- This topic has 45 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
In recent months, I’ve had the opportunity to investigate the organization Uri L’Tzedek thoroughly.
Many from my camp coalesce around a common circle of institutions- Ohr Torah Stone, YCT/IRF, JOFA, etc. Many who support Orthodox feminism also support Uri L’Tzedek, which claims to be a “social justice” organization.
The issue is as follows- any keen observation of political discourse shows that “social justice” is code for Marxism.
Granted, too much corruption exists in our communities. Cheating the government, tax evasion, cutting corners, an overall lack of yashrus is sadly a de rigueur attitude among many. This is inexcusable from a halakhic perspective. We need to be medakdek in our observance of dina d’malkhuta and Hoshen Mishpat, and a more universal mindset is appropriate for the times and circumstances in which we live.
While I believe a universalistic view of Judaism is admirable and l’chatchila- an honest statement of our texts and traditions, and not just an eis la’asos or utalitarian means to an end (certainly, halakhot dealing with darkhei shalom are utalitarian, but that is a purely legal understanding, which indicates the need and exigency for a broader theological discourse on the area, rooted in Tanakh, aggadata, and other understandings), the problem is the means by which they go about this.
a) Tav haYosher: Illegal immigration is a clear violation of the law. There is zero moral obligation for America to take in people seeking fatter salaries and stomachs. By claiming that these interlopers are entitled to economic and legal protections justifies a clear violation of the law on their part, and also is an affront and violation of the American taxpayer, who flips the bill for these immigrants. Additionally, in the NYC market, there are few places bearing this hechsher that would be considered under mainstream hashgachas.
b) Communism: The enemies of a free-market system historically have zero belief in G-d, Objective Truth, Morality, and the foundational principles of a system of ethical monotheism. Communism is a fundamentally anti-semitic belief system, and one that has declared war on all religion, especially Torah Judaism. ULT people advocate a soft version of communism, and have openly and proudly worked with communist radicals. When they boycotted Flaum’s, they marched with International Workers of the World, the Wobblies, a notorious self-described Marxist-Leninist labor union that advocates anarchy and promote worker solidarity in the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the employing class; its motto was “an injury to one is an injury to all,” demonstrating the leftist abhorrence for the individual and love for the collective whole.
Our leaders fought tooth and nail against a belief system created by a man (Karl Marx) who smeared Jews as “hucksters” and wrote a book calling for a “World Without Jews.”
The Hafetz Hayyim said that his biggest regret in life was not telling Russian yidden to take up arms against the Bolsheviks.
The magid Tzvi Hirsch Masliansky, zatsal, railed against communism on the Lower East Side, when many yidden joined these unions and socialist groups, keenly aware of the evils of collectivism and a system that disregarded individual humanity and people created b’tzelem elokim and advocated atheism.
Scores of rabbanim and yidden were slaughtered and imprisoned by Stalin in the gulags. The Little Black Book of Communism documents in detail all the genocides committed by the communists.
Likewise, according to the late great R’ Aaron Levine, zatsal, regarded as the expert on Judaism and economics, there is no way that a welfare state, minimum wage laws, etc. can be justified from Torah.
c) Israel: Elisheva Goldberg and many other prominent ULT people are active in J Street, Rabbis for Human Rights, and other left wing organizations that are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. (In all honesty, Rav YD Soloveitchik, Rav Shach, and Rav Ovadia Yosef were also gravely mistaken about land for peace, which we know doesn’t work and endangers Jews).
d) Anti-Semitism and Universalizing the Exodus: Liberation theology, I’ve learned, is basically code for communism. It’s how the left infiltrates and neutralizes churches and synagogues, and turns them into useful idiots for the communist movement (Lenin himself coined the term useful idiots to refer to the rank and file of the broader left). The liberation theologians were prominent Jesuits who advanced communist governments in Latin America in the 70s and 80s, and the attitude has spread to the Jewish community, with ULT trying to advance these views in the MO world. Rabbi Ben Greenberg, a YCT musmach, wrote a paper calling for an Orthodox liberation theology, and R’ Dov Linzer once advocated a view of Michael Walzer in his book Exodus and Revolution, which calls for the account of Yetziat Mitzrayim to be applied and used as a model of liberation for the nations.
When the unique Jewish nature of our exodus and liberation is applied to other peoples, the result is that our claim to the sacred narratives of the Bible are diminished, and the Exodus and its true and intended meaning are nullified.
