The Vanishing Point

I går, mandag, var der ikke mindre end to interessante programmer på DR2. Det første omhandlede positiv særbehandling i USA (”affirmative action”), og var, imod al forventning, forholdsvist kritisk overfor det, i og med at det tog udgangspunkt i en sag som hvide der har følt sig diskrimineret har anlagt imod University of Michigan. Og det var endda fransk! Begge sider af sagen blev hørt, men det var svært ikke at have medfølelse med den kvinde som var blevet afvist udelukkende på grund af hendes hudfarve - medmindre man er hardcore marxist/post-marxist/neo-marxist/post-strukturalist eller evt. studererer “post-colonial studies”. Eller i øvrigt beskæftiger sig med lignende “discipliner”. Og så er jeg ligeglad med om Colin Powell har draget nytte af positiv særbehandling. Programmet viste sig at være så interessant, at jeg gik glip af halvdelen af “Platoon” på 3+, der ellers er en af mine favorit-krigsfilm (men de mange reklame-indslag på 3+ gjorde det alligevel svært at følge med i filmen, eftersom at jeg er tilbøjelig til at zappe væk så snart der er reklamer). Det hed på dansk “Racisme eller Særbehandling” (ved ikke hvad den franske titel var), og kan anbefales. (more…)

A fine little piece in the Financial Times today, discusses the association between income inequality and Anglo-American style free-market capitalism. To everyones surprise, no obvious correlation exists. Some months ago I did a few simple analyses of the same problem, and neither found no correlation on a broad scale. It also confirms other more scientifically elaborate results discovered by scholars in the field. There is an interesting point to the article, that I was not aware of, however (even though it seems an obvious explanation, especially given the nature of economic development over the last decades - you know, all that stuff with the knowledge economy): income inequality seems to be associated with the quality of secondary education. (more…)

Amartya Sen, an economist that can hardly be characterized as a free-market fundamentalist, is at least willing to admit this basic truism:

“To be generically against markets would be almost as odd as being generically against all conversations between people (even though some conversations are clearly foul and cause problems for others - or even the conversationalists themselves). The freedom to exchange words, or goods, or gifts does not need defensive justification in terms of their favorable but distant effects; they are part of the way human beings in society live and interact with each other (unless stopped by regulation or fiat). The contribution of the market mechanism to economic growth is, of course, important, but this comes only after the direct significance of the freedom to interchange - words, goods, gifts - has been acknowledged.”

- Development as Freedom, 1998, p. 6.

The analogy of conversations has become no less relevant with the advent of the knowledge-economy where words can be worth much more than physical goods.