Meanwhile, in France, President Macron’s new party, the LREM, crushed its rivals on both the right and left.
This picture is amazing:
Per the BBC:
Ahead in 400 constituencies out of the 577 that make up France’s National Assembly, the party is heading for a convincing majority far higher than the 289 seats needed to control parliament. That does not even take into account the 100-odd seats where Mr Macron’s centrist MoDem allies are in the lead.
His centrist alliance could control 415 to 455 seats after the second round on 18 June, experts predict.
And many of them are political novices, so this could get interesting.
The papers say the US is spending $3.1 billion per month on the war in Afghanistan. And I’m sure that doesn’t count the long-term care costs for wounded soldiers after they get home.
At $37.2 billion per year our spending is about half the Afghani GDP at purchasing power parity – or, if you prefer, about double their GDP at the official exchange rate. The population of Afghanistan is about 33.3 million persons. So we are spending about $100 per Afghani per month; call it $1200 per Afghani per year.
The average income in Afghanistan has been estimated at US$ 1,883 I suspect this is a PPP number, and quite inflated. The Asia Foundation did a study which found that The average monthly income in households where women contribute to family earnings was 10,197 Afs (approximately USD $158). By comparison, in households where women do not contribute, the average monthly income was 10,851 Afs (approximately USD $168). (Study at p. 63.) Whatever the truth may be, I’m betting the US spends more in Afghanistan than the entire earnings of at least 98% of the population.
Are we getting our money’s worth? How, if our goal were to influence Afghanistan might we put that money to work in income support (bribes if you will), building things (nation-building if you will) and creating institutions designed to keep things modern and running after the subventions stop (imperialism if you must)? We could probably do worse than just give $500 per year to every Afghan woman for starters, and wait for the animal spirits of capitalism to explode.
Previously: A Modest Dinner-Party-Based Proposal For An Iraqi Exit Strategy (Sept 27, 2003) ($3000/year per Iraqi)
You cannot make this stuff up.
This is not a photoshop, but a genuine pix released by the Saudi Press Agency, memorializing the moment when Donald Trump joined Egyptian dictator Abdel Fatah al-Sisi and Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz at the opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. Video, if you care.
Surely someone has noted by now that the first corollary of a putative Trump tilt towards Putin’s Russia is a tilt against China? For just as Kissinger and Nixon opened relations with China as a counterweight to the USSR, so today is a tilt towards Russia a way to push against China. In that context SecState nominee Rex Tillerson’s scary and bellicose words about denying China access to the islands it has built up in the South China Sea not only have a simple logic, they seem almost predictable.
If Vietnam gets a kind word, we’ll know for sure this is the strategy.
It is both crazy and not. The South China sea situation is perhaps the nastiest and likeliest to blow flashpoint in the US political-diplomatic landscape, with only the perennial middle east giving it competition. Yes, even Pakistan and North Korea are less scary right now. So if you think think China is problem #1 — ie that Putin will be satisfied with Crimea, or in any case can be deterred from Poland and the Baltic states, then allying with Russia to leash China might seem to make crude sense. Doubly so if you are thinking trade war.
If, that is, you are trigger happy.
Time to ratchet up the worry meter to ….
And it isn’t even directly about Donald Trump. Or then again maybe it is.
Across numerous countries, including Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States, the percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a democracy has plummeted, and it is especially low among younger generations.
— Amanda Taub, How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’
This graph says it all:
I don’t know who this Democratic Coalition Against Trump is. I like their URL. But I don’t at all care for this web ad they’ve done — it strikes me as utterly ineffective. The issue of Trump being in the tank for Putin — or just a dupe — is a serious one. This doesn’t help.