Here It Comes.

Posted on August 29, 2024 by jsh54

Zionism is a political movement that arose in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries. Its’ goal was to create a majority-Jewish democratic nation-state in the area once belonging to the Jewish kingdoms of the Ancient Near East. It would attract all those Jews living under persecution in many different states. Later, Zionism split into Labor Zionism and Revisionist Zionism. Labor Zionism channeled Eastern European socialism. The Labor Party dominated the politics of Israel from 1948 to 1977. In terms of relations with the Palestinians, by the early 1970s Labor Zionism had come to favor giving up the Arab territories conquered in the 1967 war. Labor became the “peace party.” Revisionist Zionism developed later than did Labor Zionism. It insisted upon both the necessity for a strong military and the goal of taking territory on both sides of the Jordan River. The Likud Party is the political expression of Revisionist Zionism. It has dominated Israel’s politics since 1977. Later, Revisionism abandoned claims to the East Bank of the Jordan while maintaining the claim to the West Bank. Since 1967, the Arab presence in the West Bank has been much eroded, especially through Jewish settlements and military control.[1] Benjamin Netanyahu leads Likud.

In the judgement of the political scientist and Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead, Benjamin Netanyahu is “a historic leader who has imposed his will on the great events of his time. Without approving all that he has done, Mead nevertheless sees “Bibi” as “a political genius who towers above his critics and rivals.”[2] Netanyahu is “unlike most of the mediocrities who hold office in countries around the world.”[3]

Since the Hamas attack in October 2023, Israel has been pounding Gaza into rubble. Netanyahu’s intention may be to make Gaza uninhabitable for a long stretch. This may force out the Palestinians.[4]

Now Israel has begun expanded operations in the West Bank.[5] In theory, these are directed only against pro-Hamas terrorists. Still, it is worth wondering if Netanyahu is beginning the same process on the West Bank that is nearing completion in Gaza.

This will be really awkward for the Democrats right now. The presidential election nears with Democratic supporters of Israel and of the Palestinians at daggers drawn. For the moment, the conflict is papered-over. A big new explosion in the West Bank could break this truce.

It will be much more awkward for the Palestinians. Under attack from Israel, they will have to choose between the Palestinian Authority, which hasn’t fought in a long while, and Hamas, which has shown itself ready to fight to the last Palestinian.

Then it is awkward for the United States. The Biden administration has failed to curtail Israel’s action in Gaza. Would it be able to contain the outrage generated by more pictures of buildings being leveled, bodies of children carried from the rubble, and families in flight? The gorge rises, even among those who recognize that at least half the blame falls on Hamas.

[1] See: Westbank_2010 (wikimedia.org)

[2] Walter Russell Mead, “Netanyahu’s Place in History,” WSJ, 27 August 2024.

[3] Mead’s columns over the last few years seem clear that he ranks Joe Biden among the mediocrities.

[4] Gazaedy. | waroftheworldblog

[5] Aaron Boxerman, Adam Rasgon, Raja Abdulrahim, and Thomas Fuller, “Israel Escalates Raids On West Bank Targets As Third Front Grows,” NYT, 29 August 2024.

The Gate of Tears.

Posted on August 28, 2024 by jsh54

Arabs on the oil-rich Persian Gulf don’t like to do real work. They hire lots of foreigners to do the hardest, dirtiest work. That still looks like a good opportunity to many people in developing countries.[1] East Africa sends many employment-seekers to the Gulf.

Getting there can be difficult, uncomfortable, and dangerous. The uncomfortable part comes in long trips. Much of these parts of the journey take place in the backs of trucks. Another part of the route is across the Red Sea from the Republic of Djibouti to Taiz Governorate (or province) in Yemen. Recently, a boatload of migrants capsized, leaving all aboard dead or missing.[2] In addition to the Yemeni captain and his deckhand, there were 25 Ethiopians. Ethiopia being land-locked, it was their first time at sea.

