Misunderstanding about Donald Trump

If you have never had this misconception, then feel free to ignore this post. But I believe that many people think that Donald Trump is especially libertarian. If libertarian is taken to mean wanting a smaller government, then I don't think Trump is more libertarian than most the Republican candidates.

Trump is opposed to the people in the current government, not to the size of the current government.

From his website and comments, I can't see plans for reducing government debt or spending. 

I do believe that Trump represents some of the views of a lot of wonderful people, and they like him for representing their views.

However, if you're looking for someone who will hold to conservative principles, like conservative spending, Trump is not the one. On the other hand, while Rand Paul doesn't call himself a libertarian, he has made fixing the deficit a priority as a senator and in his presidential campaigning, so he might be a good option. Paul's website says, "We must cut spending in all areas, particularly areas that are better run by state and local governments." He has laid out a specific proposals which will reduce government spending and balance the budget. Obviously, nobody can be aware of how efficient each and every dollar is used, but from what I have seen, I really believe that cutting all parts of the federal budget and allowing a larger role for the private sector and more local governments would help society overall.

I am grateful for the liberty to share these views, and wish you the best in your quest to be informed and vote! Merry Christmas!

Relevant Washington Post article about Trump

Daily Gratitute

This season I am grateful for a wonderful weekend during which I saw many beautiful sites with my girlfriend. I hope to implement daily gratitude. Many people say that and don't follow through, but as a counter example to the sad thought that perhaps nobody is grateful daily-I give you my roommate's blog, updated daily with grateful thoughts: mydailygrateful.blogspot.com

A quick thought that I had first requires a simplifying (false) assumption. Let's assume that we understand and live the idea of being thankful and remembering Christ whether it is the holiday season or not. Then what makes this season different? Well, the rest of the world is remembering it too! So what could we do different? Perhaps we could invite people to serve with us or celebrate special things with us. I think that this season is a chance to create memories with people who see this season as a time to give and receive, and that might benefit them all year!

Politicians and Opportunity Costs

Some people say that the principle of opportunity costs is the only principle worth remembering from economics. The opportunity cost is the value of the best foregone alternative, it is the situation that is given up when we make a choice. If I need to choose between using my evening to do homework or write a blog or watch a movie, and doing homework seems best and the blog seems second best, then I will choose to do homework and give up writing a blog, making the blog the opportunity cost of doing homework; the movie doesn't tie in since it is neither my first nor second choice (I am actually rotating between homework and blog and my opportunity cost is giving full time to either one).

We minimize our opportunity costs by taking the best opportunity possible; inevitable we always miss opportunities, but by taking advantage of the best option, we minimize the opportunities that we lose.

We do this on our own without realizing it, and without forceful government help. Of course we choose the option that seems to bring us the greatest benefit with the lowest cost. This is part of why I think the government should be small, and does not need to decide whether people should be welders or philosophers, for example.

Sometimes mentioning opportunity costs is painful because of our tendency to want to have everything and give up nothing.

Rand Paul asked Marco Rubio about how his pro-family tax plan creates a trillion dollar deficit. Rather than saying something like "Well, I think it is worth that cost," Rubio changed topics and called Paul an isolationist.

This is also why I have rarely heard of any costs whatsoever to having a large government or debt during democratic debates. One response that I heard from a candidate when asked about the opportunity cost of a certain liberal policy was "you sound like a republican!" rather than talking about opportunity costs.

Don't get me wrong, more and more I am feeling that we have good candidates who obviously know more about politics work better than me and won't change much in our inspired constitutional system. Perhaps congress is who we should expect to rein in spending. Also, I will quite possibly vote for Rubio, but anyway, I think it is good for voters to think about opportunity costs.

Double Your Benefits

Sometimes we have to decide whether to do something ourselves or help someone else to do it.

There are times when one person helps a second person to do some task and it brings benefits to both people, and sometimes even to some recipient of the second person's action, and so the benefits of our action are multiplied by not doing the task alone.

My boss is an example of multiplying benefits. I am an intern, and he makes it seem that what I am doing is valuable to the firm. But there are times when I realize that he could do something better than I could, and he lets me do it just so I can learn and then leave with those skills in a few months. I believe that he receives joy from giving me the chance, I receive joy from learning, and despite my trouble in accomplishing tasks, the firm stays in business.

