Lind I think is only partly right. The reason that universities, professional associations and big corporations have so much power is that they are backed by the state. If you didn't need a license from a prof. org. to practice your profession no one would pay attention to them, but you need a license because the state says you do. If universities didn't receive huge amounts of subsidies, have highly controlled supply, and provide legal protection from litigation via "hiring certified experts" they would have much less clout (and ability to focus on this nonsense.) If the state didn't punish those without sufficient DIE architecture and huge HR departments most businesses would drop them like a hot potato, instead of using them as competitive hurdles to block entry.
The crazies have always been there, just that now there are so many gates to pass through to live your life that those in control have immense power. And if there is one thing the crazy leftists want is power; normal people can't compete.
Having worked in aquaculture which is an area where crazies (environmental activists and regulators) have blocked any growth in the US for the last half century, hasn't stopped the US individuals. However, the people and technology have flowed to countries outside the US and the reach of our crazies, where aquaculture has increased production about 40 times while the US has stayed constant. Meanwhile we now import about 90% of our seafood with the majority of that product being farmed fish/shrimp.
You can find people from the US throughout the international aquaculture industry. It has now become a 200 billion dollar industry and the fastest growth sector of meat production. It is similar size world wide to beef production for meat on the table. To make a lb of salmon only takes one lb of dry feed, but to make a lb of cow takes 5 to 8 lb of dry feed and 3 lb of pig feed for a lb of pig. Fish and shrimp don't have to waste energy standing up or keep warm giving them a huge natural advantage in converting low value proteins into higher value protein.
When the crazies get the power, they just destroy and the completion goes international.
Sorry, Arnold. Tyler Coward's dark optimism is based on his loyalty to universities, professional associations, and tech platform companies. Just like Emily Oster's.
I think that Lind is partly correct (but only partly; the Civil Rights bureaucracy => mandatory cultural leftism in institutions link seems pretty solid in the US), but that public vs private tyranny is the wrong way to look at things. It would be more accurate to say that the public/private distinction has broken down. The professional associations, tech monopolies, universities, NGOs, etc have all more or less fused with the government and are de facto part of the state, much as their equivalents are in China.
>>In the United States, in the third decade of the 21st century, the private tyranny of universities, professional associations, and tech platforms is a greater threat than the tyranny of an oppressive state. When it comes to reducing the power of the new entryists in the private sector, the restoration of our liberties requires an expansion of democratically accountable government.<<
This should be the "state capacity Libertarians" that Tyler has mentioned, but it doesn't seem to be what he means.
Cato has been good to Arnold Kling, but Lind's criticism of Big Business Libertarians supporting the rich Big Business globalist elites in their tyranny against MAGA-Republicans is spot on - allowing Big Business censorship because of "Free Market" is contrary to supporting Free Speech.
Most folk have a correct intuition that only Big Gov't can put effective limits on Big Business -- so the Reagan-Bush pro-business & pro merger globalization has gone too far. Those who want the comforts of a competitive free market should be pushing for breaking up the Big Tech and Big Bank businesses who have been abusing their power.
Colleges and all organizations with semi-gov't power delegated to it by gov't lawmakers should be subject to strict anti-partisan hiring practices - no discrimination against Republicans & pro-life Christians.
We need three sections of governments: one Republican and one Democrat, both empowered to make sure, with veto & firing power, that the main third gov't bureaucrats are not being partisan. We also need 10 year term limits on bureaucrat employees.
The quasi-religious belief systems of the woke institutions and followers do not give them technical competence necessary to compete in a dynamically changing technological environment. The concept of "evade/compete" is what will happen, but this woke nonsense may elevate some practitioners of this belief system to powerful positions, such as DEI chancellors, where they can veto faculty appointments they don't like and shift around a lot of money to their supporters. However, the competitive performance of the institution will inevitably decrease as the best and brightest are rejected for being in the wrong check box. Rejecting very competent non-woke people (or people of the wrong racial background), will cause these individuals to become available to other institutions less in thrall to their DEI policies, where evasion of DEI has become an art form (all words, no actions). The fashion for deemphasizing actual competence and merit is not one which will advantage any institution in the long run. Scorning merit as a primary requirement will keep down the competence of the more highly woke institutions. The value of "merit" is not going to go away, but its absence in powerful institutions will weaken the United States in its ability to compete with the rest of the world that does not view being the best and the brightest as a disadvantage compared to the color of their skin or the racial backgrounds of their parents.
We are already seeing a lot of this evasion as academic departments in STEM areas, where real absolute competence and merit are required to actually teach the skills. These departments are simply hiring part-time adjuncts or lecturers outside direct DEI control. However, reliance upon part-time, non-tenured, non-DEI dictated positions does not further the development of the institution itself, the quality of its research, the quality of its instruction.
I think carefully crafted legislation could be helpful, say strengthening academic freedom of professors against dismissal (or creation of a toxic work environment) for their views.
Lind I think is only partly right. The reason that universities, professional associations and big corporations have so much power is that they are backed by the state. If you didn't need a license from a prof. org. to practice your profession no one would pay attention to them, but you need a license because the state says you do. If universities didn't receive huge amounts of subsidies, have highly controlled supply, and provide legal protection from litigation via "hiring certified experts" they would have much less clout (and ability to focus on this nonsense.) If the state didn't punish those without sufficient DIE architecture and huge HR departments most businesses would drop them like a hot potato, instead of using them as competitive hurdles to block entry.
The crazies have always been there, just that now there are so many gates to pass through to live your life that those in control have immense power. And if there is one thing the crazy leftists want is power; normal people can't compete.
Having worked in aquaculture which is an area where crazies (environmental activists and regulators) have blocked any growth in the US for the last half century, hasn't stopped the US individuals. However, the people and technology have flowed to countries outside the US and the reach of our crazies, where aquaculture has increased production about 40 times while the US has stayed constant. Meanwhile we now import about 90% of our seafood with the majority of that product being farmed fish/shrimp.
You can find people from the US throughout the international aquaculture industry. It has now become a 200 billion dollar industry and the fastest growth sector of meat production. It is similar size world wide to beef production for meat on the table. To make a lb of salmon only takes one lb of dry feed, but to make a lb of cow takes 5 to 8 lb of dry feed and 3 lb of pig feed for a lb of pig. Fish and shrimp don't have to waste energy standing up or keep warm giving them a huge natural advantage in converting low value proteins into higher value protein.
When the crazies get the power, they just destroy and the completion goes international.
Excellent example of complex adaptive systems like markets working around damaging behaviors. Thanks!
Sorry, Arnold. Tyler Coward's dark optimism is based on his loyalty to universities, professional associations, and tech platform companies. Just like Emily Oster's.
I think that Lind is partly correct (but only partly; the Civil Rights bureaucracy => mandatory cultural leftism in institutions link seems pretty solid in the US), but that public vs private tyranny is the wrong way to look at things. It would be more accurate to say that the public/private distinction has broken down. The professional associations, tech monopolies, universities, NGOs, etc have all more or less fused with the government and are de facto part of the state, much as their equivalents are in China.
I get a sinking feeling that armed conflict with China has a decent chance of happening around 2027.
I like the truth of this comment but also have increasing fears about it. So "heart" is not quite the right signal.
"In other words, we’re totally screwed.
I am somewhere between Lind’s ultra-pessimism and Tyler Cowen’s sunny optimism. "
"Totally screwed" is an ultra-pessimistic view of what Lind said so how is Kling less pessimistic?
Lind is right. And correct:
>>In the United States, in the third decade of the 21st century, the private tyranny of universities, professional associations, and tech platforms is a greater threat than the tyranny of an oppressive state. When it comes to reducing the power of the new entryists in the private sector, the restoration of our liberties requires an expansion of democratically accountable government.<<
This should be the "state capacity Libertarians" that Tyler has mentioned, but it doesn't seem to be what he means.
Cato has been good to Arnold Kling, but Lind's criticism of Big Business Libertarians supporting the rich Big Business globalist elites in their tyranny against MAGA-Republicans is spot on - allowing Big Business censorship because of "Free Market" is contrary to supporting Free Speech.
Most folk have a correct intuition that only Big Gov't can put effective limits on Big Business -- so the Reagan-Bush pro-business & pro merger globalization has gone too far. Those who want the comforts of a competitive free market should be pushing for breaking up the Big Tech and Big Bank businesses who have been abusing their power.
Colleges and all organizations with semi-gov't power delegated to it by gov't lawmakers should be subject to strict anti-partisan hiring practices - no discrimination against Republicans & pro-life Christians.
We need three sections of governments: one Republican and one Democrat, both empowered to make sure, with veto & firing power, that the main third gov't bureaucrats are not being partisan. We also need 10 year term limits on bureaucrat employees.
The quasi-religious belief systems of the woke institutions and followers do not give them technical competence necessary to compete in a dynamically changing technological environment. The concept of "evade/compete" is what will happen, but this woke nonsense may elevate some practitioners of this belief system to powerful positions, such as DEI chancellors, where they can veto faculty appointments they don't like and shift around a lot of money to their supporters. However, the competitive performance of the institution will inevitably decrease as the best and brightest are rejected for being in the wrong check box. Rejecting very competent non-woke people (or people of the wrong racial background), will cause these individuals to become available to other institutions less in thrall to their DEI policies, where evasion of DEI has become an art form (all words, no actions). The fashion for deemphasizing actual competence and merit is not one which will advantage any institution in the long run. Scorning merit as a primary requirement will keep down the competence of the more highly woke institutions. The value of "merit" is not going to go away, but its absence in powerful institutions will weaken the United States in its ability to compete with the rest of the world that does not view being the best and the brightest as a disadvantage compared to the color of their skin or the racial backgrounds of their parents.
We are already seeing a lot of this evasion as academic departments in STEM areas, where real absolute competence and merit are required to actually teach the skills. These departments are simply hiring part-time adjuncts or lecturers outside direct DEI control. However, reliance upon part-time, non-tenured, non-DEI dictated positions does not further the development of the institution itself, the quality of its research, the quality of its instruction.
I think carefully crafted legislation could be helpful, say strengthening academic freedom of professors against dismissal (or creation of a toxic work environment) for their views.
Re: "the private tyranny of universities" -- Michael Lind.
The impulse is thorough. A bit of evidence from the field:
https://www.tiktok.com/@domp811/video/7160521643255713070
https://www.tiktok.com/@domp811/video/7160647533822332206