:Fixed Point

Monty Python had a celebrated sketch in which a self-proclaimed dinosaur expert, Ann Elk, propounded her theory of Brontasuaruses When repeatedly asked by the interviewer for the details of her theory, she finally answers

All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH
thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the
far end. That is the theory that I have and which
is mine, and what it is too

Oliver James has come out with his own Pythonesque musings on depression (“affluenza”) based on his Elkian observation that inequality is associated with a mental illness characterised by consumption for its own sake and pursuit of transient trappings like fame.

I have discovered that citizens of English-speaking nations are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as ones from mainland western Europe 

Ergo, money can’t buy you happiness. The Python analogy extends further however: James’ combination of anecdote, statistical evidence, political rhetoric and wild association amounts to an episode of delirium unmatched by the British comedy troupe; it is often unclear whether he is arguing against inequality per se (never mind inequality of what) or capitalism. True his endeavour appears scientific; he makes an observation, that mental illness is correlated positively with inequality. From this he draws an inference: that inequality (or selfish capitalism) causes inequality, and finally he tests this with additional research. But in failing to consider alternative explanations and not linking his policy recommendations to the problem, his work fails as science and economics. Moreover, the keen reader will know only too well the real object of James ire, of which more later. In any case, this work has to be seen in the same context as the recent happiness research, and the theory of affluenza perhaps as a realisation of Galbraith’s predictions in The Affluent Society.  James goes much further than these authors however.

Daniel Finkelstein and Tim Worstall have already made several telling criticisms, particularly pointing out correlation says nothing about causation. This titbit from statistics 101 is fed regularly to politicians but it is galling to remind a trained social scientist of this fact. That richer states have higher reported instances of mental illness might merely mean that richer people have a greater tendency to self-report neuroticism than the poor. Indeed, the entire foundation of Freudian psychoanalysis is built on such a bias problem. The association may also be nothing more “innocuous” that the distress experienced by successful people who think they have more to lose by “failing’ in their careers, or not living up to the aspirations of others. Or indeed, there may be a third or fourth factor that explains the correlation. James’ response to his criticism is to remind us that it is not inequality itself but selfish capitalism that is the cause of mental illness, inequality being a consequence. He dismisses, in passing, the genetic basis of mental illness as too simplistic, in favour of his own one-dimensional basis with an irony and arrogance that only a tv psychologist who’s upset that everyone is after fame could come up with. In any case, if he truly believes that a selfish form of capitalism is creating mindless unsatisfied consumers then his policy proposals – reducing inequality through massive wealth transfers – are aimed at treating the symptom, not the cause. Thus the defence of his argument is disingenuous. Hardly professional clinical practice if you’re genuinely interested in the long-term health of patients. Perhaps most laughable in terms of scientific evidence, he points, as support for his policy of giving every family with a child under three the average minimum wage, to a survey suggesting families given this amount of (other peoples’) money, say they would spend it on childcare, rather than Nike trainers and fake LV handbags. Not since the unfortunate duping of Margaret Mead has any social scientist been told so much of what they wanted to hear.

We must presume then, because he gives us few reasons to think otherwise, that James thinks inequality is the real problem. How true is this? To further support his theory, he turns to anecdote and interviews with selected people. Again a significant failing in a work that purports to be science. He compares the mild neuroticism and insecurity of a self-made billionaire with the average level of mental illness in Denmark; he contrasts the attitudes of a specific young, attractive, professional Russian banker with average consumerist Brits caught on a consumerist treadmill. Comparing outliers of one group to the average of another is a subtle rhetorical trick but unfortunately does not have the validity that James ascribes to it.  His story is this (article from Saturday Times, sorry, no link): The Russian girl comes from a country that doesn’t have the structure that would make it suffer from affluenza, hence she doesn’t. Here’s my take on his data: an evidently educated Russian women has enough of an education to know that ones life and objectives in it are unlikely to be satisfied by transient things as money and fame; she has instead focused on fulfilling her aspirations through her work which is how she gets satisfaction. Same data, different story, but surely mine is more plausible and correct?

True, there is a story about inequality and mental well-being, but it’s not the story James is telling, which is that capitalism is to ‘blame’ and increased benefits are the answer. I received my very first lesson in economics when I was 16; that lesson was that economics is about trade-offs, ergo there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, we have inequality, and that may cause friction, job insecurity and dislocation and may even lead to increased mental illness. But reducing it will entail a cost, most likely in freedom. Whether that inequality has become so wide that it’s worth paying the cost is really an empirical question that James doesn’t address except with vague comparisons to Denmark. He doesn’t consider the alternatives. Wouldn’t greater state control and say in economic transactions also create mental illness? Inequality is an inevitable trade-off if we are to have a world in which Oliver James get to appear on TV and sell books and I don’t. But that doesn’t mean that we should blindly accept worsening mental illness. There is an appropriate policy response. He displays the professionals’ arrogance that their cause is the only cause worth pursuing - my dentist would also prefer me to have perfect teeth, at astronomical cost, whereas I would like to have OK teeth at a reasonable cost. Mental health is clearly important if we are to engage with and exploit the economic system so James is at least right to point out that worsening mental health requires some sort of response.

