businesses compete with themselves

Posted on June 19, 2013 by christopher fisher

When people think of competition, they often do not understand that there are far more sources of competitive pressure than other businesses. Individuals might shift to DIY activities, like I did when I could not find sturdy, cheap shelving for my children’s play area. Instead I bought the lumber and constructed my own shelves. Another possibility is that individuals can do without the goods or services, and a third option is that they can buy a substitute product from the same vendor.

A heartbreaking story, a while back, from McDonnald’s announced that they were discontinuing the Angus Burger line of hamburgers. From the story:

But Richard Adams, who consults McDonald’s franchisees, said that the Dollar Menu has also made the Angus burger a less attractive option at around $4 to $5.

“When you can get four or five burgers off the Dollar Menu, nobody’s going to buy the Angus burger,” he said. “The Dollar Menu has become a real problem for these chains.”

Another problem was that McDonald’s wasn’t able to raise prices on the Angus burgers, even as its own costs for beef continued to rise… meaning its customers wouldn’t be willing to pay more than a certain amount for its food…

McDonalds cannot price their items however they please. Customers respond to incentives. McDonalds’ own menu put downward pressure on prices. As Jeffry Tucker might say:

the market system amounts to a giant conspiracy to reduce your profits to zero.

This story, however, has a happy ending. Try the new Bacon Habanero Ranch Burger.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Trade | Leave a comment

price controls cause famines

Posted on June 18, 2013 by christopher fisher

Thomas Sowell, in his Basic Economics, has an excellent chapter on price controls. Because prices naturally settle at an equilibrium price, if the government uses artificial means to set prices then there will either be a shortage or a surplus depending if they set the price lower or higher than the equilibrium price. When governments let prices work, even famines can be avoided. Thomas Sowell illustrates this with two contrasting examples from India:

Halfway around the world, in eighteenth-century India, a local famine in Bengal brought a government crack-down on food dealers and speculators, imposing price controls on rice. Here the resulting shortages lead to widespread deaths by starvation. However, when another famine struck India in the nineteenth century, under the colonial rule of British officials and during the heyday of classical economics, opposite policies were followed, with opposite results:

In the earlier famine one could hardly engage in the grain trade without becoming amenable to the law. In 1866 respectable men in vast numbers went into the trade; for the Government, by publishing weekly returns of the rates in every district, rendered the traffic both easy and safe. Everyone knew where to buy grain cheapest and where to sell it dearest and food was accordingly brought from the districts which could best spare it and carried to those which most urgently needed it.

As elementary as all this may seem, in terms of economic principles, it was made possible politically only because the British colonial government was not accountable to local public opinion. In an era of democratic politics, the same actions would require either a public familiar with basic economics or political leaders willing to risk their careers to do what needed to be done. It is hard to know which is less likely.

Another take away is that this would not be possible in Democracy. Democracy naturally hates shortages being cured.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Goverment, History, People, Price Controls, Sowell | 4 Comments

the intellectual companions of modern leftism

Posted on June 18, 2013 by christopher fisher

Those who are classified as right-wing in modern America are often slandered as Nazis. This is a peculiar claim, as right wing Americans usually espouse individual liberty and economic freedom. The Nazis, on the other hand, were socialists to their core. In fact, NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party (in the German language, of course). The real distinction between Nazis and communists was that the Nazis wanted their socialism to be national, whereas the communists wanted their socialism to be global.

The original Nazi party platform could today be mistaken for a Democratic stump speech: pro-union, pro-small business, anti-chain stores, anti-capital gains, pro-community, nationalization of businesses, social security, public education, public health campaigns, limits on free speech, and, of course, a strong federal government. This is not to mention the unfounded hatred of the Jews (common among the American left today).

The only place where Nazis seem like Republicans (not to be equated with the libertarian right wing) is in immigration policy. Of course, those who espouse individual liberty advocate the freedom of association, even if it means hiring, housing, or otherwise dealing with people who just happen to be born in a different country. So the real American right wing has absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi party.