There is a good chance that they were coming out of the port of Obock in northeastern Djibouti, or perhaps Moulhoule 40 miles farther north.[3] Djibouti, the main port of the country of Djibouti,[4] is farther south. It is home to a whole bunch of foreign naval bases. They pay high rents to the crooked dictator of the country. So, too many prying eyes for a smuggling operation. Obock is better: remote from the main port, difficult to access by road,[5] and closer to Yemen.

Still, everyone knows that Obock is the port of departure for many African migrants trying to cross to the Arabian peninsula. The International Organization for Migration maintains a Transit Center there. The walls are festooned with murals warning of the dangers of both the sea-crossing and the trip in general.[6] The smugglers use a range of vessels. Some of them are fairly large, spending part of their working lives fishing well off-shore.[7] Others are much smaller, meant for in-shore fishing. One or two big outboard engines provide power.

The voyage could run up the coast of Djibouti, across to the Arabian peninsula in the area of the Bab-al-Mandab straits, and then up the coast of Yemen. This is something like 100 miles, Mean daytime temperatures run at 100 degrees. The chance of being accidentally run-down at night by a merchant ship on the Suez Canal-Indian Ocean route is very real.

Taiz Governorate is in the southwestern corner of Yemen. Much of the governorate is rocky highlands, but it also includes the port of Mocha on the Red Sea. Mocha long prospered from the coffee trade, but eventually lost out to competitors. Since 2015, a civil war between Houthis and the government has racked Yemen. Mocha has been fought over and damaged. Today, fishing and smuggling provide the chief mainstays of the economy.[8] Boat crews shift easily between those trades.

Many people live on a cliff’s edge that I cannot imagine.

[1] For the basics of this grim, fascinating story, see Migrant workers in the Gulf Cooperation Council region – Wikipedia

[2] Associated Press, “Boat Carrying Migrants Sinks,” WSJ, 26 August 2024. Ninety-one words.

[3] Obock provided a long-term base and home to the French adventurer Henri de Montfried. Henry de Monfreid – Wikipedia

[4] In pre-colonial times ruled by the Sheikh Djibouti.

[5] I kid you not. See: Djibouti Traffic Safety while traveling. – CountryReports

[6] For example, IOM murals in Obock, Djibouti | Murals at the International … | Flickr ; and IOM mural warning of the dangers | A mural at the Internatio… | Flickr

[7] One captured by the Djiboutian Coast Guard, is seen riding at anchor in Obock harbor: Smuggler boats in Obock, Djibouti | Five of the 60 boats cap… | Flickr

[8] See This Yemeni Town Went From Coffee King to Smuggler’s Haven (thedailybeast.com)

What you want most.

Posted on August 24, 2024 by jsh54

Many people want to change their lives for the better. In pursuit of that goal, Craig Groeschel argues for prioritizing “what you want most” over “what you want now.”[1] One major theme in American politics since the Cold War has been both major parties urging Americans to prioritize “what they want now” over “what they want most.” One reason is clear. Offering people “what they want now” is the path to popularity and political success.[2] It may also be the road to Hell.

In a market economy, free trade is an ideal goal. It encourages specialization in what each country does best and the exchange of those goods to maximize efficiency. In this framework, tariffs are to be avoided except under special circumstances. The reasons to avoid them are that they raise prices for consumers while decreasing competitive pressures on producers. The special circumstances include sheltering infant industries and protecting industries vital to national security. Donald Trump imposed the first tariffs on China as a major head-slap against an economic and political opponent. Joe Biden continued those tariffs, even though they had been one of Trump’s much-decried breaks with traditional policy. Now, Kamala Harris seems likely to continue Biden’s policy, while Trump proposes to increase the tariffs on China and expand them to a 10 or 20 percent tariff on all products from all countries. The European Union and China are likely to resist American tariffs with their own measures.

In a market economy, prices signal the balance or imbalance between supply and demand. High prices are a call for more production or cheaper substitutes. Government at various levels already controls some prices. Biden and Harris have proposed removing federal tax benefits for landlords who raise rents more than 5 percent, and attacking what they call “price gouging.” In the case of apartment rents, the market already began to work before the Biden-Harris proposal saw the light of day. Developers have built and are still building apartments; rents have begun to fall.

