The Great Enrichment

Last week, the subject of my column was the book, "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. Actually, I guess that Bill Moyer's interview of Jonathan Haidt was my primary focus, but let us not quibble gentlereaders.

I also named and defined a modern malady I call Dizzinformation Anxiety Syndrome. This is the fear that you might miss/have missed/are missing important information. The fact that The Righteous Mind, and the interview, have been loose in the world for a few years without me knowing about them triggered an episode of DAS in yours truly due to the fact the subject of the book is one of my obsessions. That is, the devolution of many of the people who have to share this country, into hardened, uncompromising, semi-religious factions that demonize each other's viewpoints and lifestyles. I wonder if this phenomenon reminds anyone besides me of Sunni v. Shia Muslims?

It occurs to me that I'm aware of some information that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves, in my semi-humble opinion. As a public service, I've decided to dedicate a column to it for I think that it should be getting much more attention that it is  -- you're welcome.

First, a caveat. I may be wrong, about this or anything really, a phenomenon that occurs with disturbing regularity. I mention this not because of modesty, false or otherwise; I'm semi-humble, not humble. But I believe that an attitude of healthy skepticism is more important than ever since we must be ever vigilant if we wish to avoid being dizzinformationated by the daily deluge of data delivered during this, the Dizzinformation age.

See Twain, Mark: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

[Were I truly humble I'd be a Zen monk and keep my thoughts/opinions/observations and the like to myself instead of putting them out there in front of a potential audience of some 7,404,976,783 people. Though my current readership is slightly smaller than that, I'm cautiously optimistic.]

So, there's this woman, her name is Deirdre McCloskey, who describes herself on her website as, "...a literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, progressive Episcopalian, Midwestern woman from Boston who was once a man. Not 'conservative'! I'm a Christian libertarian. "

[For the record, I'm a semi-literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, agnostic, Midwestern man from Pittsburgh who remains a man. Not conservative! I'm a bleeding heart libertarian. As you see, there's some overlap. Unfortunately (for me), I'm a dilettante, she's a genius.] 

As far as academia is concerned she's Dr. Deirdre McCloskey, the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English and Communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago. None of the words in the preceding sentence are adjectives, they are bestowed upon her by her university. That's her official title, and it also serves as an accurate job description.

Incidentally, Deirdre used to be Daniel. She made the trans-formation back in 1995. Daniel/Diedre was a transexual long before being transexual was cool and/or politically correct. If the details are of interest to you, she wrote a book about it called, "Crossing, a Memoir."

Ms. McCloskey has spent the last ten years of her life writing a series of three books, her masterwork, the culmination of a lifetime of study that will make her (if there's any justice in the world) immortal in her field. She has a lot of fields (see above), but calls herself an economic historian.

There's unlikely to be a movie based on any of the three books in question. And in fact, I don't recommend them for the average Joe or Joan Bagadonuts. They are semi-scholarly tomes, written primarily for other scholars and nerdsihly inclined dilettantes (not unlike myself) that posit/explain/defend her take on economic history. I'm definitely not a scholar. However, there's much here for a dilettante (like myself) with an interest in not only economic history but history in general. She has a depth of knowledge that enables her to effortlessly synthesize economic history and myriad other subjects and construct a big picture view of how the real world actually works. She's a dilettante's delight, and has a great sense of humor. The books are:

The Bourgeois Virtues, Bourgeois Dignity and Bourgeois Equality.

She began her academic career studying economics because she wanted to know what economic/political system was the best for poor people. She became a Marxist but gradually morphed into a wild-eyed free marketeer, just like me! Other than the fact that I've never actually identified myself as a Marxist, haven't had a distinguished career, haven't published numerous books and articles and traveled all over the world teaching/speechifying/attending conferences with other brainiacs -- we have a lot in common.

Now, while accurately distilling the essence of three fat volumes into one column is a disservice to the author, the message is so important I'm going to attempt it anyway. If you wish to find out if I know what I'm talking about you can read the books, or, surf the plethora of articles and video content available on the web.

The Great Enrichment began around 1800. Suddenly, after thousands of  years of 99.9% of the world subsisting on the modern equivalent of about three bucks a day, the global economy went nuts. From 1800 till now the real income of the citizens of the planet Earth increased by anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000%. In the US, for example, we've gone from $3/day to $135/day.

Professor McCloskey's three books explain the who/what/when/where/why of this phenomenon. Continuing my vast over-simplification: It happened because beginning in Holland, around 1600, the values of a liberated bourgeoisie (the middle class, but thanks to Marx and company a word that's now often as not used with contempt) were applied to markets.

In the words of the professor, "The answer, in a word, is 'liberty.' Liberated people, it turns out, are ingenious. Slaves, serfs, subordinated women, people frozen in a hierarchy of lords or bureaucrats are not. By certain accidents of European politics, having nothing to do with deep European virtue, more and more Europeans [and eventually Americans] were liberated. You might call it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

"To use another big concept, what came -- slowly, imperfectly -- was equality. It was not an equality of outcome..." it was "...equality before the law and equality of social dignity."

"And that is the other surprising notion explaining our riches: 'liberalism,' in its original meaning of, 'worthy of a free person.' Liberalism was a new idea."

For the record: slavery, imperialism, and/or the exploitation of any group by any other group didn't make us rich. Ms. McCloskey systematically and empirically destroys such arguments. DAT that I am, permit me to persist in oversimplification and ask -- as does Dr. McCloskey does, if the infidelic behavior mentioned above made a given culture rich, why, since that was the way of the world for millennia, why was our take home pay stagnant for several thousand years and then jump by 5,000% over the last two hundred?

I must stop now since I've exceeded my word budget. So, I'm going to violate company policy again this week and leave you with two links and let the co-founder of humanomics speak for herself. The first is a 10 minute, well-done quickie that covers all the basics.

The essentials

The second is a lecture given in India. It goes into more detail but is entertaining, easy to understand, and is about 40 minutes long.

A little more detail

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.

Demonization (Is there an exorcist in the House? The Senate?)

Click here after you read this column. 

This is the first time I've included a link in a column. I'm violating policy because this is a very important link. The logic behind why I don't put limit the quantity of links in my columns can be found by clicking on the Read This First Please tab Just Who Is This Guy tab on my website, TheFlyoverlandCrank.com. (Many of my gentlereaders access my columns without visiting my website.)

The subject and title of a recent column was the Dizzinformation Age. I defined Dizzinformation syndrome (DS) as dizzy from too much information -- correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory. I failed to mention Dizzinformation Anxiety Syndrome (DAS), a closely related malady that often manifests concurrently with DS. DAS is the fear that you might miss/have missed/are missing a highly important bit of information.

Highly important is a relative phrase. For example, it could refer to the fact that you forgot to acknowledge your obnoxious aunt Eunice's birthday. This is important because she's sitting on a significant pile of dough. Although she's unlikely to bequeath a significant amount of the aforementioned significant pile to you (it's complicated), you figure that odds are you're going to get something if she ever finally dies. 

Alternatively, any information of quality about how H. sapiens actually function in the real world on a day to day basis, as opposed to how you wish they did/hope they do may be highly important to you also, for any number of valid reasons.

While the former would seem, generally speaking, less important than the latter, both are important, both can trigger DAS.

I recently discovered a book, that I haven't read yet (more on that in a sec') titled, "The Righteous Mind," by Jonathan Haidt that was published in 2013. The subtitle, "Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," embodies a passionate interest of mine and is easily conflatable with the desire to know how folks actually function in the real world mentioned above.

I've purchased the book and haven't read it yet because I'm mildly obsessed with the video that clicking on the link above will connect you to. Bill Moyers, well known progressive, interviews the author, a moral psychologist who claims his work has moved him from a moderate liberal stance to that of a moderate conservative. It's an excellent interview and while I'm sure there's additional insight in the book, the interview reveals the important stuff.

I'm obsessed with the video for two reasons -- the tone and the substance.

As to tone, the interview consists of 47 minutes and 9 seconds of two intelligent gentlepersons exploring a subject of interest to us all most people. All the while they both listen carefully to what the other guy is saying, or asking (it is an interview after all); at no point does the conversation devolve into shouting or talking over or interrupting or displays of self-righteous fury. Not very infotaining. Well, at least by the standards of the average cable news show.

As to substance, the fact that I, your DAT (dilettante about town) was unaware of the book or the interview triggered a dizzinformation anxiety attack. A well-spoken Ph.D., whose field is moral psychology (a subject I find endlessly fascinating), wrote a book and gave a great interview about a subject I'm obsessed with (see subtitle), and has compiled an impressive array of studies that seem to confirm most of my thoughts and opinions on the subject in question.

And I, a semi-humble DAT, with 39 certified college credits, missed it.

Of course, so did a lot of other people. The sales of the book in question were/are a tiny fraction of any given book of the Harry Potter series. I went poking around the web to try and make myself feel better and became deeply depressed when I discovered that it was once on the N.Y. Times bestseller list. However, I then discovered that discovering how many copies of given book have actually been sold is impossible; the veracity of the Times list is a matter of some controversy. I'm feeling much better now.

As I said, I haven't read it yet, but the interview absolutely drips with insight into our current mess and when I'm king...

[Marie-Louise rolls her eyes, my imaginary gentlereader scoffs. Dana. What's that? Dana, I'm tired of being called imaginary gentlereader, my name is Dana, OK? Yeah, sure, whatever you say, what prompted... Just move on, OK? Um, yeah, sure.]

Anyway, I can't recommend watching this interview enough. Ironically, Mr. Haidt did a TED talk that I vaguely remember watching, and enjoying, but it was quite awhile ago and doesn't delve into the subject with quite the same amount of insight or present nearly as many subtle details.

You really should watch the interview. Here's a summary of Mr. Haidt's thesis if you don't want to, or to help you decide if you wish to spend some of your valuable time. Honestly, however, I'm doing it mostly for me. Writing helps/forces me to clarify concisely and I want to burn his ideas into my head as I think they are that important.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republicrat, one of the first important ones, and he freed the slaves. Many folks in the South took umbrage at this and the South became a Depublican stronghold. Yes, those of you who are historically challenged, the Republicans (traditional but now inaccurate name) freed the slaves; the Democrats (traditional but equally inaccurate name) gave us Jim Crow and the KKK.

Ain't that ironical.

[For the record, I use the names I do because although the parties have lost the ability to compromise over the years in order to do what's best for the republic, they both agree, strongly, on the same principle, that obtaining and keeping power is job one. Beats having to get a real job.]

And then in the early sixties, Lyndon Johnson put together a bipartisan effort and destroyed the obscenity that was/is Jim Crow. A certain element in the South once again took umbrage and turned Republicrat, feeling abandoned and looking for revenge. Then the Baby Boomers began taking over from the Greatest Generation and began redefining the Depublican party. This was the beginning of (what I call) the Great Fragmentation. As Mr. Haidt puts it, both parties began moving towards logically extreme positions. Liberal Republicrats and conservative Depublicans began to disappear.

Mr. Haidt points out that it's perfectly normal, and advantageous for survival, for H. sapiens to belong to a tribe of some sort. Cooperation/competition being opposite sides of the same coin, this can be a good thing if a balance is maintained. We can cooperate by competing in everything from sports to business to politics, to pursue excellence but stay friends -- if we share common goals, share the same country, and avoid a culture that is defined by Us v. Them.

This was relatively easy for the Greatest Generation. They had to compete/cooperate to survive the Great Depression and then World War Two. The threat of economic collapse/starvation followed by the threat of death/enslavement by another culture served to unite a nation of rugged individualists. A general consensus as to what constituted a moral lifestyle -- though we must acknowledge there was, as there always is, much hypocrisy -- also helped.

Very long story short: The rise of the most pampered/indulged/prosperous generation in American history -- at least till the rise of the Millennials, and now the Snowflakes -- was upon us. The moral and cultural consensus was replaced, in an amazingly short time, by if it feels good do it we'll sort out the consequences later ethos.

Compromise was replaced by Us v. Them. Consensus, even geographical consensus, is vanishing. We've separated into, as Mr. Haidt says, lifestyle enclaves -- physical/emotional/political/moral -- from where we can comfortably throw rocks at the other tribes.

Manichaeism is back on the charts kids, with a bullet. Hey, buddy, you're not just wrong, you're evil, and you can't compromise with the devil. Please watch the interview, eye-opening stuff, I promise.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Hall Boys

I've finally stumbled on a "reality show" that I like. I don't wish to cast any aspersions on the genre's fans, it just doesn't appeal to me. It's not snobbery of any sort. I don't understand the appeal of abstract art, opera or caviar either, but there's nay shortage of people that are smarter than I that do. Incidentally, when I become king I'm going to order that henceforth aspersions will cast at, not on, not even upon, someone or something. But that has nothing to do with the reality show I recently stumbled upon so I'm not going to get into it. Did you know that upon and on can be used interchangeably without having to worry about the jack booted thugs of the grammar police kicking in your door at 3 AM? I...

[Cough, cough. Marie-Louise, my muse, can exactly duplicate the dry, fake cough of Sister Mary Eunice made when she would appear out of nowhere when my fellow unworthy sinners and I were pitching pennies or discussing the definitions of bad words.]

Sorry. Oh, before I forget, I mentioned last week that the subject of this week's column would be demonization. Due to technical difficulties...etc, it's been moved to next week. Anyway, the reality show in question is called, "Manor House," and ran back in 2002. It would seem I'm running a bit behind. Amazon, or rather one of its algorithms, recommended it to me after I recently binge watched "Downton Abbey." I told you I was running a bit behind.

The premise of the show is that it's a depiction of what life would have been like for a bunch of folks living in a huge manor house, in Scotland, at the turn of the last century. The lives of the (newly rich) masters, a family of five, and their (newly minted) slaves servants (14 of them) are offered up for our entertainment via a typical unreality show format. You may have noticed, or at least heard, that alleged reality shows are somewhat different from, and strive to be much more entertaining than, actual reality. This particular show is no exception.

When I'm king (I'm feeling rather monarchical this week), I'm going to order that all high school students, grade year to be determined, will be required to participate in a series of ungraded seminars. For lack of a better term (I've just come up with this idea so I'm little light on details) let's call them the Reality Check Series. The point/purpose is to give the students a realistic grounding in how life actually works/worked to prevent snowflake syndrome going forward, coupled with an appreciation of how crappy life actually was for almost everyone nay very long ago.

The reason Manor House got me to thinking about this is because although it contains all the required unreality elements of reality shows, it still offers much in the way of useful reality checks.

What I mean by the elements of unreality are simply all the stories/rumours/innuendo/etc. surrounding any given reality show. Poke the bear production tricks that have leaked and/or are leaked and designed to manipulate the participants/masses.

Manipulate the participants into providing entertainment for the masses and manipulate the masses for the enrichment of the industry behind the cameras. A new millennial version of Depression-era dance marathons.

As to useful reality checks, an example if you please. Downton Abbey includes "hall boys," but just barely and the term is never defined. Manor House, on the other hand, features a hall boy that literally lives in the hall. Nay, really. In the Scottish manor house where Manor House takes place, the hall boy literally lives in a hall. There's a tiny Murphy bed that folds out of one of the halls walls, and that's where he sleeps. His room is a Murphy bed in a room that's not a room. Yikes!

There's nay a lot of information available about hall boys, even using my usual method for conducting in-depth research -- google a word or phrase and see what happens. The life of a DAT (dilettante about town) requires vigilant prioritising and a ruthless devotion to moving on.

[Manor House is full of Scottish accents, which is why I've become mildly, and hopefully only temporarily, obsessed with using nay, instead of no or not. I'm resisting rolling my r's, so far, but only because I'm nay vera gooud very good at it.]

However, I did manage to ferret out a few facts beyond the appalling one mentioned above. Hall boys, along with their female counterparts, scullery maids, occupied the lowest positions in a rigid hierarchy that began with the master of the house and ended with them.

One of their many duties was to serve as servants to servants that were further up the food chain than they were, and often they were literally boys. They got up first, went to bed last, often worked 16 hour days and couldn't count on a day off. Two words: chamber pots.

This was all considered perfectly normal for centuries and didn't start changing till about a hundred years ago. While a century may seem like a long time to some of you, particularly to those fortunate enough to be slightly younger than I (62.75 chronologically, 39 spiritually), consider the fact that my father was born in 1911, and it was only a couple of years ago that I was being terrorised by Sister Mary Eunice.

Back to reality checks. What have we learned Dorothies? While nay one should have to live/have lived like this, more did than didn't, and nay that long ago. Many still do. I refer not only to the lives of slaves/servants. Till roughly 1800, when The Great Enrichment took off (the subject of this column the week after next), almost everyone on the planet lived short, drudgery-filled lives, and always had.

Manor House is worth a watch for one other reason in my semi-humble opinion. I made reference to the clearly defined and rigidly enforced hierarchy of the household, which mirrored the English class system that had begun to crumble but was still very much in place.

The people of the current era that were assembled for this elaborate game of pretend start going native in the very first episode. It's fascinating to watch how easily they assume the mores of their forebears, mostly I suspect, without being aware of it.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.