Hey guys, I wrote this thing below while I was on holiday in Plett. Bit of a rant I know, but hey why not give it a read.

Cheers
Si

The West, as it is regarded in modern economic and political ideology, inherently bases most of its policy in both political and economic terms in liberal and neo-classical ideologies. What this means is that they believe in Free Trade, in the efficiency of the market structure without interference from government, on the liberty of the individual in the face of constraints by international and national political will and the ability of individual markets to become more efficient than others inevitably resulting in lower prices and greater employment if there is great competition.

As this ideology is promoted throughout the world by the US and most of the EU we must then believe that they want to affirm this process as the ‘right’ and morally correct pursuit for most of humanity. Thus they wish to propose to most of the developing world that their liberal and neo-classical policies are the policies that they should be adopting in order to improve their economies. Thus membership in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), or getting access to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is inherently dependent on the implementation of policies that reflect these Western ideological structures.

In the developing world it is thus necessary for us to exercise fiscal restraint: running low budget deficits and paying off both public and foreign debt (even though increased spending could help in the long run), additionally there are demands placed upon us to control inflation and not enter into employment-targeted economic policies (even though various UN bodies have actually suggested more employment-oriented policies than have previously been pursued in countries such as South Africa (UNDP, 2005)). Furthermore, there are heightened demands for access to developing markets, the lowering of tariffs, the decrease of subsidies and the increase of competition – all in the name of increased competition and enhanced international trade efficiency. These are both worthy pursuits.

However, the problem lies in the internal politics of the countries prescribing such policies. They demand that the developing world implement these policies, but they have massive subsidies and high tariffs which prevent the access of the developing world to their markets. For example, as the BBC reported (BBC, 2003), the subsidies in the EU and the US are often as much as $2 per cow – contrasting this with the millions of people throughout Africa and the rest of the developing world that survive on less than a dollar a day this subsidization policy becomes highly immoral.[1] In addition to this it is highly hypocritical – the West prescribes to the developing world that they should have accessible markets for the developed world in order to increase the efficiency of their domestic markets and compete efficiently. But, as soon as it comes to increasing efficiency and decreasing prices in their own markets, they refuse to pursue the policies they prescribe in their domestic environments.

This is easily enough excused on behalf of political realism and interest group economics – the farmers make money enough to ensure that their politicians are in power and that they won’t change policy such that they are damaged. The problem though is that they are damaging international relations because of their hypocrisy. As much as Thabo Mbeki is tarnished by his doublespeak on HIV/AIDS, George W Bush, Robert Zoellick, Pascal Lamy and co should also be found guilty of the same sin – they do not live up to the ideologies that they so viciously tout as the would-be saviours of the world economy. The only way that the developing world is possibly going to decrease their tariffs, their subsidies and increase the access to their markets is if the developed world does the same.

As much as China and much of the developing world currently have lower labour prices than the US and the EU, in the long run their economies will become more highly skilled as education programmes take effect, and as such individuals will demand higher wages. The long-run, that mechanism so enigmatic to economists, is the ultimate throwback for the developing world. If the G8 wish to prescribe labor conditions, environmental policy and a general ideological approach to politics and economics, then they are going to have to up their own ante. Such changes do not come in a costless manner. As a result of increases in efficiency the unemployment in the west may increase, as they are not as efficient and do not have as low a cost of labour as the developing world. Nevertheless, as already stated, in the long-run all’s well that end’s well, we’ll have a world in which liberal and neo-classical values are the prevailing force and the shadows of communism and fascism are but distant memories. So long to Marx, yay for Smith.

Some more recent poetry. Who knows what it may mean, don't take it too seriously.

Noah's Son¹ 13.01.06

It had been a hard night's work, as hard as rain-drenched hair against

the scalp as we watched water rising around us, and harder still than

watching the fires and idols and feeling the doubt that surrounded us

as we worked. It would have been easier had we worked with light

but the clouds had made that more than a polite request to God

so we laid it to rest in search of things of greater levity for Him that

would bind us all the closer before rest, before light could come to

us and, before anything else, the rain would teach us, my father, us

a smattering of humility. Not that we were arrogant, but we felt

vindicated as the waters rose around us, while animals screeched

in consternation at the rocking of the floors beneath them. They felt

it more for the dissolution of their packs, or a herd no longer formed

and we felt that too, seeing the hordes of men and women calling

to us in vain attempts at gaining father's mercy, he who they had scorned,

insulted and sabotaged in spite. And, in their faithlessness, they suffered.

The consequences all the more confusing because of the doubt their:

inability to understand why any god, our God would do this, and

in support of them I suggest a moment in which I felt the same

Why God? Why should we all suffer these deaths? Why this incessant

rain that bruises my skin, makes my wife cry with fear and longing for

warmth? Why? But that was not for us to know. Punishment or

education, or maybe some Diving cleansing, the reasons were not

and can never be for us to know. I cannot tell you how the sight of

and olive branch could ever be so potent as to restore my damaged faith.

Voyeurism 13.01.06

You giggle as the

staffie toddles along

on legs to slender

to carry its bulk

you say that he’s a bit stocky

or you look at the

Jack Russell all nose-twitching

alert and scurrying from your

hand back to known ankles

but it makes you just slightly sad

that you are so ‘global’

moving to and fro and

unable to own a dog

instead you caress my cheek

stroke my hair and

tell me you love me

I am here and you have briefly

returned to me

and, sadly for me, like

the animals I cannot

go with you

Petaled

13.01.06

I move from

a slender hand

script in its descent

onto the page lonely as

it once was, pointed

as it now tries

to be

the petals

falling from

the flowers of the

magnolia tree cutting

through the air beneath

them and through

separateness of

you and him:

time – you

and me

Parted 15.01.06

I know that I am difficult

that my seriousness is

oppressive on this joy

you so immediately feel

but it is difficult to contain

my envy of something I have

been unable to achieve:

this happiness in you

brought on by the appearance

of one entirely unknown to me

friends across the sea mean

more than my parochial simplicity

Undesired 15.01.06

it is in the ways you

neither look at me

nor touch me, in the

way in which certain

conversations are

avoided

leaves rubbed off

on a welcome mat

yet still you make

attempts at affection

as though duty-bound

and god how I never

wanted to be a duty

ironing shirts and sweeping

already clean floors

and my voices clamour

in my head: dejected,

frustrated and craving

your desire

Delect 16.01.06

I search for oblivion

in the tragedy of

moments

oblivion: time

without thought

action or emotion

the melancholy does

not have direction

it takes me neither

up nor down

it is not a heavy

heart but a bursting

of the blood vessels

that carried my life

in seeing red, in seeing

the dripping of my life

from the eaves of what

was my context

from there is birthed

my taste of oblivion

and how I wish that

it would last

So... a couple of things have been going down as some of you may know and others may not.

Firstly, and most importantly, the name of my blog has changed. Ha, here you all thought that it would be something profound and drastic. No such thing. Amanuensis – Latin basis of a manus ensis (if I remember correctly), one who copies or writes from dictation. This is meant to be in some ways a parody of 'thought'. The reason being that thought is so often the amalgamation of much that one has discussed, read or experienced. In which case writing may be simply following the dictates of things that have already occurred, rather than actually being an original experience in and of itself. Hence, memory dictates to writing. Thus, I thought a name change could be interesting and funny. Ha ha...

Ok, secondly, now back to reality. For those of you who are unaware of it, but check this blog, I am dating Laura Armstrong. I have been for just under two months (this coming Monday it's two months actually). However, it has recently been decided that she is to return to New Zealand some time in June/July. Sad as that is, she loves that country, specifically she loves the city of Wellington and I know she will be happy there. Anyway, who knows where the wind will blow her and I up until that point, but there are so many possibilities (as is inevitably the case – truism).

For those of you who don't know, I am also currently working on my master's dissertation. Briefly, the research is focused on the role of genetic relatedness as a determinant of altruistic behaviour in the household. Yes, I understand that many of you may think that that has nothing to do with 'Economics'. However, I dissent (quite obviously else I would not be researching it). The main reason for my dissent is because of the necessity for a greater economic understanding of financial altruism in the household – as soon as we introduce money it becomes an economic problem. Moreover, altruistic behaviour has an inherent relationship with the role of incentives to act in the household. The intuitive hypothesis is that the likelihood of behaving altruistically should be positively and directly related to genetic relatedness, i.e. the closer that I am to the head of a household, the more likely I am to help that household in an emergency. However, my preliminary research shows that this isn't actually the case. For men genetic relatedness seems to have a negative effect, for women it doesn't actually do anything. All is not lost though for gene-altruism. There could be other things in the mix, which I am not going to bore you with, but which I am hopefully going to be exploring in my dissertation. Yay!

