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

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!





Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Tariffs are terrible economics: why Canada shouldn’t hit back

Free trade – free of barriers and restrictions – has, traditionally, been pretty exclusive to the Right side of the political spectrum. But now, with President Trump implementing tariffs on steel and threatening tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we’re even hearing the Left talk about the harms that tariffs could cause. And not just to Canada and Mexico, but to American consumers too. As the far-left stalwart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC) noted on X, “Remember: *WE* pay the tariffs….Trump is all about making inflation WORSE for working class Americans, not better.” But what is she talking about when she says Americans pay the tariffs it charges? Think of it this way. Imagine two towns located right next to each other – Town A and Town B – and each has a car mechanic. These mechanics are full-service: they go right to your house to do the repairs. The only difference between the two is that the car mechanic in Town A – let’s call him Arnold – is way cheaper, so not only do all the folks in Town A use Arnold, so do most of the folks in Town B. That, understandably, makes the mechanic in town B – we’ll him Bill – quite unhappy, as it really hurts his business. So Bill demands that his town put in a tariff of sorts. He wants a 25% surcharge on any “out of town” car mechanics. He argues that this surcharge will be incredibly beneficial – applying it to Arnold for the work he does in Town B will help fund Town B’s government. It will also help protect Town B’s homegrown car repair businesses – Bill’s – by making his prices seem more competitive. And, Bill notes, if he gets more business, the government will benefit from the taxes he’ll pay. Bill pitches his tariff/surcharge as a win/win all the way around. But Bill is forgetting someone – several someones, in fact. The surcharge will make Arnold’s prices higher. Any Town B clients who do continue to use him will now be paying 25% more. And any clients he loses to Bill will be impacted too, having to pay Bill’s higher prices for their car repairs, taking a bigger chunk out of their household budget than ever before. In other words, Bill is staying in business at the expense of the car repair consumers in his own town. That’s not win/win at all – that’s a win for Bill, at the cost of everyone else in town. This is what AOC meant when she said that Americans will pay the tariffs they charge. Canada rightly fears American tariffs on the energy and goods they produce. Those tariffs could hurt our producers badly. But hitting back at American tariffs with our own tariffs on US goods is only going to compound the pain. It might benefit some of our producers – whoever makes the goods that compete with imported American goods – but that benefit will come at the expense of Canadian consumers overall by making them pay more. Just like Town B’s car repair “tariff” hurt Town B’s citizens. Is there an explicitly biblical perspective to be brought here? Well, what about Leviticus 19:15? “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” God equates justice and impartiality, which prompts a question: should a government take actions that benefit some of its citizens – some producers – at the expense of other citizens, the consumers and producers who use those goods? Isn’t that partiality? God also speaks to this in His Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). “Do unto others as you would like done unto you,” applied to the economic realm would mean that car mechanic Bill wouldn’t argue for his surcharge because he wouldn’t want that same surcharge applied to everything he buys. If Town A has cheap car parts, or groceries, or gasoline, he’d love to be able to benefit. The fact is, tariffs always hurt consumers, so no matter what the US does, let’s not let tariffs beget more tariffs. Instead of putting up trade barriers, there are actually interprovincial trade barriers that we could greatly benefit from taking down, as Pierre Poilievre has been highlighting recently. In  the video below Remy highlights one of the ills caused by tariffs – fewer choices and higher costs. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Culture Clashes

How can everyone be wrong about the world?

