Underrated

Jonathan Swift

By DANIEL JOHNSON

What is the greatest and most universally loved book ever written in Ireland — wilder than Wilde, more shocking than Shaw, more experimental than Joyce, more disillusioned than Beckett, more humane than Heaney? 

The book is, of course, Gulliver's Travels. Its author wrote his own Latin epitaph,  best translated by another Anglo-Irishman, Yeats: "Swift has sailed into his rest;/Savage indignation there/ Cannot lacerate his breast." Jonathan Swift's indignation against the follies of mankind was indeed so extreme that he has been savaged himself ever since, by critics who have seen his works as misanthropic and misogynist, the revenge of an embittered man thwarted in his poetical, political and ecclesiastical ambitions. Swift was so scandalous on every level — from the gruesome irony of A Modest Proposal to the scatological reductio ad absurdum of all that polite society held dear in The Lady's Dressing Room — that his exile from literary London to the Deanery of St Patrick's, Dublin, has been posthumously extended: hence his present neglect in our schools and universities. David Womersley's definitive new edition of Gulliver's Travels, the latest of 18 volumes of Swift's works published by Cambridge University Press, is thus a major step towards his academic rehabilitation and even vindication.

Yet not only the English-speaking peoples, but the whole civilised world has embraced Gulliver's Travels since its first publication in 1726. The fact that many who have not read it wrongly suppose it to be a children's book, and that children do indeed enjoy at any rate the first two parts, reveals its author's genius. Adapted and bowdlerised more than almost any other literary classic,Gulliver has survived and, though countless modern writers, whether of magical realism or teenage fantasy fiction, owe Swift an unconscious debt, the original still surpasses all imitations.

Hitler's Superman

Hustlers, Climbers and other Intellectuals

Martin Heidegger: The philosopher embraced Nazism yet was rehabilitated after the war

By SIMON HEFFER

Perhaps only if one is under mortal terror can one understand why highly civilised people endorse extreme dictatorships. One thinks of the fear in which Stalin forced Shostakovich to live; or the obedience that Furtwängler and Richard Strauss chose to show to the Nazi regime. Yet how does one explain why civilised people who not merely have the capacity for thought, but whose life is thinking, embrace evil? In her new book Hitler's Philosophers (Yale, £25) Yvonne Sherratt explores, among other things, this conundrum. She does not merely look at those who, literally, should have known better but who threw themselves and their learning behind the Nazis. She also looks at those, mainly but not exclusively Jewish, who maintained a sense of intellectual and moral integrity and took against Hitler, and shows what happened to them. It is, in the end, a peculiarly unedifying story, though exceptionally well told.

The industry that portrays and describes the Third Reich is now considerable, with many authors and publishers regarding the subject as inexhaustible. This aspect of Hitler's terror — how he sought to control the thought processes first of academia and then, presumably, of the rest of Germany who would defer to the eminent philosophers in the Reich's universities — has been insufficiently explored.

Dr Sherratt describes the influences on Hitler before he rose to power — notably Houston Stewart Chamberlain, from the Wagner family circle in Bayreuth, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer and (insofar as he could understand him) Nietzsche. Hitler does not really seem to have understood philosophy. Had he done so he would have recognised Chamberlain as a charlatan and seen that his reading of Nietzsche was superficial and selective. This leads inevitably to the main problem with Hitler: of all "his" philosophers, he was the philosopher-in-chief. Since his principal tract was the ragbag of prolix bigotries that is Mein Kampf, we know how warped and inadequate the quality of his "thought" was, and how little qualified he was to judge others.

Designing Men vs. Spontaneous Order

Dedicated to Tyrants of all persuasions

By David Henderson

"The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder."

This is VI.II.42 from Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Why do I quote it? Because it's an answer to a commenter on some previous blog posts of mine. This commenter defended the existing laws that require people to spend substantial time as residents in a hospital before becoming doctors. I criticized those laws. The commenter, zdc, then wrote:

So, you think you can design an improved (not sure if this means in terms of outcomes or costs or what) system.

