Romans 1:22 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
Also, I should note my distaste for the term "religion." In any case, its use served my point previously in showing that religion could become something other than spiritual, given man has the time to work reason into it, or imagination out of it.
But what I'm driving at isn't really imagination, its something higher than that. Its a divine organ which transcends the planes.
My spirit.
Listening to NPR and at the moment an interview with the author of The God Delusion. He makes good points, but fails to recognize the value of philosophy on western thought. In fact, I'm not sure what philosophy he subscribes too.
He makes the following comment (paraphrased) "The only answer up until this point was that everything was so elaborate and magnificent that it must have been designed by some Creator."
Aristotle came to this conclusion as well, he as a man of science for his times. By studying the order of things in nature, particularly details such as the order of teeth in a lions mouth, he reasoned that since everything is the way it is, it is that way because it cannot be what it is not.
Simply put, the lion whose teeth are out of order will die of malnutrition. This may seem to support Darwinism at first...
BUT--
What right do Darwinians have in claiming that the lion's teeth were wrong in the first place, and then evolved into their correct order? To put it another way, what right does anyone have to say that nature is inherently chaotic?
The fact that it favors chaos tells me that anything appearing with natural order must have received that ordered form independently. Whether its a Designer, Prime Mover, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, or your God, science simply cannot "disprove" that which scientists themselves marvel at.
Thanks to the indexed blog for the inspiration.
Walking through campus the other day, I spotted the following message chalked all over our brickyard:
A) SCIENCE > RELIGION
B) RELIGION > SCIENCE
C) BOTH
D) NEITHER
This was followed by some pitch-line to attend a lecture or debate of some sort.
The real scary part about it is how quickly I came up with a retort. I've been so deep in theory for the past few weeks my mind started to work in notation, and before you know it, I had imagined the following answer:
D) NEITHER
Because SCIENCE ∈ ℝ and RELIGION ∈ ℂ and are therefore not directly comparable. Also, note that ℝ ⊆ ℂ. As such, ℝ ⋚ ℂ ⇔ any number z in ℂ has form α + βi where β = 0.
Simply stated, the two cannot be compared as they are in different sets. However, SCIENCE is contained in the subspace of RELIGION and the two are comparable iff the imaginary part is removed. Therefore, SCIENCE is a rational RELIGION that ignores the complex case presented by our own imagination.
After all, one has to imagine how imaginary numbers operate, it isn't intuitive. Ergo cognito et sum. My belief is based on faith. I visualize God and man in much the same way scientists imagine the real-complex plane. That is, a unit circle that is incomplete in the absence of i but that makes magical things happen when i is utilized.
Have some faith. Use your imagination, and realize you'll never fully understand with reason alone.
We're a social animal. That means we more or less operate in societies. It increases our wealth and well-being, diversity of diet and thought, exchange of ideas. Societies facilitate the most tremendous gift we have, when viewed secularly--communication.
Yet we toil against one another. Our greed hides in social interaction only to remanifest itself in national identities. Nations, economically speaking, are macroed micros. Its a collective, in a mild sense, and acts as one.
Our cooperative societies form anti-cooperative nations.
We are simultaneously the most cooperative and self-destructive animal on the planet.
A poem by REH, whose insights are refreshingly liberal and always well-thought-out. Rational opinions, if you will.
============
There once was a loudmouth called Newt,
who treated his wife like a brute.
When cancer her struck,
he passed on the buck,
to laymen at church, ain't it cute!
Rex
No, this isn't spam. Clicking on the title will take you to Economist.com, where you may receive a message similar to the following:
"Try The Economist for 4-weeks, risk-free!"
The magazine is called The Economist. They should know better than to advertise something as risk free.
By subscribing, I run the risk of forgetting to unsubscribe, in which case I'm charged for a full year. And I'm risk averse.
Because I'm rational.
And because I already have a subscription. That is all.
Heard about a new movie Jesus Camp and anyone can view clips of the movie on YouTube &c. Read the article, watch the clips, to get the gist of what people are saying about the movie.