Historically, when bible critics in Germany basically used Higher Criticism and made progressive, liberal applications of the Exodus narrative, the historical role of the Jews is diminished and our status as an am segula is thrown to the wayside. Fredrich Schleiermacher coined the term Social Gospel, which reduces religion to “social justice,” and the man was a huge anti-Semite. It was this theology and this trajectory of “liberal” theology which paved the way for the Final Solution (the Nazis attacked even orthodox, traditional Christianity and advanced these progressive approaches because when God and His Word are no longer the ultimate source of authority and inspiration, people look to the state/fuhrer for guidance; the great righteous gentile Dietrich Bonhoffer and his Confessing Church movement were like the Zionist evangelicals of today, and were all sent to the concentration camps due to their faith).
Schleiermacher’s views are sadly advanced by R’ Alan Brill, now professor at Seton Hall, who also embraces the thought of Habermas and the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School of social theory, who is THE rebbe muvhak for Ari Weiss, ULT director.
e) Conspiratorial connections: You have to look at who funds who in this world. We live in a world where money is all-important and a movement of useful idiots will be funded by those who have an interest in these goals being advanced.
George Soros is one of the most evil men alive. His Open Society Institute advances and has been directly linked to the Islamist anti-semitic movements of the past 4 years, and other revolutionary communist and Islamist movements.
Weiss himself was an intern at We the People, funded by OSI.
The rabbi sadly becomes nothing more than a Saul Alinsky-inspired “community organizer.” Alinsky dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to the memory of “Lucifer,” haSoton. The man was as evil as they come, and he is a source of chizuk for ULT.
They also petitioned the New Israel Fund for gelt; NIF is pro-toeva, pro-Arab, and anti-chalutzim. Furthermore, Ari Hart, another ULT operative, has railed against Pamela Geller and is pro-Islamist.
Shmuly Yanklowitz, another ULT leader, is involved with Rabbis for Human Rights, and spearheaded the push against Rubashkin.
It is beyond me that “”Haredi” rabbonim accepted a sefer torah from his shul in Kansas. Kehillas Ahavas Yisroel, led by Rabbi Yissachar Blinder, accepted the sefer torah, and the whole episode was not motivated by ahavas yisroel, but instead it was a PR opportunity for Yanklowitz. As a YCT musmach, he is trained by R’ Avi Weiss, who in all honesty, is a publicity whore and a PR hound. Yanklowitz was sure to get in the spotlight and see his countenance in all the frum papers in NYC for one reason: being photographed with men in black hats and being hailed by the OU (which doesn’t accept YCT people into the RCA) gives him an air of legitimacy, he feels. He thinks that people will look askance at his ill deeds and say that he does good (it is this mentality that allows Habad to flourish- the lomdus is that they do good work, therefore this is somehow “doche” and paturs their treif hashkafos and theology). Just another tactic taken out of the revolutionary’s playbook, sadly, and the tzibbur fell for it.
Be Kitzur: I am a proudly Modern Orthodox Jew. My views on giyur and feminism are very much a part of the discourse in this orbit, yet their embrace of communism and statism from ULT is unacceptable and unconscionable.
Thank you for raising some valid points. However, I do not feel that this has anything to do with being modern orthodox verses bais yaakov (I am currently at brovenders after having some issues at a more bais yaakov seminary, but I would love to jump back into a bais yaakov school next year such as pninim…). The point here should be that we should not support organizations that are against Israel. Condemning people with various hashkafos is not appropriate. It doesn’t matter if you are condemning people with your hashkafa, or other hashkafos. This post appears to be condemning all frum yidden. This is nothing against you.
“The enemies of a free-market system historically have zero belief in G-d, Objective Truth, Morality, and the foundational principles of a system of ethical monotheism. “
Anyone who has learned a few chapters of Nezikim understands that the Torah puts limits on free markets, and that sometimes those limits are quite draconian. The Author of the Torah understood that totally free markets are quite UN-ethical.
I understand that about brovenders, i am actually mixing two programs, I don’t take gemara classes, so when I am in my halacha classes looking at mashechtas, I don’t understand anything, which is ok, because I feel that after this year, I probably won’t be looking at aramaic again.
The community I am from is very black hat, even the modern orthodox schools are taught by black hat teachers, so it is more natural for me to lean towards bais yaakov, even in such a modern environment. Just because I am in a modern orthodox seminary does not mean that I am modern orthodox. Ask any of my friends, they will tell you that I am a black hatter.
Feminism is a form of “social justice”.
Charliehall,
Actually I have learnt more then a few Chapters of Nezikin and if you take the economic principles advanced by liberalism which in a word is “fairness’ and compare them to the economic principals codified in the Torah they are amazingly at odds.
Democaratic principals look askance at the idea of a Monopoly yet the Torah advocated the din of Hasogas Gvul which means that if a store is open cometition is not allowed to open in the area (of course this is the extremly basic law and a deeper understanding of Choshen Mishpat is needed to understand where and how it is applied.
