Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!



Economics

On why freer trade is best

The following is based on Real Talk’s episode #126, “Mere Economics and the Issue of Tariffs” with host Lucas Holtvlüwer talking to economics professor and author Dr. Caleb Fuller about the only four ways that people can get the things they need.

****

We might not be medical experts, or have a law degree, but we all know a lawyer, and a nurse or two. But how many of us know an economist? Not too many, and I think that's why economics can seem an intimidating field. But it doesn't have to be complicated.

When it comes to how we can best get the things that we want and need for ourselves and our families, Dr. Fuller boiled things down:

“…there's only actually four possible ways for me to get what I want. And these four ways are logically exhaustive.”

What he means by "logically exhaustive" is that these four are it – there are no other possibilities.

So what are these four ways? And more importantly, why should we know? To answer the second question first, this is vital information because only one of the four ways will actually work for a society. So it is key we pick the right way.

1. Getting gifts

One way we could get the food, clothing, and shelter we need is to simply receive it from someone else. That’s what we do for our kids, after all. But there is a problem, as Dr. Fuller explains:

“I could rely on gifts from someone else. But if you think about that for a couple seconds, you realize that if everyone was doing this – if you kind of systematized that way of getting what you want – the world would be incredibly poor. It also pushes the question back a step. You know, where did the gift-giver get what he's giving?”

2. Stealing what we want and need

A second option is chosen by some, but we’d all starve if everyone did the same.

“You could steal from others. Ethical problems aside, if you universalize, that means of getting what you want, you also live in a world ‘nasty, brutish, and short," to quote Thomas Hobbes. And, also, just like the first option pushes the question back, where did the person who's being stolen from…get the goods in question?”

3. Making it all ourselves

So, that leaves us only two more possibilities. We can either make everything we need ourselves, or, instead, use our particular skills to make something others want, and trade with them for what we want. So, our options are make or trade, and one of the reasons President Trump instituted his tariffs is he wanted less trade with other countries, and more of the making done in the US. Dr. Fuller highlights the problem with this approach.

“Let's think about make for a second. There's a great book called The Toaster Project by a guy named Thomas Thwaites. Thwaites chronicles his attempt to build a very simple toaster from scratch, that is, without cooperating with anyone else. So he's not going to engage in buying, he's not going to engage in exchange, he's just going to make, okay?

“And it takes him about nine months. He does cheat a little bit along the way. And after this nine months of full-time work on this toaster, he plugs the toaster in, and five seconds later it shorts out.

“There's a small fire that melts it down. After nine months of work, that was the consequence. And that is a little vignette of what our lives would be if we systematized or universalized this third means of getting what we want – just making everything that I want to consume.”

4. Specialize/trade

And as Fuller shares, that “brings us to this fourth option, of specialization.” Few of us will be any better at making toasters than Thwaites was, but we might have other skills we can offer. One person might be a great nurse, another a very good farmer, and a third might be a skilled high school teacher.

We all have our specialties, and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to recognize how much worse we’d be off if we didn’t specialize. Then the nurse would have to build her home, the farmer would have to teach his kids high school physics, and the teacher would have to fix his son’s broken leg. Specialization helps us do and make more.

Dr. Fuller specializes as an economics professor producing lectures and books that others value, and he trades those away for money and then uses that money to buy what he wants.

“That's why I say that the ability to exchange is not optional if you want to observe ‘mass flourishing.’ to use economist Ed Phelps’ term. And so that's why economists are so obsessed with specialization…”

Conclusion

Of these four ways of getting what we need, God’s commandment against stealing rules out the second. His call to be fruitful (Gen. 1:28 and in the Parable of the Talents, Matt. 25:14-30) eliminates the first as an option – we can’t just live off of our parents, even if they were willing. A fruitful life would also address the third option. It doesn’t make sense for us to try to do everything ourselves. If everyone did, we’d all be not simply poor, but quite likely dead.

What’s true for individuals is true in large part for countries too. The US is currently trying to use tariffs on foreign goods to drive companies to produce in-country more of the goods that Americans consume. But even the US can’t be better than everyone at producing everything. So, for example, in a June 3rd House Appropriations meeting, Rep. Madeleine Dean questioned Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick about the tariff being imposed on bananas. The US grows less than a tenth of one percent of the bananas that Americans eat. The other 99.9% are imported. And, as Secretary Lutnick noted, the tariff is “generally 10%.”

Lutnick defended the tariff, arguing that, as trade deals are made, the tariff will eventually be eliminated. But he also argued that “if you build in America and produce your product in America, there will be no tariff.” To which Rep. Dean pointed out, “You can’t build bananas in America.”

Free trade remains best, and not simply for banana lovers.

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

No Free Lunch:

Six economic lies you’ve been taught and probably believe by Caleb Fuller 20021 / 138 pages Every now and again I’ll hand out a book to any nephews or nieces willing to give it a go. And with Caleb Fuller’s No Free Lunch, I’ve found the next book I’m going to pitch to them. While Fuller addresses six lies, there is one truth he’s trying to present: that every opportunity you pursue, comes at a cost. What cost? The time and money you put into it – and here’s the important part – which can’t then be spent on other opportunities. This “opportunity cost” could be known as the “you-can’t-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too principle” or, as the book title puts it, “there’s no free lunch.” So, then, when a government jobs program funds summer work for students, what we see is all the students getting jobs. But what we don’t see is the opportunity cost to this program – we don’t see all the other jobs that companies might have started on their own – and maybe full-time even – had the government not taxed them to fund their summer jobs program. Fuller shows how much damage is done by the well-meaning, but economically ignorant, and highlights how there is on many issues a consensus among economists on both the Left and Right, that politicians on the Left will simply defy. My only disappointment with this punchy book is that this Christian professor never makes plain why the Left fails, and the free market works. He never mentions how the foundation for the free market – private property rights – is simply obedience to God’s command, “Do not steal” (Ex. 20:15). In fact, God is not mentioned in the whole book. For a more explicitly Christian economics book sharing this same great name, check out David Bahnsen's No Free Lunch....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, News

