2016 was a good (but exhausting) year, and 2017 should be even better.  I’m too tired to post on economics today, so just a few random observations:

Predictions:  Trump will shake up the BLS, and appoint people willing to tell the “truth” about unemployment.  The official unemployment rate will jump from 4.6% to 40% in early 2017.  That will allow Trump to bring the rate down sharply over the next four years.

Resolutions:  Watch more NBA basketball.

Two years ago I was asked to name the people I most admired.  Here are the three athletes I named:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Russell Westbrook, Giannis Antetokounmpo

Does this blog have something similar to the Sports Illustrated curse?  See for yourself:

Since then, Kareem was interviewed by Tyler Cowen, and there’s also this:

And how are the other two doing?

Westbrook was already a good player two years ago (but not “average triple double for a season” good).  Giannis was a nobody.  And notice that 3 of the top 5 are from the 2012 OKC team.  Replace Roberson with Harden on last year’s team and you have a OKC championship (they weren’t all that far away without Harden.)

Westbrook gets my vote for the greatest under 6’4″ athlete, and Giannis for the best 6’11” or above athlete.  Ever.  Where does Giannis’s athleticism come from?  I suppose I can’t avoid posting the picture that has caused 17.3% of the Bucks (male) fans to change their sexual preference:

PS.  When I was in junior high school I was the tallest person in class, but was always picked last when they chose sides for basketball.  Life is deeply unfair.

PPS.  Last night Giannis had 35-9-7-7-2, and the Bucks’ rookie second round draft pick had a triple double.  Life is beautiful.

PPPS.  My most admired artist was Dylan.  I heard that he also had a pretty good year.

PPPPS.  Under politician most admired I put:

Politicians:  Can’t think of any

This year Gary Johnson stole my line, and 2016 validated my cynicism.

PPPPPS.  OK commenters, any rating that puts Lebron at #10 is garbage, but why do you have to be such killjoys?

There’s good PC and bad PC.  The good PC says you should not go around calling Mexicans “rapists and murders”.  The bad PC is harder to explain, but I tried in this Econlog post.  The real problem is not so much the idea of political correctness, but rather that it is used as a weapon in an ideological war.  More specifically, it’s used by the left to shame the right.  Viewed from this perspective, you could say that if the PC advocates are correct about the need for PC, then it’s actually used far to little. It also needs to be used against the left.  Here’s Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry in The Week:

If there are saints in the church of secular progressivism, the Hollywood Ten are surely among them. These are the individuals who worked in Hollywood and were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer the question, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” — thus becoming political martyrs.

In its popular form, the story of the Hollywood blacklist has been distorted somewhat. While the fear of Communist agitators — a fear not wholly removed from fact — working in Hollywood was used by Sen. Joe McCarthy for opportunistic political motives, the movement was originally launched by private individuals genuinely interested in removing Communist influence from Hollywood, and they did this through peaceful, “non-coercive” means: naming and shaming, boycotts, and threats of boycotts.

Several members of the Hollywood Ten actually were members of the Communist Party and had remained members of the Communist Party even after the Stalinist Purges of the 1930s that removed that party’s credibility in America. That is to say, whatever their other beliefs or intentions, they endorsed the end of liberal democracy and the advent of a global totalitarian government ruled by Joseph Stalin or someone like him. And yet, the idea that such people should be blacklisted is regarded as anathema by the contemporary left. So they are seen as progressive saints.

The problem actually goes far beyond the Hollywood Ten. Much of the 20th century left is morally tainted by being soft on communism (just as much of the right was tainted by being soft on fascism).  Even today, many 20th century artists are revered on the left for being “politically conscious”, when in fact they knowingly supported genocidal communist regimes.  Sorry, but that’s not OK.

I point this out because you may have heard that the renowned Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel, a man whom it is seemingly impossible to refer to without using the word “contrarian,” is a supporter of Donald Trump. After Thiel recently decided to donate $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign, the group Project Include, led by former venture capitalist Ellen Pao, has decided to sever ties, not even with Thiel himself, but with Y Combinator, a renowned Silicon Valley incubator that has named Thiel as a part-time partner.

It seems that on the progressive left, blacklists are only bad when they target a certain group of people.

This helps to explain part of the appeal of Donald Trump.  His supporters see how PCism is used as a cudgel against them, and how large groups of Americans (on the left) are completely exempt from criticism by the cultural elites.  Their resentment pushes them to unfortunate extremes, supporting someone who engages in both the morally justified and morally unacceptable types of political incorrectness.  But it’s entirely predictable that you’d get this sort of backlash.

