Every Shekel Counts, but Most Votes Don’t

The Sovereignty of the Consumers

The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer. Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. If a businessman does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.

The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people.

The consumers determine ultimately not only the prices of the consumers’ goods, but no less the prices of all factors of production. They determine the income of every member of the market economy. The consumers, not the entrepreneurs, pay ultimately the wages earned by every worker, the glamorous movie star as well as the charwoman. With every penny spent the consumers determine the direction of all production processes and the details of the organization of all business activities. This state of affairs has been described by calling the market a democracy in which every penny gives a right to cast a ballot. It would be more correct to say that a democratic constitution is a scheme to assign to the citizens in the conduct of government the same supremacy the market economy gives them in their capacity as consumers. However, the comparison is imperfect.

In the political democracy only the votes cast for the majority candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping the course of affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not directly influence policies. But on the market no vote is cast in vain. Every penny spent has the power to work upon the production processes. The publishers cater not only to the majority by publishing detective stories, but also to the minority reading lyrical poetry and philosophical tracts. The bakeries bake bread not only for healthy people, but also for the sick on special diets. The decision of a consumer is carried into effect with the full momentum he gives it through his readiness to spend a definite amount of money.

It is true, in the market the various consumers have not the same voting right. The rich cast more votes than the poorer citizens. But this inequality is itself the outcome of a previous voting process. To be rich, in a pure market economy, is the outcome of success in filling best the demands of the consumers. A wealthy man can preserve his wealth only by continuing to serve the consumers in the most efficient way.

Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated.

Human Action, by Mises

Mises on Keynes’ Sophistry

An excerpt:

In resorting to the method of innuendo and trying to make their adversaries suspect by referring to them in ambiguous terms allowing of various interpretations, the camp-followers of Lord Keynes are imitating their idol’s own procedures. For what many people have admiringly called Keynes’ “brilliance of style” and “mastery of language” were, in fact, cheap rhetorical tricks.

Ricardo, says Keynes, “conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain.” This is as vicious as any comparison could be. The Inquisition, aided by armed constables and executioners, beat the Spanish people into submission. Ricardo’s theories were accepted as correct by British intellectuals without any pressure or compulsion being exercised in their favor. But in comparing the two entirely different things, Keynes obliquely hints that there was something shameful in the success of Ricardo’s teachings and that those who disapprove of them are as heroic, noble and fearless champions of freedom as were those who fought the horrors of the Inquisition.

The most famous of Keynes’ aperçus is: “Two pyramids, two masses for the dead, are twice as good as one; but not so two railways from London to York.” It is obvious that this sally, worthy of a character in a play by Oscar Wilde or Bernard Shaw, does not in any way prove the thesis that digging holes in the ground and paying for them out of savings “will increase the real national dividend of useful goods and services.” But it puts the adversary in the awkward position of either leaving an apparent argument unanswered or of employing the tools of logic and discursive reasoning against sparkling wit.

Ludwig von Mises, here.

Which Articles Do Our Daily Subscribers Like Best?

Here are some of the presently popular pieces among subscribers to Hyehudi’s daily newsletter:

Want to learn long words like “antinomianism”, “libertarianism”, “clericalism”, (and “Brisk”)? Join our happy family of subscribers! Just click here.

The ‘Ayn Rand Institute’ Is Neoconservative (Denials Notwithstanding)

Ayn Rand’s Political Label

In 1985, three years after Ayn Rand’s death, some of her former associates founded what they called the Ayn Rand Institute. It soon became apparent that the views of these “official” Objectivists on many of the most important issues of the day were indistinguishable from those of the Neoconservatives. For example, in response to Iranian clerics’ 1989 attack on Salman Rushdie and his publishers – an attack that proved ineffectual in the U.S. and was primarily an immigration problem – Leonard Peikoff urged that the U.S. take military action against Iran (“Religious Terrorism vs. Free Speech” New York Times 30 March 1989).  In “What to Do about Terrorism” (The Intellectual Activist May 1996) – that is, what to do about terrorism overseas – Mr. Piekoff wanted President Clinton to threaten Tehran with “the most massive air and missile attack that our military can launch.” [1]

In response to 9/11 Ayn Rand Institute writers immediately urged bombing Iran, with the rallying cry “We are all Israelis now.” Quickly realizing the political inexpediency of bombing Iran they switched their target to Iraq. After getting that war they’re back to bombing Iran.

ARI writers support the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other rents in the American fabric, by a refined silence. They demand that the U.S. government support Israel unquestioningly. They advocate U.S. torture as a moral imperative. Name a particular political stand of theirs and chances are you’ll find it in Norman Podhoretz or Irving Kristol.

Thus going on thirty years leading Objectivists, unmoored from what they claim is their source (Ayn Rand believe it or not), have been following the Neocon path in foreign policy and related domestic policy. An entire generation has grown up thinking Objectivists must be little better than Neoconservatives, because these days the leading, self-proclaimed, Objectivists are little better than Neoconservatives. [2]

Continue reading…

From ARI Watch, here.

Dismissing Another Fraudulent Pamphlet against ‘Kedushas Tziyon’

Seeing as we upload the Kedushas Tziyon newsletters here (though not uncritically), various contacts keep sending me the purpose-made oppositional literature (I am grateful, though, thank God, I usually locate these myself). Now I have happily uploaded such material (with rebuttals) in the past and would do so in the future, as well. But not unconditionally: the materials must be at least minimally scholarly and minimally non-fraudulent (my standards aren’t that high for anti-Zionists..!).

There is an example of something which isn’t even up to their camp’s usual (low) standards, an anthology (yet again?) ironically named: דברים על דיוקם. At least it’s mercifully brief. In passing, note how Rabbi BrandNachlas HashemKedushas Tziyon et alii are continually generating new Torah insights, while their nearly sterile opponents resort to rehashing cheap anthologies (אשר זה סוד אל אחר אסתרס ולא עביד פירין, דלית ליה מגרמיה כלום וכולי).

Since late Chodesh Sivan, I have refused to upload and rebut this anthology because this site discriminates against shoddy content. Anthologies ideally ought to quote lesser-known information, and minimally, must avoid utter lies and misrepresentations. I now make an exception, by reproducing my letter to the latest request. Note: this comes from the same Jews who published the previous pamphlet (self-styled: “מצודת ציון”).

Here is the back-and-forth on the above policy with one of our honorable readers (page numbers added):

Answer to קדושת ציון
דברים על דיוקם
Dear…,
See this on the like:
I would upload and respond here, too, but it must have at least some scholarly value and honesty.
My dear interlocutor:
The words of the חפץ חיים etc. have no value by you?!
The second response:

Dear…,

With all due respect, I doubt you read/understand what I said in the earlier link. Please read it:

https://www.hyehudi.org/%d7%99%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%95-%d7%a9%d7%a0%d7%90%d7%99-%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%95%d7%9f/

The Chazon Ish quote (p. 7) is known to be fake, Rabbi Meir Simcha (p. 5) later said there is no longer a “3 oaths” problem, quoting sources describing “Galus” (in tutto) are “begging the question”, etc. etc. And quoting those who spoke before central events which change the Halachic status of Israel (in tutto) is plain silly.

Read this well: http://www.rabbibrand.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=1312507

Regarding Ya’acov Avinu mentioned by the Chafetz Chaim (p. 4), kindly see this: https://www.hyehudi.org/time-war-time-peace/

And why would I regard the words of those who refused to reopen issues supposedly and eternally “decided” by their teachers as adding any additional weight? Rabbi Wosner (p. 10) and Rabbi Greinemann (p. 11) (N.B. he is the “gaon acher” mentioned below) refused to reexamine the Heter of “selling” Chametz when approached by God-fearing Rabbi Yitzchak Brand, either.

ועוד הלכתי לאחד מגדולי וזקני הרבנים, הגאון האדיר הרב שמואל הלוי וואזנר שליט”א (זצ”ל), אחר ששלחתי לו הספר, והשיב לי שאינו יכול לומר שאני צודק ואינו יכול לומר שאני לא צודק, והסביר הטעם שאינו יכול לומר שאני צודק, כיון שיש הרבה רבנים ששומעים לו, ואם יאמר שמכירת חמץ אין לו ערך, יצעקו עליו שהוא יפסיד הפרנסה שלהם, כי מכירת חמץ נותן פרנסה מכובדת להרבה רבנים. והייתי המום מן התשובה שלו, וכשראה אותי כך, אמר לי בתקיפות “האם אתה לא מבין סברה זו?!”

ואחר הרבה זמן של עיכול התשובה שלו, הבנתי שהוא נמצא במצב של אין בידו למחות, כי חושש ממרד הרבנים, כי מצד עמדה הגדולה שלו בכלל ישראל, אינו מסוגל להכריז בפומבי שמכירת חמץ אין לו ערך, כי יפסלו אותו ויאמרו שהוא חולק על כל גדולי הדור של דורות שעברו, (אף שהוא אחד מגדולי הדור שבדורינו).

אולם למדתי ממנו שהוא בעצם מסכים עם הטענה שלי, רק אינו יכול לומר זה מפורש.

עוד הלכתי אצל גאון אחר בדורנו, והשיב לי על הספר שלי ‘חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן’, ושאלתי אותו, ומה יגיד בלי החזקה הזו, ולא רצה להשיב.

Link for the above: http://www.rabbibrand.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=25555

Likewise see the link here: http://www.rabbibrand.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=1656599

וכן אמר הג”ר חיים גריינימן זצ”ל, בסיבת ההתנגדות לתכלת, כדי שלא יבואו לעשות דברים אחרים שהם נגד ההלכה. ועי’ במאמר “החרימו עולים להר הבית קבלנו ריפורמים“.

What does that tell his esteemed scholarship?

Http://hyehudi.org/ “values” a forgotten religion called Judaism. If you desire to fool yourself and others, feel free to open yet another such medium; the target audience is surely larger.

With affection,

Hyehudi.org Editor

Afterthoughts (not sent):

Note the absurdity in retrospect (lost on the anthologists) of quoting the Minchas Elazar making the following false prophecy (page 5):

ויאמר משה למה זה אתם עוברים את פי ה’ והיא לא תצלח: אל תעלו כי אין ה’ בקרבכם ולא תנגפו לפני אויביכם וכו’: ויעפילו לעלות אל ראש ההר וארון ברית ה’ ומשה לא משו מקרב המחנה: י”ל דהוא נבואה על מה שיהיה ועל מה שהיה בזמנינו על ידי הציאניסטען והדומים להם, כל שום וחניכא דאית להו להכתות והמפלגות שעלו לארץ ישראל בחוזק יד לעשות קאלאניען וללחום עם העמים, “ויעפילו לעלות אל ראש ההר” כנגד ציווי השי”ת על ידי חכמינו ואבותינו, שהזהירונו שלא זו הדרך, ומרה תהיה אחריתם ר”ל, והלכו בדרך חוזק ועזות כפירוש רש”י בזה.

This reminds me of another irresponsibly false prophecy made by his epigone, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, referenced earlier here.

As for the Brisker Rav (pp. 7-8), see Rabbi Brand’s essay brought here.

Assorted leftover points and personalities were and are refuted over and over all over this site; search a little!

Enough.