) all too many of the clients find it convenient to rely on the handouts rather than look for jobs.
It should be added that politicians in various countries have rather encouraged this traffic: buying votes with taxpayers money is quite okay as long as you don't confess to it.
In other words, the system we call the welfare state has come to a critical point. More people have to work and pay their own expenses, which is easy to say, harder to achieve. It is harder to achieve in part because the crisis has been with us for more than a year. Which means that people—even those with jobs—consume less. Which also means the producers of this or that sell less of what they produce, make less money and create fewer jobs. Many companies have gone under and more will. It might be too early to speak of a depression, but we're certainly close.
And then there is the question of the euro, Europe's "dollar". It now seems very likely the Greece and maybe several other countries will have to beg out of the system, which will, if worst comes to worst, collapse. This would mean a depression of monumental size, bankruptcies and all kinds of mayhem. Sweden, which is not among the euro countries, will nevertheless be badly hurt—the little country is highly export dependent and will have a very hard time to adjust to chaos on the continent.
And so, friends, fasten your seatbelts. There are stormy days ahead.…
0 comments
March 31, 2012 - 12:24 am
In 1933, the year I was born, the world was deep in crisis and the worst war in human history waited around the corner.
All of which, of course, I didn't know. Neither did I know, nor care about, the fact that my mom and dad had to work very hard to put food—such as it was—on the table. We didn't starve I was later told, but we didn't feast either. Indeed, things didn't improve much until 1945, when I was 12 years old and (more importantly) Hitler was dead.
The reason I came to think of 1933 and the period following it is that we have worked ourselves into a crisis once more. Or maybe I should say two crises.
First there is, of course, Iran. It seems more or less certain that the fanatic priests who run that unhappy country are well on their way to producing an atomic bomb. They deny it, of course, and some western experts believe them. I don't, which is not so important, but many experts, not the least in Israel, are convinced that deep down in the mountains not too far from Tehran, bombs are being prepared and made ready. Are they defensive or offensive? I say big deal—for the reason that Israel's leaders can not sit idle and wait. They simply must take it for granted that the bombs will be used to destroy the Jewish state (which is very small and thus very vulnerable).
So the Israelis will have to act, and in my opinion they must do so sooner rather than later. I am sure they will use their own nukes and I am sure the conflagration will take monumental proportions.
The second crisis we are in is economic. Europe is sick, and in many ways so is the U.S. The general standard of living has improved since the 1930s, of course, but there are still millions of poor people and millions of unemployed. The world is simply not functioning well and people are unhappy and—more and more—scared. This goes for Russia, too: corrupt, badly run and therefore dangerous. All in all, the ongoing crisis might well be as serious as the one in the beginning of the 30s. Society is better organized now, but that doesn’t preclude real hardship being felt from Sweden to Italy, from Portugal to Poland. As for the political leaders, so far they have malfunctioned and I dare not be optimistic.
Add then there's the upheaval in the Arab world, most violently in Syria. The murdering—the word one must use—continues, and the UN as well as the EU and the U.S. are paper tigers. It is maybe not too hard to understand why: A military operation would be very,very costly in men and money and nobody wants to try. It should be noted that China and Russia are very opposed to intervention, cynically hoping that the situation will hurt the western powers and particularly, of course, the United States.
So what we see is a world in grave crises. A world war of the 1939 through 1945 kind we will most likely not have to experience. Rather the economic crisis will continue and deepen, and smaller wars will almost certainly be fought.
Which reminds me of the Roman (was it?) or Chinese curse:
"May you live in interesting times.…"
0 comments
March 30, 2012 - 09:30 pm
That was the front page headline on a recent issue of the British news magazine The Economist (one of the world's leading publications). There was no question mark, and the leader as well as a long article predicted that Russia's current leader (not to say dictator) would not last too long.
This started me thinking.
I remembered how we Swedes, almost all of us, minus a few crackpots, admired the Russians' valiant battle at Stalingrad and around Moscow. How fervently we wanted Uncle Joe Stalin to win over that madman Hitler. How we saw Communism as—yes!—the wave of the future.
That was then.
After the war, it slowly—or not so slowly—dawned on us that Uncle Joe was indeed a mass murderer bent on ruling the world. Eastern Europe gave evidence enough. All over the place satellite governments were doing the dirty work for the commies. Perverting and abolishing democracy, jailing and/or killing dissidents, indeed making the whole Eastern Bloc a giant prison.
