"It usually takes a long time for the
symptoms to show up or lead to death. And many
people keep smoking despite the warnings from their
friends until it's too late because there are no symptoms.
I think much of the recent turmoil in currency markets is
in part a manifestation of going off the watered down
gold standard in the early 70s'. (Nixon) Almost every
country that blew up had a large current account deficit
as one symptom. The flow of gold out of a country used
to keep those sorts of imbalances under control. So one
might say that it took 29 years for "this" system to start
coughing. And interesting enough I read articles from
that time that predicted just this sort of stuff."
It's an interesting analogy. But, it doesn't really resolve the quandery that this and similar "the-better-it-looks-the-worse-it-really-is" doomsday scenarios present the researcher. If lack of evidence of a problem is evidence that the problem is in fact worse than ever, what evidence could the researcher ever uncover that would reveal that a supposed problem isn't actually a problem?
Epidemiologists noted skyrocketing lung cancer rates in the first two decades of this century. This was coincident with national distribution of machine-rolled, hence mass produced and consumed, cigarettes. The healthcare community began sounding the alarm very early on.
The tobacco industry, motivated by economic self-interest, insisted there was no established causal link. Early on, they no doubt denounced early anti-tobacco types as dangerous religious fanatics or communists or whatever (and perhaps some were).
And, as you say, lots of other things were going on, like more people living long enough to get cancer in the first place, increased air pollution from other sources, etc. It took until 1964, and millions upon millions of deaths, before there were enough large scale studies that the Surgeon General said the link had been demonstrated.
So these circumstances are analogous. But this doesn't mean smokers don't have any symptoms until they actually get cancer. On the contrary, smokers generally have loads of symptoms from the first cigarette, which only accumulate as the years pass, but chose to ignore them or else "whistle past the graveyard" with various spurious rationalizations.
Let's take example: sugar. I hesitate to bring this up, for fear that some advocate of the sugar-is-worse-than-aresenic school will feel compelled to (unintentionally) confirm what I am saying.
In the late 19th Century, a slightly nutty Scotsman, ironically named Graham, decided that sugar, particularly refined sugar, was the cause of all manner of ailments. Hence, he developed the Graham Cracker (which, as a child, I found to be memorably unappealing as a snack food).
To this day, there are many people who accept the evils of sugar as gospel truth. When it is pointed out that none of the The New York Times' health reporters can find any evidence of this, the explanation given is that the Times accepts advertising from food companies that poison their products with refined sugar, and thus surpresses the information. When it is pointed out that Consumer Reports does not accept advertising yet still finds no such link, the reason given is that CR is "looking for evidence in the wrong places." No evidence ever disproves the thesis.
Of more current note is the dispute over silicon implants. Obviously, Dow Chemical and other silicon implant makers have every reason to cover up the supposed link between implants and autoimmune disease. But, independent female research scientists have declared the link doesn't exist. Yet, the demonization of the implant makers by the plaintiff's bar, along with that by sincere "activists", has brought about the transfer of great sums of wealth, with little more justification than that the transferees have serious ailments and the tranferors are rich, greedy, and prone to lie when it conveniences them to do so.
As to seeming economic panaceas that eventually become nightmares, the most notorious case is the Soviet Union. For a generation or two, it looked like all curves were pointing up, especially to those who wanted to celebrate, as well as those who wanted to sound the alarm over, these achievements.
But, there were significant problems all along. The excuse of the damage of WWII was mocked by the relative success of Japan and West Germany. The USSR had more natural resources than any country in the world. Yet, Japan,more or less an archipelago of rocks, surpassed them in GDP in the 1970's.
Eventually catastrophe resulted. A lot of "experts" were surprised. And, a lot of "fanatics" were not. But, there had been lots of *dramatic* symptoms of economic decline for those who were willing to see them, like famines and shortages in almost everything else, and falling life expectancy (as far back as the 1970's), not to mention shooting people in the back who were trying to escape.
On the other hand, there is Western Europe. Sure, they are much less efficient than the U.S. And, government and union overregulation discourages new hiring -- hence double digit unemployment that is especially concentrated among the young who have never have been hired in the first place. But, the unemployed get food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. The best in the world? No. Better than the poorest of the poor in the U.S.? Everything I've read claims: yes. Are there growing problems? Sure. Will painful adjustments be necessary. Definitely. Is it all just an illusion that must result in an equal and offsetting poverty to pay for two generations of "false prosperity"? I doubt it.
Why so much on this? Because statistical correlation is not necessarily causality. And that's really the issue at hand. What indicia reliably predict undervaluation, and what are mere statistical coincidences that cannot be depended upon to repeat. There is always a certain leap-to-faith necessary to believe in causality in a world of limitless variables. But, it takes almost blind faith to do so when the evidence requires generations to manifest itself. |
