Hanson is an intelligent writer. Incredible as it may sound, he really does make a solid case for Trump in this book. He should be read, because most Hanson is an intelligent writer. Incredible as it may sound, he really does make a solid case for Trump in this book. He should be read, because most of the time we hear only the obvious, easy-to-reject pro-Trump arguments. How do we deal with intelligently constructed, solid arguments? That will be the test of how the opposition to Trump will shape up.
I am rating this book high because I expected vitriol and half-baked justifications, but I got a thoughtful thesis. I don't know how much of these arguments are "fake news", but Hanson makes a case for Trump, without ever trying to show him as something he is not. He admits he is a fool and a showman, playing to the worst fears of Americans, but he also shows how that is helping the nation in perverse ways.
The only place Hanson goes off the rails is when he tried to portray Trump as a tragic hero, along the lines of an Achilles or an Ajax. Hanson views the President as akin to a classically tragic hero, whom America needs but will never fully appreciate - yes, Trump is Batman. He will protect the Americans from the immigrants. That is a Trump level fantasy, innit? Now, that gave me the pleasure I expected when I picked up this book - of looking down upon the author in pity. See? This book has made me more honest than I normally would have been.
That is why you should read this. It makes a case for Trump, or at least it tries, even for this guy....more
Economics runs on images. The language of economics is built upon the iconic imagery of supply and demand curves, circular flow models, GDP growth curEconomics runs on images. The language of economics is built upon the iconic imagery of supply and demand curves, circular flow models, GDP growth curves and IS-LM models. Raworth seeks to change the language of economics. How? By changing the fundamental images that define economic models.
So what ails Modern Economics? Raworth is not exactly correct in saying that modern economics still runs on the rational-actor model and hence is limited by it. Not when we have Nobel laureates sitting pretty with bestselling books and superstar ideas about behavioural economics that tears down the old models. The problem in fact is not that the models are flawed or that economists are unaware of their own limiting assumptions built into the models. The real problem is that the aims, the end goals, of modern economics are still perhaps out of sync with reality. The neo-liberal idea that everything can be left to the market is only a pipe-dream - no serious policymaker depends on it today. Much of economic progress, just like much of political and societal progress have been made, as Pinker says, by the gradual pushing of the left-right boundary further and further towards the left. What was once marxist is now neo-liberal. The good fight goes on, but trusting the market is not the real problem of the day. That is not the reform needed in economics.
The next big reform has to focus on the overriding goal of all economics - GROWTH! Economic Growth is the assumed solution to all ills. Raworth takes this to be a case of an almost religious belief in a 'Kuznet's Curve of Everything' (in fact a good marker to test if any argument is in part belief-based is to see if there is an assumed Kuznet's curve present in the argument). Almost every argument and every policy seems to assure us that it will get worse now, but it will get better tomorrow as long as Growth continues. Growth must go on.
This is the core paradigm that Raworth really wants to shift. Raworth asks: “What if we started economics not with its long-established theories, but with humanity’s long-term goals, and then sought out the economic thinking that would enable us to achieve them?” How spectacular is that question? Instead of chasing growth and assuming it will give us the things we value, can economics chase the things we value directly?
To be honest, there is nothing particularly new in Raworth's attempt. This is exactly what has been the attempt since the radical 'Limits to Growth' intellectual movement took root. What Raworth is doing differently though is that here the revolution is waged, not using speeches and big ideas, but using images. And in economics nothing is as powerful as images!
Enter the Doughnut: a sort of miracle diagram that is apparently going to change the world. The inner ring represents the “social foundation”, the situation in which everyone on the planet has sufficient food and social security. The outer ring represents the “ecological ceiling”, beyond which excess consumption degrades the environment beyond repair. The aim is to get humanity into the area between the rings, where everyone has enough but not too much – or, as Raworth calls it, “the doughnut’s safe and just space”. [image] Thus the Doughnut is the image Raworth uses to represent the limits to growth, and to rub in the fact that we cannot rely on the processes of growth to redress inequality and solve the problem of pollution. Now, the doughnut is a powerful image and Raworth is a great ambassador for it, but it might not be enough, especially because Raworth clearly pitches her camp on the left as far as economic arguments are concerned - and as we know by now, that is often enough for whole ideas to be rejected unilaterally by the rest of the political and economic community... Reading the book, one feels that she seems a bit overoptimistic about the possibility of changing the predominant neoliberal/conservative mindset, essentially through persuasion, as if she is not fully aware of how deep the fault-lines lie in these things. The doughnut may not be powerful enough an image to pull this off...
But, the main point of the book is not just about the Doughnut, it is that there is a fresh new path towards changing the economic orthodoxy that is built into all political debates - most of the simplistic economics debates are possible because the right has access to some basic ideas and concepts that can be visualised easily - 'Economics 101', as they keep repeating.
