Slogging Through: Reading Deaton's "The Great Escape"

Oh, hey.  Hello there. 

I was just listening to some Motorhead and enjoying this fine Brie Cheese.

You weren’t here to talk about the brie?

That’s fine.  I understand. 

Inequality.  Yeah, I hear that’s bad.

You know, I’m actually concerned about that too.  I’ve read several books about that in the last couple of year.  One by Thomas Frank, and he was mad.  But that’s journalists for you – real bomb-throwers.  I read another couple of them by economists, Reich and Stiglitz.  They were good, but they were angry too.  They really got my blood up and made me want to go out and make a difference.

I read this new one, The Great Escape, by Angus Deaton.  He wears a bowtie, and is an economist, but isn’t a baby-eating right winger.  He’s also not a writer with a lot of verve, or at least in this book.  He begins with a long, dry segment on health disparities across nations; then he goes on and looks at inequality within the US, which put me on familiar ground; he ends up looking at monetary disparity between nations.  The end part was the most interesting, because the rest of the book was developing his moral qualification, but what he calls for is counter-intuitive.  He makes a strong case for pulling away foreign aid, both in humanitarian and infrastructure projects.  It was a weird cognitive dissonance.

But that is all.  It is a really dry book with a hint of puzzled interest at the end.  If it were not a library book with a coming due date, I would have put it on the shelf with a bookmark about a third of the way through with the other dozens of books I have similarly abandoned.  It’s not bad, it’s just a slog. 

The Most Interesting Thing About Me: This Quiz Show

Online test is like 30 questions in 15 minutes.  You don't get to know your score.

You do well enough, you get invited to an in-person try out.  They hold those in various cities, and you have to get to the one closest to you.  I was luck I just had to jump on the train to get to mine.  (There are like 12 cities they go to, and I don't know how many people are invited.  I was in a classroom sized group of about 30, but there were groups before and after my tryout of the same size.) At the tryout, you take another test, and then you play a mock game -- this was 4 years ago, so the process may have changed some since then.

Even after all that, they  tell everyone in the room that they may be eligible for a taping, so wait for a call sometime in the next 18 months.

Then if you get the call, you have to make your way out to California, and pay for your hotel.  They had a discounted rate where they had a partner with the hotel, and they ran shuttles from there, but it still cost me about 1000 bucks just in travel and lodging (I was unemployed at the time so that was huge).

Then you go to the taping -- they do a week's worth of shows in a day, and I think a whole month's worth over the week.  Even there, you are not guaranteed being on the show.  they had an alternate come when I was there, but they let California people be the alternates so that when they were called back the trip wasn't too bad.

You play some practice games to get used to the board and the stage and the buzzer, and so that they can get your mark with the camera.  Then you go back and names are drawn for the games.  I was drawn first, and never got into a groove.  Got second, but nailed the final answer.

Prior to the taping, they ask you for a lot of prompts for the contestant interview.  No one is interesting in 20 seconds, especially when the most interesting thing about you now is that you were on a major television quiz show.

I got second and won 2K.  It was nice, but I hated the time frames.  The initial test was in January, then the call for the second test was in like April for a May test.  Then I was called the next February for filming about a month later.  The episode didn't air until late July, and then I didn't get the money until that November.

It was worth it, but it is one of those things that a lot of people are interested about but I have over-told the story.  It makes me feel like a band with one hit song.  

On the Graphic Novel "Logicomix"

You know, someone out there had the idea that a comic book based on the early academic career of Bertrand Russell, as he searched for a logical foundation for mathematics (if you didn’t know that was necessary, you are not alone) would have a large enough audience that it would be worth it to plow their creative energies into such a book. Logicomix is the result, and it works.

I can say it works because of this.  I have always wanted to try to read Wittgenstein to the point that  I have quoted his work in poetry (even without reading the book – what we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence).  I have not read it to this point, but this comic made me want to have a go at it.

There’s not many comic books that I can say this about: It made me want to read the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.  One small thing though: it isn’t straight narrative.  It has this unnecessary metafictional frame story about the writing of the book “Logicomix.” It is thus a book about writing a book about philosophers writing about foundational mathematics.  That is not the headiest blurb, but it is well worth it.

Making Money: Like Alchemy but Less Messy

I have to say as having read the previous 30 or so discworld books with there being no mention of the real economics or banking industry of the discworld in general and the history of the monetary system in Ankh –Morpork in particular, I was excited that Terry finally took a shot at the issue.

A few broad things: if you’re not into economics as much as I am, I think the book will hold up as a storyline in itself.  This is the second books that I am aware of that has starred Moist Von Lipwig.  I am still not sure as where he stands as a Pratchett character.  He has some interesting traits, but doesn’t seem fully formed.  

Small thing that is interesting to me: I like that Pratchett comes out against hard money, where the city is what gives currency value, not gold that was dug up in one place and the reburied in a vault (see pages  143-4 for a fun exchange on the nature of a currency’s value) 

Key quote: ‘Hubert’s an economist. That’s like an alchemist but less messy.’

If you have not read any of Pratchett’s books, this is as good a place to start as any.  I suppose the beginning may be better, but it is not wholly necessary.  I started in medias res and everything ended up just fine. 

O'Sullivan's Microeconomics. I guess it's ok.

I guess, after looking at the thing, there isn’t much to give credit to not to denigrate this thing.

Most people, if given the choice, will go after a bigger name for their micro book.  Others may not.   They may assume that their author is not easily google-able and they may have ultimate authority. 

The problem with this book, I assume, is the problem with most basic econ books.  The people coming here have no choice about which micro book to buy.  If you’re looking at this one, it is passable.

There are problems, but there are problems with the discipline.  The book assumes that you haven’t taken any calculus.  The mathematical basis of the text is algebra.  Sadly, to really understand what is going on in even the most basic form, you need at least calculus one.  Your advisor didn’t tell you that.  

No calculus means that supply and demand are not part of a dynamic system, but are just a thing that balances.  It is alienating, but it is also illuminating if you don’t need the context and just want to go home over the holidays explaining deadweight loss to your family.  You should still buy them gifts, because otherwise you look mean. 

A couple of notes: the last chapter is about trade and comparative advantage,  it grows to macro and leaves the micro behind.  As part of a combined course it works.  Finally, on page 157 there is a horrible derivation of opportunity cost.  It is a very important part of the course, and it should be told better as a story.  It isn’t here.

Hopeful Science, Doubtful Economics: Reading Zhavoronkov's "The Ageless Generation"

The Author of this work, Alex Zhavoronkov  is highly optimistic about the eventual success of biological technology in vastly increasing human lifespans.  He is also pessimistic about the state of the economy.  These two threads come together in this book,  “The Ageless Generation”.  In it, he argues that the government should simultaneously ramp up research and development in these areas  ( for example, we should make a much more concerted effort to cure cancer) while also rolling back the welfare state that covers seniors (social security and Medicare in the US).

I don’t want to go through a point-by-point rebuttal, mainly because the premise is so interesting.  So many people look to the future as either a utopia or a dystopia, but unless the political ideal of the futurist in question covers economics specifically, the projections feel like they assume the everyday economy as continuing to exist as is.  I think that this book falls into that trap.  How is it that we live in a world where we may cure death, but we haven’t cured work?  I like my job, but I’m not so scared of my own mortality that I want to keep doing it for another couple of decades to comfortably live into my 120s.  I think that is a major blind spot here, not considering the nature of work excepting computer-mediated knowledge work.  Add to that the idea that people not exiting jobs disrupts the current schema where people retire out and get promoted up and graduates enter the labor market – curing death will lock young people into either entry-level  jobs or unemployment for a very long time.  

The second issue that got me was that he is very focused on both of his fixes.  The singularity that we will reach is a biological one, where the life expectancy increases faster than the calendar year as prophesized by Aubrey De Grey (Both referenced in the book and a writer of a blurb). As far as I remember, there is no mention of a technological singularity more associated with the work of Ray Kurzweil which could be a rival or a symbiotic vision of the future.  The other focus is on rolling back “entitlements” which would be hard because people have paid into those programs and people have real expectations for when they can leave the labor force.  I don’t know why extending the working life is important here.  If you solve for death, you can maybe reimagine a world where there is more art, and more leisure time (I know Marx and Keynes were able to imagine it).  There are other places in the budget where savings can be had. 

I just worry that the book may be overselling the idea that we can even achieve what he’s saying can be met biologically.  He marvels at the increase in life expectancy in the 20^th century, but were those achievements just the low-hanging fruit of life-extension?  I’m not sure about that, but I worry about nature fighting back.   One thing I kept thinking about was the evolution of anti-bacterial-resistant  bugs.  There aren’t many new penicillins in the pipeline, and we have to keep at it just to keep where we are (and that’s just one example of what can happen to the organism, and ignoring any systemic issues).  We have also to struggle with people taking for granted now simple things like vaccines.  People have been worrying about their safety, even though it is hard to prove absence: anecdotes beat statistical evidence and probabilities.  I suppose if you could cure cancer, you’d have a pretty high-take up, but it is harder to sell prevention as opposed to intervention.

I am sure that Zhavoronkov has heard many of these criticisms before.  This book is more for a popular audience, so it is more of an introduction.  I hope he is right on the science.  That’s where I feel his domain lays.  The economics need more work, and I think he is largely incorrect mainly because of a lack of imagination.  If the science works, the cultural change will refigure economics and art and the nature of work.  I’m interested in seeing what’s next.

I received a copy of this book in exchange for review.