Conventional economics invokes the idea of a race between our limited means and our unlimited wants. Let’s run faster and spend more! But what if we opt out of that race, finding ways to get more satisfaction without consuming more? On this site I explore these ideas, plus themes from popular culture and other random thoughts.
I watched all 13 hours and 17 minutes of Star Wars I-VI before going to the theater with family for Star Wars VII, and here are a few thoughts (SAFE AT FIRST, THEN MILD SPOILERS SEPARATELY NOTED):
Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace. On seeing it again, the best part was the opening fanfare and crawl. “The franchise will live!” I thought . . . and everything was downhill from there.
Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones. Now after seeing it again, my favorite scene is the closing: Anakin and Padme’s wedding, with C3PO and R2D2 as witnesses. Why my favorite? Because the music foreshadows the tragedy and, more importantly, the bride and groom speak no words. Thus they save us from more dialogue like the earlier: “Now that I’m with you again, I’m in agony.”
Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. Now we’re getting somewhere. It’s not so good, but at least we find out why Darth Vader turned out to be the baddest guy in the galaxy. The best scenes are the ones that link him to Star Wars IV.
Star Wars IV: A New Hope. Woohoo! Somebody just opened the creative windows in a stuffy oppressive room (so to speak), and a fresh breeze is blowing in. What else from 1977 holds up so well as this movie?
Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back. Another great film, in which a running time of just over two hours gets us action, romance, Yoda and the big reveal: Darth Vader is Luke’s father! (I was one of the three people in a packed Birmingham, Alabama, theater who did not see that coming.) And the scene still shocks me on the Blu-Ray replay, even though I know every line.
Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi. Nice film to wrap up the Darth Vader story line. The franchise is getting a little tired by now, but seeing the characters again makes it worthwhile. The scene where Luke tells Leia she’s his sister, the pyre on which Vader’s body burns, and the celebrations at the end wrap things up nicely.
I’m a fan through and through, so I can only quibble a little with the franchise on this point: The bad guys have a fatal over-reliance on A Big Destructive Space Station That Has a Key Weakness to be Exploited by a Few Inside Attackers and a Few Bold Fighter Pilots.
–SPOILERS FOR STAR WARS VII: THE FORCE AWAKENS BELOW—
And you know what? The bad guys change their name from the Empire to the First Order but they still didn’t learn their lesson about A Big Destructive Space Station That Has a Key Weakness to be Exploited by a Few Inside Attackers and a Few Bold Fighter Pilots. This time the space station is actually an entire planet but it’s just as vulnerable. The inability of the villains to learn and adapt puts them way below the level of the Borg (different universe, I know).
All that makes Star Wars VII for me a competent sequel and no more. (Better a competent sequel than three incompetent prequels, you think?) And because I’m a Star Wars fan, a competent sequel is good enough. I love it! – seeing the old characters aged about 38 Earth years, and meeting Finn and Rey.
And now the running time for the whole saga is 15+ hours, all of which I’ll probably see again before heading down to the theater for Star Wars VIII.
At our house, one of us is a huge fan of fantasy fiction while the the other favors science fiction (anything beyond Earth orbit!). We recently read a new book that we both liked — how? Fantasy deals with swords and castles, while science fiction is usually set in a spacefaring future. Here’s how: Laura Montgomery’s Sleeping Duty follows the story of Gideon Tan, a soldier who signed on as a sleeper to journey to a distant plant with his wife, also a sleeper. But when he was awakened, he found himself on the wrong planet — a planet that, in fact, had somehow chosen a monarchy over the free and advanced technological society that it might have become. Action ensues, wrapped up with a beautiful-but-not-sappy love story. Recommended!
Disclosure: If you follow this link and buy this title on Amazon, I receive a small (really small) commission. I do not know Laura Montgomery, but I like her writing and her world-building.
That’s how I think of the classroom I’m teaching in: “a pro-technology no-technology zone.” It is a place where we deliberately put aside social media and personal electronic devices (I don’t even bring my smartphone) and concentrate on learning economics. Then, when we go back on the grid, we’re empowered to think analytically rather than dashing from tweet to tweet.
If you don’t believe that staying continuously “on” with electronic devices reduces learning, just check the following references:
- Computer science professor (!) makes the case for banning laptops in his classroom
- Study shows students not allowed to use laptops do better
- Study shows advantages of taking notes by hand
. . . and check your intuition on a couple of points. When you’re in a learning environment, do you stay focused on the subject at hand if you have a laptop or smartphone continuously on and in view? And, if the person next to you is checking Facebook or Twitter, how does that affect your concentration?
If you haven’t read Cry the Beloved Country, you should. And after you do, read this post. The book was once part of the required first-year reading program at a university where I was employed. It is a moving novel about South Africa that taught the students more about diversity than ten diversity-training workshops ever could.
It’s great to see Brooklyn Tech High School students benefiting from the game that took over my life, back during the development phase. Together with co-authors Mark Schug and Scott Niederjohn, I developed the economic content for this game, and then served as project director for the print accompaniment, Learning, Earning and Investing for a New Generation. Now, from New York 1, here’s proof positive that students are using the game and learning from it. Go, Brooklyn Tech!
In my case that was ABC World News Tonight with David Muir (formerly Diane Sawyer). Here’s what my time with the BBC showed me:
- ABC has gotten lazy, or underfunded, or something. ABC now covers far too many stories by capturing tweets and using voiceover. The BBC still has actual reporters in a lot of places, especially overseas. Those actual reporters can tell you a lot more about what’s going on in places like Syria and Egypt than you can get from ABC’s scanning of Twitter.
- ABC News is for children. I don’t want to be too harsh, but ABC anchors often take on the tone of a preschool teacher telling her children they must be very, very sad about the people who were caught in the tornado. BBC World News America is more likely to simply report the story and let the tragedy explain itself. The BBC’s anchors (Katty Kay and Laura Trevelyan are the ones I have seen the most) are more like your British cousins than your preschool teacher.
- ABC News is in love with shallow “solutions” to public policy problems. Was there a school shooting? Pass a law. Is there an unemployment problem? Buy American. That’s the ABC approach. BBC World News America has more interviews, and while this can seem like “talking head” news, there’s more room for nuance. ABC News wants to divide the world into two parts: good people who favor their solutions (usually law or regulation) and bad people who do not. BBC holds open the possibility of a third group: people who are for solving the problem, but not in favor of the conventional solution.
- ABC News over-covers entertainment. Maybe it’s the Disney ownership of ABC, maybe it’s what the audience wants. But ABC News is obsessed with entertainment and entertainers. One thing I noticed with BBC World News America was that it just didn’t spend much time on entertainers, box office totals and the like. ABC over-covers entertainment, and it cross-promotes Disney, often without any notice or apology.
My own personal view is that all people of faith should help people make more of their lives: to prosper in faith, friendship and love. Sadly, the sector I work in — higher education — has done a bad job in its part of that, especially with students from poor backgrounds.
This piece from the New York Times outlines some of the issues. The real problem is fairly simple: it just costs too much to get a college degree. Higher education’s answer, as costs have escalated, has been to provide more need-based financial aid to the poor. That answer is inadequate because, as the Times piece points out, the college completion gap between rich and poor has been growing, even with all the financial aid.
Financial aid isn’t the answer. To a large degree it’s the problem. Try this thought experiment with me: Suppose the government said everybody had to eat a lot of apples. Suppose further that it said apples are so important that we’ll give you payment to help cover the cost when apple prices go up. Do you think apple producers would keep their prices low? Of course not!
Well, in higher education, we now have the government saying people really should go to college, and providing payments to help pay when colleges raise their prices. The colleges have not restrained their price increases, but instead have taken advantage of the fact that they can raise them even more when the government is helping people pay.
I would like to live in a country where bright but poor students get a good, fair shot at a college education. Unfortunately, we are farther from this ideal today than when I first entered the field. We have to do better.
I have never seen a time when kindness toward political opponents was more needed, or less rewarded. Those who deal civilly with their opponents are characterized by “their” side as sellouts. Those who demean their opponents are rewarded with attention and approval from their own base. The most worrisome thing of all is this: It works. Given the polarized nature of our country today, bullying political opponents seems to work better than debating them.
Fellow citizens, we have the cure in our hands. Make it stop working. Ignore negative political commercials, read a lot and get informed. And when one of your Facebook friends posts a highly appealing but deceptive attack on a political position — even if you’re on the same side with your friend — don’t hit that “like” button.
That’s what I’m doing, anyway.
- Those missions were something that united us as a nation. As I recall, nobody worried much about whether the Democrats or Republicans would get the credit. I wish we had something nonpartisan like that to unite us today.
- The technology just wasn’t ready. We did it all backwards. We should have done a lot of orbital work, followed by a shuttle program and space station. Then we could have gone more safely to the moon. But we didn’t do it that way. President Kennedy put out the challenge, before we had even achieved earth orbit with an astronaut, to get to the moon and back before the end of the decade. And we did it!
- Humans are like that. Have you seen the reproductions of the original ships that went to Jamestown, Virginia? They went all the way across the Atlantic in ships that size. It would have been a lot safer to wait for the technology to mature. But we didn’t do it that way.
- Apollo 11 was the most famous of the flights, since it was the first lunar landing. But Apollo 13, recovering from a failure that could easily have resulted in a total loss of crew, may well have been the biggest achievement of the program.
- It 1969 when the first Apollo lunar landing took place. The last one was in 1972. If you had told me then, “Forty years from now we’ll all carry phones with more computing power than the Apollo moon ship but we won’t have gone back to the moon and won’t even be planning to,” I would have said you were crazy. I would have expected a moon base and expeditions to Mars by now.
So — what will get us back in space, big time, and back to the moon? The same thing that got us to Jamestown — the profit motive. But that’s a story for another day. Ad astra.
Below is a column that Mark Schug and I have in the April 12 Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. It uses the premiere of a movie about Jackie Robinson (42) to make a point about Adam Smith and the economics of ending racial discrimination. (For the book that Mark and I wrote together, Economic Episodes in American History, the Jackie Robinson story was the pilot chapter). Here’s the column, (c) 2012 by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
The story is well-known to baseball fans, and it is now the subject of the new movie 42. In 1947, Branch Rickey, president of the Brooklyn Dodgers, signed Jackie Robinson to be the first African-American baseball player in the major leagues.
Adam Smith could not have been a fan of baseball, since the game had not yet been invented when he lived (1723-1790). But Smith, as the founder of modern economics, set forth ideas that were vital to Robinson’s breaking of the color barrier.
As Smith explained in his classic The Wealth of Nations, written 143 years before Robinson was born, individuals acting in their own self-interest in competitive markets can produce good outcomes for others, guided as if by an “invisible hand.” The release of “42” on Friday provides an opportunity to re-examine the role that free markets played in this milestone of the civil rights movement and continue to play.
It took years (and sometimes decades) after the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education for most American institutions to achieve racial integration. Yet, Major League Baseball moved earlier and more quickly than other institutions – but why? As Smith explained, business owners seek profits, and thus it is advantageous for business owners to hire the most talented workers.
Before 1947, baseball club owners had agreed to not sign African-American players. This decision almost certainly was influenced by racist views among some club owners; nonetheless, it probably was based on two economic considerations as well.
First, club owners were unsure how baseball fans would react to racially integrated teams. Would white fans pay to see black players play baseball with white players?
Second, some white players had made it clear that they did not want to compete with Africa-American players. Some feared losing their jobs. Some threatened strikes or violence.
Despite the fact that Major League Baseball operated as a legal cartel, club owners faced competition. There was an ample supply of talent outside the cartel. Dozens of African-American professional and semi-professional baseball teams operated from 1887 to 1950. The Negro National League, founded in 1920, was especially successful.
Then there was also competition from the barnstorming African-American teams. The most famous barnstormers were the Satchel Paige All Stars (all African-American players) and the Dizzy Dean All Stars (all white players). They toured the nation every October from 1934 to 1945; they were watched by thousands of fans.
Competition in big baseball markets such as New York City was especially intense. After World War II, New York City had three professional baseball teams: the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Yankees and the New York Giants. Mass transit in New York enabled fans to shift loyalties easily from a losing club to a winning club. Owners were obliged to attract fans to their ballparks. Having a winning team was one way to attract fans. Having spectacular players was another. What if you could offer both?
Enter Rickey and Robinson. In 1946, Rickey signed Robinson, who played that year for the Montreal Royals. Rickey saw in Robinson a player who could both excite the fans and help the team get to the World Series. For that reason, he was willing to take on the social and the economic risks of signing an African-American player. Rickey calculated that the economic benefits were greater than the risk.
And Rickey and Robinson were proven right. Robinson played his rookie season with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. The Dodgers won the National League pennant in 1947, and they won it again in 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956. Robinson was selected as the Rookie of the Year in 1947 and was the National League’s Most Valuable Player in 1949. He helped the Dodgers win a World Series in 1955.
Teams that signed African-American players were rewarded on the field and in their pocketbooks. Two economists – James Gwartney and Charles Haworth – studied the impact. They found that the number of African-American players was a significant factor related to the number of games a team won.
From 1950 to 1955, the inclusion of an African-American player on a major-league team resulted, on average, in an additional 3.75 wins per year. Fan attendance was helped, too, with each additional African-American player on a team associated with 55,000 to 60,000 additional home-team admissions annually during the 1950s.
The story of racial integration of Major League Baseball is one of courage displayed by Robinson and Rickey. A feature length movie was overdue. However, we think that the economist Smith should get some credit as well.
He was the umpire whose “invisible hand” helped establish the framework that rewards talent.
Mark C. Schug is professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. William C. Wood is professor of economics at James Madison University in Harrisburg, Va. They are co-authors of the textbook supplement Economic Episodes in American History, published by Wohl Publishing.