Criteria for a Good (Children’s) Bible Story
I read my son the story of Joseph, which (as a Christian but also an economist) is one of my all-time favorites. When we finished it I said to him that it was a really good Bible story, and he asked me what I meant. So I said there were three reasons:
(1) The people in the story are bad, even a lot of the “good guys.” In this one, it’s obviously Joseph’s (eight) brothers who want to kill him, but because of the wily intervention of the dissenters, it ends up they “only” sell him into slavery to merchants passing by. I told my son that this was why the Bible was so interesting, that it had realistic characters. He didn’t understand what I meant, so I said, “OK remember the Roald Dahl story we read yesterday that was for kids? That was about magical animals and a rich duke. The story we read today was about brothers selling their other brother into slavery because they were jealous. That’s absolutely awful.”
(2) God has a plan to turn the humans’ evil actions into a good outcome. In this one, the good result is that because Joseph ends up as a prisoner in Egypt, his ability to interpret dreams eventually lands him in Pharaoh’s court. He then advises Pharaoh to stockpile food during the initial 7 years of plenty, so that Pharaoh ends up making out like a bandit during the 7 years of famine. (The economist in me recognizes that this is great; sure those people have to give a lot of their wealth to Pharaoh for food, but it’s voluntary and better than starving. It’s socially useful that Pharaoh got the good advice to stockpile during the years of plenty.) Jacob and his sons (Joseph’s brothers) arguably might have died–snuffing out the Abrahamic legacy–had Joseph remained with them. But because of their wicked actions, Joseph ends up running Pharaoh’s affairs and sets them up handsomely in Egypt.
(3) The “star” of the story is a human who trusts in God’s plan. In this one, it’s Joseph of course. In one of the most touching scenes in the whole Bible, he finally reveals himself to his brothers (in Genesis 45), who at that moment are probably thinking he is going to have them executed. Later on (Genesis 50: 15-21), after their father dies and now the brothers are really sure Joseph is going to take his revenge, he spells it out clearly:
15 When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “Perhaps Joseph will hate us, and may actually repay us for all the evil which we did to him.” 16 So they sent messengers to Joseph, saying, “Before your father died he commanded, saying, 17 ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph: “I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.”’ Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.
18 Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they said, “Behold, we are your servants.”
19 Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. 21 Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them. [Bold added.]
Tucker Interviews Murphy on Illusion of Wealth
Laissez-Faire Books has released a new volume with excerpts of Mises talking about the business cycle. (Specifically, we went through Human Action and grabbed what the reader would need to fully understand the Austrian business cycle theory.)
Here’s the interview about it. My son video-bombs us around 8:15.
National Lampoon’s Meets Stakeout
A few times a year, a bird gets into my chimney. I have by now perfected the technique of letting it in through the fireplace and out a window.
Today, however, was the first time a squirrel popped out. Here’s the photo and message I posted on Facebook (find me here) about the incident:
Long story, but it took about an hour to get this squirrel out of my house. He kept trying to squeeze through the crack in the door, rather than walk 2 feet around it to freedom. I couldn’t criticize him, though, reflecting that his situation was perhaps a metaphor for my own life. Plus, I banged my head twice on that chandelier.
When we were at this standoff, I actually made tea and just stood against the far wall, watching the thing. I needed it to walk out of that nook so I could push it out of the door (with a broom). But it was taking too long, so I had my son get a long stick and stand on the deck outside, to get the squirrel away from that side of the door. It was a team effort.
The Real Tragedy
The sadistic von Pepe sends me this Tyler Cowen post:
NGDP in Cyprus
It seems to be falling:
Luscious strawberries – €3.50 a box on Monday – are now €1.45. The prices of other perishables have also plummeted. “People are buying only what they needed.”
No one knows how telephone, water and electricity bills paid monthly on instructions to banks will be settled. No one knows when and if they will be paid their salaries.
In related news, my 8-year-old asked me if we could watch YouTube videos about the formation of black holes. Did you know that when two neutron stars merge, NGDP is precisely zero? Think about it.
When Children Change Your Mind
[Slight UPDATE in the text to clarify David R. Henderson’s position.]
Seeing Steve Landsburg doing everything in his power to get fired, I will take a shot at my own thought-provoking post that is sure to upset some readers for its apparent obtuseness:
==> A lot of people, including some libertarians but especially progressives, went out of their way to criticize were less than enthusiastic about Senator Rob Portman for supporting gay marriage after his son came out. Here’s the reigning internet arbiter of decency and monetary policy, Matt Yglesias:
Remember when Sarah Palin was running for vice president on a platform of tax cuts and reduced spending? But there was one form of domestic social spending she liked to champion? Spending on disabled children? Because she had a disabled child personally? Yet somehow her personal experience with disability didn’t lead her to any conclusions about the millions of mothers simply struggling to raise children in conditions of general poorness. Rob Portman doesn’t have a son with a pre-existing medical condition who’s locked out of the health insurance market. Rob Portman doesn’t have a son engaged in peasant agriculture whose livelihood is likely to be wiped out by climate change. Rob Portman doesn’t have a son who’ll be malnourished if SNAP benefits are cut. So Rob Portman doesn’t care.
