Quotulatiousness

August 8, 2018

QotD: Bad books

Filed under: Books, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 01:00

The art of not reading is a very important one. It consists in not taking an interest in whatever may be engaging the attention of the general public at any particular time. When some political or ecclesiastical pamphlet, or novel, or poem is making a great commotion, you should remember that he who writes for fools always finds a large public. A precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones: for life is short.

Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms, 1851.

August 7, 2018

QotD: Sailing past Byzantium

Filed under: Europe, History, Middle East, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

To those who know nothing about the mediaeval, “byzantine” East of Christendom (and what do I know about anything?) a book by the respectable Oxford scholar, Averil Cameron, is worth mentioning. It is a short survey of developments in her academic field, entitled, Byzantine Matters (2014). It poses five basic questions on which our common assumptions are mostly wrong, and provides succinct directions for thinking again.

Mediaeval Greece, the Byzantine dynasties, and Orthodox Christianity: these are far from interchangeable concepts. Moreover, “Byzantine art” — the focus of enthusiasm in the anglosphere through the last century or so — is misunderstood. The term “Byzantine” itself — conceived from late antiquity as a deprecation — persists in the academy as an intelligence neutralizer. The vanity of “the West” gets in the way of appreciating a parallel Christian realm, which flourished for more than a thousand years, and never succumbed to the Arabs. (It finally succumbed to the Turks.) We disdain what amounts to an alternative universe of Christian witness and high culture, of great variety and depth, even more obtusely than we disdain our own Middle Ages.

We are narrowed and prejudiced by the attitudinizing of Edward Gibbon, and the inheritance (or disinheritance) of our Western “Enlightenment,” to view as backward a civilization in most ways superior to our “modern” own, from pride in the tinsel of technology. From AD 330 (the founding of Constantine’s capital) to 1453 (when it fell into Ottoman hands), we see only a continuous story of “decline.” But there were many declines over this vast period, and in the intervals between them, many recoveries.

David Warren, “Sailing past Byzantium”, Essays in Idleness, 2016-11-07.

August 6, 2018

QotD: Voting

Filed under: Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Most people vote in elections for the candidate they dislike the least, and perhaps this is as it should be: positive enthusiasm for candidates and politicians in general is likely to give them an inflated idea of their own importance and thereby promote the politicization of life.

Theodore Dalrymple, “Self-Anointed v. Resentful: A view from across the Atlantic”, City Journal, 2016-11-08.

August 5, 2018

QotD: Risk aversion

Filed under: Economics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

… let’s step back and ask ourselves what insurance is for. Classical economics has an answer: people are risk-averse, which means that they will pay good money to reduce the variability of outcomes they face. If home insurance guards against the loss of a million pounds when my house burns down, I’m happy to buy the insurance even though the insurance company expects to make a profit from it.

But this risk aversion emerges from the fact that money is worth more to poor people than to rich people. Gaining a million pounds would make me rich but losing a million pounds would make me poor. I should not gamble a million pounds on the toss of a coin, because the million pounds I might lose is more precious to me than the million pounds I might gain.

As so often with classical economics, this is an excellent description of how we should behave. It is not such an excellent description of how we actually do behave. Risk aversion can only explain why we insure large risks. It cannot explain why we insure small ones. This is because risk aversion turns on the idea that an extra pound is worth more if you are poor than if you are rich. But having to replace a phone is not going to make the difference between poverty and wealth.

In one of my favourite economics articles, written in 2001, the behavioural economists Richard Thaler and Matthew Rabin point out that anyone who rejects a 50/50 gamble to win £10.10 or lose £10 — apparently a reasonable enough taste for caution — cannot possibly be doing so because of risk aversion. (The degree of risk aversion necessary would mean that the same individual wouldn’t risk £1,000 on the toss of a coin for all the money in the world.) Risk aversion simply cannot explain why anyone would turn down that fractionally favourable gamble. And it cannot explain why anyone would insure a mobile phone.

A better explanation is that we tend to view risks in isolation. Rather than telling ourselves “a lost mobile phone would lower my lifetime wealth by 0.005 per cent”, we tell ourselves “it would be so annoying to have to pay for a new mobile phone”. Isolating and obsessing about risks in this way is arbitrary and illogical. But that does not mean we don’t do it.

Tim Harford, “How insurers keep the money-pump flowing”, TimHarford.com, 2016-09-21.

August 4, 2018

QotD: Supply and demand

Filed under: Economics, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

… that terribly simplistic stuff about supply and demand in those econ 101 classes is actually true. Prices are not some arbitrary numbers thrown at something by the capitalist neoliberals in order to do down the proletariat. They’re vital and essential information about who wants what and who is willing to produce what. Where the supply and demand curves meet is where the market will clear and the market price will be the market clearing price. The meaning of this is that when you decide to arbitrarily throw a price at something you’re going to up set that balance. And if you tell producers that the price will be lower than the market one then they will produce less. And as demand curves slope downwards so will consumers desire more at that lower price. Thus price fixing below the market price produces a shortage, a dearth.

This is not some optional feature, it’s an essential fact about our universe. It is the explanation for those food shortages that Venezuela has been having. More than that it’s the only explanation we need or desire. Fix prices below the market price and you will have shortages. Stop fixing prices and you will stop having shortages.

So, well done to Venezuela for giving in to reality there. And this is something that we need to take on board too. Rent controls which fix the price of housing below the market price will lead to a shortage of housing. And the opposite applies too – fix the price of labour above that market price with a minimum wage and you’ll have an excess supply of labour. Or, as we usually call that, an excess of unemployment.

The price of something simply is the price of something and don’t ever forget it.

Tim Worstall, “Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism – Finally A Sensible Economic Policy In Venezuela”, Forbes, 2016-10-15.

August 3, 2018

QotD: The lost kingdom of Pontus

Filed under: History, Middle East, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Pontus is that country, within modern Turkey, that follows the south-east Black Sea shore, and inland is enclosed as by an amphitheatre of mountains. It is the more interesting, archaeologically, for having been often by-passed, in the movements of conquering nomads and armies, from Hittites and Hurrians to Arabs and Turks. The Greeks took it, because they came by sea. They kept it, till late in the day; so that even after Constantinople fell to our short-sighted Franks (in 1204), the Empire of Trebizond immediately formed, and Byzantium persisted in Pontus, as in Crimea and elsewhere, until it could be restored at its centre.

David Warren, “A wonderworker”, Essays in Idleness, 2016-11-17.

August 2, 2018

QotD: Economic complexity

Filed under: Economics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

“Progressives” mistake as “science” their habit of lumping countless idiosyncratic individuals and things, each always in an ever-changing set of deeply nuanced circumstances, into catch-all categories (such as “consumers,” “labor,” “government,” “the environment,” “the health-care sector,” “the money supply,” “the unemployment rate,” “the capital stock,” and “imports”) and then theorizing about how these big blobs of people and things interact with each other, and how these interactions can be “improved” by an apolitical, loving, intelligent, ever-diligent scientific guiding hand. That professors and their graduate students can assemble data on each of these big blobs of people and things, can write intricate equations describing mathematically how the professors and their graduate students imagine these blobs interacting with each other, and use the gathered data and sophisticated software to “test” the equation-ladened “models” seems oh-so-objective and truly scientific.

Yet most such exercises are b.s. Far too many of these exercises, when done by economists, are done in utter disregard of the meaningful, if impossible to observe from afar, differences that separate from each other each of the individuals and things that comprise each constructed blob. Far too many of these exercise are done by people whose impressive, deep, and vast knowledge of econometric techniques does not begin to compensate for their innocence of price theory, of history, and of formal and informal institutions.

Correctly taught and understood, economics reveals that reality is vastly more complex than the economically untutored mind realizes. Yet this message of complexity is unwelcome by those who want to rule and command. The reason is that to understand the reality of reality’s complexities is to understand that ruling and commanding – the actions of the “man of system” – can only worsen most individuals’ lives. Ruling and commanding of the sort that “men – and women – of system” itch to do can only disrupt for the worse, and not improve for the better, the spontaneous forces of society.

Don Boudreaux, “Quotation of the Day…”, Café Hayek, 2016-09-20.

August 1, 2018

QotD: The state of Ataraxia

Filed under: History, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Epicurus says that nature compels all living beings to search for pleasures and to avoid pain. When they reach their goal, they are in a state of contentment and rest that we can call happiness or tranquility of mind. Ataraxia is the term used by Epicurus to describe a perfect state of contentment, free of all uneasiness.

Martin Masse, “The Epicurean roots of some classical liberal and Misesian concepts“, speaking at the Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn Alabama, 2005-03-18.

July 31, 2018

QotD: Hostility to international trade

Filed under: Economics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Much suspicion of, and hostility to, international trade is akin to atavistic superstitions that raised in some peoples suspicions of, and hostility to, mating with individuals outside of those people’s ethnic or racial or religious groups. “Only We are worthy of your seed or your womb – They are not!” “Corruption of the purity of Our race is the inevitable result of your conjugal mixing with Them!”

