Just wanted to say I saw your response and thank you for something well-thought-out and, as expected, pretty creative (not sure how I feel about the surrogates but that's certainly the sort of outside-the-box thinking I was interested in!)
I'm going to have to figure out how to build something without blowing up what I have now (at least until I'm good and ready, of course!)
I agree trying to find something to work for rather than against is a good idea. My big problem with politics is, much like you, I have disdain for both sides, and for you it's pretty clear supporting Republicans in terms of markets is important, but for me it's a little more complicated (I'm not so sure it leads to optimal outcomes). But of course, that's my problem!
What do you think of the claim that America's living standards aren't the result of laissez faire but rather the result of high deficit spending? You've mentioned that America's living standards exceed those of most European countries, but Keynesians claim it's because Europe responded to 2008 with austerity and America ran up the deficit for stimulus and bailouts
I think you agree with me that all of these are bad positions.
How do you reconcile high human capital getting all the wrong answers? At some point you have to grade on results not on style. What does high human capital mean if not that?
Do you plan to have Steve Hsu on your podcast again soon? Would be interesting to hear both of you discuss how your opinions have diverged since 2022 on both China and Russia.
Regarding your support for Trump from a pro-capitalist perspective, do either of the following give you pause?
1. It’s true that conservative elites are more pro-capitalist than liberal elites, but Kamala’s administration will have plenty of mainstream economists. Kamala strikes me as much more likely to listen to her economists’ warnings than Trump, so to the extent that they both want to do something economically disastrous (like Trump’s 10% tariff plan), Trump might be more likely to go through with it.
2. Trump seems likely to try to create an economic environment where companies that suck up to/bribe Trump (and his orbit) will receive benefits and those that do not will be punished. Crony capitalism is a common failure mode and does not have most of the benefits of actual capitalism under proper rule of law.
I have a coordinate but somewhat different objection to the vote for Trump as a vote for economic prosperity argument, and that is this:
In most of Richard’s reasoning, he’s an empiricist, but here, he’s substituting ideological intent for empirical analysis. There’s lots of evidence to suggest that Democrats’ hostility to the market is constrained by donors and “corruption.” It’s not that there’s no negative impact at all, but Obamacare is a good illustration: Republicans ran against socialized medicine for decades, and what did the Democrats deliver? A system in which you are *required* to give money to insurance companies. I think that’s typical. And the added bonus to being “good for business” is that it took the wind out of the sails of the single-payer people among Democrats. Whereas Richard says that the Republican default is do nothing while the Democrat default is do something, I would say that the evidence suggests that the Democrat default is to seem to do something which changes very little fundamentally, while silencing the do something crowd.
Are you familiar with Hyrum and Verlan Lewis' social and essential theories of politics? The Lewis brothers wrote a book called the Myth of Left and Right and appeared on Bryan Caplan and Coleman Hughes' podcasts. The Lewis brothers believe that a horizontal line ranging from "right" to "left" is not an accurate way to model politics. They say (and I agree) that politics is about many different issues, the views associated with left and right vary depending on the time and place, and there are no philosophical essences to right and left. Instead, the ideologies that emerge are ex-post stories put together to explain why the preferred coalition is right/good and the opposing tribe is wrong and evil. Bryan Caplan (partly) disagreed, countering with his simplistic theory of right and left where the left is defined by opposing markets while the right is defined by hating liberals.
Are you familiar with this debate and, if so, do you agree with the Lewis Brothers' view that "left" and "right" represent only tribal allegiances and do not have philosophical essences?
You recently wrote about choosing between Trump and Kamala, but didn't even have a footnote for the Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver. What do you think of people who will vote for him in spite of a potential spoiler effect?
If we had approval voting or ranked choice, would we get better candidates and outcomes (in expectation)? Would people still reify the left-right political axis, or would everyone start speaking in terms of the political compass?
I'd also like to see comment on Chase Oliver, as I am also a "double hater," for all of the reasons mentioned in your recent piece. The two major parties seem less libertarian than ever, and a vote for Oliver might show there are libertarian voters who might be reached with a little effort from Democrats or Republicans.
Is your anti-union article going to say anything about police unions? They make you wonder whether "unions are inherently left-wing" is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Serious question asked to a somewhat serious place: what to do with 30-40 years of life (est. life expectancy at 45 years) and assets of roughly $3M (half in brokerage, half in retirement accounts) in various index funds? Kinda old to invent anything groundbreaking or start a family (mixture of excess risk aversion or, as they used to say, cowardice, and following the BS 'affirmative consent' rules until way too late), but too young to retire.
Current job pays about $300K/yr and they seem to like me so far, but if I uncloaked politically (stopped 'hiding my power level' for you kids) that would stop pretty quick.
What I *really* want to do is go to war with feminism, but I don't have the assets to bankroll smarter manospherians or the charisma to be a less extreme Andrew Tate or more stable Jordan Peterson myself.
I'm not nuts enough to make major life changes based solely on what Internet randos tell me, but I am willing to listen to ideas from random places. Especially Richard, who's shown a knack for thinking outside the box when it comes to political change.
(I have a separate paid account in order to support Richard's work, so would see a response behind a paywall.)
When should revealed preferences be used as a guide to what's important and when should they not be? For example, you've pointed out that people seem to have a revealed preference for free markets over socialism based on migration within America. At the same time, people moved in greater numbers to apartheid South Africa from neighboring countries than the other way around, and top talent from China will study or work in the US and return home these days unlike in the 90s and 2000s when they'd stay in America. Yet it still seems obvious that apartheid was an egregious institution and that China's political system is still less desirable than America's. Similarly, people choose to live as expats or guest workers in countries even though it means sacrificing their ability to vote, yet voting rights are still important and many would argue more important than economic gains. How and when should revealed preferences be used as a guide to what matters?
In a recent newsletter, you commented that the Republicans' positions on abortion are "awful." But prominent members of the Elite Human Capital party, the Democrats, claimed in the past to share those opinions (i.e., Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas) while others (Senator Bob Casey) claim still to be Pro-Life in some form while voting in the opposite direction. I assume you believe that people like Clinton and Casey were telling lies when they had these positions (similarly to gay marriage, which Obama was officially against in 2008) for electability reasons.
Which other positions that the Democratic Party as the Party of Elite Human Capital hold today and which you believe they are lying about for electoral reasons do you predict they will reverse their position on in the medium term future (viz, 15-20 years)?
I noted in 2020 that Trump and the Republicans ran a curiously non-aggressive campaign - utterly refusing to run ads that attacked Biden's record or, yes, even at the time, failing faculties. In 2024 it seems we are going to see the same thing. It would be remarkably simple to run supercuts of various extreme-left things Kamala has said about various issues, and then run cuts of her saying more centrist things more recently. Or simply running stuff about Walz and his approach to Covid and the 2020 riots. Or any of a number of other things. I can see why Trump himself wouldn't choose to run such a campaign - because to him it's all about people being pro- or anti-Trump, and the latter are simply "bad," full stop. So my question is, why doesn't the Republican machinery, such as it is, run a more aggressive campaign? Do they want to win? Are they just so brain-dead that they don't know what the opposition's weak spots are? My model is that the R's are not unified by any sort of common goals or beliefs, and so behave as individuals trying to gain office (read: personal sinecures) or bureaucratic jobs (same), and not as a coherent organization, and that this leads to weaker, less aggressive campaigns. Thoughts?
I think he works for himself. The one regular job he's mentioned working was in highschool, and he claimed to be the worst employee at that pizza place or fast food restaurant (I forget which).
You seem to like discussing entertainment at length (such as on your podcast with Henderson or various tweets about tv and movies). Have you ever had an interest in working in the entertainment industry in LA or doing something creative? Do you have any interesting stories of brushing up against show business by virtue of living in LA?
I'm asking because entertainment seems to be a reoccurring, if minor, interest of yours and I wonder if there is a deeper story here.
Why don't you rail against Asian women who dye their hair orange or some gross color like you do against tattoos?
Just wanted to say I saw your response and thank you for something well-thought-out and, as expected, pretty creative (not sure how I feel about the surrogates but that's certainly the sort of outside-the-box thinking I was interested in!)
I'm going to have to figure out how to build something without blowing up what I have now (at least until I'm good and ready, of course!)
I agree trying to find something to work for rather than against is a good idea. My big problem with politics is, much like you, I have disdain for both sides, and for you it's pretty clear supporting Republicans in terms of markets is important, but for me it's a little more complicated (I'm not so sure it leads to optimal outcomes). But of course, that's my problem!
Thank you again!
What do you think of the claim that America's living standards aren't the result of laissez faire but rather the result of high deficit spending? You've mentioned that America's living standards exceed those of most European countries, but Keynesians claim it's because Europe responded to 2008 with austerity and America ran up the deficit for stimulus and bailouts
Why does the party of elite human capital have such horrible positions?
Anti market
Pro regulation
Higher taxes. New kinds of taxes
Debt forgiveness. Subsidize demand restrict supply.
Unprecedented deficits
Palestine
Trans rights
Unions
Illegal immigration
Pro crime
Anti oil / climate alarmism
I think you agree with me that all of these are bad positions.
How do you reconcile high human capital getting all the wrong answers? At some point you have to grade on results not on style. What does high human capital mean if not that?
Do you plan to have Steve Hsu on your podcast again soon? Would be interesting to hear both of you discuss how your opinions have diverged since 2022 on both China and Russia.
Regarding your support for Trump from a pro-capitalist perspective, do either of the following give you pause?
1. It’s true that conservative elites are more pro-capitalist than liberal elites, but Kamala’s administration will have plenty of mainstream economists. Kamala strikes me as much more likely to listen to her economists’ warnings than Trump, so to the extent that they both want to do something economically disastrous (like Trump’s 10% tariff plan), Trump might be more likely to go through with it.
2. Trump seems likely to try to create an economic environment where companies that suck up to/bribe Trump (and his orbit) will receive benefits and those that do not will be punished. Crony capitalism is a common failure mode and does not have most of the benefits of actual capitalism under proper rule of law.
I have a coordinate but somewhat different objection to the vote for Trump as a vote for economic prosperity argument, and that is this:
In most of Richard’s reasoning, he’s an empiricist, but here, he’s substituting ideological intent for empirical analysis. There’s lots of evidence to suggest that Democrats’ hostility to the market is constrained by donors and “corruption.” It’s not that there’s no negative impact at all, but Obamacare is a good illustration: Republicans ran against socialized medicine for decades, and what did the Democrats deliver? A system in which you are *required* to give money to insurance companies. I think that’s typical. And the added bonus to being “good for business” is that it took the wind out of the sails of the single-payer people among Democrats. Whereas Richard says that the Republican default is do nothing while the Democrat default is do something, I would say that the evidence suggests that the Democrat default is to seem to do something which changes very little fundamentally, while silencing the do something crowd.
Are you familiar with Hyrum and Verlan Lewis' social and essential theories of politics? The Lewis brothers wrote a book called the Myth of Left and Right and appeared on Bryan Caplan and Coleman Hughes' podcasts. The Lewis brothers believe that a horizontal line ranging from "right" to "left" is not an accurate way to model politics. They say (and I agree) that politics is about many different issues, the views associated with left and right vary depending on the time and place, and there are no philosophical essences to right and left. Instead, the ideologies that emerge are ex-post stories put together to explain why the preferred coalition is right/good and the opposing tribe is wrong and evil. Bryan Caplan (partly) disagreed, countering with his simplistic theory of right and left where the left is defined by opposing markets while the right is defined by hating liberals.
Are you familiar with this debate and, if so, do you agree with the Lewis Brothers' view that "left" and "right" represent only tribal allegiances and do not have philosophical essences?
Great book and Question
You recently wrote about choosing between Trump and Kamala, but didn't even have a footnote for the Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver. What do you think of people who will vote for him in spite of a potential spoiler effect?
If we had approval voting or ranked choice, would we get better candidates and outcomes (in expectation)? Would people still reify the left-right political axis, or would everyone start speaking in terms of the political compass?
I'd also like to see comment on Chase Oliver, as I am also a "double hater," for all of the reasons mentioned in your recent piece. The two major parties seem less libertarian than ever, and a vote for Oliver might show there are libertarian voters who might be reached with a little effort from Democrats or Republicans.
Is your anti-union article going to say anything about police unions? They make you wonder whether "unions are inherently left-wing" is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Serious question asked to a somewhat serious place: what to do with 30-40 years of life (est. life expectancy at 45 years) and assets of roughly $3M (half in brokerage, half in retirement accounts) in various index funds? Kinda old to invent anything groundbreaking or start a family (mixture of excess risk aversion or, as they used to say, cowardice, and following the BS 'affirmative consent' rules until way too late), but too young to retire.
Current job pays about $300K/yr and they seem to like me so far, but if I uncloaked politically (stopped 'hiding my power level' for you kids) that would stop pretty quick.
What I *really* want to do is go to war with feminism, but I don't have the assets to bankroll smarter manospherians or the charisma to be a less extreme Andrew Tate or more stable Jordan Peterson myself.
I'm not nuts enough to make major life changes based solely on what Internet randos tell me, but I am willing to listen to ideas from random places. Especially Richard, who's shown a knack for thinking outside the box when it comes to political change.
(I have a separate paid account in order to support Richard's work, so would see a response behind a paywall.)
Bro, just chill out and be normal. Go do interesting research or something, that always gives meaning.
When should revealed preferences be used as a guide to what's important and when should they not be? For example, you've pointed out that people seem to have a revealed preference for free markets over socialism based on migration within America. At the same time, people moved in greater numbers to apartheid South Africa from neighboring countries than the other way around, and top talent from China will study or work in the US and return home these days unlike in the 90s and 2000s when they'd stay in America. Yet it still seems obvious that apartheid was an egregious institution and that China's political system is still less desirable than America's. Similarly, people choose to live as expats or guest workers in countries even though it means sacrificing their ability to vote, yet voting rights are still important and many would argue more important than economic gains. How and when should revealed preferences be used as a guide to what matters?
In a recent newsletter, you commented that the Republicans' positions on abortion are "awful." But prominent members of the Elite Human Capital party, the Democrats, claimed in the past to share those opinions (i.e., Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas) while others (Senator Bob Casey) claim still to be Pro-Life in some form while voting in the opposite direction. I assume you believe that people like Clinton and Casey were telling lies when they had these positions (similarly to gay marriage, which Obama was officially against in 2008) for electability reasons.
Which other positions that the Democratic Party as the Party of Elite Human Capital hold today and which you believe they are lying about for electoral reasons do you predict they will reverse their position on in the medium term future (viz, 15-20 years)?
You're originally from the Chicago area. Why did you move to LA?
I noted in 2020 that Trump and the Republicans ran a curiously non-aggressive campaign - utterly refusing to run ads that attacked Biden's record or, yes, even at the time, failing faculties. In 2024 it seems we are going to see the same thing. It would be remarkably simple to run supercuts of various extreme-left things Kamala has said about various issues, and then run cuts of her saying more centrist things more recently. Or simply running stuff about Walz and his approach to Covid and the 2020 riots. Or any of a number of other things. I can see why Trump himself wouldn't choose to run such a campaign - because to him it's all about people being pro- or anti-Trump, and the latter are simply "bad," full stop. So my question is, why doesn't the Republican machinery, such as it is, run a more aggressive campaign? Do they want to win? Are they just so brain-dead that they don't know what the opposition's weak spots are? My model is that the R's are not unified by any sort of common goals or beliefs, and so behave as individuals trying to gain office (read: personal sinecures) or bureaucratic jobs (same), and not as a coherent organization, and that this leads to weaker, less aggressive campaigns. Thoughts?
do you think yourself extremely lucky/unusual in keeping a job while being a shameless decoupler/contrarian?
or. should we assume that good honestly like yours doesn't pay and you are the lucky/exceptional case?
or it works. there just isn't enough supply on non-sheep straight taking decouplers?
cheers
I think he works for himself. The one regular job he's mentioned working was in highschool, and he claimed to be the worst employee at that pizza place or fast food restaurant (I forget which).
I know. My "keep a job" = have decent gainful career the way he does now. not as a subordinate necessarily
You seem to like discussing entertainment at length (such as on your podcast with Henderson or various tweets about tv and movies). Have you ever had an interest in working in the entertainment industry in LA or doing something creative? Do you have any interesting stories of brushing up against show business by virtue of living in LA?
I'm asking because entertainment seems to be a reoccurring, if minor, interest of yours and I wonder if there is a deeper story here.