“Why do people write like this?”

by

Virginia Postrel asks, in response to:

[. . .]

I think you might fail to consider that religious progressives might finally awaken from their decades long slumber to answer the call against idolatry. One can cherish the “feminine” without relying on post-capitalist constructions of the “feminine” to acknowledge the embodiedness of gender. One can be LGBT friendly without becoming a materialist or a vulgar libertarian.

[. . .]

She has a point, though I suspect that few people really do write like that except in academia or related fields. For those people who do write as in the sample above, perhaps the writing style functions mainly as an indicator of group solidarity. Whereas prospective street-gang members might have to commit crimes to prove that their allegiance to the gang tops their allegiance to the law and outsiders, so perhaps are members of some academic disciplines (“disciplines”?) expected to write incomprehensible jargon to prove their allegiance to the theories and/or values of their fellow savants.

But in terms of actually communicating ideas — assuming that’s really the goal — maybe these people would be better off writing clearly and substituting some more benign ritual (urinating on fire hydrants?) to show solidarity with the intellectual pack.

Economic Policy Contradictions

by

Watching the markets this morning. Third-quarter GDP report comes out stronger than expected. Stock indices and the dollar take off, bonds dump. Good times seemingly ahead.

Then Treasury Secretary Snow opens his mouth, asserting disingenuously that the U.S. still has a strong-dollar policy, and carping about how China and Japan run monetary policies that actually benefit their domestic economies. The second Bloomberg article linked above puts it well:

Even as he called on China and Japan to adopt policies that might weaken the U.S. currency, Snow insisted “a strong dollar is in the U.S. national interest” because “no country can devalue its way to prosperity.”

The contradictions in Bush’s politically-driven monetary policy are difficult to avoid and are having negative consequences for the securities markets. A usually mild-mannered trader friend of mine, with whom I was having an IM exchange during the Treasury secretary’s testimony, said that the way in which Snow lies about our weak-dollar policy is disgusting. I don’t think that my friend is the only one who thinks this. Stocks and the dollar sold off during Snow’s remarks.

As of 1:00 PM EST stocks have recovered some of their losses. But the losses were unnecessary. Stock market recovery is being held back by bad policy. (Bonds stayed down during all of this. That tells you something. Either there’s going to be continued economic recovery and bonds are going to get killed, or there’s going to be a weaker recovery combined with inflation and a weak dollar and bonds are going to get killed.)

I hope that the Bush people get their act together. Snow reminds me of G. William Miller, about whom an ex-boss of mine once quipped that the T-Bill market moved 50 points whenever he opened his mouth. That was back in the days when markets were opaque enough for insiders to profit consistently from politically induced price swings. Nowadays things are much more open, bid/ask spreads are tight, and unexpected volatility of the Miller/Snow variety is at least as likely to lead to trading losses as to gains. It would be in everyone’s interest for the Bush Administration to shut up, get out of the way, and let the economy follow the path of least resistance.

Happy Halloween

by

ouch

Check out ExtremePumpkins.com.

(Thanks to Chicago Boyz BF and WV.)

The Schiavo Case

by

This is a terrible situation that cannot end well. The short version: woman in long-term coma, husband wants to starve her to death, parents want to keep her alive, judge invests the comatose woman with imaginary death-wish, legislature steps in to keep her alive. Much obfuscatory verbiage has been spread about the case, especially by people wielding the non sequitur “right to die” as though it were a mantra. Moira Breen cuts through the bullshit, here and here and includes many informative links. One of the best links is to an extremely thoughtful analysis by Peter Sean Bradley (scroll down to his top post for October 27 if the wretched Blogspot permalink doesn’t work).

UPDATE: Moira links to another informative post, this one by Carl Zimmer.

Technology? Glamour? — Blogging!

by

She's got our number!

In the city of the future, life’s necessities will be at our fingertips. . .

(Maybe that button should really be labeled: “Pizza”)

I apologize. I had intended to blog about:

-The moral hazard created by government payments to California fire victims, who are thereby encouraged to rebuild their homes in vulnerable areas.

-Or about DARPA, which, despite my carping, does a lot of useful research and has a fascinating website (via Kaedrin) that Lex is on my case to write something about.

-Or about George Bush’s possible coming dilemma: if the economy continues to improve, and the Fed resumes juicing the money supply, and Treasury keeps talking down the dollar, and gold prices keep creeping up, there could start to be a lot of inflation worries — and pressure for Fed tightening — just as the 2004 political season gets into high gear and the President is most vulnerable.

(Does anyone know of a 12-step program for photoshopaholics?)