Malthusian Angst

I am convinced that there is something buried deep in the human brain that just plain freaks out- collectively- when quarters get too close. It's the only way to explain the periodic panic (there's no better way to describe it) that grips human societies every so often, which I'm referring to here as Malthusian Angst. (Thomas Malthus, for those of you that may not know, was the classical English economist who famously posited that the earth had a finite capacity for human population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_malthus, among other things). The latest incarnation of this panic, in my opinion, is Global Warming Angst.

Now, global warming may or may not be a reality. I am no scientist and never even played one on TV, and thus would not venture into such territory (not like me, I know). Opinions are utterly useless in science- mine or anyone else's- which is what the sceptics have been saying all along. I would simply echo the late, great Micheal Crichton's position on the subject ( http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html), which should be required reading for anyone interested. To summarize, there is no scientific certainty of global warming; it is a theory, and anyone who tells you otherwise probably has a political agenda. It may very well turn out to BE a scientific fact- by which point it may be too late to do anything about it- but that's another matter. One thing's for sure, however: the level of anxiety collectively expressed by the educated Western world over the issue far outstrips any reasonable, rational response to the problem (real or imagined) and- in my mind- is simply the latest installment of Malthusian Angst. If you need proof of this theorem, ask yourself why people in dense urban areas are so much more prone to anxiety about this issue than people who live on farms. It's not surprising that most of the concern of this nature is from folks living cheek-to-jowl. Are people in London or New York City simply that much more prescient or intelligent than people in rural or suburban areas? Perhaps- but I doubt it.

There is some merit, I suppose, to the idea of retooling our entire industrial infrastructure to be green just for the Keynesian merit of doing so. Keynes (suddenly very popular again) once suggested that an entire self-sufficient economy could be comprised of people alternately burying and digging up bottles, and if you extend this to the current situation, it may be useful to go to all the trouble just for the churning effect it would have on the wider economy. If you are more of a zero-sum thinker, this won't make any sense to you at all. As far as I am concerned, the main issue is geo-political: I want to see Americans weaned from oil as an energy source simply to deny the almost uniformly distasteful regions that control most of it any more control over us than they already have. That this goal also happily coincides with the goals of those concerned with global warming is, I suppose, a pure coincidence.

Since I originally wrote this in December, the economy has gotten far worse, and in fact Obama has embarked on a number of Keynesian initiatives in regard to alternative energy sources. If nothing else, it will be fascinating to watch and may in fact relieve a great deal of this Malthusian angst.

In the last analysis, the answer is old news: nuclear power. It is the only rational alternative we have anywhere near the horizon, and is entirely practical. Put simply, if the French can do it (and they do, well and safely), we can do it. The old luddite brand of hippie is just going to have to grow up a bit and get over it. Investments in solar and other feel-good forms of alternative energy may get the headlines, but the reality is that nuclear will be the source getting the job done if we are ever going to wean ourselves off dirtier forms of energy.

As it turns out, attitude really IS everything

In 20 years of watching car salesmen operate every day, I have witnessed some fascinating aspects of human nature- the best and the worst. It's a lot like working in a perpetual sitcom. One thing really sticks out, however: life is what you make of it. You happen to it, or it happens to you. You decide.

And while this is probably not a huge revelation to most folks- it's almost a platitude, the sort 0f thing you see plastered on posters and spouted by motivational speakers- it is important to realize that its more than that. This sort of advice is dispensed like Prozac, but that's the problem: I think most people look at it as something you consume on an occasional basis to make you feel better. The insight I'm trying to impart here is that for those who really LIVE it- for whom it has become woven into their personalities- it is utterly transformative. These lucky few people- and I am lucky enough to know and work with some of them- just will not let the bastards get them down (so to speak). Even in this economy, they sell cars- a lot of them. They just keep going, always seeing the glass as half full, even if it's damn near bone dry. And moreover, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to this: their customers love being around them because they love the energy they radiate and the way it makes them feel (I suppose), and they tell other people about that. I have not read The Secret (and won't, thank you very much)but I believe this is what the author must be talking about.

This probably does not rank up there with the most blinding insights I have ever posted on this blog, but it is probably the most profound, ultimately, because I have come to the conclusion that it is fundamentally THE most important aspect of life one can embrace, and it is not just a platitude or a theory to me. I have witnessed it for enough years and in enough lives to testify to its absolute practical truth. It is the wellspring from which everything else good in life flows. Ignore it at your peril.

The Myth of "The Economy"

If I hear about "the economy" one more time, I'm going to blow a fuse. Referring to "it"as some monolitic, national issue is ridiculous. Talking about "it" this way makes about as much sense as talking about the collective batting average of Major League Baseball, and yet it is the only way we ever seem to talk about "it". "The economy"- in this macro sense- is a complete fiction.

All economies, like all politics, are local. The economy in metro Chattanooga and the economy in Dallas, or Erie, or Wichita, are all completely different animals with completely different rates of growth (or contraction) and completely different metabolisms, savings rates, housing prices, etc., ad nauseum. Of course, all economies are interconnected, and there are rarely huge differences in economic health in adjacent areas. It would be much more useful to think of them like temperatures on a weather map; like those temperatures, you rarely see huge shifts, but rather smooth gradients from one place to the next. I am suggesting here that someone adopt this model, and do it soon: it would do more to correct our thinking about the issue than anything else I can imagine. A monthly economic "temperature map" would be a truly useful and informative tool for policy makers.

The Fed does of course publish its Beige Book, which is a patchwork of reports from the different Federal Reserve branches around the country, in order to gauge just what the hell's actually happening out here. It does this, however, so that it can amalgamate the data and come up with an average that it can use to set one interest rate for "The Economy". As much as I wish there were a way to set different interest rates for different areas of the country, they just don't have that figured out yet, so this is a necessary evil. It is NOT necessary, however- and in fact entirely unhelpful- to carry this rubric forward into general discussion about economics. It's harmless (but facile) in economic circles, but it's downright reckless and stupid in wider reporting, because it almost always (unless you happen to living in the area which happens to fall on the average) entails a disconnect with the reader's reality. Talking about how bad- or how good- "the economy" is only serves to artificially frighten (or embolden) the reader, and thus spend money they probably should not spend, or save it when they should be spending it. In current terms, with consumer confidence at historic low levels, it is a particularly acidic and destructive way of thinking about it. It is very difficult for otherwise reasonably healthy local economies- like mine- to get any sort of economic traction when USA Today is constantly announcing that "the economy" stinks.

So- please- the next time you hear some reporter opining about "the economy" in these general terms, do us all a favor and slap them upside the head if they're within reach. Or write them a letter and ask them to do a feature on the Unicorn while they're at it- they might as well.