Today marks the first entry that will form part of the Nobel Prize in Economics Profile series.
My purpose in forming this series is twofold:
1) To learn more about Economic History, Applied Economics and Economic Theory
2) To continue my Autodidact-led journey - and to join (or try to join) the ranks of the famous self-learners
Accumulating these profiles, and providing, not only a summary, but an opinion on each, will hopefully provide various rewards: economic knowledge, true social science awareness and inspirational accounts to learn from.
The premise herein: one has to study the events of the past, to live the active present, which ultimately leads to envisioning a future.
One of my greatest regrets was to have approached mathematics begrudgingly during my formative years. Had I gone beyond the usual dry learning approach and realized the philosophy behind the subject and how speaking it would serve me in multiple forms, I wouldn't have waited until college to take it seriously. Any mathematician, math teacher and math enthuthiast can attest to its beauty. Mathematics is usually an underestimated disciplines, yet anyone who decides to venture into the private sector can surely add value. When it comes to Economics - the following winners, were not only fluent in Mathematics; they used it to their advantage; revolutionizing economics from thereon. So, without further ado: From www.nobelprize.org:
Ragnar Frisch
Jan Tinbergen
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1969 was awarded jointly to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen "for having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes"
These two Economists revolutionized the field of Economics, having founded Econometrics - the discipline that gave way to the formal quantitative analysis that most economic concepts and theories lacked until that point. Jan Tinbergen also (assumedly - but surely not a mere factoid) promoted the terms "Macroeconomics" and "Microeconomics", before these two economic branches were in common use.
I have decided to start a Nobel Prize in Economics Profile Series - starting this upcoming weekend.
I will be profiling, in chronological order, every Nobel Prize in Economics Winner dating from 1969 (when the first ever was awarded), up till this year's, and, every year after that.
The Reason?
The prizes that were awarded closely mirrored the changing facets that came with Economics through the years - profiling the winners is like peering through very interesting (and inspirational) windows. There is much to learn from them.
It will be a self-rewarding experience that I will thoroughly enjoy, and through this blog, have a chance to archive.
I read a couple of articles this week that referred to the age-old question:
At what cost do people pursue their goals?
For the authentically ambitious person, who craves achievement above all else, unswerving dedication to the pursuit of personal dreams and goals can limit the amount of time that is spent on anything else. Personal relationships can suffer momentary lapses in undivided attention.
An article from The Atlantic explains how, in the end, people ultimately determine that "relationships are more important than ambition," and how "ambition drives people forward; relationships and community, by imposing limits, hold people back."
Well, that certainly depends.
Benjamin Franklin, said: “What is best for people is what they do for themselves.”
That he coined that phrase should come as no surprise, given how he handled his personal life.
Franklin was often away from home, from one adventure to the next, leaving those close to him to fend for themselves. He was a doting husband in spirit, but was mostly absent from his wife's life. He was also intermittently estranged from his own son. Regardless, the man did contribute a lot to his country, and to the world. Walter Isaacson's account of Franklin's personal foibles paint an interesting picture; one that makes you realize, that personal ambition is not always a sinful passion, or at least not when the person in question contributes and adds value in some way.
Most world leaders, artists, inventors, innovators and geniuses fit this mold.
And most had satisfying personal lives - in terms of the ardor, dedication and devotion that came in spurts of intensity to those around them.
The cost behind the pursuit of personal goals, must then, be regarded as a function of the results they render.
So, to complement the question, "at what cost do people pursue their goals", I would add, "at what price would people value other's contributions?"
Pickthebrain.com's 2007 article on creativity states that "Creativity isn't creation at all, it's reorganization." The premise behind the author's statement is that inspired creation is derived from existing influences and sources, and is, therefore, not necessarily innate in those that are exceedingly inventive. Interestingly enough, another article, written in 2011 and published in Psychology Today, answers "No" to the question "Can creativity be taught?" The authors state:
Creativity only manifests when a person with the right sets of skills and knowledge invents or finds an appropriate problem that cannot be solved using any existing approach, but which is amenable to solution by that person's unique set of experiences.
As generally happens with opinions that lead to arguments, both can seem right to some and wrong to others. In the end, nothing is ever black or white, but shades of gray can most assuredly be determined to be either lighter or darker. An opinion, however, is just an opinion, while an argument, has to be sustained by sound reasoning, which in turn, must be held as clearly evident. When considering which article to consider most valid, i.e., most conducing to argumentation and not resorting solely to opinion-based rhetoric, the following comparison comes to mind: pickthebrain.com's article veers into the author argumenting that the creative process is absorbed through influence more than it is enigmatically manifested in a person by focusing on her own journey in becoming a top self-help website editor, where as Michele and Robert Root-Bernstein's article focuses on California's attempt to test state school student's creativity and explaining how the attempt is guaranteed to lead to failure. Even though the Root-Bernsteins boast more credentials when it comes to the study of the concept of creativity, pickthebrain.com's author's first hand account of her own creative-led journey warrants partial validity inasmuch as she justifies herself as a primary source. And at first, it seems that the Root-Bernstein's are denying that Creativity can be taught. Then, upon further inspection of their credentials, their book on creativity's tag line, as seen online, states: Creativity isn't born, it's cultivated—this innovative guide distills the work of extraordinary artists and thinkers to show you how. Wait a second. "Creativity isn't born, it's cultivated -". After taking a good look at that verb, and momentarily realizing the power of semantics, I understood what the authors meant: creativity cannot be taught - it can be emulated, it can be manifested in the right conditions, and it can be ultimately cultivated, but no, it cannot be outright taught. The challenge then becomes apparent: learning how to be truly creative is tantamount to studying how to be a chessmaster - without the right training, background, setting and specific traits, it becomes incredibly hard to manifest, and thus, cultivate the skill in question. Can then, some people, not manifest their true creative potential (thereby never achieving cultivation), irregardless of the fact that they might be naturally creative?
A recent video I saw of Angelina Jolie receiving the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award at the 2013 Governors Awards in Hollywood California, encapsulates the aforementioned idea, in a slightly different context: She says:
"I have never understood why some people are lucky enough to be born with the chance that I had, to have this path in life. And why across the world, there's a woman just like me, with the same abilities, and the same desires, same work ethic and love for her family, who would most likely make better films, better speeches...only she sits in a refugee camp. And she has no voice. She worries about what her children will eat, how to keep them safe, and if they'll ever be allowed to return home.
I don't know why this is my life and that's hers. I don't understand that, but I will do as my mother asks [she asked her to contribute and be of value to others] and do the best I can with this life and to be of use. And to stand here today means I did as she asked, and if she were alive, she'd be very proud."
In the same way, there is no telling whether the seemingly mediocre person we brush by every day on our way to work could be the world's next great inventor, or how some poor pick-pocket in a third world country will never be able to show his true creative potential because he's more worried about survival. What is certain though, and of the utmost importance, is to manifest the creativity reserve we have, whether we know about it or not. Imagine - what a world we'd live in if people gave themselves a chance.
After years of avoiding the late night binge-watching that would inevitably come with deciding to take on The Sopranos TV series, I bowed to sibling pressure, subsequently relented, and as expected, I am now hopelessly addicted. I recently finished watching Season 1.
My particular way of watching TV series could be labeled as unconventional: subtitles are paramount to understanding every piece of dialogue (to miss a word or nuance is to miss the whole narration), I pause regularly (to understand the different person, place or thing that is mentioned that I do not know) and I sometimes rewind to rewatch particular scenes that are key to character development.
While I don't publicize this way of viewing or even suggest it as "the better way" when it comes to watching critically acclaimed series (i.e., I don't pause much when watching "Suits"), this particular method has worked very well for me.
I'll summarize the benefits related to following my TV-Series watching process:
1) User-friendliness: Everything (characters, settings, scenes and subtext) becomes fully understandable, comprehensible and intelligible. Which means: you enjoy the series even more. Or at least beyond the enjoyment that comes with the simplistic self-gratification some viewers get with just watching "people get shot" or "things blow up".
2) Perspicaciousness via Autodidactism: I am a firm believer that intelligent conversations with intelligent people stimulate intelligence, or at the very least, promote a clearer understanding of the non-obvious. In a series, witnessing intelligent dialogue between intelligent characters in a well thought out scene, can lead to "learning triggers", which in turn, promotes autodidactism, and as such, encourages further understanding and enjoyment.
3) Boredom is never an option: With the brain in a constant state of discernment, there are no boring episodes. Ever. If there are, the viewer can safely assume that the series has pretty much, jumped the shark. HBO will most likely never sacrifice content quality, so series like The Sopranos will always be boredom-free.
In practice, when applying this formulaic process to The Sopranos, I was pausing more than usual to define every Italian word and phrase that was being mentioned. The Italian-American culture and sub-culture represented on screen became easier to understand, and as a consequence, more compelling.
If I've lost you because this has nothing to do with Economics or Finance, I will kindly ask you, Dear Reader, to keep on reading...there is a point to all of this.
Pay attention or gedoudahee
The first episode of the second season of The Sopranos showcases, amongst other things, the evolution of Christopher Moltisanti (Anthony Soprano's nephew), who initially started out as small-time thug leader, and is now positioned as a high-functioning career criminal, with his own business-based crew. His present team, now working out of an office, is helping him foray into the more sophisticated world of white-collar crime.
Soon enough, a new term is mentioned, concerning the illegal trading scam Moltisanti is heading - one of the office henchmen mentions it after having sent a dissenting stock broker to the hospital: pump and dump.
Pause. 5 minutes later -
A "pump and dump" scheme is basically a small-cap (penny stocks, basically) fraud where brokers misguide investors by pumping up a stock they own, and then dumping it for a hefty profit when the fraud becomes unsustainable, leaving investors with a worthless investment.
The film "Boiler Room" also made a point of the scam in the year 2000. It must be no coincidence that The Soprano's second season aired in 2000.
This must mean that the scam was predominant during those years, as TV Series tend to reflect popular culture. It's no secret that the dot-com bubble, which occurred during the late 1990's, until bursting in 2000, was exacerbated by illegal and legal versions that followed the basic principles behind the pump and dump. Investors were duped into considering clicks and eyeballs as legitimate revenue-drivers, as much as other would-be investors were flat out lied to when it came to the businesses they were supposedly investing in.
The subject gets even more interesting when you start thinking about pump and dump schemes in the 21st century.
An automatic thought: in this post Bernie Madoff day and age, with a tougher SEC, how can people still do this?
Maybe not through old-school cold-calling anymore, but criminals can certainly hook the ignorant and inattentive masses through fake analysis, social media outlets, spam and even hacking. Click the links in the previous sentence for articles that describe such actions, all recent.
The impending and progressive worldwide regulation of the Internet is beyond the scope of the article, but denoting the importance inherent in recognizing fraud as a pervasive and persistent crime in the cyber realm should be taught to every investor out there.
In the end, everyone is responsible for the risk they decide to take, as is very entertainingly manifested in the series The Sopranos - but maybe not everyone is astute enough to recognize the risk inherent in a seemingly risk-free investment.
I'd like to think that maybe someone out there, watched The Sopranos, or some other show, and somehow steered clear of danger.
No wonder governments and institutions banned books before television existed.
History repeats itself. Everyone knows this. But people tend to ignore that fact.
Acknowledging history - economic or otherwise - is the best policy. The Crisis as a Classic Financial Panic Chairman Ben S. Bernanke 14th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference Washington, D.C., November 8, 2013