I have not seen the movie, nor do I plan to. But as a rational believer, I would like to state my opinion. The children portrayed in the movie have been indoctrinated, brainwashed or "abused" as some critics would suggest. They spout evangelical nonsense and an irrational fear of science. These kids are turned off to learning in order to be turned on for the Lord.
No, that isn't right.
But atheists indoctrinate their kids, too. And not in the way this movie portrays... I seriously doubt there is an Antichrist Camp in the making. EVERYONE indoctrinates their child. It's called EDUCATION!
Every person is brainwashed. You believe things. Any thing. Things that make sense, things that don't. You comprehend what happened on this rock before you began your luxurious stay. That's called history. You explain reality through trial and error. That's called science. You explain epistemology by way of philosophy.
And I bet you teach it to your kids, too. I know I will, and I can't wait.
You see as humans, I bet we're not only willing and interested in furthering our lineage, but our knowledge and world view as well. The victors write history, after all. And, I would just bet that if rationality and the desire to continue our thoughts and opinions are big concerns to us, there is a natural reason for it.
Pride. Narcissism. Hell, the only reason I'm posting this is in the vain hope that someone will join my side. We're selfish. And we're manipulative. I'll spare you the Fall Speech.
If you walk away with nothing else, then think this: How is it that philosophy is heralded even after modern advances in science, and religion is smeared yet, as proven by the commenters on the linked article?
The reason is simple, and it applies to every world religion: radicalism. Radicalism is never good, and never carries a good context. However, moderation is to be heralded by society.
That is why I will be fervent in my love of my Lord in private and with selected friends, and you will be unsure if I am a believer or not in public, unless the subject comes up. Moderation is a virtue. Properly define any spectrum of opposites and you will find humans are happiest, or most willing to work together, when we exhibit the traits in the middle of the spectrum... when we're average.
When we're average, we're non-threatening. Hence, non-average is threatening. I leave the rest of my proof to current events.
This time of year my mind always wanders to the income tax. I just want to collect a few short thoughts, and comments are welcome.
A flat tax disproportionately burdens the poor. Yes, the percentages are the same, but who can more afford the flat 10 or 15 percent? The person making six figures, not the one below the poverty line. The distinguishing factor here is how we define subsistence.
That's why our income tax is called a progressive tax.
And it's a pain to file. But without withholding, the people put most at risk of defaulting on their tax bill, otherwise productive members of society if by meager means, would be thrown into debtor's prison. Or jail, I guess we don't have debtors prison anymore. Without withholdings, the poorest members of society would not receive an injection of "unexpected income" and people of modest means would be hit with an "unexpected debt" that may be hard to pay.
Don't mess with something if it ain't broke.
Why is it that narcissistic secular hedonist feel the need to mock the Holy Bible? I ask this not out of frustration, but out of sheer sadness.
Are they really that ignorant? Do they mock the works of Plato, Aristotle, and (what we know of) Socrates? Or is it just contemporary transcendental contemplation they make their target?
There is something to be gained from the contemplation of that beyond ourselves. Some of the aforementioned ignoramuses may, in fact, find themselves terribly clever and witty. It's a shame the greatest gift of intelligence should go to such a waste.
"I should've been a philosopher..."
Since I'm taking elementary German and Spanish, I've been trying to figure out how to word things I say in normal conversation. Bad thing about that is (as if that is translatable), my grammar and vocabulary are too limited to express my thoughts completely.
Thinking about the ambiguous meaning of present tense in both languages, I pondered on a few English words I've found terribly interesting recently.
Since the past tense, in English, of "have" is "had" and sometimes I use "had" in place of "ought," is there another English verb with "had" as a correct conjugate, in any tense? Furthermore, in English I use the following words interchangably:
"could" with "can" or "able", "would" with "will", "should" with "ought"
So are they equivalent? What is the etymolgy of could/would/should and are they all related? In a foreign language, how do I express "could" except with "able?" &c.
Answer:
And it's embarassing. "Would" is actually a past participle of "will," "could" of "can," and "should" of "shall." Simple enough, and to note "ought" is but a synonym to "shall" (as an interrogative only, or with intended action? Is "intended action" what we call a "subjunctive?")
But...
since I'm in a pondering mood, how do I digram:
"I have had..." or furthermore "I should/would/could have had..."
in returning to my original thought?
Manufacture
Hypothesis: manu-facture; manu coming from manual, or hand and facture coming from factor (or inputs).
Econ-spin: labor (manu) + capital (factors) = product
Actual etymology: from Latin manus or "hand" and Latin facere or "to make"
To make with one's hands.
So, Nathan was nice enough to point out that all the great economists say that unions are OK. That's fine, I don't care. In my current area of study, unions depress pay and fundamentally stifle the quality of the supply of labor. (Don't be verbose...)
For instance, in education, unions serve to create across-the-board equally scheduled pay based on tenure. Simultaneously, they advocate iron-clad job security, and even in states that do not have unions, the State does a good job of securing even pay and iron-clad security. This prevents us from paying people for their merit and firing the ones not worth paying.
The abolition of unions would increase wages for those better-suited for teaching and put some not-as-well-suited out of a job (but they don't need to be teaching our kids anyway). In other words (and this is important):
It would more-efficiently allocate wages.
As the science of economics seeks study the maximization of wealth through the efficient allocation of resources, this seems like a good step for policy-makers to take.
The extension of the argument, as suggested by Nathan: "The existence of unions, though beneficial in the short run, is ultimately detrimental to the individual." Brilliant! And almost Keynsian. But I won't tell any of your libby friends. Hush, hush.
My extension to his: "Yes, and unions are ultimately detrimental to society. As it is unfair to the individual, it is unfair to all collectively: the ones working for a depressed wage may be better suited for and earn more in another position, or at the very least will consume less of our resources; the ones not working in whatever position (teacher in my above example) may now have another option that replaces their first or even second choice of a career, changing the whole set of opportunity costs the individual weighs in the efficient allocation of his own fiscal or human capital."
If I dislike unions so much (and I do), would I join one? Hell, yes! Elaborate, you say... Fine, but I'm going to do what an economist does best and assume (and forgive the following jargon):
A1) Institutionalized collective bargaining does not increase efficiency in a labor market that can be treated as a commodity market. That is to say more elaborately, for quality-undifferentiated labor or unskilled labor, the labor may be assumed to be readily available and treatable as a classic commodity--only efficiently allocated when fully exposed to the the functions of a free market (given constant transportation costs).
A2) Unions exist and I can only talk about not-having-them in my theoretical econ-world.
The existence of unions works against labor market efficiencies and causes a total loss to society. However, it would be unwise for me not to exploit the system for personal gain. Therefore, a fallacy of composition occurs and Smith's invisible hand slaps us around a little bit.
Now for my crack-pot pet theory for the day (see previous post): labor unions are a byproduct of market failures and themselves failures of the organized labor market. Therefore, governments should protect me, nay all of society, from myself by banning unions. This will increase welfare, or at least keep me from hurting others due to my inability to comprehend the consequences of my actions of the inability to make the best decision for society as a whole due to imperfect information.
What does it take to make a good economist? Or at least a famous one?
Great economic insight, sometimes at par with contemporaries, sometimes exceptional ability... and one crack-pot theory to set yourself apart from the pack.
Seriously, Rothbard has a knack for explaining things with exquisite analogies. But his stance on currency? *Gag*
And Friedman, so wise, so omniscient in the field. Heralder and harbinger of the greatest truths of 20th century economics, and all at least 10 years before we all started believing him. But his stance on the Fed? I mean, he had to have read SOMETHING good about it!
Keynes gave me reason to participate in the electoral process. He showed that governments do matter, as the largest consumer in an economy. But I just can't touch EVERY market failure as a justification of his theories. There is a natural limit to how much government one can stand. Someone ask Pinochet... oh, never mind.
Oh, and Nash? Well, I guess you can be right about EVERYTHING. But not everyone has his unique grasp on reality.
Without going into too much detail, please take the following scenario:
It's really quite simple.
You can't eat gold... and you can't burn it. If the conservative conspiracy theorists and certain libertarian economists are right, and "the system" DOES fall apart, holding on to gold won't save you.
You see, its all about what the other guy has that you want. In that situation, he may not accept gold for food, because then he has to find someone that will take gold for the water he needs. So basically, in the absence of "money" in any form--a complete collapse of "the system," the transactions costs savings over the barter system are made irrelevant by the inconvenience of money in a time of crisis.
To put it another way: the other guy has you over his knee in a complete economic collapse. You are at his mercy. Take your gold and chew on it... or eat your oil. I don't care.
My first attempt to publish this article ended in me writing a 12-page discussion of the topic as a whole. If anyone wishes to see the work-in-progress, e-mail me. Otherwise, here is about as concise as I could get it for lay readers.
====================
I wish to expose the broken system of public education currently putting America at risk for a long, hard fall from super-powerdom. If selected to continue my research in this project, I will produce a detailed analysis of the agency problem in public education and its effect on the quality of our nation’s education.
I will start by taking a look at how to define the "agency problem" from corporate governance theory. Next, I will form an analogous definition for the problem in education, noting caveats and elaborating on my choices for analogies. I will then discuss the reasons our current system fails to solve these problems. Finally, I will propose hypotheses for research and possible methods.
The agency problem may be defined like this: a principal (analogous to an employer) employs an agent to act in the principal's stead, that is, to make decisions in the absence of the principal; a conflict of interest arises in that the agent performs and makes decisions in his best interest, which can not be the same interests (though they may produce parallel decisions) when the agent is not also the principal. The agency problem, then, is the conflict of interests that arise from differing personalities (tastes, preferences, valuations, etc) of the principle and agent.
The table below is a brief summary of the agency problem applied to corporations and public education.
|
| Corporations | Public Education |
| Principal/Agent | Owner/Manager | Parent/Teacher1 |
| Respective Interests | Profits/Compensation | Knowledge2/Compensation |
| Mediator | Board of Directors | School Administration |
| Home Consumption | Salary | Salary |
| Job Consumption | Perks | Indoctrination3 |
| Effects | d(perks)/d(profit) is neg | d(doctrine)/d(knw) is neg4 |
| Agency Problem | Above optimal perks | Above optimal doctrine |
Notes
If a CEO is in charge of maximizing profit, the agent who is directly charged with maximizing knowledge is the teacher. The school, then, as an institution, never enters the picture and can be thought of as the institutional "market" for knowledge transfer, where the principal’s role is as Grasso’s was to the NYSE.
Just as a manager is in charge of maximizing profits, a teacher is charged with maximizing knowledge. Likewise, as a manager is in charge of maximizing firm value, a teacher is charged with maximizing the net-present-value of that child's future earnings (which will vary considerably across individuals and time).
Whether it is to correct some past injustice or to ensure the survival of an epistemology, a teacher derives clear utility from this practice of indoctrination. These teachers value indoctrination in a way managers value their perks consumed.
As knowledge is product of classroom activity, the marginal benefit to the student is increased analytical thinking skills. These skills make a pupil more competitive in labor markets and more productive as a worker, thus increasing his potential future earnings. “Affective teaching” (Sowell), or indoctrination reduces the development of independent thought and analytical skills, as consumption of perks decreases profit in a corporation.
The agency problem can be solved, or eased, in numerous ways by changing the agent's incentive structure directly, rewarding (or punishing) good (or bad) performance, and external incentives. Whereas an optimal combination of all these solutions can align the owners’ and manager’s interests, An optimal combination cannot be reached in public education. Direct incentives are only possible if the teacher teaches only her own children, becoming strictly a parent-teacher, and hence eliminating the agent problem. Performance-based incentives are currently restricted by teacher unions. External incentives are not implemented, save external constraint of behavior through curricula.
Why does the agency problem continue to plague our public schools? I propose two main reasons for the continuance of the status quo, the quality of educators and the unionization of teaching, and I argue that these two factors must necessarily change before methods of solving the agency problem may be applied.
I propose two main hypotheses. Due to the inability to build standard direct and performance-based incentives, the only option left is to restrict the agent's behavior; the imposition of curricula, standardized tests, and teacher accountability occur in the public sector, where the other solutions to the agency problem are restricted.
I argue that the private sector, where performance-based pay and real threat of dismissal, will provide a higher quality education or at least deflate salaries whilst maintaining status quo, freeing up resources for more efficient (or profitable) uses.
I argue that the constraint of teacher behavior in the public sector improves education, but not to the same degree that performance-based pay and dismissal incentive would--that is to say, the alternate method of constricting behavior does not fully compensate for the lack of standard solutions to the agency problem. I expect to observe this result because the constraint of behavior prevents other methods of compensation and incentive-building to be chosen optimally, given they could be chosen.
A simple means comparison between a control group and experimental group may reveal the most information. The closest to a natural experiment we find in education is the marked differences between public schools (unionized, bureaucratic, and monopolistic) and private schools (competitive labor market, competitive market for students).
I wish to test the differences between historically “indoctrinable” subjects and “pure” subjects both in public and private schools. I expect the stringency of curricula in history, literature, and philosophy, for example, to be higher than that in curricula in mathematics and science in the public schools. I also expect the constraints on teacher behavior to be absolutely smaller in private schools in all subjects.
Further research would allow me to develop more robust methods for testing my hypothesis, and may allow me to develop a theme more consistent and relevant to competition and choice in education.
So, its pretty much obvious that everyone's major in college gives them a different lens through which to view the world, especially if that major is right for them.
This is holds even truer (word?) in grad students, I think.
My question is: why did I have to pick a major that everyone thinks *they* know something about?
From the recent "Dynamic Capitalism" by Mr. Phelps in the WSJ:
"[In testing ability to grow:] In any organization of the economy, the participants will score unequally in how far they manage to go in their personal growth. An organization that leaves the bottom score lower than it would be under another feasible organization is unjust. So a new organization that raised the scores of some, though at the expense of reducing scores at the bottom, would not be justified. Yet a high score is just if it does not hurt others."
(No Child Left Behind? That's another blog article. Someone else write it. Please?)
Isn't it in our best interest to redistribute ability (scores, incomes, whatever) to allow the greatest possible chance of economic innovation rather than quality or size of that innovation? In other words, the idea goes that the more equal distribution of ability, the more absolute economic or business innovation will occur at the expense of the quality of those innovations.
In this age following record-setting growth and innovation, are there that many more to find? Shouldn't we have a lot of monkeys searching for a needle in the haystack (forgive the cliche orgy)?
A week ago I would have said yes--the absolute number of innovations is far more important than the quality (or leap) of those innovations. But I realize now, that stifles a basic incentive structure so dear to free capitalism. So my answer is an emphatic:
No! Dynamism allows those least fit to survive to perish. That's the nature of dynamism: its a constantly changing econo-scape. Business thrive, grow, die, spin-off, and birth. And we're all better off for it. Creating a greater oppurtunity for innovations is necessary for further development in any economic system, so long as its aims are a higher standard of living and increasing purchasing power.
Mr. Phelps might say its dynamism versus high-cost, concentrated R&D. As he related in the article:
"So if the increased dynamism created by liberating private entrepreneurs and financiers tends to raise productivity, as I argue -- and if that in turn pulls up those bottom wages, or at any rate does not lower them -- it is not unjust. Does anyone doubt that the past two centuries of commercial innovations have pulled up wage rates at the low end and everywhere else in the distribution?"
You have rights. In Hayek's version of capitalism, you have the right to lose your shirt.
Should I let you?
I think not. I have something to gain by protecting your wealth from your own destruction, even if the wealth does not change hands.
The idea goes that I should allow you to lose your shirt. Someone else gains that shirt, but is that really what happens? How do we define "cost," "gain," or "waste?"
If your own mistakes cause you to "lose your money," its a sunk cost, and your continued existence through support or subsidization would classically be viewed as inefficient.
If by some congruence of circumstance you should happen to be less risk-averse than average, and not inherently stupid as I supposed before, protecting your wealth may actually encourage some innovation.
By formulating some policy, or promoting the foundation of an institution that allows you to take on the risk of others less risk-averse than yourself, you receive rents and others gain a sense of security. Positive sum game. Period.
