Paddington the Economist (JM)

If you're richer, you're happier

People tell you that wealth does not lead to happiness. New research shows they're wrong

I thought, just from the title of this article, that it had so very much potential. But I was wrong, so very wrong. It was like looking at treasure chest only to realize that it is standing straight in front of Scrooge McDuck’s money bin. I will comment a lot less than usual because I think there’s going to be beauty in letting a lot of this speak for itself.

Daniel Finkelstein

To mark the first anniversary of Paddington Bear residing with the Browns, a small party is held at which Paddington performs conjuring tricks. Carefully reading from his conjuring book, the bear places Mr Curry's watch inside a handkerchief and smashes it with a hammer.

This is the most adorable opening to an opinion column ever. Who needs money to be happy, so long as we have Paddington Bear.

Unfortunately, Paddington has turned two pages at once. They were stuck together with marmalade. So he misses the words that follow the advice to bring down the hammer on the handkerchief - “having first removed the watch”.

Aww… I think I will rechristen you Finkelton Bear. I imagine you’ve had some marmalade problems of your own in your time.

I have been patient. For my entire adult life, I have been looking out to see Paddington's trick performed for real. But now I have. As my mother always told me: “Everything comes to he who waits.”

You were waiting to see a stuffed bear perform a magic trick? You actually saw a stuffed bear perform a magic trick?!

The production of literature about happiness has become an industry. Earlier this week a cross-party group of Christian MPs produced a report on the topic and were able to begin with a long list of books on the subject published in the last two years. Perhaps the most successful are Happiness: Lessons from a New Science by Richard Layard and Affluenza by Oliver James but there has been a host of others.

“Ahem… excuse me chaps, but perhaps you’ve heard of a little bear named Paddington? Also, do you have any marmalade?”

The starting point for this work is something called the Easterlin Paradox. In a 1974 paper, the economist Richard Easterlin presented empirical evidence on income and happiness that was pretty puzzling. Using surveys of how happy people say that they are, the paper seemed to show that within countries, the richer people are, the happier they are, but that between countries the same didn't hold.

This is not a paradox at all, instead it is something that makes total sense. After a certain point competition for goods and services is a matter of status as much as anything else. Moreover, you are competing in the same pricing market. Yes, perhaps it is better to be working class in America than upper middle class in, say, Ghana, however not that much better in terms of standard of living and way the heck worse in terms of social standing.

What this suggests is that being relatively rich compared to your fellow countrymen makes you happier, but that your absolute wealth doesn't matter. Once a minimum income level is reached, an amount necessary for a country's residents to subsist, all that extra economic growth doesn't appear to be improving life satisfaction.

I suspect this depends on how you define subsistence. If one were to do a really good, comparative study of this subject I imagine the line for subsistence would be socially relative. In America, subsisting probably requires far more than simply having food, clothing and shelter. But again, that would go back to the original argument the Easterlin paper would make.

The implications of Easterlin's discovery are pretty strong. It suggests that all this consumption is doing us no good. That is what the Christian MPs suggest, questioning whether we haven't sacrificed family life on the altar of capitalism. Indeed, some authors go farther and suggest that the very act of shopping is actually making us unhappy. The Easterlin Paradox certainly means that we shouldn't be organising our economies to maximise economic growth. Happiness, not income, should be our guide.

The problem is that I am not quite sure how one studies happiness in some sort of objective, quantifiable manner. This becomes particularly problematic when doing cross-cultural studies. Concepts of happiness probably range quite widely amongst different nations and backgrounds. I imagine it is nearly impossible to control these sorts of studies for income. I miss Paddington Bear, where did he go?

The leading happiness authors suggest that we should concentrate on reducing inequality. This might lead to lower national income, but who cares about that? It isn't making us happier. Increased equality would stop us all worrying about our relative positions and thus remove a source of unhappiness.

This is plausible, but I am not sure it’s unflawed. I think status differential is one of the very real sources of happiness, sadly, and removing wealth as a standard for status will just shift the battle in some other direction. This is not to say that redistributing wealth isn’t a good idea, it is as a way of helping to forge equal opportunity, however I am not sure it is the path to our universal happiness. Not to be too pessimistic, I suspect we live in a world where happiness is always going to be a function of a person’s place in society as well as their particular psyches. My point is that you can maximize happiness within an individual, but I think it’s a logical impossibility to universalize it.

And all this stuff has caught the mood. It's the intellectual vogue topic. David Cameron is talking about improving General Wellbeing not just Gross National Product. It's everywhere.

This is incredibly smart politics on Cameron’s part. This is leading to the rise of the new Right in Britain. It holds forth an ethos that the public can really buy in to, starkly different and more sympathetic than Thatcherism. It’s a model the American Right is going to be looking to after the bloodbath they’re going to face in the coming general election. (Seriously, it’s going be quite a disaster for them, their loss in the Mississippi-01 is, as Ambinder puts it, similar to a Democrat losing in Los Angeles County. Insane.)

There is just one teeny, tiny problem. It seems as if Easterlin wasn't correct.

It appears that before picking up their hammers to smash down on the handkerchief of economic growth, the happiness authors had an accident with the marmalade. They turned over two sticky pages at once and missed the reassessment of Easterlin's work that has been taking place.

Oh Finkelton Bear! How could you?! This was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to make a bad analogy. Somewhere Paddington is crying, and you owe him an apology. This doesn’t even make any sense. It would, if say people had not read part of Easterlin’s work, but not reading responses? That’s no marmalade-encrusted page. I miss the happier time when I thought this column was going to be about how all we need is Paddington.

Easterlin's original paper was based on fairly limited data. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, have been looking at the vast amount of data that has become available since then. And guess what? The two economists show that there is “a clear and positive link between average levels of subjective wellbeing across countries with no evidence of a satiation point beyond which wealthier countries have no further increases in subjective wellbeing”.

Whoa there, first of all I would need to know way way more about this before I would just conclude that Easterlin is wrong. But this misses the real question any way: Is the difference between the subjective happiness of people who live in the same country lesser or greater than the difference between people who occupy relatively similar positions in different countries, with different overall GDPs. In other words, all this shows is that countries with more money may have happier people. Duh. Moreover, countries with greater wealth (except for the United States) tend to have much fairer income distribution, there is no way to control for this.

In other words they show that it's not just relative wealth that matters, it is absolute wealth too - on average, the richer you are, the happier you are. And this isn't true just for the first slug of income, just until we can subsist, it is true all the way up and as economies keep growing.

Maybe, but it’s a question of prioritization. You cannot concentrate on growth and equality at the same time. The real issue is which is more critical to happiness.

The Nobel prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman is sufficiently important in this area of economics that Richard Layard dedicated his happiness book to him. Kahneman now believes the new evidence from the Wharton academics is “quite compelling” and adds that “there is just a vast amount of accumulating evidence that the Easterlin Paradox may not exist”.

This is just hearsay. See I’m like totally a lawyer.

Now this doesn't, of course, prove by itself that higher income causes greater happiness. Let's not make that mistake. In the academic literature on psychology you will find plenty of reason to believe, for instance, that the relationship might be the other way round - that greater happiness might cause higher income.

This would make total sense on a relative income level. Individuals who are happier may be more productive. This is weird and crazy on a state-actor level. It’s not like the country filled with the happiest people are the most prosperous. If that were the case Canada would have the second highest GDP, right behind The Netherlands.

At the very least, however, it shows that higher income is consistent with greater happiness and isn't actually making us unhappy. It also means, again at the very least, that if the happiness authors want to advance the faintly counterintuitive idea that more income doesn't increase life satisfaction, they have a lot of work to do finding an entirely new way of making their point.

None of this evidence disproves that point as far as I can see. It just presents an already obvious counter-consideration.

The Easterlin Paradox seemed to offer a way out for those unhappy with capitalism. After spending decades advancing methods of increasing growth that didn't work, much of the Left has moved on. Now they are arguing that growth doesn't matter or might actually be harmful. And the happiness literature helped make this point.

It sure is still a persuasive argument. Ask all of those people in rural Pennsylvania who are bitter and clinging to their guns. I imagine if you did a cross-strata study there would still be distinct levels of unhappiness amongst the lower-class. This new study would only argue against this if “growth” were some amorphous concept that would could just enhance. Instead, it means tending towards a more unfettered free market. As we have seen, long-term growth also tends to mean long-term class division. Extra dollops of happiness from those on top, taken straight from the plates of the least fortunate.

So what will happen now with these critics? Will they ignore the data? Will they walk away from the happiness idea and forget they ever mentioned it? Or will they turn their work on its head and use the new evidence to start arguing that capitalism might be the route to happiness after all?

What data, what new evidence?

I don't somehow think they'll choose this last option. Do you?

It would seem pretty foolish based on the no argument that has been provided thus far. But I know the answer my friend, more Paddington Bear, because I, for one, was way way happier when this was a discussion of that adorably mischievous bear than when you were asserting nonsense about Wharton studies.

Who's the Eleventh Most Influential Jew in All of Brittania and the Veepstakes (JM)

Why, if you said our good buddy Lord Finkelton, you'd be correct. Of course, if you can name one other Jew on the list of most influential Jews in Great Britain, I'd be impressed (Save uberfamous Man U football star Reb Ronaldowitz, obviously he is number one). Anyhow, congrats old friend please use this power wisely.

Now on to Daniel Finkelstein ranks the Veep candidates (which, by the by, will allow me to make some of my own comments on the matter at hand:

So it's Obama. But who's going to fill the second slot on the Democratic ticket?

I am not going to spend much time on this here, but I still wonder why now is the time everyone has decided it’s over. I mean, because Russert said so? Russert says lots of really inane things. The point is that Clinton’s situation is ostensibly no different than it was last week, she is tasked with convincing the automatic delegates that Obama simply can’t win. By the by, ARG has Obama at 23% in West Virginia.

1) Hillary Clinton

Many believe Obama will have to offer the VP slot to Clinton. Andrew Sullivan called it the hate-filled dream ticket. But will she accept it? If Obama loses, she may see a 2012 race opening up before her.

I think ranking Hillary first is both lazy and inaccurate. I agree that she’s on this list somewhere, probably third, but definitely not the most likely choice (she definitely would be, however, if Obama knew she’d turn it down). People have been explaining why this won’t happen for profoundly silly reasons, like she undercuts the message of change. That’s distinctly not why she is unlikely to get the nod. There are two excellent reasons. The first is that there are about 321847908062134609 video clips of Hillary cutting down Obama, this would make for some pretty damaging commercials. The second is simply a matter of Hillary thinks (and probably would be) a far more competent administrator, she would never accept a role as a mere functionary, add Bill Clinton to the mix as Second Laddie and you’ve got a bad situation all together.

2) Al Gore

He's certainly got the experience. But the eco-warrior probably has no desire to return to Pennsylvania Avenue. Winning his endorsement would have set Obama up for the nomination. Does he need Gore any more?

Awww… good times. This is how we met Danny, don’t you recall? You posted about how Al Gore would be an excellent VP for Obama? It was insane then, it is insaner now. If Gore wanted the nomination it was his. Literally, he could have just stood up and said, “Hrmm… excuuuse me, but I think I’d like to be President.” And so it would have been. There is just no reason he’d be Vice President to someone less experienced than him. Let’s all face it, Gore is done with politics, instead it the Earth now.

3) John Edwards

A serious contender. The North Carolina Senator ran with John Kerry in 2004 and would bring the Southern link currently missing in Obama's campaign. But would he want to do it again? And would Obama feel Edwards should have been with him earlier?

Edwards wasn’t a great running mate for Kerry and not a terribly good attack dog. However, this is irrelevant because Edwards has made it quite clear that he has no interest in being the Vice President. He wants to become to poverty, what Gore is to the environment. It’s an odd age we’re starting to see, where politicians are starting to become the leaders of particular causes, I think it’s effective and interesting. Certainly something to talk more about in the coming days, but the chances of this are nil. Thus far, if we were playing Mastermind, Lord Finkelton would have one right in the wrong position.

4) Kathleen Sebelius

Sebelius's name has been cropping up more and more frequently. The two-term Governor of Kansas fills in many of the gaps in Obama's support base. She may not have much foreign policy experience but she'll bring a red state with her. And a female Vice-President might help soothe Clinton's supporters. One to watch.

Alright, is it just me or does the whole Sebelius thing seem like a product of the silly grassroots internets and the punditry? A few things, there is zero statistical evidence that VP candidates from swing or red states bring their states with them. Heck, eight years ago Al Gore lost the presidency because he couldn’t win Tennessee from the President slot, so forget about Kansas. Being a two-term governor of Kansas doesn’t ameliorate any of Obama’s weaknesses, it’s not like California, Texas or New York, where you are essentially the executive of a small country. To say that her response to the State of the Union was a debacle is to put it mildly.

There is, however, a much more salient issue to address here. Having the same gender as Hillary does not pacify the supporters of Hillary Clinton. To suggest that Hillary had female supporters who only cared about her internal organs is to simplify an awfully complex dynamic and, at risk of saying something that is about to make me ill, is slightly misogynistic. I think Hillary’s pro-feminist supports liked her because of her strength, what she could do for the movement and her particular role in history. Dennis and I seems to be big fans of using cutting-edge baseball statistical terms to explaining things, but Hillary’s VORFC (Value of Replacement Female Candidate) is quite high. Simply placing a female on the ticket fixes very little in terms of bringing back the base.

That said, Sebelius belongs on the list because of the buzz, but I wouldn’t put her above many of the candidates yet to be mentioned. On a personal note, this is one of the few pairings that would leave me pause voting Democrat this year.

5) Bill Richardson

Also extremely likely. Pundits state that he's been running for VP since the beginning. He brings foreign policy experience and the Hispanic vote with him.

First of all, awesome analysis. I am not sure how the fifth-ranked person on your list can also be “extremely likely”. Unless, Obama is going to go for a unity ticket and make all the American people Vice President.

Richardson probably has a good shot, I don’t love the idea, but he comes from a winnable swing state, has pull with Hispanic voters and seems to have experience despite appearing to be an eminently silly individual. He’d probably be number two on my likelihood rankings as of right now.

6) Wesley Clark

A former four-star general, Wes Clark served in Kosovo and studied PPE at Oxford. He would lend Obama military clout and cross party-lines in his appeal.

Number six, with a bullet. This is the winner. I think Wesley Clark has a better than thirty percent chance of being the VP nominee. As a hardcore Clinton supporter he helps bridge the divide a bit, he’s obviously credible on issues military and international, he’s smart and is not a Washington insider. In my list of potential VPs, Wesley Clark is first.

7) Jim Webb

The junior Virginia senator since 2006. He could provide the machismo that Obama needs. A military man with a son in Iraq, he's regarded as one of the most authorative Democratic voices on the conflict. Known to carry a loaded pistol on occasion. As a former Reagan man he would add to Obama's cross party appeal and make it slightly harder to paint the candidate as an unrepentant liberal.

I like Webb, though I am often unclear precisely what to make of him. I think this is a non-starter despite his pundit appeal. He’s been in the Senate for far too short an amount of time, he’s a leading voice on some critical issues in the legislature, but most critically he has a strong position for a Senate seat in a weakish state. If the Dems want to continue to control the Senate (and eventually get to the magic number of 60) Webb stays where he is for now. He’s got national politics in his future, just not yet. (Though who knows, that’s what I thought about Obama, that’s what you all should have thought about Obama, I hate you all so much sometimes).

8) Robert Casey

The Pennsylvania senator has already endorsed Obama. As VP, he would help out in the white working-class states. And his Catholic faith would reach out to an important voting bloc.

Now you’re just listing people you’ve read about recently. Casey’s pro-life, it’s a total non-starter in national, Democratic politics. If anyone is coming out of Pennsylvania it’ll be Ed Rendell. I’d love it, we’d all love it. I like to think of Ed Rendell as a funnier version of Gov. Eric Baker (Ed O’Neill’s character from The West Wing). Either way, no chance on Casey.

9) Oprah Winfrey

She's already one of America's most powerful women. Could DC be next on her world-domination agenda? Just a thought.

Was this really a thought? It’s either an unfunny joke or really really supersilly political analysis. Sometimes I cannot tell how far inside your cheek your tongue is Daniel Finkelstein, honestly I cannot. I will tell you this now, I’ll let Obama pick Oprah, if McCain gets to pick Brimley. But I swear to God, if I know anyone who votes against McCain/Brimley we are just never ever talking again.

10) Joe Biden

Might he be the first Biden in a thousand generations to run for President? A senator since 1972, his presidential runs have never taken off. But his international experience might make him a good choice and he'd appeal to the white male vote. His description of Obama as 'clean' didn't do him any favours though. And some think he is more likely to be Secretary of State.

So I honestly don’t get that first question. Does anyone? Seriously. Anyway, Biden should be running for President right now, we all know it. By all I mean me and maybe Dennis. This election would be over already if he’d gotten the nod. I think this is possible, but not super likely, I would suggest maybe fifth or sixth most likely with low odds. He didn’t endorse, which gives him neither loyality or bridge dividing appeal and occasionally he needs to extricate his foot from his mouth. He is, however, brilliant, authoritative and strong in all the areas Obama is weak. He’d be a great choice, just not one I am sure the Obama camp will make.

So all in all it’s not a ridiculous list, no more ridiculous than some of the others I have seen (though there were some crazy bad choices). Congrats again on your hard work being Jewish moderately influential Daniel, we here at AOTG wish you well.

Just in case your interested here are my two sets of Veep Rankings, one for likelihood and one for actually being a good idea:

Likelihood: 1) Wesley Clark; 2) Kathleen Sebelius; 3) Bill Richardson; 4) Hillary Clinton; 5) Tim Kaine; 6) Ed Rendell

Good Idea: 1) Joseph Biden; 2) Wesley Clark; 3) Hillary Clinton; 4) Ed Rendell; 5) Mike Bloomberg

I am hoping this is not just wishful thinking on my part, but I suspect that there is a reasonable chance that Clark ends up being an excellent compromise pick. It’s interesting because last time Clark seriously ran for President I was staunchly opposed. I like to see growth in politics. He has grown well, just as I bet Obama would have been a force to be reckoned with 4-8 years from now. As it is, it’ll be a tough general, a coin flip at this point, but here’s hoping for Obama/Biden or Obama/Clark.

P.S. If it’s Obama/McCaskill I am moving to Korea.

This Is a Dreadful Idea (JM)

Dear Bunch of People From Other Countries Who Are Calling Here to Convince Us to Vote For Obama,

I know you really like Barack Obama, he's exotic and liberal, he is just like you! He is basically a European's European. That's fine, you have a right to like people, I like foreigners. I would, for instance, vote for Dame Maggie Smith to run Britain, with the assistance of Lord Alan Rickman (I know he is not a Lord, but he should be). Anyway, let's say I even agreed that you have a right to try and influence our election, which I don't, but it's pretty irrelevant. You can't. I mean seriously, if you're calling a Hillary or swing voter this little script of yours probably won't be all that successful. To prove my point, a play:

Indiana Joe: Ach, who is this? It's four o'clock in the morning!

British Obama Supporter (for sake of convenience, let's just call him Daniel): Well, jolly good day sir, my watcherola says it's nine AM here. Anyhoo, if you can spare a minute I would like to tell you just how Barack Obama can improve the world.

Indiana Joe: Are you kidding me, it's four AM?!

Daniel: Sir, please don't be so Amerocentric, I said it was nine AM, so nine AM it is. You see sir, hope for the international community is so important. Are you aware that America's standing in the world has been declining steadily due to your arrogant foreign policies?

Indiana Joe: Is this Mickey?! Are you drunk? I have to fucking work in the morning. This isn't funny!

Daniel: Golly gee sir, no I am Daniel, and this isn't funny. It's dreadfully important. You see, I feel that Barack Obama would be a good influence on our government and make us a whole lot cheerier with you?

Indiana Joe: Are you serious? Is this really some British person telling me who I should vote for at 4 AM?! Why would I care who you want me to vote for, I work at a factory part time and make 22 thousand dollars a year! I have three kids to support.

Daniel: Well I don't think you understand our perspective here. There is more than just America to consider. Think of it this way, Barack Obama inspires thoughts of Britain's greatest Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston.

Indiana Joe: Lord Palmerston?! Try, Pitt the Elder!

Daniel: Lord Palmerston!!

Indiana Joe: Pitt the Elder!!

Lawyer: Excuse me gentlemen, I represent the estate of Matt Groening, you are quite guilty of copyright infringement.

Daniel: See, yet another reason to support Barack Obama.

Indiana Joe: This is insane, how did that lawyer even get on my phone? Also I am a Hillary supporter.

Daniel: Well one of the positives of Barack Obama is he is not a lying, cheating monster like Hillary Clinton. Also did I mention that Muslims in Holland love him?

Indiana Joe: Muslims love him?

Daniel: Oh yes, in all international polls he is by far the preferred candidate. In Europe, Africa and the Middle East!

Indiana Joe: Oh... I see.

Daniel: Yes, well I do rightfully hope I have helped you make a sensible decision today.

Indiana Joe: I dare say you have old chap.

Fin

Note that this play followed the script provided pretty accurately. I think we can all agree that even without my strawman portrayal, this is just a terrible idea for Obama's supporters.

Ideology or Demographics: The Only Reason You Care Is Because You're a Kid, A Theory By Daniel Finkelstein (JM)

1968 violence: blame the bulge

Sorry, Tariq, it wasn't ideology that caused the unrest (and other conflicts) but demographics

Daniel Finkelstein

When I was a small child I thought that the Vietnam War was taking place in a car park.

I once thought Madonna was a Kitchenaid Mixer.

Every time I watched the news, I heard reporters talking sombrely of that conflict, accompanied by pictures of violent encounters. Some of the soldiers wore uniforms and charged on horses, others were clothed in denim. It wasn't clear who was winning, but I remember the smoke and the chaos, and a young man lying across a car bonnet being hit with a club. The young man was carrying a poster on a stick, which even to my infant mind seemed an odd thing to carry into a warzone.

Oh, you were watching war protests…

Ever since I grew up enough to understand this error, I have been amused by my childish naivety - confusing the Vietnam War with the protests, indeed! But at the weekend, reading Tariq Ali's account of the events of 1968 (“It turned violent. Like the Vietnamese, we wanted to occupy the embassy”) I realised that what I had displayed all those years ago was not naivety it all. It was a precocious talent for political analysis.

Oh my god, this is the most precious things of all time. Just picture little Danny Finkelstein, a bald five year old with glasses, walking around telling his parents to stop trying to have a family budget, because there’s no such thing as strategy.

The 1968 protests are not best understood as their instigators would have them understood - as the antithesis of war, as the street carnivals of the peace movement. The protesters should instead be seen as having some similarities with the warriors they were opposing. Both were trying to solve a problem with violence. The protesters sought to resolve political conflict in the street and through confrontation. Many of the leaders were not wishing for an end to war, but for victory by the North Vietnamese. In my confusion between the protests and the war I had accidentally seen things clearly.

Is this historical fiction? For the most part protestors were violent because the government attempt to violent suppress their free speech. In some cases they were clearly the antithesis of war, in some cases it was not protests for peace, but rather in favor of socialist ideology or a fight against western hegemony and colonial oppression. All of these are ideologies, not merely violence for violence’s sake.

Now I am not trying to make a point about who was right and who was wrong, who had the bigger weapons and who did the killing. Instead, I am trying to rescue the protests of 1968 from the romantic memories of the participants. I hope in this way to try to show why they are still relevant.

Not to get all Weberian on you, but how else are you going to muddle through motivations? You cannot just ascribe motivations to people willy-nilly (I think this might be a phrase our good British friend might like), you need compelling evidence. In this case just dismissing the words and propaganda of these protestors seems like an incredibly poor way to understand motivations.

Every attempt to revisit 1968 majors in ideology. Tariq Ali talks of sexual revolution, the liberal author Paul Berman writes of the democratic ideal and the struggle against fascism, the French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy sees the common thread between the fight for liberation against Western oppression and the Prague Spring. Meanwhile, the playwright Tom Stoppard found little of any value. He thought the whole thing was merely embarrassing.

I am with Stoppard. This is not, however, just because I think the slogans of the soixante-huitards silly and their flirtation with communism disgusting. It is because I believe all attempts to explain 1968 in terms of ideas are doomed to failure. The events of 1968 were not about ideology, but demographics.

Look, I agree that ideas are situated in their social context and there are often other motivating factors that drive people to one ideology than another. But demographics?! This is going to have to be a really compelling arguments as to why the particular demography of 1968 drove a particular type of ideology oriented towards a particularly violent outcome. I don’t think it can be done (and since I always read the articles before doing this, I bet my prediction will come true).

Consider this - a favourite fact that I have rehearsed here before. Young Americans were the group most in favour of the Vietnam War, according to contemporary opinion polls. This remained the case even when the war became unpopular. Here's another fact - young people in this country are the group most in favour of the Iraq war. If you see the events of 1968 as ideological, this opinion poll data is hard to understand. Why aren't young people more idealistic and pacifistic than others? And if they aren't, why wasn't Grosvenor Square packed with rioting old age pensioners?

Young people are less risk-adverse, therefore this is why this particular opposition and conflict occurred. Seems likely… Another possibility is the young people also hold more extreme ideas on either end of the spectrum and political opinions tend to become centralized as people become old. Either way, this doesn’t denigrated or disallow particular motivations, why did some support the way and some protest? The truth is that much of ideological beliefs are socially situated and constructed, but that still doesn’t mean that motivations don’t exist or don’t matter. In fact, we would live an almost paralytic universe if we analyzed things in this manner. It basically presumes a fundamental lack of free will.

However, if you see the événements as the product of demographics, the data is easy to comprehend. Young people, particularly young men, tend to see violent solutions to problems as more acceptable than do other groups in society. In 1968 there was a bulge in the number of hot-headed young males.

Oh yes, the famous Zogby “Hot-Headed Young Male” poll…

Some of them chose protest violence on the streets of Europe, others riots in America's ghettos or dissent in Eastern Europe, while still others supported foreign wars. They were united not by ideas but simply by youth. Tariq Ali appears bewildered that the anti-Iraq war movement hasn't evolved into something similar to the soixante- huitards. This isn't because idealism has died. It is because there is no youth bulge. And it is the youth bulge, not anything they said or did, that gives a reason for the 1968 riots to be remembered.

It’s also because we live in an incredibly different time, the youth bulge is kind of silly red-herring. Why would more youths create violence. There has been almost none as of yet, one would think it would simply be proportional to the number of youths. The real difference is that there is way less oppression of protests and a different kind of engagement amongst youth (see Barack Obama). Also how do you explain the violence of things like the WTO protest, lacking a “youth bulge” (which to be perfectly honest is a phrase I would really rather avoid saying).

Violent conflict in 17th-century England, the French Revolution, German nationalism in the First World War, the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Cultural Revolution in China and most 20th-century revolutions in developing countries took place where large youth bulges were present. And academic studies suggest that the number of deaths in armed conflict is much higher in countries with a large youth bulge, even when controlling for income and inequality. Between 1989 and 1993, violence in the former Soviet republics varied with the size of their young male population, even where the initial political conditions were similar.

Way to cherry pick examples. First of all, how can you even begin to compare 1968 to the French Revolution or German Nationalism pre-WWI. Also, why are the ideological and political reasons for other violent events (such a WWII) somehow valid, while these are not. I agree that sometimes demographics makes a difference, overpopulation in particular, but it seems weird to dismiss ideological claims on a phenomenon which doesn’t seems to have strong correlative implications and certainly weak causation.

The social scientist Gunnar Heinsohn in his book Sons and World Power argues that when 15 to 29-year-olds make up more than 30 per cent of the population, there is a good chance that violence will follow. There are 67 countries in the world where there is such a bulge and there is violence in 60 of them. He cites the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan as examples and contrasts them with, say, Tunisia or even the passing of the youth peak in Lebanon.

Is it possible that high rates of childbirth are more likely in violent societies? Or how about the even more likely possibility that there is a high death rate in crazy violent societies, so there is a very high percentage of youth because people tend not to grow particularly old in societies with endemic violence…

With our blithe conviction that we can always make things better, we are convinced that political education and economic amelioration will work to bring peace where there is conflict. Heinsohn suggests that it might make things worse. Educated and well-fed young males tend to greater violent unrest.

This is literally the craziest thing I have ever heard. Let’s not educate the youth, let’s also make them hungry. Because hungry, uneducated masses never ever rise up in violent protest. I mean maybe we would cut down on systematic protesting and just raise the crime rate. Either way active engagement probably does matter, it’s just rare that protesting youth are actually engaged. If “education” means trying to convince them that they are wrong, well then of course they will get more violent. However, real and open dialogue (much like the one occurring during the current Iraq War) is way more advantageous. When youth feel like they have a viable outlet to make change, violence is way less likely.

The only hope? That young men eventually grow up. In Northern Ireland, the vast majority of victims and perpetators were young men. But one day Gerry Adams decided he was getting too old to strap on a gun. And the rest is history. Our only alternative in, say, fighting al-Qaeda may be to hold firm and wait it out.

What an excellent lesson, instead of engaging with militant Muslims and trying to understand them, let’s just wait for them to grow up. This is the kind of condescending attitude that makes people militant in the first place. Muslim leaders become more, not less, entrenched in their beliefs, whereas the youth are indoctrinated. They way to change this is to challenge the indoctrinated hatred of the West by active engagement and dealing with them on a balanced, dignified level. Not telling them, “You’ll understand when you grow up.”

The real lesson of the 1960s isn't Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out. It is Press On, Calm Down, Grow Up.

“Hey kids, get off of my lawn!”

A Certain British Someone Slams Heather Mills (JM)

Why should Heather Mills get £24 million?

Please accept that what I am about to write I do as someone who is a. A big fan of Paul McCartney and b. Entirely ignorant of divorce law.

Point A is thoroughly unsurprising, Point B is both unsurprising and, I am sure, likely about to be hilarious.

But I just have to ask - why does Heather Mills get £24 million for being married to McCartney for four years?

Because he is a gazillionaire who was stupid enough not to get a prenup?

Did she play a role in making the money? No, he earned his fortune before he met her.

This, of course, is entirely irrelevant. Could you imagine if we tried to calculate “Degree to Which Spouse Helped Earn Money” as a criteria of divorce settlements. How much was that backrub last night really worth?

Did she sacrifice her earnings or earning power while standin' by her man? No, she is certainly more marketable now than before she met McCartney. And any deterioration that has taken place in the last year has been as a result of her behaviour since the divorce.

This is probably true, irrelevant as a good standard for divorce law, but true.

Does she need £600,000 a year? No, nobody needs £600,000 a year. There might have been a case of her having become accustomed to it during their marriage, except for this - she was only married to him for a very short time.

First of all four years is a reasonably long time. Moreover, this is just an argument against inheritance, which would be good. But I know you Lord Finkelton, you probably love inheritance. You miss having a King and are still angry about the Magna Carta being signed. Nobody needs £600,000, but that includes Paul, who assuredly needs it way less.

Isn't it for the child? There is a separate sum - £35,000 plus nanny and school fees - for the child.

Yes, which is way less than £600,000. This, by the by, is perhaps the most salient part of the argument. In a divorce household with children it is patently unfair for one parent to have way more than the other. Creating this disparity in household and income is weird and detrimental to equal parental rights.

Far from mouthing off about the judge, Ms Mills should have been grateful that he upped the sum from Sir Paul's already very generous opening offer.

Perhaps you can come up with one good reason why she deserves the money.

Let’s be fair, does Paul even deserve this much money. I mean if it’s a question of just dessert it’s not like Paul worked harder than all of us and thus was a really good singer and super decent songwriter. He was born with the ability to sing and write well, I am sure he worked hard too, but I would hazard that he worked no harder than most illegal immigrants in the contemporary United States. Mostly, I just find this post to be profoundly weird, and I am quite unlikely to feel terribly bad for Paul McCartney.

Or maybe I should just retire and marry a Beatle.

A Play

Daniel Finkelstein: Ringo honey, I’m home.

Ringo Starr: Alright then, how was your day poopikins?

Daniel Finkelstein: I just read somewhere that the government has been using tax money to support multicultural education. It just gets my knickers in bunch.

Ringo Starr: Love, why does that bother you so much?

Daniel Finkelstein: Well, we have such a perfectly delightful British culture, why should we need anything else?

Ringo Starr: Man, when me and the Beatles were together we learned some far-out stuff about Indic cultures. It really changed our art!

Daniel Finkelstein: How dare you! I want a divorce, I am taking you for all you’re worth.

Ringo Starr: Daniel, we’re not married, gay marriage is illegal in this country.

Daniel Finkelstein: Bollocks! Well, what’s for dinner then?

Fin

From Ideology to Practice (JM)

Why does the Left still worship Fidel Castro and all his appalling fellow communists?

Daniel Finkelstein

A brief warning, unlike my usually mockery-laden Lord Finkelton posts, this is going to be more sober, because I think this is quite a legitimately interesting and important issue.

I had a strange idea yesterday. I had the idea of inviting Harriet Harman home for dinner. This isn't a thought that occurs to me often, but I suddenly felt it might be fun.

I'd invite my Dad too. And then, when we'd given Harriet a nice meal (what do you think she likes to eat?), my father could tell her his story.

Harriet Harman is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, who recently exclaimed that Fidel Castro is a hero of the Left. Daniel Finkelstein’s dad is the man responsible for much joy and happiness in my life.

He could tell her how the Soviets and the Nazis closed in on his home town of Lvov in September 1939 and how the town council chose the Soviets to surrender to. Then he might tell her how the fathers of his friends were taken to the woods at Katyn and shot by the communists.

He might recount the story of his father's arrest as an antisocial element, of Adolf Finkelstein's repeated interrogations leading to a trial in his absence and a jail sentence of 15 years' hard labour. Then Dad could tell the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party about his own experience as a child, exiled to a remote Siberian village. And how he and his mother and his father never saw their home again.

This is truly and terribly awful. The Soviet treatment of Eastern Europeans, particularly those from Poland was criminal. This is particularly true for Jewish occupants of these lands of whom it can only be said they did not suffer in comparison to the treatment they faced at the hands of the Nazis.

And, when he'd finished, he could let Harriet speak. And she could explain to Dad why she thinks that Fidel Castro is a hero.

This is where I begin to take serious objection with Finkelstein’s position. Fidel Castro, while being aligned with Soviet Russia and being of a similar ideology, did not commit nearly such horrible war crimes in coming to power. It’s a disturbing and bizarre conflation of ideology and political coherency. In other words, despite Communism’s claim to be a totalizing ideology and a universal movement it was actually (perhaps to its long-term detriment) comprised of several distinct political actors. Castro had his faults, however he was not the Stalinist USSR.

Its been almost 60 years since my grandfather's arrest and 50 years since the Soviets invaded Hungary. The Prague Spring has come and gone, the Gdansk shipyard strike is history, the Berlin Wall has fallen. We've read Robert Conquest tell of Stalin's murderous deeds and Jung Chang tell of Mao's.

We've watched films about the Stasi and recoiled in disgust at the opulent lives of the Ceausescus. We know that Alger Hiss was guilty and that there was, after all, a communist conspiracy in America. We've read Solzhenitsyn and Sharansky. We know.

It’s true, there are countless crimes that have been perpetrated by the corruption of the Communist ideology. It is always a necessary fear in a political system that institutionally gives broadstrokes power to particular individuals. However, every single piece of evidence given here is about abuses in other countries. In order to build a compelling argument for why it is disturbing to call Castro a “hero of the Left” you either have to provide evidence as to Cuba in particular or argue that the Communist political ideology will always be practiced in such a way that it will necessarily lead to long-term, systematic human rights abuses.

Yet still the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader of the House of Commons, a member of the Cabinet, is in love with Fidel. When asked, earlier this week, in an interview: “Fidel Castro - authoritarian dictator or hero of the Left?” she answered unhesitatingly - “hero of the Left”.

Which brings me to this question - Why? Why does she think that? Why would she say that?

Let's eliminate from our inquiries the idea that Fidel was somehow better than the rest of them, better than Honecker and so forth. Those cigars, those battle fatigues, that beard. Kinda cool, no? No. Death sentences for those who want to flee, prison sentences for dissidents, gags for the press, jail for homosexuals, ruinous central planning for the economy, his support for a nuclear first strike against America, his opposition to any kind of reform, his four-hour long speeches, his personality cult. Fidel Castro was just like the rest of them.

This paragraph is certainly less specific than the detailed charges being leveled above. I agree, I don’t love Castro, he was not really all that great, but as bad as Honecker? It’s not even close. (On an almost completely tangential point, if you haven’t seen The Lives of Others you really ought to do so). In fact, for the most part I find it hard to distinguish between Castro and that other “hero of the Left”: Hugo Chavez. He has been quickly and assuredly consolidating power through non-democratic mechanisms and has a complete lack of transparency. However, because he does espouse the big C, but rather the small s, he gets quite the pass. My point is that there are orders of magnitude, and Castro is not exactly history’s greatest monster (we all know that title belongs to Jimmy Carter).

So if we want to understand Ms Harman's response, it is not enough just to think about Cuba. We have to understand why parts of the Left, people who think of themselves as impeccably liberal, still think of communism as an heroic doctrine and communists as basically well meaning and a bit “alternative”. It's a pervasive attitude that goes well beyond politicians. Go to Tate Modern and you will find an exhibition of Soviet art - workers joyfully producing tractors or some such. In the bookshop you can buy a book of posters from the cultural revolution. Hitler memorabilia is not on sale. They wouldn't dream of having a room full of artfully designed Juden Raus! posters.

This is truly worthy discussion, and one worth having. However, Finkelstein is conflating two issues here. The first issue is the merit of communism as an ideology. The second is the symbolic art and propaganda of the Soviet Union and its appropriate role as art. Let me address each of these in turn.

I must admit, the empirical evidence for the success of the Communist project is bleak. Most of the countries that espouse a Communist ideology have, in fact, also practiced devastating totalitarianism. However, history often provides us with a very small sample size for major historical movements. We cannot truly compare East Germany, China, the Soviet Union, et al. and conclude that Communism is likely to result in terrible, oppressive governments. These states all developed in the context and model of each other and thus, faced considerable influence in terms of the structuring and nature of their governance from the primary model: the Soviet Union. At best, it could be said that there were two models, the Soviet Union and China, and even if they had no influence on one another (a dubious claim), it is a sample size of two loaded to the bare with historical contingency. In other words, history proves very little other than Communist has been practiced badly, not that Communism is, per se, bad.

This is not to say that Communism may not have its flaws. There obviously have been entire academic fields devoted to the debate about the Communist worldview and its effect on governance. But these are really three separate issues. The first is the Communist worldview, in so far as it is believed to simply be the empirically reality of the world, the nature of existence simply cannot have a moral context; it either is or it is not. The second is the Communist ideology, for the most part it is hard to dispute the moral nature of collective governance. But here there certainly can be some dispute as to the nature of individual freedom and dignity, but that doesn’t seem to be Finkelstein’s man concern here. Finally, there is practice, which I have already addressed, and is simply not enough to taint the first two components unless I can be compelled that its practice will always and necessarily be devastating.

As for the art, I agree that Nazi symbols would not be widely popularized, not nearly in the way Soviet propaganda would be. I think you are right here to argue that perhaps most people give the Soviet Union a pass when it comes to their atrocious crimes and perhaps we ought to be a little bit more careful about what symbols we glorify. That said, certainly there is a place even for Nazi art and propaganda in our cultural discourse. We should just strive to give everything a clearer context. I would imagine on this point we would agree.

I struggle a little to understand the distinction being made here, but I think it is this. It's not that the liberals are unaware that millions died under Mao and under Stalin. It's just that they think it was different. Hitler had a killing machine; under Mao (“the greatest man of the 20th century”, according to Tony Benn) and Stalin many people just up and died.

I've heard this argument made before. When I wrote that my mother had seen Anne Frank arrive in Belsen, I had an e-mail from a Nazi claiming that I was wrong to describe the little girl as having been killed by the Nazis. She had, he said, died of typhoid. I responded that if you imprison an innocent person in terrible conditions or starve them, or both, and they die, you have murdered them. The same goes for the communists.

I agree, the action/inaction distinction is irrelevant. Both crimes were awful.

There is another reason why people prefer communists to fascists. It is that the latter believe we are entirely the product of our genes, while the former regard us as entirely the product of our environment. Somehow genetic determinism is regarded with greater distaste than environmental determinism. I am not entirely sure why. In any case, scientific evidence now shows that both views are wrong. Even if they weren't, neither justifies the killings carried out in their name.

This, again, is absolutely true. I personally believe that ideology and politics is less a matter of choice than environment. There is very little that people do that isn’t determined somewhat randomly. However, I will one up you on this point just to say that I think the free-will distinction is irrelevant. I fail to see why it is more acceptable to attack those who have chosen a particular viewpoint than those who have it socially inscribed or are killed because of their particular genetic background. Mass homicide is mass homicide, no matter how you slice it.

Which leaves me with one final reason for the Left's attitude to communism - that anyone who defies the United States is somehow seen as a valiant progressive, whatever their crimes. I am sure that Castro's resistance to the US is a major reason for Harriet Harman's admiration.

I agree with this. It is much like the love that Hugo Chavez bizarrely receives throughout the world (and certain intellectual circles within the United States).

From time to time, Left thinkers make an effort to reconcile liberals and America. From Tony Crosland in the Fifties to Jonathan Freedland's admirable and convincing book Bring Home the Revolution, the efforts have failed. Almost anyone - a homophobic, misogynist Islamist cleric for example - is given some credit if the US is their punchbag.

A few months ago the Tory candidate Nigel Hastilow had to resign for saying that Enoch Powell may have had a point. And it was right that he went.

Calling Fidel Castro a hero is worse.

Enoch Powell was a former British MP that staunchly opposed the liberalization of race laws and immigration regulations. His positions on these issues were quite extreme by what we would consider contemporary standards. I am not sure that Fidel Castro is worse by any substantive measure. However, there is a more important distinction: Castro is a foreign leader. When Nigel Hastilow gave a head nod towards Enoch Powell he gave a head nod to policies that could have been in place for several years in Britain. It was a way of expressing a wish to have a certain policy evoked within British politics from a British politician. Endorsing Castro is a completely different beast, he’s a man of a different culture and place and cannot be construed as an endorsement of his policies for the here and now, just his position in the world.

Do I think this was a smart remark? Clearly, no. Do I think it is immoral? Not really. However, I do think it’s important to avoid conflating ideology with practice, because in the end we lose an awful many good ideas because of bad or corrupt practitioners. This doesn’t mean I think Communism, in particular, is a right or wrong idea, but that we need to separate it from its practice in order to have a fair and legitimate discussion.

Rhyme Time with Lord Finkelton (JM)

Alright, I admit, I spent a lot of time making fun of our favorite British journalist, Daniel Finkelstein. To be fair though, I generally like him more than not. And sometime he comes up with ideas like this. You see, over at the Times of London they are trying to find foods that rhyme with Nobel Prize Winners. The best amongst them:

Seamus Heaney - Ham Panini
(Nobel Laureate in Literature, 1995)

My suggestion: Saul Bellow = Lime Jello. I look forward to yours, but it doesn't have to just be Nobel Laureates, I would also accept Supreme Court Justices and famous British empiricists.

The Man With the Plan (JM)

My plan to raise £1 billion

Never, in the history of humanity has their been a title to an article that has left me tingling with anticipation. Just knowing that Lord Finkelton has some sort of wacky scheme to raise £1 billion is enough to warm my cold, cold heart. In fact, I wish I could stop here, preserving in amber the craziness potential of what I am sure is about to occur.

We humans have a tendency to follow the herd - and that need not be a bad thing

Daniel Finkelstein

I want to introduce you to my plan. My latest wheeze. I am going to raise one billion pounds for charity. A year. Every year. For the rest of my life. Well, not exactly me, all by myself. That would take ages. I am going to do it with a mate.

Right now, I promise, I would pay the required £1 billion if I could hangout with Daniel Finkelstein and his mates for a week or two. Just sitting around and talking about crazy schemes to cook up large sums of money and calling them wheezes… it’s just too adorable for words.

And now I am going to tell you how.

You sir, are the king of the transitional paragraph sentence.

Let's begin in Bridgend and the sad story of baffling teenage suicides. Can it really be true that these young people took their lives in order to imitate each other? Unbelievably, it could be. It is impossible to know exactly what motivated these particular individuals. Yet if these were copycat deaths it certainly wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

Business model: Teenage suicides… you, sir, have exceed expectations. By a lot.

In his book The Copycat Effect, the suicide prevention expert Loren Coleman records numerous occasions over the past 300 years when the suicide of a prominent public figure has been followed by a bulge in the number of suicides. Coleman records, for instance, that there was a 12 per cent rise in suicides in the month after the death of Marilyn Monroe. And this was not followed by a matching decrease later. The total went up.

Okaaaaay….

One other feature of this increase is particularly striking - the similarity of many of the deaths to Monroe's own. There were 197 suicides in that month in the US that corresponded closely to that of the film star. Here's the thing - mostly young blonde women.

If I were more apt to make an effort I would include here a Midi clip of that music that plays in movies when something really dramatic happens. You know: “Dunt, dunt duuuuun…” Anyway, a sarcastic Midi clip to you, Lord Finkelton!

This is the reason why in the internet age we might see more of this sort of behaviour. In the past, young people might imitate a celebrity suicide - Monroe or, say, Kurt Cobain - that they read about in the newspaper. That is because they relate to these public figures, feel they are just a little bit like them. But think how more powerful the impact might be when the death is of one of their peers, someone more like them. The internet allows peers to publish - it spreads information among members of the same social group. In these circumstances we are almost bound to see an increase in copycat behaviour.

I think this analysis is just wrongheaded. I would argue that the copycat effect would be inherently less likely in the internet age. Consider that one of the major reasons that copycat suicides happen, is that these people are role models and pretty much the only peers to whom individuals really had exposure. Consider that the reason a Marilyn Monroe suicide would be so influential is that she was a paragon and her exposure made her so. In the internet age, however, there is something of a diffusion of idolatry. With so many sources and so many connections it is much easier to see counterexamples to tragic role models. In fact, it is easy to see your place within peer groups. Essentially, the internet has created a much more organic universe where it is far easier to find ones’ niche and forgo the isolation and liminality that often results in suicide.

Emile Durkheim, in his masterwork Suicide argued that the increase in suicides rates has much to with the loosening of the social strictures of society, resulting in anomie. Essentially, the lack of social binding leads to feelings of alienation and purposelessness. Thus, when someone who seems to be at the top of the social hierarchy, Marilyn Monroe, kills herself it almost has a trickle down effect. However, I would argue the internet has made some fundamental changes in the picture of modernity. By collecting people together in networks of great and greater specificity it helps gives people a feeling of place and identity even without the norms that previously bound us all in premodern society.

Also wasn’t this article supposed to be about some crazy, Ralph Kramdenesque scheme to make £1 billion, because, if so, I am not sure I like where this is going…

Fortunately, people won't generally be copying each other's suicides. Much of the time we follow each other in small ways, and don't even realise we are doing it. In his interesting book Herd - a study of our behaviour as a group - Mark Earls notes the evolution of informal rules guiding where to stand in the men's urinals. If a man is able to, for instance, he will always leave a one urinal space between himself and the next man. And he will stand one metre behind the stall while waiting to use them. Nobody has ever discussed this, we simply watch each other and do as others do.

I agree, social conventions evolve from social habits. Also, people tend to find standing next to others who are expelling waste product, distasteful. Either way, what’s your point?

The more we know about the behaviour of others, the more we are likely to follow it. A famous experiment conducted by the social psychologist Solomon Asch shows this clearly. Individually his subjects managed to answer a simple test question correctly. But when told that most others had given a different (and incorrect) answer more than one third of them changed their minds and copied the error.

Do you have no idea what this article is about?

It is always said that we love an underdog. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We love the favourite. We move over to be on the favourite's side as quickly as we can. Politicians are familiar with this. That's why they spend so much of their campaigning time saying that they are winning. The teams behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both tell journalists that they relish underdog status. But it's pretty impressive how much energy they devote to showing that they are really on top, now isn't it?

This happens sometimes. Other times campaigns downplay expectations. There’s a distinct political advantage to being the underdog because any win is that much more potent when it happens. Also, is your plan to make £1 billion to distract us with pointless arguments while your mate steals our wallets? Clever…

There are two implications of all of this for public policy. The first is to stop doing harm. What do you think happens when you announce that teens are all out on the street binge drinking? Asch gives you the answer. More binge drinking. You are normalising a behaviour you should be isolating.

A Play

Lord Finkelton: Welcome to the Dept. of Harmless Statistics, Sec. Finkelstein at your service.

Cockney Joe: ‘Ello, guvnor, me and my mates were wondering if we might see the latest statistics on British death in Iraq?

Lord Finkelton: My heavens, no! Do you think I want you and all your friends to go out and die in Iraq! That’s crazy, sir!

Cockney Joe: Umm, alright then… how about rates of teenage alcoholism. I was gonna share with me son exactly how big a problem it is.

Lord Finkelton: No dice! We in the British government are not in the business of promoting accurate information about teenage drinking. Sir, do you recall when we released the statistics on immigration rates last year? Once people saw the rates had increase why everyone just had to be an immigrant. Statistics are too dangerous for the likes of you.

Fin

What happens when you announce that there is an obesity epidemic and that everyone is getting fatter? That's right. People learn that if they put on weight they are far from alone. Jamie Oliver's school dinners television programme lambasted Turkey Twizzlers, making them infamous. Sales promptly rose by 32 per cent.

And now, sir, thanks to your callous mentioning of that statistic I just looked up Turkey Twizzler on the internet and ordered a whole bunch of them. Also your statistical analysis is spot on, why control for a variable when you let it roam off its own. Daniel Finkelstein: Promoting free range variables.

The idea that we need to understand social norms and stop doing harm formed the centrepiece of a recent speech by the Shadow Charities Minister, Greg Clark. And he is the mate with whom I intend to raise the billion pounds a year.

Oh good… Also Shadow Charities Minister sounds like the greatest sinister position of all time. For every dollar you give to the ADL, he makes sure a dollar is given to a Neo Nazi organization. A dollar for Planned Parenthood, a dollar for the National Right to Life Foundation. Anyway, I’m amused.

At a conference organised by the Centre for Policy Studies, Greg asked the audience how much they thought it appropriate to leave as a tip in a restaurant. Everyone had a view - answers ranged from 10 to 15 per cent. Leaving a tip in an eaterie to which we may never return is an odd thing to do really, but we all acknowledge the social norm and almost all abide by it, even when no one else is looking.

Seriously, what an odd thing to do. Why would you ever reward someone for service if you’re not going to see them again. Also, British people are quite cheap, no?

Then Greg asked this - what proportion of your salary should you give to charity? There was a confused silence. Nobody knew. There isn't a social norm.

Yes, well by all means let’s start creating social norms. That’s always a plan that leads to greatness.

Now estimates of how much we do give to charity vary. One survey suggests it is as low as 0.5 per cent on average. But the most widely accepted figure is that provided by the Charities Aid Foundation - 0.73 per cent. Greg provided the audience with the result of a simple calculation. If the average could be raised to 1 per cent it would bring £4 billion a year into the coffers of charities.

That would be far more useful to charities than anything that could be achieved through politics or changing the law.

A) What kind of crazy, social norm changing scheme do you have in mind? B) Not to nitpick, but doesn’t it seem like it would be a better social norm if were progressive. Secretly this is just a way of creating a socially mandated flat tax. C) Not all charities are created equal, it doesn’t have the same net positive benefits as taxation both in terms of collective spending and directed public purpose.

So the idea, the wheeze, is this - to create a new social norm, in which people feel they should give at least 1 per cent of their income to charity. Even if it only partly succeeds, it could raise £1 billion a year at least.

That’s not an idea! No more than my saying, we should create a social norm whereby people don’t ever kill each other. There we go, millions less dead in the space of a year. Bring me my Nobel Peace Prize, MacArthur Genius Grant and the 1992 Tony for Best Performance in a Musical.

This isn't about persuading people to give money in the usual way - through exhortation and so on. It is simply about spreading the idea from peer to peer that decent people, people like you, people in your circumstances, people you admire are all giving at least 1 per cent. And if you wondering how much you should be giving, that's roughly the right amount.

I’m on it! Everyone who hears this, one percent, this year… I would quite admire that. Also don’t kill people, as I do not find murder admirable. Also, it would be good if you sent gifts to me, social norm that shit up.

It could work, couldn't it?

No.

He's Outdone Himself, I Mean He's Really Outdone Himself (JM)

New Diet Coke research shows why I am right about almost everything

By Daniel Finkelstein

This headline just caused me to start laughing, very loudly, in middle of my office. Seriously, one of my co-workers just popped her head in to make sure everything was alright. I told her that really, you just have to know Daniel Finkelstein… which shockingly she didn’t. That said, I shall take my lunch time to share my delight with you all.

My previous tongue-in-cheek post on Diet Coke produced a startling response from readers of Comment Central with intense feelings on the subject. I was rather taken aback.

I refuse to even look at this link, on the grounds that it is probably also incredibly silly and thus will take me way longer than my lunch hour to write about. I’ll tell you this: I refuse to be fired over Lord Finkelton.

And now this.

Researchers at Purdue University have concluded that:

by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharine changes the body’s ability to regulate how many calories it consumes.

“The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharine can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar.”

Given how much Diet Coke I drink, you might have thought this would rock my world.

To be fair, this really has rocked my world. I drink nearly a case of diet soda a day and this is upsetting. But let’s quickly analyze what is said here because it’ll be important in a minute. Saccharine causes a physiological disturbance that leads to possible higher weight gain due to consumption.

But far from it. I think this is the strongest confirmation that I am right, not just about DC but about, well, almost everything.

I will bet a million badillion dollars right now, or even better Euros, that this is not true. Well actually, if we are being textually literal, what Daniel is saying is that this is “the strongest confirmation” that he’s right. Not that it is any objective form of strong confirmation. So, maybe this is not as false as I thought at first blush.

You see, I hold the strong view that people risk compensate.

Prevent them smoking in one place and they do it somewhere else. Force people to wear safety belts and they drive faster, killing people outside the car. And so on.

This is the writing of a madman. Seriously, read what the Zodiac Killer has to say and it makes more sense then this. Take a look at the Unabomber’s manifesto and it is way way more logical. First of all, it stands to reason if you prevent a person from smoking in one place that they’ll do it elsewhere. However, less people are exposed to the smoke and the increase in inconvenience makes it more likely they will smoke less cigarettes or quit altogether. Also this has NOTHING to do with the Diet Coke example, which is about a physiological process. The second sentence is even more insane. I don’t know that there has been a madman crazy enough to whom we can attribute this level of illogic. Safety belts save many many many lives. Overall, since safety belts were invented and required automobile deaths on average have gone down- a lot. There may be some individuals who are statistical abnormalities, but even sheer common sense says that this is unlikely. Any person who is nutty enough to think, “They’re making me wear a seatbelt, I’ll show them!”, likely isn’t too concerned about seat belts laws in the first place. Even if I agreed with your “risk compensation” tripe, this would be an argument against seat belts altogether, not their requirement, as the “risk compensation” would occur any time some used a seatbelt. Also this is different than the biology involved in the Diet Coke example.

The theory is explained well in Professor John Adams' book Risk.

Risk compensation is a strong argument against trying to regulate things using law.

This is not at all remotely true. There might be a very limited number of examples where, somehow, motorcycle helmet laws cause the rider to be “riskier” and thus more dangerous. But in the aggregate many many more lives will be saved than lost as a result of such laws. Perhaps, there are better examples about risk compensation, but I sincerely doubt it.

This new research suggests that we compensate even at the basic biological level. If we do this with Diet Coke, it is quite likely that we compensate in a similar way for all diet foods, giving at least one reason why diets don't work.

It’s not compensation, it’s just not. It’s a biological processes. This is akin to arguing that because eating food that is rich in cholesterol is likely to eventually cause a heart attack, it shows our biological preference for lean things, and thus secretly have a preference for limited government. You probably do believe this, don’t you. You are one wacky guy Lord Finkelton.

I am not at all surprised to hear this news about DC. It's why I am so sceptical about regulation of all kinds.

And the decline of Lunchables as an acceptable meal option is why I am so skeptical about the Doha trade rounds…