Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Inequality for All – another Inconvenient Truth?

The powerful documentary Inequality for All was an unexpected hit at the recent Sundance film festival, arguing that US capitalism has fatally abandoned the middle classes while making the super-rich richer. Can its star, economist Robert Reich, do for economics what Al Gore did for the environment?
Robert Reich addresses Occupy rally
Former US labour secretary Robert Reich at an Occupy Los Angeles rally in 2011. Photograph: David Mcnew/Getty Images
In one sense, Inequality for All is absolutely the film of the moment. We are living through tumultuous times. The economy has tanked. Austerity has cut a swath through the country. We're on the verge of a triple-dip recession. And, in another, parallel universe, a small cohort of alien beings – or as we know them, bankers – are currently engaged in trying to figure out what to spend their multimillion-pound bonuses on. Who wouldn't want to know what's going on? Or how it happened? Or why? Or if it is really true that the next generation down is well and truly shafted?
And yet… what sucker would try to make a film about it? It's not exactly Skyfall. Where would you even start? Because there are some films that practically beg to be made. And then there's Inequality for All; the kind of film that you can't quite believe that anybody, ever, considered a good idea, let alone had the passion and commitment to give it two years of their life.
How did you even come up with the idea of making a film about economics? I ask the director Jacob Kornbluth. "I know! People would roll their eyes when I told them. They'd say it's a terrible idea for a film." On paper it is, indeed, a terrible idea. A 90-minute documentary on income inequality: or why the rich have got richer and the rest of us haven't (I say "us" because although it's focused on America, we're snapping at their heels) and which traces a line back to the 1970s, when things stopped getting better for the vast majority of ordinary working people and started getting worse.
"It always sounded so dry," says Kornbluth. "But then I'd tell people it's An Inconvenient Truth for the economy and they'd go, Ah!"
In fact, Inequality for All, which premiered at the Sundance film festival a fortnight ago, is anything but dry. It won not just rave reviews but also the special jury prize and a major cinema distribution deal, and while it owes an obvious debt to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, it is, in many ways, a much better, more human and surprising film. Not least because, incredibly enough, it's actually pretty funny. And, in large part, this is down to its star, Robert Reich.
Reich is not a star in any obvious sense of the word. He's a 66-year-old academic. And he's been banging on about inequality for more than three decades. At one point in the film he looks quite downcast and says: "Sometimes I just feel like my life has been a total failure." An archive clip of him on CNN from 1991 looking fresh-faced and bushy-haired shows that he has literally been saying the same thing for decades upon decades. And yet, as he tells me cheerfully on the phone from his home in California, "It just keeps getting worse!"
These days he's a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and while he's not a figure we're familiar with in the UK, he's been part of American public life for years. At the start of the film, he introduces himself to a lecture hall full of students, telling them how he was secretary of labour under Bill Clinton. "And before that I was at Harvard. And before that I was a member of the Carter administration. You don't remember the Carter administration, do you?" The students remain silent. "And before that," says Reich with impeccable comic timing, "I was a special agent for Abraham Lincoln." He shakes his head. "Those were tough times."
Reich's books and ideas have been at the forefront of Democratic party thinking for a generation. He is an intellectual heavyweight, a veteran policymaker, a seasoned political hand, and yet he also has the delivery of a standup comedian. His ideas were the basis for Bill Clinton's 1992 election campaign slogan, "Putting People First" (they were both Rhodes scholars and he met Clinton on board the boat to England; he once dated Hillary too, though he only realised this when a New York Times journalist rang him up and reminded him). And they were still there at the heart of President Obama's inaugural address last month. America could not succeed, said Obama, "when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it". What Reich, basically, has been saying since the year dot.
What's extraordinary is how, somehow, these ideas have been translated into a narrative that shows every sign of being this year's hit documentary film. It certainly shocked Reich. He says he was amazed when Kornbluth first pitched the idea of a film. "He came and said that he'd read my book, Aftershock, and that he loved it and wanted to do a movie about it. And I honestly didn't know what he meant. How could you make a movie out of it?"
But Kornbluth has made a movie out of it. A really astonishingly good movie that takes some big economic ideas and how these relate to the quality of everyday life as lived by most ordinary people. The love and care and artistic flair that Kornbluth brought to it is evident in every frame. It was really really hard work, he tells me, to make something look that simple. But then "I grew up poor. So I've always been very aware of who has what in society." His father had a stroke when Kornbluth was five and died six years later. And his mother, who didn't work because she was raising three children, died when he was 18.
Any synopsis of the film runs the risk of making it seem dry again, but essentially it describes how the middle classes have come to have a smaller and smaller portion of the economic pie. And how, since 70% of the economy is based on the middle classes buying stuff, if they don't have any money to buy this stuff, it cannot grow. Meanwhile, the government has allowed the super-rich, the "one per cent", to take more of the nation's wealth. Half of the US's total assets are now owned by just 400 people – 400! – and, Reich contests that this is not just a threat to the economy, but also to democracy.


