Here’s an interesting article in The Economist about how environmentalists and logging companies in Canada have found a way to cooperate. The most interesting quote is from Avram Lazar, head of a logging trade group:
“There was a general feeling”, he recalls, “that our differences in reality were smaller than the differences we presented in the public debates. We had fallen into cultural role-playing that wasn’t getting either side the outcomes we were looking for.”
Interesting, no? The article notes that we in the States are a little less mature about negotiating on behalf of our differing interests. Conflicts tend to take on a knock-down drag-out tone here. Why? Is it because we are soaking in a 24 hour news cycle that will put us on television more if we are nastier? Maybe. Phrasemongers get more airtime, but they accomplish little.
There is not much I can add to this very useful post by conservative blogger, Caleb Howe, entitled “I don’t like Roger Ebert.” Personally, I do like Roger Ebert, most of the time, but I can see why conservatives find him to be almost as maddening as I find Glenn Beck to be. Now, perhaps I can try to see the humanity in Glenn Beck. Might be tough…
If you have some time, here is something worthy of it. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/chicago-economists-on-the-crisis/
I did my MBA at the University of Chicago, and I concentrated in economics and finance. But the econ you get in the MBA curriculum is really Chicago School Lite. So, I am no expert. But I did take classes from three of the guys interviewed for this series, one neo-classicist (Murphy), one cautious pragmatist (Rajan), and one behaviorist (Thaler). They were all brilliant, but I think for advice in a financial crisis, I’d go with Rajan.
Whatever you might think about the Chicago School, know this. The current economics and finance faculty at the U of C is a very diverse group. You can see that in these interviews.