I have just began readings Sylvia Nazar's "Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius" - the book that has been recently on many bestseller lists. What struck me from the very beginning is the emphasis from the very beginning that the development of the economics (meaning the economic theory) in the last two centuries has lifted the mankind from the poverty.
I have met this thesis previously and it seems to me rather controversial - after all, according to the World Bank most of the mankind still live in poverty (the poverty threshold is currently set at $1.25 a day, which is very different from what is considered "poverty" in the Western countries.) Ironically, most of the reviews of the book fail to notice this obvious problems, obviously assuming that it is of no interest to the rich Western audience. Indeed, even New York Times criticizes Ms. Nazar not for neglecting the rest of the World, but for being insufficiently attentive to the kinds of problems that have been experienced in the West - particularly the Great Depression and the recent economic crises.
Whether the economics can cure the poverty or whether it merely succeeds in providing high standard of living to "the more fortunate among us" (using the President's Obama language) remains to be seen.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The President's new budget
President Obama is about to submit to the Congress the new budget proposal, the key feature of which is higher taxes on "the rich":
"The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.
Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured."
My comments:
1. Regardless of whether one supports higher taxes or not, we are all aware that none of these tax proposals has a chance to be approved by the Congress. Hence, expect the next round of the government near-shutdowns, credit downgrade threats and so on. At best this is simple politicking, at worst - political extremism.
2. Pay attention how the language regarding the "Buffet tax" transforms as the tax creeps into the tax code: while previously it was about taxing the fortunate individuals, who make more than a million a year, now it is about households, which more often than not consist of several individuals (e.f. parents and children) with income per person much less than a million.
"The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.
Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured."
My comments:
1. Regardless of whether one supports higher taxes or not, we are all aware that none of these tax proposals has a chance to be approved by the Congress. Hence, expect the next round of the government near-shutdowns, credit downgrade threats and so on. At best this is simple politicking, at worst - political extremism.
2. Pay attention how the language regarding the "Buffet tax" transforms as the tax creeps into the tax code: while previously it was about taxing the fortunate individuals, who make more than a million a year, now it is about households, which more often than not consist of several individuals (e.f. parents and children) with income per person much less than a million.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Not going along with the crowd...
"Ordinary people. The courage to say no.
The photo was taken in Hamburg in 1936, during the celebrations for the launch of a ship. In the crowed, one person refuses to raise his arm to give the Nazi salute. The man was August Landmesser. He had already been in trouble with the authorities, having been sentenced to two years hard labour for marrying a Jewish woman.
We know little else about August Landmesser, except that he had two children. By pure chance, one of his children recognized her father in this photo when it was published in a German newspaper in 1991. How proud she must have been in that moment."
General strike in Israel
The Histadrut (the unions) has declared the general of the Israeli government workers, due to the failure of its negotiations with the Finance ministry over the status of the contract workers.
My comments:
1. I generally oppose the strikes, especially those by transportation and medical workers. My reasons are: a) such strikes hold the rest of the country hostages to the whims of a small, but vital for the country's functioning, group , and b) the overall economic damage from such strikes far exceeds the benefits to the strikers.
2. Yet, I have more sympathy for the strikers than for the participants of the "social protests". If you have been reading this blog, then you know the reason: the strikers have clearly formulated demands. In addition, their grievances are legitimate - the contract workers in Israel are a hard-working group of the population, often saddled with the families, who have few reasons to expect a change in their employment status and significant improvements in the near future. These contract workers range from the cleaners to the non-permanent university lecturers (the latter are being fired every Spring and re-hired in the Fall, so that they do not attain the right for the permanent employment benefits.)
My comments:
1. I generally oppose the strikes, especially those by transportation and medical workers. My reasons are: a) such strikes hold the rest of the country hostages to the whims of a small, but vital for the country's functioning, group , and b) the overall economic damage from such strikes far exceeds the benefits to the strikers.
2. Yet, I have more sympathy for the strikers than for the participants of the "social protests". If you have been reading this blog, then you know the reason: the strikers have clearly formulated demands. In addition, their grievances are legitimate - the contract workers in Israel are a hard-working group of the population, often saddled with the families, who have few reasons to expect a change in their employment status and significant improvements in the near future. These contract workers range from the cleaners to the non-permanent university lecturers (the latter are being fired every Spring and re-hired in the Fall, so that they do not attain the right for the permanent employment benefits.)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Money, money, money...
A big piece by Washington Post about bi-partisan corruption in the United States Congress. This will probably dominate the American news for teh week to come.
On this background the decision by President Obama to start taking the money from the rich in order to help fund the class war that he is fighting against them looks like a minor hypocrisy.
On this background the decision by President Obama to start taking the money from the rich in order to help fund the class war that he is fighting against them looks like a minor hypocrisy.
"Four legs good, two legs bad!"
A few more comments in continuation on the subject of prejudice as resulting from lower cognitive ability (here and here).
1. The phenomenon in question was succinctly summarized by George Orwell in his "Animal farm" by the phrase "Four legs good, two legs bad!", intended to oppose animals and humans. (Orwell immediately points out that it posed the problem with identifying chickens as animals.)
The beauty of Orwell's animalism is that it can be applied to many settings, for example:
"Conservatives are good, liberals are bad" or "liberals are good, conservatives are bad" (By now you may realize the point that I am making - the problem is not with liberals or conservatives, but with rejecting either of the views in favor of the other one, deemed to be "correct".)
2. One thing that bothers me is the widespread view of the horrors of Fascism as a result of the conflict between the right and left ideologies. The crimes committed by Nazis and fascists have been widely popularized and resulted in most of the "western world" swinging in the direction of the left ideologies. This resulted in the strange state of affairs, when Communism and its horrors are viewed with much less aversion than the Nazi/fascist symbols, and portraits of Che Guevara and red flags are considered "cool" symbols of the social equality rather than the symbols of murder and oppression, which they are to the hundreds of millions who suffered from the Communism.
3. I think that Communism and Fascism are the two expressions of the same phenomenon: exploiting the image of a "common enemy" to unite people behind a "leader" or a political movement. The particular choice of the enemy might be different: it may be the external powers (Such as "the Big Satan" - the US); it may be culturally different groups, such as immigrants or Muslims; it may be differing ethnic or racial groups, such as Jews, Arabs or black; it may be the people who stand apart economically - "the rich".
The excesses of such views were notably demonstrated by Nazism (anti-Jew) and Communism (anti-rich), but, as I have stated above, the latter case is being consistently overlooked.
1. The phenomenon in question was succinctly summarized by George Orwell in his "Animal farm" by the phrase "Four legs good, two legs bad!", intended to oppose animals and humans. (Orwell immediately points out that it posed the problem with identifying chickens as animals.)
The beauty of Orwell's animalism is that it can be applied to many settings, for example:
"Conservatives are good, liberals are bad" or "liberals are good, conservatives are bad" (By now you may realize the point that I am making - the problem is not with liberals or conservatives, but with rejecting either of the views in favor of the other one, deemed to be "correct".)
2. One thing that bothers me is the widespread view of the horrors of Fascism as a result of the conflict between the right and left ideologies. The crimes committed by Nazis and fascists have been widely popularized and resulted in most of the "western world" swinging in the direction of the left ideologies. This resulted in the strange state of affairs, when Communism and its horrors are viewed with much less aversion than the Nazi/fascist symbols, and portraits of Che Guevara and red flags are considered "cool" symbols of the social equality rather than the symbols of murder and oppression, which they are to the hundreds of millions who suffered from the Communism.
3. I think that Communism and Fascism are the two expressions of the same phenomenon: exploiting the image of a "common enemy" to unite people behind a "leader" or a political movement. The particular choice of the enemy might be different: it may be the external powers (Such as "the Big Satan" - the US); it may be culturally different groups, such as immigrants or Muslims; it may be differing ethnic or racial groups, such as Jews, Arabs or black; it may be the people who stand apart economically - "the rich".
The excesses of such views were notably demonstrated by Nazism (anti-Jew) and Communism (anti-rich), but, as I have stated above, the latter case is being consistently overlooked.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Ordinary fascism
I have written yesterday about an article that a friend of mine posted on a social network (here). The article claims to explain the racial and anti-homosexual prejudices as the result of lower cognitive ability and general intelligence. It is also claimed that this prejudices are channeled via supporting conservative and authoritarian ideologies.
