Tag Archives: Government

News

Feminist wants UK government to provide free IVF

2 Comments

From the UK Telegraph, an editorial by Theodore Dalrymple. (H/T RuthBlog)

Excerpt:

[The chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Suzi Leather] …has suggested that, henceforth, the clause requiring doctors to take account of the need of a child for a father, when offering in vitro fertilisation to infertile women, should be removed from the law. The idea that fathers are necessary or even desirable in the lives of children is, in the opinion of Ms Leather, too old-fashioned to be entertained any longer.

[…]In Ms Leather’s brave new world, women are to have children merely because they want them, as is their government-given right, irrespective of their ability to bring them up, or who has to pay for them, or the consequences to the children themselves. Men are to be permanently infantilised, their income being in essence pocket money for them to spend on their enjoyments, having no serious responsibilities at all (beyond paying tax). Henceforth, the state will be father to the child, and the father will be child of the state.

This paper from the Heritage Foundation cites a very interesting study.

A seminal British study confirms that a child is safest when his biological parents are married and least safe when his mother is cohabiting with a man other than her husband. Specifically, the family Court Reporter Survey for England and Wales presents concrete evidence that children are 20 to 33 times safer living with their biological married parents than in other family configurations.

I think that if you take taxpayer money from working fathers and pay for unmarried women to have fatherless children, you will get fewer fathers and more fatherless children.

Commentary

Tim H. reviews new book on Christianity and capitalism at Rational Thoughts

7 Comments

The book review is here on Rational Thoughts.

Excerpt:

Capitalism’s reputation has taken a beating in light of the recent financial crisis.  According to politicians and pundits from both sides of the spectrum, capitalism is to blame.  Not so, say Austin Hill and Scott Rae, who argue in their new book The Virtues of Capitalism that capitalism is our best bet.  In fact, according to Hill and Rae, capitalism “remains the preferred economic system, even the necessary economic system, for any society that upholds a true sense of human rights.”

Hill and Rae approach economics from a distinctly Christian perspective, showing capitalism to be both consistent with and supported by the Bible’s teachings.  Contrary to some, the sharing of goods as described in Acts does not advocate socialism.   The sharing of goods was voluntary, as opposed to forced.  Moreover, the authors show that economics itself is deeply intertwined with moral issues.  Economic conditions can act as a powerful motivator either to encourage or discourage virtuous conduct. “[B]e honest and ask yourself: Is it ever more difficult to be the kind of spouse or parent that one aspires to be, when the economy is slow and personal finances are scares? … [W]hen finances are plentiful, can the enjoyment of material goods enable a person to avoid or neglect other important areas of their relationships?  And a final question… can economics impact one’s relationship with their God.”

[…]Overall, it’s a great and easy to understand book.

Tim likes the book “Money, Greed and God” by Jay Richards better, but that’s a tougher book to read – not for beginners. I’m shocked because I didn’t figure out my worldview regarding economics until my late 20s. Tim is a high school junior. Yipes! He must have good parents.

I recommend this new capitalism and Christianity book for courting Christian women, who are usually fiscally liberal until they get married and start families. It’s only 160 pages and it should be enough to convince any horrible socialist to give capitalism a chance. I also switched to “On Guard” for courting instead of the more difficult “Reasonable Faith”, at least for a first book. No sense scaring her off with something hard right at the start.

News

Which political party knows the least about economics?

6 Comments

Story from the Wall Street Journal. (H/T Health Care BS via ECM)

Excerpt:

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents’ (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics.

The first question was “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” The unenlighted answer for that one is “disagree”, since restrictions on development reduce the supply of available housing. Demand stays the same and so there is a shortage, and prices rise. D’uh!

Here are the others:

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

And the results:

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

It’s true, the majority of Democrat voters are people who don’t work at all, or they “work” for government, or they “work” in education, or they hold picket signs while on strike, or they are in prison, or they are chasing ambulances, or they are Hollywood celebrities. No economics knowledge is required for any of that. Republicans work in private industry, and many of us own small businesses. So we actually have to work to earn money, because we have competitors to watch out for and consumers to please.

Remember this post: Who knows more about economics? Obama or people who run businesses?