8.10.11
I think science is the best religion not only because it grows and corrects itself, but because it doesn't require much blind faith in the first place. In mathematics for example, you only have to acccept a few ideas such as the existence of the number one, the existence of addition which you can iteratively apply to pairs of one to get two, then three, and the rest; you accept that two points determine a line, and that a collection of positive integers has a smallest integer among them. I would like to say that these assumptions make sense, that I can conceive the idea of number and addition by holdind out first my pointer finger, then my middle finger, and behold, one and one make two, but I think that would be the analogue of observing the trees and the birds and concluding that god exists. So I'll be honest and say that I merely believe in the idea of one and its consequences. I can't justify my belief by saying I want to believe, my faith is as blind as any other.
But like I said, a scientist doesn't need to have much faith. There are relatively few things that need to be accepted outright before the ideas grow on their; own.idea begets the other, like generations of a living being. With christianity, where contradictions abound in the absence of logic, faith is an absolute necessity, and the less founded the faith, the better. A christian is often brought to the conclusion that their god works in mysterious ways, and that's the end of the discussion. For a scientist, the mystery is the beginning.

Is economics a science? There's something scientific about the principle of supply and demand, presumably you can observe it working again and again every day, yet economics seems to function with a greater factor of faith than one might expect in a science. Nobody calls it faith though, it's called consumer confidence. I'd like to believe that low confidence is a consequence of a bad economy, but isn't it also a little bit the other way around? If consumers are confident, then they invest money, and the economy grows and becomes stronger. So why don't consumers just decide to be confident, then the economy would be in good shape! I haven't had the pleasure of being enlightened in the mysteries of the economy, but maybe economics is enough of a science that it's susceptible to a little logical thought. It seems to be a viscous cycle: the economy is bad, thus consumers don't see any reason to be confident, thus the economy remains bad, because in order to get good, it requires some support from the consumers. How do you break the cycle? You need help from above, from the government. Thus economics becomes a political issue....
Republicans and Democrats hate each other (maybe we can make this an axiom), in particular republicans don't like Obama. In order for them to get rid of him, it's in their best interest to keep the economy in its current poor condition, because that's the only thing they have against him in the coming election. Isn't that sad when a political party fights against the good of the people? But it's a consequence of a conjecture, whose truth can be observed from time to time: As long as power is there to be had, politicians will be drawn to it at whatever cost. Principles be damned, there's the presidency to win! To be fair, I don't think democrats are any less blinded by the beacon of political power. Maybe a monarchy is better after all.
The thing that democracy has over a monarchy is the simplicity of change. If people don't like the way things are going, they don't have to get weapons and start a bloody revolt, the revolution happens at the voting polls. This principle only works if people have faith in the process, which is not the case in Russia. I've asked some of my students for their thoughts regarding Vladimir Putin's likely return as President of the Russian Federation - his candidacy in next year's election was announced a few weeks ago - the students who cared to comment said they weren't happy about it. It think some of them might have been catering to what they thought was a critical observer from the land of democracy, but I have nothing against Putin being President again, especially if he gets voted into office in a fair election. If the people like him as ruler of the land, then why not? I remember years ago (I think I may have already written this), when Putin was being interviewed by Larry King, and Larrry asked Putin about the possibility of becoming President again and whether that was really democratic, Putin retorted that as long as more citizens in America vote for one candidate while the other somehow wins the election, he didn't see any contradictions with the current principles of democracy.
As far as next year's election in Russia is concerned, judging by the few people I've spoken with about Putin over the past few years, I don't get the impression that he's as popular as the election results would make it seem. I get the impression that relatively few people vote. They don't vote because they think that no other party would do any better, which isn't to say that they feel the United Russia party is doing very well. I don't seldom hear that all politicians are crooks, I've been scolded for believeing otherwise about my own countries politicians. What this country seems to lack, and I cringe to say it, is faith in the political system. Yep. Russians need more faith; the blinder, the better! On the other hand, would Russia be a better place if the citizenry were as politically holy as me? A rival party or two may arise, but its members would buckle to the temptation of whatever increase in power they could win in the next election. The people would be as well represented as they are now.
Getting back to being blinded by power, I wasn't fair to the Republican party a few paragraphs ago. True, a bad economy is to their advantage, but contrary to popular liberal belief, they're not necessarily fighting Obama's policies for the sake of a bad economy, but for the sake of their political principles: they don't like spending money (unless it's for the military, but they don't like talking about that). Higher government spending translates to higher taxes down the road, and that's just not right! The republican party sticks to its rules, all of which are covered either in the bible, or Atlas Shrugged. The democratic party isn't as solid as that.
As long as I'm expressing blasphemy on the political front, I should try to wrap this up with a last cynical observation. While these days some politicians, principled as they may be, might not shy away from secretly supporting bad economic policy, the past centurty is filled with the same kind of politics. The trick is to stear the country into the right disaster, one which provides the political leverage to act decisively and effectively. Consider 9-11. Shortly afterward the Patriot Act was passed, the wars started, and Bush's approval rating soared; the people evidently thought he was handling the situation with presidential expertise. On the other hand, if 9-11 had been avoided, there wouldn't have been enough unity in Congress to allow wars in Afganistan and Iraq; President Bush wouldn't have been left to twidling his thumbs, and he wouldn't have had anything to put on his resume after his first four years. From a political standpoint, a disaster like 9-11 was a great source of results in the political arena. All the politician in power has to do is see it coming, and then let it happen. I don't know history very well, but even I can take a stab at finding other examples of the same phenomenon. Didn't the Vietnam war start with an alleged attack against an American cruiser? Was the war popular at first? And don't forget Pearl Harbor. Rumor has it that the Roosevelt administration knew it was coming. They wanted to get more involved in the war, so why do anything to stop a coming attack?
In contrast, America's current woes are seemingly less military than economical, as the country has been on and off the brink of complete disaster for a few times in the past few years. Liberals will say that while the stimulus hasn't restored the economy entirely, it has saved us from collapse. Without knowing what kind of collapse is meant, nobody can really appreciate whatever effect the stimulus packages may have had. It's like stopping a terrorist attack. If they catch the terrorists before they attack, then there isn't any credit for catching them afterwards. So let them attack; let the economy crumble. If we let it fall from as high as we are, maybe we can use the momentum from the downward tumble to jump back to an allbeit weaker, but more stable economy. Or maybe economic problems aren't as easy to take advantage of as when terrorists strike. Indeed, if people are out of work and hungry, they're quick to blame the party in power. It's strange that this hasn't been the case when we're attacked by an outside force; on the contrary, we're soothed when we see our missles and bombs blowing up buildings in far off lands on T.V.

9.10.11
And then there are rating agencies. I first heard of such agencies only a few years ago, where were they (or where was I) before that? They're the economic analogue of prophets from the bible. They tell members of the church where they should especially focus their faith if they want to be blessed with good returns from the economic gods. Lately the prophets bode dark tidings, damning entire countries like the U.S. and Italy with a holy curse called the downgrade. They can also perform the reverse incantation, and by doing so bring economic blessings to any country worthy of receiving such a charm. I heard recently that one agency was considering upgrading Russia's economy, if only some sector of some industry showed satifactory figures the following quarter. I can just see the agency members informing Russian economists with a wink and a handshake about a potential upgrade. Russians are notoriously corrupt; maybe it's a stereotype, but I know few Russians who would excuse it as such, which, to be fair, says little, since most Russians I know are cynical as can be regarding anything political.
Anyway, who are these prophets and why should we believe them? Funny how it works, if enough people believe them, then their prophecy comes true. Whatever they say is self-fulfilling. If, on the other hand, people ignored them, then they would cease to be. Maybe that's like God, or the number One. If there were no scientists, would One still exist?

I'm doing all right. I don't have Friday's off anymore, and I've had a little more work so far in Dolgoprudny than at the previous school. Next week a teacher is supposed to come back from vacation, and I'll be relieved of some of the groups I have been covering for him. I wonder what I'm going to get instead. In general, classes are better for me, the higher the level and the older the students. I'll keep my fingers crossed.