What are you currently reading?

[Florestan]

If Left Florestan will look away for a moment I will recommend to the Centre and Right Florestani Roger Scrutton on the nation state.

Any link to that?

[Ken B]

Any link to that?

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Philosophy-Arguments-Conservatism/dp/0826496156/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400606120&sr=1-8&keywords=roger+scruton

http://www.amazon.com/England-Need-Nations-Roger-Scruton-ebook/dp/B007A19RSI/ref=sr_1_42?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400606194&sr=1-42&keywords=roger+scruton

There's a lot I disagree with Scruton on, but the nation state and its value is one of the things he nails. And it is profoundly important.

[milk]

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Philosophy-Arguments-Conservatism/dp/0826496156/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400606120&sr=1-8&keywords=roger+scruton

http://www.amazon.com/England-Need-Nations-Roger-Scruton-ebook/dp/B007A19RSI/ref=sr_1_42?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400606194&sr=1-42&keywords=roger+scruton

There's a lot I disagree with Scruton on, but the nation state and its value is one of the things he nails. And it is profoundly important.

I'll have to glance at it. I doubt it would change my mind that nationalism is humanity's most destructive fiction.

[Ken B]

I'll have to glance at it. I doubt it would change my mind that nationalism is humanity's most destructive fiction.

"Nationalism" is an ethnic idea. Not what Scruton advocates at all.

[milk]

"Nationalism" is an ethnic idea. Not what Scruton advocates at all.

Yes I know. I do mean ethnic-nationalism. He advocates for "territorial loyalty." I'm not sure I agree with that either. You know what John Lennon said...Imagine there's no country...

[Florestan]

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Philosophy-Arguments-Conservatism/dp/0826496156/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400606120&sr=1-8&keywords=roger+scruton

http://www.amazon.com/England-Need-Nations-Roger-Scruton-ebook/dp/B007A19RSI/ref=sr_1_42?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400606194&sr=1-42&keywords=roger+scruton

There's a lot I disagree with Scruton on, but the nation state and its value is one of the things he nails. And it is profoundly important.

Thanks for the links.

The nation state provides us with the surest model for peace, prosperity, and the defence of human rights.

Ummm.... no, it doesn't.

The birth of France as a nation state was accompanied by some of the worst massacres in history and a bloody civil war; prosperity was not its most conspicuous feature, except for those who enriched themselves at the expense of others; and it resulted in more than 20 years of uninterrupted war with other nations. As for human rights, just ask Madame la Guillotine. Besides, what a miraculously steady regime: in 200 years, 4 revolutions, 5 republics, 2 kingdoms, 2 empires and a French State.

Spain's path to the nation state lead into 4 civil wars, countless military coups and risings and 2 military dictatorships; prosperity was not its most conspicuous feature, except for those who enriched themselves at the expense of others; the same goes for its former American colonies, the difference being that they outdid the former masters in terms of the sheer quantity of civil wars and military coups.

The rise of Germany as a nation state --- need I comment much upon how peaceful and respectful of human rights it was?

Romania. After turning into a nation state it was in a continuous state of political turmoil and violence, with 2 prime ministers and one leader of the opposition assassinated; corruption was rampant and so was poverty, especially in rural areas; emergency state was declared several times, during which the government acted almost dictatorially; elections were regularly rigged; this sick and dysfunctional democracy was followed by a royal dictatorship, then by a military dictatorship and finally by Russian conquest and Communist takeover.

The list can go on and on and on. Italy, Yougoslavia, Greece, Japan etc etc etc.

The truth is that Western nation states began to behave themselves and to really work for peace, prosperity and human rights only after their follies and crimes had brought the world on the verge of destruction. It's only after they agreed to renounce, or at least to play down, their full sovereignty, after they agreed that some form of trans- and supra-national cooperation and supervision is necessary, that peace, prosperity and the respect of human rights made their way into the life of those nations.

And in any case, the nation state, just like any other human creation, had a beginning and will have an end. Nothing lasts forever. If I were into conspiracy theory, I would even say that it's being destroyed by exactly the same forces that created it in the past. 

[jochanaan]

Gene Wolfe: Pirate Freedom.  On a Wolfe binge...

[Brian]

For my vacation to Denmark and Sweden, I brought some light, airy beach reading:

[asin]B00I2WNYJW[/asin]

There were certainly flaws in the book. The most glaring one, not because it was the biggest but because it was the weirdest, is Piketty's inexplicable vendetta against Bill Gates. The passage where he praises Jobs, trashes Gates, and implies that Gates doesn't deserve to be rich left my jaw hanging open. There's also a repetition of the common mistake of saying the average mortality of an earlier era being 40 meant most adults died at 40; it didn't, since so many people died before age 5. And every so often Piketty's language about capitalism, taming capitalism, defeating capitalism, etc. betrayed an ideological edge that I, as a good old capitalist, didn't much like.

On the other hand, much of the book is outstanding. The book is hard to read in the sense that it's very long, detailed, and concerning a difficult subject. The book is easy to read, though, in the sense that Piketty writes clearly, explains things well for non-economist readers, and strenuously avoids (or illuminates) jargon. In fact, even given the occasional clunker of a sentence, I'm willing to say Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a landmark of prose non-fiction, since it brings such clarity to such a tangled Christmas tree light strand of a subject.

As for the ideas, I am no economist, but I find myself persuaded by a lot of them. Truth is, the book is surprisingly low on ideas. It's high on data, but the data pretty irresistibly pushes you to certain ideas. Income and wealth inequality are, now, a lot like climate change: we know they're happening, we have a good idea why, we have some sketchy ideas on how to fix them, but we have to overcome the people who are still ready to deny there's a problem in the first place. This book serves as a weighty assembly of the evidence.

I can say, as a "lay reader," that I will now permanently carry around in my mind some core economic concepts thanks to this book, particularly "r > g" (rate of return on capital usually beats traditional economic growth) and "wealth/income = savings/growth." Also, somehow I had never heard that inflation didn't exist until 120ish years ago. Glad that's been corrected for me.

P.S. Thomas Piketty repeatedly discusses Jane Austen and Honore de Balzac. He also cites Django Unchained and Disney's The Aristocats.

P.P.S. I read the Kindle edition, because the hardcover is sold out almost everywhere. The hardcover is probably well worth buying, however, because flipping back and forth to read tiny charts on the Kindle version was not always fun.

[kishnevi]

Inflation certainly existed in premodern times.   Anytime you read about a government debasing coinage,  you're reading about the ancient/medieval version of printing fiat money.    In fact, inflation in the later Roman Empire was so bad that Diocletian introduced some of the strictest wage and price controls in history.  (They didn't work, of course.)  Did he actually say that?  If so, his value as an economist is seriously in doubt.

[Brian]

Did he actually say that?  If so, his value as an economist is seriously in doubt.

No, I said that, because again it's something I'm not too aware of. He was talking about roughly the 1600-1800s, I think (?). With a Kindle it's hard to go back and look.

[Moonfish]

For my vacation to Denmark and Sweden, I brought some light, airy beach reading:

And I thought you would be reading Strindberg.....     

[kishnevi]

No, I said that, because again it's something I'm not too aware of. He was talking about roughly the 1600-1800s, I think (?). With a Kindle it's hard to go back and look.

More likely the period after 1700.  The 1500s were actually a time of severe inflation,  something that lasted into the 1600s; the main cause was the influx of gold and silver mined by Spain in its New World colonies.  Ironically, the very thing that made Spain a world power was the root cause of its decline into being the first Sick Man of Europe, since the Spanish political and financial system  was not flexible enough to adapt to the new financial realities (that, and the fact that the Spanish spent much of their new wealth trying to beat the Protestants across Europe into submission).

I'm not sure when this inflationary surge tapered off; it would have been sometime in the 1600s. 
This is probably something Todd or Florestan might be able to clarify.

[Brian]

More likely the period after 1700.  The 1500s were actually a time of severe inflation,  something that lasted into the 1600s; the main cause was the influx of gold and silver mined by Spain in its New World colonies.  Ironically, the very thing that made Spain a world power was the root cause of its decline into being the first Sick Man of Europe, since the Spanish political and financial system  was not flexible enough to adapt to the new financial realities (that, and the fact that the Spanish spent much of their new wealth trying to beat the Protestants across Europe into submission).

I'm not sure when this inflationary surge tapered off; it would have been sometime in the 1600s. 
This is probably something Todd or Florestan might be able to clarify.

He talks about gold - in fact, at one point his argument is such that he is obliged to explain why, despite saying a few things in favor of the gold standard, he's not a true supporter.

[Brian]

And I thought you would be reading Strindberg.....     

Funnily enough, I did attempt to see Strindberg's excellent paintings, but the museum is closed for renovations.

[Todd]

I'm not sure when this inflationary surge tapered off; it would have been sometime in the 1600s.  This is probably something Todd or Florestan might be able to clarify.

It's been a good long while since I covered this subject, but I believe sometime in the 17th Century, the inflation rate decreased because the influx of gold and silver slowed.

For my vacation to Denmark and Sweden, I brought some light, airy beach reading:

[asin]B00I2WNYJW[/asin]


I can say, as a "lay reader," that I will now permanently carry around in my mind some core economic concepts thanks to this book, particularly "r > g" (rate of return on capital usually beats traditional economic growth) and "wealth/income = savings/growth." Also, somehow I had never heard that inflation didn't exist until 120ish years ago. Glad that's been corrected for me.

I've so far only read about the book, and I may or may not read it.  The r > g is a seductive, simple formulation that seems to answer all questions surrounding inequality, and sets the framework for the prescribed global wealth tax - which has as much chance of coming into being as I do of becoming pope.  The problem is, this simple formulation is inaccurate, and most critiques I've read bring up the obvious reality that not all r is created equal - sovereign debt does not offer the same return as equity, etc – and while inheritance obviously contributes to inequality over time, not all fortunes remain; capital can and has been destroyed as well as created, and not just during big wars.  His cited equivalence is also a bit unusual, too, at least as presented in your statement.  I have to refrain from critiquing too much since I've not read it, but there may be some more interesting nuggets in there.

There are a couple things that irk me about the author's overall approach.  First is the hubris in obviously referencing Marx in the title of his book.  Having slogged my way through a good chunk of the first volume of Das Kapital, and finding no neat and tidy answer like r > g, I find it presumptuous for an author, or his publisher, to use the name thusly.  Second, a recent-ish remark by Picketty that Americans probably have a higher income than the French because they work more seemed a bit daft for a serious scholar, but I didn't see the entire exchange.  It will be interesting to see if this work has the impact the author hopes it does.  Me, I think I should read Robert Gordon's paper Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds first, and get some heavyweight analysis in before digesting a bigger work aimed at a bigger audience.

[Moonfish]

Funnily enough, I did attempt to see Strindberg's excellent paintings, but the museum is closed for renovations.

Yes, he does have some interesting paintings although I always tended to look at his writings.  Wild swirling raw paintings...
Somehow this one reminds me of El Greco.. hmmm..

[Florestan]

I'm not sure when this inflationary surge tapered off; it would have been sometime in the 1600s. 
This is probably something Todd or Florestan might be able to clarify.

Not me, I'm not an economist. Todd is much more qualified than me --- and lo!, he delivered. 

[Karl Henning]

. . . With a Kindle it's hard to go back and look.

One word: highlights

. . . a note may be better.  I really do enjoy this feature of the e-books, particularly, the knowledge that I can "mark up" a book at will, without spoiling physical property.

[Cato]

Inflation certainly existed in premodern times.   Anytime you read about a government debasing coinage,  you're reading about the ancient/medieval version of printing fiat money.    In fact, inflation in the later Roman Empire was so bad that Diocletian introduced some of the strictest wage and price controls in history.  (They didn't work, of course.)  Did he actually say that?  If so, his value as an economist is seriously in doubt.

Amen!

And yes, inflation existed at many points in ancient and medieval times.  Crushing taxation and inflation and other such policies showed the lack of imagination in attacking the assorted problems of the later empire: when a "solution" was not working, the solution to that failure was to increase the dosage of the failing solution.

Sound familiar?   

[Karl Henning]

Presently re-reading The Seven Souls of Chaos Part I: A Center of the Universe

Someday, this will be in publication, and it won't be as big as Stephen King.  Because it's too good for that  0:)