[eavesdropper]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=jpinpb]

I’m sure there must be some study out there on this, whether certain foods raise serotonin levels. I bet eating an apple or an apricot won’t do it, but chocolate cake would.

I mean, certain food are comforting, right? I can understand if there’s a chemical reaction when eating certain foods that cause people to be happy and they don’t care about their weight, b/c, well, they’re happy.[/quote]

it is well known that fat and carbs drive up the serotonin level in the system rapidly.

of course, that increase is very short lived and the level falls quickly as well. this means instead of a cookie, you got to go for the second. but after the second, you need to go for the third… so on and so forth…

this is the same pattern that leads to narcotic addiction. The high created by the narcs are very short lived, the low then create the need to seek out more narcs to get back to the high. this is why sugar and fat are so addictive.

except instead of narcotics, sugar and fat are cheap, they are everywhere, and they are offered with a smile and often with a toy to children everywhere.[/quote]

jp, your observation that food = happiness is an astute one. The role of emotions in overeating has been studied extensively for many years by the world’s leading researchers in obesity medicine. There’s a huge body (no pun intended) of work on this topic available in the medical literature. The treatment of obesity, and its underlying causes, is incredibly complex and difficult. In my opinion, within 10 years it will be the most challenging health issue we will be facing as a nation, both medically and economically.

That being said, it is not likely that your husband went gaga over his chocolate cake because of rapidly rising serotonin levels. Serotonin (that which is synthesized in the brain, or about 20% of the body’s total) is an endogenous neurotransmitter that plays an essential role in mood control, temp regulation, and sensory perception. Nerve cells in the brain pass messages to accomplish tasks related to these functions via chemical synapses with the help of serotonin. The sending (presynaptic) cell releases serotonin into the synaptic gap, whereupon receptors on the surface of the recipient (postsynaptic) cell “recognize” the serotonin and the messaging process is completed. Most of the serotonin is then returned to the presynaptic cell for recycling (reuptake). In some neuropsychological disorders (e.g., clinical depression), SSRIs like Prozac, Celexa, or Zoloft, are administered to prevent reuptake, causing serotonin to remain in the synaptic gap for longer period, ensuring repeated stimulation on the postsynaptic cell.

Serotonin is unable to cross the blood-brain barrier, so if your brain is in short supply, it cannot be administered directly like a drug, nor can you eat food that will directly synthesize serotonin. You can either take an SSRI med to make more efficient use of the existing supply, or you can switch to a diet high in complex carbohydrates in order to produce tryptophan, an amino acid that can cross the B-B barrier, and that is the precursor to serotonin. Fats are also necessary, however, they should be “healthy” fats, like omega-3s.

Keep in mind that there are other “brain chemicals” or neurotransmitters that can contribute to our reactions to experiences. While serotonin is essential to maintaining a level mood, dopamine is the chemical messenger that allows us to experience pleasure and pain. While this seems to be more of what you were describing in your husband’s cake experience, it’s unlikely that his dopamine levels are fluctuating to that point. Dopamine plays a huge role in drug, and other forms of, addiction. Cocaine and speed have an incredible effect on dopamine levels. Cocaine works like an SSRI: it prevents the reuptake of dopamine released from the postsynaptic cell, permitting more dopamine to remain in the synaptic gap and continue to stimulate the dopamine receptors on the postsynaptic cell.

As for chocolate cake consumption, it’s a much faster reaction than would occur with neurotransmitters alone. You’re dealing with simple carbs that have sugar molecules that break apart almost instantly and infuse the bloodstream. Simultaneously, the pancreas releases insulin which triggers the body’s cells to pull the glucose out of your blood and store it for future use. In some people (definitely not all), this process will cause a “rush” or burst of energy. However, it is soon followed by a “crash”: loss of blood glucose can cause extreme fatigue and loss of energy. Many people feel the need to eat or drink something sweet to give them a “boost”, and the process just keeps repeating itself.

While increased insulin levels can cause serotonin levels to rise, it is typically not in levels high enough or long-lasting enough to cause a change in a depressed individual. If you are at all familiar with the antidepressant drugs on the market, you know that the patient usually has to wait at least two to six weeks to notice any improvement in their mood, and can frequently experience unpleasant side effects in the initial period. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, and related to the adaptation of multiple systems to changing neurotransmitter levels.

So I’m thinking that your husband liked the cake because is was just so f***ing good. Some absolutely normal people out there really get into their food, just like those who really get into music or art. Typically these are individuals who aren’t going to sit down and eat the whole cake at one sitting. Yes, there are certainly people out there – lots and lots – who have psychological issues with food, and many of them resort to eating to unbelieveably excessive levels. Sometimes it can be because they feel that everything in their lives is so out of control, and the food they choose to put into their mouths IS under their control (or so they think). Other times, people are feeling unloved, and certain foods can make them think of times when they were fed by people who loved them. Sometimes, they have inner emotions that are so destructive that they eat and eat, trying to smother them (similar to the expression that alcoholics are “drowning their sorrows”). To be sure, there is very often, a definite psychological reason under a case of obesity. And it’s my belief that the psychological and biological are very closely intertwined in may cases, and cannot be separated.

But as long as your husband’s weight remains at a reasonably healthy level (as per his doctor, not his opinion) and is getting sincere pleasure from exceptional food, I don’t think you have to worry.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=jpinpb]

I’m sure there must be some study out there on this, whether certain foods raise serotonin levels. I bet eating an apple or an apricot won’t do it, but chocolate cake would.

I mean, certain food are comforting, right? I can understand if there’s a chemical reaction when eating certain foods that cause people to be happy and they don’t care about their weight, b/c, well, they’re happy.[/quote]

it is well known that fat and carbs drive up the serotonin level in the system rapidly.

of course, that increase is very short lived and the level falls quickly as well. this means instead of a cookie, you got to go for the second. but after the second, you need to go for the third… so on and so forth…

this is the same pattern that leads to narcotic addiction. The high created by the narcs are very short lived, the low then create the need to seek out more narcs to get back to the high. this is why sugar and fat are so addictive.

except instead of narcotics, sugar and fat are cheap, they are everywhere, and they are offered with a smile and often with a toy to children everywhere.[/quote]

jp, your observation that food = happiness is an astute one. The role of emotions in overeating has been studied extensively for many years by the world’s leading researchers in obesity medicine. There’s a huge body (no pun intended) of work on this topic available in the medical literature. The treatment of obesity, and its underlying causes, is incredibly complex and difficult. In my opinion, within 10 years it will be the most challenging health issue we will be facing as a nation, both medically and economically.

That being said, it is not likely that your husband went gaga over his chocolate cake because of rapidly rising serotonin levels. Serotonin (that which is synthesized in the brain, or about 20% of the body’s total) is an endogenous neurotransmitter that plays an essential role in mood control, temp regulation, and sensory perception. Nerve cells in the brain pass messages to accomplish tasks related to these functions via chemical synapses with the help of serotonin. The sending (presynaptic) cell releases serotonin into the synaptic gap, whereupon receptors on the surface of the recipient (postsynaptic) cell “recognize” the serotonin and the messaging process is completed. Most of the serotonin is then returned to the presynaptic cell for recycling (reuptake). In some neuropsychological disorders (e.g., clinical depression), SSRIs like Prozac, Celexa, or Zoloft, are administered to prevent reuptake, causing serotonin to remain in the synaptic gap for longer period, ensuring repeated stimulation on the postsynaptic cell.

Serotonin is unable to cross the blood-brain barrier, so if your brain is in short supply, it cannot be administered directly like a drug, nor can you eat food that will directly synthesize serotonin. You can either take an SSRI med to make more efficient use of the existing supply, or you can switch to a diet high in complex carbohydrates in order to produce tryptophan, an amino acid that can cross the B-B barrier, and that is the precursor to serotonin. Fats are also necessary, however, they should be “healthy” fats, like omega-3s.

Keep in mind that there are other “brain chemicals” or neurotransmitters that can contribute to our reactions to experiences. While serotonin is essential to maintaining a level mood, dopamine is the chemical messenger that allows us to experience pleasure and pain. While this seems to be more of what you were describing in your husband’s cake experience, it’s unlikely that his dopamine levels are fluctuating to that point. Dopamine plays a huge role in drug, and other forms of, addiction. Cocaine and speed have an incredible effect on dopamine levels. Cocaine works like an SSRI: it prevents the reuptake of dopamine released from the postsynaptic cell, permitting more dopamine to remain in the synaptic gap and continue to stimulate the dopamine receptors on the postsynaptic cell.

As for chocolate cake consumption, it’s a much faster reaction than would occur with neurotransmitters alone. You’re dealing with simple carbs that have sugar molecules that break apart almost instantly and infuse the bloodstream. Simultaneously, the pancreas releases insulin which triggers the body’s cells to pull the glucose out of your blood and store it for future use. In some people (definitely not all), this process will cause a “rush” or burst of energy. However, it is soon followed by a “crash”: loss of blood glucose can cause extreme fatigue and loss of energy. Many people feel the need to eat or drink something sweet to give them a “boost”, and the process just keeps repeating itself.

While increased insulin levels can cause serotonin levels to rise, it is typically not in levels high enough or long-lasting enough to cause a change in a depressed individual. If you are at all familiar with the antidepressant drugs on the market, you know that the patient usually has to wait at least two to six weeks to notice any improvement in their mood, and can frequently experience unpleasant side effects in the initial period. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, and related to the adaptation of multiple systems to changing neurotransmitter levels.

So I’m thinking that your husband liked the cake because is was just so f***ing good. Some absolutely normal people out there really get into their food, just like those who really get into music or art. Typically these are individuals who aren’t going to sit down and eat the whole cake at one sitting. Yes, there are certainly people out there – lots and lots – who have psychological issues with food, and many of them resort to eating to unbelieveably excessive levels. Sometimes it can be because they feel that everything in their lives is so out of control, and the food they choose to put into their mouths IS under their control (or so they think). Other times, people are feeling unloved, and certain foods can make them think of times when they were fed by people who loved them. Sometimes, they have inner emotions that are so destructive that they eat and eat, trying to smother them (similar to the expression that alcoholics are “drowning their sorrows”). To be sure, there is very often, a definite psychological reason under a case of obesity. And it’s my belief that the psychological and biological are very closely intertwined in may cases, and cannot be separated.

But as long as your husband’s weight remains at a reasonably healthy level (as per his doctor, not his opinion) and is getting sincere pleasure from exceptional food, I don’t think you have to worry.

[eavesdropper]

There will be no shortage of news reporting on this event. I’m always gratified to come across reporters who have unique journalistic styles that keep me riveted to the articles they write. Cathy Kelly of the Santa Cruz Sentinel is one of these:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15678300

Federal judge’s ruling guts Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages
(Hmmm. Let me try and guess which side she was on.)

(About halfway into the article)
Demonstrations coinciding with the ruling’s release were planned Wednesday throughout the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere, including the Diversity Center in Santa Cruz. A handful of people gathered at the center Wednesday afternoon to await the ruling. Initially apprehensive, the mood turned celebratory once the judge’s order was made public.
“We know and expect this is to be just one piece on the path to marriage equality. But it’s a critical part,” said Lex, who is queer and does not use a last name. “It feels good to celebrate right now.”

Of course, I could be reading that last sentence wrong. Maybe she’s trying to say that Lex is queer *because* he does not use a last name?

Don’t know about y’all, but I smell a Pulitzer.

[eavesdropper]

There will be no shortage of news reporting on this event. I’m always gratified to come across reporters who have unique journalistic styles that keep me riveted to the articles they write. Cathy Kelly of the Santa Cruz Sentinel is one of these:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15678300

Federal judge’s ruling guts Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages
(Hmmm. Let me try and guess which side she was on.)

(About halfway into the article)
Demonstrations coinciding with the ruling’s release were planned Wednesday throughout the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere, including the Diversity Center in Santa Cruz. A handful of people gathered at the center Wednesday afternoon to await the ruling. Initially apprehensive, the mood turned celebratory once the judge’s order was made public.
“We know and expect this is to be just one piece on the path to marriage equality. But it’s a critical part,” said Lex, who is queer and does not use a last name. “It feels good to celebrate right now.”

Of course, I could be reading that last sentence wrong. Maybe she’s trying to say that Lex is queer *because* he does not use a last name?

Don’t know about y’all, but I smell a Pulitzer.

[eavesdropper]

There will be no shortage of news reporting on this event. I’m always gratified to come across reporters who have unique journalistic styles that keep me riveted to the articles they write. Cathy Kelly of the Santa Cruz Sentinel is one of these:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15678300

Federal judge’s ruling guts Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages
(Hmmm. Let me try and guess which side she was on.)

(About halfway into the article)
Demonstrations coinciding with the ruling’s release were planned Wednesday throughout the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere, including the Diversity Center in Santa Cruz. A handful of people gathered at the center Wednesday afternoon to await the ruling. Initially apprehensive, the mood turned celebratory once the judge’s order was made public.
“We know and expect this is to be just one piece on the path to marriage equality. But it’s a critical part,” said Lex, who is queer and does not use a last name. “It feels good to celebrate right now.”

Of course, I could be reading that last sentence wrong. Maybe she’s trying to say that Lex is queer *because* he does not use a last name?

Don’t know about y’all, but I smell a Pulitzer.

[eavesdropper]

There will be no shortage of news reporting on this event. I’m always gratified to come across reporters who have unique journalistic styles that keep me riveted to the articles they write. Cathy Kelly of the Santa Cruz Sentinel is one of these:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15678300

Federal judge’s ruling guts Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages
(Hmmm. Let me try and guess which side she was on.)

(About halfway into the article)
Demonstrations coinciding with the ruling’s release were planned Wednesday throughout the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere, including the Diversity Center in Santa Cruz. A handful of people gathered at the center Wednesday afternoon to await the ruling. Initially apprehensive, the mood turned celebratory once the judge’s order was made public.
“We know and expect this is to be just one piece on the path to marriage equality. But it’s a critical part,” said Lex, who is queer and does not use a last name. “It feels good to celebrate right now.”

Of course, I could be reading that last sentence wrong. Maybe she’s trying to say that Lex is queer *because* he does not use a last name?

Don’t know about y’all, but I smell a Pulitzer.

[eavesdropper]

There will be no shortage of news reporting on this event. I’m always gratified to come across reporters who have unique journalistic styles that keep me riveted to the articles they write. Cathy Kelly of the Santa Cruz Sentinel is one of these:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15678300

Federal judge’s ruling guts Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages
(Hmmm. Let me try and guess which side she was on.)

(About halfway into the article)
Demonstrations coinciding with the ruling’s release were planned Wednesday throughout the San Francisco Bay area and elsewhere, including the Diversity Center in Santa Cruz. A handful of people gathered at the center Wednesday afternoon to await the ruling. Initially apprehensive, the mood turned celebratory once the judge’s order was made public.
“We know and expect this is to be just one piece on the path to marriage equality. But it’s a critical part,” said Lex, who is queer and does not use a last name. “It feels good to celebrate right now.”

Of course, I could be reading that last sentence wrong. Maybe she’s trying to say that Lex is queer *because* he does not use a last name?

Don’t know about y’all, but I smell a Pulitzer.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano]How many times does a guy have to be catastrophically wrong before people will stop listening to him?[/quote]

It would appear that, to the media, Alan Greenspan has no shelf date. As long as the mass media offers Greenspan a soapbox, a large percentage of the citizenry will assume that what’s coming out of his mouth is believeable. Sad, but oh, so true.

I’m not sure who is charged with finding and booking “experts” to appear on televised news media, but I would be willing to bet that it’s the unpaid 20 year-old intern.

What was NBC thinking? (Of course, that, in itself, is a broad assumption on my part) You have the guy who is considered to be responsible in large part for the financial mess……on your well-respected, widely-viewed Sunday morning news show to ask him about our current and future financial health??? Really? There wasn’t another economist, financial journalist, or econ professor available? Maybe if Greenspan would have been one of 3 or 4 economists on a panel, or if they had had Greenspan interviewed by a hard-hitting financial journalist (no, not Jim Cramer. Someone who actually knows something about finance.)

No, so long as the mainstream media (and, yes, I am including Fox News in this group) continue to book these leeches, advertise their appearances heavily, and lob softball questions at them, people in America will take it for granted that they’re experts, and worth listening to. It’s so much easier doing that than reading a number of sources, weighing the content of each against the other, and coming up with one’s own thoughts and opinions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano]How many times does a guy have to be catastrophically wrong before people will stop listening to him?[/quote]

It would appear that, to the media, Alan Greenspan has no shelf date. As long as the mass media offers Greenspan a soapbox, a large percentage of the citizenry will assume that what’s coming out of his mouth is believeable. Sad, but oh, so true.

I’m not sure who is charged with finding and booking “experts” to appear on televised news media, but I would be willing to bet that it’s the unpaid 20 year-old intern.

What was NBC thinking? (Of course, that, in itself, is a broad assumption on my part) You have the guy who is considered to be responsible in large part for the financial mess……on your well-respected, widely-viewed Sunday morning news show to ask him about our current and future financial health??? Really? There wasn’t another economist, financial journalist, or econ professor available? Maybe if Greenspan would have been one of 3 or 4 economists on a panel, or if they had had Greenspan interviewed by a hard-hitting financial journalist (no, not Jim Cramer. Someone who actually knows something about finance.)

No, so long as the mainstream media (and, yes, I am including Fox News in this group) continue to book these leeches, advertise their appearances heavily, and lob softball questions at them, people in America will take it for granted that they’re experts, and worth listening to. It’s so much easier doing that than reading a number of sources, weighing the content of each against the other, and coming up with one’s own thoughts and opinions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano]How many times does a guy have to be catastrophically wrong before people will stop listening to him?[/quote]

It would appear that, to the media, Alan Greenspan has no shelf date. As long as the mass media offers Greenspan a soapbox, a large percentage of the citizenry will assume that what’s coming out of his mouth is believeable. Sad, but oh, so true.

I’m not sure who is charged with finding and booking “experts” to appear on televised news media, but I would be willing to bet that it’s the unpaid 20 year-old intern.

What was NBC thinking? (Of course, that, in itself, is a broad assumption on my part) You have the guy who is considered to be responsible in large part for the financial mess……on your well-respected, widely-viewed Sunday morning news show to ask him about our current and future financial health??? Really? There wasn’t another economist, financial journalist, or econ professor available? Maybe if Greenspan would have been one of 3 or 4 economists on a panel, or if they had had Greenspan interviewed by a hard-hitting financial journalist (no, not Jim Cramer. Someone who actually knows something about finance.)

No, so long as the mainstream media (and, yes, I am including Fox News in this group) continue to book these leeches, advertise their appearances heavily, and lob softball questions at them, people in America will take it for granted that they’re experts, and worth listening to. It’s so much easier doing that than reading a number of sources, weighing the content of each against the other, and coming up with one’s own thoughts and opinions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano]How many times does a guy have to be catastrophically wrong before people will stop listening to him?[/quote]

It would appear that, to the media, Alan Greenspan has no shelf date. As long as the mass media offers Greenspan a soapbox, a large percentage of the citizenry will assume that what’s coming out of his mouth is believeable. Sad, but oh, so true.

I’m not sure who is charged with finding and booking “experts” to appear on televised news media, but I would be willing to bet that it’s the unpaid 20 year-old intern.

What was NBC thinking? (Of course, that, in itself, is a broad assumption on my part) You have the guy who is considered to be responsible in large part for the financial mess……on your well-respected, widely-viewed Sunday morning news show to ask him about our current and future financial health??? Really? There wasn’t another economist, financial journalist, or econ professor available? Maybe if Greenspan would have been one of 3 or 4 economists on a panel, or if they had had Greenspan interviewed by a hard-hitting financial journalist (no, not Jim Cramer. Someone who actually knows something about finance.)

No, so long as the mainstream media (and, yes, I am including Fox News in this group) continue to book these leeches, advertise their appearances heavily, and lob softball questions at them, people in America will take it for granted that they’re experts, and worth listening to. It’s so much easier doing that than reading a number of sources, weighing the content of each against the other, and coming up with one’s own thoughts and opinions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Rich Toscano]How many times does a guy have to be catastrophically wrong before people will stop listening to him?[/quote]

It would appear that, to the media, Alan Greenspan has no shelf date. As long as the mass media offers Greenspan a soapbox, a large percentage of the citizenry will assume that what’s coming out of his mouth is believeable. Sad, but oh, so true.

I’m not sure who is charged with finding and booking “experts” to appear on televised news media, but I would be willing to bet that it’s the unpaid 20 year-old intern.

What was NBC thinking? (Of course, that, in itself, is a broad assumption on my part) You have the guy who is considered to be responsible in large part for the financial mess……on your well-respected, widely-viewed Sunday morning news show to ask him about our current and future financial health??? Really? There wasn’t another economist, financial journalist, or econ professor available? Maybe if Greenspan would have been one of 3 or 4 economists on a panel, or if they had had Greenspan interviewed by a hard-hitting financial journalist (no, not Jim Cramer. Someone who actually knows something about finance.)

No, so long as the mainstream media (and, yes, I am including Fox News in this group) continue to book these leeches, advertise their appearances heavily, and lob softball questions at them, people in America will take it for granted that they’re experts, and worth listening to. It’s so much easier doing that than reading a number of sources, weighing the content of each against the other, and coming up with one’s own thoughts and opinions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Transplant]Thanks for posting the details and video. I’ve caught some of the interview in my hotel room and wanted a review to read/view the details again. Funny that Greenspan sounded a little more geniune as he is trying to redeem his reputation after the game is over (way late in my book but interesting chatter)[/quote]

What I find interesting is that it seemed to take Greenspan a couple years to realize that, in the eyes of many people, he was a significant player in the events that led to the financial meltdown. For quite a while, you’d see photos of him at some social event or the other, with this Alfred E. Newman “What, me worry?” grin plastered on his face.

Speaking of clueless “experts”: I saw an interesting documentary on NOVA recently, “Mind Over Money”. It asks the question of why so many of the world’s leading economists failed to foresee disastrous fallout from the boom markets of the early and mid-oughts, and explored the role of human behavior in these events.

The causes of the meltdown are numerous and complex, and some, I believe, remain unexplored. It is important to view this film as an exploration of one small facet of an incredibly complex occurrence, not as an explanation of all that went wrong. The documentary raises intriguing questions about how we teach, learn, and approach economics.

The film is available for instant viewing from Netflix, and also can be viewed on the PBS website.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Transplant]Thanks for posting the details and video. I’ve caught some of the interview in my hotel room and wanted a review to read/view the details again. Funny that Greenspan sounded a little more geniune as he is trying to redeem his reputation after the game is over (way late in my book but interesting chatter)[/quote]

What I find interesting is that it seemed to take Greenspan a couple years to realize that, in the eyes of many people, he was a significant player in the events that led to the financial meltdown. For quite a while, you’d see photos of him at some social event or the other, with this Alfred E. Newman “What, me worry?” grin plastered on his face.

Speaking of clueless “experts”: I saw an interesting documentary on NOVA recently, “Mind Over Money”. It asks the question of why so many of the world’s leading economists failed to foresee disastrous fallout from the boom markets of the early and mid-oughts, and explored the role of human behavior in these events.

The causes of the meltdown are numerous and complex, and some, I believe, remain unexplored. It is important to view this film as an exploration of one small facet of an incredibly complex occurrence, not as an explanation of all that went wrong. The documentary raises intriguing questions about how we teach, learn, and approach economics.

The film is available for instant viewing from Netflix, and also can be viewed on the PBS website.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Transplant]Thanks for posting the details and video. I’ve caught some of the interview in my hotel room and wanted a review to read/view the details again. Funny that Greenspan sounded a little more geniune as he is trying to redeem his reputation after the game is over (way late in my book but interesting chatter)[/quote]

What I find interesting is that it seemed to take Greenspan a couple years to realize that, in the eyes of many people, he was a significant player in the events that led to the financial meltdown. For quite a while, you’d see photos of him at some social event or the other, with this Alfred E. Newman “What, me worry?” grin plastered on his face.

Speaking of clueless “experts”: I saw an interesting documentary on NOVA recently, “Mind Over Money”. It asks the question of why so many of the world’s leading economists failed to foresee disastrous fallout from the boom markets of the early and mid-oughts, and explored the role of human behavior in these events.

The causes of the meltdown are numerous and complex, and some, I believe, remain unexplored. It is important to view this film as an exploration of one small facet of an incredibly complex occurrence, not as an explanation of all that went wrong. The documentary raises intriguing questions about how we teach, learn, and approach economics.

The film is available for instant viewing from Netflix, and also can be viewed on the PBS website.

[Author]

Posts