A little historical perspective on the conflict in Gaza

At first blush, what follows may not seem like a very pro-pie set of statements. Many, including me, have resoundingly criticized Israel's approach to their issues with the Palestinians, including the decision to cut off relations following the electoral victory of Hamas. After all, as Ismail Haniya pointed out, their position on Israel is not all that different from Sharon's towards Palestine before he took power. The decision to give greater weight to Hamas' misdeeds than its social services and pragmatic anti-corruption positions will likely go down in history as a mistake. Sharon did more for a Palestinian state that Rabin, and the Western press at least has always been happy to make a sharp distinction between Fatah and its Al Aqsa wing. The Soviet Union held the destruction of capitalism and worldwide imposition of Bolshevism among its goals, we signed multiple treaties with them. As Thomas Barnett frequently points out, it is engagement, not isolation, that leads to behavior changes. However, for all that is was a series of diplomatic mistakes that led us to this point, it's time to ask where we go from where we are, rather than where we ought to be.

Perhaps the historical comparison isn't perfect, but replace "Olmert" with "Churchill" and "Beersheba" with "London", and all the talk about proportional response to one side sending rockets into the other's cities is really pretty clear: firebomb their cities and kill off all the draft-age men
.

This is a point which the Economist does not make in their recent Leader on the subject. Unlike the US which has the luxury of distance in defeating an adversary that doesn't follow the normal rules of war, Israel is fighting its neighbors who have effectively declared total war. Worse, it is also fighting a proxy war against the Iranians, and perhaps the Russians, both of whom are probably very interested in seeing the capabilities of the next generation of smart bombs.

It is worth saying right now that I do not lightly condemn everyone in the world's most densely populated area to death, and in fact sincerely hope it does not come to that. Hamas won the latest Palestinian election on an anti-corruption platform, with their populist and foolish stance on Israel a little crowd pleaser to warm up a rally, much like a Sarah Palin rally beginning with someone shouting "Barack HUSSEIN! Obama" to an all-white crowd of neophobes. However, any government committed to the destruction of another state must be met with force sufficient to end that threat.

The use of consistently better intelligence and smaller, smarter warheads was supposed to make war cleaner, shorter and less damaging. However, as the last 50yrs have shown, Clausewitz was right: "The military power must be destroyed, that is, reduced to such a state as not to be able to prosecute the war." Hamas has made it clear that as long as its people are able, it will send rockets into Israel. The question then, is how to change that. History teaches that direct occupation by Israel can prevent the firing of rockets, but an incursion at this point invites a repeat of 2006. Looking at the history of proxy wars, being the state not buffered by a proxy means being on the losing side, whether it's the US, USSR or Israel. Once an industrialized power has to commit its troops to fighting a vastly larger population with a dedicated core willing to see everyone around them die, it has lost. The only victory I know of in such a circumstance, and it's a shaky one at best, is the use of locals to fight on your side.

Okay, so who's Israel going to arm and send into Gaza to clean out Hamas? Well, there's a tricky question. As mentioned above, it's the Western press that regularly differentiates between Fatah and its Martyr's Brigade, not the Israelis. Collaborating with Israel is effectively a death sentence in Palestine, making an "awakening" rather unlikely, unless it's funded by Saudi Arabia. Again, do you really want a potentially hostile power building an army on your doorstep just because they're less hostile right now?

Sadly, the long-term PMCIN increasing options are limited to several very bad ones. One is to begin firebombing the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks, since no Gazans means no rockets. In addition to terrible humanitarian consequences, that hurts Israel's relations with the world that does not want to see first world countries engaged in mass killing. Another is to simply continue with the air strikes, as they cost Israel almost nothing, and after a while it will simply become background to other problems on the world stage. A more creative option might be to try and co-opt Russian support by offering to bomb the hell out of Iranian oil terminals in exchange for them suspending nuclear help (boosting oil prices while forcing the Iranians to ship their oil through Russia).

History provides no examples that I know of where the legit combatant state only attacked the proxies and won. So, if you really want a "proportional response" from Israel at this point that meets both Clausewitz's and Just War Theory's requirements, look to the skies over Iran and Syria. If there were ever a time for a US-led diplomatic mission to both, it would be now.

Okay, let's raise the quality of the debate

Clearly the RNC, or at least its candidates for chairman have not been reading this blog. If they had, they would know better than publish things that confirm the worst stereotypes about the modern GOP.

Bear in mind that Pie and Policy is all about satire, but here we insist that it be in good taste. A Democrat publishing a similar song about imbred Bible-thumpers would be similarly tastless, but at least they can still boast a "Bubba" as one of their most powerful figures. Seriously, why stoop to that level when there's bailouts, social issues you can still win competitive races with, and a whole host of little scandals to play around with. Something chock full of race-baiting titles is just announcing to the world you don't plan to rule outside the South. Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley must be looking down on this shaking their heads sadly.

Pro-pie response to recession

To review briefly, the PMCIN metric looks at three conditions to assess pie making capacity:

(1) The farming, manufacturing and shipping capacity to deliver pie-making supplies.

(2) Sufficiently well distributed income such that everyone can afford these on top of bare minimums.

(3) Sufficient leisure time to allow people to make and enjoy their pie each week.

In light of these, Pie and Policy salutes Pella and AK Steel for the very pro-pie step of increasing employee leisure time without, hopefully, reducing their incomes below the PMCIN=1 level. If you know anyone who's been affected by this, please let me know. I'm writing from the position of one who took a 60% pay cut to get a better job, and have avoided consumer credit like the plague, so the idea of a day off in exchange for a 20% pay cut without loss of benefits sounds like a really good deal to me.

Again, this is a good argument for some kind of national health care plan that decouples health benefits from one's current employer.

A counterpoint to the "paradox of thrift"

In Keynesian economic theory, demand is king. To the extent people making personal decisions want to buy enough, that's good. However, if people do not want to buy their own industrial output, that's bad, and the government should step in to give people money to buy stuff. Thus, from a Keynesian perspective, the housing bubble was a very good thing, because it generated enormous demand for people to buy goods, and the only acceptable government response to the end of the borrowing binge is to step in and borrow considerable amounts of money itself.

The genius of Adam Smith, however, was that he found a model for ordering an economy in which everyone acting in their own best interest lead to prosperity. It is never in one's best interest to borrow money on a depreciating asset unless you expect to generate revenue from it, such as corporate jets purchased by Netjets or cars used for taxis. Otherwise, you're acting against your own best interest, and a society that encourages such behavior is essentially imposing a highly regressive credit tax on its citizens. A government that borrows heavily to support consumption moves this tax to its younger workers.

So, this is arguably the central problem of industrialization: when each individual can produce far more than he can consume, how many people can you practically employ? In a profligate society, waste drives employment, because people choose to consume more than they need. In a thrifty society, any economic activity must have greater value for the buyer than the opportunity cost of spending money. Thus, anything manufactured has to have some kind of value beyond simple entertainment. This is why notoriously thrifty societies like Japan and Korea are leaders in service robots, self-cleaning toilets, and small cars. Also, they push the market for electronic entertainment because if you want their cash, your game had better be very good.

Thus, the paradox of thrift should not be seen as saying that we must avoid becoming thrifty at all costs. It means accepting the difference between economic growth and quality of life. PMCIN is here to help with that.