« Why are men better chess players than women? | Main | The economics of prizes »
Stories you won't often hear
I believe we are programmed to favor political stories with relatively clear moral lessons, and stories which suggest we can improve the world as we might like to. As a result, you won't hear the following claims too many times:
1. We already have wrecked our environment with global warming; the truth is, it is simply too late to do anything about it.
2. The U.S. economy is being riveted by forces which will increase inequality dramatically. These forces are so strong we had better surrender to them and learn how to live with that inequality. This may involve less political power for the downtrodden.
3. A polity wracked with inequality can't last very long as a free society. Philosophic worries about inequality are mostly bunk, but we need to move toward greater equality to appease the masses and even to appease some of the elites.
Please note (all you blogs which quote selectively and out of context), none of those are my views. But they are not less plausible than many of the other opinions thrown around in these debates. Yet they remain, for obvious reasons I think, quite unpopular.
Can you think of other (plausible) stories which you don't hear too often?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 31, 2007 at 06:27 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Well, there is the paradox of the merocratic society creating a permanent underclass, unable to retain its leaders, and with uncertain claims to equality. Long-term, that should happen if the effects of genetics overcome the effects of environment, which, at least according to Steven Pinker, is what is happening.
Posted by: Espen at Jan 31, 2007 7:46:57 AM
If you spent some time with me, you would invariably hear 1 and 3. The reactions to these views ranges from stony silence to disgust. I lack optimism, I am told.
Posted by: The Tsunami at Jan 31, 2007 7:56:16 AM
The Keynesian anti-inflation story: Inflation is getting out of hand. To deal with it, we have to raise taxes and cut government spending.
We came close to this in the late 60s with a Johnson tax increase, but he promised it was temporary (i.e. it had only a small effect on permanent income) and he tied it to the war in Vietnam, no inflation
Posted by: EclectEcon at Jan 31, 2007 8:21:37 AM
I believe #1, at least for a politically plausible range of policy choices. Fixing global warming would require negative carbon emissions, not Kyoto's cuts to arbitrary baselines.
Some other pessimistic stories I believe are:
-- Wars are by definition out of control situations, and they cannot be fought according to a plan or a timeline. Both the congressional Democrats and the Bush administration are frighteningly naive about this.
-- Civilizations don't evolve without extreme violence. In particular, when people talk about other cultures needing "Reformations", they forget that the Protestant Reformation was one of the most violent times in the history of Europe.
-- Health care reform, software engineering, and 3rd world development are near intractable problems, and anyone who claims they have a plan to fix them is deluded or lying.
Posted by: DK at Jan 31, 2007 8:23:22 AM
I actually believe #2 is correct. What about the Ray Kurzweil idea that mechanical intelligence will dwarf human intelligence within 40-50 years and there's not a damn thing anyonecan do about it? That's another idea worth pondering. (I realize Kurzweil isn't the only proponent of this development.)
Posted by: jult52 at Jan 31, 2007 8:36:58 AM
I thought that #1 had become the default position for former global warming deniers/skeptic.
Here's one for you: we can delay a group of Al Qaeda-like terrorists from getting a nuclear weapon, but we cannot prevent it. Once they get it, they will use it against the West, killing many. We can continue to work to delay this event, but maybe we'd better be working to minimize the consequences of this event on global pace and security... (I don't know if I believe this, but I do worry about it...)
Posted by: Alex R at Jan 31, 2007 8:55:46 AM
"We already have wrecked our environment with global warming; the truth is, it is simply too late to do anything about it."
I hear this one all the time from my landscape photographer crunchy-granola friends. I think you underestimate the appeal of cataclysmic thinking. Consider the popularity of Hal Lindsay's books, for example.
Posted by: Matthew at Jan 31, 2007 9:15:12 AM
For as many times as the end of the Earth has been predicted, it hasn't happened yet.
Posted by: Max at Jan 31, 2007 9:23:54 AM
In regards to #1, there is a very interesting 2-3 hour special on the History channel that explains what is called the "Little Ice Age". Watch this program, it gives lots of food for thought. Also, my Dad has been to Alaska several times and one thing he points out is, I believe that it is Denali National Park (not sure), but there are signs located periodically locating the end of a particular glacier. This glacier has been receeding since the early-mid 1800's (most likely before, but that is when the signs begin). So, if WE are responsible for global warming, why has the glacier been shrinking since before the invention of the internal combustion engine, aeresol sprays, etc.?
Posted by: Johnny at Jan 31, 2007 9:28:31 AM
One you may hear: "The politicians that get elected tend to be the ones that put getting elected ahead honesty and openness. We will never have honest politicians."
Posted by: snoopy at Jan 31, 2007 9:29:24 AM
The federal income tax code in the US is one of the most egregious programs which violate horizontal equity.
Posted by: Mike at Jan 31, 2007 9:32:12 AM
The variant of Alex R's comment I often hear among computer security people (and presumably others who are used to thinking in terms of attacks and defenses) goes like
There's no way to defend all the potential targets in the US against terrorists. Sooner or later, some attacks will get through, despite the best efforts of DHS, FBI, etc.
or
If a smart, resourceful terrorist gets on the plane with you and wants to bring the plane down, he's almost certainly going to succeed, despite Xraying his shoes, depriving him of his bottle of soda, and making him stand in line for an hour to get through security.
Posted by: albatross at Jan 31, 2007 9:39:39 AM
Good stuff.
I think the most interesting thesis that is not heard is that the ultimate solution that is philosophically viable to a modern liberal (with a small "l") democratic mindset over Israel/Palestine is the creation of a one state, two nation polity. The idea that one party should receive world support for maintaining and creating a state that only benefits one ethnicity over the other, even though both have legitimate claims over the territory is not viable. It also seems to undermine the U.S.'s role in the middle east and the world at large.
I feel this is a thesis that virtually no commentator is willing to put forth because it requires accepting something people don't want to accept: that Israel as a Jewish-only state will cease to exist.
Posted by: aa at Jan 31, 2007 9:47:26 AM
The basic lessons of economics are inherently too complex for more than a fifth of voters ever to understand, even if they made the effort.
Posted by: jp at Jan 31, 2007 9:55:35 AM
H.L. Mencken would agree with Tyler. Here are a few quotations from Mencken about belief plasticity:
“The influenze epidemic of 1919, though it had an enormous mortality in the United States and was, in fact, the worst epidemic since the Middle Ages, is seldom mentioned, and most Americans have apparently forgotten it. This is not surprising. The human mind always tries to expunge the intolerable from memory, just as it tries to conceal it while current.”
“[C]onscription in both cases [World Wars I and II] involved the virtual enslavement of multitudes of young Americans who objected to it. But having been forced to succumb, most of them sought to recover their dignity by pretending that they succumbed willingly and even eagerly. Such is the psychology of the war veteran. He goes in under duress, and the harsh usage to which he is subjected invades and injures his ego, but once he is out he begins to think of himself as a patriot and a hero. The veterans of all American wars have resisted stoutly any effort to examine realistically either the circumstances of their service or the body of idea underlying the cause they were forced to serve. Man always seeks to rationalize his necessities -- and, whenever possible, to glorify them.”
“I was once told by a Catholic bishop that whenever a priest comes to his ordinary with the news that he has begun to develop doubts about this or that point of doctrine, the ordinary always assumes as a matter of fact that a woman is involved. It is almost unheard of, however, for a priest to admit candidly that he is a party to a love affair: he always tries to conceal it by ascribing his deserting to theological reasons. The bishop said that the common method of dealing with such situations is to find out who the lady is, and then transfer the priest to some remote place, well out of her reach.”
All three come from Mencken's book Minority Report.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Jan 31, 2007 10:03:00 AM
I would also like to preface these ideas with the disclaimer that they are not my views, but then again why did I even think of them?
1. The inevitable long term solution to the healthcare/pensions problem as life expectancies rise is Euthanasia/assisted suicide.
2. Eugenics will make a come back.
I think of myself as left wing, but I appear to have a Nazi somewhere in my subconcious. I'm going to find a therapist.
Posted by: Roy Bland at Jan 31, 2007 10:36:11 AM
A polity wracked with inequality can operate as long as it's members believe there is mobility between economic strata.
The greatest internal threat to a polity comes from those who are able to attain great wealth and/or power despite innumeracy and ignorance of basic economic concepts.
"mechanical intelligence will dwarf human intelligence within 40-50 years"
Many people seem to confuse the ability to amass knowledge (memory) with the ability to apply it (intelligence).
Posted by: J at Jan 31, 2007 10:42:58 AM
Claim #3 is pure Machiavelli, in the Discourses.
Posted by: vialiy at Jan 31, 2007 10:52:03 AM
Re 2: I had thought that, in the US, the correlation between parents' and children's income levels was quite low (0.2 to 0.4). US income outcomes are quite unequal but the system is pretty stable. Other countries with an equal degree of inequality but with a more entrenched oligarchy may be more susceptible to civil unrest. To what extent do “the masses” buy into bettering their lot (and the lot of their children) from within “the system” versus bettering their lot (and the lot of their children) by overthrowing “the system?”
Re: 3: History is full of very successful political units with large degrees of income inequality. All political organizations will eventually fail. What is the evidence that income equality leads to longevity?
Posted by: MW at Jan 31, 2007 10:59:25 AM
Another argument against (1) is the distinct possibility of non-CO2 remediations to global warming -- sulphate particle release and orbiting mirrors to increase Earth's albedo, for example. . .
Posted by: Matthew at Jan 31, 2007 11:19:24 AM
4. Net, our environment is in better shape than it has been in the last 200 years; the truth is, it is simply no need to do anything about it.
Posted by: Varangy at Jan 31, 2007 12:00:34 PM
Wasn't Marxism a theory that implied we could NOT improve the world as we might like to? Yet it was, and is, wildly popular. Seems to me the "clear moral lesson" that many people want to hear is, "forget it, pal, you're screwed."
Posted by: Kent Guida at Jan 31, 2007 12:24:39 PM
"For as many times as the end of the Earth has been predicted, it hasn't happened yet."
My doctor's a moron - he keeps on telling me that smoking cigarettes are bad for my health. But I've smoked alll my life, and I have yet to die. Idiot.
Posted by: Chris at Jan 31, 2007 12:30:57 PM
That Hispanic immigrants don't have strong family structures.
Posted by: hammer at Jan 31, 2007 12:40:32 PM
My favorites:
1. Technological advancement causes a certain level of unemployment, which seems like a terrible thing at the time, but is actually a great thing.
2. In life, people will be as successful as their natural-born smarts and their determination and work ethic allow them (i.e. rags to riches, think Jay Z). Being born rich is no guarantee of wealth later on life (i.e. shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in one generation).
Posted by: Robb at Jan 31, 2007 12:50:37 PM