On the work front, it looks as though I may just be doing some research into the AIDS program run by the Anglican Church in South Africa. This depends on whether the tender that my supervisor has put forward is accepted by said Church. So I am holding thumbs – it pays better than tutoring, and it is one of the other major fields in which I am interested, i.e. policy effectiveness of AIDS programs. Uhuh, that's cool, you know it. Gnarly...

What else have I been thinking about... Hmm... Thabo Mbeki and succession in South Africa. Which party is it 'better' or more ethical for me to vote for in the regional elections, the ANC or ID? For those of you who were hoping, it's not about to be either the DA or the PAC, DA stands for Dodgy Assholes (not really I just don't trust Tony Leon) and the PAC is just waaay to Africanist (notwithstanding the lucidity of the writing of their secretary general). Next thing, NEPAD and the Peer Review Mechanism (PRM) can they work? I remain doubtful for several reasons, which you can ask me about whenever. Something else I have been wondering about is what I would call the hypothesis of mechanism neutrality – basically some people have argued that if there is a mechanism which people can learn and use in order to make money (i.e. capitalism) then the eventual ends of that mechanism (such as gross inequality) are justifiable and morally acceptable (don't get all nihilistic on me please). The problem for me with this is rather like the lack of neutrality of the IQ test – it is culturally biased, moreover education and ability to learn something play a role. Thus, extrapolating the argument just a bit, it is morally justifiable for someone with greater strength/intellect to do what they want as long as they are using a supposedly neutral mechanism. Dodgy! It makes big people beating up little people morally justifiable (I know that's hyperbolic, but hey, give me a break, hee hee...).

Ok, that's about it for now. If you have the time, have a look at some of my poetry below, if you'd don't then ROCK ON! Have a jol and don't get too caught up in reality.

Si

Circular 22.11.05

The logic that pulls

me back -

I am unable to

find that point

of beginning.

There is no start

to the road of

my love for you: and

walking it

takes me past places

seen and re-seen

until I have passed

beyond memory and

we are all-at-once

newborn but unbegun.

Context 24.11.05

This is my reliquary for

every heart that I have

taken. Each placed in their

box and held tight in time

awaiting my awakening.

I have caressed them

to their individual slumbers

as a penitence for the actions

against me. You can see their

presence etched into my skin -

a brand for every woman I have

loved, for every cut into my

heart that they have performed.

They are dark incisions these

women have done, and I am

all the lighter for it, but changed

and unbalanced. Every love

has damaged me, and yours

I hope is the most damaging

the most changing.

Falling in the cracks 22.11.05

I see chasms in

the spaces between

bricks, paved

so carefully for us

We are in jeopardy of

stepping between them

and falling into the

earth to be held.

It is contemptuous of

us: our easy movements

without pressure or heat

through airy heights

we forget our capability for

stillness, of letting the air

blow into us, of letting water

flow through the spaces in

and between our souls. We move

to intercept each moment

each thought and feeling

before it arrives.

With you I restrain myself:

instead of rushing to meet

and discard I will stand in the

earth and encourage your

flowing through me, your

movement into my every space

and the knowledge that here

I will be moved by you.

Knowledge 07.12.05

I knew, I knew, I knew

you were not that inanimate

that there was a beat

reaching out from some

hollowness within the

stories making you up

but I could not

access them

I could not bring

them into being, and

bring you back to me. I know

that my presence remains

unreplaced, that I stand alone

in my connected context with you.

This cannot impede my love.

Declaration 07.12.05

You have (opened up) your soul.

In this moment of

declaration

Histories parade

before me in attempts

to re-construct 'now'

(because we are what we

have been: the integrals

and areas of our pasts)

In Praise of Bricks 26.12.05

Although there is structure

and a Marxist commonality

in your intent

I prefer you best

when you are

rubble.

It is then when your

validity and your pertinence

lack condition, when

you are exposed and,

in exposition,

vulnerable.

I would see the clay

of you dissolve in a

reminder of mutability

I would feel the burn

of you melt in cold

hands.

From these would you

finally appear honest, seem

more human and be, at once,

a metaphor for our growth

and our timely

dissolution.

river bed 21.12.05

holes in the sand

marking hollows

beneath my feet

I imagine being

small enough to

drain myself into

the hole, submerged

in the water and

hidden from sunlight

It is a slow and

purposeful movement out of my shallow

abode – something normally

unworthy of excessive risk

lest I be suddenly and

fatally consumed

such is the danger of

emergence.

