Search This Blog

Sunday 19 October 2014

Ebola and failing markets tell us that we need to work together


Governments must heed the warnings of our brightest minds and reshape our societies to help those most in need
Janet Yellen
Janet Yellen, the chair of the US Federal Reserve, who said last week that inequality is un-American. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP

Last week, the world’s stock and bond markets swung wildly. They worried about the threat of world deflation, falling oil prices and further systemic weaknesses in the financial system. But perhaps they were most concerned about whether spooked governments had the will to do anything, even if those governments could agree on what that should be. If they can’t manage a co-ordinated response to Ebola or one against the cruelties of Isis, then it is hardly likely they are going to find common ground in managing the fissures in the world economy.
It is not as though there is not the beginning of a policy and intellectual consensus about what is wrong. Inequality is increasingly understood to be poisoning everything; governments cannot continue with business as usual policies; interdependencies have to be recognised and acted on. The problem is doing any of it.
Thus only last week, Janet Yellen, chair of the US Federal Reserve, joined one of her predecessors, Alan Greenspan, and the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, in arguing that the growth of inequality was not only wrong morally but having increasingly baleful economic consequences. Then there were the strictures of the managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde.
Inequality, they all say, fosters fear, creates too much demand for credit to compensate for squeezed living standards, drives asset price bubbles, catalyses financial instability, weakens banks and, by displacing too much risk on to those who cannot bear it, undermines the legitimacy of capitalism. You have to blink with incredulity – and then blink again at markets falling because they want to see purposeful government action.
But governments everywhere seem paralysed, relying on central bankers’ promises not to raise interest rates to keep everyone calm and buy time for a few more months. No electoral majority can be mustered for even common sense, centrist radicalism that might address inequality or put economies stricken by the legacy of too much private debt and low demand back on their feet. They are stymied by their terror of going beyond the comfort zone of business as usual, as if the world had not changed after the financial crisis. It demands thinking – and doing – the hitherto unthinkable. Austerity remains the conventional wisdom.
In any case, rightwing populists challenge any such imaginative action as wrong. It’s not the aftermath of the financial crisis that’s the problem for them. It is foreigners, immigrants and the EU. We don’t need to look out for others, act purposefully to reshape our economies to lower inequality or accept interdependencies, declaim the world’s Nigel Farages. We are going to look out for number one, lock out foreigners and the rest of the world will meekly accept our assertion of self-interest.
This incubus goes far beyond economics. Thus the Ebola crisis has been gathering force for over a year. But it has taken the prospect of 10,000 new cases a week by December in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea for it to become a global threat. It’s taken this to shock world governments into a response that even now is grudging and inadequate. To stem the epidemic, burials have to be safe and more than 70% of new sufferers immediately isolated, but for that there has to be a vast expansion of the health infrastructure, along with thousands of doctors and nurses.
West Africa has neither, nor is any crash mobilisation yet in prospect. Governments have been more preoccupied with stopping cases arriving in Europe, Japan and the US than getting involved in the messy and expensive business of tackling Africa’s health inequalities, the root of the epidemic. Only in the past week has there been some movement, with Britain committing £125m to Sierra Leone and others beginning to make common cause. But only $100,000 of the $1bn UN fund has been subscribed. The reality of interdependence, even before a global epidemic, is hard to accept.
If this is hard, it is much harder to accept the interdependency of global finance and beyond that the interdependencies of whole societies such as our own. Nobody is dying a horrible death. But it is very striking how difficult it is to convince the financial, political and intellectual elite that what happened in 2008/9 changed everything. For a generation, western societies in general, and Britain in particular, relied on the massive growth of private credit to mask the dysfunctionality of their capitalism. There was too little attention paid to ensuring the mass of people had economic opportunity in businesses that invested, innovated and grew. The assumption became rooted that the state was the problem and that business and markets would provide, which they could as long as private debt levels doubled every 20 years.
What is so chilling about George Osborne’s approach to running the economy is that he really believes he can go back to those times. So do Republicans in the US and so in her way does Angela Merkel. As Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of the FT, writes in his magisterial account of today’s global economy, The Shifts and the Shocks, the elites have not been disabused of the notion that global finance can continue as before. The vast overhang of private debt is depressive, he argues. Governments must spend and borrow more for perhaps another decade. Central banks must continue with extraordinary monetary policies. Banks and banking need wholesale reform. Deflation, not inflation, is the threat.
Wolf applauds the world’s governments for acting so positively for 18 months after the crisis – and lambasts them for thinking all was well too soon and cutting spending when the co-dependency of state and market and need for extraordinary measures have never been more apparent. The result is self-defeating secular stagnation threatening to topple into worse – in essence, this is what spooked the markets last week.
Finance needs further reshaping; we need purposeful action to lower inequality, which will involve raising taxes on the wealthy, while governments have to borrow and spend, with infrastructure spending being an easy win. Parallel policies are needed abroad.
Europe or foreigners are not the cause of our ills. Ukip and the Tory right will make things worse, not better. Just as the best in the world can see what needs to happen in West Africa, so the best are dissociating themselves from the prescriptions of the right. Nigel Farage and the British right have to be understood for what they are: the political equivalent of Ebola – a virus that threatens our economic and social health.

Thursday 16 October 2014

How to be fitter, happier and more successful: stop dreaming and start getting real


You can’t always get what you want, but if you try some negative thinking, you might get that promotion you actually need
brain waves lightning
‘Daydreaming can be great,’ Gabriele Oettingen says. ‘Positive dreaming is problematic, because it feigns that you’ve already attained these desired futures.’ Illustration: Allan Ajifo / flickr via Creative Commons

In 2011, the New York University psychologist Gabriele Oettingen published the results of an elegant study, conducted with her colleague Heather Kappes, in which participants were deprived of water. Some of these parched volunteers were then taken through a guided visualisation exercise, in which they were asked to picture an icy glass of water, the very thing they presumably craved. Afterwards, by measuring everyone’s blood pressure, Oettingen discovered that the exercise had drained people’s energy levels, and made them relax. The implication is startling: picturing an imaginary glass of water might make people less motivated to get up and head to the watercooler or the tap in order to quench their real, non-imaginary thirst.
This conclusion is precisely the reverse of one of the central tenets of pop psychology: the idea that picturing the future you desire makes it more likely you’ll attain it. Again and again, in her research, Oettingen has shown that making a fantasy of something you want can make it harder to achieve in reality. Imagine yourself having a productive week, and you’ll accomplish less. Imagine receiving a windfall of cash, and you’ll be less motivated to engage in the kinds of activities that might bring you money. Intriguingly – though admittedly the link may not be causal – there’s even a relationship between how much “positive thinking” language American presidents use in their inaugural speeches, and how much unemployment rates change by the end of their presidential terms. The more positive the fantasy about the future, the fewer jobs in real life.
Fist-pumping motivational gurus have long claimed that your brain “can’t distinguish between reality and imagination”. Ironically, Oettingen’s experiments show they’re right about that – but also that the conclusion they draw is spectacularly wrong. Attempting to “experience your success as if it had already materialized” is a fast-track to disappointment.
Thankfully, not all kinds of thinking about the future are quite so self-sabotaging. In Oettingen’s new book, Rethinking Positive Thinking, published in the US on Thursday and elsewhere next month, she makes the case for “mental contrasting”, a technique that involves methodically combining positive and negative thoughts about your own future, in a way that seems to work strikingly well if you’re trying to replace bad habits or mindsets with good ones. Over the last decade, in studies conducted by Oettingen and other researchers, mental contrasting has been shown to double the amount of exercise people engage in; to increase their fruit and vegetable intake by 30%; and to help people suffering from chronic pain become more physically active. When low-income schoolchildren in Germany and the US were trained briefly in the method, it led to increased school attendance and better academic performance.
The technique’s full formal name is less than catchy – “mental contrasting with implementation intentions” – so in her book, Oettingen rebrands it as “Woop”, for “wish, outcome, obstacle, plan”. The acronym sets out the four stages of the process. First, spend a minute or two thinking in detail about something you wish to accomplish; second, vividly imagine the best thing you associate with having achieved that outcome. (That “best thing” might be an emotion, a promotion, praise – anything, really.) Third, ask yourself what internal obstacle’s most likely to get in the way. (This isn’t about your boss, or your spouse, so much as that weakness inside you that holds you back from better pay or a better relationship.) Finally, formulate an “if-then” plan for what you’ll do when that obstacle arises. (“If I find myself feeling terrified when I stand up in front of the audience, then I’ll recall how diligently I’ve rehearsed.” “If I find myself checking Twitter, I’ll get up from my desk immediately.”)
There’s nothing wrong with a bit of positive daydreaming if it makes you feel good, so long as you don’t expect anything more than feeling good. “Daydreaming can be great!” Oettingen told me the other day. “It’s only when it comes to actually realizing these dreams that positive dreaming is problematic, because it feigns that you’ve already attained these desired futures. You relax, your energy goes down. It’s a question of: ‘Why face the hardships of the bumpy road to achieving these things in real life, if you can float away on dreams?’”
Mental contrasting retains the most useful part of positive fantasies: it clarifies what you want, and reminds you how good it can feel to attain, say, a pay increase, a new job, a smaller waistline or a happier relationship. But then it exploits the motivating power of knowing what you have not yet attained – that there’s serious ground you’ll have to cover. (Getting fit, improving a marriage, making more money – it all takes work.) Finally, the Wooping technique nudges you to plan in advance for what you’ll do once, inevitably, your own flawed personality gets in the way.
And so mental contrasting pushes back against one of the great, disempowering lies of positive thinking: that transformative change, personal or societal, can be made effortless. It can’t. In fact, Oettingen’s research suggests, convincing yourself that life’s meant to be easy just makes it appreciably harder. The best way to quench your thirst for change, it seems, is to remind yourself that the glass is still half empty.

Taming Monopolies

Editorial in The Hindu
It is usually not easy for laymen to appreciate the work that fetches the Nobel Prize in Economics or, for that matter, the relevance of such work in everyday life. It is not so this time, with the award going to French economist Jean Tirole, the second Frenchman to win a Nobel this year — the other being Patrick Modiano who got the Literature Nobel. Mr. Tirole’s body of work deals with the interesting and complex subject of regulating monopolies or, as a Nobel official put it so well, it is “about taming powerful firms”. The subject has immediate resonance in today’s world where government monopolies in areas such as electricity and transport are being dismantled and privatised and new monopolies are establishing themselves in sectors such as information technology and the Internet. Before Mr. Tirole came up with research using game theory and contract theory that aid regulation in situations of asymmetric information between regulators and the regulated, simple methods were used to regulate monopolies. Capping prices and prohibiting cooperation between competitors in the same market were two such methods used, but Mr. Tirole proved that they were not always effective and in some instances caused more harm than good. Price caps, for instance, can force dominant firms to cut costs, which is good but they could in the process lead to excessive profits for the firm, which is not so good.
Mr. Tirole published a paper in 2006 jointly with Jean-Charles Rochet that dealt with the interesting subject of “two-sided” markets that has direct relevance to today’s buzzing world of e-commerce. These markets bring together buyers and sellers on a platform they own, enable interaction between the two and charge both sides. Amazon and Flipkart are good examples. Or for that matter, taxi aggregator firms such as Ola Cabs or Uber. Mr. Tirole’s work showed that the platforms often favour one side to attract the other. For instance, deep discounts on e-commerce platforms are used to drag in buyers and in the process bring in more vendors who pay the platform for its services. Regulators often do not understand the practices due to asymmetry of information. Mr. Tirole’s work is also important in the context of today’s “Google-world” where the Internet giant strides like a colossus in the search domain and regulators are struggling to understand Google’s strategies and then figure out ways and means to regulate it. This year’s Economics Nobel is remarkable not just because it is the first time since 1999 that an American does not figure in it but also because the Committee has picked a work that has practical value.

Oxford University tutors finally open up about admissions interviews

Oxford marks undergraduate application deadline by publishing selection of interview questions including ‘How much of the past can you count?’

Peckwater Quadrangle, Christ Church, Oxford University, Oxford, Oxfordshire, England, UK
The questions published by Oxford confirm the stereotype of the contrary and offbeat, satirised by The History Boys. Photograph: Robert Harding World Imagery/Alamy

The mysteries of the Oxford admissions interview have been laid bare by the university, in an effort to explain the questions at the core of the fraught 20 minutes in an office that can change the course of a life.
To mark the deadline for 2015 undergraduate admissions, the university asked admissions tutors to open up about the interviews that all UK undergraduate applicants are subjected to – and what the admissions officers are looking for.
But rather than shine a spotlight on a process criticised for admitting a disproportionate number from independent schools, the questions published by Oxford instead confirm the stereotype of the contrary and offbeat, satirised by the Oxbridge applicants of Alan Bennett’s play The History Boys.
A question from Nick Yeung, an admissions tutor for psychology at University College, asks: Why are Welsh speakers worse at remembering phone numbers than English speakers?
“This question is meant to be deliberately provocative, in that I hope that it engages candidates’ intuitions that Welsh people aren’t simply less clever than English people,” Yeung said.
“The key point is that numbers are spelled differently and are longer in Welsh than in English, and it turns out that memory and arithmetic depend on how easily pronounced the words are. I would hope the student would pick out this connection between memory and how easy to spell or pronounce a word is.”
Other questions published by Oxford included: How much of the past can you count? “In this case, the question gets at all sorts of issues relating to historical evidence,” said Stephen Tuck, a fellow at Pembroke College.
“Of course, much of the interview would be taken up with discussing in depth the history courses the students have studied – the interview is not all about unusual questions.”
Samina Khan, Oxford’s acting director of undergraduate admissions, said for many students the interview is the most daunting part.
“We know there are still lots of myths about the Oxford interview, so we put as much information as possible out there to allow students to see behind the hype to the reality of the process,” Khan said.
But a former admissions tutor at a Russell Group university said that while the questions were reasonable, Oxford’s over-reliance on interviews to select undergraduates was part of its problem.
“It seems to me though that by revealing the mysteries of the interview, Oxford is continuing the fetishisation. It is Oxford, not interviews, that is weird,” he said.
The university interviews more than 10,000 applicants over two weeks in December, for around 3,200 undergraduate places.
Applicants to read biology might be asked ‘Why do some habitats support higher biodiversity than others?’ while prospective art history students are shown a painting and asked if they recognise it. “It is the only question for which there is a single, correct answer, which is ‘no’,” said Geraldine Johnson of Christ Church, explaining that she wants applicants to discuss works they haven’t seen before.