Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Glad someone else named it (via William Teach at Pirate’s Cove), if they hadn’t then I’d have had to take on the job myself. And I’m not that good at it.
We tend to forget that our so-called “leaders” are just flawed human beings like everybody else. They have vices, they have temptations…some even have bad intentions…
The Authoritarian Impulse
Under President Obama, rule by decree has become commonplace, with federal edicts dictating policies on everything from immigration and labor laws to climate change. No modern leader since Nixon has been so bold in trying to consolidate power. But the current president is also building on a trend: Since 1910 the federal government has doubled its share of government spending to 60 percent. Its share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II.
Today climate change has become the killer app for expanding state control, for example, helping Jerry Brown find his inner Duce. But the authoritarian urge is hardly limited to climate-related issues. It can be seen on college campuses, where uniformity of belief is increasingly mandated. In Europe, the other democratic bastion, the continental bureaucracy now controls ever more of daily life on the continent. You don’t want thousands of Syrian refugees in your town, but the EU knows better. You will take them and like it, or be labeled a racist.
The Rule of the Wise-people
Historically, advocacy for the rule of “betters” has been largely a prerogative of the right. Indeed the very basis of traditional conservativism—epitomized by the Tory ideal—was that society is best run by those with the greatest stake in its success, and by those who have been educated, nurtured, and otherwise prepared to rule over others with a sense of justice and enlightenment. In this century, the idea of handing power to a properly indoctrinated cadre also found radical expression in totalitarian ideologies such as communism, fascism, and national socialism.
In contemporary North American and the EU, the ascendant controlling power comes from a new configuration of the cognitively superior, i.e., the academy, the mainstream media, and the entertainment and technology communities. This new centralist ruling class, unlike the Tories, relies not on tradition, Christianity, or social hierarchy to justify its actions, but worships instead at the altar of expertise and political correctness.
Ironically this is occurring at a time when many progressives celebrates localism in terms of food and culture. Some even embrace localism as an economic development tool, an environmental win, and a form of resistance to ever greater centralized big business control.
Yet some of the same progressives who promote localism often simultaneously favor centralized control of everything from planning and zoning to education. They may want local music, wine, or song, but all communities then must conform in how they operate, are run, and developed. Advocates of strict land-use policies claim that traditional architecture and increased densities will enable us to once again enjoy the kind of “meaningful community” that supposedly cannot be achieved in conventional suburbs.
In the process, long-standing local control is being squeezed out of existence. Ontario, California Mayor pro-tem Alan Wapner notes that powers once reserved for localities, such as zoning and planning, are being systematically usurped by regulators from Sacramento and Washington. “They are basically dictating land use,” he says. “We just don’t matter that much.”
:
The new progressive mindset was laid out recently in an article in The Atlantic that openly called for the creation of a “technocracy” to determine energy, economic, and land use policies . According to this article, mechanisms like the market or even technological change are simply not up to the challenge. Instead the entire world needs to be put on a “war footing” that forces compliance with the technocracy’s edicts. This includes a drive to impose energy austerity on an already fading middle class, limiting mundane pleasures like cheap air travel, cars, freeways, suburbs, and single family housing.
What causes this? I detect two factors: Phobia and strategic graft. There is a certain personality type that can’t stand the idea that someplace, at sometime, someone might know what they’re doing. By and large, these are not intellectually vigorous people. Once they find out cars have to be assembled, the conflict begins as they gradually realize the cars are not being assembled the way they think it should be done. But as long as you allow them to think cars grow on trees, there’s no conflict. That’s the phobia.
The graft is the sale of influence, by way of actual dollars or quid pro quo. We are, unhappily, living in a time in which our so called public “servants” are beginning to anticipate several steps ahead, their own transgressions of graft. You just can’t attach too big of a price tag to the decision to do things a certain way across a township, or municipality, or county. But a state? Now you’re talking. The thing of it is though, to get that done you have to lay some groundwork. You have to pass some “everybody in this vicinity does it this way” rules. The easiest way, is probably to establish a board. Once you get a board deciding things, without any available means of appeal, you can appoint people to that board and…kaching, kaching. Haven’t you noticed? When we discuss the boards that make the biggest decisions, that’s when we know the least about who’s sitting on them. Thanks to this alone, we are rapidly becoming a passive-voice, “I know what was done but I dunno who did it” society.
What people tend to forget is, there really aren’t too many credible arguments against local control. Although there are some. Localities can be held to a centralized (higher) standard, and in some situations this might — conceivably — benefit everybody, within & outside of the locality. And, coordination. But those arguments are not advanced too often as we wrangle away, year after year, with some spiffy new centralized commission of overlords that wants to lift more power away from the local level; the advocates for centralized control tend to rely much more often on bumper sticker slogans, and bogeyman stories about “If we don’t act now, the climate will slip out of control past a tipping point” or some such.
Also, efforts that involve local autonomy can, and probably will, bring these desirable aspects of centralized control themselves, the better performance and the coordination. It might take a few more steps, but it isn’t a slow process by any means. The accelerating communication due to improving technology, is on the side of helping this process. Two counties, side by side, harvest corn. One brings twice as many bushels per acre at harvest time, as the other. Two hundred years ago it would be hard to measure that, and harder still to bring about change because of that. Now? We measure just about everything. And we talk about it at the speed of light.
This mania, this drive, to have intimate aspects of everyday life directed by centrally located better-people, when you get right down to it, is a relic from the past. It’s Roman Empire stuff. That, and a psychological enfeeblement, or something that should be diagnosed that way.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“In contemporary North American and the EU, the ascendant controlling power comes from a new configuration of the cognitively superior, i.e., the academy, the mainstream media, and the entertainment and technology communities.”
Cognitively superior?
The person who wrote that has no clue – they have bought in to the idea that the credentialed are intellectually elite rather than privileged and connected.
The MSM as “cognitively superior!”
The professors in the humanities and ‘social sciences’ are “cognitively superior!”
No, they are drones in cultural lockstep.
The Long March through the institutions made it safe for a Soviet apparatchiki to take control of these institutions and to chase the real elite away.
Our institutions are full of people who are not achievers but who crave power over other human beings.
They have gotten that way because of cultural decline – people have become sedated by material wealth and ease (and sex and drugs and rock and roll and Club Med, etc.) and have let lesser, but sociopathic human beings destroy the society by seizing control of its institutions.
- Maple Curtain | 01/03/2016 @ 10:23I think he’s summarizing the mindset, in fact subtly mocking it. But that’s speculation.
It is possible these elites are cognitively superior — possible for their ambitions to be inspired by a perception that this is what they are, and maybe they have evidence to present. But certainly there is nothing ensuring that they are that. In fact, there is a persuasion toward the opposite, a rule of “those who can, do, those who don’t, sit on a board.” And this is what really concerns me, this thing to which you alluded with the “not achievers” thing.
Non-producers, telling the producers how to do their producing. It’s gotten so commonplace it doesn’t arouse too much attention, let alone appropriate concern, anymore.
- mkfreeberg | 01/03/2016 @ 10:33“Non-producers, telling the producers how to do their producing.”
- CaptDMO | 01/05/2016 @ 06:27Ah yes.
Folks who’ve known me for any significant amount of time have come to visibly CRINGE when a newly “credentialed” appointee to a board/administration/ disingenuously convened “planning” group, etc. suggest “Well, can’t we just….”, or “All we have to do is….”.
MOST have made the mistake before, and MOST recall the consequences.
But that’s OK, I don’t drink anymore so I STILL get invited to parties.
Notice the conventional use of the political term “right”.
That claim isn’t quite accurate, as can be seen in the linked article. Federal spending reached a peaked in 2009 at 24.4%, but dropped to 20.4% in 2014. The figure from 2009 is clearly due to the recession leftover from the Bush Administration, while the latter is less than at any time during the Reagan Administration, though not as low as during the Clinton Administration with higher marginal tax rates.
As for the broader point. Modern democratic societies are organized at many levels; federal, state, local, judicial, executive, legislative, families, lobbies, private, public, civic, trade, corporate, treaties, markets, and so on. It is conceivable, and to some extent inevitable, that bureaucracies will become detached from those they serve. There’s a constant jockeying for power between all the various facets of society. In democratic societies, people can openly point out the problem, and restrain an unresponsive autocracy. However, like government itself, the regulatory bureaucracy is a necessary component of the modern world.
- Zachriel | 01/05/2016 @ 08:32“That claim isn’t quite accurate…” Ah. So by liberal logic the fact that Obama’s debt doubled Bush’s can be attributed to the same “logic” that by changing the books to show that unemployment lasts as long as you are unemployed to a mere six months means unemployment is 6.5% and not 13%. Interesting. Foolish, but interesting.
- P_Ang | 01/05/2016 @ 09:43P_Ang: So by liberal logic the fact that Obama’s debt doubled Bush’s …
The claim concerned federal spending as a percentage of GDP. Deficits went from nearly 10% of GDP for Bush’s last budget, to less than 3% for 2014. The increased debt is directly related to the financial meltdown at the end of the Bush Administration.
P_Ang: can be attributed to the same “logic” that by changing the books to show that unemployment lasts as long as you are unemployed to a mere six months means unemployment is 6.5% and not 13%.can be attributed to the same “logic” that by changing the books to show that unemployment lasts as long as you are unemployed to a mere six months means unemployment is 6.5% and not 13%.
That is also incorrect. Unemployment counts anyone actively looking for work, whether they are receiving benefits or not.
- Zachriel | 01/05/2016 @ 14:32http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts
The claim concerned federal spending as a percentage of GDP. Deficits went from nearly 10% of GDP for Bush’s last budget, to less than 3% for 2014. The increased debt is directly related to the financial meltdown at the end of the Bush Administration.
“Deficits” != “Spending”. Also, “Debt” != “Spending”. To see how this is a problem, refer to the graphics prepared at the link beyond the link. The point made has nothing to do with Bush vs. Obama; y’all inserted that into what was being discussed.
So the claim is accurate. And y’all aren’t very good at this whole debunking-thing. First step is, you have to learn to recognize differences. Second step is, you have to learn to recognize meaningless differences, the distinction-without-a-difference. Debt vs. spending, debt vs. spending, these would be examples of the first of those two things. Meaningful differences.
That is also incorrect. Unemployment counts anyone actively looking for work, whether they are receiving benefits or not.
This is an example of cherry-picking to make the debunking a debunking, which translates into wasting everybody’s time with a phony debunking. Factcheck.org did a pretty decent exploration of the various ways unemployment numbers are counted. What y’all have chosen to take as the only-truth here, is U-3. It is not the only metric measured by the BLS.
Notice the conventional use of the political term “right”.
The transgression here is not against accounting concepts or statistics, but rather against logic. The observation made by the article, in context —
— makes it abundantly clear that the terms “left” and “right” do change meaning across time. Including, but not limited to, the abstract concepts of governance supported or opposed by one side, or by the other.
So if we ever do bump into anyone who says these terms tend to remain relatively static across the decades and centuries — we will know they are wrong about that.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2016 @ 18:19mkfreeberg: “Deficits” != “Spending”.
That’s correct. We answered concerning spending in our first comment (01/05/2016 @ 08:32), then responded to P_Ang’s question about debt in the second (1/05/2016 @ 14:32).
mkfreeberg: So the claim is accurate.
The claim is that the federal government’s “share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II.” The graph provided contradicts this claim. The red line represents federal spending as a percentage of GDP. It peaks during the 2008 recession, which does represent the highest point since WWII, but then declines again to lower than at any point during the Reagan Administration. Federal spending reached a peaked in 2009 at 24.4%, but dropped to 20.4% in 2014.
mkfreeberg: The point made has nothing to do with Bush vs. Obama; y’all inserted that into what was being discussed.
The claim concerns the history of federal spending-to-GDP, the peaks in question being WWII, during the Reagan Administration, and since the 2008 recession.
mkfreeberg: What y’all have chosen to take as the only-truth here, is U-3. It is not the only metric measured by the BLS.
That is correct; however, none of these measures stop counting the unemployed after six months as per P_Ang’s comment.
mkfreeberg: — makes it abundantly clear that the terms “left” and “right” do change meaning across time.
In fact, the writer is using the distinction consistently and conventionally for different periods. The reason you are confused is because you are insisting upon applying your own idiosyncratic definition.
The classic case on the right being the Ancien Régime. However, the French Revolution on the left also used authoritarian means. Nonetheless, the right is more often associated with the right until the Russian Revolution.
He probably means “in the last century”. Note the word “also”. Authoritarianism of the left and the right were rampant during the middle of the last century.
Again, the use is consistent. According to this sentence, the new ruling class is a centrist technocracy. Others might claim the U.S. is a plutocracy.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2016 @ 07:04Breaking this one down further:
Tories, political right
- Zachriel | 01/06/2016 @ 07:48tradition, conservatism
Christianity, conservatism
Social hierarchy, political left-right
My six months encompasses U-4, U-5, and U-6, all of whom “stop looking for work” according to the current administration after they no longer receive benefits. Stop ignoring the obvious and making excuses for your fanatical brethren.
- P_Ang | 01/06/2016 @ 11:51I notice you still haven’t even tried to excuse the 7 trillion in 8 Bush years vs. the (heavily downplayed) “8” trillion in six Obama years. I was fully expecting the usual HuffPo tropes of “but Obama raked in higher estimated taxes” and had a bunch of “stopped debt clock” and “100 trillion true-debt” rebuttals that you’d never read all ready.
P_Ang: My six months encompasses U-4, U-5, and U-6, all of whom “stop looking for work” according to the current administration after they no longer receive benefits.
Again, that is incorrect.
BLS: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
P_Ang: I notice you still haven’t even tried to excuse the 7 trillion in 8 Bush years vs. the (heavily downplayed) “8” trillion in six Obama years.
We addressed the point. Large deficits occurred due to the financial meltdown and the ensuing recession at the end of the Bush Administration. Deficits are now below 3% of GDP.
- Zachriel | 01/06/2016 @ 12:50In fact, the writer is using the distinction consistently and conventionally for different periods. The reason you are confused is because you are insisting upon applying your own idiosyncratic definition.
What idiosyncratic definition is that? It is y’all who are insisting that rule by authoritarian elites is an aspect of the right wing in one century, and of the left wing in another century…but also that “the political terms left and right have been relatively stable over the last two centuries, the changes having more to do with degree rather than kind.”
If y’all’s group of unknown nose-count wishes to continue to share a common account, y’all need to do a better job coordinating amongst y’all’selves. As it is, the discussions that ensue are just as confused as y’all are about y’all’s previous comments, y’all know this is true, but y’all haven’t got any choice because if the discussions were clearer, y’all would be losing some arguments y’all deserve to lose because the points y’all are making aren’t very good ones. Also, it looks that way.
Because let’s face it, it doesn’t reflect in any derogatory way on anything I’ve said, if y’all can’t keep straight what exactly it is y’all are trying to assert about the terms “left” and “right” across time. It reflects only on y’all.
The claim is that the federal government’s “share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II.” The graph provided contradicts this claim.
The mistake y’all make here is to infer the meaning of “now” outside the intent of the writer. It’s like y’all have some anti-Bush pro-Obama propaganda y’all are just aching to use, so y’all made a slight adjustment to what the writer was saying so y’all could use it and pronounce a claim to have been debunked. This is unreasonable and just plain wrong.
Here is the graph the article provided.
And here is the simplified version.
As you can see: Spending as a share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II. Also, the statement “the graph provided contradicts this claim” has been falsified, since there are two graphs and the moving-quotient statistics they present, are consistent with the claim made.
But as long as we’re off-topic like this, and it’s demonstrably evident y’all have some pro-Obama propaganda that places all of the responsibility for the increased public debt associated with Stimulus on President Bush, and y’all are just aching to use it — I am genuinely curious.
Since Senator and Candidate Obama sat in on the sessions with President Bush and Candidate McCain to negotiate some level of detail on how these hundreds of billions of dollars were going to be spent…and y’all are committed to doing the legwork, getting the propaganda out there that the resulting debt is Bush debt and not Obama debt…and, no doubt, also pushing the propaganda that Stimulus was a great thing, a wonderful thing, it saved this it saved that. Should that point be accepted in some setting that the Stimulus saved all sorts of businesses and jobs, would y’all agree that President Obama should be denied the credit that comes with that? Since He did not preside over the associated debt?
I think I already know what the answer is, but I’d like to see the resulting thesis. Please coordinate amongst y’all’selves adequately this time.
- mkfreeberg | 01/07/2016 @ 07:21I’ve always been curious on that point myself.
The Stimulus = massive debt.
Massive debt = bad, so that goes on Bush’s tab.
And yet, The Stimulus “created or saved” however-many jobs.
Jobs “created or saved” = good, so that goes on Obama’s tab.
And yet, both are due to The Stimulus.
Of course, we all know the real answer as to why that’s so, but it’s a fun party game to play “guess the ham-handed lie.” I’m guessing that, when you finally centrifuge out all the squid ink, the Zachriel’s answer is going to be something to the effect of “debt incurred up to midnight, Jan 19, 2009 — which was all of it — is Bush’s; while jobs “created or saved” — which is all of them — date from 00:01 on Jan 20, 2008.
I’ll put a five-spot on it. Any takers?
- Severian | 01/07/2016 @ 13:35mkfreeberg: What idiosyncratic definition is that?
The one that conflates statism with the political left. Statism can be found on the political left or the political right. Libertarianism can be be found on the political left or the political right.
Each of Kotkin’s points are consistent with the standard definitions; of left as egalitarian, and right as hierarchical or conservative. He starts with the history of authoritarianism, which he ascribes to the right. The left rose in reaction to the consolidation of power by the aristocracy and the church, so this makes sense. Then he points out that authoritarianism was prevalent during the last century.
Then he makes it even more clear. “This new centralist ruling class, unlike the Tories, relies not on tradition, Christianity, or social hierarchy to justify its actions, but worships instead at the altar of expertise and political correctness.”
He juxtaposes this centrist ruling class against those who advocate egalitarianism on the one side, the left, and conservatism (tradition, religion, social hierarchy), the right. That’s why he calls them centrist.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2016 @ 14:01Wait, is that the “standard definition” of Left that hasn’t changed at all since 1793, that Greg Gutfeld is still using? And the “standard definition” of Right, which gave us the long and storied history of American school vouchers?
The left rose in reaction to the consolidation of power by the aristocracy and the church, so this makes sense.
Fascinating. The aristocracy and the church were all-powerful in the later Roman Empire. Which, by “the standard definition,” makes Odoacer a Leftist.
Have y’all informed the Classics Department?
- Severian | 01/07/2016 @ 14:14mkfreeberg: The mistake y’all make here is to infer the meaning of “now” outside the intent of the writer.
So you are redefining “now”? Seriously?
Merriam-Webster: now, at the present time
mkfreeberg: Here is the graph the article provided.
Yes, and the graph clearly shows that the ratio of Federal spending-to-GDP peaked in 2009, then has steadily declined to the point that 2014 was lower than at any time during the Reagan Administration, though not as low as during the Clinton Administration when it was less than 18%.
mkfreeberg: Since Senator and Candidate Obama sat in on the sessions with President Bush and Candidate McCain to negotiate some level of detail on how these hundreds of billions of dollars were going to be spent … would y’all agree that President Obama should be denied the credit that comes with that? Since He did not preside over the associated debt?
The primary cause of the increased debt was not the stimulus, which was less than $1 trillion, but the collapse in tax receipts, and the spending associated with automatic stabilizers.
- Zachriel | 01/07/2016 @ 14:24Here, I enhanced the graphic to help y’all understand:
mkfreeberg: Here, I enhanced the graphic to help y’all understand:
Your indication isn’t precise. It seems to go from about 2005 to 2020 or so. Perhaps you mean from 2005 to present. The ratio of federal spending-to-GDP from 2005 to 2015 was 21.2%, while the ratio during the Reagan Administration was 21.8%.
Anyhow, interesting use of the term “now”.
- Zachriel | 01/08/2016 @ 04:23Your indication isn’t precise.
True. But it is consistent with the writer’s intended meaning. Mind-blowing idea, I know.
Should there be any doubts about that, one could go straight to the source and review the findings that formed the basis of this conclusion. There is no skulduggery here.
Anyhow, interesting use of the term “now”.
It is consistent with the writer’s intended meaning. Mind-blowing idea, I know.
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2016 @ 04:44“Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are characterized by social-interaction difficulties, communication challenges and a tendency to engage in repetitive behaviors….When language begins to develop, the person with autism may use speech in unusual ways. Some have difficulty combining words into meaningful sentences. They may speak only single words or repeat the same phrase over and over. Some go through a stage where they repeat what they hear verbatim (echolalia)….Some children and adults with autism tend to carry on monologues on a favorite subject, giving others little chance to comment.”
There are resources available to help you, children. Obviously your group-home halfway house thing isn’t working.
@Morgan,
in keeping with your theme of local control and feet of clay, I wonder how much damage has been done to our society by the sanctification of standardized tests. In my experience, lots of folks seem to take “he aced his SATs” to mean “he’s a genius without portfolio,” which they assume qualifies that kid for all kinds of things… when in reality, the kid is just good at taking tests. Even people who should know better often act this way — they know Little Tommy’s just the town brown-noser and know-it-all, but if he gets a 1500 (or whatever it is now) on his SAT, and all of a sudden they assume he’s off to Harvard to rule the world.
Test fetishism. I don’t know how you’d measure it, but it seems like it plays a sizable role. Thoughts?
- Severian | 01/08/2016 @ 07:29“Wait, is that the “standard definition” of Left that hasn’t changed at all since 1793, that Greg Gutfeld is still using? And the “standard definition” of Right, which gave us the long and storied history of American school vouchers?”
Dangit, I was waiting for Zach to bring up the “magical switching-parties argument.” You know, basically the same argument you make financially where everything bad is Bush and everything good is Obama, but in a political sense.
- P_Ang | 01/08/2016 @ 09:59I know, right? That’s why I find his/their/its historical assertions so fascinating. If we go by the “advocates greater equality” definition — which, we’re assured, is the “standard” one, which hasn’t changed since the French Revolution — then the Republican Party was the “left” for most of its existence, and the Democrats were the “right.” Since, you know, the Republicans were all about abolition and the Democrats were the party of the Slave Power Conspiracy. And you’d be much likelier to find a Progressive in the GOP — Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Party was nothing but Republican Progressives. And, of course, “segregation now, segregation forever!” was the rallying cry of the Democrats in the Sixties… until Lyndon Johnson cynically flipped on the issue (“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”).
But that’s the problem with a catechism — it just sounds silly to outsiders, who want to subject its claims to empirical verification. Who but a true believer, for instance, could claim with a straight face that “The left rose in reaction to the consolidation of power by the aristocracy and the church”? The aristocracy and church had a stranglehold on power from c. 300 to c. 1500 AD. There was even a name for it — the “feudal system” — and, looking around…. nope, not a leftist in sight. Ditto with Ancient Egypt, pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia, Judaea, India…. nary a lefty to be found in any of them (though I freely admit that pre-Columbian archaeology is hit-or-miss, so maybe Montezuma had one hell of a free prescription drug plan before those evil conquistadors got there).
- Severian | 01/08/2016 @ 11:34I think the SAT is now a 2400 scale, Sev. By whatever scale one uses, though, a shockingly high result is no guarantee of a successful college career… or at least it wasn’t 25+ years ago. Maybe now that everyone’s entitled to a stable emotional experience, I would sail through – bad grades are upsetting and probably illegal on those grounds.
On the other hand, I’m white, male, cishet, and a Christian, so they might not even let me enroll. Funny the twists of culture.
