I was terribly impressed by Charles Taylor's understanding of modern 'altruism': it is a codified, moralized altruism and blind to the consequences that it involves (A Secular Age, by Charles Taylor).
I shudder to think how many fathers are going to be burying their politically active sons after the election imposed by western governments this year (interestingly, Taylor mentions Mandela: he lied to his people about the first election - though Taylor doesn't mention this, probably out of politeness – but he approves of the code-defying behaviour of Mandela: he was after a 'higher' good, even if it wasn't rights-based, that is, formulaic. He waived the rights of the 'victim' for peace, to avoid civil war.)
Taylor contrasts this sort of 'goodness' with agape, which is a 'gut' feeling of love. Agape extends towards the living, breathing individual: the good Samaritan crossed a line, not because any code told him to (on the contrary), but because he was moved by
a man's suffering.
So many women have been raped in Bangladesh by politically active young men in the service of the political parties - and so many of these young men have killed each other!
Doesn't this move anyone, as the Samaritan was moved? NGO after NGO has evaded the subject, never mind western governments.
Here is an article that might be of interest:
http://unlikelystories.org/sayeed0808.shtml A Defence of Religion
It is, in fact, a defence of the irrational: I come at the subject from economics, since that's the discipline I (literally) laboured under. The whole idea of a rational producer-cum-consumer seems repellent since contrary to the evidence right under our noses!
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Robert Sowell and history
Robert Sowell makes an absurd claim during the online discussion of his book "Economic Facts and Fallacies".
He maintains that colonialism never touched the poorest places on earth.
What about Congo?
Surely he must have read 'Heart of Darkness'? He will claim that it was post-colonial rule that failed the country; even if that can be proven (and it hasn't been proven), it doesn't alter the fact that colonialism did touch one of the poorest places on earth today. The only country to have benefited from colonialism in Africa was – Belgium.
Throughout his discussion, there is an unhistorical - indeed, anti-historical – bias. It shows when he maintains that markets (say, for credit) don't discriminate against black people because, in that case, they also discriminate in favour of Asians.
Asians are high net-worth people; more so than white people on the average. Asian values are world-famous; so is the "Protestant ethic". And Asian-Americans are immigrants to boot – a group that often out-achieves the natives.
Black Americans did not come to America voluntarily; they were not immigrants; they were not free; they were systematically denied their rights; the net worth of a black person in the bottom quintile is – hold your breath! - $57; while that of a white person runs into five digit figures.
Markets always discriminate – that is their function ("effective demand", remember?). Markets allocate goodies according to purchasing power. To "allocate" is necessarily to discriminate. And why should credit, for instance, be allocated to somebody who's worth $57? Markets don't care about history. They care about returns.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/02/sowell_on_econo.html
He maintains that colonialism never touched the poorest places on earth.
What about Congo?
Surely he must have read 'Heart of Darkness'? He will claim that it was post-colonial rule that failed the country; even if that can be proven (and it hasn't been proven), it doesn't alter the fact that colonialism did touch one of the poorest places on earth today. The only country to have benefited from colonialism in Africa was – Belgium.
Throughout his discussion, there is an unhistorical - indeed, anti-historical – bias. It shows when he maintains that markets (say, for credit) don't discriminate against black people because, in that case, they also discriminate in favour of Asians.
Asians are high net-worth people; more so than white people on the average. Asian values are world-famous; so is the "Protestant ethic". And Asian-Americans are immigrants to boot – a group that often out-achieves the natives.
Black Americans did not come to America voluntarily; they were not immigrants; they were not free; they were systematically denied their rights; the net worth of a black person in the bottom quintile is – hold your breath! - $57; while that of a white person runs into five digit figures.
Markets always discriminate – that is their function ("effective demand", remember?). Markets allocate goodies according to purchasing power. To "allocate" is necessarily to discriminate. And why should credit, for instance, be allocated to somebody who's worth $57? Markets don't care about history. They care about returns.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/02/sowell_on_econo.html
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Vercingetorix (essay)
Vercingetorix
(click link above for article)
Vercingetorix was the leader of the Gauls who dared to rebel against the mighty Roman Republic. Irrational? Sure, but also dignified. The pursuit of dignity often entails the irrational. But we in Bangladesh are no "doofuses" like the great Vercingetorix – we are rational, and without an atom of self-respect or dignity.
Excerpt:
"From Vercingetorix, my mind moves, by association, to a more recent figure. Mullah Omar was promised "a carpet of gold" or a "carpet of bombs" by the American Republic. He -- totally ignorant of neoclassical economic theory -- chose the latter. Some people are just born losers ("doofus," I think, is the word)."
(click link above for article)
Vercingetorix was the leader of the Gauls who dared to rebel against the mighty Roman Republic. Irrational? Sure, but also dignified. The pursuit of dignity often entails the irrational. But we in Bangladesh are no "doofuses" like the great Vercingetorix – we are rational, and without an atom of self-respect or dignity.
Excerpt:
"From Vercingetorix, my mind moves, by association, to a more recent figure. Mullah Omar was promised "a carpet of gold" or a "carpet of bombs" by the American Republic. He -- totally ignorant of neoclassical economic theory -- chose the latter. Some people are just born losers ("doofus," I think, is the word)."
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
lobsters and diamonds
Glenn Jones studied several hundred menus in the United States, going back into the past. He made a remarkable discovery: there was a time when lobsters were so cheap that they were used as fertiliser! They were so abundant that they were fed to prisoners and children in orphanages. Servants deplored the fare, bargaining with their employers not to be served the crustacean more than twice a week.
Then lobsters became scarce, and their price began to rise. In 1870, a meal cost $4 (in today's money), but $30 dollars or more around 1970.
That's when the lobster became a prized delicacy, sought by the rich.
This is an excellent example of the failure of economic theory: economic theory predicts that the more expensive a product, the less people will consume it. When the supply of lobsters began to shrink, the price rose, and the product came to be in greater demand, pushing prices even further.
This observation was made a hundred years ago by Thorstein Veblen: he noticed that the rich engage in conspicuous consumption; they value things just because they are expensive (diamonds, for instance).
If you're still not convinced, consider the case of diamonds ('girl's best friend'): if diamonds were cheaper, more people would buy them, right? Wrong! Diamonds can be as cheap as glass, and hardly anyone would buy them then.
The only reason why diamond is not cheap as glass is because DeBeers, the cartel, hoards several billion dollars worth of diamonds in its vaults: it releases just enough to ensure that the price remains high – but not too high. Does that make sense? It certainly goes against economic theory: if diamond drops sufficiently low in price, nobody will buy diamonds!
It is the same case with gold: there is enough gold in the world's central bank vaults and the IMF's hoard to make gold as cheap as any metal. Then who would ever buy gold?
Still not convinced? Consider silver: at one time, it was very expensive; today it is cheap, and how many people crave silver?
Then lobsters became scarce, and their price began to rise. In 1870, a meal cost $4 (in today's money), but $30 dollars or more around 1970.
That's when the lobster became a prized delicacy, sought by the rich.
This is an excellent example of the failure of economic theory: economic theory predicts that the more expensive a product, the less people will consume it. When the supply of lobsters began to shrink, the price rose, and the product came to be in greater demand, pushing prices even further.
This observation was made a hundred years ago by Thorstein Veblen: he noticed that the rich engage in conspicuous consumption; they value things just because they are expensive (diamonds, for instance).
If you're still not convinced, consider the case of diamonds ('girl's best friend'): if diamonds were cheaper, more people would buy them, right? Wrong! Diamonds can be as cheap as glass, and hardly anyone would buy them then.
The only reason why diamond is not cheap as glass is because DeBeers, the cartel, hoards several billion dollars worth of diamonds in its vaults: it releases just enough to ensure that the price remains high – but not too high. Does that make sense? It certainly goes against economic theory: if diamond drops sufficiently low in price, nobody will buy diamonds!
It is the same case with gold: there is enough gold in the world's central bank vaults and the IMF's hoard to make gold as cheap as any metal. Then who would ever buy gold?
Still not convinced? Consider silver: at one time, it was very expensive; today it is cheap, and how many people crave silver?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Is Poetry Dead?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_iftekhar_071009_is_poetry_dead_3f.htm
{clcik above for article}
Is Poetry Dead?
Who reads poetry today? And who reads the modern and contemporary poets? And yet there is a deluge of poetry – for the producers and consumers of poetry constitute a giant industry, from which the 'average' reader is left out.
{clcik above for article}
Is Poetry Dead?
Who reads poetry today? And who reads the modern and contemporary poets? And yet there is a deluge of poetry – for the producers and consumers of poetry constitute a giant industry, from which the 'average' reader is left out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