On my mission in Guatemala, one of the most exhilarating moments of my life happened by seeing somebody else do the work that I normally did. My friend had been baptized and was striving to live the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One evening, we stopped by the home of my friend's parents and happened to find my friend there too (he had moved out by then). His family agreed to listen to a message from us; we all sang a song that my friend chose, said a prayer, my missionary companion and I shared a few words, and then the best part came as my friend bore his testimony and expressed his desire that his family be baptized. I couldn't believe how much better it was to hear him pass on an invitation that he had once received rather than invite by ourselves.

Referring to Jesus Christ, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said, "As we emulate His perfect example, our hands can become His hands; our eyes, His eyes; our heart, His heart. . . He not only taught but also showed us how to 'succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.'"

Government Budget

I do not think that the United States will suddenly explode if we let the national debt continue to grow, but I do think that there will be less economic progress.

Specifically, in 2014 $271 billion were spent on interest payments to those holding US debt. That is $271 billion dollars that wouldn't need to be gathered through taxing and more loans if we had balanced budgets.

I think this especially hurts those who don't invest, since they don't hold government bonds and hence don't receive any of those payments. This can hurt liberty and innovation.

In case thinking about the regular effects of the national debt is not convincing, in the light of Halloween we will look at some scary situations : )

Debt is a long-term spending commitment, and the US may find it difficult to adjust should there be an emergency and sudden need for increased funds. The US has been able to quickly increase its debt during previous wars.

If you believe in Keynesian economics,  it is nice to run some surpluses so that running a deficit (selling bonds so that the government can spend a lot one year) can be used to pull out of the occasional recession.

Greece is an example of letting deficits get out of control. A New York Times article today discussed how Greece is being forced to implement austere (strictly low-spending and high taxes) policies by other nations that have been bailing them out. This has led to low morale in the country.

Senator Mike Lee has supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This would require our two-year budgets to have at least as much tax revenue as spending, allowing congressmen to bring deficit budgets to the court; two-thirds of both houses of congress would be needed to raise taxes or run a deficit. I believe that such a structural change is necessary. For some reason, it is hard for politicians to cut specific programs even though they would like government spending to decrease. Bills with higher spending than revenue, like the one passed in the Senate yesterday, would come to be unacceptable and a balanced budget would become the norm, we hope : )

First Amendment Defense Act

The "First Amendment Center" starts the First Amendment timeline in 1215, when some revolting noblemen established that the king had to respect certain rights, of noble and ordinary Englishmen. In 1689 John Locke wrote his Letter Concerning Toleration, stating that "all Men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion."

I believe that these basic ideas began to be lived and led to a lot of love in the world, because tolerating itself can be a loving act and because it allowed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be more freely spread to those who want it.

Laws in the Constitution could theoretically ensure that the government respects this right, but a counterexample is the 15th Amendment about voting for all races, which was passed in 1870 but was not fully realized until Congress passed some relevant voting legislation in 1965.

Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Raul Labrador introduced The First Amendment Defense Act which would "prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

I don't understand all the details, but I do believe that energy and resources should be put into upholding the first amendment. I believe that protecting the freedom for religious people who believe in marriage between a man and a woman is necessary to allowing a continually progressing society. Freedom, respect and love for same-sex couples will continue without using the federal government to harm those who do not condone same-sex marriage.

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will do more than anything else to promote tolerance, creativity, and love in our society, and religious freedom is necessary for the spreading of these gospel principles.

Niches

In order to raise profits, companies try to look for a "niche." A niche is like a small monopoly that a company achieves over some small aspect of a product. For example, most Wendy's products are pretty comparable to any other fast food items. However, they might have some market power (monopoly power)  in the small bacon cheeseburger market. Their exceptional Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger gives them a niche within the fast food industry. You could also say that they have a niche/monopoly on 24-hour service or frosties. Since they are the only ones producing such a service, they might be able to raise prices on people, and people that really want their special product do not have other options.

Despite the possibility of heightened prices, people can still buy the standard products for a competitive price, and so it is beneficial for companies to look for these niches because it creates a greater variety of products.

I have seen in myself and in others the desire to have unique qualities. This greatly contributes to the beautiful variety that we see in the world. I believe that it is great to look for our own niches (unique qualities) as long as we are non-monopolistic and share our gifts freely.

Our unique gifts "are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them" (Moroni 10:8). "If their talents are used to build the kingdom of God and serve others, they will fully enjoy the promises of the Savior" (James E. Faust).

I hope we can find and use our unique gifts and talents!

