Quantumfreakonomics
No bio...
User ID: 324
Quantumfreakonomics
10hr ago
Scenario 4: EPA gives to San Francisco a permit saying that (1) SF can't discharge untreated sewage into the ocean, because that might cause the ocean to become polluted, and (2), if the ocean becomes polluted, SF will be punished. SF obeys the discharge restriction. If the ocean becomes polluted later on (due to the actions of some entity other than SF, or due to changes in ocean currents), SF can be punished by EPA for that pollution, in the amount of multiple billions of dollars, even though it did nothing wrong.
I don’t think this is the right interpretation of what is happening here. If San Francisco discharges no untreated sewage at all, then they can not be punished for the quality of the water, because they would not be contributing any pollutants to it.
This is sort of nitpicky and pedantic because no city discharges literally zero pollutants, but it makes more sense than you’re giving credit in the regulatory scheme of the Clean Water Act. There is a general prohibition on the discharge of all pollutants (33 U.S.C. 1311(a)) unless specifically exempted or permitted.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
Tactical air strikes on their forward positions and supply convoys. Russia would just lose. The much-feared Russian tank rush has been proven to be a meme.
Quantumfreakonomics
3d ago
Zelenskyy fucked up. He needed to take the deal and negotiate a cease-fire, not because Russia can be trusted, but because he needed the time to let Europe ramp up defense production to make up for the impending US pullout.
I feel bad for the Ukrainians who are going to get rekt because of this, but Europe really doesn't seem to understand the American mindset. No, we aren't going to fund wars in perpetuity with no exit strategy purely because of the moral fortitude of the cause. Did we not telegraph this enough?
Quantumfreakonomics
6d ago
This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO.
This framing falls apart if you look at it from a distance.
-
What are the American commitments to Ukraine? Were you aware before 2022 that America had a potential 12-figure liability to Ukraine in the event of invasion? I didn't.
-
Trump does not prefer Russia to NATO. This impression comes from the fact that Trump wants to somewhat reduce the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia, and increase the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on NATO, but this completely disregards the fact that current diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH harsher than the restrictions on NATO
Quantumfreakonomics
6d ago
Trump just kicked Zelenskyy out of the White House after a public shouting match.
I've never seen anything like this. I sort of expected Trump to give him a hard time just for the cameras, but this seems to have legitimately hurt relations. Zelenskyy was in town to sign the much-anticipated minerals deal. From what I can hear the deal was not signed.
Ukraine needs the US much more than the US needs Ukraine. Could Zelenskyy not keep his pride contained for a few hours?
Quantumfreakonomics
10d ago
There's a great Patio11 Twitter thread about the repeated failures of government payroll modernization inititives.
On revealed preferences, every government suborg's primary objective is paying employees. In light of this, which no stakeholder is allowed to say out loud, the projects are invariably ludicrously underscoped. Everybody knows that there is a century or more of special spiffs and set asides and clawed out benefits. Everybody knows that there is no document or set of documents actually listing these; the function of the government entity is only actually described by the function itself.
You can't "play by the rules" and get anything done. Every inefficiency is someone's personal cutout. The agency will not simply allow DOGE to cut waste. DOGE has to force the agency to do it.
Quantumfreakonomics
12d ago
How do you distinguish malicious compliance from regular compliance? The orders themselves are malicious. They are designed to destroy the bureaucracy. This has both good effects and bad effects. Cremieux on Twitter passionately believes that the National Science Foundation firing its contract worker "experts" is compliance of such maliciousness that it warrents jail time. I looked into the details of the DOGE executive orders and the statutory authorization for NSF "experts", and I think this is a pretty straightforward execution of section 3(c) of Executive Order 14210.
"Agency Heads shall promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law, and to separate from Federal service temporary employees and reemployed annuitants working in areas that will likely be subject to the RIFs. All offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law shall be prioritized in the RIFs, including all agency diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; all agency initiatives, components, or operations that my Administration suspends or closes; and all components and employees performing functions not mandated by statute or other law who are not typically designated as essential during a lapse in appropriations as provided in the Agency Contingency Plans on the Office of Management and Budget website. This subsection shall not apply to functions related to public safety, immigration enforcement, or law enforcement."
I can't find anywhere in the NSF statute that mandates the use of contract "experts". 42 U.S.C. § 1873(a) authorizes the hiring of contract "experts", but does not mandate them. I also highly doubt that these "experts" are designated as "essential" during a lapse in appropriations. Additionally, contract "experts" do not get civil service protections, so they can be fired without going through the extensive prescribed RIF process. This isn't malicious compliance. This is a dispassionate execution of the President's order. You always fire the people who are easiest to fire first. Trump could have put in an exception for science like he did for immigration and law enforcement, but he didn't.
