ללא מחבר No Author

The Moral and Psychological Evils of Inflation

Inflationary Vice

AUGUST 8, 2022

Samuel Gregg, in his article on the French economist, Jacques Rueff, provides a timely reminder that inflation is much more than a merely economic phenomenon. It also has profound social effects. This, of course, was recognised by Keynes himself in the book that made him famous, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. He recognised that inflation functioned as a transfer wealth from creditors to debtors, thus upsetting the previous social equilibrium; and he also quoted Lenin to the effect that the debasement of the currency was a sovereign method of producing revolutionary change.

Not all inflation is equally dramatic, of course. The grandfather of a German friend of mine once owned a portfolio of mortgages on valuable properties and soon found himself in possession of pieces of paper of less value than yesterday’s newspaper. Apparently, he took this loss philosophically and never turned to political extremism; he was later sent to Buchenwald. Not everyone in these circumstances stayed sane or decent, however.

But even less catastrophic levels of inflation have profound psychological, or perhaps I should say characterological, consequences. For one thing, inflation destroys the very idea of enough, because no one can have any confidence that a monetary income that at present is adequate will not be whittled down to very little in a matter of a few years. Not everyone desires to be rich, but most people desire not to be poor, especially in old age. Unfortunately, when there is inflation, the only way to insure against poverty in old age is either to be in possession of a government-guaranteed index-linked pension (which, however, is a social injustice in itself, and may one day be undermined by statistical manipulation by a government under force of economic circumstances, partly brought about by the very existence of such pensions), or to become much richer than one would otherwise aim or desire to be. And the latter turns financial speculation from a minority into a mass pursuit, either directly or, more usually, by proxy: for not to speculate, but rather to place one’s trust in the value of money at a given modest return, is to risk impoverishment. I saw this with my own father: once prosperous, he fell by his aversion to speculation into comparative penury.

When inflation rises to a certain level, it is prudent to turn one’s money into something tangible as soon as it comes to hand, for tomorrow, as the song goes, will be too late. Everything becomes now or never.

With the concept of enough go those of modesty and humility. They are replaced by triumph and failure, the latter certain almost by definition to be the more frequent. The humble person becomes someone not laudable but careless of his future, possibly someone who will be a drain on others insofar as he has failed to make adequate provision for himself – even if, given his circumstances, it would have been impossible for him to have done so. For notwithstanding technical progress, automation, and robotics, we shall need people of humble and comparatively ill-paid employment for the foreseeable future.

Inflation plays havoc with the virtue of prudence, for what is prudence among the shifting sands of inflation? When inflation rises to a certain level, it is prudent to turn one’s money into something tangible as soon as it comes to hand, for tomorrow, as the song goes, will be too late. Everything becomes now or never. Traditional prudence becomes imprudence, or naivety, and vice versa.

Continue reading…

From Law and Liberty, here.

The Many Excuses of Harry Truman for Nuking Japan

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb

08/08/2022 Ralph Raico

The most spectacular episode of Harry Truman’s presidency will never be forgotten but will be forever linked to his name: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki three days later. Probably around two hundred thousand persons were killed in the attacks and through radiation poisoning; the vast majority were civilians, including several thousand Korean workers. Twelve US Navy fliers incarcerated in a Hiroshima jail were also among the dead.1

Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”3

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets.6

Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.7 The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb “spared millions of American lives.”8

“The rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives.”

Still, Truman’s multiple deceptions and self-deceptions are understandable, considering the horror he unleashed. It is equally understandable that the US occupation authorities censored reports from the shattered cities and did not permit films and photographs of the thousands of corpses and the frightfully mutilated survivors to reach the public.9 Otherwise, Americans — and the rest of the world — might have drawn disturbing comparisons to scenes then coming to light from the Nazi concentration camps.

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.10 The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.11

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

Browbeat the Bachur into Learning More on Bein Hazmanim?

What Ever Happened to Training a Child According to His Way

written by Yardena Slater
August 8, 2022

Parents need to wake up. If kids aren’t interested in learning, there is a REASON for it (especially if they are on vacation)!

