Some reading
Aug. 22nd, 2007 11:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahI've been reading some more-or-less worthy books in amongst the usual sort of tripe I read.
Firstly, Ozonomics - Inside the Myth of Australia's Economic Superheroes by Andrew Charlton, who lectures at the LSE. It's an excellent read, and demystifies economics nicely - in fact, deconstructs economics with three words: productivity, jobs and equality. His essential premise is that all the credit that Howard and Costello have grabbed regarding the strength of the Australian economy has in fact been nothing to do with their policies. All they have done is meddle in social policy, and erode workers' rights. As Charlton points out, there is no way in hell Australia can compete with cheap Asian or third-world labour, and joining in to a race to the bottom in terms of worker's rights is a zero-sum game. Also, and crucially, he points out how too much inequality in an economy is bad overall.
I find myself agreeing with most of his premises, although of course my knowledge of economics in general is not great. He points out that the classic divide between left and right regarding economic policy is no longer valid. He divides the groups into: "populist nationalists" - lumping together those who believe in corporate welfare and protectionism (tariffs, often allied with anti-immigration), industry assistance and unreformed welfare; neoconservatives - who believe the market is king, survival of the fittest and all that tripe; and what he calls "progressive globalists", who believe in markets, but also believe that regulation is needed, from government, unions and social instituations. He makes a compelling argument for the latter point of view. (I can't help wondering throughout any discussion on economics what would happen in a non-money-based one. Oh well.)
So, the lumping together of the "populist nationalists" is an interesting one. I can't stand corporate welfare in any of its forms. As Charlton points out, if a businessman is personally earning scores of millions a year, giving a "business grant" for a new factory somewhere of a few million is the govt basically just lining their mate's pocket a bit more - he could undoubtedly afford to invest in it himself it he thought it would be viable. I'm also not that impressed with the traditional union movement. I remember the hardcore old bastards who didn't want women in their trades, let alone any queers or what-have-you. They also didn't do much for me when I lost my job, and that bullshit of them suing each other for jurisdiction over workers in a particular enterprise was ridiculous. While the smashing of the unions went too far in NZ, I think the balance they have there now - you can join any union you like, no matter what industry it traditionally serviced, but they have proper bargaining rights on your behalf - is a good one. Anyways, while I agree that manufacturing tariffs are just sticking your finger in the dyke, Charlton neglected to discuss what would be a suitable way of ditching them (rather than just suddenly going chop, and hanging all those workers out to dry). Anyway, the best way to sum up that group is that they have a fortress mentality, essentially.
I'm not even going to bother talking about the neoconservatives. I thought his discussion on "progressive globalists" was interesting, and I have agreed all along with his solution to the decline in manufacturing locally - invest in education and R&D, and innovate. The reason the US economy has remained going for as long as it has is that they innovated - all those Asian Tiger economies were playing catch-up. And didn't succeed. He uses the example of the fashion industry. People can bemoan the loss of clothing manufacturing jobs, but I personally think it's a good thing that people can actually afford to buy clothes these days. But clothing designers can create innovative quality fashions, which bring just as much money (and a good portion of jobs) to the economy. A potential throttle to get rid of the worst of the tat is to insist on minimum worker and manufacturing standards for imported goods (there are already a raft of safety standards in place... which could stand to be better policed). He also discusses the rise of the service industry in soaking up a pile of jobs for otherwise unskilled workers. I think he could have talked a bit more about educational solutions like industry training schemes for workers whose manufacturing jobs are drying up, but he didn't.
Another crucial omission in his discussion is that of the environment. He talks about how the Australian boom was built on the agricultural and mining industries - and they still provide a huge chunk of Australia's revenues. So what happens when the rivers finally dry up? It's hard to be productive when a pile of your raw materials disappear or become expensive to obtain.
But despite my minor quibbles (there are a few more), it really is a good overview into the myths and legends of the Australian economy.
Then I read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. He nicely explains the whole climate debate, and discusses the science behind the conclusions that the vast majority of climate scientists have reached about climate change. He also nicely debunks the idea that higher temps overall and increased carbon dioxide in the air may be beneficial. It's just difficult to be optimistic - as long as governments and business bullshit about the potential costs (and he points out regulatory costs are always wildly overestimated when environmental impacts are involved), nothing will happen fast enough. Hopefully the argument that it'll cost a lot less to do something now, and take the chance that the artificially-caused nature of climate change might be wrong, than to do nothing at all.
Finally, I read Sarah Waters' latest, The Night Watch. God, if she heads down the Winterson route... Anyways, it struck me as 98% of "literary" fiction does. Depressing and ultimately meaningless. Ok, the take on people (mostly queers) who lived in the interstices of post-war London is interesting, and it's obviously beautifully researched, and is nicely consistent, but why is it that "literary" authors seem to think it's more real if the story is miserable? Basically lots of aimlessness, internal dialogue, dull drama and eventual pointlessness (ie. no plot to speak of - I don't mind if it's non-linear, even). Not even particularly gripping prose, either (at least you can say that Winterson has a distinctive style).
Anyway, I blame the Modernists. Can anyone think of any literary fiction since Woolf, Joyce et al (actually, probably Hardy and Eliot, although at least they had plots) that isn't miserable? Various critics wah on about the dearth of people reading "quality", but, leaving aside their dismissal of any number of a ton of fantastic genre books, it's no wonder that people aren't keen to read pretentious and stultifying stuff, even if it's "good" for them.
Firstly, Ozonomics - Inside the Myth of Australia's Economic Superheroes by Andrew Charlton, who lectures at the LSE. It's an excellent read, and demystifies economics nicely - in fact, deconstructs economics with three words: productivity, jobs and equality. His essential premise is that all the credit that Howard and Costello have grabbed regarding the strength of the Australian economy has in fact been nothing to do with their policies. All they have done is meddle in social policy, and erode workers' rights. As Charlton points out, there is no way in hell Australia can compete with cheap Asian or third-world labour, and joining in to a race to the bottom in terms of worker's rights is a zero-sum game. Also, and crucially, he points out how too much inequality in an economy is bad overall.
I find myself agreeing with most of his premises, although of course my knowledge of economics in general is not great. He points out that the classic divide between left and right regarding economic policy is no longer valid. He divides the groups into: "populist nationalists" - lumping together those who believe in corporate welfare and protectionism (tariffs, often allied with anti-immigration), industry assistance and unreformed welfare; neoconservatives - who believe the market is king, survival of the fittest and all that tripe; and what he calls "progressive globalists", who believe in markets, but also believe that regulation is needed, from government, unions and social instituations. He makes a compelling argument for the latter point of view. (I can't help wondering throughout any discussion on economics what would happen in a non-money-based one. Oh well.)
So, the lumping together of the "populist nationalists" is an interesting one. I can't stand corporate welfare in any of its forms. As Charlton points out, if a businessman is personally earning scores of millions a year, giving a "business grant" for a new factory somewhere of a few million is the govt basically just lining their mate's pocket a bit more - he could undoubtedly afford to invest in it himself it he thought it would be viable. I'm also not that impressed with the traditional union movement. I remember the hardcore old bastards who didn't want women in their trades, let alone any queers or what-have-you. They also didn't do much for me when I lost my job, and that bullshit of them suing each other for jurisdiction over workers in a particular enterprise was ridiculous. While the smashing of the unions went too far in NZ, I think the balance they have there now - you can join any union you like, no matter what industry it traditionally serviced, but they have proper bargaining rights on your behalf - is a good one. Anyways, while I agree that manufacturing tariffs are just sticking your finger in the dyke, Charlton neglected to discuss what would be a suitable way of ditching them (rather than just suddenly going chop, and hanging all those workers out to dry). Anyway, the best way to sum up that group is that they have a fortress mentality, essentially.
I'm not even going to bother talking about the neoconservatives. I thought his discussion on "progressive globalists" was interesting, and I have agreed all along with his solution to the decline in manufacturing locally - invest in education and R&D, and innovate. The reason the US economy has remained going for as long as it has is that they innovated - all those Asian Tiger economies were playing catch-up. And didn't succeed. He uses the example of the fashion industry. People can bemoan the loss of clothing manufacturing jobs, but I personally think it's a good thing that people can actually afford to buy clothes these days. But clothing designers can create innovative quality fashions, which bring just as much money (and a good portion of jobs) to the economy. A potential throttle to get rid of the worst of the tat is to insist on minimum worker and manufacturing standards for imported goods (there are already a raft of safety standards in place... which could stand to be better policed). He also discusses the rise of the service industry in soaking up a pile of jobs for otherwise unskilled workers. I think he could have talked a bit more about educational solutions like industry training schemes for workers whose manufacturing jobs are drying up, but he didn't.
Another crucial omission in his discussion is that of the environment. He talks about how the Australian boom was built on the agricultural and mining industries - and they still provide a huge chunk of Australia's revenues. So what happens when the rivers finally dry up? It's hard to be productive when a pile of your raw materials disappear or become expensive to obtain.
But despite my minor quibbles (there are a few more), it really is a good overview into the myths and legends of the Australian economy.
Then I read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. He nicely explains the whole climate debate, and discusses the science behind the conclusions that the vast majority of climate scientists have reached about climate change. He also nicely debunks the idea that higher temps overall and increased carbon dioxide in the air may be beneficial. It's just difficult to be optimistic - as long as governments and business bullshit about the potential costs (and he points out regulatory costs are always wildly overestimated when environmental impacts are involved), nothing will happen fast enough. Hopefully the argument that it'll cost a lot less to do something now, and take the chance that the artificially-caused nature of climate change might be wrong, than to do nothing at all.
Finally, I read Sarah Waters' latest, The Night Watch. God, if she heads down the Winterson route... Anyways, it struck me as 98% of "literary" fiction does. Depressing and ultimately meaningless. Ok, the take on people (mostly queers) who lived in the interstices of post-war London is interesting, and it's obviously beautifully researched, and is nicely consistent, but why is it that "literary" authors seem to think it's more real if the story is miserable? Basically lots of aimlessness, internal dialogue, dull drama and eventual pointlessness (ie. no plot to speak of - I don't mind if it's non-linear, even). Not even particularly gripping prose, either (at least you can say that Winterson has a distinctive style).
Anyway, I blame the Modernists. Can anyone think of any literary fiction since Woolf, Joyce et al (actually, probably Hardy and Eliot, although at least they had plots) that isn't miserable? Various critics wah on about the dearth of people reading "quality", but, leaving aside their dismissal of any number of a ton of fantastic genre books, it's no wonder that people aren't keen to read pretentious and stultifying stuff, even if it's "good" for them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-22 02:06 pm (UTC)I read very little Literature..but I do read some.
I did enjoy some of AS Byatt's work, and i do tend to like Literature in translation, written by furriners.
but usually I stick to F&SF and non-fiction.
Ozonomics sounds interesting. Since I have a book voucher, I may get it! Ta for the reccy :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 12:22 pm (UTC)As for literary fiction, there's very little after Jane Austen I can be bothered with. And it's only recently she's been "respectable" in that respect.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 01:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-22 02:10 pm (UTC)Personally, I really like books that could be described as "miserable", I suppose, so I'm not in the best position to answer. :) I also don't mind plotlessness at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 12:24 pm (UTC)I really don't like misery in fiction - there's enough of it in RL, as far as I'm concerned. It's possibly because reading was such an escape when I was a kidlet (but that's hardly uncommon).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-22 11:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 12:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 02:03 am (UTC)Also my Myers-Briggs score is fairly accurate to my personality. I keep meaning to reply to that and failing horribly.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 12:33 pm (UTC)As for your M-B score, well, yay consistency. I'm getting different results everytime I take it at present, so I've given up.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 04:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-23 12:35 pm (UTC)