Purim: the Real Ending

We've just passed the holiday of Purim, a fun Jewish holiday. If you don't know the story, here's a quick summary from Jewfaq:

The story of Purim is told in the Biblical book of Esther. The heroes of the story are Esther, a beautiful young Jewish woman living in Persia, and her cousin Mordecai, who raised her as if she were his daughter. Esther was taken to the house of Ahasuerus, King of Persia, to become part of his harem. King Ahasuerus loved Esther more than his other women and made Esther queen, but the king did not know that Esther was a Jew, because Mordecai told her not to reveal her identity.

The villain of the story is Haman, an arrogant, egotistical advisor to the king. Haman hated Mordecai because Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman, so Haman plotted to destroy the Jewish people. In a speech that is all too familiar to Jews, Haman told the king, "There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your realm. Their laws are different from those of every other people's, and they do not observe the king's laws; therefore it is not befitting the king to tolerate them." Esther 3:8. The king gave the fate of the Jewish people to Haman, to do as he pleased to them. Haman planned to exterminate all of the Jews. [emphasis added]

Mordecai persuaded Esther to speak to the king on behalf of the Jewish people. This was a dangerous thing for Esther to do, because anyone who came into the king's presence without being summoned could be put to death, and she had not been summoned. Esther fasted for three days to prepare herself, then went into the king. He welcomed her. Later, she told him of Haman's plot against her people. The Jewish people were saved, and Haman was hanged on the gallows that had been prepared for Mordecai.

In this, as in most versions, the ending comes quickly. The King learned the truth, the Jews are saved and Haman is killed instead. Simple. But, the Megillah tells it differently.

See, in the Megillah, we learn that the King cannot so simply rescind a decree. So instead of simply saying 'I changed my mind, don't kill all the Jews," he made a new decree: that the Jews could protect themselves.

In Chapter 8, verse 11 we learn "that the king had given to the Jews who are in every city, [the right] to assemble and to protect themselves, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish the entire host of every people and province that oppress them." [emphasis added]

In essence, he gave them the right to the first 2 amendments of the American Bill of Rights: the right to assemble (and free exercise of religion) and the right to bear arms.

The Jews saved themselves by protecting themselves. All they needed from the government was non-interference, non-persecution and permission for self-defense.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Read George Bush More “Green” Than Gore at Gaypatriot.

Israel's Long Past With Terrorism

Every other week, I go to synagogue for a discussion group on the Parsha of the week. This week, we talked about what was happening in Israel at the time of the events of the Purim story (which happened in Persia). One of the things we read was the book of Nehemiah.

In Chapter 4 of Nehemiah, the Jews are trying to rebuild Jerusalem (which they have just been given permission to do in a previous chapter). Their enemies "heard that healing had come to the walls of Jerusalem" and "they all conspired together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to throw it into confusion". They tried to demoralize the Jews and, frankly, succeeded. Jewish leaders gave powerful speeches to hearten the populace. These speeches helped, and the people returned to work on the city walls.

But not quite the same.

"The basket-carriers were burdened, doing work with one hand while the other held a weapon. As for the builders, each had his sword girded at his side as he was building."

Sounds a lot like the modern state of Israel, trying to build a nation amidst those trying to destroy them.

Orson Scott Card on Instapundit

I was going through the various podcasts I'm subscribed to when an episode from the Instapundit archive caught my eye. The guest was Orson Scott Card, the author of numerous science fiction novels including Ender's Game.

I adore Sci-Fi*, but please understand: I like happy stories. Oh, they don't have to be so happy that there is no conflict or anything, but I want my main characters to be the good guys, my conflicts to be surrmountable and my endings to be more comedy than tragedy. It's just the way I am.

When I started reading Ender's Game, I knew instantly that it was not one of "my" kind of stories. And yet, I could not put it down. The emotional atmosphere of the novel made it a tough read, the kind that usually takes me forever to get throught. But not this time. The story was compelling, absorbing...I found myself drawn from one excruciating event to the next. I felt so much for the characters, I was forced to tear my eyes away from the pages to remember that it was just a book. But I found I needed to know what happened next, no matter how difficult the read was. I stayed up until 4 in the morning to finish it and was unable to stop thinking about it, was unable to even shake off the feelings from my reading for days.

I've never felt that way about a book, before or since. I've avoided reading the sequels partly because I'm sure they won't measure up and partly because, if they do, I will feel that emotional intensity again.

Whoa.

Second post in a row where I started to write about one thing and wound up rather sidetracked.

The real reason that I wanted to write this post was to talk about what he said during the podcast. Because it is incredibly relevent to current events and offers incredible insight. Guess I'll leave it for a sequel.


*And if you like science fiction or fantasy you HAVE to try out Escape Pod, a weekly science fiction podcast that takes good stories and presents them in audio format. It's free, but the authors get paid (through donations) so the quality stays high.

LSAT Logic and Ad Hominem Attacks

I love the podcast LSAT Logic in Everyday Life. It takes a good look at if people are being logical about current events. This week's episode, Cocoa-Nuts was particularly good. Not because it dissected the arguments about whether or not cocoa is good for you (it only briefly touched on these arguments) but because it talked about not dismissing an argument just because those making the argument have an interest in the outcome. It specifically touched on the fact that we, as a society, are too often inclined to dismiss study results because of the funders of the study, especially if it was funded by a corporation. While we may want to take note of potential conflicts of interest, the mere existence of self-interest is not a weakener of the logic of an argument; an argument (or study) should stand on its own evidence, not the character of a particular advocate.

I didn't intend this when I started writing this post, but I'm suddenly reminded that this is a common argument against global warming skeptics. Just because skeptics are often funded by corporations doesn't make them wrong (or right, for that matter) any more than climate change proponents being funded by governments makes them right (or wrong). The arguments must be able to stand on their own logic and evidence, not on the identities of the studies' funders.

Extremely Disappointed in Cato

I am extremely disappointed in the recent Cato Daily Podcast episode called Microfinance in Hindsight (featuring Thomas Dichter). See, I tend to greatly enjoy the Cato podcasts and, when I first saw that this was the title I was really excited. For one thing, I think microfinancing (the idea of making loans of $75 to maybe $300 to people living in poverty rather than aid or something else) is an exciting idea, and for another thing, my brother is going to be doing the program this summer in Africa working on just that.

But when I listened to the podcast, Thomas Dichter was extremly pessimistic on the subject of microfinancing: he said it didn't work. It didn't work!?! The things I've heard of, and admittedly, that's mostly been the initial pilot programs, have sounded quite successful: the loan poor people small amounts of money, and the borrowers use that money to start businesses or improve their homes, and that there is an extremely high rate of repayment, in fact, at a higher rate than other banks get. So basically, extremely poor people who might not otherwise be able to get a loan, get a loan, improve their lives, and then pay it back such that the banks make money as well. I'm not really seeing the down side.

But the speaker claimed that this, improving the lives of the poor, while running to profit-making enterprise, was not the point. What microfinancing was supposed to be doing according to him, was stopping poverty. He pointed out that these countries where there they're trying to use microfinancing have many poor people. And that some of the reasons they have so many poor people are a not much of a rule of law, bad governments, bad government policies etc., and that, under these circumstances, microfinancing it did nothing to lessen the rate of poverty.

Well, no sh-t Sherlock.

When a society has a bad government, it's really nice when you can make some people's lives better, but it's ludicrous to think that lending money to some, presumably small, percentage of the population of the country will be enough to overcome all the problems that emanate from having a bad government. He also complained that people use the money to pay for things like medicine for their children were fixing up their houses (which he condescendingly called shelters). He then proceeded to suggest that these people would be better off if, in addition to getting their loan guide they would get education to show them how properly to use the loan. Again, very condescending, but more importantly, it seems very misinformed. One of the presumptions behind microfinancing (or, indeed, all of free-market economics), is that individuals know best what is most useful for them. I hardly think some kind of one-size-fits-all quick education plan is going to be particularly effective in improving people's lives. For one thing, any plan like that which removes the power from the individuals misses out on the fact that individuals tend to see what that individual needs as well as what are good of ways to investing in their own communities.

Now, going back to his complaints that people were using the money for her medicine in or or improving their houses, what do other people, for example, me, use their money for? Uh, mostly consumption. Basically, all of my money is used for me to consume in one way or another. Even my investments are just a form of consumption, because they are really awake for me to defray my consumption and improve my future ability to consume. I don't invest because "it's good for society," I only invest because I expect to get something from it. Selfish? Sure. But I'm really okay with that.

While he was complaining that people were daring to use their borrowed money for things they wanted, he also pointed out that they didn't seem to be trying to save money by putting it in banks. He then kindly pointed out that a possible reason for this is that many banks in these areas are actually not very safe. And someone who puts their money in one of these banks faces the very real possibility of not being able to get it out later. I was shocked that this was his idea of a complaint. I mean, if your money isn't safe in a bank and then you choose not to put it in a bank. Sounds to me like you're doing, the only intelligent thing under the circumstances. Why on earth would he suggest that we need to teach people to do something that's actually a really bad idea? And not only did he want people to follow this moronic suggestion, he acted in an extremely condescending manner, as if they were too stupid to realize that saving money means more later; actually, they are being quite smart. Furthermore, this is a classic example of the market working: when untrustworthy people ask others to invest in them, they will be by and large unsuccessful at getting that money.

Now, the speaker did make a few reasonable complaints: people get themselves into a cycle of borrowing from one microfinancing company to pay off another or else they borrow, spend it all, then try to get money from their social network to pay back the loan. This is not good.

Of course, as compared to borrowers from a successful country (e.g. Americans), it's not exactly unusual either. People do stupid or unthinking things all the time; not even economists are barred from such mistakes. But just because some people who use a program engage in the same foolish behaviors that others from other programs have, is no reason to denigrate the whole program.

Black History Month

In honor of Black History Month, I encourage you to read Black Innovators and Entrepreneurs Under Capitalism.

It's filled the tales of truly remarkable blacks who, in spite of their overcoming adversity, we don't normally hear about this month. It also reminds us that governmental interference in markets is more often used against minorities than for them.

Hat tip: FEE

The End of NYC as an Economic Center?

NYC seems intent on losing its position as a major center for economic activity.

I mean, people are already leaving the city (and the state) in droves* and we continue to have rent control in spite of the fact it's a known economic blunder**. The City has violated property rights in banning smoking and trans-fats***.

But these aren't the biggies. I mean, I suspect that most New Yorkers are unaware that many people are leaving since, y'know, where would they go? (New Yorkers tend to be a little...New York-centric.) And many people (who ought to know better) continue to be in favor of rent control because it seems like such a nice little idea, in spite of the reality. And explaining that the bans are a violation of property rights is a difficult, bordering on impossible, concept to get across to any but the most liberty-minded people. So, while these are all bad for the city economically, they tend to fly under the radar.

But the tax issue I mentioned in the previous post is going to be a major issue in the future. After all, there are plenty of other cities out there that won't cause headaches for corporate execs and, if most of them are flying in anyway, it's a simple matter to change the destination to Newark, NJ (only 10 miles away and it has an airport) or some other convenient city. 'Regular' people might not see it as an issue, but then, 'regular' people don't organize and pay for huge corporate meetings.

As bad as this is, many 'regular' people will be unaware. But there is something that everyone will be aware of, if it passes. The ban on 'gadgets.'

Yes, that's right a New York State Senator is proposing to ban the use of iPods, cell phones and other gadgets while crossing NYC streets, suggesting a $100 fine for people who ignore the ban. This is not only illogical (check out LSAT Logic in Everyday Life's podcast episode about this) and extremely annoying, it is also anti-business.

See, if you know NYC, you know that a ban while crossing crosswalks really means a ban while walking because you can't get much of anywhere without crossing a street. So nobody will be able to conduct any business unless standing still or on some form of transportation (which is funny considering that traffic conditions are horrendous and public transit is permanently overcrowded). And New Yorkers are known for hurrying between point A and point B. Imagine how much faster they'll have to go if they can no longer multi-task.

Not that this, or any of the other bad ideas, would be enough to shake the city off it's pedestal as economic powerhouse. But, it all adds up to a city that is persistently doing things to make doing business harder. At some point, you have to wonder if they are doing it on purpose.


One final thought: NYC is the only city in the country that has an income tax. And that tax is on top of an above average state income tax. Oh, AND the city double taxes some things that even the federal government realized were unfair.




*Check out New York Is Losing People at Fastest Pace in America and I'm Outta Here
**Read How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing or Three Fallacies of Rent Control or The Effects of Rent Deregulation in Massachusetts...really it's an embarrassment of riches, I could have picked many other articles
***You could read Growing Up Means Resisting the Statist Impulse and New York's Anti-Resolution Resolution: Ban the Trans Fat ... but just because I enjoy them.

Updated: 1/200th

A month or so ago, maybe more, my father was telling me about maddening tax laws. He's a tax accountant so, yes, we do talk about things like this for fun. He told me about a particularly outrageous case he had dealt with recently:

One of his clients is an executive for a major, nation-wide corporation. She's down in Texas, or one of those other states with no state income tax. She came to New York for a big corporate meeting for executives from around the country. Just keep in mind, the corporation believes these meetings to be useful, this woman had no particular interest in visiting our state. But she came, went to the meeting, then went home. No biggie, right?

Well, not quite.

See, she was lucky that year and had a very nice income (as in, a lot of zeroes). I forget the exact method she acquired the money (stock options, some other type of bonus, income not connected to her job at all) but it was a nice chunk. So, good for her. She has chosen to live in a state that does not tax income, so, except for what the federal government takes, she gets to keep it. But New York has demanded some of it. See, she was in NY for 1/200^th of the year, so they demanded to tax her on 1/200^th of her yearly income. *

My jaw dropped when I heard this. I must have asked dad half a dozen times if he was serious. He was.

He also happens to be the proactive type. His recomendation to his client was, of course, to pay it (to avoid legal consequences) but to demand reimbursement from her employer. Just as they paid her travel expenses as a legitimate cost for her to attend a meeting that they wanted her to attend, they should pay this expense as she only incurred it because of that meeting. He also encouraged her to mention to them that she is probably not the only one with this problem and that maybe they should consider having meetings in a more economical state.



*The original post stated that the amount was 1/365^th of her income. Actually, NY considers only workdays and, since there are 200 of those per year, they took 1/200^th of her income. Which only makes it worse. Additonally, my dad told me about a different client who came into the city several times last year to be a consumer of personal legal and financial advice. While here, he was a consumer of other things as well, things like clothing, gifts, broadway shows...he too was charged 1/200^th of his income each day he visited the city.

You missed a great lecture last night...

Last night, at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), Dr. Deepak Lal gave a great lecture about the long history of capitalists, the later historical unintended consequences that brought about capitalism and why some people continue to resist free markets (if the audio isn't up yet, it will be soon).

It was simpy fascinating to learn about how, around 1000 CE, the Church completely changed the social institutions of Europe (with beneficial economic consequences for themselves) and later created property law that, while intended merely to protect its newfound wealth, protected property rights for everyone under the Church's control. And it is the fear of having their social institutions changed that leads some other cultures to resist capitalism.

In addition to the lecture, the cocktail and dessert hours were great. Lots of good talk about current events with interesting people including Garner Goldsmith of Liberty Conspiracy (who hasn't been to meetings in a while).

Nice evening all around.