Hans Rosling discovered that whether it’s world leaders or everyone else, we all share a tendency to overdramatize the state of the planet ***** How well do you know what is going on in the world? Let’s put it to a test. Without consulting the internet or someone else, give these questions your best shot: How did the number of deaths per year from natural disasters change over the last hundred years? a. More than doubled b. Remained about the same c. Decreased to less than half In the last 20 years, the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has… a. Almost doubled b. Remained more or less the same c. Almost halved Worldwide, 30-year-old men have spent 10 years in school, on average. How many years have women of the same age spent in school? a. 3 years b. 6 years c. 9 years In the 1990s, bald eagles, giant pandas, and snow leopards were all listed as endangered. How many of these three species are more critically endangered today? a. Two of them b. One of them c. None of them How many of the world’s 1-year-old children today have been vaccinated against some disease? a. 20 percent b. 50 percent c. 80 percent Worse than chimps The right answers are all C. How many did you get correct? If you didn’t get a great score, you are in good company. These questions come from Hans Rosling, the author of the fascinating book Factfulness. He made a quiz with 13 questions total, about different aspects of the state of the world – how we are doing as a planet. He asked about things like access to electricity, world population, and where people live in the world. Then he gave the quiz to nearly 12,000 people in 14 countries. On average they got just 2 of the 13 right. That’s remarkable when you consider if people filled in answers at random, they would have done better, getting a third of the three-answer questions right (averaging between 3 and 4 right). More remarkably, out of the 12,000 quizzed nobody got them all right. And just one person got 11 out of 12 right. Why? Is the problem that people aren’t educated enough? Rosling first thought this may be the case, but then he tested the most educated among us – medical students, teachers, scientists, journalists, business leaders, among others – and discovered that the majority still got most answers wrong and some did worse than the general public. Then Rosling realized that not only are people wrong about their understanding of the world, they are systematically wrong – they do worse than if they had no knowledge at all. As Rosling explained, if he went to the zoo to give the same quiz to chimpanzees, “the chimps, by picking randomly, would do consistently better than the well-educated but deluded human beings who take my tests.” Not only is the public consistently wrong, but their errors skewed in one direction – participants consistently underestimated the true state of the world: “Every group of people I ask thinks the world is more frightening, more violent, and more hopeless – in short, more dramatic – than it really is.” Why do we underestimate the good so badly? Since the mid 1990’s, Rosling devoted much of his time to exploring and explaining why we can be so wrong about rather basic facts about the world. At first, he thought that people’s knowledge simply had to be updated and upgraded – they just needed to get educated. So that is what he set out to do – Rosling developed some amazing teaching tools and brought them to TED talks around the world, in addition to board rooms, banks, and even the US State Department. He was excited to show everyone how the world had changed for the good. But it didn’t take long and his enthusiasm waned. “The ignorance we kept on finding was not just an upgrade problem. It couldn’t be fixed simply by providing clearer data animations or better teaching tools.” It was one gathering in particular that convinced him. He was presenting to thousands of the most influential people of the world at the 2015 World Economic Forum (alongside Bill and Melinda Gates). His listeners included heads of state, heads of UN organizations, leaders of multinational companies, and famous journalists. He asked them just three questions – about the true state of poverty, population growth, and vaccination rates in the world. Although 61 percent answered the question about poverty correctly, when it came to population growth and vaccination, the crowd once again did worse than chimps. That is when things crystalized for Rosling. He saw that the reason people were misperceiving the world was because they had a faulty worldview. “People constantly and intuitively refer to their worldview when thinking, guessing, or learning about the world. So if your worldview is wrong, then you will systematically make wrong guesses.” But he was also quick to explain that this isn’t the fault of media or fake news. Rather, he believes that it is inbuilt, and comes from how our brains have a tendency to “overdramatize” things. Look at the two lines on this page. Which is longer? If you’ve seen this trick before you know that they are the same length. But even with that knowledge, they still look different, don’t they? Despite what we know we can still misperceive. Rosling thinks something similar is going on with how our brains analyze the world – even when we know better, we can still fall for the “more frightening, more violent, and more hopeless – in short, more dramatic” misperception of things. Rosling proceeded to devote the rest of his life to this curiosity, and his book Factfulness flowed from this work. “Start to practice it, and you will be able to replace your overdramatic worldview with a worldview based on facts. You will be able to get the world right without learning it by heart.” Through the rest of the book, he trains readers to be aware of the various ways we systematically misperceive the world because of our “gap instinct, negativity instinct, …fear instinct” and more. Most of us would do well to learn about these instincts, which have us consistently underestimating the good around us. The Gap Instinct: Rosling calls it “that irresistible temptation we have to divide all kinds of things into two distinct and often conflicting groups, with an imagined gap – a huge chasm – in between.” For example, many believe that the developing world’s infant mortality rates will always remain much higher than ours. But whereas the global child mortality rate was 27% in 1950 (that’s the percentage of children who didn’t live to reach the end of puberty), now the very worst child mortality rate in the world is about half that, at 15% in Niger. Globally it is down to 4.3 percent (as of 2022). When it came to child mortality there was once a divide between the West and rest, but today that divide persists in people’s minds, and not in reality. The Fear Instinct: We have an inbuilt focus on the frightening, which makes it hard for us to see how things may be improving. So, when a hurricane hits, we might hear about how climate change is going to cause more and more of these, and what we don’t hear is how many fewer people died than in decades past. As they say, if it bleeds, it leads, so we hear lots about what is scary but little of what is reassuring and encouraging. The Negativity Instinct: Rosling shared that when people in 30 countries were asked, is the world getting better, staying the same, or getting worse, more than 50% picked “getting worse” no matter what country they came from (roughly 75% of Canadians said “getting worse”). Yet there are some huge improvements happening, including that the number of people living in extreme poverty – surviving on less than $2/day – has dropped from 50% of the world in 1966 to just 9% in 2017. If our decision makers in government and the Church had read this book before making decisions about Covid restrictions, we would all have benefitted. Then the fears that emanated from Covid and hospitalization projections would have been put into a much more reasonable context. But the implications go well beyond pandemics. I don’t think the world is prepared for the future we will face with half as many children being born per woman as just 50 years ago. Most people, including many in the Church, wrongly assume that the straight line of population growth will keep extending upwards. And they see that as a threat, with an ever-expanding population exceeding the planet’s ability to feed them all. But, as mentioned, even as population grows, fewer people are in extreme poverty. And just as a child won’t keep growing at the same rate through life, we’re seeing the birth rate take a sharp decline. The more informed worry is not overpopulation but a coming population collapse. Which worldview? As helpful as Rosling’s book is, he had his own misperception. He eventually recognized the importance of worldview, but he did so from a evolutionary vantage point. “The human brain is a product of millions of years of evolution,” he wrote, when answering why so many people would be consistently wrong. “We are hard-wired with instincts that helped our ancestors to survive in small groups of hunters and gatherers.” The beginning of wisdom Christians have a better explanation. That people would consistently overlook the many blessings around them and focus instead on troubles, many of them even imagined, is what sinful people do. A look through the Old Testament shows that God’s people are not immune to this ingratitude. But we are blessed to also have the answer. To fight negativity, fear, and ingratitude, we need only remember who God is. He isn’t just the God of the universe – He is our loving Father, the One Who knows who we are and has a perfect plan for our lives and for the future of the Church and the world. When we take this to heart, we can begin to get a glimpse into how this will change how we look at the world. Is it a scary place? Do we have reason to fear the future? Are things going to hell in a handbasket? Not at all. Those conclusions flow from a godless worldview, and perhaps also the worldview from some other major religions (like Islam), where their god is powerful but not a loving father. And they sure aren’t consistent with reality. By God’s grace, the world has been becoming a safer, healthier, more abundant place to live (contrary to what we would think if we only got our information from the news). But even if we face another war or pandemic, we can take comfort knowing that God “still upholds heaven and earth and all creatures, and so governs them that leaf and blade, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, food and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, indeed, all things, come to us not by chance but by his fatherly hand” (Lord’s Day 10, Heidelberg Catechism)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Christian education - Sports

