Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Then, Apocalypse Forever

On June 28, 1914, the world ended.

On July 14, 1789, the world ended.

On January 31, 1649, the world ended.

On Easter Sunday, 1536, the world ended.

In times of revolution and drastic change, worlds end in a lot of ways. Whether that world is nineteenth century Europe, Old Regime France, Britain's monarchy or the world of Catholic England, it seemed to the people at those times that the world was indeed coming to an end.

Worlds, however, do not end in such great, cataclysmic moments. If we go by the meaning of the word, "apocalypse," which is the ancient Greek for "the lifting of the veil," we see that this seemingly revolutionary process is actually a lot more gradual than the big shocks of history that everyone remembers. What really happens is a "soft" form of apocalypse, a notion that worlds end at a slow pace and also that these changes have within them visions of the end of ends, of the "capital A" apocalypse.

Before that, though, a quick bash of teleology. All apocalyptic visions have a definite sense of teleology about them. Teleology is, broadly, the study of time, but of specific interest here is the teleological view of history. This view holds that history, all of human history through time, is driving at some goal. All human action, thought, effort, society, politics and culture are headed for…something.

What is that something? Well, that all depends on who you ask. Enlightenment philosophers like Condorcet and Kant said that the humankind was perfectible and that time led to this ultimate perfection of the species. Hegel said that the "end of history" was represented in the enlightened despotism of the Prussian state. Marx argued that the end of time is marked by the emergence, through revolutionary stages, of a stateless communist society. Francis Fukuyama, who got his Hegel second-hand, argued that it was in fact liberal democracy that typified the "end of history and the last man."

One important similarity between these views is their non-cyclical view of time. Time, for all these guys, has a beginning, middle and an end. Moreover, in these teleological views, it always seems that time has been leading to the particular moment in which the author was writing. In other words, and rather conveniently, the end times seem to be the present day or at least just around the teleological corner. To most teleological views, we seem to be at the tipping point, that we are (with apologies to Barry McGuire) on the eve of destruction.

Is this true? It might be. It might not be. What is certain is that it shows every age's predisposition to think that it is more important than it really is, to "privilege the present," as the historians (me included) might say. This is an interesting, yet misconceived, notion of history.

This also raises the question of human agency vis-à-vis the apocalypse, or to put it plainly, what role humans have to play in prophecies of the end. In lots of views, and Christianity is just one, humans have a very limited, proscribed role. In short, they cannot stop the end, but they can make sure they are on the winning team, such as it is. There is, therefore, inherent in these views little role for humans to play apart from as pawns in a much, much bigger game. Being aligned with the forces of "good," the "saved" rather than the "damned" stands at the core of the allure of eschatological ideas. Just believe and everything will be fine.

If there is any active role for humans to play in the end of days, it is usually a negative one. Whether by apostasy or polluting or building a nuclear arsenal or drinking at work or peeing in the pool, humans can't seem to hold off the apocalypse. In fact, they seem really good at bringing it closer to happening.

In this idea is arguably the great power of apocalyptic visions – their great rhetorical force. Want to argue that something is really, really, really bad? Say it will end the world. In fact, if someone says that something will end the world, start asking questions. If they are a "true believer," this exchange might prove scary and terribly amusing all at once.

Finally, let's assume for now that the world does indeed end, that an apocalypse/end of time sort of event will happen at some point. In a lot of apocalyptic visions, that is it. The world and everything in it ends. Forever. "Poof" and it's gone. In these formulations, there is no tomorrow, no world reborn anew. Incidentally, this is usually the end in scenarios where humans play a more active role in the proceedings.

In other apocalyptic visions, however, something does survive. The world is "perfected," however that might be defined. It is a time and a place where the "believers" are in control at last. Since this is the case in these notions, this new world and its inhabitants are a very specific group doing very specific things. In other words, it is less like the U.N. General Assembly, more like an Osmond Family variety show.

This presents another worrisome thing about apocalyptic visions and what comes after. Be wary of anyone who promises you heaven on earth. If you happen to believe in a particular vision of heaven, fine. Just don't expect to get it here. Humankind is just too troublesome of a lot for anything like this to get very far. Oh, and when this heaven on earth doesn't work out, the level of cognitive dissonance often leads to periods of extreme violence. So, look out for that.

In closing, what can be definitively said about visions of the apocalypse and the aftermath? There seem to be five broad facets of most of these notions:

1. A teleological view of history.
   
2. Lack of human agency.
   
3. Powerful rhetoric.
   
4. Specific, exclusive view of the aftermath.
   
5. Interesting viewpoint through which society, politics and culture can be considered.
   

What exactly is meant by a "soft" apocalypse, in view of this? It means that the world that we know and perceive, the world that we structure and that structures us, will end and will change. The past is a foreign country and our present may seem as remote and unfamiliar, even in our own lifetimes.

Ultimately, then, the apocalypse is what you make it.

Words to Ponder, What is Economics Edition

"Economics is not about prices and money. Economics is about how to get the most out of life. To get the most out of life, you have to pay attention to costs and benefits. Everything has a price. Living life without taking account of the costs of what you do - the financial costs and the human costs, the costs you can measure and the costs you can only guess at - leaving those costs out of the picture is the sure way to lead a meaningless life."

--Russell Roberts, The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), p. 124.

Timeo Danaos Et Dona Ferentes

Well, it seems that the only gifts the Greeks are bearing lately are crippling amounts of debt and a looming sovereign debt crisis that could really turn bad.

My thoughts (in no particular order):

• Before confidence is restored in Greek government debt, a floor for the price of the bonds must be found. In my picking around, I would not be surprised if this low limit was between 30 and 40 cents on the dollar. Only at this level will people start to buy.
• If the above is true, there will be problems for sure. I am mainly looking at the "PIIGS" countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain). These are countries with a lot of sovereign debt and bailout-taxed public coffers. I think Portugal and Spain would be the first to experience similar problems to those of the Greeks.
• If Portugal and Spain go south, look out. This could lead to a complete loss of confidence in the PIIGS countries to meet their debt obligations. This, to me, would signal a major defeat for the very idea of the euro as a currency.
• Can the euro survive such a scenario? Possibly, if the "eurozone" is severely contracted. France, Germany and the Benelux countries might form a core of "strong" euro countries that might see the currency live yet.
• I find the above situation rather unlikely or (more specifically) irrelevant, seeing as France, Germany and the Benelux countries already have such huge sway over ECB policy.
• Another complicating factor is that we are seeing a sovereign debt crisis in the first real-world trial of an optimal currency area. There have been sovereign debt crises before (remember the "Asian congagion" in 1997, Russia in 1998 and Argentina in 1999-2002?), but never one with the potential for regional or global implications like this one.
• This might be the tipping point for the "double-dip" recession, more specifically, the second of the dips. During the Great Depression, it seemed that the worst was over by mid 1930, but a spate of bank failures (starting with Austria) led to things getting a lot worse.
• Would this have happened had the euro never existed? Yes and no. Yes, because Greece would have inflated the drachma (or Spain the peseta or Portugal the escudo) to get out of this. No, because in this case, the potential for systemic failure would have been lower.
• Eurozone countries, and espeically the PIIGS countries, will continue to be hesitant to have a more American-style rating system for their government debt. It will limit their policy leeway in inflating/deflating the currency. On the other side, some fucking good it did us when it came to consumer mortgages.

Link Exchange

• Jeffrey Toobin on John Paul Stevens. Interesting throughout.
• An entrepreneur rails against how minimum wages hurt small businesses and their employees.
• A penetrating (pun most certainly intended) exploration of how the porn industry has always been on the cutting edge of the intersection of technology and commerce.
• Russ Roberts dissects the financial crisis (very ably, as you might imagine). Arnold Kling comments and Roberts responds.
• A new book on game theory and how it is still a valuable tool in examining human interaction.
• Hand-drawn maps: better because they are task-specific. I see this as further confirmation that human beings are hard-wired to think cartographically.
• Fascinating work on the macrohistory of debt.
• The new $100 note is ugly. I will grudgingly accept them despite this aesthetic blunder.

Randy Marsh and the Paradox of Thrift

A greatful world (myself included) has learned so much from South Park over its fourteen seasons and (now) 200 episodes. We have learned that: pig and elephant DNA just don't splice, the true nature of God, Canadians and their flappy heads are not to be trusted, the rainforest sucks, Bono is really a living piece of shit, Family Guy is really "written" by trained manatees, clouds of "smug" are far more dangerous than smog and that Kyle's mom is a big, fat, fucking bitch.

This is but a small sample of the lessons taught by Messrs. Marsh, Broflovsky, Cartman and McCormick and the other denizens of that hick-assed, redneck, white bread mountain town. South Park has really been a cultural touchstone, entering the debate on issues and ideas in a way that few other animated shows ever have.

So, when I saw the episode, "Margaritaville" last year (you can watch it here), I saw another "teachable moment" in their treatment of the economic crisis of 2007-whenever.

We educators love stuff like this, when pop culture intersects with academic topics. Is this just our lame attempt to "connect" with our students? I really don't care much. I thought it was funny and insightful, so in it goes.

Randy Marsh and Kyle the (Sort Of) Keynesian

Here's the story (for those who didn't watch it or forgot the particulars): Randy thinks that Stan should learn about saving his money. They go to a local bank and Stan deposits $100 in a mutual fund, which is immediately wiped out. Stan is understandibly pissed off.

At home, Randy tries to explain that the economy is so bad because people are spending their money on frivolous luxuries. Ironically, in the middle of this tirade about conspicuous consumption, Randy mixes himself a margarita in an expensive Margaritaville drinks blender, the sound of which ends up drowning out his voice.

The people of South Park are generally unhappy about the economy and are casting about, looking to place blame somewhere. Predictably, Cartman blames Kyle and the other Jews in town for hiding all the money in a secret "Jew cave." Randy, however has other ideas.

He claims that the economy is angry and to appease it, people should limit their spending to bare essentials. In typical South Park fashion, this gets blown way out of proportion, with people wearing bed sheets and riding llamas. This is all to try and appease the angry economy, so that it will treat the people better.

All the while, Kyle keeps insisting that the economy is just a construct, not a living, angry being. He says that, rather than saving their money, people should just have faith in the economy and spend their money. Randy and his followers then decide that they must kill Kyle and enlist the help of (who else?) Cartman, bribing him with a copy of Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars.

Kyle then sacrifices himself for the town, paying everyone's bills with an American Express Platinum Card, Stan tries to return the Margaritaville mixer, only to find out that it has been bundled and sold to the Federal Reserve and is now worth $90 trillion. Stan breaks the mixer as the Fed officials decide on another bailout using a headless chicken. The economy recovers, but President Obama gets all the credit, not Kyle.

Great stuff, if you ask me.

Randy seems to be reacting rationally when he wants people to save their money in hard economic times. Kyle, however, presents the opposite perspective, and what might be explained as a Keynesian one.

The Paradox of Thrift Explained and Challenged

In times of economic hardship, Keynes and his followers advocate not less spending, but more, by individuals and government. Aggregate demand must rise, so the government must create more money, spend more of it and keep the "circular flow of capital" moving to stimulate the economy. Another part of this is lower interest rates, making money and credit easier and more accessable.

Keynesians argue that increased saving rates, while they might benefit the individual, hurt the economy in general. The government creates new money through inflationary policies, but that money is stuck in the banks through peoples' savings, thus creating a liquidity trap. This is the paradox of thrift, that saving can be detrimental to the general economic health of a system even while benefiting individuals.

So, then, Kyle was right. Have faith and get out there and spend your money, right? Or was he?

Randy Was Right...Kind Of

According to critics, Randy got the action right but the reason wildly wrong. According to these same critics, Kyle misunderstood how spending and saving influence the general health of the economy.

If more of us take Randy's advice and save money (not so much on the bedsheets and llamas bit), this will cause the amount of money in the coffers of banks to rise. This money represents real loanable funds for banks, will encourage the banks to lend and in time, bring interest rates down. So, to put it in other words, the less people spend on Margaritaville blenders, the more is available to lend.

In another sense, both Kyle and Randy got it wrong. If you consider prices and inflation being driven by the ratio of consumption to investment, all that the demand for money (or lack of demand) tells you is how much people prefer money over the goods and services that it can purchase. The market for money (and other goods) functions primarily as an informational system, transmitting peoples' preferences. If this sounds familiar, it comes from the ideas of this guy.

Consumers don't cause recessions. Misalignments in the complex web of monetary and industrial inputs and outputs cause recessions, and consumers have to adjust as these misalignments are, well, realigned. Consumers don't choose to spend or save. They really choose to spend now or spend in the future. They consider time in their spending decisions.

Changes in spending patterns are temporary; I think both consumers and producers understand this. This is why businesses expand even in times of economic contraction. If they do not expand capacity, they will not be able to handle demand when spending corrects and people want to buy again. It seems simple to me.

Here, Kyle misses the point. What we have to have faith in is that the cycle will come around again as surely as it tanked. We may decide to curb our spending now, but it is only to support our spending later.

Conclusion

In closing, I suppose the real point is that there really is no paradox to thrift. People convey information through their resource allocation decisions. This changes in the short term, but never for very long.

See? You can learn something watching cartoons.

Except Family Guy.

Words to Ponder: What is History Edition

"History ought never to be confused with nostalgia. It's written not to revere the dead, but inspire the living. It's our cultural bloodstream, the secret of who we are, and it tells us to let go of the past even as we honor it, to lament what ought to be lamented, to celebrate what should be celebrated and, if in the end, that history turns out to reveal itself a patriot, well then, I don't think Churchill or Orwell would have minded very much, and as a matter of fact, neither do I."

--Simon Schama, A History of Britain (2000), Episode 15: "The Two Winstons."

Link Exchange

• Women who adopt their husband's surname might be punished in the job market. I know that perceptions are powerful, but I wonder how widely applicable this is. Ladies, any thoughts?
• Diarmaid McCulloch has a new book about the history of Christianity. It looks interesting, well-written and an admirable attempt at a one volume treatment of such a huge subject.
• Freakonomics Radio's latest edition, on "faking it." Can "faking it until you make it" be a good thing? I suspect that it can, but I think it depends a lot on the faker, not the subject faked.
• Robin Hanson ponders why laws are always flexible, especially where the lawmakers and law enforcement are concerned.
• Why are a lot of professors leftists? This article seems to argue that they have no other choice. I am not sure I agree.
• I think this guy is just being Catholic out of spite for his ex.
• The ups and downs of the traditional English breakfast.

The One with the Bow Tie Retires

No, I am not talking about former Illinois Senator Paul Simon. He died in 2003. I am also not talking about Tucker Carlson, although I wish I were.

I AM talking about the news confirmed today that U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens will retire in June.

Stevens has served on the SCOTUS since his appointment by Gerald Ford in 1975 and has among the longest tenures on America's highest court.

My thoughts on this development (in no particular order):

• The "ideological balance," such as it is, on the SCOTUS will really not be effected by this news. Unless President Obama appoints a justice that ends up "going Souter" and changing sides, things will remain the same.
• Don't expect any of the "conservative" justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and sometimes Kennedy) to retire anytime soon. Especially Scalia - they will now have to drag Nino's body out of his office before he would retire.
• The main issue, from the standpoint of dynamics on the court, remains the same: what to do about Anthony Kennedy? Stevens was good at building consensus or, if you like, getting Kennedy to agree with himself and the other "liberals." Without Stevens, Kennedy is still the justice to keep an eye on in close decisions.
• The new nominee will face tougher scrutiny in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate generally than (now) Associate Justice Sotomayor did last year. This is usually the case (Reagan with Scalia and Kennedy, G.W. Bush with Alito), except when it isn't (Clinton with Ginsburg).
• Stevens is considered the dean of the "liberal" faction of the court, but despises this term himself. This shift has been gradual, but accellerated in the 1980's. Who takes over for the liberals on the court. Senority says Steven Breyer, but who knows?
• It will be interesting to see how much "political capital" Obama is willing to spend on this process. The mid-term elections later this year are going to be rough and the confirmation hearings to replace Stevens might become the political story of the summer.
• Also, I wonder if these elections, with conservatives worked up, looking to take the President and his party down, will influence Obama's pick to replace Stevens. It shouldn't, but the possibility cannot be ignored. After all, we are dealing with career politicians.
• Stevens represents one of the last of a breed of federal jurists, it seems, for whom politics was a secondary concern. For his generation, the practice of the law was a noble one that carried majesty with it. That seems to be less and less the case.
• Successors? The list seems short, the also-rans from Sotomayor's nomination: Elena Kagan (U.S. Solicitor General), Diane Wood and Merrick Garland (both appeals court judges). I won't get into why I think this here, but I think Obama will pick Kagan.