Donald Trump has favored Medicare negotiating with drug companies over the price of drugs; the Biden administration has begun to put that plan into effect. Medicare is such a huge force in the pharmaceuticals market that drug companies have reason to regard this as the entering wedge for comprehensive price controls. One housing economist has argued that anything resembling permanent rent controls will cause landlords to adapt to the market intervention. They will build less and convert more of the existing rental units to condominiums.

Both parties are promising big giveaways through the tax system. Trump and Harris want to end taxes on tips; Trump wants to end taxes on Social Security income; Harris has called for a $6,000 tax “credit” on new children, and a $25,000 tax “credit” for first-time home buyers.

Economists have estimated that Harris’s proposals would cost the country about $1 trillion over ten years; Trump’s would cost $1.6 trillion at a minimum over the same period. The deficit and debt are at scary levels already. It would be reasonable to start working them down. But politicians of both parties prefer to offer people “what they want now” over what they “should want most.” Economists called it a bad idea when Trump proposed a new round of $2,000 stimulus cheques in December 2020. The idea then got folded into Joe Biden’s spending plans. That made the gathering inflation even worse. It was what people “wanted now.”

[1] Craig Groeschel, The Power to Change: Mastering the Habits That Matter Most (2023).

[2] Greg Ip, “In Campaign ’24, RIP Economics,” WSJ, 23 August 2024.

Where the Sun Does Shine.

Posted on August 18, 2024 by jsh54

China’s “industrial policy” appears to be founded on choosing specific industries that are believed to be key future industries; then backing lots of firms; then letting them fight out who will be the winner. It seems to be accepted from the beginning that there will be many losers who will go bankrupt. In contrast to some Western models of industrial policy, where the government chooses a “national champion” company, China prefers a more rugged approach.

The fundamental Chinese insight is that “talk is cheap” and that “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” That is, you can’t tell beforehand who is smart enough and ruthless enough to win-out in a new undertaking. So, give everyone who asks a bunch of money, wait ten years, and see who is drinking cheap wine while living in a refrigerator box under a bridge.

In the nature of things, a few producers who can maintain very low costs while producing large quantities of goods crush the many other less competitive, less efficient firms. The losers go out of business and sell off their assets. What is left are a few survivors: highly-efficient and large-volume producers who have achieved economies of scale and are ready to compete on world markets.

In about 2009, the Chinese government decided to make a major commitment of resources to the solar power industry. They saw a market not only in China, but even more in the world export market. Today, the vast majority of both the machinery to manufacture solar panels and the solar panels themselves are “Made in China.”[1]

Then a series of small, dark clouds appeared on the horizon. For one thing, China’s strategy produced massive excess-capacity. That is, China builds far more things than there is market for those things. The struggle for survival intensifies. Firms cut prices to very low levels. Currently, those prices are well below production costs. Companies are now shouldering serious losses.[2] Yet they don’t all stop building capacity. Instead, they are trying to sell their surplus abroad at these very low prices.[3]

For another thing, local governments made generous grants because of a booming housing market. This pumped up their revenue because they sold long-term leases to developers. Now, excess-capacity has developed in housing. Unable to sell or rent what they have already constructed, developers have cut back on new projects. Local governments don’t have the money for subsidies anymore. Within China, the economic losses are a problem for whoever provided the financing for the companies. In China, this is a complicated network of local governments, government investment funds, and government-supported banks.[4]

For yet another thing, the United States and Europe are fighting back against cheap Chinese imports that threaten their own solar-panel industries.

How do you get down off a tiger?

[1] Keith Bradsher, “China Rules Solar Energy Worldwide, but Its Industry at Home Is in Trouble,” NYT, 6 August 2024.

[2] For example, wholesale prices for solar panels fell by almost 50 percent in 2023 and another 25 percent in the first half of 2024.

[3] See: Dumping (pricing policy) – Wikipedia

[4] See: The Woes of China 2. | waroftheworldblog

Solar Power Rises in the East.