I answered that I don't think I can design an improved system. Why did he think that I thought I could? It's because he's stuck in the "man of system" or "design" paradigm. Over the years, various governments have designed a particular system. I criticize the idea that they get to design it. Then zdc assumes that means that I think I should be able to design it.

But I'm not a designer. I'm a person who believes in spontaneous order. That is, I think that people should be free to come up with other systems and I'm willing to predict that they will. As an economist, I could speculate about what they will come up with, but there's a good chance that my predictions would be wrong. Where zdc and I probably agree is that if I were to design such a system, it would be a disaster.

Fortunately, I don't need to design a system.

So what do I propose? Letting people come up with their own systems. And my prediction, which I'm fairly sure of, is that they would come up more than one.

Consider an example from outside medical care. Imagine that back in the 1960s, the government had given IBM a legal monopoly on computers. Imagine that some economist came along and said, "I think we shouldn't have a legal monopoly on computers." Then zdc's counterpart back then would likely have said, "Oh, yeah? Then tell me how you can make computers better." The economist would have had to admit that he couldn't. Then zdc's counterpart would likely have declared victory, confident that because the economist couldn't predict what kind of computers would be built in the absence of a legal monopoly, letting IBM have a legal monopoly on computers would clearly have been the right policy.

The Idiotic Posthumous Cult of Hugo Chávez

To pretend that the overall record of Chavezism has been positive is an insult to the Venezuelan people

By Bernard-Henri Lévy

The death of Hugo Chávez, followed by his elaborate funeral, has unleashed a wave of political idiocy, and thus of disinformation, of a magnitude not seen in some time.

I will not dwell—because this much is well known—on Chávez the “friend of the people” whose closest allies were bloody-handed dictators: Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, and, formerly, Gaddafi.

Nor will I dwell long, because this, too, is public knowledge, on the Chávez whose pathological anti-Semitism over his 14-year rule drove two thirds of Venezuela’s Jewish community into exile. (It is hard to image that this Chávez is viewed by a minister in François Hollande’s government in France as a “cross between Léon Blum and de Gaulle.”) Was not Chavez the devotee of the conspiracy theories of Thierry Meyssan, the disciple of Argentine Holocaust denier Norberto Ceresole, who professed his surprise that Israelis “like to criticize Hitler” even though they “have done the same and perhaps worse”? How was a Jew in Caracas expected to react upon seeing his president stigmatize a minority made up of “descendants of those who crucified Jesus Christ” and who had, according to Chávez, “made off with the world’s wealth”?

What is less known, something that we will regret overlooking as the posthumous cult of Chávez swells and grows more toxic, is that this “21st-century socialist,” this supposedly tireless “defender of human rights,” ruled by muzzling the media, shutting down television stations that were critical of him, and denying the opposition access to the state news networks.

What is less known, or deliberately not mentioned by those who would make of Chávez a source of inspiration for a left that seems to lack it, is that this wonderful leader, seemingly so concerned with workers and their rights, tolerated unions only if they were official. He allowed strikes only if controlled or even orchestrated by the regime. And, up to the end, he prosecuted, criminalized, and threw into prison independent trade unionists who, like Ruben Gonzalez, the representative of the Ferrominera mineworkers, refused to wait for Bolivarism to be fully realized before demanding decent working conditions, protection against mining accidents, and fair wages.

What has been omitted from most of the portraits broadcast during these sessions of global mourning—and what must be remembered if we want to avoid seeing post-Chavezism turn into an even worse nightmare—is the repression of the Yukpa Indians of the Sierra de Perija, carried out in the name of “cultural integration”; the targeted assassinations, covered up by the regime, of those of their chiefs who, like Sabino Romero in 2009, refused to bow down to Chávez; and, generally, the putting to sleep of democratic and popular movements that did not have the good fortune to be on Chávez’s agenda. Take women’s issues. It must not be forgotten that the rights of women suffered dramatic regressions during El Comandante’s reign. And would it be unfair to the deceased leader to observe that two provisions of family law—one protecting women victims of domestic violence; the other, divorced women—were repealed by the regime for being too petit-bourgeois by the standard of the prevailing machismo?

