Reader Request: Do Christians Really Believe?

I always take reader requests. Here's one from blogger and interesting thinker, Justin Wehr:

Here's one I'd like to see you respond to:

They believe that they believe, but their beliefs are of the easily disposable kind. Suppose you could take a devoutly religious person, ask him, “Are the tenets of your religion true?” and somehow convince him that the life of his child depends on getting the answer right. I’m guessing that nine times out of ten, you’d find yourself confronting a born-again infidel. The only reason that rarely happens is that there’s rarely an occasion when getting the right answer actually matters.

Quote from Steven Landsburg that I came across in this post: http://bit.ly/xpn9Dh 

Here's what I want to know 

• Which (if any) tenets of your religion would you hold onto and which (if any) would you discard if your kid's life were on the line? 

• In your estimate, what percentage of pious people would become, in the above situation, "born again infidels"?

One of the things I noticed on my summer European tour is how global cultural religion is. The American South is famous for religious culture, but it exists everywhere and in every religion. First I'll respond to a specific points made in the post linked above:

If there really is a heavenly and eternal paradise awaiting us after death, one would think more people would be in a rush to get there, right?

I can only speak for Christianity, but the Church mostly agrees that although we long for heaven, we have a mission here on earth. So suicide or a reckless life does not fit with Biblical teachings. Now if the writer had complained that Christians don't live out the second half (the mission part), then that is a legitimate complaint. One that atheist Penn Jillette makes really candidly in this video.

To put it simply, most [religious people] don’t live their lives as if they absolutely believed in the words their religious texts profess. For example, if I truly believed in the Christian God, with absolute certainty, I would live my life in a way consistent with that.

I'm curious what he means by this. If he means living a "good life", that is not the description the Bible seems to describe (Old and New Testament). The Christian life is one of repentance, sin, growth, hardship, joy, etc. And for that, I have witnessed many living that life. Which I don't think this writer gets:

Most religions assert that God is watching our actions even when others aren’t watching. If this were true, my inner economist would tell me that people would avoid displeasing God at all costs.

Now to respond to Justin's blockquote. I think the opposite is true. When people's lives are on the line, we see more religious conversion than abandonment. It doesn't seem to me that this person knows many Christians. I think most I know (let's say 90%), my self included, would not waiver. The biggest belief I am personally sure of is the grace of Jesus. I know of no other way to explain my own failures and my own triumphs. The rest of Biblical doctrine is more malleable. For example I now go to a church that practice believers baptism, which I'm not convinced of. I go to a church that doesn't believe in predestination, which I am convinced of. But I still find myself connected our surety in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

Reader Request: Should We Boycott BP?

In the past I've been less than optimistic about the individual's ability to directly influence big institutions, be it big government or big business. Instead I've suggested the market, as a collection of individuals, is better at giving you want. So when an old college friend Lindsay, emailed me* this question, I couldn't resist:

Why are people still shopping at bp gas stations? And would it make any difference at all if everyone went some where else?

A great question. Not only for this disaster, but for any time we see corporations misbehaving. There's been examples of boycotts leading to huge social change. America's most famous protest The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a boycott on British tea by the colonists. The Montgomery Bus Boycott of the 1950's not only gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement's greatest leader, Martin Luther King, it also ended legal support for racial segregation on public transportation. However in both situations it was government, not business that was primarily responsible.

A less famous, but more similar example is the grape boycott of the 1960's led by the César Chávez in a fight over worker compensation. Here's a summary video I show in my own US History class on the boycott. In  the video a vineyard owner very clearly states he changed his labor negotiations exclusively because of the boycott. So, with strong worker and consumer support, boycotts can work as a way to punish companies into doing what you want. That support is hard to gain and maybe more important, keep up. Within a decade of Chávez's grape success, the union he created all but disappeared along with the labor negations. This is not because of weakness on the part of boycotter's, but because of the intense strength of the market. It was always going to push toward equilibrium, no matter how hard the workers pushed back. Luckily the market is doesn't just reward good business, it punishes bad ones as well. Here's what is happening to BP's stock:





BP's stock has lost nearly a quarter of its value since the spill, totaling around $44 billion. This is some knee jerk response. If you look closely the large drop didn't happen when the spill started, but instead when the initial attempts failed. My guess is that when ever the market stabilizes, the amount lost will be fairly close to the costs incurred by BP. The market will punish BP for their huge loss of product and their clean up cost. One concern of victims and taxpayers is that the oil company may not be forced to incur the full cost. The lesson from the Exxon Valdez spill wasn't how to prevent spills, but that we should not allow politicians on the payroll of oil companies to limit their risk. I'm unsure whether the current setup does that or not:

While BP is on the hook for the clean up costs, there is a $75 million cap on an oil company's liability for economic damages, or other damages claimed by individuals or government, under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund law. That law also established a government reserve funded through taxes on oil companies, as well as fines and penalties in the case of oil spills, to pay for cases like the current oil spill. There is currently $1.6 billion in the reserve, and this disaster could use up to $1 billion of its funds

This fund could be a quasi-efficient way to keep bankrupted companies from leaving the spill clean up to taxpayers. It could also be a way for these companies to get others to foot the bill. It's obvious that BP will suffer a lot because of this spill, whether they will suffer enough is unclear. Instead of boycotting the company, it may be a better use of your time and money to lobby politicians who hold the keys, preferably through a handwritten letter.

*If you ever have a question or suggestion please feel free to comment or contact me privately.

Reader Request: Effects of Photoshop

I asked for requests and some of you responded. Loyal reader Michael Costa asks what the impact of photoshopping is on the society. First, I admit my lack of expertise in the subject, but am intrigued by the question. Here's my go at it. I don't see it as all bad or good, but probably a mix of the two. It's also not a new problem. There has been controversy about picture editing since Abraham Lincoln. So let's divide it into two categories: editing for private use and editing for public use.

Editing for private use.

Imagine your just married and your professional photographs just arrived. But oh no, crazy uncle Dave took off his cummerbund too early and the balance of every shot is ruined. Lucky for you the photographer can photoshop the full suit in and save the day. No harm no foul. The picture is now a better representation of the reality of the moment during the ceremony.

Now imagine you're a high school student with class pictures coming up. You are given the option to edit out those unsightly blemishes for a small fee. Like a Cold War arms race, the increased use by photoshopping by your peers, compounds the pressure to do it yourself. You pay the money, the pictures come back and your less embarrassed than you would have been originally. No harm no foul. Or is there? What is the message this sends to students. Perfect skin isn't just for the magazine racks anymore, it's required in yearbooks across the country. It may decrease anxiety over picture day, but it could also increase insecurity in the days when you don't match the flawlessness of your picture. Twenty years later you look back on that picture and instead of being glad those pimply days are over, you are unrealistically nostalgic for the beauty of your youth.

Editing for public use.

When we are talking about editing reality, anything meant for the public is held to a different standard. The best example I could find is the Time magazine cover of O.J. Simpson. Compare it to the original mugshot in Newsweek and it is easy to see that journalists darkened the picture. I'm guessing to make to make him look more menacing by playing into racist notions of skin color. Editing reality in picture is the same as editing reality in printed word. Journalists are suppose to report the news, not influence it. Photoshopping models in magazines is reported enough to make those issues small. News editing images is a much bigger deal.

Conclusion.

The way to differentiate between good and bad photoshopping is to ask why. Why are you doing it? Is the goal to deceive or to present reality better? But I'm not a Luddite and I embrace new technology's ability to improve our lives. We just need to question our motivation in altering the memory we are trying to save.

Reader Request: Government Regulation

Here is a question from my brother and Bottlenecked reader, Brad Jones:

What are the benefits of government regulating the market? Or why is everyone so pro-regulation? Any good reasons?

I believe regulation does and will always hamper economic growth. The free market allocates resources to their highest valued use and any government intervention with distort that process. That said, I believe there is a place for it. The only time that I support government regulation is when public money tied to that industry. For example, the FDIC's main roll is to be the lender of last resort to depositors. This means that no matter what happens to my bank my money is guaranteed, up to $100,000, by the federal government (although the new bailout plan could increase this). The purpose of this is to stop runs on the bank in times of panic (like in the Great Depression). Government regulation of the banking system makes sense because these banks have access to the public purse. If they fail, the taxpayers are partially responsible. As I've said before on the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, you cannot privatize the profits and socialize the risk. Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute says it like this: "Capitalism without loses is like religion without hell."

Let me state the obvious for a second. Despite all the problems the credit industry is having right now, we are much better off for having complex lending system we have today. Our system allows you to save for emergencies, for your next house, or for your small business. It then takes that those savings and turns them into loans for other people's emergencies, for their next house, or for their small business.

However, just because there is government funds in an industry doesn't mean regulation is the solution. It shouldn't come as a surprise that government officials usually think the answer is more government. The first option should always be to remove the government funds. This is the question I always ask when government intervention is proposed: Why would the market not take care of this problem alone? It may not always have a "fair" result, but it almost always has the best possible result. As my wife said last night responding to calls for fairness from the VP candidates: "this isn't Mario Kart, you can't get all red shells when you're behind."

As always, I enjoy answering reader requests, so feel free to contact me with your own.

Reader Request: Eminent Domain

To put it bluntly, I whole heatedly disagree with all (at least that I can think of) cases of the government taking private land for the “benefit” of the public. I am willing to acknowledge that there are times when the law can be used to maximize the greatest good. However, I’m not confident that public officials have the self-control to use it in just those cases. As for the case in question, my main concern is over the issue of “fair market value.” Now I don’t have any real estate experience, but I am confident that the actual value of something is meaningless unless you can agree to sell and buy it at that price. I’m sure the city officials believed they were offering a fair price, but do you really think the owner’s of the land thought so? It was apparently worth more than that to them or they would have sold it without having to be strong armed. In my opinion, if the benefits to the city were so large (which it seems they were), then the owners of the property should have been paid more for their good investment. There was surely some price they would have sold it for, it was probably just cheaper to lobby the government to do it for you.