Alberto Mingardi on epistemic humility; Kling's history of the Great Financial Crisis; Noah Smith on the 1970s; Brian Stewart on the history of the right; Peter Zeihan on disorder
Let it be noted that 57 House representatives voted against spending billions in unchecked, aid for the proxy war against Russia. All Republicans. None in senior leadership.
In the Senate only Rand Paul objected to the unmonitored spending of this additional $40 billion.
I don't know what is meant today by the "Conservative" label. It is meaningless to me. I do know corruption when I see it and I see most of Congress, Republicans and Democrats supporting corruption. The loudest voices opposing the status quo being Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Chip Roy, Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz. None of these are media or GOP darlings.
And so when I see "experts" feign concen about the demise of Conservatism in the Republican party I know the experts are practicing deception. The Republican party doesn't care for Conservative values such as Americans understand them. The goal of the GOP is to be just to the right of the DNC. The parties stand for 90% the same thing, which is progressive globalism.
American Graffiti may be an iconic movie of the 70's but the subject is the 50's. Two of the stars went on to Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley, TV shows about the 50's.
This past week in crypto is another data point for technocrats assuming that a solution exists. Algorithmic stable coins are built (well some are just scams) on the assumption that there exists a set up which can allow for them to create a mathematical peg to the USD. The repeated failure of other coins isn't stopping people from putting millions to billions in these coins without that assumption ever being questioned. Never once have I seen someone in favor of asc make the observation that mathematics is about describing the world and not controlling it and what that implies and how to address that gulf.
Having lived my youth in American Graffiti fast car in LA era, then moved into the real technology era, your lack of distinction between the real sciences and the so-called social sciences that are really dealing with intractable complex problems creates some problems. Political answers in physics, chemistry, mathematics and fundamental levels of biology are irrelevant. The real world "is what it is" and no magical thinking will change the laws of thermodynamics. If you don't take "expert" advice in these areas you will end up with incorrect decisions, even if it sounds good.
Economics is one of those complex area that is on the margins of real science. When I look at things like the housing price oscillations in Ca. and observed that they deviated from the national averages starting in the '70s and the frequency of the oscillation is to extreme levels, it appears that the increase in delay time on building/zoning permissions is the driver of the oscillations (mathematical instabilities when the natural frequencies of the supply and demand functions become the same).
The even more mushy social science areas have made no real progress in half a century, except a little better propaganda and advertising.
Perhaps I have a reading or memory problem but did I just read that there is a direct line from the Weather Underground to Disney and the NYT? I lived through those times and can’t see the slightest comparison . Tell me I misread this.
Lots of things contributed to the financial crash of 2008, but if Bernanke had been willing to keep inflation expectations at 2% we would have had a COVID crash or less instead of a decade of underemployment of resources. And memory of how small a well managed 2008 crash was would have meant the COVID crash would have been smaller, too.
RE: Mingardi: I’m trying to think of a issue on which “technocrats” think politics have no role. Technocrats (good one, at least) point out the trade-offs among objectives. How much current consumption of goods and services should we be willing to give up (and who has the give up the most) to prevent harm from net emissions of CO2 is a political question. Technocrats can point out that a tax on net emissions is the lowest cost way. Technocrats point to how much is lost by restricting immigration. How to trade the economic loss off against people who do not like to have to “push 1 to continue in English” is a political matter.
And "populists" think that knowledge of tradeoffs must be completely suppressed in order to let politics proceed unimpeded by pesky facts.
"The technocrat claims that the solution is understood by experts. The populist claims that the solution is understood by ordinary people, or at least by their preferred political hero."
I'm reminded of the Churchill quote that Democracy is the worst form government except for all those other forms that have been tried.
Let it be noted that 57 House representatives voted against spending billions in unchecked, aid for the proxy war against Russia. All Republicans. None in senior leadership.
In the Senate only Rand Paul objected to the unmonitored spending of this additional $40 billion.
I don't know what is meant today by the "Conservative" label. It is meaningless to me. I do know corruption when I see it and I see most of Congress, Republicans and Democrats supporting corruption. The loudest voices opposing the status quo being Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Chip Roy, Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz. None of these are media or GOP darlings.
And so when I see "experts" feign concen about the demise of Conservatism in the Republican party I know the experts are practicing deception. The Republican party doesn't care for Conservative values such as Americans understand them. The goal of the GOP is to be just to the right of the DNC. The parties stand for 90% the same thing, which is progressive globalism.
I hope no one thinks that Paul Ryan represented a "party dedicated to ordered liberty and national greatness." :)
American Graffiti may be an iconic movie of the 70's but the subject is the 50's. Two of the stars went on to Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley, TV shows about the 50's.
This past week in crypto is another data point for technocrats assuming that a solution exists. Algorithmic stable coins are built (well some are just scams) on the assumption that there exists a set up which can allow for them to create a mathematical peg to the USD. The repeated failure of other coins isn't stopping people from putting millions to billions in these coins without that assumption ever being questioned. Never once have I seen someone in favor of asc make the observation that mathematics is about describing the world and not controlling it and what that implies and how to address that gulf.
Having lived my youth in American Graffiti fast car in LA era, then moved into the real technology era, your lack of distinction between the real sciences and the so-called social sciences that are really dealing with intractable complex problems creates some problems. Political answers in physics, chemistry, mathematics and fundamental levels of biology are irrelevant. The real world "is what it is" and no magical thinking will change the laws of thermodynamics. If you don't take "expert" advice in these areas you will end up with incorrect decisions, even if it sounds good.
Economics is one of those complex area that is on the margins of real science. When I look at things like the housing price oscillations in Ca. and observed that they deviated from the national averages starting in the '70s and the frequency of the oscillation is to extreme levels, it appears that the increase in delay time on building/zoning permissions is the driver of the oscillations (mathematical instabilities when the natural frequencies of the supply and demand functions become the same).
The even more mushy social science areas have made no real progress in half a century, except a little better propaganda and advertising.
I hope Peter Ziehan is wrong about lots of things. I imagine that he does, too.
Perhaps I have a reading or memory problem but did I just read that there is a direct line from the Weather Underground to Disney and the NYT? I lived through those times and can’t see the slightest comparison . Tell me I misread this.
Lots of things contributed to the financial crash of 2008, but if Bernanke had been willing to keep inflation expectations at 2% we would have had a COVID crash or less instead of a decade of underemployment of resources. And memory of how small a well managed 2008 crash was would have meant the COVID crash would have been smaller, too.
RE: Mingardi: I’m trying to think of a issue on which “technocrats” think politics have no role. Technocrats (good one, at least) point out the trade-offs among objectives. How much current consumption of goods and services should we be willing to give up (and who has the give up the most) to prevent harm from net emissions of CO2 is a political question. Technocrats can point out that a tax on net emissions is the lowest cost way. Technocrats point to how much is lost by restricting immigration. How to trade the economic loss off against people who do not like to have to “push 1 to continue in English” is a political matter.
And "populists" think that knowledge of tradeoffs must be completely suppressed in order to let politics proceed unimpeded by pesky facts.
"The technocrat claims that the solution is understood by experts. The populist claims that the solution is understood by ordinary people, or at least by their preferred political hero."
I'm reminded of the Churchill quote that Democracy is the worst form government except for all those other forms that have been tried.
Zeihan is a very typically cynical Gen-Xer.