A Lesson From My Grandfather

Government Debt Is Self-Reinforcing

by Bill Bonner

I got a lesson in the importance of macro thinking again last night. Exploring an old family desk, we came upon a cache of my grandfather's letters. He had come back from World War I and begun a business supplying coal to the ships that used Baltimore's harbor.

It was a good business in the 1920s. Less good in the 1930s. And no business at all in the 1940s. His letters are marked by disappointment. "Sales down." "Too much inventory." "Sluggish business." And there are some letters in the 1930s expressing hope that "things will pick up when the country goes back to work."
The country did go back to work in the 1940s. Every factory in Baltimore turned on the lights and fired up its engines. Ship traffic increased... including hundreds of new ships that took troops and war material overseas.
But it was too late for my grandfather. Ever since Winston Churchill converted the British Navy to oil, the handwriting had been on the wall for coal as a fuel for ships. Oil was denser. And more convenient.
The density of fuel is important, especially for the navy. It gives ships greater range and more power. And it frees up space for guns and transport.
Coal was doomed. And so was my grandfather's business. He must have seen it too. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Either his macro analysis failed...or he was unable to do anything about it.
The big picture in the 1930s and 1940s was dominated by war. Now it is dominated by money -- specifically by the actions of central banks. Never before have major central bankers embarked on such a bold program of monetary activism. If this succeeds, it will be one for the record books. If it fails, it will be one for the history books. Specifically, it will become another important entry in the History of Financial Disasters.
If it turns into a disaster, it will be traced to President Nixon's decision to break the link between gold and the dollar in 1971. The new, elastic currency would stretch. And recently, under government pressure to finance deficits and "stimulate" lackluster economies, central bankers have been pulling hard.

Money Printing Goes Global
The first quantitative easing (aka debt monetization) program in the U.S. began in November of 2008. Then it was viewed as an emergency measure to "stabilize" the system.
But the private sector continued to de-leverage. Unemployment stayed high. A second round of monetary easing followed to relieve investors' fears and otherwise grease the skids. This happened as the eurozone fell into a squabble and a funk about how to handle its own debt problems. Whether it was true or not, analysts concluded that whatever good QE2 might have done, the crisis in Europe overshadowed it.
"Operation Twist" emerged in September 2011. The Fed used the proceeds from sales of shorter-term debt to buy longer-term debt. The idea was to lower yields along the curve and therefore keep borrowing costs in the economy ultra low. The Fed deemed this critical to the housing industry as well as to major capital investments. It was about this point that the European Central Bank, under Italian Mario Draghi, joined the action with its own Long-Term Refinancing Operations (1 and 2).

What Happens When Half The World Stops Making Babies

We are now in the middle of perhaps the greatest demographic change in recorded history.

Part of the greatest demographic change in recorded history. China’s population has stopped growing, and is about to shrink quickly.

By Mike Seccombe

On October 31, 2011, the United Nations held an unaccountably cheery media event at its New York headquarters, to mark the occasion of the world’s population passing seven billion.

It was a statistically questionable exercise, for it acknowledged that no one could be sure of the planet’s exact population on any given day. The UN called it “symbolic”.

The question is why, if they were going to celebrate any major demographic development with such faux-certainty, did the powers that be at the UN not make it the really important one, the one which gives some hope for this overcrowded planet.

I mean this one: half the population of the world now lives in countries where those of childbearing age are having fewer than two children on average.

That’s a development so significant that it’s worth saying again, in a different way. The fertility rate of half the world is below replacement level.

We can’t be sure exactly when the world reached this tipping point, any more than we can be sure exactly what the total population is, but the UN stats indicate it came a little after we reached the seven billion. If we wanted to be “symbolic” we could say it happened today.

Pregnant Indian women at a maternity ward in Nawanshahr. By mid-century India will be the world’s most-populous country.

The precise date is unimportant. What is important is that we are now exactly in the middle of perhaps the greatest demographic change in recorded history. Human numbers have grown almost uninterrupted — other than during for a couple of brief downturns occasioned by disasters such as the black plague — for thousands of years.

Biology and the scriptures urged us to be fruitful and to multiply. Now, quite suddenly in relative terms, half the people of the world have decided not to multiply.

This is not to say population has peaked. Half the world is still reproducing at more than replacement rate, and there is a lag of about 30 years, or one generation, between the time that fertility falls and the time population does.

What has peaked is the rate of population growth. It took just 12.5 years for the world’s population to grow from four to five billion, 11.8 years for it to grow from five to six, but it has taken almost 13 years to grow to seven billion.

Drinking from the EU gravy boat

The EU’s propaganda budget from 2014 to 2020 will come to €229 million

The charm offensive against young and old continues apace with a substantial budget

By David Atherton

Guy Bentley wrote recently in these pages about ‘sock puppet charities’ – that is, government-funded ‘charities’ that lobby for more government money (read: taxpayer money) to put towards their stated aims. This phenomenon was first brought to my attention by Chris Snowdon, Fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs, in his outstanding publication: ‘Sock Puppets: How government lobbies itself and why’.

Just this month, Snowdon has brought out another tour de force: ‘Euro Puppets: The European Commission’s Remaking of Civil Society’, this time exploring how ‘sock puppets’ dip their spoon in the EU gravy boat.

The EU seems to be pleasing no one at the moment; but not for want of trying. Indeed, the charm offensive against young and old continues apace with a substantial budget.

Some three years ago now, I was passing through London Victoria station and came across a brightly-coloured stand asking young people whether they were interested in learning a foreign language. At the helm was a German lady, Ms. Judith Schilling, who is ‘School Liaison and Publications Manager’ of the European Commission in London – so more to do with getting on message than being able to count further than un, deux, trois in French. As I put it to her at the time: why am I paying my taxes so the European Union can pay for propaganda, for my subjugation?

See Ms. Schilling here too at an education fair. Not too much to take out of context when she says:

“We offer to the teachers the resources produced by the European Commission in London... We will never succeed in convincing people (of) the value of being a member of the EU if we do not start early enough with the young people, before they form prejudices and [are] misinformed by other sources.”

Well you can’t fault her English, it is infinitely better than my German.

Giving out pencil cases emblazoned with the EU’s logo is evidently just petty cash on the balance sheet.

That’s the whippersnappers sorted; but what about the grownups?

Snowdon has identified think tanks, civil society groups, and charities noted for their pro-EU credentials that have been “handpicked” to lobby for more EU government, larger EU budgets, and EU regulation. As he quotes from the Europe for Citizens’ programme:

“The current ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme (2007-2013)...gives citizens the chance to participate in making Europe more united, to develop a European identity, to foster a sense of ownership of the EU, and to enhance tolerance and mutual understanding.”

He gives the example of Women in Europe for a Common Future which had €1.2 million plus another €135,000 from national governments at their disposal in 2011. Amazingly, 93 percent of its funding comes this way, forcing one to conclude that if it had to stand on its own two feet it could afford little more than a WordPress blog and a few branded lanyards.

But what is more worrying is that the EU’s propaganda budget from 2014 to 2020 will come to €229 million; clearly, Women in Europe for a Common Future has competition. 

That is one big gravy boat. 

Climategate 3.0?

