Friendly Milk Will Countermand My Trousers

Dalio is rich—preposterously rich. Last year alone, he earned between two and three billion dollars, and reached No. 55 on the Forbes 400 list. But what distinguishes him more from other hedge-fund managers is the depth of his economic analysis and the pretensions of his intellectual ambition. He is very keen to be seen as something more than a billionaire trader. Indeed, like his sometime rival George Soros, he appears to aspire to the role of worldly philosopher. In October, 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, he circulated a twenty-page essay immodestly titled “A Template for Understanding What’s Going On,” which said the economy faced not just a common recession but a “deleveraging”—a period in which people cut back on borrowing and rebuild their savings—the impact of which would be felt for a generation. This line of analysis wasn’t unique to Dalio, but almost three years later, with economic growth stagnating again, it does not seem off the mark.

Many hedge-fund managers stay pinned to their computer screens day and night monitoring movements in the markets. Dalio is different. He spends most of his time trying to figure out how economic and financial events fit together in a coherent framework. “Almost everything is like a machine,” he told me one day when he was rambling on, as he often does. “Nature is a machine. The family is a machine. The life cycle is like a machine.” His constant goal, he said, was to understand how the economic machine works. “And then everything else I basically view as just a case at hand. So how does the machine work that you have a financial crisis? How does deleveraging work—what is the nature of that machine? And what is human nature, and how do you raise a community of people to run a business?”

(via givemesomethingtoread)

Danny Ayalon put his foot firmly in his mouth, but was motivated by a claim that Israel’s existence is illegitimate. 

The situation is much more complicated than squashed suggests, and that Israel’s claim of legitimacy is founded on much more than just religious principles. His and the bishop’s (perhaps unintentional) focus on the religious justification ignores much of the history of the foundation of the state of Israel and of Jewish history.

Israel’s legitimacy is not predicated on divine mandate, and very few Israeli and non-Israeli Jews (possibly even a minority of settlers) would argue so. Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, envisioned a nation-state for the Jewish people. In the 19th century, one of the many nationalist movements that arose during that time was the reassertion of the Jewish claim to a state of their own. The Jewish people have long identified as a nation, namely as the descendants of the Hebrew Semitic peoples who lived in the Roman province of Palestine (previously called Judea, previous to that called Judah and Israel, previous to that Canaan). The modern Zionist movement was founded as a secular movement to assert the rights of the Jewish people to national self-determination, just as other peoples assert the rights of national self-determination. The rise of the Zionist movement coincided with the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire, followed by the dissolution of the British Empire. At that time, there were many countries whose occupying powers were retreating or dissolving, and Zionist leaders of the time negotiated with those powers to find a land for the Jewish people. Among the lands considered were parts of Uganda, Canada, and what was part of the Ottoman province of Palestine. Ultimately, the Zionist leaders focused on Palestine due to the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land. The Jews dwelt there as a people for approximately a thousand years before they were expelled by various conquering powers. The Zionist motivation for a return to Palestine was not due to the belief that God wanted the Jews there, but because the Jews (as a nation) lived there for thousands of years (as much archaeological and historical evidence suggests). 

Now as for the settlements, there are many settlers who do use religious justification to settle Arab lands in the West Bank. They, however, tend to be extremists, the Jewish equivalents of, say, Pat Robertson. The main motivation behind the settlements were as a security buffer for Israel proper (i.e. Israel within its pre-1967 borders), and perhaps for some elements of the various governments since 1967, border expansion. Many of the settlers moved to the West Bank out of nationalist pride; many moved due to much lower costs of living; and many moved due to government subsidies in the 70’s and 80’s. As a whole, Israeli (Jewish) society tends to be quite secular, and most of it’s decisions tend to be motivated by security (oftentimes at the expense of human rights). 

The issue of the settlements is only one problem. The other issue is the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. Those are two separate issues that are frequently conflated in people’s minds. I strongly believe that all peoples have a right to national self-determination, including the Palestinian Arabs and including the Jewish people. Unfortunately, many on the “Arab side” deny the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination (including, it seems the Mahmoud Abbas); Likewise, many on the “Israeli side” deny the Palestinian people’s right to national self-determination. Much of this is likely motivated by geography - there is very little land there to build two states; and unfortunately, the actions of both governments make it more difficult still.

squashed:

Last night I posted an abbreviated exchange between Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister and Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros:

squashed via CNN:

Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros: There is no longer a chosen people — all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.
Israeli Deputy…

Here’s what I don’t understand. The judge claimed that “the New Jersey state constitution declares that ‘no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.’ Despite Eleanor Katherine’s tender years, he continued, ‘the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.’

All children are influenced by their parents’ beliefs. If one is raised in a particular religion, then clearly, while one is young, one does not choose her/his own religious beliefs — she/he is taught. When the child grows up, then of course they would have the opportunity to worship as he or she sees fit. He or she has the opportunity to renounce religion, or change religions, or remain within their own. Similarly, I do not see why if someone is raised as an atheist, they would not be able to choose their own belief system later in life. Does the judge believe that people who are raised atheists won’t be able to find religious beliefs by themselves if they so choose? How on earth is his argument logical or even consistent?