Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple - William Sieghart.

William Sieghart, Chairperson of Forward Thinking, has a simple solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians:

It is said that this conflict is impossible to solve. In fact, it is very
simple. The top 1,000 people who run Israel - the politicians, generals and
security staff - and the top Palestinian Islamists have never met. Genuine peace
will require that these two groups sit down together without preconditions. But
the events of the past few days seem to have made this more unlikely than ever.
That is the challenge for the new administration in Washington and for its
European allies.

To suggest that this is simplistic seems insulting to other simplistic "solutions" to complex issues. The real difficulty in finding an agreement between the parties lies in the fundamental desire of the Palestinian Islamists for the destruction of Israel. Until they accept the existence of Israel, no lasting peace can be possible.

Mr. Sieghart can gather all the 2000 person peace conferences without preconditions he may choose, but they will achieve nothing so long as Islamists seek the destruction of Israel.

Israel withdrew from Gaza without conditions. Did the Palestinians respond with offers of good faith negotiations or an attempt to develop their economy? No, instead of seeking peace, the Palestinians used Gaza as a launch pad for rockets to bomb Israel.

Simply requiring parties to negotiate does not mean that a solution will automatically occur. Successful negotiations generally begin with parties' sharing a common understanding. Islamists' desire for the destruction of Israel makes such a common understanding impossible. Any "peace" treaty would likely simply constitute a lull prior to renewed attempts by the Palestinians to destroy Israel.

Question for those who attack Israeli bombings in Gaza.

I have a question for those who attack Israel for bombing Gaza. Where was your moral outrage for all of the rocket attacks on Israel coming from Gaza? If terrorists were raining rockets on your country from a neighboring territory, would you demand that your country take no action against the terrorists?

Israel has a right to defend itself against the terrorists in Gaza. Reports seem to indicate that the IDF are acting with precision in targeting rocket launch facilities and Hamas terrorists. Even though Hamas located much of its launch sites and people in civilian residential areas, Israeli strikes seem to limit civilian casualties to a great extent. This stands in stark contrast to the intentional targeting of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists.

It seems to me that Israel has a right to defend itself from attack. No other country in the world would be expected to accept continual rocket attacks on its people.

Former academic embarrasses himself but is too ignorant even to recognize it.

John Kelly, chair person of Friends of Bethlehem University, writes in the Irish Times that Israel's fence hurts Palestinians in Bethlehem. Not willing to simply indicate his empathy for Palestinians, he claims, "It is impossible, for me at any rate, not to compare this situation with the Nazi's Warsaw Ghetto and second World War checkpoints."

Perhaps Mr. Kelly should remind us how many thousands of innocent German civilians the Jews murdered in suicide bombings before the Nazis put them in the Warsaw ghetto. He complains about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians at various checkpoints. "For no reason, they often have to take off their shoes, have their laptop computers confiscated, undergo strip searches and be made wait hours, with no explanation, being sneered at."

Really, Mr. Kelly, for no reason the Israelis set up check points and search Palestinians. Are you truly so ignorant of events that you can't imagine a single reason for such searches? How many Israelis have Palestinian fanatics murdered over the decades? And you whine about some Palestinians' being inconvenienced.

Mr. Kelly also comments, "Strangely, for us non-Arabs, these checkpoint guards are generally quite affable and send you on your way with 'have a nice day' American-style." Is it really so strange, Mr. Kelly? The Israeli military are good people and would treat Arabs equally affably had the Palestinians not murdered so many Israelis. If non-Arabs start suicide bombing, they will undoubtedly soon receive different treatment.

I have to admit to a rather personal interest in this. My oldest daughter may take an intensive course in Hebrew in Israel next summer. I am very thankful that Israel has been successful in reducing bombing incidents. The fence undoubtedly contributed greatly to that success. If I had any question about the need for the fence (which I did not), I would no longer.

If Mr. Kelly really wants to help Palestinians, he should encourage them to end their terrorism against Israel and to invest in business and education rather than bombs and rockets.

Team Obama "investigation" - What a joke.

