Free Trade Makes Puppies Cry

As an amateur economist, I am often asked whether I am in favor of free trade. Rather than bore you with my own dry explanation, allow Frederic Bastiat to demonstrate the evils of free trade in his 1845 Candlemakers' Petition. Joel should appreciate this.

I have got to use this in my future teaching.

Enemies

This is a trifle, and borrowed from Facebook, but I figure as long as I can post a couple of things a month I'll still have readers. Of course, if I knew the kinds of posts people find most interesting I could write about that (food? faith? vigilantism?), but until I figure that out here is this-


According to Chuck Klosterman, who your enemies are is more important to success than who your friends are or even what you do in life:

http://www.grendel.org/tsc/klosterman-enemies.htm

I don't think I have a nemesis or an archenemy, which I guess means I must resign myself to mediocrity. That is, unless someone out there knows who my nemesis and archenemy are. Klosterman thinks women understand this better than men do.

Who is your nemesis, and who is your archenemy?

Meh-wage

I've had weddings and marriage on my mind lately (I've had teaching on my mind as well, but that will have to wait until next time). I've recently been engaged to participate in a friend's wedding next summer, for which I am deeply honored. I often feel that I am on the periphery of most of my friends lives, but things like that remind me that God has used me in people's lives as much as he has used them in mine. It is good to have friends, and it is very good to have friends who are getting married.

Tim's wedding was this past Saturday. I was struck by a couple of things in particular by this wedding. First, I really like the tradition among these Reformed types for the male friends of the groom to gather around him, each laying a hand on him, and to pray right before the wedding. At my own wedding there was something... primal, almost, about uniting the heartfelt petitions of loving brothers for my good with the laying on of hands. It is a beautiful way of remembering that the physical and the spiritual are not opposed, but what happens to each matters to the other. I found it very meaningful to be able to touch Tim and offer a prayer for him and Taryn.

Second, I love how the gospel is portrayed in a wedding, and especially how it is portrayed differently by every couple. Tim and Taryn are wonderful, yet certainly fallen, people. They have made what some consider horrible mistakes, but in this union before God the very symbol of their error became something to celebrate and thank God for his loving care. Like Adam and Eve, Tim and Taryn need not be ashamed.

And last, my first wedding anniversary will be next Sunday. It feels like it has been both a long time and no time at all since that day. At Tim and Taryn's reception, Jessie and I got to talk to Wade for a bit, a rare opportunity these days. For those who don't know (you were almost all there, I think), Wade played guitar (masterfully, I might add) at our wedding. At their reception, Wade said that our wedding and reception were "fun," which Jessie pointed out is probably the nicest compliment anyone could say about our wedding. We'll be out of town for the anniversary, but I just want all of you who were there to know how much we appreciated your presence (especially Annie, Doug, Wade, Meghan, and many other who helped out yet no doubt avoid the blogosphere like the plague), and how much we missed those of you who couldn't make it.


Marriage... I recommend it. So to all you guys out there, start giving those ladies a chance!

No Amnesty for Hypocrites!

"Amnesty is defined as a pardon for an offense. In this case, the offense is" driving faster than 35 mph on city streets (or 65 along designated sections of I-35), floating stop signs, crossing Lindsey St. during the do-not-walk signal, dropping cigarette butts on the ground or gum on the underside of a park bench, and failing to wash your hands after using the john before going back to work.

"The pardon is anything not subjecting [offenders] to proper punishment under the law.[...] We need to elect congressional representatives that understand amnesty is a failed solution."

----------

I doubt many "Law & Order" types on immigration issues would actually agree with the above, as they are all offenders. Somehow that doesn't stop them from demanding blood out of those who don't speak or look "American." It's thoroughly hypocritical to cry your way out of a speeding ticket or tell people to get off your back about the hand washing thing and still say that there must be no compromise toward illegal immigrants.

Does this mean it's OK for illegal immigrants to break the law? No. Does this mean we shouldn't find a solution that recognizes the demands of Justice? No. But if we refuse to show mercy toward strangers and foreigners, we must not dare to talk of mercy for ourselves... ever.

all quotes taken from the Facebook group No Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants!

Dogmatic Disagreement

So in the course of a recent (albeit brief) subject study through the Bible, I find a lack of Scriptural support for something most Christians I have met or heard of ascribe to. Before you get worried, this isn't anything that touches the ecumenical creeds (no venturing into truly heretical territory), nor even a violation of any historic reformed confessions. It truly is a secondary issue.

Because of the relative unimportance of the matter, I am left with a conundrum. On the one hand, I think it is important not to bind the consciences of believers where Christ has left them free. Telling the church that "Scripture says this" when it doesn't should then be a matter worth taking up. On the other hand, is it worth dissenting just to say "this is not necessarily so"? When is it worth it to say that something I've been taught from a young age presumes too much of divine revelation?

I guess I am torn on the issue partly because I'm not exactly strongly convinced of my new position. Aside from the appeal of logical consistency with other beliefs, I don't have a lot to argue my case with. "Scripture doesn't say that" is a good response to someone else's argument, but I may just be missing a nuance of language or further reference, so I could be persuaded back. Is something this weakly held worth bothering with at all?

Buying Faith

In the course of looking into the effect of religiousness on economic growth this semester, I have come across an interesting literature on the subject. It basically considers religious activity as a market - the product produced is a certain set of beliefs, beliefs which are produced using the inputs of individuals' attendance and time. Thus, if the beliefs are beneficial to economic growth, an increase in belief should (ceteris paribus) increase growth, while religious attendance should (again, ceteris paribus) decrease growth since it takes resources (time) from other activities. This is the argument of Harvard University's Robert Barro and Rachel McCleary.

At first this approach to religion, and specifically to Christianity, seemed very offensive. The gospel is not a product to be sold. Although men may constantly be trying to make salvation into a commodity (the money changers in the temple and the Tetzel's indulgences come to mind), I'd like to think that isn't the most significant legacy of Christ's Church.

On the other hand, the prediction makes sense if we think about it. If we believe that Christ's commands are a guide to how to best live in the world, a population that becomes more Christ-like should be better off materially as well as spiritually. For a more covenantal spin, if Christ blesses those who obey his covenant, we should have the same effect. Similarly, if we expect those who hear the Word and ignore it to be worse than those who never hear, more attendance without more belief should be harmful. Again for the covenantal spin, if the community grows by apostasizing, we would expect covenantal cursing. Same idea.

I'm left unsure how I should feel about this view of religion in general and Christianity in particular. It doesn't seem to offer any conclusions that blatantly contradict Scripture, and in fact may confirm some of it. Yet I am left with the feeling that this worldview obscures some important truth by looking with economic glasses at something that is not (primarily) a matter of resource allocation. Galileo brought mathematics to bear on physics, and the physicists argued he was destroying the ability to derive true knowledge from the subject. Perhaps we do the same now, and this just makes it easier to see since religion is an area we particularly don't want mathematical analysis to plunder.

Is human interaction in religion fundamentally just another market, or is there some other irreducible social structure at work?