While legally if a borowwer defaults on a loan the lender can only collect from “ziburis’ the lowest class of land Chazal raised it to “beinunis” the middle and stated expressly that the reason is becuase in order to encourage lending the compenstation must be increased in acase of default.
Now of course there is a fundemental idealogical difference between the Torah outlook and secular outlook.
Liberals have attempted and contiue to attempt to legislate “fairness”.
The Torah views “fairness’ as being the province of HKBH and man can only ensure, to the best of our abilities, that law ensures fairness of opportunity, quite similar to Conservative priciples in reality.
Rebdoniel, you have to pick a different term, then. Feminism today does not mean equal pay, anymore.
“Democaratic principals look askance at the idea of a Monopoly yet the Torah advocated the din of Hasogas Gvul which means that if a store is open cometition is not allowed to open in the area (of course this is the extremly basic law and a deeper understanding of Choshen Mishpat is needed to understand where and how it is applied.”
You are correct; laissez-faire would say the more competition the better. I am aware of several cases in the new york area where a beit din has ruled against a new business that had opened too close to a similar business.
“While legally if a borowwer defaults on a loan the lender can only collect “
In secular law, the borrower can declare bankruptcy to get out of the loan completely. There is no parallel in Judaism.
Judaism also does not provide for securitization of loans or limited liability corporations.
‘The Torah views “fairness’ as being the province of HKBH’
True, that is why halachah provides for leket, peah, shich’chah, maaser oni, shmittah, and penalizes ona’ah and geneivat da’at.
While this isn’t socialist, it is VERY far from laissez-faire.
And last I checked standard Liberal Policy pushes for “Liberal Bankruptcy Laws” which as you correctly noted are foreign to Judaisim, in Jewish Law if you borrow money from someone you must pay him back period.
And yes, Charliehall, the Torah does institute various forms of “personal” charity which was strenthened by the instution of “progressive” rates by BEis Din.
Please note though, that it is “personal charity” by those that can afford it that is mandated by the Torah not a burecratic forced taxation to a central authority in charge of giving to who they wish to give to.
And yes this would parellal the Conservative vs Liberal divide where each and every study shows that Conservatives are far more generous with their personal wealth towards others then Liberals.
This was recently evidenced by a Presidential race where both Canidates Romney and Obama were both extremley wealthy individually (Obama is a millionaire many times over) and yet while Romney gave 13% of his money to charity and his campaign was able to show multiple first accounts of his personal generosity.
Obama campaigned on forcing others to be charitable while his personal finances did not indicate anything quite like the charity he advocated.
As for Laisezz-faire.
I am unaware of a single Conservative or Republican Politician today that advocates a completley free-market system.
What they do advocate is keeping to the Principals of Capitolism that brought more people out of poverty then any other economic system in the World.
The Capitalist principals that produced the World Greatest Economic Power.
The most Charitable Society in the World.
And yes, an end to the horrible “economic experiments” that are currently being carried out on the backs of millions of hard working Human Beings who are being financially destroyed and facing a future which saddles their children with unpayable debts and broken promises that promised fiancial security but simply cannot be kept.
In other words.
Greece.
In secular law, the borrower can declare bankruptcy to get out of the loan completely. There is no parallel in Judaism.
There is actually a slight parallel in ?????? ???? ???, see CM 97.
Charlie: Nice to see you back. I see you commenting sometimes on crosscurrents, but I don’t like to comment there because they are so obsessive about anonymous posting, and there is no way I’m posting under my real name anywhere. I’ve got a career to worry about.
Popa,
Can’t you just make up a real sounding name?
Sure, but they are such annoying twits on account of that obsession that I don’t like to talk to them.
And I suppose you could securitize loans in judaism.
You can make non-recourse loans in halacha, so that would be a ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???. So suppose you have 100,000 non-recourse home loans, you could pool them together (you don’t really need a special purpose vehicle), and then put the cash flows into tranches (so that the top tranche is entitled to the first money that comes in, then the second tranche gets when the first one is paid off, etc), and sell off the rights to the cash flows ????? ?????.
(You might imagine the senior ones will be highly rated AAA since there is little chance that the top ones won’t at least be paid off. Then, you could take the middle ones, and resecuritize them, by pooling them with middle ones from other pools, and again separate those into tranches, and those top ones would also be AAA rated, and you might call that a Collateralized Debt Obligation, if you want.)
And that, my friends, is the simplest explanation of RMBS (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities) you have ever read.