Over and out

The anonymous leaker responsible for 'Climategate' and 'Climategate 2.0' has released an email which many believe will spark 'Climategate 3.0'

An anonymous leaker known as 'Mr. FOIA', who was responsible for bringing the 'Climategate' and 'Climategate 2.0' emails into the public domain, yesterday (March 12th) returned to release a new email to a number of high-profile climate skeptic bloggers.

The newly circulated email is said to contain a password to a cache of thousands of emails and makes the following request:

"To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out,  I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release."

The original 'Climategate' affair began in 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the release of thousands of emails and computer files.

The contents of the newest batch of emails is, as yet, unknown.

THE EMAIL AS REPORTED BY WATTSUPWITHTHAT

===========================================================

Subject:  FOIA 2013: the password

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time.  After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).

The “all.7z” password is [redacted]

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD.  Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality.  I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone.  Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort.  Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out,  I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

The Coming Collapse of the Middle East?

The regions’s borders have long been artificial. The war in Iraq accelerated their demise.

By Fred Kaplan

On Feb. 26, 2003, President George W. Bush gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, spelling out what he saw as the link between freedom and security in the Middle East. “A liberated Iraq,” he said, “can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region” by serving “as a dramatic and inspiring example … for other nations in the region.”

He invaded Iraq three weeks later. The spread of freedom wasn’t the war’s driving motive, but it was considered an enticing side effect, and not just by Bush. His deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, had mused the previous fall that the spark ignited by regime-change “would be something quite significant for Iraq … It’s going to cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran, but across the whole Arab world.”

Ten years later, it’s clear that the Iraq war cast “a very large shadow” indeed, but it was a much darker shadow than the fantasists who ran American foreign policy back then foresaw. Bush believed that freedom was humanity’s natural state: Blow away the manhole-cover that a tyrant pressed down on his people, and freedom would gush forth like a geyser. Yet when Saddam Hussein was toppled, the main thing liberated was the blood hatred that decades of dictatorship had suppressed beneath the surface.

Bush had been warned. Two months before the invasion, during Super Bowl weekend, three prominent Iraqi exiles paid a visit to the Oval Office. They were grateful and excited about the coming military campaign, but at one point in the meeting they stressed that U.S. forces would have to tamp down the sectarian tensions that would certainly reignite between Sunnis and Shiites in the wake of Saddam’s toppling. Bush looked at the exiles as if they were speaking Martian. They spent much of their remaining time, explaining to him that Iraq had two kinds of Arabs, whose quarrels dated back centuries. Clearly, he’d never heard about this before.

Many of Bush’s advisers did know something about this, but not as much as anyone launching a war in Iraq, and thus overhauling the country’s entire political order, should have known.

It wasn’t rocket science; it was basic history. And to learn the history, they didn’t have to read vast, dry dossiers assembled by the CIA or the State Department (though that might have helped). There was just one book that would have told them, in this respect, everything they needed to know: David Fromkin’s 1989 best-seller, A Peace to End All Peace.

Subtitled “The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East,” Fromkin’s book (still available in paperback) tells the tragic story of how, toward the end of World War I, British and French diplomats redrew the map of the Middle East in ways that were certain to sow violence for decades, perhaps centuries, to come.

Lars Hedegaard Champion of Free Speech

The 'Racist' and the Unknown Man

By mark steyn

My friend Lars Hedegaard is a dapper, courtly publisher and editor just turned 70. Like many Scandinavians, he speaks very evenly modulated English, but, insofar as I can tell, his Danish is no more excitable. A cultured, civilized fellow, he was for most of his life a man of the left, as are the majority of his compatriots, alas. But, as an historian and a chap who takes the long view, he concluded that Islam posed a profound challenge to Scandinavian liberalism. And so at a stroke he was transformed into a "right-winger."

The other day in Copenhagen, he answered his doorbell and found a man in his early twenties who appeared to be "a typical Muslim immigrant" pointing a gun at him. He fired from a yard away, and, amazingly, missed. The bullet whistled past Lars's ear, and the septuagenarian scholar then slugged his assailant. The man fired again, but the gun jammed, and, after some further tussling, the would-be assassin escaped. He has yet to be found.

