ללא מחבר No Author

Large Democracy = Oligarchy (Israel Is the Same, Of Course)

The US is an oligarchy, study concludes

Report by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities suggests that US political system serves special interest organisations, instead of voters

By Zachary Davies Boren

10:58 AM BST 16 Apr 2014

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organisations: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”

The positions of powerful interest groups are “not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens”, but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.

The theory of “biased pluralism” that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes “tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations.”

The study comes in the wake of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial Supreme Court decision which allows wealthy donors to contribute to an unlimited number of political campaigns.

From The Telegraph, here.

מכס גורם לעליית מחירים, בכל מקום ובכל מצב

מכסי מגן הם רעיון גרוע, במיוחד בזמן משבר עולמי

איאין מאריי, נשיונל רוויו |  

הטלת מכסים והגבלות על ייבוא חופשי משבשת עוד יותר את השוק שעבר זעזועים בשל מגפת הקורונה, יוצרת מחסור וגורמת לעליית מחירים

אם אתם חובבי סודה (או גזוז, תלוי איפה גדלתם), יתכן כי הבחנתם שאפשרויות השתייה הקלה על מדף המכולת הקרובה הצטמצמו לאחרונה, מצב אשר צפוי להחמיר עוד יותר בקרוב. מדוע זה קורה? משום שהנשיא טראמפ החליט על הגדלת המכסים לייבוא אלומיניום מקנדה, לכאורה כדי להגן על תעשיית המתכות האמריקנית. זהו מקרה מבחן מובהק לרשת הסבוכה של מדיניות מכסים.

נניח לרגע בצד את העובדה שאפילו יצרניות אלומיניום מקומיות כמו תאגיד ‘אלוקה’ טוענות כי העלאת מכסים רק תגרום לשיבושים מיותרים בשוק, ובמקום זאת נבחן את המשמעות המעשית עבור התעשיות שצורכות את המתכת. האמת הפשוטה והבלתי ניתנת לערעור היא שמכסים תמיד יגרמו לעליית מחירים, בכל מקום ובכל מצב, ולכן כל מי שמשתמש באלומיניום כחומר גלם עומד בפני צמיחה בעלויות שלו.

במצב רגיל, המשמעות תהיה מחירים מעט גבוהים יותר עבור פחית המשקה האהובה עליך, אך הקפיצה הזו במחיר עשויה להתמתן על ידי תחרות וחדשנות. אם האלומיניום כמשאב יהפוך ליקר מדי, יצרני המשקאות ככל הנראה יעברו בשלב מסוים לשימוש נרחב יותר בבקבוקי פלסטיק או זכוכית על חשבון הפחיות. אך אנחנו לא נמצאים במצב רגיל, ומגפת הקורונה הגלובלית שינתה מהיסוד את דפוסי הביקוש בשוק. מכיוון שאנשים לא יכולים לצאת למשל לבאר הם שותים יותר בבית, מה שהוביל את תעשיית הבירה להתמקד יותר בייצור בירה בפחיות לשם מכירה בחנויות, ופחות בחביות שיועדו לבארים או מסעדות.

במצב כזה, מכסים גורמים לעליה במחיר הן משום שהם מטילים עלויות נוספות על היצרן והמשווק, והן משום שהם גורמים להפחתה בהיצע. כאשר תעשיית הבירה צריכה יותר אלומיניום דווקא בזמן בו ההיצע פוחת, מתפתחת מלחמת מחירים על החומר שמשמש לייצור הפחיות. זה מציב את תעשיית הבירה בתחרות ישירה עוד יותר עם יצרני שתייה קלה אחרת, כאשר כולם נאבקים עכשיו על אותו משאב הנמצא בצמצום. כידוע, בירה היא מוצר יקר יותר מסודה רגילה, מחיר המשקף את הערך שהשוק רואה בה, ובהתאם משתקף גם במחיר המשאבים כמו אלומיניום הדרושים לייצורה ובסופו של דבר יהיו זמינים פחות.

גם בתוך תעשיית השתייה הקלה שאינה בירה ישנם כוחות תחרותיים בפעולה, כאשר חלק מן המשקאות מבוקשים יותר מאחרים ולכן גם ערכם גבוה יותר. חברות אשר עומדות בפני היצע מצומצם של משאבים, יבחרו להתמקד באותם מוצרים בעלי ערך גבוה. המשמעות היא שאם אתה חובב של משקה מסוים פופולרי פחות, אתה עלול להיתקל בקשיים גוברים למצוא אותו על המדף. ברגע שהמלאי הקיים יימכר כולו, יתכן שלא תזכה לטעום את המשקה החביב עליך למשך זמן מה.

מדיניות של פרוטקציוניזם משבשת גם את שוק התעסוקה. נכון, יתכן שיווצרו כמה משרות חדשות בתעשיית האלומיניום שנהנית מן ההגנה הכלכלית של המכסים, אך במאזן הכללי כנראה שיהיו יותר משרות אבודות (ורווחים אבודים) בשאר התעשיות התלויות באלומיניום זמין וזול. האובדן הזה לא היה מתרחש בהיקף ובעוצמה כזו במסגרת שוק חופשי.

גם המערכת הפוליטית נפגעת מהטלת מכסים נרחבת. תעשייה אשר עומדת בפני לחץ מצד מתחרים זרים אינה חשה יותר צורך להתייעל או לשפר את המוצר, כאשר במקום זאת אפשר פשוט להפעיל לובי בעד התערבות ממשלתית נוספת בדמות מכסים או פיקוח מחירים. מצב כזה יוצר אצל פוליטיקאים את המחשבה שהם יכולים לשלוט בכלכלה, יחד תמריצים להתערבות יתר בשוק וחלוקת הטבות למקורבים, תוך שימוש בסיסמאות פופוליסטיות על הצלת מקומות עבודה. במילים אחרות, פרוטקציוניזם הוא ההפך ממדיניות חברתית ערכית.

ובסופו של דבר, כפי שקורה תמיד, תגיע גם תגובת הנגד. כפי שעמיתי ראיין יאנג ציין, בפעם הקודמת בה קנדה הטילה מכסים משלה כתגמול על צעד אמריקני כזה, “המשמעות הייתה מכסים נוספים על 12.6 מיליארד דולר של תוצרת אמריקנית החל מנייר טואלט ועד קפה ושקי שינה”. אם כן – תעשיית הקפה ספגה פגיעה קשה רק משום שהנשיא ביקש לסייע לתעשיית האלומיניום (שכלל אינה זקוקה לעזרה), ואני לא מצליח למצוא בחנות את המשקה האהוב עלי. כמובן שגם הקנדים נאלצו לסבול ולהסתפק בקפה המקומי (וסליחה מראש מדודניי בקנדה). כל השינויים האלה מתרחשים בזמן בו שרשרת האספקה העולמית כבר ספגה זעזועים גדולים יחד עם שינוי עמוק בדפוסי הביקוש, מה שהופך את ההשפעות שלהם לגרועות עוד יותר.

למרבה הצער, כל עוד ההשפעות המזיקות של מכסים ומיסים לא ברורות לציבור, לא קיימת ממש תודעה ציבורית בעד סחר חופשי. בראשית המאה ה-19 בבריטניה, פועלים התנגדו להטלת מכסים מכיוון שהבינו כי הדבר יגרום להם לשלם יותר על הלחם. גם כיום, כל לקוח שלא ימצא את המשקה האהוב עליו במדף המכולת, אמור להפוך להיות תומך נלהב בשוק חופשי.

גרסה מלאה של הטור התפרסמה לראשונה באתר ‘נשיונל רוויו‘.

מאתר מידה, כאן.

An Instructive Story About a ‘Guru’

The Case of P. D. Ouspensky

The Case of P. D. Ouspensky is the open-hearted and personal portrayal of P. D. Ouspensky by his long time secretary Marie Seton. She was a Russian translator who attended Ouspensky’s lectures in Russia and became part of the circles in the late 1930s. She followed him to England and New York and became his trusted advisor to whom he often uttered his disbelief in the whole project and his role as a guru.

Download (PDF, 742KB)

In the public domain (found here).

Outspoken Professor Yoram Lass on the Corona Panic

Professor Yoram Lass to Arutz Sheva: ‘Pandemic psychosis’

Former HM Director: ‘Pandemic psychosis virus is new means of communication; social networks never existed in previous viral pandemics.’

Mordechai Sones , 13/08/20 12:34

Arutz Sheva spoke to Former Health Ministry Director Professor Yoram Lass, who has been outspoken and unembarrassed in his criticism of Health Ministry COVID-19 policy.

Professor Lass does not suggest that minor errors have been made in determining Israeli mitigation policy, rather he says the Health Ministry is disseminating completely erroneous data; there is no “excess mortality” in Israel, no plague, and, as a rule, the so-called “dead because of coronavirus” did not die from coronavirus.

Everyone was concerned during the opening days and weeks of this crisis, after hearing projections by experts that predicted millions of deaths, and seeing images from China, with people falling on the ground in mid-stride and dying in the streets.

At one point however, some experts began to be skeptical. Did you personally experience such a shift, and if so, when, and what was the cause?

