Ascription is an Anathema to any Enthusiasm

In the early 1970s as we pulled out of Vietnam, Richard Nixon went insane in the whitehouse, and Albert O. Hirshman wrote an facinating short book called Exit, Voice and Loyality: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States.

Hirshman, an economist, noticed that members of an organization have three broad choices about how to respond when the organization goes into decline.

• Exit - They can leave.
• Voice - They can argue for change.
• Loyality - They can remain silent and loyal.

Different situations demand different mixes of these three. One is far more likely to use voice and loyality to tackle a problem at home, say with your children. In the marketplace, particularly the markets of classical economics, the bias is toward using exit. Don’t like the TV show you’re watching? Change the channel.

I’m sure that recently many of us have wished we could change the channel and stop watching the war show. Politics is not the marketplace, it’s where you live.

Yesterday I listened on the radio to the impassioned plea of a man that now was a time for the nation to draw together. A time for loyality to our troups, to our President. A time for solidarity against the threat our nation faces. A threat that 9/11 so vividly illuminated.

Hirshman points out that there are situations where exit becomes extremely difficult - citizenship for example - and where then only voice and loyality remain as choices. He goes on to point out that in some such situations - criminal gangs, totalitarian regimes for example - voice maybe eliminated entirely.

Yesterday a number of people spoke out against today’s war, and a number of other people told them to shut up. When exit isn’t an option telling people to shut up is a very dangerous move.

It is thinking like this that leads: to loyality tests, to paranoia about outsiders, to interment camps.

Here’s a perfect example of how that reflex uncoils. The other day Richard Perle, one of the leaders of the neoconservative movement that advocates kicking some butt to make the world a better place called a famous and respected reporter a terrorist because he wrote an article pointing out some linkages between Perle’s business dealings and wealthy Saudi businessmen.

Or consider what the president said in during his only recent press conference speaking first about Mexico not getting onboard with the his war plans: “I don’t expect there to be significant retribution from the government (what’s significant?), but there might be a reaction like the interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French, a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people.” For those who oppose the United States, “there will be a certain sense of discipline.”

This kind of “your loyal or you’re out” is a big stick to pull out when people can’t exit. Mexico isn’t able to stop being our neighbor. The American population of people who look a bit like they might have come from Mexico can’t all up and leave. And here we find our President threating them all with “discipline”? It is offensive.

Those who are leading us into war are playing the loyality card. They are playing it to silence the voices of the rest of us. They should be more careful. They should be ashamed.

Happiness is not like ice cream. When I eat a spoonful of ice cream from the quart in the fridge I’m taking that spoonful away from the rest of my family. Happiness isn’t like that, if I’m a bit more happy it doesn’t follow that the rest of my family is denied some happiness.

Economists, who like most scientists would rather make up complex terms than steal ice cream from their children, have a term for that. Ice cream is a rival good, and happiness as a non-rival good.

Men are very clever at converting non-rival goods into rival goods. I figure this is because they spent years locked sibling rivalry. “I’m taller than you.” “Oh, yeah, well I’m thinner.” “So, what’s so great about thin!”

I gather that those clever scientists have discovered that people like to win! Amazing huh? People like it when they are top dog. Apparently these scientists didn’t stop there. Nope. They also discovered that people don’t like being losers.

I find it fascinating to realize that if you take a group of people and rank them then you make a few winners happy, and you make the entire rest of the group unhappy. Scientists have shown that it’s true! Some people have called this the “polution” of success, a provocative metaphore eh?

I assume that the guy above is pretty happy about that bubble. Obviously he’s might high rank in the world of bubbles. Probably doesn’t know much about weft twining though - what a loser!

So your happiness (a non-rival good) can be effected by your rank (a rival good). Which is probably a good thing. At least, it causes you to strive toward bigger and better. Scientists support that, particularly Darwin I presume.

There is an unpredictable bit though. What domain do you pick to engage in this rivalry? If any. How about … Best flower garden in the neighborhood? Daughter with the best manners? You have a lot of control over your own happiness if you can selecting something with minimal rivalry. You could be the guy on the baseball team that always shows up on time and drives everybody to the bar afterward. That’s what makes teams thrive.

In fact it’s well known that the quickest way to lay waste to team work is to publish everybody’s salary.

My evil sons, upon hearing these ideas, immediately put them to work attempting to make each other unhappy.

Clearly they set their sights to low. You can make entire populations of people unhappy using by ranking them. For example we give everybody a standardized test. Like the SAT. We would need a name for this. Accountability sounds good.

The twits in this world that strive to get to the top of the heap are frustrated in two ways. Because happiness is nonrival you can take it from one person and give it to another. So if you make a lot of people unhappy you can’t bank the happiness you took from them. You will get to have a bit of pleasure in improving your rank; but even that’s a mixed blessing. Once you have achieved a high rank you also get a bundle of anxiety with the role. Since high ranks are very scarce, i.e. rival, your have to worry all the time that your bubble with burst.

“What few things need to be the same so that everything else can be different?”

              - Michael Tiemann, CTO of Redhat

Boy does that go to the heart of the standardization/hub/network-effect problem in short order. While it is a good question from a public-good point of view, from a private-good/capitalist point of view the more likely question is “What things can be …”

My nation is going back to Iraq. I am deeply ashamed of my nation today. I am afraid of my nation today.



Iraqi solder, last Gulf War

Something that makes me happy is to observe the process by which science proves the patently obvious, and then beats it up with a large club until it gives up just a bit more information so you will leave it alone and go home.

I gather that scientists have discovered that stuff make makes us happy. You will probably not be surprised to hear that lots of people think that new toaster, house, car, job, wife or baby will make us happy. Well you will be greatly comforted to know that - sure enought it does. So all is right with the world… or is it?

Well no. Apparently we are a cheerful lot and we suffer from excessive optomism. It appears that we overestimate just how how long we will be made happy by the stuff we crave. Even Proffessors discover that the tenure doesn’t make them as happy for as long as they had expected. Children discover the christmas toys grow dull before January passes. This makes me sad. What to do?

Buy more stuff!

What we have here folks is an behaviorist loop! Wired into our souls, a striving to get more stuff. It’s an addiction, and we can roll out the usual treatments.

Sin taxes! Packrats anonymous. Get ahold of your selves people, take a look in the mirror. Careful calculation of the net present value before investing - that’s the ticket!

Is all that stuff really making us happy?

Maybe not. It appears that inspite of tremendous increases in wealth over the last 50 years most of the industrialized world is somewhat less happy.

I don’t care! I still want that toaster!