Displaying posts published in

November 2017

Roger Franklin A Case for Immigration Reform

Official policy facilitated the importing of a teenage bride destined for an arranged marriage and, ultimately, the death by a mother’s hand of her 14-month-old daughter. Why, Minister Dutton, is the trade in chattel brides permitted while applicants who might do much for the country get a hard time?

In April, 2016, Sofina Nikat took 14-month-old daughter Sanaya Sahib for a walk in a Melbourne park, smothered her by the banks of a creek and tipped the little corpse into the water, subsequently informing police the infant had been abducted by a drunk of African appearance. Three days later under police questioning, the mother finally conceded her “shoeless African” did not exist and admitted it was she who had killed her toddler. Charged initially with murder, later downgraded to the offence of infanticide, Ms Nikat was yesterday sentenced by Justice Lex Lasry, who took note of the 529 days she had been held pending trial. Concluding that was quite enough time behind bars, he imposed a year of community service and turned her free.

Reaction on Melbourne talkback radio was swift and much of it involved the accusation that Justice Lasry is soft on infanticide. This seems remarkably unfair to the judge, as the maximum penalty for killing a baby in Victoria is a mere five years and, given Ms Nikat’s lengthy stretch on remand, she would not have served much more time even if the full weight of the law had been brought to bear. Worth noting is that Justice Lasry last year presided at the trial of a woman who drowned three of her children after driving an SUV into a pond. He gave her 26 years.

What seems to have been so far ignored in the Nikat matter is the light it shines on this nation’s immigration policies. Consider

Raised in Fiji, 18-year-old Ms Nikat was shipped to Australia as the chattel in an arranged marriage.

Questions: Is an arranged marriage acceptable grounds for seeking and obtaining residence in Australia? The ABC seems to think such unions represent you-beaut cultural enrichment, but is this Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s view? If not, would he deem it a good idea to institute a rigorous screening process?

Observation: A Singapore-born journalist of Quadrant Online’s acquaintance, a woman with several degrees, including one from Oxford, had to jump through hoops to obtain even short-term Australian residency, despite a job offer from News Corp. The process cost her a large sum for lawyers and fees which, after two years, she was expected to repeat in order to stay on the right side of the law. She chose instead to leave and now works for the New York Times. Smart, industrious and never likely to be a charge on the public purse, Australia has lost her. Perhaps, had she agreed to an arranged marriage, she would still be here — at considerably less cost to herself and the nation’s future productivity.

THE NEW ISRAEL FUND….BAD NEWS

The New Israel Fund (NIF) is headquartered in New York, and maintains offices throughout the U.S. as well as in Canada, the UK, Switzerland, and Germany. Since its founding in 1979, as a political framework following the 1977 Israeli elections which brought Likud to power, NIF has provided over $300 million to more than 900 Israeli organizations.
Shatil is the Israel-based “operating arm” of the NIF,” that creates and nurtures coalitions of NGOs, attempts to influence laws and bills in Israel, and holds workshops for staffers of NIF-funded NGOs.
Declared objectives: “to strengthen and expand the pro-democracy, progressive forces in Israel” and help “Israel to live up to its founders’ vision.” According to the NIF, the Israeli government and public have strayed from the vision of Israel as a “Jewish homeland and a democracy.”
A common theme of NIF fundraising and campaigning is the supposed “erosion of Israeli democracy.” In September 2016, the Israeli Ambassador to Switzerland refused an invitation to participate in an NIF event, titled “Is Israeli democracy in danger?” The Israeli Foreign Ministry explained that the “provocative” title and NIF involvement were the reasons for the refusal.
To achieve these goals, the NIF “brings the broad range of civil rights, social justice and religious tolerance issues to the attention” of individuals and institutions, including the media and the Knesset. It presents itself as the “only” group working on such issues, attempting to restore Israeli democracy to its founders’ vision.
In New York, NIF participation in the Celebrate Israel Parade is the subject of controversy and criticism.
Engages in intense confrontation with “rights wing” opponents, including Israeli government officials, MKs, and NGOs such as Im Tirtzu,.
Finances

Expenses in 2015 were $31 million, approximately the same as in 2014.
Total authorized grants to Israeli NGOs were approximately $13.8 million in 2015 (including donor-advised grants), a 5.8% decrease from 2014 ($14.7 million). (See Appendix 1)
Although NIF grants are for organizations based in Israel, the organization is not registered with the Israeli Registrar of Non-Profits.
NIF publishes a list of donors in its annual reports; some appear as “anonymous.”

