I am pursuing a post-graduate Econ degree in a relatively left-leaning institution in India. While much of the conventional rhetoric doesn't surprise me, what does surprise me is exactly the hubris some professors and students possess, as if they are the ones chosen to solve society's problems without really understanding the complex nature of issues especially in a country like India. As each day passes, Hayek makes more and more sense to me.
I have a modest proposal for ameliorating 'the niche for uncertain, Chesterton Fence-wary' problem.
We need to demand that we get more than 'like' and 'dislike' for articles. There are lots of other labels we would like bettter. 'Made me think' and 'Made me Laugh' are good ones. But 'Backed up with a lot of data' and 'Opinion with no supporting data' and 'Good pub conversation' are other ones. And the author, and the readers could then go out and vote for how solidly they believe in what is being said. I think that a great many authors really only want to have a pub talk, to entertain, to get people thinking, and to enjoy their own minds and its interplay with other minds. There nothing wrong with that! But labels would make things a lot easier for the rest of us who have no clue how seriously to take something that somebody said.
It would be a very nice thing to happen to Twitter, for instance. I wonder if anybody has proposed this idea -- which must have occurred to others, as it is fairly obvious, to Elon Musk? I'd love to get it for substack, but I don't know how or where to suggest such things.
The plant food agenda is such nonsense. It is evolutionary nonsense: we have evolved to be preferential animal fat and protein eaters: there are no diet-essential carbohydrates. It is environmental nonsense. Pastoralism can be done in a far more sustainable, regenerative and biodiverse way than mono-crop agriculture. Always be sceptical of folk who moralise their food.
I believe it's a mistake to make charitable assumptions about the motives of people who won't return the favor.
Teachers are in a position to know perfectly well that the Covid risk, either to children or to themselves from children, is effectively zero. Those who wanted to stop in-person classes, whether they got their way or not, were simply trying to get paid without doing their jobs. They deserve to lose them.
The silver lining is that many parents found out their kids were being indoctrinated, and have the opportunity to put a stop to it.
Teachers are too sacred. Does too much of the sacred lead to numeracy and rationality being seen as profane? Maybe I should stop quipping about the blessed and saintly accountants and switch to talking about the virtuous and holy food service workers. Although I doubt this would pierce the bubble of sacredness and would just expand it if I actually had any effect whatsoever.
‘The workers in the food supply chain put up with the risks.’ And infections were no higher than in the general population, despite close proximity in processing and packing plants and before masks where mandated indoors: in fact infection rates were mostly lower. It’s the community immunity thing. Children are unhygienic creatures and with not yet developed immune systems are well known breeding grounds for all sorts of bugs. Schools are primary spreading vectors during influenza epidemics. CoVid 19 was a disease with a relatively small, specific, elderly, immune suppressed cohort with risk approaching zero to 99+% of the general population. Teachers are at far greater risk from other respiratory viruses and disease-causing bacteria carried and spread in classrooms, than from CoVid 19. That these self-absorbed ignoramuses did not know this, had not taught and informed themselves, is witness to the parlous state of the model teaching so-called profession. If they can’t teach themselves, how can they teach children? As for not getting annoyed with the parade of idiots, that’s why we have a parade of idiots - moral hazard... no cost to be an idiot and they take comfort in their number and are emboldened in the absence of opposition.
Re your last paragraph, studies that show that managers who give confident but wrong forecasts are rated as more competent than their peers who provide less confident but ultimately more accurate forecasts. Specifically, in IT project management, the data (and my professional experience), show that manager A in the following scenario is rated more highly:
Manager A says very confidently the project will take 12 months and cost $10 million.
Manager B says their best estimate is the project will take 18-24 months and cost $13-17 million.
The project is completed by either manager in 20 months at a cost of $16 million.
Manager A spins a convincing line about how "unforeseeable events" affected the project.
Manager B assumed their would be unforeseeable events and built those into the estimate.
As a lifelong vegetarian and someone who's tried plant-based "meats", I hope that meat alternatives will continue to be priced and available in response to the market and not become a subsidized virtue signal. The whole fake meat proposition begins from an incorrect assumption. It supposes that non-meat eaters consider themselves deprived. Believe it or not, vegetarians don't wake up each morning aching for bacon or panting for pork chops. Once you've removed meat products from your food consideration set, your brain adjusts to derive equal gratification from non-meat foods. It's all good, and though my wife is cooking up a big turkey for the family today, I myself will leave the table happily replete with all the non-meat dishes on hand, and as ready for a nice digestive nap as anyone.
Stay angry my friend. I love that you so openly express frustration and uncertainty. What could be more honest? I agree with about 50% of what you say (teachers are full of it but not so sure voluntary exposure to drag queens does anything good or bad) but I love thinking about it. You being a bit unvarnished helps provoke that thought.
Iglesias often throws out some facile “solution” that involves greater scope and deeper intervention for The Regime. Is he naive or does He know what his audience wants to hear?
We are living in peak selfishness. Unfortunately, I expect humanity will set new record highs in 2023.
The western culture of classical liberalism died when the elite figured out that pandering to the fears and desires of social factions yielded more personal reward than exercising benevolence to all people.
Yglesias and meat. I'm not sure it is incumbent on the person who throws out a policy proposal by counting its benefits also to come up with all the costs. In the specific context he was, as I recall, advancing "develop artificial meat" as an alternative to shaming or taxing people into just not eating meat. Hardly annoying, in my book.
