For several weeks, I have been planning to revitalize this site. I have a particular idea about what I want to do here, but the idea has not yet been made flesh. Today was supposed to be my opportunity to harmonize the divergent ideas rattling around in my cerebellum. Or is it the Telencephalon? Honestly, I have no idea and I am afraid to go on to Wikipedia to look and find out how little I know about my own brain or, for that matter, human consciousness in general.
My failing, of which I am too acutely aware, is I have lots of ideas. Or rather, had. The past few years have actually seen more and more of them diminish. This may be the result of a multitude of factors (age, health, occupation, lack of natural ability) or quite simply: laziness. I have not been feeling particularly challenged, but had done previous little to remedy the matter. Unlike Garrett Lisi, I have yet to propose a unified field theory in between surfing and snowboarding (even if it is only just an arXiv pre-print and is being generally ignored by physics orthodoxy). As an aside, I am not at all confident that the foregoing parenthetical even works grammatically. Whatever.
Nor have I accomplished any Posnerian feat in the past few months (or arguably longer). I have been reading up on some of Judge Posner’s earliest economic thinking, specifically from the 1970s relating to the economic theory of regulation which was proposed by the eminent economist George Stigler (who also happened to be a Nobel prize recipient, key leader in the Chicago school of economic thought, and instructor of Milton Friedman). This introduction is not mere happenstance – it is the natural extension of my course work at LSE. Posner actually developed some very incisive critiques of Stigler’s regulatory model. Alas, a thorough discussion of the economic theory of regulation and Posner’s critique will have to wait.
Wait for what? The formation of habit, more specifically that of writing on a constant basis. So today is a first step. A much smaller one than even I anticipated. While time management is something I struggle with, this particular week I took great pains to plain is exquisite detail so that I could have more time. Yet, it was not meant to be. Instead, I spent the day catching up and wound up less on time then when the day began. There was no occurrence of a low probability event (a la Nassim Nicholas Taleb) to which I can point that put me back. Instead, just a collection of minor, incremental changes percolating to a swell by the end of the day.
The beginning of the day was spent ruminating on the automobile industry. No, not the one in Detroit, but in Wolfsburg, Germany. Vertical arrangements, antitrust and the Chicago school of economic thought on both took up most of my morning. The afternoon was spent considering ‘better’ regulation and OECD regulatory review of Irish civil litigation (which I have yet to digest). Throughout the day, minor hurdles kept cropping up. Broken appliances, missing cords, missed tube stops. Nothing individually catastrophic. But the cumulative effect was overwhelming. Perhaps there is some systemic risk in my life of which I am blissfully unaware? I cannot help but think of the juxtaposition with the economy. But that too will have to wait.
The evening was a reprieve. I was able to enjoy the first two hours of Simon Schama’s exquisite Power of Art. Yes, the narration is in places overly dramatic and the analysis may for some be wholly superficial. Given that I am completely naive when it comes to art, the documentary was a revelation. Not only that, the biographical details of both Caraaggio and Bernini made the whole ensemble captivating. I am very much looking forward to the piece on Rothko.
In sum, humility was the lesson for the day. Too much remains undertaken and unfinished. What of tomorrow?
Filed under: Uncategorized
