tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-274066302024-03-20T18:53:16.358-07:00Teeming MultitudesGet in line. Wait your turn.Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.comBlogger486125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-25067370451097558182022-03-31T08:37:00.004-07:002022-03-31T08:39:10.150-07:00The uses of price controls<p> During the Second World War, the US government tried to use savings to mop up demand and keep consumer prices stable. Price stability through regulation also helped to convince workers to save their income, as they were more confident that the money they saved would keep its value and so they could defer consumption. </p><p>In post-war China, the government used price controls to redistribute resources from Agriculture to Heavy Industry. By suppressing the payments to Agriculture, you also limit the resources which are directed to producing goods for those who work in that sector. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhUADA_qlP3igTMTGGpNpGeyLtpSZyAl2dO34ycpSHdYp0gCX9BNwjupm6BH3YLweW_DHBEAANh3HPbhIIgzWdKFWKGzxQL9oUstpIHSMTL5M2wbVTvyRT7-JBp1JgH6JOe6sxTUUW8Wxy0nG75YhbCIGg5KFdY3ezd22kKPnX1e3U7DJuAvg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="674" data-original-width="932" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhUADA_qlP3igTMTGGpNpGeyLtpSZyAl2dO34ycpSHdYp0gCX9BNwjupm6BH3YLweW_DHBEAANh3HPbhIIgzWdKFWKGzxQL9oUstpIHSMTL5M2wbVTvyRT7-JBp1JgH6JOe6sxTUUW8Wxy0nG75YhbCIGg5KFdY3ezd22kKPnX1e3U7DJuAvg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /> <p></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-21298000855980004262022-03-29T09:23:00.001-07:002022-03-29T09:23:16.862-07:00Price wars<p>Tim Sahay aka 70sBacchan on Twitter, <a href="https://prospect.org/culture/books/how-high-energy-prices-emboldened-putin-russell-review/">reviews</a> "Price Wars" by Rupert Russell, a book about how financialized commodity markets sow political chaos</p><p>Like so many of our troubles today, this chaos was conceived in the triumphant frenzy of deregulation which followed the collapse of the USSR. </p><p></p><blockquote>It may seem unbelievable today, but until the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, retail investors couldn’t bet on the direction of commodity prices. The index funds simply didn’t exist yet. Investment banks and oil companies pushed provisions into the act in the waning hours of the 106th Congress exempting the trading of futures contracts and swaps for energy and metals from regulation. Most commodities derivatives are traded in unregulated over-the-counter markets run by dealer banks in the United States and Britain. </blockquote><p></p><p>What sounded like clever market-based thinking proved to be good only for traders. </p><p></p><blockquote>They were marketed to investors as helping diversify portfolio risk, but instead, they compounded it. Previously uncorrelated, oil, food, and metals became increasingly linked as a volatile new asset class. As commodity index funds proliferated, local disturbances in crop yields, amplified by leveraged bets of traders, gained the power to rip through global markets, destabilizing prices in far-flung areas with cascading knock-on effects. </blockquote><p></p><p>High food prices are blamed/credited for the Arab Spring, which already feels like it was in another century. But the high prices had nothing to do with harvests, and everything to do with money orphaned by the 2007 crash going sniffing for returns. </p><p></p><blockquote>There are really only four markets: housing, bonds, equities, and commodities. After the housing crash in 2007, the behavior of investors changed. Institutional money fled housing and equities, and flowed into commodities and bonds. Commodities are a small market in the hundreds of billions, compared to the trillions whooshing down from housing. It was that flow of money, not a supply-and-demand “fundamentals” effect, that caused prices to spike, triggering food riots in 2008.</blockquote><p></p><p>Book ordered. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguf1FwsFhE3IKQ4Bkf3I_zwi9_4ySTsLPfMxexX-KmekxTXny3G8wabYq_hgqdfK14H7tasc3GbGUkmW2-WbOQB6js2N-nb7ROWON866hzStO0XxAOyWROG5H0t5dKvKt679ZAIrSauFZpO4493BrjWIcZajF10MSYljNvrN7nWXyyOtb7gA/s1247/Sahay%20graphic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1247" data-original-width="1050" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguf1FwsFhE3IKQ4Bkf3I_zwi9_4ySTsLPfMxexX-KmekxTXny3G8wabYq_hgqdfK14H7tasc3GbGUkmW2-WbOQB6js2N-nb7ROWON866hzStO0XxAOyWROG5H0t5dKvKt679ZAIrSauFZpO4493BrjWIcZajF10MSYljNvrN7nWXyyOtb7gA/s320/Sahay%20graphic.jpg" width="269" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-11408373719585239102022-03-28T03:02:00.005-07:002022-03-29T22:45:26.153-07:00Free trade and hunger part 1<p style="text-align: justify;"> Sri Lanka is in <a href="https://twitter.com/kamalikasonai/status/1507993183376261121">trouble</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This seems to have <a href="https://twitter.com/ramakumarr/status/1508163625780846593">begun </a>when a terrorist attack scared away tourists. The country found itself short of foreign exchange, and the government decided that they would cut fertilizer imports and make up for it by encouraging organic farming. Food supplies collapsed. There is a lot more to the story, but some quick thoughts below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Imperial CEOs justify their conglomerates by claiming that they can offer their shareholders steadier returns. When some sectors struggle, other companies in their group can compensate. Economists rightly ridicule this because shareholders can much more cheaply achieve the same results by holding a diversified portfolio of shares. The shareholders also agree as is evident from the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conglomeratediscount.asp">conglomerate discount</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Modern states avoid autarky and rely on specialization and trade. There are good theoretical reasons for this, and Economists love to think about the gains from trade. This is very similar to the argument against conglomerates- why produce everything badly when you can produce a few things very well, and then trade for what you don't produce? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The future is very <a href="https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1504870207231172608">predictable </a>until it is not. When things go really badly wrong, no class will be spared. Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Ukraine, 1930s Spain, 1920s USSR, the list goes on. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Maybe small countries like Singapore have no choice but to rely on trade. Sri Lanka is not a very small country. They apparently can grow their own food, but do import fertilizers, and they really needed the foreign exchange they earned from tourism. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Imports are barely 13% of GDP in the USA. Despite all the "free trade" rhetoric there, they are already naturally insulated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Maybe larger countries should seek to be more autarkic. Countries like <a href="https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1508338143484858374">Egypt </a>are facing real hunger because of a war in far-away Ukraine. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Changes in terms of trade are especially dangerous in a world where capital and goods can range freely across the world, while labour is bound to their home country. Citizens are not shareholders who can optimize their portfolio. Poor people in poor countries have no levers except their votes, and they should be able to expect their governments to care for their interests. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. More autarky may even be better for <a href="http://teemingmultitudes.blogspot.com/2022/03/free-trade-and-war-part-1.html">peace</a>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. That the Sri Lankan government could so easily decide to try and transform an entire sector is a good example of how important it is to have mechanisms for debate and disagreement. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Is useful debate even possible in the world made by social media? </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Edit</b>: even without a war, some limited Autarky can be helpful for resilience, as when one country suffers a shock of some kind, and can rely on others which produce the same goods. Yet another point to consider is the sheer complexity of planet-spanning supply chains, which are classic spaghetti code. During the COVID pandemic, we learned that house construction in the USA had ground almost to a halt- they had <strike>everything else</strike> (<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bathtub-episode-how-the-pandemic-disrupted-plumbing/id1056200096?i=1000530376531">not quite</a>), but had run out of nails (<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-is-what-happened-to-the-price-of-nails-over/id1056200096?i=1000550287295">also</a>). </p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-24112096474808793192022-03-24T08:46:00.002-07:002022-03-24T08:46:24.401-07:00Anti-politics 2<p> Again from James C Scott's "Two Cheers for Anarchism"</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhprUGN941th31Eev1uPsP8gVHNC3AFwafiUk82YnmQ5TGKSCoqHLkpEVEZV-QMXcOM2HEWEZVkBfqWHRyycl0I-zBWJHo1OuJMetAYylCrD2R-zAkqbhnFyoXy9gUDGL0hI24oGD4_5pfg5x8BV6x4ccCG81GuS_gIv2L9iaKsVllB6U9JVA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="810" data-original-width="783" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhprUGN941th31Eev1uPsP8gVHNC3AFwafiUk82YnmQ5TGKSCoqHLkpEVEZV-QMXcOM2HEWEZVkBfqWHRyycl0I-zBWJHo1OuJMetAYylCrD2R-zAkqbhnFyoXy9gUDGL0hI24oGD4_5pfg5x8BV6x4ccCG81GuS_gIv2L9iaKsVllB6U9JVA" width="232" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkW13DSstoDNgsXD8qCW8Rl16aoEimBPqEZuAnSBVgdPfN3yvOrFCtlrv49h84FOmiQhVaMXZgGNGpJbnABYwlyHb8QWHbJtRL6u-MaXhVzrsbZe7ayR8QGapTz1bto33PPsKZyfmqdJ9oikwGcmyjaePEInFkqth_zjEWkke-hFlzQxz94A" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="813" data-original-width="778" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkW13DSstoDNgsXD8qCW8Rl16aoEimBPqEZuAnSBVgdPfN3yvOrFCtlrv49h84FOmiQhVaMXZgGNGpJbnABYwlyHb8QWHbJtRL6u-MaXhVzrsbZe7ayR8QGapTz1bto33PPsKZyfmqdJ9oikwGcmyjaePEInFkqth_zjEWkke-hFlzQxz94A" width="230" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-84289269179163852312022-03-24T08:28:00.002-07:002022-03-24T08:32:53.580-07:00Anti-politics<p> James C Scott in his "Two cheers for Anarchism," about the desire to escape from politics into some imaginary world of objectivity. The passage below is about academics and how they try to use citation metrics as a substitute for actually judging the quality of work. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdqlIUFG9S1t3WMrRyMr1N8uRfO4863KV_XN4DHdGESDCfora0Ydzq6b5LWQ0gxNupru1K0uKrYaYSyraTi7KgmWB44BNrsdz8nas6GksPxVRsyFR3Mp2w9tOFFJwLUKzXEdAB1qFZzPimBBVjNpzE9Mh2V5m-w1qCCL9iiDObXEcX1wRaaA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="775" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdqlIUFG9S1t3WMrRyMr1N8uRfO4863KV_XN4DHdGESDCfora0Ydzq6b5LWQ0gxNupru1K0uKrYaYSyraTi7KgmWB44BNrsdz8nas6GksPxVRsyFR3Mp2w9tOFFJwLUKzXEdAB1qFZzPimBBVjNpzE9Mh2V5m-w1qCCL9iiDObXEcX1wRaaA" width="320" /></a></div><br />There is no perfect solution. <p></p><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgeqQdiLj14ctXb_T5pXtA2z38qFElhBdSNd1VrahGDzPuhwdnRQodmlQjrK0oqet2lufedeVyz0Dv97rp3vI5GgucBBeXXoFn9diI5wHSDMw-9X3y8vNAZCVQxz3X4aeok3yuvvypT4Vr15pIwIfRZ2zy0m0vFEL_KepI_asqTAc6-uLqY0w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="766" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgeqQdiLj14ctXb_T5pXtA2z38qFElhBdSNd1VrahGDzPuhwdnRQodmlQjrK0oqet2lufedeVyz0Dv97rp3vI5GgucBBeXXoFn9diI5wHSDMw-9X3y8vNAZCVQxz3X4aeok3yuvvypT4Vr15pIwIfRZ2zy0m0vFEL_KepI_asqTAc6-uLqY0w" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-78458360205909829072022-03-10T09:06:00.004-08:002022-03-10T09:06:34.020-08:00In memory<p><a href="https://twitter.com/EKkoulla/status/1501257888442028039">Tombstone </a>of Vellibia Ertola, who lived ‘most happily for four years and six days.’ She’s shown holding a ball, maybe her favourite toy. </p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1b9jP2arGr7AJXQurs9Mr6_xbQVFgv5zSn6F-1nJsPPvua9RwSZ9a18l7-8SGQBhrFjysFchq6HyfIltDClI3hHKF3_Phitnbl6NMtRRHIlbsAvJW8WwtzBN8QG5rWRPz-3nAPn-busQWWj2n5pdco0-kxr1XfYTYK-tYdrm7jE0ISVnwIw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="900" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1b9jP2arGr7AJXQurs9Mr6_xbQVFgv5zSn6F-1nJsPPvua9RwSZ9a18l7-8SGQBhrFjysFchq6HyfIltDClI3hHKF3_Phitnbl6NMtRRHIlbsAvJW8WwtzBN8QG5rWRPz-3nAPn-busQWWj2n5pdco0-kxr1XfYTYK-tYdrm7jE0ISVnwIw" width="180" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p><br /></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-78614616187545010262022-03-06T08:00:00.002-08:002022-03-06T08:00:48.597-08:00Controlling the masters of destiny<p style="text-align: justify;">From Isabella Weber's "How China escaped Shock Therapy", a passage from <i>The Guanzi</i>, which was apparently composed by Chinese planners and advisers in the years around 200 BC, between the Western Zhou and the Quin dynasties. How to use market interventions, instead of command-and-control, to manage the economy. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjbwb9Ei0fQifpLiYGO93x3jPAwjIvIBywEDuDLgiuu9QptqJITEKeTEY22BpQ7h5d-fkp_J5Ds46L_-iE3KeDcyQ5b6ge0MvI6sSkOrOpMQFWWzm03A3SpRPMk5znhbARhWyf7Jzid8Y0VcN_BIL4lW2OpRzEKt_d7AE1j_olm2rgPjsscgQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="806" data-original-width="916" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjbwb9Ei0fQifpLiYGO93x3jPAwjIvIBywEDuDLgiuu9QptqJITEKeTEY22BpQ7h5d-fkp_J5Ds46L_-iE3KeDcyQ5b6ge0MvI6sSkOrOpMQFWWzm03A3SpRPMk5znhbARhWyf7Jzid8Y0VcN_BIL4lW2OpRzEKt_d7AE1j_olm2rgPjsscgQ=w332-h292" width="332" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Generate revenues without raising taxes, while being seen as a benevolent government. </div><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjBMsPqLmAt0FZ8ZE0lwGafWUxqV7_AhDdwXVpbEk83abWu9SUTmJBMbIstVPwC4CDIGZ6lK00GmH7F-wCyyqC8nEt2yYPHVh1RdJu6xTV7wMeXeRc2mvf2edqHsex26yt2Blilczc5hA1DOj8fP4vWpOiRLCyJIWc7vxXcmeYEx1zUw5bQ_w" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="678" data-original-width="918" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjBMsPqLmAt0FZ8ZE0lwGafWUxqV7_AhDdwXVpbEk83abWu9SUTmJBMbIstVPwC4CDIGZ6lK00GmH7F-wCyyqC8nEt2yYPHVh1RdJu6xTV7wMeXeRc2mvf2edqHsex26yt2Blilczc5hA1DOj8fP4vWpOiRLCyJIWc7vxXcmeYEx1zUw5bQ_w" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the Government didn't do this, merchants certainly would, so the Government is intervening in a process which would have occurred anyway. </div><p></p><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiaLf6zdL-ZOHJ7cUocZhopUQSh2mQeG-6nrs3FnqFbW9tZqCFaj_xD4uKXAB3apbpQC7WlHr6GhVHcpACpeFjrS6j7fvvxSy4k1j_b7L6e3skRuRU1tt42aHtc-JvsXmPv6X29xCUQCLDcv-CaLfVfgcyGbj3L4uwJiRZJYSELnZxfdMh-xA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="173" data-original-width="912" height="61" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiaLf6zdL-ZOHJ7cUocZhopUQSh2mQeG-6nrs3FnqFbW9tZqCFaj_xD4uKXAB3apbpQC7WlHr6GhVHcpACpeFjrS6j7fvvxSy4k1j_b7L6e3skRuRU1tt42aHtc-JvsXmPv6X29xCUQCLDcv-CaLfVfgcyGbj3L4uwJiRZJYSELnZxfdMh-xA" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-38190508624834407932022-03-03T08:32:00.003-08:002022-03-03T09:07:06.924-08:00Free trade and war part 1<p style="text-align: justify;"> Back in the 1990s, when the Cold War was melting away, we were repeatedly told that the ties of trade will make it impossible for new great wars to break out again. The proposed mechanisms were mainly two: that free trade would have a "softening" effect on manners, making people less warlike (<i>doux commerce</i>), and that powerful business interests would not allow wars to cut them off from important supplies or valuable markets. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Branko Milanovic <a href="https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/free-trade-and-war?r=16uxt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=url&s=r">reviews</a> a new book by Avner Offer which proposes that the original Great War was caused by free trade, when countries specialized as a result of the larger markets, they felt a need to arm themselves to ensure that essential supplies were not threatened by rivals. This led to an arms race which eventually caused a war. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjBuzojqxmkcrZfMGXO3VNnVhJ10Pm_xUDWofCw3p5G-W_tUslikj5GJSojrUcPKeEoWIPqbCmUcDLXgkSuIDjkgxI1A3gcVVBGq4Qeilpq4qo1nuvIDr4rV_A1qUaKLxG9x7wuAzQVwUMESIoeRjjLcg7QQbMleWlW1QyMRzV3BPz-RCevhQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="1124" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjBuzojqxmkcrZfMGXO3VNnVhJ10Pm_xUDWofCw3p5G-W_tUslikj5GJSojrUcPKeEoWIPqbCmUcDLXgkSuIDjkgxI1A3gcVVBGq4Qeilpq4qo1nuvIDr4rV_A1qUaKLxG9x7wuAzQVwUMESIoeRjjLcg7QQbMleWlW1QyMRzV3BPz-RCevhQ" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Britain was not alone in this. </div><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgdtnlQK6f1uoi4HhskZr47ge3dmQWLHT_Fwfavv7eq4FaklmEAg_uYAVDCO_r2D7jy8hoQyz4iaWYo8BJ4mJdlA9CdaxoTIX3g2uol3VL4hGMUPiYUiyPgY7gDyr06qM11LiUtm3iEegQcrfy2YqvGwGtliAfsoOs2xA6v-CB4YRXUSNoZbg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="1126" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgdtnlQK6f1uoi4HhskZr47ge3dmQWLHT_Fwfavv7eq4FaklmEAg_uYAVDCO_r2D7jy8hoQyz4iaWYo8BJ4mJdlA9CdaxoTIX3g2uol3VL4hGMUPiYUiyPgY7gDyr06qM11LiUtm3iEegQcrfy2YqvGwGtliAfsoOs2xA6v-CB4YRXUSNoZbg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The above mechanism explains why countries felt that they needed to arm themselves- as they increasingly specialized in manufacture, they had to build up powerful armed forces to make sure that they could feed their populations. As the COVID pandemic showed us, highly efficient supply chains may be less than resilient. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Another route to war was when countries realized that their rivals were also vulnerable to starvation, that blockades and U-boat warfare could be used to cut off the supplies which the "enemy" needed. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgVs1APgVY6pFiAxTRCAbOXU_SYaNbz6EDQv45PjaLF49PsY8T09F9bQR19BYc5gVDsXlvbeEjXt9RxDhWAyZNUML9R8kyvHWy2rF3krgs1tbxDSu5T4lzEmZj_wVBCQsUogFQg6QokbDeObH2wJn6OgkPOYrN5zsQz4H1d1hfD_woQxOBXCg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="514" data-original-width="1148" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgVs1APgVY6pFiAxTRCAbOXU_SYaNbz6EDQv45PjaLF49PsY8T09F9bQR19BYc5gVDsXlvbeEjXt9RxDhWAyZNUML9R8kyvHWy2rF3krgs1tbxDSu5T4lzEmZj_wVBCQsUogFQg6QokbDeObH2wJn6OgkPOYrN5zsQz4H1d1hfD_woQxOBXCg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is exactly what the British Navy did to the Germans in World War 1, leading to starvation in Germany, who then struck out towards the East, seeking grain from Ukraine. The Brest-Litovsk treaty gave them what they sought, but too late to save Germany from defeat on the Western Front. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Today, we are seeing another war in Ukraine, and the USA is practicing a new kind of Trade War against the Russian Federation. We have been expecting a war between China and the USA over Taiwan, but I am sure that the Chinese leadership are watching and learning what the Americans have been able to do to the Russians by attacking the trade ties which bind the Russians to the rest of the World. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Below is a Twitter thread which an <a href="https://twitter.com/janedvidek/status/1498723248183382020">example </a>of what can be done to the Russian airline sector by denying them access to Insurance and spare parts. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjtBnhPQMMRVRvehLCKnSJs_Tb4uj3ro-NibuHvoIklXECcXnCtH_l2daeg3JvvvfKsXcf1f4nfiRTs1dBByOV2LothpgndvX91gBQlp8rTqg3GD-l3hJvrKmsjA_MSuP0nPPcLG1p8F9qZbEwEXJ8KQkaEBvsXeNO2Ro85v0aCn1GbRFnd2Q" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="2195" data-original-width="854" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjtBnhPQMMRVRvehLCKnSJs_Tb4uj3ro-NibuHvoIklXECcXnCtH_l2daeg3JvvvfKsXcf1f4nfiRTs1dBByOV2LothpgndvX91gBQlp8rTqg3GD-l3hJvrKmsjA_MSuP0nPPcLG1p8F9qZbEwEXJ8KQkaEBvsXeNO2Ro85v0aCn1GbRFnd2Q=w248-h640" width="248" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-18068134998547960682022-03-01T02:26:00.001-08:002022-03-01T02:26:45.656-08:00The Logic of Appropriateness<p style="text-align: justify;"> On 24 February 2022, Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this podcast <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/emergency-pod-tooze-and-klein-on-nuclear-war-the/id1289062927?i=1000552394091">episode</a> of ChinaTalk, Adam Tooze suggests (and I agree) that if Putin had succeeded in a Blitzkrieg conquest of Ukraine, then protests in the West would have been muted. However, the <a href="https://twitter.com/SaoSasha/status/1497311531041640450">courage</a> exhibited by the Ukrainian President, the stubborn resistance put up by the Ukrainian population, and the slow progress of the Russians who seem to have repeated the mistake of the USA in Iraq, of expecting to be welcomed as liberators rather than invaders, all have won the loud sympathy of voters in the West. The politicians are forced to respond, or look weak and craven. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Some of the decisions have been very sensible. Germany will be increasing its defense budget, which will help make Europe more independent of the USA. A huge push for renewable energy may result, and oddly enough this may be the one thing which saves us from Global Warming. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">But the Western response is becoming increasingly disproportionate and reckless. It seems they have learned nothing from the experience in <a href="https://twitter.com/dualehy/status/1498507590699032577?s=24">Iraq</a>. Young Russian soldiers are <a href="https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1497544430030577670?s=24">disoriented</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmysecuk/status/1498370621826338817?s=24">unprepared</a>, and unwilling to fight. Brave Russians have been protesting the war right near the Kremlin. But the West have gone into self-righteous anger. The USA has punished the Russian economy with a viciousness previously seen in the case of <a href="https://twitter.com/taherkermani/status/1498488875035025409">Iran </a>and Venezuela. The racism on display has been outrageous. French ministers are <a href="https://twitter.com/trekonomics/status/1498574137186340864?s=24">stating </a>as a fact that they will destroy the Russian economy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This <a href="https://twitter.com/Scholars_Stage/status/1498346535326818312">thread </a>seems to offer at least a vocabulary for what is going on. <a href="https://scholars-stage.org/pausing-at-the-precipice/">Essay </a>here. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZU8zJIa0cE194EKOMGFMVN_8PRsE0_raDNlHjlgM_mMEPqw-LXam5wDjCA6Ph8ftn9ryuj_3NdvWpWMbal__ajtPLAdKRHAgkdw62UXBrPlqyRIV3crMTlO2pDHf_A6v0KArMtbvgRwBQDMz6nN1ZmOnK44yg2e3O_GAyqKxTe6xfUxnMUA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="548" data-original-width="895" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZU8zJIa0cE194EKOMGFMVN_8PRsE0_raDNlHjlgM_mMEPqw-LXam5wDjCA6Ph8ftn9ryuj_3NdvWpWMbal__ajtPLAdKRHAgkdw62UXBrPlqyRIV3crMTlO2pDHf_A6v0KArMtbvgRwBQDMz6nN1ZmOnK44yg2e3O_GAyqKxTe6xfUxnMUA" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile the Russian army may be preparing to <a href="https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1498381993037418505">ratchet</a> up the violence. </div><p></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-68725288927395603062022-02-28T00:30:00.002-08:002022-02-28T00:30:18.537-08:00How China Escaped Shock Therapy<p> From Isabella Weber's book. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhH-vzj5u5rInfxjjymxkMYQecf7bCa2qQnIXDORqt_ThTvJ8K-FQMrmn8yUu9TQ8gE4ZdE71UP_1BlE9cvHsTuocnh6LNLfbbTFTsDqJ8xCrBDEv1K9Gg27-3PvQteblZUSUmpESrvptMi14pe9S1Vg4_ghcWU-iPTaFqb38VELIBvM_F1qw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="852" height="96" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhH-vzj5u5rInfxjjymxkMYQecf7bCa2qQnIXDORqt_ThTvJ8K-FQMrmn8yUu9TQ8gE4ZdE71UP_1BlE9cvHsTuocnh6LNLfbbTFTsDqJ8xCrBDEv1K9Gg27-3PvQteblZUSUmpESrvptMi14pe9S1Vg4_ghcWU-iPTaFqb38VELIBvM_F1qw" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiAr5LW08sCY-1HEiUgvSjZlj7-ywJeIq5TmzdLibETpifoTiuN0K4CEkQpsmYXFmPL0Qp8SEUZBfbcS_vosMs_OxFt1iwebV1qqOSuRzztXtzt5CZovrYE0FlbGQO-IX-mauty_P_yHkUGlw3Z6RG0N2lTsferkzhQJXwmHTKZ4IWzYfFtUg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="855" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiAr5LW08sCY-1HEiUgvSjZlj7-ywJeIq5TmzdLibETpifoTiuN0K4CEkQpsmYXFmPL0Qp8SEUZBfbcS_vosMs_OxFt1iwebV1qqOSuRzztXtzt5CZovrYE0FlbGQO-IX-mauty_P_yHkUGlw3Z6RG0N2lTsferkzhQJXwmHTKZ4IWzYfFtUg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><br /><br /><p></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-91929322763920523212022-02-21T07:51:00.000-08:002022-02-21T07:51:15.647-08:00State of Exception<p> From "The Party" by Richard McGregor. </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjhBOi-_ybV8GkkbPmRL2vwfQ2D5K8Sl7lzroXGqITzqHkGiIMTJPBSJDFSSDfJf6vuH7hkU7xHIVoGLnyGC5GpgguRNQ5IqA-qZEoXDBmiRf9ddaKGr7NM3ITOT_Y0X-9rJG2QGjkVpZm74p_PDYlYNvj0pqg7EUwbRmfw8PoI39jVfmTpnw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="1023" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjhBOi-_ybV8GkkbPmRL2vwfQ2D5K8Sl7lzroXGqITzqHkGiIMTJPBSJDFSSDfJf6vuH7hkU7xHIVoGLnyGC5GpgguRNQ5IqA-qZEoXDBmiRf9ddaKGr7NM3ITOT_Y0X-9rJG2QGjkVpZm74p_PDYlYNvj0pqg7EUwbRmfw8PoI39jVfmTpnw" width="320" /></a></p><p>This passage reminded me of Carl Schmitt and "The State of Exception" </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjKEG4b6uDtIJVlgUDAg_6Ts3YIsbPG0dQgRLt1knBUuSo19LasDUHgbPQvy40Dr1w2HhpOwvFiHeaeEZbfZT4invHOu_bU5O62C_EAF66BqtP-0kdfC3xx0JRCivVL-jiEd3DsfUURhNb2Gbh1KZRGH7B17iG28G6czZcBrJT1hNAeZn2P7g" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1194" data-original-width="1600" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjKEG4b6uDtIJVlgUDAg_6Ts3YIsbPG0dQgRLt1knBUuSo19LasDUHgbPQvy40Dr1w2HhpOwvFiHeaeEZbfZT4invHOu_bU5O62C_EAF66BqtP-0kdfC3xx0JRCivVL-jiEd3DsfUURhNb2Gbh1KZRGH7B17iG28G6czZcBrJT1hNAeZn2P7g" width="320" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-49416233754574872992022-02-14T09:00:00.007-08:002022-02-14T09:00:42.293-08:00Monument to the unknown deserterAgain from James C Scott's "Two cheers for Anarchism". <div>This is harder to digest, given that we are brought up to view desertion with horror (betrayal both of comrades and country) it checks the worst tendencies of the military to abuse and waste human lives, and more importantly, asks the question which needs to be asked "<i>why are we fighting, and why cannot I go home?</i>" <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDiZ-YEoD-a1QmWlJXyKNGUZG9dlpTchIV5P4a4Ai9gUuZC6kS3UeO4YviMi8nWcA9-_7yugg3uZrDIvZLrKOAnvf7aMQ4omDDx8W9poavezA2FaEpIFBlWREbNprAV-ByS58qKJhjXwPN7opDKXmydqvX21ZTuM1x71Yl0LT_li5-aiBeqQ=s1385" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1385" data-original-width="693" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgDiZ-YEoD-a1QmWlJXyKNGUZG9dlpTchIV5P4a4Ai9gUuZC6kS3UeO4YviMi8nWcA9-_7yugg3uZrDIvZLrKOAnvf7aMQ4omDDx8W9poavezA2FaEpIFBlWREbNprAV-ByS58qKJhjXwPN7opDKXmydqvX21ZTuM1x71Yl0LT_li5-aiBeqQ=s320" /></a></div></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-16097067631584832912022-02-13T09:02:00.006-08:002022-02-13T09:02:44.881-08:00Two Cheers for Anarchism<p> A excerpt from the book by James C Scott. I am not convinced by this passage, but what he says is certainly true about Market Economies. Homo economicus cannot create a healthy Market. Healthy outcomes require habits of uncalculating trust and trustworthiness. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjspma6pIodUfGCqQIZXff0_xMs_TwjJVfuFwvAruiRP4M-5lAhVtdxQokkEmkL6sA9K9D_DqiJYsyXQM2tEPBdUHz6N1yTfEBHI7BvlncP7-mQaNFvjiTNDHXN7E1V3Ufky6bfhkDQAxwIbh0DCo-NUe6s3cnO1ggo_nZS_gU0woHiMNRS2Q=s716" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="709" data-original-width="716" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjspma6pIodUfGCqQIZXff0_xMs_TwjJVfuFwvAruiRP4M-5lAhVtdxQokkEmkL6sA9K9D_DqiJYsyXQM2tEPBdUHz6N1yTfEBHI7BvlncP7-mQaNFvjiTNDHXN7E1V3Ufky6bfhkDQAxwIbh0DCo-NUe6s3cnO1ggo_nZS_gU0woHiMNRS2Q=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-46388374000912646242022-02-11T07:11:00.001-08:002022-02-11T07:37:48.518-08:00Inventing Nations<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLUa_XKSQ7uxHrcrS3NMDyh9pepQqKWM_1_LVEAywjuJi6uGONs0dpui9TR64fc598OsD28kreCeBPIjEY4smjkz8o7nfwmiIt7O7gOmWFk3bn-SieyOTvOPNc_HYbo4IfFj6fW3-XkPxs8L4b3qIy46lK2H5fAcby8kX5ZxO-dvjHbT6GRg=s3038" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3038" data-original-width="2916" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiLUa_XKSQ7uxHrcrS3NMDyh9pepQqKWM_1_LVEAywjuJi6uGONs0dpui9TR64fc598OsD28kreCeBPIjEY4smjkz8o7nfwmiIt7O7gOmWFk3bn-SieyOTvOPNc_HYbo4IfFj6fW3-XkPxs8L4b3qIy46lK2H5fAcby8kX5ZxO-dvjHbT6GRg=s320" width="307" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgG1-W19Zv54TCypB4xcg1ay2_UxJz3F0Ftesfh2IY8Lqw6p3o8iFMzaQ9sPGkOxPo__KPdoH3Gu6U5RMi9Jh8lq_eSaV7foav94z7k37HP1mB1XyCAymFO35ZYm6Vhxv8-5t1mXFFjYRW49dzzll6tpovbbafaXP7l1Y7MK1KY0LEKZrN04w=s2936" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1340" data-original-width="2936" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgG1-W19Zv54TCypB4xcg1ay2_UxJz3F0Ftesfh2IY8Lqw6p3o8iFMzaQ9sPGkOxPo__KPdoH3Gu6U5RMi9Jh8lq_eSaV7foav94z7k37HP1mB1XyCAymFO35ZYm6Vhxv8-5t1mXFFjYRW49dzzll6tpovbbafaXP7l1Y7MK1KY0LEKZrN04w=s320" width="320" /></a><br /><br /><p></p><p>From “Imagined Communities” by Benedict Anderson. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgpmz2H-JMeAA22-NTSTB5V-t0QlNKcSb_t5Ex2dQgmGDmwy1Tf1u9KjB4eb-sQhiJZ5UOycxKhsp_brs3fuiQSxkaZSubjp41LgT4CfMxQbrjeECjIIcH3xIRHoJua4UIvY0IlA7TLhnsIQYwm7KcO_whtmjKpiFeO0Sj7F81BtX1evKy5oQ=s3024" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="869" data-original-width="3024" height="92" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgpmz2H-JMeAA22-NTSTB5V-t0QlNKcSb_t5Ex2dQgmGDmwy1Tf1u9KjB4eb-sQhiJZ5UOycxKhsp_brs3fuiQSxkaZSubjp41LgT4CfMxQbrjeECjIIcH3xIRHoJua4UIvY0IlA7TLhnsIQYwm7KcO_whtmjKpiFeO0Sj7F81BtX1evKy5oQ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-70674660269103417832022-02-10T08:50:00.004-08:002022-02-10T10:01:33.194-08:00On not existing<p style="text-align: justify;">In this episode of <a href="https://voidpod.com/podcasts/2022/2/4/ev-228-philosophers-on-consciousness-with-jack-symes">"Embrace the void"</a>, the host rattles off the names of things and asks the guest Jack Symes whether he considers them to be <i>"real"</i> or <i>"not real"</i>. Out of a long list (including <i>"colours", "free will", "genders", "races", "morality", "rights", "God or gods", "society", numbers", "fictional characters", "money"</i> and so on), I think the only time the guest responded "not real" was when the host named <i>"love."</i> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiyZHG7ziJhDv77vd2JqCDqI6Gvy4OmNr_Ff_AQWCi7WDzOpsyHOH9pOPIj-7MgsXbWDeTGPOXMa5aIjqVIPQwP7dpYcp76F6Qmh9zWkQgBbIhe0pqSkMQvjnbifdn6PaQU4HzSF3OcuEmb_70JWuSt2Fp3VsLu44r_T9dVSgbMzK0juENaBg=s779" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="From "Mathematics: a Very Short Introduction" by Gowers" border="0" data-original-height="503" data-original-width="779" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiyZHG7ziJhDv77vd2JqCDqI6Gvy4OmNr_Ff_AQWCi7WDzOpsyHOH9pOPIj-7MgsXbWDeTGPOXMa5aIjqVIPQwP7dpYcp76F6Qmh9zWkQgBbIhe0pqSkMQvjnbifdn6PaQU4HzSF3OcuEmb_70JWuSt2Fp3VsLu44r_T9dVSgbMzK0juENaBg=w320-h207" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">A philosophers' game, of course, but I would have answered "Real" to practically everything. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Does the sky exist? Obelix was wrong to worry about a solid dome over our heads, which could come crashing down at any moment, but the sky certainly can be blue, or overcast, or a "dawn sky" or a "night sky"; the sky can contain birds or storms, or rainbows, though we can never reach the pot of gold at the end of those either. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Do gods exist? Well they certainly make themselves felt through the actions of those who believe in them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Does "India" exist? It certainly didn't exist when Indosaurus roamed the plains. Nor did it always have the same borders which it does today. Nor will it exist in its present form forever. Neither did it always <i>mean</i> the same thing- a "geographical term" (like Europe), a cultural territory (again like "Europe") with ambiguous boundaries, a colony, an imperial dominion, and a Union are all different things. We may even be a nation today- we certainly were not always that. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Asking whether something is "real" is almost pointless- what is interesting is in just <i>what sense</i> something is real. The "unreal", "illusory" and merely "conventional" make their presence felt through how they bend "reality."</p><p><u><i>Edit:</i></u> the worst atrocities follow when these illusions, which can be debated and contested endlessly, infect our minds and turn us into puppets who live and die to protect these illusions, and deny the ordinary pain of the person before them. </p><blockquote><i>The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living</i>.</blockquote>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-31738548398609511562022-02-10T08:08:00.001-08:002022-02-10T08:08:28.223-08:00No matter. Try again.<p> After almost a decade, going to try again to record some of my thoughts.</p>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-40945782573777614892012-04-16T13:43:00.000-07:002012-04-16T13:43:02.509-07:00In defense of Heuristics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
When people (or other animals) run to catch a flying ball, how do they ensure that they get to the right place at just the right time?
</br>
</br>
The computational theory of the mind says that we have a "mental model" of how things fly through the air. We use this to work out the likely trajectory of the ball, and run to where our model says the ball will come to earth. The <a href="http://teemingmultitudes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/links.html">embodied</a> <a href="http://teemingmultitudes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/metaphor-needed.html">cognition</a> people point out that this is wrong. We use a heuristic: we run so as to keep the line of sight to the ball at a constant angle to the horizontal and this simple rule ensures that we get to the right spot just at the right time.
</br>
</br>
Gerd Gigerenzer touches on this topic during this <i>excellent</i> talk I came across via a <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/yvessmith/status/191940264380727297">tweet</a> by Yves Smith. He gives the clearest explanation I've seen of how the two approaches differ in their predictions, and how the computational theory is simply wrong even if our goal is not a realistic description of how people actually manage to catch balls but is, as Friedman might have argued, merely to be able to come up with good predictions of their observable behavior.
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DdEEwoKkfMA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Of course, his topic is not embodied cognition, but rationality in general, and how decision making under uncertainty differs from decision making under risk, how heuristics are not "second best", and how complex problems don't need complex solutions. Robustness is more importance than optimization, when you cannot know the optimum. His argument in favor of a simple 1/N heuristic, as compared to Markowitz's portfolio allocation theory, was quite astonishing.
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-81254884025232843442012-04-14T12:29:00.000-07:002012-04-14T12:29:34.672-07:00Dunning Kruger<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
This <a href="http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/">post</a> about what the Dunning Kruger effect is, and what it is not, is very good.
<blockquote>
So the bias is definitively <i>not</i> that incompetent people think they’re better than competent people. Rather, it’s that <i>incompetent people think they’re much better than they actually are</i>. But they typically still don’t think they’re quite as good as people who, you know, actually <i>are</i> good.
</blockquote>
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-83623098424084083972012-03-17T11:18:00.000-07:002012-03-17T11:18:39.631-07:00Your lying heart<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
<blockquote>
As a graduate student, I attended some courses on the art and science of psychotherapy. During one of these lectures, our teacher imparted a morsel of clinical wisdom. This is what he told us: "You will from time to time meet a patient who shares a disturbing tale of multiple mistakes in his previous treatment. He has been seen by several clinicians, and all failed him. The patient can lucidly describe how his therapists misunderstood him, but he has quickly perceived that you are different. You share the same feeling, are convinced that you understand him, and will be able to help." At this point my teacher raised his voice as he said, "Do not even <i>think</i> of taking on this patient! Throw him out of the office! He is most likely a psychopath and you will not be able to help him."
