Globally Rational

You are browsing the archives of Social classes.

This is another in my set of “Sunday Rewinds”, where I re-post one of my favorite articles that I wrote back when nobody was reading. FYI, the status of North Korea has changed a little bit since I first wrote the article.

Wikipedia defines “terrorism” as “violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.” Here are some examples of accepted terrorist organizations:

• —Al-Qaeda, for obvious reasons.
• —The Irish Republican Army (IRA), which conducts violent attacks in an attempt to promote the independence of Northern Ireland from the UK.
• —Hamas, a political party that is said to sponsor violence against Israel.
• —Khmer Rouge, a violent Communist group that controlled Cambodia for part of the 1970s.
• —The Ku Klux Klan, which is responsible for ethnic/racial violence in the US.

Anyway, you get the point. But what about state-sponsored terrorism? We spent a lot of time, resources, and money fighting many of the small groups: for instance, we fought al-Qaeda and the Khmer Rouge directly (with heavy casualties) and we fought Hamas by supplying money and weapons to their targets. Meanwhile, we ignore state-sponsored issues:

• —China’s atrocities against Tibetans speak for themselves, but China is still hosting the Olympics and is still one of our biggest trading partners. They also don’t let the local media tell their residents about the violence, while the Great Firewall of China prevents any Chinese residents from accessing international news.
• —North Korea is as dangerous as ever and, unlike al-Qaeda and Iraq, they have weapons of mass destruction. We seem to just ignore them.
• —Israel still continues to kill far more Palestinian civilians than vice versa. Why do we continue to pay for them to do it?
• —We ignore state-sponsored terrorism in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia/Eritrea, but we are all over it every time it touches Yugoslavia. My guess is that it’s because it’s much easier for white America to be sympathetic with white Yugoslavia. It’s also interesting that the news never mentions that the terrorism in Yugoslavia was primarily non-Muslims killing Muslims, but they always mention religion when Muslims kill non-Muslims. The same thing happens in Israel… it’s never “Jews killing Muslims”, but you hear a lot about “Muslims killing Jews/Israelis”, even though the former is much more common than the latter.
• —And, of course, there are the allegations of US sponsorship of terrorism, which seem to be irrefutable. Take a look at the link.

It’s hard to make a conclusion with such a small data set… but it’s good food for thought. This tells you a lot about how the US, as a nation, feels about various groups. We tend to ignore all evidence that is contrary to whatever issue it is that we want to support. We want to support China, so the Tibetans are irrelevant and the Olympics will continue. We want to support Yugoslavia, so we make Rwanda less important (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was very efficient and took care of the issues… the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, on the other hand, has accomplished almost nothing). I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t help Israel or Yugoslavia… but I think we should find a way to help Tibet and Rwanda at the same time instead of discriminating heavily in favor of one or the other.

Leave a comment and tell me what you think about this one. There are many possible explanations and conclusions, and I think we’d all like to see different opinions.

Popularity: 38% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 38% [?]

About a week ago, I wrote about how humanity seems to be disturbingly close to the mass die-off that Thomas Malthus predicted 200 years ago. In that last week, I’ve come across a huge amount of additional evidence suggesting that this theoretical catastrophe might soon become a reality:

• Food riots have been taking place around the world; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is suggesting that this may lead to social instability.
• The use of corn ethanol as an energy source is causing a rise in the price of corn, which means that many people can no longer afford it.
• People in Haiti have resorted to eating mud.
• A US envoy is visiting North Korea, of all places, to provide food aid.

And that’s just a short list of stories I’ve happened to encounter. I’ll keep following this issue in the future; stay tuned to see what else is going on. The striking thing about this problem is the fact that in Western countries like the US, we’re facing an “obesity epidemic” at the same time as this “starvation epidemic.”

Popularity: 49% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 49% [?]

I recently read (in The Economist) about a study showing that over the course of the last 30 years, conservatives have consistently claimed to be “very happy” more often than liberals. Many people try to use this data to say that conservatism directly causes happiness… but before arriving at a conclusion like that, we need to examine the causality.

