“i saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” i think to myself, man, y’all really dodged a bullet.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
“i saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked” i think to myself, man, y’all really dodged a bullet.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
that’s a plan, but it’s been a plan for a long time, and best case scenario if somehow you improve it and continually maintain that even in ways that impair the interests of the ruling political party is a decade of lead time. it’s worth doing, on its own terms! but i think we need other ideas too.
may be right, but not very useful. the electorate is what it is. it's what we have to work with. when people look for "reasons" beyond characteristics of the electorate, we are not overcomplicating. we are looking for ideas that might guide useful action.
i think the public remains broadly in denial about how dangerous John Roberts’ decision in Trump v United States is.
funny how the people who claim it’s “the groups” that make it so democrats don’t win somehow seem less exercised by the people who make it possible for them to do all the good and ill they do. drafts.interfluidity.com/2023/07/26/i...
even while he is standing for reelection, he is still the sitting president.
(I think "underconsumption" is a strategic choice. They want a hungry, directable population, not a secure, entitled one. That might be defensible on national capability grounds, but there are real tensions with social welfare that can result in political / legitimacy crises.)
i think part of how they’ve succeeded is they don’t look for fine-grained, precise control. they blunder into industries by declaring them strategic. 1/
ambitious, conformist local government officials and state-owned banks stand-up funds and firms. then they’re at risk of having their conformity second-guessed and getting demoted or defenestrated, so they compete like hell to not be the hindmost. 2/
it’s not “technocracy”. it’s course, kind of dumb, inefficient. but it gets the most important things right, that industry and production are strategic assets that states can’t just concede to markets, and that absent competition business grows fat, foolish, and malevolent. /fin
similar place maybe, but likely dumb implementation. i don’t dispute (indeed it was the subject of the “skeet” that provoked us) that there are political economy traps that often lead to failure and worse of industrial policy. 1/
much of my project is how to reconcile what seems to me a plainly successful economic model with implementation in a liberal democracy.
In about 20 years of this, that’s always been the claim. Look, they’ve gotten this far, it’s impressive, but it only works because they’re catching up from an extraordinary hole. The crisis is coming, any minute. 1/
I’m very fond of both Michael Pettis and Brad Setser. I got my start in the economic blogosphere in Brad’s comment section, in ~2003, when he and Nouriel Roubini were predicting China faced an imminent crisis in the RMB write-downs they would have to take on their Treasury reserves. /fin
well, Made in China 2025. but China is the emperor of brutal competition. have you read my six-part series? drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/09/04/i...