If the left wants to be taken seriously on political correctness, they need to write an entirely new history of the 20th century.  In this new history, many of their most revered artists will become Leni Riefenstahls.  I don’t think there is anyone on the left that is willing to look history in the eye, in quite that way.  I hope I’m wrong.

PS.  Here’s an example, if you don’t know what I’m talking about.  The 1930 Soviet (Ukrainian) film “Earth” is a fine film on pure aesthetic grounds. (But then the same could be said of Riefenstahl’s films.)  It also has a very sinister subtext, as it portrays kulaks as villains.  Recall that Stalin demonized and murdered them by the millions, just as Hitler demonized and murdered the Jews.  Now let’s consider a typical film review of Earth, this one from “Senses of Cinema” (but you could find another dozen similar ones):

Seen today as the final work in a loose trilogy that also comprises Zvenigora (1928) and Arsenal (1929), Earth is Dovzhenko’s ultimate paean to nature, the land and those who toil on it and whose lives are inextricably bound up with it. The film is literally teeming with grandiose images of the natural world: such as the opening shots of a vast sky and rolling fields, of sunflowers and apples. The farmers collective relationship to this world and its order is immediately established through the juxtaposition of an old man dying (the end of life, of a cycle) and young children (the beginning); the fact that they are eating the apples that lie strewn on the grass further crystallises the sense of a constant, natural cycle of birth, growth and death (as does the justly famous shot of a woman and a sunflower, in which the composition makes them almost graphically contiguous across the frame).

It goes on and on in these glowing terms, with no reference to the sinister implications.  (Imagine the critical response to a typical Nazi-era German film that mocked Jews.)  The humanities in most countries are heavily tainted by their ambiguous relationship with communism.  Lots of people assume that the problem has gone away, now that the Cold War is over.  Not so, it’s as bad as it ever was–indeed getting worse.  Support for communism among millennials is rising fast, with 37% having a favorable view of Che Guevara.  That’s more than for Trump!  You can find posters of Guevara on the walls of faculty offices in many colleges across the country.  Indeed 18% even have a favorable view of Mao.  And liberals can’t imagine how 40% of Americans plan to vote for Trump (some with an unfavorable view of him).

PPS.  My daughter’s high school has a picture of Mao on one of its wall murals.  No picture of Hitler, however.  Seems they don’t care about the feelings of those students whose parents fled communist China.  Maybe Newton, Massachusetts needs a bit more political correctness.

Since Bob Dylan is my all time favorite artist, in any medium, I should probably say something here.  (And what medium is he in?  I don’t believe for a moment this is a Nobel Prize in “literature”; this is a music prize—although perhaps the modern English professors say it’s one in the same.)

Tyler has his list of favorite albums, so here is mine:

1.  Live at Royal Albert Hall (1966)  (Actually Manchester)

2.  Blonde on Blonde

3.  Bringing It All Back Home (side two is the peak of his career)

4.  Highway 61 Revisited

5.  Freewheeling Bob Dylan

6.  Another Side of Bob Dylan

7.  Blood on the Tracks

8.  Street Legal  (most underrated)

9.  Time Out of Mind

10.  New Morning

I generally prefer the visual arts, and don’t have good taste in music.  For instance, I love the sound of Dylan’s voice, whereas Joan Baez singing his songs sounds like nails on a blackboard to me.  Most people seem to believe the opposite.  Go figure.

I’m not a fan of the Nobel Prize in Literature (or the Peace Prize, Academy Awards, etc.) but I guess they are an inevitable part of life. If someone had to win, I’m glad it was Dylan.  We are both from the upper Midwest.

Favorite unreleased songs — She’s Your Lover Now, Blind Willie McTell:

Seen the arrow on the doorpost

Saying, “This land is condemned

All the way from New Orleans

To Jerusalem.”

I traveled through East Texas

Where many martyrs fell

And I know no one can sing the blues

Like Blind Willie McTell

 

Well, I heard the hoot owl singing

As they were taking down the tents

The stars above the barren trees

Were his only audience

Them charcoal gypsy maidens

Can strut their feathers well

But nobody can sing the blues

Like Blind Willie McTell

 

See them big plantations burning

Hear the cracking of the whips

Smell that sweet magnolia blooming

(And) see the ghosts of slavery ships

I can hear them tribes a-moaning

(I can) hear the undertaker’s bell

(Yeah), nobody can sing the blues

Like Blind Willie McTell

.

There’s a woman by the river

With some fine young handsome man

He’s dressed up like a squire

Bootlegged whiskey in his hand

There’s a chain gang on the highway

I can hear them rebels yell

And I know no one can sing the blues

Like Blind Willie McTell

 

Well, God is in heaven

And we all want what’s his

But power and greed and corruptible seed

Seem to be all that there is

I’m gazing out the window

Of the St. James Hotel

And I know no one can sing the blues

Like Blind Willie McTell

PS.  I’d like to see a Venn diagram for the overlap between people who love Bringing it All Back Home and people who voted for Trump in the primaries.

Disney vows to take action over a “Snow White” that appeared in a Chinese theme park:

Walt Disney Co. said it’s prepared to take action to protect its intellectual property rights after performers dressed as Snow White and Captain America were sighted at Dalian Wanda Group Co.’s new theme park and entertainment complex in China.

Imagine if in 1937, you had told someone that 80 years later Disney would be suing someone in China for dressing up like Snow White.  People would have rolled their eyes in disbelief.  In 1937 China was being invaded by Japan, and Snow White was the least of their concerns.

Exactly what sort of intellectual property is being defended here?  And what is the societal benefit from this property?  I suppose one could argue that without 80-years of intellectual property protection, Mr. Disney would have had no incentive to create lovable characters such as Snow White. Except that Snow White is not a Disney creation, the story was written by the Grimm Brothers in 1812 (and they might have been merely retelling folk tales.)

Did Disney pay the estate of the Grimm Brothers back in 1937, for stealing their idea to make a movie?  I don’t know the answer, but I can guess.

OK, so Snow White is not Disney’s intellectual property.  But maybe they should have property rights over the costume she wore in their 1937 film. But is the Chinese Snow White actually wearing that costume?

Now let’s take a look at the Disney Snow White, from the famous 1937 film:

I see lots of differences. One has a tiara and the other has a red ribbon in her hair. One has a solid blue top and the other has a dark blue vest over a light blue blouse with red cross hatching. One has a red bow tie, and the other does not. One looks like a Western woman, the other looks Asian.  One is standing next to Captain America, while the other is surrounded by a bunch of animals.

Update:  Wikipedia describes Snow White as follows:

Some time later, the Good Queen gives birth to a baby daughter with skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony.

Notice that Wanda seems to have found the only young woman in all of China with hair than is not black.  (The non-ivory skin is a bit more excusable, but they could have done better with a young lady from Sichuan, where the skins tend to be very light.)

Even Disney seems to concede that this is not actually Snow White:

We vigorously protect our intellectual property and will take action to address infringement,” the company said in an e-mailed statement Monday in response to Bloomberg News queries about the characters, who resembled ones from Disney. “Our characters and stories have delighted generations, these illegal and substandard imitations unfortunately disappoint all who expect more.

So the social justification for this intellectual property is not to encourage innovation, or even to maximize the flow of money from Asian consumers to wealthy American corporations, but rather to protect the feelings of Chinese kids, who might be disappointed that this doesn’t look like the “real Snow White”, which doesn’t mean the Snow White of the Brothers Grimm, but rather the Snow White of Disney.  Obviously Chinese consumers who chose the Nanchang Wanda theme park over the Shanghai Disneyland would expect exact replicas of Disney figures at Wanda.

Since even Disney concedes that this girl doesn’t look like Snow White, what’s the actual claim here?  Perhaps Disney is claiming that any young Chinese woman wearing a blue top over a yellow skirt is engaged in an homage to Snow White, and should have to pay royalties to Disney.

But who first showed the beauty of the yellow/blue combo?  I’d say Vermeer:

Or Perhaps Mondrian:

[Most readers will want to skip this annoying exercise in boomer nostalgia.  If you are a Zhangke Jia fan then go see “Mountains May Depart” instead, my favorite film of the past year.]

I sometimes think the last half of the 1960s was the most interesting period in my lifetime.  I was a bit too young to have “been there” in a Woodstock sense, but I do recall quite a bit of what happened, especially in 1968.  Since the post will be almost entirely subjective, let me start with a few objective facts.  Here’s a graph of world population growth rates:

Unfortunately I was not able to find a much more interesting graph that I once saw, which went from 10,000 years BC to 10,000 years AD.  It was flat as a pancake near 0% growth for thousands of years, then a very narrow spike up to 2.1% in the late 1960s, and then flat as a pancake near 0% growth for thousands of years into the future.  When people from 10,000 AD look back at this period, it will be seen as the demographic explosion.  (I believe the “notch” right before the peak is the Chinese Great Leap Forward, when 30 million starved to death.  Otherwise the early 1960s would have been the peak 5-year period.)

The late 1960s was also interesting from a political perspective.  Student movements erupted all over the world in 1968.  Back at home, the worst race riots in US history occurred during 1967 and 1968.  The assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King occurred in 1968.  The Tet Offensive in Vietnam occurred in 1968, and pushed LBJ out of office.  Man first visited the moon in 1968, and the first moon landing would have occurred that year, if not for the tragic fire of 1966.  The best sci-fi movie was made in 1968.  The biggest airplane that most of you have ever flown on was first produced in 1968.

The political craziness of 1968 didn’t just come out of nowhere.  I believe that 1966 was the year of “peak idealism” in American history.  A whole raft of highly influential liberal Republicans were elected in 1966, just two years after the Goldwater debacle (Rockefeller, Romney, Scranton, Percy, Lindsey (in 1965), Chafee, Brooke, etc.)  Middle class white men, in both parties, actually believed liberal ideas provided the answer to America’s problems.

We could end poverty, go to the moon, and make Southern California a paradise for drivers.  Truly anything seemed possible.

Today is the 50th anniversary of two important cultural revolutions.  At least important to me and my wife, maybe not to you.  (OK, tomorrow is the anniversary, but it’s already tomorrow in China.)

The late 1960s saw a flood of very innovative pop music albums (Sergeant Pepper, Pet Sounds, Beggars Banquet, Are You Experienced, Led Zeppelin, and an album with a banana on the cover, among others.)  One of the most important, and my all-time favorite studio album, is Blonde on Blonde, released May 16, 1966.  Between 1962 and 1966 Dylan created a lifetime’s worth of musical styles, in 7 studio albums, plus non-album hits (Positively 4th Street) plus unreleased masterpieces (She’s Your Lover Now).

I didn’t start seriously listening to music until the early 1970s, when I was in high school.  What surprised me is that you could generally figure out when a song was produced to within a year of so, just based on the sound.  Styles were changing that fast.  And Dylan’s music always seemed to come out a bit before the rest of the world caught up. I actually think his earlier “Bringing it all Back Home” was his most influential album, and perhaps his best—compare it to other pop music from early 1965—but I love the sound of Blonde on Blonde. (Dylan suggested “The closest I ever got to the sound I hear in my mind was on individual bands in the Blonde on Blonde album. It’s that thin, that wild mercury sound. It’s metallic and bright gold, with whatever that conjures up.”)

BTW, Dylan created that lifetime worth of music before he turned 25.

At the same time that Americans were producing great pop music while getting stoned, the Chinese people were literally getting stoned, at least if they were well educated or if their ancestors were landlords. On the very same day that Blonde on Blonde was released, the Chinese Cultural Revolution began. The eventual death toll is unknown, but certainly an order of magnitude lower than the Great Leap Forward. Nonetheless, in “utility terms” it was one of the most awful things to ever happen. Mao created perhaps the worst society imaginable—at least in urban China.  People were put under enormous psychological stress to inflict great cruelty on their friends and family.  Society doesn’t get much more perverse than that. Even today, China has not fully recovered, and remains a low trust society relative to the US, although things are certainly improving.

Earlier I talked about 1966 representing “peak idealism” in America.  In China, 1966 represented a year when idealism was raised to such a pitch that it ended up being twisted into the exact opposite.  In Chinese culture, losing face is about the worst thing that can happen, and the Cultural Revolution was all about public humiliation.

While my wife was suffering through that period, I was listening to Dylan, who shaped my adolescent mind more than any other artist, in any medium:

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

PS.  I vividly recall wanting to move to California after reading the following National Geographic article, in 1966.  I hated the cold weather in Wisconsin.  When I dug up the article today I was surprised by the date:

Oh yeah, this is supposed to be a monetary blog.  OK, 1966 is when the Great Inflation began, the defining economic event of my life.

The 1960s and 1970s made me a monetarist, and the 1980s made me a market monetarist.