Have you heard of Peter Boghossian’s social cleansing program? Boghossian is the author of a new bagatelle of a book, The Manual for Creating Atheists, endorsed by all the potentates of celebrity atheism, to name just a few: Jerry Coyne (Adam Gopnik’s favorite blogger, according to a recent article of his in the The New Yorker) and the usual suspects Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger . . . (and so on). Continue Reading »
An Interview with Ann Wroe, Obituaries Writer for The Economist
Isabelle Fraser, The Hairpin
Who Wants to Shoot an Elephant?
Wells Tower, GQ
How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Vladimir Jabotinsky
Adam Rovner, Jewish Daily Forward
Ever Wished That Calvin and Hobbes Creator Bill Watterson Would Return to the Comics Page? Well, He Just Did.
Stephan Pastis, Pearls Before Swine
Working-Class Ballet
Simon Critchley, Roads & Kingdoms
I’ve finished Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Once again, I want to report the pleasure this book gave. Piketty’s historical approach has helped me achieve a bit more clarity about the economic transformations I’ve experienced in my life time: the end of the middle class myth in America and the rise of a new, globalized economy that richly rewards a meritocratic elite. Continue Reading »
The N.C.A.A. has taken an image-beating in recent years. Angry critics of its alleged exploitation of student athletes have been relentless in their attacks on both the institution and its leadership. Chief among those who bear the liberally dealt blows is Dr. Mark Emmert, president of the N.C.A.A. In a recent article devoted primarily to the psychological toll that the job and its pressures have taken on him, the Times sought to expose something of his complicated character and work. Dr. Emmert, a heavily-compensated, highly capable, would-be reformer, seems simply to be the most prominent face of a incredibly complicated, clumsily democratic, and highly bureaucratic business that exceeds the capacities of any one man. To cope with the stresses of this life, Dr. Emmert compensates in charming fashion: “To help keep calm, Dr. Emmert meditates and visits his home on Whidbey Island in Washington. He has been taking a butchery class.” Continue Reading »
Quebec’s Bill 52, An Act Respecting End of Life Care, passed 94–22 on 5 June 2014, a strong majority of the National Assembly endorsing the thesis of the Parti Québécois MNA, Véronique Hivon, that “Dying with dignity means dying with the least amount of suffering.” What this absurd thesis does to the very concept of dignity few seem to have pondered. Continue Reading »
Capital in the Twenty-First Century is really two books, maybe three. The first is a book of economic history. The second one advances a theory to explain that history. The third offers a policy proposals keyed to the economics, as well as a tacit political philosophy of meritocratic egalitarianism: from and to each according to his abilities. As I’m coming to the final part of the book I can see that the theory plays an important role. It provides the “laws of capitalism,” and these “laws” allow Piketty to describe a future: If unchecked, capitalism will lead to greater and greater concentrations of wealth. This specter is haunting the global economy—if I may be permitted an updating of the Communist Manifesto. It foretells the end of democracy. It’s also what gives Piketty’s book urgency. But I misspoke. It’s not the “laws of capitalism” that lead to his dire prognosis. Instead, it’s the “laws of capitalism” plus the crucial assumption r>g (the rate of return on capital is greater than the overall growth of the economy). But what about this assumption? I’m told that economist are by no means agreed that r>g. That’s not surprising. Common sense suggests that the rate of return on capital can’t be greater than the rate of growth. That’s because returns on capital are simply claims on national (or increasingly global) income. And over the long haul those returns be paid in real terms unless the national or global income increases, which is to say g increases. If an economy could pay 4 or 5% on capital while growing at 1 or 2% per annum, then we’d be in the surreal situation in which return on capital over time produces more wealth than does economic growth. In fact, because SOME collective wealth has to be spent on something other than paying returns on capital, it seems tautological that r
I found myself backtracking after working through Piketty’s discussion of inequality of labor income. That’s because there’s data that works against his main thesis that, because r>g, capital becomes ever more important than labor. Continue Reading »
Why I Gave Up Alcohol
D. L. Mayfield, Christianity Today
Hitler’s ‘Mighty Miscalculation’
Malise Ruthven, The New York Review of Books
Science Confirms: Yup, This Book Really Is Bound in Human Skin
Alexis C. Madrigal, The Atlantic
Meet Mosi Secret, The Times’ New Sin and Vice Reporter
Matthew Kassel, New York Observer
Conservatives & Higher Ed
Steven F. Hayward, The New Criterion
Piketty toggles back and forth between numbers and speculation (often political and sociological) with enough frequency to hold the lay reader’s interest. I see now why the book has been a hit. Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