The very fact the Bais din is Onesh people to sell cheap, and is willing to change Halacha to be Maikel for Hafsed & expensive prices (Rabban Gamliel by Kinim) shows something about the outlook of the Torah regarding both capitalism & communism. It doesn’t hold of either. More so, Bais din would force and embarrass someone to work to support his children.
Some creep and retard just attempted to post on this thread, “outing” rebdoniel by saying his real name (supposedly), and making threats to his professional relationships and his spiritual life. Of course, he was willing to out rebdoniel, but was afraid to put his own name even into his profile.
These are not the tactics of legitimate causes.
Also, I am laughing my head off, that when push comes to shove, these “enlightened Jews”, return to cherem-like punishments and vague threats about your olam haboh unless you agree with them.
Let me tell you something else about being enlightened, Mr. Creepy. The goyim still won’t like you, so you may as well keep the Torah.
lmho (laughing my head off)
lumiiwsbcactwaidcbilth (laughing until my illegal immigrant workers stop baking challah and come to watch and I don’t care because I’m laughing too hard) (that’s a real internet thing, btw)
He He,
Never knew Mods are allowed to have a sense of humor!
btw, I hope you blocked that posters account.
he he, I made it “inactive” so he can still come see what I responded. He he
PBA: Of course you can. You think Chazal did not think of most of these tricks? Chazal were not out to protect the big banks, they were protectiong the Ani, Yasom & Almana. The only difference is Chazal would not have printed the money & allowed the banks to go bankrupt. Then the owners of these banks would lose their shirts paying off the depositors.
Besides, the loans would not be worth anything anyway as it is assur to lend with Ribbis.
Please note though, that it is “personal charity” by those that can afford it that is mandated by the Torah not a burecratic forced taxation to a central authority in charge of giving to who they wish to give to.
Sheker.
Bava Basra 8B.
??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ??”? ???? ??? ???? (?????? ?) ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?’ ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????’ ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????
Nu, nu. So I’ll make heter iska on all of them.
Also, the more I understand about the bailouts, the differently I feel about them.
The banks were not failing only because the mortgages were going down in value. Even if half the mortgages in the RMBS market had defaulted, the losses would only have been about 3.5b. Merril Lynch lost about 20b in the 4th quarter of 2008.
The market was spiraling on itself, but it was just panic–not actual decline in value.
Meanwhile, the banks were forced by regulation to deleverage, and they were doing that by dumping assets which further exacerbated the problem. They really should have done that by raising more capital, but, for complicated reasons, it didn’t make sense for the banks’ equity holders to do that. The bailouts forced them to deleverage by raising capital.
Nu, nu. So I’ll make heter iska on all of them.
Expect many Shevuos. Besides, it would be questionable who is the Tovaiah that would be Mechayiv the Shevua.
The market was spiraling on itself, but it was just panic–not actual decline in value.
Meanwhile, the banks were forced by regulation to deleverage, and they were doing that by dumping assets which further exacerbated the problem. They really should have done that by raising more capital, but, for complicated reasons, it didn’t make sense for the banks’ equity holders to do that. The bailouts forced them to deleverage by raising capital.
I’m not sure where you are going with this, but the strong firms (such as GS) were able to raise private capital. It makes more sense to raise capital than to lose your shirt.
Because of the Debt Overhang. Google it.
Basically, even if they can get financing for the deal, and it is a good deal, the equity holders might end up with less than they were before because the added benefit is going to the debtholders.
For example:
Suppose there is 40m of debt. And currently there is a 50% chance they will have 60 and a 50% chance they will have 10 (and go bankrupt).
Now, they have opportunity to invest 30 in a sure deal that will make 40. So they should really borrow 30 and to that deal.
But they won’t do it.
Because what would the new debtholders ask for? They will ask for high enough interest that it will be worth it to take the risk, since even though the deal is a sure thing, in the bad state of the world, the other senior debtholders are going to take most of the money and leave them with only 10–a loss of 20. So we will need to promise to double that loss in the good state and give them 50!
Now, what do the equity holders get? Currently, in the good state of the world, they will have 20 left after paying the debt and in the bad state will have nothing, so their chances are worth 10.
But if they do the deal, then in the good state of the world, they will have 60+40 and need to pay back 40+50, so will have 10 left. But in the bad state of the world, their chances are only worth 5!
The intuition is that the added value is going to the debtholders–not to the equity. And who do you think makes decisions? The equity.
PBA: I’m impressed. Your assumption though is that the equityholders would not be wiped out, and certainly would not have to pay from their own pocket. At the very least the ownership could have transfered to the debtholders (even if they didn’t want it. M’Mare Rshusech Pari Ephra!).
