The ramblings of a lunatic

Finished reading Mein Kampf (an English translation of it to be exact, not the one filled with notes). There's been a lot of debate among historians as to whether Hitler's policies once he became chancellor followed a careful plan or whether those policies (such as the Holocaust) emerged more spontaneously, as a reaction to changing circumstances. Some Nazi sympathizers even claim Hitler had no choice but to do what he did because of the hostility of his foreign adversaries. To me it's quite clear that everything that happened was laid out in detail in this book, written in the mid 1920s, and that no one in Germany or abroad could honestly claim they did now know what Hitler's intentions were.

Reading the book, it's obvious Hitler is bored by economics. He rants a lot about Marxism but very little about its economic implications. He sympathizes with workers and blames the bourgeoisie (and Jews) for the rise of Marxism among the working class. In his views, employers should consider the welfare of the community first and avoid excess discrepancies in wage rates. Hitler's views on capital and stock markets aren't too different from those advocated by the contemporary utopian-fascist Zeitgeist movement. In Hitler's mind, the ills of both Capitalism and Communism are fused together in the "International Jew" who seeks to destroy national economies through the stock market, thus forging some kind of a "Eternal Jewish Empire". To prevent that, national economies such as that of Germany must be liberated from "interest slavery" and the machinations of the stock market. Throughout the book, Marxism is practically considered synonymous with the Jew.

Hitler does not explicitly state any plan to exterminate the Jewish people; but then again he didn't mention anything about that even as the Holocaust was under way. Still, it's quite obvious Hitler harbored such plans early on. He believes Jews would not be content with a state in Palestine because of their supposedly international character; such a state would merely function as a base of operations for the Jews' global quest to destroy all non-Jewish nation states. Regrettably, Hitler doesn't go into detail about the roots of his antisemitism. In his childhood and teens, he was even sympathetic toward the Jewish people for all the persecutions that had taken place in the past. Then, in Vienna, Hitler seems to have been brainwashed by antisemitic literature such as Protocols and Henry Ford's (the American car industrialist) writings. Why he decided to believe such obvious nonsense remains a mystery but then again the vast majority of people on this planet believe in something stupid, be that gods, homeopathy, astrology, UFO landings or 9/11 conspiracies. In the past persecution of Jews has served the self-interests of the persecuting parties (such as the financial and religious interests of spendthrift and zealous monarchs), but if Hitler had merely wanted to use Jews as scapegoats, he probably wouldn't have murdered millions of them in secret. Quite simply, Hitler was both an idiot and a racist.

Hitler is more explicit about exterminating opposing political ideologies and their proponents, expressing regret at the missed opportunity at the end of the World War to exterminate Marxists. Hitler believes that any half-assed attempt to destroy a doctrine is bound to be counter-productive. Therefore, any attempt to destroy a doctrine must be thorough and persistent, but even then such an attempt is almost certain to fail unless combined with a "spiritual revolution" (e.g., National Socialism against Marxism): "Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain." He's also explicit about destroying parliamentarianism, even clearly stating the Nazis would participate in parliamentary institutions only to destroy such institutions for good. In this Gospel of Open and Explicit Intolerance, Hitler has, it seems, learned from the best:

"Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less willing to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion."

What is also explicitly stated is the Nazi policy of Lebensraum, that, in order to survive, the German nation must extend its frontiers at the expense of Russia and other territories inhabited by Slavic peoples. He criticizes the Second Reich for adopting a policy of trade & overseas colonies (thus putting Germany on a collision course with the British Empire) rather than of eastward conquest. This perceived necessity of soil acquisition seems to be another result of Hitler's poor understanding of economics: he believes more in Malthusian alarmism than technological progress and trade. Hitler also mentions the necessity to enslave lower races, comparing that to the exploitation and domestication of animals. What later became known as Generalplan Ost, a plan to conquer, enslave and exterminate tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe, is the core Nazi foreign policy doctrine through which everything else is viewed. In order to execute the plan, however, Germany's western front, i.e., France, the "mortal enemy" of Germany, must first be secured militarily, preferably with the aid of the British Empire. Hitler doesn't believe Germany's issues with France can be resolved through defensive strategies but instead pushes for a "final active reckoning with France". The resulting "destruction of France" would merely be a means to enable eastward expansion, not an end in itself. (Hitler seems to consider himself a realist as he emphasizes that Germany should never bother with humanitarian affairs but instead pursue the national interest vigorously, but of course his ideas come off as utopian, reckless and idealistic: Bismarck would turn in his grave. Hitler is not completely paranoid about France though; many French politicians and military leaders were calling for Germany's partition.)

Hitler is also, no surprise, extremely socially conservative. He sees women as passive beings whose job is to get married and start having children, he seems obsessed with STDs, prostitution and contraceptives, proposing early marriage as a solution. Also, like many conservative men, he drools over the idea of a teenage boy's well-trained body. Hitler makes numerous references to God, and believes his actions are guided by Fate/Providence, and sees many benefits in religions ("Precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude.") but doesn't come off as an adherent to any specific religious doctrine. He even employs God to support his racial views: if "defectives" are allowed to propagate, then in a few hundred years' time "you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty"; thus preventing these people from propagating would be "the most humane act of mankind". He also criticizes Jews on religious grounds, claiming theirs is not a religion at all: "The Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him (...) The Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world." Jesus is applauded for fighting the Jews' exploitation of religion for financial gain when he tosses them out of the Temple.

In addition to Hitler's views on the Jewish people, his views on the First World War illuminate his selective reading of history. Like many in Germany at that time, Hitler believed the war was not lost on the battlefield, conveniently forgetting the collapse of the Habsburg Empire, the constant influx of fresh American troops & supplies, and the lack of resources at Germany's disposal. While he viewed the alliance with the Habsburgs with disgust, he perceived the war as inevitable and ultimately fought for German freedom and independence. The lost territories would be regained, along with other German-inhabited regions, in due time and not through peaceful negotiations: "We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." Of course Chamberlain tried to spoil his fun by completely giving in to his outrageous, unreasonable demands. With the gift of hindsight, we know that Hitler would have none of it, for in his mind "Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany".

The German people empowered Hitler with absolute authority to do away with democracy, institute racial laws, attack foreign countries and kill millions of people. They shouldn't have been surprised when bombs started falling on their cities.

The price of a non-marketable good

Came across this crazy piece of news. A pair inherits an art piece ("Canyon") worth $65 million and has to pay an inheritance tax worth $29 million. The problem, however, is that the art piece includes a stuffed bald eagle, which cannot be sold since the bird is protected. (Obviously, if a stuffed bald eagle could be sold this would only encourage people to hunt them.) In other words, "Canyon" cannot be sold due to the stuffed bald eagle and yet the pair is stuck with a tax bill of $29 million. So how can it have a price tag of $65 million? How can a non-marketable good have a market value (the price of collectibles is obviously based on their market value, not some out-of-the-hat valuation)?

Even more worrying, the IRS is acting like the vengeful, petty bureaucrats that they are:

Placing a value on an item that cannot be sold is no easy feat. The venerable auction house Christie’s placed the value of "Canyon" at zero. The IRS initially put it at $15 million, then jumped the figure to $65 million when Sundell and Homem refused to pay, according to The New York Times.
The IRS, which declined to comment on the matter, is not only asking for $29 million in taxes, but also an $11.7 million “gross valuation misstatement” penalty, according to Forbes.

Inheritance taxes are nuts anyway. What exactly has the federal government done to deserve $29 million out of "Canyon"? They're simply robbing someone's estate.

Perverse incentives

Someone posted this video on HFBoards:

This could be used to demonstrate why the financial crisis happened. The cost of an RPG rocket seems to be at least $50 and can be as high as $500 depending on the model. In any case, a rocket is worth a lot more than a fish. The problem is, of course, that the individual firing the rocket does not bear any of the costs of firing the launcher (courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer) but receives all the benefits.

China is not a model

The Economist has another typical article that degenerates into treating China with words like "ooh" and "aah". First the article lists economic and political similarities between the US and the EU and then starts drawing comparisons to China, implying that the Chinese government (or any authoritarian regime) could cope with financial crises more effectively than "dysfunctional" democracies. Maybe, but let's not start treating China as some kind of a model until comparisons between the West and China become valid. Despite the fact that the Chinese GDP soon catches up with that of the US, their current GDP per capita is less than one tenth of that of the US. The time to start drawing comparisons is when the Communist party has made it possible for the Chinese to enjoy Western levels of prosperity. With their current political and economic system there's no chance of that happening.

There's one good point there though: "Every year China continues to grow, the case that countries need to be democracies in order to become wealthy and developed becomes more tenuous."

Of course, this is nothing new. During the Cold War many 3rd world countries adopted the Soviet system as an economic model. What failed them was not any lack of democracy but the centrally-planned economic system that China has now somewhat abandoned. Even in the West many countries were economically liberal before they were politically liberal. It was the wealth brought on by Capitalism that made people in the West demand more political liberties. This is also what makes the Chinese leadership so nervous.

It is Capitalism that brings stability in the first place because materially well-off people have a lot to lose if they resort to petty factionalism. (No wonder then that Communist revolutions took place exactly where Marx least expected them.) This is why democratic countries that have been made prosperous by Capitalism are stable while attempts to introduce democracy prior to Capitalism tend to result in failures.

The Power of Ideas and the Middle East

I recently finished reading Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, a controversial book according to which the liberal democratic system would ultimately prevail over alternatives. The book, based on an article in the National Interest, was written at a time when the Soviet system was collapsing. To put it simply, Fukuyama's thesis relies on two arguments:

1) Scientific knowledge, which Fukuyama associates with modern capitalism, accumulates in the sense that it's not possible to reverse the course of scientific advancement and as such it's not really possible to reverse the course of human history (for extended periods, that is).

2) People everywhere possess what Fukuyama calls thymos (from Ancient Greek), the desire for recognition, which goes unfulfilled in non-democratic systems because dictatorships don't recognize individuals as sovereign, as adults capable of independent thought and action. Thymos is just one part of the soul, however, as the soul also has desiring and reasoning parts.

If prosperity brought on by the free-market economy can fulfill the desiring and reasoning parts of the "soul", the thymotic part of the soul can only be fulfilled by granting the individual some inalienable rights, including the right to participate in the political process. Democracy can also effectively restrain individuals with megalothymia, the desire to be recognized as superior to others, while still allowing these individuals to excel in ways that don't interfere with the rights of others. And once this liberal democratic system has been imposed, it's unlikely to collapse. We may have thousands of unsatisfied people at any given time but they have no credible alternatives to liberal democracy. (The downside, according to Fukuyama, is that a world where people no longer have to struggle for recognition is a world without great human achivements; a world that is, simply put, boring.)

Fukuyama's book was written at a time when Easter Europe was going through a series of revolutions, the Autumn of Nations, which resulted in what had been considered unthinkable up until then; total disintegration of the Soviet Union with no shots fired (technically that's not true but you get the point). Now there's a chance of something similar happening in the Middle East, at least with respect to "struggle for recognition".

Of course the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan are not the first phases of a liberal revolution but they do address something that Arab dictators have long tried to ignore; the need of the average Arab citizen to be recognized as a citizen, not a subject. But the definition of a citizen varies as there are more competing societal models in the Middle East than there were in Europe in 1989. Communism had promised material abundance which never materialized. The free market system, on the other hand, had been tried and proven by then, so there was no question as to what should replace communism. Traditional authoritarianism in the Middle East might as well be replaced with an Islamic alternative. Islam is hostile to both free markets and democracy and Islamic movements in countries such as Egypt are anxious to consolidate power after having settled for a minor role for decades.

Islam remains a threat to the Middle East because there's no tradition of secularism in the Muslim world. Europe had Reformation, and the wars it brought, but many Muslims still dream of going back to the old days, days when the Muslim world was united under one caliphate bent on expansion. Fukuyama argues that Christianity contributed to democracy in spreading the idea that all people are equal in the eyes of God. The problem was that this would matter in afterlife only. God had to be taken off the equation - Christianity had to be secularized (at first via Reformation, then via the Enlightenment) before the idea of equality could be applied to our existence on this rock. Except for countries like Turkey which went through a process of quick and forced secularization, the Muslim world has yet to witness a similar process.

But while the current situation is not a liberal revolution and while it carries great risks, it's not the starting point for the establishment of a new caliphate either. Yesterday (on Fox News) Glenn Beck was going on about how the situation in the Middle East could lead to the establishment of a new caliphate, stretching all the way from Pakistan to the UK. This is of course a completely ludicrous idea. While there's no tradition of secularism in the Muslim world, the average Egyptian is not exactly a puritan Muslim either and as such is not too keen to hand power to extremists. The very fact that the extremist Muslim Brotherhood has tried to appear as a moderate force throughout the crisis pretty much proves this. Egypt is not the Iran of 1979 in the sense that there isn't a similar backlash against modernization (Westernization) in Egypt. Another obstacle to a caliphate is nationalism, which played a prominent role in the struggle against European colonial powers. While the Muslim identity surpasses the national identity, this does not automatically mend fences between dozens of Muslim groups. The United Arab Republic lasted for only three years even at a time when Egypt and Syria shared a common enemy. With different factions killing - or waiting for the opportunity to kill - each other, how can anyone expect these people to form a caliphate when they are nowhere near getting their own houses in order? The fact that Beck wears glasses these days doesn't make him any smarter. 

At the moment the situation in the Middle East seems chaotic and the outcome unpredictable but the prospect of a change in a system that is hostile to all three parts of Fukuyama's "soul" sounds better than mere stability. The status quo, which the Western world has helped maintain, has been feeding resentment in the Middle East for decades now with hardly any proof that it's been worth it.

"Cairo today is all of Egypt," he said. "I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did ... I want to feel like I chose my president."

Unnatural selection

A 25-year-old Brit, Keith Macdonald, has fathered 15 children with 14 women while living on unemployment benefits like most of his "victims" (the article doesn't use the word specifically but it's implied; I'd use a less flattering word) who're also dependent on government assistance and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Biological fitness can be measured by the number of offspring an individual produces during his or her lifetime. What biological features increase fitness is defined by the environment which, in human context, includes the society. It is then no wonder that the welfare state has changed the environment so that people who less than a hundred years ago would have been considered "unfit" are now among the fit thanks to taxpayer-funded welfare checks.

One could draw the apparent conclusion that we're on a degenerative path heading towards some kind of an idiocracy. Obviously, this won't happen as the welfare system is dependent on production which in turn is defined by how the society allocates its factors of production; capital and labor. The overall tax burden cannot be increased indefinitely without causing the system to collapse (at high tax rates, government revenue starts to fall) which would leave the high-breeding, non-working individuals without a safety net.

The Economist and its leftward spiral

The Economist warns of the dangers of Big Government. Funny, because I vaguely remember the Economist advocating not only Barack Obama's election but also the fiscal stimulus, the bank rescue package and the health care reform. This is the trend the news magazine has had for at least the past four years that I have been a subscriber. First they advocate interventionist policies and then, especially if those policies backfire, they argue that we should be cautious of such policies. Usually they leave cunning openings for themselves, allowing them to take credit however things turn out. I guess they really want to make it seem like they're sticking to their stated principles while in fact advocating policies that betray those principles.

Finland, the best country according to some

Newsweek ranked Finland as the best country in the world to live in. Finns just love it when they're noticed abroad which, if you ask me, is quite pathetic. What's even more pathetic is the way our media is treating this. They're referring to Newsweek as "prestigious", completely leaving out the fact that it suffers from a heavy left-wing bias. A quick look at the "advisory board" behind the ranking reveals something the media hasn't been able to figure out: that the ranking was written by leftists (including Stiglitz) and a few centrists. And this is what our Minister for Foreign Affairs considers the best news of the year.

Alle minimipalkan

Kauppalehti:

SAK:n ja STTK:n ylläpitämään kesäduunari-infoon on ilmoitettu ympäri Suomen jopa alle viiden euron tuntipalkoista. Moni työnantaja laistaa myös sunnuntain tuplapalkasta.

Puhelujen perusteella joillekin jäätelökioskimyyjille on maksettu ympäri Suomen alle viiden euron tuntipalkkaa, joka on liian vähäinen kaupan työehtosopimusten mukaan.

Ehkä nyt ei ole paras aika lähteä vaatimaan työehtosopimusten mukaista palkkaa. Monet firmat eivät ole finanssikriisin aikaisina kesinä kovin innostuneesti palkanneet kesätyöläisiä. Jos kesätyöläisiä pidettäisiin tuottavina, heitä palkattaisiin. Yleisesti ottaen firmat eivät ole mitään rahasampoja, joten pienikin ero tuntipalkassa voi olla hyvin merkittävä.

Kauppalehden kommenttiosaston porukka nähtävästi kuvittelee, että firmoilla on suurin piirtein rajattomasti rahaa tällaisinakin aikoina. Firmat eivät vaan silkkaa ahneuttaan maksa työehtosopimusten mukaista palkkaa. Muutenkin vaikuttaa siltä, että porukka ajattelee suuremman minimipalkan olevan automaattisesti hyvä ja edistyksellinen juttu, vailla haittavaikutuksia.

LaFeber's recipe for economic growth

In one of the most biased textbooks I have ever read, Walter LaFeber states the following in his America, Russia, and the Cold War:

5. Are the American people prepared for the post-Cold War world?
(...) The Soviet Union, after all, rotted from the inside out. On the other hand, Japan's and Germany's rise to economic power occurred because of their educated workforces, intelligent governmental guidance, ability to plan long-term and high savings rates (three to four times the rates of Americans) that catered money for investment rather than a towering consumer indebtedness.

Not a mention of free markets, only references to planning, guidance and having lots of intelligent people. If that's all it takes, then why exactly did the Soviet Union collapse? They had some of the best scientists in the world, free university education and a whole lot of planning. I guess their planning wasn't intelligent enough. The Soviet Union also had a high investment rate, with investments allocated by "intelligent" technocrats. And how did it turn out?

As for Japan and Germany, neither really managed to plan long-term. The Japanese government got so entangled in subsidizing its enterprises that when the time came to pull the plug, they couldn't, as a result of which Japan has had two lost decades. Germany has been liberalizing its economy precisely because some of the welfare state policies it adopted are not sustainable in the long run. When these two economies grew the fastest after the war, it was in large part thanks to catching up after being torn to pieces by years of war. Compared to the rest of the world, their economies were still overwhelmingly liberal (as in free). The fact is that both countries would have witnessed similar, maybe even much higher, growth rates if their governments had simply kept their hands off. This is the recipe that allowed the West to rise above the rest of the world in the first place, long before anyone even dared to mention "public education".

Praising education as some Holy Grail is dangerous; it sends governments on a wild-goose chase, as if educating the people of Africa somehow could bring about an economic miracle. Don't forget that our comprehensive public education system appeared relatively late, decades after we had shed ourselves of extreme poverty that so plagues the (un)developing world.

Sosialismin ja kehitysavun runtelema Tansania

Kirjassa Presidentin ministeriö II (1970-1981) paneudutaan yhdessä alaluvussa Suomen kehitysyhteistyötoimintaan Tansaniassa, joka oli "tärkein Suomen kahdenkeskisen kehitysavun päävastaanottajamaista" 70-luvulla:

Pohjoismailla ja sosiaalidemokraateilla oli erityinen "ideologinen rakkaus" Tansaniaan. Nyereren pyrkimykset ja tavoitteet nähtiin "jaloina".

Ulkoasiainministeriön sinisilmäiset virkamiehet, lähinnä sosiaalidemokraatit, kannattivat kymmenien miljoonien markkojen hankkeita Tansaniassa. (Näiden virkamiesten joukossa oli myös suurlähettiläs Martti Ahtisaari.) Tansania oli tuolloin sitoutunut suunnitelmatalouteen ja "maailman uuteen talousjärjestykseen", jota myös Suomi kannatti. Lukuunottamatta Paul Samuelsonin kaltaisia, matemaattisen mallentamisen sokaisemia ekonomisteja, suunnitelmatalouden ongelmat olivat hyvin taloustieteen tiedossa. Tämä ei estänyt satojen miljoonien markkojen sysäämistä tähän(kin) afrikkalaiseen katastrofiin. Wikipedian mukaan Tansania muuttui muutamassa vuodessa Afrikan merkittävimmästä maataloustuotteiden viejästä Afrikan merkittävimmäksi maataloustuotteiden tuojaksi. Kollektivisointeja tehostettiin mm. polttamalla kyliä. Näin toimi diktaattori Nyerere, jonka tavoitteita vasemmistolaiset pitivät "jaloina".

Tässä siis vain yksi esimerkki ei ainoastaan kehitysavun hyödyttömyydestä, vaan myös siitä, miten häikäilemättömästi diktaattorit käyttävät kehitysapurahoja omien mielisairaiden projektiensa toteuttamiseen. Käytännössä mikä tahansa afrikkalainen valtio toimisi esimerkkinä tästä, mutta eipä näytä menevän suomalaiselle intelligentsialle kaaliin.

Kirjassa mainitaan vielä, että 70-luvulla "Tansania kuului maailman 25 köyhimmän maan joukkoon". Maailmanpankin mukaan Tansania on tänään maailman 23. köyhin maa. Aid well spent!

Rooted in the same philosophy

Parts of a Nazi Party program adopted in 1920:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: ... an end to the power of the financial interests.

[We] combat the... [Jewish-]materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.

-Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer

Ecuador

BBC (13th December 2008):

Ecuador is to default officially on billions of dollars of foreign debt it considers "illegitimate", says President Rafael Correa.

Mr Correa said he had given the order not to approve a debt interest payment due on Monday, describing the international lenders as "monsters".

The Economist (January 2010):

To finance its budget, the [Ecuadorean] government is likely to have to borrow more than $4 billion this year. Sine defaulting on a third of its foreign debt in December 2008, it has scoured the world for cash, without much success. It was late in paying legislators' salaries last month.

Hah! Another Latin American country exhibiting the wonders (and the impossibility) of building a welfare state at the expense of free-market capitalism (or without free-market capitalism). Like Venezuela, another Latin American country run by a socialist madman, Ecuador went on a spending spree when the price of oil was high. Oil revenue was then allocated to social spending, i.e., buying votes and turning people dependent on the government. Anti-West rhetoric and threats to private companies have not exactly helped government finances, unless you count Hugo Chávez's support, which is not really a good bet in the long run.

Keynes on reparations

Finished reading Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace, published in 1920. A few notes:

-Keynes recommended that Germany should be made to pay no more than £2 billion in reparations. The actual size of the bill was initially settled at £24 billion, which Germany is still paying. The antagonists of the story are the French, who wanted Germany to bleed (going as far as insisting that German private property abroad should be expropriated), and Wilson, who was just too weak to resist the French. In fact, the book could be used to argue that France caused the Second World War.
-In retrospect, it seems that Keynes was wrong about the economic consequences of the peace. As the German economy grew in the '20s, it became more apparent that the problem with reparations was political and that Germany regained its status as an industrial powerhouse faster than expected (at least until the Crash of 1929). The reparations didn't ruin the economy but the psychological effects of the Treaty of Versailles were effectively used by the nazis to seize power. Before Versailles, Germans were led to believe by the Allies that peace would be built on Wilson's Fourteen Points. Because of French opposition and Wilson's weakness, it didn't turn out that way.
-Two numbers struck me, as they always do. Germany had a population of nearly 70 million in 1914, before the outbreak of the war. Russia had a population of 150 million around the same time. Today Germany has just 80 million and Russia 140 million inhabitants. To get a better picture of the effects of the two world wars on the populations of these two countries, compare their demographic story to that of the United States which had around 100 million inhabitants in 1914 and has 310 million inhabitants today.
-Keynes recommended arranging some huge international loan to help Europe rebuild. Keynes argued that in practice the lender would have to be the United States. This didn't come to fruition but this is exactly what happened after the Second World War in the form of the Marshall Plan. Also, apart from the Soviet Union, the Allies turned out to be far more lenient toward Germany after the Second, at least after initially contemplating plans to turn Germany into a cripple. (The onset of the Cold War surely contributed to this.)

Some quotes:

"The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable, -abhorrent and detestable, even if it were possible, even if it enriched ourselves, even if [it] did not sow the decay of the whole civilised life of Europe. Some preach it in the name of Justice. In the great events of man's history, in the unwinding of the complex fates of nations Justice is not so simple. And if it were, nations are not auhorised, by religion or by natural morals, to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers."
...
"If we aim deliberately at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare predict, will not limp. Nothing can then delay for very long that final civil war between the forces of Reaction and the despairing convulsions of Revolution, before which the horrors of the late German war fill fade into nothing, and which will destroy, whoever is victor, the civilisation and the progress of our generation."
...
"But who can say how much is endurable, or in what direction men will seek at last to escape from their misfortunes?"

Are greens simply evil?

They seem to be:

While mere exposure to green products may “prime” us to think about social consciousness and perhaps improve our behavior, if we actually buy a green product, we appear to take it as license to act like jerks.

Things got interesting when these students were subsequently given $6 for an economic task and asked to share it with an unknown partner. The students who had purchased products in the green store, it turned out, were far less generous with the $6 than students who had merely been exposed to the green products.

A subsequent experiment pushed things even further. Students were again asked to shop in a green or a conventional store. They were then put through an experiment where they had the opportunity to earn extra money by cheating — even to steal money from an envelope left in the room. Consistent with the previous experiment, participants who had purchased from the green store were significantly more likely to cheat and to steal than participants who purchased from the conventional store.

I'd draw a different conclusion than the one in the first paragraph. I don't think that buying green products makes you act like a jerk. Instead, it's the way the left-wing brain has been wired that makes you act like a criminal, a mentality of total disregard for the property and freedom of others. It doesn't surprise me in the least that a green person would steal the money from an envelope. These are the same people who see nothing wrong with high marginal tax rates. These are the same people who think it's acceptable to break store windows and burn cars of private individuals while demonstrating against government policies.

Feminists couldn't care less about women's rights

Spiegel:

Copenhagen's city council in conjunction with Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and delegates to 'Be sustainable - don't buy sex'.

"Dear hotel owner, we would like to urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes," the approach to hotels says.

Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site avisen.dk.

According to the report, the move has been organized by the Sex Workers Interest Group (SIO).

"This is sheer discrimination. Ritt Bjerregaard is abusing her position as Lord Mayor in using her power to prevent us carrying out our perfectly legal job. I don't understand how she can be allowed to contact people in this way," SIO Spokeswoman Susanne Møller tells avisen.dk.

(Boldface and italics mine.)

Ever wondered how little feminists appreciate the liberty of women to choose their own occupation? I haven't. It's common for these types of socialists to have such a high opinion of themselves as to be able to make decisions about how individuals are supposed to live their lives. Another feminist trait is the perception that whenever a woman chooses to be a model, a pornstar or a prostitute instead of a chief executive she has somehow betrayed other women and the feminist cause, as if individual women are worth something only as members of their respective genders and not as individuals acting on their own.

Also, this is a gross violation of state's appropriate role in the economy. What if she had attacked retailers, suddenly telling people that they should not buy anything and just let the retailers starve?

Homo Economicus

In a Mises.org article a kids' Halloween candy trade drifts from a barter economy to a monetary economy while heading toward its ultimate goal, a Pareto-efficient equilibrium. The article also reminds us of the potential dangers of a government fiat currency monopoly.

Some picks:

Though this problem might seem an intractable one, as it happened, it only took a few minutes for everyone to discover what would become money for the evening: a micro-size Three Musketeers bar.

Once it became clear that 3M was the commodity of the most use in exchange, it didn't matter whether you actually liked it or not. You were happy to trade the candies you didn't much care for in order to obtain a 3M simply because this could then be traded again for something which really did make your mouth water.

Outside observers of a Misesian bent imagined the following: let's say someone arrived at the scene and threw down 100 3Ms on the table. All kids know precisely what would happen. The price of 3Ms would tumble. Each one would purchase far less than it had before.

But, fortunately, no Halloween bogeyman from the Federal Reserve Candy Factory came to ruin their game. So the kids could remain free to trust in the soundness of their candy unit.

