This paper (pdf) by Andrew Abel and colleagues points out that a rational investor would, for long periods, not pay attention to the stock market. But surely, what’s true for the stock market is even more true for (Westminster) politics - rational people should ignore it.
This is simply because the costs of following politics are large - it arouses negative emotions such as anger or depression - whilst the benefits of doing so are small; it’s not as if you can do much about the failings of our political system. Utility maximization, then, urges us to ignore politics.
So, what would be wrong with someone who avoids, as far as possible, all political knowledge - they don’t buy a newspaper, ignore political websites, don’t watch TV news, turn off the radio when the news comes on, and so on?
The obvious answer is that paying attention to politics isn’t a matter of narrow utility maximizing. We should do so because virtue requires it. Being a good citizen requires us to follow politics.
But does it? There’s a long tradition of people shunning public life: monks, hermits, Voltaire advising us to cultivate our gardens, MacIntyre urging us to retreat into local communities. And what’s virtuous about wishing to impose one’s own ego and limited knowledge onto the rest of society?
Nor is it the case that ignorance about politics need, in principle, be associated with general ignorance or incuriosity. It’s perfectly possible in principle to be very informed and cultured on all sorts of matters whilst paying no attention to politics - just as one can be clever and cultivated whilst being ignorant about, say, fruit flies or medieval plainchant*.
So, shouldn’t we consider the feasibility and desirability of opting out of interest in politics? Of course - to paraphrase Trotsky - we might not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. But it doesn’t follow that we must reciprocate, does it?
* This is not my own position. For me, there's a close parallel between politics and stock market investing, in the sense that both are interesting not as things to do, but because they provide us with ways of studying human behaviour. But I can fully appreciate that people needn't share my intellectual tastes.
This is simply because the costs of following politics are large - it arouses negative emotions such as anger or depression - whilst the benefits of doing so are small; it’s not as if you can do much about the failings of our political system. Utility maximization, then, urges us to ignore politics.
So, what would be wrong with someone who avoids, as far as possible, all political knowledge - they don’t buy a newspaper, ignore political websites, don’t watch TV news, turn off the radio when the news comes on, and so on?
The obvious answer is that paying attention to politics isn’t a matter of narrow utility maximizing. We should do so because virtue requires it. Being a good citizen requires us to follow politics.
But does it? There’s a long tradition of people shunning public life: monks, hermits, Voltaire advising us to cultivate our gardens, MacIntyre urging us to retreat into local communities. And what’s virtuous about wishing to impose one’s own ego and limited knowledge onto the rest of society?
Nor is it the case that ignorance about politics need, in principle, be associated with general ignorance or incuriosity. It’s perfectly possible in principle to be very informed and cultured on all sorts of matters whilst paying no attention to politics - just as one can be clever and cultivated whilst being ignorant about, say, fruit flies or medieval plainchant*.
So, shouldn’t we consider the feasibility and desirability of opting out of interest in politics? Of course - to paraphrase Trotsky - we might not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. But it doesn’t follow that we must reciprocate, does it?
* This is not my own position. For me, there's a close parallel between politics and stock market investing, in the sense that both are interesting not as things to do, but because they provide us with ways of studying human behaviour. But I can fully appreciate that people needn't share my intellectual tastes.
I like to think of a kind of demand curve for interest in politics. Most people won't pay attention, as long as things are going OK. Which is the genius of [representative] democracy - they can come out to vote when the government starts behaving badly enough, without having to care the rest of the time.
Posted by: Mr Art | June 07, 2009 at 05:37 PM
As at present, political news can be unspeakably boring and even rather pointless when froth predominates over substance. But the FT reports political developments because those who make business decisions want the best informed assessments about likely future business environments.
It matters whether we have the prospect of a government likely to engage in contracyclical fiscal and monetary policies, a proactive competition policy or, at extreme possibilities, whether Britain is likely to withdraw from the EU or sign up to join the Eurozone in the near future.
Posted by: Bob B | June 07, 2009 at 06:24 PM
Just in case any readers from afar missed this latest piece of news:
"The 'peasants' revolt' against Gordon Brown appeared on the back foot today as opponents of the Prime Minister's leadership appeared flagging and divided over tactics."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6451154.ece
Posted by: Bob B | June 07, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Paying attention to politics is really the only way to avoid the periodic outbursts of violence and high taxes that activist governments produce.
Posted by: Rob Spear | June 08, 2009 at 02:33 AM
what is derivatives in stock market,how it is different from equity shares?
Posted by: oil exploration | June 18, 2009 at 06:56 AM
I loved the editorial. It is very interesting. Thank you for the information. I will be back.
Posted by: quick cash | October 21, 2009 at 05:55 PM
This is just one idea, and perhaps displays no more than my limited imagination. If there are better ideas out there, that amount to more than "implement something called "market socialism" and then - alacazam! - full employment!" then I'd love to hear them. http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html
Posted by: omega watches | December 27, 2009 at 05:15 PM