When you should NOT use the efficiency of the Internet

I am getting the past days all these impersonal emails wishing me Merry Christmas etc. It looks that people have discovered that instead of re-writing similar personalized emails, it is much more time-efficient to massively bcc send the same generic email to all their contacts. Even my exes didn’t bother to spend the 5 extra secs to put my name in the beginning of the email… There must be sthg wrong here…

This is one of the few occasions that we should not use the efficiency of the internet. When we wish by letters or emails, the underlying signal we want to give is that we care enough for some people to spend some time to wish them. Using a massive impersonal email makes the very reason of wishing void. It is like offering as a gift sthg that is totally costless: “Hey mate, I ll make you a gift, this is the link to access my public blog…”

On Dating

I always found it weird that there is no concrete model or theory behind such a fundamental human activity as dating. At its very essence, dating is about scarcity of resources, optimal allocation decisions, market segmentation, utility optimization etc. So why not approach dating as a market activity and why not analyze it using concepts from economics and business strategy?

In trying to develop such an approach, here are some initial definitions and assumptions for the dating market:

• Each participant in the market has a specific "dating value" (DV) that depends on factors like physical beauty, status, financial resources and changes during life. This value is fundamentally subjective, as is the value of every other product out there. However, for simplification reasons I treat dating values as objective -this assumption does not affect the final conclusions.
• There are substantial differences in the dating preferences between sexes (mainly for evolutionary reasons). In the trade-off between commitment (long-term relationships) and diversity (high number of sexual partners), women on average tend to prefer the first while men prefer the latter. These sex differences in preferences are the drivers of the interesting dynamics in the dating market –and the potential source of emotional pain...
• The dating value curves of men and women are different. The reason is that men’s DV is driven more by status, while women’s is driven more by physical beauty. These factors reach their peaks in different ages. Thus, as the graph below shows, men tend to reach the peak of their DV later in their lives than women. Women on average have an earlier and steeper DV peak.
• Emotional Attachment (what is most commonly called "love") can be a confounding variable, but I consider it irrelevant in the model. The reason is that its influence is limited in period and it occurs AFTER objective factors and rational decisions have played their part.When they are about to commit, both sexes are trying to maximize Mating Value, that is to get a partner with as high DV as possible.
• High DV attracts high DV.

Moving to analysis from a man’s perspective now, the big question is when to commit.

From the assumptions and graph above it is obvious that men should commit only when they are their peak of their DV.

There are two problems however:
-One is that the exact path and peak of each individual DV curve is not known. People believe in their potential to increase further their DV, but in reality life is uncertain.
-The second problem is that sometimes being in a committed relationship has positive effect on someone’s life, in other words, when people get married they don’t have to spend time and resources in dating, they focus more on careers and consequently they increase their DV much more

I believe that the best way to overcome the above problems and answer the “when to commit” question is to use the fundamental condition MR=MC.
Revenue is the utility derived by “dating more” (quantity) and dating better (quality). Cost is the resources spent on dating as well as the lack of the benefits of a committed relationship (emotional stability, etc.) In a man’s early life, Revenues tend to increase higher than Costs. But when Marginal Costs (MC) are becoming equal to Marginal Revenues (MR), well, then its about time to settle down.


One interesting question is: if men most of the time think that they can further increase their DV (ambition is wired in our genes with obvious evolutionary utility), why they actually do commit at any point? The answer is that men do pay a risk premium. They understand that there is uncertainty in life, and they are willing to commit now with someone that can potentially be of lower DV, just because of risk aversion. We can see how the risk premium in the dating market increases in cases like after wars and disasters. People feel the volatility in their lives more and consequently are willing to pay a higher risk premium and settle down easier.

How do the above explain different patterns in different markets?
In dating markets like NY or London where there are many upward mobile “high-fliers”, turnover is high and committing is very rare –exactly because people think they have lots of upside potential and they can do much better.
On the other hand, in societies characterized by low social mobility, people tend to commit early. The reason is that they feel that they have limited upside in their DVs, so no reason to wait...

5 Trivial Things you can Learn From your Japanese Girlfriend

1. Sumo wrestlers cannot wipe their "backs" by themselves. It is the junior wrestlers that do that for them...

2. The last wagon in each train of the Tokyo metro is exclusive for women. Japanese ladies do not like the occasional physical contact with men in a crowded wagon...

3. Junichiro Koizumi is the hottest bachelor existing in Japan, the queue of willing ladies is very long. But bad news for them, there is a rumor that he is about to settle down with his current girlfriend...

4. The value of girls' used underwear is higher than new ones. You can actually buy them from vending machines in certain disricts...

5. Japanese apparently believe that Pear Harbor attack was caused by US aggression. They are actually surprised to hear that Hirohito's army attacked before declaration of war...

Milton Friedman, capitalism's Che Guevara

I had the honor to meet Milton Friedman in San Fransisco in 2005. It was the annual pilgrimage of the Milton Friedman Group from the University of Chicago, where I was at the time co-chair. the first strong impression when we met him was his short stature, that further emphasized by contrast this intellectual giant of the 20th century. In that three-hour lunch we bombarded him with all kinds of questions. His knowledge and tireless defense of freedom was impressive.

I havent read any obituaries yet, but I personally believe that Milton Friedman's major contribution will be considered not his vigorous analysis or the creation of new models, but rather his passion in defending liberalism and transforming the movement to a romantic cause. After MF liberalism was not a boring ideology that stinked conservativism. It was the pursuit of freedom, that could inspire the young people hungry for an idealistic cause to fight for. No wonder that at UChicago we used to wear Milton Friedman t-shirts, similar to the Che Guevera ones.

Αστον τρελο στην τρελα του

ΠΑΣΟΚ 07/11: «Η άρση της επιτήρησης δεν επιτρέπει πανηγυρισμούς και δηλώσεις αυτοϊκανοποίησης από τους εμπνευστές και χειριστές του colpo grosso της «απογραφής». Γιατί η οικονομία είναι το μεγάλο θύμα αυτής της επιλογής και οι πολίτες της Ελλάδας δεν δέχονται να είναι τα πειραματόζωα της νεοδημοκρατικής οικονομικής πολιτικής", αναφέρει σε ανακοίνωσή του ο Τομέας Οικονομίας του ΠΑΣΟΚ με αφορμή τη δημοσιοποίηση της έκθεσης της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής.

On Happiness

It is interesting to follow the emerging new paradigm of behavioral economics and its work on happiness. Lots of arrogance (“the future of economics”) combined with feel-good theories like “average income does not correlate with the level of happiness in the society so it is not important”. The subsequent suggestion is that governments should care less about wealth.

Hmmm…

I agree with all the research that happiness is relative; basically we tend to define our level of happiness by comparing our situation with the people around us. This explains why people in the richer countries do not feel happier than people in poor countries.
But this cannot mean that the level of wealth makes no difference. Just ask a Swiss citizen how indifferent he would be to the prospect of becoming an average citizen of Albania.

