My Problem With Capitalism

I apologize for the delay in blog posts – I’ve had this written for a while, but wanted to edit it, and then never really got around to doing that. Edinburgh is going well – check out Sarah’s blog for her daily pictures/updates at http://journeysinedinburgh.blogspot.com/. I am currently sorting through about 1200 pictures, and I will hopefully start posting them to this blog at some point soon. For now, hopefully you enjoy my thoughts on capitalism.


The problem that arises when discussing political ideologies, or any sort of topic really, is one of definition and interpretation. Labels are vague approximations of a person's actual beliefs and, although this is a topic for a whole post of its own, it is important to mention this here. Thus, we will attempt to define what exactly I mean by capitalism, as well as what it means for a political or economic system to be "better" or "worse" than another.


Obviously, the terms "better" and "worse" are incredibly subjective, especially when applied to different systems. For the purposes of our discussion, since we will be talking about economic systems, I will define "better" to be "more efficient or effective at accomplishing a given goal." Obviously, we need to decide on a few goals, and this is really one of the major places where political ideologies diverge. Now, I am not looking to get into a full-on economic discussion, nor do I want to start a big debate about what it means to be prosperous and other such topics. What I really want to do is talk about my problem with capitalism: the central issue that forces me to consider alternative economic systems.


There are many different sorts of capitalism, so we are going to be acting under the assumption that we want the market to be as free as possible - low taxes, as little government interference as possible, and as much freedom as possible placed in the hands of the consumer. Additionally, we want things to be as privately owned as is feasible. We don't want to go to extremes, so let us use the US, or even Canada, as a sort of standard frame of reference. Now, we have to identify the central goals of capitalism. There are many of these, but the one that stands out as me as the primary means of justifying capitalism is the following: every person has the same capability to rise or fall in stature based upon their own personal ability, merit, and effort. If you disagree with this being a major goal of capitalism, then you may not want to read much further - although, I would be interested to know what you think the central goal is. I think the arguments presented will still be valid if you only admit to this being one of many central goals, but if you do not think that capitalism tries to do this at all, you are unlikely to appreciate any of my following arguments.


It seems like a lovely idea - equal opportunity for everyone, and success is dependant on one's personal effort and overall prowess. I am not here to debate that, although the assumption that everyone has a "place" in society based upon such things seems a little arrogant on the part of the upper class. What strikes me though is that, despite touting these values, capitalism tries as hard as possible to destroy any appearance of equal opportunity. For instance, education is only available for those who can afford it. Yes, there is government funding for those who cannot afford basic schooling – which is already against the capitalist ideal - but the price is not just monetary. Many families cannot afford the time commitment - often, it is more relevant to have a child start work as soon as possible to help feed herself and her family, rather than staying in school. In fact, for many children, this is often a necessity. The same is doubly true for University. Think about those born into abject poverty; perhaps they have been homeless from a young age, or are just barely scraping by. They are often unable to move out of this cycle, and most certainly do not have any of the same opportunities that a similarly abled person has when born into a middle-class family. Yes, the truly exceptional can rise out of these situations - with a healthy dose of luck - but it is unlikely that your average office worker would fare so well had they not had the luxury of birth.


This, to me, is one of the fundamental problems with capitalism - without equal access to education, how can anyone be expected to have equal opportunity? When you have no guarantee of basic sustenance and medical support, how can you forego putting food on your family's plate in favour of getting an education?


Without a good education, an intelligent person with a strong work ethic will be severely handicapped while looking for a job when compared to a person with equal merit but a good education. This, to me, is an inherent flaw in the capitalist system - it is difficult to change one's social and economic stature, particularly when one is born at the very bottom of the barrel. In fact, there was an excellent Cracked article about this very subject, written by a person living in an impoverished situation, found here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/. The article effectively demonstrates the issues of moving up in a capitalistic society, even without being as low as I describe, and I definitely recommend you read it.


It is easy to see why people cling to the illusion that capitalism provides the best shot at equal opportunity - after all, those who support it are often fairly successful members of the middle-class. Everyone wants to believe that they reached their position based on personal ability; they earned their spot, and luck had very little to do with it, thank you very much. More importantly, if they could do it, why can`t you? And, why should they be supporting you if you are too lazy to go out and get a job? That, to me, is the biggest concern people have with non-capitalist solutions, even if it sometimes goes unvoiced. They do not want someone else living out of their pocket, enjoying the same benefits for no additional effort.


I am not saying I have a solution. However, it seems clear to me that there is a problem, and steps can be taken to alleviate some of the disparity. First and foremost, I believe in free education. I believe that every person has the right to basic necessities - food, water, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. No one should feel as though they have to drop out of school to support their family or save up money for an ailing mother's operation, nor should they be unable to attend in the first place. Yes, someone will have to pay for this, and I believe that it should come from the pockets of the people - after all, with free post-secondary education, healthcare, and other government-funded endeavours, you should be getting a portion of your investment back. And, with a better-educated society, we can move forward collectively to a better quality of life for all.


-Michael

PS In addition to this issue with capitalism, I also have an issue with the idea of a free-market system. I may blog about that at some point, but I have a lot of other posts to write first, and I haven’t sorted through half of my thoughts about the free-market.

A Bunch of Pictures, Volume 2

After much delay and dalliance, I have finally gotten around to going through some pictures from my first year ASHA project and am now posting them for your viewing pleasure. Most of these images are black and white, although a couple are in colour. They are all from the same photo shoot, during which I dragged Rein all over Kensington and around the Bow River, taking pictures of him and the surrounding area.


He gave his permission a few months ago to have his photos posted under a Creative Commons license so, as I mentioned in the comments last time after a request, these are posted under a Creative Commons, non-commercial, Share-Alike license. Enjoy!

As for updates about Edinburgh, everything is going well - still job searching, but hopefully we'll both find something soon. I have another blog post in the works that I'm just waiting to edit, and, once I have found a job and can relax a bit, I'll do some photo shoots from around Edinburgh and post pictures here. The lighting around the castle gets awesome sometime between 8:30pm and 10pm, so I'll have to hang out there for a bit and get some pictures. We still have yet to actually visit the castle, but we will definitely do it during our trip, hopefully multiple times!

- Michael

A Bunch of Pictures, Volume 1

Gasp! Everything looks different! I apologize if the new colour scheme/layout offends your sense of design. However, I prefer my pictures mounted on dark or black backgrounds - particularly if they are black and white. Thus, the dark design is here to stay. The layout/other elements could change, of course.


Every so often, I like to pretend that I am passingly artistic - of course, as I lack any manual dexterity or actual artistic ability, this results in me taking a lot of pictures, few of which are actually worth looking at. In an effort to pretend that I am better at photography than I actually am, I have scrounged together some of these and posted them here for your viewing pleasure. They are taken at various times and places - I suppose I could caption them all, but I think that detracts from the images. Ideally, you will be able to click on each picture and view it in its original size - I will try to fix them if that doesn't happen.

The particularly astute may have noticed that none of these are in black and white - my true love in photography. I have an assignment that I did in second year ASHA with a number of B&W pictures that I will post at some point. I might also shoot some photos specifically for this blog - feel free to gasp in shock. While I do love my DSLR, I rarely shoot in black and white with it; perhaps it is time to break out the black and white film and go roving. I really wish I had my own darkroom...

Recommended Readings

I recently realized that there are a large number of books that everyone ought to check out. I cannot give a comprehensive list here; however, I will write down as many authors or books that I can think of that, for some reason or another, I feel I need to tell you about. It's all pretty arbitrary - I'm not going to be recommending things like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter (although you ought to read both), but I'm not necessarily restricting myself to "under-appreciated" books/authors. Here are all the ones that leap to my head, in no particular order:

Isaac Asimov. Case in point, Asimov is one of the best known science fiction authors of all time. Of course, he also happens to be my favourite author - so, of course, everyone ought to read him. What many people do not know is that, while best known for science fiction, Asimov wrote in a huge variety of genres - in fact, he just wrote a huge amount of literature, period. I have yet to read something by him that I did not enjoy, and I have read a fair amount. Foundation is classic, and probably his best known series of novels. His short stories are excellent to - obviously, everyone should read I, Robot, but all of his short stories are good. I particularly enjoy the collection called Robot Dreams. As for slightly lesser-known stuff, you can't go wrong with his Black Widower short stories. Basically, read Asimov and you'll do just fine.

Hilari Bell. I mentioned her in my last post, but I certainly couldn't go without mentioning her here. She is an excellent author - I've read nearly all of her books, and enjoyed every one. My favourite is probably A Matter of Profit, which is one of her stand-alone novels, but all of her books deserve a good read. She has incredibly well-written and interesting characters, and her stories are never cut-and-dry, good vs. evil things. The moral ambiguity is excellent, and I love a story where you can sympathize with the antagonists even as you cheer on the protagonists. While she is a successful author, I feel like she is criminally under-read, so everyone should go check her out!

Watchmen and V for Vendetta. I actually haven't read anything else by Alan Moore, but I really should - these two novels are incredible. Wait, you haven't read Watchmen? You watched the movie, but never bothered to check out the book? Go now, and come back when you've finished it.

The God of Small Things, by Arundhati Roy. I read this for a class at school, and it was amazing, although certainly a bit of a mood killer. That said, I can't recommend it enough.

American Gods, by Neil Gaiman. I am embarassed to admit this, but, other than a few short stories, I actually haven't read anything else my Neil Gaiman. I did see Caroline and Mirrormask, so that sort of counts, right? Don't hate me... Regardless, after reading American Gods, I am certainly going to be checking out more by Gaiman - and, if you haven't, you should check out American Gods!

Tad Williams. I have read Otherland, Tailchaser's Song, and started the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn "trilogy" (the third book is in two novel-length parts). He is a very talented author, and I definitely recommend you check him out - Otherland is a rather long series, but incredibly well-written science fiction. Tailchaser's Song is a stand-alone novel and, while probably a bit more juvenile, is well-written, enjoyable, and definitely worth a read.

The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss. This novel is half the reason I wrote this list - it is an extraordinary novel from an extraordinary new author. The sequel came out March 2nd, and you definitely want to order both immediately. I'm waiting.

Orson Scott Card. I have actually only read his two intertwined series about Ender and Bean, but they are both excellent and you should check them out. My recommended reading order is Ender's Game first, followed by Ender's Shadow. Then, choose either the "Shadow" (Bean) or "Ender" series and read it, followed by the other one. After that, I would check out the short stories - I've read most of them, and enjoyed them all immensely. My personal favourite novel of all of them is probably Speaker for the Dead, so I might go with the "Ender" series first, but it really doesn't matter. One thing I cannot comment on is when to read "Ender in Exile," as I actually haven't read it yet. Technically it fits in in between Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, but I prefer to read novels in the order written first, as then you are equipped with all the expected information at the time of writing.


Garth Nix. Nix is a favourite of mine from when I was younger, but his books continue to delight me. In my opinion, his best work is his Old Kingdom series - Sabriel, Lirael, and Abhorsen. They are absolutely fantastic, and rank amongst my favourite books. I also very much enjoyed Shade's Children. Overall, he is very good at creating interesting and believable worlds that serve to enhance the overall story. I would recommend that people read all his other books as well - he is a talented author, and I anticipate many more good things from him in the future.

This is already getting fairly long, so I'll stop here for now - I'll likely post more recommendations as they come to me.

For all 2 of you that read this blog, I am always interested in reading new books, so, if you have your own recommendations for me/others, please feel free to post them in the comments!

Ruined by Hype: Iron Man

As promised, I am starting a new series of blog posts called "Ruined by Hype." For the most part, this series will be about movies that I went into with high expectations for a variety of reasons and, often as a direct result of these expectations, did not end up enjoying the movie very much. Sometimes, I may just write about movies that I simply think are way overrated, although the two things are normally very intertwined.


The first movie I am writing about is Iron Man, if that was not clear from the title. Now, a few notes before we get started: first, I will be talking solely about the first movie, as I have not seen the second. Secondly, there will be many spoilers - this will not always be the case but, because I have a fundamental disagreement with how they did the climax of Iron Man, it's difficult to not give away major plot points.


In preparation for writing this blog post, I actually requisitioned a download of the movie from my friend and rewatched it Thursday evening. My first thought upon watching it was "this is much better than I remember it being," which is, of course, a further comment on how expectations can warp our perception of a movie. Now, on the whole, the movie is not that bad - I am a fan of Robert Downey Jr., and he is certainly well within his comfort zone in Iron Man. The dialogue is generally witty and well-paced - in fact, the whole movie moves along fairly well. I have many physics issues with the movie, but I suppose one must not let our "real-world" physics get in the way of a movie. However, the movie is, on the whole, decent, but hardly ground-breaking. I suppose it compares favourably with a lot of other superhero movies, but, if you want a superhero movie with more depth to it, check out Batman Begins (stay tuned for Ruined by Hype: The Dark Knight).


That is one of my largest concerns with Iron Man - it was, for the most part, enjoyable, but it feels a little bit thin. There is very little moral conflict - they almost touch upon something with the whole "how do you justify selling weapons?" Perhaps they could have explored how Stark's character undergoes a large shift after his captivity but, to me, it felt like it was very heavily related to the fact that he simply did not know that his company was selling weapons to terrorists. It could have been interesting to look at the idea of "wilful ignorance," and perhaps get into some mildly clichéd exploration of how Stark is forced to re-examine his preconceptions and face up to the things that he had ignored for so long. In the movie, it seemed like Stane simply hid his activities too well, and that Stark, while certainly irresponsible, was more than willing to take responsibility once he discovered the secrets.


 However, if that were the only reason that the movie failed to live up to the reviews I had heard, then I would be happy to write it off as an enjoyable, if mildly disappointing movie. What pushes me over into active dislike is that the writers of the movie, while having a very good grasp of pacing and other important writing techniques, have absolutely no idea how to write a climax. Now, I don't believe that it is too bold of a statement to say that the climax is the most important part of any proper* story. Every part of the story is either building towards the climax - putting obstacles in the protagonist's way, creating tension, and setting up the conflicts, is the climax, or is tying up loose ends after the climax. Obviously, every part of the story is relevant - if we do not care about the characters, then, regardless of how good the climax is, it will fall flat because we will be emotionally uninvolved. However, regardless of how good the rest of the story is, the climax will stand out in the audience's mind as the most memorable part of the story - and, as such, will have a much larger impact on how they feel about the movie once it is done.