Major Garrett at Fox News shows that the Team Obama investigation was an even bigger joke that most would assume. My prior posting read Greg Craig's carefully crafted words as indicating that he allowed the staff to write their responses to his question. In fact, his contact was with each staff member's lawyer. Garrett reports:

Major Garrett at Fox News shows that the Team Obama investigation was an even bigger joke that most would assume. My prior posting read Greg Craig's carefully crafted words as indicating that he allowed the staff to write their responses to his question. In fact, his contact was with each staff member's lawyer. Garrett reports:

Greg Craig, the incoming White House Counsel, conducted his inquiry by taking
questions to each transition staff member's lawyer. The lawyers then went to the
staff members and collected the answers. The lawyers then gave the answers to
Craig.

Garret reports one rather funny example. Craig quotes Valerie Jarrett as describing Blagojevich's suggestion he might be appointed secretary of health and human services as "ridiculous" in her conversation with the Illinois head of the Service Employees International Union.

Did Craig get that quotation from Ms. Jarrett in an interview or from a memo she provided him? No. Her attorney told Craig that she said that.

Ben Smith provides a little context for the quote:

Jarrett, Craig said, took it not as a suggestion of a quid pro quo, but as "a
random comment that was, on the face of it, ridiculous."

"She thought it was ridiculous for the governor of Illinois to talk about being appointed to Barack Obama's Cabinet at a time when he was being investigated," Craig said, adding that he was passing on what Jarrett's lawyer had said.

That detail -- like many others -- paint the governor as extremely isolated, and viewed as seriously out of touch even by people, like Balanoff, in regular contact with him.

Thus, the quote advances Team Obama's portrait of Blagojevich as "isolated" and "out of touch." This in no way answers whether he approached Team Obama with an offer to sell the Senate seat. Instead, it says that any such conduct arose out of his isolation and irrationality rather than his close contact with Obama in Chicago politics.

Thus, it tells people that they should never think that Obama's prior conduct led Blagojevich to think he would participate in the transaction; only Blagojevich's own irrationality led to his conduct.

Team Obama clears Team Obama of wrongdoing in Blagojevich sale of Senate seat.

Team Obama says that it did nothing wrong and the Mainstream Media happily accept their assurance without question. Gee, would they have taken that attitude as to any internal investigations by the Bush administration.

The report raises many questions. One basic question arises out of the careful language of Greg Craig in describing the basis of his investigation. Having written quite a few legal opinions based on information provided by operating departments in a corporation, I found his description of the factual foundation for his legal opinion revealing. Craig's opinion begins:

At your direction, I arranged for transition staff to provide accounts of
any contacts that you or they may have had with Governor Blagojevich or his
office in which the subject of your successor came up.

This seems to indicate that Craig relied completely on "accounts" voluntarily provided by the "transition staff." This suggests that he simply accepted written responses by the staff and conducted no probing interviews of anyone and made no independent investigation of emails, memos or voice messages. This approach apparently resulted from the "direction" of president-elect Obama.

This would have required someone to write to the White House Counsel designee that "Yes, I engaged in conversations with Governor Blagojevich or his staff to facilitate the sale and purchase of the Senate seat." We are supposed to believe that someone would voluntarily make such an admission in writing that would expose them to criminal prosecution and embarrass Obama who had already assured the public that no such conversations had taken place.

If Craig's description of the basis of his investigation says what it seems to, this was no investigation at all. Furthermore, his conclusion defies common sense. Obviously, the former Senator and president-elect would have an opinion as to who should succeed him in the Senate. He would want someone he could work with. This in no way suggests that Obama or his staff engaged in conversations relating to the sale of the seat, but that either directly or indirectly Obama expressed his choice to the Governor.

That Team Obama and its lawyer cannot admit what can only be the obvious reality suggests two very serious issues. First, this approach will undoubtedly repeat itself in future controversies. Second, it suggests that Team Obama fear admission of even the barest contact between any of its members and the Governor and his staff would embarrass Obama.

It seems to me that no one in Team Obama participated in attempts to meet Blagojevich's price. However, Team Obama's fear arises, not from any wrongdoing on their part, but out of questions that may result from the mere presentation of Blagojevich's offer to sell the seat. One may wonder if Blagojevich thought that Obama would agree to the purchase of the seat because of their prior dealings in Chicago.

Terrorist bombings in Israel.

It seems to me that the following graph answers all questions as to the need and efficacy of the defensive fence built by Israel to stop terrorist bombings:

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/DEATHS%20FROM%20SUICIDE%20BOMBINGSII.JPG

This shows deaths from suicide bombings decreasing from a high of 220 in 2002 to 1 in 2008. One can hardly argue that this tremendous reduction in violence resulted from Palestinian acceptance of Israel or their desire to live in peace. Government's first obligation is to protect its citizens from death and violence. Construction of the barrier to terrorists meets that obligation in the least violent way possible.

Some argue that the barrier inconveniences Palestinians, takes some of their land and attempts to create the boundary for any eventual two-state solution. The creation of a passive defense barrier causes far less disruption to the Palestinian community than strikes by the Israeli Defense Force at Palestinian terrorists.

Does anyone actually believe that the Palestinians or the world community will agree to a final border between Israel and a Palestinian state on the basis of where the barrier lies? Any serious negotiations will simply ignore where the barrier lies and require Israel to dismantle any fence built on what becomes Palestinian territory.

Why is the Obama Team stonewalling?

It seems absolutely obvious that president-elect Obama and Governor Blagojevich and their respective staffs would discuss potential nominees for Obama's vacated Senate seat. Such discussions would in no way imply an agreement by the president-elect to participate in the "sale" or "purchase" of the Senate seat. It seems only natural that the former Senator who would want an ally in the Senate to help pass his program would have strong suggestions to the Governor as to the appointee.

Therefore, all of the stonewalling and representations that no such conversations took place raise concerns about why Team Obama are taking such strange positions. Are they simply afraid of appearances? Do they fear that the American people would not accept what seems obvious - that the governor asked for some position in the administration or other consideration in exchange for appointing Obama's recommended candidate, but that the president-elect either directly or through others rejected that scheme?

Are they concerned about exposing the corruption of Chicago politics? That is already clear to all who can see, if not before, certainly with the current revelations even apart from Team Obama's role in it.

Perhaps Team Obama fears the question arising: Why would Blagojevich risk his career and reputation by approaching Obama directly or indirectly with a request for a bribe unless he thought that Obama was such a creature of Chicago politics that he would agree? Indeed, one might wonder whether Blagojevich knew of past instances of similar behavior on the part of the president-elect in Chicago politics.

What better explains Blagojevich's blatant attempt to sell the office and his extreme anger at Obama for rejecting his request? The two had known each well for years. If Obama were the opponent of corruption as represented in his campaign, Blagojevich would have been extremely foolish to even broach the subject with Obama or his staff. On the other hand, if Blagojevich knew of past conduct by Obama in dealing with Tony Rezco or others in Chicago suggesting otherwise, a request for some consideration in making the appointment would not seem so foolish.

Is this what Team Obama fears? If so, their stonewalling will only push people to ask that question and many others.

Greg Mankiw offers a suggestion to Team Obama.

Greg Mankiw suggests that Team Obama institute tax reductions rather than increasing government spending as a way to stimulate the economy. Professor Mankiw cites various studies that show tax reductions as providing a multiplier effect of 3; i.e., for each $1 of tax reduction GDP increases by $3. On the other hand, studies show spending has a multiplier of only 1 or 1.4.

This suggests that tax reductions provide greater "bang for the buck" than spending increases in stimulating the economy. For this reason Mankiw recommends that Obama push for tax reductions rather than spending increases. This violates the textbook Keynsian model which would suggest using increased spending alone to stimulate the economy.

Of course, this would require Obama to turn from the recent conventional wisdom in the Democratic Party that emphsizes government spending and labels tax reductions as the Republican Pary's answer for all economic ills. Hopefully, a President Obama can rise above mere partisanship to implement a program that will provide the greatest multiplier effect in stimulating the economy.

GM loses $4100 on each vehicle while has an $1800 profit on each vehicle it sells.

Jammie Wearing Fool provides very revealing facts about the auto industry:

It was a dead heat. General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles worldwide in 2007
and lost $38.7 billion. Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles in 2007 and made $17.1
billion.That was the second-best sales total in GM's 100-year history and the
biggest loss ever for any automaker in the world.For Toyota, that was roughly
$1,800 in profit for every vehicle sold. For GM, it was an average loss of
$4,100 for every vehicle sold.

