The irrelevance of good intentions.

 The irrelevance of good intentions.

A vital and profoundly essential element of Market Capitalism is its capacity to serve masses of people of all income levels and dramatically improve their lives. This essential element is invisible to many (most?) people. Widespread thinking regards profit making as a necessary evil that needs to be tempered by acts of charity by the profit makers. Some even think that profit is unnecessary and that companies that produce stuff for sale, ought to donate all their profits to worthy causes. 

This attitude, so common, is rife with confusion. In fact it is the opposite of the truth, as explained in the WSJ op ed reproduced below. The greatest, most effective creator of value, and reducer of poverty, is profit. In an unencumbered competitive market the only way to make a profit is to produce something, some good or service, that someone values, that improves someone’s life. In fact, the “good” done by making profit far exceeds in value terms the amount of “good” done by charitable giving – though in America the latter is impressively huge. The benefit created by Bill Gates’s Microsoft, by the creation of software solutions, far exceeds the benefit created by his donations to non-profit efforts to fight malaria, AIDS, and other worthy causes. This is not to suggest that such charitable efforts are either unnecessary or should be abandoned. They are vital for certain targeted specific benefits – health, homelessness, research, etc. And they would not be possible without the generosity and particular passions of the profit makers to make their mark in many different ways.

I find this is one of the most difficult ideas to teach or to convince many of my “liberal” friends about. The key obstacle is to get past the fundamental truth that good intentions are not necessary for good results, and, in fact, mandating good intentions (by mandating generous behavior) is counterproductive, it produces bad results. In an open market the pursuit of profit (self interest) produces good results whatever the intentions of the profit maker. Voluntary trade creates value for everyone involved. It is created, not distributed.

------------------------------

You are receiving this email because your name is on my email list for periodic communication of what I think is interesting information. If you would no longer like to receive these emails, please reply to this email with a request to be removed from my list.

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jeff-bezos-earned-his-fortune-5e57dc45?st=KXJWiz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

Jeff Bezos Earned His Fortune The Amazon founder’s innovations save customers 22 hours a year on average, giving them the gift of time. By Marian L. Tupy May 26, 2026 4:56 pm ET   Amazon founder Jeff Bezos speaks at the America Business Forum in Miami, Nov. 6, 2025. Rebecca Blackwell/Associated Press Amazon founder Jeff Bezos recently made a point that every critic of billionaire wealth should confront: “If I do my job right, the value to society and civilization from my for-profit companies will be much, much larger than the good that I do with my charitable giving.” To see if he is correct, consider the one resource that is truly finite: time. Modern debates about wealth start in the wrong place. They begin with the fortune. They should begin with customers and their time. Mr. Bezos is worth roughly $275 billion. That number offends many people because they assume wealth must have been taken from someone else. But Amazon didn’t become valuable by force. It became valuable because hundreds of millions of people chose to use it. Consumers weren’t forced to buy books, batteries, diapers, cables, razors, tools, groceries or printer ink from Amazon. They did so because Amazon saved them time, money, effort or uncertainty. Sellers weren’t forced to use Amazon’s marketplace. They did so because it gave them access to demand. Firms weren’t forced to use Amazon Web Services. They did so because renting computing power was cheaper than building and maintaining their own information-technology infrastructure. That is capitalism: People get rich by creating something others value enough to buy. The Bezos fortune looks large because it is visible. The value Amazon created is harder to see because it is dispersed. A mother who doesn’t drive to a store to buy diapers doesn’t appear in an economic headline. A small business that reorders supplies in two minutes doesn’t make the evening news. A rural customer who gains access to goods once available only in cities doesn’t receive a subsidy check with Amazon’s logo on it. Yet each transaction saves time, and time is limited. Consider the arithmetic. Suppose an hour of labor is worth about $64, roughly the average gross domestic product per hour worked in the countries in which Amazon operates. If Mr. Bezos’ fortune corresponded to the total value that Amazon created, his $275 billion would represent about 4.3 billion hours of saved time. Divided among Amazon’s more than 300 million active customers, the saving comes to about 14 hours per customer over Amazon’s life. That’s nothing. Many customers save that in a month. But entrepreneurs don’t capture all the value they create. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that innovators keep only a small share of the social value—roughly 2%—produced by their innovations. Under that assumption, Mr. Bezos’ $275 billion fortune implies that Amazon created about $13.8 trillion in total value for society. At $64 an hour, that means Amazon has saved its customers about 214 billion hours. Across 300 million customers over roughly 32 years (Amazon was founded in 1994), the saving equals about 22 hours per person a year. That is 25 to 26 minutes a week, or a little less than four minutes a day. So the question isn’t whether Mr. Bezos has too much money. It is whether Amazon has saved the average customer four minutes a day. The answer is yes. A single avoided trip to a store can save 30 minutes. Finding a product online instead of driving to three retailers can save an hour. Reading reviews can reduce the chance of buying the wrong product. Automatic reordering can save repeated errands. Price comparison can save money and time. Fast delivery can substitute for inventory kept in closets, garages, offices and warehouses. The savings extend beyond retail. Amazon Web Services lowered the cost of starting and scaling companies. It gave firms computing capacity without the old capital expense. That made experimentation cheaper. Some firms failed faster. Others grew faster. Both outcomes matter. Cheap failure is part of progress. Amazon also forced competitors to improve. Walmart, Target, grocery chains, hardware stores, logistics firms and online retailers responded with better websites, faster delivery, wider selection and lower search costs. Even people who dislike Amazon benefit when its competitors become better because Amazon raised consumer expectations. Charity can do good, but Mr. Bezos is right: Business can do better. Charity moves existing resources toward chosen ends. Business, when it works, creates new value by reorganizing labor, capital, knowledge and logistics. Philanthropy can fund scholarships, clinics, museums and disaster relief. Enterprise can improve how hundreds of millions of people spend their time every week. Some people will spend the extra time earning money to buy things they previously couldn’t afford, helping their communities, enjoying the company of their loved ones, taking a holiday or relaxing. That distinction is often lost. Critics praise billionaires when they give money away but condemn the process that made the money possible. That is backward. The social contribution of an entrepreneur usually occurs before the charitable foundation is created. It occurs when customers gain, workers earn, suppliers sell, competitors improve, and resources move to better uses. None of this means Amazon is perfect. No large company is. Amazon can make errors. But that doesn’t cancel the basic fact: Amazon created enormous consumer surplus. The moral case for Mr. Bezos’ wealth doesn’t require blind admiration of his business acumen. It requires arithmetic. If Amazon saves each customer 22 hours a year, Mr. Bezos’s fortune passes the Nordhaus test. If it saves more than that, society receives far more than he keeps. It is easy to resent the billionaire. It is easy to ignore the saved hours. But the hours matter because time is limited. It is our most precious resource. Count the time saved, and Mr. Bezos’ fortune becomes less mysterious and much more defensible.  Mr. Tupy is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

From my Facebook page. It just gets worse.

 It just gets worse, much worse!

As if on cue to my post about double standards an distortions when reporting on Israel, who else but the veneraned New York Times, and their esteemed columnist Nicholas Kristoff, should channel probably the most reprehensible lie, set of lies, about Israelis to date. alleging engineered dog rape of prisoners.

It is so outrageous and disgusting that one wonders how anyone could believe it, but, then as Haviv so eloquently points out, many don't believe it, they deliberately fabricate it in order to create imaginary Jewish monsters for others to believe in, monsters to be vilified and slaughtered. The believers believe because, quite simply, they are ignorant idiots who want to believe.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2092753614618487

From my Facebook page. What about the application of double standards when judging Israel?

 Today’s musing minute. Longer than usual.

 What about the application of double standards when judging Israel?

 I have generally shied away from arguments that rely on the responds, “yes, but what about X” where X is as guilty, or more guilty than Y, the target of the argument. “What aboutism” is correctly, in my view, thought to be a weak and ineffective, illegitimate, evasive form of argument.

 However, when it comes to current criticisms of Israel, Israeli policy, I find myself unable to avoid the impression that Israel is being singled out for criticism in a biased indefensible way. And this, unavoidably, pushes one to think, “what about X?”, where X is often the antagonist against whom Israel is acting, or, at least, some other party in a similar situation. In short, blatant double standards.

 I need to be clear that Israel’s actions should never be excused solely for the fact that it is being judged more severely than even worse actors. Valid criticisms should stand, but it is also appropriate to call the critic to account for leveling criticisms in a selectively biased way. And I am speaking not of a hypothetical or rare instance of this. In fact, instances of this double standard are all to common, coupled with deliberate or irresponsible distortion or fabrications of information, ubiquitous across social media. So, let me be more specific.

 The application in the public discourse of double standards to Israeli matters was already very common, a standard among the woke, anti-western social-justice warriors, for whom economic success means exploitation and its absence means the victim of that exploitation. These are the voluble useful idiots serving every antagonistic culture, most notably, radical Islam. For them the world is divided into exploiters and victims, and Capitalism is by definition an exploiter, a manifestation of colonialist imperialism. Victims can never be condemned for violence and brutality because they are, after all, the hapless desperate products of historical exploitation simply reacting to decades of trauma. What else can you expect?

 So, this was already common prior to October 7, 2023, the day Hamas launched a well-funded, coordinated attack on southern Israel, the single most deadly attack on Israel ever, and the single most one-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It was more than a massacre, it was a frenzy of rape, butchery, infanticide, and unspeakable brutality, that was celebrated by the assailants wearing bodycams to record and transmit their “achievements”. To imagine anything more diabolical is impossible. The Nazis set the standard for depravity, and since then I have always thought it inappropriate to evoke the term “Nazi” for egregious, but lesser horrors. But, October 7 actually revealed monsters even worse than the Nazis. As has been much noted in this connection, the Nazis tried to hide their sins, and Germans have tried hard to atone for the sins of their countrymen. But, these Hamas barbarians are exceedingly proud of what they did, as are their many supporters. They are worse than Nazis.

 So, one might have expected, as I and everyone I know did, to witness a wave of sympathy and severe condemnation on behalf of the victims. Shock!! In fact, while some did indeed react immediately and without equivocation, very many did not (surprisingly, one exception was the squad member Illan Omar, who seemed immediately to realize, whatever reprehensible views she might have in general, there was no alternative for anyone seeking moral credibility but to unambiguously go on record as soundly condemning this. Of course, it has not changed her general outlook on Israel and the west in general.) But, for the rest, the pattern was one of complete silence or muted delayed response, and, even the odd excuse and justification. I need not quote chapter and verse. It has been widely documented just how many so-called “liberal” people and organizations remain silent to this day, how many have dragged their feet to produce pathetic half-hearted expressions of sympathy and muted condemnation. So much is well known.

 In the time since Oct. 7, however, matters have become much worse. Astoundingly, Oct. 7 has been used as permission for the greatest proliferation of Jew-hatred (piled on top of generalized anti-Israel sentiment) since before WWII – manifesting not only in the rise in the number of events, but also their severity, all over the world, and notably in America. And, it seems clear that this has fed into the palpable media bias to which I referred earlier. This is easier said than proven. I will, however, offer a few suggestions for evaluating criticisms of Israel.

 Immediately after Oct. 7, I set for myself a litmus test for evaluating any analysis or argument about the situation. When talking to someone about it, I first want to establish their unequivocal condemnation of Oct. 7. I want to hear that, regardless of any views as to the merits of each side of the argument about Israeli exploitation, occupation, etc. NOTHING can excuse Hamas’s actions of Oct. 7. If someone cannot admit that much, I pretty much have nothing to say to them. So, on occasion, when I have seen self-righteous complaining about Israeli aggression, specific acts of aggression, I have asked them if they were equally outraged about Oct. 7 and, if so, did they take to social media to say so, or about any other aggression against Israel. Perhaps not surprisingly, I have encountered indignant outrage that I should even bring this up. When I push they tell me of course they condemn Oct. 7. And then I ask, where and when did you condemn it? No reply.

 Another suggestion is the critic using polemic indefensible language. Whatever Israel did in retaliation to Oct. 7, or, for that matter, is doing now in Lebanon to try to neutralize a massive military force put there for the single goal of destroying Israel and killing as many jews as possible, it is not “genocide”. The word has a very specific meaning, one that originates with the Holocaust whose aim was the obliteration of the Jewish people. Intention matters. If Israel intended a genocide against the people of Gaza and Southern Lebanon it would flatten them in a matter of days. Was the bombing of Dresden in WWII a genocide? Whatever one thinks about it as an action of horrifically immoral proportions, it was not a genocide. It was not aimed at obliterating the German population. And the casualties were a huge order of magnitude greater than those in Gaza and Lebanon. In fact the casualties in Gaza and Lebanon pale in comparison to ongoing events in the Sudan, in Nigeria, and other places. And, incidentally, it is undeniable that Israeli armed forces go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, while Hamas goes to equal lengths to use civilians as human shields. There is plenty of independent evidence attesting to this. How should one then interpret the lie that Israel deliberately targets civilians?

 The use of the word “genocide” is a dead giveaway. It is not only a grossly inaccurate use of the word, in a context that is fraught with deliberate misinformation, it is actually a perverse attempt to minimize the Holocaust. Anytime anyone uses the terms Nazi or genocide in connection with Israeli action, make no mistake, this is a not-so-subtle attempt to taint the very victims of a real Holocaust with the guilt born by those who perpetrated the Holocaust. “You Jews, are such self-righteous victims, but now look you are acting like Nazi genociders”. So, hearing anti-Israel criticism I would look for those clues.

 Finally, I am surprised to hear seemingly fair-minded people strike a sort of moral-equivalence pose, as if what we have here, are two equally guilty or innocent parties at loggerheads over legitimate issues. This is ridiculous and it is very disturbing. It indicates an abysmal ignorance of the history, the 78 years of Israeli history and all the history leading up to 1948, and/or a deliberate bias against Israel because it is in its character part of the west, while its Muslim antagonists are not – a clear case of exploiter and victims by nature of their identities regardless of their actions. Israel is an imperfect society, an imperfect state. But, it has adopted and mostly upholds the rule of law for all its citizens regardless of race or religion. It also has a free and critical press and an armed force that is frequently held to account. There is quite simply no single state in the middle east that is even close to resembling that. It is quite obvious that when comparing news items originating from Israel on the one hand and from Hamas, Al Jazeera, Iran, … on the other, one is not dealing with sources that are equally likely to be true, that are equally trustworthy. I have heard it suggested that both sides have an incentive to distort the news to the same extent. But this is not true. Israel has checks and balances that the others do not. One should apply much greater skepticism to those.

 It behooves any fair-minded thinker to know all this, even while justifiably criticizing Israel, and to strive to counter the insidious influences that pervade this discourse.

From my Facebook page. The anti Mamdani Muslim.

 Testimony to how influential your parents are in determining your whole mindset, including how you think about your society and your country. In this fascinating interview with Reihan Salam, a New Yorker of South Asian Muslim origins, like Mamdani, the contrast could not be more stark. One cannot underestimate the importance of the family in shaping one's whole life. People like Salam are on the side of hope against the side of fear and despair.

 And notice the influence of the Manhattan Institute.

 Here is a particularly interesting slice from toward the end.…

"That appears to be what drew the mayor’s parents, cosmopolitan and prosperous people, to the U.S. Mr. Mamdani was “raised as a very devoted son, steeped in these kinds of Marxist, Third Worldist ideas,” Mr. Salam says. “He’s said that he came to socialism in America through his commitment to the Palestinian cause.”

 This dovetails with Mr. Mamdani’s politicized professions of faith, which he sees “through the lens of discrimination, victimhood, and imperialism,” Mr. Salam says. “Islam is a kind of banner of oppression for him.” That disturbs Mr. Salam, the nominal Muslim.

“I assimilated into a Jewish-inflected America,” he says. “Many of my teachers and mentors were people whose ancestors had come to the country during the great wave of Jewish migration.” These were people who believed “in a pluralistic, meritocratic, overwhelmingly positive” vision of America. “These were people who fled pogroms. There was no going back.”

 He says he is “obsessed” with the Tenement Museum on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, which shows visitors what it was like to be an impoverished Jewish immigrant in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. “You were in the rag trade, but then your child or grandchild moved up and created this civic and philanthropic energy that came from that feeling of America as a refuge. That is really powerful.”

The Jewish American story “made everything in my life possible,” Mr. Salam says. “When I think about the people who just had this incredible openness to talent, I see their mammoth contribution to making America true to itself.” The “explosion of antisemitism” after Oct. 7, 2023, and “the so-called anti-Zionist and anti-Israel energy” that is so visible in Mr. Mamdani’s New York, is “driven by this incredible envy and resentment and hatred of a community that has enriched American life.”

 “I see this,” Mr. Salam says, “as a profound threat to my city. I see this as a profound threat to my America.” "

---

Click below to read the whole interview.

 wsj.com

Reihan Salam: What’s the Opposite of Mamdani?

From my FB page. What is Hezbollah?

 Today’s musing minute. What is Hezbollah?

It behooves one to know as many of the facts as possible, when considering any particular conflict on the world stage. 

I wonder how many people know the background of Hezbollah. This is a military group established and funded by Iran over many decades that is essentially occupying Lebanon. Lebanon was perhaps the most successful post~colonial country in the Middle East. Its native population is very diverse, the two majority groups being Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims. They established a democratic government composed of members of both groups. It is a beautiful country and was successful. Beirut was sometimes referred to as the Paris of the Middle East. Hezbollah has ruined Lebanon and has brought a great deal of suffering to its people.

Hezbollah slowly, but surely built up its forces composed of hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslim men from Iran. They were placed there for one reason and one reason only - the destruction of Israel - any discussion of a peace based on a two state solution would have to take account of this. Hezbollah has absolutely no interest in a two state solution. Their single-minded objective is to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. Their whole raison detre is the destruction of Israel and the removal of Jews from that position in the “land of Islam”.

Accordingly, perhaps belatedly. Israel is attempting to find a way to exist in the face of this threat. To remove this massive military force completely is probably impossible, and eventually, some kind of policy of constant containment will have to be adopted. But in the meantime, death and destruction continue.

The evile within many humans is not remediable.

 

Today’s Musing Minute.

The Starman said.
"You are a strange species. An interesting species. You are capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares."

I recently posted a remembrance of Zsuzsanna “Zsuzsi” Ozsváth, the inspiration behind and founding director of the Ackerman Center at UTD. https://ackerman.utdallas.edu/

Tonight I attended one of its many events: a lecture by Tali Matas, a remarkable South African scholar of the Holocaust and of human rights.

She spoke about the growth of Holocaust studies—by which I mean *the* Holocaust, the one perpetrated by the Nazis. It was gratifying to hear that efforts to raise awareness and deepen understanding are in fact increasing. One hopes those efforts will succeed.

Yet I worry about the blunting effect of history. As the event recedes further into the past, the enormity and horror it once evoked may diminish, and it may come to be seen as merely one more among history’s many atrocities rather than something quite unique—unique in its duration, its bureaucratic efficiency, its scope, and the sheer difficulty of explaining it. The same might be said of the phenomenon of Jew-hatred itself.

This is precisely what Holocaust education must strive to communicate: a signal example of just how depraved human beings—and even an entire modern, sophisticated society—can become.

When we contemplate the Holocaust in light of current events, we see that this darker side of human nature persists. It is not buried deep within the psyche; it can appear openly and proudly, for all to see. More troubling still, it can be cultivated—from childhood to adulthood—under the right social and ideological conditions.

Extremist factions within Islam attest to this every day. Anyone who examines what they say and do with open eyes will see it: large numbers of people driven by a violent ideology that seeks the subjugation—or elimination—of “non-believers,” especially Jews but also Christians.

I generally agree that comparisons to the Nazis should be used sparingly. But in this case it is difficult not to notice certain similarities—and also a crucial difference. The Nazis often tried to conceal their crimes. The jihadists proclaim theirs openly and proudly, convinced they are doing God’s work.

A guiding credo in the West is the belief that, under the right conditions, all people can be brought to recognize the sense and justice of universal human rights—rights that apply equally to everyone, without exception for race, gender, ethnicity, or religious affiliation.

Yet there is a stubborn—and perhaps delusional—reluctance to consider the possibility that a large portion of humanity does not actually share this belief. On the contrary, some hold firmly, even religiously, to the opposite view: that only certain humans are entitled to particular freedoms (and not necessarily the full range of liberties embraced in the West), while others may justifiably be subjugated—or even killed.

To cling to the assumption that everyone ultimately shares (or, more important, can be persuaded to shere) the Western conception of universal human rights is not merely naïve. It can also be dangerous. For this illusion risks blinding us to the reality of ideological movements that explicitly reject those principles, leaving us poorly prepared to recognize or confront them.

From my FB page - why are American Jews so "liberal"?

 

The Sapir article

Today's musing minute, What does religion have to do with it?

 Listening just now to Dennis Prager, I was struck by what may be an *essential* difference between the religious and the secular approaches to morality.

For the secular, Hume's fork applies, the one that fundamentally distinguishes between facts and values. Facts are matters of objective reality, not always knowable, and often incompletely knowable, but always objectively given to us, outside of our perception of them. So, facts and values (what we regard as good and bad) are distinctive, completely unrelated categories. One concerns objective reality, the other concerns subjective belief (not amenable to scientific investigation and refutation.)

For the firm religious believer, Hume's fork does not apply, or, at least it does not apply in the same way. Both the laws of morality and the laws of nature are revealed to us (insofar as they are revealed) by God.; and they share the same ontological status. Good and bad are matters of objective fact as determined by God, in the same way as heavy and light, high and low, far and near, etc. are. It may be that the ways in which we comprehend and discover these God-given laws are different, thus demarcating scientific from religious/moral inquiry, but both are matters of trying to learn more about God's laws. As I say, scientific and moral laws are ontologically equivalent.

One does not go far along this route before encountering perceived contradictions, the most well known being, the problem of squaring God's omnisience and omnipotence with individual responsibility (and also the problem of the existence of evil given God's omnibenevolence) - a matter, I have learned, that my religious friends prefer to leave unresolved as one of God's mysteries. [footnote: For me it is like saying that, if he wants to, God can make it so that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 as well .]

So what? So, ok. As a practical matter, this very fundamental difference, matters most when the religiously zealous have political power, and matters least when they don't, because in the latter case they lack the power to compel belief and behavior according to their perception of God's law. Regardless of how we perceived their ontological status, religious laws must be held separate from civil laws, secular laws. In many respects, that move, the move towards "religious freedom" and the secularization of religious identity, that move allowed for the development of the modern world and the great enrichment. Theocracy is incompatible with the freedom of choice that we now take for granted and that made us rich.

It is fortunatethen, that for the most part, even the religiously inclined enthusiastically accept the separation of religion and state as necessary, and forsware the right to compel others according to their beliefs. But, we also know there still exists too many who have not made this move. The future of Western Civilization depends on its continued existence.

Today's musing minute. Will there be enough childern?

Other than family and friends, my greatest passion is economics. Studying, teaching and discussing economics is, for me, an endless pursuit of fascinating social phenomena, a window into the mysteries of the challenges and achievements (and failures) of the human race.

All the moreso since I have lived through numerous momentous changes that have brought us to the remarkable global economy we now inhabit. To say that the modern and post-modern ages are unprecedented is a massive understatement. We are, indeed, living in a brave new world, but not in the sense that Huxley thought. It is full of contrasts, but it is not as a whole dystopia, though some parts and some episodes may be and may have been. Instead, it is full of promise for the creation of ever-increasing human capabilities.

Much of this is a hyped-up version of economic development as usual, much faster and much more transformative; but following the expected pattern of value creation through expanding trade, production, investment, migration, and, most important, innovation.

But one thing is completely new. For the first time ever, human societies are facing a transformative decline in fertility as a result of enrichment, not of starvation or catastrophe, but as a result of choice, of the rising value of human time. And this implies declining and aging populations, with rising degrees of dependency of the old on the young, and worker shortages, etc.

Clearly it is a transition period. If we are to survive as a species, the population must stabilize, or rebound to increase, at some point, and it is easy to imagine various economic models depicting this. But in the meantime, a long meantime, there will be challenges. I believe strongly that, if we let it, the market economy will adapt spontaneously, in ways that we might not yet imagine, but we will feel changes.

One of the challenges is to our perception of children and of families in general. There is enormous evidence showing the economic (and psychological) benefits of strong functional families and the bad effects of their absence. The decision not to have children implies, at the society level, a society not invested in the future.

We are biologically wired to want to produce children. Especially women (in general). The popularity of family TV shows endures. And shows like Call the Midwife - a remarkable, enduring success about pregnancy and babies - suggests as much. So, it is my hope that some incarnation of "family values" will characterize currently emerging generations as they enter this new bewildering world.