When Hitler wrote about destroying the Jews, few people believed him. Just rhetoric, they thought. The result was the "Endlosung", or, for non-German speakers, the "Final Solution".
Jews don't doubt any more. So when this is announced by Hamas:
"Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Qur’anic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam.”
And when they even use the same terminology - then let no-one doubt that Israel means it too - they will defend themselves.
Evidence at Palestinian Media Watch - http://www.pmw.org.il/
Thursday 29 March 2007
More on Slavery
Wat Tyler on Burning our Money blog has some background to the ludicrous idea of slavery reparations.
First off, let me state that the idea of putting a financial value on some things is actually impossible. It's commonplace nowadays to claim compensation for any and everything, but to me it's a moral madness. No money can "restore" the position before the crime, when death, torment and horror is involved, let alone the long-drawn out abomination of the slave trade and slavery itself.
The right response of the victims, is to treat the tormentor with utter contempt and to throw the offer of blood-money back in their faces.
However, since the question is raised, and we are engaging in a thought-experiment, we can assess the value of the income from the trade.
Which modern research has shown to be less than actually was believed.
Against that has to be set the cost of defending the sugar islands, if we are to speak of the net benefit to Britain. So that cost was higher than it would have been if the plantations had been freely established with free labour.
So the net benefit to Britain was not that great. It really amounted to scheming planters manipulating politicians to spend other people's money to protect their monopoly profits, rather than paying for protection themselves.
Still, let's assume it was a net benefit.
But against that is the benefit to Africa from Britain ruthlessly suppressing the trade on the high seas (probably in contravention of international law, but let that pass).
This cost is believed to have been higher than the cost of the benefit from the trade in the first place.
Plus the benefit from being colonised (all those railways and ports.) More money went in than came out, in many places.
So: can we stop this morally dubious talk of reparations for 200 year old crimes?
Details, including references, at:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down for the item)
First off, let me state that the idea of putting a financial value on some things is actually impossible. It's commonplace nowadays to claim compensation for any and everything, but to me it's a moral madness. No money can "restore" the position before the crime, when death, torment and horror is involved, let alone the long-drawn out abomination of the slave trade and slavery itself.
The right response of the victims, is to treat the tormentor with utter contempt and to throw the offer of blood-money back in their faces.
However, since the question is raised, and we are engaging in a thought-experiment, we can assess the value of the income from the trade.
Which modern research has shown to be less than actually was believed.
Against that has to be set the cost of defending the sugar islands, if we are to speak of the net benefit to Britain. So that cost was higher than it would have been if the plantations had been freely established with free labour.
So the net benefit to Britain was not that great. It really amounted to scheming planters manipulating politicians to spend other people's money to protect their monopoly profits, rather than paying for protection themselves.
Still, let's assume it was a net benefit.
But against that is the benefit to Africa from Britain ruthlessly suppressing the trade on the high seas (probably in contravention of international law, but let that pass).
This cost is believed to have been higher than the cost of the benefit from the trade in the first place.
Plus the benefit from being colonised (all those railways and ports.) More money went in than came out, in many places.
So: can we stop this morally dubious talk of reparations for 200 year old crimes?
Details, including references, at:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/
(Scroll down for the item)
Monday 26 March 2007
Slavery reparations
Lots of absolute tosh being talked today about slavery and its long-term impact.
African countries want $777 trillion (yes, trillion) in compensation. 10 times the entire world's GDP. Why? BECAUSE WHEN THEY SOLD THEIR SURPLUS LABOUR INTO SLAVERY IN THE ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN WORLD THEY UNDERCHARGED.
Also total rubbish to suggest that Africa is poor because of a policy carried out 200 years ago. After Ghana became independent, it was richer per head than South Korea. Compare them now. one still produces cocoa beans and the other makes mobile phones, cars, ships and everything else.
They had the advantage of a coherent culture, a region that was broadly stable after the Korean war stopped, but the main thing was education and good government. Nothing that Ghana couldn't have done.
