One afternoon last week my normally banal journey to class was interrupted with some not-so-welcome excitement.
Behind my house is a paved path, which parallels the metro line and leads to the nearby station that I use to pick up DC-bound trains. It is a path tucked away, hidden from the general neighborhood and house lined street grid. This quality helps attract people to venture it who do not use it for reasons of convenient transportation to and from the metro. For those of us that use it regularly, it's hard to ignore the dubious characters that tend to congregate on and around it.
And on this particular day, events had apparently transpired there which not even the Police could ignore. Upon making the right hand turn around the corner of my place and setting foot on to the path, I witnessed no less than 5 cop cars, lights twirling but thankfully sirens silent, grouped in bunches at different points on the path. There were officers speaking with small groups of young women, also spaced out around the area. While at certain points the whole path was blocked, I still managed to make my way through the crowd without being questioned. Clearly something had just gone down.
The women had looks of impatience on their faces, as if the police were questioning them for no good reason, or they wouldn't give the officers the information they wanted even if they knew what it was that was being asked of them. Walking by one of these impromptu interrogations, something ratty looking caught my eye. What first appeared as a piece of garbage focused into the unmistakable black wiry bunch of a hair weave. Why would one of these be on the ground? Thinking through its possible source while walking, I noticed another clump of this dark hair mass sitting violently a few dozen yards down the path.
The message was clear: there had just been a furious cat fight. And judging from the number of women and police present on the path and street (not to mention the coiffured casualties), this had been no small affair.
But this story does not end here. Apparently the Police didn't consider the ripped out hair weaves as useful evidence, because they continued to lie there, like fallen soldiers, for days following the event. We have seen more police presence on the path, but those weaves just did not disappear.
Then this week, I was startled to see the largest, most impressive clump of fake hair, hanging proudly from the limb of a leafless tree next to the path. I'd like to think that it was placed there intentionally by one of the victorious Amazons. Like a decapitated head stuck on a pole placed firmly in the ground, warning savage tribes of yore to steer clear of a given area, this wind-swinging weave is an atavistic reminder to those unwelcome females who come by our parts that they ought to think twice about this decision, if they wish to continue enjoying their fraudulent hair.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Death Knell of Economics
I think it's uplifting to conceive of our financial nightmare as a funeral. Unlike most other entombments, which cause mourning over the loss of a loved one, this funeral should only elicit celebration in lieu of the end of a particularly deleterious branch of the social sciences: economics.
A famous and well-respected man once said (well, you could at least imagine one saying), "You can only trust an economist so far as you can throw one."
Or, as a distinguished female (we don't discriminate here at Introspective Excess) once exclaimed, "Economists are about as useful as screen doors on submarines."
There is truth to these statements.
Economists are a sanctimonious breed, on par with priests and pet lovers. Regardless of an economic trend or phenomenon, there will always be some "explanation" that fits within their current "model" or "theory." Their concepts are unfalsifiable. I do not know what one could possibly say to a man of this occupation that would convince him that he were wrong. God have mercy on the poor aides and journalists forced to suffer through attending a conference filled with strong headed economists of opposing views.
Case in point: Republicans still argue that tax cuts (a byproduct of Reagan's free market, trickle down ideology) are the solution to our ongoing economic woes. Obama, ever the consumer of economic "expert" advice, sought to attack this myopic understanding when he suggested yesterday that,
But what if Obama's plan doesn't work? What if spending is not in fact the way to go, and only proves to be slow, cumbersome, and symptom-and-not-problem attacking, as the Right alleges?
Then you can bet the farm his camp will have their excuses. I can just hear their kvetching now: "The Republicans made it too small," or "We were forced to wait beyond the point of no return to implement it." Guaranteed, something to protect their fundamental (Keynesian) model while shifting the blame will pervade these excuses. You can also bet that no matter what the outcome of the bill, economists on the Right (and likewise, their mouthpieces in the Halls of Congress) will have their fair share of criticism for it.
The irreconcilable differences between economists on the right and left are an indictment against the field itself. Think about it this way: If two scientists can look at the same piece of data and come up with not just differing opinions but opinions that are fundamentally contradictory, then what can you say about that science?
The most fundamental question that has been neglected by mainstream writers is, whether or not there is a right answer to an economic problem. Is there really a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of approaching an economic crisis? And if you answer this question in the negative (as I believe), then what's economics' purpose beyond stifling more effective solutions from being pursued, like those not wedded to an "ism"?
Anyone involved with a hard science, like physics or mathematics, would vehemently deny that economics can approach their level of objective judgment. In their fields, fundamental, natural rules set the boundaries to a problem's potential solution. Rules (like gravity, or Pi) dictate the outcome of a given action and enable these scientists to accurately predict its effects.
While clearly not all scientists will agree on every new, technical discovery, there at least ought to be some consensus on the more fundamental tenets of the field. For instance, doctors concur that smoking causes cancer. Physicists concur that when you drop something, it will accelerate at a given rate.
After economists' long, arduous and costly journey in search of the holy grail of rules; in other words, their journey to legitimately call themselves a "hard science," I think it is finally time for them to understand what they really are: wannabes.
In conclusion, despite their fundamental, surreptitious role in the activities of public and private America, these wannabes' have received surprisingly little castigation since it was discovered that this America had thoroughly bungled things for the rest of us.
Instead, the financial bankers and corporate executives who rely on the wannabes' models are feeling the brunt of public vehemence. I for one feel sorry for these public figures, who after all, just acted in consonance with economic predictions that foretold the economy would continue as it had been since Clinton. At least they do not hide what they really are -- slick crooks out for a profit. Economists on the other hand insist on considering themselves "scientists," when all they really do is cover up an ideological bias and excruciatingly pathetic yearning for recognition as a worthy member of the scientific community, with fancy graphs and scatter plots.
Economics, R.I.P. Go find a ditch and throw yourself in it. God knows that when that happens, you can count on at least one of us to be standing there with a shovel, waiting anxiously to cover you up.
A famous and well-respected man once said (well, you could at least imagine one saying), "You can only trust an economist so far as you can throw one."
Or, as a distinguished female (we don't discriminate here at Introspective Excess) once exclaimed, "Economists are about as useful as screen doors on submarines."
There is truth to these statements.
Economists are a sanctimonious breed, on par with priests and pet lovers. Regardless of an economic trend or phenomenon, there will always be some "explanation" that fits within their current "model" or "theory." Their concepts are unfalsifiable. I do not know what one could possibly say to a man of this occupation that would convince him that he were wrong. God have mercy on the poor aides and journalists forced to suffer through attending a conference filled with strong headed economists of opposing views.
Case in point: Republicans still argue that tax cuts (a byproduct of Reagan's free market, trickle down ideology) are the solution to our ongoing economic woes. Obama, ever the consumer of economic "expert" advice, sought to attack this myopic understanding when he suggested yesterday that,
In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis...
But what if Obama's plan doesn't work? What if spending is not in fact the way to go, and only proves to be slow, cumbersome, and symptom-and-not-problem attacking, as the Right alleges?
Then you can bet the farm his camp will have their excuses. I can just hear their kvetching now: "The Republicans made it too small," or "We were forced to wait beyond the point of no return to implement it." Guaranteed, something to protect their fundamental (Keynesian) model while shifting the blame will pervade these excuses. You can also bet that no matter what the outcome of the bill, economists on the Right (and likewise, their mouthpieces in the Halls of Congress) will have their fair share of criticism for it.
The irreconcilable differences between economists on the right and left are an indictment against the field itself. Think about it this way: If two scientists can look at the same piece of data and come up with not just differing opinions but opinions that are fundamentally contradictory, then what can you say about that science?
The most fundamental question that has been neglected by mainstream writers is, whether or not there is a right answer to an economic problem. Is there really a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of approaching an economic crisis? And if you answer this question in the negative (as I believe), then what's economics' purpose beyond stifling more effective solutions from being pursued, like those not wedded to an "ism"?
