Ideas That Can Only Come From Academia Division: Abolishing Prisons

Theodore Dalyrmple, pen name of Anthony Daniels, is one of the most brilliant writers on cultural issues of our time. His reserves his special indignation for such things as nihilism, multiculturalism, and moral relativism. This month Dalyrmple has focused his attention on an argument made by a French professor of philosophy for the abolishment of prisons. I really don't have any comments, just awe. Enjoy.

Highlights...

"Whenever I am in France, I read the French newspapers (the French read fewer newspapers than any other nation in the western world, by the way). There is always plenty in them to infuriate me, and so they are well worth the reading; for it must be confessed that indignation is one of the most rewarding of all emotions, as well as one that automatically gives meaning to life. When one is indignant, one does not wonder what life is for or about, the immensity of the universe does not trouble one, and the profound and unanswerable questions of the metaphysics of morals are held temporarily in abeyance."

"...they should always remember that, in prison, small things become large; and therefore, if they have promised something to a prisoner, they must always fulfil their promise. For otherwise the prisoner will be eaten up by a sense of grievance, and there is nothing like grievance to prevent a man from examining his own responsibility for his situation."

"The desire to blur limits and boundaries, in order to overturn society, has long marked out a certain kind of leftist. Because in social phenomena there are always borderline cases, they wish to undermine the very idea of categories. They are like people who would deny that anyone is tall because there is a fine gradation between tallest and shortest. Thus, because some things were considered crimes that are so considered no longer, and some things that were once legal that are now deemed criminal, they deny that the crime is anything other that an arbitrary social construction. A criminal is someone who merely has difficulty in his relations with society as some men have difficulties in their relations with their wives (and vice versa). What more natural, therefore, than that they should all attend the same day care centre, where they will be cured of their difficulties by psychological means?"

Recession over, or Depression looming?

There is no shortage of opinion on the economic debate of the recession. Everyone feels the squeeze and certainty, in any form, is in short supply.

"The great recession in over" declares the National Association for Business Economics, after releasing a survey of 44 professional economic forecasters. However, Lucia Mutikani of Reuters quickly dispels any real joy of the news. "While the economy is believed to have rebounded in the third quarter, analysts believe that ordinary Americans will probably not see much difference as unemployment will remain high well into 2010, restraining consumption."

The bottom line according to the NABE is that the recession is over but the recovery is going to be much slower than after a normal recession.

The NABE also went on to say, "We don't necessarily expect the U.S. economy to fall into a double-dip recession. This time round, consumers will be reluctant to join the party."

Thomas Pally over at the Financial Times thinks, "The future is fundamentally uncertain, which always makes prediction a rash enterprise. That said there is a good chance the new consensus is wrong. Instead, there are solid grounds for believing the US economy will experience a second dip followed by extended stagnation that will qualify as the second Great Depression."

The solid ground...

"Unemployment insurance is not up to the scale of the problem and is expiring for many workers. That promises to further reduce spending and aggravate the foreclosure problem."

"States are bound by balanced budget requirements and they are cutting spending and jobs. Consequently, the public sector is joining the private sector in contraction."

"...both the household and business sector face extensive bankruptcies that amplify the downward multiplier shock and also limit future economic activity by destroying credit histories and access to credit."

"Lastly, the US continues to bleed through the triple hemorrhage of the trade deficit that drains spending via imports, off-shoring of jobs, and off-shoring of new investment."
(Cash for Clunkers)

So, What is the conclusion? I am always skeptical of economic forecasters who look to past data to draw conclusions about current data. I still think things are going to get worse before they get better. How much worse is anybody's guess. The smart play is to save and rebuild your credit if possible. Yes, if everyone saves their money the economy will struggle to grow. But I'm afraid the prospects of growing will have to include vast changes in current monetary policy. The safe bet is to expect a good result for the next five to ten years will be to maintain our current wealth with eye towards improving our financial infrastructure (credit, savings) to build on in the future.

UPDATE (Loghueriat): The comment option has disappeared for some reason and I'm too tired/lazy/me to figure it out at the moment. Anyhow, I predicted on BPB a year ago that it would take two years for the Dow to get back over 10k consistently. That still sounds about right, especially with what you're saying about a "slow recovery." I have to say that we're on the same page lacking faith in the powers of deduction in economic forecasting, but that doesn't mean there aren't principles at work. Economics is a science, not a scepter. The devalued dollar will be the story of the next decade.

Done (As In Doing) er (About To Do)

The shock following Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize should not come as such to anyone paying attention. The prize is to be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Overlooking the Nobel committees decision to redefine Done to include... political rhetoric (?), it makes all too much sense. The Nobel club just wants 'fraternity between nations'. They do not care which nations. No matter the rampant human rights abuses. (see appeasement of Iran) Nor do they care much for upholding democratic values. (See Iran and Honduras) They are just pleased to see the president talking. The committee has never pretended to have any illusions as to what it actually takes to guarantee peace. To these types war is always bad and the thought of a sizable standing army as a deterrent to violence and war has surely never crossed their "sizable" minds. They are progressives. They always have and always will promote progressive people and institutions. The only stick they carry is this award which, in essence, is almost sort of a bribe.(?) It's their way to nudge the president in the direction they see fit. So let them pat each other on the back and direct the outrage towards the Nobel frat boys.