Galt's Gulch, South Carolina

Readers of this blog will recognize that I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. Therefore, it's somewhat distressing to read news reports that move me to say "Here's a case where Ayn Rand was prescient." I'm referring to the attempts by the National Labor Relations Board to tell the Boeing Corporation it cannot manufacture its airplanes in South Carolina. This is outrageous. The NLRB ought to be added to the list of federal agencies (EPA, FCC) where the power of the purse of Congress should be used to reign in abuses of federal power over economic activity. To go further, I suggest a sweeping re-examination of all of the Progressive Frankenbureaus who believe that they can order Americans around outside of the originally-understood concepts of separation of powers.

Shrug

Given my rant-like post on Mandeville (see below) I was thinking today about the question: "Will I go see Atlas Shrugged?": There are several reasons for me to avoid the movie. Obviously I can't abide the anti-Christian message of Rand and Objectivism. I also thought that Atlas Shrugged was pretty much a joke as a novel. However, all things considered, I think I probably will go see the movie. Here are my Top Ten Reasons For Me To See Atlas Shrugged Even Though I Don't Like Ayn Rand:

10 ) For my entire life, I've gone to movies, concerts, etc. and told myself: I know that this person is committed to just about every left-wing cause I disagree with, but I still think that they are a great actor/singer/musician/songwriter. It's time to bring some balance into my life.

9 ) It's clear from that trailer that the writers have brought the movie into contemporary time. It will be fun to watch the debates among the Rand True Believers as to whether Nothing That She Wrote Can In Any Way Be Altered (think Howard Roark in The Fountainhead).

8 ) Watching the audience will be a spectacle beyond anything on the screen.

7 ) Memo to Rand Fans: The idea that if the government taxes or regulates something, less of it will be produced is neither original with, exclusive too, or even best represented by Atlas Shrugged. However, if it brings in even 100 people who somehow aren't aware of this basic fact, the movie will have a certain kind of success.

6 ) I like trains.

5 ) I am a complete social outcast in my family because I have no interest in long boring fantasy series like The Rings Trilogy or the Harry Potter series. As very few other people want to talk about real movies like North by Northwest, Marnie, Goldfinger, The Last Picture Show, or Bottle Rocket, maybe the fact that I go see this long, boring fantasy series can keep our conversations going.

4 ) Or at the very least, if I say "But have you seen Atlas Shrugged?" and complete silence follows, maybe people will then, as a compromise, want to talk about North By Northwest, Marnie, Goldfinger, the Last Picture Show, or Bottle Rocket.

3 ) I'm certain that Ayn Rand would say that I am not intelligent enough not to believe in God. Here's what I believe: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

2 ) Did I mention that I like trains?

1 ) Gary Cooper was a great actor, but his performance in the courtroom scene in The Fountainhead makes this oak desk I'm sitting at seem animated by comparison. I am hoping against hope that, given all of the wooden dialog in Atlas Shrugged, somebody will emerge to erase this stain from Coop's legend.

Final Jeopardy! (I)

"A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.' "
------Luke 22:24-26

FINAL JEOPARDY ANSWER: This change in Jeopardy! rules is a favorite among economists because it demonstrates how people respond to changes in incentives.

FINAL JEOPARDY QUESTION: What was the end of what economists call "linear payoffs?"


Indeed, the popular game show JEOPARDY! is famous to economists because of a change in the rules between the Art Fleming and the Alex Trebek versions of the show. In the original version, contestants who had positive winnings at the end of all three rounds won that amount of money. In economics, that is called a linear payment scheme. In the new version, only the winner is paid the monetary value of their nominal winnings. In economics jargon, this latter is called a "tournament" payment scheme. A typical prediction in economics is that contestants facing FINAL JEOPARDY will behave in a more risk-loving (and therefore exciting) fashion if only the winner gets a monetary prize. Research that I've conducted with Duncan James of Fordham University demonstrates the general accuracy of the tournament model.

This is the first of three posts on this topic that I hope will do three things. First, argue that Jesus was critical of any transformation of life into inter-personal tournaments. Secondly, I'll give a personal example of the trap of tournament thinking. Thirdly, I hope to reiterate Doug's post below about the importance of understanding fairness and justice issues in non-market allocation.

For the first purpose, I opened with the Luke story... one of the good examples where Jesus warns us against viewing life as a tournament in which we receive utility from rank or status. Another example would be Matthew 20 in the parable of the workers in the field, who were bothered not simply by whether their own wages were just, but also for the relative comparisons between themselves and others.

There is plenty to be said about the direct dangers of money or power, but without any doubt Jesus warns us against treating life as a tournament in any aspect: monetary, political, or in our faith. Jesus is saying that he who dies with the most toys wins nothing, and that coming to Christ before someone else is nothing at all like Michael Phelps beating someone else to the buzzer.

(I guess it's a bad coincidence but an instructive lesson to me that this post arrives the day before that ultimate American tournament: Super Bowl XLV or whatever its Roman Numeral is this year, and only a few days after I posted on Facebook the exciting news that FSU was ranked "#1" on college football signing day.)

We Interrupt This Movie....

The national debate over the Obama administration’s proposals for what seems intended to be, in effect, the transformation of the U.S. health care network into a British style single-payer socialized insurance system is really heating up. I had intended my next post to continue on some of the economic basics of health insurance with one of the most important economic problems: adverse selection. However, along the way Sue and I watched the DVD of Gran Torino and I just had to say something about it.

A problem with discussing Gran Torino is that it’s hard to talk about without spoiling the action for those who haven’t seen it. But, here’s a movie about life, death, sin, the consequences of sin, confession, redemption, transformation, the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, Dirty Harry in retirement, appropriate lawn care, muscle cars, barbers, and a dog [and, a warning, language that risks offending just about anyone].

Presbyterians seem inclined to believe that it is written in the Gospels that all Bible studies must have one chapter in each of 13 weeks. Even if that is true, a Bible study based on Gran Torino could go the distance.

If those who haven’t seen the movie want to jump ship here, let me note just one example. How does the difference in Walt’s first and second response to the neighborhood problems speak to the debate as to whether Christian peacemaking is or is not pacifism? I argue that Walt’s transformation illustrates that the “use of force” is not at all the key issue: “force” (yes, I will argue actual physical force by one person directed against another) is an integral part of both of Walt’s plans. The difference was what was in Walt’s heart, and whose agenda he was following. Walt’s first response was a classic example of the fact that even if we thoroughly believe that we want to do good, if we put our own will and reason at the center of what defining what is “good,” we will miss God’s mark.

There are at least 12 other great discussions for Christians to be had from Gran Torino.

Next up from me, a return to “Trouble Indemnity,” adverse selection, and the case of the irritated elevator operator.

Long Live the "King"

One of the things on my "should have written about" list is my intense admiration for "King of the Hill," by comedy genius Mike Judge. I couldn't have done any better than today's article by David Forsmark at NRO. He says everything I've always wanted to say about this great series. The one episode that will always stick in my heart is when Hank has to choose between keeping his promise about helping out at his church's children's group and watching his beloved Dallas Cowboys.

The King James/Linus Version of Events in a Field, At Night, Long Ago

Merry Christmas

God Unlimited

I love movies, but I've tried very hard not to have my posts here turn into a lot of "What Would Jesus Watch" type comments. However, I'm going to break that rule and suggest that Christians might want to catch Wes Anderson's new flick, The Darjeeling Limited. This is not at all a "Christian movie". (There is adult content and language if that is an issue for you). But the constant thought I had while watching this movie was to ponder what it means to be a Christian in a world in which, through all the struggles, it is possible for all of humanity to view the transcendence and universality of God, but in which the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus remains a singular event.

As for the movie itself, I give it about 4 out of 5 stars, and I believe that (together with Rushmore) it will eventually be my favorite Wes Anderson movie after Bottle Rocket. In fact, I strongly suggest anyone who has not done so watch Bottle Rocket before watching Darjeeling Limited. Maybe no one else sees them this way, but I think of them as the first and second parts of what I hope will become a trilogy. In Bottle Rocket, an astonishingly young Owen Wilson leads two of his friends (including real brother Luke Wilson) on an amazing journey. In Darjeeling Limited a suddenly almost middle-age Owen Wilson (appearing almost like a middle-age Dignan) leads his two cinematic brothers on an equally amazing journey. To close out the circle of threes, our brothers will interact with another trio of friends/brothers in a way that will change their lives.

And now for the fun part for Wes Anderson fans --- yes, a lot of it is there [Wes Anderson spoilers follow]: Tiny metal toys, Mr. Kumar, cutaway sets, Eric Anderson drawings, slow motion, sunglasses, memorable music, lists of things, and the fitting completion of the yellow jump suits/red warm-up suits trilogy. Most importantly, however, we need to remember that when Bottle Rocket and Rushmore were released, a lot of "comedy" in TV and the movies was dominated by cynicism, irony, and generally laughing at making people look like jerks. There was none of that in Wes Anderson. His characters fall in and out of love and back in again (Anthony and Inez; both Max and Herman with Rosemary, who's still in love with her late husband). They live on their dreams (Dignan and Max). When Dignan says to his friends, who are struggling to act normal watching him in prison, "We did it though, didn't we!", criminal that he is, he became one of my favorite characters in all of the movies.

Remember that Jesus was tried as a criminal and crucified, and that not any of his disciples standing around the cross could have understood, at that time, what he meant by "It is finished." The Gospel is the opposite of cynicism. That's why I like Wes Anderson movies.