Some stimulating debate on the sensitive subject of gender differences in specific cognitive abilities

On a difficult subject, let’s throw the subject over to some people who know nothing about it, but who have flawless makeup on and vigorously assert mutually inconsistent propositions. If you think the first 90% of the video is exemplary, wait, there’s more – when the panelist asks whether it might not be time to talk about her again – and return to the subject of how ‘hot’ she is – and then tops it all off with a truly masterful summary of her position.

The original article that sparked the celebrities’ analysis is here.

Neoclassical economics: what is it good for?

Michael Leunig says the tough economic times will plant seeds of change and happiness.I sent the passage below to my friend Alex Coram noting “I like this post from Brad Delong – though you may not”. Alex, you see, has a deeper understanding than me of these things. I was right – he wasn’t that impressed – but for reasons that I also agreed with and might have offered if I were not a thirsty man in a desert.

I think that modern neoclassical economics is in fine shape, as long as it is understood as the ideological and substantive legitimating doctrine of the political theory of possessive individualism. As long as we have relatively self-interested liberal individuals who have relatively strong beliefs that things are theirs, the competitive market in equilibrium is an absolutely wonderful mechanism for achieving truly extraordinary degree of societal coordination and productivity. We need to understand that. We need to value that. And that is what neoclassical economics does, and does well.

Of course, there are all the caveats to Arrow-Debreu-Mackenzie:

  1. The market must be in equilibrium.
  2. The market must be competitive.
  3. The goods traded must be excludable.
  4. The goods traded must be non-rival.
  5. The quality of goods traded and of effort delivered must be known, or at least bonded, for adverse selection and moral hazard are poison.
  6. Externalities must be corrected by successful Pigovian taxes or successful Coaseian carving of property rights at the joints.
  7. People must be able to accurately calculate their own interests.
  8. People must not be sadistic–the market does not work well if participating agents are either the envious or the spiteful.
  9. The distribution of wealth must correspond to the societal consensus of need and desert.
  10. The structure of debt and credit must be sound, or if it is not sound we need a central bank or a social-credit agency to make it sound and so make Say’s Law true in practice even though we have no reason to believe Say’s Law is true in theory.

An adequate undergraduate economics major will spend due time not just on the excellences of the competitive market equilibrium, but on these 10 modes of market failure, and in so doing become, effectively, a history and moral philosophy major as well.

A first-rate undergraduate economic major will also spend due time on government failure and bureaucratic failure, and thus reach the very economic conclusion that there are substantial trade-offs, and we must pick our poison among inadequate and imperfect alternatives, even in institution design.

In any event Alex disagreed in terms that I completely agree with as below:

Still sort of misses the point – tends to confuse the model with the real world.

I think neo-classical economics is an answer to the question

Suppose we have a government that enforces the rules of property and every allowable contract between individuals and that all non-environmental property is privately owned. Under these circumstances would the actions of individuals with perfect knowledge pursuing their own interests produce one or more equilibria?

In order to answer this you will need a few additional assumptions about continuity and smoothness of utility and production functions, non-continuously increasing marginal products etc etc

It is in fine shape as a possible answer to this question and this is how I teach it.

It is then a different question altogether what, if anything, this tells us about real markets or economies.

A different way of putting it is that neo-classical economics tries to explore the mathematical model underlying Smith’s quote. “”It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

I think these guys are not prepared to accept that the model is not about reality.
Even the term market failure is a bit odd – it assumes that the market is somehow the natural mechanism and you need other things when it fails. In the hands of idiots it then leads to the default position that the solution to all problems is to privatize or create market . (ometimes yes sometimes no)

A film and a couple of poems in the lead-up to Anzac day

Regular readers will know of my enthusiasm for the recent movie adaptation of Vera Brittain’s Testament of Youth about the disaster that was WWI and how it blighted the lives of a generation. It’s opening in Australia today – read my review on the link above and go and see it if you can.

A month or so ago I was in the bookshop of the NSW State Library and flicked through a marvellous fat book of war poetry – in Penguin’s new very cheap collection of books in old original Penguin covers – in this case the beigy-puce colour which seems to have been set aside for war literature. In it I read a remarkable poem. But before setting it out, I also read – I think later on on the net – a poem by Rupert Brooke: he of “If I should die think only this of me, that there is some corner of a foreign field that is forever England”.

Here is the poem “Peace“.

Now, God be thanked who has matched us with his hour,
      And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping!
With hand made sure, clear eye, and sharpened power,
      To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,
Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary;
      Leave the sick hearts that honor could not move,
And half-men, and their dirty songs and dreary,
      And all the little emptiness of love!
Oh! we, who have known shame, we have found release there,
      Where there’s no ill, no grief, but sleep has mending,
            Naught broken save this body, lost but breath;
Nothing to shake the laughing heart’s long peace there,
      But only agony, and that has ending;
            And the worst friend and enemy is but Death.

Brooke is suggesting that the crucible of war might make essences visible to our jaded ordinary selves otherwise tangled up in the mundane surface appearances of everyday life. The poem I read in the Penguin anthology contains the very same idea as Brooke’s – that there’s a surface reality and then a deeper one beneath it. But their treatment of this ‘reality exposed by war’ theme is diametrically opposed. In “To A Conscript of 1940″ the poet and WWI veteran Herbert Read suggests that reality lying beneath the surface is altogether different. His message is not so dissimilar to that of Vera Brittain. That the worthiness of pre-war aspirations were a mirage, not just a trap, but a trap for those of good heart but without their wits about them – the wits that Vera Brittain slowly come to through experience.

A soldier passed me in the freshly fallen snow,
His footsteps muffled, his face unearthly grey:
And my heart gave a sudden leap
As I gazed on a ghost of five-and-twenty years ago.

I shouted Halt! and my voice had the old accustom’d ring
And he obeyed it as it was obeyed
In the shrouded days when I too was one

Into the unknown. He turned towards me and I said:
`I am one of those who went before you
Five-and-twenty years ago: one of the many who never returned,
Of the many who returned and yet were dead.

We went where you are going, into the rain and the mud:
We fought as you will fight
With death and darkness and despair;
We gave what you will give-our brains and our blood.

We think we gave in vain. The world was not renewed.
There was hope in the homestead and anger in the streets,
But the old world was restored and we returned
To the dreary field and workshop, and the immemorial feud

Of rich and poor. Our victory was our defeat.
Power was retained where power had been misused
And youth was left to sweep away
The ashes that the fires had strewn beneath our feet.

But one thing we learned: there is no glory in the dead
Until the soldier wears a badge of tarnish’d braid;
There are heroes who have heard the rally and have seen
The glitter of garland round their head.

Theirs is the hollow victory. They are deceived.
But you my brother and my ghost, if you can go
Knowing that there is no reward, no certain use
In all your sacrifice, then honour is reprieved.

To fight without hope is to fight with grace,
The self reconstructed, the false heart repaired.’
Then I turned with a smile, and he answered my salute
As he stood against the fretted hedge, which was like white lace.

In fact Testimony of Youth’s Australian release coincides with the centenary of another event. Already the feted poet of the British War effort, Rupert Brooke died on April 23, 1915. In sad contradistinction to the ardour of his poetry, he never saw a shot fired in anger, dying of sepsis from an infected mosquito bite on a French ship, moored at Skyros, a Greek island in the Ionian sea a good way off from the looming battle for the Dardanelles.

And just as I mentioned John Maynard Keynes in the thick of things in the previous post about the film, the contrast between these two poems puts me in mind of something that Keynes said that stuck with me the moment I read it. Writing to a friend in 1943 – back at the Treasury as he had been in WWI while Vera Brittain’s friends and brother were being blown to pieces – he wrote this to a colleague:

Here I am back again in the Treasury like a recurring decimal – but with one great difference. In 1918 most people’s only idea was to get back to pre-1914. No-one today feels like that about 1939. That will make an enormous difference when we get down to it.

And so it did. WWI, a four year catastrophe on a hitherto unimaginable scale killing 12 million people or whatever it was wasn’t enough to make people really want to try hard to avoid the problems of the past. It turned out that it required a lot more than that. It required that, followed by the desperation of depression and then another world war of a far larger magnitude to get people to really want to get things right for a new generation.

And that’s the situation we’re in all over again. Deep in the grip of VerySeriousPersononomics, with a banking system that, having destroyed the prosperity of a generation, snaffled itself a couple of trillion dollars to pay its uberlords for their continuing fine work at the helm and is now reformed in a sufficiently mild way that it will happen again once the memories fade. I keep thinking of W. H. Auden lamenting that ”low dishonest decade” that had just steered his own world back into world war in Sept 1939.

Lest we forget that Woolworths are the fresh food people: Troppo competition

Woolies

Woolies and its marketers plumb the depths of vileness. Apparently they’ve taken it down with a delicious non-apology. It “regretted” it had caused offence.
File next to corporate pedophilia under “The banality of corporate exploitation”.

Anyway, it’s a worthy subject for a competition. Come up with something more lacking in basic decency and sensibility. I’m afraid it’s not worth the Merc Sports, but Rooter can be let off the leash for a drag round the block before being flown to the Dardanelles for more important duties on the 23rd of April. He’s needed to be the subject of a special five minute human-interest multi-media packet for current affairs programs on the Big Day “Rooter and his donkey”.

Comedy in Melbourne – and some comedy I wish was in Melbourne

I expect lots of Troppodillians will know of Stewart Lee – the guy in the video above – given how good I reckon he is, but I’d never heard of him until, at the beginning of the Easter weekend YouTube noticed I’d been checking comedians out to decide who to see at the Melbourne Comedy Festival and served him up.

Pity he’s not out here for the comedy festival. Continue reading

Banter Blitz

Something that’s fun for chess patzers like me is watching really good players play blitz and seeing how much further their chess intuition goes. This is normally savoured at live tournaments but I just discovered Banter Blitz which pits grandmasters against patzers like me – and quite good players as well. Anyway, the reason I checked this out is that the grandmaster is David Smerdon who is Australian and indeed works for the Australian Treasury – or did. Anyway, apologies for those who don’t like this kind of thing – it’s not such an imposition – they don’t have to check it out. But for those who might enjoy it – enjoy.