Top "Libertarian Jew" Blog Entries from 2023 and Reflecting on the Politics of 2023

As another year comes to a close, I think about how the world has ceased to be crazy since the pandemic started in 2020. Instead of surpassing the pandemic, it looks like we as a society are still reeling from it. In February, I wrote about how the golden standard of research, the systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT), showed that face masks are ineffective at spreading COVID transmission, including the N95 masks. That did not stop former CDC director Rochelle Walensky from clinging onto face masks at a congressional hearing, thereby showing us why we should not trust the CDC to give the American people health guidance. The Biden administration showed similar disregard for the science when it came to natural immunity. Meanwhile, the evidence for how awful and horrid lockdowns were continues to accumulate.

Dealing with a post-pandemic world had its effects in making the world topsy-turvy. One notable area was after Hamas attacked Israeli civilians on October 7. Here you have an anti-Semitic, homophobic terrorist organization with genocidal intent that carried out an actual pogrom. Hamas terrorists raped, kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and decapitated hundreds on that day. I came to a realization about Hamas. Even if Israel were to get rid of Hamas, Palestinian survey data still show that most Palestinians hate Jews and do not want a two-state solution. This undermines the narrative that Hamas is some minority, rogue party as opposed to being a reflection of the majority of Gazans. 

Even before the Israeli Defense Forces began its ground attack on Gaza, there were many eager to blame Israel and have declared Hamas to be the good guys. I noticed that many on the Far Left in particular embraced anti-Semitism and Hamas. I had to ask myself why, which resulted in a three-part blog series (Part I, Part II, and Part III). I noticed the Far Left/woke doublespeak on Middle Eastern politics, especially with the word "genocide." Here is Israel, a country who is trying to minimize civilian casualties in a densely populated urban war zone, falsely accused of genocide. Meanwhile, the Far Left is content on ignoring the entity that has been calling for genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews since its founding, i.e., Hamas. 

The Israeli-Arab conflict is not the only instance in which the woke crowd plays fast and loose with the meaning of words. It goes beyond the Woke Left being incapable of distinguishing between correlation and causation, which helps explain why the Woke Left likes to view nearly everything as racist. As I pointed out in January, it is part of a greater strategy to render words meaningless all the while gaining power. This doublespeak exists when they call colorblindness racism. The phrase "gender-affirming care" comes under great scrutiny considering there is not evidence to show that it is truly affirming care. 

Speaking of the LGBT community, I was flabbergasted as to how the Human Rights Campaign could declare a "state of emergency" for LGBT rights when 2023 was far from the worst year for LGBT rights in the United States. This is what happens when people declare everything a crisis to score political points. 

This crisis mentality was clear with climate change. I reached the point where I had to write about how we should be skeptical of climate change fear-mongering. This was especially acute when the media was freaking out about heat waves this summer. I did something which very few, if any, climate change activists have done, which is ask what it would actually take to implement Net Zero. None of this stopped the Biden administration from trying to implement energy policy based on such hysteria, whether that was gas stove bans, stricter emission standards to encourage electric vehicle purchases, or rigorous water heater energy efficiency standards.

Other forms of craziness this year included bowlderizing Roald Dahl's texts, conservative moral panic on Drag Queen Story Hour, French citizens protesting an increase in the retirement age, the Supreme Court ruling affirmative action as unconstitutional, a TikToker's rant on time blindness showing a pervasive victimhood mentality in society, the U.S. credit rating being downgraded again because of Congress' fiscal irresponsibility, blasphemy laws in Denmark, the Federal Trade Commission going after Amazon (see Part I, Part II, and Part III), and woke K-12 educators removing honors classes and basic skills requirements to water down education. 

As the previous paragraphs illustrate, I researched and analyzed a wide variety of issues this year. My takeaway from it is a greater disregard of freedom, words being rendered meaningless, and lowering standards to the point where mediocrity and people's feelings are more important than emotional resilience, work ethic, moral decency, or facts. As we put 2023 behind us, I hope that we can look forward to a better year than this one.

The Endangered Species Act at 50: Should the Act Become Extinct?

This week is the fiftieth anniversary of President Richard Nixon signing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into law. This law is hailed as the most comprehensive law in preserving endangered species, which makes sense given how comprehensive it is in terms of the history of environmental conservation. As lauded as ESA is by environmentalists, I have to wonder if the ESA has been worth the cost. 