It ain't so, our own homegrown commies said, and all too many believed them. Then came the revolts in Poland and—more dramatically—Hungary in the mid 1950s.
I was sent to Budapest at the time, a 23-year-old rookie. For the first time in my life, I saw dead bodies, hundreds of them, lining the streets. For the first time, I got to look at pictures of people who had been tortured in various cruel and revolting ways. I saw bodies of political police officers hanging upside down in the trees. And I saw, it can not be denied, people spitting and pissing on them.
It all said hatred. It all said that under the Russians, Hungary had been led by an evil hand and an oppressed country. People sang in the streets and waved Hungarian flags where the hammer and the sickle had been cut out.
Myself, I cried. Up to then, I had not understood how much people can hate. I thought the world was going to hell and would never be good again.
But I was wrong.
Many years later, I saw the Berlin Wall fall. Even later, I heard Gorbachev himself proclaim that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. The evil empire was no more. Or at least, it was no longer an empire.
And there we are. Europe is, to borrow a phrase from George Bush Sr., "whole and free." Russia is still Russia, a dangerous and corrupt country, run by Putin and his friends as the maffia runs areas under its control. It's poor and inefficient, and were it not for the oceans of oil on which it floats, it might well be bankrupt as well. As we recently saw, elections are still rigged and personal freedom is a dream only.
And yet. ...
Communism has lost its shine. Something very important died in Stalin's gulag and on the streets of Budapest. The Russia of today does not command respect. Communist parties in the west—in Sweden for example—have been forced to change. Indeed, sometimes, you have the impression that many members would rather have somewhere else to go.
So ... we won.
The great fight of our time gave Democracy a one, Communism a big fat 0.
Our countries, whether they are named the U.S., France or Sweden (to name the three where I have lived) are not perfect. Not at all. There is still poverty, still crime and some unrest. But we are free to improve, and improve we will.
As the Soviet example shows, the battle for a better world is winnable, after all.. ..
0 comments
February 25, 2012 - 01:11 pm
In Sweden there are 702 people (mostly women) who have lived 100 years. Those who are retired number many more than those who are still too young to work—which means fewer and fewer will support non-working oldsters. Statistically, according to what I read, each young Swede must support 0.79 old people; that sounds a little strange to me.
Big deal, however. What I truly want to say is that Sweden is not, repeat not, a good country to grow old in. The all too common attitude is:
"Old man, go home and die as soon as possible. Don't hold a job because that means you block the way for a younger person."
To which I always reply:
"Stupid. If I hold a job and make money, and spend that money on wine, women and song (and quite a few other things), I create jobs and help people—younger and older—rather than block their way.…"
I know full well that the younger people don't buy my argument. They have made up their minds. More than in any other country (and I have lived in the U.S. and France and travelled the world for more than 50 years), Swedes discriminate against the older generation. They want their country to be rational, super efficient and strict. They see it peopled with young, strong men and the world's most beautiful women (with nicely curving breasts and legs that make you hiccup). Well, I agree as far as the beauty of Swedish ladies is concerned, but I reserve my right to ogle and admire, even if I happen to be 79.
But this was an aside. What I mean to say is that Sweden is pretty prejudiced against (us) old men and women. We have had our time, the younger ones say, so why should we be around. Eat, we do, too, and sometimes (I confess) we drink. So wouldn't there be more food if we were not around?
Nobody goes so far as to state that life should end at 65, when a working Swede suddenly becomes a pensioner. But you can sense that the thought is there, unlike in most other countries. In the U.S., regardless of age, you are first an individual. To some extent, you are what you can do, regardless of age, and you're supposed to take care of yourself—which is all right with me.
In both the U.S. and France, famIly matters much more than in Sweden, when many old couples see their children only at Christmas and perhaps on birthdays. In the U.S. and France, not to mention the Latin countries, to belong to a family is to have a responsibility, not the least to the elders. Even if old people have money, they need emotional support, a conviction that they still count.
This they get in countries like the U.S. and France, but much less in Sweden, where the quest for efficiency overrules more human considerations.
