Book Review How to Be an Antiracist

the result is a dense concentration of similar businesses where the choices to the customer could be summed up as “Would you like coff ee, coff ee, or coff ee?” Maybe one shop has a slightly more comfortable chair or a more appealing atmosphere, but the shops are all pretty much the same, which is why more shops does not really equal more choice and certainly does not benefi t the customer or the ordinary citizen much at all, especially when the street is super-saturated with java peddlers. If anything, it just contributes to a feeling of congestion and blandness. Th e Nash Equilibrium can be contrasted with the Socially Optimal Solution, where businesses are evenly spaced out so that they are easily reachable by customers. But, attaining a Socially Optimal Solution requires cooperation and you know, nobody wants that.

Th ere are those who say Korea has developed a “coff ee culture,” but I would disagree for the simple reason that corporations stamping the cityscape with identical, cookie-cutter establishments that choke out innovative and unique establishments is not “culture.” It is a sign that communities are not being laid out with citizens’ best interests in mind.

Th e Economic Narrative

Even those who are not religious or superstitious follow some sort of narrative, and one of the strongest underlying narratives worldwide is that by following economic reasoning, and letting businesses compete freely, all people can enjoy better and more prosperous lives. Economics is a handy-dandy tool for explaining how and why money changes hands, but it is based fundamentally on the ideas that limitless growth is essential, more is better, and growth helps everyone by making the “pie” bigger. When something grows without limits, it is generally referred to as “cancer,” and reoccurring global events should make it clear that it is those on top, the already wealthy, who benefi t disproportionally from economic growth. Th is idea that businesses work best when they are allowed to operate freely is also complete poppycock.

In Th e Great Delusion, Steven Stoll explains how, when economics fi rst started being developed in earnest, they were modeled heavily on the existing fi elds of mathematics and physics. Th e Irish economist John Cairns (1825–1875) claimed that “political economy (i.e., economics) plainly belongs to the same class of sciences with mechanics, astronomy, optics, chemistry, electricity, and in general, all those physical sciences which have reached the inductive stage.” Amasa Walker even asserted in Th e Science of Wealth (1866) that “so far as political economy, as a science, is physical, depending on the forces and agencies of nature, it is above legislation.” Th at is to say, the fi rst economists believed that they were uncovering “universal truths” that could be studied and applied to practical problems, much in the same way that Newton and Leibniz developed calculus to address the problem of people generally enjoying their lives. While these attitudes towards the immutable nature of economics have persisted, early economists erred in their assessments. As Stoll astutely points out, “Economists seized upon physics without understanding the full implication of the categories they clumsily translated into human action.”

Economics and physics are fundamentally diff erent because the former describes a distinctly human phenomenon (the economic system) and the latter was parsed out by rigorous scientifi c methods, and exists independent of human thought or emotion. Otherwise put, early economics simply threw their big fancy theories (hypotheses, really) onto the existing conceptual template that had been established by physicists, because, hey, why not?

In the same way that the right to govern, which was once unquestionably thought to be the divine right of kings, morphed into the democratic systems that large parts of the world enjoy today, we should remember that the economic system is not something dependent on fate or determined the stars, but something that is subject to change.

In Conclusion

Like an onion, the foul vegetable that I hate, the phenomenon of too many coff ee shops in my neighborhood has many layers. By considering the social, economic, and historical foundations on which these stores are based, we can more clearly understand the fractured thought process that goes into opening these shops. Th e people who at this very moment are, no doubt, scheming to open the next java joint in Bongseondong would do well to heed the advice of the French adage “Trop, c’est comme pas assez” (Too much is like not enough).

The Author

William Urbanski is the managing editor of the Gwangju News has an MA in international relations and cultural diplomacy. He is married to a wonderful Korean woman, always pays cash, and keeps all his receipts. Instagram: @will_il_gatto