Radical Objects
Why Economists Should Listen to More Fiction Podcasts
Small spoiler warnings for the Witchever Path story “Dross,” specifically in its premise
And I should disclose that I had the distinct honor of working with the production, voicing a character on the “Catamount” storyline
Introduction: No, This Essay Probably Doesn’t Need to Exist
While I must remain vague about the details for the sake of my privacy, I can say that I enjoy my day job greatly. It’s fairly easy, my manager is reasonable, the pay is decent, and--most of all--I get to be an intellectual leech, sucking knowledge from a very sturdy academic community. I can attend any number of lectures, borrow seemingly any book in existence, and attend the office hours of top scholars, all without actually being a student. The term ‘intellectual leech’ is something I came up with as a self-deprecating way of celebrating my good fortune, and I minimize it because this benefit should not matter in a labor economy where employers are actively looking for any way to compensate their employees without actually paying them. However, for someone who has more academic leanings but an incompatibility with the life of an academic, having access to mentally stimulating content through my job is a great resolution to my oddly specific problem.
This isn’t to say that I absorb everything presented to me without critical thought, but it does mean that I’m not in the best situation to voice my concerns. There are some lectures I’ve silently sat through while stewing in my seat, lamenting the time wasted by what I’m tempted to call an unredeemable presentation. In my opinion, my silence is a deliberate choice and not something socially assigned–though I recognize the validity of a contrary opinion–and I choose it for a few reasons. On one hand, despite my feelings, no lecture is a complete waste of time, even if it feels like it is in the moment. There is some sort of intellectual stimulation there, even if it just leads to rejection rather than any form of absorption. On the other hand, it is not the time and place for me to hop onto a soapbox. While I am more than welcome to ask questions and engage, my diatribe wouldn’t be a productive use of anyone’s time–which would be a tad ironic, all things considered. It’s a fine line, and because I am unsure about the balance, I err on the side of caution and remain quiet.
This sort of situation unfortunately happened with a presentation by one of the two authors of Radical Markets (2018), Eric A Posner and E. Glen Weyl. For the sake of my privacy, I will remain vague as to which author it was. However, let me be abundantly clear that this was not an issue with the presentation style or the presenter but the argument itself, an argument that was closely aligned with one found in their book.
The book features a few different “radical redesigns” of society; all of which are based on the author’s idea of incorporating the logic of an auction into daily life (Posner & Weyl, 2018, xvi and xviii). The preface of the book outlines the most prominent of these ideas, which was the focus of the presentation I heard. Assume that there are laws to ensure minimal disruptions to your daily life and incentives are in place to ensure you maintain some level of care for what is currently in your possession, what if your city were perpetually up for sale? Through an app on your phone, you could buy any other piece of land or significant resource at any time as well as receive the funds generated from the sale of anything that was formally yours. To an extent then, private property would become public or quasi-public, but that could have its benefits, some more obvious than others. As an example, by the author’s estimations, it would limit land misuse. The developer with the most prosperous plans would be willing to pay more for a specific plot of land or housing development, buying it right out from under a slumlord. Hoarding resources would be made harder by this same logic, and city planning decisions would not be made by corruptible or outright corrupted officials but by an impersonal bidding war.
There are other elements at play besides this land claiming/reclaiming and related development. Taxation, for one, would be more efficient. In this partial common ownership, as the authors understand it, the price of a piece of land or other substantive goods would be determined by the person in possession of it currently, and this assigned value would be the value they pay tax on. In this self-assessment, individuals put forth a value of their goods much like they do in our current model. But rather than proving it like we must do or risk fines or imprisonment, the proverbial enforcement stick is the risk of someone buying the good from you without warning. As an example, let’s say I purchased a chateau and now need to pay property taxes on it. Rather than providing documentation to prove what I paid or that I paid what the place was worth, I would declare the value, knowing that if I underbid–while I might save some money on my taxes–I would be bought out by someone else who thought being more open about the value had its benefits. Then again, maybe I don’t want to keep the place. Or rather, I value my capital more than I do the chateau. Maybe I don’t receive that much value from the place. But if that were the case, it would be better if I was bought out or outbid by another person who would gain more use from it.
