Friday, April 21, 2023

some thoughts on afterlife, life, annihilaationism, universalism, etc. (from a discussion with a friend)

I can't go to universalism for a number of reasons-- Justice, the inanity of works-based salvation, etc. But more creatively, I love C.S. Lewis' point (most powerfully in The Great Divorce) that everyone chooses. Frankly, a lot of people don't want to be with God or His people, as evidenced by their beliefs and behavior on Earth. Forcing them to do so for eternity would probably be Hell not Heaven.

I agree that A is the minority position in terms of popularity. (The why here is interesting and I don't have a sure answer.) But there are tons of verses that support A, including ironically, John 3:16! Biblically, A is somewhere between grudgingly respectable and the dominant position. (I just taught on it three weeks ago at church-- and it always gets the same favorable range of responses.) I cover A (and other related topics) on this issue of my podcast if you're interested: I can also send you a Word doc or just a list of verses if you want to investigate further and avoid this error in the future (and maybe help others who misunderstand).

I'm lost here: Why is post-death non-existence a cruel teaching? (A ton of folks-- well beyond a handful of atheists-- believe "this is all there is"! The first thing I got when I googled indicates that only 50% in the UK believe in an afterlife.) Anyway, why do people have a right to something more than this life? Purgatory with modest punishment? This grossly underestimates the extent of our sin. Sin is not just rebellion but "missing the mark". Every word, action, motive, thought, and the strength by which we do things (Rom 14:23) that falls short of perfection is sin. Sins of omission and commission. For example, if improper anger is even a cousin of murder, what do I deserve in terms of punishment? There is a bit of evidence for belief in reincarnation in the Bible, but not for reincarnation per se. And then there's Heb 9:27. The canned but good hand-waving answer is: God will work things out in Justice for "those who haven't heard". (Rom 1:20, 2:14-15, etc. indicate that we all have some knowledge. Many passages indicate that much/less is expected from those who have more/less.) Inclusivism is one (excellent but not totally precise) answer. (This also resolves the question of people before Jesus.) I've read essays and at least two books on Universalism. It has some appeal, but doesn't have a strong Scriptural case on net and has logic problems to boot. My favorite point here: it's not at all clear that having a ton of access to the Gospel is a huge advantage. I think I'd rather have one clean shot at accepting God's grace than a bunch of ops in a culture where most people already imagine that they're a Christian.

Monday, April 3, 2023

fielding questions on equilibrium and efficiency in Econ

Question: I asked about equilibrium because I was wondering if there's a theory of market equilibria and if a free market would be optimal in a mathematical sense. Free markets are blamed for bank failures, etc. But would free markets be better for reducing poverty (as opposed to leading to concentration of wealth and power), or efficiency (avoiding what you blame government for: cronyism, lack of innovation, etc)--are these subject to mathematical modeling?