A comment from the Blogger.


I think we should try to "bribe" the rich, and the super rich companies to move in a more ethical, and environmentally sustainable direction using something like Transfinancial Economics. Trying to "overthrow" them somehow via the present politcial process in the USA seems to me at present largely a "waste of time." With TFE a far more pragmatic approach is required in which new money could be created electronically, and without serious inflation to deal with the funding in full, or in part of poverty reuduction type projects. But this demands an understanding of TFE which requires real intelligence, and real vision...both of which are totally lacking in present day economics.....................

Also to  further add  the following point connected with the above.... TFE could reduce poverty dramatically without having to "rob" anyone irrespective of whether they are rich, or poor.



 http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

Transfinancial Economics - P2P Foundation
p2pfoundation.net
Transfinancial Economics is an evolving project nearing basic completion. It should be said that there has been a degree of interest in it from some economists including Professor Prem Sikka, and the noted autodidact, and futurist Hazel Henderson.In April 2010 it was also a subject discussed at a ma...
on No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Freakonomics


The following may be of some relevance, and interest! RS


Steven D. Levitt is an economist. Stephen J. Dubner is a writer. They co-authored Freakonomics, a book about cheating teachers, bizarre baby names, self-dealing Realtors, and crack-selling mama’s boys. They figured it would sell about 80 copies. Instead, it has sold 4 million, in 35 languages. Then they wrote SuperFreakonomics, with stories about drunk walking, the economics of prostitution, and how to stop global warming. It hasn’t quite sold 4 million copies yet but it’s getting there. A lot of other stuff has happened, too. A blog. A radio show. A movie. Lectures. Even Jon Stewart — and Beauty and the Geek. This is the place where all that stuff continues to happen. Welcome to Freakonomics.com. (Data from Official Stie)


....
Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool?
What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?
How much do parents really matter?
These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to parenting and sports—and reaches conclusions that turn conventional wisdom on its head.

Freakonomics is a groundbreaking collaboration between Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, an award-winning author and journalist. They set out to explore the inner workings of a crack gang, the truth about real estate agents, the secrets of the Ku Klux Klan, and much more.  (ref Amazon).......





More on Freakonomics curtesy of Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the film, see Freakonomics (film).
Freakonomics:
A Rogue Economist Explores
the Hidden Side of Everything
Freakonomics.jpg
Author(s)Steven D. Levitt
Stephen J. Dubner
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject(s)Economics, Sociology
Genre(s)Non-fiction
PublisherWilliam Morrow
Publication dateApril 12, 2005
Media typeHardback & Paperback
Pages336 pp (hardback edition)
ISBNISBN 0-06-123400-1 (Hardback), ISBN 0-06-089637-X (large print paperback)
OCLC Number73307236
Followed bySuperFreakonomics
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything is a 2005 non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner. The book has been described as melding pop culture with economics.[1]. By late 2009, it had sold over 4 million copies worldwide.[2]

Contents

 [hide] 