Most importantly, (and I haven’t seen this in any relevant research or paper) we all use internal happiness benchmarks from our past. That means that extreme happiness almost requires some unhappiness in the past to function as a memory benchmark. For example, coming from a very poor family and becoming rich means more happiness than coming from a rich family and remaining rich, independent of the people around us.
And that is a big argument that money actually CAN make u happier, as long as you manage to change your life.

But my biggest problem with all this new “happiness paradigm” is that I believe that happiness is overrated.

Who would you prefer to be? An unhappy Alexander the Great or a happy junkie (with guaranteed endorphins, the neurotransmitters that make us happy), Aldus Huxley style? Look at the most important people in the human history, our childhood heroes: Napoleon, Pericles, Socrates, Jesus, Julius Caesar, Martin Luther King, Galileo, Columbus, van Gogh etc. How many of these you think would score high on a current happiness test?

The truth is that happiness as defined in all these papers doesn’t mean that much. Ask all these people that choose to suffer and can go to jail for their ideas, are willing to sacrifice their lives for their families or countries. For them the feelings of purpose, sacrifice for a moral end, making history, devotion to people or ideas, are all more important than bliss.

Even from a historical-evolutionary perspective, we see that societies that were rather relaxed and happy didn’t produce much and eventually disappeared: China, the world’s powerful nation in the 15th century entered a peaceful decadence until the sudden wakeup of the 19th century (after a handful of Europeans beat it). Ancient Greece, with its constant and bloody wars excelled; nothing comparable happened in the happier post-Alexander Hellenistic era. Contrast the peaceful Europe in Middle Ages with the turbulent Europe after Renaissance.

Men are not made to be happy. They are meant to be restless, strive for happiness, struggle for improvement, setting higher standards, expand the boundaries.
In that context, happiness is far from the ultimate end of human life.
Personally, I prefer the feeling of achievement with its many unhappy sacrifice requirements.

Reversing Braindrain

In the recent (Sep 06) Economist’s special report on global talent, there is a very interesting article on governments hunting talent (1) . The different policies are impressive. USA, UK, France, Canada, Australia, India, China, they are all more and more in the game of luring the ultimate scarce resource of modern economies. Surprise, surprise, Singapore is once more in the forefront.

I would really like to know what Greece’s policy on the issue is. But in a country that still debates whether it should allow private education, it is hard to imagine that there is any specific policy on attracting talent at all. Not only we are not proactive, but I suspect that currently we are gradually loosing abroad the precious domestic supply.

If we decide to get serious about it, there are three ways to increase our economy’s talent capacity:
1-Increase our domestic talent production by improving our educational system
2-Train our talent abroad. Send as many young Greeks as possible in the best universities and companies of the world and after a period manage to bring them back (2)
3-Import foreign talent

Concerning 2 and 3, the possible strategies would be:
-Provide direct incentives, like tax benefits, reduced military service for Greeks that manage to study in the top universities or work for specific companies.
-Provide indirect incentives, like a stimulating economy, friendly environment
-Improve the “Greece” brand, make talented people feel good to be Greek and live in Greece. It may sound weird because of its nationalist undertone, but let’s face it, in a globalized world with people mixing and living in different countries, the necessary (3) choice of a specific nationality will be similar to the choice of becoming a fan of a specific team, or to the choice of working for a specific company because of its brand (4).

In any case, the first step would be to put all the above in the agenda of public debate.


__________
(1) Non-subscribers feel free to ask me to send you the relevant piece
(2) Let’s not forget the benefits of remittance
(3) necessary for legal but mostly for psychological reasons
(4) Goldman Sachs employees famously accept a lower basic salary than the market average

Η εμπάθεια της WSJ –σχόλιο από ένα «φιλοαμερικάνο» φιλελευθέρο Ελλήνα

Διαβάζω συστηματικά την Wall Street Journal εδώ και 6-7 χρόνια και πραγματικά δεν θυμάμαι να έχει αναφερθεί ποτέ θετικά στην Ελλάδα, είτε προκείται για τους επιτυχημένους Ολυμπιακούς, είτε για οικονομικά ή αθλητικά επιτεύγματα, είτε τουλάχιστον να επικρότησει κάποιες φιλελεύθερες μεταρρυθμίσεις. Από την άλλη η ίδια εφημερίδα ήτανε πάντα πρώτη να υποστηρίξει την μη επιστροφή των μαρμάρων, το ιστορικό δικαίωμα της ΠΓΔΜ στο όνομα Μακεδονία κλπ. (1)

Μετά από πολύ καιρό, η WSJ έχει ξανά ένα op/ed για την Ελλάδα, και αυτή την φορά it pushes it too much. Αναφέρεται στην αφελή δήλωση του Κοντοπυράκη ότι το ανανεωμένο ΑΕΠ θα περιλαμβάνει και συγκεκριμένες παράνομες δραστηριότητες όπως λαθρεμπόριο, πορνεία και ξέπλυμα χρήματος. Το σχόλιο ξεκινάει με την διαπίστωση ότι οι έλληνες δεν έχουν να επιδείξουν κάποιο σημαντικό επίτευγμα εδώ και 17(sic) αιώνες, συνεχίζει με μπόλικη ειρωνεία και στο τέλος υπονοεί ή μάλλον λέει ξεκάθαρα ότι η Ελλάδα είναι γεμάτη νταβατζήδες και λαθρέμπορους. Η μοναδική ελπίδα μας σύμφωνα με την WSJ λοπόν να μειώσουμε το έλλειμμα είναι να αρχίσουν να πληρώνουν φόρους οι εγκληματίες μας.

Ίσως τα μοντέρνα επιτεύγματα των Ελλήνων να μην είναι ισάξια των παππούδων μας, αλλά σίγουρα προκαλούμε πολύ έντονα συναισθήματα στους δημοσιογράφους της WSJ. Η WSJ βέβαια έχει χάσει εδώ και καιρό κάθε αξιοπίστια με την εγκληματική αρνησή της κάθε ένδειξης global warming, την παντελώς άκριτη υποστήριξη του Ισραήλ, την αμετανόητη διάδοση των ψεμμάτων για πυρηνικά στο Ιράκ και σχέσεις του Σαντάμ με την Άλ-Καΐντα κλπ.

Αλλά με το σημερινό της editorial η WSJ πηγαίνει ένα σκαλί πιο χαμηλά.

