Doctor Who, the Popular Musical

Below the fold (jumpbreak? I never know what to call it...) are some videos featuring one of my current favorite shows and a couple of my current favorite bands.

Reading Scripture and the Conservative/Liberal Divide

My wife provided a link to this article at Christianity Today, which discusses some new research on the relationship between regular Bible reading on whether the reader leans conservative or liberal on various topics. Some of the key findings (find more at the link):

Frequent Bible reading has some predictable effects on the reader. It increases opposition to abortion as well as homosexual marriage and unions. [...] But [...] For each increased level of Bible-reading frequency, support for the Patriot Act decreased by about 13 percent. [...] As might be expected, respondents who were more politically liberal were prone to disagree with the statement, "The government should punish criminals more harshly." Unexpectedly (at least given the conservative stereotype), the more frequently people read the Bible, the more they too are prone to disagree with the statement. [...] the more someone reads the Bible, the more likely he or she is to believe science and religion are compatible.[...] contrary to liberal media stereotypes, those who are most engaged in their faith (by directly and frequently reading its source material) are those who are most supportive of social and economic justice.

The article interprets this as causal: more frequent Bible reading makes otherwise conservative Christians more liberal. I think there is some sense to this interpretation. It's hard to read large segments of the Bible and think of it as more about rules and instructions than stories and people. And it's very hard to read those stories and still think of people as either good guys who follow the rules or bad guys who bring God's wrath upon them. The Bible doesn't really have many black hats, and even fewer white hats.

But it sounds like the study doesn't actually pin down the direction of causation in this way, I can think of good reasons it could go differently. In particular, if you're a slightly more liberal person in a conservative church environment, you will more frequently leave a sermon wondering "but does it really say that?" This provides motivation to read the Bible for yourself rather than just taking a pastor or teacher's word for it.

So my instinct is that sorting out the degree of cause in each direction is far from simple. Nevertheless, it's an important correlation, and one that holds even after controlling for a number of other important relationships. What do you think? Does reading the Bible regularly moderate your views? What about other people you know?

Matt Yglesias Is Right and Wrong

As Matt Yglesias discussed a few days ago, he has a problem with public choice economics:

While of course I agree with many of the specific observations made under the banner of public choice (public officials often do corrupt and self-interested things), I don’t really “get” public choice and think I never will. The basic theory [...] seems to go like this:

1) Spread cynicism about public officials.
2) …
3) Libertarianism!

The psychological and sociological links here seem clear enough. Both libertarian political ideology and spreading cynicism about public officials serve to raise the status of businessmen and lower the status of politicians and bureaucrats. But as a political agenda it doesn’t work at all.

He goes on to provide plenty of good reasons why cynicism is problematic as a guiding principle for political decisions. He's right.

But he's completely wrong in thinking that what he's talking about is public choice economics. Perhaps a trip to Wikipedia could have cleared this up. Public choice is not a political agenda. It's descriptive, applying the analytical tools of economics to the decision-making process of political bodies. It's core premise is that politicians are no less (and no more!) oriented toward their own best interests than any other human being.

It's true that public choice is often used as a part of the case for libertarianism, but only because advocates all too often assume that politics has the uncanny ability to attract only the most altruistic idealists into its ranks. Public choice makes the case, rather, that political institutions can just as easily attract those seeking economic rents... or at the very least those whose motives look very like the motives of any other consumer or firm manager.

So Yglesias is right that if we are trying to tell political figures how they can look out for the well-being of society we shouldn't expect public choice economics to give us the answers. But then we wouldn't offer advice on generating bigger externalities to polluters, either. If we want to be able to predict how the political system will deal with something, though, we might want to model the actual decision-makers, and public choice provides an under-utilized means of doing that. For that matter, if we want to construct institutions that limit the ability of politicians to indulge their self-interest, public choice can help us there, too, although it will also tell us why such institutional changes are difficult to achieve.

In the end, it seems like what Matt Yglesias doesn't really get is the difference between prescriptive policy and descriptives science.

And by 'Life As Usual' I Meant...

... that I'll be on hiatus for the next four months. Apparently.

Not to go all Randy Quaid in Independence Day on you, but:


Yep. The plan is to post on a semi-regular basis, probably only about once a week.

So what's been keeping me busy this whole time? Well, let's see:

• My family and I have moved to California
• I am now a full time faculty member teaching three different courses
• So my time has been pretty full with teaching, evaluation, and settling into life on the west coast
• Also, I have a two-year-old daughter and an amazing and creative wife, so why wouldn't I be keeping busy?

I'm hoping to continue living up to the blog's tag line of "exercises in self-awareness," but I will probably be keeping it simpler overall. I'll be commenting on items from the Internet that get me thinking, posting links and videos, and with any luck I'll be putting some book reviews up as well!

Thanks for continuing to hang around even though nothing's been happening. Feel free to post requests or ideas in the comments. You can also look me up on Twitter or the Google+.

News in Brief

I just got my Ph.D. in Economics. Pretty pleased about it, to be honest. Life as usual to return presently. That is all.

Linkdump: Immigration

The Wall Street Journal recommends some fiction for your library, which I have not read, but sounds interesting. (Cannot be excerpted, check out the article for very brief reviews)

The Economist says more legal immigration is low-hanging fruit.

At a time when America is concerned about excess housing supply and anxious to boost its innovative capacity it is madness that so many willing immigrants, including high-skilled workers, including those educated in America, find it difficult to impossible to gain permission to work in the country on a stable, long-term basis.

Annie Lowry agrees.

The pro-super-immigrant data abounds. According to the Hamilton Project, immigrants are 30 percent more likely to start a business than U.S.-born citizens. Immigrants with college degrees are three times as likely to file patents as the domestically born. And all that entrepreneurial gusto really adds up. Economist Jennifer Hunt of McGill estimates that the contributions of immigrants with college degrees increased the U.S.'s GDP per capita by between 1.4 and 2.4 percent in the 1990s.

Despite these success stories, the United States still discourages foreign-born entrepreneurs. The H1-B visa program allows employers to bring in highly skilled workers but grants only 85,000 new temporary visas per year. Many recipients need to leave the country when their contracts end, giving them no incentive to put down roots and start businesses. The student visa program also allows in tens of thousands of the most talented, driven students from overseas, only to push most of them out again once their education is finished.

Bryan Caplan directs us to Tino Sanandaji on the negative political effects of allowing more immigration.

Though ignored by proponents of the ethnic-diversity-and-redistribution, minorities also get to vote, and they vote overwhelmingly for the left. This effect is dominant when we are discussing free migration, because with open borders in a world where 700 million people have told Gallup they would like to migrate right now, sooner or later the immigrants will become the majority of voters and make the political preferences of the natives irrelevant.

And now, some cartoons from the Internet:*

 *Yes, this is overkill on the pithy graphics. Yes, political cartoons oversimplify issues. I still think they're worth including.