The latest Nobel Prize award to Aumann and Schelling has generated a bit of discussion about the value or otherwise of game theory. Generally speaking, economists are enthusiastic about game theory and other social scientists less so. Although I admire the work of Aumann and (even more) Schelling, as economists go, I’m a game-theory sceptic, for a fundamental reason I’ll try to explain.
Read More »
test
Just testing
Anonymous comment safe
I just received the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto. Uniquely in my long experience of making submissions to such committees, all my main arguments were accepted, and embodied in recommendations of a report, with no dissent[1]. My main concern was to protect bloggers from being required to give their names and addresses and those of commenters. I argued that only paid advertisements should be subject to this requirement, and the committee agreed.
My post and submission here
A supplementary submission here
The Committee report here
Update I failed to recognise William Bowe, also quoted in the report as fellow-blogger The Poll Bludger. Well done! He has some comments on the Committee’s proposals for electoral reform here. See also Oz Politics and the Aussie WordPress blog.
fn1. There were as usual, majority and minority reports, with disagreements on topics like compulsory voting and four year terms, of which more I hope. But there was no disagreement on the issues raised in my submission.
Earthquake appeals
There are now plenty of opportunities to help those affected by the earthquake in Pakistan. You can donate to the Oxfam appeal here, for example. I’m not going to run a special appeal this time, but if anyone wants to give suggestions for future activities of this kind that would be great. In the meantime, please give generously.
The end of academic freedom at Macquarie
Macquarie university has run into plenty of difficulties lately what with the Fraser case and this one involving economis Peter Abelson . Dealing with repugnant and poorly-argued views like Fraser’s (he’s an unapologetic racist, arguing on the basis of pop sociology, though he’s supposed to be an academic lawyer) presents a university with great difficulties, balancing academic freedom against the need to assure students that they will be treated fairly and will not face the threat of physical violence from his unsavoury associates. I don’t think the university did a great job, but I have some sympathy for their dilemma.
The case of Peter Abelson (whom I know and respect) is a different matter altogether and illustrates the reasons we need a strong commitment to academic freedom, even at the cost of putting up with people like Fraser. It seems clear that Abelson has been punished for speaking out as he ought to in a community of scholars against declining standards in education. As with most Australian universities in the era of refom, Macquarie’s managers have no truck with notions of this kind. Their view is that the bosses of a private corporation wouldn’t tolerate criticism from the hired help, so why should the managers of a university?
If the Abelson case didn’t demonstrate this, the appointment of Stephen Schwartz as vice-chancellor to replace Di Yerbury is proof positive. While many university managers are privately hostile to academic freedom, Schwartz is an open enemy. The article linked is a fine example of the way in which hard cases like Fraser’s can be used to justify a general policy of suppressing dissenters, whistleblowers and so on (note the opening reference to the Steele case)).
I thought we had seen the last of Schwartz when he left Australia to run Brunel university in the UK. But, as happened previously at Murdoch, there was a staff vote of no-confidence and he’s moving on.
While I’m on the topic of education the idea that finishing high school is only for future professionals and that working class kids should drop out at year 10 and try to get a trade has reared its ugly head again (via Tim Dunlop and Andrew Leigh
The revolving door
According to today’s Fin, Bob Carr has been hired as an advisor by Macquarie Bank, and will work for them out of his (publicly-funded) ex-Premier’s office. The Fin notes that this is “sensitive, given the NSW government’s role in the infrastructure programs that have driven the bank’s growth”, and that is putting it mildly. Of all the post-political jobbery we have seen in the last decade or so, this would have to be the worst, beating out even such egregious cases as Reith and Wooldridge.
The Fin’s editorial calls for a cooling-off period between leaving politics and taking on jobs of this kind, but even a three-year gap, as in the US would not be adequate in a case like this. The Carr government’s dealings with Macquarie have involved billions of dollars of public money, and contributed (probably more than any other government) to Macquarie’s reputation as a “millionaire factory”. Any prospect of future employment when those deals were made, no matter how distant, would have created an unacceptable conflict of interest.
More Nobel congratulations
To Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling for the Economics Nobel, and Mohammad El-Baradei for the Peace Prize. Aumann and Schelling are worthy winners. And if people had listened to El-Baradei a couple of years ago, we could have avoided the whole Iraq disaster.
Monday message board
It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual (in fact, more so than usual), civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
Godblogging
Commenter Brigid alerted me to this study claiming that Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide. On the other hand, Jack Strocchi points to Niall Ferguson claiming that A faith vacuum haunts Europe.
A striking feature of these completing claims is that the alleged effects are the opposite of what might be expected. According to the Journal of Religion and Society study, religion is supposed to cause things condemned by Christianity, and most other major religions. On the other hand, Ferguson appears concerned (as usual) with the decline of martial ‘virtues’ that are antithetical to Christianity as preached by Jesus. At least that’s the only sense I can make of the leap in his final sentence where he asks
how far has their own loss of religious faith turned Britain into a soft target — not so much for the superstition Chesterton feared, but for the fanaticism of others?
What’s even more striking is how little difference the presence or absence of religious belief seems to make. Americans and Europeans, not to mention Red-staters and Blue-staters, don’t seem to behave in radically different ways[1], and the differences that can be observed don’t have any obvious relationship to the inferences you might make if you supposed that one group believed in the Bible and the other did not. Neither the Ten Commandments nor the teachings of Jesus seem to command any more practical adherence in America than in Europe, while it’s hard to see how free-market economics and military unilateralism have any particular basis in Christianity.
The (apparent) unimportance of religious belief for social outcomes was one the great surprises of the 20th century, although, like most negative discoveries, its significance is not fully appreciated. In the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly everyone thought that religious belief made a big difference, for good or ill. Enlightenment figures like Diderot believed that man would never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. On the other side of the fence, Nietzsche’s philosophy was built on the observation that “God is dead” and the assumption that some transcendent replacement was required if we were not to collapse in nihilistic despair. Most in the 19th century agreed with Voltaire that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, since social order could never be maintained without the availability of Heaven and Hell to supplement earthly rewards and punishments.
So far at least, it seems that neither side is right. As Fergusson points out, the collapse of religious belief in Britain has not produced an Age of Reason – superstitions of all kinds flourish. And Parliamentary politics goes on much as it has for the past two centuries or so, despite the greatly diminished influence of kings and priests. On the other side of the coin, there is no sign of social collapse. Most obviously, crime rates are far lower than they were in the days of Victorian values, let alone in the medieval era when virtually everyone was a believer.
This is, I think a good thing. The more that religion is a purely private matter, with no particular social implications, the less likely we are to fight about it.
fn1. Ferguson briefly concedes this point in relation to sexual behaviour, but ploughs on regardless.
Bad news and some good
The terrible earthquake in Pakistan is reported to have killed 18000 people and a mudslide in Guatemala has killed 1400. I haven’t found notices of any relief appeals yet, but there will certainly be a great need for aid in both the short and long term. Tragedies like this are both a challenge and an opportunity to demonstrate that rhetoric about our concern for people everywhere in the world has some basis in reality. And remember that, while dramatic events like this grab the headlines, malnutrition, malaria, HIV/AIDS and so on are killing every day.
On the good news front, a UQ research team claims to have developed a 100 per cent effective vaccine against cervical cancer. Assuming this works as promised, it will save many thousands of lives in the long run. The biggest benefits will be a long time coming it appears because of the time lag between infection with human papilloma virus and the development of the disease, but it’s still a marvellous discovery.