  • OK, thanks for re-engaging in what is a really interesting question/discussion. (When you said "equilibria", I thought you were referring to "market processes"-- how markets work and the tendency of mkts to move toward equilibrium. The popular/famous D&S graphs are a useful/powerful way to depict this in a reductionistic manner. But it looks like you were going a different direction with your question.)
    Yes, these things (and many more in Econ) are subjected to mathematical modeling-- for better/worse. The math in Econ theory can be quite heavy; having a Math undergrad was quite helpful to me and we don't recommend grad work without math up through Diff.Eq., Matrix Algebra, Stats, and Econometrics/Linear Regression.
    Often, the math is helpful; but often, it is misleading, distracting, etc. In Micro, we're trying to model human behavior within complex systems-- challenging. In Macro, they're trying to model human behavior and complex systems-- good luck. One of the inferences from Austrian Economics (and what's called the knowledge problem) is that efforts to reduce the economy to equations is somewhere between ridiculous and not worth it overall. (I share sympathies with this but see it as a baby/bathwater thing and don't think we should avoid it entirely.)
    Since the 1960s and 1970s, Econ has become much more mathematical-- and often, much less "economic", with economists ironically/perversely understanding less and less econ. (With the specialization of subfields in Econ, an "applied micro" like me is likely to have wide knowledge, but a Micro theory or Macro may not know much outside of their sub-field. I suspect that the math ability leads to hubris in many folks, leading them to talk too much outside their field.) So, generally: publishing in the top-tier journals is impossible without a ton of math and sophisticated empirical models. And one can be successful in the field with little or no understanding of markets, economics, etc. When we were in grad school, a student with a PhD in Physics and no background in Econ joined us and was so good at the math, that he had more refereed journal articles in grad school than I will have in my career (and I'm probably in the Top 10-20%)-- without knowing any econ.
  • Eric Schansberg
    A smaller, separate comment on "mkt failure" in general. This is a specific term in Econ and likely not how you're using it. "Mkt failure" is when the mkt takes us to outcomes that are *inefficient*. (There are other criteria by which one might be *dissatisfied* with mkt outcomes: "equity" [fairness concerns about process and/or outcomes] and "paternalism" [questioning people's decision-making ability AND wanting to use govt to remedy it].) There are five areas where mkts can be inefficient: "public goods" (again, jargon: "nonexcludable/nonrival" and the "free rider problem"; e.g., asteroid abatement); "externalities" (e.g., pollution, vaccines); asymmetric information; natural monopoly power; and macro business cycles.
    "Failure" is no longer seen as the best word, since
    a.) the level of inefficiency can vary where a 0/1 category is misleading (e.g., the difference between the externalities of pollution and me not cutting my grass often enough);
    b.) mkts tend to "struggle" in these areas, but often don't have much trouble and find workarounds (broadcast radio is a pure public good, but mkts handle it well);
    c.) failure implies....well, failure-- and so, it begs for govt intervention, which itself "fails" (or really, struggles) to do better. So, the question is whether govt will actually do better in practice vs. naive theories.
    Hopefully, you can see how Econ interacts with my Libertarianism. As a Libertarian, I'm ethically bothered by much govt activism, finding little room for using the force of govt to intervene in terms of equity or paternalism. But as a Libertarian and an economist, I find some role for govt on efficiency grounds, but (quite) worried (given theory and data) about how well they will do this in practice.
  • Finally, a few thoughts on "bank failures" as an example.
  • Finally, a few thoughts on bank failures: 
  • 1.) These are not "market failures" in the sense defined above. Businesses open and close all the time; this is largely a feature of markets rather than a failure. In competition, if firms do a poor job or demand decreases, then resources move elsewhere, resulting in massive losses for owners (and modest losses for those connected to them). Likewise, technological advances can stir markets in various ways that can lead to firms closing. If you don't think this is a feature, imagine a world where businesses can't close and the consequences of the resulting monopoly power. (Well, actually, you can do that by thinking about various govt-sponsored or govt-run monopolies!)
    2.) Most activity in an economy is regulated, but some (much) more than others. As regulation increases, one has to increasingly talk about "govt failure/struggle" and decreasingly blame mkts for outcomes. Key examples: the amazing levels of govt intervention in health care/insurance and the Great Depression imply that mkts generally get far too much blame and govt gets far too little blame in these contexts.
    3.) Because the govt intervenes so heavily in banking, it has to bear some/much responsibility for outcomes we don't like. Many times, it's straightforward-- e.g., govt's bank regulators failed to regulate well. Many times, it's more complex and subject to trade-offs-- e.g., the short-term and long-term implications of "Too Big to Fail". Even the expansion of FDIC insurance for deposits is a mixed bag: good news for depositors and more trust in "the system", but less concern and therefore less mkt regulation by investors and especially depositors about the quality of their bank.
  • Eric Schansberg
    One more thing: "avoiding what you blame government for: cronyism..." I'm not sure why this misperception continues, but let me try again. Cronyism requires a demand (by labor unions and certain businesses & non-profits) and a supply (by bureaucrats and politicians). If you don't like a market outcome, you "blame" demand and supply. (No demand = no cronyism; no supply = no cronyism.) But it does starts with demand. (If you don't like Taylor Swift, the underlying problem is the preferences of TS fans.) But I do have a big problem with cronies who pretend that they're not cronies and are self-righteous about it to boot (as are many in govt and their partisans).

Sunday, April 2, 2023

comparing policy accomplishments of Biden, Trump and others

A few principles to try to apply consistently:

-If you take credit for spending, you gotta take credit for the subsequent taxes and undemocratic debt. Unless you do something impressive with the spending, then that's at best a net zero-- or a clear net-negative for a supposed democracy-lover like Biden.

-Spending money is easy and politically useful for the President & Congress-- and thus, not some mark of great courage or leadership.

-We can elevate "gun safety bill" to top-tier if you want, but then you have to be consistent and give other presidents credit for similar-level accomplishments. (E.g., Trump on whistle-blowers, human trafficking, veterans, etc.)

-I prefer to keep the waters clearer and focus on significant accomplishments that required some combo of vision and courage and/or moved the needle a lot. In the case of Trump, for example, I'm thinking of tax simplification, knocking out a ton of loopholes. I can't think of a Biden policy achievement that comes close to this. (I can think of one for Obama's eight years-- and that was decidedly mixed-bag.)

-At some level, you'd want to weigh in big policy plunders and missed opportunities (had majorities in both Houses but didn't do anything about the things that are apparently more fun to moan about than to take steps). In contrast, Reagan worked with a strongly Dem House to accomplish a bunch of impressive things.

Friday, March 31, 2023

house vs. home and hospitality as (financial and spiritual) stewardship

A useful article from Arthur Brooks in The Atlantic on the "home" purpose of a house-- as part of his series of essays on happiness...

For Christians, it comes back to stewardship. If you have a house, is it a home for your family? And if it's a home for your family, is it a place of ministry and hospitality to others? (If not, why not? And what can you do to avoid "wicked and lazy servant" when you give an account of your stewardship?)

More broadly, the choice to buy a house is often sold in blinkered financial terms-- with renting imagined as "pouring money down a hole". Well, yes, but you pour a ton of money down a hole in buying a house: insurance, property taxes, maintenance, realtor fees, and interest (all of which are embedded in rent). To note: If you get a 30-year loan and move after 5-10 years, you pour *much* more money down a hole by buying a house.

Thursday, March 30, 2023

review of Riley's "Maverick" (a biography of Thomas Sowell)

Thomas Sowell is an economist, policy analyst, and social commentator whose output has been prolific in terms of volume and range—within economics and well beyond. Sowell has a cult following, but is greatly under-rated. Ironically, he is even vilified by those on the Left, because he's African-American and classically liberal. In Maverick, his biography of Sowell, Jason Riley hopes to bring more attention to his life, his ideas, and his thought process.  

Riley describes Sowell’s remarkable background (3, 10, 23). Born in rural North Carolina without electricity or running water, nobody in his family had achieved more than a 7th-grade education. His father died before he was born and his mother died soon afterwards, so he was raised by his great aunt in Harlem. He dropped out of school at 16; he was labeled by the courts as a "wayward minor"; and he lived in a shelter for homeless boys in the Bronx. After a stint in the Marines, he earned his undergraduate degree at age 28 from Harvard and his PhD ten years later from Chicago. Great schools, but not exactly a fast start!

Sowell's perspective on his journey is instructive: "even my misfortunes were in some ways fortunate, for they taught me things that would be hard to understand otherwise...I have lived through experiences which [most intellectuals] can only theorize about...It gave me a lasting respect for the common sense of ordinary people...a blind spot in much of their social analysis..." (4)

Along the same lines, Sowell is critical of those who have limited relevant experience or speak outside their areas of expertise. [Riley cites Sowell's pokes at Gunnar Myrdal on poverty and foreign aid (20); Bertrand Russell, Paul Ehrlich, Jacob Riis (38); and James Baldwin (100-101).] They often "pay no price for being wrong." (38) There is a tension here: when is enough study and expertise sufficient to speak with some authority? In any case, it is clear that elites and intellectuals often traffic beyond their knowledge, especially in economics and public policy. 

As per the book's title, Riley portrays Sowell as an iconoclast. Riley mines Sowell's 2007 compilation of letters, where one can see his "directness, the wit, the swagger, the a very early date." (46) In this, Sowell follows other independent thinkers, such as George Schuyler and Franklin Frazier (obscure African-Americans intellectual cousins to Sowell) and P.T. Bauer (18-19). Bauer was virtually alone for decades in arguing that foreign aid and natural resources were neither necessary nor sufficient for economic growth in less-developed countries. [Roland Fryer is similar to Sowell in many regards. See also: Charles Murray who took a lot of grief for Losing Ground, but his critiques of welfare policy later became conventional wisdom.]