[edit] Overview

The book is a collection of 'economic' articles written by Levitt, an expert who has already gained a reputation for applying economic theory to diverse subjects not usually covered by "traditional" economists; he does, however, accept the standard neoclassical microeconomic model of rational utility-maximization. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner argue that economics is, at root, the study of incentives. The book's topics include:
One example of the authors' use of economic theory involves demonstrating the existence of cheating among sumo wrestlers. In a sumo tournament, all wrestlers in the top division compete in 15 matches and face demotion if they do not win at least eight of them. The sumo community is very close-knit, and the wrestlers at the top levels tend to know each other well. The authors looked at the final match, and considered the case of a wrestler with seven wins, seven losses, and one fight to go, fighting against an 8-6 wrestler. Statistically, the 7-7 wrestler should have a slightly below even chance, since the 8-6 wrestler is slightly better. However, the 7-7 wrestler actually wins around 80% of the time. Levitt uses this statistic and other data gleaned from sumo wrestling matches, along with the effect that allegations of corruption have on match results, to conclude that those who already have 8 wins collude with those who are 7-7 and let them win, since they have already secured their position for the following tournament. Despite round condemnation of the claims by the Japan Sumo Association following the book's publication in 2005, the 2011 Grand tournament in Tokyo was cancelled for the first time since 1946 because of allegations of match fixing.[3]
The authors attempt to demonstrate the power of data mining. Many of their results emerge from Levitt's analysis of various databases, and asking the right questions. Authors posit that various incentives encourage teachers to cheat by assisting their students with multiple-choice high-stakes tests. Such cheating in the Chicago school system is inferred from detailed analysis of students' answers to multiple choice questions. But first Levitt asks, "What would the pattern of answers look like if the teacher cheated?" The simple answer: difficult questions at the end of a section will be more correct than easy ones at the beginning.

[edit] Reappraisals

In Chapter 2 of Freakonomics, the authors wrote of their visit to folklorist Stetson Kennedy's Florida home where the topic of Kennedy's investigations of the Ku Klux Klan were discussed. However, in their January 8, 2006 column in the New York Times Magazine, Dubner and Levitt wrote of questions about Stetson Kennedy's research ("Hoodwinked", pp. 26–28) leading to the conclusion that Kennedy's research was at times embellished for effectiveness.
In the "Revised and Expanded Edition" this embellishment was noted and corrected: "Several months after Freakonomics was first published, it was brought to our attention that this man's portrayal of his crusade, and various other Klan matters, was considerably overstated....we felt it was important to set straight the historical record."[4]

[edit] Refutations

[edit] Effects of abortion ban

Further information: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime and Legalized abortion and crime effect
There have been many responses to the theory that legal abortion reduces crime – see Legalized abortion and crime effect: Responses and The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime for details.
Freakonomics commented on the effects of an abortion ban in Romania (Decree 770), stating that "Compared to Romanian children born just a year earlier, the cohort of children born after the abortion ban would do worse in every measurable way: they would test lower in school, they would have less success in the labor market, and they would also prove much more likely to become criminals. (p. 118)". John DiNardo, a professor at the University of Michigan, retorts that the paper cited by Freakonomics states "virtually the opposite of what is actually claimed":
On average, children born in 1967 just after abortions became illegal display better educational and labor market achievements than children born prior to the change. This outcome can be explained by a change in the composition of women having children: urban, educated women were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change, so a higher proportion of children were born into urban, educated households. (Pop-Eleches, 2002, p.34).
—John DiNardo, Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling[5]
Levitt responded on the Freakonomics Blog that Freakonomics and Pop-Eleches "are saying the same thing":
Here is the abstract of the version of the Pop-Eleches paper that we cited:
…Children born after the abortion ban attained more years of schooling and greater labor market success. This is because urban, educated women were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change, and the relative number of children born to this type of woman increased after the ban. However,controlling for composition using observable background variables, children born after the ban on abortions had worse educational and labor market achievements as adults. Additionally, I provide evidence of crowding in the school system and some suggestive evidence that cohorts born after the introduction of the abortion ban had higher infant mortality and increased criminal behavior later in life.
The introduction of the Pop-Eleches paper says:
This finding is consistent with the view that children who were unwanted during pregnancy had worse socio-economic outcomes once they became adults.

[edit] Effects of extra police on crime

Freakonomics claimed that it was possible to "tease" out the effect of extra police on crime by analysing electoral cycles. The evidence behind these claims was shown to be due partly to a programming error. McCrary stated "While municipal police force size does appear to vary over state and local electoral cycles ... elections do not induce enough variation in police hiring to generate informative estimates of the effect of police on crime."[5]

