Year: 2012

Iraq to Jews: Don’t Come Back

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History, Liberty , , , ,

Dr. Foldvary is renowned for his predictive capabilities, especially after calling the 2008 financial crash in 2007. However, I’d like to highlight his keen sense of direction and justice in regards to foreign affairs as well.

From a 2005 article on the situation in the Middle East, Dr. Foldvary writes:

Before Israel become an independent state in 1948, there were 150,000 Jewish citizens in Iraq. Israelites have lived in Iraq for over 2500 years. In 586 B.C.E., Babylon conquered Judea and brought many Jews to what is now Iraq. Baghdad later became a major center of Jewish thought. During the 1930s and 1940s, Nazi ideology infected the Arab region. In 1941, led by a mufti allied with Nazi Germany, there was a pro-Nazi coup, followed by killing, raping, and looting of Jews. Iraqi Jews call this the “Farhud,” or “violent dispossession.” The British army then came in and squashed the pogrom.

After World War II, the government of Iraq enacted Nazi-like anti-Jewish laws. Most of Iraq’s Jews fled to Israel. In 1952, the Iraqi government prohibited Jews from emigrating. Additional restrictions were placed on Jews in 1963 when the Ba’ath Party came to power. After 1967, Jewish property was confiscated and Jews were executed. Most remaining Jews were allowed to emigrate from Iraq during the 1970s.

This Jew-hating ideology still reigns in Iraq. There is also a concern that if Iraqi Jews are allowed to return and become Iraqi nationals, they will seek to be compensated for their confiscated property. Also, if Iraqis abroad are able to vote in Iraqi elections, Israeli Iraqis would be voting also, and many Iraqi Arabs don’t want foreign Jews voting in their elections.

Muslims, especially Arabs, denounce Israel for not letting Arab Palestinians return to their original places. How, then, can Arabs justify not allowing Jews to return?

Now Dr. Foldvary is not pointing fingers, mind you. He’s just trying to point out the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics and introduce a level of fairness in the whole damned process. Do read the whole thing.

Look Who’s Practicing Trickle-Down Economics

Warren Gibson Economics, Politics , , , , , ,

Thomas Sowell is one of the clearest contemporary thinkers on economic and political issues, both as a theoretician and a commentator on current events. His recent piece on “Tax Cuts for the Rich and Trickle-Down Theory” is an excellent example. In it, he shows how tax rate cuts for the highest earners can actually increase the tax revenue collected from that group. He also recalls challenging his readers to name a single economist who advocated a “trickle-down” theory of economics. No one did so.

Trickle-down is the idea that when the highest income-earners keep more of their income, some of their spending will eventually reach lower-income workers. Their purchases of luxury items will bolster employment in the production of those items. Leftists are fond of setting up this theory and then attacking it on the grounds that the benefits to the wealthiest overshadow the benefits that trickle down to those at the bottom. Government spending cuts hurt low-income people the most. Therefore, they say, tax cuts for the highest earners are a disguised scheme to siphon yet more wealth from the bottom to the top.

The “trickle down” phrase has been around at least since the 1930’s and was restated recently by the current White House occupant when he attacked what he called “The economic philosophy which says we should give more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

Does the theory make sense? First off, it ignores the morality of the situation. As T. J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, puts it, “I’m proud of my wealth. I earned it.” He explains how increased income taxes will not reduce his personal consumption but will instead reduce his investments in Silicon Valley startups and his charitable activities. Just what is the benefit, he asks, in taking money away from these uses and giving it instead to programs like Cash for Clunkers or Solyndra?

Secondly, trickle-down theory ignores the fact that high-income people like T. J. tend to invest a greater portion of their marginal income. Capital accumulation is the key to higher worker productivity and thus higher wages and higher standards of living.

There is actually one institution that does practice trickle-down economics. That would be the Federal Reserve System. The Fed recently announced its QE3 program under which it will purchase $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities each month for an indefinite period of time. One aim of this program is to push down long-term interest rates and thereby encourage businesses to borrow. But those rates are already historically low. Can we really expect further cuts to have any significant stimulative effect given the current high level of regime uncertainty?

