I read something funny recently, sent to a mailing list associated with the Australian Stock Exchange, usually full of tips and advice for investors. Right there, in black and white, for all the share market investors to see, is a quick overview about why economic theories about markets are, by and large, no better than wishful thinking:
http://www.asx.com.au/resources/201105-why-markets-are-irrational.htm
This isn't news to anyone outside of the profession of economics and has been well known for quite some time. And yet, we still hear the lines about "letting the market sort it out", and how efficient using markets is - for EVERYTHING.
The article above sets out the fundamental reason why anything that economists come up with derived from their perfectly (or even semi-) rational agents maximising their utility (what does this mean in the real world, by the way? It's always taken by economists as, essentially, just money) just cannot be an accurate reflection of the real world.
My own background is in engineering, which is full of complex, non-linear mathematics. The models engineers use are, under the right conditions (which the engineer can usually control to some extent) reasonable reflections of the real-world. However, they always keep in mind the conditions under which the models apply, and the tolerances of how tightly they can fit reality. This is why, in general, buildings don't fall over, planes stay in the air and the electricity network doesn't blow up whenever someone in just the wrong place turns on a light!
Economics, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be burdened in this way. I must admit, first of all, that I am no expert in current economic theory, and that I only studied one economics at university because I had to to get my degree, and since that time I have eyed it very warily, but always assumed that I just don't understand the gory details well enough. However, whenever I have looked into the gory details, I have found them wanting. For example, when looking into how Game Theory is used in economics, my engineering training told me that here, again, were models of seemingly very limited scope and hence very limited usefulness in the real-world. However, it seems that these are the fundamental basis of economics.
The mathematics I was presented in University was hopelessly linear for systems that were obviously highly dependent on multiple variables in complex ways. Even more complex, non-linear mathematics (that might get closer to reality) wouldn't really work because, as has been noted many times before, economics deals with social systems which are characterised by complex dependencies and interactions between agents, many of whom have the same preferences at the same time. From a mathematical point-of-view, there is no "closed solution" to these systems. Worse than that, their behaviour is highly unpredictable and is driven by strong internal dynamics.
In engineering, we would seek to ensure that the system operated in a stable range, usually through negative feedback, and, especially, through avoiding positive feedback which characterises so much of the shenanigans we see in most "markets" these days. Big companies get bigger and bigger, the gap between rich people and poor people continues to widen, and speculative bubbles not only keep appearing, but seem to do so more and more frequently. The government's job should be to engineer the conditions for the system to operate with stable growth. The only aspect of economic policy that seems to be engineered for stabilising swings in the system (in Australia at least), is the macroeconomic setting of central bank exchange rates to keep inflation within controlled bands. It's a crude instrument, with quite a simple goal, but it seems to do the job. If only the government's microeconomic policies were engineered for stability as well!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The creep of Catholic conservatism...
Just read an interesting article about the sacking of a Catholic priest in Toowoomba. In a lot of ways, this is just the standard process that has been happening ever since Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Once that happens, power must be maintained, and in organised religion that is through strict control of doctrine. So, this is just more of the same.
The more interesting thing for me from the article was that it reignited a question in me that pops into my head from time to time. To me as an outsider to religion, I have often wondered how neoliberalism, which at its heart is mainly about the concentration of wealth and privilege, got so intimately tied up with neoconservatives in the christian churches (I don't know enough about the viewpoint in other religions to say anything about those). I guess the modern version of it must hark back to the cold war were communism was tied to atheism (only because the churches had historically been complicit in the expoitation of working-class people), and so the most aggressive form of capitalist thought sprung to power in an attempt to differentiate the "west" as sharply as possible from the commies. That seems to have included religion. In this time then, christianity (at least certain extreme/conservative parts of it), which is really not incompatible with the basic economics of socialism or communism (after all, isn't a Kibbutz a somewhat socialist model of a life based around religion?), came to be associated in some ways with values that are quite at odds with the values espoused in the New Testament.
The specifics of this particular argument was about the catholic church's doctrine on female and married priests being questioned. The restriction on female priests is to be expected considering how highly patriarchal the middle eastern tribes that spawned Christianity are. It's completely out-of-step with what's happening in the wider community, and it would be illegal under anti-discrimination laws if the church hadn't got itself exempted, but hey, that's how they like to roll. The question of married priests in the catholic church really is a funny one, if you ask me. I guess, after all this time, and with the whole controlling hierarchy of the church being required to be celibate, they're unlikely to turn around and say "you know what - there was probably nothing wrong with priests being married after all".
