Where pictures replace words

matilda reading quadrant

I have an article in this month’s Quadrant which is now posted at Quadrant on Line: Drawing the Wrong Conclusions. Three separate issues are brought together – the use of visuals in the place of words in modern academic discourse which not only helps bamboozle others but even helps bamboozle themselves; a review of Mark Steyn’s brilliant book on the hockey stick, A Disgrace to the Profession, which looks at the diagram that has featured in both IPCC Reports and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; and a final section explaining my own disdain for Keynesian economics which was entrenched by another diagram known as the Keynesian cross, that has done much to implant aggregate demand among economists since it was published in the first edition of Paul Samuelson’s Economics in 1948.

Since a large proportion of what I read was written a century or more ago, I am very aware how few graphs and diagrams there once were. It may only have been the limitations of print technology, but to understand something once required paying attention where one needed to follow the logic. Today, a picture is provided in place of the thousand words of text. The result is that such diagrams have replaced the need to follow close reasoning in understanding the point someone else is making. With diagrams and pictures of all sorts, there is less apparent need to bother with detail and complexity. And it is no small problem as we can see with the hold that global warming and Keynesian macro continue to have, even though the evidence that either is valid remains thin on the ground.

My grand-daughter, bless her, will be part of the mid-century generation who will come after the millennials. These post-millennials will be starting at the more difficult end by going back to thought and reason, as the photo above clearly shows.

National productivity and IQ

Turns out they are highly correlated:

My colleague at the George Mason economics department, Garett Jones, has written an excellent new book, Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own.

The book’s primary and most important contribution is to document the following empirical regularity: Suppose you could a) improve your own IQ by 10 points, or b) improve the IQs of your countrymen (but not your own) by 10 points. Which would do more to increase your income? The answer is (b), and it’s not even close. The latter choice improves your income by about 6 times more than the former choice.

The only thing surprising about these results is that someone was actually allowed to publish them.

What is the best simple intro to market-based economics?

I have been asked by John A what I think of Freakonomics to which I have given this reply:

Dear John

Thank you for your note which has caused me to go into quite a bit of thought. Freakonomics is as others have said, a storybook of interesting observations on this and that which never comes to anything much at all. It is not what I think you are looking for, which is an easy-to-read set of tales which would allow you to absorb economics by osmosis while also being entertained. The book that is supposed to do that is Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson which I have read a couple of times but which has never done the trick for me. And when you ask it just like that, I don’t really know of anything like it, which is either because it can’t be done – which is possible – or because no one has done it – which strangely is also possible – or because it has been done but I am unaware of the book. I would say that I have done it, sort of, but my version comes in at 400+ pages so that’s not what you mean either. And I am possibly not a very good judge of this anyway, since I bring a lot of background knowledge so what I am looking for is different from what you are looking for.

An interesting and useful question. I would be interested in any thoughts on any brief, easy-to-follow intro to economics that goes over the basics, but would really like to know of one that takes a non-Keynesian, non-interventionist approach to how a market economy really works.

The problem of under-regulation

I’m at a Writing Retreat where I hope to finish off my “Classical Criticisms of Keynesian Theory”. And as it happened, this piece of writing by Tom Butler-Bowden arrived just last night. If you don’t know Butler-Bowden and his 50 Classics Series you really should. He started with self-help books, moved onto philosophy and politics in his last two and next will be Economics and Wealth Creation. He analyses and explains in about half a dozen pages the central message of each of these books, and I have to say that his ability is uncanny. On all the authors I know I have never had a quibble about his insight and balance so I feel I can trust him on the others. This is on what it takes to move from an idea to actually finishing a project. I won’t give away anything by telling you that what it requires is concentrated WORK.

The epiphany problem

My initial motivation to write was a desire to understand what made people successful. The earlier books in particular, covering self-help, success and psychology, were the public result of a private investigation into possible ‘secrets’ which, if followed, would virtually guarantee that one’s wishes would become reality. From this project came two things:

1) A distrust of inspiration.
2) An appreciation of time in achievement.

Being inspired is the starting point of anything great, and the moment of inspiration itself is highly pleasurable. But such intellectual highs don’t help us get things done. This ‘epiphany problem’ is becoming better appreciated now, and I enjoyed a recent blog by Peter Shallard on the subject.

Peter mentions Allan Wheelis, a psychoanalyst who noted that there was a point in the 20th century when Freudian therapy no longer seemed to work. The therapy had not changed, so why exactly did it stop working? Wheelis argued that what had changed was people’s capacity for self-control. Freud’s early patients had come of age in the late Victorian era, a time when people were arguably more self-reliant and disciplined, and if Freud told them to make some change, they jolly well did so. But as the 20th century progressed, the capacity for self-regulation and self-discipline waned, just as our exposure to ‘inspiration’ increased. The result: more epiphanies, and less ability to turn them into measurable change.

BaumeisterWillpower

Shallard refers to Roy Baumeister, the social psychologist and author of Willpower (2012), who describes self-regulation failure as “the major social pathology of our time.” In less intellectual terms, and speaking to his entrepreneur audience, Shallard writes:

“If you’re someone who feels like you’re going crazy experiencing breakthrough after breakthrough, but you’re STILL not getting the results in life and business that you know you’re capable of… well, you might have a Self-Regulation problem. More epiphanies won’t help you. Building your self control muscles will.”

Most days I work in Oxford’s Bodleian Library. People are working on lengthy dissertations on Virgil’s poetry, or researching Descartes’ mind-body problem, or getting to the nub of Augustine’s City of God. There is good Wi-Fi in the building, but I’m always struck how little time people seem to spend checking Facebook, or catching up with the news, or shopping on Amazon. When they have decided they are going to work on something, they do it. This ability to self-regulate, I would venture, has played an important part in getting them to a top university and increasing their chances in life. You may be very talented or smart, you may have perfect material conditions to pursue a goal, but none of this counts if you are not able to control your behavior and work habits to an extent that you can get things done.

By the way, I am not claiming to be great at self-control myself; there are so many things that take our attention these days and I can easily waste a morning on trifles! But at least I know that epiphanies don’t last, and that ultimately what gets achieved is thanks to work. The world is full of good ideas, what is rarer is good execution.

My Dad, bless him – it would have been his 98th birthday today – used to tell me the same thing by quoting Thomas Edison: “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”. It’s the same with all ideas that turn into profitable enterprise. It’s not the idea of itself but the commercialisation that makes it happen. Ideas are dime a dozen, but the ability to turn ideas into products that can be profitably produced is something else again.

Trump was worried about terrorists a year before 911

The article is titled, Over A Year Before 9/11, Trump Wrote Of Terror Threat With Remarkable Clarity This is from his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, that is, a book written while Bill Clinton was still president. This is part of what he wrote then:

“I may be making waves, but that’s all right,” wrote Trump. “Making waves is usually what you need to do to rock the boat, and our national-security boat definitely needs rocking.

Let’s point fingers. The biggest threat to our security is ourselves, because we’ve become arrogant. Dangerously arrogant. It’s time for a realistic view of the world and our place in it. Do we truly understand the threats we face? And let me give a warning: You won’t hear a lot of what follows from candidates in this campaign, because what I’ve got to say is definitely not happy talk.

There are forces to be worried about, people and programs to take action against. Now.”

“We face a different problem when we talk about the individual fanatics who want to harm us,” The Donald continued, discussing the threat from individual terrorist organizations that despised American culture.

Trump said such people were determined to attack us.

“We can kid ourselves all we want by mocking their references to the Great Satan, but also keep in mind that there is no greater destiny for many people than to deal the Great Satan a major kick in the teeth,” he wrote, adding they despised the U.S. support for Israel.

“Our teenage boys fantasize about Cindy Crawford; young terrorists fantasize about turning an American city (and themselves) into charcoal,” Trump wrote.

Other than not being old school tie, just exactly what is wrong with him as President? I guess the way things are heading, we are going to find out in real time.

The award winning Waffle Street the movie

It is, of course, already a must-see movie, but if there is an imperative form of must see, it definitely applies here. Waffle Street the movie is getting closer to general release and will no doubt be shown some time in Australia. In the meantime:

The 2015 Hollywood Film Festival announced the winners of six categories Sunday night at the Arclight Cinemas in Hollywood.

Sharing the title for best narrative film is Forward. Side. Close!, an Austrian film that follows the story of a castle-dwelling, obsessive compulsive man, and Waffle Street, the true story of the vice president of a $30 billion hedge fund, who loses his job and ends up working as a waiter at a waffle shop.

And then there’s this from the Woodstock Film Festival which has just initiated its Carpe Diem [Jay] Andretta Award:

Jay’s wife, Lauri Andretta, and son, Jim Andretta, will present the inaugural Carpe Diem Andretta Award to Waffle Street on October 3 during the annual Maverick Awards Gala at BSP Kingston, NY. Woodstock Film Festival alums Eshom and Ian Nelms (Lost On Purpose, 2013) return to Woodstock with Waffle Street, their third feature, based on the memoir of James Adams, former VP of a $30 billion hedge fund, who loses his job and unexpectedly winds up in the world of the unemployed. In this genuine riches-to-rags story, Jimmy, played by a charming James Lafferty (One Tree Hill, Oculus), finally finds work waiting tables at a chicken & waffles chain, where the hectic pace and general mayhem become both comedic and endearing. Under the tutelage of master grill man Edward (Danny Glover in a stunningly earnest performance), Jimmy learns some hard lessons about life, finance and making grits. But the foremost thing he discovers is carpe diem, as he begins to enjoy the pleasures of the moment and realize that the measure of a man is far more than luxury homes and expensive cars. Fundamentally, Waffle Street is an authentic account of what it means to rediscover yourself.

