The Worldly Philosophers

A graduate student who could write such a good book is an exceptionally brilliant person. His novel style of writing manifested in this book keeps readers curious and allows readers to be back in the time of those economic thinkers. 

Although the author well summarizes main ideas of those philosophers, he frequently focuses less on their defects and weight them against their main theory. Any thinkers have their philosophical opponents, at least in their time. This book is not about which school of thought is right or describes economy more correctly, but about the ideas of those worldly philosophers. 

Although it is a good book, it is not very good. I do not rate it 5 over 5 because, firstly, when one can summarize opposing ideas, one should be able to see which is more reasonable. Secondly, I expect more rigorous study on an idea and its opposing view. For instance: 

Adam Smith

It is very safe to admire Adam Smith in economics. He is known as the father of economics by many. However, I really doubt people actually read him. It is a sad thing that the author of this book who also wrote Essential Adam Smith missed contradictory points in his books. We tend to think that those free market ideas such as laissez faire, free trade, wealth vs gold were originated from Adam Smith. 

I read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, the abridged edition with summary inside for each section, a few times and found many contradictory points in principle in this same book. For example, the government role in the economy should be big instead of three main ones: promoting rule of law, national defense and high cost public investment. Here I am not discussing in details. I suggest another book An Austrian Perspective on Economic History which deals with this issue comprehensively. 

Alfred Marshall

Standing on the shoulder of marginal economists, Marshall could develop the demand and supply curve as we know it today. This is the beginning of modern mathematical economics. In this book, credit was given to Marshall but least to previous marginal economists. In addition, I also feel how powerful this idea is to solve Adam Smith’s Diamond Paradox is not even touched. Those who are curious why P-curve is vertical, not horizontal, are advised to dig into this part.

Joseph Schumpeter 

Schumpeter opined that capitalism would not work. Growth in capitalism is promoted by entrepreneurship of capitalists. Capitalists invest to increase profits. In the long run, they would run out of ideas on what to invest or the profits become zero by competition from other capitalists. This idea of creative destruction is today denied. The author this time takes side.

John Maynard Keynes

Keynes biography, accomplishments and theory are very well summarized. However, his main philosophical opponents Milton Friedman and F.A Hayek are not included. Hayek and his book The Road to Serfdom, however, was used as a wake-up call on Keynes theory that might lead to nothing but socialism. Keynes acknowledged that possibility but put more trust (or hope) on government officials. 

Final Say

As its full title suggests, this book is about the lives, times and ideas of those economic thinkers. Those who are puzzling on which school of thought is better, for instance Classical versus Keynesianism, or those who try to find the connection between long run and short run economy may not find the answer here. (I suggest The Clash of the Century). In conclusion, however, this is a good book for its title.

Full title: The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times And Ideas Of The Great Economic Thinkers, Sixth Edition (1986), Touchstone

Author: Robert L. Heilbroner  

My rating: 4/5

Add caption

[Continue reading...]

Afterlove

I did not like a novel in the past. I felt it would increase no knowledge, or concrete knowledge. A Khmer senior in my university recommended this novel to me and at the same time gave me this book. That is how I got to read this book and it changed my view on novels in general.

The story begins with a family of happiness, a solid marriage, caring husband and wife with two children and satisfying careers. Then all of a sudden, a tragedy left the wife all alone. They are all dead except the wife. One can imagine how afloat she becomes, attempting even to commit suicide.

Then she resorts to superstition. She wants to meet them the last time. It happens that she might be able to do so. In the process, her life is changed. That is the interesting part.

The story is full of sadness and romance but no comedy. You don’t expect jokes in romance, do you?

Conundrums
Do you believe in reincarnation? What would happen to a person after he/she dies? These kinds of questions never end with answers but more questions. The author deals with this issue in his very neutral way. He would say yes and no at the same time. But what more important are what you believe and choose to do in your life, instead of finding out the true answer to those questions.

Full title: Afterlove
Author: Robert Rosenblum
Publisher: Onyx (February 3, 2004)
My rating: 4.5/5

[Continue reading...]

Hun Sen's Cambodia: review

The author discusses issues in this book in his journalistic professionalism, not in political or economic models. In most parts, he interviewed relevant persons, told stories and most importantly stuck to main points. Through his extensive readings on Cambodia, living and working in Cambodia, he made the book the best one on contemporary Cambodia and its elites. If you must read one book on Cambodia, I suggest this one.