Premier Ford calls on the feds to make EV cars more expensive

Ontario’s premier has asked the federal government to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, which would make these cars twice as expensive as they would otherwise be. Why would Premier Doug Ford want to so strongly discourage consumers from buying these EVs? Aren’t EVs the way of the future? The premier explained he wants the tariff to protect Ontario jobs. Back in April, he announced he was gifting $2.5 billion of Ontario taxpayers’ money to induce Honda to build four EV manufacturing plants in the province. The federal government added in their own $2.5 billion in tax credits. Combined, this $5 billion would create 1,000 jobs, which works out to a cost of $5 million per job. It’s not surprising then, that the premier wants to protect these positions – they were a very expensive purchase. But why are these Chinese cars so cheap? In an interview with the Toronto Sun’s Brian Lilley, the president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Association, Flavio Volpe, raised the possibility of forced labor – slaves – sometimes being involved. That could be a reason to ban sales altogether, not simply penalize them. Another critique is that the Chinese government is heavily subsiding these vehicles. But The Hub has calculated that overall, the federal, Ontario, and Quebec governments have combined to offer $40 billion in subsidies and tax credits to our own EV industry. Or as Kiernan Green noted: “This represents 15 percent more than the companies themselves have put forward for their investments in Canada’s EV sector.” If subsidization is an unfair business practice, then shouldn’t we should stop it ourselves (Matt. 7:12)? And if it isn’t unfair, why are we complaining? There are other issues involved here: as Flavio Volpe noted, the same federal government that is subsidizing Canadian production is also involved in subsidizing foreign EV production too – the Liberals announced a program this past December that could credit EV manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, with as much as a $20,0000 credit per EV car sold. It is more complicated than that, but the short of it is, the government has gotten itself so muddled up in this market that its right hand is actively working against its left hand. Might that be evidence that it should get both hands, and its nose, out of the business sphere? Taxpayers are shouldering a heavy burden for EV cars. And now, if this tariff goes through, Canadians will be asked to shoulder even more, as less expensive Chinese competitors will be tariffed out of the marketplace. There is a broader lesson here, as this is what tariffs always do, protecting local producers at the expense of local consumers. God calls on the government to administer justice, and one of the first principles of justice is impartiality (Lev. 19:15, James 2:8). What we have happening here is an example of the government picking winners and losers, favoring EV producers over EV purchasers (and all of it done at the expensive of taxpayers). Why the one over the other? What business is it of government to show such favoritism? Picture credit: adapted from a photo by Bruce Reeve/flickr.com and used under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Economics, Teen fiction

The Hyperinflation Devastation

by Connor Boyack 400 pages / 2019 Remember those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books kids loved back in the 1980s? Readers would be brought to a fork in the road, given two options to choose from and if they chose Option A, they would be told to go to one page, and if they chose Option B then they would be directed to another. Afterward, they would continue on their chosen track with the adventure continuing to branch repeatedly thereafter. In The Hyperinflation Devastation, author Connor Boyack has taken that concept and expanded on it, creating a 400+ page “Choose Your Consequence” adventure to teach teens various lessons about economics. In this, the first book in the series, Emily and Ethan Tuttle, a pair of 15-year-old twins, head out on their own to the small South American country of “Allqukilla.” If 15 strikes you as young to be out without parents, I’m with you. However, these two are a particularly independent pair who have spent the last year planning and saving for this trip. They want to go to Allqukilla to check out the country’s ancient ruins. But is it to be? Right after their plane arrives, they see local news reports warning about an impending earthquake and it’s here that readers face their first choice. Are the Tuttle twins going to have an incredibly short adventure and head back on the very next plane, or are they going to go on to their hotel? Of course, no reader is going to take the cautious route, so onward and forward the adventure continues. While exactly what happens depends on the choices a reader makes, the twins will encounter that earthquake, and then, with power disrupted, they’ll have to deal with roads in bad repair, hyperinflation, a lack of available food and water, and no cell phone service, as the two figure out their way home. The author’s economic outlook is a small government, libertarian one, which comes out in the lessons the twins learn. So, for example, in one story branch, they end up in a small village in the hills that still has power because these villagers have never relied on the government to provide it. In another branch, they encounter some not-so-warm-hearted help – entrepreneurial sorts who will do them good…for a price. The twins sometimes get entirely altruistic help, but the point is, they also get help from people who wouldn’t otherwise be helpful, except that it is in their own self-interest to do so. The lesson here is that the free market is important because it gives people a motive to provide things other people want. While this is intended as an educational story, Boyack doesn’t beat readers over the head with the lessons he’s trying to teach. Only once, in the eight or so different story arcs does a character offer up a prolonged economics lecture. But even then, it isn’t too long. CAUTIONS The one caution I would offer deals not with this book, but with the author. He writes from a generally Judeo-Christian, libertarian perspective. Often times, those two perspectives can match up quite nicely since both Christians and libertarians recognize that the government shouldn’t try to be God. Thus we both believe in some form of smaller, limited government, which sets us apart from the many who call on the government to solve whatever problems they face. But in some of Boyack’s other books, his libertarian perspective comes in conflict with his Judeo-Christian perspective. In The Tuttle Twins Learn About the Law (one of the Tuttle Twins picture books he’s written for younger readers) he teaches readers that governments gain their authority from people, and not God. Based on that assumption the author argues that governments should only be able to do what people are able to do, therefore just as it would be wrong for a person to forcibly take money, so too the same must be true of government. But this simply isn’t true. God has empowered governments to do some things which individuals must not do, and taxation is one of them (Luke 20:25, 1 Peter 2:13-14). The libertarian perspective in Hyperinflation Devastation is more restrained, and thus in keeping with a Christian worldview that understands God as distributing powers and responsibilities not simply to the state, but to parents, and the church, and individuals too. CONCLUSION I would recommend this for any kid from 10 to 15. The adventure is a solid one, and the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure component will grab their attention. Yes, this is an economics lesson, but it is a generally subtle presentation that never gets in the way of the story. That allows most kids, whether they are politically-inclined or not, to enjoy this. But because the economics angle is so very different from what they are reading in other books, it may well spark an interest in learning more about money, inflation, politics, and more. It may interest parents to know there are other titles in this “Choose Your Consequence” series so far, but as I haven’t read them, I can’t recommend them as of yet. There is one mistake in the book, on page 388, where we are directed to Page 335 but should be directed to Page 111. I recommend some of the Tuttle Twin pictures books on my personal blog here....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Christians can’t “invest” in cryptocurrency

I hope this headline got your attention! I can hear some of the objections already: What do you mean, we can’t invest in cryptocurrency; don’t you know that it’s the wave of the future? My friend bought $2,000 worth of Bitcoin a few years ago, and now it’s worth $16,000! It is going to replace the dollar within a few years. And crypto is a means for us to resist the prying eyes of the government into our finances – we can shield our savings from the bureaucrats who may seek to punish us for our Christian beliefs by freezing our funds, or taking them from us! We’ll hope to respond to these thoughts below… so read on! What is crypto? First off, what is cryptocurrency? In brief, crypto is a digital currency, not backed by any government, bank, or physical standard, that is designed as a means to save, to buy, and to sell. There are different types of cryptos, some well-regarded like Bitcoin and Ethereum, and some that have failed spectacularly and are now worth little or nothing (such as OneCoin and SpaceBit). What they all have in common is that they are seeking to replace traditional currency like the Canadian or U.S. dollar with a modern way of doing business and commerce in the marketplace. In our last issue, RP reprinted a beautiful perspective on investing written by Randy Alcorn called “Investing in Eternity – thinking 30 million years ahead.” If you haven’t read it yet, please go back and peruse it! Alcorn has very thought-provoking and wise perspectives on what we do with the financial gifts the Lord has given us. He writes that “no matter how great an earthly treasure is, it is still worthless in the eyes of eternity.” And Alcorn encourages Christians to think about how we in this lifetime support godly ministries that will have an eternal impact on the lives of lost souls. Does this mean Christians shouldn’t “invest” at all, and should instead give everything away? Perhaps it depends on one’s definition of investing! What is investing? Let’s go back to the basics and consider what this means. Investing can be defined as the commitment of resources to achieve later benefits. Often, this is understood primarily to be about finances, but that is not always the case. Consider that a mom invests time and energy (the resource) into her children with the goal of raising productive, godly adults (the later benefit). A farmer invests money, labor, and seed (the resources) into a field to grow crops he can sell for others to eat (the later benefits being for both the farmer as he sells, and the buyer as he eats). Often, there is an element of time that is necessary for an investment to have its intended effect. Kids don’t become adults overnight; a builder might take a year or more to build a beautiful home. Obviously, in this broader sense of the word, Christians should not have any trouble investing, and we do so in our daily lives in myriads of ways. In the more common sense of the word, investing relates to where we put our finances (the resource) in order to grow them for future use (the later benefit). One might become a partner in a retail store by putting up a percentage of the capital required to get the operation going. Before writing a check, you would want to look at your partners’ business plan, and examine the location and the type of goods that will be sold; you might consider the experience that your partners have in the industry.  You would probably make a list of the pros and cons of the business, and take a responsible risk to invest in the partnership, with the hope that it will generate a profit down the road. In a similar way, one might buy publicly traded shares in a company that builds cars and trucks that perhaps is expanding into another part of the market. You would have access to a track record of financial performance. You might ask if the company has consistently paid out dividends. Has it managed its money well? Is the leadership of the company committed to its customers? Has the company made risky decisions that could endanger your investment? Are the cars and trucks that the company makes high quality and well received by consumers? These types of questions and this type of study helps an investor to take responsible risks in the hope of a return in the stock market. What does Scripture say about investing? The Lord Jesus taught two similar parables that are often quoted about investing. In Matthew 25 and in Luke 19, a wealthy man leaves town for a period of time, and entrusts some of his fortune to servants to manage. When he returns, the master praises those whose trading and commerce compounded the funds they were managing, and condemns the foolish servants who simply buried their coins in the ground. Jesus is teaching about far more than how to handle money in these parables, but it is striking that the master praises unreservedly those that managed well the resources entrusted to them. The book of Proverbs is full of practical and beautiful counsel for living a godly life, and has much to say about wise and foolish behavior about investing. Solomon teaches us not to spend all our money today, forgetting about the needs that both we and our community will face tomorrow. Proverbs 21:17 and 20 say: “Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich…” “Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man’s dwelling, but a foolish man devours it.” Notice that Solomon does not condemn “keeping” treasure or resources for a rainy day in one’s possession, but calls out as “foolish” the man who recklessly uses all his resources without a thought for the future. So, the Bible is certainly not anti-investing. Our savings are not just for ourselves But what sort of investing should it be? A Christian’s goal in saving is not just for our own needs tomorrow, but also for the community in which we live, and for future generations of our families. Proverbs 11:24 tells us: “One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want.” Then in chapter 13, verse 22 we read: “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, but the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.” We should never withhold from giving generously to the Lord, in our tithes and offerings, and also in our willingness to help our neighbors. Solomon stated this in Proverbs 3:27-28: “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, ‘Go and come again, tomorrow I will give it’ – when you have it with you.” Wealth gained hastily… Another theme that recurs frequently in Proverbs is the element of patience, or delayed gratification for the wise man. “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.” – Prov. 13:11 “Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense.” – Prov. 12:11 “Whoever is slothful will not roast his game, but the diligent man will get precious wealth.” – Prov. 12:27. The theme here and in many other passages is that “getting rich quickly” is often a dangerous pursuit – the person who only focuses on rapid accumulation of wealth may be on a foolish pathway that will not be blessed. One who is focused only on enormous potential returns from an investment may skip the important steps of finding out how a return is being earned, how $100 put into this company or stock will actually earn a profit for the investor. By racing to the potential conclusion (I’m going to make ten times what I put in!) without careful consideration of how one is “working the land,” a foolish investor may have only himself to blame when a scamster absconds with his treasure. Remember Solomon’s warning in Proverbs 14:23: “In all toil there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.” How are these warnings connected to crypto? Now that we have considered whether a Christian may invest, we can now ask: Why not cryptocurrency? The answer is in the very term “currency” itself. Currency is a means of paying for a good or service – it does not on its own produce a good or service that can make or lose money for its owner. While Bitcoin may be a very secure, very stable platform that may become a common way for citizens to buy bread at the grocery store, and to receive our paychecks, it is not producing anything tangible from which to make a profit. I would argue that Christians could exchange some of their assets into Bitcoin, or into another cryptocurrency, as a way to transact business, or to diversify risk with the Canadian dollar as measured against the U.S. dollar. One who would like to support a currency independent of any one government’s control, might also consider putting some of their savings into a cryptocurrency. The risk, of course, would be that the value of all cryptocurrency is very unstable, and difficult to pin down, but that could be a responsible risk for a citizen. But doing so is definitively not an investment, because it is not of itself producing anything tangible. A number of years ago, there was a huge push for people to “invest” in the Iraqi dinar – the currency that is still in use in Iraq. Before the 1990 U.S. invasion of Kuwait, one dinar was worth three times more than a U.S. dollar (at least in theory). Over the next ten years, the currency collapsed, with a dinar becoming worth as little as 3 U.S. cents. Unscrupulous financial advisers urged people to exchange their savings for Iraqi dinars, to take advantage of the dinar’s “inevitable comeback.” The advisers made their money by collecting inflated purchase fees along the way, while the dinar has continued to be worth very little (today being valued at around 7 U.S. cents). Like Bitcoin, the dinar is a unit of exchange, a way of transacting business. It is certainly possible that both currencies will be worth more in the future. However, it is also very possible that both will be worth far less in the future. If one exchanges currencies that are relatively stable (like the U.S. or Canadian dollar) with volatile currencies, that is not investing, but simply speculating – more like gambling than responsible stewardship. Christian financial adviser David Bahnsen’ Bahnsen Group is a multi-billion-dollar investment firm. In a recent episode of his Dividend Cafe podcast he agreed that growth of cryptocurrency as a way of conducting business and making payments is likely to continue. But he warns: “I’d be speculating (if I predicted what) the price of a Bitcoin would be. It could be a hundred thousand, it could be ten thousand, and it could be both next month, and so that’s why it’s not investable for us.” Bahnsen compares the enthusiasm around cryptocurrencies to other popular investing waves of the recent past that came and went, with the common man inevitably hurt along the way: “The recent history of euphoric busts all share the same things in common: A casual willingness to ignore common sense in pursuit of a speculative return. From Chinese reverse merger UFOs in 2011 to solar SPACs in 2021 to crypto in 2022, they all possess the same four realities: A willingness to suspend logic, analysis, or traditional wisdom. A popularity that soothed the suspension and added emotional confidence to the speculation. A period of looking like a genius while other “fools” joined the party. A spectacular burst that left capital destruction in its wake.” Conclusion While I was hoping to get your attention with the headline of this article, I think it is true. I would argue that not just Christians, but no one can invest in cryptocurrencies, because one does not invest in a currency – it is not a business intended to make a profit. The broader point that I hope has come through is that speculation in hope of spectacular gain often comes to heartache, enriching unscrupulous characters along the way. Christians can certainly carefully invest their savings in many ways, but always carefully and with the ultimate goal of serving the Lord through the gifts He entrusts to us, for the good of His kingdom here on earth, and for eternity....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH – an economic principle Christian teens (& adults) need to know