The Broken Window (or Side Mirror) Fallacy Explained

It is great when life presents you with a perfect opportunity to illustrate the abstract with examples ripped from the headlines.

In this case, to be specific, the thing being ripped was a side mirror on a car and I think it presents me with a perfect "teachable moment," as it were, for an old (but deceptive) economic fallacy. That fallacy is the "broken window fallacy."

The inspiration? Again, it is my girlfriend/muse, and it arises from something unfortunate that happened to her.

The Story

Unable to find parking near her place of employment, she found a parking space some blocks away. She parked her car and made her way to work. There was one nagging thought on her mind, it seems. She had suffered misfortune (or, rather, her car had) on this particular street before when a side mirror had been knocked off a few years ago.

When she returned to her car, guess what happened again? Yep, side mirror dangling by the electrical wires, along with other collateral scraping and denting. To add insult to (mechanical) injury, the offender didn't even leave a note. Such is the cruelly competitive world of parking in a large city.

When she told me this story, my first reaction was naturally one of sympathy and understanding. I mean, it is bad enough to have to deal with unexpected car repairs, worse when the offender will not do the right thing and just own up to it.

Then, as ever, I got to thinking. I focused in on the "do the right thing" part. If this person had left a note, and had been honest enough to pay for the repair, the parallel I am about to draw would not work (at least not directly). Because they didn't, it does.

I will come back to the "do the right thing" bit in a moment, but first, the theory.

The Broken Window Fallacy Applied

We now have my girlfriend with a broken side mirror on her car. She is obviously not happy about this and the money that it will cost to repair. This much is clear. What is not so clear here is if anyone benefits from this situation.

It might be said that someone indeed does. My girlfriend will have to pay to have the mirror replaced, making herself less well-off (by the amount she has to pay for the repair). Who IS made better off, or so the first part of the fallacy goes, is the mechanic who does the repair.

He is made richer by the same amount that my girlfriend was made poorer, all the while providing productive work for a mechanic and the whole supply chain that put that mirror in the mechanic's hands.

So, according to this view, the asshole who did the damage was a public benefactor, creating work and profit where none might have happened before. Sounds sensible, no?

Well, no, it doesn't, actually. In fact, if you think about the broader implications, it seems downright foolish.

What the above view fails to take into account is that the money my girlfriend had to spend to get the mirror fixed is no longer available to her to put to another use. Let's say (for sake of example and because she just bought one) she wanted to buy an espresso/cappuccino maker before the mirror was broken. Now that it has to be repaired, she will not buy the cappuccino maker. This makes her one mirror and one cappuccino maker poorer.

So, as it happens, that asshole was just that and nothing more. He did not cause benefits; he cost people money. He was just an asshole.

Differing Interpretations and the Bigger Picture

Let's keep the theoretical disagreements simple: Keynesians would say that the asshole was a public benefactor because he helped to boost aggregate demand and stimulate the economy in a small way. Austrian school economists, and Frederick Bastiat (who first articulated the "broken window" idea in this essay in 1850) would argue that my girlfriend was made poorer and their might be other motivation behind the actions of the asshole (what if he was in collusion with local mechanics to cause damage?)

As for larger implications, well, think about large-scale calamities: war, terrorist attacks, natural disasters. Keynesians, or supporters of the asshole, would say that these things raise aggregate demand and can stimulate the economy in times of recession or depression. This is where the oft-repeated (and ultimately wrong) notion that WWII got us out of the Great Depression comes from.

What this view fails to see is that things like war, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are REALLY COSTLY TO BEGIN WITH! Yes, these calamities do raise demand for certain goods and services, but the opportunity cost (trade-offs) are usually not worth it.

Seeing something like World War II, the 9/11 attacks or Hurricane Katrina as ultimately beneficial to the economy is just plain naive. It is almost like the idea of burning the village in order to save it.

Conclusions

• Causing damage and costing people money does not ultimately make people richer. It makes them poorer.
• Actions often have consequences that are unintentional, but real nonetheless.
• If you hit someone's car, be considerate of their property and just fess up. You are making people better off (mentally and economically) by doing so.
• Did I imply that Keynesians are assholes? Sort of. Paul Krugman certainly is.
• I again thank my girlfriend/muse for the inspiration. See the benefits of dating someone who lives the life of the mind? You never know what you'll inspire.

Link Exchange

• This American Life episodes in infographic form. These are good if, like me, you like the show but are occasionally annoyed by Ira Glass and his crew.
• Want the streets to be safer for motorists and pedestrians? Remove all the signs. Let the order emerge from below, not be imposed from above.
• Jodi Beggs searches for the elusive upward-sloping demand curve. The paradox of a Giffen good, a good that people consume more of when the price goes up, is an important implication of price theory.
• Create a map of Michigan using just your own two hands. I have personally seen at least two native Michiganders do this very thing. They must teach it in schools up there.
• Do unpaid internships violate minimum wage laws? Officials in California, Oregon, New York and elsewhere seem to think so. Don Boudreaux and John Stossel aren't so sure.
• Robin Hanson on Matt Yglesias on political ideology. I agree that, in political debates and ideology formation, who gets respect is more important than abstract points of doctrine.
• Want to pay more in taxes than you have to? Fine. Just don't force me to do the same.
• Will Wilkinson on the "liberaltarian drift." I guess I agree that, tempermentally, lots of libertarians are close to liberals. For me, though, it comes down to the fundamental problem of modern libertarianism in America (as stated by Penn Gilette): the problem is getting the gun guys to agree with the drug guys.
• When do professors get their politics, such as they are? Why are most professors and people in academia "liberal?" Read more here.

