When writing about “Capital”, like Piketty, can you just use data about it, without ever having seen it at work?

The real importance of capital is when it marries risk… meaning when it is willing to burn itself up in order to multiply enormously or reach something much higher.

And that angle is entirely absent in Piketty´s “Capital”.

The closest he gets is when on page 115 he writes “Capital is never quiet: it is always risk-oriented and entrepreneurial, at least at its inception”. 

Indeed… but then? What happens after its inception? Truth is that from being muscle creating capital, most of it turns into obesity creating capital… and dies out over time.

Look for instance at those many trillions invested in the debt of the “infallible sovereigns”. Is that capital? No way! In fact all that has already been condemned to disappear through financial repression.

Frankly… the more I read the book (I am almost through it) the more upset I get... at least with its too capitalistic publisher's campaign.

From reading Thomas Piketty’s Wikepedia biography it becomes absolutely clear that he has never ever seen capital put to work… and yet he dares to write about capital.

Is this an expert to follow? No way Jose! He is just another Bill Easterly tyrant!

PS. Avoid the merchants of poverty!

Where is the “Worst and Best List” in the development debate?

Alan Beatti of the Financial Times in The Great Unknown, July 7, debates lucidly the Development Debate and to that effect enlists the opinions of some of the most prominent Development Talkers. What again is left out from the debate, perhaps as it is another inconvenient truth, is the fact that just a little bit more of real accountability for the actions of the developers could go a long way to stimulate better thinking and better implementing.

The following is an extract of my Voice and Noise where I recount part of my experience as an Executive Director at the World Bank.

"The standard feature of any evaluation and monitoring system we know of, is the use of some sort of distribution function, be it the normal bell-shaped curve or any other type. It somehow indicates the extremes; for instance, the worst 5% of the organization’s performance and the best 5%.

Any board, if it wants to be effective, cannot spend a lot of its time in the grayish middle area of the function, but has to concentrate its attention on the extremes of the curve, weeding out poor performance and learning from bad experiences, so as to avoid being dragged down into mediocrity, while guaranteeing the promotion of the best and learning from its successes, so as to advance the organization’s goals.

These distribution curves are totally absent in the evaluation brought forward for the Board to consider . . . it behooves us to make certain that they are adequately introduced. On a daily basis, the needy people of our constituencies are harshly evaluated by life in very cruel terms, so we might as well ask ourselves whether we should not be a little stricter in our assessments, living up to the accountability we so much preach to others."

Lacking the worst and best lists, budgets are allocated more on a per capita or on a per program basis than on the basis of what is working and what not. What private organization could function or survive this way?

Lacking the worst and best lists, scarce resources are further diluted. The possibility of concentrating the use of resources on a few countries and on a few programs to get some issues completely right in a sustainable way is almost non-existent. What private organization could function or survive this way?

I am absolutely sure that Robert Calderisi, William Easterly, Joseph Stiglitz, Andrew Charlton, Jeffrey Sachs and even the raconteur Alan Beattie are all great professionals and are all doing a splendid role verbalizing development issues but, except for passing some exams and delivering some papers in time, has anyone of them really been in a position of “either you deliver or you get out?” I wonder, not because I have anything against them, on the contrary, I wonder because it is our duty to wonder whether that might be part of the Problem, most especially since because of the Problem people are dying and the world is getting to be a nastier place. 

Friends, can we really afford not to step up our requirements that World Bank, IMF, and UNDP really deliver?

"The Elusive Quest for Growth" by William Easterly

The Elusive Quest for Growth by William Russell Easterly

Subtitle: An Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2002: 

The Roman philosopher Seneca defined luck as the moment when preparation meets opportunity, and in this excellent book Easterly analyses some big-bang moments of development luck, and even extends the concept to include the possibility of unpreparedness meeting opportunity—for instance when not being held down by merely recent technology allows for a better use of the very latest. 

The book makes a great case for PPPs Private Public Partnerships or, as one famous president of Venezuela would have put it, “It is not the private sector or the public sector but just the opposite.” 

The book explains very well the need for developing the right incentives for development, although in doing so it might not emphasize sufficiently those other variables that help the sustainability of development, such as a reasonably equitable income distribution. 

Also, a book that discusses the benefits which development receives from “knowledge leakage” but also promotes strong intellectual-property rights as incentives must, obviously, enter into some contradictions. But, then again, with no contradictions, what would be the role of luck? 

The book is crystal clear about the destructive role of bad governments. When Easterly calls for banning the concept of a financial gap, I feel much at home with my arguments against debt-sustainability analysis.

When the author writes, “Thinking about luck is good for the soul. It reminds us self-important analysts that we might just be totally witless about what’s going on,” I know that William Easterly is one of those rare Ph.D.s whom I could gladly consider inviting to my “Guaranteed Ph.D.-Free University.” 

PS. A quite interesting spin on the issue of whether “To write or not to write … by hand” is made by William Easterly in his book The Elusive Quest for Growth. In it, when he argues, “the productivity gains of the computer are slow to be realized . . . because there are still too many traditional people out there with ink and paper,” he is actually making the point that perhaps we should prohibit handwriting as such, so that the world can move forward.

[Jim, my editor: “Plato suggested—I suspect jokingly—that the invention of writing was a bad thing that ruined human powers of memory.”]

Extracts from my Voice and Noise 2006.