Some Respect for Joseph
On Facebook I just wrote the following silliness:
The most implausible aspect of the Christmas story isn’t the Virgin Birth. Rather, it’s a guy telling his wife, “I had a dream last night, pack the kid, we’re moving to Egypt,” and she says, “OK.”
(BTW, if you’re not my Friend on Facebook, I really have to wonder about your priorities in life.)
But joking aside, I really do think Joseph doesn’t get much attention in these things. There’s a lot of emphasis on Mary, and of course on Jesus, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a preacher talk much about Joseph.
The best glimpse we get at the kind of guy he was comes from Matthew 1: 18-25:
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[d] And he called His name Jesus.
Growing up, I always liked the part I put in bold above. Joseph was a just man, so he couldn’t in good conscience marry a girl who had become pregnant by another man, but at the same time he was a “nice guy” and wasn’t going to publicly humiliate her for this affront to him, even though plenty of other people would have in his shoes. I think his reaction foreshadows that of his Son when encountering a similar situation (except the woman was actually guilty in Jesus’ presence).
And to All a Good Night
You guys already know about this, but maybe you have someone on your list who’s been naughty and reading Scott Sumner or something.
Also, I needed to break up the karaoke videos on my YouTube channel…
A Request For the Free-Riding Single Gun-Toters Who Sometimes Sleep
In light of our recent discussion on pacifism, familiar points arose. I have a simple request:
If you live by yourself and own a gun, I want you to please put a big sign on your front lawn that says:
I LIVE ALONE. I GO TO BED BY 11PM EVERY NIGHT. MY BEDROOM IS ON THE TOP FLOOR, AT THE LEFT END OF THE HALLWAY. I HAVE ONE GUN WHICH I KEEP IN THE NIGHTSTAND TO THE RIGHT OF MY BED.
Note that if you don’t announce this to the world, you are immorally and inconsistently free-riding off of criminals’ fear generated by those in your neighborhood who don’t live alone, or who work trick-shift and might be waiting with a pointed weapon for someone who breaks in at 3am. I hope you will reconsider the effectiveness of your defense strategy in light of my above, brilliant, points.
Shooting Down Russ Roberts
[UPDATE below.]
Suppose someone says, “You know, rather than waiting for the politicians in Washington DC to solve the nation’s drug problem, maybe parents ought to focus on keeping their own kids from using pot.”
Or, suppose a short guy said, “Be the change you to want to see in the world.”
Not only do I think the above statements are correct, I think the second one is downright profound.
And yet, apparently that makes me a non-economist. Here’s Russ Roberts commenting on the subject of today’s two-minute hate amongst libertarians (HT2 DK):
This short piece by Amitai Etzioni captures the difference between economists and non-economists. He says that rather than wait for gun control laws, we should just ban them in our own homes and post signs outside announcing that our homes are gun-free thereby becoming “ambassadors for gun control.”
I am reminded of the Hillaire Belloc poem:
Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight.
But Roaring Bill who killed him thought it right.
Look, I’m not being coy. The Etzioni piece is ridiculous, but not because of his opening line. That was actually one of the most sensible things I’ve heard since the awful events last week–if you’re for gun control, instead of asking the politicians to do it, do it yourself! Amen brother. I don’t have guns in my house, and I haven’t kept that a secret.
No, I don’t put up a sign about it, but Etzioni’s point with that was to make it clear to everyone that you personally will not tolerate guns on your property. Russ–and I’m just picking on him because 99.99% of libertarians undoubtedly shared his hilarity at Etzioni’s wide-eyed article–captures the difference between general and partial equilibrium analysis. I’d love to live in a society where 99% of the property owners have a big sign that nobody is allowed to enter the property with a gun. Oops no standing army or SWAT teams in that society; they’d have nowhere to stand. Are we sure it would really be so horrible a place to live?
I know, I know, violence is just so seductive that most of you are still sure I’m speaking nonsense. OK let me end with a poem myself, just like Russ did:
Pale Uncle Sam thought it wrong to use drones.
But Red China didn’t and caused many moans.
What’s the moral today, kids? Often times someone’s argument sounds “from the Onion” only because you disagree with his conclusion. The exact same argument in defense of your position would sound great, and you’d be exasperated with the “idiots!!” who dismissed you with glib poetry.
Last thing: I hope the above post doesn’t come off as an angry young man. Believe me, I understand why people are laughing at Etzioni, and I understand why Russ was just having a quick bit of fun. But by the same token, I can understand why people at MSNBC thought it was hilarious when Ron Paul suggested going back on gold or that US foreign policy might have invited 9/11. “What the heck?! What a weirdo thing to say, ha ha who is this old guy?”
UPDATE: I should be clear that I am not “for gun control” in the way most Americans would mean it. I don’t want armed guys from the government trying to make society gun-free, since that would be using violence to try to change the world–something I oppose as a pacifist.
Also, apparently Gandhi may not have actually said that famous “quote.”
New Keynesians, Casey Mulligan, and Sticky Prices: Krugman Must Be Hammered at This Point
I realize some of you think I spend too much time detailing every little inconsistency in The Compleat Works of Paul Krugman, but with great power comes great responsibility. I happen to have a large amount of Krugman’s writings in my mind, and it causes me physical pain when I read his blog and see his almost daily transgressions against both property rights and human decency. It would be selfish to keep these matters to myself, don’t you think?
Anyway, let’s review a particularly sordid episode, to understand why Krugman’s post today is so scandalous.
==> Back in May 2011, U of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan wrote a critique of New Keynesians that contained the following:
Our labor market has long-term problems that are not addressed by Keynesian economic theory. New Keynesian economics is built on the assumption that employers charge too much for the products that their employees make and are too slow to cut their prices when demand falls. With prices too high, customers are discouraged from buying, especially during recessions, and there is not enough demand to maintain employment.
When the financial crisis hit in 2008, the New Keynesian “sticky price” story had some plausibility…
…but then Mulligan goes on to argue why this plausibility faded away, the longer the crisis dragged on and new data came in. My point isn’t to say whether Mulligan’s critique was good or bad. I am just pointing out that he said the New Keynesians had a “sticky price” story to explain long-term unemployment equilibrium.
==> Enter Paul Krugman. In a blog post titled, “Why Casey Can’t Read,” Krugman wrote that Mulligan…
…should try reading a bit of Keynesian economics — old or new, it doesn’t matter — before “explaining” what’s wrong with it. For the doctrine he’s attacking bears no resemblance to anything Keynesians are saying.
This is fairly typical of freshwater economists. They know that what the other side is saying is obviously stupid, so there’s no need to read it; they picked up enough about it talking to some guy in a bar, or whatever, to criticize it.
That last line–about “[t]hey know that what the other side is saying is obviously stupid, so there’s no need to read it”–is pretty rich coming from the same Nobel laureate who wrote this. But I digress. The important point is, Krugman is here biting off Mulligan’s head for claiming that New Keynesians hang their hat on a “sticky price” assumption. I flipped out at the time, explaining that I had been taught (by New Keynesians) at NYU that New Keynesianism was an attempt to reconcile old skool Keynesian policy recommendations with the rational expectations revolution, and the way it worked was by assuming sticky prices.
==> Today, in December 2012, while admonishing Noah Smith for showing mercy to the fools on the other side, Krugman writes:
I’m not saying that the NK [New Keynesian] approach is necessarily right; but it’s a serious intellectual effort, undertaken by people who thought they were part of an open professional dialogue. Oh, and there’s a lot of evidence for the price stickiness that is central to NK models; again, maybe it doesn’t mean what the theorists think, but surely that evidence ought to be part of any discussion. [Bold added.]
I Found a New Place to Dwell
I’ve revamped the “Read At Your Own Risk” links since the old list was pretty stale. The one major change I want to draw to your attention is the addition of J.P. Koning’s blog. Just click on it right now and scroll through the topics. If you are interested in the history of monetary institutions, I don’t know a better place to send you.
Polish Data Bask
Can anyone point me to “official” statistics for Polish consumer price inflation and GDP growth from, say, 2000 onward?
Rowe Ruh Roh
Sorry, I was trying to come up with the analog of a Krugman Kontradiction for Nick Rowe, and this was it…
Some of you may recall that I happily linked to Nick Rowe explaining just how nutty was Paul Krugman’s praise of a hypothetical bond vigilante attack on the US. (Remember, Brad DeLong had to chime in, to defend Krugman from Rowe’s post.)
Well, today Nick said that Japan should welcome a debt crisis. Then he and I had this exchange in the comments:
Nick, I’m having trouble reconciling this with your critique of Krugman on the bond vigilante stuff. A naive reader would have thought you believed his post saying bond vigilantes would help, was borderline dangerous. And yet, a naive reader would also think you were here saying Japan should welcome a debt crisis.
Posted by: Bob Murphy | December 17, 2012 at 08:16 PMBob: it wasn’t really a critique of Krugman. More of a qualification and extension.
I really wish I could find the right metaphor. Andrew’s “avalanche” helps a bit, but it’s not quite right, because….we are short of snow down here in the valley.
Japan should welcome a debt crisis. Just not too big a crisis.
Posted by: Nick Rowe | December 17, 2012 at 08:39 PMNick, OK, let me try it this way: Should the US welcome a debt crisis too?
Posted by: Bob Murphy | December 17, 2012 at 11:36 PMBob: yes. Not too big a one. Just like Japan.
Posted by: Nick Rowe | December 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Sometimes I pause and think, “Is it really possible that all these sharp guys–who clearly have studied macroeconomics more than I have, in some cases for longer than I’ve been alive–are so totally wrong about monetary policy? Do I really want to be constantly criticizing a Nobel laureate?”
But then I think, “Well, these guys are saying the problem with the world economy is that Bernanke has had an ultra-tight monetary policy, and they are hoping for a debt crisis.” And that reassures me that something is screwed up with their worldview.
Recent Comments