She's right

Megan McCardle answers Paul Krugman:

When Paul Krugman said "Europe's economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe -- official economic statistics or your own lying eyes -- the eyes have it." I had roughly the same reaction that Matt Welch did: having lived in London for intermittent (short) periods, I found it noticeably poorer than the United States.

I remember seeing similar differences in Paris in the 1990s. Parisians weren't poor but they had a noticeably lower standard of living than we have here. For example, kids there obviously had seen Rollerblades on television shows from North America but most couldn't afford them and bought old style roller skates instead. By the end of the decade, the kids all had Rollerblades but in 1995 they were nonexistent on Paris streets. (Although a few rich kids must have already had them. The other thing that really jumps out at you in Paris is how much more clearly the line between rich and poor is marked there.)

And, at the risk of offending lots of fellow Canadians, we are in the middle; when I go to the USA, I can't help but notice that people there have a higher standard of living than we do here. I know the temptation is to say "So what?" about such an unimportant difference but the cumulative effect of such small differences is substantial. Morally speaking, the difference isn't worth worrying about, economically speaking it matters.


PS: The really rude question about Canada is whether we could exist in anything even vaguely like our present form without the USA for a neighbour. It's a rhetorical question of course. Bring it up in the company of any member of the Canadian intellectual class, however, and you will get a quick demonstration of what irrational hatred looks like.

Language

Before we get back to history, a moment on the great niceness controversey:

The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

Thus did Miss Tilney reprove her brother's mockery of Catherine's language. Whose side is Austen on? Whose side should we be on? It's a friendly little dispute—we don't have to get worked up about it. Brothers and sisters tease each other this way all the time.

The Johnson Miss Tilney refers to is, of course, Sam; and Blair is Hugh Blair. Blair is not so respected now. He has two strikes against him in modern eyes: he wrongly certified the Ossian poems as legitimate and he connected the effective use of rhetoric with social improvement (we would say social climbing).

He was much admired at the time, however, and he was a leading latitudinarian, just like Austen's father. Austen also consistently links effective speaking with social and even moral stature. I'm inclined to agree. No one has to agree with me.

What I think does matter is this. The discussion will now turn to history. Is the point Austen makes here about the value of history or about the value of learning to use language effectively?

History (2)

The discussion of history is book-ended by Catherine's praise of Radcliffe. Henry, providing evidence for those who think Austen is mercilessly mocking Radcliffe, teases Catherine about the language she uses in her praise:

But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?”

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.”

But just lines before this Henry has said he is a huge fan of Radcliffe and that was confirmed by his sister so we have no reason to doubt his admiration for the great Gothic novelist. What he is picking on Catherine about is her use of language. Should we agree with him? Here is how the discussion plays out

“Henry,” said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?”

“Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.”

“While, in fact,” cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise. Come, Miss Morland, let us leave him to meditate over our faults in the utmost propriety of diction, while we praise Udolpho in whatever terms we like best.

For no reason at all

First, a few things that won't be obvious to the uninitiated:

1. This boat is out in serious weather. These aren't optimal conditions and it is easy to find other videos of trimarans moving much faster in better conditions. The amazing thing is that this boat moves so magnificently under these conditions. This isn't grace under pressure, it's grace in the teeth of hell.

2. If you wanna be out in weather like this you damn well better know what you are doing. And your boat had better be a good one. Take a trip down to your local marina and check out the power boats there. Every single one of them would be doomed in the conditions this trimaran handles. Even a Cigarette boat could not move through these waves like this boat does, it would flip or plunge and the occupants would probabaly die if they tried to keep up.

3. If you have any understanding of engineering at all, think of the stresses involved. You have three roughly sixty-foot long hulls and they have to move across a rough surface at speed and the whole structure has to remain rigid. This boat is not going to last long.

My she is yar. I hate saying things like "the human spirit: but she is an inspiration and a tribute to the human spirit.

Click here to see what I mean.

(Sorry but the owner of the video doesn't seem to allow embedding.)

Garbage and gifts (2)

Am I saying that there is no excuse for being poor in our society? No, I am not. What I am saying is that people who give rarely have much understanding of the plight of the people they are giving to. And that plight has changed significantly as our society has gotten richer. That old sweatshirt you gave away? they wouldn't wear it because they can easily get something better.

I'll give you an example. I have a friend who volunteers a good portion of every week to cook free dinners for people on the street. In fact, none of her clientele are street people. And anyone who wanted to determine this could just sit down at the table and ask them. They'll cheerfully tell you about the apartment they live in and the support payments they get. They'll also tell you about how these free meals allow them to save some money because they can use support payments they receive for food on something else. They treat clothing donations the same way: if it is as good or better than something they could buy, they'll take it.

That is the face of poverty in an extremely wealth society like ours. There are worse cases but these are almost entirely made up of drug addicts and people who are mentally ill. Give a drug addict money and you are just giving it to the drug dealer. In any case, poverty is not even remotely like the material needs problem that we keep telling ourselves it is. Do these people have real problems? You bet they do. Most of them spend their days doing little more than existing. That is a life you wouldn't wish an anyone.

Sometimes

One side just has to lose. It's not just that compromise won't work, it's that one side is better than the other. Here is an example and I put it to you that anyone who cares about civil society will be rooting for the bars and nightlife to keep losing this battle. And Paris, is not the only city facing struggles like this.

Garbage and gifts

Out with the dog this morning, I passed what is a fairly common sight in middle class neighbourhoods. There was a fridge and oven out in front of a house with a sign that said, "Free! Works!"

It's not free though. To get it, you have to own or have access to a truck. You'd have to be strong enough to lift the stuff into that truck and you have to be willing to accept the risks that come from taking something "free" instead of buying something from a vendor who is bound by consumer protection and contract law and probably also offers a guarantee. If you had to pay to have the thing transported, it would probably cost you at least a couple a hundred dollars.

I know from past experience that if you talk to the people who put these things out, they are often upset that their old appliances not only have no resale value, it will cost them money to get rid of them. And if you are involved with certain kinds of charities, as Snake is, you will know that charities spend a lot of time warding off junk like that fridge and stove that is being passed off—as these people in my neighbourhood are trying to do—as a "free gift".

(As a quick rule of thumb, if it isn't worth anything to you, it probably isn't any good to anyone else either so pony up and pay someone to haul your junk away. And don't feel good about yourself because you put a lot of crap clothing and other stuff into a bag and gave it away. The charity you gave it to has volunteers who do nothing but sort the garbage out of such "gifts" to get the very few items of any use or value. If you want to give, give something that is worth something to you.)

As it happened, just a few blocks later, Montmorency and I saw something I'd never seen before: a mini garbage truck (I mean the truck was small not that it picks up miniature garbage). I asked the driver what it was about and he told me that if you call the city and complain long and loud enough that your garbage was missed in the weekly pick up, they will send him and his cute little garbage truck around to pick up your stuff. The city doesn't like to advertise this fact, he told me, and I can't blame them.

But think of that. The city not only will cave, they have a special little truck and assigned driver who does nothing but respond to these complaints. Think of how incredibly wealthy a society has to be to do something like that. Now ask the impolitic questions: What does it mean to be poor in such a society? And how do people end up that way?