My latest book The Surprising Design of Market Economies, ranges across a variety of subjects all under the rubric of how we make markets, so it should not be surprising that current events and articles touch on its themes frequently. Last week was particularly bountiful though.

In the June 16 edition of The New York Times, Alice Crary and W. Stephen Wilson argue that reformers in math education have gone too far, weeding out the content in their efforts to teach students to think and not just “plug and chug,” as my epidemiologist sister says. This mirrors the arguments I make in chapter seventeen on education, where I side with the cultural literacy camp led by E.D. Hirsch, who says we need to teach content in history, science and civics, and not just skills. Crary and Wilson make the same argument for math, and actually bring up history and biology to prove their points. The two academics say math works the same way. You can’t isolate understanding mathematical concepts from the “algorithms” needed to do practical problems. Fascinating, and I of course agree with them, to the extent that I can on mathematics.

On June 13^th, the U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision when it barred patenting human genes, by a snappy 9-0. Supreme Court Prohibts Patenting Genes. This is great, because it starts to limit our over-extended and over-applied patent powers. But I would have preferred if Congress had taken this action. As I say in chapter six, the history of the patent system shows how it is a political invention. Thus its basic structure should be regularly held up to the light of democratic debate, to see whether it’s actually making life better for the society that creates and supports it. When we award a patent, we are awarding a special grant of government power, and it should not be done lightly.

Finally, and only tangentially related to current events, I finished reading David Graeber’s book Debt: The First 5000 Years. As I said in a previous post, it’s a fascinating book and Graeber has clearly given us a useful lens – debt – with which to view and understand history. Graeber and I agree on a lot, including that markets require states. As I say in this previous post, Graeber has given some really useful ammunition to those of who say market’s aren’t “natural.” Graeber and I also agree that there is a layer of cooperation, or what Graeber calls “communism,” that underlies more competitive, market-based systems. As Graeber points out, we don’t ask someone to pay in exchange for giving them directions. We are similar again in that he, like me, is not so much arguing for a particular solution as a way of seeing the world. He also has filled the book with startling quotes and facts that make you want to jot them down for further use.

Where Graeber and I differ is our view of the state itself. I would say that Graeber sees the state as largely an instrument of oppression, and of extracting the work of the many for the benefit of the few, through that instrument called debt. In contrast, I believe a democratically elected and empowered government is the primary tool we have for creating a healthier, happy society for everyone and not just an elite. We do, after all, have better education, water and overall health than a century or two ago. Graeber argues his point of view well but for now I’ll stick with mine.

Whether by design or not, The New York Times editorial section in the last week has practically lent their pages out to folks who support the current status-quo of private, for-profit companies being the principal providers of internet, phone, television and other services. (I have argued the opposite, as you can see here.) Today on June 21, 2013, Lowell C. McAdam, chairman of Verizon, described how everything is fine with the regulation, or lack of it, in telecommunications. Less than a week earlier, Richard Bennett, who criticized my column in Governing, used some of the same arguments in the Times to defend the conduct and performance of the major telecommunications companies. I spoke about that in an earlier blog a few days ago.

Both McAdam and Bennett are right in some of the particular facts they cite about Europe, but they are putting them together  in ways I know or suspect or misleading.  Both call out Susan Crawford, who I quote supportively, as being in the wrong. Neither mention municipal fiber optic networks. Why give something energy that you oppose and which would be helped by any exposure?

One question I keep having is just who funds the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), where Bennett is a fellow. To me, Bennett appears to be carrying water for the major telecommunication companies, and knowing who funds the ITIF would help complete this picture, although I know fellows don’t always walk in lockstep with their institutes. Its communication director, William Dube, would only say it received money from “a number of government agencies, foundations and corporations.” But board membership is usually a good indication of funding. ITIF’s 24-member board has representatives from Cisco, IBM, HP, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Oracle, Intuit, Intel and Apple. Many of these representatives represent “government affairs” division of their companies, which I assume means they are lobbyists. What I did not see were representatives from TimeWarner, Comcast and other big companies that make money providing Internet, telephone and cable access. Does this mean that ITIF funders have no material interest in  promoting the pro-cable and telephone company views Bennett is espousing? I don’t know.

The ITIF is led by Richard Atkinson, whose credentials include project director in the 1990s at the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, which produced the report The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America. I still have a copy of that report. Coincidentally, I wrote admiringly of this report in 1995 as a staff writer for The Virginian-Pilot, close to two decades ago now. I was a meticulous reporter back then, and I actually interviewed Atkinson from his home. He was there  after the Republicans had closed down the office he led. Through the magic of the Internet you can see that article of mine here. What I wrote seemed to be one of the only journalistic treatments of the report, and it was picked up by various newspapers around the country. Perhaps Atkinson and I should have a sit down.

Richard Bennett, the same one who criticized my column in Governing arguing for municipal fiber optic networks, had an op-ed in today’s New York Times that used some of the same arguments to criticize those who are critical of this country’s internet service. I am going to try to find the time to do a point by point rebuttal of Bennett, who excels at what appears to me at first glance rhetorical slight of hand, but for now I’d like simply to ask what is Bennett arguing for, or rather, against? To answer my own question, he appears to be implicitly arguing against greater oversight or control of the big telecommunications companies, from  Verizon to Time Warner to Comcast, that are usually brought up when people talk about slow and expensive internet speeds. A lot to me would be clearer if I knew who funds the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, where Bennett is a fellow. I suspect it gets a lot of money from these companies I mentioned, or parties associated with them. I don’t know though, because I’ve been unable to find out. If anyone does know, drop me an email.

This was a nice present that came out on my wedding anniversary. Ms. Cleveland gets it just right in this review of my latest book in The Huffington Post.

