Name cannot be blank

I tweet about economics, liberty, and religion. || USU Econ 2022 || #ComeUntoChrist

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

The ancient apostles were unique in their supernatural claims, compared to those made by religionists before or since, in that the apostles had multiple corroborating first-hand witnesses outside their ranks to whom the resurrected Christ showed Himself.

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

Scholars are divided, but a growing plurality believes that live music was enjoyed at ancient observances of Sukkot, with then-famous groups like Pelaiah and the Levites headlining (cf. Neh. 8:7). A recently unearthed discovery seems to confirm this view (ca. 444 B.C., colorized)

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

I don't worship the Book. I worship the Author.

[Vincent Geloso @VincentGeloso]

The national security argument is the worst argument for industrial policy and tariffs. No nation's security is well served by being poorer. Economic growth acts to facilitate better techniques, greater resilience and more resources to marshal. Thus, economic growth acts like a deterrent.

And you know who said something like that? JFK! Whether you agree or not, this was actually his justification for his tax cuts in the 1960s!

The national security argument is also horrible in the fact that its a garment anyone can use to say whatever they want. Its basically how mercantilism was justified pre-1800. Ekelund and Tollison have this magnificient on all this. Once you open that door, they will claim it and all you'll have is a bunch of rent-seekers, a poorer society that is less secure.

[DannyCanTalk 🌈 @dannycantalk]

People often say that socialists are economically illiterate, but that suggests they just lack education.

The things they say make no economic sense even if you have zero economic education.

When someone points out that under rent control, landlords will have less money with which to upkeep their properties, how could someone unironically think that "but they're legally required to do it anyway" is a legitimate response? How could he reply to "they can't" with "but they have to"?

They're not just uneducated about economics. They are actively resistant to engaging in any economic thought. They selectively pretend that scarcity doesn't exist in order to maintain their preferred political stances.

You can't fix that with education.

[Miguel Hernández @miguelhzv]

Uno de los libros más sobrevalorados de la economía moderna es El Capital en el Siglo XXI de Thomas Piketty.

Vendió millones de copias.

Lo citan periodistas, políticos y hasta algunos economistas que deberían saber más.

Y sin embargo es un libro que confunde una identidad contable con una ley económica.

Piketty construye toda su tesis alrededor de una fórmula, r mayor que g, el retorno al capital crece más rápido que la economía en general.

La presenta como un descubrimiento que explica la desigualdad estructural del capitalismo.

Pero no es un descubrimiento, es básicamente una tautología disfrazada de teoría.

Decir que el capital rinde más que el crecimiento del PBI no explica nada sobre por qué rinde, ni sobre qué proceso genera ese rendimiento.

Acá aparece el problema de fondo, y es uno que Böhm Bawerk ya había resuelto un siglo antes de que Piketty naciera.

El capital no es un número en una hoja de cálculo.

Es una estructura, etapas concretas de producción ordenadas en el tiempo, bienes de capital heterogéneos que solo tienen valor porque sirven para producir algo que un consumidor quiere comprar después.

Piketty trata el capital como una masa homogénea que crece sola, como si el dinero generara dinero por inercia.

Mete en la misma bolsa una fábrica, un edificio de departamentos y un bono del Estado.

Esa es la razón por la que su famoso aumento del capital en las últimas décadas está inflado en gran parte por la valorización inmobiliaria, no por acumulación productiva real.

Varios economistas, incluso fuera de la tradición austríaca, ya marcaron esto con los datos del propio Piketty.

Pero el error metodológico no es lo peor del libro.

Lo peor es la conclusión política.

Si el capital crece solo porque sí, entonces la única respuesta razonable es un impuesto global a la riqueza.

Eso es lo que propone.

Ningún renglón del libro se pregunta de dónde sale ese rendimiento.

Sale de satisfacer a un consumidor que paga voluntariamente por algo que valora más que su dinero.

Gravar el capital no corrige una distorsión, frena el único proceso que en dos siglos sacó a miles de millones de personas de la pobreza absoluta.

Piketty escribió ochocientas páginas para llegar a la misma receta que el socialismo viene proponiendo desde el siglo diecinueve, más Estado, más expropiación, menos acumulación.

Solo que esta vez con algunos gráficos más emprolijados.

[Gregory Kennedy @gregorykennedy]

Caller: “Hi Dave. Long-time listener. First-time caller.”

Dave: “You are on the show. What's going on?”

Caller: “I think billionaires have too much power.”

Dave: “Okay. What do you do?”

Caller: “I'm a Congressman.”

Dave: “Alright. Where are you from?”

Caller: “Silicon Valley.”

Dave: “The one with Apple, Google, Nvidia, Meta, OpenAI, and about half the companies carrying the stock market?”

Caller: “That's right.”

Dave: “Interesting. And what seems to be the problem?”

Caller: “The tech bro billionaires.”

Dave: “The guys who built the companies that made your district one of the wealthiest places on Earth?”

Caller: “Yes.”

Dave: “So let me get this straight. Your district keeps producing trillion-dollar companies, millions of jobs both directly and indirectly, and tools used by two-thirds of the people on earth.”

Caller: “Correct.”

Dave: “And your conclusion is that the people who built all of it are the problem.”

Caller: “Exactly.”

Dave: “What have you built?”

Caller: “I serve the public.”

Dave: “No, I mean built.”

Caller: “I write legislation.”

Dave: “Did you make the iPhone?”

Caller: “No.”

Dave: “Google Search?”

Caller: “No.”

Dave: “Nvidia chips?”

Caller: “No.”

Dave: “SpaceX rockets?”

Caller: “No.”

Dave: "So the entrepreneurs create the wealth and the politicians create the hearings?"

Caller: “That's not fair.”

Dave: “Congressman, every year your district creates more wealth than most countries. Why are you treating success like a crime scene?”

Caller: "We need to hold billionaires accountable."

Dave: "For what? Exceeding expectations?"

[The Primary Pianist @Primary_Pianist]

Evangelical: Mormons believe in a different Jesus.

Latter-day Saint: What makes Him a different Jesus?

Evangelical: You believe things about Him that aren’t true.

Latter-day Saint: So if someone believes something false about Jesus, they believe in a different Jesus?

Evangelical: Yes.

Latter-day Saint: Okay. Do Calvinists and Arminians believe exactly the same things about Jesus?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Then do they worship different Jesuses?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Do Baptists and Presbyterians agree on everything Jesus taught?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Different Jesus?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Do Pentecostals and Lutherans agree on spiritual gifts, baptism, salvation, and church authority?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Different Jesus?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Do Catholics and Protestants agree on every doctrine concerning Christ, grace, authority, sacraments, and salvation?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Different Jesus?

Evangelical: No.

Latter-day Saint: Then where is the line?

Because if every doctrinal disagreement creates a different Jesus, Christianity shatters into thousands of different Jesuses.

But if doctrinal disagreement does not automatically create a different Jesus, then merely finding a disagreement with Latter-day Saints doesn’t prove we worship a different Jesus.

There has to be some principle that distinguishes:

* disagreement about Jesus

from

* belief in an entirely different Jesus.

Otherwise the phrase “different Jesus” becomes nothing more than a label we apply to groups we disagree with.

The irony is that most Christians instinctively understand this when talking about other Christians.

They recognize that sincere believers can disagree on many things while still worshipping the same Lord.

The question is why that principle suddenly disappears when the conversation turns to Latter-day Saints.

If Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, who died for our sins and rose again, then we are talking about the same historical person.

After that, the debate is not whether we believe in Jesus.

The debate is which teachings about Jesus are true.

Those are two very different conversations.

[Phil Magness @PhilWMagness]

Despite what this guy claims, exactly nobody "fears" Gabriel Zucman.

But they do recognize him as a data-manipulating charlatan, which means that the left wing media will credulously regurgitate his political talking points even though the underlying stats are false.

[Clifford Asness @CliffordAsness]

@grundrza He’s an economist not a sociologist so he’s not automatically a useless leftist. I know that’s confusing.

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

@Mormonger @JPuncut Sorry, bud, "mUh BibLe aLOnE!" doesn't actually remove the need for authority in scriptural interpretation, it just relocates it from a recognizable, general authority to individual interpretive judgment. That's not the scriptural or doctrinal objectivity you're looking for. 😂

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

@BradWitbeck @Mormonger Yeah, there's a pretty wide—possibly growing—split between what is taught by clergy and what is believed by lay members, where the nature of God is concerned. A "social trinitarianism" that is often indistinguishable from the Godhead as we understand it is increasingly popular.

[J. Whitebread @JWhitebread1]

I have mentioned this before but you can be a responsible critic of my faith. Fr. John Nehaus was no fan of the LDS faith and spoke sharply about it at times, but he did not resort to strawmen, and when he mischaracterized one of our beliefs, he was willing to be corrected. Where we differed in interpretation, he gave our side a fair hearing or steelmanned it before explaining why he thought it was wrong.

So far, here on X, most arguments against us are strawmen, falsehoods, misrepresentations, or slanders. And when you point that out, they accuse you of not knowing the "real" truth about your faith, or that you are duped, or are genuinely deceitful.

There can be no good faith argument if you start with misrepresentation and then call us liars when we try to correct you. Not bearing false witness against your neighbor is still a commandment, and even if you don't think we are Christians, we are still your neighbors.

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

@Mormonger @JustinPetersMin @BasedMikeLee

[Kay @jacelala]

I think I’m taking the Mormon’s side on this one

[Brad Witbeck @BradWitbeck]

This guy gets it.

[Melissa Redford Berezay 🇺🇸🪔 @MissRed_Roses]

For a religion that teaches that God cannot be measured, localized, or contained, they sure do get mad when you suggest He could have visited more than just Judea.

[Kai Schwemmer @KaiSchwemmer]

Hating on Mormons is safe edgy 🤷‍♂️

[Name cannot be blank @highlyinelastic]

@Mormonger @MikeWingerii

[Hank Smith @hankrsmith]

Being rejected by the Christians of the United States is not new. From Missouri to Illinois, government officials not only failed to protect our ancestors from persecution — they often joined in it. Saints were stripped of their rights, shot at, and expelled. Children were executed. Women were assaulted. Then, even after fleeing the country, that same government sent an army to follow their bloody footprints into the Rocky Mountains. Elected officials then continued to harass, malign, and threaten to confiscate the Church’s private property for decades.

Now it is 2026, and the pattern has not entirely disappeared. The same government seeks to define what we believe. Voices on social media — most of them professing Christians — declare openly that our faith is obviously fraudulent or started by demons. Given that history, no one should be surprised when we respond with a touch of passion.

[Clint Teeples @TeeplesCY]

Reagan is probably a better choice.

He had more Latter-day Saints on staff than any other president.

He toured the Church welfare program and said the idea behind it “should be reborn nation-wide.”

He gave the Tab Choir the nickname “America’s Choir.”

And he said this: