Well, yes. Everything's political.

My brother's post in which he says "Every human action therefore is an economic action" seems a bit over the top to me. I mean, sure, if you define economics so broadly to encompass all subjective valuation to be a part of economics then most human actions are economic. (Reflex actions may still be safely excluded, I'd think.) It reminded me of the line I used as the title of the post. It's from Fiddler on the Roof when Perchik is proposing marriage "in a theoretical sense" to Hodel.

This sense of the world that can be viewed entirely through an economic or political prism seems to me to be far too materialist. This "theory of everything" type of belief smacks to me of the tyrannies imposed by those who would deny the role of the immaterial. Everything is political or economic only if that is the lens you choose to make your primary method of looking at the world. Frankly, I'd rather not discount all other approaches out of hand, for if you do... well, that way madness lies.

Merry Madrigals

I was listening to my music library on a random setting and Del cibo, onde il signor came on. Not, of course, that anyone should necessarily recognize that title, but it's the third track of an album I ran across years ago (I no longer remember how) that is madrigals written by a Luca Marenzio for 5 and 6 voices. You can listen to samples at that link.

I'm not much of a music snob mostly since I don't have the musical ability to be so. But I do find that the music which I enjoy more than almost any other and find most impressive does tend to be older music. I don't want to say that all the music of today is crap, though a lot is, but I think it ends up being a lot like literature to some degree. The good stuff of yesteryear has been shaken out and preserved and a lot of the chaff is blown away in the winds of time. (Such metaphors!)

Fermat's Last Theorem and the a priori approach to economics

To my shame, I don’t remember the exact quote or which of the Austrian economists said it, but a wise Austrian economist once stated that economics is necessarily the business of every person. This is because every human action is based upon a choice, and that choice assigns value, and this subjective valuation is the heart of economics. Every human action therefore is an economic action. And who would deny that our daily bread comes to us through the economy, paid for by our participation in the economy? Economics, then, could be said to be the essence of life on earth. With that in mind, I offer these thoughts on economic methodology.

I was watching a show about Fermat’s Last Theorem, and of course I thought about Austrian economics. Well, there was a little more to it than that. In trying to explain why a computer could not be used to prove a mathematical theorem, a mathematician gave the example of a computer testing 100 numbers in the given equation, or 1,000, or 1,000,000: how much closer are you to having tested every number? You need a human mind to set out a proof that explains why it is logically impossible for the equation to work, because with infinite potential inputs, you cannot eliminate them one by one, no matter how fast you’re computing.

The same problem arises when trying to use empiricism in describing human interaction, such as economics: no matter how much data you accumulate, you can attempt to test economic models without logical proofs, but there will always be more relevant data than you can factor into the model, or measure with your test, and you will find yourself in the unenviable position of backtesting and endlessly tweaking various hypotheses (models). Empiricism is destined to fail in economics, because it is the wrong tool for the job, just as it is the wrong tool for proving Fermat’s Last Theorem. You need a priori proofs to describe economics, just as the Austrian School has always maintained.

To illustrate the superiority of the Austrian approach, compare it to the mathematician who does the work of figuring out, logically, why something is necessarily always true, and goes about writing the steps of logic required to reach that conclusion. In both cases, you start with laws that are self-evident, proceed through logic to a series of conclusions that must be true, if our first laws are true, and end at good theory that consistently instructs us about the world we live in. The benefits of this approach, both in economics and in math, are manifold and throughout technology, industry, and leisure.

A weekend laugh

Albi: The Racist Dragon - Part 6

Book Review: The Arkadians by Lloyd Alexander

I've read a couple books by Lloyd Alexander lately. I saw several of them on a list of my brother's books and I was reminded of how long it had been since I had read them and how much I remembered enjoying them.

When you hold a clearance sale, the party's over.

I think Homestar Runner is dead. No new content in about 6 months, only 6 updates or so last year and now a 50% off sale on most of the stuff in the store? Good-bye, Homestar. You had a good run.

It is a race, and I am winning!

C'mon, bro. Pick up the pace! Even if we don't count this post I'm ahead three to one. And I've got a bunch of material I haven't typed up yet.

The B-I-B-L-E.

I am troubled by Russell Saltzman's essay from First Things a couple days ago. Reading his account filled me with concern for him, for his children and his parishioners. Mr Saltzman writes of how he does not feel religious or even aspire to piety; he notes that of his seven children only three attend church. Though he does not firmly state a conviction that his own rather sterile faith is at fault, he does muse for a moment on the possibility.

Obviously, no one of us can know his heart or that of any of his children, but he leads his essay with the anecdote of his third son attempting to read through the Bible while in bootcamp for the Army. Sadly, he did not finish it, but perhaps he will return to it later. I was struck, though, by the fact that it was something he had not even attempted until then.

With what Mr Saltzman goes on to write, I think one may infer that his children did not receive a great deal of encouragement to spend time in the Scriptures. And what then of his parishioners? Do they receive the proper encouragement? I hope so; it seems a terrible thing to wish, but perhaps this is an instance (sadly all to common with preachers) where a man of God follows in the footsteps of Eli.

But what I really wanted to write about...

Do. Not. Want.

I like baseball. I like numbers and statistics. So, with that in mind, you'd think that Baseball-Reference.com would be just a little slice of heaven on the Intertubes. And you'd have been right, until today.

Exhibit A.

Really, BR? Really? Is no where safe from the insidious grasp of politics? And that wasn't much of a hook to excuse the excursion, either. Yet another example of Jay Nordlinger's "Shut Up and Sing" phenomenon.

The wee turtles were too quick for me!

Well, no sooner do I get an e-mail complaining of difficulty logging into the blog, than I discover that it was a clever ruse on my brother's part to secure the opening salvo.

Be that as it may, hopefully this will not be a blog to sink into a slough of despond after a month. To that end, I shall talk about whatever I bloody well please, and if anyone cavils please refer to the address bar at the top of your browser. Suggestions from any corner are welcome; rules, FAQs, info about, etc to come shortly.

Welcome to the Egotists Club

This is where two brothers - for now we shall call them Gladstone and Wodehouse - will be gazing at their navels and imparting their novel ideas and wisdom to their grateful readers, as well as to posterity. Hence the name. However, even if no other reader ventures through our journal, I (Gladstone) will be glad to share this endeavour with Wodehouse, whom I see far too little, and whose criticism arms and fortifies me. As steel sharpens steel, so one man sharpens another.