The attempted murder of an "Islamophobe" is part of the scene in today's Europe. Among those targeted have been such obvious "right-wing extremists" as secular feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, gay hedonist Pim Fortuyn, and coke-snorting anti-monarchist Theo van Gogh. While I was in Copenhagen paying a visit to Lars's Danish Free Press Society, a young Chechen jihadist opposed to all this outrageous Islamophobia prematurely detonated while assembling his bomb in his hotel room, and we all had a good laugh. But sometimes, as on Lars's doorstep, the jihad wannabe is less incompetent and gets a little closer.

How does one report an assassination attempt on a writer for expressing his opinion? Most North American media didn't report it at all. The BBC announced, "Gunman Targets Islam Critic Hedegaard" — which is true, although one couldn't but notice that the Beeb and the Euro-press seemed far more interested in qualifying the victim's identity ("Islam critic") than in fleshing out the perp's. And then there were the Swedes. Across the water from Lars's home town, most prominent outlets picked up the story from the national news agency, TT, the local equivalent of the Associated Press. Here's how they began:

The cowed West strikes again

Governmental efforts in Europe to ensure a free flow of ideas in the public sphere remain woefully inadequate

By Lawrence J. Haas

Another attack on free speech. Another cowed governmental response. Another speaker in hiding. Another incident for the media to ignore.

Ah, just another day in the West.

The latest outrage comes from the city of Arnhem in the Netherlands, where a doctoral student who interviewed a group of teenaged Muslim-Turkish immigrants on TV about their Jew-hating, and challenged their views, is now in hiding at the suggestion of Arnhem’s mayor, Pauline Krikke.

Mehmet Sahin – a doctoral student and volunteer who attempts to re-educate street youths in Arnhem – interviewed the Dutch-Turkish youths last month on Nederland 2 TV. Upon hearing their hatred of Jews and admiration for Hitler, he called the boys “pathetic” and challenged them to think differently. The interview was later subtitled into English and went viral.

Once again, Western officialdom treats a free speech practitioner as less a hero than an irritant, sending the person into hiding for his “own sake,” thus encouraging future efforts to restrict free speech and perpetuating the West’s head-in-the-sand approach to a real problem. Once again, media attention to the incident – beyond, in this case, the Netherlands and the Jewish press – is confined largely to right-wing blogs and websites.

So, here’s an idea to alter this sickening cycle of intimidation and appeasement:

Rather than ship the victim off to hiding, the government in question should spend whatever it takes to protect the person – bodyguards, a bullet-proof car, and so on – and encourage the person to continue his or her public activities, making clear that free speech is a top governmental priority.

Flammable Ice

An Energy Coup for Japan

By HIROKO TABUCHI

Japan said Tuesday that it had extracted gas from offshore deposits of methane hydrate — sometimes called “flammable ice” — a breakthrough that officials and experts said could be a step toward tapping a promising but still little-understood energy source.

The gas, whose extraction from the undersea hydrate reservoir was thought to be a world first, could provide an alternative source of energy to known oil and gas reserves. That could be crucial especially for Japan, which is the world’s biggest importer of liquefied natural gas and is engaged in a public debate about whether to resume the country’s heavy reliance on nuclear power.

Experts estimate that the carbon found in gas hydrates worldwide totals at least twice the amount of carbon in all of the earth’s other fossil fuels, making it a potential game-changer for energy-poor countries like Japan. Researchers had already successfully extracted gas from onshore methane hydrate reservoirs, but not from beneath the seabed, where much of the world’s deposits are thought to lie.

The exact properties of undersea hydrates and how they might affect the environment are still poorly understood, given that methane is a greenhouse gas. Japan has invested hundreds of millions of dollars since the early 2000s to explore offshore methane hydrate reserves in both the Pacific and the Sea of Japan.