Raworth's attempt at providing a powerful counter, and hence a possibility of rebuilding the imagery of economics textbooks is commendable, and could eventually be a game changer - not because of the idea of the doughnut, but because of the approach it represents. A truly significant modern economics book, for a change....more
One of the scariest books you will read. Even though Wolff mostly just confirms what we already know or suspect about the Trump White House, it is still shocking to be so elaborately proven right on all of our worst misgivings. And for that, it is an essential book - we might have misgivings, looking in from the outside, and suspect that the administration is in tatters. But the White House is a storied institution, and our imagination never fully grasps that it can be in such bad shape. An inside scoop like this is required to truly appreciate how bad it has become. We need to be shaken into acceptance. Trump, of course, has proclaimed that the book is mere fiction, and it very well might be (after all, Bannon is the main source for Wolff), but if it is, it would also be the truest fiction written in recent times. Like the best fiction, we don't need to enquire about how much of it is true - all of it rings true, even when we badly want it to be just fiction.
The book starts with the absolute joke that was the Trump campaign. How could a presidential campaign be so outrageous? The answer is simple and amazing - because they never expected to win. Precisely for that reason, they could play to the wildest fantasies and pander to the craziest demographies - since they were never checked by any of the concerns that a campaign actually trying to win would be. Like a tail-ender playing an outrageous innings, the campaign rampaged on, wrecking everything in its path. And in the process, Trump was able to somehow get the support of every marginalised, angry, bigoted or otherwise anti-establishment voter in the country.
And against their wildest expectations, come Jan 20, 2017, Trump was crowned Caesar.
Now came the task of running the country, and both Trump and his team were not only ill-prepared and completely incompetent to take up that task, but they were also least interested in it. Trump had proven his point, now he would probably enjoy a 4 year vacation bossing around everyone who talked down to him. He would play the flute and unleash the Fire & Fury. As the Guardian says, "Unqualified for the job and incapable of doing it, unwilling even to behave presidentially, Trump’s revenge has been to trash the office he holds, paralyse government, and defame the country his baseball cap says he wanted to make great again."
The only hope for the world at this point was that Trump would care less enough to not bother with any major policy issues - maybe, just maybe, the world could tip-toe around this presidency. But that is not to be - power abhors a vacuum, and an entire administration of toadies have stepped into fill the Trump-sized gap in the White House. They run the president and the administration now. But Trump being Trump, knows how to stay in charge - they best way for an incompetent leader to stay the leader is to split his camp and make his teams fight for his attention and loyalties. That way work gets done and loyalty and sycophancy becomes the benchmark for excellence. There is a fight raging in the White House every single day. These competing factions are the real reason for the Fire and the Fury that is spilling from the White House like a volcano about to erupt and with Trump ready to play his flute at any catastrophe, the world is in for very interesting times.
Throughout, Wolff shows starkly how incompetently the most powerful country in the world is run - by exposing the dealings and wheelings that prop up this in-fighting, incompetent, yet super-confident administration. And to consider that such an administration can come to power and hold it for a long enough time, despite all the vaunted checks and balances built into the system truly makes one wonder about the virtues of democracy. Demagogues can easily come to power, that is not new. But here we have a truly incompetent, narcissistic, idiotic person in charge and a team that can give him a runn almost every front. Such a combination, such an absurdity, is surely a first in history.
In fact, Wolff's clear message is that Trump is not even the worst of the protagonists inhabiting this book, his entourage is waging a war for control and he is mostly a pawn. Trump has no interest in devising legislation or conducting foreign policy; his time is spent watching himself on television. There are much more scary characters roaming the halls of the White House and there are times when you might feel genuine pity for the hapless Trump, caught out of his depth among such wolves. The author tries to show that there is a proxy center-right vs alt-right battle going on in the Whitehouse and while the book unfolds, you actually find yourself taking sides with the centrists, hoping at least that the worst of the pack doesn't get any victories. But once you finish the book and put a bit of distance between the fire and fury of the newly sulphurous White House, you start realising that those are meaningless battles, the war is already lost.
Build a wall? No, build a bomb shelter or something. You'll need it....more
Discusses in some detail the geo-politics of the South-China sea and tries to show the world that is brewing in that cauldron - one where an assertiveDiscusses in some detail the geo-politics of the South-China sea and tries to show the world that is brewing in that cauldron - one where an assertive China will draw the U.S and its neighbors into conflict. This has echoes of Huntington in that a culturally assertive China is intent on creating a world of concentric circles of power, whereas the U.S overtly subscribes to a balance of power world order. These modes of thinking about global power does not sit well with each other and neither country can accept each other's system, leading to inevitable conflict, unless one falls off the economic ladder. According to Kaplan, it seems that China will win this tussle in the East, simply due to its Geographic location.