Posted on August 17, 2024 by jsh54

Once, America was the greatest industrial economy in the world, while China was a monument to Communist fanaticism. Today, 28 percent of China’s economy is devoted to manufacturing, while 11 percent of America’s economy is devoted to manufacturing. Much attention and criticism has focused on the “unfair” means by which China has risen up to become the workshop of the world. China has used massive government subsidies, intellectual property theft, and exchange rate manipulation to achieve this goal. The social and political effects of American industrial decline have polarized the country. What may be missing is a recognition of an equally great source of China’s real “Great Leap forward”: educational priorities.[1]

Between 2000 and 2024, enrollment in China’s higher-education system has risen ten-fold. That means that between 1976 and 2000, enrollment in Chinese secondary education also rose by at least this much. That means that forty years ago, the Chinese government made a commitment to dramatically improving the educational qualifications of the country’s people.

It wasn’t just more students going to university, then to graduate school. As a share of the student population, many more Chinese students major in science, math, and engineering than is the case in most large economies of the world. More than 50 percent of Chinese undergraduates and 75 percent of graduate students major in math, science, engineering, or agriculture. In comparison, 20 percent of American undergraduates and 50 percent of graduate students major in these areas. That means that forty years ago, the Chinese government saw science and technology as the keys to future power and prosperity.

They may be just getting started. Since 2014, China has tripled its spending on research and development.[2] The July 2024 meeting of the country’s leaders opted to “make extraordinary arrangements for urgently needed disciplines and majors” over the next decade.

Look at the specific case of batteries. Huge amounts of readily available and cheap raw materials can be used to make powerful and long-lasting rechargeable batteries. These can be used to power electric vehicles. The Chinese have figured out how to do this. No surprise here: there are almost 50 graduate programs in China where faculty and students focus on battery chemistry or battery metallurgy. In the United States, there is “a handful” of individual professors. One result is that two-thirds of scientific papers on these subjects now come from China. American scientists produce 12 percent.

What course for other industrial countries? One solution is to do what China began to do half a century ago, get the foreigners to build factories in your country so that you can share in the Chinese success. Another solution is to learn to do what the foreigners already know how to do by copying what they have done.

Does the current tariff war against China contemplate possible “peace settlements”? Building products in America has long been a strategy for Japanese and European car companies. Building a science and technology infrastructure prioritizing involving labs and scientists, and sustained across half a century may be problematic for a political system and culture like those in the United States.

[1] Keith Bradsher, “How China Built Its Tech Prowess: STEM Classes and Research Labs,” NYT, 14 August 2024.

[2] China devotes 2.6 percent of GDP to research and development; the United States 3.4 percent. So, 0.9 percent in 2014.

Deficit Scold.

Posted on August 15, 2024 by jsh54

There are big, important things. Often they are dull. There are small, unimportant things. Often, they grab the headlines. The big, important things are both “global” (the health of the world economy, climate change, global demography) and “parochial” (the economic situation of the United States, the state of American “hard” power, the current political polarization). The “big” things are worth thinking about, the “small” things not.

One “big” thing is the government deficits and national debt. Earlier in 2024, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a 2024 U.S. government budget deficit of $1.6 trillion; in mid-June 2024, it revised that to $1.9 trillion.[1] Even this is probably over-optimistic. It includes an assumption that the tax cuts passed in 2017 during the first Trump administration will be allowed to expire in the near future. Politically, this is a very unreasonable assumption. President Joe Biden has said that he would extend at least some of the tax cuts and Presidential-candidate Kamala Harris is currently expected to model her basic economic policy on that of the Biden administration. For his part, Donald Trump has pledged to extend all of the tax cuts. Fully extending the tax cuts would reduce revenue by $5 trillion over ten years.

The fundamental problem is an imbalance between spending and revenue. In recent decades, this has led to large annual deficits. The deficits have been covered by borrowing.[2]

What are the sources of these deficits? First of all, a large aging population has started relying on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.[3] Second, borrowing money requires paying interest. Even at low interest rates, a quantitatively expanding debt will increase the amount of interest that has to be paid. The CBO estimates that interest payments will rise from $892 billion in 2024 to $1.7 trillion in 2034. Higher interest rates, used to control inflation, compound this effect. At the same time, the United States has spent forty years cutting taxes.

