I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Quick hits

Glenn Reynolds writes about Pebble bed reactors, the new nuclear power choice, which is especially good for China.

M. Simon has a really good post about Demographics, and especially how the male/ female gender ratio gives so much power to the minority sex -- explaining the dysfunction among the black community with too few available black men for marrying black women.  So the available men play around, and most black women are competitively pushed to allow that bad behavior.

Wretchard writes so importantly about the NIE, and the fact that perceptions matter so much. The NIE is clear that if the USA leaves Iraq, the Jihadists will claim victory and become a worse problem.  But the perception battle is even more important.

Belgravia dispatch writes agains the Iraq war of "Vanity" -- but in terms easily used against itself.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/29/06 00:53 | link | comments (2)
blogs, politics

Missing my 25 Stanford Renunion

It is extremely unlikely that I'll go back to CA for my 25h Stanford Renuion, of my 1981 graduation.  But I sent in a page for the big reunion book, and just today got the book.  My wife liked the family picture, my before and after Stanford pictures, and the picture of the two of us.  (I guess I should be using Flikr or something here.)


They said I couldn't put it down, but they were only half right.  I had little problem putting it down.  The biggest loss of a transfer student, as I was after 2 years at the Naval Academy, is that you don't have your freshman dorm friends.  Usually they are the best of your college time, and often for life.  Not for me (never wrote any to the middies I left behind.  My mistake, a little.)

This is the kind of personal stuff I should be blogging more often, but how can I find the time among all the great political and economic blogs?

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/29/06 00:08 | link | comments
blogs

Morality of Capitalism

Marginal Revolution discusses a new Clemson think tank to look at the morality of capitalism.

"takes the sovereignty of the individual as a moral absolute."
Morals are based on individual decisions.
Giving somebody else bread can be done for many reasons: 1) you love him, 1b) you pity him (have charity for him) -- a peaceful gift, possibly altruistic.
2) He gives you something, gold, butter, money. An honest, peaceful exchange, making you both better off. (Alan's agreements -- the vast majority of capitalist transactions that create most wealth.)
2b) He gives you false gold, or false promises -- peaceful fraud.
3) He steals your bread, or other property while you are away or asleep. (peaceful theft)
3b) He threatens to hurt you and/or destroy or take your property, a threat backed up by credible force.
The mafia, terrorists, muggers do this; as does the government. Neither extortion nor tax collection is peaceful.

Ayn Rand's idea that selfishness is the moral basis of capitalism is totally wrong; it is moral because of peaceful, honest agreements. (It is Effective and Efficient because of the selfishness, in ways altruism is not. )

I hope they ask Michael Novak to work with them.

There was a totally stupid of U of Chicago Nussbaum's quote "There would be no such thing as private property, for example, without government protection of property from trespass and other damages."
In Somalia, without "government", there remained "private property" -- enforced by guns of warlords. Not the law of the jungle, but the law of the playground w/o adults; the bigger bullies tell everybody else what to do.

"Real government" is what is really enforced, whether in Hezbollah Lebanon or in inner city drug territories or in the family.

Enforcement-only government is clearly possible; "law making" and "law judging" without enforcement is what we see with the UN today; more than half BS.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/06 05:23 | link | comments
economics, morality

Clinton on Fox

Q and O asks if the Fox blowup by Clinton was: "Done on Purpose?"

Offers 3 reasons: 1) Helps Dems in 2006; 2) Helps Hillary in 2008; 3) Intimidates critics
Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party—based on their practice when in power—can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?


This was a second post, after an earlier one about Clinton invoking Clarke:
In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton "put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action."
That's just pathetic. What we have here is a failure of leadership, plain and simple. Either that or it was all show. Go through the motions, say the right things, get the proper wheels turning, but never follow through.

I hope more folks really do compare what Clinton did, and what his "plans" were.
A future interview question — in your plan to fight back against AQ, how many soldiers were to be used?

As to whether it was done on purpose: yes.

The extra vehemence was similar to that seen from Clinton when he stated firmly, "I did not have sex with that woman" — which of course WAS a lie.

A LIE - An untrue statement made by one who knew it was untrue.

Unlike an untrue statement made by one who thought, or even "knew", it was true.

George Burns nailed Clinton in a general statement about show biz:
"If you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made."

Politics on TV is show biz — infotainment.   And W is not an actor.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/26/06 17:25 | link | comments
blogs, media

Commie Viet Spy, Reuters Reporter, Dies

Newsbusters reports on the Vietnamese spy, who worked for Reuters, but was actually helping the commies. 

The commies who murdered 600 000 S. Viet after the South surrendered.

After surrender, 600 000 murders.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/23/06 00:31 | link | comments
vietnam

Humiliation is not Torture

The Corner writes about the interrogation deal between the President and the Senate. A provision dealing with classified evidence makes sure that no sensitive intelligence will have to be shared with terrorists or their lawyers. The bar is very high. There will not be — the terrorists will not have access to classified information.

Wretchard writes about the tough question on torture: the real moral dilemma arises from the fact that coercion can produce intelligence information. If it were useless, as some commentators claim, there would be no dilemma. It is precisely because innocent lives can occasionally be saved by recourse to coercion that this problem is the devil's own. Therefore the correct approach must be to acknowledge the fact that we will have to pay in blood and treasure for not using certain techniques. And if we are prepared to accept that payment then we may willingly forgo these techniques. However, if we are unwilling to pay the price of those risks, we cannot honestly promise the public safety without lying to them. It is the therefore the task of policymakers to inform the public what the tradeoffs are and get them to accept those risks.

Torture is immoral, even torture of the guilty, even torture that works to prevent the death of my wife and children.

Yet, if such torture IS done, and DOES prevent the death of my wife or other innocents, I don't think I'd have much harsh punishment against the torturer.

Yet, if such torture IS done, but DOES NOT prevent any deaths, or any crimes being committed, I would favor harsh punishment against the torturer.

It's usually not possible to know in advance what the outcome will be. So torture should never "be allowed" -- but the Col. who blasted his gun near the head of a terrorist to get info, and GOT info, should not be punished.

In any discussion of right and wrong an important issue should be how much punishment for the guilty on our side.

However, any interrogation technique that is firm, but NOT torture, should be allowable.

There should be a test, e.g. if 100 SEALS/ Green Berets can accept that interrogation technique, without permanent physical harm, it should be allowed.

Maybe this isn't the best "test" -- but one of the issues that should be discussed more is what IS a good test to differentiate unallowable torture from acceptable firm interrogation.

++ Joe at the Moderate Voice has a GREAT round-up of notes.

A commenter states "then there is little Democrats can do to turn the tide. "

BS. The Dems have to say

a) No torture, no firm interrogations, no belly slaps, no humiliation. Nothing, nada. And if that means no intelligence, and no stopping the terrorists before they murder innocents by the dozens or hundreds or thousands, well that's a price moral Democrats are quite willing to make innocent Americans pay. or

b) No torture, but firm interrogations are OK: max of X minutes of waterboarding, max Y minutes of sleep deprivation, humiliation that is not torture is OK (despite Geneva Conventions equating humiliation to torture).

Anything the Dems say, any real policy, has negative costs with it. The Dems are dishonestly trying to avoid any negatives by having no position.

It shouldn't have been the Reps, but the Dems, arguing over what interrogation techniques are going to be legally acceptable.

And arguing about the levels of oversight and publicity and whistleblower protection for those who feel some interrogations are too firm.

It's the policy cowardice of the Dems which keeps themselves impotent -- and which is why they're "soft" on national defense. Like Somalia. Like Rwanda. Like Vietnam and the Killing Fields of Cambodia -- AFTER the anti-war policies were enacted.

Riehl nails it best: "they are wringing their hands wondering how to get elected without letting people know what they really believe."

Where is the line between allowable interrogation and torture. If you won't draw it, then don't be surprised at being laughed at as "soft" for calling a belly slap, or women's panties on one's head, 'torture.' Humiliation is not torture.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/23/06 00:28 | link | comments
politics, blogs, torture

Violent Islam and the Pope

Question asked at Dean’s place: Do Muslims have a right to be annoyed with Benedict, so long as they do not become violent about it? I think that’s a fair question, don’t you?

The Anchoress can give you a fair answer. In our house, we have a rule: You have the right to disagree with and be annoyed by anything someone else says, just as soon as you can accurately repeat back to your opponent the thing they said.

Verybody (!) has a "right to be annoyed" even without listening to the others or hearing the others or even caring about the others.

And everybody else has a right to call such folk ignoramuses (ignoramusi?), or intellectual lightweights, or moral hypocrites, or mere sad jokes.

Anybody who IS annoyed, but has NOT read or understood what is said, should be laughed at. And not taken seriously. Your own rule about accurately repeating your opponent is an excellent one for justifying "respect", rather than "right". Even the mentally handicapped have rights to be annoyed. Even my 1 year old baby has a right to be annoyed, but I don't have to take him very seriously.

With this particular message, 'that true religion can not be spread by the sword', any violence done as an expression of annoyance should be particularly highlighted as hypocritical.

Since the "insult" seems mostly to be in the next-to-last emperor's question "what good have the Muslim's brought" -- that particular aspect of the question should also be asked. What good HAS been done by Muslims since the 14th Century? I'd say most of the Ottoman Empire was slightly more negative than positive for the Muslim civilization and culture; and Arabs, in particular, have been 'oppressed' the most due to the Turks.

I think part of the annoyance is an attempted projection away from being annoyed at Muslim oppressors of the past, to being annoyed at non-Muslims today.

Finally, any Muslims being annoyed by the Pope, but failing to be annoyed about the murder of some
200 000 Muslims in Sudan, should be held up for the greatest of contempt and ridicule.

++as I think about it, the purpose of the violence becomes clear. To make a serious point, because violence is serious, without having to make a serious argument.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/22/06 19:18 | link | comments
christianity, islamofascism, morality, cartoon war

Pausing Books, but not movies

Marginal Revolution asks

Why do pauses ruin a movie but not a book?  I can think of a few hypotheses:

1. Movies manipulate our neurophysiology over a two-hour time horizon.  If we restart in the middle after a two-day pause, we are not worked up in the right manner.

2. Most books are longer than most movies, but there is otherwise no good reason for the difference in our consumption pattern.

3. We like the idea that we are "reading Camus," and thus we wish to stretch it out.  Few people get comparable status or feel-good values from watching movies and thus there is no need to prolong that experience.

4. We don't actually like reading enough to keep on paying attention for so many hours in a row.

There were at least 3 weekends of college I lost in reading the Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Friday night till dawn The Fellowship, sleep a few hours & eat; Saturday afternoon-night The Two Towers, usually before dawn nap; up for brunch Sunday and Return of the King.

The movies can be stopped fairly easily -- how many have seen the extended versions of all three at one shot?

#2 length is key. For me, #3 is totally off; I like to consume the movie OR the book. #4 I actually like reading more, BUT since I don't want to stop until done I more often don't start without the time to finish. (Maybe my mistake).

#5 My own pace. YES. My sister drives a truck; she's now often getting books on tape/CDs. We have the Harry Potter CDs, which are fine. But I read much faster than even the fine Jim Dale talks, I'm impatient with the CDs. I read HP 5 in one night; also HP 6.

I think HP 1 would make a fine LONG miniseries, with two chapters every half hour. If the film would get into the interpersonal relationship details, rather than merely the plot of "what happens".

Books are much richer in relationship nuances, which are more often glossed over, if not ignored, in films.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/22/06 19:08 | link | comments
blogs

Prizes not Patents for Creation

"Intellectual property" is supported because it supports innovation.
Very effectively.

A legal CD costs $10, the same quality Free Market ('pirate') CD costs $1.

The $9 difference is almost a "tax" on the buyer sent directly to the seller & publisher & distributor & producer & studio & ... creator.

The gov't does NOT get that cash, so in that sense it's not a tax. (Though property which is copied is certainly not stolen -- the original owner still owns it.)

IPR is Intellectual Monopoly Protection.

Before junking the use of legally justified violence against peaceful, poor, info-sharing folk, there needs to be some other ways of supporting the great benefit of innovation.

Prizes, even tax-supported prizes, seem a better way to support innovation than IPR.

Note how few IPR supporters do any cost-benefit analysis in support. The cost of IPR enforcement is increasing with every computer CD & DVD burner sold. If the enforcement cost isn't already greater than the benefit, at some point it will be.

(Libertarians who think that violence should not be used to promote social goals, should not support legal violence to promote the goal of innovation; yet many/ most do. I no longer do.)

Via Marginal Revolution and Stiglitz

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/22/06 19:06 | link | comments
economics

Islam today is violent.

First, please read The Anchoress on the Pope's speech.
he emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”. [All emphasis mine.]

I think the Pope made a small mistake in his reason, by not fully understanding in advance how the Islamic reason-haters would respond.

I think his faith, in the reasonableness of Islam, blinded him to their predictable rage.

I think his faith allowed him to speak a greater truth, a more important truth, a more relevant and possibly catalyzing truth. 

<b>"There is no compulsion in religion."</b>
Not in a modern religion.
As far as Islam is full of violence, it is not a modern religion.

A great analysis.  Similar to the WSJ on Benedict the Brave.

The Pope-haters complain about: Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

As I think about this, there might even be an Arab anti-Islam movement.  Perhaps the Arabs had a fine civilization, until Islam took it over.  Perhaps Islam destroyed Arab civilization, and is the cause of their poverty and backwardness.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/20/06 11:21 | link | comments (2)
islamofascism

Islam is violent

Dean and Bryan argue about Muslims as also with Robert Spencer

Dean , I think your own criticism was off. In fact, what YOU wrote is, very uncharacteristically, "Unbelievabily Pretentious And Tedious Nonsense". [spelling: Unbelievably- ha!]

OK, that's too harsh -- you conclude that we need to understand Muslims better, and I agree with that.

But prior you say: "Therefore it is not right to say that Islam is inherently violent, and inherently seeks to convert people by the sword. Only by carefully cherry-picking out-of-context quotes, like Osama Bin Laden does, can you justify a worldview which says you're a "martyr" if you blow yourself up to kill civilians."

Which Islam is NOT inherently violent, today? Certainly the Sunnis in Iraq are (blowing up Shia Mosques and believers); and the Shia in Iraq are getting more so (death squads). Iran? Pakistan? Indonesia? Sudan?

It looks to me that, in practice today, "public" Islam is violent. And while even the millions of Muslim rioters over the last few years are still a minority, I would claim that going to a peaceful protest which turns into a violent riot indicates "inherent violence".

Involuntary conversion is a different thing, your use of AND is perhaps sloppy logic. Or perhaps not. Maybe you know that Islam IS truly violent, but is NOT truly for forced conversion -- and thus you can honestly claim it is NOT for [both violence AND forced conversion].

Anyway, I think the fact that so many secularist, usually anti-Christian bloviaters DO use the Old Testament (cherry picked) against Christians means that what Bryan said is important. And that your dismissal of it flat out wrong -- when Bryan shows some cases of it, doesn't that show you're wrong? (If not, what would?)

On the "reformation" of Islam, the seeds are already there. Majority Sunni/Shia governments need to give free speech and free religion to minority Sunni/Shia as well as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc; and even secularists.

Those imams who advocated non-free speech for the others need to be disobeyed.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/19/06 15:34 | link | comments (1)
peace, islamofascism

Two-Way Sexual Selection, and the usual suspects

David Brin writes a long post about
Neoteny and Two-Way Sexual Selection in Human Evolution:

And it's just like the title.  Interesting.  But long. 

So then I added his blog to the blog roll, yet disagree with him, since he's in favor of the Dems.

I'm for Bush, still.
I think his Iraq war was a "B" success, more than 2500 US deaths, less than 5000.
Anybody who thinks it's terrible should have a definition of what success looks like, and a metric for measuring it.

On the Iraqis murdering other Iraqis, that is primarily an Iraqi problem, to be solved by this or a future Iraqi government. 
Including the possible split into 3 countries, as many seem to want -- although many Iraqis also seem to want to "save the Union", er, Federal Iraq.

With the troops we now have, we can ensure that Iraqis don't murder themselves at a Lincolnesque rate; so whether they decide to stay together in a US imposed democracy, or split, it will be decided by them without a huge war.