Or only slightly differently: protectionism is much like in-breeding. Like in-breeding, protectionism weakens the economy that practices it. Like in-breeding, protectionism causes the group that practices it to become ever-more stupid, uncreative, fragile, and vulnerable – a population of pathetic misfits destined to be weaker and poorer than are their more-cosmopolitan and open neighbors.

Don Boudreaux, “Quotation of the Day…”, Café Hayek, 2016-09-14.

July 30, 2018

QotD: Buying books but not reading them

Filed under: Books, Japan, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Nick Carraway slinks away from Jay Gatsby’s party. In the library he comes across a drunken, bespectacled fat cat who starts going off about the books lining the walls. “They’re real,” he slurs, pointing to them. “What thoroughness! What realism! Knew when to stop too — didn’t cut the pages. But what do you want? What do you expect?” Uncut pages! If you know how books used to be manufactured, this means one thing and one thing only: Gatsby wasn’t much of a reader. After all, until they’re cut, book pages can’t be turned.

Collecting books and not reading them is, shall we say, textbook behavior. At least for some of you, and you know who you are. Suffering from the condition of racking up book purchases of $100, $200 or $1,000 without ever bending a spine? There’s a Japanese word for you.

Prognosis: terminal. Stats reveal that e-reading doesn’t hold a candle to the joy of reading a physical book. Although e-book sales jumped 1,260 percent between 2008 and 2010, 2.71 billion physical books were sold in the U.S. alone in 2015, according to Statista. That’s compared with the 1.32 billion movie tickets sold in the U.S. and Canada. As if every American were reading an average of more than eight books annually.

Certainly, it’s unlikely you’re going to hear the word tsundoku on the subway. But in a language where there are words for canceling an appointment at the last minute and the culture-specific condition of adult male shut-in syndrome, how can you be surprised? Other, similar words like tsūdoku (read through) and jukudoku (reading deeply) are in praise of sitting down with a book (doku means “to read”). But we think tsundoku is particularly special: Oku means to do something and leave it for a while, says Sahoko Ichikawa, a senior lecturer at Cornell University, and tsunde means to stack things.

Libby Coleman, “There’s a Word for Buying Books and Not Reading Them”, OZY, 2016-10-03.

July 29, 2018

QotD: The third Great Awakening

Filed under: Politics, Quotations, Religion, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

We are now — in the Me Decade — seeing the upward roll (and not yet the crest, by any means) of the third great religious wave in American history, one that historians will very likely term the Third Great Awakening. Like the others it has begun in a flood of ecstasy, achieved through LSD and other psychedelics, orgy, dancing (the New Sufi and the Hare Krishna), meditation, and psychic frenzy (the marathon encounter). This third wave has built up from more diverse and exotic sources than the first two, from therapeutic movements as well as overtly religious movements, from hippies and students of “psi phenomena” and Flying Saucerites as well as charismatic Christians. But other than that, what will historians say about it?

The historian Perry Miller credited the First Great Awakening with helping to pave the way for the American Revolution through its assault on the colonies’ religious establishment and, thereby, on British colonial authority generally. The sociologist Thomas O’Dea credited the Second Great Awakening with creating the atmosphere of Christian asceticism (known as “bleak” on the East Coast) that swept through the Midwest and the West during the nineteenth century and helped make it possible to build communities in the face of great hardship. And the Third Great Awakening? Journalists (historians have not yet tackled the subject) have shown a morbid tendency to regard the various movements in this wave as “fascist.” The hippie movement was often attacked as “fascist” in the late 1960s. Over the past several years a barrage of articles has attacked Scientology, the est movement, and “the Moonies” (followers of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon) along the same lines.

Frankly, this tells us nothing except that journalists bring the same conventional Grim Slide concepts to every subject. The word fascism derives from the old Roman symbol of power and authority, the fasces, a bundle of sticks bound together by thongs (with an ax head protruding from one end). One by one the sticks would be easy to break. Bound together they are invincible Fascist ideology called for binding all classes, all levels, all elements of an entire nation together into a single organization with a single will.

The various movements of the current religious wave attempt very nearly the opposite. They begin with … “Let’s talk about Me.” They begin with the most delicious look inward; with considerable narcissism, in short. When the believers bind together into religions, it is always with a sense of splitting off from the rest of society. We, the enlightened (lit by the sparks at the apexes of our souls), hereby separate ourselves from the lost souls around us. Like all religions before them, they proselytize — but always on promising the opposite of nationalism: a City of Light that is above it all. There is no ecumenical spirit within this Third Great Awakening. If anything, there is a spirit of schism. The contempt the various seers have for one another is breathtaking. One has only to ask, say, Oscar Ichazo of Arica about Carlos Castaneda or Werner Erhard of est to learn that Castaneda is a fake and Erhard is a shallow sloganeer. It’s exhilarating! — to watch the faithful split off from one another to seek ever more perfect and refined crucibles in which to fan the Divine spark … and to talk about Me.