Ever since the Sefer Torah transfer I’ve wondered about the sanctioning of the “Traditional Synagogue” in Kansas. To the best of my knowledge (from my many travels to Overland Park KS), Thgere are just 3 orthodox shuls there; 2 Lubavitch and BIAV, and this “shul” doesn’t have a mechitza.
That’s interesting.
GAW
Sorry but it most certainly is not sheker.
The charities mandated on a wide basis by the Torah are personal obligations that require a person to personally and directly care and support the poor.
In addition there are Cases (you sited one but there are plenty) throughout Chazal where wealthy people were either strongly encouraged or actually compelled to donate towards communal funds for the poor.
However the community wide “Robin Hood” type taxation encouraged by liberal economic policy that has never worked and has led to the impoverishment of millions (when the rich stop investing and creating jobs and governments run out of money) is not found anywhere in the Torah.
BL, GAW,
Another significant difference is that in halacha, it was the rabbonim who decided when to grab money from the rich folks. In America, it is the poor people themselves deciding to take money from the rich folks.
Halivai we’d have Robinhood. It’s stealing from the rich and keeping it for myself that I have a problem with.
I don’t believe it’s true that progressive taxation to fund poor relief (what you’re calling Robin Hood policies) is forbidden. See these halachic sources (from an online course by Chabad shliach R’ Nochum Mangel):
In a place in which there is the custom or the desire to levy a
single tax for all needs together, the method of taxation
should be essentially according to wealth. For according to Torah law, all we collect for all these needs to be according to
wealth [not on a per capita basis]. (SHuT Tsits Eliezer, 22, p. 122)
and [to provide] wages for police and guardsmen. (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 163:1, 2)
each other to contribute. (Rema on Choshen Mishpat 163:1)
All the householders who pay taxes should be assembled and
all should resolve to say their opinion [i.e., state their opinion
and cast their vote for it] for the sake for heaven and then follow the majority. If the minority refuses, the majority has the
opinion is ignored and we follow the majority of those who
speak. (Rema, Choshen Mishpat 163:1)
The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is
not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law,
but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is
yytz.
I do not think anyone is sstating that Liberal economic policies are categorically forbidden the question is if the Economic Model found in Chazal follows it.
The ansewer is that it is fundementally a lot closer to the Conservative model then the Liberal Progressive model.
And by the way you do realize that the Rema you qouted does state quite plainly that “all those that pay taxes” have a vote.
In other words the ones decideing are those that are paying the bills.
Much like the American Founders who made rules that only “landowners” had votes.
Whether the liberal or conservative economic model is more consistent with Yiddishkeit is debatable.
Note that virtually all the rabbinical authorities in Israel (whether Sephardic, dati leumi, litvish or chassidish) support political parties that argue for more state support for the poor, not less. And Israel is already to the left of America when it comes to welfare and anti-poverty policies. The only people advocating for cutting anti-poverty policies are some secular MKs in Likud.
Re: the Rema, well the poor do pay taxes: income (if they don’t qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit), sales tax (if they buy anything other than food), and property (if they own a house — some do). They pay fewer taxes, but that’s authorized by the Tzitz Eliezer.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to which economic model works better, in whichever impact measures are most important to you. This is a (debatable) empirical question.
Personally, I think the most important thing is that your average person can work hard and get their family’s basic needs met without working such long hours that there is no time for family and Torah study (see Avos 2:2). Europeans work far fewer hours than Americans do on average, and they don’t have to struggle to ensure they have basic necessities like health insurance (which is a real pain here, if you have a job that doesn’t provide insurance and/or you don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare). So by that metric, the more left-leaning economic models work much better. Their policies also result in much lower rates of extreme poverty than the US, which is another important consideration (for me, at least).
Can I suggest that this worthwhile discussion be moved to another thread? For rebdoniel’s sake, I’d like to see this thread fall off of the front page.
DY: Good idea, but why don’t the Mods delete this thread as RebDoniel requested? I don’t understand on what basis they could decline his request. He said his original post was untrue and hurt people’s feelings. At least erase the original post, if for some reason the mods want to preserve the rest of this thread.
YYTZ
The poor pay very few taxes on the Federal Level so of course while you are correct that a certain amount of taxes is paid on the state level, all that would mean is that there should be a certain amount of votin rights given on a state level.
It is interesting to note that it would seem to be more then a coincedence that States are far more conservative as a whole then the Federal Level.
As for which economic model works bettter.
First off from a HI standpoint the HI given “free’ in Europe basically works unless someone os seriouslly ill.
And one would think that some consideration should be taken of the fact that European Model Economic Policies are failing left and right and dragging the entire world down with it.
Your arguements might have worked a decade ago but now?