Why I Believe

Recently, I had an experience that made me reflect upon why I believe in God. While teaching a girl from China, two missionaries asked me to share why I believe in God. I mumbled something, but could certainly clarify my thoughts on the topic, which I have tried to do with this post.

One reason that I believe in God is that I believe that the Book of Mormon, which testifies of Him, is true. I don't believe that Joseph Smith could have come up with such a book on his own. The logical part of my brain tells me that such a book, with principles that have been proven true in my life, and with stories and sermons that are so complex and yet simply beautiful, such a book was not conceived by an uneducated 19th century boy.

But as convincing as the Book of Mormon is to me, I can say little from an unbiased scientific point of view, because I want this book, which teaches that God exists, to be true. In my econometrics classes I learned that we shouldn't be trying to get the data to say what we want it to say; we are simply looking at what it says and seeing if it's interesting.

But my search for spiritual truth is not objective, it is subjective. I want my reason for and result of searching to be because God loves me and I love Him. My desires are an important part of my spiritual journey, not just sideline variables to be controlled for.

Perhaps this is why the Savior told Thomas, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." I think that I can more fully show my love for God when I follow Him without cold hard evidence of His existence.

My love for God is sometimes inconsistent, and so I am grateful for the ways that He helps me to keep believing. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have made covenants or commitments with God. So even when my faith seems weak, I remember that I "no longer stand on neutral ground. [My] faith will grow not by chance, but by choice." (Elder Anderson)

And so another reason that I believe is that I want to. Circular reasoning? Perhaps, but if achieving my greatest hopes requires moving beyond what my logical mind can understand at this time, that is okay with me.

I have also seen blessings from belief. I have never been happy about a decision made contrary to my belief in God, and I have never regretted a decision made in accordance with that belief. Living and sharing the gospel makes life rich. So I plan to go right on believing and loving forever.

Anti-government?

Is an anti-government sentiment beneficial? If by 'government' we mean the social compact that we have in society, or the organization that represents our common interests, then it seems a little silly to be anti-government.

For example, I recently started living in a situation where 'government' (community organization) plays a larger role. I am part of an internship program where we live, study, eat, discuss politics and play together. We share utensils and I personally am a fan of making as many ingredients part of the public domain as possible. Admittedly our dish towels can get pretty gross before someone gets around to washing them, and I do no better than the next person on that, but the happy community feeling and sharing efficiencies that we have outweigh the costs.

But 'government' often refers to the sovereign entity (sovereign=has final say) in a certain geographical area. That is what I mean by 'government' from now on. This type of government has a few key differences. The biggest one is that it uses force.

It's true that a club or church or company can exert social pressure, or even deny membership to those who violate certain rules. But avoiding those rules by opting out of those organizations does not require changing location, whereas fully escaping a national government's laws by emigrating can be quite costly, and sometimes nigh impossible unfortunately (see my Wall blog post).

The lack of ability to opt out is also what allows government programs to continue whether they are efficient or not. A well-working election system can theoretically fix these issues, but I think that a customer choosing to leave a company is a clearer and less complicated signal.

This inescapability is the reason our liberty is especially threatened by government.

In many ways, personal liberty is the absence of being forced from the outside. Thus, as the size of government increases, liberty decreases. An exception (hence the reason we want a government) could be when there are other outside forces (burglars, invading countries etc.) who would take away more liberty than the government, and are stopped by certain policies that the government upholds.

So perhaps a little anti-government sentiment is necessary to remembering government's threat to our liberty. Although I think the ideal is keeping government small while not hating on those who strive for the public good : )

Freedom Is Not Free

I had a wonderful tour guide in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. He was passionate about George Washington and about his Christian faith.

He talked about Washington's character; several times Washington had the opportunity to take over the government, and I imagine he would have been a benevolent ruler, but instead he allowed an even better plan to be installed by some other wise men.

Maintaining liberty is more than just having elections. As our government was being formed, people had to decide which powers to give to the government, because an overly powerful leader, though elected, might take away liberty. A concerned citizen during that time said "when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers, and interested in his re-election, [you may know] in what circles appointments will be made; by which means an imperfect aristocracy bordering on monarchy may be established." In other words, an elected president with too much power might choose to give government positions to all his friends and become like a monarch.

If the elected person makes all the decisions, then it will not be too hard to figure out a way to stay in power. Although I become frustrated by the fighting between different government entities, I'm grateful that those different structures keep an eye on each other, especially since it's hard for me to know what things are going wrong.

Back to my tour guide, he connected this political idea to Jesus Christ. Freedom from sin is not free. I know that, when left unattended to, my sins and weaknesses would stop me from progressing. I believe that the wonderful people that I meet have become wonderful, despite their imperfections, because of strength from Christ's Atonement. We are also freed from the bands of death; I believe this because God's prophets have taught it.

A lot of people think of the phrase "there is no such thing as a free lunch" when they think of economics. But I had a free lunch more than once just this week. And the Book of Mormon says "the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free." Indeed, to me lunch was free, and to us the Resurrection and the path to salvation is free, but that doesn't mean that nobody paid. The economic principle is meant to explain opportunity costs; when we choose something we are inevitably giving up something else. But many things were decided and paid for by others and yet they continue to bless us.

I am grateful that the founding generation was willing to give up some comfort to fight for our lasting political freedom, and I am grateful that the Savior sacrificed His life for our spiritual freedom so that we may have everlasting life.

Mr. President Don't Build This Wall

I went to the Constitution Center in Philadelphia this weekend and heard Ronald Reagan's famous statement "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall." Now I know that it's a very different context, but nonetheless hearing that really got me thinking about how harmful it would be to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, and more generally about the benefits of legalizing all the immigrants that want to come.

My Immigration post explains the purchasing power benefits of easier immigrant legalization. Now I'm going to look at some potential political benefits of allowing immigrants.

Competition! I sort of hate being such a competition lover, since I so dislike it on a personal level. But here is an example of when it's beneficial: If a restaurant has terrible food, we can simply switch to another restaurant. In that way, the restaurants that give you the most bang for your buck continue and the others go away. Otherwise, the world could continue with restaurants that nobody really likes. Or think of the labor market; without competition, employees could be stuck with terrible employers for life, because there is no competing alternative employer. These situations probably pale in comparison to being stuck in, say Syria, as an unwanted minority.

When there are high barriers between countries, a country's government has a monopoly over its people; there is no competing alternative place to live. The government those citizens are born to is the only government from which they can hope to receive protection of their rights. Monopolies lower production; in the case of countries, a government can treat its people worse and still exact what it will from the people, at least until the people decide to stop 'buying' and revolt against their government.

Perhaps governments would try harder to make people happy if they knew that those people can leave if they aren't happy. Of course, becoming a migrant is rough, so fortunately people will try to improve their home community before leaving, but what a blessing it would be to oppressed people to be able to leave oppressive situations.

I learned about another example of the importance of accepting immigrants at the Holocaust Museum. There was a window right before the start of WWII during which the German Jews could have emigrated, but most countries (the U.S included) refused to receive so many immigrants.

Rather than imposing democracy abroad, perhaps a more gentle and effective way to help foreign people is to allow them freer movement between countries. With Mexico, our policies might be different if we think about the welfare of not only the Mexicans that are coming, but of those that are staying in Mexico as well. Most immigrants come just to work and live, but let's address the concern that many criminals come in from Mexico. Is there that big of a difference between having a criminal among U.S. citizens and having one among Mexican citizens? Adam Smith points out that one benefit of self-interest (looking after our own citizens first) is that we know our own immediate circumstances better than we know the circumstances of people far away. But I believe that having an open and positive relationship with Mexico is in our own interest; it leads to better trade, a richer culture, greater international peace, and on a personal note, I love associating with the immigrants that I know. Since my mission to Guatemala, I take every chance I can to chat with people who are native Spanish speakers, and many of them are immigrants who are grateful to be here.

Freer movement will allow happiness-seeking individuals to go to the country where they have the greatest chance of success.

Families Are Efficient

Elder L. Tom Perry, a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made an insightful statement about families in his last talk given, shortly before he passed away. "No one has ever come up with a more efficient way to raise the next generation than a household of married parents with children." April 2015

My sister and I have talked about how this can be true on a very literal level. She got married about a year ago and has noticed that home-cooked meals for just two people involve a lot of leftovers that can get boring. And as a single college student, it's so much work per person (me) to make a good meal that I do my best eating at restaurants. However, home cooking experiences economies of scale. As you cook for more people, the cost (of time and supplies) per person increases more slowly than the benefits per person, especially with the benefits of warm-hearted giving and receiving among family members.

Another way that families are efficient is that they don't have as much of the principal-agent issue. That issue arises when the principal or owner has one goal, but the agent or employee has another goal. For example, the owner of a restaurant wants to cut costs and get people to come back and refer friends. A waiter may just want a good tip. This could lead to the waiter giving too many free items to customers to cover for mistakes, while blaming other people in the restaurant for problems in the orders. On the other hand, parents usually love their child more than any other mortal, and they are also the ones who make decisions about how to raise their child; there isn't any gap there. Conversely when schools are trusted to raise a child, the school employees are more likely to worry about test scores and miss the principal goal of raising a happy child that becomes a happy adult.

A third way in which families are efficient is through synergy. With a mother and father who complement each other, the accomplishments of the pair exceed the sum of what they could accomplish separately. In my home growing up, I admit that sometimes it was fun when both my parent were out of town for a weekend so that we could order pizza and do whatever we wanted for a bit. But I never liked it when just one parent was gone; their personalities complemented each other's well. I am grateful for a home that created a great balance of play, work, relaxing, learning, silliness, chatting and spirituality.

I don't have 90 years of experience like Elder Perry, but I have also felt that "the family is the center of life and is the key to eternal happiness."

another blog

Free market not working!?

Well, I am stumped. Despite my usual libertarian ways, I can't really think of a good reason for why I am happy that the Smithsonian museums are free. By "libertarian" I mean keeping government as small as possible while not letting the market fall apart. This means that government will simply enforce laws and such so that private citizens can carry on life peacefully. But the Smithsonian received $819.5 million of federal government money for 2015, and that isn't necessary to keep the market going. So my positive feelings leave me wondering what I could learn from this apparent contradiction in my beliefs.

It could be that I am simply self-interested and happy that since I am in D.C. I receive the benefits of that money that people all over the U.S. are contributing. Or perhaps it is that I don't think that the on average $7 per tax payer really bothers anybody, and most of those people would be happy to donate that much money to such a good cause anyway.

It could also be that there is a positive externality involved, but I am struggling to see the third party that benefits. I bumped into a nice local man who said that he hits up all the museums, and I think that he receives most of the benefit, but perhaps it makes him more jolly and a blessing to those around him, although that logic could be applied to a lot of markets.

I suppose, however, that if museums were run privately with fees and/or donations then museums could be run even more amazingly, so I certainly won't throw the free-market philosophy out the window.

Perhaps what can be learned is that economic theory does not answer all of life's questions immediately. Or that I don't fully understand economic theory. Okay fine, both of those things are certainly true. As things are currently, I am quite happy, and will try to just feel grateful : )

Scriptures about not understanding: 2 Nephi 28:30 we learn a little at a time, James 1:5 ask God
Scriptures about being grateful: Psalms 26:7 wondrous works, D&C 136:28 dance!

Do the means matter more than the end?

Sometimes the means (or methods) matter and sometimes not. In economics, we see that elasticity of demand (how willing people are to give up buying something) is almost never zero. That means that when the price of a product goes up, people almost always reduce how much they purchase. The reduction in the amount purchased happens as they substitute; they replace that product with something else. In that sense people have some goal (a healthy diet, vacation, etc.) but they don't see one particular product as completely necessary to achieving that goal; they're willing to buy something that comes at a lower price.

One situation that involves substitution is when your family has the goal of doing wholesome recreational activities to maintain healthy relationships. So say you really like hiking in the mountains while your family lives in Utah. If your family moves to Miami then hiking in the mountains becomes excessively costly; it takes too much time to get to any mountains. The time, love for each other, and desire to be together continues and the mountains weren't ever really the important part of the recreational activity, as awesome as mountains are.

Another example of substituting one method for another is with sharing the gospel; time and resources can be used in an organizationally focused way, or more individually with small acts of kindness. A faith promoting website has the cost of lacking a personal feeling, whereas sitting down to chat with a friend costs more time per person. Both ways of using our limited resources have benefits, and I think it's worth it to strive for the most productive balance.

Of course, we don't want to go crazy with means that are inherently wrong, or when the cost of using those means exceeds the benefit.

Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We will never have peace in the world until men everywhere recognize that ends are not cut off from the means, because the means represent the idea in the making, and the end in process, and ultimately you cannot reach good ends through evil means, because the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree."¹

Substituting is something that we do when it allows us to achieve our goals in a less costly way. So I suppose that within our standards, substituting is wise : )

---

1  MLK, "A Christmas Sermon on Peace". You can also look at an interesting explanation of good fruit implying a good seed in Alma 32:28-36 from the Book of Mormon or Matthew 7:15-20. ^↩