_______________
(1) Ποιά είναι η πηγή αυτής της εμπάθειας;
Ίσως ο εξίσου γελοίος αντιαμερικανισμός στην Ελλάδα με αποκορύφωση τους αλήτες της 17 Νοέμβρη.
Ίσως οι μνήμες του τριτοκοσμικού Παπανδρεικού κράτους;
Ίσως κόμπλεξ με τα επιτευγμάτα των αρχαίων ελλήνων (χοντρό, αλλά τα υπονοούμενα στο σημερινό σχόλιο αυτό δείχνουν)
Ίσως επειδή μαζί με τους Γάλλους και τους Ιταλούς τους πέρνουμε τα καλλίτερα κορίτσια (αυτό ήταν αστείο)

Sarkozy, the real thing

A French friend send me this article from NYTimes, about Sarkozy recently visiting US.
I dont know many European politicians that would dare to meet the US establishment just before the elections. Note also his attitude towards free markets, US-EU relations, Israel etc.

Is France about to finally get a competent leader after DeGaul?

Have you heard the one with the Pope...?

In a speech yesterday, the Pope may have implied that Islam is a violent religion.
The offended Muslims responded by threatening, burning and bombing to make their point that Islam is actually a peaceful religion.

They are a joke. A very bad joke.


The same people do not feel they have to protect the peaceful reputation of Islam when certain imams openly preach violence against infidels. The reason is that the whole reaction has nothing to do with defending Islam as a peaceful religion. It has to do with the modern Muslim inferiority complex towards the west. But it is as simple as that: If they don’t want the west to think of them as backwards, they shouldn’t behave as backwards.



PS. I am no friend of Christians myself but I have to give them that: Christianity is the most tolerant major religion to external criticism and ridicule. And that’s a good sign; it means that this religion has very good chances to transform into sthg more functional and relevant to the needs of the modern society

Η οικολογική BP και η κακιά Mobil-Exxon

Εδώ και 10 χρόνια η ΒΡ προσπαθεί να γίνει και σε μεγάλο βαθμό το έχει καταφέρει να είναι η αγαπημένη πετρελαϊκή εταίρια του κόσμου. Με νέο όνομα Beyond Petroleum και μια πανακριβή καμπάνια δημοσίων σχέσεων κάνει positioning σαν η εταίρια που ενδιαφέρεται για το περιβάλλον.

Δεν ήμουν ποτέ οπαδός του corporate social responsibility. Πιστεύω ότι αν κάποιος θέλει να κάνει φιλανθρωπία ας δημιουργήσει πλούτο στην αγορά και μετά ας τα δώσει όπου θέλει -αλά Bill Gates. Ο ρόλος όμως των εταιρείων είναι να αυξήσουν τα κέρδη (κακιά λέξη στην Ελλάδα) των μετόχων τους και κατά συνέπεια να υπηρετήσουν την κοινωνία παράγοντας και προσφέροντας τα προιόντα που ζητάει η αγορά όσο γίνεται καλύτερα. Με αυτό το κριτήριο η ΒΡ δεν είναι επιτυχημένη. Η μετοχή της έχει απόδοση απο την αρχή του έτους 7.5% και τα τελευταία 5 χρόνια 36.14% όταν η «κακιά» Mobil-Exxon έχει προσφέρει 24.5% και 69% αντίστοιχα. Σαν μέτοχος, σαν αγορά και σαν κοινωνία θα προτιμούσα να έχω την Mobil-Exxon απο την BP.

«Ναι αλλά τουλάχιστον η ΒΡ είναι φιλική στο περιβάλλον και επενδύει πολλά κεφάλαια σε εναλλακτικές πηγές ενέργειας».
Καταρχήν η ΒΡ παραμένει κατεξοχήν πετρελαική εταιρία και το πετρέλαιό της βρωμίζει όσο βρωμίζει το πετρέλαιο της Mobil-Exxon. Μετά, η απόδοση του εναλλακτικού προγράμματος της είναι εξαιρετικά πενιχρή και σε επίπεδο κερδών αλλά και σε επίπεδο τεχνολογικής ανάπτυξης. Και βεβαίως βεβαίως, έχουμε και το πρόσφατο συμβάν με τον σάπιο αγωγό της Αλάσκας. Ενώ είχε βρέθει σημαντική διαρροή 5 μήνες πριν (300,000 γαλόνια), ο αγωγός ελέγχθηκε και η μεγάλη φθορά ανακαλύφθηκε μόνο αφού το ζήτησαν οι ομοσπονδιακές αρχές. Ίσως να ήταν απλώς ένα απρόβλεπτο ατύχημα. Ίσως. Από ότι λένε όμως τώρα οι ειδικοί, η ΒΡ δεν είχε τα σωστά συστήματα ελέγχου του αγωγού. Να μην πάμε και στο πρόσφατο ατύχημα στο διυλιστήριο της ΒΡ στο Texas City με 15 νεκρούς εργάτες και εκατοντάδες τραυματίες. Η κακιά Mobil-Exxon που κυνηγάει μόνο το κέρδος δεν είχε ατυχήματα τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια. Ίσως επειδή η Mobil-Exxon ξέρει να βάζει τα λεφτά της με κριτήρια αγοράς εκεί που πρέπει και όχι σε δημόσιες σχέσεις.

Η γνώμη του ΠΑΣΟΚ εναντίον της γνώμης της αγοράς

Από το ημερήσιο οικονομικό δελτίο περί πωλήσεως της Εμπορικής:

Την έντονη διαφωνία του επανέλαβε το ΠΑΣΟΚ. «Η κυβέρνηση πιστή στην αρχή της «αγοράζουμε ακριβά - πουλάμε φτηνά» με τις ενέργειες της μεθόδευσε και προχωράει στο ξεπούλημα της Εμπορικής Τράπεζας για εισπρακτικούς λόγους, βασιζόμενη δήθεν στις κατά παραγγελία γνωμοδοτήσεις των ακριβοπληρωμένων και με αδιαφανείς διαδικασίες επιλεγμένων συμβούλων της», δήλωσε η υπεύθυνη του Τομέα Οικονομίας Βάσω Παπανδρέου. Οι ευθύνες της κυβέρνησης και των διοικήσεων των ασφαλιστικών ταμείων είναι τεράστιες και θα αποδοθούν» πρόσθεσε η κυρία Παπανδρέου.

Φτηνή την βρήκε την τιμή το ΠΑΣΟΚ, προφανώς θα ξέρει καλύτερα απο την αγορά και τα I-Banks του Λονδίνου (τα οποία έχουνε κοινό συμφέρον με το ελληνικό δημόσιο να πουληθεί όσο πιο ακριβά γίνεται η Εμπορική). Μάλλον θα έχει δικό του FIG corporate valuation team. Αλλά αφού έχουνε ανώτερη γνώση από την υπόλοιπη αγορά γιατί δεν ανοίγουνε και κάνα hedge-fund στην Χαριλάου Τρικούπη να βγάλουνε κάνα φράγκο ενόψει εκλογών;

Θα αποδοθούνε και ευθύνες, απειλεί η Βασούλα. Με τις εύθυνες των σοσιαλιστικών κυβερνήσεων του ΠΑΣΟΚ που μας κατάντησαν οικονομικούς ουραγούς στην Ευρώπη τι θα γίνει;

Μάντεψε ποιός...

Από το ημερήσιο πολιτικό δελτίο (01/08/2006):

« Έφεση κατά της απόφασης της Εισαγγελίας της Βέρνης για άνοιγμα των τραπεζικών λογαριασμών που εκτιμάται ότι σχετίζονται με τα αντισταθμιστικά οφέλη από την αγορά των ρωσικών αντιαεροπορικών συστημάτων μεσαίου βεληνεκούς TOR-M1 κατέθεσε την περασμένη Παρασκευή, δέκα λεπτά πριν από τη λήξη της σχετικής προθεσμίας, ελβετικό δικηγορικό γραφείο. Η έφεση δίνει νέα παράταση στην υπόθεση και, σύμφωνα με τον αντιπρόεδρο της Βουλής και πρόεδρο της Εξεταστικής Επιτροπής, Γιάννη Τραγάκη, «κάποιοι έχουν συμφέρον να μην ανοίξουν οι λογαριασμοί και επιδιώκουν με ενστάσεις την καθυστέρηση της διαδικασίας».

Αθάνατα πράσινα λαμόγια...

Israel, as Greece with a lag

A historical and glorious nation used to have no land of its own. After many centuries and lots of struggles, its influential and well organized Diaspora manages to take control of a small land with certain historical claims and create a country as a basis for the national resurrection. What follows is a period of enormous cultural and economic success, and most crucially a period of territorial expansion.
That is a common tale of two nations, Greece in early 19th century and Israel in the 20th century (1). The driving force behind this success was the “Great Idea” (“Μεγάλη Ιδέα”) in Greece and “Zionism” in Israel. The underlying structures, mechanisms and to a great extent results are the same.

The end of the story for Greece was bitter but hopeful. In all their zeal for the glory of Greece, Greeks went a bit too far inside Turkey. Eventually, the national disaster of 1921 (“Μικρασιατική καταστροφή”) sealed the borders with blood and terminated the territorial expansion of this country. After that, the energy of the nation was focused in “organic growth”, the new battles were in the social, economic and cultural arenas -with admittedly positive results (2).

Contrary to expansionist 19th century Greece, Israel's assertiveness was mostly driven by its hostile neighbors; however the critical issue remains the same: realizing the limitations of the nation and settling the borders. Israel luckily did not face any disaster up to now. Ariel Sharon was a statesman who tried to finish the territorial issue while Israel is still the strongest player in the region, on his country’s terms. He dared to face first the leftwing peaceniks and then the ultra-orthodox fanatics and unilaterally remove the settlers from Gaza and parts of West Bank. But Sharon is not there anymore and Olmert looks too clumsy to finish the job of his predecessor. We all hope that it will not take a disaster for Israel to be done with the territorial issue.

___________
(1). It can be fairly argued that the same historical pattern of a strong national ideology that initially can successfully lead new nations but eventually reaches its limitations, can be seen elsewhere, e.g. Japan and Germany.
(2) A couple of Nobels, relative economic and political success unseen before in the most backwarding region of the Europe, the Balkans.

Federalism in Greece: an Evolutionary Argument

I think it was Robert Wright that first suggested that we can apply evolutionary principles to explain the amazing outbursts of cultural and economic progress throughout human history. How else can we explain the mind-boggling cultural achievements of Classical Greece? What was the driving force behind the Italian Renaissance? Historians may provide tens of different reasons but there is one common factor (or the lack of it) behind all these historical “anomalies”(1). It was pure darwinian evolution at work: survival of the fittest, arms race and all that.

Think about it: in classical Greece there were tens of independent city-states in a region that apart from the physical proximity, it provided a common language and a common market. The above created an evolutionary “lab” where progress of the independent city-states was a matter of life or death. And they did progress. Strong evolutionary pressures pushed human achievement to the limits and in the case of Greece they resulted to the invention of the western civilization. Slightly similar is the story with Renaissance in Italy.

The closest modern form of such a Darwinian progress machine is federalism, US style. Independent and competitive states in a wider market created this phenomenon of modern human history, the American society which, in terms of impact to the human civilization, is the modern equivalent of Classical Greece.

In few years we will have again the opportunity to change our constitution. Now, instead of lagging behind the rest of Europe with minor reforms, how about being radical pioneers for once? How about introducing federalism?
We can split the country in 6-7 regions-states with substantial independence (2), and the ability to have their own policy in education, taxes, environment etc. We can inject competition between the regions-states for attracting business and creating regional economic growth by almost eliminating financial assistance from the central government (3).
After implementing the above, labor and capital mobility will put to the states the dilemma: reform and prosper or stagnate and starve.
The result maybe a new Greek renaissance, wouldn't that be cool?


____________
1. A reverse example is China. The most progressive and powerful country in the 15th century, China “hibernated” in the subsequent centuries. The reason was that after many wars, a peaceful empire was formed and there were no more evolutionary pressures.

2. Forget Kossovo, Greece is nationally homogenous to a great extent; the non-Greeks are mostly immigrants that can have no claim in the total autonomy of a specific region. The muslim population in Thrace will be a minority in the region-state of "Thrace-Macedonia".

3. Come to think of it, that is an indirect and neat way to curb central spending and starve the monstrous “Ελληνικό Δημόσιο”.

‘Οχι με τα λεφτά μου

Την τελευταία φορά που είχα δει το «Ρεπορτάζ χωρίς σύνορα», η εκπομπή υιοθετώντας όλες τις σχετικές θεωρίες συνομωσίας, εμμέσως υποστήριζε ότι οι επιθέσεις της 11ης Σεπτεμβρίου οργανώθηκαν απο την CIA. Μάλιστα.

Χθες βράδυ η ίδια εκπομπή ηρωποιούσε τον Ούγκο Τσάβεζ, (τον Παπανδρέου της Βενεζουέλας) που έχει βάλει την χώρα του σε πορεία πίσω ολοταχώς. Μάθαμε μάλιστα ότι οι Αμερικάνοι σχεδιάζουν να τον δολοφονήσουν, αφού το πρότεινε λέει ο Πατ Ρόμπερτσον (ένας fundamelist christian κλόουν που κανείς δεν του δίνει σημασία στις Η.Π.Α.)

Ο Κούλογλου βέβαια είναι προφανώς ελεύθερος να πιστεύει ότι θέλει, είναι ακόμα ελεύθερος να ρεζιλεύεται διαλαλώντας τις θεωρίες συνομωσίας του. Άλλα είναι απαράδεκτο με χρήματα δικά μου και του κάθε Έλληνα φορολογούμενου να προβάλλει η κρατική τηλεόραση σαν σοβαρό ρεπορτάζ τέτοια λαϊκίστικα σκουπίδια που θα θρέψουν τις νέες γενιές αποχαυνωμένων αριστεριστών.

"If not us, then who? And if not now, when?"

(Με αφορμή το σημερινό op/ed της Καθημερινής που συνιστά «ρεαλισμό» στην κυβερνητική πολιτική)

Σε μια χώρα γίνονται εκλογές και ο λαός με μεγάλη διαφορά αποφασίζει υπέρ ενός προγράμματος και συγκεκρίμενων μεταρρυθμίσεων. Η νέα κυβέρνηση αφού έχει ξοδέψει δύο χρόνια «ψάχνοντας», όταν έρχεται η ώρα να κάνει συγκεκριμένες αλλαγές και να καταθέσει νομοσχέδια, αποφασίζει να μπει σε διάλογο με τις συγκεκριμένες ομάδες-κάστες των οποίων τα συμφέροντα μπορεί να θιγούν προς όφελος όλης της κοινωνίας. Τότε, οι τραμπούκοι της αριστεράς και λοιποί οπαδοί της 17 Νοέμβρη αναθαρρούν, αρχίζουν και τα σπάνε όλα και τελικά (όπως θα περιμέναμε σε μια ευνομούμενη κοινωνία) επιβραβεύονται για την στάση τους: η κυβέρνηση αποφασίζει να υπαναχωρήσει και να μεταθέσει τις κρίσιμες μεταρρυθμίσεις για το μέλλον, ίσως για την επόμενη τετραετία, όταν θα έχει μικρότερη πλειοψηφία...

Μετά από μια τέτοια εξέλιξη δε μπορεί παρά να αναρωτηθεί κανείς ποιό είναι το νόημα των εκλογών σε αυτήν την χώρα και ποιές ακριβώς συνθήκες περιμένει ο πρωθυπουργός για να κάνει τις μεταρρυθμίσεις που υποσχέθηκε.

Ο Ρήγκαν σε ένα λόγο του το 1981, πριν αρχίσει το δύσκολο έργο των μεταρρυθμίσεων που ο αμερικάνικος λαός τον είχε εξουσιοδοτήσει να εφαρμόσει, είχε πει:
"Our administration, and I think the American people, have the resolve to do what we know is right and what we know must be done. And make no mistake -- we will. But for those in and out of government so quick to carp and complain, so ready to retreat even before the program has begun, I have just two questions: If not us, then who? And if not now, when?"

Ο Ρήγκαν με τις νεοφιλελεύθερες αλλαγές που έκανε έβαλε την αμερικάνικη οικονομία πάλι σε τροχιά μεγάλης ανάπτυξης και κέρδισε τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο. Τώρα, θεωρείται ο πιο επιτυχημένος μεταπολεμικός πρόεδρος των Η.Π.Α. Δεν γράφει κανείς ιστορία χωρίς αποφασιστικότητα...

Beyond Private Education: Intelligence Screening is the Key to Unleash our Potential

Ο τωρινός «διάλογος» για την ιδιωτική παιδεία μας ξανακάνει όλους περήφανους που είμαστε Έλληνες. Για μια ακόμα φορά, η πατρίδα μας με τόλμη επιβεβαιώνει την εγκυρότητα των σύγχρονων αξιωμάτων:
-Η ζωή μιμείται την τέχνη. Ξεδιάντροποι καθηγητές πανεπιστημίου και κυνικά μέσα ενημέρωσης μοιάζουν σαν να έχουν βγει από βιβλίο του Χωμενίδη. Η πολιτική σαν τέχνη –και σε αυτή την περίπτωση, σκληροπυρηνικός σουρρεαλισμός.
-Ο χρόνος και ο χώρος είναι μη-γραμμικές διαστάσεις. Μερικοί πολιτικοί από το λαϊκίστικο στρατόπεδο φαίνεται να έχουν πιαστεί σε μια χωροχρονική ανωμαλία και έχουν κολλήσει στα 80s. Οι φοιτητές εδώ, ζούνε ταυτόχρονα σην Βόρεια Κορέα, στην Σοβιετική Ένωση ή σε κάποιο άλλο παράλληλο κόσμο.

Let’s imagine however for a moment that miraculously Greece suddenly overcame the Papandreou mentality and allowed private education. The improvement would be marginal unless one more crucial change takes place: The introduction of intelligence assessment in education.

Let me explain:
In our society we assume that intelligence (in its traditional definition of IQ) is socially determined and in the tabula rasa school of thought, all people are born with exactly the same intelligence potential. As a result, in the primary and secondary education, all students are offered exactly the same education. Consequently the education level equilibrates somewhere between the average of the students and the least common denominator (much below average). result is the more gifted students are underutilized and undereducated while the weaker ones struggle to cope with demands beyond their level. It is like offering the same basketball education to the whole population irrespectively of their natural advantages like height or physical strength. We can’t go far with that policy.
In the rare instances that our educational system has to assess students, like when entering the tertiary education, it uses mostly irrelevant measures like the ability to memorize that can actually correlate negatively with IQ. The result is that our top public universities are filled with students that are disciplined and excel in areas like memorization but are not necessarily the most gifted of their generation. Combined with the lack of competition from a private sector, our tertiary system fails to produce a “cognitive elite”, or even graduates with marketable skills. Low salaries and high unemployment are unavoidable.

The source of the problem is the initial assumption: that IQ is relative and people are born with the same intellectual capacity. However, modern psychology has shot down this popular 20th century myth (for a summary of recent developments read here). An anathema to egalitarians and proponents of social engineering, intelligence is widely admitted that not only exists in absolute terms but it is the best predictive factor for academic and social success. This is even more true in the knowledge-intensive societies. Yes, there are other important factors for success, from social (soft) skills to motivation, but they build upon or intelligence.



What then should be an efficient educational system based on modern psychology and the proven role of varying genetic predispositions in IQ? It should be one that recognizes that not all people are the same and offers the appropriate education for each segment. The only way to offer this targeted education is to use extensively IQ tests (1) in all levels of education. These tests will be part of a wider screening process that can also include measures or proxies of social skills, motivation, discipline etc. Students then will be grouped with classmates of similar potential and the education process will better fit the needs of the students. Then, top schools will offer in the market the real scare resource in the value chain of our knowledge based society: well-polished intelligence. This is what the various companies are really buying when they spend huge sums to recruit from the best schools (2).

Intelligence adjusted education is already happening in many countries, notably in US (3). Given its huge benefits to societies, sooner or later it will spread in the whole world.
In Greece, where decades of socialist ethos have virtually eliminated the upside potential of gifted students, reforming education on a meritocratic non-egalitarian basis is a great opportunity to unlock our potential and catch up with the rest of the advanced countries. We cannot stay behind once more. At the end, we owe it to our history.

______________________________
(1) IQ is an “absolute” quality nobody can be proud for a low IQ –unlike “relative” qualities like hair color for example. Thus, these tests should be called in a more neutral and politically correct way, maybe “aptitude” tests
(2) This is more true in some sectors like banking where the ROIs of the banks directly correlate with the IQ of their employees -see the case of Goldman Sachs.
(3) The widely used GRE, GMAT, SAT tests, despite their euphemistic names, are nothing more than intelligence screening tools.

Δύσκολοι αποχαιρετισμοί: Chicago

So, my University of Chicago student life is over. Sunday graduation, Monday flying back to Europe.
The past days I tried to keep myself busy with all the errands and the packing, but today, my last Chicago day, no more lies, c'est un fin de siècle. So, I spent my time walking around downtown with my camera in a pornographic mood, trying desperately to capture my from Chicago.

Thinking of what I leave behind, I ll miss the chilly rainless winter, the omnipresent chocolate smell, the Viagra triangle, the Chicago girls, the Gothamian architectural aesthetic in downtown, the GSB Campus in Hyde Park and last but not least I am gonna miss this smug feeling of superiority at UoC.

Εις το επανιδείν.

Forget Darwin. Here is the real enemy of Christianity

I like the Christian concept of forgiveness. And every year I am moved by the aesthetics and the pathos of the Greek Easter, a powerful story of fall and rise.
But I think these are the only things I find attractive in Christianity.

It is just that I always felt that the metaphysical assumptions about the existence of god, heaven and hell, demons and angels etc. just don’t make sense, were too big and arbitrary and counterintuitive to swallow. Not to mention the contrast, aesthetical and logical between the Old and the New Testament, or the internal inconsistencies in the stories etc. Since I was 15 I was convinced that Christianity is fiction -of a low aesthetical quality.

However, after the DaVinci Code movie, I observed that many people were actually shocked with the new idea that Jesus was mortal; it was like a revelation to them. Personally, I was shocked that they were shocked, who are these people that never even thought of that? Or, maybe the right question is how they choose their religion.

The critical factor is the good old “peer pressure”: as it happends with believers in other religions, 99% of the time, Christians are raised in a Christian family. Unavoidably there is a strong emotional pressure to preserve the tradition and Christians just inherit the religion of their families.
However, many times, this emotional pressure tends to be challenged by an opposing force: a skepticism caused by the inconsistencies of the whole Christian tale itself. I would say that the conditions for the success of this offsetting “skeptical pressure” are:
-a minimum level of education, and
-decently high analytical skills

The first condition can easily reach a limit -a high portion of the population getting the necessary education. Thus, is pretty much static.
That leaves us with the analytical skills of the individuals as the only dynamic factor that can increase the "skeptical resistance" to the peer pressure. I say dynamic because it has been observed that every generation is significantly smarter than the previous one, a well-substantiated finding in psychology called the Flynn effect.

Now, I guess you see where this is going: The Flynn Effect is a long-term existential threat to Christianity.

The policy implications? Maybe the church should shift its resoruces and focus on banning IQ enhancers like computer games; or even more boldly, start some extensive malnutrirition programs, free junk food for the masses.

Προσοχή! Ο αντιαμερικανισμός βλάπτει σοβαρά τον εγκέφαλο

Πήρα με email ένα «άρθρο» από ελληνική εφημερίδα που αναφέρει ένα αποδεδειγμένα πραγματικό (sic) ραδιοφωνικό διάλογο στην θάλασσα μεταξύ του αμερικανικού αεροπλανοφόρου USS Montana με την συνοδεία του από την μία και ισπανών από την άλλη που βρίσκονται σε τροχιά σύγκρουσης. Οι αμερικάνοι με πολύ τσαμπουκά διατάσσουν τους ισπανούς να αλλάξουν πορεία αλλά τελικά γελοιοποιούνται γιατί οι Ισπανοί μπροστά τους ήτανε φάρος και όχι θαλάσσιο όχημα.

Παράξενο περιστατικό, ολόκληρο αεροπλανοφόρο με συνοδεία και δεν ξέρανε που βρίσκονταν -θα είχανε χαλάσει όλα τα GPS τους μάλλον. Μάλλον θα κοιμότανε και η ισπανική ακτοφυλακή που δεν τούς ειδοποίησε ότι μπήκανε σε ξένα χωρικά ύδατα. Και μάλλον θα ήτανε τυφλοί όσοι ήτανε στο κατάστρωμα εκείνη την ώρα που δεν μπόρεσαν να διακρίνουν τον φάρο.

Βέβαια μια γρήγορη έρευνα στο internet έδειξε ότι το περιστατικό δεν ήταν πραγματικό , αλλά ανέκδοτο που κυκλοφορεί σε πολλές άλλες εκδόσεις, με καναδέζικο φάρο κλπ.

Αυτά για τις έγκυρες ελληνικές εφημερίδες και το έξυπνο αναγνωστικό τους κοινό...

The Last of the 20thCentury Myths

As social sciences undergrads we were bombarded with the dogma that there are no fundamental differences between men and women. All differences (apart from the obvious physical) are socially constructed and as such can and should be eliminated in a fair society. However, the emergence of the evolutionary paradigm along with advances in neurobiology and genetics debunked the myth. It seems that the layman was always right, from sexual behavior to agressiveness and competitiveness, testosterone makes a huge difference. Now, few new books are breaking the news to the wider public; the last (?) myth of the 20th century is about to pass away for good.

After reading "Taking sex differences seriously", an excellent primer on the subject, I started the notorious "Manliness” by Harvey Mansfield. Mansfield, the “weirdo” Harvard professor, is less concerned with fact gathering; his book is more of a philosophical discourse on the various layers of manliness, its evolution through the ages and its role in the modern society. His bold references to Plato and Nietszche may initially strike as old-fashioned; admittedly they provide a refreshingly unusual approach. His sarcastic references to the “gender neutral society” deliver the final blow to the comatose radical feminism. Definitely a must read.

I cant resist this one:
Poor Laurence Summers, just a few years too early.

Political Positioning in Greece: A Market Void

In the Greek political arena labels tend to be uninformative and arbitrary. “Reactionary”, “patriotic”, “progressive”, “conservative”, it is all a mess. Here I try to systemize some thoughts I had on the issue and to provide a perceptual map and a positioning framework as tools to better understand the dynamics in the Greek political scene.

Some definitions/assumptions:
Political Entities (PEs from now on) refer to politicians, political parties, or any other active entities with distinct ideological coordinates. We approach the voting process as a market, the PEs as the products and the electorate as the consumers with equal purchasing power (their vote).
PEs, like all products, are positioned in a perceptual map by the electorate across several dimensions. Although there are many significant dimensions, I chose the two that explain best most of the positioning process, with the minimum overlap. These are (1):
-Attitude towards Markets. On one side of this axis are the PEs that tend to be friendly and supportive of business, capitalism, free markets and globalization (I call these Liberals); on the other extreme are the PEs that support a big state and egalitarianism (I call these Egalitarians)
-Attitude towards National Issues. On one side of this axis are the PEs that are characterized by assertiveness for various national non-domestic issues, pride for the Greek heritage and Greek character of our society and aspiration to promote “Hellenism”, (I call these Patriots); on the other side are the PEs that demonstrate internationalism, a focus on global issues, and a relativistic-skeptic attitude towards national identity (I call these Cosmopolitans) (2) .