How it got to be that way, I cannot explain. In the old days, when most people lived on farms, there was a special place at the table reserved for grandpa and grandma. They helped with the chores as best they could, but were not forced. Today they very often sit in institutions—ironically called “homes”—and have nothing better to do than stare at the walls and each other.
Sweden, that great welfare state, I submit, is in some ways pretty dehumanized. By choice or circumstance is hard to tell.
1 comments
January 25, 2012 - 01:07 pm
Swedes are very often proud to be Swedish. I guess that's all right, except when the pride is backed up with a certain contempt for those (read: not the least Americans) who are less accomplished than "us." Who are, indeed, loud, boisterous, and, all too often, ill behaved. In other words: The opinion in Sweden is that Sweden is the best.
These thoughts came to me when I happened to be in the old country and the Juholt affair exploded. First, let me give you the facts:
Recently one Håkan Juholt was made chairman of the Social Democratic party (and thus potential Prime Minister). Neither the party members nor the wider public had any say in the nomination. It was driven through by insiders, who were almost certainly more interested in blocking each other than finding the right man (or woman) for the job. Juholt might have seamed the ideal candidate—a big burly guy right out of the boondocks in Småland. He spoke well (if often with a forked tongue!) and seamed folksy and accommodating.
But also more than a bit wishy-washy. It seamed impossible to pin him down. He clearly wanted to be all things to all men and, as often happens with guys of that kind, people turned away from him. After several months of bad reviews—and more and more disastrous polls—he was forced to resign. All hell broke out in the media, but nearly everybody seemed to miss the most important point: Juholt was not—repeat not!—democratically elected. He was sneaked in by the insiders who thought more of themselves and less of the party. The result: all kinds of, often dirty infighting, splits here and splits there, chaos indeed. It all bodes very badly for the upcoming election. The Social Democratic party has probably never been worse off and will—in my opinion—lose heavily.
Now over to you, the Americans, and what do we see?
We see Barack Obama sailing smoothly to the Democratic nomination and a lot of Republicans engaged in a battle royal for the nomination. They fight, sometimes according to the rules, now and then a bit dirty, but—and I stress this!—always in the open. People have each and every chance to listen to the arguments (or lack of same) and study the body language of the candidates. Is Mitt reliable? What of Newt's many wives? Who is Ron Paul? And so on.
American presidential candidates are not sneaked in on the people. They are forced to present themselves, their close advisers and their ideas to whomsoever is interested. I say again: Everything (well, almost) is in the open. The voters are perceived as what they are: grown up, responsible people. Media follows the campaign very, very closely and the possibility that someone could sneak into the White House without being thoroughly scrutinized is nil.
So all I can say (and I have lived almost as long in the United States as in Sweden or France), is that when it comes to real democracy, Swedish politicians (and we, the media and many others) could do much worse than looking across the Atlantic for inspiration and guidance.
(P.S. I know many Swedes will brand me as mad and misguided, but, OK, so be it.)
0 comments
January 08, 2012 - 01:00 pm
2011 was a very bad year, the likes of which we should avoid. Will 2012 be better? Well, we had better try and make it that.…
I don't mean to say it was bad that Mubarak was kicked out of Egypt. That was simply good. He was corrupt and bad for all too long. Neither should we regret that Khadaffi got what he deserved (yes, I mean it!) when he was shot in Libya. Also, let us hope that Bashar Assad is eliminated in Syria—the people there have suffered too much already!—and that various other dictators, be they Arab or otherwise, are sent packing. How about, for instance, China?
What I'm trying to say is that 2011 was bad, not because of the revolts, but because the revolts left too many countries worse off than they were before. The suffering and bloodshed in Syria is enormous with no end in sight. Egypt is run by incompetent military men—women need not apply—and will remain destitute and poor for the foreseeable future. Same goes for the poor world in general and some rich countries (take Saudi Arabia), too. Some Saudis are filthy rich, but freedom there is certainly not around the sand that sits on top of all that oil...
The unrest in the Arab world is the result of two important factors.
Factor one: The lack of freedom. Look on the map and try to find a land not ruled by an autocratic, undemocratic and—quite often—murderous regime. Common folks have no say and he who complains gets jail, or worse.
Factor two: The spread of the Internet. Maybe 2011 was really the year of the web: For the first time in human history, news and opinions could NOT be censored. Everybody (or almost everybody) could partake of facts and opinions. An entirely new kind of freedom suddenly blew in from … well, anywhere … and made downtrodden people realize just how downtrodden they were. All around they began to fight. The result, so far, is mainly chaos, but it is clear that a new kind of freedom is on the march. Well, at least let's hope so.…
The less primitive world (I mean us, mainly the U.S. and Europe) certainly had its problems, too, and will continue to have them in 2012 as well. Worst among these problems is the lack of money. Or rather, the fact that almost everybody, from governments to individuals, has borrowed more money than they are able to repay. Countries like Greece and Italy are bankrupt in all but name. Greece is bad enough, but small in relation to the others. Italy on the other hand is large and therefore dangerous. The same, of course, goes for the United States, which is also in a debt crisis. Turns out the politicians we elect to govern us have found out that votes can be bought with the help of money thrown at different blocks of voters. So money has been thrown and debt has been piling up. It looks rather like a giant confidence trick, but don't say so—we elected them, didn't we?
Yes, we did, and now we are where we are. Which means, most likely, that 2012 will have to be a year of repayment and frugality at best. If the circus goes on, there will be even more hell to pay in 2013.
And having said that, I can only continue by wishing all of you good people who read this paper, a wonderful and profitable New Year.
0 comments
September 10, 2011 - 12:22 am
You all know what happened ten years ago. Four jets were hijacked and two of them flew into the World Trade Center, a symbol of America and free trade between people of decency and good will.
You also know this lead to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as a lot more terrorism.
This, I submit, is both true and untrue. 9/11 had to be countered, of course. A superpower like the U.S. can not take a hit of that magnitude without responding, that would have been a confession of terrible weakness and lack of will. So, war and retaliation there was.
But we also have to remember the deeper underlying causes. The reason 9/11 happened was the realization among some Muslims that the new world is pressing on with freedom of expression, modern means of communication and—don’t ever forget it—democracy.
The fanatical (yes, I use that word) Islamists hate Democracy. The priests don't discuss, they decide. They don't want free citizens around them, they want subjects. And the “ordinary” persons' duty is to obey.
All this has been under attack, a silent but relentless attack for centuries. During the 1990s and leading up to 9/11 the reactionaries in the Islamic world had enough of it. They decided to make war, to post a truly gigantic statement saying that the war is not over, that “the West” has not won. If they could put enough scare into the Americans and—with the help of pictures of the towers falling—if they could convey to believers that the decadent West was falling, Islam would regain a good deal of its power. Maybe, who knows, it woud spread? Maybe the West would chicken out and give in to various demands.
As we know, it didn't happen. America went to war, not very wisely and not without committing errors of all kinds. Well, not perfect (since there is no perfect war) but with enough force and enough understanding to show that even if 9/11 took about 3,000 lives—innocent people, including Muslims—it didn't make a dent in the superiority of the free people of the world and our nations. Islam is basically a conservative, not to say reactionary creed. It wants to turn back the clock and give more power to the king and his princes in Saudi Arabia, madmen like the very religious murderer Khadaffi, the likewise pious Bashir Assad in Damascus, etc.
They will not succeed. The attack on the WTC might have been the most spectacular terrorist deed in modern times. It took, as I have written, many lives and destroyed a few buildings. But without being cynical, I can say that we could take that. All civilized countries on the globe went to the aid of the U.S. Free men and women everywhere condemned the hijackers and their leader from behind, Osama bin Laden, himself deposed recently.
In other words: We won, we who think conflicts should be resolved with words, not explosions and murder, we who think religion should be private and we who believe in freedom of choice. America took a terrible blow, but look at it now—more than ever the leading nation in the world. Look at the same time at the Middle East.
I need to say no more. Chaos and bloodshed everywhere and no end in sight.…
0 comments
October 09, 2009 - 09:24 pm
Remember Mehdi Ghezali, the ”Cuba Swede” who was incarcerated at Guantanamo? He was there between January 02 and July 04, whereupon he was released and sent back home to Sweden where his father had campaigned for him—quite often dressed in a blue and yellow Swedish flag.
When Mehdi came home to Örebro, he was more or less treated as a hero. He had been, it was said, tortured by the beastly Americans (possible, but not proven). He was totally innocent of, well, anything (unlikely, based on the evidence). He was, in fact, a fairly normal young man, born to a Finnish mother and an Algerian father, brought up in Sweden and holding dual citizenship (which is quite alright), and trained as a welder (although he never really worked). The “Cuba Swede” today is 30 years old.