It’s a great strength of the movement for gay political equality that lots of important and influential people happen to have gay children. That obviously does change people’s thinking. And good for them.
But if Portman can turn around on one issue once he realizes how it touches his family personally, shouldn’t he take some time to think about how he might feel about other issues that don’t happen to touch him personally? Obviously the answers to complicated public policy questions don’t just directly fall out of the emotion of compassion. But what Portman is telling us here is that on this one issue, his previous position was driven by a lack of compassion and empathy. Once he looked at the issue through his son’s eyes, he realized he was wrong. Shouldn’t that lead to some broader soul-searching? Is it just a coincidence that his son is gay, and also gay rights is the one issue on which a lack of empathy was leading him astray? That, it seems to me, would be a pretty remarkable coincidence.
==> I heard on the radio today that the parents who lost children at the Newton massacre are working with Vice President Biden in a gun control initiative. (I can’t seem to find a news story about it now, so I have to be vague on the details.)
==> Is Matt Yglesias going to write a post criticizing these parents? After all, they weren’t lobbying for gun control legislation until it affected them personally. Isn’t that exactly what he criticized Palin and Portman for doing?
Let me be clear:
==> I am NOT criticizing the Newton parents. I can’t even imagine how awful that would be, and while I don’t support gun control by the government (I’m a pacifist in my personal life), I can totally understand trying to do something to make sense of what happened, namely by preventing similar tragedies from befalling others.
==> Yet precisely because I understand that obvious psychological fact about humans, it never occurred to me to get huffy about Rob Portman, or about Sarah Palin if I had known she favored spending money on disabled kids.
==> So in summary, I am NOT criticizing the Newton parents for all of a sudden thinking gun control is worth their times, since the issue has now touched their families. But I’m wondering what people who criticized Sarah Palin or Rob Portman would say: why is this case so different? It can’t simply be, “Because it’s not a tragedy if your son turns out to be gay,” because that defense won’t work for Palin. It’s obviously a hardship if your kid is disabled, so if we’re going to criticize her, why not the Newton parents?
I suspect in the case of Yglesias, one obvious reason is: he doesn’t like Palin’s political views, but he supports more gun control legislation.
Watch the Mises Conference Live
Details here. (I’m not going to be there; I’m too swamped with work unfortunately.)
My Modest Proposal on the EPI Study
In case you folks are curious, the reason I’m focusing so much on DK’s position is that I think he is representative of a large fraction of self-described progressives. So I really want to push people on this, because I think this EPI study and Sen. Warren’s remarks are ludicrous (unless their point was to show that standard measures of “productivity growth” are horribly flawed). Here’s what I said to Daniel over at his blog:
Argh! Daniel, just settle this once and for all: Do you think there are at least 1000 workers in the United States who produce more than $20/hour for their employers, yet they are only earning minimum wage?
(A) If you *do* think that, then I would like to hear your thoughts on how the labor market can be so screwed up. Then, I want you to pitch me a business plan for how we can hire these 1000 (at least) people at $10/hour, and still make $10,000 in pure profit per hour.
(B) If you *don’t* think that, then why aren’t you denouncing this EPI study as, at best, terribly misleading and dangerous to low-skilled workers?
A Different Explanation of the “Productivity” and Wage Divergence
I have not read a single word from the EPI paper claiming that if the minimum wage had followed “productivity growth” it would now be $22/hour, so everything I am writing in this blog post is predicated on Daniel Kuehn’s interpretation being sound. Having said that, consider the following fable:
In 1968, a nation of identical workers collectively puts in 1 billion labor-hours, to produce 1 billion units of finished consumer goods, at a price of $1 per unit. (There are different types of goods, but they all have the same unit price.) Everyone gets paid $1/hour. This is the only production, so nominal GDP is $1 billion. The government also happens to set a minimum wage law of $1/hour, but this has no effect because that’s what the competitive wage was anyway. (Assume that not only the average product, but also the marginal product, is $1/hour.)
In 1971, there is a major policy change that unleashes the printing press. The government’s cronies start getting humongous payments of new $100 bills, which they do partially spend on consumer goods, but which mostly go into financial assets, real estate, and precious metals. After decades of this new pattern, we find…
In 2013, the same workers collectively put in 1 billion labor-hours, to produce 1 billion units of finished consumer goods, at a price of $2 per unit. Everyone gets paid $2/hour. This contributes $2 billion in nominal GDP. However, the fat cats provide “financial services” of $8 billion in nominal GDP, for a total nominal GDP of $10 billion. Since CPI has doubled, in 1968 dollars real GDP is $5 billion, a five-fold increase.
EPI publishes a paper saying that if the minimum wage kept pace with “inflation,” it would be $2 in 2013. If it kept pace with real productivity growth, it would be $10/hour. A senator asks a guy employing the average worker–and who pays him his marginal product–where the “extra $8” went. Progressives around the world explode with happiness at the economic wisdom thus displayed. Everyone who is in favor of jacking up the minimum wage cites this brilliant exchange, but of course the people responsible have plausible deniability, since they technically never said anything about raising the minimum wage. They just accused the guy of skimming $8 per hour out of his workers’ checks, that’s all.
Recent Comments