Remora

The prophets of Baal.

Elijah was one of the more sensible prophets in the Old Testament, combining Houdini's magic tricks and Commandante Marcos' light show of manifestos and media bravado. Plus he had an experimental attitude rare among the credulous prestidigitator set, dimly foreshadowing Bacon's aphorism: : "...in the true course of experiment, and in extending it to new effects, we should imitate the Divine foresight and order. For God, on the first day, only created light, and assigned a whole day to that work, without creating any material substance thereon. In like manner, we must first, by every kind of experiment, elicit the discovery of causes and true axioms, and seek for experiments which may afford light rather than profit."

It was in this spirit Elijah devised the first consumer comparison test. Here's the passage from Kings 1: 18:

19: Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel's table.
20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto mount Carmel.
21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between 1two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:
24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the 1name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.
26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.
29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

Now, readers, you know that Jehovah was on point that day. The Lord of Hosts rose to the experimental task, and sent flame down to the altar. The conclusion of the story is this:

"And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there."

Why is Limited Inc delivering this sermon? Trust me, reader, to have an (eventual) point. The prophets of Baal are still with us, and still calling for the sacrifice of the children. But they have a different name today: they are called, for instance, Chicago School Economists. And they are also averse to experiment, when it conflicts with theory. They would as easily explain the failure of divine conflagration as they explained the debacle of energy deregulation in California: it is always a matter of not having deregulated enough. And their numerous failures aren't succeeded by a healthy hacking up on the shores of the brook Kishon, but by commentary on Fox TV stuffing the worship of Baal down the people's throats. In numerous forums the Jezebels of the right would attack all Elijahs as essentially treasonous liberals, and King Ahab, no bright bulb he, appoints, as ocassion arises, commissions made up of prophets of Baal to investigate the bankruptcy of Baal.

Bringing us to Larry Eliot's column in the Guardian. It begins with a nice graf about the current state of inequality :

"Everybody knows that the world isn't fair. Inequality is part of the human condition. Always has been, always will be. What has never really been clear is just how unequal life is. Now, thanks to an economist at the World Bank, it is clear. The richest 50m people, huddled in Europe and North America, have the same income as 2.7bn poor people. The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%."

Ah, the prophets of Baal squeak, just think what would happen if those 50m people didn't have their wealth! Why, the poorest 57% would be getting no drippings at all!

In light of the recent plummeting of Argentina (a paradise of Baal theory) and Enron (a company that "got it"), the Baalistas should be on the defensive. They aren't, however, having the utopist's immunity to the evidence of the senses. Eliot's column goes on to compare Australia and New Zealand. Although it isn't well known in this country, New Zealand experienced the shock therapy of Thatcherism in the most thorough manner in the 80s:

"Starting in 1984, the country's Labour government said that this all had to change. It started by deregulating interest rates, removing international capital restrictions, floating the currency and removing agricultural subsidies.

Having got the taste for change, it then scrapped regulations on business, abolished import quotas, enshrined price stability in law as the sole object of monetary policy, forced workers into individual contracts, announced that budget deficits would eventually be banned, cut income taxes and slashed welfare benefits. This was not a detox regime: it was cold turkey."

Australia, on the other hand, didn't get it. It lumbered around in the Old Economy. It cut a little bit from its welfare state, it mouthed the usual claptrap about market solutions rather than government interference, and in the usual 80s manner the unions were undermined -- but not totally.

Well, children of Israel, guess what:

"The latest edition of Political Economy (Volume 14 number 1) contains a fascinating comparison of the track records of the two Australasian nations by Paul Dalziel, a New Zealand academic. His first conclusion is that New Zealand's living standards have suffered badly when compared to those in Australia." Dalziel quantifies "badly" like this: "... had output in New Zealand matched that in Australia, per capita incomes in New Zealand would have been almost NZ$5,000 (�1,473) higher by 1998 than they actually were. The cumulative loss to each individual was NZ$30,000 and the cost to the country was a chunky NZ$114bn."

And so it goes. Although we are supposed to be beyond all that crass class warfare stuff in the 21st century, class was never really abolished in the last twenty years. When we are asked to pursue economic policies that systematically benefit one class and systematically injure another class, we should recognize this advice for what it is: an old strategem in the old war of the ruling class against its subjects. It is a conflict that is not going to abate any time soon. I should point out that the parallel between the prophets of Baal and economists is not perfect. While the old style prophets "cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them," the new style prophets prefer to practice their bloodletting upon entirely other bodies: preferably the work force.