Sports fandom can get very heated. From Lebron James's decision to play basketball in a place much nicer than where he was raised to Jay Cutler's (or the Bears) decision not to play on a torn MCL. Folks get real excited about something that, from the outside, has no tangible impact on their lives. It's fun people-watching to see the degree of invective and vitriol some folks dedicate toward grown men throwing balls around.
It's all about projection and narratives. Most folks live in a way that, absent Steinbeck's gift of prose, doesn't make for a very good story. We work jobs that don't interest us to pay for things we may or not need and to support the well being of those who may or may not appreciate what we're doing. Or we're living off our parents and going to graduate school so that we can express ourselves artistically, even though we don't have a firm grasp on what we believe or what we love. Apply your own scenario here.
But sports have narratives and myths that demand our attention. Lebron James was supposed to be the savior of Cleveland. He's a superhuman talent who would restore respect and national acclaim to a city with diminishing resources and pride. Only problem was, he decided he wanted to have fun in Miami hanging out with his friends and winning basketball games. So he left.
And the folks who believed in the myth felt jilted. Because Lebron James's decision didn't fit their narrative. And they got real angry at him. Burned his jersey and stuff. But the degree of vitriol wasn't commensurate with the crime. But when you bust a myth that's someone else has projected on you, and that myth is THEIR dream, the response can be ugly.
In Chicago and Green Bay, folks like to think of themselves as hardy, down-to-earth folk. The weather is horrific, and, by most measures, there are simply better places to live. And it's no accident that sports worship tends to be most intense in these kinds of places. The Packers and Bears are expressions of cities. Sportscasters invariably talk about the strength of their defenses and their physical toughness, without any evidence to support their claims. And no one questions them. Because these are the myths that are associated with the towns.
Chicagoans and Wisconsinites are tougher than most, because they endure crappy weather. By analogy, so are their football teams, despite no connection between the origins of the players and the locales themselves.
Jay Cutler got hurt yesterday. He tore his ACL. But the rest of him was shredded far worse by legions of followers-on who commented on his absence. He was labeled as soft and weak. It was angry and vicious. And totally disjointed from the truth.
It's stupid to play on a torn ligament; the doctors pulled him from the game. But the Bears didn't win. And we need something to explain the narrative of why the Bears' toughness lost out to the Packers' toughness. And the easiest way to do that is to find a scapegoat to help resolve the native. A weakling infiltrated the Bears' toughness and made them lose to the Packers' toughness.
In reality, the Packers were, despite their inferior record, probably a better football team. Their points differential was far superior to the Bears. But that doesn't fit with the narrative. And so eff Jay Cutler. His personality flaws are the reason the Bears lost.
Never mind that folks with severe personality flaws win all the time (See, i.e.., Roethlisberger, Ben). We need a myth to believe in. After all, that's the only reason we cared in the first place.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Has it been a week?
Oof. No good. I'm starting to slack with this blog.
Was busy at work this week, but this Amy Chua book caught my eye. Haven't read it, but it sounds like the idea is that she attributes the success of Asian students to the hyper-disciplined attitudes of Chinese parents. Kids don't play much and they don't make their own choices, but they work nonstop and then they succeed.
I was also raised by immigrant parents, and I think much of what she attributes to Chinese parents can properly be attributed to other immigrant groups. Many Americans come to expect success and prosperity as a given, but non-Americans who were raised with a lower standard of living know more acutely that it is not. Nothing is a given, and as many relatively educated Americans are discovering today, the standard of living that we've been accustomed to enjoying is not always easy to maintain. The rest of the world wants a piece of our lifestyle, and with jobs and information crossing borders with ease, it's easier for them to get it.
Now, as a lawyer who went to a reasonably high-falutin' law school, I've met plenty of "successful" people. Some of them are extraordinary, but perhaps a few more are dull and underdeveloped. When you push hard to develop one aspect of your personality, others atrophy. Amy Chua, for example, adamantly opposes her children playing any instrument besides piano or violin. Perhaps there's prestige associated with those instruments not attributable to the trombone. But frankly, Amy Chua's orchestra, no matter how technically proficient, would suck. Jimmy Hendrix didn't play the violin, and Bill Clinton played the saxophone. Having a little personality is not to be avoided at all costs.
