When Britain
ruled the waves and the sun never set on the Empire, every British institution
was considered as good as Sterling. One of the institutions founded at the
zenith of the British Empire was a magazine
called the Economist.
Over the next century and a half, the Economist Magazine had
risen to occupy the pinnacle of economic influence and political power in
Britain, in all of its possessions, and in the places where English was spoken
with or without an accent … and this was just about everywhere else in the
whole world.
And then it happened that the sun began to set on the British Empire . The effect has been that all of its
institutions began to diminish, including the Economist that could no longer
influence even its protégés, such as the architects of the Hong
Kong economy, for example. And could no longer influence the
political decisions of the U.S. Congress, now a Jewish playground where they
spoke not with a London accent but a Brooklyn accent.
This is when those of us who used to read the Economist on a
regular basis began to detect a shift in the journalistic persona of the
publication. The poor thing began to act like the little boy who just realized
his mother's pregnancy means a brother or a sister was on the way, and will
occupy mom's attention at his expense. And so, in a clear attempt to counter
the Jewish influence in the Congress, the Economist now spoke forcefully about
the need for America 's
legislators to dread the actions they were taking without thinking.
Worse, the editors began to understand there was more in
mom's oven than the Jewish bun. It is that they began to see how the Lyndon
Johnson effort to integrate the African Americans into the political culture of
the nation was working. Johnson had called for a little “color” in the commercials
shown on television and got more than he bargained for because color had seeped
into the Congress as well. The editors guessed that from now on, not only
Hanukkah was going to be observed on the Hill, so was Kwanza .
These things unfolded a number of decades ago. What you have
now is an England
that's entering its twilight years. As a United Kingdom , it voted to break
away from a European Union that could have given it a new lease on life. In
addition, parts of it are now expressing a desire to break away from it. There
is a Scotland that wants to
rejoin Europe, and there is a Northern Ireland
that wants to join the Republic
of Ireland Wales may
decide to develop a plan for itself as well.
Normally, the editors of the Economist would have fabricated
a fake reason to throw a tantrum and lash out at the US Congress, thus prove
they are still relevant despite what's happening to Britain and their publication. But
things have changed so much there is nothing they can say about the Congress
now without running afoul of political correctness. This is why they went
looking for another whipping boy on which to beat up and get rid of their
frustration. They found the Arabs, more specifically an Egypt that can
take a ton of punches and not flinch.
And so they chose Egypt to be the subject of their
latest creation. It came under the title: “The ruining of Egypt ” and the
subtitle: “Repression and the incompetence of Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi are stoking
the next uprising,” published on August 6, 2016 in their Magazine.
What the article says and what it fails to say attest to the
fact that the Magazine has produced a sick joke that will do to it what the
Suez adventure did to the British Empire … it will hammer the last nail in its
coffin. Here is what the Economist says: “Egypt 's budget and current-account
deficits are gaping. Mr. Sisi has gone beret in hand to the IMF for a $12
billion bail-out.” Well guys, that's what the IMF is there for.
Nations go to the IMF when they encounter a bottleneck that
can be remedied with a bridge loan. The fact that Egypt went to it after 5 years of
hesitation says that things are normal. How normal they are is gauged by the
amount that Egypt
is seeking. In fact, you can tell an eloquent story with the numbers. Here it
is: Greece , which has less
than one eighth the population of Egypt , required a $300 billion
bailout. Translated to the Egyptian situation, it amounts to a $2.4 trillion
bailout. That's trillion with a T. Thus, the $12 billion that Egypt is seeking makes it 200 times better off
than Greece .
We now look at what the article has failed to say. The first
thing that an economist worth his salt should do when contemplating the writing
of an article of this nature, is to investigate three areas to answer one
question: Is this economy in good shape but experiencing a temporary
difficulty, or has it been seriously damaged?
The areas to investigate have to do with the basic
necessities of life. (1) It is the availability of enough food to feed
everyone. (2) It is the means to produce enough textiles to dress everyone. (3)
It is the ability to produce enough building material to shelter everyone. The
truth is that Egypt
is more than self-sufficient in all three areas – so much so that it exports
about $25 billion worth of foods, textile, building material, furniture, home
appliances and electronics.
These areas represent the core of Egypt 's domestic economy, which can
survive on its own if the country were cut-off from the rest of the world.
Wisely or foolishly, Egypt
decided to go all out and integrate its economy with the rest of the world.
This allowed it to earn another $35 billion in foreign currencies for a total
of $60 billion with which to buy the raw material it does not have enough of,
and the machinery it does not produce.
Those who argue the wisdom of opening to the world, point to
the equipment that rendered Egypt 's
hospitals and research labs among the most advanced in the world. On the other
hand, those who argue the foolishness of going all out integrating with the
world, point to the bottlenecks that necessitate going to the IMF for a
bailout.