The story is amazing. If they film is only half as good as the book, it will be as good a night at the movies as you are likely to have. For myself, I can see there is sense in a carpe diem approach to life, but I have to say that having watched this grow from book to movie one step at a time, it’s not the kind of thing that ever gets something like this done.

Who would use a word like ‘phantasmagorical’ in an economics text?

I met with my publisher today and we briefly discussed a third edition of my Free Market Economics. It’s now on the agenda but distantly since I have pretty well said what I want to say. I bring this up for a series of additional reasons, and let me start with this much appreciated comment on a previous post:

Hi Steve

Off topic here (apologies Cats) but I wanted to congratulate you for finding an opportunity to slip the wonderful word ‘phantasmagorical’ into your book . To find such a word embedded within an economic text was a great little ‘Easter egg‘! I am about half way through and am thoroughly enjoying it. I only studied economics in high school but have always had more than a passing interest in the subject. Jump forward 20+ years and I am bashing my way through an MBA and found your book really relevant for my elective unit on ‘Entrepreneurship’, a great refresher on some of the base principles of the subject and a refreshing perspective on the functions of supply and demand in any economy.

Cheers Nathan

And then, also just today, there was this from a student who is studying from the book as part of an online course I run. He had a question to ask about a coming test, but then wrote this:

For the book, I have to say I really enjoy it and though I really hope you don’t mind in me giving some suggestions as such. Firstly just on the premise on the book i could see it being a love hate for some students just as it continuously goes through as an argument of sorts rather than laying down the facts as they should be, if you know what I mean. Not a dig just meaning that if it were more just this is as it is then we could just focus on that.

The second one is on the explanations for say’s law and the business cycles. I have kind of found for me in learning it I keep trying to apply it to real life as we should and ended up looking through all of the recessions in the past. And actually looking at them it makes the classical views blatantly obvious and correct even in the great depression where there wasn’t a reduction in the demand but that the economy was rapidly changing to the more modern economy with the setting of the public market for stocks. Not sure if I explained that quite right, though what I am getting at is if in the explanations or even in an assignment we were looking at what has caused every recession it would really hammer in the concepts of the book and prove that they in fact are correct and that Keynes is some funded by government full of shit fraud.

Again really enjoying the book now that I have got into it, just more on the output as I really hope it would become universal proof of the correct concept.

I will think about what I can do now that the issue has come up, but I have to say I am very reluctant to mess with the text again. It’s not perfect, but it remains the only anti-Keynesian textbook available anywhere in the world and there’s much else in it besides.

A Triumph for Supply-side “Austrian” Economics and Say’s Law

The almost total inability of economists of the mainstream to make sense of the macroeconomy is because they look only at final demand. To them, the rest of the economy is a black box about which they know next to nothing. And emphasising how little they even understand about what they need to know, the most important statistic for the past seventy years has been the national accounts which measures how much final output is produced. It is why there are still economists who think that our economy is 60% consumption, when that part of the economy is around 5% at best. The rest is that vast hinterland of productive efforts that move resources from the ground and the forest through various stages of processing to the distributors and then, but only then, to retail outlets for final sale. The man who has done the work of Hercules in overturning this shallow and narrow approach is Mark Skousen. Do you wish to know more about this approach and how better to understand how an economy works, this is the go-to book, now released in its third edition. The title of this blog post is also the title on his own press release, so for a change it’s not just me.

Mark Skousen, The Structure of Production. New York University Press

Third revised edition, 2015, 402 pages. $26 paperback. Available on Kindle.

From the cover:

In 2014, the U. S. government adopted a new quarterly statistic called gross output (GO), the most significance advance in national income accounting since gross domestic product (GDP) was developed in the 1940s. The announcement comes as a triumph for Mark Skousen, who advocated GO twenty-five years ago as an essential macroeconomic tool and a better way to measure the economy and the business cycle. Now it has become an official statistic issued quarterly by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U. S. Department of Commerce.

To buy the book: NYU, Amazon
Quarterly data for Gross Output can be found at the BEA site here.
For Skousen’s latest quarterly report on GO, see this.

Since the announcement, Gross Output has been the subject of editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and other financial publications, and is now being adopted in leading economics textbooks, such as Roger Leroy Miller’s new 18th edition of Economics Today. Economists are now producing GO data for other countries, including the UK and Argentina.

In this third printing of Structure of Production, Skousen shows why GO is a more accurate and comprehensive measure of the economy because it includes business-to-business (B2B) transactions that move the supply chain along to final use. (GDP measures the value of finished goods and services only, and omits most B2B activity.) GO is an attempt to measure spending at all stages of production.

As Dale Jorgenson, Steve Landefeld, and William Nordhaus conclude in “A New Architecture for the U. S. National Accounts,” “Gross output [GO] is the natural measure of the production sector, while net output [GDP] is appropriate as a measure of welfare. Both are required in a complete system of accounts.”

Skousen concludes, “Gross Output fills in a big piece of the macroeconomic puzzle. It establishes the proper balance between production and consumption, between the ‘make’ and the ‘use’ economy, between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. And it is more consistent with growth and business cycle theory. Because GO attempts to measure all stages of production (known as Hayek’s triangle), it is a monumental triumph in supply-side ‘Austrian’ economics and Say’s law.”

Using GO, Skousen demonstrates that consumer spending does not account for two-thirds of the economy, as is often reported in the financial media, but is really only 30-40% of total economic activity. Business spending (B2B) is over 50% of the economy, and thus is far larger and more important than consumer spending, more consistent with economic growth theory, and a better measure of the business cycle. (See chart below.)

About the Author

MARK SKOUSEN is a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University in California. He has taught economics and finance at Columbia Business School, and is a former economic analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. He received his Ph. D. in economics at George Washington University (1977). He is the editor-in-chief of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies, and author of several books, including The Making of Modern Economics.

Reviews

“Now, it’s official. With Gross Output (GO), the U.S. government will provide official data on the supply side of the economy and its structure. How did this counter revolution come about? There have been many counter revolutionaries, but one stands out: Mark Skousen of Chapman University. Skousen’s book The Structure of Production, which was first published in 1990, backed his advocacy with heavy artillery. Indeed, it is Skousen who is, in part, responsible for the government’s move to provide a clearer, more comprehensive picture of the economy, with GO.” — Steve H. Hanke, Johns Hopkins University (2014)

“This is a great leap forward in national accounting. Gross Output, long advocated by Mark Skousen, will have a profound and manifestly positive impact on economic policy.” –Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine (2014)

“Skousen’s Structure of Production should be a required text at our leading universities.” (referring to second edition) –John O. Whitney, Emeritus Professor in Management Practice, Columbia University

“Monumental. I’ve read it twice!” (referring to first edition, published in 1990) — Peter F. Drucker, Clermont Graduate University

“I am enormously impressed with the car and integrity which Skousen has accomplished his work.” — Israel Kirzner, New York University

“The history of economic thought should in no way be disconnected from current issues in economics”

I wrote a book about this very subject as part of what I could do from preventing the European Research Council from turning the history of economic thought into a sub-sub-set of the History of the Human Memory. Now it is part of the very ethos of HET in Europe:

The issues of inequalities confirm the ESHET’s firm belief that the study of the history of economic thought should in no way be disconnected from current issues in economics and beyond, and could in fact help provide historical perspectives on standard views about the subject.

Oh yes indeed. There will come a time, and it’s not far off, when economists will start to relearn their history which, among other things, contains a vast storehouse of ideas that have been lost or forgotten but are as valid if not more so than the ones we now have in our currents economic texts.

The gravedigger’s picnic

Some people have no shame. Read this and marvel.

It is sad that with humanity facing catastrophic climate disruption as part of an existential threat that there are still people willing to attack Mike Mann, one of the real heroes of climate science, outrageous lies. But one must admire the well-funded denier campaign, carried forward by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his “False News” network, for the campaign’s persistence in the face of massive evidence, its success in confusing much of the public, and creating a propioganda [sic] triumph equivalent to that of creationism in keeping Medieval nonsense embedded in the brains of many Americans. Unhappily the “triumph” may prove doom for many of our descendents [sic]. Mike Mann is admired by all real climate scientists, even those who may have same disagreements with him (there is no certainty in science, unlike in the world of denial propogandists [sic]) — and I know many of the leading players and follow the field closely. The best one can say of this silly collection of comments from hacks and has-beens, mixed with quotes-out-of-context, is that it is NOT a disgrace to the profession of its perpetrators, nor to their pimps.

Let Mark Steyn tell you who wrote it:

We have our first celebrity thumb’s down, from “P Ehrlich” – and yes, it’s that Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. . . .

It’s not clear from P Ehrlich’s flaccid generalities whether he actually read the book, but, if he did bother to pick it up, I do hope he got as far as page 240, where he and his hero “Mike Mann” make a joint appearance:

Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch. My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with them. They’re gravediggers of science.

Or maybe he did get that far and this is one of those “quotes out of context” he’s complaining about.

Still, always nice to hear from one of the gravediggers. Keep digging, Professor.

Not evidence, not fact, not theory, not anything seems to deter these people. And why? Because there are idiots everywhere who lap it all up.