There Was A Debate On TV Last Night

There was a political debate on TV last night. No, I'm not talking about those loons who screamed over each other on FOX News. This one was in Canada. For the sake of brevity, I won't go into details about the arguments and who scored what points against whom, but here is my slept-on slightly cooled hot take:

I found Mulcair to be somewhat restrained (despite his reputation, deserved or otherwise, to be condescending and pugnacious), while Trudeau looked uncomfortable at times trying to deliver some rehearsed set pieces (those closing remarks, amirite?). Harper was... Harper. May appeared to rise above some of the pettiness and looked quite reasonable and thoughtful by comparison.

Who won the Maclean's debate? Why, the person you like, of course! Whose performance surprised and impressed you? That person you also like, but just a little less than that other person you like. Who lost? Well, I think you already know the answer to that...

Meanwhile, in America:

Screenshot from FOX News, via Gawker

"Creating Freedom: The Lottery Of Birth" (2013): Not All Documentaries Are Created Equal, colon A Rope Of Sand

 "Creating Freedom: The Lottery Of Birth" (2013)
Directed by Raoul Martinez & Joshua van Praag

I downloaded this documentary after IMDb'ing Steven Pinker to see if he was in anything I hadn't already seen. I found Creating Freedom: The Lottery of Birth and saw that Daniel Dennett was also interviewed for the film. Too bad they're only featured for about three or four minutes in the doc just to say that humans are tribal and have evolved to trust their parents (and by extension, authority figures in general). Beyond that, there's little reason to give this documentary your time. Curiously, and despite the title, the real implications of the lottery of birth is scarcely explored. No, we do not choose the time, place, and to whom we are born. But the documentary makes only a passing reference to this rather obvious (though seldom recognized) fact before moving on to how none of this would matter if we were only able to overcome those nefarious social systems put in place to prevent us from being truly free... WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

If you already know a little about the human animal through the writings of smart people, this does not offer much in the way of anything new. The narration is a little over the top, and vaguely conspiratorial at times, what with references to shadowy Elites meeting in secret boardrooms trying to figure out why people are so hard to control in a democracy. The interviews with prominent scientists and other authors serve only to create a tenuous link between what we can reasonably say about what humans are actually like and the filmmaker's outlandish narrative about how society is organized to limit your freedom (as though there is such an attainable thing in the first place).

If you're interested in the brain, read something like Steven Pinker's How The Mind Works, or even something with a narrower scope like Michael Gazzaniga's Who's In Charge?. For the psychology of the self, check out Bruce Hood's The Self Illusion. And to learn more about how and why individuals slip easily into roles they otherwise would never imagine they could (Milgram experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib, etc), pick up Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect. These are just a few titles off the top of my head, and could probably name a few more if I put in the effort, but these books are a good place for the uninitiated to start as any.

Currently Reading: "The End Of The Free Market" by Ian Bremmer

Advocates of pure capitalism insist that the "invisible hand" must be allowed to work its magic - and that any effort by government to guide its actions can only burden markets and distort their natural operation. Others argue that [Adam Smith's] writings on morality and natural empathy suggest that Smith would reject much of the libertarian dogma justified in his name. In any case, pure capitalism has never existed in the real world, and only the most ideologically committed of economic anarchists believe that it should. Markets can't meet every human need, fear and greed ensure that markets will never work perfectly, and no market participant enjoys perfect information.

The End Of The Free Market by Ian Bremmer

Those last points about why pure capitalism will never be able to operate perfectly in the real world (i.e. a giant ball of dirt floating in space inhabited by psychotic apes) seems so obvious as to be scarcely worth singling out for emphasis. Ignoring seemingly basic facts about reality is typical of extreme economic ideologies, whether they be utopian visions of anarcho-capitalism or communism. But hey, a man can dream, right?

With The Collapse Of Globalism still fresh in my memory, Bremmer's book is helping me understand the mechanics and goals of the kind of state capitalism that is practiced by some nations, particularly China. After the financial crisis of 2008/2009, we saw the rise of state intervention into the more 'free' economies of the West. This prompted some who were skeptical of global free markets to further question the ability of laissez-faire capitalism to provide sustainable growth, while bolstering their own position that the state should play a role in guiding economies to meet certain public and political goals.

I likes me some Ian Bremmer, and his G-Zero book greatly influenced how I've come to view international politics and the power of nation states to act and lead on the global stage. The End Of The Free Market is proving to be an equally enjoyable and informative read.

Currently Reading: "The Collapse Of Globalism" by John Ralston Saul

Global economics came to be presented as a tool to weaken government, discourage taxes both on corporations and on the top bracket of earners, force deregulation and, curiously enough, to strengthen private sector technocracies in large corporations to the disadvantage of real capitalists and entrepreneurs. That predilection for the large over the small meant that the Globalization movement would actively and quite naturally favour the limitation of real competition.

The Collapse Of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World, by John Ralston Saul

So I purchased this book probably seven or eight years ago and it has been sitting on my shelf unread ever since. That is, until I picked it up last night (after finishing that new Zodiac book). Why did I buy it? I didn't know who John Ralston Saul was then, and I sure don't know who he is now. I think I just liked the title and cover, and it looked like something a smart person should probably read. 

In all honesty, I don't feel I'm quite smart enough to be reading this now, let alone when it was first released. But I'm getting the gist here and there, about how economists and governments bought into the ideology and promise of globalized free markets and that accepting economics as the dominate force in shaping Civilization became viewed as an inevitability. 

I'm right there with you, Saul.

Apparently this book was reissued in 2009 after the financial crises with a new epilogue. I have the hardcover first edition, so I get to read it for the first time in the context of a prediction that appears to have later been vindicated.

For the record, I also have an unread copy of John Ralston Saul's "A Fair Country" -- it, too, has a rather attractive cover: