I am not looking forward to a discussion with a family friend about religion. He is a devout Christian; I am a recently converted agnostic/atheist. (I'm still most comfortable somewhere between what I believe each term means.) Functionally, I guess I'm a bit of a Unitarian - I help out and occasionally attend my family church. Granted, it's a pretty liberal denomination (United Church of Christ), which, in practice, means that biblical literalism is low on the priority list, assuming it even appears.
But this post isn't about my journey to and from Christianity (or Buddhism for that matter...). I decided to just throw out a few things I perceive of the world around me, and open myself up to the challenge of refining or rejecting these conceived notions. So have at it - I'll offer them as points with an economy of explanation.
1. Keynesian economics is mainstream economics, supported by considerable evidence and pretty basic economic logic. It runs into practical issues only because of the ratchet effect of government spending, which is a political problem, but should be addressed after economic recovery has stablized, and not during the process.
2. I personally know too many great people of faith to reject the value of faith in America and in the world, even as I don't personally count myself among believers. I still attend church occasionally because it provides a community I haven't been able to find elsewhere.
3. US foreign policy has been sabotaged by our messianic perspective on our mission in the world, stemming from Woodrow Wilson and a general cultural heritage born of relative peace, prosperity and stability within our borders. There is room to temper this with a bit of realism, and still be a reasonably decent member of the community of nations.
4. Birth order plays a very large role in personality. A lot of things that were previously confounding about my family and friends became more understandable when I started viewing things through that lens.
5. In extreme cases (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.), prescription drugs are necessary and life-saving. But antidepressants are not really useful. However, they are somewhat habit forming, in that the withdrawal period is horrible.
6. It is possible to make a joke about anything. Anything. However, most of us lack the ability to either execute or appreciate such a joke. The possibility helps us heal and move on; the recognition of our limitations in that facility keep us from being complete jackasses.
7. The European Union is not arthritic because of its models of the welfare state. It has problems because of a structure that gives veto power to each member and the divergence of culture and interests within the community. Centralization and effective execution of Europe-wide domestic economic reforms and effective foreign policy will require an external threat. The Soviet Union is gone, and America, while criticized, is never seen as a credible threat. Therefore, barring a dramatic change, we have witnessed the peak of EU power for our lifetimes.
8. Anthropogenic global warming is almost self-evident in its correctness given a fairly basic level of physics - or it is according to my understanding of the science. If you studied and understood quantum mechanics, you would understand why carbon dioxide and water vapor are relatively opaque in the infrared (rotational modes). This means it doesn't radiate away nicely - it gets somewhat trapped and leads to a higher temperature than if the atmosphere were transparent. If you understand where the oil came from, and appreciate some basic conservation of mass (with corrections for chemical reactions), then it makes sense that industrialization and deforestation are tied with an increase in CO2. Therefore, if burning fossil fuels, making concrete, and cutting down trees releases lots of CO2 and restricts its reuptake, and if CO2 is opaque in the infrared, and if that leads to higher surface temperatures and different weather patterns, then what the hell is the controversy?
9. Even so, we will not be able to stop global warming and climate change. Mitigation efforts will be needed. A lot of people will die, indirectly, because of this. It will be a tragedy, but spread out over so much time, and with enough other sources of blame (war, persistent poverty, greed, bad luck, religion) that the tragedy will be diluted into accepted normality. But mitigation companies will be well poised to be a spectacular growth field.
10. Australia's lifestyle, civil structure, and comedy are among the finest in the world. A shame it is also characterized by an intense hatred of boat people and aboriginals. I could consider living there for a large chunk of my life.
11. Engineers and lawyers make particularly difficult friends/partners, because the rules-based thinking contaminates area of lifestyle that are not well negotiated by rules-based systems (or at least rules-based systems with relatively complex levels of subordinate and superodinate "goods" - which I've never seen implemented particularly effectively by anyone).
12. Most social changes in civil rights are generational. People don't change their minds quickly, if at all. Laws and customs change when old people die.
13. I can't count.
3 comments:
0. Been a long time! How are you?
1. In opposition to both Keynesian and mainstream economics, if there is a difference, I submit the entire corpus of the Austrian school of economics. The Mises Institute is the main hub. If any type of economics is deeply rooted in logic and deductive reasoning in order to uncover absolute truths, it is this one. I recommend this article as a starter.
2. I thought I was an agnostic for a long time. A few years ago, I looked into the matter and realized I was actually an atheist. As far as I understand, atheism is not a believe that no god exists, rather a lack of a belief in a god. Agnosticism implies some uncertainty over jumping into the theist or atheist camps. If I were to say "There is no god," I would mean it in the same way as saying "There is no Santa Claus." Of course there could be a Santa Claus who has't revealed himself to the world. I just don't hold a belief that he doesn't exist.
I composed a song a couple years ago while thinking about deeply religious people who do incredible things with their lives. It seemed a paradox to me at the time, but I'm less concerned with it these days.
9. What kind of mitigation do you envision?
10. I think Kangas is living there now. I see his tweets.
12. One of my favorite sayings, which I think I can attribute to myself, is that people don't change their minds in public. Any rational person, motivated simply by curiousity, will frequently revise their views through private study of events and ideas. In a debate, however, especially with witnesses, the goal is to preach more than to learn. Whenever I find myself in a political discussion, I try to ask questions more often than making statements. If one of us walks away at least saying "I'll have to give that some more thought," then it was a success.
Joe,
0: Been ok. Life after leaving grad school has been tough, partly because of adjusting to my new role/identity, and partly because I left in August 2008, when everything was going to shit. How are you? Are you teaching guitar full-time?
1: I'll have to get back to you on the article/Austrian economics. From what I know about that school, it takes a pretty solid anti-inflation tact. But again, I'll read the article later when I have a bit more time before I respond fully.
Curious - is your argument against Keynesian economics that it doesn't work, that it doesn't accurately capture a lot of the features of macroeconomics, or that it is bad for the character of a country? (I've heard all three, and they have varying levels of validity with me.)
2: Hm... by those definitions, I might still be agnostic. I was raised Protestant, and I think I turned out better than if I had been raised atheist. (Specific to my experiences - I imagine others would - and have - turn out just fine being raised outside of organized religion.)
9: Well, the tornado events in the Midwest, while not definitively because of climate change, are a taste of what is likely to happen. I imagine companies that benefit from either cleanup after storms (construction, etc.) as well as firms specializing in extreme weather resistant architecture will see an increase in business. Hydroponics will also improve, as water management becomes a greater problem, compounded by growing populations. Nothing groundbreaking or particularly insightful, but my slight pessimism about effective prevention means that I would put my money on mitigation.
10: I really like Australian comedy shows. I think their public programming is a bit edgier than PBS here (less socially conservative), and their comedy is just a combination of smarter than American humor and not as long-winded as a lot of British humor. That, and preference voting leads to the effective maintenance of third parties.
12. I'll have to give that some more thought. :)
Seriously, I do believe people can change. But in terms of electoral politics, I think most major reforms came about because of both education/awareness and reactionary old people dying off. I think it's overly optimistic and somewhat naive to assume that improved education is necessarily the only thing needed to change minds, either on an individual or national basis.
More or less teaching guitar full time. Got a business, Deft Digits Guitar Lessons, and I invest all my work time into that, either teaching or promoting the site to solicit more students.
The Austrian school defines inflation as an increase in the supply of money, in particular: "According to Rothbard, inflation is the process of issuing money beyond any increase in the stock of specie. In other words, new money substitutes are issued without backing of their specie." Skipping a lot of logical steps here, but this leads to the conclusion that it's a theft of private property. Since prices and wages do not all increase at once when new money substitutes (i.e. any currency in the world right now, as far as I know) are introduced, it amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the late-receivers of the new money to the new-receivers.
Most of what I know about Keynesian economics is through the anti-Keynesian lens of the Austrians. I've probably only ever read a few of Keynes's own words. So I'm surely biased, but my problem with Keynesianism isn't any of your three, rather that it's used as a blank check for increasing government power and as a means of blaming government-caused problems on the free market. Those are pretty sweeping statements, but that's the best I can do without writing a tome. :)
Post a Comment