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

Czechoslovakia Crossroads

Wim in Belmont Club comments is correct that forcing the German Sudetenland to be under the Czechs was a mistake.

But when he says: "Czecheslovakia similarly peacefully partitioned along ethnic lines in 1992 (those were not the existing internal borders)."  He's wrong.

Part of the Prague Spring, with Slovak President Dubcak trying to create "communism with a human face", was the change from CSSR to CSSFR, Czechoslovak Socialist Federal Republic, with a Czech and Slovak border.  That became the border after the 1992 election.

The 5 mil. Slovaks wanted the Slovak Republic to be equal in Federal power to the 10 mil. Czechs, as well as a hyphen-- Czecho-Slovakia! Neither side "wanted to split", but the majority Czechs refused equality of republics, and the minority Slovaks refused a subordinate position.

I think these refusals are always present in any multicultural mix, but especially focused upon when gov't spoils are big -- they're much less important when gov't is less important.

And the revived post-communist nationalism was a simple way for Ex-Communists to get back into leadership/ popular positions.

(Former Advisor to the Slovak Prime Minister, dissident Jan Carnogursky, 1991-1992; lost election to ex-commie semi-nationalist V. Meciar.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/15/08 02:41 | link | comments (2)
democracy

Deal surplus distribution IS zero sum

Via a Jonathan Pearce, Samisdata, book review:
<em>There is a great, contemporary novel to be written that has the doings of financiers at its core and which does not pander to the notion that moneymaking is a zero-sum game.</em>

Sorry, I don't believe this is true.  "Deals" will, because of the financing, allow entrepreneurs to create wealth (positive sum).  But the deal itself is pretty much zero-sum: the higher the interest rate the more the bank gets, the less the payer has.
Also, in bidding for a deal -- the more the investment bank gets in fees, the less that is available for the investment.


It's actually a hugely underdiscussed issue in economics, that each individual deal, each decision, IS a zero-sum distribution of "deal surplus". The wealth creation effect is based on this deal surplus.


Example, 2-week holiday at an Italian beach for a family of 6.
Offers: 1200 for 2 rooms 100 m away; 1000 for 2 rooms 350 m away, 1100 for 1 room 50 m away.
I'm willing to pay 1300 for 2 rooms 50 m away.  All of these are acceptable, and I'll choose one (a, probably), and have some surplus -- but obviously, the more they get the more I have to pay.  Zero sum in distributing the particular deal surplus.

Every individual deal includes a surplus to both sides -- this win-win aspect is the basis of Free Trade.  But the distribution of the surplus isn't.
I think this is such an important point, I'm going to have to think about it some more. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/15/08 02:11 | link | comments
economics

An evil commie story - Emil Svec

 I recently finished correcting the translation of one story, Emil Svec, an anti-commie Christian in Slovakia.  After his hard prison time (early 50s), he decided to escape from commie Czechoslovakia.  He stole an airplane and flew 100 km over the border to Austria, to finish his medical studies.

But he was interested in keeping track of news, and was lured into an ambush near the border where StB agents took him to the Two Lions, a similar Slovak terror house. (I know you know...)

Again imprisoned, he survived, was pardoned.


How is organized evil perpetuated? 
I loved comic books most of my life, and am happy so many Marvel comics are being made into films.  My single favorite line comes from the (OK, not favorite) movie Daredevil:
Nobody is innocent.

In a totalitarian state, or a near-future Database state, the fact that nobody is innocent means that everybody "deserves" punishment. 

The evil rulers get allies thru non-justice -- work for us and you won't get the punishment you deserve.

A guy Emil Svec had known growing up had an Austrian wife, had visited Austria, but had been caught smuggling (women's scarves and nylons).  He had to agree to be an StB informant or else both he and his wife would be punished.  He was allowed to enter Austria, befriend Svec, and then betray Svec.

In the ambush, Svec was shot a couple of times.  When they dragged him back over the border, he was treated by a doctor.  A guy he had studied medicine with in Bratislava.  But one who would not testify in any court on behalf of Svec, claiming: "I am a Communist first, then a doctor."

Nobody is innocent.
As I write this, for the first time I see clearly its relationship to Original Sin.

This use of guilt by the evil Commies, like the Nazis, seems to increasingly be used today by the Liberal Fascists.

(Via Adriana Lucas, House of Terror)

I can send the whole 11 page documentary transcript, if you're interested.  It's for a 40 min. movie made by the Slovak Institute of National Memory (where Jan Langos was the head until he was killed in an auto accident a couple years ago.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/15/08 01:29 | link | comments (2)
communism

GenBugs will produce oil

It will happen in Silicon Valley.
The Times: 

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

It's not commercial yet, nor even a demo plant.

“Our plan is to have a demonstration-scale plant operational by 2010 and, in parallel, we’ll be working on the design and construction of a commercial-scale facility to open in 2011,” says Mr Pal, adding that if LS9 used Brazilian sugar cane as its feedstock, its fuel would probably cost about $50 a barrel.

Backstop technology -- perhaps a good reason NOT to invest too much into oil shale right now.

We will NEVER "run out of oil".  But price depends on supply and demand, and both of those depend on technology (and gov't laws & subsidies).

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/15/08 00:06 | link | comments
technology

(Windfall?) Tax the bankers' bonuses

The real issue was that banks, like the buyers, “knew” that US house prices “always go up”.

As soon as this usual truism began to be treated like a law of house price anti-gravity, and then depended upon, everybody wanted to get as much upside as possible—since the prices only went up.  No risk, try for maximum gain!

There SHOULD be a 50% windfall / irresponsibility surtax on all bonuses paid to financial folks making 10x annual avg US wages (~$450 000) at companies which have lost money on subprime mortgages.

The new moral hazard is that private fat cats can take big risks and, if OK, get all the profit, but if there’s a bust, the risk is covered by Uncle Sugar.  Starting back at the Long Term Capital Management bailout—the individuals should have had surtaxes on their prior year’s bonuses.

(via Prof. Bainbridge, and also Marginal Revolution)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/13/08 00:08 | link | comments
economics, justice

Little use for NewsTrust

NewsTrust is a good idea -- independent, blogger folk rating news stories. 
http://www.newstrust.net/webx?showStoryByCategory@@.ee84e9c!days=7&picks=1

But the stories I read seem to be partisan Dem hatchet jobs, yet rated highly by many reviewers.  Yechh.

Here's my review of a recent  anti-McCain note by Richard Parry:

What spinning junk, suitable for echo chamber denunciations based on Gotcha restatements.
McCain says  Obama said "Constitution" when Obama said "guns";
which Parry calls a lie despite noting that McCain supports Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.  This individual right is one that every gun control nanny statist wants to take away, but gun nuts do cling to the 2nd Amendment. Of the Constitution.

Later McCain's campaign says no lobbyist asked McCain to send a Paxton support letter to the FCC,  but Parry says this is a lie because McCain did meet with Paxton.

It's obvious both statements can be true -- but Parry never considers this in his rush to claim McCain is a liar.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/12/08 23:59 | link | comments
media

Brief Iraq History

I recall, pretty clearly, the Hans Blix testimony at the UN in Feb, 2003 -- the deadline for Saddam to prove he had no WMDs.

Blix DID want more time for more inspections.
Blix did NOT ever claim that Saddam had proven to have destroyed all his previously known WMDs.

Where was the burden of proof?  The Left wants to say it is up to the US to prove he had them, and in the deranged version that Bush LIED about them -- meaning that Bush knew Saddam didn't have them.  (It's clear to me the Bush believed Saddam had WMDs, but was wrong.  Wrong is not lying.  Only BDS sufferers think that wrong = lying.)

According to the UN resolutions ending the Iraq War in 1991 after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the burden of proof is on Saddam.  He was on parole, and violating it in some 16 UN SC resolutions.  If violating a UN SC resolution is not violation of international law, there is no effective international law (a position I believe is

Bush has been spectacularly weak at pushing the issue of burden of proof (altho perhaps he might be doing this because he doesn't want that precedent with Iran).

The goal of Saddam was to "allow" inspections that "would never" (wink wink) find any WMDs -- even tho all of his neighbors and the West would believe he still had them.  (IMO)

Thus, just as Saddam won Desert Storm (thru surviving w/o unconditional surrender or losing power), he would win the inspection whack-a-site sometimes cooperate, somtimes not.

All the while, his Oil-for-Food bribery to France, Russia, and folks at the UN would continue, with them pushing for ever looser sanctions.

I have no doubt that, without the invasion, Saddam would have survived, prospered, and had sanctions loosened.

Remember many of the anti-war folk had previously been screaming about how sanctions were killing so many Iraqi children -- always the fault of the West, never the dictator.


<i>"But I do know that invading their countries and making war on them, when they have not actually attacked our country first, consistently turns into a disaster, both for them and for us."</i>
Well, I don't recall any Korean attack on the US, but the US/UN invasion/ liberation of S. Korea seems pretty good, right now.
Especially when compared to the N. Korean alternative.

In Vietnam, Nixon won the war (1973 Paris Peace Accords) before the majority Dem US Congress  (a) insisted on a "no enforcement by US troops" law forbidding Nixon/ Ford from sending troops (1974), and (b) reduced funding for our imperfec ally, S. Vietnam (1975) -- allowing the N. Viet commies to violate their signed treaty and attack and win, quickly, against the corrupt, cowardly (many officers), incompetent S. Viet forces with no support from the USA.  Similarly the Chinese support Khmer Rouge were able to overrun Cambodia and murder hundreds of thousands.

The Killing Fields are the worst human caused tragedy that have occurred in my life -- I wish the US anti-war (Vietnam) really WERE held accountable for these despicable yet predictable results of their policies.  I'm a bit ashamed to recall my first US presidential vote, for Carter -- because I didn't like Ford pardoning Nixon AND didn't like the fotos of Ford with a football between his legs like a college center. 
Carter has never been held accountable for dumping the Shah, and its torturing secret police (SAVAK), which was replaced by even worse mullahs.

D. Feith's book (thru reviews) seems to argue that the Rumsfeld idea was to go in, take out Saddam and the WMDs, and turn everything over to the Iraqis quick, with Gen. Gardner.  But he lost the policy battle with Powell's State dept., wanting to do the far harder & longer "nation building", but under US "little dictator" Bremer ... anybody but Iraqi exile Chalabi!  

I'm really annoyed so much silly hot air is discussed in "why" we went into Iraq, and so much less in what our choices were starting after the statue fell.

We are going to continue Losing the Peace if we can only accept and support allies that have perfectly Clean Hands -- I call it Unreal Perfection.  Much of this (admittedly stimulating, even addicting?) comment thread is sterile on this crucial point -- what are the right policies to follow AFTER an invasion? 

1) Faster elections of local leaders with local security responsibility and budget spending authority (whether thru ration cards or other methods)
2) Creation of a Resource Fund, oil or diamonds or whatever, which will pay out dividends directly to the people -- more money/ power to them, less cash & corruption of the politicians
3) Full 100% internet based transparency on all gov't contracts...

Am I totally Off Topic yet?  
Well the point is this -- all this criminalizing dissent is also sucking policy discussion time away from forward moving policies. 

I, for one, would like to live in World Without Dictators.  When I compare Bush's action in Iraq with the UN's mostly inaction in Sudan, Bush looks a lot better.

(Via Winds of Change, where there was so much meat in the comments "Have you no shame, sir?" -- the post focusing on holding Bush accountable for going to war with trials of some kind.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/08/08 16:22 | link | comments
iraq