It must be said that he is either quite an accomplished criminal or a person with an almost unbelievable ability to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, habitually suspected of crime, but always down on his feet. Consider:
Early on, the police suspected the young man of having stolen jewels and other stuff in Karlskoga (of Bofors cannon fame). When the police came to his home, they were met by the father, who explained that Mehdi was not available as he was doing his military service—in Algeria. The claim has not been substantiated (although it would have been possible).
Next, Ghezali spent a year in prison in Portugal, arrested on the suspicion of burglary of stores and robbery of tourists. He was released without trial and promptly went to Saudi Arabia to visit the holy places in Mecca and Medina and study at an Islamic university. The latter proved impossible—he was not admitted—so he went to London by way of Stockholm. In London, it seems, he studied briefly (if at all) for Sheik Omar Bakri, a well known Islamic fanatic. He then went on to Pakistan to try to enter one of the madrassas that teach Islamic fundamentals ... and Jihad, holy war against infidels like you or me.
By the way, nobody on the outside has an inkling how the young man found money to pay for his globe hopping. And Ghezali does not tell, in spite of the fact that many news organizations have asked.
On the 8th of December 2004 he was caught in Pakistan after a group of prisoners he belonged in had attacked the guards in a bus they were traveling with. Ten of the prisoners were killed and so were 7 guards. Ghezali was, for reasons unknown, sent to the U.S. as a suspect al-Qaida supporter. He stayed at Guantanamo for 930 days, after which he was proclaimed “no longer a threat to the U.S.” and let free to go to Sweden.
In Sweden, his blue and yellow father (see above) had developed quite a following. Indeed, Mehdi was popular. So popular that the “government plane” (the aircraft used by the prime minister and sometimes the king), was sent to the U.S. to pick him up.
At the landing: applause, interviews, crowds—it could have been a Hollywood star coming to visit.
After that, silence ... until Ghezali and a few others were arrested in Dera Ghazi Khan, a place well known to al-Qaida, on the 28th of August this year. He was taken to Islamabad together with three other Swedes and a little baby, accused of having tried to enter without a visa. The young lady and the baby were released but refused to leave the country. As for Ghezali, all we know as this is written, is that there will in all probability not be any government plane supplied when and if the time comes to fetch him.
0 comments
September 24, 2009 - 07:30 pm
On September 17 it was confirmed by senior administration officials that the Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe. The decision will have implications in many areas in Europe. Here is my analysis from a Swedish and European perspective:
By Ulf Nilson, Stockholm Sept. 22, 2009
At this very moment, when president Obama just abandoned—well, drastically changed—the missile defense the U.S. planned to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic, the armed forces of Russia are engaged in two very big war games, both pointing westward. Operation Ladoga (named for the big lake) is mostly of concern for Finland. Operation Zapad (West!) is more or less aimed at the Baltic countries, but is regarded with some suspicion in Sweden, too.
The suspicion is quite understandable for mainly two reasons. First, the forces involved are huge by Swedish standards: some 80,000 soldiers, 200 tanks and another 600 armored vehicles. The numbers should be seen against the fact that today Sweden could maybe field 30,000 badly trained infantry soldiers. As for tanks, well at the moment there are 17 (yes, seventeen!) tank crews being trained. (The figure is classified. Guess why!)
The very unpalatable truth is that Sweden, as the then supreme commander, Håkan Syrén, said a few years ago, “can not be defended."
Secondly, this is where the issue of the pipeline comes in. Preparations are already well under way for a natural gas line from Viborg in Russia to Greifswald in Germany. For almost half the way it is going to run inside Sweden’s economic zone in the Baltic. It will come extremely close to the island of Gotland. Indeed, the company that is to build the pipeline has already invested money in the port of Slite on Gotland, and this despite the fact that Sweden’s government has yet to OK the project.
What if Sweden says no, for environmental reasons (most likely) or other considerations?
Well, all we know is that a certain Mr. Putin in Moscow has repeatedly stated that the pipeline is very important AND that the Russian marine must be prepared to defend it.