Small revolutions in schooling are occurring across the world. From homeschooling to microschools, many parents find themselves wanting more for their children in terms of education. Resources are available for independent schooling now more than ever, but some subjects remain difficult to tackle. My own field of economics remains elusive for many educators. Part of the difficulty is that many people don’t know what economics actually is. Many think economics is just composed of principles budgeting and investment. This view of economics and finance being the same is common, but it’s wrong. Instead, economics considers how people interact in a world where there are limited means but unlimited desires. The study of this interaction and the rules that govern it is of fundamental importance for anyone who wants to understand human flourishing, politics, or any topic of social importance. My high school economics teacher used to say, “everything goes back to economics.” Math and science, for example, are the tools people use to accomplish their goals. But the reasons they use these tools are economic. And I can’t think of a better starting point for understanding economics than the concept of opportunity cost. What is an “Opportunity Cost”? One of the most famous phrases in economics is, “there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.” This phrase is meant to illustrate the always present role of opportunity costs. Whenever you make any decision to do anything at all, you’re essentially choosing between two possibilities – your best option and your second-best option. Consider an example. Molly has three offers of how to spend her Saturday evening. She can study for her college algebra final exam, she can babysit for 3 hours at a rate of $15 per hour, or she can hang out with her friends. Let’s say her favorite option is to study, her second favorite is babysitting, and her third pick would be having out with friends. Since studying is Molly’s most urgent desire, she decides to allocate her time that way. But what did she give up? You might be tempted to say she sacrificed $45 and time with friends, but that isn’t really the case. After all, Molly couldn’t have babysat and spent time with friends. So even if she hadn’t studied, she would still have only been able to do one of these other options, so in a very real sense that’s the only option she was sacrificing. In this case, her second favorite option would have been to earn $45 babysitting. So, the “opportunity cost” of Molly’s studying is $45. To say it again, the opportunity cost is the option you value second highest and sacrificed when you decide to pursue your first choice. In this light, we can see every action has a cost. Time spent resting could be time learning or fixing up the house. Another hour of overtime at work is one less hour at home with family. Every time you say yes to one opportunity, that prevents you from accepting another. There is no free lunch. Why does it matter? The concept of opportunity cost is important for people to understand for several reasons. First, opportunity cost helps us understand some of the hard-to-see downsides of certain policies. Consider the income tax. If a government increases the income tax from 25% to 40% this has major ramifications for someone deciding whether they want to work an extra week during the summer for $1,500. With a 25% tax rate, the person takes home $1,125, while at 40%, the person only takes home only $900. Now let’s say this person values their relaxation time as being worth about $1,000 a week to them. Then this tax policy will make a big difference. The opportunity cost of working this week will be the equivalent of what this fellow valued for his time off: the opportunity cost for working would be $1,000. Now with a 30% tax rate, that extra paycheck is worth more to the person than the extra week off ($1,125 is greater than $1,000). But with a 40% tax rate, suddenly the relaxation is worth more ($1,000 is greater than $900)! So, by understanding the concept of opportunity cost, we can also understand that higher income taxes will mean people will work less. Even free comes with a cost Opportunity cost has practical usefulness too. Why is it that sometimes deals sound too good to be true? It’s because implicitly, we all have some understanding of opportunity cost. If a person offers to give you a free car, his opportunity cost is, at minimum, keeping the car for himself. Why would he give it away rather than keep it? Is it possible he is getting something from you? Something having a price of zero dollars is not the same as something being free. When my local ice cream shop offers “free” ice cream, I know there’s going to be a line going out the door. When I take into account the fact that my time is valuable, I realize waiting half an hour in line for free ice cream could have a higher cost than paying the regular $3 but without waiting. To learn more… If you’re interested in learning more about opportunity cost and how it applies in the world, I highly recommend reading Economics in One Lesson. Author Henry Hazlitt does an excellent job of applying the logic of opportunity cost, and the book will only cost you your time (as it is a free download at fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson). And trust me when I say, it’s worth the opportunity cost. Peter Jacobsen is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ottawa University and the Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He has previously written for both the Foundation for Economic Education and the Institute for Faith, Works, and Economics....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Human Rights, Satire

On achieving equality...