Two New Posts?

Yes, there are two new posts here at COTL:

• A Link Exchange that appears below. It involves breaking up banks, why the Post Office sucks, evolution and Victorians talking about sex (yes, they had it back then).
• A post answering the question: "what is fascism?" Since I started it, wrote way too much and revised it, it appears a few days back. Look under the posts for March 30th for that one

As always, commenting is encouraged. So are ideas for what you might like to see here.

For the Christian and observant, have a good Easter Weekend. For the rest of us, well, it is a weekend nonetheless. Means a bit less when one is unemployed, but whatever.

Link Exchange

• Excellent piece on the "mystery of capitalism." The author argues that capitalism faces a lot of deep-seeded acrimony, resists telling its own story and has no great heroes. It is counterintuitive and that is perhaps what makes it all work. I agree.
• Megan McArdle with further proof that the U.S. Postal Service, were it a private business, would go bust, like, yesterday.
• Break up the big banks and have real competition instead of crony capitalism? Arnold Kling thinks we should. His case is a persuasive one.
• John Maynard Keynes as "economic Impressionist," or if you like, the Seurat of economics? This, for me, raises the ever-wide gap between the elegance of a theory and the messy work of putting it into practice.
• Long before Alfred Kinsey and longer before Masters and Johnson, a researcher at Stanford University questioned women about their sexual behavior and their views on sex. Interesting stuff, given what we think we know about attitudes towards sex in the early twentieth century. Read it here.
• Reviews of three new important books about the Dreyfus Affair (click the link if you don't know what this is. No, it has nothing to do with this guy.) The Dreyfus affair raised questions of antisemitism, class, nationalism and whether the rule of law can be bent in times of crisis, real or imagined.
• Evolution and the historians. The notion of culture being an adaptation of nature rather than an attempt to change it is an interesting (if debatable) one.

Rastafarian to Economics in Six Steps

To quote that great American man of song Jack Black: "You can't manufacture Inspirado."

To put it another way, you never really know when the Owl of Minerva will swoop down and strafe your brain-banana.

Such a thing happened last night, and it all emerged from someone making fun of me. That someone was, as it happens, my girlfriend.

First, some background. This wonderful woman seems to take great joy at making fun of how nerdy I am. You know...all my maps and economic theory and historical ramblings. It seems to be one of her favorite indoor sports (though I get the sneaking suspicion that she actually likes it but would never admit it).

Anyway, I was going on about my post of a few days back, "Is Economics Dead?" She claimed that she was a loyal COTL reader and that she had read that post. I asked if there was anything in particular that she liked. She said some of the words were interesting.

When I asked which ones, she replied, "economics and Rastafarian." Now, I know that I didn't mention Rastafarianism in the post, so I know my chain was being yanked.

What did occur, though, was an interesting thought experiment: could I connect Rastafarianism and the academic study of economics in six steps? I told her this was great "blog fodder."

She asked if she was my muse. I answered that, in a way, I supposed she was.

So, without further ado, I attempt to connect...

Rastafarian to Economics in Six Steps

1. Rastafarianism is a monotheistic, new religious movement that emerged in a Christian culture (Jamaica) in the 1930's. Rastafarians believe in the Second Advent like Christians do, but they believe that it happened in the person of...

2. Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, who denied that he was divine, but who did rule Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974. His reign was a long and eventful one, fighting a bloody, anti-colonial war against Benito Mussolini's Italy in 1935 and 1936. Domestically, though, Selassie's main problem was that of economic development. He knew that, to survive in the 20th century, his country would have to undergo...

3. Modernization, which is a contentious topic among historians, political scientists and other such eggheads. It basically studies the social factors and the ties an "underdeveloped" country has to "developed" countries and how these factors interact and can change to help a country modernize (whatever that might mean). These ideas about modernization have their roots in the Enlightenment with...

4. Marie Jean Antoine Nicholas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet, who, in 1795, postulated that advances in technology and economic changes could change moral and cultural values. This notion, the Idea of Progress, became a cornerstone of Enlightenment thought and influenced liberal ideologies well into the twentieth century. These notions of progress were related, in Condorcet's mind, to democratic political institutions. Condorcet studied, in particular, voting in democratic systems and found a problem, known as Condorcet's paradox. This is basically the idea that majorities choices in any decision situation are intransitive and can conflict with each other. This paradox in decision making was further expanded upon and defined by...

5. Kenneth Arrow, who's "impossibility theorem" takes Condorcet's paradox to the next level. Arrow argued, in his Ph.D. thesis and later in his 1951 book Social Choice and Individual Values, that no voting system can translate the preferences of individuals into a group-wide preference without the system resorting to dictatorship. In other words, the rule of the majority can never really be achieved and not have a dictator. This work laid the foundation for social choice theory, which is an important theoretical framework in...

6. The Academic Study of Economics.

So, there we have it. From Jamaica in the 1930's, we went to Ethiopia, back to late eighteenth century France, forward to twentieth century America to arrive at our final destination, making several interesting discoveries along the way.

Oh, for my fellow documentary junkies, can you tell I was raised on a steady diet of James Burke?

I hope you found this thought experiment interesting, enlightening and further proof that everything is connected in one way or another.

Oh, and to my muse, a sincere thank you. I usually balk and get defensive when she pokes gentle fun at my preoccupations (I secretly like it, but I would never let on...)