The form of that response though depends on what you think is unequal. In James world, incomes and wealth are unequal so correct those and hey presto! Job done. In the real world, incomes may be unequal due to a host of economic and social factors which we’ll call, for argument’s sake, globalisation. Globalisation may make it difficult for individuals to access opportunities that they could before, thus causing income inequalities. For a sensible policy response, I can recommend reading the economist Janet Yellen’s speech to the Centre for the Study of Demoracy. She talks about giving workers support and opportunities for retraining to manage job dislocation. Returning to an earlier point exemplified by the female Russian banker, and drawing on Lord Layard’s proposals, perhaps we could also remind our kids that happiness doesn’t come from money. Of course, it would have to be more indirect than an Orwellian inculcation – opportunities to achieve goals through teamwork and so on. The Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, also made recent similar comments about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity. In short, inequality of wealth is too simplistic and in any case a symptom of more important issues that yes, may threaten the wider balance of different forms of capitalism.

So, what is James’ real gripe? Why this overblown political rhetoric, with its Bratchers and Blatchers and demagogic posturing. The clue is in his casual dismissal of the genetic basis of depression and his not so subtle championing of state-led remedies to cure society’s ills. There is, in James, a fear that unless this rampant form of capitalism is destroyed, it will confirm his worst fears, that perhaps a capitalist system, like many extensions of our character, is somehow an inevitable result arising from our nature. James, you see, has no time whatsoever for the view that our essentially biological and evolutionary history can inform our behaviour today. He knocks the economic system because it represents, in extremis, the selfish gene’s view of the world write large, and it’s no secret that Dawkins, Dennett or Darwin would not be on James Christmas card list.

Most evolutionary psychologists have little trouble believing that our present sophisticated mental and social state (by which I mean our invention of agriculture and societal living) had a lot to do with our extreme preference for cooperation and altruism, governed ultimately by selfishness. All animals share this trait but at some point in our distant past, we occupied a niche whereby it was beneficial enough to trust strangers, as well as kin, so long as you were sure you might get something back. The potential to piggy back was obviously immense so in our niche, we developed a sophisticated armoury to detect and admonish cheaters; show sincerity; deceive ourselves and others and generally recognise when something is likely to be a good deal or not. Remember, we went through all this pain because reciprocity paid off. For reciprocity read mutual exchange of trade and for that read capitalism.   A necessary conclusion of this story is that our different genetic endowments give us comparative advantage in economic terms; some of us have plenty to bargain with, some little. Many of us will see our comparative advantage grow or erode over time. A few, like Tiger Woods, will always be able to command the best terms for exchange of their goods. This happens today but our institutions like education can obviously affect our endowment. In fact, Oliver James, like me, is a living example of this. He writes books for publication, appears on TV and is courted by politicians. I am not. Bully for him.

James would prefer to believe that we all start out as equals, so resulting inequality must be due to some injustice; the wealthy must have gotten their gains by evil means. The successful must have rigged the system. Vengeance must be the response and certainly James manifesto comes across as revolutionary arm-waving to make fund managers quake in their loafers. Now capitalism is not perfect by any means. And I’m not committing the naturalistic fallacy by claiming that it is ‘good’ and ‘right’ just because our ancestors practised a primitive form of it; it is good and right because it has proven to deliver opportunity and wealth to individuals like no other system.

Furthermore, if James is correct, and inequality is down to unfairness rather than individual differences, then to make things less unequal, we should treat people differently. This sets up a conflict between material equality and equality of opportunity. Which is more important? My belief is that you provide support for people’s terms of trade, helping them access a capitalism system which is so necessary and, I would argue, an inevitability if we want to be happy individuals. Material equality, as Dan F points out, may actually make things worse as far as outdoing the Joneses goes.

James though would have none of these evolutionary arguments. He evidently thinks that capitalism, like ‘consumerism’, can be unlearnt; that people can respond to a new system, perhaps stepping off that treadmill. But he’s confusing two issues: change of a fundamental aspect of our nature (I would argue impossible as far as our economic system is concerned) and a change in the object of our nature. Thus we may be able to focus on objectives other that monetary gain, but we will be happier if we do it though a system of voluntary exchange.

Ultimately James’ ideas come across as nothing more than a hastily written sixth form essay that compensates for its poor substance through political polemic and populist admonishment of easy targets. With our current political opposition obviously keen to trade in any psychobabble, perhaps it’s too much to hope for that his latest work is dismissed as nonsense.