The First New Deal Was Enough, Thanks
The chief instigators at the Suffolk Law talk:
From left: Dick Clark (the younger), PIG factory Murphy, and counter-terrorism expert Robert Roughsedge. I was talking with Roughsedge before the shin dig began and I became somewhat concerned when I realized he knew at least 13 ways to kill a man with a spork.
Spreading Liberty From Coast to Coast
Hey folks, sorry for the sparse posts lately–you get what you pay for–but I’ve been on the road. On Tuesday night Dick Clark (the younger) and the rest of the Suffolk Law Federalist Society hosted my talk on Obama’s new New Deal, and on Thursday morning I am making the case for flat-tax reform to a California commission. (Don’t tell Laurence Vance.)
In retrospect I suppose I should have announced these things earlier, so that some of you could have attended. I am still stuck in the mindset that all of my readers are 15-year-olds who don’t yet have night driving privileges.
The Crafty Chi-Coms
For a client I am doing some digging into the international capital flows of the housing boom years. I knew China had accumulated a lot of Treasurys, but I didn’t realize how much of the world total they had. Don’t read this CRS report [pdf] for the analysis (which is ludicrous in my opinion) but just scroll through for the tables and figures.
As of June 2007, China held 9.4% of the rest of the world’s total holdings of US securities–that counts government debt as well as private equity holdings and other assets.
But here’s the real jaw-dropper: As of September 2008, China held 20.5% of all foreign holdings of US Treasurys, and Japan held 20%.
That is simply shocking. I think it is entirely possible that the Chinese government is running US policy at this point. They could crash the dollar tomorrow if they wanted.
Greenspan’s Bogus Defense
I take on Greenspan’s self-defense in the WSJ. (No, don’t get excited: Greenspan’s article ran in the WSJ. My critique is on Mises.org.)
At the Movies
This is somewhat awkward, because my philosophy with movie reviews is that you just need to find a person with similar tastes, and then s/he tells you, “Yeah that movie was awesome” or “Not sure you’ll like it, but you might, so give it a try if you’re bored.” If I decide I’m going to watch a movie (maybe it has an actor I like or something), then I don’t even read the Netflix description (which half the time is wrong anyway), because I want to go in with as few preconceptions as possible.
In that light, below are absurdly sparse discussions of a few movies I’ve seen recently. Over time, regular readers will learn whether they share my taste. Or, it would still be informative if you discover that you hate my taste in movies, because then you can just do the opposite of what I recommend.
* High Noon, starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly (and Lloyd Bridges in a minor but well-played role). Simply awesome. I saw it three days ago and I am still reflecting on it. An old-timer with whom I’m collaborating recommended it to me, and boy was he right. It’s a Western, and all I’ll say is, it does a great job of showing just an awful “social outcome” where each individual’s behavior is completely understandable, and arguably correct.
* All About Eve, starring Bette Davis and Anne Baxter (and I think the first film appearance of Marilyn Monroe). Another classic that is underappreciated. All I will say is, I didn’t realize “they knew how to do that” in movies back then. I say “underappreciated” just because I had never heard of it until my wife rented it a few years ago, because she likes Bette Davis. But it actually was nominated for 14 Academy Awards, according to my trusty research assistant.
* Burn After Reading, starring George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and John Malkovich. True story, after finishing this I couldn’t categorize it, and I thought, “The closest thing I can think of is The Big Lebowski.” It was only later that I realized the Coen brothers did both. (I told you, I don’t read movie descriptions. I go in as a blank slate, baby.) One thing to look for in this one, is that I think the depiction of the important CIA guy is absolutely perfect. Not malicious, just a complete absence of human sympathy. OK I can’t help myself: If you do watch it, afterwards consider that Malkovich’s character was in some respects the most nutjobby, but at the same time he was about the only honest person in the movie. In terms of what happened to him, he would understandably be really upset. Just go back through the events of the movie from his point of view, and you can see why he was so furious.
* Watchmen. That’s right, not only did I see (and now recommend) this movie, I went and saw it a second time in the Imax. That’s how I roll. Say what you will about this film, it features the biggest blue penis you will ever see (I hope).
Potpourri
* Tim Haab over at Env-Econ links to this story about flatulent cows. I don’t care about the fish oil; what caught my eye was the casual discussion of capping the number of farm animals to avert global warming. I had never heard that before; up till now, I thought that was just a reductio ad absurdum that right-wingers used. (E.g.: “Obama’s cap-and-trade could require farmers to buy carbon allowances!” Leftist: “Aww c’mon, stop scaring people. Nobody’s talking about cow farts except you nutjobs.”)
* Speaking of right wingers, here’s a great Anthony Gregory article on how they are only really good on fearing the government when there is a liberal Democrat in the White House. Well, better late than never.
* Here’s Bob Higgs on CSPAN, via the multifaceted von Pepe. I haven’t watched this yet, but everyone’s raving.
* Ryan McMaken links to this story about KFC offering to fix potholes in Chicago, so long as they can leave an ad. Check out the comments on the article; they’re scary. (Also, there is a “Murph” and an “rpm” who are NOT me.) My favorite was someone posing as Wonder Woman who said:
Love it. If I have to see an ad, might as well serve a purpose.
In my wildest dreams it would result in lower taxes since the city saves on pothole repair. Oh, if only capitalism were that user-friendly.
Everyone got that? The government monopolizes the roads “for our own good.” The roads are awful; they literally cause probably thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. So a private company offers to fix the roads at their own expense, and the government says no. And somehow the wistful blogger manages to spin that around to show that in the real world, capitalism doesn’t serve the people.
Follow-Up to "Can God Make a Rock So Heavy…"
Last week I tackled the old conundrum of, “Can God make a rock so heavy that He Himself can’t lift it?”
My answer was, “Yes, but He chooses not to.”
In light of the comments I received, I want to clarify two things:
(1) I somewhat flippantly concluded, “This question is no deeper than asking, ‘Can God kill Himself?'” I should have added that these questions are still very deep; my point though is that they’re not paradoxical.
(2) Several people couldn’t understand why I was devoting so much mental effort to the puzzle, since (in their mind) the answer was obvious: The omnipotence of God doesn’t require that He be able to do the nonsensical or the truly impossible. So for example, it is no argument for an atheist to say, “Can God make a heebie jeebie?” or “Can God make a square circle?” The believer doesn’t have to squirm and either answer yes or no; it is perfectly respectable for him to respond, “Those are silly and meaningless questions.”
But my point was, I think it is too glib to categorize “making a rock that God can’t lift” in the same way. We can logically imagine a rock so heavy God can’t lift it, if we concede that God would give up His power.
For Christians, there are a lot of questions like this, and the answer to at least some of them is clearly, “Yes,” and not, “That is a nonsense question because it relies on a logical impossibility.” To wit:
* Can God make people who can disobey Him?
* Can God make a planet that dissatisfies Him?
* Can God be killed by a few Italians?
* Can God make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it?
Why Does God Let Bad Things Happen?, Part 29
I’m not saying this is necessarily how things really are, but just suppose you die and go to heaven. You demand of God, “OK, I respect a lot of what You’ve done, but I have a bone to pick with you. What’s the story with the Holocaust? Surely that wasn’t necessary.”
Then imagine God says, “OK I’ll talk you through it. When you were on earth your brain didn’t have the ability to process all of the information I’m about to share with you, but now we don’t have that constraint. First, can you agree that I needed to respect the rules of logic?”
“Sure,” you agree.
“OK, and whatever else I did, can you see why I opted for a physical universe that obeyed a very parsimonious set of laws?”
“Yep, otherwise we would have been overwhelmed by the chaos of it all,” you concede. “People can’t make earthly plans if the natural world is totally unpredictable.”
“Right,” says God. He continues like this for some time. Finally, He has walked you step by step through the planning decisions He made, and then drops the bombshell on you:
“OK, now given what we’re already established, can you see that if the events in Europe had unfolded differently in the 1940s, that it would have been impossible for your parents to meet, and for you to have been born?”
“Yeeeees,” you say slowly, because you didn’t expect the conversation to have anything to do with you.
“Well, I decided that all of the suffering of the 1940s was worth it, since it produced you,” God says. “Moreover, all of those who died at the hands of the Nazis–and who also wished to be with Me when they died–are here. You can ask them. Now that they understand the big picture, every single one of them agrees with My decision. They love you so much that they were glad that their sacrifice on earth was done to allow your life.”
What is particularly interesting is that God could do the above with every single person who goes to heaven and was born after 1945.
Recent Comments