</blockquote>
From Daniel Kahneman's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637?tag=duckduckgo-d-20">"Thinking, Fast and Slow</a>."
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-62883610900832253272012-03-06T06:29:00.000-08:002012-03-06T06:29:54.226-08:00What words can do justice<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwwwH71-1wGGLtoHL6BqGIKu32Px8axGbjAwMgKhKUfqVpEcihg07YwVVgiEOqL4f4n9qJ85r9CUf6QZ36IKESaRdEaJh4BX1rH8L_kK6GftPg0z1ACIuGnBD06Wi9hL9AxunD/s1600/01-hornless-black-rhino-670.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwwwH71-1wGGLtoHL6BqGIKu32Px8axGbjAwMgKhKUfqVpEcihg07YwVVgiEOqL4f4n9qJ85r9CUf6QZ36IKESaRdEaJh4BX1rH8L_kK6GftPg0z1ACIuGnBD06Wi9hL9AxunD/s320/01-hornless-black-rhino-670.jpg" /></a></div>
From the National Geographic on the <a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/rhino-wars/stirton-photography">Rhino Wars</a>
<blockquote>
Game scouts found this black rhino bull wandering Zimbabwe's Savé Valley Conservancy after poachers shot it several times and hacked off both its horns. Veterinarians had to euthanize the animal because its shattered shoulder couldn't support its weight.
</blockquote>
Adam Omizek at Modeled Behavior recently <a href="http://modeledbehavior.com/2012/02/26/pressuring-businesses-for-better-treatment-of-animals-versus-workers/">blogged</a>
<blockquote>
I have argued that consumer pressure for better treatment of animals in agriculture is a good thing, but that pressuring for better treatment of workers might lead to worse outcomes.
</blockquote>
He is writing about animals in agriculture, but what he says applies in general. We are the most powerful species ever to roam the planet, and it is amazing how badly we behave.
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-55715521702917368212012-03-05T07:14:00.000-08:002012-03-05T09:59:33.221-08:00Moneyball: this is not a review<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjAxOTU3Mzc1M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzk1ODUzNg@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="317" width="214" src="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjAxOTU3Mzc1M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzk1ODUzNg@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg" /></a></div>
I recently watched <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball_%28film%29">Moneyball</a>.
<br />
<br />
One of the most moving scenes in the movie is the one where you watch Billy Beane begins to assemble a team from players who have been overlooked by other teams. You can see how much it matters to them when he asks him to play for him.
<br />
<br />
What does this imply for my post about <a href="http://teemingmultitudes.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-merit.html">Meritocracy</a>?
<br />
<br />
Doesn't it show that free markets reward talent? Doesn't it show that free markets reward those who can see the value in outsiders and put them to work? Doesn't it show that free markets are meritocracies, and isn't that a good thing?
<br />
My answers to these questions would be: yes, yes, and a qualified no.
<br />
<br />
Markets are wonderful. We should try to find the right person for the job, and we should reward people for doing their jobs well. The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bourgeois-Virtues-Ethics-Age-Commerce/dp/0226556638">bourgeois</a> virtues are very real.
<br />
<br />
My post on Merit was not an argument against using markets.
<br />
<br />
Since the 1980s, the best cricket players in India have been growing ever <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Tendulkar#Commercial_endorsements">richer</a>. However, that they earn a hundred times what their predecessors used to earn doesn't mean that they are a hundred times as good at the game. They have grown richer mainly because Indians now watch television. In some other countries, the benefits have gone to Football players, while in other countries, Basketball players have gained. These beneficiaries may be great athletes, and they "deserve" their incomes in the sense that this is what others willingly pay them in the marketplace. They are like landlords who have seen the value of their properties explode because someone else built a highway or a railway station nearby.
<br />
<br />
Hockey is supposedly India's "National Game" and the Indian Hockey team is the most successful team in Olympic History. However, they earn a fraction of what Cricketers earn. There are excellent historical and infrastructural reasons for this. However, to say that Cricket is a better team than Hockey, or that Cricketers are better athletes than Hockey players would be silly. That is my first point: however hard we work, and these athletes work very hard indeed, we underestimate the contribution of luck to our wealth.
<br />
<br />
Merit, in the sense in which we use it here, is also a morally neutral term. In the movie, Billy Beane recruits players whom others won't touch because they are arrogant, or because they take drugs and frequent strip clubs. As he puts it, all he cares about is whether they are cheap and can "get on base". Personally, I have no problems with people who use drugs or go to strip clubs. The point I am trying to make is that if Billy Beane is rewarding merit, both merit and reward are of the narrowest kind: he reognizes technical competence, and rewards it with money.
<br />
<br />
Billy Beane was doing The Market's work, and that is good. However, The Market giveth, and the Market taketh away.
<br />
<br />
We underestimate the importance of the environment: we see those who thrive and see that they are intelligent, hard-working, and conscientous, and they often are! We then assume that they would have thrived in all possible worlds. We don't notice that many of those who are left behind are also were hard-working and dilgent. We also forget that we often seem most virtuous (energetic, optimistic, generous) when things are going our way.
<br />
<br />
This has moral consequences: instead of being grateful, the successful evolve a fine sense of entitlement, while the defeated blame themselves. This is not only a human tragedy, but a <i>mistaken</i> understanding of how the world works.
<br />
<br />
<b>Note:</b> Prices are a signal. When wages rise, workers should move into that industry. However, the number of spots on the Indian Cricket team is limited to 11 (plus extras). What we see are more players trying to get in, and a few who do make it and earn huge sums. Most of us do not work in such industries. When wages rise, people enter our industry.
<br /> However, this does not mitigate the tragedy of declining industries: I doubt former <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt">steel plant</a> engineers are any less intelligent or hardworking that programmers, but they cannot easily start over again.
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-30435367932877743522012-03-03T23:13:00.003-08:002012-03-03T23:13:38.626-08:00Predictable<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I don't intend to write any more posts about tax for a while. However, Tim Harford makes an interesting point in this <a href="http://timharford.com/2012/03/certainty-over-tax-rules-is-overrated/">article</a>
<blockquote>
But few people seem to have recognised that if the entrepreneurial activity in question is avoiding tax through artificial loopholes, it might be a very good idea to generate some uncertainty and give pause for thought.
</blockquote>
I don't agree, but an interesting comment nevertheless.