"If only the Tsar knew."
Quantumfreakonomics
13d ago
The bad thing about the Nazis was that they started WWII. Everything they did before the start of WWII was within the envelope of typical right-wing authoritarian governments. Most people would cite the Holocaust as the bad thing about the Nazis, and yeah, it was bad, but the over-emphasis of it ironically plays right into the Nazi Propaganda that WWII was a war launched against Germany for the benefit of the Jews.
Quantumfreakonomics
14d ago
Throw in The State Department, The Department of Education, Health and Human Services, The National Science Foundation, The National Endowment for the Arts, plus all the other grantmaking institutions in the federal government I can’t think of, and you can start to see how the power brokering and control of elite opinion might suddenly become a lot less lucrative once the money spigot shuts off.
I’m still surprised they aren’t fighting harder to keep the spigot on.
Quantumfreakonomics
14d ago
Why aren’t Democrats physically occupying government buildings?
I’ve been reading and watching a lot of left-wing content lately. A big topic of conversation is what exactly Democrats could do to slow down or stop Trump. The “mainstream” opinion is that Democrats can’t really do anything except sue, since they control zero branches of federal government. I disagree.
DC voted 90% for Kamala. Pretty much every federal employee is in danger of losing their job if Trump successfully consolidates power. They could collectively decide to simply not comply with Trump’s orders. He would have to blow all of his political capital on calling in the national guard while his allegedly illegal orders get litigated.
Look at this video from the other week purporting to show Congressional Democrats being “physically blocked” from entering the Department of Education. They aren’t even really trying to get inside. They could totally storm in if they wanted!
Has anyone chained themselves to their desk? Or better yet, to one of these mystical “servers” containing so much sensitive personal data? We saw more effective civil disobedience over Gaza than we are seeing over our own government.
I have two theories for this incompetence, but am eager to hear more:
-
All of the organizations and groups that typically organize and support these types of protests blew their entire budget on the presidential campaign. Then, money dried up as rich donors feared getting on Trump’s bad side.
-
After January 6, the Democrats focused their self-image around the idea of “procedure” and “doing things the right way”. This calcified to such an extent that anyone in a position of leadership is now incapable of forming and executing plans which do not conform with the collective PMC understanding of what is allowed or “proper”.
Quantumfreakonomics
17d ago
I feel like NATO expansion was a complete own-goal. What does the United States get out of any NATO member state that joined after 1990? Are we really expecting the Polish winged hussars to open a second front on the Mongolian Steppes in response to a Chinese attack on the US? These states are a massive liability for no discernible benefit. I would support kicking Eastern Europe out of NATO. If Western Europe doesn’t agree to that, then they can start their own alliance with blackjack and hookers.
Quantumfreakonomics
18d ago
What do you guys make of the Elon - Ashley St. Claire babymama drama?
For context, Ashley St. Claire is a conservative Twitter personality who announced on Valentine's Day that Elon Musk has fathered a child with her. This was followed-up with a vaguely threatening statement from Ashley's lawyer. There are screenshots going around that suggest a less-than-cordial relationship between Ashley and Elon, though I can't verify these. There are also potential inconsistencies.
Quantumfreakonomics
18d ago
The army specifically? Doesn't strike me as particularly absurd. Their army is the largest in Europe (apart from Russia of course), has lots of great equipment thanks to Western aid, and most importantly, is battle-hardened.
Quantumfreakonomics
18d ago
And to think that this all happened because Scott platformed Mencius Moldbug back in 2013. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
I wouldn’t really mind Elon becoming techno-monarch tbh, but I don’t trust Trump with absolute power.
Quantumfreakonomics
19d ago
Sure you can. One can wish certain events would occur, or have an emotional reaction to certain events, without threatening to take illegal action to cause those events to occur.
Surely there is at least one person somewhere whom you wish would die, such that you would feel happy if you heard the news that they had passed.
Quantumfreakonomics
20d ago
Oceania was not after all at war with Eric Adams. Oceania was at war with The Federalist Society. Eric Adams was an ally.
A few days ago, news broke that the DOJ ordered the federal corruption charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams dismissed. As of this writing, the charges have still not been formally dismissed. Apparently, the Attorney General's office can't find anyone willing to sign their name on the dismissal paperwork. The acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, resigned yesterday after refusing to carry out the order. If the name sounds familiar, she was the lead prosecuter in the SBF case. She must be some typical big-city liberal lawyer right? Well, apparently not.
The Federalist Society: "She was a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III."
The gorgeous Miss Sassoon wasn't the only casualty. Reports are at least six people have resigned rather than sign-off on this.