Anyone involved with a hard science, like physics or mathematics, would vehemently deny that economics can approach their level of objective judgment. In their fields, fundamental, natural rules set the boundaries to a problem's potential solution. Rules (like gravity, or Pi) dictate the outcome of a given action and enable these scientists to accurately predict its effects.
While clearly not all scientists will agree on every new, technical discovery, there at least ought to be some consensus on the more fundamental tenets of the field. For instance, doctors concur that smoking causes cancer. Physicists concur that when you drop something, it will accelerate at a given rate.
After economists' long, arduous and costly journey in search of the holy grail of rules; in other words, their journey to legitimately call themselves a "hard science," I think it is finally time for them to understand what they really are: wannabes.
In conclusion, despite their fundamental, surreptitious role in the activities of public and private America, these wannabes' have received surprisingly little castigation since it was discovered that this America had thoroughly bungled things for the rest of us.
Instead, the financial bankers and corporate executives who rely on the wannabes' models are feeling the brunt of public vehemence. I for one feel sorry for these public figures, who after all, just acted in consonance with economic predictions that foretold the economy would continue as it had been since Clinton. At least they do not hide what they really are -- slick crooks out for a profit. Economists on the other hand insist on considering themselves "scientists," when all they really do is cover up an ideological bias and excruciatingly pathetic yearning for recognition as a worthy member of the scientific community, with fancy graphs and scatter plots.
Economics, R.I.P. Go find a ditch and throw yourself in it. God knows that when that happens, you can count on at least one of us to be standing there with a shovel, waiting anxiously to cover you up.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
As the Jamaicans say,
BIG UP to my inchoate fan base. It takes a lot of gumption to openly admit you enjoy reading this esoteric nonsense.
Signing in to this blog for the first time in a while and reading that someone had actually commented on a post has inspired me to make an addition. There are so many things to write about I struggle to focus my thoughts on any single topic. Why not spew forth some thoughts on the economy & impending stimulus package?
I am hesitant to endorse any spending spree, though I understand the argument that we need to do something now, else all will be lost. I do think there is something to the converse of the argument: that we ought to let the problem play out, so that the system will re-start itself and shed all of the pernicious assets, activities, etc. that fueled the crisis. The problem with this is the sheer amount of short term costs that it will create. No one wants to suffer through poverty for the sake of future generations, or for the health of the system itself.
Because this non-action has no political feasibility, it is better to focus criticism on the nature of the proposed package itself. In my opinion the foundation of the plan ought to be job creation-- I think this almost goes without saying. "Freeing up credit" is useless if the majority of society lacks the ability to cover loans requiring that credit. WWII ended the Great Depression by creating a demand for all new types of labor. When consumers have money to consume, all is well. The question therefore becomes, how do we catalyze a similar demand? Surely starting a war of similar proportions would help, but let's not endorse that option just yet.
Here is a break-down of the Stimulus package that passed the U.S.H.O.R. last week. Where do we find this job creation?
Extended unemployment benefits are a short term band-aid, helping those who don't work to not starve. Important, yes, but not a priority. When their aide runs out and there are still no jobs for them to enter, what then?
In health care we have some line items that might help create jobs, especially the notion of modernizing the health care system. But the tasks this entails are for skilled workers, and won't create a dent in the under-educated class' unemployment.
It is in the categories of infrastructure, energy, science & technology, housing, and environment, where we begin to see items that will spur job creation. In each of these categories are billions being dedicated towards starting new projects and getting all kinds of people to work. Hence it will be in the success of these projects that the economy will rebound or crumble.
So clearly the Obama camp recognizes the need to get people off of the welfare doles and into work. But the question then becomes, what are they working for? What kind of society are these projects creating? The answer to this will set the direction our country will head in for the next century. It is also where the underlying value of the stimulus package is to be found. Unfortunately the future this bill is funding appears to be shaping up to repeat a lot of the past.
I would argue that these jobs should be used to facilitate a "Green Economy," one in which we maximize our ability to reap the resources offered to us by the planet without damaging it. From this CBS overview, I fear this priority has received little direct attention. Look at the infrastructure piece, for instance. New highways, bridges, and mass-transit lines will be springing up all over the place. But where's the incentive to use alternative fuels?
Likewise, none of the other job-creating categories seem to officially embrace the importance of creating a new, green economy, founded on sustainability and not profitability. I may be overlooking something, and I hope I am, but I fear I'm not. Creating jobs to just increase the scope of the economy we already have will just delay the inevitable transformation that our economy must undergo if we at all care to have our progeny exist as Americans in 500 years, or if we care whether or not the planet they live on will be inhabitable.
Obama's rhetoric indicates he'd like to see this bill stimulate the type of advanced economy I'm referring to. I can only hope he won't have to compromise this ideal in order to get the bill passed.
Signing in to this blog for the first time in a while and reading that someone had actually commented on a post has inspired me to make an addition. There are so many things to write about I struggle to focus my thoughts on any single topic. Why not spew forth some thoughts on the economy & impending stimulus package?
I am hesitant to endorse any spending spree, though I understand the argument that we need to do something now, else all will be lost. I do think there is something to the converse of the argument: that we ought to let the problem play out, so that the system will re-start itself and shed all of the pernicious assets, activities, etc. that fueled the crisis. The problem with this is the sheer amount of short term costs that it will create. No one wants to suffer through poverty for the sake of future generations, or for the health of the system itself.
Because this non-action has no political feasibility, it is better to focus criticism on the nature of the proposed package itself. In my opinion the foundation of the plan ought to be job creation-- I think this almost goes without saying. "Freeing up credit" is useless if the majority of society lacks the ability to cover loans requiring that credit. WWII ended the Great Depression by creating a demand for all new types of labor. When consumers have money to consume, all is well. The question therefore becomes, how do we catalyze a similar demand? Surely starting a war of similar proportions would help, but let's not endorse that option just yet.
Here is a break-down of the Stimulus package that passed the U.S.H.O.R. last week. Where do we find this job creation?
Extended unemployment benefits are a short term band-aid, helping those who don't work to not starve. Important, yes, but not a priority. When their aide runs out and there are still no jobs for them to enter, what then?
In health care we have some line items that might help create jobs, especially the notion of modernizing the health care system. But the tasks this entails are for skilled workers, and won't create a dent in the under-educated class' unemployment.
It is in the categories of infrastructure, energy, science & technology, housing, and environment, where we begin to see items that will spur job creation. In each of these categories are billions being dedicated towards starting new projects and getting all kinds of people to work. Hence it will be in the success of these projects that the economy will rebound or crumble.
So clearly the Obama camp recognizes the need to get people off of the welfare doles and into work. But the question then becomes, what are they working for? What kind of society are these projects creating? The answer to this will set the direction our country will head in for the next century. It is also where the underlying value of the stimulus package is to be found. Unfortunately the future this bill is funding appears to be shaping up to repeat a lot of the past.
I would argue that these jobs should be used to facilitate a "Green Economy," one in which we maximize our ability to reap the resources offered to us by the planet without damaging it. From this CBS overview, I fear this priority has received little direct attention. Look at the infrastructure piece, for instance. New highways, bridges, and mass-transit lines will be springing up all over the place. But where's the incentive to use alternative fuels?
Likewise, none of the other job-creating categories seem to officially embrace the importance of creating a new, green economy, founded on sustainability and not profitability. I may be overlooking something, and I hope I am, but I fear I'm not. Creating jobs to just increase the scope of the economy we already have will just delay the inevitable transformation that our economy must undergo if we at all care to have our progeny exist as Americans in 500 years, or if we care whether or not the planet they live on will be inhabitable.
Obama's rhetoric indicates he'd like to see this bill stimulate the type of advanced economy I'm referring to. I can only hope he won't have to compromise this ideal in order to get the bill passed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)