“Even in the early days of the coronavirus epidemic back in January 2020, I was looking at the data – not at the pictures – at the data from China. I knew that on a monthly basis – every month – one million Chinese approximately died every month. And the numbers coming out of the coronavirus epidemic were so small.

“Up to this point – and I believe the data – up to this point, less than five thousand Chinese people died from the coronavirus. Which is negligible; there is no plague. There is not even an ‘event’ in China.

“The same in Japan, where we have one-hundred-twenty-million people, and about one thousand people ‘dying from coronavirus’, and they did not die from coronavirus; they died from old age, cancer, heart attack, and so on.

“So, from the early days I knew there is no epidemic in eastern Asia. There is no epidemic in the Middle East. There is an epidemic event in western Europe and in the United States, which is comparable to a very severe influenza epidemic, that’s all. So the world destruction is not justified.”

People find it hard to believe that the entire government apparatus of experts and dedicated civil servants could get it so wrong with something so big. Is there a way to explain this?

“What we have is a pandemic psychosis. And the pandemic psychoses virus are the new means of communication, namely, the social networks which never existed before in previous viral pandemics; that’s the answer.

“People and governments are out of their minds. They see horror pictures. And the horror picture – which is true for a certain moment, a certain date, a certain location, but has nothing to do with the real picture – they look at these pictures and immediately it becomes a policy.

“So this is my answer: People, including governments, are out of their minds. And look at the situation in Sweden, who remained calm, rational, and look at the situation in Belgium, where they had this severe lockdown. Twice as many dead people in Belgium, if you compare Belgium to Sweden – twice as many – with severe lockdown.”

In May, Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared on a video of the Coronavirus Global Response International Pledging Event, calling for quote, “better diagnostics, treatments, and a safe and effective vaccine”. He joined a long list of world leaders reading an identical script.

Just this week, the Health Ministry admitted that cause of death for anyone in Israel is determined by the practitioner in charge according to World Health Organization guidelines. Therefore, any COVID-19-positive patient who died during hospitalization will likely be reported as COVID-19 death. Are Israeli policymakers independent?

“Israeli policymakers follow the directions of the World Health Organization, which are absolutely wrong.

“According to WHO, if people die from cancer, from old age, from coronary heart disease, even from a road accident – if incidentally you have a positive coronavirus test, policymakers are obliged, according to the WHO, to write down ‘coronavirus’ as the cause of death, which is insane, and which is part of the insanity and the wrong numbers which are being currently published by governments around the world.”

From INN, here.

Political Correctness VS Kiddush Hashem

HAS MODERN ORTHODOXY LOST THE PLOT?

Re’eh

by Rabbi David Lapin  http://rabbilapin.com/

Orthodoxy by definition cannot be modern; only Torah can.

I feel sad that I write about Kiddush Hashem not from a place of joy but from a place of worry. For the idea of Kiddush Hashem runs the risk of being bastardized by a new trend amidst orthodoxy itself to reduce Torah to a set of ever evolving social ideas rather than preserving it as the Divine blueprint of reality that it really is.

Kiddush Hashem

In Torah, modernity is about repackaging the way we present ideas, not redefining ideas into something they were never meant to be. Many think the ideas of Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem are ideas defined by the social norms and whims of contemporary society and open to an evolving definition. Some go further and treat nearly all halachik ideas as archaic principles in states of constant evolution. I am not speaking of the reform or even the conservative movements. I am speaking of streams even within orthodoxy.

The idea of Kiddush Hashem is the very purpose of our existence. In everything we do we are here to amplify the majesty of Hashem’s glory and to make it real for humanity. If we allow intellectual contortionists to distort the idea of Kiddush Hashem into something it isn’t, then our nation is in grave danger of losing its way.

An influential Modern Orthodox rabbi attempted such an act of contortion in a blog he posted this week [http://www.jewishjournal.com/….] about the Clinton-Mezvinsky intermarriage. He suggested that amidst the Chillul Hashem of this public intermarriage, there are strains of Kiddush Hashem that should be salvaged and savored. “What the world saw is that a fully attired – proud? – Jew could get right to the top of American society… that there were Sheva Brachot, a chupa, a k’tuba and that tallis and kipa, for the world to see, doesn’t that put the wedding in the category of Kiddush Hashem as well?”

No it does not. But my concern here is not with Mezvinsky and his intermarriage to Chelsea Clinton. My concern is about something much more serious for the Jewish people. I am concerned that certain segments within modern orthodoxy are redefining halachik ideas in ways that more threaten the authenticity of our Torah than the reform or conservative movements ever did. Orthodox communities, even its lay members, never regarded the views of those movements as in any way authoritative. The conservative and reform movements rejected core tenets of Torah and were considered by the orthodox to be external to any authentic expression of Torah thought and halachik interpretation. However these segments of modern orthodoxy led by rabbis trained and ordained in orthodox schools, as attractive as they are in their intellectual and social openness, pose a serious threat to the authenticity of Halacha. This latest distortion of the idea of Kiddush Hashem, is one of the most powerful examples of the slippery slope we have already begun to slide down.

Relativism and objectivism in the definition of Kiddush Hashem

It is true that Kiddush Hashem entails a level of social relativity. But this is only in the degree of its seriousness, not in the definition of what constitutes it. If, for example, an act of Chillul Hashem is carried out by a person of great stature or in front of large crowds of people, that notches the severity of the Chillul Hashem up somewhat. The same applies to Kiddush Hashem. If Mezvinsky performed a Kiddush Hashem, then its public nature would have enhanced its importance. However, if his action is a Chillul Hashem, then its public nature intensifies the severity of its tragedy, for a tragedy it is. Performing a Chillul Hashem with a “tallis – a wool tallis!” in front of “American royalty…for the world to see” doesn’t turn it into a Kiddush Hashem, it makes it a much worse Chillul Hashem.

What is a Chillul Hashem and did Mezvinsky commit a Chillul Hashem by marrying a non-Jewish woman? There are several categories of Chillul Hashem, all objectively classified and clearly defined by the Rambam (Chapter 5 of Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah)and others. It ranges from public acts of murder, adultery and idolatry performed to undermine the Torah, through to “anyone who flagrantly transgresses any mitzvah of the Torah, with no one forcing him to do so, has committed an act of Chillul Hashem.” This is stated in so many words in the Torah itself: “And you shall keep my mitzvos and observe them, I am Hashem, and you will not perform a Chillul Hashem. In this way I will be sanctified (Kiddush Hashem) among the people of Israel.” (Vayikra 22:32-33). I am sanctified when you observe my mitzvos, it is a Chillul Hashem when you do not. Simple.

Everyone knows, Jew and gentile alike, that it is against the Torah to intermarry. Yet Mr. Mezvinsky did it flagrantly, publicly and “with pride.” The fact that non-Jews also know of this prohibition adds to the seriousness of the action. This was Chillul Hashem in one of the most serious ways. The Gemarah suggests that if one is utterly incapable of refraining from doing wrong, one should wear plain clothes, go to a place where one is anonymous, and do it the darkness, in shame and secrecy. Nowhere is there a suggestion that doing an aveirah publicly, with a tallis and a kippah, ameliorates it. On the contrary it makes it much worse.

Torah Authenticity

We have become so desensitized to right and wrong as defined by our Torah, that we now easily substitute its superlative standards of divine nobility with the cheap moral standards of the media. Political incorrectness has become to many a more serious transgression than Chillul Hashem. Even intermarriage has become “normal;” it is the disapproving comment about it that is criticized more than the act itself. Kiddush Hashem has become a tool for Jewish public relations instead of it being a very clearly and objectively defined tenet of the Torah. Any action of a Jew that the public applauds is considered Kiddush Hashem, any that the public disapproves of is thought of as Chillul Hashem.

Let’s not forget that the most basic Chillul Hashem is doing any aveirah, and the most basic Kiddush Hashem is doing any mitzvah or refraining from doing an aveirah, even when no one is looking. Once we are doing mitzvos, then the public image of the way we do them, the style with which we do them, and the reactions of others to them, become relevant. Public opinion is a gauge of style and sanity, but never one of morality. Positive public opinion is no substitute for the moral compass provided to us by halachah.

Torah modernity

Modern orthodoxy started as a valiant attempt to contemporize the application of Torah, not to adulterate the philosophy of the Torah and its core principles. Torah must be modern. It should lead the way in every modern debate and its adherents should be admired by every modern person who encounters them. But it is never necessary, or permissible, to adulterate the Torah to gain the admiration of others and then to falsely label that admiration as Kiddush Hashem. When humans admire what G-d laments, it is no Kiddush Hashem; and G-d laments intermarriage; G-d laments the performance of any aveirah by any Jew.

Labels do not change essence. A label with a hechsher on a pig does not render the pig kosher, it renders the hechsher false. Calling the flaunting of a publicly committed aveirah a Kiddush Hashem doesn’t make it one. When an individual attempts to align Torah norms to the norms of a warped society it does not make the Torah modern, it makes the individual corrupt. Modern Torah is an unadulterated Torah whose principles of philosophy and halachah are unchanged since Sinai. But it is a Torah that is expounded in a language that is intelligible to modern people, relevant and cool.

From here.