Amy Chua's children will succeed. And yes, maybe American children focus too much on self-actualization, to the extent that we lack basic skills. And if we lack basic skills, our lifestyle will deteriorate. But if you deny yourself worldly pleasures in their entirety in order to succeed, you are foregoing a higher quality of life to attain the success you will eventually obtain. And when you get there, will you know what to do with it? Why be successful, if you can't enjoy the quality of life it provides?
Fuck it. I'm going to go play the banjo.
Was busy at work this week, but this Amy Chua book caught my eye. Haven't read it, but it sounds like the idea is that she attributes the success of Asian students to the hyper-disciplined attitudes of Chinese parents. Kids don't play much and they don't make their own choices, but they work nonstop and then they succeed.
I was also raised by immigrant parents, and I think much of what she attributes to Chinese parents can properly be attributed to other immigrant groups. Many Americans come to expect success and prosperity as a given, but non-Americans who were raised with a lower standard of living know more acutely that it is not. Nothing is a given, and as many relatively educated Americans are discovering today, the standard of living that we've been accustomed to enjoying is not always easy to maintain. The rest of the world wants a piece of our lifestyle, and with jobs and information crossing borders with ease, it's easier for them to get it.
Now, as a lawyer who went to a reasonably high-falutin' law school, I've met plenty of "successful" people. Some of them are extraordinary, but perhaps a few more are dull and underdeveloped. When you push hard to develop one aspect of your personality, others atrophy. Amy Chua, for example, adamantly opposes her children playing any instrument besides piano or violin. Perhaps there's prestige associated with those instruments not attributable to the trombone. But frankly, Amy Chua's orchestra, no matter how technically proficient, would suck. Jimmy Hendrix didn't play the violin, and Bill Clinton played the saxophone. Having a little personality is not to be avoided at all costs.
Amy Chua's children will succeed. And yes, maybe American children focus too much on self-actualization, to the extent that we lack basic skills. And if we lack basic skills, our lifestyle will deteriorate. But if you deny yourself worldly pleasures in their entirety in order to succeed, you are foregoing a higher quality of life to attain the success you will eventually obtain. And when you get there, will you know what to do with it? Why be successful, if you can't enjoy the quality of life it provides?
Fuck it. I'm going to go play the banjo.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Introspection
This article would seem to be an indictment of what I'm doing with this blog: First draft essays.
"The second worst thing you can do on the internet is waste someone's time." Noble idea, but I suspect for most folks, that's the very reason they're on the internet.
"The second worst thing you can do on the internet is waste someone's time." Noble idea, but I suspect for most folks, that's the very reason they're on the internet.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Age and Creativity
Most creative people are more productive when they're young than when they're old.
There are exceptions. Picasso, Vonnegut, and David Byrne, for example. I suppose Dylan's been decent in old age (though it's hard to argue he's as productive as he was as a youngster). But there are more examples to the contrary. It appears true in music: Paul McCartney, the Who, the Kinks, Neil Young. The icons of the 60s and 70s aren't producing music in the
Literature is more debatable. Hemingway and Fitzgerald peaked young. Henry James and Frost got better as they got older.
My instinct is that the change is not physiological, but social. Namely, is it not akin to learning foreign languages - in that if you don't do it when you're young it's difficult to acquire in old age. But rather, by their 30s, most struggling artists have given up their desired craft for more stable pursuits. And successful artists lose the motivation that made them artists: social isolation and lack of recognition.
The vast majority of aspiring artists either sell out or you acquire acceptance. Neither is conducive to further creative self discovery.
There are exceptions. Picasso, Vonnegut, and David Byrne, for example. I suppose Dylan's been decent in old age (though it's hard to argue he's as productive as he was as a youngster). But there are more examples to the contrary. It appears true in music: Paul McCartney, the Who, the Kinks, Neil Young. The icons of the 60s and 70s aren't producing music in the
Literature is more debatable. Hemingway and Fitzgerald peaked young. Henry James and Frost got better as they got older.
