Keynes and Hayek Rap Video

January 27, 2010 in Economics by Greg | 1 comment

This is a great little rap video parody featuring the government intervention policies promoted by Lord John Maynard Keynes versus the free market policies advocated by Friedrich A. von Hayek and Austrian Economics.

Created by Russell Roberts, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, and John Papola, an Executive Producer/Director at SpikeTV, the video features Billy Scafuri as “Grand Master” Keynes and Adam Lustick as F. A. Hayek (Billy and Adam).

In order to put this into some context, according to one writer:

As Hayek has shown, economic crises of boom and bust are created by governments that expand credit through central banks, creating unsustainable bubbles that ultimately crash. Unfortunately, based on Keynes’s theories, governments have foolishly then further intervened with bailouts and “stimulus” spending measures of pork and war that only prolong the recovery (e.g., Great Depression as well as the current economic malaise).1

YouTube Preview Image

Lyrics:

We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits

[Keynes Sings:]

John Maynard Keynes, wrote the book on modern macro
The man you need when the economy’s off track, [whoa]
Depression, recession now your question’s in session
Have a seat and I’ll school you in one simple lesson

BOOM, 1929 the big crash
We didn’t bounce back—economy’s in the trash
Persistent unemployment, the result of sticky wages
Waiting for recovery? Seriously? That’s outrageous!

I had a real plan any fool can understand
The advice, real simple—boost aggregate demand!
C, I, G, all together gets to Y
Make sure the total’s growing, watch the economy fly

Keynes and Hayek Rap Video »»

  1. Theroux, David. “‘Fear the Boom and Bust’: Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Video. 26 Jan 2010. The Independent Institute. 27 Jan 2010.↩

Esau and Jacob

January 23, 2010 in Priesthood by Greg | 10 comments

Recently, a friend pointed me to an interesting account of how the birthright blessings of the patriarchal priesthood were given to Jacob, and not Esau. According to the biblical account,

Esau and Jacob by Matthias Stom And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them. (Genesis 25:21-26).

Commenting, Bruce H. Porter wrote:

The mother of the twins learned that “two nations” were within her, and that “the elder shall serve the younger.” It must be noted that the revelation concerning the birthright came to Rebekah, and not to Isaac the father of the children. Rebekah, knowing that Jacob was the chosen one of the Lord and the one who should receive the birthright blessing from Isaac, began the preparations.

Twice Rebekah commanded Jacob; “. . . obey my voice . . .” (Gen. 27:8, 13). Holding a position of authority, the matriarch directed her son in the arrangements that were to be made and the information that would be given to Isaac during the ritual blessing. She appeared not only to be fully acquainted with the liturgy, but also played a key role in the blessing itself. Jacob’s fears are manifested in his concern that he might appear to be the “deceiver” (vs. 12) and that there would be “a curse…and not a blessing.” This foreboding of Jacob was quickly silenced when “his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice . . .” Only in a position of authority may one be responsible for the actions of another, as Rebekah promised she would be. Had this been a deception, Rebekah as well as her son Jacob would be held accountable. Yet neither are reprimanded in the scriptural text by Isaac or the Lord. Jacob’s mother accepted full responsibility for the correct or incorrect (as it seemed) performance and acceptability of this priesthood ordinance as executed by the patriarch.

Esau and Jacob »»

Introduction to Socialism vs Capitalism

January 21, 2010 in Capitalism by Greg | 5 comments

While this blog was being formulated, there seemed to be little debate over which type of political economy should be dominant in the United States. In fact, the economic policies of the major political candidates at that time seemed to differ from each other only by degree in terms of government intervention in the economic affairs of citizens.1 This eventually led to the series Notes on Socialism which explores that topic from a religious, social, economic and historical point of view.

Das KapitalOver time, however, it was pointed out that the U.S. economy had really undergone many changes and had passed through various stages of government intervention to what Charlotte Twight called a Participatory Fascism-type system. During this time, some have stumbled upon the site and wondered about the other side of the proverbial coin. For example, what, if anything, does capitalism have to offer?

This series of posts explores a similar set of issues related to capitalism. At first, it might not be apparent why there should be a series called Socialism vs. Capitalism. The question might be asked, Why not just discuss capitalism on its own terms? The short answer is that the term capitalist (Kapitalist) was popularized in the mid-19th century and was used frequently by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in some of their later writings.2

Over time, the term capitalist came to refer to someone with private ownership of capital and the means of production. Interestingly, some have noted that capitalism is really “a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, [and] is a misnomer for ‘economic individualism’, which Adam Smith earlier called ‘the obvious and simple system of natural liberty.’”3

From a Hegelian Dialectic point of view, capitalism is the thesis in which socialism is the antithesis. Based on this perspective, these two systems are at constant odds with each other and as proponents of each system seek preeminence, new syntheses4 are created as societies “supposedly” continue to evolve.

So it is within this dialectical context that both series – Notes on Socialism and Socialism vs. Capitalism – should be considered. Capitalism simply cannot be discussed without exploring socialism and vice versa. And although today’s political discourse seems to portray choices based primarily along these two seemingly competitive political economies, perhaps there is a third way – or better yet, other ways – that should be considered and become part of public debate.

Sources:

  1. For example, see Ekelund, Robert B. and Mark Thornton. “More Awful Truths About Republicans”. 4 Sep 20008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  2. For example, the phrases capitalist and capitalist mode of production appear more than 2,600 times in Das Kapital. See “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  3. Hessen, Robert. “Capitalism”. Library of Economics and Liberty. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  4. For example, the development of Market Socialism.↩

Secret Government

January 19, 2010 in Communism by Greg | 1 comment

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis is a 1987 Public Broadcasting Service video documentary with Bill Moyers following the Iran-Contra affair – ostensibly, an effort to prevent the spread of communism in the Western Hemisphere.1 According to Mr. Moyers,

The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. Presidents have turned to them when they can’t win the support of the Congress or the people, creating that unsupervised power so feared by the framers of our Constitution.

The documentary traces the history of the secret government to the National Security Act of 1947 which was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. It “realigned and reorganized the U.S. Armed Forces, foreign policy, and Intelligence Community apparatus in the aftermath of World War II.”2

Although originally intended to be only an “intelligence-gathering” organization, under the auspices of this act the CIA quickly became an “operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.”3 According to the documentary “a secret report [was] prepared for the White House in 1954 by a group of distinguished citizens headed by former president Herbert Hoover”:

It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination. There are no rules in such a game. Hitherto accepted norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, longstanding American concepts of fair play must be reconsidered. We must learn to subvert, sabotage, and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, more effective methods than those used against us.

Secret Government »»

  1. See Wolf, Julie. “The Iran-Contra Affair”. PBS. 18 Jan 2010 for background on this event.↩
  2. “National Security Act of 1947”. Wikipedia. 17 Jan 2010.↩
  3. Truman, Harry S. “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence”. 22 Dec 1963. Washington Post. 17 Jan 2010. See also, McGovern, Ray. “Break the CIA into Two”. Consortium News. 17 Jan 2010.↩

Apostolic Witness

January 17, 2010 in Jesus Christ by Greg | 7 comments

In the quote below, M. Catherine Thomas related a personal experience she had with her husband, twelve other mission presidents and their wives, in Buenos Aires in 1997. In this account Jeffrey R. Holland, an apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, referred to his own apostolic witness of Christ’s resurrection:

Doubting Thomas by Caravaggio It was mid-morning in the Area Offices in Buenos Aires, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland and his wife were due to arrive, but had been delayed by an emergency in a distant place. With little sleep and little time to refresh themselves, they entered our seminar room. After Elder Holland greeted each of us personally, he stood in the semicircle formed by some thirteen mission presidents and their wives and said, “We are not yet the Church of Jesus Christ.” His context was “the real way to do missionary work,” but the larger meaning of his principles went down into our hearts. “I testify that we are preparing for something, and there is a big gap between what we are and what we must become. I don’t know when the Savior will come, but the work is going very fast – faster than you think.”

“Why isn’t it easier?” he asked. “Because,” he answered, “we don’t believe in cheap salvation or cheap grace. We have to be pushed to the limit, back to the wall. Then the angels come and God speaks: ‘Be patient, Ill give you success. The only way out is through.’ We have to drink the bitter cup, even though we’re wanting, wishing for, another way. The Savior is the model: ‘I’ll drink the bitter cup to its dregs.’ The last words he said in the Old World were, ‘I will finish.’ The first words in the New World were, ‘I did finish.’ He suffered the will of the Father. This is required of all of us too. We bow our head and say, ‘Yes.’ That’s when all the miracles happen. We must be stretched as we can be, and then God will step in with His power.”

Then this: “If there are no miracles, it’s because we don’t want them. The majority don’t have miracles because they don’t live where miracles happen. When we become as obedient as Christ, we will have miracles.” He paraphrased the little French poem about our having to risk coming to the edge in order to experience the miraculous: “God says to us: ‘Come to the edge.’ ‘No, I’ll fall.’ ‘Come to the edge.’ ‘No, I’ll fall.’ ‘Come to the edge.’ So, I came to the edge, He pushed me, and I flew.”1

Then he paused and said, “I love Jesus Christ and have a relationship I cannot really share. He is the most compelling theme in my life – a very rewarding obsession. I have often borne witness: Now I AM a witness. I am a witness of the Resurrection in the same sense as Peter, James, John, Brigham, and Wilford.” His witness is the fruit of unconditional commitment.2

Elder Holland’s apostolic witness is similar to David O. McKay’s testimony in the post Partakers of the Divine Nature.

Sources:

  1. Based on my notes from the Mission Presidents Seminar, Buenos Aires, October 1997.↩
  2. Thomas, M. Catherine. Light in the Wilderness: Explorations in the Spiritual Life. Orem, Utah: Amalphi Publishing, 2008. 318-319.↩

« Older entries § Newer entries »