The alternative models that come to mind: Darfur, where the UN allows genocide (but not calling it that).  I don't hear Bush-haters suggesting how much better Darfur is than Iraq.

Or Vietnam.  After the anti-war policy was followed, the result was the murder of 600 000 S. Viet US allies, AFTER they surrendered.  (In violation of their Geneva Convention rights, but the anti-war folk never really cared.  They were all just gooks, right?)  I think Bush and the Reps might start reminding folks what the anti-war Dems offer: another bloodbath after we leave.

How bad is it now?
Bad.  For Iraqis.
But not bad enough for the Iraqis to turn in the killers, in enough numbers to end the murders.


On immigration, the USA should offer legal immigration for $20 000 (in installments) to all outside the country, and $40 000 to all inside the country.  A $20 000 fine for successful illegal immigration seems reasonable -- if they see that everybody else is getting in legally for only $20 000, most illegals will leave voluntarily.

Oh yes, also require all immigrants to pay for English courses.  Attendance optional, but payment required -- with courses then freely available to the pre-paid folk.  Until they can demonstrate competence. (no spellcheck to catch typos!)

I also like Bush tax cuts.  And his pro-life anti-abortion position.  And his civil union yes, gay marriage no.

Maybe he's surrounded and supported by corrupt folk, but so are most (all?) of the Dems -- and the Dems don't even have the right policies.

The right strategy, even if done at a B level, seems far superior to the wrong strategy.  Or the juvenile whining about the bad parts of any real strategy.
(First time visit, after the Sex Study on Male Females, very interesting.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/19/06 00:32 | link | comments
iraq, blogs, immigration

Thoughts on Lebanon & Palestine

I support Abbas holding a referendum because it would provide a way for Hamas leaders to accept Israel without abandoning their principles unless the people decide.

Arafat never signed any document explicitly accepting the right of Israel to exist, as far as I know -- I understood the wording was always merely an implicit recognition.

The Golan Heights were not part of Jordan, but taken from Syria -- most accept that Israel won't give them up (for security reasons).

Land swapping, especially giving up majority Arab-Israeli land, is ON the table because of the demographics, AND because of some West Bank settlements, mostly now on the Israeli side of the WB wall.

I anticipate a WB wall border between Israel and the WB Palestine, despite the fact that with that wall Israel took even more land -- it was less then 5%. Less than the amount Slovakia lost to Ukraine after WW II (Ruthenia). I can also imagine going back to the '67 borders, but think that it's less likely.

Yet Joe and other trolls want Israel to change -- the key is that the Palestinians must change. They do NOT accept UN Human Rights of Free Speech and Free Religion. Palestinian killers murder Palestinians who disagree, and are not brought to justice -- this is how "force on the ground" rules.

However much injustice has been done by Israel, so far, the key to peace is for Palestinians to want it. To want it enough to accept Israel, to accept no "right of return"; possibly to accept the WB wall.

There is a lack of discussion of what to do now, 2006 and forward, making the trolls and half-trolls much less relevant.

Education is not as much the answer as wanting peace. Wanting peace w/o education will work while education w/o wanting peace will not. The peaceniks may want peace too much, so much that their appeasement creates more demands rather than peace. But at least they're right at how horrible war is. The Palestinian lovers of Jew-murder don't seem to think war is horrible enough to accept Israel.

Since EU money is one of the key issues, Israel should be addressing where, and to whom, the money goes. I suggest it should only go to private, non-political folk. Private shops selling food; private hospitals offering medical care. NOT to the (terrorist) Hamas gov't.

Michael has a fantastic article on Gaza, a Volcano of Terror.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/17/06 23:50 | link | comments
israel palestine

We will never run out of oil

We will never run out of oil -- but we long ago ran out of $0.05 and even $0.25/gal gas (though I remember the latter and "gas wars" with triple green stamps).  The price will rise, but we will NOT run out.

Bush was possibly a bit silly in not using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to also manage supply -- the US gov't could be selling oil out from the SPR when prices are "high", and buying whenever prices are "low". In fact, they almost could do at profit, but they should certainly be doing some of.

There hasn't yet been a peak price of 30% higher than the prior year's average where the price hasn't then come back down, some. Or a lot.