I am pursuing a post-graduate Econ degree in a relatively left-leaning institution in India. While much of the conventional rhetoric doesn't surprise me, what does surprise me is exactly the hubris some professors and students possess, as if they are the ones chosen to solve society's problems without really understanding the complex nature of issues especially in a country like India. As each day passes, Hayek makes more and more sense to me.
I have a modest proposal for ameliorating 'the niche for uncertain, Chesterton Fence-wary' problem.
We need to demand that we get more than 'like' and 'dislike' for articles. There are lots of other labels we would like bettter. 'Made me think' and 'Made me Laugh' are good ones. But 'Backed up with a lot of data' and 'Opinion with no supporting data' and 'Good pub conversation' are other ones. And the author, and the readers could then go out and vote for how solidly they believe in what is being said. I think that a great many authors really only want to have a pub talk, to entertain, to get people thinking, and to enjoy their own minds and its interplay with other minds. There nothing wrong with that! But labels would make things a lot easier for the rest of us who have no clue how seriously to take something that somebody said.
It would be a very nice thing to happen to Twitter, for instance. I wonder if anybody has proposed this idea -- which must have occurred to others, as it is fairly obvious, to Elon Musk? I'd love to get it for substack, but I don't know how or where to suggest such things.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts." – Bertrand Russell
You should get annoyed more often! This is a great post.
The plant food agenda is such nonsense. It is evolutionary nonsense: we have evolved to be preferential animal fat and protein eaters: there are no diet-essential carbohydrates. It is environmental nonsense. Pastoralism can be done in a far more sustainable, regenerative and biodiverse way than mono-crop agriculture. Always be sceptical of folk who moralise their food.
I believe it's a mistake to make charitable assumptions about the motives of people who won't return the favor.
Teachers are in a position to know perfectly well that the Covid risk, either to children or to themselves from children, is effectively zero. Those who wanted to stop in-person classes, whether they got their way or not, were simply trying to get paid without doing their jobs. They deserve to lose them.
The silver lining is that many parents found out their kids were being indoctrinated, and have the opportunity to put a stop to it.
Teachers are too sacred. Does too much of the sacred lead to numeracy and rationality being seen as profane? Maybe I should stop quipping about the blessed and saintly accountants and switch to talking about the virtuous and holy food service workers. Although I doubt this would pierce the bubble of sacredness and would just expand it if I actually had any effect whatsoever.
“Perhaps I am simply suffering from jealous resentment of his popularity.” Nonetheless, I read every word Arnold says, and just skim Matthew.
‘The workers in the food supply chain put up with the risks.’ And infections were no higher than in the general population, despite close proximity in processing and packing plants and before masks where mandated indoors: in fact infection rates were mostly lower. It’s the community immunity thing. Children are unhygienic creatures and with not yet developed immune systems are well known breeding grounds for all sorts of bugs. Schools are primary spreading vectors during influenza epidemics. CoVid 19 was a disease with a relatively small, specific, elderly, immune suppressed cohort with risk approaching zero to 99+% of the general population. Teachers are at far greater risk from other respiratory viruses and disease-causing bacteria carried and spread in classrooms, than from CoVid 19. That these self-absorbed ignoramuses did not know this, had not taught and informed themselves, is witness to the parlous state of the model teaching so-called profession. If they can’t teach themselves, how can they teach children? As for not getting annoyed with the parade of idiots, that’s why we have a parade of idiots - moral hazard... no cost to be an idiot and they take comfort in their number and are emboldened in the absence of opposition.
Re your last paragraph, studies that show that managers who give confident but wrong forecasts are rated as more competent than their peers who provide less confident but ultimately more accurate forecasts. Specifically, in IT project management, the data (and my professional experience), show that manager A in the following scenario is rated more highly:
Manager A says very confidently the project will take 12 months and cost $10 million.
Manager B says their best estimate is the project will take 18-24 months and cost $13-17 million.
The project is completed by either manager in 20 months at a cost of $16 million.
Manager A spins a convincing line about how "unforeseeable events" affected the project.
Manager B assumed their would be unforeseeable events and built those into the estimate.
As a lifelong vegetarian and someone who's tried plant-based "meats", I hope that meat alternatives will continue to be priced and available in response to the market and not become a subsidized virtue signal. The whole fake meat proposition begins from an incorrect assumption. It supposes that non-meat eaters consider themselves deprived. Believe it or not, vegetarians don't wake up each morning aching for bacon or panting for pork chops. Once you've removed meat products from your food consideration set, your brain adjusts to derive equal gratification from non-meat foods. It's all good, and though my wife is cooking up a big turkey for the family today, I myself will leave the table happily replete with all the non-meat dishes on hand, and as ready for a nice digestive nap as anyone.
Stay angry my friend. I love that you so openly express frustration and uncertainty. What could be more honest? I agree with about 50% of what you say (teachers are full of it but not so sure voluntary exposure to drag queens does anything good or bad) but I love thinking about it. You being a bit unvarnished helps provoke that thought.
"Someone who takes it upon himself to put on a sexual display in front of little children is a pervert, by definition."
Based
Iglesias often throws out some facile “solution” that involves greater scope and deeper intervention for The Regime. Is he naive or does He know what his audience wants to hear?
We are living in peak selfishness. Unfortunately, I expect humanity will set new record highs in 2023.
The western culture of classical liberalism died when the elite figured out that pandering to the fears and desires of social factions yielded more personal reward than exercising benevolence to all people.
Yglesias and meat. I'm not sure it is incumbent on the person who throws out a policy proposal by counting its benefits also to come up with all the costs. In the specific context he was, as I recall, advancing "develop artificial meat" as an alternative to shaming or taxing people into just not eating meat. Hardly annoying, in my book.