The other purpose mentioned by Chairman Bernanke is to keep the stock and bond markets propped up. The idea is to pump up the “wealth effect.” This is the idea that when people who see increases in the market value of their holdings of investment or real estate, they will be more inclined to spend, even with unchanged income. Their spending will then trickle down into the economy. As an investor I ought to say thanks but as a citizen I would say to the leftists, look to the Fed to find a real example of exploitative trickle-down economics.

Facts Matter: Irrationality Among the Sane, the Intelligent, the Well-Educated

Jacques Delacroix Liberty, Politics ,

I have been engaged in an incessant informal study of the irrationality of otherwise sane, intelligent, well-educated people. Obviously, the question of why the insane are sometimes irrational is not riveting. Less obviously, it’s possible to think of irrationality in the unlettered as a substitute for real knowledge. (Say belief in the virtues of tea made from the penis bone of tigers instead of Viagra.) When the sane intelligent, well-educated talk or act irrational, there is a puzzle worth solving.

Since I left academia, I have stopped being the rigorous sociologist that I used to be. “Rigorous” in this context means using reliable tests to determine the relationship – if any – between ideas and facts. In this sentence, “reliable tests” means “well-tested tests.” Tests who are known to give results you can trust almost all the time. The tests that the social sciences use have not lost any credibility in my eyes. There is zero rejection involved in my shift of interests. Thus, if there is appears to be a difference in incomes between the criminal and the law-abiding and if it’s not statistically significant, I still believe one should assume that difference in incomes has no effect on criminality. (“Poverty does not cause crime.”)

I have simply shifted my interest to issues that are interesting but that the social sciences seldom address. One of the reasons is that some interesting questions seem to not lend themselves to rigorous testing, precisely. (There are other reasons I will address if someone asks.) So, I am searching for hypotheses and immediately assessing their plausibility. Plausibility is now my central criteria of judgment. Correspondingly, I am careful not to affirm. My quest for an understanding of the irrationality of the usually rational is a part of this endeavor. In this context,I am using, exploiting shamelessly several young people I know well. They are superior specimens of the human race from the standpoint of intelligence, interest in ideas and propensity for hard work. I am not picking on the feeble-minded! Continue reading →

Are Liberals Just Snobs? (Revised and Augmented)

Jacques Delacroix Liberty ,

This is worth recycling, I think. Has not aged a day!

I have a question. I don’t know many labor union liberals or hereditary Democrats because of where I live. It’s a small town in central California dominated by leftists and Greens. Over the years, they have pushed out every manufacturing industry. Recently, the county closed a small cement plant, the employer of 80% in the relevant village. The same forces are setting to go after tiny and inventive surfboard makers. As a result of all this saving of the environment, the unionized blue-collar class has vanished from the area.

Nearly all the liberals I know are trust-fund babies, unemployed, divorced women on alimony, absurdly overpaid public employees, and people who style themselves intellectuals because they finished college. To be fair, I also know a fair number of university professors. Here is my question:

Why are all the liberals I know, without exception, terrific snobs?

I mean that they like to discourse about little-known wines, that they read boring books (or pretend to), and that they profess to like cerebral French movies I don’t even get although I know the language. Many also airily chat about exotic foods, but not so much in my presence because they realize just from my accent that I might know that stuff.

I almost forgot; there is also what liberals never do, wouldn’t be caught dead doing. They never watch trash on television for example. No reality TV, no Lifetime Channel, and certainly no “Monster Quest” on the History Channel. (If the crypto-biologists ever catch a live Sasquatch, Mr and Ms Liberal will be the last ones to know.) They survive on a straight diet of opera and scholarly discussions of long-dead unknown writers  by professors who sound themselves long-dead. That’s all on NPB, of course, the government-approved, I mean the government- subsidized network.

And, of course, their most visible current style leaders, Barack and Michelle, did not take their summer vacation on Lake Michigan, or in Colorado’s beautiful mountains, or in Florida where the sea is always warm, or in Southern California where it’s always sunny. Do you remember where they went? Who else goes there?

So, I am wondering if it’s just me, my sample – which may not be representative – or if others have noticed a link between liberal political postures on the one hand and snobbery, on the other hand.

