David Brat’s Golden Rule
Religious ethics rarely enter into mainstream economic theory, but they are topics that [economics professor cum Eric Cantor slayer David] Brat, who describes himself in his writing as a Calvinist, has turned to repeatedly. In a 2011 article, “God and Advanced Mammon — Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?” published in a journal of religion, Mr. Brat questioned whether Christianity could be reconciled with government programs.
“Are you willing to force someone you know to pay for the benefits for one of your neighbors?” he asked. “Very few Christians I know are willing to say ‘yes’ to this question.”
— Campus Colleagues, Basketball Teammates, and Now, Political Rivals: David Brat and Jack Trammell show unease in the spotlight, Trip Gabriel and Richard Perez-Pena, New York Times, today
May I suggest that Professor Brat get out more? Quite a few Christians I know are willing to say “yes” to that question. I bet that quite a few Christians you know are, too. Maybe even some of your family members. And even you yourself. (I’m not Christian, so I don’t count.)
The Times article continues:
In the same essay, he argued: “If we make all of the people good, markets will be good. If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people.”
Several economists said in interviews that Mr. Brat often appeared not to be writing as an economist. “I did find him pretty confusing,” said Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “This dude just really wants us all to go to church, and that appears to be his economic policy conclusion.”
Confusing? I dunno. I understand him perfectly, I think. And I agree with him. If we make all of the people good, markets will be good. If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people.
Uh-oh, hedge fund managers and Goldman Sachs partners. Obviously, few of you are evangelical Christians. So this guy, who wants good markets, has his sights set on you. But, luckily not on that carried-interest tax-benefit thing y’all get to use, praise the Lord.
So maybe you hedge-fund types can skip church again this Sunday, after all.
Make the people good, and the economy will be good? Oh how could we have missed this simple solution for the past roughly 4,000 years? I would ask him for an example of a nation that has carried out this policy, and the methods that were used. What say? There isn’t one? Sheesh.
Oh, Noni. You’re so pessimistic.
I assume by “good” he means Calvinist sort of good? So if I am not a Calvinist not only am I going to hell, but I am not a good person while on this earth and bad for the economy to boot? I fear for this country, I really do. The idea that the folks who handle snakes might be more sane than this guy really scares me.
Again, you just have to understand the GOP mindset and who really controls the reins.
If you realize that it’s the wealthy who call the shots, even with the tea party types, then 8th all becomes clear.
They want to promote policy that transfers wealth to the rich.
But how do you convince poor and middle class. People.to go against their own interest?
You need to create scapegoats. Minorities, especially poor minorities act as the perfect scapegoat.
A faithful follower of Brother John Birch?
Sorry, that was a bad lilnk. This should be it.
http://www.econospeak.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-peculiar-political-economy-of-david.html
Barkley:
Just to let you know, I deleted the other post with the bad link.
They’re not good? Well, force them!
Since this “being good” seems to mean rightwing Christian church-going and prayer, just make it mandatory. Way less coercive than making people pay taxes. Right? And bound to work, as evidenced by Brat’s “Christian” belief in not helping others. How could it fail?
You’re definitely onto something, JDM. And the best way to accomplish it is to just force everyone to attend their town governing board’s meetings. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/nyregion/supreme-court-allows-prayers-at-town-meetings.html?_r=0
But, but, but …. I am so confused. They have been telling me that all comes from Obama even things before his birth. I though he must be the Messiah. Now this – a little ole lady can’t figure who is Who anymore.
Forcing your neighbor? This guy seems to have some serious confusion about what representative democracy is all about.
He is not confused at all. He is a theocrat. His god has given him the answers so just do as you are told and everything will be alright.
Look up “predestination”.
Well, Mr. Brat should be glad to know that James Madison hisself in Federalist #51, that Acts of the Founders beloved by the right, stated clearly:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
The corollary is that men are not angels and that government is necessary, which means regulation, which folks like Mr. Brat would have us believe is not necessary because – because why? We get no answer beyond an appeal to faith and belief. And this is the party whic arrogates to itself the mantle of being the party of rationality and intelligence. I’ll trust James Madison long before I’d put an ounce of trust in the opinons of a posseur like “Professor” Brat.