Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Brooks on Bullock & Happiness

The other night at the grocery store, as I absent-mindedly pushed the shopping cart, my eyes fell on the tabloids, and all I seemed to see was Sandra Bullock. However, she was not featured for winning her Oscar, but because her husband seems to be a cheating jerk. Well, it seems Dave Brooks must do some grocery shopping as well, as he just published a column entitled "The Sandra Bullock Trade". Brooks asks the rhetorical question: which brings greater happiness, an Oscar, or a happy marriage. Brooks looks to social science to provide an answer: the marriage. Really, this topic of research into happiness goes back to ancient times (think Buddha, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.) but why not throw in some polls and math? In short, while success in professional endeavors certainly can bring rewards—Oscar winners live on average four years longer than Oscar losers—these rewards don't carry nearly the lasting effect or magnitude of loving relationships. So here, first, a shout out to my wife and daughters, and to all my family (by blood & marriage), and friends and colleagues and so on. I have every appreciation of what a great hand life has dealt to me.

While professional rewards can provide a great deal of satisfaction, they come and they go. Sometimes we lose. Telling a client that we've lost his or her case is a very difficult and unpleasant task. The race doesn't always go to the swift, but we always believe that it ought to.

In addition, our communities matter. How we as members of communities, such as towns, states, nations, churches, social groups, etc. value experiences and things (such as fellow human and dollars, to take two quick examples) will greatly affect the quality of our lives.

Finally, a shout out for social science. It can provide us with perspectives on things that sit in plain sight right before our eyes, but for which we lack perspective. On the other hand, sometimes it simply points to the ridiculously obvious: sex can make us happy. Dah.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Brooks on Economics

David Brooks does a quick take on economics, and he believes that economics as history and a part of the humanities will make a comeback. I agree. I see more and more evidence that economics will change away from its pinched idea of humanity. Adam Smith was an outstanding moral philosopher; Hayek dealt primarily with the limitation of knowledge; Keynes with uncertainty and "animal spirits": all great precedents. These great thinkers knew that we humans are as much flaw as reason. Brooks gives a shout out to Herbert Simon, Tversky and Kahneman, and Becker. Someday, perhaps, the economists will catch up to the political scientists!

About All of the Craziness on the Right

The craziness on the Right continues to attract attention. Yesterday, Love is Stream commented on the radical rhetoric of the right. This morning in the NYT, we found these two articles pertaining to the issue. This article discusses how it happens and how it can spread. Frank Rich analyzes what has happened and provides some historical perspective. Comments on Love is a Stream cite commentary from Iowa bard Chuck Offenburger and Charles Blow @ NYT on this topic. Offenburger demonstrates that perceptions of this problem aren't limited to "East Coast elitists" like those who write for NYT. Offenburger (a Republican—how'd that happen?) shows that a few Republicans see the folly and offensiveness of this right-wing hysteria. Blow's analysis notes that topic like rates of taxation and the role of government are legitimate topics for disagreement, but what we read and hear doesn't rise to the level of thoughtful political discourse. I don't think that this phenomenon will last, since, like Social Security and Medicare before it, the world did not end with the adoption of this legislation. However, the violent metaphors and extreme language can trigger some to go off the deep end. Let's hope that we've seen the worst of it.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Krugman Capturing the Zeitgeist Again

Paul Krugman once again captures my take on the world of current politics: the sad state of affairs in the Republican Party. The current reaction of a number of Republicans to the health insurance reform bill is at once both scary and sad. Scary because of the extreme and violent metaphors used by many Republicans, including elected officials, and sad because of the sorry state of ideas on the Republican side. (For a fun take on the sorry state of Republican or "conservative" thinking, watch this clever video.) But the reality: David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, gets drummed out of AEI for criticizing the Republican response to the health insurance legislation. Parody becomes reality.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Clarke & Skidelsky on Keynes

I've recently finished two books on John Maynard Keynes, as we are in the midst of a Keynes renaissance. Based on these two books, this resurgent interest in the mid-twentieth century economist is well deserved. The first of the two that I read, Keynes: the rise, fall, and return of the 20th century's most influential economist by Peter Clarke (2009, 211 p.) provides a good, succinct summary of Keynes's position in history along with some consideration of his relevance to our present circumstances.
Clarke is an accomplished historian, and he displays a solid command of the world that Keynes inhabited. The second book, Keynes: The return of the master by Robert Skidelsky (2009, 221 p.) provided an even better insight into Keynes. One might expect this, as Skidelsky authored a three-volume biography of Keynes that many have highly praised. A one-volume abridgment is available.

After reading these two books, I find myself holding Keynes in high regard, and I've dispelled some myths that many seem to hold about Keynes. Some of the most important points to me:

  1. Keynes can write. He belonged the Bloomsbury Group (Virginia and Leonard Woolf, Lytton Strachey, etc.). These folks cared about art and wrote well. Keynes took their examples to heart, even when writing about the "dismal science". Also, Keynes wrote and worked before the take-over of economics by mathematical models (although Keynes himself provided a very capable mathematician).
  2. Keynes acted in the public arena. Keynes attended the Paris Peace Conference that resulted in the Treaty of Versailles as a member of the British delegation, and he worked for the British Treasury during WWII. He contributed a great deal to the ideas behind the Bretton Woods agreement that helped shape the post-WWII international economy.
  3. Keynes drew a distinction between "risk" and "uncertainty", a distinction lost by many investors of recent years, and a distinction given new life by Nassim Taleb. In short, "risk" involves situations where odds of an outcome may be calculated, for example, as at a roulette wheel or in a card game. "Uncertainty", a wilder and more natural occurrence, holds that we often just have no idea about what to expect. Economics and investors need to know and appreciate the difference.
  4. Keynes appreciated the insights of Hayek, contrary to the inferiority complex that one seems to find among Hayek admirers. Is the converse true? I don't get that impression, although Hayek, too, proves useful and popular (to some extent) because he does economics in prose as opposed to mathematics.
  5. Keynes isn't all about deficit spending and government control. Keynes starts of the traditional liberal and free trade position, and makes modifications as circumstances justify change. Both so-called liberals who run continuing deficits and conservatives, who claim that deficit spending is always bad, do an injustice to the views of Keynes. Keynes, followers and critiques notwithstanding, proves eminently sensible.
  6. Keynes appreciates that morals as well as "animal spirits" influence an economy and the society in which an economy operates. Keynes proves a forbearer (with impeccable credentials) of those who want to take economics beyond homo economicus and the rational market theories that have proven so sterile and contrary to the evidence. This trend of criticism (actually quite old, but little appreciated of late), continues of grow, and probably no better person to have on the honor role than Keynes.

I could go on, but you should have the picture. Two fine books about an extraordinary individual.

Krugman on Health Care & the Repbulicans

Paul Krugman nails it on health care. What a great achievement!

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Cahill Celebration of St. Paddy’s Day

A Happy St. Patrick's Day to all! In observance of the occasion (at least from the sober confines of the work place), I offer this celebration of the great Irish gifts from Thomas Cahill. It's a Cliff Notes version of his book How the Irish Saved Civilization. Enjoy!

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Philosophy Bites on Plato, Hume, and Architecture

Perhaps one of the great inventions for working around the home is the I-Pod, and with it, the possibility of listening to podcasts or music while performing tasks that we might otherwise consider drudgery. Today, with the first real spring weather (temperature > 60° and sunshine!), I worked outside (the driveway is beginning to rut like a dirt road). Anyway, I've had a chance to listen to three Philosophy Bites.

Philosophy Bites? These are wonderful, short (15-20') talks with outstanding philosophers about philosophers and philosophical topics. As "bites", laypeople like me can easily digest them. Let me share my three most recent adventures.

Simon Blackburn on Plato's Cave: If, reader, you have not read the allegory of the Cave from Plato's Republic, stop, and go do so. It won't take long, but I suspect that you'll agree that this ancient metaphor remains one of the most arresting and abiding in Western thought. You're skeptical? Have you seen The Matrix, which provides an extended meditation on themes raised in Plato's tale? How about George Lucas's early film, THX 1138? Well, Blackburn had recently written on Plato and this allegory, and this discussion provides a very useful summary and consideration of this foundational metaphor.

Stuart Sutherland on David Hume's critique of the argument from design: One amiable Scot discusses another amiable Scot, the man who serves as the fountainhead of analytical philosophy. Hume, by the way, from this discussion and other considerations of him and his work, seems quite the interesting fellow.

Alain de Botton on architecture: De Botton has recently written a book on architecture, and he discusses the topic in this podcast. His considerations of the topic seem quite insightful and balanced. He is the author of the delightful book, How Proust Can Change Your Life.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Brooks on Obama

Once again, Dave Brooks expresses a view that I share. (Is it true then that you can take the man out of the Republican party but not the Republican out of the man?). In any event, while I disagree with him on policy specifics, Brooks usually expresses sound opinions on the big picture; in this case, on Obama. Neither crazy conservatives nor "progressives" understand Obama correctly. I think Brooks does.