tim's experiment

I find these days that the only part of the SCMPost with thoughtful and provocative writing on it is the back page of the Business section. But this week has seen a little epidemic of writers shooting themselves in the foot. First we had the former banker explaining that there was no need to worry about banks employing the offspring of their rich customers, because these rich kids did not have the pathological levels of greed necessary to succeed in the industry.  Consequently they would not reach positions of power. Very reassuring.

Then there was the lady who complained of the “parasites” who bought into index or tracker funds because they were too cheapskate to pay for the “research and analysis” needed to run a proper investment trust. Leaving aside the oddity of anyone in the financial industry accusing other people of parasitism, this seemed a perverse interpretation of what people were doing. After all someone who decides to invest in a tracker fund may not be a cheapskate at all. He may just be an alert investor who has read “A random walk down Wall Street,” “The Black Swan” and the relevant works of Michael Lewis. He is aware of the copious amount of research indicating that the “research and analysis” does not produce any worthwhile information on the future movement of prices, and that actively traded funds regularly and predictably produce worse returns than the simple index-following ones. Oddly enough the Post’s leader writer was making exactly this point on Thursday.

These offerings were just the warm-up for Wednesday’s effort, alluringly leadlined “Parallels with the Klan”, and decorated with an ancient picture of a Ku Klux Klan meeting. This piece started with eight reasonable paragraphs about the problems presented by mainland shoppers, parallel traders etc. and the possible solutions. At this point we are more than half way through the article and the Klan has not yet been mentioned. In the ninth paragraph we are told that parallel trading has had another “local impact”. Some members of radical groups “behave as hooligans under the guise of populist politics to protest against the traders.”  Well hooligans is a bit strong for what is after all verbal abuse, however obnoxious that may be, but let us continue. “Some features of their behaviour bear resemblance to other organisations in history that were motivated by political ideology. The best researched in modern times is the Ku Klux Klan, which was examined by economist Steven Levitt in Freakonomics.”

Now this is hogwash. The Klan is not the best researched organisation in history motivated by political ideology, a questionable honour which probably belongs to the Communist movement in its various manifestations, with the Nazi party and its off-shoots a close second. Freakonomics is a good book, but it covers a variety of topics; only one chapter is on the Klan. Our author summarises this chapter in his next five paragraphs but it is clearly dishonest to claim that he picked the Klan because of its international historic status. He picked it because it was handy and disreputable: a good stick with which to beat a group he disapproves of. And are we told what are the features which the Klan has in common with the unnamed hooligans opposed to parallel trading? No we are not. All we get is the limp conclusion that “the Hong Kong public should also be better informed about the myths and truths behind … local groups that advocate extremist ideologies.” No details are supplied of the extremist ideologies involved in protesting against crowds of tourists. No group is named, no ideology outlined, nobody is quoted. Prejudice floats free from any contact with evidence or reality.

After reading this offering one can only weep for the trees which were sacrificed to put this poisonous piece of propaganda on local breakfast tables. After all no local political organisation is in the same class as the Klan, which used to be anonymous and homicidal. They used to lynch people, for heaven’s sake. Odious comparisons can be offered about anyone if no evidence is required. Is the Voice of Loving Hong Kong like the SA? Is the Special Branch like the NKVD? Is the government information coordinator like Dr Goebbels? This sort of thing does not get us anywhere.

The only comfort I can draw from this sorry mess is that it was not perpetrated by a journalist. The author was one Richard Wong, who is described in the usual endnote as “Philip Wong Kennedy Wong Professor in Political Economy at the University of Hong Kong”.  He’s a teacher? Words fail me.