Thunderous light

while the spread at

my waters extends

beyond its higher bounds

My neutrality is the definition

of my beauty

I am enchanting water

Inspiration 20.12.05

Such dullness as you

have inflicted upon

me: it is the slow

consuming silence

of one thinking

they were inspired.

Instead, I have

been stifled by

amassed expectations

unfitting 'reality'

a clash of silence

and voice speaks for itself

Lilies 23.12.05

I gave you them

You claimed

their pollen and

their falling petals

would stain

anything

(as if I did not know)

In truth I hoped

they would stain

your clothes, the

wooden table on which

you left them.

Or maybe they would

mark your skin

dye your hair

indelibly marking you

possessing you: mine

(although we feign unpossession)

Crown of Thorns 25.12.05

Cutting into me as

I walk towards

a hand-washed

death (or was it

clean-forgiveness?)

confusion is easily split

by wine-piercing

and headcuts may be

a sudden cut off mercy -

would be easier, but

No! My suffering is

so warranted father

Father, oh goddamned

Fatherfartherfather

in my head

dark and light

and the whiteblack

FLASH!

of insistent soreness

This crown this

cross and the destined

holes (holes within darkness

within holes) through my

hands my feet my

ribs and abdomen

lurching blood free

of mortality (or at

least an idea of the mortal,

the immortal) and my

momentary eternity:

that time, that instance in

which death is inevitable

the cloth and clutch of its

encapsulation: me crowning

me for this infinity my

infinity and my life

repeated repeated repeated

because of recording

recalling my words

My words this today

All on account of

birth (death happiness)

of me isolated

and as immaculate

as an unclouded

desert morning

Prayers and Darknesses 25.12.05

A shamble

of breaking voices

raising praise in

final pleas for

alleviated

pain

surrounds me

send Up your thoughts

send Up that which hurts

send Up any and everything

you refuse to question

They will be solved

A solution of clouds

harps angels and

presence

I would rather be the

shadow beneath the

cloud: cast on the

unaware soil, infused

by its darkness:

a fertility for light

that would come

our way

Labeled 25.12.05

Am I kaffir you

who call me

kaffir-lover?

Am I fuckingqueer you

who call me

bent fuck-buddy?

Am I AIDS-ridden you

who call me

HIV 'positive'?

Such a tenacity in the

multiplicity and

paradox of labels

And fuck you if I cannot be

both-at-once

gay-straight

kaffir-blanke

positive-negative

wrapped-and-disputed

hairy skin blanched in

frustration and

disbelief.

Blood tides 25.12.05

An eternity of switching-

sign parabolas in a

progression of

low-and-high

tides:

moving into

every level of

you

I sink beneath

the granule-much

sand breaking

riverbanks:

that is my blood

though your veins -

sustenance

My tears flow from your

eyes in attentiveness to

your tenebrous states

clouded shadowed coagulating

clouded

blood

mixed you and I

are

A river wind 25.12.05

cobbles on the water's surface

the clasp of weeds

on a wader's

feet

Organise 27.12.05

create some logical and coherent

structure to what is extant

let reality refill itself with

what is actually there

A contrast: water is not water-perceived

but now re-consideration leads

it to be water

my finger is not

pointing at the moon

but is the moon

and every understanding

of moon-ness

although you perceive so much

ease in my acceptance

it is trained, strung out to

a photon width's perception

i elocute i properly think

you your histories and

why i do not have the

need for privation

(though part of me screams

violation it is easily adumbrated

by the perpetuity of love)

and love that moon-finger word

how I wish that my pointing at

it would convey to you

its every nuance

its potency and

its

not-limited-ness

there you are

and I do not perceive

your borders

Systems 25.12.05

A river flowing

away from its mouth

Her body's limbs turn

away from the ground

Limpets attach to

the sea, not the rock

A compass points, not

North, but rather South.

The way that the water

flows indicates its

misdirected intentions:

a fracas with its

reality-cast role.

Indignant, its course

changes.

She is unaware of the

way she rests, arms above

her head and unaffected

by what we'd claim

gravity should

enforce

The mollusc, the sand, have

made their way up to the

dams attempting to

reclaim their ancestral

mountains

Direction, having lost its

terminal anchor, ceases

to retain its causative

push

And in amongst all

of this is the third

person casting their

mind out to clasp

ideas, to halt

progression of space

and to encapsulate why

direction should not

lay claim to

movement

or

intent

Jam-packed 28.12.05

your request for

intimacy

does not much surprise me

Implication:

knowledge, its constituent parts

yours

Implication:

possession, entitlement to all

mine

a sinew reliquary holding us

between bone and flesh

and the long-haul fuss

of misunderstood ownership

Forestry 28.12.05

Muscle-bone bound is

this body

a tree carved man

without the roots

of water and sun

to guide its progression

woman walks towards the branches

entangled in the leaves

in approach to the heart

of it

although a tree is unlikely

to uproot

it could fall

and fall

violently

the bones and sinew could

step up from the ground

calling up and moving away

exerting anger upon the

constraining body

these branches they scar

the intent of woman's skin

these leaves imprint their

skeletal brands on woman

such Action drowns woman

in the natural suffering to

which she progresses,

at least so in belief,

at least so in memory.

Capsule 01.01.06

i do not mean

space not the ones

bursting through

atmospheres and

launching satellites

no not those you

pop-pop in your

mouth vitamin quick

and PROZAC heavy

not accurate enough no

but that oval shape

maybe or hemmed in

yes or held into an

odd unaccustomed

shape honest

murky acrid tastes

the crumpling of metal

and the parachute explosion

all that's capsuled:

tension and bursting me now

carriage 01.01.06

this vessel

placed in you

to channel fear

its movements

an asymmetry of

rhythmic erratic

crescendos

calling back to

recreate touchedness

in the non-you-me

space we entered

we leave behind

uncanny tastes of

one-two-one

begun : ended

Nevertheless 03.01.06

Inject me with your blood

I would suffer as you do

it would give a point

to these tears I

shed in disbelief

to the pain I

inflict on myself

in sympathy

aimless

though it is

Give birth to me

as young as you are

my mother, giving to

me all love, all

infected passion

that I would accept

my role

my dissolute

and arbitrary

child-death

and no pills

no love

no adoption

no purple and white

t-shirt wearing

protest

can protect me

when the uncaring

the unbelieving

hold power

Injunction 04.01.06

I would celebrate

turning water to wine

and the subsequent joy

were they not inane

I would worship the

wonder of healing

blindness and maiming

were they reality

I crave a son of gods

were it a cannibalistic

celebration or a wine-sex

rite of gloried intents

I would worship, I would

be faithful if there was

but one iota of evidence

that they could miracle

that magic could be exist

or be returned to those

who suffer in its non-existence

who live under the falseness

of its lacking. Were you here

would you perform healings? Are

you that connected to god, to the

wondrousness of faith? Or are

you simply created in history and

so I defy you to create faith

in me, my ingestion of you

running poison-thorough

through me in its ability to

change me. If you could

heal infected children, if you could

stop collapsing lungs

if you could remove the yellow

clasp on malarial eyes. Then

would I eat and drink of you

and I would praise you

I would magic you and consistently

and continuously create you in

every day. I would be yours

I would be faith.

Something which I have been thinking about...

Need 21.11.05

Although you crave

being needed, I am

not good at it, this

inborn independence

does not do you justice

your devotion and application

to me, and I feel inept

in my immediate attempts

at being within and for

you. But you see, if nothing

else, that is why I need you

the most, to teach me

this art, the structure of need.

My errant nature inimically

untied and blown by every

which-way breeze of intellect

calls out against the breath of

you teaching me need. You are

so necessary, your love so

required for this. Lest my

ambling soul lose all

vulnerability, lose all chance

at freely being helped. It has

always been me who has been

needed. It is time for my

change, hurting though I may be

before the glimpses of it.

You are that much to me.

So yes, I should be working as I have that silly research report due on Wednesday. Truth be told it's not at all silly, but it does mean that when EVERYONE else is on vacation and one of my dearest friends is arriving back from NZ I am going to be working. Tragic! So here I am procrastinating. Anyway, enjoy the poetry some of it's ok, some of it's atrocious (as it should be, even Keats wrote badly, just see some of the lines of Ode to Psyche). Love y'all. Si

Stray 25.10.05

Though I have cleaned

and washed my sheets

strands of your hair

are still caught in

my pillows. I have

an intent, it seems,

to maintain some

connection to you

even though it may

be unrequited. Upon

finding a hair I am

bound by it to memories

to some conjure or

voodoo of yours:

that set of smiles

followed by anything but

if only it was in me

to hate finding a lost

strand. Instead they inspire

my irrationality and

confirm what I dare

not voice.