A pension worth 4000€ a month

A Finnish green party MP Janina Andersson will not seek re-election in 2011, meaning she'll be quitting after 16 years in the job. Then she will be eligible for something called an MP's readjustment pension (any representative who quits after seven years in the job is eligible for this pension) which means she can cash in around 4000€ a month even though she's only 40 years old.

Now, she says she will apply for these benefits in case she can't find a job but of course anyone with her work history and connections could find a job. Also, she says she'd like to spend more time with her kids instead of working full-time but that merely begs the question that if raising kids is that lucrative, where do I sign up? The craziest thing is that in this article, she actually compares the 4000€ a month pension to ordinary unemployment benefits. Even if she were to consume only half of the benefits, she could be a millionaire in her eighties.

Of course she's not responsible for legislating the readjustment pension and in all likelihood she won't be drawing this special pension from the age of 40 until she's eligible for "normal" pension. But the system is rotten and it needs to be said out loud. So, can we get a competent, ethical MP to stand up and call for the abolition of this ludicrous special pension?

Muslim immigration leads to White flight

According to this news piece, native Finns are taking their children out of schools with significant immigrant populations (mainly Muslims, of course). Not just that, but they're also willing to move to have their children put in another school. This will further erode the areas with significant immigrant populations as the population actually capable of paying taxes moves out, leaving behind only those consuming welfare services. And not just that, but the demand for these welfare services increases as the amount of immigrants does. This is what happened in the United States as a result of desegregation. White Americans responded by moving elsewhere, leaving cities like Detroit to rot. Add rent controls to the mix and you'll end up with ghettos. This flight is taking place in cities across Europe and it has, in just a few years, landed in Finland and is now destroying the ridiculously naive "people's home" state, first conceived in Sweden.

This will also reflect on educational attainments. Immigrants tend to have much lower test scores than natives. Also, the natives will suffer if teachers are forced to devote more and more time on immigrant pupils. As I have argued before, one reason why Finland does well in international comparisons (the so-called "PISA" test) is because of our homogeneous population. This also means that our education system cannot be "copied", i.e., no lessons can be drawn from our system unless our demographic structure is copied too.

So, what is happening is that westerners are moving elsewhere as their neighborhoods are being invaded by alien, collectivist cultures where ethnic and religious indentities matter more than the individual. People do care about what is happening but few dare to speak out because of the intellectual climate where those criticizing immigration policies are quickly labeled as racists. So, don't expect anyone to do anything. The trend will continue until we're on the verge of a collapse.

Kohti vastuutonta yhteiskuntaa

Helsingin Sanomat, 14.10.2009:

Eduskunta hyväksyi keskiviikkona lainmuutoksen, jonka mukaan pikavippiyritykset eivät saa luovuttaa rahaa lainaajalle öisin.

Lainmuutoksella yritetään vähentää turvautumista pikaluottoihin öiseen aikaan, jolloin lainanottajan harkintakyky saattaa olla heikentynyt.

Helsingin Sanomat, 15.10.2009:

Hallitus esittää eduskunnalle, että mitään ilotulitteita ei saisi enää myydä tai luovuttaa alle 18-vuotiaille.

Vaarallisimmat ilotulitteet kielletään kokonaan.

Helsingin Sanomat, 15.10.2009:

Raha-automaatteja ei voi enää muutaman vuoden kuluttua pelata anonyymisti, jos sisäministeriön arpajais- ja asehallintoyksikön suunnitelmat toteutuvat.

Suomessa ollaan vauhdilla menossa suuntaan, jossa yksilöä ei pidetä enää mistään vastuullisena. (Olemattomia tuomioita raiskauksista ja henkirikoksista jakeleva oikeuslaitos on jo pitkään ollut tämän suunnan tiennäyttäjä. ) Itse asiassa tämä varmistetaan siten, että yksilön ei enää sallita tekevän päätöksiä omasta elämästään, vaan kaikki päätökset tekee eduskunta. Näin yksilö ei voi enää tehdä "vääriä" päätöksiä.

Ne kaikkein avuttomimmat saattavat tästä hyötyäkin (mutta eivät välttämättä, vaikuttaahan epäonnistumismahdollisuuden poistuminen kannustimiin), mutta miksi meidän muiden pitäisi alistua idioottien hallittaviksi?