“I don’t think we will go to war over the question,” a seasoned Swedish military expert said recently. If for no other reason than that we can’t go to war.
In other words, some of Sweden’s independence has been compromised. How can a government without any kind of military resources say no to a powerful and aggressive neighbor?
The same question presented itself when president Obama made clear that the U.S. will NOT build a missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. The two Eastern European countries, both once satellites of the Soviet Union, had welcomed American presence on their soil. Now, when the U.S. has clearly bowed to Russian demands that the defense line not get built, the fall feels a good deal cooler. Given the fact that the two countries are members of NATO, there is no panic, but there is no doubt that President Obama’s move is deeply unpopular. The Eastern Europeans realize that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. will receive payment in the form of Russian help with sanctions against Iran, but of that we know nothing so far—and besides, what good will such sanctions really do?
There is, in other words, that unpleasant feeling that Russia is on the upswing, the U.S. accommodating and retreating.
It should be added that the facts presented in this article have hardly been mentioned in Swedish news media. The attitude of "see no evil, hear no evil" is deeply engrained in the Swedish psyche. We have, after all, been at peace for 200 years, so why bother? To apply for NATO membership would, of course, lead to greater security but then the Russians might see that as a truly rude move.
They might even get mad at us and we wouldn’t like that, would we?
2 comments
September 13, 2009 - 08:24 am
Death panels, Sarah Palin said, and the sky almost fell down.
Well, even if she wasn’t exactly right, she had a point. Maybe more of a point than you would like to know.
A few years ago, my first wife’s grandfather, who happened to be the last elected mayor of Stockholm, took ill. One day when his grandson, a doctor, came to work, his colleagues told him:
“Well, last night your old man was dying. If he hadn’t been your grandfather, we would have let him go.”
For the sake of my then brother-in-law the old man was not left to die, but that is only part of the story. The fact is that he recuperated, left the hospital and lived for several more years, smoking cigars, drinking gin and (believe it or not) even having a love affair.
So, to let him go would have been—dare I use the word?—MURDER.
Well, not legally, of course. To kill people by withdrawing treatment is quite legal in Sweden. I have no certain idea of how frequently oldsters are left to die, but I am sure it is very frequently, since in Sweden there is a kind of contempt for old people.
We (I am 76) are looked upon as a kind of parasite. After all, we have paid pensions ... in other words, salaries without work. And we eat, take up seats on the bus (without going to work!) and block hospital beds from younger persons who need them more—they are productive, are they not? They contribute to society, whereas we old-timers only consume. Indeed, there are Swedes who think that life should end at 65 (retirement age) even if they don’t dare to say so (except after a couple of shots among friends).
There used to be a time, I remember it well, when children took care of their elderly parents: visited with them, bought them things, clearly demonstrating love and affection. Today there is very little of that. The old ones are left to fend for themselves, quite often in so-called “homes” that are rather a kind of slop house. The terrible disease called Loneliness and Hopelessness is abroad in the land, more so than in any country that I have knowledge of. Indeed there are times when I find my fatherland quite inhuman: too much stress on efficiency (that hardly exists) and too little on humane behavior.
Come to think of it, we treat our children much the same way. Since the tax laws were “reformed” in 1971 (Palme!) it has been more or less necessary for both parties of a marriage to work outside the home. Which means that the children must be taken care of collectively. In other words, Swedish children are in a sense, wards of the state. They sleep at home but have very limited contact with their biological parents. It is perhaps saying too much that Sweden has abolished family as we used to know it—too much, but not much too much.
The fact is, to return to the beginning of the column, that there have been “death panels” for a long time and in all countries. There comes a time when doctors and relatives have to decide whether it is a good thing to prolong a life that will end soon anyway. In two U.S. states, as in Switzerland, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg, even active “death help” is allowed—usually the needle. To break off treatment is allowed, as far as I know, everywhere.
So, in a sense, Palin was quite right, only she thought she described the future when it was, in fact, the present ….
0 comments
August 07, 2009 - 09:38 am
I have mine, what about you?
I am almost embarrassed to say it, but it seems to me that the reactions to the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 show a lamentable lack of enthusiasm — most particularly in Sweden.