From the 1920 Nazi platform on immigration and hiring laws:

We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich…

Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay…

On Capital gains:

It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

On Social Security:

We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

On business:

We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises

We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.

On education:

In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions—available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.

On physical fitness:

The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievement of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people

On freedom of speech and communalism:

We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race. The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our Nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.

On the federal government and labor unions:

To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

Would it be unfair to point out that Hitler was a fan of FDR?

Posted in Economics, Goverment, History, Leftists, State Worship | 2 Comments

arming rebels

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

A Facebook quote from a good friend:

So… If we’re going to give the Syrian Rebels guns or other weapons, each recipient should have to go through the same background check proposed to be done on US citizens since the equipment they are getting is from the US.

I don’t suspect “Terrorist” and “mass murderer” [WARNING: GRAPHIC LINK] would endear themselves to the authorities running the background checks.

Posted in Goverment, Guns, Hypocrisy | 1 Comment

aw pink and the calvinists

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

AW Pink is an author with whom I have recently become acquainted. AW Pink is a Calvinist through and through. One of his books is dedicated to the express topic of the “Sovereignty of God”. His writing style is one of interweaving fleeting references into concrete statements such that each paragraph might take several to refute. In contrast, I attempt to make my writings the exact opposite, quoting verses directly, examining context, and then connecting them to other verses in the Bible to make theological points. It is best to be open and honest, sourcing everything said, such that others are able to call you out when you are wrong.

I do not suppose that AW Pink is interested in being wrong. Here is an example of his work:

The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God.

AW Pink starts this paragraph (every line I quote from him is all one big paragraph), with a series of semi falsehoods. In this chapter AW Pink is confronting those who say God is not sovereign. AW Pink, instead of reasoning about this, declares a tautology: “To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God”. AW Pink wishes to win the debate, not by clear reasoning, but by inferring that those who do not accept his definition of “Sovereign” are nothing but pagans. If AW Pink was alive, the question to ask would be: “Hypothetically, let us say the God of the Bible was not sovereign, what then does that make him? A space alien?” Take all the religions that worship false gods, would AW Pink refer to Zeus as a “god”? Sovereignty is not a prerequisite for being God. By stating that it is, AW Pink falls for the fallacy of assuming what he is trying to prove. This is the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.

Pink continues:

To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35).

This quote comes from Daniel and is spoken by the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar after God caused him to go insane for 7 years (giving rule to his son, Belshazzar). Naturally, after seven years living like a wide beast, someone might say that God can take away kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar could not stop God, but note, God tells Nebuchadnezzar exactly how to stop God from taking his Kingdom:

Dan 4:27 Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you; break off your sins by being righteous, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps there may be a lengthening of your prosperity.”

And then, on top of that, God tells Nebuchadnezzar how to stop his insanity:

Dan 4:32 And they shall drive you from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. They shall make you eat grass like oxen; and seven times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses.”

Although Nebuchadnezzar could not be evil and still stop God from punishing him, God was not acting arbitrarily. Nebuchadnezzar was being punished and was told how he could stop God from punishing him. This verse does not play well into the view of God’s Sovereignty that AW Pink would have his readers believe.

As to people questioning God’s morality, the pagan King Abimelech is a good case study.

Pink continues:

To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3).

When God is purposed to do something, he follows through, unless people conform their actions and make God change his mind. This concept is explicit (unlike the concepts AW Pink unwarrantedly declares):

Eze 18:21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
…Eze 18:24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

Jer 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,
Jer 18:8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
Jer 18:9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
Jer 18:10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

So God changes based on the actions of people and nations (something AW Pink despises). If a nation is evil and God wants to destroy it, who can resist his will? No one. But if God wants people to truly love him and follow his commandments, who can resist his will? In AW Pink’s mind, lawyers are more powerful than God (Pink thinks that whoever has will that wins in a will conflict is more powerful):

Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Some people can truly reject the will of God: lawyers! I just so happen to think that this characteristic is not necessarily limited only to lawyers.

Pink continues:

To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is “The Governor among the nations” (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best.

AW Pink just assumes that Governors do the things which he ascribes. God does establish some Kingdoms for various purposes, but to equate that to establishing all kingdoms for specific purposes is the logical Fallacy of Composition. Just because my car’s window is made of glass, does not mean my entire car is made of glass.

As has been shown previously, God can control nations and he often is depicted as doing so in the Old Testament. In every case, God is using nations for purposes related to Israel. One does not see in the Bible accounts of God displacing Inca Kings for various purposes.

And just like the modern use of the world Governor, Governors or Kings do not control all things. They delegate, with occasional intervening. For the most part, they leave their citizens alone (the analogy was written before the age of high tech surveillance, instant communication, and fast transportation). If God controls all nations as how AW Pink describes, it is interesting that he allowed Israel to be defeated (in violation of prophecy) due to the enemy having chariot technology:

Jdg 1:19 So the LORD was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

AW Pink finishes his paragraph:

To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the “Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

None of these descriptive words would be disputed by any critic of AW Pink, only the definitional usage. When the Bible calls God powerful (Potentate), this does not mean he controls everything. See James 1:13.

Calvinists, instead of reason and logic, try to use semantics to win debates. Instead of arguing God controls everything, they say he is “Almighty” and then just define the word to mean God “controls everything”. Instead of saying God is “outside of time”, they claim he is “eternal” and then define “eternal” as “outside of time”. Instead of proving God is “sovereign”, they just define God as sovereign (using their own definitions). Just watching their method of debate, it is clear that Calvinism is a scam of epic proportions.

Posted in Calvinism, God, Open Theism, Theology | 5 Comments

the free market solution to free riders

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

I wrote this years ago to explain to a professor that free riders (specifically those gaining benefits from the free actions of other people in a market economy) is not a market failure:

In a normal market economy both the seller and buyer receives some social surplus from the trade and thus wealth is created. The free rider problem is only looked down upon because the free rider is perceived as getting something for nothing, when in fact that is how wealth is created in the first place. Let us look at the example:

A, B, and C live in adjacent houses. B wants to build a lamppost in order to keep away burglars. A and C would both benefit being as their houses would also receive the light to keep away intruders. Naturally B would want this lamppost the most being as it would be on his land giving his house light. A wants it also being as he has a nice house, but not as much as B because the light only partially hits his house. C has a little value for it, although getting the same amount of light he has less he wishes to protect, he lives in a trailer house.

The lamppost costs 300 dollars.
B is willing to pay up to 200 dollars.
A is willing to pay 100 dollars.
C is willing to pay 50 dollars.

C bluffs and says he won’t contribute, although he does value the light. A and B are forced to pay their max prices if they don’t call his bluff. 50 dollars of social surplus is created. If the prices were changed, B is only willing to pay 150 dollars, then after seeing his bluff will not work and no lamppost will go up, C decided to pitch in his 50. The lamp is created.

When buying a car, I did want the car, but always kept my bluff of walking away as to make the seller drop his price as low as he would. A fake problem is created when good bluffers get what they want for nothing, but this is not at all a problem. Every party still benefits even with external benefits. If every party paying didn’t benefit then the action wouldn’t be done. There is no need for government involvement in this case.

If B only values the lamppost at 150, and C didn’t value it at all, then the post shouldn’t be built, no mater what benefits A says C gets. It is immoral to take by force from C to make him participate in a trade. Not only that, but the social value is less than the costs. Governments can’t gauge social value; they should have no part in the lamppost making process.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Trade | 1 Comment

the apostle paul and his relations with his enemies

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

The Apostle Paul was not necessarily a nice guy to his enemies, as judged by modern Christians. He seemed to hold deep grudges and wished destruction on his enemies. Often quoted is his verse to pray for one’s enemies:

Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…
Rom 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.

But Christian often ignore the verse a couple lines down (which is quoting Proverbs 25):

Rom 12:20 Therefore “IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM; IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP COALS OF FIRE ON HIS HEAD.”

