The Maanga

The Great War hardly means anything to most people who grew up in the 90s Madras. At best, it results in vague recollections of Treaty of Versailles, assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Armistice Day and a yellowing NCERT text book for Class X. History was not the favorite sport of Madras. Given that the books were also written by Marxists who never liked to admit having read badly written erotica, how bad the teacher was became immaterial.

Until I read Sebastian Faulks’ Birdsong, I had forgotten something called World War I even took place[2]. That I assume is true of most Madras boys who treated History in Class X like the wonderful Felix’s Western Music hour in Class V. That we form a generation with no sense of history and often lack perspective even on personal ambition shouldn’t be our fault. I digress.

I do know one person who served with the British Army during World War II. However, I have not come across a single story or person, from this land of unending resources to the British Empire, who fought in World War I. On Armistice Day yesterday, when Radio 4 mentioned Indians having fought the war, one could hardly escape the thoughts: Who were these people? Are there official accounts? Is there a single work of fiction on them? They could not have been fighting on the Western front, so there were other fronts[1]? And America took another 30 years to enlist Black men?

[1] — That is why it’s called a World War, stupid.

[2] — I am pretty sure Faulks forgot to have sex when he was researching the minutest detail of World War I. For 5 years.

I don’t know why Davydenko insists on losing games he should win. And worse, to that joker.

A politician in a modern Democracy is a slave to the business cycle. Most politicians are either unaware or seem reluctant to acknowledge it. And ignorant dumbfucks have a propensity to misunderstand the cycle.

Now what would a smart politician do? Can she do anything at all? If the Philips Curve or some such economists’ bastardization of Math can be used as a rule of thumb to decide the extent and duration of front loading pain, why isn’t that adopted in the politician’s manual? Does that point to the fact that it can’t be?

In other words, when will Dr Singh arm-twist the look alike in Bombay? And when will fuel prices be cut? And can we assume, the other gult’s seeming independence was part of the (failed?) front loading strategy?

A work of fiction on the contemporary man.

One who has no angst, no joys, no sorrows and no life. Is an ordinary man under ordinary circumstances with no sense of purpose and does not really care for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

When a human holds a bat in his hand and drives an oncoming cricket ball, one can write down a straightforward kinematics equation using the Denavit-Hartenberg convention. The number of degrees of freedom for the human arm is explicit when driving.

What happens when a flick is attempted? Can someone write an equation for loosening of grip?

…is a function of his passwords.

People who don’t experience remorse aren’t psychopaths, they merely don’t have a Utopian world view. Or, for that matter, any view.

When Ritwik began his posts on economics with a rather good one on the weaknesses of various economic columnists and bloggers, I assumed that he would write something interesting. Then he resorted to copying out the further reading sections in his economics textbooks without doing any further reading.

Reviewing all economic theory now is pointless unless it is to pick one that may provide a solution to the current economic, financial or credit crisis.

Fortunately someone better than Ritwik has taken that argument up. Phelps´s column is brilliant in summarizing the entire history of economics in a single column focused on the present crisis. First, he focuses on the Robert Lucas Jr versus Keynes argument.  Lucas Jr he dismisses in a single sentence: 

“To use the “new classical” theory of fluctuations begun at Chicago in the 1970s – the theory in which the “risk management” models are embedded – is unthinkable, since it is precisely the theory falsified by the asset price collapse.”

Keynes is more formidable and he takes him in steps. The first argument simply rephrases why Keynes failed in the late 1960s and early 70s stagflation period. Increasing money supply does not work, when asset price collapses are due to non-monetary reasons, as it would lead to a endless wage-price increase spiral, something that the central bankers are soon to find out over the coming months.

Then he attacks Keynes´s methods for stimulating consumer demand, saying that in an open economy, the stimulus would mainly go abroad. Then he takes apart Keynes´s case for boosting investment demand (the dig ditches and fill them argument), by saying that the private sector is better suited to it than the government. These sections are a bit weaker and can be nitpicked, but let us leave them for another day.

In short, to solve this crisis, neither fiscal policy nor monetary policy will work. And neither Lucas, nor Keynes. One has to think of something else or someone else.

The first attempt at a solution is already here, in the form of Shiller´s book, The Subprime Solution. What Shiller has done is to propose a Lucasian solution. His book can be summarized as “If the risk management assumed to be embedded by Lucas doesnt seem to exist, let us build a new financial architecture with that embedded risk management.”

The ball is in the new keynesians court now. Maybe they can think of a way out of the minsky moment. 

Is there a term for the way in which we instantly revise expectations depending on the layer of story telling, when reading fiction?

Actors often repeat the cliche that comedy is a difficult art.

The little I have read, I am now convinced, the cliche — which is probably not true — works in reverse for writers. Evoking a genuine sense of tragedy and yet not make the reader tire or second guess appears an almost impossible task. Writing “funny”, meanwhile, needs just one exhibit: Maanga three years ago[1].

The American Civil War, that single human endeavor serving as everyone’s prism, has now been recounted from the perspective of death. Most people we know, from idiot quizzers at IIT-M to rednecks in the Palmetto State, are self proclaimed experts on the subject. Drew Gilpin Faust’s account though, is so moving that one often forgets what a scholarly piece of work it is. Dr Faust recounts the tale of the proverbial unknown soldier. And in doing so, gives the reader 19th Century glasses that makes one question the 21st Century perspective on what life and death actually mean. If one isn’t moved to tears by the nameless American Soldier — a product of Victorian norms coming to terms with the stench of death — one has to say, that other cliche about hearts of stone has to be true.

[1] — That bad attempt at a strange loop created a loop of loops and hence you may excuse it.