Whatever the Third Great Awakening amounts to, for better or for worse, will have to do with this unprecedented post-World War II American development: the luxury, enjoyed by so many millions of middling folk, of dwelling upon the self. At first glance, Shirley Polykoff’s slogan — “If I’ve only one life, let me live it as a blonde!” — seems like merely another example of a superficial and irritating rhetorical trope (antanaclasis) that now happens to be fashionable among advertising copywriters. But in fact the notion of “If I’ve only one life” challenges one of those assumptions of society that are so deep-rooted and ancient, they have no name — they are simply lived by. In this case: man’s age-old belief in serial immortality.

Tom Wolfe, “The ‘Me’ Decade and the Third Great Awakening”, New York Magazine, 1976-08-23.

July 28, 2018

QotD: “And are we doing okay?”

Filed under: Business, Food, Humour, Quotations — Nicholas @ 01:00

“And are we doing okay?”

Waiters have all started talking like preschool teachers in the past several years. It is perplexing. It makes me want to do something shocking and violent, but instead I usually just reply with something like:

“Well, we are, last we checked, not, in fact, plural. And we are therefore slightly confused by our insistence upon addressing us as though we had a mouse — or mice? — in our pocket.”

(I only do this if I am alone, inasmuch as it tends to make dinner conversation awkward when your date shrinks into her seat in mortification.)

Kevin D. Williamson, “You and Who Else?”, National Review, 2016-10-02.

July 27, 2018

QotD: All pizza is local

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Food, Humour, Italy, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 01:00

When it comes to pizza, you like what you like; and the weird regionalized nature of pizza suggests that we are most likely to like what we know. Real travellers are aware that it is almost impossible to anticipate what you might get ordering pizza outside its twin cultural homes of Italy and North America. Try it in the U.K.: any sort of two-dimensional horror might materialize. Is that yogurt? Endive? Are those eggs? To the depraved British, it makes sense, like Marmite.

Colby Cosh, “The Edmonton pizza hypothesis”, National Post, 2016-10-03.

July 26, 2018

QotD: Protecting the truth

Filed under: Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 01:00

No one ever heard of the truth being enforced by law. Whenever the secular arm is called in to sustain an idea, whether new or old, it is always a bad idea, and not infrequently it is downright idiotic.

H.L. Mencken, Minority Report, 1956.

July 25, 2018

QotD: How can you tell when a politician is lying?

Filed under: Business, Law, Politics, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 01:00

This reality of outright lying during campaigns is so familiar that we excuse it. It’s just what politicians do.

But suppose that a business owner did the equivalent in the market. Such behavior wouldn’t be tolerated by customers or by law-enforcement officials. For example, suppose that the owner of Acme Furniture, in a scheme to get more sales, outright lies with a radio ad that promises that everyone who buys any piece of furniture from Acme will get half of the purchase price refunded in 12 months. “Wow! Darn good deal!” consumers think. They flock to Acme and buy furniture.

One year later, Acme customers submit their applications for the refunds of half of the purchase prices they each paid. But these customers, rather than getting what Acme promised, instead get a note from Acme explaining that the promise of a refund was made in jest; it was designed only to get more consumers to buy furniture from Acme. “But don’t worry!” the letter from Acme continues, “you’re still better off having bought furniture from Acme than from any of Acme’s competitors. Trust me on this! Yours Sincerely,….”

From time to time unscrupulous (and, typically, also really stupid or myopic) business people pull fraudulent stunts such as this one. Yet – rightly – no one excuses these stunts as being par for the course in business. One reason, of course, is that such stunts are not par for the course in private business; far from it. But such stunts are indeed par for the course in politics. And yet, despite this reality, we are constantly told that businesses operating in competitive markets cannot be trusted to behave honestly unless they are regulated by politicians and bureaucrats operating in political ‘markets.’

Politicians lie and such lying is excused because it’s normal. But it’s not normal; it’s not normal in the private sector; it’s normal only in the very abnormal world of politics.

Don Boudreaux, “Politicians Lie Openly and Such Behavior Is Excused Because It’s ‘Normal’”, Café Hayek, 2016-09-05.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress