BMS ep. 101: Tim Terrell on Why Big Business Favors Environmental Regulations
Tim told me some stories that I had never heard before. Audio here, and video below.
“Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen?”
When I was about 17, I was watching my 11-year-old brother talk smack in our front yard to a kid who was about 13. They were trash talking back and forth, and my brother ran up to the kid to attack him. The kid had clearly had some martial arts training, because he did a backwards kick into my oncoming brother’s chest, knocking my brother flat on his back on the grass.
At this point I came out of the house and said, “OK guys, let’s break it up” and dispersed the crowd of kids (all several years younger than me), who were all going “Ohhhhh” after seeing what happened.
I had done this out of love for my brother. He was clearly responsible for what happened (he was being a punk and braggart, trying to impress the older kids), and I wanted him to have some experience with physical combat to help him in the future know how to assess a situation. But, when I thought he might actually get hurt, I intervened.
For whatever reason, that event recently popped back into my head, and I thought it might be somewhat analogous to why God lets (some) bad things happen to us.
P.S. I understand that people in life sometimes die. So please don’t point that out to me.
Bob Murphy Show Twin Spin
I was on the road so I’m backed up in posting here:
==> Ep. 98 on why progressives are “anti-vaxxers” when it comes to the Alt Right.
==> Ep. 100 on why even tyrannical regimes ultimately rest on public opinion.
BMS ep 97: Lyn Ulbricht on the Absurd Trial and Sentence in the Silk Road Case
Standard podcast audio here, or here is the video.
Bob Murphy Show ep. 96: Why I Am Still an Austrian Economist
My response to Caplan’s essay, but the first hour is me telling stories.
Dirty Secrets About the CLEAN Future Act
This article is a pretty good summary of my main points on climate change econ/policy over the last several years. An excerpt:
The official framework for the CLEAN Future Act repeatedly alludes to “the scientific consensus that all countries must shift to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change,” and it cites the UN’s IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C as the source for this claim. As this statement is the bedrock upon which the entire CLEAN Future Act rests, it’s worth analyzing.
In the first place, even on its own terms, and even if there were nothing misleading about it, the statement does not justify a policy of moving to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. Don’t believe me? Consider this analogous claim: “The medical consensus is that Americans must stop driving motorcycles to avoid the most devastating consequences of traffic accidents.”
If we play with definitions, this claim about motorcycles is true. After all, “the most devastating consequences” of traffic accidents are that people die, and apparently you are 37 times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident than a car accident. So QED, we should ban motorcycles, right?
Most readers will probably disagree, or at the very least will understand that a mere statement about the downside of an activity—in my example, motorcycle riding—is not proof that it should be eliminated.
Bob Murphy Show 95: Tareq Haddad on the Syrian Chemical Weapon Scandal and Why He Resigned From Newsweek
This is an important conversation that I encourage you to absorb when you have the time. Below is the video of course, and this link is to the audio if you prefer that.
Recent Comments