Last week something really exciting happened! I finally put a very important concept from my Parenting / Homeschooling Mentor group into Action!

One of the things our mentor, Chana Rus Cohen, keeps reminding us about is the concept of inspiring, rather than requiring from our kids. In other words, we want to inspire our kids to learn, not require it of them. As a bonus, this helps their natural genius unfold organically.

We do this by serving as an example to our children through doing the things we want them to be doing.

This means that we keep learning and growing too. We also support rather than enforce their learning interests by planning, sourcing books and other resources, being present for them, setting up a functional and inspiring work environment, taking day trips, helping them get hands on involvement in their interests, and offering guidance.

Enter: my 14 year old son who just graduated 8th grade with five weeks off of school. Straight A student, loved and admired by his teachers, super talented with a lot of leadership and shall we say – entertainment skills. Anyway, for the first almost two weeks of his vacation, this boy did not learn one word of Torah. Not one word. He got up every day for davening, prayed in a minyan three times a day. But no learning. I was  starting to get so annoyed. I tried bribing him, taking away privileges, harassing him. Nothing worked.

Finally, the light bulb went on and Chana Rus’s teachings of inspire not require came to the forefront of my mind. I thought about this kid and what he actually loves to do. Well, he does enjoy public speaking and entertaining, that’s for sure…

 In other words, we want to inspire our kids to learn, not require it of them. As a bonus, this helps their natural genius unfold organically.

That very day he had gone to an introductory day at next year’s high school yeshiva. My husband asked him over dinner, “So what did the Rosh Yeshiva speak to you about today?” He immediately jumped up and went straight into explaining the laws of the nine days of mourning, as they apply to certain obscure situations. He knew it cold. He explained this very clearly and in such an interesting way.

I then asked him if anyone else other than the Rosh Yeshiva taught them. He said that yes, and proceeded to tell us a story, a dvar Torah, and an explanation about the difficulty in new beginnings and why next year will be challenging at first but how this is normal and what to do about it. His speaking skills never cease to amaze me.

And that’s when it dawned on me: I will ask him if he would teach me Torah every day. Some parsha, more laws about the 9 days of mourning; his favorite mishnayos and Gemaras from this past year.

I said, “Would you be willing to teach me some Torah once a day? The way you give it over is so interesting and when I learn Torah alone, i have a hard time understanding a lot of it”.

Now this was something that he could actually get into and enjoy. Teaching, showing off his knowledge and how well he can give it over. Yes, this he was more than happy to do! So now, once a day, we have a little Torah session going. He teaches me and he gets to understand the Torah teachings on a deeper level because that is what happens when you teach something.

Wow.

Who did I think this child was to try and bribe or harass him into learning Torah? How ridiculous is that? What good would come out of such a thing? Sometimes I wonder if I’m brain dead. Unfortunately, I’m not the only one treating my child in this way.

Which brings me to the question – what ever happened to the teaching in Mishley 22\6? “Train a child according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not turn away from it.”

Does anyone do this anymore? I know that the schools don’t, but how many parents out there are putting this verse into action?

The GRA says about this verse that a parent must raise and teach a child in accordance with his nature and natural inclination and in this way, when he grows older, he will not turn away from the way he was raised. However, should a parent force a child to go against his nature, even through the child will listen to him when he is younger, once he grows older, he will turn away from the way he was raised and what he was taught since it is impossible for someone to go against their nature.

Parents need to wake up. If kids aren’t interested in learning, there is a REASON for it (especially if they are on vacation). Bribing, forcing or demeaning kids to learn anything is useless and a very detrimental thing to do for the long run if you really think about it. Parents must take responsibility to figure out what will make a child WANT to learn. And if they can’t figure it out, they shouldn’t expect their child to figure out how to want to learn something that they are not interested in either.

 Next time your child seems uninterested in learning Torah, studying for a math test, doing his required reading, etc. Remember: inspire not require. Think about what makes this child tick, how you can inspire him by personal example, and of course, ask Hashem for help in training your child according to his way.

From Breslov.org, here.

