This is a couple of weeks old, but Governor Sanford (R-SC) wrote an excellent post-mortem on the election. I discussed some of these concepts in an earlier post, but I think the Governor does an great job of articulating them.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Primetime Peltzman
Being the econ nerd that I am, I was thrilled to hear Sam Pelztman's 1975 Journal of Political Economy article referenced in tonight's episode of CSI. It was brought up in the context of a fatal accident where the intoxicated driver was found wearing his seat belt.
Peltzman found that as more safety devices are added to automobiles, drivers tend to engage in more reckless behavior because of a perceived decrease in the associated risk. For example, a driver will tend to drive less carefully in a car equipped with front and side airbags than he might in a car without these safety devices. A later (1984) American Economic Review article by Robert Crandall and John Graham demonstrated that this "Peltzman Effect" does not completely offset the benefits of including seat belts and other safety features on automobiles (so you should still buckle up!), but the effect is still there.
I always enjoy seeing good economic theory getting a little airtime.
Peltzman found that as more safety devices are added to automobiles, drivers tend to engage in more reckless behavior because of a perceived decrease in the associated risk. For example, a driver will tend to drive less carefully in a car equipped with front and side airbags than he might in a car without these safety devices. A later (1984) American Economic Review article by Robert Crandall and John Graham demonstrated that this "Peltzman Effect" does not completely offset the benefits of including seat belts and other safety features on automobiles (so you should still buckle up!), but the effect is still there.
I always enjoy seeing good economic theory getting a little airtime.
Friday, November 14, 2008
An Early Christmas Carol
An ad campaign by a humanist group in Washington, DC is spreading "Christmas cheer" with the slogan "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake". This raises two questions in my mind.
First of all, how can a humanist group encourage people to be "good for goodness' sake" when humanists subscribe to a philosophy of moral relativism. These are the guys who are telling us that "goodness" is solely determined by context and what "seems" right at the time - in other words, there is no objective standard of right and wrong (except of course for the standard that it is wrong to claim that there is), or even absolute truth (except for the "truth" that there is no truth). Therefore, if we accept the relativist position that humanists espouse, how can we be good for the sake of "goodness" -- i.e. according to some standard of goodness? How exactly are we supposed to define being good when we aren't allowed to objectify anything as bad?
The second question that comes to mind is the following. If humanists are opposed to the advocacy of "religion" by government institutions, including public schools, we must assume that humanism is itself not a religion, because they do seek to have their own views espoused by government institutions, for example moral or cultural relativism and naturalism. Two features of religion most vociferously opposed by humanists are exclusivity (the claim that ones beliefs are true and others are not) and the practice of proselytization (the winning of converts, i.e. evangelism). However, humanists in fact make a claim of exclusivity -- clearly, the belief in God and the belief in no God cannot both be true. And this ad campaign, despite the claims made by the group that it is only meant to reassure fellow atheists and agnostics, smacks of proselytization. Therefore, the claim that humanism is not a religion in its own right is suspect. As such, according to their own standard of excluding even the appearance of advocacy of any religious position, what becomes of the teaching of evolution, insofar as it is taught as a naturalistic process, and relativism in public schools and universities? Or do they need to drop their objection to teaching Intelligent Design on principle?
First of all, how can a humanist group encourage people to be "good for goodness' sake" when humanists subscribe to a philosophy of moral relativism. These are the guys who are telling us that "goodness" is solely determined by context and what "seems" right at the time - in other words, there is no objective standard of right and wrong (except of course for the standard that it is wrong to claim that there is), or even absolute truth (except for the "truth" that there is no truth). Therefore, if we accept the relativist position that humanists espouse, how can we be good for the sake of "goodness" -- i.e. according to some standard of goodness? How exactly are we supposed to define being good when we aren't allowed to objectify anything as bad?
The second question that comes to mind is the following. If humanists are opposed to the advocacy of "religion" by government institutions, including public schools, we must assume that humanism is itself not a religion, because they do seek to have their own views espoused by government institutions, for example moral or cultural relativism and naturalism. Two features of religion most vociferously opposed by humanists are exclusivity (the claim that ones beliefs are true and others are not) and the practice of proselytization (the winning of converts, i.e. evangelism). However, humanists in fact make a claim of exclusivity -- clearly, the belief in God and the belief in no God cannot both be true. And this ad campaign, despite the claims made by the group that it is only meant to reassure fellow atheists and agnostics, smacks of proselytization. Therefore, the claim that humanism is not a religion in its own right is suspect. As such, according to their own standard of excluding even the appearance of advocacy of any religious position, what becomes of the teaching of evolution, insofar as it is taught as a naturalistic process, and relativism in public schools and universities? Or do they need to drop their objection to teaching Intelligent Design on principle?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thoughts on the Election
Already, some in the McCain campaign are blaming Sarah Palin for McCain's loss. I don't know how much of these complaints about Palin might be true, but I don't believe that she was responsible for his loss. Furthermore, sour grapes aren't going to solve the underlying problems that led to McCain's loss and the seats lost in Congress.
In the final analysis, it was the economy that led to McCain's defeat: a downturn that hit at just the wrong time, leaving the Republican nominee with insufficient time to recover. Economic issues tend to poll in favor of Democrats. [Liberal economic policy, based primarily on Keynesian economic prescriptions for the use of government spending to inject money to stimulate a struggling economy, does often generate a short-term economic bump. Unfortunately, it has a downside as well: inflation, growing government debt that crowds out private investment, and increased dependence on government rather than individual accomplishment. However, voters tend to base their votes on these short-term gains rather than on long-term considerations. It usually takes some time -- often a few years -- for the downside of liberal fiscal policy to become evident; likewise, policies that encourage private sector investment (for example, cuts in capital gains and corporate income taxes) take time to come to fruition.]
Underlying this electoral loss, however, is the ideological failure of the Republican Party. For some reason, Republican leadership seems to think that they can somehow out-liberal the liberals, be it McCain's rather shocking idea for the government to buy up billions in failed mortgages (which amounts to an attempt to artificially inflate home prices, which would likely result in a housing surplus), to the outrageous spending being carried out by the Republican-led Congress and the Bush Administration that made the past eight years look more like the second and third terms of the Johnson Administration than a continuation of the Reagan legacy. The need for new leadership and a commitment to conservative principles (as well as the ability to articulate them effectively) has never been more evident than it is now.
I am encouraged, however, by a few new, strong conservative faces that are up-and-coming in the GOP, Sarah Palin being one clear example. Another individual who impressed me when I saw her in a debate on C-Span a few weeks ago is the newly-elected representative from Kansas' second district, Lynn Jenkins. I'm looking forward to seeing what new "talent" we can find out there, but perhaps, hopefully, now we can see the true rebirth of Reagan conservatism.
In the final analysis, it was the economy that led to McCain's defeat: a downturn that hit at just the wrong time, leaving the Republican nominee with insufficient time to recover. Economic issues tend to poll in favor of Democrats. [Liberal economic policy, based primarily on Keynesian economic prescriptions for the use of government spending to inject money to stimulate a struggling economy, does often generate a short-term economic bump. Unfortunately, it has a downside as well: inflation, growing government debt that crowds out private investment, and increased dependence on government rather than individual accomplishment. However, voters tend to base their votes on these short-term gains rather than on long-term considerations. It usually takes some time -- often a few years -- for the downside of liberal fiscal policy to become evident; likewise, policies that encourage private sector investment (for example, cuts in capital gains and corporate income taxes) take time to come to fruition.]
Underlying this electoral loss, however, is the ideological failure of the Republican Party. For some reason, Republican leadership seems to think that they can somehow out-liberal the liberals, be it McCain's rather shocking idea for the government to buy up billions in failed mortgages (which amounts to an attempt to artificially inflate home prices, which would likely result in a housing surplus), to the outrageous spending being carried out by the Republican-led Congress and the Bush Administration that made the past eight years look more like the second and third terms of the Johnson Administration than a continuation of the Reagan legacy. The need for new leadership and a commitment to conservative principles (as well as the ability to articulate them effectively) has never been more evident than it is now.
I am encouraged, however, by a few new, strong conservative faces that are up-and-coming in the GOP, Sarah Palin being one clear example. Another individual who impressed me when I saw her in a debate on C-Span a few weeks ago is the newly-elected representative from Kansas' second district, Lynn Jenkins. I'm looking forward to seeing what new "talent" we can find out there, but perhaps, hopefully, now we can see the true rebirth of Reagan conservatism.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Yo, Joe (the Plumber)
Originally posted on Sublime Perspectives Blog, 21-Oct-08
The “Joe the Plumber” hubbub has added a new dimension to the current presidential race; one that should have been there all along — it’s actually focusing attention on… (dramatic pause)… the issues!
The “Joe the Plumber” hubbub has added a new dimension to the current presidential race; one that should have been there all along — it’s actually focusing attention on… (dramatic pause)… the issues!
The interesting thing about the response from the Obama campaign (which of course includes the media) was that it resorted immediately to ad hominem attacks. This tactic has unfortunately become a standard debate tactic, especially in politics. It isn’t exclusive to the liberal side of the spectrum - Sean Hannity for example has a particularly grating tendency to engage in this type of argument - but it does seem to be more prevalent coming from the left side of the fence.
The problem is that ad hominem arguments are logically invalid because they completely bypass the argument at hand. In this sense, they are essentially a red herring. My favorite illustration of this is from an essay by C.S. Lewis entitled “Bulverism”. Lewis named this after a certain (fictional) individual named Nathaniel Bulver (I’m going from memory, so Lewis’ protagonist may have had a different first name). It seems that Bulver’s life was ulitmately shaped one day when, as a child, he overheard his parents arguing. His father was explaining to his mother that one could determine the length of the long side of a right triangle by adding the square of the other sides then taking the square root (the Pythagorean Theorem for all you geometry buffs). Bulver’s mother responded to his father’s contention by saying: “Oh, you’re just saying that because you’re a man!”
Applying this concept to the Joe the Plumber issue, Obama supporters in discussing the issue have focused on the following facts: (1) Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber - he actually does work as a plumber, he just doesn’t have a valid license; (2) Joe the Plumber’s first name is actually Samuel, not Joe - Joe/Joseph is actually his middle name; (3) Joe the Plumber owes back taxes; and finally, (4) Joe will probably not be making more than $250,000/year with the plumbing business that he said he wished to purchase. The first three arguments are egregiously irrelevant; they have nothing whatsoever to do with the argument on the merits of the Obama tax plan. This would seem to almost go without saying, but it seems to have escaped the notice of many in the media.
The fourth argument regarding Joe’s potential income, however, appears relevant, at least at first. If Joe’s business will not be making $250,000 per year (which is apparently arguable), then he of course would not pay more taxes under Obama’s plan, since that income level is the cut-off for Obama’s proposed tax increases. But this is still a logically invalid point to the discussion, because the point brought up by the Joe the Plumber debate is that raising taxes on individuals making over $250,000 will cause taxes to go up on many small businesses (income earned by a proprietorship counts as personal income for federal tax purposes). If taxes are raised on small businesses, the amount of money that they can use to pay employees is diminished, therefore resulting in either deferred hiring or job cuts. This point could just as easily be made by a fifth grader as it could by Joe (the apparent fact that Joe was himself a possible businessman who would be affected only adds an element of ethos); therefore, replying to the question by pointing out Joe’s future income is essentially a non-response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)