I was recently confronted with the disturbing statistic that evidences the ultimate case of gender inequality: the life expectancy of males is 6.1 years lower than that of females. This phenomenon must be properly discussed. What is a more valuable commodity than life? Nothing, I would say. And yet females habitually possess over 8 percent more of it than men. It is clear that when it comes to life, there is no level playing field in our society between males and females. I, therefore, call upon the government to take measures to empower men to overcome this glaring inequality. What we need is legislation, programs, and lots of funding. First of all the government should enact human rights legislation which will unequivocally state that males have the right to the same life expectancy as females. This legislation will empower the government to make proactive adjustments in Health, Social, and Education programs. I would like to share with you the following suggestions for such adjustments. An immediate transfer of medical research dollars from female diseases to male diseases. The inclusion of a mandatory life expectancy rights component to be taught in all our schools starting at the kindergarten level. The appointment of kommissars (also call commissioners) for each federal and provincial ministry who are to scrutinize all proposed legislation for life expectancy bias. Mandatory sensitivity training for all our judges to ensure that crimes against women are not more discouraged than crimes against men. Mandatory affirmative low-stress jobs action for all businesses employing more than 10 people to ensure that men will be employed in at least 50 percent of such jobs. The creation of Men's Issues Department at both the federal and provincial levels. Thus far my suggestions. If we do not want to lose the image of Canada as a caring and nurturing society we had better implement these suggestions regardless of costs. Of course, some naive people may suggest that it would help if men changed their lifestyle by smoking, drinking, fighting, and fornicating less, and by being more spiritual and less macho. However, though in the past this might have been a solution, we now know that we can only lead fulfilling lives if we are true to ourselves. Since institutions of education and our public media zealously indoctrinate the populace with this new gospel, it would be futile to appeal to "the man kind" itself to heal the wound of life expectancy; the government is our only hope. This post first appeared way back in the May 1999 issue, but doesn't it seems like it was written for today? As Christians we believe God calls us not to be partial to rich or poor, black or white, young or old – He calls us to equality. But what kind of equality does God call us to? Is it an equality – as is called for in this article – of outcomes? Or is the equality meant to be in how we treat people? The world says the former, but God is calling us to the latter (Leviticus 19:15, James 2:1-9, Acts 10:34)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

An abundance mentality in business

Christian entrepreneurs may be positioned to help the next generation become entrepreneurs too ***** Christian business owners often speak about an “abundance mentality”: the idea that God, in blessing their companies richly, has allowed them to be a blessing to others, providing a stable place of work for their employees while at the same time taking great care of their customers. And God’s generosity enables them to practice generosity to all sorts of good causes too. I recently had the privilege of speaking with a few Reformed Christian business owners, and I was struck by an additional characteristic of this mindset they shared. These men had a desire to see their valued employees become business owners themselves. Ryan VanDelft Ryzer Construction Services Bellingham, WA Ryan VanDelft initially started his company without any business partners. He set up Ryzer Construction Services after moving across the border from British Columbia to Washington State, and they’ve been installing and supplying windows, doors, and other materials to builders of higher-end homes since 2015. After some years of slow but steady growth, Ryan decided it was time to expand what the company offered its clients, and to give more responsibility to the growing team of employees he had developed. And as anyone familiar with Ryan knows (we go to the same church), one of Ryan’s passions is mentoring the young people who work for him – he’s eager to invest in their skill development, and coach them in the soft skills that will enable them to be successful in business, even while he’ll take time to help them outside of work. A walk around the Ryzer warehouse and board room shows a commitment to sharing the company’s statement of purpose, its values and strategies, and its mission statement – they are proudly displayed on banners for all to see. The last line of Ryzer’s statement of purpose reads “Grow profitably, and enjoy the process,” and references Psalm 127:1 – “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.” Ryan also refers regularly with his team to “the Four E’s” – his shorthand for the mission statement to “Empower people. Embrace Craftsmanship. Enrich Lifestyles. Enjoy work.” VanDelft has taken on a partner, Dave Hommes, a fellow believer whose skills in finance and organization complemented his colleague’s gifts. Ryan’s long-term plan is to bring in additional partners who have shown promise as employees, helping them to share in the risk and reward of business ownership. He talks about “making the pie bigger.” While some might see additional partners as a potential drain on a fixed profits number, Ryan hopes that enlarging the business as opportunities allow, while growing the talent pool of employees and associates, will result in a larger number of satisfied clients, and a larger “pie” to share with his partners. Bruce DeBoer Ontario Metal Products and Ontario Outbuildings Dunnville, ON Bruce DeBoer joined partner Brad Schutten in Ontario Outbuildings, and Ontario Metal Products just a few months before COVID came calling. Their company supplies metal roofing panels, siding, and accessories to local builders, priding itself on good pricing with excellent service. Despite the current challenging supply chain environment, Bruce and Brad have been able to grow their sales volume substantially. The whole team of about twenty associates begins their week with a staff meeting, that includes Bible reading and prayer, before launching into the goals and plans for the work week. DeBoer takes a keen interest in his associates, providing a listening ear in times of stress, and trying to understand what are the most important things in their lives. “We’ve switched to an employee market. Life is different than it was twenty years ago. Most families are double income now, so what they need is different. A husband might have to stay home when a child is sick, where years ago, that would have been the wife’s role.” DeBoer advises that in a low unemployment environment, it is wise to find what benefits and other intangibles might be important for your colleagues, and it’s not always about hourly wages or salary. DeBoer and Schutten have taken an innovative approach in helping employees become business owners. While it might be simpler and more profitable to continue with an owner-employee relationship, the business partners have encouraged those associates who show promise to form companies with DeBoer and Schutten: continuing to do the same work of installing or building, but enjoying a portion of the fruits of their labors as owners. The new companies take advantage of the all the economies of scale of a larger company – sharing bookkeeping systems, quoting software, and administrative expertise together. This makes the process of becoming self-employed less daunting than it might otherwise be for a young entrepreneur. The author of Ecclesiastes recognized the value of teams and partnerships: “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow… a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” (Eccl. 4:9-12) When asked what advice he would give anyone looking to advance their career or become a business owner, DeBoer did not hesitate: “Find a mentor!” That’s good advice, and it doesn’t need to be complicated. Find someone with experience and ask them out for a coffee. Most business veterans are eager to share what they know, and more than willing to help someone avoid the same mistakes they may have made or seen. King Solomon agreed that finding a mentor is a good path: “Listen to advice, and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.” (Proverbs 19:20) “Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.” (Proverbs 18:1) ***** It was wonderful to hear about how the Lord has blessed these business owners in their decisions to help their employees also grow and prosper. Both VanDelft and DeBoer emphasized that their workplace mindset is not all about financial gain, and that part of their joy in their daily work is seeing others achieve more than they would have thought possible. Marty VanDriel is a writer and Assistant Editor for Reformed Perspective, a TV and film critic for WORLD magazine, and a Christian entrepreneur himself as the CEO of TriVan Truck Body....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Children’s picture books, Economics

