should climate scientists direct government policy

Posted on May 18, 2013 by christopher fisher

Climate science is hotly debated in the press. One side claims there is a solid and unimpeachable consensus on Global Warming (now being relabeled to Climate Change) and the other side points out that dissent is censored. But what if every claim of the Global Warming alarmists were correct? Would that mean that the scientists’ suggestions for government policy should be enacted?

The answer is a definitely no, while scientists may be experts in their particular field, they are not experts in Economics. Scientists are not trained in cost benefit analyses. They are not trained to know if it would be more efficient to subsidize recycling or to ban throwing away recyclables (or to do both or to do neither).

They are not trained in Economic costs (that is “what you give up to get something”). They are not trained to look at the resources (time, money, and administrative costs) spent installing carbon filters and figuring out if it is less costly than switching to alternative fuel sources.

They are not experts in understanding effective government policy. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, insurance costs began to skyrocket.

They are not experts in finding unintended consequences. Animal advocates want to ban hunting certain animals. Where hunting of rare animals is banned, often the species dies out.

They often do not understand real value. Are we saving the Earth to save the Earth, or are we saving the Earth to make human life better? What if we could do so by not trying to stop global warming?

Economics should be left to the economists.

Human civilization requires many ingredients to exist. Single-mindedly protecting one at the expense of all others is not the path to paradise, well-being, or even survival. And that’s why economists’ focus on trade-offs is so much wiser than environmentalists’ nightmares about their favorite ingredient going kaputt.-Bryan Caplan

It would be silly to forfeit potential consumption today, in the form of tighter emissions cutbacks, if our descendants would perceive a greater benefit from our channeling those savings into more traditional invest ments that would make them wealthier. – Robert Murphy

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Science | 1 Comment

the increasing costs of obamacare insurance

Posted on May 18, 2013 by christopher fisher

Reason.com posted an email by a small business who is dealing with Obamacare. The whole post is worth reading, it explains why we have a system in which health care is tied to our jobs. But showing the reality of the effects of a law intended to “give everyone insurance”, he writes:

Health benefits are our third highest cost, after payroll and search ads, but now more than our rent. A 28% increase is significant. We essentially have four options:

1) Keep the exact same CareFirst plan, and have Capterra swallow the cost. Individuals currently pay 0% of their premiums (which are around $500/month) but families pay 25% (of their $1500 monthly premiums). So the families would also pay more for their 25% share. The higher cost for Capterra would reduce our ability to hire, give raises, etc.

2) Keep the exact same CareFirst plan, and start charging both individuals and families 25% of the premiums. (Most companies, yes even Google, that provide health insurance benefits to their employees have them pay 25-50% of their monthly premiums.)

3) Keep CareFirst but subscribe to a cheaper plan that includes an in-network deductible. This basically means if you ever visit your doctor, you will be paying the first 1k or whatever the deductible is in expenses that year.

4) Switch to a different top tier plan from a a different insurance provider such as United that for whatever reason has not increased their premiums yet and not change anything (yet) about how we pay for everyone’s insurance.

5) Stop paying heath care benefits, pay people cash instead and encourage everyone to do health savings accounts (they are not taxed!) and buy catastrophic plans with part of the cash. More on this later.

The cost is already vastly exceeding what proponents have predicted, and the lie that everyone could keep their previous health insurance has been proved fraudulent. The real question is when the nation will start listening to those who make accurate predictions instead of those who make lousy predictions.

Posted in Economics, Goverment, Leftists | 1 Comment

go sell all you have and give to the poor

Posted on May 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

In the synoptic gospels, there is an instance described that baffles modern Christians. A rich young ruler approaches Jesus, asks what he has to do to be saved, Jesus tells him to follow the commandments, and follows that up with a command to sell all he has and give to the poor, because:

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

This scares modern Christians for several reasons. Bart Ehrman, in his book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of The New Millennium, touches on a few:

Ever since, readers of the story have gone away crestfallen as well, especially those who suspect that Jesus meant what he said, and that his injunction wasn’t limited to this one particular fellow. Interpreters have tried to get around the problem since it was first written (especially interpreters who weren’t willing to give away everything for the coming Kingdom); but doing so ignores its logic. Everyone who saves his life will lose it. Jesus’ demands were simple, in that they weren’t that difficult to figure out; but they were also radical. The Kingdom required an absolute commitment. No one should look for it without considering what it would cost (cf. Luke 14:28-33)—for it will cost everything.

But a contextual understanding, Bart Ehrman points out, will show Jesus was preaching an imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. People were to sell all they had, because as in Acts 2, everyone was expecting the end to come quickly. Ehrman explains:

That’s why, for Jesus, the present life holds no real attractions. Life in the present age should be at best a matter of indifference. One shouldn’t be concerned about such trivial matters as what kind of clothes to wear or what kind of food to eat. As he says in the Q source, “seek first the Kingdom of God, and all its right way of living, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt. 6:33). What does its “right way of living” entail? It entails loving God, the one who brings the Kingdom, and one’s neighbor as oneself. All else should be completely secondary in importance. If thieves want to take your clothes—let them! If bullies want to force you to do their work for them—let them! If the government wants to take your money—let them! If thugs want to beat you— let them! If enemies want to kill you—let them! None of these things matters. You should give away your shirt as well as your coat, you should go an extra mile, you should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, you should turn the other cheek, you should not fear the one who can destroy your paltry body. The Kingdom is coming, and the concerns of this life are trivial by comparison (see Matt. 5:39-42; 10:28; Mark12:17; Luke 6:29-30; 12:4-5).

This is made clear by the context of the passages:

Mar 10:29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s,
Mar 10:30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.
Mar 10:31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Notice that Jesus promises rewards “in this time”. These are physical rewards, family, houses and lands. Jesus taught an imminent coming of a physical kingdom that would give the righteous rewards, and that is why people were told to sell everything they had. If people sell everything they have without the Kingdom of God coming to earth, they end up like the Saints in Jerusalem (Acts 2) who had to rely on charity to survive (1Co 16).

Posted in Church History, Dispensationalism, Ehrman, History, People, Theology | 3 Comments

patents did not cause the industrial revolution

Posted on May 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

From Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Dignity (p 302-4):

British patents were very expensive, a minimum of £100 (a respectable lower-middle class annual income at the time) and requiring many months of attendance on law courts in London. Therefore they were taken out as only one of many alternative ways of establishing ones credibility as an ingenious person — someone to be admired, and to be paid to do all sorts of engineering work, or to be given a governmental sinecure. Patents were considered undignified by many inventors, and were often treated with suspicion by judges, as constituting monopolies (as they do). Getting a head start in producing according to ones idea was then, as usually also today, better assurance of fame and fortune. Patents sound neat, but were not…

Allen himself admits that patents for invention, though available in England from 1624 on, were in fact as I’ve noted little used, which would be odd if making money were all that was involved… Thomas Carlyle, the scourge of the classical economists, remarked in 1829 that “with men: that they have never been roused into deep, thorough, all-pervading efforts by any computable prospect of Profit and Loss, for any visible, finite object; but always for some invisible and infinite one.”

An economist who is thinking like an economist, instead of like a fourth-rate applied mathematician who knows only the use of Max U and Max’s marginal balances, does not in fact find it so strange. Computable prospects would already have been discovered. Routine balances of profit and loss cannot have motivated the sudden, unique, and gigantic lurch forward 1700-1900…

McCloskey’s theme over his (he is a biological man) trilogy is that it was the rise of the Bourgeois in public esteem that caused the Industrial Revolution.

Posted in History, Industrial Revolution, Intellectual Property | Leave a comment

more price controls in action

Posted on May 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

In a hilarious article, it is being reported that Venezuela is going to import 50M rolls of toilet paper. When one sees headlines like this, the first thought that should run through their head is “price controls”. 10 out of 10 times they will be correct. The sure fire signs of price controls are lines and shortages. From the article:

Patience is wearing thin among consumers who face shortages and long lines at supermarkets and pharmacies. Last month, Venezuela’s scarcity index reached its highest level since 2009, while the 12-month inflation rate has risen to nearly 30 percent. Shoppers often spend several days looking for basic items, and stock up when they find them.

Of course the reason is price controls. Everywhere and always they cause shortages. This is because people consume more of something the lower the price is. At a price lower than the natural market price, more people want to consume that good than there are goods to go around. If you had a pizza with 10 slices, 10 people in line, and told everyone that each slice was 10 cents, how much would the last person get? Multiply that by 2.9 million and you have Venezuela.

The US imposed price controls in the 1980s on gasoline. Price controls were placed on gasoline after hurricane Katrina. Soviet Russia and Red Germany set prices. The results were always the same: long lines and harsh shortages. The government creates this misery.

And now for the funniest line of the article:

President Nicolas Maduro, who was selected by the dying Hugo Chavez to carry on his “Bolivarian revolution,” claims that anti-government forces, including the private sector, are causing the shortages in an effort to destabilize the country.

The scary “lets run them out of toilet paper” plot.

Also remember this news story.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Goverment | 1 Comment

why the state necessarily means coercion

Posted on May 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

Starting at the 3:30 mark and ending around 5:23 mark, this video does a good job explaining why the state necessarily means coercion.

Where I diverge from the video is where they say if a family has a house and their great ancestors stole the land it is on, that the great ancestors of the people from whom they stole it can walk over and lay claim to the house. This seems nonsensical. A family, their entire life they are living on a piece of land, they developed it, they may have bought it from someone, and now someone who never owned it in the first place can lay claim to it because a person from the past that they have never met once owned it? Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Posted in Goverment, videos | 4 Comments

thou shalt not covet

Posted on May 14, 2013 by christopher fisher

Deu 5:21 ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.’

In this video, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman attempts to make the case that “thou shalt not covet” should be translated “thou shalt not take”.

I was first alerted to this view from his TED talk, and thought it might be probable. After looking at his evidence, I was less than convinced. His primary claim is that when the same word is used in Exodus 34:24 it means take:

Exo 34:24 For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

To use this one verse to translate the rest of the verses most probably violates one of the three translator errors he discusses in his TED talks:

Specifically, the word could be used figuratively in Exodus 34:24. For example, in English we could use the word “covet” when a man strongly desires a woman. If a married man said he did not want to leave his wife at a party because someone might covet her, we would rightfully understand the man is implying the individual who covets might act on the covetousness. If he was assured no one would covet her, he might leave the party feeling safe about his wife. That is just one of many ways Exodus 34:24 could make sense if the word is actually “covet”.

Further evidence that “covet” does not mean take is in the fact the Ten Commandments already has a commandment against stealing (and adultery), and the Septuagint translates it as epithumeō (to set the heart upon).

One piece of evidence in favor of Dr. Hoffman is when Jesus is listing commandments there is an odd “Do not defraud” commandment added by Jesus:

Mar_10:19 You know the commandments: ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,’ ‘DO NOT MURDER,’ ‘DO NOT STEAL,’ ‘DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER.'”

In all, I do not think there is a compelling case that “covet” should be instead translated as “take”. Maybe “defraud” is a possibility.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, Morality, Textual Criticism, Theology, videos | 2 Comments

wealth v money

Posted on May 13, 2013 by christopher fisher

Related to a previous post. From Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Dignity (p 141):

People seem to be mixing up financial wealth and real wealth. Financial wealth in a bank account is merely a paper claim to the society’s real wealth by this person against that person. The society’s real wealth itself, on the other, is a house or ship or education. From the point of view of the society as a whole the real wealth is what’s needed for real investment, not paper claims or gold coins. The paper claims are merely ways of keeping track of who owns the returns to the capital. They are not the real capital itself. You can’t build a factory with pound notes, or dig a canal with bank accounts. You need bricks and wheelbarrows, and people skilled to wield them. Mere financing or ownership can hardly be the crux, or else the Catholic Church in 1300, with its dominate command of tokens of wealth, would have created an industrial society. Or the Philips II, III, and IV of Spain-who after all were the principal beneficiaries of the treasure fleets the English and Dutch privateers preyed upon-would have financed industrial revolutions in Bilboa and Barcelona instead of obstructing them.

Posted in Economics, Standard of Living | 1 Comment

misquoted verses – false humility

Posted on May 13, 2013 by christopher fisher

Col 2:23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Colossians 2:23 has a reference to “false humility”. Pastors, when they address this verse or are doing a sermon on humility, like to point to this verse and say that people need to have their heart in the right place, not just act humble. The problem with this is twofold. The first is that the word “false” is not in the Greek. Anyone can check their Bible. The word is italicized, meaning it is a translator supplied word. Some translator looked at this verse, thought “humility is a good thing” and then decided to reverse the meaning by adding in “false” in front of humility. That was an editorial addition. In reality, the verse should read:

Col 2:23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

The second problem is that the humility addressed in Colossians is not what Americans call humility. In the Greek world, people neglected their bodies and lived in squalor. Porphyry tells us of one such neglector of the body, Plotinus.

Plotinus disdained the flesh and earthly desires. He was a vegetarian. He was very hesitant to letting himself be drawn and sculpted; he hated his earthly image and could not understand why he should make an image of an already flawed image. Plotinus refused medicine of any kinds and let his body be eaten by disease. He died a sickly withered man in his bed, Porphyry records, by a snake bite.

Platonists, such as Plotinus lived “humble” lives. They let their bodies be destroyed and lived destitute because it made them feel holy. Colossians is the only book of the Bible that mentions “philosophy”. It was these philosophers that Colossians was written to counter.

The context makes this clear.

Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

Paul is setting up a defense of people indulging themselves, the opposite of “humility” shown by the pagan philosophers. He starts with the obvious: food and drink, and parties. He also adds some Orthodox Jewish claims against his converts. He continues:

Col 2:18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

Again Paul focuses on the body. He talks about the body growing, and that growth is from God. The pagans disdained growing, healing, and the body. Just to make it clear, Paul continues:

Col 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—
Col 2:21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”
Col 2:22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

Paul’s focus is on people abstaining from the pleasures of life. That is the false humility. He tells his readers they can touch, taste and handle. He calls the ordanances against this,the “doctrines of men”.

Col 2:23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

He says they have the appearance of wisdom (like the monks of the Middle Ages taking a vow of poverty). He links this to neglect of the body. The last part of the sentence is an odd translation in the NKJ. The NKJ translates like Paul concludes that people should refrain from indulging. The KJ reads: “not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” The KJ reads as if satisfying the flesh is part of the list of items the pagans believe. The text flows better with the KJ. Besides, Paul uses a few coming verses to list out fleshly actions which his believers should avoid. “Satisfying the flesh” is not one of them.

In Colossians, Paul is countering “humility”. That is “neglect of the body”. When Christians try to equate this with proud and boastful individuals, they are missing Paul’s message.

Posted in Misquoted Verses, Theology | Leave a comment

figures of speech in romans

Posted on May 12, 2013 by christopher fisher

Some Christians say they take the Bible literally and will rest their doctrine on literal readings of certain verses. They will refuse to relent and admit that language is fluid and some words, even in the Bible, are to be taken figuratively. These individuals are sometimes inapproachable, but they should be taught that all literalists must still take certain teachings of the Bible in a figurative sense. The first chapter of Romans contains a few of these figures of speech:

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

It could be that in deep dark Africa or on the coast of Peru that they talked about the Christian faith of the Romans, but almost certainly not. Paul uses a hyperbole to stress the fact that the Roman Christians were well known in his circles. No one should take it that there are individuals living in the middle of the Pacific Ocean talking about the Roman’s faith.

Rom 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers,

When Paul says he does not cease making mention of the Romans in his prays, he does not literally mean that every word he says, without pausing, is about the Romans. That would be absurd. Paul is using another hyperbole to say he prays about them often.

In normal human language, people use figures of speech that are not literal. Those who wrote the Bible were no different. Christians do not have a leg to stand on when insisting to the death a certain verse is to be taken literally and not figuratively.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech | Leave a comment