Ben Levi, regarding health insurance, the systems vary significantly by country, but in general, the data I’ve seen shows that citizens of countries with universal health care are much happier with their health care in practice than in countries like the US where we don’t have that. In fact, though, the US has universal “socialist” health care (the Veterans Administration, in which all the doctors and nurses and such are federal employees), and Canada-style single-payer insurance (Medicare) — they just don’t apply to everyone. Medicare, and especially the VA, get high marks for their quality of coverage and people seem pretty happy with them. So it depends on how it’s done.
I don’t think it’s the case that European welfare states are failing and dragging the world down with them (though austerity politics pushed by the Germans seems to be bad, it is unrelated to the general concept of a left-wing approach to social policy.) In the last few years the major western European economies aren’t doing any worse than the US. Greece is certainly a problem, but that had more to do with corruption and incompetence than the European model — for example, Greece has very low levels of social protection, among the lowest in Europe. Analysts have different views, but it seems that the main cause of the global financial crisis was US financial deregulation (a right wing policy in an economically right wing country), which allowed people to create absurdly confusing and overvalued securities based on mortgages and then fool most of the major banks into buying them all as if they were a stable investment.
About whether the poor should vote, you may be surprised by this, but the taxation systems in the most “socialist” economies (such as Scandinavia) are actually pretty regressive. The poor pay tons of taxes there, because a large proportion of revenues are produced through sales and VAT taxes. Regardless, universal suffrage is here to stay. I don’t think any Torah critique of it (if such a thing really exists) would ever be convincing enough to do away with it and restrict voting rights; there’s probably a good counter-argument anyway.
I mean, when the Orthodox become the majority in Israel (which will happen sometime in the next few decades), do you really think they’d say, well, we’re going to implement halacha now, and only the well-off can vote? No way. Everybody should have a say in elections. It’s a settled question, at least until Moshiach arrives (and by then perhaps elections will be unnecessary because there won’t be any problems for governments to worry about.)
yytz: Europe is doing significantly worse economically over the last number of years. Countries with socialist health care, including Canada and parts of Europe, have long wait times before you can see a medical specialist. And Medicare is not something people are generally happy with.
Shmoel, I’m not so sure of that. I just checked, and many of the European countries with big welfare states — including Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland — have current unemployment rates that are either the same as the US (about 8%) or much lower. Among the major countries known for their European social model, only France seems to be significantly higher (10%).
yytz
First off regarding the Torah view on voting.
You are correct that that facts on the ground are that universal suffrage is here to stay, however I was addressing the question of whether it is supported by the Torah.
The Rema makes clear it is not.
Regarding Health Insurance.
First off the question whether people in Europe are “happier” with their HEalth Care is irrelevent as to whether the Care is better.
I am sure you can realize that someone saying they are happy with the quality of their care does not reflect on the actual quality.
However the results of a survey done of over a 1000 seriously ill patients in Europe and the same number in the USA would be informative.
Now I am sure you will counter that there are many surveys showing longer life spans in Europe, howevet most of those surveys neglect to reveal their data i.e if they count infant deaths (in europe many studies do not, in the US they do).
They also neglect to state the qua;lity of care availible in European counties to elderly citizens.
EX. In england it used to be (I do not know the current law) illegal to grant Dialysis to people over the age of 70 while the same was not true in the USA.
This is a policy that would have grave Halachic ramifications on Jewish people who have a completley different view on the value of an elderly persons life then the secular world.
I admit I did not fully understand the myriad issues created by Socialized MEdicine until I was able to hear a 3 part shiur that spanned several hours given by Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz who practiced medicine in England and detailed the many Pikuach NEfesh Shailos that arise under the European Medical System.
Furthermore regarding the economy.
Greece is not the only problem.
Portugal, Spain, Ireland and other European countries actually pose the same threats.
And France actually is flirting with becoming the biggest problem of the bunch.
And to compare the economies of small countries where certain social policies are not cost prohibitive to the USA which is probably bigger population wise then all the countiresa you mentiones is avoiding a major part of the problem.
Social Policies cost money, that money must be produced.
Competent Medical Care requires Competent trained physicians those physicians must be willing to invest the time and effort to become competent.
As for US financial deregulation.
Actually the subprime mortgages that lay at the heart of the crisisabout 5 years ago were produced by financial institutions to comply with liberal economic policies.
Basically the banks were told they must lend to people even if certain populations were shown to be unable to carry the debt of owning a home.
After these “Home Equality” laws were put in place the Banks figured out how they could make money instead of continueing to lose money.
Historically it was Conservatives who tried to reighn in Fannie and Freddie and stop the underlying activities that eventually caused widespread destruction to the financial markets.