Goofy people translate this as “make him a nice fire to warm his face”. But does this make sense: If your enemy is hungry or thirsty, feed him or give him drink because that will build a fire to warm his cold face. The point of Proverbs and Paul’s point is that if you are kind to someone and they still reject you, they will suffer. Proverbs might be more geared to the here and now: being nice to people who hate you often makes them stew with more hate. Romans is probably using Proverbs to deal more symbolically with the afterlife: being nice to someone now leaves them with no excuse to avoid future judgment.

We see Paul using this elsewhere:

2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works.

This is the most concise calls for vengeance someone can make. Paul held a deep grunge against Alexander (possibly the same as Acts 19) for endangering Paul and undermining his gospel.

People should pray for their enemies and treat them well. But God will be our enemies’ ultimate judge, and there is nothing wrong with wishing for judgment.

Posted in Morality, Theology | 3 Comments

erhman explains to skeptic the concept of historical evidence

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

Bart Ehrman does a good job explaining to a skeptic that historical evidence should be believed. He has to explain the entire concept of historical evidence to the skeptic. It is pretty funny.

Posted in Ehrman, History, People, videos | Leave a comment

max jukes and calling out bad statistics

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

Today in Church the pastor decided to use an illustration to show how big a difference having a Christian father would have on children. He decided to quote a meme that is circulating about Max Jukes and John Edwards.

The meme and breakdown of a few fallacious points can be found here:

http://rfrick.info/jukes.htm

In short, this meme states that because Max was an atheist, his 1200 descendants turned out to be criminals, prostitutes and beggars. Because John Edwards was a Christian, his 1400 descendants turned out to be preachers, lawyers, and judges.

On face value this should be rejected. Without looking at the statistics or sources, a few problems can be found:
1. This is dealing with several generations removed from the patriarchy. There are deaths, marriages, cultural influences, and a whole host of other factors that might be at play. With 1200 people didn’t at least one person marry a Christian?
2. Who says Max was not a Christian. By the number of descendants it was obvious the patriarchs were well removed from the modern time (I found out later he was born in the 1700s), perhaps placed in a time in which everyone identified as Christian. (The really funny thing is the church I attend might not even believe Jonathan Edwards was saved with his salvation by works gospel).
3. When the data is “too good to be true” it usually is. There may be selection bias: criminals might have more public records than farmers.
4. Even if the meme was true, the age of the participants might render the data unusable to a highly mobile and modern society. Interfamily dynamics are completely changed since the 1700s.

The main reason I rejected the meme is because human behavior studies (adoption studies) show low affects. From Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids:

Thanks to Denmark’s careful record keeping, the researchers knew whether any of the people in their study had criminal convictions. Since few female adoptees had legal problems, the study focused on males—with striking results. As long as the adoptee’s biological parents were law abiding, their adoptive parents made little difference: 13.5 percent of adoptees with law-abiding biological and adoptive parents got convicted of something, versus 14.7 percent with law-abiding biological parents and criminal adoptive parents. If the adoptee’s biological parents were criminal, however, upbringing mattered: 20 percent of adoptees with law-breaking biological and lawabiding adoptive parents got convicted, versus 24.5 percent with law-breaking biological and adoptive parents. Criminal environments do bring out criminal tendencies. Still, as long as the biological parents were law abiding, family environment made little difference.

So some effect does occur due to genetics, but not anything near the scale of 100% of all descendants.

If people are quoting stats that sound too good to be true, they probably are.

Posted in Statistics | Leave a comment

vindicated on the patriot act

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

In 2003 I wrote a college article criticizing the Republicans for expanding government (at one point indicating the Patriot Act particularly):

Bush has also recently passed the Patriot Act which destroys individual rights. Under section 215 the government is able to take property from American citizens while making it a crime for them to tell anyone about it. The Patriot Act in essence creates an increase of spying on the America people.

I was, in the next week’s paper, criticized by a fellow Opinion writer for being too paranoid.

With the new AP records revelation, the NSA scandal and the IRS scandal, am I vindicated? There is something to criticize in those who use tragedy to increase the surveillance state.

*note: do not try to find the original article; because it is very incriminating as to how far I have developed as a writer.

UPDATE: A fun link.

Posted in Vanity | Leave a comment