Random Sunday

Welcome to Random Sunday, in which I will address certain topics of randomness, in totally random fashion. (Note that this practice will not always occur on Sundays; if it did, it could hardly be called "random.") All three of today's random thoughts relate to my last post, which marked the Return of the Curmudgeon. (Presumably to be followed by the sequel, Night of the Living Curmudgeon.)

First up, an apology. In my last post, I made two parenthetical references which I failed to close. In other words, I put some words in parentheses by placing a left paren ("(") in front of them. (That last set of characters inside the parentheses was intended as an example of what I was talking about, hence placed in quotes inside parentheses; it was not an attempt to replicate some facial expression using typed punctuation marks, e.g. ";-)".) But then, in my typing haste - I type fast; a skill inherited from my Dad, who could crank out more than 100wpm, error-free, on an old Royal manual typewriter - I omitted the right paren, thus failing to close the parenthetical reference.

Now, you ask, why would he apologize for a simple typo?

The answer is simple: I am an unabashed spelling, grammar, usage and punctuation nazi.

I'm proud of this. I inherited the trait from my parents, neither of whom were college-educated, but both of whom wrote very well (Mom still does). They were also voracious readers, as am I, and I believe there's a strong correlation between reading a lot and writing well. Regardless what you read (as long as it isn't comic books), be it classic literature, Vonnegut, John Jakes, Louis L'Amour, Stephen King, Michael Connelly, or Brian Haig (he's a novelist, the son of former Secretary of State Alexander Haig), you expose yourself to proper usage of the language, and that should help you become a better writer. That's my theory, anyway.

I also passed this along to my daughter, who is also an unabashed spelling, grammar, usage and punctuation nazi, having devoted an entire post of her own blog to the topic. I'm proud of that, too.

You see, writing is a lost art, and I believe that also correlates to how little we read these days. The advent of technology has meant that we instead watch TV, browse the internet, etc.

Random detour: I do most of my reading on the internet or on an iPad these days. I'm not enough of a purist to need the feel of a book in my hands, or smell its pages. I read at the gym and on vacation, and it's easier to tote along an iPad than a bunch of books. I do print out most of the articles I find on the web that I want to read, so that I can read them while I eat lunch, or while I'm riding on a plane or in the car.

Anyway, as I said, writing is a lost art. And too many people are willing to accept that: "It's not important that I make typos," etc., etc. To which I say, "Poppycock" (I said "Balderdash" in my last post, and I like to change things up once in a while, though I'm told that I say "Bear in mind" too much).

When I was in grad school, in one of our classes we were required to write a business case analysis, then do a peer review of each other's work, on an anonymous basis. I was tasked with reviewing the paper of a very sharp graduate accounting student. I noted that while his analysis was spot-on and his calculations mathematically sound, his paper was rife with grammatical and spelling errors (this was in the days before the internet and spell-check). I later overheard him complaining to a classmate about his peer review, saying, "It's not important that I write well. I'm going to be an accountant. The important thing is my analysis. There will be other people who will review and correct my spelling errors."

And I thought, "Yes, and those people will be called 'supervisors.' And they'll recognize that your work, while mathematically and analytically sound, can never be presented directly to clients, on the off-chance that they're sufficiently literate to judge your work not up to their standards, and fire the firm. And thus you've placed a ceiling on yourself; you'll never be one of those supervisors, because you can't be relied upon to perform a quality review of the work of others." Hey, not everybody aspires to management. But then, not everybody's in an MBA program, either, so one assumes those that are, do.

I look at it this way: a neighbor once asked me, "Are you left-brain or right-brain? Are you good at math and numbers, or are you better at writing?" Thinking of all the calculus and statistics I'd taken in grad school, at which I'd done pretty well, and of the couple of books and numerous articles I'd written by the time she asked the question, I answered this way: "The good Lord saw fit to give me both halves of my brain, so I figure, why not use the whole thing?"

****************************

Second random thought. I love my wife, for a host of reasons. One of them is her intellectual curiosity, which leads her to question darn near everything. Okay, I admit - sometimes that tendency makes me want to run headlong into a brick wall. Heck, sometimes it makes me feel that I am running headlong into a brick wall.

But after reading my last post, in which I said I'd brook no argument about Keynesian vs. supply-side economics from a non-economist, she asked the valid question: "What qualifies one as an economist?"

Here's my answer: either a graduate degree (Master's or above) in economics, or holding the title of or having held the title of "economist" in a reputable academic institution or commercial enterprise. (And I don't mean your own business that you've started: "Jane Doe, Chief Economist, Jane's Lemonade Stand.")

I recognize how limiting that is. I myself have an MBA with a concentration in finance and economics, and formerly held the title of Chief Economist for a large national financial institution. I've penned economic commentary for more than 15 years, and remain an avid Fed-watcher (and now, a watcher of other central banks).

Not everyone is in a similar role - I get that. My point is simply that it's a waste of my time to argue economics with someone who might not have a strong grasp of it. At some point in that exercise, I'm going to have to explain my position by providing a thorough discourse on either Keynesianism or supply-side economics, or some other facet of the Dismal Science. Tomes have been devoted to that, and time and space don't allow me to repeat that here. So I'll assume coming in that anyone who wants to argue these points is well-grounded in what they're talking about.

Otherwise, as a friend once said, arguing with them is like rocking in a rocking chair: it gives you something to do, but you don't get anywhere.

****************************

Third and final random thought, on a related topic.

That attitude is rather exclusionist, especially from a guy who claims to want to help people better understand economic truth in a world devoid of it. Yet, I don't think the attitude is inconsistent with the desire to spread economic truth. An important component of the latter is to be open to it; to approach it without bringing along one's inherent biases that are borne of factors outside economics: i.e., politics.

See, I've seen arguments in favor of Keynesianism posted in public places on the web by a number of people whose backgrounds have nothing to do with economics, but they all have one thing in common: they're liberal in their politics. And Keynesianism is the favored economic school of thought of the liberal.

I'll give you an example: one guy, a very successful accountant who's built his own business in accounting and tax services (and yes, "he built that" - more foreshadowing of posts to come), has argued vehemently in favor of Keynesianism, holding himself out as a definitive authority.

Look, I'd never argue what is and is not GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) with him. I know just enough accounting to be dangerous, and while I have a pretty good understanding of GAAP accounting as a result of running a company that has to conform with its standards, I don't pretend to be an expert on its intricacies.

Nor would I argue the tax code with him. I do my own taxes - always have - and understand most of the standard loopholes, requirements and forms. But I would never advise someone else on tax strategy.

So why does an accountant, or a compliance officer with a theology degree, want to argue Keynesian vs. supply-side economics with an economist? Answer: because he or she is politically partisan, and his or her candidates of choice advocate Keynesian economics, ergo he or she feels duty-bound to defend it.

So, defend away. If I have the time, space and energy, I'll address your arguments. Otherwise, I'm forced to consider the source, and leave the meaty discourse for those properly equipped to engage in it.

I hope that doesn't come across as exclusionist, but hey, there are only so many hours in a day.