The central economic selling point of the Obama reelection team is that the president saved the U.S. auto industry. That such a contestable proposition serves as the administration’s economic headline does more to underscore its abysmal record than to inspire confidence in its continued economic stewardship.
The administration didn’t save the auto industry. The stronger case is that it damaged the auto industry along with several important institutions vital to capitalism’s proper functioning. However, it should be granted that President Obama’s commandeering of GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcy process saved jobs at those companies and elsewhere in their supply chains (and provided an opportunity to dole out spoils for politically favored interests). How many jobs were saved is impossible to determine because it’s not clear what would have happened to GM’s and Chrysler’s assets had a normal, non-political bankruptcy process been allowed to unfold.
Yes, jobs were saved for the time being in Michigan, Ohio, and a few other industrial states in the Midwest. That is what can be seen. And politicians are hardwired to tout the benefits—and only the benefits—of their policies.
But an informed citizenry should insist on a proper accounting of the costs of those policies, as well—not just the losses put on the taxpayers’ tab (right now taxpayers’ “investment” in GM is $27 billion, but the public’s 500 million shares of GM stock is worth only $10 billion), but the unseen costs.
Sure some jobs were preserved in some locations, but what about the less visible consequences and ripple effects? What isn’t so easily seen, but is every bit as important to assessing the auto interventions is the effects on the other auto companies and their workers (i.e., the majority of the U.S. auto industry). Will the public remember or know enough to attribute layoffs of American workers at Ford or Toyota or Kia during the next downturn in auto demand to the fact that a necessary reckoning on the supply side was precluded by the interventions of 2009?
The auto industry is plagued with overcapacity, which is a problem that demands a thinning of the herd. GM and Chrysler, through their own relatively poor decisions with respect to labor relations, product offerings, and quality management were failing by the market’s judgment and were the rightful candidates to be thinned. But that process was forestalled. In 2013, auto workers in Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Indiana, and even Michigan and Ohio may lose their jobs because GM and Chrysler workers’ jobs were spared in 2009.
That is only one of the many unseen or under-rug-swept costs of the auto bailouts. The following passage from congressional testimony I gave last year identifies several others:
It is galling to hear administration officials characterize the auto bailouts as “successful.” The word should be off-limits when describing this unfortunate chapter in U.S. economic history. At most, bailout proponents and apologists might respectfully argue — and still be wrong, however — that the bailouts were necessary evils undertaken to avert greater calamity.
But calling the bailouts “successful” is to whitewash the diversion of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program by two administrations for purposes unauthorized by Congress; the looting and redistribution of claims against GM’s and Chrysler’s assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners; the use of questionable tactics to bully stakeholders into accepting terms to facilitate politically desirable outcomes; the unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the finest details of the bankruptcy process to orchestrate what bankruptcy law experts describe as “Sham” sales of Old Chrysler to New Chrysler and Old GM to New GM; the costs of denying Ford and the other more deserving automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the United Autoworkers, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against similar market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about the direction of policy under the current administration that pervades the business environment to this very day.
In addition to the above, there is the fact that taxpayers are still short tens of billions of dollars on account of the GM bailout without serious prospects for ever being made whole. Thus, acceptance of the administration’s pronouncement of auto bailout success demands profound gullibility or willful ignorance. Sure, GM has experienced recent profits and Chrysler has repaid much of its debt to the Treasury. But if proper judgment is to be passed, then all of the bailout’s costs and benefits must be considered. Otherwise, calling the bailout a success is like applauding the recovery of a drunken driver after an accident, while ignoring the condition of the family he severely maimed.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Proverbs 1:20-22 (Program 1932, Air dates 08.12.2012 and 08.19.2012)
___________
The fool is the rebel. Arrogant, wicked are words that describe the fool. This person is not lacking in mental ability but is lacking in morality. They are without an ability to discern morally.
III.THE FOOL (Proverbs 1:22)
Rejects wisdom.
Proverbs 15:14
Ridicules righteousness.
Proverbs 14:9
Rejoices in iniquity.
Proverbs 15:20-21
Isaiah 5:20
Proverbs 17:10
Hebrews 12:6
_________________________
Proverbs 1:22-24
“Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?
Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?
Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?
About face! I can revise your life.
Look, I’m ready to pour out my spirit on you;
I’m ready to tell you all I know.
As it is, I’ve called, but you’ve turned a deaf ear;
I’ve reached out to you, but you’ve ignored me.
Proverbs 15:14
An intelligent person is always eager to take in more truth;
fools feed on fast-food fads and fancies.
Proverbs 14:9
The stupid ridicule right and wrong,
but a moral life is a favored life.
Proverbs 15:20-21
Intelligent children make their parents proud;
lazy students embarrass their parents.
21 The empty-headed treat life as a plaything;
the perceptive grasp its meaning and make a go of it.
Isaiah 5:20
Doom to you who call evil good
and good evil,
Who put darkness in place of light
and light in place of darkness,
Who substitute bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
Proverbs 17:10
A quiet rebuke to a person of good sense
does more than a whack on the head of a fool.
Hebrews 12:6
The Message (MSG)
4-11 In this all-out match against sin, others have suffered far worse than you, to say nothing of what Jesus went through—all that bloodshed! So don’t feel sorry for yourselves. Or have you forgotten how good parents treat children, and that God regards you as his children?
My dear child, don’t shrug off God’s discipline,
but don’t be crushed by it either.
It’s the child he loves that he disciplines;
the child he embraces, he also corrects.
God is educating you; that’s why you must never drop out. He’s treating you as dear children. This trouble you’re in isn’t punishment; it’s training, the normal experience of children. Only irresponsible parents leave children to fend for themselves. Would you prefer an irresponsible God? We respect our own parents for training and not spoiling us, so why not embrace God’s training so we can truly live? While we were children, our parents did what seemed best to them. But God is doing what is best for us, training us to live God’s holy best. At the time, discipline isn’t much fun. It always feels like it’s going against the grain. Later, of course, it pays off handsomely, for it’s the well-trained who find themselves mature in their relationship with God.
______________
IF I HAD TO PUT A KEY VERSE IT WOULD BE THIS:
Proverbs 17:10
A quiet rebuke to a person of good sense
does more than a whack on the head of a fool.
But that’s an exception to my general feeling that we’re moving in the right direction on public policy. I’ve shared a list of reasons to be optimistic, even on issues such as Obamacare and the Laffer Curve.
Education is another area where we should be hopeful. Simply stated, it’s increasingly difficult for defenders of the status quo to rationalize pouring more money into the failed government education monopoly. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has so much been spent so recklessly with such meager results.
Fortunately, a growing number of people are realizing that the answer is markets and competition. That’s one of the reasons why we’re seeing progress all over the country. Policy makers have implemented varying degrees of school choice in states such as Indiana, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and even California.
Is this having a positive impact on educational outcomes and other key variables? The answer, not surprisingly, is yes.
Here are some of the details from a new study published by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
This report surveys the empirical research on school choice. …the empirical evidence consistently shows that choice improves academic outcomes for participants and public schools, saves taxpayer money, moves students into more integrated classrooms, and strengthens the shared civic values and practices essential to American democracy.
The data on academic outcomes surely is the most important bit of information, so let’s specifically review those findings.
Twelve empirical studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants using random assignment, the “gold standard” of social science. Of these, 11 find that choice improves student outcomes—six that all students benefit and five that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found a negative impact.
And since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for taxpayers.
Six empirical studies have examined school choice’s fiscal impact on taxpayers. All six find that school choice saves money for taxpayers. No empirical study has found a negative fiscal impact.
Here’s the breakdown of the studies for all the variables.
Some of the tax research was inconclusive, but not a single study supported the notion that higher tax rates are good for growth, much as this new research from the Friedman Foundation didn’t uncover a single study that found negative results from school choice.
So with lots of positive research and no negative research, why would anybody oppose school choice? Unfortunately, politicians like Barack Obama and groups such as the NAACP side with teacher unions, putting political power ahead of progress and opportunity for kids.
P.S. Here’s a video explaining why school choice is better than a government-run monopoly.
P.P.S. There’s also strong evidence for school choice from nations such as Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.
The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more […]
John Brummett in his article, “A new civil rights struggle in Little Rock?” Arkansas News Burea, August 25, 2011, asserted the main role vouchers should have is “providing new models for regular public schools to emulate, not about replacing regular public schools.” The Heritage Foundation cares nothing about saving the public schools. If the public […]
Milton Friedman on School Vouchers _______________ Just the facts Mam. APRIL 18, 2013 5:17PM School Choice Works By JASON BEDRICK SHARE The evidence is in: school choice works. Yesterday, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released their third edition of their report “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.” The report provides a literature […]
Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System Published on May 9, 2012 by BasicEconomics The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs […]
(This letter was mailed before Oct 25, 2012.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]
The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more […]
Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad. In 1980 when I first sat […]
Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System (Q&A) Part 2 Published on May 7, 2012 by BasicEconomics __________ Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog is always critical of the voucher system but has he taken a closer look at what has been going on in the public schools the last few decades with […]
Comedian Bill Maher butted heads Friday night with Brian Levin, a professor at California State University at San Bernardino and director of its Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, after the late-night host took issue with comparing Islamic extremism with all fundamentalism.
“You know what, yeah, yeah,” the HBO host said. “You know what — that’s liberal [expletive] right there … they’re not as dangerous. I mean there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the Prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.”
“All religious are not alike,” he continued. “As many people have pointed out — ‘The Book of Mormon,’ did you see the show? … OK, can you imagine if they did ‘The Book of Islam’? Could they do that? There’s only one religion that threatens violence and carries it out for things like that. Could they do “The Book of Islam” on Broadway?”
The guest responded “possibly so,” which Mr. Maher outright dismissed, and he seemed to get visibly irritated when Mr. Levin suggested Mr. Maher was promoting “Islamic hatred.”
“You’re wrong about that, and you’re wrong about your facts,” Mr. Maher fired back. “Now, obviously, most Muslim people are not terrorists. But ask most Muslim people in the world — if you insult the Prophet, do you have what’s coming to you? It’s more than just a fringe element.”
Today the world has learned that yesterday’s tragic events in Norway where over 90 individuals were killed, was NOT THE ACT OF A MUSLIM AS EARLIER REPORTED. Actually now it seems that this person may have been a member of an extremist Christian group that opposed multiculturalism. At least that is the information that we […]
In Little Rock just a few feet away from where we went shopping the night before a National Guard recruiter was killed by a muslim extremist. President Obama does not want to admit that terrorists have killed anybody on U.S. soil. Take a look at this article about the Ft Hood killing. Debra J. Saunders, Feb 14, […]
This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation contrasts the dependency mentality in the President’s “Life of Julia” campaign with the traditional American approach of self reliance and individual achievement.
Back in 2010, I posted a “Moocher Index” showing the states with the most dependency. But that was based on numbers and lacked any human-interest angle.
So let’s create a Moocher Hall of Fame for the individuals who best exemplify the culture of loafing, laziness, and dependency that is being subsidized by our vote-buying political class.
But you don’t receive this honor simply by accepting other people’s money. Membership in the Moocher Hall of Fame is reserved for deadbeats who demonstrate some special characteristic that warrants their induction.
* Leroy entered the Hall of Fame after it was reported that he won $2 million from the lottery, but somehow is still collecting food stamps.
* A welfare mother with 11 kids in the United Kingdom was invited into the Hall of Fame after one of her sons was arrested for looting and she said “the riots are because the government does “f*** all” for children.”
* If the Hall of Fame had an award for going above and beyond the call of loafing, then Hans from Austria would be an obvious choice. He cut off his own foot to ensure continued handouts.
* We also have a husband-wife team in the Hall of Fame. Alicia and Matthew were unanimous inductees after it was revealed that they tried to impregnate a 12-year old girl to increase their welfare payments.
* Speaking of husband-wife duos, let’s not forget Danny and Gina, who bragged that it didn’t make sense for them to work when the government was providing them with enough loot to enjoy an apartment, a big flat-screen TV, and 40 daily cigarettes.
* Abdul from Australia is an esteemed member of the Hall of Fame’s terror wing, having received 19 years of welfare while plotting to kill the people who were paying for his life of leisure.
* Last but not least, we have Natalijia, a Lithuanian woman who in now enjoying foreign holidays and designer clothes thanks to the generosity of British taxpayers, but nonetheless complained that she wasn’t getting a taxpayer-financed nanny.
Quite a collection of scroungers.
But I don’t think they’re very bright. They wanted to invite Julia to be the speaker at this year’s induction ceremony, apparently not realizing that she was a make-believe cartoon character created by the Obama campaign to celebrate dependency.
But I’m digressing. The purpose of this post is to announce the newest member of the Moocher Hall of Fame.
Our proud new bum comes from Denmark. Known as “Lazy Robert,” he’s been mooching off the taxpayers for 12 years and he’s very proud of his lifestyle. Here are some inspirational details from a New York Times report.
Robert Nielsen, 45, made headlines last September when he was interviewed on television, admitting that he had basically been on welfare since 2001. Mr. Nielsen said he was able-bodied but had no intention of taking a demeaning job, like working at a fast-food restaurant. He made do quite well on welfare, he said. He even owns his own co-op apartment. …Mr. Nielsen, called “Lazy Robert” by the news media, seems to be enjoying the attention. He says that he is greeted warmly on the street all the time. “Luckily, I am born and live in Denmark, where the government is willing to support my life,” he said.
The story also mentions another Danish moocher. Her story is worth sharing because it shows how the folks riding in the wagon enjoy higher living standards than many of those pulling the wagon.
Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is. It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym “Carina” in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.
This probably doesn’t bode well for Denmark’s future. As illustrated by this famous set of cartoons, this kind of system creates very perverse incentives.
By the way, I decided that Carina didn’t deserve membership in the Hall of Fame because at least she has the decency to be ashamed. Or at least that’s one I’m assuming since the story says she “will no longer give interviews.”
But there are some people who genuinely deserve something, and those folks are the taxpayers of Denmark. They deserve our sympathy. They have one of the world’s most oppressive tax systems, thanks in part to a welfare system that provides a comfortable hammock for Robert and Carina.
I have posted stories on welfare before and here is another one. Another Horrifying and Depressing Look at the Human Cost of the Welfare State March 22, 2013 by Dan Mitchell When we think of Julia, the mythical moocher created by the Obama campaign, our first instinct is probably to grab our wallets and purses. After […]
The best way to destroy the welfare trap is to put in Milton Friedman’s negative income tax. A Picture of How Redistribution Programs Trap the Less Fortunate in Lives of Dependency I wrote last year about the way in which welfare programs lead to very high implicit marginal tax rates on low-income people. More specifically, they […]
Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients in NYC Published on Mar 18, 2012 by vclubscenedotcom Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients It is truly sad to me that we have got to such a low point in our country […]
President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. On […]
State of the Union 2013 Published on Feb 13, 2013 Cato Institute scholars Michael Tanner, Alex Nowrasteh, Julian Sanchez, Simon Lester, John Samples, Pat Michaels, Jagadeesh Gokhale, Michael F. Cannon, Jim Harper, Malou Innocent, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus and Neal McCluskey respond to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address. Video […]
I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism, Greece, welfare state or on gun control. President Obama’s “You-Didn’t-Build-That” comment misses the mark because only 10% of the federal budget pays for public goods when the […]
State of the Union 2013 Published on Feb 13, 2013 Cato Institute scholars Michael Tanner, Alex Nowrasteh, Julian Sanchez, Simon Lester, John Samples, Pat Michaels, Jagadeesh Gokhale, Michael F. Cannon, Jim Harper, Malou Innocent, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus and Neal McCluskey respond to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address. Video […]
State of the Union 2013 Published on Feb 13, 2013 Cato Institute scholars Michael Tanner, Alex Nowrasteh, Julian Sanchez, Simon Lester, John Samples, Pat Michaels, Jagadeesh Gokhale, Michael F. Cannon, Jim Harper, Malou Innocent, Juan Carlos Hidalgo, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus and Neal McCluskey respond to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address. Video […]
Let’s begin with a good jab at one of the anti-Second Amendment groups.
But remember the serious point. If you’re a bad guy and know that a potential victim is sure to be unarmed, does that make you happy or sad?
I realize that an anti-gun zealot will respond by arguing that they want a world where the thugs and crooks also will be disarmed, but how likely is it that such people will turn in their weapons? In any event, most criminals are young men and potential victims need guns to compensate for the inability to match the physical strength of their attackers.
Next let’s look at a poster showing the kind of instructions that statists such as Mayor Bloomberg should post in public places.
These clowns expect us to have blind faith in the ability of public authorities, but the odds of a cop being immediately available when trouble strikes are almost nonexistent.
Here’s a poster that captures the blind naiveté of anti-gun activists. I don’t think I need to add any commentary.
Last but not least, here’s a sign that all anti-gun leftists – assuming they have the courage to publicly celebrate their beliefs – should post outside their homes.
If you enjoy these posters, you can view previous editions here, here, here, here, and here.
___________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Again we have another shooting and the gun control bloggers are out again calling for more laws. I have written about this subject below and on May 23, 2012, I even got a letter back from President Obama on the subject. Now some very interesting statistics below and a cartoon follows. (Since this just hit the […]
“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 22, 2012(part B) on Healthcare (part 11) This letter from President Obama was a response to a letter I wrote that was both emailed and mailed to President Obama and the emailed version included this video below: Below are the subjects that President Obama or his […]
The Colorado tragedy has got a lot of people talking about gun control again. Here are some facts for you from Dan Mitchell’s blog. Assault Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction July 28, 2012 by Dan Mitchell It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that John Lott has changed the national debate on gun control. His rigorous […]
John Stossel report “Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime Sadly another mass murder happened last night. This time it was at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Colorado. Over 50 people were shot by a gunman and many died as the Arkansas Times reported. This will start the gun control debate again and […]
John Stossel report “Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]
Published on Apr 19, 2012 by NRAVideos Cam Edwards talks to Katie Pavlich from Townhall about her new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up – NRA News – April 18, 2012. _______________ Scribecast: Katie Pavlich on the Scandal of Operation Fast and Furious Rob Bluey April 28, 2012 at […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 23, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. Great post […]
I really like this post by Dan Mitchell: Will You Be Able to Protect Your Family if Politicians Destabilize Society? December 5, 2011 by Dan Mitchell About a week ago, I wrote that people in western nations need the freedom to own guns just in case there are riots, chaos, and social disarray when welfare states […]
Great post from Dan Mitchell: The Best Poster I’ve Ever Seen on Gun Control, Without Rival April 19, 2010 by Dan Mitchell This image really captures the essence of the issue. Share this with your statist friends and maybe they’ll begin to understand.
As part of my “Question of the Week” series, I said that Australia probably would be the best option if the United States suffered some sort of Greek-style fiscal meltdown that led to a societal collapse.*
One reason I’m so bullish on Australia is that the nation has a privatized Social Security system called “Superannuation,” with workers setting aside 9 percent of their income in personal retirement accounts (rising to 12 percent by 2020).
Established almost 30 years ago, and made virtually universal about 20 years ago, this system is far superior to the actuarially bankrupt Social Security system in the United States.
Probably the most sobering comparison is to look at a chart of how much private wealth has been created in Superannuation accounts and then look at a chart of the debt that we face for Social Security.
To be blunt, the Aussies are kicking our butts. Their system gets stronger every day and our system generates more red ink every day.
And their system is earning praise from unexpected places. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, led by a former Clinton Administration official, is not a right-wing bastion. So it’s noteworthy when it publishes a study praising Superannuation.
Australia’s retirement income system is regarded by some as among the best in the world. It has achieved high individual saving rates and broad coverage at reasonably low cost to the government.
Since I wrote my dissertation on Australia’s system, I can say with confidence that the author is not exaggerating. It’s a very good role model, for reasons I’ve previously discussed.
Here’s more from the Boston College study.
The program requires employers to contribute 9 percent of earnings, rising to 12 percent by 2020, to a tax-advantaged retirement plan for each employee age 18 to 70 who earns more than a specified minimum amount. …Over 90 percent of employed Australians have savings in a Superannuation account, and the total assets in these accounts now exceed Australia’s Gross Domestic Product. …Australia has been extremely effective in achieving key goals of any retirement income system. …Its Superannuation Guarantee program has generated high and rising levels of saving by essentially the entire active workforce.
The study does include some criticisms, some of which are warranted. The system can be gamed by those who want to take advantage of the safety net retirement system maintained by the government.
Australia’s means-tested Age Pension creates incentives to reduce one’s “means” in order to collect a higher means-tested benefit. This can be done by spending down one’s savings and/or investing these savings in assets excluded from the Age Pension means test. What makes this situation especially problematic is that workers can currently access their Superannuation savings at age 55, ten years before becoming eligible for Age Pension benefits at 65. This ability creates an incentive to retire early, live on these savings until eligible for an Age Pension, and collect a higher benefit, sometimes referred to as “double dipping.”
Though I admit dealing with this issue may require a bit of paternalism. Should individuals be forced to turn their retirement accounts into an income stream (called annuitization) once they reach retirement age?
I’m torn on this issue. Paternalists sometimes do have good ideas, but shouldn’t people have the freedom to make their own decisions, even if they make mistakes? But does the answer to that question change when mistakes mean that those people will be taking money from taxpayers?
Fortunately, I don’t need to be wishy-washy on the other criticism in the study.
Australia’s system does have shortcomings. It is heavily dependent on defined contribution plans and is vulnerable to weaknesses in such programs.
I strongly disagree. A “defined contribution” account is something to applaud, not a shortcoming.
The author presumably is worried that a “DC” account leaves a worker vulnerable to the ups and downs of the market, whereas a “defined benefit” account promises a specific payment and removes that uncertainty. Sounds great, but the problem with “DB” accounts is that they almost inevitably seem to promise more than they can deliver. And that seems to be the case whether they’re supposedly based on real savings (like company retirement plans or pension funds for state and local bureaucrats) or based on pay-as-you-go taxation (like Social Security).
P.S. I’m also a huge fan of Chile’s system of private accounts. At the risk of oversimplifying, Chile’s system is sort of like universal IRAs and Australia’s system is sort of like universal 401(k)s.
P.P.S. There’s much to admire about Australia, but its government is plenty capable of boneheaded policy. Heck, the government even provides workers’ compensation payments to people who get injured while having sex after work hours, simply because they were on a business-related trip. Talk about double dipping!
P.P.P.S. Here’s my video explaining why we should implement personal retirement accounts in the United States.
___________________
Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts
Uploaded on Jan 10, 2011
There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
This first one is a pretty good assessment of what’s going to happen in a few years if we don’t see reform. Think about what’s happening in Europe, if you don’t have a good imagination.
This cartoon covers the same topic, but looks at how an aging population is going to create unsustainable fiscal demands.
There are solutions, of course, but don’t hold your breath waiting for them to be implemented.
Incidentally, you may recognize the artistic style in the second cartoon. It’s by Ramirez. Here are links to some of his other cartoons that I found especially worthwhile: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
I have put up lots of cartoons from Dan Mitchell’s blog before and they have got lots of hits before. Many of them have dealt with the economy, eternal unemployment benefits, socialism, Greece, welfare state or on gun control. Two Social Security Cartoons April 27, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Since we recently learned Social Security is even […]
We got to reform Social Security now!!! Yes, We Should “Reform” Payroll Taxes, but only if that Means Personal Retirement Accounts January 2, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Washington is filled with debate and discussion about the economic burden of the federal income tax, which collected $1.13 trillion in FY2012 ($1.37 trillion if you include the corporate […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 30, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
The evidence is in: school choice works. Yesterday, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released their third edition of their report “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.” The report provides a literature review of dozens of high-quality studies of school choice programs around the country, including studies from scholars at Harvard University, Stanford University, Cornell University, the University of Arkansas, the Brookings Institution, and the Federal Reserve Bank. The studies examine the impact of school choice programs on the academic performance of participants and public school students, the fiscal impact on taxpayers, racial segregation, and civic values.
The report’s key findings included the following:
Twelve empirical studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants using random assignment, the “gold standard” of social science. Of these, 11 find that choice improves student outcomes—six that all students benefit and five that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found a negative impact.
Twenty-three empirical studies (including all methods) have examined school choice’s impact on academic outcomes in public schools. Of these, 22 find that choice improves public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found that choice harms public schools.
Six empirical studies have examined school choice’s fiscal impact on taxpayers. All six find that school choice saves money for taxpayers. No empirical study has found a negative fiscal impact.
Eight empirical studies have examined school choice and racial segregation in schools. Of these, seven find that school choice moves students from more segregated schools into less segregated schools. One finds no net effect on segregation from school choice. No empirical study has found that choice increases racial segregation.
Seven empirical studies have examined school choice’s impact on civic values and practices such as respect for the rights of others and civic knowledge. Of these, five find that school choice improves civic values and practices. Two find no visible impact from school choice. No empirical study has found that school choice has a negative impact on civic values and practices.
On the same day, anew studyfrom researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that a school choice program boosted college enrollment among African-American participants by 24 percent.
While many of the findings show only modest improvement, they consistently show that school choice programs produce the same or superior results across a gamut of measures. Moreover, not all the benefits of choice are easily measurable. Some families are looking for a school that better meets a student’s special needs, instills the parents’ values, inspires a lifelong love of learning, or where a student issafe from bullying. These outcomes are sometimes difficult if not impossible to measure in the aggregate, but parents are in the best position to tell the difference for their own children.
The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more […]
John Brummett in his article, “A new civil rights struggle in Little Rock?” Arkansas News Burea, August 25, 2011, asserted the main role vouchers should have is “providing new models for regular public schools to emulate, not about replacing regular public schools.” The Heritage Foundation cares nothing about saving the public schools. If the public […]
Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System Published on May 9, 2012 by BasicEconomics The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs […]
(This letter was mailed before Oct 25, 2012.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]
The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more […]
Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad. In 1980 when I first sat […]
Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System (Q&A) Part 2 Published on May 7, 2012 by BasicEconomics __________ Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog is always critical of the voucher system but has he taken a closer look at what has been going on in the public schools the last few decades with […]
Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad. In 1980 when I first sat […]
But the Gipper wasn’t the only one to unleash the Laffer Curve. The United Kingdom saw similar dramatic results when Margaret Thatcher lowered the top tax rate from 83 percent to 40 percent. Allister Heath explains.
During the 1970s, when the tax system specialised in inflicting pain, the top one per cent of earners contributed 11pc of income tax. By 1986-87, with the top rate down to 60pc, that had increased to 14pc. After the top rate fell to 40pc in 1988, the top 1pc’s share jumped, reaching 21.3pc by 1999-2000, 24.4pc in 2007-08 and 26.5pc in 2009-10. Lower taxes fuelled a hard-work culture and an entrepreneurial revolution. Combined with globalisation and the much greater rewards available for skilled workers, Britain’s most successful individuals earned a lot and paid a lot in tax.
In other words, Margaret Thatcher’s supply-side tax rate reductions paid big dividends, both for the economy and for the Treasury.
Unfortunately, just as American politicians have forgotten (or decided to ignore) the lessons of the Reagan era, British politicians also have gravitated to a class-warfare approach. Allister points out that this is having a negative impact.
Yet times are changing, and not just because of the recession. HMRC recently slashed its forecasts for revenues from the top 1pc. It now believes the number of people expected to report £500,000 or more in earnings will fall by a tenth this year; those on £2m are set to drop by a third.
Why have the numbers headed in the wrong direction? There are almost certainly lots of factors, but tax policy has moved in the wrong direction and presumably deserves part of the blame. The top income tax rate is now 45 percent. The value-added tax has jumped to 20 percent. Allister provides more details.
Capital gains tax is too high. Luxury homes transactions are falling because of higher stamp duty. Britain is now a high tax economy; this is distorting work and investment decisions, gradually shifting talent and capital overseas. The overwhelming majority of high earners are already contributing disproportionately to the exchequer; tightening the screws further will be disastrously counter-productive. The lesson of the past 30 years is clear: the best way to entice the rich to pay even more tax is to keep rates low and allow them to get even richer.