What I hear and read are comments stressing, above all, two things:
One. The “shoot” (as we called it at the time) was basically a propaganda enterprise. President Kennedy looked for something to turn people’s attention from the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs, strike the Russians a blow and regain the initiative in world affairs and world appreciation (not to mention the polls at home). Well, he succeeded to a degree: The moon landing caught the attention of 500 million television viewers — then the largest audience in history — and behind them the whole world. As for the real balance of power, however, it meant not much.
Two. The money could have been spent more wisely trying to eradicate poverty and disease on Earth.
To which I say: Baloney!
To take the second argument first, the money would not have been spent on fighting poverty and disease. The world simply does not work that way. And besides, the enormous sums spent on construction of the rocket, the space craft and the satellite and the computer networks necessary created thousands of jobs and knowledge that slowly but surely trickled down (yes, I use that expression advisedly!) all around.
And besides, even if there was an element of propaganda involved —and, of course, there was — the most important thing revealed was that man is man, a passionate creature, curious, adventurous, condemned to try the impossible (or should I have written blessed with a will to try the impossible?). Blessed with a spirit apparent in Columbus or Wasco da Gama just as later on in Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins. And others.
Man wants to know the universe in which fate placed him. He wants to know, not necessarily for practical, scientific or even political reasons. He wants to know because he is man. He has it within him, indeed it is his destiny, to ask questions and, if need be, try to answer them even at the risk of his life. Are there other similar beings on far off stars? What do they look like? Can they talk? Do they believe in God, and if so, which one?
Can we find another star, so that if on some not so distant day a nuclear war (think Israel, Iran, North/South Korea, Pakistan, India) makes this planet a poisoned wasteland, we might raise our tents and start anew? Can we overcome gravity once and for all and become —should we so wish — masters of the universe?
Right now, it seems, we are playing it safe, tinkering around with the space station, sending out unmanned probes, planning a more or less permanent station on the moon. But wait, wait, the impulse is there, today as much as forty years ago. The problems of propulsion will be solved, and the eternal quest for knowledge, and yes, of course, the adventure and glory will drive new astronauts further and further from this rotating home of ours. Trips to the moon, I safely predict, will be commonplace if (at least to begin with) rather costly. In the enthusiasm after Apollo 11, Pan American issued tickets to the moon. And even if that airline no longer exists, maybe somebody will honor the ticket.
I still have mine and I’m still ready to go, forty years older than when I saw that fantastic rocket streak away in the Florida sunshine.
Forty years older, but still dreaming ….
0 comments
October 09, 2008 - 09:46 am
If we had lived by the old rules, we wouldn't be in a terrible crisis. We wouldn’t have been hit with what, to quote Warren Buffet, was a financial Pearl Harbor.
Right?
Yes, right. The old rules said that you should not buy what you couldn’t pay for. And if you did borrow, you should make sure – before the transaction, please – that you would be able to make the installments. Conservative folks, like myself, of course, waited to buy that car until we had the cash. Same with the house.
This was fairly stupid, I would have to admit. I could have used a car – and a house – long before I could buy either. I could have traveled more and my kids could have had their own rooms much earlier. But as I said, I played by the old rules.
That there were other rules didn’t really dawn on me until I came to the US in 1963. I was 30 and had never borrowed a penny, which made me, on Manhattan, undoubtedly a country hick.
So, I walked into a car dealer’s shop. Soon enough I found a Chevrolet Impala that pleased me. It cost about $3,000 at the time. So I asked the sales man if I wouldn’t get a somewhat better price since I paid cash (I had the money in my pocket). To my great surprise, he said no, no. They made so much money on the interest on the loan (which I didn’t want) that they preferred installments. (I paid cash anyway; it wasn’t prohibited.)
A little later, I applied for a credit card (Carte Blanche). On the application I noted that I had no debts. The application was promptly refused. Confused, I asked my friend and colleague, Arne Thorén, why he, who had debts, could get a card, while I, who was without debts, couldn’t.
"Stupid," Arne said. "Having no debt proves that you have NO CREDIT."
I applied again, citing a few debts I didn’t have. And so I got my card.
And this is where I turn the argument upside down. For with my new card I could buy things, like a new electric typewriter (my first), in spite of the fact that money had not arrived from Stockholm. I could take friends and clients to dinner; the ticket to the Washington shuttle was only a signature away. And so on.
More important, much more, is the fact that thousands, no millions of projects depend on credit. If we had lived by the old rules - cash only – where would we have been? I am fairly sure that we wouldn’t have produced the doctors and the medicines that help us live so much longer; we would have much fewer books to read, probably no Internet, much fewer resorts to visit, etc. If we, the people as well as the banks, hadn’t taken the risks, hadn’t bet on the future without being at all sure that the bet was a winning one, we simply wouldn’t be where we are, but in an older, less fascinating world. We would, indeed, have been poorer in many ways.
This is not to say, of course, that Wall Street did everything right. It did not. In fact neither Wall Street nor Main Street can escape blame. All too many people, literally millions, thought that you can get something for nothing – and the bankers, brokers, and analysts egged them on. But again: While many of us will suffer (let me tell you I lost a bundle), there is no risk, no risk at all that we will land back in the 1930's. We might be poor for a while but on a much, much higher level than at that time or in the 1940's or 50's. We’ll have to adjust and start all over again, but then, isn’t that what life is all about…?
0 comments
October 09, 2008 - 09:45 am
No, it is not going to be as bad as in the 1930's, when 25 percent of the US labor force was out of work and the situation was equally bleak in many European countries (not to mention Asia and Africa, where nobody bothered to count in those days…).
And no, again: most people are not, repeat not going to lose their life savings. In fact life will become harder for many – sick, unemployed, elderly and others – but most will cope, and in time things will straighten out….
This is not to say that the crisis is not serious. It most certainly is. To mention but one probable, if not inevitable consequence, it is likely that the week beginning Monday, Sept. 15, decided the presidential election. When the stock market takes the worst dive within living memory; when tens of thousands of people are forced to leave their homes; when unemployment rises as dramatically as the banks are falling; when everybody thinks there is worse to come; well, then you are not going to vote for any representative of the party in power. So, in my opinion, the race for the White House is over. McCain can just as soon pack up. It’s true that he is a maverick (as well as a hero and a very likeable guy), but barring a miracle it’s all over and Sarah Palin can concentrate on moose hunting for at least 4 years to come. For Barack Obama, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch and – not the least – AIG, was a windfall.
Right off I can count on only one event that would (perhaps) change the scenario and that’s war with Iran. I confess that the thought scares me very much, not the least as quite a few experts have voiced concern that the “best” time for Israel/US to strike is the window between Nov. 4 and Jan. 20, when the sitting president has nothing to lose and the incoming one does not have to accept responsibility.
But this was an aside. What happened? The truth is that nobody – and certainly not I – knows all, or even a tenth of the facts. But put in simple and perhaps simplified terms, greed got the better of the finance industry. Loans were given to people who were not credit worthy who recycled time and time again in “instruments” and “derivatives” that were soon enough worth nothing. This exercise is of course dangerous but as long as everybody trusts that the show will go on, nothing happens. It’s when people and institutions start paying their debts with borrowed money and – after a while – stop paying both short and long term loans that the whole skyscraper house of cards comes crashing down. When too much debt is covered with securities and sometimes insurances (see AIG) worth nothing, the meltdown is inevitable. And, in today’s global world, unlike in the 1930's, everybody will suffer.
It is very painful to have to write that exceedingly many bankers, brokers, financial advisers and the like knew very well what would happen. But increased turnovers (even if what turned over was thin air) begat larger bonuses in – very important – absolutely real money.
I think a video from Wall Street that I saw here in the South of France captured the situation very, very well. A young Master of the Universe broker from Lehman Bros carried his personal belongings along the street in a couple of cartoons. When he came to the parking lot, he dumped the cartoons in the trunk…
…of his brand new Rolls Royce….
0 comments
|
World Reporter
Ulf Nilson, World reporter since his first assignments to Hungary in 1956. Correspondent and Sweden’s man in America for 20 years, Ulf Nilson is still a regular columnist in Sweden’s daily Expressen, and regular contributor in Nordstjernan. He has authored or co-authored over fifty books. He lives in southern France or at his beloved Värmdö, just 30 minutes north of Stockholm. He
• covered the US, including Vietnam during the war years
• marched in the civil rights marches
• interviewed Martin Luther King
• met presidents Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and George H. W. Bush
• and, as one of Sweden’s most well-known journalists, also met with every politician, industry leader or cultural personality—all the movers and shakers of Sweden through five decades of a proliferate professional life.
|