High on Hyehudi

Here are some of the latest popular articles from Hyehudi.org:
(I try to list recently popular posts circa Rosh Chodesh.)
Please subscribe to our daily newsletter over here for more!

Why Is Hyehudi Citing Paul Krugman with Approval?!

Some excerpts from Paul Krugman in a Times article titled Why We Fight Wars:

Once upon a time wars were fought for fun and profit; when Rome overran Asia Minor or Spain conquered Peru, it was all about the gold and silver. And that kind of thing still happens. In influential research sponsored by the World Bank, the Oxford economist Paul Collier has shown that the best predictor of civil war, which is all too common in poor countries, is the availability of lootable resources like diamonds. Whatever other reasons rebels cite for their actions seem to be mainly after-the-fact rationalizations. War in the preindustrial world was and still is more like a contest among crime families over who gets to control the rackets than a fight over principles.

If you’re a modern, wealthy nation, however, war — even easy, victorious war — doesn’t pay. And this has been true for a long time. In his famous 1910 book “The Great Illusion,” the British journalist Norman Angell argued that “military power is socially and economically futile.” As he pointed out, in an interdependent world (which already existed in the age of steamships, railroads, and the telegraph), war would necessarily inflict severe economic harm even on the victor. Furthermore, it’s very hard to extract golden eggs from sophisticated economies without killing the goose in the process.

We might add that modern war is very, very expensive. For example, by any estimate the eventual costs (including things like veterans’ care) of the Iraq war will end up being well over $1 trillion, that is, many times Iraq’s entire G.D.P.

So the thesis of “The Great Illusion” was right: Modern nations can’t enrich themselves by waging war. Yet wars keep happening. Why?

One answer is that leaders may not understand the arithmetic.

Angell, by the way, often gets a bum rap from people who think that he was predicting an end to war. Actually, the purpose of his book was to debunk atavistic notions of wealth through conquest, which were still widespread in his time. And delusions of easy winnings still happen. It’s only a guess, but it seems likely that Vladimir Putin thought that he could overthrow Ukraine’s government, or at least seize a large chunk of its territory, on the cheap — a bit of deniable aid to the rebels, and it would fall into his lap.

And for that matter, remember when the Bush administration predicted that overthrowing Saddam and installing a new government would cost only $50 billion or $60 billion?

The larger problem, however, is that governments all too often gain politically from war, even if the war in question makes no sense in terms of national interests.

Similar arguments have been made about other wars that otherwise seem senseless, like Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, which is often attributed to the then-ruling junta’s desire to distract the public from an economic debacle. (To be fair, some scholars are highly critical of this claim.)

And the fact is that nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how foolish the war or how awful the leaders. Argentina’s junta briefly became extremely popular during the Falklands war. For a time, the “war on terror” took President George W. Bush’s approval to dizzying heights, and Iraq probably won him the 2004 election. True to form, Mr. Putin’s approval ratings have soared since the Ukraine crisis began.

No doubt it’s an oversimplification to say that the confrontation in Ukraine is all about shoring up an authoritarian regime that is stumbling on other fronts. But there’s surely some truth to that story — and that raises some scary prospects for the future.

And if authoritarian regimes without deep legitimacy are tempted to rattle sabers when they can no longer deliver good performance, think about the incentives China’s rulers will face if and when that nation’s economic miracle comes to an end — something many economists believe will happen soon.

Remember, this is also the man who believes catastrophe increases wealth. At least he doesn’t think so of war (in the final analysis); assuming his writing reflects his convictions at the time (always doubtful, as can be seen from a careful reading of his intellectual history).

Do the Rightfully Rich Pay Their ‘Fair Share’?

Do the Rich owe Society anything?

96899-004-c23da93f

Henry Ford

Leftists often claim that successful businesses owe society for all the money they have made. Those capitalist bastards took all our money and gave us nothing in return, right? This, of course, makes absolutely no sense. How did they get that money if not by selling us their products which we wanted? If anything, we got the better deal: a physical good or service in exchange for some paper (or an electronic ledger record these days).

Indeed, Henry Ford became a multimillionaire and was able to use his riches in ways he sought fit. But to get there, he provided millions with automobiles. Whether personally owned, or involved in transportation of goods and passengers, he made life easier for all of those people, who could then be much more efficient and productive. If anything, society owes him some of its billions in benefits for the paltry millions he earned.

And then the computer, pioneered by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, both billionaires (Jobs prior to his death), has not only created a multitrillion dollar complex of industries, it has vastly improved efficiency and innovation. Thanks to them, I am able to write this article now, hit a few buttons, and get it to thousands of people. It was not too long ago that I would have had to write it up, or maybe use a typewriter, and then have it sent off to be printed at my own expense for uncertain distribution, or to a publisher for hopeful publication.

the-strange-love-hate-relationship-between-bill-gates-and-steve-jobs

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates

Do any of these gentlemen owe me roads and schools and healthcare? In a sense, they have already provided that with their product. Cars and computers make all three of those functions better than ever in history, computers in particular. And yet, many on the left still claim that entrepreneurs and businessmen owe it to society for all the money they have accumulated. This is nothing but jealousy and greed, the very thing the left accuses capitalists of. They have more stuff than you because they were successful at helping people via the market. That’s not fair! But it is forgotten that in exchange for taking some money from you and me, they have vastly improved the lives of us as consumers and the millions involved in the production of their goods.

From Jewish Libertarians, here.

Poverty Is Not Romantic!

Shabbos 151b:

תניא, רבי אלעזר הקפר אומר, לעולם יבקש אדם רחמים על מדה זו…

It was taught, R. Eleazar ha-Kappar said: Let one always pray to be spared this fate [poverty]…

Translation: Soncino.

Note how the word itself is avoided…

Thank you, Captain Obvious!
Don’t be mean. See this.