Nobody knows how to make a pizza

by Julie Borowski 2019 / 30 pages The picture book's title makes a claim that my daughter just couldn't believe: "Come on Dad, you know how to make a pizza!" But do I really? Sure, I know how to combine a pizza crust with cheese and tomato sauce. I'm even very good at it. But the point this slim volume is trying to make is that there is a lot more to it. That flour I use started as grain that somebody had to grow, and I certainly don't know how to do that. That farmer who does, brings in his crop using  a wheat harvester, which he isn't able to make himself. He'll ship off his grain, perhaps via a train, which neither of us could ever manufacture. We also don't know how to turn wheat into flour, and the folks that do, don't know how to make the semi-trucks that ship their flour to grocery stores around the country. Making even the simple pizza crust requires a lot of different people all working together, with not one of them knowing how to get all the needed steps done. That's why the pizza narrator's claim – that "there's not a single person on Earth who knows how to make me" – isn't as outrageous as it first seem, And that doesn't even get into the tomato sauce and cheese! You might be wondering, okay, but so what? The point of this little book (and the 1958 essay, I, Pencil, which inspired it) is to expose the arrogance of any big government's central planners. Whether it's full-blown communists who want to plan everything, or a democracy where the elected leadership "merely" direct large chunks of the economy (gov't spending in Canada accounts for 45% of GDP, and their impact is extended further still via regulations), we have governments of all sorts all around the world that think they know how best to run things from the top down. However, if planning the production of a single cheese pizza is beyond the capabilities of any one man, or even a team of the very smartest people on earth, then why would we think the government could ever know enough to competently make the innumerable management decisions they make, from what minimum wage everyone should be paid, to how children should be educated in K-12 (and what they should learn), which companies should be bailed out or subsidized, or even how much milk should be produced? Of course, if no one knows how to make a pizza, that prompts an obvious question: how is it that countless cheese pizzas are made every day? Instead of someone at the top planning it all out, this miracle occurs without much planning at all. The author of this picture book makes more of a libertarian presentation than a Christian one, so I'm using the term "miracle" here for a wonder she doesn't really attempt to explain. But Christians do have an explanation. Now, we might take for granted what the free market can produce – cheaper computers, innovations like the smartphone, innumerable kinds of bagel – to the point it seems too ordinary to call all of that a miracle. But the free market is a miracle nonetheless, completely beyond anybody's ability to plan and create, making it all the easier to see God's fingerprints. His commandment "Do not steal" creates property rights, which is the basis for one person trading what they own to another for something they want more. If you can't steal from others, then the only way to provide for yourself and your family is by producing something other people will value. You get money from them to meet your needs by making something that meets theirs. So God's law is the basis for free trade and it is unplanned, unorganized free trade that has miraculously proven to be the most effective way of raising people out of poverty. The government still has a role here - to prevent theft, enforce contract laws, and generally ensure that property rights are respected – but not in picking the winners and losers. While that's deeper than this picture book goes, what Julie Borowski does highlight is the result: all sorts of strangers cooperating with one another, each looking out for their own interests, but together creating something that none of them could make on their own – innumerable voluntary exchanges and, eventually, violà a pizza! As noted, this book has a libertarian flavoring to it, and because libertarians can often be libertines on moral issues, their values can be at odds with what God knows is best. However, in this case the libertarian impulse for small government syncs up well with the Christian emphasis on humility and Man's fallibility – we have a hard enough time trying to plan out our own lives, so it's arrogant indeed for bureaucrats and politicians to think they can plan out everyone else's lives for them. Better then, to limit (though certainly not eliminate) the government and what it does, so as to leave people the responsibility and allow them the freedom to manage their own lives. This would be read to best effect with a parent along for the ride. Otherwise I could see kids enjoying it, even as they entirely miss the overall small government argument being made. You can watch the author read her book below. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Science - Environment

Manure into mattresses – we can "create" resources

Economist Julian Simon's key insight is that man's creativity – his brainpower – is a resource that creates other resources. So while some view a rising population as a threat to limited resources ("We're going to run out of oil!") Simon viewed a growing population as a growing resource base. Our brains, when properly applied, could in a reflection of God's own creativity, turn nothing (or next to it) into quite something. For example, when copper – a key element in our phone lines – started getting very expensive, this motivated some smart chaps to develop a much cheaper alternative: sand! That's what our telephone lines are today: Sand (silicon) + Human Creativity = Fiber optic cables Making sand into something is amazing enough, but a much more impressive example of "resource creation" is the way some farmers have turned poop into bedding (or if you prefer alliteration, manure into mattresses). It is quite a story! Rising prices prompts creative thinking Down where I live, in the Northern Washington/Southern BC area, some dairy farmers used to use sawdust as a cheap bedding material for their cows. The cows could sleep in it, poop on it, and the farmer could then come along, clean it out, and put a new layer down. Sawdust clumped together, making it easy to scoop away, but perhaps its most attractive quality was its cheapness. Sawdust used to be viewed as a waste product from the lumber industry – they couldn't give it away and would even bury it. But then creative farmers created a market for this castoff. Or to put it in more mathematical terms: Sawdust + Human Creativity = Cow bedding Some time later, other creative folks started to see more ways that sawdust could be used, including as fuel. Because it originated as a lumber waste product it was cheaper than many other fuel options. So some greenhouses owners figured out a way to use it to heat their buildings, and started to outbid the farmers. This result was this waste product – nothing more than garbage before human brainpower got involved – had so increased in value that farmers could no longer afford it. They needed to find a cheaper option for their bedding! And then it happened. Some ingenious dairy farmer, probably sitting out on his tractor staring out across his manure lagoon, started thinking about the possibilities in all this poop. The result was a separation system that used the undigested fibers found in cow manure. This is fed into a rotating drying drum, where high heat kills the germs, and the output is fibrous bedding material for the farmer's cows. Poop + Human Creativity = Cow bedding Manure has been turned into mattresses! Conclusion Julian Simon was an atheist, so he didn't understand why we have this capacity – why we have a mysterious, awesome ability to use our brains to create something out of nothing. But Simon did recognize Man was more than his mouth; he understood that Man wasn't best understood as a consumer of scarce resources, but that instead Man has an ability (and Christians would add, a calling) to be a producer of plenty. So, in this limited way, Simon has a more accurate understanding of Man than any of his critics. So where does our creative capacity come from? It is a reflection of God's creative Genius. We can't create ex nihilo – out of nothing – like God does, but when we take what was once useless, and put it to productive use, we show ourselves to be His image-bearers....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The $15 minimum wage - good intentions are not enough