Looking to slvaery as an alibi for failure doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the black kids at school in the UK, and it doesn't help the Africans trying to get ahead either.
Nothing diminishes the horror of the practice of slavery, but it would help no end if the descendants of slaves would respond by getting the chip off their shoulder.
African countries want $777 trillion (yes, trillion) in compensation. 10 times the entire world's GDP. Why? BECAUSE WHEN THEY SOLD THEIR SURPLUS LABOUR INTO SLAVERY IN THE ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN WORLD THEY UNDERCHARGED.
Also total rubbish to suggest that Africa is poor because of a policy carried out 200 years ago. After Ghana became independent, it was richer per head than South Korea. Compare them now. one still produces cocoa beans and the other makes mobile phones, cars, ships and everything else.
They had the advantage of a coherent culture, a region that was broadly stable after the Korean war stopped, but the main thing was education and good government. Nothing that Ghana couldn't have done.
Looking to slvaery as an alibi for failure doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the black kids at school in the UK, and it doesn't help the Africans trying to get ahead either.
Nothing diminishes the horror of the practice of slavery, but it would help no end if the descendants of slaves would respond by getting the chip off their shoulder.
Sunday 25 March 2007
National Anthem
Went to the pub on Saturday to watch the Israel-England football match. Dull game.
A thought did occur to me though, when the anthems were sung.
If England had chosen to drop "God save the Queen" in favour of a specifically English anthem, they might well have had "Jerusalem", which would be many people's choice.
So the Israelis would have sung "HaTikvah", about the hope of the Jewish people "to be a free nation in the land of Zion and Jerusalem".
And the English would have sung about the desire "to build a new Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land".
No doubt confusing to a neutral.
A thought did occur to me though, when the anthems were sung.
If England had chosen to drop "God save the Queen" in favour of a specifically English anthem, they might well have had "Jerusalem", which would be many people's choice.
So the Israelis would have sung "HaTikvah", about the hope of the Jewish people "to be a free nation in the land of Zion and Jerusalem".
And the English would have sung about the desire "to build a new Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land".
No doubt confusing to a neutral.
"Communism that works"
Some people writing in Spiegel Online (English version) think that the Chinese have proved what all unrepentent left-wingers have secretly wished for: that Communism can be made to work after all.
View it here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465007-2,00.html
It's a good overview of the was "China, Incoprorated" functions as a vast low-cost factory, witht he politburo functioning as a board of directors, which can get on with the job of focussing on the job in hand, without the boring political bit of relating to voters, appearing on talk shows and generally looking after the appeal of the party.
It is undeniably a remarkable transformation going on in China. The phrase "economic miracle" has been over-used and in this case its not really miraculous, of which more in a moment.
(Incidentally, I think I was about 11 when I learned my second German phrase - it was "wirtschaftwunder". The first, obviously, was "blitzkrieg".)
First comment, though, on the Spiegel feature is the crass assumption in the article that the Chinese like it this way. They aren't asked whether this is what they want their country to do. They just have to suffer the pollution, land-grabs, corrupt officials and everything else.
Asks people in India, and they say - freely - that they prefer to have democracy. The wealth is on its way anyway.
Second, and more importantly, is this.
You're the rulers of a country with over 1 billion people. You have fortuitously managed to free agriculture and as a result the countryside can now feed the towns. You have a large, docile, cheap labour force, the right to use any piece of land for a state purpose, nobody can obstruct your plans by legal objections, because you own the judges.
You look at Hong Kong and see that 4 million people can create a world class manufacturing, finance and toursit centre and become very rich.
Not a difficult call, is it, to decide that you can do it with 1 billion people?
You don't have to invent anything, you don't have to make tough calls about what system will work best. You just copy what is done in Europe, Japan and America.
Adam Smith noticed that colonies have second-mover advantage - they know what will work. They become rich very fast.
China is doing the same. The managers of the country know that they will need motorways, railways, airports and regional airports, so many power stations and so many dams etc. They can plan for these by noting how many are needed elsewhere.