There are two main points I like the most about this book. First, its authority. To summarize core ideas effectively, one needs to read most, if not all, of the relevant previous works and if possible has personal touch on the stories. As a journalist for the Phnom Penh Post, he has just both. Histories of Cambodia before, during and after the Khmer Empire who built Angkor temple, Cambodia's golden age in the 1960s, the Khmer Rouge and the contemporary Cambodia are well documented. His descriptions of contemporary Cambodia's culture, society, population and politics are comprehensive.

Second, its neutrality. Rather that charging leaders who seemingly made mistakes, sometimes horrible ones, he looks at them from all possible angles. Pol Pot was not born evil. Prime Minister Hun Sen was also reported with neutrality, so were his political opponents such as Sam Rainsy.

Players in Cambodia 

1.       Hun Sen

Many Western journalists as well as some U.S Congressmen would just say he is a communist and that’s all. Sebastian gives fair analysis on him: his sacrifice to volunteer to join maquis of Prince Sihanouk against American occupation, his smartness in battle and politics, his leadership among his colleagues and in the end his insufficient ability to lead Cambodia afterward.

PM Hun Sen is said to have hold no strict political belief. He does not believe in communism nor does he believe in democracy. He sees politics as a zero-sum game, thus tries to out-maneuver his political opponents and reduce the number to zero if possible.  Similarly, he sees the international community not as a body to promote democracy, as it did not when it supported to Pol Pot clangs, but a political player promoting their own interests. 

2.       International Community

After Angkor Era, international community has been the main actors to decide Cambodia’s fate. Which king could rule the country was highly decided by its neighbors Vietnam and Thailand until the French came. And then, France, the U.S and China played major roles in shaping Cambodia’s future from the Independence in the 1953, Khmer Republic, and Khmer Rouge until and after the Paris Peace Agreement. Aid, political recognition and wages have been critical to Cambodia after the 1990s. However, recently, international community been comparatively weak, if not useless. Sebastian cites luxuries enjoyed by a significant number of NGOs, thus their reluctance to change the status quo.

“If change comes to Cambodia it will come not from above—from a shape- shifting ‘international community’—but from below, from the Cambodian people themselves.” P. 266 

3.       Sam Rainsy

The author raises his crusades for democracy and anti-corruption in Cambodia as well as the contradiction arisen with his racial discrimination against Vietnamese, which Sam Rainsy denies.  

4.    Cambodian People

Cambodia at this stage, political scientists would say, lies at where the rising of middle class changes the equation of elite politics. Politics in Cambodia had been solely played by elites until Cambodians were given the chance to vote in a secret ballot. This is added by the rise of technology especially Facebook. In addition, the young population, the first-time votes, gives supports to Sam Rainsy as he expected:

“In a typical family, you have the grandfather, who votes for Funcinpec; you have the father, who votes for the CPP; and you have the children, who when they reach voting age will vote for the SRP . . . It will take less time than one might imagine now, because of the progress of technology, information, communication, and education.” P. 123

The Conundrums

Sebastian opines that if change comes, it would have to come from Cambodians themselves. In recent 2013 ballot, Cambodians did express their strong wills to change the status quo, but they do not know how. They do not even know how to drive on the streets. They may kill someone out of anger, so will a teacher punish their students according his will. Will Cambodian people be able to make politicians do the right things if they themselves do not know what the right things are?

Are opposition party main actors especially Sam Rainsy for democratic rule of law, free market or are they simply randomly choosing policies out of contempt, compassion or superficial studies of examples in other countries like France and the U.S? Do they dislike communism out of principles or out of examples?

Is CPP against democracy? It is too early to judge. If the international community firmly believe in democracy, they should have been promoting democracy instead of realpolitik. If the teacher does not even know the answer, how could he set the exam and judge the student?

China may be seen as pro-Communism. But if a democracy brings it benefits, it would not be in a position to block democracy in Cambodia. The U.S may be seen as pro-democracy but it is not. The same as above.  Cambodia would be better off if China and the West deal with it rules instead of random policy. For example, promoting ballot and the rule of law instead of supporting this or that party. Cambodian politicians now seem to see that they should work together despite their previous fatal fights and/or fierce verbal attacks. I am optimistic that Cambodia is starting to move on a sustainable development path now.

Full title: HUN SEN’S CAMBODIA

Author: SEBASTIAN STRANGIO

Publisher: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS  (November 25, 2014)
My rating: 5/5

[Continue reading...]