The Push to Make French Gender-Neutral Can changing the structure of a language improve women’s status in society? The Atlantic Annabelle Timsit

“My homeland is the French language,” author Albert Camus once wrote—and many French people would agree. That’s why any attempt at changing the language is often met with suspicion. So the uproar was almost instantaneous when, this fall, the first-ever school textbook promoting a gender-neutral version of French was released.

It was a victory for a subset of French feminists who had argued that the gendered nature of the language promotes sexist outcomes, and that shifting to a gender-neutral version would improve women’s status in society. Educating the next generation in a gender-inclusive way, they claimed, would yield concrete positive changes, like professional environments that are more welcoming to women.

Many others found this idea outrageous. They complained that implementing it would badly complicate education, and that there’s not enough evidence that changing a language can really change social realities. Clearly in the second camp, the office of Prime Minister Edouard Philippe announced this week that it’s banning the use of gender-neutral French in all official government documents.

In French, pronouns, nouns, and adjectives reflect the gender of the object to which they refer. So, le policier is a policeman; la policière is a policewoman. The language has no neutral grammatical gender. And there are many nouns (including those referring to professions) that don’t have feminine versions. So, a male minister is le ministre and a female minister is la ministre. What’s more, French students are taught that “the masculine dominates over the feminine,” meaning that if you have a room full of ten women and just one man, you have to describe the whole group in the masculine.

Feminists who believe that these features of the French language put women at a disadvantage disagree about how best to remedy them. Most recommend creating feminine versions of all professional nouns and/or using neutral nouns whenever possible. Many also recommend a grammatical tool that consists of adding a “median-period” at the end of masculine nouns, followed by the feminine ending, thus indicating both gendered versions of every noun (like musicien·ne·s, which would read as “male musicians and female musicians”). Some have even recommended creating a gender-neutral pronoun (the equivalent of how “they” is sometimes used in English, or “hen” in Sweden). These and other recommendations have collectively become known as “inclusive writing.”

Many linguists I spoke to stressed that changing a language doesn’t guarantee a change in perception; this leads some of them to say that inclusive writing just isn’t worth the trouble. But at least one major school of linguistic thought concludes that language and perception are intimately related.

Western Authorities Anticipate Christmas Market Terror Attacks By Patrick Poole

Back in August after the terror attack in Barcelona that killed 15 people and injured 131 more in the La Rambla downtown tourist area, I noted here at PJ Media that Islamic vehicle-ramming terror attacks were literally remaking the face of Europe and America.

#NEWSGRAPHIC Fatal vehicle-ramming attacks in Europe since July 2016 @AFP pic.twitter.com/DF9BQMqE3J
— AFP news agency (@AFP) August 18, 2017

Now with ISIS fanboy channels buzzing with calls for similar terror attacks during the Christmas season, European authorities are increasing security for holiday-related events across the continent.

If you’re celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ this holiday season, they fantasize about killing you: https://t.co/U5XNjUSdNT #Christmas
— #PJMedia (@PJMedia_com) November 15, 2017

Here in the U.S., just a month after the terror attack in Manhattan that killed 8 and injured 11, and nearly a year after the vehicle-ramming attack at Ohio State University that injured 11, homeland security officials are also preparing for possible terror attacks.

But gift-wrapping traffic bollards and painting concrete barriers to look like Legos barely conceal the new grim reality.

In Germany, which saw an attack last year on the Berlin Christmas market that killed 12 and injured 40 by an illegal Tunisian immigrant who was scheduled for deportation and who was already known to intelligence officials, traffic bollards are going up everywhere.

+ Bochum verpackt Terrorsperren als Geschenke https://t.co/CEtEO0QiYf #DerTag pic.twitter.com/XWfnQP1F2J
— ntv (@ntvde) November 23, 2017

Weihnachtsmarkt: Hier werden Terrorsperren liebevoll in Geschenkpapier eingewickelt https://t.co/rmZNRD7lv5 pic.twitter.com/cVwQ7kmS2V
— WELT (@welt) November 24, 2017

Deutsche Welle reports:

Bochum authorities placed a string of 1.2 ton pellet bags in the downtown area to avert potential terror attacks ahead of the seasonal opening of the local Christmas market.

On Thursday morning, however, the bags took on a holiday look, with the city’s official marketing service turning them into novelty Christmas presents.

“For us it was very important to fit in those ugly barriers into the beautiful overall atmosphere,” said the head of Bochum Marketing Mario Schiefelbein.

The move surprised both local residents and the police, as the service reportedly giftwrapped up all of the 20 bags overnight without forewarning […]

Bochum is not the only city to put a bow on new security measures. In the Bavarian city of Augsburg, for example, authorities will use decorated trucks belonging to Christmas market stall owners as car barriers. Munich officials plan to block the streets with planters containing season-appropriate evergreen plants.

The first Christmas market in Berlin was opened earlier this month and is surrounded by concrete bollards and armed police:

Potsdamer Platz: Berlins erster #Weihnachtsmarkt eröffnet – hinter Betonpollern https://t.co/E1kngQsGR6 pic.twitter.com/0hcCmjE9X4
— Berliner Zeitung (@berlinerzeitung) November 3, 2017

And the site of the last year’s terror attack in Berlin is also receiving new decorations: CONTINUE AT SITE

The Case for Sexual Deterrence By Victor Davis Hanson

Just like aggressive nations, so too people who are not innately moral are deterred from committing crimes by fear of punishment.https://amgreatness.com/2017/11/27/the-case-for-sexual-deterrence/

The likelihood of arrest, the good chance of conviction, the probability of jail time or fines, or a permanent criminal record—or all that and more—do their parts to discourage criminality.

In that context, the sudden deluge of sexual harassment claims shares one common theme: lost deterrence.

Those who use their positions of ideological correctness, perceived power, authority, influence, or money to leverage some sort of unwanted sex (from a fleeting grope to coerced intercourse) do so because, in their jaded cost-benefit calibrations, they can.

In our postmodern age, we can no longer rely on now ancient notions of self-restraint. Too many celebrities and power-mongers deprecate the old idea of acting like a gentleman as corny or passé. Many of today’s feminists may find men who open doors, pick up the dinner tab, or postpone sexual intercourse until there is a clear relationship as either condescending chauvinists or utter nerds. Hollywood seems to have idealized the moment when a man rough-handles a woman until his violence leads to eroticism and a willing surrender in his arms—in clinical terms perhaps possible, in real life clearly quite rare.

The majority of high-profile men do not ascribe anymore to religious principles that restrain the libido. Mike Pence was laughed at for his wise counsel of avoiding ubiquitous temptations—as if he were a 60-something innocent babe in the woods of slithering vamps.

In our therapeutic culture born in the 1960s, sex was recalibrated as liberating, free, and without consequences—not as the Greeks once warned of Eros as dangerous and destructive in its power to cloud reason and make even the sober and judicious mere slaves to their appetites.

A sex-sick Phaedra was not a pretty sight.

The Right Politics
Sometimes sexual deterrence is lost through loud liberal politics. Al Franken assumed that as a progressive “giant of the Senate” his professed progressive feminism exempted him from any consequences for his snickering gropes and creepy cheap feels. In Franken’s twisted mind, how many free prods and pokes does voting against confirming conservative federal judges earn?

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) seems to have made a career of exempted perversions, predicated on the fact he was a founding member of the Black Caucus.

Correct politics deterred aggrieved women from coming forward—on the understandable expectation that, even if believed, their elders would insist that their own harassment was not so important as to endanger the cosmic political good.

So abstract morality can offset concrete immorality in a variety of ways: Bill Clinton’s stance on abortion may have earned him a sort of coerced or cheap insurance from “knee-pad” sex. Denigrating a Paula Jones as trailer trash was a small price to pay for having an empowered Hillary as first lady.

What Elites Still Don’t Understand About Populism Peter Berkowitz

According to prominent members of the progressive elite — and a few members of the conservative elite — the election of Donald Trump signaled the rise in the United States of fascism or racism or both. These sweeping smears of Trump and his supporters, which began during the primaries, backfired in 2016: They helped fuel the discontent among ordinary voters that provided the real-estate mogul’s slender margin of victory in key Rust Belt states. The elites’ intemperate condemnation of the people’s judgment bolstered the people’s dim view of the elites.