The comparison with with the last time a country was tagged with the suffix "Incorporated". This was Japan, in the 60s and 70s. Then, too, it was thought that the Ministry of Industry and Technology had a genius for economic indicative planning. But the exchange rate was 250 yen to the dollar. At that rate, they could make anything cheaply and sell it.
Their problems came when the economy matured, the exchange rate rose and they had to compete properly. China will have the same issues - but without a democratic process to provide the outlet for people's complaints.
I predict that they will get the worst of both worlds: a Communist system with enough wealth to buy the surveillance to control everybody, and a capitalist system with a capacity for brutalising the labour force and driving down wages relentlessly in the desperate need to compete. At present wages are rising 14% per year. Whether that will happen when the exchange rate rises and squeerzes profit margins is another matter.
View it here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,465007-2,00.html
It's a good overview of the was "China, Incoprorated" functions as a vast low-cost factory, witht he politburo functioning as a board of directors, which can get on with the job of focussing on the job in hand, without the boring political bit of relating to voters, appearing on talk shows and generally looking after the appeal of the party.
It is undeniably a remarkable transformation going on in China. The phrase "economic miracle" has been over-used and in this case its not really miraculous, of which more in a moment.
(Incidentally, I think I was about 11 when I learned my second German phrase - it was "wirtschaftwunder". The first, obviously, was "blitzkrieg".)
First comment, though, on the Spiegel feature is the crass assumption in the article that the Chinese like it this way. They aren't asked whether this is what they want their country to do. They just have to suffer the pollution, land-grabs, corrupt officials and everything else.
Asks people in India, and they say - freely - that they prefer to have democracy. The wealth is on its way anyway.
Second, and more importantly, is this.
You're the rulers of a country with over 1 billion people. You have fortuitously managed to free agriculture and as a result the countryside can now feed the towns. You have a large, docile, cheap labour force, the right to use any piece of land for a state purpose, nobody can obstruct your plans by legal objections, because you own the judges.
You look at Hong Kong and see that 4 million people can create a world class manufacturing, finance and toursit centre and become very rich.
Not a difficult call, is it, to decide that you can do it with 1 billion people?
You don't have to invent anything, you don't have to make tough calls about what system will work best. You just copy what is done in Europe, Japan and America.
Adam Smith noticed that colonies have second-mover advantage - they know what will work. They become rich very fast.
China is doing the same. The managers of the country know that they will need motorways, railways, airports and regional airports, so many power stations and so many dams etc. They can plan for these by noting how many are needed elsewhere.
The comparison with with the last time a country was tagged with the suffix "Incorporated". This was Japan, in the 60s and 70s. Then, too, it was thought that the Ministry of Industry and Technology had a genius for economic indicative planning. But the exchange rate was 250 yen to the dollar. At that rate, they could make anything cheaply and sell it.
Their problems came when the economy matured, the exchange rate rose and they had to compete properly. China will have the same issues - but without a democratic process to provide the outlet for people's complaints.
I predict that they will get the worst of both worlds: a Communist system with enough wealth to buy the surveillance to control everybody, and a capitalist system with a capacity for brutalising the labour force and driving down wages relentlessly in the desperate need to compete. At present wages are rising 14% per year. Whether that will happen when the exchange rate rises and squeerzes profit margins is another matter.
Monday 19 March 2007
Property rights mean power
"The Economist" last week reported on the move in China to grant property rights to the people.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRTVDSV
That's the link, but it's subscription only.
It's not quite what it might appear. But it's a step in the right direction, of course. Trouble is, once a ruling class holds all the property in the country, how easy will it be to prise their hands off it?
It's commonly reported that the majority (some say 70%) of Chinese industry and commerce is privately run in recent years. The report shows, though, that this has been achieved without there actually being clear title to the assets in use and even the land the new factories are built on hasn't been bought and sold for the purpose. Whoever has the power to do so, can take land from peasant farmer for a pittance. Corrupt officals do it, or connive at it with the rich class.
Communist theory says that goods of value to the community should be held in common, that is, they are not privately owned but managed in the community's interest. To control such assets for your own use, means to deprive the community of them - stealing from the wider group. Hence the slogan "Property is theft" (was that Proudhon?).
Apart from the issue of stewardship - property is better kept by people who own it - there is the issue of who decides what is the best interest of the community. If a farm is to be turned into a factory, who takes the higher income - the farmer who no longer has the land? Or the factory owner who turns the peasants into wage earners?
In a world of private property, enforced by law with independent judges, the farmer has rights which have to be compensated. The factory owner has to ensure that his business plan covers the real costs to the community from the loss of the farmland.
So: private property protects the community.
But pity the poor Chinese peasants.
Exploited by landlords and corrupt officials under the old Empire.
Subjected to tyranny and destructive taxation by the Kuomintang.
Seduced by the Communists
Starved in the Great Leap Forward.
Tormented by the Cultural Revolution.
Crushed at Tiananmen Square.
Given a glimpse of hope by the spectacular economic growth of modern times.
Now back to exploitation and corrupt officials.
Unless the new element - the growing skilled middle class - can flex its muscles and change things. Everyone must hoep that that can happen.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRTVDSV
That's the link, but it's subscription only.
It's not quite what it might appear. But it's a step in the right direction, of course. Trouble is, once a ruling class holds all the property in the country, how easy will it be to prise their hands off it?
It's commonly reported that the majority (some say 70%) of Chinese industry and commerce is privately run in recent years. The report shows, though, that this has been achieved without there actually being clear title to the assets in use and even the land the new factories are built on hasn't been bought and sold for the purpose. Whoever has the power to do so, can take land from peasant farmer for a pittance. Corrupt officals do it, or connive at it with the rich class.
Communist theory says that goods of value to the community should be held in common, that is, they are not privately owned but managed in the community's interest. To control such assets for your own use, means to deprive the community of them - stealing from the wider group. Hence the slogan "Property is theft" (was that Proudhon?).
Apart from the issue of stewardship - property is better kept by people who own it - there is the issue of who decides what is the best interest of the community. If a farm is to be turned into a factory, who takes the higher income - the farmer who no longer has the land? Or the factory owner who turns the peasants into wage earners?
In a world of private property, enforced by law with independent judges, the farmer has rights which have to be compensated. The factory owner has to ensure that his business plan covers the real costs to the community from the loss of the farmland.
So: private property protects the community.
But pity the poor Chinese peasants.
Exploited by landlords and corrupt officials under the old Empire.
Subjected to tyranny and destructive taxation by the Kuomintang.
Seduced by the Communists
Starved in the Great Leap Forward.
Tormented by the Cultural Revolution.
Crushed at Tiananmen Square.
Given a glimpse of hope by the spectacular economic growth of modern times.
Now back to exploitation and corrupt officials.
Unless the new element - the growing skilled middle class - can flex its muscles and change things. Everyone must hoep that that can happen.
Sunday 18 March 2007
The Balkans remain weird
Milosovic's grave has been violated to stop him returning from the dead.
http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/1330114.html
Unless this is a spoof report, of course.
Maybe that's why Arafat's grave is covered with a very thick concrete cover and is constantly guarded.
http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.com/1330114.html
Unless this is a spoof report, of course.
Maybe that's why Arafat's grave is covered with a very thick concrete cover and is constantly guarded.
Saturday 17 March 2007
The Evil Empire
A new book claims to blame England for the evils of the world,
It's called "The evil Empire: 101 ways that England ruined the world".
And the site is here: http://www.evilempirebook.com/
It must be tongue in cheek. One way listed is that Elton John was knighted.
More seriously, the scholarship looks dodgy. Hiram Maxim is mentioned as the inventor of the machine gun.
But the Gatling gun, invented in America, preceded it, so the concept was already out there. And the French had the Mitrailleuse, a primitive machine gun, in 1870.
More importantly, Sir Hiram Maxim was actually American, not English. He emigrated to the UK at the age of 41, became naturalised and was knighted. One can echo the remark of the Duke of Wellington: if you go to live in a stable it doesn't make you a horse.
The comments about the industrial revolution leading to slums, pollution and child labour are merely ignorant. Whoever was first would have been the first to experience those evils and find the solutions - town planning, sewers, Factory Acts.
The world should thank us for being the first to try out industrialism.
The world learned from our mistakes.
Adam Smith observed in "The Wealth of Nations" that colonies quickly become richer than the mother countries, because they can go stright to the finished product without waste.
I think the world owes us - say No to the claim for reparations !!
It's called "The evil Empire: 101 ways that England ruined the world".
And the site is here: http://www.evilempirebook.com/
It must be tongue in cheek. One way listed is that Elton John was knighted.
More seriously, the scholarship looks dodgy. Hiram Maxim is mentioned as the inventor of the machine gun.
But the Gatling gun, invented in America, preceded it, so the concept was already out there. And the French had the Mitrailleuse, a primitive machine gun, in 1870.
More importantly, Sir Hiram Maxim was actually American, not English. He emigrated to the UK at the age of 41, became naturalised and was knighted. One can echo the remark of the Duke of Wellington: if you go to live in a stable it doesn't make you a horse.
The comments about the industrial revolution leading to slums, pollution and child labour are merely ignorant. Whoever was first would have been the first to experience those evils and find the solutions - town planning, sewers, Factory Acts.
The world should thank us for being the first to try out industrialism.
The world learned from our mistakes.
Adam Smith observed in "The Wealth of Nations" that colonies quickly become richer than the mother countries, because they can go stright to the finished product without waste.
I think the world owes us - say No to the claim for reparations !!
The Market
Interesting snippet in "The Economist" last week. Studies in America show that while it's possible to pick a worthwhile investment and make a provide as it rises on the stock market, it isn't so easy to hedge against risk by investing in "safe" products which always increase in value.
Most major fields of investment rise together with eath other, keeping within 95% of each other. Property, government bods, commercial loans - all rise and fall together.
It was Thatcher said: "You can't buck the market" - though it was scarecely an original thought.
So many financial instrucments to invest in, all information is available, free movement of capital, all evens out. The market works.
Most major fields of investment rise together with eath other, keeping within 95% of each other. Property, government bods, commercial loans - all rise and fall together.
It was Thatcher said: "You can't buck the market" - though it was scarecely an original thought.
So many financial instrucments to invest in, all information is available, free movement of capital, all evens out. The market works.
Of cuckoos and cowbirds
Everyone knows about the cuckoo and that it lays its eggs in other birds' nests. "The Economist" ( a regrettably subscription-only feature) last week reported on the cowbird, a bird that also lays its eggs in another 's nest.
But the evolutionary strategies are completely different.
The cuckoo disguises its egg by laying eggs of the same colour as the host eggs. The host doesn't recognise it - otherwise, it would throw it out. So it raises the egg as its own.
It's what evolutionists call an "arms race". The defensive strategy is for the host bird to recognise hostile eggs and thrown them out. The cuckoo's tactic is to develop eggs that look like the hosts.
But the cowbird is different. It lays the egg, then checks round regularly. If the egg it laid is missing, it wrecks the nest and tries to kill the other eggs and nestlings.
So the host bird goes along with it and raises the one egg as its own, in order to protect its own two or three eggs.
None of this is conscious, of course. It's all done by genetics and instinct. But it's as explicit a protection racket as you'll see in nature. "Look after my egg or I kill yours".
What was that about Gaia and benevolent Mother Nature again?
But the evolutionary strategies are completely different.
The cuckoo disguises its egg by laying eggs of the same colour as the host eggs. The host doesn't recognise it - otherwise, it would throw it out. So it raises the egg as its own.
It's what evolutionists call an "arms race". The defensive strategy is for the host bird to recognise hostile eggs and thrown them out. The cuckoo's tactic is to develop eggs that look like the hosts.