The book is not as good as Kaplan's previous works. Firstly, it needed a good editor - certain key ideas like how the South China sea is to China what the Caribbean was to the U.S is repeated so often using the exact same lines, that it seems like Kaplan's notes were converted to chapters without real organizational or editorial oversight. The book feels lazy for the most part and new ideas are introduced early and repeated often, without much supporting arguments.
However the book is a still a good introduction to the strange mix of ingredients that go to make the potent and volatile brew cooking here. ...more
Dawkins fanboy tries to dress up an ideological book as a scientific one. Tries to show that Darwin's theory of evolution is just a byproduct or a speDawkins fanboy tries to dress up an ideological book as a scientific one. Tries to show that Darwin's theory of evolution is just a byproduct or a specific version of the general theory of evolution proposed by Adam Smith about the emergent order that will prevail bottom-up in any free society of selfish actors. In the process ends up unwittingly using just another"skyhook" - that of benevolent evolution - throughout, by arguing endlessly that all the good things happened bottom-up and all the bad things happened top-down.
Except that, as per the core argument, all top-down things also must have been products of evolution. If Everything Evolves, all things good or bad, bottom-up or top-down evolved too. Hence the concept of evolution cannot in itself justify just let everything play out - including economics, institutions and even climate change, for that matter. There is really no guarantee things will always play out well if 'bottom-up' - just look at the latest elections!
Just "Let Everything Be" can't be the ultimate policy outlook unless Ridley truly believes The Invisible Hand to be the Hand of God directing everything as if by providence towards the good of mankind. And if that is not so and Evolution indeed is blind, then perhaps the occasional nudges in the right direction may work too?
As with most left vs right debates, the book only enforces for me the fact that pure free market is not the solution, nor is a command economy - evolution can take us to either side and we need to intervene to keep the balance, and that continuous self-correction is part of our social evolution too, as is the occasional over-correction. No Skyhooks needed, we just need to be less in thrall of 'Men of System'.
There, I have used enough pointed references for one review. Now enjoy the historic day.
Ryan presents a series of representative snippets from most of the chapters of the two volumes. However, the introduction is the more interesting partRyan presents a series of representative snippets from most of the chapters of the two volumes. However, the introduction is the more interesting part of the book and any reader who intends to read the original can skip the snippets if required. The introductory essay is pretty good and is a good primer for reading Tocqueville - Ryan discusses the major influences on Tocqueville's thought and throws interesting light on the motivations that colored his observations. Overall, well worth the short read....more
The progression of ideas is coherent (though minimal in content) and allows the reader to move in known paths even as exposure to legal theory and jurThe progression of ideas is coherent (though minimal in content) and allows the reader to move in known paths even as exposure to legal theory and jurisprudence is gradually increased. Close parallels with sociology and philosophy pretty much dictates this, but still, well executed. All in all, a good introductory work. ...more
Taleb picks a new idea to challenge (after randomness and risk): Resilience. Taleb argues that some things are not just resilient but actually thrive Taleb picks a new idea to challenge (after randomness and risk): Resilience. Taleb argues that some things are not just resilient but actually thrive in chaos and disorder. He calls these things "antifragile" and says they're a crucial part of the natural and man-made world. Taleb's main idea is that randomness and uncertainty can actually be good for us. He gives a lot of examples, but check out "The Coddling of the American Mind" to see how the idea is catching on and being applied by other thinkers.
How to be Anti-fragile? With his ongoing infatuation with the gym, he gives us: the "barbell strategy". It is about combining extreme positions or strategies to get the best of both worlds. For example, a barbell investment strategy might involve holding a lot of safe, low-risk investments and a small amount of high-risk, high-reward investments. This way, you can benefit from the upside potential of the high-risk investments without being too exposed to the downside risks.
"Antifragile" joins the ranks of unconventional and counter-intuitive (easy to do) yet important (not so easy) books out there. Read it if you can....more
Great background reading for anyone contemplating the epic task of taking on the fifteen (and more) volumes of Science and Civilisation in China -- on Great background reading for anyone contemplating the epic task of taking on the fifteen (and more) volumes of Science and Civilisation in China -- one the greatest compendiums of knowledge, a supreme feat of imagination and will power, and one of the most lasting bridges built between the east and the west.
Winchester provides the historic and political backdrop for the composition and allows us to understand why it was such an important work — why it was so necessary and so brave an undertaking, and how challenging a task it really was. Winchester also brings alive for us the eccentric and lovable man behind the work and thus makes the forbidding work more accessible by humanizing it, since we now know the moving will that animates it. It is a grand narrative and quite befitting such a grand achievement....more
In The Choephori, the bloodshed begun in the first play is continued (see Agamemnon for details, and for a discussion on translations). The theme of revenge and blood-curse continues to haunt the House of Atreus. At first glance it might seem as if there is indeed no end to this recurring tragedy that has been playing itself out in these intrigue-filled halls, but despite all the mirroring Aeschylus effects between the first and second plays (both have legitimate avenging missions, both weave a web of deceit, both murders the unsuspecting, both murderers are accompanied by unidimensional accomplices, both murders leave everlasting stains, both think that the buck will stop with them) that is supposed to show the inevitability of this tragic course/curse with no scope for a resolution, there are significant differences:
1. Clytaemestra acted alone, under her own sense of right and wrong; Orestes acts under the express direction and protection of Apollo himself. 2. Clytaemestra makes a token gesture of atonement by promising to give up her wealth but instead establishes a tyranny; Orestes is racked by guilt and renounces his position and wealth to atone for his crime. (I wonder who ruled the kingdom in his absence...) 3. Clytaemestra defends her actions and takes no steps to alleviate them by rituals, etc. until a nasty dream shakes her up; Orestes accepts his guilt immediately and takes protection under Apollo and does all the ritual cleansing and prostrations required. 4. Clytaemestra is probably egged on by Aegisthus's greed and allows him to benefit by her actions. Orestes turns to Pylades just once who only repeats Apollo's words and has no personal stake in the business. (though could it be that he becomes the regent in Orestes absence?) 5. Clytaemestra never hesitates in her deed of revenge and as an add-on murders an innocent (?) Cassandra too; Orestes shows his reluctance till he very last moment and had to be driven to his deed. He murders only the expressly guilty. (One has to wonder if Apollo was in fact avenging Cassandra and not Agamemnon!) 6. Most importantly Clytaemestra thinks she can be the final arbiter while Orestes is willing to allow himself to be judged by greater powers, be it the Gods, or the Law.
All this allows for hope that the ending of this second installment, of Orestes' story, and the punishment for his crime need not be externally imposed but might in fact be sanctioned by this modern man himself.
How exactly this will play out Aeschylus leaves for his climactic play, but the Greeks of his time would have been in no doubt as to where it was all leading and would have been eagerly awaiting the mythical re-imagination/show-down it would entail. Society is progressing, and like in Hegel it was all going to culminate in the Perfection of the Present!...more
A good investigation of the origins of the great liberal political debate. Levin takes us to the original arguments and shows us how The Perfect Omelet
A good investigation of the origins of the great liberal political debate. Levin takes us to the original arguments and shows us how at a distance the great but nebulous political divides of our day take a much more concrete shape. Of course the author is slightly right-leaning and this bias shows through in his characterizations. For instance even though the book claims to be about the Right & The Left, in fact it is about the moderate Right & the Radical Left. Once that is how the lines are drawn, it is an easy guess as to which position can be made to sound more reasonable. It should be a fair contrast moderate Right vs moderate Left or Radical right vs Radical Left. In any case, the excuse that can be made is that Burke was in fact a moderate Right (he was Whig after all, so we might even say he was of the Left but leaning Right) and Paine was clearly a revolutionary radical.
Levin tries to show that Paine has a overly simplistic picture of history and political institutions and believes that reason can help us create perfect societies. Burke is shown as a realist who accepts society is too complex to be radically reengineered without too many eggs being broken to create the perfect omelet. In fact you might never create the perfect omelet no matter how many eggs you break.
The Paine Vs Burke debate is fascinating and is well captured, and from my limited knowledge I might even say that it seems accurate. But to import those themes into the modern political debate is to make the Left seem much more radical and unrealistic than they really are. Paine's times called for radical measures and commonsense (if you would excuse the usage) would clearly have indicated that Pane's position and not Burke's sentimental defense of the monarchy was more reasonable back then. A full fledged revolt might seem more unreasonable now but that is only till the crisis becomes large enough to make it seem reasonable again.
We need the Paines and the Burkes.
The Burkes will keep order and resist radical change and try to do prescriptive, incremental change so as to keep up with changing demands of the world, trusting their institutions to do much of the heavy-lifting. But when they fail, the Paines will call for revolution passionately and articulately. And more often that not it is that call that will galvanize the Burkes out of their plodding action and speed up their adaptation. So to dismiss even the radical Left as childish and without enough appreciation of the realities and complexities of political and social life is a mischaracterization. Quite often it could be the other side who is lacking the imagination to see that times have moved on and fast adaptation is needed -- as is the case today, for instance, with the changes in climate presenting us with an unprecedented challenge which our existing institutions are not well-quipped to confront adequately. It is a balance that has to be maintained and in that sense Burke's call for partisanship in politics might be a useful standard to hold on to after all. Of course all this would depend on the Right and Left being reasonable to each other and willing to engage in constructive debate.
Otherwise we would be left with repression and revolts and not much to show for it all. No omelets at all, let alone any perfect ones. Just a lot of broken eggs....more
Loading...
