|
Following is one of
the more fascinating emails I have ever received. It is from reader Sally Odland who every year partakes in a "different
ritual" celebration on New Year's Eve, a tradition she picked up on a
trip to Ecuador.
Sally writes ...
Dear Mish,
I can't thank you enough for writing your blog. It's become my go-to stop for
rational economic analysis.
Thought you might enjoy these photos of another kind of New Year's
celebration....a tradition we picked up on a trip to Ecuador.
Each New Year's Eve, our family explores the detritus of the last week to
reveal the essence of the departing year. From trash emerges the effigy of
the passing year, which we burn at the stroke of midnight.
This year's cornucopia of discounted personal luxury ads embodied the
illusionary idea that we can (must!) buy our way to economic health. In doing
so, the consumer becomes "The Consumed".
Wishing you true prosperity in 2011.
Sally Odland
Croton-on-Hudson, NY
I feel obliged to point out the exceptionally funny fine print "Once In
A Lifetime" just above the words "Twice Yearly Sale" in the
second and third photos.
Sally Writes ...
Effigy was collaborative montage assembled -
literally - at the 11th hour by me, my husband Bruce, sons Max and Michael
and Max's girlfriend Susannah. My sons laid the fire. Photos shot by Bruce.
Face was cut from NY Times Magazine issue "The Lives They Lived".
It is Philippa Foot, moral philosopher, author of
"Natural Goodness".
Her face was the right size and shape. However, her philosophy is strangely
relevant to the theme.
From the article: She "became troubled by a central assumption of
20th-century moral philosophy: that facts and values are logically
independent."
Sally
The
Trolley Problem
Please consider the New York Times article Philippa Foot, Renowned
Philosopher, Dies at 90
Philippa
Foot, a philosopher who argued that moral judgments have a rational basis,
and who introduced the renowned ethical thought experiment known as the
Trolley Problem, died at her home in Oxford, England, on Oct. 3, her 90th
birthday.
In 1967, in the essay “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the
Double Effect,” she discussed, using a series of provocative examples,
the moral distinctions between intended and unintended consequences, between
doing and allowing, and between positive and negative duties — the duty
not to inflict harm weighed against the duty to render aid.
The most arresting of her examples, offered in just a few sentences, was the
ethical dilemma faced by the driver of a runaway trolley hurtling toward five
track workers. By diverting the trolley to a spur where just one worker is on
the track, the driver can save five lives.
Clearly, the driver should divert the trolley and kill one worker rather than
five.
But what about a surgeon who could also save five lives — by killing a
patient and distributing the patient’s organs to five other patients
who would otherwise die? The math is the same, but here, instead of having to
choose between two negative duties — the imperative not to inflict harm
— as the driver does, the doctor weighs a negative duty against the
positive duty of rendering aid.
The philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson added two complications to the Trolley
Problem that are now inseparable from it.
Suppose, she suggested, that the bystander observes the impending trolley
disaster from a footbridge over the tracks and realizes that by throwing a
heavy weight in front of the trolley he can stop it.
As it happens, the only available weight is a fat man standing next to him.
Most respondents presented with the problem saw a moral distinction between
throwing the switch and throwing the man on the tracks, even though the end
result, in lives saved, was identical.
The paradoxes suggested by the Trolley Problem and its variants have engaged
not only moral philosophers but neuroscientists, economists and evolutionary
psychologists. It also inspired a subdiscipline
jokingly known as trolleyology, whose swelling body
of commentary “makes the Talmud look like CliffsNotes,”
the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah
wrote in his book “Experiments in Ethics” (2008).
Global Progression of "Being Consumed
By Consumption"
Philosophical pontifications aside, it is fascinating to watch the global
progression of "Being Consumed By Consumption".
The property bubble in the US, Ireland, and Spain took its toll. Yet, "It's Different Here" thinking runs deep in Australia,
Canada, and China.
It's not different anywhere.
Once home prices exceed people's ability to pay for them and/or home prices
exceed the cost of renting, crashes are all but inevitable. I do not care
what commodity prices are or how many people allegedly want to move someplace
(think Miami, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Sydney, Shanghai), home prices
exceeding rental prices or wage growth by multiple standard deviations is a
sign of a bubble that will pop.
Miami, Phoenix, and Las Vegas have seen crashes. So will Vancouver, Sydney,
and Shanghai. Indeed, the longer the delay, the bigger the crash.
The warning signs of over-consumption in Australia, Canada, the UK, and China
are flashing red. However, it's far to
late to do anything about them. The interest rate match has been lit in
Australia and China, but it is irrelevant.
Interest rates hikes or not, global property bubbles and consumerism in
general are going up in flames just as the trash of reader Sally Odland did at the stroke of midnight on new year's eve.
Mish
GlobalEconomicAnalysis.blogspot.com
To
sign up for a free copy of Sitka’s Monthly Client Newsletter,
please register your email address at the bottom of the Sitka Pacific
Commentary Page.
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Thoughts
on the great inflation/deflation/stagflation debate as well as discussions on
gold, silver, currencies, interest rates, and policy decisions that affect
the global markets.
|
|