So, like I always do, I decided to parse the data about the demographics of liberals vs. conservatives. I found a study included 9 overall groups; there were three major groups for liberals, conservatives, and moderates and each had three subgroups for different socioeconomic backgrounds. They surveyed the different groups and published the data, which seems to be very telling.

I think there are a few interesting explanations for why conservatives are happier:

1. Graduate degrees
   Among the 9 political groups in the study, the most liberal people were the most likely to be highly educated (postgraduate degree); as everybody seems to agree, “ignorance is bliss”… so a more educated person is less likely to be satisfied with the world.
2. Bachelor’s degrees
   Among people of a lower socioeconomic status, conservatives were more likely to be moderately educated (undergraduate degree) than liberals; this suggests that less advantaged conservatives are more likely to be successful than less advantaged liberals, which would probably make the conservatives happier.
3. Wealth
   Conservatives are more likely to be wealthy (income over $75,000/year) than moderates or liberals. Liberals are more likely to disagree with the statement “paying the bills is not generally a problem” and to agree with the statement “I often can’t make ends meet.” Without the added stress of working overtime and falling behind on bills, I think it’s obvious that a group would be happier on average. Money may not buy happiness, but lack of money does lead to unhappiness.
4. Family
   Conservatives are more likely than moderates/liberals to be married and have children; companionship tends to make a person more content with their life.
5. Optimism
   Among people with a relatively disadvantaged socioeconomic background, conservatives are far more optimistic than liberals. This group of people was told that “people can get ahead with hard work”; conservatives agreed in 76% of cases, while liberals agreed in only 14% of cases. A similar trend was clear with less disadvantaged liberals/conservatives, but it was less drastic.
6. Religion
   Conservatives are the most religious of the three groups and liberals are the least religious, suggesting that conservatives are more likely to believe that God will solve all of their problems.
7. Future
   Conservatives are more likely to be stock traders or small business owners, suggesting that they perceive themselves to be in control of their own future.
8. Pride
   As one would expect, conservatives tend to display the American flag more often than liberals. This leads me to believe that conservatives are more proud and more satisfied with their country.

I think these 8 factors explain why a typical conservative is happier than a typical liberal. Now we can look at the causality: is the political viewpoint causing the happiness or vice versa? In other words, would you be happier if you became more conservative?

Based on the data, I don’t think so. It seems like the causality follows an indirect trend; certain variables lead to both conservatism and happiness, and neither the political viewpoint nor the happiness can predict one another. Optimism and pride seem to cause life satisfaction and conservatism; higher education and pessimism, meanwhile, seem to cause dissatisfaction and liberalism.

Personally, I think it’s better to have more people who are unsatisfied with the status quo… this will lead to change and, eventually, improvement. Of course, we also need plenty of satisfied people to balance them out, so that we’re not constantly changing everything. Overall, it seems that this two-party system (which, as many Americans don’t realize, most countries don’t have) is keeping the US in a delicate balance that has probably contributed greatly to the nation’s success.

Popularity: 67% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 67% [?]

This is the first post from Zartošt, who will (hopefully) be posting regularly in the future. It is the outlook on life of a young man who lives in a free state but is restricted by societal standards.

For freedom, guns fire. For freedom, revolution spreads. For freedom, men kill. For freedom,men die. The sound of the liberty resonates in the hearts of the youth. It ponders the minds of the sages. Does it not boil blood? Could it not soothe the heart? Who but the Self struggles for liberty? Who but the Self can win freedom? Chains are broken everywhere! Bondages are freed! The cries of oppressed are answered. The brave have stood up. Man is now born free yet he remains in chains. I have known them, the free. But I never knew what to do to be one of them.

The crippled will stand for freedom; the deaf will hear the song of liberty; the mute will shout for his freedom; the blind will see freedom. I am not crippled, yet I have never stood up for freedom. I am not deaf, yet I have never heard liberty. I am not mute, yet I have never shouted for freedom.I am not blind, yet I have never seen freedom. I am a child ignorant of the meaning of liberty. My tongue has never tasted the sweetness of liberty. The birds roam the sky freely, the animals call the wild their home. No one ever dare to command them. Could I not have been born one of them? Why must these chains be on me? Why must I carry this cross?

The evil one had chained me on birth. He restrained my tiny hands. The chains hurt my feet. There never was sympathy. Instead, he mocked my misery. He threw the keys to my freedom far;
far beyond my reach. I was but a helpless child breastfed by my mother. My eyes could barely see; my ears could barely hear. I could not speak for myself; I could not defend myself. My intellect had not developed. I did not know where I was. Even Satan had not touched me. I had became a slave to him by birth. I only knew to cry. In pain, I cried till my tears dried. I have no memory of happiness. What had I done against him? Was I not the most innocent? I never knew what was evil. I never had a past, yet my future was in despair. Who was I to curse? Who sinned for my suffering? How wretched is he? Does he not have a heart? Does he not know kindness? Is he human?

The evil had descended for my suffering. Why did the sun laugh at my chains? Why did the earth never weep for me? Why did the wind never calm me? Could fire burn this sin? What holy water could wash his sins away? His actions befuddled me. As the chains strangled me, he became my greatest enemy. I remained ignorant of his identity. I was helpless. I waited eagerly for freedom, for retaliation. Like a lion await his prey, I too awaited for my first chance to avenge my suffering. His death became my purpose in life.

Could the evil one be my mother who breastfed me? But would my own mother restrain me? Was she not the angel who loved her baby? Can she be the vicious? A mother lives for her beloved child. Befuddled, I thought, I could win freedom by being her most beloved. And so I did. I became her child, her shadow, her life, her everything. But it was of no use. My chain restrained me stronger than ever. My mother had been innocent. Angry, I cursed myself for doubting my caring mother. The truth was farther away.

Could the evil one be my Father who guarded me day and night? But would my own father tie me down? Will the same hands that held me from every fall betray me? Will that voice that guided me to the path to righteousness tie me down? A father would die for his child. Befuddled, I thought, I could win my freedom by pleasing my father. So I did. I became his most obedient right hand. But it was of no use. My father had been innocent. Angry, I cursed myself for doubting my compass, my father. The truth was farther away.

Could the evil one be my guru who taught me the fundamentals of life? But would my teacher restrain my mind? Could the instructor of the good be so evil? Will he who showed me light tie me to darkness? A guru can only be pleased by his good student. Befuddled, I thought, I could win my freedom by being his best student. So I did. I became his most diligent, his brightest, his best follower. But it was of no use. My Guru had been innocent. Angry, I cursed myself for doubting my sincere guru. The truth was farther away.

Could the evil one be the world that I called home? But would the world I lived in steal my freedom? Could the ones who fought for freedom take my freedom away? Will the ones who supported me through my life pray for my fall? The world redeems its members. Befuddled, I thought, I could win my freedom by being her supporter. So I did. I became her activist, her ardent supporter, an active member. But it was of no use. The world was innocent. Angry, I cursed myself for doubting the great world. The truth was farther away.

Could the evil one be the God that I lived for? But would the divine, the ultimate good, wish for my restraint? Could the most gracious, kind, God be so cruel? Will the greatest of great chain
me? God saves his servants. Befuddled, I thought, I could win my freedom by become his follower. So I did. I became his slave, his humblest servant. I would happily choose death for his cause. But
it was of no use. God was indeed great. Angry, I cursed myself for doubting my only God, the greatest. The truth was farther away.

Could the evil one be you the curious one? Would you the careful observer be so evil? But I have nothing against you. I never even knew you. You have barely known me. Why would my listener chain me? All you do is listen and observe. Befuddled, I thought, I could win my freedom from you by speaking only the truth. So. I did. I spoke from my heart. But it was of no use. You only listened. Angry I cursed myself for doubting you, the one who wants to know me. The truth was farther away.

So I shouted to the bystanders, the earth and the heavens: who restrained me? why? No one would speak. Silence had plagued them. Who shut their mouths? Who defied them? No one would show me my oppressor. My shadow, have you not witnessed my life? Are you not my twin? Why have you not spoken against this injustice? I chastised the earth, the heavens, and my shadow for silence. But all I could do was cry in pain. I only want freedom. I only want justice. But why will they not show me where I can find it? Why do they let me suffer?

What were they afraid of? Who were to hurt them? Who can stop the sun? Who can bind the earth. So I wandered aimlessly in the chains that plagued my life. Then I heard the strangers speak. I yelled and I heard him. He had been with me for ever. I had known him in my mother’s womb. I had seen him in those mirrors. He knew me more than anyone. He was the evil that defied me my life. The truth was always beside me.

But how could I punish him? What can bring me freedom? Who can break my bonds? Who can deliver me? How could I kill my enemy? How could I hate my eternal enemy? How am I to take my revenge? Now tell me, O’ stranger, how must I avenge?

O’ stranger, I am crippled; I am blind; I am deaf; I am mute. The evil refuses to leave me. The sun still laughs at my chains. The earth still refuse to weep for me. The wind still cares not to calm me. No fire can burn this sin. No water could wash the sins away. But I wish to forget. I wish I didn’t know. I wish I were helpless. Here I am, crying to you my sorrow. But will you listen? O’ Stranger, tell me, how must I avenge?

Popularity: 78% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 78% [?]

The spirit of the American Dream is dying and I think we should save it… maybe even try to spread it around the world (read the first paragraph of this article if you don’t know what the American Dream is).

The traditional American success story is, by no means, extinct. But the more I look around, the more I see people who are satisfied with the status quo. Most of the young people I know have no specific aspirations or plans; instead, they find ways to restructure their life goals according to what seems convenient. I rarely meet people who even have the intention, whether it is realized or not, to provide a better life for their children than what their parents provided for them. And this is the reason why our national growth is deteriorating and the world is laughing at our economy.

Those who know me will be surprised that the last paragraph included phrases like “I rarely meet people” and “most of the young people I know.” So, I’ll cite some hard numbers like I usually do; they come from this report:

• If you’re born into a family whose income is right in the middle quintile ($42k - $54k), you’re more likely to move to a lower quintile (39.5%) than you are to move to a higher quintile (36.5%). Basically, that means that about 63.5% of Americans don’t end up moving up to the next quintile (based on the definition of “quintile”, that number should be much less than 60% in a growing economy… if it’s over 60%, then it’s a bad sign).
• If you live in the US, you’re less likely to break free from your parent’s socioeconomic status than you would be if you lived in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, or Denmark. Among all high-income countries, only the UK has less intergenerational mobility.
• Since 1990, an increasing number of households has been experiencing downward mobility. That number should be decreasing, not increasing.

Take a look at the summary of the report to see more details. My hypothesis is that this happens because in the last few years, we’ve been teaching our kids that “everybody is special” and that “I’ll be proud of you no matter what you do,” so they never get the motivation to accomplish much; the same is not true in most other countries. This is reminiscent of Steven Levitt’s study, which I read about in his best-selling book Freakonomics, whose finding was that the legalization of abortion led to the sudden decrease in crime 20 years later (since the low-income single-parent children, which are more likely to become criminals, were never born).

I’d like to see a study that supports or refutes my hypothesis. Until then, I think that we should consider the fact that it might be healthy for us to occasionally challenge our kids to succeed (even if there are disappointments along the journey) instead of assuring them that it’s okay to fail.

Popularity: 19% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 19% [?]

Wikipedia defines “terrorism” as “violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.” Here are some examples of accepted terrorist organizations:

• Al-Qaeda, for obvious reasons.
• The Irish Republican Army (IRA), which conducts violent attacks in an attempt to promote the independence of Northern Ireland from the UK.
• Hamas, a political party that is said to sponsor violence against Israel.
• Khmer Rouge, a violent Communist group that controlled Cambodia for part of the 1970s.
• The Ku Klux Klan, which is responsible for ethnic/racial violence in the US.

Anyway, you get the point. But what about state-sponsored terrorism? We spent a lot of time, resources, and money fighting many of the small groups: for instance, we fought al-Qaeda and the Khmer Rouge directly (with heavy casualties) and we fought Hamas by supplying money and weapons to their targets. Meanwhile, we ignore state-sponsored issues:

• China’s atrocities against Tibetans speak for themselves, but China is still hosting the Olympics and is still one of our biggest trading partners. They also don’t let the local media tell their residents about the violence, while the Great Firewall of China prevents any Chinese residents from accessing international news.
• North Korea is as dangerous as ever and, unlike al-Qaeda and Iraq, they have weapons of mass destruction. We seem to just ignore them.
• Israel still continues to kill far more Palestinian civilians than vice versa. Why do we continue to pay for them to do it?
• We ignore state-sponsored terrorism in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia/Eritrea, but we are all over it every time it touches Yugoslavia. My guess is that it’s because it’s much easier for white America to be sympathetic with white Yugoslavia. It’s also interesting that the news never mentions that the terrorism in Yugoslavia was primarily non-Muslims killing Muslims, but they always mention religion when Muslims kill non-Muslims. The same thing happens in Israel… it’s never “Jews killing Muslims”, but you hear a lot about “Muslims killing Jews/Israelis”, even though the former is much more common than the latter.
• And, of course, there are the allegations of US sponsorship of terrorism, which seem to be irrefutable. Take a look at the link.

It’s hard to make a conclusion with such a small data set… but it’s good food for thought. This tells you a lot about how the US, as a nation, feels about various groups. We tend to ignore all evidence that is contrary to whatever issue it is that we want to support. We want to support China, so the Tibetans are irrelevant and the Olympics will continue. We want to support Yugoslavia, so we make Rwanda less important (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was very efficient and took care of the issues… the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, on the other hand, has accomplished almost nothing). I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t help Israel or Yugoslavia… but I think we should find a way to help Tibet and Rwanda at the same time instead of discriminating heavily in favor of one or the other.

Leave a comment and tell me what you think about this one. There are many possible explanations and conclusions, and I think we’d all like to see different opinions.

Popularity: 15% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 15% [?]

We hear a lot of propaganda aimed at convincing the American people that Arabs are evil, the war is justified, and America is the best thing that ever happened to the world. Some people believe it all, and some people (i.e. the people who are probably reading this) believe none of it… but did you ever think that just some of it might be true?

All other things aside, the slogans “Land of the Free” and “Land of Opportunity” really do describe two of America’s very unique traits. We often take these facts for granted, but the amount of freedom and opportunity available to the American population is unmatched in the rest of the world. Here, we can speak out for what we believe in (although recently, we’re been losing that privilege). Here, you can be whatever you want to be if you set your mind to it. After you hear those things a million times, you tend to take them for granted… but this is the only country where it’s true.

In most countries (even in Europe), the average person does not believe they can be anything they want to be. If you’re born under a tin roof in Indonesia, you’ll probably die under a tin roof in Indonesia. If you speak out against the King in the Middle East, you’ll be detained. If you openly practice Buddhism in Tibet, you’ll be suppressed by the Chinese. If you try to leave your poor village in Pakistan to go to college, you’ll starve before anybody gives you a scholarship/loan. And that’s why the US became the world’s foremost economic and scientific power (I mentioned yesterday how we became the world’s foremost military power).

Recently, more countries have started granting more liberties and have attempted to produce more opportunities. In the process, Germany and Japan have risen as intellectual powers, while London’s financial sector is bringing economic prowess to the UK. Although the US is still leading the world, the rest of these countries are taking our strengths - our belief in freedom and our endearment of the old rags-to-riches story - and implementing them into their own policy. They’ll slowly start to chip away at our status as the world’s best country for scientific discovery and economic advancement… but it will make the world a better place.

Interesting note: the indices that measure democracy and freedom of the press both report that the US is no longer a leader in these two issues (we’ve been dropping quickly in the last few years). If we don’t fix this, we’ll destroy everything we stand for and, eventually, we’ll also lose our place as a leader in liberty and opportunity. The way to fix a declining democracy with fading freedoms is to be aware of the problem… if we know what’s going on and we follow these indices, we can prevent ourselves from slipping.

According to all of the studies that I linked above, the next big thing is Australia… but that is a topic for a future post.

Popularity: 18% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 18% [?]