If you have noticed the same link please tell me of your speculations about why it might exist. Use the “Comment” option on this blog. I don’t censor though I might comment on your comment if you talk like a lying sac. I don’t edit for grammar or spelling unless you ask me to do so explicitly.

Conservative Environmentalism

Jacques Delacroix Politics , , , ,

Conservatives often affirm that creating alarm over alleged global warming is meant to lead to another attempt at collectivist control of our lives. They say that radical environmentalism is the new communism. This makes sense but I think it misses two marks. First, it makes it sound as if the attempt would be innocent enough if only it failed. Second, it implies a certain conscious cynicism on the part of proponents of the climate change view of the world. I think both assumptions are wrong and that it matters that they are wrong.

The religious cult of climate change generates fervent belief in its followers and it will have done our society much damage even if they fail utterly to impose on us the massive socio-economic transformations toward global poverty they pursue. Its applications are ridden with large, crude errors: Today’s Wall Street Journal (10/29/09) mentions an article in the current issue of Science . The article explains how tax-subsidized ethanol turns out more carbon than gasoline.

My judgment that the climate change movement is a religious cult is based on common, ordinary observations: The forceful denial of contrary evidence, the demonization of non-believers, the attempt to shut up effective contradictors by having them fired, the apocalyptic beliefs, are all religious hallmarks of fanatical religiosity. Accordingly, most of the believers are completely sincere, I think, and all the more dangerous for that reason. It’s a strategic mistake to think they are corrupt. It’s easier to change the minds of the corrupt than of the religiously stupefied.  Continue reading →

Anthropology Is So Cool

Brandon Christensen Current Events , ,

We interrupt this program to bring you some awesome pop-cultural news:

Japanese Bagel Heads

And a tidbit of an old video:

Oh What a Blow that Phantom Gave Me

I knew I chose anthropology for a reason.

Systematic Evil and our Insensitivity to Evil

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Politics , ,

Conservative circles are celebrating a new, fairly courageous movie about fanatical, primitive Islamist Iran, “The Stoning of Soraya M.” It’s after the true story of the public execution by stoning of a young mother accused of adultery in a backward Iranian village. The movie sounds well made, affecting, but the story is a cop-out.

It turns out the young woman was framed. She was not guilty of adultery but the victim of machination by her evil husband and weak officials. No commentator or critic I have read has asked what are to me obvious questions:

First, I want to know what is the fate in backward areas of Iran of women who are correctly convicted of adultery. Is Iran a society where the penalty for a woman who has sex with a man not her husband is an especially barbarous form of capital punishment?

Second, I want to know whether or not the same could happen in Tehran or in some other of Iran’s major cities. Even the most civilized societies experience occasional barbarous acts in their backward areas. The question is this: Is the Islamic Republic an uncivilized society?

Third, I want to know how the kind of Islamic law that prevails in Iran defines adultery. I ask, because several years ago, in Muslim Nigeria, a young woman was sentenced to death by stoning for becoming pregnant after divorcing her husband. (Her sentence was eventually commuted and the rest of the world lost track of her.)  Continue reading →

The Mysteries of Nature

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , ,

There is a big stupid redwood tree in the tiny plot in front of my house. It’s stupid because it would be much better off in the forest with its brothers, less than two miles away, rather than littering the sidewalk and threatening my roof. To make matters worse, the utilities company appears to have the right to trim it any way it wants. So, my sequoia looks like an old toilet brush. The city of Santa Cruz won’t let me cut it down and it has the impudence to ask for a special high fee merely to hear my appeal.

Santa Cruz has no manufacturing. It was all run out of town in past years by the left-wing/Green political class. It’s squeezed between the usually breezy Pacific Ocean one one side and wooded mountains on the other. The wind is from the west, from the ocean, four days out of five. My stupid redwood tree right downtown is essential to maintain air purity, I am sure!

Anyway, the redwood tree has one redeeming virtue: It’s home to an abundant and varied fauna. At the apex is a large population of squirrels. They seem to be divided into two tribes, or two ethnic groups. One tribe is red with a tinge of brown, as you would expect in California. The other tribe’s coloring ranges from jet-black to kind of black. The racial strife between the two groups is incessant. At sunrise, they pursue one another across my roof. All day, they set ambushes and they chase the other guys up and down the tree and on the ground.

It’s not always clear what the squirrel warfare is all about. There seems to be plenty of living space for all (“lebensraum,” in German). Or it’s only the old guys fighting over mating rights. Or the old females just being bitchy. Or it’s the young guys that are aggressive because they seldom get any. I know however what they are not fighting about. They are not merely fighting about food as you would expect ordinary forest-dwelling squirrels to do, for example, that must tear each others’ eyes out for every tiny pine cone seed, even every little bitter-tasting acorn. Continue reading →

New Issue of Econ Journal Watch is Out

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, Links , , , , , , , , ,

For those of you who don’t know, co-editor Fred Foldvary is an editor for the Journal, and Warren Gibson is the math reader. From the website:

James Tooley on Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo’s Poor Economics: Banerjee and Duflo propose to bypass the “big questions” of economic development and focus instead on “small steps” to improvement. But, says Tooley, they proceed to make big judgments about education in developing countries, judgments not supported by their own evidence.

Why the Denial? Pauline Dixon asks why writers at UNESCO, Oxfam, and elsewhere have denied or discounted the success and potentiality of private schooling in developing countries.

Neither necessary nor sufficient, but… Thomas Mayer critically appraises Stephen Ziliak and Deirdre McCloskey’s influential writings, particularly The Cult of Statistical Significance. McCloskey and Ziliak reply.

Was Occupational Licensing Good for Minorities? Daniel Klein, Benjamin Powell, and Evgeny Vorotnikov take issue with a JLE article by Marc Law and Mindy Marks. Law and Marks reply.

Mankiw vs. DeLong and Krugman on the CEA’s Real GDP Forecasts in Early 2009: David Cushman shows how a careful econometrician might have adjudicated the debate among these leading economists over the likelihood of a macroeconomic rebound.

Rating Government Bonds: Can We Raise Our Grade? Marc Joffe, a former Senior Director at Moody’s Analytics, discusses limitations of the methods employed at the credit rating agencies and problems in trying to infer default risks from market prices, suggesting another approach.

Also, if you’re unsatisfied with the status quo in terms of political parties, including the Libertarian party, Dr. Foldvary has established the Free Earth Party for you to look at. Be sure to check it out!

The UN Sucks

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , ,

I didn’t catch President Obama’s speech to the UN last night. I had other things to do (like stare at a brick wall).

I think the UN actually deserves credit for helping to avert nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. The UN also did a good job of containing any French, British, or Chinese jealousies that could have erupted during the Cold War by keeping them included in the decision-making process. The diplomatic institutions it put in place were voluntary and had three clear-cut goals in mind: 1) avert nuclear war between the two rising superpowers, 2) avert rivalries between the two fading European powers not defeated by the United States, and 3) ensure that tensions in the Far East remained manageable.

The UN did all of these fairly well.

Today, though, I think the UN is a sham. The few good programs it has, such as the ones focusing on health and clean water, can be better run by various agencies in a decentralized manner. The goals of the post-Cold War UN are vague and paternalistic, which is why I suspect it attracts the curiosity, awe and respect of so many young Leftists. Continue reading →

Health Care Reform: Paradise Lost

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Politics , ,

I have been struggling for three days to swim back to the surface and breathe again. Since the monstrous health care bill reform passed on Sunday, furor and something approaching despair have made me numb and mute. As people begin actually reading the 2700 pages, bad news cascade after bad news. I have been looking for the silver lining and found only one: It looks like the portability of health insurance will become a fact. That’s good. It was intolerable that people stayed in jobs they hated and refrained from entrepreneurship because they were too afraid to lose their health coverage. I think that’s all.

The rest of it is a disaster for our future. Note that every other political defeat does not make me feel the way I do now. Alternance in power is a good thing. When the other guys get their way with something I don’t want, I figure it’s the price I pay for stable and peaceful government. Certainly, I don’t want to live in a country where the losers routinely stage coups or start revolutions.

I don’t like most of what I know is in the law. I fear what else is in there that I will only discover later. I am sure the cost of the programs the law creates will undermine severely our future economic development. I suspect hardly anyone one will benefit. Instead, the overall quality of health care will decline. Most of all, I am aggrieved by the process by which the law became law, against clearly expressed majorities of opinion. The process smells of fascism and of the twisted parliamentary (ostensibly legal) methods by which the Communist Party gained control of Czechoslovakia in 1948. Continue reading →

“Happyism”

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, History, Links , ,

If a man tormented by starvation and civil war in South Sudan declares that he is “happy, no, very happy, a regular three, mind you,” we have learned something about the human spirit and its sometimes stirring, sometimes discouraging, oddity. But we inch toward madness if we go beyond people’s lips and claim to read objectively, or subjectively, their hearts in a 1-2-3 way that is comparable with their neighbors or comparable with the very same South Sudanese man when he wins an immigration lottery and gets to Albany.

From Deirdre McCloskey in the New Republic. It’s about the mismeasurement of happiness. Read the whole thing, but don’t you dare smile!

State of Florida Wants NASA Land

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics , , , ,

…so Tallahassee can develop a commercial spaceport.

This is both good and bad. Here’s why:

Liquidating NASA as a government entity will likely have the same type of effect on society that liquidating the computer industry had. There is a lot of technology in NASA that is just waiting to be developed by average, everyday geeks wanting to get rich.

Unfortunately, when I read that the state of Florida wants to buy up land and, presumably, technology from NASA I see a big problem ahead. It’s the same type of problem that always happens when “privatization” occurs. Instead of full-fledged privatization, as was the case when computer-based technology was passed on to the private sector, what we are seeing is a hybrid-type of privatization where the state still has a say in the process.

What’ll end up happening if Florida is any indication is probably nothing with big financial loses. “Nothing” by itself, however, is a bad sign, because again, there is a lot of potential bottled up in the NASA program. If the politicians in Florida really want a commercial spaceport, they would do well to heed to historical precedent and let the greedy geeks of the world make it happen with their own time and money being invested and potentially lost, rather than the taxpayers.

Many good economists have been talking about a “great stagnation” looming ahead for the West – a period where all of the available technology has been used up, as have all the available new ideas – and this stagnation may well come true, but I think that the de-socialization of NASA could help to alleviate this looming problem in a major way. It’s a shame that politicians think so lowly of their fellow citizens.

Also on the backburner: aside from the inevitable failure of a project like this, think of the ominous associations being created with ventures like these. Government and business working hand-in-hand to create a new niche in the economy for the citizens of Florida and the United States. This is the worst kind of fascism at work. The private sector could do much better, as could the American people.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , , ,

Marxists’ Apartment A Microcosm of Why Marxism Doesn’t Work. From the Onion.

Slavic Feminists in Paris (Not Safe for Work)

Is Peronism back in Argentina? Pay attention to the Left’s rhetoric

The Myth of the Failure of Capitalism, 1932 edition

Three Astonishing Women: A Short Short Story

Jacques Delacroix Current Events

I leave my newspaper on the table outside as I dart inside the coffee shop to get more sugar. When I return, three seconds later, a middle-aged woman is walking briskly across the street, holding my newspaper in her hand.

Hey, I shout fairly amicably, I was not finished with my paper.

She turns around and throws the paper on the table near me.

I don’t want your stupid paper, she says. What would I do with it? I am legally blind.

Fact is that she is wearing unusually thick glasses. Point well taken. What do I know?

I drive into an unevenly paved parking lot behind a woman in a big van. When she makes a right-hand turn, I spot a blue handicapped sticker on her windshield. Just as she is about to place her van in the reserved handicapped space, her engine stops. After several useless attempts to re-start it, she steps out of the vehicle and starts pushing.

I am a real sweetheart and also an old-fashioned nice manly man so, my first reflex is to get out and to give her a hand. I abstain because I soon judge her efforts to be fruitless. She is pushing that heavy van up a significant bump. I think there is no way the two of us can vanquish gravity and place the van in its spot.

Then, the woman braces herself; the back of her dress rises and her big calves become like hard river stones; she harrumphs once and the van ends up perfectly parked in the handicapped spot. I learned another lesson: Don’t judge a book by its cover, or even by its title. Continue reading →