The elites’ fear, both before and after the election, that Trump was leading a fascist takeover of America has been fueled by his shoot-from-the-hip tweets and off-the-cuff public pronouncements, many of which evinced an ignorance of the rule of law and an enthusiasm for strong rulers. But hyperbole and bombast do not a fascist takeover make. Moreover, elites would be well advised to recall — or learn — that America’s sturdy constitutional constraints, starting with the separation of powers, anticipate the ascendancy of unenlightened statesmen and are designed to keep dark impulses in check. In addition, fascism rests on the acquiescence to a powerful leader of the military, business community, media, entertainment industry, and academy. Trump cannot even unify his own party around his leadership.

The accusation that Trump’s victory represented the recrudescence of a deep-seated American racism was equally scurrilous and equally implausible. Racists still exist in America and some felt emboldened by Trump to purvey their hatred. But there is no reason to suppose that if a white, male, progressive Democrat had governed in the manner of Trump’s predecessor that popular frustration would have been less robust. President Obama rammed through Congress a fundamental transformation of health care in defiance of popular will. He usurped Congress’s lawmaking powers by issuing executive orders that appropriated funds to sustain the Affordable Care Act, that imposed extensive environmental regulations, and that altered the legal status of illegal aliens. He presided over an Internal Revenue Service that methodically impeded his political opponents’ participation in the democratic process. He downplayed or dismissed voters’ anxieties about jobs, trade, and immigration while adopting measures that exacerbated them. Abroad, he coddled adversaries and alienated allies. The notion that ordinary Americans are inveterate racists because they rejected the third term for Obama governance that Hillary Clinton represented exhibits the elites’ own bigotry.

A considerably more illuminating explanation of Trump’s victory comes from understanding the power of populism. The 2016 election returns reflected a revolt of the less well-off and less influential against political elites whom they regard as arrogant and self-serving.

Time Magazine Needs the Koch Brothers Why not allow a dissenting view at a declining media outfit? James Freeman

The libertarian Koch brothers are providing critical financing allowing Meredith Corp. to buy publisher Time Inc. Everyone involved seems to be taking pains to emphasize that billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch will have no editorial influence over Time magazine or any of the group’s other titles, which is too bad for readers. This is an outfit that could use a few dissenting voices.

The Journal notes that Meredith is paying $1.85 billion in cash, and that $650 million of it is coming from a private-equity unit of Koch Industries.

Both Meredith Chairman and CEO Stephen Lacy and its Chief Operating Officer Tom Harty have clarified that they will not be relying on their new partners for news judgment. According to the Journal:

Mr. Harty described the Koch investment as “passive” and said the firm “won’t have any influence on Meredith’s operations, including editorial.” Koch Industries, he added, has expressed no interest in acquiring any individual Time Inc. titles.

Mr. Lacy said he has never met with the Koch brothers. “They won’t have a seat on the board of which I chair,” he added.

The same message is coming from Koch Industries. According to the New York Times:

Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank.

Mr. Lombardo said the company is constantly evaluating investment opportunities.

“We’re looking at deals across all sectors, all industries,” he said. “This just happened to be one that made sense.”

Readers would be unlikely to welcome any publication that simply parrots the opinions of its owner. They also may take issue with the views of entrenched editors. This deal is happening precisely because so many readers have rejected the once-popular titles in the Time stable, which include People, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, along with the eponymous magazine.

This is largely a story about the difficulty of traditional print publications navigating the new world of digital media. But as the new owners ponder ways to stem the decline, they might consider having these titles express a broader point of view. History suggests that Charles Koch would make a compelling columnist for Time magazine.

Time was one of the world’s great media empires and publisher of perhaps the world’s most influential publications when it was run by its co-founder Harry Luce, a passionate defender of free enterprise. He offered a new and engaging way for busy consumers to learn about their world—through a patriotic lens. Luce proclaimed an “American century” and did his best to promote the American ideal of constitutional democracy and economic liberty around the world.

The now-struggling Time magazine, no longer among the country’s most influential publications, flogs a somewhat different agenda. Whereas Luce was a passionate anti-communist, the magazine he built has in recent years published a series of largely flattering profiles of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A 2015 report called Mr. Sanders an “overachieving underdog” and a “breakout star” who “leads with his heart.” Last year, when Time designated Mr. Sanders one of the world’s 100 most influential people, it invited Berkeley professor Robert Reich to sum up the socialist senator. Mr. Reich offered an appraisal that was not exactly journalistic:

The intensity and steadfastness of his message that widening inequalities of income, wealth and political power in America are undermining our democracy and economy have inspired record numbers of young voters, independents and heartland Democrats to join his “political revolution.”