The Lucifer Effect: Review

Brain is the master of all evils and devils. Yet, we have understood it so little. How are human behaviors shaped, were human born good, can good people turn evil etc. remain unending questions.

Among subjects in undergraduate level, psychology deals with this kind of issues and brain the most (unless your major is neuroscience). My encounter with two psychology classes in my under shaped my ways of thinking in a positive way (at least I think so.) It is in those two classes that I got to hear the name Phillip Zimbardo, a prominent professor of psychology of Stanford University. It is from there that I started to follow lectures, speeches and the book.

The book stems from his worldly famous Prison Experiment at Stanford. He who organized the experiment was also shaped by the experiment. That is he was also turned bad by the system he set. Another uncontrollable fact was he happened to get to know his wife because of the experiment!!!

The author tries to answer these questions in this book:

“Is it possible for a good person to turn evil? Do you think you have an inner demon, or do you think that you could ever be swayed by bad influences, people or systems? Could you or someone you know ever rob a bank, steal from a neighbor or torture another human being? You'd be surprised at some of the good people who have found themselves doing truly evil things! Could this happen to you?”

Buddha believed that human were born good. Ignorance makes people do bad things by forming ill-willed desires and/or blinding ones from seeing that their actions would lead to harmful consequences. These are coincidentally also the main ideas of this book. The author backs up his arguments by the empirical evidence, especially the Prison Experiment.

Final Words

It is very easy, but maybe irresponsible, to just say that dictators such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler etc. are evils. But it is not a responsible move to say that they are not nationalists. Consider the case of Pol Pot of Cambodia. He was selected, although not totally by his merits, to study in France. He could choose to live happily doing a decent job in Cambodia or France after graduation but he chose to write opinions in a magazine criticizing the government on the unjust (in his subjective opinion) environment in his country and chose to fight against the government. He escaped to the forest, lived with modestly and feared the purge by the incumbent government troops.

Maybe none of us dear to sacrifice that much for our country or community. However, the sacrifice alone is far from deserving the label of a good person. Under his reign, the estimated of 1.7 million people died, starvation was prevalent, and people lived with the fear of death every second for unknown reasons. In this regard, the question of good people and bad people should be reconsider, and this book may enlighten its reader, I believe.

Full title: The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil
Publisher: Random House Trade Paperbacks; Reprint edition (January 22, 2008)
My rating: 5/5
Author:  Philip Zimbardo

[Continue reading...]

Theoretical Research vs. Empirical Research in Economics

Back in Waseda University, I was wondering what a theoretical research in economics is and how different it is from an empirical one. Most students from Cambodia, at least, choose empirical research for both undergraduate and graduate studies. I do not like empirical research because  I would have to look at computer screen with millions of data there. It took me quite a long time to see the difference and finally I chose empirical research. Here I hope to help you see the difference in a short period of time.

Theory, as it sounds, is about explaining how things work. For instance, you may say consumer behavior of spending this month is dependent on their income this month. If you think this is correct, you will find proof to prove that your income this month affects your spending this month. Thus, your research here is empirical. If you think that your behavior of spending this month is dependent on your income this month, next month and several months ahead, you will do a theoretical research because you are modifying the previous theory. 

Is theoretical research about description? If you are a genius, it is true! your description of the theory is more than sufficient. For instance, F.A. Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in the Society is a theoretical paper which uses only words to describe his theory. You may find plethora of such paper as well. However, as a student, even in a Ph.D program, theory research tends to mean utilization of mathematics. You will have to use mathematics to prove your theory. Milton Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis, for instance, utilizes the simple concept of marginal utility of consumption. 

Mathematics is not about calculation only. Its underlying concept is the most important part in theoretical research. For instance, Y= X and X=Y are different, with the latter meaning that Y causes X; X happens as a result of Y.  If you like this kind of concept in mathematics, you will find theoretical paper interesting. 

Empirical research is about proving or disproving an existing theory. The theory may not be a perfect one for you to prove or disprove. Using the above example, you may think incomes for two months determine your behavior of spending this month.  In that case, you have to modify the theory first; that means somehow you will include the theoretical part in addition to the main part of your empirical research. Still, your research is an empirical one. Nonetheless, it is not important to classify if your paper an empirical or theoretical one. You definitely can do both in a paper. 

See my Master's Thesis as an example of theoretical research in economics.

[Continue reading...]