In the US, the latest COVID-19 relief package has re-awoken the debate on minimum wage increases, and that policy conversation is spilling over into Canada, Australia, and much of the Western world too. Often policy proposals put Christians in difficult territory. The Bible was not written during a time where every person would be personally accountable for participating in the governing of a nation. There’s very little in the way of advice to voters on specific policies. However, this doesn’t mean Christians can’t form educated opinions about policies like the minimum wage. To do so, believers can evaluate the fruits of the policy.  Good intentions One way to evaluate whether the minimum wage increase would be a good thing is to see if the intended fruits of the policy are good and analyze whether the actual fruits will match the good intentions. Supporters of the minimum wage increase are ostensibly trying to help lower the level of poverty. Higher wages for the lowest wage workers could give them a chance at a better life. This intended fruit appears to be good. Lowering poverty seems to be unambiguously good. And a reasonable interpretation of Matthew 22:20-22 could claim it’s within the state’s right to take money from business profits and give it to workers. Combining this logic with verses like Psalm 41:1 could make a powerful case for this proposal. A Christian might be tempted to stop thinking here. Perhaps the increased cost to businesses is worth the poverty alleviation. However, even if someone does accept this trade-off, the biggest problem with increasing the minimum wage lies more in the results than intentions.  Bad results Good intentions are not enough to eliminate poverty, as evidenced by the American “war on poverty,” now entering its 58th year. The minimum wage law does not guarantee every person a job at $15/hour. In actuality, what the minimum wage law does is make it illegal to gainfully employ any worker whose skills don’t bring in $15 of hourly revenue. Economists refer to the revenue an additional worker brings in as “marginal revenue product.” For any worker with a marginal revenue product less than the minimum wage, employing them would either mean making a net loss on the hire or breaking the minimum wage law. Businesses must make a profit. If a business fails to do so, it will eventually have no option other than shutting its doors. If businesses fall behind competitors in making a profit, they also run the risk of being driven out of business. As such, hiring decisions in business are based on whether they generate profit. If a salesman, for example, sells $8 worth of products an hour, and he gets an offer for a wage of $7.50, the company finds hiring him to be worthwhile. However, a company that pays a salesman who sells $8 worth of products per hour a wage of $15 is losing $7/hour. Companies that hire this way will be outcompeted by those who don’t. So, what is the result of a minimum wage? Workers who don’t make their companies enough to warrant getting paid the minimum wage are fired. Economic theory suggests this, and a recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research surveys studies on the topic and shows the research overwhelmingly finds that unemployment results from the minimum wage. Not only do some workers not have their poverty alleviated, but the workers with the least opportunity are more impoverished. In fact, evidence suggests this unemployment is imposed on minority groups and women disproportionately. The problems don’t stop there. Unemployment increases, but some workers who previously made a minimum wage will keep their jobs. Aren’t these workers made better off? Not necessarily. If a worker was previously willing to work a job for $8 (as evidenced by the fact that they accepted the job), but now the same worker is being paid $15, this doesn’t mean they are $7 better off. Why? Well, since the employer is mandated to pay a higher wage, they are going to try to get the most work out of the worker possible. Workers might find that these new expectations and pressures make the job less enjoyable than if they were paid an $8 wage. Also, if you’re getting paid more than you would have needed to accept a job, and there are a lot of unemployed replacements waiting, you’re going to be willing to accept a less pleasant job to keep that high-paying job. A higher minimum wage gives workers less bargaining power and, as such, will lead to workers taking on jobs with bosses who don’t need to offer them as much dignity. This is not to say all bosses will take advantage of this position, but it seems unrealistic to assume none will. In sum, if we judge a policy by its fruits, a $15 minimum wage will increase the poverty of those with the lowest opportunity, and it carries the possibility of work becoming less dignified for those lucky enough to keep their jobs. Despite potentially good intentions, the results speak for themselves. Instead of giving more dignity to work and lifting people out of poverty, the minimum wage exacerbates both problems.  Bootleggers, Baptists, and bad intentions For argument’s sake, I’ve assumed good intentions on the part of minimum wage policy advocates to this point. However, it’s important to point out that the minimum wage is utilized as a tactic by racists and labor unions to cut out the competition. Stanford economist Thomas Sowell has chronicled how a Canadian minimum wage has racist roots. Sowell argues: “In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.” A largely automated company would love to increase the labor costs for its competitors. The results of the Australian minimum wage were similar. Sowell points out: “A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to ‘protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese’ who were willing to work for less.” Whenever Christians support policy, they should take care to avoid contributing to the “Bootleggers and Baptists” phenomena. This phrase describes how, when the US passed alcohol prohibition, the two major groups who supported it were Baptists who opposed alcohol and illegal alcohol bootleggers who stood to profit if legal alcohol distributors were closed. In supporting prohibition, Baptists supported the profits of bootleggers with bad intentions. In the cases Sowell cited, the “bootleggers” were racist who wanted to eliminate minority labor competition. Today, bootleggers can come in the form of a business like Amazon, which, as a largely online company, doesn’t rely on laborers who make less than $15 per hour. Since Amazon already pays its warehouse workers $15/hour, an increase in the minimum wage would do little to impact their costs, but it would raise the costs to one of Amazon's biggest competitors – Walmart. Bootleggers could also be skilled labor unions that lobby for the minimum wage to limit the competition from unskilled, but lower cost, labor. In these cases, the special interest groups intend the policy to prevent less fortunate low-skill laborers from having jobs. To make a positive difference in the world, Christians must consider more than their intentions behind policies. Instead, it is part of our responsibility, given the form of government God has allowed us to participate in, to be educated about the results of policy. In the case of raising the minimum wage, the results are in. Christians need to do better if we want to help the suffering of “the least of these.” Peter Jacobsen is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Ottawa University and the Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He has previously written for both the Foundation for Economic Education and the Institute for Faith, Works, and Economics....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics, Movie Reviews, Watch for free