Sanders has shown it is possible to achieve all this with small contributions and a platform calling for single-payer health care, free tuition at public universities and a breakup of the biggest banks. His campaign has invigorated a new populist movement in America to restore democracy and create an economy responsive to the needs of ordinary people.

It’s fair to say that Luce would never have published such nonsense. And he didn’t have the advantage of seeing the full picture of all the misery that Marxism would impose on ordinary people over the past century. In 2016, Time published Reich’s howler while Venezuela’s experiment in socialism was already imploding in real time. CONTINUE AT SITE

Ten Reasons Why Congress Is Right To Tax The Ivy League Adam Andrzejewski

Many pundits describe the Ivy League as “a hedge fund with classes.”

They are right, and Congress seems to agree. House and Senate Republicans are proposing a new 1.4 percent tax on endowment income for America’s richest private colleges – including the eight Ivy League schools.

Harvard President Drew Faust fiercely opposed the tax, claiming the school’s endowment is “at work in the world” not “locked away in some chest.” But Faust isn’t complaining about the largesse the Ivies receive from the federal government even though the Ivies have amassed an enormous endowment.During the spring, we released our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report: Ivy League, Inc. that showed how $42 billion in U.S. taxpayer subsidies, special tax-breaks, and Federal payments (contracts and grants) went into the eight Ivy League colleges during the past six years. In our comparison of federal contracting and grant payments, the Ivy League outranked sixteen state governments as a recipient of funds – despite amassing a $120 billion endowment.

Here are 10 reasons why tax reform should include the Ivy League:

Ivy League payments, subsidies and special tax treatment cost taxpayers $41.59 billion over a six-year period (FY2010-FY2015). This is equivalent to $120,000 in taxpayer-backed perks per undergraduate student, or $6.93 billion per year.
The Ivy League was the recipient of $25.73 billion worth of federal payments during this period: contracts ($1.37 billion), grants ($23.9 billion) and direct payments – student assistance ($460 million).
In monetary terms, the Ivy League’s “government contracting” business ($25.27 billion – federal contracts and grants) exceeded their educational mission ($22 billion in student tuition) FY2010-FY2015.
The eight colleges of the Ivy League received more money ($4.31 billion) on average annually from the federal government (contracts and grants alone) than sixteen states:see report.
The Ivy League endowment funds (2015) exceeded $119 billion, which is equivalent to nearly $2 million per undergraduate student. At current gift and investment growth rates, the Ivies are pacing for a collective $1 trillion endowment over the next twenty years.
As a non-profit, educational institution, the Ivy League pays no tax on investment gains. Between FY2011-FY2015, the Ivy League schools received a $9.6 billion tax break on the $27.3 billion growth of their endowment funds. In FY2014, the tax-free subsidy on endowment gains amounted to $3.4 billion, or nearly $60,000 per student.
With continued gifts at present rates, the $119 billion endowment fund is equivalent to free tuition to the entire student body in perpetuity. Without new gifts, the endowment is equivalent to a full-ride scholarship for all Ivy League undergraduate students for 51-years, or until 2068.
In FY2014, the balance sheet for all Ivy League colleges showed $194,332,115,120 in accumulated gross assets. This is equivalent to $3.35 million per undergraduate student.
The Ivy League employs 127 professors, administrators or executives who each earned more than $400,000 annually; 47 employees made more than $1 million a year; and four executives made more than $20 million each over the past five years.
In a five-year period (2010-2014) the Ivy League spent $17.8 million on lobbying, which included issues mostly related to their endowment, federal contracting, and immigration and student aid.

Sydney M. Williams “Markets”

The Law of gravity has not been repealed. What has risen will, at some point, decline. But, when? Hundreds of people are paid millions of dollars to predict the unpredictable. Yet, the best advice about the direction of the market over the short term I have ever read was given by J.P. Morgan. The story may be apocryphal, but it was re-told by Benjamin Graham in The Intelligent Investor (1949); it still resonates. Asked by his lift boy, in 1901, what will the stock market do? He replied, “it will fluctuate.”

The past year has seen establishment-types in Washington, mainstream media and coastal elites trying to undo last year’s election. Has the market’s positive performance deepened their denial and made more passionate their hysteria? Would they have been so relentless had stocks done as Paul Krugman (economist and New York Times columnist) predicted when news of Trump’s election was clear? Krugman wrote as stock futures plunged early before trading began on Wednesday, the 9th of November. As to when they would recover, he opined: “a first-pass answer is never.” The DJIA rose 257 points that day.

The performance of U.S. equity markets since the election of Donald Trump has been remarkable. He came after a President who entered office following the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Stocks were at five-year lows. Mr. Obama’s two terms saw the market (DJIA) rise 151%; he left office with an approval rating in the mid 50% range. In contrast, Mr. Trump was elected with stocks near all-time highs, and he has the lowest approval numbers in memory. However, those ratings run counter to optimism seen in polls like the IDB/TIPP Poll: Economic Optimism Index – a mixture of consumers, workers and investors. Over the first sixteen years of this century, the Index averaged 49.3, or slightly negative. Today, it stands at 53.6. During the last year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency, the number was under 48.

Benjamin Graham, considered the father of value investing, explained his concept of investing this way: “In the short term, it is like a voting machine – tallying up which firms are popular and unpopular. But in the long run, it is like a weighing machine – assessing the substance of a company.” Is a year a long enough period to measure Mr. Trump? Is the market reflecting his popularity, or is it weighing what he has accomplished, in restoring cost-benefit analysis and undoing restrictive regulations in federal agencies like the EPA, FDA, FCC, Transportation and the Department of Education? Is it measuring Betsy Devos’s focus on making public school more competitive through vouchers and Charter schools? Is it weighing Mr. Trump’s appointment of originalists as judges, ones more predictable, as they are aligned with the Constitution and less governed by politics or relativism? Does it see an end to authoritarianism at the CFPB?

I don’t pretend to know why markets have done what they have. And I know they will correct, but when and by how much? So, what should investors do? There are no simple answers. The needs of each is individual. The future is like peering through a windshield in driving rain. Clarity is confined to the past.

But, in my experience, market timing is only accurate in retrospect. What I do know is that over the long term – two, three or four decades – stocks have risen. They should continue to do so. If one had bought stocks on September 3, 1929, the day that year the DJIA peaked, one’s compounded annual return, through today, would still have been 4.8%, even though stocks did not exceed those 1929 prices until 1954.[1] If you had reinvested dividends your total compounded annual return would have exceeded 6%. On my birthdate, January 31, 1941, the DJIA was roughly one third of what it had been twelve years earlier. If my grandparents had given me a $1000 as a birth gift, and if I had been smart enough to leave it invested, it would be now worth $187,000, or a 7.01% CAGR. Over the 48 years I spent on Wall Street annual returns compounded at 6.3%, despite stocks being lower fifteen years after I got into the business.

Mr. Obama became President at a fortuitous time. During his eight years in office, the DJIA compounded at an annual rate of 12.1%. But, had you bought stocks on the dawn of the new millennium, on January 3, 2000, your compounded return would have been only 3.9%. That modest performance reflects the bear market that began in March 2000 and ended in March 2003; and the one that began in October 2007 and ended in May 2009. If one goes back 100 years, stocks, as measured by the DJIA, have compounded at 5.9% – a reasonable assumption for future prospects, considering what the last century saw: a world-wide depression, two world wars and numerous smaller ones, a cold war that lasted forty-five years, the deaths in office of three presidents (one by assassination), a bout of inflation that sent Treasuries to 20% yields, the first attack on American soil since the war of 1812, and a credit crisis that nearly sent financial markets into a tail spin. But it was also a period that highlighted American creative genius, that saw the Country land a man on the moon, and which witnessed revolutions in farming, manufacturing, transportation, merchandising, electronics, computing and communications.

There have been structural changes in markets. Among them has been the shrinking of the number of publically traded stocks, and the concomitant increase in value of those that survived. According to the Carlyle Group, there are 3671 companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges today. Twenty years ago, there were about 7300, yet the value of publically traded stocks today – about $27 trillion – is double the value of all publically traded stocks in 1997. What happened? Private equity allows start-ups to wait longer to go public. Mergers and bankruptcies caused the disappearance of many micro and small-cap stocks. Also, passive strategies have limited the number of shares available for trading. Since the millennium, about $1.7 trillion has been invested in index funds, ETFs and other similar strategies, while funds actively managed have seen about $1.4 trillion in outflows. Equity derivatives have affected valuations, altering the nature of risk. And, over the past eight years, the Fed purchased over $4 trillion in government and agency debt. That has ended. The yield on 30-day Treasury Bills has risen from 0.26% on September 30, 2016 to 1.29% now. Over the same time, the spread between Investment Grade Corporates and the 10-Year Treasury has narrowed from 191 basis points to 137 basis points, implying a willingness to assume more risk.

