Potpourri
==> Although it wasn’t his main point, Noah Smith mentions that Krugman is unfair with anybody who disagreed with his Keynesian model back in 2008-09: If those people didn’t change their views, Krugman mocks them. Yet even if they do change their views–so long as they don’t say “Wow Paul was right”–Krugman still mocks them. Now back to my commentary: So contrary to what he’d have you believe, Krugman isn’t so much against “derp,” rather he’s against, “People who aren’t Keynesians.”
==> Ah, the familiar pattern. The Chicago School guy who loves Milton Friedman and blogs at EconLog wants our officials to act more like FDR. Wait, what the–?
==> Some large jumps in health insurance premiums. I bet the stupid American voters never saw that coming.
==> I by NO MEANS am a typical “pro-choice libertarian,” but nonetheless check out some alarming cases of the State grabbing pregnant women.
==> I think he’s wrong, but Kevin Dowd’s critique of Bitcoin is the best I’ve ever read.
MSNBC Drives Up Price of Softballs With Interview of Jonathan Gruber on “Stupidity” Remark
I’m sure if Arthur Laffer or Stephen Moore got caught on video saying American voters were stupid, that MSNBC would have an interview saying, “Your position is nuanced though right?”
Check this out, it’s astonishing how in-the-tank for Obama some of our outlets are. Yes, Fox hates Obama, but the love from MSNBC is just as absurd. At least Fox doesn’t pretend to be unbiased, they openly refer to themselves as a “conservative” (sic) platform.
Last thing: Technically, Gruber didn’t repudiate his remarks. He regrets having made them. He also clarified that he was at an academic conference. That strikes me as funny. “C’mon, I was speaking to other PhDs. Of course we think Americans are stupid!”
Gruber Is OK With “Non-Transparency” Because Americans Are Stupid and He Wanted Bill to Pass
You think I’m paraphrasing unfairly, don’t you? It’s short, watch this. It’s Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was one of the go-to guys modeling and touting the Affordable Care Act.
Commentary on Romans 13
Another libertarian Christian and I are devoting ourselves to examining the issue of Romans 13, since it obviously is the single biggest stumbling block for our views. We both agreed upfront that we would try to guard ourselves from reading in what we wanted to see, imposing our own ideological views on Paul.
The first place we started was the commentary from Gill’s Bible Exposition. Here’s a good part that crystallizes the trouble I am having with all of this:
“Subjection” to the civil magistrates designs and includes all duties relative to them; such as showing them respect, honour, and reverence suitable to their stations; speaking well of them, and their administration; using them with candour, not bearing hard upon them for little matters, and allowing for ignorance of the secret springs of many of their actions and conduct, which if known might greatly justify them; wishing well to them, and praying constantly, earnestly, and heartily for them; observing their laws and injunctions; obeying their lawful commands, which do not contradict the laws of God, nature, and right reason; and paying them their just dues and lawful tribute, to support them in their office and dignity… [Bold added.]
So this is the problem I have: Christians will often say things like, “As a Christian, you are called in Romans 13 to obey the government so long as its commands don’t call on you to violate your faith.” They have in mind heroic figures in the Old Testament refusing to worship false idols.
But I don’t think they really believe that, or at least, when modern Christians lay such a heavy emphasis on this criterion, I think in practice it’s pretty expansive even though they believe it’s narrow. For example, most Bible-belt Christians heartily applaud people who go to jail for protesting abortion. That’s not directly about faith; that’s about preventing what these Christians believe is systematic murder of the defenseless.
Right: the same reason I oppose the modern U.S. State, with its global empire and nonstop low-level wars.
Another important point to make is that I certainly am not advocating an “insurrection.” Instead in my writings and speeches I try to show people what a voluntary society would look like.
This is why I am so happy with the distinction between government and State. I am not opposed to institutions that issue judicial rulings or even agencies that enforce them. I am simply trying to imagine and then explain more peaceful mechanisms for carrying out these social functions. Look, when Paul was writing, maybe he thought it took a powerful State like Rome to build networks of roads. But as an economist if I endorse privately owned roads, does that mean I’m violating Romans 13 as a Christian?
I know there are a lot of Christian libertarians who read this blog but steer clear of the comments because you don’t want a few opinionated people biting your head off. Well I encourage you to chime in on this one. If you think I’m forcing the conclusion I want with my reasoning above, please push back.
Jeff Deist Interviews Me
For the podcast for the Mises Institute. We mostly talk about financial markets and the Fed.
The Infinite Banking Institute YouTube Channel
I’ll periodically remind you guys that if you’re interested in Nelson Nash’s “Infinite Banking Concept,” you should subscribe to our YouTube channel. I recently conducted a long interview with Nelson, and over the coming weeks we’ll be posting the best excerpts of it. We’ve already posted a bunch, but many more are coming. Here’s the first one:
The Vacuity of Scott Sumner’s Approach to Monetary Policy
My latest at Mises CA, sparked by Scott responding to Tyler Cowen on “causality.” The punchline:
…I want to point out an odd feature of Sumner’s worldview, which partly explains why it is (arguably) vacuous as an “explanation” of recessions. For the sake of argument, suppose Janet Yellen announces next Monday: “I have been reading the work of the Austrian economists, particularly this bald guy Murphy. I have realized that my predecessor, Mr. Bernanke, did a horrible thing by expanding the monetary base so much. Henceforth, to protect the value of the dollar and remove the Fed’s role in fueling asset bubbles, we will lock-in the current dollar-price of gold along the lines that Ludwig von Mises recommended for governments wishing to go back on a gold standard.”
But wait, the scenario gets more implausible. As soon as Yellen’s press conference ends, Barack Obama addresses the nation in this way: “My fellow Americans, well, some folks in my party lost their seats in the recent election. I realize government is the problem, not the solution, and in conjunction with the Republican leadership, we’re going to cut federal spending by 20% over the next quarter, and give a dollar-for-dollar reduction in personal income taxes across the board. Furthermore, effective immediately, all provisions of the Affordable Care Act will not be enforced, and we will repeal it as soon as Congress sends me a bill doing so–just so long as it abolishes the FDA and EPA too.”
Okay, now what would happen in this ridiculous story? There might be a technical recession upfront according to the NBER, but I think it’s safe to say that for 2015 as a whole, there would be strong economic growth, coupled with a decline in most consumer goods prices. Just grabbing numbers, let’s say when the dust settles, the BEA announces that in 2015, the U.S. economy experienced real GDP growth of 15% with a drop in consumer prices of 7%, yielding a growth in NGDP of 8%.
Thus, as the Fed announced it was going back on the gold standard, Scott Sumner would be forced to tell his readers, “Uh oh, Yellen has overshot. Thank goodness she eased the monetary tightness of the mad Bernanke, but now she’s erring on the other side, allowing NGDP to grow too rapidly. This type of easy-money regime will lead to the problems of too much Aggregate Demand that we suffered in the 1970s.”
I submit that this is a crazy way of discussing monetary policy.
Recent Comments