Categorizing the Wealth of Nations

Sometimes on this site, I like to do some small analyses and modeling , and when I encountered this GDP Predictor, I wanted to play around with the data some and see what I could uncover. Unfortunately, the Excel spreadsheet doesn’t exist anymore, so I had to reconstruct the author’s dataset. I took this data and made a hierarchical categorization of nations based upon GDP per capita. These categories wound up having geographical and cultural meanings that went beyond the economic scope of the data.

While I used the link above for inspiration, I made some slight changes to the dataset. I included all of the sub-scores from the Fraser economic freedom index, which turned out to be very useful. I also used raw inputs, rather than converting everything to dollar values.  My data included national IQ, Economic Freedom Index and its subscores: Size of Government, Legal System & Property Rights, Sound Money, Freedom to Trade Internationally, Regulation. EU/NAFTA membership, and oil production per-capita rounded out the data used for each of the 185 countries I used.

Continue reading “Categorizing the Wealth of Nations”

Harvard Classics, Volume 18: Modern English Drama

This volume of the Harvard Classics, focusing on the best drama from the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, is both a collection of classics of the English language and a volume that highlights the limitations of something like the Harvard Classics. Since this volume was put together in 1909, it missed out on plays from the late 19th and 20th centuries which would have displaced some of the weaker plays in this volume. That’s no fault of the people putting the collection together, they took the relatively bare landscape of English-language drama from after the English Civil War through the Napoleonic wars and selected the six best representatives of that century and a half timespan. However, the difference in time between today and when the collection was assembled means that important contributions to the English dramatic canon by Shaw, Miller, Beckett and Stoppard aren’t in contention for spots in this volume.

The collection begins with Dryden’s All for Love. The preeminent poet in England after the death of Milton, Dryden has already been an important component of the Harvard Classics for his translations of Plutarch and Vergil. This play, however, is an original work that draws heavily from Shakespeare and Plutarch. All for Love tells the story of Marc Antony and Cleopatra in Alexandria after the Battle of Actium. Dryden takes the tense historical scene of the besieged lovers and adds a new element to the drama, Antony’s wife, and Octavian’s sister, Octavia. With Antony, his wife and his mistress all present, all set against each other and with the armies of Agrippa about to engulf them all, the personal drama stays at a fever pitch. Antony is portrayed as a man torn between despair, a desire to reconcile with his Roman roots and his love for Cleopatra. All for Love is distinctly different from the rest of the collection as it is more a hearkening back to the Greek and Elizabethan forms than a foreshadowing of things to come.

With that said the second play in the collection, A School for Scandal, by Richard Sheridan, could not be more diffierent from the high drama in the final days of Ptolemeic Egypt. A School for Scandal is a comedy of manners lampooning the British upper classes. The comedy relies on hidden identities, mistaken assumptions and secret machinations to weave its humor. The crux of the story leans on the perception and misperception of affection between husbands, wives, bachelors and maidens. It is a tough story to read through casually, as the intricacies of identity vary quickly and regularly throughout the play.

In my opinion, the other comedy in this collection, She Stoops to Conquer, by Oliver Goldsmith told a simpler, better contained story that certainly did not lack in truly funny moments. The pretense of the story is two old friends are putting up their son and daughter as a prospective marriage, and the son is traveling to meet the daughter to see if romance takes off. In a story that could only take place in the pre-modern period, the son ends up at his intended’s home, thinking it was an inn instead of the home of a family friend. Hilarity ensues as it is unveiled that the son also is very nervous around women of high birth. This is where the “stooping to conquer” element comes in, as the host’s daughter plays a maid to win the love of the doubly-duped guest. All of these misconceptions lead to misunderstandings and weave with a secondary plot to come to a head at the end of the play. Ultimately, the play is a fine example of the 18th century romcom.

The next play in the collection, Shelley’s The Cenci, could not have a more opposite demeanor. Oedipus, Antigone, and King Lear are rolled into one drama that is seldom performed due to the darkness of the subject matter. The play is based on the true story of an Italian noblewoman who was raped by her father, conspired to murder him and then was found guilty of murder by the Pope. The main element of artistic power here is Shelley’s brilliant verse that is so compelling and captures the spirit of the characters involved in this unfolding tragedy. At every step of the way Shelley’s verse paints an emotional portrait of people under the worst stresses imaginable enduring different types of suffering.

The fifth play in the collection, Browning’s A Blot in the ‘Stucheon is one of the weaker members. The drama of the story is very reminiscent of Euripides in its simplicity and the role of chance in comparison with the other dramas of its age. The dramatic framework of a couple entering into an arranged marriage who were already secretly seeing each other clandestinely only turns into a drama when the woman’s desire to keep her guardian and brother from knowing about the pre-marital affair. Fate intervenes to turn a possibly comedy into a tragedy, resulting in the deaths of all three lead characters.

The final play, Lord Byron’s Manfred, stands out from the rest. Manfred tells the story of a superman who has, through intense study and training come to rise above the mortals around him. Searching for more, Manfred consults with demons and clergy to accumulate more strength, but in critical opposition to Faust, Manfred refuses to submit himself to any being, even God himself, in exchange for more. While not a triumph of storytelling, Manfred serves as a bridge between Milton’s Satan and Nietzsche’s ubermensch and represents an important development in the artistic expression of morality.

While Manfred was a response to Faust in many ways, the next volume of the Harvard Classics focuses on this story. Both Goethe’s and Marlowe’s version are presented against each other along with two other plays by Goethe. Once I’ve finished those four plays, I’ll be embarking on Dante, I Promessi Sposi, The OdysseyTwo Years Before the Mast, a collection of Burke’s writings, and a volume of JS Mill & Carlyle. Once I’ve finished all of those, I’ll officially be half-way through with the Harvard Classics.

Why the Conservative Movement is a Terminal Case

“The Conservative Movement” is a catch-all for the publicly acceptable, college-educated right in America. You can identify a member by their ability to say things like: “my principles kept me from fighting as hard as I could have” and “Ben Sasse, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake are the direction this country is headed”. I come here today to declare the movement spawned in the post-war era as a terminal case. Conservatives today are not only detached from the founding values of the movement, they are widely uneducated in the history, philosophy and the theology of the worldview they purport to uphold. They will treat the phrase: “All men are created equal” as if it were scripture without a stray thought for Locke or Paul who laid the foundations for the founder’s vision.

The most damning thing of all for the conservative movement, is that they fail to come close to the principles outlined by Buckley when he founded the National Review, as good of a barometer as anything for what the conservative movement was supposed to be about. Principles are, by their very nature, things that should be just as true when Buckley wrote them 62 years ago as they are today. A movement that has given up on the principles that it was founded on only continues by sheer inertia. Without a motivating force to compel it forward, eventually the conservative movement will whither and die.

Continue reading “Why the Conservative Movement is a Terminal Case”

What I Want The Doubters To Remember About Trump’s Election

We’re a year removed from the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. As such, many people are reflecting on the shockwave his campaign brought to the political landscape. This is an article for those who opposed and half-heartedly endorsed Trump assuming he’d lose.

The first thing I’d like you to ruminate on is how, despite being someone who works in politics, or spends hundreds of unpaid hours being an informed and engaged citizen, that you were completely wrong. Despite holding yourself up as a font of knowledge of political wisdom and common sense, you not only failed to see the seismic shifts in the electorate that led to Trump’s victory, you never thought there was a possibility of a Trump win. This should be a humbling experience where you realize that your so-called expertise doesn’t mean as much as you think it does, and in fact, it may have blinded you from understanding reality.

I know many of you weren’t willing to accept that your understanding of the world and reality didn’t match up in fundamental ways. Instead you opted to form conspiracy theories about Russian interference that explained how you could be so wrong. Until you can learn to accept that Trump won, and why he won, you’ll never understand the country well enough to win an election.

Let’s not forget the factors that led to Trump’s victory. It started with a growing tide of Americans are tired of political correctness being used, like 1984’s newspeak, as means to control the debate. Debate over issues of immigration, economics, foreign policy and culture are stifiled in America and dissent is shunned as impolite and unbecoming of a politician. Trump expressed something that none of the twenty other people running for president did, dissent from the bifactional ruling party on these issues.

Trump was the only candidate available to primary voters who opposed open borders. He was the only candidate who expressed skepticism of free trade and the economic policy that leads to the disparities Bernie and friends gripe about. He was the only candidate who said American foreign policy should be directed towards the best interest of American citizens. He was the only candidate to speak to growing atomization and the downsides of modern hedonistic materialism. If another candidate has spoken to these deep concerns, they would have won. But none of the other candidates had the vision to expose the divide between the positions of the Davosie and the citizens of the country. And you, who opposed Trump or supported Trump out of anti-Clinton sentiment didn’t see it either.

Now that Trump is in office, the dividing line between the few in power who support an agenda to change the direction of the ship of state facing off against an establishment united around open borders and corporate libertarianism.

What Trump is doing, or why he won isn’t my concern here. What is my concern is what you, the apphrensive supporter of Trump, or his opposition, should be feeling one year after the election. You should have done some serious reflection about how well you are able to understand what is going on in the world. You should have reflected on if Trump, who has managed to unite the worst elements of both parties, is on to something with his platform and framing of issues. Not only that, you should be asking yourself how you let the country get to the point where the electorate decided that their best chance at reasserting themselves as sovereign in America was by electing Donald Trump. Why was it that no one else spoke to the very real issues Trump tapped into? Why was Trump able to win on issues that opinion editors throughout the nation wouldn’t print?

If you haven’t given thought to these issues yet, you still haven’t processed Trump’s election, even a year later.