In response to Mr. Buffett’s quote in the rubric at the top of this essay, I suspect people are neither greedy nor fearful. They are somewhere in between. But, keep in mind, investing is for tortoises, not hares. Avoid being cute or believing every seer. Think long term and maintain perspective.

The only addition I would add to the wisdom of J.P. Morgan quoted at the start of this essay is that over the long-term stocks rise; though returns can be negative for a decade or more. The caveat: our democracy, entrepreneurship and capitalism survive. Warren Buffett recently predicted the DJIA will hit 1,000,000 in the next hundred years. One’s first reaction is that the Wizard of Omaha is losing it; but 1,000,000 on the DJIA from the current level implies compounded annual returns of 3.7%, easily doable, as long as our democracy stays strong. My guess is that my great grandchildren will see that happen.

Hannah Arendt on Eichmann:A Study in the Perversity of Brilliance One of the many ironies surrounding Hannah Arendt’s book on the Eichmann trial is involved in the fact that it… Norman Podhoretz 1963

One of the many ironies surrounding Hannah Arendt’s book on the Eichmann trial1 is involved in the fact that it should have been serialized in the New Yorker so short a time after the appearance in the same magazine of James Baldwin’s essay on the Black Muslims. A Negro on the Negroes, a Jew on the Jews, each telling a tale of the horrors that have been visited upon his people and of how these horrors were borne; and each exhorting the prosperous, the secure, the ignorant to understand that these horrors are relevant to them. The two stories have much in common and they are both, in their essentials, as old as humankind itself—so old and so familiar that it takes a teller of extraordinary eloquence, or else of extraordinary cleverness, to make them come alive again. Baldwin is all eloquence; there is nothing clever in the way he tells the story of the Negro in America. On the one side are the powerless victims, on the other the powerful oppressors; the only sin of the victims is their powerlessness, the only guilt is the guilt of the oppressors. Now, this black-and-white account, with the traditional symbolisms reversed, is not the kind of picture that seems persuasive to the sophisticated modern sensibility—the sensibility that has been trained by Dostoevski and Freud, by Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, by Eliot and Yeats, to see moral ambiguity everywhere, to be bored by melodrama, to distrust the idea of innocence, to be skeptical of rhetorical appeals to Justice. And indeed, not even Baldwin’s eloquence, which forced many of his readers to listen for once, could overcome the dissatisfaction many others felt at the moral simplicity of the story as he told it. For as he told it, the story did not answer to their sense of reality; it was an uninteresting story and a sentimental one.

Precisely the reverse is true of Hannah Arendt’s telling of the story of how six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. If Baldwin is all eloquence and no cleverness, Miss Arendt is all cleverness and no eloquence; and if Baldwin brings his story unexpectedly to life through the bold tactic of heightening and playing exquisitely on every bit of melodrama it contains, Miss Arendt with an equally surprising boldness rids her story of melodrama altogether and heavily underlines every trace of moral ambiguity she can wring out of it. What she has done, in other words, is translate this story for the first time into the kind of terms that can appeal to the sophisticated modern sensibility. Thus, in place of the monstrous Nazi, she gives us the “banal” Nazi; in place of the Jew as virtuous martyr, she gives us the Jew as accomplice in evil; and in place of the confrontation between guilt and innocence, she gives us the “collaboration” of criminal and victim. The story as she tells it is complex, unsentimental, riddled with paradox and ambiguity. It has all the appearance of “ruthless honesty,” and all the marks of profundity—have we not been instructed that complexity, paradox, and ambiguity are the sign manifest of profundity?—and, in addition, it carries with it all the authority of Miss Arendt’s classic work on The Origins of Totalitarianism. Anyone schooled in the modern in literature and philosophy would be bound to consider it a much better story than the usual melodramatic version—which, as it happens, was more or less the one relied upon by the prosecution at the Eichmann trial, and which Miss Arendt uses to great effect in highlighting the superior interest of her own version. But if this version of hers can from one point of view be considered more interesting, can it by the same token be considered truer, or more illuminating, or more revealing of the general situation of man in the 20th century? Is the gain she achieves in literary interest a matter of titillation, or is it a gain to the understanding?