The national debt of the United States—all the accumulated deficits—stood at about $20 trillion in early 2017. By mid-2024, it had increased to $35 trillion.[4] One budget expert judges that “the overall fiscal and economic environment is a lot worse” than before Trump and Biden occupied the White House.[5] The CBO has recently projected that the U.S. national debt—all the accumulated deficits–would reach or surpass $56 trillion by 2034. In 1999, the national debt amounted to 99 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); in 2034, it projects that the debt will be 122 percent of GDP. “[T]he country’s fiscal backdrop is increasingly grim.”[6]

[1] The Biden administration blames the Republican tax cuts for the deficits and debt. However, the jump from $1.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion sprang largely from the Biden administration’s cancellation of student debt, from the military aid provided to Ukraine and Israel, and from unexpectedly large payments for Medicaid.

[2] That is, for decades now, Americans have wanted a bunch of stuff, but they haven’t wanted to pay for it. Instead of doing without any of the things that they wanted, they borrowed the money in return for I.O.U.s in the form of Treasury bonds. An I.O.U. is a promise to pay in the future. It has been a long-running complaint among what the great economist Paul Krugman calls “deficit scolds” that “we are leaving our children a mountain of debt.” That is true only if our children are willing to pay it. Such a willingness assumes that they are made of sterner stuff than their predecessors.

[3] The “Baby Boom,” born 1946-1963, retires between 2011 and 2030. Obviously, this problem will end one day.

[4] Just over half of the post-2017 increase of $15 trillion took place during the Trump administration ($7.8 t); just under half took place during the Biden administration so far ($7.3 t).

[5] Jim Tankersley, “Trump Tax Plan Could Add Debt by the Trillions,” NYT, 10 August 2024.

[6] Alan Rappeport, “U.S. Debt Set to Top $56 Trillion,” NYT, 19 June 2024.

Fact Check 5.

Posted on August 13, 2024 by jsh54

J.D. Vance has criticized Tim Walz as “the guy who let rioters burn down Minneapolis” in May 2020. The New York Times “Fact Check” says that “this is exaggerated….claims that he did not respond at all, or that the city burned down, are hyperbolic.”[1] Hyperbole is the common coin of American politics. People know what you mean. What were the facts?

On 25 May 2020, several Minneapolis police officers participated in the murder of George Floyd. The killing aroused public opinion in the Minneapolis area. From 26 through 30 May 2020, the area witnessed much civil unrest. Demonstrations quickly turned to rioting, looting, and arson.[2]

Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey asked Governor Tim Walz for 600 National Guard troops on the evening of 27 May 2020. One text from a Frey aide said that Walz was “hesitating.” Walz didn’t approve the request until 4:00 PM on 28 May.

How much time was lost? The initial request came at or before 8:00 PM on 27 May, two hours after the day’s looting and rioting had begun. Walz waited until 4:00 PM on 28 May to approve the request. That’s a 20-hour delay. Even then, he ordered in 500 guardsmen. Early on the morning of 29 May the first National Guard elements were on the streets of Minneapolis. That was 12-14 hours after Walz had granted his approval.

What if Walz had granted Frey’s original request made at 8:00 PM on 27 May? Then the first National Guard troops could have been on the street by 8:00 to 10:00 AM on 28 May. Most of the daylight hours were peaceful. Night brought the burning of the Third Precinct police building and much destruction in St. Paul. Not until 30 May did Walz order a large mobilization of National Guard troops, eventually totaling over 7,000.

Why did Walz hesitate? Walz has said that he didn’t believe that Frey “knew what he was asking for”; nor did the mayor tell Walz how many troops he wanted, or what he wanted them to do, or what capabilities they should possess. Why would Frey be able to tell him these things? He was a 39-year old former city council-man become a first-term mayor. He had never actually run anything before, let alone had to deal with a riot. He really needed someone to step in and take the lead. Walz might have recognized that. Walz might have called Frey early to offer National Guard troops, not wait for a request, then let it get bogged down in process issues.

