On Math, Genes, Patents and Graeber

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 13th, 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Person? *