Apparently, this isn't a question of doctrine but of "ecclesial law" which means that a Pope could theoretically change it whenever they liked, and exceptions are sometimes made for married protestant priests who want to become catholic priests (returning to the fold, as it were). If that's the case, it's hard to see how what this particular priest, who was pressured into retiring early, did that was so bad, especially, as has often been pointed out, when so many priests who abused children didn't get such harsh treatment, but were instead shifted from parish to parish after they confessed their sin. It seems pederasty is no threat to the church's doctrinal power...
The more interesting thing for me from the article was that it reignited a question in me that pops into my head from time to time. To me as an outsider to religion, I have often wondered how neoliberalism, which at its heart is mainly about the concentration of wealth and privilege, got so intimately tied up with neoconservatives in the christian churches (I don't know enough about the viewpoint in other religions to say anything about those). I guess the modern version of it must hark back to the cold war were communism was tied to atheism (only because the churches had historically been complicit in the expoitation of working-class people), and so the most aggressive form of capitalist thought sprung to power in an attempt to differentiate the "west" as sharply as possible from the commies. That seems to have included religion. In this time then, christianity (at least certain extreme/conservative parts of it), which is really not incompatible with the basic economics of socialism or communism (after all, isn't a Kibbutz a somewhat socialist model of a life based around religion?), came to be associated in some ways with values that are quite at odds with the values espoused in the New Testament.
The specifics of this particular argument was about the catholic church's doctrine on female and married priests being questioned. The restriction on female priests is to be expected considering how highly patriarchal the middle eastern tribes that spawned Christianity are. It's completely out-of-step with what's happening in the wider community, and it would be illegal under anti-discrimination laws if the church hadn't got itself exempted, but hey, that's how they like to roll. The question of married priests in the catholic church really is a funny one, if you ask me. I guess, after all this time, and with the whole controlling hierarchy of the church being required to be celibate, they're unlikely to turn around and say "you know what - there was probably nothing wrong with priests being married after all".
Apparently, this isn't a question of doctrine but of "ecclesial law" which means that a Pope could theoretically change it whenever they liked, and exceptions are sometimes made for married protestant priests who want to become catholic priests (returning to the fold, as it were). If that's the case, it's hard to see how what this particular priest, who was pressured into retiring early, did that was so bad, especially, as has often been pointed out, when so many priests who abused children didn't get such harsh treatment, but were instead shifted from parish to parish after they confessed their sin. It seems pederasty is no threat to the church's doctrinal power...
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Speaking of singing from the same songsheet
I noted last time that the leaders of the western world all seemed to be singing from the same songsheet () as to the highly positive outcome of seeing Osama bin Laden get whacked just as the US President promised he would. Today, listening to Deutsche Welle news I realised something. Yes, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel had publicly stated that she was happy to hear that bin Laden had been killed, but that didn't sit so well with other public figures in Germany, and not just her political opponents, but also members of her own party and her church as well. To go along with this, the homepage of Deutsche Welle and FAZ (just as two examples of German news sites) both had a mixture of analysis right there on the frontpage as the big stories, focusing on two ideas mainly - that expressing joy over an assassination doesn't exactly distance you morally from the person being assassinated, and that the killing may not have been legal (and a similar question was raised on FAZ). Looking at LeMonde.fr today, there was more coverage of the actual events, but also some frontpage analysis about how justice was required to heal victims of terrorism, not vengeance, and that the US will struggle to prove its claims without a body. If the reputation of the US government and its secret services hadn't been so thoroughly tarnished since the invasion of Iraq, perhaps that wouldn't be such an issue. The french even give a little time to covering current conspiracy theories!
For comparison, a quick sweep of Australian media coverage, the frontpage of The Australian website, which should be noted updates frequently, currently contains very little coverage of Osama's death except for articles on topics about how the Pakistanis must have been protecting Osama (gross incompetance on the part of all "intelligence" agencies seems to be completely discounted), as well as an entire "in-depth" page on Osama's death which currently lists about 26 articles, with not a single dissenting or alternative viewpoint, as far as I can tell from the headings. The topics range from copying US government press releases, to a vacuous story about using the codename Geronimo for OBL. The world news section of the Sydney Morning Herald is similarly lacking in diversity of opinion. Roughly 10 articles on the OBL killing, or related, and none would appear to offer any kind of alternative narrative. The Australian government broadcaster, the ABC, also appears to be largely devoid of any diversity of viewpoint. In their World news section, the only Osama related article talks about how Barack Obama's popularity has bounced back in opinion polls in the US. Not exactly earth-shattering stuff.
Funny how all the Australian media has painted themselves into a corner of complete irrelevance as they all fight to copy the same press releases, but with their own reporter in front of a camera somewhere random. I can hope we'll see something better from the ABC's current affairs programs. There are some alternative viewpoints expressed in independent media like this story from New Mathilda which seems to be bemoaning the lack of diversity too. The lack is in the mainstream English-speaking media, it would seem...
Most political leaders in Australia said essentially the same thing, certainly prime minister Julia Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbott with his usual embarassing machismo. I find it irritatingly just how little diversity there is in Australian politics and it shows up again and again. Vote Greens, I hear you say. Good point, but the Australian Greens are quite strange. They're called "The Greens" but what was the first thing our first federal Greens MP did upon entering the new parliament? Was it about saving old-growth forests? Marine reserves? Or, perhaps the "greatest moral challenge of our time": Climate Change and renewable energy sources?
No, it was a private members bill on gay marriage. That's right. Apparently, gay couples make up 0.47% of all couples in Australia. Wow. Earth-shatteringly important stuff! Shit, Adam, how about some federal funding for more bikepaths even? Something small. Legally, gay couples in Australia have de facto all the same rights as married couples (there really aren't that many extra "rights"), they just can't register a marriage officially. That's it.
OK, so, maybe this needed to be talked about at some stage in the future, but isn't there anything more important to talk about?
A bit like the old republican vs monarchist debate in Australia. There's plenty that could be improved about Australia's constitutional makeup but replacing a non-elected figurehead with an elected one doesn't seem that interesting to me. Occasionally, very occasionally, you can find someone else saying something sensible about this, but it's not often!
For another bit of continental contrast, Germany has a lot of "Green" representation spread across the country, and as a result they have very significant wind and even solar power! Drive through Germany and you will see solar farms, solar PV on half the rooves in many small towns, and plenty of windfarms. I'm not saying these are the be all and end all of renewables (I'll be writing on that topic in the near future), but at least it's something. We spend money on solar PV here in Australia, it's a minor cockup, and it is just completely knocked as a stupid idea for all time. Kind of like the way the Decepticons in the Transformers would come up with a great plan and it would almost succeed, but when it was foiled, sometimes through luck, they would abandon it and never try again :-) In further contrast with Australia's Greens, Baden-Wuertemberg now has a Green politician in charge - he's a socially conservative Catholic. Can you imagine an Australian Green being anything other than somewhere between "socialist" and "communist" in their views? They spend all their time worrying about the palestinians, or refugees arriving in Australia by boat, or, as mentioned above, gay marriage. I'm not saying those issues aren't important, but if this is what takes up 90% of the public time the Greens are getting in mainstream media, then who the hell is out there working to protect the environment? They're certainly not selling the carbon tax message well (I think they've left Labor to hold the hot potato there), and they don't seem to be doing much to stop the unfolding lunacy of a NSW government controlled by the shooters party.
For comparison, a quick sweep of Australian media coverage, the frontpage of The Australian website, which should be noted updates frequently, currently contains very little coverage of Osama's death except for articles on topics about how the Pakistanis must have been protecting Osama (gross incompetance on the part of all "intelligence" agencies seems to be completely discounted), as well as an entire "in-depth" page on Osama's death which currently lists about 26 articles, with not a single dissenting or alternative viewpoint, as far as I can tell from the headings. The topics range from copying US government press releases, to a vacuous story about using the codename Geronimo for OBL. The world news section of the Sydney Morning Herald is similarly lacking in diversity of opinion. Roughly 10 articles on the OBL killing, or related, and none would appear to offer any kind of alternative narrative. The Australian government broadcaster, the ABC, also appears to be largely devoid of any diversity of viewpoint. In their World news section, the only Osama related article talks about how Barack Obama's popularity has bounced back in opinion polls in the US. Not exactly earth-shattering stuff.
Funny how all the Australian media has painted themselves into a corner of complete irrelevance as they all fight to copy the same press releases, but with their own reporter in front of a camera somewhere random. I can hope we'll see something better from the ABC's current affairs programs. There are some alternative viewpoints expressed in independent media like this story from New Mathilda which seems to be bemoaning the lack of diversity too. The lack is in the mainstream English-speaking media, it would seem...
Most political leaders in Australia said essentially the same thing, certainly prime minister Julia Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbott with his usual embarassing machismo. I find it irritatingly just how little diversity there is in Australian politics and it shows up again and again. Vote Greens, I hear you say. Good point, but the Australian Greens are quite strange. They're called "The Greens" but what was the first thing our first federal Greens MP did upon entering the new parliament? Was it about saving old-growth forests? Marine reserves? Or, perhaps the "greatest moral challenge of our time": Climate Change and renewable energy sources?
No, it was a private members bill on gay marriage. That's right. Apparently, gay couples make up 0.47% of all couples in Australia. Wow. Earth-shatteringly important stuff! Shit, Adam, how about some federal funding for more bikepaths even? Something small. Legally, gay couples in Australia have de facto all the same rights as married couples (there really aren't that many extra "rights"), they just can't register a marriage officially. That's it.
OK, so, maybe this needed to be talked about at some stage in the future, but isn't there anything more important to talk about?
A bit like the old republican vs monarchist debate in Australia. There's plenty that could be improved about Australia's constitutional makeup but replacing a non-elected figurehead with an elected one doesn't seem that interesting to me. Occasionally, very occasionally, you can find someone else saying something sensible about this, but it's not often!
For another bit of continental contrast, Germany has a lot of "Green" representation spread across the country, and as a result they have very significant wind and even solar power! Drive through Germany and you will see solar farms, solar PV on half the rooves in many small towns, and plenty of windfarms. I'm not saying these are the be all and end all of renewables (I'll be writing on that topic in the near future), but at least it's something. We spend money on solar PV here in Australia, it's a minor cockup, and it is just completely knocked as a stupid idea for all time. Kind of like the way the Decepticons in the Transformers would come up with a great plan and it would almost succeed, but when it was foiled, sometimes through luck, they would abandon it and never try again :-) In further contrast with Australia's Greens, Baden-Wuertemberg now has a Green politician in charge - he's a socially conservative Catholic. Can you imagine an Australian Green being anything other than somewhere between "socialist" and "communist" in their views? They spend all their time worrying about the palestinians, or refugees arriving in Australia by boat, or, as mentioned above, gay marriage. I'm not saying those issues aren't important, but if this is what takes up 90% of the public time the Greens are getting in mainstream media, then who the hell is out there working to protect the environment? They're certainly not selling the carbon tax message well (I think they've left Labor to hold the hot potato there), and they don't seem to be doing much to stop the unfolding lunacy of a NSW government controlled by the shooters party.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Osama Assassination
As has been widely reported in recent days, the US claims to have finally killed Osama bin Laden. There is plenty being said about it elsewhere in the world, and probably plenty more that will be said, so I'll keep my post brief today.
Several things disturb me about this. First of all is the fact that non-Arab leaders around the world all seemed to be singing from the same sheet. It has been widely lauded as a "milestone in the war against terror" and many non-Arab leaders have claimed "the world is now a safer place". Arab leaders, by and large, predictably either condemned the action or or said as little as possible.
First of all, the uncritical repetition of the claim that we are in a "War on Terror" really irritates me. I'm not the first to object to such an open-ended, Orwellian declaration. The fact that this was allowed to continue in usage, unchallenged, has only continued the stupidity of the whole concept. You can't have a war on an abstract noun, you just can't. It's not pedantic to insist that our leaders only consider military actions with clearly defined enemies and goals.
I should say that I feel sorry for the citizens of the US. Not only did they have to suffer the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil which I watched live on TV and which totally shocked me, but they had to live with the fact that the US government had trained and funded Osama in his fight (as part of the Mujahadeen) against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Actually, equally unfortunately, the second worst attack on US soil was also carried out by individuals who had been trained by the US government (they were actually former US soldiers), but for reasons completely unrelated to the western world's current main bogeyman: "Islam".
So, what disturbs me in all this? Do I feel sorry for Osama bin Laden? No way! An extremely wealthy homicidal, fanatical maniac who lived by the gun. We shouldn't be surprised that he died by the gun. The US would have perhaps better served the goal of international harmony by kidnapping him and subjecting him to that most vital of glue to any community - the rule of law, but they chose a less messy route.
But the thing that disturbed me is that the images of the outpouring of triumphalism in the US looked no different to the same sorts of scenes played out a thousand times on our TVs from the Middle East of unreasoned mobs gathering to shout about how great they are/their leader/their religion. Where's the moral high ground?
This same triumphalism was echoed by leaders around the world. Personally, I find such celebrations extremely distasteful, to celebrate an assassination. Perhaps it was "a just killing" (a phrase I've heard ad nauseum in recent days), but is there really a need for the red-neck chantings of "U-S-A" and celebration of death? Perhaps it could be understood if you accept that the Americans really have felt for the last 10 years that they were at war. This could then be seen as equivalent to celebrations at the end of World War II, for example. They have really been involved in two separate long running wars now - Afghanistan and the highly unnecessary Iraq war - but an end is in sight for neither of these two wars just because the world's most spectacularly successful terrorist leader has been killed. Remember, terrorist leaders derive all their power through influence on the disenfranchised, and this killing does nothing to change the conditions that drive terrorist recruitment and anti-Western sentiment worldwide.
When that realisation sinks in, those who celebrated so wildly will perhaps feel a little silly. Or, who knows, perhaps it will just embolden the US to carry out more assassinations - that Hugo Chavez and Julian Assange have both been troublesome to the US of late, don't you agree?
Several things disturb me about this. First of all is the fact that non-Arab leaders around the world all seemed to be singing from the same sheet. It has been widely lauded as a "milestone in the war against terror" and many non-Arab leaders have claimed "the world is now a safer place". Arab leaders, by and large, predictably either condemned the action or or said as little as possible.
First of all, the uncritical repetition of the claim that we are in a "War on Terror" really irritates me. I'm not the first to object to such an open-ended, Orwellian declaration. The fact that this was allowed to continue in usage, unchallenged, has only continued the stupidity of the whole concept. You can't have a war on an abstract noun, you just can't. It's not pedantic to insist that our leaders only consider military actions with clearly defined enemies and goals.
I should say that I feel sorry for the citizens of the US. Not only did they have to suffer the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil which I watched live on TV and which totally shocked me, but they had to live with the fact that the US government had trained and funded Osama in his fight (as part of the Mujahadeen) against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Actually, equally unfortunately, the second worst attack on US soil was also carried out by individuals who had been trained by the US government (they were actually former US soldiers), but for reasons completely unrelated to the western world's current main bogeyman: "Islam".
So, what disturbs me in all this? Do I feel sorry for Osama bin Laden? No way! An extremely wealthy homicidal, fanatical maniac who lived by the gun. We shouldn't be surprised that he died by the gun. The US would have perhaps better served the goal of international harmony by kidnapping him and subjecting him to that most vital of glue to any community - the rule of law, but they chose a less messy route.
But the thing that disturbed me is that the images of the outpouring of triumphalism in the US looked no different to the same sorts of scenes played out a thousand times on our TVs from the Middle East of unreasoned mobs gathering to shout about how great they are/their leader/their religion. Where's the moral high ground?
This same triumphalism was echoed by leaders around the world. Personally, I find such celebrations extremely distasteful, to celebrate an assassination. Perhaps it was "a just killing" (a phrase I've heard ad nauseum in recent days), but is there really a need for the red-neck chantings of "U-S-A" and celebration of death? Perhaps it could be understood if you accept that the Americans really have felt for the last 10 years that they were at war. This could then be seen as equivalent to celebrations at the end of World War II, for example. They have really been involved in two separate long running wars now - Afghanistan and the highly unnecessary Iraq war - but an end is in sight for neither of these two wars just because the world's most spectacularly successful terrorist leader has been killed. Remember, terrorist leaders derive all their power through influence on the disenfranchised, and this killing does nothing to change the conditions that drive terrorist recruitment and anti-Western sentiment worldwide.
When that realisation sinks in, those who celebrated so wildly will perhaps feel a little silly. Or, who knows, perhaps it will just embolden the US to carry out more assassinations - that Hugo Chavez and Julian Assange have both been troublesome to the US of late, don't you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)