The Economy Of Blood And Gore

If I ever had to seriously consider the meaning of the word economical, I might find myself thinking of two things: the mechanics of markets, or the wranglings of wordsmiths. The former is what most often comes to mind when I consider the social science of economics; the latter might come to mind when considering those writers who are economical with words. Or I might think in terms of frugality and efficiency in anything a person does, be it managing a home budget, a corporation, or the words in a letter to one's mother. I consider a person economical who manages something well, with simplicity and efficiency. An economical person might even be described as bare-boned or stripped-down; a person of the essential and necessary. It would not be too much to say that an economical person is plain, like the rooms at the Just-A-Bed Hotel or the lavatory in the economy-grade motor home.

I once worked with a man, a sweet guy but a notorious pothead, who one morning during break told me a wild tale.

"Heeeeeeyyyy, Billllllyyyyy! This morning, I woke up and looked at my alarm clock. 7:30. Oooops! I got in my Jeep. Zooooooooooom!"

And then he just walked away.

This sort of storytelling is truly economical, unintentionally descriptive by omitting description. I completely "get" the "Zoooooooooom!" It's Hemingway after his morning bong.

In a rather angry and confused moment while writing in my journal during a difficult period of courtship (the woman I thought I was to marry was off looking for meaning in Great Britain for a year), I wrote this "poem", the only entry for the day:

"There is a woman in England who has inspired this sentence."

Now that's an economical use of language, double entendres and all. (By the way, the woman in question is still in England; she found her purpose.)

But for contrast, please check out these three opening paragraphs from a Wall Street Journal op-ed drafted on economics by Al Gore and David Blood. While you read, please meditate on the possibility that Al Gore could be––right now––the President of the United States. I beg you, please read carefully.

Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we have a sustainable economy and society.

The industrial revolution brought enormous prosperity, but it also introduced unsustainable business practices. Our current system for accounting was principally established in the 1930s by Lord Keynes and the creation of "national accounts" (the backbone of today's gross domestic product). While this system was precise in its ability to account for capital goods, it was imprecise in its ability to account for natural and human resources because it assumed them to be limitless. This, in part, explains why our current model of economic development is hard-wired to externalize as many costs as possible.

Externalities are costs created by industry but paid for by society. For example, pollution is an externality which is sometimes taxed by government in order to make the entity responsible "internalize" the full costs of production. Over the past century, companies have been rewarded financially for maximizing externalities in order to minimize costs.

Is that not a gas? I mean, is that not like being gassed to death by sheer verbosity?

I have a rule -- it is not a rule that goes very far -- and it is this: if someone of alleged expertise cannot explain his subject in plain language, he ain't an expert. He is, in short, a dolt, trapped in the complex language of his subject, unable to get out into the fresh air of analogy, metaphor or simile. He is stuck. I once heard an alleged expert during an alpine ski lesson tell his students to "work on the pressurization of your downhill ski," leaving his listeners (I was standing nearby) with the impression that they might have to jam one of their skis into an aerosol can. The ski instructor, a full-time engineer when not on the mountain, was unable to leave the language of engineering to explain something rather simple. Why? Because he did not really understand what he was teaching.

But even if he did thoroughly understand his subject, he did not know the most important rule about communicating: Know thine audience! And like the instructor who thinks everyone in his class is an engineer, Blood and Gore think all of us think and speak in the abstruse language of economic analysis. And yet I am too gracious, for I've read quite a bit of economic writing, and Blood and Gore strike me as being, at least conceptually and linguistically, in over their heads. They may have personal market success; they may be shrewd money-makers and advisors; but they are not communicators.

Here's another gem from their essay, "For People And Planet" (Wall Street Journal, 3/28/06):

...In addition, the rise in shareholder activism and the growing debate on fiduciary responsibility, governance legislation and reporting requirements (such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the EU Business Review) indicate the mainstream incorporation of sustainability concerns.

While we are seeing evidence of leading public companies adopting sustainable business practices in developed markets, there is still a long way to go to make sustainability fully integrated and therefore truly mainstream. A short-term focus still pervades both corporate and investment communities, which hinders long-term value creation.

I am sorry, but does this not border on the comedic? Is this not a parody of economic writing? Is this not Alan Greenspan --whose clearest statements were indecipherable -- playing himself on Saturday Night Live, or perhaps after too strong a dose of Prozac? Or is it a serious piece, written in a style that emulates the often abstruse Greenspan, intended to steal his cachet, a mere rip-off of his reputed erudition? For if words are like products boxed and ready for shipping, then what we are dealing with here is not a glut, it's market oversaturation, unprognosticated capital diminishments, and resource misallocation without due cognizance of market receptivity or consumer reciprocity.

Alas, it is serious, and that is the joke. For all this goes "Zooooooooom!" right over my head, and yet, unlike my pothead friend's words, Blood and Gore's words leave me laughing not at what is left out, but what is left in.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.