But the cowbird is different. It lays the egg, then checks round regularly. If the egg it laid is missing, it wrecks the nest and tries to kill the other eggs and nestlings.
So the host bird goes along with it and raises the one egg as its own, in order to protect its own two or three eggs.
None of this is conscious, of course. It's all done by genetics and instinct. But it's as explicit a protection racket as you'll see in nature. "Look after my egg or I kill yours".
What was that about Gaia and benevolent Mother Nature again?
Tuesday 6 March 2007
"The Wages of Destruction"
The best book I read last year.
Was Adam Tooze's economic history of the Third Reich, called "The Wages of destruction". It's a monumental, comprehensive survey of Nazi economic policy and the links between them. He's a master of the subject, and shows with chilling detail how the racial ideology, the imperialist strategy, the industrial fundamentals and the agricultural basis interacted to drive the Nazi state.
He shows how they were linked.
More arms and ammunition meant more use of chemicals.
More use of chemicals meant less fertiliser
Less fertiliser meant reduced food production
Less food drove the need to loot Europe.
That meant that supplies had to be taken from occupied countries by force.
So they starved.
And the surplus was eliminated by any means necessary, including teh Final Solution.
Yes, it was the vilest regime in history. And every organ of the Nazi state was involved, from the central bank down to the company of soldiers stealing food. They were indeed the "willing executioners" of the Reich.
Best thing we did was to hammer that state into unconditional surrender. Negotiation - even towards the end - had to be out of the question. They had nothing to negotiate about.
Was Adam Tooze's economic history of the Third Reich, called "The Wages of destruction". It's a monumental, comprehensive survey of Nazi economic policy and the links between them. He's a master of the subject, and shows with chilling detail how the racial ideology, the imperialist strategy, the industrial fundamentals and the agricultural basis interacted to drive the Nazi state.
He shows how they were linked.
More arms and ammunition meant more use of chemicals.
More use of chemicals meant less fertiliser
Less fertiliser meant reduced food production
Less food drove the need to loot Europe.
That meant that supplies had to be taken from occupied countries by force.
So they starved.
And the surplus was eliminated by any means necessary, including teh Final Solution.
Yes, it was the vilest regime in history. And every organ of the Nazi state was involved, from the central bank down to the company of soldiers stealing food. They were indeed the "willing executioners" of the Reich.
Best thing we did was to hammer that state into unconditional surrender. Negotiation - even towards the end - had to be out of the question. They had nothing to negotiate about.
Friday 2 March 2007
Forests
Saw the BBC2 feature this week about the Forest of Dean. A group of wild boar were filmed in the dusk. They are breeding there for the first time in 300 years or more.
Interesting because - put simply - the animals died out or were hunted to extinction at that time, when there were one tenth as many people as now. Yet now the boar live in forests in Sussex, in the most densely populated part of the country.
Obviously, they are not being hunted. But also, forests are not being utilised the way they were in the past.
There is no such thing as untouched, pristine forest nowadays, and there never was. Mediaeval woods were a resource for feeding animals and gathering firewood (by hook or by crook). The land was cleared of undergrowth by the villagers, and it became the greenwood of Robin Hood.
That process, perhaps, made the environment unsuitable for the wild boar.
It was similar in American forests; the native Americans cleared the ground by fire.
Beautiful environments are as much the product of mankind's intervention as they are the product of nature.
Interesting because - put simply - the animals died out or were hunted to extinction at that time, when there were one tenth as many people as now. Yet now the boar live in forests in Sussex, in the most densely populated part of the country.
Obviously, they are not being hunted. But also, forests are not being utilised the way they were in the past.
There is no such thing as untouched, pristine forest nowadays, and there never was. Mediaeval woods were a resource for feeding animals and gathering firewood (by hook or by crook). The land was cleared of undergrowth by the villagers, and it became the greenwood of Robin Hood.
That process, perhaps, made the environment unsuitable for the wild boar.
It was similar in American forests; the native Americans cleared the ground by fire.
Beautiful environments are as much the product of mankind's intervention as they are the product of nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)