Anybody who is serious about getting alternative fuels sooner should want to impose an increasing gas tax to partially offset the decrease, so as to keep prices higher and encouraging a little conservation. Of course, voters strongly want conservation -- meaning OTHER people change their behavior (not them!).

Austin Bay looks at oil prices.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/17/06 23:46 | link | comments
economics, blogs, gas tax

Multi-Issue Sophisticates

"these people aren’t actually centrists in the conventional sense of that word. They have passionate feelings from all sides of the spectrum, not just the middle ground. Someone could be a complete social liberal while being an adamant war hawk. Or the reverse."

"Multi-Issue Sophisticates" would be my long name, knowing it would be shortened to

While liberal-conservative doesn't describe them, most other labels won't either. Because they don't agree with each other. So the label needs to include room for these disagreements.

Variations on Liberty and Libertarian won't be accurate, because often there is a desire for more state.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/16/06 19:10 | link | comments (2)
politics, blogs, democracy

History and waiting for rationality

"I'm all for promoting democracy, but you don't do it by top-down measures. The Orange Revolution occurred because of years of fostering the foundation of democracy, so that it could spring up organically. I'm not discounting the importance of the military element that preceded this, but you all seem to discount the necessary ideological element. If you install democracy through the barrel of a gun, you'll end up with some rather skewed results." So says Edgar, taking a typical Leftist line in the great Chicago Boyz comments.

I don't believe you favor democracy in the ME -- because of your arguments.
a) Bush claims to support democracy; invaded two countries; both have had elections.  Both seem to be increasing in democracy.
You, Edgar, seem to be against the invasion for democracy. 
You offer no alternative, which seems intellectually cowardly.  'Let Iran remain a mullah-dictatorship until they have a velvet revolution' -- you don't say this, perhaps because you know how silly it sounds.  What is the alternative you propose?

Japan's successful democracy isn't the only one; so is S. Korea, AFTER a US supported General-dictator.  Dictator-Pinochet in Chile, murderer but supported by the US, did create good market institutions and the basis of the most wealthy S. American country, AND democracy.

S. Vietnam could have been a success, and was on it's corrupt but merry way, but needed more cash which the Dems pulled the plug on.  So 600 000 S. Viet US allies were allowed to be murdered.

US weakness/ support for terrorism started with the Dem handover in Vietnam -- proving to all anti-US folk that victory against the US was possible even without winning a battle.

The dictator-Shah of Iran was opposed by: a) idealistic democrats wanting human rights, b) idealistic communists wanting a Leftist dictatorship, and c) Khomeni, wanting an Islamic dictatorship.  All "against the Shah" are responsible for the success of Khomeni, and partly the Islamic threat.

The Dems who cared "so much" about the hundreds of Vietnamese people being killed by the US in My Lai murders (during war), stopped caring about the murders when it was their N. Viet commie allies doing the murder after surrender. 

And I doubt that Murtha, for instance, would care much if the US left Iraq and in the Sunni - Shia civil war bloodbath another 600 000 were killed.  Of course, the Dems would claim that was proof it was a mistake to invade.

If we stay, Iraq will become a stable democracy (it's not stable, yet), in less than the 1946-1989 43 years it took to win the Cold War.  Is it worth staying until Iraq stability, relative to the alternative?  I say yes -- Murtha and the Dems don't give any details on the cost of leaving.

Whether it's worth the cost or not depends on what the costs and benefits of each alternative are -- but these alternative cost/benefit packages are NOT being discussed.  This is just one of the annoyances of 5 years of waiting for a rational discussion.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/13/06 19:49 | link | comments (4)
iraq, democracy, wot , islamofascism

DeLong Logic Supports WTC destruction

Brad DeLong and Jane Galt and Greg Mankiw have been discussing envy, on Brad, Jane, Greg, and a few other posts.  I added my own yesterday, Equality thru destruction.

Brad DeLong argues with Mankiw, who is "uncomfortable making envy a basis for public policy."

To which I [Brad] respond by focusing on the moral flaws of the rich: "It's not the hard work and entrepreneurship [of the rich] that is to be discouraged. Make inventions, build enterprises, donate money for hospitals and libraries--that is all extremely meritorious and praiseworthy. It's the conspicuous consumption that is the problem. Surely spite is at least as offensive an other-regarding preference as envy, isn't it?"