There is a clip on You Tube of an actual Congressional hearing where Democrats made clear they refused to go ahead with any attempt to address the problems that Congress knew about.
I would also add that you have addressed an issue that goes to the heart of the economic debate.
Under Bush the unemployment rate was around 4.5%
The unemployment rate under OBama during the Economic Recovery is around 8%.
So yes under curent economic policies which in many ways have implemented the European Model Socialist state, a similar situation where 8% of the country remain unemployed is in place.
Now of course those Liberals concede the math and acknowledge that the current “Welfare state” is unsustainible, however it’s sustainible enough to ensure that it will last for this generation, while they keep power and leave the next generation holding the bag.
Again a similar situation to Europe where young people hold demonstrations in the street that the benefits promised by their elders are being taken away.
And yes the unemployment numbers do not take into account the Real Unemployment rate which includes people who have given up looking for work and is significantly higher.
Conservative Economic Policies argue that the USA is capable of at least halvong that number and contiuing to ensure that the USA remains the dominant Economic power in the world.
I didn’t realize R’ Akiva Tatz is a physician — thanks for the reference. I took a quick look at stats on waiting times for specialist appointments and surgery. Canada the UK had longer waiting times than the US (I assume this is for the lucky ones who have insurance!), but Germany and the Netherlands had the same or shorter waiting times. Like I said earlier, each country is different. Here, the VA used to be awful, and now it’s in great shape.
In terms of such things as life expectancy, Western European countries have higher life expectancy than the US regardless of how you measure it; they also have much lower infant mortality. The main cause for all these additional deaths in the US is the lack of universal health care here(although the presence of more intense poverty here is also an important cause by itself.)
It’s true that government policies encouraged banks to give mortgages that people couldn’t pay back. But that wouldn’t have caused a global financial meltdown if it weren’t for the fact that these mortgages were securitized (and then became a large proportion of the holdings of major banks). They wouldn’t have been securitized if it weren’t for financial deregulation.
The other countries you mentioned such as Ireland and Portugal aren’t really examples of the European social model — they have basically the lowest social spending in Europe. The Northwestern European countries have bigger welfare states that are much more sustainable, for various reasons (such as high employment rates to ensure the policies get paid for).
I don’t think it’s reasonable to blame the unemployment rate on Obama; the financial crisis started under Bush and then led directly to the loss of millions of jobs. Maybe Obama could have done more to keep those jobs from going away, but that’s not an easy thing to do. I don’t think a Republican administration would have done any better (actually, it could have been worse if there were no stimulus and they didn’t bail out GM).
yytz
You fail to address many of the points.
I raised yes the securatization of mortgages caused the Financial crisis, however those “financial products” only came about becuse the Government essentialy forced Financial Institutions to grant those loans.
Once the Government forced the banks to create those products the banks found a way to make money on them.
And again it was the Conservatives who recognized the underlying problems these loans were causing and tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie.
This is a matter of Public Record as the Clip of a House Commitee heaing where Republican Congreesman were quite concerned at what was going on is availible on You Tube and it is veiwable to one and all that it was Democratic Congressen who essentially accused them of Racisim.
Furthermore you fail to address the point that the unemployment rate of the USA is only comparable to Europe if one accepts the current high unemployment rate as a long term proposition.
8% unemployment is “normal and even low in Europe it is not in the USA where unemployment is sin a normal economy is half of that.
Furthermore it is hard to understand how one can view any Socialist large scale economy as sustainible when Historically they have never been so.
In fact all the “Socialist” programs in the USA are currently unsustainible and all economists acknowledge this.
They furthermore acknowledge that they will have toi be cut so how does adding to them make them more sustainible.
And I furthermore fail to understand how Obama contiues to be allowed to blame his economy on Bush.
Reagan inherited an economy from Carter that by the numbers was far worse then the one Obama inherited.
Reagen implemented Pro-Growth policies (to be distinguished from austerity) that resulted in an Economic Boom.
Bush inherited an economy that was in recession whent the dot-com bubble burst and some of the biggest corporations in America disapeared (Enron,WorldCom, Arthur Anderson) and was quickly followed by a body blow to the US economy with the heart of the financial district being obliterated on 9/11.
Yet Bush’s policies led to sustained long term record low unemployment of around 4%.
Obama has pumped trillions into the econonomy, he has turned the USA from the World biggest Economic Power into what is increasingly looking like the EU on steroids and he still blames Bush?
Just because mortgages exist, doesn’t mean sketchy bankers have to make overvalued securities of them in outlandishly confusing ways meant to deceive banks into buying their overvalued product. If we’d had sensible financial regulation, as we did before the 80s, or reasonable oversight of securities practices during the Bush administration, none of this would have happened.
