Convergences

Rhett Butler Comes to Washington . .

. . . is the title of a new article over at The American. It starts with some references to Prof. Luigi Zingales' fine "Capitalism After the Crisis" in the new journal National Affairs, in which he riffs on the distinction between "pro-business" and "pro-market," and goes on to discuss the increasingly destructive nature of Washington influence peddling.

Some excerpts:

Since business is business, companies can adopt the philosophy of Rhett Butler in “Gone with the Wind,” that as much money can be made from a civilization’s destruction as from its rise. Furthermore, while it might be thought to raise some problems of personal ethics, management can take the next step and say they owe it to the shareholders to help that destruction along if that is where the opportunities are.

However, it is unlikely that the increasingly mutinous middle class will understand such fine points of corporate and Washington ethics, or forgive a business culture that promotes destruction and stagnation.

  And:

[W]hile one cannot escape one’s time, and if destruction is at hand it is reasonable to go into the salvage business, it would be wiser for businesses to band together to defend free market culture and make their money from our civilization’s rise instead.

Yes - I know that Rhett was not actually a scoundrel. Parse his words carefully, and you note that he himself would not destroy, even if he would profit from destruction caused by others. Rhett was continually a builder and an admirer of builders, with a contempt for the vaporous upper classes of the Old South.

The Role of Emotion in Public Policy

For some time now, my economist friends have had to put up with my dabbling in economics. See, e.g.  They will be relieved to hear that I am presently more interested in psychology.

The role of emotion in policy (as opposed to politics) does not get much direct or systematic attention as such in the policy community. Perhaps we are all pretending that it is not there, because in one sense it ought not be there. One might say that people ought to decide among policy options objectively, and choose the best policy based on rational considerations and evidence. Of course this is not entirely possible. There is no point in asking people not to feel things. Since there is nothing to be done, perhaps there is nothing to be said, either?

My take is that this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. To start, we certainly do not know for certain there is nothing to be done until after some sort of discussion or analysis is complete. let me set out a few personal observations to serve as a starting point.

Can Science Rule Society?

The Obama administration has been greeted with enthusiasm by scientists who see the potential for “research-based policy.” Reason, not ideology, will govern. The New Scientist, among other zines, headlines “Let Science Rule: the Rational Way to Run Societies.” (May 28, p. 40-43) This is part of a larger theme: Behavioral economics is taking off.

Beltway Birdwatching

As I sit at the window of my home office, I can hear and see small flocks of law professors passing overhead, going south in the hope of advising the new administration. Well feathered with footnotes, they are insulated against the chilly economic climate. Law professors are sometimes confused with a closely related species, lawyers. Adding to the confusion is the juvenile form of the law professor, the Supreme Court clerk, which closely resembles the lawyer. Lawyers may be readily identified by their sleek dark plumage, courtesy, and fancy cars, and they generally aggregate in large numbers at the break of day. Law professors may be distinguished by their drab plumage, solitary habits, abstracted air, and long monologues. Lawyers and economists readily share nesting and feeding grounds, but there may be some concern that the law professors will displace the economists from their favorite nesting sites, for they are a more aggressive and territorial species. All three species, lawyers, economist, and law professors, are distinguished by their large bills.