The Chuckwagon: Shredded Beef Carnitas (Sort Of)

The slow cooker is really the great tease of the food world. You gather your ingredients, put them all in the stoneware vessel, turn a knob and, well, wait. Usually for hours.

Meanwhile, ever so slowly, the wonderous smells of your food start to emerge and waft around you. As you go about your daily tasks, you are tempted and seduced by the ever-stronger aroma of food that you cannot have. It is a good exercise in forebearance and discipline.

This is not a problem if you are gone all day while it is cooking, but be ready for the big barrage when you open that door and are confronted by a wall of deliciousness. Even if you are in and out of the house all day, when you return, the aroma gets stronger; while you are away, it is at the back of your mind.

This is one of my favorite slow cooker recipes for a lot of reasons. Since it is ideal as a filling for tacos and such, it goes a long way. It can be adapted and added to, depending on your tastes and heat tolerance. Lastly, it freezes well and can be a real frozen "ace-in-the-hole" when the food stores are running low.

Oh, why the "Sort Of" in the title? Well, I know how real carnitas are made and they are really easy. I also know they are not done in a slow cooker. For a great, easy and tasty recipe that is closer to traditional carnitas, try this one by Mexican cuisine Renaissance man Rick Bayless.

Shredded Beef Carnitas (Sort Of)

Ingredients

• 2.5-3 lb. boneless chuck or rump roast
• 1 10oz. can of diced tomatoes with green chiles
• 1 c. beef broth
• 4-6 cloves of garlic, peeled and smashed
• 2-3 chipotle peppers plus 1 tbs. of the sauce from the can*
• 1 large onion, chopped
• 1 tbs. ground cumin
• 1 tbs. dried oregano
• Salt and pepper to taste

* These particular chipotle peppers are sold in a can with an adobo sauce. They can be found with the Mexican foods in most grocery stores.

Method

• Put roast in slow cooker.
• Add (in this order) tomatoes/green chiles, broth, garlic, chipotles, sauce, onion, cumin, oregano, salt and pepper.
• Turn slow cooker to "LOW," cover and cook for 4-6 hours. When done, the meat should be tender and falling apart.
• Remove the beef from the liquid and reserve some of the liquid.
• Let cool briefly.
• Shred beef with two forks until, well, shredded enough for whatever you are using it for.
• Moisten beef with some of the liquid until it is damp but not sopping wet.

Serve this with any/all of your favorite trimmings. I particularly like guacamole and a little lime juice on the beef, all wrapped up in a warm tortilla. This, as I said, can be used as a taco filling, served along side rice and beans by itself or however you want to enjoy this succulent, tasty roast.

So, gird up your discipline, get it all together and let 'er rip. On second thought, maybe plan to be out of the house all day so you are not tempted. Even if you are around, the pay-off is well worth it.

What is Fascism?

(N.B. This post was going to be longer. A lot longer. It followed the upward and outward spiral a lot of my posts do. I have shortened it, plagiarized myself a lot and I think made it more acccessable. If anyone out there is interested in a more in-depth look at this, let me know.)

When groups of ideas are labelled, these labels can (and usually do) take on a life of their own. They change, mutate and often become so completely divorced from their original context that they are almost meaningless.

These labels, though seemingly meaningless, retain a great deal of rhetorical power, but rhetorical power of the "bash over the head" type, not the Oxford Debating Society type.

Such it is with fascism.

Fascism, or to call someone a fascist, has basically mutated into a term for anything or anybody that you hate or disagree with. It is a term that has such power while at the same time being so wildly understood as to be contradictory at best and laughable at worst.

I have personal experience with this. In teaching the history of Modern Europe, I lectured on the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's. One of my express missions in doing so was to let the students know that this term refers to a specific group of political, economic and social policies that emerged from a specific place at a specific time.

I tried to impress upon them that fascism can be defined, but that these definitions are not, well, definite. To put it another way, it is hard to say which "fascist" regime in Europe was the archetype, the quintissential fascist polity and society.

The Rise of Fascism in Europe

Flip through the slides of this presentation, done for my History 120 class. I think it will provide definitions of fascism, examples of fascist regimes and some conclusions. This presentation on the rise of the Nazis in Germany might also be of interest.

Final Thoughts

• "Fascist" as an epithet has, as terms often do, become completely divorced from its original meaning. It simply means, "someone I don't agree with" now.
• There were several other regimes, like Franco's in Spain, that had the trappings of fascism, and were certainly authoritarian, but were not really fascist. Particularly notable here are Estado Novo in Portugal, the Fourth of August regime in Greece and the Iron Guard in Romania.
• What was the closest regime to a "purely" fascist one? I would say Mussolini's Italy. Feel free to debate me on this one.

Link Exchange

• Margaret Atwood's take on Twitter.
• Tyler Cowen explains the greatest flaw with the labor theory of value.
• Land smugglers? Indonesia has them.
• Apparently, the founders of the American Economic Association in the 1890's were progressive, scientifically minded and really into eugenics and race purity. In other words, they were absolutely typical of many intellectuals of their age.
• Baffled by the whole "militia movement?" Robert Churchill's recent book is a good start.
• Magnetic stimulation to certain parts of the brain can change moral judgements.
• Peter Boettke wonders, "why is economic common sense so hard to communicate?" I wonder if, "economic common sense" *might* just be an oxymoron.
• With talk of the 2010 Census in the air, check out this chart of the most populous US cities according to the first census in 1790. New York tops the list...with 33,131 people.
• The allure of glamour.

Moving Thoughts

(This whole post, in one way or another, is informed by George Carlin's classic routine, "A Place For My Stuff." Watch it here.)

I moved recently and, as those who have done this before know, it is never a cut-and-dried task. There are always things you forget, corners you forget to dust, boxes you didn't tape right, hitching a trailer in a blinding snow storm. That sort of thing.

I suppose as moves go, mine was relatively uneventful (apart from the fact that I did most of the work without my glasses, no mean feat). It went how most moves go, in stages:

1. Gather boxes, tape, labels, Sharpies, garbage bags and other vessels for stuff.
2. Let those things sit around for a week while you do absolutely nothing.
3. Realize the move date is coming up and frantically start to sift through your stuff.
4. Establish guidelines for what stays and what goes. The dusty, rarely-used, broken, stained, too-hard-to-clean, or about-to-collapse stuff goes.
5. Gather usable, but unwanted stuff, and donate it or give it away. Feel good about yourself and, as a reward, do absolutely nothing for another week.
6. Realize that the move is even closer now and start to jam stuff into aforementioned boxes, bags, pants with the legs tied off, whatever. This is the stuff, naturally, that made the cut and is not junk or potential home decor for some insufferable hipster.
7. Begin cleaning, realize the enormity of the task and then do absolutely nothing for a few more days.
8. Realize that you move in three days and turn into some hopped-up combination of a house-parlour maid and Bob Vila, cleaning and repairing (or masking) all your sins.
9. Realize that it is all done and then do nothing until the trailer is ready for pick-up.

That's about how it went.

The interesting thoughts, however, came about in Stage 9. There I was, clean apartment, everything packed and sitting neatly (?) in a pile in front of me.

First I thought, "sitting in front of me, in boxes saved by Yo La Tengo Shirt Guy at the corner store, is, well me. These are, as they say, all my earthly possessions. This is all I got. Everything I own in this world that is not my body is there in a pile. This thought depressed me, as you might imagine.

Can a life be reduced to this? Is this the sum-total of my estate? What does this pile of boxes and bags mean, exactly?

I then thought, "No. This is not me. I am me, and these are just material possessions. Why, I could get rid of all of this and still be me. I am not defined by my posessions anymore than I am defined by a job, nationality, religion, ethnicity or baseball team affiliation (well, maybe not so much that last one)."

Well, then, why do you keep any of it? Why not just hippie/Jesus out, dump it all and just live, man?

Like it or not, I then thought, I have grown attached to some of these things. Why?

Then, the real question hit me: why did you keep the particular things you did and get rid of the rest?

Some of it is personal, things that remind me of my past and the past of my family. These things are priceless (not in a literal sense, but you get my meaning). A lot of what I kept were books. As an academic, they are the tools of my trade and the medium through which I keep my mind active and discursive as ever. Movies and music also made it past the garbage/Goodwill stage. These things make me happy and give me perspective, so I kept those. Practical items, too, like clothes. Well, there are few who want to see a naked guy wandering around, and almost none who want to see a naked me, so I had better have those. Apart from my computer, that was about it.

What does any of this prove? I think it boils down to value. When asked to move, we take the path of least resistance. We want to move as little as possible as quick as possible. We must make some hard decisions about the material things around us. In the end, it shows what we really value most. I guess I value my memories, ideas and not being naked.

What I am perhaps getting at is that a move involves a certain value calculus, one that is different for everyone. This process of winnowing is different for everyone and I suppose the process says as much about the individual as the things processed. It is all signalling, to put it another way.

So, whether you are moving are not, take a look around your place, pick out a few things and ask yourself: "Why am I keeping this? What does this object mean to me? What does it say about me? What would I think if I never saw it again? Would I care?"

The answers might surprise you. I know they surprised me.

Link Exchange

• Annoying book review cliches. These are as plain as the nose on your face.
• Great interview with econ Nobel Laureate Gary Becker. Becker is a living legend, and he is optimistic about the economy in general. I tend to agree.
• Is curing dissociative identity disorder (multiple personalities) murder? Robin Hanson seems to suggest it is.
• The connection between U.S. drug policy and the gang wars in Mexico. The "War on Drugs" causes violence rather than preventing it. Time to sue for peace.
• Is it worth it for a city or country to host a large sporting event like the Olympics? Probably not.
• Women in countries with healthier populations prefer more feminine-looking men. I think this is in line with the main thrust of understanding in evolutionary psychology.
• David Cameron "rallies the base." Four months ago, the Tories had the election wrapped up. Now it will be a fight to the finish and (I think) a hung Parliament.

Is Economics Dead?

In its current form as an academic discipline, David Brooks thinks so.

First, a caveat about me and my opinion of David Brooks. Sometimes I think he is right on the money, other times I think he is on some other planet. On this score, I tend toward the former.

Economics is considered one of the "social sciences," basically disciplines that attempt to explain human behavior (in one way or another) using empirical methodologies. These disciplines usually include political science, psychology, sociology and economics.

Brooks does not take issue with the "social" part. It is the "science" that he has a problem with. He basically argues that economics will, in the future, be more like history or philosophy. It will be a powerful voice in a chorus of voices trying to explain the human condition as it is, was or will be.

What he thinks is at an end, though, is economics as a science in the sense that it is meant to render definitive answers about certain questions, follow a method of experimentation, value the quantitative over the qualitative and (perhaps most importantly) make predictions about how people might behave in the future. He posits, in fact, that economics will become more like art than science.

I do agree with Brooks that human behavior is a slippery thing that is not easily explained by any of the social sciences. What's more, I also agree that any pretense that any of these things are close to the "hard" sciences like chemistry or physics or biology. These sciences can explain how people work. The social sciences attempt to explain why people work, and this is a much harder thing to do.

I disagree with Brooks in that I don't think it was the recent economic crisis that was the "tipping point" for this supposed change in economics. I think of it in a more positive manner. Interdisciplinarity has been a force in academia for some time now and I think economists are finally coming out from behind their figures and charts to realize that they can learn from their colleagues. I think that this is a good thing, in the main.

The question, as a bit of an aside, arises: well, can any discipline keep its integrity in such an environment? Yes, because there are certain sorts of questions that one discipline answers better than others. Want to know about the causes of schizophrenia? A historian might be able to tell you how this disease and the perception of it changed over time, but for the direct answer, best to ask a psychologist. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Greg Mankiw offers a different take on this, disagreeing pretty much in whole with Brooks. He says that journalists fundamentally misunderstand changes in academia and does not realize that professional economists are not really in the business of predicting the future anyway.

He goes on to admit that, while certain changes do need to be made to basic econ courses, the breadth and depth of them are good for now. He admits he might be biased on this score, and he is right to do so. He is the author of damn near the most popular text for Microeconomics 101 classes today.

In the end, though, I think Brooks is on to something here. He is calling economists to remember that their roots are not in the sciences. The earliest people you could call economists came from other, older disciplines that probed the human mind and condition.

To take but one example: if you were to meet Adam Smith and call him an "economist," he would have no idea what you were talking about. He was really a moral philosopher, interested in how people can achieve happiness and live, well, the right way.

It was in this spirit that he wrote his first (under-read, in my opinion) book The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759. This book provides the moral and philosophical underpinnings for his later (more quoted, less read, even less understood) work The Wealth of Nations in 1776.

You would get the same quizzical looks from other early "economists" like David Ricardo, Francois Quesnay, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot and others. In fact, the first person you might be able to call an economist as they developed to the present day might be Alfred Marshall, leader of the "marginal revolution."

So, back to my original question: is economics dead. I think not, but the way the discipline looks at its problems and itself will, and should, change. Economics can be a powerful voice in explaining human behavior, motivation and action.

One voice, however, does not a chorus make.

Link Exchange

• Interesting article and book about an often-forgotten investment bubble of recent years: baseball cards. In the 1980's, baseball cards became seen as a viable investment, people rushed in, prices rose and the bubble burst in 1994 with the baseball strike. I was part of this bursting (in a minor way), and I suppose it was an early education in boom and bust.
• Speaking of booms and busts, this is a super summary (in chart form) of US booms and busts (and other economic data) for the period 1775-1943. This, for me, is a real conversation starter.
• Interactive diagram showing why general equilibrium analysis is no easy task.
• I have seen this making the Internet rounds, an attempt to show that we depend heavily on that which is supplied by government. Here is the libertarian response. I guess it just goes to show that our society is really neither.
• Should airlines pay you to check your bags, in interest of effeciency? Felix Salmon thinks so. His argument is a compelling one.
• Engrossing discussion of positive vs. negative liberty at Cato Unbound. I, as you might imagine, come down on the negative liberty side.

Oh, No. Not Him Again.

Yes, I am back in the blogging saddle.

It has been a tough few months, and in many ways, I have been incommunicado.

I intend to change this.

My schedule has opened up somewhat (well, I am unemployed), and might have some more time to write here.

So, read the below two posts and expect more in the future. More recipes, more links, more history, more econ.

In short, more of everything that makes you like (?) me and this site.

Greeks Begging for Gifts

Greece is one of the worst governed countries in Europe, and certainly damn near the worst in the EU.

There. I said it.

Today, it was announced that the French and German governments have agreed, with help from the IMF, to bail out the Greek economy to prevent it from completely coming apart.

This move shows a few interesting things. To wit:

1. France and Germany "wear the pants" in the EU. Always have, always will.
2. Greece, as a country, was considered "too big to fail." Well, this is not literally true, but systemic risk is certainly an issue here.
3. This, for me, calls into question Europe as an optimum currency area (OCA). Now, I know that Europe is the first place this has really been tried, but I think, after the Euro conversion in 2002, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later.
4. The recent labor unrest in Greece is a reflection of the dire (to put it mildly) state of the Greek economy rather than its cause.
5. I think a lot of the blame for a lot of the current economic problems lie in the 1970's and former Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou and his Pan-Hellenic Socialist Party (PASOK). After the military junta was brought down in 1974, the right was discredited and the left took over in all levels of government. While this is not in and of itself bad, it did mean that there was no effective opposition and the PASOK and its allies proceeded to wreck the economy and create general malaise amongst the populace.
6. This might happen again. I am looking at you, Spain and Portugal.

Addendum: Will the US become the next Ireland, which supposedly serves as a model for recovery for the Greeks? Probably not.

Link Exchange

• Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment? It was passed in 1913 and gave the federal government the right to levy taxes. I like this idea.
• Could the new health care legislation lead to more uninsured people? Arnold Kling thinks so.
• Why Italian academia sucks. I think a lot of these criticisms can be applied to European academia more broadly. European academia, to my thinking, has a very perverse incentive scheme.
• Don Boudreaux nicely summarizes the natural rights view of the crucial idea of "the rule of law."
• Freakonomics Radio is now live! Go here for the podcast, RSS feed or to listen live. Russ Roberts is especially good. I would gladly live in a country run by that guy.
• A business model for aspiring pirates.
• There has always been a gulf between academia and the general public in the US. Is this changing (for better or worse)?
• Jodi Beggs muses on game theory and splitting the check at a restaurant.
• Corporate diversity training (apparently) does little good and makes people resentful.
• Libertarians in Israel.

Addendum: I realize that the Sixteenth Amendment deals directly with the income tax and that Article I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers of Congress) gives Congress the right to levy taxes. I apologise for the confusion.