Is the good foul good? Playing basketball a different way

The object of basketball is pretty simple. You and your four teammates want to put the ball through your opponent's hoop. This is how you score. The other team also wants to score, but on the opposite hoop, so they will try to take the ball away from you. You must not let them! The winner is the team that manages to put the ball through their hoop the most times, in the time allowed. It's that simple. Simple, but it sounds like things could get kind of violent, right? This is where the rules come in. Basketball is a non-contact sport. There is even a rule that says so. The rules control the violence by punishing players who biff their opponents too obviously. The most common punishments are called free throws, which are free chances to score. Usually allotted in two's, they are given to the player who has been biffed to compensate him for the biffing he received. Biffing is, of course, also known as fouling. With players being punished for fouling, you would think they would do what they could to avoid committing fouls. After all, both the letter and the spirit of the rules are against fouling. But sometimes, late in a game, when one team is behind by only a bit but there doesn't seem to be enough time to catch up, they will foul their opponents on purpose. By fouling they do give their opponents free chances to score, but the clock stops. The strategy is simple. The team that is behind will foul the worst shooter on the other team and stop the clock. After the fouled player takes his shots (which they hope he will miss) they will get the ball back. The clock will start again and they will race down the court and hope they get their shot in. Then they will quickly try and foul again to stop the clock. This way only a few seconds of game time can be made to last a much longer time So it is actually to a team's advantage to foul in this case. This brings up two problems Christians might consider. The first is ethical. Fouling is against both the spirit and letter of the rules, so should Christians commit deliberate fouls? The second problem is also ethical but of a more concrete nature. Late in a game when one team tries to deliberately foul, the refs often won't call it. They know it is to the offending team's advantage so they will only call it if it is very, very obvious. The practical result is that these late, deliberate fouls are often very, very hard fouls. So again, should Christians commit these deliberate fouls? Some would say it's just part of the game. That is a somewhat legitimate argument. Sure the letter and spirit of the rules say that fouling is wrong, but anyone playing the game knows that these type of late game fouls will occur. No one is surprised, so in a way these fouls are a part of the unwritten rules for the game. That is just how it's played. But there is still the potential problem of injury, and the problem we should have with deliberately "biffing" someone. Sure it's a part of the game, but it doesn't have to be. In the Golden Bears' Summer Basketball League almost everyone is at least 6'2" and the average weight is somewhere above 200 pounds. The fouls in this league are already hard fouls and the league's organizers really didn't want to see any harder fouls late in the games. So instead of calling fouls the regular way the Golden Bears did it with a twist. If you committed a foul your opponents got one point and kept the ball. If you committed a foul on a player shooting the ball and he scored, the basket counted, and he still kept the ball. The clock never stopped and you could never regain possession of the ball by fouling a player. There was never an advantage to fouling someone. The end result was a league in which almost everyone had fun, and no fights occurred. It's just one approach, but it's worth considering....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

If strikes are bad can unions be good?

I grew up hearing horror stories about unions but little else. Unions were bad because union members threw bottles and sticks at their opposition. Later on I found that unions often supported political parties that favored abortion. There was more harsh criticism when a teacher's union went on strike, demanding more money and holding the students for ransom. Unions were bad because their actions were bad. But is it possible to have a good union, even a Christian union? What if such a Christian union took a stand against picket line violence, didn't support political parties, and didn't strike? Would there be a place for this type of union? Maybe. Is there such a union now? No. The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) almost fits the bill. It's certainly against picket line violence, and doesn't support any political parties. That already elevates it above almost every other union but the CLAC is better than other unions in still other ways. Secular unions' are condemned in most Reformed circles for several reasons, including: Many require an oath of allegiance promising unconditional obedience to the principles of that union's constitution. Christians can't promise this type of obedience to anyone or anything besides God. Secular unions promote a class struggle between employers and employees, as if the two were natural enemies. Whereas the Bible instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, these unions encourage animosity between owners and their employees. The idea of a class struggle between the rich class and the poor class is accepted as inevitable by these unions (Karl Marx also thought it was inevitable). Unions strike. In contrast the CLAC recognizes God's supremacy and encourages a cooperative environment between employer and employee. Instead of advocating a class struggle they repeatedly emphasize respect and cooperation. But while the CLAC differs from most unions in these respects, it still shares the other unions' willingness to go on strike. They go on strike a lot less often, but they still go on strike. So the question is, can Christians go on strike? What Are Strikes? Employees have always had the ability to leave their jobs when they're unhappy with either the working conditions or their salaries. All they have to do is quit. When employees strike, however, they leave their jobs and prevent anyone else from taking them. They retain a claim to their job even as they vacate it. There is also a coercive element to strikes. They are designed to force employers to capitulate to employee demands. And what's wrong with that? The first problem is the harm caused by just such a strike. Whenever a business is shut down by a strike the people who have come to depend on that business suffer. The most obvious example is a teacher's strike, where the students suffer, but the same thing happens no matter what type of business is involved. A strike at a tire manufacturer will hurt (and maybe even shutdown) the automaker that's dependent on that tire supplier. The striking workers hurt innocent third parties. I once heard a union representative argue that there was no such thing as innocent third parties. He reasoned that if company B bought supplies from company A because of A's good price, and A had a good price because he unjustly underpaid his workers, then B was at least partially responsible for this injustice. B was encouraging injustice by supporting an unjust employer and so B would only get what he deserved if he was hurt by a strike at company A. This whole argument hinges on the union representative's idea of justice. He thought it was unjust to underpay workers. It might very well be, but who exactly is supposed to decide what a just wage is? Is $5 just? How about $10? Obviously it depends on the type of work. A McDonald's employee can't expect to get paid as much as computer engineer. But still the question remains, exactly how do you determine a just wage for these two positions? Wages, just or not, were at one time determined by free enterprise ideas of supply and demand. The lower the supply of qualified workers, and the higher the demand for those workers, the higher the wage would be. And vice versa. So an entry-level unskilled position at McDonald's, a position anyone could fill, receives a low wage, and a highly skilled, sought after computer engineer makes hundreds of thousands. On a basic level this seems fair, and even just to most people. We can clearly understand why some people are paid more and others are paid less. Skilled people get paid more and people in unpopular jobs get paid more because they are skilled, and because they are willing to do jobs no one else will. But when unions are thrown into the mix things get a bit peculiar. Have you ever wondered why mailmen get paid so much? Well back in the good old days of my father's youth (long, looooong ago) they weren't paid much more than an entry-level wage. After all, it didn't take a lot of brains to deliver mail, (really, how different is it from what your paperboy does?), so the post office didn't have to offer a high wage to attract employees. But then unions got involved and someone decided that mail delivery wasn't an entry-level position, it was a career. Minimum wage obviously wasn't good enough for a career position (perhaps it was even called unjust) so with the help of a number of strikes the union managed to substantially increase their workers wages. And they managed to substantially increase the cost of mail too. But why did their wages increase? Only because the union decided their jobs were career positions, not entry level. The union decided, and it had nothing to do with justice or fairness. And when steel workers, or grocery store clerks go on strike for another 25 cents an hour, it again is simply a union decision, and it has absolutely nothing to do with justice. Any attempt to link pay increases to justice is simply rhetoric meant to disguise the harm being done to the truly innocent third parties. And that's what's wrong with strikes. Strikes hurt third parties, not to further the cause of justice, but to further the striking workers' own welfare. The striking workers are thinking only of themselves. Non-striking Unions? Selfishness is only one problem with strikes. The coercive nature of strikes, where the employees try to bring their employer to his knees, isn't exactly in keeping with a Biblical theme. But if strikes are bad can unions be good? Yes, because unions don't have to go on strike. As mentioned before, employees have always had the option of quitting their jobs if they were unsatisfied with either the working conditions or the wages. If employees didn't have this ability they would be little more than slaves. Now, if a certain employer decides to pay unreasonably low wages, this non-striking union could advise its members to quit and seek employment in more profitable fields. But that isn't all such a union could do. As it stands now the CLAC already has a retraining center for employees who have lost their jobs. The center is paid for with union dues, and is used to retrain workers for new jobs usually with their same company. This center could be used to train employees to find new jobs in new fields of employment with other companies. Then when an employer decided to be unreasonable, his workers wouldn't be limited to just the jobs he was offering, at the unreasonable wage he was offering. If he wanted to retain them, he would have to start paying them a reasonable amount. A naïve dream? Perhaps a bit...but all the good dreams are....