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-67532631727036937252012-03-03T14:34:00.004-08:002012-03-03T23:01:25.373-08:00Taxes II<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I recently read this article in which Samuel Brittan <a href="http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text419_p.html">argues</a> for a tax on land, and quotes Winston Churchill <br />
<blockquote><i>Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.</i> </blockquote>I am no expert on Georgism, but I am intrigued. <br />
<br />
Bryan Caplan, however, doesn't <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/a_search-theore.html">like</a> it. <br />
<blockquote>There's just one problem: While the Georgist tax has no effect on the incentive to pump discovered oil, it has a devastating effect on the incentive to discover oil in the first place. Suppose you could find a $1M well by spending $900k on exploration. With a 99% Georgist tax, your expected profits are negative $890k. </blockquote>I am nor persuaded by Bryan's argument. The company will look at the total profits which it can make by investing in finding and developing the oil field. <br />
<br />
First, it will pay a higher tax on the land it owns, but since it will no longer be taxed on the profits it makes from extracting, refining, and distributing the oil which it finds, it is not clear that its total profits will be any less. <br />
<br />
Second, it is not the case that the company's profits from oil exploration are higher in the absence of the land tax: what would be paid as land tax would instead be paid to the landlord. The effect of the Georgist tax is to transfer rent from the current owner of the land to the State. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable, but the tax is not paid by the company which finds the oil nor the one which develops it, and will not affect their incentives. Note that this is Ricardian rent, and not simply money rent, though the two could be the same. <br />
<br />
To be clearer about this, consider a company which is thinking of buying some land outright, where it is confident that it will find oil. It will take the land tax into account when deciding whether to buy the land (just as it would take sales tax, etc into account today). The effect of the land tax will be to reduce the price which the company is willing to pay for the land, and so will in effect be paid by the current owner of the land. The landlord will sell to them if what they can pay is more than he could make from the user with the next best use of that land. If the land tax did not exist, the company would pay more, and the landlord would be end up richer. But the person with the second best use of the land would also be willing to pay more, and so the landlord's decision would not be affected by the tax! <br />
<br />
Finally, as a couple of the commentators have pointed out, there is a fatal problem with Bryan's argument: the model which he says cannot work in theory already works in practice. <br />
<blockquote>Or do you think that when Western oil companies rock up in Saudi Arabia, that the Saudis don't make them pay every cent for the value of the land/natural resources? The Western oil companies just get to keep the additional profits made by extracting, refining, shipping the stuff. </blockquote>and (italics added) <br />
<blockquote>I invite you to check out the world of actual oil and mineral exploration, this happens all the time. Very seldom will a party of oil/minerals exploration not have to negotiate with a private/government party who will extract as much rent as they can, and the stuff still gets out of the ground with a profit for the exploration party. <br />
<br />
<i> The author mistakes 100% of the rent for being 100% of the value of, in this case, oil. It's not, it's what the exploring party will bid to profitably extract it.</i> </blockquote>Bryan argues that we should be taxing negative externalities instead. The windfall gains made by the landlord because of the efforts of others is a <i>positive</i> externality which blesses the landlord alone, and this is what the tax is meant to recover. <br />
<br />
Ricardian Rent is an amazingly subtle concept. I only understood it properly after I read Tim Harford's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0345494016?tag=duckduckgo-d-20">The Undercover Economist</a>. I am not an expert on taxation, and it could be that I have got something wrong, but I really doubt it. I think it is much more likely that his ideological preferences caused Bryan to rush to judgement.
<br />
<br />
<b>Edit:</b> Gulzar's comment below, and his <a href="http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/27001037/The-case-for-a-land-tax.html">op-ed</a> are well worth reading. </div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-68361023446903037312012-03-01T08:46:00.002-08:002012-03-01T08:46:39.038-08:00Unearned Income<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
Why we are so enamored with the idea of paid work? This is not about political preferences. The Right bangs on about welfare queens, the left proclaims the virtues of the working classes. Does anybody like idle people?
<br />
<br />
Strangely enough, as this <a href="http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text88_p.html">article</a> by Samuel Brittan shows, Hayek seems to have had no problem with them, or those of us who merely aspire to be completely idle some day.
<blockquote>
Hayek went out of his way to praise the existence of the person of independent means, who was responsible for much of the innovation of the last few centuries -- whether in high culture, in the launch of good causes such as the anti-slavery campaign or the more mundane development of the art of living including a great variety of hobbies and sports which were afterwards taken up by the mass of the population.
</blockquote>
At a time when you cannot open a business magazine without being forced to contemplate over-achieving businessmen who have no life outside of work, and when people actually seek out tips for sleeping <i>less</i>, as if sleep were some great conspiracy by Nature to prevent them from realizing their full potential, this is refreshing stuff.
<blockquote>
Indeed Hayek went so far as to say that if there were no other way it would be better to grant an independent income to one householder in a hundred chosen by lots than not to have it at all. In the 40 years and more since his Constitution of Liberty was published, productivity in the developed world has made great strides. Are we not now approaching a position where some non-wage income could be available not to one in a hundred but to all citizens?
</blockquote>
As with so many other ideas, I first encountered the Citizen's Basic Income (CBI) in Chris Dillow's <a href="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/04/the_case_for_ba.html">blog</a>. Now that Europe is in crisis, it will be argued that a CBI is impossible there, but I don't think that is the case at all. The real obstacle is always going to be the ideology of work.
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-88880151397662298342012-02-29T12:22:00.002-08:002012-02-29T12:22:59.852-08:00On Merit<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;" trbidi="on">
In this very wise <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment">essay</a>, Michael Young reminds us that the 1958 book in which he coined the word "Meritocracy" was meant to be a warning.
<blockquote>
It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.
</blockquote>
There are any number of arguments against Meritocracy:
<ol type ="a">
<li>It reassures the powerful and it demoralizes the <a href="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2011/09/legitimating-inequality.html">powerless</a>.</ li>
<li>It removes all checks on rent-seeking. As Michael Young notes in his essay
<blockquote>
So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.
</blockquote>
</ li>
<li>It <a href="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2004/11/meritocracy_ver.html">confuses</a> merit and marketability.
</ol>
As always, I've learned a lot from Chris Dillow.
<br />
<br />
There is one other argument which I encountered on Andrew Gelman's blog, but have not seen elsewhere. In a <a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2007/12/meritocracy_won/">post</a> about an article by James Flynn (of the "Flynn effect"), Gelman says
<blockquote>
Flynn also points out that the promotion and celebration of the concept of “meritocracy” is also, by the way, a promotion and celebration of wealth and status–these are the goodies that the people with more merit get.
</blockquote>
Thus, because we believe that we reward virtue with wealth and power, not only do the wealthy and powerful gain legitimacy, but wealth and power themselves gain a moral sheen by association with virtue. At the limit, we no longer believe that virtue can be its own reward: it has to be accompanied by the insignia of social acclaim.
<br /></div>Rajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.com4