Jesus a Lefty-Liberal, Guardian reader? Not likely

Dizzy thinks, but wrongly, about the political leanings of Jesus. He may have a point through the modern liberal Church of England.

Dizzy’s posting on Jesus being a lefty-liberal is wide of the mark. He says

Seriously, if Jesus was alive today (a man’s who’s existence at least is not I think in dispute) he would be a Guardian reader. Yet, he would of course be pilloried for believing that he was the Son of an unprovable God, no doubt ridiculed for being a bit mad (oh the irony given the average Guardian readers hatred of prejudice towards the mentally ill), and his core beliefs about non-violence, turning the other cheek, forgiveness and the like would be dismissed out of hand.

I realise this is the second post in as many days where the subject of faith has come up, but honestly, I just don’t comprehend the sheer hypocrisy of those on the so-called “Liberal Left” when they display so much hatred for a faith that is essentially in keeping with their values, all, so it seems because of the bit about God.

If a kid is brought up with the liberal moral teachings of Christianity but also believes in God is it really “evil”?

Apologies for labouring the point here, but politically speaking, if you look at the New Testament, the carpenter’s son from Nazareth known as Jesus was essentially preaching a message that today would be seen as incredibly left wing. He was a little man standing up against an Imperial oppressor, he was preaching the evils of capitalism, and extolling the virtues of the weak and meek over the the rich.

Pardon my blasphemy for those that have an issue with it, but: Jesus Christ! Is it not patently absurd that Guardian readers should hate something so in line with their own beliefs just because it’s not secular?

My reply (in three sections) was as follows.

You are correct if you follow the Rowan Williams School of theology. An alternative line is to quote Jesus on the important bits. Take Matthew 23:40. After saying the two greatest commandments are love of God and love of your neighbour as yourself. Jesus says “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”. Jesus was establishing a principles-based religion. If the law conflicted with this, then it was the law that had to give. So if someone needed healing on the Sabbath, they should be healed, despite the Jewish law saying you should not work. In Matthew’s gospel, the holy men who went around proclaiming they are superior because they uphold the law better than others Jesus calls “hypocrites” and a “brood of vipers”, as they were more concerned with appearances than the substance of faith in God.

Another aspect is forgiveness of sins. Human beings are fallible, despite their best efforts. They can leave the past behind without guilt and get on with being good.

Jesus today would have strong words for New Labour. For them the solution to every problem is more laws, more complexity and wads of cash. Political appearances are more important than substance. Principles are transitory – remember the need to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle? It was first re-defined then ditched. What would he have to say of the science of climate change, with any none-believers labeled deniers (the modern-day equivalent of heretics?). Jesus would probably quote the first commandment of Moses about “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)

In these respects, Jesus was a Pre-Hayekian, though more dogmatic, and less diplomatic in his language.

 Finally on the subject of Jesus was anything but someone who stood up to the Roman oppressors. For many Jews he was anything but the expected Messiah. They thought he would be like what Muhammad turned out a few hundred years later. A prophet-cum-military conqueror who would drive the Roman’s into the sea. In fact Jesus studiously avoided the direct conflict with the military occupation. About paying taxes he said “give to Caesar what it is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17)

 I realise that proper theologians will disagree with my analysis that Jesus was more a classical-liberal in the tradition of Adam Smith and Fredrich Hayek than a Socialist. But what is without doubt in the non-conformist tradition is that Jesus was against putting appearances over form, and that the Love of God and Love of one’s neighbour take precedence over religious traditions and rules. Furthermore, is the doctrine that we all sin, no matter how hard we try, but through the sacrifice of Jesus we are forgiven and can move on. This is hardly the attitudes of those politicians who claim to have all the answers, decry others are being always wrong (with ulterior motives), and never admit to their own falliability.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 27/12/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Christianity, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 27/12/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/12/27/jesus-a-lefty-liberal-guardian-reader-not-likely/

Monbiot tries to re-polarize the debate

In the Guardian, George Monbiot tries to brush aside the Climategate scandal and brush aside the doubts shown about the integrity of science.  Back comes the polarization of camps into the “scientific consensus” v the denialists funded by the oil companies.  He forgets to mention that government funding of alarmist “science” is greater than 100 times that of Exxon/Mobile, nor that being an alarmist gets media attention (no matter how extreme or unfounded), whilst being even moderately against can get you vilified.

My comment was as follows

The climate change e-mails crisis, at the very minimum, shows that there is room for doubt about the most extreme claims made for global warming. Whilst the most general claims about 20th century warming are beyond reasonable doubt, there is a big middle ground between the consensus and those, like Nick Griffin, who claim it is all a hoax. 

Whilst you say there are just the denialists and the scientists, look at the e-mails and you will see that it the competitors that really got the backs up of the Profs at CRU were those who could do most damage. Two of note are:-

 1. Steve McIntyre a professional statistician who has shown that some peer-reviewed articles do not stand up to scrutiny. The scientists did not get endless requests. (see MicIntyre’s account at http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/dirty-laundry/) . They were less onerous than a visit by the VAT inspector. To a business with the books in order these people of HMRC are very pleasant, and will point out some honest mistakes (sometimes to business’s advantage). To those that know that there are “issues”, it means working through the night and trying to avoid the inevitable. But FOI requests have less precedential ground rules.

As a result of Mcintyre’s analysis no proper scientist can now say “We are experiencing the warmest temperatures for 10,000 or 2,000,000 years”.  We either do not know, or there are a number of studies to suggest that some areas were warmer 1000, 2000, or 3500 years ago. But there again, McIntyre is but

 2. Richard Lindzen, a Meteorologist Professor of MIT. Long a critic of the “consensus”, his recent paper with Yong-Sang Choi (summary pdf at http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf) claims that forecasts of future warming are overstated by a factor of six. Lindzen & Choi, however, only rely on 15 years of satellite date, whereas the consensus relies on more than 20 years of the best climate model forecasting. Furthermore, Lindzen has written articles for a virulently pro-capitalist financial daily of the t’other side o’pond.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/12/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/12/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/12/09/monbiot-tires-to-re-polarize-the-debate/

The Berlin Wall, the DDR and New Labour

I remember twenty years ago watching as the people of the Socialist paradise surged across Checkpoint Charlie into the bright lights of the West, as the 28 year old Berlin Wall was breached. It was but part of a process that began with the Hungarians taking down the fence, and continued with the Velvet Revolution in Wencelas Square.
The fall of the Berlin Wall may not not have been the triumph of capitalism, but it was the collapse of communism. It represented the end of the era, started in 1917, that saw the deaths of  100 million people at the hands of their own governments in the name of a false utopia. The physical wall, that seemed so impenetrable, was felled with pickaxes and chains. The political system, buttressed by a vast system of informers and secret  police, seem to crumble away even more easily. But the we share some elements of  that repressive  regime share today in this country. In the DDR

1. Everyone had to carry ID cards and constantly present them when asked.
2. A “democratic” country where parliament held no power.
3. Where the official properganda differed from reality.
4. Where every aspect of life was tightly regulated.
5. Arbitary arrest and detention.
6. Endless form filling and checking on every aspect of people’s lives. And where that form filling served as a huge hinderance, but no useful purpose outside of the bureaucratic machine.

It is worthwhile to remember that a moderate socialist party contains elements of the authoritarian left of the Soviet bloc. Their instincts are that only government solutions are the valid, and that private initiative cannot be trusted. That the individual owes everything to the state, and errant views are by definition not just wrong but dangerous.

Whilst we remember died trying to escape the suffocation and those who were persecuted for the slightest protest, it is also worth a history lesson in how the mass of people lead dreary, impoverished lives, made worse by officialdom.

 

Thanks to John Redwood, who stimulated my thoughts.

 

 

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Human Rights, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/11/09/the-berlin-wall-the-ddr-and-new-labour/

Labour Down to 120 seats in 2010?

Could Labour really be reduced to 120 seat’s at the next general election? Not impossible, but would hand the Conservatives a poison chalice

Jackie Ashley claims in the Guardian.

“Some Labour people may think I’m sounding too gloomy, but those who have been privy to recent private polling are a lot more than gloomy. This suggests that Labour could return to the Commons with just 120 MPs or thereabouts, taking the party back to 1930s territory. As ministers look for jobs to keep themselves going after politics, a Miliband move to Europe looks sensible.”

Most polling data based on even swing would give Labour over 200 seats, with the Conservatives getting a majority of 80 to 100. But  this result may be at the extreme end, but should not be unexpected. Compared with the Conservatives in 1997
1. Labour are polling lower in the polls.

2. There is greater de-seated resentment. Labour are not just out of touch, they have

3. Gordon Brown seems less capable than John Major at the job. Furthermore, he shows it. He is nervous, repetitive and cliché-ridden.

In 1997, many voted to punish the Tories. Next year it will be voting to punish Labour. It is not something a Conservative should revel in, as Labour has bred a deep distrust in politics in general (through their spinning and ignoring parliament) along with decimating the nation’s finances. So the Conservatives will have to rebuild trust whilst pushing through deeply unpopular policies.

A word of caution. Although ConservativeHome and Politicalbetting both recognize Jackie Ashley as being close to Labour and a reliable source, the comment is made in a long article on how the Europe question could damage the Conservatives. So maybe we could have a Lib-Dem government?

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Conservative Party, Gordon Brown, Labour in Opposition, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/11/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/11/09/labour-down-to-120-seats-in-2010/

Should Lord Stern remember some economics?

After Lord Stern’s comments about becoming a vegatarian to save the plant, I suggested he should be consistent and become a vegan. A post by Martin Livermore on the Adam Smith Insitute blog got me thinking that maybe Lord Stern would be advised to remember some lessons from economics. After all, as an economist, Lord Stern was employed to do a cost benefit analysis of tackling global warming. The report was only able to reach its conclusion that we should do something now by taking an extreme view of future temperature change (thus overstating the benefits of any remedy) and seriously understating the costs. Mostly this was by failing to apply an appropriate rate of discount to future costs and benefits.

Since then Lord Stern has become increasingly alarmist. If instead, he applied some of the tools of his profession he would conclude the following.

 

1. Most of the largest greenhouse gas producers are things that have an inelastic demand – such as petrol and fuel to heat one’s home. Therefore the costs will tend to exceed the benefits.

 

2. There are diminishing returns to emissions reductions. Small decreases can be achieved easily. At home most can save a bit by better insulation in the loft, or by turning town the thermostat by 1 degree. Car fuel consumption can be reduced by driving more economically. Bigger savings are less easy, without fundamental changes in lifestyle, which for the majority would mean a significant drop in living standards. For instance,

– switching from frozen and chilled foods to dried and tinned foods.

– switching foreign holidays to camping in the back garden.

– From travelling by car to work to spending three times as long going by public transport, or catching pneumonia cycling.

 

3. Large government projects tend to overrun on costs, and under-perform on benefits. The bigger and more idealistic the project, the larger the (proportionate) discrepancy between plan and outcome. International projects tend to overrun more than national one, as consensus is only achieved by compromise fudging. For the greatest trans-government project of all time, this risk alone should lead to the complete abandonment.

 

4. Complex models tend to fail most in their forecasting when you need them most. Consensus economic forecasts made in 2006 for 2009 would have predicted growth, not biggest slump since the 1930s. Yet compared to economic, climatology is more complex and still in its infancy as a subject. Further there is no competitive market in forecasting to encourage improvement and revision in the light of new data. In economics reputable  forecasting is a valuable commodity. In Climate Science, one is paid to agree with the consensus.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 30/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics, Economics, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 30/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/30/should-lord-stern-remember-some-economics/

Should Lord Stern now go Vegan?

According to the Times, Lord Stern has gone Vegetarian in an attempt to save the planet. The simple reason is that methane (which cattle and pigs produce in vast quantities) is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. We therefore need to cut back drastically on the quantity of cattle. But hold on a minute. We also get milkfrom cows as well. Should we be switching to Soya milk and synthetic cheese? Lord Stern

“predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

So when the eco-fanatics start attacking the meat counter of Tescos and sabotaging the school milk deliveries, we will know who to charge with incitement to commit acts of criminal damage and terrorism. Make a change from them dumping manure and sabotaging tyres ot 4x4s.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/28/should-lord-stern-now-go-vegan/

Is recycling rotting food hygenic?

My local council now says that I can put waste food in the green recycle bin. Oh lovely! Imagine the green bin after having the remains of a chicken carcass and all the juices after putrifying in the hot summer. Especially with some solidified milk on top. Remember the swill bin at school. Now imagine if were only emptied once a fortnight and you get the idea.

My own view is to continue with what I currently do. Double-bag the solid food and swill the liquid or jellified material down the sink with a good dose of detergent.

I will change if some will volunteer to clean out the green bin occasionally. It needs doing as the grass cuttings in the bottom are well composted. But the flies and stench from the rotting fruit put me off at present.

MCC Waste Food

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Environment, Manchester

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/28/is-recycling-rotting-food-hygenic/

Nationwide and Halifax house price recovery is fragile

The recovery in house prices reported in the Nationwide and Halifax indices underlies a significant issue – that many existing borrowers would see a much higher rate of interest if they moved mortgages. As an example, my own repayment mortgage is currently 1.9% annual interest rat, or 1.4% above base rate. If I moved house Nationwide’s best deal on a tracker is 2.44% above base rate for 2 years and the reverts to 3.9%. There is also a nearly GBP 900 fee. Halifax are similar- 2.69% above base rate for 2 years, then reverts to 3.5%. A GBP 1200 fee here.

These are the cheapest deals, for a loan less than 60% of the house price and are competitive in a thin market. Halifax reports August 2009 approvals were 51% lower than in August 2007. The Nationwide’s measure of private housing sector turnover rate is now 4% , from a peak of 7% and a low of 3%.

As the driving force for the Housing Market is people upgrading to a better house, there may be a considerable number of people delaying moving house for this very reason. It is better to save for a new house by paying down existing borrowings than move to the more expensive house.

Paradoxically, a rise in base rates may prompt a narrowing of this differential and therefore perk up the housing market. The reason being that the marginal cost of moving will have diminished. However

–  there are other reasons for the low levels of housing activity – uncertainty over jobs and the need to pay off debt.

– a rise in interest rates may tip many existing hard-pressed borrowers towards selling. In particular buy-to-let landlords who have seen rents diminish this year.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 06/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Economics, House Prices

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 06/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/06/nationwide-and-halifax-house-price-recovery-is-fragile/

Post Briffa Yamal paper collapse, is the 0.5% chance of <2oC C21st a good bet?

One of my favourite blogs is Political Betting, not because I am a punter, but because (principally) Mike Smithson aims to give an assessment of how political opinion is moving ad the events that move it. One of the areas to bet on is spread betting, where (in the UK) the blog comments on bets on the number of seats that will be gained by the political parties in the forthcoming general election.

At Wattsupwiththat.com, it reports on some MIT academics producing a fortune wheel.

It is interesting that these chaps from MIT only see a 1 in 200 chance of temperatures not rising above 2 degrees. It is a shame that the forecast is for so long in the future as (where gambling laws allow) it would seem a pretty good wager.  It may be possible to still create a betting market in this with something known as spread betting – a sort of futures market in the gambling industry. For political elections it develops a valid consensus of people “putting their money where their mouth is.” It turns out to be a more accurate assessment of opinion than opinion polls. If the people from MIT represent to popular consensus, then it may be a chance for the skeptics to make some money. As the forecasts of catastrophe fail to materialize, the skeptics will be able to sell their positions at a healthy profit, at the expense of the consensus,who will lose their shirts. My forecast is that the consensus will suddenly become all moralistic about such an idea. Why? Because they would believe that the betting would be far less alarmist than the supposed consensus. This is particularly relevent since MIT have not taken account of the undermining of Briffa’s paper on tree-rings as proxies for temperatures in the Yamal Penninsula.

For those not following the recent climate change debate, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has taken apart another hockey stick (See Here, here, here & Here for Climate Audit, or here & here for a Layman’s summary from Bishop Hill)

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 04/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 04/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/04/post-briffa-yamal-paper-collapse-is-the-0-5-chance-of-2oc-c21st-a-good-bet/

Financial Regulators are as fallible as the rest of us

John Redwood, in defence of the banker’s, asked whether the regulator’s in the part four years has engaged in socially useless activity.

Unusually, I came to the defence of the regulator.

Regulators, even if nominally independent, work within the current political & economic climate. They would not have called for increasing capital requirements during the boom, as there was no visible reason to do so. After all, we had “ended boom & bust” – due to the prudent handling of our economy by the then Chancellor. Where was the risk factor that justified such a measure?

 If a Regulator had called for tougher rules, he would have been lambasted by the press, and criticized by most expert economists. Financial Experts would say capital requirements could be lower, as risk was now diversified throughout the global financial system.  Politicians would have said that such unilateral action would jeopardize London’s position as the World’s No.1 financial centre. If the Regulator had sufficient stature, then the £ would have gotten a bit jittery, and some shares in the banking sector would have taken a tumble. A government spin doctor would have come out we a speech saying “what I think you will find the Regulator actually said was .…” – and then say something that was the opposite, or renders the comments meaningless.

After a few days of ducking the issue, the Chancellor would have given his full support, followed the next day with the Regulator’s “voluntary” early retirement (or movement sideways).

A similar picture was with the Central Banks. By cutting interest rates after the dot.com bubble burst and again after 9/11 we obtained an asset price bubble. The US or the UK were not going to call a halt by raising interest rates, as it would have been both politically unpopular and raised exchange rates. The normal market adjustment, with a mild recession was averted. The long-term consequence was system imbalances becoming so large that the eventual correction nearly wrecked the financial system.

 The lesson to be learnt is not tougher and/or more detailed regulation. It should be a humility concerning our powers to intervene, as they can have consequences that we cannot foresee. Furthermore, markets have rushes of exuberance that will, sooner or later, be corrected. Avert the market correction and you build up trouble for the future.  Interventionism does not cure the problem of imbalances, merely delays it.

MARKETS WILL ADJUST. BEFORE OVERRIDING TO COUNTER FLUCTUATIONS,  YOU SHOULD FIRST BECOME OMINISCIENT.

Alan Greenspan convinced everyone that he had achieved this status, but turned out, in the long run, to be wrong.

The biggest current imbalance is in the housing market. The slide has been halted by near zero interest rates, but will resume when those rates get back towards normality. Why do I say this when average house prices are around the long-term average of four times average earnings? Because interest rates are well below their long-term average for existing borrowers. When they revert to around 5% that new borrowers are paying, and when unemployment peaks at 3 million plus (with some coming from the state sector), then the supply of houses will exceed demand.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/09/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Credit Crunch, Economics, Regulation

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/09/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/09/23/financial-regulators-are-as-fallible-as-the-rest-of-us/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »