Economics 101 continued, and why it matters for our current situation

I have two more main points to make as I obliterate the pseudoscience of economics, and then I'll discuss the profound problems of post-industrial capitalism. Economic pseudoscience that has provided the ideological justification for the disasters that are befalling us, so I need to finish exposing the lies before we can begin understanding the problem.

 

There are a couple of problems with the concept of the free market that don’t stem directly from the bogus assumptions. One is called “public goods.” These are goods that are “non-excludable,” which means that nobody owns them and you can’t require people to pay to use them; and non-rivalrous, which means that one person’s use of them does not deplete them for others.

An example is the oxygen in the air, but many public goods are created or protected by public policy. Straightforward examples are national defense and law enforcement, although obviously we can disagree about how much and what kinds of these goods we should be buying, and how to allocate the cost. Such public goods are created because they are thought to have positive externalities, that is they benefit all or most people beyond their direct recipients. Another example is public education, which creates a more productive workforce and civically competent population. If all families had to pay for their children’s education, many would not be able to afford it and some might choose not to. The result would be a much poorer society.

The road and highway network is not entirely non-rivalrous because, as I noted above, congestion makes it somewhat less valuable for everyone, and it’s also not entirely non-excludable because people without driver’s licenses or properly insured and inspected cars are technically forbidden to use it. These concepts are actually matters of degree. The key point is that the market would produce much less in the way of roads and bridges than would be optimal for the general welfare. Investors might build a bridge or a highway here and there and make their investment back in tolls, but the result would be highly inadequate for the demands of modern commerce, work, school and social life. We can argue about the how much and what quality of public goods ought to be provided, and how the money should be raised, but the point is they are not traded in markets, and are not created in response to market demand, or not enough would be created to produce the optimum benefit to society.

 

Obviously, the only way these public goods will be created in sufficient quantity is if the government raises taxes and spends the money. But politicians rail against taxation and government spending by claiming that people earn their wealthy, it's their property, and it's wrong to take it from them. Before we discuss this further, ask yourself this: how is it possible for people to build and operate profitable businesses? What conditions are necessary?

 

I'm back

Sorry for the vacay from blogging, I've been kind of busy and also, as I said before, doing a lot of thinking, so I didn't feel I had anything compelling to share just yet. 

 

Obviously I'm very happy that the party of racism, misogyny, plutocracy and religious fanaticism got creamed. But we have a lot of soul searching to do as a nation to understand how the recent catastrophe befell us, and we still have more than two years with a demented psychopath wielding the power of the presidency -- which, thanks to the fascist Supreme Court, will be very hard to limit. The profound narcissistic injury he is feeling right now will, almost certainly (and you know I don't like to make predictions) make him lash out in some appallingly destructive way. The new congress won't take office until January and I don't even want to think about what can happen in the next two months.

 

So yes, there's hope, but this is no time to break out the bubbly. Not yet.

 

As for Saint Paul, I'm really sick of his shallow, garbled sanctimony. I'm planning to just scan the rest of he epistles and then we'll get to revelation. For those of you who don't know it, buckle your seatbelts. 

Wednesday Bible Study: You are free to ignore this

 

 

In chapter 7, starting with verse 12, Paul says that what follows is just his personal opinion, he doesn't get it from the man upstairs. So what is this doing in the Bible? In any case, he's pretty much nuts. He would prefer that nobody have sex, but since people are going to do it, they must only do it within a monogamous marriage. On the the other hand, if they are married, they should have sex as much as either of them wants. Since he's never done it himself, he doesn't appreciate that this can be problematic.

 

As for men becoming uncircumcised, that's obviously impossible, so I wouldn't worry about that. Slaves should accept their status, although obviously if they can gain their freedom they should do so. But they aren't entitled to it -- Paul condones slavery. In any case, since the world is about to end, there's no real reason to get married: "²⁹ What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; ³⁰ those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; ³¹ those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away."

 Hmmm. It seems he was wrong about that. So maybe he was just wrong about everything.

   

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” ² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ⁶ I say this as a concession, not as a command. ⁷ I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

⁸ Now to the unmarried^[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. ⁹ But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

¹⁰ To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. ¹¹ But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

¹² To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. ¹³ And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

¹⁵ But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. ¹⁶ How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Concerning Change of Status

¹⁷ Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. ¹⁸ Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. ¹⁹ Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. ²⁰ Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

²¹ Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. ²² For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. ²³ You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. ²⁴ Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Concerning the Unmarried

²⁵ Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. ²⁶ Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ²⁷ Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. ²⁸ But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

²⁹ What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; ³⁰ those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; ³¹ those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

³² I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. ³³ But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— ³⁴ and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. ³⁵ I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

³⁶ If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong^[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. ³⁷ But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. ³⁸ So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.^[c]

³⁹ A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. ⁴⁰ In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

1. 1 Corinthians 7:8 Or widowers
2. 1 Corinthians 7:36 Or if she is getting beyond the usual age for marriage
3. 1 Corinthians 7:38 Or ³⁶ If anyone thinks he is not treating his daughter properly, and if she is getting along in years (or if her passions are too strong), and he feels she ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. He should let her get married. ³⁷ But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind to keep the virgin unmarried—this man also does the right thing. ³⁸ So then, he who gives his virgin in marriage does right, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.

 

Sunday Sermonette: Taking the aerial view

Sorry for the recent lack of blogging. I've been thinking deep thoughts, which is probably a symptom of age. I was preoccupied with the profound mysteries of existence as a youth, then I figured I should stop worrying about what I can't know and lived my life trying to solve more tractable problems. But now I'm no longer satisfied with that. Still, I know enough to know what I don't know. Many people just can't accept that, so they turn to religion to fill in the blanks. I know that's what's happening here. Paul is lecturing the cultists and telling them how to live, what's right and what's wrong, so they won't ask questions and think for themselves.

That also means that cultists can't turn their disputes over to secular authorities, in other words they can't sue each other, because the secular authorities might have different answers or different standards. The society of believers has to be closed in on itself. Then, after having spent a good part of Romans and early parts of Corinthians claiming that everybody, including himself, is a sinner, and that we can't be saved by good works but only by having faith which results in forgiveness, he completely contradicts himself in verse 9: "do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?" What happened to all that forgiveness?

 

Paul's moral concerns are mostly about sex, which he is against. He specifically condemns homosexuality, adultery, and patronizing prostitutes. (Note that prostitution is condoned in Genesis and Joshua.) But the fact is, Paul has no authority for any of this. Why should we take our moral values from this particular dude? What if I just tell him to go pound sand? I agree with him that people shouldn't be greedy, or slanderers, or swindlers. I think it's not good to be a drunkard but I think of it as a problem to be overcome rather than a sin per se. Prostitution is problematic because sex workers are often exploited, but if it's regulated and decent working conditions are assured, as in some jurisdictions, I think that's a defensible policy. But otherwise, if people want to bind themselves to monogamy through a ceremony, fine, that's up to them, but I don't care what other people do in private. It's no skin off my nose.

 

6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? ² Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³ Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴ Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? ⁵ I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶ But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

⁷ The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ⁸ Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. ⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men^{[a] 10} nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Sexual Immorality

¹² “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. ¹³ You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”^{[b] 17} But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.^[c]

¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. ¹⁹ Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; ²⁰ you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

1. 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
2. 1 Corinthians 6:16 Gen. 2:24
3. 1 Corinthians 6:17 Or in the Spirit

 

 

Sunday Sermonette . . .

But a day late. Apparently I'm a Second Day Adventist. Anyway, 1 Corinthians 5 is usually misunderstood. Paul berates the Corinthians because he has heard that one of them is boinking his father's wife, and they apparently all think this is just fine and dandy. Even Skeptics Annotated Bible doesn't get what's really happening here, presuming that woman is the man's stepmother. No she isn't.

Remember that men could have more than one wife. The story of co-wives Leah and Rachel is well known. Solomon supposedly had hundreds of wives. I expect that polygamy was less common in the first century but since the Torah law was still accepted and Rabbinical Judaism had not emerged it was presumably perfectly legal and acceptable. Furthermore, women had to be married. Yes, Boaz was evidently a nice guy and there was fondness between Ruth and Boaz, but she set out to seduce him and get him to marry her because her alternative was abject poverty. That she picked a much older wealthy man was a sensible choice. (We would call her a trophy wife.) 

Note further that the sin of Onan is almost always misconstrued. That he spread his seed on the ground does not mean that he masturbated, it means that he practiced coitus interruptus in order not to impregnate his brother's widow. Torah law required men to marry and impregnate their brother's widows in order that a) the widow would not end up like Ruth before she married Boaz, subsisting on charity and B) so that the man's lineage would continue. That's what marriage was all about.

So likely what happened here is that an old man took a young second (or possibly higher order) wife,  and when he died she developed a relationship with his son, to whom she was biologically unrelated. his was perfectly natural -- presumably they were of a similar age, he had inherited the estate, so it meant she could stay in her home and be with the man with whom she already had at least a friendship if not romantic feelings. It seems perfectly right for the Corinthians to be happy about this benevolent outcome, but excoriates them because it is contrary to the Torah law.

Paul also is harshly judgmental in general and calls upon them to expel and shun sinners. This is after he has gone to great lengths in Romans to say that everyone is a sinner and that we cannot be saved by good works but only by the grace of God, i.e. believing in the whole Jesus myth, in which case your sins will be forgiven. So which is it?

All this also serves to remind us that cult leaders are generally narcissists, and furthermore that they frequently contradict themselves and that their followers engage in doublethink in order to accept the contradictions. Hmm. Remind you of anybody?

 

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. ² And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? ³ For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. ⁴ So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, ⁵ hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,^[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

⁶ Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? ⁷ Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. ⁸ Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister^[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”^[d]

1. 1 Corinthians 5:5 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit.
2. 1 Corinthians 5:5 Or of his body
3. 1 Corinthians 5:11 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family; also in 8:11, 13.
4. 1 Corinthians 5:13 Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7

  

More on why economics is bullshit

 

There are some other assumptions required by the theory, but I’ll end this exercise with one of the most important. In order for transactions to make the world a better place, all of the benefits and costs of the transaction have to be experienced by the parties. If a transaction somehow affects other people, that’s called an “externality,” and it’s the best known example of a so-called market failure. But it is difficult to imagine a transaction that does not have externalities. They aren’t an occasional problem that needs a special fix, they are pervasive and inevitable.

When you drive to the store for your tomatoes, you spew pollutants out of your tailpipe and you clog the road for other drivers. You also risk crashing and killing or injuring yourself or others. (Riding in a motor vehicle is mostly likely the most dangerous thing you will ever do.) The tomatoes were grown on farmland that was created by destroying a beautiful wilderness, sprayed with pesticides that indiscriminately kill beneficial insects as well as pests, fertilized with synthetic nitrogen that runs off into the river and ultimately causes a dead zone in the estuary. When you buy them you put them in a plastic bag that winds up in a landfill or maybe the ocean . . . I could go on.

As Polanyi wrote (page 3), referring to the origins of laissez faire in the 19th Century:

[T]he idea of a self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness.

That sounds bad. We have learned a few things since the 19th Century but nowadays many people seem to want to return to it. There are a few more problems with the theory of the Free Market™ that don't stem directly from the false assumptions, which we'll get to next.

Next Economics 101 lesson: Marginal utility and medicine

 

I should mention a component of the classical theory called “declining marginal utility.” This means that the first two or three tomatoes you buy are worth more to you than the next three, and by the time you have more than you can possibly eat before the next one goes bad, they’re basically worthless. (We’ll leave aside that the seller, probably a corporation, would like to sell as many tomatoes as possible and does not experience declining marginal utility of money.)

This idea seems basically to make sense for groceries or movie tickets,[1] but it doesn’t make much sense for medical services. Either you need something once, and you’re done; or you need it continuously, for the rest of your life. I’m not going to get a second right hemicolectomy no matter how cheap it is, and I would have been no more inclined to get the first one if it were free or even if they paid me to take it. On the other hand I’m not going to stop taking my blood pressure medications because I’ve gone long enough without a heart attack that I’m now satisfied.




[1] It’s actually not so simple. As I consume tomatoes or movies, I might acquire a taste for them and end up buying more rather than less. People might praise my tomato sauce so much that I end up bottling gallons of it and selling it, and buying all the tomatoes I can get my hands on. Then there are the cases of collectors and addicts. In other words these assumptions are generally intuitively appealing, but empirically half-truths at best.