Comments on: Globollocks, again

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:02:18 +0000

I know, I know (Kamm actually earns a lot more than me but there you go …). But Friedman and DeLong, the actual source of the problems have been unaccountably quiet in supply the raw material, thus leaving me with no option but to launch ill-considered attacks against a hastily assembled “Axis” on the basis of no very good reason.

By: Michael Pollak

Michael Pollak — Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:21:08 +0000

But Norberg, Kamm & Henwood aren’t famous. You probably make more money than they do too.

By: Roger Karraker

Roger Karraker — Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:31:09 +0000

As to Michael Pollak’s and Jeremy Osner’s suggestion, I would suggest a visual component. I’ve had good response from my college writing students to my annotating texts in color with a color-coded legend along the side. I’ve used this technique to highlight logical fallacies, or to demonstrate techniques in narration. With a lot of the crap that’s out there these days color-coding of the text can oftentimes demonstrate how little of worth remains.

By: Jason McCullough

Jason McCullough — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 19:37:23 +0000

Maybe rather than space invaders scoring you should blow up quoted one-liners into full-bore attacks on the theoretical foundations. I’m not sure if it’s the most convincing stuff you produce, but it’s amusing.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:39:42 +0000

Globollocks Watch certainly needs a thorough overhaul; Michael is absolutely right that the actual list is quite fun, but the pieces derived from it are lumbering and terrible (they’re not all that much fun to write either). But on the other hand I’m still in love with the idea of a numeric points scale, because it allows me to pretend that I’m the Grand High Duke of Splat, awarding marks out of ten to people who are far more prominent and better paid than myself. I’m gonna think about this a bit …

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:20:01 +0000

Perhaps it is possible to include a bit more explanation of the scoring system without reducing the “yah, boo” level hardly at all. Comments like “Botswana’s development model (discover diamonds) is hard to reproduce” did the trick fine. I’m just saying—obv. I don’t have to do the work, either.

By: Michael Pollak

Michael Pollak — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:49:48 +0000

True enough. But it’d be a lot less work than writing a book. And it might make you just as famous. But yeah, you’re right, it’s easy for me to say that. Still, it needn’t be that much work to start. You could post it pretty much as is without any explanatory links for beginners, just with a new introductory paragragh, and it’d still be an addition for the numerous intermediates in the world who have yet to make your acquaintance. And if you were ever moved to make the explanatory links, I suspect most of them could be cannabalized from the lengthy articles you’ve already written. Not to mention how much time you’d save not writing the next one :o) Anyhow, if you’re ever game to do your half, I’d be glad to take over publicizing it.

By: David

David — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:26:49 +0000

That would seem to the last word, unfortunately, but could someone recommend some good stuff that’s critical of globalization and/or for protectionism, written in terms relatively comprehensible to a simpleton such as myself, by someone who is not vulnerable to “he’s not a real economist/I did some back-of-the envelope calculations/this is Econ 101” (or “his complaints aren’t intellectual…but are complaints about implementation” [Delong on Stiglitz]) -type attacks?

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:04:10 +0000

hmmm yeh, that would be more useful for other people than just pointing the finger and going “yah, boo, Globollocks”, but tragically it wouldn’t be as much fun for me so I don’t think it’s going to happen.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:14:07 +0000

I’d like to second Jason M’s observation. What I know about the rise of the “Tigers of East Asia” seems to entirely refute the idea that other countries can match their success by following the World Bank—WTO —IMF rules. Has anyone here read Palast’s work on the WTO, etc.? He has very strong opinions but seems to be very sharp. He recently co-authored an academic-looking book on the economics of government regulation.

By: clew

clew — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 06:12:03 +0000

I don’t see how calling it a checklist, on which some things are more important than others, makes it differently useful than adding up points. If I were buying a used car, I’d have a checklist, but “Brakes don’t work” would count for more than “Funny smell.” Indeed, d^2 is being kind in reading all the way to the end even when he hits fallacies of the worse type. Well, not kind, but fair.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:55:40 +0000

I will second Mr. Pollak’s suggestion.

By: Michael Pollak

Michael Pollak — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:52:59 +0000

At first this struck me as a mystery. I went back and looked at your list of globollocks fallacies and was surprised at just how sharp a list it is—surprised because the occassional pieces derived from it are not only “ill-tempered and extremely unfair” as you rightly put it, but, IMHO, bloated and unenlightening as well. And yet everything else you write is concise and brilliant. So somehow the list seems to be twisting you. But how, if it’s inherently such a good list? And then the obvious dawned on me: this is purely a list of minuses. A real evaluation, of anything, weighs minuses against pluses. Real pluses, precisely because they are original, can’t be scaled. But your scale erases even the stock pluses. It erases all pluses. It renders whatever you examine by definition virtueless. If someone wrote the wittiest and most incisive contribution to the debate ever, it would show up in your scale as a zero. So it’s not at all surprising that’s the results are consistently unfair. It’s a completely rigged court. Anyone—and I mean anyone, including you—who is dragged before it will be rated. The only question is how much. And yet, there’s no denying the original list is great. It shouldn’t be just tossed out. So I have a suggestion. I think you should repackage it. You should change it from a scale to a checklist. And you should get rid of the numbers. Instead, you should link a short paragraph to each fallacy, explaining concisely, in your inimitably wry way, just why it’s false. Because every day I run into people who say “I just read this article that says globalization is the greatest thing since effective contraception. I feel he’s pulling several sleights of hand that I’m just not detecting. But I just can’t find them. Is there something I could read that would allow to just right see through things like this? I would love to be able to say: Yes. Just search out Daniel Davies’ The New Quintillian: A Checklist of the Most Common Logical Fallacies of Globalization and Why They’re Wrong. Just a suggestion of course. Keep up the great work, Michael

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:10:00 +0000

Perhaps OT, but I think I caught a good one: Take the discussion that’s going on now in Saudi Arabia about whether women should be allowed to drive, which they can’t legally do now. While it’s unlikely the situation there will change anytime soon, it’s progress just to have the discussion. People are saying it’s extremely costly to hire drivers, often from other countries, to drive women around. You can see how basic economics, basic capitalism, creates the incentive to give women more rights. Shouldn’t globalization reduce the cost of hiring drivers, and thus the incentive to give women’s rights? In fact, isn’t that why so many of the drivers are foreign? How on earth can Norberg possibly think this supports his point?

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:39:25 +0000

why would a reliance on China and India be bad? I am a child in these matters, but I was under the impression that d-squared’s point is that China and India did not attain their growth (over the measured time-period) via “free and open markets and the liberal political, economic, and social institutions that support them” (directly relevant quote from Norberg, and I assume he would include unfettered free trade in there). So they’re unrepresentative in the sense that they exemplify the phenomenon that they’re adduced to support. If I’m wrong on this, do let me know.