Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science, coined the term
"paradigm shift." Later, after it became a buzzterm with many
meanings and little force, he regretted that, critically brilliant though it
was. I wonder whether Christine Lagarde might feel something like that with the
"new mediocre."
Lagarde means something specifically economic (as Vanessa
Frieden acknowledges). Still, Friedman may be onto more than she realizes. The
"meritocracy" that the privileged rave about (think executive pay,
elite universities, charter schools, privatization of government functions, etc.)
is mostly a myth. The great people of merit have proved to be stunningly
mediocre (even incompetent, even criminal) — Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon,
about 90% of Congress and the executive, even the Supreme Court. Economic
theorizing (including about meritocracy) has failed like very few sciences have
ever failed. (A whole science — that's impressive.) Meritocracy was a cover
story invented after the fact.
But the irony is in what Frieden and Lagarde still buy into:
Growth must go on — the old thinking. "No prosperity without growth."
People must buy more. Throw out the old — or even the new, useful or not. Buy
newer, needed or not. Get a new cell phone each year. New clothing each season.
Frieden's real quibble seems to be with the pace, not the irrational cycle.
Here's another law of physics: Entropy increases. Disorder increases. In time, things fall apart. Irrationality will accelerate that.
Here's another law of physics: Entropy increases. Disorder increases. In time, things fall apart. Irrationality will accelerate that.
No comments:
Post a Comment