Minor Updates and "Bandidos"

So BBC Mundo and BBC Caribbean have been added to the wealth of news sources you now see on the left (your right) side of the screen. If I don't have the time or energy to read books in Spanish, then I dang well will read news stories in Spanish. That and I just like the web page setup of BBC. It's easier than navigating the site for El pais or El mundo with all the pop ups.
I had a "duh" moment today when I realized BBC Mundo existed. I've been quietly complaining about how there aren't enough BBC stories on South America, and suddenly I look to the languages section. Oh yeah... BBC Mundo.... say it with me, "Duhhhhhhhhh." I was reading an article on Chavez (so he's finally gotten around to trying to reform the constitution so he can run for indefinite terms... how democratic of him), and K and M come up behind me. "Why are you always reading news on Mexico?" M asked. "You have to ask?" K joked.
Alright... first of all, Mexico and Venezuela are on two different continents with two different cultures. And I know being Indian excuses you from having to know anything about South or Central America (sort of like being American excuses you from knowing anything about India... wait...), but surely if you read the news you can recognize the pictures of Hugo Chavez, and at least remember that Venezuela sounds different from Mexico.
Second of all, I enjoy reading Spanish for the pleasure of the language primarily. Not just for "other" reasons (though one in particular is a very good reason); I have enjoyed Spanish for a long while now, and will continue to enjoy it.
However, I would like to point out (in a minor act of juvenile vengeance for his -true but tacky- insinuation) that K also claimed in his Wednesday presentation (to the sheer sick enjoyment of his advisor and his independent study professor) that "Canada is not a democratic country." You can imagine what followed next.

In micro today we finally got out of Game Theory (sadly. I was digging it. Hm... maybe I should look into industrial organization and micro theory), and started equilibrium, and the ever popular Pareto Efficiency. The only measurement of "morality" within the world of economic thought. That is a frightening concept. This is why economists write papers (very convincing ones as well) on how abortion has a decreasing effect on the crime rate. If you're only moral compass is whether or not something is "most efficient"... that leaves a few things... what was the phrase in that Cusack movie? Open to "certain moral flexibility." See the writings of Jonathon Swift. But as the prof says, "this is where economic thought ends, and everything else beyond is policy, outside the realm of economics." So we got into a small discussion on the differences of policy making and pure economic thought, and the prof. noted to us all that, "There is a difference between micro and macro. Macroeconomists believe that all people are stupid, so you can use policy and it will effect them. Micro assumes that people are at least rational." That got some laughs, and M added, "Macroeconomists are more practical then." One student asked, "So.. what do macroeconomists think of themselves? That just seems silly to think that."

Which brings me to the three laws of humanity as proposed by my brother and his old roommate. I'm not quite sure on the exact wording, but they go like this:
1) People are stupid.
2) People try very hard to be stupid.
3) People are only smart for a small amount of time, then they revert to being stupid.
So economics really does go quite well with these "laws of humanity." Nice. Except for the third. There is a violation with the third. In macro, the assumption is made that over time stupid people's actions tend to trend more towards "Smart." So in the long run, we're smart, but in the short run, we're idiots.
I smell another dissertation topic. I even have a title... "Economics and the Three Laws of Humanity: A New Perspective on Macroeconomic Theory Centered on 'the Jackass Principle'." My new principle of economics (probably not really knew, odds are there's a huge literature on this subject that I'm just not aware of at all*): 'The Jackass Principle' states that even in the long run the general movement of human decision converges toward "stupid" as opposed to "smart" or even "competent." Indeed I believe that it is this very "Jackass" nature of the typical American that drives the US economy. How else can pop music be a multi-billion dollar industry led by the likes of Brittney Spears, J-Lo, and Coldplay? So in answer to my fellow student's question about what economists think of themselves as opposed to the rest of the world... well let's be honest, we're jackasses too. But along with that, we're smartasses, as is evident by about 99% of my posts. Or maybe it's just me. The article will be forthcoming in... 3 to 5 years. It also opens up several questions on the corollary (or fourth law?) that "people find new ways to be stupid." Anyone else know that song "Bandidos" by the Refreshments?

Raoul, if there are any corrections you'd like to make on the three laws (or my horrendous phrasing of them) please let me know. An edit will follow.