If these numbers are correct, a serious difference in cost structure would be indicated. That cost structure may not be limited solely to labour cost differential, but that would certainly appear to be part of the problem.

UAW kills Auto bailout.

At this point the auto bailout appears to be on life support. According to AP, "A $14 billion emergency bailout for U.S. automakers has collapsed in the Senate after the United Auto Workers refused to accede to Republican demands for swift wage cuts." Senator Harry Reid failed to win cloture on a 52-35 vote.

The AP report provides basic information as to wage rates and total labour costs for General Motors versus Toyota factories in the USA. Average wages paid are relatively similar: about $30 per hour for both. However, medical and retirement costs for GM far exceed that of Toyota, pushing total average hourly labour costs to $69 for GM versus only $48 for Toyota. According to CNN Money, the Center for Automotive Research reports that GM's labour cost actually is $78.21 per hour. This would suggest a $30 per hour labour cost disparity for the Big 3 versus Toyota and other non-UAW auto manufacturers.

Questions for the Big 3, Democrats and the UAW: How can the Big 3 compete unless the UAW agrees to a reduction of their total labour costs are reduced to the level near that of American workers in Toyota and other non-unionized auto plants? Would any bailout funds do anything more than extend the agony of inevitable bankruptcy of companies that are fundamentally uncompetitive?

GM's North American operations lost $1.06 billion during 4th quarter 2007, long before the economic downturn. The evidence indicates a desperate need to change the entire operations of the Big 3. Until the UAW and its allies in the Democratic Party accept that reality, the Big 3 cannot be saved. Any funds provided the Big 3 would not be a bailout but simply a subsidy to support the UAW's out of line benefit package.

Why would Governor Blagojevich and the president-elect not discuss Senate succession?

Can anyone really believe that Governor Blagojevich and president-elect Obama did not discuss at some point whom the Governor should appoint to Obama's vacant Senate seat? The two had long been allies at the highest levels of Illinois Democratic politics. It simply defies logic to think that Blagojevich would not ask Obama's opinion as to a possible successor or that Obama would not want to place an ally in the Senate to help with his programs.

Jake Tapper writes that in an appearance on Fox News Chicago on November 23, 2008, David Axelrod,

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to
replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod
said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names
many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of
them."

Axelrod now says that this is no longer operative. He "was mistake" about any such conversation between the governor and president-elect.

In looking at Axelrod's original statement in hindsight, his intent seems very clear. He admitted the obvious, that the two talked about successors, but made it clear that Obama was not paying to play. Obama was pushing no candidate as successor; he did not want to be a "kingmaker." Thus, Blagojevich's ultimate appointee would not be the result of any action by Obama.

This clearly suggests that the Obama team was very aware and concerned that Blagojevich was trying to "sell" the Senate position. Axelrod was attempting to protect Obama from any allegation that he participated in that sale in any way.

Apparently, the boss decided that even having had a very safe conversation with Blagojevich with no attempt to act as "kingmaker" was too close to the sale, so he insisted that he had no discussion at all with the governor.

Bailout for Detroit?

It seems to me that one overwhelming fact must be understood in answering the question. The "Big Three" are not the only manufacturers of cars and trucks in this country, but they are the only ones asking for government money. Manufacturers of other vehicles are doing quite well, thank you very much. They are not asking for a bailout even in the face of the same economic downturn being used by Detroit to justify the need for the bailout.

In providing funds to Detroit, the government would be acting in the role of lender of last resort. The first question that any lender of last resort must ask in determining whether to make such loan is whether the debtor suffers from a temporary cash flow problem that makes it illiquid or whether it is essentially insolvent. In looking at Detroit's request, one must determine whether the economic downturn has created a temporary cash flow problem for an otherwise sound business model or whether the business model itself renders Detroit as ultimately insolvent.

Evidence indicates that total labor costs the Big Three are approximately $73 per hour compared to other auto manufacturers in the US with costs of only about $48 per hour. This suggests that Detroit cannot compete with other manufacturers in the long term. Unless fundamental changes are made to the business model, any funds provided to Detroit will simply delay the inevitable bankruptcy or restructuring needed to allow it to compete.

Let us be clear. These cost disparities do not arise from the differences in wages between American and foreign labor. American workers happily accept a total labor payment of $48 per hour even as Detroit incurs a labor cost of $73 per hour. Foreign owned auto manufacturers operate profitably paying that labor cost. One can only conclude that Detroit must reduce its labor costs to the $48 per hour level in order to continue in business. Until it does so, any funds provided by the government will effectively act as a subsidy to keep an insolvent company in operation.

Fitzgerald should be appointed Special Counsel.

The recent arrest of Governor Blagojevich proves the need to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel to reprise his role in the Plame investigation. Governor Blagojevich has been part of the machine politics in Illinois that brought president-elect Obama to his state senate and US Senate positions. Regardless of present attempts to distance himself from Blagojevich, the president-elect long supported Blagojevich and derived support from those who funded and supported Blagojevich in his campaigns.

US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has a well earned reputation as an independent prosecutor who follows leads wherever they lead, regardless of the political affiliation of those being investigated. The president-elect faces a looming danger to his credibility and that of his administration. Will he succumb to the overwhelming temptation to fire Fitzgerald along with all Republican US Attorneys as generally done by a new admministration?

Obama could easily think that he could justify such firing as simply politics as usual. That would be a terrible mistake. Of course, his allies in media would likely give him a pass as they have throughout the campaign. The president-elect may believe that only the right would take exception to such politically motivated firing and that he could withstand such criticism with the aid of the mainstream media.

Even if the president-elect promised to allow Fitzgerald to continue in his present position, a President Obama could fire Fitzgerald at any time during his administration. He would attempt to argue that he had given a Republican prosecutor adequate time to investigate and was simply replacing a Republican US Attorney with a Democrat as all Presidents eventually do.

Furthermore, the past close association of Obama with Blagojevich creates the appearance of a serious conflict of interest that would raise serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any decision of Fitzgerald or any US Attorney not to pursue possible prosecution of those close to the Obama administration.

For these reasons the Department of Justice under President Bush with the concurrence of president-elect Obama should name Fitzgerald to the US Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel to pursue the investigation and prosecution of Blagojevich, Rezco and the Chicago crowd wherever the evidence leads. This is exactly the position he held in pursuing the Plame investigation.

While President Obama could subsequently fire Fitzgerald as Special Counsel, the reason for such firing would be readily apparent to all.

"For Sale: Office of US Senator. Inquire within."

All I can say is, "Wow." It's still hard to believe that the governor a State was arrested by the FBI and is alleged to have been trying to sell a Senate seat. "Children, can you say 'corruption'? Yes, we can." The immediate response from everyone seems to be that it's Chicago and Illinois. What do you expect? But Blagoyevich won election as a reformer to end corruption in Illinois.

Perhaps the last two governors of Illinois may eventually share a cell in prison.

Taking a more serious look at the allegation, one of them presents a concern that I have long had. The Criminal Complaint alleges that "ROD BLAGOJEVICH has also been intercepted conspiring to sell the Senate seat in exchange for his wife’s placement on paid corporate boards." (paragraph 87 of Affidavit) Absent wire tap or similar evidence, the mere election of the spouse of a governor or former governor to the board of directors of a corporation would be unlikely to support prosecution for corruption.

Clearly, spouses of politicians have a right to pursue their own careers. However, reality suggests that such pursuits offer fertile opportunities for corruption. This does not suggest that the spouse of any elected official must be required to forgo his/her career and stay quietly at home. In fact, perhaps this indictment will serve as adequate warning to all of the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this area.

75th anniversary of the holodomor in Ukraine

The Weekly Standard reminds us that this year constitutes the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Union's intentional starvation of 6-10 million people in 1932-33 during the collectivization of farms in Ukraine and elsewhere in the Soviet Union. During that period, Walter Duranty and the New York Times reported that no famine was occurring in the Soviet Union and accused those who wrote about the famine of being reactionaries and anti-Bolshevik propagandists.

Louis Fischer toured Ukraine in October 1935 and claimed in The Nation that food rotted in the fields because of the peasants' passive resistance. He admitted that times were very harsh, but blamed the peasants themselves for their difficulties. He denied that famine occurred in 1932-33.