Now, the writers for Iron Man did a respectable job of setting up for the climax - we are aware of the various conflicts, inward and outward, we have an emotional attachment to the characters, and we have an emotional investment in the outcome of the movie. Of course, in Iron Man, this is where everything came apart. Now, in my mind, the first cardinal sin of climax writing is having the protagonist be simply better than the antagonist, and beat him in a straightforward battle of force**. Luckily, Iron Man did not commit this sin - Stark was outmatched and out-gunned and, when all hope seemed lost, his spunky secretary blew up the generator, killing Stane and saving the day.


Wait, what? You mean, the protagonist doesn't even defeat the villain? What kind of climax is that?! In the climax, we are supposed to see how the hero has grown as a character - and how this growth allows him to overcome his weaknesses and defeat the villain when all hope seems lost. In Iron Man, all we see is Stark getting saved from the jaws of defeat, rather than doing the saving himself. Obviously there are no hard and fast rules for how a climax should play out - but, there are fundamental rules to follow, and one of those is that the protagonist must triumph, without someone else stepping in to take over. As Hilari Bell says, "everyone should know that the cavalry can't come to the rescue at the last moment, that the hero has to rescue himself."*** How would the ending of Harry Potter have been if, rather than defeating Voldemort himself, Harry instead distracted him while another group of people finished him off? I don't want to spend too much time talking about Harry Potter, suffice it to say that the climax was superbly done.


While a complete fix of Iron Man's climax would undoubtedly require large amounts of restructuring in the script, and, hopefully, more connection with the unplumbed depths of moral ambiguity, the most galling thing about how the movie played out is that there was a simple fix available that would have very nearly achieved the desired result. One could restructure the fight scene to have more occur before the final flight, building more and more tension as the battery on Stark's suit slowly dies, until finally, in a seemingly desperate attempt to escape, he uses the last dregs of battery power to flee higher and higher. Stane catches him and, as he begins to crush Stark's suit, raving about his technical superiority, Stane's suit freezes up - revealing Tony's plan. Stark tosses off his pithy one-liner, and then drives Stane towards the ground, using one final burst of power from his suit to fling himself free of the blast radius, while Stane crashes directly into the arc reactor and explosions ensue. Because that's how Robert Downey Jr. always defeats the bad guys - with pithy one-liners.


- Michael


*I here say "proper story" to exclude genres such as Theatre of the Absurd, as, lacking any semblance of a plot, such genres clearly do not require a climax.


**Everybody would do well to read Hilari Bell's writing tip about climaxes, found here: http://www.sfwa.org/members/bell/writingtips/spring08.html I may, in fact, quote from her in this blog. Actually, at some point, everybody ought to read all of her writing tips - they are very useful and well-written. Also, read her novels; she is an excellent author.


***http://www.sfwa.org/members/bell/writingtips/spring08.html, paragraph 6.

The First Post

As you may have noticed, I decided to start a blog. I suppose this is the part where I introduce myself, and tell you all about what I plan to do with the blog so that I can later fail to live up to those expectations.


I'm a third year student of mathematics at the University of Calgary - a city that is well known for being much better than Edmonton. I am doing an honours degree with a concentration in cryptography, and I am also a member of the fairly new ASHA program. I plan on getting a PhD in maths and hopefully becoming a professor at some point in my life - the idea of doing research for a living appeals to me, as does the teaching aspect.


With the boring details of my life out of the way, I must assure you that this blog will not be devoted to the discussion of mathematical concepts. While I will not shy away from such things - and many of my thoughts involve math, for obvious reasons - it is not my intention to alienate the non-mathematician. I do not have many particular topics in mind; most of my entries will simply be on things that I happened to find interesting that day. Most of my writing experience has been with formal essays, but I expect that my tone will shift depending on the topic, and very probably within the topic itself - I am not striving for technical perfection, merely a means to express my thoughts on any subject that takes my fancy.


I do have a few specific topics in mind, as well as certain things that are inevitably going to come up in any blog of mine. My next post will be the first in a series called "Ruined by Hype," which will cover some of my experiences with what I feel were over-hyped movies. Check back to find out which movie* I am covering first, and exactly what I disliked about it. I also anticipate talking about the few things that I know about philosophy, and interesting questions involving the nature of mathematics are bound to arise at some point.


Thank you all for reading this far, and I hope that at least a few people will check back and read some of my later posts.


-Michael


*Apparently Blogger does not have the word "movie" in its dictionary. How odd.