Love Gov: Breaking up with government is hard to do

Here's something new: an economic argument for small government presented as a comedic drama. And Love Gov is a romance too, sort of. Alexis is thinking of quitting college to start her own business, but then she meets the strangely charming Scott Govinsky (known as "Gov" to his friends). To compliment her ideas, ambitions, and drive, Gov is so very caring and supportive. And eager to help. And he never seems to runs out of advice. Perfect material for a boyfriend? Alexis thinks so...at first. The problem is, Gov's advice isn't nearly as helpful as it seems. If you haven't figured it out yet, Alexis' boyfriend Gov is a stand-in for our government, which wants to mind our business because it cares for us so deeply. But as much as the politicians and bureaucrats might mean well, that doesn't mean they are doing well...which is what Love Gov tries to show. CAUTIONS The series' producer, the Independent Institute, is not a Christian organization. So, even as they are for limited government, they might be for less moral restraint too, as evidenced by the little boy at the very beginning (who has only the briefest of roles) wearing a shirt with a transgender rainbow on it. A more notable quibble: because Love Gov is humorous, some of its serious points are made in an over-the-top manner, which could prompt the cynically-inclined to discount those points entirely. So it's important to pitch this to friends properly: introduce it to them as the light-hearted discussion-starter it is, and don't present it as any sort of weighty "final word" on the issues it raises. CONCLUSION The overall argument being pitched is for smaller government. While the group pitching it isn't Christian, there's a lot here for Christians to love, since we should also support limited, and thus smaller, government. Why? Because God has given different responsibilities to different types of "government." The "governments" we're talking about here are not of the municipal, provincial, or federal sort but rather family government, Church government, and yes, State government too. We can throw in self-government as well. These types of government are all appointed by God to take on different roles, and while who should have exactly what role can sometimes be difficult to discern, one type of government can only gain more power and influence at the expense of the others. Which type of government is the most expansionist? The State. Its influence in our family life, the education of our children, regulation of business, management of healthcare, direction of the economy – that reach is already enormous. And just as the State's expansion into education came by shrinking the parental role, so too its expansion into other areas comes at the expense of other levels of "government." That's why Christians should want a limited government; because we know that God didn't intend for us and the other types of government to abandon our roles and responsibilities to the State. Another reason for a limited government? When the State takes on jobs God never intended for it they will tend to mess things up. Good intentions simply aren't enough (Prov. 27:14); a good dose of humility about what the State can do, and shouldn't even try to do, is also vital. Episode 1: An education in debt (6 minutes) Alexis wants to quit school to start up a business and start paying off her student debt. Then she meets Gov, who encourages her to stay in school "because there's nothing more important  than your education." What about that student debt? Gov assures her, "You are going to have a lifetime to pay off debt...a lifetime!" The Bible likens debt to slavery (Prov. 22:7) – it limits your ability and freedom to do what you otherwise might want to do. Episode 2: Protection from jobs (5 minutes) After Alexis graduates college she decides to pursue her small business idea. Gov is, once again, happy to help, though this time coming to the "aid" of employee Libby. Regulations are brought in with the intent of protecting workers. But regulations also make it harder and more expensive to hire workers: One estimate concerning Canada's tech industry had a 1% increase in regulations leading to a 5% decrease in business startups. The tradeoffs that come with government "protections" are often overlooked. Episode 3: A remedy for healthcare choices (6 minutes) Alexis is looking for a new healthcare insurance plan, and Gov knows best. Meanwhile, Libby argues that choices and options and free market competition could produce healthcare for less. In his documentary Wait Till It's Free, Reformed filmmaker Colin Gunn makes that same argument. Episode 4: House poor (6 minutes)  Alexis goes house-hunting and mortgage-hunting too, only to discover that Gov has been spending her money, putting her tens of thousands in debt. In Canada accumulated provincial and national debts average out to $40,000 CDN per citizen while in the US just the national debt works out to more than double that at $80,000 US per citizen. Episode 5: Keeping a close eye on privacy (5 minutes) While Alexis and Gov aren't together anymore, he's still keeping tabs on her – breaking up with "the Gov" proves very hard to do. This series came out soon after Edward Snowden revealed that the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) had been spying on its own citizens, though generally in aggregate – it viewed all the captured data as a whole, not tying it to specific people. But Snowden also shared that should the government want to look at your specific data it could do that too after getting a judge's approval...which was always given....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Thinking in terms of tradeoffs rather than solutions...

In a June 2 Facebook live discussion with fellow Conservative MP Garnett Genius, Arnold Viersen outlined two very different ways that politicians tend to approach problems. “One of my friends points out that the progressive vote thinks in terms of solutions, and the conservative thinks in terms of tradeoffs. And you can see that even in the COVID response. The progressives: ‘We have got to stop the spread of COVID!’ The conservative will much more think: ‘We have to trade off one health concern for another health concern.’ For example, in Alberta we’ve had, I think, just about 150 deaths from COVID. But in the same time period we’ve had 37 deaths from a lack of heart surgeries. And that’s a tradeoff that we’ve made. It’s not necessarily talked about. But that is the tradeoff.” That’s a fantastic point. And while Viersen framed it as a conservative vs. a progressive way of thinking, it might better be framed as a Christian vs. secular way of thinking. It is the Christian, after all, who knows why we should be acknowledging that our best efforts will always be trade-offs, rather than solutions for all. It comes down to our more accurate understanding of the world and of our own capabilities. For the secularist, G.K. Chesterton noted, “Once abolish God, and the government becomes God.” Refusing to turn upwards, the secularist is forced to look sideways for a savior, landing on the government because there is no more powerful human institution. But fallible, fallen, limited Man isn’t savior material, no matter what level of power he attains. So the secularist can only continue placing their hope in government by disregarding the limited nature of Man’s capabilities and character. Then they look for solutions rather than trade-offs because it has become their habit to overestimate what Man can do. The Christian, on the other hand, has no need to gloss over Man’s limitations. We also understand that time, money, and every other resource, are limited too, such that we need to count the cost before setting out on an endeavor (Luke 14:25-34). And, finally, we know that in this sin-stained world perfection is impossible. That’s why anything we do will always be a tradeoff, with one of the most common being that resources used for one purpose, can’t then be used to some other end. As Viersen pointed out, when most governments first proposed the lockdowns, we didn’t hear about the other health costs that would come along with doing so. Overall the situation was presented as being lives vs. money, and given that sort of tradeoff, then the choice was clear. And even as an economic tradeoff was noted, the government had their “solution” to that too – they were going to hand out money and lots of it, and we didn’t hear of any downside to doing that. However, it wasn’t just lives vs. money. The reality was that it was lives vs. other lives. There was a predictable, but overlooked cost that would come from heart surgeries, and other vital medical treatments, that were cancelled or delayed due to our COVID-19 response. There was also the physical and mental health concerns that come with unemployment on such a massive scale. Those weren’t widely acknowledged tradeoffs. Going forward, one hard-earned lesson we can take from this strange spring is to question whatever “solutions” we are offered (Prov. 18:17). As Christians, we can apply our God-given insights about the nature of Man, and our world, and help those around us by posing the important questions that spring from our better understanding. We can gently yet firmly ask: “What is the trade-off?” and “What are the costs you haven’t yet mentioned?” Because there will be such costs. In this finite, fallen world every proposal will always involve tradeoffs. ...

1 2