Christopher Martin Jenkins writing in Cricinfo magazine on the opening game of the IPL in Bangalore:
local interest was spurious, because they were watching a game between sides made up of mercenaries and little-known youths.
When Bangalore cheers for Mark Boucher, the sportsman becomes a mercenary and the interest spurious. Manchester United supporters cheering for Christiano Ronaldo if fine. Did CMJ ever describe Mushtaq Ahmed as a mercenary, or Sussex supporter's interest as spurious, when Mushy bowled Sussex to the county championship?
The English cricket establishment's sniffy insecurity when confronted with the success of Indian cricket is downright embarrassing. It starts getting nasty when the sniffiness results in ECB bureaucrats elbowing professional cricketers away from a decent chance to make good money.
Friday, 25 April 2008
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Zorro. By Isabel Allende
Completely satisfying. Just the right mix of emotions, just the right balance of historical context and personal drama, just the right length, just the right complexity (for someone who typically reads after a hard day in the office and putting the kids to bed). Couldn't recommend it more strongly.
Don't read on if you like to read in suspense. But if you've read the book, or don't plan to read the book, or trust that I've given away nothing essentially suspenseful, or don't really care about suspense, here are some of my favourite nuggets/ reflections:
- "from the literary point of view, (childhood) has no suspense, children tend to be a little dull. Furthermore, they have no power, adults decide for them." Interesting point. Children are great as subjects, as authentic voices through which to observe the adult world. Think back to To Kill a Mocking Bird. Or the precocious Oskar Schnell in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Or even Richmal Compton's William. Maybe children, or even completely powerless adults, don't really work as the objects of fiction
- I loved the historical context. Spain had been annexed by Napoleon's France. Mexico was a Spanish colony. California was a Mexican territory. New Orleans had been sold by Napoleon to the Americans in the Louisiana land purchase. Britain fought America for Louisiana, and was defeated. Pirates ruled. The stench of the slave trade permeated the Caribbean. The Gypsies are a hunted, haunted European tribe, tenaciously holding onto their Indian roots. The Indians are a hunted, haunted American tribe, tenaciously holding on to their pre-European roots. None of this is hammered home. One picks up all of this casually wandering through the plot
- "Diego was a Gemini". Makes sense. The cultured, dandified, effeminate, patrician: Don Diego de la Vega. The fearless, swashbuckling, dashing, darling of the masses: Zorro. Are all super-heroes Geminis? Clark Kent and Superman. Parker and Spiderman. Bruce Wayne and Batman. Could they be Libras? No. The two sides of the balance are yoked together. Super-hero identities are completely separate. Could they be Pisces? No. Piscean fish swim in opposite directions. Super-hero identities swim together. Had to be Gemini
- Diego does not get his girl: Juliana de Romeu. That had to be. Diego's love was real. Juliana was worthy of his love. It was not their destiny. If Diego had got his girl that would have been the end of the story, he would have become a happy and wealthy ranchero in Alta California. The lost love was essential to Diego remaining forever hungry, forever young, to Diego remaining Zorro
- Juliana de Romeu would have been the perfect girl for Zorro. She is the wrong girl for the Diego de la Vega + Zorro combine. Juliana is about pale skin, cascading curls, beauty, grace, care, perfect taste, dignity under duress. She is all yin. Her man would need to be all yang. Every couple needs a balance of animus and anima
- "We shall soon be saying goodbye, dear readers, since the story ends when the hero returns to where he began, transformed by adventures and by obstacles overcome. This is the norm in epic narratives from the Odyssey to fairy tales, and I shall not be the one to attempt innovation"
Don't read on if you like to read in suspense. But if you've read the book, or don't plan to read the book, or trust that I've given away nothing essentially suspenseful, or don't really care about suspense, here are some of my favourite nuggets/ reflections:
- "from the literary point of view, (childhood) has no suspense, children tend to be a little dull. Furthermore, they have no power, adults decide for them." Interesting point. Children are great as subjects, as authentic voices through which to observe the adult world. Think back to To Kill a Mocking Bird. Or the precocious Oskar Schnell in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Or even Richmal Compton's William. Maybe children, or even completely powerless adults, don't really work as the objects of fiction
- I loved the historical context. Spain had been annexed by Napoleon's France. Mexico was a Spanish colony. California was a Mexican territory. New Orleans had been sold by Napoleon to the Americans in the Louisiana land purchase. Britain fought America for Louisiana, and was defeated. Pirates ruled. The stench of the slave trade permeated the Caribbean. The Gypsies are a hunted, haunted European tribe, tenaciously holding onto their Indian roots. The Indians are a hunted, haunted American tribe, tenaciously holding on to their pre-European roots. None of this is hammered home. One picks up all of this casually wandering through the plot
- "Diego was a Gemini". Makes sense. The cultured, dandified, effeminate, patrician: Don Diego de la Vega. The fearless, swashbuckling, dashing, darling of the masses: Zorro. Are all super-heroes Geminis? Clark Kent and Superman. Parker and Spiderman. Bruce Wayne and Batman. Could they be Libras? No. The two sides of the balance are yoked together. Super-hero identities are completely separate. Could they be Pisces? No. Piscean fish swim in opposite directions. Super-hero identities swim together. Had to be Gemini
- Diego does not get his girl: Juliana de Romeu. That had to be. Diego's love was real. Juliana was worthy of his love. It was not their destiny. If Diego had got his girl that would have been the end of the story, he would have become a happy and wealthy ranchero in Alta California. The lost love was essential to Diego remaining forever hungry, forever young, to Diego remaining Zorro
- Juliana de Romeu would have been the perfect girl for Zorro. She is the wrong girl for the Diego de la Vega + Zorro combine. Juliana is about pale skin, cascading curls, beauty, grace, care, perfect taste, dignity under duress. She is all yin. Her man would need to be all yang. Every couple needs a balance of animus and anima
- "We shall soon be saying goodbye, dear readers, since the story ends when the hero returns to where he began, transformed by adventures and by obstacles overcome. This is the norm in epic narratives from the Odyssey to fairy tales, and I shall not be the one to attempt innovation"
Saturday, 19 April 2008
London Marathon
Just ran my first marathon. The Flora London Marathon. On April 13, 2008. Had a totally fantastic time. Also had some reflections on marathon running while running the marathon. Hallucinatory reflections of this sort may be a symptom of extreme glycogen deprivation.
Yin and yang
A Jungian framework I happened upon years ago maps all social motivation onto a single axis. The psyche has an innate desire to feel connected, to belong, to feel at one with, to be a part of a larger whole. Yin. The psyche also has an innate desire to stand out, to be unique, to win, to conquer. Yang. The greatest fun happens when the psyche reaches both the yin and yang ends of the axis.
That happens at a big marathon. The sheer fact of running 26.2 miles delivers the yang. There is something special about the physical achievement...even in these days of mass participation marathons. Yet, that's only a part of the story. The training runs on foggy grey mornings stretching out over 20+ miles feel meaningful (and get done) only in the context of a framing event.
And what a great event it is. The company I work for had done a great job, putting up posters across town wishing our runners good luck. My daughter was delighted to see my picture on an advert while riding on the tram. Travel in London is free for runners. You start the run at the Greenwich observatory. The streets in front packed with other runners, with whom you feel a reflexive kinship. The route is packed with hundreds of thousands of cheering spectators. This is clearly the only time in my life >100000 people have cheered me on. My family and friends were along to cheer. It was fantastic.
Agoraphilia
I love the word. Will never have a better opportunity to use it.
After training outdoors through crisp winter sunshine, persistent rain, the occasional snow or hail, and - worst of all from a running perspective - gusty winds, I am more aware of the weather and it's moods than I've ever been. Less obviously but more powerfully, I love the sense of physical space, of eating up the distance, that I get running outdoors. I've had the same feeling when I'm out hiking.
Yin and yang
A Jungian framework I happened upon years ago maps all social motivation onto a single axis. The psyche has an innate desire to feel connected, to belong, to feel at one with, to be a part of a larger whole. Yin. The psyche also has an innate desire to stand out, to be unique, to win, to conquer. Yang. The greatest fun happens when the psyche reaches both the yin and yang ends of the axis.
That happens at a big marathon. The sheer fact of running 26.2 miles delivers the yang. There is something special about the physical achievement...even in these days of mass participation marathons. Yet, that's only a part of the story. The training runs on foggy grey mornings stretching out over 20+ miles feel meaningful (and get done) only in the context of a framing event.
And what a great event it is. The company I work for had done a great job, putting up posters across town wishing our runners good luck. My daughter was delighted to see my picture on an advert while riding on the tram. Travel in London is free for runners. You start the run at the Greenwich observatory. The streets in front packed with other runners, with whom you feel a reflexive kinship. The route is packed with hundreds of thousands of cheering spectators. This is clearly the only time in my life >100000 people have cheered me on. My family and friends were along to cheer. It was fantastic.
Agoraphilia
I love the word. Will never have a better opportunity to use it.
After training outdoors through crisp winter sunshine, persistent rain, the occasional snow or hail, and - worst of all from a running perspective - gusty winds, I am more aware of the weather and it's moods than I've ever been. Less obviously but more powerfully, I love the sense of physical space, of eating up the distance, that I get running outdoors. I've had the same feeling when I'm out hiking.
Sunday, 6 April 2008
There is a specter haunting Europe (2)
Britain is one of the world's more over-priced property markets. Prices can go into free-fall.
So what should be done about that? Cut interest rates to prop up prices? Or use the inevitable carnage as an opportunity to massively expand housing supply...to deliver a step-change improvement in the real lives of real people?
My (contrarian) vote is for the supply side expansion.
The elephant in the very-tiny-room during any conversation about housing in Britain is that the quality of housing really sucks. A country as rich as Britain need not live in homes that are so small that a standard "bedroom" is about the size of an American walk-in closet. Where double bedrooms don't fit double beds. Or where faucets that mix hot and cold water are an exotic luxury.
The simple and obvious solution is to develop large tracts of high quality housing, either on greenfield sites or by bulldozing some of the existing housing stock. But this simply has not happened. Is there a subtle but powerful political pressure from property owners defending high prices?
A counter-argument that is sometimes reflexively trotted out is: Britain is a small island and land is scarce. This is pure hokum. Britain can easily import tomatoes or milk. Britain can't import land. A very similar argument was used in the 80s to justify Japan's over-priced "rabbit hutches" and its heavily subsidized rice farms.
More realistically, a supply side expansion that might happen during this downturn is that sellers might be forced to spend more on the house to sell it at the same price. This will not get picked up as deflation in the published house price indices. But that investment will be a welcome improvement in the real lives in real people.
So what should be done about that? Cut interest rates to prop up prices? Or use the inevitable carnage as an opportunity to massively expand housing supply...to deliver a step-change improvement in the real lives of real people?
My (contrarian) vote is for the supply side expansion.
The elephant in the very-tiny-room during any conversation about housing in Britain is that the quality of housing really sucks. A country as rich as Britain need not live in homes that are so small that a standard "bedroom" is about the size of an American walk-in closet. Where double bedrooms don't fit double beds. Or where faucets that mix hot and cold water are an exotic luxury.
The simple and obvious solution is to develop large tracts of high quality housing, either on greenfield sites or by bulldozing some of the existing housing stock. But this simply has not happened. Is there a subtle but powerful political pressure from property owners defending high prices?
A counter-argument that is sometimes reflexively trotted out is: Britain is a small island and land is scarce. This is pure hokum. Britain can easily import tomatoes or milk. Britain can't import land. A very similar argument was used in the 80s to justify Japan's over-priced "rabbit hutches" and its heavily subsidized rice farms.
More realistically, a supply side expansion that might happen during this downturn is that sellers might be forced to spend more on the house to sell it at the same price. This will not get picked up as deflation in the published house price indices. But that investment will be a welcome improvement in the real lives in real people.
Sunday, 23 March 2008
Science or religious war?
Are neo-classical and behavioural economics truly irreconcilable? Are the foundations of one of our great sciences crumbling before our eyes? Or, is behavioural economics a useful elaboration on the neo-classical tradition, that enriches rather than wrecks the great neo-classical insights?
My chips are on the enriching rather than wrecking side of the argument. Right here, right now, I clearly am in the minority. The sloppy-thinking chat tends to pit one tradition against the other.
Here is Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in the New Yorker.
"Rational calculators are supposed to consider their options, then pick the one that maximizes the benefit to them. Yet actual economic life, as opposed to the theoretical version, is full of miscalculations, from the gallon jar of mayonnaise purchased at spectacular savings to the billions of dollars Americans will spend this year to service their credit-card debt. The real mystery, it could be argued, isn’t why we make so many poor economic choices but why we persist in accepting economic theory."
Notice the condescension. "The real mystery...why we persist in accepting economic theory." She illustrates this self evident truth - that the assumption of rational economic behaviour is so broken that it is pitiful - with a personal anecdote.
Ms Kolbert was buying a book on Amazon for her work when a message popped up on her screen "add $7.00 to your order to qualify for FREE Shipping". She hesitated. Her nine-year-old twins wanted a Tintin book. She clicked it into the shopping cart and checked out, saving The New Yorker $3.99 and spending $12.91 of her own money.
Then comes the sucker-punch. "From the perspective of neoclassical economics, self-punishing decisions (such as this purchase of a Tintin comic) are difficult to explain." Really?
Neo-classical economics is very comfortable thinking about the Tintin comic as a bundle of information (about prices), services (delivery) and physical product (the comic book itself). Remember complements and substitutes from Econ 101? Amazon reduced the price of that bundle by flashing a free shipping advert on Ms Kolbert's screen, which reduced her tacit search costs, and by waiving the delivery charges. This prompted a purchase which otherwise wouldn't have happened. Lower price, more sales. This is the demand curve from Econ 101. There is no more unsurprising result in neo-classical economics.
My chips are on the enriching rather than wrecking side of the argument. Right here, right now, I clearly am in the minority. The sloppy-thinking chat tends to pit one tradition against the other.
Here is Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in the New Yorker.
"Rational calculators are supposed to consider their options, then pick the one that maximizes the benefit to them. Yet actual economic life, as opposed to the theoretical version, is full of miscalculations, from the gallon jar of mayonnaise purchased at spectacular savings to the billions of dollars Americans will spend this year to service their credit-card debt. The real mystery, it could be argued, isn’t why we make so many poor economic choices but why we persist in accepting economic theory."
Notice the condescension. "The real mystery...why we persist in accepting economic theory." She illustrates this self evident truth - that the assumption of rational economic behaviour is so broken that it is pitiful - with a personal anecdote.
Ms Kolbert was buying a book on Amazon for her work when a message popped up on her screen "add $7.00 to your order to qualify for FREE Shipping". She hesitated. Her nine-year-old twins wanted a Tintin book. She clicked it into the shopping cart and checked out, saving The New Yorker $3.99 and spending $12.91 of her own money.
Then comes the sucker-punch. "From the perspective of neoclassical economics, self-punishing decisions (such as this purchase of a Tintin comic) are difficult to explain." Really?
Neo-classical economics is very comfortable thinking about the Tintin comic as a bundle of information (about prices), services (delivery) and physical product (the comic book itself). Remember complements and substitutes from Econ 101? Amazon reduced the price of that bundle by flashing a free shipping advert on Ms Kolbert's screen, which reduced her tacit search costs, and by waiving the delivery charges. This prompted a purchase which otherwise wouldn't have happened. Lower price, more sales. This is the demand curve from Econ 101. There is no more unsurprising result in neo-classical economics.
Notice that the neo-classical theory makes no claims about the mechanism by which people maximize utility. In the neo-classical view people maximize utility the way a dog catches a frisbee. The calculations a dog needs to make to catch a frisbee are way beyond the scope of what a dog, or human, can consciously perform. Yet, dogs and humans successfully catch millions of frisbees every day.
This is where behavioural economics comes in. It sheds more light on the heuristics that people actually use while maximizing utility. This might prompt governments or businesses to use those heuristic mechanisms. For example, tax collections in America increased when taxes were collected at source. Once the money is in my bank account I am much more reluctant to give it to the government. Brilliant behavioural insight. By Milton Friedman, the godfather of neo-classical economics.
None of this challenges the one thought central to all of neo-classical economics: people respond to incentives. The way in which different people respond to different incentives is infinitely varied, which is why economic life is fascinating to observe.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Debark?
Much better than disembark.
Found it in Isabel Allende's Zorro. Thought it was Allende's genius that had conjured up the elegant new word. But http://www.m-w.com/ assures me that the word has been in use since 1654.
Found it in Isabel Allende's Zorro. Thought it was Allende's genius that had conjured up the elegant new word. But http://www.m-w.com/ assures me that the word has been in use since 1654.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)