it'll help when we understand better how this will work. part of this is on us — i mean to make a deep-deive into ATProto, but haven't yet, how the BlueSky app works, etc. but it'd be great to have some clearer explanations of what the fail-safes are.
without comment. from Luke Lattanzi americanmind.org/salvo/post-l...
Text: In other words, a second Trump administration will have the opportunity to embrace noblesse oblige, helping to foster a nobility that is obliged to take seriously the economic, cultural, and political well-being of the American public. Trump’s appointments so far have been promising, but only time will tell whether he can sustain four years of follow-through on this definitive populist mandate.
rule of law? secured.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Trump names Tulsi Gabbard as pick for head of National Intelligence
Link Preview: Trump names Tulsi Gabbard as pick for head of National Intelligence: Gabbard endorsed Trump earlier this year and joined his presidential transition team.
Like water.
"We can call the depression void-gazing. Everyone does it sometimes, but step two has to be wrenching your gaze away from the void and doing something. There's nothing in the void but more void" ~Nikhil Suresh ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/why-i-w...
you can make facile analogies with the Roman Empire and pretend there's fundamentally been no progress, but we really have advanced. they had to go through like two emperors before they got themselves a caligula.
handing control over one of the world's largest bureaucracies to a person who has zero experience with how jockeying for influence works managing inside this (or any) bureaucracy seems like a pretty big win for the deep state.
the innovation was realizing that even when it is picking pockets, the invisible hand can only act to the benefit of all.
if it takes careful, contestable social science to perceive an effect, it’s not a politically meaningful effect.
📌
if efficiency were truly the goal, they’d fire a ton of private contractors and consultants, and hire a lot of on-payroll civil servants (“bureaucrats”).
that’s the concern.
only Democrats reputation for fecklessness can save democracy!
yes! good! what forms of resistance are (1) not purely performative, actually effective; (2) not vulnerable to provocateurs, marginalization as riot or terrorism, crackdown, ginned up fears of disorder causing the apolitical public to depend ever more on the great leader to offer safety?
we all die. revolutionary change under contemporary circumstances, unless it is somehow a “velvet revolution”, means atrocity from which humane outcomes rarely emerge.
if we could credibly commit to tolerate these things, maybe they could magnanimously tolerate a fair election. i guess that would be doing otherwise? but it’d be hard to get me to commit, credibly or not, to tolerating these things. they’re abhorrent, intolerable. so, “solve for the equilibrium.”
so, suppose four years from now, we have an ordinary election and Democrats win a resounding trifecta. would we tolerate Elon Musk retaining his clearances snd ownership of SpaceX, or force divestiture? would we tolerate John Roberts’ rejuvenated 6-3 majority for generations, or reform the court? 1/
then is it plausible these people, with full control of the institutions today and a roadmap to complete immunity for any legal restraints they trample, would tolerate an election in which that is a plausible outcome? this is why i lose sleep. /fin
one way to view the election is as a test between "mobilize the base" theories of winning and "persuade" theories. 1/
the two are not mutually exclusive, but there are real tensions! mobilizing the base may involve emotional language that offends "swing voters" who identify somewhat with the targets of, um, critique. 2/
in any case, the democrats plainly went for "persuade", the republicans for "mobilize the base". it's very clear which won. 3/
( i usually tend to argue for "persuade!", so egg on me. www.interfluidity.com/v2/6732.html ) /fin
great thread you’ve provoked! i think the obvious answer is still the best, inflation affects everyone, unemployment a relative few. the exit poll demographic counter is weak. the biggest electoral factor was low D turnout, rather than share within demographics. 1/
there are Simpson’s Paradox issues as well. some demographics may have high unemployment risk overall, but greater segmentation between the precariously and securely employed. if so, such a demographic would prefer on average increased unemployment. 2/
others have mentioned volatility. inflation brings several volatilities. 3/
for each worker, inflation occurs continuously, wage gains match discretely. so there are periods of real losses, matched by periods of anticipatory real gains. the two are symmetrical, but under diminishing utility of real wages the net is a loss. 4/
higher overall inflation corresponds to higher relative variability of individual prices. which requires agile substitution of shifting consumption bundles. in simple consumer theory this is costless. in real life it’s obviously not. 5/
this is fun to think about, because it brings portfolio theory into consumer theory. say in Period 1 relative prices suggest it’s worth investing in an induction stove, but under Period 2 prices you just would have chosen to eat out. 6/
you may still eat in, given the forward looking costs, but you’ve suffered an investment loss in either case. this kind of cost grows with inflation even if real wages perfectly match. 7/
as @guan.dk points out, it’s not mere money illusion, the “i earned my raises but then inflation snatched it”. raises require enduring conflict costs. if we bring in common behavioral ideas, reference points, endowment effects, the snatches may hurt more than raises help. /fin