Cloud Hosting

Dave Ramsey, a personal finance expert for Christians, came under fire last week. On his radio show The Ramsey Show he spent some time arguing that Christian landlords are not at fault if tenants become unable to afford rent:

Okay, I own rental property, single family homes, among many other properties that we own. And if I raised my rent to be market rate that does not make me a bad Christian. I did not displace the person out of that house if they can no longer afford it.

Many accused Ramsey of engaging in mental gymnastics to avoid his moral responsibility to his tenants:

As a Christian interested in economics, Ramseys comments and the surrounding controversy piqued my interest. Ive never been a Dave Ramsey follower. I wont get into particular disagreements I have, but, put simply, I dont believe his money management philosophy will lead to the best financial results for many. At the same time, I dont deny his program has been helpful to some.

But, disagreements on personal finance aside, is Ramsey right or wrong here? Are critics correct or are they reaching? As with most answers, some nuance is required here.

First, lets begin with what the critics have right. Even though changes in supply and demand lead to changes in market prices, individual business owners are free to charge different prices. An owner need not passively set prices where everyone else does.

Second, the Bible does tell Christians be charitable and help the poor. At this point it needs to be stated that the Bible, and the words of Jesus in particular, is often twisted when it comes to matters of money. But even with this in mind, its unambiguous that the Bible calls giving a righteous act. Consider 1 John 3:17 which says, But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

So are Christian landlords called to be charitable to their tenants? I think the answer is a pretty straightforward yes. In that sense, I believe some criticism of the above statement is warranted.

Its imaginable that a Christian landlord could be generous and keep prices lower than the market price to help the destitute. In fact, in the context of the full video, Ramsey does explain situations where hes made exceptions to help his tenants on a case-by-case basis. And there are likely many cases where this would be the loving thing to do.

At the same time, Ramseys statement about market forces cant be ignored. Consider a market for housing that experiences a sudden increase in demand. When demand increases for housing, people are willing to pay more for it. This drives the price of housing up and makes it more profitable to rent houses. But the story doesnt end here.

Those higher profits draw more suppliers into the housing market. When there are more people providing housing, the cost of providing housing goes up.

To see why, consider the cost of a landlord repairing an HVAC system. When the amount of landlords is relatively small, they dont have much competition hiring HVAC repairmen. In this case, the price is low.

When a larger quantity of rental suppliers (landlords) enter the housing market, however, there is more competition to hire contractors to come fix HVAC systems. With this increased competition, the price of HVAC repair is bid up. In other words, an increase in the demand for housing causes an increase in demand for contractors which increases the cost of being a landlord.

HVAC repair is only one example. All of the factors used in running a housing rental business increase in demand and price as more landlords enter. And so long as landlords can make a profit by entering the rental market, they will enter. This drives up costs until all the profits created by the increase in demand dry up. At the new, higher price, the economic profit tends to zero.

Notice what this means for a landlord who doesnt raise prices. If rental companies charging higher prices are tending toward zero profit, maintaining a lower price means tending toward a loss. The housing is being rented for the same price, but now the cost is higher. This means losses.

If a landlord had lower costs than competitors, the business may still be able to operate profitably. But the higher the market price goes relative to the price the landlord charges, the closer the landlord is to making a loss, everything else held constant.

The result of the logic is clear. If the price of housing goes up and a landlord chooses not to increase the rent, there is some point where they will start making a loss.

At this point critics may say, so what? After all, charity means you lose wealth right? I agree with this too. If we expected people to be materially better off from charity, wed all be giving to get rich quick.

But heres the final problem. Losses arent sustainable forever. If a landlord freezes rent today, and prices and costs continue to increase, at some point the landlord will go out of business.

And a Christian cant be generous with tenants if they dont have a business to produce wealth in the first place.

Heres where critics get into really weird territory. Christians involved in any kind of business can always be charitable to the point of going out of business. Christian grocery store? Give away all your food for free. Christian school? Hire the best teachers and don't charge any tuition. Christian landlord? Buy more houses and let people stay in them for free. If you arent out of money, you can always donate more.

This logical conclusion seems unambiguously bad. If Christian businesses are obligated to give until they go out of business, there wont be Christian businesses. And if there arent Christian businesses, there wont be any more charity from Christian businesses.

My claim isnt that Christian business-people should never be generous. As I already stated, I believe they should. But ignoring market forces entirely only guarantees there wont be Christian businesses.

This logic extends into our personal lives too. Once your LLC is out of business, you still have personal wealth to give away. And here we come to a final conclusion.

Unless your interpretation of the Bible is that you have to maintain zero worldly possessions, you recognize implicitly that some amount of charity in the present is imprudent, if for no other reason than it will prevent future charity or fulfillment of obligations (to family for example).

If your standard is never having earthly possessions, you have a consistent criticism of Ramsey, though Im unsure how youre reading this article without any possessions.

Charging below market price is effectively giving money to charity. You make a loss, and in exchange someone is better off. Christians can choose to do this. In many cases I believe we are called to. But perpetual losses mean you will run out of money. Market changes can be ignored, but their consequences cannot.

So if Christians are called to give, but they arent called to give everything in the immediate present, when are we called to give our wealth away and to whom? Should a landlord forgive the rent of a fourth tenant even if it means going out of business in a year and forsaking the other three getting a break? How much savings should landlords with family have on hand?

There isnt a flowchart to answer all these questions. The details of specific circumstances are where the answers lie. However, I think Christians are given a straightforward rule of thumb. Our security should be found in Christ, not in the things of this world. If the decision to not be charitable at a particular time is based on our desire for things of the world, our heart is in the wrong place.

If charity is forgone because Christians believe their resources can be better stewarded for the love of God and others elsewhere, we have a different story.

Its possible that Ramseys own philosophy is to give to charity mainly outside of his business. Should someone diminish their giving to one cause in order to be able to accept losses in their business? The less income you have, the less you can give, after all. Again, I think the answer here depends on the situation.

Im not sure if Ramsey does this or not. I dont know his finances. But this manner of giving isnt uncommon for capitalists in the US, as it lines up well with the fact that the US has been the most charitable country in the world for a decade now.

My guess is that, on balance, most Christians in and outside of business could be more generous. No one is without sin. But pretending like market forces are irrelevant to our decisions as stewards doesnt help others or our mission any more than ignoring the laws of physics helps our ability to aid someone whos falling out of a building.

Read this article:
Was Dave Ramsey Right or Wrong about the Responsibilities (or Lack Thereof) of Christian Capitalists? | Peter Jacobsen - Foundation for Economic...

On Wednesday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided new research showing that, during the recent Delta wave, individuals who had previously contracted COVID-19 had more protection against the virus than those who had been vaccinated.

Before the Delta variant, Covid-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection, CDC epidemiologist Benjamin Silk told the Wall Street Journal. When looking at the summer and fall of 2021, when Delta became predominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection.

Both vaccinated individuals and those who had recovered from the virus showed significant defense, scientists added. (The CDC released its findings to reporters, but its research was not yet available online as of Thursday morning.)

Previous research suggests receiving vaccination after a COVID infection can offer additional protection against the virus.

Recent research, the Mayo Clinic says, suggests that people who got COVID-19 in 2020 and then received mRNA vaccines produce very high levels of antibodies that are likely effective against current and, possibly, future variants. Some scientists call this hybrid immunity.

The findings are significant and dovetail with recent scientific research out of Israel that showed previous infection from COVID-19 conferred longer-lasting and more robust protection than vaccines against the Delta variant.

Following the Israel study, prominent scientists argued that the fact that natural immunity offered more protection than vaccines made mandatory vaccination unscientific and unethical.

Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical, wrote Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician.

The CDCs findings were released days after the Supreme Court ruled that President Joe Bidens vaccinate-or-test requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees was unconstitutional.

The high courts decision prompted some businesses, including Starbucks, to scrap their vaccine mandates for employees.

"We respect the Court's ruling and will comply," John Culver, COO and group president for North America at Starbucks, told employees on Tuesday.

Despite the protection offered by previous COVID infection, many public officials and countries have been reluctant to recognize natural immunity.

Novak Djokovic, the worlds top-ranked tennis player, recently had his visa seized by Australian authorities when he arrived (unvaccinated) to play in the Australian Open, even though he was initially granted a medical exemption because of a recent COVID infection. Meanwhile, Austrias conservative government recently announced it will make vaccination compulsory for adults, who will face steep finesup to 3600 eurosif they fail to comply, even if they have already had the virus.

In the United States, universities have been inclined to expel students not considered fully vaccinated, which in some cases reportedly includes students whove had multiple vaccine shots, have previously had COVID, and have received a medical exemption from a physician.

Recent evidence, however, suggests the reluctance to treat individuals whove had COVID as fully vaccinated may be waning. The NCAA, for example, recently announced in its winter guidelines that athletes who previously had COVID will be considered fully vaccinated if the infection took place within three months.

The CDCs announcement that previous infection offered more protection than vaccination against the Delta variant is likely to fuel calls to end vaccine mandates, particularly for individuals whove already been infected.

Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

Stanford Epidemiologist Says COVID Vaccination Is Primarily a Matter of Personal Health, Not Public Health

Stunning New Study Undercuts the Case for Vaccine Mandates

The Case for Vaccine MandatesRefuted

Why GoFundMe Deleted This Grieving Fathers Fundraiser After His Sons Death

Read the rest here:
CDC: Natural Immunity Offered Stronger Protection Against COVID Than Vaccines During Delta Wave | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education