I don’t believe it’s true that conservative economic policies are more successful economically in the US. First of all, such policies don’t really exist — the conservative like Reagan and Bush II say one thing (fiscal conservatism!), yet do the opposite (cut taxes and raise spending, driving up deficits to record highs).
Second, the highest periods of economic growth were from the 1940s to the late 1960s, when we had FDR-style economic policies (Eisenhower didn’t change much), and the 90s under Clinton (and the first thing Clinton did after getting elected was dramatically raise taxes on the rich).
The millions of jobs that were lost because of the financial crisis that occurred under Bush II can’t be easily recovered. Most of them are gone for good. So I don’t think we can blame Obama for not magically recovering them all.
Anyway, if Obama had done what the conservative Republicans want — no stimulus, cut taxes on the rich and slash spending on the poor — we’d have an even worse recession or an even slower recovery. That said, I’m not a big Obama fan when it comes to economic policies — I don’t like a lot of things, like bailing out big banks and giving Wall Street insiders all the important policy positions.
You misunderstand — I wasn’t saying those European welfare states all have 8% unemployment. Many of them — like Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria — have unemployment rates between 3 and 6 percent. Not bad, given their aversion to Keynesian stimulus policies.
I don’t agree that there’s a consensus that US welfare state policies are unsustainable — that depends on our taxation system, which can be altered to produce additional revenue (whether that’s through sales taxes or income taxes or some other source.) A lot of the unsustainability talk is smoke and mirrors — social security, for example, is paid for from people’s paychecks, and is inherently sustainable, but the government raids the coffers for its convenience and then there ends up being a problem.
Your point about mortgages is actually correct but misses the point.
People do not lose money, lots of money willingly.
Until Cater and co introduced the concept of redlining mortgages were given out to people who could afford them, when financial institutions were forced by Liberal policies to lend money to those who could not afford it it became a msatter of time till they figured out a way to turn it around and make money off of it.
As for deregulation, I am somewhat puzzeled over why you continue to ignore the fact that DRepublicans did in fact push to reighn in Fannie and Freddie and as I noted there is a pretty well circulated clip on You Tube of an actual commitee hearing where Democrats made clear tey refused to go along with it.
It was Democrat appointees to Fannie and Freddie that made off like bandits and were never held accountable not the Republicans.
As for the wisdom of FDR style economic policies.
FDR was president for over a decade if his policies worked how come the recession lasted throughout his presidency?
Ansewer is that his policies did not work.
After his death Truman began to cut the massive taxes that FDR had implemented and finally the economy began to grow again.
JFK actually gave a pretty good speech about the wisdom of cutting taxes and implemented massive tax cuts that worked.
Another reference is New Deal or Raw Deal by Burt Folsom that does a pretty good job of detailing the impact and utter failure of FDR’s policies (but it’s not like reading as it’s pretty numbers heavy)
To state that the biggest economic boom occurred under Clinto is actually not true as it began under Reagen and coinitued through Clinton.
And to state Reagen did not cut is also an untruth he had a deal with Tip O’neill that cuts would be enacted Tip O’Neill backed out not Reagen.
Now by and large European Countries do in fact have endemic long term unemployment that is way higher the the USA.
Can you find one that is an exception?
Temporariy yes.
But for the one exception Five are collapsing (Portugal, Spain,Italy, Greece, Ireland, and Iceland collapsed years ago) and its a matter of time till the exception follows.
However in a tiny country that has massive natural resources they could pull of f certain things that a large country like the USA cannot simply since it’s cheaper.
Much like Alaska pulls off what other States cannot.
They have a tiny population, massive natural resource,s voiala.
And SS is not inherently sustainible since the model was created at a time when people lived shorter and had more children at this time there is an increasingly fewer amount of people paying in while the people living off it are increaisng rendering it unsustainible.
BL: Call it Rabbonim or the Government (which in the time of the Gemorah the Rabbonim WERE the local government), it doesn’t make a difference.
PBA: Another significant difference is that in halacha, it was the rabbonim who decided when to grab money from the rich folks. In America, it is the poor people themselves deciding to take money from the rich folks.
Halivai we’d have Robinhood. It’s stealing from the rich and keeping it for myself that I have a problem with.
Good point.
And SS is not inherently sustainible since the model was created at a time when people lived shorter and had more children at this time there is an increasingly fewer amount of people paying in while the people living off it are increaisng rendering it unsustainible.
SS is the easy fix, you just need to push off the retirement age (which for reasons you point out, make sense). Medicare is the big problem.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.