Using a Cartesian coordinate system we can visualize the relative positioning of the PEs based on the above dimensions:



It needs to be stressed that these are the positions of the politicians as they perceived on average by the electorate and not an “objective” assessment of their political coordinates. For example, in my opinion Μητσοτάκης is far more “patriotic” than generally perceived.

Two interesting observations:
One assumption is that the preferences of the electorate are normally distributed around the two axes. Thus the political parties, especially the bigger ones, are closer to the (0,0) point, because they need to capture a bigger chunk of the electorate. However, individual PEs (politicians) can position themselves successfully on a longer Cartesian distance from the centre because to be elected they need to capture only a tiny share of the total electorate.
The second observation has to do with the existence of a distinct market void in the first quadrant (Patriotic – Liberal). Assuming no fundamental incompatibility between the two positions and normally distributed preferences, there is an unsatisfied electoral clientele waiting.
Any Patriotic-Liberal politician out there?

_________________________________
(1).I do not use the common dimension of “conservative” vs “progressive” for several reasons:
First, it is defined fundamentally different for different strata of the electorate. Second, it is too vague, can refer to such different issues as church, environment, tolerance to corruption and crime. Third, I believe that Greece as most of Europe is ideologically very homogeneous in all the above issues. That means that we don’t really notice any critical differences between political entities in the above issues. Almost all Greeks are pro-environment, pro-abortion, rather tolerant to crime, non-practicing orthodox Christians etc. Consider for example a rather common profile: urban, non-religious, job in services middle management level, has studied/lived abroad, wants more toughness on crime and corruption, cares about the environment and supports family values. "Conservative" or "Progressive" are labels that make little sense in this case, if any.
(2). This is not a normative statement but rather a descriptive analysis. That means that I don’t suggest that the above dimensions should matter, I just claim that these dimensions currently explain better the emotional attitudes and preferences of the electorate.

Νίκος Δήμου: η αντίφαση και τα κλισέ

Don’t get me wrong, πιστεύω ότι ο Νίκος Δήμου είναι από τους εξυπνότερους διανοητές της γενιάς του. Αντίθετα με πολλούς άλλους ήτανε πάντα θιασώτης της τεχνολογίας και των εφαρμογών της, ενστερνίστηκε και εκλαίκευσε σημαντικές φιλελεύθερες ιδέες και τόλμησε να εκφράσει αιρετικές απόψεις για την κοινωνία και την εποχή του (1). Θεωρεί ότι είναι ορθολογιστής μέσα σε μια κοινωνία που βασιλεύει το παράλογο.
Ο ιστορικός του μέλλοντος μάλλον θα τον δει με θετικό μάτι, αλλά σίγουρα θα απορήσει με την μεγάλη του αντίφαση: δηλώνει ψυχρός ορθολογιστής αλλα δεν μπορεί να κρύψει το μεγάλο πάθος του...

Γιατί δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία, ο Νίκος Δήμου απεχθάνεται τους Έλληνες. Οι πανηγυρισμοί για το πανευρωπαικό πρωτάθλημα ήτανε δείγμα τριτοκοσμικής νοοτροπίας, δεν υπάρχει τίποτα να είμαστε περήφανοι για την ελληνική επανάσταση (2), γενικότερα για την ελληνικότητα μας, αφου δεν είμαστε καν Έλληνες. Γενικά είμαστε όλοι επαρχιώτες οπισθοδρομικοί και βαθιά κομπλεξικοί. Το βιβλίο του «η δυστυχία του να είσαι Έλληνας» (ναι Κε Δήμου, το έχω διαβάσει και το έχω καταλάβει) συναγωνίζεται σε εθνικό μίσος τα αντίστοιχα αντισημιτικά ή ρατσιστικά βιβλία αυτών που υποτίθεται οτι ο Νίκος Δήμου είναι ιδεολογικός αντίπαλος.

Αλλά πέρα από αυτήν την εξόφθαλμη αντίφαση, το μεγάλο πρόβλημα με τον Νίκο Δήμου είναι ότι δεν έχει τίποτα καινούριο να πει. Ο ορθολογισμός τού έχει μια έντονη οσμή naiveté 19ου αιώνα, σαν να έχασε το τρένο του μοντερνισμού και των σύγχρονων ιδεών. Σίγουρα δεν έκανε επαφή με το πιο δυναμικό και ανερχόμενο paradigm της εποχής μας, την εξελικτική ψυχολογία. Έτσι εξηγείται ότι δεν κατανοεί την βιολογική ανάγκη του ανθρώπου να ταυτίζεται με τους τριγύρω του και να υποστηρίζει τους ομοίους του. Οι ιδέες που αναμασά (3) τελευταία και κάνει την χάρη να εξηγεί στους αμόρφωτους ιθαγενείς είναι πάνω-κάτω οι εξής: οι θεωρίες συνωμοσίας είναι γελοίες, δεν ανήκει πουθενά, είναι ακομματικός αλλά όχι απολιτικός και να προσέξουμε την διαφορά, και είναι εναντίον των διακρίσεων και υπέρ της προόδου όλης της ανθρωπότητας. Όλες οι ιδέες σωστές, αλλά τόσο τετριμμένες.

Νίκος Δήμου, an intellectual relic?

_______________________________
(1) Πρέπει να παραδεχτώ, είναι γενναίο να είναι μη-αντιαμερικάνος και μη-αντικαπιταλιστής κάποιος της γενιάς του.
(2) Η ιστορική αλήθεια είναι ότι η επανάσταση καθαυτή ήταν μια ηρωικότατη πράξη που ενέπνευσε όλο τον κόσμο και ήτανε το ξεκίνημα για εθνικές επαναστάσεις σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Πράγματι, στο τέλος ο αγώνας κερδήθηκε από τις ξένες Δυνάμεις, άλλα η υποστήριξή τους ήτανε όχι αιτία, αλλά αποτέλεσμα ενός ηρωικού αγώνα που δημιούργησε εσωτερική πολιτική πίεση στις ηγεσίες των Μεγάλων Δυνάμεων.
(3) Μερικά κλισέ από το blog του: «Δεν μπορώ να νιώσω συλλογικό μίσος», «Είμαι ένας σκεπτικιστής», «Σε όλη μου τη ζωή πολεμώ τα δόγματα».

Περί μύθων

Τελικά «Το Βήμα» φαίνεται να συναγωνίζεται τον «Ριζοσπάστη» σε ότι πιο αντιδραστικό κυκλοφορεί στην Ελλάδα. Στο κυριακάτικο φύλλο της 7ης Μαΐου, διάβασα το άρθρο με τον μετριοπαθή τίτλο «Ο μύθος των ιδιωτικών πανεπιστημίων». Ο κος Δ. Τζιόβας, καθηγητής Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Birmingham της Αγγλίας (sic), ήταν εκεί, έτοιμος να καταρρίψει τον μύθο της ιδιωτικής παιδείας και να μας απαλλάξει από την μαζική παράνοιά μας. Τρέμε Milton Freedman…

Η βασική ιδέα στο άρθρο δεν είναι οτι η ιδιωτική παιδεια θα βλάψει τον τόπο, αλλά ότι τα προσδοκώμενα οφέλη ίσως να μην είναι τόσο σημαντικά.
Το πρώτο επιχείρημα είναι οτι στην ελληνική κοινωνία δεν υπάρχει αρκετή αξιολόγηση, σαν αξία και σαν σύστημα –άρα δεν πρέπει να δοκιμάσουμε την ιδιωτική παιδεία γιατί δεν θα πιάσει τις μέγιστες προσδοκίες και μπορεί και να μας χαλάσει και τα πατροπαράδοτα έθιμα με την εισαγωγή αξιολόγησης μη βασιζόμενη στο κράτος.
Το δεύτερο επιχείρημα είναι ότι επειδή στην Ελλάδα υπάρχει κεντρική χρηματοδότηση στην έρευνα, τα ιδιωτικά πανεπιστήμια δεν θα μπορέσουν ποτέ να ευδοκιμήσουν και ως παράδειγμα αναφέρεται η Αγγλία (το London Business School βρίσκεται σε άλλη χώρα μάλλον).
Μετά αναφέρεται ότι η αμερικάνικη οικονομία είναι η ισχυρότερη του κόσμου (γιατί άραγε;) ενώ εμείς η Ψωροκώσταινα δεν έχουμε μία και δεν θα πρέπει λοιπόν να προσπαθήσουμε να βελτιωθούμε με τέτοιες επικίνδυνες ιδέες.
Προς το τέλος υπάρχουν κάποιες νύξεις για συνεννόηση με την Κύπρο (;;;) και καταληγει ο κος Τζιόβας με το λογικότατο συμπέρασμα (ποιητική αδεία μάλλον): «Τα ιδιωτικά πανεπιστήμια θα υποβαθμίσουν παρά θα βελτιώσουν την ανώτατη εκπαίδευση στην Ελλάδα και ας διδαχθούμε κάποτε και από την πείρα άλλων χωρών, που έχουν λύσει προ πολλού ανάλογα προβλήματα.»

Για κάποιον που ζει στον πλανήτη Γη και συνεπώς ξέρει ότι τα καλύτερα πανεπιστήμια είναι κυρίως ιδιωτικά, είναι εύκολο να καταρρίψει όλα τα παραπάνω «επιχειρήματα». Πολύ περισσότερο ενδιαφέρον όμως έχει να αναλύσει κανείς τους ανθρώπους που τα υποστηρίζουν. Η οικονομία μας σέρνεται σχεδόν σε όλους τους δείκτες ανταγωνιστικότητας, πάσχουμε απο έλλειψη μεταρρυθμίσεων, σαν έθνος έχουμε φοβερό πρόβλημα braindrain, και αυτοί οι άνθρωποι κόπτονται μην τυχόν και χάσει το κράτος το μονωπόλιο στην παιδεία. Γιατί όμως;

Προσπάθησα να φτιάξω μια λίστα με πιθανούς λόγους και κίνητρα για τον συγκεκριμένο αρθρογράφο:
-έλλειψη οικονομικής-business παιδείας (φιλόλογος γαρ)
-προσωπική σύνδεση με βολεμένους ακαδημαϊκούς
-επιθυμία να αρθρογραφήσει στο κρατικιστικό «Το Βημα»
-περιορισμένες αναλυτικές ικανότητες

Δεν έχω καταλήξει ακόμα ποιός απο τους παραπάνω λόγους είναι o χειρότερος.

Intelligence overdose

Becker and Posner discuss. The link to the ultimate blog:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

These stones again...

It was almost amusing to watch Mr. Boardman’s effort (“What were the Elgin marbles?”, The Wall Street Journal, P11, April 22) to persuade us that the Elgin Marbles should not be returned to Greece. He adds an interesting twist in this old debate; he actually claims that the marbles should stay in London because they are not worth as much as had been thought. On his view, they are not a symbol of democracy or modern civilization; their only value is aesthetic and they can be appreciated better in the British Museum.

In his effort to minimize their value he slants history and disparages everyone involved. We learn for example that “there was no Greek “nation” (sic) as such”. Apparently common language, religion, culture and a sense of national unity under foreign threat do not constitute a nation for Mr. Boardman. Athens, “the most hated state in Greece” because of its power and prosperity (reminds me of a contemporary country…) does not deserve to have the Marbles back. The Elgin Marbles themselves should not be associated with democracy; they were rather a statement of Athenian power. That is why “many Greeks saw the defeat of Athens at the end of the fifth century as a proper retribution for such a hubris” as the building of the Parthenon. He presents the ancient Greeks as uncultured. Not to mention that modern “Greece is visited less for art than for sunshine”. Case in point.

Mr. Boardman is brash enough to hint that the Marbles were saved by being transferred to London. Somehow he forgets to mention that the marbles were badly damaged in the 30s while in the Museum’s custody, although he has served as the Museum’s apologist for that issue in the past.

Towards the end professor Boardman continues to entertain us; he becomes a moral relativist when it comes to “the stuff of modern arguments about “legality” (sic) that are quite foreign to the manners of the early 1800s”. Bribes however, especially the ones that Elgin used to capture the marbles, were common enough in that era that, according to Mr. Boardman, their outcomes should be accepted by us now.

The final weapon in Mr. Boardman’s arsenal is agnosticism. What is “cultural heritage”? he wonders aloud. His argument is that since the classical Greek culture appeals to the whole of humanity, it doesn’t really matter where its symbols are–even if they are in the hands of those who appropriated them illegally. As an analogy, imagine that the original document of the Bill of Rights had been somehow acquired by the British and kept in a museum in London because "as a cultural symbol it belongs to the whole humanity, not just to Americans".

Fortunately, many British citizens, not associated with the interests of the British Museum, support the return of the Marbles. The reasons are plenty: legal, historical and aesthetic. But the most powerful argument is moral: The Elgin marbles were carved out from the Parthenon with saws after Lord Elgin bribed the Ottoman occupiers. They were stolen from the Greek nation. They should be returned to where they belong: Athens, Greece.