Sunday, July 13, 2008

Who Runs the World?

Keynes is widely credited as being the brains behind the economic multinational organisations set up after World War Two. In response to the Great Depression, Keynes had argued for the necessity of government intervention to stabilise the boom and bust cycle of the free market. This held both at a national and an international level. However, when it came time to set up these new institutions, Keynes had less to do with the construction of these entities than he might have wanted.

Richard Peet argues in his book "Unholy Trinity" that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) were all established on and continue to be driven by a neoclassical influence. The argument that the "Washington Consensus" associated with these organisations is part of a neoclassical agenda is not unique to Peet; what is interesting in his contribution to the literature on this subject is that he traces this neoclassical influence right back to the establishment of these organisations.

In fact, the only thing he identifies as being Keynesian about the organisations is that they are founded on the belief that some kind of government intervention is required in the free market. As others have argued, his book identifies the American government as being the primary agent behind the influence of neoclassicism in these organisations. He goes further and attributes the major financial institutions as being the prime mover behind the American government's espousal of neoclassicism.

The historical argument of the book offers an interesting perspective of how the US government imprinted its influence on the Bretton Woods organisations from their establishment. The world had just come out of a period where the USA had withdrawn from the wider world. Much of the spillover of the Great Depression into the rest of the world was due to this decision. More importantly, the Allies had been staring down the jaws of defeat until the USA had entered the war. The negatives of a US withdrawal from international affairs were only too apparent, so the world was willing to concede the deciding vote in the new organisations in exchange for US involvement.

Peet traces the role of the US government, academic institutions, mutinational financial institutions, particularly investment banks, and press in establishing the hegemonic influence of neoclassicism. Although academic institutions are nominally independent, much of their funding is corporate. Furthermore, economic academics who leave the Ivory Tower, either temporarily or permanently, tend to find a home in government organisations and major financial houses. These same financial houses often own controlling influences over media companies. Peet lays out the academic credentials of the various heads of the two Bretton Woods organisations and it is clear enough that many of them were not only educated at the same institutions but most had worked for investment banks before taking up their positions in these international bodies.

Much emphasis is often laid on the amount of debt owed by poor and middle-income countries to the wealthy ones. But it should not be forgotten that much of these countries' debt are also owed to and traded by major international financial houses. And neoclassical tenets do provide the best guarantee that those debts will be paid as they promote fiscal discipline and the importance of exports. By minimising government spending and maximising export revenues, governments are more likely to be able to pay their debts. However, the other economic effects of such policies are more arguable.

This book does provide interesting insights into how prevailing economic powers use their influence to chart academic discourse. However, what it does neglect is the fact that sometimes this flow goes in both directions. Throughout history, it has often been the thinkers who have envisioned a new way of organising society, both politically and economically, and the rest of society has followed. Even classical theory itself was one of the progenitors of capitalism. There may be feedback effects that serve to entrench theory so as to protect a system once it is established but often it is theory which is the first mover.

As the book mentions, a counter-hegemonic movement has begun in academia and outside of it that opposes the claims of neoclassicism. As the new discourse establishes itself, it too will build a picture of how the world should be organised and should that picture make its way into the real world, it too will spawn interests to feed the theories that brought it into being. One can only hope that the world it builds will be a prettier one for those at the bottom of the pile.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Superheroes Attack!

Superhero movies seem to be one of those things Hollywood can't make enough of. Every couple of years a new set is released, and at the moment, we see to be in the middle of a deluge. Ironman and the Incredible Hulk have just gone off the screens, Hancock has just arrived and The Dark Knight is about to descend. Superhero movies excite the popular imagination. The question is would we actually want them in the real world?

As the movie Hancock draws attention to, superheroes create an enormous amount of damage. And the question is: is the damage worth it? Well, if they're stopping a supervillain bent on destroying the world as we know it, then most probably. In other cases, possibly not. The amount that the bank has to pay to rebuild its building (plus the increase in its insurance premiums) may be more than what the superhero saved them. And, as every economist knows, even a human life may not be worth knocking over most of downtown.

Furthermore, would people want to live or do businesses in city with a local superhero? The periodic destruction of property would send insurance through the roof and who really wants to relocate every time Superman has a spat with Lex Luthor. As everyone knows, superheroes attract supervillains like the plague, so wouldn't you rather lump it in a city with just the regular variety of criminal?

The other thing about superheroes is that they may be very good at making headlines for saving cats stuck in trees and stopping bank robbers, but is this really most efficient way of using their time? Consider Robert Mugabe. Wouldn't it make more sense to send Superman after him (and those of his ilk) rather than having him pansy about stopping car crashes in Metropolis? Superheroes seem to flock to American cities, rather than taking on the thornier, more complex problems in the rest of the world. This is probably because movies only work if there's a clear good and bad side, but if superheroes really existed wouldn't we have wanted them to intervene in the Balkans or the Rwandan genocide?

Updating superhero movies seems to mainly consist of adjusting the settings and giving the science a brush-over based on more recent discoveries. Sometimes the character's are given a bit of a new spin - the previous Pepper Potts in Ironman was even more of a walk-over for her boss; Christian Bale's Batman has a more complex backstory. And, to some extent, the latest set of superhero films nod to broader sensibilities.

Ironman takes a look at the jihadist conflict in which the USA has become embroiled. He gets to see a bit of the world, take in some new sights. However, the chief reason why he gets to do this is exactly because it is one case in which the world's hyperpower has decided to involve itself with the rest of the world. For Tony Sparks, more than most superheroes, this makes sense. He comes across as fairly narcissistic and pragmatic. He may want to improve the world but he's not a pure altruist.

The Incredible Hulk has some incredible scenes set in South America. The cinematography is breathtaking. But the hero isn't there to save the day. He's there to escape. Admittedly, he is doing this because he seems the dangers of there being more like him and, considering the kind of character he comes across as, maybe he would trek back to South America once he gets his powers under control. Certainly, the South Americans probably need him more than their neighbours in the North.

Hancock is a superhero movie with a difference. First of all, no comics preceded it. Second, the superhero, while possessing all the powers of Superman, is not all that interested in solving the world's problems. He does save people but he also has a tendency to give in to criminals holding hostages and cause massive amounts of property damage. The film plays off this well and has an interesting look at how Hancock spruces up his image (there's more to this intriguing film than that but let's leave it there for now). However, when it's time for Hancock to find a new home, it's off to New York he goes. Yes, it's a crime spot but surely Charlize could have told him Jo'burg has bigger problems.

At the end of the day, superhero stories are good entertainment and, when done well, great entertainment. They're enjoyable and not meant to be taken too seriously. However, if they ever do figure out how to make superheroes, either with technology, bioscience or importing them from outer space, then giving them a wide berth might be a good idea.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

National Arts Festival

Grahamstown is a small town, defined as a city based on an antiquated English law that says that all a city needs is a cathedral and a university. The university of course is Rhodes, best known for its world-renowned journalism department. The cathedral is also impressive, though not on an international scale. But what Grahamstown is probably best known for is its role as the host of the annual National Arts Festival.

Come the end of June, every available space is transformed into either a miniature theatre or a temporary art gallery. Thespians, and other artists, descend on the town, followed by hordes of South Africans looking for their annual dose of culture. Little white-faced boys appear on every street corner in the guise of mimes. Stalls spring up like weeds and traffic diversions abound, converting two-way streets into one-ways and mystifying the town's residents.

It is impossible to see every show and the publication "Cue" attempts to give guidance, chock full as it is of reviews and feature articles. Unfortunately, the standard of the publication seems somewhat haphazard, with every reviewer having their own way of seeing things, and no attempt at a ratings system is provided. The result is that one has to search through the publication cover-to-cover attempting to choke some help out of this stone. It's better than nothing, but considering the overwhelming array of offerings, it leaves a lot to be desired.

A proposed ratings system could work something like this:
1 Star - Don't Waste Your Money
2 Star - Not a Complete Waste of Money
3 Star - See it, if it's in your Sphere of Interest
4 Star - Recommended
5 Star - It should be Mandatory for all Festival Participants

As a demonstration, six reviews for shows performed this year will be given below:

Wild and Fragrant - 2 Star
Description: A one-woman collage of Herman Charles Bosman's works and life story.
Review: This is not the first Herman Charles Bosman collage in which this actress has performed, but it is not her best either. While the acting is good, if a bit dull as the main character in every story is the same, the selection for this year is poor. Considering the broad range of work left by Bosman, this shows leaves something to be desired. Bosman fans will enjoy the final story in the collage.

Mark Sampson Feels Funny - 3 Star
Description: A one-man comedy show about life's snakes and ladders.
Review: Last time, it was his children that inspired him; this time it is father's death. Unlike most comedy shows, Mark Sampson's contain a story and a message, but this certainly doesn't undermine their humour. While it probably should not have been billed as a family show, people who enjoyed his previous show will not be disappointed.

Australia VS South Africa - 3 Star
Description: Two comedy duos team up to compare and contrast these two great sporting nations.
Review: A delightful and amusing romp, with excellent characters, an entertaining plot and outstanding mime- and sound-work. The only niggle with this show is that if you don't know much about sport, the humour will be lost on you (but then, how many South Africans does that apply to?).

Under the Stars, Above the Tree - 2 Star
Description: A fantastical coming of age tale about a boy climbing to the top of the tree covering the world.
Review: The visual effects for this production are impressive, providing a compelling setting. The concept is original, and the acting is reasonable. The story seems aimed at children, along the lines of Aesop's Fable and other such moral-communicating tales. The problem is that the main character is a boy trying to reach the top of the tree so that his grandfather can die in peace knowing someone has seen the sky, and this is not a convincing motivation for a child. While adults may see the force of going to extreme lengths to allow a suffering relative to die in peace, children are unlikely to appreciate it.

Puck's Story - 4 Star
Description: A one-hour version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" where the audience follow the story around the vast garden at Crossways.
Review: This is a skilfully-edited and well-crafted version of the Bard's Tale. The use of space, with the audience constantly having to move around the garden with the actors, is excellent. The twin pillars of the story, Puck and Bottom, hold up their ends brilliantly with many of the other actors giving sterling performances. The only problem with this play is that it is being performed in the middle of winter.

Butlers and Brandy - 4 Star
Description: A murder mystery where the audience chooses what happens next.
Review: It's not often the audience gets to decide where the story goes, but that is exactly what happens in this cunning whodunnit. The actors, most of whom take on multiple roles, all compete to be the most loathsome, as the audience decides who to kill off. The butler holds the story together, guiding the audience through the twists, the turns and the votes. All of the acting is top-notch, and the visual and sound effects are delightful.