And then all of a sudden we are accused of wanting to throw acid in Cindy Crawford's face.”

This last was Jane’s inclusion of beauty, as a positional endowment. Interesting but NOT what I want to talk about.

I wrote a nasty note to Brad, whose site had a great picture of the horrible event. -- because his logic supports the WTC terrorist murderers.

I mostly attack the Envy argument on Jane Galt's site, as well as on mine, including: "I discussed the differences between Russian Dreams and American Dreams, with similar farmers who live next to a neighbor owning a prize cow. The American Dream is to get a BETTER cow. The Russian Dream is that the neighbor's COW DIES.

DeLong is a "Russian Dreamer," wanting the destruction of the wealth of his neighbor."

At the end I note some justice issues of agreement: "While the destructive envy that DeLong explicitly advocates (punish the rich even if it doesn't help the poor) is the bigger problem, many who aren't so envious yet do hate the injustice will support mild punishment/ taxes on all the rich, in order to at least punish the guilty rich some, even if the innocent rich are also punished."

However, I've now read Brad's repeated phrase: "My point was that the rich are spiteful--that they enjoy the envy of the poor.

Perhaps some sociologist or psychologist or social psychologist can explain why the reaction is one of jumping to condemn the poor whom the displays by the rich make feel small, rather than to condemn the rich for making the displays in order to feel large."

Doesn't this logic apply to the terrorists, where "rich" means "rich Americans", and "poor" means "poor Muslims"?

Your words then mean: >>Rich Americans are spiteful--they enjoy the envy of poor Muslims.<<

"Surely spite is at least as offensive an other-regarding preference as envy, isn't it?"

I think your logic can then be restated to specifically mean: >>American spite, by building the tallest WTC and making Muslims feel small while keeping America "exclusive" through immigration quotas, is at least as offensive an other-regarding preference as WTC destroying envy, isn't it? <<

And for me, the answer is no. American/ rich conspicuous consumption, like building BIG, while it IS a form of unfair exclusive superiority, is NOT as offensive or immoral as ANY envy induced policy of destruction.

I truly believe the powerful picture shown, of the WTC after the attacks, is significantly based on terrorists following Brad DeLong’s own anti-rich envy policy.

And, many of the rich-haters are those who, as Q and O notes “knew that America had brought this onto itself; deep down they knew that we deserved it.”

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/12/06 00:53 | link | comments
envy

US United in Pain, not in Policy

Steven Den Beste in Chicago Boyz has a great post “debunking” the idea that America was united 5 years ago.

"The only consensus on 9/11 was that a terrible tragedy had occurred. There was no consensus as to who was truly responsible. And that is why within hours we began to hear, "Ask yourselves why they hate you." They knew that America had brought this onto itself; deep down they knew that we deserved it.

We all knew that reform was needed. Some of us thought it was the Arab/Islamic world which needed to reform. Others knew, deep down, that America was the true problem. To try to force reform onto the Arab world would be to renew the very mistakes which had caused the attack in the first place. And to even make the attempt would inspire more and more young Arab men to become terrorists against us, increasing the danger to us.

Some of us felt that the "root cause" of this war was Arab failure, and Arab shame at their failure. The others knew that the "root cause" was American failure, and America's refusal to feel shame at its failure."

Yes, many Leftists Blame America (Blame Bush, Blame Christianity & the Crusades), and especially Blame Capitalism, claiming poverty is the root cause.

Jane Galt's recent disagreement with Brad DeLong about Envy, and chopping down the Tall Poppies, reducing the rich EVEN IF it doesn't help the poor absolutely. Their argument: 'Those who believe the rich induce envy in the poor, and do so out of spite, deserve to be brought down.' Such folk who hate Tax Cuts (for the rich!), would mostly think bringing down rich America (inducing envy!) is reasonable.

Secondly, protesting the current status, in which it is easy to get a big "unity" coalition, is far different than agreement on an alternate policy. On Iraq, there's more troops, fewer troops, and the same troops. I kind of think the same troops is the best bad choice, with more troops meaning more casualties and not any quicker Iraqi responsibility (probably slower), and less troops means much more Iraqi casualties as terrorists see a 'weaker' America.