Corona Craze: The Simple Questions Only Some Were Asking

“Crazy” Questions Everyone Should Have Asked About Covid-19

By 

August 3, 2022

One of the most astonishing things about the past two-plus years and counting has been how asking certain questions gets one branded as “crazy,” “stupid,” “conspiracy theorist,” etc.  Questions that, had you asked “Before COVID,” would have been … normal.

So let’s dig into our closets and put on our now-sort-of-out-of-fashion clothes, get into a time machine and travel back to, say, 2014. (I pick 2014 to “control” for the Trump Derangement Syndrome that gripped about half the country and most media the next year.)

Government officials and media breathlessly tell us that a deadly virus is rampant, and that we must take particular measures, including vaccinating everyone. Before rolling up your sleeve for an injection, you would questions.

Regarding the illness, you would ask:

What is the severity of the illness?

What is my risk of being infected?

If I’m infected, what is my risk of hospitalization?

If I’m infected, what is my risk of death?

What is the actual risk of other people, and if anyone is at significant risk, what can I do to reduce such risk (“protect others”)?

If people have been reported to have died from the virus or become severely ill from it, how was causation determined? Are we sure the illness was the cause?

Do the people reporting the deaths/severe illness have any incentive to report them as deaths/severe illness from the virus as opposed to from another cause?

Regarding Proposed Non-Medical Interventions (lockdowns, social distancing, masking, etc.) you would ask:

What is the purpose of each proposed intervention?

What is the likelihood that any particular intervention will achieve such purpose?

What are the possible harms and costs of each intervention?

Can the purpose be achieved without the intervention?

If not, can the harms and costs be reduced?

What data are being relied on in support of such interventions, especially unprecedented ones?

Regarding any proposed medical intervention (such as a “vaccine”), you would ask:

Are there tried and true safe drugs that can be repurposed to treat people infected with the illness?

Who are the manufacturers of this new vaccine, what is their track record, and what are their incentives to make drug?

What are the ingredients?

How does it work?

If the drug has novel biotech, how does it work?

What does the drug purport to do?

Does the drug purport to prevent infection?

Does the drug purport to prevent transmission?

Does the drug purport to reduce symptoms?

What testing has been done, and what things were tested? The drug’s ability to prevent infection or transmission?  Reduce symptoms?  Safety and side effects?

What were the test results?

How was the testing done? On whom? How long? Etc.

What incentives do those who did the testing and who reported results have to say the testing was done properly and thoroughly and that the tests were passed?

Are all the data from the tests available for independent review? If not, why not?

If data and answers to these questions aren’t forthcoming, why shouldn’t we assume that there is a cover up of “bad” information?

If there are long term risks we don’t know about, why not take a toe-in-the water approach instead of diving into murky waters headfirst? That is, why not use the drug only on those most in danger from the illness?

Legality

Do the people proposing such interventions have legal authority to do so?

Is there democratic buy-in/support for these interventions?

Has buy-in been achieved without lies, censorship, double-talk, and coercion?

How are people who ask questions being treated?

Finally, we would ask, Have any of the authorities been caught lying about any of this? If so, what are the lies? Why should we believe anything else they say?

Conclusion

At least two things are mighty clear.

First, the COVID-19 debacle — meaning not only the deaths from the illness but the collateral damage from the response — would not have occurred had these questions been asked prominently and often by a critical mass of citizens and in “mainstream” media. We would have stopped after the first set of questions regarding the severity of the illness!  There was no need to do anything beyond staying home when sick and washing one’s hands regularly and taking extra care around unhealthy people.

Second, not only did a critical mass of people fail to ask basic questions, but many people, perhaps most prominently the “educated,” denounced, bullied, and harassed anyone who did. These “educated” bullies even proposed and supported grotesque coercions, including shunning, barring the “unvaccinated” from going into stores and restaurants — and earning a living.

The official response to COVID-19 was a 180-degree flipping of traditional rational thinking.  We do know that government and media (paid by governments) made unprecedented efforts to get people to invert their own common sense and not ask very basic questions. We should ask how and why that happened.

From LRC, here.