Bikes 25.10.05

You remember me as

small blond and

clutching tightly to

your back my

unhelmeted hair

all-over-blown by

the wind of our riding

but I have sped

past that boy on the

back of a motorcycle,

although you still

glance over your shoulder

at him

Let free 27.10.05

If I am uncaged

it does not mean

that I am free

nor do I suddenly

understand my own

imprisonment

iron-black-grey

existence: reality cut

up by criss cross

bars patchwork

prison living

black around colour

What does 28.10.05

to last

mean?

Would it make me

the final raindrop

on your face in

a storm,

or would I

be the eternity

of my fossil

memory in you

etched in sand

and skin: indelible.

Deep, could I be

that deep that

I am the last

part of you to

ever go, but still

so slow as to

be the endpoint

of forever.

Ice Dream: 30.10.05

although the heat

here devastates

my body

dreaming inspires

paradox

why would i

feel snow falling

upon my sleeping

face and on

what earth should

i be walking on

ice the cracking

of which disturbs

my wakefulness

it is the mirror

of it that in which

i find myself

a cold reflection

to my heat and

intuit this orphean

journey is

because of you

your capturing of

my reflected self

Scrivener 30.10.05

Bearing the names of tombs

into scripture, the Word that

must be heard by each and

every living soul for their

Redemption. I do not begrudge

you your charge. Nor do I

presume judgment upon your

holy quest. But I do question it.

Though I recall the psalmist

it is not in that which I place

my faith, but in your ability to

replicate and in replicating

change all that has been placed

before you. The Word is that potent

that all-driving. I cannot help but

think that maybe I do the same.

Krsna's Fluting 30.10.05

Would that playing for you

was this easy, that I was not

simply a reflection of some

poetic intent. The statues of

me playing should remind

you of your playfulness, but

instead they result in Faith

and Dedication and Claims

that Ganesha would have it so.

Worship in inaction. Joy and

the act of creating Joy would

be all that I demand.

You would rather Worship

than listen to my Music and such

is the loss of Faith, that music is

no longer Joy but pervasive Duty.

On Rach 03.10.05

A man sits, tied

to a desk and tortured

by an inability to move

despite it's necessity

these notes clamber over

him as a bout of insanity

but his fingers too cold to

feel the keys

this is the post-partum

depression of composition

the moment after the birth

of writing in which

the world is suddenly smaller

your hands more wrinkled

and the sunlight less able

to heat your skin

see him there his hands so

tightly cold and his body

dying of deprivation but

he must write

Cat 03.10.05

you walk in here

twitching tail

arrogant, as I

begin to sneeze

you continue

on unannounced:

a malcontent

describing their way

around that which

troubles them.

(or simply being that

which troubles me)

Lalage 03.10.05

G. lalageo the sound of a babbling brook

I thought it

the sound of laughter

carried to me by wind

a normal shriek and

pulse, but there

was an undercurrent -

a sob birthing itself

out of the laughter

I should not confuse such

things with you.

We spoke of it later: I'd

heard you as you burnt

imprints of flowers

on your skin disguising

seared, cut flesh from

those who would look

although I am looking,

eternally observing in the

hope of catching some of

the ash, perhaps it will give me

a taste of you.

Recidivist 03.10.05

This habit is something

into which I easily hope

to relapse

the comfortable warmth

in holding your hand

on a couch

I have been warned against

it, too many women who

later hurt me

who burn their past intents into

my soul, while I attempt to

walk gaily on

in blissful attempts at normality

and the ignorance that would

pervade me

if I could recidive to that state

but that is not easy, nor is it

confirmed addiction

unlike you who call me onward

and inwards with the final

temptation

[of suffering]

151 11.11.2005

There is your hand

pushing downwards

I am the plunged

coffee of this

pressed down, guided

and immediately

distilled into

some purer form

Although I do

believe that I

would retain

a granular consistency

Stubborn, even in

my own change

Marmorate 12.11.05

We are the thick-veined

marble pillars in support

of some levitant

Greek ideal

can you not see us?

Here about some

Dionysean fucking-rite

praise and more praise

to wine and sex. That

harshness fueling the

blood of these stone veins

pumping grey and cold

into these we so religiously

support. If only they deigned

to see us, perhaps they would

marvel at their own

ignorance.

A tapestry of shoes 23.10.05

The structure of

completion

is a frayed collection

of threads

and it is the frays

where severances

hurt and where

they retie newborn

offshoots of hemp,

roughed off

of their own accord

but tied tighter

than old shoelaces

burnt with selotape

and holding together

rubber and the soul -

i am molded to

you in this old shoe way

scared of discard

or tempted by it

Polemic 23.10.05

it is the fuck-with-you

way with complete disregard

for anything I say or do

that says it

if this were a record of

samples, with a hip-hop

beat sliding between

them, it would yet

crave meaning, But

these words, these

linked-tight hardfast

daft yet credible

Words are what make

this, This believable

and all i do is stand

in a red t-shirt

banner in hand with

a hoarse voice and

a look of (hurt by lack of

remorse) incredulity

that changes nothing,

no thousand words

in a photo, but

a thousand unloosed

tongues with no more

voice than a woman before

Herod and even more

screaming babies dying

as i wear a red t-shirt

(it wasn't red before)

and a banner limp

(with tears repressed)

if only the wind would

shriek to steal the air

that rips from their

throats the dirge of the dead

the speedbumps are

graves as i walk, unflowered

and graveled and potholed

for the lack of digable

soil to cover up the lost

Road 23.10.05

I would be gracious

were I yet prepared to

thank you

but that is the

dark backroad that

betweens us

left open to wound

down windows

and heart-blown

kisses goodnight

(I'd rather not it's

easier to fight)

Carving tree 23.10.05

I can still see green in

the moonlight of

oak leaves

shrouding the moon

painting pointed patterns

over memories

they are sharp aren't

they when you pick

them up

enough to make an

acorn worth planting

for my intents

Subsequent to having studied a course in Policy Analysis in my Honours year of Economics and now having completed a development style course in Masters, something has become horribly apparent to me. This problem is that people pre-judge the discipline of Economics because of its idealism. Not only is this 'sin' committed by policy-makers external to Economics and by politicians attempting to derogate the discipline, but also members within the discipline itself.

What makes this doubly frustrating is that Economists have to sell their models and their methodologies to government in order to create some kind of actionable change in policy or in the economy itself. However, if Economists themselves cannot agree on what is necessary in order to have a decent Economic model, then this is more than problematic. When I talk about this dispute I am not referring to the mundane nature of the New Keynesian-New Classicist debate, but rather an approach to statistics and economics combined.

Now, every economist who reaches a high enough level of competence and study inevitably encounters the problems with assessing whether a program or intervention works or not. In order for us to know whether an economic or policy intervention works, we need to be able to answer a counterfactual question: How would those who were in the presence of said intervention have fared were they not treated or in the presence of the intervention? Or equally, how would those who were not in the treated group have fared were they treated? If we cannot answer these counterfactual questions then the whole point of applying policy in the first place is irrelevant. The reason for this is that policy is meant to enact positive change, change that will help the economy and that will provide for people in an optimal way. Moreover, it is meant to do so in the most cost effective way. If a policy is rolled out to the entire population, but it is ineffective then spending the money in the first place was inane and a poor choice when there are so many opportunity costs to poorly spent resources.

Now, the methodology of Randomised Evaluation¹ is easily understood by Econometricians and by Statisticians. However, policy makers in attempting to address specific population groups and constituents often ignore both statistics and econometrics in favour of attempting to look as though they have done something when in reality nothing has changed. This is all to reminiscent of the Peron style policies of giving people pots and pans to make them like you, but these pots and pans DO NOTHING to help these people in reality.

Where the problem lies for Economists is that people often don't like 'The Truth'. When I talk about 'The Truth' in this context, I refer to statistics or qualitative statements which provide us with some reflection of what occurs in reality, rather than some peoples rhetoric about 'poverty alleviation' or 'employing the unemployed'. These themselves are worthy goals, but claiming that a project or a policy will do one of these things is inaccurate when we have no way of measuring if a change occurred.²

This is where the problem arises, both within Economics and with those who attempt to deride it. Two main problems that people have with such statistical practices are as follows: 1) it's unfair, and 2) it (randomised evaluation) is ivory tower intellectualism that doesn't work in the real world. I will deal with both statements.

As far as the first is concerned, this is a drastic misrepresentation of what Randomised Evaluation is and does. A randomised evaluation attempts to find two very similar groups, intervene in one with some treatment (say an extra teacher in a classroom, food provision or some such) and compare this treated group against the similar group which remained untreated. This is often performed on a fairly small (depending on your interpretations) scale, for example looking at 20 schools: 10 of which get the intervention and 10 of which do not.

Now, if we need to roll out a program to enhance school quality, BUT we are unsure of how to do this just reading what other people have done and claiming that 'This is what is good for 'our country' does not actually tell us if it is. In order for it 'to be good for our country' it should fulfill some criteria – test scores should improve, attendance should increase, numeracy and literacy levels should improve. However, the only way we can know if they have improved at all is if there is some basis for comparison. If we expend money without knowing whether a program will do anything, then how is that at all fair? As far as a utilitarian argument progresses, welfare has not been improved by any measurable outcome, but large amounts of money have been spent, resulting in an overall decrease in welfare (same people, less money).

If a small pilot project is run with some people getting the intervention and some not, then we can know whether it works. However, people then claim that on the ground if we have two households one receiving a treatment and one not, then the one not receiving the treatment believes that it is being prejudiced against. Notwithstanding the myopia of individual consumers who could voice frustration at not receiving some patronage, the individual unfairness is overridden by social benefit. Hence, again using a utilitarian argument, the overall utility is improved because of us knowing what programs to run and what the impacts are regardless of a small number of peoples' discontent. Contemporary society is riddled with personal injustices which are for the overall benefit, to take a few examples: progressive tax rates are individually unfair on the rich – they give away money for which they have some claim because of work, but this is taken away from them in the name of a greater good, equally so with government intervention in a number of other spheres: government providing free water to the poor (or providing a market for water to the rich), government re-modeling education structures so that they are more equitable and less competitive. Individually, this irks people and people find it individually unfair. However, they are intended to provide for a greater good. People then re-frame the questions as a one of poor vs. poor. 'How can you tell one poor person that you are going to employ their equally poor neighbour, but not them?' Government does this all the time anyway when it initiates public works programs, or when there are programs by international bodies as part of disaster relief or some such. This means that there must be some other motivation – the 'fairness' argument does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact I believe that it comes down to the second point which is the attack on 'ivory tower intellectualism'.

The problem with this second point is that it is predominantly a normative or perspective-based debate. Almost inevitably it remains as a post-modern attack on Statistics and Economics which I foreshadowed earlier with my comments on 'Truth'. People (myself included), often like to believe that they are individuals, that they cannot be described by observable characteristics and that they (because they are special) do not fall into any stereotypical roles or cultural boxes. The problem with this is that it ignores a host of economic, psychological, sociological and anthropological evidence to the contrary. As much as we would like to believe that our free will can and should override any genetic or social imperatives, it often does not. People DO fit into general and describable categories. This is where statistics and econometrics are useful because they DO REFLECT REALITY. Granted this reality is not in an individual or unique sense, but as far as most people are concerned providing them a situation in which they can begin to have food, family and something more than just subsistence living is good.

This then begs the question of where this attack is directed? This is a far more controversial question. My belief is that it is pointed at the perceived elitism of the intellectuals, i.e. people who are intelligent are obviously out to get everyone who isn't. This can possibly also be seen as a misinterpretation of Marx, who wanted equal provision for people but without preferential treatment based on capability. So the problem here is that people perceive that intelligent people are rich people and that rich people abuse poor people. Therefore Academics (in their ivory tower institutions and intellectualism) are out to get the poor. This is a drastic misrepresentation of many academics' intentions. In fact the causation underlying this, possibly generally held, misperception is horribly flawed. It is actually the reverse – the appreciation of an intent to find truth from rhetoric is the intent of the academic. Hence the academic is trying to distill reality to find the constituent truthful parts. This can only be done in a situation where it is not being undermined by rhetoric or by the polemics of politicians whose own interests may be undermined by the 'truth' that is found through a rigorous statistical analysis.

In conclusion, it has been argued (possibly overly vociferously) that the attack on statistically rigorous processes such as Randomised Evaluations is actually based on a normative position, which is inevitably based on the self-interest of the politicians (and maybe other economists whose findings may be undermined) as a result of it. Sadly, it seems as though economists who are striving to find 'truth' are in the minority, or if this quest is their initial intention they become bogged down by political rhetoric and doublespeak which undermines that which they try to achieve. This leads me to my last appeal, that of a belief or at least an acceptance of the hopeful ideal situation of good econometric and statistical analysis in an ideal world, if economists begin to continuously excuse the rhetoric which undermines their work, then their work will suffer. In order for good econometric work to continue to be done in the future we cannot bow down to the intentions of too many self-interested individuals who target a polemic of elitism at those who are, in reality, trying to find new and innovative ways of solving problems of unemployment, poverty and welfare. It should be noted that this is not an attack on government as a body, but rather at individuals who may believe that government and academia are incompatible because of cursorily observed superficial differences, this is not the case. The intentions of government and a host of academics are those presented above – without by in and collaboration from both the possibility of brilliant solutions fades.