Paul Krugman wisely reminds us that:
The odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.
Yes, a terrifying prospect — and an excellent reason to limit the powers of ruling parties, though Paul never seems to notice this.
This worship of science, let alone equating it to knowledge, is not only ridiculous, but it started to really grate in the last few years. I know that my wife loves me, even though there’s nothing scientific about that; I don’t know that black holes exist – I actually find the idea ridiculous – but it’s a “scientific fact”.
For a philosopher, I’m afraid you accept too many things just because some authority figure claims them…
[I do agree with you on your politics, btw, which is why I don’t comment on that part.]
Is there a rigorous argument why the libertarian view of government is “less powerful”? It seems that any philosophy of government requires power in order to enforce it.
If a progressive government takes $1,000 from a millionaire and gives it to a poor person, that’s cited as an example of government “power”. But in a libertarian government, the government would still have the “power” to prevent the poor from taking the $1,000 from the millionaire (or to prevent the poor from doing something equivalent like camping out on the millionaire’s property). A libertarian could argue that government power used in order to enforce property rights doesn’t “count”. But I could just as easily say that use of power to enforce a right to health care or education doesn’t count.
What makes a libertarian government less “powerful”, unless you just define “powerful” to exclude enforcement of libertarian ideals?
Steve, how would global warming and any other “tragedy of the commons” be tackled if the powers of the government are limited? Taxation is one way of defining property rights, assigning property rights is another, but I don’t really see third option? I am not familiar with Ostrom & Williamson’s work, so perhaps there is something there?
Don’t get me wrong, I do understand that government is not the sole form of governance, but it is easy to use in these circumstances. And why would other forms of governance succeed there where government now does not?
I’ve had discussions online with people arguing for an extreme version of libertarianism or anarchic capitalism. They don’t have a good answer for the problem of externalities, and the question “is the mitigation of externalities worth the cost of government” is not even one they bother to raise.
Some people demand gun control … they fear that a small percentage of guns from law-abiding people will fall into the hands of evil people. The same people DON’T demand government control, even though they know it’s virtually inevitable that the ENTIRE apparatus of government will fall into the hands of the “evil” party.
It sounds like they’re being inconsistent. Really, though, I think they’re just not being honest. For instance, I’d bet you that if you looked inside Paul Krugman’s brain, you’d find he’s not even close to being “terrified” about the possibility of a supposed “anti-knowledge” US government. It’s just something he’s saying out of a desire to express moral outrage.
Martin:
Steve, how would global warming and any other “tragedy of the commons” be tackled if the powers of the government are limited?
Our own limited government tackles such problems all the time, with varying degrees of success. There are good reasons to expand the powers of that government and good reasons to limit them further. I pointed to one of the latter.
Mike H:
the question “is the mitigation of externalities worth the cost of government” is not even one they bother to raise.
They don’t have a good answer for the problem of externalities, and the question “is the mitigation of externalities worth the cost of government” is not even one they bother to raise.
This is, of course, an important question to address. But an equally important question is: “Is that really the trade-off?”, i.e. is there any reason to think that governments care very much about the mitigation of externalities? The fact, for example, that we have an Environmental Protection Agency that nominally exists solely to mitigate externalities, but is instead used primarily as the enforcement arm of a protection racket, might give a reasonable person cause to say that mitigatiing externalities is not one of the things that governments, in practice, do very much.
Bennett Haselton:
What makes a libertarian government less “powerful”, unless you just define “powerful” to exclude enforcement of libertarian ideals?
Surely some governments have more limited powers than others. If Govt A is empowered to enforce the wealth distribution of its choice, while Govt B is empowered to enforce only the status quo, then I think that by any reasonable definition, the powers of Govt B are more limited than those of Govt A.
Phil:
I’d bet you that if you looked inside Paul Krugman’s brain, you’d find he’s not even close to being “terrified” about the possibility of a supposed “anti-knowledge” US government. It’s just something he’s saying out of a desire to express moral outrage.
A superb observation, and one very much in the spirit of ##tbq (the book, not the blog), where I offer a lot of reasons to believe that people don’t believe much of what they say. I wish very much that I’d thought of blogging this, but am most grateful that you were quicker than I.
You think you have problems? I live in Denmark. Among the highest tax rates in the world. And that’s under the “right wing” rule. Soon there is an election and the left side will win.
Somehow, everyone here thinks they understand economics. At the same time, almost noone understands that taxation can slow the growth of the economy. People just think it’s a question of distribution, and if you don’t want the less well-off to have more, you are viewed as a bad person. The idea that everyone can benifit from overall growth in the country, is mostly viewed as false, with reference to the American system, and the idea of trickle-down economics.
Krugman doesn’t even make any sense. Para. 5 says that there is a consensus on global warming, and para. 6 says that there is not. Para. 3 accuses Perry of saying that there are scientists who speak out against global warming ideas, and para. 8 accuses him of saying that those scientists are keeping a code of silence. How can Krugman believe what he says, when he says such contradictory things?
@Marcel Popescu, science is the single biggest driver of economic growth. Economic growth primarily stems from improvements in productivity, which in turn largely derive from scientific improvements. As a simple example, take the smart phone, which are based on a number of technological innovations: flash memory, wireless communications, touch screen technology, digital compression, etc. The anti-science bent of some of the GOP has the potential to greatly hurt U.S. competitiveness.
Roger Schlafly: Good catches!
What’s the biggest killer in history? Contagious disease. And what percentage of the US’s population died of contagious disease last year?
Privilege is the capacity to drive on a smooth road without feeling the lack of bumps; to sleep through the night without hearing the lack of gunfire; to breathe the air without tasting the lack of soot. Perhaps governments don’t really mitigate externalities. Or perhaps they‘ve done it so well that privileged people can live in ignorance, taking hard-won endogenous results and treating them as exogenous factors in their analyses. Hey, who knows?
Are you worried that the GOP is going to ban cell phones out of some disbelief in the science behind them? Do you have any example of such an anti-science bent? OTOH, the American economy is hurt by Democrat anti-science beliefs on subjects like nuclear power.
@Roger Schafly, no, I’m not worried about the GOP banning cell phones. But basic science leads to innovation and growth, and antipathy to science may limit future growth. As a more specific example, Rick Perry’s views against evolution and for intelligent design have led to a reduced emphasis on the teaching of evolution in Texas schools. As evolution is the foundation of all biology, a diminishment of evolution education reduces the ability of Texas students to progress in the field of biology.
While Perry’s views are not likely to have much effect in the immediate future, a broad reduction in evolution education in this country could reduce our ability to compete in biotech, and reduce our ability to make improvements in health care and advance in treatment of disease, such as cancer.
More broadly, antiscience leads to a distrust of science and the scientific process. The U.S. is the country that invented the laser, the atomic bomb, the integrated curcuit, the typewriter, etc. All of which were based to a greater or lesser degree on science, and antiscience has the potential to reduce our ability to innovate.
Roger Schlafly – Thanks for the catches on Krugman. It seems the few columns I have read of his contain such sloppy incoherence. Stuff that should never make it past an editor. Stuff that my composition teachers in high school would have busted me on.
For that reason alone, I don’t read him much. I find it frustrating that he garners so much attention from all sides, but is usually granted a pass on his incoherence. I noticed this emperor had no clothes long ago, but few seem to want to come to grips with that.
nobody.really:
Privilege is the capacity to drive on a smooth road without feeling the lack of bumps; to sleep through the night without hearing the lack of gunfire; to breathe the air without tasting the lack of soot. Perhaps governments don’t really mitigate externalities. Or perhaps they‘ve done it so well that privileged people can live in ignorance, taking hard-won endogenous results and treating them as exogenous factors in their analyses. Hey, who knows?
Points extremely well taken.
Roger Schlafly:
Are you worried that the GOP is going to ban cell phones out of some disbelief in the science behind them? Do you have any example of such an anti-science bent? OTOH, the American economy is hurt by Democrat anti-science beliefs on subjects like nuclear power.
I do agree that anti-intellectualism runs rampant in both parties. I suppose the natural response to “Are you worried the GOP is going to ban cellphones?” might be “No, but I am worried they are going to ban stem cell research.” But this, I think, is an overblown concern. The scientific world is a big place, and if the US makes it harder to do basic research in some specific area, then research in that area will simply move to another part of the world, where Americans can continue to take advantage of it. It really doesnt matter where the basic breakthroughs are made.
Roger Schlafly:
Paragraph 5 says there is a “consensus about man-made global warming”, which should be taken to mean that there is a consensus that global warming is at least partly man-made. This is not contradictory with paragraph 6.
The accusation in paragraph 8 is about Perry’s theory about that scientists are just in it for the money and manipulating data. The accusation in paragraph 3 is about Perry’s claim that scientists are coming forward and questioning man-made global warming. It is not Krugman’s fault if Perry has stated both of these somewhat contradictory claims.
Jonatan:
Paragraph 5 talks about an increasingly strong consensus. Paragraph 6 talks about claims that were recently considered outlandish now starting to seem mainstream, which suggests increasing disagreement (unless the entire mainstream has suddenly embraced the previously outlandish claims, in which case we have not a growing consensus, but at best a sudden jump from one consensus to a radically different one). Either way, I think Roger’s point stands.
I don’t think Krugman is expressing himself very clearly. But paragraph 5 is meant to read:
– There is a consensus of 97-98% that a (or the) cause of global warming is man-made.
Paragraph 6 says:
– There is disagreement about the actual amount of warming.
So as long as people don’t evaluate the amount of warming to 0, the paragraph 5 statement will still be true.
Ehm, to 0, not to some variable called “o”. :)
zero!
Jonatan, people are often considered climate deniers if they only say that global warming is at least partly man-made. I would not be complaining if Krugman said, “there is a consensus that CO2 emissions will probably raise temperatures at least 2 degrees in the next century and some say it could be a lot worse.” What he said was that there is a “consensus about man-made global warming” and that there is a big dispute about the “likely amount of warming”. Those two things cannot be both true.
Where does Perry say that there is a conspiracy theory or a code of silence? He talks about global warming scientists who are skeptics, and some of them do openly make accusations of manipulating data. So Perry is consistent, not Krugman.
> Schlafly
As I said above, you should read “consensus about man-made global warming” as “there is a consensus that global warming is at least partly man-made”. It is admittedly not a very clear way that he says this, which is because he gets it from a quote in the previous paragraph.
Apparently Perry talks in his book about global warming science, and makes accusations which according to Krugman would require “a conspiracy theory or a code of silence”. I have not read the book, so I don’t know if this is correct, but I see not particular reason to doubt it.
Thanks, Jonatan, for your instructions on how I should read Krugman to say something other than what he said in his column. Maybe you have no reason to doubt to doubt that he accurately describes a Republican’s views, but I do. I have never seen him accurately describe a Republican’s views. His column is garbage. Either he does not understand what he is saying, or he is lying about Perry.
He does say that in his coloumn though. It is a carry-over from paragraph 3, where it says: “(…) the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
Thus, paragraph 5 with implications is: “the scientific consensus about [that] man-made global warming [is what is causing the climate to change].”
I have no strong feelings about the party division that seems to permeate your American discourse. I just don’t think we should go and accuse people of coming with false statements, where they didn’t mean to do state this, and were at most expressing themselves with imprecise language. He is on a limited word count for the coloumn I assume.
Jonatan, you have put your finger on what is so offensive about Krugman’s column. The whole point of the column is to accuse Perry and other Republicans of making false and vile statements about science. But, as you say, Perry’s statements are imprecise, at worst. Krugman is enough of a scholar to explain how he interprets Perry’s statements, and explain what is wrong. But he does not. Instead, he engages in name-calling and in issuing statements that are much more confusing than Perry’s.
I would think that the most terrifying prospect would be a country with the world’s most advanced automated, mechanical, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons being run by a leaders that think:
– The apocalypse is near.
– A massive Chinese led invasion of the Middle East from the “east”, which will then be “joined” as the armies of the Antichrist march out of Europe and around the world to the place called “Armageddon.” Jesus will return to engage this final battle Himself. http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%2016%20The%20Coming%20Apocalypse.html
Fortunately, the only way this could possibly happen is for a dominionist Christian (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html) to be nominated to run against an extremely unpopular president in an economy that is so shaky that the stock market could drop by 10-20% at some point just before the election.
Re : “is there any reason to think that governments care very much about the mitigation of externalities?”
Good point. However, I would ask :
* who else, if not government, can act to mitigate externalities?
* this being so, can’t the failure of a particular government (or system of government) to mitigate externalities be factored into the accounting of the cost of that government (or system of government)?
@Al. V – Ah, now that you’ve enlightened me I can see that I was wrong. Thank you, oh Guru!
With less sarcasm: science is what proves airplanes can’t fly. What you’re admiring is engineering. No, engineering is NOT driven by science, despite what the propagandists claims. Engineering is usually driven by need, and inventors are rarely, if ever, fully familiarized with the latest scientific theories.
Don’t believe me? Look up the patents on whatever gadget tickles your fancy – the cell phone you used as an example. Name three scientific papers that have been referenced.
I could go on, but scientism is an incredibly powerful delusion and I have very little patience with other people’s beliefs.
@Mike H – A framework needs to be set up to avoid mistakes (I believe that that guy looking at me gave me a headache), but it doesn’t have to be a government-run framework.
> Marcel Popescu
That is one of the most unusual strong viewpoints I have heard.
Science doesn’t “prove that airplanes can’t fly”. I don’t know exactly how it works being an aviation engineer, but I’m sure they’re basing their work on knowledge researched by scientists.
Too roundabout for you I suppose. What about diseases? Smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, malaria, yellow fever, gangrene, pneumonia, polio, etc etc. You can read about how the cures were directly invented by scientists.
Anyway, no matter how clear an argument is made about science, I can see that you mind is thoroughly made up. So there’s no reason to continue discussing it.
I could be wrong, but New Scientist seems to agree…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13556-10-impossibilities-conquered-by-science.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt15_p
“The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known.”
I seldom argue from ignorance.
“I don’t know exactly how it works being [sic] an aviation engineer, but I’m sure they’re basing their work on knowledge researched by scientists.”
This, on the other hand, is a very good example of it. You believe it BECAUSE you don’t know how it works. You’re in fact SURE of something… you admit you have no clue about. (I assume you meant “NOT being an aviation engineer”, otherwise it’s worse.)
“Anyway, no matter how clear an argument is made about science, I can see that you mind is thoroughly made up. So there’s no reason to continue discussing it.”
Hilarious. Pot, kettle, black?
Some people saying some things is not the same as a scientific proof. This is in fact the essence of science.
A film version of Pride & Prejudice features a fun exchange along these lines:
Alas, this exchange does not appear in the text of the novel.
@ Marcel Popescu:
I don’t think it is a stretch to state that for a field to be called a science, its study needs to employ the scientific method:
Characterizations
Hypothesis development
Predictions from the hypothesis
Experiments
Evaluation and improvement
Confirmation
It is hard for me not to equate this method with knowledge.
Also, I don’t find it easy to believe in black holes, but I’m not sure I would call the existence of black holes a “scientific fact”.
Perhaps your issue isn’t with science it’s with people who don’t understand that science involves Evaluation, Improvement, and Confirmation given the tools available at a given time.
You say: “This worship of science, let alone equating it to knowledge, is not only ridiculous, but it started to really grate in the last few years”
To me, the loss of knowledge of the scientific method leads to the cult/worship/belief of science.
Sorry above I meant to say:
Also, I find it easy to believe in black holes, but I’m not sure I would call the existence of black holes a “scientific fact”.
@Will A – I generally agree with what you wrote, especially with “the loss of knowledge of the scientific method leads to the cult/worship/belief of science”. Unfortunately, I have a saying that started as tongue-in-cheek, but I gradually began to accept as true: “they’re called real scientists because they can only be found in books and movies”.
Basically, I objected to the implied claim behind this:
“… anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge…”
something that I find increasingly pushed as God’s own truth on the public. I do not object to the study of knowledge for knowledge’s sake; I object to the idea that someone who does that gains five priesthood levels compared to the mundanes. I admire the tinkerer who actually does something more than the thinker who speculates on it.
But I’m starting to take over someone else’s blog, so I’ll stop now :)
The leader of the Green Party of Canada says wifi is dangerous. They support homeopathy. The Green Party of Britain bought into the anti-vaccination hysteria, even long after it had been exposed. Anti-science is at least as rife on the left as the right. But in any event, doesn’t anti-sciencism on left AND right only STRENGTHEN Steve’s point?
This post (at least the way it started) reminded me of a Forbes article I once read by a chap named Landsburg on campaign finance reform, arguing simply (and persuasively) that the money was the symptom and the cause was the expanding power of politicians.
In my experience even most libertarians recognize that the govt has a role to play on the environment, e.g. due to “missing markets”. But it sure would make it easier to sort things out (particularly low-probability / high-severity things) if it didn’t always seem like the people most loudly endorsing an expanded state role in that area tend to support bigger govt in general (and vice-versa I suppose).
It does not actually logically follow that you should throw the baby out with the bath water. Nor is this line of argument convincing.
Why doesn’t Stephen Landsburg realize that since sometimes free markets sometimes cause harmful externalities that we should therefore abolish free markets?
For good reason, I think.
In general, arguments that you should throw out the baby with the bathwater are not likely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with you, whether you are arguing against free markets or whether you are arguing against government.
Ken B: Yes. The point was simply that any power we might be tempted to grant to “the good guys” may also someday be available to “the bad guys”, however we define them.
David Welker: So some “reasonable guys” may think that seems relevant to the question of whether our government should be more or less limited (and therefore our markets more or less free). “Throwing the baby out with the bathwater” seems a bit hyperbolic here. On the other hand, straw men should be discarded with all speed.
Obama has just overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers on one of its rulings.
So it looks like 2011 is the year that this great nation finds itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science. And the party is the Democrats.
It’s scary how Paul Krugman’s prediction came true so fast.
Note To Will A: I propose you apply the Scientific Method to Bible Prophecy to see if today’s current events are statistically insignificant, or just random noise in the annals of history, or if they are statistically significant and have not happened (or even could have happened) at any other time in history.
I have spent the past 30+ years working with large systems computers, robotics, artificial vision, and stereoscopic 3D technologies (and admittedly most of my life I didn’t take the Bible seriously, but, however, I do now.)
Now, back to the Scientific Method proposition (and challenge):
1. The Hypothesis” is: “The Generation Who Will See The Rapture, the Apocalypse, Armageddon, and Messiah’s Return Is Alive Today.”
2. Now to apply the Scientific Method “Gather Data” (by simply and diligently studying global Current Events and World News.
3. Learn what the Bible Prophecies actually say concerning the events we would see sometime soon after Israel would once again became a nation and around the time of the coming “Apocalypse” and “Armageddon.”
4. A good place to start is Alpha News Daily at http://www.alphanewsdaily.com (It provides a short Bible prophecy list with studies … and the World News headline archives go back 8 years.)
5. Now run a statistical analysis to see if the events we are seeing today are statistically significant and support the Hyptothesis or are insignificant and contradict the Hypothesis.
6. If you truly are scientific or engineering minded you should JUMP at the chance to apply the bedrock of Scientific inquiry (the Scientific Method) to something which you so obviously deny is true.
7. It would also be interesting to see your forecast or projection of the future and apply the same methodology to that.
8. A couple of interesting mathematical Bible prophecies include:
http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy1.html
http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy2.html
9. Do a little study on Sir Isaac Newton’s scientific credentials, yet he wrote:
“About the time of the end,
a body of men will be raised up
who will turn their attention
to the prophecies of the Bible
and insist on their literal interpretation
in the midst of much clamor
and opposition …”
– Sir Isaac Newton –
(1643 – 1727 A.D.)
10. However, after reading some of your comments and after having worked with scietists and engineers for over 30 years, I have to question whether or not your mind isn’t so hardened and narrow that you can even open it up to any honest scientific inquiry concerning ANYTHING you don’t agree with.
Also, if you take the time to do an honest study you will find the Bible contains “The History of The World … Written In Advance!”
GOD says …
“For I am God and there is no other.
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
and from ancient times
things that are not yet done …”
(Isaiah 46:9-10)
Grace and Shalom.
3DI:
If you want to apply the scientific method to Bible Prophecy then it would of course mean reading Revelations literally.
I’ll start applying the scientific method to Revelations when I see news reports of:
– A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (Revelations 12:1).
– A great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven crowns (Revelations 12:3).
Until then, I will continuing reading the Bible (and Revelations) to try to find out what God has to say to me and how I can help to bring his kingdom down to earth.
I do agree that there will be a religious conflict in America very soon 3DI. Right wing Christian such as yourself will raise your guns and try to use your power to kill/quarantine Atheists, Muslims, etc. Left wing Christians will try to get between your guns and your intended victims.
Will A: Sorry it’s taken a while to reply to your comment, but I had to attend (and present) at a technical conference. Per your comments, please note the following …
1. By calling it “Revelations” rather than the correct name “Revelation” (The “Revealing” translated “Apocalypse” in Greek) reflects a lack of study or knowledge concerning the Bible.
2. The Book of Revelation consists of 404 verses that contain over 800 allusions to the Old Testament (Tanakh) … which is why (until recently) the Book of Revelation was considered “kosher” by many Jewish rabbis.
3. Rather than throwing ones hands up in confused dismay concerning the “Woman and the Twelve Stars,” a diligent student and researcher could have discovered this “symbol” had already been interpreted for us way back in Genesis 37:9 (the “Woman” represents Israel and the “12 Stars” represent the 12 Tribes of Israel).
4. Most of the symbols found in the Book of Revelation had already been introduced and interpreted for us elsewhere in the Bible. The Book of Revelation is at the end of the Book (where all the answers are) … and like “Calculus”, God expects us to have studied and learned our additions and subtractions and algebra in earlier chapters.
5. In the Book of Daniel God reveals His plan for nation Israel (and the world) through a prophetic 70 “Weeks” (of years) which were “determined” for nation Israel, and we find there is still one final “Week” or 7 Year period (the “70th Week of Daniel”) which is yet unfulfilled.
6. The Book of Revelation expands this prophecy and provides us with the details of the events which will take place during this coming 7 Year period of time which will end with the Battle of Armageddon (which will take place in Israel). As noted earier, I suggest you apply the Scientific Method to determine if the generation who will see the fulfillment of these terrible prophecies is alive today. Simply gather data by learning what the Bible Prophecies say (and warn) we will see … and then carefully watch and gather information concerning Current Events and World News to determine their significance … http://www.alphanewsdaily.com might help … (for God has provided a shelter and “escape” from these things for all who will endure in faith.)
7. The Book of Revelation also provides a final warning to all those who will “refuse to listen” or will “harden their hearts” against God’s Word. Toward the end of the Book of Revelation, God places a spotlight on the “Great White Throne Judgment” which lies ahead for all who reject His Word and loving offer of everlasting life in Heaven by rejecting the One He sent forth to “save” us from the alternative. It’s well worth the time to study the prophecies describing the Messiah (translated “Christ” in English) which are found in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and were written hundreds of years before Jesus (Yeshua) was born … you can read a few of these remarkable prophecies at … http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Messiah1.html .
8. One who will take the time to actually study what the Bible says will discover our eternal destiny is determined by us. We can choose what we believe (for God has given us a free will to make our own decision). Our choice is whether or not we will place our trust and believe God’s Word in the Bible, or whether we decide to reject and ignore God’s Word of instructions and warning found in the Bible. For the Bible tells us our eternal destiny is simply determined on what (and Who) we place our faith, trust, (and love) in … and not on how “good” or “bad” we think we are or have been.
Grace and Shalom
Will A: I did not answer your “Red Dragon” issue in my earlier reply. Per your comment, please note the following …
1. The Bible provides the interpretation … and tells us the “Red Dragon” is Satan.
2. The Bible warns Satan will one day “indwell” a coming World Leader, called the “Antichrist.” The “Antichrist” can also be translated “Pseudo”-Christ or “Pseudo-Messiah”… (he has 33 different descriptive titles in both the Old and New Testaments.)
3. “10 Horns”: The Bible warns the coming “Antichrist” will rise and rule over 10 Nations (the “10 Horns”) which were once part of the Roman Empire. He will consolidate 3 Nations and then gain power over the 7 Nations (“7 Heads”) with “7 Crowns” (Leaders) … this Union of former Roman Empire nations (“weak mixed with strong”) will rise in great global power.
4. The Bible warns this coming world leader will “enforce” a peace plan (“covenant”) upon nation Israel. The Bible doesn’t say he wrote or negotiated this coming peace agreement, but warns he will “enforce” a peace agreement upon Israel. This enforced Peace Plan starts the clock on the 7 Year period sometimes called the “Apocalypse” (3.5 years/false peace + 3.5 years/Hell on Earth.) For Israel prophecies … http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%201%20Israel%20Jerusalem.html
5. We are warned this coming world leader will have a “Religious” Partner (called the “second Beast”) … they will enforce a global Religious System upon the world under a “peace” banner.
6. We are told this coming world leader (the Antichrist) will introduce a global “Monetary” System as part of an integrated Economic System (which will require all people bear an identification “mark” in order to buy or sell.) For more on the “Antichrist”… http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/antichrist.html
7. For a brief study and overview of the coming “Apocalypse” see … http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%2016%20The%20Coming%20Apocalypse.html
Grace and Shalom