I just finished reading a book called Story by Robert McKee. It was quite an insightful book (though I have many criticisms of it which I will go into later). In the following passage, McKee describes the creation of an original character:

Like Dr. Frankenstien, we build characters out of parts found. A writer takes the analytical mind of his sister and peices it together with the comic wit of his friend, adds to that the cunning cruelty of a cat and the blind persistence of King Lear. We borrow bits and peices of humanity, raw chunks of imagination and observation wherever they’re found, assemble them into dimensions of contrafiction, tehn round them into creatures we call characters. (McKee, 386)

The way I described originality as integration of existing ideas (in an earlier post) is analogous to how McKee describes character creation as the integration of ideas in existing characters.

The implication of integrative thinking is twofold. It means that we can research and observe to create “original” products. However, it also means that our products are only as strong as the wealth of ideas at our disposal. We cannot hope to be “original” (in the integrative sense) if we do not explore, study and read a wide breadth of material. And I don’t just mean other forms of art, I mean all sorts of disciplines.

But how do we find time to study all sorts of disciplines? I read another book recently that was a collection of essays from the philosopher Lord Isaiah Berlin called The Power of Ideas. In an essay on general education, Berlin writes about studying in a way to maximize breadth without completely sacrificing depth and specialization. He writes that instead of simply trying to absorb material from other disciplines (like making a chemist memorize poetry, or making an artist list out famous physicists) we should focus on the methodologies of different disciplines.

Simply put, we should at the least know how various disciplines go about answering questions- and what questions they are most interested in answering. Economics, for example, is largely a question of allocation- they assume that resources are scarce and try to figure out the best way to distribute them fairly. Capitalism is born from the pursuit of this question. Capitalism also assumes that people generally make rational decision, and that more choice and more consumption is good. Psychologists and sociologists often have completely different assumption about human beings- that we are governed by irrational emotions, and that we are molded by society. Many political scientists assume humans are corrupted by power, hence a major question in political science is how to best distribute power.

My point is, that there is a vast reservoir of ideas out there, and our creativity will be severely limited if we live only within the assumptions and methodologies of our own particular specialization.

-Tom

There are certain things that make economics very potent- a multitude of ideas and concepts that govern most of what we do in life. However, the more I study and read I find that there are many things about economics that are a bit questionable.

First of all, allow me to clarify something I did not mention in previous posts: Economics has a variety of belief systems, the set of beliefs and assumptions that I am referring to in these posts is called “Neoclassical Econimics.” The reason I will be primarily mentioning Neoclassical economics is because it makes up around 90-95% of economists in the U.S.. It’s pretty crazy how homogeneous the makeup is… Apparently many economists will be confused if you tell them they are part of a classification of economics- they just think there is one. In any-case, I’ll continue my notes:

One assumption that I find particularly interesting is this: CHOICE is all-important. There can never be too much.

And the people must be allowed to have the choice.

One interesting side-effect of this is that the market loses any sense of ethics- any sense of priority on one good over another. So in the market a breast implant is just as valuable as education. Now I don’t mean to pick on breast implants… err… I’m not sure where I was going with that sentence. Anyway, the economics justification for ethical apathy is this: We are economists, not ethicists! Let the PEOPLE decide which is more important.

But can people really decide for themselves? Is there really no such thing as too much choice? Why do grocery stores shove tons of candy in the check-out aisle? Why do advertisers spend billions on finding ways to manipulate the buyer? Are people really in complete control?

Even if people are completely in control, the econ view of people states that people make decisions myopically- they choose immediate benefits/pleasure. If people really are short sighted, then we can expect them to give into some very poor decision making. Why else would the university I attend pile the eateries with cake, chicken wings and candy? In fact, there are entire eateries on campus devoted entirely to different kinds of fried chicken… and the lines are out the door. Why is no-one at the salad-bar?

 Afterwards, when people will pay a price for not looking to the long term- economists shed all responsibility. “You had a choice, had you not?“. Despite the fact that, in econ, people are expected to make these poor short term decisions.

Dr. Browne introduced to the class what he called the “Hurricane illustration”. It works like this:

Let us look at some products that are in high demand during a hurricane: Plywood, milk and gas. The supply of these products is relatively low during the normal operations of a coastal city. Suddenly, WHAM… a hurricane hits and suddenly there is an extremely high demand for plywood, milk and gasoline. What happens? Well the prices for each of these goods sky-rockets- money acting as a natural rationing device. If people cannot afford these goods and ask for help the economists simply turn to them and ask: “Did you know you live on a coastal city? hmm… Did you know that coastal cities are prone to hurricanes? interesting… Did you also know that the destructive power of a hurricane could complete wipe out your house and belongings? intriguing… so, I must ask you, why do you wish to burden the poor tax-payers with your problems? You did, after all, have a choice.”

The funny thing here is that many political figures decide that they will not allow the prices to go up during the aftermath of a hurricane. Somehow the drama of the disaster makes them feel sad, and seeing people floating in the streets makes them rethink market decisions. Unfortunately, the political figures do not realize that the market works like this ALL THE TIME, prices are always acting and reacting to demand- such as the demand for plywood, milk and gas that is illustrated above. So instead of changing the way things work, they label the price changes during a disaster as “Price Gouging“. The rest of us refer to it as the “market system;” it’s just that during a hurricane, the victims of the market system are much more publicized and concentrated.

I am not suggesting that the modern Neoclassical economics approach should be tossed away. Dr. Browne makes a good point that it works extremely well for poor countries. In a sense, for the very poor, consumption and money DOES create happiness. However, once we have satiated our basic needs, perhaps we need to look to a different model.

-Tom

I’d like to devote one post to J. Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith was Havard professor in econ. During his lifetime he was a tremendously influential economist and wrote a multitude of books. He was famous for poking and prying at the classical economics thought. From his quotes he appears to have been ruthlessly satirical (or just plain ruthless) about various things he found absurd:

Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. Anything that is disagreeable must surely have beneficial economic effects.

I came across a similar idea last year when reading “The European Dream” by Jeremy Rifkin. Rifkin discussed the application of the GNP and how it was not necessarily a measure of the “good” of a society. Rifkin made his point by claiming that the GNP goes up due to any economic activity; Activity that might otherwise reflect poorly on a society- such as building thousands of prisons.

Essentially we are looking at the assumption that more money/consumption = happiness/goodness

Galbraith challenged econ assumptions, and probably ran into problems that generated the following quotes:

Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof

I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I’m for that. Where the government is necessary, I’m for that. I’m deeply suspicious of somebody who says, “I’m in favor of privatization,” or, “I’m deeply in favor of public ownership.” I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case

There’s a certain part of the contented majority who love anybody who is worth a billion dollars.

Kenneth Galbraith, however, insisted that uncomfortable questions be asked despite the difficulty with which people change their mind- despite the dichotomies of people’s thought or the particular disposition of the majority:

In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.

People are the common denominator of progress. So… no improvement is possible with unimproved people, and advance is certain when people are liberated and educated. It would be wrong to dismiss the importance of roads, railroads, power plants, mills, and the other familiar furniture of economic development. … But we are coming to realize … that there is a certain sterility in economic monuments that stand alone in a sea of illiteracy. Conquest of illiteracy comes first.

Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Galbraith also had a very scathing ironic humor to many of his sayings, this next quote (in a humorous twist on a familiar Socratic quote) appears to refer to the certitude with which economists flaunt their knowledge:

One of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you do not know.

And finally, I’d like to end with a quote that I found sums up the whole theme of the current “market system” :

By all but the pathologically romantic, it is now recognized that this is not the age of the small man.

I’m fortunate enough to be taking an amazing course in Economics with Dr. M. N. Browne (author of- among countless other publications- Asking the Right Questions). I’ve been scribbling notes furiously in class, but I thought I’d put them up here as well so I can reference them more easily in the future.

I want to clarify that I have not studied Economics extensively, and I am simply putting forth my current comprehension of what was said in my class.

As I have come to understand, Economics assumes that the following is a generalization of human nature:

Humans are

1. Myopic (make decisions based on immediate benefits- do not see into the long term)
2. Egoistic / selfish
3. Insecure / in search of external acceptance
4. Affiliative / desire to associate themselves to a group (which can be used to combat egoism)
5. Inert / lazy without stimulus or incentive
6. Rational/ Cold and Calculating
7. Aquisitive (People want STUFF- and everything is stuff)

Apparently, the above generalizations are held tight and sacred by Economists… Whether they are true or not is temporarily beside the point. To understand how Economists think, the description of human nature listed above must be accepted (or at least humored).

With the Economics view of human nature in mind, the following describes the world as seen by Econ:

1) There are Limits-

• SCARCITY * is the gap between human wants and finite resources. (It is important to note here that Economists believe human wants NEVER SUBSIDE- the thirst for STUFF is unquenchable; and without this assumption the field of Economics would make no sense).
• Because there is Scarcity, there is always a cost to an action (Trade-offs).

2) Conflict is inevitable-

• Because there is Scarcity AND because human wants are endless, there will be clashes of interest and inequality. Economics is said to be a “dismal discipline” because it is the study of finding who we will say “NO” to.

3) Economics becomes a study of Conflict Resolution-

• Overwhelmingly, Economists point to THE MARKET to solve these conflicts.
• Political Power is another means utilized to resolve Econ conflicts.

Here is an illustration of conflict, political power, scarcity and human wants in action (all in 8 seconds):

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bkhtgjt_VYc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

*The term Scarcity, as used in Economics, can never refer to something specific (ie: You cannot say “There is a scarcity of good boots”). Scarcity refers only to the abstract limit to all things.

To be continued…