That task has become all the more pressing after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis, which has all but halted Japan’s nuclear energy program and caused a sharp increase in the country’s fossil fuel imports. Japan’s rising energy bill has weighed heavily on its economy, helping to push it to a trade deficit and reducing the benefits of the recently weaker yen to Japanese exporters.

The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said a team aboard the scientific drilling ship Chikyu had started a trial extraction of gas from a layer of methane hydrates about 300 meters, or 1,000 feet, below the seabed Tuesday morning. The ship has been drilling since January in an area of the Pacific about 1,000 meters deep and 80 kilometers, or 50 miles, south of the Atsumi Peninsula in central Japan.

The War on Terror Is Over and China Won

We were quite content to see the Americans being drawn into the mess in the Middle East in the name of fighting terrorism

By LEON HADAR

Imagine 40 years from now how a global affairs columnist for the Fox-Xinhua (or New Shanghai Times) content-providing service will analyze the world’s geo-strategic and geo-economic balance of power. This might be the way he or she recalls the visit that China’s former president Hu Jintao made in April 2006 to Washington, the capital of what was then known as the “United States.”

“Now in 2046, the city is a major tourist attraction for Chinese and Indian tourists, many of whom stay at the seven-star hotel previously known as the “White House” (the Lincoln Suite is the most expensive).

He or she (cloned in 2011) might write the following:

“As I downloaded news reports that were published in the American media on that week, what really astonished me was the extent to which President Hu’s first visit to the then U.S. capital since becoming China’s paramount leader had received so little attention in the American press. The headlines in the New York Times and the Washington Post (both of which have since been bought by our parent company) were devoted to U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from gaining access to nuclear military capability — Iran conducted its first nuclear test two years later and is now a leading nuclear military power — and to the violence in what was known then as ‘Iraq’ (now divided between Turkey, Iran, and the Syrian Federation) and was still occupied by the U.S. (which withdrew from there two years later).

“And believe it or not, much of the media coverage on the eve of the visit was focused on the refusal of the Americans to call Mr. Hu’s trip to Washington a ‘state visit’ (as the Chinese had requested).

“Indeed, in retrospect it does seem quite incredible that the nation that was the global superpower of that period seemed to have ignored China’s dramatic rise in economic, political, military, and cultural power while devoting almost its entire resources to trying to achieve regime changes and implant democracy in the Middle East.

“During the first term of the presidency of George W. Bush (whose nephew George P. Bush is now the president of the Florida-Cuba Federation), he and his aides saw China as a ‘strategic competitor’ (the Pentagon) and as an important trade partner (corporate America), and committed themselves to place the relationship with Beijing at the top of Washington’s global agenda.

“But the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, resulted in the bumping of China to the diplomatic back-burner.

Keynes' fall of Singapore

The Battle of Bretton Woods

By Martin Hutchinson 

Benn Steil's excellent new study, The Battle of Bretton Woods (Princeton, 2013), focuses on the 1944 global monetary conference as a struggle between its two principal protagonists, the US Treasury's Harry Dexter White and Britain's celebrity economist, Maynard Lord Keynes. 

Even Steil, an American who has considerable sympathy with Keynes, is quite clear that he lost, playing a bad hand poorly. To this British-born columnist with less sympathy for Keynes' bizarre economic beliefs, his Bretton Woods performance was not merely a defeat, it was a historic disaster of the order of the Fall of Singapore two years earlier, in which Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival, in spite of having more men and better equipment than his Japanese attackers, surrendered supinely within a few weeks, in the largest capitulation in British history. Keynes' failure at Bretton Woods was equally unforgiveable, and for British long-term interests even more damaging. 

Britain went into the Bretton Woods negotiations with an unfounded belief in the goodwill of Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Churchill had, a few years earlier, described the US Lend-Lease arrangements as "the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history" - an unwarranted compliment, though one which could reasonably be applied to the Marshall Plan - under a different president, with different protagonists, and when the socialist spendthrift Britain's case for favorable treatment was far less compelling. In reality the Lend-Lease arrangements of 1940-41 were designed to leave Britain as close to insolvency as possible while she wore out her economy and people in a life-and-death struggle that had little relevance to particular British interests. 

Keynes himself had been notably uninvolved in the British economic successes of the 1930s, which contrasted so severely with US failures of that decade, but had been brought back into influence only at the outbreak of war, when Chamberlain's pacific free-market approach to Britain's needs seemed discredited. 

He was philosophically opposed to the centerpiece of British 1930s policy, the Imperial Preference agreements of 1932, which had finally ended the unilateral trade disarmament of 1846-1932 and imposed a modest 10% tariff on imports to the Empire and dominions to combat the tariffs of 50% and more imposed by Britain's trading partners, notably the United States under the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff. 

Keynes was also philosophically opposed to private-sector bankers, refusing to negotiate a possible post-war loan with Wall Street, which would have greatly increased his bargaining power at Bretton Woods. He apparently failed to perceive that Britain's interests coincided in many respects with Wall Street's, since both groups wanted to avoid a post-war financial system dominated by the public sector bureaucrats of Washington. 

How Capitalism Saved Chile

An anti-Pinochet film Milton Friedman might have loved—teaches us about regime change

By LEON HADAR
Driven by the wishful thinking that the political Zeitgeist is moving in their direction, pundits on the right sometimes project their own ideological leanings onto new movies or television shows, celebrating their supposedly libertarian or conservative orientation. They seem to believe, notwithstanding a director’s stated liberal views, deep inside he or she is actually a believer in the power of free markets or traditional cultural values.

Hence, while I enjoyed seeing “Avatar” in 3D, I found it difficult to buy into the notion promoted by some libertarians that the film provided a powerful defense of property rights. What I saw was what the director intended the movie to be, I think: a fierce attack on corporate power and a salute to third world indigenous politics with a strong anti-Western bias.

So I will refrain from labeling the new Chilean movie “No” a libertarian masterpiece or implying that its director, Pablo Larrain, is a secret fan of Friedrich Hayek. But then, the main protagonist in this film is an advertising executive who unlike his counterparts in “Mad Men” is portrayed as an agent of progress, one who not only wins a battle against a bunch of aging Marxists but who also leads a marketing campaign—celebrating individual freedom and the joys of consumer society—that helps topple a military dictator and give birth to a thriving liberal-democracy. So if Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have loved “Avatar,” my guess is that Milton Friedman would have probably enjoyed “No.”
“No” is one of those docudramas that, not unlike “Zero Dark Thirty,” “Argo,” and “Lincoln,” was “inspired” by real events, which means it combines truth with fiction. In this case, the truth is the national plebiscite that took place in Chile in 1988, in which voters were asked to decide whether military dictator Augusto Pinochet should stay in power for another eight years (a “Yes” vote) or whether there should be an open presidential election a year later (the result of a “No” vote).
It is also true that a marketing team employed by the anti-Pinochet coalition produced commercials to encourage the Chileans to vote “No” and that the ads ran during the 27 days of the campaign in which each side had 15 minutes to present their position nightly on state-run television.
But “Rene Saavedra,” the character of the advertising executive in the film, played by Gael Garcia Bernal (who starred as a young Che Guevara in “The Motorcyle Diaries“) is a composite of members of the pro-“No” advertising group. Which means that his personal story is fiction, although the director’s decision to shoot the film on low-definition tape used by television news crews in Chile in the 1980s creates a sense that we are watching a documentary from that era.
The apolitical Saavedra works for an ad agency making commercials for Chilean soap operas and Coca-Cola, raising a son on his own. When his left-leaning activist wife gets beaten up by police during anti-government demonstrations, Saavedra is approached by a member of the opposition who asks him to help run their campaign.