Here’s my Laffer Curve video, which explains more about the relationship of tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue.
The ultimate goal, of course, is to shrink the central government so that the legitimate functions of the state can be financed at very low tax rates. Heck, if the United States and the United Kingdom had the kind of limited governments that existed 100 years ago, neither nation would even need a flat tax. A few user fees and excise taxes would suffice. Now that’s hope and change.
P.S. I periodically share two great Reagan videos, which can be seen here and here, but I also have a couple of inspiring videos of Thatcher in action, which can be viewed here and here.
__________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
I got to hear Arthur Laffer speak back in 1981 and he predicted what would happen in the next few years with the Reagan tax cuts and he was right with every prediction. The Laffer Curve Wreaks Havoc in the United Kingdom July 1, 2012 by Dan Mitchell Back in 2010, I excoriated the new […]
Raising taxes will not work. Liberals act like the Laffer Curve does not exist. The Laffer Curve Shows that Tax Increases Are a Very Bad Idea – even if They Generate More Tax Revenue April 10, 2012 by Dan Mitchell The Laffer Curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, and […]
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory Uploaded by afq2007 on Jan 28, 2008 The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows […]
If we want the economy to grow then we should look closely at a flat tax. A Primer on the Flat Tax and Fundamental Tax Reform August 11, 2012 by Dan Mitchell In previous posts, I put together tutorials on the Laffer Curve, tax competition, and the economics of government spending. Today, we’re going to look […]
President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. I got […]
I have written a lot about this in the past and sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh. Laughing at Obama’s Bumbling Class Warfare Agenda July 13, 2012 by Dan Mitchell We know that President Obama’s class-warfare agenda is bad economic policy. We know high tax rates undermine competitiveness. And we know tax increases […]
President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. If our […]
I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline Republican.
As promised or threatened (depending on your point of view), I am posting my response to the movie, Crimes And Misdemeanors. Promised to Saline that is. He keeps throwing this movie out at us as some sort of proof that his brand of Christan Fundamentalism is indeed the proper and only true way to look upon the ways of humanity.
I will have to say that I greatly enjoyed the movie and reccommend it highly, though not for the reasons that Saline touts it. Even though I like Woody Allen, in general, I somehow had missed this one.
As Saline points out, this is indeed a morality tale. I would assert that just about any good movie or work of literature is a morality tale, although Woody Allen makes sure that we can’t miss it here. It is a morality tale writ large. The main plot revolves around a successful opthamoligist who has his ex-mistress murdered because she threatens to expose the infidelity as well as some financial indiscretions she is privy to. Before his fateful decision, he consults his rabbi about what he should do and he also solicits advance from his gangster brother. The rabbi suggests that he admit all to his wife with the hope that, with God’s help, over time it will make their marriage stronger. As you would expect, the brother advises that he could get someone to kill the ex-girlfriend thus resolving the whole problem with very little risk of being caught. The Dr. takes the advice of his brother and the deed is done.
There are a couple of subplots in the movie as well, all involving the moral choices we all have to make on some level or another. Like most Woody Allen movies there’s some good laughs and layer upon layer of irony enough to make your head hurt. Allen plays a hapless documentary film maker named Clifford Stern who keeps trying to woo another woman even though Clifford himself is married. She finally totally rejects him and returns his only love letter. He’s flustered by all this and admits that he copied the whole thing from James Joyce and guesses that all the references to Dublin might have confused her.*
Saline’s assertion is, I think, that there is no “enforcement” here without God in the picture. He suggests that the opthamologist gets off scott free here and does not suffer punishment for his crime. His only evidence, seems to me, is that Woody Allen is a known atheist. Allen, in this movie, doesn’t come to that conclusion at all, he just lays it out there for everybody to ponder and come to his own conclusion. The Dr does, in fact, suffer somewhat from his decision. He does suffer from a lot of guilt about what he’s caused. The question though is still there. Is the suffering from the guilt in this life enough? Again, there is no answer to that question in the movie.
Saline would have us to believe that unless the Dr. accepts Jesus Christ as his own personal savior, before he dies, then his soul will indeed be punished. Even if the Dr. repents, it’s highly unlikely that he would convert to Christianity from Judaism. It’s human nature that he won’t. Thus the result would be that he will burn in Hell for all eternity. That’s the same punishment (barring unknown conversions) that Hitler and Carl Sagan are now receiving–according to Saline. It’s sad too because Saline really liked Sagan. Oh Well. And this proves a just and loving God? IMO, that God is a monster and doesn’t deserve worship.
To, admittedly, make a big sweeping generalization here, the whole Fundie Christian viewpoint is all about punishment and very little about love. They’d rather execute 99 innocent people than run the risk of a real murderer getting off. They’d rather arm everybody risking the deaths of lots of innocent bystanders as long as some criminals die as well. They would rather that children starve than risk having somebody cheat on the food stamp program. They’d rather the whole world grow up ignorant than risk somebody questioning the Bible and their authority. They’d rather the woman submit to her husband’s will rather than deciding issues regarding her own welfare for herself.
Saline will probably say that he doesn’t wish for these outcomes. Yet when you try to make public policy guided by the absolute certainty of your religious beliefs, these are the results you can expect.
* Woody Allen’s comedy is not everybody’s cup of tea but I like it. There’s another layer of irony here, which I’m sure wasn’t intended. The would-be girlfriend here is played by Mia Farrow. Clifford also seems to be real close to his teenage niece in the movie.
Olphart, thank you taking the time to get the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” by Woody Allen and sitting down and watching it. I have told all my friends that it is one of Woody Allen’s best movies ever. I would say the Allen movie “Midnight in Paris” is a close second to this movie and it also tackles a tough issue which is the “Golden Age Fallacy.” I have actually posted about each one of the historical characters mentioned in that movie and the list includes over 2 dozen writers and painters that spent time in Paris in the 1920’s.
Here is a link to all the postings: https://thedailyhatch.org/2012/02/27/woody-…
After watching such an enjoyable film as “Crimes and Misdemeanors” you admit that the film brings up some very tough questions but then you don’t get around to answering them. Let me refresh your memory concerning some of the big questions.
1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?
A reviewer in NY said that just a weekend away with the mistress would have made thing blow over but Allen set up the plot in such a way that a quick polite fix would not be possible.
2. Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off “scott free” like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?
Woody Allen knew what he was doing in this film and he was showing that without God and an afterlife then there is no reason not to murder!!!!
3. Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist?
Professor Levy is a humanist professor who Allen talks about throughout the film because he hopes to put his life together for a PBS special and he even talks to PBS people about this. Levy believes that even though there is no God we may find value in our short unhappy lives. Later in the film Allen is distressed when Professor Levy kills himself and leaves a note that says “I went out the window.”
That reminds me of what the humanist leader H. J. Blackham said, “On humanist assumptions [the assumption that there is no God and life has evolved by time and chance alone], life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does notis a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance andends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, oneafter another they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads to nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere. . . It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all . . . such a situation is a model of futility (H. J. Blackham et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).)
4. Does might make right in an impersonal universe?
Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
__________
Olphart, thank you for taking time to watch the movie and I welcome anybody that wishes to answer these questions. However, I must point out that I have interacted with many atheists on this during the last 20 years and very few are willing to answer any of these 4 questions because they have no moral system that would be able to reason with Judah because they know that Judah is right that if he could get away with it then that is the best course of action for him since there is no enforcement factor such as an afterlife to worry about.
Martin Landau who played Judah said that several men told him that they were in the same situation as Judah and wished they had taken his path instead of paying the piper.
“…without God and an afterlife then there is no reason not to murder!!!!”—Saline
Saline, anyone who needs the hopes of heaven or fears of hell to not murder is one sick @%$#!
You need to expand your reading to include more than the bible. You could start with evolutionary biology and altruism to start. I’m not going to waste my time pointing to specific articles for you. Everything you read is through the prism of the bible anyway.
Everyone is not a psychopath or even a sociopath. Maybe most xtian fundies are if they can’t behave themselves unless threatened with eternal damnation. Even then, they give themselves an out by allowing for 11th hour come to Jesus confessions.
Saline wouldn’t recognize “God” if she knocked on his door.
Norma and Outier both recognize that, but the guy does push buttons. He has more problems than faith to worry about.
Does anyone want to actually try to answer any of these four questions?
1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?
A reviewer in NY said that just a weekend away with the mistress would have made thing blow over but Allen set up the plot in such a way that a quick polite fix would not be possible.
2. Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off “scott free” like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?
3. Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist?
4. Does might make right in an impersonal universe?
So far I have received these thoughtful answers to my four questions:
The outlier, “Saline, anyone who needs the hopes of heaven or fears of hell to not murder is one sick #%$&!”
Verla Sweere, ” Saline has more problems than faith to worry about.”
Norma Bates:
Further, it exposes the hideous worldview of human beings by these hateful, idiotic mouthpieces for “God,” including Huckabee, Robertson, Graham, et al. Turns out they actually believe that without superstitions men and women will “revert” to their “true” state–which is murder, rape and mayhem.
In psychology, that phenomenon is called “projection.”
Maybe that’s true for Saline, Huckabee, Robertson, Graham, et al., but certainly not true of humankind as a whole, by any historic scientific measures.
___________________
Verla Sweere and the outlier both have no moral basis for telling Judah that he should not kill his mistress but deep down they know it is wrong because of their God-given conscience.
The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it? The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-givne conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.
“1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?”Judah’s rabbi suggested that he confess all to his wife and, with God’s help, his marriage would be made stronger over time. I agree with the rabbi except there will be no help from God. Judah and his wife might have a faith that could help them however. I know you probably disagree with the Rabbi who, obviously, has not been born again. The suggestion is right there in the movie. Why don’t you mention this in your summation of the movie?2. “Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off “scott free” like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?The question was not answered in the movie. The question was presented overtly as a moral choice. Aunt May gave her answer and Aunt May was not portrayed as being particularly bright. There were other characters in the movie with different viewpoints. I guess the only answer which would have satisfied you would be a depiction of Judah dying, then his soul thrown into Hell and then about an hour of him screaming, gnashing his teeth and begging Jesus for forgiveness. Woody Allen didn’t do it that way, he left the question open. If you don’t like it, make your own movie but leave “Crimes and Misdemeanors” alone. You’ve grossly mis-characterized this movie.
3. “Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist? ”
Yes
4. “Does might make right in an impersonal universe?”
No
There, that’s it. I’ve answered all the questions on one page.
Olphart thank you for taking time to watch the movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” and respond to my four questions.
_____________
THE FIRST QUESTION is to make sure you understand the weight of the dilemma and you do.
“1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?”
THE SECOND QUESTION calls for a judgement call on your part and you merely just cast doubt on Aunt May’s intelligence. She actually was a pinko liberal atheist and made a calculated moral judgement about “might being right” if a person has no problems with his conscience (i.e., Hitler). This is where the rubber hits the road because a person either agrees with Judah and Aunt May or they don’t. You do not address this except to say, “There were other characters in the movie with different viewpoints.” You know that you don’t want to answer that because I will ask you on what basis do you condemn Hitler and you don’t want to go there.
You also said, “You’ve grossly mis-characterized this movie.” I have not and you remind me of that reviewer in NY that said Judah could have smoothed thing over with his mistress and all would have been okay. That is a person that “grossly mis-characterized this movie.”
2. “Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off “scott free” like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?
_____________
YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION #3 is “yes” and that is acceptable if you can back it up, but frankly with a impersonal cold universe out there I don’t see how any secular person can back their assertion that there is a lasting meaning to their lives if God does not exist. That is the reason no one gets on and tries to even make that assertion. I salute you for doing so because you are one of the few brave people I have come across that will assert what they believe concerning this.
3. “Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist? ”
Yes
________
AGAIN THANKS FOR ANSWERING QUESTION NUMBER 4, but I don’t think anyone from a secular point of view can back that answer up.
4. “Does might make right in an impersonal universe?”
No
__________________________
Olphart you are a real gentlemen and I truly do respect your point of view. I recognize that you are a very well educated man that cares deeply about the important issue of our day. We need more people to leave their apathy behind and get involved. Thank you for your attempts to help others find their way.
Francis Schaeffer’s enduring influence upon evangelicals and evangelicalism cannot be overlooked. In great measure, Francis Schaeffer taught evangelicals the value of intellectual engagement. While in Europe, Schaeffer began to see the fault of fundamentalism lying primarily in its strident separatism. As he would interact with young unbelievers who were persuaded by nihilism, atheism, and existentialism, Schaeffer learned that merely attacking liberalism and other evangelicals was less than profitable. He needed to provide a positive response to modern philosophies and thoughtfully interact with opposing ideas on the level of world-view so unbelievers could see the incoherence of their positions and subsequently embrace the truth of Christianity.
Schaeffer’s desire to demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity to unbelievers led him to begin to think more and more about how world-views had played a significant role in the formation of Western thought and culture. As such, Schaeffer sought to engage with and think critically about past and present culture; not for its own sake, but so he might listen to the voice of those who were drowning in meaninglessness because they had embraced a world-view that erased the existence of a personal God—a world-view that inevitably led to the loss of a sense of humanness and overall purpose.
Schaeffer’s endeavor to wrestle with ancient and contemporary culture, especially in the realm of ideas and world-view, would have a tremendous influence on how Christians thought about and interacted with culture. Ronald Nash summarizes his impact in this area well when he writes,
Francis Schaeffer was the instrument through whom hundreds of thousands of people became conscious of [the] intellectual dimension of the Christian faith, of the importance of philosophy, of the significance of world views and their presuppositions, of the message that ideas have consequences (Parkhurst, 69).
Among these hundreds of thousands to be profoundly influenced by Schaeffer would belong Christian apologists, philosophers and authors. Nancy Pearcy, popular editor and author, tells of her trip to L’Abri and how she was immediately intrigued by Christians who were engaged with the intellectual and cultural world. As she read works by Christian apologists and interacted with Schaeffer and others at L’Abri, Pearcy interacted with many good and sufficient arguments that did much to challenge her unbelief (Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth, 55). Pearcy would eventually embrace Jesus Christ and a biblical world-view.
Pearcy also notes how Schaeffer provided her and other Christians with the apparatus with which to properly enjoy and accurately evaluate culture. She writes,
There is no need to avoid the secular world and hide out behind the walls of an evangelical subculture; instead, Christians can appreciate works of art and culture as products of human creativity expressing the image of God. On the other hand, there is no danger of being naïve or uncritical about false and dangerous messages embedded in secular culture, because a worldview gives the conceptual tools needed to analyze and critique them (Pearcy, 56).
Pearcy here testifies to what Barry Hankins believes was Schaeffer’s “signal achievement and most lasting influence;” namely, the “important task of world-view formation” (Hankins, 227).
On the other hand, we would be remiss if we did not reflect here on what motivated Schaeffer in his whole enterprise. It was not merely an interest in ideas; it was love for people. Bryan Follis guards us from turning Francis Schaeffer into a stuffy, intellectually smug apologist when he writes, “To understand Schaeffer, we need to understand the love he had for the individual person” (Follis, Truth with Love, 53). Love for others appeared to free Schaeffer to engage the surrounding culture for the sake of people’s good and salvation. As Schaeffer traveled to America and shared his message with young evangelicals, his point was unmistakable in this regard. Barry Hankins notes,
…[Schaeffer’s] message to American evangelical college students was that to be effective witnesses they would have to move beyond fundamentalist separation from secular ideas and beyond mere denunciation of liberals. Instead, evangelicals needed to take their ideas seriously and to understand and engage their culture (Hankins, 233).
Schaeffer would not merely seek to understand and exhibit the impotence of unbiblical world-views; he would sympathize with and weep over those who struggled desperately with the essential questions of life—even if their answers came in the form of unbelieving, incoherent philosophy, art, and poetry—and he encouraged following generations of evangelicals to do the same.
I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making the video below. It is very valuable information for Christians to have. Actually I have included a video below that includes comments from him on this subject.
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book really helped develop my political views […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 5) TRUTH AND HISTORY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices once […]
The opening song at the beginning of this episode is very insightful. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 4) THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY Published on Oct 7, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 3) DEATH BY SOMEONE’S CHOICE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis This crucial series is narrated by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. Today, choices are being made that undermine human rights at their most basic level. Practices […]
It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer. I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]
This essay below is worth the read. Schaeffer, Francis – “Francis Schaeffer and the Pro-Life Movement” [How Should We Then Live?, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, A Christian Manifesto] Editor note: <p> </p> [The following essay explores the role that Francis Schaeffer played in the rise of the pro-life movement. It examines the place of […]
Great article on Schaeffer. Who was Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer? By Francis Schaeffer The unique contribution of Dr. Francis Schaeffer on a whole generation was the ability to communicate the truth of historic Biblical Christianity in a way that combined intellectual integrity with practical, loving care. This grew out of his extensive understanding of the Bible […]
The Daily Hatch 