There's nothing like a few days away to create chaos both before and afterward, as all the normal activities displaced by a trip jostle for attention. So there was a moment this morning when I had to shut myself away with one of my favourite books for restoring my inner tranquillity. It's a small book, Symmetry: The Ordering Principle by David Wade. I bought it randomly a while ago in an art gallery and it's given me great pleasure dipping into it a page at a time.

Each page sets out, step by step. the principles of symmetry in art, nature and the universe, and is accompanied by exquisite line drawings (see the fractals page, below). It's also a delightful little book as a physical artefact, published by Wooden Books. A great stocking filler for the economists and econometricians in your life.

I'm back from China having devoured a pile of books about the country and found it a fascinating experience. It seems natural to turn to the US next, and I've picked from the pile Debtor Nation: The History of America in Red Ink by Louis Hyman. It probably helps explain the shifting balance of global economic power – and the book has a great cover too.

It's terrific to see a new book on an under-explored aspect of demography, namely the sex selection  against girls (by abortion or infanticide) which has left a number of Asian countries with a large imbalance of men over women. The book is Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl. It was reviewed this week by Joshua Kurlantzick, who described it as “a bracing work of investigative reporting.”

The figures are staggering. Rather than a female:male ration of 105:100, in China it's 121, in India 112, even in Albania 110. In 10 years China could have 30m adult men who cannot find wives, concentrated in the cities with large numbers of migrant labourers. Lianyungang, a booming port city, has China's
most extreme gender ratio for children under four: 163 boys for every
100 girls. Altogether Asia is estimated to have 163 million 'missing' girls and women. If policies and attitudes changed overnight, it would be a generation before the imbalances were resolved.

The best economic analysis of this most vicious war of males against females, waged against the absolutely most vulnerable, is by Amartya Sen. He brought this issue to public attention in a 1990 article. His conclusion bears repeating:

“In view of the enormity of the problems of women's survival in large
parts of Asia and Africa, it is surprising that these disadvantages have
received such inadequate attention. The numbers of “missing women” in
relation to the numbers that could be expected if men and women received
similar care in health, medicine, and nutrition, are remarkably large. A
great many more than a hundred million women are simply not there
because women are neglected compared with men. If this situation is to
be corrected by political action and public policy, the reasons why
there are so many “missing” women must first be better understood. We
confront here what is clearly one of the more momentous, and neglected,
problems facing the world today.”

I'm about to head off on my first visit to mainland China, albeit only a few days in Beijing.

After much browsing, and after already reading Richard McGregor's The Party and Lesley Chang's Factory Girls, I've packed: Country Driving by Peter Hessler; Chinese Lessons by John Pomfret; and hope to pick up at the airport Tide Players by Jianying Zha (reviewed in the weekend FT).

I know there are loads of others I should be reading, including some much more directly concerned with the economy. After reading various reviews, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics by Yasheng Huang is at the top of my list on that front. But the ones I have seem ideal for a long flight. The serious stuff can wait until I get back with a tiny bit of experience under my belt.

 A Guest Review of Inside
Job, directed by Charles Ferguson, distributed by Sony Pictures Home
Entertainment

The
DVD version of the film Inside Job is released today (Monday June 13) in the UK.

There
is no shortage of books analysing the global financial crisis and, to some, it
may now seem like ancient history. So can a well made, 100 minute, Academy
Award winning work completed in 2010 add anything to our understanding of the
greatest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression?

Yes.

For
those who have read widely about the crisis there are bound to be extra
revelations and anecdotes. For those who have not immersed themselves in the subject,
the film provides an accurate overview of what happened.

Inside
Job argues that the financial industry in the United States has become much too
large and used its wealth to permeate the political system to the disadvantage
of others in the economy and society. The deleted scenes section of the DVD
even contains a clip of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who at the time of filming was the
managing director of the IMF, agreeing with this.

The
film is in five parts.

Part
one outlines the increasing deregulation of financial markets from the 1980s
and how this eventually contributed to excessive leverage and risk taking that
led to the crisis. As Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF notes
in a deleted scene, deregulation was a 20 year phenomenon. Much is made of the
failure to regulate the derivatives industry and the growth in the number of
people from the finance industry taking government posts. And then return to
well paid positions in finance at the end of their time in government.

Part
two explains the rise in house prices, the role played by CDS and CDOs and
credit ratings agencies in the build up to the crisis.

Part
three examines the crisis itself and the thinking, even miscalculation, behind
allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse. The lack of communication with other
countries is highlighted. In the film, Christine Lagarde, the French finance
minister, notes she heard of the decision only after it had been made. Her
reaction? “Holy cow.” (At least that’s what she was prepared to say to camera)

Part
four looks at accountability. High pay levels in the finance industry, the lack
of will to use regulatory powers appropriately and excessive lobbying of
politicians by financiers are highlighted. Dismay is expressed that, post
crisis, banks are now “bigger and more concentrated” than ever – a point also
made by the FCIC review of the crisis – and the lack of reform being proposed by the Obama
administration.

For
economists, this section is most uncomfortable. The claim is made (from the 79^th
to 89^th minute) that the
finance industry “corrupted the study of economics itself.” It is not the support many economists have given to
deregulation that jars most. That could have been made in good faith on
available knowledge at the time. The probing questions to several high profile
academics about why the titles of papers on CVs have been changed since the
crisis to make them appear more accurate, why payments from financial companies
to write reports have not been disclosed, and the mystified looks and angered
responses of some when asked about this, are disturbing. Perhaps, George
DeMartino’s recommendation in his book The Economists' Oath that the economics profession needs to consider a code of
ethics is onto something.

Part
five finishes the film, noting the increase inequality of wealth in the US that
has developed over the past few decades and bemoans how little has changed in
the political and financial landscape.

The
film has its faults. It implies, but does not state, that regulation of financial
markets and banks in Europe and Asia has been superior to that in the US; and it
could outline more fully how the financial system and regulation should be
reformed. The swipes at globalisation in part five are also questionable.

It
is not just the anecdotes and the story line that makes the film worthwhile, however. It
is the visual effect of seeing people try to justify their actions when their
case is weak, the compactness of the story and the underlying anger of the film
that makes it compelling and relevant even today. It keeps the story alive.

And
it is necessary to keep the story alive. In one of the deleted scenes sections
Satyajit Das notes that many specialist financiers are already asking “What’s
the problem? Things will go back to normal.” In the UK we have the chairman of
Barclays arguing that the time for remorse from bankers should be over. Meanwhile,
unemployment in many countries remains very high and growth disappointing. This
is not an acceptable “normal”.

Films
impart information in a way that allows a story to be kept alive more easily
than books. Films are more accessible to the general population.

I
suspect some consider film inferior to articles and books and even anti-intellectual.
They may argue that depth is sacrificed for catchy phrases and visual gimmickry. This
can happen but it can also occur in books and articles. It has not happened
with Inside Job. There are no Michael Moore type distractions. The story line
is clear. The main conclusions of the film may be disputed but so too can those
of any book or article.

Economists
must get used to presenting information in a more accessible manner. Video is
playing a growing part in this. YouTube and TED already provide much useful
economic information and the Khan Academy provides a rich source of tutorials.
Inside Job adds to the list.

Ian
Bright

I
am writing in a personal capacity