- nightfly | 01/08/2016 @ 11:41a shockingly high result is no guarantee of a successful college career
I know that. That’s why I said “fetishization” — lots of folks seem to regard a high SAT as some kind of “certified genius” stamp, even though a) it’s no such thing, and b) everyone knows it. I’ve been around the ed biz a long time, and it’s weird — the same people who gripe endlessly about how standardized tests in grade school prove nothing (because “teaching to the test”) are all-in on the idea that one must max the SAT, whatever the cost in time or money, because that’s the gateway to the good life.
I mean, look at the ways people wave this stuff around online. Saying “I have a PhD!” or whatever is supposed to shut off debate, when everyone who has ever been to college knows that credentials in themselves are all but meaningless. Little Tommy is just a semi-bright apple polisher…. but let him score high on the SAT, and then head off to Harvard, and all of a sudden the people in the best position to know better start regarding him as some kind of giant brain. I’ve seen it happen too many times to be a coincidence… and I’m wondering how much that kind of attitude plays into the current mess.
- Severian | 01/08/2016 @ 11:48Sev – Must be further proof that good test scores aren’t indicative of brains, because I read everything you wrote and still got it backwards. Guhhhh. Back to the coffee pot for me.
- nightfly | 01/08/2016 @ 11:57If the meaning isn’t clear, the fault is almost always with the writer. 🙂
I’m just spitballin’ in any case. But I do think that busting down the academic-industrial complex would do Western Civilization a whole lot of good.
- Severian | 01/08/2016 @ 12:53mkfreeberg: But it is consistent with the writer’s intended meaning.
Even then, he’s wrong. The ratio of federal spending-to-GDP from 2005 to 2015 was 21.2%, while the ratio during the Reagan Administration was 21.8%.
mkfreeberg: Perspective must be maintained that this followed a period of record federal spending, and relative to the total size of government, the reduction was not huge — about $120 billion in both FY2012 and FY2013, and about $5 billion in FY2014.
From 2009 to 2014, deficits dropped from 9.8% of GDP to 2.8% of GDP, while federal spending dropped from 24.4% of GDP to 20.3% of GDP. In other words, the claim that
- Zachriel | 01/08/2016 @ 14:37the federal “share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II.” In fact, the federal share of GDP has been sharply reduced, per your very own citation.
Even then, he’s wrong. The ratio of federal spending-to-GDP from 2005 to 2015 was 21.2%, while the ratio during the Reagan Administration was 21.8%.
The relevant chart would be the one on page 5 of the report. It is sourced. The data come from the OBM historical tables and supplementary data.
We can validate it by way of other efforts to capture what went on during this time, like this for example:
This article includes graphical information, also sourced to the OMB, that puts Obama-era spending way out in front of Reagan’s even as a percentage of GDP. Perhaps this is one of those weird anomalies that come from the CBO and the OMB capturing the same events by way of different methodologies, with different political agendas in place. Or perhaps it’s an entirely innocent mistake on one side, or the other.
Without sources for your information, there’s no way to know. We just have numbers produced by a bunch of anonymous persons on the Internet.
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2016 @ 18:38mkfreeberg: The relevant chart would be the one on page 5 of the report.
If you are referring to the Joint Economic Committee Republicans, this is what the chart shows for the federal spending-to-GDP ratio:
1980s, 21.59%
1990s, 19.65%
2000s, 19.97%
2010s, 21.71%
So the 2010s, which are still ongoing and includes the period in the aftermath of the Great Recession, have about the same average as the 1980s.
That would be the record since WWII, of course. Keep in mind that the 2009 budget was Bush’s last budget. Furthermore, the article was written in 2012; and meanwhile, the ratio has substantially declined.
So, we can say that the 2009-2011 ratios were the highest since WWII. This was primarily due to the financial meltdown and its aftermath. But we can also say that now the ratios are substantially lower.
- Zachriel | 01/09/2016 @ 09:00P_Ang: I was waiting for Zach to bring up the “magical switching-parties argument.”
There clearly was a demographic shift. White Southerners were solidly Democratic before the Civil Rights Movement, and are now solidly Republican.
mkfreeberg: The mistake y’all make here is to infer the meaning of “now” outside the intent of the writer.
Zachriel: So you are redefining “now”? Seriously?
Speaking of definitions. You don’t seem to have ever defined how you are personally using the political terms left and right. You seem to be conflating them with the statism spectrum. Perhaps you could take the time to say how you are using the term.
Kotkin uses the terms conventionally. He bemoans the increasing power of a centrist technocracy, which is a legitimate concern, even if somewhat exaggerated.
- Zachriel | 01/09/2016 @ 10:35There clearly was a demographic shift. White Southerners were solidly Democratic before the Civil Rights Movement, and are now solidly Republican.
Fascinating. But a “demographic shift” doesn’t account for the fact that the Democratic Party favored increased inequality before the Civil Rights movement. Let’s break it down into simple steps:
— The Democratic Party was the party of the “Solid South” and the authors of Jim Crow. This is American History 101.
— Jim Crow, by definition, increases inequality.
— The “standard definition” of “the Right” is: “favors increased inequality.”
Therefore, the Democratic Party pre-1964 was “the Right.”
Yes or no?
- Severian | 01/09/2016 @ 12:33If no, which of the three above-stated facts do you dispute?
You don’t seem to have ever defined how you are personally using the political terms left and right.
Actually I did that in another post. If I recall correctly, y’all never could bring y’all’selves to admit that definitions can be tested, and found not to work. See Severian‘s three bullets immediately above this one.
Lots of liberals can’t do this, they do what y’all do, quote “experts” and reference materials and strut around like pigeons on a chessboard as if the matter’s settled…while the definitions don’t work. This is why I say things like “these are the people you don’t want building a dam before you build a house downstream from it” or “these are the people you don’t want packing your parachute.” Reality shows their ideas don’t work, and they plug along afterward, for years, decades, generations…convinced the ideas work, making it clear nobody in earshot is allowed to disagree.
I await with eager anticipation y’all’s answer to the conundrum mentioned. I expect y’all won’t actually make it work, since y’all can’t. It will just be more rationalization. From the people I don’t want maintaining the elevator cables before I ride in the car.
If you are referring to the Joint Economic Committee Republicans, this is what the chart shows for the federal spending-to-GDP ratio…
Thanks but if I need help remembering to read relevant works, I’ll get it from someone who actually reads them before I point out they haven’t read them. Meanwhile, 21.71 is greater than 21.59.
But let’s work forward, according to y’all’s premise of “‘Close’ only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, or whenever The Zachriel, whoever they are, say it counts.” The original debunking was “even then, he’s wrong…ratio of federal spending-to-GDP from 2005 to 2015 was 21.2%, while the ratio during the Reagan Administration was 21.8%” but now, oh dear, I guess “close” counts again. This debunking sure does require a lot of help. This is why there are those participating (apart from myself) who believe y’all are on the autism spectrum somewhere, since once again y’all have ignored context; y’all are trying to compare an isolated era of squabbling between a responsible executive and a prima donna House Speaker, with the problem pointed out by the report linked, which is that we “now” have — and I quote — a “new era of big government,” continued forward from the “philosophical shift in spending.”
This is a problem. And it ought to be particular jarring to liberals, at least those among the ones I know who want the powers-that-be to tax the rich “their fair share” out of a sense of fiscal responsibility. Hauser’s Law is a real thing, backed up by actual data that can’t be cleansed, filtered, cherry-picked…reality isn’t going to care much if “close” counts when anonymous Internet busybodies say it counts, and doesn’t count when they say it doesn’t…it will just say, the country is in debt some more, and its currency is worth even less than what it’s worth now…
So y’all have done a great job of showing why the dollar is shrinking, due to the influence of people like y’all-selves, who are overly concerned with “debunking” and winning arguments. It isn’t fooling anybody, it looks like what it is: A weakened, strained, distant and deteriorating tethering to reality.
Keep in mind that the 2009 budget was Bush’s last budget. Furthermore, the article was written in 2012; and meanwhile, the ratio has substantially declined.
This is a fair point. But then again, as I’ve explained already to y’all, if y’all take the time to read the article linked and the report on which it’s based, y’all will find that it isn’t overly concerned with beating up on Obama or with making Bush look good by comparison. These are lamentations over the recent philosophical shift, and new era of bigger government. Since this was written some time ago as y’all mention, perhaps y’all can have an adequate rebuttal to its concerns if y’all can show these declines in spending as a percentage of GDP are manifestations of a philosophical shift back again.
If that is the case, you don’t have to watch what’s going on too long before it’s crystal clear such a philosophical shift is coming from The People (who have to pay the taxes) and not from the established political power in Washington. We’ll have to wait for November to find out for sure.
- mkfreeberg | 01/10/2016 @ 05:35Nice post. I’d like to add two quick items to this “definitions” nonsense:
1) The whole idea of “standard definitions” in history is ludicrous, because History doesn’t work that way. I don’t mean capital-H History in the Marxist sense; I mean the profession, the job the talking heads on the History Channel do. If you think about it for three seconds, you realize that if there were “standard definitions” that a consensus of historians arrived at — and these “definitions” are immutable, Zachriel-style — then those same historians have just put themselves out of a job. Nobody has ever made tenure by writing a dense dissertation on how “the standard definition” is right, and oh look, here’s three hundred more pages of evidence that I have nothing new to say. Finding new sources and challenging received interpretations is literally — literally — the job description of a working historian. You learn this on the first day of class at any decent college.
2) And on the second day of class, you learn what’s wrong with teleological theories of history like “favors increased equality.” History, Zachriel-style, is the chronicle of man’s progress towards a glorious future, where everyone is equal and the weather never changes, and which is only (temporarily!) being held back by the dark forces of Reaction. This type of argument is called “the Whig interpretation of history,” it’s about as old as their beloved French Revolution, and is, in fact, as thoroughly critiqued as any idea in the humanities can possibly be. It was new and exciting when Hegel proposed it back at the start of the 19th century, but was already under heavy fire by the time Macaulay put out his version in the 1830s. Karl Marx, of all people, criticized it in the middle of the century, and pretty much every theoretical critique of Marx knocks his version of it. It’s so old, in fact, that people had to dust off names like “Carlyle” and “Macaulay” when Francis Fukuyama brought out his version of it in the 1990s. You may recall that one — The End of History, which if I recall correctly says that there’s no more threats to liberal democracy and History itself has led us to this, the apex of human civilization, the Clinton administration.
- Severian | 01/10/2016 @ 07:25mkfreeberg: Actually I did that in another post.
Then you won’t mind providing a concise definition here.
mkfreeberg: See Severian‘s three bullets immediately above this one.
Severian asked to be put on our ignore list, so you will have to repost any points you think worth discussing.
mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, 21.71 is greater than 21.59.
Yes, and the current levels are even lower. Hence, the claim that the federal “share of GDP has now grown to the highest level since World War II” is wrong.
mkfreeberg: Hauser’s Law is a real thing
It’s an observation, if that is what you mean. Federal revenues have averaged 19.5% ± 5% since WWII. Expenditures have averaged about 2% higher.
When comparing them, there seems to be a natural dividing point around 1980. Deficits from 1947-1979 are about 0.8% of GDP, from 1980-2015 are about 3.2% of GDP.
mkfreeberg: These are lamentations over the recent philosophical shift, and new era of bigger government.
If you mean since the 1980s, then the point would be more reasonable. However, if the author is bemoaning this change, it isn’t clear from his analysis. The current levels of federal spending are about what they have been since the 1980, except for a brief respite in the Clinton Administration.
mkfreeberg: If that is the case, you don’t have to watch what’s going on too long before it’s crystal clear such a philosophical shift is coming from The People
It actually seems to be a return to the status pre-Great Recession, with federal expenditures around 20% and deficits around 3%. It would be good to return to the low deficits of the Clinton-era, but the economy was severely damaged in the financial meltdown, so it will take some time to return to full health.
- Zachriel | 01/10/2016 @ 08:36Severian asked to be put on our ignore list
Got a citation for that?
I think we have a winner for “most concise illustration of the Three Laws of SJW” — SJWs always lie; SJWs always project, SJWs always double down.
But please, by all means, keep making stuff up while running away and declaring victory. Your “readers” are impressed, I’m sure.
- Severian | 01/10/2016 @ 08:45M: Actually I did that in another post.
Z: Then you won’t mind providing a concise definition here.
Yes that makes perfect sense. Why, just the other day I was looking over my blog and thinking “you know what…I’m not seeing endless arguments with The Zachriel about the definition of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in enough comment threads, I totally need to make more copies of this.” It’s in my project to-do pile.
Severian asked to be put on our ignore list
He can see your posts but y’all can’t see his? Somehow I don’t think that’s what he had in mind. Anyway here is what he said:
- mkfreeberg | 01/11/2016 @ 07:41mkfreeberg: Why, just the other day I was looking over my blog and thinking “you know what…I’m not seeing endless arguments with The Zachriel about the definition of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in enough comment threads, I totally need to make more copies of this.” It’s in my project to-do pile.
Notably you used more words avoiding a definition than would be required to actually provide a concise definition. Only you can say how you are using the term, but from context, you seem to be conflating the left-right spectrum with the statist-libertarian spectrum.
Lacking a definition, we’re more than happy to provide a standard definition for the purpose of furthering the discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
mkfreeberg: — The Democratic Party was the party of the “Solid South” and the authors of Jim Crow. This is American History 101.
The Democratic Party was a coalition, which included the south, liberals, and labor.
mkfreeberg: — Jim Crow, by definition, increases inequality.
Jim Crow maintained historical inequality. The majority of white Southerners, those who rejected change to this Southern institution, were called conservatives, not liberals.
mkfreeberg: — The “standard definition” of “the Right” is: “favors increased inequality.”
Favors hierarchies. Whether that entails increased inequality determines placement on the right spectrum. The moderate right generally wants to maintain existing inequalities, while the hard right wants to undo egalitarian reforms and return to a previous state. The far right is often referred to as reactionary.
mkfreeberg: Therefore, the Democratic Party pre-1964 was “the Right.”
No. The Democratic Party had a conservative wing, but it also had a liberal wing. Similarly, the Republican Party was also a coalition, Main Street and Wall Street, and also included liberal and conservative factions.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2016 @ 08:11“There clearly was a demographic shift. White Southerners were solidly Democratic before the Civil Rights Movement, and are now solidly Republican.”
Except that’s a flat-out lie based on a flat-out intentional misinterpretation of actual events. You cannot, indeed, HuffPo, DailyKos and the places you scrape your misinformation cannot pinpoint the “magical” switching point.
The reason is that what ACTUALLY happened, is that a small number of southern Democrats switched parties to vote for Goldwater. When the vote for Goldwater failed, the vast majority of them switched back. The fact that an incredibly small percentage of the voting public switched parties is the ONLY example every used, and ignores the factual evidence that the amount that remained in the Republican camp since then was so small that the Goldwater southern Republican party-switchers that were left were not even able to make an effect on local politics.
And of course, where exactly are the millions upon millions of anti-slavery, anti-bigotry Republicans that “suddenly” switched parties and voted Democrat? When LBJ infamously used taxpayer money to buy the black community? Where exactly? When was the magical period of time where Republicans controlled all three branches of the government in massive numbers for decades? I can answer that:
It never happened.
- P_Ang | 01/11/2016 @ 09:27The Democratic Party was a coalition, which included the south, liberals, and labor.
Irrelevant. Do you deny that the Democratic Party was the party of the “Solid South?” Or that the Democratic Party passed the Jim Crow laws? Or both?
The majority of white Southerners, those who rejected change to this Southern institution, were called conservatives, not liberals.
So, the majority of the party which controlled the “Solid South” since the end of Reconstruction were conservatives…. and yet, that majority-conservative party was not “the right.” Fascinating.
Favors hierarchies
Fascinating. So you retract your previous claim that “Our position is clear. …The political right is defined as people advocating less equality.”
So: A non-sequitur, an assertion that a majority-conservative party is NOT “the right,” and a retraction of your previous oft-stated claim. That’s some high-quality reasoning right there. Man, your “readers” sure must be impressed!
- Severian | 01/11/2016 @ 09:39P_Ang: The reason is that what ACTUALLY happened, is that a small number of southern Democrats switched parties to vote for Goldwater.
It was more than a small number. Goldwater carried the deep South.
http://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1964_large.png
P_Ang: Except that’s a flat-out lie based on a flat-out intentional misinterpretation of actual events. You cannot, indeed, HuffPo, DailyKos and the places you scrape your misinformation cannot pinpoint the “magical” switching point.
It’s rather hard to deny that there’s been a demographic shift in party loyalty, as the South was solidly Democratic before, and solidly Republican after.
A demographic shift doesn’t have to have a “‘magical’ switching point”. Local politics was dominated by the Democratic Party, so the shift took several decades. A significant turning point was when Truman integrated the military and conservative Dixiecrats bolted from the Democratic Party, but began in earnest when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts, then egged on by Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
- Zachriel | 01/11/2016 @ 09:51Sev,
I think they’re not on the autism spectrum. They’re just really, really full of themselves, they lack attention to detail, and they don’t value time, theirs or anybody else’s. They make mistakes, get caught making mistakes, have to come up with elaborate strategies to correct the mistakes without admitting they’re correcting mistakes…but never go to the source of the mistake, have you noticed that?
A great example: You wanted to put them on an ignore list. Now this behavior could be Asperger’s or it could be just plain nihilism coupled with lack of attention to detail, either is a decent explanation: They leaped to the conclusion that you wanted them to be unable (or act as if they’re unable) to see what you have to say. WTF? Like you’re keeping secrets or something? It doesn’t even make sense. But they’re going to double down, keep on digging, block from their own field of vision what you had to say…
I’m also impressed by this exchange:
They come from an alternate sort of universe, in which the only concern surrounding multiple copies of an evolving idea is number of words. On Earth as we begin the year Anno Domini Twenty Sixteen, a server can hold quite a lot of “words” but time is at a premium for anybody who has things they need to do.
They do get sarcasm. They just don’t make much sense. It’s as if the only reason for anybody to discuss anything at all — even though everything has to be discussed, and constantly, and multiple times in multiple places — is to play “gotcha” on people for making mistakes. But at the SAME time…nobody ever makes any. There aren’t any errors either, no variance in what is being written, or produced. No wait, just written. Surreal.
Aspies or not, they really are “cuttlefish.” When normal people use ink, what we write is not much more important than where we are writing it. Is this the “hot copy”? Are we storing it in version control? I’m not going to forget the directory in which I’ve stored this file, am I? Have I made a backup? But when these guys use ink, they just…spew…
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2016 @ 02:31mkfreeberg: A great example: You wanted to put them on an ignore list.
If he meant we should read his comments, but not respond, that’s just silly. If he doesn’t think they deserve discussion, then his comments certainly belong on the ignore list.
mkfreeberg: So, the majority of the party which controlled the “Solid South” since the end of Reconstruction were conservatives
While conservative Democrats were a majority in the South, the majority of Democrats were not Southern conservatives.
mkfreeberg: and yet, that majority-conservative party was not “the right.”
The Democratic party was not a majority-conservative party. The Democratic Party was a coalition which included conservative and liberal elements. Southern whites were just a part of the coalition.
mkfreeberg: On Earth as we begin the year Anno Domini Twenty Sixteen, a server can hold quite a lot of “words” but time is at a premium for anybody who has things they need to do.
You have time to post hundreds of words avoiding having to explain how you are using a term at the center of this discussion. We’re not asking for an essay, but a concise definition. So you refuse to do so.
“So it goes.” — Kurt Vonnegut
- Zachriel | 01/12/2016 @ 07:25Morgan,
Why can’t it be both? They’re ignorant narcissist millennials (doubly redundant, I know) – that explains the need to keep “winning” at all costs. AND they’re Asperger cases –that explains the typing style.
That “ignore list” nonsense, for example, is just something they made up because I’ve caught them, yet again, in a bunch of blatantly obvious contradictions. They can’t respond without admitting they made a mistake, and we know they’ll never do that, so they make up some nonsense whereby they can declare victory and run away. Again. (I mean, look at their followup: “If he doesn’t think they deserve discussion, then his comments certainly belong on the ignore list.” What the hell does that even mean, mind readers?).
Or, better yet, look at how they try to twist basic American history. “The Democratic party was not a majority-conservative party.” Anyone who knows anything about Gilded Age history knows this is just false. There are a zillion books on it — and it’s in any decent American history text — but to take just one small example, Grover Cleveland’s administration, i.e. the only Democrat one in the Gilded Age, was called “Bourbon Democracy.” You know, from the House of Bourbon, the ancestors of… wait for it… wait for it…. Louis XVI.
I don’t have Zachriel’s mad mind-reading skills, and I sure don’t have them at the distance of a century and a half, but I do know that the Democratic Party was only an electoral force in American politics thanks to its domination of the South…. where Democrat governments passed Jim Crow laws, which increased inequality (freedmn going from “running places like South Carolina and Louisiana, and representing them in Congress” to “slaves in all but name”) in the period 1866-1877 surely qualifies as “increased inequality,” don’t you think?). It is truly, truly fascinating to hear that this “conservative” result was brought about by a tiny minority… in every Southern state…. in every year from the end of Reconstruction (that’s 1877 in the standard textbooks, kids) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I mean that, kids — it’s fascinating. You have evidence for these extraordinary claims, of course, so you should type ’em up and send them on to the History Department at the nearest college. It’ll revolutionize our understanding of Gilded Age politics.
There is, of course, an answer to P_Ang’s “magic party switch,” and the Cuttlefish actually know it, since they cite it all the time: Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.” On their reading, Richard Nixon realized that the South was stem-to-stern racists; the natural home of racists is in the Republican Party; therefore, he openly said “vote Republican to put the blacks in their place.” Ok, fine, but even if you grant that, it entails a huge problem — why oh why did all those liberal Democrats, whom we are informed on no less an authority than Zachriel him/her/their/itself were the majority in the Solid South, suddenly embrace their inner racist and vote GOP?
If you buy what Zachriel has been telling us, Jim Crow laws were imposed on the South by a tiny minority of “conservatives” inside the otherwise pristinely liberal Democratic Party. But if that’s true, how did the great unwashed masses — who, remember, have always been liberals — suddenly find their voice and vote Republican? Remember, it’s not that the the tiny, Jim Crow-imposing “conservative minority flipped and gave their states to Richard Nixon; Zachriel assures us that there was a “massive demographic shift.” Which must mean — logically — that all those former liberals who couldn’t keep their states from imposing Jim Crow in the Gilded Age suddenly klanned up and went Republican in the years 1964-8, in the process somehow seizing the power that had been denied them all those years.
Like I say, it’s a fascinating theory. And you’d think there’d be all kinds of evidence for that kind of seismic shift — letters to the editor, op eds in the newspaper, campaign speeches from Southern politicos telling their constituents “remember, we’re the racists now.” It’s a serious professional lapse that no historian of the period has found such a thing, given the vast mountains of such evidence that must exist. I’m talking serious derilection of duty. A lot of people ought to get fired….
… or, you know, not, because all this elaborate alternate history is only necessary if you must preserve — at all costs — the ridiculous, ahistorical notion that the Democratic Party has always been the “left” and the Republicans the “right.” And the only reason for that which I can see involves an autistic adherence to definitions — the Democrats are the good guys, Han shot first, Picard is superior to Kirk, yadda yadda yadda. The train is fine. Repeat: the train is fine. No historical work on the period is ever going to say that the Democratic Party was the “liberal” one, 1866-1964, but whatever — the train is fine.
- Severian | 01/12/2016 @ 08:01[…] Quoting Severian on this: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/12/2016 @ 18:43