Let's begin.

The two latest winners of The Nobel Prize in Economics are Robert Engle (American at New York University) and Clive Granger (British at the University of California at San Diego). They have both developed sophisticated statistical tools that "deal especially with "time-series" data: share prices, household consumption, inflation -- anything, in fact, that changes over time, and thus poses difficulties for older forms of statistical analysis."(According to The Economist, Oct 9)

The article in the economist summarizes the works of Engle and Granger under the subhead "poets and plumbers." Plumbers work with math and real materials. Poets work with theories, ideas, etc. We all know that in practice neither of these thought tracks are pure - math is based on theory and poetry on real life experience. It's a stupid dichotomy that I'm not going to write about. What I'm more interested in is a recent trend for the publicly perceived pendulum to swing towards "Math."

The Economist says the last few winners were theory guys (yes, they have ALL been guys). They site Daniel Khaneman who won last year for "integrated insights from psychological research" and conclude the article: "Even so, the place of econometricians at the centre of economics is now confirmed. Indeed, there now seems to be a dearth of the grand theorists of days past. Specialisation --to use an economists' term -- is the order of the day. But then a good plumber is in greater demand than any poet."

This dramatic triumph of the mathematician is odd considering that most of the winners in the last five years have been statistical types. In fact two won last year also, and the other (besides Khaneman) was a stats guy. The same is true for physics, chemistry, medicine, and even the peace prize (most peace prize winners are not poets, they are plumbers who organize and build). In fact only literature exists outside this dichotomy, because well, they are all poets. (Right?)

The poet plumber issue is also at the center of debate around Harvard University's new-ish president Larry Summers (also a renowned economist). The New York Times Magazine wrote on August 24, "He wants to change the undergraduate curriculum so that students focus less on 'ways of knowing'and more on actual knowledge." (It's a great article by the way that I have in electronic form if anyone wants it). While the New York Times doesn't have a blatant opinion about poets or plumbers (other than they chose to run an 8,000 word feature on a plumber) and they have yet to declare any triumphs (though I'm sure they will eventually), the article does set the stage for this debate. Why?

There's certainly a desire for the increased status of plumbers, or any working people, in a rapidly deflating economy. The dollar is falling, Americans are spending less, china is bailing us out, but for how long? (See The Nation, Sept 4 for a great article about this . The media in general is pushing daily articles about how a weakened dollar will help US manufacturing (it will, if other people buy our shit which they may not b/c we have been such world trading assholes). Nonetheless we need more factories and what use for philosophy do factory workers have? Oh these desperate times.

The US media wants us to understand why we may have less purchasing power, and that to have more we will have to value a home grown work ethic. The world media knows that the US is the world's largest purchaser of consumer goods, so they too want a deflated US dollar so we can afford to manufacture stuff here instead of Vietnam, make more money and buy more Swiss watches and Italian handbags. (Did you see the NY Times fashion article about how the demand for luxury items is going up?)

What I'm trying to get at in my increasingly wine-induced state (qualifier) is that it is not about poets and plumbers, triumphant victories for either, the choosing of Nobel laureates, or Larry Summers (who I think is actually somewhat radical and certainly interesting - article forthcoming). It's about the media - the questions publications choose to highlight and for what reasons. Skip the body and look at the headlines, the introduction and the conclusion. Then take those questions they ask of you, go look at the primary sources, and write your own news. You'll learn a lot more.



back ||| home | words | music | friends | email klever