I have encountered the primal myth of money and markets many times when talking about my most recent book, The Surprising Design of Market Economies. I tell people that the state, that is government, creates markets. Inevitably someone in the audience comes back with, “Yeah, but markets are natural. Thousands of years ago, before formal governments, two farmers were trading or swapping goats for bricks, or cheese for tools, and so on.” It’s an important question for a number of reasons, but one of them is that  this idea that markets or at least market trading behavior is a basic aspect of human nature is the foundation myth of of both classical economics, and of Libertarianism. But even average, seemingly non-political and non-economics oriented people seem to hold some version of this belief.

David Graeber, in his new book Debt: The First 5000 Years, does a very good job as exposing this foundational myth for the fantasy that it is. Graeber, an anthropologist by training, shows that no primitive tribe or early people have ever acted this way, at least that has been found. He shows that those friendly to classical economists, who tend to talk about markets as natural, have spent effort trying to find such people with their natural markets, and have failed.

I talk a lot in my book about how governments create markets. Indeed, that is its central thesis. But I only address the fallacy of the of primal myth of markets in passing.  I didn’t have the knowledge and expertize that Graeber has accumulated from his years of research, to show exactly how classical economists are wrong in this regard. Graeber even takes on the master himself, Adam Smith, and convincingly so.

Graeber exposes the inaccuracy of the primal myth of markets as part of his larger thesis in showing what are the origins of markets, in an economic sense. Graeber says not only that markets are a creation of the state, but that markets begin with debt, which in turn was usually created by the state. It’s an interesting theory, and he does a good job supporting it.

I’m just beginning the book, so I won’t pass any final judgments here, but so far I’m impressed by how readable Graeber is, and how succinctly and simply Graeber writes about what are often complex subjects, while using well sourced examples to illustrate his thesis. My hat, so far, is off to Graeber.

I had my first experience today on the new New York bike share plan, https://citibikenyc.com/, and it was mostly positive.

I walked over to the check out post at 11th and 2nd Avenue, near my office at Union Square, here in NYC. It took me awhile to figure out how to check out the bike with my little key. The instructions beside the slot were completely wrong. They referred to punching in 5 numbers on the key pad. I had no five numbers, and there was no keypad. What’s up with that? All I had to do was put my blue fob into the slot. Then the light flashed green and I could lift it out. But all the talk about five numbers and a keypad confused me. And the bike would not come out. Luckily, someone else was checking in a bike, and she showed me how you had to lift the bike from the back to get it out. That worked. But I bet a lot of people will have trouble with that.

Then I was off, going down the bike lane on 2nd Avenue. My first big complaint was one I suspected. The bike didn’t fit me. I had put the seat all the way up, but still my knees were almost level at the top of the pedal cycle. That’s too bad for me. I am hardly a usual size. I’m six foot seven, and I have extra long legs, even for someone my height. Maybe I could buy a booster seat, or make one. Seriously.

But leaving that aside, the little bike road well. I made it to Delancey street, and turned left, aiming for the Williamsburg bridge. My plan was to go across, and then check the bike in somewhere around hip-central in Williamsburg. I figured if the bike wasn’t handling, or I got tired, I could turn around. I also was keeping an eye on the time. As a annual member, I had 45 minutes. Given the moderate pace I was traveling, that might be tight. I hit the bridge, and started pedaling. It was slow going, and tiring, on a bike that didn’t fit me. But eventually I hit the middle of the bridge, over the East River, and then coasted down. I then made my way pretty easily to a docking station at Metropolitan and Bedford. I docked my bike easily, in one of two open docks available. This was a weird thing. Of the scores of docking slots, only two or so were free. Virtually no one had checked out a bike in Williamsburg. That surprised me. I  thought all these hipsters would rush to it. Maybe they are all sleeping in, or the blue bikes aren’t artisanal enough for them. Whatever. I looked at my watch. 33 minutes had passed. I had made it. But if I had been on a day pass, I would not have, and would have been charged extra. Maybe the city should make it 45 minutes for everyone, or even an hour. After docking the bike, I walked down Bedford, and surveyed the scene.

My first time bike share experience was mostly good, as I said. My biggest and most pleasant surprise revolved around what it was like to use a bike, but not to be tethered to it. Usually when I take out the bike I own, it’s like a date I can’t get rid of.  With Citibikes, when I got tired of my date, I could leave her behind. Or to switch metaphors, the bicycle was a movable feast. I could ride over to Williamsburg, dock the bike, and then forget about it. If I wanted to return to Manhattan, I could check out a different bike, at the same docking station or a different one. This was very nice. I could see mobile, independent New Yorkers get very used to this. I bet creative types will invent all sorts of way to use these share bikes, in ways not imagined.

Some other thoughts. I wore no helmet, not having one with me. My decision to go and try out the new Citibikes was a spontaneous one. Not wearing a helmet was on my mind, no pun intended, due to certain occurrences lately. How could we make it easier to wear a helmet? Maybe someone could invent a collapsible, foldable bicycle helmet! Maybe it already exists! Something made of little panels. I could then stuff it in my briefcase, and get it out when needed. Yes! I just found this on the internet. Seems to be a work in progress: http://mashable.com/2013/01/30/folding-bike-helmet/

Despite views on bike helmets too involved to summarize here, I’m increasingly thinking that New York is just too dangerous to bicycle in without a helmet. If New York were Amsterdam or Copenhagen, I’d have a different opinion and heartily endorse helmetless cycling. But we ain’t Amsterdam, by a long shot. But how do you easily get helmets to people who need them? It’s a challenge. And how do you change the behavior of drivers, who are the ones who necessitate wearing helmets? It’s also, a challenge.