Speaking of costs, let us start the conversation there. The think-tank Competitive Enterprise Institute released a thorough report in 2018 on the many costs that come with the ESA, including the bureaucratic process costs (see GAO report here) and recovery costs. In terms of annual government costs, CEI put the number at $1.5 billion [in 2018 dollars]. CEI also illustrated various economic impact report of the ESA regulations, with annual costs ranging from $0.8 million to $113 million per species.   

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) brings up a series of other considerations in its ESA research paper, including the ESA's effects on private property and landowners, litigation related to the ESA, the cost of listing species and the resulting economic impacts of the ESA, and the delays in listing, delisting, and reclassification of species under the ESA (CRS, p. 53).

Some could argue that the cost the ESA is worthwhile, even in spite of the high price tag. I have to wonder if the benefits of the ESA exceed the cost. I analyzed the ESA seven years ago. Much like I did then, I bring up what should be viewed as the primary metric of success. What if you go with extinction rate? As of October 2020, 11 species out of 2,400+ species listed under the ESA went extinct (CRS, 2021, p. 53). In 2023, this figure increased to 21 species. In either case, it would mean that over 99 percent of species under the ESA did not go extinct. One could argue that keeping species alive is a worth goal.

However, the ESA does not simply exist to prevent extinction of species. A major provision in Section III of the ESA defines conservation as "to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary." In other words, the Act itself states that preventing extinction is not enough. To be deemed successful by the Act's own terms, there needs to be recovery of the species under the ESA. 

As of October 2021, 54 species under the ESA were delisted due to recovery. By this metric, this would mean that the ESA's success rate is under 3 percent. That high failure rate does not consider the possibility that there are reasons outside of the ESA that species were successfully recovered. For example, the EPA's DDT ban prior to the passage of the ESA was more likely to positively contribute to the bald eagle population. Another example: plants do not receive the same level of protection as animals under the ESA, yet nearly two dozen of these species delisted were plants. Since a species can be re-listed, there are three instances of duplicates, thereby bringing the count down to 51 species.

As we see from the research conducted by environmentalist think tank Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) struggles to meet its recovery objectives by FWS' own assessments. 

The ESA is not a true success since most species remain on life support, much like it is not an example of success if human beings are perpetually dependent on welfare benefits. It might take more than 50 years to recover certain species, but the FSW data show that recovery progress under the ESA remains slow. Excess regulation in protecting species does not surprise me because it is something mainstream microeconomic theory would predict. If the government penalizes a certain behavior, there will be less of it. Who is being punished? Private landowners. 

As a report from PERC entitled A Field Guide for Wildlife Recovery illustrates, the ESA creates perverse incentives to preemptively destroy habitats before it attracts endangered species (PERC, p. 24). The ESA's provisions are exclusively punitive. They do nothing to encourage or reward habit restoration or other recovery efforts (PERC, p. 44). What I really enjoyed about reading this report is that suggested a myriad of alternatives to recover species, whether it is to streamline voluntary conservation programs for landowners, not limiting the states' flexibility to manage experimental populations, or compensate land owners for restoring habitat. 

Alternatively, privatization would work for fish and other species that could be farmed (e.g., the black-footed ferret). There is also the option of converting federal lands into fiduciary trusts. If you are going to reform the ESA, it needs to be done in a way that aligns the incentives of landowners with the interest of rare species. Otherwise, the ESA's punitive approach will continue to fail at its ultimate objective of recovering species.

IMF Study Adds to Evidence Base That More Immigration Improves Macroeconomic Growth

Something that has boggled me for a number of years is the increased opposition of the U.S. Right to more immigration. Gallup polling on immigration shows us a perplexity: half of Republicans view immigration as a good thing, but only 10 percent of Republicans want immigration to the United States increased. I was reading an article from Niskanen Center Senior Fellow Neil Gross entitled "The Conservative Case for Immigration." Gross argues that immigrants are more likely to be religious, which would help placate those on the U.S. Right that are worried about declining religiosity in the United States. Furthermore, the political right in the U.S. has placed emphasis on economic prosperity, whether in the form of lower taxes, less government spending, or fewer government regulations. 

Gross highlights some of the research on the economic effects of migration. I want to point out one particular study that Gross mentions, which is a Cato Institute study on the fiscal impact of immigration (Nowrasteh, 2023). While government outlays for first-generation immigrants (including welfare benefits) averages to $11,360 per person per annum, it is also true that the same study shows that those same immigrants make an economic contribution of $16,200. In other words, immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. That addresses the myth that immigrants are a drain on welfare services. 

This debate on immigration is more than welfare benefits. The question is whether greater immigration provides a net benefit to the macroeconomy. According to a study from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released last week (Engler et al., 2023), the answer to that question is a resounding "Yes!" Per the IMF research paper's abstract:

In OECD, large immigration waves raise domestic output and productivity in both the short and medium term, pointing to significant dynamic gains for the host economy. We find no negative evidence of negative effects on aggregate employment of the native-born population. 

Not only does immigration show no negative impact on native-born labor markets. Whether we are talking GDP, employment, total factor productivity (TFP), or labor productivity, immigration is a net boon for the economy (see below). 

As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce brought up this week, the United States is missing 1.7 million Americans from the workforce compared to February 2020 before the lockdowns. Even if every single one of the 6.5 million unemployed Americans found a job today, there would still be 3 million open jobs. As I illustrated in January, immigration would be a great solution to solving that problem (here's a Niskanen Center report about how it would help the care work industry specifically). Whether it is high-skilled immigrants or low-skilled immigrants, allowing for increased immigration would help solve the United States' labor shortage while improving the country's economic growth. 

For the Umpteenth Time: The Accusations That Israel Is Committing Genocide Are Baseless

Hamas launched a series of armed incursions against Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. These attacks included kidnapping, rape, torture, and decapitation of Israeli citizens, a brutal day that has resulted in over 1,200 dead Israeli citizens. The fact that they posted their brutality on social media and bragged about it made it all the more abhorrent. Even from the onset, I knew that Israel was going to respond militarily and Israel was going to hit hard. I was worried about waning global support for Israel because the goal of eradicating Hamas was not going to be an easy feat and not achievable in a matter of hours or even days. Given the short news cycle that is stunted by social media, it turns out that I was right. 

It has been a little over two months and many have either forgotten why the Israeli Defense Forces are in Gaza in the first place or simply do not care what happened to Israeli citizens on October 7. Not only is the United Nations pushing for a ceasefire, but an old trope is reemerging. Which trope is that? The reemerging trope is the accusation that Israel is committing genocide. I call it an old trope for two reasons. One is that the accusation of blood libel against the Jews goes back centuries. The second is because accusing Israel of genocide has been going on for decades now. On my blog, I first addressed the accusation back in 2014.

This accusation has a number of problems. One is that it ignores that 377,000 have been killed in the Yemen War and that over 300,000 civilians were killed in the Syrian Civil War, including 3,146 Syrian Palestinians. In an unsurprisingly hypocritical fashion, the pro-Palestinian protestors only lose their collective mind when Israel does anything, including taking a metaphorical breath or sneezing the wrong way. Another issue is that genocide is not synonymous with "action resulting in multiple deaths that I personally find detestable or morally problematic." If words are to mean anything, you do not get to lob around loaded terms solely because you strongly disapprove of current events. The word "genocide" has a specific definition with specific requirements for it to constitute genocide. The United Nations first recognized it as a crime under international law in 1946. The definition below is contained under Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is the standard used in international law. After providing this definition below, I am going to delve into why Israel is not committing genocide.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: 

(a) Killing members of the group; 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

Israel has stated that it does not have genocidal intent. As we see from Article II of the Convention defining genocide, intent is a legal prerequisite to be classified as genocide, vis-à-vis the clause "with intent to destroy." The other major part of the intent stated in Article II is wanting to destroy the group as a group, which is important since every provision in Article II emphasizes the group component. 

The statements made by the government of Israel since October 7 do not constitute genocidal intent. Even when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his controversial Amalek reference on November 3, he also made it clear that the goal "is to destroy the brutal and murderous Hamas-ISIS enemy," not the Palestinian people. A few days later, Netanyahu said that civilian deaths are unfortunate and that the blame should fall on Hamas. Netanyahu also disciplined a cabinet member for calling for a nuclear strike on Gaza since that would skyrocket the civilian death toll to unacceptable levels. 

Contrast that with Hamas, which has been blatantly overt since its founding in 1988 about its goals to wipe out Israel and the Jewish people. Shortly after the October 7 attack, Hamas official Ghazi Hamad declared on Lebanese television that Hamas will repeat the October 7 attack until Israel is annihilated. That sounds an awful lot like genocidal intent to me. Plus, the October 7 attack gives us a good idea of what they would do if the IDF decided to lay down its arms. 

The Israeli Defense Force's actions indicate a desire to mitigate harm, not cause it. It would be one thing if Israel were saying one thing while doing the opposite thing. Fortunately, that is not the case here. I can simultaneously recognize that the death of innocent civilians is both an inevitable outcome in war and that such civilian deaths are also a tragedy. That being said, there are several indicators that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is doing its utmost to minimize civilian casualties. 

Before its ground invasion, the IDF called for the evacuation of Gazan citizens by dropping leaflets and online videos, which is something it has done in past incursions. The IDF even held off its ground invasion for a week. The IDF has a practice of calling off a military attack if the civilians remain in the area, with calling off an airstrike in May 2021 being but one example. No other military in human history has given advance warning to the other side of its attacks because it means losing element of surprise, as well as giving enemy combatants the opportunity to escape. A similar consideration goes for Israel's implementation of a humanitarian corridor and daily four-hour pauses of fighting. What frustrates me is that the anti-Israel forces are so hellbent on discrediting Israel that they partake in the mental gymnastics to argue that these measures are genocidal. If Israel were truly intent on genocide, it would give no such warnings or relief to Gazan civilians. The IDF would simply use its military capabilities that ran in the Top 20 of the Global Firepower Index and attack Gaza with everything they have.

You do not need to solely read the IDF's description of how it minimizes harm to civilians in Gaza. As a paper from the Naval War College Review details (Merriam and Schmitt, 2015), the IDF has a track record of minimizing civilian casualties. We can also look at the civilian-combatant ratio to have a metric of how the IDF is performing. The estimated civilian-combatant ratio in the latest Israel-Hamas War is about 2:1, which is comparable to other major wars. This ratio would indicate that the IDF's actions are not beyond the pale when it comes to its goal of targeting Hamas' military installations, especially given the context that I highlight throughout today's piece. 

Israel is responding to a pogrom that was carried out by Hamas. Israel did not start this war. On the contrary! Prior to October 7, the IDF did not have a military presence in Gaza since it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The war was imposed on Israel because a terrorist organization decided to carry out the largest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Israel is interested in eradicating the terrorist organization Hamas, bringing the remaining hostages home, and defending its people, the latter of which is a right under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. The idea that hunting down terrorists with genocidal intent is genocide is yet another example of jaw-dropping doublespeak that has emerged in recent years. 

Whether reflected in words or deeds, the IDF's military campaign is the opposite of what eliminating Gazans would look like. Given Hamas' genocidal intent (see previous paragraph) and the fact that Hamas has launched at least 11,000 rockets into Israel since October 7, Israel is well within its right to use significant military force to defend its borders, provided of course that it is directed at legitimate military targets, e.g., Hamas' network of 1,300 tunnels. Rather than violate international law, Israel's actions have been informed by the rules of International Humanitarian Law. 

Palestinian population growth disproves the accusation of genocide. The charge of Israel committing genocide is not unique to 2023, but rather an argument that has been made over the past few decades. If Israel were committing genocide against Palestinians over time (in what is referred to as "incremental genocide"), the proof would be in the pudding, i.e., the population statistics. Other genocides that have taken place, whether the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, or the Srebrenica massacre, had notable population declines in the targeted group. 

There would be a similar decline in the Palestinian population if genocide were taking place. What took place in West Bank and Gaza was the opposite. The raw population data show that Israel has not partaken in genocide. In 1950, the population was below 1 million. In 1990, it was 1.97 million and increased to 5.04 million in 2022 (World Bank). Either Israel is comprised of the most incompetent génocidaires on the planet or the much more plausible response is that Israel is not committing genocide. 

Postscript. The IDF has a very tough task. A ground invasion in an urban area (and one of the most densely populated areas on the planet to boot) that has steadily been losing international support.  If that were not enough, IDF's efforts are hampered when Hamas uses its citizens as human shields, launches military operations from civilian sites, and urges Gazans to ignore the IDF and stay put. The Gazan civilian death toll would be lower if Hamas stopped exploiting civilians to improve its public image in the international community. To destroy Hamas and minimize civilian casualties given the circumstances is indeed a tall order for the IDF. 

Yes, Hamas is being pursued aggressively. Israel's actions in Gaza are grave because what happened to Israel on October 7, 2023 was also grave. War is prima facie a nasty business, regardless of the justification. With all the aforementioned context factored in, does it make the IDF's military operations genocide? Absolutely not! If you paint it with that broad of a stroke, any act of war, whether offensive or defensive, whether justified or not, would be genocide. As sad as civilian casualties are, they do not automatically constitute as genocide. 

We have to be able to distinguish between general and/or legitimate types of warfare versus a deliberate policy of mass extermination. To reiterate, genocide has a specific meaning with serious connotations. Throwing around the word "genocide" so capriciously and with such carelessness means that the term loses its moral and legal meaning. It should not be used as a cudgel in a political war against Israel. By rendering the word to such meaninglessness, the framework of international law ends up being undermined:

"A society which does not understand the moral distinction to be drawn between the IDF's campaign in Gaza...and the Holocaust, and uses the same word, 'genocide,' to describe those events, is a society which is simply not serious about morality at all. It is a society which does not understand the difference between tragedy and hatred, or the moral implications of either." 

Some believe that Israel is justified in its actions to uproot Hamas to make sure that they can never harm Israeli civilians again. Others believe that the civilian casualties are too high of a cost to pay. We can get into a debate about whether Israel's response has been measured or excessive, whether their tactics are proper, or where there is room for improvement in how the IDF operates in Gaza. That sort of conversation would be within the bounds of political discourse and dissent. But let's steer clear of loaded terminology that is both inaccurate and does nothing to advance civil society because we should fight for a world in which the meaning of words still matters.

Higher Petroleum Product Prices: Yet Another Reason to Get Rid of the Protectionist Jones Act

If there was a legislative act that wreaks havoc on the shipbuilding industry and made it more expensive for you to purchase goods, it would stand to reason that you would want that piece of legislation gone. Yet that is exactly what takes place in the U.S. economy. 

The Jones Act is legislation from 1920 that regulates maritime commerce between U.S. ports in U.S. waters. The Act states that all goods between U.S. ports need to be carried in U.S. flagships constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and manned by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The Act was created after World War I with the idea of preventing U-boat attacks from the Germans. Given that it is 2023, I very much doubt the United States has to worry about a U-boat attack. 

Much like with any other forms of protectionism, it only benefits those who are bequeathed the rent-seeking. For the Jones Act, it primarily is the manufacturers of U.S. flagships and those employed by U.S. ports. Everyone else gets screwed over in the process.  Last week, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released a research paper on the effects of the Jones Act on the markets for crude oil and petroleum products (Kellogg and Sweeney, 2023). What would happen if the Jones Act were eliminated? It is not flattering for the Jones Act:

Eliminating the Jones Act would have reduced average East Coast gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel prices by $0.63, $0.80, and $0.82 per barrel, respectively, during 2018-2019, with the largest prices decreases occurring the Lower Atlantic. The Gulf Coast gasoline prices would increase by $0.30 per barrel. U.S. consumers' surplus would increase by $769 million per year, and producers' surplus would decrease by $367 million per year. 

Keep in mind that this is only the crude oil and petroleum products markets shipped in ports in certain regions. There are other industries that use U.S. ports to ship goods. The fact that the Jones Act drives up consumer prices does not surprise me. In 2017, I conducted an analysis about how the increased shipping costs make consumer good more expensive and reduce the GDP. As this 2018 research paper from Cato Institute points out, it is ridiculous that a bill whose national security rationale ceased to exist for decades can still exist. The repeal of the Jones Act is long overdue and could not come sooner. 

Denmark Banning Quran Burning Is a Sign That Freedom of Speech Is Becoming Less Valued Globally

Imagine living in a country where you can get fined or thrown in jail for mistreating a book. You do not have to imagine because it is going to happen in the nation of Denmark. This year, there have been 500 demonstrations in Denmark by anti-Islam activists that have included burning the Quran or flags. This has led to outrage from Muslim-majority nations. That outrage translated into political pressure. 

Last week, the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) passed a law that makes it a crime to "inappropriately treat, publicly or with the intention of dissemination in a wider circle, a writing with significant religious significance for a religious community." While the law does not mention the Quran by name, it nevertheless was designed with Quran desecration in mind. The Danish Justice Peter Hummelgaard made that point clear the day the bill passed. The law de jure punishes burning the Quran either with fines or two years of jail time. 

It should come as no surprise that I take issue with the Folketinget's decision. I know Denmark is not the United States. Thankfully, freedom of speech is so well-protected in the United States that burning a U.S. flag is constitutional. As I pointed out in 2016, burning a flag of the United States is not how I would personally go about expressing discontent. However, I did point out that the flag is their property and they should be allowed to burn it, especially since they are not physically harming anyone. I would extend this argument to burning a Quran. To quote British media outlet UnHerd:

"There can be no doubt that book burnings are crude, deliberately provocative, and a poor substitute for reasoned debate. But when conducted by private individuals, they serve as non-violent symbolic expressions intended to convey a message -- the essence of freedom of expression." 

For a free society to function, people need to be allowed to say or do things that are deemed offensive. I have brought up that offensiveness is subjective and that trying to not offend anyone has no upper limit when it comes to censorship. I have been for freedom of speech and expression, which includes making jokes about transgender people, the continued publication of Roald Dahl books, hate speech, the French satirist newsletter Charlie Hebdo that makes fun of religions (including my religion), and an anti-semitic operetta. 

Only allowing for speech you agree with is not free speech. That freedom of expression has to be allowed to those whose opinion you cannot stand. I articulated that concept last month when it came to pro-Palestine protestors and activists. These protestors base their arguments on lies, half-truths, and taking things woefully out of context. They complain about ethnic cleansing while advocating for ethnic cleansing of Jews. They bemoan a fictitious genocide while ignoring the one that Hamas is diligently working towards. While I abhor what they have to say, I support their right to express their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. 

What is obvious is that Denmark's bill is designed to shield Islam from blasphemy. In 2015, I wrote a piece on how criticizing Islam is not Islamophobic, as well as how we should be able to criticize everything, including Islam. The fact that Denmark is passing this bill out of safety concerns speaks volumes. It means that Islamists have a veto over liberty in the Western world. 

It is ironic because, as one Muslim scholar from Cato Institute brings up, the Quran itself says the way to deal with those who mock Islam is not banning, throwing people in jail, or the death penalty. Rather, the Quran demands patience (3:186) and staying away from the mockers (4:140). Even if the Quran allowed for punishing the mockers, do proponents think that a blasphemy law will make people respect Islam? If anything, it will only seek to agitate dissidents further while making Islam or Muslims appear too thin-skinned to handle criticism. More freedom of speech eases such tension (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023). What I can anticipate is that blasphemy laws in Denmark will more likely lead to greater savagery:

"For censorship tells certain groups that their beliefs are so perfect, so pristine, so beyond the scurrilous commentary of mere mortals, that those who dissent from them are deserving of punishment. Censorship begets intolerance. In force fielding certain ideologies from criticism, it incites the adherents to those ideologies to seek out and 'discipline' the filth that dare to dissent."

Although Denmark has a population of under six million, this trend in blasphemy laws is perturbing. Denmark abolished censorship in 1770, which we can see in §77 of the Danish Constitution. Look at the Index for Reporters sans frontières (RSF), or Reporters without Borders in English. Denmark has ranked in the Top Ten for greatest freedom on information. Denmark's enactment of blasphemy laws is worrisome indeed. Reason Magazine aptly summarizes my concerns:

"Denmark's surrender to violent extremists and states that imprison, lash, and execute 'blasphemers' is a disturbing sign of the free speech recession that is sweeping the globe in the 21st century. One can only hope that the First Amendment [in the U.S. Constitution] will continue to serve as inspiration to liberal reformers across the globe in a world where free speech is in fast retreat."

Having to serve jail time simply for insulting a religion is not progress. Mimicking the intolerance of Islamists is not going to make them disappear or feel placated. All that Denmark's legislative move will do is embolden the most radical elements in Danish society while further eroding freedom. Having some people offended is a small price to pay for freedom. I hope the rest of the world realizes the importance of freedom of speech before we are further enveloped by the iniquity of authoritarianism. 

Which is the Truer Miracle of Chanukah: The Military Victory or the Long-Lasting Oil?

While Chanukah is a minor holiday on the Jewish calendar, it is one of the most well-known Jewish holidays due to its proximity to Christmas on the calendar. The main ritual of Chanukah is lighting a nine-branched candelabrum called the menorah. Jews light the menorah to commemorate the miracle. The four letters on the dreidel, a four-sided top commonly played during Chanukah are an acronym to spell out the phrase "a miracle happened there" (נס גדול היה שם). What exactly is the miracle celebrated during Chanukah? 

One possible answer is given from a prayer recited during Chanukah. The prayer Al Ha Nisim (על הנסים; "Concerning the Miracles") waxes poetic about the military victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks. The prayer mentions the dedication of the Temple, which makes sense because the word Chanukah (חנכה) comes from the root חנך, which means "dedication."

Another has to do with the menorah. While there was a military victory against the Greeks, that was not the miracle that the Talmudic Rabbis emphasized. If you look at Tractate Shabbat (21a-24b), the Rabbis only make scant mention of the military victory. The focus is on the miracle of the oil. After the military victory, the Maccabees wanted to rededicate the Temple. There was enough oil in a single cistern for one night. However, that oil miraculously lasted for eight nights. This would explain why the festival of Chanukah lasts for eight nights. Also, one of the alternative names of Chanukah in Hebrew is "Festival of Lights (חג האורים).

So which miracle is more important: the military victory or a jar of oil that lasted longer than it should have? At first glance, I would say the military victory. The Maccabees were outnumbered more than 3:1, not to mention they were poorly trained and equipped. The Maccabees won at similar odds to the fledgling modern state of Israel that was surrounded by hostile nation Arabs in 1947 shortly before Israel gained its independence. This miracle could be conceived as a salvation of the Jewish people. 

On the other hand, should it be a bragging point that the Jewish people can win a war once in a blue moon? Plus, if the military victory were so great, why would G-d need to have performed the second miracle with the oil at all? Maybe the miracle is the long-lasting oil. It would be similar to a smartphone battery on 10 percent miraculously lasting eight days. After all, the long-lasting oil is the answer that the Talmud (Shabbat 21b) gives. Conversely, the Maccabees could have used impure oil because, as the Talmud (Yoma 6b) states, "service to the congregation [Temple] supersedes laws of purity." 

Here is an alternative response to the question. The answer of which miracle is more important could come down to how one perceives the concept of a miracle. In Hebrew, the word most commonly used for "miracle" is nes (נס). The word literally means "banner," which would suggest that the occurrence is extraordinary, elevated, and something that can clearly be seen. Seventeenth-century Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi said that what we refer to "nature is actually miraculous and "unnatural." The only reason we see something as "natural" (e.g., gravity) is because we have become accustomed to it. As a result, we take them for granted. In a time when wars happened all the time, winning a war seemed "natural" and not out of the ordinary. The fact that a military victory was "expected" and a jar of oil lasting longer was "unexpected" could change our perspective.

As I wrote a decade ago, Chanukah is a holiday that has a heavy focus on gratitude. Gratitude is a matter of perspective, much like R. Ashkenazi brings up with what constitutes as a miracle. If we view such events such as oil burning or a military victory as "natural," then they are to be expected. To quote the Talmud (Niddah, 31a), "The one to whom the miracle is happening, does not recognize the miracle." Alternatively, G-d could have woven them into nature, as Maimonides opined (Guide for the Perplexed, II, xxix). Or perhaps G-d it stepping in and breaking the laws of nature to make a point (Lubavitcher Rebbe).

If we view what happened as "business as usual" or as anomalies, then there is nothing impressive beyond defying statistical probability. If we view wonders of the world as miracles, then both the military victory and the long-lasting oil are miracles with their unique characteristics. Maybe what makes a miracle a miracle is how we recognize and appreciate an event. By recognizing the miracles traditionally celebrated during Chanukah, perhaps the main miracle is that we continue to celebrate Chanukah all these centuries later, even in spite of the Jewish people having dealt with oppression, persecution, exile, stigma, and sadly for too many, death. The real miracle could be that we extend the concept of miracle from the Maccabean era to the modern era.

One last thought on "expected versus unexpected." If we only do something because we "expect" it, then it can limit our potential. The oil on the first night of Chanukah was not the miracle because there was at least enough oil for the first night. As I heard from Rabbi Ari Hart, what made the first night a miracle was the Maccabees took that first step forward thinking there was not enough oil. It was that courage to move into the unknown, even more so than they did fighting the military battle against the Greeks. What makes Chanukah miraculous is achieving what we thought was previously impossible. I will conclude today with a quote from Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen:

Chanukah is when we think about the potential stored up in every effort. Nature is begging us to give up, to be realistic, to realize that the task of growing in a way we hoped is far beyond our ability. The response to this is Chanukah. Chanukah says: Nature can be vanquished. What seems to be impossible, isn't.

Why Argentina Needs to Ditch Its Peso and Pursue Dollarization "Ya Mismo"

Argentina's economic state has been in disarray for quite some time. In 2003, the Argentinian peso (ARS) was valued at about 3 pesos to the U.S. dollar (USD). The peso has undergone such devaluation that it the ratio is 361 ARS:1 USD. In other words, the Argentinian peso is worth about 99 percent less now than it was two decades ago. It is expected to devalue another 70 percent in the next year. Last month, Reuters reported that inflation in Argentina has hit 143 percent. It has gotten to the point where about 40 percent of Argentinians live in poverty. And here I thought that the inflation in the United States hit my wallet! I can only imagine what Argentinians have endured in the past couple of decades. 

This economic pain would help explain why Argentina elected its first libertarian president. In November 2023, 55.7 percent of Argentinians voted in Javier Milei into office. This is the highest percent of votes that an Argentinian presidential candidate has received since Argentina has been a democracy. The Argentinian people have had enough with failed Peronism and are open to a change to improve their economic situation. One of Milei's most notable policy reforms is dollarization, which is the adaptation of the dollar as the country's currency. Below, I will address some of the common arguments used by critics of dollarization. 

Dollarization means giving up seignorage. If Argentina adopts the dollar, that would mean the Argentinean central bank (el Banco Central de la Républica de Argentina, or BCRA) giving its ability to generate profit from creating money, i.e., seignorage. Shortly after coming back from my vacation to Ecuador in 2021, I addressed this point while analyzing the Ecuadorean case study on dollarization. In spite of relinquishing seignorage along with lender of last resort status and being more able to handle external shocks, dollarization ended up being an improvement over Ecuador's hyperinflation in the late 1990s. 

Plus, if Argentina were to relinquish its seignorage, it would mean losing an estimated 0.6 to 0.8 percent of GDP, according to Argentinean economist Emilio Ocampo. Yes, it means the BCRA would lose some revenue. However, for a country with a 2022 GDP of $632.77B, a price of $3.8-$5.1B is a small price to pay for greater economic stability and avoiding hyperinflation. 

Argentina would not be able to handle external shocks without seignorage. First and foremost, Argentina is already at a grave disadvantage with the hyperinflation and devaluation of the peso that has increased poverty in Argentina. Giving up seignorage seems like a reasonable tradeoff. Second, the three Latin American countries that have formally dollarized (Ecuador, El Salvador, and Panama) entered the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID pandemic with lower interest rates than their Latin American counterparts. Plus, the dollarized countries have been able to maintain lower rates of unemployment. 

Even if there were something quite exigent, these countries could still approach the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This argument also ignores the Panamanian case study. Panama integrated its banks into the global markets after a series of liberalization measures. As a result, its changes in the money supply are based on an interplay of local factors and the global credit markets, and not at the whims of the U.S. Federal Reserve. 

Where will the dollars come from? This is one of the main questions that dollarization critics ask. The criticism here is that there are not enough available dollars in Argentina to make the transition to dollarization. As of October, the BCRA had a currency-reserve deficit of $7.5 billion. There is concern if the BCRA cannot cover the difference because it could mean further devaluation of the peso and subsequent economic downturn. However, there are reasons to not be concerned:

1. If Milei shows a sincere commitment to dollarization, creditors will be inclined to lend the difference.  
2. As the Ecuadorean and El Salvadoran case studies show, Argentina would not need to have the difference covered overnight. As a matter of fact, Ecuador and El Salvador were able to dollarize in a way that not only avoided bank runs, but resulted in an increase of bank deposits in dollars. 
3. The Argentinean economy is already dollarized in an informal sense. As of the end of 2022, Argentineans held $246 billion of U.S. dollars in foreign bank accounts, safe deposit boxes, and undeclared cash. This is greater than the $50 billion in Argentinean pesos that exists in the Argentinean M3 money supply. As such, the fiscal cost of dollarization would be low. 
4. There is the matter of the liquidity note (LELIQ, or letras de liquidez) time bomb. In its current state, it would be an obstacle. However, swapping the BCRA's assets for bonds in a foreign jurisdiction would diffuse the bomb. 

Dollarization is not a silver bullet. This seems like a red herring because proponents of dollarization are not making that claim. After examining the Ecuadorean case study in 2021, I realized that dollarization was not going to solve Ecuador's woes. Dollarization does not fix intractable budget deficits. Rather, dollarization was a necessary first step to improve economic conditions. For Ecuador, Argentina, or any country considering dollarization, they would need to realize that dollarization needs to come with other fiscal and macroeconomic reforms.  

The reality of the matter is that the burden falls on the critics of dollarization to prove that the BCRA can stabilize the economy without giving legal tender to hard currency. The critics of dollarization cannot provide a solid alternative to dollarization. As Argentina's history shows, exchange rate pegs or currency boards have not fared well for Argentina. Decades of BCRA negligence and intransigence show that the Argentinean central bank lacks the discipline to do so, which makes dollarization a more attractive monetary regime. In effect, the Argentinean economy already does not have a lender of last resort on the national level. Even if you are to invoke the IMF as a lender of last resort, guess which currency the IMF uses in its lending? U.S. dollars. 

Dollarization is not going to motivate Argentinean politicians to embrace fiscal prudence or austerity. At least with dollarization, having monetary policy and fiscal policy as two separate forms of policy can minimize the damage that Argentinean fiscal policy can wreak on the Argentinean people. It means that the BCRA cannot print pesos to spend more money than it receives in taxes. To finance deficit, it would have to borrow instead of printing. Dollarization would tame inflation and price volatility. It would mean that the citizens of Argentina would not have monetary policy grind them into poverty. Ultimately, it is hope for economic prosperity in Argentina.