@Hyolobrika i'm a big fan of @ntnsndr i haven't read the book, but from a glance, it looks like he is advocating ways of strengthening democratic habits via civil society, participation in lots more democratic spaces, ideally personally and socially consequential, which i agree would help a lot, render us better at being part of a constitutional democracy.
@Hyolobrika we have a system whose skeleton would support one, we've just let it go in other directions. i'd start with electoral reform, so that multiple political parties contest. i'd dramatically expand the size of the house of representatives, perhaps consider something like this. you don't have a representative if it isn't someone you know, or at least can know if you want to. https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/9069.html 1/
@Hyolobrika i'd encourage states to subdivide into territories much smaller of roughly similar population size. i'd have the state finance, in a viewpoint neutral way, a wide variety of media. (viewpoint neutral by letting citizens allocate funding among orgs qualified on basic function, rather than directly allocated.) many more good ideas are out there. /fin
it's really gratifying to see meritocracy restored to the United States.
[new draft post] What does it mean to have no kings? https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/11/13/what-does-it-mean-to-have-no-kings/index.html
without comment.
from #LukeLattanzi https://americanmind.org/salvo/post-liberalism-is-here-to-stay/
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.
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" @ludicity https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/why-i-will-always-be-angry-about-software-engineering/
has anyone else noticed the irony, that people devoted to a man who slathers orange make-up all over his face every single day calls everybody else clown world? 🤡
( inspired by @darwinwoodka )
@ajroach42 i write on politics / economics / finance @ drafts.interfluidity.com and have a tech notebook (really is that, more than essays bout tech!) at tech.interfluidity.com.
i'm very RSS-centric!
@ajroach42 (gack! twice edited to remove typos from my own $^*&#$ urls!)
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”).
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 and 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 btw "mobilize the base" theories of winning and "persuade" theories.
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.
in any case, the democrats plainly went for "persuade", the republicans for "mobilize the base". it's very clear which won.
( i tend to argue for "persuade!" https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6732.html )
On BlueSky, #DanDavies asked
"ok then if we have a vibrant and intelligent EconSky community riddle me this: what would the microfoundations be for 'voters dislike inflation much more than they dislike unemployment, even in a rising real wage environment with strong asset values'? what preferences would make that true?"
I posted the following thread in response. https://bsky.app/profile/dsquareddigest.bsky.social/post/3lar3zczumc27
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 points out, it’s not mere money illusion, the “i earned my raises but then inflation snatched it” story. 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
[tech notebook] Supporting single-item RSS https://tech.interfluidity.com/2024/11/12/supporting-single-item-rss/index.html
omg it’s finally happening. i’m going fungal.
“Kamala Fell to the Same Cabal That Destroyed University Presidents” by #MoeTkacik https://prospect.org/power/2024-11-11-kamala-fell-billionaire-class-cabal/ ht @ddayen