But both those wanting more or fewer troops can be against Bush -- and are. Yet they don't really agree.

Great disagreement post.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/12/06 00:20 | link | comments
economics, blogs, wot , islamofascism, envy

Faster Country Development

What makes some countries develop faster?
"complementary infrastructure" is dominated by trust / justice /peace. Trust is crucial, as above noted. The right legal system to compare is that AS IT WORKS, not as it is written. The laws on employer-employee relations are important, but more important is that US companies follow them fairly well. And both sides mostly trust the justice system, despite its increasing lottery characteristics.

The need for peaceful agreement, or peaceful tolerance of disagreement, is also crucial. The Free Market is also the Peaceful Market -- and it is up to the justice system to make it the Honest Market.

But a commenter was most correct "It's genuinely very hard to figure out how to organize groups of people well;" -- focus on the single bottom line, profit, helps the decision makers optimize the organization for the purpose of maximizing wealth creation. Most "aid" projects focus on multiple objectives, and then have no way of optimizing between them.

The fact that there are so many competing organizations allows the hard working, on-time worker, with or without much education, to demonstrate high productive value in an organization where a manager will tell him what to do.

The productivity of the US workers is primarily a result of better profit-orientation (mixed long & short term) by manager decision makers. (Via Jane Galt)

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/11/06 23:40 | link | comments
economics, wot , aid

"Equality through destruction" is Envy

The evil of Envy is this: a desire for "equality through destruction."

Jane Galt writes about Brad DeLong's love affair with high taxes on the rich, and mentions the issue of beauty, and "positional" advantage.  Suggesting the logic is similar to putting acid on the face of beautiful Cindy Crawford.

DeLong's desire to punish the rich through taxes is the same kind of destructive envy that Bolsheviks had in their desire to destroy the rich houses of the upper class, the same envy many Nazis had of Jews, the same envy Palestinians have of Israelis which they showed in destroying the greenhouses of Gaza -- instead of using them to produce wealth.


In this desire to destroy, envy of money has had many rationalizations, but envy of the beautiful not so much (Snow White's "evil" step-mother wanting to destroy her beauty is a myth against envy of the young lovelies.)


Before coming to Slovakia 15 years ago, I discussed the differences between Russian Dreams and American Dreams, with similar farmers who live next to a neighbor owning a prize cow.
The American Dream is to get a BETTER cow.
The Russian Dream is that the neighbor's COW DIES.

DeLong is a "Russian Dreamer," wanting the destruction of the wealth of his neighbor.


I liked Patrick's comment too; but y81 had an even more important point:
"(ii) with suck-up students, who treat every observation as brilliant, before they get their diplomas and head off to Wall Street to skew the income distribution and sneer at the idiotic lib/lab professors who gave them A's (beieve me, I know)."

Many such suck-up students, had they been born in Russia, would have become commies in order to be successful.  In the 89-92 transitions, they'd become company owners/ entrepreneurs -- to be successful.  If it was necessary, or useful, to bribe politicians, avoid paying taxes, commit fraud, betray business partners, kill owners of rival banks (7 or 8 were murdered) -- many successful rich folk are willing to do whatever it takes to become successful.
[Capitalism works best because such suck-ups must compete with profitable bottom lines, and most often (not always) the most profit creating folk get promotions.  The most successful suck-ups learn how to make their divisions profitable.]
Most wealth throughout the world is controlled by wealthy folk who DID NOT earn it through only honest, peaceful means. 
I think the reality of this injustice is the biggest Libertarian problem. 

While the destructive envy that DeLong explicitly advocates (punish the rich even if it doesn't help the poor) is the bigger problem, many who aren't so envious yet do hate the injustice will support mild punishment/ taxes on all the rich, in order to at least punish the guilty rich some, even if the innocent rich are also punished.

The justice system has two errors: let guilty wrongly go free, let innocent wrongly be punished.  Taxing/ punishing the rich avoids letting the {unprovably} guilty rich avoid all justice, at the cost of higher taxes on the innocent.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/10/06 14:46 | link | comments (5)
politics, economics, envy