[edit] Criticism

Freakonomics has been criticised for in fact being a work of sociology and/or criminology, rather than economics. Israeli economist Ariel Rubinstein criticised the book for making use of dubious statistics and complained that "economists like Levitt ... have swaggered off into other fields", saying that the "connection to economics ... [is] none" and that the book is an example of "academic imperialism".[6] Arnold Kling has suggested the book is an example of "amateur sociology".[7]
Thomas Ferguson, author of Golden Rule: The Investment theory of party competition was asked in 2009 to respond to the following claim in Freakonomics:
"A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent."
His response was:
"Where on earth do such figures come from? You would need a fully specified regression equation to do this, that incorporated a lot of variables. Unless you hold constant everything else, including issues -- not easy even to imagine -- such claims are nonsense. Think of a couple of cases. Obviously, an incumbent Congressman or woman with a big margin could spend a bit less and probably do almost as well. By contrast, candidates in close elections surely cannot do this. The real issue is the dependence of money on taking conservative issue positions. Claims about existing candidates typically reflect censored data. That is, there's no one able to run that can run very far to the left."
Economist Robert P. Murphy takes exception to the way the book describes economists and their field, saying the authors end up actually describing econometrics. He also contends the book's ambiguous style makes it very difficult to determine exactly what the authors are claiming in various chapters.[8]

[edit] Publishing history

Freakonomics peaked at number two among nonfiction on The New York Times Best Seller list and was named the 2006 Book Sense Book of the Year in the Adult Nonfiction category. The book received positive reviews from critics. The review aggregator Metacritic reported the book had an average score of 67 out of 100, based on 16 reviews.[9]
Screen shot of Freakonomics Blog
The success of the book has been partly attributed to the blogosphere. In the campaign prior to the release of the book in April 2005, the publisher (William Morrow and Company) chose to target bloggers in an unusually strategical way, sending galley copies to over a hundred of them, as well as contracting two specialized word of mouth (buzz marketing) agencies.[1]
In 2006, the Revised and Expanded Edition of the book was published, with the most significant corrections in the second chapter (see above).[10]

[edit] Freakonomics blog

The authors started their own Freakonomics blog, which is "meant to keep the conversation going", in 2005.
In May 2007, writer and blogger Melissa Lafsky was hired as the full time editor of the site.[11] In August 2007, the blog was incorporated into The New York Times' web site – the authors had been writing joint columns for The New York Times Magazine since 2004 – and the domain Freakonomics.com became a redirect there.[12] In March 2008, Annika Mengisen replaced Lafsky as the blog editor.[13] The Freakonomics blog ended its association with the New York Times on March 1, 2011.[14]
Among the recurrent guest bloggers on the Freakonomics blog are Ian Ayres,[15] Daniel Hamermesh,[16] Eric A. Morris,[17] Sudhir Venkatesh,[18] Justin Wolfers[19] and others.
In 2008, Stephen Dubner asked for questions from the site's readers and then featured them in an extended Q&A on "Best Places to Live" with demographics expert Bert Sperling.[20]

[edit] SuperFreakonomics

Main article: SuperFreakonomics
In April 2007, co-author Stephen Dubner announced that there would be a sequel to Freakonomics, and that it would contain further writings about street gang culture from Sudhir Venkatesh, as well as a study of the use of money by capuchin monkeys.[21] Dubner said the title would be SuperFreakonomics,[22] and that one topic would be what makes people good at what they do.[23] The book was released in Europe in early October 2009 and in the United States on October 20, 2009.

[edit] Film adaptation

Main article: Freakonomics (film)
In 2010, Chad Troutwine, Chris Romano, and Dan O'Meara produced a documentary film adaptation with a budget of nearly US$3 million in an omnibus format by directors Seth Gordon, Morgan Spurlock, Alex Gibney, Eugene Jarecki, Rachel Grady, and Heidi Ewing.[24] It was the Closing Night Gala premiere film at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 30, 2010.[25] It was also the Opening Night film at the AFI/Discovery SilverDocs film festival on June 21, 2010. Magnolia Pictures has acquired distribution rights for a Fall 2010 release.[26]
Freakonomics: The Movie was released in major cities with a pay what you want pricing offer for selected preview showings.[27] No report of the results has yet been published.

[edit] Freakonomics Consulting Group

In 2009, Steven Levitt co-founded Freakonomics Consulting Group, a business and philanthropy consulting company now known as The Greatest Good. Founding partners include Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Gary Becker, as well as several other prominent economists.[28]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Deahl, Rachel (6 May 2005). "Getting a Buzz On: How Publishers Are Turning Online to Market Books". The Book Standard. http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-miscellaneous/4399655-1.html.
  2. ^ Fox, Justin (26 October 2009). "Is the World Ready for Freakonomics Again?". Time.com. http://freakonomics.com/2006/09/20/freakonomics-20/. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  3. ^ "Sumo tournament cancelled amid match-fixing scandal". BBC. 2011-02-06. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12375649.
  4. ^ Levitt, Steven D.; Dubner, Stephen J. (5 October 2006). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Revised and Expanded Edition). William Morrow. p. xiv. ISBN 0-06-123400-1.
  5. ^ a b DiNardo, John. "Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling". American Law and Economics Review (Oxford Journals) 8 (3): 615–626. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdinardo/Pubs/aler.pdf.
  6. ^ Rubinstein, Ariel. "Freak-Freakonomics". The Economists' Voice 3 (9). doi:10.2202/1553-3832.1226. http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/freak.pdf.
  7. ^ Kling, Arnold (5 July 2005). "Freakonomics or Amateur Sociology?". Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman. http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/07/freakonomics-or-amateur-sociology.html. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  8. ^ Murphy, Robert P. (25 May 2005). "More Fun than Truth". Mises.org. http://mises.org/daily/1817. Retrieved 2012-03-20.
  9. ^ "Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner: Reviews". Metacritic. Archived from the original on 18 February 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080218120040/http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/levittstevendandstephenjdubner/freakonomics. Retrieved 11 March 2008.
  10. ^ Dubner, Stephen J. (20 September 2006). "Freakonomics 2.0". Freakonomics (blog). http://freakonomics.com/2006/09/20/freakonomics-20/. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  11. ^ Dubner, Stephen J. (4 May 2007). "Please Welcome the First Editor of Freakonomics.com". Freakonomics (blog). http://freakonomics.com/2007/05/04/please-welcome-the-first-editor-of-freakonomicscom/. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  12. ^ Dubner, Stephen J. (7 August 2007). "Moving Day". Freakonomics (blog). http://freakonomics.com/2007/08/07/moving-day/. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  13. ^ Dubner, Stephen J. (17 March 2008). "Please welcome...". Freakonomics (blog). http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/please-welcome/. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  14. ^ Dubner, Stephen J. (18 January 2011). "Yes, This Blog Is Leaving NYTimes.com". Freakonomics (blog). http://freakonomics.com/2011/01/18/yes-this-blog-is-leaving-nytimes-com/. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  15. ^ "Posts published by Ian Ayres". The New York Times. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/ian-ayres/. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  16. ^ "Posts published by Daniel Hamermesh". The New York Times. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/daniel-hamermesh/. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  17. ^ "Posts published by Eric A. Morris". The New York Times. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/author/eric-a-morris/. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  18. ^ "Posts published by Sudhir Venkatesh". The New York Times. http://freakonomics.com/author/sudhir-venkatesh/. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  19. ^ "Posts published by Justin Wolfers". The New York Times. http://freakonomics.com/author/justin-wolfers/. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  20. ^ Dubner, Stephen. "Bert Sperling Answers Your "Best Places to Live" Questions". http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/10/14/bert-sperling-answers-your-best-places-to-live-questions/. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
  21. ^ Lombardi, Candace (19 April 2007). "Freakonomics writer talks monkey business". CNET News. http://news.com.com/Freakonomics+writer+talks+monkey+business/2100-1026-6177655.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e433. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  22. ^ Conley, Lucas (1 November 2005). "Freakonomics, economic hit men, undercover economists. This ain't Adam Smith.". Fast Company. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/100/next-economist.html. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  23. ^ "Here Is What SuperFreakonomics Will Look Like". The New York Times. 7 August 2009. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/here-is-what-superfreakonomics-will-look-like/. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  24. ^ "Freakonomics". Internet Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152822/. Retrieved 20 July 2009.
  25. ^ Kohn, Eric (1 May 2010). "TRIBECA REVIEW — Movies Within a Movie: The Anthology Documentary "Freakonomics"". indieWIRE. http://www.indiewire.com/article/tribeca_review_movies_within_a_movie_the_anthology_documentary_freakonomics/. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
  26. ^ "Magnolia Picks Up 'Freakonomics' Documentary". News in Film. http://www.newsinfilm.com/2010/04/05/magnolia-picks-up-freakonomics-movie/. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
  27. ^ "Pay what you want to see Freakonomics: The Movie". http://www.avclub.com/articles/pay-what-you-want-to-see-freakonomics-the-movie,45265/.
  28. ^ "The Greatest Good - Consulting". http://www.greatestgood.com. Retrieved July 14, 2012.
  29. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm (March 2006). "Levitt and Dubner respond". http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/03/levitt_and_dubn.html. Retrieved 23 December 2012.

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

on No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)