PyotrVerkhovensky
No bio...
User ID: 2154
PyotrVerkhovensky
9d ago
That is not how it reads:
"Of course, it is likely enough, my friends," he said slowly, "likely enough that we are going to our doom: the last march of the Ents. But if we stayed home and did nothing, doom would find us anyway, sooner or later. That thought has long been growing in our hearts; and that is why we are marching now. It was not a hasty resolve. Now at least the last march of the Ents may be worth a song."
PyotrVerkhovensky
9d ago
Hard disagree. Evil keeps coming back because the Elves give up on Middle Earth. But even as evil comes back it is less potent: Morgoth was the true baddy, Sauron is but a servant. Saruman becomes a lesser version of his former greatness when he turns to evil, and even his voice fails him. He becomes a mean beggar by the end.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9d ago
I could definitely have been more clear on this point :). In the books they are essentially Vikings on horses who have "settled down" in recent decades but still have an ornery pillaging streak. In the movies they are made to seem more passive, though not pacifist.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9d ago
Finding a like-minded community that is in my same socio-economic class, age, and willingness to be "apart" from the world is difficult, especially since my wife is more liberal than I. I like what https://becomingnoble.substack.com/ and https://blog.exitgroup.us/ are trying to do, but I think those are too "right-wing" coded for my family.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9d ago
The Two Towers
It is trivial, with the current "very online right" and with the benefit of a (relatively recent) era that didn’t require "diversity", to impose a reactionary reading on the movie trilogy the Lord of the Rings. Having just finished watching the (otherwise pedestrian, at least in relation to the sublime Fellowship of the Ring) Two Towers, the analogies are almost too on the nose. We have a technocratic leader ("a mind of metal and wheels") who leads a rabid horde of third-worlders in a takeover of a 100% white, peaceful, free nation. In the books, the technocratic leader’s "new" cloak is literally rainbow hued. The free nation just wants to be left alone, but is eventually forced into battle. The leaders pine for a simpler, easier time; where valor, honor, and renown were attainable.
Of course, so do all who live to see such times. The folk in the old tales had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. One of Tolkien’s motifs is how easy evil is to defeat: all good has to do is stand up to it. The Ents think that they go to their doom, before utterly decimating Isengard. The Hobbits cower initially during the scouring of the Shire, then win an almost trivial victory. One of my favorite lines from the book is when Theoden decides to go into battle himself, at which Aragorn proclaims, "Then even the defeat of Rohan will be glorious in song!". This is echoed in the movie during the "Forth Eorlingas" last charge. Yet the only thing in the Lord of the Rings that risks genuine defeat is passivity. Ultimately, Theoden’s death in Return of the King is one through which he does win lasting glory: the great Witch king is forever destroyed. Not only will he have no shame in the halls of his fathers, he has a prominent position in their company.
My grandfather served in WWII but never fought. If it wasn’t for the dropping of the Atom bombs in Japan, he would have been in the invading ground force. Given the casualty estimates of a ground invasion, there is a solid chance that his 5 children, his 20+ grandchildren, and his 40+ great-grandchildren would never have been born. He felt some pride in his service, but also regret and shame. Others fought and died. He didn’t.
Two generations removed from WWII, the very thought of storming Iwo Jima or Normandy is unthinkable; both at the national level as well as the individual level. Watch Saving Private Ryan and try to imagine yourself in that scene. My grandfather felt shame, but I can’t even muster that emotion. When I imagine myself in those boats approaching the beach, the only emotion I feel is terror. I am a product of my time, where even the "good" guys lack ambition and will. The world’s richest man trolls on X. The world’s most powerful man trolls on Truth Social.
Another great movie, the Dark Knight, features the iconic (and ironic) line "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". As I stare at the beige walls of my cubicle, were that those were my options! We live in an age where everything is flattened. There is great evil but without an obvious source. There are many who live upright lives, but without valor or victory. Our present evil is the insidious slow drip of poison that seeps into us through our surrounding milieu.
The great project of the "online right" is to identify this evil, to name it, and to then fight it. Yet this evil remains amorphous and elusive. Each "influencer" thinks they have the "correct" answer. These answers are typically mutually contradictory. In the face of this hydra, some have returned to recommending the basics: reproduce, guard your family, stay in shape, weather the storm. This is sound advice. But as long as the evil permeates are society, our children and our spouses risk defecting. The halls of power rot even as their power becomes more entrenched, threatening lives and livelihood. What can men do against such reckless hate? The one option that is certainly not available to us moderns is to ride out and meet it.
Our current establishment is terrible. They are feckless. They are weak. In a very real sense, they've lost.
I don't think we should smile and nod. I think creating strong families is actually one of the great ways to fight back.
PyotrVerkhovensky
1mo ago
Agreed, Trump is not a fascist. But there are "barbaric" inclinations in the MAGA right, and we need a more pro-civilization (though still right-wing) counter to this barbaric instinct.
PyotrVerkhovensky
1mo ago
If Chesterton is correct about Barbarism, one of the key attributes is a lack of introspection. Yes, there is barbarism in the far left. But that is my out-group. It takes no introspection, or indeed effort, for me to enumerate the sins of the left. And I would be tempted to do so, but I only have 500,000 characters at my disposal.
PyotrVerkhovensky
1mo ago
GK Chesterton and MAGA
Chesterton personifies the paradoxes he loves to pursue in his writing. A member of the Fabian (socialist) party, he is remembered primarily as a bulwark of conservatism. Deeply immersed in early 20th century high British society and culture, he was Catholic rather than Church of England. Writing prose and poetry on the transcendence of family, he never had children.
A populist, he writes a warning to MAGA.
To be sure, Chesterton does not shy away from condemning progressive society. In one memorable anecdote he tells a relativist that in a functioning democracy, the relativist would be burned on a pyre. In his pithy essay "The Return of the Barbarian" (1934), Chesterton states "I do not mean that any of that sort of liberty or laxity or liberal-mindedness has ever had anything to do with civilization." Yet Chesterton writes the essay not as a warning against Liberalism, but to identify the rising Nationalist Socialism of Germany as the true enemy of civilization. Even though the civilization may be decadent, flabby, and decayed, civilization must still fight for civilization. For barbarism is an uncontrollable beast. It contains no introspection, no self-corrective. Chesterton ends the essay in his typical incisive style:
"There are many marks by which anybody of historical imagination can recognize the recurrence: the monstrous and monotonous omnipresence of one symbol, and that a symbol of which nobody knows the meaning; the relish of the tyrant for exaggerating even his own tyranny, and barking so loud that nobody can even suspect that his bark is worse than his bite; the impatient indifference to all the former friends of Germany, among those who are yet making Germany the only test—all these things have a savor of savage and hasty simplification, which may, in many individuals, correspond to an honest indignation or even idealism, but which, when taken altogether, give an uncomfortable impression of wild men who have merely grown weary of the complexity that we call civilization." [Emphasis added].
As a confirmed MAGAt myself, I feel a distinct discomfort reading this warning. There is a cold nihilism and gleeful cruelty in the MAGA intelligentsia. The rank-and-file MAGA populists cower from modern complexity, preferring the comfort of totalizing and simple narratives. If MAGA feels less barbaric than the Brown Shirts it may only be because our civilization doesn’t have the will or vitality to produce real barbarians.
Yet what is else is the solution when faced with Weimar problems? Chesterton lived in the relatively prudish Britain, and did not need to directly confront the debauchery of Weimar Germany. Easy for him to work within his civilization to promote his conceptualization of the common good. What would he have suggested when faced with the ubiquitous celebration of buggery or an importation of an alternative "civilization"?
But, of course, Chesterton (or rather, custom and common sense as channeled by Chesterton) does have the solution. In his essay "On the Instability of the State" he counters the prevailing notions of the Total State by satirizing the ephemerality of modern nations. In contrast, true societal stability is only found in the Family, the bedrock on which all civilization stands. And while the modern assault on the Family threatens to break civilization as assuredly as any barbarian uprising, it is still an institution that takes only two willing companions and the providence of God to initiate. And it is on this rock that the next great civilization will be built. "In the break-up of the modern world, the Family will stand out stark and strong as it did before the beginning of history."
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
This idea, if implemented, would effectively cut off unsecured credit for borrowers with low credit. I could see an argument where as a society we say we won't give individuals with 530 credit scores any more credit, but doing it via interest rate caps is a very blunt tool to achieve this outcome (and I doubt this is the outcome Trump intends).
But while I could see an argument for not giving people with low credit scores more credit, it is not an argument I would make. Building back from a low credit score is a torturous process, but it takes much longer if you don't have...credit. And people with bad credit scores are often in financial situations where they need liquidity. There are plenty of shady loan sharks and pawn shops willing to provide it; at much more usurious rates and with much more deleterious consequences for failing to pay.