It's worth taking a step back here. Six months ago, anyone would have expected that a big-city Democrat mayor getting indicted on federal corruption charges would have been the reddest of red meat to the online right. How did we get to the point that right-wing law influencers are denouncing the Federalist Society for prosecuting Democrats for corruption? The monkey wrench thrown in the gears is Trump's decision to use the charges as leverage to extract concessions on immigration. A few offhand comments by Adams critical of mass immigration are retroactively cast as the Casus Belli for the initial investigation by Biden's DOJ. Am I missing something here? Why is this not an obvious quid pro quo? I can't tell whether the MAGA claim is that, "yes, this is a quid pro quo, and that's fine", or if the claim is that, "no, actually the corruption charges were themselves corruption. Dismissing the corruption charges is actually fighting corruption".
Quantumfreakonomics
21d ago
The simplest explanation in my eyes is:
-
Male feminists, being feminists, tend to hang around with female feminists.
-
Female feminists are more likely to make sexual misconduct accusations at any given level of sexual pestiness than are non-feminist women.
It’s Simpson’s Paradox all the way down.
Quantumfreakonomics
21d ago
This doesn’t even make sense from an antisemitic standpoint. If anything Jews want English-speaking nations to dominate geopolitics because they already have ready-made English-language propaganda infrastructure
There is a long history of government “efficiency” initiatives spinning up, wasting unimaginable gobs of taxpayer money, and ending up with nothing usable to show for it. Elon mentioned from the Oval Office yesterday that the government stores and processes retirement records on paper inside an underground mine. Here is an old GAO report detailing past attempts to modernize the process. The theme of the piece is repeated abject failure.
You can’t waste time on planning, outreach, and meetings. You either do the thing, or the thing never gets done. Existing governmental organizations are not going to give you what you need to do the thing. You have to make them accept a fait accompli
Quantumfreakonomics
22d ago
I've been digging into some of these laws and regulations. I'm coming away more convinced than ever that democratic governance is a myth. No regular person could possibly comprehend the byzantine labyrinth of rules, regulations, and case law required to competently evaluate government decision making.
Every spigot of federal funds grows into a hydrothermal vent of highly-specialized fauna perfectly adapted for siphoning-off those sweet sweet grants. Congress can't fix the problem, because all they are able or willing to do is appropriate more funding for things.
Quantumfreakonomics
23d ago
Eric Adams is the big one in the news lately. He instructed fire marshals to look the other way on Turkey's NYC skyscraper in exchange for free first-class Turkish Airlines flights. Trump told the Justice Department to drop the case.
There was also the first impeachment of Trump himself. If wikipedia is to be believed, Trump tried to exchange military aid for political favors from Ukraine.
Quantumfreakonomics
23d ago
It seems like there’s a pattern in what forms of corruption are acceptable on the right -
-
Diverting taxpayer money to family members or pet causes: Evil, ought to get you thrown out of a helicopter.
-
Selling the performance of official acts to private interests for money or other services: No big deal. Everybody does it. Just an excuse to railroad somebody like they did to Trump.
Quantumfreakonomics
24d ago
I assume you are referring to this order following up on the judge's temporary restraining order freezing (heh) the funding freeze. This is a bit of a strange situation. It's not entirely clear what specific action is being enjoined. They are prevented from... not funding things? Which things? Which specific transactions are required to go through? Which funding decisions are a result of following the president's executive order (forbidden by the court's order), and which funding decisions are simply government officials implementing what they consider to be the proper policy of the government? What even are the proper funding procedures in the absense of executive-directed policy? Are agency heads supposed to pretend that Biden is still president and fund whatever he would want instead?
Quantumfreakonomics
24d ago
As a thought experiment, what do you guys think it would take for Republicans in congress to impeach and convict Trump?
Like, suppose all those Reddit comments are right, and Elon really is looting billions of dollars from the treasury for his personal benefit. If Trump turns a blind eye, or even worse, pardons Elon, surely that would be enough right?
The core problem is that yeah, the general public is stupid. You can’t build your political ideology around asking the voters what they want. For one, they don’t know how things work. Their opinions are not constrained by the laws of reality. For another, the opinions of the public are ephemeral. The average voter cares little about policy qua policy. They only care about whatever thing is going on in their media sphere. Have you ever once pulled up the most recent edition of the Federal Register to see what newly-promulgated regulations the government is issuing? Have you ever once commented upon — or even just read — a notice of proposed rulemaking on Regulations.gov? Probably not, because you don’t actually care about that stuff, and neither does anyone else in the general public. The average voter has no opinion on (checks today’s edition of the FR) what the proper licensing regime for the 6 gigahertz radio frequency band should be. If tomorrow everyone suddenly had an opinion on that for some reason, it wouldn’t be because of any personal reasoning or thought, it would be because someone they trust told them what to think.
More options
Context Copy link