Ironically, the article itself presents an example of the phenomenon that it claims to investigate: it effectively affirms the existing among "liberal/progressive" community prejudice that the people supporting conservative ideologies or right-wing parties are less educated and less intelligent. This prejudice is particularly strong in the overwhelmingly left-wing academic communities, the members of which, by virtue of their higher level of education, consider themselves intellectually superior to the typically conservative "blue collar" public.
A few additional comments
1. The article discussed is essentially fascist in nature (or as a minimum extremely prejudiced). Indeed, one could conceivably obtain a very similar text by taking an article from a Nazi-time research journal and replacing the references to "conservative/right-wing ideologies" by "Jews/Communists/Liberal democracies", and the references to "lower cognitive abilities/intelligence" by references to "inferior race/scull shape".
2. It is quite embarassing that my friend posted such an article in a public forum, and that it is overlooked by most and even "liked" by some.
3. I admit the possibility that the article might be itself a part of another scientific experiment, similar to Milgram experiment or Standford prison experiment (or perhaps my friend is conducting such an experiment): the authors might have on purpose posted an extremely prejudiced peace of work in order to see the public reaction, and demonstrate how the prejudices similar to those, that have been historically discredited within various kinds of authoritarian/conservative ideologies, quite successfuly continue to exist under the disguise of "liberal/progressive/left-wing" (See my other post on non-liberal and non-progressive nature of many things called "liberal" and "progressive".)
Ironically, the article itself presents an example of the phenomenon that it claims to investigate: it effectively affirms the existing among "liberal/progressive" community prejudice that the people supporting conservative ideologies or right-wing parties are less educated and less intelligent. This prejudice is particularly strong in the overwhelmingly left-wing academic communities, the members of which, by virtue of their higher level of education, consider themselves intellectually superior to the typically conservative "blue collar" public.
A few additional comments
1. The article discussed is essentially fascist in nature (or as a minimum extremely prejudiced). Indeed, one could conceivably obtain a very similar text by taking an article from a Nazi-time research journal and replacing the references to "conservative/right-wing ideologies" by "Jews/Communists/Liberal democracies", and the references to "lower cognitive abilities/intelligence" by references to "inferior race/scull shape".
2. It is quite embarassing that my friend posted such an article in a public forum, and that it is overlooked by most and even "liked" by some.
3. I admit the possibility that the article might be itself a part of another scientific experiment, similar to Milgram experiment or Standford prison experiment (or perhaps my friend is conducting such an experiment): the authors might have on purpose posted an extremely prejudiced peace of work in order to see the public reaction, and demonstrate how the prejudices similar to those, that have been historically discredited within various kinds of authoritarian/conservative ideologies, quite successfuly continue to exist under the disguise of "liberal/progressive/left-wing" (See my other post on non-liberal and non-progressive nature of many things called "liberal" and "progressive".)
Sunday, February 5, 2012
New racism
Here is what passes nowadays for "research"... Those who are not blinded by either ideology will have difficulty setting this apart from the "research" conducted by Nazi scientists and others in the similar strain:
"Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. "
While it is to be expected that lower intellectual abilities and inabilities to distinguish "the shades of gray" make it more likely for individuals to adopt extremist ideologies, the claim that extremism is limited to the conservative and right-wing ideologies is precisely what is terribly wrong with modern "intellectuals".
An unbiased person has no difficulty pointing out many instances of the "liberal" and "progressive" intolerance towards different opinions, religious convictions, policies etc.
Added later:
Perhaps, my my point will be clearer, if I point out the similarity of this research with the concept of "untermensch", which has earned a rather gruesome reputation throughout the XXth century.
"Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. "
While it is to be expected that lower intellectual abilities and inabilities to distinguish "the shades of gray" make it more likely for individuals to adopt extremist ideologies, the claim that extremism is limited to the conservative and right-wing ideologies is precisely what is terribly wrong with modern "intellectuals".
An unbiased person has no difficulty pointing out many instances of the "liberal" and "progressive" intolerance towards different opinions, religious convictions, policies etc.
Added later:
Perhaps, my my point will be clearer, if I point out the similarity of this research with the concept of "untermensch", which has earned a rather gruesome reputation throughout the XXth century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)