This is a populist play pure and simple. It does not seem to have been well thought through and would not be wise policy to implement. I've defended Trump's economic agenda in the past and thought (and still think) tariffs are a useful policy tool, but this proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the Democrat narrative around affordability. Hopefully it has as short a shelf-life as the proposal for a 50 year mortgage.
PyotrVerkhovensky
2mo ago
I'm reminded of a couple years ago when a friend and I stopped at a Texas Roadhouse. I had not been to one since college when it was the highest-end eatery I could afford. The place was packed. I often eat 80 dollar filets at high-end steak houses, but I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of my steak. For 14.99 I enjoyed a flavorful (if slightly chewy) eight-ounce sirloin, two sides, and endless rolls. If I recall correctly, the same meal cost 9.99 when I was in college 15 years ago, while beef prices have tripled during that time.
The biggest change was in how the service was provided. In college, Texas Roadhouse was a standard sit-down restaurant with waiters who served a small number of tables. While the trappings of this model were still in place, the methodology was far more optimized. There is a well-defined mechanism for assigning parties to tables. Once parties are seated, the server "tags" the table with a sticky-note receipt with the party name and number, presumably to assist the waitstaff in delivering the correct order and to facilitate accurate billing. Despite my rather dim assessment of the waitstaff's mental faculties, we were delivered accurate orders in minutes. Once our plates were taken away, we were able to pay via the mobile payment device connected to each table. We left within thirty minutes from when we were seated.
The efficiency of this process was evident. The crowded restaurant was staffed by no more than 4 or 5 waiters. Yet there was something tangibly missing from the experience for both the patrons and the servers. Waiting tables at a Texas Roadhouse would have been a good job for a high-school or college student: the student would gain experience and acquire a certain amount of responsibility. Now, the waitstaff is not expected or encouraged to show any individuality or responsibility. Any deviation from the process is a flaw. When we were being seated, there was a slight breakdown in this process. A wayward plate from another table had been set on the table at which were to be seated. Our seater was flummoxed. Eventually she and another waiter contrived to put the plate back on the original table, at which point she continued to seat us. Addressing a trivial mix-up like this should be done without a second thought by even the most inexperienced waiter.
When we were paying, our electronic payment device asked for a tip. Given the impersonal experience in which our only possible interactions with our waiter were transactional (except, oddly, for the monetary transaction itself), a tip seemed pointless. The waiters had no opportunity to independently provide a pleasant dining experience, instead relying on customers' habit and largesse.
While my natural inclination towards productivity and efficiency makes me appreciate what Texas Roadhouse has accomplished, as a diner I felt like a commoditized agent being pushed through an assembly line. I, too, was expected to participate in the well-run ordering of the establishment. If I had been a little quicker with the credit card, maybe we could have spent only 25 minutes eating and not wasted 5 minutes of a table meant for the next faceless consumer.
So what am I to take from this? The dining experience felt demeaning and dehumanizing to both the servers and the customers. It feels like Wall-E. It won't be long before we do have robot waiters. We will all have adequate, but unsatisfying, commoditized consumption experiences. The majority will be content to consume and over-consume. I only can hope that a few of us will not want to just survive, but to live.
And yet, while the experience may have been grotesque, aesthetics are a low priority in any hierarchy of needs. The clientele were much more concerned about getting a decent meal at a reasonable price. I believe that making steak relatively more affordable for more people is a good thing. Better to gorge on sirloin than to go hungry in the streets. Better to be in a cog in a machine than for the machine not to exist at all. The economic engine that drives us towards efficiency may not always be pretty, but it generates results.
I have a mental model for economic markets that they behave much like a stochastic gradient descent algorithm. Firms and entrepreneurs explore the economic domain and move ever towards optimization. Whether this exploration results in a globally optimal solution depends greatly on the initial conditions. Initial conditions such as culture, institutions, and societal norms can have a major impact on how close the market engine comes to global optimization. An optimization problem is considered relatively stable if many different initial conditions can result in similar minima.
While this mental model is useful, it is incomplete: the very act of economic optimization can lead to eventual changes in the topology of the economy. In the case of Texas Roadhouse, the optimization begets atomized consumption and labor. Neither buyer nor seller is being acclimated to experiences outside of a prepackaged box. This may well lead to a fragile stasis as we lose initiative and dynamism and as the economic system becomes incapable of accommodating any deviation from the norm. Hence I can simultaneously applaud the innovations that lead to greater abundance, and decry the resulting changes to our society that can lead to stagnation and collapse.
The clear intellectual inferiority of the waitstaff is a microcosm of the entire labor market. For the first time in history, most labor is sorted (roughly) by intellect. In the agrarian days, farmers were more or less intelligent, but as long as the farmers could plow their fields their intellect was sufficient for the job. The higher intelligent farmers would naturally become community leaders and occasional inventors. With jobs now bifurcated by intellectual capability the "lower skill" jobs are essentially only occupied by lower capability individuals. There is limited interaction among individuals of different capacity as many of our social circles are dominated by work colleagues. Lower skill jobs atrophy with no innovation and no leadership. Hence the gross incompetence of many fast food restaurants and the disaster of manual construction and landscape labor. It genuinely was better service in the old days, when a diversity of intellects occupied these jobs. Conversely, the "high skill" workplace is now almost entirely staffed by high intellects. The menial jobs that would still have required interaction across intellects have been replaced by computers.
AI may be the great leveler. Robots are increasingly good at "high skill" jobs, but can't (yet) perform the types of physical tasks that even a 70 IQ individual can do. If job loss in "high skill" industries occurs en-masse, we may see the intellectual class starting to perform "low skill" jobs, with positive benefits for all.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
There are at least two ways to reconcile these two beliefs.
- Modern jobs are fake and gay because most associates are diversity hires and prevent real work from being done
- Modern jobs are fake and gay, so companies may as well fill them with diversity hires.
In the first case, we can make the economy much more dynamic and worthwhile by reducing DEI.
In the second case, the economy is unsustainable and any "solution" would fundamentally change the nature of the economy. Even fake and gay jobs can inculcate leadership and administrative skills that will be invaluable during such an upheaval. Society would benefit from putting the best and brightest into these positions to better prepare itself for the transition.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
I've argued since at least 2015 that the US government should invest, on the behalf of its citizens, in AI and automation companies. In the event that such automation pans out, each citizen reaps the benefits through his capital stake. This is inherently solvent (there is no promise of continued UBI payments). It would only "pay out" if automation was in fact successful. And it would help unify US citizens, who would feel pride of ownership in their country rather than a beggar for handouts.
Unfortunately, it looks like the time to do this would have been 2015. Genesis not withstanding, OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic are in too late a stage to need or desire government investment on behalf of US citizens.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
Conceptually the same gods as in any age: anything we place above God or are more key to our identity than God.
I think some specific gods of this age are "comfort", "tolerance", political affiliation, sexual orientation, "reason", educational achievement, careers. Not all these are bad in and of themselves, but they become gods when we place our faith or find our identity in them.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
I agree, and I find it galling that most Western Christians are just fine with the complete surrender of society to hedonism and licentiousness...and often partaking in it. The early Christians would be torn apart by wild beasts rather than bow to a statue of Caesar. Modern Christians pay homage to the gods of this age without even thinking twice.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
Carlson sees Fuentes as a future leader of a large segment of the American Right. To the extent possible he wants to channel this in a positive direction. He pushed back on Fuentes attacking "good" people on the right. He used religious arguments to persuade Fuentes' followers that idpol is a dangerous idea (God judges individuals, we should too). He practically begged Fuentes to settle down and get married. Carlson gained goodwill among the Groypers for "platforming" Fuentes. In return, Carlson hopes they heed his words.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3mo ago
What happens when Groypers start attending your church?
I've seen (in real life even!) blue-tribe immersed evangelical leaders bemoan the lack of religious interest in the side of America they see. Our churches have largely pandered to the "wider culture" (typically center-left leaning) without realizing that there is a burgeoning counter-culture that signals great interest in traditional religion. When they do realize there is such a counter-culture, they condemn it.
The most recent example is the the much-ballyhooed Fuentes-Carlson interview. The David Frenchs of the world signaled their great distaste. The very-online dissident right was mostly pleased. As I have never heard Fuentes speak before, I decided to listen to the entire interview. What surprised me most was how much both Carlson and Fuentes talked about Christianity. I had not known Fuentes claimed to be religious. (As an aside, the interview did nothing to convince me that Fuentes holds any deep convictions, much less genuine Christian faith). (As another aside, it turns out I am more "extreme" in my religious views than Fuentes: conditioned on him being religious I would have expected him to be to my right [insert "that awkward moment" meme]). If Fuentes continues to treat Christianity as a key part of his identity, his followers will start showing interest in the Church.
I'm not the only one who has noticed. There are other (near-dissident) leaders in the evangelical world who are looking to engage with the wayward, but seeking, young right. The pastor Michael Clary has written several posts either arguing for reaching the right or directly appealing to the dissident right. While less than eloquent (and with some boomer-like mannerisms), Mark Marshall explicitly recommends engaging with Groypers. Even conservative stalwart Kevin DeYoung has started to use language that appeals to the dissident right without outright condemning it (though he has engaged with dissident right ideas in the past).
But, by and large, our churches have been conditioned to be "salt and light" to a left-leaning world. We know how to deal with a blue-haired lesbian. Even conservative/orthodox churches can show the love of Christ to the wayward left. Be winsome, win them for Christ, and let sanctification come later (if it happens at all!). But our churches are not at all prepared for a young, irreverent to cultural norms, Christian Nationalist man who is interested in tradition and yearning for something more meaningful than a Ted-talk and a rock-concert on a Sunday.
And come they will, especially if the church is little-o orthodox, especially if it is traditional, and especially if proscribes female leadership. We shall soon see how tolerant our churches actually are. We are told we must show love to the sinners to our left. Let us see whether we show the same love to sinners on our right.
PyotrVerkhovensky
5mo ago
I'll admit to reading and enjoying these chapters. I do think you (probably intentionally) oversimplify and the conclusions to each chapter feel like a post-hoc "just so" story.
But I'll take the bait and riff on your story a bit.
Imagine there is another island that was populated by a number of different ethnic groups. These groups came to the island over different periods of time, sailing from other islands to escape famine or enemy attack. By happenstance, these groups had obvious physiological differences. By a similar process that you describe, one of these groups had better time management, better long-term planning, and greater self-control. Let's call them "Nahribs". The other groups had varying degrees of "capability", but the Nahribs had an absolute advantage in "civilization-building" capabilities.
While a similar process as you describe caused a "downward flow" of this Nahribs elite, the fact that there were distinct physiological differences meant that members of one group couldn't "accidentally" breed with a member of another group. And for religious and cultural reasons, such intentional inter-breeding was considered anathema and very little of it occurred.
Surrounded by their inferiors, the Nahribs gained expertise in coordination, administration, and (unfortunately) status games. Coordination was needed to ensure that the inferiors were working productively. Innovation was not selected for, since there were so many inferior groups who could provide manual labor. Over time, the populations grew large and administration was needed to run everything smoothly. With so much manual work performed by the inferior groups, the superior group had leisure time which they spent inventing various ways to "one-up" each other. And so society continued in relative stasis, with all the intellectual capacity focused on organization, political machinations, and navigating complex social relationships.
At some point, the Hajnalis came across this island and with their superior inventiveness quickly subdued it. However, it didn't take long (at least, not long in the way History is measured) for the Hajnalis to realize that this island had vast pools of moderately competent labor. The Nahribs didn't know how to labor, but that was ok: the few groups directly under them were not as talented as the typical Hajnali but were a tenth of the cost, and could perform repetitive, rote, tasks. Soon these workers were producing the bulk of physical goods. Not long after, they were producing much of the world's "simple" intellectual work as well.
As technology improved island navigation, more and more Nahribs were able to travel abroad. They soon discovered that the Hajnalis were living in a paradise compared to their native island. The Nahribs saw an opportunity: the productive structures of the Hajnalis were familiarly hierarchical and, as technology progressed, increasingly dependent on administrative work. This is the type of culture that the Nahribs' were bred to excel in! They quickly climbed the various bureaucratic ladders. Within decades they were highly overrepresented in leadership roles. In the new "information age", "leadership" was about spouting the right words, coordinating capital and human resources, and knowing when and who to back-stab. While much of their corporate climb was "deserved", much of it was also greased by their compatriots. Nahribs, naturally, felt closest kinship with other Nahribs. Unlike Hajnalis, Nahribs felt no ethical qualms with nepotism.
The Hajnali had laid the seeds for their own demise. The new Hajnali economy, flooded in abundant goods created by other islands, disfavored the types of capabilities that had once made their island so powerful. There no longer was the same need for innovation, industry, and individualism. In short, they became an economy eerily similar to the Nahribs' original island, and the Nahribs had many millennia of "management experience" on the Hajnalis. Elite Hajnalis, by participating in a labor arbitrage that forced their economies into rewarding "administration", had set the stage for their own replacement.
PyotrVerkhovensky
8mo ago
When a statistic isn't just a statistic
Like many, I was saddened by the news of the Texas flooding and the girls who were in the path of the engorged river. Natural disasters happen, but they don't always victimize school aged girls at a summer retreat. Yet I mentally filed the disaster in the way I do most disasters: the optimal quantity of flooding deaths is not zero, the odds of something bad happening to somebody somewhere is quite high, children need to do things in the outdoors even if there is some risk. And this framing, while dispassionate, isn't incorrect.
Yesterday, one of the bodies was discovered and identified. She wasn't some no-name in a far-flung state. Her family lives three streets over from mine. Her brother and my oldest daughter were in the same class last year. These are neighbors, and in our close-knit community, something akin to extended family. Suddenly, this feels personal.
A number of years ago, I was teaching my oldest to ride a bike. She was a natural, balancing and peddling within minutes of first riding. Within an hour she was shifting gears, accelerating and decelerating, making turns with adroitness. After several hours of practice in a parking lot I decided she was ready for the hilly streets near our house. Unfortunately, there was one thing I had forgotten to teach her in the flat safety of the parking lot: how to brake. She went down the hill outside our house, increasing in speed and with no ability to stop herself. Finally, she hit the curb and somersaulted into the grass of a yard. Despite the relatively soft landing she was scraped and bleeding over most of her body.
So many things could have gone wrong. She could have hit a car. She could have landed in the street and been flayed by the asphalt.
Life is fragile and can be snuffed out at any moment. The day she crashed her bike I hugged her as tightly as her scrapes would allow. Not all parents are so lucky.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
It's interesting that so many of the replies here seem to be "yes, but the other side is worse" or "yes, we need to take the bad with the good" or even "yes Chad".
I'm a Trump fan but I abhor corruption and wouldn't want to turn a blind eye to it. That said...only two of your examples (if true) would count as corruption?
- Melania doing a film. Actresses do typically get paid (directly!) for being in movies.
- Trump meme coin is cringe and low class but not corruption.
- I would need to look more into the Sun story as I hadn't heard of it. But it seems like there would be less obvious ways of paying off Trump than buying Trump coin? And why would Trump care about 40 million?
- The jumbo jet is a gift to the USA, not to Trump. It is a token of goodwill and a sign of respect. Trump is famously more open to deals after being shown respect, so it is possible that it helped grease the wheels but it is not corruption. It is interesting you cite Zvi. I read Zvi religiously, and he has been extremely critical of Trump's policies. Zvi was comparatively subdued in his criticism of the Middle Eastern AI deals, being merely skeptical. I updated in favor of the UAE/KSA/Qatar deal after reading his overview.
- Is Kushner even still in the inner circle? I thought he and Trump were on the outs. Regardless, if true, this would certainly be corruption and while Trump is not directly involved, he would have to know it was happening. That said, it does seem an odd grift for children of a billionaire to play.
- Previous presidents weren't billionaires; divestment wouldn't have had the same impact on their net worth. Retaining business holdings isn't inherently corruption, and could actually align incentives: if the American economy does well, so does Trump. Proof of Stake/Principal-Agent.
PyotrVerkhovensky
9mo ago
Bryan Caplan is a name I've heard off and on in rationalist adjacent spaces and with Scott's recent review of one of Caplan’s books, I decided to actually take a look at his blog.
I was very surprised to see that he is an anarcho-capitalist: something that is very much unexpected in an academic economist. He acknowledges this in his blog, where he bemoans the left-wing focus on market failures rather than on market achievement. I probably agree with him on 90-95% of his positions, though I would have a different relative rank in the importance of those positions.
Of course, this being the internet, I won't spend any time on our many agreements but will instead focus on what I perceive to be his biggest shortcoming. Despite his expertise in a social science, he seems to think of society in abstractions: certainly a requirement for good economic modeling, but one that should always be grounded in reality. While possibly tongue in cheek, his statement that "it is humanity, not my arguments, that is flawed" does seem to reflect his mentality.
Exhibit A: Immigration and UAE
Caplan extols the virtues of the UAE, calling their mass-immigration a model for Western nations. And indeed, millions of Indians and billions of oil dollars have created a gleaming technical paradise. But as Caplan notes, UAE "immigration" is not the same as Western immigration. Only native Arabs have citizenship and enjoy the (extensive) welfare that oil money can afford.
The UAE understands that you can have mass immigration or a welfare state, but you cannot have both. They also are not squeamish about transactional relationships with imported labor, which makes the UAE's approach a complete non-starter in the West. No Western nation could import hundreds of millions of (mostly brown) labor, pay them "market wages", and refuse to provide citizenship and a social safety net. Even hard-core anarcho-libertarians would find the parallels with slavery uncomfortable.
The irony is that while the UAE does not have the human capital in either its native or foreign population as most Western countries, the West wastes its superior human capital on regulations, bureaucracy, and virtue signaling while the UAE just builds. Perhaps it is not "humanity" that is flawed, but just Western elites.
Regardless, the UAE's path is not sustainable. The native elite live off natural resources and imported labor rather than their own ingenuity and effort. There is no improvement in human capital, only a descent (slowed perhaps by the prohibitions of Islam) into hedonism. Copying their approach will neuter the unique ambition of the American spirit and accelerate our destruction.
Exhibit B: Immigration and Culture
Caplan implicitly downplays the negative aspect of migration on culture and social cohesion. Most immigrants will look, smell, act, and often vote differently than the "native" population. At scale, assimilation simply won't happen. Even with current immigration in the US there are sufficient numbers of Indians and Chinese to create clannish sub-cultures within the US. Caplan clearly thinks that we can still retain (and even improve) our high standard of living despite mass immigration, but this begs the question why high living standards don't already exist in India or China. Is it lack of physical capital? Is it human capital? Or could it be culture? (Obviously, all three have some impact). Given that capital is attracted towards the highest returns, it seems likely that a lack of human capital or a culture not conducive towards economic flourishing has to be a major cause for the lower living standard. If this is the case, there would be a decrease in the quality of life for the typical resident if third-worlders are imported en-masse.
At one point Caplan hints that indeed that may be the case when he points out that the fictional dystopia of Blade Runner is actually an improvement on modern-day India. This may not be the rock-solid argument he thinks it is. I want my children to enjoy a better life than I have today, not a better life than what a typical Indian has today.
In a guest post (which does not imply Caplan's endorsement), the "worst" neighborhood in Japan is visited. It is still safe and relatively clean. The writer implies that the US can model urban policy off Japan’s success. But again, this ignores the cultural aspect. Japan has a culture of order and cleanliness (and xenophobia). If Japan imported even 5 million Brazilians the "worst" neighborhood in Japan would look quite different.
Again, Caplan misses the "human" aspect of economics.
Exhibit C: Trade Deficit and Geopolitics
Caplan is either ambivalent or in favor of a trade deficit. Caplan posits the idea that the trade deficit could be the result, not the cause, of financial inflows. Rather than a trade deficit resulting in foreign nations having excess dollars that they then spend on US investment, US securities are in such high demand that foreign nations raise the value of the dollar, causing foreign goods to be relatively cheap and leading to a trade deficit. If this argument is correct, then one would expect any economically vibrant and pro-growth country to have a trade deficit. The trade deficit indicates that the US economy and regulatory regime is more conducive to growth.
Yet much like with the UAE, Caplan doesn't seem to grasp the human side of this equation. He assumes economic output is "value free". A service-oriented economy begets a pampered paper-pusher bureaucracy, while the relocation of former blue-collar work to "higher-value" labor hasn't happened at scale. The service economy erodes the will and ability to actually build in the physical world, while the dearth of blue-collar work has led to zombie communities addicted to handouts and opiates. A country should choose to focus industrial policy on broad outcomes including domestic production. Any economy needs direction lest it degenerate. The invisible hand of the market finds local maxima, but it takes vision to push the hand towards a global maxima.
Since Caplan has a tendency to see everything through the lens of economics, he minimizes the geopolitical implications of US policy. We are in the middle of a great geopolitical reset in which protectionist policy plays a key part. The Trump administration has given up Europe as lost. The US is now competing for influence in areas where China has traditionally dominated (including the Arab states that Caplan extols). The remnants of the Bretton-woods post-war international order is being shattered. This is the main takeaway from tariff and trade policy, not the myopic economic impact.
A recommendation
Despite my criticisms, I'm glad that there is an anarcho-capitalist whose ideas have purchase in the rationalist community. A very positive change I've observed over the last decade is the steady increase in liberals acknowledging the benefit of the market and the harm of overregulation, and Caplan’s work has contributed to this change. I would like to see Caplan have even more impact.
Caplan correctly notes that the market forces good policy even where that policy has bad optics, while politicians pursue bad policy that has good optics. This provides a potential key to seeing his (good) economic ideas actually gain purchase: fight the battles that you can actually win. There is much political will to create energy abundance (natural gas and nuclear in particular) and to address NIMBYist red tape; once we are allowed to build, other "good" policies (such as mass labor importation) may become more politically viable. Indeed, even in the UAE plentiful energy preceded plentiful immigration.
PyotrVerkhovensky
10mo ago
Our Good Friday service is intentionally unsettling. More than most Protestant churches, we lean into iconography and ritual; and at no time more so than during Holy Week.
The service is conducted in darkness; no lights are on in the sanctuary. All crosses in the sanctuary are covered in a black veil. The priests and clergy wear only black.
The clergy process silently; holding aloft the Bible and a shrouded cross. The service begins with a reading from of the Passion from the Gospel of John. The congregation participates: we are the voice of the crowd shouting "crucify him!" and "we have no king but Caesar!".
There is a time of contemplation, where we meditate on the cross. We echo a frame that is more common during Christmas. "O come let us adore him". Yet now we aren't adoring God made flesh; but rather that flesh broken on an instrument of torture. Adore it. For that is what our sin has caused, and what we deserve for our sin.
The music team sings "Ye who think of sin but lightly nor suppose the evil great, here may view its nature rightly, here its guilt may estimate.". My nine year old quietly sobs beside me. There is no shame in doing so. In the our same row a seminary student with an intricate "Pro Rege" tattoo is weeping as well.
The music ends. A quiet Lords' Prayer is recited, then the clergy recess in silence and darkness. The service is ended. Now must we wait. Easter is coming, but a day of entombed darkness must be endured before the glorious resurrection.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
My personal opinion is that markets are highly overvalued, and a correction needed to be made at some point. The rise of index funds, ironically, have made markets less efficient. But, that is, like, my opinion man.
Tariffs do have a secondary negative effect on financial markets. As I said in my original post, reducing the trade deficit will decrease the amount of US dollars "abroad", which will reduce foreign investment in the US. This is a bad thing if you are a retiree spending your accumulated savings; it is a good thing if you are young and looking to buy a house or invest in stocks (as these investments become cheaper).
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
That estimate shows zero understanding of economics. The actual tariff burden will be the deadweight loss caused by relative price changes as imported goods become more expensive. Relative price changes and imports becoming more expensive are driven by the elasticity of consumer demand for imports and the price pressure that US companies (such as Walmart) can put on their global suppliers, respectively.
The 600 billion is only tangentially related to the actual tariff burden, and, being government revenue, is actually a benefit to US households (the money can be returned to US households via tax breaks, spending, or debt servicing).
There are certainly great scenes.
Taken as a standalone movie, there is uneven pacing, a terrible addition of a Warg battle that eats into runtime with no purpose, and a cringy elf-reinforcement.
But the Two Tower's biggest flaw is how it fails to set up the Return of the King. Very little happens in the movie. By the end of the book, Gandalf and Pippen were on their way to Minas Tirith. Frodo had gotten through Shelob's lair. In the movie Frodo has gone maybe 20 miles and is no closer to Mordor than when the movie started. Isengard is defeated but it was a comparative gadfly next to Mordor.
An inordinate amount of screentime was spent on Rohan and it's plight. We had the sub-plot with the two kids riding to Edoras. We had the Warg battle. We have the "10K Uruk hai are going to destroy the world of men" resulting in an (admittedly epic) battle that feels disproportionate relative to the weight of Sauron's forces in the next movie. We even have Aragorn telling a kid that there is always hope.
In ROTK we don't feel as strongly for Gondor as we do for Rohan. Gondor is not given as much room to breath. There are no sub-plots. Pippen doesn't meet Beregond's son, which would have given us characters to invest in. The activities after Shelob's lair are rushed, with Gondor's army teleporting to the Black Gate and Frodo and Sam covering 50 miles of Mordor in a couple of scenes. Aragorn is never seen speaking to anyone from Gondor in the entire ROTK...because all the time for such conversations was monopolized by TTT.
The trilogy would have been much stronger had the Two Towers been more competently managed.
More options
Context Copy link