"Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen?" Joseph’s Answer
I have always loved the Genesis story of Joseph (Gen. 37-50). The runt in the family, he was a bit of a braggart and so his older brothers decided to kill him. But for various reasons the plan changes at the last second, and they “only” sell him into slavery. (What’s funny is that when I was younger and read this story, I was horrified. Now that I am older and rereading it, I was more understanding. “Well, he was being kind of a punk what with those dreams and all.” I don’t know if I should be pleased or disturbed by my change in reaction.)
So to make a long (and great) story short, Joseph ends up being promoted from a dungeon in Egypt to being Pharaoh’s second in command, because (with God’s guidance) he can interpret dreams. He correctly predicts that all the land will be hit with seven years of plenty and seven years of famine, and so the Pharaoh makes out like a bandit selling stockpiled food to everyone during the famine years. (No mention on what futures markets were saying during the boom years, or what rating Moodys gave to wheat-backed securities.)
When his brothers come to Egypt hoping to buy food, Joseph has a bit of fun with them at first. But then he reveals his identity–they of course assumed he was long dead–and they are wracked with guilt. Joseph tells them (chapter 45):
4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! 5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. 6 For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. 7 But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
8 “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt…”
Obviously this type of thing–by itself–would not refute an atheist; after all, God caused the famine! Yet I do think the answer is here.
We Have Always Been At War With Troubled Assets
A little 1984 reference for ya…
So for a brief window on Sunday, it seemed the government was considering buying “toxic” assets from Citigroup to get them off of its books. (See the first update in this CNBC story. HT2 CalculatedRisk via MR.) You know, the original rationale for the $700 billion, and then the one that Paulson just two weeks ago said he wasn’t going to ever use because he knew when Congress passed it that it wouldn’t work.
Why the switch-switch-switcheroo? I don’t know, but Robert Wenzel predicted the Citi bailout would be special because of its ties to Goldman Sachs. Maybe Paulson & Friends figured the asset buyout would be a great idea if they could limit it to one “special” company and give really good prices.
Are Libertarians Superlative in More Ways Than Political Analysis?
In an MR thread discussing Paul Samuelson’s (rather hypocritical) condemnation of libertarians, someone calling himself goodnessOfFit declared:
As someone who identifies with libertarians more than the other guys I will say this. For some reason it (along with Objectiveism and Austrian Economics) attracts some of the rudeist a**holes you will ever meet online or in person. I am not sure which way the causal arrow runs or what the selection mechanism might be but man is it true.
Besides Mr. Fit’s refusal to drop e‘s after certain words–he’s a non-conformist!–we have to ask, does his claim fit?
I think that if it does fit for a particular person–i.e. if a certain person can truthfully say that some of the rudest people he or she has met online or in person are libertarians–then it is because the person in question is attracted to libertarian ideas, and so hangs out at the relevant websites. Thus, the most dogmatic and cocksure people, will necessarily be hardcore libertarians (or Objectivists, or subscribers to the Austrian school of economics).
I mean, as in-your-face as you think some libertarian commentators are, are they really worse than people at a union rally? Check out the comments at Mark Thoma’s blog regarding a recent Tyler Cowen article on the New Deal. What’s funny is that (a) these people accuse Cowen of being a libertarian and (b) they are extreme jerks about it.
So I think what is happening is that goodnessOfFit is embarrassed by obnoxious libertarians more than obnoxious interventionists commenting on Tyler Cowen. And if you went to any other site discussing political issues, you would find the most “extreme” people being complete jerks and questioning the honor and intelligence* of the “less pure” people.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I think libertarians need to study the tactics of nonviolent resistance as taught by Gandhi and leaders of the civil rights movement in the U.S. If the majority has no problem violating (what you perceive to be) your basic rights, then you need to change their minds (or leave the country). And you don’t do that through name calling or, even worse, blowing stuff up or hurting people.
* In contrast, it is completely acceptable to accuse one’s intellectual opponents of temporary insanity.
Elected Officials Bomb Test on American Heritage
From MR, via Mark Steckbeck who (if it’s the same guy) was my colleague at Hillsdale College, and note that the regular indentation refers to Tyler’s words, while the indents are his quotes from a news story:
—–US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.
—–Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).
Here’s one detail:
—–Asked about the electoral college, 20 percent of elected officials incorrectly said it was established to “supervise the first televised presidential debates.”
Here is the clincher:
—–The question that received the fewest correct responses, just 16 percent, tested respondents’ basic understanding of economic principles, asking why “free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning?”
This one is a little tricky:
—–Forty percent of respondents, meanwhile, incorrectly believed that the US president has the power to declare war, while 54 percent correctly answered that that power rests with Congress.
For those who are curious, I got 32/33. I will post my reactions to the quiz in the comments, so as not to spoil anything for those who want to take it.
Murphy to Write The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression & the New Deal
I am now working on a new book in the PIG series, this on one the Depression and New Deal. It should come out sometime in the spring.
It puts me in a bit of a quandary. When the book is available and I link to it from this blog, should I call it the second best economics book ever? Or do I demote my first book?
Megan McArdle Has Buyer’s Regret With Obama
First let’s set the stage. In a recent post, Megan McArdle links to this story and quotes the following:
Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee — once the chief economic adviser to candidate Barack Obama — may be less of a shoo-in to chair Obama’s White House Council of Economic Advisers than his admirers once imagined.
The Obama transition team is interviewing to find a woman, perhaps a minority woman, to fill the CEA chair — a Senate-confirmed position. Informed sources suggest the candidates on the CEA list now include Princeton University economics and public affairs professor Cecilia Elena Rouse, whose specialty is labor economics. The hunt for a woman, explained several sources close to the transition deliberations, is aimed at broadening the white-male cast of the White House team assembled to date (the current tally of announced picks is 3 women, 9 men).
Goolsbee, a respected University of Chicago professor, remains in contention for other administration posts, the sources added.
Commenting on the above, McArdle says: “I’m flabbergasted. If true, this is a bloody embarassment [sic].”
Then she tells us at the end of her post:
More to the point, the worst financial crisis in seventy years is really not the time to see if you can brighten up the CEA offices with a nice, decorative matched set of X chromosomes. Goolsbee has been advising Obama since the beginning; presumably, this is some sort of testimony to the esteem in which Obama holds his competence. Throwing him overboard now makes this look like less of a “plus factor” and more like Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters. Given the stakes, that’s more than a little irresponsible.
Needless to say, given that Obama’s sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.
No Ms. McArdle, I’m sorry, but you can’t get away with this. Obama showed quite clearly during the campaign that he would do whatever he needed to win. One day North Korea and Iran are tiny countries that pose no threat to us, and within that same week (possibly the very next day, I’m not sure) he said, “I have always said that Iran posed a serious threat to the United States.”
On the whole Jeremiah Wright thing, one day he is practically a father to Obama, and Obama could no sooner disown him than his own parents or the black community. And then Wright gives a speech to the Press Club and Obama throws him under the bus.
Folks, whatever you think of Obama, the one thing you really can’t say is, he’s an idealistic young man who doesn’t play politics like others do. There is no way you come out of Chicago, and then beat Hillary Clinton in the primary, unless you are a savvy politician.
Last thing, Ms. McArdle: I don’t care whom he had on his list of advisors. Are you telling me your primary support for Obama was because of his economic views?! Are you out of your mind? Does that include his plan to slap a windfall profits tax on oil companies to lower prices at the pump? What about his plans to raise the capital gains tax, and then saying “It’s an issue of fairness” after someone pointed out that it would bring in less revenue? How about the ludicrous “green jobs” programs? Need I mention Joe the Plumber?
Canadian Court Rules That Obese Have "Right" to Two Airline Tickets
Nope, it’s not from The Onion. And no, it doesn’t mean that obese people have the right to buy two adjacent seats if they want:
OTTAWA (Reuters) – Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.
The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are “functionally disabled by obesity” deserve to have two seats for one fare.
It’s still wrong, but I can at least understand the motivation to force “public” buildings to be wheelchair-accessible, etc. But this is just crazy. Should obese people be able to go to a steakhouse and get two entrees for the price of one? Why not?
If you go to the story, you’ll see they have a photo of an obese woman. That kinda bummed me out. Do you think they told the woman, “Hi, we need a photo of an overweight person, mind if we snap yours?”
This reminds me of a Saved By the Bell episode. (My younger brother would watch them when we were latchkey kids. I quite possibly have seen each episode three times.) I forget why, but Zach had to take some homely girl to the dance. But the thing was, the whole “joke” was how ugly this girl was. And this was some 15-year-old actress! What the heck, does her agent go looking for scripts calling for girls who can (perhaps with help from makeup) be made to look so ugly that it can motivate the plot?
And as far as I remember, this wasn’t a typical she-starts-out-ugly-but-you-change-her-hair-and-give-her-contacts-and-then-realize-she’s-hot thing. I was mad at that girl’s parents for letting her do the episode.
Rob Bradley on Reason.tv Promoting His New Book
Rob Bradley, founder of the Institute for Energy Research (and yes, the guy who hired me), talks with Reason.tv about his new book, Capitalism at Work. (HT2 Dan Simmons.) Great job, Rob, you’re awesome!
Seriously, Rob provides a great response to all the people who think Enron = deregulated capitalism. Rob worked for Enron for 16 years, and explains that they were actually a darling of the left until, well, they collapsed. I touch on this particular issue in this Townhall column.
Recent Comments