One key to Sowell's analysis stems from basic economics: the importance of "trade-offs". Even when there are great benefits to a policy, they should still be weighed against the costs, which often turn out to be great as well. This leads to either interesting debates or simplistically (and often dogmatically) ignoring one side of the reality equation. Even with civil rights in the 1960s, Sowell was concerned with the inherent trade-offs. For example, he asked "how much time and effort could be spared for endless campaigns to get into every hamburger stand operated by a redneck?" (49) When HBU's rushed to start graduate programs, Sowell argued that the relevant faculty were spread too thin, resulting in "fraud and a criminal waste of time for students." (84) 

Failure to see trade-offs leads to blindness, naivete, and bowing to good intentions. As Sowell observed, "People who have been trying for years to tell others that Negroes are basically no different from anybody else should not themselves lose sight of the fact that Negroes are just like everybody else in wanting something for nothing." (52) Or as he rightly worried: "calls for equal treatment [will morph] into calls for special treatment." (51) 

This problem continues to our day in the realm of civil rights—as activists argue about reparations and topple statues, while ignoring far larger and clearer issues such as the impact of government's welfare, education, and drug policies. From early-on, Sowell hoped for a day when "real thought" would dominate in areas "where slogans and labels hold sway." (51) Alas, this has rarely happened in recent decades. 

Seeing racial prejudice as a primary explanation for economic outcomes was absurd to Sowell, even decades ago: "even if whites were suddenly to abandon their racial prejudices, the immediate impact on the economic conditions of most blacks would be minimal." (59) "The question is not whether people are discriminated against. The question is to what extent discrimination can explain differences in outcomes." (149) The answer—unless perhaps if one wants to point fingers at the "systemic racism" of government—is minimal. 

"The battle for civil rights was won decisively...decades ago, and the succeeding years have painfully revealed that blatant denials of civil rights were not the universal explanation of social or racial problems." (181) Moreover, people who claimed that "the black middle today is a product of civil rights legislation enacted in the 1960s and affirmative action policies implemented in the 1970s simply didn't have the facts on their side...The cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps—before political rescuers arrived on the scene..." (180, 240)

To Sowell, “Affirmative Action” is troubling both ethically and practically. Advancing in his field before its emergence was one blessing to him (71). Spending his earlier research years in England, which had less emphasis on race and skin color, was another (62). Affirmative Action "calls into question the competency of all blacks by trying to help some blacks." (204) For example, by the time Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale, the favoritism had begun to bear ill fruit (69).

Along these lines, Riley shares an amazing letter from Sowell (205-206) to the chair of the Econ department at Swarthmore who was "actively looking for a black economist" in 1972: "What purpose is to be served by this sort of thing?...Surely a labor economist of your reputation must know that unemployment among black Ph.D.'s is one of the least of our social problems...Many a self-respecting black scholar would never accept an offer like this...Your approach tends to make the job unattractive to anyone who regards himself as a scholar...and thereby throws it open to opportunists...Despite all the brave talk in academia about 'affirmative action' without lowering standards, you and I both know it takes many years to create qualified faculty members of any color, and no increased demand is going to immediately increase the supply unless you lower quality. Now what good is going to come from lower standards that will make 'black' equivalent to 'substandard' in the eyes of black and white students alike?"

As obvious from historical examples like the Irish and the Japanese in America, political power was neither necessary nor sufficient for economic outcomes. Beyond that, Sowell "found suspect the whole idea of a need for racial and ethnic leadership...Who has been able to take credit for the Jews rising or for the Asian Americans?" (216) And then there's the rank hypocrisy or at least incoherence: "Multiculturalists in the academy and in the media were trying to have it both ways...ethnic cultures were the same time, they refused to address the economic consequences of those differences..." (185)

Often, the crux of the matter is an unexpressed ideology. In A Conflict of Visions, Sowell describes what he calls the constrained (or tragic) vs. unconstrained (or utopian) visions. The constrained vision tries to pursue the best outcomes given the constraints at hand. The unconstrained view can't see constraints and then seeks to maximize outcomes without the reality of costs. For them, "logic and evidence is not going to be your determining factor...[instead, it's] an aesthetic." (163-164) Or sometimes, the constraints are understood but cynically ignored—as is common in politics. As Sowell has quipped, "the first rule of economics is scarcity...the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics." (163) 

This takes us to the field of Public Choice Economics. Sowell began to reject his early Marxist beliefs after taking a job with the U.S. Department of Labor in 1960: "The experience of seeing government at work from the inside...started me rethinking the whole notion of government as a potentially benevolent adherence to the visions and doctrines of the left began to erode rapidly." (43) The old adage is that a classical liberal is a fan of government who's been mugged by reality. Some haven't seen the reality; some ignore the reality; others imagine that the reality must be different with other realms of government. When Sowell saw the reality, he had the intellectual integrity and courage to adjust his vision. 

For one thing, "intellectuals as a group have occupational self-interests just like everyone else." (134) Political leaders are also incentivized in unfortunate ways: they "must offer 'solutions' that at least plausibly lie within the political domain. Therefore, whatever the real complex of forces at work...political leaders tend to emphasize—sometimes exclusively—those factors for which a law or policy can be formulated...In short, political 'solutions' tend to misconceive the basic issues...These misconceptions may serve the political leadership well, even if they are counterproductive for the racial or ethnic group in whose name they speak." (186)

See also: "black organizations". There is "a long history of conflating the interests of most black Americans with the interests of black organizations, black journalists, black academics, and other black elites who profess to advocate on their behalf. And the media lazily continues to turn to these groups...Black 'leadership' in general does not depend on expressing the opinions of blacks but on having access to whites...Whites who have a limited time to give the problems of blacks need a few familiar blacks they can turn to. The civil rights organizations provide that convenience..." (225, 228-229). Sowell also "pointed out the hypocrisy in assuming that only blacks on the political left can take money from white benefactors and maintain their integrity." For this, he even called the NAACP "classic house niggers." (55) Ouch!

And then there is the intersection of Austrian Economics with Sowell's thought—in particular, what's called "the knowledge problem" and how it is addressed by economic and political markets. It's not the knowledge of experts that is so vital, but the knowledge that is dispersed throughout markets and society (126-132). So, the "expanding role of experts in politics" and greater "reliance on centralized government" are problematic, since this "translates into less efficient applications of knowledge and a larger gap between the people who make decisions and those who have to live with the consequences." (134) While "there is seldom a shortage of people willing to draw up blueprints for salvation. What is important is that such people and those who judge their proposals both understand what they are talking about." (203-204)

Finally, Sowell's work in the arena of race and IQ is also noteworthy—both for what he discovered and his general approach to academics, science, knowledge, and truth. Kenneth Clark, a prominent African-American in the field, discouraged Sowell from testing Arthur Jensen's controversial theories in the area, but Sowell "wasn't afraid of what he might find." (8) He discovered a number of reasons to suspect theories that average IQ scores are fully innate (113)—not that genetics are irrelevant, but rather that they are secondary and not fixed in their impact (116). For example, black orphans adopted by whites had IQ's 21 points higher than other blacks (114). 

But "just because results could be misused didn't mean they should be discarded altogether." (115) Of greatest interest to me, he both praised and critiqued Charles Murray's controversial work in The Bell Curve with Richard Hernnstein. In contrast to the usual "professional" hackery in attacking TBC, Sowell's analysis was commendable (117). Then, from a positive angle, in his own research, we see Sowell effectively wrestling with the extent to which race and culture matter within inter-group differences (200-203).

Let me close with four miscellaneous quotes from the book: 

"Sometimes it seems as if I have spent the first half of my life refusing to let white people define me and the second half refusing to let black people define me." (223)

"I'm not sure I want to be particularly remembered. I would like the ideas that I've put out there to be remembered." (2) 

"Disagreements can be productive, while misunderstandings seldom are." (105) 

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." (171) 

With these quotes, we can see why Sowell is one to emulate in terms of character and intellect. Don't let others define you. Focus on truth and ideas, not personalities. Work to understand people, context, and ideas. Be relentless in seeking and sharing truth. May we all follow in Sowell's inestimable footsteps.