My instinct is that the change is not physiological, but social. Namely, is it not akin to learning foreign languages - in that if you don't do it when you're young it's difficult to acquire in old age. But rather, by their 30s, most struggling artists have given up their desired craft for more stable pursuits. And successful artists lose the motivation that made them artists: social isolation and lack of recognition.
The vast majority of aspiring artists either sell out or you acquire acceptance. Neither is conducive to further creative self discovery.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
On Confidence
I remember about ten years ago watching an interview with Kid Rock. Now, I loathe Kid Rock and his hyper produced derivative rap-metal meme, but this interview grabbed me. It must have, as I still remember it today.
Actually, I remember only one thing from the interview. The interviewer asked him, if you weren't a rock star, what would you have done for a living? He replied [and I'm paraphrasing], "I would have been a rock star. No matter what it took. I always knew I was going to make this happen."
That confidence is remarkable. And because Kid Rock did become a rock star, it's tempting to say that this confidence is what enabled him to accomplish his dream. He didn't hedge his bets. He didn't let day jobs distract him. He was utterly consumed with a dream. And he got there. It doesn't matter that Kid Rock isn't that talented, and perhaps it's because of his mediocrity that this confidence was important.
It's a bit circular though. You need singular dedication and obsessive self belief to make it as a rock star. Kid Rock had that. Therefore, Kid Rock made it.
Sadly, that dedication and self belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition to stardom. Because there are lots of folks with that belief, but few who attain the prize. There are legions of unknown wanna-be Kid Rockers wandering around, disheartened and confused, and despite singular dedication and obsessive self belief, they never made it.
Personally, I don't have that kind of confidence. I'm inclined to consider a fuller range of possibilities. I could become a rock star. Or, I could get hit by an asteroid. I could get a desk job. Or, I could become a struggling artist who spends my life trying to achieve artistic renown, but failing. I could be mediocre. I could be above average. Meh.
And so I have hedged my bets. I didn't pursue my dreams all the way. I was once a poor writer, but after a year or two of failing to make much of a living, I got more stable jobs. This allowed me to live a better life, but I never pursued the dream to the fullest. Writers (more or less) in my age bracket, such as Klosterman, Simmons, and Will Leitch, stuck with it, despite the odds. But so did thousands of others toiling in obscurity, living on a pittance, each day knowing that they did not achieve the dream either, despite giving up everything to get there.
It's hard to know whether you have that talent unless you dedicate yourself singularly to that pursuit. But there are many more who try than those who succeed.
I'm not unhappy with the choices I've made. But part of me wonders if I was a bit more like Kid Rock, what would have happened.
Actually, I remember only one thing from the interview. The interviewer asked him, if you weren't a rock star, what would you have done for a living? He replied [and I'm paraphrasing], "I would have been a rock star. No matter what it took. I always knew I was going to make this happen."
That confidence is remarkable. And because Kid Rock did become a rock star, it's tempting to say that this confidence is what enabled him to accomplish his dream. He didn't hedge his bets. He didn't let day jobs distract him. He was utterly consumed with a dream. And he got there. It doesn't matter that Kid Rock isn't that talented, and perhaps it's because of his mediocrity that this confidence was important.
It's a bit circular though. You need singular dedication and obsessive self belief to make it as a rock star. Kid Rock had that. Therefore, Kid Rock made it.
Sadly, that dedication and self belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition to stardom. Because there are lots of folks with that belief, but few who attain the prize. There are legions of unknown wanna-be Kid Rockers wandering around, disheartened and confused, and despite singular dedication and obsessive self belief, they never made it.
Personally, I don't have that kind of confidence. I'm inclined to consider a fuller range of possibilities. I could become a rock star. Or, I could get hit by an asteroid. I could get a desk job. Or, I could become a struggling artist who spends my life trying to achieve artistic renown, but failing. I could be mediocre. I could be above average. Meh.
And so I have hedged my bets. I didn't pursue my dreams all the way. I was once a poor writer, but after a year or two of failing to make much of a living, I got more stable jobs. This allowed me to live a better life, but I never pursued the dream to the fullest. Writers (more or less) in my age bracket, such as Klosterman, Simmons, and Will Leitch, stuck with it, despite the odds. But so did thousands of others toiling in obscurity, living on a pittance, each day knowing that they did not achieve the dream either, despite giving up everything to get there.
It's hard to know whether you have that talent unless you dedicate yourself singularly to that pursuit. But there are many more who try than those who succeed.
I'm not unhappy with the choices I've made. But part of me wonders if I was a bit more like Kid Rock, what would have happened.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Mens Rea
The term "Mens Rea" is latin for guilty mind. Doesn't mean much to most people, but it's deeply etched into most law students' minds after the first year of law school. Deeply etched, because it is a component of every crime, as important as the facts of whether someone did or did not commit the crime itself. First you determine if there was a crime, then you determine to what extent the author of the crime had a "guilty mind"
Without doubt, there's lots of folks out there with guilty minds after a gunman opened fire on a town-hall meeting with Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Gifford yesterday. Rightfully so. But in the law, in our own thought processes, it's important to be careful to distinguish levels of guilt.
Many are ready to throw Sarah Palin and Jared Lee Loughner, suspected shooter, into the same bucket of responsibility. That's certainly not right. One used inflammatory political rhetoric and imagery to serve her political needs, the other alleged pulled out a semi-automatic weapon and fired on human beings at close range. The former is, at worst, negligent. The latter is, if true, almost certainly guilty of premeditated, intentional, first-degree murder.
The law likes to distinguish between levels of responsibility, and so should non-lawyers. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. But in my opinion, she shares almost no responsibility for what happened. She was not negligent, because no reasonable person would have taken her target imagery to mean that Palin wanted to remove Gifford, or any other Democratic representative, with violent force.
But, starting yesterday, our state of awareness has changed. Now, as if we needed reminding, it was shown to us in painful 3-D that not everyone who is on the receiving end of these images is reasonable.
The inflammatory language of the tea party has always been reckless. But now we can't pretend otherwise. Now, anyone who uses inflammatory rhetoric involving "guns," "charges," "revolution," and "targets" must be held to a higher standard. They moment the words are uttered, the implicit responsibility for what comes next begins to accrue.
Without doubt, there's lots of folks out there with guilty minds after a gunman opened fire on a town-hall meeting with Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Gifford yesterday. Rightfully so. But in the law, in our own thought processes, it's important to be careful to distinguish levels of guilt.
Many are ready to throw Sarah Palin and Jared Lee Loughner, suspected shooter, into the same bucket of responsibility. That's certainly not right. One used inflammatory political rhetoric and imagery to serve her political needs, the other alleged pulled out a semi-automatic weapon and fired on human beings at close range. The former is, at worst, negligent. The latter is, if true, almost certainly guilty of premeditated, intentional, first-degree murder.
The law likes to distinguish between levels of responsibility, and so should non-lawyers. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. But in my opinion, she shares almost no responsibility for what happened. She was not negligent, because no reasonable person would have taken her target imagery to mean that Palin wanted to remove Gifford, or any other Democratic representative, with violent force.
But, starting yesterday, our state of awareness has changed. Now, as if we needed reminding, it was shown to us in painful 3-D that not everyone who is on the receiving end of these images is reasonable.
The inflammatory language of the tea party has always been reckless. But now we can't pretend otherwise. Now, anyone who uses inflammatory rhetoric involving "guns," "charges," "revolution," and "targets" must be held to a higher standard. They moment the words are uttered, the implicit responsibility for what comes next begins to accrue.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Pervasive fraud and the legal system
In a major ruling in the Massachusetts Supreme Court today, US Bank and Wells Fargo lost the “Ibanez case,” meaning that they don’t have standing to foreclose due to improper mortgage assignment. The ruling is likely to send shock waves through the entire judicial system, and seriously raise the stakes on foreclosure fraud. Bank stocks are plummeting at this hour.For the uninitiated, standing is a legal concept that basically means, "you have the right to file a grievance." For example, I might think that what happened with BP in the Gulf of Mexico is atrocious, but I don't have "standing" to file a claim against BP, because I live in Colorado, and any potential harm that's been suffered by me is too attenuated to get me time in front of a judge. I might argue that my shrimp weren't as tasty for a few weeks, but that's dubious, despite what you've heard from Rush Limbaugh and non-lawyer sensationalist, the legal system isn't down with giving people the time of day who haven't suffered.
In this case, a couple of banks have tried to foreclose upon a homeowner who hadn't paid the mortgage in months. Simple enough, the only problem is, they didn't have the proper paperwork to show that they owned the home. Through the process of securitization, the paperwork had been lost. If you don't have proper title, you don't own a home. My neighbor might be late on her mortgage, but that doesn't mean I can initiate foreclose against her. If I want to do that, I have to show that I am the mortgagor with proper title in hand.
If you can't do that, guess what? You just gave someone a free house.
Our system is deeply flawed, but the one thing this country has done well over the years is to protect the rights of property holders. And I would argue that the accumulated wealth we've acquired over the past 234 years is a result of that respect for the rights of property holders. If the government takes your land to build a highway, it's gotta pay you for it. Even when we dumped Japanese-Americans in internment camps in World War II and took away their freedom, this country still let them keep their land and property.
According to one of the concurring judges:
I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is not the statement of principles articulated by the court regarding title law and the law of foreclosure in Massachusetts, but rather the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets. There is no dispute that the mortgagors of the properties in question had defaulted on their obligations, and that the mortgaged properties were subject to foreclosure. Before commencing such an action, however, the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order. Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the mortgagors, that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it. As the opinion of the court notes, such strict compliance is necessary because Massachusetts is both a title theory State and allows for extrajudicial foreclosure.This matters. It matters to whomever gets the property next. It matters to the person who isn't late on his mortgage but still gets and eviction notice (an increasingly common practice lately). It matters that we respect property rights and demand that banks do the same. If we don't, there is nothing separating us from a medieval culture where the powerful could take from the poor anything they wanted at any time, without recompense. That may sound a bit dramatic, but concrete property rights are more firmly rooted in our culture than any abstract notion of freedom. If we lose them, there ain't much lef.
The executive and legislative branches have completely failed to punish the banks for their pernicious roles in this housing quagmire. Here's to hoping that some judges with backbone will have the courage to act responsibly.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Booze
I haven't had a drink in six whopping days. That's a long time by my standards. Coming into the new year, I was averaging around 4 or 5 drinks a day, 4 or 5 days a week since September. That's near the boundaries of where medical health professionals might label you an "alcoholic."
I don't miss it. Not at all. I feel great. It's easier to get up in the morning. I think more clearly. My runs are going well. Lord knows it makes life cheaper.
Which makes me wonder, how come I was drinking so much before?
The short answer is habit. But the source of the habit is cultural and social. Overeating and overdrinking are more than heavily socialized aspects of yuppie culture. For many of us, they are yuppie culture. It's not part of what we do. It is what we do.
We self-identify with food and booze today in much the same way we self-identified with bands when in high school. Oh, you like Radiohead? I like Mr. Bungle. They're uniquer. Ergo, I'm cooler. Meh.
Just ate spaghetti squash with shittake mushrooms, shrimp, and truffle oil. Yum! I'm so special! Anyone who's spent time on facebook knows the way 20 or 30-somethings triumphantly boast about the meals they prepare and consume as if to show culture and sophistication. Though it usually comes off as sophomoric and petty, it's indicative of how we obsess publicly about what we eat and drink.
Adorned and tasty though they might be, food and booze are never accomplishments. With increasing frequency in my life, they've started to get in the way of them.
I don't miss it. Not at all. I feel great. It's easier to get up in the morning. I think more clearly. My runs are going well. Lord knows it makes life cheaper.
Which makes me wonder, how come I was drinking so much before?
The short answer is habit. But the source of the habit is cultural and social. Overeating and overdrinking are more than heavily socialized aspects of yuppie culture. For many of us, they are yuppie culture. It's not part of what we do. It is what we do.
We self-identify with food and booze today in much the same way we self-identified with bands when in high school. Oh, you like Radiohead? I like Mr. Bungle. They're uniquer. Ergo, I'm cooler. Meh.
Just ate spaghetti squash with shittake mushrooms, shrimp, and truffle oil. Yum! I'm so special! Anyone who's spent time on facebook knows the way 20 or 30-somethings triumphantly boast about the meals they prepare and consume as if to show culture and sophistication. Though it usually comes off as sophomoric and petty, it's indicative of how we obsess publicly about what we eat and drink.
Adorned and tasty though they might be, food and booze are never accomplishments. With increasing frequency in my life, they've started to get in the way of them.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Window Dressing
I’ve got an amazing view from my office. On days like today, when there’s almost no pollution, I can see Mt. Evans and Mt. Massive, about 80 miles from my window, as if they were only a few blocks down the road. I can’t spend my whole day looking at them, because I have a job, but some of my best moments come when I sip a cup of tea, take a deep breath, and just stare out my window.
If you always focus on why you’re not lucky, you’ll never appreciate why you are.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
I am the Walrus
Who was it that said perfect was the enemy of the good? Or that good was the enemy of great? Was it Lenin? Lennon? Elvis? I forget. I could google it, but, I'm tired. Whatever.
I've been kicking with this blog thing for nearly a month, and while I haven't provided Daily Effin' Content, I've come pretty close. That's not bad for a semi-busy lawyer with a questionable work ethic. Yet I haven't made any effort to promote it yet. There are two reasons for this: 1) I don't think what I've been writing has been all that earth shattering, and 2) I'm waiting for a time when I write a humswinger of a blog entry before I start telling people about it.
Both of these are character flaws, I suppose. I could die before I write a humswinger, and no one would even know this blog existed. Why not just put it out there, man?
There's an awful sandwich-load to be said for youthful naivete, when you aren't comparing yourself to the Klostermans and the Vonneguts of the world, but rather, you just put your retarded self out there are don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks. Because that person gets their crap out there and gets feedback. And that feedback makes that person better.
Meh.
I've been kicking with this blog thing for nearly a month, and while I haven't provided Daily Effin' Content, I've come pretty close. That's not bad for a semi-busy lawyer with a questionable work ethic. Yet I haven't made any effort to promote it yet. There are two reasons for this: 1) I don't think what I've been writing has been all that earth shattering, and 2) I'm waiting for a time when I write a humswinger of a blog entry before I start telling people about it.
Both of these are character flaws, I suppose. I could die before I write a humswinger, and no one would even know this blog existed. Why not just put it out there, man?
There's an awful sandwich-load to be said for youthful naivete, when you aren't comparing yourself to the Klostermans and the Vonneguts of the world, but rather, you just put your retarded self out there are don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks. Because that person gets their crap out there and gets feedback. And that feedback makes that person better.
Meh.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Obamanomics
Tyler Cowen posted an article about his initial impressions of Obama's economic policies, written when Obama was still a candidate for President.
Ultimately, the question is how do you pick the best talent. Obama chose conventionally. Perhaps pragmatically. He chose a lukewarm path and a continualist regime. It's no surprise that we should get a lukewarm recovery spurred on by continuing the same risky practices that got us into this mess (extend credit, repackage losses, change the balance sheet location of losses, reposition private losses onto public balance sheet).
Another compelling point by Cowen:
My view of Obama’s economics is a simple and straightforward one and it is consistent with his public pronouncements. I view him as an economic pragmatist who is willing to borrow good ideas from many sources. He stands further to the left than do most Americans (myself included) but he has lined up the very best economic talent to advise him.KRM here: I agree that Obama is a pragmatist, but I disagree with his assessment that he's surrounded himself with the best talent to advise him. Tim Geithner is undeniably intelligent and charismatic, but I wouldn't classify him as the best talent available. Robert Schiller would have been better. He predicted the crisis, rather than participated in its creation, as Geithner did. Similarly, Ben Bernanke is extraordinary, but he was fatuous in the face of all signs that a housing crisis was blowing up around him. Similarly, Austan Goolsbee, current head of economic advisers, has more talent and personality than you'd ever need. But he was an apologist for the garbage loans that lead to the crisis. None of these men have been held accountable, which means that they're unlikely to change their practices.
Ultimately, the question is how do you pick the best talent. Obama chose conventionally. Perhaps pragmatically. He chose a lukewarm path and a continualist regime. It's no surprise that we should get a lukewarm recovery spurred on by continuing the same risky practices that got us into this mess (extend credit, repackage losses, change the balance sheet location of losses, reposition private losses onto public balance sheet).
Another compelling point by Cowen:
Obama is also famously detached and it seems he never loses his cool. He does not drink up ideology like a drug but instead is focused on creating his own personal success. That implies a very strong ego but also again a economic and also a foreign policy pragmatism, in the good sense. If Obama is elected, I expect the major economic storyline to be Obama pushing policies in the national interest (as he perceives it) and Congress pushing back with earmarked expenditures and special privileges for interest groups.KRM here: I think Cowen got this one exactly right. Obama's administration has been one of him presenting new policy ideas and getting blasted for it. Obama has spent a lifetime of energy cultivating a record and image of near perfection. He wasn't willing to go out and put himself on the line and take any one risk that was going to endanger that. It's hard to blame him for that, I suppose. But I can't say that I really feel inclined to praise him for it, either.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Resources
Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor, made reference to this piece by John Tierney on his blog. I recommend it highly. For anyone under the age of 40, I believe it discusses the most important question we'll deal with in our lifetimes, which is, "are there natural limits to growth?"
Economics is the field of perpetual growth. When an economy is healthy, economic growth exceeds inflation, and wealth and prosperity improve. When economic growth is below inflation, or if inflation is below zero, most economists would say that the economy is unhealthy, and economists with the power to impact such things, such as the heads of Central Banks, including the Federal Reserve's Ben Bernanke, tinker with the money supply to try to right the ship and make growth happen again. As cynical as people are towards Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, high-level economics is an ingenious, nuanced field, and ever-more-complicated the more you learn.
The big question for me, a largely ignorant outsider, is how well their models fit reality, and whether their basic assumptions are correct. All models are imperfect representations of reality, and they would be the first to admit that. But at the heart of their models of growth, there is a question of whether there are limits to growth.
I believe that there are, though I don't think they are necessarily what Peak Oil theorists would have us believe (see link above). I think the limits to growth are a function of the weaknesses of human nature and our human social organizations. To wit, there are wars and there are conflicts. Civilizations rise and fall. Because we are human, what we do is inherently unstable. And the more complicated and interdependent we are, the more unstable we become.
I think oil futures will never cost $300 a barrel in real terms, because by the futures markets will become totally unhinged long before they do.
Right now, we are more interconnected than ever. An economic glitch in Greece or N. Korea negatively impacts access to credit in Topeka and Namibia. And our society is so utterly dependent on credit, that, as we found out two years ago, when we lose it, everything starts to spiral.
So as long as the spigots of credit continue to run loose, we should have growth. But the moment we lose it, or if it even starts to decline in size, we can expect a decline in worldwide standards of living. Perhaps not permanently, but for an extended period of time.
Economics is the field of perpetual growth. When an economy is healthy, economic growth exceeds inflation, and wealth and prosperity improve. When economic growth is below inflation, or if inflation is below zero, most economists would say that the economy is unhealthy, and economists with the power to impact such things, such as the heads of Central Banks, including the Federal Reserve's Ben Bernanke, tinker with the money supply to try to right the ship and make growth happen again. As cynical as people are towards Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, high-level economics is an ingenious, nuanced field, and ever-more-complicated the more you learn.
The big question for me, a largely ignorant outsider, is how well their models fit reality, and whether their basic assumptions are correct. All models are imperfect representations of reality, and they would be the first to admit that. But at the heart of their models of growth, there is a question of whether there are limits to growth.
I believe that there are, though I don't think they are necessarily what Peak Oil theorists would have us believe (see link above). I think the limits to growth are a function of the weaknesses of human nature and our human social organizations. To wit, there are wars and there are conflicts. Civilizations rise and fall. Because we are human, what we do is inherently unstable. And the more complicated and interdependent we are, the more unstable we become.
I think oil futures will never cost $300 a barrel in real terms, because by the futures markets will become totally unhinged long before they do.
Right now, we are more interconnected than ever. An economic glitch in Greece or N. Korea negatively impacts access to credit in Topeka and Namibia. And our society is so utterly dependent on credit, that, as we found out two years ago, when we lose it, everything starts to spiral.
So as long as the spigots of credit continue to run loose, we should have growth. But the moment we lose it, or if it even starts to decline in size, we can expect a decline in worldwide standards of living. Perhaps not permanently, but for an extended period of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)