Scholars have written little about the holodomor (Ukrainian for "to inflict death by hunger"), so most people in the west know little about it. Today few serious scholars question the reality of the famine; instead, the focus of the debate seems to be whether it was a genocide of Ukrainians or a stratocide based on class status. Whether Stalin sought to murder millions of people because of the ethnic identity as Ukrainians or their class status as peasants who wanted to operate their own land, he intentionally starved 6-10 million people.

It seems to me that the motivation for Stalin's murder of millions neither excuses him nor suggests the presence of a greater evil. He deserves the same opprobrium regardless of the intent motivating him.

Should Al Gore tell the American people that they need to be vegans?

A morning talk show, I think on Fox News, had a report on the debate about Burger King's ad campaign pitting the Whopper against the Big Mac with people who have never eaten a hamburger. The anti-Burger King spokesperson argued that Whoppers were the "Hummer" of the food industry.

In reality her argument was not against Burger King's ad campaign but in favour of veganism. Her real attack was against anyone who eats meat and dairy products. She correctly pointed out the extreme inefficiency of producing animal protein as opposed to plant protein. By using resources for raising cattle, pigs and chickens for their meat, farmers generate far more greenhouse gas, not to mention gas from the animals themselves, than would be necessary to generate an equivalent amount of plant protein.

However, Burger King did not create the market for animal protein; it merely provides a product that meets the demand for meat. Instead, the woman should attack Al Gore for not having the intellectual honesty to tell the American people that they need to give up meat as well as their SUVs. Undoubtedly, if he did so, Al would still eat steak as well as drive SUVs even as he lectures the American people to do otherwise.

Fars proudly reports Hajj pilgrims shouting "Death to America"

Gateway Pundit cites a report by Fars, the official Iranian news service about pilgrims on the annual haj to Mecca:

"God is Great", "There is no Deity but Allah", "Death to Israel", and "Death to America" were among the slogans chanted by the masses in unison as they gathered in the Desert of Arafat, 20 km (12 miles) from Mecca, for a day of prayer and meditation, the Islamic republic news agency reported.

One cannot even imagine Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem at Christmas shouting "Death to Saudi Arabia" and "Death to Iran." If such bizarre behavior occurred, Western media would rightly condemn such behavior. Yet Fars proudly proclaims such disgusting conduct as though it brought honour to Islam rather than further exemplifying the barbarism inherent in the religion.

Two points must be remembered. First, the Hajj is not some political demonstration on the streets of Tehran, but a pillar of the Islamic religion. Second, the slogans were not the words of a small minority of haters, but "slogans chanted by the masses in unison." To inject such hatred against other people in a central act of the Islamic religion raises serious questions as to the very nature of Islam itself.

Does the nature of the religion lead to such hatred? This conduct as reported by Fars suggests that hatred of other faiths and the unending attacks on non-Muslims may result from the Islamic religion itself, rather than being aberrant behavior by a minority of Muslims.

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Politico says that "Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices." It's awfully early in the Obama administration for his constituents to be mad at the savior of the world. Let's see, he's been in office now for how long? Oh, wait. He hasn't been inaugurated yet.

Is the honeymoon already over? Has buyers remorse set in even among the true believers? Just wondering.

Early London Coffee Houses

Coffee houses began to open in London sometime in the middle of the 17th century. Coffee became a popular drink soon after its introduction. People quickly learned that coffee enhanced their senses rather than dulled them. This led to a use of coffee houses as offices and meeting places. Coffee houses provided copies of early newsletters and newspapers for their patrons, much as free wi-fi in the modern coffee house.

Various coffee houses soon developed particular clientele. Some attracted political customers, becoming known as a Tory or Whig coffee house. Will's Coffee House attracted a literary clientele as John Dryden, Samuel Pepys and Alexander Pope frequented it. Other coffee houses developed a business clientele.

Many ship's captains and owners frequented Edward Lloyd's Coffee House, bringing the latest intelligence about the shipping industry with them. Discussion frequently turned to the issue of insuring the risks of shipping. The customers entered into insurance arrangements over coffee. This led ultimately to Lloyd's of London.

The English Civil War

Much has been written and much can be written about the English Civil War. Great debate exists as to its causes and the bases for the division of the country into supporters of the King and those of the Parliament. Some see the war as a revolution of the bourgeoisie and gentry against the King and feudal class to permit the development of capitalism. Marxists describe it as a class war that allowed for the transition between feudalism and capitalism.