But what is true of Jacob Frey is also true of Tim Walz in May 2020. He had run a classroom, a high school football team, and some study-abroad trips. He had been an enlisted man in the Army National Guard, rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. According to a story in the New York Times, his Guard unit served on missions like “flood cleanup and recoveries from forest fires and tornadoes.” Walz implemented orders from superior officers. His commanding officer has praised him as “a good soldier” who was “energetic,” “dependable,” and “willing to do whatever we asked him to do.”[3] He had been a Congressman for ten years, cozening executive branch officials on behalf of his constituents and taking positions on issues. Walz became Governor on 17 January 2019. He had even less time in office than did Frey. Like Frey, he had never run anything so big or faced a real crisis. It should come as no surprise that he did some things wrong. The real question is what did he learn from the experience?

[1] Linda Qiu, “How Republican Claims About Walz’s Record Stand Up to Scrutiny,” NYT, 11 August 2024.

[2] See: George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul – Wikipedia

[3] Thomas Gibbons-Neff, John Ismay, and Kate Selig, “Walz Ended His 24-Year Military Career With a Hard Decision,” NYT, 13 August 2024.

High Modernism.

Posted on August 2, 2024 by jsh54

“Modernity” is an umbrella term for the period from about 1500 to the recent Present. Under the umbrella are found the ideas and institutions of science, capitalism, and the nation-state, along with their sub-units and opponents. If a single idea is associated with Modernity it is Progress.

“High Modernity” is the shared absolute confidence in the expertise of those possessing much intellectual capital. While engineers and bureaucrats possess valuable expertise, at the core of High Modernism stands a reverence for science,[1] scientific knowledge, and (implicitly) in scientists.[2] These offer the sole credible way of understanding the world. Together, technology, government, and academia provide the levers with which Science can improve the natural and social worlds. Historians have labeled the political expression of these beliefs as “the “Responsive National State” and the “Project State.”[3]

High Modernism is not explicitly anti-democratic. The reverse of the pro-expertise medal is a disregard for the contexts (historical, social, and geographical) in which improving change is intended to occur.[4] Ordinary people are liable to resist the unfamiliar. Therefore, government by strong authority systems offer a common way of implementing reform. By its very nature, High Modernism is “elitist” and anti-populist.

James Scott, who died recently, left an immense scholarly foot-print on these issues. In one key book, he analyzed “how certain scheme for the improvement of the human condition have failed.”[5] His case list is eclectic. It includes the Soviet collectivization of agriculture in the 1930s; the construction of the new capital of Brasilia within the context of Brazilian economic development in the 1950s; and the forced “villagization” program in Tanzania in the 1970s.

All such schemes were changes imposed on unwilling common people from above. All of them made the subjects miserable, if they didn’t kill them in droves. All of them failed to achieve their goals. They failed, in part, from life’s complexity exceeded expert plans.

What of the non-elite majority who are to be helped, reformed, improved, modernized by experts? The question arose in what academic scholars have called “subaltern studies,” basically the study of the subjects of foreign empires. In the eyes of foreign rulers, these people have a voice only to the degree that they assimilate to the culture of the foreign ruler, accept the assumptions of their overlords.[6] There is a reciprocal nature to such reform-from-above. The reformers either expect resistance or encounter resistance. They push through with more assertive means, justified as expert opinion and deriding the opposition as irrational. Resistance continues. Why can’t the same analysis be applied to the citizens of advanced nations?

[1] Now grudgingly understood to include the “Social Sciences” (economics, sociology, psychology, political science) to the extent that they employ quantification and modeling.

[2] We’ve been here before. See Carl L. Becker, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (1932).

[3] On the former, see John P. McKay’s contribution to John P. McKay, Bennett D. Hill, and John Buckler, A History of Western Society, vol. II, pp. 809-817; and Charles S. Maier, The Project-State and Its Rivals: A New History of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries (2024).

[4] This, the knowledge provided through the Humanities.

[5] James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1985).

[6] There is a tedious explanation of all this at Subaltern (postcolonialism) – Wikipedia

waroftheworldblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Monthly Archives: August 2024