The Awesome Science of Chinonomics

" Postmodernism " started it all. That "liberating" doctrine initiated the quest for the exaltation of the self. I'm entitled to my own opinion. I will not be a conformist. Look how passionate I am!  Doing things out of anger (er, I mean, out of "passion") started being more important than accepting objective reality, because no one wanted to be the dull robot who followed the rules. Individualism --uniqueness-- was cool . There used to be a time when we accepted that we couldn't assimilate all the information available around us (because, logically, we couldn't  experience it all  for ourselves), so we outsourced that knowledge to a credible source. We took it from them, at face value. We trusted. But oh, no. Postmodernist gave us agency. We now know better. Our guts tell us so. With time and the inflated prominence of one's (and most importantly, one's opinions)  worth came the disdain for the un witnessed fact, and the privile...

Broadcast speech is a public good. Like air. You don't really see it, but it's there; permeating every aspect of your life. You silently feed off of it. You pollute it, and you mess it up for everyone else around you. You know it's dirty. You know it's toxic, and you try to avoid the malicious part of it, but it's always there, a nagging background noise that drones and drones incessantly, chipping away at your sanity. No one really wants to be in charge of keeping it clean, because it's next to impossible to do it. Yes, some high-level, clumsily written rules exist, but nothing that really prevents you or anyone else from spoiling it for everybody else. Oh, yes. The slippery slope argument. You can't contain free speech in any form because then you have to forbid all  speech under this magically simplistic view. And no one wants to live in an oppressive society, right? God forbid someone is forced to use some basic common sense to avoid mocking the...

It seems these days that the United States is not living its best days as the world's sole hegemonic superpower. From the way the Syrian crisis has been dealt  with, to the way the drone wars have changed the meaning of military conflict, to the embarrassing release of formerly secret espionage programs  that force the president to apologize to foreign leaders. The reputation of the U.S. seems to be taking beating after beating. Yet, despite all this, the role of the U.S. in the world is idealized by many in the U.S. as the paragon of collective virtue and liberty. American Exceptionalism  still thrives . The society of the rule of law --the Land of The Free. Outside the U.S., humankind yearns for a leader. A nation to look up to for guidance and hope --a preserver or global stability. The decades that followed the fall of the USSR have given way to the concoction of multiple purported superpowers that could, like Ivan Drago  to our beloved Rocky, crush the U.S. ...

The king of Qatar recently resigned from his post. According to the people with knowledge of the politics of the region, his health was in a very weak state, rendering the effectiveness of his actions meager. He declined in favor of his 33 year old son, who according to people in touch with the politics of the region has a very pro-western stance. Much like the abdication of the Qatari royal, the markets recently witnessed the initial steps leading up to the abdication of our monetary dictator. His actions were increasingly perceived as ineffective . Each decree carried less and less weight. After our MIT-trained monetary autocrat came out with the latest decree --that the Fed will very likely begin to withdraw the cash injections into the economy-- the markets reacted , although not exactly in the way our beloved leader wished . The old status quo , whereby the movements in the financial world were a direct consequence of the latest ruling of the monetary dictator, was shattered...

Elections are over. SuperPAC's bidding wars for the oval office have ended, marking the beginning of the new electoral cycle. The sheer cost of this year's election and its result prompts many questions. Will the Republicans have to rethink their stance and diversify their reliance on a shrinking white male voter population? Is the personalization of corporations ' influence on elections a pernicious one? Some people might be tempted to rationalize the astronomical figure by downplaying it. "America spends more on Halloween candy  than on political campaigns." That may be true, but what about the fact that campaign spending has grown 12.4 times faster than overall US population in the last 12 years? People still decided whom to vote for in 2000 with $6/per person spent by political campaigning. This time around they spent $13.34/per person. It is clear that the current election model, coupled with the  mediatization  of  politics, pro...