The headline “May This be the End
of Freakonomics” that screamed in the ET dated 13th May 2014 was
bemusing. Leaves us nonplussed and disheartened! This headline adorns an article
by Nick Summers, reviewing the third book in the Freakonomics series, by Levitt
and Dubner, and is syndicated by, tut, tut, the Bloomberg
Businessweek. The words militate against the egalitarian beliefs of YT as a
third world citizen, and represent a line of thought seriously distorted by a
Capitalist mind-set. We explain what this means below, if we have understood it properly, he, he, he..
IK has a pucca affiliation
bordering on bonding, with the concept called Freakonomics. We always treated
the word as representing a concept
rather than being a brand out of the stable of Levitt and Dubner. If we
remember aright, we have written two posts on local Freakonomic ideas in IK , and intended to repeat the khataa ere Nick Summers threatened to throw a spanner in the works! For us, Freakonomics offers a
startling and unsuspected insight into a commonplace phenomenon, which goes
against the grain of common sense, but once exposed, rings true. It is a whiff
of fresh air, unshackles your mind from stereotyped mental processes, and hence
as a concept, is to be valued. Another merit is that it is ideology-neutral.
The rightist, the leftist, the gay, the intellectual, the nincompoop Carl, the
housewife, the artisan, the artiste can only smile, nod and applaud the explanation
in the same sense. It doesn’t bear upon complex phenomena like say the Michelson-Morley
discovery, or the Lorentz Transformation, but applies to little universal
observations. The plain and simple explanation is an authentic signboard in
life’s journey. .
The learned reviewer would have
Freakonomics given a burial, because the third book in the series talks of explanations
which are common beliefs. For instance the conclusion that obesity, more than
anything else, stems from a surfeit of carbs in the victim’s diet. What Nick’s
observation logically implies is that the explanation is a non-Freakonomic
explanation, and hence not to be incorporated into a Freakonomics book! What
has to be jettisoned is therefore (~ Freakonomics), rather than Freakonomics I sayyy... The
boot is on the other foot, maaan! To recall that limerick about the lady from
Corso, one should be in favour of moreso.! Is a good one! [please see * below]
What has led Nick Summers to the
convoluted conclusion, nay, even the misguided inclusion of a non-Freakonomic
explanation by the authors, is the perverted tendency of our management
thinkers and their victims to include every bit and parcel of holy thought as grist
for humanity’s money-making machine. The authors want to milk the concept to
the last drop, when they have no fodder left for the cow. The reviewer catches
the bug, and concludes that the concept itself is now beyond redemption. They
would rather dissect the goose which lays the golden egg, than let the masses enjoy
the exciting ideas for perpetuity.
Everyone can, and does,
contribute to this unique stream of thought, no? The following is from the post
Bande Mein Tha Dum and explains why
one gets watchmen at such low wage rates, and why even emaciated chaps succeed
in keeping miscreants at bay..
There was a spate of burglaries in
our area. Mom hired a chowkidar
within her limited means. He happens to be ‘visually and auditorily
challenged”. We expected our building to be a target of the miscreants, yet we
remained, touch wood, safe. Our (Freakonomic) explanation goes thus: our man
hails from the same sections as some of these miscreants. To violate his turf
would mean exposing a relative to police excesses, and will be socially
unacceptable… Hence the mercy upon us!
Nick Summers's idea amounts not just to throwing the baby away with the bathwater. It's like harbouring a death-wish for the poor little darling!
Let a thousand Freakonomists Bloom!
_________________________________________________________________________
[*]
There once was a lady from Corso,
Who exposed overmuch of her torso,
A crowd soon collected,
But no one objected,
And some were in favour of moreso
No comments:
Post a Comment