Unfortunately for the Marxists, as occurs with their many theories, the facts do not support this simplistic assessment. As many historians have pointed out, many members of all "classes" fought on both sides of the English Civil War. Many issues contributed to the conflicts that gave rise to the Civil War, but the fundamental source of conflict between the King and his subjects arose out of the inadequacy of the Crown's traditional sources of income to support the military and civil government needs of 17th century England.

The feudal king and nobility provided for civil government and peacetime defense from their personal properties and traditional feudal taxes. That system proved adequate to support medieval armies in which the armoured knight ruled the battlefield. As warfare changed to the pike and shot formations, the requirements to support the military changed substantially. Rather than supporting a limited number of well armed and trained knights, the country had to support large numbers of pikemen and musketeers or hire mercenaries who trained in the complicated movements year round.

This greatly increased the cost of the military for the King. No longer could he support the army and civil government from his own properties and traditional sources of revenue. This led to attempts to increase his revenues through means that citizens saw as violating the King's obligations under traditions. In hindsight the solution to the conflict appears obvious to all; however, in the event, arriving at that answer required a civil war and the murder of the King.

Pilgrims - Communal or Private Property

Tom Bethell at the Hoover Institute provides some interesting information about the Pilgrims' experience in the early years of the Plymouth Colony. Initially, the community held everything in common and almost starved to death. In desperation, they parcelled land out to the various families to operate as private property. At that point the colony began to prosper. Bethell shows that

"Bradford’s history of the colony records the decision:

'At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of
the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his
own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to
go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of
land, according to the proportion of their number.'

So the land they worked was converted into private property, which brought 'very good success.' The colonists immediately became responsible for their own actions (and those of their immediate families), not for the actions of the whole community. Bradford also suggests in his history that more than land was privatized.

The system became self-policing. Knowing that the fruits of his labor
would benefit his own family and dependents, the head of each household was
given an incentive to work harder. He could know that his additional efforts
would help specific people who depended on him. In short, the division of
property established a proportion or 'ratio' between act and consequence. Human
action is deprived of rationality without it, and work will decline sharply as a
result."

Thanks to Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy.

As in so much of history, communism failed while recognition of private property rights led to greater production. The same people worked (failed to work) under the communal system who actually worked under a system of private property. When allowed to benefit from the fruits of their labour, the Pilgrims became very productive workers. Benjamin Powell points out that the change to private property "made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability."

Despite its universal failure, many people advocate the imposition of communal systems in the place of our very productive economic system. They seem to assume that communism will continue to produce at the same level as the present private enterprise system but with a more equal distribution of benefits. In this they simply ignore the clear teaching of history. The Pilgrims almost starved to death under the communal system before turning to private ownership that led the colony to prosperity.

We ignore the lessons of history at our peril.

The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein

One would expect that any serious author would challenge the economic theories of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics on their merits and the results of the application of those theories in the real world. Unfortunately, Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine attempts to discredit Friedman and the Chicago School by pointing to their supposed connection to the human rights abuses of Augusto Pinochet and the military juntas of Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay.

Rather than a reasoned analysis of economic theories, Ms. Klein marshals invective, innuendo, guilt by association and simple misrepresentation of the evidence to libel Friedman and his theories. Perhaps most bizarrely, Ms. Klein suggests that the mere description of attempts to reform and transform failing economies as “shock therapy” somehow equates to electroshock therapy of the 1950s and subsequent torture by authoritarian regimes in Chile and elsewhere. According to Ms. Klein, Friedman's economic theories can only be enacted in the context of extreme shock that overcomes the natural opposition to it.

For Ms. Klein the decision by Pinochet to accept advice from Friedman and the Chilean economists trained by the University of Chicago forever tarnishes free market economics without the need to provide any evidence or arguments as to its failure as an economic theory. To fit with her description of the application of free market economic theories only in circumstances of extreme shock, Ms. Klein represents the Chilean coup as being undertaken primarily to impose those theories on Chile. As with other hard leftists, she assumes that Allende bears no responsibility for the destruction of the Chilean economy.