This aspect of Poser and Weyl’s theory opens up the book, was the subject of the presentation, and is the subject of this essay. And as I said in the section heading, this is an essay that, by some counts, does not need to exist. The authors make it clear that they did not mean to provide a framework around which society should actually be redesigned. In addition, these ideas will need intense testing and study before implementation can even be mentioned in polite conversation. Consequently, it would be fair to view the contents of this book as a series of thought-experiments, which could prove to be enlightening. And if that is the approach you are ready to take, I would encourage you to pick up this book. As the authors point out, our current relationship with property--particularly in the US--is not without its pitfalls and inefficiencies. Consequently, rethinking that aspect of our lives would be worthwhile. However, I think it is missing a key component of our conceptualizing of the ‘stuff’ around us and our relationship with it that a story from a previous season of a beloved podcast illustrates well.
This podcast just so happens to be one of my favorites. Witchever Path (2019 - ) from showrunners Steven and Journee LaFond is a remarkable show that relies on listener votes to determine major events in each of its stories. In this way, human reactions are properly and faithfully incorporated into the show, but even beyond that, different aspects of the human experience are captured in the very design of the various stories of this anthology. And one story provides a way of understanding something that I think economists have a terrible habit of overlooking. Specifically, this story captures the seemingly irrational impulses we have surrounding the “stuff” in our lives. While we do need to reconsider some aspects of our relationship with property, if we do not fully know how it is we got here or where it is we are, I doubt we can manage it. When it comes to this issue, the story “Dross” (2021) from Witchever Path illustrates the problem with a small step into the fantastical while remaining firmly grounded in our own experiences. Consequently, in this essay, I want to borrow elements from “Dross” to show the gaps in this radical argument.
***
My Problem with Economics
Perhaps I’m overly aware of my inadequacies, but at the same time, it’s worth stating for the record that I’m not an economist. While I try to follow major studies/books in the discipline as I do with all the social sciences, the only formal training I have are the intro-level courses that all students of political science at my university were ‘strongly encouraged’ to take. So perhaps there is some resentment there that is twisting my thoughts as well as the aforementioned inexperience. I won’t ignore that possibility. I also want to acknowledge that economics is a broad field of study, and there are–in all likelihood–subsections that address the very things I’m concerned about. Ultimately, I don’t mean this essay to be a sweeping criticism or the death nail in any coffin. Rather, I hope this essay raises a bit more food for additional thought. Or seasoning on the food for thought that is Radical Markets.
To get to the premise of my argument that I fully recognize might be problematic, my main concern with economics is how it understands or how it almost depends on conceptions of people that are–for the most part–predictable and rational, almost as something vaguely akin to moderately inefficient robots. Yes, the programming isn’t ideal, but it can be reverse engineered and future actions made predictable once a few variables are known.
That is a gross simplification, of course. And at the same time, aspects of this model certainly make sense. It’s a point from which one can extrapolate from, and as I see it, this foundational point stems from a specific premise that–in whatever form it may take–can be connected to the basic self-preservation impulse every human being is supposed to have, outside of a clinical circumstance or concern. We all value our lives, physical bodies, and comforts, and while we aren’t entirely risk-averse, there is a consideration process involved in deciding which risks are worth taking. Ergo, what we do or are inclined to do should be predictable within some calculable range. There are only so many branching paths that stem from those specific roots. However, even with all that being said, there’s something surprisingly subjective about these values, about which things we label as ‘important’ and which we brush aside. It’s an assessment process that is highly influenced by individual circumstances and experiences, and as Radical Markets unintentionally shows, the cultural nuance is often missed in these discussion.
Let’s take the property example for consideration. Because I live in the United States, I live in a land that has a difficult history, which is a veiled way of saying that it is stolen. And my awareness of this fact makes me inclined to see certain problems in this model. Radical Markets claims that a perpetual auction would mean that an unspecified ‘they’ who can do the most with the land will be able to acquire it and will be the ones in possession of it, which–I would argue–overlooks the theological/metaphysical history of certain spaces, particularly natural spaces. After all, there is no way to put a value on sacred land, and depending on the religion, specifically who its adherents are, there may be no conceivable way for those that value the land in a religious way to gather up the funds necessary to participate in an auction. And this is not me randomly invoking the old ‘Native American graveyard’ trope. This is the sort of thing that occurred with the land now associated with Mt. Rushmore. Sacred land for Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho communities has became a monument despite the acquisition of the land being a treaty violation (McKeever, 2020). The monument is able to generate a higher income than leaving the land untouched, so is this development somehow justified by this external metric? The authors might point out that even in their conceptualization, they include a space for laws to minimize ‘inconveniences’ or damage, but that then leads to a proverbial question within religiously-neutral or secular societies: how do we know where to draw certain lines when religious concerns are involved? Or, in other words, when do we acknowledge a religiously-based objection?
Now, I’m not the sort of person to push for supremacy of any religion. Rather, I believe that everyone should be able to pursue their version of truth or the good as far as they are able to do so without harming others. However, I would be amiss to point out that ‘secular neutrality’ doesn’t apply equally in practice. I practice a religion where many adherents (wrongly) call any inconvenience persecution but whose church has enough capital to participate in auctions like this on top of having a history on the proverbial top and its current extended reach across the world. In that sense, this is not my argument to have. Because I am not drawing from an informed position, I lack the right to go into specifics. At this juncture, all I can point out is that different cultural and religious frameworks have a different value system and ways of understanding what pursuits are worthwhile or valuable, but these differences of opinion have not traditionally be heard equally. The dominant view has influenced the vocabulary we all use, and that is not the sort of thing that can be easily undone.
The ‘radical’ in Radical Markets is meant to be an admission that this proposal is a complete break from what came before, but as I see it, it falls into a familiar pattern, a pattern written in the same concern I have always had about economics: there are differences that, in any other context, would be considered fundamental but are ignored in these considerations. Instead, these conversations seem to draw from–or merely hopes for–a larger narrative that can ignore differences, i.e. the idea of humans as comparable to machines with irrational programming whose outer paint job might differ but whose internal machinations are factory-standard. And yet, I would argue these differences are fundamental components to the human experience. There is something ‘irrational’ and ‘inconsistent’ about being human, even outside of religious or cultural convictions. Perhaps erasing those irrational quirks would lead to better outcomes in certain situations. The various religious exemption claim to the COVID-19 vaccine might certainly come to mind as it would limit the spread of the virus and the potential for more variants. However, considering how rare it is within economics to fully conceptualize these irrationalities, there is much work to be done before we can or should decide on that one way or another. It is work that many are not inclined to do, and therein lies the problem.
***
Enter Witchever Path (I mean, the podcast not a general ‘take whatever road looks best’)
At the same time, I can’t entirely fault the authors or any economist that thinks this way. It’s a difficult discipline, and yet, given that so many theories about democracies and voting behaviors depend on speculations and experiences of the economy (which is why political science majors at my university were ‘strongly encouraged’ to study them), it’s a high stakes field. But even beyond that, this is a field that–given the design of our current world–has life or death implications for many individuals, usually the individuals who don’t have the luxury to crunch numbers and bet on stocks all day. Given the stakes and the inevitable divorce between those who make the theory and those who have to live with the consequences of its implementation, I understand how we got here. However, I’m not thrilled about it and want to push back against it all the same. Fortunately, the simplest form of pushback–in this case–is opening up consideration to that which is not constrained by convention and tradition.
Independent podcasts, particularly audio fiction podcasts, present opportunities to reconsider the social milieu we otherwise take for granted, which is the sort of thing I think economists need to do. Witchever Path’s ability to present aspects of our reality from alternative perspectives is one of the many things I love about this podcast besides the writing, acting, story construction, … Okay, I like pretty much everything about Witchever Path, but in this case, a particular story within the anthology proves to be enlightening, though I would argue that they all have the capacity to be so in different conversations.
It may be the power of audience choices that get the spotlight, but the creators Journee and Steven LaFond also consciously choose to emphasize inclusivity when creating these stories. As Journee said in an interview the both of them participated in on The Once and Future Nerd podcast, “Fantastical shit can happen to all sorts of people” (Glass, 2020), and consequently, they’ve consciously drawn from various cultural pots when writing their stories in order to reflect this reality. There are a few bonus episodes talking about the cultural influences of specific episodes, but more broadly speaking, this show has welcomed the influences of various backgrounds, from the Yoruban faith to the pre-Christian Filipino legends.
Witchever Path’s approach is–in some sense–the opposing answer to the one most often given in response to “what should we do about differences?” It does not erase what is there, which is an act that I doubt could ever be done equitably even if it was somehow the logically correct thing to do. Rather, it gives voice to new perspectives, and by allowing their audiences to hear these different voices, they give their audience a chance to learn from them as well. These voices can challenge the status quo or bring light to the aspects of it we conveniently overlook.
***
A Different Type of Radical Object
The storyline I want to focus on is “Dross,” and the tagline for it goes “Every trinket has a tale to tell, but only a few can hear them,” a line spoken in the first episode by our narrator (Dross Part 1, 2021) as well as being spelled out on the podcast’s website. Our protagonist Marvin, played by Isaiah Frizelle, is one such person. We first encounter this ability when Marvin is tending to a dying patient called Pete. While dying, Pete has the urge to hold and wear his wedding band again but lacks the physical strength to get it himself. Compassionately, Marvin retrieves the box with the ring in it off of the dresser and brings it to him. From that first touch, Marvin can feel the pull of another place, specifically an appealing warmth. What Marvin is feeling is, as the transcript describes, “the memory in the ring” (Dross Part 1, 2021). It’s something we immediately come to understand in greater detail as Marvin puts the ring onto Pete, and the two of them are transported into the moment that Pete “thinks about the most whenever he puts on this ring” (Dross Part 1, 2021). Details of that memory aside, Marvin describes the warmth he initially felt when holding the box containing the ring as “the warmth of Pete’s love” (Dross Part 1, 2021). With this, we have a fuller picture to make sense of. We are not treated to a full, detailed description of this ability. That wouldn’t work in the context of the story. But we can safely say that there must be something in the object for Marvin’s power to respond to or interact with. Marvin is inclined to call it “the memory” and “love.” The latter is more tied to this specific context, and the former is more generic. Regardless of the details, while intangible, the presence of this something is still felt; it’s been attached to the ring in some way, whether it be emotion, sentiment, or the romantic and figurative notion of one’s ‘heart.’
This phenomenon is what leads into the arc’s conflict. Marvin’s ability leads him to discovering what could effectively be called a revenge plot against one of his other patients Geraldine, played by Shannon Perry. Cue our introduction to the arc’s antagonists, played by Journee LaFond and Dallas Wheatley. Much about them remains somewhat mysterious, but in a later episode, they are described as “the drinkers and bottler of soul” (Dross Part 5, 2021). In fact, they are in the midst of such an activity when we first meet them. They are trying to take Geraldine’s soul through a potion or creation of some kind, and the ingredient list includes a pair of stolen earrings that belong to the intended victim, which are presented as the sort of ingredient that cannot be substituted. However, the individual earrings in the pair were separated. Our drinkers of souls only have one, and Marvin has the other. The connection between the earrings, as they are a defined set, is what creates the window between them and Marvin.
I won’t go into the arc’s full conflict here and will try to avoid spoilers whenever possible. It’s not relevant to the point I want to make, and I don’t want to give anyone something that might vaguely look like a reason to not listen to this story–and all of Witchever Path–for themselves. Ultimately, it’s the role the various objects play in the story that I want to talk about. In some ways, I see it as a better reflection of what our relationship with objects actually is, and that relationship mirrors our relationship with some of the larger goods Radical Markets is concerned with. I’m well aware that the book’s argument is explicitly about large-scale resources and not individual goods; however, the model found in “Dross” stands as a good representation of a general status quo. Our relationship with all forms of property is fairly consistent, and it has to do with whatever part of ourselves is attached to an object. Marvin’s ability to tap into something literal is a great model for what we often do figuratively.
***
Not so Radical Relationships
“Dross” presents two observations: 1) objects have an additional, indescribable value that is not strictly inherent but comes from their keeper and 2) this value effectively transforms objects to make them compatible with other endeavors that are tied to more sentimental intentions like comfort or malice. These may feel like familiar ideas, though perhaps not worded in that way. Admittedly, anyone can make the same general observations based on their own experiences. I am not making a point that “Dross'' brings novelty so much as a better way of understanding that which we may take for granted or find difficult to articulate. With this story, we have a framework to anchor otherwise amorphous thoughts to, and we need those thoughts in order to have a productive conversation about property and our relationship to it.
Let’s take these two observations in order. For the first point, let’s assume that Pete’s ring is made of gold, which is fairly standard in the United States. A wedding ring is the quintessential example of jewelry with a sentimental value on top of the value of the material used to make it. As a material, gold does have several uses, many of which are ornamental, but let’s keep the example simple and assume that the ring stays a ring. A skilled jeweler can take that material and craft a ring capable of aligning with market trends and–consequently–be worth a fair bit of money, but no matter what uses a jeweler can come up with, they cannot create the value Pete assigns to the ring. To Pete, it serves as the key to an intimate memory. From Marvin’s perspective that would be in a more literal sense. By touching the ring, Marvin can enter into this memory, but while Pete’s experience is more figurative, a similar thing happens. Through the ring, Pete is able to more deeply immerse himself into a cherished memory, details of said memory notwithstanding. (The memory is–in all likelihood–not what you might expect, which only furthers my point that the value attached to Pete’s ring is unique and highly personal.)
The general idea of spending money on experiences is not a new one, but when it is invoked, it is usually understood that these experiences are unique or grandiose in one way or another. Elaborate vacations will come to mind, or other forms of extended travel or dinner plans. These are typically coupled with just as elaborate and detailed bills that would pain many wallets. But even setting aside the financial aspect of it, many people are limited in terms of what they can experience or what they are willing to experience. Here there is an issue of capability. In Pete’s situation, he is left bed-bound with limited time left, but he is still able to have–what he would consider–a deeply fulfilling experience with the ring. In terms of personal satisfaction, the sense or amount of fulfillment between the vacation and a final moment with one’s wedding ring are similar, but are they treated the same way in conversations or conceptualizations? Keeping items and heirlooms is not a new phenomenon, but there is a staunch distinction between how we understand that practice and what I’m proposing. We all can acknowledge that it is good to be in touch with your history–be it personal or families–but it is not heralded as a comparable good or a good in and of itself.
The distinction becomes more obvious when you try to incorporate this practice into an auction-like framework. In trying to assess values or what someone might be willing to pay in and of itself, there’s obviously the material of the ring to consider, but there is also a market for antiques. So it is within the realm of possibility that someone with an excess of capital might put in a high bid for an heirloom, higher than the owner of the item could afford or think to spend on said item potentially through a lack of information on market trends or the item’s own history. That information might be readily available, but prior to that moment, there had been no reason to seek it out, not least of them being the conviction that no metric of value could compare with the sentimental value attached to said object. What some might think of as ‘taking for granted’ is really just a perspective shift; it is seeing the object solely for the personal history or value attached to it. In and of itself, that would be a fair assessment as it is done honestly. However, sentimental value–the value of holding or having an item simply for the sake of what it represents or the memory attached to it–does not always translate into a monetary price tag.
Then again, perhaps it is a matter of scope. We couldn’t expect every little thing to be up for auction in the Radical Markets system; there is something woefully impractical about that. However, with that in mind, I return to my previously mentioned point about sacred lands and monuments. Sacred land is–figuratively speaking–a key needed to enter into a religious experience, but because religious beliefs are highly personal and can vary greatly, we are facing values that cannot translate into a cash-based figure, which would be a prerequisite for a perpetual market-based system. And yet, our experiences tell us that there is some sort of value there. It is fulfilling or gratifying in an experiential way that is fundamental to one’s understanding of themselves and their place in the cosmos. It helps one better immerse themselves in their notion of the absolute truth and their sense of purpose. This ‘key’ is critical for their fulfillment. As for the rest of us outside of this religious narrative, we know the ‘key’ is important, but there is no way to properly express that value in an auction system unless that value can be converted into capital. And yet, in a perpetual auction “capital” would be the main and potentially only way to communicate value in a way that others can understand it. These differences transcend a shared language, which leaves the question of what is to be done about it.
Marvin’s ability to go into the memory is what gives this consideration the necessary flesh to be seen rather than just assumed to be true. But it does so by taking what is normally a deeply personal experience and adding a communal spin to it, which leads us to one of the incompatibilities between theory and reality that I had wanted to bring up in the aforementioned lecture. Radical Markets is a conception of the market that is derived from an communal understanding of goods and their uses. Everything can be of use to anyone, and we should allocate these things to those who can make the most use out of it, which would effectively benefit the most number of people or serve as the proverbial rising tide that lifts all boats. And–to a great extent–we do need to be more aware of the larger community as a whole but especially when it comes to property-related issues and the amassing of such. However, this particular idea of ‘community’ isn’t a neutral one. In this case, there is a financial bend to this notion. This ‘community’ is a group of individuals who are mutually maximizing production and resource capabilities towards an end closely tied to if not dictated by Western notions of economic prosperity. In other words, The community are those who are working to grow the economy while maximizing the resources at their disposal. Perhaps, in this model, human beings aren’t robots with less than ideal programming and are instead masters of the machine, but there is still an emphasis on the machine and the expectation that many if not all worthwhile things must be combability with it, which s simply not true and would lead to real losses or deprivations. However, there’s little incentive to salvage those things which are incompatible with the machine. Notions of the metaphysical and religious come to mind, but certainly, there are more potential issues than those.
The mere existence of the individual–with their own needs and values curated by their own experiences–is not the enemy here. Perhaps this is my Arendtian influence showing, but I firmly believe that a plurality is a prerequisite for meaningful human life. Living amongst people who are not like you creates opportunities for exploration and growth that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. It forces you to interrogate the beliefs that were either instilled into you as a child or that you picked up along the way simply to fill the gaps in your understanding of the world. It inflicts enough discomfort for you to grow into a better version of yourself. And it gives you the chance to contribute to other’s growth as others have to you. The model proposed in Radical Markets, intentional or otherwise, hinders this by overlooking alternative value systems in favor of maximizing production, a neutral and unrealistic production at that.
***
Not so Radical Productions
Turning away from components, let us now consider the actual productions themselves or the reasons why one might acquire these resources. When I was first exposed to this argument, this was the objection I wanted to bring up: how can this system account for or mitigate the effects of malice more broadly or the general urge to deprive a specific individual of their potential successes simply for its own sake?
It was something at the forefront of my mind. At the time, I was thinking of hedge fund manager Bill Ackman’s attempt to short Herbalife’s stock, which had not been all that recent, but because I had recently been immersed in anti-multi-level-marketing content online, I had stumbled upon it. To explain, short selling involves borrowing a security and selling it on the open market in the hopes of rebuying it back at a lower price. After paying whatever interest or premium is owed on the loan, the short seller gets to pocket the difference between the old price and the new price. If the stock goes up, however, the short seller has to pay the higher price and lose the difference. In most instances, this bet really only affects the person who borrowed the stock. However, on a massive scale, this flooding of the stock onto the market or the public discussion surrounding ‘why’ can exert a downward pressure on the share price. I think it is worth noting here that Bill Ackman was not only able to acquire a great many of these shares, but he was also very vocal about his reasoning, though I am unfamiliar with how much of an impact he directly had on the stock in the beginning. He believed it was a wise and necessary move. There were moral implications, but it was—as he saw it—going to yield a profit. For a short sale, profit is maximized if the stock drops to zero, which can only happen if the company goes bankrupt. And Ackman, believing that Herbalife was a pyramid scheme that was going to be exposed as such by a government investigation, believed that bankruptcy was imminent. This bet was coupled with a documentary that is, perhaps, the more famous part of this.
Now, I think there is something fascinating about the short-selling phenomenon, especially in light of the GameStop surge in January 2021, but that isn’t the point here. The narrative, as I understood it, behind Herbalife’s salvation stood at the forefront of my mind. It wasn’t just that the investigation stopped short of calling Herbalife a pyramid scheme while still demanding some restructuring, which took out some of the teeth behind any future pyramid scheme accusation (though many say there is still room for doubt). From what I could recall–and whether or not this is accurate is not the point here–Ackman’s status as the proverbial ‘most disliked friend at the party’ worked against him when rival hedge fund managers vocally bought the stock while criticizing Ackman and his theory.
Now, once again, I will remind you that this is working off of my memory. Rather than certifying the truth behind what I am describing, I only mean to lay out the potential scenario influencing my thought. But from what I could remember of the coverage I had seen, these other hedge fund managers didn’t seem to passionately believe in Herbalife or had any great defense lined up against the pyramid scheme accusation. What they were passionate about was Ackman and their dislike for him. Hence why I got the feeling that this was more about sentiment than it was about the company itself.
If that seems like a tangent, to a great extent, I agree. However, the Herbalife example suggests that sometimes financial actors are motivated not by predictable metrics but by petty ones. And I fail to see where in the Radical Markets model that is supposed to fit. To play devil’s advocate, this accommodation just might be more implied than anything else, and the reader is supposed to trust that it is there. It could either fit in the legal parameters mentioned that would ensure the system can run smoothly or it’s the sort of thing that the self-pricing system would filter out. After all, you have to pay taxes on whatever value you list, and if not, you get bought out, meaning that there is a financial disincentive to any petty or personally motivated plays. If I buy land out from under my long-time rival, I can be bought out by said rival or really anyone unless I raise the value beyond their reach or willingness to pay, but then I have to pay the tax on that value or miss out on better opportunities, which wouldn’t be financially savvy. And yet, what if I was determined enough to do it? This is where we move away from the Herbalife example. After all, because this was a short sale, those rival hedge funds could set the price at which Ackman bought back the stocks he borrowed. (Ackman closed his position quietly and without disclosing how much he lost.) This de facto hostage situation serves as a financial incentive to bet against a short seller, making it–as a bunch of Redditors learn–appealing to bet against one. But with one example leaving the conversation, Witchever Path can enter.
As stated, the conflict in “Dross” initially centers around one of a pair of earrings. The audience isn’t told much about it beyond it being a clip on with a “little blue jewel” (Dross Part 1, 2021). While not the ideal description for our purposes, it’s fair to think that Marvin wouldn’t be able to give a thorough appraisal on the spot, but I would venture that it’s also fair to say this was not a particularly valuable item in monetary terms, given the size of the jewel and how rarely high-end jewelers accommodate those with unpierced ears. Add to that, it’s only one of a set, which further detracts from its worth. But to “the drinkers and bottlers of soul” that’s an irrelevant point. It’s the connection to their intended victim that actually matters. As far as they are concerned, that connection between owner and object changed the nature of the object, in an almost literal sense given what they are doing. To be more specific, it made the earring a potential ingredient in their spell (Dross Part 1, 2021). Other metrics of value are irrelevant.
Now, we are talking about supernatural beings here, so perhaps we shouldn’t expect a one-to-one conversion when it comes to something like intention or rationale. However, I would counter that their motivation is a familiar one for us: revenge. Revenge, simply put, is an act of retaliation for wrongs–perceived or otherwise–but it doesn’t have to be a proportionate act per that definition. We see that ambiguity here, in a way. “Spoiled fun” otherwise unspecified, the stated reason for their actions, is met with the complete destruction of said spoiler (Dross Part 1, 2021). Now, given the abilities of our bottlers, this “fun” could mean almost anything, but at the surface, there’s this element of a temporariness about an inconvenience that comes up against a permanent state of misery for their victim. This dissonance is derived from emotion, likely anger (something I will likely talk about in a later piece for this blog) not rationality. There is no sort of measurement or weighing of offense versus punishment because that isn’t the point. It’s about the satisfaction that comes from acting on this impulse rather than the validity of this impulse. After all, acting on the impulse is what will satisfy the emotion, both in the case of these beings and in humans.
I do not mean to argue that acting on emotion is ideal but that it is somewhat inevitable. And it goes back to the inefficient program of our machinery. We are not fully rational creatures by certain definitions. Although, there is something predictable about our emotional indulgence and that an argument can be made that such satiation would, therefore, be rational. After all, an extension of that self-preservation impulse is to seek pleasure and spurn suffering because of what those things tend to bring with them. When it comes from external stimuli, these feelings are a part of assessing our surroundings or situations. Pleasure can be a sign of safety, and suffering is a signal of danger or misery. But we can inflict these sensations onto ourselves with or through our emotions. This is a gross simplification, certainly, but consider the following. Something like joy is pleasurable and–thus–needs to be pursued or cultivated. Whereas, something like sadness is meant to be mitigated. Anger is trickier to conceptualize, likely because of how interwoven it is with external forces; it isn’t an emotion that is born in isolation. More often than not, we are angry at something directly. And while we preach forgiveness and disengaging with that emotion, it creates its own momentum despite our efforts, and this momentum often demands action. It seeks to be fed with the promise that doing so will extinguish the impulse, though that seldom seems to be the case. It can become or potentially just is a lust for a different kind of fulfillment, that which comes through evening out the field even it it means scorching said field to the ground.
When you push into lust or the more desirous of the impulses, therein lies additional difficulty. As I mentioned, there is room in the Radical Markets’ model limits meant to discourage acting on these impulses or to punish them in some way. But their feasibility lands in what they are able to accomplish. If something is heavily sought after or lusted for, can a value be put on it? And if not, can a counteroffer ever be made? It would need to make one for this system to properly work, but it is limited by its own boundaries: the same boundaries that couldn’t capture the initial impulse. If something is incompatible not with the design but with the character of the material, can it be built back in? I’m not inclined to think so.
As for the story, I will remain somewhat vague to minimize spoilers, but the battle for the earring only escalates into a hostage situation as “the drinkers and bottlers of soul” rebel against the barriers or hindrances Marvin puts forth. In some ways, overcoming these obstacles might be seen as more trouble than it’s worth, and yet, it isn’t, not to them anyway. From their perspective, these obstacles aren’t reasons to stop but inconveniences to overcome. And that’s all a deterrent might be. Consequently, a deterrent’s ability to achieve the desired outcome is merely a possibility; there can be no guarantees because they are up, like so many other things, to interpretation and personal value systems.
Which leads us, admittedly, back to the first point.
***
Conclusion
To reiterate, I don’t disagree with Posner and Weyl’s initial observations. There are problems with our relationship with property, but what I fail to see is an acknowledgement of how we got there. In many ways, an alternative model–no matter the details–will have to account for these things on some sort of scale.
One of the reasons why I elected not to speak up during the presentation was the scope of my concern. It seemed rare enough to be irrelevant. In every situation, there are exceptions that prove the rule true, and I was concerned that I was focusing on these largely irrelevant exceptions. Admittedly, I don’t think something like ‘greed’ is as wide-spread a problem as others might think. It’s a problem that makes itself known, certainly, but there are many who don’t want excess but merely comfort. Certainly that isn’t a problem. And yet, I was still, for some reason, inclined to question the compatibility of this model with human experience. It wasn’t until “Dross” that I had some sort of anchor for my concerns because what “Dross” shows is not a specific manifestation of human impulses but the grander schema behind and supporting these impulses, specifically a schema that lacks a distinction between possessor and possession. This divide would be critical for the sort of system Radical Markets proposes.
Granted, the book is not meant to be practical advice or a model for anything. I’ve said that before, but it is worth repeating now. After all, clarity is always valuable. This book is great material for thought, but thoughts shouldn’t be accepted wholly and without careful consideration for the broader picture at play. The problem lies with the fact that a picture can only be fleshed out by seeking out information from other sources. Hence why you should also listen to independent fiction podcasts after you read. Or always.
The tagline to this essay is “Why Economists Should Listen to More Fiction Podcasts,” and admittedly, it’s a bit tongue in cheek if not outright snarky. Part of that tone is my frustration, part of it is my feelings of self-righteousness that for once in my life I was able to easily come up with a clever tagline, but the rest of it was meant with a bit of concern. This goes back to a point I’ve made before about the opportunity unique to fiction podcasts as they currently are. Because there is no need for a big-wigged or well-suited third party to approve what independent podcasts get posted, different points of view are able to make their perspectives known. Even if it’s just because of the logistical challenges involved, there’s something daring about Witchever Path that I doubt any traditional media executive would have taken the chance on. Then there is the subject matter which would make for an even harder sell. This podcast needs to exist, however. And this state of affairs is something that should give us pause.
As more ‘old media’ representatives or players enter into this space while trying to maximize their profits or just make a quick buck, the need to appreciate and then preserve what this space has been able to do grows exponentially. And I need you, dear reader, to understand that. The value of what’s already here can’t be put into concise words. But will that appreciation happen? It’s harder to say that I would like it to be. Devoted listeners or people who dwell in this space now may work to preserve it, but drawing a sense of conventional legitimacy from other sources would only aid in that pursuit. Hence why I think social scientists should take notice of independent podcasts, both to improve upon their work and because it provides objective benefits to the larger world.
Works Cited
Glass, Z. (2020, August 16). Showcase: WITCHEVER PATH . The Once and Future Nerd. episode 119.
La Monica, P. R. (2018, March 1). Bill Ackman's herbalife disaster is finally over. CNN Business. Retrieved January 1, 2022, from https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/01/investing/herbalife-bill-ackman-carl-icahn/index.html
LaFond, J., & LaFond, S. (2019 - present). Witchever Path. whole.
McKeever, A. (2020). South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore has a strange, scandalous history. Travel. Retrieved 12 December 2021, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/the-strange-and-controversial-history-of-mount-rushmore.
Posner, E. A., Weyl, E. G., & Buterin, V. (2018). Radical markets: Uprooting capitalism and democracy for a just society. Princeton University Press. Purchase Link.